We don't have people like that in this country.
I found listening to these callers-in that none of them were raising really interesting and coherent questions. One would think that watchers of CSPAN, and worse, people calling into a CSPAN show, might possibly be modestly astute political observers. Instead I heard several calls that amounted to "I don't think I like the direction of the country", with no concept of a) what direction the country should be going in, and b) no idea what direction the country is going in. If this was a representative sampling of the sorts of people watching CSPAN, then it's possible that informed rational voters are going somewhere else for such things as information on politics. In which case, what's the point of CSPAN again?
I appreciate being reminded of the zeitgeist. I get it. You people don't like things. I have a pretty good idea that much of this is because many of you have no jobs or were fired, have trouble paying mortgages or health care. I'd like you to phrase this discontent in a way that says "this is what I want from x", x presumably being the state or some other entity to which you are aggrieved. But you're not capable of doing that and instead we get things like Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.
Gillespie did duck one astute question about public choice problems relating to regulatory capture or rent seeking behaviors. But it was phrased more as something akin to "why don't we just abolish private property so we can have a functioning democracy". I'm not sure I can think of many places where that has worked either as a democracy or as an economic model. In fact I can think of none, particularly at a massive nation-state level like the US. So ducking that question made sense because that part is absurd. I'm also not convinced necessarily that "democracy" is a better model for sorting out most public choice problems than is "markets" or "social pressure in the absence of legal penalties and state involvement". So arguing for "democracy" instead of one of the bulwarks of a free society, private property, seems a little overdone. But so does the idea that these two things must be in conflict and that one must chose between democracy and private property. One reason they might end up that way is that the state often presumes to take private property by force and coercion and the public forms methods of fighting back against these takings. Very effectively I might add. When the state has less cause and method to seize property for whatever ends it views appropriate, generally people will have less desire to resist it (this is one reason why lowering taxes allows governments to increase spending as they often do, because the public has less concern what happens to fewer tax dollars).
Besides, based on these sorts of callers and their comments, I should think encouraging more "democracy" isn't a very encouraging thought anyway.
29 December 2011
28 December 2011
A cultural note
Given that it's about the end of the year.
I have seen exactly two movies from this year that I liked at all, and only one of them was even approaching a good-to-great level.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. That's it. Largely because Rooney was playing a compelling character. Daniel Craig often disappeared in the film because of her. The score was excellent and feel of the film was pretty cold, which was, I assume, what they were going for. I approve the intro with the Zeppelin cover also.
Adjustment Bureau was interesting, but not particularly great as a film or deep as a thought experiment. I think it made far too much of the "fate written by some one else" and not enough of the "fate written by genetics" argument. Binding the "I want to determine my own fate" and "my genetics will limit some of my choices" is a much harsher line to cross than "god/fate/some external power attempts to limit my choices". Maybe it's not as interesting a movie, but I find the whole "god/fate" metaphysical construct to give us purpose and meaning from some external source incredibly tedious and so this sitting through an entire movie just to get the to the punchline that those things ultimately don't matter.
The X-Men prequel was noteworthy for being a prequel that was not terrible. But it doesn't stand up very well on re-watching it as well as, say, the second X-Men movie might. I think it lacks some of the humor of the former version. Or it was too obviously trying to be funny when it was "funny" and maybe too obviously about gay rights when it could have been otherwise. A comic book about a bunch of mutants, to be fair, has obvious useful parallels, and I am sympathetic to a vision of tolerance and acceptance for all kinds of people that are currently rejected by societies around the globe. But setting it in the 60s and completely ignoring things like Jim Crow?, seemed a bit too much of a stretch there. The second and first movies could get away with this because tolerance, while not extensive and expanded as much as it could be, is vastly better off than in the 60s. And so when setting the film in the modern era, gay rights are the primary civil rights issue, or if not "the", then certainly among the most pressing. Not so throughout human history. It comes off a bit off putting and sloppy as a result, too callous or unconcerned.
I found the Apes decent, and certainly our treatment of animals is a topic worth examining. But I don't think it stepped out enough from humanity to do so. All it did was anthropomorphize an ape so it might as well have been a kids movie with talking insects or fish.
Otherwise, this was a year of disappointing popcorn fare. To be fair, last year wasn't that impressive either. But I at least really liked Black Swan and Inception. And parts of Social Network or Kings Speech were interesting.
PS. I'm not bothering to note the Transformers movie or Captain America/Thor. All were typical summer blockbuster fare and raised no great philosophical or social questions. But were fun to watch things exploding in and/or for killing Nazis. The favored American pastime of nostalgia for both, with a little god worship thrown in. Note also, I'd say both Captain America and Thor were the same movie plot (guy meets girl, becomes superman, has to sacrifice his love life to save planet) and thus didn't have as good a tie in with any social or political issues as the first Iron Man film did (as tenuous as that one was to begin with). That makes them entertaining films, but kind of absurd if any thought goes into it beyond the comic book mentality necessary to want to go see them in the first place.
PPS. I haven't seen Tree of Life (though I might skip it, it sounds like every other Malick movie and probably not as good as Thin Red Line), Melancholia, or Moneyball yet. I expect these to be more interesting but none of them are/were big screen material.
I have seen exactly two movies from this year that I liked at all, and only one of them was even approaching a good-to-great level.
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. That's it. Largely because Rooney was playing a compelling character. Daniel Craig often disappeared in the film because of her. The score was excellent and feel of the film was pretty cold, which was, I assume, what they were going for. I approve the intro with the Zeppelin cover also.
Adjustment Bureau was interesting, but not particularly great as a film or deep as a thought experiment. I think it made far too much of the "fate written by some one else" and not enough of the "fate written by genetics" argument. Binding the "I want to determine my own fate" and "my genetics will limit some of my choices" is a much harsher line to cross than "god/fate/some external power attempts to limit my choices". Maybe it's not as interesting a movie, but I find the whole "god/fate" metaphysical construct to give us purpose and meaning from some external source incredibly tedious and so this sitting through an entire movie just to get the to the punchline that those things ultimately don't matter.
The X-Men prequel was noteworthy for being a prequel that was not terrible. But it doesn't stand up very well on re-watching it as well as, say, the second X-Men movie might. I think it lacks some of the humor of the former version. Or it was too obviously trying to be funny when it was "funny" and maybe too obviously about gay rights when it could have been otherwise. A comic book about a bunch of mutants, to be fair, has obvious useful parallels, and I am sympathetic to a vision of tolerance and acceptance for all kinds of people that are currently rejected by societies around the globe. But setting it in the 60s and completely ignoring things like Jim Crow?, seemed a bit too much of a stretch there. The second and first movies could get away with this because tolerance, while not extensive and expanded as much as it could be, is vastly better off than in the 60s. And so when setting the film in the modern era, gay rights are the primary civil rights issue, or if not "the", then certainly among the most pressing. Not so throughout human history. It comes off a bit off putting and sloppy as a result, too callous or unconcerned.
I found the Apes decent, and certainly our treatment of animals is a topic worth examining. But I don't think it stepped out enough from humanity to do so. All it did was anthropomorphize an ape so it might as well have been a kids movie with talking insects or fish.
Otherwise, this was a year of disappointing popcorn fare. To be fair, last year wasn't that impressive either. But I at least really liked Black Swan and Inception. And parts of Social Network or Kings Speech were interesting.
PS. I'm not bothering to note the Transformers movie or Captain America/Thor. All were typical summer blockbuster fare and raised no great philosophical or social questions. But were fun to watch things exploding in and/or for killing Nazis. The favored American pastime of nostalgia for both, with a little god worship thrown in. Note also, I'd say both Captain America and Thor were the same movie plot (guy meets girl, becomes superman, has to sacrifice his love life to save planet) and thus didn't have as good a tie in with any social or political issues as the first Iron Man film did (as tenuous as that one was to begin with). That makes them entertaining films, but kind of absurd if any thought goes into it beyond the comic book mentality necessary to want to go see them in the first place.
PPS. I haven't seen Tree of Life (though I might skip it, it sounds like every other Malick movie and probably not as good as Thin Red Line), Melancholia, or Moneyball yet. I expect these to be more interesting but none of them are/were big screen material.
27 December 2011
Trouble in Paul-ville
I find that the furor kicked up over Paul is probably not worth the effort. It is unlikely that a neo-isolationist, anti-drug war, pro civil liberties Congressman can win either party's primary in the first place. But I would guess that one reason this has become a major issue is that he's running for the Republican nomination. Where a debate over any one of those topics would constitute a minor earthquake in the rhetorical and actual positions of the party as a whole. Foreign policy in particular would constitute a huge revolt, given that neo-cons have been a hard plank in the party for a couple decades now and Paul comes from the paleo-con wing that has always had a strong undertow, but no policy influence since the Reagan era consensus. So more or less why this comes up is to justify a hasty campaign by conservatives to discredit paleoconservatives and a dogpile move by liberals to discredit libertarians.
Personally, I would have preferred if Paul didn't have the baggage he does from the paleo-con days hanging out with Rothbard and Rockwell, or if Huntsman actually had some realist IR spine to him, or if Gary Johnson had been more popular. As is, Johnson will probably run Libertarian. So I get to vote. That's always fun. Maybe it would be more amusing, or rather frightening, if things like this were on the ballot. (I would vote no, by the way. That should be up to studios and performers and "certifications" should concern things like the spread of disease in a largely isolated community, the use or non-use of condoms is hardly the only means available to do so and carries its own set of risks and dangers within that community).
What particularly annoys me is the liberal attempt to discredit libertarians. Yes, the Rothbard wing is/was nuts for associating with the dredges of middle class society (racists and white supremacists and anti-Semites, and so on). And so yes, there's a certain level of popular support for a Paul-like candidacy that is radical to the point of being unsavory. This does not mean that all libertarians are in thrall with such opinions and behaviors, that they overlook them, or that they genuinely don't care at all about social issues like race relations and racism. As it is, it was libertarian publications which first reported on Paul's newsletters and associations, and numerous libertarian publications, libertarian leaning writers and bloggers have opposed or been squeamish about Paul for precisely this reason. Myself included (though I have other policy disagreements with Paul that I generally don't have with Gary). And it is libertarians (including people like Ron Paul) who have a long history of pointing out racial disparities with things like immigration and drug enforcement laws, along with many other civil liberties issues (stop and frisks for example). So I find myself annoyed at the public reception we get when we do get national attention. I can't say I'm surprised. But when the official character of the Libertarian party platform and various libertarian publications (like Cato or Reason) is classical liberalism, one would think that the liberalism part would get a fairer hearing from professed liberals. Apparently not.
It is easy to blame the Rothbard wing for flirting with paranoid and radical assertions about race and religion for that. (Note also, this isn't the Rand wing, nor the Hayek one). I suspect however that some blame belongs with libertarian/Libertarian thinkers for not pushing forward their more progressive dispositions more publicly and, more importantly, with libertarian type voters for adhering to some of these illiberal ideas, for ignoring them, and for continuing to vote, somewhat impressively, for people like McCain even after a near decade of disastrous behavior by his compatriots in office. The critique and assertion of racism is disgusting. The critique of being modestly illiberal or unconcerned about the advance of a liberal political philosophy centered on the individual (and not the state) is not because there appears to be a wide swath of the libertarian landscape that is in fact these things.
Personally, I would have preferred if Paul didn't have the baggage he does from the paleo-con days hanging out with Rothbard and Rockwell, or if Huntsman actually had some realist IR spine to him, or if Gary Johnson had been more popular. As is, Johnson will probably run Libertarian. So I get to vote. That's always fun. Maybe it would be more amusing, or rather frightening, if things like this were on the ballot. (I would vote no, by the way. That should be up to studios and performers and "certifications" should concern things like the spread of disease in a largely isolated community, the use or non-use of condoms is hardly the only means available to do so and carries its own set of risks and dangers within that community).
What particularly annoys me is the liberal attempt to discredit libertarians. Yes, the Rothbard wing is/was nuts for associating with the dredges of middle class society (racists and white supremacists and anti-Semites, and so on). And so yes, there's a certain level of popular support for a Paul-like candidacy that is radical to the point of being unsavory. This does not mean that all libertarians are in thrall with such opinions and behaviors, that they overlook them, or that they genuinely don't care at all about social issues like race relations and racism. As it is, it was libertarian publications which first reported on Paul's newsletters and associations, and numerous libertarian publications, libertarian leaning writers and bloggers have opposed or been squeamish about Paul for precisely this reason. Myself included (though I have other policy disagreements with Paul that I generally don't have with Gary). And it is libertarians (including people like Ron Paul) who have a long history of pointing out racial disparities with things like immigration and drug enforcement laws, along with many other civil liberties issues (stop and frisks for example). So I find myself annoyed at the public reception we get when we do get national attention. I can't say I'm surprised. But when the official character of the Libertarian party platform and various libertarian publications (like Cato or Reason) is classical liberalism, one would think that the liberalism part would get a fairer hearing from professed liberals. Apparently not.
It is easy to blame the Rothbard wing for flirting with paranoid and radical assertions about race and religion for that. (Note also, this isn't the Rand wing, nor the Hayek one). I suspect however that some blame belongs with libertarian/Libertarian thinkers for not pushing forward their more progressive dispositions more publicly and, more importantly, with libertarian type voters for adhering to some of these illiberal ideas, for ignoring them, and for continuing to vote, somewhat impressively, for people like McCain even after a near decade of disastrous behavior by his compatriots in office. The critique and assertion of racism is disgusting. The critique of being modestly illiberal or unconcerned about the advance of a liberal political philosophy centered on the individual (and not the state) is not because there appears to be a wide swath of the libertarian landscape that is in fact these things.
22 December 2011
Paulite roundup
I must admit I had a passing familiarity with the Ron Paul newsletter controversy prior to all this renewed fuss over it. It has, indeed, given me some reservations about him. Some qualifiers.
1) I do not think he is an avowed racist. I think it likely he is personally uncomfortable with homosexuals, but this too hasn't coloured his recent political stances. Which is to his credit. I am pretty sure he's not anti-Semitic too for the record. Given the history of Rothbard and Mises, it's extremely unlikely anyway. The reason this comes up is that anyone in politics who isn't "pro-Israel" to the hilt of anything goes is labeled as "anti-Semitic" by Christian Zionists. Ranting about bankers doesn't help much here, but I'm sure this is from his Austrian economics roots and not a bias against Jews. I wish he would give up some of the Austrian-Randian tendencies personally, but that's hardly his biggest problem in the Republican field. I also think his opposition to the Civil Rights Act (at least a portion of it) can be shown in a strict libertarian objection to be a principled rather than racist sentiment. It can be explained away in some sense because Paul often has adopted a perfect over the good sentiment in his voting. I look at CRA and say that it completely ended a lot of bad government policies and replaced them with a few much less bad government policies, rendered somewhat necessary by cultural and societal issues that are still strained, but improved somewhat. So I see a win. Paul doesn't. That makes it a fishy element for people looking for racist sentiments. He should be aware of the tone as a politician.
2) I am pretty sure Lew Rockwell wrote most of the offending materials. This was what was reported on back in 2008 at least.
3) I'm not sure if Lew is racist or not, and I really don't care if he is (I haven't read more of his material, nor do I care to. Rothbard and Mises are the go-to sources for that wing of the libertarian thought, and lack most of the distinguishing features that are disturbing here). In general I'd say that race-baiting is a time-honored tradition in some portions of the conservative (and yes, liberal) political circles for purposes of elections. A radical newsletter circulating even tenuously racist generalisations is likely to have been generating some additional income that wasn't likely to be the case without them, as sick as that is. I am not sure it would today, given that it would and has pissed off a solid number of Paul-ish types like me who would take their business elsewhere, but in the late 80s and early 90s, when hip-hop was in its infancy to the public and race riots were still at the forefront of American possibility (Rodney King wasn't so long ago keep in mind), maybe it would have. Whether or not these attitudes were thus true, they are repugnant and draw far too easy comparisons to Governor Wallace of Alabama during the Civil Rights Era itself, who traded NAACP support for KKK support in the pursuit of power. The also racy tie-in to Stormfront and other racist supporters of a Paul candidacy, however misguided they are in their perceptions of what a freer state under Paul might allow for themselves, hasn't come up yet, but I'd expect it to do so. Especially if he wins Iowa.
4) Paul's adamant stance against the drug war is probably one of the most un-racist things we could do in this country. In the sense that it would allow some restorative balance to the way we police and punish minority communities of blacks and Latinos (and immigrants) in this country. Also helpful would be not unilaterally bombing or engaging in wars in places with Arabs and Africans (without some core national interest, none of which was demonstrated in any location save possibly Afghanistan). A better Paul might have sought to demonstrate actively how a libertarian world might benefit people of a non-Caucasian appearance and disposition.
What seems to me to be the issue is that, while it is true that Paul addressed this history recently, during the 2008 campaign, he wasn't perceived as even a longshot to win a Presidential election or nomination and the amount of attention and scrutiny he received was modest and low. He is now a frontrunner or at least top tier candidate for a major political party. This issue will come up again and again until he deals with it assertively and decisively (and it will continue even then among his most fervent objectors) because a) this is politics and b) most people don't know very much about Ron Paul. Ron Paul's bubble of supporters certainly do, as evidenced from watching comment threads climb steadily and rapidly upward whenever this issue is raised is certainly interesting to note the level of internet fandom he has received. Political observers like me also know about it. But the average voter does not. And the average voter deserves to know what political opinions and behaviors a Ron Paul candidacy could or would involve, just as Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich's despicable anti-Muslim rants deserve to be properly aired, and in their cases serve as much keener examples of bias and prejudice coming from their own mouths, repeatedly and in the very recent past in pursuit of power and attention.
Now, of course, it would have been useful if a Ron Paul objector like Borger on CNN had also introduced some of Paul's more radical political positions he has espoused in the most recent and immediate past. Things like opposition to the Federal Reserve and actually abolishing numerous government bureaucracies (though I support the latter in some cases too, I admit this is a non-popular and radical position outside of GOP talking points, but not actual GOP behavior, and many economics departments), ending US participation in the UN and global trade organisations (radical and stupid, but popular), or even less radical or even mainstream (but ignored) positions like legalisation of marijuana or internet gambling or ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and abolishing most war on terror footings and government invasions of privacy and property. Voters do deserve to know things about the temperament and disposition of their candidates. They also need to know potential stances.
I'm not sure that I would vote for a Ron Paul candidacy. I would definitely vote for a Gary Johnson candidacy because there are fewer of these skeletons for me to worry about and fewer crankish issues come up as often like Paul's goldbug fascination and polished anti-Fed stance. But I'm not every voter. Every potential voter should decide how to weigh Paul's past misdeeds and missteps in his choice of associates and political association, along with his potential for positive development. If they assess that they do not care for his politics, that is their choice (and in such a case, it doesn't matter what his skeletons are). If they assess that they might be pleased with his politics, but are uncomfortable with his skeletons, that also is their choice. And if they assess that they might enjoy his politics and decide that whatever discomfort they have of his skeletons, that the world is better off even with a possible racist who would end many more pressing considerations and injustices, including some which offer some balm to the fires of racism stirred up over human history, then that too is their choice. It would be the duty of a media to inform, as broadly and capably as possible, the facts of these cases. It certainly has not done so to date on a mainstream level. Reason and the New Republic certainly covered this particular issue 4 years ago. He has made frequent mostly genial appearances on the Daily Show (Stewart indeed plugs for him where the media has constantly overlooked and pointedly ignored him). Libertarians or libertarian leaners are generally quite full up on Ron Paul coverage from some outlet or another (Mises, Reason, Cato, Atlantic, etc). And there are plenty of Paul-related blogs, both pro and con, to consult. Particularly now after he has been in the national eye for several years running for President and campaigning actively with grassroots support. So it's not like he's been ignored entirely. But until today nothing in a major newspaper or TV news outlet has really scrutinized him and/or his ideas. That is an abject failure to consider the likelihood that the other "mainstream" Republican candidates, sans Mitt Romney, would sputter and flounder for their much more prominent instabilities and failings and that we would be left with Ron Paul and Mitt, and maybe Jon Huntsman if more Republicans were smarter than they currently are. And this was obvious months ago before Rick Perry or Herman Cain even entered the race and left it (wait, Perry is still out there? Oh right, my mistake...). The media could have vetted this months ago.
That said. It is also the duty of a candidate like Ron Paul to assuage, as capably as he can do so, concerns about his temperament and attitudes expressed and espoused with his name attached to them in the semi-recent past by an adult. He has so far failed to do so on a mainstream level. Obama had to come up with a defusing speech about his faith and his pastor because of far overblown concerns about his attachment to a radical church. Paul should have less incentive given the distance in time involved, but no less of a political duty to do the same to broadly explain to as many people as possible, what his views, sentiments, and influences are on the matter of race. It would not require a speech. A polished answer would suffice. Even an answer about free speech could be helpful.
A man in his 40s (Obama) or 50s (Paul when his newsletter circulated these repugnant opinions) is not someone who can be excused a youthful indiscretion in the manner of a masters thesis or a teenage experimentation. Particularly when that man seeks considerable power at our behest.
We must ask. And they must answer.
1) I do not think he is an avowed racist. I think it likely he is personally uncomfortable with homosexuals, but this too hasn't coloured his recent political stances. Which is to his credit. I am pretty sure he's not anti-Semitic too for the record. Given the history of Rothbard and Mises, it's extremely unlikely anyway. The reason this comes up is that anyone in politics who isn't "pro-Israel" to the hilt of anything goes is labeled as "anti-Semitic" by Christian Zionists. Ranting about bankers doesn't help much here, but I'm sure this is from his Austrian economics roots and not a bias against Jews. I wish he would give up some of the Austrian-Randian tendencies personally, but that's hardly his biggest problem in the Republican field. I also think his opposition to the Civil Rights Act (at least a portion of it) can be shown in a strict libertarian objection to be a principled rather than racist sentiment. It can be explained away in some sense because Paul often has adopted a perfect over the good sentiment in his voting. I look at CRA and say that it completely ended a lot of bad government policies and replaced them with a few much less bad government policies, rendered somewhat necessary by cultural and societal issues that are still strained, but improved somewhat. So I see a win. Paul doesn't. That makes it a fishy element for people looking for racist sentiments. He should be aware of the tone as a politician.
2) I am pretty sure Lew Rockwell wrote most of the offending materials. This was what was reported on back in 2008 at least.
3) I'm not sure if Lew is racist or not, and I really don't care if he is (I haven't read more of his material, nor do I care to. Rothbard and Mises are the go-to sources for that wing of the libertarian thought, and lack most of the distinguishing features that are disturbing here). In general I'd say that race-baiting is a time-honored tradition in some portions of the conservative (and yes, liberal) political circles for purposes of elections. A radical newsletter circulating even tenuously racist generalisations is likely to have been generating some additional income that wasn't likely to be the case without them, as sick as that is. I am not sure it would today, given that it would and has pissed off a solid number of Paul-ish types like me who would take their business elsewhere, but in the late 80s and early 90s, when hip-hop was in its infancy to the public and race riots were still at the forefront of American possibility (Rodney King wasn't so long ago keep in mind), maybe it would have. Whether or not these attitudes were thus true, they are repugnant and draw far too easy comparisons to Governor Wallace of Alabama during the Civil Rights Era itself, who traded NAACP support for KKK support in the pursuit of power. The also racy tie-in to Stormfront and other racist supporters of a Paul candidacy, however misguided they are in their perceptions of what a freer state under Paul might allow for themselves, hasn't come up yet, but I'd expect it to do so. Especially if he wins Iowa.
4) Paul's adamant stance against the drug war is probably one of the most un-racist things we could do in this country. In the sense that it would allow some restorative balance to the way we police and punish minority communities of blacks and Latinos (and immigrants) in this country. Also helpful would be not unilaterally bombing or engaging in wars in places with Arabs and Africans (without some core national interest, none of which was demonstrated in any location save possibly Afghanistan). A better Paul might have sought to demonstrate actively how a libertarian world might benefit people of a non-Caucasian appearance and disposition.
What seems to me to be the issue is that, while it is true that Paul addressed this history recently, during the 2008 campaign, he wasn't perceived as even a longshot to win a Presidential election or nomination and the amount of attention and scrutiny he received was modest and low. He is now a frontrunner or at least top tier candidate for a major political party. This issue will come up again and again until he deals with it assertively and decisively (and it will continue even then among his most fervent objectors) because a) this is politics and b) most people don't know very much about Ron Paul. Ron Paul's bubble of supporters certainly do, as evidenced from watching comment threads climb steadily and rapidly upward whenever this issue is raised is certainly interesting to note the level of internet fandom he has received. Political observers like me also know about it. But the average voter does not. And the average voter deserves to know what political opinions and behaviors a Ron Paul candidacy could or would involve, just as Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich's despicable anti-Muslim rants deserve to be properly aired, and in their cases serve as much keener examples of bias and prejudice coming from their own mouths, repeatedly and in the very recent past in pursuit of power and attention.
Now, of course, it would have been useful if a Ron Paul objector like Borger on CNN had also introduced some of Paul's more radical political positions he has espoused in the most recent and immediate past. Things like opposition to the Federal Reserve and actually abolishing numerous government bureaucracies (though I support the latter in some cases too, I admit this is a non-popular and radical position outside of GOP talking points, but not actual GOP behavior, and many economics departments), ending US participation in the UN and global trade organisations (radical and stupid, but popular), or even less radical or even mainstream (but ignored) positions like legalisation of marijuana or internet gambling or ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and abolishing most war on terror footings and government invasions of privacy and property. Voters do deserve to know things about the temperament and disposition of their candidates. They also need to know potential stances.
I'm not sure that I would vote for a Ron Paul candidacy. I would definitely vote for a Gary Johnson candidacy because there are fewer of these skeletons for me to worry about and fewer crankish issues come up as often like Paul's goldbug fascination and polished anti-Fed stance. But I'm not every voter. Every potential voter should decide how to weigh Paul's past misdeeds and missteps in his choice of associates and political association, along with his potential for positive development. If they assess that they do not care for his politics, that is their choice (and in such a case, it doesn't matter what his skeletons are). If they assess that they might be pleased with his politics, but are uncomfortable with his skeletons, that also is their choice. And if they assess that they might enjoy his politics and decide that whatever discomfort they have of his skeletons, that the world is better off even with a possible racist who would end many more pressing considerations and injustices, including some which offer some balm to the fires of racism stirred up over human history, then that too is their choice. It would be the duty of a media to inform, as broadly and capably as possible, the facts of these cases. It certainly has not done so to date on a mainstream level. Reason and the New Republic certainly covered this particular issue 4 years ago. He has made frequent mostly genial appearances on the Daily Show (Stewart indeed plugs for him where the media has constantly overlooked and pointedly ignored him). Libertarians or libertarian leaners are generally quite full up on Ron Paul coverage from some outlet or another (Mises, Reason, Cato, Atlantic, etc). And there are plenty of Paul-related blogs, both pro and con, to consult. Particularly now after he has been in the national eye for several years running for President and campaigning actively with grassroots support. So it's not like he's been ignored entirely. But until today nothing in a major newspaper or TV news outlet has really scrutinized him and/or his ideas. That is an abject failure to consider the likelihood that the other "mainstream" Republican candidates, sans Mitt Romney, would sputter and flounder for their much more prominent instabilities and failings and that we would be left with Ron Paul and Mitt, and maybe Jon Huntsman if more Republicans were smarter than they currently are. And this was obvious months ago before Rick Perry or Herman Cain even entered the race and left it (wait, Perry is still out there? Oh right, my mistake...). The media could have vetted this months ago.
That said. It is also the duty of a candidate like Ron Paul to assuage, as capably as he can do so, concerns about his temperament and attitudes expressed and espoused with his name attached to them in the semi-recent past by an adult. He has so far failed to do so on a mainstream level. Obama had to come up with a defusing speech about his faith and his pastor because of far overblown concerns about his attachment to a radical church. Paul should have less incentive given the distance in time involved, but no less of a political duty to do the same to broadly explain to as many people as possible, what his views, sentiments, and influences are on the matter of race. It would not require a speech. A polished answer would suffice. Even an answer about free speech could be helpful.
A man in his 40s (Obama) or 50s (Paul when his newsletter circulated these repugnant opinions) is not someone who can be excused a youthful indiscretion in the manner of a masters thesis or a teenage experimentation. Particularly when that man seeks considerable power at our behest.
We must ask. And they must answer.
19 December 2011
Busy week
Apparently Hitchens' death was just the appetizer for a grisly weekend of world famous people dying. Personally, of the trio I know of so far, Vaclev Havel is by far the favorite. Hitchens certainly had a knack for pointing out the foibles and follies of many other revered people at the time of their deaths (Mother Teresa and Jerry Falwell most famously, among many others), and I appreciated his brutal rudeness for things that concerned others (interrupting the "Darwin inspired Hitler!" trope that keeps popping up is a good sign, as is responding to police with indifferent rudeness rather than polite deference), but on a key point in assessing his standing; whether he supported and/or attempted to suppress and impose extreme suffering on other human beings, he's in the wrong camp here (with Kim Jung Il). Havel isn't. Supporting, and indeed insistently supporting even after the mistakes were obvious and the propaganda false or unnecessary, the Iraq War made no sense to me. Certainly there's a strain of "I hate religions, including Islam" involved, and a strain of "I hate tyrants". But "I hate tyrants" is not a sufficient justification for a) demanding action deposing them with maximum force (to be undertaken by others), b) supporting other forms of tyranny and oppression. Gleefully at that. No person that we undertake to build monuments to, even if the statues are in our minds and hearts rather than in marble, is ever devoid of vices and contradictions that confound our ability to fully celebrate their achievements and virtues. Jefferson is a prominent example. As is Lee or Washington or Lincoln or King. And it is pretty easy to find people who have a passionate disdain for Andrew Jackson (me), Woodrow Wilson (me), and FDR (modern conservatives). So I am not saying that we cannot ever recognize some element, some filament of greatness in achievement and accomplishment in a person. But we should never blind ourselves in our haste to do this that we forget the person behind such brilliance was ultimately a person and not a monument or a symbol.
As far as the death of Kim Jung Il, a recently active tyrant rather than an active critic or former leader and revolutionary, I would say whatever opportunities are claimed there are small and that we are best suited to play a waiting game and see what leverage and compromise we can reach with the Chinese (not the North Koreans) surrounding regional security and stability. Assessments that this represents a possible uprising for freedom are as absurd as assessments that it now endangers the Republic of Korea to the south. A power struggle over the reigns left behind will happen and will be ugly, but I don't see how it results in a war, without Chinese support which won't happen, or a modestly less tyrannical state in the near term. Since I haven't written about it, the series of diplomatic arrangements in the Pacific Rim were impressive. I'm not sure that basing troops in more countries (Australia) really serves a core national interest, but combined with the rest, it doesn't look half bad at constraining China's ability to play as a more global-regional hegemon with a modest set of alliances and new friendships in the region.
Anyway. In better news. Rick Perry has managed to embroil himself in further controversy by double dipping in the state pension funds while on salary, so good riddance (even though that is perfectly legal under Texas' laws, it is absurd and likely infuriating to some conservative types). And Newt Gingrich has dropped like a rock in the polls over the last week thanks to some aggressive campaigning by his opponents (Paul's ads have been devastating and Michelle Bachmann of all people has made some rather lethal jabs at his insider-y history) and a refusal of the majority of the Republican establishment to accept him as a legitimate candidate, much less as someone they would support if he were the nominee, again, thanks for playing. I still haven't gotten a good response as to why he jumped up and became popular to begin with, but that we're back on track to have a campaign that largely ignores Ron Paul and some other yahoo wins the primary that isn't widely perceived to be crazy (ie, not Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann or Cain, but that other guy they've all been associated with as the "anti-" vote, Romney). Maybe there will be a Huntsman bounce now, but I doubt it.
As far as the death of Kim Jung Il, a recently active tyrant rather than an active critic or former leader and revolutionary, I would say whatever opportunities are claimed there are small and that we are best suited to play a waiting game and see what leverage and compromise we can reach with the Chinese (not the North Koreans) surrounding regional security and stability. Assessments that this represents a possible uprising for freedom are as absurd as assessments that it now endangers the Republic of Korea to the south. A power struggle over the reigns left behind will happen and will be ugly, but I don't see how it results in a war, without Chinese support which won't happen, or a modestly less tyrannical state in the near term. Since I haven't written about it, the series of diplomatic arrangements in the Pacific Rim were impressive. I'm not sure that basing troops in more countries (Australia) really serves a core national interest, but combined with the rest, it doesn't look half bad at constraining China's ability to play as a more global-regional hegemon with a modest set of alliances and new friendships in the region.
Anyway. In better news. Rick Perry has managed to embroil himself in further controversy by double dipping in the state pension funds while on salary, so good riddance (even though that is perfectly legal under Texas' laws, it is absurd and likely infuriating to some conservative types). And Newt Gingrich has dropped like a rock in the polls over the last week thanks to some aggressive campaigning by his opponents (Paul's ads have been devastating and Michelle Bachmann of all people has made some rather lethal jabs at his insider-y history) and a refusal of the majority of the Republican establishment to accept him as a legitimate candidate, much less as someone they would support if he were the nominee, again, thanks for playing. I still haven't gotten a good response as to why he jumped up and became popular to begin with, but that we're back on track to have a campaign that largely ignores Ron Paul and some other yahoo wins the primary that isn't widely perceived to be crazy (ie, not Perry, Gingrich, Bachmann or Cain, but that other guy they've all been associated with as the "anti-" vote, Romney). Maybe there will be a Huntsman bounce now, but I doubt it.
16 December 2011
While I am on the subject
The famous atheist and writer Christopher Hitchens died last night from complications with a particularly lethal form of cancer (esophageal). Among the debates leading up to his demise was the related premises of whether a) one should pray for an atheist or b) whether such prayers would matter.
I think an atheist would conclude that b is clearly false. There is no evidence that your prayers matter to other people's health and well-being. Where they would matter is to the prayee. Not the subject of their prayers. It makes them feel like they are involved and concerned about the fate of another human being. Perhaps that is a good thing in and of itself, but it does nothing to actually help. It is a symbolic act. Given my stances on symbolic actions (particularly in politics where such symbolic actions cost taxpayers real money), I find it bordering on repulsive selfishness to do this. I would much rather people instead of praying would donate money or goods to an appropriate cause or volunteer their time to a cause they feel they could contribute to. You know, things that might actually help others instead of demonstrate their concern without actually helping anyone. It costs the prayee nothing to pray really. Presumably they would do that anyway. But it benefits only themselves.
I suppose therefore the answer to a) is something more like, go ahead but don't bother bringing it up. I'm not sure it actually harms anything to do this in either direction really. There's a possible positive benefit in that it shows the dying person that you are at least modestly concerned with their suffering and present plight, though there are far better ways to express this. If you are expending your time praying for something other than their health and well-being, it most certainly does not help anyone but you. I would find people praying for my soul or some other metaphysical invention of their religion, or worse for my deathbed conversion to their chosen religious team, to be completely offensive under such circumstances. And so ultimately my preference would be that you do something else for the dying atheist in your world. Send flowers or a book, or a card. Bring ice cream or pie. Bring vodka or other stiff drinks if they are medically able to imbibe them. Bring laughter. Bring comfort and friendship, and be supportive for their friends and family through a difficult time (both before and after the actual death). For my part, bring discomforting events so that I would know the world continues to be troubled and that suffering is not limited to my own plight. Bring interesting discussions from which we could each learn something. Don't bother bringing your piety and presenting it as a gift. It's kind of like buying other people (whom you hardly know) clothing; it's not even worth the trouble of attempting to return the gift for the gift is so thoughtless and worthless to the receiver of it. I'm not that generous to extend a good deal of courtesy to fake politeness and custom that has no actual real world benefit attached to it. Keep that to yourself along with your "god bless you" when I sneeze. I'm not about to be very moved to thank such expressions and what acknowledgements you would get would likely be unpleasant. Thanks in advance.
(Just to clarify, I find I have few points of political rhetorical agreement with Hitchens. I do not share a need to militantly oppose Islam for instance. At least not over and above any other belief structure centered on metaphysical inventions. Where I do have agreements is that the man seems a hedonist and shares a concern for the value of freedom of the individual. But how these seem to have informed his views on things like economics often baffles me.)
I think an atheist would conclude that b is clearly false. There is no evidence that your prayers matter to other people's health and well-being. Where they would matter is to the prayee. Not the subject of their prayers. It makes them feel like they are involved and concerned about the fate of another human being. Perhaps that is a good thing in and of itself, but it does nothing to actually help. It is a symbolic act. Given my stances on symbolic actions (particularly in politics where such symbolic actions cost taxpayers real money), I find it bordering on repulsive selfishness to do this. I would much rather people instead of praying would donate money or goods to an appropriate cause or volunteer their time to a cause they feel they could contribute to. You know, things that might actually help others instead of demonstrate their concern without actually helping anyone. It costs the prayee nothing to pray really. Presumably they would do that anyway. But it benefits only themselves.
I suppose therefore the answer to a) is something more like, go ahead but don't bother bringing it up. I'm not sure it actually harms anything to do this in either direction really. There's a possible positive benefit in that it shows the dying person that you are at least modestly concerned with their suffering and present plight, though there are far better ways to express this. If you are expending your time praying for something other than their health and well-being, it most certainly does not help anyone but you. I would find people praying for my soul or some other metaphysical invention of their religion, or worse for my deathbed conversion to their chosen religious team, to be completely offensive under such circumstances. And so ultimately my preference would be that you do something else for the dying atheist in your world. Send flowers or a book, or a card. Bring ice cream or pie. Bring vodka or other stiff drinks if they are medically able to imbibe them. Bring laughter. Bring comfort and friendship, and be supportive for their friends and family through a difficult time (both before and after the actual death). For my part, bring discomforting events so that I would know the world continues to be troubled and that suffering is not limited to my own plight. Bring interesting discussions from which we could each learn something. Don't bother bringing your piety and presenting it as a gift. It's kind of like buying other people (whom you hardly know) clothing; it's not even worth the trouble of attempting to return the gift for the gift is so thoughtless and worthless to the receiver of it. I'm not that generous to extend a good deal of courtesy to fake politeness and custom that has no actual real world benefit attached to it. Keep that to yourself along with your "god bless you" when I sneeze. I'm not about to be very moved to thank such expressions and what acknowledgements you would get would likely be unpleasant. Thanks in advance.
(Just to clarify, I find I have few points of political rhetorical agreement with Hitchens. I do not share a need to militantly oppose Islam for instance. At least not over and above any other belief structure centered on metaphysical inventions. Where I do have agreements is that the man seems a hedonist and shares a concern for the value of freedom of the individual. But how these seem to have informed his views on things like economics often baffles me.)
Good news and bad news
First the good. Sheriff Joe is finally in some hotter water than he has been over the last 20 years.
The highlights
1) Cost $5 Million in lawsuits, with hundreds of millions more still in progress. Including the infamous Steven Seagal tank/cockfighting incident.
2) Misappropriated almost $100 million in funds for prison funding for use paying officers and staff.
3) Ignoring rising crime rate in his jurisdiction (even as it declines in the rest of the state and most of the country) by not even investigating various crimes; sexual assault being among the foremost ignored. Thanks for being a misogynist on top of a racist?
4) Over 2/5s of detained persons on immigration charges turn out to be legal citizens. I'd say that's a pretty poor track record suggesting that he's not doing the sort of investigative work needed to properly identify illegal immigrants in a community. A supposition which is borne out by a) the treatment of immigrants once detained, often bordering on torture if not outright, and b) the incredible frequency with which immigrant-looking folks (ie, Latinos) are stopped for no apparent reason at all in violation of the requirements that immigration status can be checked when an actual offense has been committed. 20% of all stops have no overriding violation?
I'll be happy when this guy joins Patrick Sullivan Jr in a jail named after himself (Sullivan was arrested on drug trafficking and trading drugs for sex, after a lifetime spent railing against drug dealers). No person should be so brazenly permitted to violate the rights of human beings, much less citizens and taxpayers of the region of a state entrusted to their care to oversee the rule of law. If this were a Monopoly game, I'd just keep playing the "go directly to jail, do not pass go" card on him. All that said, the man was, last I checked, potentially a US SENATE candidate in his state. That's frightening.
The bad. SOPA is still kicking around. I'm on the Wyden list in case of a filibuster in the Senate and I've written all 3 Ohio Reps available in order to remonstrate my concerns here. But really the problems are legion, starting with the one highlighted there; that the internet uses a sort of spontaneous ordering in order to address problems like internet security protocols. And that sort of spontaneous order needs to be carefully approached, if at all, with legal strictures. It would seem to me that a) we already possess a device for copyrights violations (DCMA) and b) that the most available studies I have seen on internet piracy suggest that whatever threat it poses to these industries is minimal and c) there are already available distribution methods on the web for these industries to attempt to co-opt or to participate in through licensing deals that would allow them to continue to exist. Personally, I'm not sure why any musician would attempt to sign with a record label anymore and at some point in the future, it might be possible to produce higher quality films privately as well to avoid that as a distribution node as well. Perhaps this is what such industries are really worried about, but it seems like they worry about something that isn't actually costing them very much by attempting to impose MASSIVE costs on everyone else. Usually industries, and unions for that matter, can get away with this by imposing very small marginal costs on everyone else in the pursuit of rent-seeking behaviors with legislative support and embrace. In this case, the costs are potentially very large. I suspect this will play into whether any bill actually passes.
Some weird. I'm kind of fascinated watching what the GOP does with Ron Paul's modest surge in polls. He's basically had a cap of around 10-12% of the GOP electorate (plus some moderates and independents outside that electorate). But he's now polling at rates approaching 20%. The consequence has been a hasty campaign to declare the actual winner of the Iowa caucuses as someone else if Paul should win, as insulation against the idea that somehow, someone, somewhere has decided that being anti-war, anti-government spending, pro-free market/anti-crony capitalism is a platform that Republicans should embrace instead of their usual pro-war, pro-government spending, anti-free market/pro-crony capitalism platform that mostly resembles the Democratic campaigns as well. My best guess is that Republicans are unlikely to win the 2012 Presidency anyway, and so it would be most useful for them to nominate someone interesting and where there are actual debates to be had between the two parties. Gary Johnson has long been favored by me over Paul because he has much more favorable social liberal views (pro-choice, pro-immigration, nominally more pro-gay marriage than Paul, though not by much, and both are anti-drug war), and doesn't openly douse his views in that novel religion known as Austrian economics (I say this because it constructs itself in a non-falsifiable way, the same way religions do). That said, a Paul-Obama debate where Paul can credibly run to LEFT of Obama on immigration (Obama is heavy on deportations), the drug war (Obama DOJ is heavy on arresting legal pot producers and dispensers), foreign policy (see Libya, assassinations of American citizens by robotic drones), and civil liberties (war on terror policies and drug war policies to boot), would be amusing. Of course, Paul's history and general perception as a crank would guarantee that he wouldn't be elected, but so far as I can tell, only the ill-fated Mitt Romney is widely perceived as a plausible upset for the incumbent. At least give me a reason to watch the debates?
The highlights
1) Cost $5 Million in lawsuits, with hundreds of millions more still in progress. Including the infamous Steven Seagal tank/cockfighting incident.
2) Misappropriated almost $100 million in funds for prison funding for use paying officers and staff.
3) Ignoring rising crime rate in his jurisdiction (even as it declines in the rest of the state and most of the country) by not even investigating various crimes; sexual assault being among the foremost ignored. Thanks for being a misogynist on top of a racist?
4) Over 2/5s of detained persons on immigration charges turn out to be legal citizens. I'd say that's a pretty poor track record suggesting that he's not doing the sort of investigative work needed to properly identify illegal immigrants in a community. A supposition which is borne out by a) the treatment of immigrants once detained, often bordering on torture if not outright, and b) the incredible frequency with which immigrant-looking folks (ie, Latinos) are stopped for no apparent reason at all in violation of the requirements that immigration status can be checked when an actual offense has been committed. 20% of all stops have no overriding violation?
I'll be happy when this guy joins Patrick Sullivan Jr in a jail named after himself (Sullivan was arrested on drug trafficking and trading drugs for sex, after a lifetime spent railing against drug dealers). No person should be so brazenly permitted to violate the rights of human beings, much less citizens and taxpayers of the region of a state entrusted to their care to oversee the rule of law. If this were a Monopoly game, I'd just keep playing the "go directly to jail, do not pass go" card on him. All that said, the man was, last I checked, potentially a US SENATE candidate in his state. That's frightening.
The bad. SOPA is still kicking around. I'm on the Wyden list in case of a filibuster in the Senate and I've written all 3 Ohio Reps available in order to remonstrate my concerns here. But really the problems are legion, starting with the one highlighted there; that the internet uses a sort of spontaneous ordering in order to address problems like internet security protocols. And that sort of spontaneous order needs to be carefully approached, if at all, with legal strictures. It would seem to me that a) we already possess a device for copyrights violations (DCMA) and b) that the most available studies I have seen on internet piracy suggest that whatever threat it poses to these industries is minimal and c) there are already available distribution methods on the web for these industries to attempt to co-opt or to participate in through licensing deals that would allow them to continue to exist. Personally, I'm not sure why any musician would attempt to sign with a record label anymore and at some point in the future, it might be possible to produce higher quality films privately as well to avoid that as a distribution node as well. Perhaps this is what such industries are really worried about, but it seems like they worry about something that isn't actually costing them very much by attempting to impose MASSIVE costs on everyone else. Usually industries, and unions for that matter, can get away with this by imposing very small marginal costs on everyone else in the pursuit of rent-seeking behaviors with legislative support and embrace. In this case, the costs are potentially very large. I suspect this will play into whether any bill actually passes.
Some weird. I'm kind of fascinated watching what the GOP does with Ron Paul's modest surge in polls. He's basically had a cap of around 10-12% of the GOP electorate (plus some moderates and independents outside that electorate). But he's now polling at rates approaching 20%. The consequence has been a hasty campaign to declare the actual winner of the Iowa caucuses as someone else if Paul should win, as insulation against the idea that somehow, someone, somewhere has decided that being anti-war, anti-government spending, pro-free market/anti-crony capitalism is a platform that Republicans should embrace instead of their usual pro-war, pro-government spending, anti-free market/pro-crony capitalism platform that mostly resembles the Democratic campaigns as well. My best guess is that Republicans are unlikely to win the 2012 Presidency anyway, and so it would be most useful for them to nominate someone interesting and where there are actual debates to be had between the two parties. Gary Johnson has long been favored by me over Paul because he has much more favorable social liberal views (pro-choice, pro-immigration, nominally more pro-gay marriage than Paul, though not by much, and both are anti-drug war), and doesn't openly douse his views in that novel religion known as Austrian economics (I say this because it constructs itself in a non-falsifiable way, the same way religions do). That said, a Paul-Obama debate where Paul can credibly run to LEFT of Obama on immigration (Obama is heavy on deportations), the drug war (Obama DOJ is heavy on arresting legal pot producers and dispensers), foreign policy (see Libya, assassinations of American citizens by robotic drones), and civil liberties (war on terror policies and drug war policies to boot), would be amusing. Of course, Paul's history and general perception as a crank would guarantee that he wouldn't be elected, but so far as I can tell, only the ill-fated Mitt Romney is widely perceived as a plausible upset for the incumbent. At least give me a reason to watch the debates?
15 December 2011
I liked the other Paul trade better
The one that New Orleans got back Lamar Odom, Luis Scola, Kevin Martin, and a combo guard backup, plus a 1st round draft pick.
Now they get Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, a second year backup forward out of Wake Forest (Aminu is solid but I can't see him being David West or Odom/Scola level player) and a couple of second round picks.
I'm not sure what message the league wanted to send other than "we won't send Chris Paul to the Lakers" (even if it meant the Lakers were giving up Odom AND Gasol to get him).
Other moves. I like the Clippers pick up of Butler. Didn't like the pickup of Billups (and Paul). Little weird. I guess they can move Billups to shooting to replace some of Gordon's lost production.
Bulls needed a shooter, got Hamilton. I'm not sure he's what they needed per se, but it'll help.
Denver has been really busy. Getting back Andre Miller and picking up Corey Brewer were both smart moves. Though I'd rather have had Felton than Miller over the next couple years. I'm guessing they really wanted Hamilton. Rudy Fernandez was also a good pickup.
Dallas getting Odom doesn't quite make sense since they lost Tyson Chandler. But I guess they can go unconventional and try to score more again. Speaking of which I would like the Tyson to New York move except that they still have D'Antoni as their coach.
Indiana picking up West is smart. I like their front line (West, Hibbert, and Granger)
Miami picking up Battier, smart. Picking up Curry raises some eyebrows though.
Not sure the Celtics did much. I do like getting rid of Big Baby and Shaq retired. But they didn't get back much for Davis and they kept Jeff Green. And Pavlovic is pretty weak. I should think they need the two Purdue kids to be pretty good. About the only good news there is that I'm not sure that the Knicks, now having no point guard at all (Bibby was washed up 3 years ago), will be any good. I'd be more concerned about the 76ers within the division. The Heat/Bulls though are both scary looking teams.
So far, I expect Toronto, Cleveland, and Detroit to all be very bad teams in the East. And Orlando once they trade Howard. Also I have no idea what to make of Washington. John Wall is worth at least 10 wins right? And then... the next best players are JaVale McGee and Jordan Crawford? Really I only expect Miami, Chicago, Boston, and Indiana to be any good at all in the East, with Atlanta, New York, New Jersey (I expect another couple weird free agent moves there) maybe Orlando (if they don't trade Howard), and Milwaukee all hovering around 30-35 wins.
Out West, I'd expect New Orleans to be pretty bad. Wolves and Kings to be bad, Jazz to be bad, and other than the Clippers and Thunder, nobody to really stand out. Maybe Memphis will be pretty good. I think the Lakers, Spurs, Suns, and Mavs are all older and not much better, if not worse (Leonard to the Spurs was however a great pickup). I'm not sure yet what to make of the Blazers and Nuggets. Probably both will be solid 40 win range, more for the Blazers if they give up on trying to play Roy. Rockets and maybe even the Warriors should be decent (it would help if the Warriors would trade Ellis).
Now they get Eric Gordon, Chris Kaman, a second year backup forward out of Wake Forest (Aminu is solid but I can't see him being David West or Odom/Scola level player) and a couple of second round picks.
I'm not sure what message the league wanted to send other than "we won't send Chris Paul to the Lakers" (even if it meant the Lakers were giving up Odom AND Gasol to get him).
Other moves. I like the Clippers pick up of Butler. Didn't like the pickup of Billups (and Paul). Little weird. I guess they can move Billups to shooting to replace some of Gordon's lost production.
Bulls needed a shooter, got Hamilton. I'm not sure he's what they needed per se, but it'll help.
Denver has been really busy. Getting back Andre Miller and picking up Corey Brewer were both smart moves. Though I'd rather have had Felton than Miller over the next couple years. I'm guessing they really wanted Hamilton. Rudy Fernandez was also a good pickup.
Dallas getting Odom doesn't quite make sense since they lost Tyson Chandler. But I guess they can go unconventional and try to score more again. Speaking of which I would like the Tyson to New York move except that they still have D'Antoni as their coach.
Indiana picking up West is smart. I like their front line (West, Hibbert, and Granger)
Miami picking up Battier, smart. Picking up Curry raises some eyebrows though.
Not sure the Celtics did much. I do like getting rid of Big Baby and Shaq retired. But they didn't get back much for Davis and they kept Jeff Green. And Pavlovic is pretty weak. I should think they need the two Purdue kids to be pretty good. About the only good news there is that I'm not sure that the Knicks, now having no point guard at all (Bibby was washed up 3 years ago), will be any good. I'd be more concerned about the 76ers within the division. The Heat/Bulls though are both scary looking teams.
So far, I expect Toronto, Cleveland, and Detroit to all be very bad teams in the East. And Orlando once they trade Howard. Also I have no idea what to make of Washington. John Wall is worth at least 10 wins right? And then... the next best players are JaVale McGee and Jordan Crawford? Really I only expect Miami, Chicago, Boston, and Indiana to be any good at all in the East, with Atlanta, New York, New Jersey (I expect another couple weird free agent moves there) maybe Orlando (if they don't trade Howard), and Milwaukee all hovering around 30-35 wins.
Out West, I'd expect New Orleans to be pretty bad. Wolves and Kings to be bad, Jazz to be bad, and other than the Clippers and Thunder, nobody to really stand out. Maybe Memphis will be pretty good. I think the Lakers, Spurs, Suns, and Mavs are all older and not much better, if not worse (Leonard to the Spurs was however a great pickup). I'm not sure yet what to make of the Blazers and Nuggets. Probably both will be solid 40 win range, more for the Blazers if they give up on trying to play Roy. Rockets and maybe even the Warriors should be decent (it would help if the Warriors would trade Ellis).
14 December 2011
This is Newt
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Tip/Wag - Liberal Dictionary & Newt Gingrich Alert | ||||
| ||||
Blofeld! Sounds about right for the guy who wants to build a moon base, a system of mirror lights in space, worries about EMPs (when no national security experts do), wants to execute pot dealers.
I also liked the "grappling baby", the logical conclusion to the stupidity of the anchor baby mythology. On average, the babies involved are the illegal immigrant mother's SECOND child born here and they've already lived here for several years. If that's supposed to be the anchor, then I don't understand nautical engineering.
13 December 2011
Debunk the debunking bunkers!
"Once people receive misinformation, it’s quite difficult to remove its influence. This was demonstrated in a 1994 experiment where people were exposed to misinformation about a fictitious warehouse fire, then given a correction clarifying the parts of the story that were incorrect. Despite remembering and accepting the correction, people still showed a lingering effect, referring to the misinformation when answering questions about the story."
There are a lot of psychology gems in there. But that one stood out because it is a common media method to hype a new story, which later turns out to be utterly false. Issuing corrections is important for this reason, that information that was wrong must be corrected. Where I think we run into problems is that the correction isn't exactly covered with the same diligence as the superhyped falsehood. Medical information and science reporting in particular are especially prone to such behavior in news cycles. So it would seem better if instead of reporting every new study in ten foot headlines that we wait for more confirmations to trickle in first.
The various debunking tips
1) Avoid backfiring. We tend to remember things in networks by relating things to what we already "know to be". If we already "know" a myth to be true, then associating new information with it, even if it is demonstrating the falseness of the myth is liable to be trouble.
2) Overkill, don't do it. I do this a lot. Power driving people with mountains of disclaiming information to their weak thesis is a common response to seeing someone as wrong. Stick to the best facts and arguments and move on from there as needed. Only among the most "informed" and dedicated followers of a myth will one need to amass copious amounts of information to combat it. Most people believe very vague and poorly thought out straw man positions on most issues, mostly because they don't care about those issues very much. Pile driving them with information demonstrates your passion for it, but doesn't really convince them to do likewise or to alter a preconceived opinion with these new facts challenging it. This is probably why news media tends to cater to those preconceived opinions rather than to chart new courses following new and surprising facts that overturn the old ways.
3) Don't challenge worldviews. This comes up frequently in debates over evolution. Apparently men and apes sharing common ancestries destroys a lot of comfortable assumptions about man's special place in the universe for some religious people and hence Darwin was wrong. Or something. However changing the topic to something like geological time scales or raw genetics, while complicated subjects in and of themselves, is likely enough to push some headway into the Darwin was wrong crowd. Some of it at least.
4) Alternative explanations. This feature of the human brain for completeness of schema is a powerful force behind mythology. Explaining complex phenomenon like weather or evolution of species or the occasion for "bad things to happen to good people" requires generally complicated reflection on these topics for a concise and thorough understanding of the topic. People don't like doing that very much (nor do they have the time to make such inquiries on all manner of subject matter). So they fill in the gaps so they feel like they know what they are talking about. A devastating social effect for anyone to admit is that they do not know what they are talking about in a public setting. Such a response of honest ignorance is rare, and is greeted with derision and scorn. It should be greeted with acceptance and conversation, if such ignorance is honest (Rick Perry's oops moment for instance was not, as he was forgetting talking points that were intended to be bonafides of his conservative intentions to govern). Experts often do not know the answers to everything going on in their circle, much less in fields broad and outside their sphere of expertise. They will ask questions and express fascination or curiosity in new developments, and if they are good enough at it, they will also help to try to poke holes in new theories and discoveries. This is not the common response of the layman on any field for which they are not intimately acquainted. Deference to expertise, to group acceptance, to ideological biases, and so on is much more likely where knowledge bases are poor.
There are a lot of psychology gems in there. But that one stood out because it is a common media method to hype a new story, which later turns out to be utterly false. Issuing corrections is important for this reason, that information that was wrong must be corrected. Where I think we run into problems is that the correction isn't exactly covered with the same diligence as the superhyped falsehood. Medical information and science reporting in particular are especially prone to such behavior in news cycles. So it would seem better if instead of reporting every new study in ten foot headlines that we wait for more confirmations to trickle in first.
The various debunking tips
1) Avoid backfiring. We tend to remember things in networks by relating things to what we already "know to be". If we already "know" a myth to be true, then associating new information with it, even if it is demonstrating the falseness of the myth is liable to be trouble.
2) Overkill, don't do it. I do this a lot. Power driving people with mountains of disclaiming information to their weak thesis is a common response to seeing someone as wrong. Stick to the best facts and arguments and move on from there as needed. Only among the most "informed" and dedicated followers of a myth will one need to amass copious amounts of information to combat it. Most people believe very vague and poorly thought out straw man positions on most issues, mostly because they don't care about those issues very much. Pile driving them with information demonstrates your passion for it, but doesn't really convince them to do likewise or to alter a preconceived opinion with these new facts challenging it. This is probably why news media tends to cater to those preconceived opinions rather than to chart new courses following new and surprising facts that overturn the old ways.
3) Don't challenge worldviews. This comes up frequently in debates over evolution. Apparently men and apes sharing common ancestries destroys a lot of comfortable assumptions about man's special place in the universe for some religious people and hence Darwin was wrong. Or something. However changing the topic to something like geological time scales or raw genetics, while complicated subjects in and of themselves, is likely enough to push some headway into the Darwin was wrong crowd. Some of it at least.
4) Alternative explanations. This feature of the human brain for completeness of schema is a powerful force behind mythology. Explaining complex phenomenon like weather or evolution of species or the occasion for "bad things to happen to good people" requires generally complicated reflection on these topics for a concise and thorough understanding of the topic. People don't like doing that very much (nor do they have the time to make such inquiries on all manner of subject matter). So they fill in the gaps so they feel like they know what they are talking about. A devastating social effect for anyone to admit is that they do not know what they are talking about in a public setting. Such a response of honest ignorance is rare, and is greeted with derision and scorn. It should be greeted with acceptance and conversation, if such ignorance is honest (Rick Perry's oops moment for instance was not, as he was forgetting talking points that were intended to be bonafides of his conservative intentions to govern). Experts often do not know the answers to everything going on in their circle, much less in fields broad and outside their sphere of expertise. They will ask questions and express fascination or curiosity in new developments, and if they are good enough at it, they will also help to try to poke holes in new theories and discoveries. This is not the common response of the layman on any field for which they are not intimately acquainted. Deference to expertise, to group acceptance, to ideological biases, and so on is much more likely where knowledge bases are poor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
