The appeal here was, "Hey look, there's Republicans in the SEALs and Democrats too, and they put aside their political differences and got the job done." Which is nonsense because to join the military is to commit to serve, and one's personal political preferences are irrelevant to the job.
To not consider personal political preference is the essence of military service. To consider personal political preference is the essence of holding political office.
Now, on the one hand, the emotional appeal of wrapping oneself in the flag, calling for bipartisanship, effective action, not caring overmuch about the differences between people, let's git 'er done -- that's good politics on an emotional level, and that's the sort of political pitch Obama makes exceedingly well. He makes us believe that such things are possible, he makes us want to do such things.
Then reality hits. Congress is not, and was never supposed to be, a squad of Navy SEALs. It is, and was always supposed to be, a deliberative, slow-acting body where political differences get hashed out slowly, roasted in analysis, alloyed in compromise, and ultimately used for the political footballs that they are, all in the hopes that such a process will produce policy that is roughly congruent with the consensus will of the electorate.
The pollster who I think gets it right the rightest and the mostest, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight, is giving Gingrich a 75% probability to win Florida. He points to two demographic advantages Gingrich enjoys over Romney:
Still, Mr. Gingrich is not without advantages in Florida. He has generally polled well among older voters, which will represent a large fraction of the Florida electorate.
Mr. Gingrich, who has a more moderate stance on immigration than Mr. Romney, could also potentially exploit vulnerabilities that Mr. Romney has among Latino voters. In the Florida Republican primary in 2008, according to exit polls of the state, Mr. Romney beat John McCain 34-33 among white voters. However, Mr. McCain’s large advantage with Latino voters — among whom he defeated Mr. Romney by a margin of 54 percent to 14 percent — helped to swing the victory to him there.
Getting down into the nuts and bolts, the delegate count as of right now is: Gingrich 25, Romney 14, Paul 10, Santorum 8. One delegate may switch from Romney to Santorum based on certification of the Iowa caucuses. Florida has 50 delegates on offer on a winner-take-all basis. After Florida comes Nevada (February 4) and Maine, with its week-long (February 4-11) caucus, both of which should be healthy wins for Romney -- Maine for moderation and geographic proximity, Nevada for a heavy Mormon population. On February 7, there's Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, which I think are harder to call because these are larger and more diverse states -- but larger states, three of which will be going on the same day, seems to favor a more well-financed and well-organized campaign, and that's Romney. In terms of total number of votes, Romney has 294,813 and Gingrich has 282,907, out of just under a million total cast so far.
I do find it interesting that this discussion is still occurring in the American States, given that you colonials over two centuries had a situation wherein a rather vocal and violent minority of you declared a war upon your parental nation and proceeded to establish what was a very secularist government, only now to retroactively seem to be declaring it to be in actually a stealthy christianist government instead.
But you raise an interesting example, David -- religion and politics mix, all too often, like vinegar and baking (bicarbonate of) soda, creating a smelly, messy, and sometimes violent reaction. On our side of the Pond, we're very pleased to see the Troubles receding. It is partially out of an abundance of caution that such a state of affairs does not arise here that I write cautionary posts such as these.
And I think I've got all the HTML cleaned up, as I noted below.
For some reason, publishing directly from my word processor fished up all the hyperlinks to all the quotes from Gingrich I'd found; I believe and hope that I've fixed all the broken hyperlinks in the OP now.
In other words, I’ve never been very convinced Newt wants a theocracy; I’ve only ever been convinced that he wants power.
That was my thought until recently. My fear is that his recent political positioning has painted him in something of a corner in the gratefully unlikely event he were to actually be elected -- and I've noticed that recent converts to a new denomination, as Gingrich is, tend to be exceptionally enthusiastic about Spreading The Good News.
For Newt, secularism strikes at the heart of what it means to be an American. It’s unfortunate, because secularism is good for religion and for the state.
Thank you for this acknowledgement, Tod. The whole exercise was internally disquieting for me and posting it was something I did with trepidcation, knowing the risk of some people being ready to make a contrary assumption. It's good to be understood.
Taking this argument a step further -- does this mean that a political agenda of minimizing the scope or extent of activities undertaken by the Federal government is aimed at returning to the good ol' days of Jim Crow? (Or perhaps that should be "minimizing the scope or extent of particular activities undertaken by the Feds", begging the question of which ones.) That seems to be where you're going with this point, but I'm not sure if you want to go quite that far.
Unless there is oil. In which case Greenland might very well reasonably expect to become economically strong enough to claim effective independence in its upcoming referendum.
Plinko's not the only Cheesehead here still wondering who those guys were that played the Giants this just-past Sunday. They looked a lot like the Green Bay Packers but obviously were not the same people. Uncanny.
Welcome, Nob. You've been tearing up the comments like nobody's business, and I am really looking forward to your stuff.
I had not been informed you had been made a frontpager, or I wouldn't have stepped on your toes for the Friday Jukebox with the Etta James tribute. Apologies. Of course, more Jukeboxing would surely be welcome...
In light of this concept, as cogent an articulation of the philosophy of natural law as I've read in months if not years:
...certain expressions of these institutions deviate so violently from the objective, natural law that to call them “laws” merely because they were enacted through a particular procedure would work a great moral wrong. This was so with Dred Scott, and, it is the claim, anyway, it is so with Roe. And with some other cases, maybe, but nowhere as gravely as with Roe.
If the legal tolerance of abortion is a great moral wrong of such a magnitude that we must not call it law at all, then it matters not at all whether abortion became legally sanctioned by way of a judicial decision or an act of the legislature or a ballot initiative. The procedural mechanism used to reach that goal is really irrelevant.
So aren't you now adoptiong the concept of substantive due process?
So far, so good. I don't mind being challenged as "wrong," especially if it's something about which I was simply unaware.
I would have minded being challenged as "racist" because I tried to bend over backwards in the OP to offer a posture of good faith and inquiry on an issue which I know in advance will be sensitive. But you've not done that [called me a racist, that is].
Yeah, I see that; it is helpful to get the direct quote that Williams was referencing in his opening statement. I thank you for that. And apparently unlike Gingrich, I can see how "Hey, all you black people are on food stamps, you should get jobs instead!" would tend to make said black people upset.
It's odd, though, that so little of the last two days' worth of outrage about what Gingrich said in the debate included that context -- I missed the original remarks, so that may account for a big hunk of my own confusion.
David seems pleasant enough. Whatever points David raises will stand, or not, on their own merits. For now, my opinion is that he's acted and posted entirely acceptably, so that's good.
I'd be irritated too if my identity were questioned as his has been. I think David has expressed that irritation appropriately. I, for one, will accept David for who he represents himself to be.
Our commenting culture matters. Debatably, it matters even more than does the high quality of thought and writing that goes in to the posts. I think it's healthy that our online community check itself from time to time and make an effort to preserve that culture. (Consider a parallel discussion going on at Volokh Conspiracy, one of the most well-trafficked blogs out there in no small part because of its commenting culture.)
In a recent pointed-but-professional exchange I stated to Density Duck that rudeness could obscure the logical thrust of a valid argument, and stated, "I do not owe you a duty of unpacking your statements to weed out the valid from the rude." I suggest this has to be the case, if we are to preserve a pleasant commenting culture, else we create a situation in which trolls are given license to be rude and the rest of us spend all our time picking apart emotionally-laden comments in an attempt to filter out the value from the invective. This generated some cheers.
Partially in response to this and partially in an omnibus response to some other exchanges going on at about the same time, DD stated (among other things)...
..."rudeness" is in the eye of the beholder. It’s subjective, it’s aesthetic, it’s emotional. ... if you want to refuse communication for emotional reasons, there’s nothing wrong with that. It’s an emotional judgement, not a logical one. But it’s important to understand what decision you are making, and why you are making it.
...Which is a worthy point indeed, among several other worthy points in the same comment. A comment thought by many to be rude many indeed nevertheless contain a valid point, and that ought to be minimally acceptable. DD's omnibus summary also generated cheers, and deservedly so.
I don't think we need to pick one philosophy over the other; both can coexist. We probably do need to tolerate things that are questionably rude in order to have a free forum in which to exchange ideas. At the same time, we should strive to write and comment in such a manner as to never raise the issue of rudeness in the first place. The difference is between "should" and "must," between best practices and minimally acceptable practices.
Best practices and minimally acceptable practice are not the same thing. Let the commenting policy reflect the minimally acceptable standard, and consistent with the ideas therein, let the consensus of those not directly involved in a troublesome exchange be the judge of whether minimal standards have been violated. But let us all nevertheless strive to achieve and exhibit best practices, and set the standard for argumentative excellence well above that which is minimally acceptable.
Well. Let it never be said that the ladies cannot be every bit as bad-ass as the gents!
(My guess is that the Batman's armor includes the equivalent of a cup. It'd still hurt, though.)
Fox was willing to tolerate it just that once because there really was a ticking time bomb situation going on. But he was unconvinced that anyone, even Bruce Wayne whose good intentions he did not doubt, could ever be trusted to restrain themselves from later abusing a tool that powerful and that intrusive.
So he gave Wayne the tool and said, "I'm out after this." Not altogether unreasonable, IMO.
On “Obama, Punditry, and the State of the Union Address That Ensured a Second Term”
That new gravatar is weirdly humorous, Ryan.
"
The appeal here was, "Hey look, there's Republicans in the SEALs and Democrats too, and they put aside their political differences and got the job done." Which is nonsense because to join the military is to commit to serve, and one's personal political preferences are irrelevant to the job.
To not consider personal political preference is the essence of military service. To consider personal political preference is the essence of holding political office.
Now, on the one hand, the emotional appeal of wrapping oneself in the flag, calling for bipartisanship, effective action, not caring overmuch about the differences between people, let's git 'er done -- that's good politics on an emotional level, and that's the sort of political pitch Obama makes exceedingly well. He makes us believe that such things are possible, he makes us want to do such things.
Then reality hits. Congress is not, and was never supposed to be, a squad of Navy SEALs. It is, and was always supposed to be, a deliberative, slow-acting body where political differences get hashed out slowly, roasted in analysis, alloyed in compromise, and ultimately used for the political footballs that they are, all in the hopes that such a process will produce policy that is roughly congruent with the consensus will of the electorate.
On “SOTU Reactions”
Vladimir Putin: "I know what gays like... I know what gays want... I know what gays like, gays like, gays like ME."
On “Win Or Lose In 2012, Obama’s Got No Class”
The pollster who I think gets it right the rightest and the mostest, Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight, is giving Gingrich a 75% probability to win Florida. He points to two demographic advantages Gingrich enjoys over Romney:
Getting down into the nuts and bolts, the delegate count as of right now is: Gingrich 25, Romney 14, Paul 10, Santorum 8. One delegate may switch from Romney to Santorum based on certification of the Iowa caucuses. Florida has 50 delegates on offer on a winner-take-all basis. After Florida comes Nevada (February 4) and Maine, with its week-long (February 4-11) caucus, both of which should be healthy wins for Romney -- Maine for moderation and geographic proximity, Nevada for a heavy Mormon population. On February 7, there's Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, which I think are harder to call because these are larger and more diverse states -- but larger states, three of which will be going on the same day, seems to favor a more well-financed and well-organized campaign, and that's Romney. In terms of total number of votes, Romney has 294,813 and Gingrich has 282,907, out of just under a million total cast so far.
On “A Long Drink From The Well of Theocracy”
IIRC, our complaint against HM George III Hanover's government was not that was either insufficiently Christian, nor too overbearingly Christian. It had much more to do with the scope of participatory democracy, criminal procedure, and military/civilian relations. Perhaps in your green and pleasant land history is taught differently.
But you raise an interesting example, David -- religion and politics mix, all too often, like vinegar and baking (bicarbonate of) soda, creating a smelly, messy, and sometimes violent reaction. On our side of the Pond, we're very pleased to see the Troubles receding. It is partially out of an abundance of caution that such a state of affairs does not arise here that I write cautionary posts such as these.
And I think I've got all the HTML cleaned up, as I noted below.
"
For some reason, publishing directly from my word processor fished up all the hyperlinks to all the quotes from Gingrich I'd found; I believe and hope that I've fixed all the broken hyperlinks in the OP now.
"
That was my thought until recently. My fear is that his recent political positioning has painted him in something of a corner in the gratefully unlikely event he were to actually be elected -- and I've noticed that recent converts to a new denomination, as Gingrich is, tend to be exceptionally enthusiastic about Spreading The Good News.
"
+1.
On “A Quick Question for the Hive”
Pardon awkward editing as I comment from my phone.
On “The Calling of the Dogs”
Thank you for this acknowledgement, Tod. The whole exercise was internally disquieting for me and posting it was something I did with trepidcation, knowing the risk of some people being ready to make a contrary assumption. It's good to be understood.
"
Taking this argument a step further -- does this mean that a political agenda of minimizing the scope or extent of activities undertaken by the Federal government is aimed at returning to the good ol' days of Jim Crow? (Or perhaps that should be "minimizing the scope or extent of particular activities undertaken by the Feds", begging the question of which ones.) That seems to be where you're going with this point, but I'm not sure if you want to go quite that far.
On “Fluid Borders”
Unless there is oil. In which case Greenland might very well reasonably expect to become economically strong enough to claim effective independence in its upcoming referendum.
On “Nob-les Oblige: An Introduction”
Plinko's not the only Cheesehead here still wondering who those guys were that played the Giants this just-past Sunday. They looked a lot like the Green Bay Packers but obviously were not the same people. Uncanny.
On “Fluid Borders”
Is there a map or some other visual aid to demonstrate the extent of EEZ claim conflicts?
On “Nob-les Oblige: An Introduction”
Welcome, Nob. You've been tearing up the comments like nobody's business, and I am really looking forward to your stuff.
I had not been informed you had been made a frontpager, or I wouldn't have stepped on your toes for the Friday Jukebox with the Etta James tribute. Apologies. Of course, more Jukeboxing would surely be welcome...
On “Newt The Nullifier”
In light of this concept, as cogent an articulation of the philosophy of natural law as I've read in months if not years:
If the legal tolerance of abortion is a great moral wrong of such a magnitude that we must not call it law at all, then it matters not at all whether abortion became legally sanctioned by way of a judicial decision or an act of the legislature or a ballot initiative. The procedural mechanism used to reach that goal is really irrelevant.
So aren't you now adoptiong the concept of substantive due process?
On “In Which I Confess An Inability To Decipher Racial Code”
Got a link to the original?
"
So far, so good. I don't mind being challenged as "wrong," especially if it's something about which I was simply unaware.
I would have minded being challenged as "racist" because I tried to bend over backwards in the OP to offer a posture of good faith and inquiry on an issue which I know in advance will be sensitive. But you've not done that [called me a racist, that is].
"
Yeah, I see that; it is helpful to get the direct quote that Williams was referencing in his opening statement. I thank you for that. And apparently unlike Gingrich, I can see how "Hey, all you black people are on food stamps, you should get jobs instead!" would tend to make said black people upset.
It's odd, though, that so little of the last two days' worth of outrage about what Gingrich said in the debate included that context -- I missed the original remarks, so that may account for a big hunk of my own confusion.
"
So he's maybe not a racist, but he does say racist things?
Distinction without a difference.
On “Comment Deletion, Comment Policy, etc.”
David seems pleasant enough. Whatever points David raises will stand, or not, on their own merits. For now, my opinion is that he's acted and posted entirely acceptably, so that's good.
I'd be irritated too if my identity were questioned as his has been. I think David has expressed that irritation appropriately. I, for one, will accept David for who he represents himself to be.
"
Our commenting culture matters. Debatably, it matters even more than does the high quality of thought and writing that goes in to the posts. I think it's healthy that our online community check itself from time to time and make an effort to preserve that culture. (Consider a parallel discussion going on at Volokh Conspiracy, one of the most well-trafficked blogs out there in no small part because of its commenting culture.)
In a recent pointed-but-professional exchange I stated to Density Duck that rudeness could obscure the logical thrust of a valid argument, and stated, "I do not owe you a duty of unpacking your statements to weed out the valid from the rude." I suggest this has to be the case, if we are to preserve a pleasant commenting culture, else we create a situation in which trolls are given license to be rude and the rest of us spend all our time picking apart emotionally-laden comments in an attempt to filter out the value from the invective. This generated some cheers.
Partially in response to this and partially in an omnibus response to some other exchanges going on at about the same time, DD stated (among other things)...
...Which is a worthy point indeed, among several other worthy points in the same comment. A comment thought by many to be rude many indeed nevertheless contain a valid point, and that ought to be minimally acceptable. DD's omnibus summary also generated cheers, and deservedly so.
I don't think we need to pick one philosophy over the other; both can coexist. We probably do need to tolerate things that are questionably rude in order to have a free forum in which to exchange ideas. At the same time, we should strive to write and comment in such a manner as to never raise the issue of rudeness in the first place. The difference is between "should" and "must," between best practices and minimally acceptable practices.
Best practices and minimally acceptable practice are not the same thing. Let the commenting policy reflect the minimally acceptable standard, and consistent with the ideas therein, let the consensus of those not directly involved in a troublesome exchange be the judge of whether minimal standards have been violated. But let us all nevertheless strive to achieve and exhibit best practices, and set the standard for argumentative excellence well above that which is minimally acceptable.
On “Batman and Civil Society”
Well. Let it never be said that the ladies cannot be every bit as bad-ass as the gents!
(My guess is that the Batman's armor includes the equivalent of a cup. It'd still hurt, though.)
"
You're right. At that point, the movie loses all touch with reality.
"
Fox was willing to tolerate it just that once because there really was a ticking time bomb situation going on. But he was unconvinced that anyone, even Bruce Wayne whose good intentions he did not doubt, could ever be trusted to restrain themselves from later abusing a tool that powerful and that intrusive.
So he gave Wayne the tool and said, "I'm out after this." Not altogether unreasonable, IMO.