The General Politics Thread

traptunderice · **Posted:** Wed Aug 31, 2011 5:23 pm

Goat wrote:

Trapt, further to our 'libertarians like fascists' discussion a few days ago, the ASI did a great blogpost on it.

http://www.adamsmith.org/think-piece/ph ... ocracy%3f/

Eh, I'm going to side with Naomi Klein on Friedman and Pinochet's relationship, that Friedman's approval was there but minor isn't as important as Pinochet's embracing of his policies and the fact that hyperinflation kicked in during Pinochet's regime not Allende's.

As for the Mises bit, claiming that fascism even saved European civilization or was possibly the only way to is pretty bogus. I know he sees it as a state of emergency, Carl Schmitt makes the same argument, but it doesn't make it right. Fascism wasn't necessary to enact the work programs which Mussolini and Hitler did; it was however necessary to justify the creation of a giant military force. If that's how European civilization was saved, the production of tanks, guns, jeeps, etc., we could have went back to the drawing board and found something better to build with our resources.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Wed Aug 31, 2011 11:58 pm

I'm not going to claim any expertise one way or the other vis-a-vis global warming, but I always get suspicious when career politicians push an agenda from which they stand to profit from heavily. **cough** Al Gore **cough**.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore#Criticism

Quote:

Gore's involvement in environmental issues has been criticized. For example, he has been labeled a "carbon billionaire" and accused of profiting from his advocacy;[201] a charge which he has denied,[202] by saying, among other things, that he has not been "working on this issue for 30 years... because of greed".[201] A conservative Washington D.C. think tank, and a Republican member of Congress, among others, have claimed that Gore has a conflict-of-interest for advocating for taxpayer subsidies of green-energy technologies in which he has a personal investment.[202][203] Additionally, he has been criticized for his above-average energy consumption in using private jets, and in owning multiple, very large homes,[204] one of which was reported in 2007 as using high amounts of electricity.

Anyway, there's no doubt that humans have some impact on the environment, but to what extent (and to what extent is AGW due to humans and to what extent is due to naturally occurring phenomena) is the question. After all, global climate changes are not exactly a new thing.

That article's headline was (surprise) misleading at any rate, and the article itself nothing more than yet another attempt at vilifying an opposing political party.

I could make a claim that "Democrats support NAMBLA" due to Pelosi, Frank and the very liberal ACLU's position on the matter.
Or even more to the point the LGBT community supports it, due to this guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Hay

Quote:

Henry "Harry" Hay, Jr. (April 7, 1912 – October 24, 2002) was a labor advocate, teacher and early leader in the American LGBT rights movement. He is known for his roles in helping to found several gay organizations, including the Mattachine Society, the first sustained gay rights group in the United States.

Hay was exposed early in life to the principles of Marxism and to the idea of same-sex sexual attraction. He drew upon these experiences to develop his view of homosexuals as a cultural minority. A long time member of the Communist Party USA, Hay's Marxist history led to his resignation from the Mattachine leadership in 1953. Hay's involvement in the gay movement became more informal after that, although he did co-found the Los Angeles chapter of the Gay Liberation Front in 1969.

Quote:

In the early 1980s, Hay joined other early gay rights activists protesting the exclusion of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) from participation in LGBT social movements, most noticeably pride parades on the grounds that such exclusions constituted a betrayal by the gay community.[36] In 1983, at a New York University forum, sponsored by an on-campus gay organization, he remarked "[I]f the parents and friends of gays are truly friends of gays, they would know from their gay kids that the relationship with an older man is precisely what thirteen-, fourteen-, and fifteen-year-old kids need more than anything else in the world."[52] In 1986 Hay was confronted by police when he attempted to march in the Los Angeles pride parade, from which NAMBLA had been banned, with a sign reading "NAMBLA walks with me.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 1:20 am

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opin ... 731.column

Quote:

The certainly with which some regard the evidence of man-made global warming as undeniably conclusive insults science and its principles. Raising questions about research is exactly what science demands, even if the consensus of the world's best minds declares the world flat. Demands that we all bow to some "consensus" that greenhouse gases cause global warming are as senseless as declaring that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution.

See, as usual, it's not so cut and dried.
Skepticism (especially when there are things such as government funding, departments of government, headed by the appropriately named "czars", new tax - green tax, that is - and so forth are involved) is not necessarilly a bad thing.

heatseeker · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:27 am

cry of the banshee wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0830-byrne-20110830,0,7115731.column

Quote:

The certainly with which some regard the evidence of man-made global warming as undeniably conclusive insults science and its principles. Raising questions about research is exactly what science demands, even if the consensus of the world's best minds declares the world flat. Demands that we all bow to some "consensus" that greenhouse gases cause global warming are as senseless as declaring that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution.

See, as usual, it's not so cut and dried.
Skepticism (especially when there are things such as government funding, departments of government, headed by the appropriately named "czars", new tax - green tax, that is - and so forth are involved) is not necessarilly a bad thing.

Scientists should be skeptical, but that doesn't mean acting like there's dissent where there's not. The scientific community IS in agreement about the presence of man-made global warming, and there are a billion sources which will support this that I'm too lazy to find. I'm all for scientific skepticism, of course, but when the prospective consequences are as dire as those of global warming and when the consensus is this strong, it's time to stop fucking politicking and start changing things.

The real obstacle is that environmental damage is a negative externality from doing business that won't show up in the costs UNLESS the government does something about it.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:48 am

heatseeker wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0830-byrne-20110830,0,7115731.column

Quote:

The certainly with which some regard the evidence of man-made global warming as undeniably conclusive insults science and its principles. Raising questions about research is exactly what science demands, even if the consensus of the world's best minds declares the world flat. Demands that we all bow to some "consensus" that greenhouse gases cause global warming are as senseless as declaring that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution.

See, as usual, it's not so cut and dried.
Skepticism (especially when there are things such as government funding, departments of government, headed by the appropriately named "czars", new tax - green tax, that is - and so forth are involved) is not necessarilly a bad thing.

Scientists should be skeptical, but that doesn't mean acting like there's dissent where there's not. The scientific community IS in agreement about the presence of man-made global warming, and there are a billion sources which will support this that I'm too lazy to find. I'm all for scientific skepticism, of course, but when the prospective consequences are as dire as those of global warming and when the consensus is this strong, it's time to stop fucking politicking and start changing things.

The real obstacle is that environmental damage is a negative externality from doing business that won't show up in the costs UNLESS the government does something about it.

I think that we can all agree that recycling, emissions control and any of the other anti-pollution measures that are in place are a good thing and that we are impacting our environment. And to what extent AGW is caused by humans seems to be the cypher.

Science sometimes reverses it's findings, though. Eggs, being the culinary equaivalent of the boogeyman, for example.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:14 am

http://www.theunion.com/article/2011083 ... 39991/1002

Quote:

Under AB 889, household “employers” (aka “parents”) who hire a babysitter on a Friday night will be legally obligated to pay at least minimum wage to any sitter over the age of 18 (unless it is a family member), provide a substitute caregiver every two hours to cover rest and meal breaks, in addition to workers' compensation coverage, overtime pay, and a meticulously calculated timecard/paycheck.

Failure to abide by any of these provisions may result in a legal cause of action against the employer including cumulative penalties, attorneys' fees, legal costs and expenses associated with hiring expert witnesses, an unprecedented measure of legal recourse provided no other class of workers – from agricultural laborers to garment manufacturers. (On the bright side, language requiring an hour of paid vacation time for every 30 hours worked was amended out of the bill in the Senate.)

I'm at a loss for how fucking ridiculous this is.

noodles · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:24 am

lol

and the websites name is so close to The Onion :<

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 3:20 pm

noodles wrote:

lol

and the websites name is so close to The Onion :<

It's a legit, local news publication.
Grass Valley isn't far from my neck of the woods.

Anything substantial to add other than the usual "lol"?

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 4:34 pm

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/money/2 ... etail.html

Quote:

Only a third of all Americans approve of how President Barack Obama is handling the economy, according to a new national survey

.

Quote:

"Two-thirds of Democrats continue to approve of Obama's economic record, but seven out of 10 independents disapprove. Not surprisingly, more than nine out of 10 Republicans also disapprove of how Obama is handling the economy," added Holland.

He can always resort to his usual MO, can Oblama.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 5:28 pm

heatseeker wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0830-byrne-20110830,0,7115731.column

Quote:

The certainly with which some regard the evidence of man-made global warming as undeniably conclusive insults science and its principles. Raising questions about research is exactly what science demands, even if the consensus of the world's best minds declares the world flat. Demands that we all bow to some "consensus" that greenhouse gases cause global warming are as senseless as declaring that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution.

See, as usual, it's not so cut and dried.
Skepticism (especially when there are things such as government funding, departments of government, headed by the appropriately named "czars", new tax - green tax, that is - and so forth are involved) is not necessarilly a bad thing.

Scientists should be skeptical, but that doesn't mean acting like there's dissent where there's not. The scientific community IS in agreement about the presence of man-made global warming, and there are a billion sources which will support this that I'm too lazy to find. I'm all for scientific skepticism, of course, but when the prospective consequences are as dire as those of global warming and when the consensus is this strong, it's time to stop fucking politicking and start changing things.

The real obstacle is that environmental damage is a negative externality from doing business that won't show up in the costs UNLESS the government does something about it.

Agreed with heatseeker but to take V to task on a point. The problem is that you, like Perry, are targetting individuals within movements as if that debunks movements' goals. Pointing out that Hay was uber-radical about his thoughts on NAMBLA as if it shines a negative light on the LGBT community is a fallacy. On a side note, NAMBLA gets support from libertarian strands as well insofar as consent and age laws are impositions on the individual by an over-bearing government. Off that tangent, returning to the discussion of global warming, Perry and yourself in mentioning Al Gore point to individuals, activists and scientists, as if that casts a negative light on the results which they can provide. Yes, a scientist with an agenda is going to have skewed results. However, criticisms which Perry refers to of scientists fabricating data has been debunked and regardless of how giant a douche Gore is, the data he provides did not result from his own work. He simply makes a penny on spreading around the information which others have found.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:10 pm

traptunderice wrote:

heatseeker wrote:

cry of the banshee wrote:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/ct-oped-0830-byrne-20110830,0,7115731.column

Quote:

The certainly with which some regard the evidence of man-made global warming as undeniably conclusive insults science and its principles. Raising questions about research is exactly what science demands, even if the consensus of the world's best minds declares the world flat. Demands that we all bow to some "consensus" that greenhouse gases cause global warming are as senseless as declaring that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution.

See, as usual, it's not so cut and dried.
Skepticism (especially when there are things such as government funding, departments of government, headed by the appropriately named "czars", new tax - green tax, that is - and so forth are involved) is not necessarilly a bad thing.

Scientists should be skeptical, but that doesn't mean acting like there's dissent where there's not. The scientific community IS in agreement about the presence of man-made global warming, and there are a billion sources which will support this that I'm too lazy to find. I'm all for scientific skepticism, of course, but when the prospective consequences are as dire as those of global warming and when the consensus is this strong, it's time to stop fucking politicking and start changing things.

The real obstacle is that environmental damage is a negative externality from doing business that won't show up in the costs UNLESS the government does something about it.

Agreed with heatseeker but to take V to task on a point. The problem is that you, like Perry, are targetting individuals within movements as if that debunks movements' goals. Pointing out that Hay was uber-radical about his thoughts on NAMBLA as if it shines a negative light on the LGBT community is a fallacy. On a side note, NAMBLA gets support from libertarian strands as well insofar as consent and age laws are impositions on the individual by an over-bearing government. Off that tangent, returning to the discussion of global warming, Perry and yourself in mentioning Al Gore point to individuals, activists and scientists, as if that casts a negative light on the results which they can provide. Yes, a scientist with an agenda is going to have skewed results. However, criticisms which Perry refers to of scientists fabricating data has been debunked and regardless of how giant a douche Gore is, the data he provides did not result from his own work. He simply makes a penny on spreading around the information which others have found.

No, that article singled out individuals (repub candidates, yawn) to attempt to cast aspersion on an opposing viewpoint, that is that "Republicans are anti-science", hence my counter example to illustrate the fallacy in doing so.
Now it may be that a certain group is less educated on the topic, but that doesn't make them "anti-science".
Anti-science is accepting current theorem as infallable, when as you should know, science is often fluid in that what may be considered a consenus today is turned on it's head, modified, etc. tommorrow. There is a long history of this. Until very recently, Pluto was considered a planet, but it has been reclassified. Just one example of scores of examples.
As for GW, my personal position is that we are most likely impacting it, but the extent of which is attributible to humans and how much is the result of naturally occurring phenomena is the question.

traptunderice · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:36 pm

That article singled out representatives of the party, it is a rhetoric device to broadly sweep a generalization; however, Krugman pointed to how a candidate changed his position to cater to a larger audience, i.e., those who have the opposing viewpoint, and Krugman had statistics showing how that opposing view was not limited to individuals so your counter example isn't valid.

Less educated is not equal to dogmatic refusal to educate one's self.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 6:44 pm

traptunderice wrote:

That article singled out representatives of the party, it is a rhetoric device to broadly sweep a generalization; however, Krugman pointed to how a candidate changed his position to cater to a larger audience, i.e., those who have the opposing viewpoint, and Krugman had statistics showing how that opposing view was not limited to individuals so your counter example isn't valid.

Less educated is not equal to dogmatic refusal to educate one's self.

Krugman?

How do you know they "dogmatically refuse to educate themselves"?
Because some leftist hack like Krugman says so?

Just another politically motivated hit piece.

People like the author of that piece (partisan hacks) are what is destroying this country.

I wonder though do you apply this:

Quote:

Less educated is not equal to dogmatic refusal to educate one's self

to anyone besides rural republicans? Say, for example, inner city blacks?

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 8:05 pm

Google "krugman+flip-flop"

:lol:

He's a joke.

At any rate, the fact that you chose to defend that obviously politically motivated hit piece of an article and to focus solely on the political party aspect of AGW rather than the merits, and skepticism, of scientific consensus is all I need to know.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Thu Sep 01, 2011 11:18 pm

Here's one for trapt:

Quote:

Representatives from the Latino and African American LGBT communities chastised the San Diego Pride board of directors last week, criticizing the lack of ethnic diversity at the 2011 celebration. In addition, they announced intentions to re-launch the Latin Pride and Ebony Pride events if steps are not taken to make future festivals more diverse.

“I am just disgusted. I am offended. I went to the festival this year and I did not see anything that was representative of me,” said Franko “Franceska” Guillen

Quote:

“We knew this was going to happen,” Patmon said. “Our main concern, even back when I contacted Pride about having an African American or Urban Pride stage, was whether there was going to be a backlash from the urban community, specifically the African American community, that they weren’t represented.

http://lgbtweekly.com/2011/08/25/pride- ... diversity/

Oh dear, what to do?
:lol:

North From Here · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:01 am

Somehow, I'm guessing Franceska has made the act of being offended a life passion.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:06 am

emperorblackdoom wrote:

Somehow, I'm guessing Franceska has made the act of being offended a life passion.

Oh, be nice.

Cú Chulainn · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:40 am

Krugman is certainly not a hack, he's one of the most respected economists in today's world.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:46 am

Cú Chulainn wrote:

Krugman is certainly not a hack, he's one of the most respected economists in today's world.

He's a leftist hack. And a flip-flopper.
I could care less how "respected" he is.

cry of the banshee · **Posted:** Fri Sep 02, 2011 1:59 am

A few examples of how which party is in the WH determines Krugman's economics:

http://old.nationalreview.com/nrof_lusk ... 050910.asp

http://blogs.investors.com/capitalhill/ ... -hypocrisy

http://www.newsrealblog.com/2011/04/18/ ... lip-flops/

http://www.chequerboard.org/2011/04/pau ... flip-flop/

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/27 ... an-h-adler

well, there are more but as you can see, he's just another partisan liberal water carrying hack.

Metal Reviews

The General Politics Thread

Who is online