Something politicians might wanna consider.
Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving wordy evidence of the fact. -George Eliot
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Fallout
We haven't heard much about it lately, but apparently there's still some effort to get back at the US for our high-handed approach to "fighting terrorism" during the Bush administration.
From Harper's Mag online.
I use the term "get back at" because I think these attempts are more about grandstanding for public consumption than they're about justice and substance. That said tho', the Spanish seem to have a real bug up their butts about it. And it wouldn't exactly hurt my feelings if somebody from Bush's team took a fall.
I think it's more than a little interesting that not one of the former Bush officials has ever gone out of the country to do any kind of victory lap anywhere but Saudi Arabia.
From Harper's Mag online.
I use the term "get back at" because I think these attempts are more about grandstanding for public consumption than they're about justice and substance. That said tho', the Spanish seem to have a real bug up their butts about it. And it wouldn't exactly hurt my feelings if somebody from Bush's team took a fall.
I think it's more than a little interesting that not one of the former Bush officials has ever gone out of the country to do any kind of victory lap anywhere but Saudi Arabia.
On Conspiracy Theories
There was a thread over at The Agonist today, trying to make some sense of the recent Flash Crash. One of the commenters asked the author to "dumb it down a bit" because he didn't understand all of the jargon. The author then provided what I consider the best insight on conspiracy theories I've heard so far.
Paraphrasing:
You see why there is constant demand for alternative conspiracy theories. People at least have to understand the terminology. A conspiracy theory would be more credible to me if it contained concepts which a layman couldn't understand; but they never do; because the theory has to survive in a story telling market.Brilliant.
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Ten Years Of Hell
Whether or not you believe it, I'm not always looking for dark clouds that surround the silver linings. There has been some decent economic news of late and I really do wanna be up and enthused, but I'm not going to be sucked in by the happy talk that managers and bureaucrats throw at us every other day.
The Credit/Debt Monster is still on the loose, and the bail out schemes for Wall Street and Greece (and the rest of the EU), plus the Stimulus Package (the 2nd half of which hasn't even started yet) are still way too recent for anybody with any sense or credibility to make a good assessment. So we're operating on the assumption that "we're on the right track" and "things will be back to normal soon". Where have we heard that before?
Here's a little ditty from Rupert Street Journal from last month that passes on to us exactly what the Gov't told the "reporter". But there's a gimmick the lenders use when reporting problems with these loans that actually helps them under-report the loans in default by a factor of up to 5. Where most of the loans showing up in these statistics are the "traditional" ones held by 20- and 30-Somethings for loans they took out to go to "traditional" institutions, the real story in the last couple of years is that a huge amount of money has been borrowed by a much wider range of people to attend the non-traditional For-Profit schools like Univ of Phoenix and Capella Univ which have been enjoying a massive boom. Any guesses on what those default rates are? Take a look at this episode from Frontline. At about the 40 minute mark, the picture of our future servitude comes into very sharp focus.
And Jesus wept.
The Credit/Debt Monster is still on the loose, and the bail out schemes for Wall Street and Greece (and the rest of the EU), plus the Stimulus Package (the 2nd half of which hasn't even started yet) are still way too recent for anybody with any sense or credibility to make a good assessment. So we're operating on the assumption that "we're on the right track" and "things will be back to normal soon". Where have we heard that before?
Here's a little ditty from Rupert Street Journal from last month that passes on to us exactly what the Gov't told the "reporter". But there's a gimmick the lenders use when reporting problems with these loans that actually helps them under-report the loans in default by a factor of up to 5. Where most of the loans showing up in these statistics are the "traditional" ones held by 20- and 30-Somethings for loans they took out to go to "traditional" institutions, the real story in the last couple of years is that a huge amount of money has been borrowed by a much wider range of people to attend the non-traditional For-Profit schools like Univ of Phoenix and Capella Univ which have been enjoying a massive boom. Any guesses on what those default rates are? Take a look at this episode from Frontline. At about the 40 minute mark, the picture of our future servitude comes into very sharp focus.
And Jesus wept.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Wastefulness
Ya wanna know what Government Waste really looks like?
Here it is.
The wrangling over Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's investigation of a climate scientist continues...
After indicating last week that it would comply with a subpoena sent by the AG, demanding documents relating to the work of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann, the university is now equivocating. "Our intention is to comply but we are looking at some options," a UVA spokeswoman told theWashington Post yesterday.
Here it is.
The wrangling over Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli's investigation of a climate scientist continues...
After indicating last week that it would comply with a subpoena sent by the AG, demanding documents relating to the work of former University of Virginia climate scientist Michael Mann, the university is now equivocating. "Our intention is to comply but we are looking at some options," a UVA spokeswoman told theWashington Post yesterday.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
AGW Denial Fallout
Climate Change resistance seems to be all about a political agenda that intends to create inaction. "Conservatives" and Repubs (mostly) are always blocking movement toward anything they think disrupts the status quo (ie: threatens their positions of power). There may be some legitimate reasons for it - eg: the economic disruptions of moving away from oil will likely be pretty major, and the trouble we can't predict is always what hurts the most.
While I can understand the reasoning, I dislike intensely the conflict that arises from the way people go about trying to put their policies into effect. The tactic is to paint the AGW proponents as being in service of a Leftist Political slant intent on destroying capitalism, which is of course always portrayed as being "the very essence of all things American".
"Lefties" often do the same kind of painting, but right now, I think the view from "The Left" is more accurate. My assessment of the ebb and flow of political sensibility is that we're shifting to the left again. It may well be that the way to "save capitalism" is to take it away from the assholes who claim to be its defenders.
In the case of AGW, the really odd thing for me is that what's driving the shift in sensibility is an adherence to the traditions of science, and that's forcing the opposition to attack the facts themselves, and to defend a position based on uninformed / misinformed / disinformed disbelief.
So we end up arguing about the process instead of debating solutions for the real problems.
Some interesting stuff over at Little Green Footballs.
While I can understand the reasoning, I dislike intensely the conflict that arises from the way people go about trying to put their policies into effect. The tactic is to paint the AGW proponents as being in service of a Leftist Political slant intent on destroying capitalism, which is of course always portrayed as being "the very essence of all things American".
"Lefties" often do the same kind of painting, but right now, I think the view from "The Left" is more accurate. My assessment of the ebb and flow of political sensibility is that we're shifting to the left again. It may well be that the way to "save capitalism" is to take it away from the assholes who claim to be its defenders.
In the case of AGW, the really odd thing for me is that what's driving the shift in sensibility is an adherence to the traditions of science, and that's forcing the opposition to attack the facts themselves, and to defend a position based on uninformed / misinformed / disinformed disbelief.
So we end up arguing about the process instead of debating solutions for the real problems.
Some interesting stuff over at Little Green Footballs.
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Changes
So I was listening to Tony Blankley today on KCRW's Left Right and Center (via truthdig.com). The topic swings around to BP's oil spill in the gulf and the other commentators are bitchin' about how awful it is, and Blankley says (I'm paraphrasing), "hey, it's bad, but if we don't drill for oil here, we'll have to ship it in, and there're more spills with shipping than with drilling, and we'll be sending more of our money to foreigners - so just think how much worse it'll be if we DON'T keep drilling..." And I just flashed on something - these guys are always using that specious bullshit argument about some totally unprovable hypothetical that sounds really scary and all too often closes the debate. We have to stop going along with that shit.
First, we can challenge these guys on the simple fact that they're often so totally assbackwards on their predictions.
Secondly, because our imagination is unlimited, we can conjure up all manner of horrible outcomes - every event COULD BE much worse.
But here's the point: Instead of accepting that kind of argument (which is so often delivered in a condescending and dismissive tone), we need to turn it around on itself.
THEY SAY: "...so it could've been a lot worse, and the next time it WILL be worse if we don't just go along with (insert crappy policy that produced shitty outcome here)"
I SAY: Stick it right back in your ditty bag, Sparky. Maybe we should start thinking about how much BETTER it could all be if we had some real regulatory guidance; and if some of these asshole companies like BP and Goldman Sachs and Halliburton started following the fucking rules.
First, we can challenge these guys on the simple fact that they're often so totally assbackwards on their predictions.
Secondly, because our imagination is unlimited, we can conjure up all manner of horrible outcomes - every event COULD BE much worse.
But here's the point: Instead of accepting that kind of argument (which is so often delivered in a condescending and dismissive tone), we need to turn it around on itself.
THEY SAY: "...so it could've been a lot worse, and the next time it WILL be worse if we don't just go along with (insert crappy policy that produced shitty outcome here)"
I SAY: Stick it right back in your ditty bag, Sparky. Maybe we should start thinking about how much BETTER it could all be if we had some real regulatory guidance; and if some of these asshole companies like BP and Goldman Sachs and Halliburton started following the fucking rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)