Quoting SteveD: Kos is not an extremist like National Review's Jonah Goldberg, who wrote the book, 'Liberal Fascism.'

Rich's argument is pretty bad, generally. It's just a weightless, silly (harkin and pisc: take note!) ad hominem argument. Kos may or may not be an "extremist," but the poll he commissioned stands on its own terms, as Brendan has noted elsewhere.

Didn't Ramesh Ponuru write a book called "The Party of Death"? I guess that doesn't make him an extremist at all. I know that he had to walk it back a little ("it isn't really about Demoncrats!, just some other "Party") after people started saying that it was a little over the top. This is the same with all politics. It is more about esthetics than facts. Everyone on your side of the argument is always right, just and reasonable and everyone on the other side is a foaming at the mouth, inchoate and talking gibberish. Whats his name also takes the Taliban reference literally and hence he thinks that the criticism is rendered meaningless. I'm pretty sure that he is being obtuse about that but I'm not too sure after this diavlog.

Thanks for that irrelevant bit of hypocrisy! Thanks, Ana! During BCT, the only persons who had problems with "attraction" were the drill sergeants, who converted a windowless room into their combination "smoke" room for squad leaders and bedding women. It's clear the only "perverts" who can't keep their genitals separate are the ones who have delusions of their own importance and power, like NCOs, officers, and their pundit shills. The grunts just get punished; the leaders get "some". Please, chicken hawk Lowry, tell me more about the military!

Near the end of the diavlog, Ana Marie Cox explains why mandated coverage is important, because of how community rating alone will result in risk being spread "too thin." She even said "do you understand what I mean, why actuarially it won't work?" To which Lowry replied "Oh I agree with you it won't work." Replying to Lowry, Cox maintained firmly, "But there's reasons before you get into anything that you said. There are just number reasons why it won't work, because you can't spread the risk thin enough." Her point was that Lowry's critique of the plan was missing something. But he wasn't missing anything. Before she asserted that his critique missed something, Lowry even used the term "adverse selection" (a fancy way of acknowledging these "numbers reasons" and not spreading the risk "thin enough"). So in the section of the diavlog titled "A pound of butter, an actuary's daughter, and health care reform," Cox and Lowry actually have the same understanding, but Cox is the one who misses this (which is easy to do in real time, I'm just sayin). Moving on, if you're going to have community rating (not allowing insurance companies to discriminate

While I found the discussion on gays in the interesting neither of these "chicken hawks" have any understanding about life in the Military. I agree with Mrs. Cox's view on the "honor" aspect to the argument in many respects. Let me start by saying that I believe that gays should be allowed to serve openly. There are numerous laws and regulations in the books having to do unit cohesiveness, disrespect to the uniform and various ways to insure that proper decorum and Esprit de Corps is maintained. But the services have always had accepted ways to game the system. When the 1st Calvary redeployed from Vietnam to Ft Hood, there was no hanger space or room on the tarmac at the airport for our Battalion. So out of necessity our landing field and maintenance facilities were located in a pasture. Tents were installed for all shelter and maintenance facilities, a control tower built and a mile or so long gravel road built for access. The gravel road was built using 2" inch gravel which provides durability on the clay soils of that part of Texas but is not

Polling can be useful where you are asking people something simple and objective (are you employed? who do you plan to vote for, etc.) or if you're asking the same question over time (e.g. Presidential approval ratings). Beyond that it seems nearly worthless. If a poll says that a third of Americans believe that Bush/Saddam/Obama/The Jews were behind 9/11 that says more about how easy it is to get people to say crazy things in polls than it does the considered judgment of large numbers of Americans.

It's not about unit dynamics. It's about coddling and sheltering a bunch of bigots who have personal issues with being around gay people, and knowing about it. Can't have that, best to codify their own bigotries into policy for one of our public institutions and have gays removed if found out.
Solution? Don't investigate?
The point is that it should not be a dischargeable offense to begin with.
Replace gays with Jews. Run his same argument. See it fail. It takes a special kind of fool to not see the naked fraud of it all.

Quoting piscivorous: While I found the discussion on gays in the interesting neither of these "chicken hawks" have any understanding about life in the Military. I agree with Mrs. Cox's view on the "honor" aspect to the argument in many respects. Let me start by saying that I believe that gays should be allowed to serve openly. There are numerous laws and regulations in the books having to do unit cohesiveness, disrespect to the uniform and various ways to insure that proper decorum and Esprit de Corps is maintained. But the services have always had accepted ways to game the system.

I admit I agree with Cox, too, but that her argument is just barely compelling. I keep trying to locate the NSA precedent from the 50s, when homosexuality became inextricably linked to foreign espionage. That's one angle of this that I also had to deal with in MI. But, I'm. also waiting for someone to compare the retention rates and efficiency of US forces compared to national forces where homosexuals serve openly, so that the numbers show how irrelevant the issue is.

Quoting Jay J: ...
I'm not sure about all the possible ways, or if the ways I have in mind are possible, but I have in mind how utility companies are sometimes granted monopolies in exchange for regulated prices, which the utility companies that win these monopolies are thrilled to submit to, in exchange for all those willing customers. Now we don't have to grant monopolies for one reason only, but I think the example may be instructive, since the company gets a bunch of customers, and submits to price regulation. See I think people may be under the impression that the insurance companies are going to lower their prices because they have more customers, which, all other things equal, is the opposite of what we should expect...

Except the original reason for establishing monopolies for utilities was not to control prices but to control competition. There were any numbers of companies that were willing to bring electricity to the concentrated markets like the cities, but few willing to bring electricity to the farms. So in return for stringing the wires, in the country side, utility companies were granted monopoles in exchange for bring electricity to

I don't believe you can point me to comment that I have made where I called Kos directly or indirectly an extremist. I have labeled an opinion/argument or two of his as extreme, I'm sure, as some of them are. I have always assumed that Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga is an entrepreneur/capitalist and credit his writing and utterances in that vein; pleadings to the opinions and prejudices of the crowd from which he derives his earnings. There is stuff on his site, the Daily Kos, that borders on the extreme and has provide me hours of entertainment.

Oh, please. Spare me Mr. Lowry's tired retreads of all the old straw man arguments against equality for gays in the military. As if the examples of many of our allies' successful integration of homosexuals were not convincing enough. Kudos to Ms. Cox for maintaining a civil demeanor in the face of such specious arguments.

So now a "chicken hawk" is any civilian who has any kind of opinion about any military issue? Sorry, civilians are in charge of the military, and civilians get to have opinions about what the military should do and how it should be operated. The insult originally referred to draft-age men who hadn't served urging that we go to war; I still disagree with its use there, but at least it halfway makes sense.

Quoting piscivorous: I don't believe you can point me to comment that I have made where I called Kos directly or indirectly an extremist. I have labeled an opinion/argument or two of his as extreme, I'm sure, as some of them are. I have always assumed that Markos Moulitsas Zúñiga is an entrepreneur/capitalist and credit his writing and utterances in that vein; pleadings to the opinions and prejudices of the crowd from which he derives his earnings. There is stuff on his site, the Daily Kos, that borders on the extreme and has provide me hours of entertainment.

Sorry pisc - I didn't mean to imply that at all. I was just nudging you a little bit on the "ad hominem" stuff. I'm not a particular fan of Daily KOS, myself (though I am responsible for a single diary entry from years ago.)

It warm the cockles of my heart for you to acknowledge this. Your most gracious apology is accepted.

I do really wonder what Tea Partiers propose to do about Social Security and Medicare. It would seem they'd have to be advocating huge cuts in both if they really believe they have a viable way to accomplish their budget-cutting ideals. But they seem to thrive on vagueness, like the vagueness of Sarah Palin's $100,000 speech.

To a large extent, I think Tea Partiers are alarmed by distorted perceptions based on limited understanding of the realities Obama is faced with.

I'm very sorry to hear that Ana Marie and her husband are unemployed. I wish her and him good luck in get re-employed soon. She certainly deserves to be.

I am puzzled by Rich's position on Health Reform. It sounds like he's content to have sick low-income people not have access to health care. At the same time, it sounds like he recognizes that insurance company middleman profits drive up the cost of health coverage. I don't understand why he doesn't favor single payer.

Quoting JonIrenicus: Replace gays with Jews. Run his same argument. See it fail. It takes a special kind of fool to not see the naked fraud of it all.

More to the point, replace gays with women.

Quoting BornAgainDemocrat: More to the point, replace gays with women.

Come on now, let's give Lowry a break. Everybody knows that it's National Review's job to provide fancy, intellectual-sounding defenses of bigotry while maintaining that they are in no way motivated by bigotry or defending bigotry. It's a tough job, and I don't see why it should reflect so poorly on Lowry if he can't quite pull it off*. I mean it's not like William F. Buckley did any better, and with someone that smart trying and failing, what do you think Lowry should expect? *and remember, even if he fails at this, he does it better than Derbyshire or McCarthy.

Dude, why have you not read the great literary piece of our time, Goldberg's Liberal Fascism? If you did, you would realize the only thing that can be detrimental to the pursuit of happiness is state action. So what if Enron-like companies become the norm, so what if segregation returns, so what if we have to rely on Blackwater for private security and Sylvan for public education. As long as we have unfettered free markets and are able to keep our only true sacrosanct rights, property rights, we will all be fine.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Dude, why have you not read the great literary piece of our time, Goldberg's Liberal Fascism?

If you did, you would realize the only thing that can be detrimental to the pursuit of happiness is state action.

So what it Enron-like companies become the norm, so what if segregation returns, so what if we have to rely on Blackwater for private security and Sylvan for public education.

As long as we have unfettered free markets and are able to keep our only true sacrosanct rights, property rights, we will all be fine.

Read this last night (in another actual book!):

That's libertarians for you -- anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.

Man, I need to re-read those books

Quoting Don Zeko: Man, I need to re-read those books

I found this one on a "take for free" shelf, and I have been torn between gobbling it up and putting it down until I can find a copy of the first book in the trilogy. (Former choice appears to be winning, obvs.) I knew KSR's name before, but I don't think I've ever read anything by him except short stories in anthologies. This is a real delight for me, because I sometimes feel like no one* is writing good hard SF anymore. ========== * Bait hoping to lure a flood of indignant corrections.

Quoting bjkeefe: I found this one on a "take for free" shelf, and I have been torn between gobbling it up and putting it down until I can find a copy of the first book in the trilogy. (Former choice appears to be winning, obvs.

I remember enjoying the first book more than the second two, but I don't know if that would hold up upon re-reading them. Tastes change, and I was in high school at the time.

JayJ, I heard Robert Scheer say many times that neither the Senate nor the House Bill would do anything to control the inflation of health care costs. So, while I do not know the answer to your general question, I do not think that it is true to say that people on the left are either unaware of the problem of increasing health care costs (Krugman talks about this all the time, he talked about it in his most recent column about deficits, near-term and longer term) or of how this problem is or is not being addressed in the reforms that were proposed. Moreover, as far as the general problem of cost containment is concerned, I think that the general view is that there were lots of little experiments that were to be encouraged in a reform bill that could pass that might lead to big cost savings in the future. This was the point of the whole brouhaha over the article in "The New Yorker" by Atul whatever his name is, and Obama's attraction to that article. This was addressed by Josh Cohen in his latest

Or, to be more specific, we could say that while we're not sure what will work to contain costs, the Senate and House bills include a bunch of things that ought to, and there are even more good ones that got stripped out, but could conceivably be reinserted. The Senate's cadillac tax tilts the tax system to discourage expensive plans, which should have the effect of slowing cost growth. Both plans include money to implement electronic medical records, which should reduce costs and medical errors. I'd have to do some research to find out how much of it is still in the bill, but comparative effectiveness research could potentially be a huge source of savings. Although it's definitely out of the bill, the same goes for the public option, which eliminates the de facto monopolies that many insurance companies have over state markets. I would add that a commitment to universal coverage creates incentives towards cost containment that don't exist before. If the bill passes and becomes part of the national consensus, just like Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, etc., then Republicans and deficit hawks will start thinking about ways to make health

Some Republicans have finally understood the indefensibility of bigotry regarding gays. Lowry, obviously, is not one of them. But you're beginning to see smart Republicans -- and scores of powerful Dems. -- positioning themselves to the left of Obama on same-sex marriage. Things are happening fast, and what passed for acceptable Dem. bigotry just in the 08 elections (Edwards [ha!], Clinton and Obama all opposed gay/les marriage) is now looking Neanderthalish, especially to younger voters. Long time coming, but a change is gonna come.

Quoting Wonderment: But you're beginning to see smart Republicans -- and scores of powerful Dems. -- positioning themselves to the left of Obama on same-sex marriage.

Examples of the bolded, plz? I can think of Scott Brown (sorta), who said he views MA's law as a done deal, or words to that effect. But I can't think of any others of significance. (Pundits and others who don't actually have to get (re)elected don't count.)

I liked Ana Marie in this show. I think it's her hands-down best diavlog.
The way she used sexual innuendo was very funny and, uncharacteristically for her, she didn’t demean herself.

Ms. Cox (or someone from her side): I'd really appreciate it if you would outline the operative components of
"The Public Option" as you would design it. Please do not tell me its many
and (I'm sure) unappreciated effects or purposes.
Thank you.

Lowry's argument isn't "bad". That's actually silly and nonsensical. His argument is in fact cogent and rational, and fairly points out that Kos is in Pat Robertson land with his, "Republicans are akin to Islamic jihadists". Commentary like that from Kos is a good way for progressives to lose elections, like the recent election in Massachusetts and the one's coming in November.

Ted Olsen, Robert Gates, and Colin Powell. Dick Cheney likely supports it as well even if he did nothing about it (don't ask don't tell that is... he definitely supports same-sex marriage). Fox personalities like Bill O'Reilly support the change as well. Ted Olsen, among others, also argued for same-sex marriage in a California court just a week or two ago.

In the context of the current health care bill, the public option would mean allowing people that don't get health insurance from their employer to buy health insurance from the government if they prefer that to buying health insurance from a private company.

I read some of the comments dissing Lowry for his statements on "extremism" before watching, and expected to find myself defending him; but no, he said some stupid things and Cox totally called him out on it. That said, [insert perfunctory defense of reasonableness of figures on the right who I think are fine, but who people on this forum hate and will never be convinced not to hate]

The blogosphere is watching: "Great Moments In Punditry."

Quoting jimM47: That said, [insert perfunctory defense of reasonableness of figures on the right who I think are fine, but who people on this forum hate and will never be convinced not to hate]

Aw, c'mon. Name some names. (You don't have to say why you consider them reasonable.)

Quoting bjkeefe: The blogosphere is watching:

Or, it could just be coincidence. In any case ... B'head Robert Farley, in "The Moral and Intellectual Emptiness of DADT," opens thus:

Yesterday at the United States Naval Institute blog, a regular contributor posted an incoherent, hate-filled screed about how teh gays were going to ruin the King James Bible if they were allowed to openly serve in the military. Check it out, and make sure to read the comment thread; note especially how the contributor rolls through "I'm not the bigot, you are; and anyway it's not hate filled; and anyway you're not serious; and anyway I don't even believe this stuff; and anyway I was just trying to spur a reaction, and by the way you people are all fascists." Participating on the comment thread was a blast; reinvigorated my faith in the blogosphere.

More to the point, there were two things that struck me about the argument and the thread. The first was just how weak the case for keeping DADT actually is. Almost no one, short of Elaine Donnelly, actually argues for the exclusion of gays on the merits of excluding gays. In large part because of the experience of other

Quoting bjkeefe: Aw, c'mon. Name some names. (You don't have to say why you consider them reasonable.)

e.g. People here love to hate Jonah Goldberg for a book that appears to be a variation on the theme of Hayek's scientism thesis, perhaps poorly executed and stretched further than is valid; but even when wrong I don't think that amounts to madness, malice or extremism (though as we've established elsewhere, I think fewer people and ideas are beyond the pale). But seriously, the original thing I said was really a joke, a cheap tease, the pursuit of which would only lead us far afield with very little to show for it. I hope I have not stupidly sparked a flame-war, and implore you all to simply be happy at being right while Rich Lowry is wrong.

Quoting jimM47: e.g. People here love to hate Jonah Goldberg for a book that appears ...

WHAT??? <*sputter sputter clickety-clickety fume fume*>

Quoting jimM47: ... [...]

But seriously, the original thing I said was really a joke, a cheap tease, the pursuit of which would only lead us far afield with very little to show for it. I hope I have not stupidly sparked a flame-war, and implore you all to simply be happy at being right while Rich Lowry is wrong.

What? Oh. Never mind.

Some military analyst on Fox News is nominated for an Yglesias Award. Guess why. Be interesting to hear if Lowry changes his tune (as I judge it from the comments) anytime soon.

Ahnold I realize he doesn't meet your criterion of being up for re-election, but then Scott doesn't meet mine for being "smart."

Quoting Wonderment: Ahnold

Legendary gay icon comes out in favor of gay marriage!

Thanks for the reply piscivorous, As for monopolies, I can see why one may lead to crappy service, but I'm confused as to why a government granted one would lead to higher prices than otherwise. In any case I'm open to being shown what I'm missing. But in the meantime, on the narrow issue of costs, I mean, hell, price controls would do it w/o granting monopolies. One of the stated features of the public option was that it would provide price competition. I just don't see how the fundamentals of this plan are right. If it's just a step on the way that will require a fairly significant adjustment in the next 10 years or so, fine, but I haven't heard too many people say that about this plan. But I think ledocs and Don Zeko may have a thing or two to say in reply, down below.

Obama was a moderate in the primaries now? Wasn't he elected by the left because Hillary was too white and moderate? Guy is a fraud Barack W. Bush. The stimulus was a policy failure - error get in through your thick collectivist heads! Also, I'm sick of seeing the Daily Beasts talking heads all over the national media they have nothing interesting to say Bob. Rich the Tea Partiers are active against "conservatives" like you. There are Americans out here who believe in limited aka effective government and oppose the internationalist welfare-warfare agenda.

Quoting bjkeefe: This is a real delight for me, because I sometimes feel like no one* is writing good hard SF anymore.

==========

* Bait hoping to lure a flood of indignant corrections.

Each of the three novels in the trilogy has its own distinct tone, and the succession of them harmonizes well. I recommend reading the books in order. Alastair Reynolds and Peter Watts write good hard sci-fi, though each really has only a few basic themes that run through all of his works. Both are sort of misanthropic; Watts especially so. Reynolds is the more Space Operatic of the two. I haven't seen either one beat up on libertarians, but here's hoping.

Quoting Ray: Each of the three novels in the trilogy has its own distinct tone, and the succession of them harmonizes well. I recommend reading the books in order.

Alastair Reynolds and Peter Watts write good hard sci-fi, though each really has only a few basic themes that run through all of his works. Both are sort of misanthropic; Watts especially so. Reynolds is the more Space Operatic of the two.

I haven't seen either one beat up on libertarians, but here's hoping.

Ok. On the strength of the recommendations from both of you, I ordered all three on Amazon today. Hopefully this trilogy won't end as badly as the Pullman trilogy did.

That's a pretty high bar of fail to clear. I won't say that you won't be disappointed, but you definitely won't be that disappointed. I mean the only thing worse than book 3 of His Dark Materials was the movie adaptation of book 1.

There are alot of good Sci-Fi short stories out there. Anthologies are more to my tastes then big fat books*. *In fact, the only long series I have ever liked are the Baroque Cycle and The Dark Tower. Edit:
Minlo's flowers was the most touching story I have ever read. I think it was in one of the Space Opera anthologies.

This isn't Sci-Fi, but have you tried A Song of Ice and Fire?

I don't think so.

Speaking of fantasy, is there some reason fantasy and Sci-Fi are usually intermingled? It's rather irritating.

Quoting bjkeefe: The blogosphere is watching: "Great Moments In Punditry."

More notice taken.

Quoting Ray: Each of the three novels in the trilogy has its own distinct tone, and the succession of them harmonizes well. I recommend reading the books in order.

Alastair Reynolds and Peter Watts write good hard sci-fi, though each really has only a few basic themes that run through all of his works. Both are sort of misanthropic; Watts especially so. Reynolds is the more Space Operatic of the two.

I haven't seen either one beat up on libertarians, but here's hoping.

Thanks, Ray. I'll keep those names in mind.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: There are alot of good Sci-Fi short stories out there. Anthologies are more to my tastes then big fat books*.

I'd hate to have to make a choice, but if I had to, I'd take the long ones.

*In fact, the only long series I have ever liked are the Baroque Cycle and The Dark Tower.

Did you ever read Pohl's Heechee series, Asimov's Foundation series and/or the robot novels, or the collection of short stories and novellas that make up Heinlein's "Future History" series? A cut below, but still plenty good enough for me to re-read periodically, are Clarke's 2001, 2010, and 2061. (3001 made no impression on me.) I tried getting into The Dark Tower, but as much as I've liked other stuff by King, I couldn't get into that one. I plan to read the Baroque Cycle someday -- I've really enjoyed the other Neal Stephenson books I've read.

Edit:
Minlo's flowers was the most touching story I have ever read. I think it was in one of the Space Opera anthologies.

Never heard of that one.

Not a big fan of price controls; that is essentially what the so called "utility boards/commissions" do now days to preserve the monopolies that were established and all they do is preserve the monopolies. In Chicago the citizens utility board sets the price the Common Wealth Edison, ComED as it is generally known today, can charge for supplying power. This gets adjusted every couple of years. The scheme is ComEd submits a request for a certain rate hike to the board. The Board has hearings where various special interests and "consumer groups" complain and the board after days , weeks or months finally grants the request at some level less than the requested rate. The end results the consumers pay more ComEd makes more and the monopoly continues. You can tell me that isn't a gamed system but having seen the results of many iterations I will be hard to convince. In Florida it is the same game except in the city where live. In Lake Worth the Electric company is owned by the city both the Power plant and delivery infrastructure. Historically the electric rate in

Quoting Starwatcher162536: Speaking of fantasy, is there some reason fantasy and Sci-Fi are usually intermingled? It's rather irritating.

To close approximation, I'd say that lumping together is done only by people who don't know much about either. Kind of like hearing the olds talk about hip hop as "that rock music stuff." But yeah, it's irritating. Especially when I mention to someone that I like sci-fi, and the response is all about swords and magic spells and so forth.

Thanks ledocs, I went and read Robert Scheer, and I'll go and watch the diavlog you mentioned (between Josh Cohen and Glenn Loury). Thanks for the tip. What I ran across from Scheer is what I would expect from someone who is dealing squarely with the fundamentals of this plan. Speaking of the recent election in Massachusetts, Scheer said: "The two issues that mattered on Election Day were the economy, which Obama has sold out to Wall Street—as quite a few disgruntled voters pointed out—and his plea to save health care reform, which the voters who had backed him for the presidency with a huge majority now spurned. It is significant that it was the voters of Massachusetts who have now derailed the Democrats’ efforts to revamp the country’s health care system by denying them the necessary 60th vote in the Senate, for these voters know the subject well. The federal proposal is based on their own state’s model requiring people to obtain health insurance without the state doing anything to effectively control costs through an alternative to the private insurance corporations. Lacking a public option, the cost

Quoting SpikeTedAgnew: [...]

Probably you won't enjoy this, then, either. Damn left-radicals.

I'm really not in a position to dispute anything you said. And perhaps my attempt to keep things theoretical is useless, because of the way these things play out. Nevertheless, I want to push things a little further in that direction. I'm simply saying that if the argument for mandates is based on the sicker pool which results from community rating, then there is still one more logical step to take. After all, mandates should cause costs to go up, not down. So while it's true that mandates are a logical step to take after you require insurance companies to accept people regardless of preexisting condition, the result from this will be higher costs in general. So using mandates as a way to control "costs" seem a little ironic, right? If we want to control costs and implement community rating, then it seems like simply issuing mandates is not enough. So, focusing only on costs, and not necessarily getting into quality of service/care, something has to give, right? You're not a fan of the price controls, OK. But let's stipulate that we live in the world where we have no control at this point over

Retention rates for various militaries will be of little use in answering this question for several reasons
1.) The nature of the roles they play in the world are different.
2.) The priority the governments put on supporting their military personnel.
3.) One would need pre open serve and post open serve data to even begin to guess.
4.) Many countries that allow open serve are mandatory service countries or rely on some form of draft. My guess is there is little if any real data or analysis that is available and it's a crap shoot at best and the services are not found of gambling, out side the enlisted ranks that is.

They both support Afghanistan and neither have served that I can find. That fits the definition of "Chicken Hawk" by my understanding of it.

People here love to hate Jonah Goldberg for a book that appears to be a variation on the theme of Hayek's scientism thesis, perhaps poorly executed and stretched further than is valid; but even when wrong I don't think that amounts to madness, malice or extremism

I actually don't think "Liberal Fascism" is why people here love making fun of Jonah Goldberg. Goldberg has become the doughy punching bag of the lefty blogosphere because he's incredibly arrogant and puffed up (e.g. the "very serious, thoughtful, argument that has never been made in such detail or with such care"), and because of the way he reacts to criticism. His specific combination of smugness and wrongness is sweet, sweet nectar for snarky libs. Goldberg's whole book is an attempt to take an uncontroversial thesis (something like "humanity is not perfectible and utopianism is a bad basis for politics"), something most people on the right and the left would agree with, and use it as a baseball bat to beat liberals. That's not serious enough to be extremist. It is crazy, though, and it's malicious when he goes on Fox and serves as an intellectual bolster to Glenn Beck's conspiracy theories.

Rich indulged in a healthy amount of conservative platitudinizing in the second part of this diavlog which I feel compelled to point out. First off, in response to Ana's statement that our politics are skewed in relation to those of other, similar countries when we can say that Obama's health care plan is a giant "lurch to the left", Lowry says "Well, that's because we're America, and we've always had a tradition of limited government". Not only is that not an argument, it's weird to imply that the health care system we have now was somehow ordained by our national character. Does this mean that any sort of social structure that exists that wasn't created by the government is similarly just a product of the way we do things here in America and therefore shouldn't be messed with, and if you don't like it you must have a problem with America? That's not conservatism, it's just laziness. Secondly, "we're a center right country". This is an infuriating proposition for only a million reasons, most primarily because it's completely contentless, based on nothing, and is just a more reasonable-sounding way

I've read a little of Asimov's stuff, I don't think I've read any of the other stuff you mention. If I had to give a breakdown*; 30% fiction, virtually all is Sci-Fi
25% Biographies
25% Pop sci
10% Random textbooks
5% History
5% Classics *Measured by actual content, so a textbook would be weighted 20x some random Sci-Fi

Waterboarding Is Not Toture. People Do Not Willingly Ask To Be Totured To Write A Article For Vanity Fair

Quoting dkschwartz: Waterboarding Is Not Toture. People Do Not Willingly Ask To Be Totured To Write A Article For Vanity Fair

Oh, We're Writing In Headline Style Now? Okay! Maybe Waterboarding Is Not Toture, But It Is Torture. On A Related Note: Matthew Yglesias: "No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition." (Hat Tip: Adam Serwer)

Waterboarding Is Not Toture. People Do Not Willingly Ask To Be Totured To Write A Article For Vanity Fair

Awesome. So if we can just find a journalist willing to submit to every type of torture imaginable, we will effectively erase torture from existence.

Quoting kezboard: Rich indulged in a healthy amount of conservative platitudinizing in the second part of this diavlog which I feel compelled to point out. First off, in response to Ana's statement that our politics are skewed in relation to those of other, similar countries when we can say that Obama's health care plan is a giant "lurch to the left", Lowry says "Well, that's because we're America, and we've always had a tradition of limited government". Not only is that not an argument, it's weird to imply that the health care system we have now was somehow ordained by our national character. Does this mean that any sort of social structure that exists that wasn't created by the government is similarly just a product of the way we do things here in America and therefore shouldn't be messed with, and if you don't like it you must have a problem with America? That's not conservatism, it's just laziness.

Secondly, "we're a center right country". This is an infuriating proposition for only a million reasons, most primarily because it's completely contentless, based on nothing, and is just a more reasonable-sounding way

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Awesome. So if we can just find a journalist willing to submit to every type of torture imaginable, we will effectively erase torture from existence.

would it have to be a journalist? I was hoping maybe DK would volunteer. I recommend starting with abacination, DK - i'm sure your uber-manliness will "see" you through.

He forgets to mention that American conservatives are also extremely nationalistic. They have always been the strongest supporters of national "defense" and of military spending.

Actually, he prefaced his remarks with the arrogant and obnoxious display of jingoism noted above: "That's because we're America" (exceptional among nations). But you are right. The ultra-nationalism that wins votes among the undereducated is not the libertanianish or even reduce-deficit conservatism of certain marginal parts of the Republican Party. They all pander to it though. There is no other way to win an election. I guess it's like asking were the Dixiecrat Dems who supported segregation compatible with the northern liberals? Nixon found the wedge, but it was just a matter of time anyway till that phony "big tent" collapsed anyway.

Yes another lefty that has failed to actually read the various statutes, both domestic and international, that govern the definition of what is and is not torture as the revolve around cause either or both long term/permanent damage either mentally or physically. But I guess that would be asking too much?

I think that what Lowry meant in saying that America is a "center right country" is that in economic matters Americans are laissez-faire. They believe that "free enterprise" and the market are the solution to all problems.

Says who? Says Rich Lowry. I have no idea what sort of polling has been done on this question, but I really doubt that if you polled Americans as to whether the government should, say, do something to encourage economic growth when the economy collapses, the majority of them would say "Nope, let the market fix everything". I am quite sure that most Americans would say that Social Security and Medicare are a good thing and that the government should have a hand in making sure the elderly have pensions and access to health care. I bet most Americans think the New Deal was a good idea. And a majority still supports a public option. Of course most Americans support the market in the sense that most Americans are not advocates of a command economy, but this does not mean that most Americans agree with the economic policies advocated by the National Review. Lowry is

I never knew that you were a legal scholar specializing in international law, Piscivorous. Why don't you share some of your expertise with the group, if you are so well-read on such matters?

I have at least read the relevant material, so that I can form a structure and informed argument instead of just spouting off. If and when you have done that come back and we will have a cognizant argument instead of just repeating talking points.

Quoting Don Zeko: I never knew that you were a legal scholar specializing in international law, Piscivorous. Why don't you share some of your expertise with the group, if you are so well-read on such matters?

What, so if there's a loophole it's morally okay to torture people? I really doubt IL allows torture, and even if it does it's still wrong.

Loophole nothing if the statutes don't define an action as torture it doesn't matter what you or I or the Pope thinks it is morally wrong is not a crime. If you can point me to one international or domestic statue that definitively defines waterboarding or any of the other things you so glibly call torture I will stand corrected. Until then it is hard to tell which orifice you utterances are emanating from.

Quoting piscivorous: Loophole nothing if the statutes don't define an action as torture it doesn't matter what you or I or the Pope thinks it is morally wrong is not a crime. If you can point me to one international or domestic statue that definitively defines waterboarding or any of the other things you so glibly call torture I will stand corrected. Until then it is hard to tell which orifice you utterances are emanating from.

Let's play a round of "loophole nothing": how about I rape you with a broom? That okay too?

TerryV
SciFi short stories My first post. Sometime in the1960s I read a great short story in The Reporter magazine (I think) which is long gone. The title was something like "B Work." It was about a time when there were too many people and not nearly enough jobs. The government's solution was to create a class of clerical jobs (I imagine cubicles and people working at PCs now, rather than typewriters). Known only to the very few at the top of this governmental department there were two special classifications of workers. The A workers were doing real meaningful work. The B workers thought they were too, but it was a very secret, elaborate sham and scheme to keep social order. One of the B workers got suspicious and it was driving him crazy I recall. I've tried and failed to locate this story on the web. Can anyone help. Spookily I'm realizing that it's really too late on this forum and probable no one is going to read this. OMG, I'm doing B work!

Sure have at it if you think you are capable of preforming such an act. But from my perspective you let your fingers out run your moxie and would wilt with guilt before you even accomplished the task.

I have been told that when we persecuted Japanese interrogators for torture post WW2, we considered waterboarding torture. If that's true, wouldn't precedent demand that waterboarding still be considered torture? (Honest question here, I don't have strong feelings about this)

I have no interest in debating the semantics of quotations from law texts that you took out of context. I'm no lawyer, and as such, I really don't have the necessary understanding of legalese to decide for myself whether or not waterboarding violates current law. Instead, I turn to experts and precedent, and my experience has been that the few legal scholars making your argument are outnumbered and generally hackish. If you want to put forward an argument by a legal expert that agrees with you, I'll read it, but I really don't want to hear that you know what the statute really means, and that the justice system has been doing it wrong for decades. I would add that, even were you correct on the legal definition question, there's a related question of whether a law banning the use of waterboarding by the U.S. government would be just or not, and here I feel more comfortable passing judgment. Based upon every description I've read of the technique and its effects, I feel completely comfortable defining it as torture, which in this case means "methods with which the government might inflict pain and suffering upon

Quoting TerryV: Spookily I'm realizing that it's really too late on this forum and probable no one is going to read this. OMG, I'm doing B work!

Heh. Not to worry. I have received word from the A team: your efforts have been appreciated.

Yes by all means let us judge all by your standards as they are superior to all others. since you have no interest in the actual state of the law and no real curiosity as to what it actuality is and don't feel that you are even capable understand the text without the advice of legal consul. If you can't do more than argue your moral outrage there is no reason to continue.

Quoting piscivorous: Yes by all means let us judge all by your standards as they are superior to all others. since you have no interest in the actual state of the law and no real curiosity as to what it actuality is and don't feel that you are even capable understand the text without the advice of legal consul.

If you can't do more than argue your moral outrage there is no reason to continue.

The real reason for Don Zeko and others not to continue is that it is a mistake to privilege your point of view -- that torture is fine, as long as you can find some clown like John Yoo or Marc Thiessen to play word games to declare your heinous acts not-torture -- by treating it as though it were a reasonable one. It's not. It's disgusting. All you have to do is ask yourself what you would think if someone was making your arguments to support the torture of American soldiers and civilians. Well, I suppose you have to do a bit more: you'd have to require yourself to be honest with yourself. On this, I am not going to hold my breath.

From the Washington Post

A towel was fixed under the chin and down over the face. Then many buckets of water were poured into the towel so that the water gradually reached the mouth and rising further eventually also the nostrils, which resulted in his becoming unconscious and collapsing like a person drowned. This procedure was sometimes repeated 5-6 times in succession.

The United States (like Britain, Australia and other Allies) pursued lower-ranking Japanese war criminals in trials before their own tribunals. As a general rule, the testimony was similar to Nielsen's. Consider this account from a Filipino waterboarding victim:

Q: Was it painful?

A: Not so painful, but one becomes unconscious. Like drowning in the water.

Q: Like you were drowning?

A: Drowning -- you could hardly breathe.

Here's the testimony of two Americans imprisoned by the Japanese:

They would lash me to a stretcher then prop me up against a table with my head down. They would then pour about two gallons of water from a pitcher into my nose and mouth until I lost consciousness.

And from the second prisoner: They laid me out on a stretcher and strapped me on. The stretcher was then stood on

That's a cognizant argument you "you are a lair and you lie to yourself." Sweet! Don't suppose there is a logical fallacy named for that method of argument do you. Or is it just hissy fit.

Quoting piscivorous: That's a cognizant argument you "you are a lair and you lie to yourself." Sweet! Don't suppose there is a logical fallacy named for that method of argument do you. Or is it just hissy fit.

I can tell by your decreased ability to spell and write with proper grammar and punctuation that I've touched a nerve. Good enough. Whether you will admit that it is in fact you who is currently having the "hissy fit" -- well, I've already said what I have to say about the unlikelihood of you admitting the truth to yourself, particularly in the heat of the moment. Contemplate one other thing, once you get over your fuming and flailing attempts to belittle me for being right: there are only three kinds of people who argue in favor of torture (or who try to claim that things like waterboarding aren't torture): sadists, bed-wetters, and those who view other people as sub-human. I would like not to think that you are any of those, and I hope that once you get past trying to save face here, you will realize you would not like to think of yourself that

Quoting kezboard: Says who? Says Rich Lowry. I have no idea what sort of polling has been done on this question, but I really doubt that if you polled Americans as to whether the government should, say, do something to encourage economic growth when the economy collapses, the majority of them would say "Nope, let the market fix everything". I am quite sure that most Americans would say that Social Security and Medicare are a good thing and that the government should have a hand in making sure the elderly have pensions and access to health care. I bet most Americans think the New Deal was a good idea. And a majority still supports a public option.

Of course most Americans support the market in the sense that most Americans are not advocates of a command economy, but this does not mean that most Americans agree with the economic policies advocated by the National Review. Lowry is engaging in a sort of rhetorical bait-and-switch when he claims this.

The healthcare reform debate makes me doubt that Lowry is engaging in bait-and-switch tactics. A significant number of Americans (the majority?) are extremely wary of

Quoting Wonderment: Actually, he prefaced his remarks with the arrogant and obnoxious display of jingoism noted above: "That's because we're America" (exceptional among nations).

But you are right. The ultra-nationalism that wins votes among the undereducated is not the libertanianish or even reduce-deficit conservatism of certain marginal parts of the Republican Party. They all pander to it though. There is no other way to win an election.

I guess it's like asking were the Dixiecrat Dems who supported segregation compatible with the northern liberals? Nixon found the wedge, but it was just a matter of time anyway till that phony "big tent" collapsed anyway.

Interesting parallel. The collapse of the "big tent" Democratic party was inevitable because of the glaring contradiction between the principles of liberalism and segregation/racism. And I agree that nationalism is the glue that holds the diverse sectors of the Republican party together. The alliance between ultra-nationalist, big-defense republicans, small-government fiscal conservatives and religious conservative is more solid....though no less contradictory!

Florian: I sent you a private message, but you may not have seen it. I there urge you to listen to the penultimate edition of "Repliques," the Finkielkraut gabfest on France Culture, the one about original sin. Rousseau comes up prominently. But it's generally a good edition, certainly better than most bhtv episodes. Unlike bhtv, however, editions of "Repliques" are only available for two weeks, after which they vanish into the ether. I also found the prior edition, which was devoted to lycee reform, quite interesting. http://sites.radiofrance.fr/chaines/...usion_id=80880 These recommendations can of course be generalized to anyone who can understand formal French. There is a lot of good stuff on France Culture.

Let's see that thread is about torture and in 200+ words there are what maybe 20 about the thread and the rest directed at me, how you believe I think and the nature of my character. But then I can understand your confusion as you really seem to be of two minds on this subject.

Quoting bjkeefe: ...That sounds like the most sensible starting point for any discussion, whether it involves surveillance, drone strikes and other targeted killings, dealing with prisoners, or any of the other gray areas we have found ourselves in this past decade.

Pisc, there is a contracting authority in the USFS and BLM that combines a service contract with a timber sale, it is called a "stewardship" contract. What can be done with a "stewardship" contract is not necessarily stewardship as the word is commonly understood, although it does allow for increasing the probability of such an outcome. when you talk about torture, you are talking about a legalistic notion similar to a specific contracting authority. What i wrote about torture was about an idea that has been a part of our culture for far longer than any of the laws we live under, much like the common understanding of stewardship has no real relationship to any set of federal contracting guidelines. and even in the narrow confines to which you would like to restrict the conversation, you are wrong. Waterboarding has been prosecuted as torture by the u.s.. so, intellectual failure to recognize facts combined with a moral failure by valuing intellectual gymnastics over human suffering.

I have yet to see the specifics of any finding by a U.S, as for that matter any court, that water boarding is torture. Perhaps I have missed it but if it were out there it would have been found by now and used to it's fullest. Please provide me with some reference(s) to these "prosecution for torture", involving water boarding, so that I will no longer remain in ignorance of them. I did like the analogy though. I think it is wide of the mark but but a nice attempt at rhetorical gymnastics.

Quoting piscivorous:
I did like the analogy though. I think it is wide of the mark but but a nice attempt at rhetorical gymnastics.

thanks!

Quoting piscivorous: [...]

Nice try at misinterpreting my words. One can admire your energy in trying to win a point you're wrong on, if not your judgment, your priorities, your ability to read for context, or your intellectual honesty.

Again it's all about me "Nice try at misinterpreting my words. One can admire your energy in trying to win a point you're wrong on, if not your judgment, your priorities, your ability to read for context, or your intellectual honesty."

Quoting piscivorous: Again it's all about me ...

Indeed it is. I have already stated why I am not going to privilege your disgraceful views on torture by treating them as respectable views, worthy of debate. You don't want me passing judgment on you in this matter, find some place else to proselytize.

You should know it is legal because Obama had to ban the interrogation technique's use. Why would waterboarding have to be banned by an executive order, if it was already illegal? Obama banned the interrogation technique because it is legal and could be used by the CIA and US military personnel under his authority. This is also why no one will ever be prosecuted under American law for torture with regards to waterboarding during the Bush administration. Lawyers and scholars who want to say that it was illegal for the U.S. to use "enhanced interrogation techniques" aren't being honest about the law. They're telling themselves and the world what they want the law to be (how it should be read), not what the law actually is. International law is irrelevant unless the U.S. is bound by it and the U.S., like every other country, isn't bound by whole lot of international law. Torture law needs to be more narrowly written, and likely describe waterboarding, and whatever else, as torture for it to fit the legal definition of torture and therefore be a felony crime under U.S. law. Basically, our government needs to

Whoa and now you want to dictate where I "proselytize." So speaks the demigod BJ.

Actually if you read the Presidential Order, you would see that President Obama has removed himself from that decision loop and designated it to the Attorney General. The man just can't be bothered with such trivial matters.

Quoting piscivorous: Whoa and now you want to dictate where I "proselytize."

I said nothing of the kind. I merely pointed out what you should expect should you make the choice to post your views in a public forum. Seems as though you, and a few others, need to be reminded of this from time to time. (The only other possibility is that you all have an overdeveloped affection for feeling persecuted, but that can't be it, right?)

So speaks the demigod BJ.

Always flattering to hear that my enemies have such a lofty impression of me, but I have to say, this is just another area where your peculiar grasp on reality isn't helping you.

Yes my lord as you speak so shall I obey! Oh course you can tell by the very existence of this comment I may be a little week on the follow through in this instance.

Quoting piscivorous: Yes my lord as you speak so shall I obey!

Love the victim cloak, darling. It fits you well.

Oh course you can tell by the very existence of this comment I may be a little week on the follow through in this instance.

Oh course. Year often dayzed.

Quoting bjkeefe: Love the victim cloak, darling. It fits you well.

Oh course. Year often dayzed.

This is so much more artistic and creative than the decadent name calling!

... if Friday was the "Snowpocalypse," then what the heck is happening today?

Quoting AemJeff: ... if Friday was the "Snowpocalypse," then what the heck is happening today?

It's the post-snowpocalypse debacle! There's no such thing as the "rapture". It's the "raptures". It gives you time in between to go to the supermarket and get some work done. Not to mention the shoveling part.

to quote yourself: "I can tell by your decreased ability to spell and write with proper grammar and punctuation that I've touched a nerve." But your play on words did make me giggle.

My backyard...

Beautiful pic!!

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: Beautiful pic!!

Thanks! I took it with a tiny brand new camera, but I don't know how to use it well. I should read the manual instead of posting my first picture!

You manage to make it seem like a Winter Wonderland. We seem to be at the the North Pole of Hell, here. From my front window:

Hey! I love the light and shadows effects! And the color change! I want to learn all those photo tricks.

Quoting AemJeff: You manage to make it seem like a Winter Wonderland. We seem to be at the the North Pole of Hell, here.

Snocialism!!!1! (stolen)

Quoting bjkeefe: Snocialism!!!1!

(stolen)

Is this supposed to be a cult or a new political party? A problem with the salivary glands?

Quoting Don Zeko: In the context of the current health care bill, the public option would mean allowing people that don't get health insurance from their employer to buy health insurance from the government if they prefer that to buying health insurance from a private company.

Now I see why I was having trouble understanding - the "public" option is more accurately the "government" option, unless your also providing for the "public" taxes to underwrite this scheme.

Quoting ROLYAT136: Now I see why I was having trouble understanding - the "public" option is more accurately the "government" option, unless your also providing for the "public" taxes to underwrite this scheme.

I suppose it's true that the Public Option would need taxpayer money to start operation, but it would be very different from a program like Medicaid. Once it has been established, it will essentially be a non-profit health care provider operated by the government, so it will have to make enough money through premiums to cover its expenses. If you find something objectionable about this, please, let me know.

Quoting Don Zeko: I suppose it's true that the Public Option would need taxpayer money to start operation, but it would be very different from a program like Medicaid. Once it has been established, it will essentially be a non-profit health care provider operated by the government, so it will have to make enough money through premiums to cover its expenses. If you find something objectionable about this, please, let me know.

I'm 100% for the public option. I written my congresscritters, made phone calls, did the whole activist thing. I think it's definitely worth trying because it might be really successful in the way the VA turned out to be really efficient (once they starting making the effort), but I don't think it's the point of HCR. The best run mutual fund (lowest fees) is TSP, the mutual fund family for federal employees. It's managed by Barclays, a British private for-profit company. The second best mutual funds are from Vanguard, a customer-owned cooperative. Vanguard is the biggest fund group. I don't know where TSP is in the rankings. If HCR passes I'd expect in the long-run for-profit shareholder-owned insurers will similarly get crowded out by non-profit cooperatives. Without the ability to dump sick people and

Quoting bjkeefe: The blogosphere is watching: [...]

This time it's Glenzilla. Lowry fans: don't read. Come to think of it, AMC fans better not, either. (h/t: HTML Mencken)

I believe the scientific term for a post like that is "pwnage"

Quoting bjkeefe: This time it's Glenzilla. Lowry fans: don't read.

Come to think of it, AMC fans better not, either.

(h/t: HTML Mencken)

Glen is kind enough to report the Obama administration's hypocrisy, as well as that of Lowry. I wonder which he thought was more important and newsworthy.

(2) Several months ago, the excellent Obama Pentagon aide in charge of detention policy -- former Army Capt. Philip Carter -- abruptly resigned shortly after the administration announced it would indefinitely detain many Guantanamo detainees and send others to military commissions: policies which Capt. Carter long opposed when embraced by Bush (though it's unclear whether there was a causal connection between those policies and his resignation). As Spencer Ackerman reports today, the administration has now replaced Capt. Carter: with Col. William Lietzau, who -- as Ackerman put it -- "previously served as a special adviser to Jim Haynes, the top Pentagon lawyer during Donald H. Rumsfeld’s tenure, when Rumsfeld and Haynes codified torture and indefinite detention as hallmarks of Bush-era terrorism policy" (h/t Jim White). Given that Obama's top "terrorism adviser" was a Bush-era CIA official who cheered for various torture and rendition policies, and given that Obama detention policies are so closely modeled after the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld approach (indefinite detention, military

The whole time that discussion of Markos's forthcoming book was going on I was thinking about Jonah Goldberg. And the main thing that disturbs me about Johan Goldberg is that he is becoming rich with his nonsense, apparently.

Quoting ledocs: The whole time that discussion of Markos's forthcoming book was going on I was thinking about Jonah Goldberg. And the main thing that disturbs me about Johan Goldberg is that he is becoming rich with his nonsense, apparently.

Ramesh Ponnuru already wrote "American Taliban" but he called his book "The Party of Death."

Bottom line is that this is going to make it that much harder for those junior NCOs and Officers to accomplish their mission...and the American people, as is their right, are making it harder on the guys who are doing to the fighting. I dont care where you stand on this point, you are putting more pressure on a unit. And before the chicken hawk comments start coming my way, 3 tour combat Vet, 2 Bronze Stars...and I was enlisted and an officer...

If you're going to contradict the chairman of the joint chiefs and the Secretary of Defense and tell us that the military can't do its job without having discriminatory laws on the books, could you at least do us the courtesy of explaining how it is that openly gay soldiers will render our military impotent? When your argument for descrimination consists of...asserting without evidence that discrimination is good, it might lead people to unpleasant conclusions about your character.

Quoting claymisher: Ramesh Ponnuru already wrote "American Taliban" but he called his book "The Party of Death."

The key difference being that the comparison has considerable merit when it comes to the similarities between two religious, conservative, and authoritarian, and fundamentalist political movements who each wish to impose their extremist doctrines on populations they wish to subjugate. One's Christian, one's Islamic. The Taliban obviously have greater leeway to pursue their agenda than American conservatives, who are constrained by the Constitution, by American traditions and values, and in some cases by their conscience. It's not entirely accurate to compare the worst of the Taliban with the average member of America's religious right. But in broad terms, the similiarities are striking, undeniable and cause for concern.

I am sure conservatives feel the same way about comparing liberals to fascists. Both comparisons are inane.

Quoting Starwatcher162536: I am sure conservatives feel the same way about comparing liberals to fascists.

Both comparisons are inane.

Keep an open mind. On this question, you might be wrong.

When it comes to gays in the millitary I think General Hicks said it best.

Quoting TwinSwords: The key difference being that the comparison has considerable merit when it comes to the similarities between two religious, conservative, and authoritarian, and fundamentalist political movements who each wish to impose their extremist doctrines on populations they wish to subjugate. One's Christian, one's Islamic. The Taliban obviously have greater leeway to pursue their agenda than American conservatives, who are constrained by the Constitution, by American traditions and values, and in some cases by their conscience. It's not entirely accurate to compare the worst of the Taliban with the average member of America's religious right. But in broad terms, the similiarities are striking, undeniable and cause for concern.

The funny thing is that Ponnuru pretty much sides with religious fundamentalists of all faiths against the rootless cosmopolitan liberal hippies. I am not all worried about the religious right in America. (Okay, they have killed about a dozen doctors and staff. So a little worried.) Back when we had a Republican pres, congress, and supreme court they didn't do shit on abortion, their #1 issue. They're all talk. Because if they actually did crack down on abortion or birth control they'd get clobbered come election day. People (including that

Quoting claymisher: I am not all worried about the religious right in America.

... abortion ...

Sadly, this is not the only issue they care about. You should pay more attention to people like Don McLeroy, for example. (See also.)

Quoting bjkeefe: Sadly, this [abortion] is not the only issue they care about.

Having said that, I now realize it should be pointed out that this so-called "pro-life" stance has many ramifications besides the most talked-about one. For example ...

Quoting ledocs: The whole time that discussion of Markos's forthcoming book was going on I was thinking about Jonah Goldberg. And the main thing that disturbs me about Johan Goldberg is that he is becoming rich with his nonsense, apparently.

Besides making an excellent door stop, and considering it was written on a lark, I have to wonder about its basic premise (I have not read it) that today's oh-so-cool progressives have not-so-cool roots. I would like to see Haidt on again, with Jonah, to address this topic.

Quoting bjkeefe: Sadly, this is not the only issue they care about.

You should pay more attention to people like Don McLeroy, for example. (See also.)

Not to mention his crony David Barton. (via, and see also)

Quoting Wonderment: Ahnold

I'm still laughing about the length of your list, but I do have to say, you did infinitely better than some others:

Like Weisberg before him, Kaplan doesn't actually name any responsible Republicans, which may or may not suggest that they already know the answer and are just funnin' with us, Slate style.

(context)

Quoting AemJeff: Legendary gay icon comes out in favor of gay marriage!

Schwarzenegger vetoed gay marriage bills in 2005 and in 2007 and then came out against prop 8 in 2008.

Quoting TwinSwords: [...] It's not entirely accurate to compare the worst of the Taliban with the average member of America's religious right. But in broad terms, the similiarities are striking, undeniable and cause for concern.

And on that note (via):

A bill passed by the Utah House and Senate this week and waiting for the governor's signature, will make it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage ...

Quoting joetheragman: Bottom line is that this is going to make it that much harder for those junior NCOs and Officers to accomplish their mission...and the American people, as is their right, are making it harder on the guys who are doing to the fighting. I dont care where you stand on this point, you are putting more pressure on a unit. And before the chicken hawk comments start coming my way, 3 tour combat Vet, 2 Bronze Stars...and I was enlisted and an officer...

Harder to accomplish missions... as it must be for the service members in the UK or the Israeli defense force. Those Israelis really do have a third rate force because of allowing gays to serve openly as a non issue REALLY dented their effectiveness.
This is garbage that has NO bearing on reality. If it is true, you are making the case that YOU, and your fellow service members are the intellectual/emotional/functional INFERIORS to those service members mentioned overseas as they seem to be able to do just fine with all that "extra pressure"
no one has to be friends with anyone, or share each others politics, you have to do your

Quoting bjkeefe: And on that note (via):

CJ is spot on:

Apart from the obnoxious rock music soundtrack, how is this different from the Taliban?

========== [Added] Some background on the assclown in that video here and here. A phrase I have not heard before, from the first:

... he's a part of something called the Zealot Movement, an extremist Christian movement built on the straight-edge punk lifestyle that, according to Mitchell, "avoid[s] the pitfalls of American, effeminised Christianity" and embraces "sexual purity through the practice of abstinence until marriage and the abolition of homosexuality."

Clay -- you still think "American Taliban" goes too far?

Quoting bjkeefe: CJ is spot on:

Apart from the obnoxious rock music soundtrack, how is this different from the Taliban?

Okay, apart from the rock music and the swimsuit competition, we mean. (h/t: John Cole)

Quoting bjkeefe:
Clay -- you still think "American Taliban" goes too far?

Yeah, if you're calling for the death penalty for gay people then "American Taliban" is fair.

Quoting bjkeefe: Okay, apart from the rock music and the swimsuit competition, we mean.

(h/t: John Cole)

Wow, it really shouldn't shock me to see somebody who has so obviously won the genetic lottery in one sense, and yet has lost that lottery so completely in another.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it points towards executing people for their sexual preferences." Yes, I'm sure that's what Dr. King actually meant.

Quoting bjkeefe: CJ is spot on

Worth noting here that this same WorldNet Daily columnist has a video which is pretty clear encouragement to overthrowing the US government.

PZ Myers and Charles Johnson examine a group calling itself, variously, Repent Amarillo and Army of God. I can't really pull a short quote to illustrate -- the point is made in seeing it all laid out as PZ and CJ have. But here's an only slightly hyperbolic conclusion from PZ:

Keep this in mind. This is the future the Pat Robertsons, the James Dobsons, the Sarah Palins want for us — a kind of Saudi Arabia that differs only in the name we give our prophet.

Quoting bjkeefe: PZ Myers and Charles Johnson examine a group calling itself, variously, Repent Amarillo and Army of God. [...]

More on this group from Forrest Wilder of The Texas Observer, via Will Bunch.