Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel) (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=5254)

Bloggingheads 05-25-2010 12:43 PM

Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 

brucds 05-25-2010 01:09 PM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Where did it go ? This diavlog was here a minute ago.

Don Zeko 05-25-2010 03:57 PM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
It's back up now but clearly there's some weird stuff going on in the tech department today.

Stapler Malone 05-25-2010 04:05 PM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Something I don't get is why Democrats enjoy such a huge registration advantage in Kentucky? I'm surmising it's historical, but that's a lot of history ago. The Republicans would seem to have been the natural home for most Kentuckians (?) for a good long time now. One can see why not-so-liberal places like West Virginia are heavily Democratic, for vestigial organized labor reasons, but what's the deal with Kentucky?

A little help?

Stapler Malone 05-25-2010 04:06 PM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Zeko (Post 162695)
It's back up now but clearly there's some weird stuff going on in the tech department today.

luckily I nabbed the MP3 in that brief moment it was up before

thprop 05-25-2010 04:07 PM

Faux Libertarianism
 
I call myself a classic liberal since too many libertarians are kooks. I have sympathy for Paul's argument on the Civil Rights Act. In a perfect world, we would let individuals discriminate as private individuals - and suffer the consequences. But we live in a world where we had government approved slavery and discrimination. It is not a big limitation on liberty to ban private discrimination.

But if Rand Paul were a true libertarian, he would speak out on gross government intrusions into individual liberty which have enormous consequences for society as a whole. Case in point - the war on drugs. He supports it. Our prisons are full because of this inane policy. Not only with drug users - but all crime. Gang bangers are killing each other to control the drug trade.

The police have responded by resorting to assaults on liberty. Read Radley Balko.

Mexico and Colombia are being destroyed because of American demand for recreational drugs.

We are ruining our cities and entire countries to stop people from voluntarily screwing up their lives. But Rand Paul thinks this is OK - but stopping individuals from discrimination is an unacceptable limitation on liberty.

He is such a coward that he kowtows to the bible thumpers in Kentucky rather than strongly support the separation of church and state.

Stapler Malone 05-25-2010 04:16 PM

BRAIN FREEZE!
 
This is why one shouldn't drink Slurpees too fast.

cragger 05-25-2010 07:27 PM

Re: Faux Libertarianism
 
Your point about Paul's selectivity in applying libertarian ideas is well taken, though you can't really expect much consistency from most folks, let alone politicians such as Dr. Paul. The tencency is for people to decide what they want, and then construct some at least semi-reasonable sounding argument for it after the fact. On one issue its libertarian insistence on personal freedom, on the next its all about states' rights, then a favored interpretation of some sentence found within the Constitution coupled with a claim about original intent, and thus on to some argument about serving a higher moral principle as convienient to support yet another position.

--

On the question of so-called public vs. private discrimination, it doesn't seem obvious that the line is as clear as Paul claims. There is a difference between commercial transactions and spaces and private events in truly private spaces. That is, should one host a small dinner party in one's dining room, the attendees are there as personal guests chosen by the hosts on the basis of personal relationship, or on whatever other basis the host choses. The dinner is in effect a personal gift from the hosts to the guests. Even with the current laws to which Mr. Paul objects, the hosts are free to invite or not invite whomever they want, and serve whatever they want.

The situation is different in a restaurant or store. These enterprises are open to the public at large. Total stragers are welcome to enter, and to engage in whatever transactions they have the cash to support. More than welcome, the enterprise is absolutely dependant on such, the very reason for it to exist. Our society is set to operate on just these transactions in an economic system generally protected and policed by the government.

So I see at least two differences that lead me to question the "government impinging on my freedom by denying me my right to discriminate" argument as extending to commercial spaces. The first is one of impact. Should one decide not to invite members of whatever group to one's home or into one's fellowship the impact on society at large is limited. Should a handful of locals however decide not to, say, sell food or gas to members of that group within a locale, the impact is considerable. The question of whether we collectively desire to take collective action through the agency of government is reasonably tied to the impact of the issue at hand.

Second and probably more central to Paul's position is the question of public vs. private space. A public restaurant is different than a home dining room. The activity that takes place is of a different nature. An argument otherwise needs more than assertion, or genuflection before the altar of private wealth. Such an argument may exist, but I have yet to hear one with any persuasive power.

breadcrust 05-25-2010 07:47 PM

Re: Faux Libertarianism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thprop (Post 162698)
But if Rand Paul were a true libertarian, he would speak out on gross government intrusions into individual liberty which have enormous consequences for society as a whole. Case in point - the war on drugs. He supports it. Our prisons are full because of this inane policy. Not only with drug users - but all crime. Gang bangers are killing each other to control the drug trade.

Where do you read that he supports the WOD? I only see him talking about walking the war back:

Quote:

Paul 2.0 is more circumspect: Rather than openly advocate drug decriminalization, Rand favors "a more local approach to drugs ... it's a state issue." He sells foreign-policy restraint pragmatically, "oppos[ing] reckless 'nation building' or burdening our troops by making them the world's police force."
This is similar to Ron Paul's take on abortion. Ron Paul (even though he's against abortion) says it should be decided at the state level because it's so contentious.

rcocean 05-25-2010 09:41 PM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
I'll let the liberals listen to this one, its definitely pitched to them. As a conservative, there's nothing duller** than listening to two liberals trying to decide whether conservatives are evil or stupid or why conservatives don't wise up and become more liberal.

** = except listening to a couple Libertarians debating who's the "true" Libertarian or how the "free Market" can cure cancer, rid of us of poverty, and make sunsets more beautiful.

uncle ebeneezer 05-25-2010 09:43 PM

Re: Mining Is Bad for your Health!!
 
Side effects of mining accidents!!

badhatharry 05-25-2010 10:15 PM

Re: Faux Libertarianism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thprop (Post 162698)
I call myself a classic liberal since too many libertarians are kooks. I have sympathy for Paul's argument on the Civil Rights Act. In a perfect world, we would let individuals discriminate as private individuals - and suffer the consequences. But we live in a world where we had government approved slavery and discrimination. It is not a big limitation on liberty to ban private discrimination.

This is a good way to square the circle with the caveat that once the door is opened the government will inevitably step through it in a very big way. For instance right after the civil rights act we got government mandated desegregation in schools. And it was the government standards which decided what schools were segregated, not the community. Then we got the solution of busing which caused no end of problems, followed by affirmative action....
government acting as social engineers....it just can not resist.

thprop 05-25-2010 10:18 PM

Re: Faux Libertarianism
 
So Paul is a libertarian at the federal level but not at the state level? The federal government should never be allowed to intrude on your liberty but the state government - go for it!!!!! Especially those wacky southern states which want to shove xianity down our throats. In Alabama, a candidate fro governor is attacked for believing in evolution. So the federal government should not enforce separation of church and state but the state government can shove religion into every sphere of life - particularly education (see Texas).

The tea party is not a revolt against big government. It is angry white xians - pissed that there is a black president, desperate to hold onto their government entitlements, and angry that anyone else may get something. Anyone who believes in liberty should stay away from these idiots.

Ocean 05-25-2010 10:41 PM

Re: Faux Libertarianism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thprop (Post 162723)
So Paul is a libertarian at the federal level but not at the state level? The federal government should never be allowed to intrude on your liberty but the state government - go for it!!!!! Especially those wacky southern states which want to shove xianity down our throats. In Alabama, a candidate fro governor is attacked for believing in evolution. So the federal government should not enforce separation of church and state but the state government can shove religion into every sphere of life - particularly education (see Texas).

The tea party is not a revolt against big government. It is angry white xians - pissed that there is a black president, desperate to hold onto their government entitlements, and angry that anyone else may get something. Anyone who believes in liberty should stay away from these idiots.

What a bad-mouthed truth-teller!

Well, not so bad mouthed... ;)

Whatfur 05-25-2010 10:49 PM

Re: Faux Libertarianism
 
Obama being black was about the only thing I did like about him getting elected. You have an empty pidgeonhole somewhere for me? You actually sound like a larger bigot than those you wish to label.

badhatharry 05-25-2010 11:31 PM

Re: Faux Libertarianism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whatfur (Post 162725)
Obama being black was about the only thing I did like about him getting elected. You have an empty pidgeonhole somewhere for me? You actually sound like a larger bigot than those you wish to label.

This is way too confusing!....a conservative (rcocean) criticizing libertarians for being utopian....a libertarian (thprop) criticizing the tea party for being religious, racist, selfish and white... Dave Weigel from Reason magazine being lauded by Joan Walsh from Salon (she really likes him)....and Whatfur (back from a brief sabbatical where he obviously learned how to deal with libs without any more threats of a coronary) being the most civil person of the bunch.

Ya just gotta love this crazy country!

btw, Weigel's article is pretty good.

Now, few conservatives would go as far as Paul. In an essay just this month on the thought of William F. Buckley, Lee Edwards criticized Buckley's belief "that the federal enforcement of integration was worse than the temporary continuation of segregation."

"As a result of National Review’s above-the-fray philosophizing," wrote Edwards, "and Barry Goldwater’s vote, on constitutional grounds, against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the albatross of racism was hung around the neck of American conservatism and remained there for decades and even to the present."

breadcrust 05-26-2010 05:00 AM

Re: Faux Libertarianism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thprop (Post 162723)
So Paul is a libertarian at the federal level but not at the state level? The federal government should never be allowed to intrude on your liberty but the state government - go for it!!!!!

The immediate effect would be an increase of freedom. States like California would no longer have to deal with the DEA, which it now does, thanks be to Obama. That sounds like libertarian incrementalism to me.

Quote:

Especially those wacky southern states which want to shove xianity down our throats. In Alabama, a candidate fro governor is attacked for believing in evolution. So the federal government should not enforce separation of church and state but the state government can shove religion into every sphere of life - particularly education (see Texas).
Get used to it. This country is going to become more Christian as a result of Mexican immigration (legal and not) and the higher birth rates of Mexicans and Blacks. Remember prop 8? Keep in mind that Mexicans and Blacks are goodvoters, goiing (D) well over 50% and 90% of the time, but if you like getting excited about them evil White xians, imagine the fun you'll have when the US is majority minority. And just so you're clear, the language is, "Congress (the feds) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... "

Quote:

The tea party is not a revolt against big government. It is angry white xians - pissed that there is a black president, desperate to hold onto their government entitlements, and angry that anyone else may get something. Anyone who believes in liberty should stay away from these idiots.
The wealthiest Americans are Asians and Jews... especially Jews. Asians and Jews "get something" at a higher rate than goy Whites for all the reasons I've covered in the past. I agree with most statements of tea-partiers (I think Medicare and SS need to be clawed back, though) but I voted for Obama because he was Black. He's probably the last (D) I'll ever vote for.

Alexandrite 05-26-2010 05:05 AM

Re: Faux Libertarianism
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thprop (Post 162698)
I call myself a classic liberal since too many libertarians are kooks.

yeah no, it doesn't work like that. Every Libertarian wants to do this because we're all a bunch of individual cats trying to go our own way and all those other guys in the party are crazy.

The best way to just explain it is to say that the Freedom Train follows a power law scale. Such that to find the next Libertarian seat down the train you need to be significantly more ideological. The anarchists are 10 times as 'crazy' as the minarchists and so on up the train. A person in the bottom 25% of the ideological purity might be as far from the mainstream as they are from the anarchists, but they may also be the 1,000,000th most crazy member of the group, putting them in the top 99% of the country for libertarianism.

You're pretty crazy too, and you need people at your back if you want to push forward with your agenda and goals. Calling those people behind you on the train crazy, despite the fact they support you even though they know you have to jump off the freedom train long before they get their way, is not a very nice thing to do.

===
One theory I've seen floated somewhere in this curfuffle and I've been thinking about has been that
There is a difference between communal libertarians - who believe in the right of the society to be free to choose their own way and set their own rules (free from external coercion) and the define their community as however large or small it wishes to be, with non-communal libertarians, who focus more on individualistic and hedonistic based versions. Often they might have similar policy choices on a lot of federal rules and regulations, but it would explain the paleo-libertarian divide as something other then a very old personality / power dispute.

Personally it's just all dumb silliness when there's this in-fighting over petty turf wars and or limited prestige, because the disputes that libertarians have with each other won't ever come up in this country in our lifetime. One can make a very good argument of the necessity of these actions by Conservatives and Progressives against RINO's and DINO's, but Libertarians? The whole thing at times is like the PLA versus Hamas, but with more guns and less relevance. Sure the liberaltarians might be less crazy then paleolibs, but the paleolibs have actual power and connections and are passing libertarian laws while Will Wilkinson has a blog.

Baltimoron 05-26-2010 05:27 AM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Really? I assumed the staff was experimenting with laugh tracks.

Baltimoron 05-26-2010 05:29 AM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Hasn't there always been an east-west, mountain-plains divide that predates the Civil War? I recall something about calls for a state of Franklin in the eastern mountains. Add in some gerrymandering, and that might give a minority party control of the state.

Baltimoron 05-26-2010 05:32 AM

Re: Faux Libertarianism
 
Some would call that Paul's version of pragmatism. I can't recall who on Meet the Press made that argument last Sunday, though.

Baltimoron 05-26-2010 05:35 AM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Dave Weigel is a liberal? In what time zone?

Stapler Malone 05-26-2010 08:59 AM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Baltimoron (Post 162744)
Hasn't there always been an east-west, mountain-plains divide that predates the Civil War? I recall something about calls for a state of Franklin in the eastern mountains. Add in some gerrymandering, and that might give a minority party control of the state.

Yeah the Civil War heritage was my first cut guess, but that's a long time ago. It's not like the GOP has a registration advantage throughout the Northeast, or Dems run the show in most slave states. Was Kentucky somehow exempt from the great partisan sort-out of the 70s through 80s? (see: Twain, Mark). My feeling is that gerrymandering probably offers more explanatory mileage in this case.

Don Zeko 05-26-2010 10:00 AM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
He claims to be a libertarian. I guess I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out whether or not he's your very own Mickey Kaus.

conncarroll 05-26-2010 10:55 AM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
So David Weigel is both pro-stimulus and pro-TARP? Hoe does he get away with being considered a libertarian again?

Don Zeko 05-26-2010 11:08 AM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Doesn't that make him a) a Keynesian and b) someone that believed the people saying that the economy would come crashing down if we didn't bail out the big financial firms? I know that it's very unusual for Libertarians to hold those views, but they aren't necessarily in conflict with being a civil and cultural libertarian and wanting a small welfare state, which I've always understood to be the bare-bones tenets of libertarianism.

JoeK 05-26-2010 11:18 AM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by conncarroll (Post 162754)
So David Weigel is both pro-stimulus and pro-TARP?

He is also pro-New Deal (considers Hoover's failed presidency a proof laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work), pro-Great Society, thinks true limited-government policies were tried out and failed under Reagan and Bush the second, pro-Van Jones (aka. Green Jobs Czar)... I am sure there is more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by conncarroll (Post 162754)
Hoe does he get away with being considered a libertarian again?

Um, he likes gay parades?

kezboard 05-26-2010 03:33 PM

Rise of the LINO
 
Are we on the lookout for Not Real Libertarians now? "LINO" sounds even sillier than "FCINO", and we all know how well that worked out for Carly Fiorina.

bjkeefe 05-26-2010 05:30 PM

So much for sanctimony
 
You know how Dave was going on and on in this diavlog, like he does every time he's on Bh.tv, about how stupid it is for people to report on the antics of Sarah Palin and the scribblings on her Facebook page?

Uh ... never mind!

(His posts -- the first two links in the above -- are actually quite good.)

geoffrobinson 05-26-2010 09:04 PM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Can we really say that liberals won any Constitutional argument?

I've seen no one point to the text of the Constitution and say "see, this shows we are allowed to create public accomodation requirements on private businesses."

AemJeff 05-26-2010 09:21 PM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson (Post 162813)
Can we really say that liberals won any Constitutional argument?

I've seen no one point to the text of the Constitution and say "see, this shows we are allowed to create public accomodation requirements on private businesses."

Point to one that clearly prohibits it. As an answer to your question - liberals seem to have won more than they've lost, don't you think? Miranda, Roe v. Wade, the existence of a strong anti-trust framework, and broad interpretations of the First Amendment seem like easy examples.

bjkeefe 05-27-2010 01:19 AM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by geoffrobinson (Post 162813)
I've seen no one point to the text of the Constitution and say "see, this shows we are allowed to create public accomodation requirements on private businesses."

Article I, Section 8, last clause.

Quote:

The Congress shall have power ...

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Happy?

(Of course not, but still, you've now been pointed.)

==========

Also, accommodation has two Ms. You'd think a guy named Jeff who spells his name with no Js and a silent O would pay attention to things like this.

bjkeefe 05-27-2010 01:36 AM

Re: So much for sanctimony
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 162798)
You know how Dave was going on and on in this diavlog, like he does every time he's on Bh.tv, about how stupid it is for people to report on the antics of Sarah Palin and the scribblings on her Facebook page?

Uh ... never mind!

(His posts -- the first two links in the above -- are actually quite good.)

He has added a third, and also points to Greg Sargent, who in turn points to Ruth Marcus. All worth a look, especially Marcus's.

bjkeefe 05-27-2010 02:42 AM

Re: So much for sanctimony
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 162827)
He has added a third, and also points to Greg Sargent, who in turn points to Ruth Marcus. All worth a look, especially Marcus's.

Tbogg notices Dave's second post, also, too.

popcorn_karate 05-27-2010 01:10 PM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 162814)
Point to one that clearly prohibits it.

bad answer. that is not how the constitution works.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

rcocean 05-27-2010 02:29 PM

Why I can't take Dave Weigel Seriously
 
Erik Erikson states why Here

Great Quote:

Quote:

And let’s remember Weigel has admitted he voted for Gore, Kerry, and Obama, but constantly counters challenges to his political persuasion with “but I’m a registered Republican”. That is roughly equivalent to an atheist quoting the Sermon on the Mount to get passable clearance into a revival. He’s an Obama fan with an NRA membership, and not someone the right needs to take or should take seriously. In other words: he’s like any typical MSM journalist, he’s just nicer about it.

bjkeefe 05-27-2010 02:48 PM

Re: Why I can't take Dave Weigel Seriously
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 162862)
Erik Erikson states why Here

Great Quote:

As some of you may have noticed, Dave responded yesterday to this "greatness" from the GHEMRotRSTF:

Quote:

Sometimes I sympathize with what's going on. Sometimes I'm critical. I try to be open about that. But the people who talk to me know I'll accurately report what they're doing, and my report can either be used by some liberal to attack "those wacky conservatives" or used by some conservative to get a newsy take on something in the movement.

Erickson provocatively titles his post to say he doesn't "take me seriously." I don't care if I'm taken seriously. I only care that the reporting holds up.
As if it needs saying, Erick the Red Face only "takes seriously" those he already agrees with. This does not make him unique, of course, although given that his long history of drawing up enemies lists and otherwise howling for the purging of the impure, it's fair to say he is rather extreme in the matter.

Of course, given rcocean's similar feelings -- about the 98.6% of the population who don't meet his standards for Real Conservatism™, I mean -- we should not be surprised at his applause. Nor, for that matter, that he reads the Proceedings of the RedState Trike Force for anything more than the lulz.

rcocean 05-27-2010 03:26 PM

Re: Why I can't take Dave Weigel Seriously
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bjkeefe (Post 162865)
Of course, given rcocean's similar feelings -- about the 98.6% of the population who don't meet his standards for Real Conservatism™, I mean -- we should not be surprised at his applause. Nor, for that matter, that he reads the Proceedings of the RedState Trike Force for anything more than the lulz.

Actually, I do care that a journalist who presents himself as "conservative" or "Republican" or "Libertarian" - is telling the truth. Weigal isn't. Like Bill Maher he claims to be a "Libertarian" and (unlike Maher) a Republican. But both are just liberals. Maybe, they believe in lower taxes for the well-to-do ( like themselves) or legalized drugs, or free guns for everybody, but on all the other issues they're just the standard boring, party-line liberals, and vote accordingly.

Weigal has misrepresented himself as some kind of "Libertarian" who's covering the conservative movement from the "inside". He's nothing of the sort. He's just another MSM liberal.

So its not "purity" I'm concerned with - its Truth in advertising.

AemJeff 05-27-2010 03:59 PM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by popcorn_karate (Post 162859)
bad answer. that is not how the constitution works.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I'm not sure what you think you're telling me, or in what way yo believe this is related to what I said.

popcorn_karate 05-27-2010 04:47 PM

Re: Special Lamestream Edition (Joan Walsh & Dave Weigel)
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by AemJeff (Post 162869)
I'm not sure what you think you're telling me, or in what way yo believe this is related to what I said.

the constitution primarily spells out what powers the government has, not the powers government doesn't have, so claiming that the document does not specifically prohibit something so therefore it is allowed (as you did) is to fundamentally misunderstand the document.

"Some members of Congress argued that a listing of rights of the people was a silly exercise, in that all the listed rights inherently belonged to citizens, and nothing in the Constitution gave the Congress the power to take them away. It was even suggested that the Bill of Rights might reduce liberty by giving force to the argument that all rights not specifically listed could be infringed upon. In part to counter this concern, the Ninth Amendment was included providing that "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:17 PM.

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