I hear ya. I think the only flaw in your current push is that while I think a new middle could be found on foreign policy, I'm not sure how you can merge the progressives and tea-parties on domestic policy.
Not really. It was a movement which believed it could use science to its own ends and for its own goals. It's not really the fault of science that some people use it to back eugenics, or to create atom bombs....
Is this considered a moderate opinion? I think a ton of moderates in this country are pretty sick of the call to war. Not that I disagree that this is plain crazy, and I know Broder represents the Beltway middle and all that. I just mean - real American moderates, the sort that aren't hugely political - I don't hear them calling for us to bomb, bomb, bomb Yemen...
Either way, comparing progressives of that day with progressives of this day is just silly - as silly as comparing conservatives of those days to conservatives of these days. Ideologies and the tags with which we label them change over time. The liberals of today hardly mirror the progressives of the pre WWII days.
Look my position on this is consistent across the board. If professors in the college of education who are supposed to be teaching curriculum development are teaching gay-rights issues I think it's just as wrong. Similarly kids doing nothing, or learning about self-esteem issues instead of grammar or history or science strikes me as completely backwards.
I don't know, Sam. The time taken away from actual science and devoted to presenting a misleading and non-scientific theory strikes me as potentially very damaging to kids' educations. It may not be to all kids. It may not show up right away. But I think as you move away from teaching real science and toward fake science you set bad precedents. Who cares may often as not be a good philosophy, but I think this is not one of those instances.
Actually that's a very good point. So maybe ultra-partisan would be a better way of framing it, rather than ultra-leftist or what have you. Ultra-partisan mainstream lefty.
True, Jaybird - but uhm - the sexual drive only "goes away" temporarily. It's not like masturbation leads to people no longer wanting to procreate any more than it causes you to grow hair on your palms.
Will - does looking at pictures of food make you not want the real thing? Why would looking at pictures (or videos) of sex make you not want the real thing? I'm sorry, but I think Wolf is just playing to the emotional fears behind pornography. I think most people other than real porn addicts can probably survive just fine in their sex lives if they've seen a porn or two. Or whatever. It's just the same sort of argument that says porn leads to child porn, or that being gay leads to molesting people. This slippery slope argument that entirely misunderstands sexuality. Not that porn is a "good thing" mind you. I suppose there are many problems with it, but I think the real problem is that culturally we're very immature about sex in general. It's not porns fault. If anything, porn is just a symptom.
Sam - I'm sorry if I was unclear. Most people are indeed mixed bags. But the Tea Parties and the ultra-left wing (the Hamsher progressives) of the Democratic Party are more die-hard partisans, I'd think, than mixed bags. Not always, but much more so than the average American.
I like Maddow but I'm still a Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert fan when it comes to choosing. I know that's "fake news" and all that, but I still get the sense that those two are the most honest pundits out there.
Swimming pools are much more dangerous for families/children than guns. And I think legal prostitution would be a more interesting debate than porn given, as the other commenters note, the internet. I also think that the Naomi Wolf piece you linked to has been fairly well debunked. I mean, it's kind of a silly argument when you think about it.
I wanted to thank everyone for a pretty awesome comment thread so far. To those of you who (I suspect) came here by way of Rortybomb or perhaps on your from the Dish to Rortybomb and then here - thanks for commenting and I hope you come back again for future debates. Good stuff all around.
I wanted to add that after contemplating on this a great deal, I think that the best course for credit card reform is to come up with new incentives and nudges to make failure on the borrowers part less profitable for the credit card companies. It simply has to pay less to bring in high risk customers - not so poorly that they won't bring in the low income at all, but enough reduced to make them issue shorter lines of credit. I am not expert enough on the subject (yet!) to suggest specific nudges or rules, and of course they are all prey to clever businessmen who can find loopholes and ways around them. But if there's one thing I've learned, it's that no matter how suspect we should be of the ability of government to do anything right or to avoid capture, we should be just as wary to do nothing at all.
Most people (borrowers) are not as skilled at understanding the risks as the lenders is what I meant to say. Thus the asymmetrical relationship and so forth.
It's not that you're in any way wrong about the borrowers responsibility. It's that it is too simplified a representation of the facts on the ground. Most people who take out credit cards are not as skilled at understanding the terms and responsibilities and potential pitfalls associated (the risk, essentially) with using that credit. Perhaps they should read the fine print, but then again many people who take these out are too young to understand much of what they read, or are not very well educated, etc. It is an asymmetrical relationship - and one which is found in many areas where the rules are fairly opaque, and where experts hold all the cards.
You are 22 years old and well educated as far as I can tell. Imagine you were not well educated (this is not so easy to do, actually) and didn't understand the first thing about finance, credit, etc. except that if you have a credit card you can spend money you don't currently have. Now a lender comes along, sees you that you are a low income, poorly educated person with no credit (or poor credit, or at the least very little credit history) and that you have no education and extends you a credit line of $6,000 dollars at a fairly low APR. Again, remember that you understand the basics here - you have to repay what you borrow. You can pay "minimum payments" which sounds great. Maybe you don't realize that if you're late on one of those they'll jack up your APR to 29%. Maybe you don't even understand what APR is. In a rational credit market, you probably wouldn't have gotten a $6,000 credit line. A responsible lender would have seen you as a risk, rather than as a potential source of profit.
I think there is a middle road here, North, which you're leaving out. Credit can be reduced without having a terrible impact if the problem is too much easy credit. A bigger credit limit on a credit card does not necessarily equal a higher standard of living for a low income borrower. More often than not it turns into just the opposite.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The Radical, Certifiably Insane…Middle”
I hear ya. I think the only flaw in your current push is that while I think a new middle could be found on foreign policy, I'm not sure how you can merge the progressives and tea-parties on domestic policy.
On “Roger Ebert, Ben Stein, and the culture war”
Not really. It was a movement which believed it could use science to its own ends and for its own goals. It's not really the fault of science that some people use it to back eugenics, or to create atom bombs....
On “The Radical, Certifiably Insane…Middle”
Is this considered a moderate opinion? I think a ton of moderates in this country are pretty sick of the call to war. Not that I disagree that this is plain crazy, and I know Broder represents the Beltway middle and all that. I just mean - real American moderates, the sort that aren't hugely political - I don't hear them calling for us to bomb, bomb, bomb Yemen...
On “Roger Ebert, Ben Stein, and the culture war”
Either way, comparing progressives of that day with progressives of this day is just silly - as silly as comparing conservatives of those days to conservatives of these days. Ideologies and the tags with which we label them change over time. The liberals of today hardly mirror the progressives of the pre WWII days.
"
No this is totally valid.
"
Look my position on this is consistent across the board. If professors in the college of education who are supposed to be teaching curriculum development are teaching gay-rights issues I think it's just as wrong. Similarly kids doing nothing, or learning about self-esteem issues instead of grammar or history or science strikes me as completely backwards.
"
I don't know, Sam. The time taken away from actual science and devoted to presenting a misleading and non-scientific theory strikes me as potentially very damaging to kids' educations. It may not be to all kids. It may not show up right away. But I think as you move away from teaching real science and toward fake science you set bad precedents. Who cares may often as not be a good philosophy, but I think this is not one of those instances.
On “Taste and memory”
Thanks for linking to that, Will.
On “culture is everything (well, mostly everything)”
Actually that's a very good point. So maybe ultra-partisan would be a better way of framing it, rather than ultra-leftist or what have you. Ultra-partisan mainstream lefty.
"
I'm not seeing the parallel Jaybird. Or rather, I'm not sure it really is a parallel. But perhaps you're just being too clever for me.
"
Is there a difference between distinctions and ad hominem?
"
I think distinctions are fine so long as they're not used for witch hunts.
"
Okay so maybe ultra is too strong. Would you prefer "far"?
On “Wendy Kaminer wants fewer guns, more pornography”
Again - who needs sex shops in the age of the internet?
"
True, Jaybird - but uhm - the sexual drive only "goes away" temporarily. It's not like masturbation leads to people no longer wanting to procreate any more than it causes you to grow hair on your palms.
"
Will - does looking at pictures of food make you not want the real thing? Why would looking at pictures (or videos) of sex make you not want the real thing? I'm sorry, but I think Wolf is just playing to the emotional fears behind pornography. I think most people other than real porn addicts can probably survive just fine in their sex lives if they've seen a porn or two. Or whatever. It's just the same sort of argument that says porn leads to child porn, or that being gay leads to molesting people. This slippery slope argument that entirely misunderstands sexuality. Not that porn is a "good thing" mind you. I suppose there are many problems with it, but I think the real problem is that culturally we're very immature about sex in general. It's not porns fault. If anything, porn is just a symptom.
On “culture is everything (well, mostly everything)”
Sam - I'm sorry if I was unclear. Most people are indeed mixed bags. But the Tea Parties and the ultra-left wing (the Hamsher progressives) of the Democratic Party are more die-hard partisans, I'd think, than mixed bags. Not always, but much more so than the average American.
"
I'm more interested in what people think he was thinking myself. (Just kidding. I have it on good authority he'll let us know shortly.)
On “Rachel Maddow”
I like Maddow but I'm still a Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert fan when it comes to choosing. I know that's "fake news" and all that, but I still get the sense that those two are the most honest pundits out there.
On “culture is everything (well, mostly everything)”
I saw it Michael (and you should really think about submitting comments like that as guest posts!)
On “Wendy Kaminer wants fewer guns, more pornography”
Swimming pools are much more dangerous for families/children than guns. And I think legal prostitution would be a more interesting debate than porn given, as the other commenters note, the internet. I also think that the Naomi Wolf piece you linked to has been fairly well debunked. I mean, it's kind of a silly argument when you think about it.
On “Evil Rorty, loan sharks, and Bastiat’s Broken Window”
I wanted to thank everyone for a pretty awesome comment thread so far. To those of you who (I suspect) came here by way of Rortybomb or perhaps on your from the Dish to Rortybomb and then here - thanks for commenting and I hope you come back again for future debates. Good stuff all around.
I wanted to add that after contemplating on this a great deal, I think that the best course for credit card reform is to come up with new incentives and nudges to make failure on the borrowers part less profitable for the credit card companies. It simply has to pay less to bring in high risk customers - not so poorly that they won't bring in the low income at all, but enough reduced to make them issue shorter lines of credit. I am not expert enough on the subject (yet!) to suggest specific nudges or rules, and of course they are all prey to clever businessmen who can find loopholes and ways around them. But if there's one thing I've learned, it's that no matter how suspect we should be of the ability of government to do anything right or to avoid capture, we should be just as wary to do nothing at all.
"
Most people (borrowers) are not as skilled at understanding the risks as the lenders is what I meant to say. Thus the asymmetrical relationship and so forth.
"
Tyler,
It's not that you're in any way wrong about the borrowers responsibility. It's that it is too simplified a representation of the facts on the ground. Most people who take out credit cards are not as skilled at understanding the terms and responsibilities and potential pitfalls associated (the risk, essentially) with using that credit. Perhaps they should read the fine print, but then again many people who take these out are too young to understand much of what they read, or are not very well educated, etc. It is an asymmetrical relationship - and one which is found in many areas where the rules are fairly opaque, and where experts hold all the cards.
You are 22 years old and well educated as far as I can tell. Imagine you were not well educated (this is not so easy to do, actually) and didn't understand the first thing about finance, credit, etc. except that if you have a credit card you can spend money you don't currently have. Now a lender comes along, sees you that you are a low income, poorly educated person with no credit (or poor credit, or at the least very little credit history) and that you have no education and extends you a credit line of $6,000 dollars at a fairly low APR. Again, remember that you understand the basics here - you have to repay what you borrow. You can pay "minimum payments" which sounds great. Maybe you don't realize that if you're late on one of those they'll jack up your APR to 29%. Maybe you don't even understand what APR is. In a rational credit market, you probably wouldn't have gotten a $6,000 credit line. A responsible lender would have seen you as a risk, rather than as a potential source of profit.
"
I think there is a middle road here, North, which you're leaving out. Credit can be reduced without having a terrible impact if the problem is too much easy credit. A bigger credit limit on a credit card does not necessarily equal a higher standard of living for a low income borrower. More often than not it turns into just the opposite.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.