Quote:Nicely writ, blatham - and though you most likely will disagree, and fail to see the irony, I think your piece makes my point for me.
Ah, but timber, as your 'point' is to be seen evidenced in the set of all things at all times, all I write must necessarily be included.
Elbows rubbing, beers in hand, we await squinney.
rayban
Would you like me to begin listing all the Republicans who were members of the KKK? There were a lot of guilty people, but your side wins.
Please do.
Fox
Try to focus, dearie. I said the last half of the century, that is, the modern period. As the recent filibuster debate reminded us, it was the Republicans who used the filibuster on many occasions in order to stop civil rights legislation.
I understand that you don't think that the relevant social programs which we know are being referred to here (social assistance and affirmative action) are good policy. You understand that I and other think they are. But you likely don't believe that the motivation behind them is other than well-intentioned, even though you might think those good intentions are themselves the problem (which then of course would apply to anyone's good intentions to aid the downtrodden blacks, including Sowell's or foxfyre's - who won't get this point).
The argument that Bush should pick centrists comes with a Ginsburg-Breyer attachment: Clinton picked moderates, so why can't Bush? It's true that neither Ginsburg nor Breyer is a flamethrower, but the Democrats know that these justices are reliable votes on the left. The Republicans have no comparable expectations because they keep picking wobbly centrists who slide leftward.
Baldimo wrote:Why is it that the poorest minority cities in the US are all controlled by Dems? They blame the Republicans for the poverty but in all the years of control of these areas they haven't improved but have gotten worse year in and year out. The schools don't have funding the people are still on welfare after more then one generation the housing hasn't improved neither has their way of life. Crime is still rampant and children can't read or compete with their burb peers. If the Dems are the party of the minority and the poor how come things have only gotten worse?
Because the Republicans are doing everything they can to keep it that way.
Speaking of divisiveness, the tendency of contemporary Republicans to avoid divisiveness as much as possible could send us to hell in a handbasket. I am also interested in the upcoming nominations for the Supreme Court. In fact, I think GWB's appointments to the court and the will of the House and Senate Republicans to confirm them may determine the fate of the Republican party in the foreseeable future. The discussion re politics and racism may be a critical factor if such nominations happen to be people from recognized 'minority groups'.
Can You Say, 'Chief Justice Scalia'?
It looks like the White House is considering only one sitting U.S. Supreme Court judge as a replacement for ailing Chief Justice William Rehnquist , who's expected to step down this summer. Insiders tell us that Justice Antonin Scalia , not Justice Clarence Thomas , is the one President Bush is most likely to tap. The thinking: How could the Senate reject a judge they OK'd for the court 98 to 0?
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/whispers/articles/050606/6whisplead.htm
No doubt his duck hunting trip with Cheney will be the "extradordinary" reason for a filibuster.
Good intentions by themselves aren't the problem. They only become a problem when combined with incompetence and media power (as in Michael Moore's case), or when combined with the coercive power to enforce ones good intentions upon others. As an aside, America has evolved a successful policy of separating church and state to solve this very problem, but unfortunately it has stopped short of separating secular ideologies from the state as well. Sometimes, as in the "pledge of allegiance" debate, this leads to almost comical results. Americans appear to be steaming over the question whether the words "under god" should be in there or not. But nobody seems to object when the government, trough the social conventions about reciting the pledge, is in effect making itself the object of quasi-religious devotion, and is beginning to make up its own makeshift-religion from patriotism, politically correct speech codes, compulsory puritanism about sex, drugs, and rock'n roll, and just a wee bit of social democracy, environmentalism, and so-called "consumer protection". That's a big problem even if I grant, for the purpose of this point, that patriotism and all those other things are good. Because if this continues and secular ideologies are not separated from the state at some point, the separation of church and state degenerates into a hollow shell.
Back to the quote you cited: I think it's a polemic, but basically fair criticism of the Democratic party's tradition in racial policy. Over the 20th century, the party has changed its secular ideology that motivates these policies, but hasn't changed its conviction that it ought to use the power of the government to impose that ideology upon society. Thus, before the 60s, Southern Democrats decided that the place of blacks was on the lowest rungs of the social pecking order, and to use the government's power to put them there. After the 60s, Democrats in general decided that the place of blacks was on the same rungs of the pecking order as whites' everybody else's, and to use the government's power to put them there. I am not aware of any point in history when the Democrats' official doctrine was the obviously correct one, or so it seems to me -- that it isn't for them to decide what the place of Blacks in society should be, and that the government has no business enforcing that decision upon the people at large. I agree with Sowell and foxfyre that this is a continuous tradition of racism -- openly hostile to blacks in the case of the Jim Crow laws, implicit, naive, and benevolently patronizing in the case of Affirmative Action. I also agree with them that both were bad things in practice, whatever the intentions.
Thus we still have even well-intentioned people like Blatham who unintentionally further a subtle racism by seeing a person as failing to be 'part of a black community' or even that there is such a thing as a 'black community' that is different from the 'white community'.
I agree with your statement Fox although, having come from such a situation myself, it is interesting to note that those who find themselves elevated in our society by the universal unit of Class change - money - rarely return to the confines of their previous groupings, either to live or to help; instead, they move to a new group, the Wealthy, a group which transcends color and ethnicity and becomes its own interesting group.
Good intentions by themselves aren't the problem. They only become a problem when combined with incompetence and media power (as in Michael Moore's case), or when combined with the coercive power to enforce ones good intentions upon others. As an aside, America has evolved a successful policy of separating church and state to solve this very problem, but unfortunately it has stopped short of separating secular ideologies from the state as well. Sometimes, as in the "pledge of allegiance" debate, this leads to almost comical results. Americans appear to be steaming over the question whether the words "under god" should be in there or not. But nobody seems to object when the government, trough the social conventions about reciting the pledge, is in effect making itself the object of quasi-religious devotion, and is beginning to make up its own makeshift-religion from patriotism, politically correct speech codes, compulsory puritanism about sex, drugs, and rock'n roll, and just a wee bit of social democracy, environmentalism, and so-called "consumer protection". That's a big problem even if I grant, for the purpose of this point, that patriotism and all those other things are good. Because if this continues and secular ideologies are not separated from the state at some point, the separation of church and state degenerates into a hollow shell.
blatham wrote:Well, I'm not sure astute is the most appropriate adjective, timber.
How it would burn for you to agree.
psst...my post was lighthearted in spirit. I've no animostity towards you, finn.
But finn certainly is earnest in all the above. He's is right though that the Newshour went a step down from Gigot to Brooks. And there was a similar descention earlier in moving from Gergen to Gigot. Of course, Chomsky was even earlier, and before that, it was either the Irish Catholic's God or the Spanish Inquisition, I don't recall now. Down, down...
Gergen is a quisling, and therefore it is not surpising that he might appeal to you.
If you determine the worth of a person's understanding of the world solely upon his or her uncritical adherence to your party's notion of what all republicans ought to think and say, then anyone who doesn't play that way could, I suppose, be labelled a quisling. But what a destitute attitude that is in a democracy.
I'm afraid I am unable to follow the path you suggest: Brooks - Gigot -Gergen - Chomsky - God - Torquemondo.
Only blatham is capable of suggesting that Chomsky is a a link in the conservative puditry chain of the News Hour.
I am glad to see that you acknowledge God (if only the Irish version) as conservative.
Sequence just for fun.
Once God jumped on the conservative train, it sort of left his antecedents irrelative. Nevertheless, how do you know that 14th century Jews and heretics were not deserving of the kind mercies of the rack?
Remember though, that when we are dealing with Finn, we are dealing with someone who has moved from New York to Dallas, a trajectory which which anyone but a fundamentalist would validly conclude to be clear evidence of devolution (leaving aside the possibility of an Intelligent Designer in Practical Joker mode).
Anyone but a fundamentalist and the entire US population residing outside of New York, Connecticut, Massachusets, Florida (Little NY) and California. But then what else might we expect from a Canadian who longs to be a New Yorker, let alone an American.
Making or suggesting causal relationships in the manner I've done, or in the manner which finn does in his notions on children's programming (or as others do with portrayals of violence, etc) is a dicey move. At least, it is for us. One would think some statistical analyses could be brought to bear which would illuminate even if human systems are so complex (amazing article in todays NY Times magazine on analyses of the huge email data base from Enron). Of course, either of us might be right, we just ought not to be certain.
Huh? I didn't imagine that you would respond to an assertion of my astuteness with obtuseness.
Well, the arguments are a bit stale now. But I was suggesting that the style of discourse in modern news commentary (the Crossfire model) has negative consequences for how the citizenry believe such discourse ought to be done - ie, in precisely that mode...uncareful, unsourced, partisan and in pursuit of gain for one's party/ideology as constrasted with pursuit of accuracy. But though I suspect this is so (the negative consequences, that is) it isn't a claim I have any way of proving...the same problem for folks who argue that violence on TV has a consequence for violence in the culture. But, I also added, it may be the case that sophisticated mathematical models could possibly ascertain (with some high probability) correlations in either the news case or the violence case (and I referred to a relevant example, the NY Times magazine piece). Sorry, I wasn't attempting to be obtuse, I just didn't write well.
I've read and reread this gibberish at least six times and I still can't grasp what you are trying to argue. The only reference I made to children's programming was that, clearly, Coulter is not included in it. I might agree with you that impressionable children might be corrupted by Coulter, but that is an absurd argument. Almost as absurd as the argument that Coulter is, somehow, capable of corrupting the minds of American adults.
Finn assumes I am calling for, or would call for, some mandated solution for the problem I perceive. I don't. I would reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine immediately upon ascention to the throne which has mysteriously gotten under someone else's bum, but that doesn't solve my peeve - uncareful partisan yelling replacing careful and more objective discourse.
Do you really mean to suggest that there is not a balancing weight of Leftistist bile to Coulter's? Oh how sweet that a Leftist, inadvertantly, admits that the combined efforts of Leftist pundits (i.e. Franken, Garafalo, Clift, Dionne, Rich, Alterman, Ivans, Goodman, Krugman and Dowd...to name a few.) is overwhelmed by Ann Coulter!
Simply, how would one know where/when there is balance of imbalance without careful study, that is, of a rigorous and scientific sort. But I wasn't speaking to any left vs right question there, but rather to careful discourse vs uncareful discourse.
There's nothing for it but to continue pointing in the direction I point, suggesting that attention to detail and accuracy can be very important indeed.
You two,
An unfortunate and consistent rhetorical (at the least) flaw. "You two...." "You three..."
relating to the specific folks involved in the argument here
and others, suggest a categorical difference between 'entertainment' and 'news'. Sure, once you use those terms, the difference is already constructed. But let's look at a couple of things.
First, who gains from this shift away from 'talking heads' and towards 'yelling blondes with cleavage'?
First of all, there is little distinction between "talking heads" and "yelling (Coulter, however, never yells) blondes with cleavage (Coulter, however, has minimal cleavage. To the extent she invokes lust it is through the simple minded American love for blonde hair, and her short skirts ---rarely accentuated to their full effect).
The distinction is between journalistic reporters of facts (and there are so few of them) and pundits providing their opinions. You seem to want to hold Coulter to the standards (such as they are) of the former, when she has never claimed to be anything but the latter.
Does she admit then that she is uncareful with the truth? That her research is minimal or less? That her arguments grow out of bias and that such bias trumps any other consideration? That she is, therefore, not to be trusted to portray anything real, but only to forward opinions and versions of 'facts' which work to the advantage of her party/ideology?
The corporations that compete for ad dollars. That the polity gains is unlikely. Consumer demand fulfilled isn't necessarily a good thing, as we might conclude considering the free-market demand for nuclear or biological weapons technologies.
Huh?
Please do not become such a Leftist cliche! You don't like Coulter...therefore it is essential that you draw in Corporate America and ad dollars..
Somewhere in this obtuse conflagration is the suggestion that democracy is not good for the nation: Consumers like Coulter, consumers buy products that seem to be assocaited with Coulter (this, of course, ignores the reality that Coulter doesn't shill for any product), consumers somehow resonnate with Coulter's arguments...But this is bad! Consumers and citizens cannot be trusted to form their own opinions. They need blatham and Franken, and Krugman to tell them how to think.
Well, when polls broadly showed Clinton well-liked by a majority of Americans, even during the impeachment, was Ann happy to settle for what the 'consumers' liked and wanted? The point here is a simple one, finn. That there is a demand for something doesn't necessarily entail that the community is best served through the supply of that demand. I used the example of the present demand for nuclear weapons and biological weapons technologies - for which there is a clear demand. The corporate point related to the realities of the profit motive in the news business.
Or let's look at engineering and careful attention to detail and accuracy. Does one want Ann Coulter checking off on the blueprints? Why not? Does one want Rupert Murdoch in charge overall? Well, for Rupert, his interests would lead him to build poorly, film the collapses, and pull in the ad dollars from all those deliciously excited viewers.
Good grief! Has anyone suggested that Coulter should approve the blueprints? Gratuitiously introduce Murdoch to support the notion that we are shackled by ideology. Neither Coulter nor Murdoch have anywhere near the power and influence which you decry. Hysteria from an otherwise rational poster remains hysteria.
Simple point again...carefulness can be very important. I argue that it perhaps as important in news gathering/reporting (or commentary) as in engineering.
Less flippantly, consider the courts. Would the judge, or that court's community, prefer some strict and careful attention to detail and factual representation? Why? Why not set up the court out in the sun with big bleachers around and return to those heady days of justice as 'entertainment'? You'd get bigger crowds.
Beyond the pale.
Or government. We demand - at least we bloody well ought to demand - that government speaks to us not in the Coulter mode but in the Gergen mode. We want them to tell us the truth, to be transparent, to be nuanced and careful. Or is it ok, for the broad polity I mean, for government to simply keep us preoccupied and 'entertained' with exciting wars and fictional accounts?
So now you would extend the criticism of Coulter to the criticism of the government. Sadly, I always expected this sort of ridiculous linkage whenever I saw your burn hot on Coulter.
I refer to any government.
Memo to baltham: Coulter is not, in anyway, a representative of the American Government. Only an ideological ass would hold otherwise. It is hard to accept that you might be such an ass.
Coulter is a functioning representative of THIS government. She writes and speaks in this government's interest consistently, and works to denigrate the opposition to it, again, consistently. Hardly the picture of someone who is "independent". .
Blatham wrote:I understand that you don't think that the relevant social programs which we know are being referred to here (social assistance and affirmative action) are good policy. You understand that I and other think they are. But you likely don't believe that the motivation behind them is other than well-intentioned, even though you might think those good intentions are themselves the problem (which then of course would apply to anyone's good intentions to aid the downtrodden blacks, including Sowell's or foxfyre's - who won't get this point).
Good intentions by themselves aren't the problem. They only become a problem when combined with incompetence and media power (as in Michael Moore's case), or when combined with the coercive power to enforce ones good intentions upon others.
Can we say that under the conditions you suggest that ANY intention is problematical? Certainly, bad intentions combined with coercive power is likely to turn out badly. And as human political action without intention is a meaninless impossibility, I'm not sure where your idea gets us - outside of the observable truth that the one can be rather too confident in one's own rightness. You betcha.
As an aside, America has evolved a successful policy of separating church and state to solve this very problem,
Well, the policy was really in support of religious freedom (through disallowing a senior or priviledged status to any one religion) but I too think a positive consequence is discouragement of the certitude in righteousness which religions can engender
unfortunately it has stopped short of separating secular ideologies from the state as well.
I'm not at all sure this is coherent. What do you not include in your set of 'secular ideologies'? Libertarianism? Certain economic theories - but not others? The political theories that motivated the writers of the constitution? Strauss's ideology? Perhaps you have some definition of 'ideology' which you haven't shared and which informs your argument, but I suspect you'll have some trouble with this definition.
Sometimes, as in the "pledge of allegiance" debate, this leads to almost comical results. Americans appear to be steaming over the question whether the words "under god" should be in there or not. But nobody seems to object when the government, trough the social conventions about reciting the pledge, is in effect making itself the object of quasi-religious devotion, and is beginning to make up its own makeshift-religion from patriotism, politically correct speech codes, compulsory puritanism about sex, drugs, and rock'n roll, and just a wee bit of social democracy, environmentalism, and so-called "consumer protection". That's a big problem even if I grant, for the purpose of this point, that patriotism and all those other things are good. Because if this continues and secular ideologies are not separated from the state at some point, the separation of church and state degenerates into a hollow shell.
OK, so you seem to be defining 'ideology' as an understanding of political matters which bears similarities to religious belief - sacred/profane, accepted/heretical, we the chosen/them the scumbags, etc. You and I appear to share the notion that nationalism can take on precisely this shape. Social movements too. Of course, that pretty much now includes all political activity. Anyone publicly favoring any political notion might fit here. I can only assume you might refer to certainty of the self-righteous and near absolute sort. Again, that's a problem. But how do we establish its presence/absence?
Back to the quote you cited: I think it's a polemic, but basically fair criticism of the Democratic party's tradition in racial policy. Over the 20th century, the party has changed its secular ideology that motivates these policies, but hasn't changed its conviction that it ought to use the power of the government to impose that ideology upon society. Thus, before the 60s, Southern Democrats decided that the place of blacks was on the lowest rungs of the social pecking order, and to use the government's power to put them there. After the 60s, Democrats in general decided that the place of blacks was on the same rungs of the pecking order as whites' everybody else's, and to use the government's power to put them there. I am not aware of any point in history when the Democrats' official doctrine was the obviously correct one, or so it seems to me -- that it isn't for them to decide what the place of Blacks in society should be, and that the government has no business enforcing that decision upon the people at large. I agree with Sowell and foxfyre that this is a continuous tradition of racism -- openly hostile to blacks in the case of the Jim Crow laws, implicit, naive, and benevolently patronizing in the case of Affirmative Action. I also agree with them that both were bad things in practice, whatever the intentions.
Yes, it was my assumption you would conclude thusly, given your certainty that your personal political ideology is clearly correct and in understanding that your intentions for citizens generally and for african americans is of the well-intentioned sort.
If this position is divisive, so be it. There used to be a time when it was divisive to claim that the earth rotates around the sun. So long as I'm saying what I honestly think is true, I really can't be bothered to care about what's divisive. And neither should Paul Krugman, Thomas Sowell, foxfyre, or anyone else.
You miss, perhaps because you wished to make the point above, that I was not speaking of divisiveness as an (inevitable) consequence of divergent political views or policies, but of divisiveness as a tool to gain power. You are clear, I think, on the stark and destructive level of partisanship now evident in US politics. My hope is that one day you will put some time into researching how that has come about rather than assuming you have the mechanics of this figured out already, if you do.
In any case, I wanted to just briefly respond to you here as you and I have had a great number of interesting and challenging conversations over the last couple of years. You are careful, you think for yourself and hold no evident partisan allegiance other than to a certain faith in libertarian notions. It's been great fun.
Can we say that under the conditions you suggest that ANY intention is problematical? Certainly, bad intentions combined with coercive power is likely to turn out badly.
And as human political action without intention is a meaninless impossibility, I'm not sure where your idea gets us
I'm not at all sure this is coherent. What do you not include in your set of 'secular ideologies'? Libertarianism?
Yes, it was my assumption you would conclude thusly, given your certainty that your personal political ideology is clearly correct and in understanding that your intentions for citizens generally and for african americans is of the well-intentioned sort.
You miss, perhaps because you wished to make the point above, that I was not speaking of divisiveness as an (inevitable) consequence of divergent political views or policies, but of divisiveness as a tool to gain power. You are clear, I think, on the stark and destructive level of partisanship now evident in US politics. My hope is that one day you will put some time into researching how that has come about rather than assuming you have the mechanics of this figured out already, if you do.
It's been great fun.
I
When I have contemplated the statement "the ends don't justify the means" I am, more often than not, left in a quandry of thinking "well then, what does justify the means?"
