« Overlooked in Bush's Iraq Speech | Main | Genetics And Responsibility »

July 06, 2005

Comments

Actually, in the specific cases Winston (aka Philosoraptor?) Smith is citing, I think he's probably right. [Specific cases which are not to be found in the paragraph you cited, I hasten to add, which should rightly be chastised for sloppy writing.] Do you have a specific problem with his contention or are you just generically deriding it?

Moronic.

Many of the comments are as bad as the post.

You're being rather hostile, don't you think - would you like to discuss your mother?

I knew there was a reason I hadn't really taken to the individual blog section. On behalf of liberals everywhere, sorry. (Now it's your turn to apologize for Rove ;) )

What "specific cases" do you see in the piece, Anarch?

I apologize for Rove, Hilzoy. ;-)

Anarch,

Yes, he cites a few cases that deal with sexual matters, but even there the alleged relationship of political attitudes to sexual frustration is, shall we say, speculative.

Is it really so hard to believe that there are many people who are seriously opposed to abortion, for example, on straightforward moral grounds? I don't think so.

And to claim broadly that right wing anger over some matters is due to frustration is just idiot Freudianism. Unsurprisingly, Smith offers no evidence of any sort, for either the principle he adduces (sexual repression induces rage which finds its outlet in politics) or the empirical claims he makes (conservatives are more repressed than liberals) .

You're being rather hostile, don't you think - would you like to discuss your mother?

My mother .... ? Why, she was quite beautiful, you know. Quite .... exquisite. My father didn't deserve her. Not at all. Wasn't good for her. Not like me, at least. You see, we shared a connection, her and I. ... ;-)


The more I read comments on other sites the more I appreciate Obsidian Wings.

Let's be honest. Aside from Yglesias, (surprisingly) Hundt, and (now) DeLong, what's the point of visiting TPM? It's a DLC site intended to compete with dKos. (NB: I don't read dKos much , either.)

SCMT: Wow, I disagree. The America Abroad section is consistently interesting, the new Labor site could be wonderful, and Warren is also quite good (especially if you follow the links.) But then, I am the sort of person who actually likes to read studies of the prevalence of credit card scams, and stuff like that.

Lovely. Democrats hate America and Republicans are scared of sex. No wonder American politics is such a classy enterprise.

My mother .... ? Why, she was quite beautiful, you know. Quite .... exquisite. My father didn't deserve her. Not at all. Wasn't good for her. Not like me, at least. You see, we shared a connection, her and I. ... ;-)

Good. Then maybe you can explain her reasons for those army boots she always used to wear ;-)

Hilzoy:

I was a pretty frequent reader when it first started, but I find myself visiting less and less. As to the three sections you mentioned:

1. The central conceit of the DLC is that it made sense to invade Iraq; it will not and cannot back off that conceit. So I distrust their ability to make sound policy (shades of Jim Henley: if the last few years have taught me anything, it is how little value add there is from FP "experts"), and I distrust their ability to say anything honest when constrained by the referenced conceit.

2. House of Labour - let's see what happens there. Not an area of much interest to me, and not an area of much interest to the DLC.

3. Warren Reports - I'm disinclined to listen to lawyers (even smart ones) about risk management, which is the way Warren initially set up the issue on TPM. I'd rather an economist, or an actuary, or a finance analyst walked me through issues of risk. Personal preference, and I admit I haven't given that section a chance.

But, if you find it useful, that's all that really matters. Anyway, they've still got MY, Hundt, and DeLong. (I should also have mentioned Schmitt, who is uniformly excellent.) If those four dominated the postings, I'd read it constantly.

Lovely. Democrats hate America and Republicans are scared of sex. No wonder American politics is such a classy enterprise.

Whereas much of the rest of the world, especially "Old Europe," loves sex and is afraid of America.

But then, I am the sort of person who actually likes to read studies of the prevalence of credit card scams, and stuff like that.

hilzoy: You should be reading Bruce Schneier's blog if you aren't already. Indispensable for such stuff as well as level-headed and rational analysis of security in the GWOT.


And I too miss the old MY site. I haven't commented on his TPMcafe blog yet, nor on any of the other ones there. And I don't anticipate doing so in the near future* as the atmosphere is a little to stuffy for me over there. Definitely too much of a DNC type think-tank/cheerleading section feel too it all. I'm just as keen on getting rid of the current gang of criminals in office but I'm too much of a leftist and anarchist to feel like its a place I'd want to hang out in. I much prefer blogs like this or CT, where there is a far wider spectrum of views and experiences to interact with.

*Of course now that I've said that, be on the lookout for my first comment to a TPMcafe blog by the end of the week.


Hmm. I don't think it is, really, a DNC cheerleading section, at least not to judge by the way someone, I forget who, got jumped on when he said some annoying DNC thing. (I helped. Tee hee.) Nor do I think the America Abroad is particularly DNC. Oh well.

As for individuals: Harold Meyerson, Steve Clemons.

I love Steve Clemons' The Washington Note. I also like some of the others mentioned, such as Nathan Newman who posts at the newly inaugurated House of Labor blog there. His was one of the first blogs I started reading many years ago though I'd been reading his posts to the Doug Henwood's excellent LBO-talk mailing list for many more years before that.

I guess I just mostly miss the more diverse posts typical of MY's old blog as well as the free-wheeling commentary there. OTOH, I've always wished Joshua Marshall had comments on his blog so I guess its a fair trade-off.

It's also neat to see the likes of Bernie Sanders and Joe Wilson posting there and interacting with commentors (sp?) so I should take advantage of such.

DNC != DLC

DNC != DLC

I know Jeremy, I intentionally wrote DNC in lieu of DLC because it does include a fair number of non-DLC bloggers, despite the presence of Ed Kilgore (who I actually don't mind so much). That being said the poster above who called it a DailyKos wannabe is almost there. The big difference is that TPMcafe is a hierarchical top-down type blog, which is great for interacting with your Bernie Sanders and Joe Wilsons. But it lacks dkos' singular virtue which is its diaries where there are frequently gems amongst the tinfoil.

Yes, it's moronic.

But it's also entirely too easy to pick out the other side's worst and most self-refuting posts... and then, courageously, refute them.

Ok, sure, do it once in a while, but--one reason I keep coming back to this site is because it often tackles issues far more challenging than this.

Hilzoy:

Copped from a Anne-Marie Slaughter post at TPCafe:

As some of the responses to my previous posts amply demonstrate, there are folks out there who would rather see the resistance win in Iraq than ever admit the Bush administration did anything right. I am not standing up for their decision to get into this war (although I am still willing to say that given what we thought we knew at the time, the decision was much more plausible than it looks in retrospect, as unpopular as that position has become, and I was and remain strongly opposed to the way they chose to do it, in virtually every respect).

Are you really seeing that great a difference between her claims and CB's? (Dems don't care about Iraq, only using it against GWB; everyone wanted to go in when we had to make the decision; I'm unwilling (even at this date) to concede that invasion was a mistake.) Isn't it largely a matter specific language?

I blame you (and the respect I have for you) for making me read that.

SCMT: yeah, that's awful. And in general I have taken to skipping right by her posts. But consider Ivo Daalder's two posts on the EU, this and its follow-up. I don't agree with all of it (lucky for me, since the second is an argument between two people), but it's one of those things that really made me think.

And this, by Ikenberry, wasn't as interesting or novel, but I thought it was quite good, and pointed me to two stories I had somehow missed.

I tend to like blogs that have, on a fairly regular basis (= once every two weeks or so) a serious thought I have not had before, even if they also have the odd sucky post, which the one you quote surely is.

And I'm sorry I drove you to it.

And about the Labor blog: reading some of the comments in it would have convinced me that Josh Marshall was absolutely right to set it up, if I hadn't thought so already. I mean: reading some of the really idiotic comments, I just kept thinking: boy, is there a gap in need of bridging here...

Jason,

I'm not on the "other side." I have no love for the right and its ideas.

I just think this post is moronic.

I will go further. Not only is it moronic, it is Ward Churchillian in that it gives the right a wonderful example of the idiocy of some leftists, thereby helping to discredit serious liberals.

WinstonSmith is not Winston Smith of Philosoraptor.

And about the Labor blog: reading some of the comments in it would have convinced me that Josh Marshall was absolutely right to set it up, if I hadn't thought so already. I mean: reading some of the really idiotic comments, I just kept thinking: boy, is there a gap in need of bridging here...

From a post on the Labor blog:

When we talk about "labor rights", that's really all we are talking about, the right to talk, free speech.  That's it.

Consider that gap growing larger by the day, at least as far as I'm concerned...

Sorry, from the posting "Unions are the First Amendment," by Nathan Newman. If you'll all excuse me, I'll be crying into my champagne now...

Sorry for the delay; my internet access has been erratic of late. And I can no longer post from my office, which is exceptionally irritating.

von: What "specific cases" do you see in the piece, Anarch?

This was what I was referring to:

Do I sound trite? Maybe. But have no doubt, this is the fundamental motivating factor at work in their judgements of the blue states, their decrying of Hollywood (even as red states consume record amounts of entertainment), their insanity that Bill Clinton got oral sex in the white house (and got away with it), and their rage against the "urban" lifestyles.

This sexual rage inspires their lurid fears about what others are doing behind closed doors. That panic that others might be finding that mysterious (yet so desperately alluring) good time that they never had.

And if they couldn't have it, they're damned well going to stop others from having it.

However, having said that, the piece was much less carefully targeted than I first thought. I happen to think that the above quote is, in fact, a pretty accurate characterization of certain elements of the right -- specifically, the kind of lurid, prurient anti-sexuality found in the radical fundagelical community -- but yeah, now that I've had a chance to read it more closely the rhetorical overreach there is quite staggering.

rilkefan: WinstonSmith is not Winston Smith of Philosoraptor.

Well, that's a relief.

When I read Digby and Atrios both trashing TPMcafe posters and commentors on their overlooking labor, I scurried over to TPMcafe to see how quickly and how mainpage posters responded.

Then I looked in comments to see if anyone was linking to Atrios and Digby. The time lag was maybe six hours; long enough for me to wonder how insulated TPMcafe is from the rest of the blogs.

Is Winston Smith suggesting that right-wing chicks are easy pickin’s?

Is it really so hard to believe that there are many people who are seriously opposed to abortion, for example, on straightforward moral grounds?

No: but it's really hard to believe that people who just want to make abortion illegal, have abstinence-only sex education classes in school, and really don't like the idea of people having free access to contraception (or women having paid maternity leave or anyone having free health care) ...are in fact opposed to abortion on straightforward moral grounds. What they appear to be is opposed to women having control over our own bodies.

That said, of course many people are opposed to abortion on straightforward moral grounds: just not the anti-legal abortion/anti-sex-ed/anti-contraception/anti-health care crowd.

Ugh, horrible post on TPMc. Clumsy and smug. But c'mon, there's at least a grain of truth there - I mean, really, if you had a hundred dollars to bet on which party would start up the American Anti-Sex Commission, where would you put it?

WinstonSmith is not Winston Smith of Philosoraptor.

That's a relief.

On the plus side, I find all of that pent-up sexuality to be very hot, you conservative minxes, you.

On the other hand, pent-up stupidity. Not a good thing.
Which is why I release mine habitually on Obsidian Wings.

Time for another masturband jokey?

What was the problem with that blog entry Jonas linked to? Did anyone ever find out why the quote was so side-splittingly hilarious?

Any of this, McDuff:

But where workers normally lose all free speech is for the eight hours plus they work each day, where "the government" -- their employer -- can fire them if they say anything the boss doesn't like. Especially if they ask for a raise and the boss gets offended.

Or:

Except for the existence of unions, which bring the First Amendment to the workplace.

Because as everyone knows, the First Amendment is just exactly about saying whatever you want, whereever you want. Pay no attention to the actual text of the Constitution, that's not what they really meant. What they really meant was, companies should allow unions to organize during working hours and on private property.

Slart:

Although, it is interesting that the sphere of free speech seems to shrink as private property crowds out public space.

Slightly interesting, but not fascinating.


John, was there ever more public space than there is now? How much say does a factory owner have if you, for instance, rent a gymnasium for purposes of an organizational meeting? How much say does an owner have if you wish to discuss such things on your own phone, after hours?

Slart: Yeah, good points.

Which is why I found my own comment only slightly interesting.

Well, you're ahead of me, then. Ahead, I mean, in having any interest in one's own comments.

Slarti: How much say does a factory owner have if you, for instance, rent a gymnasium for purposes of an organizational meeting?

Depends whether or not the factory owner is allowed to station an observer outside the gym, make a note of everyone who shows up, and find one reason or another to sack them as soon as possible afterwards.

If it's known that the factory owner does this, and if employment law in whatever state the factory is in effectively permits the employer to sack people without appeal even if it's suspected these people are being sacked for union involvement (that is, if it's not illegal unless the employer actually says "sacked for union activity"), then the factory owner does have a hell of a lot of say in whether or not there's a union meeting in a gym that night.

I speak as someone who left a job one step ahead of a manager who wanted me fired because I said something off company property, outside company hours, that this manager didn't care for. Having no dependents and an easily-transferrable skill, this didn't matter too much to me, though it was scary for a while. Everyone at that workplace to whom it did matter learned the lesson: even outside working hours, even to someone you thought was a friend, never say anything a manager might not like if there's the remotest chance it'll get back to a manager.

(The company went bankrupt three years later. I like to think it was because senior management had made clear how they rewarded the bearers of bad news.)


The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad