Day: December 1, 2008

In which the pumafemmes explore “little miss monster” and her geeksquad of “libertarian paternalist pals” — for Hillary’s sake, girlfriends…

Did you say FUGLIE?

It’s a little like that, no?  Umm, hmmm……

She wasn’t even born here, was she?  Not like “our Hillary” was.  Since this is the year we discovered that feminism just did not jell, per se — it’s never a bad idea in the year of the ULTRACUNT to get some idea of what others are saying as well of a bit of backstory from various sources…

I love that Morrissey over at Hot Air — so I started there…to see what he had to say…plus watch the video.

Monsters of State

“…Obama didn’t kick Power off his team over these remarks.  He bounced her for calling Hillary a “monster”.  If Power gives any indication of Obama’s foreign policy direction, then Hillary won’t be the only one…”


Looks like she paired up with this guy, Esquire has a piece up you’ll want to read on that over here, it’s just so all about the whole sort of philosophy of these two…

Fun Couple of the 21st Century

He certainly has some quaint theories about nudging the proles, no?

“…One of the bigger theories can be found in his latest book, Nudge, which he cowrote with University of Chicago professor Richard Thaler. The idea is that people are far from perfectly rational–prone to biases, laziness, and mental shortcuts. But you can nudge people to make better choices. In school cafeterias, we should put fruits at eye level and make junk food hard to see. That’s a nudge. On the driver’s license application, we should make “organ donor” the automatic option. (You can opt out, but you have to check a box.) Voilà, thousands more kidneys. To conserve energy, we should stamp a picture of a frowny face on electric bills that are above the neighborhood average. (People generally hate being outside the norm.)

Sunstein gives his movement the paradoxical name “libertarian paternalism.” It falls in line with one of the main themes of his work: Generally, people will do the right thing, but sometimes they need to be guided there. Laissez-faire can be dangerous. A democracy needs to ensure competing points of view. For example, it needs to provide accurate, not anecdotal or inflammatory, information about terrorism and other risks. Free speech should have limits–sometimes surprising ones. Commercial advertising should not automatically be protected by the First Amendment…”


Here she is “on herself” off the Nation…from 2006…

‘Why Can’t We?’

“…I’m always a little surprised to be asked to be a commencement speaker. It is clear from your roster of past speakers that you could have lined up an Attorney General or a Cabinet Secretary to help you usher in your post-law school lives. But inexplicably you chose me: a woman who was a decidedly average student in law school, who never took the bar exam and who, despite shelling out 100,000 bucks, still can’t quite decide what she wants to do with her life. I can’t imagine why, after your three years in law school, any of you would identify with these particular qualities…

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love occasions like this one. Partly that’s because I’ve always liked to be the center of attention. This is a pretty obnoxious quality, and one that I can’t even blame on the travails of my childhood, as my overtherapized generation has been taught to do. In 1975, when I was just 5, my mother–a remarkable lady who had spent the previous three years playing world-caliber squash and attending medical school, while supporting me, my kid brother and my father–arrived home and proudly showed me and my dad her home-typed finished medical thesis, which in Ireland you needed in order to get an MD. She had just received the thesis back from the binder and she intended to deliver it to her committee the following morning. She placed the manuscript on the kitchen table, put me to bed and slept only fitfully, anticipating the sense of satisfaction that would come from delivering a product she had toiled over for so long. When she entered the kitchen the following morning and spotted her blue-bound thesis, however, she was horrified. Although the manuscript had not budged, it now bore a luminous scrawl, which in large orange crayon letters announced: “samantha power did this!!…”


LaRouche tends to know all the nuts and bolts about who she really is…why, just look at who she associates with!  My, my…

LaRouche Demands: No Job For Soros And Malloch-Brown Agent Samantha Power

“Power was bankrolled in 2003 by George Soros’ Open Society Institute, after failing to find any commercial publisher for her promotion of “humanitarian interventionism.” Foreign Office operative Malloch-Brown has, in fact, been London’s chief “handler” of dirty money speculator Soros for decades. Prior to taking a senior post at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Malloch-Brown served as vice chairman of Soros’ offshore Quantum Fund hedge fund, and the Open Society Institute. Soros and Malloch-Brown were pivotal in the so-called “Rose Revolution” in Georgia, that installed Mikhael Saakashvili into power, and they subsequently bankrolled his government. In the summer of 2008, Saakashvili launched a military assault against South Ossetia, aimed at provoking a new Caucasus war between Russia and NATO.

Now, Malloch-Brown is leading the drive for the biggest genocide ever in Africa. “I call on President-elect Obama to drop Ms. Power from his team, now, for the sake of Africa. No one associated with someone like Lord Malloch-Brown, who has the blood of potentially millions of innocent Africans on his hands, should be permitted anywhere near the White House. After eight years of Bush-Cheney genocide around the globe, enough is enough,” LaRouche concluded.

(oh what back story! — don’t miss it)

None of the pumafemmes like her much after what she said about Hillary, and besides isn’t she an “ugly intellectual” after that read…with a jones on for Malcolm.  X that is.  (that was in the Esquire piece above).

But back to that whole concept of “nudging things” from the wiki and that “libertarian paternalism gig” that we pumas really want to understand, no?

Soft paternalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“…Soft Paternalism, also referred to as asymmetrical paternalism and libertarian paternalism, is a political philosophy that believes the state can “help you make the choices you would make for yourself—if only you had the strength of will and the sharpness of mind. But unlike ‘hard’ paternalists, who ban some things and mandate others, the softer kind aims only to skew your decisions, without infringing greatly on your freedom of choice. [1] The term “libertarian paternalism” is intended to evoke the idea that soft paternalism is an approach to public policy that can be endorsed by libertarians because it does not abridge individual freedom, though most self-described libertarians are firmly opposed to it.

Asymmetric paternalism refers to two asymmetries: the policies are designed to help irrational people who are not advancing their own interests while not interfering with the autonomy of those who are making rational, deliberate, decisions. It is also asymmetric in the sense that the policies are designed to be acceptable to those who believe that people behave rationally and to people who believe that people behave less than rationally…”

LAT has more:

Libertarian paternalism gives you options while achieving society’s goals.
“…There are many parallels between choice architecture and more traditional forms of architecture. A crucial parallel is that there is no such thing as a “neutral” design. Cognitive psychology and behavioral economics have shown that small and apparently insignificant contextual details can have a major effect on people’s behavior. Researchers tell us that if a candidate is listed first on the ballot, he may well get a 4% increase in votes. If a doctor says 90% of patients are alive five years after a certain operation, far more people will have the operation than if the doctor says 10% of patients are dead five years after having it.

One memorable example of the power of choice architecture comes from the men’s rooms at Schiphol airport in Amsterdam. There the authorities have etched the image of a black housefly into each urinal. It seems that men usually do not pay much attention to where they aim, which can create a bit of a mess, but if they see a target, their attention and accuracy improve. Spillage at the airport decreased by 80%!…”

Oh my…
stay tuned………

Oh, Congratulations Hillary…