Thinking about the news of the day, from Madoff, to the Stewart-CNBC dustup, to my personal financial situation, I was struck by this quote of Teddy Roosevelt:
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
Roosevelt took on the monopolies and created our National Park System. Actions that countered the destructive trends. And I think, "What can I take on or create?"
Read More...
Summary only...
All the hoo-ha about Obama signing the spending bill despite the dreaded earmarks...
Imagine your truck needs 99 $1 repairs to get back on the road to deliver your load and get paid, but the shop does 100. You think the 100th was unneccessary, but you're no mechanic. Should you refuse the repair, send the truck back to the shop and twiddle your thumbs for days to save a dollar?
A veto of all for a problematic 1% would be stupidity or political grandstanding, and neither describes Obama's style.
Read More...
Summary only...
The Washington Post is still trying to contain the read-rage of its subscribers over George Will’s denial of global warming. The furor has centered on some arcane bits of data from 1978. The Post is hiding behind its claim that many fact-checkers misread the data summary. The question in the debate should not focus on whether George Will or the Washington Post misrepresented the facts, but on whether they are debating science with faith-disguised-as-science in a nay-sayers exercise in anti-intellectualism.
I am concerned about how science is discussed in the public arena when it intersects with politics, how it seems that the volatile emotions of the civic debate - since emotional appeals do change people's minds - have made it fine to color scientific debate in the same manner. I am thinking of global warming and of evolution, where the science may have question marks within it and could someday undergo a radical shift, but that shift would still include the facts as we know them today. Evolution is not going to be completely overthrown, nor is global warming. There is too much data.
People get confused because science does undergo enormous theoretical shifts when new information arrives. I can remember in my life being scoffed at by a geography teacher for my belief that surely Africa and South America must have broken off from each other. Once satellites went up and the movement of land masses was recorded, science tossed out the old model of geophysics and came up with plate tectonics.
This does not mean I can toss aside all science when it contradicts my beliefs. This instead shows the resilience and trustworthiness of science because of its fundamental divergence from belief systems like religion; science admits of disproof. Science actively looks for ways to disprove its most cherished theories. If fact contradicts theory, then theory falls, not fact. I could imagine a number of ways to test the theory of gravity, and if any of them worked, the relevant theories would have to change.
Pointing out flaws in current theories is a healthy way to challenge scientific orthodoxy. But when the challenge arises out of an opposing orthodoxy, then that opposition must submit to the same rigor. However, when one is a theory and the other is an a priori position simply denying the validity of the theory, the fundamental battle between science and faith falls right into our laps.
I ask George Will to conceive of any evidence that would disprove his belief that global warming is natural. If his viewpoint is not faith-based, then he must envision a way to surrender his theory. Then it can be tested. As it is, he is simply saying "That's not true" and we all know it is impossible to disprove a negative statement.
This kind of anti-science ignorance is not something the Post should be defending, even if presented by an eminent commentator. Fact-checking is not the same as intellectual honesty. Even if the facts supported his claims of flaws in the global warming arguments, what is the overarching viewpoint that is driving his belief that the scientists are wrong. Is it scientific, and thus does it contain arguments that he himself would accept as undoing his position? Or is it something he just "knows" and so remains impenetrable to evidence?
Read More...
Summary only...
I was listening to O’Reilly spin about the Helen Thomas kerfuffle that resulted from his tasteless remarks. His rhetoric was a wonderful template for insult and propaganda. To prove there is no substance but just abuse, I took out the key words and made a kind of mad-libs game with it. I have supplied some suggestions for each category, but feel free to substitute your own mad-as-hell-libs to get a real feel for how simple and powerful the O’Reilly tool really is.
Here’s the original item, transcribed from his broadcast, with a few ellipses to make it manageable. You can watch the video clip and follow along at the Women's Media Center website here.
Political correctness gone mad, that is the subject of this evenings talking points memo. Let me introduce you to the players. First we have the far-left Media Matters website which routinely assassinates the characters of conservatives and Republicans . These guttersnipes distort the public record hoping to harm people with whom they disagree. They never scrutinize liberals. Then we have a group called the WMC which was started by Jane Fonda and Gloria Steinham among others. ...
Last week I was a racist for supporting responsible immigration reform. This week I’m a sexist ageist for poking fun at Helen Thomas. ...And please remember this. Saturday Night Live can mock Sarah Palin all day long but I can’t mock Helen Thomas. The New York TImes can brand people any vile name they want but I can’t make fun of an absurd question at a Presidential press conference? That’s some system isn’t it.
Now you try it.
(__1-Hated ideology__) gone mad, that is the subject of this evenings talking points memo. Let me introduce you to the players. First we have the (_2-extreme political position_) (__3-Hated Organization__) website which routinely assassinates the characters of (__4-people we like__) and (__4-more people we like__). These (__5-denigrating name__) distort the public record hoping to harm people with whom they disagree. They NEVER scrutinize (__6-people we despise__). Then we have a group called (__7-another Hated Org__)which (show connection to) (__8-despised opposition leader__) among others.
Last week I was a (__9-insulting label__) for supporting responsible (__10-hot-button issue__). This week I’m a (__11-insulting label__) for poking fun at (__12-opposition leader__). And please remember this. (__13-Hated organization__) can mock (__14-despised opponent__) all day long but I can’t mock (__15-respected person__). (__13-Loudmouth opposition tool__) can brand people any vile name they want but I can’t make fun of (__12-opposition leader__)? That’s some system isn’t it.
Below are some suggestions to get you started.
1. Hated ideology
Conservatism
Cronyism
Creationism
Partisanship
Protectionism
Trickle-down
Right to life activism
Banana-republicanism
2. Extreme political position
Far right
Ultra-conservative
Right-wing
Fundamentalist
3. Hated group/organization ( individual names are connected at #8)
Fox News (Rupert Murdoch)
Wall Street Journal (Rupert Murdoch)
Washington Times (Rev. Sun Myung Moon)
National Review (William F. Buckley)
Focus on the Family (James Dobson)
Heritage Foundation (Patron of the HF - Maggie Thatcher)
American Liberty League (Oops, out of date. This was the Fox News of FDR’s day)
4. People we like
Liberals
Progressives
Moderates
Intellectuals
Humanists
Pluralists
Pacifists
Independents
Open-minded citizens
5. Insulting noun
hypocrites
toadies
criminals
dung beetles
panderers
charlatans
popinjays
swimming-pool-pissers
6. People we despise
conservatives
Republicans
evangelicals
partisan hacks
7. Another hated group
(see #3)
8. Despised opposition leader connected to the group
(see #3 for suggestions)You must go the website and pull out the most offensive name or two. Or you can leave it out.
9. Disparaging label (connect each to the related terms below)
elitist (a)
terrorist (b)
Tax-and-spend liberal (c)
soft on crime (d)
girlie-man (e)
supporter of voter fraud (f)
friend to rapists and murderers (g)
Hollywood liberal (h)
10. why the label is silly
a - levels of experience in political appointees
b - balance of national security and personal freedom
c - plan for children’s health care
d - treatments for non-violent drug offenders
e - transgender operation guidelines
f - voter identification standards
g - DNA evidence appeals
h - it’s only a movie
11. Another label
(see #8)
12. Someone who is fair game
a - Sarah Palin
b - Alberto Gonzales
c - William Buckley
d - Charleton Heston
e - Arnold Schwarzenegger
f - Norm Coleman
g - the guillotine
h - the Church Lady
13. Loudmouth right-wing tool
Ann Coulter
Rush Limbaugh
Bill O’Reilly
Sean Hannnity
Laura Ingraham
Michael Savage
14. Liberals often attacked
President Obama
Jimmy Carter
Bill Ayers
Keith Olbermann
Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi
ACLU
Read More...
Summary only...
The GOP “ideas” about the economy and the country have nothing to do with governing in a post 11/4 world. The country voted to change the game, and the Republican Congress keeps arguing that we must adhere to the rules of the old one. It’s as if Bush had a baseball team, and the people voted for Obama because he promised them basketball, and the GOP is still insisting that we enforce the infield fly rule. Baseball is all about guys like Righty Rumsfeld, the slugger who swings for the fence and so what if he strikes out more than he connects. Or catcher Alberto “Swifty” Gonzales, who hunkers down behind home plate, changing his signals until the pitcher sees one he likes. All the players who we have gotten to know over the past eight excruciating losing seasons. No wonder people decided they prefer the quick and deft game of Obama, where teamwork, passing the ball and running over to the other guy’s court are all how you win. Oh, I could extend this metaphor, but you get the picture.
Read More...
Summary only...
Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight is working on a fabulous citizen resource that I think is going to take away a lot of the relative anonymity of congressional voting and drive a boom in blogosphere citizen-journalist awareness of Congress. He is working on a cartogram, a kind of map that shows every single congressional district so that voting records will be immediately available. Much more intuitive than listing votes, the map lets you go directly to a single congressperson, if you want to see how your representative stood on an issue, or to have a global sense of the voting around the country. His first iteration of the map along with an explanation of his process in designing it is here.
As you can see, the chart sort of represents a map of the US, distorted a bit by unequal population distribution, but still recognizable. The red and blue represent the Democratic and Republican districts. The balance and distribution of power is clearly visible for those who would philosophize on the state of the nation. I'm guessing that once the map is finalized, little rollover popups will tell the rest of the story. I can't wait.
Read More...
Summary only...
The web is buzzing with the news that a Saudi judge has denied a divorce plea on behalf of an 8-year-old girl married without her knowledge to a 58-year-old man by her father in exchange for a $5000 dowry - apparently, he needed the cash. This is not merely a Saudi or Islamic crime against a girl-child’s right to liberty. Women in virtually all traditional societies are sold to men who pay “dowries” for their possession. How this is different from slavery has always been mysterious to me. Apparently, the “sanctity of marriage” making it not slavery is the fact that the woman cannot be resold to anyone else if she does not work out. This is no big problem for the man, as it is pretty safe to kill a wife in these countries. Tradition-minded Americans would say this has nothing to do with them. They condemn the father, the judge, all of Saudi society, even as they apply the same mind-set in their own callous dealings with the less-powerful here. The Mormons, who would be better served accepting responsibility and cleaning up the mess of splinter sects of their own religion who practice variations on this kind of abuse, instead opt to pour money and energy fighting the gay marriage rights of people who do not belong to their church or any of its "kissin' cousins." And the traditional preachers, swelling with male pride in their struts and frets from the pulpits of America, raise their lusty voices in condemning gay marriage as dangerous to the children, even as they apply the tools of psychological foot-binding to the hearts of the girls who are told to submit to their fathers, husbands and male god.
It is not the sanctity of marriage that is threatened by gay marriage, it is the divine right of men to be on top both in the world and with God. If men can marry men, then the ownership aspect of marriage is undermined. Most folks today would scoff at the idea of ownership of the woman by the man in marriage, yet they still think it’s beautiful for daddy to give his daughter away. No one gives away the groom; he stands on his own to feet ready to receive the hand of his bride from another man. Symbolic and potent, this pageant drama forms our minds and our relationships with its simple message and constant repetition.
The image of a father “giving away,” say, a young black man to another man who happens to be white would induce a cringe because it unmasks the proprietorship implicit in the language and rituals of marriage. And if women can marry women, then suddenly there are women who neither belong to any man nor can they be shamed with the second class status of being unmarried. Male dominion would receive another blow, not in the courts of the law, but in the only other near-universal bastion of male supremacy: marriage. This is what makes gay marriage intolerable.
In Saudi Arabia, a man can marry an 8-year-old girl, but can't have sex with another man on pain of death. This mindset is not just Saudi, or Muslim. It lies at the core of the fight against Prop 8 in California and the initiatives against gay marriage fueled by men who hate equality, who love power, and who deserve nothing but the contempt and resolve we apply to petty tyrants and selfish dictators.
Read More...
Summary only...
