Blast From the Past (Timothy Noah & Rich Lowry)

[Bloggingheads]

[harkin]

Gingrich too risky? As opposed to say....Chairman Zero?

Don't like Gingrich much at all, don't trust him much at all. But compared to the Disaster-In-Chief he's Lincoln.

[harkin]

As to income inequality, I just read something the other day that was a great truth. If I remember the link I'll re-post.

You cannot grow the middle class by attempting to provide to the poor the things the middle class has (e.g. homes, stable family life, health care, college education etc). You grow the middle class by getting the poor to copy the behavior of the people who provide those things for themselves. In other words the exact opposite of what the schools and the government are encouraging the poor to do presently.

Then again, I don't think the liberals are really interested in growing the middle class and their only real goal regarding income equality is to make everyone poor and helpless enough to be dependent on the government, therefore making them much easier to control, maximizing government power (and the perks of the governing political elites).

[redpeakpass]

Chairman Zero? Wow! Delusional doesn't come close to describing the teabagger mindset that comes up with some of these names...

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by redpeakpass

Chairman Zero? Wow! Delusional doesn't come close to describing the teabagger mindset that comes up with some of these names...

It is an awfully dumb moniker, but meh... harkin doesn't even try anymore. Lazy tropes lifted from internet propeller-heads, hand-waves at the "clique," harumph, and he's done.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by harkin

Don't like Gingrich much at all, don't trust him much at all. But compared to the Disaster-In-Chief he's Lincoln.

Isn't this kind of ungenerous? Bush has been out of office nearly four years.

[bkjazfan]

Looking forward to Timothy's book on income inequality coming out next year. Hopefully, his suggestions on how to ameloriate it will be better than the politicians feeble attempts to do so.

[Alexandrite]

There's another %selfname in the world soaking up the interwebs ahead of me, and he's a 12 year old German boy who's already cooler than I am.


Twitter Advice:

Hold contests for when ever you begin to reach certain number of followers (When I get to 1000 followers, a random follower gets a free...).

Octothorpes are in low taste at the moment, so should be minimized like profanity. Both are acceptable on the service.

Twitter is not a chatroom, it's more like a forum (like this one), or even a cross between a chatroom and a forum. Try not to spam.

Follow your hobbies on it! Twitter is perfect for that. Follow anyone who is 'famous' to you, but is not grocery store famous. You can talk to these people and they talk back.

Oh and one more thing.

Arnold Kling's 'kenysian-austrian technological obsolescence GMU synthesis theory' is proven best by Twitter.

The way I see it people have 168 hours in a week. They used to spend X-hours of that watching TV. Each TV show hires dozens of people, and creates hundreds of jobs industry-wide and millions in revenue. Twitter as recreation eats into this. Every half hour you spend reading user generated tweets for free is money not being being spent on TV.

No one knows how to monetize twitter - I don't even think Twitter does. Twitter has only 600 employees (mostly programmers and marketing), yet millions of users - over 300 million. If the time spent 'reading twitter' was instead spent on watching a TV station, it'd be a multibillion dollar operation, with tens of thousands of employees.

What I'm getting at, is that Twitter is one of the causes of global job loss. It is a cause of the global economic stagnation. As more people use twitter, it turns monetizable economic human activity into non-monetizable human activity. Activity in which most of the income beneficiaries are a select number of extremely talented people. Twitter is increasing income inequality in the world. 600 people are now raking in the moneys that would have gone to thousands of workers under the pre-internet era model.


Enjoy your stay Timothy.
#ConsumptiveInequalityistheonlythingthatmatters

[stephanie]

This was a surprisingly enjoyable diavlog. Maybe I was just in the right mood, but Tim is fun and Rich really was pretty good too.

Rundown of thoughts -- I was waiting for Rich to mention the 999 guy during the same name discussion. Lots of people have my name, it always makes me feel happy (more anonymous) when I google myself and get flooded with different people. I suppose it's annoying I couldn't use my own name on Twitter and the like, but I'm more used to the fact that lots of others have my name, so don't expect it. When I was doing a lot of races there was another woman with my name who seemed to sign up for all the same races, so I'd always check her results too. She was faster than me.

On Newt, I'm with Tim, I'd love for him to be the candidate, but don't think he will be. Rich surprised me not in his lack of enthusiasm for Newt, but that he seems to stand behind NR's choice of Santorum as their preferred anti-Mitt. I thought that was just a bow to K-Lo's obvious crush. The debate made the end of Newt seem likely, unless I'm reading too much into it.

Like most liberals, I still don't understand the Hunstman antipathy, but it seems good for the Dems. Huntsman strikes me as pretty likeable and someone who seems a lot more moderate than he actually is in a way that would probably work well with Independents.

Good for Rich for acknowledging that the "federal tax" stats that exclude the payroll tax are ridiculous and dismisses a burden that working class and middle class Americans feel.

The Rockefeller Republican thing was interesting. I've been reading about George Romney a little lately and he seems like an interesting and appealing guy (with a weird personal history). This makes me wonder if perhaps Mitt might be more of a real Rockefeller type, despite his opportunistic new positions on everything. Mostly, I think he'd be a George HW Bush type, who could never really be a Reaganite, even though he adopted the guise as loyal VP. I suppose one could say that George W was reacting to this in his own persona to a certain extent -- and in the Iraq policy -- but I don't really buy that. More significant, I don't think there would be any reason to see the dynamics as similar. I'd guess Mitt would like to be seen as like his dad. Granted, all the amateur psychologizing is a little silly anyway, but I'm not so convince Mitt would feel compelled to be more right due to the perception that it's fake when actually governing. I'm more worried about his foreign policy advisors and the fact I can't really tell at all what he'd do, however.

Oh, and for some reason most of the Mormons I've know all seem to use various outdated words/slang.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Rich surprised me not in his lack of enthusiasm for Newt, but that he seems to stand behind NR's choice of Santorum as their preferred anti-Mitt. I thought that was just a bow to K-Lo's obvious crush.

Well, to be fair, at this point, who else is left? Everyone else's wave has already crested.

On homonyms and homonoms, I have the same name as a minor celebrity who is in the entertainment industry. There's never any point in googling myself. On the bright side, potential employers are either going to think I have a hidden talent or give up trying to find dirt.

[Florian]

Mitt Romney speaks French. How can he possibly represent the Republican Party?

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/...al_video_.html

I should point out that the translation is not a mistranslation. It is a fabrication; it has nothing at all to do with what Romney is saying in French.

BTW, is it necessary for American journalists to refer to politicians by their first names? I don't know when this practice began, but it is annoying. When I lived in the US, no one spoke in this way.....except to express contempt.

[handle]

Originally Posted by Florian

Mitt Romney speaks French. How can he possibly represent the Republican Party?

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/...al_video_.html

BTW, is it necessary for American journalists to refer to politicians by their first names? I don't know when this practice began, but it is annoying. When I lived in the US, no one spoke in this way.....except to express contempt.

I think I can help here, the vast majority of the current generation of Americans have embraced a cultural, behavioral, and aesthetic race to the bottom of the trash heap, as evidenced by current pop culture, and personal appearance.
I cling to hope for their offspring in reversing the trend.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by handle

I think I can help here, the vast majority of the current generation of Americans have embraced a cultural, behavioral, and aesthetic race to the bottom of the trash heap, as evidenced by current pop culture, and personal appearance.

Trash heaps aren't unique to the US. Every time I watch French television I am amazed that so much trash exists. But the American political process is one of the trashiest in the western world. Only Italy comes close to it.

I cling to hope for their offspring in reversing the trend.

Hope springs eternal....

[ledocs]

Florian, do you think Romney is "speaking French" in the video, or is he reading a teleprompter? I think he has studied some French and is reading a teleprompter. I have two reasons for thinking this: (1) he speaks at a very deliberate pace; (2) I don't believe that he would have known to use the subjunctive after "meilleure equipe," someone gave him the text. Now, (2) is a circular argument. If he speaks French, then he could well have known to use the subjunctive, which even most French people would no longer do. A third reason for thinking that he does not really speak French is that his accent is quite strong, but that's not conclusive either. Anyway, just my take.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by ledocs

Florian, do you think Romney is "speaking French" in the video, or is he reading a teleprompter? I think he has studied some French and is reading a teleprompter. I have two reasons for thinking this: (1) he speaks at a very deliberate pace; (2) I don't believe that he would have known to use the subjunctive after "meilleure equipe," someone gave him the text. Now, (2) is a circular argument. If he speaks French, then he could well have known to use the subjunctive, which even most French people would no longer do. A third reason for thinking that he does not really speak French is that his accent is quite strong, but that's not conclusive either. Anyway, just my take.

Excellent point ledocs. I have heard worse American accents, but the use of the subjunctive after a superlative (meilleure équipe) is indeed refined. He must have been coached or prompted, unless he is really a raving francophile, in which case he is doomed.

There is another explanation. Young Mormons are expected to spend a year in a foreign country to make converts. Perhaps he spent his year in France, where he no doubt made many, many converts.....

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Florian

There is another explanation. Young Mormons are expected to spend a year in a foreign country to make converts. Perhaps he spent his year in France, where he no doubt made many, many converts.....

That is where he had his mission.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Originally Posted by Florian

Mitt Romney speaks French. How can he possibly represent the Republican Party?

His bigger problem is that he is almost exactly what fits a "Conservative" in French politics, which is not acceptable to most people here.

BTW, is it necessary for American journalists to refer to politicians by their first names? I don't know when this practice began, but it is annoying. When I lived in the US, no one spoke in this way.....except to express contempt.

I agree with this, it is obnoxious. Though it doesn't seem to apply to the current President, whom no one refers to as Barack.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Florian

Perhaps he spent his year in France, where he no doubt made many, many converts.....

Here's an article about Romney's time in France.

[rfrobison]

Originally Posted by Florian

BTW, is it necessary for American journalists to refer to politicians by their first names? I don't know when this practice began, but it is annoying. When I lived in the US, no one spoke in this way.....except to express contempt.

Agree heartily. This kind of faux familiarity is grating on me, too. I rarely refer to the discussants on Bhtv by their first names. Commenters are a different story, since I have at least some sort of relationship with them, and most don't use their real names anyhow.

Call me old fashioned, but I think it's impolite to use someone's first name unless they indicate it's OK.

But of course, you may "tutoyer" me, if you wish.

[Ocean]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Agree heartily. This kind of faux familiarity is grating on me, too. I rarely refer to the discussants on Bhtv by their first names. Commenters are a different story, since I have at least some sort of relationship with them, and most don't use their real names anyhow.

Call me old fashioned, but I think it's impolite to use someone's first name unless they indicate it's OK.

But of course, you may "tutoyer" me, if you wish.

In my field, I used to call patients with a strict Mr. X or Ms/ Mrs. Y. However, for confidentiality reasons, now we have to address everybody by their first names. At the beginning it was difficult for me to do that, but now, I've gotten used to it. Still, I agree that in formal situations, you would use last names.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by rfrobison

Agree heartily. This kind of faux familiarity is grating on me, too. I rarely refer to the discussants on Bhtv by their first names. Commenters are a different story, since I have at least some sort of relationship with them, and most don't use their real names anyhow.

Call me old fashioned, but I think it's impolite to use someone's first name unless they indicate it's OK.

This is interesting. Since the 'heads on bloggingheads refer to each other by their first names, I've basically decided that that is the custom here and make an effort to do so. If not for that, I'd be inconsistent in who I used first names for and who I didn't that makes me a little uncomfortable. I still fall into last names on occasion, especially with diavlogs with people with the same first name, but try not to. This means referring to people like Walter Russell Mead (who I'd normally call "Mead" or WRM) in his thread "Walter," even though that feels weird.

On candidates and politicians generally, I don't know why some get called by their first names and some by their last. I assume it has something to do with which is more common -- Hillary was a lot easier than "Clinton," and that set the stage for the last election, even though she was running against "Obama" and "Edwards." I don't think that was about sex at all. Similarly, I think W or George W was because of his dad, plus he did get called "Bush" a lot. McCain and Palin were basically McCain and Palin. The new focus on Newt and Mitt and so on seem to me because those are the most uncommon features of their name -- we still get Cain and Bachmann and Santorum and Perry and the sainted Dr. Paul (who in reality usually gets called "Ron Paul"). I think Newt and Mitt also may be sort of slams. Plus, Mitt does have a politician dad, which is a common situation when politicians start getting called by their first name. Daley got called Daley, but also Richard M. and Richie, to distinguish.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by stephanie

The new focus on Newt and Mitt and so on seem to me because those are the most uncommon features of their name -- we still get Cain and Bachmann and Santorum and Perry and the sainted Dr. Paul (who in reality usually gets called "Ron Paul"). I think Newt and Mitt also may be sort of slams. Plus, Mitt does have a politician dad, which is a common situation when politicians start getting called by their first name. .

Mitt is not a slam. A slam would be using his actual first name, Willard.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Here's an article about Romney's time in France.

Amusing. I am not surprised that he lied about his experiences in France, just as he has lied about everything else to please his Republican base. The description of Romney--a good "door-to-door salesman" of his faith---fits him well.

I would love to meet a French convert to Mormonism. How do you convert to a religion whose absurd founder and even more absurd beliefs were already the laughing-stock of 19th century journalists?

Originally Posted by Florian

Amusing. I am not surprised that he lied about his experiences in France, just as he has lied about everything else to please his Republican base. The description of Romney--a good "door-to-door salesman" of his faith---fits him well.

I would love to meet a French convert to Mormonism. How do you convert to a religion whose absurd founder and even more absurd beliefs were already the laughing-stock of 19th century journalists?

You're more likely to find a Frenchman who converted to Islam - whose absurd founder and even more absurd beliefs were a laughing stock in 7th century Mecca, until of course, he conquered Mecca and beheaded those who mocked him.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by apple

You're more likely to find a Frenchman who converted to Islam - whose absurd founder and even more absurd beliefs were a laughing stock in 7th century Mecca, until of course, he conquered Mecca and beheaded those who mocked him.

I agree. It is far more likely that there are French converts to Islam than French converts to Mormonism. Very few in either case, but Mormonism had the misfortune of being born in the age of newspapers.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by miceelf

Mitt is not a slam. A slam would be using his actual first name, Willard.

Heh. But in part true. I think a lot of the first-naming is politicians who want to deal with a perception of likeablilty, or a lack thereof. Thus, not surprising that Hillary campaigned as Hillary (and evidence against the idea that first-naming her was sexist) and similarly unsurprising that Mitt wants to be thought of as Mitt.

Newt, I still think it's because his name is Newt, and there's a bit of that with Mitt too.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by stephanie

On Newt, I'm with Tim, I'd love for him to be the candidate, but don't think he will be. Rich surprised me not in his lack of enthusiasm for Newt, but that he seems to stand behind NR's choice of Santorum as their preferred anti-Mitt. I thought that was just a bow to K-Lo's obvious crush. The debate made the end of Newt seem likely, unless I'm reading too much into it.

So no one commented on this, but does anyone think Newt is actually going to win Iowa?

[AemJeff]

Originally Posted by stephanie

So no one commented on this, but does anyone think Newt is actually going to win Iowa?

Seems less and less likely by the numbers - but the situation seems so volatile, how do you make sense of the data? I'm betting on "peaked too soon."

[Florian]

Originally Posted by stephanie

Newt, I still think it's because his name is Newt, and there's a bit of that with Mitt too.

Newt is short for Newton. Did you know that Newt was named after the great Issac?

His parents must have had great expectations.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by Florian

I agree. It is far more likely that there are French converts to Islam than French converts to Mormonism. Very few in either case, but Mormonism had the misfortune of being born in the age of newspapers.

Thirty five thousand Mormon converts to date and they are planning a temple in Paris.

Some fifty thousand French Muslims are said to be converts of non-Muslim origin.

[handle]

Originally Posted by Florian

Newt is short for Newton. Did you know that Newt was named after the great Issac?

His parents must have had great expectations.

Is psychopathy hereditary? If so, they must be very proud.

[Florian]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

Thirty five thousand Mormon converts to date and they are planning a temple in Paris.

Some fifty thousand French Muslims are said to be converts of non-Muslim origin.

Thank you badhat for confirming what I said. In both cases, less than 1% of the population.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Florian

Newt is short for Newton. Did you know that Newt was named after the great Issac?

His parents must have had great expectations.

Yeah, but only because a friend and I were talking about it and looked it up. Newton Leroy, which is unfortunate, if grandiose all around (leroy=le roi, of course).

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by Florian

Newt is short for Newton. Did you know that Newt was named after the great Issac?

His parents must have had great expectations.

Too bad something heavier than an apple fell on his head.

[miceelf]

Originally Posted by apple

You're more likely to find a Frenchman who converted to Islam - whose absurd founder and even more absurd beliefs were a laughing stock in 7th century Mecca, until of course, he conquered Mecca and beheaded those who mocked him.

What are rarely proselytized religions in France for 200 dollars, Alex?

I mean, Holy Kevin Bacon.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by bkjazfan

Looking forward to Timothy's book on income inequality coming out next year. Hopefully, his suggestions on how to ameloriate it will be better than the politicians feeble attempts to do so.

I meant to agree with this, although I don't have high hopes for Tim's book. Seems to me the problem is real, but extremely difficult to address, thus the politicians' feeble responses.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by AemJeff

Seems less and less likely by the numbers - but the situation seems so volatile, how do you make sense of the data? I'm betting on "peaked too soon."

Yeah, seems right. Too bad.

[Wonderment]

I have a bet with Basman that Newt will not be the nominee. About 10 days ago I began to panic, but this week I'm feeling a lot better. (Also note that Newt has completely crashed on Intrade.com).

Right now I think Iowa is too close to call. Paul, Romney and Newt all seem about even, but there is still plenty of time for Newt to continue the downward trend and for other "second tier" candidates to move up. The problem for them is that they're splitting the Bible vote three ways among Santorum, Bachmann and Perry.

I had a kind of epiphany with Romney yesterday, however. I saw him do an interview on Fox with Gretta Von-Whatever, and I suddenly understood why the base really rejects him and has gone through 20 iterations of Not Romneys. It's not the flip-flopping and it's not the supposedly liberal views. It's not that he's a rich guy who's out of touch or a cold guy who can't connect with the people. It's more that no matter what words come out of his mouth, it's completely obvious that he's basically a sensible person who will govern as a centrist (like Obama). He will never rock the boat. (Ditto for Huntsman, by the way, which explains his pathetic numbers.)

People pick up on that sobriety. Of course, Romney would govern like a Repubilcan, but he is most decidedly NOT a change candidate. Maybe this is obvious to everyone, and I'm the last person on Earth to understand it.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

I have a bet with Basman that Newt will not be the nominee. About 10 days ago I began to panic, but this week I'm feeling a lot better. (Also note that Newt has completely crashed on Intrade.com).

I have a general assumption that TPTB in the Republican Party will keep them from shooting themselves in the foot. Thus, regardless of Iowa (which has a history of nutty winners), I don't think Newt was ever really likely to get the nomination. And that's despite the fact that he seems to have an advantage in the South. Too bad.

The signs are that the initial "well, can't be...but maybe!" response is returning to "No way." Thus, the intrade.

It's more that no matter what words come out of his mouth, it's completely obvious that he's basically a sensible person who will govern as a centrist (like Obama). He will never rock the boat. (Ditto for Huntsman, by the way, which explains his pathetic numbers.)

I don't know if you are the LAST person to get this, but I totally agree.

[Wonderment]

Originally Posted by stephanie

I have a general assumption that TPTB in the Republican Party will keep them from shooting themselves in the foot. Thus, regardless of Iowa (which has a history of nutty winners), I don't think Newt was ever really likely to get the nomination. And that's despite the fact that he seems to have an advantage in the South. Too bad.

I have mixed feelings about the "too bad" part. I agree that Obama would do a lot better against Newt, but what if Newt actually won? Let's say it's 50-50 Obama/Romney and 67-33 Obama-Gingrich. Obama's odds are considerably better against Gingrich, but the worst outcome (Gingrich is the WH) remains a distinct possibility. I could live with President Romney-Huntsman; if Newt wins I'm moving to Pluto.

[/QUOTE]