Ydiot

Please touch my junk...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:23:00 +0000

Today our hero gets all bell hooks up in this piece:

I suppose I agree with Kevin Drum about one aspect of the Transportation Security Administration namely that public outrage about the indignities it imposes seems to me to be 80 percent middle class white people not liking the idea of being placed in the subordinate position of a dominance hierarchy, 19 percent about yearning for America to adopt institutionalized racism as the lodestar of our transportation security policy, and maybe one percent about liberty.

Blah, blah, blah. The correct answer: It's 99% people being uncomfortable with government-employed strangers checking out their naked penises, boobs, vaginas, and butts. Everything else -- the calls for profiling, the blabber about liberty, all of it -- stems from this basic shyness. Are Americans dopey, cowardly, and probably homophobic for their shame-fueled anxieties? Sure! But so what -- distort the images and this whole thing goes away (except for the tinfoil-hat radiation crazies). Ydiot promises.

(And no, we're not sure what constitutes that last 1%.)

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Mon, 22 Nov 2010 14:57:00 +0000

Today our hero boldly suggests a means by which a jurisdiction could rid itself of important services:

The income tax-deductibility of charitable contributions is, I think, more of a mixed bag than people generally realize but I think it does have a valuable role to play. But I wonder about the impact of these broader exemptions from taxation. Over and above the sort of revenue issues Dempsey is pointing to, when certain kinds of institutions are exempted from property taxes it can end up promoting very inefficient uses of land. Conveniently located space is a precious commodity, and there are widespread benefits to making sure that it’s generally occupied by high-intensity uses.

Because offloading churches, schools, and hospitals onto neighboring jurisdictions is a brilliant way of promoting the values of our hero's beloved New Urbanism. Imagine the possibilities: If you got rid of the FAA, too, children could commute to school on helicopters (no need to burden the pilot market with a "licensing" cabal, of course). People could stop going to the hospital for dire illnesses (think of the cost savings). Private popemobiles for every Catholic who wants to attend Mass in the next county over!

Echo chamber...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Fri, 12 Nov 2010 00:20:00 +0000

Today our hero:

I will say, though, that looking at any trade-related issues as a question of “China” versus “America” is always misleading. Industry employes just 27 percent of China’s workforce. Almost 40 percent of Chinese workers are laboring in agriculture, together producing only 10 percent of China’s GDP and thus being quite poor.

Subsistence farming doesn't count toward GDP, which is why we don't use percentage of GDP when we talk about poverty. We have also had this conversation one million times before, Matthew.

A modest proposal...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 01:46:00 +0000

Today our hero throws poor people under the bus. The background: There's a large swath of land in DC that's open for development. It's adjacent to existing old homes. Our hero is mad because the people who already live there have a minor say in the development planning process:

Of course this is just one largish patch of land in one American city. But just about every single infill planning process in America suffers from the exact same bias. The views and interests of people who currently live nearby are represented, but the views and interests of the future-people impacted by the process aren’t. Consequently, each planning process is systematically biased toward permitting too-little development.

Was our hero really a philosophy major? You know, with thinking and stuff? On the one hand, the current residents are people who stand to have their lives substantially changed in ways they cannot control. They will have to endure construction noise, eyesore buildings, and thousands of inflowing Matt Yglesiases turning their neighborhood into a vomitous hipster shithole. Their lives will dramatically change, and there's little they can do to stop it. Somebody pass the PBR.

On the other hand, the "future-people" are a vaguely defined class who have a host of awesome, upscale available housing choices. Allowing neighborhood input in development means this group will have one of their thousands of housing choices slightly altered. Oh, the humanity.

(And lest we feel too sorry for the poor, disenfranchised upper-middle-class urban elites, it might do to remember that their interests are no doubt being at least slightly protected by the EXTREMELY WEALTHY DEVELOPERS who intend to sell them condos and lattes.)

No, screw YOU!

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:23:00 +0000

Today our hero screws over his readers:

Via James Downie, it turns out that not only is Charles Murray generally full of it, but elitism is on the rise as NASCAR ratings mysteriously plummet:

Note the first three words. The problem? This link was brought to our hero's attention days ago by one of his frequent commenters. Shall we take a moment to remember that just yesterday our hero lamented the failure of mainstream journalists to give proper attributions to bloggers? Apparently, readers don't deserve the same consideration -- certainly not when there's whoring to be done!

Whining...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:00:00 +0000

Today some guy bitches and moans about something or other:

Writing about Bravo’s Millionaire Matchmaker, Amanda Fortini and the NYT manage to pull the classic MSM stunt of quoting a blogger without naming her.

We can only hope that this grave injustice is redressed with haste.

*Note: Image idea borrowed from some commenter on some Web site somewhere. We hope his or her parents are proud.

You know that if HE had it, he'd wear it out...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:59:00 +0000

Today our hero swoons over Kathleen Hanna's crappy old sweater:

Buzzfeed reports that “13-year-old fashion blogger Tavi Gevinson met with the former Bikini Kill/Le Tigre front-woman during New York Fashion Week and scored her iconic ‘Feminist’ sweater and some zines.”

That’s nice of her, but like Kriston Capps I can’t help but think the sweater belongs in a museum or something.

Right, because the best way to capture the spirit of riot grrrl is to stick its most meaningless totems behind glass in a museum. And while you're at it, is there a better place to start than feminists' favoritest means of self expression, clothes? I didn't think so.

Sacked!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:08:00 +0000

Today our hero gets all stupid about Juan Williams:

...As in the case of Rick Sanchez it seems to me that if you assume Williams has been doing valuable work all these years, firing him over this single incident is excessive. But as an NPR listener, I’m a good deal more familiar with Williams’ work than I am with Sanchez’s and it seems clear to me that Williams has not, in fact, been doing valuable work all these years. If Williams had never made these remarks about Muslims and NPR announced his firing this morning on the grounds of general lameness and lack of valuable contribution to their programming, I would have applauded the move so I’m hardly going to deplore what actually happened.

What if he'd been fired for being black? Would you deplore that, dumbass?

Let us explain. Our hero's position is: (1) Journalists should not be fired for making racist public statements*, (2) unless they are lousy journalists who deserve firing for lameness, in which case (3) it IS OK to fire them for making racist public statements. What a shockingly incisive logical mind.

*Note: This "single incident" business is ridiculous. Obviously, a "single incident" wherein one reveals belief in anti-Semitic conspiracy theories (Sanchez) isn't remarkable as a slip-up; it's remarkable as evidence of loathsome underlying qualities. It's wrong to fire people for isolated screwups, but it's fine to fire them for being terrible.

A defense of Rand Paul?

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 01:43:00 +0000

Today our hero asks us to watch an irrelevant campaign ad by Jack Conway. (You have to watch it, too.)

Then offers this defense:

This ad has the virtue—not that common in politics—of being accurate. It also has the virtue of raising actual policy issues about the consequences of Paul’s position on tax reform. It’s true that the implication that unorthodox religious belief should disqualify one from office is ugly, but it’s an implication that I think is extremely common in American politics.

Which misses the point that Rand Paul is probably not a sincere Aqua Buddha worshiper, as the ad implies. Conflating college prank BS, even disturbing college prank BS, with sincere religious belief is... inaccurate! Dishonest, too.

Next, our hero pivots to... China trade policy (‽‽‽‽‽ [they're interrobangs, sucka]):

Accusing one’s opponent of transferring economic opportunities from the United States to China (sometimes India) is a major feature of a huge number of 2010 campaigns. These attacks tend to be factually misleading, and also promote the widespread by definitely wrong misconception that the US and China are engaged in a zero-sum contest for prosperity. What’s more, even granting the factual and analytic premises of these ads their ethics is clearly mistaken. If it was the case that the US and China face zero-sum competition for economic resources, transferring resources from rich America to poor China would be morally praiseworthy.

Ydiot will boldly pretend that our hero is making a serious argument. The problem here is that everyone else is looking out for number one, sometimes (gasp!) at the expense of other countries. "Transferring resources" means putting a lot of trust in the magnanimity of people who don't have your best interests at heart, which is incredibly stupid. Think of it this way: Even if you're willing to redistribute some cash to the other players at the poker table, it's worth playing your hand well enough that you keep your hands on the deed to your house.

Prescription for stupidity

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:21:00 +0000

Today our novice swimmer goes completely off the deep end:

...we definite privilege doctors with our rules about who is allowed to write prescriptions. That particular set of regulations is both irrationally lax, allowing doctors to prescribe things that are outside of their field of practice and with no requirement that they stay up-to-date on new developments, and also irrationally stringent, often requiring a doctor when a lesser-trained medical professional with a lower salary would due. The way MDs win the prescription field both coming and going is a good sign that you’re looking at guild privilege rather than consumer protection.

Two things: (1) Lower-salaried nurse practitioners also write prescriptions, you numbskull. Evidently, the MD prescription-writing hegemony is incomplete. (2) The "prescription field" isn't about the right to sign the pad -- it's about the diagnosis and treatment design that precede that step (that whole "practice of medicine" thing). These are activities that might have a teeny, tiny, eensy little bit to do with consumer protection, no? And should doctors be expected to better keep up with developments in the field? Perhaps. But that's a discussion about the merits of more stringent regulation, not less.

One could certainly argue that anyone with a shingle to hang should be allowed to practice medicine -- and our hero will no doubt "argue" this if the cool-kid libertarians keep putting up with him -- but doing so would be ydiotic in the extreme.

Columbus Day!

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 20:47:00 +0000

Today our hero is a fucking ydiot:

When you think about it, though, is that part of what’s great about America is that political dialogue in this country isn’t dominated by calls to reconsider Columbus Day or any kind of deep effort to ponder the meaning of being a nation founded on ethnic cleansing and slavery. That’s not to say that we don’t still grapple with the consequences of those events or that mainstream white America couldn’t stand to grapple harder with them. But unlike in some countries I’ve visited recently, it’s perfectly possible to probe an American for a while about his political views without being treated to a lengthy ax-grinding historical narrative.

This is because those with an ax to grind are dead. US ethnic cleansing was effective, and aboriginal Americans were almost entirely wiped out. Those who remain are ignored.

The lack of grumpy historical narratives is a testament to how appalling our history looks when compared with, say, Israel's.

In the absence of evidence...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Tue, 12 Oct 2010 16:10:00 +0000

It's the Daily Dish's 10-year anniversary, and today our hero joins in the Internet-wide congratulation of Andrew Sullivan (Matt calls it a "circle jerk"; we politely abstain from joke making or participation). Then a bit of self-congratulation:

Last but not at all least, these past ten years have been a trying time for the media industry. But fundamentally the massive improvement in communications technology that the internet represents has been and will continue to be a huge win for consumers of the news.

Says who? For the casual news consumer with only an hour or so to devote to the exercise, cogent analysis is harder to find. Newspapers are crappier, televised news is more spastic, and many who masquerade as journalists are nothing more than two-bit hack political activists (::ahem::). Sounds like a huge win to us!

Weekend Ydiocy Roundup

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Sun, 03 Oct 2010 16:08:00 +0000

The Yntern is sick of studying simple harmonic motion, solving trusses and linearizing multivariable functions with partial derivatives* and has chosen instead to read some of our hero's blog postings.

Our hero on the firing of CNN's Sanchize:

But on the assumption that he was doing a good job as an anchor and then made
anti-semitic remarks, I wouldn’t have fired him.

There are a lot of
ways of looking at this, but the bottom line to me is that if the concern is
that there’s some legion of Rick Sanchez fans out there harboring anti-semitic
views, sacking him like this is only going to make the problem worse. See,
Sanchez spoke the truth and they got rid of him.

This is quite a telling piece of Ydiocy from Yglesias. Apparently he believes that anti-Semitism should be tolerated, because doing anything to stop anti-Semitism will just confirm the anti-Semites conspiratorial view that Jews run the world. As a matter of fact, why not go whole hog? The U.S. probably should just send a few Trident IIs Israel's way. If we nuke Tel-Aviv, then no one could possibly believe the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that sinister Jews control U.S. foreign policy.

Because we all know the best way to deal with Judenhass is by placating anti-Semites.

Incidentally, in the same piece:

As someone who’s both Cuban and Jewish, I suppose it’s my duty to say something
about ...

The Yntern is both Jewish and Arab.** Imagine the things HE has a duty to say something about!

Meanwhile, elsewhere, when discussing Jonathan Chait's wishy-washy discussion of settlements, Palestinian terrorism, and other things the Yntern likely has a DUTY to comment on ...

Over the years I’ve come to adopt a pretty extremist view on this, and I think I’m even prepared to accept the reductio ad Hitler case. Had it been feasible to coordinate the population of Poland, Denmark, Norway, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc. into a mass campaign of non-violent resistance to German occupation I think that would have brought even Hitler down. The problem there is essentially about how difficult it is to sustain collective action rather than about the need to fight evil with violence.

I don't really know if this actually needs to be directly addressed. But at least Matt is consistent. We could have done a lot to mitigate anti-Semitism if we had not fought a war with the Nazis. And the Raimondos and Buchanans of the world would have one less complaint about Jews.

Also, did you know our hero went to Harvard? He rarely mentions it, so you should pay close attention to this post to figure it out. He even knows the dorm buildings' names! Also, he has great insight into the sort of people that attend Harvard, particularly when he noted "the atmosphere at Harvard circa 2003 where pathologically competitive people were thick on the ground." Note, though, that this only refers to Harvard circa 2003. Most years, Harvard is full of people who aren't particularly competitive.

*Why yes, despite his advanced age, the Yntern is essentially a sophomore engineering student.

** No, Really.

On motherhood...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 16:58:00 +0000

Today our hero bungles the issue of single mothers:

But there’s a question of who’s actually better off here. If child poverty declines because a poor child becomes non-poor, then the beneficiary is the child. If child poverty declines because a poor child isn’t born in the first place, then it would be strange to say the child is the winner. The winner is perhaps the conscience of more-privileged members of society who now don’t need to feel so bad about themselves. That kind of thing has a certain appeal, but it doesn’t really make sense. Shaming poor women so middle class people can feel better about ourselves is a kind of regressive psychic transfer.

The beneficiary is the (non-) mother, you dimwit. Now she doesn't have to rear a child in poverty. And if the child happens to be born later, after mom is on firmer financial footing, we might argue that the child is a beneficiary, too.

Of course, our hero misses the point: Shame isn't the best mechanism for preventing out-of-wedlock births; education is.

In praise of hypocrisy...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:03:00 +0000

Today our hero notes Paul Ryan's rapidly changing views on reconciliation and then gets dumb:

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I think this is a really genuinely and non-ironically praiseworthy attribute of the Republican congressional caucus that makes congressional Democrats look really, really bad. Republican members of congress and of the United States Senate generally have a correct understanding of the relationship between process and substance in a constitutional democracy, and do a good job of taking their responsibilities as public officials seriously. Some Democrats match them in these regards, but most utterly fail.

Hypocrisy, the cornerstone of public service! One might also argue that Democrats have simply been slower to adapt to a media climate in which there is little public accountability for lying. It's almost as though the entire mediaverse has been taken over by halfwit partisan hacks with no ethical credibility, who write only for audiences who already agree with them.

In the year 2000....

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 20:29:00 +0000

Today our hero misunderstands the psychology of members of Congress:

I’m sort of intrigued by the psychology of members of congress who’re positioning themselves on the wrong side of history here. Does anybody think that in the year 2050 it will be illegal for gay and lesbian individuals to serve openly in the United States military?

Right! We all know that members of Congress base their decisions on how their actions will be considered 40 years in the future, when they will be dead. It's an election year, dummy.

The deep end is deep...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 17:34:00 +0000

Today our hero descends further down the rabbit hole (from Twitter):

Does tour guide licensing violate the 1st amendment? http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/2010/09/license-to-tour/

Why, yes, of course it does! In precisely the same way that medical licensing laws trammel my First Amendment right to charge people for medical advice. Give me liberty or give me death!

This one's a sure winner in the courts. Speaking of which, isn't it an appalling scam that I can't hire this guy (editor's note: watch the video, you will not be disappoint) as my lawyer? I mean, what about his First Amendment right to act as lawyer, regardless of qualifications? It's all just speaking, right?

This is what's for dinner...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Wed, 15 Sep 2010 21:52:00 +0000

Today our hero fails to make sense:

As long as technology keeps advancing, human time and human labor will keep getting more valuable. That means that people will increasingly want someone else to do their food preparation for them, and also that innovations that allow food prep to be done with less labor power will be more and more rewarded.

Wouldn't labor-saving technological advances make human time and labor less valuable? You might even wind up with stagnant middle-class wages and economic growth driven by efficiency, rather than jobs, gains. What a crazy idea!

Wait, where?

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Tue, 14 Sep 2010 21:01:00 +0000

Today our hero gets all turned around:

The other is that I wish there were more acknowledgment of the tradeoffs involved. We’re in the midst of a mayor’s campaign largely focused on the question of why the economic plight of low-skill workers living east of the Anacostia River is so severe. Even the incumbent mayor’s fans tend to agree that the problem is really dire, but people tend to say—indeed, I think I’ve even said myself—that sky-high unemployment in Ward 8 isn’t amenable to a municipal solution. But that’s not really true. There are lots of vacant store fronts on H Street.

Y'aren't from 'round here, are ya? The section of H Street in question is a rapidly gentrifying area well west of the Anacostia River. Our hero would be well advised to observe the intricacies of this process, as it is the one that several years ago made his current digs safe for poncy dweebs such as himself.

We'll refrain from arguing that Advisory Neighborhood Commission 6A is necessarily right in its efforts to avoid a 7-11 incursion (Ydiot takes no firm position on the availability of microwavable burritos), but it's flat-out dumb to paint with a brush so broad that it covers up-and-coming hipster irony zones and truly depressed urban ghettos alike. Neighborhoods are special cases, each with its own circumstances and needs. One man's late-night oasis is another man's litter factory.

Our hero is a bit petty...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:34:00 +0000

While investigating this appraisal of Yglesian intellect yesterday, we discovered that Ydiot.net has been the victim of a devastating strike, delivered by none other than our own hero: We have been "blocked" from reading Matt's entirely public Twitter feed. How could you, Matt?

But little did our hero know that Ydiot's day job is International Computer Hacker Extraordinaire. It took us mere hours to thwart this brutal cyber-assault (click: "Sign Out"). You can run, Yglesias, but you most certainly cannot hide.

Back to dailyish weekday posting next week. We need a bit of time to regroup following this crushing setback.

Pot, Kettle...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 18:24:00 +0000

Ydiot has lately been suffering from Yglesias overload recently (I knew I should have gotten the gamma globulin) , and has thus been unable to post -- the moment I see the brownish overhead shot of the Mall and read "Yglesias" stamped on it, I vomit. But this was funny enough to warrant a break from the break:

I think Goldberg needs to make more enemies if he thinks my grudge against him is all that deep. But to clarify, my book Heads in the Sand was indeed a commercial failure and Goldberg is much, much, much better than I am at coming up with books that sell a lot of copies. I think his tendency to harp on this point tends to demonstrate that he’s an extremely petty person driven to a remarkable degree by well-deserved insecurity about his intellectual abilities.

And what's the best way to deal with petty, whiny attacks? Calling the attacker a petty whiner, of course.

Moron the parking issue...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Thu, 02 Sep 2010 04:37:00 +0000

Today our hero attains a new level of vomitous smugness:

Transportation reform plays as a kind of yuppie concern in practical politics, but the biggest losers from parking subsidies aren’t people like me—I could go out and buy a car tomorrow if I wanted to—but poor people for whom owning and maintaining automobiles is genuine financial hardship.

So, basically, parking rules should make car ownership as onerous as possible for poor people, so they won't screw themselves over by wasting their money on cars.

Glenn Beck is a marginally overweight, televised version of...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 14:43:00 +0000

Today our hero opines, and even includes emphatic italics:

The interesting question about Beck is that he at this point certainly appears to have much more practical influence than any kind of left-wing crank or, indeed, than any right-wing crank had during the Bush years.

Rush Limbaugh.

Is this not a reasonable place to park?

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 20:39:00 +0000

For some reason, images of sheep overgrazing a charming pastoral landscape are springing to mind. I wonder what that's all about. Oh, I remember: Today our hero breaks out the ol' mandatory parking hobbyhorse again:

For that matter, why should there be any mandatory parking far from transit stops? Of course common sense says that if you’re building a house or an office far from mass transit you’re going to want some parking, but why not let the market decide how much is needed?

Because people usually already live there, and you brutally screw them when you let someone else put up a parking-free building. Gather 'round the hearth: Ydiot once lived in a neighborhood that attracted several nice new restaurants that added no parking when they opened. Subsequently, Ydiot had to walk home upwards of a mile if he had to drive somewhere at the wrong time. It sucked. The restaurant patrons and other occasional visitors didn't mind -- who cares if it's hard to find parking for a once-a-month outing? Ydiot, who had just signed a lease, was not amused.

The moral of the story? Businesses that don't put in adequate parking for their patrons should be razed with the owners inside. And make it a slow burn.

The Norms I know...

noreply@blogger.com (Ydiot) — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 21:35:00 +0000

Today our hero is still on vacation, which is posing serious problems for our enterprise. He has finally found a way to evade us.

There was this, though:

"The bill would allow managers to search for publicly accessible information about prospective employees on the Web and to view their pages on job networking sites, like LinkedIn or Xing. But it would draw the line at purely social networking sites like Facebook, said Philipp Spauschus, a spokesman for the Interior Minister, Thomas de Maizière."

We’re going to need some kind of shift in norms and not just legal efforts to hold back the tide of digital information.

The first part was something Matt quoted. You can tell because it has a quotation in it -- a telltale sign of genuine journalistic effort.

The ydiocy, of course, is the assumption that laws don't shape norms. They do.