Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Sunday, December 02, 2012

OTP December 2012 - Pushing G.O.P. to Negotiate, Obama Ends Giving In

Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.

Bitter Mouse Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:15 PM | 6172 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 17 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›
   1601. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 09, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4320491)
1562: Nick--you raise some strong points, one's I'd love to address, but between the support issue (to which I've given more thought) and the need to write an email to my attorney to get her off her ass and finish something two months overdue by tomorrow, I may not get to it tonight.

edit: I see in 1564 that Morty brings up a number of interesting counters.


No rush, but when you do, note that I replied to Morty's #1564 in #1566.

And I'd be interested in any reaction from anyone to the pair of excellent articles I linked to in # 1568. The light to heat ratio in both of them is very impressive.
   1602. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 09, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4320492)
How reliable is vasectomy reversal these days?


Not reliable enough to advocate vasectomy as a temporary means of contraception.

Anabolic steroids, on the other hand, work pretty well.
   1603. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 09, 2012 at 09:56 PM (#4320493)
This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. Our poverty programs do rescue many people, but other times they backfire.
Kristof is blindingly stupid from time to time. He's saying that a program that is badly written at the margins is 'proof' of something other than the fact that the program is badly written at the margins.

The NYTimes needs to put some thinkers on the payroll.

1597 is shockingly reasonable.

Little idea what's in the Dem platform, but I imagine on the subject of taxes and income it's extremely weak. I'll go with an effective top rate around where it was when every man was king: say, 51%, to remind the rich where there money comes from; a tax on financial transactions that goes into a distinct account towards the next bailout (in part to remind everyone where the money goes), treating corporate income no differently than personal income, and a national living wage law

Oh, and single payer health insurance for everyone, removing the cap on the payroll tax, and a partridge in a pear tree.

Disagree with Democratic plank on affirmative action, believe hate-crime laws should be tighter and narrower, less war on drugs, cut out tax incentives on school loans, no to minimum wage increases.
I have a very tough time with hate-crime legislation. It's one of those things where maybe the only thing worse than no hate-crime legislation is hate-crime legislation. Oh, and an end to the war on drugs. Decriminalize pretty much everything. While pot is easy to imagine profitably taxing, I like the government to stay out of the people's business as much as possible. I don't know yet whether I favor not taxing it, or taxing it the way we tax something like... say... toilet paper, and monitor it the way the FDA does anything that's largely harmless, but can contain toxins. Maybe treat it like corn, or wheat, rather than tobacco. That is, keep it simple and ordinary.

And bravo for Joe's stance on gay marriage and the estate tax (which is probably the least philosophically justifiable of all the public policy positions I favor).

   1604. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2012 at 09:57 PM (#4320494)
There are other and better ways to raise low-skilled wages than raising the minimum wage — e.g., a crackdown on illegal immigration and/or a substantial reduction in low-skilled legal and illegal immigration.

Minimum wage is mostly paid to the very young, the very new to a low skilled job, and or the absolutely no skill is required type jobs. We've had this discussion before but very very few jobs get paid at minimum wage levels.
   1605. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:00 PM (#4320495)
We've already played this game. Despite a bunch of lefties talking about what they didn't like about the DNC and the left in general, nothing changed in the way the wingers saw lefties.

I remember asking the question before, but I don't recall the lefties rattling off many major disagreements with the progressive agenda.
   1606. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:01 PM (#4320496)
There are other and better ways to raise low-skilled wages than raising the minimum wage — e.g., a crackdown on illegal immigration and/or a substantial reduction in low-skilled legal and illegal immigration.


IOW, you don't disagree with Republicans on that issue.
   1607. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:04 PM (#4320499)
immigration very very very slightly if at all negatively impacts are most inept and ill-prepared workers.
   1608. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:04 PM (#4320500)
Minimum wage is mostly paid to the very young, the very new to a low skilled job, and or the absolutely no skill is required type jobs. We've had this discussion before but very very few jobs get paid at minimum wage levels.

Unless you were just using my comment as a jumping-off point, you're preaching to the choir.

***
IOW, you don't disagree with Republicans on that issue.

I never claimed otherwise. You're the one who brought up the minimum wage.
   1609. Gotham Dave Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4320501)
Care to list three major issues on which you disagree with the Dem platform? (Other liberals are welcome to jump in and do the same.)


1. Gun control (I don’t want less, but I think we have enough)
2. Protectionism (not actually in dem platform, but comes up a lot more on that side)
3. “Vice" taxes (cigarettes, alcohol, etc)

Those are three where I’m closer to the GOP than the Democrats; there’s about a hundred things I’m left of the Dems on. For example, I’m in favor of not just nationalized (actually nationalized) health care, but also a guaranteed minimum income. That would, of course, require higher taxes, but it would also eliminate the need for almost every other safety net program. If it was small, but enough to sustain oneself - $10k per capita, maybe - I seriously doubt it would have a large adverse impact on willingness to work (Americans aren’t as lazy as the GOP likes to pretend they are). It would also fix the problem that Kristof is talking about, where working more leads to loss of benefits. Everybody would get this benefit, from a homeless guy to Warren Buffet.

Yes, I’m aware this would cost $3 trillion - minus nearly every penny spent on social security. And I’d want extensive study done beforehand to make sure I’m not wrong about the disincentive. But for Chrissakes, Nixon was pushing this in the 70s. It wasn’t always wild-eyed leftism. I’d also have no problem with a flat tax starting on dollar zero of non-governmental income.

EDIT: And come on, gay marriage isn’t a “major issue”. It’s a stupid wedge that the GOP uses cynically and is quickly falling off the radar as people wise up. And it’s easy to say you want higher wages for the working class when you don’t plan to do anything about it.
   1610. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:07 PM (#4320503)
Care to list three major issues on which you disagree with the Dem platform? (Other liberals are welcome to jump in and do the same.)

Without refreshing my memory of the details of that platform, I think Obama's "school reform" is largely a gimmick; his regulatory agency appointees (and Clinton's before his) are too cozy with the companies they're supposed to be regulating; and he's far too unwilling to stand up for his judicial choices when faced with Republican intransigence. Hopefully some of this will change this time around.

And though I'm not sure how the platform deals with the issue, in general I'm far more inclined to believe in the importance of the nuclear family than many of the liberals I know. Too many liberals often conflate this support with gay bashing or single mother bashing, but just because conservatives often join these arguments together doesn't mean that liberals** should want to throw the wedding rings out with the wash. Poverty and broken families are far more correlated than many liberals often like to admit.

**And in this case I'm most definitely NOT talking about Obama, who believes in and acts on "family values" far more than the typical Republican.
   1611. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4320508)
Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households.
Nick, iirc that's from the Kristof article you linked to.

Why isn't the solution a very simple one--get rid of the destructive aspect of these programs by not penalizing the recipients for making ordinary, obvious decisions? If SSI payments decrease after the recipient's household makes, say, $85 a month in separate income, instead of taking half of those dollars, as I believe SSI currently does, take a very small fraction and do so on an ascending curve, thus incentivizing work.***

If the household limit for a program is 15k for the recipient, why not increase the limit by something like 15k plus the average of a new spouse's income over the last three years? That means if she marries a guy steadily making 30k, the new household limit is 45k.

The result is no penalty for marrying, isn't it?

I think a lot of these issues are very, very simple to solve. I won't say they're easy to solve, because of the politics that distorts them, but they do seem simple enough to fix; it's simple enough to take the deleterious effects out of them.

I do have a buddy on SSI, which is where I got the $85 limit from. He really does have little incentive to work. If he was able to work at Walmart for $8 an hour, 25 hours a week, his paycheck would be $860 a month. If it drops to $688 after taxes, he ends up losing half of 688 - 85 = 603 divided by 2 = $302.

That translates to something like $387 for 100 hours of work. That's a grotesque wage for anyone, let alone anyone whose typical week includes as much pain as most people experience in a year. Further, by disincentivizing work at the start, we discourage those people whose problems are tractable from starting careers that will lead over time to self-sufficiency.

***I realize there's a problem here. If I'm on SSI and also work, I might be racking up the $800 a month or so plus the proceeds of my minimum wage job. Maybe we disallow some tax breaks in those cases, or knock down the SSI benefits over time rather than all at once... My point is I think there are real ways out of this, and that programs cause problems not because the problems are inherent in the programs, but because the programs are badly designed.
   1612. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:12 PM (#4320509)
IOW, you don't disagree with Republicans on that issue.


I never claimed otherwise. You're the one who brought up the minimum wage.


That's not what I mean. You claimed that "wanting to see higher wages for working class people" was at odds with the mainstream Republican ideals. I doubt the Republican platform has any plank that opposes higher wages for working class people, aside from possibly an increase in the minimum wage. Thus, my point being that unless you are for an increase in minimum wage*, I'm not going to count your support for higher wages for the working class as one of your three items where you break with the Republicans.

*or some other mechanism which raises working class wages which is at odds with Republican ideals. Being opposed to illegal and low skill legal immigration doesn't count.
   1613. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:12 PM (#4320510)
By the way, Jericho turned into a pretty horrible network drama pretty darn quickly. I've got two episodes left in season 2 and then I have the comic to read. But man, what a clusterfVck of botched good ideas and poor execution that show was. I trult can't believe they couldn't come up with a better 29 shows in which to entertain us by telling us a story about a community dealing with a nuclear attack. In the end it wasn't as bad as Jeremiah in that the show is somewhat entertaining but it is right up there with Jeremiah in taking a pretty good idea and aboslutely shvtting the bed with it.

I'm willing to bet if the show had a 12 episode season instead of a 22 it would have been much better.
   1614. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:19 PM (#4320517)
Too many liberals often conflate this support with gay bashing or single mother bashing, but just because conservatives often join these arguments together doesn't mean that liberals** should want to throw the wedding rings out with the wash. Poverty and broken families are far more correlated than many liberals often like to admit.

A Moynihan Democrat! I thought those were extinct.

**And in this case I'm most definitely NOT talking about Obama, who believes in and acts on "family values" far more than the typical Republican.

I'll let this slide because of the honesty of the first quote above.
   1615. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:20 PM (#4320518)
I remember asking the question before, but I don't recall the lefties rattling off many major disagreements with the progressive agenda.
That's because the only disagreement you care about would include the total rejection of any progressive positions.
   1616. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:21 PM (#4320520)
1597 is shockingly reasonable.


Curious. Why is it shocking?
   1617. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:22 PM (#4320521)
EDIT: And come on, gay marriage isn’t a “major issue”. It’s a stupid wedge that the GOP uses cynically and is quickly falling off the radar as people wise up. And it’s easy to say you want higher wages for the working class when you don’t plan to do anything about it.

Gay marriage isn't a major issue? And until this year, hadn't it lost on every state ballot on which it had appeared, including very liberal places like California?

Despite the usual media narrative, it wasn't just some conservatives blocking gay marriage. Before this year, blacks and Latinos — two core Dem constituencies — opposed gay marriage in higher numbers than whites.
   1618. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:23 PM (#4320524)
Minimum wage is mostly paid to the very young, the very new to a low skilled job, and or the absolutely no skill is required type jobs. We've had this discussion before but very very few jobs get paid at minimum wage levels.
In any discussion of it, though, we need to account for the millions and millions of jobs that exceed the minimum by an inconsequential amount.

Curious. Why is it shocking?
That Joe asked what seemed like a reasonable question not obviously intended to tee up something he could flame over.
   1619. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:26 PM (#4320528)
That's not what I mean. You claimed that "wanting to see higher wages for working class people" was at odds with the mainstream Republican ideals. I doubt the Republican platform has any plank that opposes higher wages for working class people, aside from possibly an increase in the minimum wage. Thus, my point being that unless you are for an increase in minimum wage*, I'm not going to count your support for higher wages for the working class as one of your three items where you break with the Republicans.

*or some other mechanism which raises working class wages which is at odds with Republican ideals. Being opposed to illegal and low skill legal immigration doesn't count.

This is odd. I thought it was considered gospel among lefties that the GOP was anti-worker and/or in favor of cheap labor.
   1620. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:27 PM (#4320530)
Curious. Why is it shocking?

That Joe asked what seemed like a reasonable question not obviously intended to tee up something he could flame over.


So it was Joe's question which was shockingly reasonable, not my response in 1597. Or am I still missing something?
   1621. Jim Wisinski Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:28 PM (#4320531)
And come on, gay marriage isn’t a “major issue”. It’s a stupid wedge that the GOP uses cynically and is quickly falling off the radar as people wise up.


It's not really a major issue for Joe Kehoskie the BBTF commenter but if he wanted to become Joe Kehoskie the elected representative it could be a very big deal in a Republican primary. The country as a whole is quickly moving in the right direction on the issue but it's still more than enough for Republican candidates to get viciously attacked from within their party.
   1622. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4320532)
In any discussion of it, though, we need to account for the millions and millions of jobs that exceed the minimum by an inconsequential amount.

Such as?
   1623. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:31 PM (#4320533)
This is odd. I thought it was considered gospel among lefties that the GOP was anti-worker and/or in favor of cheap labor.


Give an example of a specific policy you favor which would both raise working class wages and would be at odds with republican ideals. I know it's not union support, and you've said it's not minimum wage increase. So what is it? Do you want tariffs? penalties for shipping jobs overseas? A higher EITC?
   1624. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4320536)
So it was Joe's question which was shockingly reasonable, not my response in 1597. Or am I still missing something?
It was Joe's question that was shockingly reasonable. My fault--I wasn't clear. Your response was just fine. I don't know your politics intimately enough to know where and how you disagree with the Democratic platform (a phrase specific enough I imagine Joe must have meant the actual platform that appeared at the 2012 convention) but the examples you listed aren't Dem platform planks. So it's all good.

But I've learned my lesson. Calling Joe reasonable only begets uncertainty and tension. :)
   1625. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:37 PM (#4320538)
In any discussion of it, though, we need to account for the millions and millions of jobs that exceed the minimum by an inconsequential amount.

Such as?
Well, all the millions and millions of jobs that exceed the minimum by an inconsequential amount.

I don't understand what you're asking.
   1626. Lassus Posted: December 09, 2012 at 10:58 PM (#4320556)
There are other and better ways to raise low-skilled wages than raising the minimum wage — e.g., a crackdown on illegal immigration and/or a substantial reduction in low-skilled legal and illegal immigration.

So, when you say three ways you differ from the Republican platform, you mean two. Good trick.
   1627. Tripon Posted: December 09, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4320562)
Illegal immigration creates workers who work for below minimum wage, despite them having some learned skill that would make them competitive(skill wise) with other legal skilled workers.

Cooks, for instance in the food industry.
   1628. Misirlou is on hiding to nowhere Posted: December 09, 2012 at 11:10 PM (#4320564)
So, when you say three ways you differ from the Republican platform, you mean two. Good trick.


No, he means he's opposed to Liberal caricatures of Republican positions. To wit:

This is odd. I thought it was considered gospel among lefties that the GOP was anti-worker and/or in favor of cheap labor.


In which case, my 3rd would be I'm opposed to taxing white male income over $50,000 at 100% in order to buy luxury apartments on the upper west side for single mom crack whores.
   1629. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: December 09, 2012 at 11:17 PM (#4320566)
Aren't white males with incomes over $50,000 already supporting the crack whores?
   1630. McCoy Posted: December 09, 2012 at 11:46 PM (#4320577)
I don't understand what you're asking.

If there are millions and millions of these jobs then you should be able to list off jobs that have a bunch of people that are getting paid at an inconsequential level above minimum wage.

Illegal immigration creates workers who work for below minimum wage, despite them having some learned skill that would make them competitive(skill wise) with other legal skilled workers.

Cooks, for instance in the food industry.


I have never ever met a cook who got paid the minimum wage outside of jobs they did so for reasons besides money. In otherwords they chose the minimum wage job over a job that would have paid more.
   1631. zenbitz Posted: December 09, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4320587)
IANAL

That'll keep you from paying child support, too

Jack Carter does make a fair point though. I am ok with a bit of pro women bias here.
   1632. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 10, 2012 at 12:06 AM (#4320595)
So, when you say three ways you differ from the Republican platform, you mean two. Good trick.

I never mentioned minimum wage, so what is this alleged "trick" to which you are referring?

To its great detriment, the GOP has hardly been the champion of the working man (and woman) in recent years. (And there are plenty of ways to help low-income workers that don't involve the minimum wage.)
   1633. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 10, 2012 at 12:28 AM (#4320604)
Lassus, did you want to give your take on why what Dana Perino (or me) said was wrong and what your view of the issue is?
   1634. Langer Monk Posted: December 10, 2012 at 12:30 AM (#4320605)
As with 1571, this issue does bring out the rancor. Thanks for.. showing up, though?

In any case, knowing the mechanics of conception is like knowing how roads work. It doesn't mean that another driver gets to cause you to bear $250,000 in costs just because you happen to be aware that sometimes, someone runs into you


Your analogy continues to be terrible.

You presume that the woman is at fault for not deciding to have an abortion, thereby forcing child support on the father. You presume here that the father has to bear $250,000 in costs while the woman ... what? Doesn't bear costs of her own, monetary and physical?

But hey, he just had sex with her, he didn't want anything else.

You seem much smarter than that nonsense. But I've got work in the morning.

   1635. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 10, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4320606)
@1630--I'll let you look up all those jobs, if that's your interest, but as far as salaries go,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

has good data. I'm not interested just in high school kids making the minimum, but also the 8.4 million people making 17.5k-19.99k, and the 10.9m making 20k-22.49k

When you say that only a small percentage of jobs pay the minimum, it seems to me like you believe that's an important distinction (Right? I mean, otherwise, why mention it?). But if on top of the, say, 3 million jobs that pay the minimum, 8.5 million more pay 50 cents to $2 more than the minimum because of pay bumps after some time has passed--and peak within a couple of years, it's misleading to say 'only 3 million people make the minimum wage, therefore it's not a problem'. When 87 million people bring in $19,999 or less, and when 20 million people are within 20% of the minimum wage, that's a whole hell of a lot of people suffering from a ridiculously low minimum wage which, of course, affects more than just the people making exactly the minimum.

By the way,Wiki points out that the US has a higher percentage of households we can classify as 'working poor' than other countries. 11% of the total are working poor households, while another 6% are considered nonworking poor.

That's a problem that's related to the minimum wage.



   1636. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 10, 2012 at 12:40 AM (#4320608)
Your analogy continues to be terrible.

You presume that the woman is at fault for not deciding to have an abortion, thereby forcing child support on the father. You presume here that the father has to bear $250,000 in costs while the woman ... what? Doesn't bear costs of her own, monetary and physical?

But hey, he just had sex with her, he didn't want anything else.

You seem much smarter than that nonsense. But I've got work in the morning.
Shoveling ####? I kid!

Thanks, I guess. Where I fault you is your claim that I'm finding fault with the woman. Fault has nothing to do with it, nor am I suggesting that, by gum, she should abort. That's her decision, just as it's her decision to give birth. As you point out, it's her 'physical costs', but it's also entirely her decision to bear those physical costs. No one is forcing the woman to bear those costs. The man doesn't want her to. Society in general doesn't want her to. As far as I can tell, she's the only one who wants to, so she (and you) doesn't get to play the 'physical costs', suffering card in this kind of discussion.

What I AM saying is that with the prevalence of safe, legal abortion, the conversation must shift. Child support is no longer a case of the sperm donor supporting the child, but rather that child support is now the sperm donor subsidizing the decision of the woman to have a child.

It's unfortunate that there's still a 'he should pay for his fun' morality injected into the discussion. It has no more place than does telling women, 'hey, if you didn't want to have a kid, you shouldn't have had sex'.

   1637. tshipman Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:29 AM (#4320637)
Minimum wage is mostly paid to the very young, the very new to a low skilled job, and or the absolutely no skill is required type jobs. We've had this discussion before but very very few jobs get paid at minimum wage levels.


Raising the minimum wage puts upward pressure on wages in general. If minimum wage is raised $10.00, then people who were making $10.00 before the jump want an increase in their compensation as well.

Raising the minimum wage has significant positive effects throughout the rest of the economy. The previous POV, that it causes higher unemployment, has been shown to not be true. Australia, for example, has high employment and extremely high minimum wages.
   1638. Srul Itza At Home Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:37 AM (#4320641)
As with 1571, this issue does bring out the rancor. Thanks for.. showing up, though?


It's not the rancor. It's the ignorance you display regarding abortion. You are extremely cavalier about it as a decision. That is very revealing. You equate "safe and legal" with "inconsequential." A display of supreme ignorance.
   1639. Srul Itza At Home Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:39 AM (#4320643)
If he didn't want to pay $6,800 a year in child support, he could have kicked in a few bucks for a rubber.
   1640. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:17 AM (#4320675)
Srul--I'm awfully sorry I didn't encumber my discussion with a display of fretting and hand wringing sufficient to indemnify myself against your wrath. Should I have condescended to women everywhere by talking about what a painful, dreadful, consuming procedure it is? Is referring to it as a 'procedure' more evidence of my depraved indifference to women's suffering everywhere? Or, to be fair to everyone, should I have headed each of my posts with a description of the rich gamut of emotional responses women have to abortion? And should I reply in kind to your post 1571 by asking you how many abortions of your fetuses women have had, to make you behave so uncongenially here?

Sorry I didn't pass your right wing political correctness test (people think I'm joking when I use that phrase, but this is a good example of it) on this one.

Not that your rancor warrants a serious reply, and not that you want to do anything other than barf invective, but when I used the phrase "legitimate objection" I meant "legitimate" in the sense of honestly held, instead of conjuring up an objection where she really had none for the sake of compelling support for her decision to bring a fetus.

By the way, speaking of your last paragraph, can we assume it means you endorse my position as long as the man used contraception? Or, does it mean you stand outside Planned Parenthood clinics with a sign declaring, "If you don't want a baby, you shoulda kept your legs crossed" ?

Oh, and, nyah nyahnyah nyah nyah.

Raising the minimum wage puts upward pressure on wages in general. If minimum wage is raised $10.00, then people who were making $10.00 before the jump want an increase in their compensation as well.

Raising the minimum wage has significant positive effects throughout the rest of the economy. The previous POV, that it causes higher unemployment, has been shown to not be true. Australia, for example, has high employment and extremely high minimum wages.
Once again, mr. shipman is more compact and erudite than I.

It puts me in mind of the various claims that high upper marginal rates murder recovery in its crib, when simple graphs showing top rates and unemployment in the US show that increasing the top rates corresponds to lower unemployment.

I'll look for a reputable study (one not done by, say, the Chamber of Commerce) on the relationship between raising the minimum wage and employment. There will be a point of decreasing returns. Penetrating the politics on all side to find where that point is, is the problem.

   1641. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 08:09 AM (#4320734)
Lassus, did you want to give your take on why what Dana Perino (or me) said was wrong and what your view of the issue is?

My take is that you and Perino place too high a percentage of the responsibility of domestic violence on the victims of domestic violence. Based on the last few pages of this topic, I have no interest in discussing the matter further.


I never mentioned minimum wage, so what is this alleged "trick" to which you are referring?

As I didn't either, I have no idea why you would bring it up in response to what I said.

Moving on to what I did say, cutting down on illegal and legal immigration is a staple of the Republican platform. To cite that as an example of how you differ from the Republican platform makes no sense.
   1642. bunyon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 09:41 AM (#4320761)
Seems to be a lot of black/white viewpoints on a very gray subject. Take three women:


1) abducted at knifepoint on the way from her office to her car, taken to a remote location, beaten, raped

2) goes drinking with a long time male friend, she gets very drunk, they have sex after she mumbles something along the lines of "i don't want to", in the morning she doesn't really remember clearly what happened when and the guy just says he couldn't hear her.

3) goes to a frat party, does seven shots in seven minutes, takes her top off and does a dance, takes a drink offered up by one of the brothers, wakes up in the morning with two guys, none of the three of them remember anything from the night before.



I've heard all three of these described as rape. I'd place exactly zero blame on the woman in 1. A little in 2, though note that she was with a "friend" who had always treated her well, so she clearly felt safer than the girl in 3 should have. And a whole hell of a lot of blame on the girl in 3. That isn't to excuse the guys in 3, but if a girl puts themselves in that situation, bad things will usually happen and it isn't exactly a secret. I speak to college age girls pretty often in my job and when the topic comes up, I try my best to tell them drinking that much around strangers - especially teenage male strangers - is a terrible idea. Again, this isn't to excuse the guys. A sober guy who takes advantage in that situation is committing an immoral act. But many (most?) would. So, it isn't #3's "fault" but a reasonable change in her behavior would have altered the outcome.


The same is true in domestic violence, I think. A woman beaten by a previously loving and gentle mate takes no blame. A woman who keeps going back to an abuser does. Again, that doesn't change the fact that the guy is an abuser and a bad man. But the serial reconcilliations have to put some blame on the woman.

If we aren't going to hold any women responsibile for their behavior, ever, then we are pretty much saying that they're inferior to men. Always only blaming the men doesn't make any more sense than always blaming the woman. I don't think women are asking for it or getting what they deserve, but they also aren't getting anything that should come as a surprise in many situations.
   1643. BDC Posted: December 10, 2012 at 09:59 AM (#4320766)
One dynamic that must be factored into any minimum-wage discussion is how employers find ways around it. The most common is to cap weekly work hours somewhere in the 30s. So even if the wage is technically above minimum, the take-home pay may be below a 40-hour week minimum, the worker's chance at supplementing that income with another "part-time" job hampered, and benefits unobtainable.

Another factor WRT immigration, legal or illegal, is that language is a central skill. There are still quite a lot of immigrants with reasonably white-collar training but without American certification, and too little English to obtain it. (Many Vietnamese immigrants fit that pattern, stereotypically but also in some very real ways.) If they're working as cooks, they may not have the luxury of skipping along to the next four-star restaurant.
   1644. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM (#4320769)
Places where I differ from the Democratic Platform,

Note #1: I have not actually read the darn thing, so I am including extras incase I accidentlally am agreed with by said document

Note #2: Not snark, but I really wanted to find things I agree with the GOP on, but honestly could not find much. Their social policy is laothsome in large part, their good economic ideas have been coopted by the Democrats, and they are not (at this point) a party of ideas that is in favor much of anything that appeals to me. Back in the 80s and 90s there was plenty I agreed with them though.

* Military spending I want much less.
* Foreign policy, much too warlike and sucking up to bad actors rather than doing what is right
* Taxing non-profits, I am in favor
* Term limits for SC, Not in favor of lifetime appointments for judges - think thatis just dumb
* Drug policy, this policy is really terrible
* Internet and privacy, in favor of net nuetrality and a strong opt out privacy policy (more like Europe)
* IP, the current laws and trend are terrible. Example software should not be patentable and seriously the Mouse needs to be in public domain already.
* Favor of carbon tax (Might be in platform - too lazy to look)
* Single Payer health care (Might be in platform - too lazy to look)
* Financial transaction tax (Might be in platform - too lazy to look)
* Ethanol is a crock and should be eliminated (Edit: Subsides for should be eliminated - in fact most farm subsidies should be killed)
   1645. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:04 AM (#4320771)
Bunyon, while I disagree with quite a lot of what you wrote, I always appreciate the attitude with which you approach these things.


That isn't to excuse the guys in 3, but if a girl puts themselves in that situation, bad things will usually happen and it isn't exactly a secret.

I honestly don't think this would be the reaction if a similar number of straight, pretty frat boys started waking up confused and sore in the beds of gay gym rats.
   1646. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4320779)
Regarding the whole blame the victim sub-thread ...

Why the need to blame the women? They are already feeling the brunt of their decisions. Something bad happened to them. There is zero need to pile on and cast blame at them.

The discussion should start with 'sexual assault is wrong'. Have a healthy dose in the middle of 'sexual assault is wrong'. And it should end with 'sexual assault is wrong'. Why? Because sexual assault is wrong.

I am raising my boys and they know that they are responsible for themselves. Even when life is not fair they know that they are responsible for their lives. And if they were sexually assaulted (men get assaulted too, but not nearly as often) I would spend 0% of my time deciding what their level of responsibility was and blaming them.

First of all victims tend to blame themselves way out of proportion to their culpability. Second the person who broke the law is the person who ... wait for it ... broke the law - they are to blame. Third they already suffered the consequence, they will have to live with what happened, they would be living with responsibility - they certainly would not need me to cast blame and explain all the things that they did wrong.

And none of that means I would not work with them on how to avoid troublesome situations, but blaming the victim is loathsome, even indirectly or by inference.

Note: The reason this whole bit is a strawman is liberals do believe in personal responsibility. Pretending they don't is classic. However liberals don't believe in meanspirited punishment and castigation for irresponsibility, which to some is the same as not accepting individual responsibility.
   1647. bunyon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:42 AM (#4320795)
I honestly don't think this would be the reaction if a similar number of straight, pretty frat boys started waking up confused and sore in the beds of gay gym rats.

Maybe not from everyone, but it would from me. Drinking (doing drugs) to the point of incoherence invites trouble. If your goal is to get blotto, you are turning over control of your person to others. Obviously, if the drug is involuntarily consumed, it's a different story.


I think we've been down this road before and I've always thought "blame" is the wrong word. I'm not sure what the right word is but my general point is, sober, people have control over their bodies and actions. Surely, a weaker person may lose that control involuntarily to a stronger person and an unarmed person to an armed person. But if the loss of control is voluntary - and it is in many cases - the fact that others take advantage should not come as a shock and, in some sense, blame follows. In my mind this isn't legal blame - I wouldn't send someone to jail for blacking out. But, yeah, I feel worse for woman 1 in my example than woman 3.

As to sexual assault being wrong and agaist the law, yes, of course. I'm not saying (though I recognize a lot of folks might) that the guys in these stories shouldn't go to jail (or at least be investigated). But I expect proof. If two people have sex and no one remembers what happened, what is your proof? Is it an automatic rape if the woman says so?

Again, if you can prove a crime occured, by all means, punish the offender. But the "responsibility" angle, while not liberal or conservative, in my opinion, is absolutely real. We have a university (maybe more general but that is my experience) that expects women to get blitzed with a bunch of guys who are also, generally, blitzed. I don't know who is to blame for that culture but it exists and it leads to trouble. That's all cool if the woman doesn't care where she ends up or with who (which is often the case), but if a woman does care about such things, getting blitzed is a bad idea. Just as it is for men. Men just seem less prone to regret in these situations.

Speaking of regret, I regret not making clear that just as I tell young women all this when I hear them planning their 48 hour binges (yes, I hear this pretty frequently), I tell guys the same thing. I tell women, worst case they get raped. I tell men, worst case they become a monster and go to jail for 20 years. I'm sort of a buzzkill. Which is the point I guess. I'd feel a lot better if the 10 minutes before class starts was filled with talk of the latest chemistry breakthroughs or some cool piece of literature. But it is most often party planning.
   1648. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4320800)
Maybe not from everyone, but it would from me.

I definitely understood this, and my wording was poor and best and simply wrong at worst in regards to you personally. The position you hold as written is not particularly unique, though, so I did mean the general reaction, if not yours specifically.
   1649. bunyon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:02 AM (#4320806)
I took no offense. I also think you guys might be imagining I go looking for girls who may, or may not, have been raped and criticize them. Not the case. It's simply a general discussion - and one, hopefully, most girls (and guys) have with people close to them before they go out in the world. My main point is that while "sexual assault is wrong" is a black and white and true statement, it isn't always clear what is and is not sexual assault. Putting all allegations and instances in the same bag is, in my opinion, silly and counterproductive to minimizing the damage.
   1650. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM (#4320830)
Putting all allegations and instances in the same bag is, in my opinion, silly and counterproductive to minimizing the damage.

As with Ray and domestic violence, the issue is not "all", but "more". The disagreement and discussion is about the where and why of the line.
   1651. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4320848)
My main point is that while "sexual assault is wrong" is a black and white and true statement, it isn't always clear what is and is not sexual assault. Putting all allegations and instances in the same bag is, in my opinion, silly and counterproductive to minimizing the damage.


This is true. Any discussion which begins with talk of sexual assault and personal responsibility though has a definite cast to it though, especially when we are talking about specific instances where no one here is close enough to really have an informed opinion.

In abstract determining what is and is not sexual assault is crazy hard after the fact for other people, but super simple when there - seek consent, no really does mean no, and when in doubt don't do it.

I am amused (disgusted really) that some folks talk about the woman's personal responsibility and how she should know better, but no one talks about the personal responsibility of the man. "Hey in today's world you better know for sure everything is OK or you might end up accused of rape when you did nothing. But you put yourself in that position and you know, or should know, what it is like out there and what the risks are, just like women who drink, date certain guys, or dress 'that way' should know better."

For some folks sauce for the goose is much different than sauce for the gander - personal responsibility only gets applied to some (gender specific) folks I guess.
   1652. villageidiom Posted: December 10, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4320853)
Note: The reason this whole bit is a strawman is liberals do believe in personal responsibility. Pretending they don't is classic. However liberals don't believe in meanspirited punishment and castigation for irresponsibility, which to some is the same as not accepting individual responsibility.
Liberals want to treat the cause, not the symptoms. Conservatives want to withhold the treatment because it has adverse side effects. Progressives are OK with treating the symptoms, because at least something is being done. Libertarians want everyone to stop trying to make this their problem.

They're all correct.

Well, except Progressives. ;-)
   1653. bunyon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 12:01 PM (#4320858)
"Hey in today's world you better know for sure everything is OK or you might end up accused of rape when you did nothing. But you put yourself in that position and you know, or should know, what it is like out there and what the risks are, just like women who drink, date certain guys, or dress 'that way' should know better."

As I say above, I do tell guys this and think it is true. Drunk sex carries risk to both sides. I simply object to the idea that a woman should be able to change her mind or be vague in her refusal. "When in doubt don't" is fine but I think a woman also has a responsibility to be very clear and to leave no doubt as to her intent. Two drunk people (well, two sober people, even, but especially blotto folks) may very well interpret statements and actions differently and be reasonable doing so.

For some folks sauce for the goose is much different than sauce for the gander - personal responsibility only gets applied to some (gender specific) folks I guess.

Right. Some (mostly men) seem to think any woman who isn't wearing a chastity belt is fair game. Others (mostly women) think most sex is a result of coercion. It's clearly somewhere in the wide chasm in between. But sex is (for most of us anyway) a mutual endeavor with responsibilities on both sides. I think what often happens in these discussions is someone states a position, someone else reacts to that, then others (who, just for example, didn't read the previous page before weighing in) react to the reaction.
   1654. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 10, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4320892)
I think what often happens in these discussions is someone states a position, someone else reacts to that, then others (who, just for example, didn't read the previous page before weighing in) react to the reaction.


If this is aimed at me, I did read the previous page. I was not directly speaking to what you said so much as what others had said. However in most of what you said, I do agree with your post in 1653, but there are some definite hot button issues here and reflexive talking points on both sides.

I simply object to the idea that a woman should be able to change her mind or be vague in her refusal.


I presume you mean "change her mind after the fact" which is - of course - annoying. Changing one's mind before or even during is allowed. Perhaps disappointing, but too bad. Vague in refusal, I don't know what that means I guess, anything negative in nature means no - full stop. In practice it is simple, though I admit perhaps simpler for me because I don't drink or do drugs.
   1655. Morty Causa Posted: December 10, 2012 at 12:34 PM (#4320909)
Prison time is more than just annoying.

It isn't just the changing of mind after the fact, it's the whole culture that prevails of deferring to one sex's version under opprobrium of "blaming the victim." This mindset presumes to be true that which is to be proved, and that is just plain awful. Some crimes are so dire, so special we are tikd, that requiring evidence is in the nature of an insult. In fact, the harder it is to prove those crimes, the lower the requirement level if proof.
   1656. villageidiom Posted: December 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM (#4320920)
It isn't just the changing of mind after the fact, it's the whole culture that prevails of deferrubg ti one sex's version under opprobrium of "blaming the victim." This mindset presumes to be true that which is to be proved, and that is just plain awful. Some crimes are so dire, so special we are tikd, that requiring evidence is in the nature of an insult. In fact, the harder it is to prove those crimes, the lower the requirement level if proof.
On the basis of this post, Autocorrect has just been arrested for allegedly raping you.
   1657. Ron J2 Posted: December 10, 2012 at 12:46 PM (#4320921)
#1488 The was some discussion last month about the revisions to the GDP numbers. As it happens Nate Silver discusses this in his section on economists (He's not kind).

Going back to 1965 the average revision is 1.7 points of GDP. Note, that doesn't mean 1.7%, that's 1.7 raw points. The standard error of the initial estimate of GDP is 3.4%.

Basically because of time constraints parts of the initial numbers are little more than educated guesses.
   1658. Ron J2 Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4320935)
Hey, have you (or anyone) read Nate Silver's The Signal and The Noise?


Reading it now. Enjoying it though it's a bit hit and miss. It's a great resource thanks to the footnotes. You can find the source papers on whatever topic he's discussing.

   1659. Morty Causa Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:08 PM (#4320943)
Plenty of them, but none of them remove a smidgen of culpability from her murderer. Her lack of morality pertains to the effect her life choices have had on others: Her children (if any), her husband (if any, and if he wasn't also her pimp), her friends or neighbors (if she'd stolen from them to support a habit), and possibly many others along the way. I'm not trying to soft-pedal any of that. But none of that makes her morally responsible (or "blameworthy") for her own death.


WYour culminating line is nothing more than a naked assertion. You can say that. But that's all it is: you saying that. The question still remains: Why not? If people insist on toying with tigers and lions, should they have a cognizable right to expect society to be at a loss for explanations when they are eaten. And can they expect society to expend vast resources to validate that right to engage in that predictably risky behavior by futilely trying to insure that the wholly expected doesn't happen. Maybe we should because it may be a necessary falsehood that we have to all agree to in order for social organization to come about and even work, such as it does, but that (and the issue of the extent we have free will, if we have it at all) is another, but essential, issue.

Truth is, the only definitive answer to those hard questions in most cases is to have a surveillance camera on the scene, because otherwise we're reduced to simply making assumptions. Without that, we can often make reasonable inferences from other facts that we know for sure, but without that visual evidence, you're never going to have 100% certainty.


That's right. Of course there is no certainty. (When is there?) We make assumptions. But we can, and should, question why they are made where they are, and what the repercussions are of making them there, and society has an interest in seeing that they are made in fair and even-handed way. Are they? Are the reciprocal rights and obligations of these two classes the same? No. Why not?
   1660. Ron J2 Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4320944)
Word is a horrible program that seems to get worse and worse with each revision.


And it's the dominant product precisely because of the bloated hunk of junk that was Word Perfect 6.0. The Word Perfect 5 family was the dominant product on the market and the users were mostly pretty happy with it.

6.0 came along. It filled most hard disks of the day. It was so slow and buggy. I had the pleasure of being screamed at by customers demanding that it be removed and replaced with something that actually worked. And what worked (since it was hard to get the old version of Word Perfect) was Word.
   1661. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4320946)
It isn't just the changing of mind after the fact, it's the whole culture that prevails of deferring to one sex's version under opprobrium of "blaming the victim." This mindset presumes to be true that which is to be proved, and that is just plain awful. Some crimes are so dire, so special we are tikd, that requiring evidence is in the nature of an insult. In fact, the harder it is to prove those crimes, the lower the requirement level if proof.


I had to read this several times, and I still may not being actually understanding it but here goes ...

How common is unreported rape? What are the reasons for this? Is rape that is dismissed out of hand more common than false accusations of rape? What are the rates? How common is "after the fact mind change" accusations? What is the conviction percent on rape (by various types of accusations)?

I suspect various groups have much different ideas on the answers to these questions and so arrive at much different "solutions". Some folks want to defund welfare because there exists a welfare queen driving a cadillac or watching a big screen TV, others suggest even questioning welfare at all is racist. Dwelling on either of those positions is counterproductive, but makes for internet fodder I suppose (and yet racism is more than a bit more common than extravegant welfare fraud, so the positions are in fact not interchangable in lunacy).
   1662. Greg K Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4320949)
Reading it now. Enjoying it though it's a bit hit and miss. It's a great resource thanks to the footnotes. You can find the source papers on whatever topic he's discussing.

Maybe it's a product of being in academia too long, but non-fiction books without footnotes drive me crazy. They save so much time digging around trying to find the source material (which presumably you're interested in if you're reading the book!)
   1663. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4320956)
I had to read this several times, and I still may not being actually understanding it

It's not you. Trust me.
   1664. DA Baracus is a "bloodthirsty fan of Atlanta." Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4320960)
From PPP:

Stephen Colbert is the top choice of South Carolinians to replace Jim DeMint in the Senate.
   1665. Ron J2 Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4320962)
#1662 Lots and lots of footnotes in Nate's book. Some of them are a tad annoying though. Some digressions are taken to footnotes. In theory it cleans up the narrative. In practice though -- for me it's, "See footnote, read it" IOW it breaks the narrative even further.

Still, it's mostly a book on how to think about complex problems. What works and what doesn't. It also has the first decent discussion of overfitting (mistaking noise for signal) that I've ever seen outside of a text book.
   1666. GregD Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4320964)
Reading it now. Enjoying it though it's a bit hit and miss. It's a great resource thanks to the footnotes. You can find the source papers on whatever topic he's discussing.
+1. Some really fascinating parts and some really boring parts.
   1667. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:24 PM (#4320965)
Regarding the whole blame the victim sub-thread ...

Why the need to blame the women? They are already feeling the brunt of their decisions. Something bad happened to them. There is zero need to pile on and cast blame at them.


First, I want it made clear that I was talking about domestic violence, not sexual assault/rape. The discussion immediately moved to the latter and I don't have time to opine on the latter.

As to the former, I wouldn't use the word "blame"; I am talking about the decisionmaking on the part of women and why they too often put themselves/stay in relationships that are clearly harmful to them.

I am raising my boys and they know that they are responsible for themselves. Even when life is not fair they know that they are responsible for their lives. And if they were sexually assaulted (men get assaulted too, but not nearly as often)


Yes, I understand Hollywood did a movie dealing with this important topic. And when they did, they had Michael Douglas being sexually assaulted by a hot Demi Moore. That is about the level of seriousness that the viewpoint "Hey, men get sexually assaulted by women too!" deserves.
   1668. JL Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4320967)
3) goes to a frat party, does seven shots in seven minutes, takes her top off and does a dance, takes a drink offered up by one of the brothers, wakes up in the morning with two guys, none of the three of them remember anything from the night before.

So why does this scenario assume that she did not consent, but that the men did? Why are they held strictly responsible for their conduct while at this level of drunkeness, but she is not?

What if the scenariop is that she was a former girlfriend who had cheated on him. He has stayed away from her and dislikes her intensely. They meet at a party where they are both drunk, him extremely. They wake up the next morning, her happy and him horrified. Does our analysis change? Why or why not?
   1669. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4320971)
if it isn't out there already it will be that the speaker was told to expect a challenge to his leadership if there is a deal that includes a tax rate increase

   1670. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4320972)
#1662 Lots and lots of footnotes in Nate's book. Some of them are a tad annoying though. Some digressions are taken to footnotes. In theory it cleans up the narrative. In practice though -- for me it's, "See footnote, read it" IOW it breaks the narrative even further.


This is the problem I have with Bill Simmons's writing. Too many damned footnotes that interrupt the flow of what he's talking about - and the main text he writes is quite good and interesting and can stand on its own. (At least for the subjects he knows about.)

The Posnanski style of rambling in the main text insted of footnoting the tangents works better, but is still a mess. Just do a new column/chapter on it if it is worthy of being discussed.

Someone like Rob Neyer or Joe Sheehan's style of writing is far better.
   1671. Morty Causa Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4320975)
I worked for the Social Security Administration for ten years, starting when SSI was created and went into operation in 1974, and I could have told you then what Kristof just came out of a coma to discover: that in a horrible reverse way it's like an inherited aristocracy--a very poor one, to be sure. Generation after generation stay on welfare, and SSI is no exception (moreover, SSI is just a continuation of programs that the States ran before they were nationalized under the SSI program). It should be also noted that many don't inherited their niche, though. All programs have waste; none operate perfectly. They all have a downside. But there is a definite welfare mentality among many people, and those people become state welfare and SSI recipients.

It's complicated, and one should not pontificate without serious study, but I will say that you can't address the problems of welfare and SSI without addressing Medicaid. For many of those people, it isn't the checks, it's the Medicaid medical benefits that come with them. You lose your entitlemen to SSI, you lose your Medicaid in most cases.
   1672. Morty Causa Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4320983)
How common is unreported rape? What are the reasons for this? Is rape that is dismissed out of hand more common than false accusations of rape? What are the rates? How common is "after the fact mind change" accusations? What is the conviction percent on rape (by various types of accusations)?


How common is unreported theft? I mean, it's unreported, so how would you know. Just take the word of the guy makes the sub rosa claim that he was the victim of stealing? What's that worth?
Are people falsely accused of theft? What are the rates? Etc.
   1673. Morty Causa Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4320986)
I suspect various groups have much different ideas on the answers to these questions and so arrive at much different "solutions".


That's right, and society and its institutions and processes are how we mediate those different views and solutions. You don't just as a matter of course assume one side must be always right--or our social apparatuses should always assume they are. Much is about assumptions and presumptions--you get those, you win.
   1674. villageidiom Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:43 PM (#4320987)
I know it's incorrect, but I love thinking the second quote was in response to the first:
What if the scenariop is that she was a former girlfriend who had cheated on him. He has stayed away from her and dislikes her intensely. They meet at a party where they are both drunk, him extremely. They wake up the next morning, her happy and him horrified. Does our analysis change? Why or why not?

if it isn't out there already it will be that the speaker was told to expect a challenge to his leadership if there is a deal that includes a tax rate increase
   1675. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4320991)
Yes, I understand Hollywood did a movie dealing with this important topic. And when they did, they had Michael Douglas being sexually assaulted by a hot Demi Moore. That is about the level of seriousness that the viewpoint "Hey, men get sexually assaulted by women too!" deserves.


Ray, men can and do get sexually assaulted by men. And it can be serious and is very underreported and deserves more attention. I am not surprised you are both clueless about and insensitive to this.
   1676. Morty Causa Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:47 PM (#4320992)
So why does this scenario assume that she did not consent, but that the men did? Why are they held strictly responsible for their conduct while at this level of drunkeness, but she is not?


Yes, I've said this in this discussion in many ways. Where is the reciprocity? She can be too drunk to consent, even if her actions belie this, and the drunken guy is held to a standard of being able to know this, but he can claim the defense, hey, I was drunk, too. I didn't she didn't know she wouldn't really want to do it tomorrow. The system is so weighted against one class here that it amuonts to absurdity on the level of Catch 22.
   1677. zonk Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:48 PM (#4320993)
if it isn't out there already it will be that the speaker was told to expect a challenge to his leadership if there is a deal that includes a tax rate increase


Tom Price, apparently -- or so the rumors have it.

Remember, too -- there were several 'conservatives' who have been complaining that there were ousted from plum committee assignments... supposedly because they went rogue too often on vote wrangling.

It's interesting to compare caucus management between Boehner and Pelosi --

Boehner, I think, has been a lot more 'democratic' (small d) in getting things to the floor and getting votes on legislation than Pelosi.

However, legislatively speaking - it's hard for me to see how this has worked out well for the GOP (electorally, let's set aside).

Pelosi, OTOH, did rule her caucus as leader much more authoritatively -- she certainly hails from the progressive wing of the party, but when push came to shove and she had to wrangle the votes for watered down senate versions of bills (be it the stimulus bill or ACA) -- she always got the votes and always got them with limited drama. In effect, when the 'compromise' writing was on the wall - she was quite good at getting the progressive caucus to STFU and give her the votes she needed.

Part of this difference, of course, is caucus composition -- the blue dog power in the Democratic party has been waning for 3 or 4 cycles now (the lion's share of Democratic losses in 2010 were blue dogs), so there just hasn't been much there for the Hoyers/Schulers to hang their hats on (indeed, Schuler retired last cycle).

However - I do think there's a marked difference in caucus leadership between Pelosi and Boehner... and from most accounts, it would seem that Boehner is tacking more towards Pelosi.

I'm not saying either approach is better -- just saying we have seen two different styles and by most accounts, Boehner is trending towards Pelosi' style.

My bet is that Boehner survives - and it's not really even close... it might be a bit messier, louder, and closer than when Schuler challenged Pelosi for caucus leadership - but I suspect that's mainly because Hoyer was a better/more loyal #2 than Cantor is for Boehner.
   1678. Morty Causa Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:50 PM (#4320994)
Ray, men can and do get sexually assaulted by men. And it can be serious and is very underreported and deserves more attention. I am not surprised you are both clueless about and insensitive to this.


Until well into the'60s and beyond, homosexual sexual assault in most jurisdictions was a misdemeanor. That meant that a victim couldn't defend himself with ultimate force. That's what society thought of men's sensitivity.
   1679. villageidiom Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4320997)
How common is unreported theft? I mean, it's unreported, so how would you know. Just take the word of the guy makes the sub rosa claim that he was the victim of stealing? What's that worth?
Are people falsely accused of theft? What are the rates? Etc.
I work in insurance, and let's just say the insurance industry gets a higher volume of reported theft than the police do.

That's not necessarily indicative of "unreported" theft. It could be (and likely is) indicative of fraud. It could be (and definitely is) indicative of some people losing stuff and assuming someone must have stolen it. More to your point, it could be a theft, but the victim is unsure if it was stolen or just misplaced, and wouldn't report it because they don't want to accuse falsely.
   1680. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 10, 2012 at 01:56 PM (#4321000)
Pelosi, OTOH, did rule her caucus as leader much more authoritatively -- she certainly hails from the progressive wing of the party, but when push came to shove and she had to wrangle the votes for watered down senate versions of bills (be it the stimulus bill or ACA) -- she always got the votes and always got them with limited drama. In effect, when the 'compromise' writing was on the wall - she was quite good at getting the progressive caucus to STFU and give her the votes she needed.


Pelosi is a very good caucus leader. I will miss her when she is gone, and I hope she has many more elections and years left in her.
   1681. GregD Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4321019)
Hoyer is a perfect #2 in the sense that he is seen--for whatever reason--as unable to get through the caucus as the leader, so he works like hell to preserve his position and knows that if he takes down Pelosi, he not only won't replace her but would get replaced.

I'm not sure why Hoyer is seen as the moderate since his voting record is just about as liberal as Pelosi. But that is how he is seen, and I'm sure you'd get both an internal and external push against him if he went for the top. It took Pelosi a while to realize it but having a #2 who is seen as from the weaker wing of the party is the perfect vest for her.
   1682. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4321021)
zonk

the speaker's committee purges were pre-emptive moves at some backbenchers to send a louder message to play nice or pay the price

   1683. GregD Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:18 PM (#4321031)
HW, what do you think are the odds of 17 Reps voting for a symbolic candidate to shut down the House? Beating Boehner doesn't seem in the cards right now, but getting 20 people together to prevent his re-election doesn't seem impossible
   1684. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4321036)
I'm not sure why Hoyer is seen as the moderate since his voting record is just about as liberal as Pelosi.


He spends too much time talking about grand compromises that cut entitlements. His rhetoric is often "very serious Washington talking head" focused which is not appreciated by the liberal activists. That's my semi-educated opinion about him anyway.

Aside: Andrew Cuomo has surpassed him and pretty much everyone else as the Democrat that the liberal activist base really doesn't like. Not sure how justified it is honestly, but if he runs for President in 16 we will see how important that class of liberal is.
   1685. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4321044)
Pelosi is a very good caucus leader. I will miss her when she is gone, and I hope she has many more elections and years left in her.

If you can judge a person by the mental level of her most vocal enemies, Pelosi's stature is high indeed. She's a blue blood blue collar daughter of a Baltimore pol, and it shows in the effectiveness of her leadership. Her role in the ACA passage alone ensures her legacy.
   1686. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4321049)
Obama's Nobel suddenly looks better in comparison.

Favorite part of the article:
Despite a year marked by riots in many European capitals and the real prospect of break up caused by the euro crisis, Mr Barroso hailed the EU as "a remarkable journey which is leading us to an 'ever closer Union'".


Though
Mr Van Rompuy insisted that the EU deserved the award despite deep divisions between Northern and Southern countries, soaring unemployment and popular anger against austerity programmes imposed by Brussels.


and
Norwegian peace protesters outside the ceremony echoed the criticisms and highlighted recently tabled EU federalist demands, supported by France and Germany, for a European army.


are pretty good. I especially like the part about Norwegian peace protesters.
   1687. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4321057)

Yes, I've said this in this discussion in many ways. Where is the reciprocity? She can be too drunk to consent, even if her actions belie this, and the drunken guy is held to a standard of being able to know this, but he can claim the defense, hey, I was drunk, too. I didn't she didn't know she wouldn't really want to do it tomorrow. The system is so weighted against one class here that it amuonts to absurdity on the level of Catch 22.


I don't see the problem. If one drunk driver hits and kills another drunk driver, it's the one who did the killing that gets run up for aggravated manslaughter. That's because one act (i.e. commiting sexual assault) is a crime, another (being sexually assaulted) isn't. In general, "I was too drunk to know better!" is not a defense for committing a crime.
   1688. tshipman Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4321066)
Boehner's really tough to evaluate. On the one hand, he's been pretty visibly ineffective. He was unable to convince his partisans to accept a large deficit reduction deal to the right of S&B. He also has had to waste a ton of time on relatively meaningless votes (how many times have they voted to repeal?). He had to make his caucus take votes on the Ryan plan, which probably hurt several members last cycle. He very nearly caused a default.

On the other hand, it's difficult to determine to what extent those problems were inevitable due to how crazy some of those guys are.

Clearly, he's been less effective than Pelosi or Tom DeLay, and probably less effective than Gingrich. If he is ousted after a two year term with a roughly 30 seat majority, he will go down as one of the least effective speakers of the modern era.
   1689. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4321070)
greg

i have been telling folks here for several weeks that there is a subset of gop members who do not want to be associated in any way shape or form with a tax increase.

so they will strongly consider any option that sabotages a deal that includes an increase.

they would prefer to have all rates go up and then vote for a decrease in early 2013.
   1690. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4321073)
tship

no previous speakers were dealing with a signiicant population of members who refuse to compromise under any circumstances

mostly because mosts do not understand the ramifications of their decisions (or lack of decisions)
   1691. tshipman Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4321081)
no previous speakers were dealing with a signiicant population of members who refuse to compromise under any circumstances

mostly because mosts do not understand the ramifications of their decisions (or lack of decisions)


Well, the Republican party can't have it both ways. If you want to blame Obama for a lack of leadership when discussing the country's economy, you can't very well cop out and say that poor John Boehner has unique challenges. Since Boehner has directly criticized Obama for a lack of leadership, I think it's fair to criticize him for being unable to make his caucus fall in line.

I don't know how another speaker would have done in his place, but I do know that he's the least effective Speaker in a long time. Mitch McConnell, despite having similar amounts of loonies, keeps his group voting how he wants them to.
   1692. Greg K Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:49 PM (#4321083)
I suppose I should clarify. The type of footnoting I like is literally just the name of the source that the information came from. I find those extremely helpful.

Footnotes for continuing the discussion of tangents can be useful as well, but can be tricky to pull off.
   1693. zonk Posted: December 10, 2012 at 02:57 PM (#4321094)
Well, that was quick...

Price's office just issued a statement saying unequivocally that he will NOT be running for speaker...

   1694. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:04 PM (#4321101)
tship

that's an unfair comparison. the senate has always been the place for calmer heads and where deals get done. it's built that way. that has been its history. senator mcconnell has his own challenges but dealing with people who are built, geared and instructed to be bomb throwers is not one of them.

note i am not stating the speaker has been great or even good. just that your framework for assessment is not one that holds up.

i am also not saying you cannot criticize the speaker. i am merely acknowledging that he has a somewhat unique context
   1695. bunyon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:18 PM (#4321120)
If this is aimed at me, I did read the previous page. I was not directly speaking to what you said so much as what others had said. However in most of what you said, I do agree with your post in 1653, but there are some definite hot button issues here and reflexive talking points on both sides.

No, it was mostly aimed at me, who hadn't read the previous page. What? You think I read all of these threads?



I simply object to the idea that a woman should be able to change her mind or be vague in her refusal.



I presume you mean "change her mind after the fact" which is - of course - annoying.


Definitely meant after the fact. It's more than annoying. It should be criminal in the same way calling 911 is if there is no emergency.
   1696. bunyon Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:20 PM (#4321121)
It seems to me if the Tea Party gets 20 reps together to not re-elect Boehner, it wouldn't be hard to get 20+ Ds who would vote for him just to have a speaker. In fact, it would be an awesome thing for the Ds to do. I would assume that the Tea Partiers refusing to vote for the Republican nominee for Speaker would mean the complete fragmentation of the Republican party. It would feel good but be a disaster for them (the Tea Party and Republicans).
   1697. zonk Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:22 PM (#4321123)
FWIW, I tend to agree with HW --

It's why I tossed the big caveat about caucus composition into 1677...

That said, though - Boehner very much did specifically say when took over the leadership role that he did want to run the chamber differently than Pelosi; that, in effect, he wanted things to work more by consensus than negotiate/done negotiating/now get in line.

This is probably where the rubber meets the road -- like I said, I'm not saying either style was better -- obviously, there's a lot to like about a smallish legislative body where consensus is built from the bottom up than top down... but - it seems like given the caucus composition Boehner faces, he'd have been better off running with a firmer hand.

Of course -- remember that Boehner took over GOP House leadership well before the 2010 midterms -- he was briefly majority leader for the lame duck 2006 congress (post-election), then minority leader, before returning to the gavel.

I still remember that leadership fight -- it produced one of the more memorable lines I've ever heard in politics... After the GOP lost the House in the 2006 midterms -- it was (I think... the line is memorable, the person not so much) John Shadegg who argued that for his leadership candidacy by saying "I'm the least tainted of any of these guys".
   1698. Lassus Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:26 PM (#4321126)
It should be criminal in the same way calling 911 is if there is no emergency.

So if you call 911 because you're convinced there's an emergency you are a criminal if - in an exteme circumstance - you were wrong?
   1699. GregD Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4321128)
It seems to me if the Tea Party gets 20 reps together to not re-elect Boehner, it wouldn't be hard to get 20+ Ds who would vote for him just to have a speaker. In fact, it would be an awesome thing for the Ds to do. I would assume that the Tea Partiers refusing to vote for the Republican nominee for Speaker would mean the complete fragmentation of the Republican party. It would feel good but be a disaster for them (the Tea Party and Republicans).
Boy that would be tricky to pull off since you'd have to have it happen by stealth basically, since presumably other Rs would jump ship rather than be associated with the Democrats votes for Boehner.

Is it really clear that the Democrats would rather have Boehner than Cantor? Cantor seems pretty easy to pigeonhole as an extremist, while Boehner's seeming double-gin and golfcourse affect at least makes him appear to be harmless. Since Boehner can't control the caucus, the Democrats don't get anything out of keeping him in office, no?
   1700. zonk Posted: December 10, 2012 at 03:37 PM (#4321133)
Boy that would be tricky to pull off since you'd have to have it happen by stealth basically, since presumably other Rs would jump ship rather than be associated with the Democrats votes for Boehner.

Is it really clear that the Democrats would rather have Boehner than Cantor? Cantor seems pretty easy to pigeonhole as an extremist, while Boehner's seeming double-gin and golfcourse affect at least makes him appear to be harmless. Since Boehner can't control the caucus, the Democrats don't get anything out of keeping him in office, no?


...and that's even before we get into the fact that -- good luck finding enough cooperative Democrats to save Boehner's job, given that -- again -- Pelosi runs her caucus with something of an iron fist. For that to work, you don't need X number of Democrats - you just need one... and you'd be negotiating with her for goodies to provide x number of votes.
Page 17 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Don Malcolm
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBryce Harper benched for 'lack of hustle' despite quad injury
(36 - 11:30pm, Apr 19)
Last: Rob_Wood

NewsblogChase Utley is the hottest hitter in baseball and has a shot at .400
(52 - 11:27pm, Apr 19)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogOT: The NHL is finally back thread, part 2
(153 - 11:23pm, Apr 19)
Last: Fear is Moses Taylor's Bacon Bits

NewsblogDoug Glanville: I Was Racially Profiled in My Own Driveway
(356 - 11:21pm, Apr 19)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogRB: Carlos Beltran: more of a center fielder than Mickey Mantle, Ty Cobb or Duke Snider. So what?
(39 - 11:21pm, Apr 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogPirates Acquire Ike Davis From Mets
(37 - 11:18pm, Apr 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread March, 2014
(918 - 11:14pm, Apr 19)
Last: Spivey

NewsblogBaseball Researcher: Some Very Fortunate Footage
(3 - 11:06pm, Apr 19)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogSeidman: Velocity talk angers Papelbon, who cites Halladay
(11 - 10:53pm, Apr 19)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogA’s Jed Lowrie “flabbergasted” by Astros’ response to bunt
(10 - 10:43pm, Apr 19)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogI Don’t Care If I Ever Get Back — And I Might Not
(3 - 10:38pm, Apr 19)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogOTP April 2014: BurstNET Sued for Not Making Equipment Lease Payments
(1734 - 10:27pm, Apr 19)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October

NewsblogOMNICHATTER FOR APRIL 19, 2014
(64 - 10:26pm, Apr 19)
Last: Chris Fluit

NewsblogSCD: Bobby Cox Rookie Card Goes from Common Box to Hall of Fame
(10 - 10:19pm, Apr 19)
Last: Cblau

NewsblogOT: NBA Monthly Thread - April 2014
(355 - 10:09pm, Apr 19)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats

 

 

 

 

Page rendered in 1.1937 seconds
52 querie(s) executed