Daydream Believers

Lending more evidence to DougJ’s theory, I just heard Roger Simon on Hardball state that “Sara Palin held her own in the debate.”

If, by holding your own, you mean refusing to answer any questions you didn’t like, talking about random things that had nothing to do with the question, babbling about a grade school and winking at the camera, and then spent the rest of the time just lying about things, well, sure, she “held her own.”

Also, Biden mopped the floor with her in the post-debate polling, but, you know, those are facts that might conflict with Simon’s narrative.

Speaking of MustachesPost + Comments (189)

As a single person who enjoys being unhappy, I may be biased about this issue, but it seems to me that there are far too many books, studies, and the like being written on “how to be happy” and the “nature of love”.

I haven’t read any of these, but there are tell-tale signs they are bullshit: they show up regularly in the columns of Ross Douthat and David Brooks, they inspire overuse of the word “we” (“why we need happiness”, etc.), I’ve heard them discussed on NPR, and Slate has a “Happiness Project” blog, just to cite a few examples.

Am I being too cynical here or is the proliferation of happiness studies indicative of something sad and pathetic about contemporary America?

Love and happinessPost + Comments (126)

Steve Benen makes a very good point about who’s really in the OBAMA SHOULD BE DOING MORE crowd:

Of course, shortly before George Will’s remarks, there was Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), blasting the president on the same program for being “timid and passive” when he’d like to see Obama “speak truth to power.”

…seeing Will and Graham on opposite sides of this reminds me of a point that often goes overlooked: we’re not dealing with a dynamic that pits the left vs. the right, or Dems against Republicans. Rather, this is a situation featuring neocons vs. everyone else.

You’ll notice that President Obama’s strategy has not only been endorsed by Democratic lawmakers, but also prominent Republicans who are in office (Dick Lugar), served in Republican administrations (Henry Kissinger, Gary Sick, and Nick Burns), or are prominent Republican voices in the media (George Will, Peggy Noonan, and Pat Buchanan).

Neoconservatism is a fringe ideology. It’s even difficult to find Wise Old Men — of the sort who co-chair Baker-Hamilton, Daschle-Dole style blue ribbon panels — who subscribe to it. Normally, that dooms an ideology to obscurity, regardless of its merits. But neoconservatism is different, and I don’t know why.

If you want to get a good feeling for how kooky the whole neocon outlook is, I recommend reading about the J curve:

The idea is that by introducing instability to a repressive regime, you initially make things worse in terms of both stability and openness, but then, once you hit rock bottom on both, you start to get better on both. This explains why it’s a good idea to completely destabilize countries, rather than hope for any kind of gradual reform.

Let me pose the following question: has any policy good ever come from the discussion of curves? Laffer curve, Bell curve, J curve. What is it about a picture of a curve that strips all intelligence and reason out of a discussion?

My guess is that they have mystical pull which leads people to believe they encapsulate some general truth that EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, the same way that the writings of Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and the Founding Fathers do, only better, because graphs are more both more reductionist and more faux scientific.

Update. In the interest of fairness and accuracy, I should include framing as one of the things that EXPLAINS EVERYTHING. There’s no need to be too partisan about this.

Update. Commenter Redshift makes a good point:

I think the mindset behind these “curves” is similar to that of various “doctrines”; the problem comes from the belief that the curve itself is a fundamental truth, rather than an illustration of underlying data (which can then be debated, falsified, etc.) This is why they are always shown with no units, not even at the maximum. For example, the Laffer curve shows the no-brainer that there is a level of taxation where it is possible to cut taxes and raise revenue; take away the scale, and you can make the argument that cutting taxes from where we are now raises revenue (if you’re either intellectual dishonest or in the throes of confirmation bias.)

Compare this to the so-called “hockey stick” global warming graph. To scientists, this is just an illustration of data, and the underlying data is what’s up for debate. To wingnuts, it’s a major point of debate; if they can “prove” that it is in any way incorrect, then global warming is a lie.

Fringe ideologiesPost + Comments (91)

God love Sullivan, because I know his heart is in the right place:

We switched the color scheme in solidarity. Wear green if you can. They need to know we care.

If someone can give me one legitimate piece of evidence that wearing green boxers is going to help bring democracy to Iran, so help me I’ll wear plaid from head to toe and shoot for world peace.

I know he means well, but this is what I was talking about this morning when I said that the coverage of the events in Iran by American bloggers was giving me a warblogger circa 2003 vibe. I can’t be the only one who is reminded of Abbie Hoffman’s plans to levitate the Pentagon through the power of meditation.

My thoughts are with the folks in Iran risking it all fighting for democracy, but this can not be said enough- this is not about us, it is about them. I love the coverage of events, but please stop with this narcissistic nonsense.

*** Update ***

And via Sullivan, a measured response from Obama:

Also, this Larison piece is a solid read, and this is sage advice.

Also, I’ll Have Kale, Spinach and Peas For DinnerPost + Comments (289)