Every time an opponent of same-sex marriage says that he doesn't want that lifestyle "shoved down (his) throat," I laugh, heartily, on the inside.

On the climate change stuff: I'm with The Economist on this. This week's issue has piece about how, on the one hand, the attempt to discredit, shout down, or otherwise repress those scientists who question the assumptions underpinning the notion that human beings are either causing or at least contributing to global warming is bad science. It's just as bad as whacko Christians on the right trying to suppress Evolutionary theorists in their own communities. Scientists are supposed to challenge prevailing hypotheses, not take them at face value.

On the other hand, this whole data-fudging/dissenting-opinion-repressing controversy not withstanding, it still seems to me (and to The Economist, hardly a leftwing publication) that it's a better bet than not that it would be better for all concerned if we take reasonable measures to reduce how much carbon dioxide we merrily pump into our air, for the sake of our own health if not for the environment. I see no evidence to overturn the basic notion that just allowing more and more greenhouse gases into the air can continue unregulated without consequence.

The environment isn't really "my" issue; I'm much more of an economics/labor fairness guy. The libertarian sensibilities I do have are often offended by the hegemonic control over the debate that "greens" can seem to have now: we HAVE to recycle, we HAVE to do this, we HAVE to do that. They can be whiny and annoying. The problem is, I think they are probably right most of the time.

I should be clear, I'm not suddenly saying that we roll out Cash For Priuses or any such thing. But f'ing the data like that, it's a serious offense, and frankly, I think it's reasonable (and I would have thought it unreasonable when I woke up this morning) to really ratchet down the pace of legislation (which wasn't moving all that fast to begin with) while we run a bake off on some of the science.

Dajafi said something like "it doesn't mean they're wrong" in their claims. Absolutely right, if I had to bet, I'd bet they're correct.

But on the other hand, if it was such a clear case, why'd they have to fudge the data?

dajafi wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:NY Senate votes down gay marriage 38-24

That's not particularly close

That's a shame, but not particularly surprising. It's irritating as all holy hell anyway, though.

Bigotry is BACK, baby!!!1

It's convenient in exactly the same way that Billy Wanger pitching for the Braves is: simplifies and reinforces how much I $#@! despise both entities.

I do think that the setbacks in California, Maine and New Jersey--where the spineless bastards didn't even bring it up for a vote--emboldened the bigots and cowards in Albany. Our state legislators are great followers, and once they realized that voting it down was likely costless in both political and economic terms, it became much easier.

Also, a staunch middle finger to the Catholic Church, which lobbied hard against this, as they've done everywhere. Priests $#@! little boys? Fine, just don't get caught--and if you do, for God's and real estate's sake make sure you limit the financial exposure. Two same-sex adults wanting the community to legally recognize their mutual love and commitment? That's the Devil's work!

In terms of worldly events, this has been a pretty depressing week.

I was raised Catholic, and, as I will never acquire another religion and know that the culture of Catholicism (particularly Irish-Catholicism) has shaped my character irrevocably, I will always consider myself Catholic in some fundamental sense.

But man, have they behaved abhorrently of late. All kinds of problems, and now this. I don't understand why the Catholic Church (or, to be fair, any number of different Christian religions) can't just see the division between civil contracts and religious recognition. The Catholic Church does not oppose the existence of or even deny the need for divorce proceedings, though it will not recognize marriages in which one of the parties has been married and divorced. This would be the exact same way: so the state grants a homosexual couple a marriage license. No one is saying the Catholic Church (or any other Church or religious/faith group) would then have to turn around and start recognizing gay marriages within the confines of their own belief structure! They already play this game with divorce (the Catholic Church does not recognize divorced couples as being unmarried unless they receive an annulment); why not just play it with gay marriages and live and let live? What the state does in terms of contracts it recognizes is none of the Church's affair!

Besides, the Catholic Church really ought to have bigger fish to fry. Abortion is a whole other ball of wax, and the Church's position there, while not in line with progressive thinking, is far more defensible, and, if they really believe what they say about abortion being murder, far more urgent than worrying what kinds of contracts the state is willing to recognize. Why waste the political capital they have on this noise?

mozartpc27 wrote:I was raised Catholic, and, as I will never acquire another religion and know that the culture of Catholicism (particularly Irish-Catholicism) has shaped my character irrevocably, I will always consider myself Catholic in some fundamental sense.

But man, have they behaved abhorrently of late. All kinds of problems, and now this. I don't understand why the Catholic Church (or, to be fair, any number of different Christian religions) can't just see the division between civil contracts and religious recognition. The Catholic Church does not oppose the existence of or even deny the need for divorce proceedings, though it will not recognize marriages in which one of the parties has been married and divorced. This would be the exact same way: so the state grants a homosexual couple a marriage license. No one is saying the Catholic Church (or any other Church or religious/faith group) would then have to turn around and start recognizing gay marriages within the confines of their own belief structure! They already play this game with divorce (the Catholic Church does not recognize divorced couples as being unmarried unless they receive an annulment); why not just play it with gay marriages and live and let live? What the state does in terms of contracts it recognizes is none of the Church's affair!

Besides, the Catholic Church really ought to have bigger fish to fry. Abortion is a whole other ball of wax, and the Church's position there, while not in line with progressive thinking, is far more defensible, and, if they really believe what they say about abortion being murder, far more urgent than worrying what kinds of contracts the state is willing to recognize. Why waste the political capital they have on this noise?

You're pretty much exactly where my wife is on all these questions. Difference (AFAIK) is that since she did get divorced but did not get an annulment, her breakup with the Church was pretty much mutual.

To be clear: I would never support legislation forcing any religious institution to recognize a union that its dogma did not accept. But as you say, it's a civil issue. There are some less-burning questions around employment and the provision of social services on government contracts where they can and can't discriminate, but those are issues much more open to tests and compromises.

I'm also with you on the distinction between full equality for homosexuals and abortion. I'm personally pro-choice, but I grant that there's validity on both sides of the debate and fundamental values in play. On civil rights, though, I see nothing to support the No position other than ignorance, fear, and hatred.

mozartpc27 wrote:Besides, the Catholic Church really ought to have bigger fish to fry. Abortion is a whole other ball of wax, and the Church's position there, while not in line with progressive thinking, is far more defensible, and, if they really believe what they say about abortion being murder, far more urgent than worrying what kinds of contracts the state is willing to recognize. Why waste the political capital they have on this noise?

For answers to questions like your last one, you are probably better off consulting Barzun's Dawn to Decadence than America. That is, it's more about the institutional imperative to find least-effortful issues that justify its existence than a thoughtful selection & pursuit of issues that truly merit its energies.

Al Santoro, the Executive Director of the Ocean County Democratic Party, pleaded guilty today to federal corruption charges, admitting that he took cash payments from a cooperating witness in exchange for promising to introduce him to public officials.

Considering there are only 21 counties in the state, it's remarkable the frequency with which Dem party chairs go to jail in New Jersey.

1. Declare position
2. Demand moral superiority
3. Demonize and slander all who disagree
4. Accomplish little

i got a letter in the mail confirming that i won the election or constable. i now have to file several forms regarding how much money i spent on my campaign. i spent nothing so it shouldnt be a problem.

is this better than the rent-a-car place

hahaha yes. i can carry a gun and rough up criminals!!

It doesn't seem like people are thinking much of this "jobs summit" that was held today. The White House itself seems pretty unenthusiastic at the whole idea, the congressional Democrats are terrified about next year and want to be seen as doing something/anything to show that "they're working on it," and the Republicans see it--as they do pretty much everything--only as an issue on which to smack around the administration and the majority. (They'll call for tax cuts, blissfully ignoring CBO data that show the tax cuts were the least effective component of the stimulus in terms of multiplier effect. That's the nice thing about blind faith, I guess.)

I've gotten two (mass) emails from people I know who were there and spoke. One was pretty much only self-aggrandizing; the other included a "contact your member of Congress and do X and Y" message, including an online form through which you can do this. What kills me about this is they must know how little-regarded such messages are; they must know that most who receive the email know; and yet they do it anyway.

dajafi wrote:It doesn't seem like people are thinking much of this "jobs summit" that was held today. The White House itself seems pretty unenthusiastic at the whole idea, the congressional Democrats are terrified about next year and want to be seen as doing something/anything to show that "they're working on it," and the Republicans see it--as they do pretty much everything--only as an issue on which to smack around the administration and the majority. (They'll call for tax cuts, blissfully ignoring CBO data that show the tax cuts were the least effective component of the stimulus in terms of multiplier effect. That's the nice thing about blind faith, I guess.)

I've gotten two (mass) emails from people I know who were there and spoke. One was pretty much only self-aggrandizing; the other included a "contact your member of Congress and do X and Y" message, including an online form through which you can do this. What kills me about this is they must know how little-regarded such messages are; they must know that most who receive the email know; and yet they do it anyway.

What's the multiplier on money not spent?

Obama doesn't want to increase the deficit. He is worried that the specter of permanent deficits will, as Robert Samuelson puts it, "ultimately rattle investors and lead to large, self-defeating increases in interest rates." Businesses won't grow without confidence. The left really hates this stubborness about deficit spending; nothing, they contend, is better evidence that the president remains hostage to conventional, if-well-meaning financial-industry-economic wisdom. Politically, the argument suggests that the anxiety that conventional political hacks attribute to deficit spending is actually anxiety about the effects of a lack of services and stability; more spending = more stability = more stuff = less anxiety.

Then comes along the economic conservative, who will propose some variant of tax cuts, less regulation, limited government. Here, corporate confidence is shattered because the president and his congressional allies are crowding out private enterprise. As the Club for Growth's Chris Chocola put it today, "We already had a large and successful jobs summit in this country: it was called the 1980s." The White House is liable to ignore this point of view.

On a more serious note, this sums up why Obama is so much more liked than most other Democrats. A lesser Democratic politician would have simply did what he wanted, deficits and long-term wellbeing be damned, and not worried about the economic consequences. Corporations (more specifically, the wealthy people that run them) that are preparing long-term forecasts can't help but factor in the future tax increases that are the necessary compliments to the most ambitious of the social spending programs. These people, who ultimately decide the trajectory of hirings, can't be bought off by more spending. So while I'm not an Obama supporter by any stretch, the country could be in a much bigger bind under another more active President.

Basically I'm saying that Obama is slowing the pace of Democratic anti-business legislation, which is probably keeping business sentiment afloat (barely).

Werthless wrote:On a more serious note, this sums up why Obama is so much more liked than most other Democrats. A lesser Democratic politician would have simply did what he wanted, deficits and long-term wellbeing be damned, and not worried about the economic consequences. Corporations (more specifically, the wealthy people that run them) that are preparing long-term forecasts can't help but factor in the future tax increases that are the necessary compliments to the most ambitious of the social spending programs. These people, who ultimately decide the trajectory of hirings, can't be bought off by more spending. So while I'm not an Obama supporter by any stretch, the country could be in a much bigger bind under another more active President.

Basically I'm saying that Obama is slowing the pace of Democratic anti-business legislation, which is probably keeping business sentiment afloat (barely).

I tend to think the administration is correct that there isn't much they can do in the short term to goose hiring, and I'm sensitive to the concerns about further deficit spending; this was a big part of why the escalation of the war bugged me. (Then again, I have a job, more or less.) They seem to believe, as I increasingly do, that in the long run all government can do is set conditions for economic growth, which basically means funding research, improving access to and quality of education, and setting reasonable rules of competition.

But political optics and actual conditions both rule out the Coolidge approach. I'd extend aid to states and localities, as well as UI and other benefits that are likely to be recirculated pretty much immediately--though even those things are more in the line of avoiding further job losses than creating new ones.

While I can pretty much buy that deficit concerns are casting a pall on future projections (this was the motivating consideration of Clinton's 1993 deficit reduction legislation, which we know worked out pretty well), the whole "active government is spooking the poor businesses" argument is transparently absurd. The economy did pretty well during the Johnson administration, which was a lot more "activist" than Obama has been, and considerably less well informed or modest about it.

Werthless wrote:Corporations (more specifically, the wealthy people that run them) that are preparing long-term forecasts can't help but factor in the future tax increases that are the necessary compliments to the most ambitious of the social spending programs. These people, who ultimately decide the trajectory of hirings, can't be bought off by more spending.

As someone who spends a dismaying amount of time with "these people" I think you're giving members of this class much too much credit for actually thinking, rationally factoring, etc.

the whole "active government is spooking the poor businesses" argument is transparently absurd

just because they nod solemnly at the musings of 'authorities' like Chocula doesn't mean they're giving the matter thought. The same nodders will nod the same way at recitations of My Pet Goat.

proposed title for new politix thread:

Our health care "system" will heal itself, so why govern at all, and other absurdities





Yea, I know it's too long