I was pretty unhappy about it. The husband tried to console me by asking "Honestly, what on earth is in North Carolina that you wanted to visit anyhow?" But I still feel bad about it. Something about having entire sections (even if they're small sections) of the country turn into zones where you are at serious risk if you travel to them is dispiriting.
That's why I'm sanguine about his losing. As a supine moderate republican he'll campaign as a moderate incumbent and have excellent odds of reelection then vote the party line in DC and be functionally indistinguishable from a frothing tea party zealot. At least this way if a frothing tea party zealot ends up in DC I can say "Oh well at least he campaigned as one".
Then again maybe I’m just grasping for good news after the log to the head of North Carolina’s new draconian anti-gay anything amendment.
Personally I think it's a headfake. No way they kick it up to the fellow who was shown in the teaser in Avengers #2. Where do you go from there? And the gauntlette? No way. The comics were interesting but as a movie it'd be -terrible-.
One of the charming aspects of this was the Avengers pretty much entirely chucked out all the introductory backstory that so many hero movies labor under. Each of the protagonists could spring, Athena like, from the forhead of their respective progenator films. As a result the Avengers was two hours and some change of rolicking fun, humor and spectacle. I was delighted, Marvel deserves every dime they're going to make off this puppy.
Also the humor had me in stitches, as a Hulk fan I was transported by his interaction with Thor and schwarma!
And as if it wasn't ambitious enough what the hell was with that shout out at the end?? I watch the Avengers cartoon (I know nerd) and guess who popped up this weeked? Adam Warlock with a special stone imbedded in his forehead.
Well, this along with the deal of Bibi's Father certainly represents a change in the status quos. We'll see what happens now, maybe the Israeli's will start backing away from the precipice.
Well far be it for me to decry hyperbole Will; but for hyperbole to be even remotely fair I'd hope you'd have some actual examples of the movement in that direction. Entire political wings don't quietly sneak up on dramatic policy shifts; they go like a parade with politicians giving speeches and promises, pundits throwing confetti and bands tootling away about how awesome this new idea is.
But hey, I’m down with funny so I’ll just consider the matter withdrawn; I’m easy like Sunday morning (it's true, just ask my Husband).
Fair enough, so stipulated I can agree with what you're saying without much reservation. Governments will be judged by the markets by what they do, not what they say.
Roger, yes agreed that Clinton triangulated against his progressive element. But by the metric you outlined what should have happened next, if your characterization of the left was accurate, was not what happened.
Welfare reform has generally been demonstrated to have produced better outcomes than pre-welfare reforms. By your characterization the left should have a large and active element seeking to undo welfare reform because regardless of the outcomes, more government centralization is preferable to less. On the same note communism has collapsed and been discredited as yielding brittle, inefficient and non-humanitarian regimes that poorly managed their societies. Under your characterization the left should still seek to bring about global communism because, regardless of how unpleasant its outcomes, more government is preferable to less government. There is not any large active segment of the western left (and especially not the American left) that seeks this outcome.
You have also not provided an example of a situation where a government centralized solution has been unambiguously demonstrated as a failure and the left has asserted that, regardless of the outcomes, more government centralization is preferable to less.
My conclusion: the primary interest of the left is not the expansion of government programs and centralization regardless of outcome.
Roger, part of your assertion was that if a given situation was demonstrated to be better solved without government programs that the left would choose government programs instead even though that was the inferior option.
Ireland's situation is unique; their "spending" consisted pretty much entirely of a bank bailout (pushed by the countries right wing and politicians) which resulted in Ireland voluntarily (they were under no legal obligation to bail out the banks) assuming debt and then discovering after that the total debt was many times their GDP. The libertarian response would have been to refuse the bail out in the first place and arguably that would have prevented one crisis and given them a banking crisis instead. So Ireland was pretty much a right wing but not libertarian crisis.
Spain was running a budget surplus prior to the credit worries. When the Germans refused to allow the Euro to inflate or the ECB to guarantee Spain’s debt their interest rates skyrocketed and austerity forces forced through heavy budget cuts. The cuts produced spiraling unemployment and recession. Now the interest rates on Spain’s debt is skyrocketing again because the austerity is causing a recession. Again an austerity issue.
England, the example most similar to America, elected a right wing government with a significant libertarian component (the Lib-Dems). They enacted a strong austerity budget mostly consisting of spending cuts (though with some small tax increases) as a result the economy went from a mild recovery into a double dip recession. This one pretty much was a slightly milder clone of the medicine being proposed by the GOP for the US and the results have not been pretty though perhaps in the long term things will look up, we’ll see.
Roger, on what do you base this assertion? Just curious here; I know that currently the metrics generally favor single payer so the left doesn't have to confront this problem.
I'd note that current history of the modern left doesn't support your premise. Welfare reform was enacted over the protests of the left in general (though with assistance from some leftists) and produced positive outcomes and results. The left certainly hasn't done a mea culpa on this (who would expect them to; the right never mea culpa'd race) but there's been no serious attempt or advocacy to reverse those reforms. Heck, communism was demonstrated as a failed means of government and the left (despite being deeply invested in it) has pretty much entirely abandoned it. Under your theory they should have roared “screw the data, onward”. So based on those data points at least your assertion is flat out falsified.
Can you give an example of a policy the left has pushed that has been empirically and unambiguously refuted and the response was "nevertheless we support it anyhow"? Or is this just hippie punching?
Roger, in Ireland spending has cratered in unambiguously absolute terms (they cut their spending by a fifth!). No decreases in increases sophistry there at all and they have indeed plummeted in economic growth as a result.
In England it's somewhat more ambiguous since the enacted cuts all essentially amount to decreases in increases to date but the rest of the budgeted cuts in this fiscal year will (unless reversed) amount to an actual absolute decrease in spending. Again we have recession as a result and a glaring result it is compared to the US's recovery (anemic, yes but recovery none the less) which has occurred with the government on gridlocked autopilot. I'll note also that the inflation that conservatives and deficit hawks have been warning about continues to remain AWOL going on five years now.
On the continent but Italy and Spain enacted significant cuts both to absolute spending and they're descending into the death spiral (and in howling irony the bond markets are now threatening to not lend because their economies are shrinking). In France and Holland the political forces of austerity have been electorally routed again as a consequence of austerity failing to deliver the promised prosperity or even recovery. The Germans are beginning to sweat now. (Greece; as a uniquely and insanely ungovernable country I’m leaving off this list).
Ryan, the left has certainly been unhappy about spending decreases yes. Just because they haven't maintained the rigid dogmatic opposition to spending cuts that the right has sustained against revenue increases doesn't mean the left isn't still generally hostile to spending cuts; just not insanely hostile. I'd submit this is one reason why the right is currently doing more poorly than the left in public perception; the right looks like zealots. I left it out of my original analysis because I felt it clouded the issue.
But the costs are built in both situations way Tom; that's what individual credit ratings, balance limits etc are. People, persons and families very much are subject to game rules so frankly I have no idea what you're talking about here. There is no law or regulation that forces creditors to extend credit to individuals regardless of credit worthiness.
It uses bankruptcy law Tom; seems like a very small distinction and certainly not one that is any different than the distinctions between sympathetic and unsympathetic bankruptcies on the personal level.
I am resigned to corporate bankruptcy manuvers and I'm of the opinion that any fair minded person who allows them (like you and I) should be supportive of similar freedom for individuals to use similar legal mechanisms. I consider corporations shedding their pension obligations under the same light as unions seizing the companies (though admissable the former is massively more common than the latter).
It is also flat out incorrect, mind. Businesses can and do enter bankruptcy, discharge debt, restructure and then emerge from bankruptcy very much alive. In fact it's considered a routine part of businesses; see for instance airlines entering into bankruptcy to shed pension obligations and the like.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Another Country Club Republican Bites the Dust”
I was pretty unhappy about it. The husband tried to console me by asking "Honestly, what on earth is in North Carolina that you wanted to visit anyhow?" But I still feel bad about it. Something about having entire sections (even if they're small sections) of the country turn into zones where you are at serious risk if you travel to them is dispiriting.
"
Eyup, I'd be happy to have a conservative Dem. They, at least, can be negotiated with.
"
Yeah whatever disagreements or issues anyone has with Tom the name calling and swearing really doesn't help that case.
"
That's why I'm sanguine about his losing. As a supine moderate republican he'll campaign as a moderate incumbent and have excellent odds of reelection then vote the party line in DC and be functionally indistinguishable from a frothing tea party zealot. At least this way if a frothing tea party zealot ends up in DC I can say "Oh well at least he campaigned as one".
Then again maybe I’m just grasping for good news after the log to the head of North Carolina’s new draconian anti-gay anything amendment.
On “A Dozen Ordinary Gentlemen Walk Into A Casino…”
I'm so jealous. ;.;
On “How The Avengers Succeeds”
Well the plot they hinted at is frankly worse IMHO. But perhaps I'm misreading from inexperience.
"
Personally I think it's a headfake. No way they kick it up to the fellow who was shown in the teaser in Avengers #2. Where do you go from there? And the gauntlette? No way. The comics were interesting but as a movie it'd be -terrible-.
"
One of the charming aspects of this was the Avengers pretty much entirely chucked out all the introductory backstory that so many hero movies labor under. Each of the protagonists could spring, Athena like, from the forhead of their respective progenator films. As a result the Avengers was two hours and some change of rolicking fun, humor and spectacle. I was delighted, Marvel deserves every dime they're going to make off this puppy.
Also the humor had me in stitches, as a Hulk fan I was transported by his interaction with Thor and schwarma!
And as if it wasn't ambitious enough what the hell was with that shout out at the end?? I watch the Avengers cartoon (I know nerd) and guess who popped up this weeked? Adam Warlock with a special stone imbedded in his forehead.
On “A Mentsch Trakht, un Got Lakht”
Well, this along with the deal of Bibi's Father certainly represents a change in the status quos. We'll see what happens now, maybe the Israeli's will start backing away from the precipice.
On “Stimulus first, austerity later”
Well far be it for me to decry hyperbole Will; but for hyperbole to be even remotely fair I'd hope you'd have some actual examples of the movement in that direction. Entire political wings don't quietly sneak up on dramatic policy shifts; they go like a parade with politicians giving speeches and promises, pundits throwing confetti and bands tootling away about how awesome this new idea is.
But hey, I’m down with funny so I’ll just consider the matter withdrawn; I’m easy like Sunday morning (it's true, just ask my Husband).
On “A Capitalist’s Love Ballad to Bankruptcy”
Stellar analysis Mark.
On “Stimulus first, austerity later”
Well so do I.
Except the French, they can all sink into the sea. Bloody froggy buggers frenching up the place. Hrmph!
"
Tim,
Fair enough, so stipulated I can agree with what you're saying without much reservation. Governments will be judged by the markets by what they do, not what they say.
"
Roger, yes agreed that Clinton triangulated against his progressive element. But by the metric you outlined what should have happened next, if your characterization of the left was accurate, was not what happened.
Welfare reform has generally been demonstrated to have produced better outcomes than pre-welfare reforms. By your characterization the left should have a large and active element seeking to undo welfare reform because regardless of the outcomes, more government centralization is preferable to less. On the same note communism has collapsed and been discredited as yielding brittle, inefficient and non-humanitarian regimes that poorly managed their societies. Under your characterization the left should still seek to bring about global communism because, regardless of how unpleasant its outcomes, more government is preferable to less government. There is not any large active segment of the western left (and especially not the American left) that seeks this outcome.
You have also not provided an example of a situation where a government centralized solution has been unambiguously demonstrated as a failure and the left has asserted that, regardless of the outcomes, more government centralization is preferable to less.
My conclusion: the primary interest of the left is not the expansion of government programs and centralization regardless of outcome.
"
Roger, part of your assertion was that if a given situation was demonstrated to be better solved without government programs that the left would choose government programs instead even though that was the inferior option.
"
Ireland's situation is unique; their "spending" consisted pretty much entirely of a bank bailout (pushed by the countries right wing and politicians) which resulted in Ireland voluntarily (they were under no legal obligation to bail out the banks) assuming debt and then discovering after that the total debt was many times their GDP. The libertarian response would have been to refuse the bail out in the first place and arguably that would have prevented one crisis and given them a banking crisis instead. So Ireland was pretty much a right wing but not libertarian crisis.
Spain was running a budget surplus prior to the credit worries. When the Germans refused to allow the Euro to inflate or the ECB to guarantee Spain’s debt their interest rates skyrocketed and austerity forces forced through heavy budget cuts. The cuts produced spiraling unemployment and recession. Now the interest rates on Spain’s debt is skyrocketing again because the austerity is causing a recession. Again an austerity issue.
England, the example most similar to America, elected a right wing government with a significant libertarian component (the Lib-Dems). They enacted a strong austerity budget mostly consisting of spending cuts (though with some small tax increases) as a result the economy went from a mild recovery into a double dip recession. This one pretty much was a slightly milder clone of the medicine being proposed by the GOP for the US and the results have not been pretty though perhaps in the long term things will look up, we’ll see.
On “Can a small target be easier to hit?”
Good luck!
On “Stimulus first, austerity later”
So you're saying we need a new electoate?
"
Roger, on what do you base this assertion? Just curious here; I know that currently the metrics generally favor single payer so the left doesn't have to confront this problem.
I'd note that current history of the modern left doesn't support your premise. Welfare reform was enacted over the protests of the left in general (though with assistance from some leftists) and produced positive outcomes and results. The left certainly hasn't done a mea culpa on this (who would expect them to; the right never mea culpa'd race) but there's been no serious attempt or advocacy to reverse those reforms. Heck, communism was demonstrated as a failed means of government and the left (despite being deeply invested in it) has pretty much entirely abandoned it. Under your theory they should have roared “screw the data, onward”. So based on those data points at least your assertion is flat out falsified.
Can you give an example of a policy the left has pushed that has been empirically and unambiguously refuted and the response was "nevertheless we support it anyhow"? Or is this just hippie punching?
"
Roger, in Ireland spending has cratered in unambiguously absolute terms (they cut their spending by a fifth!). No decreases in increases sophistry there at all and they have indeed plummeted in economic growth as a result.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2010/11/24/ireland-debt-crisis-aid-amount.html
In England it's somewhat more ambiguous since the enacted cuts all essentially amount to decreases in increases to date but the rest of the budgeted cuts in this fiscal year will (unless reversed) amount to an actual absolute decrease in spending. Again we have recession as a result and a glaring result it is compared to the US's recovery (anemic, yes but recovery none the less) which has occurred with the government on gridlocked autopilot. I'll note also that the inflation that conservatives and deficit hawks have been warning about continues to remain AWOL going on five years now.
On the continent but Italy and Spain enacted significant cuts both to absolute spending and they're descending into the death spiral (and in howling irony the bond markets are now threatening to not lend because their economies are shrinking). In France and Holland the political forces of austerity have been electorally routed again as a consequence of austerity failing to deliver the promised prosperity or even recovery. The Germans are beginning to sweat now. (Greece; as a uniquely and insanely ungovernable country I’m leaving off this list).
"
Ryan, the left has certainly been unhappy about spending decreases yes. Just because they haven't maintained the rigid dogmatic opposition to spending cuts that the right has sustained against revenue increases doesn't mean the left isn't still generally hostile to spending cuts; just not insanely hostile. I'd submit this is one reason why the right is currently doing more poorly than the left in public perception; the right looks like zealots. I left it out of my original analysis because I felt it clouded the issue.
On “Can a small target be easier to hit?”
+3 points to Ravenclaw for a Pratchett reference!
On “A Capitalist’s Love Ballad to Bankruptcy”
But the costs are built in both situations way Tom; that's what individual credit ratings, balance limits etc are. People, persons and families very much are subject to game rules so frankly I have no idea what you're talking about here. There is no law or regulation that forces creditors to extend credit to individuals regardless of credit worthiness.
"
It uses bankruptcy law Tom; seems like a very small distinction and certainly not one that is any different than the distinctions between sympathetic and unsympathetic bankruptcies on the personal level.
I am resigned to corporate bankruptcy manuvers and I'm of the opinion that any fair minded person who allows them (like you and I) should be supportive of similar freedom for individuals to use similar legal mechanisms. I consider corporations shedding their pension obligations under the same light as unions seizing the companies (though admissable the former is massively more common than the latter).
"
It is also flat out incorrect, mind. Businesses can and do enter bankruptcy, discharge debt, restructure and then emerge from bankruptcy very much alive. In fact it's considered a routine part of businesses; see for instance airlines entering into bankruptcy to shed pension obligations and the like.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.