May 13, 2010
— Ace It occurred to me that questions which seem invasive and nasty smears come about due to the Prisoner's Dilemma.
The basics of the Dilemma are these: Two suspects have jointly participated in a crime, and have both been arrested, and are both held in separate interrogation tanks, unable to communicate with each other. They are both offered the same deal:
If one testifies (defects from the other) for the prosecution against the other and the other remains silent (cooperates with the other), the betrayer goes free and the silent accomplice receives the full 10-year sentence. If both remain silent, both prisoners are sentenced to only six months in jail for a minor charge. If each betrays the other, each receives a five-year sentence. Each prisoner must choose to betray the other or to remain silent. Each one is assured that the other would not know about the betrayal before the end of the investigation. How should the prisoners act?
The point is that it is strongly in both men's interest to refuse to betray, assuming a high-trust environment where they could expect the other to refuse to betray. But because neither man has full trust in the other (and can't work out a binding contract to this effect with the other), their "best move" turns out to be betraying the other, even though this results in a bad outcome for both men.
If they could communicate, establish trust, and forge a binding contract -- if they could cooperate -- they could both have the optimal result. But they can't, and that forces upon both of them a sub-optimal result.
It seems to me the dirtier aspects of politics are just like this. If both parties could really agree on what smears were out-of-bounds and forge a binding contract to avoid such smears, both parties could achieve what many long for, an optimal sort of politics, in which smears (and invasive questions) were not on the menu.
But the two parties can't cooperate, for a variety of reasons (including the fact that the parties can't actually control any of their millions of members, so any single person can decide to void the contract and go dirty, thus making any such contract between the parties meaningless).
So both are forced into a suboptimal solution in which each "betrays" the other with smears and arguably dirty tactics.
The trouble with sentimentalism about Elena Kagan's sexuality is Pete Williams' sexuality -- the former Pentagon spokesman was ruthlessly outed by committed leftist gays who claimed they served a higher purpose by exposing his (kind of open) secret to the world.
And as for keeping quiet about hot button issues: Miguel Estrada tried that, too, and the Democrats had none of that:
George W. Bush nominated Estrada to a position on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 9, 2001. He received a unanimous "well-qualified" rating from the American Bar Association. Democratic Senators opposed the nomination, noting Estrada's lack of any prior judicial experience at the local, state, or federal level. Democratic Senators also objected to the refusal by the Office of the Solicitor General to release samples of Estrada's writings while employed there.A bipartisan group of former Solicitors General wrote a letter objecting to the Democrats' demand for memos that Estrada had written while he was with the office. While not addressing past instances where such memos had previously been released,[2] the letter argued release of prior memos by government employees to the public would endanger the Solicitor General Office's ability to provide confidential legal advice to the Executive Branch.
Leaked internal memos to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court partially because "he is Latino," and because of his potential to be a future Supreme Court nominee.[3] Democratic spokesman for Durbin said that "no one intended racist remarks against Estrada" and that the memo only meant to highlight that Estrada was "politically dangerous" because Democrats knew he would be an "attractive candidate" that would be difficult to contest since he didn't have any record.[3]
Of course, when the Democrats aren't openly filibustering a highly qualified and "attractive" nominee specifically because he's a Latino, they're fabricating ridiculous charges of "racism" against men who aren't Latino.
In other words, maybe I could agree that if both sides agreed not to play this vicious game, it would be better for all; but I can't trust the other side not to play this game, so....
There's a frequent argument on our side about how to address this. Some urge being "better" than the other side, and abiding by certain rules, even while the other side flouts them. We ought to do this, it is said, because the right thing is always the right thing to do, and besides, the public will eventually recognize us for our forbearance and reward us for it.
I don't think 2 would ever happen, because you can never tell people "I knew X was gay but I didn't say anything out of a sense of fairness" without revealing the thing -- "X is gay" -- that you're supposedly so principled about not making an issue of.
And I don't know that the "right thing" to do to play strictly by the rules when they other team is throwing elbows and whipping legs and getting away with it. If the actual rules are that you can leg-whip and elbow and get away with it -- aren't those the real rules we should be playing by, too?
Another branch of game theory says that tit for tat is an effective strategy.
I think most people are like me -- whether you argue the "Get Almost As Dirty As They Are" side, or the "Be Better Than They Are" side, depends. It depends on the issue, and, frankly, it depends on your mood on a particular day. Most of us have tendencies towards one or the other, but in a bad mood, particularly angered at the loathsomeness of the other party's profit through egregious lies, pretty much anyone can flip over to the Dirty side.
I think most of the time I personally fall on the Dirty/Tit for Tat side. I endorse the exact same level of fairness and kind dealings towards my political opponents that they would extend to me -- that is to say, virtually none whatsoever, and I think I'll continue having this tendency until the left begins to start showing some trepidations about destroying inconvenient persons.
Jonathan Chait, the hyperpartisan best known for being a close friend and defender of serial fabulist Steven Glass and also penning the Mission Statement of the Left during the 2000's, The Case for Bush Hatred, actually has a conclusion I agree with on this topic. After whining like a bitch about the GOPs new outrageously outrageous slander of Dear Leader (that he's a "bully" -- feel the hatred), he concludes:
Why the incessant demands for civility and cries of foul play? Americans hate political conflict. In a 2002 book, political scientists John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse note that Americans fail to understand ideological disagreements between the parties. Voters think everybody should agree and interpret the lack of consensus as a sign of misgovernance.The partiesÂ’ constant efforts to claim the rhetorical high ground and to blame the other side for all the nastiness is a pander to the publicÂ’s childlike belief in unanimity and concord. If they really wanted to raise the level of discourse, they would level with the public about the necessity of argument.
Well ignore that last sentence, because that's the silly thing you have to say to button a column. No one's leveling with the public, because the public doesn't want to be leveled with.
The public -- and when I say "the public," I don't mean all of the public, I mean the 20-25% "moderates" who are largely apathetic and apolitical and tend to vote according to things like gut-level reaction to a candidate's charisma and presentation -- does not like ideological spats and in fact prefers to believe that ideological spats flow only from emotional pique and meanness of character, and that, if everyone just coolly and amicably sat down together and rolled up their sleeves, such spats would disappear altogether, because they'd find a Magic Compromise which achieves all goals simultaneously while imposing no costs.
They refuse to believe that choosing one theory of governance will come with associated costs. They like the Republicans' idea of cutting taxes; they don't like the Republicans' ideas about cutting spending (except in theory).
They like the Democrats' idea of voting ourselves all a big raise in the form of new social spending given to almost everybody (except the ultrarich). They don't like the Democrats' plans about upping taxes, or, as Democrats call it, "investing in our future."
Choosing is an act that requires both intellectual effort and a certain amount of moral effort, too. If you decide to take money out of someone's pocket, or cut the subsidies they've grown accustomed to, you need a certain level of moral surety that you're doing the right thing.
Most people don't wish to invest much effort in politics, and don't like the idea that by choosing X they are affirmatively giving up on Y, and so they keep their options open, continuing to hope for that Miracle Solution that delivers both (and usually rewarding the party which comes up, this cycle, with the most plausible line of politicobabble bullshit suggesting they can have X and Y at the same time).
Since this crucial group of disengaged voters is not going to actually vote for an ideology -- they are going to continue to exercise their right to not choose and not decide and not really think about such matters very hard at all -- politics tends to become, of necessity, a war over personal characteristics.
Candidate A is a bad candidate because she supports Y isn't going to move these voters, because they support Y, too. They also support Not-Y, and X, and Not-X, and out-of-left-field Z, and not-Z, to boot.
In fact, they support nearly everything, and if you point out that their support of everything is highly contradictory and illogical, because some things, by necessity, come at the cost of something else, they will argue passionately with you stop listening altogether and walk away in order to update their FaceBook accounts because they really don't care to explore their beliefs and their consequences beyond the most superficial level and we really only having this discussion with you in the first place because they wanted to pretend they were engaged and also because it seemed "nice" to let you talk at them over something you seemed to care so much about.
So, for such voters, the main factor in driving decisions (to the extent they make them) is personality, and that means that the most effective line of persuasion isn't Candidate A has bad ideas about governance but rather Candidate A is a Bad Person, and it's always going to be that way, because marginal voters don't really give a crap about political ideology -- too "thinky" -- but of course everyone knows that Bad People shouldn't be rewarded.
It's not the parties' fault that they dress up ideological battles in the trappings of dramatic fiction, with White Hatted Heroes and Black Hatted Villains. It's the fault of a certain segment of the American public, who will not respond to any sort of persuasion except these crude, hastily-written Morality Plays we stage for them every couple of years.
Yeah, I'd like to deal with them as if they were adults and just say "Hey, here's their ideology, here's theirs; they're probably not bad people, on the whole, but their ideas are bad, and you have to finally chose their ideas or mine," but, on a political level, they're not adults.
They are in fact children, and you don't explain to a small child the moral consequences of lying or the nuanced cases in which a lie might be justified or inconsequential.
You tell a small child that if he lies, his Mommy and Daddy will cry, and hope that that blunt emotional messaging does the trick.
I'm a big believer in the idea that people get the government -- and the politics -- they deserve, and I'm very suspicious of criticism that lays he blame for childishness and sanctimony in politics at the feet of politicians. Don't hate the playa, hate the game, they say, and I can't get too upset over people playing the game according to its established and accepted rules.
Here's what politicians can never say, but I'm not running for office, so I can: There are a lot of fucking Dummies in this country and they're lazy to boot and the only way you can hope to engage them in politics is through Punch-and-Judy puppet-shows with lots of slapsticking and crude drama.
And if for a lot of these Dummies, the only question they're asking about Elena Kagan is "Is she a lesbian?" -- because it's a fun question like they often see on Melrose Place, except with much hotter women -- that is one more question than they were ever interested in as regards Sonia Sotomayor.
And because that's the only question regarding Kagan the Dummies have even heard of, that limits the actual political content of the debate they're willing to even hear to "Does that mean she supports a guarantee to gay marriage?"
It's not my fault, it's not your fault, it's not our politicians' fault. Frankly, I gotta say, it's often not even the Democrats' fault.
It's the Dummies' fault. Our politics is fundamentally stupid because those marginal voters that are the key to every election are fundamentally stupid -- at least as regards politics.
And here's where I say "And if America is ever to change this, people -- all people -- must inform themselves and do the intellectual and moral work of actually making tough choices," to button up the article, but I'm not going to say that, because that never has happened and never will happen and so there's no sense of saying it. I might as well say And we must all focus our psychic chi in order to gain the power of unassisted human flight.
So we'll continuing drawing brightly-colored political cartoons to get the Dummies to devote three microvolts of brain activity to important political questions with tangible impacts on their own and their children's lives, and this will continue until the Dummies start actually taking an interest in their own lives or until politicians stop pandering to their distracted disengagement, which is to say, this will continue, full stop.
Oh: Just because I may conclude that something is permissible doesn't mean I think it's politic -- nasty stuff about her sexuality from the base and especially elected representatives would be counter-productive, because people do -- rightly -- have a sense of fair play, and the Dummies are also not going to reward a party they believe is acting in a shabby and mean way.
My point wasn't we should do this or that. It's more that the game permits this or that -- but just because you can do something has never meant you actually should.
But at that point it becomes a question of maximum utility, not of morality or principle. That is, it's a cold-hearted calculation of what works the best, shorn of any sentimentality.
Over at Volokh, a conversation the writer didn't want to have, but feels compelled to note, for intellectual reasons -- just because you've "dated men" doesn't mean you're not a lesbian, or lesbian-ish, or bisexual.
I certainly don't think that a lesbian shouldn't be on the Supreme Court -- or even that a lesbian should be compelled to out herself as a lesbian to get on the Supreme Court.
I don't think that, in itself, is relevant.
But with a candidate who is so secretive by personal careerist choice... well, since she won't tell me what she thinks, I need to guess, and to guess, I at least need some basic data to base my guesses on.
So far all I know about Elena Kagan is that she is mammal.
Posted by: Ace at
12:04 PM
| Comments (180)
Post contains 2746 words, total size 17 kb.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at May 13, 2010 12:12 PM (nxUYP)
You are assuming honor among thieves. Bad idea.
Posted by: kevlarchick at May 13, 2010 12:12 PM (TNuqz)
Posted by: ESPN Cinco Deuce at May 13, 2010 12:14 PM (zgd5N)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 13, 2010 12:14 PM (0GFWk)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at May 13, 2010 12:16 PM (I1/U/)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at May 13, 2010 04:16 PM (I1/U/)
See post #3. Not much thought was used, but then not much thought was needed.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at May 13, 2010 12:18 PM (nxUYP)
Posted by: Denver at May 13, 2010 12:18 PM (XM30y)
The sad thing is that prior to Bork both Parties did adhere to this. Now only the Republicans play nice and until they start "Borking" the Dem nominees the Dems will continue their policy.
So yes, I say bring it on. Generate the hate for this liberal scrunt. Bring on lying witnesses that accuse her of every evil under the sun without a shred of evidence.
Posted by: Vic at May 13, 2010 12:19 PM (6taRI)
This is where the South really screwed us by making the poll tax and literacy tests toxic.
This is also why we should resist moter voter and everything else that makes it easier to vote. "What, you think the one thing our politics lack is more of the stupid?"
Posted by: Emperor of Icecream at May 13, 2010 12:19 PM (epBek)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 13, 2010 12:20 PM (0GFWk)
That bitch killed my puppy when I was ten!
Works for me.
Posted by: Samuel Adams at May 13, 2010 12:20 PM (nxUYP)
Posted by: slapwagon at May 13, 2010 12:20 PM (JgygP)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at May 13, 2010 04:16 PM (I1/U/)
You just did.
Posted by: chemjeff at May 13, 2010 12:22 PM (JgygP)
Posted by: Samuel Adams at May 13, 2010 12:23 PM (nxUYP)
Posted by: Asscheeks of Saturn at May 13, 2010 12:23 PM (w9bVp)
The assumption of only 6 months exposure is quite unrealistic unless you also assume no criminal history, no federal crime, no state crime with guidlines, and no other evidence by the prosecuting authority. A rarity in my experience.
Posted by: Terry Smyly at May 13, 2010 12:23 PM (T1lIC)
After all, how often have we all played the game of, "What if a Republican said that?": knowing damned well that what the MFM passes off with a shrug and a "boys will be boys" when said or done by a Democrat, is treated like Armageddon when coming from a Republican.
Until the day that we on the Right are treated at all fairly in the Media, our only real option is to avoid behavior that our enemies in the MFM can magnify to our detriment.
If that means that we have to turn the other cheek at times, so be it.
Posted by: Brown Line at May 13, 2010 12:24 PM (VrNoa)
Posted by: maddogg at May 13, 2010 12:24 PM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Anita Hill at May 13, 2010 04:22 PM (IhHdM)
My bad Anita.
Posted by: Rick James, bitch. at May 13, 2010 12:24 PM (nxUYP)
Posted by: Vic at May 13, 2010 12:24 PM (6taRI)
Posted by: Fritz at May 13, 2010 12:25 PM (GwPRU)
Posted by: sifty at May 13, 2010 12:27 PM (fWFVQ)
It is hard to understate how critical this is. As long as the left is always willing to go a dozen steps further down the road of the politics of personal destruction then we are, they have no reason not to.
If we really want to achieve the goals we conservative claim to want, we have to do at least one of two things; educate the "undecided" public and have them vote their beliefs because they are more conservative then liberal, or play the political game for keeps just like the left does.
The first option is really, really, hard. The second is much easier. Nothing stops us from trying both though, so it seems to me we should follow a parallel path. Or we can just accept that we are going to get the full leftwing program.
Really, do we have a choice?
Posted by: 18-1 at May 13, 2010 12:27 PM (bgcml)
I recall that the leaked memo was a "non-issue" with the press and it barely got a mention. Just think what the reaction would be if it was a shoe on the other foot.
And thanks to the Gang of 14 he never did make it out of committee. Thank you so much McLame and Graham.
Posted by: Vic at May 13, 2010 12:28 PM (6taRI)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 13, 2010 12:29 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: geoffd at May 13, 2010 12:29 PM (hs64b)
Posted by: WalrusRex at May 13, 2010 12:29 PM (xxgag)
And THIS my friends, is why our politicians must have the OPITMAL CREASES in their pants.
(Don't worry, Ace, I'm an elitist too)
Posted by: s'moron at May 13, 2010 12:31 PM (UaxA0)
I agree that the rules are what the rules are - I think we found that out when all of the Senators who urged us not to resort to reconciliation and appealed to the best traditions of the Senate when Boosh was in office turned tail and pushed for reconciliation to pass Obamacare.
If John Roberts' 'picture perfect 50s family' was fair game, Kagan's passel of housecats and Birkenstocks lifestyle (wink, wink) is more than fair game.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 13, 2010 12:31 PM (IVQSY)
That argument exceeded its use by date decades ago. You can not satisfy the MFM no matter what you do if you are a conservative so there is no need to suck their balls. All it does is get pubic hair in your mouth.
Posted by: Vic at May 13, 2010 12:31 PM (6taRI)
See, I told you wingnuts that you are stupid. They're not going to put an actor on the Supreme Court. This is why Dems will roll in November.
Posted by: Clapwagon. at May 13, 2010 12:33 PM (nxUYP)
Posted by: Charles' Johnson at May 13, 2010 12:34 PM (VmtE9)
I will say that when "these people" have their lives affected by, say, the economy or mass cereal bannings, they probably get more involved and hopefully make decisions based on reason and critical thinking and not on which candidate makes a better speech.
Posted by: Dr. Spank at May 13, 2010 12:34 PM (I1/U/)
Posted by: DaveyNC at May 13, 2010 12:35 PM (VSHn0)
Let's be gentlemen here. Don't sink to their style.It works every time it's tried!
Posted by: General Cornwallis at May 13, 2010 12:35 PM (gxpfq)
If that means that we have to turn the other cheek at times, so be it.
Posted by: Brown Line at May 13, 2010 04:24 PM (VrNoa)
Or we could ignore the State Media, take a small hit in the short term, and force the public to take a hard look at what the State Media is up to.
Certainly turning the other cheek constantly hasn't done us a lick of good.Posted by: 18-1 at May 13, 2010 12:37 PM (bgcml)
They aren't stupid or apathetic.
Posted by: huh at May 13, 2010 12:37 PM (+ABdJ)
THis has got to be a record. 30 minutes and another cob logger hasn't taken a shit on top of one of ace's magnus opuses (opuii?)
Posted by: s'moron at May 13, 2010 12:38 PM (UaxA0)
Che Obama is just laying the ground work.
Posted by: sifty at May 13, 2010 12:38 PM (fWFVQ)
Posted by: KG at May 13, 2010 12:38 PM (S8TF5)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at May 13, 2010 12:39 PM (I1/U/)
Thanks to the Dems in this State you can now register by mail with proof of eligibility being supplied by as little as an electric bill.
You can also use that same electricity bill as ID when voting.
Yes, a system that almost guarantees fraud.
Posted by: Vic at May 13, 2010 12:39 PM (6taRI)
You've overlooked the fun option: Be far worse than they can describe believably.
It's a, uh, historically proven tactic.
Posted by: oblig. at May 13, 2010 12:39 PM (x7Ao8)
the politics of personal destruction
enough said.
doens't matter what side you're on, you'll get smeared.
and if we can't find it, we'll make it up, and you'll beleive it INSERT ANY NEWS ORGANIZATION, HERE
Posted by: pitchforksandpowder at May 13, 2010 12:39 PM (crH0G)
So what Ace is saying is that both sides will always go for the candidate with the best hair.
At least that's what I think he was saying.
Okay, I didn't really read it.
At all.
It's like I see that many words and I just zzzzt... freeze up or something. Can't help it.
Anyway, who like tits more than legs / ass and should legs / ass be two separate categories?
Posted by: Dang at May 13, 2010 12:40 PM (UA4gE)
I like this guy.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 13, 2010 12:40 PM (IVQSY)
Oh, right.
Nevermind.
Posted by: geoffd at May 13, 2010 04:29 PM (hs64b)
Uh, we tried that in 1984 and 1994. We may not be smart...but we aren't that stupid any more.
Posted by: David Axelrod at May 13, 2010 12:41 PM (bgcml)
That still doesn't answer why on Earth we'd want to make an issue out of something the Democrats want us to make in issue out of.
Posted by: sandy burger at May 13, 2010 12:43 PM (MT+0i)
Posted by: nevergiveup at May 13, 2010 12:43 PM (0GFWk)
Posted by: runningrn at May 13, 2010 12:44 PM (CfmlF)
Posted by: Dang at May 13, 2010 04:40 PM (UA4gE)
You will notice that the more charismatic presidential candidate has won every election since 1968 (at least). The media has some role in that of course, but that should be a major part of our candidate search.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 13, 2010 12:44 PM (bgcml)
legs/ass can be one category, but you need another for thighs then anyway. And I don't like tats on tits. it's tacky.
Posted by: s'moron at May 13, 2010 12:44 PM (UaxA0)
This is another epic post.
One alternative might be to really discourage Dummies from voting. Just tell them, "Hey, look, we know you're not really paying attention and so do you. Wouldn't it be better for everybody if you sat this one out?"
Why does nobody ask this?
Posted by: spongeworthy at May 13, 2010 12:44 PM (rplL3)
IÂ’m still baffled as to why the Obama administration is going to so much work about her sexuality. I mean it is not like the Republicans are going to say no to her regardless or whether she likes men or women, at this point I think she could like barn animals and the Republicans will roll over and play dead anyway.
So I would think this would be a feather in the administrationÂ’s cap, the first Lesbian on the Supreme Court, it is a way to pander to a base that likes to be pandered to. Instead, they are going out of their way to make her not gay, which is actually irritating their allies on the left.
Of course, sometimes an apple is just an apple, so maybe she is just a very unlucky in love straight woman. Of course if she was that, why wouldnÂ’t she just come right out and say it?
Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at May 13, 2010 12:46 PM (RZ8pf)
Posted by: geoffd at May 13, 2010 12:47 PM (hs64b)
One alternative might be to really discourage Dummies from voting. Just tell them, "Hey, look, we know you're not really paying attention and so do you. Wouldn't it be better for everybody if you sat this one out?"
Why does nobody ask this?
Because they don't think they're stupid - they think choosing as if politics was a Chinese Menu - Column A and Column B - is a mark of an independent mind. In reality, it's the mark of someone who hasn't read, thought, and developed a cohesive political philosophy, as Ace aptly described.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 13, 2010 12:48 PM (IVQSY)
Posted by: damian at May 13, 2010 12:48 PM (4WbTI)
Ace--Over at Volokh, a conversation the writer didn't want to have, but feels compelled to note, for intellectual reasons -- just because you've "dated men" doesn't mean you're not a lesbian, or lesbian-ish, or bisexual.
By this logic, I also must point out that just because you have dated, married and had two children with Michelle Obama doesn't mean you can't be a homosexual.
Just really really in the closet or in denial.
Posted by: Ed at May 13, 2010 12:48 PM (OCfDT)
Oh, and this wasn't a throw away line ace:
So far all I know about Elena Kagan is that she is mammal.
Do you REALLY know that?
I mean, I haven't seen any evidence that she possesses internal skeletal structure at all, let alone a vertebral column, pass-through one-way alimentary canal, bodily hair, and/or the ability to lactate.
You're playing pretty damn loose with the future of this Country, bub.
Posted by: s'moron at May 13, 2010 12:48 PM (UaxA0)
Posted by: Dr. Spank at May 13, 2010 04:39 PM (I1/U/)
One of the amusing things to watch the State Media doing, is their incessant comparison of American conservatives to Islamists. Why is this amusing? Because they kow-tow to Islamists and not conservatives.
So, for example, if the State Media really believed that we were no different, they would be just as afraid of an angry Christianist beheading them for a negative portrayal of Jesus as they are of an angry Islamist doing the same for a portrayal of Mohamed.
By the State Media's own actions they demonstrate they are full of crap.
Posted by: 18-1 at May 13, 2010 12:49 PM (bgcml)
So..I'm thinking Ace's tome here supports Monties assertion in his caricature essay. If so...our caricatures are who we are, esp. when it comes to politicians.
Right?
Posted by: dananjcon at May 13, 2010 12:49 PM (pr+up)
Wait, what are we talking about?
Posted by: Waterhouse at May 13, 2010 12:50 PM (c7UMz)
So far all I know about Elena Kagan is that she is mammal.
Well, we can assume she is at this point, anyway. I'm still wating for actual evidence of her true heritage, species-wise.
Posted by: wiserbud at May 13, 2010 12:50 PM (EW49d)
I'm sure that is what Barrahmrod Axelmanuel is thinking.
Posted by: sifty at May 13, 2010 12:50 PM (fWFVQ)
I beg to differ. She's a lawyer.
Not even warm blooded.
Posted by: AmishDude at May 13, 2010 12:50 PM (T0NGe)
Kagan's Sexuality, the Prisoner's Dilemma, The Monty Hall Scenario, and the Politics of Personal Destruction
Posted by: Tennesse Tuxedo at May 13, 2010 12:51 PM (uFokq)
So far all I know about Elena Kagan is that she is mammal
Do we really? Riddle me this; Does she or does she not have eggs? And who else has eggs? Lizards, birds, Platypii, short order cooks doing the breakfast shift. And have we or have we not heard reference to her being a 'chick'?
The information gathering process is woefully inadequate.
Posted by: Blue Hen at May 13, 2010 12:51 PM (R2fpr)
Posted by: Blue Hen at May 13, 2010 12:53 PM (R2fpr)
Actually, almost all leftists are bad people. It is the rare few who are not bad people, but they make themselves bad by forcing their insane ideas about how life should be lived on everyone they are able. Most leftists, however, very bad people, since their leftism is a result of their own emotional handicaps and their illusory, out-of-control feelings of guile that want to force everyone who reminds them of themselves to pay penance (for them) for.
-->And here's where I say "And if America is ever to change this, people -- all people -- must inform themselves and do the intellectual and moral work of actually making tough choices," to button up the article, but I'm not going to say that, because that never has happened and never will happen and so there's no sense of saying it.
I would look at Arizona's law against illegals. Most people support the law, because they understand the idea of national sovereignty (even if they can't explain it) and the clear idiocy of people supporting illegals screwing up our nation. Again, with those who are scared of how the public would react to filibustering Kagan, most of the public are behind Arizona, even if, you only listened to politicians and the news, you would assume that 80% of America hated Arizona. Quite the opposite, though, in defiance of the politco-neo-pravda elitists.
People understand the idea of limited federal government and they understand the simple idea that perverting the Commerce Clause to allow the federal government unlimited power is just wrong and stupid. There is no risk in opposing those who are on the opposite side of these issues, no matter how the MFM claims.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 13, 2010 12:54 PM (Qp4DT)
I'm sure that is what Barrahmrod Axelmanuel is thinking.
But even if we're not going to be able to stop Kagan, can't we brand Obumbles with Kagan?
And I think a fair point could be made that Obumbles himself must know more about her than is publicly available in the form of articles etc. that she authored - I think it is fair then to call Obumbles to answer some questions about things she may have discussed with him about the law, interpretation, etc. He went to far as to introduce her as his "friend."
Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 13, 2010 12:54 PM (IVQSY)
The point is that it is strongly in both men's interest to refuse to betray, assuming a high-trust environment where they could expect the other to refuse to betray.
Actually the point is that it's always in your absolute best interest to betray.
No matter what happens, you always make off better if you betray.
But at the same time you make off much better if you aren't betrayed. And the only way to cultivate that outcome consistently is through the establishment of trust (and the establishment of retaliation).
In fact, through iterated PD games it is the act of retaliation that leads to cooperation becoming dominent and successful. If you do not pursue a 'tit-for-tat' strategy it encourages predatory strategies by rewarding them above all others.
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 12:55 PM (IsLT6)
Posted by: joncelli at May 13, 2010 12:55 PM (RD7QR)
If John Roberts' 'picture perfect 50s family' was fair game, Kagan's passel of housecats and Birkenstocks lifestyle (wink, wink) is more than fair game.
It's more than fair game to question the "empathy factor" that Odumbass claims to strongly espouse. Empathy for minority races and sexes, check. But what teaches empathy better than Parenthood? And how do his two SCOTUS nominees fulfill their lackluster qualifications for Best of Teachers? Odumbass made "empathy" a requirement. Use it.
Posted by: Paranoid Polly at May 13, 2010 12:56 PM (gbCNS)
might as well throw that in there, too.
after all, this is about whether we should pick Door #1, Door #2, or Door #3.
Two doors have a goat behind it, and only one door works out for the Republicans.
1) We can let her sail through with glowing praise to show how fair and open-minded we can be: goat.
2) We can turn the hearings into a sham and mount a half-hearted opposition to her for show: goat.
3) We can be serious and thoughtful and take her task on her positions and cases: brand new car!
Posted by: Tennesse Tuxedo at May 13, 2010 12:56 PM (uFokq)
Posted by: Fifth Column at May 13, 2010 12:57 PM (VmtE9)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 13, 2010 12:57 PM (Qp4DT)
IOW survival of the fittest is in play. There will be blood. If there's going to be blood, then both sides are gonna bleed. I'm not expecting my side to expose their necks to balance the fight. The spectators can eat hot dogs and peanuts in their gallery and applaud my side when it wins because most love a winner except when the most extreme sense of fair play has been violated. I usually end up waiting until after everyone goes home, waiting for the penalty for that unfair play to get sanctioned. It usually doesn't. So, in the simultaneous game of odds, you pretty much take the chance and just bludgeon your opponent.
Generally and contemporaneously, however, I find the Democrats more likely to don the brass-knuckles than anyone else. At the moment, it's the race-card that's their weapon of choice and it's disgraceful. It's time to even the odds and force the political milieu in which the disinterested swim absorb a different truth.
Good analysis, Ace.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 13, 2010 12:57 PM (swuwV)
Retribution.
Posted by: Rorschach at May 13, 2010 12:58 PM (4WbTI)
In fact, through iterated PD games it is the act of retaliation that leads to cooperation becoming dominent and successful. If you do not pursue a 'tit-for-tat' strategy it encourages predatory strategies by rewarding them above all others.
Posted by: Entropy
"An armed society is a polite society" - Robert A. Heinlein.
Anyone who thinks that the MSM and the Dems will magically get all nice is deluding themselves. We learned this during the Bork ordeal over 20 years ago. And the architect of that travesty is now VP. This pays well. Being nice in this situation does not.
Posted by: Blue Hen at May 13, 2010 12:58 PM (R2fpr)
This pays well. Being nice in this situation does not.
Exactly. Scorch the earth, and pour salt on the ruins. We are at the Crossroads, it's time people realized this fact.
Posted by: Dang Straights at May 13, 2010 01:02 PM (fx8sm)
ON PAY PER VIEW !!!!!!111!!
cue che che..
Posted by: awkward davies at May 13, 2010 01:03 PM (B4e7Q)
magnus opuses (opuii?)
The plural of opus is opera.
(Going the other way is trickier. Is a single piece of ziti called a zito? And could you say that a zito is a pastum?)
Posted by: FireHorse at May 13, 2010 01:04 PM (cQyWA)
And could you say that a zito is a pastum?
I don't know, but he's the fantasy scrub sleeper of the year, so far.
Posted by: Dang Straights at May 13, 2010 01:05 PM (fx8sm)
and I think I'll continue having this tendency until
You should always continue to have this tendency.
The winning strategy is:
Nice (does not attack first);
Vengeful (always retaliates when attacked, tit for tat);
Forgiving (does not stay locked in retaliation forever, but reverts to being nice at some point);
Non-envious (isn't viewing the goal of the game as competitive, doesn't try to get MORE than anyone else, because the cooperative strategy will alow them to get the MOST (empirically), but if it works, will flat out prohibit them from getting more than anyone else).
Which is to say math is Old Testament. You do not turn the other cheek, you take an eye for an eye every time. Do not do unto others as you would have done unto you, do unto others as they have done unto you.
To not demand justice, to forgive without revenge, is to encourage more slights.
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 01:06 PM (IsLT6)
In Robert Bork's America there is no room at the inn for blacks and no place in the Constitution for women...
With those words our favorite senator - Ted Kennedy the liberal lion from MA let it be known that Mr Bork was both a racist and a sexist. No proof required, if Kennedy said it - it must be true.
Posted by: The MSM at May 13, 2010 01:07 PM (Wmjm0)
Dear Leader:
He is a garden-variety compulsive liar and a narcissist.
He dislikes the United States of America.
He is a racist.
He heard Rev. Wright's bullshit commie sermons and lied about it.
He was a shitty sub-par student and hides it.
He was never close to being a Constitutional scholar and lied about it.
He knew and knows all about his friend Bill Ayers and lied about it .
He may very well have a very embarrassing birth record and hides it.
He's gay.
He was picked off an ala carte menu by Soros and hides it.
He's a coward who can only push around American citizens and can't even hide it.
or
He's the highest placed agent that Moscow ever planted in the American government.
But I'm simple. There is probably nuance that I can't grasp.
Posted by: sifty at May 13, 2010 01:08 PM (fWFVQ)
Seems lately he's been a little more logorrheic than usual and it's been a distraction.
Keep it pithier Ace.
Posted by: jakee308 at May 13, 2010 01:10 PM (fs3Za)
Study after study since the first voting studies in the 1950s show that so-called independents are much less likely to vote than either Ds or Rs
Posted by: SantaRosaStan at May 13, 2010 01:11 PM (JrRME)
In my opinion what truly decides elections is who gets their normal voters (eg "the base") down to the polls. If you look at the election last time and the States that switched from Red to Blue you find that the number of R voters decreased substantially from 2004 while the D voters only increased a small amount.
This is a firm indicator that the R base stayed at home.
Posted by: Vic at May 13, 2010 01:12 PM (6taRI)
Posted by: sifty at May 13, 2010 01:13 PM (fWFVQ)
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 13, 2010 01:15 PM (4FVqE)
It's amazing to me how many people choose their policy preferences a la carte without any thought at all to how different positions relate to and influence each other.
There's no thought at all among this group to the proper role of government. You see this a lot when it comes to things like smoking bans and sin taxes. The attitude so often is, "Hey, I don't fucking LIKE cigarette smoke. It's cool with me if they ban those things in bars."
No thought whatsoever given to property rights or the idea that a free market can cater to both smoking and nonsmoking consumers.
Nope. "I hate cigarettes. Fuck cigarette smokers."
Then they wonder how some asshole politician dare limit their salt intake. Or jack up taxes on the soda they love to drink.
More directly to ace's point - look no further than marketing and advertising if you have any question about how to make the kind of appeal that gets people to act in the way you'd like them to.
People make decisions based on emotion and justify them with facts and logic. Believing you can convince these squishy mushheads in the middle if you just make a sound argument is delusional. They aren't listenting and they don't want to think anyway.
First you gotta motivate the people who already agree with you. Then you simply have to make facile, emotional appeals to the dummies -- demonizing your opponent(s) in the process.
Posted by: Warden at May 13, 2010 01:17 PM (VMPZa)
Kagan's personal appearance is what it is - even if she's not a lesbian, she sure looks like a sheltered radfem wacko - and it would be a shame if we couldn't get some traction out of it because we were scared of the Media.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 13, 2010 01:18 PM (IVQSY)
So your point is that if asking Kagan on the stand whether she's gay is the politics of personal destruction, we should play that card because that's the type of thing the Dummies like, and we need their vote.
You apparently think this will happen:
Dummy: "Why did you vote against her nomination?"
Sen. Bob: "Because she espouses a judicial philosophy that embraces the most radical tenants of redistributive social justice, believes in an evolving constitution, and has a no judicial experience."
Dummy: *Blinks*
Sen. Bob: "Did I mention she's gay?"
Dummy: "Oh, why didn't you say so? Nice vote!"
I think the opposite would happen.
Posted by: angler at May 13, 2010 01:20 PM (SwjAj)
Posted by: Methos at May 13, 2010 01:21 PM (Xsi7M)
It's worth bringing up...
The Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates the "Rule of Law" argument behind such things as (among others) illegal immigration.
The law is a social compact we all agree to follow. To break the law is the betray every member of that compact.
It's the retaliation part. Break the law - get punished not rewarded.
Else, what motivation is there for anyone to follow it?
Unless they just do it because they're "nice".
Well... guess what. Nice is for chumps. Straight-up "nice" gets the worst outcome every single time, and in the process rewards other strategies in proportion to how much they've screwed him.
And this is key - what happens in iterated PD games depends on the environment.
Tit-for-Tat is called an 'equalibrium'. Because tit-for-tat has the most success of all strategies.... - when everyone is playing tit-for-tat. Once everyone starts playing tit-for-tat, no one plays any different because they only hurt themselves if they do. So a static balance has been reached, an equialibrium where things are stable and do not change.
When you introduce "nice" strategies, the more 'nice' marks you have, the easier and the more payoff there is to playing aggressive and taking advantage of them. Once these targets reach a certain proportion of overall players, aggressive 'mean' strategies become more successful than tit-for-tat does. TfT is only the most effective if everyone plays it - if you have a bunch of nice guys, it's a losing 2nd place strategy. Too many nice guys means tit-for-tat is also for chumps.
The system is not in equilibrium. You have a migration to 'mean', so long as there are 'nice' that don't learn their lesson. It collapses into every-man-for-himself where everyone is mean.
If for some reason the 'nice' people stay 'nice' and don't learn their lesson, the system bifurcates into have and have-not, predator and prey.
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 01:24 PM (IsLT6)
tit-for-tat has the most success of all strategies.... - when everyone is playing tit-for-tat.
I believe Wee Wee called it 'having some skin in the game'.
It's time to take some skin off the dems hides, make them feel it.
Posted by: Dang Straights at May 13, 2010 01:25 PM (fx8sm)
Lefties often believe the reverse. It's an interesting contradiction. I suppose it has to do with the social contract or somesuch, but I'm too lazy to think very hard about it.
Posted by: Olaf K. at May 13, 2010 01:26 PM (VGtTj)
"Here's what politicians can never say, but I'm not running for office, so I can: There are a lot of fucking Dummies in this country and they're lazy to boot and the only way you can hope to engage them in politics is through Punch-and-Judy puppet-shows with lots of slapsticking and crude drama".
The left has done a great job dumbing down our societal virtues, and this might help explain the shallowness of too many voters. Too many voters think that "Tolerance" is a virtue, so they run away from the "mean guys" who try to explain things like consequences. They've never opened up a dictionary to see what tolerance means, so what they really are advocating is indifference. That way they can feel good about their stupidity.
Posted by: maxwellsmart at May 13, 2010 01:26 PM (z6qQz)
We don't need 2,700 words on this. You could have said the exact same thing in 700 words or less. You're saying the same thing over and over. A little judicious pruning would have made this piece much stronger.
I say this because I love you, man....like a viking.
Posted by: DelD at May 13, 2010 01:30 PM (G79kj)
If you prescribe to the argument that the Left is more secular than the Right, and I think that's a pretty safe position to take generally, then there's a behavioral ethic to the Right that restricts its actions. The Right, in a very broad sense, turns its cheek to its own detriment because of religious conviction. To do the "right thing" means enabling bad outcomes that get progressively worse until the battle turns existential.
The Right will always have a hard time overcoming this self-erected barrier which is why it should temper its disgust a bit when rogues from the little-r right fight the battle for them by wallowing in the trenches.
BTW, I'm not talking about poseurs who claim to be religious only to be hypocrites or exploitative of religion. Percentage-wise, I'm guessing the religious-Right has more sincere practitioners of faith than the "religious" secular-Left (like Nancy Pelosi).
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 13, 2010 01:33 PM (swuwV)
I will say that I'm often of the opinion that, in domestic politics, conservatives should keep to a high standard of decorum no matter what anyone else does; that I generally prefer not to go "tit-for-tat".
Then you generally prefer to lose, and to reward those who are furthest from your own ideal and treat you worst.
Believe it or not - it's math.
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 01:35 PM (IsLT6)
If you prescribe to the argument that the Left is more secular than the Right, and I think that's a pretty safe position to take generally, then there's a behavioral ethic to the Right that restricts its actions. The Right, in a very broad sense, turns its cheek to its own detriment because of religious conviction. To do the "right thing" means enabling bad outcomes that get progressively worse until the battle turns existential.
Depressingly, it does evoke Nietzche's description of 'slave morality'.
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 01:40 PM (IsLT6)
I am in over my head on an issue you obviously know more about. But I have a question. Aren't some "tits" counterproductive? (Insert anatomical joke here). Isn't it sometimes wise to choose not respond, and if the attack is outrageous and offensive to the public, let the attacker simply experience the backlash?
Posted by: angler at May 13, 2010 01:40 PM (SwjAj)
For a reasonable consideration, I can provide photos of Ms. Kagan doing things with a Mrs. Butterworth's bottle that do not comport with the "Suggested Serving" depicted on the label.
I don't care what she does with the stuff in the cupboards, just so long as she stays out of the fridge.
Posted by: Spraychel at May 13, 2010 01:40 PM (cQyWA)
I think it's a real, too. How many percentage points it translates to in American politics at any given moment is probably impossible to measure, but it's there. This means that in any really close election, the Right loses because of its higher morality. That's some irony I'm not willing to further. I'd rather kill it.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 13, 2010 01:46 PM (swuwV)
"Do I offer my boy pussy to Bubba or just wait for him to beat the shit out of me and take it?"
Either choice results in a blown out O-ring, but choice A may get him some cigarettes and/or candy, which is the more optimal result.
Posted by: Empire of Jeff at May 13, 2010 01:46 PM (4FVqE)
Most people don't wish to invest much effort in politics, and don't like the idea that by choosing X they are affirmatively giving up on Y, and so they keep their options open, continuing to hope for that Miracle Solution that delivers both (and usually rewarding the party which comes up, this cycle, with the most plausible line of politicobabble bullshit suggesting they can have X and Y at the same time).
...
In fact, they support nearly everything, and if you point out that their support of everything is highly contradictory and illogical, because some things, by necessity, come at the cost of something else, they will argue passionately with you stop listening altogether and walk away in order to update their FaceBook accounts because they really don't care to explore their beliefs and their consequences beyond the most superficial level and we really only having this discussion with you in the first place because they wanted to pretend they were engaged and also because it seemed "nice" to let you talk at them over something you seemed to care so much about.
Good article. This is why we are a republic, not a democracy. And this is why we're good and surely screwed.
Oh, and in case it hasn't been mentioned, Bill Whittle had a great piece on the prisoners dilemma.
Posted by: Randy at May 13, 2010 01:49 PM (zQKSr)
Believe it or not - it's math."
Game theory is indeed math, but domestic politics do not map precisely to an iterated PD game between collegiate undergraduates. Indeed, as you no doubt are aware, there's not a one-to-one relationship between decorum and losing in domestic politics. I think that this is because there are often elaborate and long-standing social rules in place which punish tit-for-tat and aggressive behavior in a way that is very difficult to model in an ad-hoc situation in a lab. Game theory has its uses, but there are bounds to its predictive powers as well.Posted by: Olaf K. at May 13, 2010 01:49 PM (VGtTj)
Posted by: ace at May 13, 2010 01:52 PM (66DVY)
Man it has nothing to do with being an elitist or believing you or anybody is better than anyone else. You basically have three large parties in American politics and two small parties (Guess which is which.)
A. Intelligent Lefties. They know what socialism is and like it, after all they are going to run it. They typically have no particular personal dislike for conservatives. If they discover you are one in discussion, are most likely just to say, "I believe in socialism so I don't think we'll ever agree on this"
B. Dumb Lefties, We like to call them Zombies, or Moonbats. Like all politically dumb folk they have no idea a major historical philosophical battle that started 3000 years ago is waging hot and heavy right now in the US. They like being lefty, it makes them feel warm fuzzy and loved by Gaia. They've been taught that everyone on the right is Satan the lord of lies and they believe it. They throw bait statements out to figure out if your conservative. The instant they find out you are on the right they will treat you in a manner intent on silencing your "lies".
C. Dumb Middle. (There is no "intelligent" middle, otherwise they would pick a side) See group B for missing out on major historical contexts. They like being squishy, being non-committal makes them feel warm and fuzzy as they fancy themselves as the voice of reason. They love the fact that 90% of politics is aimed squarely at them. It makes them feel as if their ignorant opinion about society is important. They hate conflict and strong opinions. If they find out you have them, they will become uncomfortable and steer conversation toward, sports, relationships, weather, or just walk away.
D. Dumb Right. They know there is philosophical battle going on NOW. Because there is nothing like having your position overrun to alert you to the presence of the enemy. They like to fight anyway, so they try to debate, a lot, but are ineffectual arguers. They throw bait statements out just to start arguments. There basis for conservative beliefs lies in religious/spiritual faith, and the fact that they get their warm fuzzy by being free. Some can give you some canned arguments about why being free is cool, just like the dumb left can cite benefits of social justice. They are typically fairly well informed. But if you put the bolts to them on why man should be free, given his potentially destructive nature to himself and the planet, they will be unable to give a compelling answer.
E. Intelligent right. Capable of explaining major philosophical differences between the sides and can explain and justify the principals of the free existence of man from the philosophical and metaphysical standpoint, both presupposing, and denying the existence of a supreme being. Most universities no longer teach, in any depth, Aristotle's Politics and Ethics, or Locke, and subsequent application to Kant. So this group is becoming smaller and smaller. Almost any University education though is going to get a healthy dose of Plato's Republic (Which I would consider the Bible of structured society) More's Utopia, and Marx's Communist Manifesto.
Each group has reasons why they will never change opinion to any significant degree. Which leaves all of Politics as a game to influence the only "swayable" group the dumb middle; using the only methods they will respond to, puppehs, kittehs, and babehs, and mock-ups of your opponent with horns, a tail, and blood dripping down their chin; (DEMON SHEEP) Oh and drama to keep it interesting, plenty of drama.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose at May 13, 2010 01:52 PM (0q2P7)
Posted by: ace at May 13, 2010 01:55 PM (66DVY)
Posted by: ace at May 13, 2010 01:59 PM (66DVY)
I agree completely. In the context of your two excellent posts, however, I think such an examination of her beliefs can be conducted without insisting that she tell the public at her hearing whether she's gay.
Posted by: angler at May 13, 2010 01:59 PM (SwjAj)
Assuming she is a lesbian, then she will, of course, make that known at some point -- because it would be a historic first.
Of course she would say so at some point. She would want other lesbians to know that you can do anything, etc.
I don't really view this as "outing" her, since I assume that if she is a lesbian she'd tell us a couple of years after her confirmation.
It's really a question of whether she's outed now or later.
I was thinking this the other day - but I think that a future "coming out" is planned as we speak, to be done in such a way as to avoid getting the stink of being firmly on the insurgent side of the culture wars off of Obumbles. It's been his Modus.
Posted by: Alec Leamas at May 13, 2010 02:01 PM (IVQSY)
Posted by: kansas at May 13, 2010 02:05 PM (2kVkH)
Posted by: ace at May 13, 2010 02:06 PM (66DVY)
Posted by: ace at May 13, 2010 02:07 PM (66DVY)
Where you wrote: "20-25% "moderates" who are largely apathetic and apolitical," it reminded me of folks who are bureaucratic, "administrator" types (broad-brush coming: obviously I don't mean all actual "adminstrators"). Administrator-types (AT) are the people who often deal with conflict the same way you describe these moderate voters. For example: when an AT school principal (as opposed to a non-AT principal) sees two students entangled in a violent manner, he will often feel the smartest thing to do is to throw both of them out of school. Never mind that one is probably a bully and the other is probably a punching bag.
Great people are rarely ATs. ATs are not exactly "dummies" either. But the large swath of "moderates" you describe includes both ATs and the dummy group (which can be the genuinely apathetic, or the unintelligent, or the ignorant).
What gets the attention of ATs is fear. Fear of lawsuits. Fear of disaster under their watch. Fear of change. They are appeasers. It's why the knife in the jihadist's hand is more powerful than the specter of millions of people out of work and losing their liberty. (Too many ATs are running the bureacracy, but that's a self-selecting bunch, and a separate topic.) Of course, self-interest motivates the AT, but not politically. The AT will go against their own political beliefs to gain access to more money, or more power.
AT voters are swing voters. Winning them is like winning a "victim" group or some other special interest group. The left is willing to lie openly to herd the masses. If they can lodge a little fear in the AT mindset, usually via fabrication, prevarication, or obfuscation, they can gain AT votes. The problem the right faces is they don't like, nor support, lying. (This by no means implies none on the right engage in it. It merely recognizes that the left accepts the lie delivered in service to a greater cause, where the right does not.) Fortunately you can also lodge fear into the AT mindset by using the truth. This is where the internet comes in.
Like Breitbart says: we have to go into all situations armed with video cameras, and a strategy for dealing with infiltrators. This is working. It just has to be done "deep, wide, and continuous," as the old saying goes. Get the truth out, and keep getting it out. That's how you sway them away from Obama's smoke-up-the-ass, "charm" offensive.
Posted by: K~Bob at May 13, 2010 02:18 PM (9b6FB)
...that Robert Bork was the subject of a successful character assassination in large part because he looked funny with that weird beard he wore. It made allegations that he was some sinister weirdo stick in a way they wouldn't have if applied to a guy who looked like Scott Brown or the like.
Not sure I agree... regardless of Bork's less than attractive physical appearance - all that would have been required was for one or two reporters to give Ted Kennedy the have you no shame treatment. As evidence I also offer up Pickering (a fairly normal looking person) who somehow in spite of evidence to the contrary was tarred as a racist.
Posted by: ADK46er at May 13, 2010 02:24 PM (Wmjm0)
As for recommended strategies--until you get the political equivalent of the Organian Peace Treaty (and don't muck it up if you get the opportunity for one), then nuts to playing tit-tat-doe. Takes too long to get the message across.
What you want to play is a game of Global Thermonuclear War...because you want to stop the act for all living memory. And the echo will reverberate for all time.
So I wouldn't out--but I would go to war on all other fronts available.
Posted by: Horatius at May 13, 2010 02:24 PM (ZqP64)
I didn't think I said it too many times here. I think there are three parts to it, none of which is saying the same thing.
I think your main problem is that you're just too verbose here (although you also have a tendency to repeat yourself, particularly when you find a trope you like.)
For example, look at this passage and tell me it can't be improved (made sharper and funnier) with half as many words...
******
The public -- and when I say "the public," I don't mean all of the public, I mean the 20-25% "moderates" who are largely apathetic and apolitical and tend to vote according to things like gut-level reaction to a candidate's charisma and presentation -- does not like ideological spats and in fact prefers to believe that ideological spats flow only from emotional pique and meanness of character, and that, if everyone just coolly and amicably sat down together and rolled up their sleeves, such spats would disappear altogether, because they'd find a Magic Compromise which achieves all goals simultaneously while imposing no costs.
They refuse to believe that choosing one theory of governance will come with associated costs. They like the Republicans' idea of cutting taxes; they don't like the Republicans' ideas about cutting spending (except in theory).
They like the Democrats' idea of voting ourselves all a big raise in the form of new social spending given to almost everybody (except the ultrarich). They don't like the Democrats' plans about upping taxes, or, as Democrats call it, "investing in our future."
Choosing is an act that requires both intellectual effort and a certain amount of moral effort, too. If you decide to take money out of someone's pocket, or cut the subsidies they've grown accustomed to, you need a certain level of moral surety that you're doing the right thing.
Most people don't wish to invest much effort in politics, and don't like the idea that by choosing X they are affirmatively giving up on Y, and so they keep their options open, continuing to hope for that Miracle Solution that delivers both (and usually rewarding the party which comes up, this cycle, with the most plausible line of politicobabble bullshit suggesting they can have X and Y at the same time).
Since this crucial group of disengaged voters is not going to actually vote for an ideology -- they are going to continue to exercise their right to not choose and not decide and not really think about such matters very hard at all -- politics tends to become, of necessity, a war over personal characteristics.
Candidate A is a bad candidate because she supports Y isn't going to move these voters, because they support Y, too. They also support Not-Y, and X, and Not-X, and out-of-left-field Z, and not-Z, to boot.
****
My criticism, such as it is, is because I think you'd be better served by editing yourself, by tightening things up around your theses, and reducing some of that rhetorical fat.
But, what do I know. I'm just some dumbfuck in the comments section.
Posted by: DelD at May 13, 2010 02:26 PM (G79kj)
I don't claim you are ever going to get 100% reading from the Federalists papers, but I will say that if you are talking about 20-25% being Dummies then the folks throughout history who would have pegged that number at a permanent 90-95% have already been proved wrong, and that therefore, unassisted flight here we come, because the thing (greater wisdom in the electorate) can in fact be done.
You just have to know how to do it.
Posted by: Horatius at May 13, 2010 02:28 PM (ZqP64)
There are ways to persuade without getting in someone's face or being offensive. What is suggested may even be true.
The point is that establishing and repeating a meme is very powerful and you better establish it early. Just ask George "He Lied" Bush. Then insist upon answers. If she resists, contradicts, or refuses based on some precedent, make the charge that she appears to be evasive. Then ask America, "Can you trust this person for this lifetime appointment?"This really isn't dirty as much as it is suggestive, but the country deserves answers so that the nation knows what it's getting. Be proud of the actions of inquisition and don't cower to Democrat pols.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 13, 2010 02:36 PM (swuwV)
Posted by: Horatius at May 13, 2010 06:28 PM (ZqP64)
Of course, one of the points of our having a Constitutional Republic, rather than an unlimited Democracy, was that the whim of the People is restricted and limited in our Republic, just as the branches of the federal government are. In fact, in the original formulation of the Constitution, only 1/2 of 1/3 of federal positions were installed by democratic processes (the House of Representatives) and, even then, universal suffrage was not even a thought. It is only since we have expanded democratic processes to be utilized for almost all of the federal positions and instituted universal suffrage without any requirements of intelligence, knowledge, military service, sole nationality, or ownership in the land that the federal government has become an unlimited beast and this nation has gone off the rails quite quickly.
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 13, 2010 02:40 PM (Qp4DT)
Posted by: Randy at May 13, 2010 02:42 PM (zQKSr)
Posted by: Volunteer Critic at May 13, 2010 02:48 PM (9b6FB)
It would keep the "Rock the Vote" kids out of the polls and the ditzy oldsters who just like Silky Pony's hair, Bubba's whatever, etc.. I'm leaving the specifics open but it should be a political equivalent of eating your spinach.
Posted by: societyis2blame at May 13, 2010 02:49 PM (7ZyYf)
I am not arguing we do not have a problem. In fact, I think we are exactly where Jefferson said we would be if I society ever started trying to be ignorant and free. We can have universal suffrage and the other things, but we cannot have them without a common ground knowledge of how Republics succeed and how they fail, inculcated in youth before they reach their majorities, so they may exercise their popular sovereignty within certain baselines.
And this we do not have. And have it we must, or else the entire experiment--and it is still an experiment--will eventually fail.
Posted by: Horatius at May 13, 2010 02:59 PM (2CfuV)
Posted by: progressoverpeace at May 13, 2010 06:40 PM (Qp4DT)
I'm trying to formulate an argument against universal sufferage. It tends to lead to the destruction of the country, but don't the people have a right to destroy themselves if they so desire?
i.e., does the virtue of democracy, the people having the government that they deserve, trump other virtues, including that of good governance?
Of course, the real alternative is to only allow demonstrably rational and informed citizens to vote, but as long as "disparate impact" is proof positive of discrimination we'll never have such sensible solution.
Posted by: Randy at May 13, 2010 03:06 PM (zQKSr)
I love it when Ace posts these long thought provoking analysis pieces. This is how I ended up here from 2007.
That said, I want to discuss Kagan, but I honestly keep getting distracted by her teeth. I have been dialoging in my head all week-"Are they baby teeth? Did her adult teeth fail at life, so she has to keep her teenies? Doesn't she make pretty killer $$? Why didn't she just cap them? Does she think they make her look more or less mentally challenged? Don't people with Downs tend to have teeth issues?"
I need an explanation, dammit, and I need it like yesterday.
Posted by: di butler, unlicensed pharmacist at May 13, 2010 03:10 PM (S3xX1)
The problem is they can't just destroy themselves, they have to destroy everyone else as well. As Frederick Batist said when people find it easier to loot than to produce their won living they will always loot. By giving the vote to the looters we have a government designed to make it easier to loot.
My solution would be to impose a requirement that people must pay a substantial federal tax in order to have the "right" to vote. That would give the voter skin in the game and all this looting would stop.
Posted by: Vic at May 13, 2010 03:12 PM (6taRI)
Posted by: Guy with a warehouse full of tats at May 13, 2010 03:13 PM (saRwI)
Same here.
I thought the post was quite good.
In fact, I thought that some of the metaphysical imagery was really particularly effective.
Oh and interesting rhythmic devices too which seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor of the moronity of the blogger's compassionate soul which contrives through the medium of the verse structure to sublimate this, transcend that, and come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other and one is left with a profound and vivid insight into whatever the post was about.
Posted by: Horatius at May 13, 2010 03:14 PM (2CfuV)
I am in over my head on an issue you obviously know more about. But I have a question. Aren't some "tits" counterproductive? (Insert anatomical joke here). Isn't it sometimes wise to choose not respond, and if the attack is outrageous and offensive to the public, let the attacker simply experience the backlash?
Indeed, as you no doubt are aware, there's not a one-to-one relationship between decorum and losing in domestic politics. I think that this is because there are often elaborate and long-standing social rules in place which punish tit-for-tat and aggressive behavior in a way that is very difficult to model in an ad-hoc situation in a lab.
Now are you applying it... which to be fair to myself, I haven't much touched in this thread. Personally I've had this particular argument so many times I don't wish to overindulge.
But my view is this:
Yes, you can be too crass. Functionally this may as well be an initial defection. It's like a fresh aggression rather than a retribution. This does not always hurt you, oh no - but it does sometimes hurt you. (Never mind whether you win or lose for it - that's too complicated and dependant on too much).
But what is too crass? When do we break decorum? Well... I'll briefly spell out the tautologic nature of that and just say that it's when you push the barrier. It's when you do something these people aren't used to already. When you escalate in crassness. And what constitutes what people are already use to? What's been done before (a few times). And what happens when you do something a few times? People get use to it. So when you elevate the crassness, yes you take a hit because you've elevated the crassness... but you've also elevated the crassness. Subsequent hits for the same act are diminishing. Any you pay no long term price. It's a once off, then forgiveness.
Thus, the ever expanding double standard. One pushes, the other does not.
The left is playing 'mean'. You can't beat that with nice. Witness the 'ratchet effect' of the last century or two. They're playing to win.
So yes.. there are elaborate and long standing social rules in place. But what determines the social rules? The way society acts. It's a fluid thing. These social rules are descriptive, not perscriptive. The rule is a reflection on how we behave, not a strict limit to it.
And no, no game in game theory perfectly models the whole of US politics. Nothing less than the whole of US politics can model US politics perfectly. But it's not to say these insights into behavior are not useful.
Fact of the matter is, as Kagan goes... I'm not sure we should bother to oppose her. She seems perhaps the best we're like to get. She might move the court right. Better her than Obama's 2nd pic, I'll gamble.
But... at the risk of unconverting Ace from his brilliant new position - how would we apply this reasoning to the "I hope he fails" fiasco?
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 03:18 PM (eL+YD)
And to reiterate that last bit, in case Ace doesn't read my longwinded response to someone else (why would he?):
Ace -
At the risk of unconverting you from your brilliant new position - how would we apply this reasoning to the "I hope he fails" fiasco?
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 03:19 PM (eL+YD)
I am a firm supporter of the "tit for tat" strategy. Just ask McLame how well his "nice guy" strategy worked.
Posted by: Vic at May 13, 2010 03:25 PM (6taRI)
That was a "fiasco" only if you allow the MFM to set the terms of the debate. I didn't view it as a fiasco, I viewed it as just another lie.
Posted by: Vic at May 13, 2010 03:27 PM (6taRI)
The core of action of Liberalism/Progressivism in democracies.
That is the single most powerful tool they use in concert with setting "precedents." It's truly profound and we're about to be crushed by it. We better fight and fight dirty because they are and will until Liberty is dead.
Now is the time to do the Breitbart Boogie and, once in, to ratchet back in reverse. This notion that precedents, and they seem almost exclusively to be progressive, need not be reversed but reflexively revered is a fatal flaw.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 13, 2010 03:31 PM (swuwV)
There is a difference between saying "I will not respond in-kind to the personal attacks levied against me" and saying "I will lie and cheat, spread completely unfounded rumors against my opponent, and make fantastical claims about the consequences of my opponent's position because my opponent does that to me."
If a D lies about a R, a R shouldn't respond in-kind by lying about a D. That's the only part of the tit-for-tat that I disagree with. There are plenty of truths that can fortify the "tat" to the "tit."
Posted by: angler at May 13, 2010 03:33 PM (SwjAj)
Posted by: ace at May 13, 2010 03:36 PM (66DVY)
I thought this initially but not any more. This is all politics as it has been for, I guess, ever. That known, Obama is trying to get a Progressive/Liberal by stealth. Why stealth? So he can avoid a public battle that would expose the Marxism inherent in his system. By forcing him to bring forth a candidate with known views, however extreme, we will be able to have a debate on issues promulgated by Team Obama which the public would find offensive or anti-Constitutional. That hurts Obama in a very direct way. He'll need to back his candidate. So, yes, the Right will lose short term no matter which Liberal candidate is picked (after all, the Democrats have the numbers), but there will be a political cost and it will be real. And the public will know about it and Obama cannot proclaim ignorance.
Obama is weaker now than he was. He thinks a stealth candidate will help him now and protect him from further electoral defections. And he would be right. So by my calculus, I say make him fight for his Progressive candidate out in the open where there will come political repercussions in the coming elections. We are guaranteed to lose short-term on this appointment; however, we can make this a longer-term win.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 13, 2010 03:43 PM (swuwV)
I'm trying to formulate an argument against universal sufferage. It tends to lead to the destruction of the country, but don't the people have a right to destroy themselves if they so desire?
Heh. Complicated.
Natural Rights doctrine.
If the natural law is no they do not, then no they do not.
At either rate, they may be able to destroy themselves, but they've no right to destroy you with them.
Keep in mind the founding fathers were not fetishists on democracy. They didn't extend universal sufferage for a reason (albeit their methodology was somewhat flawed in how they limited it, most likely).
At the most the founding fathers made up 20-30% of the population, and where pushing to incite rebellion at times when an easy 60% would have been against it. They didn't care. They believed it right.
They did not concern themselves with having a plurality among the 20% royalists/50% disinterested and non-partisan country support the idea of violent warfare to sieze the rights they felt they were entitled to, by right of God and on the strength of their armed resistance. They just did it. Because the rights were theirs by virtue of their demanding them by strength of their arms and right of God.
If 4 out of 5 of my neighbors vote to have me take out their trash for them and cook them all dinner, I'll tell them to fuck off. I don't care how they vote.
It's not just a 'lamb with a gun' mob rule thing. In fact, if 4 out of 5 of my neighbors vote that each of us should cook dinner for the others and take out all the trash one day of the weak, I'll still tell them to fuck off. I don't care how they vote.
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 03:50 PM (eL+YD)
The White House released a statement today saying that these Mammal rumors were a completely unfounded species of attack and a desperate attempt by other Kingdoms, Phylum and Classes to categorize her.
Posted by: Noel at May 13, 2010 03:53 PM (Hh13R)
. So, yes, the Right will lose short term no matter which Liberal candidate is picked (after all, the Democrats have the numbers), but there will be a political cost and it will be real. And the public will know about it and Obama cannot proclaim ignorance.
Short answer?
You're argument has some observable merit, and I would be willing to consider it... if it I thought it was remotely possible.
As it's not, moot point.
You're probably right. Personally, I just can't bother this particular time to get worked up enough to care one way or the other. It's all hypothetical as it won't happen.
I'm normally all for at least giving it the college try, no matter how futile it may seem. Struggle enough and you'll change the dynamics. But this time... eh.... fuck it.
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 03:57 PM (eL+YD)
So by my calculus, I say make him fight for his Progressive candidate out in the open where there will come political repercussions in the coming elections.
Good luck.
She's so goddamn stealth even I'm not sure she's stealth. I think she's quite possibly to the right of Stevens, and may be swayed moreso once on the court by the arguments of Roberts et. al.
For all that... in this one particular case... it strikes me as just as plausible (not a ton, but a tiny bit) you might have the same effect by passing her enthusiastically and demoralizing the left because in their view, the great messiah would have just nominated the left-wing version of Kennedy.
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 04:02 PM (eL+YD)
Shouldn't it have said "...except Melrose Place has hotter women..."?
Unless you think Kagan is hotter, I guess.
Posted by: JohnJ at May 13, 2010 04:04 PM (04CCu)
If you really want to have that public debate about jurisprudence, and trust me I do, we should have done like I said we should have done back when I said we should have done it.
Me and Ann Coulter were like the only one's in the world (on the right) pissed off about Alito.
Y'all got lucky with that one, is all.
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 04:06 PM (eL+YD)
That was a "fiasco" only if you allow the MFM to set the terms of the debate.
I'm not talking about the debate in the public sphere at large. Rush won.
I'm talking about the fiasco of debates on certain blogs. That was a fiasco.
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 04:11 PM (eL+YD)
But, yeah, I do want the debate on jurisprudence. Always, even for Alito. I don't want luck just like you don't want luck. It's naive, but I want truth, warts and all, for SCOTUS. But let's see all the warts and not just one side's.
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 13, 2010 04:14 PM (swuwV)
Sorry, I misunderstood.
Posted by: Vic at May 13, 2010 04:20 PM (6taRI)
Right, that's why I said I was trying to formulate the argument. Not just that we should limit what is availible for voting, but who get's to vote. But to those with sense, restricting it to people with a wit of knowledge and reasoning is self-evidently good, and how do you put sense into people?
the great messiah would have just nominated the left-wing version of Kennedy.
Now there'd be a hoot. This guy's so incompetent he just may do it.
Posted by: Randy at May 13, 2010 04:25 PM (GtTYq)
Vic, rather, I wasn't really talking much about either, but when I said 'fiasco', I meant the blog fights, that was what I was picturing when I chose that particular word. On the larger scope, I agree with you.
Not just the blogs.. the punditry a bit. The internecine stuff. The hurtings of the butts.
Nowadays it's all practically down the memory hole, much ado about de nada.
Except for Goldstein and Patterico... That bridge done burned.
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 04:25 PM (eL+YD)
and how do you put sense into people?
Well, here's how I came to the line of thought. Iraq. Kind of. Reality in this case being irrelevant. Certain ideas about Iraq, whether true or false, as a hypothetical.
Presuming you start off with a liberal (in the classical sense) mindset and value liberty.
Can you force democracy?
What do you do when you give people the right to vote, and they vote for the guy who promises not to hassle them with any more of that voting business?
Many people have very naive views about this. Like the libertine view is self evidently superior and all people will choose it. The power of the marketplace of ideas and all that. They must be dissuaded of that naiviety.
It's sorta leftish almost. They cannot concieve legitimate disagreement abroad. They pay no attention to disagreement domestical and do not extrapolate it out beyond 'the west'. They think, oh, you didn't understand let me explain it to you again. If these yaboostanians aren't yet clamoring for democracy already, it's because no one's really explained it to them and shown them how it works. Once they get it in their fat heads they'll love it.
What is the libertine answer to the quandry of giving people the right to choose their own government, and then they turn around and use that to choose oligarchical communism?
After the 'Aww fuck....', now what?
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 04:36 PM (eL+YD)
To begin: The MFM will never support any conservative goals. Period. That seems beyond serious debate.
Second: The last election demonstrated that 52% of the voters would sell their souls for a smooth-talking, convincing liar as long as he's got a D after his name. They have no grasp of economic consequences, the meaning and application of the law of supply-and-demand, hyper-inflation, positive feedback or indeed anything more esoteric than "what's in it for me?" and "Oooh, I like the Dem candidate because he promised to pay my house payment and give me a free car!"
Third: The only cure for stupidity is better education. That could be done either by *far* better schools, or by the MFM. Neither is on the horizon, at least in the next 30 years or so.
Conclusion: There is NO point whatsoever in playing nice with Dems.
Reason: The MFM will tar you no matter what. They will brazenly lie about conservative candidates, and lie to protect liberal/prog candidates, so what's the point of playing by any rules (other than making you feel good about yourselves)? Might as well cut throats. But here's the deal:
Brazenly deny being mad or playing dirty. In fact, the more brazen the lie, the more the post-Gen-X types will think, "Wow, that's so amazingly ballsy--guy was stone-cold caught on tape but shined his way thru. Like that guy Clinton and "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. Cool!"
As commenter 18-1 put it: "Certainly turning the other cheek constantly hasn't done us a lick of good."
Yes, yes, the Bible says that's the thing to do, but just as "the Constitution is not a suicide pact," I don't think the Lord wants believers to just roll over and play dead for evil. I mean, forgive them lotsa times, turn the other cheek, but then finally...cut their fucking throats. Metaphorically speaking, of course.
Otherwise, we're gonna get killed by demographics.
And not just Islamic birthrates, but domestic as well. Much is made of the fact that super-liberals/progressives favor abortion, so the whole group is likely to have fewer kids than conservatives. So eventually we expect the number of progs will dwindle, right? But if that's true, consider that the overall birthrate among the welfare class is roughly twice the national average.
Seems ta me that automatically favors Dem candidates from now on. So for a conservative to win, Dems have to nominate someone who's been caught on video saying something even more damning than "I expect my policies will raise your energy costs by 500 percent."
To paraphrase K-Bob: For the last century or so "the left accepts praises the lie delivered in service to a greater cause, while the right does not."
Time to level the playing field.
Posted by: sf at May 13, 2010 04:40 PM (eSMQV)
This ^^
The Republicans can get their point across without allowing themselves to be convincingly described by the MFM as mean or whatever.
Posted by: damian at May 13, 2010 04:53 PM (4WbTI)
The Republicans can get their point across without allowing themselves to be convincingly described by the MFM as mean or whatever.
You're so sold on selling the point... has it occured to you that she's not too inexperienced?
Just playing devil's advocate here... what if the dumbies are quite as dumb as you think?
Personally... I don't think we need a court constituted of 100% fricken lawyers even, let alone practicing ones.
At the end of the day you're basically hot to push an Appeal to Authority on the electorate.
Even if it works... even if the idiots swallow it (and they might) what if they swallow the hook? Might this cause a, uh, bad precedent so to speak?
Posted by: Entropy at May 13, 2010 04:57 PM (eL+YD)
http://tinyurl.com/2cgsako
Posted by: Thea at May 13, 2010 05:40 PM (/3dGX)
Team Obama knows who The Precedent is appointing. He's hoping we won't or that the GOP won't care enough to debate aggressively.
Stealth cipher == Only bad outcomes
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 13, 2010 06:56 PM (swuwV)
Stealth cipher == Only bad outcomes
Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at May 13, 2010 10:56 PM (swuwV)
MFM: She's a moderate! She's a moderate! She's a moderate!
Posted by: TheQuietMan at May 13, 2010 07:02 PM (YBEjU)
Posted by: Gary Rosen at May 13, 2010 09:34 PM (9CzKK)
Everybody who doesn't give a rat's ass about the trivial crap raise their hands. It's like the commentators on BOTH sides are TRYING to distract us from what's important.
Posted by: Merovign, Strong On His Mountain at May 14, 2010 12:59 AM (bxiXv)
You're underestimating the Dummie factor. The vast majority of people are just plain stupid and/or lazy. When it comes to politics, their thinking never gets beyond the basic. The simple fact that Obama nominated Kagan makes her not only the perfect candidate, but makes anyone who opposes her a racist/bigot/homophobe.
You wanna see how dumb the average person is? Ask them if Fox News is conservative. When Bill O'Reilly is the first thing out of their mouth, try arguing with them about how conservative O'Reilly is. Seriously. Try it. I've done it with several people and they get so pissed off at me that it's hysterical. They get spit flying incensed at my stupidity for not seeing Bill O'Reilly as the right wing nutjob they are so convinced he is.
You're talking about people who voted for Barack Obama without knowing a single thing about the man. You think they care who Elena Kagan is? Please.
Posted by: Jaynie59 at May 14, 2010 04:49 AM (YjQWV)
Now, we can do this the hard way, or the easy way. In about a minute I and my friends are gonna unleash on you your worst nightmare. You're gonna wish the earth opened up underneath your feet and swallowed you whole.
What's the easy way?
Oh, you misunderstand. That is the easy way.
Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie at May 14, 2010 05:50 AM (1hM1d)
Capovolgere il imitazione orologio Breguet e tu moncler uomo hai il mio salto di
Posted by: giubbotti moncler at November 17, 2010 01:19 AM (P1SrA)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2527 seconds, 308 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: maddogg at May 13, 2010 12:10 PM (OlN4e)