Rocket Log

Ron Paul’s America

What’s wrong with this? It doesn’t take much work to paint a dystopian picture. Let’s begin with a simple example. Without an Interior Department, there would be no agency to oversee national parks, federal lands and offshore drilling. Land would have to be auctioned off to the highest bidders, most likely oil-and-gas, coal and timber companies. The states would inherit Teddy Roosevelt’s national parks, but imagine how Yosemite would fare if it suddenly became the ward of strapped California.

Or let’s imagine another scene from Mr. Paul’s America. Each state would have to become the regulator of its financial, manufacturing and health-care industries. A patchwork of rules would result. States might soon engage in a dangerous game of regulatory competition: Some would ease rules to attract businesses, forcing those seeking to protect the health and pocketbooks of residents to lower their standards — or lose jobs. Illinois might choose, say, to let manufacturers dump waste in the Mississippi River. What recourse would downstream Missouri, Tennessee or Louisiana have if their drinking water became polluted?

Bloomberg Editors, The Hidden Utility of Ron Paul’s Balanced Budget Plan

One thing Ron Paul’s fans take for granted is that the lack of media attention he garners also means a lack of high-profile criticism of his ideas. As Bloomberg’s editorial board shows here, it’s not hard to use a few vivid examples to reveal the political train wreck underlying many of Paul’s cozy minimal-government proposals.

Occupy Wall Street vs. The Tea Party

“Yeah, I’m oversimplifying, but only a little. The greatest threat to our economy is neither corporations nor the government. The greatest threat to our economy is both of them working together. There are currently two sizable coalitions of angry citizens that are almost on the same page about that, and they’re too busy insulting each other to notice.” - James Sinclair (via Andrew Sullivan)

I think this argument overlooks what is possibly the single driving point of conflict between these two groups: Unequal wealth distribution, rising steadily for the past 30 years (“We Are the 99%”) vs. opposition to taxation, income-specific and otherwise (the “Taxed Enough Already” Party). Still, it’s an interesting point.

Why 9-9-9 Isn’t Going Anywhere

Let’s say you’re 20 years old. You don’t care what tax you pay — you haven’t paid any yet. But if I’m 65, I’ve spent my whole life paying income taxes. I’m about to stop paying them. What’s the benefit to me if you bring on a sales tax? Thanks — you’ve just made every retired person’s pension 30 percent less valuable.

Grover Norquist via Slate

Quote of the Day II - Guilt by Association

Now you know how it feels, Ms. Geller. When the terrorist is a Christian—in his own words, a “Crusader” for “Christendom”—and when the preacher to whom he has been linked is you, you suddenly discover the injustice of group blame and guilt by association. The citations you didn’t create, the intermediaries you didn’t recognize, the transactions you didn’t know about, the violent interpretations you didn’t condone—these exonerating facts suddenly matter.

William Saletan via Slate (Christian Terrorism: If Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, are Muslim-bashers responsible for the massacre in Norway?)

Quote of the Day - Debt Ceiling Chicken

Yes, at some level it’s a game of chicken. Something we can all understand pretty intuitively in human nature and game theory terms. But to really get what’s really going on you’ve got to understand one key point: one of the two cars doesn’t have a driver in it.

Josh Marshall, on media coverage of the debt ceiling debate, via Talking Points Memo

Quote of the Day - The Slippery Slope

There’s a good general rule to follow when you think about slippery slope arguments: does the slippery slope work with or against human nature? The former are far more dangerous than the latter.

Kevin Drum, via Mother Jones

John McCain on Bin Laden and the Torture Debate

I asked CIA Director Leon Panetta for the facts, and he told me the following: The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. The first mention of Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the nickname of the al-Qaeda courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden — as well as a description of him as an important member of al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country, who we believe was not tortured. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts or an accurate description of his role in al-Qaeda.

In fact, the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques” on Khalid Sheik Mohammed produced false and misleading information. He specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married and ceased his role as an al-Qaeda facilitator — none of which was true. According to the staff of the Senate intelligence committee, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in al-Qaeda and his true relationship to bin Laden — was obtained through standard, noncoercive means.

via The Washington Post (h/t Andrew Sullivan)

Quote of the Day - Angry Rhetoric Edition

Mr. DeMoss, a former aide to Moral Majority founder Rev. Jerry Falwell and an unpaid adviser to Republican Gov. Mitt Romney in the 2008 presidential campaign, said that he was particularly surprised by the hostility to the civility pledge from conservatives.

“The worst e-mails I received about the civility project were from conservatives with just unbelievable language about communists, and some words I wouldn’t use in this phone call,” he said. “This political divide has become so sharp that everything is black and white, and too many conservatives can see no redeeming value in any liberal or Democrat. That would probably be true about some liberals going the other direction, but I didn’t hear from them.”

Founder of ‘Civility Project’ Calls It Quits - NYTimes.com

How to Win a Holiday Argument

First of all, I should say that if you’re looking for real advice instead of a sarcastic rant, Slate’s brilliant John Dickerson already nailed this one. So for that, go there. But for the rant:

Here’s a little blurb where NPR tries to be helpful by providing a list of books to help you win political arguments with your insane relatives over the holidays. Yes, really.

“When your uncle starts to explain his long-held conspiracy theory about how the government is trying to control our minds through subliminal messages on television, you can either slink away and take comfort in football — or, with the help of six authors, impress your family by being prepared for any news-related argument. […]

We can’t guarantee these books will help you convince your cousin that every American election is not, in fact, rigged by the Federal Reserve and the Trilateral Commission — but you’ll definitely sound smarter trying.”

I know this is tongue-in-cheek, but it’s still ridiculous. A stack of books, NPR? That’s the best you’ve got? Well, great. You realize it’s already mid-December, right? So when are these supposed to help me win arguments, Christmas 2011? And really, isn’t this is such a typical liberal response? “Hey, you want to win an argument with your conspiracy theorist uncle? Here, read a bunch of books! Yeah, that’ll get ‘em!” No, no, no.

Three things:

• Look, while books are great and all, they don’t win political arguments with confrontational relatives. But stubbornly repeated talking points do. So why not let the pros do the thinking for you? Watch cable news for 30 minutes and you’ll have everything you need to dominate the dinner table like a grade A asshole. “But I’m a lefty, I don’t watch Fox News,” you say? Bullshit. Democrats have talking points, too. Get yours ready and cling to them like a life preserver in a typhoon. Eventually you’ll wear your opponent down through sheer ignorant tenacity. Just like the pros do.

• If that doesn’t work, start citing statistics. If you don’t have any, no big whoop — just make some shit up approximate. Don’t worry, it’s scientifically proven that 92% of all statistics cited during holiday arguments are never checked for accuracy. Oh, you want a link for that? I’m not talking about blog posts, pal, I’m talking about shouting your way through a nog-fueled argument with your libertarian brother-in-law. Do you want to be accurate, or do you want to win? It’s a rhetorical question. You want to win. Make some shit up Approximate.

• On a related note, and perhaps most importantly, don’t forget to holler your goddamned head off. In addition to the statistic I just cited above, it’s also proven that screaming at the top of your lungs makes any statement 57% more true. THIS IS A FACT!!! And angrily stabbing your finger towards someone’s face while doing it ADDS! ANOTHER! 14%!

So there you go. That’s how you win a family political argument over the holidays. Or maybe I should say “win,” because of course the only way to really win one of these without looking like a jackass is not to get into one in the first place. But if you’re going to insist, well, thanks to this post, you now have all the tools you need to succeed.

Good luck, and Happy Holidays!

Quote of the Day - Sympathy for the News Junkie Edition

“The news so powerfully suggests ‘what matters’, it takes a while to realise ‘but this drama is not my life’ and switch off. Addiction to ‘news’ becomes a substitute for much-needed reform in one’s own life.”

Alain de Botton, via Twitter (@alaindebotton)