Morning Links: Uniting Monday Haters with the Crazies who Love to Get Back to Work

So in case you started your weekend really early and spent most of it in a blacked out haze with uncomfortable periods of sobriety/hung-overness, I'm sure you are aware that your favorite NFL team just made some pretty big decisions over the weekend at the 2012 NFL Draft. If you're really not happy to be back at work right now, this is probably a pretty excellent thing to review as it can probably get you to at least lunchtime before you have to get into an excel spreadsheet to do some real work. CR is pretty happy with our pick, especially since if it doesn't work the Giants could probably just start a circus.

Raise the Roof? DC Considering Changes to Tall Buildings Restriction

Washington DC's restriction on tall buildings is in the midst of its latest challenge, as city and congressional leaders discuss possible modifications to the 1910 Heights of Buildings Act, which generally restricts construction within the city's radius to no more than 90 feet for residential buildings and 130 feet for commercial structures.  Leading the charge is DC Mayor Vincent Gray, in concert with "congresswoman" Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who chairs the House committee that controls the city's pursestrings.

Real estate developers have long abhorred the prohibition on taller buildings, which they say limits their ability to develop downtown Washington to its full potential and artificially inflates the price of the city's prime office space.  Additionally, Issa and others believe that relaxing the limit on tall buildings would help lure developers to outlying areas of the city that have historically been neglected but could become candidates for high-rise residential and office buildings.

It should also be noted that the three leaders are not talking about a total repeal of the rule, but what instead seems like a relatively minor change which would allow the addition of another floor or two on top of new and existing structures.

Friday Links: Heresy, Innovation, and Disappointing GDP

Ice Cube knows it, you do too.  What?


That's right, it's Friday.  So get your open containers ready because Conflict Revolution Daily Links are about to go DOWN.  Let's take a look at what's in the news today:

1) The United States economy grew at a disappointing rate of 2.2% on the first quarter of 2012, lower than the median rate of 2.5% forecasted by economists and lower than the 3.0% growth between October and December of 2011.  Some silver lining?  Consumer confidence hit the highest level in a year, indicating improving demand, while household purchases ticked up by 2.9%, exceeding even the most optimistic estimates.  Also, Germany and Japan's economies are shrinking, and Britain is officially in a double-dip recession... so at least we're not them. ["Economy in US Grew Less Than Forecast in First Quarter," Bloomberg, 4/27/12]

2) Stephen Siena, CR's other esteemed writer, has long argued that modern, Western secularism is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian thought and stressed that this really makes the US a Christian nation. So is Western secularism just another in the long line of Christian heresies? ["Bad Religion," Slate, 4/19/12]

3) CNN's John Avlon gives a well-reasoned perspective on tax reform, but how anyone sees the Republicans and Democrats as being equally intransigent is completely beyond me.  Call me when 95 percent of congressional Dems sign a pledge to NEVER cut spending. ["Why tax reform talk a dead end," CNN, 4/17/12]

4) Former Bush speechwriter David Frum on what Barack Obama can learn from Lyndon Johnson ["Read this book, Obama!," The Daily Beast, 4/15/12"]

5) Finally, from an excellent blog on urban living, why cities with lower carbon emissions are more innovative ["What Makes Some Cities Greener Than Others," The Atlantic Cities, 4/22/12]

The British economy is in recession, but so is the time left in your work week.  Kick back but don't switch back... the Conflict Revolution will not be televised, but it is available on the internet.

Over and out.

Email Debate: What's Fair?

With the recent debate over the Buffett Rule and talk of economic fairness filtering into the presidential campaign, Matt and Stephen decided to get to the bottom of what we mean when we say "fair share" - and how that should be reflected in tax policy.  Let's see what happens when the emails exchanged by two people stop being polite... and start getting real.

Stephen: Matt, much is spoken about paying one's "fair share". But what does that even mean? Can you give me a principle that we could gauge future taxes on?

Matt: I actually think that "fair share" alone is a terrible political line because it sounds like something my kindergarten teacher would have said and it doesn't do anything to connect the idea of fairness to economic growth.  That being said, to me, fairness is the idea that we have the biggest economy in the world, and should ensure that everyone in the country at least has the opportunity to share in its riches.  Not a guarantee, but at least the opportunity.  We should build the best tax and government structure we can to ensure that - therefore, if you make a lot of money, you should be taxed at a higher rate in order to help pay for that structure and ensure broader opportunity for others living in the same country that nurtured your success.  

Stephen: This response does a great deal to use nice concepts and ideas. But from that I've only gained that you want a tax structure that allows everyone to participate in acquiring riches. Let's hold off on that idea for just a moment, but I'd like to get back to it later. Now, can you please articulate what a "fair share" tax systems would look like? How do we know if we achieved it? Unless it just based on ensuring broad participation in economic growth.

Matt: Something tells me that this will conclude with you arguing that the only "fair" outcome would be for everyone to pay a flat tax (i.e. 20% of your income regardless of what you make).  This is a compelling argument, but only on a superficial level.  We need to pay for a government that responds to the needs of its people, and it is our responsibility to ensure that everyone has as close to an equal chance as possible at succeeding in life.  Taxing everyone at 20%, or 30%, or whatever it is would not yield anywhere near enough revenue to pay for this.  Thus if you have more money, you should pay more.  Not an exorbitant amount, but more.  Utilitarianism 101 - greatest good for the greatest number.

Morning Update: Another Reason to Love Penguins

Penguins are loved around the world for their novelty, charm, and all around awkward-looking mystique.  If you were still out on the outside looking in when it came to doting over the venerable aquatic creature, however, we at Conflict Revolution have dug up another fun fact about the lovable Sphenisciformes Spheniscidae:

They might like fish, but they don't like Newts.  

Now, apparently the former Speaker of the House loves animals, but hasn't he learned anything in his 60+ years about getting too close to them at the zoo? 

And furthermore, I know they live at opposite ends of the earth, but they are also at opposite ends of the food chain: wouldn't you expect a polar bear to be able to take on a penguin?  Just saying.  

Don't even try to deny the similarity

Other links for Thursday 4/26:

1) In further penguin-related reportage, three Australian guys had a night to remember - then saw what they woke up next to ["Penguin Stolen From Sea World Australia By Drunk Thieves," Huffington Post, 4/23/12]

2) That penguin wasn't the only thing biting fingers during the month of April - this is downright disturbing ["Man bites off bartender's pinky finger after having sex in bar," Newark Star-Ledger, 4/2/12]

3) On a more serious note, another piece about the response to the Trayvon Martin shooting.  Did the media see racism and dollar signs? ["Who is 'Racist'," Real Clear Politics, 4/24/12]

4) Also, guess who's received the most negative media coverage so far this campaign season?  I'll give you a hint: it's not a Republican ["Romney's Media Edge Over Obama," The Daily Beast, 4/25/12]

5) Finally, before you buy that plastic water bottle, check out this app for Android smartphones ["WeTap App Finds Drinking Fountains in Any City," GOOD Magazine, 4/25/12]

It's pretty crappy outside, but it's Thursday, so that's got to count for something, right?  Go get some work done... or not. 

The Loan You Save May Be Your Own...

President Obama is already somewhat well-known for his singing voice and late night TV exploits - which once included a joke for which he realized he probably should apologize.  While perusing the blogosphere on our lunch hour, Conflict Revolution caught wind of a pretty funny segment on Jimmy Fallon last night to add to the president's late night cache:

I was a little disappointed he didn't sing this time, and I was a bit curious why the president apparently thought his dance moves were good enough for Ellen DeGeneres but not Jimmy Fallon.  In general, I thought the headline "President Obama Slow Jams the News" carried a lot of potential that was not necessarily realized here.  Kind of like the Obama Admin itself?  ZING!  I kid...

Still, an all-around good laugh.  And if Jimmy Fallon is actually capable of being funny, surely the president can find a way to get re-elected, and bring down those college loan interest rates, right?  I mean, right?  To borrow a phrase from Kevin Garnett...

(you're going to have to check this one out for yourself)

Over and out.

Upon Further Review (4:34 pm) -->

I a) didn't realize this is a regular segment on Jimmy Fallon - kudos to Mr. Fallon and b) didn't realize that Obama dropped the mic at the very end.  Ballsy.  I still would have liked to hear more singing out of the Prez himself, but the dropped mic was clutch.  Oh and the fact that he's trying to keep the interest rate on my loans from doubling.

Thank you, Barack-ness Monster. 

For more on Obama's late night appearance, check out Grantland's Amos Barshad: http://tinyurl.com/c8c3o56

Munch on a Bunch (of links) for Lunch

Since you're already here, you should:

A) "Like" us on Facebook, it takes one move of the mouse and one click in the right sidebar

(Right there!!) -->

B) Check out Steve and Matt's e-mail debate on the White House Secret Service Scandal below

C) Follow us on Twitter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------>

Kthx. And in general, just be a good scout on this wonderful Tuesday afternoon. Which involves performing the above steps with all due haste and diligence.

Now get this:

1) 1 in 2 recent college graduates in the United States are unemployed or underemployed (i.e. half, 50%, for those of you who are statistically challenged, of recent graduates are jobless or waiting tables at the local Applebee's despite having a B.A./B.S.)

Also, the net worth for young people aged 20-30 in this country is now a whopping $3400 (three-thousand four hundred dollars) plus change.This, accounting for student loans (totaling over $1 trillion nationally), credit card debt, mortgage and automobile loans (i.e. liabilities, so even if you had a job, you'd have to make more than the interest on your various loans combined PLUS all your expenses to save anything at all).

There are tons of articles talking about this tragedy of youth all over the internet. We've really just hit the tip of the iceberg on this issue.



As did they.

More links after the jump...

Agents Gone Wild, Part II: Debating the Fallout

The Obama Administration may not want to talk about the Secret Service's recent adventures south of the border, but Matt and Stephen do!  Vicariously enjoy a night of wild partying and Columbian prostitutes with another Conflict Revolution email debate - as always, these are real emails from real white collar workers...

****

Stephen: Should we mock debate if secret service agents should be allowed hookers?

Matt: Mock debate what?  Those SS agents have like, the most stressful jobs ever.  What do you have against them taking a break every once in awhile?  

Stephen: Can we avoid calling them SS agents? That invokes bad guys in my mind. As for their stressful job, I agree. Did they pay for their own $47 hookers? I wonder if they did background checks on them first?

Matt: They paid $47 per hooker?!?  I don't really know anything about hooker prices, but I would have to hope that with the strong dollar in Latin America they at least got fair value on that.  Good point on the background checks.  In the game of prostitute solicitation, I think we can call that competitive advantage.

Stephen: Perhaps that's what caused the fight? They knew from their intelligence services that those particular acts from those particular hookers typically only cost $40?

Before you go on your lunch break...

Please be advised of this issue of great international social and economic import:

Starbucks to phase out GROUND BEETLE JUICE from its products. YEAH.

And you thought bug-eating in the "third world" was gross. Take a long, hard look at your strawberry frappucino... and stay thirsty, my friends.

Daily Links for Friday, 4/20/12

1) Straight out of the TV hit "Weeds," a window into the hidden use of marijuana among Washington's elite, and an indication of just how quickly our society's views toward the drug are evolving:

“This is a town where I could probably kill 200 major careers if I wanted to be a complete prick,” says Allen St. Pierre, executive director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which is headquartered on K Street. “Politicians, members of Congress and the Senate, many of their principals—legislative directors, chiefs of staff, communications directors—people in the private sector, Cato Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Brookings, police, any number of notable journalists from television, print, radio, many brand names most Americans would recognize pretty quickly—I’ve smoked with all of them. There is more smoke in DC closets than there is sex.”

You won't want to miss this article, which follows an actual suburban mother who drives around selling pot-infused "baked" (see what I did there) goods to the DC intelligentsia. I told you it was straight out of Weeds! It's also got a clever title... ["High Society: Washington's Love Affair With Marijuana," The Washingtonian, published 2/2/12]

2) Speaking of suburban moms, the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne reminds us that the real difference between stay-at-home and working mothers is economic, not cultural ["Mommy Struggles, Not Mommy Wars," The Washington Post, 4/19/12]

3) Speaking of marijuana, here's one more reason to legalize it ["The Growing Eco-Movement to Build Houses out of Hemp," GOOD Magazine, 4/19/12]

4) Dr. Dre paid to create a hologram of Tupac for the Coachella Music Festival last week, and it may now go on tour ["Rapper's De-Light: Tupac Hologram May Go On Tour," The Wall Street Journal, 4/16/12]

5) All that and all we had to do to stop Iran was deny them marine insurance? ["Iran Oil May be Strangled by Lack of Insurance," CNBC, 4/17/12]

Raise your hand if you're excited for 5:00! Enjoy the Friday holiday, folks.

Daily Links: Priests, Undercooked IPOs, and America v. Europe

Links from today, and the past week, in your Thursday internet roundup:

1) Color me a bit surprised: despite the emerging liberal narrative (endorsed by yours truly) that the rigid and uncompromising Catholic opposition to the Obama contraception mandate signals a church in decline, new ordinations in the priesthood are up over the past decade ["Traditional Catholicism is Winning," The Wall Street Journal, 4/12/12]

2) Speaking of the Catholic Church, the good news is that they don't ONLY care about contraception. Give credit where credit is due... ["Catholic Bishops Criticize Ryan Budget Cuts to Food Stamps," The Hill, 4/17/12]

3) The Carlyle Group, the second biggest private equity firm in the country, may be "the most undercooked IPO of 2012," according to Stephen ["Carlyle is Said to Seek Value of up to $8 Billion in IPO, Bloomberg, 4/11/12]

4) Barack Obama tries to channel Ronald Reagan to argue for his millionaires' tax, but fudges on the facts ["Obama's Misleading Reagan Reference," CNBC, 4/13/12]

5) Nazi lobbyists? No, seriously... ["Nazis Get Their Own Lobbyist," US News, 4/13/12]

6) The Weekly Standard's Irwin Stelzer compares the relative resilience and divergent debt reduction policies of the US vs. European economies. Mr. Stelzer alludes to America's deficit challenges toward the end of his article, but am I wrong to interpret him as being somewhat sympathetic to Keynesian intervention in the short term, given how poorly austerity has worked out for Europe so far? ["America vs. Europe," The Weekly Standard, 4/14/12]

If you haven't already, don't forget to check out my take on Tuesday's DC space shuttle flyover. Stephen and I are working on two simultaneous email debates, so stay tuned for more Conflict as you count down the hours to the end of another workweek.

Happy Thursday!

The Shuttle's Last Flight: Why Space Still Matters

I was fortunate enough to get away from work for a few minutes yesterday to witness the much-hyped DC flyover of NASA's Discovery Space Shuttle, officially the last time a space shuttle of any sort will even leave the ground. The shuttle, which will now go to the Smithsonian Museum, left Cape Canaveral in the morning for Washington Dulles International Airport; in between, it stopped traffic, drew 9-5ers like myself from our desks, and wowed everyone else throughout the nation's capital by circling the city four times at low altitude.

I didn't take the picture to your left; I saw the shuttle only briefly out an office window and couldn't quite snap a photo, so the picture that you do see was actually taken by a friend of mine who works elsewhere in the city. What I can speak to, however, is the experience of being around a lot of people excited about seeing a space shuttle, and the good things that I think that says about our country in general.

Even looking out my window, every rooftop in sight was full of eager spectators, who weren't disappointed. After seeing the shuttle, I myself went outside to see if I could get a better view. Although the flyover was finished by then, there were still people milling about on sidewalks and, somewhat perilously, crosswalks; heads craned up toward the sky in anticipation as they asked total strangers if they had seen the shuttle, or if it had already passed over for good (as if anyone really knew). I was one of those strangers, asking a cowboy-hatted security guard next to the White House when it was going to come back. His answer made up for what it lacked in useful information with an equal dose of insight.

"That was just so COOL," the man cooed, "it flew right over the Washington monument. I can't believe it came that close to the ground."

Indeed. But the more amazing thing about the flyover was that I probably could have had the same conversation with anyone out in the street or on a roofdeck between the hours of 10:00 and 11:00 a.m. yesterday morning. What else could bring so many people out into the street at once on some idle Tuesday? What else could be so universally (excuse the pun) appealing that it made everyone forget about everything else they had to get done yesterday, in order to wait and see a space shuttle strapped to a 747?

"BUFFET RULE" TAX PLAN FAILS IN SENATE TEST VOTE

So, what's next?

Also, check out this assessment of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement: It's dead. Is it?

(Photo credit to Craig Hudson)

The Precursor to Conflict Revolution...

Honk if you think Stephen and I should re-enact this scene from an old Comedy Central hit:

'Strange Bedfellows' Segment 1: Arianna Huffington And Al Franken

Looks like Steve would be Arianna.

Morning Update: Daily News Headlines and Events

1) Discovery Shuttle fly-over the National Mall draws spectators, cheers, and just a bit of nostalgia over the sunsetting American Space Shuttle program. The silver lining in the cloud? Now we can go to space via private space travel. Just start saving...

Or be enlisted to save the planet. Results not typical.

2) 5 big ideas for a new economy.

3) Obama Campaign uses "Buffett tax app" to see whether you pay more or less taxes than... Mitt Romney. Like it or not, this is some pretty effective messaging about the proposed "Buffett Rule" law.

4) Speaking of "The Oracle of Omaha," Warren Buffett has stage 1 prostate cancer and gives not a single f**k about it.

5) "How you like yo eggs?" - and that's the story of how the dinosaurs went extinct

Daily News: Agents Gone Wild - Secret Services Edition

1) In case you haven't heard yet, the Obama White House has a sex scandal on its hands: 11 Secret Service Agents are accused of a) soliciting the services of Colombian prostitutes and b) starting a scene and later a fight after refusing to pay. They have been suspended from duty and have had their security clearance(s) revoked.

Oh, by the way, all members of the President's most trusted security detail were married, some of whom were security supervisors of the entire Presidential visit and the incident(s) happened BEFORE the Obama team even arrived in Colombia.

Prostitution is legal in (certain parts of) Colombia. Partying like dumbasses putting even The Hangover guys to shame when you're the personal bodyguards of the President of the United States, in a country often known for extensive drug-related violence and cocaine cartels, is not.

2) Not to be outdone, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton throws back a beer (or two) and parties from "dusk till yawn" (TMZ)

3) It's hard to say who will be the next Secretary of State, but you can make damn sure who's going to be running for the Dems in the 2016 general elections:

"I'm barely 18!!!"

Email Discussion: Do Tax Returns Matter?

In one of Conflict Revolution's more civil discussions, Stephen and Matt discuss whether or not politicians should be compelled to release their tax returns, and whether wealth matters when you're running for President.

As always, these are real emails from real people...

****

Stephen: Matt, with tax day nearing and Obama's tax return out there... do you think there is any reason for releasing tax returns for the general public's information?

Matt: YOU OPPOSE THIS? THERE IS NO HOPE. Just kidding. Maybe you don't actually oppose it. But seriously, I had never thought much about the tax return question. I guess it's just one of those things I came to take for granted about presidential campaigns. What's your objection (if you have one)?

Stephen: My objection is that they don't really mean anything (tax returns do not affect one's policies) yet the media plays them up. Instead, they are used as a distraction in order to (largely) create a disconnect between a candidate and voters (who likely don't make as much) - this is a particularly useful tactic on the left. It seems to me like it's only utility is to raise class issues. But I believe it was Jon Stewart who defended Obama's elitism by claiming (and I agree 100%) "shouldn't the president be of above average intelligence?" Well if that is true, and again I couldn't agree more, what's so crazy about the president being of above average wealth?

Matt: I see your point. Who really cares exactly how rich Mitt Romney is, since it's not like we didn't know already that he worked in private equity, where one could reasonably make the assumption that he made a lot of money. Pretty sure the awkwardness and general tone-deafness that people attribute to his well-heeled background would also have shone through regardless. On the other hand, don't we want as much information as possible to be out there on the people whom we are going to consider electing?

CR Morning Update: 4/17/12

As we at Conflict Revolution recover from a weekend that included two birthdays and several minor injuries, get your week started with a healthy roster of links for your morning readership. Stephen had some fun with our link database this weekend, so you get a list of headlines more conservative than the Fox News ticker. Enjoy!

1) According to Stephen, "President Obama is as much a capitalist as I am a major league shortstop." Judging by Steve's wiffle ball swing (that's a rare compliment), I'd say he may want to look for a different analogy [Article at Investor's Business Daily]

2) The recently-passed JOBS Act includes some troubling fine print [CNBC]

3) Only in Florida? Steve lives there, and even he is a bit perplexed by Bank of America's decision to sue itself for foreclosure - 11 times [Huffington Post]

4) Kim Jong Un shoots a blank - more on the failed North Korean rocket launch [Wall Street Journal]

We'll be up with another email debate later today - in the meantime, heal your case of the Mondays with this gem, recorded during the presidency of Stephen's political demigod:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ealOvalS35A

BUFF THAT: Debating the 'Buffett Rule'

Stephen and I are busy, but not too busy to take some time out of our robust daily schedules to exchange a series of snarky emails when the situation calls for it. Here is the text of our most recent exchange, a lively back and forth that started on the so-called Buffett Rule, President Obama's proposal that all millionaires pay an effective tax rate of at least 30%, and morphed into a much more in-depth tussle over taxes, middle-class prosperity, and the general role of government.

As always, these are real emails exchanged by real people:

****

Matt: Steve, rumor has it that Senate Democrats plan to bring the Buffett Rule up for a vote this week. You're with Harry Reid on that one, right?

Stephen: Oh of course. You know I love nothing more than taxes that manipulate the data to appear reasonable. Although, I'm a bit disappointed Buffett doesn't understand the tax system better. I always thought he was a super smart dude.

Matt: Full disclosure - I'm not the biggest fan of the Buffett Rule either. Do I believe in raising taxes on the rich? Yes. But I think the Buffett Rule is a bit of a red herring that is more symbolic gesture than serious tax policy. Ideally I would like to see us raise all taxes on incomes above $250,000 (including capital gains) to Clinton-era levels - given the success our economy enjoyed during that period - 23 million new jobs - and the massive dent that would make in the budget deficit, I think you'd be hard-pressed to justify the argument that these moderate tax increases would hurt the overall economic situation. Indeed, they may improve it. Speaking of capital gains, is that what you mean by manipulating the data, or Buffett not understanding the tax system? Explain.

Stephen: Matt, increased taxes on all those "millionaires and billionaires" making over $250k is ridiculous. It certainly wouldn't aid the economy, you've got an accusation problem here. It also wouldn't take that much of a dent out of the deficit. How they would hurt is by cutting the savings rate which would reduce the money banks can loan, mostly to small businesses- which in turn creates new wealth and jobs. As for the Buffet rule, it will essentially bring the capital gains tax for those making over 1M to 30% but capital gains (esp long term) are basically just profits from a business... which have already been taxed at rates that the president acknowledges are the highest in the world (35%). So basically if you made 100, corporate tax would take 35% and capital gains already takes 15, leaving you 55.25... an effective 44.75% tax rate. With this it will jump to 54.5%!

More snark after the jump...

BREAKING NEWS - NORTH KOREAN ROCKET FAILS, MAY TEST NUKE INSTEAD

The number of jokes about the tyrannical North Korean regime have increased exponentially, but watch out - they have the bomb.

.
.
.

.

Responses?

P.S. Thanks to Matt for the warm welcome! Looking forward to the debates.

Daily Link Digest: 4/13/12

1) Grantland's Brian Phillips takes a critical look at how the world of Mad Men is represented during the Masters golf tournament (Grantland)

2) David Brooks interprets the country's political divide through the lens of a fundamentally changing economic landscape (The New York Times)

3) The Obama Campaign shows a bit of hypocrisy on fair pay - women working at the White House earned 18 percent less than men in 2011 (Washington Free Beacon)

4) A liberal writer argues that the president must better articulate how economic fairness will lead to economic growth (The Daily Beast)

5) Author Jim Robbins on the importance of trees (New York Times)

We would also like to welcome Philip Hsu of Social Media Consulting, LLC to Conflict Revolution. Phil will be helping to handle our social media outreach in addition to contributing occasional written content. Look out for his name at the bottom of our posts and be sure to contribute your thoughts on what he has to say. Welcome again, Phil!

It's Friday the 13th and it's 2012... so stay out of trouble today, readers. Stay tuned for an email debate between Steve and I later in the day and, as always, be sure to share your thoughts on today's links in our comments section.

Morning News: Daily News Headlines and Events

Santorum checks out of GOP primary race, sets up Romney as clear frontrunner against Obama

George Zimmerman, Neighborhood Vigilante, charged with 2nd-degree murder in Trayvon Martin case

Kim Jong-Un polishes his rocket, ready to blow

Steve Jobs still an asshole from beyond the grave, gets Apple sued by DOJ over e-book price-setting "conspiracy"

Stereotyping: An In-Depth Look

In the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin incident, the issue of stereotyping has once again been hurled into the forefront of the chattering class. In this post, Matt and I will look to critically analyze what is being said and what is not being said concerning this hot-button issue. Unlike past debates where Matt and I have lightly mocked each other's positions, we feel this issue is significantly more sensitive and ignites more passions and emotions than say, economic policy. Thus, we will be taking the issue slowly and carefully in an effort to have the adult conversation that both Matt and I believe is entirely necessary to have. We hope that perhaps others in the media, who would prefer to sensationalize the tragedy for their own selfish agenda (I'm looking at all sides here - you know who you are), would follow our lead and give this event the sincerity, honesty and critical eye it needs and deserves. 

Posted by Stephen (4/7/12):

This issue came up on our Facebook account, and clearly needed to get its own blog post. In the Facebook discussion, essentially Matt's position could be summarized by the following:

Stereotypes exist but should not lead to rational decision making. Many bear the scars of discriminatory legacies and should be looked past if they are to be overcome. A kid in a hoodie is just that and only that - a kid in a hoodie. Wearing such should and ought to have no other connotations.

My thesis for position I will take could be summarized as this: "Stereotyping is an inevitable faucet of the human condition and must be understood and controlled."

The case breaks down as follows:

1. Stereotypes (while perhaps unfortunate) are inevitable as they are ingrained in human evolutionary psychology and biology.
2. Stereotypes (more often than not, and the ones I will be defending) are often based on reality, and so are further difficult to break from
1. Our perception of reality inevitably will impact our future view of the world.
2. It would not be reasonable to expect that our future actions ought not be shaped by past experiences
3. Thus, it would be unreasonable to expect to "overcome" stereotyping
3. Since, stereotyping is both ingrained in human nature and a successful evolutionary tool, it cannot be considered irrational behavior nor eliminated behavior
4. Therefore, since stereotyping cannot be reasonably eliminated, we must seek another way to control the negative impacts.

Now let's get to the meat of the case:

Obamacare on Trial: Part 2

First and foremost, I would like to thank Stephen DeGenaro for taking some time to evaluate this important issue for us, and would urge readers to check out his opinion here. This post is meant to be in addition to that one and addressing many of the issues brought up there. However, since I've been gone for some time, I will devote an entire post to this issue.

The post I will be refuting is a New York Times article that can be found here (Broccoli Mandates and the Commerce Clause, 3/30/12), and I will be referencing many of the things that the other Stephen brought up. First, Obamacare will most definitely come down to the individual mandate, as this is by far the most important issue in the law. Other provisions, such as the one allowing for those under the age of 26 to remain on their parents' insurance, will not be refuted here because I, at least, do not find much fault with them. However, the individual mandate scares the sh%t out of me. Let's first step back from whether or not the US should even have universal healthcare (Matt, are you ready for that debate? I am), and instead look just at this law.

Let's look at what James Stewart, the author of the NYT piece, has to say:

"Thus did this week's Supreme Court arguments over the Obama administration's health care law emerge as historic test of federal power versus individual liberty."

First, I'd like to note that even proponents of this law seem to think that it comes down to federal power vs. the individual. I'm not sure when the liberal leaning wing of the government decided they preferred the government over the individual, but I'd like to note it -- just for the next time they blast the conservative wing for only caring about <> over the concerns of the individual. Not a big counterpoint, but worthy of being mentioned, because certainly this is an issue of perceived general good over the individual.