Good! Fast! Cheap!

I went to the dry cleaners today and noticed a sign above the counter that read “Caesars’ Dry Cleaning – Good! Fast! Cheap!

“So” I thought, “Caesars has transcended the iron law of production which holds you can only have two out of three.” That is:

You can get things that are high quality, quickly, but they will be expensive;

You can get things that are high quality, inexpensively, but it will take a long time; And

You can get things quickly and inexpensively, but they won’t be very good.

Apparently this applies to everything but dry cleaning!

Joe H.

The Battle of the Bulge

I really liked this article depicting Christian holdouts on the "homosexuality is sin" posture to the Japanese soldiers in the Philippine jungles who continued fighting World War II long after it had ended - refusing to believe the war had ended despite repeated attempts to contact them via dropped leaflets and radio broadcasts.


Unfortunately, I don't think it is the most accurate analogy for our current situation. I agree that the "Christianity is sin" faction is doomed - just as the Japanese were doomed to inevitable defeat after the battle of Midway. But the Battle of Midway did not end the war with Japan - nor is the battle for the soul of Christianity on the gay issue over.

I think a better analogy is the Battle of the Bulge. The Germans were doomed once they lost the Battle of Stalingrad. But they didn't seem to realize it. The D-day invasion hastened the date of their ultimate demise, but they still didn't realize they were doomed. The Battle of the Bulge was Germany's final major counter-offensive - they realized they were doomed only after it failed.
I think the "homosexuality is sin" faction is in the midst of the Battle of the Bulge. Things are getting desperate, but they've still got some fight left in them.
By way of illustration, someone recently “outed” me as a supporter of gay love/marriage before our congregation. After the service, several attendees discretely approached me and quietly told me that "I was not alone." It is true that Christians are changing their minds. The hardliners are losing. But they still have enough power to keep most Christian gay love supporters in the closet.
Joe H.

Divine Endorsement

Don't look now, but it appears the Almighty has endorsed multiple GOP candidates for president.

Geez!

When I see such comments strewn together in the manner this article presents them, I laugh at the human folly (and narcissism). But because all of these candidates are supposedly followers of God, I also wonder why they fail to take proper heed to one of the first rules the Almighty ever laid down – e.g., “You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name.”

Misuses his name? Wonder what that means?

Joe H.

Tax Cuts at Ten Years

Apparently, the Bush tax cuts turn ten years of this week.  Here's a smart analysis of what the achieved, but mostly failed to achieve.


Joe H.

Warning Shots and Bells

Sarah Palin on Paul Revere.


http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/sarah-palins-american-history-class-1


What I find truely remarkable is that millions of Americans will still find her a compelling political figure.

Joe H.

The Moral Depravity of Senator Mitch McConnell

This is all quite mind-blowing. As you know, House and Senate Republicans voted overwhelmingly in favor of Representative Paul Ryan’s budget plan which “ends Medicare as we know it” – see my two previous posts for an explanation. Ryan’s plan has proved so politically toxic that it recently caused Republicans to lose a special election in New York’s 26th congressional district – a district in which Republicans won nearly 70% of the vote just eight short months ago! A district that has been consistently Republican for decades.

The first thing to notice is how crazy it was for the House Republican leadership to force their members to vote on such a politically risky budget that had absolutely no chance of passing the Senate or getting the President’s signature. The magnitude of this blunder becomes even greater when you recall that Republicans used “death panel” and “government takeover of health care” rhetoric to win the last election. Scaring seniors into thinking the Democrats wanted to cut Medicare to get elected, and then, when elected, actually voting in favor of a plan that would do away with Medicare as a social insurance program, is pretty stupid if you ask me.

It’s stupidity arising from a mix of ideological rigidity and arrogance.

But stupidity is tolerable. Loving your political party more than your country is not. And that’s the only way I can read Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s recent threat that he will prevent the senate from raising the nation’s debt ceiling, unless cuts to Medicare are part of the deal

For those of you unfamiliar with the debt ceiling issue, and how economically catastrophic it will be if Congress fails to raise the nation’s debt ceiling within the next few months, here is an excellent, accessible, and mercifully short discussion of the subject by conservative economist Bruce Bartlett. Suffice it to say it would be akin to financial Armageddon for the United State and, most likely, the rest of the world.

Senator McConnell knows this. Republican congressional leaders have themselves publically admitted this numerous times. But McConnell is desperate to save Republicans from the political consequences of voting for Ryan’s Medicare killing budget. And the only way he can do this is to implicate Democrats in cutting Medicare. Hence, he is threatening to do incomprehensible damage to the nation’s economy if the Democrats don’t implicate themselves in cutting Medicare and thereby give Republican’s cover on the Ryan vote.

Threatening to kill the economy to save your political party from its own stupidity? How despicable is that? How does this man remain in office?

Joe H.

Demagoguery Verses "Sounding the Alarm"

Republicans voted en masse for Paul Ryan’s budget. Ryan’s budget ends Medicare as we know it – as a government run guaranteed health insurance plan covering all senior citizens – and replaces it with government “subsidies” (a.k.a. “vouchers”) which seniors would use to purchase health insurance from private insurers.

Ryan’s plan is deeply unpopular. However, instead of defending the plan on its the merits, the vast majority of Republicans are complaining about Democratic “demagoguery” on the Medicare issue.

For the record, “demagoguery” occurs when a leader uses false (or misleading) and inflammatory rhetoric to secure popular support. Republican allegations that the Affordable Health Care Act contained “death panels” and constituted “a government takeover of heath care” were demagoguery - they were both false and inflammatory and were used to win an election. To the contrary, the Democrats’ allegation that Republicans voted to “end Medicare as we know it” is not demagoguery - it is a fair and accurate description of what Republicans did.

Of course, there is demagoguery on the issue. The commercial in which someone dumps a wheel-chair bound senior off a cliff could fairly be considered demagoguery by those who think Ryan’s policy will work. That is because the ad unfairly assigns a sinister motive to the policy’s supporters. But that is a far cry from Democrats pointing out that Republicans voted to “end Medicare as we know it.” That assertion is entirely true.

The key distinction between “demagoguery” on the one hand, and “sounding the alarm” on the other, is the truth or falsity of the speaker’s assertions. So, I’m sorry Republicans. If you’re going to vote for alarming policies, you should not object when your opponents sound the alarm.

Joe H.

Concrete verses Abstract

My optimism as a progressive rests on a single undeniable truth; progressive policies are popular. Conservative policies are unpopular.

I’m not talking about “conservatism” or “liberalism” as abstract philosophies of governance. In the abstract, far more Americans identify themselves as conservatives. But with respect to concrete domestic policies, except perhaps on law and order issues, Americans love liberal policies. They love Medicare, Social Security, and public education, each of which is deeply progressive, if not socialistic. Americans are pro-choice by a two to one margin. And a steadily growing majority of Americans now favor allowing same sex couples to marry.

Considered in the concrete, Americans favor liberal policies and reject conservative policies. Conservatives can sometimes win elections by effective rhetoric and demagoguery - “death panels,” “government takeover of health care” – both of which were lies. But when the truth comes out, Americans will embrace the Affordable Health Care Act’s regulations on health insurance companies and the individual mandate, both of which are, again, socialist in nature. These regulations will never be repealed.

This means that conservatives, for all their corporate money and religious right support, are always fighting at a disadvantage. They frequently win elections, but rarely get anything done. The one exception is tax cuts. But even here, most of their success is achieved by telling lies about who will benefit, or by championing fanciful (and demonstrably false) theories that tax cuts increase tax revenues.

When I say conservatives don’t get anything done, I mean things like privatizing Social Security and Medicare, or turning our public school system into a voucher system. Conservatives would love to do these things, but as soon as they are honest about their intentions, the public turns on them with a fury.

Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan is the perfect example. The basic fact is that Ryan’s plan would abolish Medicare as we know it – i.e., as a government run (collectivist) insurance program covering all seniors - and replace it with a government “subsidy” for seniors to purchase health insurance from private insurers. Ryan’s plan saves money by indexing the proposed subsidies to the rate of inflation - which is very low - instead of the rate of rising medical costs - which is very high. In other words, the plan holds down the rising costs of providing healthcare to seniors for the government – or for all working non-seniors - by shifting those costs onto seniors themselves. By design, the value of the subsidies would diminish over time, and Medicare would ultimately “wither on the vine.”

Ryan’s plan is the epitome of anti-socialist, free market policy making. It relies on individual responsibility and the free market. The vast majority of Americans identify themselves as strong advocates of individual responsibility and the free market system. These are deeply conservative virtues which are widely embraced in the abstract.

Yet Ryan’s concrete proposal is extremely unpopular.

Case in point.

Joe H.

The Nightmare of Undergraduate Prose

Here's the money quote from a college professor tired of reading undergraduate essays:

"I've stared at the black markings on the page until my vision blurred, chronicling and triaging the maneuvers I will need to teach them in 14 short weeks: how to make sure their sentences contain a subject and a verb, how to organize their paragraphs around a main idea, how to write a working thesis statement or any kind of thesis statement at all. They don't know how to outline or how to organize a paper before they begin. They don't know how to edit or proofread it once they've finished. They plagiarize, often inadvertently, and I find myself, at least for a moment, relieved by these sentence- or paragraph-long reprieves from their migraine-inducing, quasi-incomprehensible prose."

That's the experience of an undergraduate humanities professor in a nutshell. Trust me!

Joe H.

The Liberal Vision of America

"But there has always been another thread running throughout our history – a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation. ... Part of this American belief that we are all connected also expresses itself in a conviction that each one of us deserves some basic measure of security. We recognize that no matter how responsibly we live our lives, hard times or bad luck, a crippling illness or a layoff, may strike any one of us. “There but for the grace of God go I,” we say to ourselves, and so we contribute to programs like Medicare and Social Security, which guarantee us health care and a measure of basic income after a lifetime of hard work; unemployment insurance, which protects us against unexpected job loss; and Medicaid, which provides care for millions of seniors in nursing homes, poor children, and those with disabilities. We are a better country because of these commitments. I’ll go further – we would not be a great country without those commitments."

President Obama, Arril 14, 2011.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jonathan Cohn who, while discussing this passage, noted:

"If there is an essence of the liberal vision for America, that passage captures it. It's the idea that a modern, enlightened society promises economic security to all, notwithstanding illness, accident of birth, or age. The liberal vision is not an imperative to establish equality, as its detractors sometimes claim. But it is expectation that government will guarantee sustenance, peace of mind, and simple dignity--that the pursuit of these goals will bolster, rather than impede, freedom."

Amen!

Joe H.

The Evolution of a Preacher's Thought on the Sinfulness of Homosexuality

This short article is highly worth the 10 minutes it will take to read it. I particularly enjoyed it because, while not a minister, I traveled a very similar road in arriving at my current attitude about gayness and gay love. Is also describes the growing tension in the church on this issue in a remarkably lucid and compelling way.

Even if you don't share my conviction that homosexuality is normal (for homosexuals), morally neutral, and that gay love should be supported and celebrated within the context of traditional marriage, you'll learn alot from this pastor.

Joe H.

Cyber-bullying

My family has been discussing the issue of “cyber-bullying.” They are convinced that posting cruel and hurtful statements about someone online, or calling them names, or otherwise making fun of them, constitute cyber-bullying.

My position is that an online act can only be “cyber-bullying” if it first constitutes “bullying.” Making cruel hurtful statements about someone, calling them names, and making fun of them certainly qualify as harassment. But these acts, in and of themselves, don’t constitute bullying.

Bullying necessarily involves intimidation, threats, an attempt to create fear of harm, or to humiliate. A bully is not someone who is merely mean and hurtful, although bullies are mean and hurtful. A bully is someone who intentionally threatens and intimidates others in order to get his or her way - or to receive personal gratification from dominating another person. A jackass, however meanspirited and cruel, doesn’t do this.

This seems obvious to me.

Trouble is, I can’t get anyone to agree with me. Everyone in my family - and these are very intelligent people - insists that the acts described in the first paragraph are cyber-bullying.

So what? Am I missing something? If so, explain it to me.

I know its no big deal. The conceptual universe is not going to collapse if we fail to maintain the distinction between “jackass” and “bully.” But if there’s one thing I can’t stand its wilful conceptual confusion.

Joe H.

Tsunami Center - in Eva Beach

Whose bright idea was it to build the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Eva Beach?

Eva BEACH!

I've been to Eva Beach many times. I'd estimate its elevation to be about 5 ft. above sea level. The center is only a few hundred yards from the shoreline.

I see something like this and think to myself, "surely they must know something I don't." But you'd be suprised at how often that assumption is dead wrong.

Joe H.

Addiction

I haven't posted much lately and, although I have been busy with work, that is not the real reason for the dirth of posts.

I have a confession to make. I've become addicted . . .

to online poker on facebook!

Please help me. Refuse all chip requests for my good, no matter how much I beg.

Thanks in advance. I'm going to beat this thing - and it helps knowing you're standing with me.

Joe H.

Constitutionality of the ACA?

Hi everyone. Sorry for the dirth of recent posts. Been busy.

I recently read Florida federal district Court judge Vinson's decision declaring the Affordable Health Care Act unconstitutional. I had planned to excerpt some of his reasoning and comment (negatively) on it.

But this morning I stumbled upon this law review article by Professor Mark Hall, and decided, "what's the point - "that settles that!" Professor Hall's legal analysis is an analytical and methodical tour de force. It is also readible and mercifully short - 23 pages.

For those of you who wish to educate yourselves about the constitutional debate over the ACA and the "Individual Mandate," start here.

Joe H.

"Coercive Interrogation"

I'm getting pretty tired of talking heads mindlessly deploying euphemisms when discussing the conduct of our government towards the detainees we abused. Particularly the phrases "enhanced interrogations" and "coercive interrogations." I say mindlessly because a few seconds of analysis completely unravels their effectiveness.

"Coercion" is not a substitute concept for "torture." Coercion occurs whenever someone exerts pressure to achieve a specific end. A raise in a poker hand is coercive - it exerts pressure on the other players to fold. A threatened fine is coercive - it pressures drivers to comply with the speed limit.

Torture is a method of coercion. Saying that a method is "coercive" does not rule out it being torture. Inflicting brutality on helpless people to force them to talk is coercive, yes. But it is also torture.

The term "enhanced" is even more bizarre. It invites the question, "enhanced with what?" Torture?

I mean, come on people. Make us work a little.

Joe H.

Happy Martin Luther King Day

"Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God[.]"

Martin Luther King - Letter From a Birmingham Jail.



Joe H.

Rhetoric

I was just thinking how silly it is for conservatives to argue that violent rhetoric plays no role in prompting the marginal to act violently. As the Alaska Dispatch put it so well last week, motivating people to act is the entire point of rhetoric.

How can anyone, in good conscience, suggest that things are so bad in this country that we may need an armed insurection, and then argue that acts of violence against political opponents must be viewed as isolated acts of mad men?

Joe H.

Palin Analysis

Here is an analysis of Sara Palin's seven minute video
that I think is spot on.

Hat tip to reader Jim for pointing me here.

Joe H.

More on the Rule of Law and Elites who Defend Lawbreaking by Elites

Read Glen Greenwald here.

There really isn't anything nore for me to say.

Joe H.

Can We Get A Little Consistency

From John Dickenson, on Sarah Palin's response to her critics:

"Palin effectively quoted Ronald Reagan arguing that the criminal alone is responsible for the crime. "Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them," she said. Good. Then she went on to say that "journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn." Bad. You can't argue that words don't create criminals and then argue in the next breath that, actually, yes, they might."

This inconsistency demonstrates that Palin will say whatever sounds like it might work - regardless of consistency or the substance of her actual beliefs. You know, things like "those bullseyes were not cross-hairs. They were surveyors' sights." Please! Palin can't believe that words don't inspire crime and yet they do. No one believes Not P and P. Therefore, she couldn't have been saying what she actually believs.

And does she really think we're all so stupid that we'll believe her non-bullseye surveyor's sight claim, particularly after all that "don't retreat, reload" rhetoric?

Let me say for the record that her supporters have a tremendous tolerance for cognitive dissonance.

Let me also say that, as far as I can tell, no one on "the left" is defending themselves against the charge that they engage in over the top political rhetoric that puts people's lives in danger. Beck, Limbaugh, Angle, and now Palin have all done so.

That should suffice to settle the equivalency thesis.

Joe H.

Again With the Not Arguing

During her candidacy for the U.S. Senate, Sharon Angle hinted at urging an armed rebellion against the U.S. government. The people need to look to their "Second Amendment remedies" were her exact words.

Today Ms. Angle released the following statement in response to the shootings in Tuscon, and subsequent criticism of violent political rhetoric:

"The despicable act in Tucson is a horrifying and senseless tragedy, and should be condemned as a single act of violence, by a single unstable individual."

This may turn out to be correct - violent political rhetoric by the likes of Ms. Angle may not have motivated the shooter. The problem is, Ms. Angle will be making this claim even if it turns out that political rhetoric influenced the shooter. She's not saying, "given all the facts, and given what we've learned, the despicable act in Tucson is a horrifying and senseless tragedy, but it should be condemned as a single act of violence, by a single unstable individual." She's saying, that's how the shooting should be viewed, period.

The reason I mention this is that Ms. Angle was quoted as "arguing." That, of course, is untrue. Ms. Angle "asserted" her claim. She did not argue for it. To argue, one has to give reasons. She gave none.


I wonder with amazement why no one ever asks the obvious follow up question "why should we look at it that way?" I'm confident that if Sharon Angle were asked that question by a reporter she would run away, just like she did during her campaign.

Joe H.

They're Nuts!

In this interview conservative economist Bruce Bartlett
explains, in a comendably lucid and understandable manner, what's at stake in the upcoming fight over raising the U.S. debt ceiling. If you want to be informed about this subject - including the history of government borrowing and the issuing of treasuries - you'll get a very good education from Mr. Bartlett.

His money quote regarding the so called "Tea Partyers'" threat to refuse to raise the debt ceiling is absolutely perfect:

"The problem is that the Tea Partyers are nuts. That is my point. They are irrational, they are ignorant, they don't know anything about financial markets and they think that they are standing up for God and the balanced budget."

I swoon! A prominent conservative who has the courage to point out the obvious! I'm in love!

By the way, is it inappropriate to point out that "they are irrational, they are ignorant, they don't know anything about subject X and they think they are standing up for God" is a generally accurate description of a lot of Christians in our country?

I hope not, because I feel that way an awful lot.

Just being honest. And hey, if that statement makes you angry, you should ask, "who hath made Isreal to sin?"

Not me.

Joe H.

Take The Pledge

Joe H.

Reap the Whirlwind - Update

A democratic congresswoman is shot. "Sow the wind . . .
reap the whirlwind."

Joe H.

UPDATE - Lest anyone be tempted to dismiss Saturday's shooter as a uniquely derranged man in order to conclude that eliminationist rhetoric on the political right is not responsible for inciting violence, this is a good follow up op-ed

Joe H.