You need to look past what they're saying and focus on what they've done and what they're likely to do. In the case of the political parties, the God talk is a distraction -- how much God-related legislation was passed during the days of the "permanent" Republican majority in the previous decade? My point here is basically the same as above -- this is minor, superficial stuff, certainly not an indication of how "serious" the party is. Basing your party or candidate selection on this isn't much different than the "who would you rather have a beer with" criterion.
Would be nice if there were a minimum number of votes required for election, so that the electorate could have the option of saying they prefer no representation at all to having any of the available bozos represent them.
I dunno, I suspect the conservative base would feel the much same way the liberal base does, at least as far as things actually getting done vs just talked about.
Yeah, there's a difference between letting things roll off your back vs just stifling your natural reaction over and over again until it comes bursting out of every pore, shaking the rafters and sending your kid to therapy.
This book had some good advice, but a lot of it was firmly in the "easier said than done" category.
At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence
At the heart of clarity in that debate is acknowleding that "one's own" concept of existence is not what's at issue. The being whose existence is in question is a third party.
I also wonder how one decides which choices are "central to personal dignity and autonomy" and which ones are fair game for governmental coercion, and if there's anything more to it beyond personal preference.
We have a book on parenting teenagers that talked about "MBA" issues -- Minor But Aggravating. The idea was that a lot of unpleasantness between parent and teen occurs over stuff that really doesn't matter much but that just really pisses you off, and you're better off recognizing that it's minor and saving your energy. I'd put this in that category -- not a big deal, both sides have to put on a show for their base after all, but it happens to drive you up a wall if you're not among the intended audience.
I guess you can tell where you rate on this blog by seeing which update your name gets included in. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for inclusion in the "re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-edited" section.
If AGW is occurring, it is occurring whether it is convenient for us or not.
From an omniscient perspective this is true. But for us mortals, we're really talking about probabilities and confidence levels. It's reasonable to say that the standard hypothesis about AGW is better than any other contenders but that our confidence in its correctness is still too low to justify paying the price to attempt to contain or reverse it.
An agreement made in desperate circumstances can’t be properly categorized as voluntary. An agreement to expose oneself to toxins at 177 times the legal limit cannot be countenanced by the community.
Might be worth mentioning that the latter isn't necessarily equivalent to the former -- certain people might agree to the toxins if the pay was exorbitant and they would have a chance to enjoy their wealth. What is the community's stake in that?
But the larger point I'd make is this: if you're going to remove unpleasant options from those in desperate circumstances, that simultaneously obligates you to provide them with a better alternative (or at least the realistic prospects of same). Someone who sees a sweatshop job as a step up is in need of much more than just strong statements of disapproval. If you can't deliver on the promise of a more just and equitable society for such a person, then who are you helping by attempting to drive away business from those sweatshops?
CC, I don't disagree with any of that -- I was just questioning whether James K was actively going beyond "economically optimal" policy to "good" policy. But on a second read of the original post, I see that there is some conflation between the two going on-- I had been focussing just on the four biases, which explicitly mention economic benefit.
Creon Critic, James K's post concerns the public's conceptions about *the economic effects* of various policies (as does Caplan's research). Of course the decisions of politicians and the electorate don't have to be based on the economics alone, but I suspect that a better understanding the economic consequences in and of themselves would make for better decisions overall.
I think this is the crux of the matter -- where there is the possibility of repeatable controlled experiments, answers will be more definite. Not all questions in the physical sciences have this, and in those cases the mere fact that it's in the domain of the physical sciences perhaps doesn't mean very much.
I largely come down on the same side as most of the opinions expressed here so far, but it should be pointed out that one major drawback of all text-based communication is the absence of tonal and facial cues. Many shades of meaning are lost if the writer and/or reader aren't attentive to the impoverished context.
On “In God We Trust! (In the GOP? Not so much…)”
You need to look past what they're saying and focus on what they've done and what they're likely to do. In the case of the political parties, the God talk is a distraction -- how much God-related legislation was passed during the days of the "permanent" Republican majority in the previous decade? My point here is basically the same as above -- this is minor, superficial stuff, certainly not an indication of how "serious" the party is. Basing your party or candidate selection on this isn't much different than the "who would you rather have a beer with" criterion.
"
Would be nice if there were a minimum number of votes required for election, so that the electorate could have the option of saying they prefer no representation at all to having any of the available bozos represent them.
"
"Now that they're all senators, they've really got the chance
To give the public...... a song and dance!"
[Adapted from a Tom Lehrer song about George Murphy]
"
I dunno, I suspect the conservative base would feel the much same way the liberal base does, at least as far as things actually getting done vs just talked about.
"
Yeah, there's a difference between letting things roll off your back vs just stifling your natural reaction over and over again until it comes bursting out of every pore, shaking the rafters and sending your kid to therapy.
This book had some good advice, but a lot of it was firmly in the "easier said than done" category.
"
In that case, what you may really be doing is picking the one who knows which lies you prefer to hear.
On “Of Two Minds At Once”
At the heart of clarity in that debate is acknowleding that "one's own" concept of existence is not what's at issue. The being whose existence is in question is a third party.
I also wonder how one decides which choices are "central to personal dignity and autonomy" and which ones are fair game for governmental coercion, and if there's anything more to it beyond personal preference.
On “In God We Trust! (In the GOP? Not so much…)”
We have a book on parenting teenagers that talked about "MBA" issues -- Minor But Aggravating. The idea was that a lot of unpleasantness between parent and teen occurs over stuff that really doesn't matter much but that just really pisses you off, and you're better off recognizing that it's minor and saving your energy. I'd put this in that category -- not a big deal, both sides have to put on a show for their base after all, but it happens to drive you up a wall if you're not among the intended audience.
On “Digging in the Dirt”
I guess you can tell where you rate on this blog by seeing which update your name gets included in. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for inclusion in the "re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-edited" section.
On “On Paths Taken: A League Census”
I heard this was a good place to pick up chicks. Damn Internet, you can't believe anything it says.
On “Weekend Navel Gazing: Old Boys Clubs”
They're in the monthly archives together with the posts that were on the cuff.
On “Puts You There Where Things Are Hollow”
Also see this Chekhov short story.
On “Richard Muller and the BEST Climate Data Review”
You're right, Jesus wasn't a Christian -- there was no such thing until well after his death.
"
From an omniscient perspective this is true. But for us mortals, we're really talking about probabilities and confidence levels. It's reasonable to say that the standard hypothesis about AGW is better than any other contenders but that our confidence in its correctness is still too low to justify paying the price to attempt to contain or reverse it.
On “From the Comments: Justice and Sweatshops”
Where's wardsmith -- isn't he supposed to be manning the Limerick Defense System?
On “Economics and Values”
Might be worth mentioning that the latter isn't necessarily equivalent to the former -- certain people might agree to the toxins if the pay was exorbitant and they would have a chance to enjoy their wealth. What is the community's stake in that?
But the larger point I'd make is this: if you're going to remove unpleasant options from those in desperate circumstances, that simultaneously obligates you to provide them with a better alternative (or at least the realistic prospects of same). Someone who sees a sweatshop job as a step up is in need of much more than just strong statements of disapproval. If you can't deliver on the promise of a more just and equitable society for such a person, then who are you helping by attempting to drive away business from those sweatshops?
On “Police Corruption and the War on Drugs”
Speaking of which, did you see the latest populist protest?
On “On Dodging Bullets”
Seems like paragraph 3 explains paragraph 2 pretty well.
On “The Madness of Crowds”
CC, I don't disagree with any of that -- I was just questioning whether James K was actively going beyond "economically optimal" policy to "good" policy. But on a second read of the original post, I see that there is some conflation between the two going on-- I had been focussing just on the four biases, which explicitly mention economic benefit.
"
Creon Critic, James K's post concerns the public's conceptions about *the economic effects* of various policies (as does Caplan's research). Of course the decisions of politicians and the electorate don't have to be based on the economics alone, but I suspect that a better understanding the economic consequences in and of themselves would make for better decisions overall.
On “Some thoughts on the social sciences.”
I think this is the crux of the matter -- where there is the possibility of repeatable controlled experiments, answers will be more definite. Not all questions in the physical sciences have this, and in those cases the mere fact that it's in the domain of the physical sciences perhaps doesn't mean very much.
On “An ‘I Am the 53%’ Open Thread”
I was pretty sure, but I Googled it just in case.
"
Not a short story, the Battle Royal section from Invisible Man.
On “Using a Phone”
I largely come down on the same side as most of the opinions expressed here so far, but it should be pointed out that one major drawback of all text-based communication is the absence of tonal and facial cues. Many shades of meaning are lost if the writer and/or reader aren't attentive to the impoverished context.
On “For God So Loveth Ye That His Servant In Plano, Texas Doth Giveth Ye An Affordable Oil Change”
So if the contest was to recite John 3:1 then it would be OK?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.