Similarly Stohs and Schlitz which were always in my house (in the mid-Atlantic) growing up, but I've never seen them since beoming of legal drinking age. (PBR seemed to avoid this fate through irony)
“The international community is likely somewhat to blame in Gaddafi’s rise to power and grip on power for so long.”
I'm struggling in vain to get my head around this? Is this a generic "everything wrong with the post-colonial world even a half century after the fact is still the fault of (western) Europeans and Americans"? Is it the fact that we 'engaged' with Gadaffi over last few years*? We've 'engaged' with the PRC in the same way for decades.
Anyway, hipster Zombie Reagan says he was hating Gaddafi before it was cool.
"decided NOT to try to hide the cost of Chimpy’s wars"
Yeah, Obama said he was going to role 'overseas contingency operations' in the main DOD budget. His Administration isn'tdoing that anymore. (though this is a better way of accounting for things.)
In the open thread vein, will conservatives and Republicans STFU about Obama taking a vacation and where he is taking it. All Presidents take vacations and most take it to 'exclusive' places. And they should. It was a pain in the ass when Obama visited the 'touristy' parts of Hawaii (and he was criticized even then for going to a hoity toity place real 'Mericans don't go to, which would be a surprise to anyone who walks down Kalakaula Boulevard)
Besides, you can't criticize him for being a sekrit Muslim Marxist plotting to ruin America and then criticize that he's not on the job *enough*.
I've always seen it as part of the schtick - Levy plays his segment straight while Gutfeld giggles like an eleven year old - because it's 3 in the morning and Levy is the designated driver while everyone else is drunk and/or stoned.
I agree with this. I would also like it to work both ways.
Regulations are not always bad. And there sure are lots of cases of regulatory capture.
The nation's top aviation accident investigator blamed the delay in issuing final rules on the influence of airlines that put profit ahead of safety.
"There are special interests who are holding this rule up because it's not in their financial self-interest," National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Deborah Hersman told The Associated Press this week. "The American people expect safety to trump special interests, not the other way around."
But that doesn't give license to 'professional' government officials (even if they are political appointees) to claim ipso facto that since they want a rule, the rule is good and any contrary views (including in this case a 4 star Air Force general) are 'special interests trumping safety'
There are three main "Liberal" versions of foreign policy.
The first consists of basically leaving everyone else alone for the most part, which is not at all different than the Ron Paul right wing version of foreign policy. (and collectively, a swath of the general population that is completely undercounted and ignored by both elites and the media. the left that is in this camp should really try to reach out more to their rightish compatriots, even if the right wing version is motivated by 'the wogs begin at Calais' (Maine))
The second consists of 'using more diplomacy'. This is generally empty headed muddled thinking (which Yglesias alternately dips into and swims out of) because there's no such thing as 'international law'* and 'more diplomacy' ain't going to break through the ranks of Al Shabab to feed starving Somalians.
The third is ok with 'the full range of US Power' but think the neocons are trigger happy assholes that have a completely wrong view of the world and can't plan well enough to get laid in a whorehouse. Which is a correct assessment of the neocons. And this is the faction in power now. And Obama always campaigned that he would be in this faction.
*oh sure, people call the body of treaties and customs 'international law' and occasionally a third worlder that loses a war will go before an international tribune, but the international order is a rational anarchy. And always has been. And until we get Moon and other colonies always should be.
Because Americans don't care about Foreign Policy. This poll is from Nov 2010: http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/deficit_ignore.PNG (the header is "Total Republicans Democrats Independents"). Once the perception (and some of the reality) that Americans weren't dying in wars any more, War being the #1 most important thing that Congress Must Act On Now went from 45% to 2%.
I dunno, maybe a McCain presidency would have at least made people care about War some more.
This is true, (the common stock was wiped out in the bailout) but what the Obama administration should have done was give the UAW the reconstructed equity stake as part of the bailout. But the UAW wouldn't have gone for it (though this would have also made the Republican heads really explode)
The short story vs epic saga thing is the first thing I thought of when perusing the list before reading the post. (when I got to Flowers for Algernon, possibly the best short fiction of all time. Dune, also, which as you and others have said, stands alone)
Poul Anderson continues to be a vastly underheralded and underrecognized science fiction writer.
The order of the Heinlein books is completely backwards.
The only other thing to add is that if they could get King and Piers Anthony(!) (although at 99) (and Conan!) on this list, they could have got Michael Crichton.
Mid-twentieth exodus to suburbia was overdetermined to be sure. But preferential tax treatment is one of the reasons SW Connecticut got rich and NYC went broke in that time.
Semi serious question: Should we have professional voters, too?
Completely serious proposal: One Senator from each state should be selected by lottery from a list of volunteers.
Addendum - regardless of the expertise that is or is not required, there is still the fact that the particular legislators (and executives) in office are not, in the main, indispensable people. The pool of expertise, experience, and talent that *could* be members of Congress (and the state legislatures) is far larger than the pool that actually is a member. Particularly with the House, for example, having an 80% re-election rate in good times and bad. (I believe the state houses are somewhat similar).
Plus, for example, if Ted Kennedy would have retired in 2006, after 44 years of faithful service, the Democrats would have not had to have a special election in a political head wind. And retained a fillibuster proof majority for a few more months. (and Byrd turning over to a new generation would have extended it for a few more)
" But, as states with term limits have learned, a revolving door of wave-riders and dilettantes is no way to run a government."
I disagree with this, and I'm sorta surprised you buy into this, Mr. Van Dyke. I'm not in favor of dilettantism, of course, but I am in favor of intelligent hard working amateurs running the 'board of directors' of government. If we need to have professional politicians to have a republic. then we can't have a republic - or won't, after a while.
If you are a fan of sclerotic gov, as i would say we have now, you are also a fan of the permanent security state, the WOD, permanent AG subsidies, keeping the DOE, and doing nothing significant to change the budget deficit.
There are though, some procedural brakes to letting things go on indefinitely. For instance, one of the more expensive parts of the security state, the US Army, is only allowed to go on for two years without action.
Let's not forget, Obama had in his power to let all the Bush Tax Cuts (TM) expire at the end of last year. (unless one believes there would have been enough for a veto override, which I don't). He did not want to pay the political price for it.
Because the fiscal conservatives aren’t the power in the Right. If they were, Ron Paul would get a lot more play. The social conservatives are the power in the Right.
It depends. The money is with the fiscal conservatives, the organization is with the SoCons. This is why Romney is leading (by a good margin) in fundraising (over anyone but Obama), and (for instance) Huckabee was able to so well last time on a shoestring budget.
Bachmann has an demonstrated ability to tap into both the fundraising base and the organizational base. Paul has a ready cadre of fundraising and organization that never turns into actual votes. It is presumed but not proven that Perry would able to tap into both even to a greater extent (and more than Romney). But Perry just started and we have no idea what his 'ground game' is like yet.
Just as an aside, I imagine there's quite of bit of Nixon going to China with Cuomo's deals with the unions. I would hypothesize that a Gov Pataki doing the same exact thing would have been a redo of Walker-Wisconsin to the nteenth power.
On “Big Beer”
Similarly Stohs and Schlitz which were always in my house (in the mid-Atlantic) growing up, but I've never seen them since beoming of legal drinking age. (PBR seemed to avoid this fate through irony)
On “Tripoli and the hawks”
“The international community is likely somewhat to blame in Gaddafi’s rise to power and grip on power for so long.”
I'm struggling in vain to get my head around this? Is this a generic "everything wrong with the post-colonial world even a half century after the fact is still the fault of (western) Europeans and Americans"? Is it the fact that we 'engaged' with Gadaffi over last few years*? We've 'engaged' with the PRC in the same way for decades.
Anyway, hipster Zombie Reagan says he was hating Gaddafi before it was cool.
On “A Lost Opportunity In San Juan Capistrano”
extremists want to censor from the minds of public school students
As well as, I suppose, the Nobel Committee.
(btw, your critique of 'evolutionism' is a thermodynamics thing, isn't it? Well, as your brother J said, You don't know what it's like, you don't have a clue. )
On “The Washington Post has discovered a shocking truth: when it comes to climate change, Republicans are less than convinced”
"decided NOT to try to hide the cost of Chimpy’s wars"
Yeah, Obama said he was going to role 'overseas contingency operations' in the main DOD budget. His Administration isn'tdoing that anymore. (though this is a better way of accounting for things.)
He also promised that all troops would be out of Iraq by the end of this year. Why his new Defense Secretary negotiating to keep troops there longer?
On “A Lost Opportunity In San Juan Capistrano”
I guess he's counting on fear to keep the local district courts in line.
On “The Washington Post has discovered a shocking truth: when it comes to climate change, Republicans are less than convinced”
Dude, 'Fake News' is not the preferred nomenclature. Faux News please.
On “Friday Afternoon Open Thread”
In the open thread vein, will conservatives and Republicans STFU about Obama taking a vacation and where he is taking it. All Presidents take vacations and most take it to 'exclusive' places. And they should. It was a pain in the ass when Obama visited the 'touristy' parts of Hawaii (and he was criticized even then for going to a hoity toity place real 'Mericans don't go to, which would be a surprise to anyone who walks down Kalakaula Boulevard)
Besides, you can't criticize him for being a sekrit Muslim Marxist plotting to ruin America and then criticize that he's not on the job *enough*.
"
I've always seen it as part of the schtick - Levy plays his segment straight while Gutfeld giggles like an eleven year old - because it's 3 in the morning and Levy is the designated driver while everyone else is drunk and/or stoned.
On “Times Square Isn’t the Free Market”
I agree with this. I would also like it to work both ways.
Regulations are not always bad. And there sure are lots of cases of regulatory capture.
But that doesn't give license to 'professional' government officials (even if they are political appointees) to claim ipso facto that since they want a rule, the rule is good and any contrary views (including in this case a 4 star Air Force general) are 'special interests trumping safety'
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hPWUSCMg3JpuKnsyvI0Nq69h3YOg?docId=e789254d45cb4ccd8a72cf3f0346dc50
On “Why Don’t Liberals Care About Foreign Policy?”
There are three main "Liberal" versions of foreign policy.
The first consists of basically leaving everyone else alone for the most part, which is not at all different than the Ron Paul right wing version of foreign policy. (and collectively, a swath of the general population that is completely undercounted and ignored by both elites and the media. the left that is in this camp should really try to reach out more to their rightish compatriots, even if the right wing version is motivated by 'the wogs begin at Calais' (Maine))
The second consists of 'using more diplomacy'. This is generally empty headed muddled thinking (which Yglesias alternately dips into and swims out of) because there's no such thing as 'international law'* and 'more diplomacy' ain't going to break through the ranks of Al Shabab to feed starving Somalians.
The third is ok with 'the full range of US Power' but think the neocons are trigger happy assholes that have a completely wrong view of the world and can't plan well enough to get laid in a whorehouse. Which is a correct assessment of the neocons. And this is the faction in power now. And Obama always campaigned that he would be in this faction.
*oh sure, people call the body of treaties and customs 'international law' and occasionally a third worlder that loses a war will go before an international tribune, but the international order is a rational anarchy. And always has been. And until we get Moon and other colonies always should be.
"
"Why Don’t Liberals Care About Foreign Policy?"
Because Americans don't care about Foreign Policy. This poll is from Nov 2010: http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/deficit_ignore.PNG (the header is "Total Republicans Democrats Independents"). Once the perception (and some of the reality) that Americans weren't dying in wars any more, War being the #1 most important thing that Congress Must Act On Now went from 45% to 2%.
I dunno, maybe a McCain presidency would have at least made people care about War some more.
On “Beer, neoliberalism, and unions”
This is true, (the common stock was wiped out in the bailout) but what the Obama administration should have done was give the UAW the reconstructed equity stake as part of the bailout. But the UAW wouldn't have gone for it (though this would have also made the Republican heads really explode)
"
The UAW had enough cash on hand to completely buy out the equity stake in GM in 2008.
On “NPR’s Recent Top 100 List”
The short story vs epic saga thing is the first thing I thought of when perusing the list before reading the post. (when I got to Flowers for Algernon, possibly the best short fiction of all time. Dune, also, which as you and others have said, stands alone)
Poul Anderson continues to be a vastly underheralded and underrecognized science fiction writer.
The order of the Heinlein books is completely backwards.
The only other thing to add is that if they could get King and Piers Anthony(!) (although at 99) (and Conan!) on this list, they could have got Michael Crichton.
On “No one Cuomo should have all that power”
Mid-twentieth exodus to suburbia was overdetermined to be sure. But preferential tax treatment is one of the reasons SW Connecticut got rich and NYC went broke in that time.
"
"FORD TO NEW YORK: DROP DEAD"
(2nd greatest NYC headline of all time)
On “Krauthammer & Me: The American Constitution Works”
Or Vladimir Putin.
Semi serious question: Should we have professional voters, too?
Completely serious proposal: One Senator from each state should be selected by lottery from a list of volunteers.
Addendum - regardless of the expertise that is or is not required, there is still the fact that the particular legislators (and executives) in office are not, in the main, indispensable people. The pool of expertise, experience, and talent that *could* be members of Congress (and the state legislatures) is far larger than the pool that actually is a member. Particularly with the House, for example, having an 80% re-election rate in good times and bad. (I believe the state houses are somewhat similar).
Plus, for example, if Ted Kennedy would have retired in 2006, after 44 years of faithful service, the Democrats would have not had to have a special election in a political head wind. And retained a fillibuster proof majority for a few more months. (and Byrd turning over to a new generation would have extended it for a few more)
"
" But, as states with term limits have learned, a revolving door of wave-riders and dilettantes is no way to run a government."
I disagree with this, and I'm sorta surprised you buy into this, Mr. Van Dyke. I'm not in favor of dilettantism, of course, but I am in favor of intelligent hard working amateurs running the 'board of directors' of government. If we need to have professional politicians to have a republic. then we can't have a republic - or won't, after a while.
"
If you are a fan of sclerotic gov, as i would say we have now, you are also a fan of the permanent security state, the WOD, permanent AG subsidies, keeping the DOE, and doing nothing significant to change the budget deficit.
There are though, some procedural brakes to letting things go on indefinitely. For instance, one of the more expensive parts of the security state, the US Army, is only allowed to go on for two years without action.
Let's not forget, Obama had in his power to let all the Bush Tax Cuts (TM) expire at the end of last year. (unless one believes there would have been enough for a veto override, which I don't). He did not want to pay the political price for it.
"
Isn't that what Aaron Burr did?
On “The Conservative Moment Calls for a Cultural Crusader”
Because the fiscal conservatives aren’t the power in the Right. If they were, Ron Paul would get a lot more play. The social conservatives are the power in the Right.
It depends. The money is with the fiscal conservatives, the organization is with the SoCons. This is why Romney is leading (by a good margin) in fundraising (over anyone but Obama), and (for instance) Huckabee was able to so well last time on a shoestring budget.
Bachmann has an demonstrated ability to tap into both the fundraising base and the organizational base. Paul has a ready cadre of fundraising and organization that never turns into actual votes. It is presumed but not proven that Perry would able to tap into both even to a greater extent (and more than Romney). But Perry just started and we have no idea what his 'ground game' is like yet.
"
Does anyone think the atmosphere that could propel that sort of candidacy to the White House exists today?
Yes it could. Senator Obama would easily defeat President Obama in a head to head matchup.
On “No one Cuomo should have all that power”
Just as an aside, I imagine there's quite of bit of Nixon going to China with Cuomo's deals with the unions. I would hypothesize that a Gov Pataki doing the same exact thing would have been a redo of Walker-Wisconsin to the nteenth power.
On “Austerity and Stimulus”
Tax avoidance is as American and Patriotic as John Hancock, Samuel Adams, and Han Solo.
On “Jobs and Other Wastes of Worldly Effort”
Because he was only trolling with Star Trek V
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.