Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojkt
I’ve been corresponding with someone from the Plumline for the past couple of weeks, since I finally left, and I haven’t read the comments over there since. But the quote below which I was provided (via email) causes me great concern. It’s no wonder we have so much trouble finding common or even compromised ground in our political debate. Since when did fellow Americans become our sworn enemies along with those of us who are trying to bring the sides, if not together, to at least discuss the issues in an intelligent and persuasive manner. There is a huge divide between what I believe and some of my friends on the right believe, especially when taken to the logical conclusion, but the path below leads to very nasty consequences. I hope we’ll continue to do a little better than this at ATiM. I don’t think we’re being naive to hope for a better result from our dialogue.
“We’ll have to agree to disagree on some things but I hope we can stay friends and I’d like to close with a post that shrink put up on the PL this morning.
This pretty much encapsulates my feelings.”
Well I can see we don’t like each other, the left and the right. But that’s not news. I’ve considered the right the enemy all my life, it makes no difference to me if they are Americans or Iranians. So I find people who appoint themselves the role of bringing us together, changing the tone of politics etc., arrogant and naive to the point of being dangerous themselves. I don’t believe in the narrative, dominant or otherwise.
I think there is truth and falsehood, right and wrong, better people and worse people, just as I believe there are advanced and primitive social structures and even cultures. And so the better people must battle the worse and work to minimize the damage done by the necessary evils we can never wholly eradicate, the evil that people do, everything from income disparity, to ignorance.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
Who wrote it? Sounds like cao or Liam, or maybe Bernie let the mask slip?
LikeLike
It says shrink wrote it; which I could believe – especially if it was after cocktail hour.
LikeLike
The quote in bold is from Shrink. It's from (yet) another thread on Republicans are the Torture Party which tends to bring out the worst in all the posters.The amusing thing is to see some commentators arguing that comments should be closed for this topic, little realizing that the purpose of posting on topics such as this is to drive blog traffic on the weekend.With regard to the substance of the argument, the United States used to resolve these issues through Federalism (i.e. different laws in different states) but that has been discarded by both parties in favor of winner take all at the Federal court level which leaves a seething resentment for whomever the looser happens to be in a particular case.Long term (i.e. decades), the alternative to a robust Federalism is to spit the country in two and go our separate ways. I see things getting worse, not better.
LikeLike
The part in quotes is from the author of the email to me, the rest is from shrink this morning apparently. It's very discouraging in my opinion, and it appears I may have left just in the nick of time as I certainly wouldn't have been able to let that go without a response.I'm not so much interested in analyzing what was said as I am in confirming that we're swimming in a different direction here, maybe it's more against the tide than I thought.
LikeLike
There is some kernel of truth there in that the current conservative modus operandi is to stick tight to hardline extreme demands and to count on liberals to compromise and accommodate. This has worked very well for Republicans as they have basically stymied Obama's post-ACA agenda. I am very new to the PlumLine and I have seen the post-ATiM dialog harden. The liberals have become very sarcastic and reflexively derisive. In their defense, the quality of comments from the right-wing trolls (and I would say commenters, but for the most part they are trolls) is very, very low. Lots of ALLCAPS and ridiculous 'Oboobma'-style wingnuttery.
LikeLike
My view is that several of the remaining regulars feel it's their right to challenge or disagree in whatever way suits them in that moment. To not do that is a sign of weakness, lack of intellect, or inflexibility.When encouraged to consider a shift to another form of dialogue, they rather forcefully insist on continuing with their way.Greg has now more or less endorsed this behavior, so don't expect it to change anytime soon.I don't think what we're trying to do here is against the tide. It's just not what's happening at PL.
LikeLike
Hmmm.I think there is truth and falsehood, right and wrong, better people and worse people, just as I believe there are advanced and primitive social structures and even cultures. And so the better people must battle the worse and work to minimize the damage done by the necessary evils we can never wholly eradicate, the evil that people do, everything from…And thus has every religious nut in history justified his desire to oppress the "evil" other.BTW…my guess is that lms' correspondent is Bernie.
LikeLike
"Lots of ALLCAPS and ridiculous 'Oboobma'-style wingnuttery."In general we always got a certain amount of this type of poster over there, probably more now because Greg gets linked to the front page. I find it very unhelpful when people respond because that's what the scroll wheel is for IMO. What I don't appreciate is the lowering of standards in order to compete. I was disappointed in some of my liberal friends responses recently to challenges in an intelligent manner who simply post nonsense in reply. Whatever, the Plumline isn't my problem, but as I said, I hope ATiM will continue to be a little different. I find I have greater hope in compromising with mark and kevin than I do with old "my comrades" over there, lol. While I haven't been able to find a compromise position with a few people here it doesn't mean I don't believe they're entitled to their position, especially if they argue it in a forthright manner. In some ways I also believe our political leaders have helped to lower the standards of dialogue over the past couple of decades……….so there's that as well.
LikeLike
"my old comrades"……..sheesh
LikeLike
jnc:Long term (i.e. decades), the alternative to a robust Federalism is to spit the country in two and go our separate ways.Interestingly, it was the effort to prevent precisely that which has led to the demise of a robust Federalism.
LikeLike
Scott, it's not Bernie, and that's not the point anyway. I put shrink's comment up because it's in the public domain but you know I don't like to divulge details of personal email.The rest of it just seems a little crazy to me but I'm not the shrink.MsJS, thanks for the calming influence, I needed it. I have doubts on occasion but we'll just carry on.
LikeLike
lms is a red!
LikeLike
I second bsimon's comment, but I would add that shrink has a need to feel superior to everyone regardless of his alcohol consumption.
LikeLike
That's why I put it in quotes NoVA, lol. I'm not sure what some of them are anymore though. This person keeps trying to entice me back and then gives me a quote like that to do it, don't think so. I'm stubborn by nature so there's that also.
LikeLike
We also don't have to deal with 2+ minute post lag or the net nanny here either.
LikeLike
I've considered the right the enemy all my life, it makes no difference to me if they are Americans or Iranians. So I find people who appoint themselves the role of bringing us together, changing the tone of politics etc., arrogant and naive to the point of being dangerous themselvesAnd that, kids, is what self-indulgent horse shit looks like. Look close! You'll be seeing it again, no doubt. Sorry. But people who want to excuse their own mental ossification and retrograde tribalism with such nonsense are no better than addicts excusing their addiction of cocaine because "it helps them work better". There's something going wrong when the enemy (the naive, dangerous enemy) is the ability or desire to have an adult conversation with someone you don't agree with politically.
LikeLike
Made me chuckle is all. i think there's support for a socialist market economy over at the PL.
LikeLike
For some reason, I still feel compelled to fight the good fight over there. As an aside, what's the fastest way that people have found to do HTML links in replies? I keep going to the FAQ and cutting and pasting the sample code, but I suspect there's a faster way.
LikeLike
You like Indiana Jones, jnc4p? You're a pilgrim in an unholy land. when I remember to do it, i keep a second tab open to the "new post" feature to edit with html and copy/paste as needed.
LikeLike
jnc:As an aside, what's the fastest way that people have found to do HTML links in replies?No fast way, unfortunately. The button that works for posts does not exist for comments. You have to do it longhand. (You should, however, at least be able to memorize it so that you don't have to go to the FAQ page every time.)
LikeLike
NoVA, I think they should just all go live in a commune together and see how they like it. Preferably in Oregon somewhere.jnc4p, I don't blame you a bit for wanting to fight the good fight over there, my problem is I'm on the wrong team or something, and I'm pretty darn progressive. Maybe being raised by conservatives twisted my perception somehow, I just couldn't ever come up with the required hate factor.
LikeLike
NoVA:That's a good idea.
LikeLike
"jnc:Long term (i.e. decades), the alternative to a robust Federalism is to spit the country in two and go our separate ways.Interestingly, it was the effort to prevent precisely that which has led to the demise of a robust Federalism. "At least prior to the New Deal we were honest enough to actually amend the Constitution when we wanted to amend the Constitution. Both the post Civil War period and the progressive period in the early 20th century were marked by our Constitutional system working as intended where substantive changes in the social compact were drafted and ratified as amendments. For myself, I view the New Deal as the time period where we discarded constitutional norms for the sake of expediency. Wickard v Filburn should have required a constitutional amendment.One of the more interesting arguments I got into at Plum Line was over whether or not it was necessary to amend the Constitution to enact Prohibition. Presumably under the reading of the Commerce Clause in Wickard v Filburn, if the Federal Government can ban the growing of wheat by a farmer for personal use, it can ban alcohol production and consumption so the entire ratification process for the 18th Amendment was completely unnecessary and a waste of time.
LikeLike
"NoVA, I think they should just all go live in a commune together and see how they like it. Preferably in Oregon somewhere.jnc4p, I don't blame you a bit for wanting to fight the good fight over there, my problem is I'm on the wrong team or something, and I'm pretty darn progressive. Maybe being raised by conservatives twisted my perception somehow, I just couldn't ever come up with the required hate factor. "You are always welcome on our team. Just say to your self Big (insert Business/Government/Labor) is bad. Small is good.
LikeLike
Some of the hostility over there is a result of the feeling of marginalization. Obama and the D victories on '06 and '08 were seen by many as the great ushering in of Progressivism. The failure of a Supermajority Congress and D Presidency to enact the Progressive desires, coupled with the 2010 election debacle (for the D's) has made many progressives bitter about the electoral process in general but also their fellow citizens who have not enthusiastically embraced the inevitable.
LikeLike
jnc, haaaaaaahaaaaaa, it'll never happen, sorry. I may be able to contend with smaller government in some areas or combining some of the big agencies etc etc, but SS and M/M are where I really draw the line as well as some of the social issues re choice and gay marriage etc. How many anti-choice or anti-abortion bills has the house passed this year, the last count I saw was over 900, no thanks.
LikeLike
"we were honest enough to actually amend the Constitution when we wanted to amend the Constitution"And the result of not doing that is the "seething resentment" you noted upthread, and I would add the gridlock in Congress, which wasn't built to have to address every possible issue.
LikeLike
I don't know….I've wanted to eradicate QB and Scott on occasion. 😉 Anybody else tempted to delete jnc4p's comment at 11:09? Or am I the only one? I assume shrink feels that Obama is arrogant naive and dangerous (which I assume would be bad for our country). I guess if you feel that way about compromise or changing the tone of politics you are pretty much required to insult people.
LikeLike
Hmmm. I guess I'm not interpreting shrink's comment in quite the same way as others here? Is he perceived to be saying we're foolish by trying to have a dialogue on ATiM? that is not at all my takeaway.ashot re jnc4p @ 11:09 — funny. Go for it.
LikeLike
"social issues re choice and gay marriage etc"I don't have a good answer for you regarding abortion. it's either a life worthy of protection like any other. or it's not. i tend to appreciate the the "no abortion at all" or "anytime for any reason" arguments. re: marriage. all the more reason to not have the government involved at all. the only issue government should be concerned about is whether or not everyone is a consenting adult.
LikeLike
jnc:For myself, I view the New Deal as the time period where we discarded constitutional norms for the sake of expediency. I think that was the culmination of a change that began with the Civil War. As I saw Shelby Foote once say, the Civil War changed the United States from a "they" to an "it".Didn't the whole incorporation doctrine get developed in the late 1800s? The demise of federalism has been, I think, a long process, although I wouldn't argue at all that the process was really ramped up under FDR.
LikeLike
jnc:Just to be clear, since I think I was about as far from clear as can be….this:although I wouldn't argue at all that the process was really ramped up under FDR. should say:I wouldn't argue at all against the notion that the process was really ramped up under FDR.In other words, I agree with you. 😉
LikeLike
My interpretation is this: My enemies are beyond reproach. There will be no conversions. Anyone reaching out to them to establish a dialogue is both naive and giving cover to a movement that has no redeeming qualities. Not only are they wasting time they are providing the cover of legitimacy where there is none.
LikeLike
"jnc:For myself, I view the New Deal as the time period where we discarded constitutional norms for the sake of expediency.I think that was the culmination of a change that began with the Civil War. As I saw Shelby Foote once say, the Civil War changed the United States from a "they" to an "it".Didn't the whole incorporation doctrine get developed in the late 1800s? The demise of federalism has been, I think, a long process, although I wouldn't argue at all that the process was really ramped up under FDR."There is a substantial difference between amending the Constitution via the appropriate process to make changes in the balance of power between the States and the Federal government, and threatening to pack the Supreme Court if you don't get your way. I still believe the New Deal was a watershed in terms of Constitutional process and norms.
LikeLike
So I find people who appoint themselves the role of bringing us together, changing the tone of politics etc., arrogant and naive to the point of being dangerous themselves.okie, I don't know if he's specifically talking about ATiM here or not, but I do think he's wrong. As ashot pointed out even the President has talked about this. One of the things I don't like or appreciate from either side is the good vs evil language both sides engage in. But the way to fight it is to NOT engage in it, IMO. Even if I assume conservatives are my enemy (which I don't) joining them in likewise language only furthers the divide and hardens people against each other. NoVA and I disagree on an awful lot but I sure don't consider him either evil or a corporate whore, as he was depicted not that long ago over there. I think there are compromise positions on abortion for instance but one of them would not be claiming a fertilized egg has personhood status. There's a way to discuss that which doesn't turn another person into evil incarnate. It's an issue that may never be resolved between the parties but I think we can always inch closer to protecting both the rights of women and/or the unborn. Maybe I am naive, I honestly don't know anymore.
LikeLike
"Didn't the whole incorporation doctrine get developed in the late 1800s?"Yes, pursuant to the ratification of the 14th amendment. Unintended (or intended) consequences of the incorporation clause have caused a lot of problems. The 2nd Amendment as initially enacted was never meant to prevent states and localities from regulating the ownership of firearms. That's why you had those towns in the old West where you had to check your guns upon entering the city limits. I have no problem with Massachusetts and Montana having different gun laws, and in fact I believe we would be better off in the long run if it was that way.
LikeLike
okie:Is he perceived to be saying we're foolish by trying to have a dialogue on ATiM?I think he is saying that at the very least I am a dangerous evil, and thus his enemy.
LikeLike
"There's a way to discuss that which doesn't turn another person into evil incarnate."Yes. but that's really hard and at the end of the day both sides might be better off.
LikeLike
"I sure don't consider him either evil or a corporate whore"I should put that my business cards.
LikeLike
What analysis would be complete without a NYT link:The Gulf of MoralityBy THOMAS B. EDSALL"“There’s a gulf as wide as the ocean between the average politically active conservative and the average politically active liberal. We don’t just have political differences; we view the world through very different eyes.” So wrote John Hawkins, who runs Right Wing News, at the beginning of the year.He’s right. The left thinks so too. George Lakoff of the linguistics department at the University of California at Berkeley argues that “conservatives believe in individual responsibility alone, not social responsibility. They don’t think government should help its citizens. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other.”Rush Limbaugh counters that “the left, the Democrats, can do anything — they can employ strategy and policy which is destructive — and be excused for it on the basis that they had good intentions. And, by the way, that’s how they skate on virtually every bit of destructive policy, which is every policy they have.”I could go on, but you get the idea. Left and right look at each other with disdain and incredulity: what planet are these people from?"…"But moral reasoning is inhospitable to “split-the-difference” pragmatism, and never more so than when material benefits are at stake. Electoral politics determine the distribution of valuable resources, and moral commitments can mask otherwise naked resource competition."…"The intensification of disagreements over moral values not only makes compromise difficult to achieve, but sharpens competition for scarce goods at a time when austerity dominates the agenda. If, as is increasingly the case, left and right see their opposites as morally corrupt, the decision to cut the benefits or raise the taxes of the other side become easy – too easy — to justify."
LikeLike
"I think there are compromise positions on abortion for instance but one of them would not be claiming a fertilized egg has personhood status. "This is a fine role for the legislature and the democratic process. It's a poor role for the courts and Constitutional law interpretation.
LikeLike
"Yes. but that's really hard and at the end of the day both sides might be better off."What does this mean NoVA?
LikeLike
okie: Hmmm. I guess I'm not interpreting shrink's comment in quite the same way as others here? Is he perceived to be saying we're foolish by trying to have a dialogue on ATiM?I'm pretty sure that he's saying folks trying to have a dialog, like we are here, and especially naifs who makes the mistake of thinking you can ever pet a rabid rightwing pitbull like qb or Scott—by which I think he's thinking of lmsinca—are naive and in and of themselves dangerous. But humanity has a long history of folks who think that anyone who doesn't hate The Enemy with as much enthusiasm as they do are as much The Enemy as The Enemy. I think that orientation is profoundly wrong, and deeply narrow-minded. I understand why he may not want to engage with "Oboob-ma is a SOCIALIST HITLER!" . . . but that's not what he's talking about.Scott: I think he is saying that at the very least I am a dangerous evil, and thus his enemy.No, that was me, and it mostly has to do with your fraternization with bankers. Next think you know, you'll be palling around with lawyers. Then where will we be?
LikeLike
jnc:From George Lakoff, in the article you linked:They don’t think government should help its citizens. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other.See what he did there?
LikeLike
I must be going into withdrawal from PlumLine.My first thought when I read this from Lakoff, which jncp4 is quoting above: "They don’t think government should help its citizens. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other." . . . my first thought was politically incorrect, to put it bluntly. More appropriate to PlumLine.Conservatives and libertarians believe deeply that citizens should help each other, they just don't think it should be up to the government or a centralized power to decide who gets helped and how much, and how much should be taken away from this person to help that person.
LikeLike
""I sure don't consider him either evil or a corporate whore"I should put that my business cards."I would like to see that as a recommendation on your LinkedIn profile. Also, I assume my fellow liberals read Scott's comment about the Civil War as him calling for a return to slavery. That diabolical bastard.
LikeLike
lms — sorry, i just meant that i can engage with you (and those like you), someone I disagree with most of the time, and come away thinking that I've learned something and should re-evaluate my starting point and hopefully the other person does too. doesn't mean that i have to change. If my starting position is "the opposition is evil" not only is that an easy conversation to have — as there's isn't one — but i learn nothing from the exchange. you don't negotiate or reason with evil. you destroy it.
LikeLike
Scott got it in before me (corker!). Yes, I see what he did there. He demonstrated he was a . . . a guy not good at making adult arguments geared for people with reading and logic comprehension skills above that of a pre-schooler. Trying to keep a civil tongue in my head. Not sure what my issue is today. 😉
LikeLike
"From George Lakoff, in the article you linked:They don’t think government should help its citizens. That is, they don’t think citizens should help each other.See what he did there? "Yes, but I do think that the quote was illustrative of the critique of conservatism as offered by liberals, which is the point of juxtaposing it with the Limbaugh quote.
LikeLike
Kevin:Conservatives and libertarians believe deeply that citizens should help each other…Indeed. If a linguistics professor at Berkely is incapable of grasping the difference between people and government, what chance do regular old liberals have? On the other hand, perhaps it is precisely the fact that he is a professor of linguistics at Berkely which makes understanding so difficult for him. 😉
LikeLike
"Indeed. If a linguistics professor at Berkely is incapable of grasping the difference between people and government, what chance do regular old liberals have?On the other hand, perhaps it is precisely the fact that he is a professor of linguistics at Berkely which makes understanding so difficult for him. 😉 "Or he fully understands the sophistry he is espousing and presents it anyway.
LikeLike
NoVA: You make an excellent point. There is a difference between dialog and compromise. I can advocate talking to and listening to people we disagree with, and even trying to keep the tone civil, without saying either party has to compromise at the end. Certain folks come at it from the position that they already completely understand the other side, i.e. the enemy (and if that's their orientation, they almost certainly don't) and that there's nothing to be gained from talking to them or thinking about them as fellow human beings. They may suggest that talking to people and asking questions about their positions and seeking clarity and points of common interest is the same thing as compromise, but it's not. I can talk about something, even put myself in your shoes as a thought exercise, without necessarily changing my mind to suit yours at the end of the day.
LikeLike
OT: Did Mr. Troll McWingnut ever post his Veteran's Day story?
LikeLike
jnc:Or he fully understands the sophistry he is espousing and presents it anyway.I was trying to be generous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
"If my starting position is "the opposition is evil" not only is that an easy conversation to have — as there's isn't one — but i learn nothing from the exchange. you don't negotiate or reason with evil. you destroy it."Exactly…………thanks. And I also don't think it should always just be easy to define and explain our political or even moral philosophy. We should have to come up with justification and answer reasoned criticism. Otherwise just go read a book or something else more entertaining. I understand that the Plumline is a left leaning site but I never imagined that Greg wanted a debate free environment, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. I don't read the comments at very many other blogs so I don't have a real reference point for what we're trying to do here other than my own interests in both the challenge of debate and the knowledge potentially gained. Luckily for me apparently a few other people seem to share, at the very minimum, that dynamic.
LikeLike
Scott: If a linguistics professor at Berkely is incapable of grasping the difference between people and government, what chance do regular old liberals havePlenty. I've known numerous liberals who understand that conservatives don't actively want bad things or to destroy the world, and that they fully believe in helping their fellow man and charity (indeed, if judged by charitable contributions, self-identified conservatives care more about their fellow man than your average self-idenitified liberal, not less), but that we still disagree of significant points of process, and sometimes what makes for a desirable end goal. Lakoff may understand intellectually what's wrong with his statement, but I suspect he must at some level believe it, otherwise he'd realize that it's a poor attempt to frame the narrative. Ah, well.
LikeLike
"OT: Did Mr. Troll McWingnut ever post his Veteran's Day story?"No. Been working over the weekend. Short version: I drove trucks. Officers suck. It's better to have been in the military than to be in the military. Chicks dug the uniform.
LikeLike
lmsinca: I think there are compromise positions on abortion for instance but one of them would not be claiming a fertilized egg has personhood status.No, by definition the extreme positions ("once the sperm is on it's way, it's a life!" verus "abortion up to and including a year after birth") don't allow for compromise. You aren't compromising by accepting the furthest extreme of the opposite side. But even so, you can talk to somebody about their reasons for believing a just-fertilized egg is a person without that being or implying a compromise.
LikeLike
And I agree, Lakoff doesn't believe that pap, it's for the rubes.
LikeLike
As you know, I seldom stop by now except to repost a copy of something I have done elsewhere. I thought this from Saturday was particularly revealing of Greg's own mindset:"For some of the best, most illuminating, most entertaining, and least forgiving (which is a good thing) commenters on the Internets."It smacks a little too much of group think for my own shall we say eclectic thought process.
LikeLike
"But even so, you can talk to somebody about their reasons for believing a just-fertilized egg is a person without that being or implying a compromise."That's what I was trying to say, but you did it better. And now as my husband's looking at me cross-eyed because I'm so far behind today….better get to work.
LikeLike
Posted a couple of links on the Morning Roundup post that may be of interest. I for one was unaware that Members of Congress were exempt from insider trading laws.
LikeLike
Some folks go into psychiatry to "fix" others. Same for some ministers, priests, and rabbis. Fixing broken things is good. Fixing people is fraught with peril.The libertarian instinct is strong and attractive to many of us who no longer are the libertarians we were, at one time.The Randian Objectivist view seems elitist to this lapsed libertarian, in that it proposes a society for the benefit of the doers and shakers, which entails semi-freezing current economic classes, at any time.Socialism defined as collective ownership of the means of production and distribution seems stifling.Capitalism, defined as a functioning competitive economic system with ease of entry into the market and perfect information for buyers and sellers, seems ideal.Authoritarianism is bad but limited government, elected periodically by concerned and educated citizens, is good.So yeah, shrink, I take some from column A and some from column B, and if that makes me the enemy I will still try to talk you out of that absurd position. Life is way too short to declare that 3/4 of all the folks in the world are your sworn enemies.
LikeLike
MvWing: And I agree, Lakoff doesn't believe that pap, it's for the rubes.Then it's for the rubes in the choir. He's not talking to anybody who doesn't already agree with him in the extreme.
LikeLike
I for one was unaware that Members of Congress were exempt from insider trading laws.Isn't it awesome when you can pass laws that you are exempted from? But apply to everybody else.
LikeLike
mark: Fixing people is fraught with peril.If by "fraught with peril" you mean doomed 99% of the time, I agree!
LikeLike
One more: Antonin Scalia has suggested that conception = birth would allow the argument that a pregnant undoc could not be deported.He did not raise that recently. It came in a critique of Henry Wade's argument in Roe v. Wade, that Justice Scalia spoke many years later.Henry was the D.A. of Dallas County and he argued that conception = birth in that landmark case.That issue was raised because the 14th A defines persons as having been born or naturalized in the USA, not conceived here.
LikeLike
"I for one was unaware that Members of Congress were exempt from insider trading laws.Isn't it awesome when you can pass laws that you are exempted from? But apply to everybody else. "Don't they have to keep their money in blind trusts?
LikeLike
Don't they have to keep their money in blind trusts?It's is mandatory for many members of government, but not the people who write the actual laws.
LikeLike
Here was my response:"Hoo boy. Talk about overstatement. Here's a sentiment I find more useful. “The enemy isn’t conservatism. The enemy isn’t liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t." —Lars-Erik Nelson, political columnist BB"I was actually thinking of a quote where a member of the House says the opposing party is his opponent. The Senate is his enemy. Thought it was LBJ, but couldn't find it on short notice.Ah, that's why I missed it. It was Tip O'Neill.BB
LikeLike
“The enemy isn’t conservatism. The enemy isn’t liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t." And at least here you can spell bullshit out. Good comment FB.
LikeLike
Mark:Antonin Scalia has suggested that conception = birth…Can you direct me to where Scalia discussed this? I am interested, primarily because it seems such a silly equivalency (ie conception = birth) I imagine there must be more too it.Clearly conception is different from birth. And to argue that life begins at conception is not to argue that conception = birth. I must be misunderstanding something.
LikeLike
BTW…I realize that my truncated quote makes it appear Scalia was saying something that he didn't say. Didn't mean to do that. Just in a rush and was trying to be brief.
LikeLike
I found this to be an interesting thread, so thanks to all who contributed. But in all fairness, I just didn't interpret shrink's quoted comment the same way most seem to have done, especially given the context of the thread it was on. Also, a couple of days previously he posted a similar comment (but much less stark) that rang quite true to me, to the effect that whether we find a particular thing "good" or "evil" or neutral, we all should strive toward that which we define as "good." Perhaps that colored my interpretation of the instant comment.
LikeLike
Scott, if it was not clear, Scalia thinks the "conception=birth" argument is nonsense and outside the meaning of the Constitution.He was pointing out that those [like Texas, in Roe v. Wade] who argue for that formula are laying the groundwork for treating the pregnant undoc like the hallowed ground b/c the fetus would be a citizen if conceived in America. He was making the point of the unintended consequences of the argument, an argument with which he does NOT agree. You excerpted part of a sentence and changed its meaning.
LikeLike
Scott, I see that you did not mean to misstate.I will see if I can find the lecture on line.
LikeLike
okieI didn't see the context of the thread, as I mentioned, other than the fact that jnc said it was another torture thread. I only saw shrinks comment in the context of the email I received. Obviously I agree we should all strive for "good" but I believe that is a personal objective and is difficult to define in the realm of politics. I am worried about the good vs evil depiction of people who disagree with me, or them as the case may be, and don't think it should be a judgment defined by one side or the other. I think sometimes I may hold fellow liberals to a higher standard as a generational issue because of what we all went through during the 60's. I don't know if that makes sense to everyone, but I think you might get my meaning.
LikeLike
okie:But in all fairness, I just didn't interpret shrink's quoted comment the same way most seem to have done, especially given the context of the thread it was on.Since he didn't actually mention ATiM or lms, I guess it does take a bit of interpretation to read him as speaking of it/her when he speaks of "people appointing themselves the role of bringing us together". But there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room for various interpretations when he says:"I've considered the right the enemy all my life, it makes no difference to me if they are Americans or Iranians."Now, to be sure shrink often uses words idiosyncratically, so I guess one can't be absolutely positive what he meant. But if he means what he says, it seems pretty clear…he thinks I am his enemy.
LikeLike
Mark:I guess I am just surprised that anyone has actually made the equivalence that Scalia objects to. It seems to me a patently ridiculous equivalence.
LikeLike
Scott:he thinks I am his enemyAnd maybe Iranian too …
LikeLike
Actually everyone, I didn't take it necessarily as a personal or ATiM criticism, I took it as he said it, he considers people on the right his enemy and people who try to bring the left and right together are just as bad, or maybe even worse. I mostly wanted to make sure everyone agreed we are trying to break that mold here.
LikeLike
lms:I mostly wanted to make sure everyone agreed we are trying to break that mold here.I don't know. I definitely think you are worse than people on the right. 😉
LikeLike
Mike:And maybe Iranian too …Or worse!
LikeLike
scottI don't know. I definitely think you are worse than people on the right. 😉You only think that because I win all of our arguments since I'm on the side of truth, justice and the American Way……………:)
LikeLike
Shrink did indeed post that, and two commenters replied approvingly: ruk and Bernie. I was there. It was a Jared B post that said the R candidates had said they support torture and reject rule of law. I commented that he can do better than such hackish writing, and that his disagreement about whether waterboarding was torture did not license him to defame people. Naturally, the place went berserk with torture-lover rhetoric and accusations of every kind. Bernie, ruk and others attacked. Some clown started lecturing me about Nuremberg and told me I'm not a deep thinker when I asked how his reference to the Nuremberg defense was relevant to showing that Rs support torture rather that disagree with him that waterboarding ksm was torture. Naturally reason was out of the question. Bernie quoted Cain saying he opposes torture but would waterboard as proof that he supports torture. Eventually cao showed up and started bombing the thread with truly chilling and creepy attacks. Many were deleted but many not.Shrink's comment was dropped in the middle of this with approval of those three others at least. I found this interesting because shrink has adamantly stated that the waterboarding described in the memos was not torture. In fact, he has used very strong language about this. I dropped a comment referring to the irony of ruk and Bernie's lauding his "enemies" statement on a thread in which they were attacking Rs and me in the harshest terms possible. I had already posted a comment saying that it was too bad shrink was not there to be called the same things. I am 100% sure that that irony went right over their heads. Yellojkt was there too.Shrink is one of the smartest people I have seen on the nets. Also one of the most frustrating. Please remember some of the incredible things he has said. He told me that all conservatives including me are exactly the same as Anders Breivik and are plotting to murder people. He was 100% serious. That was just one example. I ignored him for a long time as a result. What he said here was no surprise, nor that people agreed with him. If you did not know by now that Bernie considers all nonleftists the enemy to be destroyed , with respect, you were not paying sufficient attention. Same with ruk, cefly and others. Most of them hate with an unquenchable hatred. I knew from the start that they would never participate here for that reason.
LikeLike
It was cao who later postedan insane comment requesting that comments be closed on any postsabout torture, because it brings out sick, depraved people, and no one wants to read such offensive and unpleasant stuff. One earnest conservative responses to him, and I told that guy that cao was just posting for added ironic effect after himself posting the sickest of comments. One of that person's goals was always to drag down and destroy PL. And Greg personally welcomed and encouraged him after he had been on worst behavior for weeks. That's one large reason I have zero respect for Greg. But he has now gotten what he asked for, a comment section dragged completely down into a gutter. Even the great Bernie has fallen under that malevolent person's influence and further lowered his game. But it is troubling to me that an organization like wapo publishes a blog that mainly serves Tue purpose of fomenting that level of hatred and willful misinformation.
LikeLike
There is no doubt in my mind, either, that kw's take at 12:31 is dead on.
LikeLike
Don't know that this thread needs more discussion, but . . .lms@8:39PM: I mostly wanted to make sure everyone agreed we are trying to break that mold here.For my response, there is not enough time to type sufficient iterations of "yes."I had been increasingly put off at PL by what I saw as a downward spiral of commentary. But (besides the inexplicable monitoring) the last straw for me was a left leaning commenter for whom I already had zero respect (ddawd) attacking me for trying to have a dialogue with Scott; not for the substance of the dialogue, but for the mere fact that it might exist. And he Just.Would.Not.Let.It.Go. So I was thrilled to be allowed to join in here and converse with civility with folks who are so much more articulate than I am on subjects in which I have had deep lifelong interests. I hope it continues.And qb, it is noted and appreciated that you post your snarkier line-in-the-sand comments on PL rather than here.
LikeLike
As for conservatives being "the enemy":First, because I join lms on the side of truth, justice and the American way, I see conservatives as the opposition although not an enemy. I do not apologize for that. I believe it is a workable tension that needs to exist so that neither becomes complacent or overbearing.That said, I do not view conservative/libertarian people (as opposed to ideas, policy, viewpoint) as the "enemy." Wow, given where I live, that would require an incredible amount of energy in my life and I would have no friends.
LikeLike
qb@1:37AM: There is no doubt in my mind, either, that kw's take at 12:31 is dead on.Are you concurring with the point that fraternizing with bankers and palling around with lawyers is a dangerous evil. 🙂
LikeLike
okiegirl said… qb@1:37AM: There is no doubt in my mind, either, that kw's take at 12:31 is dead on. Are you concurring with the point that fraternizing with bankers and palling around with lawyers is a dangerous evil. :-)HEY!
LikeLike
Brent, I hope you took that in the joking way it was intended. (I happen to enjoy Kevin's sense of humor.)
LikeLike
Are you concurring with the point that fraternizing with bankers and palling around with lawyers is a dangerous evil. 🙂Yes, indeed, and I should know, being a long-standing member of the lawyer-banker axis of evil.Also that I am a rabid right-wing pitbull. In all seriousness, everyone knows this is pretty much true if facetiously stated. On the flip side from what Okie said, I truly believe that progressivism/liberalism is slowly but surely, and from a thousand different directions, weakening and destroying our country and society, and the West as a whole. When I look at some of the things people on the left say and demand, I sometimes think (even subconsciously, I suppose), this is not just your heritage to ruin and destroy. You are ruining my children's and grandchildren's inheritance. How dare you? When you are as combative as I by nature can be, and have a strong belief like this, the temptation to treat the other side as true enemies can be strong. And there are people I put in the category, I will not lie about or apologize for that, either. There are some who truly are malevolent, like cao. There are some who, like shrink, explicitly and earnestly declare you to be their enemy, which means, they are yours. There are some who as I see it truly do want to take our rights, take our possessions, take whatever we have, "our" meaning everyone not defined as part of their victim classes. They define this as some sort of justice, but that is what it is not.(I am reminded of a discussion back in college with several far-left students and a far-left prof, who was talking about how left-wing movements just want to undo the unjust and unfair privileges and material advantages of white males. These were of course all moderately wealthy people from privileged backgrounds. I was still a little naive then and a little boggled at what they were saying. I just sort of laughed and shrugged and said, well, you could all come and get what I have, but I'm afraid you would be disappointed, since it is nothing, literally, or less than nothing. I remember thinking, do these people live on the same planet? They actually think all white males have some privileged wealth they missed out on? Who could think like this?) When I look at crowds of people protesting or chanting to raise my taxes to increase their benefits, or just to get even in some perverse societal sense, it is hard not to see enemies, especially when I see their glee and celebrations when they get their way. It is hard not to think, what gives you the right to try to rob my children because you would rather find someone to blame than take responsibility for yourself? Fair or unfair, that is how it looks. But I try not to see enemies as opposed to misguided people looking for answers, although to me people like unionized teachers insisting that I pay 100% of their benefits while I pay for 100% of mine, too, hardly fit that description. (continued)
LikeLike
There are some, though, who are so wedded to dogma and prone to extreme rhetoric that I see them as a real danger, even while they claim to be on the side of peace and justice. A long time ago, I called out Ethan at PL for this. He was continually posting furious comments calling conservatives terrorists, racists, Nazis, fascists, murderers, saying the time for discussion was finished, we had to be dealt with, etc. One of the frenzy points was when the postal suicide was falsely blamed on Michele Bachmann. (Oh, how Greg jumped on that false story.) I started hitting back hard, telling Ethan that he was in truth spouting Stalinist rhetoric, that people who give themselves over to this kind of murderous rhetoric move a short step away from being willing to act on it, and that when people hear enough rhetoric like this they rightly conclude that people like him mean real business about doing them harm. He started to cool off some of his rhetoric after that, although I have no idea whether it had anything to do with me. There came a comical point when on the same day he again called me and Scott Nazis, and then called for anyone who called anyone a Nazi to be banned (because he had relatives die in the Holocaust). It was hard even for him to show his face after that folly. At any rate, I am rambling. I try to distinguish between people who are just wrong and people who need to be viewed or insist upon being viewed as "enemies" in some form. People who are completely closed to reason seem sometimes seem functionally little different from the latter, so it takes effort. But I do hope that what I said here might help my liberal friends understand part of the answer to the eternal question of why conservatives would comment at a place like PL at all. People can be pulled down the road where cao, shrink, ruk and others are going, to extremism. It is happening there now. Even though reasoning someone off of that path would be a rare occurrence, confronting the rhetoric and countering the narrative has a worth in my mind, even though it may have a small or unmeasurable impact. Call it guerilla blogging, perhaps. It is probably worth knowing on the other side that conservatives generally believe that conservativism and liberalism are not equal in their tendencies to view the opposition as enemies who are evil instead of just wrong. It is a debatable proposition but one widely held and explored in conservative thought that liberalism necessarily treats opponents as evil. I happen to think this is largely true and is reflected in popular rhetoric of political leaders. So, to me, rhetoric like shrink's about my being his enemy is not a surprise; I hear much the same from people like Pelosi and, yes, Obama. My intent isn't to start an argument about this but simply to put it on the table, if people aren't aware of this, that it is a widely shared point of view among conservatives.
LikeLike
Sorry for all my typos. I typed a lot of that on my Droid while lying awake in the middle of the night (probably a bad idea), although, unlike ashot, I am good at typos on my computer as well.
LikeLike
qb: It is probably worth knowing on the other side that conservatives generally believe that conservativism and liberalism are not equal in their tendencies to view the opposition as enemies who are evil instead of just wrong. It is a debatable proposition but one widely held and explored in conservative thought that liberalism necessarily treats opponents as evil.This is one of the many areas where I think both sides exhibit ideological blind spots, as liberals feel the same way about conservatives. Liberals frequently complain of eliminationist rhetoric on the right, complain that conservatives are, apropos of nothing, casting their opposition to liberals and Democrats in existential terms (and if a threat is existential, then violence is acceptable–which leads directly to homicidal gunmen killing people in crowds, egged on by right wing hate speech!) Neither side tends to feel their side, for the most part, is engaged in such extreme viewpoints, or seeing the other side as evil, while both sides tend to view the other side as having a narrow, exaggerated view of their opposite numbers. If they do see the other side as evil (and there are those on both sides that clearly do), then they feel, usually deeply, that their impression of conservatives/liberals as evil is entirely justified. Just look at what they are doing to the country! Agree as regards Pelosi and her absolutist view of Republicans as, at best, well-meaning believers in all things evil and murderous and destructive to humanity. Obama, I'm not convinced that he is in the same camp, though he has thrown some red meat to his base, I think, to a degree, that is understandable in politics. But I may have missed the speech where he said, ala Pelosi, that Republicans are opposed to clean air, clean water, public safety, food safety, healthcare, kittens, goodness, peace and love. When talking about conservatives, I would prefer that, say, Save The Rainforest not be viewed as a typical or archetypal conservative. Similarly, I try to do liberals the favor of not considering Ethan a typical liberal. He is an extremist, masking his own compulsion towards tribalism in politics, when his ideology is simply an excuse to scratch a much deeper and more reptilian itch. IMO.When I first started posting on Plumline, it was Ethan who made an all-out effort to drive me away, and came off sounding insane, even to Liam. 😉 I think it backfired, at the time. Eventually, a combination of technical issues and folks like Ruk and Liam and Bernie and Shrink being grade-a top choice douche bags to everybody who didn't agree with them 100% on everything became more than I could take. However, I do believe that everyone of them is, at some level, a smart, thoughtful, reasonably well-informed person that could engage in an open and honest dialog with people they disagreed with, if they wanted to. But that's not what they want. They're like men who choose the brothel over deepening their relationship with their wives. They want flattery, reinforcement, and subservience.These aren't ideological positions, they are personal choices made by individuals. I've personally known people who were politically very conservative who were exactly that way (and more than metaphorically, though certainly that, too).
LikeLike
qb: There are some, though, who are so wedded to dogma and prone to extreme rhetoric that I see them as a real danger,And the answer is to challenge them on that, one way or another, as you did. For the sake of argument, let's say I'm a danger to America, by virtue of being right-of-center on several issues, and a serial Republican voter. How is a Shrink or a Ruk or an Ethan going to do anything substantive to change that? By calling me an idiot or a child molester or a racist and then demanding that nobody talk to me (as Ethan did, repeatedly) or attempting to chase me out, so they can just form a perfect circle of ideological purity and caress themselves to the point of ultimate partisan pleasure? The talk is big: pick sides, have to fight, the time for talking is over, etc. But what does that mean, practically? Unless a bunch of old inebriated farts are going together in a group and run me through with a pitchfork, it's all worthless, even as regards their ostensible goals. The point I think that they are missing is that unless the talk to people who don't agree with them out of the box (even those who they will ultimately never influence), they can't possibly hope to accomplish anything in the pursuit of their goals. They can console themselves with the knowledge that they are both good and right and they have nothing to do with those filthy others, who are bad and wrong, but they've got no recruits. They've added no votes to the cause. They made no more self-identified liberals. They do not set attractive examples, based on which moderates might say to themselves: "Wow, they've really got it going on. I'd like to be more like them!" They flatter themselves. To return:So I find people who appoint themselves the role of bringing us together, changing the tone of politics etc., arrogant and naive to the point of being dangerous themselvesThere are so many things wrong with that statement. Did someone appoint them to be in the role of White Knight? Or did they appoint themselves? Do they honestly think it accomplishes more to harden positions and ignore opposition and paint often fictional narratives about the state of the opposition? Do they really think sitting around and flattering themselves by pointing out the endless evil and stupidity inflicted on the world by conservatives, according to their unbiased worldview, accomplishes anything? I mean, I don't know that we're doing a darned thing here, other than entertaining ourselves and enjoying some stimulating conversation. But the us vs. them is essentially: "my ideology, right or wrong". It's a form of chauvinism, and brings with it all that entails. Meanwhile, that important existential battle never really happens, and picking sides and plugging your fingers in your ears in our current partisan debates is about as effective, and as meaningful, as picking sides during kickball in grade school.
LikeLike
Super, Kev.But – it is far less effective than picking sides in kickball.Picking sides in kickball is more like union v. management: bitter fights ending with victories, losses, and ties, but also with the notion that we will live to have another bitter fight because if we don't live together there will be no living at all. Or no more kickball games. Take your pick.
LikeLike
Kevin:But I may have missed the speech where he said, ala Pelosi, that Republicans are opposed to clean air, clean water, public safety, food safety, healthcare, kittens, goodness, peace and love.Er, yes, you seem not to have been paying attention, then. Obama has repeatedly said these very things, almost habitually in fact. This is one of the many areas where I think both sides exhibit ideological blind spots, as liberals feel the same way about conservatives. As I said, equivalency can be debated, but I was not referring merely to he-said/she-said exchanges of accusation of elimationist rhetoric. Empirically, I don't think there is any comparison, but I was referring to the fact that there is a serious intellectual case made in conservative thought that modern liberalism is inherently different in that it must treat opposition as evil. That's too big a topic for this forum. I'm just saying, it is out there.The talk is big: pick sides, have to fight, the time for talking is over, etc. But what does that mean, practically?You can consider me paranoid, I suppose, but I meant exactly what I said to Ethan. When you have a group of people, even one diffusely spread across the country, egging each other on and propagandizing with the unhinged, eliminationist rhetoric they use 24/7, they do begin to constitute a danger, both politically and in terms of violence, suppression, assaults on private and public property, and legal assaults on our rights.I don't believe that we are immune to the same kinds of abuses and atrocities that have existed throughout history. When people day after day scream that I am a terrorist, mass murderer in training, oligarch, enemy of the people, etc., I think they could someday be people who act on their rhetoric. Indeed, over at PL it is conventional wisdom that unless the demands of the left are satisfied with redstribution and class reckoning, violence is the inevitable and justified result. Surely everyone is familiar with this argument.Do they really think sitting around and flattering themselves by pointing out the endless evil and stupidity inflicted on the world by conservatives, according to their unbiased worldview, accomplishes anything?I gather that they think they are exhorting and bucking each other up to continue and escalate the war against the opposition, by whatever means are necessary. People like Bernie are there to brainwash and make sure no questioning or doubt are ever allowed to creep in.
LikeLike
qb: "Er, yes, you seem not to have been paying attention, then. Obama has repeatedly said these very things, almost habitually in fact."Well, I do miss a lot, and depend on preferred aggregators. Example? People like Bernie are there to brainwash and make sure no questioning or doubt are ever allowed to creep in.I believe this to be largely self-indulgent, and if it leads to anything at all, it will be by sheer luck, much less something positive towards their ostensible goals. Not that I should be the first to cast stones when it comes to self-indulgence. 😉 Empirically, I don't think there is any comparison, but I was referring to the fact that there is a serious intellectual case made in conservative thought that modern liberalism is inherently different in that it must treat opposition as evil. That's too big a topic for this forum. I'm just saying, it is out there.I would argue that there is a case to be made that a significant number of ideologues on both sides believe that the other side is evil, and that they are in an existential struggle with that side. There may be more on one side or the other, but there's a great deal on both sides. I've known more than a few conservatives who believe liberals to be actively evil. The idea that politicians would destroy the country and make people suffer for personal electoral gain is not novel to either side. What's more, my experience his been that both sides argue that the other side is the one that sees the other as caricatures of evil. I'd be interested in an objective empiric analysis, of course. But my experience has been that there is at least enough viewing of the ideological opposition as uniformly evil or corrupt or amoral, and enough characterization of the opposition as requiring an existential struggle on both sides (as well as the assertion that it's the other side that really does it) to make me suspect this is a much broader human characteristic that we can see much more clearly on the other side. It also makes it difficult to deconstruct. It's like trying to talk about things that are in shadow for me, but in light for you, and vice versa. Clearly, there's nothing in that shadow, but look at this light! It's filled with the stuff that shows I'm exactly right about everything! But you're right, it's a large topic. A few posts aren't going to even begin to scratch it.
LikeLike
Kevin,Obama example: they want dirtier air! He isn't as villifying in tone as a Grayson even Pelosi, but he is much more so than he is given credit for. The idea that politicians would destroy the country and make people suffer for personal electoral gain is not novel to either side. It isn't merely or really even about personal gain, but that's a different question.The conservative critique of modern liberalism is the stuff of many volumes, of course, but at the core of this proposition is the difference over human nature and perfectability. Conservativism (which proponents like Kirk have said is not an ideology at all but a rejection of ideology) takes human nature to be permanently flawed in this world. Liberalism does not, and therein lies a rub. Since liberalism takes human nature to be vastly improvable and even perfectable, and takes this as in a sense its own project, woe to those who do not conform to the improvement project.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
qb: "You got their plan, which is let's have dirtier air, dirtier water, (and) less people with health insurance,"Which, yes, is hyperbole, but it specifically talks about a piece of legislation, rather than Republicans or conservatives in a universal sense, and seems materially different than "Republicans don't believe in public safety". It's one thing to suggest a bad plan is going to lead to dirtier air and dirtier water (unlikely), another to suggest your political opposition actively wants to destroy the environment. The latter, to me, falls into the category of saying the Democrats support the terrorists).
LikeLike