I'm really not all that surprised about your preferred version of WWII. Allowing Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire any sort of victory would have been a disaster for the entire world. The suffering caused would be immense and the lives lost countless.
I disagree very strongly with the first paragraph. A lot of people born into wealthy, first-world democracies still live lives of unimaginable pain for a wide variety of reasons. Its not very moral to down play the suffering endured by these people. Its real to them even if somebody from a less prosperous place would do anything to trade places ith them and thats good enough reason for sympathy and empathy for me.
That being said, I can see value with instituting two-years of civillian or military national service for everybody. It can be used to teach skills, bring people of different backgrounds together, increase societal cohesian, and maybe even install some civic virtue. The problem with the United States is that a lot of people are going to oppose it for various reasons and that the number of young people we have is so large that we really don't have enough meaningful work for all of them for two years.
I went to the same high school as ND and it was definitely a very academically oriented public school. Succeeding in academics was not dangerous. In many ways it was I between a public school and an independent school. We had the academics of an independent but the atmosphere of a public school.
The anti-D&D campaign for the 1980s or more recently the crusade against Harry Potter for being pagan. The entire parallel entertainment industry they built for themselves.
I'd actually that a lot of entertainment isn't on the side of liberals. A lot of Hollywood movies and television shows might be liberal on social issues but on economics they tend to be lukewarm at best. I also think that a lot of entertainment agrees with liberals on social issues is more of a happy accident of the 1960s. Before the 1960s, a lot of entertainment was solidly to mildly conservative. The Hayes Code embodied a somewhat conservative vision of society and sought to make movies reflect that vision as much as possible. This was especially true for MGM movies.
The Far Right also has a very strong tendency to make the personal political. Look at the Evangelical crusade against anything that doesn't conform to their version of Christianity or the need to create an alternative Evangelical version of popular culture, Christian Pop, rather than enjoy regular pop music and go to church every Sunday. More support for my belief that the Far Left and Far Right have a lot more in common than they would like to admit. Like greginak, I think its absurd to make sure that all my cultural preferences mirror my political beliefs. Its too limiting and possibly dangerous. It dehumanizes people who disagree with you. Its also the way towards censorship and ultimately the Inquisition in its worst incarnations.
I think that people on the Left, although I think this is also more common on the Far Left than among liberals, tend to engaging in boycotting certain artists because they do not really believe that anything is not political. In a democracy, you can argue that everything is by nature a political because democracy is about giving the power to people to govern themselves and shape society as they see fit. This means that nothing could ever really be non-political because everything should be in the public sphere. I think this ultimately traces back to the Athenian practice of sending people into exile simply because they weren't liked by enough people. Since the Far Left tends towards an Athenian mode of democracy even if they don't know it than nothing could really be non-political to them. The boycotting of people whose opinions you don't like or who do things you don't like is simply another way of expressing your political opinion.
The other issue is that boycotting artists you don't like is a way to exercise power when you feel powerless. You might not be able to change people but at least you can have some modicum of control by not making their art a part of your life.
So I understand why some people want to boycott artists because of an opinion they hold. At the same time, I think its kind of foolish. Its whats called Aesthetic Stalinism, the idea that art should reflect the correct beliefs or at least the artist should hold the correct beliefs. Requiring all culture to adhere to certain ideological beliefs has a coercive effect on culture and tends to act as a hamper to beauty and greatness. It also creates an unnecessarily decisive society. There isn't going to be a magic period where everybody is in complete agreement about everything important. We need to find a way to kind of get long despite our disagreements on practically everything.
Colonialism is evil but I'm not really sure that the world would be a better place if there wasn't any colonialism. Its through interactions with Europeans that some of the best Western ideas like democracy, equality before the law, and feminism spread along with the material advances of Western medicine, science, and technology. I'm not sure if these would be widespread without colonialism. It all depends on the choices made by non-European nations. Lots of countries attempted reform a la Meiji Japan, the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, China, and Ethiopia but none of them really were as successful as Meiji Japan. In many countries, the reactionaries were very powerful and were able to stymie most attempts at reform or even just technological innovation. Korea and China had trouble modernizing partly because of entrenched reactionary elements.
Its really difficult to predict what a world without colonialism would look like. My guess is that would be very different, some in ways that are very good but others in ways that are very bad.
I'd also like to point out that a prison-like environment is probably not the most conducive one for education. I wouldn't be surprised if grades go up just like crime goes down.
I'd argue that barred windows, metal detectors, and police really have no place in any school, even a really "bad" inner city one. One, for the reasons outlined above. The other thing is because treating people who aren't criminals, who never committed a crime in life like criminals by putting them in a prison-like enviornment is wrong on its face. Just like there is a presumption of innocense in criminal trials, there should be a presumption of non-criminality in people of any age. There is no justification for this even if the school has lots of problems.
Patronage of sculpture isn't a public functions. States of all sorts have been patronizing the arts in order to project their image since states were formed thousands of years ago. The Athenian city-state hosted drama festivals to present their image as a seat of culture and art to the rest of the Greek world and later to the rest of the world. The Roman Republic certainly believed in art as a projection of power.
The Founders also believed in art and architecture as a projection of power. Why else build an entirely new capital city and and fill it with monuments designed to impress and mimic the Roman Republic? I'd say that patronage of sculpture and art is a public function because it falls in within something that states always did.
Jason, wouldn't the border fence fall under one of the legitimate tasks of government according to "small government" theories? Mainly that of national defense/police powers.
I think that we need to get rid of the false dichtomy of small government and big government. A more accurate description might be narrow government and broad government. People who believe in narrow government might give government few responsibilities but they could give government a lot of leeway in those areas. A person who believes in broad government would allow the government to act in more areas of life with varying degrees of leeway.
I agree with this. I think a lot of people go to law school because they see it as a way to earn big bucks. That's partly because only the most glamorous and profitable aspects of law are depicted in media usually. One reason why Win-Win was that depicted a struggling solo practitioner. Campos just wants people to know this.
My God isn't a jerk but lots of people like to argue that he is. I'm really tired of the "wrathfully, jealous God of the Old Testament" vs. the "loving, peaceful God of the New Testament" debate.
If mom and dad aren't aware of how dire the situation was then we are dealing with another problem, neglect. Parents should be at least somewhat aware of how and what their kids are doing. Especially if they believe in radical thinks like unschooling. There are limits.
Eleven years old and barely knows how to read? Holy shit. Eleven is just seven years short of legal adulthood. The kids going to have to kind of take care of herself soon and she can't read? How will she handle college or work? What were her skills be?
I'm really disinclined to approve of people who use their kids as sociological experiments rather than as people who are going to be an adult sooner than latter. Parents should kind of see it that their kids are able to at least somewhat survive in the real world.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Stupid Tuesday questions, Jaybird edition”
My first world problem is when I can't find a streaming 've tree sion of an old movie I want to see and have to track down a DVD.
On “Carpets and Rugs, Dogs and Rugrats”
When did this become Logan's Run?
On “In Service To The State”
I apologize for my intemperate response.
"
I'm really not all that surprised about your preferred version of WWII. Allowing Nazi Germany and the Japanese Empire any sort of victory would have been a disaster for the entire world. The suffering caused would be immense and the lives lost countless.
"
I disagree very strongly with the first paragraph. A lot of people born into wealthy, first-world democracies still live lives of unimaginable pain for a wide variety of reasons. Its not very moral to down play the suffering endured by these people. Its real to them even if somebody from a less prosperous place would do anything to trade places ith them and thats good enough reason for sympathy and empathy for me.
That being said, I can see value with instituting two-years of civillian or military national service for everybody. It can be used to teach skills, bring people of different backgrounds together, increase societal cohesian, and maybe even install some civic virtue. The problem with the United States is that a lot of people are going to oppose it for various reasons and that the number of young people we have is so large that we really don't have enough meaningful work for all of them for two years.
On “Liz Cheney: We’ll Meet Again”
High.
On “Ask Kazzy #3”
Yes.
"
No. Next guess.
"
Getting closer. We're waiting till people figure this out.
"
I went to the same high school as ND and it was definitely a very academically oriented public school. Succeeding in academics was not dangerous. In many ways it was I between a public school and an independent school. We had the academics of an independent but the atmosphere of a public school.
On “Orson Scott Card and how the personal is too political”
Same here. I also love the novels of Naguib Mahfouz even though there is one issue I'd probably have serious disagreements with his views.
"
The anti-D&D campaign for the 1980s or more recently the crusade against Harry Potter for being pagan. The entire parallel entertainment industry they built for themselves.
"
I'd actually that a lot of entertainment isn't on the side of liberals. A lot of Hollywood movies and television shows might be liberal on social issues but on economics they tend to be lukewarm at best. I also think that a lot of entertainment agrees with liberals on social issues is more of a happy accident of the 1960s. Before the 1960s, a lot of entertainment was solidly to mildly conservative. The Hayes Code embodied a somewhat conservative vision of society and sought to make movies reflect that vision as much as possible. This was especially true for MGM movies.
"
The Far Right also has a very strong tendency to make the personal political. Look at the Evangelical crusade against anything that doesn't conform to their version of Christianity or the need to create an alternative Evangelical version of popular culture, Christian Pop, rather than enjoy regular pop music and go to church every Sunday. More support for my belief that the Far Left and Far Right have a lot more in common than they would like to admit. Like greginak, I think its absurd to make sure that all my cultural preferences mirror my political beliefs. Its too limiting and possibly dangerous. It dehumanizes people who disagree with you. Its also the way towards censorship and ultimately the Inquisition in its worst incarnations.
"
I think that people on the Left, although I think this is also more common on the Far Left than among liberals, tend to engaging in boycotting certain artists because they do not really believe that anything is not political. In a democracy, you can argue that everything is by nature a political because democracy is about giving the power to people to govern themselves and shape society as they see fit. This means that nothing could ever really be non-political because everything should be in the public sphere. I think this ultimately traces back to the Athenian practice of sending people into exile simply because they weren't liked by enough people. Since the Far Left tends towards an Athenian mode of democracy even if they don't know it than nothing could really be non-political to them. The boycotting of people whose opinions you don't like or who do things you don't like is simply another way of expressing your political opinion.
The other issue is that boycotting artists you don't like is a way to exercise power when you feel powerless. You might not be able to change people but at least you can have some modicum of control by not making their art a part of your life.
So I understand why some people want to boycott artists because of an opinion they hold. At the same time, I think its kind of foolish. Its whats called Aesthetic Stalinism, the idea that art should reflect the correct beliefs or at least the artist should hold the correct beliefs. Requiring all culture to adhere to certain ideological beliefs has a coercive effect on culture and tends to act as a hamper to beauty and greatness. It also creates an unnecessarily decisive society. There isn't going to be a magic period where everybody is in complete agreement about everything important. We need to find a way to kind of get long despite our disagreements on practically everything.
On “If Criminals are What You Want, Criminals are What You’ll Get (UPDATED!)”
Yes, I imagine that the people who enact these policies do not send their kids to schools that double as prisons.
On “The Border Fence: A Big-Government Program Conservatives Happen to Love”
Colonialism is evil but I'm not really sure that the world would be a better place if there wasn't any colonialism. Its through interactions with Europeans that some of the best Western ideas like democracy, equality before the law, and feminism spread along with the material advances of Western medicine, science, and technology. I'm not sure if these would be widespread without colonialism. It all depends on the choices made by non-European nations. Lots of countries attempted reform a la Meiji Japan, the Ottoman Empire, Egypt, China, and Ethiopia but none of them really were as successful as Meiji Japan. In many countries, the reactionaries were very powerful and were able to stymie most attempts at reform or even just technological innovation. Korea and China had trouble modernizing partly because of entrenched reactionary elements.
Its really difficult to predict what a world without colonialism would look like. My guess is that would be very different, some in ways that are very good but others in ways that are very bad.
On “If Criminals are What You Want, Criminals are What You’ll Get (UPDATED!)”
I'd also like to point out that a prison-like environment is probably not the most conducive one for education. I wouldn't be surprised if grades go up just like crime goes down.
"
I'd argue that barred windows, metal detectors, and police really have no place in any school, even a really "bad" inner city one. One, for the reasons outlined above. The other thing is because treating people who aren't criminals, who never committed a crime in life like criminals by putting them in a prison-like enviornment is wrong on its face. Just like there is a presumption of innocense in criminal trials, there should be a presumption of non-criminality in people of any age. There is no justification for this even if the school has lots of problems.
On “The Border Fence: A Big-Government Program Conservatives Happen to Love”
Patronage of sculpture isn't a public functions. States of all sorts have been patronizing the arts in order to project their image since states were formed thousands of years ago. The Athenian city-state hosted drama festivals to present their image as a seat of culture and art to the rest of the Greek world and later to the rest of the world. The Roman Republic certainly believed in art as a projection of power.
The Founders also believed in art and architecture as a projection of power. Why else build an entirely new capital city and and fill it with monuments designed to impress and mimic the Roman Republic? I'd say that patronage of sculpture and art is a public function because it falls in within something that states always did.
"
Jason, wouldn't the border fence fall under one of the legitimate tasks of government according to "small government" theories? Mainly that of national defense/police powers.
I think that we need to get rid of the false dichtomy of small government and big government. A more accurate description might be narrow government and broad government. People who believe in narrow government might give government few responsibilities but they could give government a lot of leeway in those areas. A person who believes in broad government would allow the government to act in more areas of life with varying degrees of leeway.
On “Deception With Statistics”
I agree with this. I think a lot of people go to law school because they see it as a way to earn big bucks. That's partly because only the most glamorous and profitable aspects of law are depicted in media usually. One reason why Win-Win was that depicted a struggling solo practitioner. Campos just wants people to know this.
On “Is Your God a Jerk?”
My God isn't a jerk but lots of people like to argue that he is. I'm really tired of the "wrathfully, jealous God of the Old Testament" vs. the "loving, peaceful God of the New Testament" debate.
On “How To Give Advice”
If mom and dad aren't aware of how dire the situation was then we are dealing with another problem, neglect. Parents should be at least somewhat aware of how and what their kids are doing. Especially if they believe in radical thinks like unschooling. There are limits.
"
Eleven years old and barely knows how to read? Holy shit. Eleven is just seven years short of legal adulthood. The kids going to have to kind of take care of herself soon and she can't read? How will she handle college or work? What were her skills be?
I'm really disinclined to approve of people who use their kids as sociological experiments rather than as people who are going to be an adult sooner than latter. Parents should kind of see it that their kids are able to at least somewhat survive in the real world.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.