You know what would be awesome? If they were actually required to turn a profit to spew their nonsense, rather than begging for money to top off the money from the Koch foundation.
And I just love how they are using the market collapse as a Reason to keep them in wingnut welfare. Let the financial market crash, and then deregulate even more! Invisible hand!
I’m struck by how much Lou Dobbs’ quitting to go “beyond my role” sounds like Sarah Palin’s “choice is to take a stand and effect change” by quitting. And lest we forget, there are many who believe that the best way to fight Obamafascism is to go Galt.
This all makes me miss the days when people quit to spend more time with their families.
I have to admit that the teabagger candidate in NY-23 is polling better than I expected he would. Though, in retrospect, it makes a reasonable amount of sense: the teabag movement appeals largely to the old and the district is old. But I’m wondering if there’s even more to it. It’s my sense that the basic tenets of teabaggerism are:
Conspicuously absent are
In particular, the Dick Armey outfit FreedomWorks seems to be about promoting freedom (I guess from taxes and regulations) here as opposed to freedom (to be a quasi-western American puppet state) abroad. And they don’t seem to talk about Jesus much. Obviously, all kinds of crazy people showed up at the 9/12 festivities, mean of them Hitler-obsessed and heavy into Jesus. But some of that is just that, to paraphrase James Carville, if you drag a Fox News crew through a retirement home, there’s no telling what you’ll find.
I think that a Jesus-reduced, Hitler-reduced conservative message might work reasonably well in some parts of the country, including the rural northeast. It’s probably too anti-union to really work in New York State at large and too anti-immigrant to really work nationally, but if teabagging is traditional wingerism with more Rand and less religion, more Galt and less GWOT, it may end up less fringey that I originally thought.
Sorry, but I just stopped reading those guys. Was not worth it. And I refuse to watch that video.
Besides- libertarians are just irrelevant, and when you realize that Republican economic policies are simply glibertarian bullshit + tax cuts + jesus, why bother with the glibertarians?
Why would hedge fund manager Raj Rajaratnam risk his $1.5 billion fortune for $20 million in illegal gains? said Peter Cohan in DailyFinance. He probably didn’t; it’s more likely that Rajaratnam—arrested for insider trading—and his $3.7 billion fund, Galleon, earned most of their 20 percent annual returns through cheating, with the help of Rajaratnam’s co-defendants from Intel, IBM, McKinsey, and New Castle Partners
What’s notable about this case, said Gwen Robinson in the Financial Times, is the government’s “unprecedented—and extensive—use of wiretaps and other gum-shoe methods,” as if investors were “mobsters.” Embarrassed by the Bernie Madoff fraud, securities investigators are pulling out all the stops to show “they mean business.”
Predictably, the Wall Street Journal is upset about the prosecution:
The U.S. attorney’s implication is that Wall Street ought to watch out because prosecutors are now treating hedge funds like the mafia. This will play well politically given the public’s anti-Wall Street mood, yet probable cause to justify the wiretaps seems to have been provided thanks to the oldest method in law enforcement—a so far unidentified informant who once worked at Galleon.
If super-geniuses like Raj Rajaratnam go Galt and stop their insider trading for fear of being imprisoned, imagine what will happen to the economy.
Move over, Mouthpiece Theater. For every single one of you who has told me I have been too hard on the glibertarians at Reason, I present you the Fonzi of Freedom, Nick Gillespie, putting that Koch Foundation money to good use:
I’m surprised he took off the leather jacket. And I challenge you to find something as absurd as that on any wingnut blog.
On the upside, he wasn’t in a cheerleader outfit.
Bloom’s Taxonomy of learning, first proposed by psychologist Benjamin Bloom in 1951, revolutionized the science of education by allowing the cognitive level at which students and teachers work to be classified on a simple scale. Professional academics, for example, regard any work that does not reach the sixth and highest level, evaluation, as derivative. A proper work of Evaluation requires one not only to understand the fundamentals of a given topic, but also to weigh the competing perspectives of other scholars before reaching a coherent and original conclusion.
On a rare occasion when Megan McArdle bothered to ground her suppositions in fact, and therefore performed what a professional would call ‘learning’, McMegan arguably reached level one. McMegan correctly summarized the argument of one relatively dated theoretical report on healthcare spending and innovation, without noting that numerous equally qualified professionals disagree. McMegan also did not note that the same authors later tested their model in the real world and concluded that their earlier study was wrong [correction – cannot fully explain what happens in the real world].
One can also reach Bloom’s first level by opening the newspaper and reading a paragraph at random. Reading two paragraphs in order, you will probably pick up context and reach level two. Middle schoolers who hope to earn an ‘A’ grade typically reach level 3, Application, on a regular basis. Glibly making crap up, on the other hand, generally won’t net you better than a gentleman’s ‘D’.
***Update***
Note the correction. Also, below the fold, I have reprinted with permission a summary that Tom sent me by email last night. (more…)
Here:
There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.
So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.
But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.
You know what this means, don’t you? By the end of the day there will be 15 Reason blog posts explaining that the cheer at the loss of the Olympics bid was actually motivated by a concern for fiscal restraint and limited government, and by the end of the week one of their editors will be on blogging heads claiming it demonstrated a deep fear of government takeovers and central planning.
You know, when I used the phrase Banana Republicans in the past, I didn’t really think it would come to this:
There is a remote, although gaining, possibility America’s military will intervene as a last resort to resolve the “Obama problem.” Don’t dismiss it as unrealistic.America isn’t the Third World. If a military coup does occur here it will be civilized. That it has never happened doesn’t mean it wont. Describing what may be afoot is not to advocate it.
[...]
Will the day come when patriotic general and flag officers sit down with the president, or with those who control him, and work out the national equivalent of a “family intervention,” with some form of limited, shared responsibility?
Imagine a bloodless coup to restore and defend the Constitution through an interim administration that would do the serious business of governing and defending the nation. Skilled, military-trained, nation-builders would replace accountability-challenged, radical-left commissars. Having bonded with his twin teleprompters, the president would be detailed for ceremonial speech-making.
I eagerly await the Fonzi of Freedom Nick Gillespie, Matt Welch, and the rest of the Reason crew explaining how it is the folks in the middle who are a threat to Democracy and our freedoms.
And seriously, this person was an official in two previous administrations (Johnson and Carter). At what point does this shit become unacceptable in the village?
I’m sure you are all shocked:
Conservatives were quick to insist that the near-riot — the first of many town-hall mobs that would dominate the headlines in August — was completely spontaneous. The protesters didn’t show up “because of some organized group,” Rick Scott, the head of Conservatives for Patients’ Rights, told reporters. “They’re mad about the stimulus bill, the bailout, the economy. Now they see that their health care is about to be taken over by the government.”***Behind the scenes, top Republicans — including House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, Minority Leader John Boehner and the chairman of the GOP’s Senate steering committee, Jim DeMint — worked hand-in-glove with the organizers of the town brawls. Their goal was not only to block health care reform but to bankrupt President Obama’s political capital before he could move on to other key items on his agenda, including curbing climate change and expanding labor rights. As DeMint told an August teleconference of nearly 20,000 town-hall activists, “If we can stop him on this, the administration won’t be able to go on to cap and trade, card check and the other things they want to do.”
I eagerly await the folks at Reason explaining that really, the health care protesters were just advocates of limited government.
(via)
Here:
After years of trying to cut Medicare spending, Republican lawmakers have emerged as champions of the program, accusing Democrats of trying to steal from the elderly to cover the cost of health reform.It’s a lonely battle. The hospital associations, AARP and other powerful interest groups that usually howl over Medicare cuts have also switched sides. Last week, they stood silent as the Senate Finance Committee debated a plan to slice more than $400 billion over the next decade from Medicare, the revered federal insurance program for people over 65, and Medicaid, which also serves many seniors.
Those folks at Reason sure know how to pick their allies, don’t they?
I know I spend too much time focusing on the clowns at Reason, but this piece by Katherine Mangu-Ward is just too priceless a sample of the type of asshattery that dominates the magazine these days. Starting with the news that Obama called Kanye West a jackass (a statement everyone in the western world agrees with), she pivots to a statement by Muhtar Kent, the President of Coca Cola, making a Soviet Union reference regarding the taxation of soda, and then moves in with that glibertarian smarm we’ve all grown to love:
In his heart of hearts, Obama would clearly love to tax soda. And he may yet get his wish. But for the moment he is worn down, beaten by uppity legislators and people who like fizzy, corn syrupy drinks. Having the CEO of an all-American/massive multi-national company compare his administration’s policies to those of the Soviet Union should be good for another few weeks of presidential despair.Keep it up, Mr. Kent, and you too might earn the coveted Presidential Jackass Medal.
Not only is it impossible for her to know what is in Obama’s “heart of hearts,” she is radically misrepresenting what Obama said, which was the following:
“Obviously there is resistance on Capitol Hill to those kinds of sin taxes….Legislators from certain states that produce sugar or corn syrup are sensitive to anything that might reduce demand for those products. And look, people’s attitude is that they don’t necessarily want Big Brother telling them what to eat or drink, and I understand that.”
Yeah. That just suggests he is “beaten down by uppity legislators.”
Aside from being the typical snide gibberish I’ve become accustomed to from the deep thinkers over there, if Mangu-Ward would have thought for thirty seconds before going full wingnut, she would have realized there actually are some libertarian arguments that are really relevant right now in regards to the taxation of soda. For example, why tax sweetened drinks before you end the ludicrous farm subsidies that have led to the glut of high fructose corn syrup? And why else are companies using so much high fructose corn syrup? Because the tariffs are so high on sugar in order to protect American sugar cane farmers. Two direct government actions in the form of transfer payments and protectionism that have had a huge impact on the type of drinks we ingest as a nation.
The last I checked, transfer payments, free trade, and smart government were things libertarians were allegedly concerned about. In fact, before the days of the great socialist Obamenace, Reason used to be nominally interested in these issues. But then again, this is Reason magazine in the Gillespie/Welch Obama era, where it is better to be a reactionary smart-ass than smart.
Adding to DougJ’s post, who could have predicted that the right, after earnestly supporting EVERYTHING Bush and the Republicans did the last eight years, would determine that the tattered wreckage left behind was not the fault of… conservatism? It is just priceless. Again, I ask, do you remember all the mass protests organized by Freedom Works and the fiscal conservative teabaggers when Bush and DeLay were jamming through the Prescription Drug bill? You remember 60-100,000 wingnuts descending on DC screaming “I want my country back?” while wailing about out of control spending? Me either.
This isn’t about principle. This is about cynical partisan politics, with an assist from the media and the glibertarian excuse makers- only a complete fool would be blaming Obama for our current mess, and only a complete fool could look at the last few decades and think the solution to our nation’s woes is giving the Republicans another shot in 2010 and 2012. Only this time, they really will take us towards that elusive conservative Utopia that eluded them while they ran the house, the Senate, and the White House! I promise! The check is in the mail! I will respect you in the morning!
Regardless, I’m sure the Fonzi of Freedom Nick Gillespie will have another video up soon telling us that the protest in Washington last week was really about people who care for limited government, all while fluffing wingnuts like Mike Pence and Jim DeMint. Just don’t pay any attention to the birthers, the neo-confederates, the militiamen, and the Glenn Beck groupies.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again- these “conservatives” sound like the excuse makers for the Soviet Union who tell us communism didn’t fail, it just wasn’t properly implemented.
The crack team at Reason has a video explaining why people don’t have health insurance in America- malt liquor and designer jeans:
I’m surprised they didn’t find a way to work in the word “bling.”
Oliver Willis went above and beyond in capturing the colorful mosaic that is Glenn Beck nation. I like this pic best:
