dagblog - Comments for "Obama, Congress Reach a Debt Deal"

I see. I was misunderstanding

Verified Atheist — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:53:48 +0000

I see. I was misunderstanding what "this" referred to in your question (I thought it referred to my use of Hanlon's razor, and not to your broadening of the options). I understand now, and would agree with your assertion.

I have no background in

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:51:19 +0000

In reply to I've spent considerable time

I have no background in critical theory, either, and it may be that the term "problemitizing" does not come from that discipline. It's a term I've come across a few times. From the context, I took it to be just an academic term referring to recognizing and inserting more nuance, ambiguity, or complexity into the interpretation of an assertion or a story than it seems to reflect on a surface reading. In applying it to your Hanlon's Razor reference, I meant rejecting "incompetence" and "malice" as the only two explanations--because I think it's more complicated than either of those terms suggest.

I've spent considerable time

Verified Atheist — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:37:59 +0000

In reply to Only it's not a binary set of

I've spent considerable time in academia, and I even have a good friend with a PhD in English (his dissertation dealt with pornography and censorship), but I'm afraid my critical theory knowledge is limited to what I've obtained through osmosis, with no active study of the field. So, the answer to your question:

Isn't this what is sometimes known as "problemitizing" a claim or assertion?

is "huh?" OK, so I've just gotten back from Wikipedia (which is not as bad as most of its detractors make it out to be), and I still don't quite get that question as it pertains to Hanlon's razor. That said, I agree that I'm oversimplifying. I think it's not just incompetence, but also probably improper manipulation by greedy external forces, and part of what makes that manipulation possible is Obama's own ambitions.

Only it's not a binary set of

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 15:27:12 +0000

In reply to Only he wasn't a Manchurian

Only it's not a binary set of alternative explanations. And one person's "malice" is another person's risk or gamble or momentary setback or learning experience on the road to realizing (their notion of) a good intention. Or trying to. Or deciding they don't think they can after all. Etc.

But then you know all that.

You've been in academia, no (although not anywhere near the critical theory folks, I gather), no? Isn't this what is sometimes known as "problemitizing" a claim or assertion?

Only he wasn't a Manchurian

Verified Atheist — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:56:54 +0000

In reply to Some miscellaneous thoughts

Only he wasn't a Manchurian candidate from the left, but from the right.

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.

Some miscellaneous thoughts

AmericanDreamer — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 14:15:30 +0000

In reply to Obama, Congress Reach a Debt Deal

Some miscellaneous thoughts on surveying the wreckage:

*The 5 members of the House for whom I have the most respect, apart from Pelosi, voted no. Krugman, the logic of whose writings seemed to point to a no vote had he had one, confirmed that before the House vote, acknowledging risks in that course of action as well as all other available ones.

*I'm waiting for someone in the liberal blogosphere to write a piece about how the wingers braying incessantly about how Obama was a Manchurian Candidate may turn out to be right after all. Only he wasn't a Manchurian candidate from the left, but from the right. If the right were to construct their dream Democratic President, they'd construct one who enable them to a) change the debate in their favor b) get things done to advance their agenda c) create maximum demoralization and division among Democrats.

*Those trying to find, highlight and focus on the positives of the debt deal are pointing out that IF Democratic members insist on revenue increases the Republicans will be forced to accept revenue increases or else the trigger kicks in, which will mean further defense cuts. That's a big if. All the Republicans will need to get what they want is one appointed Democratic member who will join with them to propose only cuts and no revenue increases. The advocacy task seems clear enough--ask those appointing the Democratic committee members in both chambers--Pelosi and Reid I would assume--to appoint only members who will insist on substantial new revenues.

*Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote the other day of the American Dream Movement Van Jones is trying to make a force and a factor. I'll be looking into that--Jones is strong, smart, and a very good guy.

*Three Washington Post reporters have an article in today's edition perfectly reflecting the official ideology of what is left of Washington's Establishment. It's called "In Debt Deal, the triumph of the old Washington." David Broder's spirit lives. Broder himself would be smiling. It may have been an awful deal. It may have harmful effects on the country. But it was bipartisan, dangit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-debt-deal-the-triumph-of-the-old-washington/2011/08/02/gIQARSFfqI.html?hpid=z1

*George Will, in case anyone thought we might get some of the occasional honesty we see from him, in case anyone thought he might praise Obama for accepting so much of what the GOP wants and its narrative, is piling on, offering previews of the GOP election year themes. One of the headline descriptors of his column today at the website is "Obama's 2012 Problem: The President Cannot Run from his Liberalism." I kid you not. The headline for his column in the print edition is something like "A Record He Can't Run From." It may be, on many decisions he has made, a record reflecting GOP views and priorities. But it's now his, redefined as "liberalism".

*The night before last, after the House vote I recorded my thoughts. Not being a cry-in-my-beer kinda guy, and not being an internet drama king, I declined to post it. The main theme, reflecting absolutely no standing or authority I have, was an imaginary apology to all those who are the ones right now who are unemployed or scrambling to survive who have placed their faith in the Democratic party, and an affirmation of solidarity with them, to keep fighting, no matter what.

We are not, technically, in a

brewmn — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 03:04:00 +0000

In reply to Basic economics says

We are not, technically, in a recession. And the cuts proposed to take place during the first two years if this bill are so minimal that I seriously doubt you can make a case that they make any significant contribution to either economic growth in the immediate future or a slide into a negative growth territory.

Sadly, no one has seen fit to

Michael Wolraich — Tue, 02 Aug 2011 02:27:19 +0000

In reply to "But if I get a cut, I'm open

Sadly, no one has seen fit to give me a qut of anything, but I'm still optimistic.

"But if I get a cut, I'm open

Qnonymous — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 23:52:26 +0000

In reply to I don't think that I could

"But if I get a cut, I'm open to anything." ......

Well at last THAT'S out in the open.

Not saying that at all.

Elusive Trope — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 22:44:56 +0000

In reply to If you are saying the GOP has

Not saying that at all. First I was just clarifying when the tax cuts expire. And whether there was some agreement with GOP or not, the reality is that unless they get their act together, Obama can let the tax cuts expire by using his veto pen. Of course, how it all plays out will depend on the outcomes of the 2012 elections.