Erwin Cheminrinsky is one of the reigning deans of Constitutional Law. He also does the lectures of Bar Review.
He told a cute story about how he once told his sons to be quiet because they were bickering over toys or baseball cards and his son said he had a free speech right. Dean Chemerinsky told his son"The Constitution only applies to the Government." His son retorted "You are like the government to me"
I still think teaching kids to read time is useful. If only because there are still plenty of non-digital clocks and watches around. I use a non-digital watch (same one I've owned since I was 17. It was a high school graduation present).
If X and Y decide mutually that the extent of their relationship is going to be sex and nothing more on Tuesday and Thursday nights, I have no problem with it and do not see it as immoral.
"Lust is a moral problem because it inclines one to perceive and to treat another solely as an object of desire or enjoyment. The lustful heart beats for flesh, not for a person. It therefore hinders personal encounters and intimacy."
I would say that this is only a problem if one is deceitful about it or leads the other person on.
For example: Let's say we have X and Y (I would normally pick names but want to avoid making this gendered). X only physically desires Y and wants nothing more than sex from Y. However, Y is sincerely in love with X as a person and wants a more significant emotional relationship. If X pretends to be emotionally vested in Y just to get sex, X is being immoral because it is leading Y down a false path with false hopes intentionally.
However if X and Y are completely honest in expressing that it is just about sex and nothing more than it is not immoral.
In short, I see nothing wrong with a Friends with Benefit relationship or mutual hook-up if all parties are honest
"It’s not instrumental to maintaining a public image (voters could care less what time he ran)"
Perhaps it is. A reader to Andrew Sullivan's blog wrote in with a theory of Ryan. Basically almost everyone can agree that Ryan has the look of a nice, small-town, midwestern boy. Perpetually boyish and good-looking in a non-threatening way, always seeming earnest and sincere. He is very good at using his image to hide the radicalness of his proposals and vision for society. The reader theorized that there are a lot of people who respond so positively to Ryan's boyishness that they get defensive for him when he is challenged on his policies. A sort of "But Paul Ryan looks like the nice boy down the street, how dare people say these horrible things about him."
Perhaps Ryan's knows this and wants to troll the left into calling him out for lies, misinformation, and actual information on his policies. Perhaps Ryan knows that there are enough voters who will be defensive for him that such lies are beneficial. Especially the voters are a bit Republican leaning but not complete Partisans. "How dare those outsider lefties accuse Ryan of a misdeed!"
I think partisanship and tribalism go for explaining a lot.
Several years ago, I remember reading a piece by Kathryn Lopez at the National Review where she outright admitted to wanting to go back to the 1950s or the idealized version of the 1950s that she had in her head. This basically said "I want to turn back the clock"
I found her post to be very revealing. I can't seem to google for it right now. I do find stuff about why she hates contraception from 2011 but it is not the post I remember.
I should say most decent people. I think Obama is a fundamentally decent person. There are probably a lot of people in safe house seats that are fundamentally decent people and a good amount of Senators.
I think when politicians get away or do not get away with misdeeds of one sort or another is largely a result of polarization and partisanship.
Let's look at the cases of Elliot Spitzer and David Vitter who both got in trouble for the same issue. Both went to escort services (BTW this is in no way to spell out my own personal position on sex workers and whether prostitution/escorting should be legal or not) and allegedly engaged in some risque/taboo sex. Vitter had his diaper fetish and Spitzer like bareback blowjobs. Vitter remained in power but Spitzer resigned pretty quickly? We have no idea what happened behind the scenes but if Vitter resigned, he would have been replaced by a Democrat because the governor of Louisiana at the time was a Democrat. Spitzer was replaced by a Democrat and there was really no hope at that point for the Republicans to gain the governorship of NY. Spitzer's successor was not very popular but New York was blue enough at the time to make sure that a Republican would not get the seat.
Anthony Weiner and a congressional Republican from upstate were forced to resign because of sending nude photos to women on-line. Both of them were from perceived safe seats but ended up being replaced by a member of the opposite party. I'm sure that if you told Pelosi and Bohener about these results, the parties would have let them stay and repent.
The same goes for Clinton and Ryan. Both are well-known and polarizing figures. And in Clinton's case, the witch-hunt was led by Newt Gingrich at a time when he was seen as an ultra-partisan who shut down the government. Newt and other House members like Henry Hyde were known adulterers so that added to the sting of partisan hypocrisy. If there is one thing that many liberals and secular types dislike about the religious right is that we sense that they are largely very hypocritical. They preach morals but act in a very different way. No conservative bugs me more than the privilege of the cognitive dissnoance conservative. The kind of person who thinks it is okay for them to drink, smoke pot, and have sex because they are wealthy and white but will then go rail against it. This is why the party rallied around Bill instead of letting him get impeached. Democrats that sided with the Republicans lost a lot of cred in the party for doing so like Newt Gingrich.
Anyway am I being too cynical by wondering how many of our politicians have open marriages or at least a marriage that is more about power than love? Not all of them, Jenny Sanford and Elizabeth Edwards seemed appalled and truly upset by their husbands adultery. Others I am not so sure of. The Obamas (and to be fair The Romneys) seem to have a marriage based more on love and mutual respect than the Clintons. At least in my eyes. For all his faults, Bush II never struck me as an adulterer. It doesn't make him a good President though.
Though I also think you are right and this largely says something about our political process. I think to be a politician in the United States, you need to be made of very strong stuff or even be a bit cold. I don't think that many people can stand the pressure and brutal nature of an American styled campaign. You have to know that the attacks will be brutal, personal, misleading, bring up old ghosts, etc. We have developed a form of campaigning that scares of decent people except from the most safe seats or the most local elections.
It is certainly an 80s or at least pre-Grunge 90s movie.
Oh the 80s and early 90s. I was born in 1980 and have strange fascination with experiencing the time period as a 20 or early 30 something, I have no idea why. Same with being prime-Gen X and being in my 20s during 1992-1995.
Yup. I have no problem with their version of marriage even though I find it odd. There are plenty of more progressive marriage practices that I find odd and also have no problem with. Though there are some very progressive women I know with some old-fashioned concepts that might cause me problems.*
The second point is where I raise my objection. It is not the fact that they are simply against everyone who does not follow their view of marriage. They object to all aspects of modernity including how many modern heterosexual couples view marriage as a partnership of equals.
*I know a lot of very progressive women who still think it is necessary for boyfriends to ask for the woman's dad for permission to propose. As in the guy saying "Can I marry your daughter?" This strikes me as something that I could not do with a straight face.
But how do you tell between the suburbs that Republicans lose and which ones that they don't?
Marin and Westchester are some of the wealthiest counties in the United States. Just as wealthy as an area like Scottsdale or some of the conservative suburbs of DC. What causes the GOP to lose in Marin and Westchester but hold unto Scotsdale and other wealthy suburbs?
I didn't mean identical twin alike but the rural Mountain west has more in common with Alabama than it does with Denver or Boulder.
rural California has more in common with Alabama than it does with San Francisco, San Diego, or Los Angeles even if it is different than the rural South in key ways as well.
I also think that if rural Oregon or Washington is basically indistinguishable from the deep South, that will keep the GOP alive in state legislatures and the House at least.
The Democrats basically seem to hold onto cities with over 500,000 people, a good chunk of cities with populations between 50,000-500,000 people, college towns, and certain inner-ring suburbs.*
*Mainly the upper-middle class ones filled with professionals. The kind of suburb I grew up in. Marin County and Westchester are prime examples of this kind of liberalism.
I am not looking for that either necessarily. I am left-wing economically. Arguably I am more left-wing on economics than much of the Democratic Party.
I do have a lot of friends who are Democrats but would love to be Rockefeller Republicans though. However, the social extremism of the GOP on gay rights and abortion is keeping them away. Other social issues as well.
What do you think Brown and company "think conservatism" means?
I admit to not knowing too many people my age (31) who are conservatives. As explained before, this is largely a fate of growing up in the NYC-Metro area and now living in San Francisco. I know three people in Gen X or younger who have "liked" Mitt Romney on facebook. One is a woman who does Wall Street work, the other two seem to be standard variety conservatives.
I don't see the people you mentioned as becoming more socially liberal or really distinguishing themselves in anyway from the current social conservatism that is part and parcel of the Republican Party. They might not be as rah-rah about the culture war as Santorum but there do seem to be large chunks of the party that don't realize how far away they are from modernity. This includes youngish people like James O'Keefe and Breitbart. I saw plenty of super-young looking people at the GOP convention were just as enthusiastic about the culture wars as the Robertson section.
In a more sane world, a place like Silicon Valley should be a natural home for a somewhat fiscally conservative but socially liberal Rockefeller Republican. However, the GOP has made this brand unacceptable and I think that the Christie or Brown type is still too conservative on social issues for Silicon Valley.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Reading, Writing, and Ridiculous?”
If it is a public school, she is technically a government employee.
If I had a kid who said this, I would be rather impressed. You might still have to lecture them but I would be impressed and proud.
"
Erwin Cheminrinsky is one of the reigning deans of Constitutional Law. He also does the lectures of Bar Review.
He told a cute story about how he once told his sons to be quiet because they were bickering over toys or baseball cards and his son said he had a free speech right. Dean Chemerinsky told his son"The Constitution only applies to the Government." His son retorted "You are like the government to me"
On “Is Lust Really Immoral?”
Blinded Trials. A question about how professions are portrayed on film and TV turned into something about Hipsters.
On “Reading, Writing, and Ridiculous?”
Cursive might also teach fine motor skills!
"
I think we started cursive in third or fourth grade.
"
I still think teaching kids to read time is useful. If only because there are still plenty of non-digital clocks and watches around. I use a non-digital watch (same one I've owned since I was 17. It was a high school graduation present).
Cursive I am less sure about.
On “Is Lust Really Immoral?”
If X and Y decide mutually that the extent of their relationship is going to be sex and nothing more on Tuesday and Thursday nights, I have no problem with it and do not see it as immoral.
"
Yup
"
"Lust is a moral problem because it inclines one to perceive and to treat another solely as an object of desire or enjoyment. The lustful heart beats for flesh, not for a person. It therefore hinders personal encounters and intimacy."
I would say that this is only a problem if one is deceitful about it or leads the other person on.
For example: Let's say we have X and Y (I would normally pick names but want to avoid making this gendered). X only physically desires Y and wants nothing more than sex from Y. However, Y is sincerely in love with X as a person and wants a more significant emotional relationship. If X pretends to be emotionally vested in Y just to get sex, X is being immoral because it is leading Y down a false path with false hopes intentionally.
However if X and Y are completely honest in expressing that it is just about sex and nothing more than it is not immoral.
In short, I see nothing wrong with a Friends with Benefit relationship or mutual hook-up if all parties are honest
"
Something about knowing it in his mycordial valve.
On “Why (things like) Paul Ryan’s marathon lies matter (to me.)”
"It’s not instrumental to maintaining a public image (voters could care less what time he ran)"
Perhaps it is. A reader to Andrew Sullivan's blog wrote in with a theory of Ryan. Basically almost everyone can agree that Ryan has the look of a nice, small-town, midwestern boy. Perpetually boyish and good-looking in a non-threatening way, always seeming earnest and sincere. He is very good at using his image to hide the radicalness of his proposals and vision for society. The reader theorized that there are a lot of people who respond so positively to Ryan's boyishness that they get defensive for him when he is challenged on his policies. A sort of "But Paul Ryan looks like the nice boy down the street, how dare people say these horrible things about him."
Perhaps Ryan's knows this and wants to troll the left into calling him out for lies, misinformation, and actual information on his policies. Perhaps Ryan knows that there are enough voters who will be defensive for him that such lies are beneficial. Especially the voters are a bit Republican leaning but not complete Partisans. "How dare those outsider lefties accuse Ryan of a misdeed!"
I think partisanship and tribalism go for explaining a lot.
On “Marriage as Leadership and Submission”
Several years ago, I remember reading a piece by Kathryn Lopez at the National Review where she outright admitted to wanting to go back to the 1950s or the idealized version of the 1950s that she had in her head. This basically said "I want to turn back the clock"
I found her post to be very revealing. I can't seem to google for it right now. I do find stuff about why she hates contraception from 2011 but it is not the post I remember.
On “Why (things like) Paul Ryan’s marathon lies matter (to me.)”
I should say most decent people. I think Obama is a fundamentally decent person. There are probably a lot of people in safe house seats that are fundamentally decent people and a good amount of Senators.
"
I think when politicians get away or do not get away with misdeeds of one sort or another is largely a result of polarization and partisanship.
Let's look at the cases of Elliot Spitzer and David Vitter who both got in trouble for the same issue. Both went to escort services (BTW this is in no way to spell out my own personal position on sex workers and whether prostitution/escorting should be legal or not) and allegedly engaged in some risque/taboo sex. Vitter had his diaper fetish and Spitzer like bareback blowjobs. Vitter remained in power but Spitzer resigned pretty quickly? We have no idea what happened behind the scenes but if Vitter resigned, he would have been replaced by a Democrat because the governor of Louisiana at the time was a Democrat. Spitzer was replaced by a Democrat and there was really no hope at that point for the Republicans to gain the governorship of NY. Spitzer's successor was not very popular but New York was blue enough at the time to make sure that a Republican would not get the seat.
Anthony Weiner and a congressional Republican from upstate were forced to resign because of sending nude photos to women on-line. Both of them were from perceived safe seats but ended up being replaced by a member of the opposite party. I'm sure that if you told Pelosi and Bohener about these results, the parties would have let them stay and repent.
The same goes for Clinton and Ryan. Both are well-known and polarizing figures. And in Clinton's case, the witch-hunt was led by Newt Gingrich at a time when he was seen as an ultra-partisan who shut down the government. Newt and other House members like Henry Hyde were known adulterers so that added to the sting of partisan hypocrisy. If there is one thing that many liberals and secular types dislike about the religious right is that we sense that they are largely very hypocritical. They preach morals but act in a very different way. No conservative bugs me more than the privilege of the cognitive dissnoance conservative. The kind of person who thinks it is okay for them to drink, smoke pot, and have sex because they are wealthy and white but will then go rail against it. This is why the party rallied around Bill instead of letting him get impeached. Democrats that sided with the Republicans lost a lot of cred in the party for doing so like Newt Gingrich.
Anyway am I being too cynical by wondering how many of our politicians have open marriages or at least a marriage that is more about power than love? Not all of them, Jenny Sanford and Elizabeth Edwards seemed appalled and truly upset by their husbands adultery. Others I am not so sure of. The Obamas (and to be fair The Romneys) seem to have a marriage based more on love and mutual respect than the Clintons. At least in my eyes. For all his faults, Bush II never struck me as an adulterer. It doesn't make him a good President though.
Though I also think you are right and this largely says something about our political process. I think to be a politician in the United States, you need to be made of very strong stuff or even be a bit cold. I don't think that many people can stand the pressure and brutal nature of an American styled campaign. You have to know that the attacks will be brutal, personal, misleading, bring up old ghosts, etc. We have developed a form of campaigning that scares of decent people except from the most safe seats or the most local elections.
On “Weekend jukebox and trivia”
It is certainly an 80s or at least pre-Grunge 90s movie.
Oh the 80s and early 90s. I was born in 1980 and have strange fascination with experiencing the time period as a 20 or early 30 something, I have no idea why. Same with being prime-Gen X and being in my 20s during 1992-1995.
On “Marriage as Leadership and Submission”
Yup. I have no problem with their version of marriage even though I find it odd. There are plenty of more progressive marriage practices that I find odd and also have no problem with. Though there are some very progressive women I know with some old-fashioned concepts that might cause me problems.*
The second point is where I raise my objection. It is not the fact that they are simply against everyone who does not follow their view of marriage. They object to all aspects of modernity including how many modern heterosexual couples view marriage as a partnership of equals.
*I know a lot of very progressive women who still think it is necessary for boyfriends to ask for the woman's dad for permission to propose. As in the guy saying "Can I marry your daughter?" This strikes me as something that I could not do with a straight face.
On “The Return of the GOP as a National Party”
How is Idaho different than the deep rural south in substantive ways politically?
Especially social/cultural politics. They seem close enough to my blue-state eyes.
"
But how do you tell between the suburbs that Republicans lose and which ones that they don't?
Marin and Westchester are some of the wealthiest counties in the United States. Just as wealthy as an area like Scottsdale or some of the conservative suburbs of DC. What causes the GOP to lose in Marin and Westchester but hold unto Scotsdale and other wealthy suburbs?
"
There is still a whole lot of gerrymandering going on though. Enough people live rural and exurb for gerrymandering purposes.
"
I didn't mean identical twin alike but the rural Mountain west has more in common with Alabama than it does with Denver or Boulder.
rural California has more in common with Alabama than it does with San Francisco, San Diego, or Los Angeles even if it is different than the rural South in key ways as well.
"
I also think that if rural Oregon or Washington is basically indistinguishable from the deep South, that will keep the GOP alive in state legislatures and the House at least.
This is from 2004 but it seems apt:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=19813
"
The Democrats basically seem to hold onto cities with over 500,000 people, a good chunk of cities with populations between 50,000-500,000 people, college towns, and certain inner-ring suburbs.*
*Mainly the upper-middle class ones filled with professionals. The kind of suburb I grew up in. Marin County and Westchester are prime examples of this kind of liberalism.
"
Got it.
I am not looking for that either necessarily. I am left-wing economically. Arguably I am more left-wing on economics than much of the Democratic Party.
I do have a lot of friends who are Democrats but would love to be Rockefeller Republicans though. However, the social extremism of the GOP on gay rights and abortion is keeping them away. Other social issues as well.
"
Perhaps we have different definitions of what will make the GOP sane again.
"
What do you think Brown and company "think conservatism" means?
I admit to not knowing too many people my age (31) who are conservatives. As explained before, this is largely a fate of growing up in the NYC-Metro area and now living in San Francisco. I know three people in Gen X or younger who have "liked" Mitt Romney on facebook. One is a woman who does Wall Street work, the other two seem to be standard variety conservatives.
I don't see the people you mentioned as becoming more socially liberal or really distinguishing themselves in anyway from the current social conservatism that is part and parcel of the Republican Party. They might not be as rah-rah about the culture war as Santorum but there do seem to be large chunks of the party that don't realize how far away they are from modernity. This includes youngish people like James O'Keefe and Breitbart. I saw plenty of super-young looking people at the GOP convention were just as enthusiastic about the culture wars as the Robertson section.
In a more sane world, a place like Silicon Valley should be a natural home for a somewhat fiscally conservative but socially liberal Rockefeller Republican. However, the GOP has made this brand unacceptable and I think that the Christie or Brown type is still too conservative on social issues for Silicon Valley.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.