Krugman: America the Tarnished

here

Why can't we visualize more than 3 Dimensions?

The article is here. The links inside the article are interesting too. Check them out if you have time.

Glenn Beck is Criminally Insane and an Opportunist, Part III

Excerpt from the article:

He says that America is “on the road to socialism” and that “God and religion are under attack in the U.S.” He recently wondered aloud whether FEMA was setting up concentration camps, calling it a rumor that he was unable to debunk.

“I’m a rodeo clown,” he said in an interview, adding with a coy smile, “It takes great skill.” And like a rodeo clown, Mr. Beck incites critics to attack by dancing in front of them.
. . .
He added later: “I say on the air all time, ‘if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’ ”

You can say that, but the problem is that people do. Why say it then?

Jeffrey Miron for Drug Legalization

CNN.com Legalize Drugs to Stop Violence

I don't think Geither deserves anywhere near all the flack he's getting.

msnbc: Geithner's own stress test amid economic woes

Decriminalize pot?

LA Times: Former judge fired up on making pot legal

Delong's defense of the Geithner plan

Tim Geithner is Not a Tool of Wall Street

Krugman on the Cover of Newsweek

(image source: Huffington Post)

Obama on Jay Leno

It is a great idea to talk directly to the people on late night television, since that's where most people get their political news anyway. Go Obama PR team. The interview is really good too, so you should watch it.

People are really mad about this AIG thing . . .

The Guardian: Obama should beware the growing anger in America
Frank Rich: Has a Katrina Moment Arrived?

Disgusting

Washington Post: Israeli Soldier Says Military Rabbis Framed Gaza Mission as Religious

Obama is No Socialist

Duh.

WSJ

War Crimes in Gaza

The Guardian: Gaza war crime claims gather pace as more troops speak out
This is pretty messed up. Some excerpts:

"Shoot and don't worry about the consequences" was the message from commanders, said Marmor. Describing the behaviour of a lieutenant-colonel who briefed the troops, Marmor added: "His whole demeanour was extremely gung-ho. This is very, very different from my usual experience. I have been doing reserve duty for 12 years, and it was always an issue how to avoid causing civilian injuries. He said that in this operation, we are not taking any chances. Morality aside, we have to do our job. We will cry about it later."

And

An investigation by reporter Uri Blau, published on Friday in Haaretz, disclosed how Israeli soldiers were ordering T-shirts to mark the end of operations, featuring grotesque images including dead babies, mothers weeping by their children's graves, a gun aimed at a child and bombed-out mosques.

Another T-shirt designed for infantry snipers bears the inscription "Better use Durex" next to a picture of a dead Palestinian baby, with his weeping mother and a teddy bear beside him. A shirt designed for the Givati Brigade's Shaked battalion depicts a pregnant Palestinian woman with a bull's-eye superimposed on her belly, with the slogan, in English, "1 shot, 2 kills".

DeLong for Wall Street Compensation Reform and Foreign Affairs on Japan's Lost Decade

DeLong:

[P]unitive taxes on excessive immediate cash payouts paid by TARP and other government financial commitments are, I believe, completely appropriate. But thou shalt not bind the mouths of the kine that tread the corn: traders and financial executives who are willing to work very hard for what are now government-owned enterprises should be offered the carrot of long-term restricted equity stakes: that if they do their jobs well and if the government makes a healthy return because of their skill, forethought, and diligence, they should make healthy returns as well.

Punitive taxes on compensation that takes the form of long-term restricted equity stakes is a dangerous and destructive move. If the compensation bill that emerges from the conference committee does not allow TARP-receiving companies to offer such SVCSs, then Obama should veto it.

And if the traders of Wall Street then quit en masse? If they say that they are going to "Go Galt" if they don't get their traders' options to take the money upfront after assuring us shareholders that they have made us a lot of money, that their positions and strategies are sound, and that they have prudently managed the risks? Well, then that tells us something about what they really think the true value of their work product has been.

And Foreign Affairs (subscription required I believe, but any library should have access).

Cool debate at The Economist and Glen Beck is Criminally Insane, Part II

There's a coolish debate at The Economist about the relevance of Keynesian principles to the economic crisis with Brad DeLong taking the Affirmative. I've never heard of the other guy, but informed people shouldn't care about my opinions nor should they take my knowledge or not knowledge of something as any kind of an indicator of its importance.

Also, further evidence by way of Soelberg that Glen Beck is a nut job.

Relevant Links:

Robert Reich: Is Obamanomics Conservative or Revolutionary?
John M Berry: If Tax Cut Lapsing is Class Warfare, Let's Fight.
Delong: Republican Chair Michael Steele is Pro-Choice
The Economist: Pursued by Obamabears

Amen

Michelle Obama Serves Soup, Nation Misses Point

This is pretty messed up . . .

By way of Andrew Sullivan:

A nine-year-old girl is sexually abused by her stepfather over three years and then raped. She becomes pregnant with twins and a doctor performs an abortion:

“If the pregnancy had continued, the damage would have been worse, being a high risk pregnancy. The risk would have been of death or at the very least that she would never have been able to become pregnant again.”

The Catholic authorities immediately threaten to charge the girl's mother with homicide and excommunicate her. In fact, the archbishop declares her automatically excommunicated.

The Economist endorses legalizing drugs.

Wow.

Wow, Late Night with Jimmy Fallon isn't very funny at all . . .

Who'd a thought?

Is Microsoft cool again?

NY Times: Microsoft Maps Course to a Jetsons-like Future

<a href="http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-GB&playlist=videoByUuids:uuids:a517b260-bb6b-48b9-87ac-8e2743a28ec5&showPlaylist=true&from=shared" target="_new" title="Future Vision Montage">Video: Future Vision Montage</a>

more

Bwa hahahhahaha . . . excellent

What the GOP Really Wants: Obama's Autograph

Interesting Links

Premium Toilet Paper Hurts the Environment
Calvin and Hobbes Grown Up
Forests in the Sky
Mark Thoma: The Long and Short of the US Economy
Economists in support of the Employee Free Choice Act (There are some big names here. I'll have to look at this.)
Bad Behavior? Bad Smell? We react the same.
Health Care on the Front Burner

Cool 3D sidewalk art

Dailymail.co.uk: Mind the crevasse

Glenn Beck is criminally insane

Wow. Any good will I may have had for Glenn Beck as a fellow Latter-day Saint just ended abruptly. I realize that Fox has to pander to the Sarah Palin people to stay financially viable post Bush administration, but good night. I can't think of anything more irresponsible than to encourage this kind of lunacy during a crisis. There are people who believe this crap.

Shortly after the election, I went with a friend to a sporting goods store to get a holster for his handgun (a right which I respect even though I choose not to exercise it for practical reasons – BYU doesn't allow it and my life is already accident prone without lethal force to back that up).

Anyway, while he was picking one out, I made small talk with the guy at the gun counter. He told me that they couldn't keep ammo and barrels of black powder in stock because people are hoarding it in case they have to rebel against the Obama administration's imagined anti-gun policies (he didn't say it that bluntly, but that was the idea).

Watch the video for yourself. These supposedly serious individuals seem to relish the idea of a militia movement rebelling against the Federal Government. The Republican Party needs to reform and it needs to do it quickly – this country needs responsible conservatives (ie actual conservatives, not rabid rural white Nationalists and the media who pander to them). The sooner these people can be made politically irrelevant the better.



Update: If this doesn't remove any doubt that serving in the military doesn't mean you deserve to be taken seriously regarding national security affairs, I don't know what will.

The Times on Iran

Iran: The friendliest people in the world

Am I a bad person for thinking that stable relations with China are more important than "Free Tibet" activists' priorities?

Activists 'shocked' at Clinton stance on China rights
also: Economic woes trump rights as Clinton visits China

Greenspan backs bank nationalization

Here's the article in the Financial Times

You gotta give Alan Greenspan credit (besides being very smart). He sure has no problem admitting he's wrong and adjusting to the new situation. There aren't many people in his position (or anywhere) who would do the same.

Dani Rodrik: Capitalism will survive

Business Standard: Coming soon - Capitalism 3.0

Then again . . .

DeLong: Scott Horton Keeps Us Up-to-Date on Some of the Bush Administration's Crimes

Next time someone tries to tell you Europe is more progressive than the United States . . .

Italia Ndalon Restorantet Etnike

Translated from a Times Online article.

US tortured prisoners to death . . .

This is bad stuff.

New Scientist: Studies suggest religious belief is innate

Very interesting article. We Mormons would call this phenomenon "the light of Christ." I wonder why the scientists who do these studies never consider the possibility that God actually existing may have something to do with such an innate belief.

Happy Birthday Darwin (and Lincoln)

I already posted on Lincoln a few days ago, so he has not been ignored.

Times and Seasons (blog): Mormons and Evolution

Mormon Times: BYU celebrates Darwin with week of lectures

The Economist: Belief In Evolution

The Onion: Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

Update: To Soelberg too!

Proud to be a liberal

The Economist: Liberalism, anatomy of an idea

The Prescription Drug and Medical Devices Industries are Pure Evil

Wall Street Journal: Drug Makers Fight Stimulus Provision

WASHINGTON -- The drug and medical-device industries are mobilizing to gut a provision in the stimulus bill that would spend $1.1 billion on research comparing medical treatments, portraying it as the first step to government rationing…

The House version of the stimulus package sent shudders through the drug and medical-device industry. In a staff report describing the bill, the House said treatments found to be less effective and in some cases more expensive "will no longer be prescribed."…

Mr. Obama supported research into comparative effectiveness during his campaign. Administration officials and leading Democrats in Congress say the idea will help government programs direct their dollars to treatments that are worth the money…

Companies "want to control the data, how it is reviewed, evaluated, and whether the public and government find out about it and use it," said Harry Selker, a Tufts University professor who directs its clinical-research program.

That also worries Jerry Avorn of Harvard Medical School, a frequent drug-industry critic. Comparative research "has the potential to tell us which drugs and treatments are safe, and which ones work," he said. "This is not information that the private sector will generate on its own, or that the industry wants to share."

Michael Cannon of the libertarian Cato Institute said comparative effectiveness research "isn't going to do any good because the industry will defund it as soon as it presents a threat."

When the government's Agency for Health Research Quality suggested in 1995 that there were too many unnecessary back surgeries, doctors and industry groups attacked the conclusion. Mr. Cannon noted that Congress at the time slashed the agency's budget and stripped its authority to make medicare-payment recommendations.

Abraham Lincoln in The Economist archives

here

Whoa . . .

Super Clocks: More accurate than time itself

Kindle 2 photos from Gizmodo

Looks pretty cool . . .

A form of my Abbott and Costello law proposed in Colorado

Denver Post: Bill would ease benefit-sharing.

Ok, so they didn't get the idea from me (and now that I look, I haven't posted about it eaither), but I did think of it too. I'd have to read the actual language in the bill to see how close it is, but this seems to be the gist. In particular, I'd like to see how "couple" is defined. I wouldn't have used that word. I like "companionship"or "partnership" or something that doesn't imply any kind of sexual activity. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what happens.

Hat Tip: Andrew Sullivan

Thank goodness BYU protects me from this . . .

The 5 most popular YouTube Pages

Quote: "If I had to guess, I'd say the average YouTube user was a 14 year old girl with Down's syndrome."

I can't believe how accurate this is . . .

I just discovered stuffwhitepeoplelike.com.  It's almost scary how well some of my friends (and I) fit these stereotypes.  Examples:

Promising to learn a new language

Taking a year off

Stuff environmentalists like

The Onion

Grammar

Hating Corporations

Arrested Development

Irony

And more.

Ross Douthat on the new Narnia movie

Good News for Narnia

Brad DeLong on Economic Progress

Our economic appetite

Very thought-provoking article.

Mr. Obama, Tear down this mint!

Recent Anti-Penny links:
How America is Being Crucified on a Cross of Zinc
Penny Protest gains momentum among businesses
For Teacakes, pennies make no sense

The Economist to PETA: People need meat. Deal with it.

Deep-fried kittens

Keep track of Obama's campaign promises

Campaign promises should always be taken with a grain of salt. They can be a good indicator of someone's priorities, but it is inevitable for various reasons that some things don't happen. Just the same, here's an interesting website that keeps track of Obama's campaign promises and their fulfillment status. So far, so good I think.

Bill Gates is a good guy

Video

Relevant and interesting links:

TPM: Mass Transit got the Shaft to Make Room For Tax Cuts
Krugman: Spending in Wartime
CNN: $1000 Homes
Walter Williams (Weird and kooky, but interesting guy, by the way): A Minority View
Times Online: Climate calculating supercomputer has a huge carbon footprint
The Raw Story: UN may prosecute Bush administration (Which is why the US should do it first…)
Freakanomics: Commercials help you enjoy television more?

Yay! I have high expected earnings . . .

Why Major in Economics?

Elders Uchdorf and Ballard on the inauguration

LDS leaders feel 'deep emotion' at inauguration

I can't help but love how German the Uchtdorfs are (I don't really know how to explain it . . . or more like emotion in general).

At Tuesday's inauguration, the Uchtdorfs found themselves seated next to an African-American couple. "When the oath was taken, this lady next to her (Sister Uchtdorf) just embraced her and gave her a kiss with tears running down," said President Uchtdorf, adding that the emotions he sensed over the two days were not simply the result of the massive numbers witnessing nor the racially historic moment, but rather a sense of graciousness displayed by a free democracy.

Anyway, I recommend the article.

Krugman the Buzz Killer

Shared Responsibility

Barack Obama, 2009:

What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility - a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.

George W. Bush, 2000:

A hundred years from now, this must not be remembered as an age rich in possessions and poor in ideals.

Instead, we must usher in an era of responsibility.

Bill Clinton, 1993:

We must do what America does best: offer more opportunity to all and demand responsibility from all.

It is time to break the bad habit of expecting something for nothing, from our government or from each other. Let us all take more responsibility, not only for ourselves and our families but for our communities and our country.

Also:
Give me some men who are half-hearted men . . .
The Vanishing muddle

Bratz dolls cause body image problems

Bratz Dolls May Give Young Girls Unrealistic Expectations Of Head Size

I concur

Delong: The Possibility of the First Normal Policy-Making and Politics since...

Krugman to Obama: Don't pardon the Bush people

Krugman: Forgive and Forget?

I agree completely.

Beethoven in Peanuts

'Peanuts' Scholars Find Messages in Cartoon Scores

Why the third world needs more sweatshops (and Wal-Marts to buy what they produce)

Kristof: Where Sweatshops Are a Dream

Krugman on the government spending multiplier

Bang for the buck

Small-Government Egalitarianism

Some good thoughts here from Edward Glaeser which appeal to me. I still think this is a good time to get good infrastructure projects built. Also, tax reductions, even payroll tax reductions, don't do much to help the unemployed. I'd like to see an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit to help those between "good" jobs, expanded retraining and education spending to help reconfigure displaced workers for useful work, and health care reform to bring down costs and make basic coverage more available (a way to create larger insurance pools, such as Obama's proposal to allow people to buy into a government plan, allowing the government to use its power to bargain with drug companies, and to not spend so much on the expensive and often futile treatments for the ailments of the elderly are good places to start).

Stimulus: tax cuts or government spending?

These posts from Mark Thoma and the articles they link to are probably the best easily-read summary of the current debate from the Keynesians (Krugman, DeLong, Thoma, and others), and the self-hating Republican Keynesians (Greg Mankiw). I don't see myself as ignorant on the subject, but I also don't pretend to know enough to make any kind of really good judgement call. Nevertheless, I tend toward the government spending side of the debate (oh, like you've never agreed with something you didn't 100% understand because of your personal ideological tendencies).

I do understand Mankiw's point that spending should meet a cost/benefit analysis. Our national infrustructure could use some work . . . smart electric grid and bullet train system anyone? How about health care reform?

Raise the gas tax

Thomas Friedman
Bob Inglis and Arthur Laffer

Megan McArdle: The finanical sector is not the automobile industry

Invidious Comparisons, part II

There are some really good points here. Among them:

[F]inancial executives have been fired in large numbers and taking pay cuts that reduced their income to a fraction of what was expected six months ago. Auto workers have not. Financial firms are in the process of laying off hundreds of thousands of their best paid workers (50,000 at Citibank alone); auto firms are not. …

[V]arious investment banking groups that specialized in equity and corporate bonds and wouldn't have known a CDO if it bit them on the ass; corporate and muni bond traders; cap markets guys, and so forth. All their markets dried up because of a credit crisis that they cannot even arguably be credited with creating. It's no more fair that they have to sell their house … and try to figure out what the hell they're qualified for, than that autoworkers have to. Less, maybe, because the autoworkers have had a lot of warning that their companies are on shaky ground … Apparently the message we want to send is "Don't go look for a high-paying job; get a picturesque one." …

No one in the financial industry declared that their salaries and perks weren't on the table until some vague and unspecified date in the future, as the UAW has. Actually, from what I understand, the CEO of Lehman tried to, and he was rightly told to go piss up a rope. …

The financial industry was bloated, the salaries out-of-whack with any possible real economic value they could be argued to have provided to anyone, and that will have to change--but we don't need the government to ensure that, because the industry is contracting rapidly, and the worst-hit parts are exactly the places that were most out of line with economic reality. …

And I think that most of the people who Hilzoy thinks of as picking on the auto workers would be willing to accept a deal in which the Big Three got some funds in order to put its balance sheet back together, then started firing people at will until they were small enough to make a profit again.

I've thought a lot about things like this, especially the loss of low-skill, relatively high paying jobs. On the one hand, I like the kind of social order where someone can go get a goodish job right out of high school and raise a family on that (even though I really don't understand those kinds of people at all . . . I was never raised with the idea that not going to college was even an option, let alone a good idea). There's a kind of inherent equality in such a society; even the little guy without great educational opportunities can live comfortably and securely in his place (I don't mean that as snobbily as it sounds. My future social standing is not in any way set in stone.).

On the other hand, I don't see any moral imperative to expend resources to preserve such industries that are not self-sustaining, and certainly not those that have wastefully burned through resources at the rate the American auto industry has. The basic arguments for free markets in most cases are convincing; if someone can manufacture cars more cheaply (Japanese firms), they should. If a for-profit enterprise is unprofitable, it should not exist (and it would be horribly inefficient to turn the auto industry into an insiders-only welfare program).

As for the autoworkers themselves, I have no problem with them being generously helped directly through programs to help them move, obtain training, keep health care benefits, and so forth. But if your specific employment does not add value at the margins, you should be fired and get different employment.

It really isn't very complicated.

Wood-based plastic alternative

msnbc

Bickering among academics

Mankiw and Krugman at it again (unless I completely misunderstand the tone of the exchange).

Recipient of BYU honorary doctorate admits to war crimes on TV . . .

ABC News

Commentary:
The Daily Dish, also here
The Raw Story
Ross Douthat takes a less outraged stance that I can sympathize with. He still accepts the basic facts (since they are basically indisputable).

If the world were just, would senior Bush people be charged as war criminals?

The Washington Post: Pack of Liars

Yesterday's bipartisan Senate report on the abuse of detainees in U.S. custody at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and elsewhere doesn't just lay out a clear line of responsibility starting with President Bush, it also exposes the administration's repeated explanation for what happened as a pack of lies.

"The abuse of detainees in U.S. custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of 'a few bad apples' acting on their own," the report finds. "The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. . .

The actual senate report is also worth reading (only 20ish pages).

Joe Stiglitz: No Bailout for Auto Industry

FT.com: Chapter 11 is the right road for US carmakers

So it's basically unanimous among people who know what they are talking about and who don't have a vested interest in the US auto industry. Businesses that don't produce items that people want to buy or trust for quality should not be rewarded with taxpayer money.

Wow, sucks to be Laos . . .

Forty years on, Laos reaps bitter harvest of the secret war

How about $15 billion to bailout Laos since . . . you know . . . this problem is all our fault?

Space Teddy Bears and Invisibility

Out of this world
The Art of Invisibility

Santa's Gmail inbox

Kinda funny in a "don't get mad at me if you are offended by this" sort of way. Here

Update locally hosted (other link is dead)

Weird shiz in Thailand.

So I don't know if you've been paying attention, but the middle classes in Thailand are revolting because they don't want the peasants to vote, and they've actually overthrown a couple popularly elected governments in the last several years if I'm not mistaken. This is not supposed to happen. Before I blab on too much, here's the article that prompted this post.

By most narratives, the road to democracy from feudalism begins with economic liberalization, which fosters a powerful bourgeoisie that eventually overthrows the aristocracy/nobility (violently in America's case, or gradually in places like Great Britain). Think about the movie Amazing Grace when Wilberforce plays poker with an aristocratic fellow member of the House of Commons. The Noble raises the stakes and someone reminds him, "Your Grace, you know these merchant boys are richer than we are."

This narrative isn't playing out in Thailand. The bourgeoisie is now rioting in favor of anti-democratic reforms to the government. Looks like the mainstream narrative is wrong, or at least misinterpreted.

I tend to think it's partially wrong at least. The United States Constitution, for example, is not nearly as democratic as people think. Last summer, my personal project was to read James Madison's notes of the Federal Convention. And really, the vast majority of the founding fathers were not democrats (small "d"). Except with James Wilson and maybe a couple of others, a general distrust of the common people prevailed.

The United States Senate was put originally in the hands of the state legislatures for that reason (and there were even proposals to have them specifically elected by the economic elites). And in all the debates about "minority rights" they aren't talking about black people (obviously) or religious minorities for the most part. They're talking about rich people – they were afraid the people would try to confiscate their wealth.

It's possible that Thailand moved too quickly to a modern-style popularly elected government and now the middle class is up in arms, just as they may have been here had such reforms been put in place in the very beginning before loyalty to our constitutional government became a cultural and (almost?) religious necessity for anyone who wants to be accepted in polite company. Could a similar thing happen in China (which would shake most of the reason American foreign policy justifies such close economic and diplomatic ties with a communist country). Should we care? Is there any reason to think a free market (which is mostly where we get our benefit from other people's democracies I think) can't function in a partially non democratic regime? Anyway, it's interesting to think about.

This is pretty messed up . . .

Yes, it's the end of the semester and I don't feel like thinking about anything remotely serious.
Here's the link.

Update: here too.

Most enjoyable time of avoiding my homework I've had in a while

http://basicinstructions.net

Krugman and Mankiw on the renewed relevance of Keynesean economics

Greg Mankiw: What Would Keynes Have Done
Paul Krugman: The Keynesian Moment

the life: Iran: A Nation of Bloggers

the life: Iran: A Nation of Bloggers

This is a cool short film about the modernist new generation in Iran. Gives great hope for the new generation that will be springing as the old fanatical fuddy-duddies start to lose their grip on things.


Iran: A nation of bloggers from Mr.Aaron on Vimeo.

Awesome YouTube channel about everything . . .

So I'm home for the holiday weekend and I've been watching Khan Academy, a YouTube channel with good, accessible information about a large variety of topics. I've been watching the series on the credit crisis and the bailout. I highly recommend it.

This is outrageous . . .

The Economist: Troubled Securities in Asia

Pension savings in developing countries destroyed and wasted by American mortgage salesmen (yes, I hate salesmen . . .), speculators, and consumers who are defaulting on their debt. USA! USA! USA!

Governor Huntsman's a good guy . . .

Politico: Utah Governor Critical of GOP

The Wrong Side of History

This article pretty much sums up the gay marriage issue as it now stands. I don't think I entirely agree with the author's conclusions (though I'm prone to) he analyzes the issue much more deeply than most. Bolding and comments in [ ] are mine.

Rod Dreher: Why Prop 8 victory was Pyrrhic for conservatives

Despite their unexpected victory in California's Prop 8 battle, conservatives have all but lost the war to stop gay marriage. Yes, every time voters have been consulted about same-sex marriage, they've chosen to stick with tradition. But defenders of traditional marriage are not likely to prevail. Consider: • Prop 8 won because of a huge pro-Obama turnout among blacks and Latinos, who are conservative on gay marriage. But the issue doesn't matter enough to them to vote Republican in general elections. Democratic elites back gay marriage, and are likely to appoint judges who do too.

•Opposition to gay marriage was strong in 2004, but it has dramatically receded since then, polls show. This year, nonpartisan Pew Center found that a slight majority (52 percent) of voters oppose gay marriage, but the steady trend lines do not favor the antis.

•Young adults are far less opposed to gay marriage than older Americans. As the physicist Max Planck once said, "An idea does not take hold because people see the light. It wins because everyone opposed to it eventually dies."

These young people might change their minds as they age. But don't count on it. They have been raised in a culture that has in the past half-century thoroughly deconstructed the traditional meaning of marriage.

The concept of marriage has largely been severed from established norms in the popular understanding and is now seen as a contract formalizing the love a couple (for now) has for each other. Today, marriage has no intrinsic meaning that people are meant to serve; rather, it can be shaped to support people's desires.

This is the logical next phase in the development of modernity, whose 500-year project has been the gradual emancipation of the individual will. [This is what people mean when they lament the current trends of "rights without responsibility"] When gay marriage proponents argue that conservatives are on the wrong side of history, they're right.

Moreover, the prejudice – both in the bad, bigoted sense, and the good, Burkean sense – that protected traditional marriage is evaporating. Conservatives will lose this war because they have lost the young. And they have lost the young because they have lost the culture.

They are going to lose more than that when and if gay marriage becomes constitutionalized. They are going to lose some of their religious liberty.

No, pastors won't be jailed for anti-gay sermons. Nor are clergy likely to be forced to marry same-sex couples. But because marriage carries with it a vast array of legal rights and obligations, a live-and-let-live settlement is hard to imagine.

If courts place homosexuality on par with race in civil rights jurisprudence, a host of penalties against traditionalist religious organizations – including the loss of tax-exempt status – will kick in. Georgetown's Chai Feldblum, a gay rights activist and legal scholar, points to irreconcilable differences between gay rights and religious freedom.

Though Prof. Feldblum believes justice is on the gay rights side, at least she admits how high the stakes are for the faithful. Most gay marriage proponents deny or elide this, and the media aren't especially interested in examining the competing rights claims of religious believers.

What's more, as gay marriage backer and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh has observed, one goal of the gay rights movement is "delegitimizing and legally punishing private behavior that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals." Though anti-Prop 8 campaigners said that no one would ever try to yank a church's tax exemption, days after losing the vote, gay protesters at a Mormon temple demanded exactly that. And a beloved Mormon theatrical director was forced out of his Sacramento job because he gave money to the Prop 8 campaign.

It won't stop there.

Should conservatives surrender? No, but it's important to deal with the world as it is. Marc D. Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, warns of a substantial impact on traditionalist churches, synagogues and mosques if gay marriage is constitutionalized under current conditions.

"If there is to be space for opponents of same-sex marriage, it will have to be created at the same time as same-sex marriage is recognized, and, probably, as part of a legislative package," he counsels.

Well, California gays had marriage in all but name, but still successfully petitioned the state Supreme Court over the word "marriage." Still, if religious liberty can be protected while statutorily granting same-sex marriage, that's a deal prudent conservatives and fair-minded gay activists should take.

Otherwise, get ready for a culture-war cataclysm.

Another good post by the same author here

Ok . . . maybe don't let GM die

This article in the New Republic look at least initially to be convincing (it has managed to quiet MY "burn baby burn" tendencies at least). Of course, I don't really know much of anything about the subject, like what exactly is being proposed to do to help which companies, how much it would cost if just one of them failed, how they could significantly downsize, what it would cost to cover unemployed workers, etc. Basically, there's no reason anyone should take my opinion seriously. Anyway, here's the link.

Hat Tip: Paul Krugman

Mark Thoma: Help GM die peacefully

Economist's View: "The Case for Forward-Looking Protectionism"

Brooks: Let GM die

NY Times: Bailout to Nowhere

McArdle: Let GM die

Megan McArdle: Keep Bailing

What should not be done to "help" the economic situation

Economist's View: Fed Watch: Misguided Policies
Portfolio.com: Reasons to Bail Out GM

My summary/oversimplification (ie still read the articles):
Don't artificially support the housing market, consumer credit; build infrastructure. Bail out GM only if its current management is removed (preferable violently . . . jk), and its stockholders/bondholders don't make anything off the deal.

Almost unbelievable

no comment

No green New Deal

The Economist: Green, Easy, and Wrong

Good article that says that the market, encouraged by constructive tax policy, is best able to solve the climate change problem. I agree. The fastest way that new, green technologies can be developed is to make the old, dirty technology more immediately costly on its users.

When are we going to use this in our jobs?

The Onion: Majority of Americans Never Use Physical Education After High School

Krugman on the economic crisis

What will happen to fake news when the Bush administration leaves?

Interesting links thereabout:

The Daily Dish: The Daily Show, Post-Bush

The Onion: Economists Warn Anti-Bush Merchandise Market Close to Collapse

Al Gore on a sensible energy/environmental policy

Very sensible and realistic suggestions on a national energy policy. Al Gore is a lot smarter than I have given him credit for I think (even though I thought An Inconvenient Truth was a bit over the edge . . . but then what do I know).

NY Times: The Climate for Change

Low Oil Prices = Bad for oil independence

Are alternative fuels reliving the 1980s?

America's great . . . except for the South

Amazing (and telling) graphics from the New York Times (Hat Tip: Paul Krugman)

And

Update: Snarky comment from Matt Yglesias:

You can see why John McCain’s principled stand against higher taxes on the wealthy would have a special resonance in this region. Liberals who thought race had something to do with those appeals should be ashamed of themselves.

Did Obama indirectly secure a victory for Proposition 8

According to exit polls, African Americans in California voted 70% in favor of Proposition 8.

More on this and related Prop 8 issues:
Megan McArdle: The people have spoken
Andrew Sullivan: Oh, No, You Don't
Obsidian Wings: Prop 8 and the Black Vote
Coates: Work to do
LA Times: Gay-rights advocates to challenge Proposition 8 in court

This is very significant

FT.com: Democrats defeat "southern strategy"

Taken from the comments because it was too long . . .

See the comments of the previous post to understand the context here.

First, the church did not "force or coerce a mass majority to be constricted to our moral standards." It did not force anyone to do anything. We worked 100% within the democratic system. It did nothing illegal. Prop 8 passed by a majority vote, the same kind of majority that chose Barack Obama in California (whose election McCain supporters are still required by law to accept).

If the church can take a stance on what alcohol laws should be put in place, tax policy affecting the church, pornographic store zoning, whether the John Birch Society is crazy, and whether Yucca Mountain should be used for nuclear waste storage (which it has and does), then it can take a stance that they should support Proposition 8. Again, there is no coup, no force going on. It's majority rule.

Yes, the ideal is to teach correct principles, then let people govern themselves. But in the real world, principles must be taught and applied in specific, simple, and practical ways for organizational purposes (to get anything done) and to get the marginal people in line.

Freedom of conscience is not infringed upon. If someone didn't want to vote for prop 8, no one forced them to. If someone doesn't believe in the Democratic platform, they don't have to. If someone doesn't agree with the ban on same sex marriage, they are perfectly free to work to change the law (which they do).

If someone disagrees with a war and is drafted, he can work to change the policy and allow conscientious objectors, or he can work to convince Congress to end funding for the war. But until he can accomplish this, he must obey the law, or face the consequences.

If someone thinks his taxes are unfairly high, he can work to get them lowered, but he must pay them until he can manage that or go to prison.

If someone thinks he should be able to own an automatic weapon, he can give money to the NRA, but again he must obey the law as it stands or go to jail.

This is the way liberal democracy works. A certain degree of individualism must be stifled (eventually by violence) or we would have chaos. Freedom of speech, press, suffrage, assembly, religion, conscience and others help ensure that basic individualism, especially as far as beliefs go, is preserved. But what official policy is and what actions and relationships are recognized as legitimate by the government is a different matter that can and is set by the majority.

Finally, that ad was bull**** (I never say that). From lds.org: " As Church members decide their own appropriate level of involvement in protecting marriage between a man and a woman, they should approach this issue with respect for others, understanding, honesty, and civility. "The LDS church, again, did not force anyone to do anything. And all existing "marriages" are unaffected.

The church supported a very honest, even blunt, PR campaign, and when the information of both sides became well known (the GLBT movement certainly wasn't quiet this whole time!) the voters chose to support Prop 8. It was honest, clearly communicated information that passed Prop 8, not a religious coup. The church just happened to assist in the dissemination of that information.

Encouraging people to give money to a cause is not a crime. And the church's jurisdiction over the counsel it gives to its members (of their own free will and choice) is certainly not limited. The GLBT campaign lost because it failed to convince the public of the justice of its cause, not because sinister missionaries broke into gay people's houses and took their rights.

the life: Hmmm...disturbing.

the life: Hmmm...disturbing.

Interesting post here from Soelberg. Even though I get cited here (copyright 2008), I find a couple things to disagree with (disclosure: I didn't watch the video due to BYU blocking YouTube. Also I'm very tired right now. Basically, I refuse to take long-term responsiblity for what I'm going to say, especially the details).

Marriage is not only a semantic thing, and I certainly don't agree that semantics are not important, as is implied. Semantic shifts change attitudes. A large part of the anti gay marriage movement is a fight for the hearts and minds of the future.

If the government says a same sex marriage is a marriage, people will eventually accept that. Though my perception of marriage will not change, other peoples' perceptions will change and in a country where the majority more or less makes the rules this will unavoidably affect me. I will be regarded as a bigot and a religious fanatic for not accepting the official definition. My children (should such unfortunate beings ever come to be) will be taught in school that homosexual activity is acceptable, and an option if they're interested.

Also, as far as adoption goes, there is a problem. Right now, as I understand it, an unmarried woman (lesbian or not) can adopt, but single men cannot. In those states where gay marriage has been legalized, religious organizations who coordinate adoptions have been forced to either allow SS married couples to adopt or not offer adoption services.

I disagree with what Brad (from the comments) says about the government enforcing morality. We are mostly ruled by the majority, so that the majority can enforce with organized violence that kind of society that it believes is right, proper, and moral (within the constraints of the Constitution and Bill of Rights).

Most convincing arguments for welfare policy, universal health care, endangered species protection, free public education, etc. have a very significant moral and even religious aspect. It's morality that tells me that someone who can't afford health care should be able to get life-saving treatment (within the realm of the possible of course). There is no automatic force that makes it so that healthy people have to pay to treat sick people. It is a moral call: a sacrifice of efficiency (taxes have dead weight losses and regulations unavoidably affect output) for a greater moral good.

Most importantly is that these policies are binding, and are enforced ultimately by violence –– if you decide to not comply with the pertaining taxes or regulations you go to jail. All laws limit in a small but real way individual freedom to choose in order to serve a perceived larger good. There is a balancing act involved here, of course, but this is nothing new, and it is nothing that can disappear as long as we have governments that can force people to do things (ie all real government by definition).

The comparison with baptism is not valid. Baptism is not just a physical act; it's a religious covenant. The physical act without conviction is not a good thing and not recognized by anyone who matters (ie God). It's a lie. No law can justly force people to think one way or another, but laws can justly regulate behavior.

Now, the way to regulate homosexual behavior is debatable. I would be tempted to push more for constitutional amendments (nationally and locally) that say that same sex marriage is not a guaranteed right to prevent a few judges from forcing it on everyone, but it would still leave states or the country free to do what they believe is right. But an amendment defining marriage as between a man and woman, though an extreme measure not really taken seriously until recently, does send a much stronger signal, would be more permanent, and is completely legitimate in our civil democracy if done legally.

As such, the church's involvement (done completely within the democratic framework) in this moral issue is perfectly legitimate (and if you think the church is the kingdom of God, it has authority to take a stance on whatever it wants, even though it does not now typically do so for practical and PR reasons that we can discuss later). And given the present threat, such intervention is most likely necessary.

Anyway, I'd be interested in input on this.

Finally!

Pat Bagley

McCain on SNL

McCain's a pretty funny guy.

The Economist on the Obamacon shift

The Economist: The Rise of the Obamacons

The Economist endorses Obama

Not that British people can vote, but it still means something. Here's an excerpt (chosen with considerable bias, of course):

The Economist: Ironically, given that he first won over so many independents by speaking his mind, the case for Mr McCain comes down to a piece of artifice: vote for him on the assumption that he does not believe a word of what he has been saying. Once he reaches the White House, runs this argument, he will put Mrs Palin back in her box, throw away his unrealistic tax plan and begin negotiations with the Democratic Congress. That is plausible; but it is a long way from the convincing case that Mr McCain could have made. Had he become president in 2000 instead of Mr Bush, the world might have had fewer problems. But this time it is beset by problems, and Mr McCain has not proved that he knows how to deal with them.