Impeach Obama?

By -
Someone in the middle of Milford, PA, was manning a booth with a sign saying "Impeach Obama" attached to it. As someone who was in favor of impeaching both Clinton and Bush II, I declare this officially ludicrous--if Obama deserves impeachment, so did every president who ever held the office. Sure, if one is an anarchist or Russian spy, and wants to undermine any possibility of governing the US, one rationally might be for this. But I guarantee this guy is just a rabid partisan, who, incredibly, does not even realize that Obama is giving us "Bush lite" -- more Iraq, more Afghanistan, more Guantanamo, more Wall St. bailouts. It's kind of like someone taking baseball rivalries so seriously that he wants the Red Sox jailed because he's a Yankee fan.

Comments

  1. Adriaan3:52 PM

    But shouldn't we favor impeaching Obama, as every other president before?

    ReplyDelete
  2. scineram8:50 PM

    What good would that be for, Adriaan?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy9:27 PM

    What was your beef with Clinton? The Lewinski thing?

    ReplyDelete
  4. TokyoTom12:13 AM

    The chief problem is the spiralling growth of government and rent-seeking. My own view is that the chief factor has been the grant of limited liability to corporations, which has fuelled the use of that moral-hazard-enabling form of organization.

    While responsibility must be shared, I detest the GOP and Bush administration, in particular, for deliberately and cynically fostering the partisanship, fear and mistrust that are making not merely the country unmanageable, but even conversation difficult - all while growing federal government and robbing us blind.

    Just one skewed ideologue's view.

    ReplyDelete
  5. gcallah10:40 PM

    Adriaan, I think I conceded that, if you want to make the US ungovernable, impeaching every president might seem dandy?

    ReplyDelete
  6. gcallah10:42 PM

    Bob: With Clinton, it was not fooling around, but doing it with a low-level underling, in his office, with the aid of government personnel, and then using those personnel to cover it up.

    I figured the CEO of any company I've worked for would be fired for that, and so should the president.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Machine Learning"

By -
 The name is a misnomer. And a harmful one, because it interferes with understanding the process that is really occuring. What is really occurring is a search of a constrained program space. Let's say you want to be able to identify images of hot dogs . You begin with a plausible program for doing so, that is able to also search the space of nearby programs that might get better results on the problem. You then (in "supervised learning") provide scores that indicate how well one of these possible programs has done on solving the problem. After doing this for some time you settle upon a program that solves the problem "well enough." This is a great technique that can produce truly impressive results on a wide class of problems, such as identifying images of hot dogs. But notice that, except for the phrase in scare quotes, there is no "learning" in the description. Calling this "learning" is importing ideological baggage that just obscures what
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more