Via Maggie's a very discouraging post from Legal Insurrection. Discouraging, because I have nothing like the skills needed to combat this sort of politics. This is how we watch the world get away from us.
I suppose this is an old problem. I seem to recall that Athens had troubles with low information voters being easily swayed: exiling generals who were too successful or had political rivals at home.
I started seeing stuff from them a few months ago, and it actually took me a bit to realize it was a liberal site...the name/setup makes you presume it's just political stuff in general.
Anyway, I think the answer to this is what it always is: teach people to think critically and tell them to watch their tax bill.
I think the worry that people have on any clever manipulations is that more people at the margins will be captured for the "other side;" that a particular technique will be just that necessary amount less-resistible.
Well, as James notes, we have always lived in such a world, usually worse.
Now you are on FB. Just get yourself in front of some bank regulators and ask them the "most obvious question ever" and post the video tape on FB. Easy peasy.
Skills. Let me tell you about skills. You got such skills, your skills got skills.
What you need is a twitter account. It's like a blog. Only shorter.
I agreed with the post's general thrust, but I thought he got the story completely wrong on Elizabeth Warren's performance at the Senate. For some reason, he concluded that regulators were being asked to sue when they had settlements available that would have achieved all of their regulatory requirements, which was very far from the truth. They were settling for the same reason prosecutors sometimes settle: it got them a quick result with relatively little risk. But they got much lower settlements that they'd have gotten if they really had good claims against the offenders and had had the courage and skill to take them to trial and win.
The real problem, in my experience, is that the regulators' claims are politically motivated hogwash, and they deserve to go to trial and lose 100%. But if you assume that sometimes they have good claims, they really ought to be going to trial now and then, which was exactly Warren's excellent point, which they were dodging like scared little rabbits. I thought she did a more coherent job of questioning her witnesses than any senator I've witnessed in years. I'm just sorry that I disagree with all of her politics.
5 comments:
I suppose this is an old problem. I seem to recall that Athens had troubles with low information voters being easily swayed: exiling generals who were too successful or had political rivals at home.
I started seeing stuff from them a few months ago, and it actually took me a bit to realize it was a liberal site...the name/setup makes you presume it's just political stuff in general.
Anyway, I think the answer to this is what it always is: teach people to think critically and tell them to watch their tax bill.
I think the worry that people have on any clever manipulations is that more people at the margins will be captured for the "other side;" that a particular technique will be just that necessary amount less-resistible.
Well, as James notes, we have always lived in such a world, usually worse.
Now you are on FB. Just get yourself in front of some bank regulators and ask them the "most obvious question ever" and post the video tape on FB. Easy peasy.
Skills. Let me tell you about skills. You got such skills, your skills got skills.
What you need is a twitter account. It's like a blog. Only shorter.
I agreed with the post's general thrust, but I thought he got the story completely wrong on Elizabeth Warren's performance at the Senate. For some reason, he concluded that regulators were being asked to sue when they had settlements available that would have achieved all of their regulatory requirements, which was very far from the truth. They were settling for the same reason prosecutors sometimes settle: it got them a quick result with relatively little risk. But they got much lower settlements that they'd have gotten if they really had good claims against the offenders and had had the courage and skill to take them to trial and win.
The real problem, in my experience, is that the regulators' claims are politically motivated hogwash, and they deserve to go to trial and lose 100%. But if you assume that sometimes they have good claims, they really ought to be going to trial now and then, which was exactly Warren's excellent point, which they were dodging like scared little rabbits. I thought she did a more coherent job of questioning her witnesses than any senator I've witnessed in years. I'm just sorry that I disagree with all of her politics.
Post a Comment