Disqus - Latest Comments for jchem

Re: Discontinuing Self-Published Reader Comments

jchem — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 23:42:23 -0000

Well, considering that everyone here has made their plea, might I just add that I am truly going to miss the raising of the bar that tended to happen here. I can't for the life of me count off how many times Joe linked to a post that highlighted how stupid some commentary became, lowering the bar to the level of the sewer. In this way I always found solace in coming here, whether I disagreed with someone or not. At least I was challenged.

I can only hope that TMV goes back to what made it special. I truly appreciate all of the time and hard work Dr E and Tyrone and others put in to making this place what it was. Of course, there are others, especially all of the commenters I have come to know (at least in this virtual space) over the past 4 or so years. Who knows? Maybe this whole thing will come back to where it started...but if it doesn't, I can only wish all of you the best. Times are certainly tough, and we really never get a chance to share our personal situations. But to all out there, remember this, we're all in this together, however much we disagree. Best of luck to all.

Re: Whip Count Update

jchem — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:50:11 -0000

I just assumed that they went in order along with the "Myths vs Truths" table, i.e. 18 Myths and 18 sources. Despite the sloppiness in the internal cites, I think Jane makes a pretty compelling case against the current bill, and she is certainly no friend to conservatives.

Re: Whip Count Update

jchem — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:12:07 -0000

CO, was this the FDL piece you were talking about? Those 18 myths are a doozy. Perhaps some of the HCR supporters can argue otherwise.

Re: Is It Right To Force Everyone To Have Health Insurance?

jchem — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:58:25 -0000

I think its a bit ironic to hear all of the vilification of the insurance companies -- those evil, bloodthirsty, money suckers who are only in it for profit -- and at the same time have people look at you with a straight face and force you to buy the service that said evil companies provide.

The insurance companies have to love this. They're selling a crappy product but will soon be selling that crappy product to millions more who wouldn't buy it willingly. Isn't this why the public option was being debated in the first place? I could see a mandate if there was a public option, but without it?

Re: Four degrees of seperation – why Obamacare will fail…

jchem — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 17:26:57 -0000

It turns out that no public option will be introduced after all, considering that Kucinich will be returning a bunch of political contributions:

I spoke with Dennis following his speech, and his campaign will return the money to those who have donated in support of his pledge to vote against any health care bill that does not have a public option. It’s the honorable thing to do. While he shouldn’t be expected to carry the weight of the health care bill on his back when the other 64 members of Congress have abandoned him, it is both disheartening and illuminating to realize that the progressives in Congress have no true commitment to anything but putting on a show.

Aside from the way many of these types of deals have come to be and how they have been received by the public, I don't think enough attention is being paid to the serious interparty meltdown the Dems appear to be having. If one reads that entire piece over at FDL, you'll be treated to one heck of a timeline on how this whole thing went down. While I understand that FDL is considered to be a liberal blog, some in the center should consider this:

We need to develop new partners in the fight, because there is tremendous public will to resist and the old ones can’t be trusted. We also need a new language to describe it, because the old “right-left” paradigm is firing past the true opponent.

The effort to keep this bill from passing lives on after Dennis Kucinich’s defection, though it did indeed signal the death of the progressive resistance in Congress. In the end, what we learned is that we can’t count on members of Congress in either party to do anything but play their part in “villain rotation” — a game they can only play as long as we let them. It is up to each of us to challenge our old ideas and forge new ways to seek out those who are truly willing to oppose the corporate domination of our political system, and help them to do it.

Now I can certainly raise a green glass to that. Cheers everyone!

Re: Four degrees of seperation – why Obamacare will fail…

jchem — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:01:58 -0000

I think its pretty clear how Kucinich had his "come to Jesus" moment:

Kucinich told Obama that he wants a full ERISA waver and a public option in exchange for his vote. And if he actually gets an ERISA waver, it will be the biggest victory of the entire health care debate. As Jon Walker says, “ERISA is the 900 pound Gorilla that has f****ed up America’s health care system something good.”

If on the other hand he settles for some worthless reassurances that “Obama will work toward it in the future” (which nobody but Lynn Woolsey is dumb enough to actually believe), or a meaningless symbolic vote that achieves little more than 15 minutes of futile grandstanding, good luck to him. A thousand people have donated over $16,000 to Dennis since yesterday to thank him for standing up for what he believes in. We’ll be asking him to return it.

In other words, his vote was bought plain and simple. What's funny about him is that the FDL folks were having a fundraiser on his behalf because he pledged not to vote for a bill unless it had the public option. Of the 65 members who signed that pledge, he was the last holdout. All that money raised (nearly $500,000) and every single one of them broke away from their pledge. I doubt the public option will get resurrected so maybe he's just grandstanding.

Re: The Road to Health Care Reform: Deem and Pass

jchem — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:21:28 -0000

Quite a discussion going. I'll chime in and admit with many of the earlier commenters that this is some pretty complex stuff. Andy, your link along with Patrick's earlier comment go a long way to demonstrate how silly and insane this whole process from both sides really is. On one hand, we can point to the Repubs; they used this process some 30 times and were OK with it then. But what were the Dems saying back then when the Repubs were doing it? Probably the same things that the Repubs are saying now. I applaud anyone with the energy anymore to hold to their side regardless of what happens. The fact that this process has to be considered for such a major piece of legislation should magnify just how much of a broken system we have. I guess since Kathy started this thread off by quoting Ezra, I'll go ahead and do the same:

This is the sort of world I warned about in my article on the arms race of procedural gimmickry in the Congress. The minority makes the filibuster a constant presence. So the majority makes reconciliation a frequent friend. The Senate bogs down and so the House stops being able to trust that the Senate will be able to pass legislation, so they begin innovating methods of defensive legislating like self-executing rules and Deem and Pass. The whole thing is nuts, and it's done by both parties. The variables here are majority and the minority, not Democrats and Republicans.

Re: Quote of the Day: ‘Information Cocoons’

jchem — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 10:48:14 -0000

I think you're saying "right leaning" or "left leaning" with a healthy dose of liberty. The majority of the blogs out their are nearly so partisan that it just doesn't make any sense to try to read them with an open mind. Anyone whose ever tried to play in the comment threads at either HotAir or Think Progress knows what I'm talking about.

Perhaps a more interesting challenge would be to look at members of your own party and find something worthwhile to criticize them on.

Re: What I Learned at the Tea Parties

jchem — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:52:40 -0000

Thanks for the link CS. I think its undeniable that Reagan certainly left an imprint on the system - of course, political bias will color the view, nonetheless. Critics will argue one way and supporters the other, but they do that with anyone. I would agree with Will that sainting Reagan isn't something that conservatives in general should rally behind. They need a new leader, and so far I don't think they have found one.

As far as the whole teaching the party a lesson thing; that has always bothered me, primarily because I think it just helps perpetuate the never ending cycle (the pendulum). This constant back-and-forth allows the current party in power to complain about how much of a mess was left to them. As a consequence, the measure of success becomes nothing more than "at least we weren't as bad as them". The new party comes in, and it seems all of the arguments between them continue - they just switch sides.

I'm a realist...I would love for this nonsense to end, but I think it is too much a part of the system. I will give the tea party, the coffee party, or any other party out there credit for making a lot of noise. Getting knowledgeable people involved in the system will always be a good thing. But I'd rather see these new parties earn votes rather than just get them by being anti-incumbent. The latter IMO serves only to perpetuate the cycle.

Re: What I Learned at the Tea Parties

jchem — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:16:38 -0000

It's a bit hard to link to commentary that would have had to have predated the blogosphere.

All snark aside, they're called newspapers - remember them? News didn't just start with the advent of the blogosphere.

Talk about circular logic! By your reckoning, it is impossible for fiscal conservatives to vote their consciences. Either they're hypocrites if they vote R and get big spending GOPers, or they refuse to vote for that type of GOPer and then they're responsible for enabling the big spending Dems.

Either you totally missed my point or you're misrepresenting what I said CS. The commenter I am replying to claims that the "R's lost their way" so conservatives "made their voices heard via voting Repubs out of Congressional leadership in 2006". How did they do this? By staying home? By voting for the Dems? And for what reason - to teach the party a lesson? Great, that really seems to be working out rather well doesn't it?

I have no idea how many of the tea party participants are receiving unemployment benefits..do you?

No, I don't. But people complaining about high taxes are usually OK with raising them on someone else. As an example, most non-smokers are OK with raising the price of a pack of cigarettes by $1, because it doesn't affect them. But if we start talking about taxing soda, junk-food, or anything else that they use, well then it becomes a problem for them. By the same token, small government folks are always in favor of smaller government, but just as it affects others. But you want to start talking about cutting their government benefits or services, well then it becomes a problem for them. Here I'm talking about the "get your government hands off my healthcare" people who actually receive government-run healthcare.

Re: What I Learned at the Tea Parties

jchem — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:17:46 -0000

Tea Party types were aghast at Congressional spending under both Reagan and GWB. In GWB's case, they made their voices heard via voting Repubs out of Congressional leadership in 2006.

I'm sorry, but I'm calling BS on this. On one hand we hear so many telling us that this is the first time "tea party" people have ever become active politically; now however, you tell us these people have been paying attention for the past 30 years. Please, toss some links at me of those fire breathing fiscal conservatives who were willing to badmouth Reagan about, well, anything. Your argument is also circular - you complained already about the amount of spending you feel is currently going on. Aren't you responsible for this since you "made their voices heard via voting Repubs out of Congressional leadership in 2006"? If the answer is to replace heavy spenders with heavier spenders (your implication) I think you're very much misguided. And anyone who wants to harp about "small government", I would suggest to start advocating for the elimination of any and all unemployment benefits. How many "tea party" people are receiving them? Would you be willing to demand that this new party actually practice what it preaches?

Re: The Truth About Waterboarding

jchem — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:02:00 -0000

THIS is what they are talking about.

And I'm quite certain they will continue to do so. I am left to conclude that they and their supporters have completely convinced themselves that this "kept us safe". I await to hear from anyone who has tried to sanitize this over the years -- THIS is what you are in favor of?

Thanks for this post Kathy...sometimes it seems some folks just need to be hit upside the head with the ugly truth - warts and all..

Re: Walmart and the Barbie Wars

jchem — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:19:20 -0000

“Most white parents wouldn’t think to buy a black doll for their child, even if they believe in equality and all those things,” she [Wade] said.

I really have to wonder if Dr Wade said this without actually thinking about what she was saying. I went to her blog, the one cited in the ABC story, and nowhere in that post does she say anything even close to her current comment. The closest she came:

I’ve never seen any evidence, short of that anecdotal clip, that “white dolls sell faster to people of all skin colors.” I don’t know if it’s true.

So she's either contradicting herself or doesn't know what she's talking about. That study cited in the ABC story was actually pretty insightful, but I'm not aware if it has ever since been replicated, at least in a scientifically valid way. But the overall point is that some people out there will do almost anything to look for racial overtones where none actually exist.

Re: Obama and Moby Dick

jchem — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 11:19:43 -0000

Perhaps things like this have something to do with the continual slide:

Over the past few months, the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion financial bailout have hired a slew of blue-chip lobbyists to boost their presence in Washington...

General Motors, which went to Washington in late 2008 in need of emergency aid and then passed through bankruptcy in 2009, has hired three outside lobbying firms already in 2010...

The financial, insurance and real estate industries spent roughly $465 million on lobbying in 2009, the most in a decade, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Go ahead and take a look at the names of some of those lobbying firms and who else they are retained by (www.opensecrets.org ); its enough to make anyone wonder just who those in Washington (on both sides) really care about.

Re: You Too Can Conquer What Has Killed So Many Engineers

jchem — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 17:57:37 -0000

Interesting. I stumbled across something similar to this regarding the Mandelbrot set and probably the more visual Julia Set. Complex number theory is one heck of a mind bender to completely understand, but the simplicity within the Mandelbrot set is actually in its 2-D structure. It really is something else to see such imagery with all of its repetitiveness created with a rather simple formula (multiplied, or iterated a gazillion or so times). If you really want to get your inner geek on, take a look at the 3-D monster called the Mandelbulb. That is in a league of its own.

Re: Census Wasting Money

jchem — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 15:17:51 -0000

<shrug>. They've already dropped $2.5M on a Super Bowl ad and they also just announced spending an additional $1.2M to sponsor a NASCAR racer:

“NASCAR reaches millions of Americans, and our paid sponsorship of Greg and the No. 16 Roush Fenway Ford is a practical one," Groves said. "For every 1 percent increase in mail response, taxpayers will save an estimated $85 million. Those funds would otherwise be required to send census takers to collect responses in person from households that don't mail back the form.”

Does anyone know how they get those numbers and if indeed they are accurate? If they are, then these moves may just make some sense in the long run.

Re: There Is Nothing To Celebrate in What the U.S. Did in Iraq

jchem — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 12:23:02 -0000

Remember the "axis of evil" speech? (Iran, N.Korea, Syria)

Err, slight correction there JD:

President Bush named Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the axis of evil.

What are we trying to force from Iran? I strongly believe that Obama has no interest in starting another war. He's already ramped up Afghanistan and I'm sure some could argue that Pakistan is part of that mission as well. The NeoCons would love it as they seem to look at the world as if it is nothing more than a game of Risk. However, my impression is that the people have had enough; if he starts another war with Iran he will be voted out of office.

Re: There Is Nothing To Celebrate in What the U.S. Did in Iraq

jchem — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 11:26:39 -0000

Who Would Want Credit For Iraq? Apparently everybody:

Former vice president Richard B. Cheney took issue with Biden's assertion, calling it "a little strange" because both Biden and Obama had opposed the troop surge. Any credit to Obama, Cheney said, "ought to go with a healthy dose of 'Thank you, George Bush.' "

Biden, who had the last word against Cheney in dueling, mid-February talk-show appearances, accused the Bush administration of leaving a "mess" in Iraq. The U.S. military may have succeeded in "settling things down," he said, but it was the Obama administration that developed a plan to guide the Iraqis toward true democracy.

Its probably worth noting that we are still there and probably still will be there for another 10+ years. You don't really hear anyone talking about developing a plan to get us out of there.

Re: http://themoderatevoice.com/64943/64943/

jchem — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 10:28:38 -0000

So the OP asked

What do you do if specific people are attacking you and there’s no other option to stopping them?

to which I answered

Ask the Iraqi and Afghan civilians that question.

and you seem to have conveniently ignored. And the fact remains, you are advocating for assassination, just so long as we are the ones doing it.

Save the cookies tough or not for the terrorists you seem to like so much.

Spoken like a true believer. I make an argument against assassinating others and to you, that means I like terrorists. Put the talking points away and clean off your partisan glasses when you want to have a discussion. If I represent your version of the left, then you clearly aren't paying attention.

Re: http://themoderatevoice.com/64943/64943/

jchem — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 17:34:11 -0000

I'm not going to argue about terrorism vs war; what's the point? My point is rather simple: If you want to advocate for assassination then don't cry about it when your enemy starts assassinating people on your side.

I believe that Hamas still has a declared war against Israel. Therefore killing a military officer like Mahmoud should be considered an act of war and not an act of terrorism.

I believe Don answered this already:

So next month, when some Israeli military officer, or government employee attached to some Embassy in South America gets blown to smithereens by some Hamas operative, you'll also be saying: Nasty Little War, tough cookies...

Or when Hamas decides to take revenge on these assassins, you can just shrug your shoulders and say it was an act of war. From where you're coming from I have to ask, wouldn't it have been a whole lot easier and a whole lot cheaper had we just assassinated Saddam Hussein? Why don't we just assassinate everybody we don't like; perhaps you're in favor of taking out Ahmadinejad, Castro, and Chavez. If not, why not?

Re: The Gorgon Auntie, A Lost Story

jchem — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 11:20:38 -0000

This is a fascinating post Dr. E; thank you for sharing. Clicking on your link was very informative. I didn't realize that Medusa was a Gorgon and that there were three sisters. So I spent about an hour this morning reading the wiki article you linked to along with some of the links provided there. Next thing I know I'm reading about Perseus slaying Medusa, the birth of Pegasus, and the creation of the Atlas mountains. Many of these stories I had forgotten about, but I am glad that you sent me on this educational journey this morning. The coffee is good, I don't have to work, and the weather is beginning to come around :)

Re: It’s the Methane, Stupid

jchem — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:24:42 -0000

You make a pretty good point merkin in your explanation of the cycle.

If anyone is interested, you can find this specific study in the latest issue of Science; you can also go here, although I'm not sure if its a free article. They do provide a summary and they also have a podcast interview with the lead author. Interestingly, there is a good complementary note discussing the stability of the methane cycle in the current issue as well:

How important are these fluxes in the global methane cycle? Considering the global emissions of 440 Tg C as methane per year (1), the Siberian Arctic Ocean emissions and the changes in northern wetland emissions are negligible. This is good news, implying that current climate change does not affect the natural methane cycle in a globally important way. But will this persist into the future under sustained warming trends? We do not know. Current modeling studies indicate that the climate-methane feedback from wetlands and permafrost will not be catastrophic but that there will be sustained methane leakages from wetlands and permafrost areas in coming decades (8). Keeping track of these leakages is indispensable for quantifying the climate-methane feedback on a global scale.

Re: A Teenie Weenie Problem With John McCain’s Letter Supporting Gay Military Ban

jchem — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 14:22:17 -0000

according to a report, it’s signed by some dead people.

Heh, next thing you know, they will be voting.

Re: http://themoderatevoice.com/64943/64943/

jchem — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 12:48:26 -0000

Let's make the assumption the guy is a documented bad guy. What would you do......ignore him? challenge him to a duel? arrest him and take him to NY for trial?

I don't know what to do CO, but advocating assassination? On its face this just sounds absurd. This Hamas guy was assassinated by some characters for being "a documented bad guy". What do you suppose Hamas does now? Don't you think that they now view these 26 characters as "documented bad guys"? According to the logic expressed in the original post Hamas should have every right now to go on an assassination party to go after their version of the documented bad guys.

So I'll ask you your own question; what's your solution?

Re: http://themoderatevoice.com/64943/64943/

jchem — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 11:16:58 -0000

Generally speaking, media coverage almost never (in Europe) or only minimally (in the United States) talks about what Mabhouh actually did to merit his end.

In other words, the ends justify the means and you're happy the guy is dead.

What do you do if specific people are attacking you and there’s no other option to stopping them?

Ask the Iraqi and Afghan civilians that question.

This is a rather frightening post. Doesn't assassinating someone, anyone, make the assassin a terrorist? Or put another way, you want to take out terrorists by becoming a terrorist. Whenever you get to the point that you can justify assassinating others you lend credence to those who do the same. I mean, this has worked out so well in the Middle East now for what, 2,000+ years? I'm sure your enemies are looking for ways to go after the 26 or so suspects who had a hand in taking this guy out. And when they do, they will find ways of justifying their actions, and based on everything you laid out in this post, you would almost have to agree with them. Terrorism can make some pretty strange bedfellows.