The Good Post Gallery

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

...though certain of his beliefs, such as his support for animal rights... are problematic.

as I believe I said in IRC, Vosem appears so absurd because he explicitly states what are meant only to be the implicit tenets of neoliberal ideology.

[Lief 🗽]

The rhetoric of reform applied to an agenda of destruction is at the heart of the neo-liberal project.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

This is old, but I found it after looking up some things after the debate on teacher's salaries, and thought it was great. krazen should take notice:

There are various things one might mean by "overpaid", depending on the standard to which the pay is being compared, and it is worth getting clear on which one we are talking about. In particular, one could be "overpaid":

1. compared to the actual pay obtained by the people in question on the actually existing market, with all the regulations and market distortions that are in place.

2. compared to some external moral standard of the value of the work, which might include non-monetary values.

3. compared to the pay that the work would receive if the entire world were an ECO101-style model free market, with no regulations limiting individual exchange at all.


By standard (1), obviously no profession is underpaid or overpaid, since, tautologically, people are paid what they are paid.

By standard (2), teachers are not overpaid, and CEO's and athletes are, IMHO. Of course others might differ on the underlying philosophical questions.

By standard (3), we are pretty much all overpaid, since the standard of living would be much lower if certain welfare-enhancing medical and technological improvements that depended on co-ordinated state intervention had never occurred. The yellow avatar types would disagree with this, based on what is in my view a naive understanding of the history, psychology and biology of the species, though I generally get the sense people like Gustaf and Franzl wouldn't disagree.

However, when I encounter people claiming that union workers are overpaid, they generally seem to be using none of these criteria. Rather - though it usually isn't explicit - they seem to be using a sort of strange mix of (1) and (3), where we apply (1) to the rest of the economy, keeping fixed the regulations that allow the economy to function as it normally does, but apply (3) to the specific transaction involving the labour of the workers in question, discarding the actually existing labour procedures in favour of individual exchanges between individual workers and their employer. By this standard, yes, teachers are a bit overpaid, as are all union workers, and the more left-wing interlocutor shouldn't deny it, since to do so would be to deny that there is a union wage premium that is advantageous to the worker. But why we should take this funny combination of (1) and (3) as a basis for actual public policy decisions is not clear to me.

[Platypus]

Honestly, my favourite post in years:

Are you the troll guy Carl who only posts bad economic numbers?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Honestly, my favourite post in years:

Are you the troll guy Carl who only posts bad economic numbers?

That should also go to the Sulfur Mine.

[SPC]

Desperate campaign is desperate.

ETA: Also, the idea of Mitt Romney as Commander in Chief is quickly moving from laughable to terrifying.

Remeber what I said about his inane comment on the number of ships in the US Navy?  I knew way back then this guy should not be given the nuclear button.  Private equity guys should not be in charge of the military.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What an idiot.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think Castro summed it up best...



I was concerned about Cain, Bachmann, or Palin getting the nuclear button but it appears they were just a distraction to keep us from realizing the true lunacy of Mitt Romney.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Nobody "wins" in the 2012 board. Humanity loses.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Just want to let you know I checked and Bin Laden is still dead.

...and Bush is still more responsible for killing him than Barrack Obama.  I guess I'm missing how getting a phone call on a golf course and saying "yea go ahead and kill the #1 sworn enemy of this country" is an "achievement" or deserving of merit, but than I remember that Bill Clinton and Joe Biden wouldn't say "yes I authorize" for some incomprehensible reason.  So, BO had the ability to say "yes" when 95% of the country would/could do the same thing.  WOW, does he dress himself too?     

There was only a 45% or so chance he was there. The President had to make a decision regarding whether to send American troops into a sovereign middle eastern state for an enemy we weren't even sure was there. You'd all blame him for him as a failure if Bin Laden hadn't been there, so why not give him credit for making the tough decision that proved correct?

It wasn't a tough decision, There was more than a 45% chance ( some reports vary), We have had people in Pakistan for decades now, I wouldn't blame a failed military operation on the president if he didn't do anything wrong/unreasonable (some might, but that's kind of irrelevant).  I'm GIVING HIM CREDIT for saying "yes I authorize", which is all he did.  Bush did far more work and Obama campaigned on reversing the Bush policies that were critical to making it happen.  I also give Obama credit for violating his stupid campaign promises, but I hold him accountable for lying.  You got about 1 out of 6 right :-)          

President Bush, god bless 'em, said in 2003 that he had no idea where bin laden was and that he didn't worry about him. Bush shut down the CIA team that was working to find him. One of Obama's first commands in office was to get any intelligence on the whereabouts of Bin Laden. He didn't lie either. In fact, back in 2007 he said that if Bin Laden was hiding in another sovereign state, like Pakistan, he would authorize going in and getting him. And he was relentlessly attacked on it by then Senators Clinton and McCain.

[Lief 🗽]

In all the areas where it isn't doing as well (low aggregate demand, income inequality, poverty, full employment, poor infrastructure) are areas that Democrats have been saying are problems for decades, even though Democrats have been constrained by things like the overton window and the GOP from doing very much about it. In all the areas where it is doing well, they're areas that Republicans have said for decades are the standard-bearer of a good economy: low taxes, thriving companies, wealth for the rich "job creators", low CPI inflation, cutting government spending and employment, cutting union membership and power. Republicans are in the strange position of trying to denigrate an economy where the most potent chief complaints are those coming from the left of the Democratic Party.

[opebo]

WOW! This is pretty bad. Now it is absolute key for the Obama camp NOT to overplay it. Let the media do their thing on this. The Obama camp should not want to get swamped in a "class warfare" debate here. They should simply point out how Obama wants to be president of ALL americans, not just half of America, how Obama doesn't think it is fair to say that senior citizens make unreasonable claims on the government, etc.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

One does suspect that a Carter grandson, if 'unemployed', is so by choice, Politico.  After all Romney's never worked a day in his life either.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

I think that for Scott Brown, Romney's remarks may have been a personal hit.

Remember that this is a guy who grew up in a poor family that was on food stamps at various points. The problem is that Scott Brown, like most Americans, views those types of assistance as a facilitator to moving out of poverty (as he obviously did). Mitt Romney basically said Scott Brown's family, who would have been 47-percents when he was growing up, were lazy self-victimizers with no sense of personal responsibility. Susana Martinez comes from a similar background and had a similar reaction.

There is nothing aspirational about the GOP platform anymore. Forty years ago, it was "The Democrats are the party of handouts. We're the party of giving a helping hand." They don't want to do that anymore. Their only message to the poor is that they don't pay enough in taxes.

[Landslide Lyndon]

I love how Rasmussen's own methodology even openly admits their polls are garbage nowadays, if you just read between the lines ever so slightly.


Here's how a Rasmussen poll is made!!!

• Poll conducted during a four-hour period of a single weekday evening
• short time means no calling back any numbers
• Robot voice asking questions and telling you to press buttons
• Questions asked of whoever picked up the phone; could easily be small child
• Calls are only made to landlines
• Instead of, you know, calling cell phones, they channel inspiration from Zogby: "To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones,  Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from  a demographically diverse panel."
  
  Let's see. At this point, they have data showing which buttons were pressed by whoever they called that evening who happened to be home, who decided to answer that phone call, and who didn't hang up when they heard a recording on the line. They add this data to internet surveys taken by people who deign to sign up to be part of the "demographically diverse" Rasmussen internet panel and trust none of these internet folks lied about any of their personal information.
  
  But wait, now the fun part!
  
  
• The sample isn't representative in the slightest, so it gets adjusted to match census data for the area!
• Still not representative enough, so it gets adjusted again to match voter registration records!
• Still not good enough, so it goes through a likely voter screen! Only the people who pushed the correct buttons when the robot voice asked them about their voting habits make it through this part!
• Almost good, but still one problem- it has to be adjusted for partisanship! This means they use the magical dynamic weighting system which uses "the state’s voting history, national trends, and recent polling in a particular state or geographic area" to figure out exactly how to BS where the numbers should have been if this was anything resembling a scientific poll.
  
  So, to recap: Have robots blanket the states with calls for a few hours while everyone's out eating dinner or watching football, record the answers from whoever does pick up the phone, mix that data with some totally legit internet surveys, arbitrarily readjust the numbers four times in a row, and presto! You have your very own Rasmussen poll!
  
  (source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/about_us/methodology)
  

[Lambsbread]

I think we've got a gem of a poster here.

Other: The Joker from The Dark Knight

His nihilistic tendencies were so vicious he was quite the disturbing character, and how he was portrayed by Heath Ledger was so insanely immaculate that I don't think any fictional villain, ever, will match up to his version of The Joker.

And, as much as I obviously disagree with his nihilism, violence, etc - he makes you think, because he does make an interesting philosophical point.  When talking to Harvey Dent in the hospital scene, he notes how if things like soldiers dying or a gangbanger getting shot happens... nobody freaks, because it's all part of the plan.  But that he threatened to kill the Mayor, that's not part of the plan - and it freaks everyone out.

I actually find a bit of truth in that observation.  One example, sadly, is the Colorado shooting (where the guy who did it said he was the Joker).  The media (as they should have) freaked out, this wasn't supposed to happen.  Yet I see no reporting on the atrocious conditions in diamond mining, sweatshops, economic destitution at the stranglehold of mega-corporations in the third world... those are all normal, continuing things.  But when out-of-the-ordinaries happen... the Colorado shooting, the Haiti earthquake... that's when people care.  Clearly I disagree with how The Joker chooses to respond to that reality, but he makes an interesting point.

A villain who can come off as so chaotically evil, who can also make you honestly think is a well developed, well rounded character.  He'll truly never be beat in this category.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Spanish Moss is less than a 100 posts in, and is already one of my favorite posters.

[Lambsbread]

Spanish Moss is less than a 100 posts in, and is already one of my favorite posters.

Yep. For a socialist, he's awesome

[Donerail]

Incidentally, if anyone here does want to run for office - as a career move rather than as a standard bearer for the cause (whatever it might be) - then be really, really, really careful what you post.

[TJ in Oregon]

SIMFANLAND: A PHOTO ESSAY


Where I live


Morning paper - text heavy, government owned


Breakfast at a local café


My morning commute


Typical "middle class" job


Typical "peon" job


Work is a bit different for "full citizens"


Whatever the case, you'd best show up on time...


The internet - censored, available only in public locations


A common sight in the early days...


...but after this...


...we began to see more of this


Always on


Some people fear this...


...and others fear this...


...and Simfan fears this...


...but he should really fear people like this

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The fact that he's more liberal on an issue than Obama (marijuana) scares me.

Jesus warned about people like him... false prophets.  His attitude is judgmental, and this isn't because of the stances he takes (one could see homosexuality as a sin, for example, but not have this essence of judgmentalism - I've met Christians that fit what I'm describing).  He uses his position for wealth.  I say this not to judge - this is observational.  We're all imperfect, but being in the position he's in, it comes across to me that he's really betraying the essence of the Gospels.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This might be long and rambling and aimless and not really my usual style but I'm just going to write what comes to mind and leave it at that.

Yelnoc, you're thinking of this the wrong way. Ultimately I don't think you're that far from what Antonio said. You seem to think that "they" would need to actively engage in something quantifiable to keep people down. You don't need to do that. I'm reminded of Tony Benn's interview in Sicko where he talks about how democracy is inherently dangerous to elite interests, but only if people are educated and confident, only when they believe they can make a difference if they really try. Otherwise it can just as easily be used against the general interest as anything else.

What Benn was specifically talking about there was that "the system" is benefited by the fear of (or presence of) shackling debt because it makes people grow pessimistic and hopeless, and pessimistic and hopeless people don't vote, but his general point was simply that you don't have to literally put your boot on someone's neck to keep them down, simply demoralize them, pit the lower classes against each other, make them think they have no choice but to continue following orders and following a ruthlessly capitalist system and the focus isn't on how the system is screwing them, it's how the immigrant is why they're losing, how the gay man is why they're losing, how the black man is how they're losing.

We have a 24/7/365 media system pounding accepted, safe, mainstream, patty-cake mentalities into peoples' heads. People need leadership or people that separate from the path to open their minds and make them seek out new ideas. People need leadership to demand more from their politicians, or to stand up and make their voice heard, or to demand better lives, but if that leadership and that recursive, self-reinforcing media system spends all day and night talking about those evil protesters, blocking the streets as they fight for lower tuition, people become easily fooled into hating those protesters for disrupting their day rather than the government or the institution that is screwing a generation with greater debt.

We have a society based on convenience and the establishment exists to maintain that convenience. 9/11 happens and it's not a call to arms, or a call to sacrifice for the greater good of society, we're told to put a smile on and go shopping. We have an ostensibly left-of-center President who has only sought policies that go a half step to accomplishing one goal or another with a minimal disruption to the existing social, economic, and political systems, and a right of center party that only seems to further demolish trust in existing institutions only to further demoralize the voting population.

There's a reason America will never have anything close to the alleged Business Plot ever again; you don't need to be aggressive to control society, it's happened over the course of decades and we all let it happen because most people became selfish, apathetic, convenience-addicted consumerists and that's what was intended. People are happily useful idiots of the elite; there's plenty of them on this very forum. You don't need to assassinate popular politicians, you just buy off three politicians behind closed doors and block that politicians agenda. You don't need to censor information these days, buy your own newspaper, your very own Fox News, hell, just get your own blog, spread the lie you need to spread, and you automatically win. Combating lies is a hundred times as hard as combating truth, because you have to grab people's attention for more than just a single line.

Beet is right with his last line, about how this question is damn near an infinite regression of problem stemming from problem stemming from another problem, but the simplest place to start is to stop lathering in misery and start caring again. The Montreal student protests were eye opening to me in one respect, it showed there's a place where people still care about these things. If they had simply accepted unwarranted tuition fee hikes, they would still be stuck with them. No one would've stopped to think about it, and Quebec would probably still be in the waning days of a horribly corrupt Liberal government.

But people protested to cause disruption, with the ultimate goal of sparking a new election. They weren't causing havoc just for the fun of it (okay, perhaps a small percentage were, as they always do in these things) but rather they were protesting because they wanted to go vote for something different. They still believed in the institutions of Quebec government and wanted to use their vote as a vehicle of change, and 75% of people went and voted, and those students got the tuition fee freeze. They didn't wallow in misery, they didn't make ironic comments about it and then go booze the night away, they got on the street, bitched, and then voted.

So as much as I agree with people like you on these things up to a point, as much as I agree with people like Beet, Fezzy, even Tweed, about how much things suck, and how deeply screwed we are for the foreseeable future, and how broken American society is right now, you ain't solving any of it by thinking you're insignificant, that your vote doesn't matter, that it's hopeless and you should just go and (in Beet's words) "watch TV while eating junk food instead." Where I part with people on this is that you're not impressing anyone by talking about how doomed we all are. I don't have all the answers, and I don't think there's any one thing that's causing "the problem" or helping "the system." But a good place to start would be for us all to recognize who is actually screwing things up (it's not the illegals or big gubmit), and what can actually help us (it isn't a tax cut), and then to care enough to do something when we have the chance. (And realizing that you have to occasionally vote for a guy that kinda sucks against someone who really sucks in the meantime.)

[Mad Deadly Worldwide Communist Gangster Computer God]

I understand alot of parents wish to protect their children by saying 'they are too young to know' when it comes to a variety of issues, but alot of transgender people and other LGBT individuals if asked as an adult will tell you that they knew who they were from a young age whether it's 5 or 14. A child will have great difficulty expressing who they are (and who they are not) but when it is expressed it has to be listened to. Now of course some children just play dress and roleplay and it all means nothing in the end so there has to be a degree of sensitivity. Just because it's a complex issue shouldn't mean it is simply ignored until the child is entering puberty (which psychologically can be a difficult time) or an adult. This girl will be much happier as a result.

[Mechaman]

Just why are execrable opinions infractible, outside advocating violence, blatant bigotry, and so forth? There seems to be some movement afoot to start chopping off at least one side of the extended tail of the bell curve. What am I missing here? Is this site just supposed to be for semi reasonable to reasonable people, or harmless people, or people whose eccentricities amuse, rather than annoy? Are we getting a bit too much into the "thought police" mode?  

I say all of this not being a big Naso fan, mostly because he does not engage in debate. He's the star - we're the audience. There is a bit of a narcissistic strain there maybe. But  that is just a matter of style.

Maybe we should worry a bit more about what we contribute around here, and a bit less what others do. And maybe that includes myself. This thread causes me to ponder that a bit.

Now if Naso starts calling liberals around here of the type he disdains, Commies, all bets are off. It's one thing to lazily and ludicrously in self indulgent speculation drop an erroneous/vile label on a vast swath of the anonymous; quite another to do it with someone you know up close and personal who is not a public figure.

Oh the photo. I think it a stretch to suggest he's advocating the murder of liberals. I think he was trying to emphasize his opinion of Commies. And there is nothing about Naso to suggest he favors mass genocide based on political views. It was clumsy, sure, not funny, and while he may celebrate the incident of the photo, beyond the murder itself, it led to great tragedy. So throw ignorance into the mix. That is not infractable either.

Naso, if you read this, think about it. Your hit and run tactics aren't working for you very well, when you want to be edgy. The natives are restless.

[Simfan34]

A number of posters in this thread have been punked. They have so filtered objective reality through their political biases that they could not notice an obvious satire.

The article is on to something, however. Since Watergate, every Republican candidate running on a conservative platform [Reagan, Bush I 1998, and Bush II 2000] has won, and, every Republican candidate running as a moderate, or running on a moderate record has lost, with the sole exception of Bush II in 2004 whom had the good fortune of Osama Bin Laden endorsing his opponent just before the election. If Romney pursues a moderate strategy, he will suffer the fate as every other moderate. If that is the case, some folks in the Republican party had better step forward and speak up for conservatism.

Bush ran in 2000 on "compassionate conservatism," which was a far more watered-down version of conservatism than Romney has been forced to pursue thanks to Gingrich and Santorum. The campaign originally wanted to emulate that rhetoric, but Gingrich/Santorum forced them into a corner. We both want the same thing, but I warned you months ago about the implications of Gingrich/Santorum specifically with regards to female voters. Don't pull the "Romney's not conservative enough" card because he is running to the right of  every presidential contender since Reagan (with the possible exception of Bush in 2004)

Shocker, I know.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I'm really amazed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Conservative movement has basically spent a generation now building and existing solely within their own bubble, where they only listen to each other, only talk to each other, only listens to religion against science, only watch Fox News, only read the books the Conservative business empire puts out, and now, only apparently want to listen to their polls. It's become a movement that openly denies reality simply because they don't like what they see; it used to be funny, but it's gotten kind of sad and dangerous.