Friday/Weekend Open Thread
Add updates and tidbits at your leisure.
This will give you a headache: Apeman Hannity arguing with Chicken Little Obama Supporter . Somewhere between Hannity's chest-beating and Kuttner's doom and gloom lies some truth. Too bad we'll never hear about it.
Update in the Lehman affair.
Submitted by John on Fri, 2008-09-12 10:52
Tags:

Comments :
Holtz-Eakin on Taxes
worth a read
Article by Joe Klein of Time.
If you asked the "average" American whether the economy
was better or worse now than 4 years ago, they would say worse.
Hannity is living in Wonderland and he appears to very much be of the
"Let them eat cake!"
mold. Made Fox look bad.
Excellent
laugh, smile and ponder
...
Sullivan again
This time he cracked me up
:
Sullivan is certainly the most agreeable conservative I've ever known.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
OMG! Give me a break!
He's a raving liberal who thinks having libertarian embroidered on his skirts will fool people...
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
You have an odd definition of liberal
He's for a flat tax.
He supported Dole in '96 and Bush in 2000.
He's pro-life.
I'll grant you that he's a libertarian conservative, rather than a social or neo conservative, but he's a conservative nonetheless -- so long as you're going to still think of the '94 Republicans and their ideologies as conservative. Perhaps he's now a liberal, but only because the definition of conservative has changed as of late.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I think he has changed a lot! n/t
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Democrats on Capitol Hill fear Obama fallout!
Here's the rest of the story
...
And of course there's this
!
AP: MCCAIN/PALIN UP 4...


GALLUP DAILY: UP 3...
RASMUSSEN: UP 3...
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Even my liberal Democratic GF
is starting to become convinced that a McCain upset is on its way.
Democrats may wind up feeling how the Patriots fans felt in the last Super Bowl.
As an outside observer, I find this increasingly possible outcome astounding...simply astounding.
Irrationality at it's finest
Sullivan has hope that this is a one time fluctuation and that things will return to normal after the debates.
If McCain does win, the myth of the rational voter will be transformed into the truth of the irrational voter. 80% of the country thinks we're on the wrong track but approximately half of those voters will elect someone who will continue the executive policies of the last 7.5 years with very little change.
I suppose this would pair quite well with the irrationality of Congressional approval ratings being around 10% yet people voting to re-elect their congressman at rates nearing 95%.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I think Caplan will look like a genius for his book
as hindsight puts his book in sharper and sharper perspective.
However, I don't think people saying the country is a wrong track and voting GOP is necessarily "irrational" in a different sense than people saying the country is on a wrong track and voting Dem.
Bottom line of Caplan's book IMO is this:
People are generally rational in personal choices meaning that people are self-interested and make choices to get the most utility out of their choices...whether it's smoking, donating to charity, buying a gas guzzler, committing suicide, saving money or what have you. Your choices are also influenced by experience and self interest in the sense that you avoid causing pain to yourself without a utility preference. This last point explains why people smoke. The immediate pleasure is outweighing the longer term risks. It also explains why you wouldn't put your hand on a hot stove...unless it was save someone's life or something. People in this sense rational are very rational and predictable.
Caplan thesis about voters is then two-fold: shows how political opinions are ruled by certain irrational biases and are governed by the same rationality as personal life. People get a sense of pleasure and satisfaction (utility) from their opinions. But unlike real life, there no direct personal consequence for having this opinion. A personal opinion that hummers are better than a civic on gas mileage won't last very long. You'll revise your opinion immediately when looking for a fuel efficient car.
He describes the insistence on clinging to ideas that are simply not true as "rational irrationality". The ideas are irrational but it's perfectly rational OF THE VOTER to cling to them because it gives pleasure to them and these ideas are not easily dismissed.
Always seemed like begging the question
I always thought the given assumption that people were rational when it came to personal choices to be begging the question. You mention smoking for example.
Lets say I am considering whether or not to take up smoking. If I do end up smoking I am implicitly saying that I prefer the "pleasure" of smoking to the health risks inherent in that choice. In my case, I know the health risks are extreme because I not only have minor asthmatic problems, but also am allergic to tobacco. If I ever smoked a cigarette, I'd probably end up in the hospital (in fact, I actually have no clue because I've never smoked a cigarette). However, under rational choice theory, if I did choose to smoke it would be a rational decision designed to maximize my expected utility.
My decision to smoke would not be rational. It'd be incredibly stupid and irrational. Any reasonable person would not make that decision. Now stupidity and rationality aren't orthogonal, but they're close enough in terms of making optimal decisions.
I suppose my point is that a good deal of the choices people make are not rational because rationality isn't subjective but objective. Given enough data about you, any person should be able to recommend an optimal choice to make regarding purchases, voting, or quite literally anything that requires you a choice. This choice would be objectively optimal and would serve you best.
Granted the latter is very idealized and vague, but I believe it to be true. In practice, this would be a bit more difficult, but I think it says more than standard rational choice theory says. Namely that people are rational, expected-utility maximizers. In practice it gets watered down to usually people try their best to make good decisions but sometimes fail.
See bounded rationality
, which oddly enough is believed by most Austrian school economists. This is more along the lines of what I believe but I still have some trouble with it.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
been through this before
you must not confuse mainstream rationality and economic rationality.
Yeah, I know
Apparently we been here long enough that we've got nothing to talk about except current issues. :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Not irrational at all
Many Americans simply will not vote for a black candidate.
qui tacet consentire
And that's somehow rational?
It's over my head...
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
remember
it's all about utility.
It's good to see the liberals are
preparing to rationalize their loss: " If Americans were rational, and not racist then we would win". You would think that excuse migt not make you a feel a lot better after losing 8 out of the last eleven elections. But whatever make you feel good about yourselves.
You're reading too much into it
I'm not rationalizing anything and neither is anyone else. Speaking for myself, I think people get the government they deserve.
I think you'd agree that when 80% of the people agree that the country is moving in the wrong direction but McCain is ahead in the polls, there is a bit of a disconnect.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
They just lie....
with confidence. It's that simple.
It is the economy, stupid.
I don't know who you're getting your numbers from...
...but assuming using your logic, if 80% of Americans are dis-satisfied with the direction the country is moving, and McCain is ahead in the polls, it is a direct-connect that the majority of people are sure Obama is not the answer.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Granted
Obama may not be the answer. I don't think he is. But McCain can't possibly be the answer. His policies are essentially Bush's with a few minor differences. Therefore neither must be the answer. And how many people will vote for neither McCain nor Obama? Probably about 2% of the population.
It is blindingly obvious our voting patterns do not correspond with what we want (or don't want) from government and our politicians.
Source
. There are other as well. Some aren't 80%, but I've not seen one that lists dissatisfaction with the "direction" any lower than 66%.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
But Bush and McCain are not the same...
....One things for sure, McCain will veto any earmarks. He will cur spending. He will keep the Bush Tax Cuts yes, but he will attempt to reduce government. He is a constitutionalist at heart, and so he will let the States do what they can and get government out of it. He has promised to secure the border, I believe he will do what he promised. It goes on and on, so this 4 more years of the same is just a liberal campaign slogan and nothing more.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Bush = McCain
McCain won't veto squat. Saying he'll end earmarks is like me saying I'll stop Hurricane Ike by spitting at it.
qui tacet consentire
Why do you say that?
He has a history of not voting for earmarks. Why would he change that now?
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Earmarks are how the states get money
to function. They have been corrupted by allowing them to be used as special favors, or enablers of the party in power.
For example, Mississippi has gotten lots of earmarks because the Gov. Haley Barbour is a Republican and is in favor with the powers that be.
Louisiana pre Katrina was not in favor because the Gov was a Democrat.
Earmarks can be used as a political bludgeon to punish political parties.
All Governors love pork because it brings sometimes much needed money into their states.
Federal monies for states USED to be doled out to the state authorities for local contracts to support state projects and allocated by local elected officials.
Now earmarks have become a way to grant special favors to the politically well connected, or essentially a sort of no bid contract given to politicians and their cronies.
John McCain
has been a strong critic of Ted Steven's earmarks, especially the "Bridge to Nowhere".
It is the economy, stupid.
Solution
Take less money from states and let them handle their own improvements instead of sending gobs of it to DC so they can fight over how to redistribute it.
Good idea, but unworkable
It'd require mutual disarmament to work. If only a few states decided they weren't going to request any pork, that'd just leave more for everyone else.
Voters won't hold their politicians to it either. From the party that purports to hate earmarks more than the other, Ted Stevens and Don Young are pork kings and they get re-elected without a hitch (although this year may be different).
Pork is also a convenient distraction from real budgeting problems. Pork makes up .6% of the federal budget. Eliminate earmarks today and we're still running a serious deficit.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
unworkable more because the
incentive system in DC. Congressmen would be more of problem because it takes clutter of the table for them to campaign on. It helps make them seem more important than they really need to be.
Such measures, if workable, would be better under a true federalist agenda whereby pork and some wasteful BS departments and agencies would be abolished or ceded to the states to control through their capitals.
Outside of defense and related spending and social entitlements, there's frighteningly little in DC involving appropriations that couldn't be pawned off to state government.
This of course would need to be accompanied by MASSIVE (I mean MASSIVE) federal tax cuts so states could reassess and tax accordingly through state income or sales taxes.
I agree
Except for the massive tax cuts at the federal level. We've got almost $10 trillion (thats $10,000,000,000,000 for those scoring at home) in debt to repay. Once the debt is under control, we could probably do away with the federal income tax.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I didn't say to do away with it.
I say massive cuts.
With basically 3 big items to deal with:
-defense/related
-medicare
-SS
it's much easier to control spending at the federal level.
Federal revenue from income taxes could practically be cut in half...if not more and still have a surplus to start paying down the debt.
The rest of spending can then be fought over at the state level.
Massive
in all caps to me means something like 0% for everyone making under $100,000 and 5% on anything over.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Works for me. :)
Or maybe 1% from $35K to $100K to keep everyone honest.
Note consequence
of the loss in home values, means a loss in state revenue from property taxes.
If we pretend the US govt is run like a business, then we should face facts that we have entered into a contractual agreements (right or wrong is irrelevant) that we owe on big time.
The best way to get out from under this debt is to start saving. One way the government can save is the 'forced savings plan' otherwise known as taxes.
The world won't end if we raise taxes, and the US government can not continue to operate with this unsustainable debt obligation.
I think we have reached the point where we just can't 'grow' our way out.
If you love your country then why not make a shared sacrifice of helping it get out of the hole.
Tax cuts to global corporations isn't fueling the US economy, it is fueling the global economy which is also suffering from unregulated calamity known years of creative accounting practices and Bushonomics.
It is the economy, stupid.
We need to cut spending, too
The military budget could use a nice hatchet, but so could social programs funded out of general taxes.
I don't like it any more than anyone else, but debt reduction is the first priority.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That is without equivication....
...the most bizarre description of the "earmark" process I have ever heard. It is riddled with your own personal stereotypes and deeply embedded political & psychological pathogens.
Whatever.
McCain is against earmarks, he always has been, even when he was "in favor" (as you incorrectly suggest one must be in order to be bestowed such earmarks) standing shoulder to shoulder with Reagan and the Republican congress.
He see's it for what it is, wasteful spending politicians are embarrassed to ask for in public.
Also, did they tell you in your wiki-knowledge crash course in earmarks that, yes Sarah Palin was for the Bridge, until she saw the folly in it, then she was against it, but curiously enough, that money was offered to go to the Katrina cleanup, and Obama and Biden both voted to go build the bridge?
And lastly, in your grossly disturbing evaluation of the earmark process, you were correct in one aspect, the president does not "vote" on earmarks.
What you seemed to overlook is...he kills them with the veto.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
You missed something too
You missed the veto override.
The Water Resources Development Act and the 2007 US Farm Bill were both loaded with pork, but a majority of Republicans voted to override President Bush's veto of them.
This is the inherent problem with pork. If you can't get a congressman to vote for the bill because it has too much pork, just put a little bit more in there and he'll vote for it.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That last line is a classic - LOL!!!!
A veto over ride is very rare. McCain will not sign any bills with Pork. And if they do over ride them, they will own the repercussions. I think we may see a turning point in Washington in this respect.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
MCCain's one plus
is that he'll be a spending hawk. Moreover, with bills coming from Pelosi and Reid, he'll run his veto pen dry within 6 months. That's a good thing. Too bad we can't do that without
the rest of his baggage.
No rationalization at all
It's called the Wilder Effect -- aka the Bradley Effect -- and it's real.
qui tacet consentire
I don't think so...
...for the Bradley effect to be in play Obama would have to be ahead in the polls up until the election, then lose on election day.
Obama is slipping behind in the polls.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Hope you won't be too distraught when Obama wins.
McCain....he isn't fooling many except for those that would vote republican anyhow.
Here's one group that is real sorry to see bush43 leave office: repo men:
“I love the economy. I’m going to miss Bush. Ol’ Bush gets out of office I don’t know what we’re going to do, but I’m speaking for all repo men, Bush, we’re going to miss you buddy. Ha ha, ha ha. For real.”
Well, then kindness
it would appear that the amount of people who vote GOP anyhow is quite large if you are to be correct.
But, I don't think you are correct. I think you are projecting your views onto others and simply understate or fail to appreciate the viewpoint of the truly centrist and moderate voter who doesn't have your partisan tint on everything.
Believe it or not, many people are simply not predisposed to view the world like you do and may vote for McCain who might otherwise have not had they been given a choice to sway them.
I'm OK with disagreeing.
You're Ok with disagreeing?
So this means that you disagree with the possibility of what I just said?
You refuse to be swayed or self-questioned, in terms of your logic, by polls that show McCain winning?
You refuse to consider that some moderates who are not "automatic GOP voters" are leaning toward McCain right now?
You're OK with disagreeing?
That's it?
Update,
Now that I see that comment was directed toward ME, what in the world makes you think I'm rooting for McCain?
have I ever said I was? No. Implied it? No.
have I ever said I wasn't? Yes. No implication necessary since I explicitly said it.
Never mind, political views, Kindness. I think your remark is a stinging indictment against your ability to read what people say without projecting your biases onto them.
By projecting, I mean that since you would never say anything short of something derogatory about McCain and the GOP, it's incomprehensible to you that someone could make a statement about McCain or Obama without one's voting preference being the direct guide to what is said.
We haven't even had the debates yet!
Someone needs to remind you and your liberal GF that we're still in September and McCain's lead in these new polls is tiny. A lot can change.
skymutt: wise and powerful... enlightened...
Of course a lot can change
I know the debates could swing this back in Obama's favor but there's palpable shift going on.
Again, I find it stunning that the GOP would even be in striking distance at any point during this race given the mood of the country.
We could of...
...had a debate, many of them, a Townhall a week to be specific, where the issues could have been thouroghly explored.
But BO had other things to do, like vacation in Hawaii while the Georgia conflict boiled over, speak to the Germans at a rock concert-while blowing off the injured soldiers(No cameras allowed you know), and of course illustrate his prolific ability to make poor choices by dragging out the choice of (snicker) Joe Biden?
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Too funny.. Here's Kos referring to a John Cole post on Palin:
"Sarah Palin is the distilled essence of wingnut. She has it all. She is dishonest. She is a religious nut. She is incurious. She is anti-science. She is inexperienced. She abuses her authority. She hides behind executive privilege. She is a big spender. She works from the gut and places a greater value on instinct than knowledge.
And most dangerous of all, she is supremely self-confident to the point of not recognizing how ill-equipped she is to lead the country.
George Bush in a dress. The Palin interview should be a gut-check for Republicans and conservatives who think the last eight years has been a perversion of conservative principles. I am betting most of them will not even put down their pom-poms, though. "
So sadly true.
"How Liberals Think" ~ Evan Sayet
Apx at 18:00 in is a section that talks about discrimination vs in-discrimination. Please, if nothing else watch that few minutes.
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
He makes a point
and I agree with it. Namely that in the name of "political correctness" we can't discriminate against anyone for any reason even if we have good reason to believe discriminating is a good idea. I can't stand political correctness as much as anyone else.
It is unfortunate that he uses security checks as an example because he couldn't be more wrong on security; it doesn't apply here.
If we decided to only screen people who "seemed like potential terrorists", ie. Arab Muslims, this will only work if we assume the terrorists cannot adapt to our profiling techniques. Think of it this way: if you were trying to hijack a plane and you knew that a certain type of person (young, male, Arab Muslim) would get screened, what would you do? Hire someone who isn't a young, male, Arab Muslim to hijack the plane. If you think there aren't a good deal of people willing to die for a cause or simply enough cash, you are sorely mistaken.
The most secure way to do security screenings is to screen everyone and let people use their intuition rather than bureaucratic rules to decide who deserves a more through exam. If we aren't going to screen everyone, then we need to do random checks of everyone (including 87-year old grandmas) along with those intuition-based checks.
Of course, some intuitions will be better than others, which is why we should pay our screeners more. Last I checked, a TSA screener makes something around $12/hr to start. I hear that in Israel their equivalent security agents are very well paid and do a much better job.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
That video has the wrong title
"How to rip apart straw men" ~ Evan Sayet
At least in the first 8 minutes it is
And the 18 minute part is over-generalization and straw men.
I stopped watching after he referenced a bad band and acted like one of the cool kids by dissing Supertramps name glorifying be a super hobo.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Why...that's The Crime of the Century!....
Owning several Supertramp albums & CD's I couldn't resist.
"All" Liberals can agree.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Supertramp ROX
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
The Closing of the American Mind... - Allan Bloom
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Woulda, Coulda, Shoulda...
Jen Rubin
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Palin cuts travel expenses in half!
Claiming to have visited Iraq, Kuwait, Ireland, Germany, it turns out that she actually only visited Kuwait and Germany.
Will the spin by that she cut her travel expenses in half?
This is just beyond insulting to voters.
But she might have taken a vacation to Mexico, visited Canada, and bonus points for being able to 'see' Russia from Alaska.
Is it just me, or the more we learn about McCain pick for VP, the more glaringly apparent it becomes that the choice was not made with the safety of our country in mind, but with the safety of McCain's political career?
It is the economy, stupid.
Yes, it's just you...
...the more we hear about the McCain pick for VP from you, the more glaringly apparent it becomes that you are incapable of making political commentary with our country in mind, but only with the safety of Obama's political career?
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Saudi Judge: It's OK to kill owners of 'immoral' TV networks
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (AP)
— Saudi Arabia's top judiciary official has issued a religious decree saying it is permissible to kill the owners of satellite TV networks that broadcast immoral content.
These are our best friends in the Arab world?
Maybe he is their Pat Robertson....
but then again the Saudis are the ones spreading the "Radical Islam" that al-Qaeda and many other Sunni groups bought into.
The people with power in Saudi Arabia own those stations, the 79 year old man might be silenced for effectively calling for the murder of some rich Saudis.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Why does this remind me
of Jesus Camp
The religious rights answer to 'radical Islamic jihadists' is to create radical Christian jihadists. And they literally looked to Bush as their Osama bin Laden, replete with lifesize cardboard cutouts of their hero.
Why does this make me think of Sarah Palin?
It is the economy, stupid.
Insha'Allah and God's plan
Sarah Palin has got to be great recruiting slogan for the evil doers. She talks about the Iraq War being part of God's plan, no need to take that out of context.
Its too bad that bin Laden was insecure and felt slighted that the Saudi's passed over him to kick Saddam out of Kuwait and instead turned to the US as means of getting into heaven.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Because for weeks now...
...seized by fear, all you ever think about is Sarah Palin! LOL!
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Saudi Arabia is the New Orleans of our 'Allies"
...meaning, there is a big problem there, and no one is doing anything about it!
“Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich.” ~ William F. Buckley, Jr.
Coup "attempt" in Venezuela
"Venezuela investigates alleged plot to kill Chavez"
"Russia to base nuclear warship and anti-submarine aircraft in Venezuela"

"Venezuela kicks out US ambassador"
Venezuela could find another buyer for 60% of its oil, but their COGS and sale price might get hit negatively. I doubt Chavez would do anything he thought would hurt his economy in a substantive way.
The US gets around 14% of its oil
from Venezuela.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
For Brutus: Off topic
If you're in town tonight, I'll be at my dad's to watch OSU-USC.
Call me if you're planning on coming over. If you forgot/don't know my number, I left it on my LJ page under the most recent post.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Go USC!
Poor Buckeyes don't know what's coming for them. ;)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Go to hell :-)
We've got to win a big game one of these days.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...