Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=7274)

rcocean 12-30-2011 07:10 PM

Great DV John & Glenn!
 
I hope you continue to appear on BHTV no matter what. You are BHTV's most interesting "heads".

And I have to state I agree with Glenn and Ron Paul. We need "grown-up" answers to questions like:

- Why do have bases all around the world?
- Why are we the world's policeman?
- Why are we so fanatically pro-Israel (right or wrong)?
- Why are we thinking about going to war with Iran?

Sadly, all we get is a lot of smears and bullshit.

badhatharry 12-30-2011 07:38 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 235667)
a lot of smears and bullshit.

Makes me want to take a shower.

rcocean 12-30-2011 07:46 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 235668)
Makes me want to take a shower.

Smear merchants make me want to puke and then take a shower.

Ocean 12-30-2011 07:48 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Congratulations, John, on your soon to be parenthood!

I'm sort of sick of the discussion about Ron Paul. I won't comment except to say that someone will have to define what "intellectualism" is. I'm starting to suspect that the likes of Perry have lowered the bar so much that anyone with some degree of intelligence and education can be called an intellectual.

Needless to say, I don't see Ron as an intellectual. His arguments are really not original or nuanced. He's repeating some basic old fashioned libertarian principles. He's more dogmatic than flexible in his thinking. Anyhow, I'll leave it there, since I don't think we have an accepted definition of intellectualism.

Then John and Glenn moved on to talk about race, racism and Obama. Wow. I was quite astonished to hear Glenn being so dismissive of racism as if it was a past issue. I was equally astonished to hear him question whether Obama is "black" enough or whether his election has been a victory for African Americans in this country.

My reaction is that, racism is very much present and there are groups that are vigilant and eager to promote their racist sentiments in a nostalgia for the old good white times. At the same time, I also think that Obama's election has done an incredible good to the African American cause by proving that an African American man can excel and reach the highest office in this country, and do his job with the highest dignity and competence. He doesn't have to be perfect or make everybody happy or be the best. By virtue of being an intelligent and accomplished president he has vindicated the cause.

The kind of argumentation that Glenn engaged in when he analyzed whether Obama is a real African American, is understandable, but really mostly meaningful to an intellectual African American. As John said, for the vast majority of people, Obama is a black man. People who can make a distinction between a real African American and a mixed race direct descendant of an African man, are either already fully supportive of the AA cause (like Glenn) or those who are recalcitrant racists and are looking for excuses to take away credit from this black man that we have as a President.


In terms of diversity, there are models of integration and multiculturalism that we should be looking at instead of assuming that we need homogenous groups to achieve social harmony. It is an interesting topic, and perhaps there could be a lengthier discussion about it.


Is there more that we need to eliminate racism? Of course, there's much more to do until poverty and race no longer get stratified together. But, we've come a long way. Let's not make nuance take away from the accomplishment.

Once again I get the impression that both John and Glenn have at different times engaged in some kind of counterintuitive exercise, to excess. In trying not to be biased towards African American causes, they end up being excessively critical of their own, or optimistic about other groups, or skeptical about the depth of racism still present. I'm not suggesting that they should be paranoid about a renaissance of racism, but rather that they don't try so hard to transcend.

I agree with what others have said, it doesn't matter whether we agree or disagree with what these two have to say, it's always thought provoking in some form. I'm glad that they will be back.

Baz 12-30-2011 07:51 PM

Re: advice from Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235610)
I'm referring to this.


Whether he likes the endorsement or not, the racist message endorsed in his newsletter legitimizes the kind of supremacist talk that has been shunned (for good reasons) from higher level political figures.

He's done everything he can to shun these racist remarks Ocean, what more can a man do? I disagree that it legitimizes the ideas expressed in the newsletter, it only legitimizes those ideas to the people who think this way already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235610)
Would any candidate ever be able to hold on to the principles you cite? I don't think so. That's why some candidates are just that. If they go heavy against the establishment (corporate and financial oligarchies, military industrial complex, for example) they are not viable. If they go heavy against certain groups (minorities for example) they are also less viable.


Paul is walking a thin line trying to give voice to some raw ideas which mobilize underrepresented groups, for both good and bad causes (from my perspective), such as white supremacists, and racists, anti-government, anti- social safety net, anti- universal health care, on one hand. And then he also expresses anti-interventionism sentiments, and may have expressed anti corporate power ideas in the past.

As you can see each political base can pick and choose which message to listen to and which one to ignore. The bottom line, he's not a viable candidate, and he lacks enough leadership to be a game changer. So, he's just a "fill-in" figure that keeps people busy talking about him while he has no significant base that can embrace all of his ideas. If he wants to be more viable, he will have to sell out to the base of his party. Which of his ideas do you think he will give up and which ones will he emphasize if it came to that?

I don't ignore the social policies he advocates which for the most part I'd be on the opposite side of, but I'm assuming the white house could have a more immediate impact on certain foreign policy issues (being the commander in chief) than on certain domestic issues, but I may be wrong about this.

But as long as people continue to say these types of people aren't viable candidates because certain special interests don't support them then this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and you're stuck with spineless cronies who are bought and paid for by big business.

sugarkang 12-30-2011 07:51 PM

Re: How to Murder blacks and get away with it - advice from Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 235641)
It's possible, I suppose, that I mischaracterized the totality of what McWhorter ultimately had to say in this diavlog about Ron Paul.

Possible? You suppose? No. You severely distorted what McWhorter said to unrecognizable Orwellian doublespeak.

Quote:

What the hell are you talking about? Ron Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which means he wanted to preserve the legal framework of Jim Crow - exactly as I stated.
No.

I don't have time to explain this to you. And even if I did, it wouldn't convince you. I can only hope that someday you'll try to understand the issues from a different perspective. I am glad for the Civil Rights movement. I suspect Ron Paul is as well. But the movement and the CRA are two different things.

I think the 1964 CRA should be repealed. What? Do you want to call me a racist? I'm not racist but I support racists? No. The 1964 Act should be repealed and the 1875 Act, which is nearly identical, should be reinstated. The 14th Amendment should be restored to its original intent (to protect blacks after the Civil War). Then all the separate but equal doctrine would die. Why? Because Jim Crow could only exist with a weak 14th Amendment.

Ron Paul may not have the same idea that I do, but I'd guess it's something along similar lines. And even if he wasn't, we have freedom of association in this country. If we didn't, the government could control which races you could marry. Freedom isn't free.

You hate libertarians because you don't understand them. They may be wrong, but they do not have the malicious intent that you think they have.

whburgess 12-30-2011 07:52 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 235667)
I hope you continue to appear on BHTV no matter what. You are BHTV's most interesting "heads".

And I have to state I agree with Glenn and Ron Paul. We need "grown-up" answers to questions like:

- Why do have bases all around the world?


So we can be a more effective policeman for the world.

Quote:

- Why are we the world's policeman?
It's a bad neighborhood. If we don't do it, who will? Is the world better off without a policeman or with a different one?

Quote:

- Why are we so fanatically pro-Israel (right or wrong)?
Because we have only two parties in this country that have any real chance of getting power. One party has in its coalition, christian zionists, whose religion tells them to be fanatically pro-Isreal, and the other party has in its coalition Jewish zionists. These, while smaller in number then the christian zionists in the other party, are even more important in their funding of the party.

This isn't going to change any time soon.

Quote:

Why are we thinking of going to war with Iran?
Because that country poses a real threat to our beloved Isreal.


Hope this helps.

sugarkang 12-30-2011 07:56 PM

Re: Diversity, social capital, liberty, and Identity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 235649)
...

Hey, welcome back. I wanted to say I read some Kierkegaard while you were out: Either/Or and The Sickness Unto Death. I don't think either were on your original recommended list.

My ultimate conclusion is that K was wrong. And if he wasn't wrong, then salvation is virtually impossible, to which he might say is precisely the fucking point. But I can't imagine the good life having to be so hard.

badhatharry 12-30-2011 08:04 PM

unlikely
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235670)
I'm sort of sick of the discussion about Ron Paul. I won't comment except to say that someone will have to define what "intellectualism" is.

We're going to hold you to this.

Quote:

Needless to say, I don't see Ron as an intellectual. His arguments are really not original or nuanced. He's repeating some basic old fashioned libertarian principles. He's more dogmatic than flexible in his thinking. Anyhow, I'll leave it there, since I don't think we have an accepted definition of intellectualism.
OOOPS, forgot already!

whburgess 12-30-2011 08:23 PM

Re: Diversity, social capital, liberty, and Identity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 235674)
Hey, welcome back. I wanted to say I read some Kierkegaard while you were out: Either/Or and The Sickness Unto Death. I don't think either were on your original recommended list.

My ultimate conclusion is that K was wrong. And if he wasn't wrong, then salvation is virtually impossible, to which he might say is precisely the fucking point.

This is a great kierkegaardian (preliminary) conclusion on your part.
He would be proud of you.

Quote:


But I can't imagine the good life having to be so hard.
I don't think he is concerned with living the Good Life. He'd probably refer you to the Greeks for that. His concern, in the books you read, is with what it means (philosophically speaking) to be a christian.

His devotional works. Works of Love. and Purity of Heart is to Will One Thing. actually describe what it means to be a christian from a christian POV, which has little to do with the philosophy he engages in elsewhere. His philosophical project pretty much aimed at accomplishing something like the impression you got from it. That a systematic philosophy of Christianity is either wrong or impossible.


Thanks for the welcome back.

Ocean 12-30-2011 08:27 PM

Re: advice from Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baz (Post 235671)
He's done everything he can to shun these racist remarks Ocean, what more can a man do?

There are ways of thinking or perhaps certain mistakes made by neglect (neglecting to know what other people are writing under your name), that can't be undone. Once they're done, they're done.

Was he really so clueless about what was being written under his name? Or did he kinda know, but kinda looked the other way, or kinda didn't give it much thought because it wasn't something that rang repugnant to him? I don't know, but those are the kinds of things that I would be wondering about.

Quote:

I disagree that it legitimizes the ideas expressed in the newsletter, it only legitimizes those ideas to the people who think this way already.
No. There are people who already have made their minds strongly one way or the other.

But there are many people whose ideas and prejudices are somewhat latent. They go under the radar. And it depends on how much stimulation they get they will bring them back to surface or they will bury them more. And there are many people who fall in that category. That's why all this code language, subliminal messaging (so to speak) works in interesting ways.

It's the same phenomenon that we talked about a few days ago when we talked about using the term "evil" to refer to other countries, or leaders or movements. It taps on deep beliefs that because they aren't fully brought to awareness, they are more difficult to be challenged or questioned. A whole set of associations are attached to them and many aspects are assumed instead of being analyzed.

Quote:


I don't ignore the social policies he advocates which for the most part I'd be on the opposite side of, but I'm assuming the white house could have a more immediate impact on certain foreign policy issues (being the commander in chief) than on certain domestic issues, but I may be wrong about this.
Well, yes, I disagree with that. The executive has become increasingly more powerful. Short of the constant filibuster exercised by the current Republican legislators, the White House can influence heavily domestic and foreign policy.

But most importantly, even if we talked about foreign policy only, how much support do you think Paul would get from his own party? The effect of his anti-interventionism talk is a chimera.

Quote:

But as long as people continue to say these types of people aren't viable candidates because certain special interests don't support them then this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy and you're stuck with spineless cronies who are bought and paid for by big business.

In this case this is not about self fulfilling prophecies. This is common sense. Paul's ideas about war and military intervention are far from those of his party. He's being used to tap on this sentiment because people are fed up with the economy and they're starting to see how much wealth has been drained by these senseless wars. But we can't allow ourselves to be fooled thinking that the Republican Party will have a sudden transformation. That kind of change, if it comes, it will be slow and gradual and won't come from Republicans.

I don't know why you thought that the right term for your description above was "spineless". Those who avoid wars and try non-violent means of conflict resolution are called "spineless". Those who think that there's an obligation to care for those who are in need, or old, or who think that the death penalty is wrong are called "spineless". And of course, it's almost automatic that Democrats or liberals in general are called spineless. So what now? Being bought by big money is being "spineless"? I could think of all kinds of other names, but spineless seems to be directed elsewhere and most importantly, coming from the Party of War, Oil and Wealth.

Ocean 12-30-2011 08:30 PM

Re: unlikely
 
Always faithful, badhat, very faithful.

badhatharry 12-30-2011 08:33 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235670)
Then John and Glenn moved on to talk about race, racism and Obama. Wow. I was quite astonished to hear Glenn being so dismissive of racism as if it was a past issue. I was equally astonished to hear him question whether Obama is "black" enough or whether his election has been a victory for African Americans in this country.

Yeah, let's keep beating that horse. I'm sure there are many more years of self righteous indignation we can milk from its poor beleaguered carcass. Besides, if racism is dead what the heck are your friends going to call those tea partiers in 2012?

Quote:

At the same time, I also think that Obama's election has done an incredible good to the African American cause by proving that an African American man can excel and reach the highest office in this country, and do his job with the highest dignity and competence. He doesn't have to be perfect or make everybody happy or be the best. By virtue of being an intelligent and accomplished president he has vindicated the cause.
So the ability of an African American (black) man to excel was in question? I bet all those other successful African American men will be surprised to hear it was Obama who proved that an African American man can excel. But he is special, you know.

Hmmm, maybe you're right about that racist mentailty. Puts me in mind of Joe Biden's "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," comment.


Quote:

The kind of argumentation that Glenn engaged in when he analyzed whether Obama is a real African American, is understandable, but really mostly meaningful to an intellectual African American. As John said, for the vast majority of people, Obama is a black man. People who can make a distinction between a real African American and a mixed race direct descendant of an African man, are either already fully supportive of the AA cause (like Glenn) or those who are recalcitrant racists and are looking for excuses to take away credit from this black man that we have as a President.
Do people really think this way? So it's understandable to question Obama's africanamerican-ness if you're an africanamerican intellectual but if you're not an africanamerican intellectual and you question Obama's africanamerican-ness you are a recalcitrant racist. This is exhausting. People just think things, Ocean. All kinds of things, all the time. And sometimes they say them out loud. (but they're more careful, then, except for Joe Biden)

Quote:

In terms of diversity, there are models of integration and multiculturalism that we should be looking at instead of assuming that we need homogenous groups to achieve social harmony. It is an interesting topic, and perhaps there could be a lengthier discussion about it.
Oh yes, a discussion would be so good, prefaced by an explanation of what these words actually mean.

Quote:

Is there more that we need to eliminate racism? Of course, there's much more to do until poverty and race no longer get stratified together. But, we've come a long way. Let's not make nuance take away from the accomplishment.
unhuh.
Quote:

Once again I get the impression that both John and Glenn have at different times engaged in some kind of counterintuitive exercise, to excess. In trying not to be biased towards African American causes, they end up being excessively critical of their own, or optimistic about other groups, or skeptical about the depth of racism still present. I'm not suggesting that they should be paranoid about a renaissance of racism, but rather that they don't try so hard to transcend.
Those africanamerican intellectuals are so annoying!

I've got a great idea! How about people thinking of themselves as individuals and quiting the search for villians. And if racism rears its ugly head, deal with it in a rational manner or ignore it if it's not hurting anyone (besides the person who holds the view).

T.G.G.P 12-30-2011 08:51 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
My thoughts on the Putnam study, Be grateful diversity reduces trust.

A while back I got into a disagreement with Will Wilkinson over the issue of parents/cultures imposing their views on children, sparked by a raid on a community from the Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints. That was driven by my extreme position on the pluralist vs rationalist divide.

Glenn really went off a lot on self-admitted rants. Normally I'd think that kind of bad etiquette on the part of a diavlogger, but Glenn is so entertaining and really cuts into the heart of serious issues. John sometimes looked uncomfortable, but he rolls with it.

rcocean 12-30-2011 08:59 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235670)
The kind of argumentation that Glenn engaged in when he analyzed whether Obama is a real African American, is understandable, but really mostly meaningful to an intellectual African American. As John said, for the vast majority of people, Obama is a black man.

Who can disagree with that kind of argumentation? Not me.

Quote:

In terms of diversity, there are models of integration and multiculturalism that we should be looking at instead of assuming that we need homogenous groups to achieve social harmony. It is an interesting topic, and perhaps there could be a lengthier discussion about it.
Who can disagree, diversity wise? There's nothing more interesting than a 30 minute chat on integration and multiculturalism models that are superior to homogeneous models of mono-cultural harmony with a little jazz music on the side.

Or maybe John and Glenn could just keep talking about reality in 21st Century America, and leave out all the left wing jargon and nonsense.

Simon Willard 12-30-2011 09:02 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 235673)
So we can be a more effective policeman for the world.

It's a bad neighborhood. If we don't do it, who will? Is the world better off without a policeman or with a different one?

Because we have only two parties in this country that have any real chance of getting power. One party has in its coalition, christian zionists, whose religion tells them to be fanatically pro-Isreal, and the other party has in its coalition Jewish zionists. These, while smaller in number then the christian zionists in the other party, are even more important in their funding of the party. This isn't going to change any time soon.

Because that country poses a real threat to our beloved Isreal.

There are no simple answers to these questions. I'm sorry to say that your "answers" are exhibit A in the case that there are no simple answers.

Just to highlight your most egregious error: the problem with Iran has nothing to do with Israel. It has to do with the fact loose weapons of mass destruction may cause havoc anywhere in the developed or developing world.

rcocean 12-30-2011 09:04 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 235673)
Hope this helps.

Not really. I was looking for 'grown-up' answers to childish questions - not "Childish answers' to childish questions.

I think Rush Limbaugh could've done better.

Ocean 12-30-2011 09:04 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 235681)
Who can disagree with that kind of argumentation? Not me.



Who can disagree, diversity wise? There's nothing more interesting than a 30 minute chat on integration and multiculturalism models that are superior to homogeneous models of mono-cultural harmony with a little jazz music on the side.

Or maybe John and Glenn could just keep talking about reality in 21st Century America, and leave out all the left wing jargon and nonsense.

Anything meaningful to say, or are you just joining the rest of your team who is hounding around blood thirsty?

Is this your preamble to your New Year's resolution?

You disappoint me again, cousin.

Sulla the Dictator 12-30-2011 09:18 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 235667)
I hope you continue to appear on BHTV no matter what. You are BHTV's most interesting "heads".

And I have to state I agree with Glenn and Ron Paul. We need "grown-up" answers to questions like:

I'll take a crack at it.

Quote:

- Why do have bases all around the world?
The answers to this are context specific, meaning not just region, but time. Surely you would agree that military bases in Germany, for example, were pretty important in 1980. Surely we can find common ground on anti-Communism. As to why such a base would be necessary now? It is less necessary. Certainly the number of German bases aren't necessary. But as a transit point between more useful bases, such as Al Udeid in Qatar or (Ideally) Iraq, places like Ramstein air base are useful as supply and medical hubs.

The base in Qatar is quite obvious. The Middle East is an important strategic and economic region to the United States. Safeguarding the flow and supply of oil isn't just a matter of money for corporations, its a matter of life and death. It greases the wheels of global commerce which has short circuited the historical cycle of violence. It keeps food prices down, both here and abroad.

South Korea? Anti-Communism, again. The presence of those troops saved the liberty of South Korea. If they hadn't been there all this time, the Maoist regime in China would have easily allowed the Norks to gobble them up. Now? While China is unlikely to allow such an action, and it is implausible that the Norks could win even if they did, the 30,000 American troops are an ante into the politics of the region. The reason why this is important is that East Asia is a major source of both American commerce and capital. To remove those troops, and our fleet, is to cede the politics of the region to the Chinese.

These are the practical matters surrounding the deployment of forces. The moral component is that the heights of global power we're discussing were taken with the sacrifice of American citizens. The blood itself was the price paid for position. To sacrifice position when there is still benefit is to cheapen the currency the position was bought with.

Quote:

- Why are we the world's policeman?
Because we're the ones most invested in the current global order.

Quote:

- Why are we so fanatically pro-Israel (right or wrong)?
Because Israel's enemies worked very hard to antagonize us for a very long time. Also, the Israelis engaged in some of our less savory, but very necessary, proxy actions during the Cold War.

Quote:

- Why are we thinking about going to war with Iran?
Because it is unacceptable for the Iranians have a nuclear weapon while they demonstrate a lack of grounded realism by attempting to assassinate people within the United States, and threatening to close an international waterway.

How are those answers?

TwinSwords 12-30-2011 09:21 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 235600)
Right. There used to be a priest at the church I attend who said stuff in homilies that I really didn't agree with (and which would irritate me) all the time. Sometimes I'd want to go argue with him afterwards (I never did), usually I just tried to avoid him. I suspect this is common enough in some form or another.

Yeah, exactly. I'd go as far as to say this is probably a pretty universal experience for people who go to church. And as Bob Wright said four years ago, people don't go to church because of the political views of a particular pastor; they go there for a variety of other reasons: Is the Sunday school good? Do my kids like it? Do I have friends or neighbors who also go there? (Etc.) Sometimes the preacher is just something you put up with.

And in any event, as you say:


Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 235600)
On the other hand, I never invited said priest to blog under my name, which is a closer comparison to the Paul situation.

Right. One Paul apologist said that holding Paul responsible for the content of his eponymous newsletter would be like holding Murdoch accountable for every word spoken on Fox News. Terrible analogy. More apt would be Sarah Palin's ghostwriters -- people who were purporting to be Palin herself, and speaking in her voice to express her views. Or, as you say, someone blogging in your name.


Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 235600)
Speaking of Paul, the Edge of the West blog linked to a 2007 piece that I missed at the time going into both Paul's Civil Rights Act views (which have been discussed some) and some statements about the Civil War and Lincoln.

Good link. Thanks.


Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 235600)
I just don't see how, given everything, Paul's anti war statements could possibility seen as support for a progressive POV or at all separated out from the background to them and his paleolibertarism and associations with the far right. It's all tainted, basically in the same way as opposing the CW because "it's wrong for the pushy feds to interfere with the rights of states to have slaves" would be.

Right. I saw an old interview with Paul on YouTube from, I think, about 1988. Probably around the time he was running for president on the Libertarian ticket. He explained then that his reason for opposing war was simply that he opposes everything the government does.

What was also interesting was what was reported last week by, I believe, Dave Weigle. (Can't remember precisely the source.) But he said that Wallace had made a tactical decision to support white supremacy in order to promote libertarianism, but years later discovered that he was having more luck trying to tie libertarianism to the anti-war movement. If this reporting is accurate, then basically Paul is just using people like Wonderment to advance the agenda that is really important to Paul: eliminating government and laying the groundwork for the total tyranny of private power -- i.e., the thing that would result if Paul succeeded in wiping out democracy and government: The sole hedge (government) the people have against the tyranny of private power would be eliminated.

whburgess 12-30-2011 09:21 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 235682)
There are no simple answers to these questions.

Are you confusing short and concise with 'simple'?

Quote:

I'm sorry to say that your "answers" are exhibit A in the case that there are no simple answers.
Thank you. You may be right. But I don't understand your apology -- or your quotes around "answers".

Quote:


Just to highlight your most egregious error: the problem with Iran has nothing to do with Israel.
You're joking. Right? Ha. Ha.

Quote:


It has to do with the fact loose weapons of mass destruction may cause havoc anywhere in the developed or developing world.
Why would the Iranian Nuke be 'loose' as opposed to an Isreali nuke? And what other country in the world has it's destruction as a defining religious tenant of the mad mullahs in control of Iran?

whburgess 12-30-2011 09:26 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 235683)

I think Rush Limbaugh could've done better.

Stop comparing me to Rush. I'm not worthy.

Hume's Bastard 12-30-2011 09:32 PM

Re: Ron Paul is not really running for president
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235565)
Rather he is running with some very important ideas, the most compelling of which is his critique of US foreign policy. He is the ONLY figure on the national stage at present who questions US liberal and neo-con interventionism, militarism and brutal global hegemony.

He is THE antiwar/pro-peace candidate for 2012, in the tradition of Dennis Kucinich in 2008 and 2004 and Ralph Nader in 2000. That's why our inclusive non-partisan peace culture respects Paul, even with all his warts.

I would argue that Paul is just one narrow stream of the broader deluded Jeffersonian torrent, that creates illusory moral dichotomies between good and evil, and then assigns facts to the tally. Whatever value I find in the facts, e.g. drone attacks, torture, waste, the NDAA, doesn't require me to accept Paul's vision. I can argue against each point, and probably do more good. Paul's vision is just laziness required to fit an argument into a sound bite.



Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235565)
He will never be the Republican candidate for president much less win a national election, but his ideas will influence generations of Republican, Democrat and independent voters to come.

It already is part of the national dialogue - it's Jefferson redux. That's the problem. The task is to refute it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235565)
President Obama managed to get one war right; Paul has basically gotten all US wars right. That's a major intellectual and spiritual accomplishment that overshadows whatever murky homophobic or racist baggage Paul may have or whatever kooky ideas he may hold about the gold standard and the Fed.

By analyzing war with charged moral arguments, you undermine any chance to defend or criticize the use of force in any meaningful constitutional, moral, or political sense. You then raise the chances of warfare for the worst reason, grudging necessity with no prudence involved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235565)
Don't let the mainstream War Party media make this about Ron Paul, the person. Paul the person matters very little. What matters a great deal is the eye-on-the-prize foreign policy vision for the future. The ideas, not the person, are becoming part of the national conversation. That's a good thing.

Again, Americans don't want to debate the topic. It's far easier to nestle snugly in the dogma.

TwinSwords 12-30-2011 09:33 PM

Re: advice from Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235677)
There are ways of thinking or perhaps certain mistakes made by neglect (neglecting to know what other people are writing under your name), that can't be undone. Once they're done, they're done.

We can't know with certainty what Ron Paul knew about the content of his newsletters. His current claim is that he was oblivious to the content until years after they were published. But in several interviews in both print and on video, he talked about his newsletters proudly, and even defended the content in some specific instances. It was only much later, in the context of the 2008 election, when his candidacy had the potential to appeal to a lot of anti-war and anti-police state Democrats, that Paul made a tactical decision to distance himself from his racist background. His motive for lying is obvious and should cast great doubt on his current claims.

Paul has been a devoted political activist promoting libertarian extremism his entire life. It just doesn't pass the smell test that he wasn't aware of what was in the newsletter he owned, and which he was actively promoting, publishing, and selling -- the newsletter that was written in his own name and which purported to reflect his own views.

In Jamie Kurchick's reporting from 2008 we learned that Paul would take stacks of his newsletters around with him on the lecture circuit during the 1980s and 1990s to sell them on tables and sign up new subscriptions. In my view, it's just impossible that he was doing this but didn't know what those newsletters contained.

Simon Willard 12-30-2011 09:36 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 235685)
Because Israel's enemies worked very hard to antagonize us for a very long time. Also, the Israelis engaged in some of our less savory, but very necessary, proxy actions during the Cold War.

How are those answers?

I think your answers are pretty good, with the exception of the Israel answer quoted above, which is rather weak. Congratulations on the others.

Your point about proxy actions has some truth, but the real reason is larger and loftier than this. Israel is like a wedge of western modernity into the middle east.

Hume's Bastard 12-30-2011 09:45 PM

Re: How to Murder blacks and get away with it - advice from Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 235672)
Possible? You suppose? No. You severely distorted what McWhorter said to unrecognizable Orwellian doublespeak.



No.

I don't have time to explain this to you. And even if I did, it wouldn't convince you. I can only hope that someday you'll try to understand the issues from a different perspective. I am glad for the Civil Rights movement. I suspect Ron Paul is as well. But the movement and the CRA are two different things.

I think the 1964 CRA should be repealed. What? Do you want to call me a racist? I'm not racist but I support racists? No. The 1964 Act should be repealed and the 1875 Act, which is nearly identical, should be reinstated. The 14th Amendment should be restored to its original intent (to protect blacks after the Civil War). Then all the separate but equal doctrine would die. Why? Because Jim Crow could only exist with a weak 14th Amendment.

Ron Paul may not have the same idea that I do, but I'd guess it's something along similar lines. And even if he wasn't, we have freedom of association in this country. If we didn't, the government could control which races you could marry. Freedom isn't free.

You hate libertarians because you don't understand them. They may be wrong, but they do not have the malicious intent that you think they have.

I definitely wouldn't call you a racist. But, your argument highlights a broader point: there are many different perspectives in the civil rights dialogue, and they are complicated by a wealth of constitutional and moral arguments. Jim Crow, the CRA, or the 14th Amendment don't exhaust the possibilities. They are compromises that have created real facts and constituencies.

Simon Willard 12-30-2011 09:48 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 235687)
You're joking. Right? Ha. Ha. Why would the Iranian Nuke be 'loose' as opposed to an Isreali nuke? And what other country in the world has it's destruction as a defining religious tenant of the mad mullahs in control of Iran?

Not joking. I care more for other cities than I do about Tel Aviv.

With regard to loose nukes, I'll just say that some of us have questions about Iran's reliability.

Do you really think the mullahs would attack Israel? Oh, make my day! That could be the trigger that gives us the moral cover to completely transform Iran, if not the entire region, for the better.

Ocean 12-30-2011 09:48 PM

Re: advice from Ron Paul
 
Also, with the kind of sentiment that was being passed on in the newsletters it's highly unlikely that no one would have brought it up to his attention at the time.

Wonderment 12-30-2011 09:53 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

If this reporting is accurate, then basically Paul is just using people like Wonderment to advance the agenda that is really important to Paul: eliminating government and laying the groundwork for the total tyranny of private power -- i.e., the thing that would result if Paul succeeded in wiping out democracy and government.
You think there's a conspiracy afoot in American politics to "wipe out democracy"?

miceelf 12-30-2011 09:57 PM

Re: Diversity, social capital, liberty, and Identity
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 235674)
My ultimate conclusion is that K was wrong. And if he wasn't wrong, then salvation is virtually impossible, to which he might say is precisely the fucking point. But I can't imagine the good life having to be so hard.


Interesting. I actually see that as a point in Kierkegaard's favor, but then I am probably an odd duck. To quote the Tragically hip, it's a good life if you don't weaken.

rcocean 12-30-2011 10:13 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235684)
Anything meaningful to say, or are you just joining the rest of your team who is hounding around blood thirsty?

Is this your preamble to your New Year's resolution?

You disappoint me again, cousin.

Wow, I could somewhat understand this kind of agruementation, except for the "hounding around" bit.

My New Years resolution is to stop being a racist - so I will quit Rev. Wright's church starting January 2, 2012.

whburgess 12-30-2011 10:15 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 235693)
Not joking. I care more for other cities than I do about Tel Aviv.

The questions weren't about why you support our position regarding Iran, but why we actually have this position. I didn't understand them as questions as to why we should maintain the positions we do..but why we actually do maintain them.

Quote:

With regard to loose nukes, I'll just say that some of us have questions about Iran's reliability.
With good reason, in my opinion. And it's why we don't care if India or Israel has the bomb.

Quote:

Do you really think the mullahs would attack Israel? Oh, make my day! That could be the trigger that gives us the moral cover to completely transform Iran, if not the entire region, for the better.
They don't have to actually attack Israel. They only have to demonstrate that they are both willing to mount a devastating nuclear attack, and able to do so. That alone will transform the politics of the region, and not for the better.

whburgess 12-30-2011 10:19 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235695)
You think there's a conspiracy afoot in American politics to "wipe out democracy"?

Ha! Sounds like TS and Ron Paul may have something in common after all!

Simon Willard 12-30-2011 10:36 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 235698)
They don't have to actually attack Israel. They only have to demonstrate that they are both willing to mount a devastating nuclear attack, and able to do so. That alone will transform the politics of the region, and not for the better.

Can you describe this transformation in more detail? I mean, when the time comes that they have the capability, isn't it just a matter of Israelis deciding (as is their habit) that they won't be cowed by weapons which are never used? And that they (or someone else) will respond if weapons are used?

cragger 12-30-2011 10:40 PM

Re: advice from Ron Paul
 
Paul has a credibility problem in trying to deny knowledge of the racist screeds published in his newsletters. It's not as though it's just a matter of hypersensitive reaction to an objectional word or turn of phrase popping up a time or two over the years. Since blatantly racist material was a recurring theme in newsletters he specifically published under his name (e.g. The Ron Paul Political Report), not just in some outside publication that also carried his writings on occasion, the most benevolent spin that can be put on it would seem to be that he was an unprincipled hack willing to publish anything under his name with complete disregard to the contents so long as there was a buck in it.

Wonderment 12-30-2011 10:51 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

But the nature of his anti-war stance is fundamentally different from that of liberal opposition to any given war. The tipoff is in his opposition to foreign aid, and his anti-United Nations position: heís anti-war because the rest of the world just isnít worth it.
Well, of course it's different. If it weren't different he'd be a liberal Democrat, not a conservative Republican.

But it doesn't really matter at this point in time why Ron Paul (or anyone else) is opposed to war, just that he is.

To make progress in dismantling US militarism, warmongering and war-making, we need a broad-based coalition. This will include anti-war Christian Evangelicals (and other faith communities), libertarians, difficult-to-categorize Ron Paul types (isolationists and anti-UN-ers?) as well as a whole range of lefty groups whose cultural roots are found in the Democratic Party, Greens, socialism, veganism, environmentalism, worker rights, feminism and what-have-you.

Building that kind of broad coalition is the only way to get the power elite of both (war) parties to pay attention and start to make changes.

Think of it like the nonviolent struggle to overthrow and terminate Soviet Communism. Plenty of unsavory and seemingly mutually exclusive interest groups came together in common cause (anarchists, the Pope, liberal intellectuals, trade unionists, capitalist entrepreneurs, etc.). It was a big project.

Wonderment 12-30-2011 10:54 PM

Re: advice from Ron Paul
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cragger (Post 235701)
Paul has a credibility problem in trying to deny knowledge of the racist screeds published in his newsletters. It's not as though it's just a matter of hypersensitive reaction to an objectional word or turn of phrase popping up a time or two over the years. Since blatantly racist material was a recurring theme in newsletters he specifically published under his name (e.g. The Ron Paul Political Report), not just in some outside publication that also carried his writings on occasion, the most benevolent spin that can be put on it would seem to be that he was an unprincipled hack willing to publish anything under his name with complete disregard to the contents so long as there was a buck in it.

Agreed and largely uncontroversial. Now, moving on to the issues....

whburgess 12-30-2011 10:57 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Simon Willard (Post 235700)
Can you describe this transformation in more detail? I mean, when the time comes that they have the capability, isn't it just a matter of Israelis deciding (as is their habit) that they won't be cowed by weapons which are never used? And that they (or someone else) will respond if weapons are used?

No one, with capability, has ever threatened Israel with nuclear annihilation before. I don't think history has anything to say on such an unprecedented situation. They can't just decide they won't be cowed. They'd have to consider much more carefully the demands of Iran's proxies, HAMAS and Hezbollah, who I think would be much more likely to be the delivery system for an Iranian nuke.

Simon Willard 12-30-2011 11:18 PM

Re: Great DV John & Glenn!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 235704)
No one, with capability, has ever threatened Israel with nuclear annihilation before. I don't think history has anything to say on such an unprecedented situation. They can't just decide they won't be cowed. They'd have to consider much more carefully the demands of Iran's proxies, HAMAS and Hezbollah, who I think would be much more likely to be the delivery system for an Iranian nuke.

My argument is that no one should, and Israel will not, be pushed around by threats of annihilation when it is clear who the aggressor is. It's sort of like "Buy this magazine or we'll shoot this dog". If they want to shoot the dog, they can shoot the dog, but the consequences will be severe for everyone in the middle east. It will not be a victory for Iran, HAMAS or Hezbollah.

The much larger concern is loose nukes that show up without a clear return address. That's why I argue that concern about Iran is unrelated to Israel.

TwinSwords 12-30-2011 11:32 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235695)
You think there's a conspiracy afoot in American politics to "wipe out democracy"?

No. I said that wiping out democracy is the goal to which Ron Paul is really committed. It's not something he often states explicitly, and I honestly don't think most of his more casual followers really understand the extreme scope of his anti-government agenda. But if you pay attention to what he says, he doesn't conceal his anti-government and anti-democracy position, either. He is very careful to express his views in the most appealing way to lure as many different constituencies into his camp as he can, but everything he stands for traces back to his basic belief that government (with very limited exceptions) should be wiped out. If you wipe out government, you basically are wiping out democracy. If you deem everything to be unconstitutional, you're telling the population, "Sorry! You can't use government to do anything; you have no government." So, if you want to regulate the speed of traffic or workplace safety or consumer safety or product safety or any form of trade, too bad; you can't. His agenda is to make us all slaves to the tyranny of unchecked private power -- the exact known result when government is eliminated. If you doubt this, look at his support for Jim Crow: Ron Paul is a guy who looked upon the apartheid south and was offended -- not by the apartheid, but by the meddling efforts of a federal government that interfered with the freedom of individuals to refuse blacks access to society.

Government is highly imperfect, as we all know. And in the present era, it has almost entirely been captured by corporate and other wealthy interests. But even in this highly imperfect form, (a) it is still at least somewhat responsive to the will of the population, and (b) the potential always exists to improve it, and to make it more responsive to the will of the people, and (c) there are still a lot of laws on the books left over from a less extreme period in American history (the early- and mid-20th century) that provide important protection for the population. So, if you doubt that even our imperfect government still provides critical protection from untrammelled private power, just wait until you see what Republicans repeal and rollback in the years ahead.

Maybe this is news to you. Maybe you haven't interacted with enough Ron Paul people, or maybe you don't know enough real libertarians, but hatred of democracy and a belief that the government should almost entirely be eliminated is standard fare among the Ron Paul types. It is Ron Paul, the Rothbardian Libertarians, and the Ron Paul followers who go around insisting, constantly, that "the US is not a democracy; it's a Republic." That particular search query returns over 1 million results, so this should not be news to anyone.

The basic Rothbarian idea, embraced in total by Ron Paul, is that almost everything the government does is illegal. So, yes, you could still vote, but it would be a mere formality, because the courts in Ron Paul's idea of a properly functioning system would smash any legislation that exceeded the bounds of a very limited conception of constitutionality.

Here's Ayn Rand acolyte and libertarian thinker Leonard Peikoff on democracy:

"The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights."


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:02 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.