"If we drilled it into young people that the correct thing to do is for everyone to instantly run at the guy with the gun, these sorts of mass shootings would be less deadly, because even a guy with a very powerful weapon can be brought down by 8-12 unarmed bodies piling on him at once."
Megan McArdle, libertarian blogger and pundit.
That has too be the most idiotic piece of punditry I have ever read. Good God. McArdle is advocating a surefire way to get children killed.
Why Both Parties Aren't Serious About Deficit Reduction
I shockingly agree with Dan Drezner and Megan McArdle. Neither the Republicans or Democrats are serious about reducing the deficit. Democrats want to extend the Bush tax cuts for the middle class and poor. Republicans want to extend tax cuts with people making over $250,000-a-year.
Drezner: They basically say, 'We want to seriously cut the deficit. We don't want to touch entitlements and we're not going to touch defense spending. And we're not gonna raise taxes." Go!
The Senate voted against the deficit reduction committee. These same Democrat and Republican Senators whom claim to be concerned about the deficit panic when it comes time to take action. The House of Representatives reinstituted PAYGO in 2007. The House abandoned PAYGO less than a year later. The current PAYGO rule is the party in power (Democrats) can't declare an emergency exemption to get around making cuts in other parts of the budget to balance out the passage of a certain bill. Congress does not have the moral courage to balance the budget.
Libertarian blogger Megan McArdle dismissed the fear of gun-wielding protesters at townhall meetings. They would never wish harm on President Barack Obama.
But the hysteria about them has been even more ludicrous. Numerous people claim to believe that this makes it likely, even certain, that someone will shoot at the president. This is very silly, because the president is not anywhere most of the gun-toting protesters, who have showed up at all sorts of events. It is, I suppose, more plausible to believe that they might take a shot at someone else. But not very plausible: the rate of crime associated with legal gun possession or carrying seems to be very low. Guns, it turn out, do not turn ordinary people into murderers. They make murderers more effective.
See how "silly" this is. It is not like guns have ever been used to murder presidents. Excluding presidents Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy. The murders weapon in every assasination attempt was a gun. McArdle can dismiss those she disagrees with because her self-preceived intellectual superiority makes her better.
McArdle would look at news stories of gun-toting protester Chris Broughton wishing death to befall President Obama and dismiss them as "silly."
In an interview with ABC 15 outside the storefront Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Broughton said of Anderson's controversial August 16 "Why I Hate Barack Obama" sermon: "I concur, I think we'd be better off if God would send [Obama] where he's going now instead of later. [Obama] is destroying our country."
And when a reporter followed up with, "you're not advocating violence against the president?" Broughton, who has previously said his weapons are for defense, says "I'm not going to answer that question directly."
Broughton would not give a straight forward answer to if violence should be used against Obama. This isn't "silly." We are talking about mentally unbalanced radicals bringing guns to townhall meetings because state legislatures caved in the the NRA. McArdle is a media blogger whom dismisses dangers against the President. The Atlantic Monthly will eventually fire McArdle. It is just a question of how many embarrassing posts they can stomach.
Republican poll numbers are tanking. Democrats have supermajorities in the House and Senate. President Barack Obama created the hugest grassroots coalition of any President in history. The public have voiced disapproval in the current state of health care. Obama came in with political advantages Bill Clinton could only dream of having.
Obama first major "health care reform" was promising the "pharmaceutical industry" the White House would not support any legislation that would allow the federal government to negotiate the price of drugs. Under the Obama administration, the taxpayer and patients can look forward to being charged more for prescription drugs. This is change Megan McCardle can believe in.
The latest progressive change is the White House will most likely drop the public option. Press Sec. Robert Gibbs hinted, as much, on Face the Nation.
"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market. Again, if you are in a place in this country where you only get one choice, how in the world are you going to be able to convince anybody that you are driving down costs when you don't have to compete against anything."
Can anyone say that Obama operated the health care debate like a chess master? The advantage was his and he refuses to go on the offensive. Obama never put single payer on the table. The public option is near death. Republicans are going to keep pressing. Whatever Obama passes can not be declared victory.
Megan McArdle rants on BloggingHeads Tv that health care reform will kill people. McArdle gives the libertarian argument that health care reform will kill the competion for innovative new drugs. Mark Schmitt literally laughs at her argument.
Obama's health care plan does not kill private pharmacuitical companies. McArdle fails to understand market is created by demand. There will always be sick and terminally ill patients. The demand for current and new drugs is there during economic prosperous and weak times. The pharmacuitical industry couldn't have a better market. Medicine is not a luxury item. People need it to live.
The Bush administration hindered choice and competition. President Bush refused to allow cheaper drugs to come from Canada. Senator Orrin Hatch explain if we import drugs the terrorist wins.
Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, said, ''If this proposal becomes law, we are just placing our country in the hands of foreign terrorists who could easily get hold of various prescription drug products and spread desolation and disease.''
That is a silly argument. The FDA can screen the drugs. No one is arguing to have unsafe drugs enter the country. It is amazing Republicans are arguing against free trade and competition. Not so amazing considering what pharmacuitical companies spent contributing to the Republican Party during the 2004 and 2006 campaign cycles. Conservative ideology for free markets takes a backseat to lobbyists.
I'm not suprised McArdle would argue against health care reform. She defended accused murderer Scott Roeder and professed her crush on Bobby Jindal. There is no reason to expect McArdle to make a rationale argument. What I don't understand is why anyone would pay her to blog?
Megan McArdle writes a long and bizarre post defending the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller. Authorities have captured Scott Roeder. The suspect has a long history of militia involvement and voicing his desire to kill abortion providers. The fact McArdle would want to defend the actions of such a tainted individual makes me question her common sense.
Perhaps I find the certainty of the pro-choice side so disturbing because it feels a lot like the certainty of the warbloggers in the run up to the Iraq invasion. As some of Hilzoy's commenters point out, I was myself too caught up in it, which makes me cautious of getting caught up again. The pro-choicers seem to be acting as if people who shoot abortion doctors are some weird species of moral alien, whose actions can only be understood in Satantic terms, and who cannot and should not be negotiated with, because they only understand raw displays of power. Yet it seems to me that if I were in a society that believed fervently in the personhood of a fetus, I would very possibly agree, and view Tiller's murderer the way I'd view someone who, say, assassinated Mengele.
What we learned was McArdle's judgement was horribly wrong with Iraq and now with the Tiller murder. McArdle grew up in an Upper West Side of New York City. She was educated at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania and lives in the Washington, D.C. bubble. This is a woman that has not had a tough life. McArdle views Tiller's murder and the Iraq war as an intellectual debate.
I am aware that I have constructed my beliefs about personhood in the face of these things--like any good undergrad, I know the answer I need to reason to in order to ensure both social comfort and maximum personal freedom. I like to think that I am too rigorous a thinker to be seduced by such ephemera.
Coffeehouse debates with D.C. friends has little relevance with the real world. McArdle writes that she has pro-choice leanings. Her problem is the tone of the pro-choice movement makes them fail to understand why someone would want to murder a doctor at his choice. Excuse me, but I wonder if McArdle would feel that way if Tiller was gunned down a few feet from her.
If you interpret this murder as a political act, rather than that of a lone whacko, than this should be a troubling sign that the political system has failed. So why do so many people think that the obvious answer is simply to more firmly entrench laws that are rightly intolerable to someone who thinks that a late term fetus is a person?
McArdle's worldview is influenced by Ayn Rand and Libertarian economics. Find a feminist whom supports Rand theories? Name a good Libertarian economic idea? McArdle has a history of being and and ridiculed in the blogosphere. McArdle argues in the post her parents restrict her "autonomy by continuing to be alive." McArdle makes it clear she has no desire to murder her parents. I wonder why she even went there. It is rather morbid to write on a media blog how the death of McArdle's parents would financially benefit her. That is a sick line of thinking.
In Other News:John Aravosis is angry President Barack Obama backed down on the Homelan Security demestic terrorism report. Aravovis' logic is if Obama looked "to the future" Tiller's murder could now be used for political advantage. Aravosis' compassion is underwhelming.
Note that had Obama held firm in the face of the criticism last month, he'd be riding high right now and the GOP would be cowering in shame for having basically enabled this terrorist act. But Democrats rarely look to the future, nor do they see benefit in having a spine or doing what's right. And now a man is dead.
Remember what I wrote only a month ago about the religious right demanding the right to kill. Today, in church, they exercised that right. As they have in the past. As they will in the future.
In case you are wondering, Aravosis lives in Washington, D.C. It must be something in the Potomac River. This is America. We don't gun down people in church just because we disagree with them. The one trait McArdle and Aravosis share is neither of them give a damn about Tiller. The doctor is a prop for their political arguments and bad blog posts.
Megan McArdle wrote a follow up post to her original Jindalmania piece. Both posts were originally writen last year.
But once you're past that, well, the guy just has skills. His message, like Obama's, is one of hope and actual change; he tends to emphasize the work he's done reforming Louisiana's notoriously corrupt political culture. And like Obama, he has the charisma to put it over. Nearly all prominent politicians are extremely charismatic. Being in a room with them is like being in a room with the sun; you can't really look anywhere else. But some have it more than others, and Jindal has a lot of it.
He's also a really good political organizer, which is how a Republican carries Louisiana (to be sure, the Democratic governor's monstrously incompetent performance during Hurricane Katrina helped quite a bit.) And on the other metrics by which Obama stands out--his academic chops, his meteoric rise--Jindal actually betters Obama. The guy was accepted to both Harvard Medical School and Yale Law School, but decided to go for a political career, and accepted his Rhodes Scholarship instead. At 25 he was appointed Lousiana's Secretary of Health and Hospitals; at 28, he became the youngest-ever president of the University of Louisiana system.
McArdle comparing Jindal's political skills to Barack Obama's takes nerve. Unpopular incumbant Kathleen Blanco did not seek re-election, in the wake of hurricane Katrina. Jindal ran in a nonpartisan blanket primary against eleven opponents. Only two were Democrats. Walter Boasso and Foster Campbell did not hold a Congressional seat or previously run for Governor. Jindal has. Boasso switched from a Republican to Democrat because the Republican Party of Louisiana endorsed Jindal. Short answer: Jindal had an easy race after Blanco dropped out. Jindal won David Vitter's Congressional seat. The seat has been red since 1977.
Another fun fact: George W. Bush won Louisiana in 2000 and 2004. Jindal ran in 2003. Louisiana had a serving Republican Governor in Murphy J. Foster, Jr.. Blanco beat Jindal in 2003 52 percent to 48 percent. John McCain beat Obama in Louisiana by 58.6 percent to 39.9 percent.
Barack Obama raised a record 750 million for his presidential campaign. Obama beat Democratic superstar Hillary Clinton and former vice-presidential candidate John Edwards in the primary. Obama beat Republican media darling John McCain in the general election. McCain could have been elected president in 2000, if not for the smear campaign waged during the South Carolina primary.
How MrArdle can compare Obama's political savvy with Jindal's is beyond me? Jindal's Republican support is soft. Louisiana is not representative of the United States electorate. There is no evidence Jindal can raise cash or harness the power of the internet the way Obama did. I have already written about the highly negative reviews of Jindal's SOTU response. I get the feeling McArdle knows her "puppy love" crush bombed. There isn't a single post in McArdle's February 2009 archives about Bobby Jindal. The thing about puppy love crushes is they don't tend to last very long.
Personally, I have no respect for a blogger that would let FEMA off-the-hook for the Katrina response.
One interesting thing I learned is just how far Jindal has come in fighting Louisiana's institutional problems. Bush detractors get mad when I say this, but it really is true that the total ineptitude of the state and local governments was a major reason that things went so tragically wrong during Katrina. FEMA is a small agency with a few thousand employees; it is a funding mechanism for recovery efforts, not some sort of Super EMT Squad. FEMA does well in states that have competent and responsive government agencies, and not so well in places that don't. (The staggering incompetence of rebuilding efforts is another rant--but also, a symptom of broader government problems rather than necessarily something specific to FEMA. But then as I say, that's another rant.)
Blanco's response was inexcusable. Is McArdle aware the New Orleans levees are a federal project under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers? In Augest 2008, the Bush administration did not finish repairing the levees.
In the Youtube video below: Homeland Security Director makes the insane argument he based his Katrina response on newspaper headlines. I feel better if the Chertoff knew more about disasters then the media.
Chertoff: "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees" -- was based on news reports from the morning after the storm indicating that New Orleans had "dodged a bullet."
The newspaper headlines from August 29th, 2005 reported Katrina badly damaging New Orleans. The Grenada, Mississippi Daily Star is the only newspaper to use the phrase "dodged a bullet." Is this where the Bush administration gets all it's news?
Reactions to Bobby Jindal's State of the Union Response
Bobby Jindal gave the worst State of the Union response in recent memory. Jindal's wooden response. Jindal used hurricane Katrina as a reason the government should not get involved in emergency management. Has Jindal remember Michael Brown's and Michael Chertoff's role in Katrina? Jindal is disingenuous about Obama's stimulus bill. As a member of Congress, Jindal voted against moving FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security.
To solve our current problems, Washington must lead. But the way to lead is not to raise taxes and not to just put more money and power in hands of Washington politicians. The way to lead is by empowering you, the American people. Because we believe that Americans can do anything.
A "making work pay" refundable tax credit championed by Obama of up to $400 per individual and $800 for couples in 2009 and 2010. It is calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and is phased out for individuals with adjusted incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $150,000.
* A one-time payment of $250 to Social Security beneficiaries, railroad retirees and veterans receiving benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. State government retirees not eligible for Social Security would also get the $250 payment.
* Increases the earned income tax credit for low-income workers with three or more children.
* Increases eligibility for the refundable child tax credit to more low-income workers. The bill reduces the income floor to $3,000 in 2009 and 2010 from the current floor of $8,500.
* A new $2,500 tax credit for college education expenses. The credit phases out for individuals earning more than $80,000 and couples with incomes over $160,000.
An $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers for homes purchased between Jan. 1 and Dec. 1, 2009. The tax credit phases out for individuals earning more than $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000.
* Temporary relief from the alternative minimum tax for millions of middle-class taxpayers who otherwise would be ensnared by the tax originally meant for the very wealthy.
FOR BUSINESSES
* Small businesses with gross receipts of up to $15 million can write off 2008 losses against five previous tax years. Current laws allows a two-year carryback of losses.
Businesses will also be allowed to immediately write off more of their investments in computers and other equipment.
* Businesses that repurchase debt at a lower amount than when it was issued will be able to defer taxes on it. Usually reduced or canceled debt is treated as income and taxed. The break applies to debt repurchased adjusted after Dec. 31, 2008, and before Jan. 1, 2011.
* A tax break on capital gains from the sale of stock held in a small business for more than five years.
* The bill raises about $7 billion in revenues by repealing a Treasury Department decision last year to liberalize rules that were intended to prevent companies in a merger from taking huge tax breaks on losses of firms they were acquiring.
Jindal invokes 9-11. That didn't work for Rudy Giuliani. Jindal spoke about cleaning up corruption. He took money from Tom Delay, Roy Blunt, Jerry Lewis, and clints of Jack Abramoff. How can anyone whom took money from indicted men and is married to a lobbyist be a role model for anti-corruption.
The media reactions to Jindal's performance are hysterical. Rachel Maddow is literally speechless.
Conservative columnist David Brooks praised Obama's speech and panned Jindal's rhetoric.
Brooks called Jindal's reponse the worst ever by a Republican. Ouch.
Of course, I'm just in that first flush of puppy love, when a journalist meets a handsome young politician who just might be The One. Soon enough, I'll undoubtedly find things about him to hate. But frankly, it's rare enough to meet one I like. True love may have to wait.
I'm speechless. I wonder if Tas or Litbrit have a response to McArdle. This is too good to pass up.
"Does the governor have a volcano in his backyard?" Royce Pollard, the mayor of Vancouver, Washington, said on Wednesday. "We have one that's very active, and it still rumbles and spits and coughs very frequently."
Jindal singled out a $140 million appropriation for the U.S. Geological Survey as an example of questionable government spending during the GOP response to President Barack Obama's address to Congress Tuesday night.
The governor, a rising Republican star, questioned why "something called 'volcano monitoring' " was included in the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus bill Obama signed earlier this month.
Perhaps Jindal should find out before mentioning volcano monitoring in his speech.
Update: Fox News pans Jindal's speech.
Update:Paul Krugman perfectly mocks the stupidity of Jindal's speech.
And leaving aside the chutzpah of casting the failure of his own party’s governance as proof that government can’t work, does he really think that the response to natural disasters like Katrina is best undertaken by uncoordinated private action? Hey, why bother having an army? Let’s just rely on self-defense by armed citizens.
The intellectual incoherence is stunning. Basically, the political philosophy of the GOP right now seems to consist of snickering at stuff that they think sounds funny. The party of ideas has become the party of Beavis and Butthead.
