Gingrich 6 year secret affair versus open marriage

It is surprising I think that either way Gingrich gets a pass by the GOP voters.  Marianne Gingrich makes a well timed claim which is also very specific and not necessarily damaging.  In a way, it is somewhat less damaging that Gingrich actually asked for 'permission' to continue his affair.  It means that he attempted to stop hiding the affair which was a secret for 6 years.  On the other hand, it points out the fact that he and his current wife Calista were duplicitous towards his ex-wife for so long, and in a manner definitely not in keeping with monogamous 'traditional marriage'.  It actually makes Gingrich and Calista felons in a state such as Wisconsin where adultery is still against the law.  But I suppose hypocrisy isn't a concern for most Republicans as it gets pointed out all the time and doesn't seem to change their opinion.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell Violator Rewards

Some rich gay folks should fund a don't ask, don't tell bounce back fund. If someone is discharged from military service for don't ask, don't tell, they not only get out of dangerous service, but they'll get a nice cushy job, trust fund to help them out for a couple years while they look for another job.

When the straights in the military hear about this, wouldn't they want to repeal the policy out of jealousy?

On the other hand, this would only serve to increase antagonism between straights and gays. Okay, maybe not such a good idea.

On conservative values: the PT article by Jesse Prinz, PhD

I was particularly struck by an article on a Psychology Today blog about the particular values of conservatives which liberals have trouble understanding. I guess I have been reading the New York Times while skipping Safire and Kristol for far too long to have any idea of the existence of these values, much less any understanding to why they are so important.

According to the article these conservative values are: purity, respect for authority, and loyalty to the in-group.

The last one first. This is a morality straight from the savanna (or jungle). I.e. to survive you had to trust in people around you and these were your family and clan. And true, on the savanna, another human group could be out to harm you, at least before you harm them. In modern times without daily enemies to fight, this has morphed into loyalty your own town, city, state, or country. Or more ominously, your own race or religion. I would have thought we would have moved beyond this in a modern world. It reeks of xenophobia, racism and discrimination. But conservatives see this as a paramount value. I personally think it has unfortunately to do with this new fundamentalist Christianity or evangelicals. Mainline Protestants and Catholics seemed to have more compassion for the poor and others outside of their own circle. And if Buddhism was the national religion it definitely wouldn't be this way. Buddhists believe in striving for compassion for all, and explicitly not just the in-group.

Respect for authority. Okay, I might buy this. Let's not have anarchy, but still, burning the flag: what's the big deal? Okay, it's a symbol of the country, so what. It is small minds that equate burning the flag with anything other than someone's protest of something he/she feels is wrong with the country. It's not like the old days, where America was some weak and fledgling country which needed some symbol to rally behind like a flag. America is wealthy and powerful still. You burn a flag -- one you bought yourself with your own money --, we will make another to sell to you for you to burn if you like.

Purity. I'm afraid I completely don't get this one. Since I've never sat through church indoctrination (and never will, thank the gods), it makes no sense to me. I suppose I've always had what others would call 'impure thoughts' -- I guess these are supposed to be thoughts which if acted on would get you shut out of heaven's gate. (Or does just having the thoughts make you a bad Christian?) But those rules are so arbitrary. Like, okay, since I'm a guy and I like guys, every few seconds on the beach I guess I'm having impure thoughts. Actually thankfully, it has never occurred to me that this is the case. And only now, trying to put myself into a poor devout Christian's head, would I have had a complex about it. How sad to be concerned about such cultural relics. To be indoctrinated at a young age is almost a tragic thing. I resolve to have pity and compassion for such unfortunates. Okay, let me reconsider that later.

A couple bonus topics...

Now, I always understood economic conservatism. This was the basically selfish idea that government shouldn't spend my hard earned money. And one might have expected that I would become an economic conservative and a proponent of small government in my middle age. It hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it ever will.

Actually, so long as everyone as wealthy or as poor as I am is taxed equally, I think it's fine. Billionaire Warren Buffett himself feels he isn't being taxed enough. I agree.

And finally symbolism. I was so amazed at the damn American flags fluttering in the wind at the Republican convention. What does it mean? Is there anything behind those flags, except to hit people over the head with the idea that supposedly Republicans love their country more (but are too stupid, stingy or lazy to do anything to make it better for anyone outside of their own wealthy in-group). Have I become too cynical? The flag to me is weapon used by the Republicans against me. Screw the damn Republicans and their damn flags. It's as if maybe some idiot will vote based on which convention had more flags. Well, that could be. I guess the Dems will have to learn to live without winning that idiot's vote.

CA 1-cent sales tax increase

The Republicans in the state legislature aren't agreeing with Schwarzenegger's proposal for a cent sales tax increase -- which, by the way, supposedly takes the sales tax back down after a few years (probably a little added grease in the proposal for those against any taxes). I thought that if I were a Republican I would be for the sales tax. I mean Republicans tend to be fiscally conservative. They wouldn't spend their money willy-nilly like wealthy urban liberals. And they're not poor for whom the greatest portion of their income is spent on stuff for survival (though they and everyone else in the state get a sales tax break on food and medicine). In any case, Republicans would more likely have computers at home and do some internet shopping if it really bothers them (okay, they would legally have to pay those sales tax back in income tax later, but CA isn't yet NY where the online vendors automatically add tax to transactions). So Republicans wouldn't be hit very hard by a one-cent sales tax. Any other tax rises, such as income or property taxes would be even worse tax hit on Republicans. I suppose those are complete non-starters.

I guess the Republicans just want to issue bonds to borrow our way out of this budget crisis or just blindly cut spending. But I think California schools and roads are bad enough as they are, no?

Pandering to the lowest common denominator

The recent events surrounding the New Yorker magazine cover highlighted to me what Democrats wanting to win in November need to remember. The rest of the electorate is stupid. I know, I know. You're thinking this is another one of my innumerable rants about Republicans, but it's not.

Let's go through this demonstration. The New Yorker prints a very unsubtle piece of satire on it's cover. Many college educated people would understand it as such and might even laugh -- albeit a bit uneasily (more on that later). However, there is a large percentage of folks who actually see the cover, believe it and see that it reinforces their distorted view of Obama created by the Republican attack machine, a machine which is laser tuned to this demographic (the Republicans have this totally figured out). These poor folks don't actually read New Yorker -- or any other magazine which is not mostly pictures for that matter. They're too lazy or borderline illiterate to do so. They barely graduated from high school. To them, the immediate howls of protest from the Obama campaign -- which might be puzzling to those who find the satire obvious and funny -- makes perfect sense. The campaign needs to show that Obama denies it, repudiates it and criticizes it. The fact that the New Yorker prints such a thing is worrying to those of us who understand its potential unintended misinterpretations and reinforcing of fears of Mr. Obama. Satire -- even something so obvious as this -- is really too deep for this class of folks. (Ok, fine. Call me an elitist then.)

But anyway going back to a comment I made some time ago on this blog, for the general election, the Democrats really need to shore up the lowest common denominator pandering. Obama has locked up the most of the intellectuals, or in any case these folks are smart enough to have already made up their minds to a large degree. So, going forward, no more of this subtle approach is needed. Everything needs to be simple and straight-forward and come down like a hammer. It means no satire nor sarcasm nor irony nor subtle humor. Only dumbed down sound bites. Unfortunately, this does not lead to nuanced positions which intellectuals within the Obama campaign may wish to hold forth on.

This is instead an opportunity for apt analogies and simple story-telling. Does this mean Obama needs to become like a, er, Bill Clinton? Maybe...

Paying Clinton to leave? Really?

I don't think it's right: the suggestion that Obama money should go to Clinton to encourage her to leave (and perhaps fight against him with this money 4 years later). If Clinton leaves, it should be of her own accord. Since she loaned money to her own campaign, that's her own decision. She shouldn't count on Obama to make her whole again. Obama will need that money to fight McCain, and how badly would that reflect on Clinton and Obama, if the Republican machine was able to outspend Obama because of the money he might fork out on a request like this from Clinton's campaign. Again, it was Clinton's choice to continue on despite the poor outlook from Super Tuesday, sapping her own funds as well as Obama's. With $109 million and many more millions coming from Bill, she can afford it, even if she never gets paid back. Anyway, I hope Clinton says this idea is pure hogwash.

On a related topic, Clinton's campaign has said she is ahead on popular vote, but Al Gore didn't win even though he won the popular vote. Sure, elections -- including nomination bids -- are a game, but the candidate needs to know how to play that game and win to beat the Republicans.

Actually, I think I do support Clinton staying in up to a point. But I don't think she should go negative at all. She should win based on the merits and by a good and obvious margin. It should not be: scrabble a few delegates here and a few delegates there and my wildest dream best case scenario, then I've won. At some point it should be clear, without a reasonable doubt even on generous but fair Florida and Michigan delegate accounting (remember Obama wasn't even on the ballot), that Obama has won. Perhaps that has already happened today. In this hypothetical scenario, having avoided ugly negative campaigning, bowing out would be a grace note and an honorable thing for Clinton to do. We would all think very highly of her.

But the path she has chosen has been far different, divisive and ugly.

No more go arounds for Hillary Clinton

Graceful exit, waiting your turn => McCain's second chance
Divisive and negative prolonged exit => Voter fatigue and negative associations

From Clinton's perspective, it seems like a losing battle with little reason to continue, except to decimate chances for next time, if it turns too ugly. Now people say that it's better for Obama to face a battle against Clinton and survive -- following the theory of whatever doesn't 'kill' you, makes you stronger -- than to face McCain and the ruthless Republican machine. Perhaps there is some truth to that.

I don't see McCain's machine being as cynically political and dirty as W's, but you never know with the Republicans.

It is, of course, an unfair comparison of the Republican battle of Bush/McCain versus Obama/Clinton, because the Republican primaries are mostly winner takes all. Second place candidates can't survive long that way.

Boycott Olympics?

Wouldn't it be a shame if after all that trouble China went to hold the Olympics in 2008 no one went? It's unlikely the athletes would boycott. But how about the tourists. They've probably all paid for their tickets, eh? Well, it would be a nice idea in principle.

Son of W. Buckley writes defending McCain

This Christopher Buckley guy makes it sound like it was all a joke. Like how the conservatives thought it would be funny if they could buy a party and win elections and take over the government and f**k it up. And in a way I kind of believe it. With money to burn, why not? It's like a big joke among the wealthy white folks. But it's funny that he says he's pretty much given up hope of Republicans winning in '06 and '08. [NYT] [Wash. Monthly]

Bin Laden purposely let go!

Here I am repeating a conspiracy theory, but I just finished reading a book about the incredibly cynical thought processes of movement conservatism and the Bush presidency. It just popped into my mind a now seemingly very likely scenario. They purposely let Osama Bin Laden go! I mean what would have happened to the war on terror if they'd caught, captured, and/or killed the guy, there would be no more bogeyman to go after to justify "cheap, quick, and painless" wars in Iraq and Iran. All that seems much less compelling after we have the guy. And how could Bush get re-elected in 2004 without him starting a war. So we purposely let him go. I'm convinced of it. Sad.

# # #

Another possibility is that have killed the guy, but say we didn't. It's a little better, in that we are trying to undermine Al Qaeda through deception, but it still serves the deceitful purpose of justifying the Iraq war.

Revenge

Everything I've learned says that revenge isn't a proper motivation for anything. But anyway, just for fun, here's some twisted reasoning to justify hoping that Clinton wins. The Republicans hate Hillary Clinton. Dems hated W and deservedly so (He was an idiot. He took this country and poured American money and lives down the drain. He trashed our civil liberties. He trashed our environment. I'm not even getting warmed up here...) It will be hard for Hillary to be elected in spite of all those Republicans and "independents" who will vote for McCain, but if she does, it'll just bug the hell out of all those people who hate her. It's a perfect indirect revenge. I mean if I can get over the f**king hell of George Bush, I'm sure they can get over having Hillary Clinton as President.

Winds blowing for Obama ( I'll whistle along )

From what limited conversations I've had with folks lately, it seems to me that Obama is gaining momentum in California. After seeing some more of him, I think I'm getting more comfortable with him as a good choice, despite what I think is his lack of on screen charisma. My reasoning on the matter:

Being right on Iraq probably means having a prescient sense of the possibility of outright lies coming out of the Bush administration -- lies which few others thought possible until it was too late. This is not something any of the other serious contenders to President can claim. And it does show actually a sense of judgment which is necessary as President. Of course, that stance could have been pure luck as even he says as justification for his stance at the time that we should have been concentrating on winning in Afghanistan. But you know what they say about generals: "he's good, but is he lucky?"

There is also something to the idea of newcomer funded by the people who is not beholden to special interests.

And at the risk of taking a chauvinistic stance on the details versus big picture (women are usually more detail oriented), I think big picture is probably better suited for a President.

Why some people are conservatives?

Link Economist article reports on a Thornhill and Fincher study which showed that kids with difficult childhoods end up as liberals. Those with sheltered ones end up conservatives. It's clear this matches with the stereotype. The kids of wealthy parents who have been to the country clubs, have the fancy BMW and trust fund are probably conservatives.

It has been hypothesized in a recent New York Times article (link) that wisdom comes from setbacks early in life. Perhaps the type of setbacks which go along with 'difficult childhood' mentioned above. So,

liberal = difficult childhood
difficult childhood = wisdom

by associativity

liberal = wisdom

And since its literally true that liberals are wiser than conservatives, it all makes sense. Notice wisdom != intelligence, but I'd say it's on a similar axis.

# # #

(12/29/07) A recent NYTimes piece says that binge drinkers -- even if they haven't done so in years -- tend "to poor decision-making. [As a binge drinker] one can easily fail to recognize the ultimate consequences of one’s actions." In a study done on rats made to binge drink and later kept sober for equivalent rat years, there was "a tendency to stay the course, a diminished capacity for relearning and maladaptive decision-making." Doesn't that sound like George W. Bush?

So is that possibly the correct explanation for it all: that ex-frat boy binge drinkers are conservatives because of the science of their self-inflicted brain damage? And this is the cause of our country's last 7 years of pain and suffering. We should think twice about hiring one of those assholes for the job next time.

# # #

(05/20/07) NYTimes runs a piece on how two conservatives fell this week. Falwell and Wolfowitz. The author goes on to say that the conservatives seem so far undeterred by the recent Wolfowitz setback. He makes a comparison between McNamara and Wolfowitz, but says history somewhat forgives McNamara because wasn't an ideologue.

Bill Clinton negative on Obama on Charlie Rose

Towleroad Boy does Bill know how to walk that fine line. Just seeing that he had spoken negatively about Obama sort of turned me off. Still, after listening to the talk, I was slightly swayed, but still skeptical. Interesting thing is that I read Obama's statement on repeal of don't ask, don't tell and it seems much stronger than Hillary's. Time to switch horses?

Krugman again and more forcefully on Racism and the Republicans

NYT My commentary (only tangentially related to the piece): it will be a shame to see the work of racist Republicans enshrined for decades in the Supreme Court justices appointed and racist rulings handed down.

# # #

NYT Herbert concurs in a similar piece. (Don't these guys talk to each other?)

Justice John Paul Stevens

NYT It's a strange world where Justice Stevens says he's not a liberal. But this is the case. We've had a lot of Republican appointee's to the Supreme Court and, in fact, J.P. Stevens was one of them.

Qaddafi's son may be a Western-style liberal

NYT He is educated in London and has some power within Libya.

Krugman on Petraeus and Failure of Surge

NYT (Times Select is now free) Krugman shows that the dog and pony for the surge by supposedly credible Petraeus is just the same phony marketing as put out by Colin Powell before the war.

--
More Times Select

Friedman on Iraq

Krugman again a few days later on Iraq.

Frank Rich on Iraq: "As the Iraqis stand down, we'll stand up."

Krugman on Republicans use of race and division to entice Southern whites to their cause.

Dowd calls Fred Thompson warmed over W.

Once again on the carbon use tax by a Harvard economist

NYT Author makes an interesting point, that the sum of all tax receipts wouldn't change. It's just that they would be shifted around. So there would be a new carbon use tax, but it would be compensated by less income tax on individuals and businesses. Those businesses and individuals generating a lot of carbon dioxide -- basically big energy consumers -- would pay up the nose. But okay, it could be phased in gradually so that people with those high consumption rates could plan to become more efficient.

Greenspan strongly criticizes current administration in new book

Link 18 months after leaving office, Greenspan talks about how Republicans sacrificed their traditional fiscal discipline to try to pay their way into a 'permanent' Republican majority.