[catching up] politicking, economics, foreign affairs, feminism/s, etc.
Tuesday, B said something like. I sort of agreed (as I do instinctually, to avoid conflict) but then sort of hedged. I said that we joke that my dad's a Republican with a heart and my mom's a Democrat with a brain, and so my brother and I are both (small "l") libertarians -- though my brother is very socially conservative and I'm very socially conservative. And so I said there's always a tension when it comes time to vote. I said I'm inclined to support the Democrats because they're more on my side on social issues than Republicans.
via rydra_wong: "A Conservative for Obama: My party has slipped its moorings. It's time for a true pragmatist to lead the country." by Wick Allison, Editor In Chief, D Magazine
I love this paragraph:Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of "oughts." We ought to do this or that because it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.
I like some of the stuff in this post about fighting for issues rather than politicians -- obviously sometimes fighting for issues involves supporting specific politicians, but your allegiance should be to your issues first rather than primarily to the politician
***
Wednesday? on SquawkBox, Fmr Treasury Secretary John Snow was asked "True or false: The fundamentals of the American economy are strong." He answered: "True or false: Tom Brady is a fundamentally strong quarterback." I loved that. (Thursday, at Michelle's going away party JohnO commented that the stock market had its biggest dip in eighty years and it was only down ten percent. "Maybe the fundamentals of the economy really are strong," he quipped.)The AIG deal may not end up being for the full $85 billion. It is what's known as a "bridge loan," meaning that the Federal Reserve is offering to lend the money for the short term, at a fairly steep interest rate. AIG doesn't have to take it all, which is precisely the point-the lousy terms of the loan give the company an incentive to find other sources of cash.
-"Where Did the Government Get $85 Billion? Was it just lying around somewhere?" by Noreen Malone | Posted Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2008, at 7:21 PM ET (Slate)
I LOLed at Megan McArdle's "That about sums it up" -- and giggled at this (also from her):Morgan Stanley and Wachovia [17 Sep 2008 11:11 pm]
Rumor is they're merging. I haven't seen such a natural match since Lisa Marie wed Michael Jackson.
The real question is, who's left for Goldman? If Morgan Stanley goes, I don't see how Goldman can survive. But they're kind of running out of commercial banks to woo. Couldn't Wal-Mart use an investment banking arm?
***
From "Proof That the Economy is in Bad Shape" (Posted by Kevin Drum on 09/15/08 at 11:33 AM): "So here's my guess: the Post wanted to run a "balancing" piece in the Outlook section arguing that the economy was basically OK and Bush had done a good job running it. Apparently no one smarter or more intellectually honest than Luskin - which includes just about everyone - was willing to do it. Which should tell you something."
I enjoyed the punchline to Deer in Headlights" (Posted by Kevin Drum on 09/16/08 at 5:15 PM): "Still, Obama's job would be a lot easier if Democrats had spent the past eight years acting like Democrats. Think they'll learn a lesson from this?"
from Slate: "Politicians Lie, Numbers Don't: And the numbers show that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans." posted Sep 16, 2008 By Michael Kinsley
Excerpt: "The only point is that if you find the Republican mantra of lower taxes and smaller government appealing, and if you care only about how fast the economy is growing, not how that growth is shared, you should vote Democratic."
The final paragraph cracks me up: "Finally, as economist Greg Mankiw points out in his blog, reacting to a similar calculation by Alan Blinder (both of them former chairs of the president's Council of Economic Advisers), correlation is not causation. Maybe economic statistics are better when the president is a Democrat for reasons having nothing to do with the president's skill in handling the economy. My own feeling about that is that as long as the pattern continues, who cares why? Correlation will do just fine." (Some of the trackbacks to Mankiw's post are also worth reading -- "Still Going to vote Republican" and "Yeah, The Economy Rocks Under Dems. But It's Not Their Fault.")
***
Also from Slate: "Pakistan Is the Problem: And Barack Obama seems to be the only candidate willing to face it." posted Sep 15, 2008 By Christopher Hitchens
I gut level react against Christopher Hitchens, though I haven't actually brought myself to read God Is Not Great yet (much like I gut level react against Richard Dawkins despite not having read The God Delusion), but it's an interesting article.
***
via rydra_wong, via Velveteen Rabbi: Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg: Liveblogging a Rabbinic Conference Call With Obama. Excerpt:Sen. Obama is on now, has wished us a shana tova (Ashkenazi pronunciation), and namedropped the phrase tikkun olam. He's talking about the economic crisis, the war in Iraq, Iran, climate change, Bin Laden is still on the loose, etc. There's a lot to fix. "I do not think, as president, that I can repair all this on my own, but that perhaps together," we can. He quotes Rabbi Tarfon (not by name), "You are not free to complete the work, but neither may you desist from it." He talks about restoring America's promise to care for the vulnerable, provide health care, care for children and aging, invest in alternate energy sources and create green jobs, to create an economy for all, not just for the rich. He wants to get back to "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" as a value in the country.
He talks about his deep ties with the Chicago Jewish community and partnerships with them, and emphasizes that he has been a "stalwart friend of Israel" and says that he thinks "Israel's security is sacrosanct." He talks about both supporting Israel's security and being an active partner in peace, standing tough with Iran.
I think I upset Karl on Sunday by asking what's wrong with having a Zionist approach to Israel (one of his criticisms of an outdated study guide we're using to supplement an adult ed study) in so far as it's already an established nation state -- he really didn't wanna talk about it at that moment, so I just dropped it completely, didn't make any attempt to clarify my question or say anything like, "I'm not saying occupation is a good thing." Honestly, I don't even know what "Zionism" means exactly -- which is part of why I was asking.
The "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" value reminded me of Reasons to Worry about McCain and Obama's "Public Service" Initiatives (Ilya Somin, September 17, 2008 at 1:25pm) -- even though yes I know they're really not that related.
***Women have interests that the parties should have to compete for. I want a vivid debate about what is good for women. Sarah Palin represents one argument, and her feminism will require Democrats to improve their argument and not take women for granted. Sarah Palin brings feminism to a lot of people who've been scorning feminism -- because feminism has seemed like a strand of Democratic party politics.
This is great for feminism.
-Ann Althouse
Althouse also posts about amniocentesis.
via rydra_wong: "A Conservative for Obama: My party has slipped its moorings. It's time for a true pragmatist to lead the country." by Wick Allison, Editor In Chief, D Magazine
I love this paragraph:Liberalism always seemed to me to be a system of "oughts." We ought to do this or that because it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether it works or not. It is a doctrine based on intentions, not results, on feeling good rather than doing good.
I like some of the stuff in this post about fighting for issues rather than politicians -- obviously sometimes fighting for issues involves supporting specific politicians, but your allegiance should be to your issues first rather than primarily to the politician
***
Wednesday? on SquawkBox, Fmr Treasury Secretary John Snow was asked "True or false: The fundamentals of the American economy are strong." He answered: "True or false: Tom Brady is a fundamentally strong quarterback." I loved that. (Thursday, at Michelle's going away party JohnO commented that the stock market had its biggest dip in eighty years and it was only down ten percent. "Maybe the fundamentals of the economy really are strong," he quipped.)The AIG deal may not end up being for the full $85 billion. It is what's known as a "bridge loan," meaning that the Federal Reserve is offering to lend the money for the short term, at a fairly steep interest rate. AIG doesn't have to take it all, which is precisely the point-the lousy terms of the loan give the company an incentive to find other sources of cash.
-"Where Did the Government Get $85 Billion? Was it just lying around somewhere?" by Noreen Malone | Posted Wednesday, Sept. 17, 2008, at 7:21 PM ET (Slate)
I LOLed at Megan McArdle's "That about sums it up" -- and giggled at this (also from her):Morgan Stanley and Wachovia [17 Sep 2008 11:11 pm]
Rumor is they're merging. I haven't seen such a natural match since Lisa Marie wed Michael Jackson.
The real question is, who's left for Goldman? If Morgan Stanley goes, I don't see how Goldman can survive. But they're kind of running out of commercial banks to woo. Couldn't Wal-Mart use an investment banking arm?
***
From "Proof That the Economy is in Bad Shape" (Posted by Kevin Drum on 09/15/08 at 11:33 AM): "So here's my guess: the Post wanted to run a "balancing" piece in the Outlook section arguing that the economy was basically OK and Bush had done a good job running it. Apparently no one smarter or more intellectually honest than Luskin - which includes just about everyone - was willing to do it. Which should tell you something."
I enjoyed the punchline to Deer in Headlights" (Posted by Kevin Drum on 09/16/08 at 5:15 PM): "Still, Obama's job would be a lot easier if Democrats had spent the past eight years acting like Democrats. Think they'll learn a lesson from this?"
from Slate: "Politicians Lie, Numbers Don't: And the numbers show that Democrats are better for the economy than Republicans." posted Sep 16, 2008 By Michael Kinsley
Excerpt: "The only point is that if you find the Republican mantra of lower taxes and smaller government appealing, and if you care only about how fast the economy is growing, not how that growth is shared, you should vote Democratic."
The final paragraph cracks me up: "Finally, as economist Greg Mankiw points out in his blog, reacting to a similar calculation by Alan Blinder (both of them former chairs of the president's Council of Economic Advisers), correlation is not causation. Maybe economic statistics are better when the president is a Democrat for reasons having nothing to do with the president's skill in handling the economy. My own feeling about that is that as long as the pattern continues, who cares why? Correlation will do just fine." (Some of the trackbacks to Mankiw's post are also worth reading -- "Still Going to vote Republican" and "Yeah, The Economy Rocks Under Dems. But It's Not Their Fault.")
***
Also from Slate: "Pakistan Is the Problem: And Barack Obama seems to be the only candidate willing to face it." posted Sep 15, 2008 By Christopher Hitchens
I gut level react against Christopher Hitchens, though I haven't actually brought myself to read God Is Not Great yet (much like I gut level react against Richard Dawkins despite not having read The God Delusion), but it's an interesting article.
***
via rydra_wong, via Velveteen Rabbi: Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg: Liveblogging a Rabbinic Conference Call With Obama. Excerpt:Sen. Obama is on now, has wished us a shana tova (Ashkenazi pronunciation), and namedropped the phrase tikkun olam. He's talking about the economic crisis, the war in Iraq, Iran, climate change, Bin Laden is still on the loose, etc. There's a lot to fix. "I do not think, as president, that I can repair all this on my own, but that perhaps together," we can. He quotes Rabbi Tarfon (not by name), "You are not free to complete the work, but neither may you desist from it." He talks about restoring America's promise to care for the vulnerable, provide health care, care for children and aging, invest in alternate energy sources and create green jobs, to create an economy for all, not just for the rich. He wants to get back to "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" as a value in the country.
He talks about his deep ties with the Chicago Jewish community and partnerships with them, and emphasizes that he has been a "stalwart friend of Israel" and says that he thinks "Israel's security is sacrosanct." He talks about both supporting Israel's security and being an active partner in peace, standing tough with Iran.
I think I upset Karl on Sunday by asking what's wrong with having a Zionist approach to Israel (one of his criticisms of an outdated study guide we're using to supplement an adult ed study) in so far as it's already an established nation state -- he really didn't wanna talk about it at that moment, so I just dropped it completely, didn't make any attempt to clarify my question or say anything like, "I'm not saying occupation is a good thing." Honestly, I don't even know what "Zionism" means exactly -- which is part of why I was asking.
The "I am my brother's keeper, I am my sister's keeper" value reminded me of Reasons to Worry about McCain and Obama's "Public Service" Initiatives (Ilya Somin, September 17, 2008 at 1:25pm) -- even though yes I know they're really not that related.
***Women have interests that the parties should have to compete for. I want a vivid debate about what is good for women. Sarah Palin represents one argument, and her feminism will require Democrats to improve their argument and not take women for granted. Sarah Palin brings feminism to a lot of people who've been scorning feminism -- because feminism has seemed like a strand of Democratic party politics.
This is great for feminism.
-Ann Althouse
Althouse also posts about amniocentesis.