And I'm not sure the 80% strategy is even all that accurate to begin with, and certainly the substance of that strategy needs to be overhauled entirely...
What struck me about this piece is that Ruffini seems to think that there's something wrong with constantly venerating Reagan and every Reaganism, but at the same time thinks conservatives should instead adopt the Newt Gingrich approach. So, what? Give up the ghost of Reagan and adopt the ghost of Gingrich? He's spot-on with his critique of gimmicks, but beyond that there's not really any substantive argument for some new, better approach. I think there is a lot of room to be the party of middle-America, but it's going to take a lot more than re-branding.
Very well put, Darwin. I think the thing that atheists don't realize is that there is liberation in order, freedom in tradition. This is simply something very human that all the individualism or detached reason in the world will never replace. Of course, both individualism, reason, and self-determination have their place in the larger scheme of things, but this does not disqualify the beauty of order, tradition, or God in our lives...
Well, I'm certainly curious as to where you'll go with this, Scott. The task of importing morality or idealism into foreign policy in place of cold, hard realism is Herculean, to be sure. I think the trick is not overstepping, but that is almost inevitable given the nature of power - sort of the tragic flaw of the neoconservative movement. "Power corrupts" and all that...
In any case, these posts deserve greater thought and a longer response....
A ‘middle-brow’ conservatism is a good idea in that it would put us at a happy medium. We wouldn’t look like the dumb football player who pushes nerds into their lockers….but we would also remind voters that theory doesn’t always trump practical experience.
I think that's exactly right, but I'm not holding my breath. The GOP is reacting to Obama exactly like the dumb jock you describe. There is really very little intellectual honesty coming out of the Right at the moment.
The rationale for stopping short of full-blown legalization is that it would prevent a dedicated Marijuana industry from aggressively marketing the drug.
I'm the first to decry rampant capitalism, the aesthetic and moral consequences of too much marketing, too much capitalizing of a good thing - but (and this is a major sticking point) - I can't justify only legalizing the growth of something and continuing to keep the purchase illegal. That simply isn't right. Now, perhaps there is some other way to regulate the industry that keeps it smaller. I'm really in favor of keeping companies small and localized to whatever degree possible, but I don't think consumers should pay the price with their freedom - only their pocket books.
Also, I’m envisioning the future of the League as some sort of benign marijuana co-op on the Washington-British Columbia border. Why ruin that dream, ED? Why?
Hey, but my larger point is that co-ops and corporations can co-exist and compete. Though, to be fair, I'd like to see more co-ops and fewer massive corporations, though I'm not sure how to localize our economy...
But Will, if the argument is that we should be allowed to grow it but not to sell or purchase it here, how does that change the matter? It's still an addictive drug (though that's up for debate). So we are allowed under the law to grow marijuana and tomatoes, but not to buy marijuana? And we provide no legal framework with which to use in the sale of marijuana either, essentially creating a grey market? That doesn't resonate with me. I think half-measures are the wrong approach.
Most people would argue that alcohol guaranteed some form of impairment 100% of the time (cooking with it aside). I mean, even if you are fairly impervious to a drink, it can still provide some buzz. It still effects motor skills. I just don't think that's a good enough argument against....
Thanks, Mike. Great points. I think "creative" is the key word in all of it. Creative capital, creative solutions, creative partnerships. Not just the same old talking points.
Well yes, I mentioned that above. I'm morally and ethically opposed to such partnerships, as I don't believe profit should be made off of criminals or off of war. This is why it's so important to limit both government and the private sector, to achieve balance.
That is certainly a risk. I'm against privatization of certain things (like jails) on moral and ethical grounds. For instance, your example of the detention facility, but also the fact that I think nobody should profit off of crime, even those who are housing the criminals.
However, public/private enterprises really can work, and quite well. In my home town this is how we finally were able to have recycling instead of just trash pick-up. The city provided the facility, and a private company provided the staff and collection. I think with infrastructure projects a similarly mutually beneficial arrangement can be made. For instance, as with other means of transport, why shouldn't private companies provide the actual trains? Government may build the rails themselves, and even the terminals, but the trains and the staff of those trains should be private. Private contractors could bid on maintenance projects and so forth. It's a perfect public/private venture for the long term.
Thanks, Bob. I am a sentimental idiot - though I prefer the term "Romantic." (Then again, perhaps more of an idiot in Dostoevsky's sense of the word...)
I have decided to let my sentimental side out more, in life and in my writing. I'm tired of being jaded.
Bob, that's a total dodge. Nobody is speaking about censorship or self-censorship. This is about strategy and wisdom. Speaking just because you have the pulpit to do so does not mean its wise; conversely, choosing not to speak at such a moment is not de facto self-censorship. Sometimes less is more.
Honestly, I don't have much vested in this one way or another. I personally could care less. I mean, yes I'm all for gay rights, but no I'm not really expecting many people to be swayed by Sean Penn. Maybe by the movie "Milk" but probably not Sean Penn. That's the problem as I see it. I think it falls on deaf or even hostile ears. The Hollywood celebrity class is widely viewed as arrogant and out of touch, as the worst of the liberal establishment. Rich, pampered, and full of themselves. So I just think that that scene as mouthpiece to any movement is inherently counter-intuitive. Perhaps I'm just a cynic.
This is not as though I'm saying "celebrities shouldn't do this or that." I am saying that usually this ends up backfiring, and that from a strategic standpoint it's much smarter to let the film/music/poetry whatever say what it has to say. It's bound to be more impacting on its own merits.
On “away from Joe=towards success?”
And I'm not sure the 80% strategy is even all that accurate to begin with, and certainly the substance of that strategy needs to be overhauled entirely...
"
What struck me about this piece is that Ruffini seems to think that there's something wrong with constantly venerating Reagan and every Reaganism, but at the same time thinks conservatives should instead adopt the Newt Gingrich approach. So, what? Give up the ghost of Reagan and adopt the ghost of Gingrich? He's spot-on with his critique of gimmicks, but beyond that there's not really any substantive argument for some new, better approach. I think there is a lot of room to be the party of middle-America, but it's going to take a lot more than re-branding.
On “Around the Web on Ash Wednesday”
Very well put, Darwin. I think the thing that atheists don't realize is that there is liberation in order, freedom in tradition. This is simply something very human that all the individualism or detached reason in the world will never replace. Of course, both individualism, reason, and self-determination have their place in the larger scheme of things, but this does not disqualify the beauty of order, tradition, or God in our lives...
On “Overlearning Lessons”
Heh. Careful what you say....they may be listening....
I'm not paranoid or anything....
"
In a sad way, the popular incarnation of neo-conservatism became the very nihilism and moral relativism that it claimed to oppose
By the way, love that word - nihilism - really jumped out at me! :)
"
Well, I'm certainly curious as to where you'll go with this, Scott. The task of importing morality or idealism into foreign policy in place of cold, hard realism is Herculean, to be sure. I think the trick is not overstepping, but that is almost inevitable given the nature of power - sort of the tragic flaw of the neoconservative movement. "Power corrupts" and all that...
In any case, these posts deserve greater thought and a longer response....
"
Though "moral clarity" really strikes me as so objective, so intangible...can something so mercurial as that provide us with a foreign policy compass?
On “Sad news”
Poor taste, Bob.
On “Around the Web on Ash Wednesday”
Thanks, Chris. I was hoping you'd weigh in on this....
On “Sad news”
Too true, Bob.
"
sidereal, good thinking. I didn't mean to politicize the thread by tossing in that health care reference. It just seemed important. Thanks.
On “Derbyshire and the Happy Meal Conservatives”
Mike:
A ‘middle-brow’ conservatism is a good idea in that it would put us at a happy medium. We wouldn’t look like the dumb football player who pushes nerds into their lockers….but we would also remind voters that theory doesn’t always trump practical experience.
I think that's exactly right, but I'm not holding my breath. The GOP is reacting to Obama exactly like the dumb jock you describe. There is really very little intellectual honesty coming out of the Right at the moment.
On “Grow your own?”
Will:
The rationale for stopping short of full-blown legalization is that it would prevent a dedicated Marijuana industry from aggressively marketing the drug.
I'm the first to decry rampant capitalism, the aesthetic and moral consequences of too much marketing, too much capitalizing of a good thing - but (and this is a major sticking point) - I can't justify only legalizing the growth of something and continuing to keep the purchase illegal. That simply isn't right. Now, perhaps there is some other way to regulate the industry that keeps it smaller. I'm really in favor of keeping companies small and localized to whatever degree possible, but I don't think consumers should pay the price with their freedom - only their pocket books.
Hey, but my larger point is that co-ops and corporations can co-exist and compete. Though, to be fair, I'd like to see more co-ops and fewer massive corporations, though I'm not sure how to localize our economy...
"
But Will, if the argument is that we should be allowed to grow it but not to sell or purchase it here, how does that change the matter? It's still an addictive drug (though that's up for debate). So we are allowed under the law to grow marijuana and tomatoes, but not to buy marijuana? And we provide no legal framework with which to use in the sale of marijuana either, essentially creating a grey market? That doesn't resonate with me. I think half-measures are the wrong approach.
"
Most people would argue that alcohol guaranteed some form of impairment 100% of the time (cooking with it aside). I mean, even if you are fairly impervious to a drink, it can still provide some buzz. It still effects motor skills. I just don't think that's a good enough argument against....
On “Balance Sheet Recession”
Thanks, Mike. Great points. I think "creative" is the key word in all of it. Creative capital, creative solutions, creative partnerships. Not just the same old talking points.
"
Well yes, I mentioned that above. I'm morally and ethically opposed to such partnerships, as I don't believe profit should be made off of criminals or off of war. This is why it's so important to limit both government and the private sector, to achieve balance.
"
That is certainly a risk. I'm against privatization of certain things (like jails) on moral and ethical grounds. For instance, your example of the detention facility, but also the fact that I think nobody should profit off of crime, even those who are housing the criminals.
However, public/private enterprises really can work, and quite well. In my home town this is how we finally were able to have recycling instead of just trash pick-up. The city provided the facility, and a private company provided the staff and collection. I think with infrastructure projects a similarly mutually beneficial arrangement can be made. For instance, as with other means of transport, why shouldn't private companies provide the actual trains? Government may build the rails themselves, and even the terminals, but the trains and the staff of those trains should be private. Private contractors could bid on maintenance projects and so forth. It's a perfect public/private venture for the long term.
On “reflections”
Thanks, Bob. I am a sentimental idiot - though I prefer the term "Romantic." (Then again, perhaps more of an idiot in Dostoevsky's sense of the word...)
I have decided to let my sentimental side out more, in life and in my writing. I'm tired of being jaded.
On “blogging”
Yeah, this is certainly how I feel at times, either blogging or trying to get my creative writing on the page...
On “Quick Hit Financial Blogging…”
Dave:
Yeah, no kidding....
On “can I just say…”
Bob, that's a total dodge. Nobody is speaking about censorship or self-censorship. This is about strategy and wisdom. Speaking just because you have the pulpit to do so does not mean its wise; conversely, choosing not to speak at such a moment is not de facto self-censorship. Sometimes less is more.
"
Honestly, I don't have much vested in this one way or another. I personally could care less. I mean, yes I'm all for gay rights, but no I'm not really expecting many people to be swayed by Sean Penn. Maybe by the movie "Milk" but probably not Sean Penn. That's the problem as I see it. I think it falls on deaf or even hostile ears. The Hollywood celebrity class is widely viewed as arrogant and out of touch, as the worst of the liberal establishment. Rich, pampered, and full of themselves. So I just think that that scene as mouthpiece to any movement is inherently counter-intuitive. Perhaps I'm just a cynic.
"
This is not as though I'm saying "celebrities shouldn't do this or that." I am saying that usually this ends up backfiring, and that from a strategic standpoint it's much smarter to let the film/music/poetry whatever say what it has to say. It's bound to be more impacting on its own merits.
"
No, I think they should let their art do their talking for them, no matter the venue.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.