Or worse. If the Republicans get their grand bargain, they're not going to suddenly become easy to work with and let Obama go ahead with the changes he wants to make, so yeah, a huge raft of Republican initiatives right away, then nothing else happens.

I was thinking of one where Cenk showed a scale 0-10, where 0 was left, and 10 was right, and Obama was 6-7 and Bush was around 8.>> ^Trancecoach:

Well it was this clip that gives me the impression that we're about to get four more years of the same stagnation.>> ^messenger:
I can't find it, but Cenk did an episode about a scale that measures how far right or left a politician is based on actions, and Obama was clearly right of centre.>> ^Trancecoach:
Obama will still lead from the middle however... which, with the far right's opposition, is still pretty conservative.

@326 – is that a john lennon in a raft?

@518 – is that shia laebeoufff?

>> ^aurens:

"He knows that he has only minutes to climb into his life raft before the freezing ocean kills him. 'I stopped everything; I started praying. I said, God, I need some help.'"
Well, now he has even less time to make it into his life raft.


I'm usually right on board with taking pot shots at religious crazies and their god bothering but I think we can cut a guy who was dealing with hideous injuries after such a traumatic experience a little slack for falling back on his faith, regardless of the fact that we don't share it.

"He knows that he has only minutes to climb into his life raft before the freezing ocean kills him. 'I stopped everything; I started praying. I said, God, I need some help.'"

Well, now he has even *less* time to make it into his life raft.

The Backstory:
Here’s a way not to respond to charges that police officers in your town harassed, abused and brought false charges against Latino residents: by telling a reporter that you might eat tacos to help Latinos out.

Asked this week by WPIX reporter Mario Diaz what he would do for the Latino community, East Haven, Connecticut Mayor Joseph Maturo said he “might have tacos when I go home.”

Four officers in the town were charged by the Justice Department this week with conspiring to violate and violating the civil rights of Latino residents of the city. One officer allegedly said he “likes” harassing people who “have drifted into this county on rafts made of chicken wings.”

Maturo has subsequently apologized for his “insensitive and stupid answer.”

@GeeSussFreeK I think most of us on the left aren't really looking to end capitalism, so much as file down its sharp edges.

Mostly we're pushing back against this sort of deification of "free markets" as an answer to every problem our culture faces. This is especially perverse, since it's actually at the root of almost every large-scale issue facing our society today.

That said, we don't really want to throw the market baby out with the bathwater either. We just want to put markets in their proper place in people's minds. Markets are just one of many ways to do things. It doesn't have to be all-or-nothing either. We can have a market for produce, even if we decide markets for medicine just don't bring us the results we need.

We also need to stop pretending that capitalism is sorting people into some sort of moral hierarchy. By and large people don't get what they "deserve" in capitalism. I doubt anyone who's poor has done something so awful that they deserve to be punished with poverty, just like the rich haven't done something so wonderful that they deserve to be lavished with riches.

Once you put markets into the proper perspective, then you can really start talking about what to do with the areas of our society where markets aren't delivering us the results we need. That's where the entire raft of liberal causes come in like environmental protection, universal healthcare, income inequality, labor rights, health and safety regulation, etc.

None of those are aimed at ending markets and capitalism, so much as trying to get people to accept non-market solutions to the problems the markets aren't solving.

And yes, the favorite response to that line of thinking is usually some form of "we still have laws, so everything that's wrong must be the government's fault because it's not really a free market until it's total economic anarchy!" But that's exactly what I mean when I talk about deification of markets. There are a lot of people who are not being objective or rational in examining the cause of the problems. For them, it's simply an article of faith now that "free" markets would fix everything in life, despite all evidence to the contrary.

That's what we're fighting against!

3 more comments have been lost in the ether at this killed duplicate.

>> ^pyloricvalve:

@NetRunner, On reflection I would be interested in your criticism of the Austrian School. Probably to long too go into here but could you recommend any links? (If it's just Bryan Caplan's criticisms I would accept those already)


I had to look up Bryan Caplan's criticisms, I assume you mean this? If so, that's a much more exhaustive dismantling than I was going to link to.

Since this is a Krugmania thread, I was going to dust off Hangover Theory, and add to it Tyler Cowen's thin skull criticism.

But returning to Caplan, he seems to incorporate both of those criticisms, and a raft of others. Let me mine out what I think is essentially the money quote:

What I deny is that the artificially stimulated investments have any tendency to become malinvestments.

To my reckoning, that destroys the keystone that supports the Ron Paul-style assertions that the Fed causes the boom/bust cycle, and undermines much of their case for things like the gold standard or decentralized currencies.

Here he is making Krugman's own point on Austrian theories of unemployment:

The Austrian theory predicts a decline in employment in some sectors, but an increase in others; thus, it does nothing to explain why unemployment is high during the "bust" and low during the "boom."

Which pretty much tells me that Austrians have no business telling anyone what will or won't improve employment, because their their theory doesn't even predict the rise and fall of unemployment we see in every business cycle, much less provide some superior insight into what the right policy response would be.

So to add some nuance back into my blanket statement about Austrian economics and echo Caplan a little. There's work self-identified Austrian economists have done that I think is beneficial to the field of economics. What's not been beneficial is the broken ACBT itself, especially when it's been dug up and injected into 21st Century political conversations as gospel by people who seem unaware how broken it is.

No sin is petty, because all sin leads to death. There is no such thing as a small sin. If you've ever lied, stolen, blasphemed God, hated someone, or looked at a woman with lust you've broken most of the commandments. God isn't interested in playing the gotchya game with someone. He is willing to forgive. It's the people who want to continue sinning and refuse to reform or change their ways that He is going to punish. This life is a brief moment compared to eternity. Is it really worth it to you to gain a short term pleasure at the sacrifice of your eternal future? Your rebellion isn't going to gain you anything except death.

btw, if you heard the clip Hitchens admitted why he rejected Him..because God would put a damper on his preferred lifestyle..again, there is nothing new under the sun. this has been the song of unbelievers for millenia..rejecting God because they want to do it their way

>> ^acidSpine:
You're right, I couldn't commit murder and recieve forgivness 'cause I don't believe this nonsense. But I don't think were talking about murder here are we? When you talk about sin, you're talking about a whole raft of petty little "crimes" against your god. Maybe you should be more specific when you accuse Atheists of rejecting god so they can sin all they want. What do you mean by "sin" in this case? My guess is it's a bunch of meaningless social norms you'd like to subject society to (for my second guess I'll say you won't bother to answer the question).
Hitchens (who isn't my intellectual idol btw, that would be Noam Chomsky <IMG class=smiley src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/teeth.gif">) would be quite right to reject this deity on the grounds that he finds it's moral code abhorrent although I'm quite convinced the rejection comes, in Hitchens' case, from the aforementioned total lack of evidence.
>> ^shinyblurry:
You're right, I didn't state that very well.
There isn't anyone good. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Without Jesus, we are all hellbound. But, the good news is that God made a provision for us.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, to pay the price that we ourselves could not pay. We are saved by faith in Him, that He rose from the dead. Thereby, we are saved by the grace of God, not because of something we did.
Now, your example is not valid. You cannot manipulate the grace of God. Your life isn't guaranteed, and the only reason you're drawing breath right now is because of God. If you think you can go out and commit a bunch of crime and then ask God for forgiveness later, knowing full well what you're doing, you're sadly mistaken.
btw, at least your idol Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to admit the real reason why he won't come to God for forgiveness..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AX1CswHCkA&feature=related
skip to 6:25

You're right, I couldn't commit murder and recieve forgivness 'cause I don't believe this nonsense. But I don't think were talking about murder here are we? When you talk about sin, you're talking about a whole raft of petty little "crimes" against your god. Maybe you should be more specific when you accuse Atheists of rejecting god so they can sin all they want. What do you mean by "sin" in this case? My guess is it's a bunch of meaningless social norms you'd like to subject society to (for my second guess I'll say you won't bother to answer the question).

Hitchens (who isn't my intellectual idol btw, that would be Noam Chomsky ) would be quite right to reject this deity on the grounds that he finds it's moral code abhorrent although I'm quite convinced the rejection comes, in Hitchens' case, from the aforementioned total lack of evidence.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You're right, I didn't state that very well.
There isn't anyone good. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Without Jesus, we are all hellbound. But, the good news is that God made a provision for us.
John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Jesus Christ died on the cross for our sins, to pay the price that we ourselves could not pay. We are saved by faith in Him, that He rose from the dead. Thereby, we are saved by the grace of God, not because of something we did.
Now, your example is not valid. You cannot manipulate the grace of God. Your life isn't guaranteed, and the only reason you're drawing breath right now is because of God. If you think you can go out and commit a bunch of crime and then ask God for forgiveness later, knowing full well what you're doing, you're sadly mistaken.
btw, at least your idol Hitchens is intellectually honest enough to admit the real reason why he won't come to God for forgiveness..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AX1CswHCkA&feature=related
skip to 6:25

Ah yes, the "unbiased" brain story. http://rockinconservative.com/2011/04/12/a-tale-of-two-brains/

I"m too lazy to formulate my own words at this time, so I found someone with words that match my sentiments:

I believe people have rights to legally designate in contract law who can visit them in hospitals, who can be named as insurance beneficiaries and the raft of other considerations sought for gay and lesbian couples. Call the arrangement civil unions if you wish.

But that's not the same as defining any union a marriage.

My fear — based on secular, more than religious precepts — is that watering down marriage could eventually rob society of the stabilizing and other beneficial effects of an institution now relentlessly under attack. Perhaps this argument is too ethereal to be grasped or accepted in an age of radical individualism. But it's an argument that is understood by plenty of Americans willing to state it, although it puts them in danger of being painted as haters.

--Dennis Byrne


Where I disagree with Byrne is that this nightmare world is wrought by "radical individualism". It's the herd, the mob, the petty tyrants, behind these farcical ideas.


>> ^bareboards2:

“Using data from MRI scans, researchers at the University College London found that self-described liberals have a larger anterior Cingulate Cortex – a gray matter of the brain associated with understanding complexity. Meanwhile, self-described conservatives are more likely to have a larger Amygdala, an almond shaped area that is associated with fear and anxiety.”
So @<a rel="nofollow" href="http://videosift.com/member/quantumushroom" title="member since June 22nd, 2006" class="profilelink">quantumushroom, next time you feel a strongly conservative stance coming on, you might consider teasing out what is irrational fear versus a well-founded fear. And maybe, just maybe, try some critical and thoughtful analysis of the situation.
You know, like, considering science.
Why ARE you so afraid of gays and lesbians? And please don't say you aren't -- every time you trot out that 4% number, you are broadcasting "fear of the other."

>> ^blankfist:

@NetRunner, see, for me it's not about dag's competence as a king or leader. He's the site owner, so I think by default he needs to take an avid and responsible role in the way punishment is doled out.

...and yet if I read your comments correctly, I don't think you were exactly pleased with the process he went through before banning you.

As a libertarian, sure, you are deeply committed to the idea that dag is and must be considered our king because he's got the divine right of property, and the rest of us are merely his subjects who only are allowed here at his consent.

But that's different from whether you like what the king's doing at any given time.
>> ^blankfist:
We don't have a pressing epidemic of "name callers" on here that we must deputize the community to help dag sift through the Sift Raft™. Banning probies and spammers is one thing, but banning actual contributing members shouldn't be a democratic process. It'll just lead to favoritism.

I think it's all about the kind of atmosphere we want in the community. I think there's been a slide towards greater and greater hostility and incivility. That seems to be the gist of dag's original post, all the way at the top of the page, no?

I don't really want to see some reign of terror where we purge the roles of the sift, but I would like to see people getting time outs for lashing out at people.

As for democratic process, I'm just asking for a code of laws. It seems to me that you can't have "due process" until you write down what the laws are. Without that, it's always going to boil down to the king settling disputes directly.
>> ^blankfist:
I propose we use hobbling when someone seems to be on the attack. As soon as an admin gets on they can look into the situation and listen to BOTH sides. I'm sure by that point the community will know all about the offense and already be weighing in and doing amateur sleuthing to get the facts. After that temp bans and perm bans would follow.

Sounds good, but what constitutes an attack?

If I say I've fucking had it with you calling me a Nazi all the time, and hobble you for it, how exactly do we settle whether I've got a legitimate case or not? Make dag threaten to cut the baby in half?