Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-23-2010, 06:00 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default The Week in Blog: Boorish Miscreant Edition (Bill Scher & Conor Friedersdorf)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-23-2010, 07:30 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Boorish Miscreant Edition (Bill Scher & Conor Friedersdorf)

Elizabeth Warren? Journo-list? Andrew Breitbart? Wtf? It's surprising how fast not watching TV and having a no internet rule at the house makes one have no idea what most of these blogginghead diavlogs are talking about.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-23-2010, 07:33 PM
popcorn_karate popcorn_karate is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,644
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Boorish Miscreant Edition (Bill Scher & Conor Friedersdorf)

The conversation about Elizabeth Warren was a bit unsatisfying. Friedersdorf thinks that caring about who heads the new consumer protection agency is irrelevant, and if its not irrelevant that indicates that the regs are so bad that it was a flawed idea to begin with.

I think Mr. Friedersdorf has never actually dealt with a beaurocracy, or say, a cop before. Implementation is, if not everything, then most everything. I worked in the same office as a regulatory agency for a number of years. When the head of that department changed, the difficulty of getting projects done (for customers of the agency - not me) went from mildly painful to excruciating - and the rules all stayed exactly the same.

The gist of the difference was that one guy had the attitude of "how can we help you do things right" while his successor had the attitude that "we'll have to stop you if you're not doing things right". The difference is somewhat minor. neither of them would allow people to break the rules, nor would either of them try to stop things for no reason. But the small shift in attitude trickled down through everyone in the department and made a tremendous difference in how people were able to implement their projects.

people matter.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-23-2010, 11:36 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Boorish Miscreant Edition (Bill Scher & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn_karate View Post
The gist of the difference was that one guy had the attitude of "how can we help you do things right" while his successor had the attitude that "we'll have to stop you if you're not doing things right". The difference is somewhat minor. neither of them would allow people to break the rules, nor would either of them try to stop things for no reason. But the small shift in attitude trickled down through everyone in the department and made a tremendous difference in how people were able to implement their projects.

people matter.
I'm dealing with the planning and building department of the county I live in and I agree that the staff and their attitude is very important. But deep down I just hate the idea that they have so much power over what I do with my property and that when I have paid all the costs of my remodel, including all of their fees and requirements, they will be able to assess me higher taxes.

But then, I would, wouldn't I?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-23-2010, 07:57 PM
cacimbo cacimbo is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 41
Default Re: Mosque

I am surprised Bill Scher sees the mosque issue as so firmly right vs left. I know quite a few hard core lefties in the five boros who are not happy about this mosque being built. The no build crowd has been trying to use existing laws to have site designated a landmark (first proposed back in 70's). Also quite a few unanswered questions about who is financing this.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 07-23-2010, 11:30 PM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Mosque

Quote:
Originally Posted by cacimbo View Post
I am surprised Bill Scher sees the mosque issue as so firmly right vs left. I know quite a few hard core lefties in the five boros who are not happy about this mosque being built. The no build crowd has been trying to use existing laws to have site designated a landmark (first proposed back in 70's). Also quite a few unanswered questions about who is financing this.
a Burlington Coat Factory designated as a landmark?

But it's good that a few hard-core lefties aren't happy about this. This should give the opposition some credibility.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 07-24-2010, 01:05 AM
cacimbo cacimbo is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 41
Default Re: Mosque

Nothing to do with credibility of argument, just surprised to see it labeled as a clear right/left issue when in personal conversations that has not been the case at all. NBC poll found 52% of NYC opposed to mosque despite fact that NYC is heavily democratic.
Coat factory landmark, who knows why orginally suggested back in the 70's, but- heh-this is NYC if you don't clean graffitti off your building fast enough eventually someone here will try to landmark it. Twisting existing laws to obtain a desired result is hardly unique to this case.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-23-2010, 08:46 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default What, David Frum was unavailable?

But good job Conor, you were very reasonable. I'm sure the liberals are pleased.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-23-2010, 09:18 PM
eric eric is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 58
Default Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Friedersdorf is supposed to be on the right? If so he reminds me very much of my impression of Weigel on Bloggingheads, subsequently exposed as disingenuous at best. There are rational arguments against building an Islamic center near ground zero, or pro-Breitbart, that Friedersdorf could not or would not articulate, making the right look like a bunch of reactionary, ignorant boobs. If you are going to have a political debate, have people with different views, otherwise it's not informative.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 07-23-2010, 09:32 PM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

What are these rational reasons? I myself can't think of any that don't revolve around people thinking Islam is synonymous with terrorism.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 07-23-2010 at 09:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 07-23-2010, 09:52 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
Friedersdorf is supposed to be on the right? If so he reminds me very much of my impression of Weigel on Bloggingheads, subsequently exposed as disingenuous at best. There are rational arguments against building an Islamic center near ground zero, or pro-Breitbart, that Friedersdorf could not or would not articulate, making the right look like a bunch of reactionary, ignorant boobs. If you are going to have a political debate, have people with different views, otherwise it's not informative.
What rational arguments? If you're going to accuse people of disingenuousness, you ought to be be able to articulate what you mean.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 07-23-2010, 11:59 PM
eric eric is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 58
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Well, on Islam at ground zero, the issue relates to good manners: not taking, or giving, an unintentional offense. If you tell a black employee he is behaving niggardly and he gets upset, who is at fault? One should know better.

It seems like a direct provocation at the heart of Western culture, exposing the weakness outlined in Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind: we are for everything, including things that are against us. The 9-11 attacks were directly caused by extremist Islamic thinking that considered the West the enemy. This is minority Islamic thinking, but hardly as fringe as the KKK is in the USA, and hardly as violent as Pat Robertson's 700 Club.

Consider if a 'German Culture' museum were erected near a concentration camp. Most Germans, historically were not Nazis, but it's rather obtuse to think this was an appropriate place for such a center. Most Americans oppose the Islamic center, and thoughtful Islams should not try to rub average American opinion in a technicality ('it's a religion of peace to most'). For many Americans, including me, Islamic officials, through benign neglect, abetted the zeitgeist that led to 9-11. If the Left thinks the Tea Party encourages racism, this incident is several log-levels greater in terms of abetting one's worse elements.

As per Breitbart, I disagree with Lowry. The video suggests that many within the NAACP, which lectured the Tea Party on allowing racism, were enthusiastically racist during the initial segment where Sherrod told her audience the white farmer should see his 'own kind'. This is Breitbart's explanation. Like the movie Crash (which had all sorts of racists experiences epiphanies of trans-racial humanity), while she did experience an epiphany, she was clearly a racist for a large portion of her life. I am about her age and have always known that applying different standards or stereotypes to people based on race is morally wrong, but supposedly her admission merely highlights her honesty. I think it highlights she was a racist, but now perhaps not. And that still leaves the issue of all the positive audience response well before her redemption.

The initial video except was tendentious and this was misleading but only in so far as implying Sherrod was an active racist with governmental power. But it wasn't a smear like calling Karl Rove a racist circa the Jeremiah Wright kerfluffle. After all, given what was released, the NAACP and Obama administration agreed with Breitbart, that this was indefensible.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 07-24-2010, 12:16 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
Well, on Islam at ground zero, the issue relates to good manners: not taking, or giving, an unintentional offense. If you tell a black employee he is behaving niggardly and he gets upset, who is at fault? One should know better.

It seems like a direct provocation at the heart of Western culture, exposing the weakness outlined in Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind: we are for everything, including things that are against us. The 9-11 attacks were directly caused by extremist Islamic thinking that considered the West the enemy. This is minority Islamic thinking, but hardly as fringe as the KKK is in the USA, and hardly as violent as Pat Robertson's 700 Club.

Consider if a 'German Culture' museum were erected near a concentration camp. Most Germans, historically were not Nazis, but it's rather obtuse to think this was an appropriate place for such a center. Most Americans oppose the Islamic center, and thoughtful Islams should not try to rub average American opinion in a technicality ('it's a religion of peace to most'). For many Americans, including me, Islamic officials, through benign neglect, abetted the zeitgeist that led to 9-11. If the Left thinks the Tea Party encourages racism, this incident is several log-levels greater in terms of abetting one's worse elements.

As per Breitbart, I disagree with Lowry. The video suggests that many within the NAACP, which lectured the Tea Party on allowing racism, were enthusiastically racist during the initial segment where Sherrod told her audience the white farmer should see his 'own kind'. This is Breitbart's explanation. Like the movie Crash (which had all sorts of racists experiences epiphanies of trans-racial humanity), while she did experience an epiphany, she was clearly a racist for a large portion of her life. I am about her age and have always known that applying different standards or stereotypes to people based on race is morally wrong, but supposedly her admission merely highlights her honesty. I think it highlights she was a racist, but now perhaps not. And that still leaves the issue of all the positive audience response well before her redemption.

The initial video except was tendentious and this was misleading but only in so far as implying Sherrod was an active racist with governmental power. But it wasn't a smear like calling Karl Rove a racist circa the Jeremiah Wright kerfluffle. After all, given what was released, the NAACP and Obama administration agreed with Breitbart, that this was indefensible.
How do you, within constitutional boundaries, prevent a mosque being built on a site because some people are offended by that? Regardless of any other consideration (and I don't think your argument here is reasonable) you can't rationally argue for doing something that is impossible. (Forbidden, in this case.)

In the case of the Sherrod video, the evidence seem to directly contradict what you're asserting. Breitbart's claims about the audience reaction seem pretty completely debunked. And the video is available - it's not like there's any real ambiguity in regard to its content.,
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 07-24-2010, 12:26 AM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
And the video is available - it's not like there's any real ambiguity in regard to its content.
They're part of a secret cabal Jeff. Not unlike journolist. Just on the other side of the divide. Also they communicate via smoke signals and carrier pigeons... I mean who's looking out for that nowadays? Their resolve may be too much for your good faith efforts with Queensbury rules debate tactics.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 07-24-2010, 12:41 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
How do you, within constitutional boundaries, prevent a mosque being built on a site because some people are offended by that? Regardless of any other consideration (and I don't think your argument here is reasonable) you can't rationally argue for doing something that is impossible. (Forbidden, in this case.)

In the case of the Sherrod video, the evidence seem to directly contradict what you're asserting. Breitbart's claims about the audience reaction seem pretty completely debunked. And the video is available - it's not like there's any real ambiguity in regard to its content.,
Where is he arguing that the building should be (as in legally) prevented? I believe he was addressing the unseemliness of the effort.

Not that it's that big a deal, but the audience was voicing approval.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 07-24-2010, 12:56 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Where is he arguing that the building should be (as in legally) prevented? I believe he was addressing the unseemliness of the effort.

Not that it's that big a deal, but the audience was voicing approval.
How is "unseemliness" an issue? Some people are bound to be offended by almost anything. Either we can do something about it or we can't. If we can't, what are we talking about?

And it seems pretty clear that the "approval" your citing has no relationship to racism. I just linked to Saletan's article elsewhere, and Jyminee just linked it in this thread. I recommend reading the piece. It certainly is important when allegations like Breitbart's are put on the table.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 07-24-2010, 10:59 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
How is "unseemliness" an issue? Some people are bound to be offended by almost anything. Either we can do something about it or we can't. If we can't, what are we talking about?

And it seems pretty clear that the "approval" your citing has no relationship to racism. I just linked to Saletan's article elsewhere, and Jyminee just linked it in this thread. I recommend reading the piece. It certainly is important when allegations like Breitbart's are put on the table.
Unseemliness is the issue, Jeff. Whether you think it should be or not. You talk about a lot of things which you think are unseemly and aren't illegal...like the speech of Breitbart or Limbaugh for instance. Why do you talk about them since you really can't do anything about it? Eric was simply expressing his feelings about building the mosque where they want to build it.
But you want to make that irrational. It isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 07-24-2010, 12:00 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by badhatharry View Post
Unseemliness is the issue, Jeff. Whether you think it should be or not. You talk about a lot of things which you think are unseemly and aren't illegal...like the speech of Breitbart or Limbaugh for instance. Why do you talk about them since you really can't do anything about it? Eric was simply expressing his feelings about building the mosque where they want to build it.
But you want to make that irrational. It isn't.
In this case, the goal is to prevent Mosque being built on a specific site.. But, in order to make that so, we'd have to abandon the First Amendment: we'd have to violated both the right of free speech and the Separation Clause. It's not me trying to make this seem irrational - it's the contradiction it represents to our founding principles. My wish to hold mendacious demagogues responsible for their lies does not violate those principles.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 07-26-2010, 03:17 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
How is "unseemliness" an issue?
I'm going to try and take a middle position here. Unseemliness, in theory, would seem to me to be a perfectly valid issue. You can concede that something is perfectly legal, and yet try and talk people out of it (or shame them). For example, yelling racist comments is legal, yet talking about someone doing that does not (obviously) mean that you must be trying to ban the behavior. To take an example that (to my memory, since I've been mostly absent, and related to a Conor Friedersdorf effort) used to come up here at times, it's certainly valid to discuss the unseemliness of certain comments by Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh without there being any assumption that you are trying to claim they can't make those comments or should be censored. You are, perhaps, trying to either talk them out of their unseemly tactics or convince others of the unseemliness thereof and to promote a different type of dialogue.

On to the Islamic Cultural Center, I don't actually find the plans for it or its location unseemly, but I can imagine how people might under certain circumstances -- in particular if it were actually on Ground Zero and if it were being put there for that very reason. It's not -- it's 2 blocks away and in an existing building, as I understand it, but I wonder how much of the reaction is misunderstanding or misinformation.

In any case, I do see some difference between general discomfort with the location (especially when based on the misunderstanding above) and some of the other comments that have been made -- specifically things like the insistence that it's going to be dangerous or Andrew McCarthy's comment that it's not a matter of religious rights, because Islam isn't a religion.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 07-26-2010, 03:39 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I'm going to try and take a middle position here. Unseemliness, in theory, would seem to me to be a perfectly valid issue. You can concede that something is perfectly legal, and yet try and talk people out of it (or shame them). For example, yelling racist comments is legal, yet talking about someone doing that does not (obviously) mean that you must be trying to ban the behavior. To take an example that (to my memory, since I've been mostly absent, and related to a Conor Friedersdorf effort) used to come up here at times, it's certainly valid to discuss the unseemliness of certain comments by Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh without there being any assumption that you are trying to claim they can't make those comments or should be censored. You are, perhaps, trying to either talk them out of their unseemly tactics or convince others of the unseemliness thereof and to promote a different type of dialogue.

On to the Islamic Cultural Center, I don't actually find the plans for it or its location unseemly, but I can imagine how people might under certain circumstances -- in particular if it were actually on Ground Zero and if it were being put there for that very reason. It's not -- it's 2 blocks away and in an existing building, as I understand it, but I wonder how much of the reaction is misunderstanding or misinformation.

In any case, I do see some difference between general discomfort with the location (especially when based on the misunderstanding above) and some of the other comments that have been made -- specifically things like the insistence that it's going to be dangerous or Andrew McCarthy's comment that it's not a matter of religious rights, because Islam isn't a religion.
That's a good answer. Too good for me to try to seriously respond until later.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 07-24-2010, 12:33 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Quoting eric: It seems like a direct provocation at the heart of Western culture, exposing the weakness outlined in Allan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind: we are for everything, including things that are against us. The 9-11 attacks were directly caused by extremist Islamic thinking that considered the West the enemy. This is minority Islamic thinking, but hardly as fringe as the KKK is in the USA, and hardly as violent as Pat Robertson's 700 Club.
surely you must mean something else.

Quote:
Consider if a 'German Culture' museum were erected near a concentration camp. Most Germans, historically were not Nazis, but it's rather obtuse to think this was an appropriate place for such a center. Most Americans oppose the Islamic center, and thoughtful Islams should not try to rub average American opinion in a technicality ('it's a religion of peace to most'). For many Americans, including me, Islamic officials, through benign neglect, abetted the zeitgeist that led to 9-11. If the Left thinks the Tea Party encourages racism, this incident is several log-levels greater in terms of abetting one's worse elements.
Unless, perhaps, the German culture museum included background about what led the German people to the holocaust crimes. Maybe this 'culture center' could include some kind of admission that the Islamic religion has some flaws which cause some members to go a little crazy. That could be very interesting but will never happen.


Quote:
As per Breitbart, I disagree with Lowry.
The only solution to any of this is for everyone to shut up about calling people racist. That won't happen either. Good post.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-24-2010, 12:35 AM
Jyminee Jyminee is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 105
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
As per Breitbart, I disagree with Lowry. The video suggests that many within the NAACP, which lectured the Tea Party on allowing racism, were enthusiastically racist during the initial segment where Sherrod told her audience the white farmer should see his 'own kind'. This is Breitbart's explanation.
You and Breitbart are wrong. Will Saletan goes through the video line by line and debunks this as a lie.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-24-2010, 01:00 AM
eric eric is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 58
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Saletan thinks that when Sherrod says "I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. [Laughter.]" it was laughter about her power to help a guy with 'attitude'. Watch the tape. I disagree.

There's a lot of silence afterward and it then transitions into the redemption story. Yet the initial scene is rather inexcusable. It would be inexcusable for a white cop to mention how he treated black suspects stereotypically the 1980's, but then talk about how it's all about class. His record would be rightly tarnished for his admitted racism. As for Marxism, I guess that's still ok for most people, but as a Hayekian, I find it aids and abets a lot more cruelty than racism.

As per legally forbidding the Islamic center, I'm not for that. I just think it's a provocative move, not in good taste, and so I think it's counterproductive. There are many things I think should be legal but are still bad.

And yes, I should have said 'not nearly as violent as the 700 Club', but it's late, and Friday.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-24-2010, 01:25 AM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
Saletan thinks that when Sherrod says "I was trying to decide just how much help I was going to give him. [Laughter.]" it was laughter about her power to help a guy with 'attitude'. Watch the tape. I disagree.

There's a lot of silence afterward and it then transitions into the redemption story. Yet the initial scene is rather inexcusable. It would be inexcusable for a white cop to mention how he treated black suspects stereotypically the 1980's, but then talk about how it's all about class. His record would be rightly tarnished for his admitted racism. As for Marxism, I guess that's still ok for most people, but as a Hayekian, I find it aids and abets a lot more cruelty than racism.

As per legally forbidding the Islamic center, I'm not for that. I just think it's a provocative move, not in good taste, and so I think it's counterproductive. There are many things I think should be legal but are still bad.

And yes, I should have said 'not nearly as violent as the 700 Club', but it's late, and Friday.
I think you're reading into it a narrative that doesn't fit the context. As Saletan makes clear, there's a pattern to the responses. They're clearly responding to events in Sherrod's story in a way that doesn't fit your narrative. For example:
Quote:
When I made that commitment, I was making that commitment to black people, and to black people only. [Pause. Silence.] But, you know, God will show you things, and He'll put things in your path so that—that you realize that the struggle [Audience: Alright] is really about poor people. [Audience: Alright, alright.]
That holds true throughout Saletan's account. They don't respond to Sherrod mentioning race - they respond to ironic and redemptive moments. And she isn't speaking about treating white farmers differently, she's speaking of how she realized that them being white wasn't important. And considering where the murder of her father must have put her at one time, that's pretty remarkable. So I can't credit your white cop analogy - she didn't admit racism, she acknowledged the impulse toward it and recounted how she overcame that. That's exactly the opposite of racism.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!

Last edited by AemJeff; 07-24-2010 at 01:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-24-2010, 11:25 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I think you're reading into it a narrative that doesn't fit the context. As Saletan makes clear, there's a pattern to the responses. They're clearly responding to events in Sherrod's story in a way that doesn't fit your narrative. For example:

That holds true throughout Saletan's account. They don't respond to Sherrod mentioning race - they respond to ironic and redemptive moments. And she isn't speaking about treating white farmers differently, she's speaking of how she realized that them being white wasn't important. And considering where the murder of her father must have put her at one time, that's pretty remarkable.
I haven't read or heard the Saletan account because my computer goes crazy if I want to open another tab (gotta have that fixed) but I did hear the original offering by Breitbart and have heard the subsequent audio that elongated what she had to say. I definitely heard laughter in her first bit, but as I said, that doesn't shock me. The thing that I found interesting was her supposition that this farmer thought he was superior to her. Who knows what this guy was thinking? Maybe he was trying to impress her, whatever, but she characterized his attitude as superior which is completely subjective.

What really came home to me is the power that government employees have over the taxpayer.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-24-2010, 11:12 AM
badhatharry badhatharry is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: eastern sierra
Posts: 5,413
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by eric View Post
There's a lot of silence afterward and it then transitions into the redemption story. Yet the initial scene is rather inexcusable. It would be inexcusable for a white cop to mention how he treated black suspects stereotypically the 1980's, but then talk about how it's all about class. His record would be rightly tarnished for his admitted racism. As for Marxism, I guess that's still ok for most people, but as a Hayekian, I find it aids and abets a lot more cruelty than racism.
It is interesting to note that in her 'redemptive' part of the speech she talks about class being the thing which divides not race, which I guess is the Marxist portion you refer to. What people need to realize is that these divisions lead to more trouble than they are meant to heal especially when they are abbetted by government largesse. They often keep people more 'enslaved' than they would have been had the market been allowed to function.

I've been reading The Road to Serfdom of late. It's so sensible and prescient. It's so sensible that no one will pay attention to it. It tells all about human nature. It's kinda like a Wealth of Nations condensed.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-24-2010, 11:24 AM
Starwatcher162536 Starwatcher162536 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,658
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

That is a rather big technicality to brush off. Using percentages that are similar I could condemn many things that are a mainstay of American culture. Btw, don't you think the historical reasons the Arab world uses to justify not being "BFF's Forever" with the west are alot less nebulous and moronic then the KKK's justifications for their ideology? Not exactly a fair comparison.
__________________
Six Phases of a Project: (1)Enthusiasm (2)Disillusionment (3)Panic (4)Search for the Guilty (5)Punishment of the Innocent (6)Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants

Last edited by Starwatcher162536; 07-24-2010 at 11:33 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-24-2010, 11:03 PM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Consider if a 'German Culture' museum were erected near a concentration camp. Most Germans, historically were not Nazis, but it's rather obtuse to think this was an appropriate place for such a center.
Not really. It's more like putting a Christian convent at the site of Auschwitz, which did in fact happen. As a Jew, I have no problem with a Christian presence near death camps.

Quote:
Carmelite nuns opened a convent near Auschwitz I in 1984. After some Jewish groups called for the removal of the convent, representatives of the Catholic Church agreed in 1987. One year later the Carmelites erected the large cross from the 1979 mass near their site, just outside Block 11, the notorious torture prison in Auschwitz I, visible from within the camp. The Catholic Church ordered the Carmelites to move by 1989, but they remained until 1993, leaving the large cross behind.
The real offense to 9/11 victims would be to put a Taliban Cultural Center in the area, or perhaps even a Saudi Cultural Center.

You might argue that a mosque has more to do with Al Qaeda than Nazism had to do with Christianity, but I wouldn't. Nazi anti-Semitism that led to the death camps for Jews was a perversion of standard Old School Christian Anti-Semitism, just as Al Qaeda is a perversion of mainstream Islam.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-25-2010, 12:15 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonderment View Post
Not really. It's more like putting a Christian convent at the site of Auschwitz, which did in fact happen. As a Jew, I have no problem with a Christian presence near death camps.



The real offense to 9/11 victims would be to put a Taliban Cultural Center in the area, or perhaps even a Saudi Cultural Center.

You might argue that a mosque has more to do with Al Qaeda than Nazism had to do with Christianity, but I wouldn't. Nazi anti-Semitism that led to the death camps for Jews was a perversion of standard Old School Christian Anti-Semitism, just as Al Qaeda is a perversion of mainstream Islam.
Good analogy.

Let me now answer on behalf of the hand-tightenable threaded fastener community:

IS NOT!!!1! IT'S TOTALLY NOT THE SAME THING!!!1!
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-25-2010, 08:02 AM
kezboard kezboard is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Great Moravia
Posts: 1,117
Default Re: Friedersdorf Weigel redux

Quote:
Consider if a 'German Culture' museum were erected near a concentration camp. Most Germans, historically were not Nazis, but it's rather obtuse to think this was an appropriate place for such a center.
Most concentration camps were not smack in the middle of major cities.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 07-23-2010, 10:39 PM
The_Waco_Kid The_Waco_Kid is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Boorish Miscreant Edition (Bill Scher & Conor Friedersdorf)

Why do people care about Journo-list? People have the right to convene in person and speak privately if they choose. This is simply a more modern way to do so.

Just as Conor referred to Ackerman's temper, I think it's useful for people on the same team to get together both to rant and to have productive discussions without the opposition there. I think it's juvenile for people like Tucker Carlson to feel left out, like they are not sitting at the cool kids table.

Get over it.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 07-23-2010, 11:04 PM
Whatfur
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Boorish Miscreant Edition (Bill Scher & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid View Post
Why do people care about Journo-list? People have the right to convene in person and speak privately if they choose. This is simply a more modern way to do so.

Just as Conor referred to Ackerman's temper, I think it's useful for people on the same team to get together both to rant and to have productive discussions without the opposition there. I think it's juvenile for people like Tucker Carlson to feel left out, like they are not sitting at the cool kids table.

Get over it.
And when convening they come up with game plans to paint innocent people as racist to take the heat off a true story. That is ok with you?
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 07-23-2010, 11:13 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Boorish Miscreant Edition (Bill Scher & Conor Friedersdorf)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whatfur View Post
And when convening they come up with game plans to paint innocent people as racist to take the heat off a true story. That is ok with you?
Cite?
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 07-24-2010, 03:37 AM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Mickey was right

Looks like Mickeys' judgment about Ezra Klein being a sniveling weasel was correct!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 07-24-2010, 03:41 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Mickey was right

And this judgment is based upon...what exactly?
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 07-24-2010, 01:28 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa®ah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Mickey was right

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
Looks like Mickeys' judgment about Ezra Klein being a sniveling weasel was correct!
I was going to say Welcome back! but that you broke your silence to say that pretty much killed the impulse.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 07-24-2010, 01:53 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Mickey was right

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
Looks like Mickeys' judgment about Ezra Klein being a sniveling weasel was correct!
Hey, at least you got your spellchecker fixed during the hiatus. Or was this a lucky break?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 07-27-2010, 10:51 PM
piscivorous piscivorous is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,593
Default Re: Mickey was right

lucky break
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 07-24-2010, 04:26 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Mickey was right

Quote:
Originally Posted by piscivorous View Post
Looks like Mickeys' judgment about Ezra Klein being a sniveling weasel was correct!

That's not judgment, its a statement of fact.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 07-24-2010, 05:49 AM
johnmarzan johnmarzan is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Quiapo
Posts: 358
Default Re: The Week in Blog: Boorish Miscreant Edition (Bill Scher & Conor Friedersdorf)

why are there two leftwingers this week?
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.