tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59105231630319704812024-02-22T13:56:17.073-08:00MacrofluffMemes mobilizing in resistance to the ongoing assault on science, education, and rational thought in generalRhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-84813514349184414472013-01-21T15:35:00.002-08:002013-01-21T15:41:54.476-08:00Constitution: Obama is not President<div>
<br /></div>
According to the Constitution:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;"><i><b>Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."</b></i></span></blockquote>
<br />
Okay, if you allow the exclusion of the parenthetical "(or affirm)" then Obama met these terms. So he is President. The addition of "<b>so help me God</b>" at the end obviously doesn't negate the required oath it followed, but there is still something very wrong:<br />
<br />
An <a href="http://www.restorethepledge.com/live/litigation/inaugural/docs/2008-12-30%20Original%20Complaint.pdf">unsuccessful lawsuit</a> attempted to "enjoin Defendant Roberts ... from altering the constitutionally-prescribed text of the presidential oath of office while administering that oath to the President-elect ...." <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There is nothing legally wrong with the President voluntarily saying "so help me God" or "just kidding" or even reciting "jabberwocky" following the oath, but for anything to be added to the oath by the official administering it at the very least undermines the Constitutional provision of Article II, Section 1, clause eight, in which the <i><b>oath itself is explicitly specified</b></i>.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
By adding those specific words, however, Roberts violates more than just Article II Section 1 of the Constitution. Article VI specifically states that:</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i><span style="font-family: Georgia, Times New Roman, serif;">...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.</span></i></b></blockquote>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXFeN6v3gBPNliQsCBGjGxUWsL6AVwLRjIV9m6srrdSxkwWx22fIfQ8eoxZQIKWZIBKwh40ylcoWW85jqAEGvUWseePUrWHzk1nmftKCzSYF1ZTAEf_dC2QtO5fUbEcsU-VbhL8lLTSHY/s1600/No-religious-test-of-office.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="124" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXFeN6v3gBPNliQsCBGjGxUWsL6AVwLRjIV9m6srrdSxkwWx22fIfQ8eoxZQIKWZIBKwh40ylcoWW85jqAEGvUWseePUrWHzk1nmftKCzSYF1ZTAEf_dC2QtO5fUbEcsU-VbhL8lLTSHY/s320/No-religious-test-of-office.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div>
Requiring the recitation of an oath affirming some aspect of one's religion is very definition of religious test! The courts have upheld state-lead recition of pledge of allegiance, altered to include the phrase "under God," on the grounds that recitation of the pledge is not compulsory, but this oath is compulsory!</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<div>
The lawsuit also claims the violation of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Those arguments are less clear to me. They hinge on the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A state-sanctioned religious ceremony implies some disrespect for the First Amendment, but that decision was made a long time ago, and the secularists lost.<br />
<br />
We became a Christian nation in the 1950s when, after a 150 year battle, that portion of the First Amendment was revoked. Though the text still stands as a meaningless vestige, its interpretation is so weak as to be worthless in the protection of any minority against the establishment of a religious preference by the government -- while it could no doubt be effectively <i>applied </i>in the protection of the religious majority, it is not necessary to do so since political pressure protects them already.</div>
</div>
RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-14944372649238012972013-01-02T20:06:00.001-08:002013-01-02T20:19:38.633-08:00How Dems Got a "Good Deal" on Fiscal Cliff<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4J6ARpcu4JfMVbBk7Kk6HUwZEuJ5fIuqw4oWFYbOVfPwRuLnY0yM1rfsuv6UPjq16ZySsnZICOBxUwLhiGtAYTWmV0pQc4OF5sqqx0IKHC7vEaP1WyGyxIlseo-bPD5UCBcEYhlvYhqE/s1600/556657_10150936186401275_943657258_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4J6ARpcu4JfMVbBk7Kk6HUwZEuJ5fIuqw4oWFYbOVfPwRuLnY0yM1rfsuv6UPjq16ZySsnZICOBxUwLhiGtAYTWmV0pQc4OF5sqqx0IKHC7vEaP1WyGyxIlseo-bPD5UCBcEYhlvYhqE/s320/556657_10150936186401275_943657258_n.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<b>If it <i>seems </i>like Democrats got a "good deal" on the fiscal cliff negotiations, there are two reasons for that:</b><br />
<br />
(1) To some degree, it seems better in comparison to the bad deal Obama offered two weeks earlier. Lucky for Democrats, <a href="http://www.macrofluff.com/2012/12/obama-concedes-boehner-turns-him-down.html">they rejected it</a>.<br />
<br />
More importantly,<br />
<br />
(2) As I explained in my <a href="http://www.macrofluff.com/2012/12/obama-concedes-boehner-turns-him-down.html">previous post</a>, going over the cliff would give the GOP a bloody face, and every day they stood firm would do long-lasting damage to the Republican brand and give Democrats a better negotiating position. Two weeks ago, the GOP leadership was nowhere near even that worse deal Obama offered, but a few hours after going over the cliff, the GOP leadership allowed Democrats a deal one might not have expected for another week after going over the cliff. Why? Saving face! If the talking points we hear from Republicans today sounds <i>at all</i> like credible arguments from a team that just lost a couple of games rather than hallucinatory ramblings of a fanatic, it's because they were allowed to avoid showing the nation what the fiscal cliff really was and how weak their position really was.<br />
<br />
If it seems that Democrats extracted concessions from Republicans without giving up much in return, it's because they did give up something more abstract, but huge nonetheless: instead of giving the right wing the bloody face they had coming and gutting the Tea Party, Democrats took some favorable policy and allowed the GOP base to continue holding on to the fantasy that they are serious, responsible fiscal conservatives rather than delusional fools.RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-11301164960016433472012-12-19T12:54:00.001-08:002012-12-19T14:49:38.227-08:00Obama Concedes, Boehner Turns Him Down<br />
<br />
Yesterday, the president offered some concessions. He offered to continue the Bush era tax rates on some of the wealthiest 2% of Americans and he offered cuts to Social Security that are unacceptable to much of his base.<br />
<br />
He asked for no concessions from the GOP. John Boehner apparently misunderstood. Instead of offering concessions of his own in return, he rejected the package of concessions as if it were an intermediate Democratic negotiating offer!<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1AxqWmfmHC8Uka74iTz_iBZVh9PAMptXcg6_eGuS3oNOUum0ml90VCXmnz28eVqxexzu4mP3KeHpqDBPN71APeykCvVKpKkyXsW63NEIQ-cABYxHNOBfAneukivcllnH7sqSzd2ImJFg/s1600/bush+deficit+for+real.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="233" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1AxqWmfmHC8Uka74iTz_iBZVh9PAMptXcg6_eGuS3oNOUum0ml90VCXmnz28eVqxexzu4mP3KeHpqDBPN71APeykCvVKpKkyXsW63NEIQ-cABYxHNOBfAneukivcllnH7sqSzd2ImJFg/s320/bush+deficit+for+real.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i>Policy preferences matter, but reality matters more!</i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<b>That's how far apart the two sides are! That's why going over the fiscal cliff is not just an option, but a necessity.</b><br />
<br />
If our future depends on these two sides compromising, it looks like we are doomed. There is a no man's land miles wide considered completely unacceptable by both sides. The usual suspects are all partly to blame, but the more difficult problem is not just disagreement and obstinacy over policy preferences but a far right gone completely mad.<br />
<br />
<b>They are so disconnected from reality, it's not even clear that the far right would go along with getting their <i>own</i> way!</b><br />
<br />
Remember that the fiscal cliff was created by demands of severe deficit reduction under threat of not raising the debt ceiling. Many on the far right opposed raising the debt ceiling at all! What does that even mean? In theory, it means immediately cutting the deficit to zero. But if you write up the details of various scenarios that might actually occur with a failure to raise the debt ceiling, not a single one would actually pass muster with them. The fiscal cliff <b><i>is</i></b> the severe deficit reduction they demanded, not something Democrats asked for. Going over the fiscal cliff will be bad for the economy, and it was never the policy preference of Democrats. Yet even as the GOP mainstream calls spending cuts on the defense side "devastating" and wring hands over the revenue increases [both components that <i>reduce</i> the deficit] even as it is, it still doesn't go far enough to cut the deficit to zero!<br />
<br />
<b>So as we still drive towards the brick wall that is the debt ceiling, the far right simultaneously demands that we accelerate towards the wall faster and not move the wall!</b><br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTWx3WVkJhuo1218nBsXEk8dphzUmqU8jMaa_2N9yrQgtlc6uNXdeyuRvXbrBfGw_Ah5F_SWkdsHuRasScye2bR-MOGyfF_DlUxbguVTsEVXRnfqPADzn3t4mq0xdnJowRF81jgsPy59s/s1600/ryan+deficit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTWx3WVkJhuo1218nBsXEk8dphzUmqU8jMaa_2N9yrQgtlc6uNXdeyuRvXbrBfGw_Ah5F_SWkdsHuRasScye2bR-MOGyfF_DlUxbguVTsEVXRnfqPADzn3t4mq0xdnJowRF81jgsPy59s/s320/ryan+deficit.jpg" width="320" /></a><b>What's more, this demand is not just a preference to them the way not cutting Social Security is to me; <i>failing</i> to follow this path towards suicide is framed as an existential threat!</b><br />
<br />
These nuts have the power to scuttle a compromise, and that's a huge problem. Our only hope is to force them to see reality. It's not just arrogance, pride, or anger that makes me want to rub this reality in the faces of these far right nuts. It is not just obstinacy that makes me want Democrats to go all the way. I would be willing to compromise on a lot of policy points that my fellow progressives would not. But it has become a necessity to go over the cliff. The far right really does now represent an existential threat.<br />
<br />RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-77433640340230850012012-12-09T14:51:00.000-08:002012-12-09T15:08:47.588-08:00Republicans Need an Intellectual Enema<br />
<br />
<header><b><span style="font-size: large;">The GOP is so full of shit, it's put us all at risk. </span></b><b><span style="font-size: large;">Some worry about the dangers of going over the fiscal cliff, but it may be the only thing that can save us!</span></b></header><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin6IvW4tr2YC0ujjXVtvsOGS0r34sqKMXNAkRj6ErVwWeflXhhPAd8F6hQ-YaZaiSPpcwHUDO9ptEBXNCoFH3qD5j6nCSTaIgUKX-ppgEqxZTTzcSiAikAUYQIpYF6urCRUW7COtkuWw8/s1600/give+more+to+the+rich.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin6IvW4tr2YC0ujjXVtvsOGS0r34sqKMXNAkRj6ErVwWeflXhhPAd8F6hQ-YaZaiSPpcwHUDO9ptEBXNCoFH3qD5j6nCSTaIgUKX-ppgEqxZTTzcSiAikAUYQIpYF6urCRUW7COtkuWw8/s320/give+more+to+the+rich.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
The GOP has gone off the deep end. It's been a long time coming, but went into overdrive sometime around Obama's election to the presidency. They went from merely advancing an ideology, which of course <i>sometimes</i> entailed bending the truth, to actively refusing to recognize the most basic facts of reality. Set aside their asinine beliefs about Obama himself, the UN black helicopter conspiracy paranoia, and other fringe nonsense. They GOP mainstream nearly shut down the federal government. They forced a downgrade of US debt, and brought the economic recovery to a halt. Over what? Economic policy!<br />
<br />
In this state of insanity, the GOP is the greatest threat to our country we have seen in a long time. A lot more people die every year in the US due to not having health insurance than from terrorist attacks. Yet, when liberals set aside their desire for a Canadian-style system and instead advanced the broad outlines of the 1990's Republican/Heritage Foundation/Gingrich/Dole/Romney health plan, how did the GOP react? Instead of arguing over minutiae as a sane person would have expected, they screamed bloody-murder government-take-over death-panels!<br />
<br />
It's not a matter of wanting to negotiate in good faith. How does one possibly negotiate in good faith with that?<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b>The GOP is intellectually constipated. They need an enema, and the so-called fiscal cliff might just do the trick.</b></span><br />
<br />
As we head for fiscal triggers negotiated hastily under threats from the GOP to force much <b><i>worse</i></b> economic consequences, we are told that this relatively mild "cliff" must be averted or else we will sink into another recession. Perhaps so, but the alternative may be worse. The triggers were negotiated knowing that it was a bad deal all around designed to deal with a problem that Republicans insisted they cared about: the deficit. The only way a deal could be made is if both sides consider it a better deal than going over the cliff, and remember deficit reduction was the GOP plan -- they demanded this! And yet the first demands of the GOP are to eliminate the the deficit reduction by taking tax increases for the wealthy out and keeping military spending. They want to take credit for reducing the deficit, but they want Democrats to take the blame for <i><b>every</b></i> unpopular step required to do so <i>and</i> give up the most prized Democratic policy achievements of the 20th century that haven't even contributed to the deficit [after campaigning with this silly premise that Democrats were the ones trying to cut Medicare against Republican opposition, Republicans are are now demanding that Democrats explain to the American people what entitlement cuts they would put on the table when most Democrats won't even accept any as part of this deal.]<br />
<br />
The good <i>and</i> bad news is that there is no reason whatsoever for Democrats to take such a deal. Going over the fiscal cliff is a much better deal! What's worse, this absurd start point is what we are being offered by the Republican leadership that their own far-right wing has now accused of selling out to big government socialists.<br />
<br />
<i>Hey you! Remember when you said we should not raise the debt ceiling and we asked "what does that even mean?" and you responded "I'm not listening." Merry Christmas, asshole!</i>RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-37886838514790450012012-12-05T12:53:00.000-08:002012-12-05T13:36:10.537-08:00Please Call your Republican Representative<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji7LefLrQFxSqSSe0yyn-NkFWl1nWRKInVIulP7w7aPSXQXK2xuePGV1UCHO5saZusmVsdvS6U5K3Ort1zulOJUlBdZJHy8KXMoXb_8Vk4b7xtxEBzLKp87MfmF0EUz0tKzE358JE3PFI/s1600/A8zeDY1CMAE0GjE+(1).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="178" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEji7LefLrQFxSqSSe0yyn-NkFWl1nWRKInVIulP7w7aPSXQXK2xuePGV1UCHO5saZusmVsdvS6U5K3Ort1zulOJUlBdZJHy8KXMoXb_8Vk4b7xtxEBzLKp87MfmF0EUz0tKzE358JE3PFI/s320/A8zeDY1CMAE0GjE+(1).jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
If you're like me and you're represented by a Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives, good news! He now has some power to remove one issue from the table in these negotiations: middle class taxes.<br />
<br />
<b>Congressman [Quayle], please take middle class taxes off the table in the fiscal cliff negotiations. I understand that most Republicans want lower taxes on the rich and Democrats mostly disagree. The two parties <i>also</i> don't agree about defense spending, military contracting rules, domestic discretionary spending, research, energy, healthcare entitlements, and more. The are plenty of other chips to play with without holding 98% of American households hostage.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Please do the right thing and sign the discharge petition on H.R. 15 to keep my taxes from increasing.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>Thank you.</b>RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-63607659313201526972012-11-28T11:55:00.003-08:002012-11-28T11:56:08.909-08:00We already won the debate! Tax the rich!<br />
<b><br /></b><b>Point 1: </b>The starting point for negotiation around the fiscal cliff is <b>current law</b>, and <b>current law</b> already raises tax rates on the wealthy, so we don't need to negotiate <b>FOR</b> that point <b>AT ALL</b>! If Republicans want to put that <i>change in law</i> back on the table, they need to offer something monumental in return!<br />
<br />
<b>Point 2:</b> Is keeping lower taxes for the middle class a bargaining chip? If so, whose chip is it to offer and/or fight for? Democrats should <b>OFFER</b> to keep taxes low on the middle class in <b>EXCHANGE</b> for something we want and force the GOP to either fight for lower middle class taxes or admit that their "low tax" stance is a really just a pro-wealth stance. Am I missing something?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghKGJkYtqMEEHfOXwkndUUaIqBbxMOSNbJcF5xQv6fkEgvaKVeJami8rgKN89RF4W_UwMkUYf4a8JtVglcqywFdJL_BNEi1HwDXxAWDD4bkOuCgVgCt2nnzijW1jqW-etKIioxqTqNSaQ/s1600/long+form+tax+return.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghKGJkYtqMEEHfOXwkndUUaIqBbxMOSNbJcF5xQv6fkEgvaKVeJami8rgKN89RF4W_UwMkUYf4a8JtVglcqywFdJL_BNEi1HwDXxAWDD4bkOuCgVgCt2nnzijW1jqW-etKIioxqTqNSaQ/s320/long+form+tax+return.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin6IvW4tr2YC0ujjXVtvsOGS0r34sqKMXNAkRj6ErVwWeflXhhPAd8F6hQ-YaZaiSPpcwHUDO9ptEBXNCoFH3qD5j6nCSTaIgUKX-ppgEqxZTTzcSiAikAUYQIpYF6urCRUW7COtkuWw8/s1600/give+more+to+the+rich.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEin6IvW4tr2YC0ujjXVtvsOGS0r34sqKMXNAkRj6ErVwWeflXhhPAd8F6hQ-YaZaiSPpcwHUDO9ptEBXNCoFH3qD5j6nCSTaIgUKX-ppgEqxZTTzcSiAikAUYQIpYF6urCRUW7COtkuWw8/s320/give+more+to+the+rich.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-52685396685600569162012-10-17T23:56:00.001-07:002012-11-01T11:25:36.571-07:00Candidates for Central Arizona Water Conservation District<br />
*UPDATE* Vote for Heather Macre and Terry Goddard only.<br />
<br />
---------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
As promised, here are the results of my evaluation of the candidates for CAP Board / Central Arizona Water Conservation District.<br />
<br />
These are obviously going to be biased, but to avoid injecting my bias too quickly, I built a formula with four components. I did a lot of guesswork to fill them in, but hoped my mistakes would average out well enough.<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li><b>Subject Matter Expertise</b> - This is, after all, supposedly a non-partisan position, so we want some people who understand the water and infrastructure issues the board deals with.</li>
<li><b>Intellect and Competence</b> - This gives points for intellect as well as knowledge and experience in ancillary areas such as law, finance, energy, politics, etc.</li>
<li><b>Alignment</b> - This gives points based on how well the candidate will represent my personal interests as a consumer and water user, and as a citizen concerned about good government, justice, etc. This scale varied less than others except that over-emphasis on agriculture and mining interests lost a point or two and delusional ideological obsessions lost a lot of points.</li>
<li><b>Sustainability</b> - This score measures my own delusional ideological obsession with maintaining long term stability of ecosystems as well as human civilization and protecting and conserving natural resources for future generations.</li>
</ol>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiP4FRswdxGedrGkYnhMNS2DkA-sqeOya5elKUjktlSC-b3g2HbqFScY1MTIC84hCuRSeYOlZbTyXcJmmE8Uw7I2EqlN4bj_g5OC1WH1_UWygcuVwXfPvUw724t5gzbEnoVRbIGHUM1CA/s1600/CAWCD2012.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiiP4FRswdxGedrGkYnhMNS2DkA-sqeOya5elKUjktlSC-b3g2HbqFScY1MTIC84hCuRSeYOlZbTyXcJmmE8Uw7I2EqlN4bj_g5OC1WH1_UWygcuVwXfPvUw724t5gzbEnoVRbIGHUM1CA/s1600/CAWCD2012.png" /></a></div>
<br />
Goddard and Macre obviously get two of my five possible votes, with scores that win pretty much across the board. What a coincidence that they are the only two Democrats ;)<br />
<br />
If I were just to vote for the five best, I might read more closely to refine the scores, but Guy Carpenter and Robin Bain stand out. Though conservative Republicans, both appear to be strong subject matter experts, so their <i>constructive </i>contributions could make up for some of the negatives they bring to the table. Some people think this is a position where expertise counts.<br />
<br />
Just as important, however, there are four candidates who need to be defeated. Brickman, McGrath, Mecum, and Thom are unqualified and unacceptable!<br />
<br />
Now, the problem is to determine how to vote strategically to meet the <i><b>two </b></i>goals of<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Electing Macre and Goddard and</li>
<li>Stopping the wingnuts from sabotaging our water management system</li>
</ol>
<br />
I am currently leaning towards just voting for my two to increase their chances in this Republican-dominated region and just crossing my fingers in hope that enough Republicans are sane enough to pick their qualified folks instead of their batshit crazy ideologues who have no idea what this office is about....RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-43676744023642942302012-08-08T10:47:00.001-07:002012-08-08T12:06:14.100-07:00Military Groups Push Voter Suppression, Dishonor Service<br />
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://media.theweek.com/img/dir_0050/25264_cartoon_main/metals-of-dishonor.jpg?106" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="227" src="http://media.theweek.com/img/dir_0050/25264_cartoon_main/metals-of-dishonor.jpg?106" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Metals of dishonor, <a href="http://theweek.com/section/cartoon/65/207506/us-military">The Week Magazine</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In case you missed it, our brave military men and women are under attack again in Ohio. They put their life on the line to defend their own position of privilege only to return home and find that their ability to take away the rights of others in question. Wait. What?!?<br />
<br />
Okay, that's not the whole story, but the <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-08-07/fact-check-obama-ohio-military-voting/56859922/1">whole story</a> has me fuming, and it calls into question that special position of honor and respect held for our veterans and military service members. If they want to use that position to take away rights from others [in this case, the ability of civilians to vote early on the weekend before election day because, I don't know, maybe they have to work on Tuesday] and demand those rights be narrowed to special privileges for themselves, then I don't know why we have any special respect for them. Then they <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Ohio-military-vote-Democrats/2012/08/03/id/447552">lie</a> about it so blatantly!<br />
<br />
If you know me, you know I am an ardent <b>atheist</b><i> </i>(and a Jew), but for this, I find wisdom in the Christian and Hindu traditions.<br />
<br />
Matthew 6:5 - <i>And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full</i><br />
<br />
And I say more generally, those who take their karmic rewards for themselves have already received them! There is no reason for <b>US</b> to give them a special place of honor if they have already taken their reward.<br />
<br />
Is there? This is why it is so wrong -- not just a little wrong. It's a <b>lot</b> wrong.<br />
<br />RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-51126690940013612022012-07-04T13:49:00.003-07:002012-08-08T10:57:47.278-07:00How Supreme Court Really Decides<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0QBG4MlzFVzs-fvJzWWQBJuJYhQocEeZuMP0JLSRVTQg4mW7hTjjmiXtQQtWwCOo-TZyj3mNTmjCMhnIt9okIrDACeW-47gDV9rwYlRzpBb3s54l5bvVzcNvchhwDqlIYRioIOL9jCU0/s1600/RobertsPeeking.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0QBG4MlzFVzs-fvJzWWQBJuJYhQocEeZuMP0JLSRVTQg4mW7hTjjmiXtQQtWwCOo-TZyj3mNTmjCMhnIt9okIrDACeW-47gDV9rwYlRzpBb3s54l5bvVzcNvchhwDqlIYRioIOL9jCU0/s1600/RobertsPeeking.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A more realistic model of justice</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;">People have an idealistic mental model of how a Supreme
Court justice might arrive at judgments by carefully pouring through the
question and the legal principles to arrive at a conclusion. Most people have
that model, but almost nobody actually believes it. Others assume that ideology
is the entire explanation and that the opinions of the court are just
voluminous ideological screeds. They explain away unexpected decisions as
shifts in a judge's ideology or revelations about a judge's true ideology.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
A more realistic model for how justices decide is a mixture.
More likely what happens is that a judge begins from the conclusion they would
like to reach and then they attempt to construct a solid justification for it.
They may do the same for alternate conclusions, but they almost certainly spend
less effort looking to justify the conclusions they don't want to reach.
Perhaps they assign a clerk to construct an alternate conclusion so they can
then ignore it.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Recent leaks combined with the contents of a very mixed
opinion constructed by Justice Roberts reveals the reality in more detail. Too
many people with opinions seem not to know that Roberts actually did strike
down the individual mandate, making clear that direct criminal penalties to
force commercial activity is an overreach of federal power -- he just upheld the
enforcement provision as a legitimate free-rider tax. We now know that Roberts
sided with a 5-4 conservative majority to strike the mandate, but as he was
constructing the majority opinion, he made a subtle change that flipped that
picture. By the time he was done writing it, he had finished writing the 5-4
liberal majority decision. How did that happen?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It shouldn't be too big of a shock if you read the law
closely. Suppose you imagine writing the decision to strike down the individual
mandate -- if you don't have a basic understanding of law, stop here for a
refresher on the commerce clause, the necessary and proper clause, the taxing and
spending clause, and the sixteenth amendment....</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Back to the story, suppose
you've already decided to strike down the individual mandate as "not a
valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary
and Proper Clause" and you've even essentially finished constructing that
part of the decision but you are now deciding how to "sever" the
individual mandate from the rest of the bill in writing the conservative
majority decision to declare it unconstitutional. At least one extreme right wing judge who saw
the case before it reached the Supreme court decided that the mandate is <i>inextricably</i> linked to the entire law
and thus the entire law must be voided, and people who understand the policy
understand that it is linked to the provision that prevents insurance companies
from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, but the role of the
court is generally to rule narrowly and leave policy decisions to the other
branches of government. The court severs narrow provisions of a law based on
what is possible and constitutional, not based on what is good policy.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So where can you sever it? Even for one who has already
decided to strike the mandate, it's not entirely obvious. You have to ask a few
questions. Where does the constitutional part end and the unconstitutional part
begin? At some point, the exercise probably involves reading the law.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One colorful approach might be to start by striking <i>as narrowly as possible</i> just a few words
and phrases that make it clear that it's unconstitutional. In this case, the
words "requirement" and possibly "penalty" seem to be the
ones [the word "mandate" is not actually found anywhere in the
"Individual Responsibility" section of the law]. From there, strike any
sentences or paragraphs that have become too nonsensical to implement. Finally,
any parts of the law that become physically or logically impossible to
implement without the stricken parts are also stricken. What is left?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Another approach is to imagine the law written in an alien
language and you are an observer incapable of learning the language but able to
watch every aspect of it being enacted and enforced. From there, strike any
operations, behaviors, or enforcement actions that violate your concept of constitutional
federal powers and then write whatever law is left in your own language to
reflect what you see as its true meaning. What is left?</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
There are plenty of other ways, and I doubt these colorful
approaches actually reflect Roberts' thinking, but it is interesting to note
that they both lead to exactly the same conclusion! The first approach leads
one to "strike the mandate" but leave its enforcement in place as a tax
incentive. The second leads one to declare that it <i>always was</i> nothing more than a tax incentive, but because of the misleading
"requirement" language, the court voluntary offers the opinion for future laws that such a mandate <b><i>would</i></b>
be unconstitutional.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
In other words, Roberts started from the conclusion to
strike the mandate and <b><i>his position never changed</i></b>! The only
thing that changed was his <b><i>discovery</i></b> that the free rider tax can
be construed as a tax, severed from the mandate, and that the only
justification for striking the tax under that interpretation would be purely
ideological and not legal! And <b><i>what</i></b> ideology? The individual
mandate was first proposed by conservatives as a "tax on free riders
to promote individual responsibility," it was not popular with liberals,
Newt Gingrich promoted it, and Romney implemented it. Many liberals still see
it as a giveaway to the insurance industry, and usually it's the conservatives
who bend the rules to protect corporate power and profit. Lucky for Roberts, he was not asked to resolve that question.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
So he didn't change his mind, but merely made a discovery. When
he made that discovery, he certainly brought it to the attention of the other
conservatives. How many of them do you think cared about the legal reasoning? Roberts
was not arguing, he was tasking them with the job of rationalizing their pre-determined
dissent as he was giving up that task. In Gonzales v Raich, even Scalia decided that the Commerce
Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause <b><i>could</i></b> be used by the federal
government to criminalize non-commercial behavior legal within a state if indirectly necessary for other measures to have force! He cited
precedent, though he has since wavered in his support for that precedent, but given that his
decision in Gonzales actively denied medical treatment, perhaps the true deciding factor
is that he opposes expanded access to healthcare. Maybe not, but he makes it
way too easy.]</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
One might be surprised that Roberts was the only one who
changed his mind until you realize that he was the one constructing the
majority opinion [the only important opinion], and it seems it was the act of
constructing that opinion that forced him to recognize the more nuanced reality.
So we have an answer, for Roberts at least. Like any other human, he is flawed.
He most certainly started from his conclusion and constructed the opinion from
there, but a majority opinion is not just an ideological screed. Scalia might <i>wish</i> to live in an oligarchy where all
resource allocation is decided by a ruling class of wealth elites, and he
might think it is moral and just and right, but at some point along the way,
even he would have to construct serious legal arguments to support that position
as a Justice of the Supreme Court.</div>
<br />RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-14110509325152119722012-07-02T17:52:00.000-07:002012-07-04T14:19:47.423-07:00Ed Schultz<b><br /></b><br />
<b>Dear Conservatives, </b><br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b style="background-color: white;">We'll give you Ed Schultz if you give us David Brooks. Deal? </b><br />
<b style="background-color: white;"><br /></b><br />
<b style="background-color: white;">Thanks,</b><br />
<b style="background-color: white;">Annoyed Liberal</b><br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<hr />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>Righteousness alone doesn't make you right about policy, and it doesn't make up for being an ass.</b><br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>Take </b><b>Ed Schultz.</b><br />
<b><br /></b><br />
<b>Please.</b><br />
<b><br /></b>RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-37932652568705899672012-01-29T13:10:00.000-08:002012-01-29T13:13:23.068-08:00Ron Paul and Newt Drop Out, Endorse Romney<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8ZtaAnV6W8jrm7eHoq_IOSrkEt9mBwAbURiQX6ou17aGeCLMLz4kZ-zSjPcEG71tsegREEL9q_nKmy8xA0Qh0ArDw4p7cgv8-mo6_Vel_Q26-EsOhRcvOXn5O3fanZJbU3LxqmhWFz4s/s1600/ron-paul-crazyu.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 303px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8ZtaAnV6W8jrm7eHoq_IOSrkEt9mBwAbURiQX6ou17aGeCLMLz4kZ-zSjPcEG71tsegREEL9q_nKmy8xA0Qh0ArDw4p7cgv8-mo6_Vel_Q26-EsOhRcvOXn5O3fanZJbU3LxqmhWFz4s/s320/ron-paul-crazyu.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5703162698238536738" border="0" /></a>Both Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich have been heard recently complaining about all the "establishment money" outspending them, and to a liberal like me, this sounds like an argument for campaign finance reform. But coming from these two gentlemen, it qualifies as an endorsement of Mitt Romney. Let me explain.<br /><br />Consider Ron Paul's position on campaign finance reform. Whether in the form of public financing of campaigns or other rules governing the finance of campaigns, his position is that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.<br /><br />To those who don't know conservativespeak, "unconstitutional" does not simply mean disallowed under the constitution as currently applied or not legally valid without an amendment to the constitution. That's the liberal definition of unconstitutional. In fact -- you may find this shocking -- in conservativespeak it does not even mean counter-to or in violation of the correctly interpreted currently active text of the Constitution! In conservativespeak, you see, the word "unconstitutional" means "fundamentally evil and wrong despite the appearance of being morally right." For example, protecting people from financial fraud -- it seems like a morally right thing to do, but financial fraud is also highly profitable -- thus, such a regulation would be termed "unconstitutional". See how it works? In crazytown, the world is at a crucial juncture demanding radical change. Without it we are all DOOMED. And also, it's a moral <strong>imperative</strong> that Mitt Romney be able to leverage all that "establishment money" to grab the reins of power and keep us on that path to doom.<br /><br />Welcome to crazytown.<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-vIAwAsdFdr2dEnNr_Nkq-qC7AvkQH3zX-o3y8zGSwO64v-7hupRM_uizVYp1Ap-cSC2HloERO035m904xJzCpdAIVNUNDPRFpzxCvdvG86GJpwi0KvAoHLyyZnnSuk3JCk-85yZZ1Xc/s1600/gingrichgrinch.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 145px; height: 200px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-vIAwAsdFdr2dEnNr_Nkq-qC7AvkQH3zX-o3y8zGSwO64v-7hupRM_uizVYp1Ap-cSC2HloERO035m904xJzCpdAIVNUNDPRFpzxCvdvG86GJpwi0KvAoHLyyZnnSuk3JCk-85yZZ1Xc/s200/gingrichgrinch.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5703163516520509314" border="0" /></a>But Newt Gingrich's position is a little more subtle. Like Paul, he hails from crazytown, but he also keeps a house [and a mistress] in DC. For Newt, it's not just a matter of constitutionality -- unlimited political spending is a moral good in and of itself! Perhaps because living in DC opens ones eyes to the importance of special interest money in helping leaders to sort policy priorities. And I'm not referring to the big bucks he made lobbying on behalf of Freddie Mac in the years leading up to the financial crisis he would then blame on Freddie Mac's cozy position in the halls of power. I'm referring to his reaction to the Citizen's United case. In an interview the day of that decision, Newt had this to say:<br /><blockquote>Well, I'm delighted. And I think I would say that the real campaign finance reform under our Constitution would be to allow anyone to give unlimited amounts of after-tax money.... I'm saying that it allows you to have a middle-class candidate go out and find allies and supporters who are able to help them match the rich....</blockquote>Well, if that's your position, Mr. Gingrich, then the failure of your Super PAC to raise enough money to match Mitt Romney's Super PAC is a triumph for our system of government! It sounds to me like an endorsement of Mitt Romney.RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-26696787275945776612011-12-02T16:26:00.000-08:002011-12-02T16:59:04.655-08:00Not Even Newt Can Count the Angels on the Head of a Pin<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOhqRoevmM2qawHMiEwemaFXGdUW2LP9PqyDaZwNO8n-4NCo49Qn_3oBOeWZoCpzwAbf-xcvzJ_7G2SD5u2DusR693-v-KUDVhT8OUPzTeRsMs8YkwmKVgepftNNJCxADLAmGtYPq42PI/s1600/NewtVampire.png"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 202px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOhqRoevmM2qawHMiEwemaFXGdUW2LP9PqyDaZwNO8n-4NCo49Qn_3oBOeWZoCpzwAbf-xcvzJ_7G2SD5u2DusR693-v-KUDVhT8OUPzTeRsMs8YkwmKVgepftNNJCxADLAmGtYPq42PI/s320/NewtVampire.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5681696535801676866" border="0" /></a>A recent interview response from Newt Gingrich has the <a href="http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=16131">Catholics in a tizzy</a>. Apparently they are upset that he wouldn't take a stand on whether a fertilized egg that had not yet been implanted in the uterine wall was a human life. Of course it is, so the nuts win on that point, but they're both missing the forest for the trees.<br /><br />The correct answer from science is that life is a continuous process going back millions of years without interruption. There is no specific moment when the life of a single organism begins [or species, for that matter]. Or, as I like to say, life begins long <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">before</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>conception. But the real question I think the religious folks are <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">trying</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>to ask is either: (1) when does the SOUL implant into the organism or perhaps (2) when does the life of value equal to that of an human child begin [obviously not before fertilization, and setting aside the usual liberal quip that conservatives value fetuses more than children].<br /><br />The more you know, the harder the question gets for religious folks. For example, <span>what if</span> there is a fertilized egg, but shortly after it starts to divide into a multicellular organism, some developmental flaw occurs that guarantees it will never be able to develop anything even resembling a brain. The pregnancy would fail naturally very soon after that, but it raises a question to someone who claims the fertilized egg had a soul or equal value to that of a human, since the event that made it impossible for it to develop into something more meaningful than a blob of tissue happened <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">after</span> fertilization.<br /><br />But if you reject the religion or the religious proscriptions, the question itself pretty much disappears. Let's hope Newt disappears, too.RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-53702374382360447202011-10-23T13:51:00.000-07:002011-12-20T09:34:39.167-08:00Regarding the Commission Approved Draft Legislative and Congressional Maps<div style="font-family: inherit;"></div><table class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://azredistricting.org/Maps/Draft-Maps.asp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" target="_blank"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEguZyigcNqZjyct8npOB3YIu2hL_r5sLkPf2hYB5GVfAxUXXn3N0QtGBCA4j20ZD_5zeBwyCOkuX2Fgl10QLODyo6hLCEyfXHHYatg2QIz4JaJus-S4RxgO_y07yfFLwa9jnVWgCJoQvvY/s200/homepage-draft-congressional-map.jpg" height="150" width="200" border="0" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://azredistricting.org/Maps/Draft-Maps.asp" target="_blank"><span style="font-size:small;">Click to see draft maps</span></a></td></tr></tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:inherit;"><span style="font-size:100%;">If you look at recent statewide races, you see that Republicans have a 10 percentage point advantage, about 55% to 45%. That said, statewide races are close when the Democrat is highly qualified and has a clean record, and when their Republican challenger has a history of corruption or incompetence. Redistricting will have no effect on this,but it gives a sense of the population of Arizona.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">The same is not true in many congressional and legislative districts. We can easily find examples of blatantly incompetent and corrupt representatives elected in safe districts due to the dynamics of a primary election with too many or too few competitors. In safe districts, we find incumbents who are guaranteed reelection in all but the most extreme cases. Are vote splitting primaries with too many candidates vying for a safe party seat followed by term limits really the way we want to select our representatives?<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Competitive districts provide a safeguard against this.Competitive districts are not an advantage for Democrats. They aren't even an advantage for so-called moderates and centrists. They're an advantage for sane people.</span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:inherit;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">So is that what the draft maps provide? Not really. The drafts offer only a handful of competitive legislative districts. Less than half of the congressional districts are competitive.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">And how are the uncompetitive districts divided? In a state that polls at 55% Republican, of legislative districts with a 15 point spread or more, 65% percent are safe Republican seats. In a state that polls at 55%Republican, of congressional districts with a 15 point spread, 67% are safe Republican seats.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">If you make the reasonable assumption that Republicans would still take competitive seats half the time, that still leaves our congressional delegation and legislatures over 60% Republican. For those of you who are bad at math, that's higher than 55%. That gives Republicans a louder voice that they would get under a truly representative system of government<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">They already have that.</span><br /><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style=" ;font-family:inherit;font-size:100%;" >So why are Republicans so upset with this map?</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /><br /></span><span style=" ;font-family:inherit;font-size:100%;" ><span style="line-height: 115%;">They've controlled the state legislature for decades. Do these draft maps threaten that control? No. But if you think about, it makes sense. There is no such thing as enough for them. They follow an ideology that elevates self interest and greed above all other human values, even beyond the natural balance of these forces in a sane and healthy human being. They will <i>never</i> have enough. There is no way to appease them.</span></span></div>RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-38711595990850825752011-10-18T22:27:00.000-07:002011-10-18T22:27:38.597-07:00Drinking Liberally @ Lux Central, ThursdayWhat: Drinking Liberally<br />
When: Thursday, 6:30 - 11pm<br />
Where: Lux Central, 4402 North Central Avenue in Phoenix (at the Campbell light rail station)<br />
Where, specifically: probably a semi-hidden room in the back, not too hard to find though<br />
<br />
It's time to sit down for a serious, soul searching, talk. Perhaps over drinks.<br />
<br />
The consensus in the mainstream media is that the #OccupyWallStreet
protests are lacking a clear message and have no policy solutions.<br />
<br />
Well then, maybe they should vote Republican -- nobody has a less
clear message than them. After all, the GOP is the party of tax cuts
while their leading presidential candidate wants to raise taxes on 85%
of us and the Republicans who run our solidly red state have managed to
do so already. They believe in small government, but they want to
regulate women's health and sexual orientation. They are the pro-life
party that wants to expand the use of the death penalty and let the
uninsured working poor die in the street from easily treatable medical
conditions. They are proud of their fiscal restraint, yet they see
nothing wrong with racking up another trillion dollars of debt to fight a
war under false pretenses and another trillion in giveaways to their
wealthy cronies which they hope to
pay for later by cutting expenses in programs that already pay for
themselves.<br />
<br />
On second thought, not so much. By comparison, I would say the
#Occupiers have a pretty clear message. Corporate power is the problem.
To be fair, the GOP has a clear message, too: government is the problem.
And if you don't believe it, just watch them govern and they'll prove
it to you. But don't try it sober. To understand the GOP style of
governing, you need to be drunk or otherwise brain damaged. I prefer to
drink or to simply not understand.<br />
<br />
So join us at Lux this Thursday evening, and we can do it together.
(We're still deciding where to settle this bi-weekly event, but this
looks like a really good option.)<br />
<br />
Peace,<br />
<br />
OranRhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-36282199858614477832011-09-30T17:54:00.000-07:002011-10-03T12:33:25.617-07:00Another Forgotten Debate<div class="MsoNormal">
Have you ever heard a religious person tell you that science
and religion both require faith? That it takes just as much faith for you to believe
in evolution, or even empiricism (!), as it takes for them to believe a myth
written by stone age goat herders? Well, here's how it went down this time:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
It started with a parable I wrote in response to a flawed logical refutation of empiricism:</div>
<blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="zj">Imagine someone making a claim that there is a buried
jar of black jellybeans and antique Ford gear shift knobs of a very
specific configuration and location. It's a reasonable claim for the
person who buried it to make, but when you casually ask about it, they
explain that they believe it on faith and they have no empirical reason
whatsoever for believing it's there.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="zj">You would find the claim absurd, but then imagine them laughing back at you! <b>How could you possibly know it's <i>not</i> there?</b></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="zj">To this, the creationist responded with the usual argument that it takes just as much faith to believe in empiricism as it takes to believe in his religion. It was a very long-winded version, but that's what it really boiled down to.<b> </b>Here was my reply:<b> </b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span class="zj"><b></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<blockquote>
I don't see it as faith. I've given lots of ideas what I consider to be a fair
try. Some I accept, some I disbelieve, some I reject as nonsense, and
some I consider still up in the air. For many religions, though, they claim
that what I consider to be a "fair try" unacceptable. I will only
drink your Kool-Aid if you <i>first</i> convince me that you are right. They say a
"fair try" means fully believing it <i>first</i>. I can't do that because
(1) there are too many different religions all making that claim to try them
all and (2) my understanding of the brain tells me that it's easy to convince
yourself of something false once you <i>believe</i> it.<br />
<br />
But how do I know what I know about the brain? Isn't it a little circular to
trust what empiricism tells me about brain function? Only if you're a nihilist!
You don't have to say that empiricism is the only way to know anything as a
first principle. You just accept that it can tell you something.... then....<br />
<br />
<b>Going back to my parable</b> of the buried jar of specific things. Suppose that
instead of "just faith" the guy makes the absurd prediction by
telling another story that seems, at first to an outsider, to be just as crazy
and unlikely as the prediction. <b>Religions and science are in the same boat on
this one.</b><br />
<br />
But then suppose we look and he turns out to be right! We might still think
it's a trick. Wouldn't we? But we might be willing to give it another look.
Then suppose something even more miraculous happens. He uses the same crazy
story to make another and another and another seemingly unrelated and totally
absurd prediction. At some point, we start to lend a little weight to the
story. Even if we don't believe the truth in the story, we must recognize that
it has some power. <b>At this point, religion and science are still in the same
boat</b> <i><b>but they have started to diverge</b></i>.<br />
<br />
So, you then take it to the next level and try it out for yourself. Take the
crazy story and use it to make a prediction of your own. If you then find that
it actually works over and over, you're hooked on that story. It's no longer
just a thing with some power, but it's a thing approaching that quality we
might call "truth". <b>But at this point in the parable, religion and
science have completely diverged.</b><br />
<br />
This only happens with the kind of story we call "science" and if it
happened to a religion, we would simply apply the term "science" to
that aspect of the religion that achieves the kind of magic that science
achieves with the same kind of detailed and reusable story that science tells.
There is no reason that a particular story or model can be only
"religion" OR "science" and not both, other than the fact
that there <b>aren't</b> many.<br />
<br />
If you are looking to <i>explain</i> the world then religion might be a good
tool. Religions are designed to explain the world in a language that
makes sense to <i>people</i>. In this sense it might even be fair to label some ways
of thinking about evolution as "religion" because it makes sense and
explains so much [or "faith" in the sense that you need some faith to
not be a solipsist, though "not being a solipsist" is also an <i>instinctual default</i> that somewhat nullifies any label you try to apply to
it]. So belief in evolution might be religion in that sense, but it's <b>ALSO</b>
something else that faith and religion are not: <b>Science makes outlandish
predictions that turn out to be true! And it does so over and over in
unexpected ways starting from the same seemingly absurd [to the uninitiated]
story.</b></blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-33477011117249952432011-09-19T18:04:00.000-07:002011-09-19T18:17:27.329-07:00Is It Really Just Math?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center; float: left; padding-right:12px;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/lT0KVKIZst8?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
The one major flaw in everything Obama says is that he assumes people will listen, think about what he says, and then translate it into their own moral frame. Instead, people react based purely on their programmed response to symbols.<br />
<br />
Consider Boehner's response that "Pitting one group of Americans against another is not leadership." Pitting the other group (wealth) against the one group (the other 98%) IS acceptable because the other 98% are "not pulling their weight". But "pitting the majority against the wealthy privileged few" is unacceptable even when some of those privileged few agree with the technical analysis. Presenting FACTS that contradict the symbolism of right wing ideology is itself morally wrong! What?<br />
<br />
This is a persistent failing of the center-left. Rather than present their case as a moral argument, they present a purely technical case from the FACTS. "It's not class warfare, it's just math." They think they are protecting themselves from moral counter-arguments when in fact they are doing just the opposite. By doing this, they open themselves to purely moral arguments that don't need to account for the facts at all!RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-85247470923581375542011-06-07T17:48:00.000-07:002011-07-08T19:42:39.205-07:00Santorum is a Defective Human Being<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKARdKmyzpHjw-AMvZ0VkM2Cul922MtmvV9qSXIwI1TfO1Xmw-KU1xx_E6VoJiLV1HzOmuMlutvP0QcY5mIsMdIQ7XtkWmjKNRuszBjDDdzeRtQ-oP8wZ3yPMyRxX_p6j57YRocCXJ6qU/s1600/Santorum.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 200px; height: 124px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKARdKmyzpHjw-AMvZ0VkM2Cul922MtmvV9qSXIwI1TfO1Xmw-KU1xx_E6VoJiLV1HzOmuMlutvP0QcY5mIsMdIQ7XtkWmjKNRuszBjDDdzeRtQ-oP8wZ3yPMyRxX_p6j57YRocCXJ6qU/s320/Santorum.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5615646459357760434" border="0" /></a><br /><a href="http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.spreadingsantorum.com%2F&ei=gcfuTbekNsXa0QHtqPndAw&usg=AFQjCNEp6O_2U6A1DTjyeWPfpTRy5Jpm_g&sig2=I69p63yfnssCse8MaEupQg"><br />Santorum</a> may be slick, but the man is vile, and <a href="http://blog.spreadingsantorum.com/">now he's running for President</a>. Of course, we all remember his hateful statements about gays, but that's only the beginning of where his defective humanity begins to expose itself.<br /><br />Naturally, his position on climate change is that the science should be judged by political power and economic interests. Don't bother to look at what the actual science says -- in fact, we probably shouldn't even be doing science with the potential to threaten the legitimacy of industries that fund our political careers. But it gets worse!<br /><br />Consider his position on stem cells. Naturally, he would rather stifle medical research than allow a few clumps of human cells to be used for medical research with the potential to alleviate human suffering. The cells in question would likely not even have something recognizable as a brain, but slick Rick opposes it on the grounds that he is "pro-life" and an embryo qualifies as life. What he really means is that it has a soul, of course. He has no trouble eating meat daily which generates actual pain and suffering of living creatures on an industrial scale. No, he's concerned about the soul in the microscopic, brainless mass of cells at the expense of countless people! What a sick fuck! But it gets worse!<br /><br />On biology education, he wants to abandon 150 years of progress and go back to teaching biology pre-evolution. This is like going back to chemistry before the periodic table. Shall we teach children the "flat earth theory" because some religious doctrines refuse to accept the well established evidence of modern science? Not unless we are going to teach the flying spaghetti monster as well.<br /><br />Rick Santorum is exactly what we don't need in the White House.RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-49854191121627520132011-01-28T16:20:00.001-08:002011-03-11T07:23:58.785-08:00The Largest Financial Scam in HistoryAll the talk of Reagan's legacy along with the dire warnings that we need to make "cuts" in programs like Social Security have made it impossible for me to ignore this any longer. Those of us who have been paying into Social Security for the last 30 years have been ripped off. Or at least we will if some have their way....<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">A $2.5 Trillion </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Broken </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Promise?</span><br /><br />We are the victims of the largest financial scam in history, "the Social Security Trust Fund," or as it's called by politicians who oppose Social Security "an accounting fiction." I support Social Security, so you might expect me to disagree with them, but look at it this way. If I lend someone money based on a promise to pay me back and then a week later, they call that promise "meaningless" I might start to suspect that they've just ripped me off, no? So we can agree to call the promise "meaningless" -- just with slightly different perspectives depending on which side of the promise we're on.<br /><br />You see, if <a style="font-weight: bold;" href="http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html">these assets</a> are just an accounting fiction, then so is a portion of the money that came out of your paycheck for "Social Security" over the last 30 years. That's odd. It sure didn't feel like an "accounting fiction" when they were subtracting it from my paycheck or when I was paying even more as a self-employment tax.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">"Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme</span>"<br /><br />The opponents of Social Security like to say that it's a Ponzi Scheme. It's not, exactly. Some just use the term loosely, but I prefer to use such specific terms correctly. A Ponzi Scheme <span style="font-style: italic;">claims</span> to be an <span style="font-style: italic;">investment</span> fund, but instead of investing the money, the steward just takes the money. If more people are joining the fund than leaving, those leaving can take their original money with "gains" that are actually only given to create an illusion of a fund that is earning money. Social Security, at it's core is not an investment fund. It's an <span style="font-style: italic;">insurance</span> system. People pay premiums into the system, and if they reach the condition they are insuring for, they make claims and take the payout. As it was originally structured, the system did not hold on to a savings fund, it just payed claims from it's income.<br /><br />But the system ran into trouble in the Reagan era, requiring changes in premiums, benefit levels, and/or benefit eligibility [e.g. retirement age]. Recognizing another such bump down the road, Greenspan and Reagan created a financial device to help prepare for it. They increased premiums in advance to "save" money for the future in the form of specialty treasure bonds designed just for this purpose.<br /><br />You could say it that way. Or...<br /><br />Or, you could say they thought it was a shame to have such a massive stream of money flowing through the system with no mechanism for the private sector to skim money off the top, so they engineered a way to steal trillions of dollars from it. Of course, those trillions weren't just stolen outright -- they went to pay for important government expenses, like no-bid contracts for Halliburton, or foreign aid to help other countries develop their own no-bid contracts for Halliburton. You could call it a Ponzi scheme speaking very loosely, but on the other hand, this money <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">actually is</span> held in <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">treasury bonds</span>, so the only real fraud is in on the part of those politicians who have no intention of letting those bonds be redeemed.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">What Does It Even Mean to "Cut" Social Security</span><br /><br />So Social Security is an insurance system that generally pays "claims" (aka benefits) with the "premiums" (aka taxes) it takes in for that specific purpose. They collect those taxes separately from the other taxes we pay, so you can see it for yourself! They keep their accounts separate, too. Now it also has a big pile of treasury bonds it's accumulated with the hope of cashing them in to pay benefits. So what does it mean to make "cuts" in the program? Reduce benefits? I suppose so, but obviously not below the amount that can be covered by incoming premiums, right? Well, the government has become accustomed to using the money it borrows from Social Security, so maybe they do mean that low. No. In theory, it could give <span style="font-style: italic;">higher</span> benefits than are covered by incoming premiums since it has this $2.5 trillion in savings it collected from working baby boomers ... collected <span style="font-style: italic;">specifically</span> to cover their benefits when they reached retirement ... as many now are. So what does it <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">MEAN </span>to "cut" Social Security?<br /><br />"Cut" normally just means reducing the amount of money spent, but it's not so simple in this case. The system has always been self-sufficient, and in the last 30 years it's actually brought in more money than it spent. So what does it mean? In this case, "cut" means breaking the promise to allow social security to redeem those treasury bonds it holds as was the plan we were sold when we started issuing those bonds. In a sense it is a cut, but it' s not a cut from spending a certain amount on the program to spending less on it. Legally and financially, it's a "cut in spending" the same way it's a "cut in spending" for me to stop making the car payments I owe to the bank.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">It Hasn't Happened Yet</span><br /><br />In theory, this hypothetical largest financial scam in history hasn't actually happened yet. Congress has not formally voided those bonds, and the national debt still includes the money owed to Social Security. I will remind you again that that money was payed specifically <span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">TO</span> Social Security, so it's not just an "opinion" that Social Security should get that money. Perhaps you are opposed to Social Security in principle. Suppose they created a separate tax specifically for a program you support, but then they borrowed some of that money for programs you don't support. Then suppose they decided they didn't need to pay that money back. It hasn't really happened yet. What has happened recently is that the Social Security taxes were reduced, moving up [to right about <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">now</span>] the date when the inevitable showdown occurs. So here it is. A showdown is over whether those bonds represent money that we really owe to Social Security or "just an accounting fiction" [aka a legally binding financial savings instrument] that we can void whenever we are ready to be "honest" [aka dishonest] about Social Security.<br /><br />The optimist in me hopes that the left in Washington [who am I kidding, they are centrists at best] let the payroll tax come down last year so they could have this showdown in a more favorable political environment (such as shortly after Obama's re-election campaign or perhaps as a campaign talking point). If this country slips much further into this dumbed-down far-right reactionary stupor, they will not only get enough people to enthusiastically support the elimination of Social Security, they will get away with it. And hardly anyone will have noticed the largest financial scam in history.RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-31932272020209622352010-11-23T06:26:00.000-08:002011-01-29T14:53:52.364-08:00Refudiate This, Sarah Palin!<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal">Refudiate! Really?</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Yes! Really! The word has legitimate meaning in principle. It would mean to simultaneously refute and repudiate something, such as a political position. But here's the problem: Palin, who coined it, misused it! The correct word was repudiate! Perhaps she realized that and, doubling down on her mistakes [as she always does] she used the word "refute" in its place in a later tweet! WHAT THE FOX!</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So let's boil it down! here are the relevant definitions from Merriam-Webster:</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">refute</span>, transitive verb, 1. to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous. 2. to deny the truth or accuracy of</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">repudiate</span>, transitive verb, 1. to refuse to have anything to do with : disown. 2. a : to refuse to accept; especially : to reject as unauthorized or as having no binding force. b : to reject as untrue or unjust</p> <p class="MsoNormal">So, they are similar and related, and repudiate can often take the place of refute, but there is an important distinction. One is about logic and fact whereas the other is about position and opinion. So this confusion is more than a misuse of English or the coining of a new useful word. In the case of Palin, it was a Freudian slip. Like many people poorly educated in epistemology, she has a fundamental inability to separate fact and logic on one side from opinion, belief, and feelings on the other. I'm not going to claim that I'm perfect. People naturally have their judgment clouded by opinions and beliefs, but the ability to distinguish between them <span style="font-style: italic;">in principle</span> is vital for handling complex and controversial issues. What we need in a leader is the ability to cut through the noise and strong feelings that dominate such issues to find the core, and then calmly and rationally explain it to both sides. Palin, more or less in every single case, just joins in with the rabble.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">This "folksiness" is precisely why the "liberal elite" dislikes Palin so much, but also why her fans love her so much. <span style=""> </span>One can refute her positions all day long, but her fans she will never repudiate her -- refuting Palin only makes them love her more, precisely <i style="">because</i> they don't know the difference between refute and repudiate!</p>RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-9391445548736155222010-10-11T23:43:00.000-07:002010-10-12T09:45:53.797-07:00Judges, Central Arizona Water Conservation District, PropositionsVoting on all those nonpartisan items on the ballot can be difficult and time-consuming, so I figured I would post my work in case anyone wants to copy. I try to show my work, too, in case you want to use it to vote a little differently.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >Judges:</span><br /><br />Sources:<br /><a href="http://www.azjudges.info/home/index.cfm">JPR</a> - the nonpartisan AZ Commission on Judicial Performance Review<br /><a href="http://www.azvoterguide.com/?page_id=994">azvoterguide</a> - relatively honest & transparent, seems conservative biased<br /><a href="http://azjudgesreview.blogspot.com/">azjudgesreview</a> - right-wing review of judges based on primarily on partisan ideology<br /><a href="http://arizona.typepad.com/blog/2006/10/jpr_arizona_com.html"></a><br />Methodology:<br />The general approach I used was to look at the right-wing site and apply a more or less critical eye to judges depending on how much they loved the person. The 4 people on my ballot with "top" reviews from the right wingers were looked at, and none of them were sparkling clean. In the second tier of the right-wing review, there were "lean conservative" judges. In these cases, I looked through them from other sources to decide. I decided Yes on two and No on three. For the other nine in this tier, I decide to leave them blank rather than vote Yes to avoid negating the votes of a more informed liberal.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Supreme Court</span>:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Yes:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Rebecca Berch</span> - <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:trackmoves/> <w:trackformatting/> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:donotpromoteqf/> <w:lidthemeother>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:lidthemeasian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:lidthemecomplexscript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> <w:splitpgbreakandparamark/> <w:dontvertaligncellwithsp/> <w:dontbreakconstrainedforcedtables/> <w:dontvertalignintxbx/> <w:word11kerningpairs/> <w:cachedcolbalance/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathpr> <m:mathfont val="Cambria Math"> <m:brkbin val="before"> <m:brkbinsub val="--"> <m:smallfrac val="off"> <m:dispdef/> <m:lmargin val="0"> <m:rmargin val="0"> <m:defjc val="centerGroup"> <m:wrapindent val="1440"> <m:intlim val="subSup"> <m:narylim val="undOvr"> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" defunhidewhenused="true" defsemihidden="true" defqformat="false" defpriority="99" latentstylecount="267"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="0" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Normal"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="heading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="9" qformat="true" name="heading 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 7"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 8"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" name="toc 9"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="35" qformat="true" name="caption"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="10" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" name="Default Paragraph Font"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="11" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtitle"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="22" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Strong"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="20" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="59" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Table Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Placeholder Text"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="1" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="No Spacing"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Revision"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="34" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="List Paragraph"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="29" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="30" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Quote"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="60" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="61" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="62" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Light Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="63" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="64" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="65" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="66" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="67" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="68" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="69" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="70" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Dark List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="71" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="72" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful List Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="73" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="19" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="21" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Emphasis"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="31" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Subtle Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="32" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Intense Reference"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="33" semihidden="false" unhidewhenused="false" qformat="true" name="Book Title"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="37" name="Bibliography"> <w:lsdexception locked="false" priority="39" qformat="true" name="TOC Heading"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-qformat:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:115%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]-->Despite being a relatively conservative Republican and Republican appointee, she is<span style=""> </span>given weaker reviews from right-wing due to <i style="">outcomes</i> of some "values" cases [the far right wants more extreme right-wing judicial activists, not just judges who happen to be conservative Republicans]. Perfect <span style=""></span>integrity scores and nearly perfect on other measures in JPR.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Court of Appeals, Division I:</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Strong No:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Daniel Barker</span> - Religious-right activist, lowest JPR Integrity scores in Court of Appeals.<br /><br />Maybe [<span style="font-weight: bold;">blank</span>]:<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">John Gemmil</span> - Support from right wing site, but high JPR integrity scores and wrote appropriately nuanced responses to azvoterguide.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Yes:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Patrick Irvine</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Lawrence Winthrop</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Maricopa Superior Court</span>:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">No:</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">Peter Reinstein</span> - Actively promoted by right wing group despite low JPR survey results, including low integrity scores and very low communication score.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Kenneth Mangum</span> - Well rated by right wing group, low integrity rating on JRP survey responses.<br /><br />Maybe/<span style="font-weight: bold;">No:</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Brian Ishikawa</span> - Actively promoted by right wing group, but no other hints of impropriety.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Eileen Willett</span> - Actively promoted by right wing group and likely religious conservative, but no other hints of impropriety.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Alfred Fenzel</span> - Well rated by right wing group, and relatively low JRP integrity ratings.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Jean Hoag</span> - Well rated by right wing group, and relatively low JRP integrity ratings.<br /><br />Maybe [<span style="font-weight: bold;">blank</span>]:<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Mark Aceto</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Roger Brodman</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Pendleton Gaines</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Brian Hauser</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Carey Hyatt</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Michael Jones</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Karen O'Connor</span><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Maria Del Mar Verdin</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Yes on all others. </span> Mostly because of good JPR reviews and lack of strong enthusiasm from right wing review blog. In some cases, actively attacked in right wing review despite strong score in JPR. Some additional details described below:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Donahoe, Gary</span> - Right-wing group marked him as "moderately liberal" based on rulings against partisans in specific cases that interested them -- in other words, for not being a right-wing judicial activist. Though he is a conservative, he apparently can rule fairly.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Granville, Warren J.</span> - Though he is a Conservative Republican who supports the simplistic "judge-as-umpire" rhetoric, he is targeted as "very liberal in his decisions" by the right-wing source, indicating that he drew a case or cases where the "liberal" position happened to be on the winning side of the conservative interpretation of law.<br /><span style="font-style: italic;"><br />Aimee Anderson</span>, <span style="font-style: italic;">Richard Gama</span>, and <span style="font-style: italic;">Susanna Pineda</span> - These three were among those targeted as "liberal" by the right wing site, but then the site specifically admits that these judges do not appear to have any "liberal bias" and yet the right wing is targeting them solely based on partisan affiliation and/or the source of appointment.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Bethany Hicks</span> - Worst JPR score from commission members, but 56% of commission still voted that she "meets" the standards. Though scored worse by commission, received decent responses in surveys. Based on the number of surveys, she might have a higher caseload than her peers???<br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" ><br />Central Arizona Water Conservation District</span><br /><br />There's an AZ Republic article on <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/10/10/20101010tea-party-arizona-water-panel-race.html">teabaggers</a> and another one with their <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2010/09/28/20100928tue1-28.html">endorsements</a>.<br /><br />I read through the <a href="http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/questionnaire2010/capboard.php">Arizona Republic's Q & A questionnaires</a> [the teabaggers mostly abstained, but read the two who submitted them if you need a good laugh]. These are the ratings I came up with. I basically imagined four sub-scores. One for "Adm/Polit" that would include communication ability, leadership, and the skills needed to build consensus between many different groups. One for "Insight" that represents their ability to reason about the problems we face and hopefully discover the creative solutions we need. A "Prudent" score indicates how they reacted to questions about cutting their source of tax revenue, how to address the conflict(s) with the EPA, and other tough issues that seem inviting to a certain brand of short-sited thinking. Finally, the "Environment" score is exactly what you think it is. So, I put them into a chart, and came up with this:<br /><br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXWIUlpEDo2dIOHI8mZ615a9lyM198wK8E-ET93q4ei_GvN2uVLZ_SD3OTqGs3OIT1blrPBgQlmjaoQbR5HgM1Ey0KHVgty6I-b90WmJhf91ClKeCVQxk_d_0-ng_Veo1PNG_RVJ_VMPg/s1600/CAP.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 174px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiXWIUlpEDo2dIOHI8mZ615a9lyM198wK8E-ET93q4ei_GvN2uVLZ_SD3OTqGs3OIT1blrPBgQlmjaoQbR5HgM1Ey0KHVgty6I-b90WmJhf91ClKeCVQxk_d_0-ng_Veo1PNG_RVJ_VMPg/s400/CAP.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5527062738207851458" border="0" /></a><br />The next question is how to vote. We can vote for up to 5. The nonpartisan in me says to vote for the top 5 scores, but the partisan tells me to only vote for the top two or three and let the Republicans cannibalize each other. I went with my top 3: Holway, Kazmi, and Fairbanks. In case it gets close between one of my top picks and one of the conservatives, I don't want to push one of the conservatives over the threshold. The risk here is that it could allow teabaggers in, but my theory is that as long as there are enough qualified people on the board, the retards won't be able to fuck it up too much.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" ><br />Propositions</span><br />Like most Democrats,<br />No on all propositions except:<br />Yes on 110<br />Yes on 203RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-49201683604230948252010-07-17T17:56:00.000-07:002010-07-24T18:10:19.056-07:00Glenn Beck vs MLKSo Glenn Beck is planning a rally in front of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of the "I have a dream" speech. Most MLK fans find it disgusting, but I find it humorous. I've met a few Beck fans who still believe the anti-MLK propaganda [MLK is a "communist" after all! You would think Beck would be crapping all over his memory rather than celebrating him!], so they are about as mystified by it as we are!<br /><br />Let's have some fun with it! Here are some MLK quotes that have been Glenn Beck-ified. Please help me come up with more:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">I have a dream that one day all men will judge me not by the color of my character but by the contents of my pocketbook.</span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><br />Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. And it scares me! Because I've been to the mountaintop and I've looked down upon the promised land and it's a lie! Go back! Go back! There's nothing there but socialism!<br /></span><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">The arc of the universe is almost over and it's bending toward Communism!</span><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">Life's most urgent question is: what are you doing to prepare yourself for what's coming?</span><br /><br />Got any more ideas? I told a friend about this idea and he said that it's not particularly funny since it's right in line with Beck's style to distort an MLK quote to suite his own ideas. Well, if Beck uses one of these, it will be even more funny because it will serve as more proof of Poe's law....RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-54548041230572047572010-06-14T21:38:00.000-07:002010-07-15T21:10:43.629-07:00Apparently, Bribery is Speech<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfs3_KSg8g0VSrhXaGeG9e6pvPJG35ekLwxdtvy5ZCe3_UpHRJ7hS6BKCDLh9JNXxJDzhY3P5jBmjaNNAcXkR5MRdBG7H6YQ8wdoH-sMUhSA4yuRT0HDwxGqiE1ogmy-ypOgBLJEgXqgU/s1600/Handfuls.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 14pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 129px; height: 124px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgfs3_KSg8g0VSrhXaGeG9e6pvPJG35ekLwxdtvy5ZCe3_UpHRJ7hS6BKCDLh9JNXxJDzhY3P5jBmjaNNAcXkR5MRdBG7H6YQ8wdoH-sMUhSA4yuRT0HDwxGqiE1ogmy-ypOgBLJEgXqgU/s400/Handfuls.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5482856046076373218" border="0" /></a><br />Violence is not speech, even when it is intended to convey a message -- even when it is meant AS speech, it IS NOT speech. The same should hold for money! Money is <span style="font-style: italic;">like</span> speech in the same way violence is. I can be used to communicate, but it is NOT fundamentally speech even when communication is its intent! Further, if money is speech in any domain, why is it not speech in every domain? Why not the domain of private communication between a citizen and representative or judge? Under this interpretation, I see no reason that bribery should not be protected under the rights of individuals to petition their government. I therefore question the integrity of any representative or judge who supports such an interpretation that money IS speech.RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-9718312362120042262010-05-20T20:20:00.000-07:002010-07-15T21:17:56.049-07:00Getting to the Heart of the Tea Party<span style="float: left; margin: 4px 10px 0px 0px; padding: 0px;"><br /><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdok__flK2X00mC40t0dD3JRk4moCIgGkEJ4usiGcMhEWRmzypZp9xbmmFsz6JMGtH4dERIYPUBt9BTjH_FPoFogf4wyWhncvOhvernnBL2POyDMXcWTfTYqvLUG3fhRTqEG87GnAkYw0/s400/AngryChimp.png" style="width: 120px; margin: 0px;" /><br /><center><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Adult_male_chimps_in_mahale.jpg" style="font-size: 8px;">image by Caelio</a></center></span><br />The whole controversy over Rand Paul's coolness towards the Civil Right Act is a distraction from the legitimate grievances of the Tea Party. Of course, I'm talking about the most massive unconstitutional usurpation of state's rights by the federal government leading to the greatest re-distribution of wealth in our nation's history. I'm talking about the civil war and the abolition of slavery! A tall president from Illinois, aligned with emerging money interests, an urban middle class, and intellectual elites are again perpetrating atrocities against traditional values! And again, it's seen as an act of war. I just hope we find a better solution this time - not to say that we won't whup their asses again if we have to.RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-18132074339747678182010-05-09T19:06:00.000-07:002010-05-09T19:12:15.314-07:00Yahoo! Answers Fail<center><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfY7Uae6Qfa6pMpDpBp6-3tCuL41X-SSEH0yhGXhjGc_VCyosE-1MwFrKnlVE9LBnQcIWmjksKofsjWmNyXUfHPryEq2zrV_DIKZNLDxDUZwzLbVqmfbws0ryvQypNj89XDRxWyjcash0/s1600/YahooAnswersFail.jpg"><img style="float: left; margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 346px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfY7Uae6Qfa6pMpDpBp6-3tCuL41X-SSEH0yhGXhjGc_VCyosE-1MwFrKnlVE9LBnQcIWmjksKofsjWmNyXUfHPryEq2zrV_DIKZNLDxDUZwzLbVqmfbws0ryvQypNj89XDRxWyjcash0/s400/YahooAnswersFail.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5469457419143555586" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br />!@#$%&*! Seriously!<br /></center>RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5910523163031970481.post-42373246029416510202010-04-17T11:11:00.000-07:002010-07-15T21:17:04.020-07:00Where I Agree with the Tea Partisans<span style="float: left; margin: -10px 10px 0px 0px; padding:0px;"><br /><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgMc3AniN6vfcR4ubyD4wW_ITsgYIYS9X-C6lg_D5qdwOFxqGczgYrNEQNaaMr23Q-SAp5a0xu_Jf9hPCzcDAAk5FkxC-PFHq3Ec5F20kk1qTRtd_2a4GWULVQznhiRZhgiZRyzIgIYHuI/s800/rail.jpg" style="width: 200px; margin: 0px;"><br><center><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alstom_AGV_Cerhenice_img_0365.jpg" style="font-size: 8px;">image by Miroslav.broz</a></center></span>There is one area where I would <span style="font-style: italic;">seem</span> to agree with the tea partiers. They want to repeal/undo the stimulus, and so do I. They think it was just another example of wasteful liberal taxing and spending. I would say that they are ignorant about what the recovery act is -- that it's having the impact it was designed to have, and as the economy stabilizes, we <span style="font-style: italic;">should</span> pay it back! But pay <span style="font-style: italic;">what</span> back, exactly? When you break it down, where it seemed we agree on policy, it turns out our policy positions could not be more different!<br /><br />First, consider the largest portions of the stimulus: infrastructure development and middle class tax cuts. What does it mean to "repeal" or "undo" or otherwise take this money back?<br /><br />How do you "undo" infrastructure development where it's already been funded? It would be insane to destroy infrastructure, and only slightly less insane to cancel infrastructure projects already underway, especially where they are badly overdue anyway [remember the Minneapolis bridge collapse]. The obvious, prudent answer is to <span style="font-style: italic;">make up</span> for the additional debt incurred by spending less on infrastructure <span style="font-style: italic;">in the future</span>. Many infrastructure projects are anticipated needs anyway, so we shouldn't have too much problem there. Is that what the tea partisans mean? Not exactly. What they really mean is that they have no clue what's in the stimulus. Many of the politicians who railed against it and are running against it, attended ribbon-cuttings in their districts to implicitly take credit for these "obviously" needed infrastructure projects. They don't want those projects stopped. Their position is not one of policy! It seems to be a purely rhetorical position preying on the ignorance of the audience rather than advancing shared goals with them.<br /><br />How do you "undo" the tax cuts included in the stimulus? We would not only have to take those tax benefits away, we would have to <span style="font-style: italic;">raise</span> taxes to make up for the additional debt incurred. Sure! As the economy stabilizes, I think we should raise taxes [and cut wasteful spending] to pay down the debt! Are the tea partisans suggesting that we raise taxes? No! From their rhetoric, it would again seem that the tea partisans are simply not aware of what's in the stimulus. So it's not so much about a policy position as it is about exploiting ignorance. If we give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they aren't that ignorant, perhaps we could interpret their position as a philosophical one. Perhaps they want to go back in time and undo <span style="font-style: italic;">those</span> tax cuts, so that we pay more taxes when the economy is in free fall, and in the <span style="font-style: italic;">future</span>, once the economy is stabilized, <span style="font-style: italic;">then</span> cut taxes. That would be the <span style="font-style: italic;">opposite</span> of my position.<br /><br />This brings us to the part of the stimulus they hate the most: [scary font]entitlements[/scary font]. Never mind that the entitlements in the stimulus were temporary increases in funding to unemployment and Medicaid, both of which saw greater burdens precisely because the economy was hurting. You have to be unemployed or extremely poor to qualify for those programs, and the failing economy created more people in those two categories. So, how would we claw that money back? Maybe we can sell the yachts they bought with the money? If you believe that, there is no hope for you. The rest of us know that unemployment and Medicaid expenses went to pay for basic costs of living, mostly in the form of products and services that were bought from businesses, consumed, and no longer have value except in the well-being of a living person! We could go to the grocers and doctors and ask <span style="font-style: italic;">them</span> for the money back, but they sold something they can't get back -- that would be unfair and it would put a lot of them out of business. Maybe we could grind up the poor and sell the meat as in Jonathan Swift's Modest Proposal. Setting aside the moral absurdity, even some right-wingers would tell you that reducing the population in that manner would make the labor market less favorable to business interests as there would be fewer people begging for jobs and thus market pressure to pay workers more. We progressives are against cannibalism because it is morally wrong. So what is it they want? Again, they seem to want to go back in time and yank out the safety net that saved so many hard working people who were hit by the failing economy.<br /><br />It turns out that I really don't have any common ground with the tea partisans after all.RhymesWithOrangehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13286545868199457106noreply@blogger.com3