I read the league on and off for a while before deciding to start posting.
One of the things I learned in my observation is to reply to TVD as a little as possible.
I have a lot of disagreements with James but he is intelligent, polite, civil, and intellectually honest. He is fun to debate with. TVD simply goes for jeering extremism and partisanship. Luckily I think that there are more people like James on the League than like TVD.
There was an interesting essay I read about young, white people in their 20s on food stamps because of the Great Recession.
The author was a writer and part-time waitress in New York. Most of her friends were also well-educated but sparsely employed creative/artist types. The essay was about how people guilt tripped her for being white, young, educated, and on food stamps. The attackers seem to think the author of the essay should be able to get an office job easily because of her education and race.
I am not a fan of all three either but they don't send me into the same kind of rage as Michelle Malkin or Glenn Beck. Or TVD but he is of no power or consequence.
They do probably get a lot of hate because they are women though. However, John Chait seems pretty good about debunking Veronique de Rugy* without being sexist. Is he sarcastic? Yes but not dismissive of her simply because she is a woman.
The unrepentant Freudian in me thinks that humans brains have not completely evolved yet and in our unconscious, we still resort to the easiest and most brutal attacks against our opponents because it is less work than an attack on the merits of the argument. Also reducing an ideological opponent to being a point of mockery reduces them as a threat. Not that Chait or De Rugy have much direct readership. I only read about De Rugy's arguments via Chait. My exposure to Althouse is via Sullivan.
*If I ever heard her in person, I'd probably just melt at the French accent though. I think French accents are absolutely charming and she is pretty easy on the eyes. What can I say? We all have our weaknesses.
I still have not made the plunge into experimenting with an e-reader. I am one of those defiant souls who is either too hipster, too ludditte, or both who likes reading on binded paper.
When it comes to law-stuff, I usually end up printing a lot of stuff because it is easier for me to make notes and understand with a physical copy.
This is sort of off-topic but I am always surprised by people who do not read for pleasure during the academic year. The best piece of advice I ever received was from my undergrad adviser and that was to do at least 45 minutes of pleasure reading a day. I was given this piece of advice during my junior year (in 2000-2001) and have largely kept with it since. It improved my grades in undergrad and I also think kept me sane during grad school and law school and kept my grades good in those degrees as well. And I had the same problem of too much academic reading as well.
A lot of my fellow classmates especially in law school told me that they felt "guilty" about during pleasure reading during the semester. They would say that "If I can read a book, I should be reading for class". And yet they found time to keep up with TV. I really never understood why TV was acceptable recreation but reading a non-school related book was guilt inducing.
I think a lot of Clinton nostalgia comes from these reasons:
1. The economy was very good during the Clinton years . I think a lot of people were economically anxious even during the height of the Bush II housing bubble.
2. In hindisght, the culture wars seemed much calmer.
3. Politics seemed less gridlocked and hyperpartisan despite the 1994 Congressional Elections, the government shutdown, and the Impeachment farce.
Mainly I think it is nostalgia for the Clinton era economy
Sadly, I am not so sure your headline is true. I have seen equally wingnutty stuff from people not in Texas. Like the Republican Senate candidate from Colorado who talked about how bike-sharing was part of a UN conspiracy to take over the state.
Any study of the post-WWII American right-wing shows that these kind of wingnut theories have only been present. However, now we can finally say that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
This is one issue in the culture wars that always seemed strange to me. I will come off with two biases:
1. I dislike golf and don't understand the appeal.
2. I was brought up by parents who despise country clubs (for being elitist) and this belief rubbed off on me. For anyone who thinks this is sour grapes, I grew up very comfortably in the upper-middle class
So I don't see this as a great victory for equality. You still need a lot of dough to gain membership to Augusta, now rich women of the 1 percent can join on their own instead of simply being guests. Let me cheer with a sarcastic Yea!
I just meant to show it as an example of the mentality. The experience seems more common than this one guy and it should be noted that the church said it would modify but not abandon the idiotic practice.
Dreher is a very hardened culture warrior who says something interesting every now and then (he seems to have some concepts of economic justice and fairness) but is largely a religious theocrat to me.
Then again, I like a lot of the shocking art that gets the paleo and social cons all riled up.
I will give you that the RNC is trying to get the guy to step down. But Akin looks like he is trying to survive by appealing to Evangelicals and being contrite and humble. My guess is that this will work.
I suspect that we live in similar bubbles. This is the same bubble that lead Pauline Kael to make her famous quip about Nixon being reelected in 1972. The only people I know from Evagenlical households fled the scene and are no secular or wiccan sometimes. Two converted two Judaism. The Christians I knew growing up in the suburbs of New York tended to be Irish or Italian Catholics with the random Mainline Protestant here and there (usually Quakers or Unitarians). The African-American churches seem to be the most active ones in the Bay Area and our fundies exist far into the East Bay or keep very quiet. In other words, all the Christians I know are still liberal-Democrats for the most part. The Romney supporter I know is a woman from high school who works on Wall Street.
To be fair, the people mentioned in the Forbes article live in similar bubbles.
There was an article a few weeks ago in the New Republic about a youth pastor in Pennsylvania being charged with kidnapping. The columnist wrote that this is a mock exercise done in Evangelical circles to make sure kids pick their faith over life when threatened. The author of the column grew up in Evangelical circles and wrote that they truly believe they are constantly under siege.
People know enough about their ideas, ideals, and policy preferences in order to align then with general labels like conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist, Democratic, Republican, etc.
However, most people, even regular and loyal party voters do not pay attention to politics with a hardcore zeal because the normal aspects of life get in the way. The people who pay attention are a very small group. The 24/7 news networks are only being watched by a few million people each. Some of the talk radio guys get listenership in the tens of millions. I have no idea about the blogosphere and audience numbers.
Knowing about the difference between negative and positive liberty requires more than a casual interest in politics and philosophy. It is probably 200-level university philosophy.
This is not to say that I think it is bad that people cannot talk about positive or negative liberty. It would be nice but is not a requirement.
In that, once someone wins a primary or election, he or she has the sole right to relinquish the victory.
This seems like common sense. Akin won the primary fair and square, it seems like it should not be up to a political party to deny him a space on the ballot because they he is an offensive asshole and idiot.
This goes for all parties. This is just an aspect of democracy.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “My Pick for Essay of the Year.”
I've wanted to know the same thing. It has been bugging me more than it should since I started posting.
"
Very good point in your last sentence.
I don't always follow my own advice for the sake of honesty. Sometimes I get angry enough and respond to bait.
On “Reading in the Digital Age”
My solution during law school was to keep all my work at school and just stay in the library until finished.
This kept my apartment as a largely school-work free zone.
I will add that my apartment was a very easy walk to school.
"
My friend solved this problem by always doing pleasure reading with a beer near by
:)
On “My Pick for Essay of the Year.”
I read the league on and off for a while before deciding to start posting.
One of the things I learned in my observation is to reply to TVD as a little as possible.
I have a lot of disagreements with James but he is intelligent, polite, civil, and intellectually honest. He is fun to debate with. TVD simply goes for jeering extremism and partisanship. Luckily I think that there are more people like James on the League than like TVD.
"
There was an interesting essay I read about young, white people in their 20s on food stamps because of the Great Recession.
The author was a writer and part-time waitress in New York. Most of her friends were also well-educated but sparsely employed creative/artist types. The essay was about how people guilt tripped her for being white, young, educated, and on food stamps. The attackers seem to think the author of the essay should be able to get an office job easily because of her education and race.
http://thebillfold.com/2012/05/young-privileged-and-applying-for-food-stamps/
"
I think in terms of McArdle it is a mixture of upbringing and sexism matched together.
Basically reducing her to being a spoiled, precocious rich girl.
"
I am not a fan of all three either but they don't send me into the same kind of rage as Michelle Malkin or Glenn Beck. Or TVD but he is of no power or consequence.
They do probably get a lot of hate because they are women though. However, John Chait seems pretty good about debunking Veronique de Rugy* without being sexist. Is he sarcastic? Yes but not dismissive of her simply because she is a woman.
The unrepentant Freudian in me thinks that humans brains have not completely evolved yet and in our unconscious, we still resort to the easiest and most brutal attacks against our opponents because it is less work than an attack on the merits of the argument. Also reducing an ideological opponent to being a point of mockery reduces them as a threat. Not that Chait or De Rugy have much direct readership. I only read about De Rugy's arguments via Chait. My exposure to Althouse is via Sullivan.
*If I ever heard her in person, I'd probably just melt at the French accent though. I think French accents are absolutely charming and she is pretty easy on the eyes. What can I say? We all have our weaknesses.
On “Reading in the Digital Age”
I still have not made the plunge into experimenting with an e-reader. I am one of those defiant souls who is either too hipster, too ludditte, or both who likes reading on binded paper.
When it comes to law-stuff, I usually end up printing a lot of stuff because it is easier for me to make notes and understand with a physical copy.
This is sort of off-topic but I am always surprised by people who do not read for pleasure during the academic year. The best piece of advice I ever received was from my undergrad adviser and that was to do at least 45 minutes of pleasure reading a day. I was given this piece of advice during my junior year (in 2000-2001) and have largely kept with it since. It improved my grades in undergrad and I also think kept me sane during grad school and law school and kept my grades good in those degrees as well. And I had the same problem of too much academic reading as well.
A lot of my fellow classmates especially in law school told me that they felt "guilty" about during pleasure reading during the semester. They would say that "If I can read a book, I should be reading for class". And yet they found time to keep up with TV. I really never understood why TV was acceptable recreation but reading a non-school related book was guilt inducing.
On “The Alpha-Alpha Male Strategy”
Nob,
I think a lot of Clinton nostalgia comes from these reasons:
1. The economy was very good during the Clinton years . I think a lot of people were economically anxious even during the height of the Bush II housing bubble.
2. In hindisght, the culture wars seemed much calmer.
3. Politics seemed less gridlocked and hyperpartisan despite the 1994 Congressional Elections, the government shutdown, and the Impeachment farce.
Mainly I think it is nostalgia for the Clinton era economy
On “A Pleasant Bigotry”
Brunch is the most New York meal ever.
So says the New Yorker. I still think the ideal Sunday is Brunch with a copy of the Sunday edition of the Gray Lady.
On “Everything’s Bigger in Texas…”
I saw this somewhere else on the net.
Sadly, I am not so sure your headline is true. I have seen equally wingnutty stuff from people not in Texas. Like the Republican Senate candidate from Colorado who talked about how bike-sharing was part of a UN conspiracy to take over the state.
Any study of the post-WWII American right-wing shows that these kind of wingnut theories have only been present. However, now we can finally say that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
On “The Alpha-Alpha Male Strategy”
Dear People,
The Onion is not a user's manual to life.
That is all.
Sincerely,
NewDealer
"
If Jonah Goldberg is an alpha male, I'm Adonis.
Adonis after drinking one too many craft beers.
"
That depends on how you act after the water breaks.
"
Have you ever seen the guys at the National Review?
They hardly count as alpha males. Most of them seem like the nerds in high school who worshiped the alpha males.
On “A Tee of Their Own”
People seem not to get the boycott and change part about free speech and association.
"
Agreed
"
This is one issue in the culture wars that always seemed strange to me. I will come off with two biases:
1. I dislike golf and don't understand the appeal.
2. I was brought up by parents who despise country clubs (for being elitist) and this belief rubbed off on me. For anyone who thinks this is sour grapes, I grew up very comfortably in the upper-middle class
So I don't see this as a great victory for equality. You still need a lot of dough to gain membership to Augusta, now rich women of the 1 percent can join on their own instead of simply being guests. Let me cheer with a sarcastic Yea!
On “Come Pop My Bubble”
I just meant to show it as an example of the mentality. The experience seems more common than this one guy and it should be noted that the church said it would modify but not abandon the idiotic practice.
"
I have the same feelings about Michelle Bachmann.
Dreher is a very hardened culture warrior who says something interesting every now and then (he seems to have some concepts of economic justice and fairness) but is largely a religious theocrat to me.
Then again, I like a lot of the shocking art that gets the paleo and social cons all riled up.
On “Leading Missouri Senate Candidate to Women: If you get pregnant, you weren’t really raped”
I will give you that the RNC is trying to get the guy to step down. But Akin looks like he is trying to survive by appealing to Evangelicals and being contrite and humble. My guess is that this will work.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/08/akins-rape-ad.html
On “Come Pop My Bubble”
I suspect that we live in similar bubbles. This is the same bubble that lead Pauline Kael to make her famous quip about Nixon being reelected in 1972. The only people I know from Evagenlical households fled the scene and are no secular or wiccan sometimes. Two converted two Judaism. The Christians I knew growing up in the suburbs of New York tended to be Irish or Italian Catholics with the random Mainline Protestant here and there (usually Quakers or Unitarians). The African-American churches seem to be the most active ones in the Bay Area and our fundies exist far into the East Bay or keep very quiet. In other words, all the Christians I know are still liberal-Democrats for the most part. The Romney supporter I know is a woman from high school who works on Wall Street.
To be fair, the people mentioned in the Forbes article live in similar bubbles.
There was an article a few weeks ago in the New Republic about a youth pastor in Pennsylvania being charged with kidnapping. The columnist wrote that this is a mock exercise done in Evangelical circles to make sure kids pick their faith over life when threatened. The author of the column grew up in Evangelical circles and wrote that they truly believe they are constantly under siege.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/105588/why-would-church-youth-group-pretend-kidnap-teens
On “Leading Missouri Senate Candidate to Women: If you get pregnant, you weren’t really raped”
"Gut feeling" is probably fairly accurate.
People know enough about their ideas, ideals, and policy preferences in order to align then with general labels like conservative, liberal, libertarian, socialist, Democratic, Republican, etc.
However, most people, even regular and loyal party voters do not pay attention to politics with a hardcore zeal because the normal aspects of life get in the way. The people who pay attention are a very small group. The 24/7 news networks are only being watched by a few million people each. Some of the talk radio guys get listenership in the tens of millions. I have no idea about the blogosphere and audience numbers.
Knowing about the difference between negative and positive liberty requires more than a casual interest in politics and philosophy. It is probably 200-level university philosophy.
This is not to say that I think it is bad that people cannot talk about positive or negative liberty. It would be nice but is not a requirement.
"
Is there a sort of property right issue?
In that, once someone wins a primary or election, he or she has the sole right to relinquish the victory.
This seems like common sense. Akin won the primary fair and square, it seems like it should not be up to a political party to deny him a space on the ballot because they he is an offensive asshole and idiot.
This goes for all parties. This is just an aspect of democracy.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.