I think it's important to have someone working on all these policy ideas. I certainly don't have the time to put together papers the way Jason does since he's being paid to do it professionally and I just do this in my spare time. I think I could be about fifty times more productive if I were doing this for a living.
Good point. But I still think pulling the "Koch brothers" card is a bit of a lazy excuse for an argument. Like I said, wealthy donors are operating everywhere. Without them, basically no think tank would exist on the left, right, or libertarian side.
I think too much is made out of who funds who - all think tanks as far as I know have wealthy donors. Many of the liberals you link to are funded by wealthy liberal donors. I'm just not sure why that's so relevant.
What I find more objectionable than not writing about it is some of the writing I did come across by libertarians about foreclosures basically ignoring the issue of fraud altogether (though this was at Cato). I think this is a very poor position to take and does undermine the issue of property rights. This is not to level blanket-judgment on Cato either, since much of their work is quite good on other subjects. We all have our priorities.
The point is ED you can’t let he numbers skew the discussion. One murder with a baseball bat is just as tragic as 6 murders with a gun. If people want to discuss gun control, so be it but to do so in the wake of a tragedy like this is to debate inside of a tempest.
I'm not saying that I think any reform to current laws would have made a difference, but I'm also not an expert on this and think it's reasonable to ask these sort of questions. Also, no, six murders is more tragic than one murder. It is a tragedy magnified six times, touching a multitude more people. There is something that makes me very nervous about the ease at which a man who once could only commit one murder can now commit six or twelve or twenty. Again, I'm not sure that gun control laws are the answer, but I'm deeply troubled by the implications of our modern killing technology.
Mike - following this logic pretty soon we're saying "Killing fifty people with a bomb = we need new laws" and implying just the opposite. The right to bear arms does not include an unfettered right to any weaponry at all. I think there is legitimate reason to survey the laws in place across the country in light of events like this to see whether they are at fault or whether we need a better understanding of felons, the mentally ill, etc. There is certainly room to wonder at the ease at which someone can slaughter their fellow citizens with modern weapons. There would be no need for new bat laws because, honestly how could anyone commit mass murder with a bat? This is just silly. Likewise, we don't let normal people drive around in tanks.
Look, I really can't catch a break you know? If I write at Balloon Juice and say "This is crazy to blame the right for this shooting" I'm told that I'm making false equivelancies and such. If I bring up a different shooting and note that it might very well have been instigated by right-wing radio and books and such, but that this Loughner affair certainly wasn't, I'm told I shouldn't even bring it up. Okay. Fine. But I'm not worried about 'playing into the Left's hands' here. I'm not a fan of the talk-radio right and I've made that known plenty of times. But I never once said it was the fault of them or Palin that Giffords was shot. Still - isn't the Unitarian shooting relevant? How do we answer that one? Obviously not with doing anything but I do think it's relevant. I do think a critique of the national discourse can be healthy and good. And I could very well be wrong.
I did say the left's jumping on this and blaming the right for the shooting was wrong, DensityDuck. I am simply making two separate critiques here. I think the Unitarian shooting is relevant now. I also brought up the Discovery Channel guy, who was obviously more closely tied to the left.
And the left just sucks at talk radio and this sort of punditry. They deserve plenty of criticism, but not necessarily for all the same things.
I never said they had any hate speech. I said they were vitriolic, which they can be. All the best talk radio people are a bit vitriolic at times. Actually, what bothers me most about Beck is his insincerity. I'll take O'Reilly or Limbaugh over Beck any day. At least I believe that they believe what they're saying. Same goes for Palin. She strikes me as wholly in it for herself, no first principles, no deeper purpose. There are plenty of conservative politicians I admire, but Palin isn't one of them.
That's exactly right. And that's the link I was thinking of when I said "I used to think so much more than I do now."
Honestly, I think people are simply torn. Something animal and fierce is stirred up by fierce, passionate, emotive over-the-top punditry. The riling up of the base and the baser parts of ourselves. And people are at the same time turned off by all this and want a 'return to sanity' - to a sanity which I don't think ever truly existed. Politics has always been dirty business.
Either YOU seek to curtail speech, and I’m looking forward to you explaining to your commentors where you place the League Hate Speech Line, or you hold to the quaint idea of free political speech, as the founders anticipated.
Well two things.
First, I don't support any laws regulating the freedom of speech whatsoever. Any cautionary words I may have about the discourse amongst Happy Meal Conservatives is cautionary alone.
Second, we have a commenting policy which simply asks that people treat one another with respect, don't flame people for no good reason, and engage one another in honest - if at times forceful - conversation. This is a matter of tone and style. It is the point of the site - to constantly push conversation forward. Not to whine or flame or bait or troll or preach or whatever. To converse. You are an old-timer and I have no intention of 'kicking you off' the site. Stick around. Engage all us Voegelin-illiterates.
Tom - I quote quite a few staunch conservative writers at National Review fairly often around here. I quote them because they are writing intelligent, interesting, and compelling stuff. I don't quote Beck or Coulter because they are not compelling or interesting - they are over the top, show-people. They are trafficking in gimmicks far more than they're trafficking in good ideas. I'll take Reihan Salam, Kevin Williamson, Avik Roy or gosh, Jonah Goldberg, over Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter any day of the week.
Now, I know that I am one of the libertarian nutballs on this site and your “inflammatory” and my “inflammatory” Venn Diagram probably has a lot of stuff not overlapping than overlapping. And that’s fair enough.
But I’ve heard far more about how awful he is in theory than given examples that result in me saying “he’s awful”.
I don't know, I think you and I actually agree on quite a lot. And I'm not so sure what you or I define as 'inflammatory' is what matters. Beck is an opinionator on Fox News, ergo he is somewhat inflammatory. They want ratings. They don't hire boring, uncontroversial people to host their shows - that's why they're doing so well.
And like I said in the post, Beck and the other pundits don't bother me so much. Yes, I do think that when you have enough people saying that we should be afraid and that the new administration is hell bent on destroying America, you do run the risk of inciting some crazy people to commit violent acts that they may not otherwise commit. I think it is hugely unlikely and rare no matter what, but I think it's possible. I don't think Beck or any other talking head wants that, and I don't think that's their intention at all.
I actually used to watch Beck back when he was on CNN while I was at the gym, and I liked him. I thought he was interesting and entertaining. The maudlin Beck of Fox News is another story. He's way too over the top, melodramatic, etc. Is he dangerous? I don't think so. I used to think so much more than I do now.
I personally don't really enjoy that kind of punditry. I don't like playing on peoples' fears and emotions so much. I like reasonable, amicable discussion with people I would enjoy hanging out with, having a beer with, etc. But is the political discourse in this country so terrible? It could be much worse. Should we be a little uneasy when there's so much gun imagery in our political ads and especially when tensions are so high and unemployment and resentment are so high? I think so.
Do I believe in censorship of any kind - or hate speech laws or any of that? Absolutely not. People should be free to be outrageous or vile or whatever they like and we should be free to criticize them if we so choose.
Just to be very clear: i do not blame anyone on the right, including Palin or Beck, for what happened Saturday. The Unitarian church shooting is much more suspect.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Balloon Juice Actually Makes Sense…”
I think it's important to have someone working on all these policy ideas. I certainly don't have the time to put together papers the way Jason does since he's being paid to do it professionally and I just do this in my spare time. I think I could be about fifty times more productive if I were doing this for a living.
"
Good point. But I still think pulling the "Koch brothers" card is a bit of a lazy excuse for an argument. Like I said, wealthy donors are operating everywhere. Without them, basically no think tank would exist on the left, right, or libertarian side.
"
Pretty quickly anyone who is actually getting paid by anybody to write about anything is suspect.
"
I think too much is made out of who funds who - all think tanks as far as I know have wealthy donors. Many of the liberals you link to are funded by wealthy liberal donors. I'm just not sure why that's so relevant.
"
Indeed, I think they are much more effective than caricatures.
"
What I find more objectionable than not writing about it is some of the writing I did come across by libertarians about foreclosures basically ignoring the issue of fraud altogether (though this was at Cato). I think this is a very poor position to take and does undermine the issue of property rights. This is not to level blanket-judgment on Cato either, since much of their work is quite good on other subjects. We all have our priorities.
On “Marriage against the State”
Jason, I look forward to reading the paper. Really fascinating stuff just in the post, though.
On “Crazy people doing crazy things”
Hey, you have your mind made up! I'm so glad for you.
"
I'm not saying that I think any reform to current laws would have made a difference, but I'm also not an expert on this and think it's reasonable to ask these sort of questions. Also, no, six murders is more tragic than one murder. It is a tragedy magnified six times, touching a multitude more people. There is something that makes me very nervous about the ease at which a man who once could only commit one murder can now commit six or twelve or twenty. Again, I'm not sure that gun control laws are the answer, but I'm deeply troubled by the implications of our modern killing technology.
"
Mike - following this logic pretty soon we're saying "Killing fifty people with a bomb = we need new laws" and implying just the opposite. The right to bear arms does not include an unfettered right to any weaponry at all. I think there is legitimate reason to survey the laws in place across the country in light of events like this to see whether they are at fault or whether we need a better understanding of felons, the mentally ill, etc. There is certainly room to wonder at the ease at which someone can slaughter their fellow citizens with modern weapons. There would be no need for new bat laws because, honestly how could anyone commit mass murder with a bat? This is just silly. Likewise, we don't let normal people drive around in tanks.
"
I guess you've never noticed the commentariat's reaction to my work over there...
On “Happy Meal Conservatism”
Very well said, Pat.
On “Crazy people doing crazy things”
Look, I really can't catch a break you know? If I write at Balloon Juice and say "This is crazy to blame the right for this shooting" I'm told that I'm making false equivelancies and such. If I bring up a different shooting and note that it might very well have been instigated by right-wing radio and books and such, but that this Loughner affair certainly wasn't, I'm told I shouldn't even bring it up. Okay. Fine. But I'm not worried about 'playing into the Left's hands' here. I'm not a fan of the talk-radio right and I've made that known plenty of times. But I never once said it was the fault of them or Palin that Giffords was shot. Still - isn't the Unitarian shooting relevant? How do we answer that one? Obviously not with doing anything but I do think it's relevant. I do think a critique of the national discourse can be healthy and good. And I could very well be wrong.
"
I did say the left's jumping on this and blaming the right for the shooting was wrong, DensityDuck. I am simply making two separate critiques here. I think the Unitarian shooting is relevant now. I also brought up the Discovery Channel guy, who was obviously more closely tied to the left.
And the left just sucks at talk radio and this sort of punditry. They deserve plenty of criticism, but not necessarily for all the same things.
On “Rightwing Duck”
I think it's pretty low, too, Bob.
On “Crazy people doing crazy things”
I never said they had any hate speech. I said they were vitriolic, which they can be. All the best talk radio people are a bit vitriolic at times. Actually, what bothers me most about Beck is his insincerity. I'll take O'Reilly or Limbaugh over Beck any day. At least I believe that they believe what they're saying. Same goes for Palin. She strikes me as wholly in it for herself, no first principles, no deeper purpose. There are plenty of conservative politicians I admire, but Palin isn't one of them.
On “Rightwing Duck”
I don't do cable either, Bob. I don't even own a TV!
On “Crazy people doing crazy things”
Politics is messy business. Riling up the base is very helpful to those who are doing it.
On “Rightwing Duck”
That's exactly right. And that's the link I was thinking of when I said "I used to think so much more than I do now."
Honestly, I think people are simply torn. Something animal and fierce is stirred up by fierce, passionate, emotive over-the-top punditry. The riling up of the base and the baser parts of ourselves. And people are at the same time turned off by all this and want a 'return to sanity' - to a sanity which I don't think ever truly existed. Politics has always been dirty business.
"
He's certainly not dangerous. Honestly, I think he's a bit of a con-man but he isn't dangerous.
"
Bob:
Well two things.
First, I don't support any laws regulating the freedom of speech whatsoever. Any cautionary words I may have about the discourse amongst Happy Meal Conservatives is cautionary alone.
Second, we have a commenting policy which simply asks that people treat one another with respect, don't flame people for no good reason, and engage one another in honest - if at times forceful - conversation. This is a matter of tone and style. It is the point of the site - to constantly push conversation forward. Not to whine or flame or bait or troll or preach or whatever. To converse. You are an old-timer and I have no intention of 'kicking you off' the site. Stick around. Engage all us Voegelin-illiterates.
"
Tom - I quote quite a few staunch conservative writers at National Review fairly often around here. I quote them because they are writing intelligent, interesting, and compelling stuff. I don't quote Beck or Coulter because they are not compelling or interesting - they are over the top, show-people. They are trafficking in gimmicks far more than they're trafficking in good ideas. I'll take Reihan Salam, Kevin Williamson, Avik Roy or gosh, Jonah Goldberg, over Glenn Beck or Ann Coulter any day of the week.
"
Jaybird:
I don't know, I think you and I actually agree on quite a lot. And I'm not so sure what you or I define as 'inflammatory' is what matters. Beck is an opinionator on Fox News, ergo he is somewhat inflammatory. They want ratings. They don't hire boring, uncontroversial people to host their shows - that's why they're doing so well.
And like I said in the post, Beck and the other pundits don't bother me so much. Yes, I do think that when you have enough people saying that we should be afraid and that the new administration is hell bent on destroying America, you do run the risk of inciting some crazy people to commit violent acts that they may not otherwise commit. I think it is hugely unlikely and rare no matter what, but I think it's possible. I don't think Beck or any other talking head wants that, and I don't think that's their intention at all.
I actually used to watch Beck back when he was on CNN while I was at the gym, and I liked him. I thought he was interesting and entertaining. The maudlin Beck of Fox News is another story. He's way too over the top, melodramatic, etc. Is he dangerous? I don't think so. I used to think so much more than I do now.
I personally don't really enjoy that kind of punditry. I don't like playing on peoples' fears and emotions so much. I like reasonable, amicable discussion with people I would enjoy hanging out with, having a beer with, etc. But is the political discourse in this country so terrible? It could be much worse. Should we be a little uneasy when there's so much gun imagery in our political ads and especially when tensions are so high and unemployment and resentment are so high? I think so.
Do I believe in censorship of any kind - or hate speech laws or any of that? Absolutely not. People should be free to be outrageous or vile or whatever they like and we should be free to criticize them if we so choose.
"
Most definitely.
On “Crazy people doing crazy things”
Just to be very clear: i do not blame anyone on the right, including Palin or Beck, for what happened Saturday. The Unitarian church shooting is much more suspect.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.