15 notes &
““The taxpayers don’t pay us for intellectual curiosity. They pay us to get convictions.””—
Prosecutor Mike Mermel (The Prosecution’s Case Against DNA - NYTimes.com)
No. No, no, no. No. They pay you for justice, and you’ve failed them.
If you want to hate Republicans, don’t hate them because they prefer a 36% tax rate on the rich to a 39% one. Hate them because of things like this quote.
With the quotes and the ‘stache…are you sure this isn’t supposed to be in The Onion?
Let’s assume this dubious assertion is factual. The corresponding fact is that it would destroy an equal (or probably greater) number of foreign jobs. Those foreign jobs are held by human beings. Human being with families. Human beings with needs. Human beings worth every bit as much as a human being lucky enough to be born in the United States. Just because you can’t see these human beings doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Just because you don’t know these human beings doesn’t mean you shouldn’t care about them.
So what should a considerate person do when they make their holiday purchases? My humble suggestion: Buy the products that best match your needs. Because whoever is meeting your needs is actually pretty deserving of your money, even if they don’t speak your language, or look like you. Even if they live far away.
Notes &
The rationale for the Occupy movement is that all of this has been under successful attack by the right wing, which has an opposing principle, that democracy is about citizens only taking care of themselves, about personal and not social responsibility. According to right-wing morality, the successful are by definition the moral; the one percent are taken to be the most moral. The country and the world should be ruled by such a “moral” hierarchy. Except for national security, the Public should disappear through lack of funding. The nation and the world should be ruled for private profit alone — and by force.
George Lakoff: Occupy Elections, With a Simple Message
That’s a hell of a leap from “personal responsibility” to individuals only taking care of themselves, and that success = morality. The sad thing is that people take this kind of rhetoric seriously.
Notes &
You may be accomplishing the opposite of what you intend.
The same applies to so-called sweatshop-free products. I’m for free trade, but trade means you get the lowest price, and that might mean you buy something from what some people call a sweatshop. The name itself conveys abuse.
Henderson says that’s wrong. The workers aren’t abused.
“In fact, they’re better off taking those jobs. … The mistake Americans make is they think they would never work in a sweatshop and therefore they say these people shouldn’t. Well, no one’s offering those people green cards. Those people are stuck in those countries. They’re choosing their best of a bunch of bad options. And when you take away someone’s best of a bad option, they’re worse off.”
That happened after Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa complained about sweatshops in Bangladesh. Some shops closed. Then Oxfam discovered that kids who were laid off often turned to prostitution to support themselves.
You believe the right-wing Jeff Miller is “probably one of the most fair editors of #politics?” Well, we’ve all seen how silly your beliefs are, and how they’re totally unsupported by reality, so this comes as no surprise. As for Miller’s promotion of holeycynicism’s piece: By any objective standard it is an absurdly bad piece, a poorly written, juvenile rant against Occupy Wall Street that reeks of smug ignorance. While I understand how that might appeal to right-wingers like yourself and Miller, its promotion tells me that either Miller promoted the piece because of its author’s skin color — the way right-wingers promote Herman Cain because they think it insulates them and their racist policies from charges of racism — or Miller’s standards for promoting posts are ludicrously low. The fact remains: It had no business being promoted, and it’s just the latest example of why all of Tumblr’s right-wing editors should be replaced by right-wingers of a higher caliber… unless you pathetic lot are the best Tumblr has to offer, in which case I look forward to mocking you all some more. — Ryking
I suppose I ought to respond to this.
1. Considering the percent of my blog devoted to the death penalty, the drug war, foreign wars, civil liberties, I’m hardly “right-wing.” I’m libertarian.
2. I promote all kinds of ideological posts to the Politics page, often those I disagree with.
3. Ryking believes I promoted the post in question because holeycynicism is black. That’s not true. I promoted the post because it (1) was an original post (and not just a quote from someone else’s work), (2) because it parsed a statement by Occupy Dallas, which I hadn’t seen on Tumblr before, and (3) because I thought holeycynicism’s take on the movement might provoke a interesting political discussion. Sadly, it only provoked Ryking’s rage. Rather than defend the Occupy Dallas statement, or counter holeycynicism’s argument with statistic or logic, Ryking chose to launch a personal attack against the author and my promotion of him. Was holeycynicism’s post emotional? Was it part rant? Sure. The OWS movement is an emotional rant, so perhaps this was fitting. But if Ryking is so sure that the post “reeks of smug ignorance,” I’d suggest he write something substantive to advance the argument.
4. Given Ryking’s treatment of fellow Tumblrs, I hardly think he should decide who staffs the Politics page. And I’d gladly tender my resignation from the panel if he would do the same.
By any objective standard it is an absurdly bad piece, a poorly written, juvenile rant against Occupy Wall Street that reeks of smug ignorance. While I understand how that might appeal to right-wingers like yourself and Miller, its promotion tells me that either Miller promoted the piece because of its author’s skin color — the way right-wingers promote Herman Cain because they think it insulates them and their racist policies from charges of racism — or Miller’s standards for promoting posts are ludicrously low. The fact remains: It had no business being promoted, and it’s just the latest example of why all of Tumblr’s right-wing editors should be replaced by right-wingers of a higher caliber… unless you pathetic lot are the best Tumblr has to offer, in which case I look forward to mocking you all some more. — Ryking
I’ll start by pointing out a couple of things: (a) The post was obviously intended as a “juvenile rant”, the smugness was intentional also; (b) I pointed this out in a follow up to your critique yesterday, yet you ignored that, and instead are debating its merit with someone who had nothing to do with its writing or promotion. Is it because I’m black?
Look, the post was not intended to be taken seriously. It wasn’t conceived of seriously, it wasn’t written seriously. As a result, the quality of the writing wasn’t high. But have you read the Occupy Dallas statement calling for the General Strike? If you want to honestly discuss writing of a “ludicrously low” quality being promoted inappropriately, you’ll need to include it.
If you want to keep trashing my post, that’s fine. I didn’t put enough effort into it to be offended. But address me directly when you do it, and be specific about what was so “absurdly bad.”
(Source: holeycynicism)
A woman I work with is really dedicated to the Occupy movement. She works some evenings and weekends so that she can be involved there during the week, and she talks about it effusively at the office. I hadn’t thought the movement, from what I’d seen and heard, was worth my attention, but she’s a nice lady. I decided to look into it. Turns out I was right in the first place…
Here’s what I found…
Actually, here’s what I found in your piece: Fallacies galore, such as begging the question; a few straw men; kettle logic; the nirvana fallacy; appeals to emotion; appeals to spite; appeals to ridicule; ad hominem attacks; wishful thinking.
Did that appear to be a planned, logical rebuttal of the arguments of OWS? If so, I’m better at this than I thought. No, that was a late night rant intended for a few FB and Twitter friends (thanks to jeffmiller for liking it enough to promote it, though!). And late night rants are completely useless if you leave out the appeals to emotion, spite, ridicule and ad hominems. Isn’t that why everyone loves the Daily Show?
Given the poor quality of the post, I imagine that the only reason it was promoted to #Politics is that LA Liberty was happy that a right-wing African-American was trashing OWS, as if liberals would be unwilling to rebut or incapable of rebutting your nonsense because of your skin color. Rather hypocritical of him, though, to promote the piece on #Politics when he’s unwilling to like or reblog it. — Ryking
I’m not particularly intimidated by the prospect of someone attempting to rebut my (oh so solid) arguments from this post. I think I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts on it…are you up for it?
Notes &
But I don’t want to be represented by the Occupy movement. I don’t want to be part of “The 99%”. And I am speaking for myself. The fact that I choose not to be a member of any particular group doesn’t make its lack of intellectual credibility my fault.
If you want to call me a “lap dog” for expressing an unfriendly opinion, that’s fine. But don’t pretend I owe this movement something. I don’t.
A woman I work with is really dedicated to the Occupy movement. She works some evenings and weekends so that she can be involved there during the week, and she talks about it effusively at the office. I hadn’t thought the movement, from what I’d seen and heard, was worth my attention, but she’s a nice lady. I decided to look into it. Turns out I was right in the first place…
Here’s what I found:
Statistics Fail: The first link on occupywallst.org today promised to explain how the Bush tax cuts “only benefit the richest 1% of Americans in any kind of significant way.” That was a big fat lie.
It links to a lovely graph that show the average tax cut for the “richest 1%” compared to the “poorest 60%”. First, who in their right mind would consider the guy at the top of that “poorest 60%”, the one who makes more money than 59.9% of all Americans, “poor”? Second, the average savings for the 60% was about $500. That’s a lot of money to most of us. President Obama even wanted praise for securing a tax cut of just $400 for us last year. Third, in 2008 40% of wage-earners paid no federal income taxes. So 2/3 of the entries used to come up with the average savings for the bottom 60% were zeroes! Think that drove the number down a bit?
But those aren’t the real problem…significance is relative. $500 is significant to me, and I think it is to most of the people in the “poorest 60%”.
I’m sorry, what? Occupy Dallas is calling for a General Strike. After reading their manifesto (?), I started to think that these people have no idea what the world is like. And they definitely don’t know anything about what the world was. And whatever group of people got together to write this - with their extensive use of “whereas”, “consensus” and present participles - stopped going to English class after 8th grade.
Enjoy this smattering of phrases:
The Occupy movement represents those that feel disenfranchised from the current socioeconomic system because of policy passed by our political institutions and the actions of those in control of the unprecedented consolidation of wealth.
Translation: “We’re sensitive and you’re mean!”
Whereas by consensus we view that for the first time in American history, current generations will not be as prosperous as preceding generations. This denial of the American Dream is at the heart of Occupy Movement.
I have great confidence in your consensus opinion. I love the way you can stare in the face of great historical trends and not even care. “What? The prices of durable goods, clothing, and food have been falling steadily for 250 years? Well, it’s all over now! Head for the bunker!”
Whereas by consensus we view that the social system has become tilted against us by:
This is gonna be great…I can feel it…
1. Unfair treatment and discrimination against individuals based on Gender, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Race, National Origin, Physical Ability or any other factor that minimizes any person’s individual worth
“Become tilted”? Can someone point out a time or place in history where people of different national origins, races, religions, and sexual orientations so freely participated in a society, both politically and economically? Can a group of people be so historically illiterate and presently unaware, yet still believe themselves to be forward-thinking?
2. The commoditization of individual privacy
What does this even mean?
3. Profit driven news sources with individual agendas
Again, “become”?
4. Narrow definitions of what constitutes a family
Back to #1, the definition of family is about as broad as it’s ever been. That was the end of that list, thankfully.
Jeopardizing the future of social security through investiture and privatization schemes
Um, I think the future of Social Security is a giant empty hole, slowing being filled in with the hopes and dreams of those of us who are paying for it, but will never receive it. Just sayin…
By reducing funding to our education system our future generations are provided a lesser education that previous generations received because of increased class size and reduced resources.
This, along with the complaint about high student loan debt, makes me think these people never figured out that there’s no such thing as a money tree. Look, college is expensive. It costs a lot of money to maintain those facilities, to keep hold of professors who could double their money if they went to work for pharmaceutical companies or hedge funds. It costs more money to maintain money-losing athletic programs (thanks Title IX), and even more to provide discounted tuition to every person in the state who manages to pull off a B average in high school. Now add in community colleges. Where’s the state supposed to get money for the bureaucratic monstrosity that makes up public K12 schooling? God only knows. The problem isn’t that we aren’t spending enough money, it’s that we have no restraint, and no direction. But I can see that the Occupy movement isn’t going to be any help in those areas.
The rest of the document is a whining rant about not getting things like paid sick and maternity leave, defined benefit pensions, and health insurance, and some vague statements about “unethical business practices”. I’ve decided I know all I need to about Occupy whatever. Now I’m going to peacefully occupy my living room.
13 notes &
Social Security is structured from the point of view of the recipients as if it were an ordinary retirement plan: what you get out depends on what you put in. So it does not look like a redistributionist scheme. In practice it has turned out to be strongly redistributionist, but only because of its Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in).
Like many of his protectionist trade opinions, he used to be right where now he’s wrong. This is from 1997.
(via laliberty)
Krugman has advocated free markets in contexts where they are often viewed as controversial. He has written against rent control in favor of supply and demand,[128] argued that “sweatshops” are preferable to unemployment,[29] challenged minimum wage and living wage laws,[129] likened the opposition against free trade and globalization to the opposition against evolution via natural selection,[130] opposed farm subsidies[131] and mandates, subsidies, and tax breaks for ethanol,[132] questioned NASA’s manned space flights,[133] and written against some aspects of European labor market regulation.[134][135] He once famously quipped that, “If there were an Economist’s Creed, it would surely contain the affirmations ‘I understand the Principle of Comparative Advantage’ and ‘I advocate Free Trade’.”[136][137]
Krugman also once wrote in defense of conservative economist Glenn Loury that Loury, in defiance of many African-American political leaders,[142] had clearly seen and articulated that “the problems facing African-Americans had changed. The biggest barrier to progress was no longer active racism of whites but internal social problems of the black community.”[143][144][145]
(via fuckyeahemergence)
(via whakatikatika)
