@Michael Drew, I'm not following you, Mike. Remind me again why the Obama administration should take what Breitbart posts at face value? Would you fire one of your employees based on a post at Big Government?
@Rufus, I don't think bipolar disorder alone could account for the violence, but addiction to alcohol certainly could. So could past abuse. I'm fairly certain if we peeled back the history of Gibson's childhood we'd find some.
Listen, I'm completely aware that the violence in the words and the implied physical violence are the same beast. Even in my most terrible fights I have never even considered going to that place, though I have said hurtful things, things I regret saying enormously. Even if the physical violence conveyed in this conversation didn't happen (and we don't know how it happened or what happened exactly either) the violence in the words, in the misogyny is very real. And very disturbing.
Certainly Gibson should be judged for this. I only hope to point out that people are more complex than we cast them in the mob we call the court of public opinion. People have deep scars that shape them and shape their actions. Pain and addiction and mental illness.
Nor do I mean to blame the victim when I call into question his girlfriend's motives. I think we are likely looking at two people in bad places in their lives. She can be a victim and still be a very bad person; he can be a very bad person and still be deserving of more than the mob. Or perhaps they are neither 'bad' people, but simply flawed people who found themselves in hell. There but for the grace of God go I.
@Trumwill, this is exactly what I'm trying - so far unsuccessfully - to say. It's not about what liberal wonks or progressive idealists want - it's about the electability of Democrats who rely heavily on union support. That - in a nutshell.
@Jaybird, Yes, but the other option is the Democrats. I see room to hope in people like Mitch Daniels and Gary Johnson and maybe even Chris Christie. I don't have similar faith in the Democratic party, though I admit to really liking Ron Wyden if only because I thought his health care plan was very good.
@Mark Thompson, I would say that Reagan was a whole lot better than Obama on economics, actually. Nixon was an entirely different breed of Republican. Wage freezes and all.
I think at a certain point referencing the Bush administration whenever speaking of Republican's commitment to limited government becomes not only ineffective but inaccurate. Bush was not the only Republican president nor will he be the last.
@greginak, Not at all, greg. I think public employees should have the exact same rights as anyone else. I just think it gets very complicated when a certain sector of society suddenly has the right to retire at 55 with a pension nearly equal to their salary. Cops in California can retire at 50 with 90% salary. This is simply not on a par with most workers outside of government, and it's not sustainable. I also think that when the employees of government wield too much influence over the elected officials within government that this becomes a very murky situation - and special interest politics are special interest politics. Big government unions that hold too much sway need to be reformed. I'm not saying we should do away with them entirely.
Fair enough, Mark. But if Jersey doesn't do something about its outrageous spending, tax rates, etc. then I don't see how it can expect much of an economic recovery. Obviously national and state politics are different animals. What works (or doesn't work) for Jersey isn't going to necessarily work for Arizona, or the federal government, etc. But it does seem that in Jersey or California (as well as other states) you have a significant problem with public unions, out of control benefits for public sector workers, and so forth. It also appears that governments over the past ten years spent like drunken sailors thanks to the economic boom, and now want to continue to do so, and start to call it "austerity" the moment anyone talks about walking back that spending to pre-boom levels. I'm not 100% on Christie's privatization programs. My post was more about the concept of austerity in the public sector in general. And I don't think simply cutting public spending will miraculously work toward instant prosperity either, but if the public sector is eating up too much of the private sector then you certainly ought to work in that direction if you ever do hope to regain higher employment levels and a more sustainable public sector.
@D, Well seeing as you're not really addressing my post, I'm not sure how to respond. But hey, it's all gone downhill. I'm not really sure why you even bothered to comment.
Just to clarify - I'm not really in favor of an outright ban, but I do think it's good that the conversation has been started. I think there are ways that the pet shops could work with the rescue shelters to get more of these abandoned pets back in homes. I think there's probably a number of ways we could improve a bad situation without creating a black market for pets. Still - I think this argument shouldn't be taken lightly.
@Matty, Dude. The unions are NOT funded by themselves. You don't pay for your own wages. That is seriously the most ridiculous thing I've ever, ever, ever heard.
@Mike at The Big Stick, Yes, I'm quite aware of that. I've decided that I shouldn't let my distaste for certain figures in the conservative movement color my political beliefs too much.
@Bob, Bob, over the past decade state coffers were filled up by the housing bubble. Local coffers, too. Property taxes soared. Spending went berzerk. Did we somehow, through all of this, magically fix our education system by pouring all this extra money into it? No. Because spending is not the only factor when it comes to improving education! Would decreasing spending back to the pre-bubble, turn-of-the-century levels hurt so bad? I doubt it. What we need to do is re-prioritize spending. We can do more with less, plain and simple.
Is the Christie budget perfect? No. But it starts to attack the enormous shortfall there. It's a start.
@Alan Scott, Ok, first of all I never said we should simply stop spending altogether. I think unemployment benefits are a very good way to spend tax dollars especially during a recession. Nor did I say we should "get rid" of peoples' health insurance. We should make people in the public sector who get it for free start paying premiums, co-pays, etc. just like the rest of the American workforce, but I think it's absurd to say we should just get rid of it. The only way we're going to see nurses or teachers out of work is if the unions who represent them won't allow wages to freeze or go down, necessitating lay-offs. Why do we expect the rest of the country to undergo austerity while protecting public workers with the rest of the country's money?
@Ian M., Dude. No. My complaint is that public union workers in many places across the country have far too high of salaries and their benefits packages cost way, way too much. All of this is funded on the public dime. The union dues don't pay for the salaries or benefits of union workers, they pay for the union administrative stuff. The public employee sector is eating up way too much of the budget. Here, check this article out to get a sense of what I'm talking about.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Loyalty and the Shirley Sherrod affair”
@Michael Drew, I'm not following you, Mike. Remind me again why the Obama administration should take what Breitbart posts at face value? Would you fire one of your employees based on a post at Big Government?
On “In defense of Mel Gibson”
@Jonathan, Thanks. You have to give Thunderdome credit for all the spoofs it inspired, though.
"
@Michael Drew, Braveheart, Apocalypto, Gallipoli, The Year of Living Dangerously, Hamlet...
"
@Francis, Nor are they discussed as much in the negative as Gibson has been. They're not famous.
"
@Rufus, I don't think bipolar disorder alone could account for the violence, but addiction to alcohol certainly could. So could past abuse. I'm fairly certain if we peeled back the history of Gibson's childhood we'd find some.
On “In Defense of Casting Stones at Mel Gibson”
Dara and Rufus -
Listen, I'm completely aware that the violence in the words and the implied physical violence are the same beast. Even in my most terrible fights I have never even considered going to that place, though I have said hurtful things, things I regret saying enormously. Even if the physical violence conveyed in this conversation didn't happen (and we don't know how it happened or what happened exactly either) the violence in the words, in the misogyny is very real. And very disturbing.
Certainly Gibson should be judged for this. I only hope to point out that people are more complex than we cast them in the mob we call the court of public opinion. People have deep scars that shape them and shape their actions. Pain and addiction and mental illness.
Nor do I mean to blame the victim when I call into question his girlfriend's motives. I think we are likely looking at two people in bad places in their lives. She can be a victim and still be a very bad person; he can be a very bad person and still be deserving of more than the mob. Or perhaps they are neither 'bad' people, but simply flawed people who found themselves in hell. There but for the grace of God go I.
On “Big Labor and Libertarianism”
@Trumwill, this is exactly what I'm trying - so far unsuccessfully - to say. It's not about what liberal wonks or progressive idealists want - it's about the electability of Democrats who rely heavily on union support. That - in a nutshell.
On “Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who…”
@Jaybird, Yes, but the other option is the Democrats. I see room to hope in people like Mitch Daniels and Gary Johnson and maybe even Chris Christie. I don't have similar faith in the Democratic party, though I admit to really liking Ron Wyden if only because I thought his health care plan was very good.
"
@Mark Thompson, I would say that Reagan was a whole lot better than Obama on economics, actually. Nixon was an entirely different breed of Republican. Wage freezes and all.
"
I think at a certain point referencing the Bush administration whenever speaking of Republican's commitment to limited government becomes not only ineffective but inaccurate. Bush was not the only Republican president nor will he be the last.
On “Re: Liberaltarianism, Again”
@Bob, Fixed.
On “Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who…”
@greginak, Not at all, greg. I think public employees should have the exact same rights as anyone else. I just think it gets very complicated when a certain sector of society suddenly has the right to retire at 55 with a pension nearly equal to their salary. Cops in California can retire at 50 with 90% salary. This is simply not on a par with most workers outside of government, and it's not sustainable. I also think that when the employees of government wield too much influence over the elected officials within government that this becomes a very murky situation - and special interest politics are special interest politics. Big government unions that hold too much sway need to be reformed. I'm not saying we should do away with them entirely.
On “Hayek and Obamacare: Some Context”
So what about catastrophic insurance vouchers properly means-tested?
On “For those of you who don’t follow me on Twitter…”
Thanks, everyone!
On “State Politics Aren’t National Politics”
Fair enough, Mark. But if Jersey doesn't do something about its outrageous spending, tax rates, etc. then I don't see how it can expect much of an economic recovery. Obviously national and state politics are different animals. What works (or doesn't work) for Jersey isn't going to necessarily work for Arizona, or the federal government, etc. But it does seem that in Jersey or California (as well as other states) you have a significant problem with public unions, out of control benefits for public sector workers, and so forth. It also appears that governments over the past ten years spent like drunken sailors thanks to the economic boom, and now want to continue to do so, and start to call it "austerity" the moment anyone talks about walking back that spending to pre-boom levels. I'm not 100% on Christie's privatization programs. My post was more about the concept of austerity in the public sector in general. And I don't think simply cutting public spending will miraculously work toward instant prosperity either, but if the public sector is eating up too much of the private sector then you certainly ought to work in that direction if you ever do hope to regain higher employment levels and a more sustainable public sector.
On “You say austerity, I say prosperity”
@D, Well seeing as you're not really addressing my post, I'm not sure how to respond. But hey, it's all gone downhill. I'm not really sure why you even bothered to comment.
On “The Great Soda Pop Kerfuffle 2010”
Excellent post, Rufus.
On “Banning pet shops to save the pets”
Just to clarify - I'm not really in favor of an outright ban, but I do think it's good that the conversation has been started. I think there are ways that the pet shops could work with the rescue shelters to get more of these abandoned pets back in homes. I think there's probably a number of ways we could improve a bad situation without creating a black market for pets. Still - I think this argument shouldn't be taken lightly.
On “You say austerity, I say prosperity”
@Matty, Dude. The unions are NOT funded by themselves. You don't pay for your own wages. That is seriously the most ridiculous thing I've ever, ever, ever heard.
"
@Bob, It's never as simple as just cutting taxes, Bob, and I'm not suggesting it is.
"
@Bob, The first step is not to shift spending, it's to cut spending. The crisis in Jersey right now is the deficit.
"
@Mike at The Big Stick, Yes, I'm quite aware of that. I've decided that I shouldn't let my distaste for certain figures in the conservative movement color my political beliefs too much.
"
@Bob, Bob, over the past decade state coffers were filled up by the housing bubble. Local coffers, too. Property taxes soared. Spending went berzerk. Did we somehow, through all of this, magically fix our education system by pouring all this extra money into it? No. Because spending is not the only factor when it comes to improving education! Would decreasing spending back to the pre-bubble, turn-of-the-century levels hurt so bad? I doubt it. What we need to do is re-prioritize spending. We can do more with less, plain and simple.
Is the Christie budget perfect? No. But it starts to attack the enormous shortfall there. It's a start.
"
@Alan Scott, Ok, first of all I never said we should simply stop spending altogether. I think unemployment benefits are a very good way to spend tax dollars especially during a recession. Nor did I say we should "get rid" of peoples' health insurance. We should make people in the public sector who get it for free start paying premiums, co-pays, etc. just like the rest of the American workforce, but I think it's absurd to say we should just get rid of it. The only way we're going to see nurses or teachers out of work is if the unions who represent them won't allow wages to freeze or go down, necessitating lay-offs. Why do we expect the rest of the country to undergo austerity while protecting public workers with the rest of the country's money?
"
@Ian M., Dude. No. My complaint is that public union workers in many places across the country have far too high of salaries and their benefits packages cost way, way too much. All of this is funded on the public dime. The union dues don't pay for the salaries or benefits of union workers, they pay for the union administrative stuff. The public employee sector is eating up way too much of the budget. Here, check this article out to get a sense of what I'm talking about.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.