PDA

View Full Version : Bloggingheads 911: Miami


Bloggingheads
05-22-2008, 10:29 PM

fedorovingtonboop
05-22-2008, 10:39 PM
thanks for addressing the sexism issue, guys. too bad it wasn't discussed in the media until after Hillary lost but next time a woman runs this problem will already be out in the open.

graz
05-22-2008, 10:53 PM
thanks for addressing the sexism issue, guys. too bad it wasn't discussed in the media until after Hillary lost but next time a woman runs this problem will already be out in the open.

Nice job of cleaning up your act and avoiding banishment to the back pages.

herr
05-22-2008, 11:10 PM
Very interesting discussion of sexism--and I agree with a lot of it. But it does seem like there are many more complicating examples of women in executive positions than Megan and Dan allow for--Angela Merkel, for eg, is currently the Chancellor of Germany, Carly Fiorina, Indra Nooyi (Pepsi) are (or were) prominent fortune 500 CEOs, there are numerous University Presidents who are women (most recently Harvard)....

These things don't contradict the sexism that is being discussed. But it does suggest that the way that it works is more complicated than the view that women do well in negotiation roles (secretaries of state, attorney general--etc) and not in executive positions--at least in Anglo-European countries

nojp
05-22-2008, 11:33 PM
:Dan " dems are nervous about not winning"

SO Dan are you taking all the action on the Dems not gaining in the election.
There should be no one to take that bet by your assertion

nervous yes ....about losing no
That is like the media saying Oregon is a rich liberal state.....
white yes racist no

bjkeefe
05-22-2008, 11:40 PM
I second the recommendation for Packer's article (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer/?yrail) (which is, strictly speaking, about the decline of Conservatism, not the GOP). It's not a liberal bashing-the-right piece -- it reads like history.

Alt link: all on one page (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/05/26/080526fa_fact_packer/?currentPage=all)

fedorovingtonboop
05-22-2008, 11:54 PM
thanks! I knew i had the first post and, therefore, an obvious chance to get deleted for a record 3 times in three days but I wasn't sure if anyone would actually see it before it got deleted so I just wrote some innocuous, boring post. zzzzzzzzzzzz......
man, I even had another female speaker whose appearance could've been commented on.........ah, hell....
Megan, I've always wanted to tell you this: you're fuckin' HOT!!
I like the make-up and pleasant lighting/background in your latest diavlogs.

Hey, instead of deleting this whole post, can you just delete the offensive parts?

razib
05-23-2008, 12:21 AM
am i the only one who wasn't amused by dan's reference to megan as an "ignorant s**t"...some things shouldn't even be said in jest!

graz
05-23-2008, 12:40 AM
am i the only one who wasn't amused by dan's reference to megan as an "ignorant s**t"...some things shouldn't even be said in jest!
He thought it so important that he had to say it twice. But, I wasn't offended, especially as it was clearly a joke - just not funny. And Megan didn't feel the need to comment. She is clearly an intelligent, strong, assertive woman. Perhaps destined for a leadership role.
I take it that you were offended?

StillmanThomas
05-23-2008, 12:47 AM
Another incredibly shallow discussion of sexism by a smart, accomplished woman who blithely ignores the disgustingly sexist remarks made by Clinton surrogates Carville and Ferraro. Sexism and racism go both ways, Megan.

When Glenn Loury (for example) talks about racism, he never fails to note the racism inherent in the 80-90 percent support Obama receives from blacks. But I rarely hear women talk about the sexism in the Clinton campaign. Carville's remarks about Hillary having three testicles and Obama one, or about Obama's "hiding behind the NYT editorial board's skirts" are vicious, disgusting attacks we've come to expect from many in the Clinton orbit.

Further, you'd be hard pressed to find any woman who has done less for and more against women than Hillary Clinton, from opposing unions as a member of WalMart's BOD, to threatening to annihilate 70 million Iranis, most of whom are women and children, to her insistence that Bill fight to the death against the Paula Jones lawsuit, including sleazy attacks like "You never know what you'll find when you drag a dollar bill through a trailer park." There's James Carville, that uber-feminist spokesperson, again.

Megan, you're too smart and too accomplished to avoid facing up to why so many men and women can't stand Mr. or Ms. Clinton.

Chelsea for president in 2016!

razib
05-23-2008, 01:15 AM
sir,

attempts at humor don't excuse *SEXISM*

graz
05-23-2008, 01:34 AM
sir,

attempts at humor don't excuse *SEXISM*

Explain please?

AemJeff
05-23-2008, 01:55 AM
I didn't think that references to just-diagnosed brain cancer were funny, or were even the kind of bad taste that still manages to make a point. That managed to get me branded as a prig,a day or so ago. (Sorry EW, but I still think you were wrong on that one.) But, in this case, two people who obviously get along very well with each other laughing over a pop culture reference? I think it's safe to say that the offensiveness potential in that phrase, in this context, is close to nil.

graz
05-23-2008, 02:03 AM
I didn't think that references to just-diagnosed brain cancer were funny, or were even the kind of bad taste that still manages to make a point. That managed to get me branded as a prig,a day or so ago. (Sorry EW, but I still think you were wrong on that one.) But, in this case, two people who obviously get along very well with each other laughing over a pop culture reference? I think it's safe to say that the offensiveness potential in that phrase, in this context, is close to nil.

And therein lies the rub. A pop cultural reference, you or I would say. I venture a guess that razib would see it differently.

And in the spirit of this forum, I would welcome a dialog with razib.

Wonderment
05-23-2008, 02:59 AM
that it's harder for a woman to get elected president than a black man:

Megan, I've always wanted to tell you this: you're fuckin' HOT!!
I like the make-up and pleasant lighting/background in your latest diavlogs.

Wonderment
05-23-2008, 03:08 AM
I hope people are paying sufficient attention to the historic opportunity to cut a deal on the Golan Heights. This would be a MAJOR step forward in the peace process and Bush could take some credit in his miserably failed presidency for helping make something happen before he goes.

Israel and Syria have been very close to a deal before.

This is probably not merely a smokescreen to distract from Olmert's criminal corruption, nor is it merely a play to get a wedge between Iran and Syria. Syrians are just very serious about getting their land back, and giving it back has always been in Israel's interest as well. The prize for Israel is diplomatic relations with Syria, as achieved with Egypt and Jordan.

artoad
05-23-2008, 04:40 AM
I have to hand it Dan. I don't think I would have had the balls to make the "ignorant slut" remark to Megan in the semi-polite society of bhtv. It really struck a chord, however, as I can remember the whole provenance of the meme so to speak. The original model were two founding members of the budding punditocracy, James Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander. He was a southern blowhard from Richmond, Virginia while she was well established in Washington society. Next came the Dan Ackroyd/Jane Curtin (if I'm not mistaken) parody. Dan, a brilliant but dicey updating of this delicious pop cultural gem.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 07:39 AM
artoad:

How sure are you that "you ignorant slut" predated Ackroyd/Curtin? I've never heard that before. Not doubting you if you're sure. Just wondering if Kilpatrick actually said this on the air. If true, that must have been a serious kerfuffle.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 07:45 AM
am i the only one who wasn't amused by dan's reference to megan as an "ignorant s**t"...some things shouldn't even be said in jest!

I didn't find it offensive. It's such a familiar phrase and so obviously over the top that it doesn't carry any offensiveness, especially between friends. At least for me.

The only problem was that Dan forgot the first rule of gToIoMd cIoNmGedy.

Oh, and the second: never tell the same joke twice.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 07:57 AM
Bokonon:

Interesting rebuttal.

I'd add another point: There are some advantages to Hillary's gender, too. The tears in New Hampshire moment would not have worked for a male politician. The connection with women in the sense of fighting against the patriarchy helps her. Certain remarks which could be made about a male politician, which may be genuinely not motivated by sexism, can be universally dismissed as being sexist; e.g., "I don't like the way she gives a speech" or "her laugh sounds phony."

This is not to say that there haven't been way too many inappropriate things said about her by anyone with a microphone or keyboard. It's just to say that the fact of her gender does not only work against her. It's exactly the same for Obama -- he suffers from racism, but also derives some benefit from his skin color.

Granted, in the end, there is probably more bad than good to either of these -isms. But I think it's worth pointing out that things do work in more than one direction, and any skilled politician knows how to make lemonade from whatever lemons there are at hand.

deebee
05-23-2008, 10:07 AM
Megan exhibits an excellent grasp of how women are perceived when it comes to power positions. I hadn't thought of the Secretary of State vs. President comparison but I do agree with her. I personally believe that Hillary has come about as close as possible to maintaining that correct balance between toughness and femininity which most women could not pull off -- but apparently not everyone agrees.

For example, on a recent morning show, Obama surrogate Matthew Dowd declared that the reason that Hillary lost is because we wanted her to be a mother, and instead we got a father -- she just went TOO FAR!. I consider this to be a deeply offensive and ill advised comment during a time when Obama is trying to smooth over the current fury felt by so many woman voters out there. Keep it up guys, you're doing just great..

Couple the many Obama camp comments with a media that seems to relish ridicule and the Democratic elites who couldn't wait for the people to decide and you have a very volatile situation that has currently reached a boiling point. Personally, I don't think its about Hillary so much any more but rather a replay of Ibsen's "Dolls House" scenario which never seems to go away,

deebee
05-23-2008, 10:21 AM
I did not find Drezner's "slut" comment offensive -- it's tongue in cheekiness had the opposite effect and Megan took it that way, so lets not be TOO sensitive...and that goes for racism too.

For example, NY Times columnist Bob Herbert recently saw racism in Hillary's rather ordinary and benign comment "Let's send them a message" or Jeralyn Merritt's recent BHTV reference to a "black eye".

There are obvious clear examples of both racism and sexism in this campaign, but not every little thing should be interpreted that way.

artoad
05-23-2008, 10:27 AM
artoad:

How sure are you that "you ignorant slut" predated Ackroyd/Curtin? I've never heard that before. Not doubting you if you're sure. Just wondering if Kilpatrick actually said this on the air. If true, that must have been a serious kerfuffle.
Just a point of clarification on this. Kilpatrick never called Alexander an ignorant slut, but he might as well have as his attitude toward her was an over the top arrogant dismissiveness. I just found Dan's usage amusingly transgressive in the context of the 21st century pc zeitgeist.

artoad
05-23-2008, 10:55 AM
I was wondering. Was Megan speculating about Israel becoming a pariah state or was she endorsing the idea of Israel becoming a pariah state? Are we witnessing the American mainstreaming of a concept that was until now relatively limited to disaffected lib/lab British union officials and philo-arabic bureaucrats in French external affairs. Maybe Megan could embed herself with the Obama press contingent the next time he makes a foray into South Florida and start speculating as such in that environment. Mean while is Dan suggesting that the Israeli settlers are the pied noirs of the 21st century? Let me up the speculative ante. How about the settlers overthrowing the Israeli government in 2018. I'm getting dizzy. I can't stop. It's 2028. Brooklyn Hasids stage a coup against the Michelle Obama Administration.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 10:56 AM
Just a point of clarification on this. Kilpatrick never called Alexander an ignorant slut, but he might as well have as his attitude toward her was an over the top arrogant dismissiveness.

Thanks for the clarification.

graz
05-23-2008, 11:38 AM
.

There are obvious clear examples of both racism and sexism in this campaign, but not every little thing should be interpreted that way.

Hi deebee:
I'm glad to see that you have finally thrown your marbles in with Obama.
Just kidding, of course.

I hope you don't mind that I want to use your quote to open up a larger question to razib.
Timing as in telling a joke, also plays a part in forum exchanges.
I missed razib by just a moment last night when the iron was hot but I really hope to connect with others on this point also.
Maybe we could agree that Dan's comment was an attempt at humor.
But what I "heard" razib say was that the subject should be taboo.

I happen to think that this ties in with the Islam and Christianity thread that razib and Abu were participating in. Does Unrepentant Islam proscribe by law the freedom to express such questionable "jokes?

Or would the concept of taboo, be a goal that believers would hope to enact as law? With the goal in mind of censoring speech or behavior?

And clarification on "kufar" Pinkerton would be appreciated as well.

popcorn_karate
05-23-2008, 12:58 PM
true. because if you think any woman is hot, you can't possibly respect her or any other woman on the planet?

uhhh you were just making a joke, right? you don't actually believe that do you?

uncle ebeneezer
05-23-2008, 01:10 PM
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11261?in=00:15:26&out=00:15:41

popcorn_karate
05-23-2008, 01:13 PM
Bokonon:

Interesting rebuttal.

I'd add another point: There are some advantages to Hillary's gender, too. The tears in New Hampshire moment would not have worked for a male politician. The connection with women in the sense of fighting against the patriarchy helps her. Certain remarks which could be made about a male politician, which may be genuinely not motivated by sexism, can be universally dismissed as being sexist; e.g., "I don't like the way she gives a speech" or "her laugh sounds phony."

This is not to say that there haven't been way too many inappropriate things said about her by anyone with a microphone or keyboard. It's just to say that the fact of her gender does not only work against her. It's exactly the same for Obama -- he suffers from racism, but also derives some benefit from his skin color.


I would dispute that there is parity between the two. To the extent that an "-ism" is at work, it can only benefit you if there are more people on your side of the "-ism". So, while Hillary is working with sexism, where her side (women) is the majority of the population it is clearly less of an injury to her ability to get votes than Barak who is dealing with racism, where his side is clearly a minority of the population.

Hillary has done an amazing job of trying to equate the two but any set of statistics looking at the general well-being and the power weilded by women on the one hand, and blacks on the other is going to clearly show that racism has a far greater negative impact.

uncle ebeneezer
05-23-2008, 01:20 PM
I'm amazed that Meghan new the referrence. I'm about her age (I think) and that referrence is right on the early edge of my pop-culture knowledge. I think Dan's use of it was pretty funny, and they are cleary friends who don't mind joking a bit. Now if he had called her a nappy-headed ho, that might have been a bit different.

BTW- Dig the new hairdo, Meghan. It works on you.

Dan/Meghan are always a great pairing. Wonky yet light-hearted and entertaining.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 01:26 PM
I would dispute that there is parity between the two.

You make a good point, pk. I buy it, but I also think it's offset somewhat by the idea that there is more of a hesitation to view a woman as a leader than a black man. I have no way of supporting this. It's just my gut feeling.

deebee
05-23-2008, 01:35 PM
Graz: I'm glad to see that you have finally thrown your marbles in with Obama. Just kidding, of course.

Right -- all I can say is that every time that I think I'll just have to hold my nose and succumb to Barack Obama's overwhelming charm, he or someone in his camp say or do something that annoys me anew.

I'm getting real nostalgic for the likes of Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and/or the magnificent Albert Gore, Jr. -- even Dennis Kucinich is beginning to look real good to me!

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 01:41 PM
Graz: I'm glad to see that you have finally thrown your marbles in with Obama. Just kidding, of course.

Right -- all I can say is that every time that I think I'll just have to hold my nose and succumb to Barack Obama's overwhelming charm, he or someone in his camp say or do something that annoys me anew.

The oversensitivity of some Hillary supporters never fails to amaze me.

graz
05-23-2008, 01:51 PM
The oversensitivity of some Hillary supporters never fails to amaze me.

How many of the 17 million are that "sensitive" and will make the transition if the V.P. is someone other than Mrs. Clinton?

deebee
05-23-2008, 02:33 PM
BJ Keefe: The oversensitivity of some Hillary supporters never fails to amaze me.


I would consider that remark to be Sexist if I didn't know a whole lot of menfolk who are also oversensitive about this whole situation.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 02:37 PM
I would consider that remark to be Sexist if I didn't know a whole lot of menfolk who are also oversensitive about this whole situation.

That it would even occur to you to interpret it as sexist is another mark of hypersensitivity.

preslove
05-23-2008, 02:39 PM
Given the overwhelming demographics in favor of Clinton (how many more white women vote in the democratic primaries as opposed to black men or women?), saying that she is somehow hindered by her gender is just plain stupid. If this were a general election contest it would be different, but this is the freaking Democratic party we're talking about. I would say that Clinton's unrepentant use of the gender card has helped her far more than any *unconscious* sexism.

Hell, I had convinced my mom that Hillary's record in the Senate was terrible (voted for war with Iraq and Iran, support for the bankruptcy bill, etc) and that she was a bad candidate, but she voted for Hillary. Why? She wanted, in her own words, "to see a woman president in her lifetime." Her solid base of old white women is what's kept her campaign going for so long. Well that and racists in Appalachia.

graz
05-23-2008, 02:50 PM
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11261?in=00:15:26&out=00:15:41

Your are guilty of selectionism.
Which everyone probably agrees is the use of a snippet out of context to smear a victim.

look
05-23-2008, 03:34 PM
The oversensitivity of some Hillary supporters never fails to amaze me.
I think deebee is referring to the remark the Obama supporter made, on MSNBC, referenced a few posts above:

For example, on a recent morning show, Obama surrogate Matthew Dowd declared that the reason that Hillary lost is because we wanted her to be a mother, and instead we got a father -- she just went TOO FAR!. I consider this to be a deeply offensive and ill advised comment during a time when Obama is trying to smooth over the current fury felt by so many woman voters out there. Keep it up guys, you're doing just great..

And yes, as someone very sympathetic to Hillary, that remark was insulting, sexist, and politically asisnine. As deebee said, "keep it up guys, you're doing just great..."

graz
05-23-2008, 03:49 PM
And yes, as someone very sympathetic to Hillary, that remark was insulting, sexist, and politically asisnine. As deebee said, "keep it up guys, you're doing just great..."

Isn't this reaction what Republican strategists have been exploiting for practical gain in previous election cycles?
I am certain that it will be an obstacle this term also. What exactly are we arguing about? Feelings, sensitivities, male egos? Is this politics or grade school?

look
05-23-2008, 03:49 PM
I was wondering. Was Megan speculating about Israel becoming a pariah state or was she endorsing the idea of Israel becoming a pariah state? Are we witnessing the American mainstreaming of a concept that was until now relatively limited to disaffected lib/lab British union officials and philo-arabic bureaucrats in French external affairs.
Speculating, mainly, I think. But I think the day is fast approaching when Israel is going to face world pressure to answer for their Apartheid-like set-up, to a large extent based upon the world's low opinion of her champion, the US government.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 04:02 PM
I think deebee is referring to the remark the Obama supporter made, on MSNBC, referenced a few posts above:

Possibly. But as she quoted graz's remark in her response (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=78444#post78444), that is what I understood her to be referring to. I suppose on re-reading, you might be right.

In any case, I don't disagree that the Matthew Dowd line, as reported, was a little much.

deebee
05-23-2008, 04:08 PM
Quoting Me: I would consider that remark to be Sexist if I didn't know a whole lot of menfolk who are also oversensitive about this whole situation.

BJ Keefe: That it would even occur to you to interpret it as sexist is another mark of hypersensitivity.

I have to agree with you -- that comment deserve a whole new category of it's own -- perhaps we could call it "hypersensitivist".

Really, I was just kidding about the Sexist reference -- guess that got lost in translation.

look
05-23-2008, 04:10 PM
Isn't this reaction what Republican strategists have been exploiting for practical gain in previous election cycles?
I am certain that it will be an obstacle this term also. What exactly are we arguing about? Feelings, sensitivities, male egos? Is this politics or grade school?
Well, I must backtrack and say that it's not clear to me that Matthew Dowd is an 'Obama surrogate,' as it doesn't say on his current profile he's affiliated with the Obama campaign:

Matthew Dowd has been a campaign strategist in races throughout the country. In 30 years, Dowd has worked for Democrats such as the late Sen. Lloyd Bentsen and Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, and Republicans including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and President George W. Bush, for whom he was chief strategist in 2004.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/matthewdowd/2008/04/does-experience.html

But this:
Hillary lost is because we wanted her to be a mother, and instead we got a father -- she just went TOO FAR!.is completely asisnine for a political analyst who has declared his sympathies for Obama to say.

But regarding your question about the Republican M.O. to divide Dems? This is a primary, so I'm not sure it applies. We're all supposed to sing Kumbaya when some dolt says something completely insulting about another candidate?

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 04:14 PM
I have to agree with you -- that comment deserve a whole new category of it's own -- perhaps we could call it "hypersensitivist".

Really, I was just kidding about the Sexist reference -- guess that got lost in translation.

Sorry I missed that. I actually started wondering whether you were kidding after I posted my reply. Pity there's no font to indicate an ironic tone.

Wonderment
05-23-2008, 04:18 PM
uhhh you were just making a joke, right? you don't actually believe that do you?

Yes, just kiddin'. After all, it's completely appropriate to listen to an intellectual for an hour and have absolutely nothing worth saying except "you're fuckin' hot." Bob Wright and the other male commentators are subjected to this all the time. Why would Megan complain?

graz
05-23-2008, 04:22 PM
But this:
is completely asisnine for a political analyst who has declared his sympathies for Obama to say.

But regarding your question about the Republican M.O. to divide Dems? This is a primary, so I'm not sure it applies. We're all supposed to sing Kumbaya when some dolt says something completely insulting about another candidate?
Think Michael Keaton in "Much ado about Nothing":
(referring to Dowd) He is both an arse a dolt and fool.

So Karl Rove's machinations (analysis) at Fox are irrelevant to the Dems primary? Methinks not.

The fight is fair, forget Kumbaya - I have always disliked that song.
But don't lose sight of the prize, as the stakes is high.

deebee
05-23-2008, 04:27 PM
Preslove: She [Mom] wanted, in her own words, "to see a woman president in her lifetime." Her [Hillary's] solid base of old white women is what's kept her campaign going for so long. Well that and racists in Appalachia.

I didn't particularly want to see a woman President -- thought it too risky right now when the Dems need to win but as the unfair treatment and lack of respect became a relentless drumbeat, I couldn't help but notice.

I can't dispute that racist attitudes linger in parts of Appalachia but don't forget, their votes as well as the votes of old white women count as much as the young white woman's or University Professor's does. So we really should, as Barack Obama (or was it Rodney King) said, "...just all get along". Right now that seems a long way off. By the way, THANKS "LOOK WROTE" FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

graz
05-23-2008, 04:31 PM
So we really should, as Barack Obama (or was it Rodney King) said, "...just all get along". Right now that seems a long way off.

And are you expecting for this transformation to take place in this election cycle? And will it be provided by a candidate or a pundit?

deebee
05-23-2008, 04:39 PM
BJ Keefe: Pity there's no font to indicate an ironic tone.

I agree -- maybe we should implore Bob to create one.

look
05-23-2008, 04:45 PM
Think Michael Keaton in "Much ado about Nothing":
(referring to Dowd) He is both an arse a dolt and fool.

So Karl Rove's machinations (analysis) at Fox are irrelevant to the Dems primary? Methinks not.

The fight is fair, forget Kumbaya - I have always disliked that song.
But don't lose sight of the prize, as the stakes is high.
Message received. (I love that movie.)

look
05-23-2008, 05:07 PM
By the way, THANKS "LOOK WROTE" FOR YOUR SUPPORT!
De nada.

:)

Abu Noor Al-Irlandee
05-23-2008, 05:08 PM
Yeah, I found that section of the diavlog odd but intriguing. Of course, Israel already is a pariah in much of the world, but not in the powerful parts of the world that would generally pose a problem for Israelis. There is a general understaning of certain segments of the Israeli population that they are heading down an untenable road unless a peace deal is made (see Jeffrey Goldberg's recent Atlantic article) but Mr. Drezner and especially Ms. McCardle talked here as if this was something imminent.

I see absolutely no sign that the U.S. is even allowing a discussion on rethinking it's unconditional support for Israel, and I actually find it pretty hard to imagine the sequence of events where the U.S. would stop supporting Israel. I mean I guess one could look at the fact that a former president used the "apartheid" word or that prominent professors like Mearsheimer and Walt wrote their book as evidence that dialogue is opening up, but one could just as well use both those episodes to show that dialogue is not opening up as in both cases the critics of Israel were immediately considered as beyond the pale and dismissed out of hand at least in the political mainstream.

Speculating, mainly, I think. But I think the day is fast approaching when Israel is going to face world pressure to answer for their Apartheid-like set-up, to a large extent based upon the world's low opinion of her champion, the US government.

http://abunooralirlandee.wordpress.com

look
05-23-2008, 05:10 PM
In any case, I don't disagree that the Matthew Dowd line, as reported, was a little much.
*faints*

;)

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 05:31 PM
*faints*

;)

Have I really come across as that much of an insensitive brute? Usually, I think of myself as the overly touchy kind, especially on behalf of others.

uncle ebeneezer
05-23-2008, 06:37 PM
What can I say. Guilty as charged. You've uncovered the unerlying logic to most of my dingalinks and exposed it to the world. Are you happy now party-pooper? :-(

I was hoping to stir up a possible BH intervention, for Dan's sake.

On a more serious note, if Bush really did do what Dan suggested, I would have to actually acknowledge that he finally did something right. For the first time in my adult life...

preslove
05-23-2008, 08:16 PM
I can't dispute that racist attitudes linger in parts of Appalachia but don't forget, their votes as well as the votes of old white women count as much as the young white woman's or University Professor's does.


The difference between young white women and college professors on the one side vs Appalachian hicks and old women on the other, is that the former are are voting for Obama because of the issues and/or the "change" rhetoric, while the latter are voting for Hillary because of identity politics. The comparable demographic voting for Obama would be black people. The thing is, there are far more old white women (plus racists in Appalachia [and yes, it is racism, because these people are voting against Obama because they don't trust a black man]) voting in the Democratic primary than there are black men and women. Thus, gender identification helps Hillary more than race identification helps Obama, making the sexism issue total bullshit.

Bobby G
05-23-2008, 08:25 PM
Hi Brendan,

I also liked the Packer article, but I had one problem with it: twice Packer wrote without any empathy for the conservative perspective. Here are the two occasions:

"Though conservatives were not much interested in governing, they understood the art of politics. They hadn’t made much of a dent in the bureaucracy, and they had done nothing to provide universal health-care coverage or arrest growing economic inequality, but they had created a political culture that was inhospitable to welfare, to an indulgent view of criminals, to high rates of taxation."

A lot of conservatives simply don't care about "growing economic inequality"; what they ostensibly care about is making sure all the boats are rising, if you get my drift. Consequently, Packer's presentation--as though conservatives failed to fix this important problem--misses the fact that many conservatives don't find this to be an important problem. Similarly, providing "universal health-care coverage" is not exactly on the conservative radar. Libertarians will stress that what matters is not that everyone has health care, but that people have maximum discretion in spending their money as they choose. Whereas conservatives don't want universal health-care if that means the government is the provider of it, because they're afraid of the government determining what things count as worth throwing money at and what things demand rationing.

Here's the other passage:

"The Nixon White House didn’t enact all of these recommendations, but it would be hard to find a more succinct and unapologetic blueprint for Republican success in the conservative era. “Positive polarization” helped the Republicans win one election after another—and insured that American politics would be an ugly, unredeemed business for decades to come."

The presupposition of this paragraph, and much of the article, I think, is that the country would be fairly unified were it not for conservative ideologues mucking everything up. And that's true, I think. But here's another, rather crude, way of putting it: the country would be nice and unified if everyone just let liberals do what they wanted. This, anyway, is how conservatives saw things: the country was going in a liberal direction; a liberal direction is a bad direction; we conservatives should change that direction, for the good of the nation; and if that means pissing off a lot of people and raising the level of acrimony, so be it. I assume you, Brendan, would do the same thing if you thought most of the country was heedlessly going in the wrong direction--say, preemptively launching a war--wouldn't you?

graz
05-23-2008, 08:35 PM
Have I really come across as that much of an insensitive brute? Usually, I think of myself as the overly touchy kind, especially on behalf of others.

I am offering a virtual hug to you.

Yes you are admirably considerate.

But when you get on that keep your god to yourself kick,
I'm appreciative, but guess that it rankles some.

look
05-23-2008, 08:40 PM
Thus, gender identification helps Hillary more than race identification helps Obama, making the sexism issue total bullshit.Except that you're not factoring in the white women, white men, and elites who are voting, at least partially, for Obama based on liberal white guilt or because he's cooler than the other side of the pillow, or both.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 08:45 PM
look:

... cooler than the other side of the pillow ...

Simile of the week!

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 08:51 PM
I am offering a virtual hug to you.

Yes you are admirably considerate.

But when you get on that keep your god to yourself kick,
I'm appreciative, but guess that it rankles some.

Thanks for the hug, and yeah, I guess that's a fair bust on the religion thing.

Part of me wants to say that this accusation supports the thesis put forward by Harris and Dawkins: that religion is not allowed to be criticized nearly to the degree that every other mode of human thought is, but mostly, I think you're right.

Which is not to say that I'm going to change completely on this issue, but I'll keep this in mind.

graz
05-23-2008, 09:02 PM
Which is not to say that I'm going to change completely on this issue, but I'll keep this in mind.

fwiw I would hope that you don't change at all.

look
05-23-2008, 09:11 PM
Yeah, I found that section of the diavlog odd but intriguing. Of course, Israel already is a pariah in much of the world, but not in the powerful parts of the world that would generally pose a problem for Israelis. There is a general understaning of certain segments of the Israeli population that they are heading down an untenable road unless a peace deal is made (see Jeffrey Goldberg's recent Atlantic article) but Mr. Drezner and especially Ms. McCardle talked here as if this was something imminent.

I see absolutely no sign that the U.S. is even allowing a discussion on rethinking it's unconditional support for Israel, and I actually find it pretty hard to imagine the sequence of events where the U.S. would stop supporting Israel. I mean I guess one could look at the fact that a former president used the "apartheid" word or that prominent professors like Mearsheimer and Walt wrote their book as evidence that dialogue is opening up, but one could just as well use both those episodes to show that dialogue is not opening up as in both cases the critics of Israel were immediately considered as beyond the pale and dismissed out of hand at least in the political mainstream.I don't recall that they talked of it as imminent, but Megan did speak with a sense of urgency. I think Carter using the 'A' word and the Mearsheimer/Walt piece were the first breaches in the dam, so it's possible things could develop somewhat quickly, and it's my guess that if the plight of the Gazans goes mainstream, that could be the tipping point. It's not that the US government would drop Israel, but bring pressure to bear. Thanks, I'll check out the Goldberg piece.

look
05-23-2008, 09:20 PM
Have I really come across as that much of an insensitive brute? Usually, I think of myself as the overly touchy kind, especially on behalf of others.
Brendan! What part of ;) don't you understand?














;)

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 10:22 PM
Brendan! What part of ;) don't you understand?

Clearly, at least some part. I thought you were making a serious point, with a lightening-up touch.

bjkeefe
05-23-2008, 10:25 PM
fwiw I would hope that you don't change at all.

Thanks. But ideally, I could be harsh without being rude. (Disclaimer: Calling a wingnut a wingnut does not qualify as rude.)

look
05-24-2008, 03:00 AM
I thought you were making a serious point...
Just that you're seriously an Obamaphile.

look
05-24-2008, 04:02 AM
Abu Noor, by coincidence, I just found this (http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/05/jerome-slater-pulls-intellectualhistorical-rug-out-from-under-goldberg.html) piece criticizing Jeffrey Goldberg. I haven't had a chance to read it, or the article you recommended.

Jerome Slater is an important scholar for at least 2 reasons: he brought Israel's New Historians to realist/leftist academic circles in the U.S. and then made his own contribution to that school many years ago. And lately he has demonstrated that the elite American press has provided watered-down reports to the American establishment surrounding the true state of affairs in Israel/Palestine, thereby undermining the opinion-making and policy-making process.

preslove
05-24-2008, 06:38 AM
Except that you're not factoring in the white women, white men, and elites who are voting, at least partially, for Obama based on liberal white guilt or because he's cooler than the other side of the pillow, or both.

Exit polling shows that people want "change" and "a new direction," and not because he is "cool. You, quite simply, have no evidence for this assertion. None whatsoever. On the other hand, Appalachian racism, old white woman bias towards Hillary, and black bias towards Obama are all borne out by polling. Thus, you are just talking out your ass.

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 09:05 AM
Just that you're seriously an Obamaphile.

Well, yeah. But you say that like it's qualitatively different from supporting any other candidate.

deebee
05-24-2008, 10:59 AM
Quoting Preslove: old white women....old white women....old white woman..."

I truly appreciate your progressive attitude, objectivity and tolerance for the unyouthful of the world. Wouldn't it be much better if only those between 18 and 45 were allowed to vote? (wait...make that 46 to include Obama) I predict that if we were able to pass that law, the world would be a better place. I know so many people who were way smarter when they were younger but with each passing year their brain becomes addled, their logic goes out the window, they lose a few bearings, are no longer able to laugh at themselves and, in short become useless masses of quivering protoplasm. Too bad they lack the experience and wisdom to make something of their lives.....

[Note to Bob Wright: convert to Ironic Font]

hans gruber
05-24-2008, 11:41 AM
The difference between young white women and college professors on the one side vs Appalachian hicks and old women on the other, is that the former are are voting for Obama because of the issues and/or the "change" rhetoric, while the latter are voting for Hillary because of identity politics.

Hillary carries whites by 2-1 and it's racism. So what is it when 92% of blacks vote for Obama? Just asking.

hans gruber
05-24-2008, 11:46 AM
Thanks. But ideally, I could be harsh without being rude. (Disclaimer: Calling a wingnut a wingnut does not qualify as rude.)

It may or may not be true. But I think it certainly qualifies as rude. I don't personally mind a little invective, aslong as there is some substance that accompanies it. However, rarely do I think the invective adds to the persuasiveness of an argument.

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 11:47 AM
Hillary carries whites by 2-1 and it's racism. So what is it when 92% of blacks vote for Obama? Just asking.

As I've said elsewhere (http://bjkeefe.blogspot.com/2008/05/sad.html?showComment=1211472240000#c56822823343714 08605), voting for Obama because you're black and so is he seems quite a bit less heinous than voting against him because you're white and don't like blacks. It seems more positive, and it's in any case understandable from the point of view of a minority struggling for equality and looking for a new champion.

Also, I don't think many black people voted against Hillary simply because she's white, which seems a more valid comparison.

AemJeff
05-24-2008, 11:55 AM
Hillary carries whites by 2-1 and it's racism. So what is it when 92% of blacks vote for Obama? Just asking.

Let's imagine there had never been a white president. Further let's imagine that until about a generation ago whites would have held so few major elective offices that their legislative and judicial power was effectively null. Now the first serious white candidate for President appears. How many people would feel as if voting for someone who looked liked them and who might share their values was an opportunity to do something they never imagined they'd have a chance to do. How would that be be racist?

Talking about the specific tendencies of one subpopulation of voters for one candidate (in this case white, working class, no college) in terms of their stated preferences and historical patterns seems pretty fair. Also, it'd be hard to say that the black folks voting for Obama have never voted for a white candidate, don't you think? The reciprocal (how many of the whites in this subgroup have voted for blacks?) is just as hard to believe.

hans gruber
05-24-2008, 11:55 AM
Well, yeah. But you say that like it's qualitatively different from supporting any other candidate.

But it is, at least for a lot of Obama minions. That's why people joke about "the messiah" and "the one" and all that. Even in the post Cold War Reagan glow, nobody talks about Reagan how Obama's supporters talk about him now, before he's even accomplished a single noteworthy thing.

It's creepy and dare I say un-American. An American president may be popular in his time or revered long after his death. But I'm unaware of anything in American history like the cult of personality which now surrounds Obama (Kennedy comes close, but that had more to do with glamor and youth than messianic "healer of souls" nonsense).

AemJeff
05-24-2008, 12:08 PM
But it is, at least for a lot of Obama minions. That's why people joke about "the messiah" and "the one" and all that. Even in the post Cold War Reagan glow, nobody talks about Reagan how Obama's supporters talk about him now, before he's even accomplished a single noteworthy thing.

It's creepy and dare I say un-American. An American president may be popular in his time or revered long after his death. But I'm unaware of anything in American history like the cult of personality which now surrounds Obama (Kennedy comes close, but that had more to do with glamor and youth than messianic "healer of souls" nonsense).

I'm not sure I buy this characterization. Firstly, it's not unique to Obama, in this cycle Thompson and Paul had similar auras. When Reagan ran, the messianic message was unmistakable. Kennedy, too - in fact that's a pretty good direct comparison - Catholics at that time stood in a place pretty analogous to where Black are now, I think. And "un-American" is an epithet and a value judgment. My idea of what it means to be "American" might differ from yours. I think neither of us has an exclusive right to our conception of that.

hans gruber
05-24-2008, 12:11 PM
Let's imagine there had never been a white president... How would that be be racist?

At least it isn't racism that strikes me as particularly codemnable but it's still racism. I'd expect blacks to identify and trust other blacks more than whites. The problem, though, is you expect whites to trust blacks and whites equally, and anything less means they're ugly racist yahoos. I just don't see that as intellectually honest, the disparity. On the one hand you say it's perfectly natural and acceptable for blacks to prefer black leaders but you'll condemn any white who feels the same.

Talking about the specific tendencies of one subpopulation of voters for one candidate (in this case white, working class, no college) in terms of their stated preferences and historical patterns seems pretty fair.

Sure, it's fair. I just don't know how it's possible to spin a 2-1 advantage among whites as "racism" and a 9-1 advantage among blacks as just natural and acceptable non-racist behavior.

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 12:14 PM
Hans:

But it is, at least for a lot of Obama minions.

AemJeff already had a good response. I'd add this: What you're seeing is a lot of enthusiasm because there is, for the first time in a long time, a candidate that people can feel that they're for, rather than feeling "well, I guess I don't hate this one quite as much as the rest." As AemJeff noted, you see this for any candidate, from Paulnuts to Bushies. The only difference here is that Obama appeals in the same way to a larger number.

Some of this enthusiasm is infectious, as well; i.e., it's not just that everyone is flocking toward Obama individually, it's also that people are responding to each other. Some of this may be projection -- a mapping onto a candidate one's own hopes. Some more may be getting caught up in a moment. But that's okay. People pulling together is what we need. And there's not a whole lot wrong with feeling hope for a change, instead of the despair that comes when contemplating Bush/Rove/Clinton-style politicking.

I'd add one more thing: the view of Obama as "Messiah" is wildly exaggerated. Almost all of this talk comes from people who don't like Obama, trying to caricature those with whom they disagree. People who like Obama don't think of him as without flaw. When those of us who do like Obama refer to him as "The Messiah," we are mostly pulling your chain.

hans gruber
05-24-2008, 12:20 PM
I'm not sure I buy this characterization. Firstly, it's not unique to Obama, in this cycle Thompson and Paul had similar auras. When Reagan ran, the messianic message was unmistakable. Kennedy, too - in fact that's a pretty good direct comparison.

Paul certainly had a lot of enthusiastic supporters. But they weren't joking he was the messiah! Paul wasn't talking about healing our souls. Paul didn't rely on vague "hope and change" rhetoric. People were excited about Paul because they saw a politician who said exactly what he thought. And Thompson? Are you kidding? Thompson's supporters were about as unenthusiastic as the candidate himself! Kennedy did enjoy a great media glow, but that was much more to do with his youth and glamor than vague messianic promises of "hope and change" and "healing our souls."

AemJeff
05-24-2008, 12:20 PM
At least it isn't racism that strikes me as particularly codemnable but it's still racism. I'd expect blacks to identify and trust other blacks more than whites. The problem, though, is you expect whites to trust blacks and whites equally, and anything less means they're ugly racist yahoos. I just don't see that as intellectually honest, the disparity. On the one hand you say it's perfectly natural and acceptable for blacks to prefer black leaders but you'll condemn any white who feels the same.



Sure, it's fair. I just don't know how it's possible to spin a 2-1 advantage among whites as "racism" and a 9-1 advantage among blacks as just natural and acceptable non-racist behavior.

It's all about the context. You argue as if everything is equal. My argument is that specific political circumstances mean that you have to weight things differently for different groups. Whites enjoy a diminishing, but nevertheless real structural advantage in this society. If that weren't the case I'd agree with the arguments that you make in this regard. As it is, in my view, fairness demands that we grant some some slack in our attitudes towards racial minorities. As the structural equities change, so should our biases.

hans gruber
05-24-2008, 12:32 PM
As it is, in my view, fairness demands that we grant some some slack in our attitudes towards racial minorities. As the structural equities change, so should our biases.

You say it's OK (or at least understandable) that blacks don't trust or identify with whites. But whites are somehow supposed to accept this and then trust and identify equally with blacks? Once you accept the first proposition the second is quite precarious. Why would a white trust a black equally when he must accept the black's mistrust and grievance against him? Has it ever occurred to you that a big reason why those white voters are relucant to trust Obama is that society has legitimated black racism?

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 12:35 PM
Hans:

Paul wasn't talking about healing our souls. Paul didn't rely on vague "hope and change" rhetoric.

Yeah. His positions were all practical, realistic, and non-rhetorical. Like putting America back on the gold standard and abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve.

And Thompson? Are you kidding? Thompson's supporters were about as unenthusiastic as the candidate himself!

Only after he actually started campaigning. Before that, he frequently placed second in polling. I think it's no stretch to believe that people thought they were supporting Arthur Branch.

Kennedy did enjoy a great [Imedia glow, but that was much more to do with his youth and glamor than vague messianic promises of "hope and change" and "healing our souls."

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country."

I hear the same message in Obama's words.

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 12:41 PM
It may or may not be true. But I think it certainly qualifies as rude. I don't personally mind a little invective, aslong as there is some substance that accompanies it. However, rarely do I think the invective adds to the persuasiveness of an argument.

That's sort of my point. When you hear someone, say, fulminating that New Orleans was wiped out because of a gay pride parade, or that God sent Hitler to encourage the Jews to recreate Israel, such statements do not deserve to be dignified with argument. They deserve instant dismissal. It's no different from dealing with a Flat Earther, a 9/11 Truther, or someone who makes life decisions based on astrology. You just say "wingnut" in the interests of saving time.

hans gruber
05-24-2008, 12:49 PM
Yeah. His positions were all practical, realistic, non-rhetorical. Like putting America back on the gold standard and abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve.

They were concrete and precise. He said exactly what he thought, there was no "follow me because I inspire" trip

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." I hear the same message in Obama's words.

The people subservient to the government? Yes, it does sound like Obama.

AemJeff
05-24-2008, 01:06 PM
You say it's OK (or at least understandable) that blacks don't trust or identify with whites. But whites are somehow supposed to accept this and then trust and identify equally with blacks? Once you accept the first proposition the second is quite precarious. Why would a white trust a black equally when he must accept the black's mistrust and grievance against him? Has it ever occurred to you that a big reason why those white voters are relucant to trust Obama is that society has legitimated black racism?

I haven't spoken in terms of "trust" at all. What I did say is that blacks can't be accused of not voting for whites. I think blacks can excused for wanting to vote for somebody who looks like them, when they've never has that opportunity, at this level before - of course there have been black candidates for president, but never one with a real shot. I'm not saying that there's no racism in black communities, either - there certainly is. But, again, it's not a structural problem in the same sense that white racism is.

hans gruber
05-24-2008, 01:25 PM
I haven't spoken in terms of "trust" at all. What I did say is that blacks can't be accused of not voting for whites.

Just because a voter says they prefer Hillary to Obama and part of the preference has to do with race does not mean they have never voted (or would not vote) for a black candidate. I suspect a sizable portion of the voters voting for Hillary partially because of race will still vote for Obama over McCain.

hans gruber
05-24-2008, 01:33 PM
That's sort of my point. When you hear someone, say, fulminating that New Orleans was wiped out because of a gay pride parade, or that God sent Hitler to encourage the Jews to recreate Israel, such statements do not deserve to be dignified with argument. They deserve instant dismissal. It's no different from dealing with a Flat Earther, a 9/11 Truther, or someone who makes life decisions based on astrology. You just say "wingnut" in the interests of saving time.

By wingnut you just mean very conservative? And that's the equivalent of a Flat Earther or 9/11 truther? Even in those wacky cases (9=11 truther, Flat Earther), aslong somebody is arguing in good faith (but perhaps with bad arguments and bad information), it is better to engage the arguments than to call names. Of course, we all understand how tedious this can be, so name calling in place of argument is tempting. But what value does that have? I'm skeptical of the value of "instant dismissal." Maybe after the 1,000th time of being called an idiot or wingnut somebody might change their mind. But a good counter-argument is still preferrable, is it not? I don't recall a single time I've altered a position I have held because somebody called me a name.

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 02:07 PM
Hans:

By wingnut you just mean very conservative?

No. I will say that, these days, most of the wingnut ideas that get lots of attention do tend to be put forth by those who are associated with the far right, but there is no shortage of wingnuttery that is usually associated with those on the left.

It's partly that such ideas don't get so much attention any more in the mainstream discourse because they have gone out of fashion (think EST, crystal healing, TM, societal improvement through hallucinogens. to name but a few) and partly that there are other terms for leftish wingnuttery; e.g., moonbattiness and woo.

in the specific case of the 9/11 Truthers, I am not sure if this comes more from rightists or leftists. It seems to me that I mostly hear conservatives calling these people "loonies from the left" who are suffering from BDS.

And that's the equivalent of a Flat Earther or 9/11 truther?

Certain "religious" figures put forth ideas that are just as dumb as these, yes, if that's what you're asking.

Even in those wacky cases (9=11 truther, Flat Earther), aslong somebody is arguing in good faith (but perhaps with bad arguments and bad information), it is better to engage the arguments than to call names.

Maybe the first time the argument is raised. But the arguments have been addressed repeatedly and shown to be completely without merit. It's one thing for a six-year old to have trouble grasping the idea of a spherical Earth, and it's understandable why a traumatized adult might reach for a conspiracy theory in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. I am not talking about such people. When I say "Flat Earthers and 9/11 Truthers," I mean people who have had more than enough time to realize the idiocy of their positions on these topics.

Of course, we all understand how tedious this can be, so name calling in place of argument is tempting. But what value does that have? I'm skeptical of the value of "instant dismissal." Maybe after the 1,000th time of being called an idiot or wingnut somebody might change their mind. But a good counter-argument is still preferrable, is it not? I don't recall a single time I've altered a position I have held because somebody called me a name.

I think of it not as name-calling, but as a combination of labeling and shorthand. I mean it as: "I have no interest in hearing your argument on this topic, because it's been settled beyond any reasonable doubt, and I view your attempts to keep the argument alive as a sign of an irrationally closed minded, a truly warped thinking process, or maybe just a desire to cause trouble. Maybe it's also your agenda is to distract me from something else. In any case, I know I won't be able to change your mind with reasoned argument, and so I would rather talk about something else."

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 02:09 PM
Hans:

As I see it, you're determined to spin everything about Obama in a bad way to the point where you're being ridiculous, so I'll let the above stand without further rebuttal.

look
05-24-2008, 02:20 PM
Exit polling shows that people want "change" and "a new direction," and not because he is "cool. You, quite simply, have no evidence for this assertion. None whatsoever. On the other hand, Appalachian racism, old white woman bias towards Hillary, and black bias towards Obama are all borne out by polling. Thus, you are just talking out your ass.
If you don't think the messenger is at least as important as the message, you haven't been paying attention:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSuyPM772-M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuFIDJkZ7NQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsWpvkLCvu4


Besides, you are assuming that the whites who did not cite race as a factor were lying.


Whites who say race was a factor 21 84 9
Whites who say race was not a factor 72 65 27


MSNBC WV exit polling (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226014/)

thouartgob
05-24-2008, 04:31 PM
Maybe the first time the argument is raised. But the arguments have been addressed repeatedly and shown to be completely without merit. It's one thing for a six-year old to have trouble grasping the idea of a spherical Earth, and it's understandable why a traumatized adult might reach for a conspiracy theory in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. I am not talking about such people. When I say "Flat Earthers and 9/11 Truthers," I mean people who have had more than enough time to realize the idiocy of their positions on these topics.


The hiearchy of inanity in which we have flat earthers and young earthers, will soon balloon this election cycle. I will wager the number of times the name Obama is paired with Anti-christ is going to sky rocket, along with muslim spy, enslaver of the white race etc etc... The unhinged will have there say this year.

But what of the young earthers ?? Surely this is the greatest of conspiracy theories, eclipsing the moon landing hoaxers and every flavor of 9/11 conspiracy types. Falwell and company tagged 9/11 as god's vengeance and how many conservatives crowed about the AIDS being god's curse upon homosexuals. I could be called bigot to question another person's faith in the literal reality of invisible gods and monsters that are using our world as a prize in some ultimate tug-of-war, but I would be a fool not to question someone who thought the towers were brought down by lasers or similar nonsense. How does one discern the difference, Age of the myths involved and the market share of it's believers I guess.

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 04:51 PM
thouartgob:

Yes, I would place a belief in Young Earth Creationism squarely in the wingnut category.

hans gruber
05-24-2008, 05:01 PM
As I see it, you're determined to spin everything about Obama in a bad way to the point where you're being ridiculous, so I'll let the above stand without further rebuttal.

I've never liked the sentiment expressed in JFK's quote. It presupposes that the people exist to serve their government and not the other way around. The people ought to be asking what the government is doing for them. Is it providing safety and security? Is it regulating business appropriately? Is it securing the borders? We can debate how big the role of government should be, but when it does do something it damn well better benefit we the people. Instead, JFK turns it around; government is the master and the people are the servants.

Of course, one could interpret "country" to mean just the nation, the people as a whole. That is, people should sacrifice their self interest to benefit the larger community. I don't much care for that sentiment either. Is it a stretch to say that this is a leftist sentiment, one in which Obama has many times expressed sympathy for? I recall Obama's wife Michelle telling us that Obama will make us do better, that he won't take excuses. Sounds like the Obamas are similarly confused about who serves whom.

hans gruber
05-24-2008, 05:04 PM
But what of the young earthers ?? Surely this is the greatest of conspiracy theories.

That's not a conspiracy theory. Neither are flat earthers, as far as I know. They just believe everybody else is wrong. That's not a conspiracy theory. Sorry to quibble :)

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 06:33 PM
I've never liked the sentiment expressed in JFK's quote. It presupposes that the people exist to serve their government and not the other way around. [...]

Of course, one could interpret "country" to mean just the nation, the people as a whole.

The latter is how I have always interpreted it. Arthur C. Clarke had a similar sentiment: You can judge the degree to which a society is advanced by how well it takes care of its least fortunate members.

Of course we're not here to serve the government, especially when "the government" is considered as some Other. The government is (should be) of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Is it a stretch to say that this is a leftist sentiment ...?

Call it that if you like. On the other hand, the notion of community is also very often pushed by people on the right.

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 06:37 PM
But what of the young earthers ?? Surely this is the greatest of conspiracy theories.

That's not a conspiracy theory. Neither are flat earthers, as far as I know. They just believe everybody else is wrong. That's not a conspiracy theory. Sorry to quibble :)

There is something that comes awfully close to conspiracy theory thinking when you talk to some of these people, particularly in the way they dismiss evidence as having been "faked." Whether it's the Young Earthers claiming "God put those fossils there to test us" and "carbon dating is nonsense," or the Flat Earthers saying "those pictures supposedly taken from outer space are just so much darkroom trickery," I'm hard-pressed to see how this is any different from the rest of the tin foil hat set.

bjkeefe
05-24-2008, 06:42 PM
Uh-oh. Wingnut alert (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=78581#post78581).

pod2
05-25-2008, 11:12 PM
Yeah, I found that section of the diavlog odd but intriguing. Of course, Israel already is a pariah in much of the world, but not in the powerful parts of the world that would generally pose a problem for Israelis. There is a general understaning of certain segments of the Israeli population that they are heading down an untenable road unless a peace deal is made (see Jeffrey Goldberg's recent Atlantic article) but Mr. Drezner and especially Ms. McCardle talked here as if this was something imminent.

I see absolutely no sign that the U.S. is even allowing a discussion on rethinking it's unconditional support for Israel, and I actually find it pretty hard to imagine the sequence of events where the U.S. would stop supporting Israel.

The interesting thing is that, as Israeli settlements accelerate, direct US economic and military aid has also accelerated. The most dramatic increase in settlements has happened post Oslo. The number of settlers DOUBLED in the post Oslo years of 1993-2000 from 200,000 to 400,000. And US military aid to Israel is significantly larger than it was in the 70s and 80s. The number of vetoes the US has enforced in the Ga and the Security Council has similarly increased in the 80s and 90s. I don't quite see how US support will be a limiting factor in Israeli apartheid. How is expanding the settlements going to drive Israel into more severe international pariahood than it has already? I think that Megan is bit misinformed about the history of this issue. The injustice of occupation has never been a limiting factor in the fact of occupation. The establishment of facts on the ground by settlers has, as of yet, never led to significant or insignificant compromise. The settlers are completely rational actors under Megan's prescription of amoral human motivation.