Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Well, at least 6% of Californians are *potentially* sane. At least if undecided includes those of us who don't want to vote for either of the two authoritarians.

~Jon

Posted by Jonathan Goff at October 19, 2007 03:56 PM

Well said Jon.

In any case, Rand has nothing to worry. Fred will save us.

Posted by Toast_n_Tea at October 19, 2007 05:20 PM

nutty (recent) Californians

Define recent. Please!

Posted by Steve at October 19, 2007 05:32 PM

Perhaps British posters with a highly distorted view of America can save us.

You know, I have never seen an American take such a perverse interest in lecturing Brits on how they should run their country. The opposite cannot be said as witnessed on this forum.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 19, 2007 07:00 PM

"Define recent. Please!"

Mexicans and Vietnamese. You know, swarthy people.

Posted by Kevin Jackson at October 19, 2007 08:36 PM

Actually, this result pleases me, and I am supporting the GOP.

Consider: in most polls, Hillary has a small lead (typically within the margin of error) in the overall vote totals, yet in CA (which if memory serves has about 1 out of every 5.5 voters, she has a 26 point lead. This tells us that in the other states, she must have a considerably narrower lead or in fact be behind. Given that she will roll up similarly large majorities in several populous states (NY, NJ, IL, etc.), we might surmise that she is likely to be BEHIND by quite a bit in a large number of other, less populous states, all of which have a combined total of electoral votes larger than the smaller group of highly populated states that she leads in.

Consider the 2004 election, where Bush carried a narrow electoral margin, but 31 states (19 + DC went to Kerry) and a fairly narrow popular vote victory. Other than OH, it isn't too likely that the states carried by Bush in 2004 (unpopular war, and a president who even then had approval ratings below 50%) are likely to go over to Hillary in 2008, while the Dems won several VERY close races in 2004 (PA, for instance, was actually a narrower victory for the Dems than OH was for the GOP) several of which could easily go the other way this time around.

The point is that large margins for Hillary in her 'safe' states are good news for the GOP, as that strength is 'bought' by cutting into her overal national margin. I understand that this isn't actually an explicit trade-off, but the effect is much the same, and it would seem to indicate another frustrating election year for the Dems, at least at the presidential level.

With all of that said, lets also remember that if current trends continue, the blue states are likely to lose about 16 congressional seats to the red states in the 2010 election, which is roughly the equivilent of the OH delegation. Hence these razor thing electoral margins (as far as the EC is concerned, at least) are likely to be a think of the past after the next round of redistricting. Now all of this is HIGHLY dependent upon trends staying as they are (and things do change), but the long term outlook for the Dems isn't particularly bright unless they find a way to alter demographics and overall policy perspectives...

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks...

Posted by Scott at October 19, 2007 10:45 PM

Vietnamese are recent Californians?

America would be a better place if more Vietnamese - and other refugees from current and former Communist regimes - would enter politics.

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at October 19, 2007 10:59 PM

If the Vietnamese can be stereotyped as anything, it's conservative. The Mexicans, OTOH, were the targets of the California GOP's 10 year too late attempts to cut off their public welfare and education funding. If you want a point where California turned deep blue, find the date of the "Save Our State" inititive.

Posted by K at October 20, 2007 02:10 AM

Mike:

Strange you should say that. I am obviously delusional; I haven't actually seen anything telling us Brits how terrible our medical system is, how bad our gun-control laws are, how our country is being taken over by religious nutters...

Perhaps we're interested because when America sneezes, everybody else catches pneumonia; because the foreign adventures of your President, designed to keep him in the White House, kill our soldiers, waste our money and make our country a much more dangerous place; because all your bad habits (greedy lawyers, spin-d0ctor politics, dishonest campaign financing, junk food, junk TV...) become fashionable over here; because your megacorps, using "free-trade" legislation, foist your Frankenstein food on us...

Enough already. I think my point is made.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at October 20, 2007 07:02 AM

Mexicans and Vietnamese. You know, swarthy people.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of them at all. I was thinking of all the stupid white so-called liberals who keep sending the morons to Sacramento.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 20, 2007 08:36 AM

"I haven't actually seen anything telling us Brits how terrible our medical system is, how bad our gun-control laws are, how our country is being taken over by religious nutters...
"

Really? People from America go over and post this on British blogs? Where has this happened?

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 20, 2007 09:03 AM

"because all your bad habits (greedy lawyers, spin-d0ctor politics, dishonest campaign financing, junk food, junk TV...) become fashionable over here; because your megacorps, using "free-trade" legislation, foist your Frankenstein food on us...

Enough already. I think my point is made."

If your point is you readily and uncritically swallow any exaggeration or fiction the euromedia feed you, then I would have to agree.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 20, 2007 09:15 AM

Interesting and well-reasoned comment by Scott. Then again my favourite is Rudy so I have a clear bias towards a positive interpretation.

I've lived a few years in a mildly authoritharian police state of the better and more sensible kind (Singapore, this was close to two decades ago and before they started loosening up) and while Hillary might well be an authoritarian Rudy isn't remotely close the way I see him.

Apologies to Ron Paul supporters whom I'm sure is a fairly varied group of individuals but if I had to pick out a potential authoritarian danger among the GOP runners it would be Ron Paul's campaign and I think the actions by some of his supporters lend credence to that notion. It's not that Ron Paul himself is necessarily an authoritarian but he doesn't need be as his fairly simplistic message is easily hijacked by those that are. "Constitution fanatics" (and I don't use that as a name for those that are strong constitutionalists but rather those that use their perception of the constitution and it's perceived or real abuse as legimitation for just about anything) are some of the most scary people I've ever met (and I have the experience of being --luckily only somewhat randomly and not protractedly or officially-- targeted by neo-nazis here in Norway so I think that's pretty damning).

Anyway I just don't get the sentiment equating Hillary and Rudy supporters as equally insane ^_^

As to us foreigners butting in and speaking our minds I don't think it can be avoided as long as the US is the most influential country on Earth (and long may it remain so!). Some seem to think that common freedom of speech stops at the US border, either inwards or outwards or both, and that just isn't so and never has been. There shouldn't be any problems with it as long as people are simply presenting their own personal opinions. If someone is being an asshat and are "demanding" or "instructing" so-and-so well... there isn't any shortage of idiocy anywhere in the world.

And it's not a one-way street, there are plenty of opinons from US citizens on offer in relation to the rest of the world. One only needs to read Rand's blog to get some of them.

p.s. Vietnamese and other refugees from totalitarian states should be cherished, they've lived through what the rest of us at best have only visited and which most have only read or heard about. They are important not only for such reasons but because they provide a venue for changing their country of origin.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at October 20, 2007 09:55 AM

Actually, I wasn't thinking of them at all. I was thinking of all the stupid white so-called liberals who keep sending the morons to Sacramento.

Posted by Rand Simberg at October 20, 2007 08:36 AM

Rand,
I lived and have traveled in California off and on for almost 40 years. It has gotten more radical out there to be sure. I think it's the effect of an ever more vocal Hollyweird crowd that both draws the nuts and gets them to be flaky at the polls.

Where else in America but Hollywood and Sacramento, would the Governator be seen as a rabid conservative?

Posted by Steve at October 20, 2007 02:33 PM

It's not that Ron Paul himself is necessarily an authoritarian but he doesn't need be as his fairly simplistic message is easily hijacked by those that are. "Constitution fanatics" (and I don't use that as a name for those that are strong constitutionalists but rather those that use their perception of the constitution and it's perceived or real abuse as legimitation for just about anything) are some of the most scary people I've ever met (and I have the experience of being --luckily only somewhat randomly and not protractedly or officially-- targeted by neo-nazis here in Norway so I think that's pretty damning).

In other words, I have an icky feeling about a small number of Ron Paul followers, hence he's a greater authortarian danger.

Why is Ron Paul's simplistic message more likely to get hijacked by authoritarians than Rudolph Guiliani's or Hillary Clinton's simplistic messages? As I see it, Ron Paul is an outlier. So sure, he's more likely to attract outliers, including a few scary authortarian types. But if he wants to get elected and when elected actually make progress, he's going to have to appoint competent people with somewhat more mainstream beliefs. Further, as you may have noticed, a number of his stands and promises take away government power, which runs contrary to the definition of authortarianism.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at October 20, 2007 07:23 PM

Mike:

Hmmm... So it's in my imagination that Monsanto have mounted a lawsuit with the aim of making it illegal to say that any food product is free of GM soya, with the rationale that making a point of this is defamatory to those that do contain GM soya. Of course, this has nothing to do with the fact that just about all GM soya is grown from Monsanto seed. Perish the thought.

It's obviously also my imagination that McDonalds is indirectly the biggest promoter of deforestation in Brazil, to make pasture for cattle destined for McD.

It's obviously my imagination that ambulance-chasing lawyers have made, by making insurance for the events unaffordable, many traditional village events in British towns impossible. It's also my imagination that "no win no fee" started in America.

It's obviously my imagination that just about every big movie in Europe and especially Britain is made with American money, using American actors (except when you want a stereotypical villain when of course you use a Brit) and that just about every one of them has at least one car chase whether it has anything to do with the plot or not.

It's obviously my imagination that ridiculously large vehicles are being promoted in Europe and especially Britain, by American-owned companies. Even including (now) the growing popularity of stretch limos, the most obscenely stupid, dangerous, antisocial and wasteful vehicles ever invented.

OK. Apparently I have an active imagination. Of course, my opinion, shared with many others in the rest of the world, that the average American is a spoiled, immature brat is my imagination, too.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at October 20, 2007 08:03 PM

"Of course, my opinion, shared with many others in the rest of the world, that the average American is a spoiled, immature brat is my imagination, too."

More like projection.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 20, 2007 09:50 PM

Sorry,I missed some stuff out. Add greedy, ill-educated, intolerant, stupid, violent and ignorant. Present company excepted, naturally.

Posted by Fletcher Christian at October 21, 2007 06:11 AM

Karl Hallowell I wasn't being precise enough there and I apologize for it. My intended points which did not come through all that well were that:

- I don't see much authoritarianism among the GOP contenders at all. This is why I said "potential authoritarian danger".

- If there's any real authoritarianism to be found it's in a tiny part of the party that has slim chance of gaining real and widespread power (just as you point out). Yes those are the hoodlums attracted to Ron Paul's campaign who obviously seem to believe that any kind of action is justified be it physical harassment or automated poll spamming. "Icky" is the wrong sort of word to describe it and it's not a feeling, try words like criminal and, yes here it comes; authoritarian.

- I don't find it likely that Ron Paul himself is an authoritarian, nor the majority of his supporters which is why I apologized in advance to them.

Except for the misunderstandings I caused the only diagreements I have with your comment concerns:
- which messages are more simplistic
- the notion that authoritarians can't benefit from a less powerful government, they almost always do and there are plenty of historical examples of this (off topic this is one reason why I find extreme/anarchic/stateless libertarianism as utopian as communism). However this should not be misperceived as an argument against a limited government.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at October 21, 2007 07:35 AM

"Sorry,I missed some stuff out. Add greedy, ill-educated, intolerant, stupid, violent and ignorant."

Yep, just less so than the rest of the world.

Posted by Mike Puckett at October 21, 2007 09:36 AM

"It's obviously also my imagination that McDonalds is indirectly the biggest promoter of deforestation in Brazil, to make pasture for cattle destined for McD."

You realize that a British court ruled that claim as BS don't you? The couple printing the pamphlet had a liable ruling against them.

Posted by at October 21, 2007 09:38 AM

Americans less greedy than the rest of the world? Do me a favour. Oh, and add "arrogant".

Posted by Fletcher Christian at October 22, 2007 02:14 AM

I thought the more-jungle-deforestation-for-more-cropland deal was being caused by the increased demand for eco-friendly ethanol.

Let's Google "ethanol deforestation" and see what I find...

Much of the fuel that Europeans use will be imported from Brazil, where the Amazon is being burned to plant more sugar and soybeans, and Southeast Asia, where oil palm plantations are destroying the rainforest habitat of orangutans and many other species. Species are dying for our driving.

...

Little wonder that many are calling biofuels "deforestation diesel", the opposite of the environmentally friendly fuel that all are seeking.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5369284.stm

Posted by Alan K. Henderson at October 22, 2007 07:38 AM

Why is Mr. Christian blaming the US for his countrymen's bad habits and poor taste?

Hollywood movies are so bad that even the British prefer them to home-grown.

Posted by Andy Freeman at October 22, 2007 09:03 AM

Post a comment