E.D. you say, "I’m an anti-missionary, no matter the faith." That is in #9. I always thought that Jesus charged the apostles to go forth and spread the good news, the Gospels. Right? Are you anti-Jesus?
I see the strong executive argument you offer as a distinction without a difference.
Now would you call Jefferson a strong executive or just a president that may have created a single expansion of presidential prerogatives?
The office has obviously been strengthened over time. But is this growth the result of some political philosophy or the accumulation of power steps here and there? Both of course. And let's not ignore congressional abdication of their constitutional powers. And the Supreme Court has both strengthened and weakened the office, weakended only in the sense of rejucting specific claims.
A recent example of a philosophical call expansion of presidential power is the Dick Cheney David Addington authored call for a strong executive in the congressional minority report they authored in 1987 regarding the Iran-contra affair. There Cheney/Addington wrote in favor of "monarchical" powers for the president going back to British kings. I am sure DOJ authored several memos clearing the way for the recent Bush to spy on Americans, hold detainees without legal service's etc. The list is long and no doubt well know to you.
But this is somewhat off topic with regard to strong executive and populism.
With regard to A. Jackson I must admit great ignorance. The only things I recall about his administration are his removal policy for Native Americans, being PC here, and his fight against the National Bank. So I will not attempt to comment on any relationship you see between him and populism.
I realize that your comment was directed at The God Delusion, not all of his writing's. But you only have faith to back-up your theory that the book is nothing but a money grubbing enterprise. And when I write "faith" I mean it is a belief. You can't, I dare you, to offer one single fact to back up your claim that the book was written in, as the saying goes, "bad faith". Are you privy to a letter Dawkins sent the publisher proffering a book that would pad the bank account of both the author and publisher but would otherwise have no merit? Some fact like that?
Wow! And I thought I made over the top generalizations. I just can't believe you wrote this, "The reason I harp on their money-making is that this can be the only explanation to write this sort of pointless screed. It’s not an intellectual pursuit at all...." This defines cynical.
And this, "...(and yes, I’m sorry, but the purpose of Christianity is not to build wealth but to live simply and good and with as little as possible)...."
E.D. if I was to become religious and christian I would be right there. But as an atheist, an imperfect label, I can say the purpose of my life "is not to build wealth but to live simply an good and with as little as possible." Well said Mr. Kain.
The Wow factor is the fact your "purpose of Christianity" is not universally accepted. (I know you are not saying that.) But a large number of the followers of Christ reject your definition. I guess they are generally refereed to as Charismatic, followers of Prosperity Gospel (PG)/theology. Even to me, one that has no use for religion but is reasonably aware of contemporary events, the folk associated with PG trip right off my finger tips: Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer etc.
E.D., if your philosophy held sway in the christian community we would be having that Kum Ba Yah moment.
But no singing yet, not as long as you continue to hold the "pointless screed" theory.
Your harping on the books and the riches atheists glean from the sales trivializes your argument. If Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens write books you find lacking criticize the book, point out the slender threads from which the author weave their arguments. Your wholesale condemnation of their enterprise is silly. You are gracious enough, however, to allow that this is their right, it is, after all, still a free country, turning a buck is allowed. You come dangerously close to blurting out it is just a money making industry, you disallow the possibility that the books do indeed represent the authors honest thoughts. You assert, you offer no evidence. You offer snarky comments, "religion-basher," "Tales Told by Idiots...," "...a compleat waste of time." Those are your words.
Regarding the religious niche found in book stores I have noticed that pro-religious books far out number the atheist titles. Check it out the next time you are in a book store. But this only makes sense since an overwhelming number of Americans claim some degree of belief in a god. I am unwilling to accuse those writers of being in it only for the money. I am willing to bet that Rick Warren has sold more books than Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens combined. But you don't have a word to say about that side of the coin.
E.D. I'm going to limit my comment at this time. Perhaps more latter.
1. If we want to go to the early 19th century why not point to Jefferson? I can see a case for him being the grand daddy of populism, the yeoman farmer and all that stuff. And don't forget the Louisiana Purchase. An act that has no recognizable Constitutional backing. That speaks to a pretty strong President.
2. I'm not seeing any necessary connection to your strong presidency and populism. In fact is it not possible that a weak president might be more amenable to populist pressure. Just wondering, I have never thought about such a possibility. Looking forward to your thinking on this. I'm agnostic on this point (just need to keep the religion thread going.)
3. Perhaps this a continuation of #2. Neither Jefferson nor Jackson, or whoever was first, assured that the institution of the presidency would have a strong occupant. I need only mention James Buchanan to make my point. Strong Presidents seem more to hing on the man. The times will not necessarily transform a weak man, Buchanan again, into a strong leader. God know America needed a strong President in the years before the Civil War, but we had Buchanan. A man incapable of reconciling slave and free states, he could not even bring his own party together.
E.D. you write, "...I’m pretty sure populism has gotten us into more trouble than good."
I think a pretty good case can be made for populism and it's morphing into the progressive movement of the early 20th century. Both the populist movement after The Civil War and the progressive movement were largely anti big business. I'm going to use broad strokes here but I see the Muckrakers, the rise of labor unions, creation of the National Park system, early food and drug regulation as very positive results.
Early 21st century populism as defined by Kristol, Buchanan, Plain, Warren and others is very much a work in progress. I see no reason to be hopeful that a movement head by the above will come to any good. Their populism bears no resemblance to the populism I praise above. In fact it appears to offer the exact opposit set of goals. Anti labor, anti regulation, etc. Demographics seem to argue against their ascendancy, but events might put them in power. The crystal ball I have is good only good for breaking the glass of that vending machine.
Yes mark, I was ticked off. You ascribed views to Freddie he did not voice. I think he was saying name calling and arguing in bad faith accomplishes nothing. But Freddie can weigh in on this if needs be.
I've calmed down and if apologies are in order, and they are, they are owed to you. So please accept my apology.
I find the oogedy-boogedy quotient of your post high. Talk about living in an ivory tower, grad students obviously don't put their pants on one leg at a time, perhaps not even bothering with pants, just to busy contemplating "pantness."
But some specifics.
You write, "Rather than the stupid inane question of whether God exists or not (easy answer: Who Cares?) why not people share what is of deepest value to them. What they ultimately put their trust and their hope in? What gives them strength in their darkest days, what gets them out of the bed in the morning? That would at least serve some function and could bring some spirit to the event."
1. What do you mean, "Who Cares?" I care because belief in god motivates actions, good and bad. But it is obviously the bad religious actors that I care about. I know, I know, I'm just being silly. Nineteen Allah worshiping nuts don't really high jack plains all that often. And when was the last time we had videos posted of religious motivated be headings. Ages ago. Pat Robertson has seemingly given up blaming bad weather on gays. And you are correct, who cares that the Pope has lifted the excommunication of a Holocaust denying bishop. The only people that might care are ones that worry about something other than their seminar, "The Greek Influence on Calvin."
2. '...what gets them out of bed in the morning?" You mean other than that seminar? Oh, I don't know. Getting the kids off to school, no, can't be that. Going to work, or maybe looking for work, no, that is so middle class, even low brow. Forget that one. Flying planes into buildings, sounds right. I'll vote for mas murder. It's good to have a reason to get out of bed, especially one so edifying.
Perhaps if the existence of gods could somehow be shown false flying planes into buildings, and other religiously motivated acts, would no longer get people out of bed. I'm with Chris Hitchens on this, "religion poisons everything."
You write, "And in that regard the “New” Atheists–who are at least in their thinking 300 years old…not exactly new–they mean the theistic/deistic god of classical Protestantism from the 17th century onwards. A God (or god) who is a being, a thing of some sort who either gets the whole universe-thing going and stays out (deism) or has super-powers to get involved at certain key points and do some super-magic: rise from graves, zap baddies, presto chango healings, etc."
Is "New Atheists" your concept or one trotted around grad school? I ask only because it is new to me and just curious as to it's origin. Regardless, the definition you offer above seems (how can I say this without giving offense?) wrong. No offense.
I just have three words to offer to refute it, Charles Darwin evolution.
Later this month will mark the 200 year birthday of Darwin. His book was published about 1859 - 1860, I should look that up but I think the time frame is accurate. I find your assertion that nothing has changed in the last 300 years odd. Darwin changed everything. And the more science discovers about the evolution of the earth and life the more we have reason to question Iron Age myths. Now "young earth" advocates will just ignore or condemn Darwin. Creationists and intelligent design theorists will just fall back on some type of god, talk about nothing new.
Any way I have gone on way too long for a comment, but just had to say it. And I am sorry for the snarky comments on grad school, kind'a, I have been there.
Mark, where exactly does Freddie assert that Dawkins and company "accomplish nothing?"
Dawkin's, "The God Delusion," spent well more than a year on the NYTimes best sellers list. This is something of an accomplishment. It provoked a lot of discussion. Sam Harris has also written two best sellers, but according to you this does not count as an accomplishment.
Look Mark, if you think atheist thought was being discussed 15 years ago as much as it is today then you are correct, Dawkins, Maher, Harris have accomplished nothing. On the other, hand if you can bring yourself to admit that atheist thought is much more now in the public discussion you gotta admit that these guys have accomplished a good deal.
You write, "I was under the impression that Yglesias’s failure to mention deficit spending was precisely the problem." Perhaps so, but as you will see if you review my comment I conjectured that Matt may well defend deficit spending, but that was not the case with the post Ross linked.
After I said that I googled "Yglesias deficits." The result, almost 40,000 hits. The first two selections confirmed my suspicion, Matt does see a case for deficit spending. The posts are 1) "Sucker's Bet" posted 9/24/08 and 2) "Deficits Only Matter When They Matter" posted 12/1/08. I recommend them for an insight to his thinking not only on deficits but also taxes. I his September post Matt writes, "...the case seems clear for wildly higher tax rates on high-income individuals than prevailed during the Clinton years. Are we afraid of stifling the kind of fat cat activity that’s brought us to our current situation?" Way to go, Matt!
Now I have no problem with Ross using Yglesias as a foil. But I do have a problem with Ross misleading, my view, readers into thinking Matt was talking about deficits in that particular post. Or even your view, that the criticism offered by Ross goes to the fact that Matt did NOT mention deficits. The plain fact is deficits were not on the table. And in general I have a problem with any criticism that focuses on what was not done, said, written. And I think in the short form comments both Ross and Matt tend to use it is really unfair to criticize comments on what was not written.
On the matter of deficits. I think it is pretty clear that everyone, yes everyone, will find cases where deficit spending is necessary, from the most principled conservative to the most profligate liberal. So in that broad sense deficits are not the issue. It's just a question of which ox is being gored.
On the question, are the democrats and President Obama making a political mistake by backing a broad stimulus plan? Are they being short-sighted?
I have no idea. Especially since the plan remains in flux. Maybe Obama will return to the Larry Summers view of a more targeted stimulus, give republican senators something they can vote for. I will, however, go out on the limb and say if economic conditions in the summer of 2010 are not much improved republicans will have a lot of ammunition
But I hope I have made my by bitch with Ross a bit more clear.
The post "What 'Belongs' In the Stimulus" by Yglesias does NOT even mention deficits. He is only questioning the reasoning of those who oppose the inclusion of certain parts of the stimulus, Sen. Nelson and David Brooks to be specific.
Douthat's "Deficits Don't Matter?" sights the Yglesias post and goes from there. But sighting Yglesias seems to imply that Yglesias is defending deficit spending. Matt may indeed defend the practice but he does not do so in the post Ross sights. That is very misleading.
I applaud Larison for his nod to historical context and allowing for the multivalent, but those qualifiers broaden any discussion, something the dogmatic are loath to do.
Thanks for the discussion and I promise I'm finished beating this poor horse.
Cascadian is exactly right. In your selection from Larison he says, "I assume Kain uses dogmatic here to mean inflexible or uncompromising, but this does not take into account the inherent flexibility and minimalism of dogma."
Well that definition, "inflexable" and "uncompromiing" is standard American usage of the word. It is not shocking that you would the word as understood.
The only reason to quote that passage is to refute it, but you fall into the Larison can do no wrong trap so common on the web. Larison is not infallible.
And this, immediately preceding, grates, "...fundamentalists are to some extent the terrible simplifiers of rich dogmatic traditions." I could almost buy this thought if his construction was somewhat different, maybe this, "...fundamentalists are to some extent terrible simplifiers of the rich traditions found in dogma." When he writes "rich dogmatic traditions" the only conceivable definition of "rich" is laughable. That's rich Mr. Larison!
All this inside the blog world weeping and ripping of garments is pathetic. Scott writes in his lachrymose good bye "...C11 was destined to be much more than just an on line magazine or a series of blogs." Apparently those in control of destiny had a different destination in mind. Jeez, maybe Calvin was right, good works count for naught. I'm relegated to a very uncomfortable spot, I mean that rock and hard space, frying pan into the fire, agreeing with Will. Oh Lord, what shall we read! Let's hear it for the free market.
Jake, I am referring to your comment #2 above, here it is in full,
"2) improved tax status- not necessarily so. just wiki marriage penalty."
I am not saying you claimed "all" benefit from federal tax regulations regarding marital status. I only pointed out that denying gay couples the right to equal status under the rules is, well, unequal treatment. And your statement is totally disingenuous. I don't know how I could be any clearer. But let me try once again, some couples win, some have the penalty. And tax rules should not discriminate because of sexual orientation.
Here is my original comment, read carefully.
jake, your continued insistence on pressing that marriage penalty argument is off the mark. Just because some married couples pay more because of that quirk, does not mean all suffer. Obviously some, maybe most, benefit. So asserting that gay couples do not suffer because they are not allowed to take advantage of federal tax rules is just wrong. Some gays would benefit, some would pay the penalty. I know you will not change your opinion regarding same sex marriage, but jesus, please argue in good faith.
jake, your continued insistence on pressing that marriage penalty argument is off the mark. Just because some married couples pay more because of that quirk, does not mean all suffer. Obviously some, maybe most, benefit. So asserting that gay couples do not suffer because they are not allowed to take advantage of federal tax rules is just wrong. Some gays would benefit, some would pay the penalty. I know you will not change your opinion regarding same sex marriage, but jesus, please argue in good faith.
Ed, you really need to re-read my comment, #68. There is NO way for you to argue that I am arguing against “traffic signals” or any other law. Buddy, it’s just not there.
I think you have pretty much conceded that marriage is cultural, not nature, so I’m satisfied with that. I could pick at your last post, for example, your “all life” is dependent on male female “intersexual activity," since asexual reproduction continues and that type of reproduction is very important for the world to go on "as we now (sic) it...."
But I think we have pretty much exhausted this whole thing.
"It does all go back to the hoped-for ability to reproduce and continue the bloodline."
Two questions Ed,
1. In the historical context where do you place this "hoped-for" outcome?
2. Isn't this "hoped-for" out come a function of culture, especially as it relates to marriage? Marriage being a really really recent development of human history and prehistory I just cant buy you nature argument.
The genus homo dates to about 2.5 million years ago. Modern humans to about 200, 000 years ago. The intuition of marriage, state sanctioned marriage, is at best several thousand years old. I grant that neither anthropology or history provides us with reliable information regarding marriage, but history does show that church/state interest in marriage is of recent vintage. Again undercutting your nature argument.
On “Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury…”
E.D. you say, "I’m an anti-missionary, no matter the faith." That is in #9. I always thought that Jesus charged the apostles to go forth and spread the good news, the Gospels. Right? Are you anti-Jesus?
On “In defense of snark”
I see the strong executive argument you offer as a distinction without a difference.
Now would you call Jefferson a strong executive or just a president that may have created a single expansion of presidential prerogatives?
The office has obviously been strengthened over time. But is this growth the result of some political philosophy or the accumulation of power steps here and there? Both of course. And let's not ignore congressional abdication of their constitutional powers. And the Supreme Court has both strengthened and weakened the office, weakended only in the sense of rejucting specific claims.
A recent example of a philosophical call expansion of presidential power is the Dick Cheney David Addington authored call for a strong executive in the congressional minority report they authored in 1987 regarding the Iran-contra affair. There Cheney/Addington wrote in favor of "monarchical" powers for the president going back to British kings. I am sure DOJ authored several memos clearing the way for the recent Bush to spy on Americans, hold detainees without legal service's etc. The list is long and no doubt well know to you.
But this is somewhat off topic with regard to strong executive and populism.
With regard to A. Jackson I must admit great ignorance. The only things I recall about his administration are his removal policy for Native Americans, being PC here, and his fight against the National Bank. So I will not attempt to comment on any relationship you see between him and populism.
On “Tales told by idiots, full of sound and fury…”
I realize that your comment was directed at The God Delusion, not all of his writing's. But you only have faith to back-up your theory that the book is nothing but a money grubbing enterprise. And when I write "faith" I mean it is a belief. You can't, I dare you, to offer one single fact to back up your claim that the book was written in, as the saying goes, "bad faith". Are you privy to a letter Dawkins sent the publisher proffering a book that would pad the bank account of both the author and publisher but would otherwise have no merit? Some fact like that?
"
Wow! And I thought I made over the top generalizations. I just can't believe you wrote this, "The reason I harp on their money-making is that this can be the only explanation to write this sort of pointless screed. It’s not an intellectual pursuit at all...." This defines cynical.
And this, "...(and yes, I’m sorry, but the purpose of Christianity is not to build wealth but to live simply and good and with as little as possible)...."
E.D. if I was to become religious and christian I would be right there. But as an atheist, an imperfect label, I can say the purpose of my life "is not to build wealth but to live simply an good and with as little as possible." Well said Mr. Kain.
The Wow factor is the fact your "purpose of Christianity" is not universally accepted. (I know you are not saying that.) But a large number of the followers of Christ reject your definition. I guess they are generally refereed to as Charismatic, followers of Prosperity Gospel (PG)/theology. Even to me, one that has no use for religion but is reasonably aware of contemporary events, the folk associated with PG trip right off my finger tips: Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer etc.
E.D., if your philosophy held sway in the christian community we would be having that Kum Ba Yah moment.
But no singing yet, not as long as you continue to hold the "pointless screed" theory.
I love you, ya' big lug!
"
Your harping on the books and the riches atheists glean from the sales trivializes your argument. If Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens write books you find lacking criticize the book, point out the slender threads from which the author weave their arguments. Your wholesale condemnation of their enterprise is silly. You are gracious enough, however, to allow that this is their right, it is, after all, still a free country, turning a buck is allowed. You come dangerously close to blurting out it is just a money making industry, you disallow the possibility that the books do indeed represent the authors honest thoughts. You assert, you offer no evidence. You offer snarky comments, "religion-basher," "Tales Told by Idiots...," "...a compleat waste of time." Those are your words.
Regarding the religious niche found in book stores I have noticed that pro-religious books far out number the atheist titles. Check it out the next time you are in a book store. But this only makes sense since an overwhelming number of Americans claim some degree of belief in a god. I am unwilling to accuse those writers of being in it only for the money. I am willing to bet that Rick Warren has sold more books than Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens combined. But you don't have a word to say about that side of the coin.
On “In defense of snark”
E.D. I'm going to limit my comment at this time. Perhaps more latter.
1. If we want to go to the early 19th century why not point to Jefferson? I can see a case for him being the grand daddy of populism, the yeoman farmer and all that stuff. And don't forget the Louisiana Purchase. An act that has no recognizable Constitutional backing. That speaks to a pretty strong President.
2. I'm not seeing any necessary connection to your strong presidency and populism. In fact is it not possible that a weak president might be more amenable to populist pressure. Just wondering, I have never thought about such a possibility. Looking forward to your thinking on this. I'm agnostic on this point (just need to keep the religion thread going.)
3. Perhaps this a continuation of #2. Neither Jefferson nor Jackson, or whoever was first, assured that the institution of the presidency would have a strong occupant. I need only mention James Buchanan to make my point. Strong Presidents seem more to hing on the man. The times will not necessarily transform a weak man, Buchanan again, into a strong leader. God know America needed a strong President in the years before the Civil War, but we had Buchanan. A man incapable of reconciling slave and free states, he could not even bring his own party together.
Back to you Mr. Kain
"
E.D. you write, "...I’m pretty sure populism has gotten us into more trouble than good."
I think a pretty good case can be made for populism and it's morphing into the progressive movement of the early 20th century. Both the populist movement after The Civil War and the progressive movement were largely anti big business. I'm going to use broad strokes here but I see the Muckrakers, the rise of labor unions, creation of the National Park system, early food and drug regulation as very positive results.
Early 21st century populism as defined by Kristol, Buchanan, Plain, Warren and others is very much a work in progress. I see no reason to be hopeful that a movement head by the above will come to any good. Their populism bears no resemblance to the populism I praise above. In fact it appears to offer the exact opposit set of goals. Anti labor, anti regulation, etc. Demographics seem to argue against their ascendancy, but events might put them in power. The crystal ball I have is good only good for breaking the glass of that vending machine.
On “atheism and monsters”
Yes mark, I was ticked off. You ascribed views to Freddie he did not voice. I think he was saying name calling and arguing in bad faith accomplishes nothing. But Freddie can weigh in on this if needs be.
I've calmed down and if apologies are in order, and they are, they are owed to you. So please accept my apology.
"
mark, your comment, #67, is a far cry from your original statement. Thanks for expanding on your intent.
On “Thomas Aquinas Meets The Flying Spaghetti Monster”
Chris,
I find the oogedy-boogedy quotient of your post high. Talk about living in an ivory tower, grad students obviously don't put their pants on one leg at a time, perhaps not even bothering with pants, just to busy contemplating "pantness."
But some specifics.
You write, "Rather than the stupid inane question of whether God exists or not (easy answer: Who Cares?) why not people share what is of deepest value to them. What they ultimately put their trust and their hope in? What gives them strength in their darkest days, what gets them out of the bed in the morning? That would at least serve some function and could bring some spirit to the event."
1. What do you mean, "Who Cares?" I care because belief in god motivates actions, good and bad. But it is obviously the bad religious actors that I care about. I know, I know, I'm just being silly. Nineteen Allah worshiping nuts don't really high jack plains all that often. And when was the last time we had videos posted of religious motivated be headings. Ages ago. Pat Robertson has seemingly given up blaming bad weather on gays. And you are correct, who cares that the Pope has lifted the excommunication of a Holocaust denying bishop. The only people that might care are ones that worry about something other than their seminar, "The Greek Influence on Calvin."
2. '...what gets them out of bed in the morning?" You mean other than that seminar? Oh, I don't know. Getting the kids off to school, no, can't be that. Going to work, or maybe looking for work, no, that is so middle class, even low brow. Forget that one. Flying planes into buildings, sounds right. I'll vote for mas murder. It's good to have a reason to get out of bed, especially one so edifying.
Perhaps if the existence of gods could somehow be shown false flying planes into buildings, and other religiously motivated acts, would no longer get people out of bed. I'm with Chris Hitchens on this, "religion poisons everything."
You write, "And in that regard the “New” Atheists–who are at least in their thinking 300 years old…not exactly new–they mean the theistic/deistic god of classical Protestantism from the 17th century onwards. A God (or god) who is a being, a thing of some sort who either gets the whole universe-thing going and stays out (deism) or has super-powers to get involved at certain key points and do some super-magic: rise from graves, zap baddies, presto chango healings, etc."
Is "New Atheists" your concept or one trotted around grad school? I ask only because it is new to me and just curious as to it's origin. Regardless, the definition you offer above seems (how can I say this without giving offense?) wrong. No offense.
I just have three words to offer to refute it, Charles Darwin evolution.
Later this month will mark the 200 year birthday of Darwin. His book was published about 1859 - 1860, I should look that up but I think the time frame is accurate. I find your assertion that nothing has changed in the last 300 years odd. Darwin changed everything. And the more science discovers about the evolution of the earth and life the more we have reason to question Iron Age myths. Now "young earth" advocates will just ignore or condemn Darwin. Creationists and intelligent design theorists will just fall back on some type of god, talk about nothing new.
Any way I have gone on way too long for a comment, but just had to say it. And I am sorry for the snarky comments on grad school, kind'a, I have been there.
Thanks
On “atheism and monsters”
E.D. Thanks, I did cross the line.
"
Mark, where exactly does Freddie assert that Dawkins and company "accomplish nothing?"
Dawkin's, "The God Delusion," spent well more than a year on the NYTimes best sellers list. This is something of an accomplishment. It provoked a lot of discussion. Sam Harris has also written two best sellers, but according to you this does not count as an accomplishment.
Look Mark, if you think atheist thought was being discussed 15 years ago as much as it is today then you are correct, Dawkins, Maher, Harris have accomplished nothing. On the other, hand if you can bring yourself to admit that atheist thought is much more now in the public discussion you gotta admit that these guys have accomplished a good deal.
On “not everyone who says he’s your friend is your friend”
I'm as left as they come but I would never call Huckabee a hick. But calling Palin a hick is to give hicks a bad name.
I would love the hear a couple of points you can give in favor of Palin.
"
Great Fun! Thanks Freddie.
On “compromising yourself into the discussion”
Max thanks for your comments.
You write, "I was under the impression that Yglesias’s failure to mention deficit spending was precisely the problem." Perhaps so, but as you will see if you review my comment I conjectured that Matt may well defend deficit spending, but that was not the case with the post Ross linked.
After I said that I googled "Yglesias deficits." The result, almost 40,000 hits. The first two selections confirmed my suspicion, Matt does see a case for deficit spending. The posts are 1) "Sucker's Bet" posted 9/24/08 and 2) "Deficits Only Matter When They Matter" posted 12/1/08. I recommend them for an insight to his thinking not only on deficits but also taxes. I his September post Matt writes, "...the case seems clear for wildly higher tax rates on high-income individuals than prevailed during the Clinton years. Are we afraid of stifling the kind of fat cat activity that’s brought us to our current situation?" Way to go, Matt!
Now I have no problem with Ross using Yglesias as a foil. But I do have a problem with Ross misleading, my view, readers into thinking Matt was talking about deficits in that particular post. Or even your view, that the criticism offered by Ross goes to the fact that Matt did NOT mention deficits. The plain fact is deficits were not on the table. And in general I have a problem with any criticism that focuses on what was not done, said, written. And I think in the short form comments both Ross and Matt tend to use it is really unfair to criticize comments on what was not written.
On the matter of deficits. I think it is pretty clear that everyone, yes everyone, will find cases where deficit spending is necessary, from the most principled conservative to the most profligate liberal. So in that broad sense deficits are not the issue. It's just a question of which ox is being gored.
On the question, are the democrats and President Obama making a political mistake by backing a broad stimulus plan? Are they being short-sighted?
I have no idea. Especially since the plan remains in flux. Maybe Obama will return to the Larry Summers view of a more targeted stimulus, give republican senators something they can vote for. I will, however, go out on the limb and say if economic conditions in the summer of 2010 are not much improved republicans will have a lot of ammunition
But I hope I have made my by bitch with Ross a bit more clear.
"
The post "What 'Belongs' In the Stimulus" by Yglesias does NOT even mention deficits. He is only questioning the reasoning of those who oppose the inclusion of certain parts of the stimulus, Sen. Nelson and David Brooks to be specific.
Douthat's "Deficits Don't Matter?" sights the Yglesias post and goes from there. But sighting Yglesias seems to imply that Yglesias is defending deficit spending. Matt may indeed defend the practice but he does not do so in the post Ross sights. That is very misleading.
On “Capitulation and Retreat”
I applaud Larison for his nod to historical context and allowing for the multivalent, but those qualifiers broaden any discussion, something the dogmatic are loath to do.
Thanks for the discussion and I promise I'm finished beating this poor horse.
On “Authority, Empathy, and Power”
Cascadian is exactly right. In your selection from Larison he says, "I assume Kain uses dogmatic here to mean inflexible or uncompromising, but this does not take into account the inherent flexibility and minimalism of dogma."
Well that definition, "inflexable" and "uncompromiing" is standard American usage of the word. It is not shocking that you would the word as understood.
The only reason to quote that passage is to refute it, but you fall into the Larison can do no wrong trap so common on the web. Larison is not infallible.
And this, immediately preceding, grates, "...fundamentalists are to some extent the terrible simplifiers of rich dogmatic traditions." I could almost buy this thought if his construction was somewhat different, maybe this, "...fundamentalists are to some extent terrible simplifiers of the rich traditions found in dogma." When he writes "rich dogmatic traditions" the only conceivable definition of "rich" is laughable. That's rich Mr. Larison!
On “goodbye to Culture11”
All this inside the blog world weeping and ripping of garments is pathetic. Scott writes in his lachrymose good bye "...C11 was destined to be much more than just an on line magazine or a series of blogs." Apparently those in control of destiny had a different destination in mind. Jeez, maybe Calvin was right, good works count for naught. I'm relegated to a very uncomfortable spot, I mean that rock and hard space, frying pan into the fire, agreeing with Will. Oh Lord, what shall we read! Let's hear it for the free market.
On “pragmatics first”
Jake, I am referring to your comment #2 above, here it is in full,
"2) improved tax status- not necessarily so. just wiki marriage penalty."
I am not saying you claimed "all" benefit from federal tax regulations regarding marital status. I only pointed out that denying gay couples the right to equal status under the rules is, well, unequal treatment. And your statement is totally disingenuous. I don't know how I could be any clearer. But let me try once again, some couples win, some have the penalty. And tax rules should not discriminate because of sexual orientation.
Here is my original comment, read carefully.
jake, your continued insistence on pressing that marriage penalty argument is off the mark. Just because some married couples pay more because of that quirk, does not mean all suffer. Obviously some, maybe most, benefit. So asserting that gay couples do not suffer because they are not allowed to take advantage of federal tax rules is just wrong. Some gays would benefit, some would pay the penalty. I know you will not change your opinion regarding same sex marriage, but jesus, please argue in good faith.
On “knowing when to get out of the way”
Ed, thaks to you. Yeah, we both remained civil, no small accomplishment. Maybe we will cross swords another day. It has been fun.
On “pragmatics first”
jake, your continued insistence on pressing that marriage penalty argument is off the mark. Just because some married couples pay more because of that quirk, does not mean all suffer. Obviously some, maybe most, benefit. So asserting that gay couples do not suffer because they are not allowed to take advantage of federal tax rules is just wrong. Some gays would benefit, some would pay the penalty. I know you will not change your opinion regarding same sex marriage, but jesus, please argue in good faith.
On “knowing when to get out of the way”
Ed, you really need to re-read my comment, #68. There is NO way for you to argue that I am arguing against “traffic signals” or any other law. Buddy, it’s just not there.
I think you have pretty much conceded that marriage is cultural, not nature, so I’m satisfied with that. I could pick at your last post, for example, your “all life” is dependent on male female “intersexual activity," since asexual reproduction continues and that type of reproduction is very important for the world to go on "as we now (sic) it...."
But I think we have pretty much exhausted this whole thing.
"
"It does all go back to the hoped-for ability to reproduce and continue the bloodline."
Two questions Ed,
1. In the historical context where do you place this "hoped-for" outcome?
2. Isn't this "hoped-for" out come a function of culture, especially as it relates to marriage? Marriage being a really really recent development of human history and prehistory I just cant buy you nature argument.
The genus homo dates to about 2.5 million years ago. Modern humans to about 200, 000 years ago. The intuition of marriage, state sanctioned marriage, is at best several thousand years old. I grant that neither anthropology or history provides us with reliable information regarding marriage, but history does show that church/state interest in marriage is of recent vintage. Again undercutting your nature argument.
"
"By your implication and not by my statement, we should have no laws like traffic signals since they don't exist in nature."
Ed, where did the above come from?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.