A bit off topic but there's a suggestion that the progressives may want to hop in bed with the teabaggers over at Firedoglake that caught my eye. http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/19693
E.D., this post was a bit confusing to me. You mention a number of different factions, none of which are legitimately "small government" yet blanket conservatism with the notion. At the end you briefly mention the Paul contingency then say this faction must suffer defeat. I'm not sure which faction you're speaking of. What do you make of the Paul faction? Are they part of the Tea Bag Brigade, or something else on the fringe like Larison?
Just to be contrarian, I'd have to say that's the opposite of my experience. I've been in a poly relationship for nearly fifteen years and subsequently know a number of poly families. The men rarely gloat, at least to each other. It seems being a good partner to one is tough. When you're responsible for more, it's tougher. The women seem to like not having their men underfoot at all times and are glad to be able to fob them off when they see fit, not to mention enjoying each other. Needless to say, these aren't Mormons. I've met a couple of poly lesbian families but haven't interacted with them enough to say how they work.
That's strange. It sure doesn't square with the girls I know. I don't think it's just that I find slutty women atractive. Doing a quick Google, it seems %54 of women in one poll admitted to infidelity.
Canadian authorities have been aware of their polygamist earlier than 2006. The reason they haven't prosecuted is that there is serious doubt that the laws could pass Charter protections on religious grounds. If they take the cases to court they open pandora's box. Now of course the past AG in BC recently tried and failed on a technicality. As it looks, this will be heading toward the Canadian Supreme Court. Regardless of the courts recent curtailing of religious freedoms, I don't know of any legal analysts that give it a chance in hell. But, again, these are religious arguments, not orientation.
If poly isn't a sexual orientation, I don't know what is. Unlike being gay, the desire to be with more than one is pervasive.... even in the South. I'm sure your experts noted that. Where in deed would infidelity be without it?
You think that extending legal protection to women is going to harm them? Oh, please. Marriage is somehow going to turn someones mistress into chattel? Look at the worst cases of polygamy in North America. These women wouldn't be helped by actually having a way out, a legal claim to some of the property and assets?
"Poly folk are sick but we're ok. Well if we are sick it's not because we're gay"? There was a recent case in Canada giving parental rights to a family of three, two gay girls and a gay boy that were having children together. These people are sick because they choose a different family structure? Or, is it the gay boy has enslaved the lesbians? By all accounts they're great parents and have a stable family.
Plural marriage is already legal in many places, tolerated in a few others, and probably protected by either The Charter or the Constitution. I think a good case could be made for sexual orientation but the easy argument is along freedom of religion.
I have no problem with some school in Georgia doing the nativity on the front lawn of the court house. Schools should be local. I don't have a say in what they teach in Kansas, but I can sure laugh at them. Likewise, we'll be having Bataille out here in Lotus Land and may very well choose to end public funding for religious schools.
What some local school should be allowed to do, differs dramatically from what I would allow for "my" public school.
And no kind words for me? If elements (admittedly not present or perhaps, silent) can get up in arms over Mapplethorpe or NPR, I'm more than willing to stoop to their level.
No, this is why it's important to live in irreligious regions where you can have the power for pay-backs. The reason you keep religion out of politics and do unto others and all that is so that others aren't motivated to give back to you. Now there is a "War on Christmas". If I'm going to be labeled with that kind of language, the hell if I'm not going to live up to it. You want a war? Fine.
Personally, if these people are going to get militant, I'd like them to give back the tree. It's not Christian. Quit using it. Keep to the mangers and St. Nick.
(Went to school in Portland. It's by far my favorite city.)
Yes, for Christ sake throw your own party and have management put you on the official flyer. I don't care if you wish others a "Merry Christmas", just don't assume I want to hear about it.
Canada is much closer to getting to the place you fear. I still try to be ambivalent about Christians and like to read E.D. and Douglas Todd to remind myself that there are actually good Christians out there. But, it gets harder.
This is really weak-manning the whole thing. Sure, I am not "right-wing". I might have been in my youth. Now, I think of myself as a heretical-conservative. I disavow the Palins (and the Rittelmeyers for that matter) but I'm not about to jump into the arms of Obama or the Dems.
But Jay, how many of those new innovations "we" make are just incremental changes on existing patents? Don't the French do their fare share of innovation? We wouldn't want to assume all national health care systems are the same would we?
How much do we want to preference health widgets over all else? Isn't the law of diminishing returns starting to set in? Maybe put our resources, as your own plan emphasises, into primary care and let the more exotic stuff wait until the rest of tech. catches up. As much as I love the AARP, especially now that I'm getting longer in the tooth, I'm not sure how some of this stuff works out on a utilitarian analysis.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “neo-liberal-tarian-ism”
A bit off topic but there's a suggestion that the progressives may want to hop in bed with the teabaggers over at Firedoglake that caught my eye. http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/19693
On “Factions”
E.D., this post was a bit confusing to me. You mention a number of different factions, none of which are legitimately "small government" yet blanket conservatism with the notion. At the end you briefly mention the Paul contingency then say this faction must suffer defeat. I'm not sure which faction you're speaking of. What do you make of the Paul faction? Are they part of the Tea Bag Brigade, or something else on the fringe like Larison?
On “Why gay marriage is (probably) still inevitable”
Just to be contrarian, I'd have to say that's the opposite of my experience. I've been in a poly relationship for nearly fifteen years and subsequently know a number of poly families. The men rarely gloat, at least to each other. It seems being a good partner to one is tough. When you're responsible for more, it's tougher. The women seem to like not having their men underfoot at all times and are glad to be able to fob them off when they see fit, not to mention enjoying each other. Needless to say, these aren't Mormons. I've met a couple of poly lesbian families but haven't interacted with them enough to say how they work.
"
That's strange. It sure doesn't square with the girls I know. I don't think it's just that I find slutty women atractive. Doing a quick Google, it seems %54 of women in one poll admitted to infidelity.
"
Canadian authorities have been aware of their polygamist earlier than 2006. The reason they haven't prosecuted is that there is serious doubt that the laws could pass Charter protections on religious grounds. If they take the cases to court they open pandora's box. Now of course the past AG in BC recently tried and failed on a technicality. As it looks, this will be heading toward the Canadian Supreme Court. Regardless of the courts recent curtailing of religious freedoms, I don't know of any legal analysts that give it a chance in hell. But, again, these are religious arguments, not orientation.
"
If poly isn't a sexual orientation, I don't know what is. Unlike being gay, the desire to be with more than one is pervasive.... even in the South. I'm sure your experts noted that. Where in deed would infidelity be without it?
You think that extending legal protection to women is going to harm them? Oh, please. Marriage is somehow going to turn someones mistress into chattel? Look at the worst cases of polygamy in North America. These women wouldn't be helped by actually having a way out, a legal claim to some of the property and assets?
"Poly folk are sick but we're ok. Well if we are sick it's not because we're gay"? There was a recent case in Canada giving parental rights to a family of three, two gay girls and a gay boy that were having children together. These people are sick because they choose a different family structure? Or, is it the gay boy has enslaved the lesbians? By all accounts they're great parents and have a stable family.
"
Plural marriage is already legal in many places, tolerated in a few others, and probably protected by either The Charter or the Constitution. I think a good case could be made for sexual orientation but the easy argument is along freedom of religion.
On “The Perfect Crime”
Brilliant. Thanks for the post.
On “The War on
PluralismChristmas”Religious freedom is only one of many freedoms and far from the most important.
"
Say what ever you want, preach whatever you want. Just don't do it with the help, in any way, of tax dollars.
On “Short, controversial post: War on Christmas edition”
I have no problem with some school in Georgia doing the nativity on the front lawn of the court house. Schools should be local. I don't have a say in what they teach in Kansas, but I can sure laugh at them. Likewise, we'll be having Bataille out here in Lotus Land and may very well choose to end public funding for religious schools.
What some local school should be allowed to do, differs dramatically from what I would allow for "my" public school.
"
And no kind words for me? If elements (admittedly not present or perhaps, silent) can get up in arms over Mapplethorpe or NPR, I'm more than willing to stoop to their level.
"
"Keep a school’s involvement with religion where it belongs, in history class."
Let's not devalue anthropology.
"
Are you kidding? It's going to be on the mandatory elementary school reading list, right before "Story of the Eye".
"
No, this is why it's important to live in irreligious regions where you can have the power for pay-backs. The reason you keep religion out of politics and do unto others and all that is so that others aren't motivated to give back to you. Now there is a "War on Christmas". If I'm going to be labeled with that kind of language, the hell if I'm not going to live up to it. You want a war? Fine.
On “The War on
PluralismChristmas”Personally, if these people are going to get militant, I'd like them to give back the tree. It's not Christian. Quit using it. Keep to the mangers and St. Nick.
(Went to school in Portland. It's by far my favorite city.)
"
Yes, for Christ sake throw your own party and have management put you on the official flyer. I don't care if you wish others a "Merry Christmas", just don't assume I want to hear about it.
On “Short, controversial post: War on Christmas edition”
Ugh, now you're just being eeevul.
"
Victor Victoria.
"
Not in my district! Schools are explicitly for secular education. Would Waiting for Godot be an acceptable replacement?
On “The War on
PluralismChristmas”I was going to launch into one, but why bother? Yule-tide greetings. Let's preserve that old time religion.
On “Trajectory and the Manhattan Declaration.”
Canada is much closer to getting to the place you fear. I still try to be ambivalent about Christians and like to read E.D. and Douglas Todd to remind myself that there are actually good Christians out there. But, it gets harder.
On “No philosophical underpinning”
This is really weak-manning the whole thing. Sure, I am not "right-wing". I might have been in my youth. Now, I think of myself as a heretical-conservative. I disavow the Palins (and the Rittelmeyers for that matter) but I'm not about to jump into the arms of Obama or the Dems.
"
Ron Paul?
On “one casualty”
But Jay, how many of those new innovations "we" make are just incremental changes on existing patents? Don't the French do their fare share of innovation? We wouldn't want to assume all national health care systems are the same would we?
How much do we want to preference health widgets over all else? Isn't the law of diminishing returns starting to set in? Maybe put our resources, as your own plan emphasises, into primary care and let the more exotic stuff wait until the rest of tech. catches up. As much as I love the AARP, especially now that I'm getting longer in the tooth, I'm not sure how some of this stuff works out on a utilitarian analysis.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.