Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Quite the Two-Step

115 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • tussock,

    Hmm. It appears I'm running for president of the USA, and my name is Dennis Kucinich. Why was I not informed? Surely the liberal media should love this man to pieces.

    What I haven't been able to find: how many skull and bones members this time around? They had it sewn up either way last time.

    Since Nov 2006 • 611 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    surely obtaining filibuster and veto proof majorities must be long term objectives

    Seriously?
    [insert some joke about smoking odd things]

    If the entire US moves to the left, the Senate will never fall to 33 Republicans. The Republicans would just move with the people, and they'd be fighting over a centre that was in a different place.

    Also, party discipline is weak in the US - filibuster and veto proof majorities will happen with a different mix of senators across both parties on just about every issue they arise in.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    I don't think there's too many people who don't ultimately derive all of their moral intuitions that way, so "it just feels right/wrong" isn't a vote loser, necessarily. For everyone who feels the same intuitions it's a powerful argument.

    I suspect I could without too much trouble, poke holes in my 'policies' on the whole matter, myself. Let alone someone talented who believes the opposite, who wouldn't have too much trouble either.

    I always find that policies not backed up by philosophies, can easily become contradictions.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    I always find that policies not backed up by philosophies, can easily become contradictions.

    Has that ever stopped them?

    I try to get rid of contradiction where I find it, but whenever you step on moral intuitions you're pushing shit uphill to convince people of things. They just make exceptions in their principles and call it 'pragmatic'. It seems to me that our incredible minds don't help us much on this one, they are more likely to snare us into insisting we are right.

    That's not to say that good reasoning doesn't change people's minds. I would say 9 times out of 10 that is because you show them their views are not pragmatic though, rather than the any assault on their core beliefs. It's more likely to be that you just showed how the pre-existing morals are being violated in a way they hadn't really thought through, in some particular case.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Has that ever stopped them?

    No, but I was talking about me, rather than anyone else's messed up world :)

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    It was encouraging to see the Democrats make progress in some traditionally red states in the mid-terms...

    ... Well, still your beating heart WH. As Graeme pointed out, don't make the mistake of thinking the Democrats and Republicans are just the Labour and National parties writ large. You'd be surprised how big a chunk of the Democrats' House majority will be defending marginal and relatively conservative districts that didn't necessarily vote for the party of Teddy Kennedy and Nancy Perlosi, but wanted to punish the party of Ted Haggard and Mark Foley.

    And to be fair, if Romney or Huckabee win their nomination, I suspect more than a few Republican House and Senate candidates will be thinking very carefully about how close their embrace their party's nominee.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Neil Morrison,

    I'm conflicted. Obama is better than Clinton on foreign policy. Clinton, for the most part, is better on domestic stuff.

    I agree on domestic policy - Clinton's policies are more generally developed and she's got far more change of getting thru her sorely needed health sector reforms.

    As for foreign policy I don't there's a lot in it. During the campaign they both of course will look for the slightest opportunity to create some sort of difference but these will be arguments about mere wording. US foreign policy will look the same with either as Pres.

    Where there will be a difference is the learning curve Obama will have to go thru on dealing with the international political community. Clinton has already been there and will know all the potential pitfalls. Her first hand observations her husband's dealings with Bosnia, North Korea, Israel/Palestine, Iran and Saddam will be a huge advantage.

    Obama's a bright guy and will respond to such a challenge well, after a time getting to grips with things. I also doubt that he wouldn't be taking allot of advice from the Clintonites.

    So I can't see any big difference between Obama and Clinton on foreign policy.

    Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    Seriously?
    [insert some joke about smoking odd things]

    I don't find that especially funny, Graeme. Do you actually know what you are talking about?

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20477656/
    WASHINGTON - The last Democratic president to enjoy a filibuster-proof Senate majority was Jimmy Carter 30 years ago.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster
    The term first came into use in the United States Senate, where Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose, unless a supermajority of three-fifths of the Senate (60 Senators, if all 100 seats are filled) brings debate to a close by invoking cloture.[1]

    Since Nov 2006 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    No, but I was talking about me, rather than anyone else's messed up world :)

    So was I :-) You're a good example to yourself. If you can't avoid contradiction in your own beliefs (and I can't when it comes to morals), why think anyone else can?

    I see morals now as a bunch of competing principles which each have a weighting, and any particular moral issue will have an extent to which it violates some principle. The product-sum being high means I think it's not OK.

    But that just transfers the burden of thought onto assigning the weights to the principle parts of any issue, and also the basic weights for the principles. How can we do that? If we take a bunch of examples and contrast them to each other, we get our weights, but then we've transferred the burden of thought right back to our moral intuitions on particular instances again. Why bother having gone through all the complicated philosophizing?

    Similarly with any particular instance - we can work out how much it violates, say, the principle of compassion by comparing it to other various instances, but we still have to have lined up all those instances somehow. Since we are trying to work out the principle we can't use the principle to do it. Again we fall back to our feelings.

    These thoughts have plagued me for over a decade now. It would be lovely to discover the perfect principle, or the perfect weighting for a set of principles, but any time I try, there's a good counter-example that just hits me square in the feelings. I can't just say 'bugger my feelings', when they were the source of the principles in the first place.

    OTOH, it makes the world a more interesting place when it can surprise you by giving you feelings on issues you thought you already had answers for.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Graeme Edgeler,

    I don't find that especially funny, Graeme. Do you actually know what you are talking about?

    I like to think I do - though I do probably know more about the American political system than I do about American politics.

    I am aware of what cloture is; I acknowledge that it's possible (if unlikely) that the Dems might get a filibuster-proof majority. I just think it so incredibly unlikely that they'll get a veto-proof majority (two-thirds - in both the Senate and the House), that it really can't be a long-term aim.

    The long-term aim of the democrats - to the extent that political parties (esp American ones) have long-term aims - must surely be to shift the political centre to the left, and to be in the majority for as much of the intervening time as possible, preferably with a fellow democrat in the White House for much of the time too.

    If the democrats ever look like getting veto-proof majorities, the political centre will shift and they'll find they have less of a majority, but political consensus over some of the issues they've previously been fighting over.

    Wellington, New Zealand • Since Nov 2006 • 3215 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    It is sometimes claimed out that modern Republican dominance is unintuitive and is built on the careful exploitation of cultural issues such as religion, race, crime, immigration. et cetera. This is the "What is the Matter with Kansas" thesis. There are two ways to go about unpacking this. The first is to attack Republican supporters as bigots, using the play to the base approach used by GWB. The second is to broaden the Democrats appeal to centrist voters, building bridges across ideological and subcultural lines, the DLC approach.

    To be honest I'm just sitting here chilling with my special cookies.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5842.html
    http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/10/5806_the_democrats_best-case_senate_scenario_filibuster-proof_majority.html
    http://wizbangblue.com/2007/09/21/filibusterproof-senate-majority-within-reach-for-democrats.php
    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/04/60.html

    Since Nov 2006 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • Danielle,

    The long-term aim of the democrats - to the extent that political parties (esp American ones) have long-term aims - must surely be to shift the political centre to the left

    What bums me out about them as a party is their triangulation-mania. The Democratic higher-ups are such a bunch of appeasing wimps that they'll let the religious right dictate all the terms of the debate. Meh. I don't really hold out high hopes for them.

    (What they *really* need to do is get rid of the electoral college. Also, pigs need to start growing wings, stat.)

    Charo World. Cuchi-cuchi!… • Since Nov 2006 • 3828 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Do you, WH? There is an argument that even the threat of a filobuster can be - if judiciously applied - a powerful tool to moderate legislation (what political leader likes being publicly humiliated by members of his or her own caucus?), or prevent contentious appointments - such as some of Bush's judicial nominees - evading proper public scrutiny. Any party having a 'filibuster-proof Senate majority' (especially if the same party also controls the executive) not only marginalises the minority, but effectively neuters moderate/centrist Senators on both sides of the aisle. Which might be OK if you think moderates are a pack of pussies, and the minority are evil incarnate.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    This is the "What is the Matter with Kansas" thesis.

    Which sounds so much nicer on the book jacket than 'Snap out of it, you retarded inbreedl'. :)

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    filobuster

    noun: Isn't that a giant roll of filo pastry stuffed with an entire chicken or similar?

    verb: To make a political speech while eating a filobuster, thus making delivery slow and indistinct, and thus deliberately delaying proceedings. The filobuster has been banned in many parliamentary assemblies as an unfair debating technique.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    It is sometimes claimed out that modern Republican dominance is unintuitive and is built on the careful exploitation of cultural issues such as religion, race, crime, immigration.

    What's unintuitive about that? Hasn't politics has centered around these issues since time began?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    So was I :-) You're a good example to yourself. If you can't avoid contradiction in your own beliefs (and I can't when it comes to morals), why think anyone else can?

    I think I can. I just haven't found it/expressed it yet.

    That's OK. I'm still young :)

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • WH,

    What's unintuitive about that?

    The exploitation is not unintuitive, its the voting pattern that results. The question is why do people from poor states (who would benefit from Democratic economic policies) vote for anti-government-services Republicans.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What's_the_Matter_with_Kansas%3F

    Since Nov 2006 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • Neil Morrison,

    Since we are trying to work out the principle we can't use the principle to do it. Again we fall back to our feelings.

    well God is dead after all- there is no ultimate justification for any moral view. We get to choose.

    but "we fall back to our feelings" - and feelings are the mechanisms evolution has provided us to enable us to work (or fight) in groups. Just like our endless ability to moralise. The moralising comes first, the morals second.

    Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    That's the spirit, keep the dream alive. I guess I should be more clear in what I'm saying. It's not that hard to find an uncontradictory set of beliefs, but you really have to go to work on your moral intuitions to do it. And that makes it very hard convincing anyone else of those beliefs, since counter examples will abound and you'll end up sounding like any other ideologue.

    As in science, so in morality, the perfect simple self consistent theory is a dangerous thing. If we think of morality as a science then that makes the observations/experiments equate to 'how we feel about example x'. That usually means we will have data inconsistent with most simple theories. If we then seek to change how we feel, we are really just massaging the data to fit the theory. Better is to accept that each theory has some unintended consequences, and make it more sophisticated. Eventually we have a theory so sophisticated that it matches all data. It's then as accurate as our intuitions, which we had all along. Why did we bother?

    It's a real chicken and egg problem. I like Russell's take (Bertrand, that is) on it - that Philosophy is not about finding answers but learning to live with doubt. A different take on Socrates point that we know pretty much nothing for sure about these big deep problems. Both of these geniuses spent their entire lives on them, so it's nice to have a sneak preview of where it's likely to go.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • BenWilson,

    WH,

    The exploitation is not unintuitive, its the voting pattern that results....

    I got your point, was just joking really. Yes, poor people voting Republican is nuts, unless you believe what they believe, of course. That religion, race, crime, immigration are the big issues of the day and Republicans have the answers. I disagree with both points, but I do have to confess that I'm not a poor American, so how would I know?

    Neil,
    It is quite an unsatisfying moral theory, I have to confess. It reduces moralizing to the same action as a dog barking angrily over territory. Which takes away from the 'force' of moral arguments. I think the entire force of any moral argument is ultimately the chorus behind it. That does suggest that there is no 'right' morality, an unfortunate consequence if moralizing is your bag. In a beautiful circular motion, that becomes an unacceptable consequence to most people's intuition and they would rather put that ahead of reason on the matter. I find it quite hard myself when I want to moralize, until I remember "I'm not right, I'm just part of a chorus".

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 10657 posts Report Reply

  • MikeE,

    Party pill ban delayed

    12.12.2007
    By MICHELE McPHERSON

    A new law banning party pills containing the chemical BZP has been delayed _ meaning they can be legally sold over the Christmas-New Year holiday period.

    The delay has happened because Parliament has run out of time for the second reading of the Misuse of Drugs (Classification of BZP) Amendment Bill.

    The bill was to become law on December 18, but the second reading of the bill could now be as far away as late January, the Bay of Plenty Times has learned.

    Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton's press secretary, Liz Grant, said because the Green Party opposes the bill, it refuses to grant it urgency in Parliament.

    "With the agreement of all parties, legislation can come before the House under urgency but if there isn't that agreement, certain legislation can be blocked," said Mrs Grant.

    Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen has announced the time taken up by the discussion surrounding the Electoral Finance Bill has meant there was a possibility Parliament may sit as late as Tuesday next week.

    The party bill law _ which bans the supply, manufacture and exporting of party pills containing BZP and makes it a Class C1 drug _ has enough support in Parliament to be passed, despite the opposition from the Greens.

    The new law will carry a penalty of up to eight years' jail. Those found simply in possession of a Class C1 drug are normally liable to a maximum of three months imprisonment and/or up to a $500 fine.

    But because pills containing BZP have been legally available for some years, the bill includes provision for an amnesty for possession of less than five grams for personal use. The amnesty will expire on June 17, 2008.

    Tauranga party pill manufacturer Gary Read is obviously supportive of the delay but refused to comment on whether he had sold the 950,000 he claimed in July his company NZ Party Pills had recently manufactured.

    Mr Read said he made a submission to the Select Committee opposing the bill. He claimed there were 52 submissions made in support of the bill and 12 against.

    Mr Read said he was not currently manufacturing party pills but could do so again at short notice.

    Mr Read is still supplying party pills to 270 retailers mostly in the North Island, 14 of which are in Tauranga, from existing stocks.

    He said people were increasingly stock-piling the pills.

    "We get that with the summer period anyway," he said.

    NZ Party Pills also sells non-BZP party pills.

    Tauranga retailer Aristocrat Adult Shop _ which sells between 20 and 30 types of party pills _ has cut back on its range since news of the ban broke but was pleased to hear sales could temporarily continue.

    "It will be good, they'll (customers) probably just keep on buying them as they normally do, all the regulars will anyway," a staff member said.

    With the proposed December 18 ban looming, a sign encouraging customers to take advantage of clearance prices on party pills hangs in the window of Mount Maunganui adult store Erox.

    Store manager Trevor Gilmour was thrilled by the news sales could continue throughout the holidays.

    http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/localnews/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3758134

    Washington DC • Since Nov 2006 • 138 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    You'd have thought Jim's press secretary would know how parliament works.

    "With the agreement of all parties, legislation can come before the House under urgency but if there isn't that agreement, certain legislation can be blocked," said Mrs Grant.

    No, urgency just needs a majority of the House, not unanimity: http://www.parliament.nz/NR/rdonlyres/078D6043-9E03-4D87-93BA-A6BB84ACC063/6619/standingorders20095.pdf

    Maybe the JAP should rename itself after a 19th century US political movement - the Jim Anderton Know Nothing Party.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    Ben and Neil- I think there's a little more to it than that (tho I admire the smart way you've wrapped this up!) Empathy seems to lie at the heart of most ethics (as opposed the "handed down from on high" morality- and yeah, that's something which undoubtedly had survival advantages. (A single bipedal ape is a tasty treat; 30 of them are a problem).
    While empathy isn't a principle, it does seem to me to underly most of the core of ethical intuitions- and thus, behaviour- I'd personally like to endorse. I'm sure you'll come up with a counter-example pronto, Ben! It sounds like you've looked at the "experimental philosophy" approach?
    (There's some great work on groups, and how they behave, that make a lot more sense of "morality" than studying the behaviour- or intuitions- of individuals. The "in-crowd/out-crowd" dynamic of tribes is also one of our worst features- we're not simple critters.)

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2120 posts Report Reply

  • Neil Morrison,

    you bet me to it Rob.

    empathy is the way out of the dilemma. and it's not reliant on reason. we generally do show concern for the well being of others - and that does have an evolutionary basis. but some people have less than others and some poeple have none at all.

    some of our problems lie with stopping those that don't have empathy from getting power and other problems lie with the upscaling of psycho-social abilitites, that were developed in the context of small groups, to societies with millions of people. that's why politics is often so dreadful but it's a saving grace that we can do it at all.

    Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.