But more to the point, if you don’t like the way things are, do something to change it.
Like what? Voting for Obama? That won't get you very far.
It seems to me that the problem is one of fundamental assumptions of one's own jurisdiction.
Do I have the right to tell you what to smoke?
If so, then stuff like what we see in the youtube vid is something that follows from that. (See also: Prohibition.)
If you come from the assumption that I do not have the right to tell you whether you can or cannot drink a beer in the privacy of your own home, then the whole thing of having cops kick down doors and shoot dogs becomes something that only exists in silly hypotheticals because we know that the cops would never, ever do such a thing.
I’ll claim the other side of Lawrence v Texas for the GOP and mainstream conservatives.
What does this mean?
That you feel that "the states" should have the power to kick down doors and arrest two guys for having sex in the privacy of their own home?
"For the rest of them, you've got nuthin'"
Do you know who Ashcroft was?
Do you know who Gonzales was?
The GOP is also the party that opposed, among other things, Lawrence v. Texas, Raich v. Gonzales (nee Raich v. Ashcroft), and the very idea that Schiavo was an issue to be left up to the states.
Oh, and poker on the internet.
But, thanks to establishment-enablers like yourself, we don’t have to find out.
We have a country full of people who have been trained to think of things as Federal Issues. Republicans cash in on this in order to make some short-term gains and then are shocked, shocked to find that people hold them accountable for the stuff that they did in order to cash in for some short-term gains.
Insofar as anyone who might listen to me has voted for people who have expanded government, I have failed.
We, as a society, have decided that we want a government big enough to tell us what to do.
We, as a society, fall for the prettiest lies from the prettiest candidates.
We, as a society, see it as a Republican/Democrat dynamic rather than a Ruling Class/Ruled Class dynamic and so are afflicted, when we see videos such as the above, with people who want to explain that their Ruling Classes are kinder to the Proletariat rather than discuss whether more could be done to make people remember that they used to be citizens.
We, as a society, have decided that we'd rather cut off our noses to spite our faces.
But I'd love to hear you explain how the Republicans would give us a government small enough to ban gay marriage, keep kicking down the doors of medicinal marijuana clinics, and set spending records.
It's almost enough to make you wish that the Republicans would drop the homosexuality thing.
Oh, that's not on the table?
Then I guess I should remain unsurprised that we have two groups of folks who believe that The State should have the right to tell you what to do in the bedroom... it's just that one of the two sides is more interested in giving directions while the other is more interested in giving prohibitions.
I wish that Republicans were principled enough to say that there are things that are none of the government's business. Not even homosexuality or abortion, maybe. Not even Terry Schiavo.
Something tells me that this will end up like our discussions of spending during the years 2002-2006.
The fundamental problem is that both sides agree that we should have a government powerful enough to do this sort of thing, just with enough restraint to *NOT* do this sort of thing.
A government that has decided that such things as "whether you get high" or "whether you get lipitor" as things that fall outside of its jurisdiction would not have these things happen.
The moment you start saying that we, as a society, have a vested interest in maintaining the health and well-being of us, as a society, you open the door to such things as police kicking down doors to make damn sure that nothing as wicked as Drugs poisons us. As a society.
Does socially conservative mean denying evolution, being opposed to gays, and thinking that predicting the Rapture for next Thursday is something that shouldn't be mocked?
Out of curiosity, what is the "centrist" opinion on "teaching the controversy", "gay marriage", or prophecy?
Would you say that most of the mainstream media (that is: Not Fox or AM Radio) would be to the "left" of the centrist position? (I assume that the centrist position is the one that polls a particular way... which, yes, could mean that you could easily argue that the centrist position for gay marriage has recently flipped. That may be a double-edged sword, however.)
It seems like the former head of the RNC and R Lt Gov of Maryland and a former Repub congressman are likely to to count as something like a conservative.
Really? Because it seems far more likely to me that they are, in fact, corporatist. (Maryland? Really?)
I assume that you have no problem with my seeing the traditional media as corporatist but only with my seeing it as condescendingly socially liberal.
Do you remember Daniel Okrent? He wrote a particularly interesting column in which he discussed the social liberalism to be found at the NYT. (Read that column here).
It was so interesting that he had to walk it back... mostly to the tune of two types of criticisms: 1) you're confusing being liberal with being intellectually honest and 2) you're providing aid/comfort to the enemy. (Read that one here.)
Should I assume that any claim that I make about the social liberalism in newsrooms around the country will be rebutted with Fox, the New York Post, and AM Radio? I don't exactly see that as a huge counterargument to my original claim.
The, for lack of a better word, "urbanist" bias of traditional media leads it to suck up to corporations (who buy ads), suck up to unelected political leaders (who provide/deny access), be "bold" and "hard-hitting" on elected political leaders (who cannot be cavilier with access provision/denial), and be about as socially liberal as can be expected of any young person in their 20's/30's who has a college degree in "Journalism".
Let me guess:
Fox News and AM Radio and, anyway, Dan Rather got fired while Bill Kristol is still walking around free as a bird?
However it would also be easy to provide a small essay showing where the MSM has supported conservative framing, hippie punched, supported conservative arguments or excluded liberal view points.
Would the overwhelming majority of these examples be examples where the media would be described as, here, let me quote myself, "corporatist"?
Its neither one nor the other but the way you phrased it is classic Fox News when the situation is simply more complex.
Really? Fox News would describe the media as "a corporatist media that also happens to be condescendingly socially liberal"?
Could you provide an example of Fox Media (or Rush, or Hannity) saying *ANYTHING* like that?
It seems to me that you saw "Y" and are basing your argument on my saying that the media was Y when, really, I said that the media was X and Y... and your arguments against the media being Y involve the media being X.
Would you like me to write you a small essay giving examples of such or would you like to save both of us some time and start ignoring the underlying point right now?
If there is a difference between the quality of output from this school and that school, I'm sure that much of it has to do with the quality of students in either school.
I'm also fairly sure that, if there is a difference in the quality of teachers in both schools, the quality maps to the difference in quality of students.
Now, if we *REALLY* want to get crazy, we can ask what would happen if we swapped teachers wholesale between the two schools and if outcomes would be significantly different in either.
On “We, as a society”
But more to the point, if you don’t like the way things are, do something to change it.
Like what? Voting for Obama? That won't get you very far.
It seems to me that the problem is one of fundamental assumptions of one's own jurisdiction.
Do I have the right to tell you what to smoke?
If so, then stuff like what we see in the youtube vid is something that follows from that. (See also: Prohibition.)
If you come from the assumption that I do not have the right to tell you whether you can or cannot drink a beer in the privacy of your own home, then the whole thing of having cops kick down doors and shoot dogs becomes something that only exists in silly hypotheticals because we know that the cops would never, ever do such a thing.
"
I’ll claim the other side of Lawrence v Texas for the GOP and mainstream conservatives.
What does this mean?
That you feel that "the states" should have the power to kick down doors and arrest two guys for having sex in the privacy of their own home?
"For the rest of them, you've got nuthin'"
Do you know who Ashcroft was?
Do you know who Gonzales was?
Do you know who Bill Frist was?
"
Does Team Red have grounds for impeachment? Do they have enough folks in the House to get some balls rolling?
"
The GOP is also the party that opposed, among other things, Lawrence v. Texas, Raich v. Gonzales (nee Raich v. Ashcroft), and the very idea that Schiavo was an issue to be left up to the states.
Oh, and poker on the internet.
But, thanks to establishment-enablers like yourself, we don’t have to find out.
We have a country full of people who have been trained to think of things as Federal Issues. Republicans cash in on this in order to make some short-term gains and then are shocked, shocked to find that people hold them accountable for the stuff that they did in order to cash in for some short-term gains.
"
You never state what we lose by not having the ability to have some collective action or a government that can do some things.
I am willing to live with fewer omelettes.
"
Insofar as anyone who might listen to me has voted for people who have expanded government, I have failed.
We, as a society, have decided that we want a government big enough to tell us what to do.
We, as a society, fall for the prettiest lies from the prettiest candidates.
We, as a society, see it as a Republican/Democrat dynamic rather than a Ruling Class/Ruled Class dynamic and so are afflicted, when we see videos such as the above, with people who want to explain that their Ruling Classes are kinder to the Proletariat rather than discuss whether more could be done to make people remember that they used to be citizens.
We, as a society, have decided that we'd rather cut off our noses to spite our faces.
But I'd love to hear you explain how the Republicans would give us a government small enough to ban gay marriage, keep kicking down the doors of medicinal marijuana clinics, and set spending records.
"
It's almost enough to make you wish that the Republicans would drop the homosexuality thing.
Oh, that's not on the table?
Then I guess I should remain unsurprised that we have two groups of folks who believe that The State should have the right to tell you what to do in the bedroom... it's just that one of the two sides is more interested in giving directions while the other is more interested in giving prohibitions.
I wish that Republicans were principled enough to say that there are things that are none of the government's business. Not even homosexuality or abortion, maybe. Not even Terry Schiavo.
Something tells me that this will end up like our discussions of spending during the years 2002-2006.
"
The fundamental problem is that both sides agree that we should have a government powerful enough to do this sort of thing, just with enough restraint to *NOT* do this sort of thing.
"
If you agree that we, as a society, are responsible for the health of the members of us, as a society, you open many, many possibilities.
Do you *REALLY* think you can keep a lid on the possibilities you find distasteful when we, as a society, have made a decision, Greg?
Maybe next time will be different?
"
A government without horns gores far, far fewer.
A government that has decided that such things as "whether you get high" or "whether you get lipitor" as things that fall outside of its jurisdiction would not have these things happen.
The moment you start saying that we, as a society, have a vested interest in maintaining the health and well-being of us, as a society, you open the door to such things as police kicking down doors to make damn sure that nothing as wicked as Drugs poisons us. As a society.
"
Please let Koz know.
On “Doubt and Ideology”
I said "socially liberal", Greg.
Your arguments are not addressing that particular argument but are arguing against an argument that I have not made.
"
You say "victory for liberalism" in response to my assertion that the media is "socially liberal (as well as corporatist)".
I'm pretty sure that I would not argue that the media is "liberal". I'm almost certain that I didn't.
"
Does socially conservative mean denying evolution, being opposed to gays, and thinking that predicting the Rapture for next Thursday is something that shouldn't be mocked?
Out of curiosity, what is the "centrist" opinion on "teaching the controversy", "gay marriage", or prophecy?
Would you say that most of the mainstream media (that is: Not Fox or AM Radio) would be to the "left" of the centrist position? (I assume that the centrist position is the one that polls a particular way... which, yes, could mean that you could easily argue that the centrist position for gay marriage has recently flipped. That may be a double-edged sword, however.)
"
It seems like the former head of the RNC and R Lt Gov of Maryland and a former Repub congressman are likely to to count as something like a conservative.
Really? Because it seems far more likely to me that they are, in fact, corporatist. (Maryland? Really?)
"
Let me ask you a question then: prior to the creation of Fox News, would you agree that the Mainstream Media was Liberal (as defined by Okrent)?
"
I assume that you have no problem with my seeing the traditional media as corporatist but only with my seeing it as condescendingly socially liberal.
Do you remember Daniel Okrent? He wrote a particularly interesting column in which he discussed the social liberalism to be found at the NYT. (Read that column here).
It was so interesting that he had to walk it back... mostly to the tune of two types of criticisms: 1) you're confusing being liberal with being intellectually honest and 2) you're providing aid/comfort to the enemy. (Read that one here.)
Should I assume that any claim that I make about the social liberalism in newsrooms around the country will be rebutted with Fox, the New York Post, and AM Radio? I don't exactly see that as a huge counterargument to my original claim.
The, for lack of a better word, "urbanist" bias of traditional media leads it to suck up to corporations (who buy ads), suck up to unelected political leaders (who provide/deny access), be "bold" and "hard-hitting" on elected political leaders (who cannot be cavilier with access provision/denial), and be about as socially liberal as can be expected of any young person in their 20's/30's who has a college degree in "Journalism".
Let me guess:
Fox News and AM Radio and, anyway, Dan Rather got fired while Bill Kristol is still walking around free as a bird?
"
However it would also be easy to provide a small essay showing where the MSM has supported conservative framing, hippie punched, supported conservative arguments or excluded liberal view points.
Would the overwhelming majority of these examples be examples where the media would be described as, here, let me quote myself, "corporatist"?
Its neither one nor the other but the way you phrased it is classic Fox News when the situation is simply more complex.
Really? Fox News would describe the media as "a corporatist media that also happens to be condescendingly socially liberal"?
Could you provide an example of Fox Media (or Rush, or Hannity) saying *ANYTHING* like that?
It seems to me that you saw "Y" and are basing your argument on my saying that the media was Y when, really, I said that the media was X and Y... and your arguments against the media being Y involve the media being X.
"
Was this from Limbaugh or Hannity?
Would you like me to write you a small essay giving examples of such or would you like to save both of us some time and start ignoring the underlying point right now?
"
It's a corporatist media that also happens to be condescendingly socially liberal.
"Glibertarian" might be a better miscategorization of the media than "liberal".
On “Beyond Unions”
racial segregation under the guise of “free market” white flight
I'd be interested in hearing your plan of the best way to go about doing this.
remove local board control that allows teaching of creationism as a scientific “theory.”
How do you propose doing this without opening the door for central control that allows "teaching the controversy"?
On “Let the wind between howl, lonely and wild”
A bleeding heart libertarian puts special emphasis on how much he cares.
Since this, effectively, removes one of the most used arguments against him, this results in him being put in an entirely different category.
On “Beyond Unions”
Why not?
On “The Essay, Reborn”
I think DRM is eating more seed corn than actually creating/protecting crops, if I may stretch an analogy.
On “Beyond Unions”
If there is a difference between the quality of output from this school and that school, I'm sure that much of it has to do with the quality of students in either school.
I'm also fairly sure that, if there is a difference in the quality of teachers in both schools, the quality maps to the difference in quality of students.
Now, if we *REALLY* want to get crazy, we can ask what would happen if we swapped teachers wholesale between the two schools and if outcomes would be significantly different in either.