JayB

I hope it stays that way. Really. There were lots of leftists, secularists, etc out on the street in '79 but in the end they were routed by the most effectively organized, ideologically committed, and ruthless contingent amongst them. Think the same was true in 1919, 1789, etc. Hopefully they're an exception to the rule, but I'm not sure that the compass needle is pointing towards an Arab Netherlands emerging there in the wake of significant political reforms. I happens. Your patronizing view of Egyptians as mostly radical and violent muslims is that of a typical fuck head, however. What do you really know of Middle Eastern culture? Nothing, really. My view isn't that they are mostly radical and violent. It's that the most extensively organized, ideologically committed, and ruthless group amongst them happens to be composed of Muslims with radical sympathies who have a violent track record. Bolsheviks were far from a majority in Russia in 1917, but they carried the day nonetheless, with catastrophic results for the country and the world. The remainder of your comment is a weak ad-hominem of the kind used by Chris Hedges at al. Personal acquaintance with the Middle East and/or a handful of moderate Muslims doesn't trump data sets generate with massive polling inputs, the undeniable prevalence of Islamist violence and repression, much less the plain meaning of the passages in the Koran, the Hadith, or the precepts of Sharia. Still waiting to hear what it is that you personally find appealing about Wahabism, etc, and how consistent that is with the set of convictions that you claim to personally champion via your (seldom mentioned) association with the ACLU?

two questions: 1. on which would your money be? 2. why were you not equally pessimistic regarding iraq after the US invasion? (if pessimism is what i detect.) it certainly wasn't because one was a dictator and the other wasn't, right? 1. On '79, but that's a bet I'd be delighted to lose. 2. I'm not particularly optimistic about the prospects for a liberal order emerging Iraq, but I'm glad they've been afforded an opportunity to exert a more significant influence over their political system. If they want to weave the noose or fundamentalist Islamic repression around their own necks, so be it. After a decade, or several, of stagnation and decay perhaps they'll change their minds. The only place in the Muslim world that I'm remotely optimistic about in the long term is Iran. They've had a chance to live with the consequences of embracing an Islamic Theocracy as their political system, and my sense is that it's turned them into the most ardent secularists in the greater Middle East.

Nothing against Muslims, but I do loathe the set of ideas and ethical convictions that is at the heart of the strain of Islam that's been on the rise for the past 30-40 years. What is it that you like about fundamentalist Islam? How compatible is it - as it's understood and preached in Saudi funded Mosques, Pakistani Madrassas, Taliban encampments, and Hamas militia gatherings - with the institutional priorities of the ACLU?

I hope it stays that way. Really. There were lots of leftists, secularists, etc out on the street in '79 but in the end they were routed by the most effectively organized, ideologically committed, and ruthless contingent amongst them. Think the same was true in 1919, 1789, etc. Hopefully they're an exception to the rule, but I'm not sure that the compass needle is pointing towards an Arab Netherlands emerging there in the wake of significant political reforms.

I wonder if the same could be said about our Christian Problem. I'll be a happy man if the total death toll from religious fanaticism in Muslim countries is 1-2 people per 300 million every 4-5 years, and they manage to institute an set of institutional safeguards for individual liberties that equals our own despite our "Christian Problem." The major unstated premise behind your comment is that all religions, and by extension, all sets of religious convictions are fundamentally the same, and thereby equally likely to arouse violent fanaticism in their adherents, and present equal obstacles to the advancement of liberal values. The logical correlate of this is that what people believe - their most fundamental and deeply held convictions - have absolutely no influence over how they understand the world and behave in response to what they experience in it. If you believe that, then I suppose you can believe that that a religion that has an extreme commitment to non-violence at it's core (let's take Harris's example of Jainism as an example), and a religion that has adopted the concept of holy-war in defense of the faith as a central duty of all believers are equally likely to produce suicide bombers. Crazy.

Hopefully Intrade will start taking bets on whether Egypt looks more like Iran after '79 or Eastern Europe after '89 in a couple of years - it'd be interesting to what emerged when people had to commit a reasonable chunk of money towards one prediction or another. Hoping for '89 but developments in the Arab/Muslim world seem to trending in the other direction. Not sure that polling data from Europe and elsewhere supports the notion that the absence of severe state repression, the opportunity to build a life in a liberal democracy, etc is sufficient to significantly alter the core political, religious, and ethical convictions of all Muslims who practice their faith under those conditions. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/221.php

[video:youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLiku08FlRg

Agree with the above (or rather, above the above) - but I'm not sure that the long-term impact on the state's finances and it's ability to function properly are what necessarily what determine how our state and local politicians cast their votes.

Yes. I support paying what's necessary to deliver services that only the public government can deliver, and think it's reasonable to expect that the government uses the funds it has available to do so as cost effectively as possible. I also support putting all services that *can* be performed just as well by the private sector out for bid. Doing so would make more money available for public health, public defenders, public education, public lands, etc - not less. There's no necessary conflict between the two, but the prevailing opinion in progressive quarters seems be that public-sector cost-efficiency is the enemy of the public good, and that anyone who would, say, replace $23 an hour ticket-booth staff with electronic dispensers, eliminate self-nominated overtime, etc, etc, etc, hates poor people, etc. I understand the psychological motives behind the caricature, but I don't think that they translate into either politics or policy that help the folks that could, say, use a helping hand from a public health agency much.

Fine. You have better access to my ideals and motives than I do, you've seen through the elaborate facade that I've constructed to conceal my true motives from myself, etc, etc, etc, etc. Great. How do you account for the stance of the Progressive's progressive on this one? I don't think he's a one man outlier.

JayB is concerned about staffing at "public health" now. LOL Because you can't be against paying people $23 an hour plus quite a bit more in health and retirement benefits to sit in a booth and dispense ferry tickets, or oppose subsidizing a commercial Port that should be self-funding $70 million a year, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc...and for using tax revenues to help people who are either permanently or temporarily capable of taking care of themselves. That's how you explain me, your typical corporocratapologizingneoconhatemongering goon, but how do you account for good ole Jim's stance on this one? The man takes the socially correct position on 94% of all policy positions near and dear to progressives so....his desire to see things like public health funded is also a rhetorical false front to advance the eternal dominion of corporate hegemony, etc?

"The governor's proposed budget, released before Christmas, would slash funding for programs the middle class would notice, such as state parks, museums, the arts and higher education. It also would hit the poor, dumping the Basic Health Plan, which offers subsidized insurance to thousands of the working poor, and Disability Lifeline, which provides cash and health care for unemployable disabled people." http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013884824_budgetprimer09m.html

"Public Health lays off 123 people Public Health - Seattle & King County on Thursday sent layoff notices to 123 nurses, social workers and other staffers, mostly the result of a 50 percent budget cut to a program that helps low-income pregnant woman and babies. "These cuts, as proposed, are devastating," King County Executive Dow Constantine said in a statement. "We recognize the challenge that state leaders face in closing the budget gap, but these cuts will have enormous implications for our community, and may lead to the additional loss of federal funds." Public Health said more layoffs may happen – and thousands more people may lose access to health care - if the Legislature fails to reverse a proposed cut in Medicaid reimbursements to certain clinics. Those clinics include health-care centers that serve primarily Medicaid patients and people without insurance. The proposed reduction would reduce funding for King County Public Health by more than $23 million, leading to the closure of some clinics. Other state cuts include the elimination of tobacco prevention funds and the reduction of Medicaid programs, including adult dental care and family planning." Much better than restructuring pay, benefits, etc.

quit lying: reneging on contracts with public workers will not prevent "tossing disabled people off of medicaid, etc, en masse". Most of the above could be accomplished with someone at least pretending to advocate on behalf of taxpayers at the next round of contract negotiations. Not going to happen with Washington democrats giving away the store in exchange for public sector union support and calling the process a "negotiation." "Run for your lives, its Dow Constantine..." "For instance, Constantine said today that he doesn't want employees constantly fearing for their jobs as they have over the last two years. But the biggest expense in the cash-strapped general fund isn't paying for immunizations for kids or handcuffs for Sheriff's deputies, it's the staff--85 percent of the general fund goes to salaries and benefits. So Constantine will either need to get pay or benefit concessions from unions or start handing out pink slips. Constantine says that he'll hire a new director of labor relations and convene a meeting of department heads to try to figure out a way to resolve the shortfall without axing employees this fall. He hopes giving everyone more input will make them more open to concessions. But so far, the labor unions have given no indication that they'll make the concessions necessary to make the budget pencil out. Last week Constantine spokesperson Frank Abe told seattlepi.com that the Executive would "outline a significant restructuring of the way this county conducts its labor negotiations." But hiring someone to be a more direct conduit between the Executive and labor doesn't seem like an especially major change. Ron Sims had a famously good relationship with the unions and still couldn't convince them to take any pay or benefit concessions." http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/03/dow_constantine_downgrades_fro.php

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/

See above.

It IS a concern now - you don't seem to get the basic fact that the pension systems are paying out more than thy accure - it's basic math. WA is genreally better than most states and ours is around 75% funded - where do you think the money is coming from - fairy land? Reneging on pensions for public workers now will help almost none toward making states more solvent in the mid-term, little less in the short term, which is what we should be working on instead of playing disaster capitalism along with neoliberals to better bash on public employees who worked for these pensions (or most of them anyway). Shame on you for not distancing yourself from the partisans for the race to the bottom. Agreed. That'd require a complete reassessment of budget priorities towards functions that only the government can perform in society, wholesale outsourcing of tasks that aren't functions that only the government can perform, outlawing public sector unions, and eliminating binding arbitration for public sector workers, elimination of pensions for new workers, and the immediate conversion of accrued pension contributions + earnings into defined contribution plans. My sense is that the political dynamics in this state will continue to favor tossing disabled people off of medicaid, etc, en masse before making even modest reforms to pensions, etc so there's no need to worry too much about any of the above happening. Looks like the regressive neocon hatemongers in Utah just converted to 401(K) plans instead of pensions for all new public sector workers, though... r

It IS a concern now - you don't seem to get the basic fact that the pension systems are paying out more than thy accure - it's basic math. WA is genreally better than most states and ours is around 75% funded - where do you think the money is coming from - fairy land? Reneging on pensions for public workers now will help almost none toward making states more solvent in the mid-term, little less in the short term, which is what we should be working on instead of playing disaster capitalism along with neoliberals to better bash on public employees who worked for these pensions (or most of them anyway). Shame on you for not distancing yourself from the partisans for the race to the bottom. Partisans? That's hatemongeringrightwingneocongoon to you, sir.

I'd say I lefty socially but fiscally - well - I call it common sense. In a dinner conversation or two that went from my commitment to a single payer health system - because it makes more sense fiscally and for social fairness - when applying similar logic to a pension reform plan - it's like I spit in their food or something. funding Well, the single-payer thing should provide you a socially acceptable haven to return to if necessary. Too bad you missed out on all of the social benefits of sharing your conclusion that the US housing market was a house of cards.

Not sure who the ultimate bagholder is for these loans, but I'd start looking into it if I was Canadian... http://vreaa.wordpress.com/2011/01/23/white-hot-sentiment-people-want-to-get-in-they-want-to-get-in-bad/

And this is not something to worry about now? Friggin' A - it's sucking up capital from benefical programs. The social safety net is hacked to pieces and we don't need to fix this? Give me a break.

Iran wasn't?

Yup. For guestimation purposes you can assume that every $1,000 in inflation-indexed pension income for a 65 year old retiree will require $20,000-$30,000 in assets to fund the said income stream. I'd love to see a comparison of actual balances accrued vs the total value of the pension-payout. When you compute pension payouts using the highest 2-3 years of pay as opposed to lifetime pay, the two aren't even close - and once you factor in all of the cashed in sick time, etc the gap between the two is even more profound. Guess who gets to make up the difference - irrespective of what happens to funding for other public priorities. I might add that you are sounding more and more like a heartless neocon regressive hatemonger these days. Let me know how the above goes over at the next dinner party.

Hopefully it ends better for the students and women of Tunisia than it did for the students and women of Iran. My thoughts are with them, but if I had to bet I'm not sure which side I'd put my money on between those folks and the Islamists for the intermediate term.

When (not if) bailout or bankruptcy terms are dictated, they'll come from the national level and be based on recommendations from "expert" wonks with one foot in Wall St. Nary a stir in those quarters based on the sensational headlines we've seen so far. Really? One of these things is not like the other, one of these things... 1)Read the summary of Chapter 9, and the comments here: https://self-evident.org/?p=878 2)Both muni-bond investors and employee unions structured their contracts with the implicit assumption that they'd be bailed out by taxpayers if the merde hit the fan and the government in question lacked the means to honor the the pledges that they made. Both unions and bondholders would make better decisions if they assumed otherwise.