So if any of you watched ESPN at all today (I know, most of you have jobs that do not have you coming home at 7:00 a.m.), you learned that the game before the election if the Redskins win, the incumbent party stays in power, but if the 'Skins lose, well you get the idea.
As they said on Mike and Mike, it would be great to see Obama on the sidelines in a Ben jersey and waving his terrible towel...
Go Steelers!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Monday, November 3, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
she's got everything i need...
i think, since i'm the political/social arm (read: not-sports) of this blog, i'm going to post on somethings that have been aggravating me.
It has become popular for conservative commentators to state the those on welfare should lose their right to vote. in fact, one (Michael Savage) said: "Do you think a person on welfare has the right to vote? I don't. Why should a person who is on public assistance maintain the right to vote? Tell me why. Where is it written that they should have the right to vote?... I support them, and they should have the same vote I do? That would be like saying an infant has the right to vote or an insane person has the right to vote. Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They're only gonna vote themselves a raise."
another commentator, Jim Quinn has stated, while discussing the history of property rights in the United States, "Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end... But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited."
if i hate anything, its misinformation and blatant lying and stupidity. first, mr. savage's argument is logically meaningless. he's basically stating that those who vote their self-interest should not be allowed to vote. unfortunately for his theory, most if not all of modern politics and economics are founded on self-interest. in fact, self-interest underlies the political thought that defines our political perspective. his comment sounds great as something you shout at something, but it lacks all substance.
aside from the meaninglessness of these arguments and their total lack of substance, there is another fundamental reason why the right to vote was expanded to non-property owners. the beginning of the emergence of our modern economic framework required that the vote be expanded. non-landowners began to play a larger role in society, especially respectable political society. therefore, as their contribution increased it became more and more difficult to exclude them, and there could have been unfortunate results if these individuals were not extended the ability to vote. these changes came as society was moving from an agrarian economic structure to a modern industrial structure. with these changes in the means of production were necessitated changes in political and social structure. there is a cognitive dissonance between the market ideas of conservatives and comments such as this. free markets, in my opinion, are the pinnacle of democracy. individuals all have a say in what is made, what we have, and how we distribute it. even the idea of removing the vote should be completely unfathomable to people with this worldview, it is to me.
there is a serious problem in america, its the nature of our discourse. its full of shit. everyone is lying to everyone else. the problem is that not everyone can sort this stuff out, or see through this stuff. people really believe that obama is a muslim. people really think that one tax plan is welfare and the other is not. all tax plans can be defined as welfare under McCain's definition, including his own. obama and the unions are not honest about mccain's health plan. no one can make an informed decision whatsoever.
people are also attacking colin powell. i say kudos to him. he was pushed to the end because of the religion-baiting and real-america baiting going on in this campaign. he's right, its not un-american to be muslim. and that we make it sound like that is wrong. there is no national religion. in fact, if i had my way, everyone would realize that religion is a lie. but, sadly, i do not have my way, and people still wander along believing in some guy somewhere who started stuff a long time ago (just disagreeing on what is long) and cares about all of us (so long as bad stuff isn't happening, and actually, we seem to think the bad stuff is caring too, wish i could convince more women of that). back to the point... it is retarded that religion is playing such a role in this campaign, even if it is on the sidelines. it makes me forlorn.
finally, republicans are trying to make the financial collapse about housing for poor people and democrats are trying to blame greenspan. LISTEN, THIS ISN'T A BLAME THING. what's the point, first off? second, its not like there was one mistake that sent this whole thing spiralling down. this isn't time to kill markets either, as some news outlets have been suggesting. they work, but we just fucked up. it happens. we haven't been doing this for very long... it isn't perfect yet. we've only had real markets for what, 100 years? the housing collapse isn't about the FMs getting mortgages for inner-city (read: minorities) residents. most of those sub-prime loans were not made by lenders participating in the FMs. even the portion of blame they do deserve is not enough on its own to bring everything down like it did. and dems shouldn't blame anyone for not seeing this coming, gary becker has talked about how few people predicted a fall like this and the high costs of listening to warnings and getting people to stop riding a strongly increasing market. if people keep sharing these ideas that have no real merit, we'll never actually fix the cause of this problem.
so that's what i'm calling for. the use and exercise of reason, the most human of all human traits. everyone needs to stop behaving like an ass. currently all of our information markets are facing a problem similar to the housing market 5 years ago. we've got a bubble of all this valueless crap out there muddying up the real value of information and parading around as real value. we deserve good information. anyone have any ideas on how to get it out to the public?
It has become popular for conservative commentators to state the those on welfare should lose their right to vote. in fact, one (Michael Savage) said: "Do you think a person on welfare has the right to vote? I don't. Why should a person who is on public assistance maintain the right to vote? Tell me why. Where is it written that they should have the right to vote?... I support them, and they should have the same vote I do? That would be like saying an infant has the right to vote or an insane person has the right to vote. Why should a welfare recipient have the right to vote? They're only gonna vote themselves a raise."
another commentator, Jim Quinn has stated, while discussing the history of property rights in the United States, "Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end... But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited."
if i hate anything, its misinformation and blatant lying and stupidity. first, mr. savage's argument is logically meaningless. he's basically stating that those who vote their self-interest should not be allowed to vote. unfortunately for his theory, most if not all of modern politics and economics are founded on self-interest. in fact, self-interest underlies the political thought that defines our political perspective. his comment sounds great as something you shout at something, but it lacks all substance.
aside from the meaninglessness of these arguments and their total lack of substance, there is another fundamental reason why the right to vote was expanded to non-property owners. the beginning of the emergence of our modern economic framework required that the vote be expanded. non-landowners began to play a larger role in society, especially respectable political society. therefore, as their contribution increased it became more and more difficult to exclude them, and there could have been unfortunate results if these individuals were not extended the ability to vote. these changes came as society was moving from an agrarian economic structure to a modern industrial structure. with these changes in the means of production were necessitated changes in political and social structure. there is a cognitive dissonance between the market ideas of conservatives and comments such as this. free markets, in my opinion, are the pinnacle of democracy. individuals all have a say in what is made, what we have, and how we distribute it. even the idea of removing the vote should be completely unfathomable to people with this worldview, it is to me.
there is a serious problem in america, its the nature of our discourse. its full of shit. everyone is lying to everyone else. the problem is that not everyone can sort this stuff out, or see through this stuff. people really believe that obama is a muslim. people really think that one tax plan is welfare and the other is not. all tax plans can be defined as welfare under McCain's definition, including his own. obama and the unions are not honest about mccain's health plan. no one can make an informed decision whatsoever.
people are also attacking colin powell. i say kudos to him. he was pushed to the end because of the religion-baiting and real-america baiting going on in this campaign. he's right, its not un-american to be muslim. and that we make it sound like that is wrong. there is no national religion. in fact, if i had my way, everyone would realize that religion is a lie. but, sadly, i do not have my way, and people still wander along believing in some guy somewhere who started stuff a long time ago (just disagreeing on what is long) and cares about all of us (so long as bad stuff isn't happening, and actually, we seem to think the bad stuff is caring too, wish i could convince more women of that). back to the point... it is retarded that religion is playing such a role in this campaign, even if it is on the sidelines. it makes me forlorn.
finally, republicans are trying to make the financial collapse about housing for poor people and democrats are trying to blame greenspan. LISTEN, THIS ISN'T A BLAME THING. what's the point, first off? second, its not like there was one mistake that sent this whole thing spiralling down. this isn't time to kill markets either, as some news outlets have been suggesting. they work, but we just fucked up. it happens. we haven't been doing this for very long... it isn't perfect yet. we've only had real markets for what, 100 years? the housing collapse isn't about the FMs getting mortgages for inner-city (read: minorities) residents. most of those sub-prime loans were not made by lenders participating in the FMs. even the portion of blame they do deserve is not enough on its own to bring everything down like it did. and dems shouldn't blame anyone for not seeing this coming, gary becker has talked about how few people predicted a fall like this and the high costs of listening to warnings and getting people to stop riding a strongly increasing market. if people keep sharing these ideas that have no real merit, we'll never actually fix the cause of this problem.
so that's what i'm calling for. the use and exercise of reason, the most human of all human traits. everyone needs to stop behaving like an ass. currently all of our information markets are facing a problem similar to the housing market 5 years ago. we've got a bubble of all this valueless crap out there muddying up the real value of information and parading around as real value. we deserve good information. anyone have any ideas on how to get it out to the public?
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
some people live, some people die
i find myself bored with a lot of things. almost everything. i feel totally neutral. neutral is a weird thing to feel.
maybe i should sit down and criticize our response to the financial crisis. that might be fun. i want to see what happens though.
what i love about markets and money is what i love about everything else. it has no real meaning or value. i think that is one of the most interesting things that most people fail to truly comprehend. value is a totally human artifice. we make it. we destroy it. such a cool idea. i might come up with a real post about this... i'm just bored now and can't sleep.
maybe i should sit down and criticize our response to the financial crisis. that might be fun. i want to see what happens though.
what i love about markets and money is what i love about everything else. it has no real meaning or value. i think that is one of the most interesting things that most people fail to truly comprehend. value is a totally human artifice. we make it. we destroy it. such a cool idea. i might come up with a real post about this... i'm just bored now and can't sleep.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
is that mouthwash in your eyes?
it is now election season. well. this election season has been going on for what seems like my entire post-graduate career. i'm done with my graduate education and it is still going on. this election is like cancer. it is always there, just waiting. then you are lucky (meaning you are cured, not dead) and it is over. but after it is over, what do you do? move on? you just dodged death. what do you do after that? go back to working your little job? go watch a movie? buy a car? drop out of college and play some video games?
ngewo wants to talk politics. so i'm going to put an idea out there. i read the ny times often. if you want rational answers to problems, maybe try www.becker-posner-blog.com or www.skeptic.com. don't try newspapers and presidential candidates.
my position on the election is this, who cares what their policies are. presidential elections, like everything else, are way too simplified. commercials want you to think two things, first that the other guy is a jackass and second that actual policy statements matter. elections are not about policies, they are about personalities. and they should be.
the president that is successful is not the one that has strict policy answers, its the one that listens and adapts. its also the one that isn't bound by rules. rules are ridiculous, unless it is a sporting event. then, maybe. but even there i can think of lots of sensible rules based upon positive goals like safety, which just don't work. two instances, pass interference and any roughing call in hockey. you can't define those things. they are always in flux based upon the momentum and mood of the game. being the president is more like making a pass interference call than it is an offsides call.
as usual, editors are complaining that there are very few policy positions being espoused. but who cares? policy positions do not matter generally. the job of the president is always changing and he doesn't make the rules alone. another for instance, it doesn't matter much about any candidate's position on abortion. whether you love god or not, abortion is constitutionally protected. that is not likely to change. it might make you feel better, but his position doesn't matter.
what does matter is how likeable a guy the president is. is he able to negotiate well? is he smart enough to adapt and know who to listen to and when he doesn't know what he needs to know?
mccain is telling us that obama's going to spend all of our hard earned income and that republicans will not. this isn't true, they will all spend our income. first, obama never advocated raising taxes. second, the repubs have spent more money than we have had coming in without raising taxes, which doesn't speak of fiscal responsibility. in fact, it sounds like they were spending our children's income, or my income a few years from now.
obama's telling us that mccain is just like bush. well, this isn't true either. he's not just like bush. there are plenty of differences between the two. and the statement means nothing, so what if he voted with him on your "90%" of the time number. maybe all those votes with him were on run of the mill things. it is meaningless information. sounds great though.
the truth is, there is no good information. there can't be. its not a job like any other. and you can't make promises. well maybe one. the promise they should make is that they will be smart and not think of their own interests first. they will be cool guys to the rest of the world. they will work to improve everyone's lives by creating opportunity. now, tell us how you will create opportunity.
there's a difference between telling us how they will create opportunity versus espousing policy statements. Abortion is immoral or NAFTA is bad is a policy statement. but explaining how you will create opportunity is a statement of one's philosophical and personal vision. these are different. policy is a rule, philosophy is frame of reference. for instance, i'll create opportunity by opening markets, because opening markets does the following things..., although it has the following immediate negative effects... it will be a net gain.
so the candidates should stop giving us policy rules, but general visions. its childish to believe that they can follow policy rules, but their philosophical solutions will tell us how they analyze what comes up before them. being president isn't about making rules, that's the legislature's job. being president is about directing the country and speaking to the world on behalf of the american people. tell us how you are going to do that.
ngewo wants to talk politics. so i'm going to put an idea out there. i read the ny times often. if you want rational answers to problems, maybe try www.becker-posner-blog.com or www.skeptic.com. don't try newspapers and presidential candidates.
my position on the election is this, who cares what their policies are. presidential elections, like everything else, are way too simplified. commercials want you to think two things, first that the other guy is a jackass and second that actual policy statements matter. elections are not about policies, they are about personalities. and they should be.
the president that is successful is not the one that has strict policy answers, its the one that listens and adapts. its also the one that isn't bound by rules. rules are ridiculous, unless it is a sporting event. then, maybe. but even there i can think of lots of sensible rules based upon positive goals like safety, which just don't work. two instances, pass interference and any roughing call in hockey. you can't define those things. they are always in flux based upon the momentum and mood of the game. being the president is more like making a pass interference call than it is an offsides call.
as usual, editors are complaining that there are very few policy positions being espoused. but who cares? policy positions do not matter generally. the job of the president is always changing and he doesn't make the rules alone. another for instance, it doesn't matter much about any candidate's position on abortion. whether you love god or not, abortion is constitutionally protected. that is not likely to change. it might make you feel better, but his position doesn't matter.
what does matter is how likeable a guy the president is. is he able to negotiate well? is he smart enough to adapt and know who to listen to and when he doesn't know what he needs to know?
mccain is telling us that obama's going to spend all of our hard earned income and that republicans will not. this isn't true, they will all spend our income. first, obama never advocated raising taxes. second, the repubs have spent more money than we have had coming in without raising taxes, which doesn't speak of fiscal responsibility. in fact, it sounds like they were spending our children's income, or my income a few years from now.
obama's telling us that mccain is just like bush. well, this isn't true either. he's not just like bush. there are plenty of differences between the two. and the statement means nothing, so what if he voted with him on your "90%" of the time number. maybe all those votes with him were on run of the mill things. it is meaningless information. sounds great though.
the truth is, there is no good information. there can't be. its not a job like any other. and you can't make promises. well maybe one. the promise they should make is that they will be smart and not think of their own interests first. they will be cool guys to the rest of the world. they will work to improve everyone's lives by creating opportunity. now, tell us how you will create opportunity.
there's a difference between telling us how they will create opportunity versus espousing policy statements. Abortion is immoral or NAFTA is bad is a policy statement. but explaining how you will create opportunity is a statement of one's philosophical and personal vision. these are different. policy is a rule, philosophy is frame of reference. for instance, i'll create opportunity by opening markets, because opening markets does the following things..., although it has the following immediate negative effects... it will be a net gain.
so the candidates should stop giving us policy rules, but general visions. its childish to believe that they can follow policy rules, but their philosophical solutions will tell us how they analyze what comes up before them. being president isn't about making rules, that's the legislature's job. being president is about directing the country and speaking to the world on behalf of the american people. tell us how you are going to do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)