From MIT Inventor To Tea Party Leader 815
An anonymous reader writes "In the midst of Congressional races around the country, one stands out to techies. Thomas Massie, an MIT whiz kid who pioneered touch-based interfaces and founded SensAble Technologies in the 1990s, is the favorite to win the Republican nomination in his Kentucky district next week. SensAble was recently sold on the cheap, but in a new exclusive, Massie explains why he left the haptics firm years ago to lead a simpler life of farming, family, and guns — lots of guns. Along the way he built a solar-powered, off-the-grid house and became a local hero of the Tea Party. Now Massie is leading the charge to get more engineers into politics, and if he wins, he could be a force to be reckoned with in Washington, DC."
Tea (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Tea (Score:5, Insightful)
I honestly don't give a crap what party he's in - if he can get at least some good tech/engineer representation in that parliament of whores that we call Congress, it's win-win as far as I'm concerned.
Re:Tea (Score:5, Insightful)
(He didn't win his award for anything related to HIV or AIDS, by the way).
Re:Tea (Score:5, Insightful)
It doesn't matter if someone is right about everything. What matters is that they try to educate themselves to figure out what's right. I think this quote is relevant, and I agree with it:
Massie recalls Sununu saying, "We need more engineers and fewer lawyers" in politics. As Massie explains, "Lawyers are taught to take a position, whether it's right or wrong ideologically, and defend it-to go collect facts to support it. Whereas engineers are taught the inverse of that, they're taught to collect facts and then come up with an answer based on the facts. He said, 'That's the kind of thought process we need more of in government.' On the stump, that's what I'm trying to convey, that we need more problem solvers in Washington, DC."
Re:Tea (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a little mini-speech I like to give to people, and it's rather appropriate for the this:
In the US, politicians train and study as politicians. They have degrees in political science, or law, or economics, or maybe history or business. Obama was a lawyer. So was Clinton. Bush II had an MBA. Bush I studied economics, as did Reagan. You have to go back all the way to Carter to find a president that had any sort of remotely "practical" training, as a naval officer specializing in nuclear submarines.
In China, politicians train and study as engineers. If shit goes down (as it is wont to do) and the revolution comes, President Hu Jintao could flee to the US, change his name, and live out his life working as an engineer (hydraulic engineering - his first real job was at a hydroelectric plant). Vice President Xi Jinping studied chemical engineering. Premier Wen Jiabao studied geomechanics. Wu Bangguo studied electrical engineering.
Engineering, fundamentally, is "the study of solving problems". It's not, strictly speaking, a science, but an application of science to the real world.
Modern American politics seems to be less about "solving people's problems" and more "making new problems to 'solve' so you can stay in power".
In case you haven't noticed, China is beating us. They're obviously doing something right, and I don't think it's the censorship or the market controls. Their system of government may not be better than ours on paper - slow, central control of everything rarely works for long - but they're better in practice because they have people who actually do the job they're supposed to do.
NOW is our chance. The Chinese seem to be making exactly the mistake we made - their up-and-coming leaders are career politicians, born-and-raised to rule. At the same time, their population boom will be shifting from a worker-heavy populace to a retiree-heavy populace, causing exactly the economic problems we're having now with all the Baby Boomers retiring.
We get one chance to get back on top. We need a government that responds to us, one that works quickly and efficiently for the benefit of everyone.
If anybody knows of any good candidates, speak up. I do not want a lawyer to represent me. I do not want a manager to represent me. I want an engineer, a man (or woman) who solves problems, because we have a lot of problems that need solving.
Re:Tea (Score:4, Funny)
A country full of doctors - disease is rampant
A country full of engineers - solutions are rampant
Re:Tea (Score:5, Insightful)
NOW is our chance. The Chinese seem to be making exactly the mistake we made - their up-and-coming leaders are career politicians, born-and-raised to rule.
Our chance to do what? Become the world's largest economy? Get the world's largest army? Bring indoor plumbing and electricity to 99% of the population? Because we're 'winning' in all those things.
China is growing quickly, but it's because they have a lot of room to grow. Once you have a developed economy, it's hard to wring the same kind of growth out of it, because you're a lot closer to your potential.
Re:Tea (Score:4, Interesting)
"Good tech/engineer representation" doesn't gain us any benefit at all, especially any benefit in regards to technology or engineering.
We've had technocrats before. They underwhelm as leaders. What we need is principled, decent people who are capable of listening and leading. Government is not like business. It is not like engineering. It is not like programming.
It's really quite a quandary, but what we really don't need is anyone who wants to be elected to anything. It's kind of like owning a gun. Anyone who wants to own a gun is the last person who should have one. Anyone who wants political power is the last person who should have it.
What we need is campaign finance reform. Strict and absolute limits not only on how much money can be donated to a campaign, but how much money can be SPENT on a campaign. It seems like the best way to keep the people who want political power from getting it, and giving us the best chance of being represented by people we can trust.
We've managed to pervert the founders' intentions by using their own words against them. First amendment, second amendment, practically right on down the line. It's almost as bad as basing your current behavior on standards set by Iron Age politicians and clerics who didn't even know the Earth was round.
I'd rather see Congress made up of 435 people picked at random from the phone book than the current system we have, which has been designed for maximum corruption. The only think more pathetic than the people who are currently in power is the notion of an MIT engineer tea partier. Does anyone believe the current crop of tea party freshmen congress people signing off on the latest ALEC-written legislation is anything like a solution?
Re:Tea (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd at least like to have someone in government that understood the difference between statistics, studies, and facts. That won't get enraged over Dihydrogen Monoxide. Or will ask questions when presented with "studies" about EMF emitted by power lines, and compare them to all other sources of EMF. Or will stop second-guessing actual experts in a field when it comes to cost analysis. (Looking to trim 5-10% is one thing, but decrying it by an order of magnitude?)
Yes, I'm currently very frustrated with the local councillors for spending my tax dollars in fighting something that isn't even their jurisdiction, and basing their fight on non-science. I've been tempted to run, but trying to figure out how that would interfere with a much-higher-paying job ... but not so high paying that I have the independence to leave.
Re:Tea (Score:5, Insightful)
Engineers can buy into all sorts of sheer bullshit. Look up the Salem Hypothesis. Being an engineer does not mean one has some special ability to evaluate studies or facts, though some engineers seem to believe they do.
As to this guy, he sounds like a bit of a nut. Just what the Tea Party seems to attract. Being an engineer doesn't mean one is sane either.
Re:Tea (Score:5, Insightful)
We already have people "in government" that fit the bill. They're just not legislators or executives. Being an engineer doesn't guarantee good judgement.
And we have had an engineer as president of the US during my lifetime, not that long ago. While he was a very decent person, he ended up getting chewed up and spit out by our political system. Because our political system does that to anyone who is decent or moral or reasonable.
Re:Tea (Score:5, Insightful)
It's kind of like owning a gun. Anyone who wants to own a gun is the last person who should have one. Anyone who wants political power is the last person who should have it.
horrible analogy. Most people who want to buy a gun, buy one for control over their own lives (self defense). Most people who want political power, want it for control over others.
What we need is campaign finance reform. Strict and absolute limits not only on how much money can be donated to a campaign, but how much money can be SPENT on a campaign. It seems like the best way to keep the people who want political power from getting it, and giving us the best chance of being represented by people we can trust.
how many times has this been said and tried throughout history? No clue, but I'll be willing to be no matter what laws would get passed there will be plenty of loopholes.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's kind of like owning a gun. Anyone who wants to own a gun is the last person who should have one.
More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than have died from guns I own.
As for your calls of censorship on top of that, fuck off.
This asshole has just made statements to remove both the first and second amendment from your list of freedoms. I'm not sure why it is insightful, dictatorships never are and that is what this is wanting.
Re:Tea (Score:4, Insightful)
It's kind of like owning a gun. Anyone who wants to own a gun is the last person who should have one.
So because I want to hunt, enjoy target shooting, recognize the historical and engineering value of firearms, want to protect my/family/person, and (most importantly) want to exercise one of my Constitutionally guaranteed rights, I can't? What kind of logic is this?
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmm. He does seem to be a good match for Kentucky, but in Massachusetts, there's have a history of throwing Tea into the harbor.
Re:Tea (Score:5, Funny)
This is exactly why we threw that tea in the harbor!
Why is it news (Score:5)
Whenever someone finds a right wing engineer? It's not really all that rare.
Re:Why is it news (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the right wing has slid into crazy land.
Re:Why is it news (Score:5, Funny)
If you think the right wing is crazy, you should look at the left wing.
Medicare goes broke in 2024. Obama doesn't have a plan to fix it, but he has called other plans to fix it "UnAmerican," "radical," and a "trojan horse."
Which is more crazy? Trying to prevent fiscal crises before they happen? Or calling anyone who offers a solution "UnAmerican?
The debt to GDP ratio is already over 100% if you include publicly held debt. And you should include publicly held debt unless you plan to default on social security. The time to act is now. Or we can wait until we become Greece. Which won't take very long, actually.
Who's crazy again?
You are an excellent example of right-wing crazy. Your second paragraph has three facts, and none of them are true.
Re:Why is it news (Score:5, Informative)
Which is more crazy? Trying to prevent fiscal crises before they happen?
The Republican party has been trying to create this very crisis since the 1980's. Read what people like Stockman have written, when they (quickly) realized that trickle-down didn't actually work they decided to run up the debt so they could use it as an excuse to dismantle social programs they didn't like.
The debt to GDP ratio is already over 100% if you include publicly held debt.
Glad you brought that up. Debt/GDP is about where it was at the end of WWII. What differs now is the will to respond. That generation tightened their belts and raised taxes as high as in the 90% range for top tax brackets. When enough debt had been retired in the early 60's, Kennedy dropped the top rates and people decided we could still afford to improve the safety net with medicaid/medicare and improved welfare benefits. The debt/GDP ratio declined quite consistently under both Republican and Democrat administrations until Reagan came along. Under Reaganomics, debt/GDP skyrocketed until the Clinton years. Prior presidencies reduced debt/GDP by growing the denominator, Clinton's budgets worked on both numerator and denominator - he actually had surpluses in the budget for the first time since Nixon. If W had not been elected, we were scheduled to retire the debt in its entirety during this decade. W came into office, saw the surplus, and gave nice tax rebates to the wealthiest Americans, putting us back into red ink. He then took us into a very technological (read: expensive) war, and for the first time in American history, refused to raise taxes even to support the war effort. Debt/GDP skyrocketed. Then we hit the banking crisis and triggered a recession, and debt/GDP grew even more. And you know what? The right was strangely silent until Obama took office facing the accumulated debt of his predecessor, the worst economic conditions since the 1930's. Given the Nancy Reagan Chorus in Congress - "Just say 'No!' - he's done remarkably well.
We've had this level of debt/GDP before, and we survived it. I'm not going to claim it's a good thing, but it's not the disaster the right would like to paint it as. We've paid it down before, we can do it again. But as we pay it down, remember that the overwhelming bulk of it was accumulated by three administrations -- Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.
Who's crazy again?
Given all of the above, I'd have to say you are. You're certainly not dealing in facts.
Re:Why is it news (Score:5, Informative)
We've had this level of debt/GDP before, and we survived it. I'm not going to claim it's a good thing, but it's not the disaster the right would like to paint it as. We've paid it down before, we can do it again. But as we pay it down, remember that the overwhelming bulk of it was accumulated by three administrations -- Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II.
The lower graph is the debt/gdp ratio [wikipedia.org]. As parent points out, growth is mostly in the last three Republican administrations. Also note that Obama wasn't sworn in until 2009, and the huge increase at the right began before Obama took office. In other words, it's the recession rather than the stimulus package.
Re: (Score:3)
America is a country full of people who care nothing for their health. We have an obesity epidemic which in turn has created a diabetes epidemic as well as hundreds of other health problems. We have millions who eat crap food and don't exercise. There isn't enough money on the planet to provide for healthcare for everyone in a situation like ours. The health care debate is nothing more than an issue that the Democrats use to pull your heartstrings to keep you hateful and angry and to keep you voting for the
Re:Why is it news (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm an Engineer. I've thought about getting into politics myself, but there's such a huge mess to clean up I don't even know where I could begin.
I believe in smaller government, but regulations as required to make sure the planet doesn't get destroyed in the pursuit of cashohol.
Your body? Not the government's problem.
Consenting adults? Why should the government care at all?
Products that could be dangerous? Stick a warning label on there and let people buy what they want.
Businesses? They aren't people.
The government should be there to provide services that are too expensive to afford for a single person. Military, fire departments, roads, park and environmental protection, health care, etc. Put taxes on the stuff that pays for the above; gas taxes pay for roads, drug taxes to pay for the police, junk food taxes to pay for health care, etc.
So what does that make me?
Re:Why is it news (Score:5, Insightful)
A rational person. You have no place on the US political spectrum.
You are in good company though.
Re:Why is it news (Score:5, Insightful)
Simple principled answers would be nice. It's like when people want to throw out the old hairball code and write a 'clean' program from scratch; nothing maps so simply to reality.
What happens if your policies result in lots more people dying, getting seriously hurt, or going bankrupt?
Products that could be dangerous? Stick a warning label on there and let people buy what they want.
What about illiterate people? People who don't read English? Confused elderly people? (Confused middle-aged and young people?). What about people who simply overlook the instructions? Is it ok for them to suffer injury or disfigurement?
Should a Wall Street con artist be able to push whatever he wants on your grandmother, as long as he sends her the prospectus to read? What about a contest where the fine print says losers forfeit their houses; would that be ok as long as there is a warning? Products that explode when left in the sun?
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes corporations fail: when coordinated behavior is required, for example in cases of large externalities. The economics classic "Tragedy of the Commons" is exemplified by our modern day causes of and solutions to pollution (compare for example how acid rain and CO2 are/are no
Re:Why is it news (Score:5, Informative)
You can afford more than $1000/month? I spent time as a consultant and sans an employer that was the quoted figure to cover one 20-something with no medical issues around five years ago. I couldn't afford it and neither could most people in my area. Lots of people think they can because their employer foots 80% or more of their medical insurance bill.
Re:Why is it news (Score:4, Insightful)
Lots of people think they can because their employer foots 80% or more of their medical insurance bill.
Hate to break it to you, but while your employer may deduct it pre-tax, you're paying the full amount. You're just extraordinarily gullible and have been duped by a stupid accounting trick. Let me guess, you also think your employer pays your social security, right?
Here's how you know: when a business decides to hire a person, they write out two numbers:
A. salary + benefits + all the supposedly free stuff + all their "contributions"
B. total dollar value the employee will add to business operations
If A > B (or they're even close), that person does not get a job, no matter how much the government claims all that stuff is free.
Re:Why is it news (Score:5, Informative)
You're missing the point, I think. If you have a "normal" insurance plan, they cover your checkups and medications because they know it saves them money if you deal with your cholesterol before it gives you a $50k heart attack. If you have one of those high-deductible plans (the kind of healthcare you describe), they sign up young folks unlikely to develop chronic medical conditions and just screw them over on the doctor visits, but it doesn't cost them much money if the person skips the doctor visit because a 25 year old guy isn't likely to get a heart attack or a stroke or something in the next 20 years, but they can take his money in the meantime.
I do EMS, so the healthcare debate seems incredibly stupid to me. Let me paint you a scenario - somebody calls from the bad part of town with severe chest pain, difficulty breathing, etc - the paramedics come and see a nasty AMI (heart attack) in progress, he codes in the rig, they work on him, we get him to the hospital where they get a pulse back and he end up OK - at great cost. But he can't pay for it, at all - everybody knows it, but the hospital can't turn him away by law. So he walks out of there, they hound him for a few months and give it up as a lost cause. They figure they'll make it back by tacking a bit onto every visit, procedure, test, etc - which raises costs on the people who have insurance or otherwise can pay. Higher costs to the insurance company become higher costs to the subscriber, so the people on the edge of being able to afford their plan no longer can. Some of them have heart attacks they can't afford... and it goes on.
This isn't a hypothetical. I've had literally dozens of people who follow this exact story. We've already decided on universal healthcare - anyone can walk into an ER and get treated - but we've done it in literally the worst possible way. I'd rather pay for that guy's Lipitor and checkups for 10 years than for his one heart attack.
You can construct the same story for almost anything, from pregnancy (prenatal care substantially reduces complications and hence costs) to asthma (inhalers vs. needing an emergency intubation). Emergent care is the most expensive way to do anything, both because of the complexity of emergency medicine, and the fact that it needs to be much worse to qualify as an emergency. But it's the only way we let the disadvantaged get "treatment"
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I've thought that the coroner should have suicide pills. If you want to check out, go for a psych evaluation. If you're sane enough to make the decision, go to the coroner's office, take the black pills, and lie down on a gurney. There's no reason to force someone to stick around through a terrifying illness or cling on to as much life as they can when all their friends and family have died long ago.
"Cause of death: suicide pill in office."
Re:Why is it news (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever see those Tea Party rallies?
Yep, attended one a while ago, actually.
I think the only value that all of them have in common is lower taxes and smaller government. After that, all bets off. The ultra-religious Christian Taliban loony toonies get all the press -
And that says far more about the press, than about the Tea Party movement.
the ones that kind of hijacked the Tea Party and turned it from a strictly fiscal conservative movement into one that also has the social conservatives;
A key point of the movement is for different groups normally associated with conservative politics to put aside their differences and focus on something they agree on. For instance, at the rally I attended, there were folks who agreed and who disagreed with current US foreign policy when I spoke to them.
which I get the impression that the social conservatives now pretty much run the show
They'd certainly like to, but there was very little in the way of social-related anything at the rally I went to. No mention of abortion at all. The pro gay marriage GOProud [goproud.org] folks were handing out flyers and such, without a single unkind word towards any of them, but other than that, nothing related to sex during the speeches or on the signs. Perhaps I missed something. What should I have been keeping a look out for?
Re:Why is it news (Score:5, Informative)
>>>no thanks to Fox News and their involvement.
FOX News is involved with the Tea Party? As in giving funds and organizing the events? I'd like to see a citation of that, because it's the first I ever heard it.
Please tell me you're being sarcastic. If not, start here [mediamatters.org]. The Tea Party was created by Republican strategist Dick Armey and promoted relentlessly by Fox News- it was never intended to be grass roots. Amusingly, it's actually grown some legitimate roots since and has proved more difficult to control than the establishment would like.
Can't be bothered to RTFA (Score:5, Funny)
Gimme the TL;DR version. Motorcycle accident? Brain cancer? Aneurysm?
Came for the liberal circle jerk... (Score:5, Insightful)
...wasn't disappointed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Echo chambers often look like agreement to those with a distorted worldview. Do you self-identify as a whiny liberal?
Re: (Score:3)
am more likely to side with those at least pretending to express a desire to reduce the size of government.
That sounds strange to me. You have one faction that states that their goal is to increase the size of the government for the sake of "common good", and actually does that when they come to power; and another faction that states that their goal is to decrease the size of government, but instead increases it every time it comes to power (see also: historical graph of US government debt). The only difference between the two that I can see is that the latter are more hypocritical; and yet you find yourself sid
haha (Score:4, Insightful)
he could be a force to be reckoned with in Washington, DC."
No, no he wont.
I applaud the off-the-grid house... (Score:4, Interesting)
and preparation for unpleasantness in general, but I have no taste for right-wing politics or christianity. Fortunately, preparation for the unexpected (i.e. EMPs, social unrest, the spanish inquisition...) does not require a right wing belief system, only a healthy paranoia and distrust of all institutions, over-complexified fragile, interdependent, energy-dependent supply chain ecologies and anything that comes over the mass media.
Re:I applaud the off-the-grid house... (Score:5, Insightful)
Amen! A good government is not a government that just slavishly follows an ideology, but rather a government that remains pragmatic, and is populated by people who realize there are shades of gray to be found, and that no one has some sort of automatic and permanent patent on the truth.
Or, as Isaac Asimov said; Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
That's my axiom. A lot of what you think to be the capital-T truth is just simply prejudices and unquestioned assumptions. I work my ass off never to simply believe something because it "makes sense". Always be ready to modify, and yes, sometimes, even drop a position. I remember for many years I was staunchly anti-homosexual. I even wrote and had printed a letter in a big city newspaper railing against gay rights; a letter written in the foolishness and delusion of youth and a letter I truly regret now. I realized at some point that it doesn't matter at all what I think of homosexuals; they're people, they have a right to pursue their life as they see fit, they're not hurting me, and any objection I have had to them is nothing more than the untested assumptions that came out of my youth being raised in a very religious home.
It extends even to economics. This idea that a purely centrally controlled command economy is the way to prosperity is just as absurd as the idea that castrating a government's ability to regulate commerce is equally the road to happiness. I don't even think finding a middle path and sticking to it is a good idea. A government has to be able to modify its strategy and policy, and thus has to have the power to do so. That power cannot be unlimited, but it cannot be rendered so insignificant that ultimately the government cannot act at all.
The single biggest problem I have with ideological purists is a total inability to modify position. It's one thing to define oneself as, say, a fiscal conservative, but quite another to say "I think the Federal Government should be cut to pre-Civil War levels!" I think ideological purism shows an intellectual rigidity and an emotional immaturity, and neither of these are particularly desirable character traits.
I think he's crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think he's crazy (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a radical left wing family oriented gun loving software engineer, hell if I know.
Re: (Score:3)
Free money?
Re: (Score:3)
Inventor? Sure! (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like a Thomas Edison type of guy to me (Whiz kid? What, is he some kind of Tony Stark for "inventing" some interface device?). I'm intensely suspicious of anyone who supports religious beliefs. It demonstrates an error in logical thinking faculties.
Never trust an engineer that thinks the world is 6000 years old. And for the record, Edison was a douche bag.
Re:Inventor? Sure! (Score:5, Interesting)
It demonstrates an error in logical thinking faculties.
This guy makes 'em all over the place. For example, he thinks that denying people birth control will reduce abortions.
Re:Inventor? Sure! (Score:4, Informative)
And for the record, Edison was a douche bag.
That is putting it mildly, he was an elephant electrocuting asshole. He would make Steve Jobs look like a good guy in comparison.
Seriously? He should just stay local (Score:3)
FTFA - "Massie has been targeting waste, fraud, and abuse, starting with questioning electric bills, phone bills, contracts, and fees for things that don’t apply anymore. Like the county being charged rental fees for property that had long been sold, paying for phone lines that had been disconnected for years, or buying stuff from a magistrate’s store."
Eliminating bills for services that no longer apply seems like a no-brainer. It sounds to me like the county government was corrupt, and based on the location (Lewis County KY) and demographics [wikipedia.org] (98.2% white) he probably unseated a conservative when he was elected to county office.
Interesting to note that Lewis County KY gets 42.9% of it's income from the government (US national average is 17.6%). [nytimes.com] Seems like he should keep focusing on his home county before aiming higher.
Why do leftists love waste so much? (Score:3, Interesting)
"But things have not gone smoothly for Massie in office—and that’s just how he wants it. “When you’re stalking waste within a government office, it’s like every rock that you turn over has a snake under it,” he says. Massie has been targeting waste, fraud, and abuse, starting with questioning electric bills, phone bills, contracts, and fees for things that don’t apply anymore. Like the county being charged rental fees for property that had long been sold, paying for phone lines that had been disconnected for years, or buying stuff from a magistrate’s store. He has upset a lot of entrenched powers, but has gained support from the masses for it. And he says that in his first nine months in office, he cut enough waste to pay his own salary for three years."
Why does this sort of stuff just plain piss the left leaning person off? I mean, even if you are a dedicated communist shouldn't you still wish to find corruption, overspending, and waste, and squash it? Shouldn't that be something anyone from any party would rally behind?
But no, unfortunately when someone says limited government they immediately get called a right wing racist teabagger.
Re:Why do leftists love waste so much? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does this sort of stuff just plain piss the left leaning person off? I mean, even if you are a dedicated communist shouldn't you still wish to find corruption, overspending, and waste, and squash it? Shouldn't that be something anyone from any party would rally behind?
But no, unfortunately when someone says limited government they immediately get called a right wing racist teabagger.
Well, speaking as a left leaning person, I'd say nothing in that list pisses me off. What pisses me off is all the right wing social conservatism (often including a healthy dose of racism) and insane militarism that so often seems to go along with calls for "limited government" which, of course, isn't limited at all. Liberalism and libertarianism are both viewpoints that have a place in a sane political debate; what calls itself conservatism long ago went off into la-la land.
Fact-driven ideas or the converse (Score:5, Interesting)
Massie recalls Sununu saying, "We need more engineers and fewer lawyers" in politics. As Massie explains, "Lawyers are taught to take a position, whether it's right or wrong ideologically, and defend it—to go collect facts to support it. Whereas engineers are taught the inverse of that, they're taught to collect facts and then come up with an answer based on the facts. He said, 'That's the kind of thought process we need more of in government.' On the stump, that's what I'm trying to convey, that we need more problem solvers in Washington, DC."
I wholeheartedly approve of this idea.
steveha
Logic and Social Policy aren't compatible (Score:3)
And, I say that in all seriousness. The logical or obvious "Occam's Razor" solution to problems often don't apply to us illogical human beings. We do lots of stupid things, not out of anything more sinister than our overwhelming biological drives. That includes reproducing before we might be financially stable, getting fat, our drive to socialize and find mates, etc. When you start assuming that humans will be logical, you start assuming wrong. Ask a sociologist how well some "obvious" solution to a social ailment that's been public policy (and failing) for decades is working out.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
"Crazy" has no intellectual boundaries
Re:WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
"Crazy" has no intellectual boundaries
The interesting thing is, there is another group of extremists who are known for the prominence of engineers in their midst. Osama Bin Laden was himself an engineer, and he's not the only one. It's not a science thing, you don't see many botanists or physicists running amuk, just engineers. It may be an engineering mindset thing.
It seems to me that as a group engineers may not be the best possible choice for political discourse. Bring on the botanists and psychologists and chemists and entomologists (and etymologists too, what the hell), but let's not overdo the representation from engineers.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
book smart and people stupid.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
"When you live on cash, you understand the limits of the world around which you navigate each day. Credit leads into a desert with invisible boundaries."
---Anton Chekhov
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
"When you live on cash, you understand the limits of the world around which you navigate each day. Credit leads into a desert with invisible boundaries."
---Anton Chekhov
Neat. But living on cash is hardly better in a society where wealth and productivity are completely divorced.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Funny)
perhaps his intelligence is by design.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Not everyone in the TEA Party movement is what you appear to envision (appear, since all we have to go on is your posting). You might not want to be so bigoted in your beliefs.
Or you can stay in your happy bubble, pretend that everyone there is Them, and not have to deal with the cognitive dissonance.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want me to think the Tea Party has smart people, the smart people in the party need to speak up, and call out the dumb asses in their ranks.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is someone who is intelligent enough to graduate from college (MIT no less) doing associating themselves with the Tea Party. It's got to be some kind of paid publicity stunt.
"But he's smart... I think I'm smart. He should agree with meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"
Intelligent people disagree on stuff all the time. Especially when it's something as complicated and untestable as political hypothesis. Get over it.
If you get your political views from 24hr news... (Score:4, Insightful)
...sure it would make no sense to see an educated person associating themselves with what the major media outlets associate with them. After all, all tea party people are nazis and all democrats are communist sympathizers, right? right?
If, on the other hand, you intelligently realize that most American's are actually fairly close in terms of political view and the cartoons presented to you are false on their face, you might see that both sides have rational points that should be listened to, even fought for.
Re:If you get your political views from 24hr news. (Score:5, Interesting)
If, on the other hand, you intelligently realize that most American's are actually fairly close in terms of political view
Do you think so? I personally know Americans who think the US should be run under Old Testament of the Bible law -- including stoning adulterers -- and people who think that churches should be outlawed. I know people who own 100,000 rounds of ammunition and people who think guns should be banned. People who think sick people who can't pay medical bills should be dumped out on the street to die and people who think the government should provide free unlimited healthcare. People who think the Federal government should do nothing more than fund and run the military, and people who would like to see the government nationalize many large corporations and run them. I don't actually know anyone who argues that women shouldn't have the right to vote, but I've seen them talk. I do know people who think anyone who doesn't believe in the christian god should not be allowed to hold public office. That's a pretty wide spectrum of ideas, spanning from Saudi Arabian to Maoist to anarcholibertarian. I'm sure other countries have as broad a swath of ideas: I'm not claiming american exceptionalism as regards political leanings. However, I haven't seen much evidence of other countries having much broader political views.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
He can't be that smart; he claims he and his wife working together (3 MIT eng. degrees total) can't do their taxes.
The tax code isn't exactly simple, but come on.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't do my taxes either. It's not lack of ability, but lack of motivation. (1) Nobody is paying me for ~8 hours wasted reading through the booklets, and (2) it's cheaper to just work 1 extra hour and then pay someone else to do it.
My mother does her own taxes, but it takes her 2-3 days. Which is just nuts. The tax code should be simpler without all the confusing deductions, credits, and social engineering.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
He's bootstrappy, and probably short on empathy. Fits the profile just fine. Just because you can understand the intracacies of circuits doesn't mean you're really going to understand the social implications of inequality.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why you are free to leave if you don't want to pay for the society you live in. I hear Somalia has very low taxes.
Re: (Score:3)
Volition never helped the cold, hungry, and infirm.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the absolute worst aspect of the American Dream, the great lie that somehow you alone are responsible for what you become. There is this huge society around you that as responsible as anything you may want, but it won't survive if everybody argues themselves into a sort of self-righteous sociopathy.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
To me, giving the government a blank check isn't smart. Remember when the Tea Party was formed, we were hearing "You must pass it in order to find out what is in it"... How STUPID is that? Would you sign a car loan that you didn't read, on a car you didn't get to see for 4 years, for a price that somebody else "kinda sorta" gives you an estimated price (that may (will) change)... How smart is that?
When the health care bill lo
Re: (Score:3)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Gah - there's so much wrong with this post I don't know where to start.
Yes, the voting on this bill happened quite quickly after it was finalized. But A.) it's not like it wasn't being debated for six months prior, and B.) it's largely what Massachusetts has had for years prior (oh, and was originally created and promulgated by Republican think-tanks) and C.) it's not some massive dumping of cash into Obama's offshore account. Its transparent, you can read it, its complicated BECAUSE THE U.S. HEALTH SYSTEM IS COMPLICATED, it's a sincere effort to solve a big, complicated, longstanding problem.
Yes, Ben Nelson got a bribe. Congress took it back from him later, look at the Congressional Quarterly if you want the details. People have been trying to get similar legislation passed in America for nearly a hundred years, they were supposed to call the whole thing off because of one last-minute hold out? Is it not clear that Congressman Nelson simply wanted a bribe, rather than him having substantial issues with the legislation?
Yes the bottom-line price of this legislation and the system it creates kinda-sorta is an estimate. Given the size of the system, the vagaries of predicting medical advances, etc, there's absolutely no way to write laws for any system where the bottom-line cost were absolutely known in advance.
The Tea Party. Basically everybody slept through George W. Bush's two terms as he blew through tremendous chunks of taxpayer money - giving tax breaks up the wazoo, laying out a huge new medicare benefit, created the largest new bureaucracy in fifty years, entering us into a war just on his own whim, apparently. I didn't see a single tea party person throughout all of that. Suddenly a Democrat comes to office, and every dime his administration spends is an affront to LIBERTY! TO THE BARRICADES! BUT WAIT WHILE I STAPLE THESE TEA BAGS TO MY HAT!
Re:WTF (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, I went to MIT, and I can tell you that (a) the people there are remarkably bright and (b) I wouldn't particularly want to put my trust in the political or economic opinions of some randomly chosen person from there, right wing, left wing, or requiring more dimensions than string theory to characterize politically.
Really smart people often have amazingly insightful opinions, but there's nothing like a brilliant person to have unshakable confidence in an unassailably stupid idea, like Schockley (the inventor of the transistor) and his theories of white racial supremacy. Or like my friend who had an affair with a married man because he promised her that his wife would be cool with it. It was impossible to convince her of the obvious fact this was stupid, bat-shit crazy idea because as smart as I was, she was way, way smarter. Having an argument with her was like climbing into the ring with Ali in his prime for a few bare knuckle rounds. You couldn't lay a glove on her. That taught me that sometimes a friend's role is to wait and be there when life gives your friend an unavoidable hard lesson.
Really brilliant people are used to being right when everyone else around them is wrong. They're hard to argue out of a wrong position, and when you get enough of them together that they can sort themselves into loony birds of a feather even reality can't make a dent in their opinions. And brilliance in one area doesn't translate into competence in every area. There are people I'd trust to design an aircraft I had to fly in or a sub I had to dive in, but that I wouldn't trust managing by checking account.
Re: (Score:3)
So being pissed off that the government wasted tax dollars bailing out banks makes someone crazy? Seriously? If a group of people who peacefully protested (literally, as in no vandalism, no destruction of personal property, no assaults on police officers, no drug overdoses, no rapes, etc.) is "crazy" I'd hate to see the words you use to describe the occupy movement.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
So being pissed off that the government wasted tax dollars bailing out banks makes someone crazy?
The Tea Party doesn't have a monopoly on being pissed off about that particular event. Most Tea Party claims ring hollow because they had 8 years of Bush to say something when all of these same types of things were happening, but conveniently waited until a Democrat took office before making any real noise.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:3)
So he s
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP [wikipedia.org]
The problem is that the government's debt has reached astronomical proportions and that money eventually has to be payed back. Just because our current tax burden is somewhat reasonable (although the claim that it is "historically low" and that ridiculous chart are laughable, as they will be historically high as soon as the Bush tax cuts expire), it can't keep up with our borrowing. If anything, it means we are in for even bigger problems down the road. There is a blog post on the Cato institute on the subject of calculating the government's percent of GDP here: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/american-government-spending-41-of-gdp/ [cato-at-liberty.org]
Compared to some Euro zone nations we are in good shape. But they are also going bankrupt with governments near collapse.
We live in a time when people seem to think that "distribution of wealth" is something that governments are suddenly capable of doing when history has REPEATEDLY shown otherwise. My views are largely based on what I studied in school (ancient history) and I don't consider myself to be a tea party person. Reality is that the US government is currently operating in an unsustainable manner on many levels (state, federal, and local) and eventually that will catch up to us. Defaulting on government debts will lead to either major global war or an economic takeover by foreign powers. Some would argue the latter is already in motion.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)
The true Tea Party is about what it's named after. When they threw the tea into the harbor back in the day, they were protesting a government that was over taxing them and not representing their interests. The taxes were levied to help support foreign wars that the colonies had no interest in. Most Tea Party members today feel we are in the same situation again. The government keeps raising taxes, spending more, borrowing more... all to fund wars they have no interest in, or to get more involved in our lives. Just like the revolutionaries that founded this country they want the government out of their lives. They want to keep more of what they earn, and they don't want to be involved in wars they know nothing about. Most could care less about social issues. Gay Marriage? Don't care. Abortion? Don't care. Religion? Don't care. Just stop taxing us so much, and get the hell out of our lives.
If you want to end war and lower taxes, get involved. Both republicans and democrats will continue waging war and raising taxes as long as you continue to let them. Is the Tea Party the answer? I doubt it. But they are a hell of a lot better than what we have now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes. Not always.
For instance people who believe in a flat earth did not come to an alternative conclusion they are just wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Again, I disagree. We can surely agree some viewpoints are not valid, for instance any that seeks to deprive someone of human rights, or authorizes war crimes as a matter of course. Also who think voluntary money paid to support society is theft, etc.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
My personal attitude is that you are a fine example of what is wrong with right wingers, instead of even asking to clarify anything you go beating up strawmen.
The last point is not begging the question at all. It is a simple statement that those who believe taxes are theft are simply wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxes are voluntary in the same way home rent is voluntary - you're free to not pay it, but you need to move out then.
Re: (Score:3)
Taxes are fully voluntary, we do not force anyone to stay in the US. Nor does any other major free nation.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
If I rented land from the government, that would be perfectly applicable. What about those who own?
I think you didn't quite get the point of my comparison. You are free to move to a different country and "rent" the government there; there are quite a few which are cheaper. Or you can try to set up a country of your own - except that all land is already taken up by someone else (but that is also true with my rent analogy - if all land everywhere is purchased, and they refuse to sell it to you, you can only rent; so free market does not offer any relief here, either).
What about those like that in TFA who can be entirely self sufficient and take nothing from the government. Why should those who take nothing from the system be forced to pay in.
The people who live in the country are not self sufficient. At the very minimum they enjoy the protection of the laws of that country - protection against both internal threats (i.e. the mob that would come and take away what's theirs), and external (a hostile country that would take over).
Re: (Score:3)
Taxes are fully voluntary, we do not force anyone to stay in the US. Nor does any other major free nation.
You have a bizarre notion of "voluntary"
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference in this case is that it's not "your house". It's everyone's country, and its citizens have have collectively decided that residents are to pay for the privilege of living here.
If you don't want to pay taxes, you're free to move out and buy an island somewhere in the Pacific with full transfer of sovereignty, from any country that is willing to sell you one on such terms.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody is entirely self-sufficient. Even the people who live out in the boonies, have their own well, their own power and their own food depend on living in an environment where thugs don't roam the area, looking for cheap thrills or money.
That's the problem with every single Libertarian/Tea Partier in the US. They think that a lack of government simply means that they get no medicare in exchange for no taxes. What they fail to understand is that the political and social stability of the US is built on taxes as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I see. They are invalid because you have decided so. Also you appeal to the majority because, god knows, if most people say "X", it's probably right. Gotcha. Tell me why heredity based systems should be dismissed as invalid. Is this based on your world-view? Your personal morality of what is right or wrong. What if the democratic majority would result in disaster -- or a war. What if a dictator who suppresses the violent will of the masses is the only thing holding a country back from destruction.
Ta
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Also see Amendment IX:
and Amendment X:
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone with an analytic mind and who has read both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would understand that the TEA party has a valid point ...
Nope.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
What, exactly, is their point? Complaining that their taxes are too high when their taxes are historically low?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your characterization of Occupy is about as accurate as the GP's characterization of the Tea Party.
Re: (Score:3)
We are the voice and advocate of the American motion picture, home video and television industries, domestically and, through our subsidiaries and affiliates, internationally. We champion a healthy, thriving film and television industry by engaging in a variety of legislative, policy, education, technology and law enforcement initiatives.
What an organization claims it is about and what it actually IS about are often two totally separate things. So I have to ask, what is this "valid point" the tea party has? Does it really have anything to do with the constitution? Because it seems to me what they actually stand for is irrational fear of societal changes that have already happened, and zero taxes for corporations and the rich.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:4, Funny)
The level of Hate Speech on this forum makes me wonder if the posters are actually KKK members in disguise.
Democrats would never be so rude and insulting.
Re: (Score:3)
current left/right ideology is the problem, not a solution, and democrats and republicans prop up theirs as the everlasting solution to everything.. it's getting old, and that's why the tea party exists at all.
Stones, glass houses (Score:3)
He lives in a county where the population gets over 42% of their income [nytimes.com] from government sources, including food stamps, medicare, welfare, and other social programs. Sure, he can point his finger at "big government" in Washington because that will get him elected. Pointing out to his fellow Lewis County residents how much they get from the government will probably piss them off.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because someone has intelligence, that doesn't mean he uses it when it comes to politics.
Here is an excellent example of that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Austin_suicide_attack [wikipedia.org]