Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[MindDetective]

I don't think you guys are fully familiarized by just how much is in a trillion. This isn't "millions," which is already expensive and more than probably all three of us put together have seen.
1 million seconds is eleven and a half days.
1 Trillion seconds is 31 and a half THOUSAND years.

And last anybody looked, we've pretty much already trillioned ourselves to the brink.

I can do math too! 80 trillion over 40 years with 7 billion people on the planet amounts to an average of about $286 per year per person. Naturally wealthier nations would carry more of the burden and poorer nations less. Also, it is rounded up a bit, but it is in the ballpark. The lesson? Big numbers = scary and small numbers = meh. Having not read the report, I don't know how they came up with the number but the numbers they generated don't sound calamitous. My guess is, though, that their report is about as predictive as Malthus' was way back when.

 

[GasBandit]

I can do math too! 80 trillion over 40 years with 7 billion people on the planet amounts to an average of about $286 per year per person. Naturally wealthier nations would carry more of the burden and poorer nations less. Also, it is rounded up a bit, but it is in the ballpark. The lesson? Big numbers = scary and small numbers = meh. Having not read the report, I don't know how they came up with the number but the numbers they generated don't sound calamitous. My guess is, though, that their report is about as predictive as Malthus' was way back when.

"Wealthier nations carrying more" usually equates to "The US and some of Europe." And we're a little on the strapped side at the moment, what with not being able to afford our own "mere" 3 trillion dollar/year budget.

 

[MindDetective]

But is it coming from government? Sounds like it involves a significant business investment. Again, I didn't read the report, though. The opinion piece you linked was outraged about investing in third world nations. If it is a business investment and it garners a return on that investment, does it matter that it is a third world nation?

I will agree that I generally think that people these days desire change to occur right away. I'm for change, but at a reasonable pace.

 

[@Li3n]

"Wealthier nations carrying more" usually equates to "The US and some of Europe." And we're a little on the strapped side at the moment, what with not being able to afford our own "mere" 3 trillion dollar/year budget.

If we still have this problem in 40 years we won't be the wealthy nations...

Also, relevant: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/...efficiency-standard-will-lower-energy-bills”/

And that's a year for just one thing...

 

[GasBandit]

Sorry lads, work kept me busy today. So I'll just wrap up the week by copypasta'ing one thing:

Polls show that a majority of Americans say that both the Republicans and Democrats are doing such a poor job representing the people that a new, third party is needed. In fact, the Founding Fathers warned us about the threat from a two party system.

John Adams said:

There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.​

George Washington agreed, saying in his farewell presidential speech:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty​

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind, (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight,) the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.​

It serves always to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.​

There is an opinion, that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the Government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of Liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in Governments of a Monarchical cast, Patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in Governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.​

 

[MindDetective]

I would love to have more options. The options appear to be a parliamentary system or some kind of rank-ordered voting. I'm all for trying a new voting system first, since it will be easiest to adapt. But the major parties would have to enact it and they are the ones who would be directly hurt by enacting it. How do you propose such changes get passed?

 

[AshburnerX]

I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees that a valid third party choice would do wonders for the American political system.

 

[GasBandit]

I would love to have more options. The options appear to be a parliamentary system or some kind of rank-ordered voting. I'm all for trying a new voting system first, since it will be easiest to adapt. But the major parties would have to enact it and they are the ones who would be directly hurt by enacting it. How do you propose such changes get passed?

The rank-ordered voting you are referring to is called "instant runoff." It's in use in some other places. As for how we accomplish it, it would either take a massive, populist uprising on the scale and organization of which would make the Tea Party look like a sparsely attended flashmob, a successful revolution, or just waiting for the next do-over once what we have collapses under its own weight.

Seasoned readers will already know which I consider to be the most likely at this time.

And I'm not for a third party. I'm for the elimination of parties altogether. So was George Washington.

 

[MindDetective]

People are social creatures. I think they naturally congeal into groups. I would rather have a system that accounts for that tendency than one that naively ignores it.

 

[GasBandit]

People are social creatures. I think they naturally congeal into groups. I would rather have a system that accounts for that tendency than one that naively ignores it.

Our best societal advances have all come by denying our underlying impulses, as others are often quick to point out to me. Besides, removing political parties wouldn't remove advocacy groups. For example, a given candidate, having no party, could be endorsed by the AMA, the AARP, the NEA, etc. It's just important to remove parties from the political process as an internal machine whose first interest is only to increase the power of the party itself.

 

[MindDetective]

I could be persuaded on the second part. The first part is untrue, though. The biology of males in particular seems to drive productivity. Check out the crime-genius connection: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/JRP2003.pdf

 

[GasBandit]

I could be persuaded on the second part. The first part is untrue, though. The biology of males in particular seems to drive productivity. Check out the crime-genius connection: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://personal.lse.ac.uk/Kanazawa/pdfs/JRP2003.pdf

I didn't say productivity, I said societal advances. You can be productive as all hell without advancing society. On a biological model, there's little in the world less productive than a (faithful) gay marriage, but its legalization is still societal progress.

I feel it somewhat related to the phrase "Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

I do however think the "crime-genius connection" is an awesome term.

 

[MindDetective]

I didn't say productivity, I said societal advances. You can be productive as all hell without advancing society. On a biological model, there's little in the world less productive than a (faithful) gay marriage, but its legalization is still societal progress.

I feel it somewhat related to the phrase "Democracy must be more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

I do however think the "crime-genius connection" is an awesome term.

1.) It was an example. 2.) It was an article about geniuses! We practically measure advancements in technology and science (and politics) by the milestones they record. 3.) Productivity and advances are likely to be highly correlated. 90% perspiration and all that.

As for gay marriage and progress, you're heading into highly subjective territory there. By a similar token one might say that a universal health care system would be a sign of progress. Unless you have a concrete measure of social and political progress (objective measures of life, liberty, and happiness?) then we'll just be chasing our tails over what the term means.

 

[GasBandit]

1.) It was an example. 2.) It was an article about geniuses! We practically measure advancements in technology and science (and politics) by the milestones they record. 3.) Productivity and advances are likely to be highly correlated. 90% perspiration and all that.

As for gay marriage and progress, you're heading into highly subjective territory there. By a similar token one might say that a universal health care system would be a sign of progress. Unless you have a concrete measure of social and political progress (objective measures of life, liberty, and happiness?) then we'll just be chasing our tails over what the term means.

Oh, it'd be a sign of progress... progress toward WHAT is the question here

I gotta go home now. But last thought for the day, before I go - from someone I seldom agree with but have to chuckle and nod at this time -

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.” - Warren Buffett

 

[Krisken]

What people want is people who will represent them. Won't happen so long as money is the most important voice in an elected official's ear.

 

[Covar]

Unless you have a concrete measure of social and political progress (objective measures of life, liberty, and happiness?) then we'll just be chasing our tails over what the term means.

It's pursuit. PURSUIT of hapiness.

People do not have a right to hapiness. They have a right to pursue hapiness. To go out into the world and make something for themselves.

 

[MindDetective]

It's pursuit. PURSUIT of hapiness.

People do not have a right to hapiness. They have a right to pursue hapiness. To go out into the world and make something for themselves.

Yeah, I know. It was a freakin' parenthetical aside!

 

[Covar]

it's ok, sorry. Pet peeve of mine.

 

[Eriol]

“I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.” - Warren Buffett

That's really awesome.

Anyways, I actually replied to address your comment against the party system entirely last page Gas. I actually used to hold the same view (and that's even in a country with 2.5-3 parties like Canada has), but IMO the biggest thing that occurs when the party system even STARTS breaking down is that individuals become FAR easier to bribe. Of course it's not called "bribery" but that's still exactly what's occurring. Influence if you prefer. Parties can cut a lot of that out. I will totally agree that a two-party system sucks in so many ways, but when you get beyond that (even without other voting schemes, as suggested here) many of the downsides of parties evaporate. It's the two-party system that's the problem, not parties in general.

That's not even addressing your dominant problem: people don't swing votes. You guys talk about 1% shifts as "dramatic" or whatever (I've seen your news). It's SO f'n close to the line all the time everywhere (it's scary how close it is to 50% both ways in most of your states) that nobody can afford to piss ANYBODY off, and thus nobody can afford (in votes) to cut programs when needed. Ideologies (both sides) almost go out the window in the need to get elected. Thus your elections become a never-ending river of pork spending. If a politician with a great idea could actually swing 20% (or more) of voters, then things could get done, as they wouldn't be afraid of pissing off 1%. IMO that's your guys' (USA's) biggest issue. You need a party to actually pull ahead. Until that happens, spending will be never-ending.

 

[@Li3n]

So, apparently it's totally legal to call blatant lies news now: http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox’s actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury’s words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida’s whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.
FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation.” In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a “law, rule, or regulation,” it was simply a “policy.” Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”
UPDATE BY LIANE CASTEN: If we needed any more proof that we now live in an upside down world, the saga of Jane Akre, along with her husband, Steve Wilson, could not be more compelling.
Akre and Wilson won the first legal round. Akre was awarded $425,000 in a jury trial with well-crafted arguments for their wrongful termination as whistleblowers. And in the process, they also won the prestigious “Goldman Environmental” prize for their outstanding efforts. However, FOX turned around and appealed the verdict. This time, FOX won; the original verdict was overturned in the Appellate Court of Florida’s Second District. The court implied there was no restriction against distorting the truth. Technically, there was no violation of the news distortion because the FCC’s policy of news distortion does not have the weight of the law. Thus, said the court, Akre-Wilson never qualified as whistleblowers.
What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media players! Their statement, “The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim.”
“Fairness and balance?” Monsanto hardly demonstrated “fairness and balance” when it threatened a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of important, verifiable information!
The Amici position was “If upheld by this court, the decision would convert personnel actions arising from disagreements over editorial policy into litigation battles in which state courts would interpret and apply federal policies that raise significant and delicate constitutional and statutory issues.” After all, Amici argued, 40 states now have Whistleblower laws, imagine what would happen if employees in those 40 states followed the same course of action?
The position implies that First Amendment rights belong to the employers – in this case the five power media groups. And when convenient, the First Amendment becomes a broad shield to hide behind. Let’s not forget, however; the airwaves belong to the people. Is there no public interest left-while these media giants make their private fortunes using the public airwaves? Can corporations have the power to influence the media reporting, even at the expense of the truth? Apparently so.
In addition, the five “friends” referred to FCC policies. The five admit they are “vitally interested in the outcome of this appeal, which will determine the extent to which state whistleblower laws may incorporate federal policies that touch on sensitive questions of editorial judgment.”
Anyone concerned with media must hear the alarm bells. The Bush FCC, under Michael Powell’s leadership, has shown repeatedly that greater media consolidation is encouraged, that liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are perfectly acceptable, that to refer to the FCC interpretation of “editorial judgment” is to potentially throw out any pretense at editorial accuracy if the “accuracy” harms a large corporation and its bottom line. This is our “Brave New Media”, the corporate media that protects its friends and now lies, unchallenged if need be.
The next assault: the Fox station then filed a series of motions in a Tampa Circuit Court seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson. The motions were filed on March 30 and April 16 by Fox attorney, William McDaniels-who bills his client at $525 to $550 an hour. The costs are to cover legal fees and trial costs incurred by FOX in defending itself at the first trial. The issue may be heard by the original trial judge, Ralph Steinberg-a logical step in the whole process. However, Judge Steinberg must come out of retirement if he is to hear this, so the hearing, set for June 1, may go to a new judge, Judge Maye.
Akre and her husband feel the stress. “There is no justification for the five stations not to support us,” she said. “Attaching legal fees to whistleblowers is unprecedented, absurd. The ‘business’ of broadcasting trumps it all. These news organizations must ensure they are worthy of the public trust while they use OUR airwaves, free of charge. Public trust is alarmingly absent here.”
Indeed. This is what our corporate media, led by such as Rupert Murdoch, have come to. How low we have fallen.

And yet no one complains about ads having to be truthful...

 

[AshburnerX]

Technically, they are correct. There is no criminal law preventing a news station from broadcasting news they know to be false. There ARE, however, civil charges. If Fox knowingly lied about the practices and then broadcasted them, the people affected by that lie (in this case the stores) could sue them for Slander. Considering the people seeking damages against FOX would have two witnesses that can corroborate the act, they'd have a slam dunk.

 

[@Li3n]

Considering the people seeking damages against FOX would have two witnesses that can corroborate the act, they'd have a slam dunk.

Until the appeal anyway...

 

[@Li3n]

The Economist: SHAME ON THEM!

 

[Krisken]

Pfft, liberal media.

 

[GasBandit]

Charles Krauthammer nails Obama on deficit reduction in his latest column: The Elmendorf Rule.

The government has run a deficit for 33 straight months, dating back to October 2008, the longest streak since the Treasury Department began keeping records in 1980.

The political philosopher P. J. O'Rourke said, "You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money." If anyone doubted that, the present inhabitant of the White House has proven it.

New information indicates that Attorney General Eric Holder's actions are squarely behind operation "Fast and Furious," meaning he gave false information to a Congressional Committee last May.

 

[@Li3n]

The political philosopher P. J. O'Rourke said, "You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money."

I'm pretty sure the US proved that countless times already... you actually need a plan in how you use that money...

 

[GasBandit]

Obama and the Democrats will do everything in their power to avoid saying the word “taxes.”

Nearly one in five recent graduates is out of work.

Barack Obama contradicts himself on tax increases within nine minutes during his presser yesterday.

Here’s a look at how we balanced the budget last time, in the 1990s.

Democrats admit that the only reason they are working so hard to maintain Medicare is because it gives them a political advantage.

Michele Bachmann seems to have taken the lead in Iowa.

South California for the 51st state?

 

[@Li3n]

Democrats admit that the only reason they are working so hard to maintain Medicare is because it gives them a political advantage.

So they're only doing it for political gain... man, who does that? (A: Politicians)

 

[Krisken]

Wait, didn't Republicans used to do that too?

 

[GasBandit]

Sorry for going MIA this week guys... shit's gettin' real at work. ANOTHER TRAFFIC DIRECTOR IS QUITTING. That makes 5 in the last 2 years or so.

 

[AshburnerX]

Could this be the Republican plan? Some Republicans believe that Obama will take all the blame, should we default.

I think that has to be the most inane thing imaginable. The President has been on TV multiple days straight, being very forth coming about all that has been going down during the talks. If anything, he owns the narrative this time.

 

[@Li3n]

No, no, no... what they have to do is give Obama power to raise the debt ceiling by himself, and then they can make some sort of paper that says they want it stopped that Obama can veto... then the blame will be on him while the country doesn't default...

The above is what some republican actually suggested on TV no less...

 

[GasBandit]

I don't think the republicans will win the chicken game on this one. The debt ceiling will be raised, the only question is if it will happen before or after we miss a payment on something (which will, of course, only happen because we absolutely refuse to reduce spending).

MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR, PBS, NYT, WaPo and the rest will make sure the president ducks any blame.

 

[AshburnerX]

He really doesn't need their help on this one. He's been doing Presidential addresses during this and he's been making it very clear to the people that he wants this to work out, but he's not going to bend to these idiots. This is opposed to the Republicans, who can't seem to go five minutes without telling someone that this is a game to them and that they are doing their damnedest to ensure Obama takes the hit for this, not them.

They wouldn't be in this god damn situation to begin with if they hadn't spent years pandering to the basest of human beings, feeding off of their hate and seemingly inexhaustible amount of free time to campaign. Then again, none of us would be in this if we hadn't spent trillions of dollars on a war we were destined to lose.

 

[GasBandit]

He really doesn't need their help on this one. He's been doing Presidential addresses during this and he's been making it very clear to the people that he wants this to work out, but he's not going to bend to these idiots. This is opposed to the Republicans, who can't seem to go five minutes without telling someone that this is a game to them and that they are doing their damnedest to ensure Obama takes the hit for this, not them.

They wouldn't be in this god damn situation to begin with if they hadn't spent years pandering to the basest of human beings, feeding off of their hate and seemingly inexhaustible amount of free time to campaign. Then again, none of us would be in this if we hadn't spent trillions of dollars on a war we were destined to lose.

However mad we are about Bush's overspending (and he did, even not counting a NOT superfluous war), Obama's set to outspend Bush by 3 to 1, coming close to outspending every single previous president put together including Bush. One could also make the argument we wouldn't be in this mess if we weren't spending money on trillions in entitlements that were destined to perpetuate a second-class citizenry, or if we didn't try to social-engineer the insolvent into homeownership and set the precedent that there is no such thing as risk because the federal government will bail everyone out, always and forever etc ad nauseum. The point is we spend too much. Both parties spend too much, they just have different things they want to spend on. The size and expense of the federal government is the problem here, and the power it wields which basically means that the foxes have the keys to the henhouse in perpetuity since only the foxes can decide when the keys should be given up.

Frankly, I think the solution would otherwise be simple - Part 1: no arbitrary debt limit. It's been raised so many times it's meaningless anyway.. but the kicker is part 2: no sitting representative in congress is eligible for re-election while the deficit is more than 3% of GDP. Yes, that's the warren buffett thing from last week. Heh.
Added at: 13:14
Senator Tom Corburn will introduce a $9 trillion deficit-reduction package today.

Who is leading the GOP field when it comes to donations? It’s not even close…

The achievement gap this year between Washington and the states is astonishing, and crosses party lines.

The earth has not gotten any warmer in nearly 15 years. What’s going on?

A federal court ruled last week that the “naked scans” of air travelers do not violate Americans’ constitutional rights.

Another day, another evil lemonade stand shut down by government officials for not having a license.