RUTROW.org is a political discussion blog. Please read the annoying legalese on the " About" page.
|
By Carl Weetabix, on December 16th, 2011 I sincerely feel for the veterans of this war. We tainted them with this immoral slop, chicken-hawks all we let them bear the wounds (physical and emotional), and then lost interest.
The war supposedly ended yesterday (a lie I am sure but) and no one cares. All the cheerleaders silent. The great mass of bloodthirsty Americans (once a majority!) engrossed in the next distraction.
The soldiers left to come home to – nothing.
You can call those who opposed this war whatever you want, but at least we are not the pathetic wretches who sent them there to die and now cannot find a modicum empathy, not to mention interest, for that which they wrought.
Immoral bastards all.
By Carl Weetabix, on December 13th, 2011 Stealing verbatim from Brad Delong (quoting from John Gapper’s “How To Be A Rogue Trader” probably via this):
“To know what goes on in the mind of a rogue trader – and that of every reckless gambler – it helps to be a bird-watcher. The yellow-eyed junco is a type of sparrow found in Mexico and the southern USA. Thirty years ago, three evolutionary biologists at the University of Arizona carried out a series of experiments with seven yellow-eyed juncos that had been caught in the south-east of the state.
“The experiments were designed to test the birds’ gambling instincts, and the results were intriguing. One bird at a time was placed on a perch in an aviary 3.5 metres from two dishes covered with paper so that it could not spy the contents. The bird was trained to realize that if it flew to the first dish, it would always find two millet seeds to eat; if it flew to the second, it couldn’t be sure of what it would contain. Half the time, there would be four seeds, and half the time there would be none. The biologists were trying to discover how much risk the juncos would take in foraging for food – their main activity in the wild. Mathematically, the two choices were identical since a 100 per cent chance of two seeds was the same as a 50 per cent chance of four….
“In the first experiment, the birds were kept hungry for an hour and then allowed to start choosing dishes, with the seeds being replenished every thirty seconds. This meant that, whichever one they chose, they would get plenty to eat unless they were very unlucky. The juncos responded by being risk averse: in nineteen out of twenty-five cases, they chose the sure thing – the dish with two seeds – rather than risk finding nothing.
“Next, the birds were starved for four hours, and the seeds were replenished only every minute. That tipped the birds into what the scientists called ‘a negative net energy budget’ – gaining two seeds each time they made a choice would not provide enough food to satisfy their hunger, and ultimately to keep them alive and enable them to reproduce. The birds responded by flying to the other dish instead. Facing loss, they started to gamble.
“The scientists, led by Thomas Caraco, now a biology professor at the State University of New York, concluded that ‘juncos in nature will generally avoid risk unless they face difficult energetic stress’. In other words, they will choose the safe option for feeding – the closest natural equivalent to financial traders making money – unless they find themselves in danger, either through hunger or because it is chilly and they face a cold night requiring reserves of energy.
“The choices are instinctive rather than intellectual, and they make evolutionary sense for the species. ‘Facing the possibility of starvation, animals are willing to gamble on the “strike-it-rich” policy of risk-prone foraging,’ writes Barry Sinervo, a professor of ecology at the University of California. ‘Some foragers will have a string of bad luck and starve. Some will have a string of average luck and still starve. However, there will always be those lucky few that experience a string of good luck. It is those lucky few that survive and pass on genes to the next generation’…”
- John Gapper, “How To Be A Rogue Trader”
To note, I don’t exactly love nor condone the starving of birds for science…
By Carl Weetabix, on December 13th, 2011 Conor Friedersdorf commenting (via Greenwald) on “60 Minute”‘s Steve Kroft interviewing President Obama:
KROFT: I’m sure your poll numbers will probably automatically go up as soon as there is a Republican candidate in the race. I mean, that’s normal. I mean, you’re being judged now on your performance.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: No, no, no. I’m being judged against the ideal. And, you know, Joe Biden has a good expression. He says, “Don’t judge me against the Almighty, judge me against the alternative.”
My god, can you actually be more self-deluded. Seriously, Obama is a smart guy, but it really does sound like he and his administration have an enormously inflated sense of self worth.
I suppose it’s a hazard of the job – you have to believe in yourself to be in these positions. Still a little self-awareness wouldn’t hurt.
Incidentally, Mr. President, I am not judging you on the alternative (which frankly I call bullshit – “Hey, it could be worse, I could be Pol Pot!”), I’m judging you by your own rhetoric.
What a mess.
By Carl Weetabix, on December 6th, 2011 If you don’t want to be treated like “jack-booted thugs”, don’t be “jack-booted thugs”.
Just sayin’.
UPDATE:
Maybe this guy is a nice guy and this is just a bad shot, from the Wiki-Commons site it says he’s Canadian. All Canadians are nice right (actually I find them to be but…)?
The point is, there are a lot of police officers who like to dress up like soldiers (and “dress up” is the proper term – I think it is essentially the same as “playing war” as a kid).
Unfortunately I think this is counter productive as the “in your face” testosterone/steroid high they display engenders anything but respect. As a male I can tell you it does one thing and one thing exactly – gets my back up.
If you want my respect, wear normal shoes, don’t tuck the pants in them, drop the military gear, and by all means drop the fucking Ray-Bans (or Okies or wrap-arounds or whatever). Be a normal human being rather than acting like an ape with your chest out. Oh, and positively skip the “steroid” look.
Seriously, I remember when police officers seemed like normal people with a badge. We need to bring that back.
By Carl Weetabix, on November 30th, 2011 First, I think this headline is hilarious:
(god knows the stupid people need help).
Second, here’s the money quote:
“Here’s what I need you to do: Stay informed, know the facts because stupid people are ruining America.”
Third, and finally, everyone agrees that “stupid people are ruining America” we all just disagree about which stupid people are ruining it. I mean, who doesn’t think “stupid people are ruining America”. My suspicion is from the day we won independence people have been thinking “stupid people are ruining America”.
Of course we always think that the “stupid people” are those people, not us.
Truth is though, “We have met the stupid, and he is us.” All of us, and I do mean all of us, share blame here (though yes, some more than others). It takes a village…
By Carl Weetabix, on November 29th, 2011 Joseph Stiglitz via Digby:
Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.
The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.
- Joseph Stiglitz
By Carl Weetabix, on November 24th, 2011
By Carl Weetabix, on November 10th, 2011 Another example of where my faith in humanity, or it’s future, is challenged (from NYT):
STATE COLLEGE, Pa. — After top Penn State officials announced that they had fired Joe Paterno on Wednesday night, thousands of students stormed the downtown area to display their anger and frustration, chanting the former coach’s name, tearing down light poles and overturning a television news van parked along College Avenue.
Ok, yes, we in the “court of public opinion” honestly cannot know if Joe Paterno is guilty of, by his relative inaction, aiding a pedophile. Yes, this does have all the trappings of a mob lynching.
But we also don’t know that he didn’t aid a pedophile (again through relative inaction, not literal aid). There’s no way in hell that you could get me to be so sure of my opinion about the subject that I would start literally rioting. I mean, we do at least know Mr. Paterno employed said pedophile and did hear of a literal vile act of said pedophile where it was reported to a “dead end” – that is an uncomfortably close relationship.
So, I could see expressing one’s opinion in a reasonable manner that your “off the cuff” opinion is he’s getting the shaft here – but it would take pure basest tribalism to riot over it.
That is, the only way that one could become so sure that Paterno isn’t guilty that one would start trashing stuff is out of shear ugly tribal mob mentality – perhaps the least pretty aspect of humanity (or lack off).
In the end the point I’m getting at isn’t so much whether Paterno is guilty or not, but rather that I find this as yet another example where so-called “factual decisions” (guilty or not guilty) are really based on arbitrary affiliation. If you’re Penn State fan he’s not guilty (with a vengeance), if you’re not a Pen State fan, then maybe your more open to all the possibilities.
In short, don’t assume your “hard earned” opinion (regardless of subject) is really “hard earned” rather than predetermined by you biases of affiliation/association.
By Carl Weetabix, on November 9th, 2011 NYT reporting on Italy’s crisis and Berlusconi’s resignation:
In the end, thus, it was not the sex scandals, the corruption trials against him or even a loss of popular consensus that appeared to end Mr. Berlusconi’s 17 years as a dominant figure in Italian political life. It was, instead, the pressure of the markets and the European Union, which could not risk his dragging down the euro and with it the world economy.
In short the rich people, the “landed interests”, decided it was time to for him to go and so he went. Popular opinion, criminal acts, etc. didn’t matter.
This is Western democracy in action.
BTW – don’t take simply an indictment of the U.S. and Italy – the Iraq war showed that despite overwhelming opposition of their populations, Western European nations (and Eastern) all for the most part (with the notable exception of France), happily contributed.
Again, Western democracy in action.
UPDATE:
I should note that, yes, these are actually “Democratic Republics”, where the point of the “Republic” is that a select, better informed, leadership will make decisions in the best interest of the populace. Subsequently those decisions will sometimes be at odds with popular opinion.
There are a number of problems with this:
First, in regards to decisions like bringing a nation to war, this is exactly the sort of act that is so critical that it ought to reflect the will of the people, or at least acknowledge it. This seems to almost never be the case. Frankly lately war is doled out like water.
Second, while I am often dubious of the population’s understanding of issues, I am equally dubious of our leadership’s understanding. It is clear listening to Congressmen and the like that they are just as subject to jingoistic dogma as anyone else. In short, they aren’t for the most part bringing anything special to the table.
Third, there’s a patently false claim that somehow our leaders aren’t just as subject to bias and influence as the average citizen. From what I can see if anything these people are more compromised and more biased than “the mob” (in fact they are attracted to these positions because they are compromised). Moreover they sit in a closed “Village” where it is an echo chamber of corporate and special interest propaganda (not to mention peers with a common agenda). It is hard to see how they could not come out without a distorted view.
That said, I don’t have a better mousetrap – Democratic Republics are currently, at least for now, where it’s at. Also, the “tyranny of mob” is a true and dangerous element (see Nazi Germany), one which it is worth injecting a Republic in front of. Still, I think at least part of the answer is putting more “democracy” into our “democracies”.
UPDATE 2:
Another way to put why Berlusconi had to go:
He ceased to be useful to the powers that be, so he was sent packing…
By Carl Weetabix, on October 29th, 2011 If people are tuning into “The Daily Show” for news, it’s like an alcoholic drinking shampoo because there’s nothing else in the house.
- David Javerbaum
|
|
