Quotulatiousness

August 20, 2009

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 . . .

August 16, 2009

QotD: “What does either party stand for these days?”

Filed under: Government, Liberty, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:39

Republican politicians, with their endless scandals, are hardly exemplars of traditional moral values. Nor have they generated new ideas for healthcare, except for medical savings accounts, which would be pathetically inadequate in a major crisis for anyone earning at or below a median income.

And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the “mob” — a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech.

But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration’s outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable “casual conversations” to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.

As a libertarian and refugee from the authoritarian Roman Catholic church of my youth, I simply do not understand the drift of my party toward a soulless collectivism.

Camille Paglia, “Obama’s healthcare horror: Heads should roll — beginning with Nancy Pelosi’s!”, Salon.com, 2009-08-12

August 14, 2009

If it isn’t Astroturf . . .

Filed under: Health, Politics — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:34

. . . maybe it really is grassroots? Jesse Walker decodes some of the hysteria around both the protests and the official responses:

Clashes keep breaking out at the “town hall” meetings devoted to discussing health care reform. Usually the excitement amounts to some angry questions and heckling, but sometimes there’s more. Six people were arrested at a demonstration outside a meeting in St. Louis. Violence erupted at a town hall in Tampa after opponents of ObamaCare were locked out of the building. A North Carolina congressman cancelled a meeting after receiving a death threat; the pro-market group FreedomWorks, which was involved in some of the protests, fielded a death threat of its own. Supporters of the president’s health care reforms, who used to tout the support he’d received from the pharmaceutical and insurance industries, are now accusing the very same companies of riling up “mob violence” to stop the plan.

As the charges and countercharges fly, here are three maxims to keep in mind:

1. It isn’t Astroturf after the grassroots show up.

[. . .]

2. It isn’t unprecedented if there are obvious precedents. When someone like New York Times columnist Paul Krugman claims that the “mob aspects” at the meetings are “something new and ugly,” all he’s demonstrating is that he’s an economist, not a historian. When it comes to bands of angry citizens being disruptive, it isn’t hard to find earlier examples in American history. It isn’t even hard to find earlier examples in 21st century American history. Just go to Google and punch in phrases like “guerrilla theater,” “antiwar protest,” and “Code Pink.”

[. . .]

3. It isn’t fascism if…actually, you can stop there. IT ISN’T FASCISM, you numbskulls.

August 12, 2009

QotD: “an abject failure for the Obama administration”

Filed under: Health, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:34

But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises — or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.

There is plenty of blame to go around. Obama’s aggressive endorsement of a healthcare plan that does not even exist yet, except in five competing, fluctuating drafts, makes Washington seem like Cloud Cuckoo Land. The president is promoting the most colossal, brazen bait-and-switch operation since the Bush administration snookered the country into invading Iraq with apocalyptic visions of mushroom clouds over American cities.

You can keep your doctor; you can keep your insurance, if you’re happy with it, Obama keeps assuring us in soothing, lullaby tones. Oh, really? And what if my doctor is not the one appointed by the new government medical boards for ruling on my access to tests and specialists? And what if my insurance company goes belly up because of undercutting by its government-bankrolled competitor? Face it: Virtually all nationalized health systems, neither nourished nor updated by profit-driven private investment, eventually lead to rationing.

I just don’t get it. Why the insane rush to pass a bill, any bill, in three weeks? And why such an abject failure by the Obama administration to present the issues to the public in a rational, detailed, informational way? The U.S. is gigantic; many of our states are bigger than whole European nations. The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made. And the transition period would be a nightmare of red tape and mammoth screw-ups, which we can ill afford with a faltering economy.

Camille Paglia, “Obama’s healthcare horror: Heads should roll — beginning with Nancy Pelosi’s!”, Salon.com, 2009-08-12

August 11, 2009

QotD: Obama critics suffering from “false consciousness”

Filed under: Politics, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 13:15

Got that? If you don’t support Obama, you must be a frustrated, confused halfwit who doesn’t quite understand why the government would give Americans $4500 for a 2004 Dodge Dakota. As an amateur scholar of Marxism who has a pretty clear understanding of “what’s going on,” Fairey is doubtless referencing Engels’ idea of “false consciousness,” but presumes us Obama skeptics are too thick for such profundities.

Michael C. Moynihan, “Shepard Fairey: Obama Skeptics Suffering from False Consciousness”, Hit and Run, 2009-08-11

August 10, 2009

QotD: “the federal government is unsurpassed at two things”

Filed under: Politics, Quotations — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:22

Cash for Clunkers has been a thrilling moment for advocates of expanded government, who say it proves what we can accomplish when our leaders put their minds to it. They are absolutely right. The program proves the federal government is unsurpassed at two things: dispersing money and destroying things.

Of course, it already proved that in Iraq. But for sheer rapidity of confirmation, this program is hard to beat. Cash for Clunkers managed to go through a billion dollars in about four days, vaporizing a fund that was supposed to last until Halloween.

Steve Chapman, “The Real Clunkers in this Deal: Why ‘cash for clunkers’ is a terrible idea”, Reason Online, 2009-08-10

At the intersection of Unsound Policy and Political Expediency

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:16

August 7, 2009

Observe and report, citizen!

Filed under: Government, Politics, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:37

August 6, 2009

“In his final act of betrayal . . .”

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

I suspected that the recent labour deal between the city of Toronto and their striking municipal workers would not be a particularly fair deal. Fair to the city and the taxpayers, that is. Apparently, from what Howard Levitt writes, I’m not pessimistic enough:

In his final act of betrayal, not only has Toronto Mayor David Miller agreed to the city’s inside and outside unionized workers retaining their sick leave benefits, he has prevented any future mayor from removing them. In doing so, Toronto’s mayor has provided the city’s taxpayers with a poisoned chalice.

What he has negotiated cannot be changed until the city’s next round of bargaining, more than a year after any new election. His new collective agreement, unlike the old, provides union members with the right to cash out their sick-leave provisions immediately rather than waiting until they retire.

The little-understood impact of that is that if, in the next election, any mayoralty candidate runs on the promise to remove that benefit and wins, union members will simply threaten to cash it out immediately, plunging Toronto into a profound financial crisis until that demand is withdrawn.

Now that was a slick move . . . from the point of view of the union. From the taxpayer’s viewpoint, not so much.

But it was still not the whole of the love showered on the union by the Mayor . . .

Almost as egregious as this sleight of hand is Miller’s amnesty for criminals. What I always do in strikes is warn the union that lawbreakers will be criminally prosecuted instantly and that there will be no ultimate amnesty. That warning usually curtails violence. Miller did not do that.

Instead, Miller’s agreement, which ended a 39-day strike last week, provides a message to all city workers that they can misbehave with impunity in any future strike. And what does he claim to have received in return? A promise by the union that no havoc will be wreaked against those employees that continued to work. In short, a benefit in return for the union agreeing not to indulge in illegal hooliganism.

August 3, 2009

The twittering Tories

Filed under: Cancon, Politics — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 11:10

Victor Wong looks at some well-intended-but-bad advice offered to prospective Conservative candidates:

There are times when I wonder if, out of some misplaced maternal instinct, we’re teaching the next generation of politicians to be cowards.

Don’t know quite what I mean? Have a look at this story in this week’s Hill Times:

” ‘At least one of you is going to get disqualified for something you put on Twitter or on Facebook. I don’t know which one of you it’s going to be but it will be at least one of you,’ ” Jenni Byrne, director of issues management in the Prime Minister’s Office, told a group of candidates last week, according to a Conservative source.

The problem with this sort of statement is that it gives your prospective Tory candidate the impression of only two options: either pull out of things like Facebook or Twitter altogether (which cuts you out of at least 20 percent of the potential voting audience) or get your site vetted by Tory higher-ups (which, inevitably, leads to “cookie-cutter” sites, which would make your national campaign happy (so free of controversy!) but which make you look like a mindless clone.

Of course, from the point of view of the PMO, a pack of mindless clones is exactly what they want. Trained seals are so last-century.

July 30, 2009

QotD: Conspiracy unmasked!

Filed under: Cancon, Politics, Quotations — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 08:18

As a Charter Member of the Canadian Vast-Right Wing Conspiracy, Toronto Chapter, let me express my shock and horror at being discovered. Yes, me and the PM go way back. Oh, how we used to laugh away the nights, with talk of throwing widows and orphans into the cold winter night. That’s Social Darwinism, baby! Then we used to slap some waitresses around, because that’s what us right wing guys do. I used to sell bumpstickers that said “Scrooge was Right!” My winter coat is made of adorable puppy fur. The Prime Minister has a matching coat I gave him for Christmas.

Everytime Stephen Harper slashes a social program he laughs manically. I’ve seen him do it. He signs the Orders in Council with the blood of orphans. He says orphan blood flows more smoothly than that of children who are loved. Laureen Harper is not a real blond, it’s a wig. Part of an elaborate disguise to hide her actual Cruella de Vil looks. There is a hidden agenda and you clever folks have figured it all out.

The typical voter is just too dumb to understand the vast and subtle complexity of our plot. It’s rather clever. You see Stephie — as his friends call him — has for the last three years tried to lull Canadians to sleep, except you vigilant chaps. Way back in 2004-5 the federal government’s expenditures stood at $210.5 billion. Under two years of brilliant neo-con rule the expenditures reached $232.8 billion for 2007-8. By 2009-10 expenditures are projected to reach $258.6 billion. Hold on, you say, those are substantial increases? Exactly! By increasing government spending the Conservatives have convinced Canadians they are nice and friendly quasi-socialists. But just wait for that majority government! They’ll start cutting like there is no tomorrow, and for you Left-wing chaps that’s about right.

Publius, “News Alert: Stephen Harper Has a Hidden Agenda”, Gods of the Copybook Headings, 2009-07-29

July 29, 2009

Not at all sure how to take these . . .

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 17:25

. . . paintings of Barack Obama with a unicorn. This is a not-unrepresentative example:

obama-painting2

Obama, Stalin, a unicorn, and House. I’m having difficulties coming up with a connection other than they’re all on the same image here.

H/T to John Scalzi for the link.

QotD: Conspiracy theorists

Filed under: Government, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 14:29

Science fiction writer Damon Knight once claimed that the popularity of conspiracy theories could be explained by our “desire to believe that there is some group of folks who know what they’re doing.”

Wishful thinking. And few “groups of folks” have displayed less aptitude in the art of keeping secrets than government.

Yet no matter who is in power, no matter how incompetent they may be, there always exists this irate minority that believes politicians possess supernatural powers of deception.

The mystery the nation faces isn’t President Barack Obama’s birth certificate. The mystery is how any American could believe that all the president’s former political opponents, both the Republican and Democratic parties, Hawaiian officials and two Honolulu newspapers (nay, the entire press corps) could work in concert to conceal the biggest con of the eon.

David Harsanyi, “Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind: What the Obama birth certificate conspiracy says about American politics”, Reason Online, 2009-07-29

July 28, 2009

And now, in our special poetry section, William Shatner

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:42

This is, according to Peter Suderman, “an actual, unedited passage from her speech”.

Shatner flubs a word or two right around the bit about “ice fogged frigid beauty,” but otherwise, this is lifted verbatim. Students of Washington are used to politicians who don’t make sense, but this is rather more brazen than is typical. I think I have to agree with Gawker’s Alex Pareene: Palin is growing steadily more incoherent as we watch.

Still, there may be an upside: With luck, the discovery of her lyrical talents will end Palin’s terrifying political career and usher in the happy day when aimless lit majors can spend four years puzzling over her “verbiage” in order to turn out papers with titles like “Gertrude Stein and Robert Frost: Sarah Palin’s Poetic Lineage.”

Update: And in a stunning, but not-at-all-unexpected move, NBC Universal has demanded that this clip be removed by YouTube. Idiots. Do they fail to understand that clips like this might bring untold numbers who didn’t see that part of the show live to watch the show now?

If you didn’t see it, it was a reading by William Shatner of a highly poetic (for certain values of “poetic”) section of former Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin’s resignation speech. If you can find a non-interdicted-by-NBC-Universal-version, do watch/listen. It’s more than worth the price of admission.

NBC Universal, while your claim may be legal under current law . . . you demonstrate both your ignorance of popular culture and your contempt for the very people who made you successful in the first place. Nice work. Give yourself a bonus . . . while you’re still profitable.

July 25, 2009

Quebec voters’ relationship with the rest of Canada

Filed under: Cancon, Government, Politics — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:52

Publius outlines exactly my suspicions about the way a significant number of Quebec voters view the rest of Canada:

The hard truth of Canadian unity, and why Quebecers “park” their votes with the Bloc, is that each of the two solitudes views Canada differently. To anglophones Canada is — save some of the more Balkanized ethnics ghettoes — their country. To francophones, especially in Quebec, Canada is simply a vehicle to advance their cultural interests. If French culture can be better preserved by keeping Quebec in Canada, so be it. If independence — or whatever half-way house euphemism the separatists are using at the moment — looks like a better option, vive la independence!

The Bloc Quebecois is monumentally useless if your political aims is something humdrum, like forming a government. But if the goal is to extort concessions form the rest of the country, by raising the specter of national destruction, the Bloc is wildly successful. Stephen Harper has to run a national governing party. The West wants to scrap the Wheat Board and the Long-gun Registry. The typical Ontarian couldn’t tell wheat from cauliflower and is terrified of being caught in a drive-by, while touring the less scenic parts of Toronto. A certain measure of negotiation and compromise is required to run so disparate a group, how much is another matter. Giles Duceppe, the longest serving party leader in Canada, doesn’t have to face such wide cultural chasms. He leads a nearly monoethnic one issue, one note party where the internal debate is about when to pick up and leave. The swing voters who alternately support the Bloc, the Tories and the Liberals, aren’t Canadians mulling over policy options, but foreigners in spirit trying to get the best deal. Expecting them to put Canada’s interests above their parochial concerns is a fantasy.

« Newer Posts — Older Posts »

Powered by WordPress