I wonder who gives. Seriously. Everyone I know just says "No thank you" and moves on. Almost everyone I observe says No thanks and moves on as well but I have seen people engaged in conversation from time to time. So I guess some people might give.
Interestingly, I was not thinking of Nader and his public research group which goes door to door but I guess they were the original chuggers.
I was thinking of the legions of idealistic 20-somethings who seem to descend on to city streets as soon as the weather gets warm and say "Do you have a moment for the environment?" or a whole bunch of other lefty charities.
In some ways, the idealistic chuggers perplex and fascinate me. By now it has been well-reported that the groups outsource their fundraising to for-profit companies. The charities only receive X amount of the money raised and it might be less than half. There is a high rate of rejection and turn-over. Most chuggers last a week or less.
Yet you still see the chuggers out every spring and summer with full-throttle optimism. I would think that the practice proved useless by now and disreputable but I guess not. Perhaps there are just sincerely idealistic people in the world.
The big problem is not that we are partisan but the Congressional system as mandated by the Constitution is not really meant to handle this kind of extreme partisanship.
Maybe a lot of people cheer this kind of gridlock but I do not and from what I know about your politics, you probably do not as well.
Parisan-oriented government works in Parliamentary system because the minority has no option but to complain on the media (without being able to gum up anything in the legislature). And Parliaments lend more towards multi-party systems that will form coalition governments.
Congress lends itself to having two parties. I am not sure how it would work with four or five parties without anyone having a clear majority.
1. You will start seeing a lot of political and litigation fights over what is a recognized charity. Perhaps Republicans will try to deligitmatize charities like The ACLU, Legal Aid, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, Acorn, Arts Charities, etc. Atheist groups will claim that donating to any religious group or charity would violate the Establishment cause.
2. I think you would have an accountability problem. The issue with the chuggers (those idealistic 20-somethings who constantly stop you on the street for lefty charities) is that a lot of the money raised does not go to the the cause. It goes to overhead and such.
3. People will game the system. Who will make sure that doctors are really being pro-bono with their ten percent of time? Even if a doctor does diagnosis for free, who will pay for the medicine if needed? Also you will need rules to prevent people from being left high and dry. Say a doctor works 2000 hours a year and makes 200 of these pro-bono. Does a very sick and poor patient get cut off if they have the luck of just getting the last hour but needing 40 more for care?
4. There is a lot of controversy over pro-bono hours with lawyers especially considering the glut of the legal market right now. A lot of higher-ups in the legal world are suggesting that young lawyers make their mark by taking pro bono cases. However, these young lawyers also have a lot of school debt and still need to eat and pay rent. Who pays for the court fees, the evidence, the discovery, etc? The 10 percent of services can be damning to young professionals during recessions.
I have no doubt that it was very stressful and painful for Ann Romney to deal with cancer and MS. She has my sympathy here.
However, the treatment and care is where most of my concern is especially because we can't ever seem to have honest conversations about this stuff in the United States ever.
My main point is that Ann Romney has access to very expensive medications that my friend does not. And as I understand it, MS medication can be very expensive and even insured people often face caps from their providers.
My friend does have a medical marijuana card to help with pain and suffering but we know how Mitt feels about that. To be fair, the attack on medical marijuana is a place where Obama disappoints me but I wonder how much of it is a very entrenched DEA.
In general though, I think she is often just as clueless as Mitt especially when she talked about paying for school via stock she got from dad. This was hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock in the 1960s/70s when it had higher purchasing power and tuition and cost of living was much lower. She also had some speech about 5 teenage boys devouring groceries while her husband was the head of Bain. This is quite different than a single-mother who works as a waitress or teacher trying to feed her family.
As someone who is not inclined to vote for Romney, the "just folks" persona especially in regards to her MS and living like poor college students.
It is bad that Ann Romey has MS, MS is a horrible disease. However there is a big difference between Ann Romney going through MS with a husband worth over 200 million dollars and a strong support group and my friend who works in retail and has a semi-employed father and a bus driver mother and student loan debt.
I don't begruge Ann Romney for her privileges. I grew up as a very comfortable member of the upper-middle class and would have a similar safety net from family if one that is not quite as extravagant. However, I am very cognizant of the advantages of my birth or at least try to be. I've done and said some bone-headed things and been called out for being privileged.
the words Democratic Party supporter should appear after the word proudly.
I am a proud Democratic party supporter but often find the inflammed rhetoric of sites like Think Progress to be too much. The right-wing equivalents do the same to turn me off if not more so as well.
Of course this raises the question of how informed should the average citizen be about politics, policy, foreign affairs, what percentage of the population is gay and lesbian, etc. How bad is it to be a low-information voter?
People on the League are largely very well-informed regardless of their political ideology. In general, I would say we are the high-information voters who disagree. However, every now and then we work from the same plague of working from different facts or information. This is the MSNBC v. Fox News problem. Of course, plenty of partisans can be low-information voters as well.
However, I don't think everyone needs to be a News or Politics junkie and I can see why people would find keeping up with news and politics and policy to be exhausting, depressing, and emotionally draining. There is nothing wrong with wanting to spend your downtime with friends and family in a relaxing manner instead of pouring over white papers from Brookings and Cato or watching the news.
What do you (and other League members) think is the happy balance between being a political junkie with strong convictions and being a low-information voter?
Of course, emotional appeals work of both sides and as proudly as I am I dislike inflamed rhetoric. But as you note, both parties know that they need emotional rhetoric to win.
I think it is impossible to prevent someone from holding political beliefs or positions based on their religious views or lack thereof.
People are always going to be pro and con things based on their religious views.
That being said in a nation of 300 plus million people and a multitude of religions, it is probably best to come up with non-religious justifications if you want to convince a majority. There is also the fact that we have a no-Establishment clause in the First Amendment.
I am pretty sure that my ambivalent feelings on tattoos can be traced to my Judaism. I am also sure that my Jewish feelings on tattoos should not inhibit non-Jews from getting them. Nor should my Judaism apply to other Jews. Though I would probably be more likely to argue with other Jews about whether Jews should refrain from being tattooed.
Likewise, my Sabbath is not on Sunday. I should not be compelled into Blue Laws enforced by Protestants and their interpretation of their religion.
The cynic in me says no but who knows. Things are slowly beginning to change.
I think that the Boomers and older generations have to become irrelevant in politics for any change to occur.
Even then it is an open question. Marijuana is basically not taboo anymore but it is still subject to great hypocrisy. There is no real reason to fight for legalization in the Bay Area because it is de facto legal here. I see people lighting up in public all the time without impunity including high school kids playing hokey. In other places, middle class and above white and Asian people can get way with smoking it in the safety of suburban cul-de-sacs. It is the poor and minorities who are arrested and jailed.
Other drugs are still taboo. Hash might get legalized along with marijuana if and when that happens. Maybe MDMA will come next. Cocaine, Crack, Heroin, Meth, and abuse of drugs like Ritalin and OxyCotin are still taboo. Opium and others are too rare. I know people who admitted to cocaine use. I don't know anyone who openly admitted to heroin use though I probably know people who have used the drug. Maybe one person hinted about experimenting with narcotics beyond marijuana, hash, MDMA, LSD, and shrooms.
I don't thin capitalists are always to blame per se.
However, this does not mean that ordinary folks are too blame. It was Wall Street that created the NINJA (no income, no assets, no job) loan and then went looking for takers. The government was also to blame for encouraging homeownership in irresponsible ways.
It is mainly hypocritical moralizing that I object to, not risk and speculation. There are plenty of people from all levels of education and socio-economic background who are still suffering because of the financial crisis. How are the students from the classes of 2008-2011 at fault?
I think marijuana and MDMA should be legal. People should be able to grow their own marijuana like you can grow basil.
I am more uncertain about harder drugs. Heroin and Meth are pure poison. Meth can also be a serious health and environmental hazard and make land uninhabitable.
However, addicts and mere possessors should not be sent to prison.
On “A Welfare State Libertarians and Fiscal Conservatives Can Get Behind”
Hm.
I wonder who gives. Seriously. Everyone I know just says "No thank you" and moves on. Almost everyone I observe says No thanks and moves on as well but I have seen people engaged in conversation from time to time. So I guess some people might give.
"
Maybe but I am doubtful. There will be creative accounting and reasoning but some groups might be nudged/guilt-tripped into being honest.
Katherine still points out an obvious problem.
"
Interestingly, I was not thinking of Nader and his public research group which goes door to door but I guess they were the original chuggers.
I was thinking of the legions of idealistic 20-somethings who seem to descend on to city streets as soon as the weather gets warm and say "Do you have a moment for the environment?" or a whole bunch of other lefty charities.
In some ways, the idealistic chuggers perplex and fascinate me. By now it has been well-reported that the groups outsource their fundraising to for-profit companies. The charities only receive X amount of the money raised and it might be less than half. There is a high rate of rejection and turn-over. Most chuggers last a week or less.
Yet you still see the chuggers out every spring and summer with full-throttle optimism. I would think that the practice proved useless by now and disreputable but I guess not. Perhaps there are just sincerely idealistic people in the world.
On “The Plan Behind the Rhetoric…”
The big problem is not that we are partisan but the Congressional system as mandated by the Constitution is not really meant to handle this kind of extreme partisanship.
Maybe a lot of people cheer this kind of gridlock but I do not and from what I know about your politics, you probably do not as well.
Parisan-oriented government works in Parliamentary system because the minority has no option but to complain on the media (without being able to gum up anything in the legislature). And Parliaments lend more towards multi-party systems that will form coalition governments.
Congress lends itself to having two parties. I am not sure how it would work with four or five parties without anyone having a clear majority.
On “A Welfare State Libertarians and Fiscal Conservatives Can Get Behind”
All very good points. I should have just signed on here. Especially the drug addicts v. puppies and kittens
"
1. You will start seeing a lot of political and litigation fights over what is a recognized charity. Perhaps Republicans will try to deligitmatize charities like The ACLU, Legal Aid, Human Rights Campaign, Planned Parenthood, Acorn, Arts Charities, etc. Atheist groups will claim that donating to any religious group or charity would violate the Establishment cause.
2. I think you would have an accountability problem. The issue with the chuggers (those idealistic 20-somethings who constantly stop you on the street for lefty charities) is that a lot of the money raised does not go to the the cause. It goes to overhead and such.
3. People will game the system. Who will make sure that doctors are really being pro-bono with their ten percent of time? Even if a doctor does diagnosis for free, who will pay for the medicine if needed? Also you will need rules to prevent people from being left high and dry. Say a doctor works 2000 hours a year and makes 200 of these pro-bono. Does a very sick and poor patient get cut off if they have the luck of just getting the last hour but needing 40 more for care?
4. There is a lot of controversy over pro-bono hours with lawyers especially considering the glut of the legal market right now. A lot of higher-ups in the legal world are suggesting that young lawyers make their mark by taking pro bono cases. However, these young lawyers also have a lot of school debt and still need to eat and pay rent. Who pays for the court fees, the evidence, the discovery, etc? The 10 percent of services can be damning to young professionals during recessions.
On “Signaling”
When I get home from my work.
On “The Most Interesting Congressional Race In 2012…”
Mea Culpa
On “Signaling”
Especially during pratt falls
On “The Most Interesting Congressional Race In 2012…”
I have nothing to add except that I think ASU is in Tuscon and Tuscon is not mentioned on your map. So I don't think it is part of the new district.
I am fully expecting to need to make a mea culpa within a half hour of pressing post.
On “Signaling”
I know a really a joke on this subject but it is NSFW.
"
I care more about the later than the former.
I have no doubt that it was very stressful and painful for Ann Romney to deal with cancer and MS. She has my sympathy here.
However, the treatment and care is where most of my concern is especially because we can't ever seem to have honest conversations about this stuff in the United States ever.
"
The stock came from Mitt's dad and was worth 60,000 then and 377,000 in 2012 money:
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/106700/ann-romney-the-asset-everyone-assumes
"
Did she?
I thought her family while maybe not as wealthy as Mitt's was not average either. Average during the post-WWII years was not exactly bad either.
"
My main point is that Ann Romney has access to very expensive medications that my friend does not. And as I understand it, MS medication can be very expensive and even insured people often face caps from their providers.
My friend does have a medical marijuana card to help with pain and suffering but we know how Mitt feels about that. To be fair, the attack on medical marijuana is a place where Obama disappoints me but I wonder how much of it is a very entrenched DEA.
In general though, I think she is often just as clueless as Mitt especially when she talked about paying for school via stock she got from dad. This was hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of stock in the 1960s/70s when it had higher purchasing power and tuition and cost of living was much lower. She also had some speech about 5 teenage boys devouring groceries while her husband was the head of Bain. This is quite different than a single-mother who works as a waitress or teacher trying to feed her family.
"
A very good post.
As someone who is not inclined to vote for Romney, the "just folks" persona especially in regards to her MS and living like poor college students.
It is bad that Ann Romey has MS, MS is a horrible disease. However there is a big difference between Ann Romney going through MS with a husband worth over 200 million dollars and a strong support group and my friend who works in retail and has a semi-employed father and a bus driver mother and student loan debt.
I don't begruge Ann Romney for her privileges. I grew up as a very comfortable member of the upper-middle class and would have a similar safety net from family if one that is not quite as extravagant. However, I am very cognizant of the advantages of my birth or at least try to be. I've done and said some bone-headed things and been called out for being privileged.
On “Why Politicians Lie”
the words Democratic Party supporter should appear after the word proudly.
I am a proud Democratic party supporter but often find the inflammed rhetoric of sites like Think Progress to be too much. The right-wing equivalents do the same to turn me off if not more so as well.
"
This is a very good post.
Of course this raises the question of how informed should the average citizen be about politics, policy, foreign affairs, what percentage of the population is gay and lesbian, etc. How bad is it to be a low-information voter?
People on the League are largely very well-informed regardless of their political ideology. In general, I would say we are the high-information voters who disagree. However, every now and then we work from the same plague of working from different facts or information. This is the MSNBC v. Fox News problem. Of course, plenty of partisans can be low-information voters as well.
However, I don't think everyone needs to be a News or Politics junkie and I can see why people would find keeping up with news and politics and policy to be exhausting, depressing, and emotionally draining. There is nothing wrong with wanting to spend your downtime with friends and family in a relaxing manner instead of pouring over white papers from Brookings and Cato or watching the news.
What do you (and other League members) think is the happy balance between being a political junkie with strong convictions and being a low-information voter?
Of course, emotional appeals work of both sides and as proudly as I am I dislike inflamed rhetoric. But as you note, both parties know that they need emotional rhetoric to win.
On “My Secularism, Unraveling”
I think it is impossible to prevent someone from holding political beliefs or positions based on their religious views or lack thereof.
People are always going to be pro and con things based on their religious views.
That being said in a nation of 300 plus million people and a multitude of religions, it is probably best to come up with non-religious justifications if you want to convince a majority. There is also the fact that we have a no-Establishment clause in the First Amendment.
I am pretty sure that my ambivalent feelings on tattoos can be traced to my Judaism. I am also sure that my Jewish feelings on tattoos should not inhibit non-Jews from getting them. Nor should my Judaism apply to other Jews. Though I would probably be more likely to argue with other Jews about whether Jews should refrain from being tattooed.
Likewise, my Sabbath is not on Sunday. I should not be compelled into Blue Laws enforced by Protestants and their interpretation of their religion.
On “For the Greater Good”
The cynic in me says no but who knows. Things are slowly beginning to change.
I think that the Boomers and older generations have to become irrelevant in politics for any change to occur.
Even then it is an open question. Marijuana is basically not taboo anymore but it is still subject to great hypocrisy. There is no real reason to fight for legalization in the Bay Area because it is de facto legal here. I see people lighting up in public all the time without impunity including high school kids playing hokey. In other places, middle class and above white and Asian people can get way with smoking it in the safety of suburban cul-de-sacs. It is the poor and minorities who are arrested and jailed.
Other drugs are still taboo. Hash might get legalized along with marijuana if and when that happens. Maybe MDMA will come next. Cocaine, Crack, Heroin, Meth, and abuse of drugs like Ritalin and OxyCotin are still taboo. Opium and others are too rare. I know people who admitted to cocaine use. I don't know anyone who openly admitted to heroin use though I probably know people who have used the drug. Maybe one person hinted about experimenting with narcotics beyond marijuana, hash, MDMA, LSD, and shrooms.
"
I don't thin capitalists are always to blame per se.
However, this does not mean that ordinary folks are too blame. It was Wall Street that created the NINJA (no income, no assets, no job) loan and then went looking for takers. The government was also to blame for encouraging homeownership in irresponsible ways.
It is mainly hypocritical moralizing that I object to, not risk and speculation. There are plenty of people from all levels of education and socio-economic background who are still suffering because of the financial crisis. How are the students from the classes of 2008-2011 at fault?
"
I think Portugal and the Czech Republic have rather good policies towards narcotics.
They are much smaller nations than the U.S. of course but I would like to see their policies emulated here.
"
I think marijuana and MDMA should be legal. People should be able to grow their own marijuana like you can grow basil.
I am more uncertain about harder drugs. Heroin and Meth are pure poison. Meth can also be a serious health and environmental hazard and make land uninhabitable.
However, addicts and mere possessors should not be sent to prison.
"
I work. I am an independent contractor and one of my monthly expenses is my own health insurance. I pay my rent and bills on-time.
Healthcare, food, shelter, and clothing are not luxuries, they are basic human rights.
Luxury is nice restaurants. That is something I will pay for myself.
The British have NHS. I have not seen Belgravia or Hampsted Heath reduced to pig pens.
On “In Which I Dissect One Harvard Professor’s Tabloid Cover Story (…At Length)”
That could very well be true. They could be for people just below C-level status.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.