Arnold Schwarzenegger wins in California!
Was it just me or did Jon Stewart look kind of depressed last night?
Thursday, August 07, 2003
Tuesday, May 13, 2003
Liberals Suck
I was listening to the Rick Emerson Show today and heard him bashing liberals for foolishly coddling Muslim fundamentalists. Now this was disheartening for a couple of reasons. 1) I like to listen to the Rick Emerson Show because he is not a right wing ideologue. He mainly kvetches about pop culture with references ranging from Slayer to Six Feet Under and the Gilmore Girls. 2) Liberals aren't the ones aligning themselves with theocrats in the Muslim world to fight against women's reproductive rights, or even women's basic rights--dammit!
I was listening to the Rick Emerson Show today and heard him bashing liberals for foolishly coddling Muslim fundamentalists. Now this was disheartening for a couple of reasons. 1) I like to listen to the Rick Emerson Show because he is not a right wing ideologue. He mainly kvetches about pop culture with references ranging from Slayer to Six Feet Under and the Gilmore Girls. 2) Liberals aren't the ones aligning themselves with theocrats in the Muslim world to fight against women's reproductive rights, or even women's basic rights--dammit!
Saturday, April 26, 2003
And the Orwell Award goes to...
Ari Fleischer! Speaking about the Santorum flap: "The president believes the senator is an inclusive man. And that's what he believes." I suppose that is true if your vision of inclusion has to do with including lesbians and gays with polygamists and people who like incest--or man on dog.
Ari Fleischer! Speaking about the Santorum flap: "The president believes the senator is an inclusive man. And that's what he believes." I suppose that is true if your vision of inclusion has to do with including lesbians and gays with polygamists and people who like incest--or man on dog.
Thursday, April 24, 2003
Freedom Loving Jackass
That is the bumpersticker that the Democrats should produce. Dailykos says that in light of the Rick Santorum (Senator "Man on Dog") flap, Democrats should try to align themselves with libertarians by positioning themselves as the "Party of Personal Liberty."
Daily Kos says, "It's a winner, both tactically (helping us win elections), and philosophically. Government can and should lend a helping hand. But it should also protect our individual freedoms from those (like Santorum) who would tear them away."
Ummm. I always thought that Libertarians hate the very idea of government for government's sake, but then again it's clear that the Bush Republicans aren't afraid of expanding government powers (witness the Patriot Act). What the Democrats should make clear is that they do not like government for the sake of government. Democrats should favor a government that fosters freedom. A government that is focused on expanding choices as opposed to restricting them.
That is the bumpersticker that the Democrats should produce. Dailykos says that in light of the Rick Santorum (Senator "Man on Dog") flap, Democrats should try to align themselves with libertarians by positioning themselves as the "Party of Personal Liberty."
Daily Kos says, "It's a winner, both tactically (helping us win elections), and philosophically. Government can and should lend a helping hand. But it should also protect our individual freedoms from those (like Santorum) who would tear them away."
Ummm. I always thought that Libertarians hate the very idea of government for government's sake, but then again it's clear that the Bush Republicans aren't afraid of expanding government powers (witness the Patriot Act). What the Democrats should make clear is that they do not like government for the sake of government. Democrats should favor a government that fosters freedom. A government that is focused on expanding choices as opposed to restricting them.
Tuesday, April 22, 2003
John Stossel Rawks
In case you didn't catch his special last night (4/21/03) on addiction as a matter of choice, here's a link to an ABC page that provides a pretty good summary.
In the US, the Minnesota Model of addiction, aka The Medical Model, holds sway. Stossel is arguing that its not genetics or the disease of addiction thats responsible for the problems of addicts - it is their poor choices. But when Stossel cites studies of the influence of environment on substance use, his argument doesn't make too much sense to me.
You see, his article on the web page says that these experiments prove that addictions are simply a matter of choice.
"In fact, some researchers cite experiments that they say prove that addiction is a matter of choice.
In Canada, researchers gave rats held in two different environments a choice between morphine and water. The rats in cages chose morphine; the rats held in a nicer environment preferred the water.
Whether you get addicted also depends on how you're treated. At Wake Forest University, male monkeys lived together for three months, and established a pecking order.
The monkeys who'd been bullied by the "boss monkeys" banged a lever to get as much cocaine as they could. But the dominant monkeys, just by virtue of being dominant, had less interest in the drug.
"It's just like the human world," says Dr. Michael Nader, who conducted the experiment.
"Individuals that have no control in their job show a greater propensity for substance abuse than those that have control," Nader says.
These comparisons suggest that addiction is a choice — not a disease that takes away free will."
I see. So did Stossel actually mean to say that addiction is a result of RESTRICTED choices? Or is it a matter of control and self efficacy? Or does it all just boil down to choice and personal responsibility?
Just wondering.
Speaking of addiction. It is kinda sad that here in the USA, Bush wants to support faith based treatments when evidence based treatments have largely been ignored.
In case you didn't catch his special last night (4/21/03) on addiction as a matter of choice, here's a link to an ABC page that provides a pretty good summary.
In the US, the Minnesota Model of addiction, aka The Medical Model, holds sway. Stossel is arguing that its not genetics or the disease of addiction thats responsible for the problems of addicts - it is their poor choices. But when Stossel cites studies of the influence of environment on substance use, his argument doesn't make too much sense to me.
You see, his article on the web page says that these experiments prove that addictions are simply a matter of choice.
"In fact, some researchers cite experiments that they say prove that addiction is a matter of choice.
In Canada, researchers gave rats held in two different environments a choice between morphine and water. The rats in cages chose morphine; the rats held in a nicer environment preferred the water.
Whether you get addicted also depends on how you're treated. At Wake Forest University, male monkeys lived together for three months, and established a pecking order.
The monkeys who'd been bullied by the "boss monkeys" banged a lever to get as much cocaine as they could. But the dominant monkeys, just by virtue of being dominant, had less interest in the drug.
"It's just like the human world," says Dr. Michael Nader, who conducted the experiment.
"Individuals that have no control in their job show a greater propensity for substance abuse than those that have control," Nader says.
These comparisons suggest that addiction is a choice — not a disease that takes away free will."
I see. So did Stossel actually mean to say that addiction is a result of RESTRICTED choices? Or is it a matter of control and self efficacy? Or does it all just boil down to choice and personal responsibility?
Just wondering.
Speaking of addiction. It is kinda sad that here in the USA, Bush wants to support faith based treatments when evidence based treatments have largely been ignored.
Friday, April 11, 2003
Who's the Joker in the deck?
From a PR perspective this is pretty shoddy. What is the Arab street to make of this? That our troops weren't able to play the fiddle--so they passed out playing cards as Bahgdad burned? I'm just saying...
Dailykos's Steve Gilliard observes: "So in less than a month, we turned Baghdad from the home of one of the most repressive regimes on the planet, to a land closer to Mad Max." So Saddam is a big fan of Stalin. Is there any suprise that civil society would be non-existent once Saddam is removed from the picture?
We went through something similar when the Soviet Union collapsed. I hope that people in Washington have learned from what went wrong in the transition from Communism to a market economy in Russia from someone like Jeffrey Sachs.
From a PR perspective this is pretty shoddy. What is the Arab street to make of this? That our troops weren't able to play the fiddle--so they passed out playing cards as Bahgdad burned? I'm just saying...
Dailykos's Steve Gilliard observes: "So in less than a month, we turned Baghdad from the home of one of the most repressive regimes on the planet, to a land closer to Mad Max." So Saddam is a big fan of Stalin. Is there any suprise that civil society would be non-existent once Saddam is removed from the picture?
We went through something similar when the Soviet Union collapsed. I hope that people in Washington have learned from what went wrong in the transition from Communism to a market economy in Russia from someone like Jeffrey Sachs.
Collect all 55
According to the NYTimes,
At the daily media briefing at Central Command today, Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks told reporters that cards with the names and faces of 55 major regime leaders who must be captured or killed are being distributed to allied troops. He said that the list also is being publicized around Iraq on posters and handbills.
There's even a picture of Brooks holding up a pack of cards with a photograph of an Iraqi leader--and the markings of the Ace of Spades. Extension of the metaphor of Iraq as a house of cards, a new war game? More stuff for Ebay? How does one make sense of this?
According to the NYTimes,
At the daily media briefing at Central Command today, Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks told reporters that cards with the names and faces of 55 major regime leaders who must be captured or killed are being distributed to allied troops. He said that the list also is being publicized around Iraq on posters and handbills.
There's even a picture of Brooks holding up a pack of cards with a photograph of an Iraqi leader--and the markings of the Ace of Spades. Extension of the metaphor of Iraq as a house of cards, a new war game? More stuff for Ebay? How does one make sense of this?
The Wrecking Crew
Rush Limbaugh always used to delight in saying that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Watching the media reports from Iraq make it clear that the US military is pretty good at it. I am reminded of those demolition experts who are able to bring down tall buildings with strategic placement of explosive charges--like when they imploded the King Dome in Seattle a few years ago. A few smart bombs here, a few bribes there, and before you know it--the collapse of an autocratic regime that had shaky foundations to begin with.
Rush Limbaugh always used to delight in saying that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Watching the media reports from Iraq make it clear that the US military is pretty good at it. I am reminded of those demolition experts who are able to bring down tall buildings with strategic placement of explosive charges--like when they imploded the King Dome in Seattle a few years ago. A few smart bombs here, a few bribes there, and before you know it--the collapse of an autocratic regime that had shaky foundations to begin with.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
What does a Democratic Iraq Mean?
Just thinking in type here. What sort of a democracy would Rumsfeld & Co. want in Iraq? Something that always spooked me is the fascination that many conservatives have with the tiny nation state of Singapore, also known as Disneyland with the Death Penalty. A prediction. There will be some calls from the neo-cons to remake Iraq in the image of Singapore.
Just thinking in type here. What sort of a democracy would Rumsfeld & Co. want in Iraq? Something that always spooked me is the fascination that many conservatives have with the tiny nation state of Singapore, also known as Disneyland with the Death Penalty. A prediction. There will be some calls from the neo-cons to remake Iraq in the image of Singapore.
Odious Debt
or Send Lawyers, Guns and Money
Real Audio player software required This story on Marketplace deals with Iraq's debts. I hadn't given much thought to how much debt Saddam had racked up. Kuwait is apparently owed 40 billion (other figures say 200 billion. edit) stemming from the '91 invasion by Iraq. Now people are trying to figure out if 1) the debt incurred by a ruler who was illegitimate in the eyes of the United States can be cancelled, or 2) if the cancellation of the debt would make it difficult to provide loans to brutal 3rd world dictatorships. (You'd think car-battery powered torture devices would be relatively inexpensive--but we're talking volume here.) I guess some folk think it's a bad thing to make it difficult for the Saddams of this world to use the plastic.
Meanwhile Josh Marshall says that we should look at divvying up the Iraqi oil revenue Alaska Permanent Fund style.
or Send Lawyers, Guns and Money
Real Audio player software required This story on Marketplace deals with Iraq's debts. I hadn't given much thought to how much debt Saddam had racked up. Kuwait is apparently owed 40 billion (other figures say 200 billion. edit) stemming from the '91 invasion by Iraq. Now people are trying to figure out if 1) the debt incurred by a ruler who was illegitimate in the eyes of the United States can be cancelled, or 2) if the cancellation of the debt would make it difficult to provide loans to brutal 3rd world dictatorships. (You'd think car-battery powered torture devices would be relatively inexpensive--but we're talking volume here.) I guess some folk think it's a bad thing to make it difficult for the Saddams of this world to use the plastic.
Meanwhile Josh Marshall says that we should look at divvying up the Iraqi oil revenue Alaska Permanent Fund style.
Monday, April 07, 2003
Re: THE PERFECTIBILITY OF MAN
Kevin Drum said this on his blog Calpundit today.
"Is it true that most liberals hold their beliefs because of a fundamental conviction that most people are good and will work to become better on their own if you give them a chance? Or are there lots of other liberals like me who believe that the veneer of civilization is thin indeed and that we fundamentally become better people only when the social contract itself becomes stronger, more liberal, and more compelling?
To put it as baldly as possible, it seems to me that most people only become better if they are kicked, prodded, and ultimately dragged kicking and screaming to do so. Given this, we agree amongst ourselves to form a government that will force betterment on us since human nature is too weak and frail to expect us each to do it on our own. Thus is human progress slowly but surely made."
This got me thinking, because I think freedom is absolutely essential to humanity and our society. The flipside of this is that responsibility is essential as well. That is why we have courts...to mediate differences regarding freedom and responsibility. I cannot put my finger on the exact quote from George Orwell, but he said something along the lines that he thought complete anarchy was desirable, but then he realized that the weak still need to be protected from the strong.
Thus you have Orwell the committed socialist and an advocate for freedom.
Maybe this is how the Democrats should position themselves, a party that is for protecting the weak and policing the strong in opposition to a party that is for protecting the strong and policing the weak.
Kevin Drum said this on his blog Calpundit today.
"Is it true that most liberals hold their beliefs because of a fundamental conviction that most people are good and will work to become better on their own if you give them a chance? Or are there lots of other liberals like me who believe that the veneer of civilization is thin indeed and that we fundamentally become better people only when the social contract itself becomes stronger, more liberal, and more compelling?
To put it as baldly as possible, it seems to me that most people only become better if they are kicked, prodded, and ultimately dragged kicking and screaming to do so. Given this, we agree amongst ourselves to form a government that will force betterment on us since human nature is too weak and frail to expect us each to do it on our own. Thus is human progress slowly but surely made."
This got me thinking, because I think freedom is absolutely essential to humanity and our society. The flipside of this is that responsibility is essential as well. That is why we have courts...to mediate differences regarding freedom and responsibility. I cannot put my finger on the exact quote from George Orwell, but he said something along the lines that he thought complete anarchy was desirable, but then he realized that the weak still need to be protected from the strong.
Thus you have Orwell the committed socialist and an advocate for freedom.
Maybe this is how the Democrats should position themselves, a party that is for protecting the weak and policing the strong in opposition to a party that is for protecting the strong and policing the weak.
Saturday, April 05, 2003
Why constructive politics?
Why not constructive politics? I've had my fill of destructive politics. The politics of ruin is practiced with great skill in Washington. But why constructive politics? Greens will always be identified with environmentalist causes, Libertarians with limited government, Conservatives with their religion or their capitalist impulses. Progressivism always had a nice ring to it...but the very word conjures up blind faith in the future.
Creative politics would sound too much like creative accounting, which we have too much of anyway. Fuzzy politics? I suppose that would be hard to get behind as well. Solution focused politics is what constructive politics would also be about...but constructive politics would probably be easier to remember.
Constructive politics can focus more on process than on outcomes. I don't presume to be the expert on other peoples lives. Constructive politics could be the politics of playfulness, freedom, and above all responsibility. More to follow.
Why not constructive politics? I've had my fill of destructive politics. The politics of ruin is practiced with great skill in Washington. But why constructive politics? Greens will always be identified with environmentalist causes, Libertarians with limited government, Conservatives with their religion or their capitalist impulses. Progressivism always had a nice ring to it...but the very word conjures up blind faith in the future.
Creative politics would sound too much like creative accounting, which we have too much of anyway. Fuzzy politics? I suppose that would be hard to get behind as well. Solution focused politics is what constructive politics would also be about...but constructive politics would probably be easier to remember.
Constructive politics can focus more on process than on outcomes. I don't presume to be the expert on other peoples lives. Constructive politics could be the politics of playfulness, freedom, and above all responsibility. More to follow.
Marketplace, the PRI radio show sponsored by General Electric, had branding expert Jack Trout on March 28th to note some of America's branding problems. If you have real player, you can check it out here.
Basically he says that America faces an image problem. Selling the world on the benefits of being the sole remaining superpower ain't going to be easy. He also notes that the White House slipped up by branding Saddam as evil rather than dangerous. He also has some things to say about the images and propaganda that the US has employed in this war.
Basically he says that America faces an image problem. Selling the world on the benefits of being the sole remaining superpower ain't going to be easy. He also notes that the White House slipped up by branding Saddam as evil rather than dangerous. He also has some things to say about the images and propaganda that the US has employed in this war.
According to The Washington Post US troops are moving into Baghdad.
The U.S. incursion was not an attempt to capture large sections of Baghdad, which remained under tenuous Iraqi government control. Rather, said Air Force Maj. Gen. Victor Renuart, "it was a clear statement of the ability of coalition forces to move into Baghdad at the time and place of their choosing."
So if victory is indeed at hand. What kind of victory will it be?
The U.S. incursion was not an attempt to capture large sections of Baghdad, which remained under tenuous Iraqi government control. Rather, said Air Force Maj. Gen. Victor Renuart, "it was a clear statement of the ability of coalition forces to move into Baghdad at the time and place of their choosing."
So if victory is indeed at hand. What kind of victory will it be?
Friday, April 04, 2003
Anthony Zinni has some remarks about the attack on Iraq, pardon me, Operation Iraqi Freedom.
"The biggest mistake the United States made in the war, Zinni said, was speaking of "shock and awe." "That was a way to say: "Your fate is inevitable. We're going to crush you. The might of America will defeat you. Just surrender and throw down your arms.'
"You don't speak to Arab pride and Arab manhood in this way. That whole psychological business gave them another cause to fight for, more than they would have fought just for Saddam." Buffalo News 4 April 2004
Experience has taught me that confrontational approaches in therapy lead to failure. I wonder what Rumsfeld will learn from this adventure in Iraq?
"The biggest mistake the United States made in the war, Zinni said, was speaking of "shock and awe." "That was a way to say: "Your fate is inevitable. We're going to crush you. The might of America will defeat you. Just surrender and throw down your arms.'
"You don't speak to Arab pride and Arab manhood in this way. That whole psychological business gave them another cause to fight for, more than they would have fought just for Saddam." Buffalo News 4 April 2004
Experience has taught me that confrontational approaches in therapy lead to failure. I wonder what Rumsfeld will learn from this adventure in Iraq?