Weekly Topic

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Sooo, here are the results from the last [Poll #1621063]
Feel free to suggest more.

DADT Repeal Faces Filibuster, Key Senate Vote

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

The effort to end the military's Don't Ask Don't Tell policy faces a major hurdle today with Republican Sen. John McCain vowing to filibuster a vote on a defense bill that includes a controversial repeal of the law.

But many Democrats say McCain is the one playing politics, since language in the Senate bill states any change to the current policy would depend upon completion of the military study, expected by December, and certification from the Pentagon that military readiness would not be harmed.

"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it," McCain said in 2006.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen both endorsed ending the policy in Congressional testimony in May.

SOURCE:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-vote-repeal-ban-gays-military/story?id=11685658

---

In addition to Gates and Mullen, McCain's wife and daughter have supported ending DADT. Do we have to get his mommy to tell him "Johnny, no one is going to grab anyone's johnson in combat"?

We've already had a federal judge declare DADT unconstitutional, and multiple foreign militaries say that it hasn't harmed their effectiveness. What does it take for homophobe Senators to GET OVER IT?

On certain ironies of geopolitics:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

This is one thought I've had about the weekly topic, and hence I figured it's worth floating here.

I have been reading the history of a particular country. It was founded on the basis of multiple distinct and feuding small polities which while not in any kind of war against each other preferred most often to hang separately as opposed to fighting a major enemy. Then they end up pissing off the wrong guy and he nearly destroys them. They rebuild from this and start to change, but then there's a major cultural crisis at the center. The result is a completely different person, a foreigner now rules.
( cut for FLs )

_____________________________________________

Now, given that the topic is bias and misinformation, what history have I just given?

It's Fraud and Deception Week, which means more fact-checking on the stimulus

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So, good news, folks - The recession is over! All hail the economy, and such. Even better, the economy's been out of recession for well over a year now! Rejoice! Can you feel the heat from that slow economic burn? Don't touch the economy! It's hot!

But seriously, we now have two issues facing us in regards to that "much-needed" stimulus package as opposed to the one I intended to post about today.

1) The stimulus package was passed in February 2009. According to Mark Zandi's research (Zandi being a reference for the theoretical multipliers that justified the stimulus), a whopping $53 billion of stimulus was paid out through May of 2009, only $7 billion of which went toward tax cuts. This raises two questions:

a) If the stimulus was the cause of the recovery, did we need $800b when such a little bit would do instead?

b) Did we really need the stimulus at all if, as the NBER has noted, we were already coming out of the worst of it by the time the government passed the stimulus bill.

Of course, the answer (one that many of us already knew) is that this is more definitive evidence that the stimulus wasn't necessary. But if you have an argument against these ideas, let's hear them.

2) I found two blog posts that really detailed the failure of the stimulus. The two posts can be found here and here. It's worth reading, but a couple quick excerpts:

( The most important things to understand about the Recovery Act )

It's hard to argue that the entire basis for how and why it would work wasn't an error (but many of us already knew that). The reality is that the use of these multipliers to justify poor policy - and make things worse - is not resulting in good news for us as an informed nation and end up making us have discussion after discussion about these sorts of stimulus fantasies with no historical evidence of success to support them. And yes, using bad multipliers to say that tax cuts stimulate is no better - they're prone to the same errors and require the same guesswork.

The reason that the response to the financial crisis should have been geared toward businesses and taxes was not because it would have a "more stimulating effect," but because the fiscal health of this nation is predicated on the private sector. We've ignored the private sector for two years, and we've seen them keep their wallets closed as they wait to see the results of the latest boondoggles in health care reform, financial reform, and the possibility of lame duck session activity on cap and trade and card check.

When are we going to learn?

Political Channel-Surfing

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I know the debate over the nature of the Tea Party is ongoing, but I'd like to avoid that and discuss the more long term implications for both of the established parties.

An Op-Ed in Reason(a right-wing periodical) asked an interesting question that I'd like to get your(the denizens of talk_politics) take on.

Christine O'Donnell win a sign that the GOP will no longer tolerate "Moderates" or a sign that the GOP has to shutup about social issues?

For those outside the US Christine O'Donnell has made headlines by ousting Mike Castle a Republican Moderate in Delaware's Senate Primary. This is the first case of the Tea Party taking down a moderate Republican at the Federal level, and the talking heads on both sides are understandably shocked.

Now, some of Ms. O'Donnel's positions are a wee bit crazy, but as Reason pointed out she did not run on the Masturbation and Witchcraft platform, she ran on reducing spending.

With Congress' approval ratings in the toilet, the 2010 Senate races are generally thought of as "being the GOP's to lose". So is her nomination proof that crazy is contagious, or an endorsement of her campaign platform?

If the Dems do take the drubbing that some are predicting will it force the American left to reassess?

Either way I am feeling oddly optimistic.