Let the Campaign Edit Wars Begin 571
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Megan Garber writes that in high school, Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser,' a juicy tidbit that is a source of delight for his political opponents but considered an irrelevant piece of youthful trivia to his supporters. 'But it's also a tension that will play out, repeatedly, in the most comprehensive narrative we have about Paul Ryan as a person and a politician and a policy-maker: his Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. Late Friday night, just as news of the Ryan choice leaked in the political press — the first substantial edit to that page removed the 'brown noser' mention which had been on the page since June 16. The Wikipedia deletion has given rise to a whole discussion of whether the mention is a partisan attack, whether 'brown noser' is a pejorative, and whether an old high school opinion survey is notable or relevant. As of this writing, 'brown noser' stands as does a maybe-mitigating piece of Ryan-as-high-schooler trivia: that he was also voted prom king. But that equilibrium could change, again, in an instant. 'Today is the glory day for the Paul Ryan Wikipedia page,' writes Garber. 'Yesterday, it saw just 10 [edits]. Today, however — early on a Saturday morning, East Coast time — it's already received hundreds of revisions. And the official news of the Ryan selection, of course, is just over an hour old.' Now Ryan's page is ready to host debates about biographical details and their epistemological relevance. 'Like so many before it, will be a place of debate and dissent and derision. But it will also be a place where people can come together to discuss information and policy and the intersection between the two — a town square for the digital age.'"
If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Interesting)
Then I'm pretty sure that what Paul Ryan did in high school can be too.
But seriously, I'm a lot less concerned with what Paul Ryan did in high school that what he has done since. I'm not sure what Romney was thinking on this one (excite a base that was ALREADY excited, that would have come out to vote against Obama no matter who you chose?). But he just gave the Democrats an incredible gift. Because he didn't just excite the Republican base, he also just excited the Democratic base (and scared the hell out of the independents, and conceded Florida). Many Democrats were disenchanted with Obama and probably wouldn't have come out to vote for him again in the fall. But stacking him up against an insane-right-wing Ayn Rand ideologue who wants to abolish Medicare and Social Security to give tax cuts to the wealthy is a pretty fucking great way to motivate them. I'm not sure if this is some form of political suicide or just incredibly bad advisers, but either way--speaking as a Dem--thanks, buddy.
Don't they lock those things? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why hasn't it been reverted to the preannouncment page and locked for editing with the addition of "prospective VP candidate for the Republican party? Seems like the best and only proper solution.
interesting problem (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm tempted to say that these kinds of articles aren't where Wikipedia works best. Articles where the majority of the editors are partisans, rather than scholars or knowledgeable enthusiasts, tend to attract a lot of heat and not as much improvement (I made the mistake once of trying to edit something that was in the Israel-Palestine crossfire).
On the other hand, it's quite possible that Wikipedia has the least bad coverage. It's Paul Ryan article is contentious, edited by partisans on both sides, and may or may not end up in a great state, but every other summary of Ryan I've been able to find so far is worse. Most are either pure attack pieces, or pure hagiographies.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:interesting problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:1, Interesting)
Really? No. For one, Medicare was to be replaced with a system similar to the Dem's own Affordable Health Care Act... and considering all the problems with Medicare, no one should be treating it as a sacred cow. Ryan barely registers above a neocon on the Utilitarian scale.
http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/no-end-to-end-medicare-claim/ [factcheck.org]
I, for one, am really tired of this shameful hyperbole. It just proves that so few put the well-being of other above their own pet agendas.
I hate campaign season. (Score:4, Interesting)
The smart people have already looked at the real platforms of the candidates and know for whom they're voting. That leaves those who are too lazy to do any research; these are the ones swayed by stupid bullshit like how
Paul Ryan's classmates voted him as his class's 'biggest brown noser'
as well as attack ads and other campaigning that can be best summed up by "my opponent will destroy this country," even though a rational, objective thinker would realize that neither major candidate will likely do so.
The rest of us? We're not the targets of this late-stage campaigning so we're completely ignored. I'll be fast forwarding through the political ads like the rest of you and wishing it was already November 7. Hell, I can't even vote (yet) so this really just feels like being forced to watch a bunch of idiots fighting from the sidelines.
Re:Don't they lock those things? (Score:2, Interesting)
You're kidding, right?
I mean, you have a perfectly sane and logical idea there, but it won't work, and here's why:
==
Fact the first: My wee little facebook page has been deluged of late with a megaton of hatred against a guy that I suspect none of my friends (or their friends, etc) have ever heard of until this past Friday. My sister-in-law's fault... let's just say that she's a bit of an 'activist'. So I decided to do a bit of questioning...
Fact the second: On one of the earliest postings, I asked a simple, humble question: "Show of hands: how many of you guys even knew this guy's name before the VP announcement?" In response, nearly every last one of these people claimed to have studied the guy from time immemorial. Mind you, none of them live in Ryan's state/district/etc., nor are they professional politicos, etc.
Fact the third: In response, I asked that if this guy were so evil/bad/etc, why has no one mentioned him until now, and why are all the graphics and such just regurgitated professional propaganda from left-leaning blogs and sites? In other words, I wanted to hear in their own words what their reasoning is for hating the guy, and not just cut+pasted pre-digested talking points that someone else wrote.
Fact the fourth: So far, the only responses have been a bunch of sputtering outrage directed against myself, accusing me of being an evil whatever-party-they-hate, but no actual explanation at time of posting this comment (and continued claims of ongoing and tenured expertise on the guy's life, work history, etc).
==
Thing is, I suspect that it's a hobby of some folks to go from admitted ignoramus to soi-disant expert on a political person or subject, and to do it in less time than it takes to type a few lines and click "submit".
Can't deprive folks of that, now can you? :)
Re:Paul who? (Score:4, Interesting)
...write half a sentence about who the hell this "Paul Ryan" guy(?) is supposed to be?...
A paragraph for each. I'm not going to vote D or R, so you can trust my analysis is non-partisan and pretty accurate guide to people who aren't paying attention:
Barack Obama = Vote for change, then change nothing. He would have made a pretty decent pre-neocon somewhat left of the road republican more or less in the image of Tommy Thompson back in ye olden days. Just another crook from Illinois. Basically a leftish conservative using the traditional definition of conservative not wanting to change much of anything. Despite being "commander in chief" has a strong historical record of doing whatever his masters tell him to do (D leadership, 1%ers, wall street). You can't trust him, he has bad ideas, but he never does anything, especially not if he promises it or campaigns on it, so that's OK.
Joe Biden = Probably the closest thing in national govt to a 99%er. Poorest member of the senate (still rich, but he's not rollin with the 1%ers). Babbles a lot. Most likely of all the candidates to have a twitter tag like "shitbidensays", because he's got the largest collection of memorable quotes (both good and very very bad). Fundamentally seems to be a good guy at heart (unlike the other 3 who are all crooks) but in practice a bit too lefty for my tastes. Fairly conservative, just another elderly hippie reliving the great society programs of the 60s. If he could be jolted out of the 60s and into modern era he'd be a pretty good leader, maybe not the best, but not bottom of the barrel like the other 3. You can trust him, but he's got an obsolete outlook on the world.
Mitt Romney = Gordon Gekko come to life, 1%er to the core. Another power hungry rich crook. Apparently wants to surround himself with bootlickers and quislings aka neocon Rs. Doesn't seem to have much of a message other than "I'm a 1%er now lick my boots, proles" alternating with "I'm not Obama". The hardest core evangelicals who run the R party are all in a tizzy about him because they now have to vote for what they consider a cult member, he's not "religiously pure" enough for them. You can't trust him and he's got big ideas, most (all?) of which are bad ideas.
Paul Ryan = 1%er wannabe bootlicker quisling originally from my home state of Wisconsin but left decades ago to become a wash DC insider so he really doesn't represent anyone other than whoever pays his re-election bills. Pretty much interchangeable with all the other 1%er bootlicker quislings. Wants to portray himself as a budgetary expert. In the traditional definition of liberal = wants to change things, he's the most liberal of the bunch. He hasn't actually done anything or stood for anything other than PR stuff (and he's "from my state" so I should know). In that way he's kind of a mystery man. The 1%er Manchurian candidate. You can't trust him and he's apparently got no ideas at all of his own.
I would anticipate Biden is going to crush Ryan in the veep debate just on general mental horsepower, which will be entertaining to watch.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:1, Interesting)
If you want to vote Republican ticket because of Ryan's Plan - make sure to read it. Ryan's Plan does include privatization of social security (no specifics on how, mandatory 401ks or 'contracted' to Goldman Sachs?) and turns medicare into voucher system
About time.
(who will provide individual affordable healthcare coverage to sick and poor out of this population remains unclear).
Our current system isn't working. "Free" healthcare + unlimited demand => uncontrollable costs. People managed to give medical care to the poor before Medicare existed, but Medicare itself as a solution is unsustainable. Going bankrupt to do charity is a Very Bad Idea. The charity stops happening when the money runs out. That's hardly compassionate; especially if those people really need the charity.
Fundamental problem with Ryan's Plan is that as far as fiscally conservative plans go - it isn't one ...
In closing, also make sure to examine Ryan's voting record - every Bush tax cut, every expense, TARP, bailouts were voted YES. His rhetoric aside, fiscal conservative he is not.
Would you like to point to Obama's alternative? No budget for 3 years, and you're complaining that the Republican plan is inadequate. The alternative is non-existent, sadly. Ryan's plan is a baby step towards eventual solvency. Unfortunately it looks like a good part of the country has to be dragged kicking and screaming to even *consider* the type of spending cuts needed.
Anyone looks like a fiscal conservative compared to the Democrat Presidency and Congress of 2008-2010.
Ryan isn't enough, but don't let that stop you from voting the current batch of politicians out. Hope and Change ain't working.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Interesting)
People believe what they see on the "news." Fox News has the legal right to lie [ceasespin.org]. I know the public should have more skepticism of the press, but it isn't wrong to expect journalistic integrity. I think the law should be revised to make someone very afraid of reporting anything that isn't true.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Interesting)
All of these cases are why I wish that the case of whether or not Obama was a "natural-born" citizen had gone to the Supreme Court and that the Court had ruled on it. This is one of the rare cases where it would have been useful for the Court to offer an opinion on what defined a "natural-born" citizen that went beyond the narrow parameters necessary to decide the case. Basically, the "birther" issue has brought out the fact that the term "natural-born" does not have a clear legal definition today.
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:4, Interesting)
There's more doubt about McCain being constitutionally a natural born citizen than Obama.
Obama was born in Hawaii, even ignoring the fact that his birth certificate was shown I find it hard to believe that someone had the amazing foresight to put a fake birth announcement in the paper on the off chance he would want to run for president someday.
On the other hand, McCain was born in a Panama, at a navy base hospital. What, exactly, McCain's citizenship status would be is a matter of some legal debate, because of various laws in place at the time and enacted later that would effect it.
My point is, it was never brought up during the campaign because everyone who is honest with themselves knows that there's no conceivable difference between someone born in one place versus someone born someone else. Being born within the borders of the US does not grant you automatic super-patriot powers. As long as you've been a citizen for a hellava long time and have shown loyalty it really shouldn't matter. (Of course, more likely, no one brought it up because attacking the citizenship of a war hero is probably a terrible idea from a PR standpoint).
Personally, I always thought the natural born requirement was silly. Why don't we just change the requirement to being a US citizen for 35 years and put it in line with the age restrictions. If someone wants to move here at 20 and run for office at 55 I say why the hell shouldn't they be allowed to? If you're willing to believe that someone is willing to plot for 35 years to throw down the US by the ridiculously unlikely plan of being elected president, why do you doubt that someone wouldn't be willing to brainwash their child into doing it instead?
Re:If Obama's BIRTH can be an issue (Score:5, Interesting)
You seem to have misread my comment, by arguing against the example I'm already conceding. I do think that very large changes in tax rates may have nonlinear changes in revenue, which is what you seem to also be arguing. One example is that raising the top rate from 33% to 99% would likely not increase revenue.
What I am arguing, however, is that smaller changes generally do in fact change revenue in the way you'd expect. If a rate is currently at 33%, then raising it to 34% will increase revenue, and lowering it to 32% will decrease revenue. The decrease in the rate from 36% to 33% under Bush decreased revenue by essentially all accounts, whether you ask the CBO or independent economists or anyone else.
It's only if you make very large changes that you may see other effects, as in the raise-to-99% hypothetical. But since nobody is proposing that, those aren't the relevant cases. In the case of changing a tax rate by single-digit percentages, there is no Laffer-curve magic.
Re:Top Ten Reason's for AmerCIAns to Vote (Score:5, Interesting)
if you don't vote, you reward the corrupt plutocracy. alienated and self-disenfranchised losers like yourself is what they DEPEND on happening, einstein, they put out propaganda and make political moves they KNOW will make zero heart, low iq fuckups like yourself wallow in self-pity and helplessness and withdraw from society. because you are WEAK and they know it
this is you, psychologically, and all other pathetic loser who rationalizes not voting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness [wikipedia.org]
THAT IS YOU PSYCHOLOGICALLY. KNOW THYSELF, LOSER
what deranged bullshit rationalization you have too: "I don't vote and I encourage everyone to not vote. When voter turn out is under 10% then perhaps you thick, dim-witted motherfuckers can finally pull your heads out of your ass and help us make a democracy that works and actually represents us."
what!? LOL
"i won't play with you, and that will force you to change your policies because you want me to play with you"
this is what you really believe?!
NO, RETARD: what happens is the plutocracy laughs even harder all the way to the bank: you've bowed down and submitted to them meekly and completely! they don't fucking care about you, they will never care about you, they are glad you won't participate and fight for beliefs, they depend upon your weakness! fight for what you believe, or roll over. you choose to roll over, with this bullshit low iq zero social skillset rationalization. fucking pathetic!
seriously, you and other self-disenfranchised morons to me represent the lowest scum of the earth. at least the plutocracy is evil. at least they honestly stand for something vile that you can fight. pathetic losers like you just represent zero willpower, complete cowardice, and utter lack of any human spirit or desire to fight for themselves. a fungal growth of useless loserville. you have done nothing but be deserving of zero respect. a perfect, meek, self-disenfranchising slave
a country of free people requires a country of people willing to fight for themselves. for not fighting for your beliefs, you represent the end of a free society. i cannot adequately express how much i disrespect and loathe your thinking, because your thinking and bullshit rationalizations represents the end of free society