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)

Ocean 12-30-2011 12:59 PM

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

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235615)
She's very private, and I am an extension of her, so....

The fact that I even have a facebook page is a constant source of annoyance for her.

Okay. I believe your marriage is more important than any discussion we could possibly have here.

I have been invited to do diavlogs (Apollo) before, and I have the same professional considerations that you hinted at, but no one that I know would "kill me".

I would be interested in knowing what topic you had in mind. You may respond by PM if you want.

sugarkang 12-30-2011 01:03 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Parallax (Post 235612)
Hats off to Glenn for saying that so very well put. People don't understand how much of Paul's economic ideas are dangerous and insane. Forget abolishing Fed

You should listen again.

He said "in his humble opinion" or something similar. Now, I also happen to agree with Glenn's humble opinion. You know who doesn't? Milton Friedman 2006.

We would be better off airing minority opinions so that the bad arguments can be openly and methodically dismantled. Today's intellectual consensus is tomorrow's arcane dogma.

As to all the other stuff Ron Paul said, I recall that Glenn gave a very thorough and passionate defense. Don't you?

miceelf 12-30-2011 01:08 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235618)
Okay. I believe your marriage is more important than any discussion we could possibly have here.

I have been invited to do diavlogs (Apollo) before, and I have the same professional considerations that you hinted at, but no one that I know would "kill me".

I would be interested in knowing what topic you had in mind. You may respond by PM if you want.

LOL. I was joking about the killing part. I didn't think of particular topics, as it seemed pointless to consider. The professional considerations are a big part, as you can understand.

Ocean 12-30-2011 01:19 PM

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

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235622)
LOL. I was joking about the killing part. I didn't think of particular topics, as it seemed pointless to consider. The professional considerations are a big part, as you can understand.

Yes, I do understand.

But I was thinking that you would want to discuss optimism/pessimism, or positive psychology, not sure what other topics we've found ourselves on somewhat different sides.

Florian 12-30-2011 01:27 PM

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

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 235616)
Actually, if you read my reply to TS, you'll see that I was commenting on his mischaracterization of McWhorter's position. As to TS' other assertion about Ron Paul supporting Jim Crow, it just happens to be precisely the opposite here and here.

You guys all love to trust hearsay and refuse to go to the source. Why is that, exactly? Didn't you complain about DSK not getting a fair shake? What do you think you're doing?

Hearsay? It is clear to me, if the New Republic quotations are accurate, that Ron Paul, in an earlier avatar, had some very unsavory connections with the American far right, as I understand that term. I am glad that Ron Paul says that he didn't support Jim Crow laws but the quotations from the newsletter are odious, indeed beneath contempt.

sugarkang 12-30-2011 01:47 PM

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

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 235626)
but the quotations from the newsletter are odious, indeed beneath contempt.

Agreed. And also not what I was talking about nor relevant to the matter at hand.

miceelf 12-30-2011 01:56 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235625)
Yes, I do understand.

But I was thinking that you would want to discuss optimism/pessimism, or positive psychology, not sure what other topics we've found ourselves on somewhat different sides.

Those are two. I was thinking there would be others that are probably nearer/dearer to either of our hearts and may some of them relate: models of therapeutic change, ethics around patient suicidality, etc.

And we will always have indian food. ;-)

Ocean 12-30-2011 01:59 PM

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

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235628)
Those are two. I was thinking there would be others that are probably nearer/dearer to either of our hearts and may some of them relate: models of therapeutic change, ethics around patient suicidality, etc.

And we will always have indian food. ;-)

Hmmm... those sound really interesting.

Maybe we should start our own thread in Life, the Universe and Everything.

miceelf 12-30-2011 02:13 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235629)
Hmmm... those sound really interesting.

Maybe we should start our own thread in Life, the Universe and Everything.

By all means. ;-)

I am going to be only on sporadically until mid next week; am visiting the wife and taking advantage of our extended time together. So I may be a little slow on the uptake til then. Or at least until I have a different excuse. ;-)

Ocean 12-30-2011 02:17 PM

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

Originally Posted by miceelf (Post 235631)
By all means. ;-)

I am going to be only on sporadically until mid next week; am visiting the wife and taking advantage of our extended time together. So I may be a little slow on the uptake til then. Or at least until I have a different excuse. ;-)

And by mid week next week I'll be back to work and with very little time.

But, "visiting the wife"? No wonder she wants to kill you!

Just kidding. :)

miceelf 12-30-2011 02:24 PM

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

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 235633)
And by mid week next week I'll be back to work and with very little time.

But, "visiting the wife"? No wonder she wants to kill you!

Just kidding. :)

LOL- no worries. we are living a year apart, and the year is slightly more than half over (she's doing a year long away rotation, but has to come back next year for her senior year which is why I am not moving to be with her).

Being a long distance rel sucks, but the one positive is that I am way more appreciative than I was when this year started...

Wonderment 12-30-2011 02:26 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

I recall that Glenn gave a very thorough and passionate defense. Don't you?
Yes, especially on foreign policy, where Paul's views should be drawing applause from antiwar progressives.

uncle ebeneezer 12-30-2011 02:55 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
An interesting post on the Liberal-Paul Alliance:

Quote:

A lot of prog love for Ron Paul is based on his national defense policies: “Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country….eliminat[e] waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.” An anti-war stance, naturally enough, sounds pretty good to anti-war liberals. Paul opposed the Iraq War from the beginning (as, of course, did Obama); that buys him a lot of goodwill.

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: he’s anti-war because the rest of the world just isn’t worth it. His is not the pacifism of the anti-war movement but the nativist isolationism of the America-Firsters; Paul is “to the left of Obama” the way Lindbergh was to the left of Roosevelt. (That may be true in a fairly literal sense, although I wouldn’t trust anything from Big Government without further corroboration.)

Similarly, Paul’s positions on civil liberties issues aren’t actually about civil liberties as we understand them; they’re about his opposition to Federal authority. (An opposition that is somewhat conditional, it should be noted.) For example, in talking about the death penalty, he makes clear that he opposes it only at the Federal level. His opposition to the PATRIOT Act, the War on Drugs, and domestic surveillance come from the same root as his opposition to the Civil Rights Act. He has no real objection to states violating the rights of their citizens; it’s only a problem if the Feds do it.

Tara Davis 12-30-2011 03:04 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Does anybody else find it unfortunate that as Glenn chastises the political talking class for making name-calling attacks over questions about foreign policy, practically shouting "MAKE AN ARGUMENT" into the phone, then almost in the same breath name-calls and dismisses people who ask questions about the Federal Reserve without making an argument?

Ocean 12-30-2011 03:10 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Yes, and this is what we've been discussing for a while. Paul's principles are far from those of the civil rights or pacifism crowd. They originate in a different set of values. His supreme principle is anti-federal government and self interest above all. There are no noble causes or humanitarian interests that can be placed above his basic self interest dogma.

Leaning on his position is like leaning on a structure which is rotten at its base.

miceelf 12-30-2011 03:12 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
I find the contrast interesting between today's Glenn and his sense that racism or support for the civil rights act are really insignificant trivial things to evaluate candidates on vs. the Glenn of those early days who was enraged that Obama wasn't sufficiently progressive on race. This earlier Glenn is also on display later on when discussing people's support of Obama.

Aside from the content of the newsletters and what attributions to make to the guy whose name was on the top of them, this is really striking.

Oh, and of course, one has to look at context when one is trying to understand attempts to prevent Black people from voting- you don't just want to say that it's motivated by people being bad or doing wrong. It can't be that simple. But there's no context needed to understand why some people celebrate Obama's Blackness. That's just lamentable. No context for those people.

Good grief. This mirrors complaints that some have about Wonderment here. One should never think about the right as bad people or as acting in bad faith. But one should not be at all so generous when evaluating liberal or centrist politicians and their supporters.

TwinSwords 12-30-2011 03:38 PM

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

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 235616)
Actually, if you read my reply to TS, you'll see that I was commenting on his mischaracterization of McWhorter's position.

It's possible, I suppose, that I mischaracterized the totality of what McWhorter ultimately had to say in this diavlog about Ron Paul. I got home late yesterday after a couple of weeks travelling and didn't have time to listen to the whole thing -- and frankly wasn't motivated to listen after, around the 10 or 15 minute mark, John said that he thought Ron Paul's ideas about slavery were refreshingly intellectual, and then Glenn started bubbling with excitement about how serious libertarian ideas are. That's when I clicked "stop."

John must not have met many neoconfederate revanchists like Paul. These enthusiasts for the Confederacy are not refreshing or intellectual. They are monsters bitter at the loss of white power. But maybe John went on to clarify that he does, in fact, understand that Ron Paul is a moral degenerate and probably crazy. I didn't listen that far if he did.


Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 235616)
As to TS' other assertion about Ron Paul supporting Jim Crow, it just happens to be precisely the opposite here and here.

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.

Now, I get that Paul tries to conceal the monstrous scale of his evil by saying he's opposed to Jim Crow laws, and this mind trick has proven sufficient to trick the weak minded and ignorant, but (A) I didn't say Paul supported Jim Crow laws, and (B) Jim Crow wasn't primarily imposed by law. Jim Crow was the entire system of white supremacy and apartheid that kept blacks from buy property, getting jobs, taking out loans, using public accommodations, or integrating in any way with white society, and for the most part this system was enforced through voluntary private decisions by individual white business owners, and was not the result of Jim Crow laws. In other words, even in the absence of Jim Crow laws, the vast majority of realtors would have still refused to sell blacks homes outside of black neighborhoods, bankers would have refused to give blacks loans, and business owners would have refused to let blacks sit in their restaurants, shop in their stores, drink from their white only fountains or use their white only bathrooms.

Jim Crow was a feature of white Southern culture, not state law, and it would have continued without the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- and Ron Paul knows it.

22 year old libertarians don't know this, because they weren't around during the period in question, and they're stupid enough to believe Paul when he tells them that apartheid in the South was solely the result of "government." But the rest of us know that Jim Crow did not depend on laws.

stephanie 12-30-2011 03:39 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 235637)
An interesting post on the Liberal-Paul Alliance:

Good post -- thanks for the link.

Libertarianism really does seem to break down into two major camps: the more consistent (if not realistic, IMO) kind that is anti government; and the kind that tries to piggyback on traditional states rights ideas. The latter seems to be Paul's thing, and what the appeal to the far right nativist and racist types seems to have been feeding into. (It's also better for a conservative "Constitutional" based strategy, as the efforts of the first group to appeal to the Constitution are anti-historical.)

However, I simply don't buy the idea that the roots of the policies, the underlying philosophy doesn't matter, so I could make common cause with the first kind of libertarian, much as I disagree on many things. I cannot with the latter.

What seems to me the biggest shame out of all this is that there's clearly room for a candidate who takes a much stronger line against military spending and interventionism and so on, who stands up for civil rights, and who challenges orthodoxy re the drug war. And, particularly, there's room for such a candidate who combines those views with attacks on the influence of corporations on policy. If such a candidate can come from the right, that's great. But the elevation of the fatally flawed Paul and the tainted source of his positions and the support therefor, especially in light of the newsletters and how they played into the ugliest and most damaging aspects of American politics basically prevents any meaningful discussion of those ideas in this election. It's too bad the Paul-fans didn't hold out for Gary Johnson, who Paul is basically obscuring. But I remain skeptical that without what we are all talking about as his flaws Paul would have a lot of his most enthusiastic support.

uncle ebeneezer 12-30-2011 03:42 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

Leaning on his position is like leaning on a structure which is rotten at its base.
I nominate this for Metaphor of the year!!!

TwinSwords 12-30-2011 03:49 PM

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

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 235587)
I would think you'd love having this fellow near the true candidacy, as would TS and graz.

Even if you were right -- and you're not -- we wouldn't "love having this fellow near the true candidacy" for the same reasons you would. And that's what makes us different from you.

I've been reading some comments on various blogs around this Ron Paul controversy, and it's not surprising how many Republicans say "the newsletters make me want to vote for Ron Paul even more!"

Or "if Ron Paul didn't write the newsletters, I want to vote for whoever did!"

This is just what the Republican Party is.

As the blogger Driftglass recently observed:

Quote:

A Brief History of the Modern GOP.

The Right built a Party to bring this guy's people ...

http://img214.imageshack.us/img214/3663/wallacef.jpg

... into the showroom.

They created a whole teevee network to do it.

And an entire publishing industry.

And a coast-to-coast radio empire.

And a refurbished hillbilly religion.

They welcomed every stray bigot, spit-flecked snake-handler, bug-eyed Bircher, dreg and douchebag into the Party of Lincoln with candy and flowers and promises of make their wildest, paranoid fantasies come true.

And they succeeded, and in this Year of Our Lord 2011 every facet of the Crazy Diamond they designed and created has been on glittering display for everyone to see.

They got what they paid for -- a headless, shrieking, rage-drunk electoral mob that is impervious to reason -- and it scares the shit out of them because the kind of people that headless, shrieking, rage-drunk electoral mobs rally around are not exactly the kind of people that genteel dumbass Centrists are going to warm to.

Flaw 12-30-2011 04:01 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Great as always. Hope to see them back.

Glenn was particularly animated this time.

TwinSwords 12-30-2011 04:14 PM

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

Originally Posted by Florian (Post 235597)
This seems to me a false equivalence.

Exactly.

Make a note of the following: "Both sides do it" is the last firewall that Republicans always rely on when every other argument has failed. No matter what the circumstances, no matter how decisively the evidence has been piled up against them, they will ALWAYS fall back to some form of "both sides do it."

Just make a note of it and watch how often it happens -- how it is brought up in virtually every conversation, always to deflect blame and deny responsibility for their own failure, corruption, or deviancy.

We now have a situation in which a leading Republican candidate for president ...

-- defends the Confederacy
-- defends the legal framework of Jim Crow
-- published a racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic newsletter in his own name for 20 years
-- is endorsed by Stormfront and Nazis, and a fundamentalist preacher who believes in the execution of gay people.

And the response from the right to these disturbing facts?

Barack Obama went to a church with a guy who said some shocking things. Or his grandma occasionally uttered a racial stereotype.

Just remember, keep your eyes open for it: "Both sides do it," the last firewall in every Republican argument.

TwinSwords 12-30-2011 04:18 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235636)
Yes, especially on foreign policy, where Paul's views should be drawing applause from antiwar progressives.

Did it ever occur to you that Paul might actually be harming your cause -- even your own reputation -- by tainting it with association to some of the most degenerate views in American politics? Ever consider that?

I mean, who but a snake handling teabagger is going to pay any mind to someone who promotes Jim Crow and the Confederacy?

Sulla the Dictator 12-30-2011 04:19 PM

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

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 235572)
John McWhorter seriously thinks that a neoconfederate defense of slavery and defense of the legal framework of Jim Crow make Ron Paul an interesting intellectual? I think they make him a monster, but also extremely popular in the Republican Party.

Do you know what the problem with this is? I can picture you saying this about anyone to the right of Sheldon Whitehouse. Without any real stretch of the imagination, I can see you saying this exact type of thing about Olympia Snowe. You shriek about everyone being a neo-Confederate racist who supports Jim Crow. You call everyone a monster. You're a hysteric.

whburgess 12-30-2011 04:27 PM

Diversity, social capital, liberty, and Identity
 
No one does it like these two, in terms of the depth and sheer amount of ideas that come out in their discussions. I'm glad they will continue to have a forum in the revised Bhtv, and I hope Loury can find other partners as well if McWhorter wants it less then he does.

Here is a suggestion to Bob Wright and staff. Why not other regular 'hosts', in addition to Bob, interviewing folks as Bob plans to do? Loury would be great with his own 'show'; the man is a fountain of ideas. We could have a regular 'social science' show.

Regarding the fascinating diversity and social capital discussion. I agree with Glenn Loury that certain kinds of 'social capital' is at greater risk as diversity increases. However, other kinds of social capital are diminished with homogeneity. I think 'social capital' is a great term, and ties in very well with my own beliefs that a free market of ideas and culture is the most important factor in human progress just as free markets are in the economic sphere.

Glenn makes the very important observation that the right of the older generation to pass on their culture to the next generation is a matter of liberty. This is as true as the fact that liberty also stands for the right of the individual to jump out of the 'groove' (as McWhorter, poetically puts it), of the culture that is impressed on them- However rare such individuals are. These are critical factors in the free market of cultural and social capital.

Then McWhorter asks the question "How does this translate to policy?"
By which I take him to mean government policy. I think the answer to this question is what determines my own, and most folks, political indentities. My answer to MchWhorter's question is that the government, with its monopoly on force and authoritarianism, should intervene in this market, as in all markets, only as a last resort. This means that governmental authority, as much as is possible, should reside in those authorities closest to the people, local governments etc., while at the same time, the authority with the greatest capacity for power, the federal government, should be seen only as the protector of the rights of individuals to choose their own way of being. The federal government has no business in promoting either social diversity or homogoneity. As examples, this is why I strongly oppose federal 'English only' laws, while I have no problem with such state laws. It is also why I strongly oppose the federal department of education. The federal government is too powerful to be allowed into the business of educating the children of free people.

Traditionalists play a critical role in maintaining social capital, free thinkers play a critical role in risking it in an opportunity for greater gains in social capital. I detest the politics of anyone who is eager to use the government, with its monopoly on power and authority, to intervene into this market to further their own vision of what culture should be. To me, this is the root of all totalitarianism and fascism. I think my own political identity is determined by my perception of where the greatest threat comes from. In today's America, I think it is from the left, which is why I'm a right winger. In other era's, I'm sure I'd be a lefty.

badhatharry 12-30-2011 05:12 PM

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

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 235644)
Even if you were right -- and you're not -- we wouldn't "love having this fellow near the true candidacy" for the same reasons you would. And that's what makes us different from you.

Incoherent comment. Not worth responding to.

in no way should this response be construed as a response.

whburgess 12-30-2011 05:12 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by uncle ebeneezer (Post 235637)
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: he’s anti-war because the rest of the world just isn’t worth it.

I disagree with this (what I quote) representation of Paul. I think Paul has some wacky notions, but he is a principled man; he is not a demagogue. I think there would be no more effective demagogic appeal, to both sides of the political spectrum, in today's climate, then America first, isolationist, rhetoric. This is not the rhetoric Paul uses. Again and again, he blames America first. He uses the rhetoric of the principled left, and takes the side of the countries we 'attack' and 'kill people' in. He says things like "How can we blame them for not wanting our troops in their country, how is that different then how we would feel if there were Chinese troops in Texas?" His position, as stated over and over again, is that we should respect the sovereignty of other countries as much as respect our own. Keep in mind that he also a consistently outspoken free trader, which is completely out of line with America first, isolationist, sentiment.

ledocs 12-30-2011 05:24 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Glad to hear that the bromance will continue.

Glenn seemed very on edge in this episode, more so than usual. The problem, Glenn, is not that libertarianism receives too little attention in the US. The Koch Bros. and their allies have made sure of this. People gave up their liberties to do this and that for a reason. I can think of about 10 very important reasons why there is no absolute right to plant whatever you like on your private property.

Ron Paul is a lunatic who happens to be isolationist. The isolationism is just as stupid as everything else he stands for. I wish that Glenn had talked more about why gold-buggery is idiocy, or what we are to make of "rational and efficient markets" that value gold at $1,600 per ounce.

badhatharry 12-30-2011 05:53 PM

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

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 235649)
As examples, this is why I strongly oppose federal 'English only' laws, while I have no problem with such state laws.

So are there actually English only laws or are they proposals? I think I've only heard of them in relation to the fact that it is now customary (and maybe even mandatory) to print government forms and signage in multiple languages... which in that case seems reasonable.

PS good post

badhatharry 12-30-2011 06:01 PM

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

Originally Posted by Sulla the Dictator (Post 235648)
You're a hysteric.

See, now that's very impressive. You know to use "a" if the h is aspirated. I always get that mixed up so I usually just call him a jerk.

osmium 12-30-2011 06:12 PM

Congrats, John!
 
See subject line

whburgess 12-30-2011 06:15 PM

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

Originally Posted by badhatharry (Post 235654)
So are there actually English only laws or are they proposals? I think I've only heard of them in relation to the fact that it is now customary (and maybe even mandatory) to print government forms and signage in multiple languages... which in that case seems reasonable.

I don't know of any actual laws. I meant proposed laws.

I have no problem with either the feds or the states printing government signs and forms in multiple languages. I see this a bureaucratic decision. When it becomes political there are 3 motivations for that, that I can see.

One is taxpayer dollars are being spent on folks who should be getting with the program and learning English. I can sympathize with this sentiment.

Another is the feeling that minority cultures should be adapting to the general culture rather then general culture expending resources in adapting to them. That catering to minority cultures hurts both the minorities in that they enabled in their lack of integration, and it hurts the majority culture in that its primacy is threatened by these actions. I sympathize and even agree with these sentiments even if they are way down on my list of concerns.

the third sentiment is xenophobia, which I do not sympathize, or agree, with, but which is easily confused with the second sentiment above. I think the differences are subtle, but real.

Overall, I really don't care much whether government documents and signage are in multiple languages or not. However, what I care very much about is if some leftist, lawless, activist judge, using their position of power to further their own 'progressive' agenda mandates that this is done. Then I get a little pissed.

Kevin 12-30-2011 06:53 PM

Re: The Bromance (John McWhorter & Glenn Loury)
 
Aggh.. I'm in agony with this long series of meta-aware diavlog segments remarking on "the Bloggingheads era."

Sorry to hear the Klatch with Bob and JimM47 was erased. I'm going crazy here. I await news.

I'm glad John & Glenn are going to keep on doing it and I hope some of the other "Bloggingheads Classic" pairs will do that too. Of course what's funny is that the transition from a relatively low-key or incidental relationship with BhTV to one where the diavloggers who keep doing it tend to be especially loyal and adamant, may itself change how they behave and talk while taping. Not bad, just amusing.. I guess that remains to be seen, and who knows what the manifestation would be.. maybe nothing.

Week in Blog, Loury/McWhorter and a lot of Bob talking to various people is not so horrible! It could be worse. Hopefully the middle tier of loyal regulars will also continue to rope in first-timer colleagues occasionally. Like the great Loury/Levine diavlogs.

I patiently await news.

whburgess 12-30-2011 07:00 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 235642)
Libertarianism really does seem to break down into two major camps: the more consistent (if not realistic, IMO) kind that is anti government; and the kind that tries to piggyback on traditional states rights ideas. The latter seems to be Paul's thing, and what the appeal to the far right nativist and racist types seems to have been feeding into. (It's also better for a conservative "Constitutional" based strategy, as the efforts of the first group to appeal to the Constitution are anti-historical.)

I think the differences between the two camps, as you've defined them, are minimal. The first camp may be more intellectual or educated, but I think both camps are rooted in anti-authoritarian values. "Nativists" don't want to tell those 'elitist, big city folk', how they ought to live their lives, they just want to be left alone to see the world the way they see it. They don't see other Americans who are different from them as their enemies unless they see those people using government authority to attack their own traditions. These 'nativists', in my opinion, tend to value liberty, for those different from them, as for themselves, much higher then their distractors do. They see an 'elite' who view them as ideological enemies, bitterly clinging to their guns and religion, standing in the way of 'progress'. And they are right to do so, because it's true. A large number of these 'nativists' are also 'racist' to one degree or another. This is true. But I think their racism rarely rises to the level of malice or hate; and that is an important consideration.

Quote:

What seems to me the biggest shame out of all this is that there's clearly room for a candidate who takes a much stronger line against military spending and interventionism and so on, who stands up for civil rights, and who challenges orthodoxy re the drug war. And, particularly, there's room for such a candidate who combines those views with attacks on the influence of corporations on policy. If such a candidate can come from the right, that's great. But the elevation of the fatally flawed Paul and the tainted source of his positions and the support therefor, especially in light of the newsletters and how they played into the ugliest and most damaging aspects of American politics basically prevents any meaningful discussion of those ideas in this election. It's too bad the Paul-fans didn't hold out for Gary Johnson, who Paul is basically obscuring. But I remain skeptical that without what we are all talking about as his flaws Paul would have a lot of his most enthusiastic support.
I think this an unfair, and inaccurate, assessment of both Paul and his rabid supporters. His supporters, whether 'nativists' or stoners, are first and foremost - anti-authoritarian. They are not anti-authoritarian in the service of malice as you seem to see them. They are simply anti-authoritarian. And all anti-authoritarians respect other peoples cultures and choices, or they wouldn't be anti-authoritarian.

stephanie 12-30-2011 07:16 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by whburgess (Post 235660)
I think both camps are rooted in anti-authoritarian values.

We disagree about this. I think a theory of government where state power is great (even more expansive power than most liberals would like and power in areas that seems antithetical to libertarianism), but federal power bad is basically incoherent. It makes historical sense based on the idea of the US as, first, a collection of colonies and then states that are more fit for "the United States are" than "the United States is" -- that is, something other than a unified country. But that's no more about suspicion of governmental power than British suspicion of and skepticism about the EU would be.

More recently, it's not about governmental power at all, IMO, but about cultural conflicts within the US, and specifically conflicts about particular issues, most prominently race. It's worth noting that with the exception of race, the main intrusion of the government into "states rights" that tends to get the same types worked up aren't "anti-freedom" at all, but applications of the Bill of Rights to overturn state laws. Arguments on which real libertarians (as I call libertarians of the first type) tend to be more pro intervention than a lot of Dems.

Ocean 12-30-2011 07:18 PM

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

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 235659)

I'm glad John & Glenn are going to keep on doing it and I hope some of the other "Bloggingheads Classic" pairs will do that too. Of course what's funny is that the transition from a relatively low-key or incidental relationship with BhTV to one where the diavloggers who keep doing it tend to be especially loyal and adamant, may itself change how they behave and talk while taping. Not bad, just amusing.. I guess that remains to be seen, and who knows what the manifestation would be.. maybe nothing.

Now that they have declared love towards each other and have made public their commitment to stay together, they can move on to testing each others's limits, power struggles, and finally acknowledging who the other one is. It's only then that we'll see what's left of their bromance.

;)

ohreally 12-30-2011 07:19 PM

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

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 235572)
Ron Paul is also the monster who said that healthy 30 year olds who require emergency medical care should be left to die if they don't have insurance.

Did you watch the video you posted? To the question "Are you saying society should let him die?" Ron Paul answers "No."

But it's OK. I like oxymorons and this one is not too shabby: "A healthy 30-year old who requires medical emergency"

Wonderment 12-30-2011 07:35 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 235647)
Did it ever occur to you that Paul might actually be harming your cause -- even your own reputation -- by tainting it with association to some of the most degenerate views in American politics? Ever consider that?

No, I assume that most intelligent citizens are capable of separating one issue from another.

It's really quite simple. Take the issue of legalization of weed. No one says, "Oh my God! You support Ron Paul's views on weed. You must be a racist homophobe degenerate."

But when it comes to foreign policy and militarism, suddenly Paul's views become completely toxic and unacceptable to Obama and Romney supporters. This is not because Ron Paul is a racist (although he may be); it's because the views are so threatening to the core policies of the candidate and party you support.

That is why, even though you just heard a dialogue in which two leading African American liberal Obama-voting intellectuals defend Ron Paul's ideas and object to him being made a pariah, you still clutch pearls for them titling threads "How to murder blacks" and accusing Paul of "promoting Jim Crow and the Confederacy."

You insist the ground rules for the debate be the smearing of some old Texan white dude's leftover prejudices from the 1950s rather than permitting, as Glenn suggested, a full honest national discussion about why we need hundreds of military bases around the globe, why we account for almost 1/2 of the entire planet's military budget, why we are moving closer and closer to war with Iran, why our national destiny is wedded to right-wing Israel's, why President Obama has largely continued War on Terror and War on Drugs policies instituted in previous administrations (most infamously Bush-Cheney) and why we are engaged in secret drone bomb strikes (with significant civilian casualties) in various countries.

Rather than face that music in an election year when everyone is tuned in, you'd rather talk about the dirt in the 1990s newsletters.

miceelf 12-30-2011 07:41 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Wonderment (Post 235664)
It's really quite simple. Take the issue of legalization of weed. No one says, "Oh my God! You support Ron Paul's views on weed. You must be a racist homophobe degenerate."

I think it actually might happen if one didn't simply praise Ron Paul for supporting weed, but stated that he was a transformational figure wrt weed, and was going to lead the way for generations to come.

whburgess 12-30-2011 07:44 PM

Re: Goldbugs worse than closeted racists
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by stephanie (Post 235661)
We disagree about this. I think a theory of government where state power is great (even more expansive power than most liberals would like and power in areas that seems antithetical to libertarianism), but federal power bad is basically incoherent. It makes historical sense based on the idea of the US as, first, a collection of colonies and then states that are more fit for "the United States are" than "the United States is" -- that is, something other than a unified country. But that's no more about suspicion of governmental power than British suspicion of and skepticism about the EU would be.

I don't think any Ron Paul supporter who is a 'nativist' would think state power is great either. I think most just feel that their state isn't attacking their 'nativism'. These people really have no desire for any government to tell individuals how to live their lives. Maybe your description would apply more to some Santorum, Gingrich, or Bachmann supporters.

Quote:

More recently, it's not about governmental power at all, IMO, but about cultural conflicts within the US, and specifically conflicts about particular issues, most prominently race. It's worth noting that with the exception of race, the main intrusion of the government into "states rights" that tends to get the same types worked up aren't "anti-freedom" at all, but applications of the Bill of Rights to overturn state laws. Arguments on which real libertarians (as I call libertarians of the first type) tend to be more pro intervention than a lot of Dems.
You're making valid points. But it doesn't take away from the point I'm making, which is that both camps come from anti-authoritarian values. Sure, there is sometimes a conflict between individual liberty and the perceived good of the group. Even the most absolutist libertarian would agree with that. The point I'm making is what motivates both camps of Ron Paul libertarians, as you've defined them, is anti-authoritarianism, and the belief that government has too much power -- rather then malice toward other groups or individuals. Remember, we're talking about Paul supporters here. The right wing 'culture warriors' who feel that their God given duty is to make America into a more moral or christian nation have much more suitable candidates in the field then Ron Paul.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:12 AM.

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