Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Horseshit. Remember Sarah Palin's reaction to the use of the word "retard"?





More horseshit. Or do you think it was Republicans that made San Francisco the sex-obsessed city that it is? If we avoid the "really bad room", it's because we don't like being surrounded by drooling amateurs.

You are going to the wrong really bad rooms. They probably spot you as a potentially humourless leftie and keep you with the amateurs. Next time have Slave vouch for you.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by ironweed

These mods make Ty look like an amateur. Also, interesting choices on what was apparently allowed to stay.

http://obamalondon.blogspot.com/2011...ah-palins.html

Yes, it's a blog from Europe that likes Obama. Deal with it.

Also, "ordinance survey map symbols?" Really?

I got a virus alert. Perhaps that site is infected with socialism?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Gattigap

Apparently this was from a Palin staffer in a Politico interview. Stupid spin indeed.

Well, it's not a surveyor's symbol I've ever seen on a survey or map, nor does it look like the reticle* used in a theodolite or other surveying instruments.

Tho, the standard scope reticle options (bottom of this page) don't include anything to similar, either.

*yes, had to look that up.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Well, it's not a surveyor's symbol I've ever seen on a survey or map, nor does it look like the reticle* used in a theodolite or other surveying instruments.

Tho, the standard scope reticle options (bottom of this page) don't include anything to similar, either.

*yes, had to look that up.

This seems like a lot of effort to spend debunking an obvious lie. I don't think one needs to get beyond "surveyors do not target." It's a monumentally stupid line.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I think I agree with everything in this post.

I hadn't really read anything about this general topic I liked until I read Barry Ritholtz just now:

You could feel the collective cringe pass through atmosphere long before Pima County Sherrif Clarence Dupnik condemned the level of hostility in political rhetoric surrounding the Arizona assassination this weekend. It hardly took any finger-pointing or moralizing–though plenty of that followed quickly after the event–for the entire nation to become embarrassed about our political culture. Lest anyone think the shame was partisanly felt, there was more than enough bad behavior on all sides.

Over the weekend, the House leadership tacitly confirmed their own shame by postponing the vote on repealing healthcare reform. Better to go dark than risk the ritual display of histrionics which was a smart political move. One that was easily accomplished under the cover of the raging debate over whether the political climate played a role in Jared Loughner’s deranged plotting.

That debate is both legitimate and fairly interesting. Jack Shafer objected to Sherrif Dupnik’s attempt to chill partisan rhetoric which has a long history in the US of extreme positions. Howard Kurtz ham-handedly tried to dismiss the idea that any connection exists between the political vocabulary and acts of the unstable. (Though all he seemed to do was offer a reminder of how many times people have gone off following the precepts of reckless bloviators.) Kurt Anderson dredged up a long ago New York Magazine story by Jacob Weisberg about Oklahoma City and the connection to right-wing rhetoric. James Fallows and George Packer offered two of the more tempered and thoughtful reflections on the nature of political violence.

The upshot of all of this is less about culpability and more about looking at a political position again in light of the horrendous violence. Late Sunday night, a CNN anchor interviewed an unrepentant Libertarian radio-show host, Neal Boortz. The conversation followed a predictable pattern. Even if you don’t see Boortz as a parody of himself, watching the interview reminds us too quickly that ideologues are bores. They bring all discussions back to their one big idea. Forget whether you agree with that idea. The damage is done when the bores distract from thinking about the topic at hand.

The bigger issue with the Tea Party and Sarah Palin is not whether they bear responsibility for the deaths in Arizona. (They don’t, by the way. But they should be ashamed of themselves.) The problem is the way they’ve gummed up the political works with their simple-minded and contradictory view of political economy.

A good illustration of this comes from The Economist’s ace writer, Greg Ip, who happened to be attending the American Economics Association annual meeting at the same time that the shootings in Arizona took place. Ip is trying to make sense of the real causes of the economic crisis:

No one expects our politicians to have full-blown discussion of how to make policy in a Depression-economics world. But it is their job to translate that debate into a few key positions, expound upon them, defend them and adapt them. Then voters can validate or reject those positions.

Looking at our political climate, can anyone honestly say that we’re groping our way toward a better understanding of the causes of the crisis and the policy response to it?

Politics is messy–and often silly–but the political debate that was scheduled for this week was less about providing an alternative program of reforms to address our troubled economy than with rallying an increasingly irrational base.

Healthcare reform is, at bottom, a response to the economic crisis. It is an attempt to deal with American competitiveness as much as a social welfare program. It might be the right approach to structural reform. It might not be the right way to reform healthcare. But the Tea Party response to it does nothing to articulate an alternative set of answers to Ip’s questions. Therein lies the debasement of our politics.

The original has links to the various pieces mentioned.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Well, it's not a surveyor's symbol I've ever seen on a survey or map, nor does it look like the reticle* used in a theodolite or other surveying instruments.

Tho, the standard scope reticle options (bottom of this page) don't include anything to similar, either.

*yes, had to look that up.

Well, I think we can blame 'Weed: Celtic Cross

Or, if you want to get super ooky, the Zodiac Killer

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

My bad. Here's the link. The text is near the bottom: http://is.gd/kjVVH

When I click on that link, I go here:

http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda...orgot-avik-roy

I can't find what I remember reading in your post there, because I remember Holtz-Eakin's name appearing and I don't see it there.

But I think the more general point is this: There are funding mechanisms in HCR, a combination of cuts to current Medicare spending and tax increases, as set forth in the Christian Science Monitor article I linked to. Many critics of the bill do not acknowledge at all that Congress (or rather Congressional Democrats) were committed to passing legislation which would not explode the deficit, and tried to do so. HCR also involves new costs, obviously. The CBO made a bunch of predictions about costs and revenues. Those predictions have been serious, non-partisan efforts to get the numbers right, because that's what CBO does. They won't necessarily be correct, because no one can nail this stuff. It's hard. But there's a huge difference between saying that some of the costs will come in higher because of unemployment, or whatever, and saying that the thing will be a fiscal trainwreck. When I see a pundit -- like Brooks in the NYT, saying (as Adder points out) almost exactly what your source said (and maybe because Brooks was borrowing from your blogger, rather than because they were both repeating talking points) -- say that some of the projections are off, and then using that anecdotally to suggest that everything is going to hell without substituting a better calculation and saying specifically what it means, I see someone telling scary policy stories for their own purposes, rather than trying to get the policy right.

Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

Well, I think we can blame 'Weed: Celtic Cross

The Celtic Cross has been co-opted by white supremacists forever, just like the Gadsden flag, which I always loved as an innocent piece of Americana, has been taken over by another set of hataz.

I am as yet unaware of any odious group of dickbags having co-opted the eight-pointed arrow of chaos, so I am currently using that when I go tagging.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

This seems like a lot of effort to spend debunking an obvious lie. I don't think one needs to get beyond "surveyors do not target." It's a monumentally stupid line.

Well, the politico link has a link to a credulous posting from the VRWC with a "surveyor's mark" asserting they are obviously the same, and I don't think 5 minutes on that is more of a waste of time than trying more than once to get the last word against Thurgreed on NFL discipline, so perhaps you aren't the one to throw stones.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

Well, the politico link has a link to a credulous posting from the VRWC with a "surveyor's mark" asserting they are obviously the same, and I don't think 5 minutes on that is more of a waste of time than trying more than once to get the last word against Thurgreed on NFL discipline, so perhaps you aren't the one to throw stones.

Clearly I am the king of wasted time.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by ironweed

The Celtic Cross has been co-opted by white supremacists forever, just like the Gadsden flag, which I always loved as an innocent piece of Americana, has been taken over by another set of hataz.

I am as yet unaware of any odious group of dickbags having co-opted the eight-pointed arrow of chaos, so I am currently using that when I go tagging.

[Adder]

So how about we revist the islamic fundamentalism over-running Europe thing, eh?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

So how about we revist the islamic fundamentalism over-running Europe thing, eh?

Well, he's writing that as a counterweight to Steyn, so, much like Steyn finds a islamofascist connection to *everything*, the author is making sure to minimize any islamo-connected problem that might exist. He's probably (okay, almost certainly) closer to the truth than Steyn, but the truth is certainly somewherer between their images.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I hadn't really read anything about this general topic I liked until I read Barry Ritholtz just now:



The original has links to the various pieces mentioned.

There has been an alternative offered: Do nothing. That's the GOP plan. The Dems refuse that alternative. They set the parameters of the debate so that the alternative must include expansion to those without health care.

That was a deal breaker for the GOP. Now, perhaps you and other Dems says the GOP's alternative is economically and morally a non-starter. Fine. But that's the GOP's position (and the position, I might add, of about 1/2 of the country). I'd say that makes it a position the Dems have to address as a valid counter, whether it offends them or not.

By refusing to do so, they created a zero sum game. In this zero sum game, the Dems won. Congrats to them. But when the GOP sabotages them after the fact and does stupid shit like holding this repeal referendum, the Dems don't have the right to call them out for "not having offered an alternative." They did. You just didn't like it.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

There has been an alternative offered: Do nothing.

That plan is a fiscal disaster.