Print Story We're putting the band back together.
Puzzles & Riddles
By gzt (Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 12:32:28 PM EST) gzt, jackowo, chess, squats, squid, french, liberalist, elitist (all tags)
Ah, those magical words.

Anyway: i've become one of those people. I think I'm finally turning into one of those elitist liberals that everybody, including myself, hates.

Note: elitist liberal, not liberal elite.



Sometime around the 2004 election some liberal douchebag wrote a book called What's the Matter with Kansas arguing that ignorant hicks vote against their own interests by voting for Republicans, which I took umbrage at. There are plenty of reasons to vote Republican, I don't agree with 95% of them, but I don't think people are necessarily voting "against their interests" if they do so. They just have different interests from the elitist liberal dickhead who wrote the book. I'm hardly doing the book justice, but it seems to have that tone which makes you want to throw eggs at the author.

However, the current financial hiccup (and I hope it remains a hiccup) is caused almost entirely by the intransigence of a certain segment of the Republican Party and I really can't see my way around being an elitist and calling the people who support that bloc short-sighted and foolish, incapable of understanding the actual consequences of the courses of action they are loudly advocating for on several levels.

I even like French food and films.

So we got that very nice apartment we were looking at, it's in a Polish neighborhood on the boundary between Jackowo and Waclawowo. I learned something new: Hyancinth (the name) in Polish is Jacek. And Adalbert is Wojciech (not directly, but because St Adalbert was also named Wojciech). Signing lease tonight, need to talk to current landlord about arranging moveout and stuff.

Crikey, I have a pile of work to do.

Speaking of cuisine, spaghetti in squid ink sauce. Discuss. http://fxcuisine.com/Default.asp?language=2&Display=116&resolution=low This seems awesome. This is a big city, I am 100% sure I can get squid ink. I wouldn't want to clean the squid myself, I'd rather just buy the squid rings. It's just a hassle that doesn't seem worthwhile.

I was very tired last night, but fiddled with the Chess Tactics Server anyway. It did not go well. I lost 35 rating points to put me at 1500. Fortunately, the CTS ratings don't mean anything at all.

I trained yesterday, but I'm not terribly sore today. This is good. I'm only somewhat sore from squatting. I'm getting reacclimated. I still run out of gas toward the end of the session. The start is always light and fast, though. I'll be back in the swing of things soon.

< UKian infidels... | So, I've given up drinking for 6 months >
We're putting the band back together. | 28 comments (28 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Whoever thought giving morons the vote by dmg (2.00 / 0) #1 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 02:07:02 PM EST
Was a good idea?

--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
it's not just them. by gzt (4.00 / 2) #2 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 03:10:20 PM EST
Some of the landed gentry, as it were, back them, too, but for nefarious reasons: they're voting themselves more money and are insulated from the consequences.

[ Parent ]
Ok then, by dmg (2.00 / 0) #3 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 03:19:44 PM EST
Who ever thout democracy was a good idea?

--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
The Greeks by georgeha (4.00 / 3) #4 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 03:23:47 PM EST
first democracy, and now ruining the Euro.


[ Parent ]
Bunch of malaccas by dmg (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 03:35:21 PM EST

--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
and even they... by gzt (4.00 / 1) #8 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 03:54:38 PM EST
...worried about the problem of the people voting money for themselves.

[ Parent ]
self-interest by ucblockhead (4.00 / 3) #6 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 03:35:59 PM EST
The thing for me is that at a certain point the "no tax increases" thing is counterproductive even to the taxed.  The fluctuation in my 401k over the last couple of days is substantially larger than all of the money I've saved due to the Bush tax cuts.  If those taxes would have been spent on something that would make those wobbles less likely, then it sure has hell would be in my best interest to be taxed.

Obviously whether this is true is arguable, but when arguing for stimulus spending versus tax cuts, I think it's very much an issue that is, well, stupid not to consider.  Unfortunately, ideology is trumping everything, so we get idiocy of the parties arguing about $16 million ending up costing hundreds of millions because they can't agree.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman

The real issues are by dmg (2.00 / 0) #7 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 03:50:19 PM EST
Fiat currency debasement, deficit spending, and entitlements. Everything else is a side show. Buy physical gold, tinned food, toilet paper and ammunition.
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
"fiat currency debasement" is a problem? by lm (4.00 / 1) #12 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 05:44:01 PM EST
The US is not facing rampant inflation. Well, except for the price of gold.

And, FWIW, gold only has marginally more inherent value than paper currency.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Really? by dmg (2.00 / 0) #13 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 06:16:40 PM EST
I disagree. Sterilised or not, those "quantative easing" bond purchases WILL make their presence felt sooner or later. The USA clearly intends to print it's way out of trouble. Gold will hit $2000 oz before the end of the year IMO. As for gold vs paper, talk to some zimbabweans.
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
Really by lm (4.00 / 2) #14 Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 05:49:18 AM EST
The $2000 price of gold isn't because people want to use gold as a raw material, it's because they want to use it as currency or just plain speculate. It's value isn't inherent, but abstract.

And the only person I've heard even mention the US printing its way out of this bind is Alan Greenspann former chairman of the Fed. It is true that Bernanke wants to trigger inflation, but that's because inflation in the US is so low. The largest monetary threat to the US right now is deflation just like it was in the Great Depression.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Also, the price of gold in constant dollars by lm (4.00 / 1) #16 Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 08:26:00 AM EST
... if one had bought gold at its peak of $850 per troy ounce in 1980 and sold it today at its market rate, you'd be losing money after accounting for inflation. That is to say, the purchasing power of a set amount of gold has dropped between 1980 and the present day.

So gold isn't different in kind than the US dollar with regard to its exchange value. At best, it's different in extent. I'll allow that it may be possible that the exchange value of gold might be more stable than the exchange value of the US dollar.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
fundamentally agree. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #9 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 04:04:33 PM EST
the bastards ate up all of the recovery I made in my 401K this year.

It also means that this is probably not the right time to point out I should be paid more.

[ Parent ]
Oops by ucblockhead (4.00 / 1) #10 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 04:32:28 PM EST
The "$16 million" thing refers to the recent FAA controversy.
---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
yes, but it's the same disease. by gzt (4.00 / 1) #11 Tue Aug 09, 2011 at 04:41:16 PM EST
the bastards.

[ Parent ]
Stupid question by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #15 Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 07:35:53 AM EST
According to ABC News, on July 22nd, Boehner, Cantor and Obama all signed off on a deal that included 800 billion in tax increases - but the Democrats rejected it.

So, why is it that only the Republicans are "intransigent"? 

An Angry and Flatulent Pig, Trying to Tie Balloon Animals
I think that is an odd spin of the article by lm (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 08:54:14 AM EST
My reading of that article is that there was a deal on the table between the negotiators, the negotiators went back to their respective  parties, the Democrats told their negotiators to ask for more taxes, and the Republicans told their negotiators to walk away.

After walking away, Boehner claimed that the Democrats shifted the goal posts. But I have seen no report that suggests that Bohener was able to get the rest of the GOP leadership to sign onto the deal that the negotiators between the two sides had reached.

Anyway, even if the refusal to accept "new" taxes proposed was the reason that Boehner walked away, suggesting a change to a tentative deal is not the same as rejecting it. Such suggestions are what negotiations are made of.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I went back to try and find the original article by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #18 Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 09:10:23 AM EST
I remember it was on 7/22; but at this point, all searches for "debt ceiling deal" end up returning the final deal.

What I remember from the article was Boehner and Obama had a tentative deal, Boehner had gotten Cantor to sign off on it, and they were going to go to work on getting the TP caucus to do the same, when the Dems came back demanded a 50% boost in the tax revenue.  At that point, the Republicans walked away from the table.

I really just don't think the Dems were negotiating in good faith - I think they wanted to make the Republicans look as bad as possible by proposing deals they knew the Republicans wouldn't accept. 


An Angry and Flatulent Pig, Trying to Tie Balloon Animals
[ Parent ]
IIRC by ucblockhead (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 10:49:45 AM EST
I believe you are referring to the Boehner plan, which did not have enough Republican votes to pass.

---
[ucblockhead is] useless and subhuman
[ Parent ]
Here we go -although slightly different by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #19 Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 09:19:49 AM EST
This article is more detailed than the ABC item I remembered:

"How the Obama-Boehner talks collapsed"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-boehner-20110723,0,3014755.story
The Republicans made an offer: between $3 trillion and $3.5 trillion in spending reductions, and nearly $800 billion in revenue increases over 10 years through overhauling the tax code. Geithner and Daley took it back to the White House.
...
Boehner and Cantor went back to the White House on Wednesday. Discussions about the additional $400 billion in new revenue were secondary to concerns over tax reform "triggers".
...
When Democrats learned of the two-pronged approach — spending cuts now, taxes later — they revolted. The White House spent much of the day trying to control the damage.
...
Then, things quickly deteriorated, and Boehner pulled out, citing the $400 billion in revenues first sought by Obama on Tuesday.
So, not quite what I remembered - but it does point to the Democrats revolting over the lack of revenue as the trigger for the collapse.

An Angry and Flatulent Pig, Trying to Tie Balloon Animals
[ Parent ]
But notice what it does and does not say by lm (2.00 / 0) #21 Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 08:04:35 PM EST
It does not say, "Democrats rejected the plan."

What it does say is that they suggested changes. It also says that Boehner pulled out. How could he have pulled out if the Democrats already gave a final "no"?


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
Right, right. by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #22 Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 09:04:02 PM EST
Because "revolted" means "open to further negotiations". 

An Angry and Flatulent Pig, Trying to Tie Balloon Animals
[ Parent ]
No, it doesn't by lm (2.00 / 0) #23 Wed Aug 10, 2011 at 09:48:05 PM EST
But that's besides the point. "Revolted" is the reporters language. More important is the objective actions described by the report.

Party A, when presented with an repugnant option, responded with a counter proposal.

Party B, when presented with a repugnant option, responded by walking away.

It seems to me that Party B clearly rejected the proposal by its behavior. Walking away from negotiations means that all possible deals are flatly rejected. Party A was was still willing to deal as evidenced by it making a counter-proposal.

Now, if you're able to show me a clear statement by any Democrat party to the negotiations on the same level of the party hierarchy as Boehner is in the Republican party who said that they flatly reject the deal and are unwilling to negotiate further, I'll change my mind.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
I don't negotiate with terrorists. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 11:15:55 AM EST
Or argue with Republicans.

[ Parent ]
.... errrr, what? by ObviousTroll (2.00 / 0) #25 Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 12:43:36 PM EST
That's not a non-sequitur by lm (4.00 / 2) #26 Thu Aug 11, 2011 at 08:07:41 PM EST
It's a conjunction of negations : -(a) & -(b).

You need a conclusion of some sort to make a non-sequitur.

The young mister gzt, however, has only offered premises. One or more of them may be false. But without a conclusion presented, he cannot possibly have offered a non-sequitor.

Now, it could be that you're thinking that gzt incorrectly concluded that you're a Rebublican based on the premise that you've offered an argument supporting the GOP on a given issue. If he had, and if IIRC that aren't actually a Republican, then he may be guilty of a non-sequitur. But we don't know that gzt reasoned thus. So it might be better to simply offer that the negation of (b), arguing with Republicans, is irrelevent.

Or, better yet, if my recollection of your political proclivities is correct, simply observe that if gzt were trying to imply a conclusion, that it does not follow because one of his premises is false.

  1. gzt does not negotiate with terrorists and gzt does not argue with Repblicans.
  2. ObviousTroll is a Republican.
  3. gzt does not argue with Obvious Troll.
Far from being a non-sequitur, this is a logically valid argument. If all of the premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. If one of the premises is not correct, it is not a non-sequitur. It is simply not sound.

Rather than allegations of throwing around allegations of non-sequituring, a better response would be "you're being rude and like to fuck child molesting guinea pigs." Such a response, even if not a sound argument, would at least be offered in the same spirit.


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
sir, by infinitera (4.00 / 1) #27 Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 05:15:35 PM EST
God gave us HTML entities for a reason.

¬a ∧ ¬b

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

[ Parent ]
you, sir by lm (4.00 / 1) #28 Fri Aug 12, 2011 at 09:02:53 PM EST
Have drunk the Kool-Aid&tm;

By which I mean that you fail to give proper due to the history of various logical notations and presume that one particular system THE STANDARD>


There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]
We're putting the band back together. | 28 comments (28 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback