The ultimate recommendation of this article makes no sense:

Polarization along party lines may be uncomfortable, but the parties now actually stand for something, and it makes more sense than ever to stand with one of them.

It does not follow that you ought to stand by a party simply because parties stand for something. In fact, you cannot stand by either of these parties unless you accept, whole cloth, all or nearly all of the positions that party supports. Most partisans will gladly argue any of their party's positions and eagerly insist that anyone who raises but a moments doubt about any of those positions must surely be a hard line partisan of the opposite variety. Such thinking is not the product of objective consideration of facts nor reality but rather it represents deciding what party one belongs to before deciding what one thinks about politics. Anti-partisanship is a natural counter reaction to the idiotic, peer-pressured, identity groupthink that has all but conquered the American scene.

RE: On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties & Partisanship

noteworthy wrote:
Characterizing this proposal as "bald faced authoritarianism" is a bit over the top. Certainly one can question the necessity for, and appropriateness of, a federally mandated service-learning graduation requirement, but this idea has a long history, and in some school districts such programs are already in place.

To be absolutely clear, my problem begins and end with the use of the word require and what that word implies. There is a difference between encouraging and requiring and that difference matters when you are talking about the coercive use of government power. Lets change contexts to put this in perspective.

Exercise is good for you, right? Everyone ought to exercise every day. We have federal government programs that attempt to encourage exercise. Most high schools and colleges have some sort of fitness requirement for graduation.

So why not create a federal requirement that all Americans exercise? If its good for most people its good for everybody, right? Lets require 30 minutes of cardiovascular exercise from each citizen once a day. No exceptions will be made. If you do not perform the required exercise you will be imprisoned for not more than two years and fined not less than $100,000.

Is that unreasonable? If you think the President's fitness challenge is OK but the sort of requirement I'm describing is not, there has to be a line that you'd draw where you would oppose these requirements. Why do you draw that line where you draw it?

You seem to want to have pragmatic reasons for drawing the line. I have structural reasons. I don't oppose a daily federal fitness requirement because I don't think it would be effective. In fact, I DO think it would be effective. I would personally be better off if we had it. I oppose it because I think its antithetical to a free society.

When the government taxes your time and your labor, this is something catagorically different from when it taxes your money. Thats where I draw the line. Its possible that an existential threat to the future of your country can put you in a position where you have no choice but to institute a military draft, but unless you have reached that point, the way I see it, you can either choose to be a free society, or you can choose to force innocent people against their will to give up their time to serve the interests of the state.

Generally speaking, I think the people who support these requirements know that they are antithetical to freedom, and that is why they do not and would not impose them on themselves or their peers. These requirements are generally imposed on minors. The adults who write these laws, enforce these laws, and vote for politicians who support these laws are not saying that they, themselves should be subject to a government requirement that they perform 50 or 100 hours of community service a year.... [ Read More (0.3k in body) ]

RE: Changes at Change.gov

Andy Baio:

Like the rest of the world, I've been completely obsessed with the presidential election and nonstop news coverage. My drug of choice? Gabe Rivera's Memeorandum, the political sister site of Techmeme, which constantly surfaces the most controversial stories being discussed by political bloggers.

While most political blogs are extremely partisan, their biases aren't immediately obvious to outsiders like me. I wanted to see, at a glance, how conservative or liberal the blogs were without clicking through to every article.

With the help of del.icio.us founder Joshua Schachter, we used a recommendation algorithm to score every blog on Memeorandum based on their linking activity in the last three months. Then I wrote a Greasemonkey script to pull that information out of Google Spreadsheets, and colorize Memeorandum on-the-fly. Left-leaning blogs are blue and right-leaning blogs are red, with darker colors representing strong biases. Check out the screenshot below, and install the Greasemonkey script or standalone Firefox extension to try it yourself.

Memeorandum Colors: Visualizing Political Bias with Greasemonkey

Morningside Analytics discovers and monitors online networks that form around particular ideas and identifies thought leaders with standing in these audiences.

Really cool!

Shifting The Debate: Political Video Barometer

For the time being, put aside concerns about Georgia's voter ID law and electronic ballot machines — and start worrying about a whole new set of election shenanigans perpetrated by Republican Secretary of State Karen Handel.

There seems to be a hell of a lot of smoke here.

Democrats fight Karen Handel to stay on ballot | Atlanta | News & Views | Feature

Palin’s qualifications to be president rank as voters’ top concern about McCain’s candidacy...

Hart argues that voters have turned against Palin. The negative opinions of her have “reflected badly on McCain and essentially hurt the ticket dramatically.”

Palin dragging the Republican ticket - Decision '08- msnbc.com

Best slip ever!

Talking Points Memo | Losing It?

If you think that Congress is having a tough time nailing down the terms of a $700-billion bailout because of high-minded concerns about fairness, proper use of taxpayer funds or regulatory oversight, think again.

So, for example, Rose City Archery, an Oregon company that makes bows and arrows for kids, might be the beneficiary of a provision inserted by Oregon senators Ron Wyden and Gordon Smith to end a 39-cent excise tax on wooden arrows.

If you're worried that the whole bailout might be a big scam, well, this certainly doesn't help.

They haven't even signed it yet and the pigs are already at the trough!

The law, which specifically prohibits the use of an electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication while operating a more vehicle, takes effect Jan. 1.

Will they also ban reading maps and reading GPS units while stopped at a red light?

California bans READING text messages while stopped at a red light!

Mr. McCain saying he would suspend his campaign to help broker a solution and calling on Mr. Obama to postpone their first debate, scheduled for Friday night.

I'm working on some bad-ass economic shit right now! I have no time for politics!

Democrats in Congress... were reluctant to tie Mr. Obama’s hands by authorizing a lame-duck administration to spend money he hoped to use to expand access to health care, foster research for renewable energy and cut taxes for the middle class.

In the light of this article the whole thing appears to be some sort of cynical election year ploy, in which McCain is able to keep himself and Palin out of the hotseat while simultaneously putting a huge amount of money in the absolute and unreviewable control of one of the Bush team's Nixon administration buddies. If the Democrats win, all of that money, unfortunately, will have to be spent on bad debt which won't be worth anything in the end. Obama will not be able to make progress on any of his social programs because the national debt and plummeting US dollar will be in an untenable situation. If the Republicans win, however, it will turn out that only 100 billion was needed. Things weren't so bad after all...

News Analysis - For the Nominees, New Roles and New Risks - News Analysis - NYTimes.com