Quotulatiousness

September 24, 2009

Polls and the 25% nutty fringe

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:33

Over at The Crossed Pond, Brad put together an interesting statistical post contrasting the “Birthers” with the “Truthers”:

Generally, I out-of-hand dismiss poll results under, say, 25% meant to imply that a party, country, or demographic are stupid or out of touch. Because almost always, those poll results are entirely without context. X% of Republicans believe Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster. OMG! Y% of Icelanders believe in pixies! What morons!

The fact of the matter is, if you poll any demographic on the right question, you can find a good chunk of them who believe in really dumb things. [. . .]

But, according to my own general yardstick for such things, Trutherism falls about where I would expect it to — in the general range common to any nutty proposition. Roughly the same amount of Democrats believe in Trutherism as people believe in vampires. That says much less about Democrats than it does about the crazy shit people are inclined to believe.

On the Birther question, however, we’re pushing past the normal range of nuttiness, and are getting a bit more mainstream, at least in the Republican ranks. About twice as many people believe in Birtherism as I would expect them to applying my general rule of thumb. In other words, it’s something more than run-of-the-mill crazy.

What bothers me a bit more about this sort of thing entails my own assumptions about crazy thoughts, and is based on what one might call the galaxy of nuttiness that comes in the Truther/Birther package. For example, a Truther, and I’ve known many, will generally have a constellation of other beliefs that sort of goes part-and-parcel with Trutherism, and tends towards a fanatical skepticism about government in general. That often leads to them being “don’t tread on me” style libertarians, ala Ron Paul, or “the government is out to get you” conspiracy theorists ala Alex Jones. Birtherism, and I’ve known less but enough to generalize, tend towards a much more cultural/racial/religion based constellation of thoughts — there are Good Decent Americans and then there are the rest of them, from horrifying illegal immigrants to muslims demographically taking over Europe and about to instantiate Sharia law, etc. etc, which generally leads them into a weird tribalistic culture war crouch, ala “we are being taken over by Others” culturists/racists ala Lou Dobbs, or “there is a conspiracy to subjugate the American way of life” hysterics ala Glenn Beck.

September 21, 2009

Sir Humphrey is about to be proven correct again

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:30

The American government is trying to exhort artists to support its goals . . . and doing more than just exhorting:

If you’ve ever wondered–and worried–about where government support of the arts leads, look no further than the full transcript of an August 10 telecon between an official at the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and a group of “independent artists from around the country.” The short version: It leads to the use of taxpayer-funded culture as a means of propagandizing for specific, partisan political aims. Which corrupts not just art but artists.

[. . .]

Given that the NEA prides itself on being the single largest funding source for the arts in the country, such arm-twisting by agency officials, however masked in fulsome compliments to creators’ genius, is disturbing on its face. It clearly sets a political agenda for the very people who are likely to be applying for, well, NEA and other government grants. Does anyone think that the organizers were fishing around for projects that might complicate the public option for health care?

Embedded in the discussion is at least one other disturbing point: a nearly lunatic delusion that artists are the vanguard of the proletariat. As Mike Skolnick, the political director for music impresario Russell Simmons, told the participants, the assembled crew “tell our country and our young people sort of what to do and what to be in to; and what’s cool and what’s not cool.” While that command-and-control notion is widely shared by liberals and conservatives alike, it is patently false. Artists and politicians hate to hear this, but the audience does have a mind of its own.

Sir Humphrey Appleby put it best: “Plays attacking the government make the second most boring theatrical evenings ever invented. The most boring are plays praising the government.”

Hate the president: it’s a hallowed tradition

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 07:27

Steve Chapman looks at the long, long, long history of President Derangement Syndrome:

A new president, pursuing policies well within the political mainstream, evokes weirdly angry and intense denunciations from opponents—a reaction hard to explain in terms of anything he has actually done. Does that suggest, as Jimmy Carter insists, that their true motivation lies in racism?

No, it doesn’t, because I’m not talking about Barack Obama. I’m talking about George W. Bush and Bill Clinton — both of whom, from the day they took office, managed to convince a minority of Americans that they were not just wrong but illegitimate, dangerous, and thoroughly evil. Obama’s troubles are not exactly unprecedented.

[. . .]

So you don’t need to turn to race to explain the virulent animosity against Obama. What all the presidents who previously endured irresponsible slander had in common, after all, is that they were white.

Clinton’s experience suggests that merely being a Democrat is enough to evoke hysteria in some quarters. In matters of policy, he was about as congenial as any conservative could have hoped — cooperating with Republicans to balance the budget, advancing free trade, rejecting an international treaty banning land mines, signing welfare reform, and threatening to bomb North Korea over its nuclear program. Yet even today, many on the right regard him as an extreme liberal.

I don’t remember President Ford rousing the standard levels of derangement among his opponents, but that could be because it was before I started paying much attention to U.S. politics. Other than Ford, all the other occupants of that office seem to have generated deep animosity (Nixon? Hell yeah. Carter? Yep. Reagan? A subgenre of musical animosity. Bush I? Yep.)

September 16, 2009

Hope, change, but we’ll still do warrantless wiretaps

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 00:54

So much for any realistic hope that the Obama administration was making a clean break from the anti-civil liberty policies of the former Bush administration:

The Obama administration has told Congress it supports renewing three provisions of the Patriot Act due to expire at year’s end, measures making it easier for the government to spy within the United States.

In a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Vermont Democrat and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said the administration might consider “modifications” to the act in order to protect civil liberties.

“The administration is willing to consider such ideas, provided that they do not undermine the effectiveness of these important authorities,” Ronald Weich, assistant attorney general, wrote to Leahy, whose committee is expected to consider renewing the three expiring Patriot Act provisions next week. The government disclosed the letter Tuesday.

It’s funny how certain laws — in the hands of the opposition, anyway — are evil, wrong, and fattening, but miraculously transmogrify into essential tools of state once you’re the one in power. It doesn’t seem to matter which party you’re talking about either.

September 15, 2009

The Tea Party protests, summarized by their opponents

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: — Nicholas @ 10:49

Matt Welch sat on a panel the other night, where he learned some interesting things. Specifically, that some of the other panelists had diagnosed (to their own satisfaction) the racist roots of the Tea Party protests:

1) The Tea Parties are experienced by many black Americans as a “racial assault.” This was posited by a white “anti-racism writer,” though the black Tea Party organizer on the panel didn’t seem to agree.

2) The “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, historically, is inseparable from white racial resentment against blacks.

3) My pointing out that the racial-motivation interpretation of the protest was not manifested in the overwhelming majority of signage I saw and conversations I had was directly analogous to white Americans believing that race relations were just fine 50 years ago.

4) Glenn Beck has described Obama’s health care plan as intentional “reparations” for slavery.

September 14, 2009

QotD: Depoliticizing the economy

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

FOR years now, many businesses and individuals in the United States have been relying on the power of government, rather than competition in the marketplace, to increase their wealth. This is politicization of the economy. It made the financial crisis much worse, and the trend is accelerating.

Well before the financial crisis erupted, policy makers treated homeowners as a protected political class and gave mortgage-backed securities privileged regulatory treatment. Furthermore, they allowed and encouraged high leverage and the expectation of bailouts for creditors, which had been practiced numerous times, including the precedent of Long-Term Capital Management in 1998. Without these mistakes, the economy would not have been so invested in leverage and real estate and the financial crisis would have been much milder.

But we are now injecting politics ever more deeply into the American economy, whether it be in finance or in sectors like health care. Not only have we failed to learn from our mistakes, but also we’re repeating them on an ever-larger scale.

Tyler Cowan, “Where Politics Don’t Belong”, New York Times, 2009-09-12

September 9, 2009

QotD: The Democratic Party’s problem with criticism

Filed under: Government, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 13:12

Why did it take so long for Democrats to realize that this year’s tea party and town hall uprisings were a genuine barometer of widespread public discontent and not simply a staged scenario by kooks and conspirators? First of all, too many political analysts still think that network and cable TV chat shows are the central forums of national debate. But the truly transformative political energy is coming from talk radio and the Web — both of which Democrat-sponsored proposals have threatened to stifle, in defiance of freedom of speech guarantees in the Bill of Rights. I rarely watch TV anymore except for cooking shows, history and science documentaries, old movies and football. Hence I was blissfully free from the retching overkill that followed the deaths of Michael Jackson and Ted Kennedy — I never saw a single minute of any of it. It was on talk radio, which I have resumed monitoring around the clock because of the healthcare fiasco, that I heard the passionate voices of callers coming directly from the town hall meetings. Hence I was alerted to the depth and intensity of national sentiment long before others who were simply watching staged, manipulated TV shows.

Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.

Camille Paglia, “Too late for Obama to turn it around?”, Salon, 2009-09-09

September 6, 2009

QotD: Politics in the 21st century will not be about . . .

Filed under: Politics, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 09:10

. . . privacy and intellectual property. Or rather, it’s going to be about privacy and intellectual property the way that the 20th century was about steam locomotives and iron foundries. These were vital 19th century technologies that provided a platform for 20th century industries to evolve on top of, but triple-condensing steam engines tell us nothing about semiconductor fab lines: they lie too far down the stack of incremental technologies. By the time we reach 2050, the microprocessor and software industries will be about as innovative and interesting as steam locomotives were in 1950; and the big questions about privacy and IP will have been answered (hint: ubiquitous polycentric surveillance, some sort of abstraction layer to encapsulate and insulate the public against the crisis of copyright, and a generation for whom the concept of “blackmail” makes less sense than bleeding with leeches as a cure for a surfeit of billious humours).

Thirdly, it’s not going to be about biotechnology any more than the 20th century was about powered heavier-than-air flight. Yes, flight was and is important, but not in the way the Italian modernists of the first three decades imagined, with their manifestos about “air-mindedness” and Douhet’s insane, apocalyptic visions of air power — that led to such atrocities as the British Empire’s policing with bombers (dropping poison gas!) in the 1920s, and strategic bombing raids against civilian populations during subsequent wars. For the most part, military aviation falls into two categories (better artillery, and better logistics); it doesn’t really change warfare, it just makes the whole barbaric affair more efficient (which is to say, more destructive). Biotechnology is going to be an efficiency enabler for a whole lot of things, and have immense second-order effects (just like cheap air travel), but it’s not going to fundamentally change us (unless some lunatic repeats the mousepox/interleukin-4 experiment with weaponized smallpox, in which case we are probably all dead).

Charles Stross, “Chrome Plated Jackboots”, Charlie’s Diary, 2009-09-04

September 4, 2009

The show must go on!

Filed under: Education, Politics — Tags: — Nicholas @ 12:45

David Harsanyi looks at all the reasons it would be a good thing to support President Obama’s schools webcast next week:

Why would anyone want to deprive impressionable school-age children of hearing the inspiring wisdom of the president? Barack Obama is determined to impart his knowledge upon our pliable offspring via webcast across the country next week, and we should not stand in his way.

This is, as they say, a teachable moment. There is nothing to fear. Naturally, teachers and parents, incapable of handling the sheer concentrated intellectual force of such a historic event, have been forwarded a detailed lesson plan by the Department of Education (sic) so that no child will be blinded inadvertently by the dazzling light of hope.

[. . .]

Moreover, if your child is incapable of handling a 20-minute haranguing from a self-important public servant, he will be tragically unprepared for the new world. (Whom do you think he will be dealing with when he needs that hip replacement in 60 years?)

Even if you oppose the president on a political level, it is empirically evident that the more one hears his homilies the less inclined one is to trust him. And Obama’s penchants to lecture us endlessly, to be the center of attention endlessly and to saturate the airwaves and national conversation are clear indications that he believes government is the answer to every societal, religious, economic, and cultural question we face. Why should your kids be immune?

Well, I’m convinced. Just as long as there’s no singing (Monty Python reference, in case it’s too obscure.).

September 1, 2009

Cyclist dies in horrific accident with former Ontario Attorney General

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 08:02

The Toronto Star reports on a gruesome death for a cyclist in downtown Toronto last night:

The crash occurred on Bloor St. near Bay St. around 9:45 p.m. when witnesses said a male cyclist in his 20s collided with a black Saab.

Witnesses said the cyclist hung onto the driver’s side of the car, which had its convertible top down, while the driver allegedly yelled at him to get off.

The vehicle then veered onto the eastbound lanes and mounted the curb, brushing against trees and poles, witnesses said.

“He was driving on the wrong side of the street and up on the curb trying to knock him off the car for about 100 metres,” said Ryan Brazeau, a worker with a crew laying sewer pipes on Bloor.

“Lots of people were watching and they couldn’t believe what was happening.”

As the car approached Avenue Rd., the cyclist fell off and he and his bike were dragged before being run over by the rear wheels, witnesses said.

The Toronto cyclist was taken to St. Michael’s Hospital with severe head injuries and died around midnight, police said.

I expect to hear a lot about this over the next few days. Either that or it’ll be quickly shoved down the memory hole . . .

Update: The Canadian Press report is careful to avoid directly stating that it was Michael Bryant at the wheel:

Toronto police Sgt. Tim Burrows said charges are expected to be laid, but the identity of the person in custody will not be released until then.

“We are anticipating that charges will be laid against him this morning, but at this point, the police are not willing to confirm the male’s identity as he has not yet been formally charged with anything.”

August 28, 2009

Ted Kennedy

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:21

Virginia Postrel looks at the differences between the glamour of the JFK and RFK images and the non-glamorous career of Ted Kennedy:

Ted was the Kennedy who lived. He was, as a result, the Kennedy who wasn’t glamorous.

Jack is forever young and forever whatever his adoring fans imagine him to be: the president who would have gotten us out of Vietnam (rather than the one who got us in) or the original supply-sider (rather than a textbook Keynesian), the ideal combination of Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama. We learned decades ago about Jack’s compulsive womanizing, but it is those selective images of the beautiful family that remain in collective memory. Life recorded no adulteries, no dirty tricks, no secret injections. The JFK of memory is a man of vigor, not an Addison’s patient dependent on steroids, painkillers, and anti-spasmodics. He is the personification of political glamour.

Bobby, too, is glamorous — the tough guy turned symbol of youth and idealism, more photogenic than Gene McCarthy and more mythic. No one wonders how he would have held together the fractious Democratic Party of 1968, because he never had to. Like his brother, RFK is a persona, not a person, all hope and promise and projection.

In an age of cynicism and full disclosure, political glamour is a rarity — not because politicians lack good looks or wealth or celebrity but because we know too much about them. We too easily see their flaws and imagine even more than the flaws we do see.

August 26, 2009

Gun-toting protests ineffective?

Filed under: Liberty, Politics — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 10:00

Megan McArdle points out that folks simultaneously exercising their freedom to assemble, freedom to petition for redress of grievance, and freedom to bear arms are not likely to succeed:

I think carrying guns to protests is entirely counterproductive. Indeed, I’m not sold on the general virtues of protesting, which worked for Gandhi and the civil rights marcher, but has a dismal track record on other concerns. But I think people have a perfect right to do it, including with guns, though I also think the secret service is within its rights to ensure that they don’t have a sight line on the president.

But the hysteria about them has been even more ludicrous. Numerous people claim to believe that this makes it likely, even certain, that someone will shoot at the president. This is very silly, because the president is not anywhere most of the gun-toting protesters, who have showed up at all sorts of events. It is, I suppose, more plausible to believe that they might take a shot at someone else. But not very plausible: the rate of crime associated with legal gun possession or carrying seems to be very low. Guns, it turn out, do not turn ordinary people into murderers. They make murderers more effective.

So perhaps unsurprisingly, when offered the opportunity to put some money down on the proposition that one of these firearms is soon going to be discharged at someone, they all decline.

I have to agree with Megan . . . when I saw the images of individuals attending the protests while openly carrying firearms, I thought it would have a negative effect on the undecided viewer. I’m in favour of all the freedoms: assembly, speech, bearing arms (not a freedom we enjoy in Canada, BTW), but this was an inappropriate time and place to exercise that last freedom. It makes the debate more murky, and allows people to characterize their opponents in ways totally unrelated to the issue being protested.

A political own-goal, as it were.

August 24, 2009

QotD: The real reason Americans are angry

Filed under: Government, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 08:05

Consistently, 60% or more of Americans have opposed the ongoing federal takeover of the domestic automobile industry. And for good reason, too, beyond the crazy economics of throwing good taxpayer money after bad private failure. TARP money was expressly earmarked by Congress for financial institutions, not auto (or any other kind of) manufacturers, which makes the Detroit bailout not only imprudent but illegal.

Financial industry bailouts, too, have been widely reviled. This past week Michael Moore released the trailer for his upcoming agitprop documentary “Capitalism: A Love Story,” and it’s filled with outrage at the fact that all us working shlubs are, without being asked for permission, shoveling over our hard-earned cash to a bunch of fat-cat Wall Street execs who made bad bets and lost. “Where’s our money?” the fat man asks. For a change, he’s right.

This isn’t about liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. A majority oppose Obama’s policies because they fly in the face of this country’s bedrock values of personal liberty and limited government. Robbing Peter to pay Goldman Sachs does violence to that fundamentally American ethos.

And increasingly, Obama administration policy does violence to European values, as well. The continent has for the last two decades been systematically disengaging national governments from domestic industries. Top officials from Sweden, of all places, complained about Washington’s auto bailout, tersely announcing that “The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories.”

Matt Welch, “The Real Reason Americans Are Angry: It’s the Big Government, Stupid”, New York Post, 2009-08-23

August 20, 2009

Is the US still a racist country?

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: — Nicholas @ 07:54

Matt Welch gets a bit het-up about an academic’s easy characterization of the racism and hatred he feels is still a malignant, powerful force in American politics: “Hate, if it ever truly threatened to leave the political stage, is most definitely back, larger and nastier than ever.”

To get all journalistically theoretical for a moment, what is the definition of journalism? Well, I don’t know, but I do know that one thick chunk of the idea is to write or say (or aim to write and say) things that are unequivocally 100 percent true, and hopefully verified in some way. This is even more true, if such a thing is mathematically possible, for those who deliver lectures on all that should be true and good about journalism.

What, class, do we notice about Davis’ statement above? IT IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. We used to have slavery in this country, and Jim Crow laws, and all kinds of officially sanctioned, legalized discrimination against disfavored minorities. And you want to tell me that hate is “larger and nastier than ever”? We had a CIVIL WAR in this country, where people not only brought their legally licensed firearms to townhalls, but they MURDERED THE SHIT OUT OF ONE ANOTHER. How many people died in racially fueled street riots 41 years ago, compared to how many died in racially fueled street riots in 2009? This little couplet, tossed off without evident concern, as if OF COURSE we all know this is true, is blatantly, sophomorically, and insultingly untrue. It’s an advertisement for the author’s fundamental lack of seriousness about the very subject he aims to address.

Testing their hypotheses

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:26

Steve Chapman looks at the opportunities to test all the reasons conservatives oppose gay marriage:

Opponents of same-sex marriage reject it on religious and moral grounds but also on practical ones. If we let homosexuals marry, they believe, a parade of horribles will follow — the weakening of marriage as an institution, children at increased risk of broken homes, the eventual legalization of polygamy, and who knows what all.

Well, guess what? We’re about to find out if they’re right. Unlike most public policy debates, this one is the subject of a gigantic experiment, which should definitively answer whether same-sex marriage will have a broad, destructive social impact.

Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire have all decided to let gays wed. Most of the remaining 44 states, however, are not likely to follow suit anytime soon. So in the next few years, we will have a chance to compare social trends in the states permitting same-sex marriage against social trends in the others.

Oddly, he was unable to find many of the same outspoken critics who were willing to go on record as to the kind of dire consequences we should start to see in those six states, compared to the rest of the country. I did a bit of googling, and thought I’d found one, but it turned out to be something different:

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, “biblical”?
Dr Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath of God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!

The above is not actually representative of what the critics of same-sex marriage actually said. It’s actually from a transcript of the last Climate Change conference . . .

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress