Flaming Bags of Poo
[AKA All Linky, No Thinky: Tgirsch Edition, AKA “What I’m reading today.”]
Since Uncle’s on the beach enjoying his vacation, I figured I’d give you folks some blog fodder to get you all worked up:
- I voted today. Spoiler alert! I voted Democrat. *gasp!*
- The Guardian (UK): All the screaming you’re hearing about “voter fraud” is a bunch of crap. (FactCheck mostly agrees,as does PolitiFact.com.)
- Speaking of FactCheck.org and things that will get your dander up, they’re going after the NRA again. Sic’ ’em!
- Larison briefly discusses elitism.
- A dyed-in-the-wool liberal endorses Murtha’s opponent
- Want to kill time with a stupid game? Try Truth Invaders.
- Nate Silver writes about why McCain isn’t doing so well right about now.
- Pattycakes is being screwed by The Man.
- xkcd weighs in on Scrabble. (For those of you not familiar with xkcd, it’s always important to read the hover text…)
- Vinny accuses Sarah Palin of socialism.
- Wondermark: Overthrow your corporate overlords, as long as it’s not too expensive… (xkcd hover text rule also applies here).
Have fun, and have a good weekend.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:14 am
Standard Mischief:
Vinny does, but you don’t, right tgirsch? Plausible deniability and all that.
Never said I didn’t. I found the statement interesting, but hadn’t really decided one way or the other. I guess I didn’t realize that we implicitly endorse everything we link to. By that standard, I’m guessing Xrlq would be pretty upset at some of the stuff he’s “endorsed.”
Alaska’s mineral wealth is owned by it’s citizens.
OK, wait. The natural resources are owned equally by all of the people of Alaska, right? And this isn’t socialism exactly, uhh, how? (“It’s everybody’s oil, maaaaaan. Drum line forms over there, Kumbaya starts in 5 minutes…”)
Kinda turns the idea of private property rights on its head, doesn’t it?
October 26th, 2008 at 12:20 am
chris:
so socialized medicine isnt strong enough for you?
I’m a pragmatist. I’ll support whatever plan provides the best coverage to the most people, and I don’t particularly care how it gets done. If you can find a market-based solution to providing health care for virtually everyone who needs it, I’m all for it.
Obama already considers health care a right
I’m surprised that’s as controversial as it turns out to be, but whatever. I don’t think that health care should be a privilege of wealth, any more than I think education should be a privilege of wealth. Call me a commie, I guess.
that means that Obama believes that the fruits of someone’s labor (a doctor) should belong to the people as a right
Unless you think every doctor that ever treated you somehow owns you (or part of you), the fruits of a doctor’s labor are his pay, and in every health plan I’ve seen, including Obama’s, the doctor still gets paid.
October 26th, 2008 at 3:20 am
but when the government gets involved, they will dictate what the doctor gets paid thus forcing them to give up their time and effort for a pay that will be MUCH less than they get now…
sure a doctor might stop making $140,000 a year and drop to $80,000… but the cost of 12+ years of medical school wont go down any… so you will get less doctors, and crappier medical care.
but at least the doctor still gets paid…
if socialized medicine works so well then why did Hawaii get rid of it last week?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:52 am
I’m open to suggestions on how to more fairly distribute Alaska’s citizens wealth to it’s citizens, but it’s not exactly some kind of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, when we spread other people’s wealth around we can buy a lot of votes”
October 26th, 2008 at 6:54 am
holy fuck, what’s up with the comment moderation all of a sudden? It’s not like I’m pushing little blue pills or linking to pr)n?
October 26th, 2008 at 6:58 am
(experimenting with comment moderation, apologys for the double comment)
I’m open to suggestions on how to more fairly distribute Alaska’s citizens wealth to it’s citizens, but it’s not exactly some kind of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need, when we spread other people’s wealth around we can buy a lot of votes”
October 26th, 2008 at 7:15 am
so if I keep the comment length below say, 200 characters, perhaps that will let me post without the fscking moderation? Let’s try exactly 199 letters and spaces. I only need a few more. …………
October 26th, 2008 at 7:43 am
Don’t hesitate to delete this comment because it’s not anything other than my attempt to see if I can comment without moderation if I keep my spam under, say, four hundred or so letters, numbers and spaces. I need perhaps a sentence or two more to reach my goal. Just a
bit more filler. This is the way we create unique content to test the “anti” junk thingy. We can haz comment circumvention. 31337
October 26th, 2008 at 7:54 am
So the target for this comment is four hundred and ninety nine characters. I’m guessing that this anti-spam effort is because of the demise for our beloved spam karma 2. However, creating a limit that seems to moderate any comment that is over 500 characters isn’t a very efficient way to fight spam while encouraging a healthy level of discussion in the comments. Especially if those comment do not contain any links to other web sites beyond my own neglected blog. Teh wc -c <comment is teh w00t.
October 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
chris:
Your latest comment reveals a profound ignorance of the health plans the candidates are proposing. Perhaps you should go learn about them before you embarrass yourself further. Obama’s plan would simply expand who’s covered under an existing government health insurance program. Private health insurance plans, and employer-sponsored health insurance plans, would continue to exist as they do today. The doctors’ offices and hospitals remain in the private sector, as well, so there’s no worry of “the government” cutting a doctor’s pay. The only people who run the risk of making less money if Obama’s plan passes is are insurance companies and their shareholders, not doctors. (And I doubt that, too; in all likelihood, it would be a boon to the insurance companies.)
Standard Mischief:
I’m open to suggestions on how to more fairly distribute Alaska’s citizens wealth to it’s citizens
In other words, how to “spread the wealth around.” Obama ’08! 🙂 Seriously, though, you’re making a collectivist argument concerning the ownership of Alaska’s natural resources. Think about that. Suppose Illinois declared that all the corn and wheat produced by the state, and so a portion of the proceeds from the sale of corn and wheat should be distributed to all of Illinois’ citizens — in a scenario like that, you’d be calling people Comrade!
October 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
[By the way, I’ve tried to rescue several comments from moderation, but my Kung Fu is not sufficiently mighty.]
October 26th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
If there is land in Illinois owned by the commonwealth of Illinois and leased out to enterprising individuals for a fee or royalties so they are allowed to grow crops, then the monies received damn right are owned equally by the citizens, I know Chicago though, and no way in hell would any revenue surplus not be put to use creating patronage jobs, awarding government contracts, or buying votes through entitlements. (Those are libertarianleaning code words for spreading the socialism around, BTW)
October 26th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
under obama’s plan, you would see something similar to what just failed in Hawaii and the lovely plan that is costing the state a fortune in NJ… you make one mistake… EVERYONE is already covered in America…
You can walk into ANY hospital in America, and it is illegal for them to refuse treatment, even if you cannot pay.
Remember this is the same government that has fucked up the social security system and public education system so bad that they are almost bankrupt… and the same government that failed at running a whorehouse.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
“Take a look at Brady II to see just how bad things could have gotten if the Republicans hadn’t taken Congress in 1994.”
Yup, Brady II would have pretty much destroyed gun rights/ gun ownership in this country. Quite frankly I find Tgirsch’s attempts to say Obama’s not all that bad on guns ridiculous. He IS as bad as the NRA is portraying him to be, and he’s far worse than Clinton.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
tgirsch,
Also consider when you “buy” (subject to confiscation via eminent domain abuse, but that’s a bit OT) property, frequently you do not get the mineral rights as they are reserved by the state. If I own forty acres and a mule in the middle of a thousand acres of oil fields how much is mine? All I can pump even if it depletes the level of oil in property around me?
Then again there are plenty of places in Virginia, West Virginia and Pennsylvania that have their own natural gas wells on site, so mineral rights reserved by the state is not universal.
October 26th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
If it isn’t obvious, there is a vast difference between leasing public land for private use or allowing minerals to be extracted, and then taking the money and giving it evenly to the actual owners
vs.
Stealing crops produced by private individuals on private property and selling them so you can give coupons to women, for the benefit of infants and children and the unborn because they are too stupid to buy healthy food with with their food stamps and need Yet Another Government Program with Yet Another set of Government Regulations (written by Yet Another set of Government Employees) on which foods are appropriately to be purchased with “free” money from the governments.
October 26th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
mike w:
I’m not aware that I’ve ever made ANY particular claims about Obama’s stances on guns.
SM:
I don’t think the difference is so vast as you claim. In both cases, the land is being exploited; the primary difference is by whom and who gets the money. And for what it’s worth, unless not a drop of Alaskan oil comes from Federal land, I’m wondering where MY money is.
And I understand the whole bit about mineral rights, but that doesn’t make it any less socialistic a concept.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
for chrissakes stop this stupid name calling about “socialism”. The government just took over Fannie and Freddie, AIG and are about to give $700 billion towards buying stakes in banks or buying steaming piles of mortgage turds, and your calling a rise of 3% in the marginal tax rate socialism? Please the stupid, it hurts.
October 26th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
tgirsch,
Yes, some of the oil, timber, and other resources come from federal land, which is owned by all of us citizens.
The Federal Government gets their cut, but until they balance the federal budget, retire the national debt, and stop spending every last penny that falls into their hands, don’t expect a check.
–
My simple question to you is: “who owns those oil reserves?” I’ll make it multiple choice.
A. The residents of Alaska own those reserves.
B. The Great state of Alaska owns the reserves, Also, they own whatever percent of Alaskan citizens’ paychecks that they can get away with stealing. Their herd of citizens are a resource to be sheared. Occasionally they will need to be provided with bread and circuses to be kept happy.
C. The Federal government owns those reserves because they own the states. Those states joined the union, and the union can never be dissolved without the consent and agreement of the rest of the union.
D. Barack “hippie chick” Obama will own those reserves once he becomes anointed as President. From his temple mount at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue he will decree that the wealth will be spread around unevenly to benefit everyone.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
SM..as you may be aware, Sarah Palin increased the tax imposed on oil companies to extract oil from Alaska. She then used this extra money to cut a larger check to every person in Alaska. However, the above is somehow not socialism.
October 26th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
TGirsch, how particular is “particular?”. Your approving link to “Fact Check” and their hatchet job on the NRA ad certainly sounded like you were saying something about Obama’s actual views on guns.
October 26th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
SM:
How about E, none of the above? I would have thought you private property types would think that whoever owns the land owns what’s underneath it. But apparently not when that position is politically inconvenient.
Xrlq:
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that “the NRA’s attacks aren’t entirely accurate” is the same thing as “Barack Obama is the most pro-gun presidential candidate, like, ever.” You call it a “hatchet job” because they don’t parse things the same way you parse them, and you say Fact Check is “in the tank” for Obama, yet if the spam filter weren’t so picky here I’d post a dozen links where Fact Check takes Obama to task.
October 27th, 2008 at 5:51 am
“stated where?”
Uh, have you actually read the position documents that your candidate has on his website?
http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/UrbanFactSheet.pdf isn’t exactly hard to find and contains:
“He also supports making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on
foreign battlefields and not on our streets.”
Maybe you should have educated yourself about his platform before voting for him, eh?
October 27th, 2008 at 9:11 am
Hmmmm.
@ tgirsch
“How about E, none of the above? I would have thought you private property types would think that whoever owns the land owns what’s underneath it. But apparently not when that position is politically inconvenient.”
Don’t be a bigger idiot than your mother made you.
The federal government holds that it, and it -alone-, is the ultimate owner of all land in the USA. It’s called -sovereignty- or haven’t you ever heard of it.
Fact is SM is entirely correct on his A-D.
Frankly all you offer are glib responses that lack thought.
October 27th, 2008 at 10:34 am
tgirsch…
well, you’ve got alright taste in webcomics.
(And remember, someone is wrong on the internet…)
As an aside question:
I don’t know if you or SM are right about who owns oil reserves. Have either of you ever heard about houses (or other property) where the sale is everything but the mineral rights on the land?
I don’t know whether petroleum is covered under mineral rights, but I’ve heard stories of old mining towns where some company owns mineral rights for the land under half of the privately-owned houses in town.
If you’re talking about petroleum on land owned by the Federal Government inside the boundaries of the State of Alaska, the legality of who owns what (and who can put a duty fee on what) gets kind of murky.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am
jesse:
I had forgotten about the AWB thing, but that’s never really been a hot-button issue for me (blasphemy, I know!). All other things being equal, I’d rather not see it reinstated, but to my mind it was so ineffective and riddled with loopholes that it really do much, anyway. I don’t claim to be an AWB expert by any stretch, but it seemed to me to fall more under the category of government waste than much in the way of rights infringement.
memomachine:
OK, I’ll put you down for “C” then. 🙂 But, of course, your objection misses the point. SM and his ilk don’t refrain from complaining about socialism where it already exists, and the resource ownership arrangement he’s discussing is clearly socialistic. Just because that’s the way it is now doesn’t mean that it’s not socialistic.
Karrde:
IANAL (or even close), so I don’t know what happens with mineral rights if they aren’t explicitly discussed in the land purchase contract. My understanding (which could certainly be wrong) is that the mineral rights belong to the landowner unless the land is specifically sold without them, although it could be the opposite (i.e., you don’t own the mineral rights unless the purchase agreement specifically says that you do), and it could vary by state.
P.S. That comic’s one of my favorites, especially the hover text.
October 27th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Sorry, I wasn’t aware that accusing someone of “lying to win” was the same thing as saying that their ads aren’t 100% accurate – even when they are.
No, I call it a “hatchet job” because that’s precisely what it is. Calling truthful statements “false” and accusing the other guy of “lying” is not parsing things differently. Ignoring one side’s painstaking research and taking the other side’s word is not “fact-checking,” it’s campaigning. Falsely claiming that SB 2165 is about local registration laws rather than bans is not “parsing.” Neither is falsely claiming that Obama supported anything approaching the Heller decision until after it had been rendered. Etc. etc.
La-de-frickin’ da.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Even Uncle conceded that not everything about the NRA ad was 100% accurate. But hey, I wouldn’t want to get in the way of your partisan spin.
La-de-frickin’ da.
I’m sorry you’re not impressed, but I would think that a willingness to criticize someone — often harshly, and repeatedly — would tend to undermine the argument that you’re “in the tank” for that somebody. I expect the dumbass two-bit hacks to buy into that “if you’re not biased for me, you must be biased against me” sort of bullshit, but I generally expect better from you.
October 28th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Why? Annenberg Political holds itself out as a non-partisan fact-checking organization. Of course they’re going to fact-check Obama on something. They’d have to in order to have any figleaf of credibility whatsoever. In this instance, you accused the NRA of lying without proving they made a single false statement – let alone a knowingly false statement, which is a key element of lying. Brooks Jackson didn’t use the L-word in that piece, but did spew it while discussing the NRA on other recent occasions. So whether this particular piece is evidence they are in the tank for Obama, or in the tank for anyone who hates gun owners, the one thing they clearly are NOT is anything resembling objective.
If you seriously doubt that Annenberg Political is in the tank, go ahead and compile aggregate data on which side supposedly gets more “facts” wrong than the other. It won’t be close to an even split, and not because the Obama campaign is one iota more factually accurate. I’d love to see a “Fact Check” of Joe Biden’s Constitution, for example. You know, the version where Article I says the Vice President is an executive and has absolutely, positively nothing to do with the U.S. Senate. But they didn’t fact-check that, so that fact just doesn’t exist.
October 28th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Hmmm. What’s this, then?