Now I have a favicon -- a little picture that appears in bookmarks or at the top of a Firefox tab. You can make one here. I thought a full moon was appropriate for a werewolf blog. Of course, it gives people the chance to call me a moonbat, but Democrats need to worry a bit less about what Republicans will say about them.
Update: Actually, it's only appearing in address bars as far as I can tell. I guess that's okay.
Saturday, July 16, 2005
The Experience Machine
Battlepanda brings up Nozick's Experience Machine case, which led Julian Sanchez to believe that happiness was not the only rational thing to pursue. (If you're not familiar with the case, follow the link to Battlepanda's site -- she has it there.) I agree with Julian on this. But I'm still a utilitarian, like Battlepanda. How can this be? It depends on a distinction between rationality and what contributes to well-being. I shall explain.
When people are presented with the opportunity to enter the Experience Machine, they often don't, because they don't desire the experiences it offers with any great intensity. Their most intense desire is, perhaps, to write a great novel. This is different from a desire to have the experience of writing a great novel, or to have the pleasure of writing a great novel. The Experience Machine offers the second and third, but not the first. While pleasure shows up whenever our desires achieve satisfaction, this isn't because pleasure is the object of desire. The objects of our desires are many and varied. It's just a fact about desiring that when you attain the object of your desire, you feel some pleasure, but this is different from pleasure being the object of desire. What it's rational to do, on my view, is what maximizes expected desire-satisfaction. Since people don't desire what the Experience Machine offers, it's rational for them to not plug in to it. (It's possible to read Battlepanda's dialogue as making this point, but I doubt that's how she intended it.)
Well-being, or what's good for someone, is different from what it's rational for them to pursue. While expected desire-satisfaction is at the core of my views about rationality, I think pleasure is the currency of well-being. Suppose you met a person who felt intensely guilty about what he'd done in the past, and wanted to kill himself in some painful way as a punishment. Assuming that this was his most powerful desire, and that the sum of his other desires didn't go against it, it'd be rational for him to buy implements of torture for use against himself. But if you wanted to do what was good for him, you might kidnap him on the way to the torture store and inject him full of a euphoria-inducing drug that would also eliminate the memory of his past bad deeds.
When designing public policy, our goal isn't to give people what it'd be rational for them to pursue. It's to set things up in the way that maximizes overall well-being. (Of course, keeping in mind that a pretty large amount of freedom is useful in generating well-being.)
When people are presented with the opportunity to enter the Experience Machine, they often don't, because they don't desire the experiences it offers with any great intensity. Their most intense desire is, perhaps, to write a great novel. This is different from a desire to have the experience of writing a great novel, or to have the pleasure of writing a great novel. The Experience Machine offers the second and third, but not the first. While pleasure shows up whenever our desires achieve satisfaction, this isn't because pleasure is the object of desire. The objects of our desires are many and varied. It's just a fact about desiring that when you attain the object of your desire, you feel some pleasure, but this is different from pleasure being the object of desire. What it's rational to do, on my view, is what maximizes expected desire-satisfaction. Since people don't desire what the Experience Machine offers, it's rational for them to not plug in to it. (It's possible to read Battlepanda's dialogue as making this point, but I doubt that's how she intended it.)
Well-being, or what's good for someone, is different from what it's rational for them to pursue. While expected desire-satisfaction is at the core of my views about rationality, I think pleasure is the currency of well-being. Suppose you met a person who felt intensely guilty about what he'd done in the past, and wanted to kill himself in some painful way as a punishment. Assuming that this was his most powerful desire, and that the sum of his other desires didn't go against it, it'd be rational for him to buy implements of torture for use against himself. But if you wanted to do what was good for him, you might kidnap him on the way to the torture store and inject him full of a euphoria-inducing drug that would also eliminate the memory of his past bad deeds.
When designing public policy, our goal isn't to give people what it'd be rational for them to pursue. It's to set things up in the way that maximizes overall well-being. (Of course, keeping in mind that a pretty large amount of freedom is useful in generating well-being.)
Friday, July 15, 2005
Honey, I'm home
The guestblogging at Ezra's went very well! Here's what I wrote:
Prado Optimality: People pushing Ed Prado for the Supreme Court have the right idea.
Dilemma of the Nice Guy: I explain why nice guys can't get laid, ask for feminist advice on how to behave appropriately, and get 70+ comments!
Who is Alberto Gonzales?: What will he do when he has no Bush to shill for? Nobody knows.
Wheel of Regime Change: There are big problems that can occur when you go around invading countries.
Lambert!: I make more people aware of the awesomeness of our favorite Aussie computer scientist.
Pronunciation: How do you pronounce "Iraq"? And what explains the changes in pronunciation over the years?
Good Work Harry: A smart move by the Senate Democrats.
Returning Islam to Greatness: Viewing our relations with Islam as a war between civilizations only helps Osama. There's a better way.
Prado Optimality: People pushing Ed Prado for the Supreme Court have the right idea.
Dilemma of the Nice Guy: I explain why nice guys can't get laid, ask for feminist advice on how to behave appropriately, and get 70+ comments!
Who is Alberto Gonzales?: What will he do when he has no Bush to shill for? Nobody knows.
Wheel of Regime Change: There are big problems that can occur when you go around invading countries.
Lambert!: I make more people aware of the awesomeness of our favorite Aussie computer scientist.
Pronunciation: How do you pronounce "Iraq"? And what explains the changes in pronunciation over the years?
Good Work Harry: A smart move by the Senate Democrats.
Returning Islam to Greatness: Viewing our relations with Islam as a war between civilizations only helps Osama. There's a better way.
Monday, July 11, 2005
Here today, gone tomorrow
No sooner had I settled back in than I got an email from Ezra Klein, announcing that he'd be going to DC tomorrow and he needed a guestblogger. This being a family specialty, I told him that I'd be happy to fill in. So that's where I'll be for the next three days or so. Come on by!
Return of the Werewolf
It's been a great week and a half -- I hung out with good folk in College Park MD, explored an abandoned insane asylum, twisty-leg-danced to the beat of a street MC, and developed a secret plan for DC statehood with Matt Yglesias and Kriston Capps. But now I'm back, and ready to do my usual blogging thing.
Big thanks to brother Robin and sister Supriya for blogging in my absence.
Big thanks to brother Robin and sister Supriya for blogging in my absence.
Sunday, July 10, 2005
A cohesive theory of musical communication
Hard as I tried to write one, it is just not working out. So I will simply point out that when I was five years old, Neil Sinhababu told me that water was a good source of protein, and I believed him for years.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Double your fun
Hi, I’m Robin. I think I’ll write something about binary systems. Other than the two-sentence description on my blog “1 or 2” and occasional comments there, this will be the first thing I’ve written about binary systems on the internet.
I’m attached to the 1 or 2 blog’s structure. Though the comments pages have elaborated on the ratings and discussed 1 or 2 a few times, the front pages are clean and skeletal. So I’m more comfortable editorializing on 1 or 2 here, where it is less relevant.
The 1 or 2 system originated as a fast way to get someone’s opinion on a difficult subject. Movies and people were commonly 1 or 2ed. It was and is most useful, I think, when asking someone their opinion of a mutual acquaintance. Giving someone a 1 might be harsh, but then, if the evaluator’s opinion of the person isn’t glowing, it’s hard for him to give a 2, too. If you just asked for an open-ended opinion, you would too often hear “he’s interesting, I guess” or “she’s nice.” Similarly, a request for a rating on the 10-point scale would often get you a 5. Though 1 or 2 is, due to the huge ground each rating covers, inherently vague and crude, it can provide a richer assessment than an open-ended or finer-scaled answer.
Before long, other, sillier binary systems developed around 1 or 2. We could ask whether someone or something was a lover or fighter, a man’s man or ladies’ man, or, my favorite, a steer or a queer. My friend Chase (right) would reinvent the quintessential public policy approach of “carrot or stick” as a binary system, posing questions like “You’re hungry. Carrot or stick?” or “You’re trying to start a fire. Carrot or stick?” or “Your pen pal is in the hospital. Carrot or stick?” and so on.
I’m not sure that 1 or 2 has the same entertainment value online as it has in real life. On a blog, the most exciting entries tend to be the controversial ones, those likely falling between the 40th and 60th percentiles. When people are hanging out and merrily 1 or 2ing the night away (we don’t do this anymore, but we used to), those close ones are tense and exciting, but the most fun ones are the most obvious ones: those that would get a 1 or 10 on a 10-point scale, but with 1 or 2, just get a loud or enunciated 1 or 2 to emphasize their deficit or abundance of merit.
I’m attached to the 1 or 2 blog’s structure. Though the comments pages have elaborated on the ratings and discussed 1 or 2 a few times, the front pages are clean and skeletal. So I’m more comfortable editorializing on 1 or 2 here, where it is less relevant.
The 1 or 2 system originated as a fast way to get someone’s opinion on a difficult subject. Movies and people were commonly 1 or 2ed. It was and is most useful, I think, when asking someone their opinion of a mutual acquaintance. Giving someone a 1 might be harsh, but then, if the evaluator’s opinion of the person isn’t glowing, it’s hard for him to give a 2, too. If you just asked for an open-ended opinion, you would too often hear “he’s interesting, I guess” or “she’s nice.” Similarly, a request for a rating on the 10-point scale would often get you a 5. Though 1 or 2 is, due to the huge ground each rating covers, inherently vague and crude, it can provide a richer assessment than an open-ended or finer-scaled answer.
Before long, other, sillier binary systems developed around 1 or 2. We could ask whether someone or something was a lover or fighter, a man’s man or ladies’ man, or, my favorite, a steer or a queer. My friend Chase (right) would reinvent the quintessential public policy approach of “carrot or stick” as a binary system, posing questions like “You’re hungry. Carrot or stick?” or “You’re trying to start a fire. Carrot or stick?” or “Your pen pal is in the hospital. Carrot or stick?” and so on.
I’m not sure that 1 or 2 has the same entertainment value online as it has in real life. On a blog, the most exciting entries tend to be the controversial ones, those likely falling between the 40th and 60th percentiles. When people are hanging out and merrily 1 or 2ing the night away (we don’t do this anymore, but we used to), those close ones are tense and exciting, but the most fun ones are the most obvious ones: those that would get a 1 or 10 on a 10-point scale, but with 1 or 2, just get a loud or enunciated 1 or 2 to emphasize their deficit or abundance of merit.
So 1 or 2 the blog might be near or at its end. It might be more sustainable if tied to my personal goings-on, as I tried on March 18, but then I’ve always tried to keep it random. It may have simply run its course. C’est la blogs.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Guestbloggers!
So I'm in DC now, and I'll be spending this week in the home of the legendary Tom Lotze. I won't be blogging much, if at all, so I got myself a pair of guestbloggers for now until Wednesday night!
Whom, you wonder? When I asked them, Kevin Drum and Mark Schmitt expressed great interest*, but I turned them down on grounds that they are not related to me. So I present unto you Robin and Supriya Sinhababu. As the last name suggests, they are my (younger) siblings. They are much cooler than me. Most of the non-folk-song music I listen to, I discovered through them. (Expect some amount of music blogging in the next week.)
*this did not actually happen
[Update]: Robin's home blog is One or Two.
Whom, you wonder? When I asked them, Kevin Drum and Mark Schmitt expressed great interest*, but I turned them down on grounds that they are not related to me. So I present unto you Robin and Supriya Sinhababu. As the last name suggests, they are my (younger) siblings. They are much cooler than me. Most of the non-folk-song music I listen to, I discovered through them. (Expect some amount of music blogging in the next week.)
*this did not actually happen
[Update]: Robin's home blog is One or Two.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Me and my donkey
A while ago, dadahead felt lots of discontent with the Democrats and started thinking about third parties. He'd still work within the Democratic Party, he said, though they were on the outer margins of being acceptable.
I said that voting for third parties wouldn't help. Even if you cost them elections, the math works out so it's foolish for Democrats to move left to appeal to you. Pulling the American public left to you, so the Democrats can take up your view and win, is the only thing to do.
Dadahead's response focuses largely on criticizing this assertion of mine: "Assuming a normal distribution of voters across each of the political/philosophical axes, moving left puts [Democrats] at risk of losing the people in the center, and there are way more voters in the center than on the edges." I think he'd say that my caveat -- "Now if you have some reason to think that there isn't a normal (bell-shaped) distribution on your issue, this analysis may not apply." -- is applicable to lots more cases than I think it is. He accepts that we're in the minority with regard to parental consent laws and gay marriage, though I think we both agree that our pro-gay stance is a great investment for the future.
I agree with dadahead, his friends at the DLC, and John Kerry that rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the rich is something to push for without hesitation. Against Bush's Social Security Death Star, Han and Lando have put aside their grievances, the shields are down, and the Millenium Falcon has flown into the core reactor shaft. When this fight is over, we're going to have a big Ewok party on Endor with New Democrats kissing Deaniacs while the ghosts of Obi-Wan and Franklin Roosevelt smile upon us.
Serious health care reform, however, is an issue on which we've got to do a lot of work to persuade Americans to our side. They'll love it once everyone gets nice cheap health insurance, but irrational fears of government interference in the economy will make them fear it until they have it. We'll be up against an insurance industry fighting for its life. Americans only love government programs that already exist, and the insurers will make our proposal seem like the scariest piece of socialized medicine ever. I don't believe we have the power yet to win this fight, though I'd be really happy to be proven wrong. In any case, I see this as the time for people like us to lay the groundwork. (If anyone can sell health care reform in the near term, I think it's John Edwards.)
And then there's Iraq. Look, if everyone had seen in advance how it would turn out -- no WMD, no terrorist links, terrible management, the destruction of American soft power, a medium-term crippling of the American military, huge costs, Iraq becoming Jihad University, an interminable military commitment, so many dead -- Republicans might have nixed it themselves. (Sure, most of them won't say that now. They don't have the courage to flip-flop.) The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party was right on this all the way. But questions of retroactive political strategy are not easy here. After an easy-looking campaign in Afghanistan, and after earlier successes in Bosnia and Kosovo and a disastrous non-war in Rwanda, Americans simply didn't think things would go wrong in war. For years, they had been taught that Saddam was the biggest villian on earth, and they were terrified by 9/11 and anthrax. Could we have convinced them that this wasn't going to go well? (I wouldn't have expected Bush to screw things up so badly either. I mean, I thought he'd do a bad job, but the sheer botchery that has occurred is pretty phenomenal.) I suppose we could've tried a "finish Afghanistan first!" message. Or maybe we could have made our strong stand, gotten slaughtered at the polls in '02, regrouped, and won in '04 with a pure and clear message. Who knows?
I really don't see myself as a liberal or a centrist, as these intra-party disputes go. I'm just a utilitarian, trying to avoid the Pundit's Fallacy, and playing the hand I'm dealt.
I said that voting for third parties wouldn't help. Even if you cost them elections, the math works out so it's foolish for Democrats to move left to appeal to you. Pulling the American public left to you, so the Democrats can take up your view and win, is the only thing to do.
Dadahead's response focuses largely on criticizing this assertion of mine: "Assuming a normal distribution of voters across each of the political/philosophical axes, moving left puts [Democrats] at risk of losing the people in the center, and there are way more voters in the center than on the edges." I think he'd say that my caveat -- "Now if you have some reason to think that there isn't a normal (bell-shaped) distribution on your issue, this analysis may not apply." -- is applicable to lots more cases than I think it is. He accepts that we're in the minority with regard to parental consent laws and gay marriage, though I think we both agree that our pro-gay stance is a great investment for the future.
To pick just one issue, there is enormous support in the political 'center' for government-guaranteed universal healthcare, a paradigmatically 'progressive' issue. The same goes for rolling back upper-class tax cuts, keeping Social Security, avoiding unnecessary wars, etc.
I agree with dadahead, his friends at the DLC, and John Kerry that rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the rich is something to push for without hesitation. Against Bush's Social Security Death Star, Han and Lando have put aside their grievances, the shields are down, and the Millenium Falcon has flown into the core reactor shaft. When this fight is over, we're going to have a big Ewok party on Endor with New Democrats kissing Deaniacs while the ghosts of Obi-Wan and Franklin Roosevelt smile upon us.
Serious health care reform, however, is an issue on which we've got to do a lot of work to persuade Americans to our side. They'll love it once everyone gets nice cheap health insurance, but irrational fears of government interference in the economy will make them fear it until they have it. We'll be up against an insurance industry fighting for its life. Americans only love government programs that already exist, and the insurers will make our proposal seem like the scariest piece of socialized medicine ever. I don't believe we have the power yet to win this fight, though I'd be really happy to be proven wrong. In any case, I see this as the time for people like us to lay the groundwork. (If anyone can sell health care reform in the near term, I think it's John Edwards.)
And then there's Iraq. Look, if everyone had seen in advance how it would turn out -- no WMD, no terrorist links, terrible management, the destruction of American soft power, a medium-term crippling of the American military, huge costs, Iraq becoming Jihad University, an interminable military commitment, so many dead -- Republicans might have nixed it themselves. (Sure, most of them won't say that now. They don't have the courage to flip-flop.) The Democratic wing of the Democratic Party was right on this all the way. But questions of retroactive political strategy are not easy here. After an easy-looking campaign in Afghanistan, and after earlier successes in Bosnia and Kosovo and a disastrous non-war in Rwanda, Americans simply didn't think things would go wrong in war. For years, they had been taught that Saddam was the biggest villian on earth, and they were terrified by 9/11 and anthrax. Could we have convinced them that this wasn't going to go well? (I wouldn't have expected Bush to screw things up so badly either. I mean, I thought he'd do a bad job, but the sheer botchery that has occurred is pretty phenomenal.) I suppose we could've tried a "finish Afghanistan first!" message. Or maybe we could have made our strong stand, gotten slaughtered at the polls in '02, regrouped, and won in '04 with a pure and clear message. Who knows?
I really don't see myself as a liberal or a centrist, as these intra-party disputes go. I'm just a utilitarian, trying to avoid the Pundit's Fallacy, and playing the hand I'm dealt.
John McCain and Girls from Maine
Norquist supports my view that McCain Dealt himself out of the 2008 GOP primary:
Can't say I especially like the belittling use of "girls" here. I mean, I've occasionally called them the "girls from Maine" myself, but the connotations are all different. It's more like, "If the Senate is close and we send them a real nice invitation, I wonder if the girls from Maine will come to our Party?" I know it's just a fantasy and they don't think of us that way, but a boy can dream...
Speaking to the same group a few hours later, party strategist Grover Norquist lambasted three Republicans who broke party ranks over the issue of judicial filibusters. He referred to them as "the two girls from Maine and the nut-job from Arizona" – Sens. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe and John McCain.
Can't say I especially like the belittling use of "girls" here. I mean, I've occasionally called them the "girls from Maine" myself, but the connotations are all different. It's more like, "If the Senate is close and we send them a real nice invitation, I wonder if the girls from Maine will come to our Party?" I know it's just a fantasy and they don't think of us that way, but a boy can dream...
Sunday, June 26, 2005
In praise of Fafblog
The last month or so of blogging has been exciting -- two guestblogging stints at Ezra's place, and sitemeter-spinning links from Brian Leiter (about Porter Goss' secret identity) and Matt Yglesias (about my advice for Riot Girls). But perhaps the coolest thing is that I'm now blogrolled by Fafblog! To commemorate this exciting event, I present five of my favorite Fafblog quotes:
Giblets against John Edwards:
He is a trial lawyer! As a trial lawyer Edwards repeatedly stole money from poor corporations to give to greedy children crippled by their products! Do we really need a vice president who is a lackey of Big Children? Giblets thinks not!
Fafnir on interacting with Republicans in NYC:
Show your Republican that your home an culture are nothin to be afraid of. Take him to the park or to a Yankees game! Remember to bring lots of umbrellas an sunscreen because your Republican is not used to the harsh light of open nature. He has been raised in dark squalid caves filled with toxic poisons where he hunts bats an small elves for sustenance. Do not take your Republican to a museum! He comes from a "Red State" where all art is banned an has been replaced by very large engines eternally pumpin greenhouse gases into the atmosphere for no reason whatsoever.
Fafnir on extraordinary rendition:
maybe the torture jobs we send overseas will help build up the foreign torture markets so overseas torturers can get better salaries an buy more goods an help their economies in developin countries an such. Global torture lifts everybody's boat and we all win the end! Or just turn into monsters.
Fafnir on the election:
“Eleven States voted to Define Marriage tonight,” says Lester Holt, “and they have Defined it as a slow-moving, thick-skulled poison-spitting reptile that hates queers. America has spoken.”
Giblets on pigs and academic advice:
Giblets is proud of his beloved pet pig and has decided to reward it with a delicious treat. A treat like dynamite!
"You really shouldn't feed dynamite to your pig," says Juan Cole, mideast expert and professor of pig studies. "Dynamite has never been a safe feed for pigs and has only resulted in disaster for pigs and the pig community."
Oh what do you know Juan Cole! Your expertise in the fields of pig history and pig theory just means you have swallowed the standard academic dogma regarding the pig-dynamite dynamic! Giblets has reason to believe his pig will receive fantastic dynapig powers, but Cole has been too heavily indoctrinated by pigs and Arabists to see the truth.
"Dynamite is explosive," says Juan Cole. "If you feed it to your pig, your pig will explode."
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Philosophical advice for Riot Girls
Amanda makes the old Marxists proud -- by placating the workers, the moderate socialists prevent revolution! -- as she makes their move in a feminist context:
I think this the thing to consider: In the absence of Avril and Alanis, who would fill their space and get their audience? My guess is that bands like Bikini Kill wouldn't, especially in the Avril case. If some necessary aspects of teenybopper marketing preclude feminism, you don't get feminist teenybopperhood. Now maybe these antifeminist aspects of teenybopper marketing can be avoided, even while getting Avril's audience, or at least a large portion of it. This isn't an area that I know much about, so I don't know what the counterfactual possibilities look like. But if a world without Avril has Justin Timberlake devouring her audience, a pro-Avril position may be the one to take. The problem isn't her, it's whatever social phenomenon blocks a better version of her. There, O Riot Girl, shall you find your true enemy.
In fact, I would argue that Morrissette and Stefani and all their little Avril Lavigne imitators are actually bad for women because they provide nice little outlets that help contain female rage so that it's not turn onto tearing down the institutions that oppress us.
I think this the thing to consider: In the absence of Avril and Alanis, who would fill their space and get their audience? My guess is that bands like Bikini Kill wouldn't, especially in the Avril case. If some necessary aspects of teenybopper marketing preclude feminism, you don't get feminist teenybopperhood. Now maybe these antifeminist aspects of teenybopper marketing can be avoided, even while getting Avril's audience, or at least a large portion of it. This isn't an area that I know much about, so I don't know what the counterfactual possibilities look like. But if a world without Avril has Justin Timberlake devouring her audience, a pro-Avril position may be the one to take. The problem isn't her, it's whatever social phenomenon blocks a better version of her. There, O Riot Girl, shall you find your true enemy.
The Boobs of Justice
Now that Ashcroft is gone, the 1930s-era "Spirit of Justice" statue at the Justice Department can bare its breasts. Maybe the topless male "Majesty of Law" statue nearby will give it beads.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Taft for dog catcher!
From an article about the travails of Bob Taft, now in trouble due to Coingate:
I've heard this expression before, and I'm curious -- has "dog catcher" ever been an elected position anywhere? It seems like the kind of position that one gets appointed, or more likely, hired to. What kind of platform would you run on, anyway? Would your opponents attack you for being soft on dogs? Would you get PAC money from companies that sold nets?
His political service is over to the state," said Charles Burke, a political science professor at Baldwin-Wallace College. "I don't think he could be elected dog catcher in Cincinnati."
I've heard this expression before, and I'm curious -- has "dog catcher" ever been an elected position anywhere? It seems like the kind of position that one gets appointed, or more likely, hired to. What kind of platform would you run on, anyway? Would your opponents attack you for being soft on dogs? Would you get PAC money from companies that sold nets?
Save the frogs!
Biodiversity is useful:
Before the arrival of Spanish colonizers some 500 years ago, Indians in what is now Ecuador dipped their arrowheads in venom extracted from the phantasmal poison frog to doom their victims to convulsive death, scientists believe.
More recently, epibatidine -- the chemical which paralyzed and killed the Indians' enemies -- has been isolated to produce a pain killer 200 times more powerful than morphine, but without that drug's addictive and toxic side effects.
Pharmaceutical companies have not yet brought epibatidine to market but hope to discover other chemicals with powerful properties in frogs, which are a traditional source of medicine and food for many of Ecuador's Indians.
They may want to hurry because the treasure trove of the world's frogs and toads is disappearing at a catastrophic rate.
Us and what army?
I'm not entirely happy with this advice from Matt:
First, it's not about seeing Bush admit anything -- it's about wrecking Republican credibility on foreign policy for a generation. But second and more importantly, it's hard to see what power Democrats have here. Unless something truly special happens, we won't have a Senate majority before 2008. And this is an issue where the executive branch still has more power -- what can legislators do here besides vote against funding (or worse, filibuster it) and get whacked for not supporting the troops? If Bush wants to spend the next four years as a lame duck chasing a white whale, Democrats won't be able to stop him. Now, there might be political benefits to be achieved by staking out one position rather than another, but it's hard for me to see how the Democrats can causally contribute to an early pullout.
(There is also the small matter that things in Iraq are not going well, and we'd have to push a weird smily message through suicide car bombings and all manner of political instability.)
I think those of us who'd like to see the troops brought home soonish are going to need to choose between two things: a desire for a withdrawal schedule, and a desire to see George W. Bush admit that he was wrong about everything and he's a really bad president. The shortest route between where we are today and withdrawal is a positive, upbeat, adequately nationalistic argument that we've accomplished just about everything we can hope to accomplish and that it's time to move on to other things... If that strategy works, it means letting the president take a victory lap that liberals won't feel he deserves. That'll be a bitter pill to swallow, but the alternative is to absolutely ensure that the war continues through 2008.
First, it's not about seeing Bush admit anything -- it's about wrecking Republican credibility on foreign policy for a generation. But second and more importantly, it's hard to see what power Democrats have here. Unless something truly special happens, we won't have a Senate majority before 2008. And this is an issue where the executive branch still has more power -- what can legislators do here besides vote against funding (or worse, filibuster it) and get whacked for not supporting the troops? If Bush wants to spend the next four years as a lame duck chasing a white whale, Democrats won't be able to stop him. Now, there might be political benefits to be achieved by staking out one position rather than another, but it's hard for me to see how the Democrats can causally contribute to an early pullout.
(There is also the small matter that things in Iraq are not going well, and we'd have to push a weird smily message through suicide car bombings and all manner of political instability.)
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Secret identity
In an interview with Time, CIA director Porter Goss reveals his dark secret.
He's the Medium Lobster.
And to think he appeared to be just another CIA director. To our limited perception.
He's the Medium Lobster.
Q. When will we get Osama Bin Laden?
Goss: That is a question that goes far deeper than you know...
Q. It sounds like you have a pretty good idea of where he is. Where?
Goss: I have an excellent idea of where he is. What's the next question?
Q. ...Could the US go to war again based on false intelligence?
Goss: I would not agree to surmise that America has gone to war based on false intelligence. I would say that the right question is: Should America be checking out threats to America?
And to think he appeared to be just another CIA director. To our limited perception.
Your source for horse porn
After installing the Sitemeter hit counter (the TrueFresco counter was making pages take too long to load) I got the ability to see the search strings that bring people here. I learned, much to my astonishment, that many visitors to this site seek pornographic images involving horses. This is what happens when you engage in reasoned argument about the moral status of bestiality. People routed to that page include europe horse sex aficionados, Arabic speakers, and those merely interested in werewolf sex. Some other blogs appear in the listings if you do horse-sex-related searches, though this mostly results from comment spamming by porn sites.
In other news, I'm #5 on Google for "gay dudes". I rise to second when those words are in quotes. (I am not, by the way, a gay dude.) My daily visitors are in the high double digits, which is more than I expected.
In other news, I'm #5 on Google for "gay dudes". I rise to second when those words are in quotes. (I am not, by the way, a gay dude.) My daily visitors are in the high double digits, which is more than I expected.
Friday, June 17, 2005
Weekend at Ezra's
Looks like I'm going to be Ezra's werewolf this weekend! Last time went really well, and I'm looking forward to doing this again. No more posts here today, but you'll know where to find me tomorrow.
[Update]: My work is done! And here it is:
Torturing Straw Men: Republicans confuse the torture debate by not mentioning the actual torture.
Big Bird's Values Are My Values: Family-friendly Democrats should get behind PBS and Family Choice Cable.
Don't Kick the Donkey: When moderate Democrats attack liberals, they actually give the party a left-wing reputation.
Gird Your Loins: Focusing on Bush's non-planning for Iraqi reconstruction will make sure that blame is properly placed.
Things Happen in Gitmo: Silly Republicans! This T-shirt does not help you!
Elizabeth Anderson Will Set You Free: Traffic laws show why libertarians are wrong about freedom. Liz is awesome.
While I'm linking to stuff, let me direct you to a short Laura Rozen post on how the incompetence of John Bolton prevents America from getting anything done.
[Update]: My work is done! And here it is:
Torturing Straw Men: Republicans confuse the torture debate by not mentioning the actual torture.
Big Bird's Values Are My Values: Family-friendly Democrats should get behind PBS and Family Choice Cable.
Don't Kick the Donkey: When moderate Democrats attack liberals, they actually give the party a left-wing reputation.
Gird Your Loins: Focusing on Bush's non-planning for Iraqi reconstruction will make sure that blame is properly placed.
Things Happen in Gitmo: Silly Republicans! This T-shirt does not help you!
Elizabeth Anderson Will Set You Free: Traffic laws show why libertarians are wrong about freedom. Liz is awesome.
While I'm linking to stuff, let me direct you to a short Laura Rozen post on how the incompetence of John Bolton prevents America from getting anything done.
Bad logo
Here's the website of a North Korean front group, the Korean Friendship Association. When people are afraid of your capacity to shoot nuclear missiles at other countries, having a logo with four lightning bolts striking outward isn't likely to put anyone in the mood for friendship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)