In all honesty, I give pretty resounding clues about where I stand politically in pretty much every post that I write. The most recent that links to this post is no different. One of my formative political experiences was participating in a poli-sci class in college where the professor was intentionally vague about where he stood politically because, at the end of the day, it really didn't matter. What mattered were the ideas and what everyone thought about them, the discussion and where everyone went with it.
Copy that, Mark. I think the ideas presented there within are similar to those presented in the post, but take it a step further. As always, look fwd to yr response.
From my last comment in the "We're All Mad Here" post,
On the flip side, there is an argument to be made that people protesting about disparate things at the same protest are as much building a community and demonstrating how these disparate issues are connected based on some relational qualities underlying the system against which they’re dissatisfied. I’m not entirely sure that that level of analysis is at work with every instance of an errant Mumia protesters, but neither is there anything saying that it is always missing, either. In some senses, this element of community building is the most noble and praiseworthy element of protests.
In the case of the tea parties, I think one has to recognize that people are coming together to demonstrate that there is an opposition to what seems like a massive tide of liberal awakening in the country. Those who oppose the Obamenon probably feel pretty isolated and irrelevant, so it makes sense that they would all come together to demonstrate both to themselves and to the country that they’re not some marginal minority. Doing so states their own case while at the same time bolstering their confidence.
That their messaging is all over the place is partly about defining that community and partly, one has to also admit, because Obama, Congress, and the Senate have put so many different points on the board so quickly.
Mark is so nihilistic, he doesn't even believe in syllables. Nor language. To Mark, language is just a conveniently ginned up myth designed to keep us all in line.
Michael Drew, "this Mark Thompson" is one of the key architects of and contributors to this site. Disagree with his ideas all you want, but don't question his right to participate in the discussion like anyone else who happens to stop by.
You us like me 'cus I've politely called bullshit on Freddie. I'm your anti-hero... which I'll take. Fans are hard to come by in these trying economic times.
E.D., agreed, this is a long haul effort, something to be worked on over years and I've really only just started. But I did want to calrify one thing, as per this post, I'm not looking to replace realism with idealism, but rather find a useful blanace between the two in our analysis with regards to foreign policy, and in other areas.
If our concern is a glamorized lifestyle rendering its inhabitant untrustworthy of dealing with important political issues, then we have bigger fish to fry than Sean Penn making a politicized speech at the Oscars.
Hmmm, I'm not sure the two are as clearly linked as that. Alan's point, such as I took it, had less to do with conduct on the Internet and more to do with the structure/architecture of blogging. But the two aren't mutually exclusive either.
Gene, I would tend to agree with you. Alan might be correct in saying that blogging doesn't currently do long form, in depth discussion well, but there's nothing saying that a conscious effort to change that wouldn't prove successful.
I suppose the question that confronts us is: how likely is it that a critical mass of people are going to start working for that change?
E.D., I wonder if the line we might draw is between those enterprises that perform an overt social function and those perform a solely personal function?
I.e. from my perspective work places and schools have a well defined social function, whereas private clubs do not, necessarily.
Agreed, E.D. And my comment wasn't meant to reflect otherwise. But does this mean, therefore, that you don't believe the State has anything to say about a private company firing someone because they suspect or it comes out that that person is homosexual?
I'm not arguing for no boundaries, I'm arguing for boundaries where they make sense and I can't personally find any logical reason why a private business can't fire someone based on their sexual orientation (something that seems obvious on the face of it) but a school can kick two students out based on the same evidence.
On “left conservatism revisited”
In all honesty, I give pretty resounding clues about where I stand politically in pretty much every post that I write. The most recent that links to this post is no different. One of my formative political experiences was participating in a poli-sci class in college where the professor was intentionally vague about where he stood politically because, at the end of the day, it really didn't matter. What mattered were the ideas and what everyone thought about them, the discussion and where everyone went with it.
On “The Torture Memos”
Jaybird, disagree though we often do, I dig yr style.
On “This…”
That kind of fascinating role bending is precisely what draws me to the tea parties on at least an intellectual basis (at this point).
"
Copy that, Mark. I think the ideas presented there within are similar to those presented in the post, but take it a step further. As always, look fwd to yr response.
"
From my last comment in the "We're All Mad Here" post,
On the flip side, there is an argument to be made that people protesting about disparate things at the same protest are as much building a community and demonstrating how these disparate issues are connected based on some relational qualities underlying the system against which they’re dissatisfied. I’m not entirely sure that that level of analysis is at work with every instance of an errant Mumia protesters, but neither is there anything saying that it is always missing, either. In some senses, this element of community building is the most noble and praiseworthy element of protests.
In the case of the tea parties, I think one has to recognize that people are coming together to demonstrate that there is an opposition to what seems like a massive tide of liberal awakening in the country. Those who oppose the Obamenon probably feel pretty isolated and irrelevant, so it makes sense that they would all come together to demonstrate both to themselves and to the country that they’re not some marginal minority. Doing so states their own case while at the same time bolstering their confidence.
That their messaging is all over the place is partly about defining that community and partly, one has to also admit, because Obama, Congress, and the Senate have put so many different points on the board so quickly.
On “Poor Brother Mark just can’t get any respect…”
Mark is so nihilistic, he doesn't even believe in syllables. Nor language. To Mark, language is just a conveniently ginned up myth designed to keep us all in line.
On “Abu-Jamal and the Costs of Reflexive Anti-Leftism”
Michael Drew, "this Mark Thompson" is one of the key architects of and contributors to this site. Disagree with his ideas all you want, but don't question his right to participate in the discussion like anyone else who happens to stop by.
On “I’ll Take Getting the Econ Crisis Wrong for $2,000 Alex”
I know that I should go and comment on some of your more substantive contributions of late. But can I just say that this post is fucking awesome?
On “Say Good-bye to your local Farmer’s Market”
Apparently there is some confusion about what this Bill does and does not do that is cleared up a touch on this site that Cole updates to.
On “Grrrr….”
Dudes, you guys are harshing my mellow...
On “Guest Post: Philip Primeau”
Anything for the loyal readership. If I think it's worth a boo I'll email you.
On “no trees were harmed in the making of this blog”
Ah yes, but every once in a while you get a naked lunch, Bob.
On “another dime in the jukebox baby…”
Have you heard the new Blind Melon album, E.D.?
On “Watchmen”
James, your first comment was removed as it contravened our commenting policy.
On “Sad news”
Touche.
"
You us like me 'cus I've politely called bullshit on Freddie. I'm your anti-hero... which I'll take. Fans are hard to come by in these trying economic times.
"
Heh, but am I your "gold star", Bob?
"
I thought I was the League's star...
On “Overlearning Lessons”
E.D., agreed, this is a long haul effort, something to be worked on over years and I've really only just started. But I did want to calrify one thing, as per this post, I'm not looking to replace realism with idealism, but rather find a useful blanace between the two in our analysis with regards to foreign policy, and in other areas.
On “can I just say…”
If our concern is a glamorized lifestyle rendering its inhabitant untrustworthy of dealing with important political issues, then we have bigger fish to fry than Sean Penn making a politicized speech at the Oscars.
On “I, troll”
Hmmm, I'm not sure the two are as clearly linked as that. Alan's point, such as I took it, had less to do with conduct on the Internet and more to do with the structure/architecture of blogging. But the two aren't mutually exclusive either.
"
Gene, I would tend to agree with you. Alan might be correct in saying that blogging doesn't currently do long form, in depth discussion well, but there's nothing saying that a conscious effort to change that wouldn't prove successful.
I suppose the question that confronts us is: how likely is it that a critical mass of people are going to start working for that change?
On “goodbye to Culture11”
Fuck! Freddie gets all the good parts...
On “Schools, segregation, and gay rights”
E.D., I wonder if the line we might draw is between those enterprises that perform an overt social function and those perform a solely personal function?
I.e. from my perspective work places and schools have a well defined social function, whereas private clubs do not, necessarily.
"
Agreed, E.D. And my comment wasn't meant to reflect otherwise. But does this mean, therefore, that you don't believe the State has anything to say about a private company firing someone because they suspect or it comes out that that person is homosexual?
I'm not arguing for no boundaries, I'm arguing for boundaries where they make sense and I can't personally find any logical reason why a private business can't fire someone based on their sexual orientation (something that seems obvious on the face of it) but a school can kick two students out based on the same evidence.