PDA

View Full Version : The Passion of the Blog


Bloggingheads
06-04-2008, 08:59 PM

uncle ebeneezer
06-04-2008, 09:24 PM
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/11626?in=00:10:12&out=00:10:25

osmium
06-04-2008, 10:03 PM
drat, i was gonna make that same dingalink! i was gonna follow it with, "shut your farking piehole, lindsey." then i was gonna draw a smiley face. :)

Namazu
06-04-2008, 10:28 PM
Don't push your luck, Godless libertarian Quisling!

allbetsareoff
06-04-2008, 11:28 PM
Three tax-and-spend ideas liberals and libertarians conceivably could agree to support:
1. Infrastructure investment - repair roads, bridges and water-sewer, plus a significant mass-transit component.
2. Homeland-security investment - ports, railroads, other vulnerable but neglected potential targets.
3. Alternative energy development - a public-private Manhattan Project on post-petroleum technologies.
All three have the potential to boost employment and wage levels, improve the environment, enhance security; and all offer ample rewards and growth opportunities in the private sector.
Are we a happy coalition yet?

bjkeefe
06-04-2008, 11:38 PM
I was glad to hear Brink pushing his liberaltarian agenda again. I'm with Jane: we could definitely do business with guys like Brink.

What do you know? Two regulars from the Cato Institute (Will's the other) here on BH.tv, and I find them both quite human! Be still my heart! And toss in Julian Sanchez, and we're talking a real group hug!

But seriously ...

I'll have to re-read Brink's original article, but I'd also like to hear him come back and have another diavlog with Jane, to lay out the problems he perceives with the liberal agenda in more detail.

I'm pretty sure that a lot more of us on the left are more concerned about the deficit than we used to be, so that might be a starting point for agreement. I'd like to start to reduce it by restoring taxes on the rich to where they were a decade ago and cutting spending on the DoD, but probably he has other ideas.

Probably we won't be able to agree about privatizing Social Security. On this note, I want to say that I'm a little puzzled by Brink's simultaneous wish to do this along with his expressed loathing for the K Street trough feeding -- seems to me any privatization plan is going to end up making a few well-connected people inside the Beltway a trainload of money. Even if I leave aside my other objections, that is.

I could go along with some sort of individual-focused plan to augment SS, to be sure. Say, something like a 401(k) that isn't tied to a specific employment situation.

In any case, I'm okay with dour libertarians holding part of the economic reins, assuming the Dems run the table this November.

Way to represent the left, Jane. And good call on Obama as not, in fact, a wild-eyed liberal. Not that that will stop the GOP from trotting this out every day for the next five months, but it's good to say it out loud, nonetheless.

bjkeefe
06-04-2008, 11:41 PM
allbetsareoff:

I'm down.

I forget whether you're a liberal or libertarian. Maybe this makes my agreement more sincere?

uncle ebeneezer
06-04-2008, 11:44 PM
For what it's worth, your approach would have been much funnier (though you might have been "rendered" to the Abu-Ghraib detention page of the comment sections pursuant to the recently passed BH Protecion-of-Integrity-and-Potential-Advertisers Act 2008.)

Tom Wittmann
06-05-2008, 12:18 AM
Boy, are they ever the odd couple. Interesting to watch, but I doubt they go to the same parties.

allbetsareoff
06-05-2008, 02:26 AM
allbetsareoff:

I'm down.

I forget whether you're a liberal or libertarian. Maybe this makes my agreement more sincere?

The Political Compass (http://politicalcompass.org/index) rates me a left-libertarian, a bit to the right of Nelson Mandela and a bit more authoritarian than the Dalai Lama, who's probably more tolerant of snotty kids than I am. The more simplistically libertarian World's Smallest Political Quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/) rates me a liberal, probably because I don't want to abolish Social Security.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 03:14 AM
allbetsareoff:

Thanks for letting me know. And thanks for the links.

If you're interested, here are mine:

My scores from the first:
Left/Libertarian
Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92

which puts me nearer the Dalai Lama than anyone else. ("So I got that going for me, which is nice." ;^) )

On the second:
LIBERAL
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.

Be kind of interesting to compile the scores for all commenters on this board, wouldn't it?

Eastwest
06-05-2008, 05:09 AM
(And, yes, I mean "artful" in both the yin and yang senses of the term.)

It's refreshing to listen to such a congenial and intelligent discussion so deftly touring the latest political peaks and puddles whilst skillfully dancing past points of contention tastefully deferred to some other day.

This pairing, by its King's-English lexical variety and shimmering good humor, demonstrates well how to most pleasingly set forth the free exercise of well-balanced, gently sparring political repartee. What a contrast from MSM street-fight debates and even a fair number of the BHTV trench-warfare battles.

Positively intoxicating to listen to Brink's exceptionally intelligent articulation refinements. (But I'm always vulnerable to savoring the flavor of a fine wordsmith, nearly forgetting that head-spinning ambrosias may mask debilitating poisons.)

Of course I wouldn't even dream of agreeing with more than half of Brink's inevitably cold-hearted libertarian political stances as I'm convinced that his ideas, if given free rein, would result in the draining away of the last pint of compassion's blood from the once hale and hearty stalwart Democratic Party.

Thanks to both, but, no, aside from occasional "brief affairs" by what has admittedly become a party "of easy virtue," flings with Libertarians are mostly to be shunned. They do, after all, betray the heart which should be beating at the core of the Party.

EW

Eastwest
06-05-2008, 05:09 AM
Be kind of interesting to compile the scores for all commenters on this board, wouldn't it?

-8.88 Economic Left / Right
-5.85 Social Libertarian / Authoritarian

This pegs me as nominally considerably more Left and Libertarian than Mandela and considerably more left and about the same Libertarian as the Dalai Lama, though there's some paradox in that as I see big problems with lock-step classic-Left analyses and am probably a good bit more socially conservative than the score reflects.

(Sometimes even very socially conservative people find it just plain too divisive, rude, and impractical to raise certain supposedly "ethical" issues to the level of legal proscriptions which, if done, would inevitably be considered nearly fascist to anyone not subscribing to the same ethical code-set.)

Another possible problem with sticking the Dalai Lama that far out onto the Libertarian scale is that, public PR face and laissez-faire approach to other people's personal lives aside, the ethical system to which he is bound by vow personally proscribes even being a party to approving for others certain "indulgences" key to obtaining a score corresponding to those grid coordinates. (Abortion, drugs, & homosexuality being the operative higher-ordination coordinate-disqualifying "issues" here.)

I refuse to take the "the advocates" quiz as it is an obvious agenda-ridden BS gotcha trap-quiz trick.

(Even the "Political Compass" quiz has built-in nuance-filtering foibles (see above), but at least it's a good-faith effort producing a moderately valid reflection of general tendencies.)

EW

a Duoist
06-05-2008, 05:46 AM
The intra-party savagery in the Democratic Party was far worse in 1968 than it is today. Catch the old tapes of Mayor Daley on the convention floor screaming at Senator Abraham Ribicoff at the convention podium. It was a surreal moment of pure hatred in American politics, and completely internecine.

Incompetence Dodger
06-05-2008, 05:46 AM
Three tax-and-spend ideas liberals and libertarians conceivably could agree to support:
1. Infrastructure investment - repair roads, bridges and water-sewer, plus a significant mass-transit component.
2. Homeland-security investment - ports, railroads, other vulnerable but neglected potential targets.
3. Alternative energy development - a public-private Manhattan Project on post-petroleum technologies.
All three have the potential to boost employment and wage levels, improve the environment, enhance security; and all offer ample rewards and growth opportunities in the private sector.
Are we a happy coalition yet?

In short, a robust private sector for the creation and distribution of private goods and a robust public sector for the creation and distribution of public goods? Yeah, I think most liberals can sign off on that. Among a great many other things, the past seven years have been a real object lesson for liberals on the pitfalls of a general principle of "if people are hurting, the government's gotta act." Obviously, there are going to be definitional and border-setting disagreements between liberals and libertarians, but hey, it's a big tent for a reason. Plus, I think libertarians' vigilance about unintended consequences can be extremely valuable.

Incompetence Dodger
06-05-2008, 06:10 AM
My scores from the first:
Left/Libertarian
Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92


Be kind of interesting to compile the scores for all commenters on this board, wouldn't it?

My scores:
Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.31

Hmm. Further away from Brendan than I expected (although still in the Mandela-Dalai Lama zone; yeah, that sounds about right ha ha).

I think the basic idea behind the two-axis economic-social model is solid, and helps separate issues the conventional left-right axis conflates. However, I really think this test is off-base in the execution, and might be of limited utility. I'd say as many as two-thirds of the statements you're asked to agree with or disagree with simply don't lend themselves to such a black and white distinction. To take the very first statement as an example, my answer to "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations." is neither agree or disagree, but rather starts with "Yes, but" and continues for several hundred words. Others are unanswerable in a context-free bubble ("controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment."). Others poorly worded ("the most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline."; that's crazy, but in practice I'm a much stricter parent than you might think if you knew me socially). Still others are borderline incoherent ("a genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.").

rgajria
06-05-2008, 06:29 AM
Again, Jane Hamsher's (voice) volume is much lower than Brink Lindsay. So I have to keep my hand on the volume knob and reduce the volume every time Brink speaks and vice versa for Jane. Could the Tech Staff please look into this. Or split the voice in two separate channels so they could be individually adjusted.
Otherwise, an interesting diavlog.

Eastwest
06-05-2008, 07:13 AM
Again, Jane Hamsher's (voice) volume is much lower than Brink Lindsay. So I have to keep my hand on the volume knob and reduce the volume every time Brink speaks and vice versa for Jane. Could the Tech Staff please look into this. Or split the voice in two separate channels so they could be individually adjusted.
Otherwise, an interesting diavlog.

I think you may have a personal hardware or software problem. It came through for me with very good fidelity and matching levels with no sense of anything out of the ordinary.

EW

ginger baker
06-05-2008, 08:33 AM
hillary is toast. despite piggying back on her husband, which only hurt her more, her campaign was one bonehead move after another, and pretty reckless and unforgivable. Obama owes her nothing. He can work at getting the constituencies and demographics he needs for Nov without her under his tent. Good riddance to the Clintons!

And if women end up voting for mccain out of mere resentment, especially those who supported Hillary, they are pathetic sore losers.

Incompetence Dodger
06-05-2008, 09:00 AM
hillary is toast. despite piggying back on her husband, which only hurt her more, her campaign was one bonehead move after another, and pretty reckless and unforgivable. Obama owes her nothing. He can work at getting the constituencies and demographics he needs for Nov without her under his tent. Good riddance to the Clintons!

And if women end up voting for mccain out of mere resentment, especially those who supported Hillary, they are pathetic sore losers.

psst.... Ginger..... The primaries are over. Time for all Democrats to row in the same direction. Personally, I'd like nothing more than to find out after the election that Harriet Christian voted for Obama.

nkirby
06-05-2008, 09:07 AM
I must say that YouTube is always the center of hateful venting. I mean, generally, you'll find in the comments section the most ignorant, homophobic, sexist, racist, etc. things you could imagine. So I wouldn't read too much in the flame wars on YouTube.

Bobby G
06-05-2008, 10:42 AM
My scores on the Political Compass quiz:

Economic Left/Right: 0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.13

I'm closest either to Kevin Rudd (not that I know who he is) or Jose Zapatero. This pretty much goes with my self-assessment, because I've always thought of myself as center-right.

I didn't take the other quiz, because from what I remember of it, it's too simplistic.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 12:30 PM
EW:

I agree with your surprise about the Dalai Lama's positioning, although I probably know less about him than you do. Still, though, isn't it sort of a core Buddhist principle (to oversimplify) to live and let live? That is, one could (should) lead an ascetic life, but also resist the urge to mandate that others do the same?

I'm also interested in your statement:

... am probably a good bit more socially conservative than the score reflects.

What makes you say that? Seems to me that the test touched on most of the obvious marker issues. Perhaps it's a case as with my speculation about the Dalai Lama, in that you choose not to indulge in a lot of the actions asked about, but are unwilling to say what others should do? That is, you're "more socially conservative" as regards your instinct for self-regulation, but not societal regulation? Your high score on the economic axis seems to support this idea, however hand-wavily I express it.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 12:35 PM
ID:

Further away from Brendan than I expected ...

Probably mostly explained by a few answers being answered "Strongly (dis)agree" by me, and just "(dis)agree" by you. My guess, anyway.

However, I really think this test is off-base in the execution, and might be of limited utility. I'd say as many as two-thirds of the statements you're asked to agree with or disagree with simply don't lend themselves to such a black and white distinction.

Of course. But it's fun, and does reveal at least a little something. Sometimes it's convenient to have a shorthand description, say, in the context of commenting on a forum like this. It both gives you an idea where someone is coming from when debating an issue, and could also provoke some interesting contradictions.

allbetsareoff
06-05-2008, 12:36 PM
allbetsareoff:

Thanks for letting me know. And thanks for the links.

If you're interested, here are mine:

My scores from the first:
Left/Libertarian
Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92

which puts me nearer the Dalai Lama than anyone else. ("So I got that going for me, which is nice." ;^) )

On the second:
LIBERAL
Your PERSONAL issues Score is 80%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 20%.

Be kind of interesting to compile the scores for all commenters on this board, wouldn't it?

The trouble with these tests is that additional questions could easily move you some distance ideologically. I would be rated further to the right had I been quizzed on, for examples:
- Race-based vs. class-based affirmative action. It's time to ditch the former in favor of the latter.
- Popular culture. It's infectiously stupid, coarse, increasingly sociopathic, rapidly degrading our society. We're skidding into dystopia and it's got to stop, by consensus or by more coercive measures.
- Family dysfunction. This bomb already exploded in the underclass; now it's going off in the middle class. It's the root cause of every social pathology we're battling unsuccessfully, and it's going to lock in income disparity for generations.
- Immigration. Assimilation was expected of immigrants in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and it should be now. Not just "welcome to America, now speak English," but full acceptance of our governing philosophy and mores.
I don't sound so liberal or left-libertarian now, do I?

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 12:39 PM
Bobby G:

I'm closest either to Kevin Rudd (not that I know who he is) or Jose Zapatero.

Former prime minister of Australia and current prime minister of Spain! You internationalist, you! ;^)

Interesting that Zapatero falls where he does, yet is head of the Spanish Socialist Party. So much for labels.

allbetsareoff
06-05-2008, 12:58 PM
For the record, my Political Compass scores are:

Economic Left/Right: -4.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21

Wonderment
06-05-2008, 01:55 PM
Economic: -8.25

Social: -8.41

Am I predictable or what?

graz
06-05-2008, 02:08 PM
Economic: -2.75

Social: -6.00

I demand a recount.

Bobby G
06-05-2008, 02:18 PM
Hey! I at least knew who Zapatero was!

Bobby G
06-05-2008, 02:19 PM
I feel like I'm on the only conservative on this site, and I'm barely that. Where's David Thompson??

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 02:20 PM
I think you may have a personal hardware or software problem. It came through for me with very good fidelity and matching levels with no sense of anything out of the ordinary.

EW

My perception was the same as rgajria's, although not so severe that I had to keep adjusting the volume. I'd also agree that it is not the first time that there has been an imbalance in apparent volume levels.

It does seem from listening to these diavlogs as I do -- on a desktop PC with well-separated external speakers, that the sound is somehow dual channel, which suggests that the end user could have some control, given proper hardware or software. Or is it just an illusion that I fall for, given the screen placements of those speaking?

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 02:21 PM
Hey! I at least knew who Zapatero was!

You're a better man than I.

Eastwest
06-05-2008, 03:48 PM
EW:

I agree with your surprise about the Dalai Lama's positioning, although I probably know less about him than you do. Still, though, isn't it sort of a core Buddhist principle (to oversimplify) to live and let live? That is, one could (should) lead an ascetic life, but also resist the urge to mandate that others do the same?

Actually, for laity, all such issues are considered a matter of personal (i.e. not public) development and, as such, it would generally be considered an unskillful teaching mode to raise any such personal matters to the level where they became topics of public discussion even within a given spiritual community, how much the less would it be considered the least bit acceptable to make a sub-groups foibles topics for church-backed advocacy politics. Monastics themselves (at least in the very traditional lineages typical of Theravadin Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism, and two of the primary lineages of Tibetan Buddhism) are held to a much stricter standard.

Optional supplementary information: (All the way down to next quote.)

Historically (and this goes all the way back to the Buddha), any sort of public political advocacy (or even any time spent on the matter privately in the bounds of a monastery) was strictly forbidden, this due to the realization that the topics do not conduce to peace of mind personally and, in a public context, limit one's ability to slowly work towards the softening of the very spiritually corrupt mind-sets of the hyper-conservative, not least because there is always a danger the monastic community might be perceived as "a hot-bed of Left-Wing advocacy politics." (Substitute the historical political category names for the country and era at issue.)

The ideal has always been for the monastic community to teach spiritual principles and for the laity, very separately and with no direct connection to any monk or monastery, to do whatever they might choose to do in bringing the spirit of compassion, fairness, and moderation to bear in the secular sphere.

Historically, even the appearance of political involvement by the monastic community has been disastrous for both the church and the laity. And so we saw it yet again precisely as I predicted it would occur in both Burma and Tibet: Young monks get too involved in politics and it not only gets those particular monks suppressed and a goodly number of them killed, it additionally gets a lot of innocent laity killed and further oppressed as well. At that point one gets extreme involvement of authoritarian government right within the walls of your own monastery and the atmosphere for spiritual cultivation becomes destroyed country-wide.

So this is the real-world political basis for political non-involvement of Buddhist monastics and the reason for which the Buddha himself absolutely forbade it.

For Buddhism in the west, this is a bit of serendipity: Separation of church and state is pretty much built into Buddhism as its long-held default standard operating procedure. Hence its tendency to rate way far out on the "Libertarian" scale.

Another serendipity: The Buddha forbade monastics from teaching Dharma to the laity except in response to sincere request. The implications of this are huge in the evolution of a multi-cultural society where everybody more or less has to figure out a way to get along and nobody wants to be hassled by somebody "selling" their creed on the street corner like it was some new brand of soap.

(You'll notice HHDL himself discourages people from switching away from their religion-of-origin to Buddhism. By Buddhist custom, however, he becomes obligated to pass them Buddhist teachings on the third sincere request. This more-or-less corresponds to when you can't drive them away even with a stick anyway.)

Now, as regards the spiritual / social rationale (as opposed to the merely political rationale) for clerical non-involvement in anything that might rise to a political issue is that to do so would just make people feel negatively judged for engaging in the one thing which we all share and which it is entirely natural for any sane person to focus upon as central to living a life: the desire to pursue happiness (though often in places where it will never be found) and the fervent wish to avoid suffering.

The instant one lays any sort of public or peer-pressure judgmentalism on someone, what do you think? It turns them off, leads them to feel "these are not my friends," and you've lost all ability to do anything spiritually useful for them anyway. So getting on a high horse and condescending to people about the character of their spiritual lives is inherently divisive and is, by its very nature, a lose-lose stratagem, or more colloquially put: "Just plain stupid."

A point perhaps worth noting: For laity, there is not even any expectation to gravitate towards this "ascetic life" to which you refer. (But it is considered far more spiritually skillful in both present-life and future-life terms to cease the taking of life, to cease any form of stealing, and, yes, this would include cheating on your taxes which is in fact a form of stealing from everybody else, to cease any form of lying, to completely avoid adultery, and to avoid intoxicants as well, not because they are inherently "evil," but rather because they mess up one's judgment and make for inconsistencies and even complete "blow-outs" on the killing, stealing, lying, and adultery fronts.)

But for a monk receiving the higher ordination (actually this applies to the "novice" ordination as well) one cannot by word, gesture, or other perceptible signification indicate approval for killing, stealing (and this would even include friend-to-friend software piracy), sexual misconduct (adultery, etc. and you will know what I mean by "etc."), or consumption of intoxicants, how much less can one indulge in any such behaviors oneself.

In practice: Theravada and Chinese Buddhist traditions are extremely strict in enforcing celibacy, abstention from intoxicants, etc. in their monastic communities.

Tibetan Buddhism, due to the proliferation of a certain degree of "ingenuity" and admixture with Advaita Hinduism, is beset by a circumstance wherein the adherence to traditional standards varies from extremely strict (as in the Gelug lineage headed by HHDL) to "very creative" in certain other sub-traditions heavily influenced by the native Bon religion.

Japanese Buddhism pretty much tossed over genuine monasticism in the late 1800's, dancing in very close step with big political changes in the country at the time. In any case, Japan never received the transmittal of the higher ordination from China even in the case of the much-vaunted Dogen, and now today virtually all Japanese "monks" are in fact not monks at all in the true sense of the term, but rather are "lay priests with bald heads" who, yes, do perform a spiritual teaching function, but most often do have wives, do drink alcohol, and may or may not take up what they consider a purely optional opportunity to avail themselves of the level of sexual and substance-related strictures originally very emphatically and articulately laid down by the Buddha as compulsory for any and all monastics upon whom he or his disciples might ever confer ordination.

Korean Buddhism until WWII was just as strict as Theravada and Chinese on these issues. Japanese cultural imperialism has produced marked changes in the Korean Buddhist culture so that they now have both very strict and very Japanese lineages, although it is my understanding that the original very strict tradition is still dominant.

Vietnamese Buddhism involves subsets of Theravada and Chinese Buddhism and so tends to be extremely strict on all these issues.

Buddhism in the West is a topic for which it's difficult to make sweeping generalizations. We have outposts of Japanese Buddhism which go both more strict and less strict than the operative standards in Japan. Tibetan Buddhism here breaks all molds. It has many centers which are very, very conservative and many which are anything but, even to the point that HHDL himself has criticized them. (A certain couple recently on front page of NYT and perhaps now being parodied in Slate being a case in point where it just drives conservative Tibetan Buddhists to roll their eyes to see this sort of thing construed as representing their religion. Talk about "off the reservation....")

I'm also interested in your statement: "... am probably a good bit more socially conservative than the score reflects."

What makes you say that? Seems to me that the test touched on most of the obvious marker issues. Perhaps it's a case as with my speculation about the Dalai Lama, in that you choose not to indulge in a lot of the actions asked about, but are unwilling to say what others should do? That is, you're "more socially conservative" as regards your instinct for self-regulation, but not societal regulation? Your high score on the economic axis seems to support this idea, however hand-wavily I express it.

I personally consider it way too divisive, tasteless, impractical, and counter-productive to make other people's personal lives the focus of public political debate. I just don't have the stomach for it, nor would any traditional teachings of Buddhism support that. If people find they might be able to use Buddhist teachings (either in whole or merely in part), then they'll seek out personalized instruction in a private or at least a respectful, discreet, and psychically "safe" setting where they won't be made to feel de-humanized or ostracized for the modes by which they seek to find happiness and avoid suffering.

Enough said.

EW

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 04:44 PM
EW:

Thanks for the highly detailed answer and for putting in all that work. You've certainly helped me to understand why the Dalai Lama was positioned on that graph as he was.

Of course, I got a lot more out of it than just that, but I don't have anything more to offer in response. I may come back to it -- there's a lot there to think about.

AnnaB
06-05-2008, 05:24 PM
Jane, in one of your blogspots, you have the audacity to second guess the motivations of "older women" voters. you do not know the reason each woman would vote for mccain over obama. i resent being thrown into a category. you simplify it, and that's very insulting to me. I am more complicated than your naive little summary of my motives. How dare you, as young as you are, presume to speak for ME??

No. it's not only the wound of seeing females take a back seat again, though it is annoying that America so easily embraces an inexperienced young male (with a very hateful low class wife) over the wonderful brilliance and experience of a woman who is MUCH BETTER qualified. No, there's more to it. I FOR ONE do not trust NObama. That's one reason i would have to vote for that less than desirable presidential candidate, john mccain, just to keep a dishonest man of muslim heritage and sympathy, who is totally unpatriotic, and who smokes crack and has fellatio in the back seat with strangers from a party. The terrorists are dancing in the streets that Nobama has the presumptive nomination. Wake up America, we are in danger!

graz
06-05-2008, 05:42 PM
Jane, in one of your blogspots, you have the audacity to second guess the motivations of "older women" voters. you do not know the reason each woman would vote for mccain over obama. i resent being thrown into a category. you simplify it, and that's very insulting to me. I am more complicated than your naive little summary of my motives. How dare you, as young as you are, presume to speak for ME??

No. it's not only the wound of seeing females take a back seat again, though it is annoying that America so easily embraces an inexperienced young male (with a very hateful low class wife) over the wonderful brilliance and experience of a woman who is MUCH BETTER qualified. No, there's more to it. I FOR ONE do not trust NObama. That's one reason i would have to vote for that less than desirable presidential candidate, john mccain, just to keep a dishonest man of muslim heritage and sympathy, who is totally unpatriotic, and who smokes crack and has fellatio in the back seat with strangers from a party. The terrorists are dancing in the streets that Nobama has the presumptive nomination. Wake up America, we are in danger!

Shakspeare must have covered this woman scorned crap more effectively than me. Add to that bitterness and hatred. I can only hope that your just venting, if not... good luck.

Who said "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned"?
An Insensitive Man
Dear Insensitive:
While many attribute the quote to William Shakespeare, it actually comes from a play called the "The Mourning Bride" (1697) by William Congreve. The complete quote is "Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned."

handle
06-05-2008, 06:31 PM
dishonest man of muslim heritage and sympathy, who is totally unpatriotic, and who smokes crack and has fellatio in the back seat with strangers from a party. The terrorists are dancing in the streets that Nobama has the presumptive nomination. Wake up America, we are in danger!

So we are in danger of smoking crack and having fellatio in the back seat with strangers from a party? this is a bad thing?

But seriously, you do make a valid, albeit thinly shrouded point that some Hillary supporters are voting Mccain by virtue of being racist rumor mongers. I doubt if Hill is going to embrace any of you publicly anytime soon, however.

If you believe all the buzz you see on the web then Mccain was hot dogging with his jet in the 60's and set off a fire on the USS Forestall.
I too mourn the loss of Hillary, but spreading webcrap?
You and David Thompson could make beautiful hate together... DT meet AnnaB, let the crack party begin!

handle
06-05-2008, 06:39 PM
My perception was the same as rgajria's, although not so severe that I had to keep adjusting the volume. I'd also agree that it is not the first time that there has been an imbalance in apparent volume levels.

It does seem from listening to these diavlogs as I do -- on a desktop PC with well-separated external speakers, that the sound is somehow dual channel, which suggests that the end user could have some control, given proper hardware or software. Or is it just an illusion that I fall for, given the screen placements of those speaking?

make sure you are getting both channels then on a PC double click the liltle speaker icon and adjust the "volume control" balance. Doesn't always help but worth a try...
The mac has a speaker icon in "system preferences" click and you will find the balance there.

handle
06-05-2008, 06:47 PM
hillary is toast. despite piggying back on her husband, which only hurt her more, her campaign was one bonehead move after another, and pretty reckless and unforgivable. Obama owes her nothing. He can work at getting the constituencies and demographics he needs for Nov without her under his tent. Good riddance to the Clintons!

And if women end up voting for mccain out of mere resentment, especially those who supported Hillary, they are pathetic sore losers.

The more you slight Hill the more your guy looks bad for all the trouble she gave him so you might want to reel it in a little.
And all the sore winner crap is not playing well for our side either.
Cant' you guys just gloat like normal people? You have to be victims in victory?
Pretty sure Obama's not gonna go that route.

handle
06-05-2008, 07:03 PM
(And, yes, I mean "artful" in both the yin and yang senses of the term.)

It's refreshing to listen to such a congenial and intelligent discussion so deftly touring the latest political peaks and puddles whilst skillfully dancing past points of contention tastefully deferred to some other day.

This pairing, by its King's-English lexical variety and shimmering good humor, demonstrates well how to most pleasingly set forth the free exercise of well-balanced, gently sparring political repartee. What a contrast from MSM street-fight debates and even a fair number of the BHTV trench-warfare battles.

Positively intoxicating to listen to Brink's exceptionally intelligent articulation refinements. (But I'm always vulnerable to savoring the flavor of a fine wordsmith, nearly forgetting that head-spinning ambrosias may mask debilitating poisons.)

Of course I wouldn't even dream of agreeing with more than half of Brink's inevitably cold-hearted libertarian political stances as I'm convinced that his ideas, if given free rein, would result in the draining away of the last pint of compassion's blood from the once hale and hearty stalwart Democratic Party.

Thanks to both, but, no, aside from occasional "brief affairs" by what has admittedly become a party "of easy virtue," flings with Libertarians are mostly to be shunned. They do, after all, betray the heart which should be beating at the core of the Party.

EW

Let 'em vote first, though.

handle
06-05-2008, 07:12 PM
So we are in danger of smoking crack and having fellatio in the back seat with strangers from a party? this is a bad thing?

But seriously, you do make a valid, albeit thinly shrouded point that some Hillary supporters are voting Mccain by virtue of being racist rumor mongers. I doubt if Hill is going to embrace any of you publicly anytime soon, however.

If you believe all the buzz you see on the web then Mccain was hot dogging with his jet in the 60's and set off a fire on the USS Forestall.
I too mourn the loss of Hillary, but spreading webcrap?
You and David Thompson could make beautiful hate together... DT meet AnnaB, let the crack party begin!

Wait... wait ... Barack "Barry" NObama, the crack smoking, felatio in a back seat with strangers having, Griggs Vs. Duke power affirmative action getting..

Damn, my tounge just got stuck in the side of my mouth...

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 07:55 PM
make sure you are getting both channels then on a PC double click the liltle speaker icon and adjust the "volume control" balance. Doesn't always help but worth a try...
The mac has a speaker icon in "system preferences" click and you will find the balance there.

Thanks, handle. I never noticed that balance control was there on my PC. (I always use the little knob on the speaker itself -- much more responsive.)

handle
06-05-2008, 08:16 PM
Thanks, handle. I never noticed that balance control was there on my PC. (I always use the little knob on the speaker itself -- much more responsive.)

I live to serve! (you are welcome)

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 08:35 PM
handle:

Probably should have thought of this before, but it just occurred to me to actually, you know, test this.

I am happy to report that it works. There is a clear difference between the two channels, and moving the balance slider to the left boosts Jane's track compared to Brink's.

BTW, if anyone else is reading this exciting comment, the way to access this control is to double-click the speaker icon in the Windows System Tray (single-clicking just brings up the single volume control). This should give a pop-up windows with a bunch of controls -- balance control is in the upper left corner.

At least on Windows 2000.

HTH.

Thanks again, handle.

donroberto
06-05-2008, 10:32 PM
Sorry, I don't comment here too often so I am not familiar with the regulars. Is this comment by AnnaB a parody of the Harriet Christian radical wing of the Democratic party? If so, then well done!

donroberto
06-05-2008, 10:34 PM
The anger and frustration of the older female HRC supporters does baffle me. I suppose because I am not of that demographic, I will never fully understand. It must be a emotional reaction based on a lifetime of experience as a female in this society.

I appreciate the attempt to address the issue here. And though Hamsher's comments are good, they fall a little short and a bit shallow. It seems an important phenomenon to suss out for understanding on a deeper level. I was not that surprised at the amount of racism that was revealed in the primary contest, but the anger and resentment of women was very surprising and more than a little disturbing. I hope the matter is given serious attention by sociologist and poltitical scientists and even psychologists.

Although it may have seen inevitable, it seems to me that it was the Clintons themselves that tried to use the identity politics of gender and race to their advantage. And even if that statement is arguable, I think it is less arguable that they did nothing to downplay those dynamics and attempt to be post-racial and post-gender (not that there ever will be such things). Nor do I think there was anything near equivalence in the way the two campaigns played the identity politics game, as Hamsher suggests.

AemJeff
06-05-2008, 10:54 PM
You're further out on both scales than I am, though I expected to get pegged closer to the center on Left/Right and more libertarian than my scores show. I agree with you, it'll be interesting if a lot of play this little games and post our scores.

Jeff:

Economic Left/Right: -3.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.05

I'm not sure what it means that there were so few libertarians among the sample scores, and no right/libs whatsoever. It also surprised me to see Pope Benedict (per my mother, the nice little old Catholic lady: "Pope Nazi") on the left hand side of the scale.

bjkeefe
06-05-2008, 11:18 PM
AemJeff:

It also surprised me to see Pope Benedict (per my mother, the nice little old Catholic lady: "Pope Nazi") on the left hand side of the scale.

As the graph was constructed by other based on published works, I think we can conjecture that a three-word phrase is operative here: Talk is cheap.

Snark aside, I can imagine any Pope honestly scoring liberally on the econ axis. They mostly don't want big business dominating the little guy, for example, and would probably tend to believe that governments, and not just charities, should look after the less fortunate.

Wonderment
06-05-2008, 11:54 PM
Snark aside, I can imagine any Pope honestly scoring liberally on the econ axis. They mostly don't want big business dominating the little guy, for example, and would probably tend to believe that governments, and not just charities, should look after the less fortunate.

The Pope is also good on immigrant rights, the death penalty, prison reform and (drum roll) wars of aggression!!!!

He is actually close to being a pacifist, which suggests a radical reading of the traditional "just war" doctrine of the Church:

There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq," he said on a press conference in 2003. "To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'

The Church sucks on gay and lesbian rights and women's reproductive rights and sexual freedom, but Benedict does have his progressive side.

bjkeefe
06-06-2008, 12:09 AM
The Pope is also good on immigrant rights, the death penalty, prison reform and (drum roll) wars of aggression!!!!

He is actually close to being a pacifist, which suggests a radical reading of the traditional "just war" doctrine of the Church:

The Church sucks on gay and lesbian rights and women's reproductive rights and sexual freedom, but Benedict does have his progressive side.

The cynic would say: Greeeaaat. He's on the right side of a whole bunch of issues that he can't do anything about, and on the ones where he actually could have an effect, he's dead wrong.

Cynically yours,

artus
06-06-2008, 05:32 AM
I always wonder why Senator Clinton decides not to came out at 2004 ^?^

handle
06-06-2008, 04:57 PM
handle:

Probably should have thought of this before, but it just occurred to me to actually, you know, test this.

I am happy to report that it works. There is a clear difference between the two channels, and moving the balance slider to the left boosts Jane's track compared to Brink's.

BTW, if anyone else is reading this exciting comment, the way to access this control is to double-click the speaker icon in the Windows System Tray (single-clicking just brings up the single volume control). This should give a pop-up windows with a bunch of controls -- balance control is in the upper left corner.

At least on Windows 2000.

HTH.

Thanks again, handle.

and XP and 98 and 95.. Cheers!

milam command
06-06-2008, 10:14 PM
Again, Jane Hamsher's (voice) volume is much lower than Brink Lindsay. So I have to keep my hand on the volume knob and reduce the volume every time Brink speaks and vice versa for Jane. Could the Tech Staff please look into this. Or split the voice in two separate channels so they could be individually adjusted.
Otherwise, an interesting diavlog.

Second that. I listen on headphones while working out. One voice is inaudible, one voice blows out my other eardrum. This is a continued annoyance with bloggingheads audio that seems like it should be very easy to fix.

milam command
06-06-2008, 10:20 PM
I'm a libertarian who has been a Brink Lindsey fan for a long time, but in this dialog his repeated, long-winded monologues are off-putting. It's as though he's just waiting for her to finish so he can launch into another speech. This should be a conversation between two smart people. I wish Brink would talk WITH her and not AT her.

Andrya6
06-07-2008, 02:24 PM
Great diavlog!

I'd have to take huge exception to the statement that the differences between Clinton and Obama are small. I was volunteering on the Obama campaign before he took off among African-Americans, and almost all the fellow volunteers I talked to were driven by one thing: Clinton's support for the Iraq war and later her support for Kyl-Lieberman (which carries the risk that the Bush administration would interpret it as authorizing military action against Iran).

As a boomer, I'm old enough to remember when American young men were being fed into the meat grinder of the Vietnam war- long after it was clear that the war made no sense and served no purpose. I'm not a pacifist, but I want the US to engage only in wars that are NECESSARY, SMART, and JUSTIFIED. Given the Clintons' history of triangulating when under pressure from the right wing, I can easily see her caving and embarking on more ill-considered wars of choice. That's only one difference (between Clinton and Obama) but it's a big one.

Wonderment
06-07-2008, 02:43 PM
I'm not a pacifist, but I want the US to engage only in wars that are NECESSARY, SMART, and JUSTIFIED.

I am a pacifist, but I agree with every other word of your post. Hillary triangulated once too often, and the war vote cost her the presidency.

And not just with the Vietnam generation; younger people -- especially Iraq veterans and their families -- won't be forgetting her vote any time soon either.