Yes I believe they still do. A lot of the old 'keep Canada Canadian" stuff lingers and since they don't have an ironclad first ammendment there're things that can stand in Canada that wouldn't endure in the US. Then again the FCC still prevents you from swearing on network television.
The funny thing about Andrew is he runs either hot like lava or cold like ice on subject. In his youth he was an unswerving advocate of the Israel can do no wrong camp. Now he's flipped his rhetoric a lot. The answer, of course, is somewhere in the middle.
Andrew does, however, demonstrate that Israel, as its freedom of security and action has widened, is beginning to lose some of the cover that it has traditionally deployed to defend its more unpleasant side (settlements, rabid right wing settlement and religious groups etc...). The idea that surrendering the territories or reaching some kind of compromise on Jerusalem would represent some kind of existential threat to the Jewish Israeli state is ludicrous and any small danger that such actions to present represent far less danger than the demographic timebomb they have strapped to themselves in the form of the very settlements they so adamantly cling to.
Liberty, I think most of the real world examples that spring to mind run contrart to your reasoning. I'll toss a couple out for consideration:
-Agriculture: Sugar tariffs, sugar price supports and similar such behavior. These mildly inconvenience the majority: slightly higher prices for sugar and food; slightly fewer jobs as sugar intensive industries locate outside the country (Ontario is a big candy making area for this reason for instance); slightly less healthy food choices (King corn and his wicked child corn syrup is so popular because they essentially were a low cost alternative to artificially expensive Caribbean and south American sugar. The minority; sugar farmers and farmers in general and agriculture corporations especially collect fat rents and income as a benefit.
-Trade: The Cuba lobby and the continuing Cuban Embargo. The majority is mildly inconvenienced: No easy travel to Cuba, no easy access to Cuban goods, minor loss in prestige at the visible impotence of Uncle Sam on this policy, imbalances in immigration, resentment between immigrant communities. The minority benefits significantly: former pre-Castro interests retain their claim against Cuban assets. Cuban exiles get considerable solace and satisfaction from the continuing pariah state of Cuba and from the political clout it gives them.
I'm vaguely aware of the Chinese issue but to my mind it's a considerably less significant issue as far as its impact on the rest of the world goes. China is very important, yes, but not so much as a driver of the economies, they manufacture stuff but don't buy very much. Europe is a massive consumer of other nations exports, if they go tits up then all hell is gonna break loose globally.
Last I heard the economic indicators are positive and there're green shoots popping up all over the place on the unemployment indicators. Obviously Europe could swoon at any time so there is that 800 lb gorilla but I don't know that the GOP can count on the economy to rescue them and if ever you had to campaign against someone on a bad economy Newt would be the guy to go against, well other than Santorum.
I think I speak for all Democrats everywhere when I say... This can't be possible? Surely this isn't possible? Newt? Newt Gingrich? Could he still capture the nomination? Surely this is some clever joke. Surely plastic man will pull it out in the end and nail the nomination down. Surely there'll be some kind of brokered convention and they'll draft some more impressive figure than their current slate? Surely not Newt? No one is that lucky. No party can be that lucky, no President could be so lucky as to have Newt Gingrich as an opponent in a Presidential race. NEWT?!?
Some liberals just want to see the rich burn, Jay, even if the conflagration engulfs them as well. Happily the ones who truly on reflection desire such are a minority and a shrinking one.
This is really a great article. I'd observe on one hand, though, that it's not gonna help our reputation of being a league of dorky gentlemen. On the other hand Batman has been very good to us.
Because I'd do a hell of a lot more than that if it'd assure Newt the nomination. I would really enjoy seeing a Mondale redux this election with Newt playing the part of Mondale.
An alternative version I read once was that you see a train thundering down the track and you are standing at the switch. As currently set the train will careen into five people who have no hope of avoiding the train (indeed they're unaware of its approach). You could, if you chose, throw the switch sending the train careening down an alternative track into one individual (similarily oblivious and incapable of evading the train) instead or foul the switch and derail the train killing dozens. It is established that you are too distant to warn either of the people on the tracks nor can you halt the train. Your options are to do nothing, allowing the train to kill five people, throw the switch causing the train to kill one person or foul the switch causing the train to kill dozens.
If they've done everything on that list then Romney would probably be fine with his base. But you seem to suggest Romney would have room to govern as a moderate and it's quite beyond me where you think his base would give him that kind of slack. As I mentioned before they have sacked their own presidents before. They don't even need to mount a primary challenge, they can just be pissed and stay home or protest vote. Romney would be keenly aware of his bases options and I see no reason that a man as keenly intent on being president as he is would endanger that by governing moderately because of some sort of hidden scruples.
Well Obama has promised to veto it if it gets through the Senate. I honestly can say that if he caved on this issue I'd very very seriously consider not voting for him in the election.
Yes well your monster is both shaped like a heart and also equipped with horns and impressive tusks. Clearly a lover and a fighter and a quality monster beside, I don't blame you for wanting to retain it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Weekend Jukebox: Canuck Edition (Reasons to love/hate Canada)”
Yes I believe they still do. A lot of the old 'keep Canada Canadian" stuff lingers and since they don't have an ironclad first ammendment there're things that can stand in Canada that wouldn't endure in the US. Then again the FCC still prevents you from swearing on network television.
On “Newt’s Secret Ingredient”
I'm certainly rooting for this outcome.
"
Impossible. He cannot win. No democrat or person on the left individually or collectively could possibly be that lucky.
On “As Old As The World”
err that second settlement should be sentiment.
"
The funny thing about Andrew is he runs either hot like lava or cold like ice on subject. In his youth he was an unswerving advocate of the Israel can do no wrong camp. Now he's flipped his rhetoric a lot. The answer, of course, is somewhere in the middle.
Andrew does, however, demonstrate that Israel, as its freedom of security and action has widened, is beginning to lose some of the cover that it has traditionally deployed to defend its more unpleasant side (settlements, rabid right wing settlement and religious groups etc...). The idea that surrendering the territories or reaching some kind of compromise on Jerusalem would represent some kind of existential threat to the Jewish Israeli state is ludicrous and any small danger that such actions to present represent far less danger than the demographic timebomb they have strapped to themselves in the form of the very settlements they so adamantly cling to.
"
To be fair Blaise, Israel hasn't signed the NPT so the IAEA has no legal authority over them.
On “The Margins of the Argument”
Liberty, I think most of the real world examples that spring to mind run contrart to your reasoning. I'll toss a couple out for consideration:
-Agriculture: Sugar tariffs, sugar price supports and similar such behavior. These mildly inconvenience the majority: slightly higher prices for sugar and food; slightly fewer jobs as sugar intensive industries locate outside the country (Ontario is a big candy making area for this reason for instance); slightly less healthy food choices (King corn and his wicked child corn syrup is so popular because they essentially were a low cost alternative to artificially expensive Caribbean and south American sugar. The minority; sugar farmers and farmers in general and agriculture corporations especially collect fat rents and income as a benefit.
-Trade: The Cuba lobby and the continuing Cuban Embargo. The majority is mildly inconvenienced: No easy travel to Cuba, no easy access to Cuban goods, minor loss in prestige at the visible impotence of Uncle Sam on this policy, imbalances in immigration, resentment between immigrant communities. The minority benefits significantly: former pre-Castro interests retain their claim against Cuban assets. Cuban exiles get considerable solace and satisfaction from the continuing pariah state of Cuba and from the political clout it gives them.
"
Couldn't be, he didn't say a word about gnosticism.
"
James Henly sir! You have debauched my sloth!!!
On “Nob-les Oblige: An Introduction”
Hurrah Nob! Congrats and welcome!!
On “Islamophobia Is A Myth”
Agreed. Definitive and scathing.
On “What Martin Luther King, Jr. Taught Today’s Movement Conservatism”
I'm vaguely aware of the Chinese issue but to my mind it's a considerably less significant issue as far as its impact on the rest of the world goes. China is very important, yes, but not so much as a driver of the economies, they manufacture stuff but don't buy very much. Europe is a massive consumer of other nations exports, if they go tits up then all hell is gonna break loose globally.
"
Last I heard the economic indicators are positive and there're green shoots popping up all over the place on the unemployment indicators. Obviously Europe could swoon at any time so there is that 800 lb gorilla but I don't know that the GOP can count on the economy to rescue them and if ever you had to campaign against someone on a bad economy Newt would be the guy to go against, well other than Santorum.
"
I think I speak for all Democrats everywhere when I say... This can't be possible? Surely this isn't possible? Newt? Newt Gingrich? Could he still capture the nomination? Surely this is some clever joke. Surely plastic man will pull it out in the end and nail the nomination down. Surely there'll be some kind of brokered convention and they'll draft some more impressive figure than their current slate? Surely not Newt? No one is that lucky. No party can be that lucky, no President could be so lucky as to have Newt Gingrich as an opponent in a Presidential race. NEWT?!?
On “Anarchy, State, and Batman”
Some liberals just want to see the rich burn, Jay, even if the conflagration engulfs them as well. Happily the ones who truly on reflection desire such are a minority and a shrinking one.
On “Comment Deletion, Comment Policy, etc.”
Well I'm certainly happy you're around old boy, even if you enjoy driving me to distraction from time to time.
"
I just want to jump in here and add that I'm crushed that I didn't make your list.
On “Anarchy, State, and Batman”
This is really a great article. I'd observe on one hand, though, that it's not gonna help our reputation of being a league of dorky gentlemen. On the other hand Batman has been very good to us.
On “Newt The Nullifier”
Because I'd do a hell of a lot more than that if it'd assure Newt the nomination. I would really enjoy seeing a Mondale redux this election with Newt playing the part of Mondale.
On “Critiquing Andrew Sullivan’s Critique of Critiques”
Well, technically, if we defined Koch Brothers as libertarians I am dubious they'd want much to do with the Tea Party.
On “On What Doesn’t Really Matter”
An alternative version I read once was that you see a train thundering down the track and you are standing at the switch. As currently set the train will careen into five people who have no hope of avoiding the train (indeed they're unaware of its approach). You could, if you chose, throw the switch sending the train careening down an alternative track into one individual (similarily oblivious and incapable of evading the train) instead or foul the switch and derail the train killing dozens. It is established that you are too distant to warn either of the people on the tracks nor can you halt the train. Your options are to do nothing, allowing the train to kill five people, throw the switch causing the train to kill one person or foul the switch causing the train to kill dozens.
On “Critiquing Andrew Sullivan’s Critique of Critiques”
If they've done everything on that list then Romney would probably be fine with his base. But you seem to suggest Romney would have room to govern as a moderate and it's quite beyond me where you think his base would give him that kind of slack. As I mentioned before they have sacked their own presidents before. They don't even need to mount a primary challenge, they can just be pissed and stay home or protest vote. Romney would be keenly aware of his bases options and I see no reason that a man as keenly intent on being president as he is would endanger that by governing moderately because of some sort of hidden scruples.
On “Why All Those Sites Are Dark Today”
Well Obama has promised to veto it if it gets through the Senate. I honestly can say that if he caved on this issue I'd very very seriously consider not voting for him in the election.
On “Critiquing Andrew Sullivan’s Critique of Critiques”
Likewise, but even as a fan I literally wince when he meeps.
"
Yes well your monster is both shaped like a heart and also equipped with horns and impressive tusks. Clearly a lover and a fighter and a quality monster beside, I don't blame you for wanting to retain it.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.