Although Obama supporters continue to tell all doubters that it is far too early to judge whether Obama has been a successful president or not, and indicate that for the foreseeable future it will still be too early, there are indications that he has indeed become a failure in spite of all his good intentions.
There are two indicators that can be pointed at that show a weakening of support for Obama. The first is a Saturday Night Live skit featuring actors impersonating Barack Obama and Hu Jintao. This is the same show that did such a convincing impersonation of Sarah Palin that many Democrats actually think Palin said she could see Russia from her porch. The second is a week long series in Doonesbury in which Gary Trudeau, using the character Mark Slackmeyer as his mouth piece, has gone on a critical rampage against Obama's policy failings.
There are some groups that would never support Obama. Republicans never would for the same reason Republicans would never support any Democrat - they are in the hated other party. Crips hate Bloods and Bloods hate Crips. In spite of the insinuations, continued to the point of absurdity, that it is all about race, the simple truth is that Republicans won't support Obama because he's a Democrat.
Libertarians find that occasionally Obama appears that he might be willing to do things right, on very rare occasions, such as when he eventually got around to doing something about the war on drugs, but overall he is as much a disappointment as he was expected to be, that all the rhetoric about hope and change was to fool the gullible as most campaign promises are.
But those examples show voices that would normally be more supportive of Obama questioning their own president.
While the bailout has given the illusion of the recession being over, it is clear that the fundamental problems are not solved. The wars continue (as Obama promised) in spite of the hopes of his supporters that he would end them. Health care is in many ways a fiasco for the Democrats, as Obama campaigned on the public option and then stated he did not do so.
The year 2010 is going to be even worse economically than 2009. Will it still be too early to judge Obama?
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
No True Libertarian
"You say that your philosphy is strictly against any intervention in the economy. You say any intervention is a violation of your philosophy. Here is an intervention that I declare you like. If you disagree with me then you are engaging in the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy."
Everyone should be familiar with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It takes the form of someone denying that a potentially embarrassing member of a group is a member of a group at all. It is quite common in discussions of communism, where each and every despotic communist regime is said to be "not really communism." In rare occasions the defender of communist thought will try to label the system under discussion as capitalist because in the Soviet Union "there were a small number of rich people who owned and controlled everything and everyone else was poor."
"No True Scotsman" is useful for anyone who belongs to a group with active and vocal extremists committing acts that would embarrass the rest of the group. Communist regimes embarrass communists. The inquisition still embarrasses Christians.
But there is another fallacy, sort of a mirror image fallacy, that also comes into play. It is the "No True Libertarian" fallacy. It is not employed by members of the group under examination. It is employed by opponents of the group under examination. "You do not spit on the poor? You’re not a true libertarian." It gets its name because it was discovered in a debate in which someone who opposed libertarianism kept decrying his opponents of not being libertarian when they didn’t hold positions he said they should hold.
Various absurd positions that libertarians "should" take were brought up; embracing slavery, a willingness to turn family members into prostitutes, a desire to live in a world similar to "Mad Max" movies, etc. When people denied the extreme anti-libertarian positions, they were described as not real libertarians. And if libertarians point out that anti-libertarian positions are indeed not consistent with any form of libertarian thought, the anti-libertarians insist that means that libertarianism is nothing more than a pick and choose ideology.
So if a position that is inconsistent with libertarianism is said to be inconsistent with libertarianism, that means libertarianism is itself inconsistent?
According to all the attributes assigned to libertarians by those who oppose it, if one counts the number of libertarians who do not hold those ideas then there really are no true libertarians anywhere in the world.
Like last year, I urge people to give to the Salvation Army. As the economy worsens even more than last year, more people are in need of effective charity. I don't agree with them theologically, but I agree with the work they do. And since the FCC is asking us to reveal whether or not we receive any benefit from endorsements we make, it's none of their damn business.
Everyone should be familiar with the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It takes the form of someone denying that a potentially embarrassing member of a group is a member of a group at all. It is quite common in discussions of communism, where each and every despotic communist regime is said to be "not really communism." In rare occasions the defender of communist thought will try to label the system under discussion as capitalist because in the Soviet Union "there were a small number of rich people who owned and controlled everything and everyone else was poor."
"No True Scotsman" is useful for anyone who belongs to a group with active and vocal extremists committing acts that would embarrass the rest of the group. Communist regimes embarrass communists. The inquisition still embarrasses Christians.
But there is another fallacy, sort of a mirror image fallacy, that also comes into play. It is the "No True Libertarian" fallacy. It is not employed by members of the group under examination. It is employed by opponents of the group under examination. "You do not spit on the poor? You’re not a true libertarian." It gets its name because it was discovered in a debate in which someone who opposed libertarianism kept decrying his opponents of not being libertarian when they didn’t hold positions he said they should hold.
Various absurd positions that libertarians "should" take were brought up; embracing slavery, a willingness to turn family members into prostitutes, a desire to live in a world similar to "Mad Max" movies, etc. When people denied the extreme anti-libertarian positions, they were described as not real libertarians. And if libertarians point out that anti-libertarian positions are indeed not consistent with any form of libertarian thought, the anti-libertarians insist that means that libertarianism is nothing more than a pick and choose ideology.
So if a position that is inconsistent with libertarianism is said to be inconsistent with libertarianism, that means libertarianism is itself inconsistent?
According to all the attributes assigned to libertarians by those who oppose it, if one counts the number of libertarians who do not hold those ideas then there really are no true libertarians anywhere in the world.
Like last year, I urge people to give to the Salvation Army. As the economy worsens even more than last year, more people are in need of effective charity. I don't agree with them theologically, but I agree with the work they do. And since the FCC is asking us to reveal whether or not we receive any benefit from endorsements we make, it's none of their damn business.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
What is a "good cop"?
There are no good police officers in the Portland Police Department of Portland, Oregon. Every single one of them is a "bad cop." Anyone who would pepper spray an eleven month old baby, or even do nothing when an eleven month old baby is pepper sprayed, is not only a bad cop but is no longer even remotely human.
Too many people have too relaxed a definition of "good cop". To them, a good cop is one who is not engaging in criminal activity. However, since a police officer's job is to apprehend those who are engaging in criminal activity, any officer who does not do that is by definition a bad cop. That includes failure to arrest fellow officers when fellow officers break the law.
There are no good cops in New York City Police Department. The officer who assaulted the critical mass cyclist was clearly a bad cop, but there were several other officers who stood around doing nothing when that happened. They did not arrest their fellow officer. Instead they initially corroborated his story, until a YouTube video gave lie to their version of events.
Given how increasingly criminal the police are acting, it is important to remember that just because a police officer does not personally break the law, it does not mean that officer is good. By failing to act they give consent to the actions of their fellow officers. For anyone short of an officer of the law, simply not breaking the law may be considered a valid definition, but police officers must be held to a higher standard due to the nature of their voluntarily chosen occupation.
There are no good cops in The Utah Highway Patrol. Instead they cleared the officer of all wrong-doing for using pain compliance and electroshock torture for someone who was not posing any sort of threat, but not giving abject obsequience to the officer either. If there was a single good cop in the whole organization, then Trooper Gardner would have been arrested for assault.
When the police start arresting the many bad apples within their own ranks, then it can be said there are good cops. Until that time their numbers are distressingly few.
Like last year, I urge people to give to the Salvation Army. As the economy worsens even more than last year, more people are in need of effective charity. I don't agree with them theologically, but I agree with the work they do. And since the FCC is asking us to reveal whether or not we receive any benefit from endorsements we make, it's none of their damn business.
Too many people have too relaxed a definition of "good cop". To them, a good cop is one who is not engaging in criminal activity. However, since a police officer's job is to apprehend those who are engaging in criminal activity, any officer who does not do that is by definition a bad cop. That includes failure to arrest fellow officers when fellow officers break the law.
There are no good cops in New York City Police Department. The officer who assaulted the critical mass cyclist was clearly a bad cop, but there were several other officers who stood around doing nothing when that happened. They did not arrest their fellow officer. Instead they initially corroborated his story, until a YouTube video gave lie to their version of events.
Given how increasingly criminal the police are acting, it is important to remember that just because a police officer does not personally break the law, it does not mean that officer is good. By failing to act they give consent to the actions of their fellow officers. For anyone short of an officer of the law, simply not breaking the law may be considered a valid definition, but police officers must be held to a higher standard due to the nature of their voluntarily chosen occupation.
There are no good cops in The Utah Highway Patrol. Instead they cleared the officer of all wrong-doing for using pain compliance and electroshock torture for someone who was not posing any sort of threat, but not giving abject obsequience to the officer either. If there was a single good cop in the whole organization, then Trooper Gardner would have been arrested for assault.
When the police start arresting the many bad apples within their own ranks, then it can be said there are good cops. Until that time their numbers are distressingly few.
Like last year, I urge people to give to the Salvation Army. As the economy worsens even more than last year, more people are in need of effective charity. I don't agree with them theologically, but I agree with the work they do. And since the FCC is asking us to reveal whether or not we receive any benefit from endorsements we make, it's none of their damn business.
Saturday, December 05, 2009
What is the free market?
"You believe the free market will take care of it."
Actually, no.
The person uttering that phrase is making an unwarranted assumption, that the free market is a centrally planned economic system just like all the others. The difference being that the person is implying that the free market is an independent self-aware quasi-omnipotent entity that does the central planning.
What "the free market" actually is, is the lack of any central planning. That's all it is. It is not an alternate method of organizing the economy. It is not replacing a physical central planner with an intangible central planner. It is simply the lack of a method of organizing the economy, the lack of a central planner. It is the millions of individuals engaging in billions of interactions and making trillions of decisions, all without being told what to do by some third party.
Given what the free market actually is, when someone is accused of trusting the free market, what that person is actually trusting is each individual to make his own decisions. Someone who "trusts the free market" trusts the people to act on their own behalf in their own best interest within the confines of their own knowledge.
The only people not trusted by someone who trusts "the free market" are those that say "I am equipped to make decisions for you." That person is a central planner, and the free market is only the lack of a central plan. Many people like that are unable to comprehend the absense of any central plan, which is why they must identify some kind of planner, somehow, in the free market, even if they have to make it up.
Like last year, I urge people to give to the Salvation Army. As the economy worsens even more than last year, more people are in need of effective charity. I don't agree with them theologically, but I agree with the work they do. And since the FCC is asking us to reveal whether or not we receive any benefit from endorsements we make, it's none of their damn business.
Actually, no.
The person uttering that phrase is making an unwarranted assumption, that the free market is a centrally planned economic system just like all the others. The difference being that the person is implying that the free market is an independent self-aware quasi-omnipotent entity that does the central planning.
What "the free market" actually is, is the lack of any central planning. That's all it is. It is not an alternate method of organizing the economy. It is not replacing a physical central planner with an intangible central planner. It is simply the lack of a method of organizing the economy, the lack of a central planner. It is the millions of individuals engaging in billions of interactions and making trillions of decisions, all without being told what to do by some third party.
Given what the free market actually is, when someone is accused of trusting the free market, what that person is actually trusting is each individual to make his own decisions. Someone who "trusts the free market" trusts the people to act on their own behalf in their own best interest within the confines of their own knowledge.
The only people not trusted by someone who trusts "the free market" are those that say "I am equipped to make decisions for you." That person is a central planner, and the free market is only the lack of a central plan. Many people like that are unable to comprehend the absense of any central plan, which is why they must identify some kind of planner, somehow, in the free market, even if they have to make it up.
Like last year, I urge people to give to the Salvation Army. As the economy worsens even more than last year, more people are in need of effective charity. I don't agree with them theologically, but I agree with the work they do. And since the FCC is asking us to reveal whether or not we receive any benefit from endorsements we make, it's none of their damn business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)