Disqus - Latest Comments for dloosley

Re: Squashed: Claiming that the majority of those who dislike...

Deuce Loosely — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 21:41:31 -0000

Don't know if you've seen this before (it's been posted on tumblr a few times by various people, myself included), but Jay Smooth did a video addressing this kind of thing last year and is still the best thing i've seen on the subjct:

http://www.youtube.com/watc...

His point being that you want to talk about what someone DOES is racist, and not get bogged about whether or not they actually ARE racist.

Re: heart in a cage

Deuce Loosely — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:15:17 -0000

But he has spoken out, more than a few times this week, and already Iran is using what he's said to prove that The Great Satan is interfering in their elections.

http://www.google.com/hoste...

So what would you have Obama do? What can he say that would appease you and at the same time not make the situation worse?

Re: The Promise of Fairness

Deuce Loosely — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:54:14 -0000

Gah! My poor math skills stepped on my point. :)

Maybe Squashed's post wasn't as thoughtful as usual, but i still think the point he was trying to make is a valid one. There's nothing wrong with talking about fairness, but it's worth remembering that it can often be a loaded topic. If i tell someone that the government wants to give money to some people to buy food but not to others, they'll probably think that's unfair. But if i also tell them that the first group of people make less than 10K a year while the second makes over 150K, then they'll probably see it a little differently.

Also (and here's what i think Squased was really driving at), while i think it's always good to have fairness be a part of the discussion, it's far too subjective to be a legitimate indicator of public opinion. Not only can people have wildly different ideas about what constitutes fairness, there are also varying degrees of unfairness that people are willing to accept (either because they might benefit from it in some way or because life can just be unfair). So when CNN reports that 64% of those surveyed think the plan in unfair, that doesn't really give us a lot of useful information.

Re: Robot Heart - The next hidden fee - Spirit Airlines to charge a fee for buying a ticket?

Deuce Loosely — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 12:35:44 -0000

Especially in this case. I mean, what's the difference? All that doing it this way gets you is a bunch of bad press.

Re: Arrogant Snark

Deuce Loosely — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:52:52 -0000

I understand where you're coming from, but what does any of this have to do with Obama? John Kerry makes a lame joke which some random guy posts on his blog and somehow that is evidence that Obama has failed in his promise to try and make politics more civil? I think that's a bit much.

Re: Redistribution of Wealth

Deuce Loosely — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:43:22 -0000

I suppose you're correct. Technically, all income tax is basically just a form of wealth redistribution. But i find it hard to believe that whenever conservatives use the phrase "redistribution of wealth" they're doing so because they want to be as accurate as possible and not because they're trying to play to any fear of Communism that people might have. Especially since the only time they showcase this new found love of accuracy is when they're talking about Democrats and their proposals.

Re: Deuce Loosely - Jay Smooth on the whole NY Post monkey cartoon...

Deuce Loosely — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:09:20 -0000

Maybe, but as Jay so often says, you have to be careful how you approuch an arguement like that, because it's so easy to get sidetracked.. You want to talk about what they did not about who they are, or even what they meant. However, even before this the Post was a pretty terrible paper, and i think all of the discussion just gives them what they want.

Re: The Trunk

Deuce Loosely — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:00:08 -0000

In the wake of Pulp Fiction, i always wondered why there wasn't a sharp rise in restaurant robberies. Sure the establishment might not have a ton of money, but what you could get from the customers might make up for that. But getting caught isn't the only risk involved when it comes to robbery (always have to be concerned about someone trying to play hero) and, like you said, banks don't present as many unknowns as other places.

Re: A Public Apology

Deuce Loosely — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:45:15 -0000

You and i probably diagree about almost everything, SDS, but that doesn't mean you aren't a good dude. I wish more people, on both sides, had your respectful attitude.

Re: Squashing Squashed on the Minimum Wage

Deuce Loosely — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 11:38:45 -0000

You make some good points here (surpising, coming from me, i'm sure). I've always found both sides of the minimum wage debate often boil down to just different ways to juke the numbers. Get rid of it and unemployment goes down, but the number of people living under the poverty line goes up. Raise it and the reverse happens. If the goal is to help people with lower income, there are certainly more effective ways to do it. I had never heard of the negative income tax idea and i'll admit i need to learn more about EITC.

Re: Promises Broken

Deuce Loosely — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:20:01 -0000

No, you're right. I just hope that it's more due to the fact that the White House is pretty far behind the times, technologically speaking and it will be in place for future, less time sensitive bills, and not that he's just completely given up on it.

Re: Jobs

Deuce Loosely — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:59:05 -0000

What about cops? Maybe some of them are taking away private security jobs, but you can't replace homicide detectives with Paul Blart. Or how about firefighters, or health inspectors, or perhaps the biggest of all, the military? And these examples don't even take into account the jobs created by government spending. When the government hires people to build a bridge, is that taking away from private sector jobs? What about the jobs created when the government orders a new batch of Apache helicopters?

What makes Steele's statement "demonstrably wrong" isn't necessarily the logic behind it, but the fact that it is so absolute. "Never in the history of mankind"? Get real, Michael.

Re: Streets of Chicago - icanseenewyorkcityfrommyhouse: But that’s not...

Deuce Loosely — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 12:59:50 -0000

Wait, what Democratic congress? Other than a span of about a year and a half after Sen. Jeffords switched to Independent in 2001, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1995 to 2007. Even if I concede the point about the Clinton administration, banks didn't stop giving out bad loans when he left office, so who was forcing them then? And if the Bush administration knew that the policies of the previous administration were such a bad idea, why didn't they do anything about it?

Conservatives would like to pin this mess on Clinton, but the fact is that Glass-Steagall was overturned by a Republican congress (there's your deregulation right there, Mr. Stossel) and nothing was really done to avoid crisis during the six years the Republicans controlled all three branches of government. No matter what anybody says, there are no angels in this and there's more than enough blame to go around.

Re: Not That Kinda Gay - sds: Currently reading. I am impressed with...

Deuce Loosely — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:51:51 -0000

After reading the summery on Amazon, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re: An Early Observation About Obama

Deuce Loosely — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:17:56 -0000

While i disagreed with the policy, i had a bigger problem with the way he chose to enact it: grandstanding by surrounding himself with "snowflake" babies, saying that those children weren't "spare parts", which implied that others felt they were. His veto was going to get enough attention, seeing that it was his first, so his little show was completely unnecessary. In fact, if he had framed it more like you did ("In ethically uncertain areas such as this, we believe the government should take a back seat to private funding") instead of as some hypocritical "culture of life" decision (hypocritical since he never made any moves to restrict fertility clinics) it might have been easier to deal with. But that's not how that administration did things.

Re: i've never heard of you. - apsies: Anti-Abortion protesters are asked what...

Deuce Loosely — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:50:22 -0000

I'm interested in hearing why you think that if abortion was illegal only the doctor would be held responsible. If a person makes a decision to drive drunk and ends up killing someone else in an accident, the bartender who sold him drinks isn't the one solely responsible This kind of thinking, in which women are denied the agency of their actions, is one of the main things driving the anti-choice movement, whether or not all those involved admit it or not. The person asking the question is an antagonistic jerk, but that doesn't mean it isn't a worthwhile endeavor to try and point out that saving unborn children isn't the only goal being pursued.

Re: "Whether it Works"

Deuce Loosely — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:29:51 -0000

I agree with both you and squashed: i am hopeful that he does something about the war on drugs, but i will be surprised if he did something massive. The problem is that the President isn't just someone we elect to go to DC and do whatever he wants. He has to have support (from affected groups, from the general public, from Congress) if he wants his ideas to become reality and unfortunately i don't know how widespread the support is for ending it. Sure, there's probably a fair amount of people who are in favor of relaxing the laws a little bit, and stopping Homeland Security from doing the DEA's job is probably an easy and needed fix, but the path to accomplishing anything bigger than that right now just seems littered with too many political landmines and navigating it would probably mean sacrificing the chance to accomplish a lot of other things. If this is what you mean by "the status quo works for him just fine" then i suppose you're right, but that's how poitics works and neither Obama nor anyone else in his situation can really be blamed for that.

Re: It doesn't just happen in the BCS.

Deuce Loosely — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:46:06 -0000

I used to be the biggest opponent of the BCS, till i read this post here:

http://thenationalchampions...

The guy goes through every year that we've had the BCS and shows what would have happened if we had one of the four most popular alternatives instead. The result? Some one always gets screwed no matter what. Thus i've sort of switched to a "devil you know" type of guy when it comes to the whole thing.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/68587802

Deuce Loosely — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:34:39 -0000

But they've been going down this same path for decades now, have things gotten better for anyone yet? Certainly not for the Palestinians they haven't, and i'd say they haven't gotten any better for the Israelis either. So either Israel still thinks this is the best corse of action to take to achieve peace, which after so much evidence to the contrary would be insane, or they aren't actually interested in a peaceful coexistence, at least not one that includes a legitimate Palestinian state. Given the continued expansion of settlements into the West Bank, it certainly looks like the latter might be the case.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/61504512

Deuce Loosely — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:47:53 -0000

Sorry, i tried to watch it, but i gave up after the Belgium/US comparison. Oh Stossel, i don't think anyone will ever dethrone you as the king of disingenuos arguments.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/61342582

Deuce Loosely — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:44:26 -0000

Though i'm extremely skeptical, i'm open to the idea that there might be some sort of voucher-like program that could work and i just haven't seen it yet. I just feel like it would end up turning mediocre schools into good schools, but also turn bad schools into even worse schools, and i'm concerned about what becomes of the kids that are stuck in the bad schools. The other thing that worries me is this talk about "profit". I don't want a school's primary concern to be maximizing profits, i want it's primary concern to be educating children. That's why i find the idea of having school compete for their funding troubling. In a perfect world, schools would just focus on teaching kids and let the results speak for themselves. But in the real world, having to worry about student retention and new student enrolment could end up being counter-productive to the end goal.

As for as what i would do? I think just making sure schools are properly funded is a good start. Since schools in district with higher property taxes, and thus more funding, tend to perform better than schools in districts with lower property taxes, it's obvious that government run education isn't a complete failure. So let's get some money to those schools that are underfunded. Let's pay good teachers more so they won't leave schools in need for districts or private institutions that pay them enough to make a decent living. Let's make sure the kids in West Baltimore have access to the same resources as kids in Howard County. I haven't worked out the details of such a course of action, but since i haven't seen a detailed voucher plan from you either, i think i'll wait till i try and tackle that :).

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/61342582

Deuce Loosely — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:00:06 -0000

Really? You don't see how a school is different from a grocery store or a newspaper? Well, how about the fact that you can tell whether a new grocery store is good one after a five minute visit. Is the produce fresh? Is the store clean? Do they have a good selection? All of these questions can be answered the first time you walk in, and can be reevaluated on each subsequent visit. You can't really judge a school so easily. Maybe it won't take a year before you see signs of whether or not things are working, but it will probably take that long, if not longer, to build up a reputation good enough to compete with other high performing schools.

That's the issue, right there. If a parent has a choice between a school a few miles away that is known to be good and a school in their neighborhood that is terrible, if they have the ability to send their child to the better school then that's what they're going to do. But what happens to the kids who can't go to the better school, or don't get in because it had as many students as it could take? How does that neighborhood school that they have to attend get better? It has the same problems as before, only now less resources to do something about them. Plus it can't higher better teachers, because it can't pay them as much as other schools. And even if the school is replaced by a brand new school, without bringing in private money (which raises a whole other set of issues) the problems will still be the same. I know they don't have to start from scratch, but the problem has never been that we're lacking ideas and strategies for successfully educating children, it's that so many schools have lacked the funding to put them in place.

So sure, vouchers might make things better for some kids, but many of them, most of whom are in such dire straits already, could end up in an even worse situation.

Re: http://jeffmiller.tumblr.com/post/61342582

Deuce Loosely — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 16:27:07 -0000

I think your comparison is pretty shaky. A newspaper and a school are two completely different beasts. A newspaper can react pretty quickly to it's environment, seeing which ideas aren't working and changing them. For a school, it might take at least a year before you can see if the methods put in place are working to the fullest. Also, if i don't like how a particular newspaper is operating, i can just switch to another the next day. Not really an option with schools.

But let's say that a voucher system like you suggest is put in place and a new school pops up in the middle of an inner city, replacing a notoriously poor performing school.. What makes people choose to send their kids to that one? Anybody with the ability to send their kids to another school, one that has a proven track record of success, has probably already done that. This means the new school will have less students and therefore less money. Plus, now that it's in competition with other schools for funding, it not only has to find ways of keeping the students it has but also try and get more (again, with less money than the school before them had).

We certainly have to do something about education, but just because the problem is so severe doesn't mean i'm ready to support an plan that could end up making things much worse.

Re: Welcome to my world of baby and cat. - I am a little put out with the people that are...

Deuce Loosely — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 09:06:01 -0000

I wasn't proud when my government chose to invaded another country for no reason. I wasn't proud that my government supported the use of torture. And i wasn't proud of my country when it decided to reelect the government responsable for these things. You can love your country but not always be proud of it.

I also think that given our country's history of segregation and racism (a lot of which is still around today), the fact that we were able to put it aside and elect a black man president is a pretty big deal. I don't mean that there's nothing else that America has done that i'm proud of, but this is certainly the thing i'm most proud of.

Re: Welcome to my world of baby and cat. - Obama’s church is scarier than Palin’s church. So...

Deuce Loosely — Sun, 02 Nov 2008 22:29:19 -0000

I disagree, but what brought this on?