« Giuliani's Doom | Main | But The Talk is So Straight »
XKCD Endorsement
29 Jan 2008 11:16 am
Comments (21)
You know, I hear from a lot of bloggers that Clinton's and Obama's policy prescriptions "don't have much air between them", but I keep realizing that this really isn't the case.
On issues that are important to me -- foreign policy, technology, climate change -- there's quite a bit of difference. Maybe bloggers should point this out a bit more.
Just saying.
With both Obama's commitment to open systems and his well-considered choice of the "Perpetua" font in mind, I ask: how can the man possibly lose?
what plum said.
So what's the difference between a blog and a blag?
Wow-- Mario Kart for the Wii is going to come out soon?
Plum, cleek: You're right on technology, I think, but I've looked into both their climate plans and they are basically identical. Both are good, neither is as good as Richardson's, both use cap and auction, both have a major (smart) emphasis on efficiency. The biggest failing of Clinton's is perhaps that she doesn't spend enough on transportation, but the distance between them just isn't very great.
And on foreign policy, I can only say it is complicated. Its not an area that lends itself to sending out plans, but I don't think there is a foreign policy issue where you can spell out how they would actually act differently based on passed statements. That said, like Matt, I'm inclined to trust Obama's judgement better than Clinton's.
Sam L.
Considering the percentage of oil and CO2 that comes from transportation, not focusing as much on transportation is a big difference.
You're welcome to read the plans. They'll both cost billions of dollars, and dramatically rearange the energy economy. One of the ways they will do this is by making CO2 much more expensive to emit, which will effect every sector of the economy including transportation. Additionally, niether of them "focus" on transportation because that is not the place where the most CO2 reductions can be found for the least cost. Furthermore, this type of detail is largely irrelevant, because any plan will have to go through the Congress.
While I would have liked to see a bit more funding for rail from Clinton, I also think Obama has been far too friendly to Big Coal in the Senate and in public statements, and certainly loses point there. I'd be curious to hear what s/he actually meant. Where do the candidates differ seriously on climate change or foreign policy?
On issues that are important to me -- foreign policy, technology, climate change -- there's quite a bit of difference. Maybe bloggers should point this out a bit more.
On issues like the subprime mortgage crisis, economic stimulus, & health care, Obama is to the right of Hilary. I blame this on his economic advisers.
I really don't know why Obama doesn't push the open source democracy/ethical government shtick a whole lot more explicitly. There's a ton of light he can make between himself and Hillary. Her plan is a shill to telecoms, just like the telecoms laws in the 90's. While Obama's isn't a complete middle finger to the telecoms, it clearly says they aren't going to get much that they want from Obama.
XKCD:
The Democratic party has a long, painful history of nominating unlikable, uncharismatic ‘default’ establishment candidates who are eventually swatted aside by the voters. Nominating Clinton would be continuing that tradition at the very time when we have a chance to do so much better. Let’s not let that chance slip by.
Quite.
I really don't know why Obama doesn't push the open source democracy/ethical government shtick a whole lot more explicitly.
Do you know what 'shtick' means, Abe? Forget what an apostrophe is for; say things like 'I could care less' when you mean the opposite; misunderstand what 'irony' is: slack-jaw American English if you must, but don't fuck with Yiddish please. Because it breaks my ha hahaha, hahaha, ha hahahaha heart.
From TheFreeDictionary.com:
1. shtick - (Yiddish) a little; a piece; "give him a shtik cake"; "he's a shtik crazy"; "he played a shtik Beethoven."
2. shtick - (Yiddish) a contrived and often used bit of business that a performer uses to steal attention; "play it straight with no shtik."
3. shtick - (Yiddish) a prank or piece of clowning; "his shtik made us laugh."
4. shtick - (Yiddish) a devious trick; a bit of cheating; "how did you ever fall for a shtik like that?"
Politely ignoring The Free Dictionary's egregious semicolon-placement, either 2. or 4. seems acceptably relevant in Abe's context. Am I not getting something here?
Thank you, James. BTW, I happen to be a former hasidic Jew, now an atheist. jonnybutter, you would do well to stop hakkin' a chinick, unless you're just a total chochom b'laila.
(grumbles) nudnik tries to parse the word shtick. . .
You either you didn't know what shtick is (not the case, I guess), or, in a display of mock-sophistication, you think that everything a pol says is shtick (ie 'a contrived and often used bit of business that a performer uses to steal attention'.). It's lazy to assume that Obama is doing shtick here. Shtick and rhetoric aren't the same thing. Reflexive cynics are a bore.
Oh Em Gee - another young man on the internet likes Obama? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say!
Why is every Yiddich insult vaguely about old people?
chochom b'laila-"sage at night"(when nobody's watching)
hakkin a'chinik-"banging a teakettle"
I concede your point; my word choice was unduly smart-alecky. I actually think Obama's technology plan is(if he can implement much of it) rather revolutionary. I like the Fireside Webcasts(hopefully they can do like a Q&A ala YouChoose on Youtube). I like the broadband investment. I like all the nerdish details that show that a good deal of thought has been put in. I think the bits on copyright pander to much to the RIAA, but maybe I'm a criminalistic little shit who won't pay for other people's work.
All in all, I think he should tout it more.
All in all, I think he should tout it more.
Me too.
Nk, This is significant because xkcd gets on average 2-3 times the traffic than The Atlantic gets, and being an internet celebrity of sorts, he wields the power of moderate mob control.
In other news, worlds are colliding for me - I was shocked enough to see Language Log citing xkcd and Volokh citing Language Log, but Yglesias linking to xkcd's blog? Incredible.
And to whoever wondered what a blag is, click.
Peter H...it is my understanding the Clintons rate freeze, etc would do far more harm than good for stimulus.
In effect, they would make borrowing harder, homebuying harder.
Are we going to depend on folks who can scrape together a lower payment, but are out if their payment goes higher to right this economy?
Isn't the point of a stimulus package to get folks to spend money? Are these sorts of folks really going to spend any money given them, or will they use it to shore up their obviously inadequate safety net position?
The Clinton's plan seems more a pander at worst, a more long term banking regulation at best. That doesn't even address the fact that she's amended it a couple of times to fit with what others have come out with, does it?
The big problem with Obama is that all his "progressive" policies are going to get buried by his foreign policy blunders.
He simply has no clue about foreign policy. Babbling about "diplomacy" - when you don't know anything about the facts of the case - doesn't. He considers Iran a "threat". It isn't. Full stop. So he's going to fuck that up.
He doesn't understand that you can't go into Pakistan with US troops. Full stop. So he's going to fuck that up.
Sure, he MIGHT - someday - get the US military out of Iraq. No guarantees he will do it before the Iraqis decide it for him - and what will he do then? Fuck that up?
In the end, it will be his FP disasters that do him in, just like Bush. Whatever he manages to do in the "progressive" areas will be either not happen due to Republican push back, or be offset by the negative effects on the economy of an oil price spike or China dumping the dollar due to a war in Iran.
Foreign policy is THE critical issue that any Administration has to deal with right NOW. And he simply isn't up to it.
(For the record, neither is Clinton, and, of course, the Republican crazies.)
Comments closed February 12, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Is he a rapper?
Posted by jim | January 29, 2008 11:24 AM