Pangloss

I don't think racism was really something that was being seriously alleged here at SFN, but you hear it a lot in general these days (especially following the story about the NAACP stepping into the fray) so I thought it worth passing along, and perhaps it'll be interesting to discuss in some way. From the Washington Post: Few signs at tea party rally expressed racially charged anti-Obama themes No real huge surprises here, IMO, although the citizenship thing only garnering 1% of the signs was a little bit of a surprise. Of course signs don't equate to beliefs, and people have those to varying degrees, so many amongst the attendees may actually still hold that belief. Any thoughts?

I'm sorry, I completely missed that reference, and I thought you meant the Swiftboat Vets for Truth. My mistake. And I'm not trying to take issue with Moontanman's opinion, either, I'm just saying I think there's a little bit of a skew here, so I wanted to toss out another example. Oh well.

Well, as I indicated above, people brought up these additional points: The implication of these and other posts is that left-leaning organizations are somehow less detrimental compared with right-leaning hardball players. I've responded to this suggestion by bringing up the issue of MoveOn.org going after Target. If Target acted in business interests rather than social ones, then MoveOn.org has unfairly and dishonestly attacked them. Regardless of whether you think it's a good idea to boycott companies who participate in the electoral process, this example shows that the left can play hardball too. Whether this is the "one lever they have" or not is not germain to the point I'm making. I happen to think it's perfectly valid for voters to complain about corporations participating in the election process. I also think it perfectly valid for business interests to participate in the electoral process, up to a point where their influence outweighs that of the voter. Finding that balance is important, and not a simple matter dealt with by demonization and/or opposing influence. My two bits, of course. Your mileage may vary. Check your local listings.

I'm still getting a sense that many here see a difference in degree. I think you're being selective with your vision. Here's an interesting example that Bill O'Reilly was harping on (excessively, IMO) last night, based on this editorial in yesterday's Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704696304575538402294440806.html To summarize, Target donated money to a pro-business group that represented their interests with regard to future taxation and business legislation. That organization then donated money to the election campaign of a Republican running for governor of the state that Target has its home office in. It's worth noting that prior to this donation, the company had highly favorable ratings from various gay interest groups. But because the candidate in question is opposed to gay marriage, MoveOn.org declared a boycott of Target that garnered considerable attention and (some say) loss of sales for the company. Now, regardless of whether you think it's a good idea to boycott companies who make political donations to lobbying and pro-business organizations -- the question here is whether left-leaning organizations play hard-ball when it comes to political influence. I think this example shows that they do. MoveOn misrepresented Target, and many of MoveOn's supporters, on the national scene, accused the company of everything from anti-gay activism to outright bigotry. Two sides can play this game, and two sides do.

Last week Liu Xiaobo, a Chinese dissident currently in prison, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize "for his long and non-violent struggle for fundamental human rights in China". The Chinese government immediately reacted by slapping down heavy search restrictions on domestic use of the Web. Since then an interesting discussion has arisen, initially only on the international front, but increasingly within China itself, as word gradually spreads through that country by other means. Today the Chinese government responded to the story officially, and it responded on at least two levels. This opinion piece by the state-owned Xinhua News Agency clearly delineates the communist party's position on the subject: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-10/14/c_13557848.htm (chuckle) Ironic. Sure. One of the things that I think is interesting about the politics of China's human rights problems is that it plays across western ideological boundaries. Below are links to two editorial pieces from today's newspapers. The first one is from the conservative Wall Street Journal. The second one is from the liberal New York Times. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704361504575551400597984266.html?mod=googlenews_wsj http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/world/asia/15iht-letter.html This is causing me to re-think my standing belief that the Chinese don't necessarily want freedom the same way or to the same degree that people of the west do. While I'm sure that Chinese democracy, should we ever see it, will have some differences and a unique character, I think that it's a fundamental truth that all people are basically the same when it comes to human rights. In terms of whether this is a sign of a better future for China, it's hard to say, but I'm hopeful. What do you all think?

Here's an interestingly different way of looking at the subject of security warnings, from an op-ed piece in today's New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/14/opinion/14bobbitt.html?_r=1

Maybe we should start a thread on this, because from what I've seen recent poll results seem to show the momentum moving even farther to the GOP side in the last few weeks, and the president's personal numbers sliding even faster. One controversial Gallup poll last week was so stunningly pro-GOP that Democrats actually started quoting Rasmussen poll numbers, normally associated with Fox News. I don't think the Democratic message is working, though IMO the Republican message is not what's driving public opinion. Here's a Gallup poll from this week saying that the GOP is maintaining its edge. Gallup poll shows GOP isn't losing steam with likely voters But even more interesting, run a search on "gallup poll" on Google News and just look at all the subjects. Americans favoring smaller government, reduced spending, moderate politics over extremes, record unhappiness with government in general, record unhappiness with the President and just about every other politician, independents continuing to flee from those in office, etc etc etc. I've never seen anything like it, and this is following years of listening to myself saying "I've never seen anything like it". Actually I think his anti-GOP message is hurting him. He was elected on the strength of bipartisan swing voters. But since he's come to office nearly every decision he's made runs contrary to their preferences, whether it's health care, war, the economy, immigration, energy policy, tax policy, or anything else, including attacking the GOP. That's why they've left him. Appealing to his base won't bring them back. He is going to do that anyway for the next couple of weeks, because he's already lost moderates and he might as well "get the vote out" (get liberals to the polls) because that's the only tool in the shed at the moment. But after the election he's going to have to move back to the middle, or he's done. Continuing to demonize Republicans won't get new legislation passed. He's going to do that anyway. And it's going to have the opposite effect -- it's exactly the sort of thing that will put Sarah Palin in the Oval Office in 2012. You have to remember that the right is not an unengaged hot tub time machine of uninformed country bumpkins anymore. They watch Fox News, and Fox News loves to talk about Obama recess appointments. Now we're talkin'. Several good points in that post, IMO.

I nuked that post, thanks for the report.

This is the DNC ad everyone's ranting about this week. I like the bit with the woman's purse getting stolen and running around terrified. Scary! One thing that's politically interesting about this ad is that it contains a factual statement for which no evidence is offered: "It appears they've even taken secret foreign money to influence our elections." Note the last part of that sentence -- apparently the "influence" question is legally distinct from the money question, and a key cause for concern. Conservative bloggers are calling for a libel suit; liberal ones are asking if the lack of a suit means it's the truth. (chuckle) One blogger compared the ad to McCarthyism. Jake Tapper of ABC News asked David Axelrod, the president's top adviser and the most important figure in the Democratic party, about the ad yesterday, and I thought this exchange was interesting: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/10/axelrod-to-us-chamber-what-are-you-hiding-that-you-dont-want-the-american-people-to-see.html It's not believable that David Axelrod didn't know that the DNC was going to produce this ad. If Karl Rove had said something like that following a similar GOP ad, nobody would have believed him. Nobody.

What Klaynos said. I often refer students to the Wikipedia. I *want* them to look up big words or concepts they don't understand, and I want that lookup to lead them to other knowledge, prompting ideas and curiosities they may never have had before. In my opinion, the Wikipedia is the Web realized. It is the single most important thing on it, and its existence validates the very concept of a Web. But no, they can't cite it as a reference. Though they're certainly more than welcome to reference an article that they found as a result of reading something in the Wikipedia, and we've had some interesting classroom discussions about whether those sources (and Wikipedia articles themselves) were reliable or not. I think such discussions can be productive and interesting, at least in the context of learning about academic research. Although I suppose if they were writing a paper about the Wikipedia, then it would be appropriate to cite some of its content as examples.

Probably, but never underestimate voter anger. If Alvin Green had packed a literal carpet bag (all he could afford?) and taken an AMTRAK train from South Carolina to Massachusetts and lived in a YMCA for four months to establish residency, holding weekly press conferences next to a garbage dump to show off his dance moves and answering questions with one-syllable words, most analysts would still have picked him to beat Scott Brown to take over Ted Kennedy's Senate seat.

Don't forget guns -- a very popular source of liberal fear-mongering over the years. Even if that's true, is that a reflection on a real problem with conservatism, or a reflection on the larger number of conservatives in the US? If the majority were liberal instead of conservative, wouldn't we see more liberal stupidity and fear-based accusation-making? There are few "clear examples" of anything in politics -- one man's corruption is another man's heroic stand against incalculable odds. But it's not that I think you (or the White House) is wrong on this issue, I'm just saying that the timing (three weeks before the election) suggests an attempt to motivate their base through fear. It's an example of misdirection in that they're holding up a sign saying LOOK HERE (not elsewhere).

I actually voted for Newt Gingrich at least twice back in the 1980s. He was my congressman -- I lived in his district in suburban Atlanta, and he was one of the first politicians I ever voted for. He wasn't all hooked up with the religious right and the neo-cons back then. I had met him at a science fiction convention in I believe 1983 or 1984, where he sat on a panel discussion on space policy with (I believe) Jerry Pournelle and (I dimly recall) James Oberg. He was very astute and spoke at great length about funding for space programs and science in general, and won me over. Go figure, right? I wouldn't vote for him today if he were the only Republican running for office anywhere. These days he's so partisan it's just mind-numbing to listen to him talk about anything other than American history. And in fact none of the GOP candidates listed in this poll contain any interest for me whatsoever. A potential Sarah Palin nomination is just about the only thing keeping my 2012 vote in the Obama camp at the moment.

The foreign election contributions story actually seems to support my point. The White House touted it as a major story, and news sources picked up on it, but as I understand it fact-checkers have not found any evidence that foreign sources are attempting to influence election outcomes. http://factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/ ----------- I agree. And George Bush cannot logically be accused of "lying" about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. (Being wrong, yes, lying, no.) It's not manufactured, but isn't it a clear example of misdirection? I agree that lying is wrong, but are you saying the left never lies, or that it does so less frequently? Because I'm not sure why I'm supposed to believe that. If we can find singular examples from both sides, then, regardless of the relative quantity of single examples, don't we need something more substantive to draw the conclusion that the left doesn't lie as much?

I think that makes sense for the kind of liberals that we have here at SFN, who pride themselves on scientific reason, evidence and objectivity. But I think there are liberals who don't prize those attributes -- people who believe in atheism or environmentalism as a matter of faith, for example. Surely it's logical that such people exist on the left too. And if such are a smaller group, doesn't that just reflect the general trend of the population? But not all fear-based arguments, left or right, are illogical or unsupported by evidence. They could simply be supported by very selective evidence, or actually be completely correct and logical and still intend to sow fear (or FUD, as you put it very well). With that in mind, how is the left different from the right? Aren't they both doing the same thing? With regard to the women-in-congress example, it seems to me that the point that it's fact-based doesn't salvage its value on any moral level because it's clearly an attempt to misdirect the voter. If we agree that one's vote should be based on such things as issues and candidate character, then the fact that fewer women will be in congress is not a logical reason to go out and find more women to vote for, right? If seems to me that conservatives do this exact same thing all the time, telling us that something else is more important than whether we vote for a certain candidate in order to distract us from the issues that their opponent supports (for example, New York Gov Carl Paladino telling us that if we elected his opponent, a Democrat who supports gay marriage, that they'll brainwash our children and turn them gay). Surely if it's wrong when the right does this, then it's also wrong when the left does this. (Though that's certainly an example of avoiding facts and logic when sending a fear message, isn't it? Nasty! But my point is that he's attempting to misdirect the voter to a different, larger concern.) Interesting.

I think it's interesting that it seems to be the prevailing "conventional wisdom" that the right uses fear more than the left. I've never seen anyone quantify this in any sort of objective way, and yet it's what people seem to think. (Or am I wrong?) Here are a couple of interesting examples from the current news that seem to me to show the left using fear: 1) White House attacks anonymous funding sources for Republican candidates in the 2012 mid-term election. (example) 2) Potential reduction in the number of women representatives in Congress. (example) Anonymous donations to orgs supporting GOP candidates is reportedly way out of proportion with Dems at the moment, but is that a cause for failure or a reflection of the bases and their present level of motivation? Isn't the present assault just an appeal to vote for Dems? The women thing is particularly galling. Isn't the point of equality that people should vote for the best available candidate, regardless of race or gender? Are we seriously expected to change our votes from one candidate to another just to protect the ratio of women to men in Congress? What do you all think?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43471.html Some interesting politics behind the decision can be found at the link above. I think this shows that the economic impact on the Gulf region outweighed any environmental concerns. But it seems likely that more regulation can be expected regarding the technical problems of fixing oil spills in deep water. I think it's the right call. What do you all think?

I suppose one could look at it within the context of the overall benefits of entertainment in general. I've wondered for a while now how it's possible that so much more money is being spent on entertainment compared with, say, 30 years ago. Seems like every weekend we hear about a new movie or video game making a hundred million dollars or more. Do people have more free time on their hands, or are they just channeling time they used to spend on activities that were essentially free into activities that now produce more sales?

Wasn't it Margaret Thatcher who said "the big problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money"? But I don't think she's very highly thought of these days. Too bad. Thank god.

Give us your tired, your poor, and your fabulously wealthy yearning to be free. In my country ultimately the people do have that right. We could (in theory) have perfectly legal slavery in the United States of America tomorrow. Or murder. Or an end to the 1st Amendment. That's why "the character issue" is so important in politics. (Though there are times when, as in the 2008 presidential election, both candidates are clearly of high moral character.) But the question here is really different, isn't it? Severian is asking a great question -- whether government actions should be guided/informed by popular opinion polls. I don't think they should, though I do support popular referendums. At least with a referendum you have time to put forth the full issues (as opposed to a cute girl standing in a mall with a clipboard, or a cold call at dinner time), and you can debate it and let people consider all the ramifications. They still might not get it right, but then you have various other courses of action. I think California has taught us a lot about popular governance in recent years, with all those referendums and ensuing court battles. Those fights often put a realpolitik spin on an issue, revealing significant ramifications and making it difficult for an otherwise unengaged public to ignore a subject.

Yes, I see the two brackets, though I don't see where you got 190. The quote below says that the threshold becomes 200k for individuals and 250k for families. It does look like they (the 210 crowd) would only increase from 33 to 36%. In conjunction with what you were saying earlier (the numbers), that doesn't seem so bad. Either way, they're obviously drawing a new (and pretty clear) line, saying those over the line need to pay more. If in fact they think that those in the 200-375 range need to pay more for a different reason (not because "they're rich"), then IMO they should articulate what that reason is, instead of lumping them in with Bill Gates and Warren Buffet in the rhetoric. Of course, it's possible they have, and it's just gotten lost in the noise.

I agree, and nice post all-around. If I had to guess, it's because of the tax brackets that are already in the tax code. But the line has to be drawn somewhere; if it was $250k or $300k, we'd be having the same discussion. True enough, I'm sure we would be. For the record, the Obama administraion did draw a new line, essentially halfway between 28% and 33% brackets. (source) So a 210k fam goes from something like 30% all the way up to 39.5% (I believe that's the top % being discussed). That's pretty dramatic, but if memory serves some very large deductions have recently been introduced by the Obama administration that probably affect families in that range.

Democrats have 59 votes in the Senate.

I appreciate the reply, but I understand that many people save more money when they're given a tax cut. I was asking padren how we know that the overall gain (e.g. government programs) would be a net positive instead of a net loss. Sure, they might use the money they saved during the tax cut to pay for their newly-higher taxes, but as iNow said in post #14, we don't really know. Nor do we know what the specific impact of the loss of the tax cut will be on families that earn right around $210k/yr -- we're generalizing everything from 210k on UP. So the answer I'm apparently getting here (thus far) is that we DON'T know. Which if that's the answer is perfectly fine by me. The Obama administration is certainly entitled to its opinions, and they won the election so they should be allowed to try their preferences. And if it works he might even rescue my rapidly fading 2012 re-election vote. So you agree, then, that the Obama administration is generalizing families who earn $210,000 per year as "rich"? If so that's fine, more power to you. I, too, have stopped asking why Obama gets labeled a socialist. As have quite a lot of Americans, I believe. The label may not be entirely fair or accurate, but there's an old saying in politics: If it swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter if it is a duck, because it's going to do the same thing a duck would do. And three weeks from Tuesday we're going to find out exactly what Americans think about that. (BTW, I'm also kinda curious what the split is amongst families making $210,000/yr between Democratic and Republican voters. Bet the White House knows. Anybody wanna take that bet?) No, I'm asking how we know that the benefit of the increased tax revenue to all taxpayers will outweigh the effect of any reduced spending from the group that lost the tax cut. I'm not asking for what's likely, or a moral or ethical judgment, I'm asking what data we have that clearly shows, objectively, that this will be the case. I agree with you that some benefits are realized from government programs, and I agree with you that some of the new tax revenue could be logically applied to that "column" on our virtual spreadsheet, if you will. No argument here. No, I agree that families who make more than they really need on a day to day basis, which may include this specific income level, probably tend to save it during a time of economic upheaval such as this. Indeed. Not to get too far off subject, but IMO the issue for many Americans is whether all those bills are necessary, or if in fact some (most?) of them are luxury items that we can and should be doing without. I don't think most people support entitlement spending, I think most people tolerate it. And their tolerance is reaching a limit. Thanks for the reply.

If your argument is that we don't know that pure socialism can't work because it's never been honestly tried, fair enough, but the same can be said for pure capitalism. I'm afraid I also can't agree that "wealth is vastly more efficient in producing human happiness when it is more evenly distributed".