Governing through Reason
Open Mic May 11
This week, we lost Maurice Sendak. The Senate lost Richard Lugar. Domestic partners of all gender mixes may have lost their rights in North Carolina. Russia lost more of its nascent democracy, with the return of Vladimir Putin to the Presidency and his immediate jailing of opponents. Nicolas Sarkozy lost his job in France, and austerity lost ground in Europe, with the election of François Hollande. And the stock market lost ground on worries about Greece’s economy, its impact on the European economy, and its impact on the American economy.
Don’t see an article on a particular topic, but want to talk about it somewhere? This is Open Mic. Talk about whatever you want, but stay respectful.
We create a new Open Mic every week to give a clean slate, but feel free to add to this topic at any time.
-
Mono:
No, Congress won’t and shouldn’t take action. That would be “interfering” in the “free market.” If JP Morgan makes foolish investments, they should be allowed to wither and die. If individuals were stupid enough to put their money with JP, they should lose it.
ohmygod, sorry, I was channeling someone else there.…
-
-
#4 written by Mainer 1 year ago
hmmmm, My last seems to have been lost. The coffee shop was more about the Celtics and the Red Sox this morning than politics.
So guys how big a bonus will the Morgan folks get for losing 2 Billion? I aven’t been able to understand how they figure such things but you can bet some of the culprits got mega money to retain those special skills of theirs. -
#6 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Bristol Palin, expert on stable monogamous relationships and proper child-rearing.
Hey, if Megan McCain (or any half witted Hollywood starlet) can do political punditry, why not Bristol?
Anyway, I don’t usually like to engage in poll hysteria, but 2 brutal polls on RCP today. Rasmussen has Romney up +7 nationally and SurveyUSA has Obama up only +4% in Oregon. I honestly think Obama’s campaign strategy is pretty terrible so far. Wonder if they pivot shortly from this all out base war.
-
#7 written by Mainer 1 year ago
rgb I give the Rasmussen poll about as much validity as the odds are that I will be the next Pope. Just more of the same games different year.
Actually I wouldn’t worry about the presidents strategy, and I don’t. But for some one on the right to complain about base wars is pretty much baseless. The one that needs to do some serious pivoting (again) is Mitt and I doubt he can orwill be allowed to do it. Your side is stuck with the base wars. -
Rasmussen’s conservative bias notwithstanding, one wonders who the hell they, and Gallup also, are tracking every damn day. The same people, different victims ?!? After awhile peeps must get rather annoyed by these unsolicited political intrusions/interruptions, especially (6) months out.
I get annoyed when liberal/Dem organizations call me or any generic salesfolk fools.
btw rgbact, Rasputin also has Walker up (5) in WI. Shocking!
>
Although the one sales pitch where you hear the cruise ship’s horn and then This is your captain speaking you will receive 2 free boarding passes for an all inclusive cruise at Nassau Bahamas in exchange … is somewhat entertaining!
>
At the end of my 1st Med cruise, 1979, when we out chopped from Rota, Spain, the ship’s 1MC blared Come Sail Away!
-
#9 written by Max 1 year ago
Anytime I see a “tracking” poll change 3–4 points from one day to the next, I don’t put much stock in it. Unless a MAJOR event occurs that gets EVERYONES attention overnight, which MIGHT happen once a decade, something is wrong if such instantaneous shifts occur.
Anyway, go look at the past few elections and see where Rasmussen was six months out versus the others. It’ll tell you a lot. -
#10 written by shortchain 1 year ago
Were those polls taken before we found out about Mitt’s little bullying escapade, back in high school? (It’s damned peculiar what passes for political commentary nowadays. They may soon discover that Mitt wet the bed until he was 12, and then all hell will break loose.)
(Note: I was bullied in school, at home, and most places in between. Never twice by the same guy, though, except, of course, at home. The story makes my skin crawl just thinking about it — but then so does Mitt on any other subject.)
-
#11 written by rgbact 1 year ago
C’mon guys–I included a SurveyUSA poll too. You don’t really think I’d just mindlessly copy/paste a favorable Rasmussen outlier poll .…..like Shiloh does when PPP spits out a good one. Anyway, I’m not believing the +7 either, just noticing a trend of dropping Obama numbers. Granted, its hard for pollsters to guage intensity.…so maybe Obama’s “base strategy” pays off in that unsure registered voters become more certain to vote. Ah, polling. Slightly more credible than climate modeling. -
-
#13 written by mclever 1 year ago
-
#14 written by mclever 1 year ago
Anyone care that Michele Bachmann was granted Swiss citizenship, but now she doesn’t want it? Didn’t think so, but I had high hopes for a minute there, that she might move to Switzerland. Her instant flip-flop on being a Swiss Miss was amusing, if nothing else.
-
#15 written by Mule Rider 1 year ago
“No, Congress won’t and shouldn’t take action. That would be “interfering” in the “free market.” If JP Morgan makes foolish investments, they should be allowed to wither and die. If individuals were stupid enough to put their money with JP, they should lose it.“
Actually, the Austrian/free market solution to what you describe in which people were “stupid enough” to put their money with JPMorgan, when they make those foolish investments — assuming there was actually misappropriation of funds — would be bring criminal chargest against those responsible for the illegal investments and squeeze whatever capital — cash or other assets — remaining in JPMorgan as restitution for what’s happened. The crook’s get justice, those swindled (hopefully) get most if not all of their money back, and a crooked institution that makes bad investments is purged from the system.
Now, if the investments were legal and the depositors were willing parties on some big bets that went haywire, then both they and the institution get what they deserve — steep financial losses, bankruptcy, etc. — and no bailout from taxpayers. -
rgbact,
I don’t usually like to engage in poll hysteria, but 2 brutal polls on RCP today.
I presume you like to engage in it when it looks redder?
In any case, when a state is as lightly polled as Oregon, I lean more heavily on historical data than on polls. If a poll looks far off of the historical trends, and there’s nothing that causes enough of a national shift to account for the state being that far off the trend, I assume the poll is an outlier. You should, too.
-
-
rgbact,
BTW, I figured out what was wrong with my Electoral College map. Two things, actually. One, I hadn’t put Montana in the Leans column for the bar graph, but the other was a random formatting thing I did that caused the Leans Romney number to no longer match the actual number of electoral votes in that column. Thanks for catching those. I’ve fixed it in the new map on the right column. -
Now, if the investments were legal and the depositors were willing parties on some big bets that went haywire, then both they and the institution get what they deserve — steep financial losses, bankruptcy, etc. — and no bailout from taxpayers.
That’s the problem. Credit default swaps are legal.
-
#20 written by Mainer 1 year ago
-
Top GOP Pollster to GOP: Reverse On Gay Issues
“Below is a remarkable document. It’s a memo circulated by Jan van Lohuizen, a highly respected Republican pollster, (he polled for George W. Bush in 2004), to various leading Republican operatives, candidates and insiders. It’s on the fast-shifting poll data on marriage equality and gay rights in general, and how that should affect Republican policy and language. And the pollster’s conclusion is clear: if the GOP keeps up its current rhetoric and positions on gays and lesbians, it is in danger of marginalizing itself to irrelevance or worse.
Read the bluntness of this. This is the GOP establishment talking to itself. And the Republican pollster who arguably knows more about the politics of the gay issue than anyone else (how else to explain the Ohio campaign of 2004?) is advising them in no uncertain terms that they need to evolve and fast, if they’re not going to damage their brand for an entire generation:”
“The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It’s advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney’s formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that “freedom means freedom for everyone.” And it uses David Cameron’s argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.
And the walls came tumbling down.”
btw, Sullivan’s pithy byline is biased and balanced.
-
#24 written by rgbact 1 year ago
“Below is a remarkable document. It’s a memo circulated by Jan van Lohuizen, a highly respected Republican pollster,
He’s so highly respected, I’ve never heard of him. Anyway,he appears to advocate little more than a softer line than say Rick Santorum would take. Given most these issues are being played out on the state level and I haven’t heard much nationally from the GOP and its way low on list of what the public cares about.…this appears to be nothing more than the umpteenth case of a Shiloh wet dream of impending GOP irrelevance. But it is fun watching Democrats turn into the MTV party. Justin Beiber 2016!!
Any polls on legalizing MJ? Lemme guess, the youth really love the idea, therefore its an indication that the GOP better support it or face impending doom, since everyone knows that the youth are our future and are really hip to the latest trends. Or maybe today’s youth just are really interested in sex and drugs.…..like every other youth generation before them. -
#25 written by Max 1 year ago
rgbact,
Just because you have never heard of someone does not mean they are not “highly respected”. It was not said that they were “highly publicized”. Many operatives in top political positions in both parties have little name recognition outside top circles. Their job is not self-aggrandizement, but getting the candidate who hired them elected. Then they move to the next campaign.
I doubt very seriously if you have ever heard of Matt Rhoades, Stewart Stevens, Gail Gitcho, Neil Newhouse or Rich Beeson, either. I assure you that they are VERY highly respected. I also assure you that they are not in their current positions because of their looks!
Look them up. Let us know what positions they hold and for which candidates the work, even though YOU, most likely, never heard of them!Hey, many seniors are very interested in sex and drugs as well! Just look at the ads for Viagra, Cialis and Levitra, to combine the two subjects into one!
-
#26 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Hey, many seniors are very interested in sex and drugs as well! Just look at the ads for Viagra, Cialis and Levitra, to combine the two subjects into one!
Don’t even get me started. I almost can’t watch golf on TV anymore. Maybe Obama can make a play for the gray set by including free Cialis as part of the PPACA.
Roades is Romneys campaign manager, and sends me emails alot. PR/marketing people aren’t generally ones I look to for thought leadership although can help with presentation advice.…which seemed to be what the letter was advising on. -
#27 written by Max 1 year ago
-
A Reminder to Republicans
“As you’re kickin’ up your heels and dancin’ in the aisles in celebration of your victory over the unwashed gay heathen last week in North Carolina, keep this in mind:
Satan worshippers can still get married. Adulterers can still get married. Atheists can still get married. People who don’t give a shit about their children’s health, education or well-being can still get married. Communists can still get married. Muslims—yes, those ooogah Boogah scary MUSLIMS—can still get married.
Ax murderers can still get married. Neo-Nazis can still get married. Crack addicts can still get married. Deadbeat dads can still get married. Americans who hate America can still get married. Americans secretly plotting terrorist acts can still get married. Child molesters can still get married. People who can’t procreate can still get married. Americans and ferriners can still get married—even French and Arab ferriners!!!
Porn addicts can still get married. Adults who chain-smoke in the car with the windows up while their children are sitting in the back seat can still get married. Prostitutes can still get married. Shoplifters can still get married. People who think the world is round can still get married. People who have married and divorced a hundred or even a thousand times can still get married. Gold Diggers can still get married. Tax cheats can still get married. Liberals can still get married and—gasp!—make BABY LIBERALS!
And, get this: a gay man and a gay woman can still get married to each other. Which, of course, would make it a totally gay marriage. And totally legal.
But thank God (but not Jesus, who said zilch about gay people) you’ve passed constitutional amendments in over 30 states designed to keep those tax-paying, time-volunteering, charity-giving, healthy-child-raising, law abiding, church-going, soccer-coaching, monogamous, committed, born-this-way gay couples from being able to go to City Hall and fill out a civil marriage form that requires no religious blessing or test what…so…ever.
Cuz, y’know, if we let them in, who knows where it’ll lead.”
>
Emphasis mine.
-
And, get this: a gay man and a gay woman can still get married to each other. Which, of course, would make it a totally gay marriage. And totally legal.
It gets weirder. A man and woman can get married in North Carolina. The man can get a sex change and legally become a woman. Will the marriage be nullified in North Carolina now? This scenario might sound absurd, but I happen to know two couples for whom this happened. Nobody has tried to nullify their marriages, incidentally.
And what of the reverse? A man and another man are a couple. One of them gets a sex change. Now can they get married in North Carolina?
-
#31 written by mclever 1 year ago
@Michael
And what of the reverse? A man and another man are a couple. One of them gets a sex change. Now can they get married in North Carolina?
Not if North Carolina follows the example set in Texas. If I recall my Texas laws correctly, in 1999 the Texas courts ruled that gender is determined at birth. And in 2011, SB723 would prohibit a court order recognizing a sex change from being a valid qualification for a marriage license in Texas. Basically, in Texas, you cannot get married if you are transgendered, period. And, in 2010, the 5th Court in Dallas ruled that Texas does not have to recognize “illegitimate” marriages performed elsewhere, reversing a lower court ruling.
So, my question is what happens if a couple is married and one spouse gets a sex change *after* the marriage and the couple wants to remain married. Does their marriage automatically become null in those states with Constitutional bans against gay marriage? So far, I don’t know that this question has come before the courts…
-
#32 written by rgbact 1 year ago
Good article in WS on the recent trend of blending liberal politics with pseudoscience. Taps into alot of the concepts in Jonah Goldberg’s new book on how liberals can’t see their own biases.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/new-phrenology_644420.html?nopager=1 -
-
rgbact, gosh a far-right pundit complaining about psychological studies that put far-right True Believers into what he sees as an unfavorable light. A far-right pundit using ridicule, ad hominem, and guilt-by-association in a weak attempt to discredit scientific studies. Who would have thought any of that could happen?
-
rgbact,
I agree that many of the studies cited are weak. I know Chris Mooney personally, and I think he is not as careful with his wording that I like.
I have a lot of discomfort with the simple conclusions made by psychopundits — including Ferguson.
But just to pick one example, Congress did not ban the sale (or manufacture) of incandescent bulbs. Rather, the bill in question set efficiency standards for the manufacture of bulbs. Apparently, writers at The Weekly Standard don’t do nuance well.
I haven’t read Goldberg’s book yet, but find him a skilled writer with good ideas. He’s right if he says liberals can’t see their own biases — nor can conservatives, and in breaking news, water is wet.
-
water is wet.
So Goldberg, who is also biased to the nth degree, has a keen grasp of the obvious like most pundits. And yes, shocking that most folk don’t recognize their own prejudices er biases.
Also breakin’ … Barack Hussein Obama, an African/American Dem, was elected by mostly like minded Dems and liberal/moderate independents.
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
JPMorgan-Chase announces a $2B loss, perhaps due to the actions of the “London Whale”.
Will this motivate Congress to action, stopping credit-default swaps once and for all?
Rhetorical question: how can they be so stupid?