« Wired Minds is very slow | HomePage | Brave New War, Part II: Systems Disruption and Open Source Warfare »

Thursday, May 17, 20071179448828

Disagreeing with South Dakota Politics

I like South Dakota Politics, a lot, but after checking the blog on my reader I find two posts to especially disagree with.

  1. SDP criticizes liberals for backing higher gas prices

    But as I wrote:

    It makes no sense to import vast amounts of oil from unstable petrokleptocracies. Oil revenues allow corrupt elites to avoid real reform and buy-off (often dangerous) special interests. It diverts capital from New Core growth economies to these backwords pits. It helps funds Islamic terrorism. It exposes us to another oil shock.


    and also...


  2. SDP says that Congress is less popular than the President

    But as I wrote:

    The reason: the American people are opposed to Congress as an institution, but are not so opposed to the President. Political science research (see, for instance, Congress as Public Enemy or Stealth Democracy) shows that Americans are opposed to the idea of a body that is dedicated to political compromise making decisions for us. We would rather our government be in the hands of experts, or people who are able to ignore politics and get things done.


Increase gas prices. Ignore Congress's job approval.

Comments

"It makes no sense to import vast amounts of oil from unstable 'petrokleptocracies'."

...AND DAN NAILS A DOUBLE PREFIX FOR THE WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

However, I Firefox browser recognizes it as a misspelling, so we may have to go to the judges on this one.

Posted by: Jeffrey James | Saturday, May 19, 2007

"...shows that Americans are opposed to the idea of a body that is dedicated to political compromise making decisions for us. 'We would rather our government be in the hands of experts', or people who are able to ignore politics and get things done."

Speaking of which...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXIhukSlGfY

Posted by: Jeffrey James | Saturday, May 19, 2007

Jeffrey,

Bill misses the fact that the "Eastern Establishment" was a very real, very powerful, and more-or-less successful group of elites who guided American policy for more than half a century. [1]

Maher's larger criticism against political appointments may be popular, but this is nothing new since Andrew Jackson's time.

[1] http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2006/04/foreign-policy-and-american-elite-part.html

Posted by: Dan tdaxp | Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Post a comment