34 Responses

  1. Glad you did the placeholder. Looking forward to something good in store for us.

    Like

  2. Okie, I was over at PL this morning and happened upon your exchange about racism:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/open-thread/2012/10/13/03a8c6da-152d-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_blog.html

    It brings this to mind:

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

    Lewis Carroll – Through the Looking Glass.

    The “racism = power plus prejudice” is a subjective and self serving definition the purpose of which is to give the aggrieved class(es) sole control over defining what actions constitutes racism and who is racist. As shrink notes, it’s source is from the Marxist view of colonialism.

    I reject it on those grounds in favor of the traditional, objective definition (ala Webster’s). Politicization of the language is a tactic and should be recognized for what it is and rejected.

    Even if you accept the definition proposed, there’s still an argument to be made about it’s applicability to a country where the current President is of mixed race and the Attorney General is a minority.

    In short, you are right and they are wrong.

    Like

  3. The PL discussion caused me to think about this for a bit. My conclusion so far is that application of “racist” is too often used (even though “prejudiced” might apply) and that this operates to our detriment. I posit “to our detriment” because I think (1) the term is inflammatory and should be reserved for the most obvious and egregious instances and (2) it may result in automatic dismissal of incidents of racism that may occur and (3) idiots like dwad. [Sorry to all for making it too personal.]

    Any students of philosophy care to chime in on this?

    Like

  4. I agree with you. The term has become so broadly used as to be almost meaningless, especially when the argument is that, by definition, “only white people can be racist”.

    Like

  5. Did you see the link at PL to the “which candidate fits you” site? I’m referring to this,

    I was intrigued about how much I matched Rocky Anderson, to whom I have paid zero attention. Michi, any info re his stint as mayor of SLC?

    Like

  6. 91% Gary Johnson. Guess I’ll keep my yard sign up.

    Like

  7. The only pres candidates who made the ballot in OK are Obama and Romney. Disappointing. I’m going with Obama to hope there is some bump to his popular vote because I so prefer him to Romney.

    Like

  8. jnc, on that site I had a significant concurrence with Johnson, but limited only to civil rights and limited FP. His domestic policy suggestions are antithesis to me.

    Like

  9. “Wiping out itemized deductions and raising taxes on investment income would generate only enough cash to pay for a minuscule reduction in federal tax rates, according to an official analysis, raising new questions about the workability of Republican-style tax reform.

    In a report released Friday, the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper for tax policy, concluded that such changes would pay for a 4 percent reduction in tax rates next year — far short of the 20 percent reduction sought by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/gop-tax-plan-would-have-minimal-reduction-on-federal-tax-rates-analysis-says/2012/10/12/75ef8c9c-14ab-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_story.html?hpid=z4

    No there aren’t 6 studies that say it works.

    Like

  10. http://taxfoundation.org/article/simulating-econom

    Do you know what kind of an annual GDP rate they used to make it work.

    7-8%!

    To give you some idea of how absurd this is, the best GDP rate ANY presidency has averaged since WWII was Lyndon Johnson with a 5.05%, and

    “From 1948 through to 2009, the United States economy has grown by an average of 3.28% per year. ”

    http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth

    So to make Romney’s plan work, you would have to assume more than twice the average annual GDP, even of those presidents who are considered to have the the BEST record in that area, like Reagan and Clinton.

    Again many of the people who are voting for Romney are doing so with the expectation, even the hope, that he WON’T do what he says, because what he says clearly makes no economic sense at all.

    But what if you’re wrong, and he actually tries to cut taxes, increase defense spending and start a war? How do you think we got in this mess in the first place?

    Like

  11. I cut off the first sentence above

    “This is one of the 6 studies that say Romney’s tax plan will work”

    Like

  12. Romney’s plan can’t simultaneously:

    1. Lower marginal rates by 20% across the board.
    2. Not have anyone who makes under $200k per year (aka the “Middle Class”) pay more in taxes.
    3. Be deficit neutral.

    Something has to give, but the Democrats seem to assume that the 20% cut is fixed in stone.

    Of course, Obama couldn’t do all three of these at the same time either with health insurance:

    1. Cover almost everyone
    2. Reduce costs
    3. Everyone who likes what they currently have gets to keep it

    Like

  13. This is the definitive analysis of racism:

    Like

  14. okie, what really struck me about that site was when you looked at the states. If Utahns voted according to their beliefs rather than party affiliation Obama would win a plurality of voters here–and Romney comes in third!

    I came out something like 92% Jill Stein on domestic issues, 87% Obama on economic issues and 75% Johnson on FP if I remember right.

    Rocky Anderson is a true blue progressive. He governed SLC far to the left of the rest of the state and made a lot of enemies in the state legislature as a result, but the long-term effect is inching the state into the 21st century as the rest of the population finds out that gays don’t eat live babies for breakfast and allowing people to have a drink with dinner doesn’t lead to orgies in the street. You’d like him. On a personal note, he was a neighbor of mine for the first few years I lived here and he is the kind of guy who snow blows the entire block’s sidewalk if he’s the first one out there the morning after a storm.

    Like

  15. From He Who Shall Not Be Named (I’m catching up after being out of the loop a few days). Sorry for the long quote, but the whole thing is so great I couldn’t figure out anything to cut:

    The essence of the whole campaign for me was crystalized in the debate exchange over Romney’s 20 percent tax-cut plan. ABC’s Martha Raddatz turned the questioning to Ryan:

    MS. RADDATZ: Well, let’s talk about this 20 percent.

    VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Well – (chuckles) –

    MS. RADDATZ: You have refused yet again to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20 percent across-the-board tax cut. Do you actually have the specifics, or are you still working on it, and that’s why you won’t tell voters?

    Here Ryan is presented with a simple yes-or-no answer. Since he doesn’t have the answer, he immediately starts slithering and equivocating:

    REP. RYAN: Different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. You see, I understand the –

    “We want to have bipartisan agreements?” This coming from a Republican congressman? These guys would stall a bill to name a post office after Shirley Temple. Biden, absolutely properly, chuckled and said, “That’d be a first for a Republican congress.” Then Raddatz did exactly what any self-respecting journalist should do in that situation: she objected to being lied to, and yanked on the leash, forcing Ryan back to the question.

    I’m convinced Raddatz wouldn’t have pounced on Ryan if he hadn’t trotted out this preposterous line about bipartisanism. Where does Ryan think we’ve all been living, Mars? It’s one thing to pull that on some crowd of unsuspecting voters that hasn’t followed politics that much and doesn’t know the history. But any professional political journalist knows enough to know the abject comedy of that line. Still, Ryan was banking on the moderator not getting in the way and just letting him dump his trash on audiences. Instead, she aggressively grabbed Ryan by his puppy-scruff and pushed him back into the mess of his own proposal:

    MS. RADDATZ: Do you have the specifics? Do you have the math? Do you know exactly what you’re doing?

    So now the ball is in Ryan’s court. The answer he gives is astounding:

    REP. RYAN: Look – look at what Mitt – look at what Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill did. They worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base, and they worked together to fix that. What we’re saying is here’s our framework: Lower tax rates 20 percent – we raise about $1.2 trillion through income taxes. We forgo about 1.1 trillion [dollars] in loopholes and deductions. And so what we’re saying is deny those loopholes and deductions to higher-income taxpayers so that more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation –

    Three things about this answer:

    1) Ryan again here refuses to answer Raddatz’s yes-or-no question about specifics. So now we know the answer: there are no specifics.

    2) In lieu of those nonexistent specifics, what Ryan basically says is that he and Romney will set the framework – “Lower taxes by 20 percent” – and then they’ll work out the specifics of how to get there with the Democrats in bipartisan fashion.

    3) So essentially, Ryan has just admitted on national television that the Romney tax plan will be worked out after the election with the same Democrats from whom they are now, before the election, hiding any and all details.

    So then, after that, there’s this exchange.

    VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: Can I translate?

    REP. RYAN: – so we can lower tax rates across the board. Now, here’s why I’m saying this. What we’re saying is here’s a framework –

    VICE PRESIDENT BIDEN: I hope I’m going to get time to respond to this.

    REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress –

    MS. RADDATZ: I – you’ll get time.

    REP. RYAN: We want to work with Congress on how best to achieve this. That means successful – look –

    MS. RADDATZ: No specifics, yeah.

    Like

  16. Baumgartner is depressurizing the capsule right now to make his jump. . .

    This is sooooooo insane and so cool at the same time.

    Like

  17. omg. . . .here he goes. . .

    Like

  18. Parachute deployed. This is utterly amazing.

    Like

  19. Looks like he made it.

    Like

  20. Incredible. 729 mph? 128K?

    Like

  21. Wow. Just completely wow.

    Like

  22. RIP, Arlen Specter

    Like

  23. Michigoose, on October 14, 2012 at 12:36 pm said: Edit Comment
    Wow. Just completely wow.

    Meh.

    Like

  24. Dammit, I was late to the jump. It must have been jammed because I never got the live feed connection so missed seeing it. I’m sure video will be posted for later viewing (at least I hope so).

    Troll, “Meh.” Really??? You’re the only person I’ve talked to in the last week who had that attitude toward it. Does that mean you think you could do it, or just that you think it isn’t worth doing?

    Like

  25. Dude fell out of a balloon. What kind of skill does that take?

    Like

  26. McWing:

    WHAT THE FUCK??????????? Seriously?

    Seriously?

    Like

  27. Look, I’m not being a jerk or anything, only pointing out that everything was automated. If his suit failed to be sealed, it would automatically repressurize the capsule. His chute, and back-up chutes were set to deploy automatically. So, did he really do anything more extraordinary than the thousands of people who skydive everyday? You could argue he did less, hence my “meh.”

    Like

  28. McWing:

    Look, I’m not being a jerk or anything,

    Yeah, you’re being a jerk. You go jump out of an airplane and then get back to me.

    Like

  29. I’m joking for goodness sake! The guy jumped from outer space! He probably needed an extra chute for his balls!

    Like

    • McWing:

      You’re a jerk but Taibbi is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Go figure.

      (BTW, the “extra chute” thing made me laugh, anyway.)

      Like

  30. He probably needed an extra chute for his balls!

    Still being a jerk, McWing.

    Like

  31. Golly, Scott, and you’re right there with him. Such a surprise.

    Why is it that you can’t enjoy something that is non-political and daring?

    Like

  32. it was falling with style

    Like

  33. Heh–good one, nova!

    Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: