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 03-01-2009, 04:33 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-01-2009, 05:27 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Is this and this willful misrepresentation of the truth, or just sincere cluelessness?

How can anyone who claims to be an intellectual and who claims to know history make these statements in good conscience? Very few people who call themselves liberals (or progressives), no matter what anyone thinks the terms might mean, would say that the Democratic Party is anywhere near to representing their interests. There has been a non-stop battle since at least the time of Bill Clinton winning the nomination in 1992 conducted by liberals against what they see as rampant centrism, triangulation, and kowtowing to the right on the part of the Democratic Party leadership. That we may from time to time bow to reality for the sake of winning elections does not change this in the slightest. That the GOP (and those who call themselves conservatives) are currently pointing fingers of blame at each other for lack of purity does not change this either.

I know Jonah hates, or views with contempt, pretty much every thought to the left of his, but his simplistic view of "liberalism" never fails to make him look like a buffoon.

I'm sure there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth by Jonah's loyal fans, but I'm sorry. I cannot respect for a minute the intellect of someone who is so locked into promoting his own side and bashing the other that he starts with this point of view. This is just utter childishness.

[Added: Thanks to Will for saying the same, only more politely.]

P.S. Freudian slip, Will? And Jonah?

(And yes, that was to show you that I know what childishness means.)
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 03-01-2009 at 10:43 PM.. Reason: add ps + later: change "everything" to "every"
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-01-2009, 06:11 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Continuing on the theme, how can anyone take seriously this claim of homogeneity?

The NYT op-ed page? You mean Brooks and Krugman sing from the same hymnal? Stanley Fish and Nick Kristof? And what about the daily guests? Do you even read this paper, Jonah, or do you just "know" from your mother's knee that it's the Evil Liberal New York Slimes?

Harvard? Wanna talk to Greg Mankiw or Harvey Mansfield or Charles Fried about that, for example?

Hollywood and the Brookings Institution share the same views? You mean, like, say, Kenneth Pollack and Sean Penn? Peter Singer and Susan Sarandon? E.J. Dionne and Gary Sinise?

And I remind you, Mr. Kristol, oops, I mean, Mr. Goldberg, you work at the LA Times. Are you now claiming to be part of "the liberal establishment?"
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 03-01-2009 at 06:21 PM.. Reason: add links, more examples, fix spelling
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-01-2009, 06:32 PM
graz graz is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,162
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Continuing on the theme, how can anyone take seriously this claim of homogeneity?

The NYT op-ed page? You mean Brooks and Krugman sing from the same hymnal? Stanley Fish and Nick Kristof? And what about the daily guests? Do you even read this paper, Jonah, or do you just "know" from your mother's knee that it's the Evil Liberal New York Slimes?

Harvard? Wanna talk to Greg Mankiw or Harvey Mansfield or Charles Fried about that, for example?

Hollywood and the Brookings Institution share the same views? You mean, like, say, Kenneth Pollack and Sean Penn? Peter Singer and Susan Sarandon? E.J. Dionne and Gary Sinise?

And I remind you, Mr. Kristol, oops, I mean, Mr. Goldberg, you work at the LA Times. Are you now claiming to be part of "the liberal establishment?"
The doughy pantload has soiled another set of nappies.

While I would like to concede how my retort adds little to the high minded attempts of the dv participants, I also feel justified in expressing my displeasure in this fashion because it is what I believe - don't question my motives. As per Bob's request.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-01-2009, 07:43 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Continuing on the theme, how can anyone take seriously this claim of homogeneity?

The NYT op-ed page? You mean Brooks and Krugman sing from the same hymnal? Stanley Fish and Nick Kristof? And what about the daily guests? Do you even read this paper, Jonah, or do you just "know" from your mother's knee that it's the Evil Liberal New York Slimes?

Harvard? Wanna talk to Greg Mankiw or Harvey Mansfield or Charles Fried about that, for example?

Hollywood and the Brookings Institution share the same views? You mean, like, say, Kenneth Pollack and Sean Penn? Peter Singer and Susan Sarandon? E.J. Dionne and Gary Sinise?

And I remind you, Mr. Kristol, oops, I mean, Mr. Goldberg, you work at the LA Times. Are you now claiming to be part of "the liberal establishment?"
a couple of things:

First, although there are indeed people like Mankiw, Fried, etc. at Harvard, you'd be crazy to think they're broadly representative of Harvard. Now, you might respond that there's no such thing broadly representative of Harvard, but I think that's too strong. By and large, most of the professors at Harvard are liberal and moderate Democrats; the remainder are leftists, conservatives, and libertarians. Just take a survey of professors' donations to political candidates. Here, for example, is a survey of top law professors' donations to Obama as compared to McCain. 95% of law professors' donations went to Obama, 5% to McCain. I'm sure in the Kerry/Bush race the numbers were less skewed, but do you honestly think it was 50/50, or even 60/40? And these are law professors, not sociology or anthropology or English professors. I doubt you'll accept that the survey I linked to tells us very much, but surely it's not completely worthless?

I think, broadly speaking, that the same points can be made about Hollywood and Brookings and the New York Times. At most, the NYT has two regular conservative commentators out of seven regular commentators. The NYT editorials coming from the editors are reliably pro-Democratic party. Although there are voluble Republicans in Hollywood, most of them aren't socially conservative, and in any event they're far less numerous than Democrats in Hollywood.

We're speaking in generalities here. And generally speaking, all these places (NYT, Harvard, Hollywood, Brookings) are liberal, even if they aren't monolithically so.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-01-2009, 08:41 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
a couple of things:

First, although there are indeed people like Mankiw, Fried, etc. at Harvard, you'd be crazy to think they're broadly representative of Harvard. [...]
I would be willing to bet that Harvard professors as a group would lean more to the left than, say, a random sample drawn from the entire US population on most issues, sure. I was not trying to claim Mankiw, et al, were representative of the faculty, I was merely giving a few examples to illustrate that the Harvard profs, like all the other groups Jonah named,and like "the left" or "liberals" that he's always indicting, are not a monolith of thought or political affiliation. That liberals, broadly speaking, may be in the majority at some place like Harvard does not mean the same thing as Jonah said and always says.

Further, among those who self-identify as liberals at Harvard, I would bet anything that you could start a fight between two randomly selected profs by running down a short list of issues. Point is, Harvard is not homogeneous, and neither is the left. And it's even more boneheaded to say that priorities among, say, Brookings and Hollywood denizens are identical.

I get that it's relative, that if one looks from a position far enough out to the right, the differences might not be as apparent. But if Jonah wants to play Mr. Big Time Intellectual, he can't get away with such myopia. If I can distinguish and acknowledge the range of different views on the right, as just some lame-ass commenter, he ought to be able to at least match that when talking about the left.

Quote:
We're speaking in generalities here. And generally speaking, all these places (NYT, Harvard, Hollywood, Brookings) are liberal, even if they aren't monolithically so.
Again, there is a world of difference between speaking in generalities in a casual conversation (and see how you qualified it even there?), and making sweeping, absolutist assertions during what purports to be a Very Serious, Thoughtful Conversation about political theory.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 03-01-2009 at 08:52 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-01-2009, 09:33 PM
harkin harkin is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,169
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
I would be willing to bet that Harvard professors as a group would lean more to the left than, say, a random sample drawn from the entire US population on most issues, sure.
Yeah, they probably lean slightly more left:

From Huffington Post 3Q 2008:

Just the law professors:

Harvard: 100% ($23,632) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Chicago: 100% ($14,158) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Michigan: 100% ($11,653) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Stanford: 100% ($8,900) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Texas: 100% ($6,107) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
UC-Berkeley: 100% ($4,850) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Pennsylvania: 100% ($2,711) to Democrats, 0% to Republicans
Duke: 93.8% ($15,188) to Democrats, 6.2% ($1,000) to Republicans
Columbia: 92.7% ($6,390) to Democrats, 7.3% ($500) to Republicans
Georgetown: 91.9% ($25,990) to Democrats, 8.1% ($2,300) to Republicans
NYU: 91.7% ($5,500) to Democrats, 8.3% ($500) to Republicans
Cornell: 91.5% ($3,250) to Democrats, 8.5% ($300) to Republicans
Yale: 91.2% ($3,630) to Democrats, 8.8% ($350) to Republicans

From the same page for professors nationwide:

Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-01-2009, 09:50 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
Yeah, they probably lean slightly more left: ... [table of data] ...
Are you going to claim because most people made the smart decision between Obama and McCain* that therefore, the institutions to which they belong are a monolith of liberal thought? (Well, given that you think all news outfits besides Fox are liberally biased ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by harkin View Post
Regardless of your political views, there are valid points being made on Fox every day, just as there are on the news services which tilt heavily left (basically the others) ...
... I suppose you fit the description I gave above about someone looking from sufficiently far out to the right -- you can't see any differences from where you're standing.)

But back to your data: What about all the people who didn't donate? What you've shown with those data is a division between people sufficiently motivated to contribute to a political campaign this year. You haven't shown what fraction of the overall respective populations the donors represent. Therefore, while suggestive, those data are not conclusive.

==========
* [Added] For another look at how giving skewed this year among some surprising groups, see this article (via). Anecdotal, but illustrative, I think. This past election featured a lot of Obamacons and Obamacans -- people who weren't liberal, but nonetheless preferred Obama (or really did not want McCain or the GOP to get the White House).
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 03-01-2009 at 10:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-01-2009, 10:05 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Are you going to claim because most people made the smart decision between Obama and McCain that therefore, the institutions to which they belong are a monolith of liberal thought?
I hate to say it, Brendan, but I'd be hard pressed to agree that that isn't a pretty good empirical test - if what you're testing for is the probability of a slant, rather than the presence of a monolith.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-01-2009, 10:39 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
I hate to say it, Brendan, but I'd be hard pressed to agree that that isn't a pretty good empirical test - if what you're testing for is the probability of a slant, rather than the presence of a monolith.
As I said, the data are suggestive, but they're not conclusive.

Pretend for a moment we didn't already think what we think about those universities listed. What that table of data shows is that among people who gave money, far more gave to Dems/Obama than Reps/McCain. But we don't know from those data what percentage of the total population at those campuses those donors represent. It could be that 5% gave to D/O, 1% gave to R/M, and 94% did not give any money.

Second point: remember that McCain funded his general election campaign with public monies, while Obama declined those. So, it could be that there were more people who would have given to McCain if he was set up to receive unlimited individual contributions in summer and fall of 2008.

Now, of course I am inclined to believe that the faculty at those universities listed are likely more liberal, as a group, compared to the general population. But I did want to point out that the data harkin gave were, in the abstract, the sort of thing one reaches for to confirm something one already believes, and not really as much of a slam dunk as a first glance might suggest.

And, anyway, my main beef still stands: that most people at Harvard, et al, preferred Obama is not the same as saying they all think alike, which is what Jonah said.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 03-01-2009 at 11:28 PM.. Reason: typo fix: as -> a
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-01-2009, 11:16 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
As I said, the data are suggestive, but they're not conclusive.

Pretend for a moment we didn't already think what we think about those universities listed. What that table of data shows is that among people who gave money, far more gave to Dems/Obama than Reps/McCain. But we don't know from those data what percentage of the total population at those campuses those donors represent. It could be that 5% gave to D/O, 1% gave to R/M, and 94% did not give any money.

Second point: remember that McCain funded his general election campaign with public monies, while Obama declined those. So, it could be that there were more people who would have given to McCain if he was set up to receive unlimited individual contributions in summer and fall of 2008.

Now, of course I am inclined to believe that the faculty at those universities listed are likely more liberal, as a group, compared to the general population. But I did want to point out that the data harkin gave were, in the abstract, the sort of thing one reaches for to confirm something one already believes, and not really as much of as slam dunk as a first glance might suggest.

And, anyway, my main beef still stands: that most people at Harvard, et al, preferred Obama is not the same as saying they all think alike, which is what Jonah said.
There's nothing much for me to disagree with here; I didn't like the argument prima facie - but with these qualifications I really don't have a problem.

Your point about what Jonah was saying is important. I was glad that Jonah copped to his tendency to keep his thumb on the scales in his argumentation, after being called on it a couple of time by Will. But that's an important point about him. He argues for a point of view that he's already decided is true. Any framing of the facts that supports his preordained conclusions, regardless, it seems, of whether it's a fair representation of those facts, is fair game to him.

It ought not surprise anyone, given the political demography of this country, that university professors might skew somewhat to the liberal side of the spectrum. (If you don't want your kids to grow up as liberals, don't provide them with an education and the opportunity to become financially secure. ;-> ) But there's a cottage industry on the right that takes this unsurprising fact and paints a dire picture - and Jonah, who it's obvious is capable of seeing what's true, is as much of a willing enabler of this sort of pernicious lie as, oh, picking a name out of a hat, Rush Limbaugh.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-01-2009, 11:25 PM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
There's nothing much for me to disagree with here; I didn't like the argument prima facie - but with these qualifications I really don't have a problem.

Your point about what Jonah was saying is important. I was glad that Jonah copped to his tendency to keep his thumb on the scales in his argumentation, after being called on it a couple of time by Will. But that's an important point about him. He argues for a point of view that he's already decided is true. Any framing of the facts that supports his preordained conclusions, regardless, it seems, of whether it's a fair representation of those facts, is fair game to him.

It ought not surprise anyone, given the political demography of this country, that university professors might skew somewhat to the liberal side of the spectrum. (If you don't want your kids to grow up as liberals, don't provide them with an education and the opportunity to become financially secure. ;-> ) But there's a cottage industry on the right that takes this unsurprising fact and paints a dire picture - and Jonah, who it's obvious is capable of seeing what's true, is as much of a willing enabler of this sort of pernicious lie as, oh, picking a name out of a hat, Rush Limbaugh.
More to the point of the diavlog, data shows that the more people are educated the less of an anti-market bias they have, hence here academia is an outlier since it has a high concentration of highly educated people with a strong anti-market bias. In the overall picture, though, they're a small minority.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-01-2009, 11:38 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unit View Post
More to the point of the diavlog, data shows that the more people are educated the less of an anti-market bias they have, hence here academia is an outlier since it has a high concentration of highly educated people with a strong anti-market bias. [emph. added --bjk] In the overall picture, though, they're a small minority.
Is that true? How do you know that? Are you talking all professors? Because my college experience (mostly with math and science profs, admittedly) was that my teachers were all fairly strong supporters of a fairly free market system. They like getting research money from the government, and most of them probably favored some regulation in some areas, and some notion of a social safety net, and like that, but I can't think of any I met who were "strongly anti-market."

Are you talking about liberal arts professors who still name-check Marx or something?
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-01-2009, 11:47 PM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

I've carried a lot of water for Goldberg in the past but as soon as he mentioned the fairness doctrine I turned the diavlog off and turned my back on him. It's one thing to have a (IMO) simplistic view of the left from viewing it from the outside, and another thing to just be a stooge.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-02-2009, 12:38 AM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by pampl View Post
I've carried a lot of water for Goldberg in the past but as soon as he mentioned the fairness doctrine I turned the diavlog off and turned my back on him.
What's your objection to mentioning the fairness doctrine? It's pretty transparently an attempt by the institutional Democrats to shut down media that is a burr in their saddle.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:01 AM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
What's your objection to mentioning the fairness doctrine? It's pretty transparently an attempt by the institutional Democrats to shut down media that is a burr in their saddle.
It's a paranoid delusion. It's roughly isomorphic to the claims in 2007 that labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organization was clearly a manufactured casus belli for the occupation of Iran.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:25 AM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by pampl View Post
It's a paranoid delusion. It's roughly isomorphic to the claims in 2007 that labeling Hezbollah a terrorist organization was clearly a manufactured casus belli for the occupation of Iran.
It was part of the 2000 Democratic Party Platform. The 2004 Democratic presidential candidate was and is in favor of it. Many bigfoot Democratic senators are in favor of it. Nancy Pelosi is in favor of it. It is not exactly a fringe position.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-02-2009, 02:40 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
It was part of the 2000 Democratic Party Platform. The 2004 Democratic presidential candidate was and is in favor of it. Many bigfoot Democratic senators are in favor of it. Nancy Pelosi is in favor of it. It is not exactly a fringe position.
As I noted elsewhere (from):

Quote:
A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said he was unaware of any plans to revive the policy. A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went a bit further.

"We have enough real problems facing this country that we don't need to invent ones that don't exist," Reid spokesman Jim Manley said. "This is not even close to being on our radar screen."
Also, more recently (and note the source):

Quote:
President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.
And as I said on this site not too long ago:

Quote:
Trust me on this one: the Fairness Doctrine is never, ever, ever coming back. Liberals, by and large, don't support it, or certainly, wouldn't, if it ever became a serious matter for debate. No sane person thinks any longer that it's possible to "balance" viewpoints, especially in this age of media fragmentation. No one wants to set up another giant agency whose mission would be impossible to define and even harder to carry out.

Do I sometimes dream of Rush Limbaugh, et al, acquiring permanent cases of laryngitis? Sure. I dream. But no one is serious about trying to push this into law. (By "no one" I mean "no significant number of people." I'm sure you can find a few misguided souls who think this is a good idea, or could be made to work.) In fact, now that I think about it, I'm sometimes happy as a clam about Rush being the face of the GOP.

Finally, don't believe it when Schumer, et al, drop hints about it. They're blowing smoke, just to watch the usual suspects squirm. Or, at most, they're laying down a sham marker in hopes of being able to trade it for something real somewhere down the road. Including, not to put too fine a point on it, fat campaign contributions from Clear Channel and other radio behemoths.
I'll add that believing right-wingers who rant about this is also letting yourself getting played. It's a bogeyman -- something to talk about to keep the base stirred up because they don't have any ideas, and really, how many times can you say Obama is MarxistHitlerSocialistFascistCommunist and he wants all your guns?
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 03-02-2009 at 02:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-02-2009, 03:31 AM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Pelosi: "Do you personally support revival of the Fairness Doctrine?'" I asked.
"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation.

Harkin: We need the Fairness Doctrine back.

Kerry: "I think the fairness doctrine ought to be there, and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back"

Feinstein: I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.

Schumer: The very same people who dont want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that But you cant say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. Thats not consistent.

It is not exactly Vince Foster conspiracy mongering to point out that many in the institutional Democratic party apparatus want the FD back, along with plenty of "progressives" who simply want to further their political power. It is not a fringe opinion when it shows up in the Democratic Party platform and in the statements of may leading Democratic senators, along with many state Democratic party platforms. You are apparently arguing that as a political reality it would face an uphill battle, but there IS significant practical support for the measure, and if that's the case, it's fair game for the other side to point this out.

Obama's "opposition" is, as usual, caveated, and can easily be implemented in practice via ownership restrictions in the name of "diversity"--a mechanism he explictly left open. Like his "support" of the 2nd amendment, he won't be able to find any actual bills that he opposes that infringe on the subject.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-02-2009, 03:57 AM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
Pelosi: "Do you personally support revival of the Fairness Doctrine?'" I asked.
"Yes," the speaker replied, without hesitation.

Harkin: We need the Fairness Doctrine back.

Kerry: "I think the fairness doctrine ought to be there, and I also think equal time doctrine ought to come back"

Feinstein: I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.

Schumer: The very same people who dont want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air. I am for that But you cant say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. Thats not consistent.

It is not exactly Vince Foster conspiracy mongering to point out that many in the institutional Democratic party apparatus want the FD back, along with plenty of "progressives" who simply want to further their political power. It is not a fringe opinion when it shows up in the Democratic Party platform and in the statements of may leading Democratic senators, along with many state Democratic party platforms. You are apparently arguing that as a political reality it would face an uphill battle, but there IS significant practical support for the measure, and if that's the case, it's fair game for the other side to point this out.

Obama's "opposition" is, as usual, caveated, and can easily be implemented in practice via ownership restrictions in the name of "diversity"--a mechanism he explictly left open. Like his "support" of the 2nd amendment, he won't be able to find any actual bills that he opposes that infringe on the subject.
It is pretty much Vince Foster conspiracy mongering. There have only been a few people who have spoken favorably of it, and one is married to some liberal radio bigwig. I'm sorry if you've been hoodwinked by conspiracy nuts but this position is part of the lunatic fringe and was invented by the man who calls people who believe in global warming "agents of eco-al Qaeda".

Last edited by pampl; 03-02-2009 at 04:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-02-2009, 04:31 AM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by pampl View Post
It is pretty much Vince Foster conspiracy mongering.
When the three immediately prior Democratic party presidential candidates, the current Democratic speaker of the house, and a host of bigfoot Democratic senators advocate a policy, it is a legitimate stick to beat the Democrats with. I'm sorry if so many Democratic leaders advocate stupid policies, but they don't get a pass, and should not get a pass.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-02-2009, 09:43 AM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
When the three immediately prior Democratic party presidential candidates, the current Democratic speaker of the house, and a host of bigfoot Democratic senators advocate a policy, it is a legitimate stick to beat the Democrats with. I'm sorry if so many Democratic leaders advocate stupid policies, but they don't get a pass, and should not get a pass.
They haven't, though, and you'd have to be a sucker to think otherwise. That's the problem. Goldberg is either being a sucker or playing off them.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:11 PM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by pampl View Post
They haven't, though, and you'd have to be a sucker to think otherwise. That's the problem. Goldberg is either being a sucker or playing off them.
Um, excuse me, that's the prior FOUR democratic party presidential candidates that advocate the fairness doctrine: Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Plus the speaker of the house, plus the senate majority whip, plus a host of bigfoot senators, plus various planks in the Democratic part platform over the years, plus lots of "progressive" activists.

At what point does it become legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support the fairness doctrine? Just wondering.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-02-2009, 10:15 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
Um, excuse me, that's the prior FOUR democratic party presidential candidates that advocate the fairness doctrine: Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Plus the speaker of the house, plus the senate majority whip, plus a host of bigfoot senators, plus various planks in the Democratic part platform over the years, plus lots of "progressive" activists.

At what point does it become legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support the fairness doctrine? Just wondering.
Or, conversely, how long does a non-issue need to not acted on before it ceases to be an effective partisan pi鎙ta?
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:09 PM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by AemJeff View Post
Or, conversely, how long does a non-issue need to not acted on before it ceases to be an effective partisan pi鎙ta?
Who says it's a non-issue? There are all these important democrats supporting it. It routinely crops up as a party platform plank, either at the national level or the state level. "Progressives" on the hustings demand it.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:22 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
Who says it's a non-issue? There are all these important democrats supporting it. It routinely crops up as a party platform plank, either at the national level or the state level. "Progressives" on the hustings demand it.
Man, are you still yammering on about this?

Well, believe what you want, but it is my considered opinion that the Dems you so fretfully quote have pwned you.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:25 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
Who says it's a non-issue? There are all these important democrats supporting it. It routinely crops up as a party platform plank, either at the national level or the state level. "Progressives" on the hustings demand it.
You mentioned names going to Dukakis, right? That's twenty years of nothing happening, during forty-percent of which there was a Democratic President, four or five years of a Democratic Congress, and more years with a mixed Congress. That's what says it's a non-issue. Show me the legislation on a track to an actual vote. Or show me some discernible movement in that direction. Then it will be an issue.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-02-2009, 11:26 PM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
Um, excuse me, that's the prior FOUR democratic party presidential candidates that advocate the fairness doctrine: Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry. Plus the speaker of the house, plus the senate majority whip, plus a host of bigfoot senators, plus various planks in the Democratic part platform over the years, plus lots of "progressive" activists.

At what point does it become legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support the fairness doctrine? Just wondering.
Only one of the quotes was actual support. The rest were the vaguely related nonsense of any conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories about Diebold or accusations that the right is waging a war on Islam have vastly better reservoirs of out-of-context quotes and slightly less lack of perspective and ignorance of the political process. If Goldberg wants to spend his time talking at that level then he should partner himself with the kinds of people who believe in that stuff.

The point it becomes legitimate to point out that lots of important Democrats support it is the point when it's actually true. This would probably not be the day after over 80% of Senate Democrats banned the possibility of even raising the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-03-2009, 01:17 AM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by pampl View Post
Only one of the quotes was actual support. The rest were the vaguely related nonsense of any conspiracy theory.
Sigh. I hate engage in postmortem equine corporal punishment, but I feel I must in the face of such skepticism.

1. Pelosi.

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/pelosi...ness-doctrine/
Quote:
Talk radios suspicions of a movement to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine were confirmed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Tuesday June 24 during her comments at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. When John Gizzi, an editor for Human Events asked Speaker Pelosi whether she favored a return of the Fairness Doctrine, she told him an unhesitating yes, reports Gizzi.

Moreover, when Gizzi asked if she supports the Broadcaster Freedom Act, She added that the interest in my caucus is the reverse and that New York Democratic Rep. Louise Slaughter has been active behind this [revival of the Fairness Doctrine] for a while now, he writes.

Representative Slaughter (D-NY) introduced the 2004 MEDIA Act to bring back the Fairness Doctrine and reintroduced it in 2005 as the Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act.
(the Boradcaster Freedom Act would have prohibited the Fairness Doctrine from coming back.)

2. John Kerry. http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art..._Reimposed.php
Quote:
Senator John Kerry is calling for reimposition of the fairness doctrine.

In a radio interview on WNYC's The Brian Lehrer Show, excerpted on YouTube, Senator Kerry said he thought the doctrine should return. Calling it one of the "most profound changes in the balance of the media," he said conservatives have been able to "squeeze down and squeeze out opinion of opposing views. I think it has been a very important transition in the imbalance of our public dialog," he said.
3. Al Gore: http://media.nationalreview.com/post...c3YzAzMTRjYzM=
Quote:
GORE: And the first concerns among defenders of democracy arose with radio. And that's why the equal time provision and the Fairness Doctrine and the public interest standard were put in place here. Those protections were almost completely removed during President Reagan's term.
Bill Clinton: http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae..._airwaves.html
Quote:
"Well, you either ought to have the Fairness Doctrine or we ought to have more balance on the other side," Clinton said, "because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let face it, you know, Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous...."

Clinton said that there needs to be either "more balance in the programs or have some opportunity for people to offer countervailing opinions." Clinton added that he didn't support repealing the Fairness Doctrine, an act done under Reagan's FCC.

In the past week, a couple Democratic Senators, Debbie Stabenow and Tom Harkin, have both spoken favorably about the Fairness Doctrine, or holding hearings on radio accountability.
Dukakis: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8067496.html
Quote:
Presidential candidate Michael S. Dukakis said yesterday he supports reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine that was repealed by the Federal Communications Commission last year.
Dick Durbin, Senate majority whip:http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/...007-06-27.html
Quote:
Its time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine, said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
Feinstein, Kuchinich: http://www.broadcastingcable.com/art...ne_Revival.php

Harkin: http://www.politico.com/blogs/michae...ine_back_.html

Senator Bingaman: http://www.infowars.com/democrat-bin...ness-doctrine/
Quote:
A prominent liberal Democratic senator, while being interviewed on a conservative talk radio station Tuesday, said he hopes a new administration and Congress will re-impose the Fairness Doctrine on radio and TV broadcasters.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) told radio station 770 AM KKOB in Albuquerque, N.M., that he didnt know if Democrats in Congress will try to re-impose the Fairness Doctrine next year but he would certainly like them to.
Democratic party national platform, 2000: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29612
Quote:
Democrats call for the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine by the Federal Communications Commission.
I can continue down the food chain of various congressmen and "progressive" groups if you like. I apologize for going on at length, but you quite literally asked for it.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-03-2009, 07:45 AM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

The Pelosi quotation is actually a positive response but unfortunately has no outside evidence for its existence or any record of what question she was actually responding positively to. The CSMonitor, the host of the event where this guy asked his question, has no record of this exchange.

The only actual quotations there supporting its reinstatement are Durbin and Harkin, and Durbin explicitly disavows introducing legislation later in the very article you link to.

The fact that the Dem platform changed nearly a decade ago to drop support of it actually works against your paranoid delusions.

This is the standard stuff of inane conspiracy theories (usually the quotes are more plausibly in support of the theory, though) and has nothing to do with a reality where Senate Democrats voted overwhelmingly to ban the mere possibility of the fairness doctrine reoccurring. Note that this marks another year of "Fairness Doctrine" crackpots predicting the Fairness Doctrine being enacted or even introduced as legislation and, of course, it not happening.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:21 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

What's with Dewey being history's greatest monster, anyway?
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:30 AM
blofeld42 blofeld42 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 43
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by pampl View Post
The Pelosi quotation is actually a positive response but unfortunately has no outside evidence for its existence or any record of what question she was actually responding positively to. The CSMonitor, the host of the event where this guy asked his question, has no record of this exchange.

The only actual quotations there supporting its reinstatement are Durbin and Harkin, and Durbin explicitly disavows introducing legislation later in the very article you link to.
I can only conclude that you can't read.

As for Pelosi, the person who asked the question and got the response is here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185

As in direct participant in the exchange and reported in a reputable journal.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-04-2009, 11:11 AM
pampl pampl is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 750
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by blofeld42 View Post
I can only conclude that you can't read.

As for Pelosi, the person who asked the question and got the response is here:

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=27185

As in direct participant in the exchange and reported in a reputable journal.
Do you have a link to the reputable journal? Because everything about that one screams "disreputable".
Quote:
HUMAN EVENTS is the periodical in which the peerless Ann Coulter, author of the smash bestseller, Godless, drives multicultural defeatists up the wall. (Recent sample: "Baby formula doesn't kill people. Islamic fascists kill people.")

HUMAN EVENTS is the home of Jihad Watch - the fearless watchdog column that alerts you to the true intentions and deadly plots of the greatest threat to world peace since the fall of the Soviet Union. Hillary Watch, another exclusive service, keeps you fully informed of the ongoing schemes, intrigues and Clintonian machinations hatched in the name of the woman (and loving hubby) who want to return to the White House in 2008.
If you consider this "reputable" then no wonder you believe in insane conspiracy theories
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-05-2009, 05:39 PM
DisturbingClown DisturbingClown is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 36
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Will, I think you are probably the bhead closest to me in terms of ideology, so don't mope too much about being completely isolated. Your project is great, god knows Libertarians need a good kick in the pants on occasion.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-01-2009, 11:48 PM
Unit Unit is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,713
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Is that true? How do you know that? Are you talking all professors? Because my college experience (mostly with math and science profs, admittedly) was that my teachers were all fairly strong supporters of a fairly free market system. They like getting research money from the government, and most of them probably favored some regulation in some areas, and some notion of a social safety net, and like that, but I can't think of any I met who were "strongly anti-market."

Are you talking about liberal arts professors who still name-check Marx or something?
I don't know if I can provide a link, it's from a study of the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
The most pro-market professors are to be found in Econ dept obviously even though (?) the average Econ prof is a moderate Democrat.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-02-2009, 04:10 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Now, of course I am inclined to believe that the faculty at those universities listed are likely more liberal, as a group, compared to the general population. But I did want to point out that the data harkin gave were, in the abstract, the sort of thing one reaches for to confirm something one already believes, and not really as much of a slam dunk as a first glance might suggest.

And, anyway, my main beef still stands: that most people at Harvard, et al, preferred Obama is not the same as saying they all think alike, which is what Jonah said.
How would you respond to this claim:

"The idea that the faculty at places like Wheaton, Biola, and other conservative Christian colleges are monolithic is silly. After all, many of them have a kenotic interpretation of the Incarnation, some of them are open theists, who think that God doesn't know the future with regard to the free decisions of human beings, some of them think that God is outside of time and changeless, some of them think that the Bible is inspired, but not inerrant, etc.
"Now, of course, on the following beliefs all agree: God exists; Jesus was God; the Bible, in some important sense, can be taken to be God's word; you are not saved except through Christ; and God is triune in nature.
"There's so much more to Christianity than all those beliefs, though, so it's a bit silly to say that all these professors think alike."

I should think you'd say that the variety of difference in opinion among liberal Harvard faculty is vastly greater than the difference of opinion among Wheaton faculty. After all, Wheaton faculty have to sign a pledge before they can take jobs there. Fine, but first, I still think there's loads of stuff Wheaton professors disagree on, but if you don't want to go that route, just take the Christian professors at Notre Dame. There are a few Christian professors who don't think God exists, but very few; most of them do think God exists, is good, is very powerful, etc. Surely there is a very good, important sense in which all Christian ND faculty think alike?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-02-2009, 04:45 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
How would you respond to this claim: [...]
By recalling what I said elsewhere, about it being perfectly understandable to me that if one stands far enough off to the Right side, everything on the Left side of the spectrum appears indistinguishable. Replace Right with secular and Left with religious, obvs.

I am not trying to say there is no meaning to a statement S like "the Harvard faculty is generally more liberal than a group of the same size drawn at random from the entire US population." My only two points in this thread (where I haven't allowed myself to get sidetracked, admittedly) have been these: (1) Statement S is not the same thing as saying "all Harvard professors think alike," and (2) Jonah has failed, in this diavlog and in everything else I've ever seen of his, to demonstrate his awareness of (1).

The reason I won't shut up about this is because Jonah won't admit that he's merely a rigidly partisan polemicist who differs from the denizens of Hate Radio only by a few less flecks of spittle and a few more hours spent grubbing through his box of CliffsNotes. If he wants to play a Very Serious, Thoughtful Person on TV, particularly every week or two here, he has to be held to a higher standard of intellectual honesty and rigor.

Call it my windmill for the moment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
I should think you'd say that the variety of difference in opinion among liberal Harvard faculty is vastly greater than the difference of opinion among Wheaton faculty.
Assuming I thought before I spoke, I would not say that. I would probably say, "The variety of difference in opinion among liberal Harvard faculty is vastly greater than the difference of opinion among Wheaton faculty, if the only differences among the Wheatonians we care about are their theological ones." This may well be because I am so far removed from believing in the same things about God, Jesus, the Bible, etc., as (I assume) they do. But I would not think that they necessarily shared opinions on all issues, particularly secular ones. For example, even sticking close to their Christian beliefs, I could well imagine polar opposites on questions of the death penalty, funding for Head Start, whether preemptive war is legitimate, and whether you can take Barack Obama at his word that he is a Christian.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
Surely there is a very good, important sense in which all Christian ND faculty think alike?
A few pathological cases aside, you stand back far enough, everyone on the planet thinks alike.

I would like the diavloggers on BH.tv to stand a little closer, that's all.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-02-2009, 05:16 PM
Bobby G Bobby G is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 728
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

At this point, I'm getting confused as to what your claim is. Do you seriously think that Jonah Goldberg really thinks that all (or most) Harvard faculty think exactly the same on all (or most) political issues? If that's what you think, then I don't think you're being charitable to Jonah--and by "charitable" I don't mean nice; I mean "reasonably interpreting".

Look, in conversation, people make universal claims; it's just what people tend to do, intellectuals or not. I've known many a philosopher to say Christians aren't smart, and then when confronted by obvious counterexamples, like Barack Obama, they say, "Well, most of them aren't." And that was obviously their point all along. And I'd be silly if I didn't know that. It's only when the argument is about whether the general or the universal claim is true that this question is very important.

As for the perspective by which one evaluates these things, I think you're going too far with that. I'm a pretty fair observer of things, I'd like to think, and I understand the conversational claim that "everyone at Fox News is conservative" to be true. Most people are conservative there, although there are exceptions like Juan Williams and Ellis Hennicken, and even though there are internecine conservative disputes between neo-, meso-, paleo- and libertarian conservatives. It's nonetheless true that Fox News is conservative. I know this, even though I'm a conservative, and so am more sensitive to differences of opinions among conservatives than you.

Plus, I don't see why your claim about perspective doesn't equally cut against your interpretation of the Harvard faculty; I could just as easily say that you're overestimating the difference of opinion within the Harvard faculty because you're liberal.

I think I must be misunderstanding you.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-02-2009, 05:27 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. Sa家h
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby G View Post
At this point, I'm getting confused as to what your claim is. Do you seriously think that Jonah Goldberg really thinks that all (or most) Harvard faculty think exactly the same on all (or most) political issues? If that's what you think, then I don't think you're being charitable to Jonah--and by "charitable" I don't mean nice; I mean "reasonably interpreting".

Look, in conversation, people make universal claims; it's just what people tend to do, intellectuals or not.
I invite you to review Jonah's diavlogs and his writings, and collect all the times he says "liberals this" and "the left that" and "liberalism the other thing." I fully concede people sometimes make "all"-sounding generalizations when they mean "most," in casual conversations, but Jonah is far beyond that, and he does it when he's supposed to be being Very Serious and Thoughtful. Review this diavlog and watch when Peter (finally) calls him on his ridiculously sweeping and shallow assessments, and note how Jonah reacts. Buh-stid.

Quote:
As for the perspective by which one evaluates these things, I think you're going too far with that. I'm a pretty fair observer of things, I'd like to think, and I understand the conversational claim that "everyone at Fox News is conservative" to be true. Most people are conservative there, although there are exceptions like Juan Williams and Ellis Hennicken, and even though there are internecine conservative disputes between neo-, meso-, paleo- and libertarian conservatives. It's nonetheless true that Fox News is conservative. I know this, even though I'm a conservative, and so am more sensitive to differences of opinions among conservatives than you.
If I just wanted to be a polemicist, I would lump them all together. If, however, I were ever to agree to have a serious analytical conversation about Fox News's on-air personalities, and assuming I didn't set myself on fire to get out of what would have had to have been a momentary lapse of sanity, I would be careful to distinguish among their differences when appropriate. Believe it or don't believe it.

[Added: Juan Williams is most definitely a conservative, by my lights.]

Quote:
Plus, I don't see why your claim about perspective doesn't equally cut against your interpretation of the Harvard faculty; I could just as easily say that you're overestimating the difference of opinion within the Harvard faculty because you're liberal.
I think that you, a non-liberal, would agree that the statement "the Harvard faculty all think alike" is at least a gross oversimplification.

Quote:
I think I must be misunderstanding you.
Could be. Or maybe you just don't agree with the way I understand Jonah.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 03-02-2009 at 05:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-03-2009, 02:39 AM
claymisher claymisher is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Newbridge, NJ
Posts: 2,673
Default Re: Free Will: Liberaltarianism Showdown

Alright, I listened to the whole thing.

1) Wilkinson on Canada was surprising and reasonable.
2) I'm more or less a standard-issue liberal, but I come to my liberalism by pretty much the same paradigm that Wilkinson is now working in. I wonder where it'll take him.
3) I'm a fan of Haidt and I think Wilkinson's angle of attack on him is really interesting.
4) I'd probably buy Wilkinson's book.
5) I decided to stop paying attention to libertarians recently (because they're really a bunch of glib utopian wind-up artists), but Wilkinson has gotten more interesting at the same time. Therefore, I must conclude he is no longer a libertarian.
6) I listened to the podcast, so I can't be sure, but I'm pretty sure I could hear Wilkinson rolling his eyes at Goldberg.

Last edited by claymisher; 03-03-2009 at 01:10 PM..
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 01:44 AM.


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