What I’ve been reading
1 day ago
12 September 2008
hurricane force
Why is it necessary to send reporters around to be blown about and rained on to report on a hurricane. I'm not surprised that they volunteer for this, because they did so for wars as well (to be shot at or have bombs go off outside the window)...but seriously..I think we've been through a bad storm at some point in our lives. Just multiply that by a very high number for intensity and add a very long time and there's your hurricane. Instead we get "quick everyone get out of town, CNN is coming to film the devastation".
rating gwb
Since I finished the ratings game book I was reading I decided to finish it further by putting up a preliminary rating of GW.
Character: 2. This would be somewhat higher because it seems like he suffers from the same delusions that Reagan did (the whole god loves America thing), which makes some of his poorly implemented policies at least understandable (not justified, explained). But the trouble here is rampant cronyism, a series of minor to major scandals, and the basic deceptive use of language. When Hollywood is making movies with weird titles and political themes, something is amiss. What exactly is rendition protocol? Or enhanced interrogation? The plus side was he never ran anyone over in a drunk driving accident like say Pierce or had a former fiancee disappear under mysterious circumstances like Buchanan. I suspect he at least got into politics because it was the family business and thought he was supposed to/do something good (whatever good was). That's a positive.
Vision: I'm not quite sure how to rate this one. I think he has something like a vision so it should be a 4...but he's so poor at communicating that it isn't really clear what he's trying to accomplish or if he was trying to accomplish some of it before he got in office. I'll go with 3. I could go lower because it also doesn't seem like he's totally in reality with what he has accomplished either. This is not necessarily surprising as there are plenty of Presidents who implement policies with 'good intentions' and don't quite understand what they've accomplished. Assuming their intentions will be carried out isn't the same as executing the office.
Competence: 1. This can rise, if any of his policies ever turn out better than I think they will (esp the foreign policy). What he was good at was ramrodding things through that he wanted, with the exception of privatized social security and immigration reforms. Tax cuts, the war (both of them), NCLB, etc. The fact that almost all of it was obviously bad policy didn't matter (although immigration reform would have been decent). What he was bad at was managing events through his surrogates..or picking good surrogates who would manage events for him. I can think of maybe two people in his cabinet over the entire 8 years who were at least remotely decent (including his VP, who wasn't). That's usually a hallmark of incompetence; have poor advice..even worse, seek only advice that secures what plan you want in the first place. Part of how JFK got through the Cuban missile crisis was having a variety of options from hawks, doves, and things in between. Bush basically has a lot of people telling him what he wants to hear.
Economics: 2. He would be higher, except there are a number of things that happened on his watch that aren't very useful for economic growth (and hence, we're in a hampered growth period). The regulation sleepwalk on housing for example, and the devaluation of American currency from massive deficit spending and inflation. Tax cuts weren't a terrible idea, and in part they were useful for a time. It's possible he'll drop to a 1 after his term once it becomes clear how much damage was done, but the fact is the economy isn't doing terribly (as we've been told), it's just different. I'd also have to see precisely what sort of ratings system was used on the raw data by the author. There was for example GDP growth after recovering from an early recession, but the budget was mismanaged badly along the way. FDR has a similar record. With lots of things going on, some very good, many bad. 3 sounds good. 2 sounds more accurate though.
Civil Liberties: 1. I wouldn't call him the worst record here in history. But it's pretty ugly. Patriot Act, FISA, wiretapping, torture, 'enemy combatants', excessive security checkpoints at airplanes, bizarre FCC guidelines, blurring of faith and state (essentially a lack of freedom of religion). He reminds me of Adams the First. I guess if one includes the expansion of liberties to Iraqis, this is much higher...except the cost of that has been all these meaningless restrictions at home.
Foreign policy: 1. There are big issues here that could make it higher or lower in about a decade. While he clearly had a plan of sorts, it wasn't a very coherent plan or particularly useful strategy to implement. There was too much brawn and no brain in it. Strong-arm diplomacy is America circa 1900 in Latin America (See TR's revolt in Panama and the 'Banana Republics'). We never really used it during the Cold War until Reagan directly did so with Russia. I guess it worked ok then, but we're not dealing with a single nation or organization to fight against now..so why it would work now makes no sense. Not to mention that the two countries I would have targeted were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which were supposedly allies during all this mess. If it's up to me, this is a 1...but to be somewhat objective there are some improvements as a result of his actions. I'm not sure whether to attribute them to some sort of master plan though. So 1 it is.
And no, this overall rating (2) doesn't put Bush as the worst US President in history, just in the bottom 5. His 'hero' Truman comes in the top 10, for good reasons (his only problems being some crony scandals and petty firings, plus poor economic policies). Bush comes in around Van Buren and other such luminaries as Nixon, Hoover, and Andrew Johnson.
Character: 2. This would be somewhat higher because it seems like he suffers from the same delusions that Reagan did (the whole god loves America thing), which makes some of his poorly implemented policies at least understandable (not justified, explained). But the trouble here is rampant cronyism, a series of minor to major scandals, and the basic deceptive use of language. When Hollywood is making movies with weird titles and political themes, something is amiss. What exactly is rendition protocol? Or enhanced interrogation? The plus side was he never ran anyone over in a drunk driving accident like say Pierce or had a former fiancee disappear under mysterious circumstances like Buchanan. I suspect he at least got into politics because it was the family business and thought he was supposed to/do something good (whatever good was). That's a positive.
Vision: I'm not quite sure how to rate this one. I think he has something like a vision so it should be a 4...but he's so poor at communicating that it isn't really clear what he's trying to accomplish or if he was trying to accomplish some of it before he got in office. I'll go with 3. I could go lower because it also doesn't seem like he's totally in reality with what he has accomplished either. This is not necessarily surprising as there are plenty of Presidents who implement policies with 'good intentions' and don't quite understand what they've accomplished. Assuming their intentions will be carried out isn't the same as executing the office.
Competence: 1. This can rise, if any of his policies ever turn out better than I think they will (esp the foreign policy). What he was good at was ramrodding things through that he wanted, with the exception of privatized social security and immigration reforms. Tax cuts, the war (both of them), NCLB, etc. The fact that almost all of it was obviously bad policy didn't matter (although immigration reform would have been decent). What he was bad at was managing events through his surrogates..or picking good surrogates who would manage events for him. I can think of maybe two people in his cabinet over the entire 8 years who were at least remotely decent (including his VP, who wasn't). That's usually a hallmark of incompetence; have poor advice..even worse, seek only advice that secures what plan you want in the first place. Part of how JFK got through the Cuban missile crisis was having a variety of options from hawks, doves, and things in between. Bush basically has a lot of people telling him what he wants to hear.
Economics: 2. He would be higher, except there are a number of things that happened on his watch that aren't very useful for economic growth (and hence, we're in a hampered growth period). The regulation sleepwalk on housing for example, and the devaluation of American currency from massive deficit spending and inflation. Tax cuts weren't a terrible idea, and in part they were useful for a time. It's possible he'll drop to a 1 after his term once it becomes clear how much damage was done, but the fact is the economy isn't doing terribly (as we've been told), it's just different. I'd also have to see precisely what sort of ratings system was used on the raw data by the author. There was for example GDP growth after recovering from an early recession, but the budget was mismanaged badly along the way. FDR has a similar record. With lots of things going on, some very good, many bad. 3 sounds good. 2 sounds more accurate though.
Civil Liberties: 1. I wouldn't call him the worst record here in history. But it's pretty ugly. Patriot Act, FISA, wiretapping, torture, 'enemy combatants', excessive security checkpoints at airplanes, bizarre FCC guidelines, blurring of faith and state (essentially a lack of freedom of religion). He reminds me of Adams the First. I guess if one includes the expansion of liberties to Iraqis, this is much higher...except the cost of that has been all these meaningless restrictions at home.
Foreign policy: 1. There are big issues here that could make it higher or lower in about a decade. While he clearly had a plan of sorts, it wasn't a very coherent plan or particularly useful strategy to implement. There was too much brawn and no brain in it. Strong-arm diplomacy is America circa 1900 in Latin America (See TR's revolt in Panama and the 'Banana Republics'). We never really used it during the Cold War until Reagan directly did so with Russia. I guess it worked ok then, but we're not dealing with a single nation or organization to fight against now..so why it would work now makes no sense. Not to mention that the two countries I would have targeted were Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, which were supposedly allies during all this mess. If it's up to me, this is a 1...but to be somewhat objective there are some improvements as a result of his actions. I'm not sure whether to attribute them to some sort of master plan though. So 1 it is.
And no, this overall rating (2) doesn't put Bush as the worst US President in history, just in the bottom 5. His 'hero' Truman comes in the top 10, for good reasons (his only problems being some crony scandals and petty firings, plus poor economic policies). Bush comes in around Van Buren and other such luminaries as Nixon, Hoover, and Andrew Johnson.
11 September 2008
huh?
sept11_anniversary
Not to be too rude, but wouldn't their God be the same one? I'm not sure that Christians generally accept some premise that there are other gods that people are running about and worshiping instead. So it would be, to be theologically consistent, either a false god or the same one. Second point would be that they didn't take innocent lives in the name of their god anyway. They took innocent lives because they were programmed and trained to attack Americans by someone who told them that it was the will of Allah. I suspect if one believes in god, there's a huge difference between having some sort of faith that god actually wants you to do something (even if it is genuinely horrible) and simply trying to live your life in accordance with your beliefs.
I was somewhat pleased to see McCain/Obama suspend their campaigns and show up at least. Even if some New Yorkers weren't.
Not to be too rude, but wouldn't their God be the same one? I'm not sure that Christians generally accept some premise that there are other gods that people are running about and worshiping instead. So it would be, to be theologically consistent, either a false god or the same one. Second point would be that they didn't take innocent lives in the name of their god anyway. They took innocent lives because they were programmed and trained to attack Americans by someone who told them that it was the will of Allah. I suspect if one believes in god, there's a huge difference between having some sort of faith that god actually wants you to do something (even if it is genuinely horrible) and simply trying to live your life in accordance with your beliefs.
I was somewhat pleased to see McCain/Obama suspend their campaigns and show up at least. Even if some New Yorkers weren't.
the disturbing news of the uninformed majority
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090502666_pf.html
A funny thing happens when you walk out your own little world. The people you encounter are instantly ignorant, unenlightened, or just plain stupid.
A few points.
1) "voters are actually basically stupid".. cato and various other think tanks have demonstrated the repeated ignorance on social and economic policies of the general public. I think MIB had it right here. A person is smart, people are dumb, frightened...and you know it. I'd vote for a candidate who admitted this fundamental flaw in our republic (or who called it a republic for starters). The actual stats: "war is god's way of teaching American's geography", only rather poorly since people can't find Iraq on a map. Or know that we're the only nuclear power to have actually used one in combat. And if people are actually watching these silly commercials and basing their decisions on them, I feel extremely distressed.
2) O'Reilly and Stewart really don't have much difference anyway. Stewart does have more of a tendency to be even handed and make fun of both 'liberal' media and whatever it is that O'Reilly is. But to imagine that the people who watch are in some way distinctly aware of the situation is preposterous. Both are humorists poking at the silly world we live in, just in very, very different ways. I find one to be hilarious and the other to be a raving lunatic (best parodied by Stewart's alternative in Colbert). Quite simply, people who watch these types of shows (instead of say, Idol..shudder) are going to be reasonably more informed than the average person otherwise they won't understand what is going on.
3) It would be nice if we did actually give people facts when reporting. Instead people pay far too much attention to spin doctored speeches and politicking rather than the actual messages and specific facts that are outlined. The fact that Americans were deceived by Bush et al into going to war with/in Iraq doesn't mean Bush was a moron by itself, because he couldn't have done so without the media not bothering to ask for information it now conveniently ignores whilst commenting on the war's uncertain progress. If people are so uninformed as to make these weird conclusions, there's only really one agency to blame: the media. The average person doesn't have the time to ask questions and follow up on them. And they probably don't have the intellectual capacity to wonder as broadly as they'd need to in order to ask them in the first place. If something sounds plausible, they accept it in good faith.
4) Nostalgia is a nice concept. I suspect two things. One the average voter was probably better informed than they are now, but wasn't yet as jaded and therefore less likely to be an average voter. I'd like to see the propensity of intelligent people who vote rather than the propensity of business people who do (not all of whom are inherently smart). And two our education system isn't nearly as good, even though it tries to be more universal than it's predecessors.
5) ? 40% of young people weren't following the 9/11 attacks? That's one of the few times I can recall being parked in front of a TV all morning watching news. Another being when there was an attempting coup in Russia after the Soviet Union was collapsing and tanks were parked in front of the Kremlin..pointing in. I do recall watching 'news' a lot when the last shuttle exploded, but it really became repetitive nonsense. Same with Katrina. So what then were people following instead of 9/11? I have no idea, but I realize that after a couple hours (once the towers collapsed) there really wasn't new news on it. It was then time to try to piece together what had happened and start acting, something our government did rather poorly (unsurprisingly, we elected through our incompetence, a representative of incredible incompetence).
A funny thing happens when you walk out your own little world. The people you encounter are instantly ignorant, unenlightened, or just plain stupid.
A few points.
1) "voters are actually basically stupid".. cato and various other think tanks have demonstrated the repeated ignorance on social and economic policies of the general public. I think MIB had it right here. A person is smart, people are dumb, frightened...and you know it. I'd vote for a candidate who admitted this fundamental flaw in our republic (or who called it a republic for starters). The actual stats: "war is god's way of teaching American's geography", only rather poorly since people can't find Iraq on a map. Or know that we're the only nuclear power to have actually used one in combat. And if people are actually watching these silly commercials and basing their decisions on them, I feel extremely distressed.
2) O'Reilly and Stewart really don't have much difference anyway. Stewart does have more of a tendency to be even handed and make fun of both 'liberal' media and whatever it is that O'Reilly is. But to imagine that the people who watch are in some way distinctly aware of the situation is preposterous. Both are humorists poking at the silly world we live in, just in very, very different ways. I find one to be hilarious and the other to be a raving lunatic (best parodied by Stewart's alternative in Colbert). Quite simply, people who watch these types of shows (instead of say, Idol..shudder) are going to be reasonably more informed than the average person otherwise they won't understand what is going on.
3) It would be nice if we did actually give people facts when reporting. Instead people pay far too much attention to spin doctored speeches and politicking rather than the actual messages and specific facts that are outlined. The fact that Americans were deceived by Bush et al into going to war with/in Iraq doesn't mean Bush was a moron by itself, because he couldn't have done so without the media not bothering to ask for information it now conveniently ignores whilst commenting on the war's uncertain progress. If people are so uninformed as to make these weird conclusions, there's only really one agency to blame: the media. The average person doesn't have the time to ask questions and follow up on them. And they probably don't have the intellectual capacity to wonder as broadly as they'd need to in order to ask them in the first place. If something sounds plausible, they accept it in good faith.
4) Nostalgia is a nice concept. I suspect two things. One the average voter was probably better informed than they are now, but wasn't yet as jaded and therefore less likely to be an average voter. I'd like to see the propensity of intelligent people who vote rather than the propensity of business people who do (not all of whom are inherently smart). And two our education system isn't nearly as good, even though it tries to be more universal than it's predecessors.
5) ? 40% of young people weren't following the 9/11 attacks? That's one of the few times I can recall being parked in front of a TV all morning watching news. Another being when there was an attempting coup in Russia after the Soviet Union was collapsing and tanks were parked in front of the Kremlin..pointing in. I do recall watching 'news' a lot when the last shuttle exploded, but it really became repetitive nonsense. Same with Katrina. So what then were people following instead of 9/11? I have no idea, but I realize that after a couple hours (once the towers collapsed) there really wasn't new news on it. It was then time to try to piece together what had happened and start acting, something our government did rather poorly (unsurprisingly, we elected through our incompetence, a representative of incredible incompetence).
10 September 2008
mvp debates getting silly, again
So in the past week I've heard Dustin Pedroia come up as an AL MVP candidate, when he's not the best player on his own team (Youkilis). And now I've heard Carlos Delgado come up as an NL candidate, again, not the best player on his own team.
I'm not sure what the convention is, but it sounds like "Have good September on contending team when people are finally paying attention to baseball, or have such a monster season that nobody is even close and your team is still pretty good". A-Rod did this last year with one of the best seasons in history and had the AL MVP wrapped up by about June. Albert Pujols is having a similarly very good year (while playing hurt) but Lance Berkman is right there with him, and so his team. Both aren't necessarily even going to make the playoffs. As a result, they're busy putting other options up.
Pujols could probably win the NL MVP just about every year, so that would get boring. It would be better (palatable) if they were proposing people who should be in the debate (and not Delgado). That would be Carlos Beltran if it had to be a Met. Or Jose Reyes, again, if it has to be a Met. Delgado is basically racking up RBIs because he's got those two on base..and Beltran has almost as many RBI anyway. Or David Wright...again a Met with a ton of RBI.. so yes, Delgado is a good player having a good year (or half year-depending on how you look at it). But he has three players who are better than he is on his own team, plus probably a pitcher (Johan Santana). How he can come up in an MVP debate at all is beyond my ability to comprehend. If Manny Ramirez had been traded sooner, I'd suggest he's the best option for this "Have a great stretch run on contending team" candidate that people seem to want to vote on. (Hitting almost .400 as of today for LA).
Personally it looks to me like it should be Pujols anyway, and Berkman if not him. They are both on good teams competing in a tough division for post season potential (albeit slipping away) and neither has much in the way of supporting cast players. Take them away, the teams they are on suddenly suck. That sounds pretty valuable. Take Delgado off the Mets and they're still a very good team (with four very good players at least). That does not.
I'm not sure what the convention is, but it sounds like "Have good September on contending team when people are finally paying attention to baseball, or have such a monster season that nobody is even close and your team is still pretty good". A-Rod did this last year with one of the best seasons in history and had the AL MVP wrapped up by about June. Albert Pujols is having a similarly very good year (while playing hurt) but Lance Berkman is right there with him, and so his team. Both aren't necessarily even going to make the playoffs. As a result, they're busy putting other options up.
Pujols could probably win the NL MVP just about every year, so that would get boring. It would be better (palatable) if they were proposing people who should be in the debate (and not Delgado). That would be Carlos Beltran if it had to be a Met. Or Jose Reyes, again, if it has to be a Met. Delgado is basically racking up RBIs because he's got those two on base..and Beltran has almost as many RBI anyway. Or David Wright...again a Met with a ton of RBI.. so yes, Delgado is a good player having a good year (or half year-depending on how you look at it). But he has three players who are better than he is on his own team, plus probably a pitcher (Johan Santana). How he can come up in an MVP debate at all is beyond my ability to comprehend. If Manny Ramirez had been traded sooner, I'd suggest he's the best option for this "Have a great stretch run on contending team" candidate that people seem to want to vote on. (Hitting almost .400 as of today for LA).
Personally it looks to me like it should be Pujols anyway, and Berkman if not him. They are both on good teams competing in a tough division for post season potential (albeit slipping away) and neither has much in the way of supporting cast players. Take them away, the teams they are on suddenly suck. That sounds pretty valuable. Take Delgado off the Mets and they're still a very good team (with four very good players at least). That does not.
readings and musings
So I've been reading this: The Leaders We Deserved
I decided it was a sensible way to evaluate the relative merits of Presidents. Even if we are still free to disagree on the actual ranks the author put forth on historical Presidencies. (Notably it reads in some parts like it was clearly written by a Reagan conservative Democrat, though I'm rather likely to admit Reagan is clearly a far more effective President than most were. Even Obama said as much).
The basic assessment categories were:
Character -- basically if politician doesn't put private benefits over the national interest, or use the political power for the benefit of political cronies, this is considered good.
Vision: Do we have a plan?
Competence: Can we get that plan followed up on with administrative action, or is this plan so bad that we're all screwed?
Economic Policy: Is the economy going to get better or worse because of your policies (or lack thereof).
Civil Liberty/Human Rights: Are we to respect rule of law and extend the practice of that to each equally, or get bogged down in petty fights over race, gender, and creed.
Foreign policy/national defense: Are we at war and do we need to be?
One key issue which was addressed during this was where the prestige and power of the executive office was expanded or expended, was this by itself a good thing or was it used inappropriately. We have a jackass on our $20 in part because far too much respect is paid to Jackson for expanding and redefining the executive branch (he was literally called this and that's why we have a donkey as a party mascot). Essentially saying we want our Presidents to act like kings and not respect or work within the frames of our government in order to get things done. Rather than accept this as historical truth, it was necessary to arrive at reasoned categorical variables on which to base the quality of each administration rather than to use arbitrary political leanings to grind against one President's misgivings but forgive another for similar problems (Truman v Grant is instructive here). It's also instructive to consider that certain valuable members of our founding were less than effective as executives. Jefferson was the model philosopher-king by his own design, but he became rather petty when he couldn't resolve external problems (the Napoleonic War). He belongs on Rushmore for other reasons (him or Franklin, Ben got the money and some bad rap songs instead) but he was basically an above average president, not a great one. Madison on the other hand was a unmitigated disaster in most ways.
First there was the subjective and unusual term we hear bandied about "character". The author suggested that most Presidents were of decent enough stuff with the main exceptions being: Nixon, Buchanan, Polk, Pierce. And a few others (Clinton among them) who were of weaker stuff also. As an assessment of character, basically not whining and creating associative groups of 'those out to get me' and 'those who are my loyal minions' was the basic touchstone. The high mark was given to taking and expressing viewpoints that may be unpopular and tolerating the opposing viewpoints in an intellectually curious manner. Something not considered is whatever 'character' means now as it regards the private lives and usual sexual affairs while exercising political authority (unless it somehow became a major issue or especially a legal issue). This means Clinton's low mark (he's basically average otherwise) is probably based on other nefarious dealings and not his legal maneuvers during his embarrassing sex scandal. Oh, and this was the only good mark Carter got. Congratulations.
Basically people who get into politics as a manner of creating change (not in the buzzword sense, but in the Gandhi sense), as opposed to people who get into politics because they like being powerful are considered good character candidates. Buchanan for instance became a public official because he thought it would enhance his lawyer clientele, which seems like a rather shady reasoning to me. Once in office, using power for petty personal matters as opposed to resolving the business of the nation and the office it has appointed this person to execute is also a no-no. Clinton and Nixon are two very prominent examples here.
Had Mrs Clinton won the Democratic nomination, this Clinton sort of whiny attitude would have persisted and lends itself to suggesting she would make poor Presidential stuff anyway (vast right wing conspiracy, who cares?). Obama reacts differently to attacks on his character and demonstrates some distinct version of integrity. I'm not sure that it qualifies as 'strong character' because he so rarely works productively around people with opposing views (based on his voting records). Wilson had this problem. Because of his experience in Constitutional law and civil rights however, it does suggest Obama is accustomed to unpopular views intellectually (as indicated by his toeing the line of responsibility/government). Again, it's not clear where he's going with this. The media seems willing to paint him as someone out to work for the little guy (rather than himself). That type of politicking has been around since at least the time of Caesar. I demand results, not rhetoric, to determine the difference. Here his lack of experience is actually a detriment, something where there might be a record of accomplishments in this area to back up his statements. In other arenas, I usually don't care about political experience for the simple fact that people like Buchanan or George Wallace had plenty of it in resume fodder. They were still world-class scumbags undeserving of our attentions and respect.
McCain on the other hand seems willing to 'sacrifice' his popularity to accomplish things. As recent history demonstrates, this can be very, very bad. Lincoln, Washington and a few others however did this to the longer term benefit of the nation. I doubt Bush's exploits will come to be seen in this light, largely because his policymakers were of the sort of 'yes man' mentality that got Nixon et al into hot water. McCain didn't previously strike me as this sort of resistant thinker, because of his political adaptability, but this new version that he's been trotting out since he wrapped up the GOP nomination isn't very reassuring. About the only thing he is suggesting which is truly unpopular is his stand on campaign ethics, and that's only unpopular with Washington insiders and free speech advocates, not with the public en masse. Besides nobody important seriously thinks anything productive will come of it (because it would require legislators to actually represent the people who vote for them, not the people who get them elected). The war itself is no longer as divisive an issue as it was some months ago. Taxes are sort of divisive, but nobody really wants them to go up anyway. Abortion and other issues are strongly divided, but for reasons that no debate can ever resolve rationally. Where economists could be called upon to prevail upon some value in the tax code restructuring, there are no such experts on the value of the human 'soul' or who can attest to the state of attainment of 'personhood' (something Obama got himself into political hot water by pointing out).
Vision: What is it that a candidate wants to get done. Or, if unforeseen events alter the ability or priority, how well will they respond/adapt to this new situation and craft a new vision. Something always put in social psychology is the ability of a leader with a vision to manipulate others into following it. It is good and well if that vision entails certain benefits for the society without major deterrence to some of its members. Hitler for example would score 'well' on vision but the fact that his vision was inherently doomed based as it was on deep seated violent hatred. The fact that his economic policies created a booming war machine in the short term suggests that his powerful personality wasn't so different from the 'force of nature' type that typically governs in American politics. He was just more of an asshole. The book in effect compares Andrew Jackson's appeal to mainstream historians for decades to the mass hysteria that Hitler whipped up...because they both seriously abused the power granted them to commit atrocities. We didn't have industrialism and German efficiency around to gas the Cherokee out of existence, but we could march them away at gun point against our own laws.
Basically what this means it that an effective President should have a mission, somewhat broad in scope (but not excessively broad like LBJ). They should not be simply an administer of men, managing events as they go on without a plan as to how things can be shaped or an agenda that they would like to see implemented. Reagan was the essential modern President in this regard, possessing only vision and the wit to get others to make use of it. It is said that he had basically one speech and only four or five ideas. Obama has something like a vision, but nobody really knows what it is (his acceptance speech was really the first reliable hints of policies he's made). McCain seems to believe that either DC should be accountable to the public or the public should be able to trust DC to deal with matters that it wants attended to. That's at least a vision. I'm not sure it's either realistic or something he really believes himself. If he's willing to work to gain some level of trust, fine. I don't think that people should necessarily 'trust' their government, in the sense that they can rely upon it. I suspect it is best if people are at least suspicious of it, enough to be aware and probing into its activity, but reasonably assured that it is doing what we put it to task for (namely the establishment/maintenance of a reasonably organized society with few distractions from our freedoms posed by maniacs who don't understand that freedom doesn't mean getting to pee on restaurant booths and their patrons).
I would basically define the 'competence' of a President as this: someone who understands that there are always two Americas; the one that is too stupid to know what it wants and the one that is too snobby and disaffected to care what it gets. The mission of the Presidency is to get things done in spite of people always getting in the way from both directions. This was the one area Jackson was especially good at because he used his political capital so effectively to do things he wanted to (despite the fact that they were singularly stupid). I suspect Bush may be viewed in much the same way because his basic policy objectives since he took office have been carried out even though few of them make any sense or come without some sort of strange religious attachments (AIDs funding for example).
It is unclear what, if anything, that Obama has as a vision or some essential message that he wants done. His specific policies are so far somewhat reminiscent of progressivism and Keynesian systems. What we can rely on is this: who he has picked to be advisors in both his past and his VP choice (a de facto cabinet member). I don't see people of angular views who will obstruct his initiatives, but I also don't see people who will present sound advice, even if it is contrary to party lines. Biden is pretty much a hardcore liberal in the American sense of the word. McCain by contrast has shown an ability or willingness to try to get things done while in the Senate. That's a good thing..but he's now re-imagining himself as this conservative party ideologue of sorts by nominating a stealthy hardliner on social issues like abortion. I'm not sure that America really needs more concern over our sex lives as a significant portion of public policy discourse with some headaches in economics and some festering problems with Islamic free radicals, not to mention being in two shooting wars already. True, the sort of people likely to support McCain policies are likely to support these social causes and see a clear distinction between himself and Obama (and thereby mobilize in greater numbers the way they did for Bush). But it doesn't bode well for his ability to focus in on key problems or to set important national priorities for his administration.
Economics is basically a hazy subject for the common person. Bush-McCain (yes there's not much difference here), is fairly straight-forward. Tax less, regulate less, hope the free market figures it out. Roosevelt (Teddy, Franklin was an economic moron) had what I see as an appropriate view. The market will eventually figure out what is in the best long term interests, but not quickly enough to prevent major social problems from emerging. Intervening should be used as a friendly reminder to both labor and capital to work in the collective interest of the whole and not simply in the interest and self-interest of the present. Long term prosperity is far superior to short term indulgences or excesses. I think from what I've heard Obama kind of understands this essential message, but hasn't quite figured out how to make it work. For example, the simplest way to fix the housing markets is to make the loan documents standardized into a simple summary page. The actual legal stuff that we all sign can be specific..but people really need a way to boil down the actual terms that they're signing into without reading 30 pages of legalese (and then suffering a Yoda induced migraine). Instead, we get bailout loans?
While it might make some economic sense to (slightly) raise tax on the highest incomes (because of obscure economic premises like the Laffer curve), Obama's failure to understand that 1) spending increases while cutting taxes is a bigger issue because it guarantees inflation and stabs economic growth in the heart..and 2) capital gains tax revenue most definitely increased when the taxes were cut..suggest there's a problem with how he'd actually address the labor-capital dilemma as well as national budget policies in general. For those interested, this was the one area Clinton did well in, he was mostly unremarkable/average except for his personal excesses. The author gave "great" to Washington, Lincoln, TR, and Reagan. Ike, Clinton, JFK and Coolidge did fine (among others). The usual suspects adorn the terrible: Jackson/Van Buren and Hoover presiding over the worst Depressions we've had, Nixon and Carter over the worst inflation while also exacerbating the crisis and Madison-Monroe who were apparently just unconcerned with money.
Civil rights: Obama was a civil rights/constitutional lawyer for a time. This is the one arena he gets significant support from libertarians. His answers to the types of questions, even when unscripted, sound sensible, thought-out, and most importantly they are consistent with an essential belief in the importance of both rule of law and civilian/minority rights within that context. The freedom of all must be secured for the freedom of any to be maintained. McCain gets/got some support because he opposes torture (for obvious personal reasons). But simply not torturing someone while otherwise evading our rule of law is not quite the same thing as protecting civil liberties. Considering the laundry list of reckless things Bush v2 has done in this area, it's clearly an important issue worth seeking out the opinions and agendas of prospective candidates. The author rated only 3 Presidents with a 'great' tag here: Lincoln, LBJ, and Grant. Most of the bad seeds are during a long run of mediocrity around Lincoln and Grant, with only Ben Harrison and TR getting a 'good' and everybody else from Jackson to Wilson getting smacked as poor or worse and only Nixon coming outside this run. Considering most of the important work was done by Congress during that stretch anyway, the only thing a President needed to do was push things along privately. None did so, and some even pushed the wrong way (Buchanan or Wilson).
Foreign policy. This is for me the biggest reason to pick a Presidential candidate. Everything else is potentially set and enacted by Congress (or at least, it's supposed to be. The Executive Orders log is pretty extensive now days). But foreign policy tones and the representation of the nation occurs, in part, through the central public figure and elected representative of that nation. I give some respect to McCain for helping force some marginally useful public changes in the course and conduct of the Iraq war, but I don't think it was wise public policy to get involved in the first place. While Obama seems quite popular in Europe, that's not necessarily any indication that his policies will be or that his appointed agents and manner of dealing with foreign entanglements will be any better than McCain's. The issue with McCain is that he basically has assumed the mantle of foreign policy expert on the basis of being shot down in a war and held captive. That gives him some very necessary insights and very traumatic memories I am sure. I'm not sure that it gives him any credible geo-political maneuvering skills. It's funny watching Bush try to emulate Reagan for this reason. Reagan had experience in bargaining from his days as a union leader and various other offices. Bush basically does the opposite of bargain. Reagan never quite did either, but he at least was able to make concessions where they were needed to get other parts of his agenda through and to respect (at least publicly) his opposition. Bush basically mocks or blames his (for reasons at turns both petty and insightful, simply mocking Bush's stupidity without sound proposals of your own isn't very useful opposition). There were plenty of good ones here to draw examples from, so the key was to avoid the stupid ones: Madison, Carter, LBJ, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Basically don't be uninvolved (the 20s guys) but don't be too aggressive (Madison/LBJ). And don't be a ninny (Jimmy).
The book basically had two feels. One reminds me of a story Tolstoy tells about meeting a remote tribe and encountering their unexpected reverence for the great "Lincoln". Lincoln is argued as "the best President" precisely because he did so well in very trying times and probably would have done just as well in other times..though not to be so highly and broadly regarded. Considering the two preceding Presidents and his successor are the bottom 3, the entire situation probably should have been averted to begin with (by picking some better candidates).
And the second is to establish important criteria for making electoral decisions by observing some key distinctive traits of both good Presidential material and bad. After basically summarizing these, Obama comes out looking ok, but certainly not great (probably better than Clinton, but that's no bragging rights). McCain comes out looking decent in some areas, but has demonstrated a curious and disturbing sentiment in making the principle elective issues the War and abortion (Taxes everybody votes against anyway). Since he is not qualified enough to make distinctive and useful observations about foreign policy, it would be interesting to know how he intends to make further conclusions and who he chooses to advise him. Bush v2 picked some disastrously idiotic people and ignored/politically neutered the one guy who had some credibility in his administration (Powell). And being rather restrictive of social policies on which he has shown little personal interest seems rather strange as well. At least Obama manages to seem thoughtful about these topics, even when they're not useful discourse for our public policy makers.
I decided it was a sensible way to evaluate the relative merits of Presidents. Even if we are still free to disagree on the actual ranks the author put forth on historical Presidencies. (Notably it reads in some parts like it was clearly written by a Reagan conservative Democrat, though I'm rather likely to admit Reagan is clearly a far more effective President than most were. Even Obama said as much).
The basic assessment categories were:
Character -- basically if politician doesn't put private benefits over the national interest, or use the political power for the benefit of political cronies, this is considered good.
Vision: Do we have a plan?
Competence: Can we get that plan followed up on with administrative action, or is this plan so bad that we're all screwed?
Economic Policy: Is the economy going to get better or worse because of your policies (or lack thereof).
Civil Liberty/Human Rights: Are we to respect rule of law and extend the practice of that to each equally, or get bogged down in petty fights over race, gender, and creed.
Foreign policy/national defense: Are we at war and do we need to be?
One key issue which was addressed during this was where the prestige and power of the executive office was expanded or expended, was this by itself a good thing or was it used inappropriately. We have a jackass on our $20 in part because far too much respect is paid to Jackson for expanding and redefining the executive branch (he was literally called this and that's why we have a donkey as a party mascot). Essentially saying we want our Presidents to act like kings and not respect or work within the frames of our government in order to get things done. Rather than accept this as historical truth, it was necessary to arrive at reasoned categorical variables on which to base the quality of each administration rather than to use arbitrary political leanings to grind against one President's misgivings but forgive another for similar problems (Truman v Grant is instructive here). It's also instructive to consider that certain valuable members of our founding were less than effective as executives. Jefferson was the model philosopher-king by his own design, but he became rather petty when he couldn't resolve external problems (the Napoleonic War). He belongs on Rushmore for other reasons (him or Franklin, Ben got the money and some bad rap songs instead) but he was basically an above average president, not a great one. Madison on the other hand was a unmitigated disaster in most ways.
First there was the subjective and unusual term we hear bandied about "character". The author suggested that most Presidents were of decent enough stuff with the main exceptions being: Nixon, Buchanan, Polk, Pierce. And a few others (Clinton among them) who were of weaker stuff also. As an assessment of character, basically not whining and creating associative groups of 'those out to get me' and 'those who are my loyal minions' was the basic touchstone. The high mark was given to taking and expressing viewpoints that may be unpopular and tolerating the opposing viewpoints in an intellectually curious manner. Something not considered is whatever 'character' means now as it regards the private lives and usual sexual affairs while exercising political authority (unless it somehow became a major issue or especially a legal issue). This means Clinton's low mark (he's basically average otherwise) is probably based on other nefarious dealings and not his legal maneuvers during his embarrassing sex scandal. Oh, and this was the only good mark Carter got. Congratulations.
Basically people who get into politics as a manner of creating change (not in the buzzword sense, but in the Gandhi sense), as opposed to people who get into politics because they like being powerful are considered good character candidates. Buchanan for instance became a public official because he thought it would enhance his lawyer clientele, which seems like a rather shady reasoning to me. Once in office, using power for petty personal matters as opposed to resolving the business of the nation and the office it has appointed this person to execute is also a no-no. Clinton and Nixon are two very prominent examples here.
Had Mrs Clinton won the Democratic nomination, this Clinton sort of whiny attitude would have persisted and lends itself to suggesting she would make poor Presidential stuff anyway (vast right wing conspiracy, who cares?). Obama reacts differently to attacks on his character and demonstrates some distinct version of integrity. I'm not sure that it qualifies as 'strong character' because he so rarely works productively around people with opposing views (based on his voting records). Wilson had this problem. Because of his experience in Constitutional law and civil rights however, it does suggest Obama is accustomed to unpopular views intellectually (as indicated by his toeing the line of responsibility/government). Again, it's not clear where he's going with this. The media seems willing to paint him as someone out to work for the little guy (rather than himself). That type of politicking has been around since at least the time of Caesar. I demand results, not rhetoric, to determine the difference. Here his lack of experience is actually a detriment, something where there might be a record of accomplishments in this area to back up his statements. In other arenas, I usually don't care about political experience for the simple fact that people like Buchanan or George Wallace had plenty of it in resume fodder. They were still world-class scumbags undeserving of our attentions and respect.
McCain on the other hand seems willing to 'sacrifice' his popularity to accomplish things. As recent history demonstrates, this can be very, very bad. Lincoln, Washington and a few others however did this to the longer term benefit of the nation. I doubt Bush's exploits will come to be seen in this light, largely because his policymakers were of the sort of 'yes man' mentality that got Nixon et al into hot water. McCain didn't previously strike me as this sort of resistant thinker, because of his political adaptability, but this new version that he's been trotting out since he wrapped up the GOP nomination isn't very reassuring. About the only thing he is suggesting which is truly unpopular is his stand on campaign ethics, and that's only unpopular with Washington insiders and free speech advocates, not with the public en masse. Besides nobody important seriously thinks anything productive will come of it (because it would require legislators to actually represent the people who vote for them, not the people who get them elected). The war itself is no longer as divisive an issue as it was some months ago. Taxes are sort of divisive, but nobody really wants them to go up anyway. Abortion and other issues are strongly divided, but for reasons that no debate can ever resolve rationally. Where economists could be called upon to prevail upon some value in the tax code restructuring, there are no such experts on the value of the human 'soul' or who can attest to the state of attainment of 'personhood' (something Obama got himself into political hot water by pointing out).
Vision: What is it that a candidate wants to get done. Or, if unforeseen events alter the ability or priority, how well will they respond/adapt to this new situation and craft a new vision. Something always put in social psychology is the ability of a leader with a vision to manipulate others into following it. It is good and well if that vision entails certain benefits for the society without major deterrence to some of its members. Hitler for example would score 'well' on vision but the fact that his vision was inherently doomed based as it was on deep seated violent hatred. The fact that his economic policies created a booming war machine in the short term suggests that his powerful personality wasn't so different from the 'force of nature' type that typically governs in American politics. He was just more of an asshole. The book in effect compares Andrew Jackson's appeal to mainstream historians for decades to the mass hysteria that Hitler whipped up...because they both seriously abused the power granted them to commit atrocities. We didn't have industrialism and German efficiency around to gas the Cherokee out of existence, but we could march them away at gun point against our own laws.
Basically what this means it that an effective President should have a mission, somewhat broad in scope (but not excessively broad like LBJ). They should not be simply an administer of men, managing events as they go on without a plan as to how things can be shaped or an agenda that they would like to see implemented. Reagan was the essential modern President in this regard, possessing only vision and the wit to get others to make use of it. It is said that he had basically one speech and only four or five ideas. Obama has something like a vision, but nobody really knows what it is (his acceptance speech was really the first reliable hints of policies he's made). McCain seems to believe that either DC should be accountable to the public or the public should be able to trust DC to deal with matters that it wants attended to. That's at least a vision. I'm not sure it's either realistic or something he really believes himself. If he's willing to work to gain some level of trust, fine. I don't think that people should necessarily 'trust' their government, in the sense that they can rely upon it. I suspect it is best if people are at least suspicious of it, enough to be aware and probing into its activity, but reasonably assured that it is doing what we put it to task for (namely the establishment/maintenance of a reasonably organized society with few distractions from our freedoms posed by maniacs who don't understand that freedom doesn't mean getting to pee on restaurant booths and their patrons).
I would basically define the 'competence' of a President as this: someone who understands that there are always two Americas; the one that is too stupid to know what it wants and the one that is too snobby and disaffected to care what it gets. The mission of the Presidency is to get things done in spite of people always getting in the way from both directions. This was the one area Jackson was especially good at because he used his political capital so effectively to do things he wanted to (despite the fact that they were singularly stupid). I suspect Bush may be viewed in much the same way because his basic policy objectives since he took office have been carried out even though few of them make any sense or come without some sort of strange religious attachments (AIDs funding for example).
It is unclear what, if anything, that Obama has as a vision or some essential message that he wants done. His specific policies are so far somewhat reminiscent of progressivism and Keynesian systems. What we can rely on is this: who he has picked to be advisors in both his past and his VP choice (a de facto cabinet member). I don't see people of angular views who will obstruct his initiatives, but I also don't see people who will present sound advice, even if it is contrary to party lines. Biden is pretty much a hardcore liberal in the American sense of the word. McCain by contrast has shown an ability or willingness to try to get things done while in the Senate. That's a good thing..but he's now re-imagining himself as this conservative party ideologue of sorts by nominating a stealthy hardliner on social issues like abortion. I'm not sure that America really needs more concern over our sex lives as a significant portion of public policy discourse with some headaches in economics and some festering problems with Islamic free radicals, not to mention being in two shooting wars already. True, the sort of people likely to support McCain policies are likely to support these social causes and see a clear distinction between himself and Obama (and thereby mobilize in greater numbers the way they did for Bush). But it doesn't bode well for his ability to focus in on key problems or to set important national priorities for his administration.
Economics is basically a hazy subject for the common person. Bush-McCain (yes there's not much difference here), is fairly straight-forward. Tax less, regulate less, hope the free market figures it out. Roosevelt (Teddy, Franklin was an economic moron) had what I see as an appropriate view. The market will eventually figure out what is in the best long term interests, but not quickly enough to prevent major social problems from emerging. Intervening should be used as a friendly reminder to both labor and capital to work in the collective interest of the whole and not simply in the interest and self-interest of the present. Long term prosperity is far superior to short term indulgences or excesses. I think from what I've heard Obama kind of understands this essential message, but hasn't quite figured out how to make it work. For example, the simplest way to fix the housing markets is to make the loan documents standardized into a simple summary page. The actual legal stuff that we all sign can be specific..but people really need a way to boil down the actual terms that they're signing into without reading 30 pages of legalese (and then suffering a Yoda induced migraine). Instead, we get bailout loans?
While it might make some economic sense to (slightly) raise tax on the highest incomes (because of obscure economic premises like the Laffer curve), Obama's failure to understand that 1) spending increases while cutting taxes is a bigger issue because it guarantees inflation and stabs economic growth in the heart..and 2) capital gains tax revenue most definitely increased when the taxes were cut..suggest there's a problem with how he'd actually address the labor-capital dilemma as well as national budget policies in general. For those interested, this was the one area Clinton did well in, he was mostly unremarkable/average except for his personal excesses. The author gave "great" to Washington, Lincoln, TR, and Reagan. Ike, Clinton, JFK and Coolidge did fine (among others). The usual suspects adorn the terrible: Jackson/Van Buren and Hoover presiding over the worst Depressions we've had, Nixon and Carter over the worst inflation while also exacerbating the crisis and Madison-Monroe who were apparently just unconcerned with money.
Civil rights: Obama was a civil rights/constitutional lawyer for a time. This is the one arena he gets significant support from libertarians. His answers to the types of questions, even when unscripted, sound sensible, thought-out, and most importantly they are consistent with an essential belief in the importance of both rule of law and civilian/minority rights within that context. The freedom of all must be secured for the freedom of any to be maintained. McCain gets/got some support because he opposes torture (for obvious personal reasons). But simply not torturing someone while otherwise evading our rule of law is not quite the same thing as protecting civil liberties. Considering the laundry list of reckless things Bush v2 has done in this area, it's clearly an important issue worth seeking out the opinions and agendas of prospective candidates. The author rated only 3 Presidents with a 'great' tag here: Lincoln, LBJ, and Grant. Most of the bad seeds are during a long run of mediocrity around Lincoln and Grant, with only Ben Harrison and TR getting a 'good' and everybody else from Jackson to Wilson getting smacked as poor or worse and only Nixon coming outside this run. Considering most of the important work was done by Congress during that stretch anyway, the only thing a President needed to do was push things along privately. None did so, and some even pushed the wrong way (Buchanan or Wilson).
Foreign policy. This is for me the biggest reason to pick a Presidential candidate. Everything else is potentially set and enacted by Congress (or at least, it's supposed to be. The Executive Orders log is pretty extensive now days). But foreign policy tones and the representation of the nation occurs, in part, through the central public figure and elected representative of that nation. I give some respect to McCain for helping force some marginally useful public changes in the course and conduct of the Iraq war, but I don't think it was wise public policy to get involved in the first place. While Obama seems quite popular in Europe, that's not necessarily any indication that his policies will be or that his appointed agents and manner of dealing with foreign entanglements will be any better than McCain's. The issue with McCain is that he basically has assumed the mantle of foreign policy expert on the basis of being shot down in a war and held captive. That gives him some very necessary insights and very traumatic memories I am sure. I'm not sure that it gives him any credible geo-political maneuvering skills. It's funny watching Bush try to emulate Reagan for this reason. Reagan had experience in bargaining from his days as a union leader and various other offices. Bush basically does the opposite of bargain. Reagan never quite did either, but he at least was able to make concessions where they were needed to get other parts of his agenda through and to respect (at least publicly) his opposition. Bush basically mocks or blames his (for reasons at turns both petty and insightful, simply mocking Bush's stupidity without sound proposals of your own isn't very useful opposition). There were plenty of good ones here to draw examples from, so the key was to avoid the stupid ones: Madison, Carter, LBJ, Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. Basically don't be uninvolved (the 20s guys) but don't be too aggressive (Madison/LBJ). And don't be a ninny (Jimmy).
The book basically had two feels. One reminds me of a story Tolstoy tells about meeting a remote tribe and encountering their unexpected reverence for the great "Lincoln". Lincoln is argued as "the best President" precisely because he did so well in very trying times and probably would have done just as well in other times..though not to be so highly and broadly regarded. Considering the two preceding Presidents and his successor are the bottom 3, the entire situation probably should have been averted to begin with (by picking some better candidates).
And the second is to establish important criteria for making electoral decisions by observing some key distinctive traits of both good Presidential material and bad. After basically summarizing these, Obama comes out looking ok, but certainly not great (probably better than Clinton, but that's no bragging rights). McCain comes out looking decent in some areas, but has demonstrated a curious and disturbing sentiment in making the principle elective issues the War and abortion (Taxes everybody votes against anyway). Since he is not qualified enough to make distinctive and useful observations about foreign policy, it would be interesting to know how he intends to make further conclusions and who he chooses to advise him. Bush v2 picked some disastrously idiotic people and ignored/politically neutered the one guy who had some credibility in his administration (Powell). And being rather restrictive of social policies on which he has shown little personal interest seems rather strange as well. At least Obama manages to seem thoughtful about these topics, even when they're not useful discourse for our public policy makers.
05 September 2008
magnetic cows and McCain 2000
Listening to the economist, observation made of McCain: He sounds increasingly like Bush 3, we preferred McCain 1. I think that sums it up.
Something unaccounted for is that with this sort of political maneuvering (and picking a 'right-wing' VP), he's energized that base of people, a group not as large as the moderate/independent voter but far more likely voters who previously weren't all that excited about his campaign. In other words, he became the rock star (I suppose this could be called the Christian rock star) candidate at least last week. It would be interesting to see how that fares over the last two months. Because if Palin becomes polarizing rather than defined as the reformist outsider that they seem to want to portray, there will be a backlash to this. I have some doubts already about the viability of that message, much will depend on her. Still, there was an unprecedented number of people (~37 million) watching a Vice Presidential candidate's speech two nights ago. It's not clear what they all thought, but there's an old saying: "There is no such thing as bad press". McCain probably knows this better than most, having been available in the press more than most and being generally known for his sarcastic quips and not his speech making abilities. It will be interesting to see whether it's more important to energize his base at the cost of possibly alienating moderates or to appeal to more moderate positions; still the challenge of Obama's camp as well, given the rather liberal voting records, vs rhetoric, of Obama-Biden. I'm realizing I'm becoming a detached observer in yet another arena: politics, because I have no horse to bet on with a shot of winning. In a campaign that's usually about appealing to moderates (President), there are disappointingly few moderate positions.
Also, cows apparently like having a north-south orientation along the magnetic poles. And that study was carried out with the help of Google Earth's photos to examine cattle ranches. I'm not sure whether to be delighted or concerned.
Something unaccounted for is that with this sort of political maneuvering (and picking a 'right-wing' VP), he's energized that base of people, a group not as large as the moderate/independent voter but far more likely voters who previously weren't all that excited about his campaign. In other words, he became the rock star (I suppose this could be called the Christian rock star) candidate at least last week. It would be interesting to see how that fares over the last two months. Because if Palin becomes polarizing rather than defined as the reformist outsider that they seem to want to portray, there will be a backlash to this. I have some doubts already about the viability of that message, much will depend on her. Still, there was an unprecedented number of people (~37 million) watching a Vice Presidential candidate's speech two nights ago. It's not clear what they all thought, but there's an old saying: "There is no such thing as bad press". McCain probably knows this better than most, having been available in the press more than most and being generally known for his sarcastic quips and not his speech making abilities. It will be interesting to see whether it's more important to energize his base at the cost of possibly alienating moderates or to appeal to more moderate positions; still the challenge of Obama's camp as well, given the rather liberal voting records, vs rhetoric, of Obama-Biden. I'm realizing I'm becoming a detached observer in yet another arena: politics, because I have no horse to bet on with a shot of winning. In a campaign that's usually about appealing to moderates (President), there are disappointingly few moderate positions.
Also, cows apparently like having a north-south orientation along the magnetic poles. And that study was carried out with the help of Google Earth's photos to examine cattle ranches. I'm not sure whether to be delighted or concerned.
04 September 2008
frolf
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/09/summer-of-steve.html
No, that's not me or another blog of mine. We Steves tend to all be annoying political pundits of some vein or another... That one at least is aware that Georgia invaded Russia first (as apparently John McCain was not during his speech tonight).
Since I had on occasion had debates over what to refer to Frisbee golf as, because that's clearly not a snappy or short enough title...this seems like a good start: Frolf. F-Golf just suggests derision with the game (or it's alternate titling system). Golf suggests something different to people unfamiliar with this alternative. Frisbee suggests a hippie commune (based on having been called a hippie by a past neighbour for throwing around a Frisbee in the common yard area, an activity he joined in with). This by contrast is a distinct 'word'.
I imagine the idea that someone should be marketing specially manufactured towels for that specific purpose of wiping sweat, grass, dirt, etc off of Frisbee discs after each throw hasn't occurred to anyone. It's probably a good thing. The activity already has grown to resemble a cross between 'cheaper competitive version of golf' and 'stoner past time'. I'm not sure what that makes it, because it's not physically intense enough to be on the X-games anytime soon like snowboarding vs skiing was. I suppose it resembles a pick-up basketball game with the usual mishmash of people who are ultra competitive and just looking for something marginally athletic to focus their energy into and people just looking to socialize while participating in exercise. I found it entertaining at least, but I haven't gone and sunk money into my own set of discs and a large bag to carry them. I'm either too broke or too cheap.
I can't recall very many women playing it from my own excursions (I imagine there's a similar dynamic to playing golf, something I have done much, much less of). While I'm fairly sure the differences of competitive intensity and social interaction to celebrate as such aren't quite as stark as monastic men in focused intensity vs jovial women in carefree endeavours, there's probably a reason that there are fewer women playing these types of individual sports. I'm pretty sure I would have noticed if it were otherwise.
No, that's not me or another blog of mine. We Steves tend to all be annoying political pundits of some vein or another... That one at least is aware that Georgia invaded Russia first (as apparently John McCain was not during his speech tonight).
Since I had on occasion had debates over what to refer to Frisbee golf as, because that's clearly not a snappy or short enough title...this seems like a good start: Frolf. F-Golf just suggests derision with the game (or it's alternate titling system). Golf suggests something different to people unfamiliar with this alternative. Frisbee suggests a hippie commune (based on having been called a hippie by a past neighbour for throwing around a Frisbee in the common yard area, an activity he joined in with). This by contrast is a distinct 'word'.
I imagine the idea that someone should be marketing specially manufactured towels for that specific purpose of wiping sweat, grass, dirt, etc off of Frisbee discs after each throw hasn't occurred to anyone. It's probably a good thing. The activity already has grown to resemble a cross between 'cheaper competitive version of golf' and 'stoner past time'. I'm not sure what that makes it, because it's not physically intense enough to be on the X-games anytime soon like snowboarding vs skiing was. I suppose it resembles a pick-up basketball game with the usual mishmash of people who are ultra competitive and just looking for something marginally athletic to focus their energy into and people just looking to socialize while participating in exercise. I found it entertaining at least, but I haven't gone and sunk money into my own set of discs and a large bag to carry them. I'm either too broke or too cheap.
I can't recall very many women playing it from my own excursions (I imagine there's a similar dynamic to playing golf, something I have done much, much less of). While I'm fairly sure the differences of competitive intensity and social interaction to celebrate as such aren't quite as stark as monastic men in focused intensity vs jovial women in carefree endeavours, there's probably a reason that there are fewer women playing these types of individual sports. I'm pretty sure I would have noticed if it were otherwise.
edumacation
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/05/21/2008-05-21_bronx_8thgraders_boycott_practice_exam_b-1.html
Why was this not a bigger story. I'd like to also know what the outcome of it has been, should anyone be following it. When I have more time, I will look into the particulars.
While the story makes it sound like the protest was organized or suggested by a corrupting teacher, that to me actually seems like a good idea. Teaching to standardized tests has no basis on how people learn nor is it an effective method of education. People can very easily learn techniques to cram information into their short term memories and then "forget" what they learned a few minutes after. I've seen people try to cram vocabulary words for SATs for example. What's the point? What the tests were originally designed for is to measure the relative academic meritocracy of individuals who have some academic aptitude (as determined by college admissions boards that is). Not to enforce upon people a standardized means of education.
In any case, this silly notion has actually gained credibility in BOTH political parties. Meaning our education system is probably good and fucked for the foreseeable future. I realize there is importance in defining a 'bad' school district or 'bad' teachers and some reason to hold such things accountable. However, in the absence of meaningful educational choices for parents (and their children), such accountability is worthless. We have such choices in some level for college, made more flexible by the awarding of scholarships or financial aid.
Somehow this meritocracy system for college has not translated downward. Instead we are infected socially with the ideas that 1) all children are inherently capable of being academically valuable. and 2) all schools are/should be equally capable of creating this in a uniform and standardized way. The first notion is quite obviously idiotic. People are naturally different in their skills and developmental abilities, and of course, our social system is set up to repress actual academia (despite parental wishes for future Nobel laureates). And the second problem is that schools should not be uniform. It should be rather easy to compare to one another, yes. But there are methods to compare universities to one another without them using the same basic means of imparting knowledge and experience to their respective student bodies (namely that some schools are known for specific strains of academic thought). Why can't we somehow adopt a similar notion for primary education beyond the basic necessities (which ought to be done by elementary school anyway, certainly by middle school).
Why was this not a bigger story. I'd like to also know what the outcome of it has been, should anyone be following it. When I have more time, I will look into the particulars.
While the story makes it sound like the protest was organized or suggested by a corrupting teacher, that to me actually seems like a good idea. Teaching to standardized tests has no basis on how people learn nor is it an effective method of education. People can very easily learn techniques to cram information into their short term memories and then "forget" what they learned a few minutes after. I've seen people try to cram vocabulary words for SATs for example. What's the point? What the tests were originally designed for is to measure the relative academic meritocracy of individuals who have some academic aptitude (as determined by college admissions boards that is). Not to enforce upon people a standardized means of education.
In any case, this silly notion has actually gained credibility in BOTH political parties. Meaning our education system is probably good and fucked for the foreseeable future. I realize there is importance in defining a 'bad' school district or 'bad' teachers and some reason to hold such things accountable. However, in the absence of meaningful educational choices for parents (and their children), such accountability is worthless. We have such choices in some level for college, made more flexible by the awarding of scholarships or financial aid.
Somehow this meritocracy system for college has not translated downward. Instead we are infected socially with the ideas that 1) all children are inherently capable of being academically valuable. and 2) all schools are/should be equally capable of creating this in a uniform and standardized way. The first notion is quite obviously idiotic. People are naturally different in their skills and developmental abilities, and of course, our social system is set up to repress actual academia (despite parental wishes for future Nobel laureates). And the second problem is that schools should not be uniform. It should be rather easy to compare to one another, yes. But there are methods to compare universities to one another without them using the same basic means of imparting knowledge and experience to their respective student bodies (namely that some schools are known for specific strains of academic thought). Why can't we somehow adopt a similar notion for primary education beyond the basic necessities (which ought to be done by elementary school anyway, certainly by middle school).
the drug war continues
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/ap_on_re_us/drug_abuse
There's several key points that are easy to mock.
"The earlier you use drugs, alcohol and cigarettes, the more likely you are to have a lifelong problem," Walters said.
Since I have a doctor parent, I've long since known this is incorrect, at least slightly. The actual likelihood for having a lifelong problem is typically inherent to your person and genetics. It has nothing to do with when you pick up a drug habit, whether it is at 12 or 47. If you pick it up at a young age, you are more likely to continue, but not because you were young when you started. It's simply a matter of whether you are the type of person that becomes addicted to substance(s). Usually this is easily determined from family histories. It does mean that if you start as a child and are this type of person you will have a difficult lifelong problem to deal with. There are vast, overwhelming numbers of experimental teens and young adults who never again try these substances. I think that suggests there's something else that makes a drug habit appear other than when one experiments with it. The fact that someone who is in charge of the administration's drug policy (Walters) thinks otherwise bothers me, because it isn't consistent with the facts.
"A World Health Organization survey of 17 countries this year showed that people in the U.S. were more likely than people elsewhere to have tried illicit drugs. The U.S. tied New Zealand for the highest rate of marijuana use and far outpaced other countries on cocaine use, the survey found."
-- Duh. I'm not sure if the survey included England or Holland (presumably). But my own studies of those countries found that their progressive treatment/distribution attitudes actually resulted in far lower drug abuse levels than we have here and, more importantly, less crime as a result of drug abuse and drug trafficking. England and Switzerland give out methadone or even heroin to addicts (and in far greater personal quantities than we do) and have far less heroin users than we do. More importantly, they're usually functional people capable of having jobs or conducting daily affairs because their addiction is being monitored and more or less under control.
"higher levels of alcohol...a higher minimum legal alcohol drinking age than many comparable developed countries" -- I still don't understand why alcohol is considered a separate agent from narcotics. It has distinct physiological effects, yes, but the sociological ones are roughly similar (if one considers what happens when say alcohol distribution is banned or restricted). More importantly, the fact that alcohol consumption is illegal at those younger ages puts a higher contact rate with other illicit activities (such as those illegal narcotics). As I've put forth previously, it would be a far wiser course to bring up children with a sense of moderation as it pertains to substances. If they don't like them, so be it. If you (as a parent or concerned citizen) don't want them to partake, you are welcome to that opinion and are free to express the reasons for such restraint. I'm not sure that it's always necessary to totally abstain. I personally find drunk/stoned people annoying, but there are other anti-social factors involved in my determination, meaning there are probably times where it can be an exercise of relatively harmless fun for other people (and not around me). There are similar social problems as far as human sexuality. A topic for other times.
"More than half the people who tried drugs for the first time in 2007 used marijuana"
The only reason alcohol or marijuana is at all a 'gateway' drug is because it creates market connections with people who sell other varieties of mind-altering substances. If not directly, then certainly by proxy (such as wandering through the neighbourhood to find the pot contact). The type of people willing to experiment with harder substances would have done so anyway (see addiction studies). One would expect a much higher number of variations of drug use if marijuana was somehow 'not good enough' for the average drug user as the gateway theory implies. The average drug addict, perhaps. In the average drug experimenter, it seems to work just fine.
There are reasons to be relatively concerned with the amount of narcotics and alcohol individuals consume. There are plenty of social problems which I see cause for alarm or disdain (not least of which is because I don't participate in such things). That doesn't mean our first line of defence should be interdiction and distributive bans. Or that our defensive tactics should ignore basic medical knowledge about drugs/drug addiction and the extended social consequences of our policies. There is greater danger in asserting that abstaining from such substances, even by force, is the correct method of living. Not everyone feels/thinks that way, for reasons which are too numerous to elaborate on.
There's several key points that are easy to mock.
"The earlier you use drugs, alcohol and cigarettes, the more likely you are to have a lifelong problem," Walters said.
Since I have a doctor parent, I've long since known this is incorrect, at least slightly. The actual likelihood for having a lifelong problem is typically inherent to your person and genetics. It has nothing to do with when you pick up a drug habit, whether it is at 12 or 47. If you pick it up at a young age, you are more likely to continue, but not because you were young when you started. It's simply a matter of whether you are the type of person that becomes addicted to substance(s). Usually this is easily determined from family histories. It does mean that if you start as a child and are this type of person you will have a difficult lifelong problem to deal with. There are vast, overwhelming numbers of experimental teens and young adults who never again try these substances. I think that suggests there's something else that makes a drug habit appear other than when one experiments with it. The fact that someone who is in charge of the administration's drug policy (Walters) thinks otherwise bothers me, because it isn't consistent with the facts.
"A World Health Organization survey of 17 countries this year showed that people in the U.S. were more likely than people elsewhere to have tried illicit drugs. The U.S. tied New Zealand for the highest rate of marijuana use and far outpaced other countries on cocaine use, the survey found."
-- Duh. I'm not sure if the survey included England or Holland (presumably). But my own studies of those countries found that their progressive treatment/distribution attitudes actually resulted in far lower drug abuse levels than we have here and, more importantly, less crime as a result of drug abuse and drug trafficking. England and Switzerland give out methadone or even heroin to addicts (and in far greater personal quantities than we do) and have far less heroin users than we do. More importantly, they're usually functional people capable of having jobs or conducting daily affairs because their addiction is being monitored and more or less under control.
"higher levels of alcohol...a higher minimum legal alcohol drinking age than many comparable developed countries" -- I still don't understand why alcohol is considered a separate agent from narcotics. It has distinct physiological effects, yes, but the sociological ones are roughly similar (if one considers what happens when say alcohol distribution is banned or restricted). More importantly, the fact that alcohol consumption is illegal at those younger ages puts a higher contact rate with other illicit activities (such as those illegal narcotics). As I've put forth previously, it would be a far wiser course to bring up children with a sense of moderation as it pertains to substances. If they don't like them, so be it. If you (as a parent or concerned citizen) don't want them to partake, you are welcome to that opinion and are free to express the reasons for such restraint. I'm not sure that it's always necessary to totally abstain. I personally find drunk/stoned people annoying, but there are other anti-social factors involved in my determination, meaning there are probably times where it can be an exercise of relatively harmless fun for other people (and not around me). There are similar social problems as far as human sexuality. A topic for other times.
"More than half the people who tried drugs for the first time in 2007 used marijuana"
The only reason alcohol or marijuana is at all a 'gateway' drug is because it creates market connections with people who sell other varieties of mind-altering substances. If not directly, then certainly by proxy (such as wandering through the neighbourhood to find the pot contact). The type of people willing to experiment with harder substances would have done so anyway (see addiction studies). One would expect a much higher number of variations of drug use if marijuana was somehow 'not good enough' for the average drug user as the gateway theory implies. The average drug addict, perhaps. In the average drug experimenter, it seems to work just fine.
There are reasons to be relatively concerned with the amount of narcotics and alcohol individuals consume. There are plenty of social problems which I see cause for alarm or disdain (not least of which is because I don't participate in such things). That doesn't mean our first line of defence should be interdiction and distributive bans. Or that our defensive tactics should ignore basic medical knowledge about drugs/drug addiction and the extended social consequences of our policies. There is greater danger in asserting that abstaining from such substances, even by force, is the correct method of living. Not everyone feels/thinks that way, for reasons which are too numerous to elaborate on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
