Quotulatiousness

August 24, 2011

Australian government risks defeat over MP’s brothel expenses

Filed under: Australia, Government, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:40

Australian politics are so much more interesting than our boring old Canadian version:

A political scandal involving alleged payments to prostitutes by an MP, which threatens Australia’s minority government, deepened on Wednesday when the politician’s former union asked police to investigate his union credit card bills.

The move by the Health Services Union (HSU) increases the likelihood that police will launch a criminal investigation into the union’s former boss Craig Thomson over alleged payments using credit cards to a Sydney brothel.

Thomson, who is now an government MP, has denied any wrongdoing. But if he is charged with a criminal offence and then found guilty, he would be forced to leave parliament, prompting a by-election that could bring down Julia Gillard’s government, which has a one-seat majority.

August 23, 2011

Blatchford comes not to praise Jack, but to bury him

Filed under: Cancon, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 13:16

Christie Blatchford displays great courage in saying publicly in her column what others may only be thinking in the privacy of their own minds:

Yes, his death at 61 was sad and too soon; yes, he made an enormous contribution to his party and a significant one to Canada (though I would quibble with NDP MP Libby Davies’ characterization that “He gave his life for this country”); yes, he fought a brave battle against cancer, as, mind you, does just about anyone who has it; and yes, he was a likeable, agreeable, smiley man.

Yet what was truly singular about him was how consumed by politics he was and how publicly, yet comfortably, he lived.

How fitting that his death should have been turned into such a thoroughly public spectacle, where from early morn Monday, television anchors donned their most funereal faces, producers dug out the heavy organ music, reporters who would never dream of addressing any other politician by first name only were proudly calling him “Jack” and even serious journalists like Evan Solomon of the CBC repeatedly spoke of the difficulty “as we all try to cope” with the news of Mr. Layton’s death.

By mid-day, after Prime Minister Stephen Harper had offered a few warm words about Mr. Layton’s death and rued that their oft-talked-about jam session had never happened, Mr. Solomon even expressed sniping surprise that “Jack Layton wasn’t the sole focus” of the Prime Minister’s remarks.

Mr. Harper, who clearly had not spent the day watching the national broadcaster and thus was unaware that the NDP Leader’s death was the only story of note, had gone on to mention the families of the 12 people (including six-year-old Cheyenne Eckalook; now there’s someone who died far too young) who perished in the Arctic plane crash on Saturday and the tumultuous events in Libya.

She also addresses the mawkish over-sentimentality of people who probably never met Mr. Layton leaving bunches of flowers, notes, and the like (at least in this case, we’re being spared the teddy bears) as public marks of grieving:

Held out as evidence of Canadians’ great love for Mr. Layton were the makeshift memorials of flowers, notes that appeared at his Toronto constituency office and on Parliament Hill, and in condolences in social media.

In truth, none of that is remotely unusual, or spontaneous, but rather the norm in the modern world, and it has been thus since Princess Diana died, the phenomenon now fed if not led online. People the planet over routinely weep for those they have never met and in some instances likely never much thought about before; what once would have been deemed mawkish is now considered perfectly appropriate.

Certainly, Canadians liked Mr. Layton, but the public over-the-top nature of such events — by fans for lost celebrities they never met, by television personalities for those they interviewed once for 10 minutes, by the sad and lost for the dead — make it if not impossible then difficult to separate the mourning wheat from the mourning chaff. His loss — his specific loss and his specific accomplishments — are thus diminished.

August 22, 2011

US government spending: “we’ll pay for it all by raffling off unicorn rides and following leprechauns to find pots of gold”

Filed under: Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 13:10

Steve Chapman notes the difficult transition from supporting spending cuts in general to supporting specific program cuts:

The good news is that the idea of serious spending restraint has more support than ever before. The bad news is that getting people to support the concept is easy. The hard part is getting beyond the concept, and there is no sign so far of doing that.

Several Republican presidential candidates, including Michele Bachmann, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum, have taken what sounds like an uncompromising stand. They’ve signed on to a plan sponsored by a group called Strong America Now to eliminate the federal deficit by 2017 without tax increases.

But the plan is not a plan. It’s a fantasy. As Strong America Now’s website explains, it is supposed to “detect and eliminate 25 percent of spending per year across the federal government.” Per year. Seriously.

Not only that, but those cuts are supposed to excise nothing but vast quantities of waste — rather than programs that actual people care about. And my impression is that we’ll pay for it all by raffling off unicorn rides and following leprechauns to find pots of gold.

[. . .]

Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid soak up some 40 percent of the budget, and their share will expand as baby boomers sidle off into retirement. But in an April Economist/YouGov survey, only 7 percent of Americans — including just 9 percent of Republicans — favored lower funding for Social Security. Medicare? Also 7 percent, with 11 percent of Republicans agreeing.

Even the rise of the Tea Party and the fight over the debt ceiling have not caused people to come to grips with fiscal reality. An August Economist/YouGov poll found that 56 percent of Americans said we can bring spending under control without reductions in Social Security and Medicare. Only 24 percent admit what every fiscal expert knows.

Jack Layton, RIP

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 08:24

I’m sad to hear of the death of federal NDP leader Jack Layton today. Here’s the official notification:

We deeply regret to inform you that The Honourable Jack Layton, leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, passed away at 4:45 am today, Monday August 22. He passed away peacefully at his home surrounded by family and loved ones. Details of Mr. Layton’s funeral arrangements will be forthcoming.

Layton’s party achieved a breakthrough in the most recent federal election, winning enough seats to qualify as the Official Opposition for the very first time. Jack Layton had a lot to do with that impressive performance, and it’s not clear if his party will be able to retain their popularity without his leadership.

Update: The National Post has a full obituary.

Jack Layton has lost his battle with cancer, dying Monday morning at his home, surrounded by those closest to him.

The charismatic, 61-year-old politician had recently stepped down as federal NDP leader, but had expressed hope that he would return when Parliament resumed next month.

“I was deeply saddened to learn this morning of the death of Jack Layton,” Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a statement.

Harper offered his condolences to Layton’s wife, MP Olivia Chow, and family.

“When I last spoke with Jack following his announcement in July, I wished him well and he told me he’d be seeing me in the House of Commons in the Fall.

“This, sadly, will no longer come to pass.

“On behalf of all Canadians, I salute Jack’s contribution to public life, a contribution that will be sorely missed.

“I know one thing: Jack gave his fight against cancer everything he had. Indeed, Jack never backed down from any fight.”

August 21, 2011

Obama has to fight reductions in government spending

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:02

Christopher Taylor explains why (in addition to the mere philosophical issues) Obama will have to resist any cuts to government spending:

In other words, to fix the debt, we have to lose jobs. To trim the debt down and reduce government spending to a sane and survivable level lots of federal jobs are going to be lost. That’s an inevitable consequence of the federal government bloat over the last few decades; lots of new jobs added, each costing money. When you cut the spending, jobs will be lost. And because a lot of that debt was created by adding new jobs, the direct and obvious solution is to snip those jobs away.

And it gets worse. Blacks are disproportionately represented in government jobs. In fact, hiring blacks in federal jobs is so out of norm with the general population that NASA has the smallest over representation by only hiring 49% more blacks than are in the general population. Blacks make up about 10% of the United States population, but make up about 20% of the federal government jobs according to a 2010 study by the Office of Personnel Management.

So we’re faced with a brutal dilemma: in order to lighten the pressure of the federal government on the economy and businesses so both can breathe and prosper, we’re going to have to slash the government down in size which will result in many people losing jobs in a time of dire unemployment. And many of those lost jobs will be black jobs.

Now, which politician wants to stand up and actually do that? Which politician will vote and fight to slash jobs and fire lots of black people? And if that actually somehow takes place, what exactly do you think will happen in the press and in black America? How do you think that will be portrayed by a media which already is incredibly hostile to the idea of cutting anything in the federal government?

H/T to Gerard Vanderleun for the link.

August 17, 2011

Ontario enables a “snitch line” in the fight against private health care

Filed under: Cancon, Health, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:28

The Ontario government is fighting back against even the hint of privatization of health services in the province by, among other things, setting up a new snitch line:

“There’s no doubt in my mind that people are trying to get around (the law)…. I think it’s really important that we all protect our universal health-care system,” the Health Minister said in an interview. “It’s just important that we are ever-vigilant.”

Critics, however, call the initiative a politically motivated waste of money that could be better spent on improving actual medical services. In the lead-up to this fall’s provincial election, the Liberal government seems anxious to portray itself as a steadfast defender of public health care.

“How is this going to improve patient care for anybody?” Brett Skinner, president and health-care analyst at the conservative Fraser Institute think-tank, asked about the snitch line. “It’s not helping patients get better access. In fact, it’s designed to prevent patients from getting better access.”

The Canada Health Act generally forbids health-care providers from charging patients directly for services that are covered under medicare. Various private health services have cropped up in Quebec, B.C. and Alberta in recent years, however, with little interference by the federal government.

The Ontario Liberals, on the other hand, have presented themselves as strenuous foes of private health care.

August 16, 2011

Ontario’s Progressive Conservatives living down to expectations

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:02

As I’ve said before, Tim Hudak is doing everything he possibly can to keep Dalton McGuinty’s chances of re-election alive. The polls now show just how well that’s working out:

Liberal Leader Dalton McGuinty and his Progressive Conservative rival Tim Hudak are locked in a statistical tie as Ontario gears up to elect a new premier, a new poll suggests.

Both Hudak and McGuinty have the support of about 30 per cent of voters, less than two months before the October election, according to the Nanos Research poll.

The poll, conducted for CTV, the Globe and Mail and CP24, asked 1,000 Ontarians of voting age who “would make the best premier of Ontario?”

McGuinty had 30.3 per cent support while Hudak had 28.7 per cent of support. Since the difference is within the margin of error for the poll, the two leaders are locked in a close race.

Meanwhile, NDP Leader Andrea Horwath trails the frontrunners with 12.2 per cent support, and 14.6 per cent of voters are undecided.

Additionally, 11 per cent of voters say none of the provincial leaders would make the best premier.

August 15, 2011

The London rioters are not “Thatcher’s grandchildren”

Filed under: Britain, History, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:16

Brendan O’Neill has little patience for what he refers to as an “Idiot’s Guide to Social Decay”:

Is there anything bad in the world that ‘neoliberalism’ is not responsible for? The rap sheet grows longer by the day. This nebulous yet apparently nefarious ideology is said to have brought about two wars in the Middle East, an economic recession, and the general disintegration of human morality. And now it stands accused of causing the destruction of parts of Tottenham, Hackney and other English city suburbs, as commentators rush to claim that the recent riots are the bastard offspring of the zealous promotion of market values. The rioters are ‘Thatcher’s grandchildren’, says one observer, their lives shattered and brains washed by the ‘neoliberal amoral creed’ which has ‘reigned unquestioned since Thatcher’.

This claim, the outrage-heavy but evidence-lite argument that the rioting is a product of the unleashing of market forces into every area of life, captures what the term ‘neoliberalism’ represents in modern public debate: not a serious attempt to analyse or describe events, but an expression of political exasperation, a borderline childish belief that a bogeyman, in a Thatcher mask, is responsible for every terrible thing that happens. The screech of ‘neoliberalism!’ is meant to sound assertive, radical even, but really it speaks to an extraordinary intellectual passivity and unwillingness to face up to the true forces laying waste to British communities.

As to why the recently riot-torn communities have become so poor and dysfunctional, there’s been a significant change in how communities used to cope with job loss and changes in business pattern and how those changes are handled today:

It is important to note that, throughout modern history, communities around Britain have been rocked by the vagaries of the market, by the wholesale closure of industries and massive job losses. Yet they did not respond by burning cars and looting Boots. The difference today is the almost total welfarisation of these communities, the intervention of the state into every single aspect of people’s lives and social relations, with a relentlessness that would have alarmed William Beveridge, the social reformer who founded Britain’s modern welfare state. In the past, communities that found themselves kicked hard by capitalism would have reorganised themselves and perhaps fought for jobs, or simply dissipated. People, entire families, would have upped sticks and moved to other areas with better job prospects, leaving behind a town that would have turned ghostly, waiting to be taken over by some prospector 20 years down the line. Today, by contrast, such communities are artificially maintained, massively subsidised by an interfering state pouring in economic and social resources in a way that was never experienced by interwar or postwar working-class communities that also underwent economic devastation. It is this invasion of the welfare machine, the erection of permanent scaffolding around communities with little remaining purpose, which has nurtured the kind of nihilism we witnessed in recent days.

Because when the state invades a community and puts it on the welfare equivalent of an artificial life-support machine, when the state seeks to provide for people’s every basic need and even to shape their morality and parenting practices, it has a seriously detrimental impact on community spirit and social bonds. The very idea of ‘community’ becomes corroded. People become so reliant on the state that they no longer turn to their neighbours for moral and social sustenance. What’s more, the external propping up of economically whacked communities massively undermines the social wherewithal and pioneering spirit that working-class communities would have utilised during times of economic hardship in the past, either by moving on or organising themselves into a job-demanding collective of some sort. Today, when people are sustained by the agents of welfare right from childhood to adulthood into old age, from Sure Start to jobseekers’ allowance or incapacity benefit to pension payments, both their individual and collective resourcefulness become seriously weakened. The risky business of reorganising your life and your community in response to economic upheaval is discouraged, in favour of simply living a safe if depressingly uneventful life in the welfare safety net.

August 12, 2011

“The riots have confirmed … the gaping chasm between Britain’s elites and its white working-class natives.”

Filed under: Britain, Law, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:30

The problem, according to the governing class, is not the rioters — it’s the people who want to stop the rioters:

And so it has been this week, which kicked off with reckless rioting by multi-ethnic yoof in inner-city patches, yet which ended, bizarrely but at the same time predictably, with an orgy of elite handwringing about those non-rioting white working classes who haunt London’s suburbs. That some of ‘these people’ dared to patrol their streets, to set up miniature citizen armies to see off the chancers and tricksters of the looting lobby, has been treated as the No.1 threat now facing Britain. They are a ‘white mob’, we are told, who could precipitate a ‘race war’. According to the deputy mayor of London, Kit Malthouse, their community-protection antics are ‘deeply undesirable’. Come on Kit, you can say it: you think these people are ‘undesirables’.

This riotous week has confirmed that the great and the good of Great Britain don’t have much in the way of a shared morality anymore. At the start of the week, the political class, cops and Fourth Estate all proffered various explanations for the youthful violence, often pointing the finger of blame at each other in a moral stand-off not dissimilar to the final scene in Reservoir Dogs. Yet by Friday they were tentatively re-linking arms around the one thing they agree on: that there is nothing scarier — nothing — than the sight of 100+ white blokes on the streets, shouting things in those gruff voices they have. You may have looked at the groups of men in Enfield and Eltham and seen working people keen to protect their homes and shops, but the upper echelons of society, through their snob-goggles, saw the emergence of an English version of the Third Reich — they saw ‘race hate’ and ‘fascists patrolling the streets’.

[. . .]

Note to the cultural elite: Just because someone is white and possibly a labourer and not currently glued to the American remake of The Killing, that doesn’t mean he is a fascist. The police’s PR assault on the ‘vigilantes’ in Enfield and Eltham, suburbs with large white working-class communities, shows that what the cops lack in riot-tackling skills they more than make up for with shamelessness. This is a force so paralysed by risk-aversion, so witlessly scared of provoking controversy, that this week it effectively stood back and allowed young people to loot shops, burn cars and destroy homes. It seems that in the morally inverted world of the modern police, such destruction is a price worth paying if it means their own officers don’t get a graze or PTSD. Upon what moral authority is the Met now telling working people not to patrol their communities? Cops bussed into a suburb might consider it acceptable to allow youth to smash things up in the hope that they’ll eventually tire, but for the people who live in those suburbs, who have a moral, emotional and economic attachment to them, that really isn’t an option. It takes brazenness to a brand new level for a state which failed to police the streets to libel those citizens who decided to do it for themselves.

Gunter: Government is the problem

Filed under: Economics, Government, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:18

Not much to disagree with Lorne Gunter here, at least in the main outline:

What do Obamacare, the London riots and a possible French debt crisis have in common? They are all proof that Western governments have grown beyond all reasonable, sensible limits. All these examples, and many more, demonstrate that we have grown utterly dependent on a ubiquitous state. Without one, we are at a loss about what to do.

[. . .]

And I am not talking solely of lifelong welfare recipient or habitual EI claimants. I am talking about middle-class voters who screech at the mere suggestion that they pay a portion of their “free” health care, education or pensions. I’m referring to cause-pleaders who run to government commissions claiming infringement of their rights every time fate deals them a less-than-ideal hand. Even people who think there is a social good in bicycle paths or parks or waterfront boardwalks, and therefore a common obligation to fund them through tax dollars.

And I also mean executives who want the state to use its coercive power to limit competition or to tax money away from working people to fund massive business-stimulus programs. A CEO demanding a bailout to mitigate bad business decisions they’ve made is every bit as guilty of this as a welfare advocate who claims it is the state’s duty to provide everyone with cable television, high-speed Internet, sports for their kids and hobby supplies so no one feels isolated from mainstream society.

Governments can do some things (relatively) well — courts, policing, national defence — but the more they attempt to do, the less well they do any of the tasks they’ve taken on. Western governments have vastly extended the range of human activities they now attempt to control, regulate, or foster. As with any organization that tries to do too much, it increases the chance of failure over a larger area.

Why Obama is being attacked from the left

Filed under: Economics, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 12:12

Victor Davis Hanson outlines the reasons for increasing attacks on President Obama and his administration from his erstwhile allies on the left:

Politics, of course. The combination of sinking polls to the near 40% range, the stock market nosedive, the Standard and Poor’s downgrade, the tragedy in Afghanistan, the confusion over Libya, the embarrassing golf outings and First Family insensitive preferences for the aristocratic Martha’s Vineyard, Vail, and Costa del Sol have contributed to a general unease on the Left about Obama’s judgment, perhaps to the extent that he might well take the Left down in 2012, both in the House and Senate, whether he wins reelection or not.

But the argument remains incoherent: Obama is being blamed for not being liberal enough — after federalizing much of the health care delivery system, expanding government faster than at any time since 1933, borrowing more money in two and a half years than any president in history, absorbing companies, jawboning the wealthy, going after Boeing, reversing the order of the Chrysler creditors, adding vast new financial and environmental regulations, appointing progressives like a Van Jones or Cass Sunstein, and institutionalizing liberal protocols across the cabinet and bureaucracy, from the EPA to the Attorney General’s Office.

In other words, there is now an elite liberal effort to disentangle Obama from liberalism itself, and to suggest that his sagging polls are not a reflection of Obama’s breakneck efforts to take the country leftward — but either his inability or unwillingness to do so!

Partly, the disappointment is understandably emotional. Just three years ago Obama was acclaimed as a once-in-a-lifetime prophet of liberalism, whose own personal history, charisma, teleprompted eloquence and iconic identity might move a clearly center-right country hard leftward where it otherwise rarely wished to go.

Partly, the anger is quite savvy: if one suddenly blames Obama the man, rather than Obama the ideologue, then his unpopularity is his own, not liberalism’s. There is a clever effort to raise the dichotomy of the inept Carter and the politically savvy Clinton, but in the most improbable fashion: Clinton supposedly was a success not because he was personable, sometimes compromising, and often centrist, and Carter was a failure not because he was sanctimoniously and stubbornly ideological, but just the opposite: Clinton is now reinvented as the true liberal who succeeded because of his principled leftwing politics; Carter like Obama was a bumbling compromiser and waffler.

Now a chilly, damp banana republic?

Filed under: Britain, Law, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 08:46

Allister Heath tries to point out the real damages from this past week’s rioting:

What a year of contrast this has been for the UK. A few months ago, the world looked on longingly as we put on a marvellous, heart-warming show for the royal wedding, in a brilliant piece of PR highlighting the continuity and stability of Britain’s institutions, a valuable commodity in a troubled world. Today, all eyes are on us once again — but this time, the message is one of incompetence, chaos and decline.

From royal fairytale to banana republic in one summer: it has been a shameful, embarrassing disaster, not just for the tourism industries but also for foreign direct investment.

He also points out that more has changed than the blackened, burnt-out shopfronts:

The public’s mood has changed irrevocably; on crime and punishment, social attitudes will have hardened permanently as a result of the past week’s events. Strong speeches from the prime minister are a step in the right direction, as is the much more effective policing of the past 48 hours, but the public wants real, permanent change, not just temporary, emergency measures. A YouGov poll found that 85 per cent of the public believe that most of those taking part in the riots will go unpunished — they have lost faith in the system. This is understandable: it also reflects the perception of the thugs themselves. Criminal activity is far more rational than people believe, especially in wealthy societies such as ours: there is a lot of empirical and statistical work that shows that criminals implicitly weigh up the costs and benefits of crime. A high probability and cost of detection reduces crime, all other things equal; a low likelihood of detection, a low likely cost (such as a negligible prison sentence or a caution, as has too often been the case in the past) and a larger payoff (flat screen TVs or expensive trainers) raises it. Many of those storming shops made that very calculation this week, albeit implicitly and in some cases incorrectly.

No matter how much the public’s opinion has hardened, it’s the opinions of the governing class that will make the most difference, and there’s been mixed indications in the British press from that sector. Opinions have shifted, when even the Guardian can run articles that fail to exonerate the rioters, but there’s no guarantee that opinion has shifted far enough for changes to be made. A few more “tough” speeches from the PM and the Lord Mayor are not change: they’re a substitute for action, unless the pressure increases for real change to be implemented.

H/T to Tom Kelley for sending me this link. He responded to Mr Heath’s article:

Welcome to Detroit circa 1960, a once-vibrant community and global center of employment, now reduced to a ghost-town where serious consideration is being given to bulldozing entire neighborhoods and letting them return to nature. The past 50 years of unchecked, continuous, Democrat Party and labor union rule have resulted in what many saw right from the start as an inevitable outcome.

There’s no need for me to go on at length about Detroit, as the details of this downfall are well-recorded, even in the most biased of historical and news accounts.

What’s left of England has a choice, Detroit or the metropolitan areas of Texas (Dallas, Houston, Austin . . . ), two sides of a coin that were roughly equal in 1960, and couldn’t be farther apart today.

I’m sure that in England as well as in Detroit, the ill-fated plans started out with the best of intentions, but as is frequently the case, the well-intended plans completely ignored the reality of human nature, that when offered a free-ride, too many of the otherwise-capable will take it, leaving too few to provide the ride.

The class warfare that served the Left well as a political tool in elections, has led to its own inevitable result, real warfare, both in your current riots, and ours during the late sixties. I fear that we in the States are due for another round of riots when fiscal reality slams the door on the undelivered utopia promised in 2008.

Study Detroit thoroughly and decide wisely my friend, the future of England depends upon it.

Update: Well, well, well. This might be an indication that things really are starting to change:

A London council is trying to evict a tenant whose son has appeared in court charged in connection with rioting and looting at Clapham Junction.

Wandsworth Council is serving the tenant with an eviction notice — the first stage in the eviction process.

The tenant is believed to be the first in England to face losing their council-owned home as a result of this week’s disturbances.

Neither the tenant nor their son can be named at this stage for legal reasons.

I’m not keen on the idea that they’re starting eviction proceedings based on only a charge rather than a conviction, but they claim they’ll drop the process if he’s found innocent.

August 8, 2011

Subsidized flights from remote locations

Filed under: Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:57

Steve Chapman knows where to get the “best” deal in government subsidy of domestic flights:

As a resident of Illinois, I’d never had any particular desire to fly from McCook, Nebraska, to Denver. But lately, I’ve been looking for an opportunity. Turns out the federal government is willing to pay me a handsome fee to do it.

Oh, I wouldn’t get the cash directly. But the Department of Transportation provides more than $2 million to subsidize that particular route, which works out to about $1,000 for every passenger. My fare, meanwhile, would be less than $150.

I could get an even bigger hand on the hop from Lewistown, Montana, to Billings—$1,343. But if I’m feeling the need for indulgence, there is nothing to beat the flight from Ely, Nevada, to Denver, for which Washington will kick in $3,720. For that sum, of course, it could buy me a perfectly functional used car.

These extravagances are part of the Essential Air Service initiative, which is part of the reason for the recent congressional impasse over a bill to keep the Federal Aviation Administration operating.

August 6, 2011

Oh, good: I didn’t miss much while I was away

Filed under: Economics, Humour, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 16:24


Obama: Debt Ceiling Deal A Prime Example Of Democrats And Democrats Sacrificing For The Greater Good

July 27, 2011

If you can persuade 10% that you’re right, you can win the argument

Filed under: Media, Politics, Science — Tags: — Nicholas @ 07:53

Ten percent of the population may be the tipping point for mass conversion to a new idea:

Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute have found that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society. The scientists, who are members of the Social Cognitive Networks Academic Research Center (SCNARC) at Rensselaer, used computational and analytical methods to discover the tipping point where a minority belief becomes the majority opinion. The finding has implications for the study and influence of societal interactions ranging from the spread of innovations to the movement of political ideals.

“When the number of committed opinion holders is below 10 percent, there is no visible progress in the spread of ideas. It would literally take the amount of time comparable to the age of the universe for this size group to reach the majority,” said SCNARC Director Boleslaw Szymanski, the Claire and Roland Schmitt Distinguished Professor at Rensselaer. “Once that number grows above 10 percent, the idea spreads like flame.”

[. . .]

The researchers are now looking for partners within the social sciences and other fields to compare their computational models to historical examples. They are also looking to study how the percentage might change when input into a model where the society is polarized. Instead of simply holding one traditional view, the society would instead hold two opposing viewpoints. An example of this polarization would be Democrat versus Republican.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress