O Discordia

Dear Eric Staib

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:47:00 +0000

Dear Eric,

I read your article on Mises and I just wanted to thank you for writing it.

Here is my favorite part:
"As discussed earlier, from the very fact of their abstention from the purchase of healthcare services, we know a posteriori that millions of individuals in this country do not desire health insurance more than other goods or services."
--http://mises.org/story/3666

See? Amazing! I laugh with glee every time I read it. It's like you are reading the mind of the American citizen...how do you do it? I mean, I'm sure people DO prefer paying rent and buying groceries to buying health insurance. So, obviously, they don't want health care or health insurance as much as those things! Your insight has really floored me.

I see that you are studying economics. That's so cute! But it must hurt your head. You look very cute in your picture, so I recommend you look into modeling or acting instead. You will meet many people who will think you are just as smart as you think you are-- maybe even smarter!

Anyway, thank you again. You--and others like you--provide a consistency that I have come to depend on from the 'libertarian school of thought'. It's like having a cantankerous old grand-dad you can always count on to use the 'n-word' and I love it! Keep 'em coming!

--Your Biggest Fan

Astroturf

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:26:00 +0000

Facts of the Day

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:31:00 +0000

Depressing Fact of the Day:

Roughly as many Americans have a favorable (45%) as unfavorable opinion (44%) of Sarah Palin. http://tinyurl.com/ktenya

Uplifting Fact of the Day to Balance that Depressing, Unbelievable Fact:

USA Today published a great piece on AT&T, the iPhone and the big telecoms' hopefully impermanent but always incessant attempts to limit mobile users' freedom: http://bit.ly/1BvUD8 #freemyphone

Dear cnn

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 23:30:00 +0000

Open letter to the editor(s)

Dear cnn,

I understand that as a business, you "need" to include all sorts of infotainment and trashy celebrity stories to make ends meet, or to raise ratings and web hits for advertisers, but that is no excuse for the shockingly offensive story you ran on your homepage on March 31st, 2009 called "Man punches blond woman on bus." Clearly it was so striking that I am devoting an email and a blog post to it more than a month later. Maybe I need to get out more.

I'm not saying that KCPQ's James Lynch is not equally responsible, but I really was surprised cnn would run a story that was framed in that way, let alone feature it. Any responsible reporter would see that story for what it was-- a sad case of someone with mental illness who was not receiving the help he needed.

If anything, this was a chance to report national news that would raise awareness of an important issue in the U.S., such as the ever-diminishing funding for mental health services that is leaving so many in need without access to the care they need. In fact, you could even report on how the growing need for care is further exacerbated by the current economic crisis. Oooh, timeliness! And since you are apparently so fond of running homey, 'local' stories without doing any work of your own, I asked my friend google to help me and it turned up this lovely press release on America's Mental Health Care Crisis from the National Council for Community Behavioral Health Care-- it's written and ready to go!

Instead of educating voters on an important issue, however, Lynch made that story about yet another 'faceless black man' committing a random violent act on a defenseless white citizen. Really, cnn?

Your friend,

Rachel

P.S. yes, I heard the mumbled last line about "a man out there with a mental past.." in the last 3 seconds of the video. Bravo.

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 19:04:00 +0000

Sitt Marie Rose by Etel Adnan

My review

rating: 4 of 5 stars
Possibly one of the most powerful, passionate works of fiction I have ever read. Adnan's Sitt Marie Rose is both an attack on and an interrogation of her own history, her own identity, just as much as it is an attack on the tribal and religious justifications for the violence and terror of the civil war in Lebanon. She rails against an Islam that forgets "the divine mercy affirmed by the first verse of the Koran... human mercy" and a Christianity in Lebanon that's "not in communion with any force other than the Dragon." It is these two forces that she sees at work in the conflict, supported by fear and tribalism, or as she puts it, "idolatry towards the group you belong to."

Genius and awesomeness :)

I kid you not

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sat, 01 Nov 2008 17:52:00 +0000

Where does a lot of that earmark money end up anyway? [...] You've heard about some of those pet projects they really don't make a whole lot of sense and sometimes these dollars go to pet projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good. Things like fruit fly research in Paris, France. I kid you not.

O discordia.

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:48:00 +0000

After months of neglect, I decided I couldn't let this board die.

Check out this revealing exhibit that Dialog:City had at the DNC in Denver.

An artist made 'sight test' charts out of words from Presidential State of the Union addresses by frequency of word usage. There was one from FDR, Lincoln, Dubya, etc. Kinda neat.

Can you guess which President this one was?

You Can Change Congress

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 19:16:00 +0000

Help Larry Lessig and friends Change Congress. Doesn't it make you sad that legislators can legally take campaign contributions from the industries they regulate? Look up some in your home state and see if they would like to take the pledge at Change-Congress.org.

Pardon Me, Congressman, but you dropped your crown...

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 00:43:00 +0000

In a timely pre-game show to the launch of Larry Lessig's Change Congress campaign, Ken Silverstein published a delightful piece in the March issue of Harper's, entitled Beltway Bacchanal: Congress lives high on the contributor's dime . Apparently, the only service our elected officials perform for the public anymore is creating "campaign" jobs for needy college grads, ahem, friends and relatives. Also, I just realized that you can't read the article unless you subscribe to Harper's, which I highly recommend! :)

Despite my post, which is the opposite of timely (March is now nearing an end and Lessig actually launched CC last week), you can still learn a lot about PAC Leadership funds and campaign treasuries from Silverstein's article.

For example, I learned how useful contributor's funds can be when one wants to spend

$32,036 to golf at the Kiawah Island Golf Resort (Rep. James McCrery, R-LA), or say, slam down
$66,146 on luxury hotels over the 2006 election cycle (Congressman Steny Hoyer, D-MD)

Where are our armbands?

noreply@blogger.com (yootskah) — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:18:00 +0000

Turn up your volume. It'll make you feel more patriotic.

http://www.unsubscribe-me.org/waitingfortheguards.php?

How is this worth it?

noreply@blogger.com (yootskah) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:45:00 +0000

Tens of thousands of US troops killed or wounded. Millions of Iraqis displaced. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed or wounded.

And now we conclude it is costing us $12 billion a month.

Can anyone please explain to me why you think this is worth it? How is this benefiting me and you?

Trade

noreply@blogger.com (Jeans) — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:38:00 +0000

Hey everyone,

So I'm new to posting, although I've tried to keep up with what you all have written since Rachel invited me contribute. Here's an opinion article I just read called "The Pain of Globalisation."

http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/webfeatures_viewpoints_pain_of_globalisation

It talks about the negative impact of trade on American worker's wages and why that's happening. Globalization is inevitable, and potentially also beneficial, but there are certain considerations that have to be made. Like demanding that the people who contribute the labor used to produce the goods we ultimately buy here are ensured basic rights. I also think government supported (at least partially) training for people who find their jobs shipped oversees so they can become employed again is a good idea.

Any thoughts?

The Prez: Torture and Tapping, Power and Privilege

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:20:00 +0000

Power and the Presidency: A PBS interview with Charles Fried and Frederick Schwarz.

Intro
Part 1 of the interview
Part 2 of the interview

Charles Fried served as Solicitor General of the United States under President Reagan from 1985-1988. After Reagan left office, Fried returned to Harvard Law School as a distinguished lecturer. From 1995 until 1999, while teaching constitutional law at Harvard, Charles Fried was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, "the oldest appellate court in continuous existence in the Western Hemisphere."

Frederick (Fritz) A. O. Schwarz, Jr. is the senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law School. He had been a partner with the law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore since 1969. Schwarz was the lead counsel for the Church Committee, a Senate committee formed in 1975 in reaction to the Watergate scandal that investigated executive overreach stretching back to the FDR administration, eventually issuing 14 reports over three years.

Everyone should definitely check this interview out when you get a spare moment. It's so nice to hear reasonable people (both conservative and liberal) who have the experience and knowledge to speak intelligently about these issues. And you can read the transcript if you miss something.

Disclaimer: I do realize it's Bill Moyers, guys (F and T, you know who you are), but Fried was Reagan's boyeeeee! And get this-- I learned so much about secret wire-tapping from him that I have had a total turnaround and am all for it, with the proper Congressional oversight. To deter 'Mission creep.' I love that phrase. That's right. Secret wiretapping: FOR.

Iraqi Army

noreply@blogger.com (yootskah) — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:03:00 +0000

Here is a nice view of the Iraqi Army in training. I know I feel good about 'em.

Yes, that's real.

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:49:00 +0000

my friend steve is an iraq vet, so when he sends something i look at it. more of what you've seen, but interesting to see it spliced together this way.

3 Quotes

noreply@blogger.com (yootskah) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 19:38:00 +0000

"If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."

"It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."

"No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

- James Madison

My God! The whole country has turned BLUE!

noreply@blogger.com (yootskah) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 17:26:00 +0000

Interesting article

noreply@blogger.com (Tybz) — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:30:00 +0000

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bstephens/?id=110010827

From the Wall Street Journal. What do you guys think?

Time-out

noreply@blogger.com (Tybz) — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 14:30:00 +0000

Justin,

Hold on a freaking second. I'm sorry that you feel that I've insulted you. Let me at the very least try and address the things that have hurt your sensibilities.

First you're upset because I find it hard to take what you say seriously sometimes. Now, I didn't say that I don't taking you seriously.... What I meant was that the integrity of your comments (in my own mind) are in jeopardy because you offer up a great deal of criticism, but not much in the way of alternatives. For example, how should we conduct interrogations? Or what kinds of policies do you want to see from a future administration in regards to interrogations (or rendition, or wiretapping)?

Now I don't know why you care so much about my opinions, but maybe I shouldn't have used that phrase. I wouldn't have done so if I knew it was going to cause this result. And I am sorry.

You also said I insulted you because I claimed you are political and because you blame Bush for everything. I don't think that it is a stretch to say that you engage in political conversations with me, Rachel, and others. In doing so you invoke common political themes in some cases, and in others you create your own political stances. So in my mind you are being political, and that is not a negative thing. In fact I admire people who understand not only the issue, but also the politics that revolves around the issue.

Now you also use examples of people who use politics to advance themselves or their party or the people they represent. If you use a person's comments to make a point and I suggest that that same person's comments were used to advance themselves politically then I don't understand why you have to get mad at me. Just argue your point.

Now you said this: "since it seems to be beyond your ability to process as a list of obviously fucked up examples of things that ARE DIRECTLY HIS FAULT"

You then went on to list 7 things, which I assumed you meant were 'directly his (Bush's) fault". Maybe you don't blame everything on Bush, but in that list you included the melting of the ice among others. So I assumed that you were blaming the melting Artic ice on Bush because you said it was "directly his fault." And I responded accordingly.

---

Now let me show you some of your recent comments directed at me:

"since it seems to be beyond your ability to process..."

"maybe you can keep up..."

"Do you think before you write that kind of crap?"

These all could be considered insulting. I guessing that you think that I am stupid or slow. But that's OK, I didn't take offense. I understand when you get upset you like to go on about these things. However I do find it amusing that you have issue with me as being insulting.

---

Why do you get so upset when I use a historical reference? It's not like what I'm saying isn't relevant to the conversation. And if you don't like the reference then I'm not opposed to you forcing me to defend it. But, getting angry just because I mention something historical? Me doing so is not meant to point out something you don't know, it's just meant to add to the conversation. If you don't want me to make historical references in the future then I'll stop. But I really don't see why it's a problem.

T

Off Topic - But I had to share this one

noreply@blogger.com (yootskah) — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 19:54:00 +0000

Articles

noreply@blogger.com (Tybz) — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 14:33:00 +0000

Great article Rachel.

I disagree with many (not all) of his histoical intrepretations of the British Empire, American imperialism, and imperialism in general. Because of that I am taken down a different path of conclusions. However, I do like that at he is asking open-ended questions about the future in Iraq, and the future of American foreign policy. We so often are discussing the past and the present, it would be interesting to hear both of your thoughts on the future.

---

Here are some good articles that I've run across recently:

On governmental budgets (I discussed briefly in my previous post to Justin):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/31/AR2007103102548.html

It's by David Ingatius, and it gets at an issue about the federal government and how is works (or doesn't work).

Also, Justin has brought up the Turkish issue a couple of times. Well here is a wonderful article by Christopher Hitchens about the topic.

http://www.slate.com/id/2176842/

He's probably more in line with Justin than me. But I can only guess at that because I don't know where he stands on the issue outside of his believe that it's all Bush's fault.

And here's two more Hitchens articles is you have the time:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/11/hitchens200711?currentPage=1

Hitchens writes about a soldier recently killed in Iraq, who decide to join the Army because of Hitchens own writings. It is a powerful introspective.

And this one about the new term "Anglosphere"

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_4_anglosphere.html

In the Spirit of Alternatives

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:02:00 +0000

Now, I would like to warn everyone that this article is written by:

John B. Judis, a senior editor at The New Republic and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. His recently published work is called The Folly of Empire. I believe he would best be described as a liberal internationalist. Or, someone who believes in playing nice with others instead of acting unilaterally. So, yes, he is a liberal.

But please take the time to read what he has to say. He examines U.S. foreign policy pre-WW1 to present and then, at the end, presents alternatives for future policy decisions.

I also have to warn you that he uses words like "neo-conservative" and "neo-imperialist." Please try to get past any distaste you have for labels (I hate labels, too, so I totally feel you) and keep reading.

John B. Judis' discussion of Iraq and U.S. Foreign Policy

Thanks,

Rachel

P.S. If you don't have time for the whole article, here is the end. But the whole article is really worth the read!

" The new administration needs to repudiate Bush's strategy of preemptive regime change and reaffirm the United Nations charter, which allows nations to act unilaterally only in their own immediate self-defense. That would have an immediate effect on American policy toward Iran, whose regime the United States is now officially trying to overthrow.

The new administration needs to reaffirm the idea behind internationally sanctioned and administered "mandates" and "trusteeship" for countries and peoples going through a difficult transition toward independence and statehood. If countries intervene to prevent war or genocide, they must do so in a manner that assures the peoples targeted that their right of self-determination will be respected. If the United States, for instance, had tried to intervene in the Balkans by itself, it might still be fighting an insurgency there.

The new administration needs to reaffirm the importance of international action and agreements -- through the U.N. and other bodies -- to aid in the prevention of wars, pandemics, and environmental catastrophe, and to ease the struggle over scarce resources, including oil and water. That means at a minimum returning to the negotiations over global warming; and attempting to revive the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which the U.S. undermined in signing a nuclear deal with India."

--John B. Judis

Hippies?

noreply@blogger.com (Tybz) — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 19:24:00 +0000

Justin,

To begin with, Justin, I think that you are not only being political when it comes to Mr. Garamendi's comments, but that you are political on most things that we talk about. But this is not bad thing to be. It means (at least to me) that you are engaged in the topics and take you take stances based on rational conclusions.

--

I didn't realized that I made any sort of comparison between you and hippies. In fact I'm not sure that I've made any accusations against you about anything.

But I am more than happy to respond to things that you think are directly Bush's fault:

1. Turkey vs. the PKK

I didn't realized that Bush was responsible for a conflict that was created by the Treaty of Versailles. Now I guess that you could state that Bush's policies liberated the Kurds from Arab domination and therefore caused national Marxist groups like the PKK to become more brazen in their attacks against the Turks (and coincidentally against the Syrians and Iranians). But there is one caveat to that; It was the no-fly zones of the 90s that gave Kurds in Iraq their autonomy, and the PKK has had northern Iraq as a home base there ever since. So Bush is not directly responsible for this situation, but could have possibly added to it.

2. The ice caps

I didn't realized that Bush is directly responsible for global-warming. I understand political attacks on Bush by environmentalists over policy issues. I understand Democrats attacking Bush on global warming to score political points with liberal constituents. But I can't believe that Bush is solely and direct responsible fore the recession of the ice caps. If the scientists are correct then this melting has been going on for quite some time. And I believe that there is a great deal of earth science left to be understood before we have a full scope on global warming.

3. NG equipment and natural disasters

Now this one I will give you. A great deal of equipment is in Iraq. And the NG and reservist depots are much below there normal capacities. But I don't think that we need military equipment to fight fires. I think that we need fire hoses, and fire trucks, and perhaps some of those helicopters that can scoop up a bunch of water from a lake and dump it on a fire.

4. Cold people

I'm unsure what you mean by this. I'm guessing that you think that Bush wants poor families to be cold (as in a continuation of poverty so that they can't afford to heat their homes). This one definitely needs some elaboration.

5. Missing bin Laden

Is Bush solely responsible for not catching bin Laden? I don't know, and neither do you.

6. The cost of war

You are partially correct. Bush is only a piece in the governmental budgetary process. The current process is based on the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (from a Congressional standpoint). This act set up a relationship between appropriating and authorizing committees, and created a budget committee to keep things in order. For the executive branches side, I believe it was during the Hoover administration that the White House for the first time began to send joint budgets to Congress, up until then each department would send budgets to the Hill independently of each other.

But to get back to your point.... yes Bush has responsibility for the cost of the War in Iraq, but he is by no means directly responsible.

7. Hack job science

Once again I need more elaboration.

Benevolent Editing

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:27:00 +0000

Bill Of Rights Pared Down To A Manageable Six

Response to comments

noreply@blogger.com (Tybz) — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 18:45:00 +0000

Rachel,

I agree that the National Guard is not at full capacity here in the US, but there's no reason that that fact should impact the governments ability to cope with natural disasters. The Katrina problems stemmed from incompetence at the local, state, and federal levels. They had trouble getting assets into place, not lacking assets. And in California they need fire-fighters and rain, not soldiers. Of course the NG could help displaced people, but so could anyone else. Mr. Garamendi's comments on Hardball were political opportunities. Opportunities which seemed, at least to you me and Justin, to be well worth it (since we're still talking about him).

---

I don't take Bush criticism personally. If I did that I would be pissed off pretty much every second of every day until he leaves office (and probably beyond that too). So, I was not upset by Justins comments. I was more amused (no offense Justin). It reminded me of me, bitching up a storm about Bill Clinton and how I thought that everything that was going wrong was ultimately his fault. These days I like giving the Dems the benefit of the doubt, and I am always reexamining the Repubs for mistakes that they've made (boy have they been fucking up recently). Now that doesn't mean that I don't get angry and rail agains Pelosi and company, it just means that I attempt to be more patient.

As far as Bush and me. I will support him as long as he continues the current policy in regards to Iraq, Afghanistan, the pursuit of international terrorist organizations, and intelligence gathering. For me those are my principle issues, and I will vote for the candidate that I feel will continue these policies and also be able to adjust to future developments.

Now does that mean that I am wholeheartedly for every foreign or security policy that Bush has either pushed or created? Not at all. I understand, and try not to dismiss, the concerns expressed by you and Justin. And if Bush has a policy that I support, but don't like, then I'm open to hearing alternatives. But only if that alternative policy takes into account the risks and dangers that the current policy already addresses.

(quick aside -- The only Democratic candidate who does this (as far as I'm concerned) is Hillary Clinton. So while I will not vote for her, I hope beyond hope if a Democrat should win, that she will be it. She is the only Dem candidate that I believe is being serious about foreign policy and security issues.)

You guys are constantly tearing down the current policies for a whole litany of reasons, but rarely do you offer up your vision for alternatives. Because you don't do this, it is sometimes hard for me to take you seriously. So what I find frustrating is not Justin's rampaging, but how to respond without myself going on a rampage. Because I do respect you opinions and I don't want you to think otherwise.

T

ps. I'd like to get back to talking about the Military Commissions Act, will try to comment later this week