Did Spitzer ever moralize people on prostitution*?
The problem is not moralizing and going after any vice but going after vices that you indulge in. Spitzer went after Wall Street excess, not Prostitution. Many Republicans go against stuff that they are later caught indulging in. It is not the same situation.
*In the movie Inside Job, they talked about how a lot of hot Wall Street guys used escorts and prostitutes. Spitzer was interviewed for the documentary and said something along the lines of "I really can't comment on this" because of his sex scandal. I think he is still capable of being a critic of shady financial practices.
It is also worth noting that Ann Coulter comes from upper-middle class suburban Connecticut and her father was a big-time Corporate/Union busting lawyer. She is not from the same resentment background of the Sarah Palins of the world. Rush Limbaugh comes from an equally important line of Missouri Republican Judges. These are not people who grew up in the lower-middle class that Marx marked as the most reactionary.
Though most poltiical strife can probably be explained by resentment and ressentiment.
I don't think this is part of our historical moment. I think this has been going on for ages and is a largely persistent but constantly present part of American History. Or at least for the past several decades.
Conservative Politics in the United States has always seemed to have a love/hate fascination with the "in-crowd". The in-crowd being the "elite" not so much in terms of wealth (though they are often well-to-do) but in terms of cultural importance.
Richard Nixon famously started a look at Whittier for the students who could not get into the cool-kids club. A biography recently came out of the National Review's original publisher. According to a review (I think in the New Republic), he also felt a kind of seething anger at his more established classmates and felt mocked for being a "black shoe" IIRC black shoe was a Princeton insult for striving undergrads and also ones who were less than sophisticated and kind of prudish.
The new variant of this is to regale in a kind of anti-PC against anything that upper-middle class professionals consider good. Hence the dissonant combination of Hell's Angels with the Christian Right. But a certain subset of American Conservativism has never understood why the upper-middle class and economically well-off choose to go for cultural sophistication over thrift and homespun values.
In short, I don't think this a moment that is going to pass but will be with us for a long time if not forever.
With the exception of Rimbaud, I would say your link is largely left-wing people shocking conservative (not politically but as operationally) middle class people.
One does not hear Ann Coulter endorse hash or opium.
"Who’s smart, and who’s smarter than who, is a constant question at grad school and beyond."
I knew that this plagued me a lot in my MFA program. The faculty liked me but I was clearly not a favorite in terms of people who they thought were going to have big careers. The dean summed me up as being a "model student, problematic director".
Ironically, now that I have given up on theatre for the time being, went to law school, and am working as a lawyer, now people are telling me that I will end up with my name in lights and on Broadway. I find it kind of ironic that it took getting a law degree to have people tell me "I can see you pitching a TV show successfully"
Of course this raises the question about why said meetings for third party tend to attract the conspiracy minded.
It also raises the question of whether it is possible to have third parties that have non-crazy elements. Every party has their crazy but I'd like to think that we can have a party to the left of the Democrats without going into crazy land.
Okay, the small that you mentioned might not be very exciting but local government is the level that most people interact with one a daily basis.
There are plenty of local issues like police brutality, crimes that the District Attorney (a local position), and many more that do have high impact and can be connected to the big issues you mentioned. Education funding is a largely local/state issue.
On a more real politic level, working from the ground up is a long term but necessary tactic. Suppose Jill Stein or another Green Party (or Libertarian for that matter) candidate did get elected to the Presidency. Then what? They will still need to deal with a Congress that is likely to be against them. They might get some judicial appointments but beyond that....By starting local and then getting bigger, it shows people that you are serious not only but the big issues but the nuts and bolts and it is the boring nuts and bolts of government that can be really important to many people.
Hello neighbor and my I also guess fellow Member of the Tribe? Or are you on the Italian-Irish side of Gold Coast living.
My parents used to send me to science camp at the Science Preserve in Sands Point/Port Washington. I had a few classmates in grad school from Port Washington and various doctors along Northern Blvd in the Manhasset/Port Washington border lands.
Oh Long Island, how I kind of miss you. Though I miss the Northeast in general. I miss how old everything is there and seeing the old colonial architecture in autumn and winter.
Yeah, the Fifth is at least half in Queens which gives it a unique flavor. It contains some the wealthiest suburbs on Long Island with much more modest sections of Queens. Though Little Neck is indistinguishable from the North Shore in parts.
I think there is a difference between policy and politics in that we are not a technocracy.
The electorate can and often does ignore what the best policies are. NPR's Planet Money has done a few episodes in which they ask a bunch of economists to design their ideal platform. These economists came from across the political spectrum. The Planet Money team assembled 5 or 6 policies that all the economists agreed on.
Almost all of them would be wildly unpopular like getting rid of the mortgage tax credit.
Though I would say that there is a big tension between science and being a liberal democracy.
Namely does being a liberal democracy give people the right to ignore scientific consensus on what the best policy is?
Christopher Hitchens used to quip that Democrats believe in whatever "3 out 5 experts say" This is not completely true but there is a ring to it. Too many times, liberal writers just like talking about white papers. Even if the best policy is not good politics.
In short, what if there was near universal scientific consensus on how to fight climate change. Does an electorate in a liberal democracy have a moral obligation to follow this consensus or are they free to reject it for whatever reason they want?
On “Let’s Not Demand an Apology from Ann Coulter”
I don't think she is noble is reason or infinite in faculties. She is certainly not like an Angel in her actions.
"
Oh that was a pleasant image.
Not really but thanks for the tag question
"
Did Spitzer ever moralize people on prostitution*?
The problem is not moralizing and going after any vice but going after vices that you indulge in. Spitzer went after Wall Street excess, not Prostitution. Many Republicans go against stuff that they are later caught indulging in. It is not the same situation.
*In the movie Inside Job, they talked about how a lot of hot Wall Street guys used escorts and prostitutes. Spitzer was interviewed for the documentary and said something along the lines of "I really can't comment on this" because of his sex scandal. I think he is still capable of being a critic of shady financial practices.
"
For his masses?
"
It is also worth noting that Ann Coulter comes from upper-middle class suburban Connecticut and her father was a big-time Corporate/Union busting lawyer. She is not from the same resentment background of the Sarah Palins of the world. Rush Limbaugh comes from an equally important line of Missouri Republican Judges. These are not people who grew up in the lower-middle class that Marx marked as the most reactionary.
Though most poltiical strife can probably be explained by resentment and ressentiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ressentiment
"
I don't think this is part of our historical moment. I think this has been going on for ages and is a largely persistent but constantly present part of American History. Or at least for the past several decades.
Conservative Politics in the United States has always seemed to have a love/hate fascination with the "in-crowd". The in-crowd being the "elite" not so much in terms of wealth (though they are often well-to-do) but in terms of cultural importance.
Richard Nixon famously started a look at Whittier for the students who could not get into the cool-kids club. A biography recently came out of the National Review's original publisher. According to a review (I think in the New Republic), he also felt a kind of seething anger at his more established classmates and felt mocked for being a "black shoe" IIRC black shoe was a Princeton insult for striving undergrads and also ones who were less than sophisticated and kind of prudish.
The new variant of this is to regale in a kind of anti-PC against anything that upper-middle class professionals consider good. Hence the dissonant combination of Hell's Angels with the Christian Right. But a certain subset of American Conservativism has never understood why the upper-middle class and economically well-off choose to go for cultural sophistication over thrift and homespun values.
In short, I don't think this a moment that is going to pass but will be with us for a long time if not forever.
"
With the exception of Rimbaud, I would say your link is largely left-wing people shocking conservative (not politically but as operationally) middle class people.
One does not hear Ann Coulter endorse hash or opium.
On “So Romney went and tore up his old Foreign Policy Script….”
"Laughter and merriment."
I'll stick with Danny Kaye
"
The sad part is that this tactic has a good chance of working.
On “More on Being a Woman in a Male-dominated Field”
"Who’s smart, and who’s smarter than who, is a constant question at grad school and beyond."
I knew that this plagued me a lot in my MFA program. The faculty liked me but I was clearly not a favorite in terms of people who they thought were going to have big careers. The dean summed me up as being a "model student, problematic director".
Ironically, now that I have given up on theatre for the time being, went to law school, and am working as a lawyer, now people are telling me that I will end up with my name in lights and on Broadway. I find it kind of ironic that it took getting a law degree to have people tell me "I can see you pitching a TV show successfully"
On “Gang Green”
Of course this raises the question about why said meetings for third party tend to attract the conspiracy minded.
It also raises the question of whether it is possible to have third parties that have non-crazy elements. Every party has their crazy but I'd like to think that we can have a party to the left of the Democrats without going into crazy land.
"
Okay, the small that you mentioned might not be very exciting but local government is the level that most people interact with one a daily basis.
There are plenty of local issues like police brutality, crimes that the District Attorney (a local position), and many more that do have high impact and can be connected to the big issues you mentioned. Education funding is a largely local/state issue.
On a more real politic level, working from the ground up is a long term but necessary tactic. Suppose Jill Stein or another Green Party (or Libertarian for that matter) candidate did get elected to the Presidency. Then what? They will still need to deal with a Congress that is likely to be against them. They might get some judicial appointments but beyond that....By starting local and then getting bigger, it shows people that you are serious not only but the big issues but the nuts and bolts and it is the boring nuts and bolts of government that can be really important to many people.
On “Electoral College Reversal”
In which case:
1. Biden makes Obama his Veep
2. Under the "advice and consent of the Senate"
3. Biden steps down
4. Obama takes the mantle of the Presidency
5. Obama makes Biden his veep
"
A gentlemen's bet probably
"
Also good at taking what up is most infuriating about the Republican Party.
"
True but I think you would see more campaigning because it would not just be about the swing states.
The Republican Party would dispatch candidates and/or surrogates to Staten Island and Upstate New York.
The Democratic Party would try and work magic in blue-cities in red states like Austin and Salt Lake City, etc.
"
Maybe for some.
I still think we should get rid of the electoral college. It is an outdated and unnecessary system.
Plus I think a popular national vote (with a requirement of winning plus 50 percent of the vote) could tone down partisanship and discord.
On “Nassau County is Not an Obama Love-fest”
Well then,
Hello neighbor and my I also guess fellow Member of the Tribe? Or are you on the Italian-Irish side of Gold Coast living.
My parents used to send me to science camp at the Science Preserve in Sands Point/Port Washington. I had a few classmates in grad school from Port Washington and various doctors along Northern Blvd in the Manhasset/Port Washington border lands.
Oh Long Island, how I kind of miss you. Though I miss the Northeast in general. I miss how old everything is there and seeing the old colonial architecture in autumn and winter.
"
I think it was largely 9-11 that changed that district. Pete King is a big cheerleader for the War on Terror and a general Islam-basher.
"
Yeah, the Fifth is at least half in Queens which gives it a unique flavor. It contains some the wealthiest suburbs on Long Island with much more modest sections of Queens. Though Little Neck is indistinguishable from the North Shore in parts.
"
Oui.
On “Conservatives and Science”
I think there is a difference between policy and politics in that we are not a technocracy.
The electorate can and often does ignore what the best policies are. NPR's Planet Money has done a few episodes in which they ask a bunch of economists to design their ideal platform. These economists came from across the political spectrum. The Planet Money team assembled 5 or 6 policies that all the economists agreed on.
Almost all of them would be wildly unpopular like getting rid of the mortgage tax credit.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/07/19/157047211/six-policies-economists-love-and-politicians-hate
"
Forgot my asterisk:
*I realize this goes against the spirit of the quip but whenever I hear a conservative use this Buckley quip, two thoughts come into my mind.
1. A lot of those names are probably Democratic Party voters
2. How many of those names are Harvard faculty members?
"
Though I would say that there is a big tension between science and being a liberal democracy.
Namely does being a liberal democracy give people the right to ignore scientific consensus on what the best policy is?
Christopher Hitchens used to quip that Democrats believe in whatever "3 out 5 experts say" This is not completely true but there is a ring to it. Too many times, liberal writers just like talking about white papers. Even if the best policy is not good politics.
In short, what if there was near universal scientific consensus on how to fight climate change. Does an electorate in a liberal democracy have a moral obligation to follow this consensus or are they free to reject it for whatever reason they want?
"
I love beets. Don't flame my beets. Unless it makes them nice and roasted.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.