• Jebus, the Republicans are starting to look good. (Oops — I couldn’t find a link for this one.)
Why am I not surprised?
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Anger, yes - violence, no
Talk of assassination. Odd intimations that assassins of liberals are themselves liberals. Political anger is one thing, but fomenting political violence, and lying about the source and nature of said violence, is a very low place to go.
In general, it is very easy to tell the difference between left-wing and right-wing violence. Leftists tend to engage in violence against property – rightists instead engage in violence against persons. I will leave it to each of you to decide for yourself which is more grievous.
In general, it is very easy to tell the difference between left-wing and right-wing violence. Leftists tend to engage in violence against property – rightists instead engage in violence against persons. I will leave it to each of you to decide for yourself which is more grievous.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
GOP should abandon Beck
This is good advice, but it will fall mostly on deaf ears at PJM. The right is so devoid of real leadership, it is simply too easy for a shill like Beck to take the reigns. His racist and nonsense-filled rants sound quite reasonable to many of the GOP faithful, and they will gladly follow him over the cliff.
I was amused at the mention of Palin. The claim that she was treated unfairly always makes me laugh out loud. She is not far from Beck in her potential to negatively impact the GOP. Although not as outrageous as Glenn, Sarah is certainly on the fringe, and the longer she remains in the media spotlight, the better off the Democrats will be.
Of course, I don’t expect the denizens of PJM to agree with me – most will froth with incredulity at the idea that their heroes could be so hollow. But then again, this is the fringe of the fringe here.
I was amused at the mention of Palin. The claim that she was treated unfairly always makes me laugh out loud. She is not far from Beck in her potential to negatively impact the GOP. Although not as outrageous as Glenn, Sarah is certainly on the fringe, and the longer she remains in the media spotlight, the better off the Democrats will be.
Of course, I don’t expect the denizens of PJM to agree with me – most will froth with incredulity at the idea that their heroes could be so hollow. But then again, this is the fringe of the fringe here.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Calling out the violence on the right
The most stark difference you will see in this case, is that nobody will come to the defense of Pouillon’s murderer.
Considering the outpouring of support on PJM for the killer of Dr. Tiller, this difference is more than sufficient to make clear the contrast in perspectives at play here.
Moreover, the anti-abortion movement has explicitly called for violence against medical providers. No such calls have issued from the pro-choice camp. I think the history of violence against pro-choice physicians speaks for itself.
Considering the outpouring of support on PJM for the killer of Dr. Tiller, this difference is more than sufficient to make clear the contrast in perspectives at play here.
Moreover, the anti-abortion movement has explicitly called for violence against medical providers. No such calls have issued from the pro-choice camp. I think the history of violence against pro-choice physicians speaks for itself.
Blinded by History
The war mongering of Bush was hardly an effective response to the emerging threats facing the USA. Instead of using our resources to promote our national interest, we have become embroiled in ancient tribal and religious conflicts in a region where we have little to gain, and much to lose.
Obama is embarking on a reinvention of America’s international reputation, which is much needed after the punishment inflicted under Bush. At the same time, he is taking practical and realistic steps to push for a realignment in international relations. Rather than the “with us or against us” rhetoric of Bush, Obama is working on the basis of building consensus.
In the long term, the strategy of Obama is the only one that can succeed. Without international cooperation and agreement, the US cannot achieve her long term strategic goals. Extricating our military from Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to take many years, and cost us a great deal more blood and treasure. Inviting more of the same is a fool’s game, and one that Obama is determined not play.
Going it alone is a recipe for foreign policy disaster, as made clear by Bush & Co. While Bush was starting a war in Iraq for his own purposes, he took the eye off of the ball. Afghanistan turned against us, Iraq became a quagmire, and North Korea and Iran both made more progress toward nuclear weapons than under any previous administration.
Given the situation he faces, Obama is taking the right steps to restore American standing in the world, and refocus our military and diplomatic efforts on protecting the vital interests of Americans, rather than corporations. It is a welcome change, and a hopeful one.
Obama is embarking on a reinvention of America’s international reputation, which is much needed after the punishment inflicted under Bush. At the same time, he is taking practical and realistic steps to push for a realignment in international relations. Rather than the “with us or against us” rhetoric of Bush, Obama is working on the basis of building consensus.
In the long term, the strategy of Obama is the only one that can succeed. Without international cooperation and agreement, the US cannot achieve her long term strategic goals. Extricating our military from Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to take many years, and cost us a great deal more blood and treasure. Inviting more of the same is a fool’s game, and one that Obama is determined not play.
Going it alone is a recipe for foreign policy disaster, as made clear by Bush & Co. While Bush was starting a war in Iraq for his own purposes, he took the eye off of the ball. Afghanistan turned against us, Iraq became a quagmire, and North Korea and Iran both made more progress toward nuclear weapons than under any previous administration.
Given the situation he faces, Obama is taking the right steps to restore American standing in the world, and refocus our military and diplomatic efforts on protecting the vital interests of Americans, rather than corporations. It is a welcome change, and a hopeful one.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Capitalism doesn't kill people - Capitalists do
Just as guns don’t kill people, capitalism doesn’t kill people.
It’s all about how you use it – and unfortunately, humans reliably demonstrate a capacity to kill with guns, as well as with capitalism. Capitalism is a great system in theory – but in practice, it is perhaps the single most destructive force the planet has ever seen. Capitalism may work, but what it accomplishes is not necessarily a good thing.
It’s all about how you use it – and unfortunately, humans reliably demonstrate a capacity to kill with guns, as well as with capitalism. Capitalism is a great system in theory – but in practice, it is perhaps the single most destructive force the planet has ever seen. Capitalism may work, but what it accomplishes is not necessarily a good thing.
Kettle, heal thyself
Articles like this are expected at PJM, and actually help to put the lie to the author's conclusions. He readily admits that he has no statistics, no evidence, nothing to back up his assertions - but nonetheless is confident that his conclusions are sound.
One paragraph in particular gave me pause, as it so clearly applies to much of the invective spewed in comment threads:
I do hope that my fellows in the comment threads at PJM will take this thought to heart. The emphasis on reason, and on intellectual curiosity, are in complete accord with my own efforts here at PJM. Despite the ongoing ad hominem attacks that persist at PJM, I am confident that there is a cohort of reasonable and intellectually curious readers who appreciate the efforts of folks who bring dissenting views to these pages.
I would have more respect for the author if he had addressed this problem in the rational and intellectually honest manner that he proposes, rather than using the entire article as a platform for his own ad hominem attacks on the left. The author claims to have found "that the great majority of these crude and invidious remarks come from patently left-leaning readers" but can offer nothing more than his own personal impression, no doubt clouded by the ideology. He describes the problem well, while providing a great example, too.
When I read the line "certain sites feature articles, reports, and analyses of contemporary events that, in their content and phrasing, differ little from the productions of the most thoughtless and vitriolic commenters themselves" the first site that came to mind was the one the author is posting on. I want to thank Mr. Solway for putting the lie to his own thesis so elegantly.
One paragraph in particular gave me pause, as it so clearly applies to much of the invective spewed in comment threads:
One of the things I find most disturbing is the stubborn resistance to data that does not consort with a prior and deeply held conviction, the unwillingness to reflect upon one’s own prejudices, assumptions, and ideological stances. I believe it was Jonathan Swift who said that “what a man has not been reasoned into, he will not be reasoned out of.” Was he right? One would like to believe that intellectual curiosity can always be stimulated and that acquired knowledge can have a salutary effect, despite so much evidence to the contrary.
I do hope that my fellows in the comment threads at PJM will take this thought to heart. The emphasis on reason, and on intellectual curiosity, are in complete accord with my own efforts here at PJM. Despite the ongoing ad hominem attacks that persist at PJM, I am confident that there is a cohort of reasonable and intellectually curious readers who appreciate the efforts of folks who bring dissenting views to these pages.
I would have more respect for the author if he had addressed this problem in the rational and intellectually honest manner that he proposes, rather than using the entire article as a platform for his own ad hominem attacks on the left. The author claims to have found "that the great majority of these crude and invidious remarks come from patently left-leaning readers" but can offer nothing more than his own personal impression, no doubt clouded by the ideology. He describes the problem well, while providing a great example, too.
When I read the line "certain sites feature articles, reports, and analyses of contemporary events that, in their content and phrasing, differ little from the productions of the most thoughtless and vitriolic commenters themselves" the first site that came to mind was the one the author is posting on. I want to thank Mr. Solway for putting the lie to his own thesis so elegantly.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Birthers / Truthers
It is true that not all conspiracy theories are created equal, and not all fringe elements are comparable.
In this case, the birther contingent has no evidence, no motive, and no theory – so it would be hard to call them conspiracy theorists. They are simply loony.
The truther contingent, on the other hand, can point to specific documents to support the contention that the Bush administration failed to take even the most basic measures to prevent the attack of 9/11/01, such as the “Bin Laden determined to attack in the US” memo, and the ongoing refusal of the Bush administration to acknowledge or address this threat seriously leading up the attack.
Fundamentally, the difference is very simple. The “birthers” wish to avoid facing the truth, while the “truthers” are interested in discovering it. Obama’s birthplace has no practical impact on the lives of Americans, while the failure of the government to prevent 9/11 has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans. I could go into greater detail about the Bush administration’s Iraq invasion, warrantless wiretaps and other unconstitutional adventures – but the bottom line is the same.
One side is worried about a technicality related to eligibility, while the other side is worried about actually protecting Americans from harm. To use your analogy, I don’t mind if Obama “wears his underwear on his head” – I am much more concerned about the crazy uncle that sexually molested detainees, and has tried to bury the evidence and avoid punishment. The Bush administration openly admitted engaging in criminal acts against the people of the USA – the location of Obama’s birth certificate hardly has the same significance.
In this case, the birther contingent has no evidence, no motive, and no theory – so it would be hard to call them conspiracy theorists. They are simply loony.
The truther contingent, on the other hand, can point to specific documents to support the contention that the Bush administration failed to take even the most basic measures to prevent the attack of 9/11/01, such as the “Bin Laden determined to attack in the US” memo, and the ongoing refusal of the Bush administration to acknowledge or address this threat seriously leading up the attack.
Fundamentally, the difference is very simple. The “birthers” wish to avoid facing the truth, while the “truthers” are interested in discovering it. Obama’s birthplace has no practical impact on the lives of Americans, while the failure of the government to prevent 9/11 has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans. I could go into greater detail about the Bush administration’s Iraq invasion, warrantless wiretaps and other unconstitutional adventures – but the bottom line is the same.
One side is worried about a technicality related to eligibility, while the other side is worried about actually protecting Americans from harm. To use your analogy, I don’t mind if Obama “wears his underwear on his head” – I am much more concerned about the crazy uncle that sexually molested detainees, and has tried to bury the evidence and avoid punishment. The Bush administration openly admitted engaging in criminal acts against the people of the USA – the location of Obama’s birth certificate hardly has the same significance.
Nukes on Parade
Nuclear energy is hardly “the only solution”. It is only a viable “solution” if you are willing to deny the inherent problems with nuclear power generation.
There is plenty of work being done on sustainable energy economies. One has to deliberately ignore the available evidence to conclude that nuclear power is the answer.
Solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower can provide plenty of energy, and improvements in efficiency can reduce power requirements substantially. By comparing nuclear with biofuels, you are ignoring all of the truly sustainable technologies that are available now.
Nuclear power is part of the old paradigm of massive central generation. The future does not lie in these types of projects – micro-scale power generation and improvements in efficiency are a much more intelligent way forward. Nuclear facilities simply are not efficient in the long term.
The particular focus here on motor fuel is also misguided, as improvements in electricity storage are likely to render gasoline obsolete before these nuclear plants would pay back the initial capital investment. Moving to distributed generation of electricity through solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower is the way forward – the continued obsession with nuclear power is a relic of the cold war, and serves no useful purpose.
There is plenty of work being done on sustainable energy economies. One has to deliberately ignore the available evidence to conclude that nuclear power is the answer.
Solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower can provide plenty of energy, and improvements in efficiency can reduce power requirements substantially. By comparing nuclear with biofuels, you are ignoring all of the truly sustainable technologies that are available now.
Nuclear power is part of the old paradigm of massive central generation. The future does not lie in these types of projects – micro-scale power generation and improvements in efficiency are a much more intelligent way forward. Nuclear facilities simply are not efficient in the long term.
The particular focus here on motor fuel is also misguided, as improvements in electricity storage are likely to render gasoline obsolete before these nuclear plants would pay back the initial capital investment. Moving to distributed generation of electricity through solar, wind, geothermal and hydropower is the way forward – the continued obsession with nuclear power is a relic of the cold war, and serves no useful purpose.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Snowe(d) In?
It looks like the far right and far left can find a little common ground here: Snowe should become a Democrat, because she obviously is no longer welcome in the GOP.
This is similar to what has happened to a large portion of the voting public, who have also become Democrats, as there is no room for them in today's GOP.
This is similar to what has happened to a large portion of the voting public, who have also become Democrats, as there is no room for them in today's GOP.
Friday, September 18, 2009
PJM tries to be funny - and fails as usual
I’m glad to see that PJM is willing to publish a fake leftist commentary. It goes really well with all the other fake news here.
Lies and the lying pollsters who legitimize them
This poll has already been thoroughly debunked over at 538.
PJM is slacking off.
the Investors’ Business Daily poll purporting to show widespread opposition to health care reform among doctors is simply not credible. There are five reasons why:
1. The survey was conducted by mail, which is unusual. The only other mail-based poll that I’m aware of is that conducted by the Columbus Dispatch, which was associated with an average error of about 7 percentage points — the highest of any pollster that we tested.
2. At least one of the questions is blatantly biased: “Do you believe the government can cover 47 million more people and it will cost less money and th quality of care will be better?”. Holy run-on-sentence, Batman? A pollster who asks a question like this one is not intending to be objective.
3. As we learned during the Presidential campaign — when, among other things, they had John McCain winning the youth vote 74-22 — the IBD/TIPP polling operation has literally no idea what they’re doing. I mean, literally none. For example, I don’t trust IBD/TIPP to have competently selected anything resembling a random panel, which is harder to do than you’d think.
4. They say, somewhat ambiguously: “Responses are still coming in.” This is also highly unorthodox. Professional pollsters generally do not report results before the survey period is compete.
5. There is virtually no disclosure about methodology. For example, IBD doesn’t bother to define the term “practicing physician”, which could mean almost anything. Nor do they explain how their randomization procedure worked, provide the entire question battery, or anything like that.
My advice would be to completely ignore this poll.
PJM is slacking off.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
9/12 crowd estimates - more lies from the far right
Everyone who is a professional in counting crowds has provided an estimate of 100,000 persons or less attending this event. All of the estimates you are using were made by people who have no experience or expertise in estimating crowd sizes.
The only reason the size of the crowd matters is because there has been so much duplicity from the TP crowd regarding attendance. The only credible sources are the independent sources, which universally reported attendance of 100,000 or less.
I really don’t think you do yourself any favors by pretending that this gathering was massive – it was large, but it hardly indicates any sort of significant electoral shift. This gathering of fringe elements serves to remind progressives that we must remain vigilant – but overstating the size of the crowd only proves how little the right cares for factual information.
The only reason the size of the crowd matters is because there has been so much duplicity from the TP crowd regarding attendance. The only credible sources are the independent sources, which universally reported attendance of 100,000 or less.
I really don’t think you do yourself any favors by pretending that this gathering was massive – it was large, but it hardly indicates any sort of significant electoral shift. This gathering of fringe elements serves to remind progressives that we must remain vigilant – but overstating the size of the crowd only proves how little the right cares for factual information.
Sarah Palin for President? Seriously? Ok!
Please work hard to keep Sarah on the front page. She is the best gift the left has received in a generation. Could you have her run again in 2016 also? Thanks!
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Freeing the BPP
I like how you all defend free speech until it comes to the BPP. How charming.
Can someone name the victim – the person so intimidated by others exercising their right to peaceably assemble that they were unable to cast their ballot?
No?
I didn’t think so. This was never a case the government could win on the merits.
Can someone name the victim – the person so intimidated by others exercising their right to peaceably assemble that they were unable to cast their ballot?
No?
I didn’t think so. This was never a case the government could win on the merits.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Health Care for All
1. When it comes to health insurance, collectivism is the nature of the beast. There is no insurance without it. Calling an incentive a disincentive is also rather perverse. Without tax breaks for employer provided health care, millions more would do without coverage. That’s no solution. What do you have against socialism, anyway?
2. Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons. A broader public plan would likewise represent a vast improvement in living standards for most currently uninsured persons. The benefit of socialized medicine for cost control, access to care, and patient outcomes is well supported by the state of health care in Europe.
3. The chimera of “affordable individual health insurance” is not an argument.
4. The problems you have identified with private for-profit insurance are related to the perverse incentives of profit in this sector. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, as should police and fire protection. People die in the current system so that others can make more money. This is a perversity that would not exist without the profit motive. Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system. That’s just sad.
5. The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, despite your protests to the contrary. “Socialism” in the form of pooling our resources is sometimes the best solution, and government is sometimes a very good mechanism for this. There is a reason that we have a government, and it is to do what the market cannot. Effective and affordable health care for all Americans will not happen without further government action. It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.
Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is desirable. In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.
2. Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons. A broader public plan would likewise represent a vast improvement in living standards for most currently uninsured persons. The benefit of socialized medicine for cost control, access to care, and patient outcomes is well supported by the state of health care in Europe.
3. The chimera of “affordable individual health insurance” is not an argument.
4. The problems you have identified with private for-profit insurance are related to the perverse incentives of profit in this sector. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, as should police and fire protection. People die in the current system so that others can make more money. This is a perversity that would not exist without the profit motive. Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system. That’s just sad.
5. The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, despite your protests to the contrary. “Socialism” in the form of pooling our resources is sometimes the best solution, and government is sometimes a very good mechanism for this. There is a reason that we have a government, and it is to do what the market cannot. Effective and affordable health care for all Americans will not happen without further government action. It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.
Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is desirable. In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.
Right and Wrong on Healthcare
1. When it comes to health insurance, collectivism is the nature of the beast. There is no insurance without it. Calling an incentive a disincentive is also rather perverse. Without tax breaks for employer provided health care, millions more would do without coverage. That’s no solution. What do you have against socialism, anyway?
2. Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons. A broader public plan would likewise represent a vast improvement in living standards for most currently uninsured persons. The benefit of socialized medicine for cost control, access to care, and patient outcomes is well supported by the state of health care in Europe.
3. The chimera of “affordable individual health insurance” is not an argument.
4. The problems you have identified with private for-profit insurance are related to the perverse incentives of profit in this sector. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, as should police and fire protection. People die in the current system so that others can make more money. This is a perversity that would not exist without the profit motive. Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system. That’s just sad.
5. The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, despite your protests to the contrary. “Socialism” in the form of pooling our resources is sometimes the best solution, and government is sometimes a very good mechanism for this. There is a reason that we have a government, and it is to do what the market cannot. Effective and affordable health care for all Americans will not happen without further government action. It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.
Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is desirable. In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.
2. Medicare represents a vast improvement in living standards for most elderly persons. A broader public plan would likewise represent a vast improvement in living standards for most currently uninsured persons. The benefit of socialized medicine for cost control, access to care, and patient outcomes is well supported by the state of health care in Europe.
3. The chimera of “affordable individual health insurance” is not an argument.
4. The problems you have identified with private for-profit insurance are related to the perverse incentives of profit in this sector. Health insurance should be a non-profit enterprise, as should police and fire protection. People die in the current system so that others can make more money. This is a perversity that would not exist without the profit motive. Don’t try to blame socialism for the collateral damage inherent in a capitalist system. That’s just sad.
5. The bottom line is that the market is not the best answer to every problem, despite your protests to the contrary. “Socialism” in the form of pooling our resources is sometimes the best solution, and government is sometimes a very good mechanism for this. There is a reason that we have a government, and it is to do what the market cannot. Effective and affordable health care for all Americans will not happen without further government action. It is perverse for a government that has publicly funded fire and police systems designed to protect the property of all citizens to be restrained from providing the corollary services to protect the very lives of the people.
Neither pure socialism nor pure capitalism is desirable. In the case of health care, socialist solutions are the best solutions.
Tea Party Movement - Astroturf on the Mall
Characterizing the TP movement as grassroots is laughable, but surely politically expedient. On the other hand, the right has certainly engaged in direct action in the past. Driven by greed, paranoia and racism, the TP movement clearly is a vehicle for GOP racism and lies be promoted without sullying the Republican brand.
I’ll grant that some protesters are genuine, but the movement itself is not. This is a corporate protest, and calling it grassroots only shows how desperate for relevance the right has become.
I’ll grant that some protesters are genuine, but the movement itself is not. This is a corporate protest, and calling it grassroots only shows how desperate for relevance the right has become.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
