Paul Krugman displays today the degree to which he a partisan political hack by writing a lengthy screed in which he advocates for the ad hominem attack politics that the Obama campaign is presently engaged in with respect to Romney’s purported record at Bain Capital. He even finishes by saying that, “the Obama campaign would be doing the American people a disservice if it didn’t make the most of Bain.”
I’m not going to get into whether or not Romney left Bain as he claimed or when the Democrats claimed, or what the implications are in either case, because I don’t care. I’m not an advocate for Romney. My point is the issue of attacking the person himself rather than that person's policies.
Krugman says that we can’t limit the debate to policy because, in part, that we can’t “rely on the news media to get the essentials of the policy debate across to the public.” Well, certainly not when politicians are providing such colorful and salacious personal attacks for them to quote, no, we can’t. A politician feels that the press is not giving him enough attention when he talks about policy, so he says that John McCain fathered a black baby, and we’re supposed to be okay with that merely because we can’t “rely on the news media to get the essentials of the policy debate across to the public.”
Liberals were highly upset when the media misquoted Al Gore, saying that he claimed to have invented the Internet and to have discovered Love Canal, correctly asserting that these misquotes were a personal attack and had nothing to do with policy. Democrats were furious at Republican claims that John Kerry did not actually serve as claimed in Vietnam and had not actually earned the medals which he displayed.
Now Democrats find an apparent discrepancy between a report filed with a federal agency and Romney’s statements about his tenure at Bain and they are not only calling him a liar, but a felon. This is perfectly okay, because it is Democrats doing it. It’s only slimy to make personal attacks on your opponent when it is a Republican making such attacks on a Democratic opponent.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Friday, July 13, 2012
Incivility Abounds
I am now looking for a new barber. The one I have been using gave a decent haircut, nothing special, but I only get haircuts to keep my wife from nagging me so I’m not all that fussy. He just raised his price from $12 to $16, but that’s fine. The increase is a little steep, but even at the new price that’s a reasonable rate for a haircut, and I don’t mind paying it.
My problem with him started when, as he began cutting my hair, he launched into a discussion of how Obama is a socialist and Obamacare is “the biggest tax increase in history.” People who read me regularly know that I am by no means an Obamabot and am certainly no fan of “health care reform,” but his claim about the “biggest tax increase in history” is a profoundly ignorant and inaccurate claim, and is made only by partisan political hacks. It is just plain stupid to be engaging in that kind of discussion in a retail marketing setting.
The final straw was when another customer sat down in the next chair and announced that he was lucky because he had enrolled in a yoga class where the rest of the class was all women and “they are all hookers.” A boisterous and crude discussion ensued, including the guy cutting my hair, on how to “get” and treat women that might have been worthy of 14-year-olds, but only if they were high school dropouts and stoned on drugs.
What’s frightening is, these guys vote in national elections.
My problem with him started when, as he began cutting my hair, he launched into a discussion of how Obama is a socialist and Obamacare is “the biggest tax increase in history.” People who read me regularly know that I am by no means an Obamabot and am certainly no fan of “health care reform,” but his claim about the “biggest tax increase in history” is a profoundly ignorant and inaccurate claim, and is made only by partisan political hacks. It is just plain stupid to be engaging in that kind of discussion in a retail marketing setting.
The final straw was when another customer sat down in the next chair and announced that he was lucky because he had enrolled in a yoga class where the rest of the class was all women and “they are all hookers.” A boisterous and crude discussion ensued, including the guy cutting my hair, on how to “get” and treat women that might have been worthy of 14-year-olds, but only if they were high school dropouts and stoned on drugs.
What’s frightening is, these guys vote in national elections.
On Being Important
Paul Krugman wrote an editorial in the New York Times yesterday which had nothing whatever to do with economics; supposedly his area of expertise. It was purely a lecture on why we should loathe and despise the rich, and specifically Mitt Romney, whose name is mentioned several times and who is cited as an example more than once.
So let's just let go of the idea that Paul Krugman is presenting any sort of independent economic theories with his various pronouncements about what kind of spending we should or should not be doing. Just bookmark this piece, and come back and read it any time you think that he is not simply a partisan ideological hack.
So let's just let go of the idea that Paul Krugman is presenting any sort of independent economic theories with his various pronouncements about what kind of spending we should or should not be doing. Just bookmark this piece, and come back and read it any time you think that he is not simply a partisan ideological hack.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
When To Spike The Ball
Nate Silver issued a forecast which showed Obama winning the election in November, which is still some five months away. Nothing is going to happen between now and then which might change the game, of course, so Obama supporters are cheering wildly and running victory laps in ecstasy.
I suggested on one blog that the conversation reminded me of a San Diego Chargers running back who was so elated over scoring a touchdown that he spiked the ball at the five yard line, where it was recovered by the opposing team, and pointed out just a couple of the many things that might happen that would cause Nate Silver to change his tune. "Cross the goal line, people," I advised, "before you start the victory dance."
The next post but one was "Comments for this thread have been closed." Yikes, I guess I really spoiled the party. Reality sucks.
I suggested on one blog that the conversation reminded me of a San Diego Chargers running back who was so elated over scoring a touchdown that he spiked the ball at the five yard line, where it was recovered by the opposing team, and pointed out just a couple of the many things that might happen that would cause Nate Silver to change his tune. "Cross the goal line, people," I advised, "before you start the victory dance."
The next post but one was "Comments for this thread have been closed." Yikes, I guess I really spoiled the party. Reality sucks.
Magneto Trouble?
Paul Krugman is baffled, he says, by Jeff Sachs. Of course he is, he’s baffled by anyone who disagrees with him. We can’t know what the specifics of the bafflement are because Paul links to an article in Financial Times which is behind a subscription wall. I guess he assumes that anyone who reads his blog is a fellow economist who subscribes to Financial Times, which is sort of contrary to the purpose of a blog, but then we’re dealing with the mind of Paul Krugman. I’m sure he is baffled by the idea that anyone might not subscribe to the Financial Times when it costs a mere $199 per year to do so.
His issue with Jeff Sachs apparently has to do with dead cars and magnetos, which indicates that he may not be entirely up to date with respect to cars, and is baffled by automotive engineering, since they don’t have magnetos any more. It’s beginning to appear that Paul Krugman is rather easily baffled, although some of us have known that for years.
Reading on, it seems that Paul’s car has a systemic electrical problem, bad brakes, a bad transmission and a dead battery. No mention of a magneto, which restores some hope for sanity, but leaves us wondering where the hell the title for the piece came from.
Judging from the context, Jeff Sachs appears to be critical of the “economic stimulus” theory of “let’s buy a new battery and drive the car with bad brakes and a bad transmission and hope the electrical problem doesn’t make the engine die in the middle of freeway traffic.” I’m inclined to agree with him, thinking that you’ve merely wasted the cost of a new battery.
Krugman posits that he is “not denying that the car may have other problems, even bad ones,” but that is just a rhetorical gambit to counter Jeff Sachs’ allegory, because he does not and has never admitted that there is anything wrong with our economic system. So his “what sense can it possibly make to say that therefore you shouldn’t start by replacing that dead battery?” will be followed, after the battery is replaced, by saying, “See, the car is running so we don’t need to do anything else.” That’s what Keynesians always do.
And, just as it did in 1958, 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007, the car will have its engine quit in freeway traffic because all we did was buy a new battery.
His issue with Jeff Sachs apparently has to do with dead cars and magnetos, which indicates that he may not be entirely up to date with respect to cars, and is baffled by automotive engineering, since they don’t have magnetos any more. It’s beginning to appear that Paul Krugman is rather easily baffled, although some of us have known that for years.
Reading on, it seems that Paul’s car has a systemic electrical problem, bad brakes, a bad transmission and a dead battery. No mention of a magneto, which restores some hope for sanity, but leaves us wondering where the hell the title for the piece came from.
Judging from the context, Jeff Sachs appears to be critical of the “economic stimulus” theory of “let’s buy a new battery and drive the car with bad brakes and a bad transmission and hope the electrical problem doesn’t make the engine die in the middle of freeway traffic.” I’m inclined to agree with him, thinking that you’ve merely wasted the cost of a new battery.
Krugman posits that he is “not denying that the car may have other problems, even bad ones,” but that is just a rhetorical gambit to counter Jeff Sachs’ allegory, because he does not and has never admitted that there is anything wrong with our economic system. So his “what sense can it possibly make to say that therefore you shouldn’t start by replacing that dead battery?” will be followed, after the battery is replaced, by saying, “See, the car is running so we don’t need to do anything else.” That’s what Keynesians always do.
And, just as it did in 1958, 1960, 1969, 1973, 1980, 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007, the car will have its engine quit in freeway traffic because all we did was buy a new battery.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Competence Is Not In Abundance
Sometimes I find myself seriously unimpressed by the San Diego Police Department. About six months ago they had a major freeway closed for the entire time while they engaged in a four-hour armed standoff with what turned out to be an empty car. I certainly can understand exercising a degree of caution, but four hours? What made the whole thing utterly bizarre was that the car had been pulled over beside a concrete wall, and how the miscreant escaped unseen was never explained.
Then last night they had another freeway closed for nine hours while they talked to this guy sitting on a freeway overpass sign, finally persuading him to climb down on his own. They are, as you can see, no more than ten feet away from him, have determined that he is not armed, and still apparently cannot figure out how to just physically remove him, so the freeway is closed at 5:00pm and remains closed until the early hours of the morning. Seriously, failing anything else, put a net underneath and just give the idiot a push. Takes twenty minutes. What is the matter with you people?
Then last night they had another freeway closed for nine hours while they talked to this guy sitting on a freeway overpass sign, finally persuading him to climb down on his own. They are, as you can see, no more than ten feet away from him, have determined that he is not armed, and still apparently cannot figure out how to just physically remove him, so the freeway is closed at 5:00pm and remains closed until the early hours of the morning. Seriously, failing anything else, put a net underneath and just give the idiot a push. Takes twenty minutes. What is the matter with you people?
Bring Back The Draft?
Thomas Ricks proposes a return to the draft and suggests that doing so would “make Americans think more carefully before going to war.” Daniel Larison doesn’t think that the form of draft that Ricks suggests would do anything of the sort, and I am inclined to agree with Larison. That doesn’t mean that I think that a requirement for national service is a bad idea. There is, I believe, some merit in the thought.
Ricks refers to a “three tiered system” but actually only describes two tiers. The first is military service in a non-combat role, short term and at lower pay than the “volunteer” forces, and working in support functions. The second is civilian service, as teachers on impoverished city areas, rebuilding infrastructure and such. Both tiers would not pay well but would offer benefits, including tuition and such.
What he calls the “third tier” is to opt out of national service, in which case one would receive no benefits from the national government, including no Social Security, Medicare, etc. “Those who want minimal government,” he says, “can have it.” I’m not sure how he thinks that could actually be accomplished. Do we paint them with a red “x” or something, so that terrorists can kill them, but not people who the federal government is “keeping safe from terrorists” and other dangers?
“Hey al-Queda, the ones with red x’s are fair game. Go for it.”
And, like Larison, I’m not sure how Ricks thinks such a plan would deter engagement in war. Draftees would not be faced with any prospect of combat, so why would they or their families care whether we are engaged in war or not? Besides which our government does such a sales pitch on the case for war beforehand that support for it is all but universal anyway. Iraq was sold as both necessary and easy to such a degree that it received overwhelming public support, as was the first Gulf War.
What the plan Ricks proposes does remind me of is a novel by Robert Heinlein published in 1959; Starship Troopers. It posited a society in which only people who had completed a term of national service were allowed to vote, and in which that privilege was quite highly valued. People who had not served envied those who had, and citizens were willing to go to great difficulty and risk to earn the right to vote in national elections.
In a discussion within the story, there is mockery of a society which was so insane as to allow everyone to vote, and of how that society had failed miserably. A teacher asks rhetorically if anyone knows why the present system is in place and answers, “Because it works, and everything before this has failed.” It was an interesting discussion, which was integral to the story itself, and it was written more than half a century ago. I sometimes wonder what Heinlein would write if he saw our political landscape today.
Ricks refers to a “three tiered system” but actually only describes two tiers. The first is military service in a non-combat role, short term and at lower pay than the “volunteer” forces, and working in support functions. The second is civilian service, as teachers on impoverished city areas, rebuilding infrastructure and such. Both tiers would not pay well but would offer benefits, including tuition and such.
What he calls the “third tier” is to opt out of national service, in which case one would receive no benefits from the national government, including no Social Security, Medicare, etc. “Those who want minimal government,” he says, “can have it.” I’m not sure how he thinks that could actually be accomplished. Do we paint them with a red “x” or something, so that terrorists can kill them, but not people who the federal government is “keeping safe from terrorists” and other dangers?
“Hey al-Queda, the ones with red x’s are fair game. Go for it.”
And, like Larison, I’m not sure how Ricks thinks such a plan would deter engagement in war. Draftees would not be faced with any prospect of combat, so why would they or their families care whether we are engaged in war or not? Besides which our government does such a sales pitch on the case for war beforehand that support for it is all but universal anyway. Iraq was sold as both necessary and easy to such a degree that it received overwhelming public support, as was the first Gulf War.
What the plan Ricks proposes does remind me of is a novel by Robert Heinlein published in 1959; Starship Troopers. It posited a society in which only people who had completed a term of national service were allowed to vote, and in which that privilege was quite highly valued. People who had not served envied those who had, and citizens were willing to go to great difficulty and risk to earn the right to vote in national elections.
In a discussion within the story, there is mockery of a society which was so insane as to allow everyone to vote, and of how that society had failed miserably. A teacher asks rhetorically if anyone knows why the present system is in place and answers, “Because it works, and everything before this has failed.” It was an interesting discussion, which was integral to the story itself, and it was written more than half a century ago. I sometimes wonder what Heinlein would write if he saw our political landscape today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)