Politics: 6 October 2010

Drug Users Supporting Terrorism—Again

NPR reporter John Burnett was on The Colbert Report last night saying that recreational drug users are responsible for the gang wars in Mexico. When Colbert responded that maybe this wouldn’t be the case if people “bought local” or voted for Prop 19, Burnett claimed that it was more complicated than this. He pointed out that organized crime didn’t go away after the end of Prohibition. I don’t have time to go into all the reasons that Burnett is stupid and ignorant. Let me just deal briefly with why he’s evil: drug users are not the cause for the gang wars in Mexico. There is no violence associated with the distribution of legal drugs; there is no problem with legal opium production in India. The wars, the violence: that due to policy. And if drug trafficking went away and the drug gangs went into other illegal areas (as Burnett suggests): so what? It would still take most of the profit out of their illegal activities.

It is also interesting to note that Burnett is not suggesting that America outlaw guns, even though all the guns used in these wars come from the US. Burnett isn’t saying, every time an American sells a gun, it could be going to support the gang wars in Mexico. No. Blame the drug users, who are—if anything—the victims in this. Burnett is just using the same Bush logic that said drug users supported terrorists. And this from “liberal” NPR!

Clean, Well-Lighted Sentences

Janis Bell’s Clean, Well-Lighted Sentences is a grammar book for people who don’t like grammar but still must occasionally write. I’ve read it at least two times—and I don’t even own it! I had been planning to write about it; on my first read, I found that I disagreed with her on a few issues. Now I find that there isn’t much to disagree with. (BTW: “Contrary to what a well-meaning teacher may have told you in elementary school, there is nothing wrong with ending a sentence in a preposition.”)

Bell is so wonderful because at the same time that she is grammatically liberal, she doesn’t bog down the reader with endless caveats. In fact, she doesn’t bog down the reader with any caveats at all. To someone like me, this is a problem—undoubtedly the cause of my initial slightly hostile reaction. Instead, she just tells you how you should write.

A good example of this is her discussion of punctuation around quotation marks. I can’t bring up the subject without (like now) bringing up the British and how they deal with this issue far better than we Yankee idiots. Here she is in all her terse beauty, “Note: Periods and commas belong inside closing quotation marks, no matter what. Don’t even think of placing them outside—just tuck them in.”

Towards the end of the book, she seems to lose a bit of her nerve. She notes that we never capitalize a dependent clause following a colon; it is optional for independent clauses. Give me a break! It is a single sentence! You never capitalize after a colon! Never! And when discussing making abbreviations, letters, and numerals plural, she gives up even quicker. She says that we should add an apostrophe-s. But then adds, “The apostrophe may also be omitted.” Again: wrong! Always omit the apostrophe! Always!

But these are minor points. This is an excellent book.

Get on the Bus!

When discussing prepositions, she points out how strange they are. For example, “It’s also not easy to understand why we get on a bus, on a train, on a plane, yet in a car. Or why we are on a team, and on a committee but in a group.” I can’t help out with the second sentence—why is that?—but I think I can with the first.

While it is not as true now, in the past, one always climbed stairs to get on a bus, train, and plane. One simply opened a door and climbed into a car. Now, most new city buses are single-step-on (they’re very cool), airplanes have tunnels or similar, and some cars (more trucks) do have stairs. Trains still have stairs, but these too will likely fade into history. But I don’t think we are going to muddy our language just for these technological changes.

Whew! One less think for Ms. Bell to worry about!

Update

I just realized that people are always on TV but in movies. Off hand, I think this dates back to live TV and our current feeling that TV is happening now. “Hey! Bob Hope is on TV. Right now!

Politics: 5 October 2010

The Power of Nightmares

I just got the first episode of this series (just like NetFlix to have it on three different one-hour disks when it is sold with all three episodes on a single disk at Amazon) by Adam Curtis about the use of fear to enslave people. It, along with other fun reads like The Shock Doctrine and C Street make me think that Niccolo Machiavelli had it right in The Prince back in 1513: power is all that matters. Watch a group of pigeons fighting over a slice of bread if you want to know everything important about political and economic power (the same thing, really) in the human world.

Justice Stevens Regrets Capital Punishment Ruling

In an interview with NPR’s Nina Totenberg, Justice John Paul Stevens admitted to regretting one of his decisions:

Mr. STEVENS: I think there is one vote that I would change, and that one was upholding the Texas capital punishment statute.

TOTENBERG: In 1976, when Stevens was first on the court, he voted to uphold the death penalty. At the time, he says, the court believed it was upholding statutes that allowed the death penalty for a narrow category of offenders, using procedures that, as Stevens puts it, prevented loading the dice towards the prosecution.

But as the court’s composition grew more conservative, he says, the universe of those eligible for the death penalty grew, and the court permitted more prosecution-friendly procedures in capital cases.

Mr. STEVENS: We did not foresee how it would be interpreted. I think that was an incorrect decision.

It is worth listening to the whole story, which is only about eight minutes long.

The Worst Twenty Years—ever!

From an article by Peter Coy in Bloomberg Businessweek, “Robert J. Gordon of Northwestern University belongs to the committee of distinguished economists who officially declared on Sept. 20 that the U.S. recession ended way back in June 2009. Don’t mistake that pronouncement for optimism. According to Gordon’s research into the long-term determinants of growth, America’s next two decades are going to be disappointing. He predicts that between 2007 and 2027, gross domestic product per capita will grow at the slowest pace of any 20-year period in U.S. history going back to George Washington’s Presidency.”

Welcome to fourth-world America…

Gooo team!

Stupid Jew Boy

I was looking for something to listen to while I cooked dinner and I came upon Sam Seder on The Young Turks Network, because he was going to have Chris Hayes on, and I really like him. It was on YouTube, so I looked at some of the comments. Two, right in a row where: (1) “lol stupid jew boy” and (2) “air america fell because of jews like YOU!!” I still can’t get my head around this. Or Rick Sanchez? I’m all for blasting Israel, but Jews? I know they have retractable horns, but come on!

KNOW Your Member of the Family Sciuridae

For years, Andrea and I have been arguing about the difference between squirrels and chipmunks. She is always right—and not just in that “it makes my life easier to say so” way. Always willing to use her artistic talents for Evil, she created the following:

KNOW Your Member of the Family Sciuridae

This is all very nice, but what I did not realize at the time is that the family Sciuridae is the Squirrel Family! In fact, chipmunks are even part of the same tribe as the ground squirrel. This is the most telling fact, because the Sciuridae Family is large (278 species). It includes both ground and tree squirrels, woodchucks—regardless of how much wood they can chuck, flying squirrels—except those belonging to the family Sciuridae Cartoonus (particular of the subfamily Sciurinae Bullwinkle Showoctus), and prairie dogs.

All the information you need to keep you safe is contained in Andrea’s paste-up. However, for a more scholarly approach, you might check out the Tree of Life web project. And for a good old fashioned “check out all this cool stuff I found out about because I love this subject” page, check out the Chipmunk page on Creagrus at Montery Bay.

Politics: 4 October 2010

Physics and Economics

Paul Krugman writes in Math, Models, and Mystification about economists who consider the likes of Brad DeLong and him ignorant of modern macroeconomic theory. Krugman’s theory about these people is that they understand the math of their models, but not the theory that underlies them. This rings true to me. When I used to teach physics, students commonly complained that they understood the concept, just not the math. But when I removed the math, I found they understood neither. Higher-level students tend to understand the math. The concepts are the hard part of physics. This seems at least as true of economics.

Glenn Beck: Making “Wingnut” Normal

Are we Surprised by James O’Keefe?

I don’t even understand this. What is this about? I know that James O’Keefe and Andrew Breitbart are worse than liars. But what exactly dose this attempt to get sex video of CNN correspondent Abbie Boudreau have to do with furthering the conservative cause? I think it is telling. Maybe this means that there really is nothing behind conservative ideology other than bile and hatred.

Libertarian Fire Control

I got this via DailyKOS:

This is a typically libertarian argument: insurance, insurance, insurance! The obvious problem here, and the reason that the $75 yearly payment should be mandatory is that Cranicks may be perfect libertarian rights-responsibilities examples: they had the right not to pay and the responsibility of keeping their own home from burning. But their next-door neighbors are what? Perfect examples of the other side of libertarianism: lawsuits, lawsuits, lawsuits? Their fields would never have burned if the fire department had responded to the Cranicks’ fire. Now what do they do? Sue the Cranicks, who probably have very little money (liquid and non-liquid)? What do they do if the Cranicks have to file for bankruptcy? They just lose. So much for the libertarian utopia.

Politics: 1 October 2010

My third calendar month of doing this thing.

Polly Wanna a Good Economy?

J. Bradford DeLong has written a really good article Economics for Parrots on Project Syndicate. In it, he attacks the idea that we are seeing more and more: high unemployment is structural. By this, people mean there isn’t unemployment because everyone is afraid and won’t spend and thus there is low demand. No. These people claim that there are plenty of jobs out there: it is just that the current workforce doesn’t have the right skills or aren’t willing to move to the right places (like Nebraska). Dr. DeLong obliterates this argument, showing that a parrot trained to say, “Supply and demand! Supply and demand!” is a better economist than these fools.

You see, the point of all this “structural unemployment” business is a way for these people to say that the government doesn’t need to do anything. It is the only reasonable-sounding argument that people can make against stimulus spending. And I do mean “reasonable-sounding” because the arguments are not reasonable at all. I believe these people don’t want anything done, because any kind effective measures taken by the legislature or the Fed will naturally cause inflation to rise. That is the last thing millionaires and billionaires want. (Well, maybe the second to last thing Meg Whitman wants.)

The End of The Shock Doctrine

I finished The Shock Doctrine today. I was particularly struck by a small part in the conclusion where Klein is quoting an editor of a Spanish newspaper: “‘In every act, in every gesture, in every sentence, Aznar told the people he was right. That he was the owner of the truth, and those who disagreed with him were his enemies.’ In other words, the very same qualities that Americans identified as strong leadership in their president after September 11th, were, in Spain, regarded as ominous signs of a rising facism.” Yep.

Meg Whitman

I more or less believe Whitman about the housekeeper thing. I’ll bet her husband got the initial letter, hoped it was nothing, and gave it to the housekeeper to work out. (The issue about possible future letters is more troubling.) What is bad about this situation is how it shows Whitman and husband to be above such matters. “Oh, you take care of this! I’m too important.” It also shows Whitman to be a hypocrite, but not in the way most people think. Her statements about the housekeeper being “part of the family” are shown to be hollow. She was “part of the family” for nine years and Whitman never learned that she was undocumented? She wasn’t part of the family. She was part of the staff: one of many people Whitman employed to do her dirty work.