Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »

Saint Sputnik: Apr 1, 2007; Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!

Jay Ambrose still sucks

quote:

Hoping to find at least one thing Barack Obama did right in his first several years as president, supporters say this lifeguard jumped in the water, swam out to where it�s deep and saved General Motors and Chrysler from drowning.

They don�t mention that another lifeguard got shoved aside, that the victims, while still afloat, are not on shore yet � or that Obama tied anchors to their feet.

Though it�s nowhere near a certainty, normal bankruptcy procedures might have rescued these companies already plagued by too much government, chiefly in the form of those misdirected, consumer-ignoring rules about fuel efficiency.

We can reasonably assume, however, that we would still have had an auto industry in the form of other companies if a normal Chapter 11 proceeding had taken precedence over politically advantageous, socialist intervention. And this way out would not then have perverted long-standing legal rights while unconstitutionally picking the pockets of the citizenry.

In its takeover � the government still owns more than a quarter of General Motors, is still owed billions and is still the boss you best not ignore � the Obama team stole from tacky, old bondholders and others to give to one of the industry�s foremost malefactors, the United Auto Workers.

We can respect the individual workers while noting their huffing, puffing organization had rendered Detroit near-lifeless with negotiated wages and benefits it had gradually been agreeing to roll back for the sake of having any wages and benefits at all.

Unions are buddies of Democrats, the source of votes galore, of campaign contributions galore, and so if Congress won�t go along with a deal that helps keep them in clover, forget Congress.

Forget, also, what the Troubled Asset Relief Program says about who can get what and just go ahead and give $60 billion to the auto industry. You will get away with it. President George W. Bush had already forked over $20 billion to the industry, and the Supreme Court was never, ever going to intervene in any of this.

GM was able to announce record profits, and that�s great: Long live GM, and don�t anyone mention the tsunami that set back its Japanese competition.

Someone might mention, however, that what the government gives, it can take away. As a Wall Street Journal editorial explains in making the whole situation splendidly clear, GM has happily agreed to go along with more demanding fuel efficiency standards, meaning it is going to be making fewer and fewer of the pickups and SUVs its customers want and trying to sell them more and more of the sedans they do not want.

There is no better example of this stupidity than the GM flop known as the Chevy Volt, a $40,000 electric-and-gas car that had a dangerous battery and that everyone and his cousin has shied away from purchasing despite government incentives to buy it and government subsidies without which it might cost a quarter of a million dollars. General Motors � some now call it Government Motors � has a solution to consumer reluctance. It wants higher federal taxes at the gas pump.

The glory that is Detroit won�t necessarily remain glorious for long, as much as even Obama critics must truly hope it will. For what the government gives, it can take away.

The government helped get the industry in trouble in the first place by fuel-standard requirements that cost them customers.

Shed those anchors, GM. Do what your business sense directs you to do, understanding that Big Brother is himself drowning in debt and may never again be able to swim your way.

My God that last bolded part, loving laugh.

WSJ's editorial he mentioned is here but what you probably want is this.

# ? Mar 1, 2012 07:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 01:00

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Saint Sputnik posted:

Jay Ambrose still sucks

My God that last bolded part, loving laugh.

WSJ's editorial he mentioned is here but what you probably want is this.

What loving planet does this retard live on?

Asian car companies like Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai dominated the auto industry for the past decade or two because they were giving consumers the cars they actually wanted, fuel-efficient sedans, while American auto companies floundered in market share because they kept making gas-guzzling SUVs that people don't want and can't afford.

This seems pretty much just like the car version of conservatives bitching about energy-efficient lightbulbs. They twist and distort the facts to suit their arguments about how the big bad government is coercing businesses into being more efficient and offering better products and somehow hurting consumers and removing their choice to use shittier, less-efficient products.

# ? Mar 1, 2012 12:13

Shasta Orange Soda: Apr 25, 2007

If there's one complaint I have about my car, it's that it's entirely too fuel efficient. As an American, I demand the freedom to have to fill up my tank twice as often. It will go nicely with my freedom to be fired from my job for any reason, my freedom to be homeless, and my freedom to die of preventable illness due to lack of insurance.

# ? Mar 1, 2012 12:47

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Shasta Orange Soda posted:

If there's one complaint I have about my car, it's that it's entirely too fuel efficient. As an American, I demand the freedom to have to fill up my tank twice as often. It will go nicely with my freedom to be fired from my job for any reason, my freedom to be homeless, and my freedom to die of preventable illness due to lack of insurance.

What really gets to me are that the same types of people (i.e. conservatives)and frequently the same exact people, are criticizing Obama for high gas and energy prices AND for enacting new fuel standards or even just enforcing the energy standards (e.g. lightbulbs) enacted by Bush.

Seriously, how much cognitive dissonance does it take to say, "loving high gas prices and electric bills, thanks Obama!" AND "Screw you Obama, don't tell me to have more-efficient lightbulbs and cars!"

To contribute, this isn't an editorial, opinion piece, or letter to the editor, yet I can't help but share it because it really highlights the 1%-99% divide, providing some clarity and sanity in light of the anti-Occupy crap that's previously been quoted in this thread.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bonus-withdrawal-puts-bankers-malaise-050100338.html

Bonus Withdrawal Puts Bankers in "Malaise" posted:

Andrew Schiff was sitting in a traffic jam in California this month after giving a speech at an investment conference about gold. He turned off the satellite radio, got out of the car and screamed a profanity.

"I'm not Zen at all, and when I'm freaking out about the situation, where I'm stuck like a rat in a trap on a highway with no way to get out, it's very hard," Schiff, director of marketing for broker-dealer Euro Pacific Capital Inc., said in an interview.

Schiff, 46, is facing another kind of jam this year: Paid a lower bonus, he said the $350,000 he earns, enough to put him in the country's top 1 percent by income, doesn't cover his family's private-school tuition, a Kent, Connecticut, summer rental and the upgrade they would like from their 1,200-square- foot Brooklyn duplex.

"I feel stuck," Schiff said. "The New York that I wanted to have is still just beyond my reach."

The smaller bonus checks that hit accounts across the financial-services industry this month are making it difficult to maintain the lifestyles that Wall Street workers expect, according to interviews with bankers and their accountants, therapists, advisers and headhunters.

"People who don't have money don't understand the stress," said Alan Dlugash, a partner at accounting firm Marks Paneth & Shron LLP in New York who specializes in financial planning for the wealthy. "Could you imagine what it's like to say I got three kids in private school, I have to think about pulling them out? How do you do that?"

Bonus Caps

Facing a slump in revenue from investment banking and trading, Wall Street firms have trimmed 2011 discretionary pay. At Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) and Barclays Capital, the cuts were at least 25 percent. Morgan Stanley (MS) capped cash bonuses at $125,000, and Deutsche Bank AG (DBK) increased the percentage of deferred pay.

"It's a disaster," said Ilana Weinstein, chief executive officer of New York-based search firm IDW Group LLC. "The entire construct of compensation has changed."

Most people can only dream of Wall Street's shrinking paychecks. Median household income in 2010 was $49,445, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, lower than the previous year and less than 1 percent of Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein's $7 million restricted-stock bonus for 2011. The percentage of Americans living in poverty climbed to 15.1 percent, the highest in almost two decades.

House of Mirth

Comfortable New Yorkers assessing their discomforts is at least as old as Edith Wharton's 1905 novel "The House of Mirth," whose heroine Lily Bart said "the only way not to think about money is to have a great deal of it."

Wall Street headhunter Daniel Arbeeny said his "income has gone down tremendously." On a recent Sunday, he drove to Fairway Market in the Red Hook section of Brooklyn to buy discounted salmon for $5.99 a pound.

"They have a circular that they leave in front of the buildings in our neighborhood," said Arbeeny, 49, who lives in nearby Cobble Hill, namesake for a line of pebbled-leather Kate Spade handbags. "We sit there, and I look through all of them to find out where it's worth going."

Executive-search veterans who work with hedge funds and banks make about $500,000 in good years, said Arbeeny, managing principal at New York-based CMF Partners LLC, declining to discuss specifics about his own income. He said he no longer goes on annual ski trips to Whistler (WB), Tahoe or Aspen.

He reads other supermarket circulars to find good prices for his favorite cereal, Wheat Chex.

"Wow, did I waste a lot of money," Arbeeny said.

$17,000 on Dogs

Richard Scheiner, 58, a real-estate investor and hedge-fund manager, said most people on Wall Street don't save.

"When their means are cut, they're stuck," said Scheiner, whose New York-based hedge fund, Lane Gate Partners LLC, was down about 15 percent last year. "Not so much an issue for me and my wife because we've always saved."

Scheiner said he spends about $500 a month to park one of his two Audis in a garage and at least $7,500 a year each for memberships at the Trump National Golf Club in Westchester and a gun club in upstate New York. A labradoodle named Zelda and a rescued bichon frise, Duke, cost $17,000 a year, including food, health care, boarding and a daily dog-walker who charges $17 each per outing, he said.

Still, he sold two motorcycles he didn't use and called his Porsche 911 Carrera 4S Cabriolet "the Volkswagen of supercars." He and his wife have given more than $100,000 to a nonprofit she founded that promotes employment for people with Asperger syndrome, he said.

'Crushing Setback'

Scheiner pays $30,000 a year to be part of a New York-based peer-learning group for investors called Tiger 21. Founder Michael Sonnenfeldt said members, most with a net worth of at least $10 million, have been forced to "reexamine lots of assumptions about how grand their life would be."

While they aren't asking for sympathy, "at their level, in a different way but in the same way, the rug got pulled out," said Sonnenfeldt, 56. "For many people of wealth, they've had a crushing setback as well."

He described a feeling of "malaise" and a "paralysis that does not allow one to believe that generally things are going to get better," listing geopolitical hot spots such as Iran and low interest rates that have been "artificially manipulated" by the Federal Reserve.

Poly Prep

The malaise is shared by Schiff, the New York-based marketing director for Euro Pacific Capital, where his brother is CEO. His family rents the lower duplex of a brownstone in Cobble Hill, where his two children share a room. His 10-year- old daughter is a student at $32,000-a-year Poly Prep Country Day School in Brooklyn. His son, 7, will apply in a few years.

"I can't imagine what I'm going to do," Schiff said. "I'm crammed into 1,200 square feet. I don't have a dishwasher. We do all our dishes by hand."

[Also see: The Warren Buffett Haters Club]

He wants 1,800 square feet -- "a room for each kid, three bedrooms, maybe four," he said. "Imagine four bedrooms. You have the luxury of a guest room, how crazy is that?"

The family rents a three-bedroom summer house in Connecticut and will go there again this year for one month instead of four. Schiff said he brings home less than $200,000 after taxes, health-insurance and 401(k) contributions. The closing costs, renovation and down payment on one of the $1.5 million 17-foot-wide row houses nearby, what he called "the low rung on the brownstone ladder," would consume "every dime" of the family's savings, he said.

"I wouldn't want to whine," Schiff said. "All I want is the stuff that I always thought, growing up, that successful parents had."

Vegas, Ibiza

Hans Kullberg, 27, a trader at Wyckoff, New Jersey-based hedge fund Falcon Management Corp. who said he earns about $150,000 a year, is adjusting his sights, too.

After graduating from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 2006, he spent a $10,000 signing bonus from Citigroup Inc. (C) on a six-week trip to South America. He worked on an emerging-markets team at the bank that traded and marketed synthetic collateralized debt obligations.

His tastes for travel got "a little bit more lavish," he said. Kullberg, a triathlete, went to a bachelor party in Las Vegas in January after renting a four-bedroom ski cabin at Bear Mountain in California as a Christmas gift to his parents. He went to Ibiza for another bachelor party in August, spending $3,000 on a three-day trip, including a 15-minute ride from the airport that cost $100. In May he spent 10 days in India.

Wet T-Shirt

Earlier this month, a friend invited him on a trip to Mardi Gras in New Orleans. The friend was going to be a judge in a wet T-shirt contest, Kullberg said. He turned down the offer.

It wouldn't have been "the most financially prudent thing to do," he said. "I'm not totally sure about what I'm going to get paid this year, how I'm going to be doing."

He thinks more about the long term, he said, and plans to buy a foreclosed two-bedroom house in Charlotte, North Carolina, for $50,000 next month.

[Also see: Annoying Things Bosses Ask of Employees]

M. Todd Henderson, a University of Chicago law professor who's teaching a seminar on executive compensation, said the suffering is relative and real. He wrote two years ago that his family was "just getting by" on more than $250,000 a year, setting off what he called a firestorm of criticism.

"Yes, terminal diseases are worse than getting the flu," he said. "But you suffer when you get the flu."

'Have to Cut'

Dlugash, the accountant, said he's spending more time talking with Wall Street clients about their expenses.

"You don't necessarily have to cut that -- but if you don't cut that, then you've got to cut this," he said. "They say, �But I can't.' And I say, �But you must.'"

One banker who owes Dlugash $20,000 gained the accountant's sympathy despite his six-figure pay.

"If you're making $50,000 and your salary gets down to $40,000 and you have to cut, it's very severe to you," Dlugash said. "But it's no less severe to these other people with these big numbers."

A Wall Street executive who made 10 times that amount and now has declining income along with a divorce, private school tuitions and elderly parents also suffers, he said.

"These people never dreamed they'd be making $500,000 a year," he said, "and dreamed even less that they'd be broke."

I just want to spam this article every loving time I hear some conservative or libertarian complaining about welfare queens, socialists, Occupy, tax rates, etc.

# ? Mar 1, 2012 13:00

LP97S: Apr 25, 2008

Bruce Leroy posted:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bonus-withdrawal-puts-bankers-malaise-050100338.html

I just want to spam this article every loving time I hear some conservative or libertarian complaining about welfare queens, socialists, Occupy, tax rates, etc.

That's the kind of poo poo I would expect to hear in Sweden or Norway with their massive taxes from some rich idiot in his well to do social safety nets, not a country where 1 in 4 children face food insecurity and health care is an eroding privilege.

# ? Mar 1, 2012 13:40

Leon Einstein: Feb 6, 2012; I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.

I guess that article just shows that making a ton of money doesn't mean you automatically know how to spend within you means.

# ? Mar 1, 2012 15:39

zeroprime: Mar 25, 2006; Words go here.; Fun Shoe

I can sympathize with the fact that if you have financial obligations and cannot meet them due to a change in expected income it can be a source of very real stress, regardless of where you are on the financial ladder, but this is just absolute bullshit:

Bruce Leroy posted:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bonus-withdrawal-puts-bankers-malaise-050100338.html
"If you're making $50,000 and your salary gets down to $40,000 and you have to cut, it's very severe to you," Dlugash said. "But it's no less severe to these other people with these big numbers."

A goddamn accountant and he's so disconnected from reality that the concept of marginal utility escapes him? And these are people handling investments. The thought, that people responsible for investing and saving money are this inept at personal accounting, is both scary and enlightening.

# ? Mar 1, 2012 16:16

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

This isn't actually an editorial but that article about the hard times of the banking class makes me think of the infamous memo that Larry Summes signed off on in 1991. I guess you could call this an opinion piece of sorts.

quote:

DATE: December 12, 1991
TO: Distribution
FR: Lawrence H. Summers
Subject: GEP

'Dirty' Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn't the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the LDCs [Least Developed Countries]? I can think of three reasons:

1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I've always thought that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate[sic] cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate[sic] cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is 200 per thousand. Also, much of the concern over industrial atmosphere discharge is about visibility impairing particulates. These discharges may have very little direct health impact. Clearly trade in goods that embody aesthetic pollution concerns could be welfare enhancing. While production is mobile the consumption of pretty air is a non-tradable.

The problem with the arguments against all of these proposals for more pollution in LDCs (intrinsic rights to certain goods, moral reasons, social concerns, lack of adequate markets, etc.) could be turned around and used more or less effectively against every Bank proposal for liberalization.
�Lawrence Summers

Summers claimed it was a sarcastic and said it had been doctored to make the World Bank look bad. If that's true they did a great job because the memo is indistinguishable from an actual neoclassical economic position. Plenty of economists have taken him seriously and pointed out that the logic is entirely consistent with neoclassical assumptions.

It is barely an exaggeration to say that neoclassical economics dictate that a rich person's life and welfare is more valuable than a poor person's. From that perspective, its hardly a leap to claim that going from 50 to 40 grand per year is no worse than having to take your kids out of their ritzy Manhattan private school.

# ? Mar 1, 2012 18:31

Shasta Orange Soda: Apr 25, 2007

Here's a terrible and terribly pointless thing Yahoo News decided to throw in right alongside the regular news stories.

quote:

At this point in an election season, a campaign's every utterance shimmers with significance. At the same time, this time around, the campaigns have embraced social media. And the social networks, like whiskey, promote disinhibition. (Just ask Anthony Weiner.) Services like Twitter, Facebook and, more recently, the photo-sharing site Pinterest require that we let our guard down. They also mercilessly sideline participants who seem too repressed or officious.

Perhaps none of that crossed Ann Romney's mind when, on joining Pinterest last week, she added the gorgeous Anna Karenina�a heart-shattering Russian work from the 1870s that both Dostoevsky and Nabokov believed was flawless�to her two-entry list of "Books Worth Reading." (The other entry is The Forgotten Garden by Kate Morton.) Yet in the kind of book-club circles that also use Pinterest, a passion for Anna Karenina usually signals a romantic disposition. It sometimes make you seem like you're open to an extramarital affair.

To illustrate her choice, Romney posted an image of the makeshift gold-and-crimson digital cover of the public-domain edition of the novel. "One of my favorites," she wrote.

"She does a lot of it herself," Zac Moffatt, the digital director of the Romney campaign told me, explaining Ann's Pinterest choices. "She'll send us stuff like 'Here's a recipe.' We might post things. But those are her recipes. It's all her choices."

I asked about Anna Karenina. "That I can't speak to," Moffatt said.

Ann's presence on the female-dominated site, which she also used to feature family photos and down-home recipes, was probably an attempt simply to humanize and feminize her husband's campaign. She also was positioned as the tech-savvy member of the couple. On February 21, Mitt Romney tweeted, "Ann's way ahead of me on this one � check out her Pinterest page here pinterest/annromney/."

But the way Romney's private literary canon then richocheted around the Internet is an object lesson in the anarchy that characterizes online communication. It's now virtually impossible for a campaign to follow the imperative to use social media while also staying�as the hopeful phrase used to go�"on message."

Off-off-message is more like it.

Posting stuff on Pinterest�or on Twitter or Instagram�is less like issuing a carefully crafted statement and more like doing a spontaneous Lana del Rey impression at a White House reception. It feels expressive and modern, but it's going to be judged and interpreted in ways no handler can anticipate or control.

Launched in beta one year ago by Ben Silbermann of West Des Moines, Iowa, Pinterest is a hypertrophic photo-sharing site that maintains intimate ties with Twitter and Facebook. Now with some 11 million active users, Pinterest has been boasting that it acquired 10 million users faster than any social site in Interest history.

Pinterest users create collages of digital artifacts from the Internet or from their private collections. The collages are called boards. Early jokes about Pinterest called it corny, and imagined all the posts to include bunnies and sunbeams. But venture capital of the kind Pinterest attracted doesn't follow mere corniness. From the start, Pinterest boards have disproportionately shown images of coveted consumer goods, and they drive lanes and lanes of lucrative traffic to ecommerce sites. This phenomenon (strongly encouraged by Pinterest) is a large part of what won the company an eye-popping valuation of $200 million from Andreesen Horowitz last fall.

People joining Pinterest often get drawn into the excitement of quick and florid self-expression followed by instant feedback. Still, Ann Romney's move was a little stunning. Mitt Romney's devoted wife�Mormon convert, mother of five, would-be first lady of the United States�champions a chronicle of � an open marriage?

quote:
The Karenins, husband and wife, continued living in the same house, met every day, but were complete strangers to one another. Aleksey Aleksandrovich made it a rule to see his wife every day, so that the servants might have no grounds for suppositions, but avoided dining at home. Vronsky was never at Aleksey Aleksandrovich's house, but Anna saw him away from home, and her husband was aware of it.

Let's just say the medium made her do it. Pinterest has been described as "crack for women" (although isn't crack crack for women?). Keeping scrapbooks, chocked with mementoes and photos and locks of Ringo Starr's hair, has long been condescended to as a pastime of moms and grandmas, who paste and caption to wile away their waning years on breaks from Sudoku.

But making scrapbooks�or "pinboards," as they're called on Pinterest, since they're on public view�is not always so pathetic. Instead, scrapbooks are a form of highly impressionistic, multimedia autobiography that come with a point-of-view that can be tart, critical, nostalgic and highly biased. People who make scrapbooks are known to snip black sheep out of family photos; to select only the scraps that bolster their version of life's dramas; to smuggle in allusions to secret animosities and secret romances. These scrapbooks survive, and are used to tell family stories. That's no small victory for the authors. Just as history belongs to the victors, family history may belong to the scrapbookers.

In short, women on crack of any kind may not be on their most selfless behavior. They may be emotional. They may be grandiose.

And because Pinterest encourages impressionism and allusiveness and nonverbal womanly connectivity, Romney ended up dipping into meanings she couldn't have intended.

Shouldn't, for one, a political wife--who this very week said maybe she should "do all the talking" for her husband's campaign--be naming American novels as her favorites? With wholesome themes like "stay married to that government tool Karenin, even if he makes you feel dead inside"? It's just an idea.

Anna Karenina did, however, win Ann Romney some admirers. Among the Facebook comments on Romney's "Anna Karenina" endorsement came this one, by Aparna Mukherjee. "There *is* something pleasingly surprising (subversive?) about a would-be first lady choosing a book that centers on a dissatisfied aristocratic wife committing adultery, leaving her high-ranking govt official husband before inevitable tragic end."

Surprising indeed! Of course, we could all be overthinking this. As Mukherjee concluded, "Or maybe she hasn't read it."

Virginia Heffernan is the national correspondent for Yahoo News. Her column, "Machine Politics," explores the intersection of technology and the 2012 election.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/why-did-ann-romney-put-anna-karenina-her-185714306.html

# ? Mar 1, 2012 21:07

Dr. Tough: Oct 22, 2007

quote:

A Whiff of Privatization

Three decades ago, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher implemented a policy called �privatization� to rejuvenate the moribund economy of the United Kingdom.

Like the United States today, the cost of a too-large government was sapping the vitality of the U.K.�s economy. The private sector was staggering under the heavy tax burden needed to fund the public sector. In fact, despite very high tax rates, taxation could not keep up with government spending, so the Bank of England (the U.K.�s central bank) created more money (what we euphemistically call �quantitative easing� today) to make up the difference.

Prime Minister Thatcher�s solution to this untenable situation was brilliant and elegantly simple: She decided to divest the government of its nationalized businesses by selling them to private investors�i.e., privatization. This shrank the budget deficit dramatically, first, by shrinking expenditures, since the government would no longer have to fund those businesses, and second, by increasing revenue. Revenue was increased both immediately, via the price paid by private investors for government assets, and on an ongoing basis, as private firms and their employees became net taxpayers.

A whiff of privatization is in the air here in the United States, and at the federal level. (Privatization has been widely practiced by American states and local governments during the past two decades.) A bill called the Civilian Property Realignment Act (H.R. 1734) is �in play� in the House of Representatives. Its objective, according to Congressman Mike Kelly�s press release, is to �save billions of taxpayer dollars by selling or redeveloping high value federal properties, consolidating federal space, maximizing the utilization rates of space, and streamlining the disposal of unneeded assets ... If passed into law, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that H.R. 1734 could generate $15 billion in revenue from property sales, in addition to the billions more generated from future cost avoidance from simply owning less property.�

Given the federal government�s gargantuan debt and deficits, H.R. 1734 should be a no-brainer, a slam-dunk. One would expect any member of Congress who professes any concern for fiscal responsibility to vote for this bill. Nevertheless, the bill is flawed.

Selling properties outright is a great idea, but is �redeveloping ... properties and consolidating ... space� a great idea? Sorry, but I have no confidence in Washington�s ability to manage resources efficiently. Just sell the stuff and let private-sector experts in property management figure out how to make economic use of those properties.

Hopefully, H.R. 1734 would be a first step in a much larger privatization process. While the United States doesn�t have a large inventory of nationalized industries to privatize like the U.K. did in the �80s, there are many assets that Uncle Sam could sell to the private sector to start reducing the national debt.

First, Uncle Sam could divest itself of vast swaths of federally owned land. Surely, the government needs nowhere near the 30 percent of our national territory that it owns.
Second, privatize AmTrak; privatize the Post Office and rescind its monopoly privilege; and completely privatize government-sponsored enterprises, so the taxpayer doesn�t get stuck with any more Fannies and Freddies.

Third, privatize the Government Printing Office and any other federal agency or office that unfairly competes with unsubsidized private companies.

Fourth, privatize any government activity that profits private businesses: energy research, the Export-Import Bank, the advertising programs in the Department of Commerce, etc. At a time when many large American corporations are sitting on record amounts of cash, we don�t need to increase the national debt to subsidize them.

Fifth, whether you can find a bidder or not, quit funding the PR and grant-bestowing desks in federal agencies. Their main function often is to use our tax dollars to promote their own expansion. If federal employees want to toot their own horn or give money to non-profits who will do their lobbying for them, let them do it on their dollar, not ours.

Finally, don�t waste time trying to reform bureaucracies or make them more efficient. Only the profit-and-loss calculus in competitive markets can do that. Put any federal agency on the block if it is performing a function that conceivably could earn a profit, and sell it to the highest bidder. (If there are no bidders, you�re looking at an economically unviable operation, so axe it � unless our lives depend on it.) If an agency isn�t fulfilling its purpose, and its primary function seems to be to provide well-paying jobs to otherwise unemployable holders of undergraduate and law degrees, then just pull the plug and abolish it.

Let�s hope that the whiff of privatization leads to far more than selling a few unused properties, and that there�s real movement toward shrinking the federal government by privatizing many of its properties and activities.

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and fellow for economic and social policy with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City College.

Thatcherism, the cure for America's economy.

# ? Mar 1, 2012 22:04

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Dr. Tough posted:

Thatcherism, the cure for America's economy.

My favorite part of this kind of conservative/libertarian privatization talk is when they use the internet. They talk about how great the free market is and how it would give us the same or better stuff than the government, but they are using a communication method only possible via government development and subsidization. The internet would really not exist as it is today without the government, as private businesses were refusing to invest in the fledgling internet which they believed was an unprofitable boondoggle.

25 People Who Think President Obama Killed Andrew Breitbart

Bruce Leroy fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Mar 2, 2012

# ? Mar 2, 2012 00:55

Dr. Tough: Oct 22, 2007

Bruce Leroy posted:

25 People Who Think President Obama Killed Andrew Breitbart

The avatars are honestly the best part of that. Also I forgot to include a picture of the guy that wrote the editorial that I posted:

Why yes I would trust this man's advice on economics, why do you ask?

# ? Mar 2, 2012 19:06

Craptacular!: Jul 9, 2001; Fuck the DH

I realize the online comments file attached to newspaper articles is a little too lowbrow even for this thread, but I don't think I've ever seen racism so casual-like.

In a discussion about Wal-Mart coming to Miami community...

Commenter 1: In "dark" areas, another words.

Commenter 2: What do you mean by "dark areas"?

Commenter 3: Don't pay any attention to the dummy. She even wrote "another words" instead of "in other words". Clearly she is clinically retarded -- or recently climbed off of a raft.

# ? Mar 4, 2012 16:05

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Helsing posted:

Honestly if I were pro-life I'm sure I'd be frustrated at the clever sloganeering lying behind the term "pro-choice". I'm sure that the vaguely progressive connotation the word holds is part of why the pro-abortion movement adopted it so widely.

The real issue with that column is that he's begging the question. The reason a pro-choice person is comfortable with abortion is because they don't think the fetus is a living organism. Thus it has no rights. In a case where there aren't two living entities with competing claims to a right, there's no reason not to accept a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. Hence if you don't think that the fetus is a person then of course the only relevant question is what you are personally choosing to do with your body.

Except you would also have to be blind about what YOUR term implies about the other side.

Being called Anti-Choice is not only accurate (They don't want it to be a choice) but also a lot better than being called Anti-Life, which isn't accurate (They don't want ALL babies aborted).

# ? Mar 5, 2012 01:48

Amarkov: Jun 21, 2010

Taerkar posted:

Except you would also have to be blind about what YOUR term implies about the other side.

Being called Anti-Choice is not only accurate (They don't want it to be a choice) but also a lot better than being called Anti-Life, which isn't accurate (They don't want ALL babies aborted).

I've definitely met people who, for this reason, prefer to identify as anti-abortion.

# ? Mar 5, 2012 01:54

panascope: Mar 26, 2005

This is the first time a letter to the editor has made me angry enough to write a response.

posted:

�Zero nutritional value�
Liberalism is like a tasty hot fudge sundae. It has zero nutritional value, but feels good. The typical Longview/Kelso democrat is woefully misinformed and is drawn to the �D� when voting like a moth to a flame.
After speaking to yet another misinformed liberal, educating them as to why PUD rates are so high, (you mindless people voted for I-937, �feel good� legislation) and as to why gasoline is so high, (the Obama administration has vetoed the Keystone pipeline and Energy Secretary Steven Chu has admitted that it is not the Obama administration�s policy to lower gas prices), they still don�t get it and cannot connect the dots but whine at the high fuel costs.
We in this nation are doomed if we cannot get these people to think. Any snake oil salesman can take advantage of these dumb people, which Obama has done.

First, you have to love that he rants about socialism being bad and liberals being stupid but then complains that the Obama Administration hasn't done enough to fix fuel prices. My specific rebuttal to the Keystone Pipeline veto is going to point out that 1)oil is sold on the market and not sequestered for American use, 2)if we tried to sell the oil at a lower rate to drive down the market (as if we'd produce enough in the first place to effect market prices), it would just be purchased by outside entities and resold at a higher price, and 3)deregulation with regards to speculation under the H.W. Bush administration has led to commodities prices skyrocketing in general, and that during the financial collapse the commodities bubble collapsed as well, proving that the current price of oil has more to do with speculators than it does with supply.

Any thoughts on this? I've only got 175 words so I can't add too much more but I think I hit all the salient points.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 16:44

Kro-Bar: Jul 24, 2004; USPOL May

panascope posted:

This is the first time a letter to the editor has made me angry enough to write a response.

First, you have to love that he rants about socialism being bad and liberals being stupid but then complains that the Obama Administration hasn't done enough to fix fuel prices. My specific rebuttal to the Keystone Pipeline veto is going to point out that 1)oil is sold on the market and not sequestered for American use, 2)if we tried to sell the oil at a lower rate to drive down the market (as if we'd produce enough in the first place to effect market prices), it would just be purchased by outside entities and resold at a higher price, and 3)deregulation with regards to speculation under the H.W. Bush administration has led to commodities prices skyrocketing in general, and that during the financial collapse the commodities bubble collapsed as well, proving that the current price of oil has more to do with speculators than it does with supply.

Any thoughts on this? I've only got 175 words so I can't add too much more but I think I hit all the salient points.

Point out that higher gas prices are the free market in effect. Why does he want big government intervention into the free market?

# ? Mar 6, 2012 16:57

Handsome Ralph: Sep 3, 2004; Oh boy, posting!
That's where I'm a Viking!

Hey look, an opinion piece on Iran by none other than Mitt Romney!

A loving idiot on foreign affairs AKA Mitt Romney posted:

Beginning Nov. 4, 1979 , dozens of U.S. diplomats were held hostage by Iranian Islamic revolutionaries for 444 days while America�s feckless president, Jimmy Carter, fretted in the White House. Running for the presidency against Carter the next year, Ronald Reagan made it crystal clear that the Iranians would pay a very stiff price for continuing their criminal behavior. On Jan. 20, 1981, in the hour that Reagan was sworn into office, Iran released the hostages. The Iranians well understood that Reagan was serious about turning words into action in a way that Jimmy Carter never was.

America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake. The same Islamic fanatics who took our diplomats hostage are racing to build a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama, America�s most feckless president since Carter, has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets in the White House, the Iranians are making rapid progress toward obtaining the most destructive weapons in the history of the world.

The gravity of this development cannot be overstated. For three decades now, the ayatollahs running Iran have sponsored terrorism around the world. If we�ve learned anything from Sept. 11, 2001, it is that terrorism in the nuclear age holds nightmarish possibilities for horror on a mass scale.

What�s more, Iran�s leaders openly call for the annihilation of the state of Israel. Should they acquire the means to carry out this inhuman objective, the Middle East will become a nuclear tinderbox overnight. The perils for Israel, for our other allies and for our own forces in the region will become unthinkable.

The United States cannot afford to let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Yet under Barack Obama, that is the course we are on.

As president, I would move America in a different direction.

The overall rubric of my foreign policy will be the same as Ronald Reagan�s: namely, �peace through strength.� Like Reagan, I have put forward a comprehensive plan to rebuild American might and equip our soldiers with the weapons they need to prevail in any conflict. By increasing our annual naval shipbuilding rate from nine to 15, I intend to restore our position so that our Navy is an unchallengeable power on the high seas. Just as Reagan sought to defend the United States from Soviet weapons with his Strategic Defense Initiative, I will press forward with ballistic missile defense systems to ensure that Iranian and North Korean missiles cannot threaten us or our allies.

As for Iran in particular, I will take every measure necessary to check the evil regime of the ayatollahs. Until Iran ceases its nuclear-bomb program, I will press for ever-tightening sanctions, acting with other countries if we can but alone if we must. I will speak out on behalf of the cause of democracy in Iran and support Iranian dissidents who are fighting for their freedom. I will make clear that America�s commitment to Israel�s security and survival is absolute. I will demonstrate our commitment to the world by making Jerusalem the destination of my first foreign trip.

Most important, I will buttress my diplomacy with a military option that will persuade the ayatollahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Only when they understand that at the end of that road lies not nuclear weapons but ruin will there be a real chance for a peaceful resolution.

My plan includes restoring the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. It also includes increasing military assistance to Israel and improved coordination with all of our allies in the area.

We can�t afford to wait much longer, and we certainly can�t afford to wait through four more years of an Obama administration. By then it will be far too late. If the Iranians are permitted to get the bomb, the consequences will be as uncontrollable as they are horrendous. My foreign policy plan to avert this catastrophe is plain: Either the ayatollahs will get the message, or they will learn some very painful lessons about the meaning of American resolve.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-how-i-would-check-irans-nuclear-ambition/2012/03/05/gIQAneYItR_story.html?tid=pm_pop

# ? Mar 6, 2012 23:08

zeroprime: Mar 25, 2006; Words go here.; Fun Shoe

Wait, so is he openly admitting that the Reagan administration supplied terrorists with weapons, and that he plans to do the same?

# ? Mar 6, 2012 23:17

Handsome Ralph: Sep 3, 2004; Oh boy, posting!
That's where I'm a Viking!

zeroprime posted:

Wait, so is he openly admitting that the Reagan administration supplied terrorists with weapons, and that he plans to do the same?

Reagan was so serious about turning his words into action that he sent over some missiles for the Iranians to try out first.

# ? Mar 6, 2012 23:19

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Boondock Saint posted:

Hey look, an opinion piece on Iran by none other than Mitt Romney!

A loving idiot on foreign affairs AKA Mitt Romney posted:
The gravity of this development cannot be overstated. For three decades now, the ayatollahs running Iran have sponsored terrorism around the world. If we�ve learned anything from Sept. 11, 2001, it is that terrorism in the nuclear age holds nightmarish possibilities for horror on a mass scale.

The gently caress? 9/11 didn't have anything to do with nukes or Iran. poo poo, it was just a case of flying really big planes into buildings, that's pre-"nuclear age" technology.

A loving idiot on foreign affairs AKA Mitt Romney posted:

Like Reagan, I have put forward a comprehensive plan to rebuild American might and equip our soldiers with the weapons they need to prevail in any conflict. By increasing our annual naval shipbuilding rate from nine to 15, I intend to restore our position so that our Navy is an unchallengeable power on the high seas.

The US not only spends more on military expenditures than any other nation in the world, but we actually spend more than the next 14 combined

Our navy already is unchallengable. Russia and China, the nations with the second and third largest military expenditures, have a whopping one aircraft carrier each compared to the US' 11 carriers. Spending more on shipbuilding (or any other area of the military)isn't really going to improve our place as the most dominant military power in the world. More importantly, simply spending more money isn't an actual plan, as it isn't even correlated with military success, let alone causative. Just look at how a bunch of illiterate Iraqis and Afghanis with Soviet-era weapons have been kicking our asses for the past decade.

A loving idiot on foreign affairs AKA Mitt Romney posted:

Just as Reagan sought to defend the United States from Soviet weapons with his Strategic Defense Initiative, I will press forward with ballistic missile defense systems to ensure that Iranian and North Korean missiles cannot threaten us or our allies.

Does he mean the SDI and "Star Wars" that were the only sticking point between us and complete Soviet nuclear disarmament? Gorbachev was willing to completely disarm the Soviet Union's nuclear capabilities with the US' own disarmament if the US would just end the "Star Wars"/SDI boondoggle, but Reagan botched the entire agreement with his idiocy and senility.

Does Romney mean the SDI that actual scientists (e.g. the American Physical Society) deemed physically impossible at the time and highly improbable even within the next decade, meaning that Reagan purposely gave up the greatest opportunity to advance peace and global security in decades for something that wasn't scientifically tenable?

Seriously, Reagan was an absolutely awful president and I'm loving sick of historical revision that paints him as some kind of great leader, especially since he literally committed treason.

# ? Mar 7, 2012 03:13

BlitzkriegOfColour: Aug 22, 2010

Bruce Leroy posted:

Just look at how a bunch of illiterate Iraqis and Afghanis with Soviet-era weapons have been kicking our asses for the past decade.

I'm pretty sure Iraq had really rather good literacy rates before US citizens bombed all their schools - probably better than the USA has today, in fact. If you want to complain about revisionism, physician heal thyself. It's no better than the right-wingers who proclaim themselves the champions of Iraqi women whilst murdering and raping them via their military full of rapist-murderers and bombing the institutions which would preserve the rights of women in Iraq. FFS, pre-Gulf War, there was an active feminist movement in Iraq, condoned and funded by Saddam Hussein's government.

# ? Mar 7, 2012 03:26

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

I'm pretty sure Iraq had really rather good literacy rates before US citizens bombed all their schools - probably better than the USA has today, in fact. If you want to complain about revisionism, physician heal thyself. It's no better than the right-wingers who proclaim themselves the champions of Iraqi women whilst murdering and raping them via their military full of rapist-murderers and bombing the institutions which would preserve the rights of women in Iraq. FFS, pre-Gulf War, there was an active feminist movement in Iraq, condoned and funded by Saddam Hussein's government.

What is your source for such a claim?

I was using this Frontline source, which cites:

quote:

Sources: Middle East Review World of Information; CIA World FactBook, Jan. 2002; U.S. State Department, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Dec. 2001; U.N. Human Development Report; UNICEF; UNESCO; Amnesty International; U.N. Special Rapporteur

These sources are from before the Iraq War began in 2003 and the article is dated November 2002, so let's see what they have to say about pre-war Iraqi literacy:

Frontline/World: Truth and Lies in Baghdad posted:

People

An Iraqi proverb says, "Two Iraqis, three sects," and in Iraq, Islam divides its people, with Sunni Arabs living in the triangle between Baghdad, Mosul and the Syrian border, Shia Muslims living in southern Iraq between Baghdad and Basra, and the Kurds living in the mountains along the Iranian and Turkish borders and the plains below. Historically, Iraq was divided into tribal federations, and near autonomous cities, even within cities, religious and tribal divisions go deep.

Population: 24,001,816

Ethnic groups: Arab, 75%; Kurd, 15% to 20%; Turkman, Assyrian and others, less than 5%

Religions: Shia Muslim, 60%; Sunni Muslim, 35%; Christian, 5%; Jewish and Yezidi, less than 1%

Languages: Arabic, Kurdish, Assyrian, Armenian

Education: Literacy rate, 58%; school enrollment, 49%. In 1989, school enrollment in Iraq was higher than the average rate for all developing countries, but over the last decade, the number of elementary school dropouts has increased by more than 30 percent.

Work force: 4.4 million (1989 estimate)

Health: Iraq's infant mortality rate is about 58 deaths per 1,000. In the heavily populated southern and central regions of Iraq, children under age 5 are dying at more than twice the rateof 10 years ago.

Life expectancy: 67 years

So, I'm betting that there is/was pretty good chance that Iraqi insurgents are/were illiterate.

# ? Mar 7, 2012 04:05

The Dark One: Aug 19, 2005; I'm your friend and I'm not going to just stand by and let you do this!

It would be interesting to see how that rate changed between the two Gulf wars. The Frontline article mentioned that child mortality had increased significantly, so it's probably safe to say that there was some level of decline in the education they were getting.

# ? Mar 7, 2012 04:18

BlitzkriegOfColour: Aug 22, 2010

Bruce Leroy posted:

What is your source for such a claim?

I was using this Frontline source, which cites:

These sources are from before the Iraq War began in 2003 and the article is dated November 2002, so let's see what they have to say about pre-war Iraqi literacy:

So, I'm betting that there is/was pretty good chance that Iraqi insurgents are/were illiterate.

The Iraq war began in 1989 or thereabouts. I can't remember exactly when because I was only a small child. Hostilities died down for about a decade, then resumed.

Also: Frontline? Are you loving serious?

# ? Mar 7, 2012 09:35

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

The Iraq war began in 1989 or thereabouts. I can't remember exactly when because I was only a small child. Hostilities died down for about a decade, then resumed.

Also: Frontline? Are you loving serious?

First of all, I was quite obviously and explicitly talking about the most recent war in Iraq, not the one that happened 20 years ago. I was talking about the Iraqis who have been fighting against the US for the past decade, not the Iraqis who fought 20 years ago, though there is likely to be at least some overlap between the two.

If you are going to (somewhat) change the subject, you are going to have to be more explicit about which war in the Persian Gulf you are referencing.

Secondly, Frontline is an acceptable source, it's not like I used Free Republic or Democratic Underground, but more importantly, all of the sources used are reputable and verifiable, including the US State Department, the UN Human Development Report, UNICEF, UNESCO, and Amnesty International.

The Dark One posted:

It would be interesting to see how that rate changed between the two Gulf wars. The Frontline article mentioned that child mortality had increased significantly, so it's probably safe to say that there was some level of decline in the education they were getting.

Yeah, it would be interesting to get more specifics on that, but it was the information relevant to what I was talking about. For some reason, Brown Blitzkrieg started talking about Gulf War I, when it was pretty obvious I was talking about Gulf War II.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised after looking at his rap sheet, which includes gems like:

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

I recently stopped being an organ donor in case a white Australian lives because of my donation. Death to whites who would withhold sovereignty from the true owners of this land, but especially death to reactionary whites who make this place unbearable for me to live in, and are forcing me to emigrate as soon as I have the money saved.

or his earlier posts in this very thread:

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

but you can hardly say Stalin killed millions of people. Millions of Nazis, yes,

quote:

King Dopplepopolos posted:
Purges are necessary as part of the great work. I didn't really want to get into this, but how is one supposed to lead the common man to enlightenment when reactionaries full of greed and lust for the status quo are equipped to fight progress?

As for the policy argument, can anyone show me a primary source stating that the famine was intentional?

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:
Purges are necessary as part of the great work. I didn't really want to get into this, but how is one supposed to lead the common man to enlightenment when reactionaries full of greed and lust for the status quo are equipped to fight progress?

As for the policy argument, can anyone show me a primary source stating that the famine was intentional?

# ? Mar 7, 2012 11:28

BlitzkriegOfColour: Aug 22, 2010

Bruce Leroy posted:

First of all, I was quite obviously and explicitly talking about the most recent war in Iraq, not the one that happened 20 years ago. I was talking about the Iraqis who have been fighting against the US for the past decade, not the Iraqis who fought 20 years ago, though there is likely to be at least some overlap between the two.

If you are going to (somewhat) change the subject, you are going to have to be more explicit about which war in the Persian Gulf you are referencing.

Secondly, Frontline is an acceptable source, it's not like I used Free Republic or Democratic Underground, but more importantly, all of the sources used are reputable and verifiable, including the US State Department, the UN Human Development Report, UNICEF, UNESCO, and Amnesty International.

Yeah, it would be interesting to get more specifics on that, but it was the information relevant to what I was talking about. For some reason, Brown Blitzkrieg started talking about Gulf War I, when it was pretty obvious I was talking about Gulf War II.

First of all, it's just one long war, there really shouldn't be a pretence that it ever let up. More Iraqis died from starvation than were killed in the first shooting part of this monstrous war of aggression.

You're talking about a gap of 14 years, not even a generation. Was it mostly fourteen year olds who were fighting against American oppressors?

Hey, TV reporters are famous for their accuracy and integrity, so I won't ever mistrust you again.

But even if they are actually illiterate, what's the point of saying this? What does it do other than strip noble freedom fighters of their dignity by pointing out their failures

# ? Mar 7, 2012 12:20

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

Brown Blitzkrieg posted:

First of all, it's just one long war, there really shouldn't be a pretence that it ever let up. More Iraqis died from starvation than were killed in the first shooting part of this monstrous war of aggression.

You're talking about a gap of 14 years, not even a generation. Was it mostly fourteen year olds who were fighting against American oppressors?

Hey, TV reporters are famous for their accuracy and integrity, so I won't ever mistrust you again.

But even if they are actually illiterate, what's the point of saying this? What does it do other than strip noble freedom fighters of their dignity by pointing out their failures

Seriously, you are so loving dumb that you rival the stupidity of the editorialists and letter writers we are making fun of in this thread.

# ? Mar 7, 2012 13:10

Kro-Bar: Jul 24, 2004; USPOL May

Here's more horribleness about abortion from my college paper.

Columnist's view on abortion is misguided

quote:

In a previous column, Jonathan Brooks compared abortion to the genocide of millions of Jews during the Holocaust.
In his most recent, he compares abortion to the enslavement of an entire race of people, subjugated at the whim of irresponsible women wishing to rid themselves of a problem.
I would like to stress again how ludicrous these analogies are and that Mr. Brooks is highly sensationalizing the issue without ever attempting to understand the complicated emotional and political ramifications that come with this sensitive topic.
Pro-abortion is a term favored by anti-abortionists who, like Mr. Brooks, seek to portray women as callous individuals wanting to "rid themselves of an unwanted" person.
Mr. Brooks states, "The use of the term pro-choice is yet another ambiguous euphemism used to manipulate an argument in favor of the pro-abortion side. Pro-abortion means in favor of abortion."
This is absolutely incorrect. The term pro-choice is unquestionably clear in its intentions.
Those adhering to the label "pro-choice" fight for women to be able to make their own choices regarding personal medical decisions, without the influence of any government or religious official.
Regardless of a person's moral opinion on abortion, or any other medical procedure, it is a woman's choice to have the procedure. This decision is often made after receiving medical advice from her doctor, not legislator.
Of the 92 percent abortion rate found by the Guttmacher Institute study that Mr. Brooks mentions, 75 percent of those women cited various economic or emotional reasons for choosing not to have a child.
These are very real concerns and should not be extrapolated as simple "convenience." A couple who cannot afford a child right now (or another child) should be able to choose what decision best fits their economic situation.
A couple who does not have health insurance and cannot afford the medical expenses which labor and delivery incur might choose to delay their family planning.
A woman who is in an abusive relationship and does not want to introduce a child into that environment should have the right not to do so without being labeled a murderer.
A pre-teen who became pregnant the first time she was coerced into sex is clearly not ready for the emotional and physical ramifications pregnancy has on her still-developing psyche and body.
Are we to force these people to have children against their will?
The same study found that 61 percent of women having abortions already have at least one child.
That statistic rose to 72 percent in every year since 2008, because of the recession and other financial hardships.
The problem here clearly is not, as Mr. Brooks claims, lifestyle convenience for irresponsible 20-somethings.
It is instead a question of economic and emotional reality faced by women and couples who are often already parents.
Mr. Brooks' assertion that reproductive decisions are somehow comparable to slavery is inflammatory rhetoric, but may hold some truth.
Forcing a woman to carry to term a pregnancy she does not want is a type of emotional and physical enslavement.
If we take away a woman's right to choose how and when she fosters her family, we reduce women to second-class citizens.
As suggested in my previous letter, anti-abortionists should be taking action if they feel so strongly against the procedure.
I challenge Mr. Brooks to become an advocate for adequate sex education for our teens and to promote easy access to birth control options so that unwanted pregnancies and abortions are reduced.

Pretty reasonable, right? Uses numbers and what-not. How could Jonathan Brooks not concede his ridiculous bullshit point a little bit?

Oh, he'll just...ignore the content of that letter completely. :mad:

Standing up for the rights of unborn fetuses

quote:

The only non-violent form of abortion is performed using medications, usually mifepristone. However, these only account for 17 percent of abortions in the USA. The remainder of abortions are likely performed by suction or curettage.
Notice Ms. Vinyard doesn't explain how embryonic tissue is removed from a woman's body. She uses the euphemistic phrase "remove embryonic tissue from a woman's uterus."
Does the physician gently remove the child? No, the child is removed through surgical force. Trying to reduce the violence perpetuated upon an innocent being to a surgical operation shows the smoke screen typical to abortion advocates.
These savage mutilations performed on living human beings should not be euphemistically referred to as merely "medical procedures." Nor does the fact that abortions are performed in a sanitary room by qualified physicians make the act of abortion any nicer for the baby.
More than half of abortions do occur in the first trimester, or before 12 weeks. What is the point of bringing this statistic up? It does not make abortion any more appealing or justifiable.
At five weeks, the heart, brain, and spinal cord develop. Within six weeks, the baby has a regular heartbeat, cranial nerves and eyes begin developing. At eight weeks, the baby's fingers are formed. By 12 weeks, the baby's genitalia are formed, and he or she can curl her fingers. The common period of abortion occurs during these defining stages of humanity.
There is a glaring contradiction brought about by the existence of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004, which allows the murderer of a pregnant woman to be charged with two murders despite the age of the developing child. The Act, however, does contain a convenient exemption for abortion.
Apparently, under federal law, an unborn baby is only recognized as a person after they have been murdered by someone other than a licensed physician without the woman's permission. A wanted baby has the right to live, but an unwanted child does not.
The people I quoted are not unique or bad examples as Ms. Vinyard would wish to portray. She may not hold those views, but that does not mean others do not.
Carl Sagan, the acclaimed astrophysicist, made the comparison in a Parade article in 1990 among the developmental stages of a human and amphibians, pigs and primates. It is not a unique claim among those who are not opposed to abortion.
Did not Ms. Vinyard herself use the euphemism "embryonic tissue" to describe a human embryo? How is her euphemism any different from that of the man calling a baby "human tissue?"
After more than six million abortions a year, we can no longer be complacent. To face the consequences of abortion would be to look in the mirror and see justification for atrocity.
Abortion is the systematic denial of basic human rights to a group of humans who are de-prioritized only because of their inconvenience.

gently caress this guy so much. He goes into every one of his columns with the presupposition that fetus=baby. He never even comes close to addressing that his point-of-attack is so horrendously flawed. And he never once addresses the issue of women's rights. :argh:

# ? Mar 7, 2012 15:17

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

He also misunderstands what "tissue" means.

# ? Mar 7, 2012 15:37

Kro-Bar: Jul 24, 2004; USPOL May

V. Illych L. posted:

He also misunderstands what "tissue" means.

I must admit I'm not sure how he misused that. Can you explain a little more about tissue to me?

edit: VVVV interesting, I was unaware of the differences in the meaning of that term. Thank you for teasing it out for me. That kind of misuse of scientific terminology reminds me of the way people will bash evolution for being "only a theory."

Kro-Bar fucked around with this message at 17:14 on Mar 7, 2012

# ? Mar 7, 2012 16:18

V. Illych L.: Apr 11, 2008; ASK ME ABOUT LUMBER

"Tissue" in the sense of "embryonic tissue" is a term for similar cells connected by/to an extracellular matrix. The average human has a bunch of different tissues, from bone to skin to brain to whatever - the embryo consists of, well, one: Embryonic stem cell tissue. The first separation is into three forms of tissue (endoderman, mesodermal and ectodermal) which then go on to form various organs/tissues.

So calling a human "human tissue" would be incorrect, since a human is in fact a conglomeration of a bunch of tissues. Calling an early embryo "embryonic tissue" is correct, since it's literally just a bunch of connected cells at that point.

# ? Mar 7, 2012 16:50

bairfanx: Jan 20, 2006; I look like this IRL,
but, you know,
more Greg Land-y.

I don't even have words for this one:

quote:

Protesters use tactics of mayhem and bedlam

The editors of Time magazine have come to a rather bizarre decision in choosing their �Person of the Year� award for 2011. It is staggering. The oddity of their choice lessens respect for that publication.

Their choice? The �protesters.� Many of us recoil in exasperation at such an undeserving choice. Managing editor Rich Stengel said, �It felt right.�

The words �protesters,� �demonstrators� and �occupiers� all sound so innocent and well-meaning. These folks are counted by Time as noble, caring and only fighting for equality.

Not true! In many cases, these street occupiers start fires, flout the law, fight with police and engage in violence. Their actions indicate they disdain civility. They take over parks and public places � and leave mountains of trash and debris. Their general unkemptness is revolting.

They have no stated agenda. They have no validity. They have no credibility. Their tactics are mayhem and bedlam. They skirt the halls of Congress. They avoid civil discourse. They flee amiable debate. They are very disrespectful.

They seem to loathe those who are successful, who are ambitious, who work hard and who play by the rules in our economy-building capitalist system. Their general demeanor reflects bad manners and bad tactics.

Yet, Time magazine elevates them to a high honor in choosing them as �Person of the Year.� Time�s record in its annual choices is quite spotty. In 1938, its choice for �Person of the Year� was Adolf Hitler.

Love how it goes all :godwin:

at the end there.

# ? Mar 7, 2012 17:28

Saint Sputnik: Apr 1, 2007; Tyrannosaurs in P-51 Volkswagens!

I can't tell if Jonah Goldberg is being sarcastic or if he thinks Margaret Atwood is a conservative, or what.
(Excerpt)

quote:

The Obama campaign insists that �if Mitt Romney and a few Republican senators get their way, employers could be making women�s health care decisions for them� and require that women seek a permission slip to obtain birth control.

It�s all so breathtakingly mendacious. Rather than transport us to President Franklin Pierce�s America, never mind Charlemagne�s Europe, the Blunt amendment would send America hurtling back to January 2012. In that Handmaid�s Tale of an America, women were free to buy birth control from their local grocery store or Walmart pharmacy, and religious employers could opt not to subsidize the purchase. What a terrifying time that must have been for America�s women.

# ? Mar 7, 2012 23:42

Herman Merman: Jul 6, 2008

Here's a lovely fresh perspective to the I-P conflict:

quote:

Addressing anti-Zionism

It is a curious paradox that despite its many achievements in all fields, Israel has yet to craft a convincing strategy to combat anti-Zionism. One of the reasons for this is that the roots of this phenomenon have been misdiagnosed.
Leftist anti-Zionism is not bred by anti-Semitism. The secular intelligentsia that supports Palestinians abhors Christian anti-Semitism and Nazi racism. Their favorite thinkers are Jewish intellectuals like Hannah Arendt, Walter Benjamin, and Noam Chomsky. These anti-Zionists gladly rally against neo-Nazis and have no qualms about socializing with or marrying Jews. Contrast this to the genuine anti-Semitism of pro-Israel evangelical Christians who believe that Jews are doomed to burn in hell or of xenophobic politicians who court Zionists to wage war against Islam, and we understand why the roots of anti-Zionism are usually not to be found in anti-Semitism. More crucially, the remedy prescribed to anti-Semites must not be prescribed to anti-Zionists.

Anti-Semitism can be effectively fought by showing documentaries and films on the Holocaust. But how do anti-Zionists react to claims that Jews after the Holocaust need a national homeland? They either question why Jews should get a state if the Gypsies did not get one or claim that Nazis � not Arabs � murdered Jews and that therefore a Jewish homeland in Palestine is immoral. Not taking note of these objections only helps Holocaust education fuel the libel that Jews use the Holocaust as a pretext to oppress Arabs.

What about Arab prosperity?

The root of anti-Zionism must be sought elsewhere - in anti-colonialism. The belief that colonialism was an absolute evil is so deeply engrained in the contemporary Western psyche that all enterprises bearing any parallels to it are automatically censored. This explains why people whose heroes are Bolivar and Gandhi instinctively side with the Palestinians. To these people, claims that God promised the Land of Israel to the Jews reek of religious fanaticism. To make the argument that Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East invites allegations that it pursues apartheid policies. To counter all these claims is time-consuming and requires a taste for nuances. But why should anyone trade nuances for the facile certainty that colonialism is inherently evil?

Zionism will only cease being demonized in the politically correct corners of the West once our schools and film industry cease to demonize colonialism. The politically correct depiction of the colonialist as a racist and covetous brute must give space to the majority of well-meaning administrators that helped build roads, schools, and hospitals for the natives. It must be shown that colonialists administered law and justice far more fairly than most pre-colonial chieftains or post-colonial despots. It must be taught that human development indicators plummeted in the majority of African and Asian countries following independence. Once an honest discussion about colonialism is tabled, hostility to Zionism will wane in leftist circles. Not because they will shed the belief that Zionism is a form of colonialism, but because it will be possible for them to appreciate the merits of Zionism.

Indeed, the unprecedented peace and prosperity that Arabs enjoy in Israel and enjoyed in Judea and Samaria prior to the Oslo Accords is perhaps the best evidence of the morality of Zionism. Yet nowadays this reality cannot be trumpeted. Why? Because it might imply that Palestinians flourish wherever they are not ruled by fellow Arabs. And in a world where self-determination is still viewed as the ultimate good, this is a sacrilegious truth.

# ? Mar 8, 2012 00:08

Elim Garak: Aug 5, 2010

Saint Sputnik posted:

I can't tell if Jonah Goldberg is being sarcastic or if he thinks Margaret Atwood is a conservative, or what.
(Excerpt)

He's being ironic. He's saying the Blunt Amendment wasn't that bad, it wouldn't have curtailed the rights of women any further than they were curtailed at the beginning of this year, and invoking a dystopian novel ironically to make the point. He's wrong, of course, the Blunt Amendment would have given ANY employer the ability to strike ANY procedure they were religiously opposed to from their coverage, which would have been a stark rollback of every American's rights.

# ? Mar 8, 2012 00:11

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

bairfanx posted:

I don't even have words for this one:

Love how it goes all at the end there.

What is it with conservatives not understanding Time's "Person of the Year?"

It's not necessarily a compliment or endorsement, it's simply acknowledgement of an individual(s) who has been extremely important and influential over the past year. I don't think anyone could really dispute that Hitler was one of, if the not the most, important people in 1938.

Saint Sputnik posted:

I can't tell if Jonah Goldberg is being sarcastic or if he thinks Margaret Atwood is a conservative, or what.
(Excerpt)

Goldberg is a total piece of poo poo and it's not surprising that he would intentionally ignore the realities and truth of the issue, but I think it would be hilarious to see his reactions once the Blunt Amendment allowed a fundamentalist Muslim employer to refuse coverage for an employee wanting to see an opposite-sex physician or a Scientologist employer refusing to cover any mental health services other than e-meter auditing.

Elim Garak posted:

He's being ironic. He's saying the Blunt Amendment wasn't that bad, it wouldn't have curtailed the rights of women any further than they were curtailed at the beginning of this year, and invoking a dystopian novel ironically to make the point. He's wrong, of course, the Blunt Amendment would have given ANY employer the ability to strike ANY procedure they were religiously opposed to from their coverage, which would have been a stark rollback of every American's rights.

It's pretty obvious that Goldberg's only thinking of Christian and Jewish employers. He would immediately object to employers of any other faith, especially Muslims, restricting their employees healthcare coverage based on their religious beliefs. It's kind of like how conservatives advocate for school prayer, but it's obvious that they are referring to Christian prayers and that they would freak the gently caress out if the prayer were Islamic.

Herman Merman posted:

Here's a lovely fresh perspective to the I-P conflict:

It's funny how the author doesn't specifically mention any of their supposed examples of "good" colonialism and how they purposely leave out the fact that those "post-colonial despots" were only able to obtain power and commit unspeakable acts because of what the colonial powers did, e.g. Darfur and Sudan. It's pretty obvious that they did not cite specific examples because they knew that any reader with even a cursory knowledge of world history could tear down any given example as being a net harm to the native people of the colonized nation, just look at how assholes like Rothbard tried to portray Chile as being better because of Pinochet's Western/American-backed rule while ignoring his reign of terror on the Chilean people.

I also like how this author ignores how Western powers haven't ceased colonialism just because they don't have the blatant de jure control over those nations like they used to. Western nations now use "soft" power, such as through corporate control and influence, to have de facto control over other nations.

# ? Mar 8, 2012 00:41

zeroprime: Mar 25, 2006; Words go here.; Fun Shoe

quote:

Zionism will only cease being demonized in the politically correct corners of the West once our schools and film industry cease to demonize colonialism.

Stop portraying the annihilation of indigenous people as a bad thing :qq:

# ? Mar 8, 2012 00:55

Bruce Leroy: Jun 10, 2010

zeroprime posted:

Stop portraying the annihilation of indigenous people as a bad thing

Pfft, just shut up with all that "Trail of Tears" bullshit. You're totally ignoring how awesome reservations are, they have roads AND schools.

# ? Mar 8, 2012 00:59

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 20, 2024 01:00

Judeccahedron: Jan 2, 2009

bairfanx posted:

I don't even have words for this one:

Love how it goes all at the end there.

I love how he goes from "How dare they place such a high honor in the hands of those loving hippies" to "You know who else was Person of the Year? That's right... :smug:

# ? Mar 8, 2012 01:10

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »