Please don’t think that I consider myself some sort of superior being in my resistance to tribal thinking in politics. I attribute that to my father, who was a rather unusual man. We had our difficulties, but there was much that I admired about the guy, who was a physician, a career Air Force officer and an Episcopal priest. These were concurrent capacities, not sequential ones, and every time the Air Force transferred us he would find a new Episcopal parish in which to function, which he did very actively.
His military environment led to him being a Republican and fiscal conservative, but he was a humanist and was socially quite liberal. That meant that political discussions when I was growing up had real depth about the impact of one policy versus another. I tended to be a little more conservative than Dad overall, which made things interesting at times, but certainly did and still do believe in the maintenance of social safety nets to the degree that we can do so without interfering with national function.
He told me I had lost my mind when I first told him I was for Barry Goldwater, but by November he was intending to vote for him as well, which I believe he did. It was the first time I ever influenced the old man’s thinking in such a fashion and was a milestone in adulthood for me.
He and I agreed entirely about “the little man in the White House” who fired MacArthur, and we continued to agree that every president subsequent to him made Truman look better and better. The last two, including the current one, have made Truman look positively statuesque.
The point is that policies have to be thought through, and cannot be merely accepted or rejected based on a distorted view through the lens of political tribalism, and seemingly contradictory policies can frequently coexist harmoniously in government.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Silliness and Grandstanding
CBS Evening News did an "expanded coverage" of hurricane Sandy tonight, in which Scott Pelley was shown standing out on the shoreline braving the wind and surf for no discernable reason other than to be seen braving the wind and surf. He looked utterly ridiculous and less than halfway through the broadcast the storm cut off the feed and he was seen no more. Served the silly ass right, in my humble (?) opinion. Then, just to add to the inanity of the whole thing we heard from him on a garbled telephone connection giving us a brain dead description of waves breaking over the sea wall behind him. Good God.
Ideology or Tribalism?
Paul Pillar speaks of people grouping into political ideological patterns, “not because they are all going through the same coherent thought process -- or any coherent thought process. It is because they are taking cues from groups with which they identify.”
That strikes me as about right, given the number of “talking points” used by both political parties, and the commonality of arguments used by both sides even when those arguments are wrong; various arguments about Medicare for Republicans, for instance, or the endless claims by Democrats that Obama ended the war in Iraq.
“It is essentially a form of tribalism,” he says. “People identify with either the Republican tribe or the Democratic tribe and shape their views on matters of public policy accordingly.” He goes on to say that having adopted the main basis of the tribal position, the person then adheres to all positions advocated by that tribe and rejects all positions not advocated by the tribe, and does so pretty much without thinking about it.
The other thing it does is make them take an uncritical view of the leaders of the tribe, focusing on their good points and essentially blind to their bad points. They will read an article regarding that leader and will accept as entirely truthful anything that is said within the article is complimentary or worshipful in nature, no matter how badly it may be in conflict with the facts. At the same time, they will happily remain unmindful of any and all uncomplimentary facts about that leader, simply because the article is not mentioning them. When it comes to faults and bad actions about their leaders, ignorance is bliss.
A friend of mine sent me a reference to an editorial in the New Yorker Magazine. He is a very smart person, and he and I have had many enjoyable discussions. He has been as critical of some of the flaws of our present government as I have and I would not consider him to be a typical “Obamabot,” and yet he “highly recommended” the editorial. I found it to be a typical piece written by overly partisan liberal tribalist, misrepresenting Obama’s positions and his accomplishments.
Which is a completely useless and misleading fact. The New Deal was a comprehensive policy that included a panoply of measures and was, in total, vastly larger than the paltry half measure represented by Obama’s “stimulus” which constituted the entirety of his functional contribution toward recovery for the middle class and the poor in this nation.
His insistence on the pipe dream of "high speed rail" is a typical distortion of what was included in this act. A large amount of that money went for land acquisition, which provided no jobs at all, and another large portion included long range projects and is money which has not yet been spent even now. Our local paper just featured a another project of the act; military barracks being built on San Clemente Island, almost four years after the act, on an installation which has no permanent manning to use them.
Obama has, however, engaged in repeated and vastly larger measures which contributed to the recovery of Wall Street and corporatism, and under him the gap between rich and middle class has grown rather than shrunk.
And there we have an utterly false statement. At best the act assures universal access to the ability to purchase health insurance, which is not even close to “universal access to medical care” which the author claims. In actuality it does not even do the former, since even the White House admits that it leaves some fifty million Americans uninsured.
At best he provided tepid support for ending DADT. It was Congress that finally actually made the change, and it did so without any significant impetus from Obama, whose strongest statement was along the lines of “we will work to end DADT at the right time,” and he permitted the military to drag its feet for two full years on implementation of the change even after Congress passed its repeal.
He has finally, due to the pressure of a reelection campaign, admitted that he “believes in” gay marriage, but he has specifically not endorsed it as a matter of law and has made no claims that it should be made legal at the federal level. As a matter of fact he has said that it is a matter for “states to decide for themselves.”
He finally provided one with which I cannot argue. We do have a President who is morally sound, other than his fondness for Tuesday meetings in which he lists people to be killed without due process, and is not demonstrably insane. On the other hand, I don't think anyone has accused Romney of running around boinking his staff or has claimed that he talks to paintings, so I'm not sure what his point is here.
About the only thing that this piece of hackery does not claim for Obama is that he walks on water or that he ended the war in Iraq.
That strikes me as about right, given the number of “talking points” used by both political parties, and the commonality of arguments used by both sides even when those arguments are wrong; various arguments about Medicare for Republicans, for instance, or the endless claims by Democrats that Obama ended the war in Iraq.
“It is essentially a form of tribalism,” he says. “People identify with either the Republican tribe or the Democratic tribe and shape their views on matters of public policy accordingly.” He goes on to say that having adopted the main basis of the tribal position, the person then adheres to all positions advocated by that tribe and rejects all positions not advocated by the tribe, and does so pretty much without thinking about it.
The other thing it does is make them take an uncritical view of the leaders of the tribe, focusing on their good points and essentially blind to their bad points. They will read an article regarding that leader and will accept as entirely truthful anything that is said within the article is complimentary or worshipful in nature, no matter how badly it may be in conflict with the facts. At the same time, they will happily remain unmindful of any and all uncomplimentary facts about that leader, simply because the article is not mentioning them. When it comes to faults and bad actions about their leaders, ignorance is bliss.
A friend of mine sent me a reference to an editorial in the New Yorker Magazine. He is a very smart person, and he and I have had many enjoyable discussions. He has been as critical of some of the flaws of our present government as I have and I would not consider him to be a typical “Obamabot,” and yet he “highly recommended” the editorial. I found it to be a typical piece written by overly partisan liberal tribalist, misrepresenting Obama’s positions and his accomplishments.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009—the $787-billion stimulus package—was well short of what some economists, including Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, thought the crisis demanded. But it was larger in real dollars than any one of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal measures.
Which is a completely useless and misleading fact. The New Deal was a comprehensive policy that included a panoply of measures and was, in total, vastly larger than the paltry half measure represented by Obama’s “stimulus” which constituted the entirety of his functional contribution toward recovery for the middle class and the poor in this nation.
His insistence on the pipe dream of "high speed rail" is a typical distortion of what was included in this act. A large amount of that money went for land acquisition, which provided no jobs at all, and another large portion included long range projects and is money which has not yet been spent even now. Our local paper just featured a another project of the act; military barracks being built on San Clemente Island, almost four years after the act, on an installation which has no permanent manning to use them.
Obama has, however, engaged in repeated and vastly larger measures which contributed to the recovery of Wall Street and corporatism, and under him the gap between rich and middle class has grown rather than shrunk.
Five Presidents since the end of the Second World War have tried to pass legislation that would insure universal access to medical care, but all were defeated by deeply entrenched opposition. Obama—bolstered by the political cunning of the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi—succeeded.
And there we have an utterly false statement. At best the act assures universal access to the ability to purchase health insurance, which is not even close to “universal access to medical care” which the author claims. In actuality it does not even do the former, since even the White House admits that it leaves some fifty million Americans uninsured.
By ending the military’s ban on the service of those who are openly gay, and by endorsing marriage equality, Obama, more than any previous President, has been a strong advocate of the civil rights of gay men and lesbians.
At best he provided tepid support for ending DADT. It was Congress that finally actually made the change, and it did so without any significant impetus from Obama, whose strongest statement was along the lines of “we will work to end DADT at the right time,” and he permitted the military to drag its feet for two full years on implementation of the change even after Congress passed its repeal.
He has finally, due to the pressure of a reelection campaign, admitted that he “believes in” gay marriage, but he has specifically not endorsed it as a matter of law and has made no claims that it should be made legal at the federal level. As a matter of fact he has said that it is a matter for “states to decide for themselves.”
In the modern era, we have had Presidents who were known to seduce interns (Kennedy and Clinton), talk to paintings (Nixon), and confuse movies with reality (Reagan). Obama’s restraint has largely served him, and the country, well.
He finally provided one with which I cannot argue. We do have a President who is morally sound, other than his fondness for Tuesday meetings in which he lists people to be killed without due process, and is not demonstrably insane. On the other hand, I don't think anyone has accused Romney of running around boinking his staff or has claimed that he talks to paintings, so I'm not sure what his point is here.
About the only thing that this piece of hackery does not claim for Obama is that he walks on water or that he ended the war in Iraq.
Sunday, October 28, 2012
Seriously?
Cleveland. Are you kidding me? Cleveland, a 1-6 team ranked 29th in offense and 26th in defense and we cannot cross their goal line? Against Cleveland Philip Rivers has a 65 quarterback rating? Why does Norv Turner still have a job?
Saturday, October 27, 2012
Local Paper
My wife has finally blown her stack over our local newspaper, saying that "one more stinking editorial" and she will cancel our subscription. I decided that was not really the moment to suggest that I might have some input into that decision, since I also live here and read the paper.
The paper used to be called the Union-Tribune, which might clue you in that it is the merger of the city's two major local papers. That was a long time ago, of course, and it has been a fairly miserable rag ever since that merger. Then Douglas Manchester bought it and renamed it the San Diego U-T, and the paper has become as ridiculous as the new name suggests.
Manchester is the guy whose hotels were boycotted by gay groups due to his vocal and monetary support of the infamous Proposition 8, and that may be among the least vile things this asshole has engaged in. He supports a new downtown stadium for the Chargers, of course, because he is the developer who would get to profit from it. Do I need to tell you the editorials about which my wife was blowing her stack were in praise of Romney and his ilk?
The paper used to be called the Union-Tribune, which might clue you in that it is the merger of the city's two major local papers. That was a long time ago, of course, and it has been a fairly miserable rag ever since that merger. Then Douglas Manchester bought it and renamed it the San Diego U-T, and the paper has become as ridiculous as the new name suggests.
Manchester is the guy whose hotels were boycotted by gay groups due to his vocal and monetary support of the infamous Proposition 8, and that may be among the least vile things this asshole has engaged in. He supports a new downtown stadium for the Chargers, of course, because he is the developer who would get to profit from it. Do I need to tell you the editorials about which my wife was blowing her stack were in praise of Romney and his ilk?
Fuzzy Math
A couple of periods ago there was a huge drop in the number of unemployement applications, one which dropped the unemploymnet number from 8.0% down to 7.8% but which turned out to be a reporting error. Seems that California didn't realize it was the end of the calendar quarter, or it calculates calendar quarters differently than the rest of the nation, or it just counts slowly... Anyway, it failed to report some 30,000 unemployment applications. Of course it was California's fault; everything is.
At any rate, California eventually reported those applications and the "anomalous number" (otherwise known as the "bullshit" number) was corrected, but a funny thing happened. The unemployment figure which was dropped by that "anomaly" was not corrected back upward along with the number of unemployed people, it remained at 7.8% instead.
So, if you have a truck with 100 apples and 40 of them fall out you have 60% of your apples remaining. If you put 20 apples back into your truck you still have only 60% of the original number of apples. Interesting math.
At any rate, California eventually reported those applications and the "anomalous number" (otherwise known as the "bullshit" number) was corrected, but a funny thing happened. The unemployment figure which was dropped by that "anomaly" was not corrected back upward along with the number of unemployed people, it remained at 7.8% instead.
So, if you have a truck with 100 apples and 40 of them fall out you have 60% of your apples remaining. If you put 20 apples back into your truck you still have only 60% of the original number of apples. Interesting math.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Summer Wedding
My cousin got married this summer and I was able to contribute to the festivities by planning their open house!! And boy was I in for an eye opener; weddings are a lot of work. My Aunt was so trusting, I am glad I did not give her a heart attack. I have never planned an open house before. It was good practice for me since I have 3 little girls. In about 20 years from now my husband and I are going to be wedding central, with my luck all my girls will get married at the same time.
We had an outdoor open house planned with fresh flowers, delicious desserts, tiki torches, soft twinkling lights strung in tree's; it was going to be awesome until it started to pour :( I was feeling pretty frustrated that it was pouring rain in the middle of July, rain in July.... since when?!? Come on mother nature cut me a break. Well she didn't so we hustled and moved everything inside and made do with what space we had. It turned out really nice even though my original vision was crushed.
I would have to say the flowers were the hardest part, not to mention I didn't have a clue what I was doing. I have no floral experience what so ever. I knew that I wanted to use 3 mason jars as the vase. My Aunt and her daughter whipped out the cute burlap flowers, another inspiration from Pinterest. They used random sized pearls for the centers.
After endless days of browsing online I had a general idea of what I wanted the fresh flowers to look like. Fresh flowers are tuff because you can't play around ahead of time and get an idea of what you want to use or how many stems you need. It's a guessing game. The morning of the open house I started arranging and after a few tries came up with this
not bad huh!
I really quite enjoyed it after I got the hang of it. Here is my happy row of flowers :) Well I guess the flowers weren't so happy but I sure was.
Don't they look awesome!
I knew I wanted to stamp the bride and grooms established date on the burlap table runners but was not quiet sure how I was going to pull that off. I asked my sister, the AMAZING graphics designer, to design something for me. She made me a stencil that I could re-use on all the table runners, pretty nifty. I love the personal touch that it gave to each table.
Here is a really crappy picture of the cool sign I made for the bride and groom, why did I not take a better picture?? I have been asking myself that same question for days now. It was a really fun sign to make. I used the paint and wax method. Where you rub candle wax on the area's that you don't want the paint to stick to, then you sand the paint off the waxed area's after the paint dries.
Let see what else can I show off.......
Sorry, here is another horrible picture, I hate taking pictures indoors.
These are the tissue paper flowers that we made to hang in the tree's, of course that was before mother nature had her way with the weather. So we found another use for them and tied them to the stair railing.
This is a picture of the dessert buffet.
My sister made the gourmet cheese cakes, they are to die for. We also served chocolate dipped strawberries, brownies, cream puffs and cake.
Here is the favor table. More cute burlap flowers, vanilla taffy's in brown paper bags tied with twine and lots of crystal candle sticks.
I had a little too much fun making signs with the bride and grooms names on them.
And there you have it, our summer open house!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)