Other than the example of a few nutjobs on CNN, how do you *know* that people are also expressing legitimate concerns? Honestly, I'm curious. Or are we all just pretending to be telepathic?
I think conservatives/libertarians are defending the townhall movement on the grounds that - however embryonic and unformed their objections may be - the protesters are expressing real anxieties about the direction of health care reform. I don't deny there has some fetishization of the protesters as latter day Minutemen/revolutionaries, but I think it's possible to defend their right to express these concerns without lapsing into patronizing sentimentality.
Also, since when has a fully-formed "constructive argument" become the litmus test for taking protests seriously? Protests are made for sloganeering, chanting and activism, not reasoned policy discussions. It's like you're prepared to read these people out of the conversation because they don't come equipped to the fray with Brookings white papers on health insurance premiums.
That's an insightful comment, and I don't think we should discount each and every comparison between the United States and similarly situated countries.
That said, Hanson (and others like him) don't even both to acknowledge deep-seated political and cultural differences when making sweeping pronouncements about what we can learn from Europe. As the excerpt above makes clear, this isn't exactly rigorous social science at work.
If you assume that Al Qaeda in Afghanistan merits a continued military presence (something Bacevich seems to agree with), I think those are the only two plausible options.
True enough, and that's a critique worth grappling with. But the alternative - punitive air strikes and tribal alliances? - strikes me as even worse than continued occupation.
Kirchick's claim is that leftists are systematically exaggerating the extent of the Birther movement. As evidence, he presents the antics of precisely one liberal blog. On the other end of the spectrum, I can point to several mainstream conservatives who are hyping the Birther craze. I fail to see how my argument is dishonest.
To respond to your original point, Kirchick cites exactly one liberal blog - namely, FireDogLake - as evidence of leftists exaggerating the Obama Birther movement. My post, on the other hand, cites several Republican legislators who seem to have bought into the Birther craze, not to mention blatant conspiracy-mongering from conservative commentators at putatively mainstream sites like National Review, First Things and The American Spectator. I think this clearly demonstrates that the "Birthers" are a self-inflicted wound, not some Leftist bogeyman.
Interesting post. As a Redskins fan, I'm inclined to defend my team, and one possible justification for keeping the name is that it has (at least in this area) largely been emptied of any negative racial or ethnic connotations.
Agree entirely re: two beers per person. Although getting trashed on the White House lawn might hurt the Administration's credibility.
As for your curmudgeonly approach to beer-drinking, I can appreciate a more traditional brew - I just happen to enjoy a fuller, less watered-down taste than Budweiser. Dale's Pale Ale is my current favorite.
On what grounds are you taking his coworker's claims seriously? There is literally no source for the assertion that Obama's biography was exaggerated. I mean, I suppose it's possible that he was simply lying about his employment experience, but the link provided by the blogger McCarthy cites is dead. So you have an author who is citing an unsourced blog post on a dead link as "evidence" that Obama's biography is exaggerated or incorrect. And this nonsense was somehow published by a putatively respectable publication.
I think it's frankly absurd to suggest that nutty Internet conspiracism is enough to shift the burden of proof to Obama. I mean, that's like suggesting that because some crazy person claims that Obama fornicated with a duck, the burden of proof is now on the president to prove he did not have sexual relations with a farm animal. Re-read Klein's takedown of McCarthy - he's literally relying on un-sourced claims from crazy bloggers to raise "reasonable suspicions."
To be sure, I think police departments should be able to recruit veterans. But absent some sort of widely-recognized rejection of torture, I worry that 'enhanced interrogations' will become a feature of domestic law enforcement.
Cuaron's cinematography is fantastic, but the movie's premise isn't as well-developed or as interesting as the book's. And why the heck are immigrants stigmatized in the film? You would think that the demand for cheap labor would go up in a society without children.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “just a thought”
Other than the example of a few nutjobs on CNN, how do you *know* that people are also expressing legitimate concerns? Honestly, I'm curious. Or are we all just pretending to be telepathic?
On “we need education reform”
Charming dispatch. I especially liked the part about "overfed hicks."
On “just a thought”
I don't understand this argument.
I think conservatives/libertarians are defending the townhall movement on the grounds that - however embryonic and unformed their objections may be - the protesters are expressing real anxieties about the direction of health care reform. I don't deny there has some fetishization of the protesters as latter day Minutemen/revolutionaries, but I think it's possible to defend their right to express these concerns without lapsing into patronizing sentimentality.
Also, since when has a fully-formed "constructive argument" become the litmus test for taking protests seriously? Protests are made for sloganeering, chanting and activism, not reasoned policy discussions. It's like you're prepared to read these people out of the conversation because they don't come equipped to the fray with Brookings white papers on health insurance premiums.
On “Kulturkampf”
That's an insightful comment, and I don't think we should discount each and every comparison between the United States and similarly situated countries.
That said, Hanson (and others like him) don't even both to acknowledge deep-seated political and cultural differences when making sweeping pronouncements about what we can learn from Europe. As the excerpt above makes clear, this isn't exactly rigorous social science at work.
"
Oh dear . . .
On “File this away under “unsurprising findings””
HA. That was my first thought, too.
On “community as a brand”
Put this up on the main page - it's way too long for "off the cuff."
On “Friday Genius Ten”
Agreed, though I thought "Do you like rock music?" was a bit disappointing.
I pretended to like ATD in high school, but honestly, they're just not poppy enough for my tastes.
"
I find At The Drive In hard to take, but British Sea Power's "The Decline of British Sea Power" is criminally underrated.
Also, you should put this up on the main page.
On “When the Lights Went Dim”
That's a heartbreaking article, Jamelle.
On “When you’re wounded and left on Afghanistan’s plains . . .”
If you assume that Al Qaeda in Afghanistan merits a continued military presence (something Bacevich seems to agree with), I think those are the only two plausible options.
"
gauche -
True enough, and that's a critique worth grappling with. But the alternative - punitive air strikes and tribal alliances? - strikes me as even worse than continued occupation.
On “Like Ma Bell, I’ve got the Ill Communication*”
Great to have you on board, Jamelle.
On “No, it really is the Republicans who are pushing this nonsense”
Kirchick's claim is that leftists are systematically exaggerating the extent of the Birther movement. As evidence, he presents the antics of precisely one liberal blog. On the other end of the spectrum, I can point to several mainstream conservatives who are hyping the Birther craze. I fail to see how my argument is dishonest.
"
Jason Arvak -
To respond to your original point, Kirchick cites exactly one liberal blog - namely, FireDogLake - as evidence of leftists exaggerating the Obama Birther movement. My post, on the other hand, cites several Republican legislators who seem to have bought into the Birther craze, not to mention blatant conspiracy-mongering from conservative commentators at putatively mainstream sites like National Review, First Things and The American Spectator. I think this clearly demonstrates that the "Birthers" are a self-inflicted wound, not some Leftist bogeyman.
On “The Honor of the Mascot, Or A Team By Any Other Name”
Interesting post. As a Redskins fan, I'm inclined to defend my team, and one possible justification for keeping the name is that it has (at least in this area) largely been emptied of any negative racial or ethnic connotations.
On “Beer Me”
Fair point, Mark, though I think that you can responsibly enjoy moderate amounts of alcohol.
"
Agree entirely re: two beers per person. Although getting trashed on the White House lawn might hurt the Administration's credibility.
As for your curmudgeonly approach to beer-drinking, I can appreciate a more traditional brew - I just happen to enjoy a fuller, less watered-down taste than Budweiser. Dale's Pale Ale is my current favorite.
"
Sobriety's no excuse, Thompson. Shouldn't a blue collar guy like Smokin' Joe Biden know how to throw back a brewski or two?
On “a poem for sunday”
My namesake! And Virginia's (former?) poet laureate! Well done, Kain.
On “Widespread Panic”
On what grounds are you taking his coworker's claims seriously? There is literally no source for the assertion that Obama's biography was exaggerated. I mean, I suppose it's possible that he was simply lying about his employment experience, but the link provided by the blogger McCarthy cites is dead. So you have an author who is citing an unsourced blog post on a dead link as "evidence" that Obama's biography is exaggerated or incorrect. And this nonsense was somehow published by a putatively respectable publication.
"
Tim Kowal -
I think it's frankly absurd to suggest that nutty Internet conspiracism is enough to shift the burden of proof to Obama. I mean, that's like suggesting that because some crazy person claims that Obama fornicated with a duck, the burden of proof is now on the president to prove he did not have sexual relations with a farm animal. Re-read Klein's takedown of McCarthy - he's literally relying on un-sourced claims from crazy bloggers to raise "reasonable suspicions."
On “Slippery Slopes”
That's a disturbing tidbit.
"
Not exactly a comforting thought, M.Z.
To be sure, I think police departments should be able to recruit veterans. But absent some sort of widely-recognized rejection of torture, I worry that 'enhanced interrogations' will become a feature of domestic law enforcement.
On “I liked”
Cuaron's cinematography is fantastic, but the movie's premise isn't as well-developed or as interesting as the book's. And why the heck are immigrants stigmatized in the film? You would think that the demand for cheap labor would go up in a society without children.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.