Please do Blaise, I'm not disagreeing with your prescriptions so much as questioning whether the project of bringing the region into this century is an endevor that is A) in our interest or B) our obligation to undertake.
Mike, the warning is doubtlessly something everyone should try and watch out for but I do think you should examine your conduct and language as well. Not, I hasten to add, because of a need for political correctness nor even for a need for courtesy but as a matter of effectiveness and communication.
I recall that one of the libertarian regulars observed a while back that libertarians in general have internalized the very language and mores of the American right to such a degree that they have difficulty even talking to liberals. You took umbrage with the concept back then but I’d suggest you reconsider.
I have no doubt of your earnest belief in libertarianism but the way you talk, the terms you use and the emphasis and priorities you have in choosing which violations of libertarianism to take the most offense to all paint you like a right winger. You are a libertarian, I have no doubt, but you talk and argue like a conservative. You’re a living example of how libertarianism is captured and imprisoned by the right.
I’d submit, humbly, that badly compromises your ability to communicate libertarian principles to non-conservatives. Though it certainly makes you always very useful to read; real GOP politicians like to sound sort of like you but don’t believe a word of it. So holding them up to your example is like holding up colored paper cutouts beside the real thing.
BlaiseP, I'm not trying to argue for the morality of the people so much as a much more limited assertion. The Japanese (and the Germans) had already demonstrated the ability to work in large social groups (not merely family units or tribes but towns, cities and entire counties), to participate in organized industrial economic activities and generally get along with themselves. Heck, their ability to behave this way was a large part of what made them so bloody dangerous in the first place. The people of Afghanistan, such as they are (instead of say the people of Pashtun, Tajuk etc), are by your own description not remotely close to that point. They are tribal, have little to no sense of national identity and no past tradition of operating a large orderly functional society.
My own humble impression is that we've done little good by them but they've also done little good by themselves. Their country was fabricated at least partially by colonial British meddling. It was then toppled over in the interminable struggles between the ancient regimes and new ideas invading he region. They were then literally invaded by Soviets and then when the Soviets left they were at each other’s throats.
Personally I feel that the question is incumbent upon us; what do we owe the people of Afghanistan. People can make the “you broke it you buy it” argument but no one can possibly suggest there was much of anything around to break when we invaded. If the country is a dirt poor, illiterate tribal pseudo-state when we leave, well, it was a dirt poor, illiterate tribal pseudo-state when we arrived.
Do we have a responsibility to help them on humanitarian grounds? I suppose so, but if we’re being humanitarian surely there are many impoverished societies where we could lavish our aid with a better return on the effort. We have plenty of poor and needy in our own country that could probably do with some of those resources and speak a much more similar language than the Afghans do (and are at least marginally less likely to take pot shots at us when we deliver such aid).
I do think your suggestions for reforming Afghanistan are plausible, the point is that they’re extremely time consuming, paternal and expensive and the question remains; do we owe them this? They played host to a charismatic religious personality who engineered some historic terrorist attacks on our soil. Do we have an obligation to lift them out of their antediluvian ways in return? I just don’t think we do.
Hate ta do it Blaise ol' buddy but I have to agree with Jason here. Japan was certainly a foreign and very different culture with a very different legal tradition but they were also posessed of a population which, if not exactly first world in their mind set, was damn near first world. They had the habits of nationalism ingrained and had a general sense of cultural unity. They were not a sprawling mass of pre-industrial tribes that hated each other almost as much as they hated their occupiers.
Okay now I actually have to go find this damn song. To youtube!
Stupid League, increasing the quality of my flashbacks and decreasing the quantity of my work production.
This is probably completely OT but your anectdote did ring a bell for me. My (American) used to sing just a snatch of a song that sounded a lot like the line you quoted.
"You shovel 18 tons *grunt* and what do you get;
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go;
I owe my soul to the company store."
That's all he'd sing, usually when my Grandmother asked him to do some disagreeable chore or another. I never knew what it was from. Long story short you induced a severe flashback for me; thanks for that B.
As James noted above me, Tom, the problem is that the anti-DOMA plaintiffs can (and have) submitted rafts of sworn testimony and empirical evidence of harm caused by DOMA while DOMA's defenders have had nothing to appeal to but Burkean caution.
I have trouble giving much credence to the "they're afraid of being called bad names by gays" line of arguement. In most cases the so called experts are greatly vocal on media or politican campaigning. It's only when requested to testify under oaths and to standards of demonstratable evidence that their voices seem to desert them. That says something about their arguements it seems to me.
Tom, it seems to me that you seem to be getting the judicial process somewhat backwards in this case. The judge chose to apply rational basis... he then went through the reasons for the law that had been presented to the court. He then came up on his own with some additional plausible justifications on behalf of the law that the defenders had not offered. It was only after both of those groups of defenses failed the rational basis analysis that he brought up the incendiary language of DOMA's writers.
Note, please, that this pattern is in keeping with the astonishing paucity of evidence and legal justification offered up anywhere in support of anti SSM laws. Whether it be federally or in California the courts call to defenders of anti-ssm laws and say "okay present your reasons and justifications to the courts please. Note only expert testimony under oath or empirically verifiable evidence meets the standards of evidence for courts." In all of these scenarios the defenders of the anti-SSM laws respond with crickets and silence. This leads one to only one of two conclusions: that for some reason there is something structurally wrong with the age old legal definitions of admissable evidence and testimony or that the defenders of anti-SSM laws simply have no justifications that meet the standards of formal legal proceedings.
Which of these alternatives do you subscribe to or am I missing something here?
And as an addendum to this the savage dynamic of CYA (cover your ass) spins like a whirling blade reaping down any green shoots that arise in this matter.
Liberal politician has some rediculous proposal offered "for the children" or "for safety" or what ever. Their options are:
A-Oppose
B-Support
The outcomes are either 1: Nothing happens, 2: something bad happens 3: something good happens (note all of these are assumed to be related to the issue in the first part.
In 1A, and 3A the politician reaps pretty much zero political reward from voters for their opposition standpoint. If 2A happens the poiltician suffers grevious political costs for their opposition.
In 1B the politician suffers no cost. in 2B the politician can claim that something was done but not enough. Their damage is either minor or nonexistant. In 3B the politician claims victory and reaps significant political benefit.
Considering the outcomes all else being equal and voters being lazy politicians are always advised to support interventionist do something legislation.
For the former KenB I agree; for the latter I suspect that some actual harm (small but non-zero) could probably be demonstrated. It'd depend mainly on your definition of public.
I'm sorry for your loss, it sounds like you got along well.
I have a joint tenancy in common myself with my husband (married in Canada). That one wasn't immensly hard but there are tax implications and some other legal concerns that would fall on us if the other perished.
I also have an inlaw who is almost cartoonish in her animus against me (his Mother and her fire and brimstone preacher friend) has promised to go after anything we have if he gets sick. Accordingly we have arranged medical power of attourney, wills etc... It was none too cheap for even our simple array of assets; had we had many more assets it would have been more expensive and our lawyer was careful to emphasize that we be careful where we travel and be aware that with a capable lawyer against us even these safety nets could be copromised or held up in court battles at considerable cost in time and expense.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “What Exactly is Overrated Here?”
Yes, an astonishingly muddled littly post by MY and the parts that aren't muddled are horrible.
On “Open Thread (Feb. 28th 2012) Ron Swanson is the man edition”
My warmest and best to her and you Bob. I trust the season has treated you both kindly.
On “Afghanistan: what might have been.”
I'd say anyone who's counting chickens in Iraq before they've hatched is playing a risky game Tom.
"
Please do Blaise, I'm not disagreeing with your prescriptions so much as questioning whether the project of bringing the region into this century is an endevor that is A) in our interest or B) our obligation to undertake.
On “Open Thread (Feb. 28th 2012) Ron Swanson is the man edition”
Lol don't ever change Bob.
"
Well it still causes my browser to hang and delay loading, but I can tolerate that if it helps the site over all.
"
Thanks E.D. 'preciate it being a little lower key.
"
I miss the formatting options in the comment box and I loathe the little Share widget in the bottom left corner with a cold burning hatred.
On “The Koch brothers and rightwing fusionism”
Mike, the warning is doubtlessly something everyone should try and watch out for but I do think you should examine your conduct and language as well. Not, I hasten to add, because of a need for political correctness nor even for a need for courtesy but as a matter of effectiveness and communication.
I recall that one of the libertarian regulars observed a while back that libertarians in general have internalized the very language and mores of the American right to such a degree that they have difficulty even talking to liberals. You took umbrage with the concept back then but I’d suggest you reconsider.
I have no doubt of your earnest belief in libertarianism but the way you talk, the terms you use and the emphasis and priorities you have in choosing which violations of libertarianism to take the most offense to all paint you like a right winger. You are a libertarian, I have no doubt, but you talk and argue like a conservative. You’re a living example of how libertarianism is captured and imprisoned by the right.
I’d submit, humbly, that badly compromises your ability to communicate libertarian principles to non-conservatives. Though it certainly makes you always very useful to read; real GOP politicians like to sound sort of like you but don’t believe a word of it. So holding them up to your example is like holding up colored paper cutouts beside the real thing.
On “Afghanistan: what might have been.”
BlaiseP, I'm not trying to argue for the morality of the people so much as a much more limited assertion. The Japanese (and the Germans) had already demonstrated the ability to work in large social groups (not merely family units or tribes but towns, cities and entire counties), to participate in organized industrial economic activities and generally get along with themselves. Heck, their ability to behave this way was a large part of what made them so bloody dangerous in the first place. The people of Afghanistan, such as they are (instead of say the people of Pashtun, Tajuk etc), are by your own description not remotely close to that point. They are tribal, have little to no sense of national identity and no past tradition of operating a large orderly functional society.
My own humble impression is that we've done little good by them but they've also done little good by themselves. Their country was fabricated at least partially by colonial British meddling. It was then toppled over in the interminable struggles between the ancient regimes and new ideas invading he region. They were then literally invaded by Soviets and then when the Soviets left they were at each other’s throats.
Personally I feel that the question is incumbent upon us; what do we owe the people of Afghanistan. People can make the “you broke it you buy it” argument but no one can possibly suggest there was much of anything around to break when we invaded. If the country is a dirt poor, illiterate tribal pseudo-state when we leave, well, it was a dirt poor, illiterate tribal pseudo-state when we arrived.
Do we have a responsibility to help them on humanitarian grounds? I suppose so, but if we’re being humanitarian surely there are many impoverished societies where we could lavish our aid with a better return on the effort. We have plenty of poor and needy in our own country that could probably do with some of those resources and speak a much more similar language than the Afghans do (and are at least marginally less likely to take pot shots at us when we deliver such aid).
I do think your suggestions for reforming Afghanistan are plausible, the point is that they’re extremely time consuming, paternal and expensive and the question remains; do we owe them this? They played host to a charismatic religious personality who engineered some historic terrorist attacks on our soil. Do we have an obligation to lift them out of their antediluvian ways in return? I just don’t think we do.
"
Hate ta do it Blaise ol' buddy but I have to agree with Jason here. Japan was certainly a foreign and very different culture with a very different legal tradition but they were also posessed of a population which, if not exactly first world in their mind set, was damn near first world. They had the habits of nationalism ingrained and had a general sense of cultural unity. They were not a sprawling mass of pre-industrial tribes that hated each other almost as much as they hated their occupiers.
On “The Koch brothers and rightwing fusionism”
And now I've near on snorted water all over my computer. Well played sir.
"
That's some good stuff, if you'll excuse me I seem to have turned 10 years old again. I'm gonna have to go for a stroll down memory lane.
Though if you keep eing so helpful Snarky we're gonna have to change your handle to Nicey Mcnicenice.
"
Okay now I actually have to go find this damn song. To youtube!
Stupid League, increasing the quality of my flashbacks and decreasing the quantity of my work production.
"
Wow this is good stuff Mark. E.D. needs to chain you to a keyboard.
"
This is probably completely OT but your anectdote did ring a bell for me. My (American) used to sing just a snatch of a song that sounded a lot like the line you quoted.
"You shovel 18 tons *grunt* and what do you get;
Another day older and deeper in debt.
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go;
I owe my soul to the company store."
That's all he'd sing, usually when my Grandmother asked him to do some disagreeable chore or another. I never knew what it was from. Long story short you induced a severe flashback for me; thanks for that B.
On “Against Traditional Morality”
Ah but Obamacare got a supermajority in the Senate in order to pass the filibuster. That's considerably more than 51-49.
"
As James noted above me, Tom, the problem is that the anti-DOMA plaintiffs can (and have) submitted rafts of sworn testimony and empirical evidence of harm caused by DOMA while DOMA's defenders have had nothing to appeal to but Burkean caution.
I have trouble giving much credence to the "they're afraid of being called bad names by gays" line of arguement. In most cases the so called experts are greatly vocal on media or politican campaigning. It's only when requested to testify under oaths and to standards of demonstratable evidence that their voices seem to desert them. That says something about their arguements it seems to me.
"
Heh, I'm gonna bring this one up next time you start talking about the tyrannical enactment of PPACA.
"
Tom, it seems to me that you seem to be getting the judicial process somewhat backwards in this case. The judge chose to apply rational basis... he then went through the reasons for the law that had been presented to the court. He then came up on his own with some additional plausible justifications on behalf of the law that the defenders had not offered. It was only after both of those groups of defenses failed the rational basis analysis that he brought up the incendiary language of DOMA's writers.
Note, please, that this pattern is in keeping with the astonishing paucity of evidence and legal justification offered up anywhere in support of anti SSM laws. Whether it be federally or in California the courts call to defenders of anti-ssm laws and say "okay present your reasons and justifications to the courts please. Note only expert testimony under oath or empirically verifiable evidence meets the standards of evidence for courts." In all of these scenarios the defenders of the anti-SSM laws respond with crickets and silence. This leads one to only one of two conclusions: that for some reason there is something structurally wrong with the age old legal definitions of admissable evidence and testimony or that the defenders of anti-SSM laws simply have no justifications that meet the standards of formal legal proceedings.
Which of these alternatives do you subscribe to or am I missing something here?
On “The Koch brothers and rightwing fusionism”
And as an addendum to this the savage dynamic of CYA (cover your ass) spins like a whirling blade reaping down any green shoots that arise in this matter.
Liberal politician has some rediculous proposal offered "for the children" or "for safety" or what ever. Their options are:
A-Oppose
B-Support
The outcomes are either 1: Nothing happens, 2: something bad happens 3: something good happens (note all of these are assumed to be related to the issue in the first part.
In 1A, and 3A the politician reaps pretty much zero political reward from voters for their opposition standpoint. If 2A happens the poiltician suffers grevious political costs for their opposition.
In 1B the politician suffers no cost. in 2B the politician can claim that something was done but not enough. Their damage is either minor or nonexistant. In 3B the politician claims victory and reaps significant political benefit.
Considering the outcomes all else being equal and voters being lazy politicians are always advised to support interventionist do something legislation.
On “Against Traditional Morality”
For the former KenB I agree; for the latter I suspect that some actual harm (small but non-zero) could probably be demonstrated. It'd depend mainly on your definition of public.
"
That's a fine piece of writing James. Really great stuff!
On “A Little Bit of Light-Hearted Nerdery, and a Question”
I endorse the Machete order for Star Wars viewing but suspect I'll never have cause to use it since everyone already knows everything about Star Wars.
On “The 14th Amendment vs. Plato”
I'm sorry for your loss, it sounds like you got along well.
I have a joint tenancy in common myself with my husband (married in Canada). That one wasn't immensly hard but there are tax implications and some other legal concerns that would fall on us if the other perished.
I also have an inlaw who is almost cartoonish in her animus against me (his Mother and her fire and brimstone preacher friend) has promised to go after anything we have if he gets sick. Accordingly we have arranged medical power of attourney, wills etc... It was none too cheap for even our simple array of assets; had we had many more assets it would have been more expensive and our lawyer was careful to emphasize that we be careful where we travel and be aware that with a capable lawyer against us even these safety nets could be copromised or held up in court battles at considerable cost in time and expense.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.