the only question is whether he will be targeting McCain for the low road character assassination tactics of his campaign or targeting Obama's lack of patriotism and his ties to radical terrorists? In other words, will pony tail guy's questions reflect the electorates real concerns with the deteriorating standards of current political discourse and the conduct of the candidates and their campaigns, or will the questions echo the continued stranglehold of unseemly political propaganda championed by McCain/Palin?
Hurricane-sized whirlpools have been spotted spiralling on the surface of the Sun, confirming theories about how material convects in the Sun's roiling outer layers.
The scalding soup of charged particles, or plasma, in the outer 30% of the Sun is thought to rise and fall in churning cells, like macaroni bobbing in a pot of boiling water.
After the hot material rises, it releases energy and falls downwards. Because it already has some sideways motion, this cooler plasma should spiral into the Sun as it falls – like water running down a bathtub drain.
But observations over the past two decades have failed to spot these small whirlpools, which require a very high resolution to detect.
So Jose Bonet of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias in Spain and colleagues went looking for the patterns using the Swedish 1-m Solar Telescope, which can observe details as small as 90 kilometres across.
The team tracked bright spots produced by moving plasma. The spots showed a swirling pattern about the size of a hurricane on Earth.
After further observation, the team found 138 of these whirlpools, each of which survived for only 5 minutes before disappearing.
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
"Before you accuse me," goes the famous blues lyric, "take a look at yourself." Well according to Chaucer's wife of Bath, probably literature's final answer to the question whether it's possible to be "great" at marriage, this is exactly backwards.
Accuse first, accuse loudest, accuse in the most strident tones and don't be afraid to turn on the waterworks. That's how arguments are won, according to Alisoun.
He who first comes to the mill, grinds first; I complained first, and thus our war was ended.
And so McCain today comes out with this stunner. Obama, he says, becomes "touchy" and "angry" when questioned on policy specifics. This after a week when Palin claimed that her abysmal Katie Couric interview went so badly because she was "annoyed" by having to answer follow-up questions. And after John McCain spent 20 minutes trying not to pop over the desk and manhandle the Des Moines Register editorial board for doing the same thing. Obama gets touchy, and angry.
As a bonus to looking up the Wife of Bath, I came across an artifact of Reformation history I'd forgotten all about: the Wycliffian movement known as Lollardy. Lollardy was a pretty fun movement, as movements go. Hilarious, in fact, as adherents of the sect would go around LOLing at the drop of a garter. LOLing at this, LOLing at that, Lollardy was a real barrel of laughs. We should all be more like the Lollards. I wonder what ever became of them.
--
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
McCain announces he will go negative; Obama reacts by accusing McCain of trying to change the subject; McCain craftily attempts this new gambit of calling Obama "touchy". (One imagines an innocently arched eyebrow -- "What are you going on about, Senator?")
The American voting public, still having trouble paying their bills and worried about the future, probably does not notice, but at least we pundits and junkies have something to discuss.
--
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
just like the "Obama doesn't understand" line in the first debate, when your opponent explains at length it becomes clear that he really does understand. Similarly, saying that Obama is touchy and defensive will fall flat when Obama manifestly does not become touchy and defensive during the debate.
I think I know how McCain could actually turn all this around, but I'm not spilling it til after the election.
I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
On a related note, I spent about 15 minutes earlier listening to the cable talking heads. That Mad Money tool was telling people to buy because, I kid you not, "the stocks will eventually go up, though they will go down over the next 48 hours" and "even if the DOW drops over the next few days, it will probably outperform expectations". So if you buy now, you probably won't lose as much as you think! Sign me up!
--
The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
those family reunion videos. We have our flaws, but in our defense as you can see we were into recycling long before it was cool. Done with that beer can? Clunk! Back to mother nature it goes!
--
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
Remember Dukakis in the tank? That's going to be nearly every photo op of Jindal. I called him a twerp in another thread and that's what I mean by it. He's small and skinny... won't go over well with usa voters. Plus he's an exorcist.
Your side has touted the 'Commander in Chief' manly-man worship angle long enough that neither Reid, nor Jindal has a chance in Hell at being president.
Though Jindal probably carries a talisman of some sort that would allow him to withstand Hellfire for a slightly longer time than Reid.
Though I always thought the Starbucks thing was a blue herring. Starbucks exploded not because America is rife with liberalism -- but because America is rife with reasonably well-off people who like coffee. They're in rural Virginia and have drive-thrus off the 35 in Texas.
Also, Starbucks is where to go to meet cute chicks. Had I bothered to spend time there, I would have met my wife earlier.
I rehash all of this not to dwell on Palin’s problems, which are increasingly irrelevant as McCain heads towards defeat, but to implore conservatives to stop ignoring reality just because they happen to like a candidate’s personality and biography. Besides being bad for the quality of conservative thought, it embraces the caricature that conservatives are indifferent to knowledge and have no use for expertise, which has become an all too legitimate critique of how conservatives have responded to the misrule of the Bush administration. That was not always the case, but if conservatives insist on making elaborate arguments that understanding and knowledge are not significant criteria when choosing our top elected officials they will lose whatever credibility they may still have. More than that, they will be crippled by their embrace of cheerful ignorance when it comes time to oppose the policies of the Democratic administration that is surely about to be elected.
the cult of personality isn't new, I'm old enough to remember it strongly during the Reagan administration and even to an extent under Nixon (mostly by the extreme anti-communists). And to be fair, you saw some of it under Clinton, although nowhere near the same extent (I haven't heard of any move to put Clinton on Mount Rushmore, or to have a monument named after him in every state and county in the country). All successful leaders get it to some extent, the Republicans just seem to need more public validation for some reason.
As to credibility, Bush did the heavy lifting but it looks like McCain will deliver the coup de grace if he goes as negative as he's rumored to be doing. Picking Palin (and the rapturous reviews she's been getting from most Republicans) shows that the anti-intellectualism has finally reached the ticket itself, labeled as anti-elitism.
I don't want to jinx anything, but all the trends are pointing towards a large win, with big pickups in the Senate and House as well.
It's going to take years for the Republican party to recover from its self-inflicted wounds. And I'm not really sure how it will. I mean, "We need to be more doctrinaire, and that was where Bush failed" really succeed?
I sense that we may be reaching something like the rest of the Anglophonie, with a kind of center-left technocratic consensus, with most parties tweaking an accepted conventional wisdom.
the social conservatives won't change, or at least not for a few decades. Likewise with the neocons. The business wing (northeastern "Rockefeller republicans") could, I think, move into the Dem coalition, especially if the current economic problems are as serious as I think they are. Basically everyone who's attached to the Republican party for reason-based rather than emotion-based criteria are potential future Democrats.
Are going to eventually come to the realization that they're getting very, very little return for what they've put into the GOP. In fact, there were intimations that they were starting to realize this way back in 1998 when the Clinton impeachment failed messily and embarrassingly. There were people saying that America was just too morally corrupt to be worth saving, but also people who were saying that maybe, maybe, relying on political power to achieve anything approaching a spiritual transformation was an exercise in futility.
Now then, with the election of GW, all of that soul searching went out the window and folks were right back to looking to turn the power of the State to their own ends.
I suspect, however, that people are going to realize that the GOP had almost complete control over the government and their only real accomplishment for the Christian right has been that it is marginally more difficult for horny teenagers to get hold of contraceptives.
OTOH, there is the fact that the Democratic party is home to people who believe that if a live baby accidentally pops out during a late term abortion then this baby has to die to preserve a woman's right to choose. So the GOP will still have some electoral strength from them, but I suspect that as far as fiscal policy, pretty soon even the devotion to tax cuts at all costs is going to quietly get tossed out the window.
As for "the neocons," well, the term itself is far, far to misused. To rephrase things slightly, there's plenty of room in a broadly consensus politics for a belief that robust military force is necessary. The actual amount of people who want to actively go looking for wars is small enough that they're not terribly important. The run-up to the Iraq Unpleasantness gave "the neocons" a prominence that they simply don't deserve. Seriously, when you put a Texas oil man and the son of a convert from Marxism who leans Straussian in the same category because they both favor military force, then the label of someone as a "neocon" has basically lost all meaning.
Basically, I think that this latest round of financial unpleasantness is going to wind up shaking the political landscape pretty severely. Now, "broad center-left consensus" doesn't sound like much of a revolution, but I think that you can legitimately call it that.
the way I detect a coalition is when people express views that aren't normally the ones that are part of their core beliefs - like social conservatives and big business supporters calling for military intervention in ... well, I've lost count of how many places we're supposed to invade to defeat "Islamofascism". Likewise when neocons and big business types go on extensively about abortion, or when social conservatives and neocons rant about capital gains taxes. That kind of cross-adopting of other groups views is what makes a coalition.
In that respect I don't think the neocons have been given a prominence that is undeserved. From what I've been able to gather, quite a few conservatives are upset that Bush went all wobbly on them in the last few years. McCain at least presented himself as the candidate most comfortable with the use of the military, in fact he's been much more strident about that than about economic or social issues.
I think that the electorate reaching a broad center left consensus would be quite a revolution, but we won't see if it's true until we see how the next round of R candidates frame their issues. The standard attacks about Obama being a radical Marxist that I see on righty blogs doesn't convince me that they're ready for it yet.
"OTOH, there is the fact that the Democratic party is home to people who believe that if a live baby accidentally pops out during a late term abortion then this baby has to die to preserve a woman's right to choose. "
For example, was put to the Illinois state legislature. It stipulated that if, during a late term abortion a live baby accidentally popped out, then the physicians on hand were not allowed to kill this baby.
Obama and many other Democrats voted against this bill because they felt that acknowledging the babies that popped out were human beings who shouldn't be killed would endanger a woman's right to an abortion in general.
but your language seems carefully chosen, and suggests to me that you understand Obama's objections and are maybe just being a bit disingenuous.
The IILA was designed to discourage doctors from performing abortions by holding them civilly and possibly criminally liable for the "deaths" of some PREVIABLE fetuses outside the womb.
(a) In determining the meaning of any statute or of any rule, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative agencies of this State, the words "person", "human being", "child", and "individual" shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this Section, the term "born alive", with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
Primitive circulatory systems are basically developed and functional by 6 weeks, maybe earlier. Of course, it's ridiculous to try to perform any sort of medical care to a 6 week old fetus outside the womb. But because the 6 week old fetus would have been a "child" under Illinois law (had IILA passed), doing nothing could have left the doctor civilly liable for wrongful death and medical malpractice, and criminally liable for child abuse and negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter.
EDIT: and actually, because the law explicitly purported not to conflict with existing federal law on abortion, the interesting bits would have been entirely invalid, and the rest would have been useless by definition.
that it would be normal practice for a live baby 'popping out' accidentally during a late term abortion procedure, to be killed by the physicians on hand?
On what basis do you justify making such a claim?
Are you aware if Obama perhaps preferred some other legislative option to the IL proposal.
Well, Yes, He Voted Against the Legislation (#126999)
by AndrewSshi on Sun, 10/05/2008 - 2:21pm
Because it was superfluous.
And also because he saw it as the thin end of the wedge against Roe.
And I was actually very, very pleased to hear that the story of an infant tossed into a trash can in a Chicago hospital was almost certainly made up (pleased that baby-killing is not a part of hospital routines, that is. I was actually appalled by the fact that folks have no problem lying for what they perceive as the greater good).
I brought up the IL legislation as the most egregious example of the sort of thing that will allow the GOP to keep getting votes even when the party's tenure has pretty much been a goatf**k from top to bottom.
I figured that was what that comment was about. (#126985)
by athenas owl on Sun, 10/05/2008 - 1:55pm
They didn't vote against the bill for the reasons you state, but for 2 reasons. There was already legal protection in IL (since 1975) Law and the fears of liability for doctors (who opposed the bill for this reason) and that it was (I guess this is three things) the grandstanding law (again there were already legal protections in place) was a vehicle designed to chip away at Roe vs. Wade, which is the only reason you and others give.
But all that nuance about a previous law making this one nothing but grandstanding and a back door attack on abortion rights and trying to protect doctors from a mishmash of rule, gets lost.
The "infanticide" meme came from McCain's camp...on of his advisors. And the insane Jill Stanek amongst others should be mentioned along with the IL law and it's push.
Was brought up as an example of why some people will vote for a party that's been pretty much acting against the interests of the United States for the last few years.
And it's the bit about protecting Roe that people remember. Saying, "I voted against the legislation because it was superfluous" will go unremarked. Saying, "I voted against this legislation because talking about the personhood of premature infants is a slippery slope" will be remembered.
Suppose, for example, someone proposed legislation that made it illegal to kill kittens, skin them, and make hats out of their pelts. Suppose a legislator says, "I voted against the legislation because there are already statutes on the books against cruelty to animals. Also, if you say that kittens have rights under the law, eventually that will be extended to pets and livestock, and then PETA will finally get want they want in their goal to make us all vegans."
Which one of those two statements will be remembered? Even if the legislator has no desire ever to wear hats made out of kitten fur, he'll still be remembered as the kitten hat guy.
PETA? Not even close. Though I understand there is an industry in China that does exactly that. And bunnies, too. It is you that is equating kittens to humans here.
Of course, the part about people not remembering the nuance will go unremembered...your original post that brought this up proves that point. It's what the people pushing the meme intend.
A private, and for the main, rare thing that is a profoundly painful event for the vast majority of families (because we all know that waiting till the baby is late term and viable to abort is so much fracking fun!..it's just "popping them out"..no big deal at all!)...comparing that to the interests of the United States as a nation...this is where some people have gone nuts and lost sight of what the interests of our nation really are.
The reason Obama is remembered as the "infanticide" guy is because the meme was pushed by a McCain advisor. Awesome!
The act did nothing -- nobody's allowed to kill babies under any circumstances. Late term abortions are nigh-exclusively performed on fetuses which are either already dead or nonviable.
Nothing "pops out" during an abortion. The phrasing itself is so absurd that it constitutes self-mockery by the pro-life crowd. You'd think people so obsessed with vaginas and uteruses would have a passing understanding of how they function.
--
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
Concerned those rare instances in which there's a dilation and extraction abortion going on and the physicians fail to keep the head in the womb before they've gotten a chance to destroy the brain. At that point, you have what amounts to a live baby on your hands.
Now, you may believe that those circumstances are rare enough so as not to merit legislation, or that the wriggling pink thing is not a person, but no one disputes that the described circumstances (occasionally) happen.
The social conservatives and neocons are rationally attached because the GOP is the best vehicle to serve their (malign) interests. It's the Rockefeller Republicans who are irrationally attached; class loyalty is both pathetic and pointless in this day and age.
--
It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
In consideration of David Brooks praise of Palin (#126926)
by Bill White on Sat, 10/04/2008 - 9:55pm
David Brooks is the University of Chicago educated bobo who writes for the New York Times, I am considering whether to initiate an alumni donation boycott.
If a celebrated Maroon (Bugs Bunny, anyone?) such as Brooks is so charmed by a five college six year plan sports journalism major why does my alma mater - the University of Chicago - need my money?
Brooks either retracts, or is denounced by leading U of C professors, or else alumni should boycott making donations.
--
Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
he's there to put a friendly, reasonable face on Republican policies. I doubt he's representative of the UC alumni.
This election is doing a good job at separating commentators who are reasonably objective in their assessments from those that are in the bag. A simple reading of the transcript of the VP debate is enough to let anyone know that when it comes to Palin, there's no there there.
by Brooks and B Ra... on Sun, 10/05/2008 - 11:49am
This election is doing a good job at separating commentators who are reasonably objective in their assessments from those that are in the bag.
Hah!! to both you guys. Hank, that was a remarkably ironic assertion about folks being "reasonably objective". Among columnists with an open left or right orientation, Brooks is one of the most objective and one of the most willing to criticize his own "side". What is it about his remarks about Palin in the debate (I assume you guys are referring to his column here http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03brooks.html) that demonstrate that he is not "reasonably objective"? And why would a partisan hack write this about Palin http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html ?
And have you ever watched him on NewsHour along with Shields? Shields is a predictable partisan, almost all the time taking the Democratic/liberal "party line" and talking points, while Brooks quite often acknowledges the wrongs/weaknesses/failures/etc. of Republicans/conservatives on this or that issue or other matter in question. Of course, to you guys, that just means that they are both telling the truth!! LOL!
With regard to a lack of a reasonable degree of objectivity, it's "mirror time", gents.
... doesn't mean he's objective. It could mean, inter alia, that his ideological idee fixe - self-loathing BoBo-ism - occasionally runs orthogonal to the GOP party line.
EDIT: I mean, you can recognize the distinction; right? That criticizing your own side - or even having no (stated) side - doesn't amount to objectivity?
No, just the only one here, at least among regulars. Everyone else here is as predictable as the sunrise in terms of which side you'll take in a partisan controversy and in term of points raised on some partisan matter. As I've said on previous occasions, it's like everyone here thinks he's a spokesperson whose role is to spin for his side on Hannity & Colmes. Some is deception, some is self-deception, but it's lame either way.
As a note, I saw a surprising and refreshing exception the other day, and I noted it here http://theforvm.org/diary/spin-doctor/how-could-anyone-vote-ticket#comment-125801 even though I disagreed with his contention. Also, I recall that once BlaiseP wrote a diary defending McCain in some way. There are exceptions to every rule, I suppose.*
* But if there are exceptions to every rule, and if that is itself a rule, then there are exceptions to the rule that there are exceptions to every rule, meaning that there are rules to which there are no exceptions, so the rule contradicts itself. Speaking of which:
The following statement is true.
The preceding statement was false.
With all the expressions of opinion on matters related to partisan battles, how often do you see a liberal/Democrat here argue against that "side", and same question for conservatives/Republicans? (And I don't mean on matters of ideology, on which we'd expect such conformity, pretty much by definition.) Do you think it's just a coincidence that almost all the opinions expressed here fall along party/ideological lines, or do you reject the premise that they do?
I almost said this upfront, but left it out. Yes, conservatives sometimes criticize Republicans for not being conservative enough and liberals sometimes criticize Democrates for not being liberal enough.
I thought I could spare myself the time of adding that, but apparently not. I should have known better, since when I made a similar point (as my earlier point) on RedState, folks quickly pointed out how they were plenty critical of so-and-so Republican for favoring too much spending or not seeking low enough taxes or some other conservative blasphemy.
Now then, on what basis did you oppose the bailout?
but if someone who is relatively far to the left (I don't think PM would object to that classification) is overtly critical of the presidential candidate closest to his position - he called Obama's support of the EESA "Republican" IIRC, a mortal insult coming from PM) - how does that prove your point? By definition a true partisan would simply agree with everything his side did regardless.
I think you are missing the general level of political sophistication here, meaning among other things that there is the deep cynicism on the part of many of us w/r/t any politician that is almost inevitable after long observation of the process at the national level. I bet many liberals here, if pressed, would acknowledge that Barack Obama is not the best presidential candidate their party could have put forward; there are certainly a number of conservatives here who agree with that sentiment regarding John McCain and Sarah Palin. As I've said before, Joe Biden is arguably the most competent of the four to be President - what kind of partisan does that make me? And what does his open criticism of his favored candidate make PM?
In my view you are attempting to fit everyone into a neat but superficial classification, and while that may work for some here, it doesn't for the majority. And wait until Ken White comes back.
BTW, PM has already described the reasons he opposed the bailout; so have I. Put briefly, here are mine: there is no proof it will do anything, nor can there be without the so far nonexistent evidence that someone in charge understands how the economy got to this point in the first place. The bailout rewards bad behavior, incompetence, and arguably, theft. It nationalizes a huge sector of the economy, which is almost always a one ways street. It's probably unconstitutional for Congress to so broadly delegate its legislative powers to the Treasury Department. It is a very significant erosion of states' rights because it gives the Federal government the power to interfere with and remake private contracts between lenders and borrowers; worse, this will be done ex post facto. Etc. blah blah blah.
Yes, you are missing something, although it's understandable. By "partisan" I don't mean just partisan on behalf of a party or candidate. A cause such as liberalism or a particular position on an issue or set of issues* can be the basis for partisanship as well, and even aside from that point, presumably if a liberal is critical of a Democrat for being insufficiently liberal, he is implicitly arguing that a Republican/conservative is even worse on that particular issue or in general, so that hardly counts as an a demonstration of thinking and expression of opinion outside of a partisan mindset and rhetoric. If a conservative heaps criticism upon a Republican politician for agreeing to some compromise with Democrats on, say, taxes (agreeing on a tax increase or agreeing to less of a cut in spending), presumably they are implying that the Democrats are even worse. It's still partisanship, both in terms of implying which party is better and also, if one of the arguments is that "tax cuts always increase revenues" and one knows that that's bullsh*t or has simply swallowed that bullsh*t from Rush without bothering to check non-partisan sources, then that person is engaging in issue-level partisanship (partisanship in pursuit of a particular policy / position on an issue).
As I've said before, Joe Biden is arguably the most competent of the four to be President - what kind of partisan does that make me?
It makes you at least not a pure partisan. If you often acknowledge such things, I would say you don't fit my characterization of folks here. I don't know if that's the case or not, but it's possible that a small minority here don't fit my admittedly sweeping statement. Do you think that it is common or rare to see someone on Forvm make such an acknowledgment of relative strength of the "other side" or relative weakness or failure of one's own (and again, I don't mean criticism for not being far enough to an ideological extreme for one's taste)?
* I hope that type of partisanship doesn't get confused with generally preferring positions in line with that ideology, which one would expect and which I'm not calling partisanship. Not the same. Hope I don't have to explain the distinction.
reeeeally? Your criticism was unrelated to ideology? Not to a significant degree a matter of who benefits vs. who pays (or vs. who else could benefit from spending those $$$)?
And not a matter of concern that the Democratic party could suffer from going along with it, either?
Remember, if I choose to take the time to do so, I can check threads on which you've commented on the bailout and produce quotes and links to those comments. That's one nice feature of blogs: the record.
Your first para sounds like the simple result of a consistent (#127071)
by tomsyl on Sun, 10/05/2008 - 10:53pm
political philosophy to me. People have views of, say, the appropriate role/limitation of government in our lives, and there are two parties that try to sweep into their folds people from the two sides - more vs. less - to form a critical mass for purposes of fund- and vote-raising, power consolidation, and (not least) acceptance of mediocre pols based on branding. Given the desire of the powerful to control public officials without wanting, or being able to, get elected themselves, weak and fairly dim personalities make the best politicians for them to control.
But back to the point, what you describe as non-partisanship sounds suspiciously like inconsistency, or maybe indecisiveness, to me. After all, despite the empty vessels we're offered, ultimately we have to pick the least lesser of the two. Maybe you'd like to take on the issue of why no third party ever has (and IMO never will) have s hot at getting someone elected to high office, no matter how capable their candidate might be.
As I said in the comment to which you're replying, I had hoped that people wouldn't be confused and I wouldn't have to explain, but my comment at the above link provides a definition/explanation/example.
Look at a lot of matters over which partisans clash. Many have nothing to do with ideology, for example, all the debate over what candidate X really meant by such and such comment (e.g., "lipstick on a pig") or whether or not such and such charge squares with the facts -- in other words, differences of opinion on matters that are not ideological and about which there is no reason for opinions to line up along party (or ideological) lines, and yet they do. For example, the recount controversy in 2000 and ultimately the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Every Gore-supporter I knew strongly believed that clearly continuing with recounts was the appropriate thing to do, and every Bush-supporter I knew felt the opposite strongly, first basing their opinions on notions of fairness and/or proper procedure and/or whether or not recounting (or not) or doing so in one way or another was more conducive to an accurate count and/or reflecting the will of the people or proper democracy, etc., and then adding constitutional/legal arguments to the Supreme Court decision, all mysteriously lining up along party (candidate support) lines, including the Justices themelves (!) even when the issue was not related to ideology/political philosophy to constitutional/judicial philosophy (in fact, while I'm no expert and I'd welcome correction/dispute, it seems arguable that conservatives, a great many of whom are always arguing for greater federalism, would be expected to prefer to let the Florida Supreme Court's ruling stand and allow the recount to continue).
I also gave the example of Pedro Martinez pushing 72 year-old, short, fat Yankee coach Don Zimmer to the ground after Zimmer threw a wild punch at him (after Martinez threw a bean ball at a Yankee hitter). Seemed Yankees fans overwhelmingly thought (or at least overwhelmingly said, and I assume generally sincerely) that what Martinez did was clearly outrageous, while Red Sox fans thought it was justified or at least excusable. No reason it should have lined up that way, right? Why did it? Partisanship. Partisan bias and perhaps in some cases or to some extent, disingenuous partisan spin (e.g., deliberate distortion/selectivity of the facts, exaggeration, etc.)
See what I mean?
[edit below]
And re: what you describe as non-partisanship sounds suspiciously like inconsistency, or maybe indecisiveness, to me.
Not at all. Someone who is not a hyperpartisan can even be more extreme and more consistent ideologically than someone who is. Again, see my Olympics example at that link. If one is maintaining a reasonable degree of objectivity, making a good-faith effort to determine the "truth" (rather than, for example, limiting one's information to partisan sources), and speaking sincerely (rather than deliberately distorting, spinning, exaggerating, selectively including/omitting facts and arguments, etc.), than one is not thinking and acting in a partisan manner. The output -- the conclusions and opinions one ends up with, and the consistency thereof -- are separate matters, not dependent on the degree of partisanship.
Claive Vidiz from Brazil, toasts his record breaking collection of Scottish Whiskies on October 7, 2008 in Edinburgh, Scotland.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
)It would be wrong to break an old man's heart.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Seems to me scouring Scotland is enough of a chore. (cue Trainspotting rant)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If "Ponytail Guy" shows up, I'd suggest that you politely tell him to go f**k himself, and go about your business. Just a thought.
--- Login or register to post comments
).
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the only question is whether he will be targeting McCain for the low road character assassination tactics of his campaign or targeting Obama's lack of patriotism and his ties to radical terrorists? In other words, will pony tail guy's questions reflect the electorates real concerns with the deteriorating standards of current political discourse and the conduct of the candidates and their campaigns, or will the questions echo the continued stranglehold of unseemly political propaganda championed by McCain/Palin?
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )mccain is artful enough to 'politely' tell someone to f**k himself, MSE.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Lex Luthor wins!
** shamelessly stolen from a post at reddit **
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
)BDS
- Login or register to post comments
)Cool video of hurricane sized whirlpools on the sun:
Steven Palmer Peterson
- Login or register to post comments
)"Won't you come? ...
Wash away the rain,
Whirlpool on the Sun,
Won't you come, Won't you come ..."
Tension breaker ... had to be done!
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's the same old thing as yesterday.
Etc. sting at his most mediocre.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )mentioning Sting after Soundgarden? What are you doing?
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In fact, I recommended them to vin. Haven't heard a "thanks pal" back, though, for some reason . . .
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but like catchy says, I got my eye on you. Slip up with one boy band reference and it's all over.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That was the best album he was ever involved in.
Mind you, I live in a sting-free zone.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )started its plummet, and see no reason to stop now.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Some of the lyrics are pretty cool:
But, yeah, the song doesn't live up to its snippets.
--Steven Palmer Peterson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"Before you accuse me," goes the famous blues lyric, "take a look at yourself." Well according to Chaucer's wife of Bath, probably literature's final answer to the question whether it's possible to be "great" at marriage, this is exactly backwards.
Accuse first, accuse loudest, accuse in the most strident tones and don't be afraid to turn on the waterworks. That's how arguments are won, according to Alisoun.
And so McCain today comes out with this stunner. Obama, he says, becomes "touchy" and "angry" when questioned on policy specifics. This after a week when Palin claimed that her abysmal Katie Couric interview went so badly because she was "annoyed" by having to answer follow-up questions. And after John McCain spent 20 minutes trying not to pop over the desk and manhandle the Des Moines Register editorial board for doing the same thing. Obama gets touchy, and angry.
As a bonus to looking up the Wife of Bath, I came across an artifact of Reformation history I'd forgotten all about: the Wycliffian movement known as Lollardy. Lollardy was a pretty fun movement, as movements go. Hilarious, in fact, as adherents of the sect would go around LOLing at the drop of a garter. LOLing at this, LOLing at that, Lollardy was a real barrel of laughs. We should all be more like the Lollards. I wonder what ever became of them.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
)McCain announces he will go negative; Obama reacts by accusing McCain of trying to change the subject; McCain craftily attempts this new gambit of calling Obama "touchy". (One imagines an innocently arched eyebrow -- "What are you going on about, Senator?")
The American voting public, still having trouble paying their bills and worried about the future, probably does not notice, but at least we pundits and junkies have something to discuss.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Your comment is a view of the meta from 10,000 feet.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but hey, this is The Forvm*. Meta is what we're all about. Doesn't make it good campaign strategy.
*In fact, I am strongly reminded of some of the more tedious "Posting rules!" "Nuh-uh, posting rules on you!" threads we've had lately.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Now you're goin meta on your meta of the political meta.
One more of those and I'll break your skinny hierarchy.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I get the feeling I'm missing something here.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is betta.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes, people really do talk like that here. Don't let Dan Inouye's counterfeit prep school accent or Obama's Southernisms fool you.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )just like the "Obama doesn't understand" line in the first debate, when your opponent explains at length it becomes clear that he really does understand. Similarly, saying that Obama is touchy and defensive will fall flat when Obama manifestly does not become touchy and defensive during the debate.
I think I know how McCain could actually turn all this around, but I'm not spilling it til after the election.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I think I know how McCain could actually turn all this around
and then kill you once you've told me.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'm sure you'd kill me either way, the only thing keeping me safe is that I maintain the site.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )BBR was right all along!
--I had discovered a great secret. That everyone loves themselves more than they love anybody else. And if I wanted them to love me, I better be like THEM!... Ken Nordine
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but he's not, he's just an average guy who can kill someone with a thought. That's what philosophy does for you.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You'll know your day of reckoning has come when you see my ride near your home:
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )
--Me: We! -- Ali
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that's got to be one of the nicest cars I've ever seen from Columbus.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )o-o-o-o
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Couldn't seem to get anything else for my mortgage-backed securities
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )where the rear bumper used to be? Mugen?
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )On a related note, I spent about 15 minutes earlier listening to the cable talking heads. That Mad Money tool was telling people to buy because, I kid you not, "the stocks will eventually go up, though they will go down over the next 48 hours" and "even if the DOW drops over the next few days, it will probably outperform expectations". So if you buy now, you probably won't lose as much as you think! Sign me up!
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Presumably the photo was taken on Wall Street & I presume the author was thinking of '29 rather than '01
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/real-anger/
- Login or register to post comments
)I just . . . wow.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
)those family reunion videos. We have our flaws, but in our defense as you can see we were into recycling long before it was cool. Done with that beer can? Clunk! Back to mother nature it goes!
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )This is exactly the sort of thing that makes me think the Republicans would struggle if they nominated Jindal.
They'd have to hope that they could pick up big, blue states.
On the other hand, I think a Republican like Colin Powell wouldn't have as much of a problem. Powell's not "exotic".
--Steven Palmer Peterson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nt
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nt
--Steven Palmer Peterson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"hasn't given up on her yet"
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Actually, that's part of the problem for Jindal -- if he goes, he'll likely have to go up against Clinton in '16.
And that happy fellow with the colorful language on the back of the scooter will be voting too.
--Steven Palmer Peterson
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Remember Dukakis in the tank? That's going to be nearly every photo op of Jindal. I called him a twerp in another thread and that's what I mean by it. He's small and skinny... won't go over well with usa voters. Plus he's an exorcist.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Harry Reid wouldn't be in the Senate.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Your side has touted the 'Commander in Chief' manly-man worship angle long enough that neither Reid, nor Jindal has a chance in Hell at being president.
Though Jindal probably carries a talisman of some sort that would allow him to withstand Hellfire for a slightly longer time than Reid.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )T1: Harry Reid is a wimp
T2: Nancy Pelosi is one of several female members of Congress. Barbara Boxes is also a member of a House of Congress, and she is also female.
T3: Al Gore used to have a big inefficient house
T4: Michael Moore is Fat
T5: It is unpleasant to pay taxes.
TT1: (Temporary T1) Chris Dodd got paid off to cause the financial crisis.
Just saying.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )- Login or register to post comments
| parent )those folks are having a good time.
It's just that their family tree probably looks a bit like a Celtic knot.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )there's just a small error in the facts department.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Alaska swings blue in a key demographic -- Starbucks to Wal-Mart ratio of 3.57.
Though I always thought the Starbucks thing was a blue herring. Starbucks exploded not because America is rife with liberalism -- but because America is rife with reasonably well-off people who like coffee. They're in rural Virginia and have drive-thrus off the 35 in Texas.
Also, Starbucks is where to go to meet cute chicks. Had I bothered to spend time there, I would have met my wife earlier.
--Steven Palmer Peterson
- Login or register to post comments
)This is probably the coolest timewaster ever.
http://www.kongregate.com/games/ColinNorthway/fantastic-contraption
Once you beat a harder level, be sure to check out some of the other people's designs on the website. Some are pretty ingenious.
- Login or register to post comments
)Lost of lost work time there.
--More Wagster!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Finally found an embeddable version:
Not bad!
--Steven Palmer Peterson
- Login or register to post comments
)Did anyone else go? Did you notice all the Obama signs?
Also, there is no city in this country better than San Francisco.
- Login or register to post comments
):-)
--But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The above date was the last time the Los Angeles Dodgers swept a post-season series*: until tonight.
It's starting to feel a lot like 1988. . .
* Some guy named Koufax won Game Four of the 1963 World Series for the Dodgers over the Yankees on that date. You may have heard of him.
--- Login or register to post comments
)Ain't he the kid that was drafted into the Israel Baseball League last year? Plays for the Modi'in Miracle?
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Worth bookmarking. Here.
--To think is not enough; you must think of something -- Jules Renard
- Login or register to post comments
)the cult of personality isn't new, I'm old enough to remember it strongly during the Reagan administration and even to an extent under Nixon (mostly by the extreme anti-communists). And to be fair, you saw some of it under Clinton, although nowhere near the same extent (I haven't heard of any move to put Clinton on Mount Rushmore, or to have a monument named after him in every state and county in the country). All successful leaders get it to some extent, the Republicans just seem to need more public validation for some reason.
As to credibility, Bush did the heavy lifting but it looks like McCain will deliver the coup de grace if he goes as negative as he's rumored to be doing. Picking Palin (and the rapturous reviews she's been getting from most Republicans) shows that the anti-intellectualism has finally reached the ticket itself, labeled as anti-elitism.
I don't want to jinx anything, but all the trends are pointing towards a large win, with big pickups in the Senate and House as well.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's going to take years for the Republican party to recover from its self-inflicted wounds. And I'm not really sure how it will. I mean, "We need to be more doctrinaire, and that was where Bush failed" really succeed?
I sense that we may be reaching something like the rest of the Anglophonie, with a kind of center-left technocratic consensus, with most parties tweaking an accepted conventional wisdom.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the social conservatives won't change, or at least not for a few decades. Likewise with the neocons. The business wing (northeastern "Rockefeller republicans") could, I think, move into the Dem coalition, especially if the current economic problems are as serious as I think they are. Basically everyone who's attached to the Republican party for reason-based rather than emotion-based criteria are potential future Democrats.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Are going to eventually come to the realization that they're getting very, very little return for what they've put into the GOP. In fact, there were intimations that they were starting to realize this way back in 1998 when the Clinton impeachment failed messily and embarrassingly. There were people saying that America was just too morally corrupt to be worth saving, but also people who were saying that maybe, maybe, relying on political power to achieve anything approaching a spiritual transformation was an exercise in futility.
Now then, with the election of GW, all of that soul searching went out the window and folks were right back to looking to turn the power of the State to their own ends.
I suspect, however, that people are going to realize that the GOP had almost complete control over the government and their only real accomplishment for the Christian right has been that it is marginally more difficult for horny teenagers to get hold of contraceptives.
OTOH, there is the fact that the Democratic party is home to people who believe that if a live baby accidentally pops out during a late term abortion then this baby has to die to preserve a woman's right to choose. So the GOP will still have some electoral strength from them, but I suspect that as far as fiscal policy, pretty soon even the devotion to tax cuts at all costs is going to quietly get tossed out the window.
As for "the neocons," well, the term itself is far, far to misused. To rephrase things slightly, there's plenty of room in a broadly consensus politics for a belief that robust military force is necessary. The actual amount of people who want to actively go looking for wars is small enough that they're not terribly important. The run-up to the Iraq Unpleasantness gave "the neocons" a prominence that they simply don't deserve. Seriously, when you put a Texas oil man and the son of a convert from Marxism who leans Straussian in the same category because they both favor military force, then the label of someone as a "neocon" has basically lost all meaning.
Basically, I think that this latest round of financial unpleasantness is going to wind up shaking the political landscape pretty severely. Now, "broad center-left consensus" doesn't sound like much of a revolution, but I think that you can legitimately call it that.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )the way I detect a coalition is when people express views that aren't normally the ones that are part of their core beliefs - like social conservatives and big business supporters calling for military intervention in ... well, I've lost count of how many places we're supposed to invade to defeat "Islamofascism". Likewise when neocons and big business types go on extensively about abortion, or when social conservatives and neocons rant about capital gains taxes. That kind of cross-adopting of other groups views is what makes a coalition.
In that respect I don't think the neocons have been given a prominence that is undeserved. From what I've been able to gather, quite a few conservatives are upset that Bush went all wobbly on them in the last few years. McCain at least presented himself as the candidate most comfortable with the use of the military, in fact he's been much more strident about that than about economic or social issues.
I think that the electorate reaching a broad center left consensus would be quite a revolution, but we won't see if it's true until we see how the next round of R candidates frame their issues. The standard attacks about Obama being a radical Marxist that I see on righty blogs doesn't convince me that they're ready for it yet.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )"OTOH, there is the fact that the Democratic party is home to people who believe that if a live baby accidentally pops out during a late term abortion then this baby has to die to preserve a woman's right to choose. "
Huh?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )For example, was put to the Illinois state legislature. It stipulated that if, during a late term abortion a live baby accidentally popped out, then the physicians on hand were not allowed to kill this baby.
Obama and many other Democrats voted against this bill because they felt that acknowledging the babies that popped out were human beings who shouldn't be killed would endanger a woman's right to an abortion in general.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but your language seems carefully chosen, and suggests to me that you understand Obama's objections and are maybe just being a bit disingenuous.
The IILA was designed to discourage doctors from performing abortions by holding them civilly and possibly criminally liable for the "deaths" of some PREVIABLE fetuses outside the womb.
Primitive circulatory systems are basically developed and functional by 6 weeks, maybe earlier. Of course, it's ridiculous to try to perform any sort of medical care to a 6 week old fetus outside the womb. But because the 6 week old fetus would have been a "child" under Illinois law (had IILA passed), doing nothing could have left the doctor civilly liable for wrongful death and medical malpractice, and criminally liable for child abuse and negligent homicide/involuntary manslaughter.
EDIT: and actually, because the law explicitly purported not to conflict with existing federal law on abortion, the interesting bits would have been entirely invalid, and the rest would have been useless by definition.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )that it would be normal practice for a live baby 'popping out' accidentally during a late term abortion procedure, to be killed by the physicians on hand?
On what basis do you justify making such a claim?
Are you aware if Obama perhaps preferred some other legislative option to the IL proposal.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Because it was superfluous.
And also because he saw it as the thin end of the wedge against Roe.
And I was actually very, very pleased to hear that the story of an infant tossed into a trash can in a Chicago hospital was almost certainly made up (pleased that baby-killing is not a part of hospital routines, that is. I was actually appalled by the fact that folks have no problem lying for what they perceive as the greater good).
I brought up the IL legislation as the most egregious example of the sort of thing that will allow the GOP to keep getting votes even when the party's tenure has pretty much been a goatf**k from top to bottom.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )They didn't vote against the bill for the reasons you state, but for 2 reasons. There was already legal protection in IL (since 1975) Law and the fears of liability for doctors (who opposed the bill for this reason) and that it was (I guess this is three things) the grandstanding law (again there were already legal protections in place) was a vehicle designed to chip away at Roe vs. Wade, which is the only reason you and others give.
But all that nuance about a previous law making this one nothing but grandstanding and a back door attack on abortion rights and trying to protect doctors from a mishmash of rule, gets lost.
The "infanticide" meme came from McCain's camp...on of his advisors. And the insane Jill Stanek amongst others should be mentioned along with the IL law and it's push.
Do you have any other examples?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Was brought up as an example of why some people will vote for a party that's been pretty much acting against the interests of the United States for the last few years.
And it's the bit about protecting Roe that people remember. Saying, "I voted against the legislation because it was superfluous" will go unremarked. Saying, "I voted against this legislation because talking about the personhood of premature infants is a slippery slope" will be remembered.
Suppose, for example, someone proposed legislation that made it illegal to kill kittens, skin them, and make hats out of their pelts. Suppose a legislator says, "I voted against the legislation because there are already statutes on the books against cruelty to animals. Also, if you say that kittens have rights under the law, eventually that will be extended to pets and livestock, and then PETA will finally get want they want in their goal to make us all vegans."
Which one of those two statements will be remembered? Even if the legislator has no desire ever to wear hats made out of kitten fur, he'll still be remembered as the kitten hat guy.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and making your political opponent deny rumors of their carnal knowledge of farm animals, springs to mind.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )PETA? Not even close. Though I understand there is an industry in China that does exactly that. And bunnies, too. It is you that is equating kittens to humans here.
Of course, the part about people not remembering the nuance will go unremembered...your original post that brought this up proves that point. It's what the people pushing the meme intend.
A private, and for the main, rare thing that is a profoundly painful event for the vast majority of families (because we all know that waiting till the baby is late term and viable to abort is so much fracking fun!..it's just "popping them out"..no big deal at all!)...comparing that to the interests of the United States as a nation...this is where some people have gone nuts and lost sight of what the interests of our nation really are.
The reason Obama is remembered as the "infanticide" guy is because the meme was pushed by a McCain advisor. Awesome!
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The act did nothing -- nobody's allowed to kill babies under any circumstances. Late term abortions are nigh-exclusively performed on fetuses which are either already dead or nonviable.
Nothing "pops out" during an abortion. The phrasing itself is so absurd that it constitutes self-mockery by the pro-life crowd. You'd think people so obsessed with vaginas and uteruses would have a passing understanding of how they function.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Concerned those rare instances in which there's a dilation and extraction abortion going on and the physicians fail to keep the head in the womb before they've gotten a chance to destroy the brain. At that point, you have what amounts to a live baby on your hands.
Now, you may believe that those circumstances are rare enough so as not to merit legislation, or that the wriggling pink thing is not a person, but no one disputes that the described circumstances (occasionally) happen.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I'd be very, very interested in numbers on that one.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The social conservatives and neocons are rationally attached because the GOP is the best vehicle to serve their (malign) interests. It's the Rockefeller Republicans who are irrationally attached; class loyalty is both pathetic and pointless in this day and age.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )David Brooks is the University of Chicago educated bobo who writes for the New York Times, I am considering whether to initiate an alumni donation boycott.
If a celebrated Maroon (Bugs Bunny, anyone?) such as Brooks is so charmed by a five college six year plan sports journalism major why does my alma mater - the University of Chicago - need my money?
Brooks either retracts, or is denounced by leading U of C professors, or else alumni should boycott making donations.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )he's there to put a friendly, reasonable face on Republican policies. I doubt he's representative of the UC alumni.
This election is doing a good job at separating commentators who are reasonably objective in their assessments from those that are in the bag. A simple reading of the transcript of the VP debate is enough to let anyone know that when it comes to Palin, there's no there there.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )This election is doing a good job at separating commentators who are reasonably objective in their assessments from those that are in the bag.
Hah!! to both you guys. Hank, that was a remarkably ironic assertion about folks being "reasonably objective". Among columnists with an open left or right orientation, Brooks is one of the most objective and one of the most willing to criticize his own "side". What is it about his remarks about Palin in the debate (I assume you guys are referring to his column here http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/opinion/03brooks.html) that demonstrate that he is not "reasonably objective"? And why would a partisan hack write this about Palin http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/16/opinion/16brooks.html ?
And have you ever watched him on NewsHour along with Shields? Shields is a predictable partisan, almost all the time taking the Democratic/liberal "party line" and talking points, while Brooks quite often acknowledges the wrongs/weaknesses/failures/etc. of Republicans/conservatives on this or that issue or other matter in question. Of course, to you guys, that just means that they are both telling the truth!! LOL!
With regard to a lack of a reasonable degree of objectivity, it's "mirror time", gents.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )... doesn't mean he's objective. It could mean, inter alia, that his ideological idee fixe - self-loathing BoBo-ism - occasionally runs orthogonal to the GOP party line.
EDIT: I mean, you can recognize the distinction; right? That criticizing your own side - or even having no (stated) side - doesn't amount to objectivity?
--Brevis esse laboro, obscurus fio.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )[edit] sure.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )No, just the only one here, at least among regulars. Everyone else here is as predictable as the sunrise in terms of which side you'll take in a partisan controversy and in term of points raised on some partisan matter. As I've said on previous occasions, it's like everyone here thinks he's a spokesperson whose role is to spin for his side on Hannity & Colmes. Some is deception, some is self-deception, but it's lame either way.
As a note, I saw a surprising and refreshing exception the other day, and I noted it here http://theforvm.org/diary/spin-doctor/how-could-anyone-vote-ticket#comment-125801 even though I disagreed with his contention. Also, I recall that once BlaiseP wrote a diary defending McCain in some way. There are exceptions to every rule, I suppose.*
* But if there are exceptions to every rule, and if that is itself a rule, then there are exceptions to the rule that there are exceptions to every rule, meaning that there are rules to which there are no exceptions, so the rule contradicts itself. Speaking of which:
The following statement is true.
The preceding statement was false.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Not all the regulars are partisan by any stretch.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )everyone here - everyone - is not only partisan but hyper partisan, only Brooks sees the true nature of reality. Just ask him.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You love those snarky one-liners, don'tcha Hank? Not as into actual debate or even defending the implications of your one-liners, though. Feel free to do so at http://theforvm.org/diary/bill-white/raising-mccain-higher-taxes-stealth-undermining-health-care#comment-127019
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )With all the expressions of opinion on matters related to partisan battles, how often do you see a liberal/Democrat here argue against that "side", and same question for conservatives/Republicans? (And I don't mean on matters of ideology, on which we'd expect such conformity, pretty much by definition.) Do you think it's just a coincidence that almost all the opinions expressed here fall along party/ideological lines, or do you reject the premise that they do?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...bailout decision.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I almost said this upfront, but left it out. Yes, conservatives sometimes criticize Republicans for not being conservative enough and liberals sometimes criticize Democrates for not being liberal enough.
I thought I could spare myself the time of adding that, but apparently not. I should have known better, since when I made a similar point (as my earlier point) on RedState, folks quickly pointed out how they were plenty critical of so-and-so Republican for favoring too much spending or not seeking low enough taxes or some other conservative blasphemy.
Now then, on what basis did you oppose the bailout?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but if someone who is relatively far to the left (I don't think PM would object to that classification) is overtly critical of the presidential candidate closest to his position - he called Obama's support of the EESA "Republican" IIRC, a mortal insult coming from PM) - how does that prove your point? By definition a true partisan would simply agree with everything his side did regardless.
I think you are missing the general level of political sophistication here, meaning among other things that there is the deep cynicism on the part of many of us w/r/t any politician that is almost inevitable after long observation of the process at the national level. I bet many liberals here, if pressed, would acknowledge that Barack Obama is not the best presidential candidate their party could have put forward; there are certainly a number of conservatives here who agree with that sentiment regarding John McCain and Sarah Palin. As I've said before, Joe Biden is arguably the most competent of the four to be President - what kind of partisan does that make me? And what does his open criticism of his favored candidate make PM?
In my view you are attempting to fit everyone into a neat but superficial classification, and while that may work for some here, it doesn't for the majority. And wait until Ken White comes back.
BTW, PM has already described the reasons he opposed the bailout; so have I. Put briefly, here are mine: there is no proof it will do anything, nor can there be without the so far nonexistent evidence that someone in charge understands how the economy got to this point in the first place. The bailout rewards bad behavior, incompetence, and arguably, theft. It nationalizes a huge sector of the economy, which is almost always a one ways street. It's probably unconstitutional for Congress to so broadly delegate its legislative powers to the Treasury Department. It is a very significant erosion of states' rights because it gives the Federal government the power to interfere with and remake private contracts between lenders and borrowers; worse, this will be done ex post facto. Etc. blah blah blah.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Yes, you are missing something, although it's understandable. By "partisan" I don't mean just partisan on behalf of a party or candidate. A cause such as liberalism or a particular position on an issue or set of issues* can be the basis for partisanship as well, and even aside from that point, presumably if a liberal is critical of a Democrat for being insufficiently liberal, he is implicitly arguing that a Republican/conservative is even worse on that particular issue or in general, so that hardly counts as an a demonstration of thinking and expression of opinion outside of a partisan mindset and rhetoric. If a conservative heaps criticism upon a Republican politician for agreeing to some compromise with Democrats on, say, taxes (agreeing on a tax increase or agreeing to less of a cut in spending), presumably they are implying that the Democrats are even worse. It's still partisanship, both in terms of implying which party is better and also, if one of the arguments is that "tax cuts always increase revenues" and one knows that that's bullsh*t or has simply swallowed that bullsh*t from Rush without bothering to check non-partisan sources, then that person is engaging in issue-level partisanship (partisanship in pursuit of a particular policy / position on an issue).
As I've said before, Joe Biden is arguably the most competent of the four to be President - what kind of partisan does that make me?
It makes you at least not a pure partisan. If you often acknowledge such things, I would say you don't fit my characterization of folks here. I don't know if that's the case or not, but it's possible that a small minority here don't fit my admittedly sweeping statement. Do you think that it is common or rare to see someone on Forvm make such an acknowledgment of relative strength of the "other side" or relative weakness or failure of one's own (and again, I don't mean criticism for not being far enough to an ideological extreme for one's taste)?
* I hope that type of partisanship doesn't get confused with generally preferring positions in line with that ideology, which one would expect and which I'm not calling partisanship. Not the same. Hope I don't have to explain the distinction.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It was incompetence.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )reeeeally? Your criticism was unrelated to ideology? Not to a significant degree a matter of who benefits vs. who pays (or vs. who else could benefit from spending those $$$)?
And not a matter of concern that the Democratic party could suffer from going along with it, either?
Remember, if I choose to take the time to do so, I can check threads on which you've commented on the bailout and produce quotes and links to those comments. That's one nice feature of blogs: the record.
Sure you don't want to, er, "clarify" a bit?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But my criticism was based fundamentally on the fact that it was very bad policy, full stop.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )political philosophy to me. People have views of, say, the appropriate role/limitation of government in our lives, and there are two parties that try to sweep into their folds people from the two sides - more vs. less - to form a critical mass for purposes of fund- and vote-raising, power consolidation, and (not least) acceptance of mediocre pols based on branding. Given the desire of the powerful to control public officials without wanting, or being able to, get elected themselves, weak and fairly dim personalities make the best politicians for them to control.
But back to the point, what you describe as non-partisanship sounds suspiciously like inconsistency, or maybe indecisiveness, to me. After all, despite the empty vessels we're offered, ultimately we have to pick the least lesser of the two. Maybe you'd like to take on the issue of why no third party ever has (and IMO never will) have s hot at getting someone elected to high office, no matter how capable their candidate might be.
--Even a dead midget is far from light. - Confucius
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )First, I more or less defined "partisanship" elsewhere on this thread -- see http://theforvm.org/diary/m-scott-eiland/weekend-open-thread-2#comment-127061
As I said in the comment to which you're replying, I had hoped that people wouldn't be confused and I wouldn't have to explain, but my comment at the above link provides a definition/explanation/example.
Look at a lot of matters over which partisans clash. Many have nothing to do with ideology, for example, all the debate over what candidate X really meant by such and such comment (e.g., "lipstick on a pig") or whether or not such and such charge squares with the facts -- in other words, differences of opinion on matters that are not ideological and about which there is no reason for opinions to line up along party (or ideological) lines, and yet they do. For example, the recount controversy in 2000 and ultimately the Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore. Every Gore-supporter I knew strongly believed that clearly continuing with recounts was the appropriate thing to do, and every Bush-supporter I knew felt the opposite strongly, first basing their opinions on notions of fairness and/or proper procedure and/or whether or not recounting (or not) or doing so in one way or another was more conducive to an accurate count and/or reflecting the will of the people or proper democracy, etc., and then adding constitutional/legal arguments to the Supreme Court decision, all mysteriously lining up along party (candidate support) lines, including the Justices themelves (!) even when the issue was not related to ideology/political philosophy to constitutional/judicial philosophy (in fact, while I'm no expert and I'd welcome correction/dispute, it seems arguable that conservatives, a great many of whom are always arguing for greater federalism, would be expected to prefer to let the Florida Supreme Court's ruling stand and allow the recount to continue).
I also gave the example of Pedro Martinez pushing 72 year-old, short, fat Yankee coach Don Zimmer to the ground after Zimmer threw a wild punch at him (after Martinez threw a bean ball at a Yankee hitter). Seemed Yankees fans overwhelmingly thought (or at least overwhelmingly said, and I assume generally sincerely) that what Martinez did was clearly outrageous, while Red Sox fans thought it was justified or at least excusable. No reason it should have lined up that way, right? Why did it? Partisanship. Partisan bias and perhaps in some cases or to some extent, disingenuous partisan spin (e.g., deliberate distortion/selectivity of the facts, exaggeration, etc.)
See what I mean?
[edit below]
And re:
what you describe as non-partisanship sounds suspiciously like inconsistency, or maybe indecisiveness, to me.
Not at all. Someone who is not a hyperpartisan can even be more extreme and more consistent ideologically than someone who is. Again, see my Olympics example at that link. If one is maintaining a reasonable degree of objectivity, making a good-faith effort to determine the "truth" (rather than, for example, limiting one's information to partisan sources), and speaking sincerely (rather than deliberately distorting, spinning, exaggerating, selectively including/omitting facts and arguments, etc.), than one is not thinking and acting in a partisan manner. The output -- the conclusions and opinions one ends up with, and the consistency thereof -- are separate matters, not dependent on the degree of partisanship.