Good morning. I worked on my newsletter essay, but didn’t really get far enough to republish and I want to step back and take stock.
- Bias.
- In which “Decades of affirmative action have done little to fix that” … where a thing not working don’t result in the obvious questioning of the method. Einstein had a pithy remark on that sort of thinking.
- I think it’s a mistake too if he’s recovered from his injury.
- Konkatsu.
- On Russia. More here.
- St. Paul’s relics dated plus unintended consequences of birth control medication.
- Can’t admit them as being evil if you want to negotiate … history repeats? Likewise.
- Economic foundations.
- That’s funny.
- Aging.
- Projections. And remarks on the same … or all they just lies, damned lies and you know … statistics.
- Race ya (dad?)!
- Pedophilia and numbers.
- Honduran considerations.
- Of Dickens and Trollope.
Except that the question isn’t a binary, of course. It could be true that affirmative action is both failing to produce an equitable society, and keeping the situation from becoming even worse. I believe there’s a pithy quote about being able to hold two separate thoughts in one’s mind at the same time…..
Freddie,
Ever see the movie The Tuskegee Airmen? That is an example of the exact opposite of affirmative action. A situation in which the highest strictest standards are placed on the Black airmen. What was the result … an elite corps, which was admittedly not the goal of those trying to set those standards.
Does it ever occur to you that affirmative action is one of the the causes of continued inequities? Just like the trainers who unintentionally created an elite squadron, might the affirmative action proponents be creating an permanent underclass?
Bias.
Not sure if this was intended to be directed at Krugman or if the link was an error. The Commentary piece on Global Warming suffers from a logical error. It assumes that a person may adopt an argument becaue it helps them adopt some selfish goal such as winning a game or in the case of global warming aquiring political power. While that may be true, it doesn’t follow that the argument is wrong. The physics of atoms and photons will not change in order to frustrate selfish motives on the part of Paul Krugman.
Konkatsu.
So Japanese speed dating has many women buying in but not many men….hmmm…isn’t the obvious answer lower the price for men and raise the price for women? Haven’t bars in the US known about this for years with their ‘ladies nights’?
unintended consequences of birth control medication.
You mean a waste product we put into our environment may actually produce unintended and undesirable consequences! Wow! Notice how quickly the skepticism disappears when the question is pee with trace birth control compounds rather than CO2!
Projections. And remarks on the same … or all they just lies, damned lies and you know … statistics.
Not sure I get this here. De Long is right. Sowell claimed Obama ‘tripled the debt’ in under a year. The debt has not tripled plain and simple. While it’s easy to get confused with numbers they really aren’t all that hard to master nor is truth so relativistic that we have to throw up our hands and wonder who, if anyone, is right.
Pedophilia and numbers.
Sounds like the problem is definitional. Pedophilia is attraction towards children. Right off the bat I’d want numbers to be cleaned up to exclude cases of statutory rape. You may call Jerry Lee Lewis a child molestor for marrying a 16 yr old girl but it’s not really child molestation. Second it seems like we are talking about a different dimension of sexual behavior. There are individuals who molest male children, female children and both genders. Therefore maybe it doesn’t make much sense to lump homosexuals into child molestors. Maybe pedophilies should be their own category that should then be sub-divided into homosexual, hetrosexual and bi.
In more simple terms:
Pedophile- homosexual makes more sense as a categoy-subcategory than
Homosexual-pedophile.
Then there’s this line:
Or Paula Poundstone, a lesbian entertainer who was charged with lewd acts on one of her under 14 foster children.
Errr, well, if she is having sexual relations with a male she doesn’t seem to be exclusively gay now does she?
The posts descends into stupidity over the arrest of a Duke faculty member for child molesting:
So it will be interesting to see how Duke faculty members respond to Frank Lombard. Because he is white, Lombard is fair game at Duke, isn’t he? But Lombard is also gay, so will that complicate things?
YAWN-Conservatives have gotten so intellectually lazy they don’t even bother to see if political correctness exists. They simply imagine it does and pat themselves on the back for sniping at it. Notice here no one has actually leaped to this guys defense on the grounds that he is gay. The author just imagines it. Any defense of Lombard so far exists totally in imagination land. Out of the numerous Catholic priests indicted and charged with molesting, I can’t recall any spokespeople crying that they were being persecuted for being gay. Likewise numerous times African Americans are charged and convicted of crimes without blacks crying injustice on the grounds that the defendant is black. This is a classic example of taking isolated cases where one side or another might have went too far (OJ or the Duke rape case) and extropolating it to infinity.
Just like the trainers who unintentionally created an elite squadron, might the affirmative action proponents be creating an permanent underclass?
I strongly suspect affirmative actions extent in the real world is being vastly overrated. Out of the 12% or so of the population that is African American, how many do you think have had a situation in their lives where affirmative action made a life altering impact?
Can’t admit them as being evil if you want to negotiate
George Bush publicly declared North Korea and Iran evil (capital-E Evil, even) in 2002, upon which they immediately halted nuclear weapons development and transitioned peacefully to true democracies.
Oh, wait. No, it actually didn’t do anything but make Bush look like a buffoon. Maybe it’s time to try something else. Life isn’t a comic book.
Can’t admit them as being evil if you want to negotiate
Why not? I seem to recall someone calling the USSR the ‘evil empire’ but who negotiated with them nonetheless. I also seem to recall a previous President calling North Korea part of a Trinity of Evil and then spending 8 years negotiating with them.
Boonton & JA,
You seem to be in disagreement here on the “calling them evil” matter. Feel free to hash that out.
Boonton,
If you suspect that affirmative action has little effect why continue?
I heard lots of talk about homosexuality in the ranks of the Catholic presbytery related to the pedophilia scandals. Blacks do in fact declaim that race is related to their arrest and prosecution.
And, I don’t know if “pee” is the cause of environmental androgenic (?) components. I’m pretty sure pesticides are also indicted … but the pill is mentioned quite frequently in this regard … what I’m saying is I’m not sure it is or isn’t significant. I’m also unclear on why you connect that with global warming and CO2. My personal position on global warming/climate change is that I’m skeptical of claims on either side that the situation is understood.
Mark,
We’re not necessarily in disagreement. My point is that calling countries evil doesn’t solve anything. Boonton’s is that it’s not mutually exclusive with negotiation.
And, I don’t know if “pee” is the cause of environmental androgenic (?) components. I’m pretty sure pesticides are also indicted … but the pill is mentioned quite frequently in this regard …
Well unless people are using birth control pills as lawn fertilizer I suspect pee is how it would enter the environment. But my point was that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. If you want to demand a high degree of proof for CO2->warming then you should likewise demand a high degree of proof that such compounds cause birth defects.
If you suspect that affirmative action has little effect why continue?
The test is does a program have marginal benefits that are greater than its marginal cost. If it does it should be continued. Charity, for example, contributes a small amount to our national income (most income is earned through the market, charitable grants are a sliver of that) yet I would say they should be continued.
Of course, since I think affirmative actions benefits are usually slight it makes most programs hang by a thread. Small benefits mean even a modest cost is likely to make it unjustified.
Boonton,
I don’t “demand” a high degree of proof for climate change but that the costs of our measures are commensurate with the surety we hold the result. I suspect that the costs of replacing the pill with norplant or similar low dosage contraceptives is far lower than any one of the CO2 reduction proposals.
My suggestion was that affirmative action was detrimental.
JA,
You say “it doesn’t solve anything”, Mr Boonton says it “doesn’t matter”. I’d suggest that Reagan terming the Soviets as evil was not inconsequential. It didn’t mean that negotiations were impossible, yet it certainly did change the tenor and the stakes.
You’re particular willingness for accommodation with evil reminded me of the selling (and subsequent repair) of ships used by the Soviet to transport goods and prisoners out of the Northern Siberian Kolyma mines … an act done in full knowledge of their purpose and use. Realpolitik at its finest. You can stand proud in that tradition and continue your tacit (and active) support of Iran’s repressive regime.
You’re particular willingness for accommodation with evil
WTF?
You can stand proud in that tradition and continue your tacit (and active) support of Iran’s repressive regime.
Screw you.
I’d suggest that Reagan terming the Soviets as evil was not inconsequential. It didn’t mean that negotiations were impossible, yet it certainly did change the tenor and the stakes.
The timing of the statement was important. Reagan terms the USSR evil early on in his Presidency. Later when Gorbochev took office he pegged him as a reformer and backed down from the absolutist rhetoric. He was attacked from the right by conservatives who noted that the USSR was still plenty evil even if it was rather mellow compared to the days of Stalin.
You can stand proud in that tradition and continue your tacit (and active) support of Iran’s repressive regime.
YAWN, no one supports Iran’s regime. I see though that true to form the right just can’t give up the Red Baiting even into the 21st century.
N. Korea’s regime is heads and tails much more evil than Iran’s. At least Iran has dissent and something that can reasonably pass for debate and as far as we know is missing slave labor, mass killings that border on genocide and pathological cult of personality of the world’s most evil regimes. Yet for the past 8 years we’ve been negotiating with them and the right never once asserted that Bush was giving tacit (and active!) support to the regime.
You can stand proud in that tradition and continue your tacit (and active) support of Iran’s repressive regime.
Screw you.
Keep in mind this is the fellow who doesn’t like it whenever Ann Coutler or Rush Limbaugh is mentioned as representatives of the right wing when so many more intelligent representatives are available.
JA,
Seriously, you are saying that we should make no official condemnation of Iran. To what purpose? Your apparent purpose is so that we might have an easier time coming to talks with them. These talks can only result in basically one thing, they get goods, trade or gifts, in return for behavior concessions with which they will not abide. So … the result is we strengthen the regime and hold a continued blind eye to oppression and evil.
Or, what are you saying if not that?
Boonton,
Red baiting?
Iran has dissent … which is being crushed as we speak … and we are silent.
And Bush did in fact point out publicly that the NK regime was in fact evil which one might note was strongly objected to by the left.
Mark,
Seriously, you are saying that we should make no official condemnation of Iran.
Please stop lying about me.
JA,
I see, you agree that Mr Obama was wrong to stay silent and then offer only weak nuanced disapproval? I didn’t think that was the case I’m sorry … I misunderstood.
Mark,
Are you really this sloppy a thinker? You seem to be arguing that:
“tacit (and active) support of Iran’s repressive regime”
is the same as
“saying that we should make no official condemnation of Iran”
is the same as
“stay[ing] silent and then offer[ing] only weak nuanced disapproval.”
Do you see how ridiculously, insanely far apart those three items actually are? How can I take you seriously or assume that you are engaging in dialogue in good faith when you conflate such disparate things. You do this over and over in post after post despite my near-constant protestations.
I could argue with your characterization of Obama’s “disapproval” as “nuanced” or “weak,” (which is still quite far from the original topic of discussion, by the way) but I’m getting pretty fed up with you, to be honest.
JA,
S1: “tacit (and active) support of Iran’s repressive regime”
S1a: “tacit support of Iran’s repressive regime”
S1b: “active support of Iran’s repressive regime”
S2: “saying that we should make no official condemnation of Iran”
S3: “stay[ing] silent and then offer[ing] only weak nuanced disapproval.”
S2 is an example of the execution of S1a. We are not “the Shadow”, we cannot say what lurks in the hearts of others. Failing condemnation and wanting to open relations … if your condemnation is kept secret is indistinguishable from S1a. To restate, there is no way to distinguish between S2 and S1a both are silence only differ in motive … which cannot be determined.
S1b is “opening relations and discussions”. It can be interpreted as a signal of some level of support, e.g., you don’t “open relations” with a regime that is engaging in genocide. Why? Because that would be supportive of the regime. The only justifiable relation with the latter is “stop or else.” What sort of S1b actions might you see that would not be seen as supportive of the regime?
S3 begins as S1b and is exactly S2 (before the “then”). And “nuanced disapproval” is apparently a notion you want to table … so we’ll leave it.
Seriously, you are saying that we should make no official condemnation of Iran
Before we go any farther down this road, let’s just say the answer to this question is yes. We should make no official condemnation of Iran.
How would it follow that taking this position merits the charge of “tacit (and active) support of Iran’s repressive regime.”
Could there never be a valid (or even mistaken) strategic reason not to condemn a regime that in an ideal world merits condemnation? During WWII, for example, Churchill refused Polish demands that pressure be brought on the USSR for what was clearly a mass murder of Polish army officers captured by the USSR during the joint German / Soviet invasion. Instead it was felt that the war against Germany was too important for the allies to show any division. LIkewise during the Cold War numerous right wing regimes were not condemned by the US gov’t because it was felt that the risk of any more countries falling to communism was too great.
While these decisions may have been mistaken they do not merit the charge that anyone who felt there was merit to them was supporting a repressive regime.
Red baiting?
Iran has dissent … which is being crushed as we speak … and we are silent.
Who is silent? Obama has condemned Iran’s actions, various resolutions are being considered by the Congress. Red baiting here is equating silence with failing to outshout the idiots who populate Fox News.
And Bush did in fact point out publicly that the NK regime was in fact evil which one might note was strongly objected to by the left.
More like the lumping together of three very different countries with very different strategic considerations as if they were a unified front was stupid. The stupidity of this concept was confirmed by the fact that the actual policies persued for these supposedly united regimes were so radically different.
S1b is “opening relations and discussions”. It can be interpreted as a signal of some level of support, e.g., you don’t “open relations” with a regime that is engaging in genocide. Why? Because that would be supportive of the regime.
I’m sorry, what regime is engaged in genocide that we are opening relations and discussions with?
Mark,
S1a: “tacit support of Iran’s repressive regime”
S1b: “active support of Iran’s repressive regime”
S2: “saying that we should make no official condemnation of Iran”
S3: “stay[ing] silent and then offer[ing] only weak nuanced disapproval.”
1) I am not conceding that Obama did S3. However, I would not advocate S3.
2) That being said, S3 is explicitly NOT S2. (It would be if it stayed at “staying silent.”
3) S2 is not at all an example of S1. Not-condemning is not remotely in the same ballpark as “supporting,” actively or passively.
4) S1b is not remotely the same as “opening relations and discussions.” That’s so wrongheaded it’s ridiculous. By that logic, sending a police negotiator to talk to a hostage-taker is “active support” of the hostage taker.
What sort of S1b actions might you see that would not be seen as supportive of the regime?
How about “hold free and fair elections or we will cripple you economically?” Would that be “supportive of the regime?”
I think both you and I would prefer Iran to be a peaceful, democratic nation without nuclear weapons. We probably have significant differences in the strategies and tactics that would best achieve that end and possible also differences in what costs we’re willing to pay (or more precisely, to be paid by others) for that end.
But when you accuse me (or Obama or anyone acting in good faith) of supporting the current regime, it practically destroys any hope of productive conversation and changes our relationship from what should be an alliance into a rivalry or even an enmity.
I’ve thought about apologizing for saying “screw you” a bunch of times, because that’s not the way I usually talk or write, but “screw you” just pales so much in comparison to what you accused me of that I can’t bear to. I know two wrongs don’t make a right, but dammit, you accused me of (literally!) doing the equivalent of aiding and abetting Joseph Stalin. That is just not okay.
I don’t support the Iranian government. I think they do evil and pretty much are evil, yes. I’d be happy to see them peacefully overthrown and wouldn’t shed a tear if somebody just shot Ahmadinijad. I just don’t think it’s that useful to go around declaring regimes evil as a tool of foreign policy, especially after the humiliation of the last cowboy president. It just makes us look weak and comical.
(“Cartoonish” is a better word.)
This cartoon would be at least partially interesting if Mark would acknowledge and address the ‘don’t play the foil’ argument for taking a slow approach in condemning Iran’s regime.
Boonton,
In your example on WWII we did not “officially” condemn the Soviet gulag system or Holodomor for two reasons (one of which was good). The primary (good) reason was that we needed their alliance against Hitler. The bad reason is that the left, consistently overlooking the gulag, was enamored of Marxism.
So … we had a geo-political reason for needing their support and cooperation at that time. What is the over-riding reason we need North Korea or Iran’s support that compares to WWII? If there is none, why bring it up in this context?
The “e.g.,” abbreviation means exempli gratia which is most often translated “for example” … which does not mean that in this case it relates to a particular situation we are discussing.
JA,
Look many if not a majority of the few left leaning blogs I do read felt that Obama’s condemning response to Iran’s crushing of dissidents was late in coming and weak (too nuanced). This was cited by many as a “bi-partisan” criticism of Mr Obama.
I’ve got to run … I’ll return to reply in more detail later today.