Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   What is Past, or Passing, or to Come (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2298)

Bloggingheads 10-19-2008 06:30 PM

What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 

AemJeff 10-19-2008 06:36 PM

Larison!
 
I asked, and I have received.

Good get!

Bobby G 10-19-2008 06:44 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
I also asked, and I also received. Mainly, I just wanted to see if he was as dour in person as he is in writing. Of course, that's impossible, so he did not live up to his cantankerous online persona. At least, not in the first four minutes.

AemJeff 10-19-2008 07:07 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby G (Post 94587)
I also asked, and I also received. Mainly, I just wanted to see if he was as dour in person as he is in writing. Of course, that's impossible, so he did not live up to his cantankerous online persona. At least, not in the first four minutes.

Dour? In relation to some of the more fecund reaches of the Rightosphere, I guess his blogging doesn't immediately conjure images of fangs; but despite the fact that I generally don't agree with him, I always think he has a cogent argument. I guess there's always AoS, Malkin, or LGF for sheer entertainment value, but all that seething and outrage inevitably makes me tired. (Admittedly, ACE can be pretty funny.)

Added: And listening to these guys mix it up, I think we'd all agree, even Michelle Malkin would be embarassed at the intensity!

TwinSwords 10-19-2008 07:37 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 94589)
And listening to these guys mix it up, I think we'd all agree, even Michelle Malkin would be embarassed at the intensity!

I think Eli makes a good point, and I suspect he's right that BHTV viewers prefer "reasoned, respectful conversations" over those which resemble "screaming and hollering." I actually can't think of anyplace else you can go to find people on opposing sides coming together to exchange views in a friendly manner.

JoeK 10-19-2008 07:46 PM

say what, non-warmongering conservative?
 
Um, two or three things before I watch the diavlog.

First, finally a non-warmongering conservative on bhtv. That's a good thing.
Second, I had no idea Daniel is so young. I think I saw some caricature of him which, I thought, depicted much older man. That would be another good thing.
Last but not least, good old Eli is a bald man. And everybody knows bald men are funny.

So, we have a true trifecta, and a real promissing diavlog on our hands.

AemJeff 10-19-2008 07:47 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TwinSwords (Post 94593)
I think Eli makes a good point, and I suspect he's right that BHTV viewers prefer "reasoned, respectful conversations" over those which resemble "screaming and hollering." I actually can't think of anyplace else you can go to find people on opposing sides coming together to exchange views in a friendly manner.

Yeah, Eli actually stated it pretty well. I think it's a primary reason why many of us were attracted to this joint in the first place.

graz 10-19-2008 07:52 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
All Ayers all the time

So what exactly is the relationship? Enquiring minds don't seem to want to know. They want to continue to characterize it in a nefarious vein without wishing to define it. That's not politics, is it?

radmul 10-19-2008 08:27 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Is this the type of thing that Eli is talking about.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Womans...with_1008.html
Can't we get past this type of guilt by association BS on both sides and look at what the policies of the candidates are.

Bobby G 10-19-2008 08:31 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 94589)
Dour? In relation to some of the more fecund reaches of the Rightosphere, I guess his blogging doesn't immediately conjure images of fangs; but despite the fact that I generally don't agree with him, I always think he has a cogent argument.

By "dour" (gloomy, sullen) I meant I think he is a sourpuss. A nattering nabob of negativity. Everything is going to hell, there are no signs of light, everyone except for !% of intellectuals and 5% of the population is completely corrupt and wrong. But he's very smart and expresses himself well. That's why I like him.

AemJeff 10-19-2008 08:37 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by radmul (Post 94602)
Is this the type of thing that Eli is talking about.
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Womans...with_1008.html
Can't we get past this type of guilt by association BS on both sides and look at what the policies of the candidates are.

Is the following mere "guilt by association" or does it also contain a defensible reference to a criticism of his legislative record? Isn't that fair game? If Obama had legislative fingerprints that were openly supportive of Ayers' goals wouldn't that be different from the current situation?
Quote:

The Arizona Senator may not have directly consorted with any clinic bombers, but his legislative record was certainly favorable to them, and critics are hammering his association with sympathizers of domestic
terrorists who target abortion providers.

AemJeff 10-19-2008 08:39 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby G (Post 94603)
By "dour" (gloomy, sullen) I meant I think he is a sourpuss. A nattering nabob of negativity. Everything is going to hell, there are no signs of light, everyone except for !% of intellectuals and 5% of the population is completely corrupt and wrong. But he's very smart and expresses himself well. That's why I like him.

I got the reference, but I read it as a literary critique. Now you make him sound like John Derbyshire - not a comparison I'd be ashamed of, for the most part.

Bobby G 10-19-2008 08:49 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Yeah, I guess he's a religious Derbyshire.

I don't read his blog much, but from what I've read, it seems he rarely offers arguments for any of his political positions. E.g., why is he against gay marriage? Why does he hold the economic positions he does? Why does he believe in God, or more specifically the Christian God? Does he believe arguments matter at all? All he seems to argue about is political horse-race type stuff. But maybe I should read him more often.

rcocean 10-19-2008 09:07 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Great to see someone from the TAC at BHTV!

Wonderment 10-19-2008 09:59 PM

Re: Larison!
 
Quote:

I asked, and I have received.
Be careful what you wish for. He was awful, I thought.

I'm sure he's a great writer, but as a speaker he's about as qualified to go up against Eli as Sarah Palin is to go on Meet The Press.

He should have done a better job on both the Iraq War and the Israel lobby. Bheads should get Juan Cole to debate Eli. Cole would do a much better job.

The innuendo of Eli's critique of American Conservative seems to be that fixating on the Israel Lobby's role in the Iraq War is somehow anti-Semitic. He didn't use that word, but he danced around it.

Mearsheimer and Walt have been smeared by these outrageous suggestions since their original paper was published. Raising suspicions about them or their supporters does not further our understanding of the issues. It's the same kind of thing that Eli, ironically, was protesting in his earlier defense of McCain's character and the negative ads McCain runs on television.

AemJeff 10-19-2008 10:46 PM

Re: Larison!
 
I feel pretty much the same way about Eli in this one. Larison is certainly a dour speaker (h/t) but I didn't think he was awful. Definitely not a fluent public speaker.

pink maggie 10-20-2008 12:07 AM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
daniel larison is impressively honest in this discussion.

Bobby G 10-20-2008 12:16 AM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Yeah, what struck me is that he's a slow speaker because he doesn't want to make any mistakes of any kind, including ones of over-generalization. He wouldn't even say what kind of people would be in Hyde Park (or something like that).

Wonderment 10-20-2008 12:16 AM

Re: Larison!
 
I definitely agree with you in principle though. It would be cool to have more antiwar conservatives on Bheads.

I like to look for coalitions of peace that transcend political party.

There's a good case to be made that the Republican Party was hijacked 50 years ago by segregationists, hawks and religious fundamentalists; and that returning to its "isolationist" roots would both restore decency and broaden the appeal.

Bobby G 10-20-2008 12:18 AM

Re: Larison!
 
I suspect a lot of isolations would not have views on race or religion that you would like. I think they're more like the "leave us alone" coalition that Grover Norquist is trying to put together, except with this twist: they don't want to tell you how to run your community, but they don't want anyone telling them how to run their community--that means they would be comfortable prohibiting pornography, prostitution, gay marriage, abortion, and perhaps even would defend a strong right to freedom of association (where that would mean employers, landlords, etc. are allowed to discriminate against racial minorities).

Wonderment 10-20-2008 12:37 AM

Re: Larison!
 
I
Quote:

suspect a lot of isolations would not have views on race or religion that you would like.....they would be comfortable prohibiting pornography, prostitution, gay marriage, abortion, and perhaps even would defend a strong right to freedom of association (where that would mean employers, landlords, etc. are allowed to discriminate against racial minorities).
Yes, that troubles me. Both Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan have a history that raises many questions on some of the issues you mention.

However, a younger generation of pro-peace conservatives (without Buchanan or Paul's baggage) could emerge in coalition with libertarians to re-design the party.

We'll see. The election of Obama will mark a new post-baby boomer era. At last, the Clintons, Bushes and McCains will be behind us. New paradigms are possible.

timba 10-20-2008 01:10 AM

another great discussion
 
thanks

Bobby G 10-20-2008 01:56 AM

Re: Larison!
 
Speaking as someone who finds a lot of those conservatives' views rather appealing, I want to ask: if you had to choose between a world in which there are a lot of communities that have laws you don't like--against abortion, prostitution, gay marriage, pornography--but where there's also lots of communities where you can live that have the laws you like, why is it that you can't rest until all the communities have the kinds of laws you like? Why can't you permit those communities to govern in the way they want just so long as they don't violate certain very basic rights (like not murdering, not allowing theft of certain hated groups, etc.)?

Paul McLeod 10-20-2008 02:23 AM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
It's true that Daniel is fairly halting here and not nearly as forceful (in a good way) as he is in his writing, he might also need a bit of time to acclimate to the new medium. I hope he keeps it going until he's more comfortable, as I can think of few people who argue their cases with more cogency, power, and (exceedingly dark) humor (I say this as someone who is inclined to disagree with him on a great many things).

Wonderment 10-20-2008 02:56 AM

Re: Larison!
 
Quote:

...I want to ask: if you had to choose between a world in which there are a lot of communities that have laws you don't like--against abortion, prostitution, gay marriage, pornography--but where there's also lots of communities where you can live that have the laws you like, why is it that you can't rest until all the communities have the kinds of laws you like? Why can't you permit those communities to govern in the way they want just so long as they don't violate certain very basic rights (like not murdering, not allowing theft of certain hated groups, etc.)?
I have to wonder why you would assume I "can't rest" until all communities have the laws I like.

But setting that misrepresentation of my views aside, I'll interpret your question to mean why do I think, for example, that women should have the right to an abortion everywhere, as opposed to just in my community. The answer is that I believe the right to an abortion is derived from a universal right to control one's own body, reproductive rights, fertility, etc.

You can dispute whether a right exists, but once you recognize a universal human right, it should not be applied selectively.

This, of course, was at the heart of the 19th century debate about slavery, which culminated in the Civil War and Emancipation. Once freedom from slavery was recognized as a universal human right, no part of the human community could claim a territorial exemption.

Another example is that we used to think that the right to vote only applied to men. Suffragists argued persuasively that the vote should be extended to all adults. It's hard to imagine someone arguing today either a) that suffrage should be limited by gender or b) that it's ok to deny women the vote in Utah or Alaska as long as it's preserved in other states.

Analogously, I would argue that gays and lesbians also deserve equal rights, and that those rights should be recognized universally.

You also mention abortion, prostitution and pornography. Laws governing these activities are also based on universal human rights. Granted, each case has special problems. One has to decide, for example, up to what point in a pregnancy abortion should be permitted, whether 14-year-old girls can get an abortion without informing a parent, etc. Sex work and pornography are also extremely complicated and require considerable legislation, regulation, etc.

But I don't understand why, in general, you would protect "certain very basic rights" while permitting the violation or selective enforcement of others.

Bobby G 10-20-2008 03:57 AM

Re: Larison!
 
Yeah, I figured you'd pounce on the very basic rights caveat. Well, I'm not sure how I feel about it, honestly. However: why legislate to protect abortion rights just in the US? Why not over all of the world?

To be honest, this is somewhat how I feel about the civil war. 600,000 Americans died in the civil war. They died to liberate a large number of black Americans from slavery. Well, Christopher Hitchens would argue that the same thing happened in Iraq, more or less.

I know how you feel about Iraq. I assume you were for the civil war. Why against the former and (if my assumption is right) for the latter?

Porco 10-20-2008 04:20 AM

Of rallies and subtexts
 
As a liberal I wonder about how much my political bias affects my perception of the screams "terrorist" and "kill him" at the McCain/Palin rallies. I currently live in Memphis where the assassination of MLK and race riots remain in the living memory. I was also reminded today that one of the reasons Colin Powell did not run for president in the 90's was because of how afraid his wife was that he would be harmed.

What I saw at the Palin/McCain rallies was a lot of association of Obama with the ultimate enemy, terrorists, and implications that he was not a "real" American. So I ask myself, what is the correct response of a real American to the possibility of having the country ruled by an Islamic anti-American? I do not see why the fears of Rep. Lewis are unjustified.

Wonderment 10-20-2008 05:23 AM

Re: Larison!
 
Quote:

Yeah, I figured you'd pounce on the very basic rights caveat. Well, I'm not sure how I feel about it, honestly. However: why legislate to protect abortion rights just in the US? Why not over all of the world?
I would like women everywhere to have the right to terminate a pregnancy. It's even MORE important to ensure reproductive freedom in less democratic and poorer countries.

Quote:

To be honest, this is somewhat how I feel about the civil war. 600,000 Americans died in the civil war. They died to liberate a large number of black Americans from slavery. Well, Christopher Hitchens would argue that the same thing happened in Iraq, more or less.
That would be a terrible abuse of language, conflating a metaphoric claim of "enslavement" with literal slavery.

Quote:

I know how you feel about Iraq. I assume you were for the civil war. Why against the former and (if my assumption is right) for the latter?
No I think the Civil War was an avoidable horror. Had I lived then I would have been a nonviolent abolitionist. I would have opposed the war and resisted the draft.

I do believe there is an obligation to protect populations from genocide, and slavery was certainly a form of genocide, but I think in the case of the dying institution of slavery there were a lot of options on the table short of war.

It's difficult to maintain a pacifist philosophy in the face of genocide, so I won't claim to have all the answers. But no one claims that the Iraqis were under imminent threat of genocide. On the contrary, most Iraqis opposed the invasion and the occupation. This was certainly crystal clear to me in the weeks and months leading up to the war. The notion that Iraqis would greet the "liberators" with flowers was one of the most ridiculous and shameful claims of the neo-cons crazies.

seyoyo 10-20-2008 10:09 AM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Stop with Ayers already. Not unless you're simultaneously foaming at the mouth about G. Gordon Liddy, Ollie North and the rest of McCain's wacko friends.

But to specifically respond to Eli Lake, I just need to point out that in fact Obama's associations remarkably paint him as a centrist.

He works on a board set up by a Reaganite, on which Conservatives and far left radicals all serve. Where does Obama fit in all this but the center?

AemJeff 10-20-2008 10:23 AM

Re: Larison!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby G (Post 94645)
However: why legislate to protect abortion rights just in the US? Why not over all of the world?

Why ask hypothetical questions when the answer is an obvious tautology? You legislate support for basic rights at the highest level you can. (Were you poking Wonderment as a possible "One Worlder?")

Just asking, I really don't get the point.

Bobby G 10-20-2008 02:43 PM

Re: Larison!
 
What tautology are you talking about? Where did I say anything like "a=a"?

I was hoping to lure Wonderment into a trap. The idea was this: you are for legislating to protect what you take to be basic rights in the US but not outside the US. Why not outside the US? Because of sovereignty considerations. But what on earth are sovereignty considerations but ways for particularly large communities to assert that they want to live in certain ways themselves.

As it turns out, though Wonderment appears not to believe in sovereignty, which makes him not fall into my trap. I, on the other hand, tend not to believe in nation-states, but just small autonomous communities that should be left alone to do things their own way. If they attack other communities, though, then it's certainly permissible to organize against them.

anycon 10-20-2008 03:00 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
Lake talks way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way way too much here. It's a Lake monovlog with Larison as chorus.

AemJeff 10-20-2008 03:14 PM

Re: Larison!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby G (Post 94677)
What tautology are you talking about? Where did I say anything like "a=a"?

I was hoping to lure Wonderment into a trap. The idea was this: you are for legislating to protect what you take to be basic rights in the US but not outside the US. Why not outside the US? Because of sovereignty considerations. But what on earth are sovereignty considerations but ways for particularly large communities to assert that they want to live in certain ways themselves.

As it turns out, though Wonderment appears not to believe in sovereignty, which makes him not fall into my trap. I, on the other hand, tend not to believe in nation-states, but just small autonomous communities that should be left alone to do things their own way. If they attack other communities, though, then it's certainly permissible to organize against them.

If a question implies its answer, the question is a tautology. Here's what I quoted:
Quote:

However: why legislate to protect abortion rights just in the US? Why not over all of the world?
The answer is "because the largest political entity in which one could possibly mount that legislation from where Wonderment sits is the United States." There's no ambiguity. About not believing in nation-states, if you'll let me slide on a badly mangled aphorism: You've pretty much got to dance in the world you're born in.

Bobby G 10-20-2008 06:54 PM

Re: Larison!
 
Well, that's not a tautology. It's not even a disguised tautology. The closest you can get is:

Nations can legislate within their own borders (definition)
The US is a nation
Therefore, the US can legislate only within its own borders (conclusion)

But the first claim is probably false anyway, unless it's construed as a normative claim.

Ray 10-20-2008 07:36 PM

Re: Larison!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby G (Post 94677)
I, on the other hand, tend not to believe in nation-states, but just small autonomous communities that should be left alone to do things their own way. If they attack other communities, though, then it's certainly permissible to organize against them.


I believe in Heaven, too!

It's all a matter of getting rid of the undesirables!

AemJeff 10-20-2008 07:53 PM

Re: Larison!
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobby G (Post 94696)
Well, that's not a tautology. It's not even a disguised tautology. The closest you can get is:

Nations can legislate within their own borders (definition)
The US is a nation
Therefore, the US can legislate only within its own borders (conclusion)

But the first claim is probably false anyway, unless it's construed as a normative claim.

I looked for a dictionary definition to support my claim. I couldn't find one. So I retract my phrasing - I was probably trying too hard to be clever in any case.

But, while we're picking nits - your syllogism doesn't quite work. The conclusive restriction "only within its own borders" isn't supported by the definition you gave. Strike the "only" and you have a valid syllogism, but one that doesn't help make your point.

Ok, if that looks like tit-for-tat I apologize, that's not what I was trying to do.

Bobby G 10-20-2008 08:15 PM

Re: Larison!
 
You're right. I shouldn't have added that "only". Or, I should have added it to the major premise as well.

Bobby G 10-20-2008 08:16 PM

Re: Larison!
 
Sorry, by "believe in" I didn't mean to making an existence claim--of course nation-states exist--I just don't think they should.

And I do believe in heaven, in the existence-claim sense.

Racoon 10-20-2008 08:48 PM

Re: What is Past, or Passing, or to Come
 
I find Eli Lake's comments and questions about Hyde Park (e.g., drumming circles) wierdly naive, or, more likely, deliberately blinkered. Has he never been to a college town or a city with a university? How has he come so far in his life and experienced so little? More to the point, why am I listening to this person?

MikeDrew 10-21-2008 02:32 AM

The Semiotic Critique
 
Eli describes it brilliantly. He very understandably would prefer not to be aligned with the side on the receiving end of it. However, he does not succeed at or really even try to show why it isn't quite a fair, accurate interpretation of mainstream right-wing messaging.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:24 PM.

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