Friday, April 27, 2012
Another link!
This is a good question:
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/04/25/the-rise-of-the-wonky-left/
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
What a Boner
The Speaker is only doing this to appeal to the Republican, Fox News watching base. The real Republican base, wealthy corporations and their leaders, will not let him screw around with the debt ceiling.
Monday, May 09, 2011
Friday, May 06, 2011
I wonder if I can actually make a go of this
I doubt it.
It is time for my yearly post!
I don't really know what to say. There is nothing really occurring worth talking about. Bin Laden's dead. That's good.
A bunch of chumps got together in South Carolina for a "debate" Not one of those guys will be president. That's also good.
I probably should be on twitter, but meh. I prefer the longer form.
I would like to give a shout out to my 15 readers from last month. woot! woot!
The goal for me at this point is to have regular posts about something relevant. Of course, that has been the goal for months, if not years.
On the local front, despite the assurances of the former local Executive Director, the redistricting plan that was passed by the Missouri Legislature over the veto of the Governor did screw the Democratic party.
Shocking!
In other important news, Mizzou had 2 top ten, first round, Draft picks for the NFL. Here's hoping the NFL gets it together in time for the fall. Smith and Gabbert should make us proud!
It is time for my yearly post!
I don't really know what to say. There is nothing really occurring worth talking about. Bin Laden's dead. That's good.
A bunch of chumps got together in South Carolina for a "debate" Not one of those guys will be president. That's also good.
I probably should be on twitter, but meh. I prefer the longer form.
I would like to give a shout out to my 15 readers from last month. woot! woot!
The goal for me at this point is to have regular posts about something relevant. Of course, that has been the goal for months, if not years.
On the local front, despite the assurances of the former local Executive Director, the redistricting plan that was passed by the Missouri Legislature over the veto of the Governor did screw the Democratic party.
Shocking!
In other important news, Mizzou had 2 top ten, first round, Draft picks for the NFL. Here's hoping the NFL gets it together in time for the fall. Smith and Gabbert should make us proud!
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Oh Noes!
I really hate things like this:
http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2010/08/striving-for-mediocrity.html
The U.S. as a second rate power? Second rate to whom? Sure everything listed is a problem, but I fail to see how the cumulative lack of an industrial policy, transportation policy, energy policy, and research and development policy automatically equals second rate power status.
This type of declinist jeremiad is boring, disgusting, and lazy.
The first question one needs to ask when faced with a statement about relative power status in the world is: Power to do what?
If the person making the statement cannot answer that question, if the purposes of power in the world cannot be defined, then there is no need for any further inquiry. Relative power becomes irrelevant at that point.
These types of jeremiads also need to be put within the proper context of post World War 2 international relations analysis.
At the end of World War 2 the United States was a gigantic colossus astride the international system in terms of industrial output and military power projection. Only the Soviet Army was a real counterbalance to U.S. power.
This is mostly because the Continental European and Japanese economies and industries were essentially non-functioning. Additionally, India was still a Crown Colony and China had not recovered from the instability of the early twentieth century. China was also suffering from an ongoing civil war. All of these factors changed in the next 30 to 40 years. Europe and Japan recovered, China's economy grew, India's economy grew, the Asian "tigers" (how racist is that?) emerged. These changes led to an apparent diminution of relative U.S. power. Political science and international relations scholars scrambled to explain what lay in store for a world without U.S. relative power dominance. Domestically, the theme of the decline of the U.S. vis a vis the world was used by conservatives to oppose everything from desegregation and women's rights to rock and roll.
Yet, by the 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, political scientists and international relations scholars were writing of unipolarity and the hegemony of the United States, willfully forgetting how wrong they had been about the importance of relative industrial output. The point here isn't that Political Scientists and international relations scholars are idiots, although a strong case could be made in support of that goal. The point is the overemphasis on relative power in the world without any solid definition of the point of that power is foolhardy.
I mentioned above how this type of analysis, relative power rises and declines, is lazy. It is lazy mostly because the author has a 50 percent chance of being right, and finds that probability high enough to justify the jeremiad. If the analyst is right, then book deals and I told you so tours begin. One gets lauded for one's prescience. However, no consequences result from being wrong. Very few people remember Louis Agassiz, and how spectacularly wrong he was in regards to the origin of humans.
http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2010/08/striving-for-mediocrity.html
The U.S. as a second rate power? Second rate to whom? Sure everything listed is a problem, but I fail to see how the cumulative lack of an industrial policy, transportation policy, energy policy, and research and development policy automatically equals second rate power status.
This type of declinist jeremiad is boring, disgusting, and lazy.
The first question one needs to ask when faced with a statement about relative power status in the world is: Power to do what?
If the person making the statement cannot answer that question, if the purposes of power in the world cannot be defined, then there is no need for any further inquiry. Relative power becomes irrelevant at that point.
These types of jeremiads also need to be put within the proper context of post World War 2 international relations analysis.
At the end of World War 2 the United States was a gigantic colossus astride the international system in terms of industrial output and military power projection. Only the Soviet Army was a real counterbalance to U.S. power.
This is mostly because the Continental European and Japanese economies and industries were essentially non-functioning. Additionally, India was still a Crown Colony and China had not recovered from the instability of the early twentieth century. China was also suffering from an ongoing civil war. All of these factors changed in the next 30 to 40 years. Europe and Japan recovered, China's economy grew, India's economy grew, the Asian "tigers" (how racist is that?) emerged. These changes led to an apparent diminution of relative U.S. power. Political science and international relations scholars scrambled to explain what lay in store for a world without U.S. relative power dominance. Domestically, the theme of the decline of the U.S. vis a vis the world was used by conservatives to oppose everything from desegregation and women's rights to rock and roll.
Yet, by the 1990s, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, political scientists and international relations scholars were writing of unipolarity and the hegemony of the United States, willfully forgetting how wrong they had been about the importance of relative industrial output. The point here isn't that Political Scientists and international relations scholars are idiots, although a strong case could be made in support of that goal. The point is the overemphasis on relative power in the world without any solid definition of the point of that power is foolhardy.
I mentioned above how this type of analysis, relative power rises and declines, is lazy. It is lazy mostly because the author has a 50 percent chance of being right, and finds that probability high enough to justify the jeremiad. If the analyst is right, then book deals and I told you so tours begin. One gets lauded for one's prescience. However, no consequences result from being wrong. Very few people remember Louis Agassiz, and how spectacularly wrong he was in regards to the origin of humans.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Its primary election day!
And I am not voting.
Primaries are really dumb.
Parties should pick the candidates through party mechanisms, not mechanisms of the state.
Furthermore, there should be 1 election day. Everything necessary to be voted upon should be on the ballot on that one day. That day should be a holiday, and no one should have to work.
While I am at it, I want a pony.
Primaries are really dumb.
Parties should pick the candidates through party mechanisms, not mechanisms of the state.
Furthermore, there should be 1 election day. Everything necessary to be voted upon should be on the ballot on that one day. That day should be a holiday, and no one should have to work.
While I am at it, I want a pony.
Friday, July 30, 2010
2010 MO Primary-7th Congressional District Republicans
I don't actually know much about this race. It occurs to me though that it is Billy Long's to lose.
Gary Nodler probably has the best shot against long, but I don't think Nodler has raised more money than Long.
The Nodler-Long competition is a microcosm of the Republican party overall. Nodler is going for the Sarah Palin/Tea Party vote and Long is the establishment/pro-business Republican.
From the left, both Nodler and Long are indistinguishable. In the Every True Scotsman Party though, they are apparently quite different.
To some extent, the race is a contest between Springfield and Joplin. Joplin will lose, they always do.
I don't know any of the other chumps running in the Republican Primary, they really aren't important.
It doesn't matter what Democrats are running.
They will all lose in November.
Gary Nodler probably has the best shot against long, but I don't think Nodler has raised more money than Long.
The Nodler-Long competition is a microcosm of the Republican party overall. Nodler is going for the Sarah Palin/Tea Party vote and Long is the establishment/pro-business Republican.
From the left, both Nodler and Long are indistinguishable. In the Every True Scotsman Party though, they are apparently quite different.
To some extent, the race is a contest between Springfield and Joplin. Joplin will lose, they always do.
I don't know any of the other chumps running in the Republican Primary, they really aren't important.
It doesn't matter what Democrats are running.
They will all lose in November.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)