tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.comments2012-07-12T08:06:09.787-04:00Taking Back "Liberal" -- Thoughts and Musings on Economics, Politics, and Political EconomyBenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05880780530489751662noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-64351329522812631762012-07-12T08:06:09.787-04:002012-07-12T08:06:09.787-04:00I decided not to comment on the libertarian opt-ou...I decided not to comment on the libertarian opt-out option because it would require too much more space to fully address the enormous number of flaws in his idea, but I took exception to it as well. For example, how does one keep track of all the other government services that get paid for via other taxes which we don't get to opt out of? And do the libertarians get refunded all the medicare taxes they paid up to that point in their lives? And do libertarians get to not pay any taxes if they opt out, because opting out of the draft addresses part of the objection, with another part of the objection being that we should not have to *pay* for all this make-work hole-digging-and-filling. And like you said, it really is a punch in the nuts, as if we're second-class citizens because we think government doesn't belong in certain aspects of our lives or that it owns us from birth. I had the same reaction as you...it made me so angry to even read such drivel.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05880780530489751662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-86838703703397585412012-07-11T17:19:58.416-04:002012-07-11T17:19:58.416-04:00OMG. That Op-ed enraged me. The part that really g...OMG. That Op-ed enraged me. The part that really gets me though, is that they're going to create lots of low-skill jobs (painting barracks, cleaning parks) and pay people some very arbitrary wages. The author says it won't be much, but maybe the park doesn't need to be cleaned? This is a misalignment of resources! Talk about inefficiency! If the author thinks this is how you organize production, it's probably because he's studying war-time economies and socialism. This isn't how you want a peace time economy to work. <br /><br />Further, this opting out option sounds like a punch in the nuts. If you don't like libertarians, why not come up with some counter-arguments, rather than treating them like second class citizens? I'm not counting on government handouts in my future. <br /><br />I'm not really sure what this draft would accomplish. I have friends who have done America Corps jobs, including teach for America. They're not more patriotic, in fact, the majority hated it. <br /><br />How about a referendum regarding the next invasion? <br /><br />Until then, I'll continue to pay my taxes. As Walter Williams reminds us, that's pretty damn patriotic (or idiotic?).Grubehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14861977576460158378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-70217771713698935922011-03-10T22:49:12.609-05:002011-03-10T22:49:12.609-05:00A pretty good set of points. My hope is that the c...A pretty good set of points. My hope is that the current uprisings throughout the region will give these folks a chance to govern themselves. I think, given the choice and opportunity, most men will choose to improve their lot instead of martyrdom. <br /><br />Kudos on the V for Vendetta mention. It was one of my favorite comics back in the day and the movie is surprisingly true to the original vision.RayNelsonRealtorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13954494119767902182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-38967965076936556712010-07-16T14:09:47.965-04:002010-07-16T14:09:47.965-04:00You're most welcome. I'm glad you liked i...You're most welcome. I'm glad you liked it, Liz!Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05880780530489751662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-9790317653308364482009-08-18T23:13:13.087-04:002009-08-18T23:13:13.087-04:00I like this post :) It makes me think of the moral...I like this post :) It makes me think of the moral prisoner's dilemma policy can sometimes put us in. I also appreciated that the answer is inside all of us, which means that we ultimately decide what is right or wrong, not government policy. Thanks Ben!Liz, etc.https://www.blogger.com/profile/01884727054576780728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-34651060137146075992009-08-08T14:18:16.820-04:002009-08-08T14:18:16.820-04:00Okay, I haven't seen that comment from her yet...Okay, I haven't seen that comment from her yet, so I have no idea what the context is of her comment. But if it's true that she said it, then sure, Sarah Palin <i>may</i> be guilty of some type of sensationalized ranting. And that would be wrong, unhelpful at best.<br /><br />But one person acting that way is a far cry from the large-scale condescending dismissive attitude that Obama's supporters in the media, blogosphere, and his own staff have taken towards citizens who feel strongly enough to speak out. Additionally, it sounds like Palin's comment is more likely about a particular aspect of Obama's health care plan (probably about the government funding of abortions? Again, I don't know the context), not attacking the supporters of Obama's plan themselves.Benhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05880780530489751662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-71084653712329515992009-08-08T14:02:28.883-04:002009-08-08T14:02:28.883-04:00Sarah Palin rails about "Obama death panels&q...Sarah Palin rails about "Obama death panels" killing poor little Trig and Noonan accuses Democrats of incivility. Sure.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-66165060300098071662009-07-02T22:44:46.000-04:002009-07-02T22:44:46.000-04:00By the way, I wanted to commend you and C for havi...By the way, I wanted to commend you and C for having something too rare: a debate that's real and that's civil. Quite enjoyable to witness.cranberrydreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11872155340462758830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-20531220188363325682009-07-02T20:34:23.951-04:002009-07-02T20:34:23.951-04:00I haven’t followed the article link, but here are ...I haven’t followed the article link, but here are some points generally related to your and your friend’s discussion:<br /><br />1. We can all trade personal anecdotes <i>ad infinitum</i> about how this or that non-U.S. country’s more socialized health care is better or worse than the American less socialized health care. (Or about Massachusetts vs. the rest of the country. Or about U.S. civilian health care and U.S. military health care; as with the national comparisons, I bet many of us have heard stories that, taken collectively, favor both.) Anecdotes may win elections, but they don’t solve problems (and they almost never fairly represent an issue).<br /><br />2. Taxes are the result of laws, which are made mostly by legislators, who are (theoretically freely) elected by the people. Unless there is added to the Constitution a right not to be taxed (it has happened), the people are free to vote for representatives who will tax them to the highest degree.<br /><br />3. No, other countries don't have it perfect. Nor, contrary to what seems popular belief on both sides, are non-U.S. countries some homogeneous mass. Austria, for example, if I remember right, doesn't socialize the payment of the middle-class person's dental and ocular bills, while surely some other countries do; and (again, my knowledge may be off) private practice is allowed in Britain but illegal in Canada. But what's clear is this: as time goes on, Americans are paying more money (as a portion of income) and getting less health (in certain measures) than they used to—and they're definitely paying more money (as a portion of income) and getting less health (in nearly all measures) than people in important other countries. Countries whose citizens were less healthy than Americans were, back when probably no country had much government involvement in health care, now have higher average health than the U.S. has. Things aren't working perfectly elsewhere—but they're sure not working great here either. In fact, according to the ultimate measure, things are worse here. We can blame past and present Congresses, presidents, judges, litigants, doctors, television producers, restaurant chains, auto makers, &c., &c., &c.—but, whomever we blame, we need a change. What we've been doing for the last 200+ years is only failing more and more tens of millions of Americans, especially in comparison to similar peoples elsewhere on the Earth. We need lifestyle changes, and we need changes in government's involvement. Trying something else (I don't claim to have a clue what the specifics of it should be) for a few years won't be the end of the world.cranberrydreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11872155340462758830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-56600869442967767752009-07-02T20:04:39.822-04:002009-07-02T20:04:39.822-04:00(I’d like to be just “m” here.)
It’s curious to m...(I’d like to be just “m” here.)<br /><br />It’s curious to me how pervasive “white male” has become: in that blog entry’s comments, those vehemently defending Judge Sotomayor’s statement, and those vehemently opposing it, almost invariably used it.<br /><br />Not that it’s a big deal, but I think Mr. Jackson should be allowed to concentrate on one group of persons when he wants (even if he makes a caricature of himself by doing it).<br /><br />Before I saw your reply, I was thinking more about the New Haven case (haven’t read any more of the opinion than last time). It seems to me that the justices on both sides ‘sneakily’ avoided the real issue—the 14th Amendment—by sticking to the idea that it hinges on whether there could’ve been a reasonable expectation of a lawsuit under Title VII. They said, in essence, that the plaintiffs had a case under Title VII and therefore the Court had no need to weigh the 14th Amendment’s involvement.<br /><br />But that’s what’s really at stake here: the 14th Amendment. Of course, if they went to that question, there’d be only one really logical way to decide it, and that would mean striking down a whole bunch of stuff, which just isn’t popular enough for the (not really independent) justices to do yet.<br /><br />Anyway, the 14th Amendment sure strikes me as a better way of deciding such things. Anyone, of any race, can go to court claiming that his 14th Amendment rights have been violated (after all, the plaintiffs got all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court with that as part of their claim)—and then that question can be decided. It may be more laborious than just going along with the rule of “Could So-and-So have reasonably expected to be sued?”, but it’s a hell of a lot fairer: otherwise, everybody could defend himself against every claim in court by simply saying “Well, I was afraid that, if I did the <i>other</i> thing, then I’d get sued for <i>that</i>”. Being stuck with the choice of which side to be sued by is no excuse for doing something wrong or unconstitutional.<br /><br />/babblecranberrydreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11872155340462758830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-9346173117740968762009-07-02T19:06:58.582-04:002009-07-02T19:06:58.582-04:00Adam,
All good points. Interesting and thorough ...Adam,<br /><br />All good points. Interesting and thorough analysis of Sotomayor's speech, especially from that linguistic angle. Thanks for sharing that.<br /><br />On the Jackson piece, I understand the remark about my insult of Jackson being constructive to the debate. I usually don't react to things like that...I think I have just gotten so fed up with him, with his influence over anything in this great country of ours. There is a lot of baggage that comes with an article by him, and usually I do a better job of separating that from the substance.<br /><br />If he isn't unaware of the non-uniqueness of blacks' suffering of discrimination, then his words certainly indicate that he discounts anyone else's suffering or he simply doesn't care about it. It's not "worth" as much as blacks' suffering. To me, that comes through as subtext to his arguments. Where this recognition undermines much of his rationale for what he says is that if past inflictions are truly worthy of rectification, then he needs to get in line, because a vast majority of people have ancestors who experienced some form of discrimination in this country...and that's before instituting policies that systemically discriminate against the white male majority. Using his logic, then a system of randomly decided discriminations is justified in practically every decision in society in order to rectify past wrongs. His logic is clearly wrong-headed.<br /><br />I understand your analysis of the decision. I think, though, that the logic of an argument that says it would've been okay to deny the promotions if the fear of Civil Rights Act-based lawsuits were more reasonable. From what I've read of the dissent, Ginsburg did question (without evidentiary basis) the fairness of the test, but she used the racial makeup of the results as evidence in and of itself of a biased test. She also said that the fairness of the test should be further called into question when viewing the historical demographic makeup of the city's FD leadership. This "logic" is beyond my comprehension. Rather than actually look at the evidence of the test itself or the past performance of the third-part test deisgner, she tries to use historical demographic data that have nothing to do with this particular test or even class of candidates to assert the unfairness of any test that ends up with such a result.<br /><br />Anyhow, your last point is what so many folks like Jackson fail to grasp about the discriminatory rationale that Ginsburg and Sotomayor expect to prevail in cases like New Haven's. Such a mentality will likely result in the degradation of standards and lower performance overall, in whatever system it's being applied to. For something as serious as firefighting, the danger is that much more apparent.<br /><br />Thanks for taking the time to read and comment. Take care, and Happy 4th to you.<br /><br />-BenBenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05880780530489751662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-25021023966664471282009-07-02T17:04:28.891-04:002009-07-02T17:04:28.891-04:00Well, I read Mr. Jackson’s piece, though I got ski...Well, I read Mr. Jackson’s piece, though I got skimmy near the end.<br /><br />My take:<br /><br />Your disparaging him personally doesn’t help—you, or him, or us.<br /><br />He doesn’t seem to me to be unaware that black Americans aren’t the only Americans to suffer discrimination.<br /><br />But, as he has been for several years now, he’s being rather silly.<br /><br />He fails to mention that the New Haven test scores came 60% from a written exam and 40% from an oral one, and that the rotating trios of judges for the oral exams always included one white person, one black person, and one Hispanic person (of what race?).<br /><br />He’d do better to rant about a culture (made of people of many races and cultural backgrounds) that leads black and Hispanic people to perform worse on the test than others perform.<br /><br />Though I haven’t finished reading the ruling opinion and dissent, it seems to me that the key legal question in the case was not whether the test was fair or whether discarding its results was fair, but whether the city would’ve had a reasonable expectation of a Title VII suit if it had certified the results. (And, though I wanted the court to side with the firefighters whose good test scores were discarded, it seems to me that there certainly was a reasonable expectation of such a suit.)<br /><br />Anyway, all the residents of New Haven, who, as the Rev. Jackson points out, are nearly 60% black, deserve to have the highest-scoring officers watching over them, regardless of those officers’ races.cranberrydreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11872155340462758830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-41241215770426841842009-07-02T17:02:32.620-04:002009-07-02T17:02:32.620-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.cranberrydreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11872155340462758830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-47480774971509846452009-07-02T16:42:02.460-04:002009-07-02T16:42:02.460-04:00(I continue from my previous, long comment.)
(On ...<b>(I continue from my previous, long comment.)<br /><br />(On finally giving a thorough skim to the whole speech, I was no longer so sure she really was espousing ideas so offensive to my sensibilities; but I still have serious concerns about her choice of words in the parts quoted above.)<br /><br />I like to stick with a few long-lived terms for different sexes, races, and cultural backgrounds, each of which I consider non-offensive, and not to let others’ fashions cause me to adopt their slanted terminology.</b>cranberrydreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11872155340462758830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17831136.post-16991412687202667342009-07-02T16:40:38.084-04:002009-07-02T16:40:38.084-04:00Hi, B.B.
I hope it’s O.K. with you for me to repe...<b>Hi, B.B.<br /><br />I hope it’s O.K. with you for me to repeat here some comments that I posted in May at an entry in a blog at the website of a major American newspaper. Here’s the first:</b><br /><br /><i>I don’t know much about Judge Sotomayor and might indeed be pleased to have her on the Supreme Court. I also don’t know much about the context of her quote.<br /><br />“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”<br /><br />But, when the quote is what we’re dealing with, this is how I feel:<br /><br />It’s such a loaded statement.<br /><br />We have a human being (“woman”)—against a non-human animal (“male”).<br /><br />“Latina” harkens back to ancient Rome and sounds pretty and gets a capital “L”—while “white” is a boring color, in lowercase.<br /><br />One is “wise” and has “richness” and “experience”—and the incessantly counterstereotyped “white male” “hasn’t lived”.<br /><br />Gag me.<br /><br />That she would think in ways that lead to that juxtaposition of terms coming out of her mouth—in a prepared speech, apparently—is ... sad.</i><br /><br /><b>The second:</b><br /><br /><i>Maybe, every time someone reduces someone else (or sometimes himself) to a “white male”—a color and a sex—, Judge Sotomayor should be called just a “brown female”. Then we would at least be consistent in sounding as if we were discussing nondescript non-human animals instead of the complex persons whose judgement we have to live and work with.</i><br /><br /><b>The third, beginning with another quote from the same speech by Judge Sotomayor:</b><br /><br /><i>“The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”<br /><br />So there we have it again. On the one hand, there are human beings (“women”, “women’s”, “woman”, “person”) and the colorful (“of color”—as opposed to the drab)—and, on the other, there is simply the “male counterpart”.<br /><br />She said she hoped (believed?) that the results of women’s thinking would be better than the results of men’s—and this statement seems to have been surrounded by clues about her belief in the relative humanity, wisdom, experiencedness, aliveness, and colorfulness of the two sexes and racial/cultural backgrounds.<br /><br />Just as I’ll trust the accuracy of the quote above provided by one commenter, I’ll also trust that of the Sandra Day O’Connor quote, from another commenter: “a wise old woman and a wise old man would reach the same result”. Whether the predicate of her sentence was right or wrong, Justice O’Connor kept everything in the subject the same, except to turn “woman” to “man”. Compare this to Judge Sotomayor’s view of the world as evidenced by the vocabulary in her statements.<br /><br />I voted for Barack Obama, and I expect to like most of the decisions he’ll make in his presidency; but I’m starting to wonder about this one.</i><br /><br /><b>And the fourth:</b><br /><br /><i>Don Duval, in comment 86, points out that Judge Sotomayor said that she HOPED that the (non-white?) Hispanic woman would reach a better conclusion than the white (non-Hispanic?) “male” would—that this was a HOPE, not a BELIEF.<br /><br />But, to me, this doesn’t make her much more sensible than she would be if she really did believe it.<br /><br />Whether one BELIEVES women are superior to men (and/or that (non-white?) Hispanics are superior to (non-Hispanic?) whites), or whether one just HOPES that they are, it doesn’t make one any less ridiculous than is someone who believes or hopes that men are better than woman and/or that (non-Hispanic?) whites are better than (non-white?) Hispanics.</i><br /><br /><b>(I continue in another comment.)</b>cranberrydreamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11872155340462758830noreply@blogger.com