Pages

Friday, July 22, 2011

On Shifting Views - Media Bias and Gay Marriage

(via CC) A study by a UCLA professor finds that journalists and the media are so biased that we perceive centrists as conservatives, and liberals as centrists:
Fox News is clearly more conservative than ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC and National Public Radio. Some will conclude that 'therefore, this means that Fox News has a conservative bias. Instead, maybe it is centrist, and possibly even left-leaning, while all the others are far left. It's like concluding that six-three is short just because it is short compared to professional basketball players.

The simple reason:
Groseclose opens his book quoting a well-known poll in which Washington correspondents declared that they vote Democratic 93 percent to 7 percent, while the nation is split about 50-50. As a result, he says, most reporters write with a liberal filter.
Helen Thomas is the perfect example of this. While a White House reporter, she was considered a great journalist... but now is exposed as not just having liberal opinions, but as being a far-left nutcase. How is it possible that someone with such extreme opinions was able to co-exist - and be heralded as great - in a supposedly neutral environment as the journalistic field, when people who express commentary that even agrees with mild right-leaning initiatives are blasted as being biased? It is when the journalistic center is skewed so far to the left, that extreme liberalism is viewed as mildly liberal while mild conservatism is viewed as extreme.

This is true beyond media, however. Whenever we shift conversations in a specific way, it redefines the center viewpoint, making one side or the other seem extreme. For example, even proponents of gay marriage who are liberal but not gay claimed that it would never impact or be forced upon religious people in any way; that it was the religious who were unfairly imposing their morality on homosexual couples. And yet, as gay marriage has become fait accompli, proprietors are being sued for being unwilling to cater to homosexual couples' wishes, such as hosting or catering or photographing their wedding. Proponents of the separation of church and state (not in the Constitution) felt that religious values should have no weight in determining what people can and cannot do. But one of the protections afforded by the Constitution was freedom of religion, which was supposed to mean that people would not be forced to perform acts that are against their beliefs. By suing proprietors for standing up for their beliefs, gay couples, through the Courts, are essentially reversing the Constitution by forcing people to perform services that they feel go against their religious beliefs. Moreover, in discussions on the subject, people who formerly claimed it does not have anything to do with religious people and that "gay marriage doesn't hurt anyone", now have shifted their views even further, noting that to not service gays should be discrimination like any other, such as racism or sexism.

That all said, not all bias is extreme, nor does it shift completely to one end of the spectrum. In the rather extensive Wiki on media bias, it notes that Groseclose and his colleagues found that despite the heavy bias in media in the USA, all major news sources remained within the overall center - from the New York Times at the left edge of it to Fox News in the very middle, all were within the range of moderate Democrats and Republicans in Congress. If news organizations were people, Fox would be somewhere between Joe Lieberman and John McCain, while the NY Times would be somewhere around Bill Clinton - which, upon a little thought, would likely make sense to most people.

183 comments:

  1. Give me a break. Fox News is willfully, intentionally a right-wing propaganda machine. This is not a matter for honest debate. There have been tons of memos exposed and it's just obvious if you turn it on for five minutes that they're deliberately trying to shape the narrative.

    Also, compared to the rest of industrialized nations, the Democrats ARE centrist. The U.S. is this weird outlier because we have so many right-wing religious people.

    The Helen Thomas thing is a joke. Her anti-Israel/anti-semitic thing has nothing to do with being liberal, let alone "far-left."

    Your stance on gay marriage is an abomination and I hope one day you're ashamed to admit to your grandchildren where you stood on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  2. JA - What would you call MSNBC?

    ReplyDelete
  3. i think you're wrong on Fox, and are so biased you completely miss worse activity from the left. look at the current economic debate - it's laughably slanted. the media is Obama's PR machine half the time.

    lol on Thomas. if the situation were reversed the left would lose it. look at the Williams situation... and what he said wasn't even bad!

    what's my stance on gays? do you have a clue?

    ReplyDelete
  4. i think you're wrong on Fox, and are so biased you completely miss worse activity from the left. look at the current economic debate - it's laughably slanted. the media is Obama's PR machine half the time.

    Give me a break. Reporting accurately when the Republicans are being ridiculous is not biased.

    lol on Thomas. if the situation were reversed the left would lose it. look at the Williams situation... and what he said wasn't even bad!

    I don't get what you're saying here. I'm saying Thomas's anti-Israel/anti-semitism has nothing to do with being "left", "far" or otherwise. There are still plenty of antisemites on the right and the only reason they aren't anti-Israel any more is because of their Christian theology.

    what's my stance on gays? do you have a clue?

    Sorry if I inferred the wrong stance from your dubious claim that people are suing halls that discriminate against gay couples. Are you saying you support gay marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Reporting accurately when the Republicans are being ridiculous is not biased.

    Ha. You're so skewed on this. What's being ridiculous? Demanding that our economy not be screwed beyond saving?

    I don't get what you're saying here. I'm saying Thomas's anti-Israel/anti-semitism has nothing to do with being "left", "far" or otherwise.

    Sure it does.

    Sorry if I inferred the wrong stance from your dubious claim that people are suing halls that discriminate against gay couples.

    What's dubious? Look it up. Or click here.

    What does my opinion on gay marriage have to do with my opinion on religious freedom? My point was that by shifting the views on gay marriage it has now moved from should gay marriage to be allowed to whether religious people can choose not to cater to something they believe is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  6. FWIW, I have little opinion on gay marriage. I think it's more silliness than anything.

    I did feel that civil unions made more sense; alternatively, the government should have nothing to do with marriage whatsoever.

    I also felt that fighting gay marriage by religious institutions was silly.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What's being ridiculous? Demanding that our economy not be screwed beyond saving?

    No, holding the debt ceiling increase hostage, refusing to include tax increases, etc.

    Sure it does.

    Is this where I respond "Nuh-uh!"?

    What's dubious? Look it up. Or click here.

    Okay, I take back the dubious. Two points, though. One, the fact that it's a gay marriage as opposed to civil union doesn't seem relevant. Two, religious organizations seem to not have to worry about discrimination laws anyway. For example, I don't think you can sue a rabbi for refusing to marry a non-Jew, can you?

    Finally, I think it's obscene that people are so worried that the discriminators might be forced to stop discriminating.

    FWIW, I have little opinion on gay marriage. I think it's more silliness than anything.

    How callously dismissive of you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What's the point of a debt ceiling if it always moves when needed?

    How would tax increases help?! It would only make things worse long-term. Did you watch Rubio's video? Excellent.

    Is this where I respond "Nuh-uh!"?

    How can you possibly say her comments aren't exactly in line with those on the left!?

    One, the fact that it's a gay marriage as opposed to civil union doesn't seem relevant.

    Didn't say it was. I was giving a quick rundown on my opinion on the subject.

    Two, religious organizations seem to not have to worry about discrimination laws anyway. For example, I don't think you can sue a rabbi for refusing to marry a non-Jew, can you?

    For now. I'm sure it will be put to court. I didn't know that freedom of religion only applied to religious organizations, though.

    Finally, I think it's obscene that people are so worried that the discriminators might be forced to stop discriminating.

    I think it's obscene that religious beliefs are viewed by liberals as discrimination. It flies in the face of a basic foundation of the freedoms this country is supposed to protect.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What's the point of a debt ceiling if it always moves when needed?

    Excellent question.

    How would tax increases help?! It would only make things worse long-term.

    Only if you believe in voodoo economics.

    How can you possibly say her comments aren't exactly in line with those on the left!?

    What in the world is "left" about her comments??

    I didn't know that freedom of religion only applied to religious organizations, though.

    I was talking about individual rabbis in my example, not organizations.

    I think it's obscene that religious beliefs are viewed by liberals as discrimination. It flies in the face of a basic foundation of the freedoms this country is supposed to protect.

    So if it's religious it can't be discrimination?? Refusing to rent a hall to two gay people when you would rent it to two straight people is TEXTBOOK discrimination. Whether you think you're following God's will doesn't change that fact.

    What if a religion teaches that it's sinful for black people to marry white people. Would you then argue that it's not discrimination for a member of that religion to refuse to rent their hall to a black-white couple?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Only if you believe in voodoo economics.

    You don't understand economics, obviously. (Fun smackdown yesterday of an MSNBC reporter who challenged a Rep. with the question if he has an economics degree. Yes, he did, with high honors.)

    What in the world is "left" about her comments??

    Really? Her commentary is perfectly aligned with large groups on the left. Are they right-wing? Are they centrist? What are you talking about?

    I was talking about individual rabbis in my example, not organizations.

    OK, I didn't know religious freedoms only applied to clergy.

    So if it's religious it can't be discrimination?? Refusing to rent a hall to two gay people when you would rent it to two straight people is TEXTBOOK discrimination. Whether you think you're following God's will doesn't change that fact.

    Don't you see how ridiculous that is?!

    What if a religion teaches that it's sinful for black people to marry white people. Would you then argue that it's not discrimination for a member of that religion to refuse to rent their hall to a black-white couple?

    Ah, yes, the old fallback: Racism. I love how people try to compare the two.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You don't understand economics, obviously.

    *eyeroll* I'm pretty sure at least 90% of economists would agree that increasing taxes on the rich will not "make things worse" in the long term.

    Really? Her commentary is perfectly aligned with large groups on the left. Are they right-wing? Are they centrist? What are you talking about?

    What groups are you talking about? What makes them "left"?

    OK, I didn't know religious freedoms only applied to clergy

    What are you on about? Nobody's saying they do.

    Don't you see how ridiculous that is?!

    I honestly don't understand your point. Are you using some different definition of the word "discrimination" than the one I'm accustomed to?

    Ah, yes, the old fallback: Racism. I love how people try to compare the two.

    There has rarely been an issue in all of human history with a more apt analogy. Regardless, you don't have to agree that the two are equivalent or even both wrong to agree that they are both "discrimination."

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm pretty sure at least 90% of economists would agree that increasing taxes on the rich will not "make things worse" in the long term.

    LOL. I'm pretty sure that 90% would say you are 100% wrong. How could that possibly make sense?!?! If you tax everything how can you grow? Are you serious!??! Wow, you really *don't* know economics.

    What groups are you talking about? What makes them "left"?

    Huh? Have you read her statements?

    What are you on about? Nobody's saying they do.

    So why should private individuals be compelled to perform services at gay marriages? A couple was sued for refusing to be photographers. Is that right?

    There has rarely been an issue in all of human history with a more apt analogy. Regardless, you don't have to agree that the two are equivalent or even both wrong to agree that they are both "discrimination."

    False. Racism and religion are completely different arenas.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A couple was sued for refusing to be photographers.

    So? Frivolous lawsuits are brought every day. Was there a judgment against the photographers?

    ReplyDelete
  14. hahah, talk about something gay and you see JA immediatly comment :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. >Also, compared to the rest of industrialized nations, the Democrats ARE centrist.

    This is somewhat right, though, the democrats always seem to look at the european left as a sign of progress. Yet the european left is "really" left. So it goes to show you —though not there yet— where the left in this country wish to move.

    >Was there a judgment against the photographers?

    Thats not the point. The point is when people don't seem to think of the unintended consequences to their actions and sometimes, the even obvious consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  16. >I hope one day you're ashamed to admit to your grandchildren where you stood on the issue.

    Depends. If you send them to the public school system where the left would LOVE to obliterate distinctions between the two sexes, then they would be surprised. If you teach them the valued differences between the two, then they would understand. Like I always say, gay marriage is just a symptom of a larger picture.

    ReplyDelete
  17. LOL. I'm pretty sure that 90% would say you are 100% wrong. How could that possibly make sense?!?! If you tax everything how can you grow? Are you serious!??! Wow, you really *don't* know economics.

    The government doesn't just seize tax money and light it on fire, Ezzie. It's not disappearing, it's being used. Many (but of course not all) of those uses help the economy grow.

    Huh? Have you read her statements?

    Um, yes. Have you? If you have, why can't you point to the part that is "left?"

    So why should private individuals be compelled to perform services at gay marriages? A couple was sued for refusing to be photographers. Is that right?

    That does not seem right. The rules should be the same for gays as they are for race or religion. If you can refuse to photograph a gay marriage, you can refuse to photograph a black one. Etc.

    False. Racism and religion are completely different arenas.

    Look, you can argue that discrimination against gays for religious reasons is good, but you can't say it's not discrimination. That's just ridiculous. Make some sense.

    ReplyDelete
  18. hahah, talk about something gay and you see JA immediatly comment :)

    It's just an area that OJ is so obviously wrong about that I can't get my head around how apparently reasonably compassionate people like Ezzie can support it. You, I get.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I guess it's about distancing and denial. I couldn't for the life of me get Ezzie to even entertain the possibility that his daughter might grow up to be gay, as if that's something that only "happens to other people" or something.

    ReplyDelete
  20. It's just an area that OJ is so obviously wrong about that I can't get my head around how apparently reasonably compassionate people like Ezzie can support it. You, I get.

    All seriousness, that's just it. You don't actually respect freedom of religion, because you believe it to be wrong. Therefore, you can't accept someone else's belief, because you think it's all wrong in basis to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I guess it's about distancing and denial. I couldn't for the life of me get Ezzie to even entertain the possibility that his daughter might grow up to be gay, as if that's something that only "happens to other people" or something.

    That's completely false. What, I don't have gay friends? That's really, really dumb, JA.

    ReplyDelete
  22. >It's just an area that OJ is so obviously wrong about that I can't get my head around how apparently reasonably compassionate people like Ezzie can support it. You, I get.

    Well, aside from the fact that it's not just OJ, but even secular people, the fact is, as much as I think there is alot of stuff wrong in OJ, I feel this is absolutely right in being bearers of some sort of standards in a world where the left consistently wants to whipe out these standards. Standards, that I believe even liberals of old would have thought are ludicrous to get rid of.

    ReplyDelete
  23. All seriousness, that's just it. You don't actually respect freedom of religion, because you believe it to be wrong. Therefore, you can't accept someone else's belief, because you think it's all wrong in basis to begin with.

    To me, freedom of religion means that you are free to practice your religion no matter how wrong it is. It, like all the other rights, is of course not absolute -- if you decide that your neighbor is an Amalekite, I don't think you should have the right to kill him, for example

    That's completely false. What, I don't have gay friends? That's really, really dumb, JA.

    Ok, so what is the reason you refused to even consider that your daughter might turn out gay?

    ReplyDelete
  24. The government doesn't just seize tax money and light it on fire, Ezzie. It's not disappearing, it's being used. Many (but of course not all) of those uses help the economy grow.

    Ha! We can debate about the lighting it on fire...

    More seriously, if government were truly better at managing, distributing, and investing money, would there be any debate whatsoever on these issues? And even if they were equal (!), they simply couldn't compete because of the extra overhead and red tape. I mean, really - NOBODY believes that government can grow the economy best. Some believe that it's worth slowing down the economy to pay for certain social services, but nobody believes that government is most capable of growing the economy. Please just stop.

    Re: Thomas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Thomas

    "Palestinian people are fighting for their land." (That's when she was still a reporter, as were the next few.) "I'm covering the worst president in American history." (2003) "Why did you really want to go to war? .... You have said it wasn't oil...quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?" (2006) "The United States ... could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis... we have gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine." (2006) "I hit the third rail. You cannot criticize Israel in this country and survive."

    That does not seem right. The rules should be the same for gays as they are for race or religion. If you can refuse to photograph a gay marriage, you can refuse to photograph a black one. Etc.

    You only think so because you equate them.

    Look, you can argue that discrimination against gays for religious reasons is good, but you can't say it's not discrimination. That's just ridiculous. Make some sense.

    Huh? You can't seriously feel that compelling people to act against their religion isn't restricting their freedom of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The left doesn't respect religion because they can't. It's a contrasting value system to leftism. It's no different than saying religion respects secularism. These two values will always be at war.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well, aside from the fact that it's not just OJ, but even secular people

    Oh please. A miniscule fraction of secular people oppose gay marriage.

    the fact is, as much as I think there is alot of stuff wrong in OJ, I feel this is absolutely right in being bearers of some sort of standards in a world where the left consistently wants to whipe out these standards. Standards, that I believe even liberals of old would have thought are ludicrous to get rid of.

    Oh please.

    ReplyDelete
  27. >Ok, so what is the reason you refused to even consider that your daughter might turn out gay?

    What is the point of this question???? I don't think in general any parent would actively wish his child being gay. so what is the point of considering whether your child MIGHT be gay?

    ReplyDelete
  28. To me, freedom of religion means that you are free to practice your religion no matter how wrong it is. It, like all the other rights, is of course not absolute -- if you decide that your neighbor is an Amalekite, I don't think you should have the right to kill him, for example

    Then you clearly misunderstand the concept of freedom of religion. You don't think not being coerced to act against your faith has a major role in it?

    Ok, so what is the reason you refused to even consider that your daughter might turn out gay?

    Huh? When?

    I don't believe either of them will, but if they do, I don't see how much will change.

    ReplyDelete
  29. >Oh please.

    EXACTLY!!! The left is general opposed to social standards. Between the right and the left, the left is the one that typically leans toward hedonism and narcissism. That is my exact point. That's why leftism and religion is always going to be at war.

    ReplyDelete
  30. More seriously, if government were truly better at managing, distributing, and investing money, would there be any debate whatsoever on these issues?

    Well it's not all objective. Whether you think it's better to build bridges here or start another war there is to some extent a matter of opinion. Similarly, reasonable people can disagree on whether it's fair to spend tax money on this or that program for the poor or on this artwork, etc. etc.

    I think the objective truth of how well government does or does not manage money is almost irrelevant because almost nobody's beliefs about what the facts are resembles the facts.

    And even if they were equal (!), they simply couldn't compete because of the extra overhead and red tape.

    This only applies to certain areas. The free market is not the single best answer to EVERY problem.

    I mean, really - NOBODY believes that government can grow the economy best. Some believe that it's worth slowing down the economy to pay for certain social services, but nobody believes that government is most capable of growing the economy. Please just stop.

    Don't shift the goalposts. I was arguing against your claim that taxing the rich necessarily makes the economy worse. Also, in some circumstances, the government is uniquely capable of growing the economy. For example in times of recession, credit crises, long-term research, infrastructure, etc. etc. etc.

    "Palestinian people are fighting for their land." (That's when she was still a reporter, as were the next few.)

    That's neither a right nor left opinion.

    "I'm covering the worst president in American history."

    An opinion (or piece of hyperbole) that some on the left would agree with but has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

    "Why did you really want to go to war? .... You have said it wasn't oil...quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?"

    Fair question. I believe Ron Paul would have the same one.

    "The United States ... could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis... we have gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine." (2006) "I hit the third rail. You cannot criticize Israel in this country and survive."

    Nothing to do with left or right.

    You only think so because you equate them.

    Well duh!

    Huh? You can't seriously feel that compelling people to act against their religion isn't restricting their freedom of religion.

    I already said that no right is absolute. Compelling a Jehovah's Witness to let her kid get a lifesaving blood donation is also a "restriction" on her freedom of religion, but it's a tradeoff.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I should say leftism, as opposed to the LEFT (ie, implying that everyone on the left is like that)

    ReplyDelete
  32. >That's neither a right nor left opinion.

    True, but yet, who is that typically express these views? Who is that will typically call Israel apartheid? Who equates Israel with nazism? Who ignores so many worse plights in the world and focus on Israel?

    Life functions on patterns and there is a clear pattern here.

    ReplyDelete
  33. HH - You mean liberalism.

    JA - Well it's not all objective. Whether you think it's better to build bridges here or start another war there is to some extent a matter of opinion. Similarly, reasonable people can disagree on whether it's fair to spend tax money on this or that program for the poor or on this artwork, etc. etc.

    Sure, and that's what we should be debating in general.

    I think the objective truth of how well government does or does not manage money is almost irrelevant because almost nobody's beliefs about what the facts are resembles the facts.

    I don't think that's true, but I applaud the recent efforts to organize the US as one would a business. (USA, Inc. - it was a joint project from people across the spectrum.) Unfortunately for liberals, it was absolutely devastating.

    This only applies to certain areas. The free market is not the single best answer to EVERY problem.

    No, but almost every excluding the stuff listed above.

    Don't shift the goalposts. I was arguing against your claim that taxing the rich necessarily makes the economy worse.

    It does.

    Also, in some circumstances, the government is uniquely capable of growing the economy. For example in times of recession, credit crises, long-term research, infrastructure, etc. etc. etc.

    Recession, credit - false.

    Long-term research, infrastructure - depends, and conservatives will agree on those.

    ...

    All those quotes are ones you will find daily among people on the left, whether you like it or not. And the Q you called fair was criticized by many members of the press.

    Well duh!

    But you can't place that feeling on everyone else!

    I already said that no right is absolute. Compelling a Jehovah's Witness to let her kid get a lifesaving blood donation is also a "restriction" on her freedom of religion, but it's a tradeoff.

    Because we're protecting an otherwise defenseless child. That's completely irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  34. HH:

    What is the point of this question???? I don't think in general any parent would actively wish his child being gay. so what is the point of considering whether your child MIGHT be gay?

    One, nobody was talking about "actively wishing," so quit shifting the goalposts. Second, the point was to make the issue more real and less abstract, because it's just a fact that people can have one idea in theory but quite another when it becomes real to them. E.g. lots of people (but not enough) whose kids are gay end up being pro-gay whereas previously they had been anti-gay. (Or women who were "pro-life" suddenly change their tune when they have an unwanted pregnancy, etc.)
    Ezzie:

    Then you clearly misunderstand the concept of freedom of religion. You don't think not being coerced to act against your faith has a major role in it?

    Within limits. You also can't impinge on other people's rights just because your religion says so.

    Huh? When?

    It was a long time ago.

    I don't believe either of them will, but if they do, I don't see how much will change.

    I hope for their sakes that if it they do, you will change.


    HH:

    EXACTLY!!! The left is general opposed to social standards.

    LOL. All of them? No, just the bigoted and harmful ones.

    Between the right and the left, the left is the one that typically leans toward hedonism and narcissism. That is my exact point. That's why leftism and religion is always going to be at war.

    The left is more permissive in general, yes, but to caricature that as "hedonistic" and "narcissistic" is absurd. And besides, those terms apply equally to the right. Donald Trump is the most narcissistic person on the planet. Rush Limbaugh is a huge hedonist.

    You also can't look at one extreme and compare it to the moderate version of the other. The right "typically leans" towards rigid authoritarianism and an almost OCD fidelity towards arbitrary and outdated rules. That can be and often is easily as harmful or more harmful than permissiveness.

    ReplyDelete
  35. >lots of people (but not enough) whose kids are gay end up being pro-gay whereas previously they had been anti-gay. (Or women who were "pro-life" suddenly change their tune when they have an unwanted pregnancy, etc.)

    That seems to be an argument based on emotions as opposed to standards. Further my point.

    ReplyDelete
  36. (Or women who were "pro-life" suddenly change their tune when they have an unwanted pregnancy, etc.)

    Poor comparisons, because those are clearly letting emotional responses get ahead of logic or belief. If you feel abortion is murder, then switching when you're surprised to be pregnant is simply rationalizing for selfish reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  37. HH:

    True, but yet, who is that typically express these views

    Well, yeah, more anti-Israel people in America today are on the left. That doesn't make it a "left" stance, it's just a result of the fact that the Christian right went bonkers for Israel in the last generation. Prior to that the right was more antisemitic.

    Ezzie:

    Because we're protecting an otherwise defenseless child. That's completely irrelevant.

    Sigh. Are you really one of those people that can't handle an analogy without focusing on irrelevant details? I thought you studied gemara. Listen, the point is that for some values of X and Y, "my religion forbids X" is not a valid reason to do Y. I offered the analogy of the JW to demonstrate that this is true.

    I'm not trying to prove that discrimination against gays is in the same category, so your objection is irrelevant. I'm just trying to explain to you that the category exists.

    Good shabbos, gotta run.

    ReplyDelete
  38. That seems to be an argument based on emotions as opposed to standards. Further my point.

    ...

    Poor comparisons, because those are clearly letting emotional responses get ahead of logic or belief. If you feel abortion is murder, then switching when you're surprised to be pregnant is simply rationalizing for selfish reasons.


    See I see it differently. I think the people are rationalizing beforehand and are forced to change their minds when reality hits them in the face.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Within limits. You also can't impinge on other people's rights just because your religion says so.

    But you can impinge on people's freedom of religion because your lack of religion says so? That's absurd.

    I hope for their sakes that if it they do, you will change.

    What would I need to change? Again, what do you think I feel about homosexuality?

    The left is more permissive in general, yes, but to caricature that as "hedonistic" and "narcissistic" is absurd.

    Not absurd, because they place no limits or if they do, they quickly shift those (which was the premise of this post, yay, we're back to it!).

    The right "typically leans" towards rigid authoritarianism and an almost OCD fidelity towards arbitrary and outdated rules. That can be and often is easily as harmful or more harmful than permissiveness.

    Huh? How. They are "conservative", which means they feel it shouldn't just be done on whims and without forethought. What outdated and arbitrary rules? Homosexuality? It's a current issue. Abortion? Current issue. What are you talking about? And how is any of that more harmful?

    ReplyDelete
  40. >LOL. All of them? No, just the bigoted and harmful ones.

    YES YES YES. I love this conversation because it only proves my point. Anything the left does not like, they call it bigoted and harmful. Here is my latest prophesy: In 50 years, if you dare think that males and females are actually different, you will be a bigot or sexist.

    Remember, thats what the left did with abortion. If you are anti abortion, and are OBVIOUSLY a sexist and hence a bad person.


    >The left is more permissive in general, yes, but to caricature that as "hedonistic" and "narcissistic" is absurd.

    It's not absurd at ALL. Leftism often follows a pattern of the "self." It started with the hippie movement. It is typical of being permissive without feeling judged for it. I mean, just take someone from the 50's, lets say, do you think he would be shocked or presently surprised at the level of standards people have today as the country in general moved more to the left after the 60s?


    >And besides, those terms apply equally to the right. Donald Trump is the most narcissistic person on the planet. Rush Limbaugh is a huge hedonist.

    No, because I am not talking about individuals. I am talking about the value system in a society.

    ReplyDelete
  41. >and outdated rules.

    It's outdated rules that gave people and societies structure. It is based on some sense of wisdom to perceiving consequences if you drop those rules. The problem with the left is something Thomas Sowell said perfectly. They suffer from "first stage thinking." They never ever think of the future consequences. It's largely about what feels good NOW.

    ReplyDelete
  42. >That doesn't make it a "left" stance, it's just a result of the fact that the Christian right went bonkers for Israel in the last generation.

    Oh stop, the left deciding to be anti-Israel has nothing to do with them deciding to be reactionary to the Christians. The left long ago —unless dealing with issues of equality— dropped notions of good vs evil. (the left typically balked at the right calling communism evil in the 80s). Since the 60's the left hates anything they perceive to be a military might (in this case Israel) hurting poor innocent arabs. They never ever think of the underlining issues here. It's a naivete that only exists here on the left.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Just a few general points.

    The basic point about freedom of religion that JA espouses seems correct. No right is absolute. Freedom of speech may be limited by lible, freedom to use your property ends at my property, etc. Similarly, your freedom of religion is limited. Theoretically, if some religion outlawed obeying the laws of any authority other than that of the religion, that would be a problem for that religion.

    Moving on to the Vermont couple, I don't know what to tell you other than that appears to be the law of the State of Vermont, as enacted by the people's elected representatives. In this instance, their sentiments appear to track toward the left (Vermont, eh, who knew?), but plenty of state governments move in other directions and this sort of thing happens all the time. We have lots of laws that lots of people dislike, but, hey, that's the democratic process. It's irrelevant what you feel some activists promised would be the future scope of legislation - how could their promises bind future legislatures?

    But this process of "legislative creep" is not unique or particularly prevalent to the left - it's universal. It could be evidence of a lot of things, by which I mean I doubt it's the work of a secret cabal of lefty journalists conspiring to place the yolk of our gay and lesbian overlords upon the neck of our religious wedding hall owners. For instance, thinking could evolve.

    And, just in general, we have laws that outlaw discrimination, e.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Now, it was argued then, and it is argued now (by many non-racists, even) that outlawing discrimination is a form of thought-policing that should be off-limits. Maybe because of religion, or maybe because you just don't like providing wheelchair access to those you contemptuously describe as cyborgs. But, as a society, we've made the decision to go ahead and outlaw discrimination. And we're by no means alone in this. It's inevitable that this would happen. This is not just some liberal claptrap. This is the consensus. You can not like it, but we didn't just make it up yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  44. VP - Mostly agree with everything you wrote.

    I don't know what to tell you other than that appears to be the law of the State of Vermont, as enacted by the people's elected representatives.

    Sure. I'm just sure that in other states with laws protecting such a business it would go to Court, and they would eventually lose.

    It's irrelevant what you feel some activists promised would be the future scope of legislation - how could their promises bind future legislatures?

    Was not my point; merely noting the creep (and unintended consequences, but since the creep has occurred, too bad).

    But this process of "legislative creep" is not unique or particularly prevalent to the left - it's universal.

    Sure. But, it happens more from the left, predominantly because that's who is in journalism, and media shifts the center of issues further and further.

    Re: Civil Rights Act - I think that was a great moment in general. But that doesn't solve for situations of moral and religious differences of opinion, such as this. That's the issue. We can't now force that point to encompass other ones, because we end up creating new problems and new restrictions on people unfairly. I don't think that people being coerced to perform or offer services in a situation they find to be personally morally reprehensible is fair.

    ReplyDelete
  45. >Sure. I'm just sure that in other states with laws protecting such a business it would go to Court, and they would eventually lose.

    Well, no. It would really depend on the state and the court. Quite a few states have laws on the book outlawing such discrimination, and I'm sure there are courts in other states willing to declare the principal for themselves. But I presume in other states, the opposite mentality holds. If, of course, some day a state legislature or a court holds such discrimination to be illegal, then I'm not sure what your beef would be. If a majority of people think certain behavior should not be tolerated, I don't really understand how you can dismiss it as just the mendacity of the left.

    >But, it happens more from the left, predominantly because that's who is in journalism, and media shifts the center of issues further and further.

    No, it really doesn't. I don't think you can provide me with anything close to evidence backing up your assertion. I'm sure you feel to be more of a victim from lefty legislation and lefty media but that's just because you disagree. There's lots of annoying propaganda and media and goalpost-shifting on the right - I feel it to be more so than the left, but then again, I have my biases as well.

    >But that doesn't solve for situations of moral and religious differences of opinion, such as this. That's the issue. We can't now force that point to encompass other ones, because we end up creating new problems and new restrictions on people unfairly.

    To me, it just seems like you can sympathize with one, but not the other. Forcing people to let gay people get married in their chasunah halls is forcing new problems on people unfairly, but forcing wedding halls to cater to miscegenation is okay. We sympathize with Orthodox Jews, but not with white supremacists. But what's the operative difference?

    >I don't think that people being coerced to perform or offer services in a situation they find to be personally morally reprehensible is fair.

    Well, welcome to society. We all gotta give a little. There are plenty of laws that force you to do things you mgith find personally immoral. For example, did you know that you can't comply with the Arab boycott against Israel, even if you think it's a heck of a boycott?

    ReplyDelete
  46. >This is somewhat right, though, the democrats always seem to look at the european left as a sign of progress. Yet the european left is "really" left. So it goes to show you —though not there yet— where the left in this country wish to move.

    Gasp! The horror...the horror...the horror...Streetcars everywhere!

    Also, regardless of how stupid you think the European left is, the fact remains that, of democracies, the United States is actually very conservative. The Democrats are far closer to the Canadian or British Conservatives than are the Republicans. If the Democrats moved to the left, then you have to argue that everyone has moved to the left, except the Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  47. >Gasp! The horror...the horror...the horror...Streetcars everywhere!

    Yes....I was talking about streetcars.

    ReplyDelete
  48. If a majority of people think certain behavior should not be tolerated, I don't really understand how you can dismiss it as just the mendacity of the left.

    I don't understand. A short time ago, a majority of people felt homosexual behavior should not be tolerated. What's different? We've shifted laws to protect them in every which way, why shouldn't religious activity be protected as well?

    No, it really doesn't.

    How not? Every major piece of discussion in the past 50 years has shifted to the left, has it not? From abortion to homosexuality to contraception - it's all shifted left. I think that a lot of this certainly has to do with the fact that journalists are by and large liberals, and that shifts opinion in that direction (and many journalists would take pride in this - some rightfully so, some not).

    To me, it just seems like you can sympathize with one, but not the other.

    Huh? How have I not sympathized with the other? Gays are now protected in every which way. I didn't think there should be gay marriage (civil unions accomplish the same from a legal standpoint), but honestly didn't care all that much. But I think that protecting their wishes at the expense of the religious freedom of others is remarkably skewed.

    To put it more simply: Gays wished for protected rights, while religious conservatives felt that doing so would be offensive to what they believe in. The legislatures decided that protecting those rights were more important than protecting the wishes of those conservatives.

    Now, the religious wish for protected rights, while secularists felt that doing so would be offensive to what they believe in. The legislatures should similarly determine that protecting those rights are more important than protecting the wishes of those secularists.

    Well, welcome to society. We all gotta give a little. There are plenty of laws that force you to do things you mgith find personally immoral. For example, did you know that you can't comply with the Arab boycott against Israel, even if you think it's a heck of a boycott?

    Sure, so let gays give a little. Don't force a religious person to service you when they don't want to - there are plenty of halls, photographers, etc. (And I believe that most people would do exactly this, fwiw.)

    Yes, I knew that about boycotts. Not that anyone is enforcing it against BDS folk, though perhaps they might if it were reversed.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I don't think i'm being clear.

    >We've shifted laws to protect them in every which way, why shouldn't religious activity be protected as well?

    I'm not sure if we're beating around some bush here. At point in time A, most people said, "screw gays!" At Point B, they say, "screw, gays!". What's different? People changed their minds is what's different. The thinking on the issue evolved. Assuming, arguendo, that voters are more sympathetic today to gays than they are to religious folk who want to be protected from gays, then your answer is obvious. We're protecting gays at the expense of religious people because we like their argument better. Obviously, it would be ideal if we could make everyone happy all the time, but we can't. Sometimes values collide. A long time ago, we decided that letting service industries discriminate against marginalized minorities should not be allowed, and we altered the balance accordingly. Now, we're xpanding marginalized groups to include gays. Could be in the future we won't care about discrimination and everyone can deny service to anyone for any reason. Either way, the success of gays at the legislature's office or the polling place is not due to the New York Times. The principle has existed for awhile.

    >How not? Every major piece of discussion in the past 50 years has shifted to the left, has it not? From abortion to homosexuality to contraception - it's all shifted left

    Two different things. There's the media, and then there's society. Has society managed to move things to the left? Sure, in some areas. Compared to 500 years ago, we've definitely legalized abortion, contraceptives and Quakerism. Also, we've invented the social safety net. Hurrah for us. I guess you can say that's "a victory for the left." But this is kind of silly. We've also outlawed slavery! Go Lincoln the Socialist! Under your rubric, there's no way for conservatives to win, because all they want to do is retain things, and keep things at the status quo, or move slowly. How would you measure those victories? By how long it takes to lose? Say, Conservatives, you managed to hold back no-fault divorce for 312 years - good job! What's that, you prevented Wall Street from being regulated in a certain area for 6 more years than originally thought? Good for you!

    By this metric, of course, the left "wins", but only because they're playing different games. Conservatives pride themselves on standing athwart history yelling "stop" - but they know history just doesn't stop, nor will it ever. So while a conservative may look at gay marriage and say, "we lost", that's very myopic.

    What I was talking about was the media. While yes, the baseline assumptions of people in the media are further to the left on some issues ("communists need not be burned if discovered hiding under rocks"), that's less because the media is more left than because everyone's baseline assumptions have moved in that direction.

    The media itself is no more to the left of its contemporary audience today then it was 50 years ago, is my long-winded point, which I have only now managed to condense into a single sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  50. >Huh? How have I not sympathized with the other?

    I meant you don't sympathize with KKK I hope you agree :). Meaning, you approve the CRA because you don't like white supremacists, but you oppose the same protections being granted to gays, because you sympathize with the OJs.

    >Sure, so let gays give a little. Don't force a religious person to service you when they don't want to - there are plenty of halls, photographers, etc.

    And, again, I'm sure there are plenty of hotels in Atlanta willing to cater to black people. I know you don't like me saying this, but I'm just making a reductio ad absurdum. This decision was made a long time ago.

    >Yes, I knew that about boycotts. Not that anyone is enforcing it against BDS folk, though perhaps they might if it were reversed.

    It's not directed against BDS folk. You are personally free to refuse to do business with Israel. You're just not allowed to comply with another country's boycott of Israel as a precondition of doing business with it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. One of my comments does not appear to have gone through. Please tell me you have it, Ezzie.

    ReplyDelete
  52. >The media itself is no more to the left of its contemporary audience today then it was 50 years ago,

    Are you talking media in general, or news?

    ReplyDelete
  53. That's just it. When the argument was "it's unfair to gays that they can't do XYZ", people (slowly) decided that that was a compelling argument.

    However, if you would have asked people then if they felt that not only that, but we feel religious people should be coerced to do XYZ on behalf of gay marriage, people would have been dumbfounded at the very request. However, that's where this shifted immediately.

    I don't see why the shift to allowing gays to be married also means that others must accept that no matter their beliefs.

    Either way, the success of gays at the legislature's office or the polling place is not due to the New York Times. The principle has existed for awhile.

    ...because media has allowed/encouraged it to be a major issue. That's exactly the point.

    But this is kind of silly. We've also outlawed slavery! Go Lincoln the Socialist! Under your rubric, there's no way for conservatives to win, because all they want to do is retain things, and keep things at the status quo, or move slowly. How would you measure those victories? By how long it takes to lose? Say, Conservatives, you managed to hold back no-fault divorce for 312 years - good job! What's that, you prevented Wall Street from being regulated in a certain area for 6 more years than originally thought? Good for you!

    LOL - be careful, your bias is showing. Conservatives do wish to maintain the status quo in many areas, but they're remarkably more progressive in others - but you wouldn't know it from media, typically. You won't see an outcry from the media in favor of (say) lowering taxes, or moving to a flat tax, or deregulation (even in cases where it's remarkably obvious to all how dumb), or the like. If anything, they shift those further to the left as well. The new shtick which I saw the WSJ's BOTW note: Referring to tax increases as something like "calls for raises in revenue, which Republicans call tax increases". "Republicans call" - ? What do Dems call them? It's a silly game, but again - because media is liberal, they will continue to shift everything that way. You seem unaware of how much of an effect this has.

    What I was talking about was the media. While yes, the baseline assumptions of people in the media are further to the left on some issues ("communists need not be burned if discovered hiding under rocks"), that's less because the media is more left than because everyone's baseline assumptions have moved in that direction.

    No, that's not the case. They have been consistently extremely liberal by *current* standards. See the Wiki on media bias, it's eye-opening (and this despite Wiki being rather left-leaning in general).

    The media itself is no more to the left of its contemporary audience today then it was 50 years ago, is my long-winded point, which I have only now managed to condense into a single sentence.

    Agreed!! Media is to the left of the populus... which drags the populus further left... and new media members are even further left... which drags it further.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I meant you don't sympathize with KKK I hope you agree :). Meaning, you approve the CRA because you don't like white supremacists, but you oppose the same protections being granted to gays, because you sympathize with the OJs.

    Huh? I'm not arguing against protections for gays. I'm arguing for protections for religious people and their beliefs.

    And, again, I'm sure there are plenty of hotels in Atlanta willing to cater to black people. I know you don't like me saying this, but I'm just making a reductio ad absurdum. This decision was made a long time ago.

    Race and homosexuality are completely different issues!

    It's not directed against BDS folk. You are personally free to refuse to do business with Israel. You're just not allowed to comply with another country's boycott of Israel as a precondition of doing business with it.

    I'm aware. You can't boycott any country in the US, if I'm not mistaken.

    ReplyDelete
  55. >Huh? I'm not arguing against protections for gays. I'm arguing for protections for religious people and their beliefs.

    I believe his point is, the protection that you are asking for religious regions will go against the protections for gays. Meaning...it's one or the other.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Well aware. My point is that we should favor the personal religious freedom over the personal consumer freedom of another.

    ReplyDelete
  57. >Are you talking media in general, or news?

    News.

    ReplyDelete
  58. >people would have been dumbfounded at the very request.

    Really? That was very short-sighted of them. I don't remember this period of time, but I suppose it's possible. After the Civil War, many people didn't want to let blacks vote. But the logic, then, as well as now, is ineluctable. I'm sorry if you feel hoodwinked by this, but, again, I fail to see the evidence of this being the work of "media bias."

    >I don't see why the shift to allowing gays to be married also means that others must accept that no matter their beliefs.

    It doesn't necessarily. For example, we could have said, alright gays can get married, so the state will recognize the marriage. Of course, what if a state official refuses to recognize the marriage, as a violation of his religion (as a county clerk in California did, which was the official excuse for standing in Perry v. Schwarzenegger)? Now what do we do? We can either say gay people can get married, and have their marriages recognized by the state, or tell them they can't.

    Sounds like you would agree that the state official should either be told to put up with it (after all, he's not recognizing the marriage, the State of California is), or tell the couple to go to the next teller window. But what if California will recognize the marriage, but the federal government won't? Or vice versa? Once government has decided to regulate marriage, somebody's conscience is going to take a beating.

    But, okay, say in the eyes of every government this marriage is recognized. What if I, the owner of Devout Wedding Hall and Catering Co., don't want to let gays marry in my hall? Should I be allowed to make that decision. Maybe. Of course, my decision is an act of discrimination that ends up potentially costing the gay couple quite a bit of money, and stops them from getting married where they want, but at less psychic cost to me, say. If we let me take this course of action, we prize my right to deny services that I volunteer to supply to everyone else, over their right to freedom from discrimination. Which we could definitely do. I think it wouldn't be a very good idea, and it could have very bad effects in the aggregate, but it's not a crazy idea. But that's not the path discrimination law has taken in this country. And it's unreasonable to expect that it would in this instance, when that's not how it worked in others historically.

    ReplyDelete
  59. I'm sorry if you feel hoodwinked by this, but, again, I fail to see the evidence of this being the work of "media bias."

    Wait, I think you're misunderstanding my points here. I'm not saying media bias is the cause of this. I'm saying that media bias and gay issues are similar in how they shift (much like anything). I do think that media bias/approach to issues leans very much to the liberal end, which impacts how people view other issues including gay marriage etc., but I don't think they "caused" them. I think that the preponderance of liberals in media has caused a stark shift in journalism and reporting - particularly presentation of issues - leftward. That leftist presentation of issues helps weigh people's views on issues strongly to the left, which in the case of gay marriage etc. may have pushed the outcomes in that direction.

    In terms of being "hoodwinked", my point is the opposite: People on the right were saying all along that this is the eventual outcome, whereas people on the left insisted it was not. It is people in the middle or on the left who were hoodwinked. A friend who ate over today who is very liberal (and claims to be a liberal) was shocked at the lawsuits I mentioned, and felt strongly that the religious person should not be compelled to perform a gay wedding.

    It doesn't necessarily. For example, we could have said, alright gays can get married, so the state will recognize the marriage. Of course, what if a state official refuses to recognize the marriage, as a violation of his religion (as a county clerk in California did, which was the official excuse for standing in Perry v. Schwarzenegger)? Now what do we do? We can either say gay people can get married, and have their marriages recognized by the state, or tell them they can't.

    That's absolutely different. That person is required by law to recognize the wedding, as that is their job. If they can't fulfill the responsibilities of their job, then they should be removed. They're working on behalf of the state and not as private individuals.

    Once government has decided to regulate marriage, somebody's conscience is going to take a beating.

    And I'd say that many people of all stripes think government should get out of marriage.

    But, okay, say in the eyes of every government this marriage is recognized. What if I, the owner of Devout Wedding Hall and Catering Co., don't want to let gays marry in my hall? Should I be allowed to make that decision.

    Yes. I think private individuals and businesses should be allowed to refuse to perform or offer services in a way that are specifically against their religious beliefs. That pretty much limits it to not being forced to actually perform services for gay weddings. It doesn't let them turn gays away from restaurants or stores - just that they shouldn't be compelled to act as private individuals in a way that is against their beliefs.

    All seriousness, there are troublemakers in all groups - do you not think there are gay couples who could walk into Williamsburg or Boropark and ask every photographer to come be the photographer at their wedding? They can then go and sue every single one who refuses. That's a horrible, horrible offense to the idea of freedom of religion.

    ReplyDelete
  60. >...because media has allowed/encouraged it to be a major issue. That's exactly the point.

    What issue? That private discrimination should be disallowed? That it should be as regards to gay people, as well? As to the first, again, this is well-settled, and as to the second, what is the evidence offered for this assertion? Maybe people just disagree with you? Why posit the existence and power of an alien entity manipulating the minds of the people, who, by all accounts, actually seem to be pulling the levers of power?

    >LOL - be careful, your bias is showing.

    Ha, not as much as you might think.

    >but they're remarkably more progressive in others - but you wouldn't know it from media, typically.

    Well, we can get into a whole argument about what progressive and conservative mean, but, yes, there are definitely some things they wish to shake up in this country. It's interesting, however, that the rhetoric they use, even in these instances, is always one of reverting things to the original order. As in, lowering taxes to where they used to be (when in reality they're much lower than practically ever), eliminating all this new government, and rebuilding our military.

    >You won't see an outcry from the media in favor of (say) lowering taxes, or moving to a flat tax, or deregulation (even in cases where it's remarkably obvious to all how dumb), or the like.

    Meh. First, I'm not sure why the media should be touting any particular political perspective. I don't think the average media (CNN and local news) tout any specific agenda, and that's largely a good thing, even if it's frustrating with all this "he said, she said" nonsense. Of course, from your perspective, the media is sending out all these subtle hints propping up Obama, and there's nothing I can do to dissuade you from that. Personally, I think the media has a bias towards appearing unbiased, to the extent that they just report on things, and pretend as if both sides have equal claims to truth.

    But more to the point, I think conservatives have actually been incredibly successful at getting their message out through the media, especially in the areas of tax cuts. In many ways, that was the essence of the Reagan revolution. They managed to transform the debate in a big way, even if substantively changing government very little. Now, all taxes are presumptively illegitimate, and every government program is assumed to overspend and must be constantly justified. Big-government regulation is seen as interfering with the perfect justice and operation of the invisible hand. Etcetera. Hard as it is to believe, this was not always the case. We've come a long way from LBJ's successful tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect strategy. Plus, now we've got things like "death taxes" (as if we tax death) and Cadillac welfare queens, etc. Both sides play this game relatively well.

    ReplyDelete
  61. >The new shtick which I saw the WSJ's BOTW note: Referring to tax increases as something like "calls for raises in revenue, which Republicans call tax increases". "Republicans call" - ? What do Dems call them?

    Again, a game played by both sides. Revenue raising sound a lot better than taxing. Why do you think we call it the IRS and not the Give Us Your Hard Earned Pay? Republicans like to rail agains the huge deficit, all the while suggesting tax cuts as the solution to every fiscal problem. Too much inflation? Tax cuts? Deflation? Tax cuts? Depression and a deficit? Tax cuts. Boom and a surplus? Tax cuts. For some reason the only thing that can increase a deficit, in Rep. thinking, is spending. Tax cuts for some reason, even though they result in less revenue for the government, do not. Odd.

    >Agreed!! Media is to the left of the populus... which drags the populus further left... and new media members are even further left... which drags it further.

    No, not so much. I will say that a majority of newsmakers within the newsmaking establishment are Democratic voters, and that definitely can affect them in subtle ways. But this is obvious, and they're well aware of it, and work very hard to combat this (to even absurd lengths). The depth of bias you're alleging is not there. It's just sore-loserism.

    >Huh? I'm not arguing against protections for gays. I'm arguing for protections for religious people and their beliefs.

    To paraphrase Frank Sinatra, you can only have on without the other (in this regard).

    >Race and homosexuality are completely different issues!

    Sure, facially. That's why I called it a reductio ad absurdum. But in this regard, they are similar. If you wish to keep interjecting that they are completely different, and cannot even be compared in a discussion about discrimination and liberty, you're going to have to elaborate.

    >My point is that we should favor the personal religious freedom over the personal consumer freedom of another.

    Well, go back in a time machine and tell that to Lyndon Johnson.

    Just in general, we tend to more highly valuate consumer freedom in this country over practically anything else. We loooove capitalism. We don't like non-economic reasons for doing things, like refusing to provide a profitable service. It just sticks in our legislative craw.

    ReplyDelete
  62. >I'm saying that media bias and gay issues are similar in how they shift (much like anything).

    So, a just as apt title here could have been "Media Bias, Gay Marriage, and Glaciers."?

    >I think that the preponderance of liberals in media has caused a stark shift in journalism and reporting - particularly presentation of issues - leftward.

    A stark shift from what? Or when? When did this shift start? Far as I know, journalism has always been populated by the literate and college educated, who, yeah, skew left. So do doctors, lawyers, etc. We're everywhere. We give the Earth it's tilt.

    >A friend who ate over today who is very liberal (and claims to be a liberal) was shocked at the lawsuits I mentioned, and felt strongly that the religious person should not be compelled to perform a gay wedding.

    And, to my knowledge, no one is being forced to perform a gay wedding. The story talked about a wedding hall, not a priest.

    >They're working on behalf of the state and not as private individuals.

    Like I thought you would say.

    >And I'd say that many people of all stripes think government should get out of marriage.

    Well, alack and alas. Here is where we be. I take it you support the repeal of DOMA?

    >It doesn't let them turn gays away from restaurants or stores - just that they shouldn't be compelled to act as private individuals in a way that is against their beliefs.

    It really does not take a lot of imagination here to confuse the issue. Why, just a few weeks ago in the Jewish Press, I read about the greatest threat to Jewry today, immodestly clad women. The writer suggested that it behooves us to ostracize these women, and refuse them service. If I do that in my restaurant, then what happens? What if my Beis Din tells me that Yankel won't give his wife a divorce, and is now in Cherem? Can I not serve him? What if I'm one of those hard-core Mormons who refuse to accept the teachings of the LDS Church and refuse to see black people, out of religious reasons, as my equals? Can I not serve them?

    >They can then go and sue every single one who refuses

    Doubtful, but, sure that could happen. The presence of jerks is an age-old problem.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I'm still confused about your logic. Take the statement "It is illegal to discriminate against X."

    1) It seems to be your position that this is okay if X is "black people" and not okay if X is "gay people." Is that correct?

    2) If so, is the reason for the distinction that some religions have rules against homosexuality?

    3) If so, would the existence of a religion that has rules against black people (e.g. marrying white people) then cause blacks to be removed as a protected class?

    ReplyDelete
  64. JA - Here's a simple differentiation: Discrimination against a people is completely different than not wishing to be involved in X actions. In fact, I would argue that the purpose of freedom of religion is for exactly that: So that people would be allowed to do things they feel are right, and wouldn't be compelled to do things they feel are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  65. In fact, I would think that by your logic, deals offered to (say) minorities and/or female business owners or the like are completely discriminatory against white males - far worse in fact than this, because they don't object to males or whites, or even people who are both. They just don't offer them the same opportunities.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Okay, so what if you oppose intermarriage? Is it ok to refuse to rent to mixed-race couples?

    ReplyDelete
  67. What issue? That private discrimination should be disallowed? That it should be as regards to gay people, as well? As to the first, again, this is well-settled, and as to the second, what is the evidence offered for this assertion? Maybe people just disagree with you? Why posit the existence and power of an alien entity manipulating the minds of the people, who, by all accounts, actually seem to be pulling the levers of power?

    Huh? No. My point was simply that media making it a major issue made it occur the way it has and contributed to the swaying of minds in a particular direction. I don't think media would disagree with this, but take pride in it. I fail to see the issue.

    conservative

    Interesting, though I'd say that's more a function of "recalling America's greatness" stylistically than anything else.

    Meh. First, I'm not sure why the media should be touting any particular political perspective. I don't think the average media (CNN and local news) tout any specific agenda, and that's largely a good thing, even if it's frustrating with all this "he said, she said" nonsense. Of course, from your perspective, the media is sending out all these subtle hints propping up Obama, and there's nothing I can do to dissuade you from that. Personally, I think the media has a bias towards appearing unbiased, to the extent that they just report on things, and pretend as if both sides have equal claims to truth.

    Agree with most of that, but my point is you are incorrect about CNN et al (local news media is more likely to be in tune with their viewership I'm guessing). Check out the links I mentioned.

    But more to the point, I think conservatives have actually been incredibly successful at getting their message out through the media, especially in the areas of tax cuts. In many ways, that was the essence of the Reagan revolution. They managed to transform the debate in a big way, even if substantively changing government very little. Now, all taxes are presumptively illegitimate, and every government program is assumed to overspend and must be constantly justified. Big-government regulation is seen as interfering with the perfect justice and operation of the invisible hand. Etcetera. Hard as it is to believe, this was not always the case. We've come a long way from LBJ's successful tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect strategy. Plus, now we've got things like "death taxes" (as if we tax death) and Cadillac welfare queens, etc. Both sides play this game relatively well.

    Funny, I really don't think so. I think that if you ask individuals how they feel about taxes and what they should be used for and what not, they are remarkably conservative vs. what they'll say about various governmental debates, in which I hear the same people espouse almost word for word what they hear on the news. It's why specific polls on these subjects often are more conservative and why even people who receive various governmental aid will vote Republican - because they don't think that's right.

    That's just from a moral perspective, also - not including economic perspectives, where even many Democrats I speak to will say they're "actually economically conservative, but socially liberal, and I think that's more important", etc.

    I've found very few people - and no, not because I live in some conservative bubble, most people I know that I actually discuss these things with are Democrats - who are economically liberal.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Why are you opposing intermarriage? What's wrong with a mixed race couple?

    More importantly, I think you've already understood why race and homosexuality are completely different from one another.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Why are you opposing intermarriage? What's wrong with a mixed race couple?

    Let's say your religion forbids it.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Firstly, that's silly. None do.

    Second, I've already explained the obvious difference between races and actions.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Firstly, that's silly. None do.

    IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL. I'm trying to understand your position. Sheesh, again, don't you learn gemarah? "Let's say a man falls off a roof and impregnates a woman by accident..."

    Second, I've already explained the obvious difference between races and actions.

    Let's deal with the other part first.

    ReplyDelete
  72. >Huh? No. My point was simply that media making it a major issue made it occur the way it has and contributed to the swaying of minds in a particular direction.

    A. Making what a major issue?

    B. Are you saying that if an issue was not made, then...what? The swaying of minds would not occur? That it would take longer?

    >Interesting, though I'd say that's more a function of "recalling America's greatness" stylistically than anything else.

    Wait, what is? I think part of the reason we appear to be talking past each other so much is the excessive use of pronouns. In any case, the fact that you characterize every Republican plank as "recalling America's greatness" reinforces the point. That's an inherently conservative rhetorical styling. It looks ever-backward, not forward. The best that can be said of the future is that we can make it more like the past. So long as time moves in a linear fashion, there aren't going to be a lot of clear victories on that score.

    >Check out the links I mentioned.

    I saw the wiki page, and didn't really see anything. Maybe it's changed since you last saw it.

    ReplyDelete
  73. No, it's irrelevant and pointless. It's not like I don't see where you'd try to go with it, but since the second part is true regardless, I see no point in getting into a hypothetical discussion that is absurd. You're trying to pin down a hypothetical religion that would be created to be racist, which is as likely as gays doing the same for homosexuality (requires them to only marry people of the same sex), which never happened - and that would have been a lot more logical.

    ReplyDelete
  74. A. Making what a major issue?

    Gay marriage.

    B. Are you saying that if an issue was not made, then...what? The swaying of minds would not occur? That it would take longer?

    I think civil unions would have been the outcome.

    That's an inherently conservative rhetorical styling. It looks ever-backward, not forward. The best that can be said of the future is that we can make it more like the past. So long as time moves in a linear fashion, there aren't going to be a lot of clear victories on that score.

    FYI I was agreeing on how they word things, just giving a reason for it...

    I don't think that's true at all (looking backward). I think that they view America as having been the best for a long time (and that that is a good thing for everyone), and that our actions have put that status at risk. It's not saying to go backwards, it's saying we need to do X (whether that action is conservative or progressive) to be the greatest again.

    I saw the wiki page, and didn't really see anything. Maybe it's changed since you last saw it.

    I saw it like two days ago...! I'll have to go check I guess.

    ReplyDelete
  75. According to many (although now of course many deny it) Mormonism used to forbid racial intermarriage.

    You act like it's some kind of crazy thing that could never happen. Arbitrary rules are arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
  76. All right, let's pick Islam, since they feel that other religions are dhimmi. Again, there's a differentiation between allowing actions which are anti-races and ones which are anti-activities.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Oh, so it's about the "activity" now? Okay, is it ok for a hall to refuse their services to a gay couple who just want to host a big party that's not a wedding?

    ReplyDelete
  78. >I think civil unions would have been the outcome.

    So the whole problem here is marriages vs. civil unions? How does that really help you? Presumably, there'd still be a party, and it would be in a hall, and there are people who wouldn't want to cater such an event. Now what?

    Also, I don't think that the media pushed marriage over unions.

    >It's not saying to go backwards, it's saying we need to do X (whether that action is conservative or progressive) to be the greatest again.

    Except that even all their "progressive" ideas are based on returning to some hypothetical status quo ante, even if they're actually quite radical. Tell a Republican that his plans are progressive, and he'll sock you one. Taxes are too high because they have been raised. Military spending must be increased, because other countries are catching up, or because we've stopped increasing it. Airlines should be deregulated, as they used to be. We need a fence to keep Mexicans out (they belong in Mexico). We need to amend constitutions to make sure that gays still cannot marry and that English remains always the official language. Plus, this whole fascination with originalism.

    ReplyDelete
  79. serves me right for living in pacific standard time.

    ReplyDelete
  80. So the whole problem here is marriages vs. civil unions? How does that really help you? Presumably, there'd still be a party, and it would be in a hall, and there are people who wouldn't want to cater such an event. Now what?

    Huh? What does one have to do with the other? Why are you combining all the different points?

    Plus, I think you're wrong. Without marriage it would be far less likely to include a party, etc.

    Also, I don't think that the media pushed marriage over unions.

    I think they did, but if you want to know who gets a lot of the blame, it's conservatives for not embracing civil unions when they should have.

    My internet is glitchy, I'll be back later or tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  81. >Plus, I think you're wrong. Without marriage it would be far less likely to include a party, etc.

    Yeah, you're right, they'd probably just seal it with a friendly handshake.

    Listen, it could just be I really don't know what you mean by civil unions, and we're talking past each other again, but working on the assumption that in alternate Ezzie-universe gay people can get married, enjoy all the benefits of marriage, etc., just so long as they agree to pretend it's not marriage, but merely a union, civilly made, then why on Earth would they not have a party? Not even some cake?

    ReplyDelete
  82. JA - Here's a simple differentiation: Discrimination against a people is completely different than not wishing to be involved in X actions.

    Ezzie,

    What's the distinction here? I don't get it at all.

    The owner of the inn would be involved in "X action" -- the wedding -- in both cases.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I think the point that Ezzie is trying to make is that, Say for example, a gay couple walked into our local, kosher, pizza store. The pizza store employees would be required to serve them, because although they may not like the gay couple, their opinion of them does not infringe on the employee's religious rights beliefs etc. However,not catering the gay couples WEDDING should not be required, as that is infringing on the employees religious rights (the employees religion does not believe in gay marriage). So why should the employees religious right's be taken away,just to service the religious rights of the gay couple.

    Hope i somewhat clarified! (And yes, JA, i think that if inter-racial marriage or inter-marriage for that matter was against- the employees religion, the same would hold true).

    ReplyDelete
  84. >i think that if inter-racial marriage or inter-marriage for that matter was against- the employees religion, the same would hold true).

    Good point. Considering my line of work, since I am against inter-marriage, why should i be required to actively put their wedding invitation together?

    ReplyDelete
  85. However,not catering the gay couples WEDDING should not be required, as that is infringing on the employees religious rights (the employees religion does not believe in gay marriage). So why should the employees religious right's be taken away,just to service the religious rights of the gay couple.

    I get that, but how is distinction relevant to the analogy drawn by JA, which is that in both instances -- interracial marriage and gay marriage -- the innkeeper would be participating in an action his religion prohibits?

    ReplyDelete
  86. i think that if inter-racial marriage or inter-marriage for that matter was against- the employees religion, the same would hold true)

    Thank you! I wish Ezzie could just answer a hypothetical question like that.

    ReplyDelete
  87. VP - Except that even all their "progressive" ideas are based on returning to some hypothetical status quo ante, even if they're actually quite radical. Tell a Republican that his plans are progressive, and he'll sock you one.

    I think that's false.

    Taxes are too high because they have been raised.

    No, taxes are too high because they hold back the company's progress.

    Military spending must be increased, because other countries are catching up, or because we've stopped increasing it.

    I don't know that people argue for increases, but against decreases. And either way, it is said it's because of the types of threats that exist in today's times.

    Airlines should be deregulated, as they used to be.

    I've never really heard that one.

    We need a fence to keep Mexicans out (they belong in Mexico).

    No, I think that people want better control over borders for security and economic reasons.

    Yeah, you're right, they'd probably just seal it with a friendly handshake. Not even some cake?

    OK, so let's say you're right, it's a party - what's the party? A celebration of their having legal rights to help one another out? What's wrong with that?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Nephtuli - What's the distinction here? I don't get it at all.

    The owner of the inn would be involved in "X action" -- the wedding -- in both cases.


    I think y'all are misunderstanding the action I'm referring to. I'll clarify in another comment.

    ReplyDelete
  89. I think Anon summed it up well, but I will make a distinction that JA won't like.

    Yes - a gay couple walking into a pizza store or a hardware store couldn't not be served; that would be discrimination. However, forcing a religious person to take part in a wedding that they feel is wrong would be violating that person's religious freedoms, and they therefore can refuse service in such a situation.

    I think that's rather straightforward.

    JA is trying to mix in a case where a religion would be created specifically to be racist, but calling it a religion. Since I'm sure Blogger will kill me on space, I'm putting why that's different in the next comment.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Here are a few issues, distinctions, differences, and potential solutions with such a situation. Perhaps none are perfect, but I think that in sum they're all easy enough for people with common sense to judge.

    1) Basis: It is ironic to see a liberal making a slippery-slope argument - an argument they always argue against - in a case where such a slope is so incredibly unlikely. Allowing people to refuse gays on religious grounds in religious situations would lead to a race-based religion? Why wasn't such a religion already created? Why would religion transfer over to race? This seems silly.

    2) But let's say such a religion was created. I could see a few possible solutions, each of which may have issues but I think those are solvable as well -

    a) The Courts could easily find that such religions are not true religions, but are being created specifically for the purpose of discrimination, and therefore not consider them a religion.

    b) If (a) is too tricky, the Courts could easily differentiate [and this was my point earlier] between refusing services based on racial features and refusing services based on [ir]religious activity that is opposed to one's own religion. In other words, saying that I can't attend because those people are black and that's against my religion is different than saying I can't attend because it's certifying activity/relationships which are against my religion.

    c) [This is kind of a rehashing of a.] Let's say a new religion sprouted up and said "Thou whites shalt not lie with those people of color". I think that the old pornographic definition would apply here, and that the Courts can easily determine without being specific in definition if a religion was created solely for the purposes of discrimination, or if the acts of the individual are to discriminate against or protect their own true religious beliefs. "I know it when I see it."

    [Aside: I think a difference here is liberals' approach to definitions vs. conservatives' approach to the same. I have found that conservatives typically go with what something is traditionally understood to mean, while liberals seem to typically require strict definitions and no judgments.]

    3) Is this all really a legitimate concern? Typically, liberals are against slippery-slope arguments. Here, are we really going to restrict religious freedoms (a basic right) because in the future someone might create an absurd religion to discriminate against a group in very specific situations by calling it antithetical to their religious views? That really seems absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  91. >I think that's false.

    Really? Have you read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism"? In GOP thinking, progressive goes with secular, godless, European, and euthanasia.

    >No, taxes are too high because they hold back the company's progress.

    Oh, I'm not saying there's no rationale to the idea, I'm saying that's the rhetoric typically employed. Yes, the idea is that by lowering taxes we incentivize X behavior. But the idea is that we've lost that past greatness because our taxes are too high.

    I really didn't think this was so controversial. If you watch and listen to the movers and shakers in the GOP, this is a leitmotif. From Tea-Partiers - "I want my country back!" to Boehner - "Barack Obama is destroying the American I grew up in" to Scalia - anything he's ever said about originalism and the GOP fetishization of anything Reagan - "who's more Reaganesque?" or the selective worship of the founding fathers. It's a predominantly backward looking faction. Yes, I'm sure they oppose the impending serfdom imposed by our gay overlords on practical grounds (that would probably be a bad ending for us) but the larger theme here is that new=bad, and bad=new. Does everything fit into that framework? No, but that's the framework.

    >OK, so let's say you're right, it's a party - what's the party? A celebration of their having legal rights to help one another out? What's wrong with that?

    It's a legal status that effectively recognizes their marriage. They're just calling it something else. You helping throw them a party celebrating that should be just as problematic as throwing them a wedding reception. There's going to be a chuppah. There's going to be a cake. There's going to be a guy with a tallit performing the ceremony. This is still a relationship that is forbidden by the Torah. Is your problem just with the word marriage? So, you wouldn't help them with invitations inviting people to a "wedding", but you would for those inviting people to a "unionization"? The Torah does not literally forbid marriage - just sodomy. Obviously, the Torah frowns upon gay marriage by extension. Logically speaking, what the IRS calls it should be irrelevant to what the Torah forbids.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Oh, I'm not saying there's no rationale to the idea, I'm saying that's the rhetoric typically employed. Yes, the idea is that by lowering taxes we incentivize X behavior. But the idea is that we've lost that past greatness because our taxes are too high.

    I really didn't think this was so controversial. [...] but the larger theme here is that new=bad, and bad=new. Does everything fit into that framework? No, but that's the framework.


    I think your liberalism really is showing now. :)

    All seriousness - that's a really skewed perspective. I think you're completely missing the underlying theme to all of it (and the reason for the name tea party) - it's all about Freedom, rather than government rule. The Tea Party is meant to harken back to the idea that people had self-determination, as opposed to a government that determined the distribution and control over large aspects of life. It's got little to do with "recapturing the old way" and a lot to do with reestablishing the principles the country was founded on, which they believe to be a) more moral [for example, people keep what they earn and pay for what they purchase] and b) better [because it creates efficient markets that lead to progress as opposed to incentivizing various poor behaviors].

    It's a legal status that effectively recognizes their marriage. They're just calling it something else. You helping throw them a party celebrating that should be just as problematic as throwing them a wedding reception. There's going to be a chuppah. There's going to be a cake. There's going to be a guy with a tallit performing the ceremony. This is still a relationship that is forbidden by the Torah. Is your problem just with the word marriage? So, you wouldn't help them with invitations inviting people to a "wedding", but you would for those inviting people to a "unionization"? The Torah does not literally forbid marriage - just sodomy. Obviously, the Torah frowns upon gay marriage by extension. Logically speaking, what the IRS calls it should be irrelevant to what the Torah forbids.

    We're not going into Torah here; I established at the very beginning that I don't know that Judaism would believe it's even an issue for that very reason. I'm saying let's assume this is against their religious beliefs.

    And no, it's not recognizing their marriage. If they're having a whole "marriage" ceremony, then yes, you'd have the same issue, but as I note otherwise, I don't think it's an issue. I'm just saying that it would have been a much lesser issue.

    A regular party recognizing a civil union, that they have rights to... go into a hospital with them, or have a combined household for tax purposes - big deal. It's a non-issue.

    ReplyDelete
  93. >It is ironic to see a liberal making a slippery-slope argument - an argument they always argue against -

    I don't think this is true. Liberals worry about logical consequences just like everybody else. But, interestingly, according to you, conservatives are the ones chiefly concerned with slippery slopes. Why is that? What about all their radically progressive policies? Aren't they afraid of all the unintended consequences?

    >Allowing people to refuse gays on religious grounds in religious situations would lead to a race-based religion? Why wasn't such a religion already created? Why would religion transfer over to race? This seems silly.

    Due respect, I think you're being obtuse. JA isn't arguing that one would lead to the other. He's arguing that the principle you espouse is invalid because you have no functional way of distinguishing approved behavior (good discrimination) from bad behavior (bad discrimination). This whole question of "was the religion created just to be racist" is a red herring. What matters is whether we allow people to be racist, just because their religion is okay with it/mandates it.

    Again, by the way, the idea of a religion mandating discriminatory behavior is not silly at all. I told you about the complainer in the Jewish Press. Can I refuse to serve immodestly clad women/husbands to agunot in my store. Racially speaking, what about intermarriage. What if a Jew marries a goy? That's not a halachically recognizable marriage. What if I'm told not to serve them? Is any of this so impossible to imagine?

    I know, you might say, well, a Jew marrying a gentile is not about race, it's religion. And yet, it functionally is. Jews who are not ethnically Jews make up a miniscule portion of Jews today. Moreover if a Jew marries a Christian Jew (born Jew, Christian convert) the marriage is binding as a marriage between two Jews. A Jew can never halachically un-Jew himself, while a gentile can. There's a racial difference.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Who makes a big celebration marking the ability to get health insurance?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Additionally, it's widely known that Mormons did in fact discriminate against blacks. As did every American church at one time or another. Racial discrimination and religion are not new friends.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anytime a religious caterer is hired, he or she should do a detailed background check to make sure that he will not have to serve those whose practices violate his belief.

    If a religious caterer knows that a Jewish couple is not going to be observing hilchos niddah, and the bride refuses to to go the mikvah, can he refuse to serve them? Should he get satisfactory evidence that hilchos niddah will be followed before he takes the job?

    Should he ask couples if they have engaged in premarital intercourse?

    For example, a kosher caterer is approached by an obviously non-frum Jewish straight couple, but who want a kosher caterer because of religious relatives? I'm assuming you would say he should refuse the job on principle.

    I guess you might say the non-frum couple might to tshuva one day and their union would be legitimate, but that's a S-T-R-E-T-C-H.

    ReplyDelete
  97. I don't think this is true. Liberals worry about logical consequences just like everybody else. But, interestingly, according to you, conservatives are the ones chiefly concerned with slippery slopes. Why is that? What about all their radically progressive policies? Aren't they afraid of all the unintended consequences?

    Huh? That didn't make sense. Sure, all sides are worried about consequences. I think liberals are typically less concerned, and conservatives usually more, particularly when it comes to social issues. I think that with economic issues, conservatives are typically more progressive, and are very much concerned with the unintended consequences - often of the policies already in place. I think that liberals are much more focused on immediate consequences, conservatives on long-term - for everything - though both are guilty of looking short-term only at times. There's an argument to be made for each, but in general I think focusing on long-term with an eye on short term is more logical than the reverse. (See current debt crisis, which was the fault of decades of both parties acting for short-term gains and ignoring long-term consequences.)

    Due respect, I think you're being obtuse.

    I think JA was. We all get the point of what he's trying to say, but it's a ridiculous approach (certainly in 21st century USA, if we're being progressive).

    He's arguing that the principle you espouse is invalid because you have no functional way of distinguishing approved behavior (good discrimination) from bad behavior (bad discrimination).

    Sure I do, as noted. Again, this comes back to liberals wanting specific defined laws rather than utilizing common sense.

    What matters is whether we allow people to be racist, just because their religion is okay with it/mandates it.

    Of course not. How is that relevant, though? That's my point.

    Racially speaking, what about intermarriage. What if a Jew marries a goy? That's not a halachically recognizable marriage. What if I'm told not to serve them? Is any of this so impossible to imagine?

    Our friend was asked to pick up something from a non-Kosher store by her boss, who's Jewish and not religious. She refused, and luckily he seemed okay with the explanation. But what if he demanded it? Should she have to? I think not. So why is it different if she's the owner of a company? Why should she have to do something against her religious beliefs?

    I know, you might say, well, a Jew marrying a gentile is not about race, it's religion. And yet, it functionally is.

    No, it's about religion. You can twist it all you want, but at the end of the day it's clear that the issue is about the religion, not the race.

    ReplyDelete
  98. >I think your liberalism really is showing now. :)

    Oh no, the converse proposition is equally absurd. I hate all messaging.

    >The Tea Party is meant to harken back to the idea that people had self-determination, as opposed to a government that determined the distribution and control over large aspects of life. It's got little to do with "recapturing the old way" and a lot to do with reestablishing the principles the country was founded on, which they believe to be a) more moral [for example, people keep what they earn and pay for what they purchase] and b) better [because it creates efficient markets that lead to progress as opposed to incentivizing various poor behaviors].

    LOL. So...

    The Tea Party is meant to harken back to the idea that people had self-determination, as opposed to a government that determined the distribution and control over large aspects of life. It's got little to do with "recapturing the old way" and a lot to do with reestablishing the principles the country was founded on, which they believe to be a) more moral [for example, people keep what they earn and pay for what they purchase] and b) better [because it creates efficient markets that lead to progress as opposed to incentivizing various poor behaviors].

    Again, I'm not saying that there's no svara behind old=good and bad=new, just that that is the way it trends.

    >A regular party recognizing a civil union, that they have rights to... go into a hospital with them, or have a combined household for tax purposes - big deal. It's a non-issue.

    So, heterosexual marriages are no big deal, either? I am totally not getting what you see as the problem here, or what you think other people see as the problem.

    We have two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together, raise a family together, have sex together, and yes, have hospital visitation rights and access to various property transfer privileges.

    If gay people do this, it's no big deal, and no big cause for celebration. But if straight people do this, it's a super duper big deal for which a party is required?

    Or is the question of whether or not it is a big deal or not hinge on what they call the party, or what they do at the party? Or who's there? I'm really not getting this. Why is one a big deal, but not the other?

    ReplyDelete
  99. >Liberals worry about logical consequences just like everybody else.

    in general, I disagree with this.

    >Why is one a big deal, but not the other?

    Are you asking from an economic sense (as in catering to a party), or from a social sense?

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anytime a religious caterer is hired, he or she should do a detailed background check to make sure that he will not have to serve those whose practices violate his belief.

    If a religious caterer knows that a Jewish couple is not going to be observing hilchos niddah, and the bride refuses to to go the mikvah, can he refuse to serve them? Should he get satisfactory evidence that hilchos niddah will be followed before he takes the job?

    Should he ask couples if they have engaged in premarital intercourse?

    For example, a kosher caterer is approached by an obviously non-frum Jewish straight couple, but who want a kosher caterer because of religious relatives? I'm assuming you would say he should refuse the job on principle.

    I guess you might say the non-frum couple might to tshuva one day and their union would be legitimate, but that's a S-T-R-E-T-C-H.


    Huh? That was horrible logic. What's sinful about the actual act he's doing at the time? He's helping them be in a situation where they could be more religious, but honestly, that's so completely off the topic.

    Gotta run, to be continued.

    ReplyDelete
  101. >Huh? That didn't make sense.

    At bottom, a slippery slope argument is concerned with unintended consequences. Sure, there's nothing wrong with proposition B by itself. But if we change Rule A to make it in line with proposition B, then we'll find ourselves having to institute propositions B.2 and B.3 which are concededly awful. Hence the slipperiness of the slope.

    If liberals are always the ones hating on slippery slopes, it follows because they're the ones constantly advocating proposition B's, and if conservatives are always making slippery slope arguments, it follows they're the ones typically against proposition B's. Ergo, if conservatives were progressive, i.e. proposing new propositions, they would be hating on slippery slopes. They are not, hence they are not progressive. QED.

    >short term/long term

    Ah, now you're bias is showing! You have this predilection for thinking that the GOP cares more about long-term consequences than the Dems, a proposition for which there is no supporting argument, other than using each sides' propaganda. I suppose tax cuts, while politically popular and thus always easy to argue for, must be evidence of long-term thinking, even though they expand the deficit? Sure, you think so, because you believe that tax cuts shrink the deficit, either through starving the beast or somehow resulting in more revenues. But me, I think that if government can't pay it's bills, it should get money to pay it's bills. You call that short-term thinking, I call it long-term thinking. If I say we need government health care to shrink the deficit, you say it expands the deficit. Short term. Long term. Etcetera. The only reason you think one side cares more about the long-term is probably because your sympathies lie with them.

    >Again, this comes back to liberals wanting specific defined laws rather than utilizing common sense.

    Then just say you think racial discrimination is icky, and religious discrimination is fine, because you like to religiously discriminate but have no great desire to racially discriminate. I don't think you want to do this, because then what is moral/principled becomes more about things you like to do and people you like to sympathize with, as opposed to things you think are logically right and just.

    >But what if he demanded it? Should she have to? I think not. So why is it different if she's the owner of a company?

    Well, what was it? If it was a cheeseburger, then fine, she's not buying cheeseburgers from kosher stores either. But if it was a ream of paper, then, yeah, that would be weird.

    Similarly, if someone comes into my kosher restaurant and asks for a cheeseburger, I don't have to give it to them, because I don't sell it to anyone. But if I do sell them, and a Muslim comes in and asks for one, and I refuse on religious grounds, then, yeah, that's weird.

    The operative principal here is refusing to perform a service you offer to the world, except for this person, for whatever non-economic reason.

    ReplyDelete
  102. >in general, I disagree with this.

    Alright.

    >Are you asking from an economic sense (as in catering to a party), or from a social sense?

    Socially. I assume bigger parties involve more money.

    ReplyDelete
  103. I was not making a slippery slope argument. I was trying to understand your argument by using an analogy.

    This thread is making me question your ability to follow an argument. Between mistaking an analogy for a slippery slope argument and refusing to admit that refusing to rent your hall to a gay couple who wants to get married is "discrimination," I'm kind of shaking my head here.

    It's one thing to have a difference of opinion. It's quite another to have an incoherent position you can't articulate or defend.

    ReplyDelete
  104. ...and, we're back.

    JA - I think the argument was quite clear. You're trying to obfuscate the issue by comparing it to race. It's got nothing to do with race. Then you tried to make it a case of race, but calling it religion. That's silly.

    ReplyDelete
  105. LOL. So...

    You're deliberately twisting meaning there. Of course that means they're looking back to the past, but not because there's some desire to live in the past. It's because there's a strong belief in the principles and rights included in that origination and that getting away from that is an error. To somehow imply that that means conservatism = stuck in the past is absurd. (And yes, I do believe that is an argument often made by liberals.)

    Or is the question of whether or not it is a big deal or not hinge on what they call the party, or what they do at the party? Or who's there? I'm really not getting this. Why is one a big deal, but not the other?

    Yes. It's about the purpose and nature of the party. Calling it a marriage or having a marriage ceremony (whatever you call it) is about establishing a lifelong bond for the purposes of a relationship (generally meant to include sexual activity). A civil union is about a legal recognition of being together for legal purposes. Hence all the arguments about the "definition" of marriage. Again, I think this is coming back to liberals (in this case yourself) trying to extract a specific definition for the purpose of argument while others can understand simply what is what.

    I also believe this aspect of the discussion is completely off-topic and just detracting.

    ReplyDelete
  106. . You're trying to obfuscate the issue by comparing it to race. It's got nothing to do with race. Then you tried to make it a case of race, but calling it religion. That's silly.

    You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't talking about a "religion" that is just racism in disguise, I was talking about a hypothetical regular religion that happened to have a law against interracial marriage.

    People believe that gay marriage is wrong and people believe that interracial marriage is wrong. You seem to be demanding special treatment for the first belief because some religions teach it, so I was just asking what you would say if some religions taught the second belief too. I even offered up early Mormonism as an example.

    All of the other commenters seem to understand my point. What is your problem?

    ReplyDelete
  107. >trying to extract a specific definition for the purpose of argument while others can understand simply what is what.

    bingo.

    [sorry for me being just some sideline cheerleader, but on a sunday morning—and still in my underwear—, I am way to lazy to write as much you guys are.]

    ReplyDelete
  108. >People believe that gay marriage is wrong and people believe that interracial marriage is wrong. You seem to be demanding special treatment for the first belief because some religions teach it, so I was just asking what you would say if some religions taught the second belief too. I even offered up early Mormonism as an example.

    I think anonymous made it clear and that if your religion WAS against interracial marriage, you should not be forced to participate actively in that which is directly against that belief.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I think anonymous made it clear and that if your religion WAS against interracial marriage, you should not be forced to participate actively in that which is directly against that belief.

    Yes, for which I thanked him or her for answering a simple question. Ezzie doesn't seem to even understand the question (or is pretending not to for some reason.)

    ReplyDelete
  110. If liberals are always the ones hating on slippery slopes

    Huh? No, they are usually unconcerned with slippery slopes.

    Ergo, if conservatives were progressive, i.e. proposing new propositions, they would be hating on slippery slopes. They are not, hence they are not progressive.

    False. Many propositions are in regards to established laws which haD unintended consequences.

    For example, forget the morality of the concept, and look at Social Security. It was reasonably popular for a long time, but as the structure of the US population changed (less kids being born), the unintended consequences became clear. So, conservatives would like to restructure Social Security completely to make sense within the realities of modern times, while liberals do not wish to. Which is more progressive?

    Ah, now you're bias is showing! You have this predilection for thinking that the GOP cares more about long-term consequences than the Dems, a proposition for which there is no supporting argument, other than using each sides' propaganda.

    What propaganda? By definition, most large debates are over this very point: From Social Security to healthcare to Medicare. In each case, the conservatives are concerned about the long-term economic effects while sacrificing something in the short-term (though even then they usually have some measure of protection in). Liberals want healthcare now for everyone, and Social Security to stay as it is for everyone, and Medicare to stay as it is (or be expanded) for everyone. I think most liberals would be very open about this and argue that it is worth sacrificing long-term growth to some degree because of the current social concerns they have. That's an argument worth having, but certainly that is the large difference between the two.

    But me, I think that if government can't pay it's bills, it should get money to pay it's bills. You call that short-term thinking, I call it long-term thinking.

    How is that long-term thinking? You want to pay bills now no matter the long-term cost. And you certainly can't argue that conservatives are viewing this short-term.

    If I say we need government health care to shrink the deficit, you say it expands the deficit.

    That's silly. Nobody can honestly claim that in any individual year once it's kicked in that health care would shrink the deficit. Only Obama tried to make it seem so by taking 10 years of revenue against what, six of expenses? But the CBO and all other estimates are quite clear on it.

    FWIW, Medicare has now spent 10x as much as was originally estimated in 1994. Nice, right?

    ReplyDelete
  111. The operative principal here is refusing to perform a service you offer to the world, except for this person, for whatever non-economic reason.

    Right. And if the reason has to do with it being against the person's religious principles, then it should be protected by their religious freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  112. You misunderstood my argument. I wasn't talking about a "religion" that is just racism in disguise, I was talking about a hypothetical regular religion that happened to have a law against interracial marriage.

    OK, well I understood it as you creating a hypothetical to make a point.

    So let's say such a thing existed? I don't know. It seems silly anyway, because none exists. But I think it would still be simple to make the same differentiation I made earlier regarding peoples and acts.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Yes, for which I thanked him or her for answering a simple question. Ezzie doesn't seem to even understand the question (or is pretending not to for some reason.)

    No, I believed you were creating a silly hypothetical. I also disagree with anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  114. HH - So if I lived on the Pacific, I too could join in on conversations late and sit around in my underwear until 10:30am? :)

    ReplyDelete
  115. I'm curious, since none of you have answered: What DO you think about the religious person's freedom of religion here? Do you believe it's actually subservient to the supposed potential discrimination of some other situation?

    ReplyDelete
  116. >Of course that means they're looking back to the past, but not because there's some desire to live in the past.

    Of course. I don't think they want to wear dinosaur skins and travel by pedal-car, either. I'm talking about the language they use. Of course, the language affects the way they think, so they do honestly correlate awesomeness and authenticity with the past, but it's not because they like the past, per se. They just think things were awesomer then.

    >It's because there's a strong belief in the principles and rights included in that origination and that getting away from that is an error. To somehow imply that that means conservatism = stuck in the past is absurd. (And yes, I do believe that is an argument often made by liberals.)

    I'm not saying that conservatism's obsession with the past is necessarily a bad thing. You can view it as a good thing - getting back to our founding values or however you want to dress it up. Lord knows the opposite proposition - unthinking change, is not good either. But, unmistakably, they seem to like the past, and dislike things that change the past. All I'm saying is that don't surprised when you think you lose every rhetorical battle when you use this strategy.

    >Again, I think this is coming back to liberals (in this case yourself) trying to extract a specific definition for the purpose of argument while others can understand simply what is what.

    Still not getting it. You're making the objections to gay marriage sound very petty. In other words, the virtue of civil unions as opposed to marriage is that gay people know their relationship is not as good as ours, and that they can't know real love, and therefore they suck. You define their unions in legalistic terms, but marriages in inspiring, meaningful language. If this is how we're defining it (unions < marriage), why on Earth would you think they would settle for unions, and not marriage?

    >trying to extract a specific definition for the purpose of argument while others can understand simply what is what

    You're the one splitting hairs here. You're trying to create a whole gulf between two seemingly very similar things.

    ReplyDelete
  117. >Huh? No, they are usually unconcerned with slippery slopes.

    And thus, dislike or "hate on" slippery slope arguments.

    >So, conservatives would like to restructure Social Security completely to make sense within the realities of modern times, while liberals do not wish to. Which is more progressive?

    Let me get this straight. In your narrative, liberals institute Social Security in the 1930s, over conservative objection. This has unintended (bad) consequences. Conservatives wish to get rid of Social Security (return to status quo) or limit it (get closer to status quo) which only has the effect of limiting the unintended (bad) consequences of the liberals' actions in the 1930s, but will, in turn, have no unintended (bad) consequences of its own. So, conservative changes can only correct unintended consequences (good), but cannot have unintended consequences (bad) of their own? What propaganda indeed.

    >By definition, most large debates are over this very point:

    It's all propaganda!

    Social Security: Acc. to you, we need to limit social security, even though yes, old people may need to eat cat food now, but at least they will have enough money for cat food later. Short term loss, long term gain. Acc. to me, limiting social security now results in short term gain (deficit cutting) over long term loss (lots of malnourished old people). So, I say raise taxes (short-term loss) so we can have old people (long-term gain). And I happen to favor Social Security reform, but I'm just telling you all these "Republicans/Democrats like to think short-term/long-term" arguments are just parroting propgandistic talking points. We can do this with anything.

    Obamacare:

    Republicans say it will expand the long-term deficit (long-term), raise taxes (long-term), and hurt small business (long-term).

    Democrats say it will shrink the deficit (and the CBO seems to think so) (long-term), reduce the cost of medical care (long-term) and let people live longer, healthier lives (long-term).

    Now they're both thinking long-term!

    And short term:

    Republicans: It requires everyone having to go out and get health insurance now, and temporary increases in spending! (Short term).

    Democrats: This is the best deal we could get (short term).

    It's all propaganda.

    I don't want to get in a fight with you about whose claims are substantively right, but you're fooling yourself if you think any of these huge political parties are so dumb as to only think short term and not long term, or long term and not short term.

    ReplyDelete
  118. >How is that long-term thinking? You want to pay bills now no matter the long-term cost. And you certainly can't argue that conservatives are viewing this short-term.

    Dude, this is like the mother of all tu quoques. Right now, we have a budget showdown, in which the Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling to pay for things that have already been bought/and or legislated for, unless there are massive cuts to government spending, by which, of course, no future legislature will be bound. The idea here is that our deficit is too big, and we're passing it off to our children. However, tax cuts, which actually expand this awful deficit, are off the table because everyone likes tax cuts, and Republicans tout tax cuts as the cure for absolutely everything wrong in this world. Even though no economist in the world thinks tax cuts shrink deficits (slight hyperboly) Republicans refuse to sign off on any deal that does not include them, or that has the temerity to increase taxes. This is long-term thinking? Threatening to destroy the credit rating of the United States unless the deficit is shrunk now, while only allowing deficit shrinking tools that do not harm your own constituency and requiring policies that have been your pet project for the last 20 years, even though they go against every economist alive? That is long-term thinking?

    The beauty of this is, it doesn't matter if I'm even right, substantively, I've made the argument.

    ReplyDelete
  119. >Right. And if the reason has to do with it being against the person's religious principles, then it should be protected by their religious freedoms.

    Again, which is fine, but this is the same reasoning that should allow a white supremacist to refuse to serve black people. I think the consequences of such things would probably be bad, but you don't have to.

    Now, you can erect some imaginary wall between religion and race, but the operative principal is the same.

    Freedom of religion is not some magical protection that just falls on people's religion once they get 501(c) status. It comes from a general freedom of conscience. I get to think like I want, and I get to associate with who I want, and I get to say what I want, and I get to do what I want. Whether your particular idea falls more under religion as oppose to racism is largely besides the issue. Either way, by making you serve people you don't want to serve, we're violating your freedom of conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  120. I'm curious, since none of you have answered: What DO you think about the religious person's freedom of religion here? Do you believe it's actually subservient to the supposed potential discrimination of some other situation?

    I guess I'd support a pretty broad freedom of religion regardless of how bigoted that religion is, so I'd support a hall's right to discriminate against gay weddings. I'd think they're wrong and immoral for doing so, but they need to have that right.

    ReplyDelete
  121. >Now they're both thinking long-term!

    But its not. Because at the core, lie two different values. Liberals don't think about long term, not because they are stupid, care-less or are bad, but because of a value split between them and the right in values. The right views healthcare as part of the free market system to a great extent. The left views it as a matter of human rights (added to a long list of entitlements they feel are deserving). It's only from the left that you will hear about single-payer policy and to ultimately get rid of the "evil" insurance industry. Obamacare is closest right now they can get to that, and some have even claimed it is a stepping stone toward it. So obviously, if it is a human right you have to pass it. If it is a human right it's a human right. It's both the short term gain for them and a long term gain for them. The unintended consequences are not even on their radar BECAUSE they are discussing a human right. All the left really has to do is tack on some verbiage to attract emotional appeal and they win people over. None of this is because the liberal left are dumber than the right.

    ReplyDelete
  122. >I guess I'd support a pretty broad freedom of religion regardless of how bigoted that religion is, so I'd support a hall's right to discriminate against gay weddings. I'd think they're wrong and immoral for doing so, but they need to have that right.

    Careful JA, you're sounding a little bit Conservative there :-)

    ReplyDelete
  123. Careful JA, you're sounding a little bit Conservative there :-)

    Au contraire, it's the height of liberalism to support the right of that which you oppose strongly. Conservatives (the American version anyway) aren't like that at all. They support making flag burning illegal, etc. Herman Cain supports banning mosques!

    ReplyDelete
  124. >Au contraire, it's the height of liberalism to support the right of that which you oppose strongly. Conservatives (the American version anyway) aren't like that at all. They support making flag burning illegal, etc. Herman Cain supports banning mosques!

    Au contraire, today's liberals are a shadow of the classic liberals of old. The liberal shift to the left has made their values based on equality, NOT on liberty.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Au contraire, today's liberals are a shadow of the classic liberals of old. The liberal shift to the left has made their values based on equality, NOT on liberty.

    Only in the caricatures that you imagine we are.

    ReplyDelete
  126. >Only in the caricatures that you imagine we are.

    Sorry, its the truth. Liberals are more preoccupied in equality. Often, even through legislation. You can see it anymore from feminism, to entitlements, to redistribution of wealth, equal pay, even to something as ridiculous as kids sport events giving out trophies to the loosing team so they don't feel saddened.

    For crying out load, its the one word you hear over and over again by liberals.

    I can't imagine why you would take insult to that. Liberals since the 60's are just over whelmingly pre occupied with equality everywhere in society.

    ReplyDelete
  127. To a liberal, social justice is the means toward the ends, which is Equality.

    I can't understand why you think this is a caricuture. Ultimately, both parties are different at their core now. This is where it lies.

    ReplyDelete
  128. You should read this:

    http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html


    from here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron


    "Vonnegut's story is politically satirical. Vonnegut highlights the danger of equality sought too vigorously. The demand of absolute equality is the elimination of natural differences. Citizens lose their freedom and their rights as individuals. The result is a nation of dumb and slow human beings who follow their leaders without question. “Harrison Bergeron” can therefore be read as a harsh critique of communism,[1] which champions equality. It can also be read as a satire of America's misunderstanding of what a socialist society would entail. Connected to this critique of totalitarianism is the power of the media to spread the political messages and principles as the story unfolds mostly on television. Television functions both to spread social norms and to distract. More broadly, Pinternagel also notes that Vonnegut’s short-stories are based on topics like techno-fascism and anti-intellectualism.[2]"


    This is a critique of the left.

    ReplyDelete
  129. For those that support higher taxes, I have a question. Today, government consumes a little over 40% of GDP (http://tinyurl.com/28sm7sr).

    What percentage of GDP do you think government should consume?

    ReplyDelete
  130. It's hilarious when conservatives trot out Harrison Bergenon. Vonnegut is pretty much the patron saint of modern liberals. The freakin' tagline of my blog is a Vonnegut quote.

    You just pick and choose the worst stories that you've heard, many of which aren't even true. Talk to an actual liberal and, yes, we value equality, but freedom too.

    Don't you conservatives hate the ACLibertiesU?

    ReplyDelete
  131. >It's hilarious when conservatives trot out Harrison Bergenon. Vonnegut is pretty much the patron saint of modern liberals. The freakin' tagline of my blog is a Vonnegut quote.

    But yet interestingly enough, he has a different view the absurd reality of where equality can lead. Which is the problem with modern leftists. Hence, an inability to look at consequences when they are geared by aims of social justice and equality.

    I never said that you are anti-freedom. But the left is more pre-occupied with equality and getting government to stifle rights for that end, where as the right swings in the other direction.

    And its ridiculous of you to tell me to talk to actual liberals. Though I live in an orthodox community, I still live in Los Angeles which is run by liberals with the majority of everyone around being liberals. The Los Angeles Jewish Journal is more of a liberal paper.

    ReplyDelete
  132. >Don't you conservatives hate the ACLibertiesU?

    To a certain degree. ACLU is there to protect rights legislated by government. But certain "rights" that are legislated by government go against someone elses rights. Meaning, if the left passes a law that is pro equality and against the liberty of an individual (ie, basically, the entire conversation here about gay marriage and wedding halls) that is where the Conservatives feel ACLU is against actual liberty

    ReplyDelete
  133. ...that, and what I believe is their BROAD interpretation of the seperation of church and state.

    example

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Los_Angeles_County,_California

    ReplyDelete
  134. I'm not saying that conservatism's obsession with the past is necessarily a bad thing. You can view it as a good thing - getting back to our founding values or however you want to dress it up. Lord knows the opposite proposition - unthinking change, is not good either. But, unmistakably, they seem to like the past, and dislike things that change the past. All I'm saying is that don't surprised when you think you lose every rhetorical battle when you use this strategy.

    Don't disagree on this paragraph at all.

    If this is how we're defining it (unions < marriage), why on Earth would you think they would settle for unions, and not marriage?

    Like I said, I think this aspect is completely separate from the rest. And it's not that unions < marriage, but that they were different.

    You're trying to create a whole gulf between two seemingly very similar things.

    No - I'm saying that the parts that are different would be significant in this context. It's difficult to say that a religious person would have a moral objection to a legal bond between two people.

    And thus, dislike or "hate on" slippery slope arguments.

    Yeah, figured that out later in the comment.

    In your narrative, liberals institute Social Security in the 1930s, over conservative objection. This has unintended (bad) consequences. Conservatives wish to get rid of Social Security (return to status quo) or limit it (get closer to status quo) which only has the effect of limiting the unintended (bad) consequences of the liberals' actions in the 1930s, but will, in turn, have no unintended (bad) consequences of its own. So, conservative changes can only correct unintended consequences (good), but cannot have unintended consequences (bad) of their own?

    Huh? No. Firstly, I think that SocSec had reasonably bi-partisan support at the time (though the Constitutional challenges are incredibly fascinating, and one would suspect that the SocSec of today would never have passed that Court - and FDR's move with the judges would spark the most insane outcry in history nowadays). Conservatives of today wish to alter SocSec so that it won't have any unintended consequences on people over 50, and simultaneously holds in check the danger to the well-being of the country's economy, while shifting those under 50 to a different approach which would help avoid those other unintended consequences. That seems rather thought out to me. Moreover, I don't think that anyone understood the unintended consequences at the time, because SocSec was originally much more limited (in scale and pay) and life expectancy was much lower, while the amount of people paying in were much greater ratio wise. But as facts change it's silly to call for such a status quo.

    Acc. to me, limiting social security now results in short term gain (deficit cutting) over long term loss (lots of malnourished old people).

    Silly, because it wouldn't affect anyone 50+.

    We can do this with anything.

    Yes and no. I think it's much harder to do with economics, which is why Obama and liberals have a much harder time with it.

    (and the CBO seems to think so)

    No, it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  135. I don't want to get in a fight with you about whose claims are substantively right, but you're fooling yourself if you think any of these huge political parties are so dumb as to only think short term and not long term, or long term and not short term.

    You're missing the point. Both will address both, but for the most part, ideologically the liberal approach favors short-term goals over long-term sustainability, while conservatives favor the latter - and both can give strong reasoning to their points. I happen to feel that long-term approaches work best, because if something is unsustainable it generally isn't a good idea.

    However, tax cuts, which actually expand this awful deficit, are off the table because everyone likes tax cuts

    No - tax cuts help create growth, while increasing taxes barely touches a tiny portion of the debt, solves nothing in the long-term, and reduces the ability to create growth which could address it in the long-term. But I'll write a separate post on this.

    (slight hyperboly)

    HA! Slight.

    Now, you can erect some imaginary wall between religion and race, but the operative principal is the same.

    I don't think the principle is the same at all, as noted above.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I guess I'd support a pretty broad freedom of religion regardless of how bigoted that religion is, so I'd support a hall's right to discriminate against gay weddings. I'd think they're wrong and immoral for doing so, but they need to have that right.

    Forgetting the terminology, THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT!

    ReplyDelete
  137. >For those that support higher taxes, I have a question. Today, government consumes a little over 40% of GDP (http://tinyurl.com/28sm7sr). What percentage of GDP do you think government should consume?
    First, you’ve misread the chart. The chart demonstrates not that government consumes 40% of GDP, but that government spending provides 40% of GDP. According to Wikipedia, via a study done by the Heritage Foundation and the WSJ, that number is closer to 38.9%. The tax burden as a percentage of GDP is actually 26.9%. By comparison, government spending in the UK accounts for 47.3% and 51.8% in Denmark.
    Second, I’m not an economist. I don’t know what ideal balance between government and private spending in an economy should be. Clearly, however, our problem does not appear to be that we are comparatively overtaxed, or that government spending as a % of GDP is too high. Even if we ratcheted up the tax burden as % of GDP to 49%, and spending to 51.8%, we’d be about Denmark. Denmark is no dystopia, they even have a Legoland.
    Here’s where I got my data.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending#Government_spending_as_a_percentage_of_GDP

    ReplyDelete
  138. >It's difficult to say that a religious person would have a moral objection to a legal bond between two people.

    And yet, civil unions are not widely popular among the religious right.

    >Conservatives of today wish to alter SocSec so that it won't have any unintended consequences on people over 50, and simultaneously holds in check the danger to the well-being of the country's economy, while shifting those under 50 to a different approach which would help avoid those other unintended consequences. That seems rather thought out to me.

    Oh, gee, and if we think it's well thought out now, I guess there can't be any unintended consequences.

    >because SocSec was originally much more limited (in scale and pay) and life expectancy was much lower, while the amount of people paying in were much greater ratio wise.

    The advances we've made in life expectancy are largely due to defeating infant mortality. Meaning, if you lived past your first year, your life expecancy in 1933 is about the same as it is now. Presumably, people who did not live past 1 did not contribute to SS, so it's largely a wash. Our longer life expectancy is not so much the problem.

    >Silly, because it wouldn't affect anyone 50+.

    LOL, so the consequences will be felt by other people, later on with no political backlash from current seniors. The very definition of long-term thinking!

    You know, at some point, I hope to live past 50. I don't think I'd enjoy living off cat food any more than current seniors. But I guess that's just me thinking short term. By all means, let's agree to use future old people as a fuel source.

    >ideologically the liberal approach favors short-term goals over long-term sustainability, while conservatives favor the latter - and both can give strong reasoning to their points. I happen to feel that long-term approaches work best, because if something is unsustainable it generally isn't a good idea.

    And I'm saying you thinking this is largely the result of your biases. Contra HH, there's no reason liberals should think more short-term than conservatives, especially not our conservatives.

    ReplyDelete
  139. >Contra HH, there's no reason liberals should think more short-term than conservatives, especially not our conservatives.

    You misunderstand. It's not that they purposely put short term gain over long term. They aren't stupid. It's just there are pressing values behind what they passed. Those end up having unintended consequences. Not because liberals didn't care about it from the get go, but because those original policies HAD to be passed.

    ReplyDelete
  140. >No - tax cuts help create growth,

    Sure, at some level. On the other hand, we have no reason to think that taxes are currently too high. In fact, ten years ago we instituted massive tax cuts, and now we're in a recession. Of course, maybe tax cuts are the solution! Then again, tax cuts are what we instittued back when the economy was doing well. Pretty much no way to falsify this.

    >while increasing taxes barely touches a tiny portion of the debt, solves nothing in the long-term, and reduces the ability to create growth which could address it in the long-term.

    Listen, I know you don't like the NYT, but see their budget calculator.

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/weekinreview/deficits-graphic.html

    In 2010, we had a projected deficit of 418 billion in 2015 and 1.345 in 2030. Acc. to the NYT, letting the Bush tax cuts expire (in other words, doing nothing, and not raising taxes) reduces the deficit by 226 billion, which is more than half of our projected 2015 deficit. It reduces our 2030 deficit by 367 billion, about a third. That's significant.

    >HA! Slight.

    Really? Which economist thinks tax cuts help reduce the deficit?

    ReplyDelete
  141. >The advances we've made in life expectancy are largely due to defeating infant mortality.

    I don't see how this is true. There are always reports from all over the world that the life expectancy is always rising

    >Our longer life expectancy is not so much the problem.

    I am not sure about the US, but other countries with longer life expectancy you have a problem with with the population not rising. So you have a larger older population than you did back then, but births are decreasing.

    ReplyDelete
  142. >It's just there are pressing values behind what they passed.

    Liberals are not logic-bots anymore than are conservatives. Even though many conservatives think all taxes are illegitimate, they all don't rush down to eliminate the DoE today, no matter the consequences. If liberals thought like this, they wouldn't get anything done. Yes, much of legislation involves rights, but thinking something has to do with human rights (say, a human has a right to a certain basic level of health care) does not mean you can't consider the consequences of ensuring that right, especially if they conflict with other human rights. It also doesn't conflict with figuring out how to pay for it, especially if you pay for one human right, but not for another. One of the motivating factors behind Obamacare was that this will result in actually less overall spending on health care than is currently the case, thus freeing up additional resources. You can disagree with this, but it was an integral element to the analysis.

    >Those end up having unintended consequences.

    Everything ends up having unintended consequences. When conservatives refuse to do something, or when they pass laws that say the government can listen in on your telephone calls, or when they reduce taxes, these have unintended consequences, too.

    ReplyDelete
  143. >One of the motivating factors behind Obamacare was that this will result in actually less overall spending on health care than is currently the case, thus freeing up additional resources. You can disagree with this, but it was an integral element to the analysis.

    I am talking in general regarding liberal policy. But obviously there was analysis involved in Obamacare, but lets not fool ourselves that behind lays a much deeper purpose in Obamacare which is the holy grail for liberals (free healthcare for all). It's not about economics for them anymore than it is for other countries. It's about what they perceive as a "human right" for equality and the endless perception of class warfare. And once they declare something a human right, it MUST be passed. I mean, wouldn't ANYONE want a human right passed?

    >Everything ends up having unintended consequences. When conservatives refuse to do something, or when they pass laws that say the government can listen in on your telephone calls, or when they reduce taxes, these have unintended consequences, too.

    Sure, there might be, but I believe Conservatives will often think about these things much more. Putting aside economic policy, social policy is something conservatives will often think about how it will affect society for the worse later on. I just think life in general is an indicator of this. I mean, just off the cuff, the de-stigmatization of food stamps is something I think is wrong the liberals have pushed.

    ReplyDelete
  144. >I don't see how this is true. There are always reports from all over the world that the life expectancy is always rising

    In developed countries, we've maybe expanded things practically for like a year or two. In a place like South Africa, getting people to use condoms and getting them retrovirals really helps substantively. But here, in the US, once we wiped out polio, there's not really much we've done.

    >So you have a larger older population than you did back then, but births are decreasing.

    The American birth rate is substantially higher. Also, we do a fair amount of immigration.

    ReplyDelete
  145. >In developed countries, we've maybe expanded things practically for like a year or two. In a place like South Africa, getting people to use condoms and getting them retrovirals really helps substantively. But here, in the US, once we wiped out polio, there's not really much we've done.

    All over the world. all over the world. I don't see where you get that life expectancy has not changed since the 30's. Medical advancemtns have not stopped at riding polio.

    >The American birth rate is substantially higher. Also, we do a fair amount of immigration.

    Higher than what? Question is, is it going up at the rate needed to afford to take care of a growing elder population.

    ReplyDelete
  146. >And once they declare something a human right, it MUST be passed. I mean, wouldn't ANYONE want a human right passed?

    No. Trade-offs exist in everything. Also, you know, the question of whether something should even be considered a human right also requires some analysis. There's no human right to coffee flavored ice cream or to kill people, in part because liberals bother to think these things through.

    >I mean, just off the cuff, the de-stigmatization of food stamps is something I think is wrong the liberals have pushed.

    Okay, I think forcing everyone to stand exposed in line at airports for a half hour to make sure we don't bring toothpaste on a plane is an example of something conervatives pushed without thinking about consequences. Also, invading Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  147. >All over the world. all over the world.

    The world doesn't get social security checks. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

    >I don't see where you get that life expectancy has not changed since the 30's. Medical advancemtns have not stopped at riding polio.

    Sure, just not that much. Certainly not what Alan Simpson thinks - that we moved from 64 to 75. We didn't. Or, statistically, we did, but really, we didn't.

    >Higher than what? Question is, is it going up at the rate needed to afford to take care of a growing elder population.

    Who says it isn't?

    ReplyDelete
  148. >There's no human right to coffee flavored ice cream or to kill people, in part because liberals bother to think these things through.

    Either you take the conversation seriously or you don't. Seems I am giving more credibility to liberals than you, that I don't give ridiculous examples. Liberals and conservatives BOTH think. But they think based on their values. Are we really going to say defunding planned parenthood is taking away womens health and her right to chose and declaring a war on women????? According to many in liberals, the answer is yes.

    >Okay, I think forcing everyone to stand exposed in line at airports for a half hour to make sure we don't bring toothpaste on a plane is an example of something conervatives pushed without thinking about consequences.

    What consequences? Thats not a consequences that makes society at large worse. That doesn't change the direction of a society, its values etc. You are waiting in a longer line. That's all. And that is something that can be fixed instantaneously. But it doesn't work the other way. You can't just TAKE away something that now people feel entitled to.

    ReplyDelete
  149. >The world doesn't get social security checks. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

    I was talking about life expectancy in general and that it has grown more than your claim

    >Who says it isn't?

    That's the question.

    If anyone has time:

    http://www.cis.org/AgingImmigrants-BirthRate-SocialSecurity

    From the little time I have, I understand it saying immigration can help, but not that much. And even though America still has a higher birth rate, it isn't as high as it was or needs to be. (hence the question if immigration can help with SS)

    ReplyDelete
  150. >What consequences? Thats not a consequences that makes society at large worse. That doesn't change the direction of a society, its values etc. You are waiting in a longer line. That's all. And that is something that can be fixed instantaneously. But it doesn't work the other way. You can't just TAKE away something that now people feel entitled to.

    You lack imagination. First, it's not easy to get rid of "security theatre". Once we tell people that something is necessary for their security, it's very hard to get rid of. Who wants to be the first congressman on the block for making us more vulnerable to the terrorists? It's like the war on crime, except on steroids. Our drug sentencing is insane, but no one can do anything about it. So now, we have the largest prison population in the world. Second, it does create problems. What stops a terrorist from walking into JFK at 2.30 in he afternoon and just killing every schmuck waiting in line? Third, it does change our values. Creating a massive national security-industrial complex based on paranoia, of which no toothpaste and security theatre is a part, is not healthy to national values. We torture, wiretap, and have secret prisons. Maybe you don't care that much about these values, but maybe liberals don't care so much about ensuring some rigid sepearation between the sexes.

    Also, Iraq is a problem which it's taking us a while to be rid of, and which has already cost us quite a bit.

    >Seems I am giving more credibility to liberals than you, that I don't give ridiculous examples.

    No, you're just being silly. You lack the ability to think like someone else. Liberals are not college kids who just discovered human rights. There's zero reason to think they are any less capable, or demonstrate the capacity any less, to engage in long-term thinking. This is just wishful thinking on your part. Liberalism is not a "do what feels good" philosophy, not even at its core value, anymore than conservatism is a "do what feels good" get the government off my back philosophy, even at its core.

    ReplyDelete
  151. >I was talking about life expectancy in general and that it has grown more than your claim

    In general, man d'char sh'mey? I never said anything about the world, until you brought it up. And I agree, in certain parts of the world, they've made drastic improvements, but not so much in the developed world.

    >That's the question.

    I'm perfectly happy admitting that life expectancy has been extended a few years, but it's not the big deal I often hear people making of it. We could extend the retirement age a few years, but of course, that has its own unintended consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  152. >You lack imagination....

    Now you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Things that mention can be prosecuted if they are done illegally. It doesn't infuse and alter the course of a society and its general populace.

    >Liberalism is not a "do what feels good" philosophy,

    Actually, its exactly what is. Equality, compassion, all these buzz words we keep hearing, its all an emotion based system philosophy. I mean, thats where we get the lines that conservatives are rigid, and standards based fanatics. It's not about them being less capable, and I keep saying this over and over again. But BECAUSE of the different value structure that is inherit at solving socities problems. For a liberal, there are no long term consequences because how on earth CAN THERE BE, when " we are dealing with equality, compassion and human rights"? Every argument liberals make against conservatives is an appeal to emotion. In general, people deem democrats as the "nice" party.

    I am trying to find a clip of Larry King asking someone why conservatives have a problem being nice.

    ReplyDelete
  153. >We could extend the retirement age a few years, but of course, that has its own unintended consequences.

    Of course. Like the riots.

    ReplyDelete
  154. >It's like the war on crime, except on steroids. Our drug sentencing is insane, but no one can do anything about it.

    You mean the war on drugs. And yes, you can change it. You change the laws. That's my point.

    ReplyDelete
  155. >Third, it does change our values. Creating a massive national security-industrial complex based on paranoia, of which no toothpaste and security theatre is a part, is not healthy to national values.

    No, it doesn't change your core values as a society and your foundations anymore than me going to a movie theater and having to show them an ID. It is annoying sure. But it doesn't have consequences like something like this:

    http://theweek.com/article/index/216779/swedens-confusing-gender-neutral-preschool


    Something like this, is not a legal issue that can be fixed. It's a core hashkafic problem with too many liberals.

    ReplyDelete
  156. >Third, it does change our values. Creating a massive national security-industrial complex based on paranoia, of which no toothpaste and security theatre is a part, is not healthy to national values.

    The nation as a whole dealt with much heavier "paranoia" during ww2 and had to actively deal with much worse than anyone has to today.

    I guess you and I simply see "values" and which values as being important , differently. Hence, the liberal/conservative split

    ReplyDelete
  157. >It doesn't infuse and alter the course of a society and its general populace.

    Really? So, 10% of all black males in prison, whose children grow up without fathers, and all the other problems, etc. and the national security state and all that, etc. do not affect society or its values. But making sure that wedding halls can't be denied to gay couples does. Okay.

    >Actually, its exactly what is. Equality, compassion, all these buzz words we keep hearing, its all an emotion based system philosophy.

    Freedom, patriotism, political correctness, evildoers, jihadists, guys wearing colonial-tyle hats and all these buzzwords we keep hearing, its all an emotion based system philosophy.

    >For a liberal, there are no long term consequences because how on earth CAN THERE BE, when " we are dealing with equality, compassion and human rights"?

    For a conservative, there are no long term conseuqences, because how on earth can there be, when we are dealing with freedom, tyranny, and security?

    >In general, people deem democrats as the "nice" party.

    Insofar as this is true, this is due to a successful branding strategy. Republicans have their own branding. Repulicans have their own emotion-based branding.

    >Of course. Like the riots.

    Or, if you make old people work longer, that means less jobs for younger people joining the workforce. Or, if one segment of the populace, say the white and rich, tends to live longer, you make the minorities and poor work longer for less benefits.

    ReplyDelete
  158. >You mean the war on drugs. And yes, you can change it. You change the laws. That's my point.

    Which is great, except for all those people currently in jail, or dead, or who grew up fatherless. You can also theoretically change the laws allowing gay marriage.

    Realistically speaking, though, they're both pretty entrenched, aren't they?

    >I guess you and I simply see "values" and which values as being important , differently. Hence, the liberal/conservative split

    Bingo! It's not that one of us cares about consequences more or less than the other. It's that we care about different consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  159. >Really? So, 10% of all black males in prison, whose children grow up without fathers, and all the other problems, etc. and the national security state and all that, etc. do not affect society or its values. But making sure that wedding halls can't be denied to gay couples does. Okay.

    Fatherless children are bad, but I wouldn't blame this on conservatives. I think think the welfare state has done quite its number on created more fatherless homes.

    >Freedom, patriotism, political correctness, evildoers, jihadists, guys wearing colonial-tyle hats and all these buzzwords we keep hearing, its all an emotion based system philosophy.

    Freedom is a value. It can make you feel good or can make you feel bad. Liberty is at its core the value of this county. This isn't just some emotional "social justice policy" of the week endevour.

    patriotism - liberals are patriots.

    political correctness - a problem with liberals much more than it exists in conservatives.

    evildoers, jihadists - Yes, this is just emotional nonsense

    guys wearing colonial-tyle hats - I don't know what that is

    ReplyDelete
  160. >For a conservative, there are no long term conseuqences, because how on earth can there be, when we are dealing with freedom, tyranny, and security?

    Yes, all those bad consequences.

    >Insofar as this is true, this is due to a successful branding strategy. Republicans have their own branding. Repulicans have their own emotion-based branding.

    LOL, apparently not anywhere near the success liberals have. Liberals after all are the party of compassion, equality and fairness. Afterall, what cad would want to go against that?

    >Or, if one segment of the populace, say the white and rich, tends to live longer, you make the minorities and poor work longer for less benefits.

    ahh, nu, I was waiting for something about class warfare.

    ReplyDelete
  161. >Which is great, except for all those people currently in jail, or dead, or who grew up fatherless.

    fair enough, but it doesn't change the fact that it can be changed. To fix a wrong.


    >You can also theoretically change the laws allowing gay marriage.

    HA, that is the point "theoretically" but in general, I have never seen a right taken a away once its deemed a "right" So you can't compare this to the prison. They are apples and oranges.

    >Realistically speaking, though, they're both pretty entrenched, aren't they?

    You are comparing apples to cadillacs.

    >Bingo! It's not that one of us cares about consequences more or less than the other. It's that we care about different consequences.

    No, I still disagree. Because I will say it again, and btw, I don't say this pejoratively, but only as descriptive. Liberals main value goal is equality. That is the goal. It is esteemed goal and, importantly, a MORAL one. Hence, anything with such moral caliber cannot have a negative consequence to them, even though they do, to later generations. It would be as if someone were to say freeing Jews from the camps had bad consequences, therefore leaving them there is the better of two evils. For a conservative, equality is not the main goal. They don't believe in artificially leveling the playing field. They don't believe that men and women are the same. For a conservative, its basically an issue of "not rocking the boat" to fundamental things that have worked and will continue to work. HENCE, as society has been leaning more toward the left, conservatives feel comfortable saying "aha, see?"

    Here is a great article basically about the domino affect of consequences

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703899704576204580623018562.html#articleTabs%3Darticle


    NOW, saying all that, maybe, maybe I am wrong. Maybe liberals DO think of long term consequences as opposed to just short term ones. My problem is, I have just never seen it given societies push toward the left and a more nanny state.

    ReplyDelete
  162. >Fatherless children are bad, but I wouldn't blame this on conservatives. I think think the welfare state has done quite its number on created more fatherless homes.

    It doesn't matter. We're not going to solve the debate between liberalism and conservatism today, on this blog. My point is that both sides can point to examples of the other engaging in short-term thinking, and both sides can point to themselves using long-term thinking. No side is concerned with one over the other.

    >Liberty is at its core the value of this county. This isn't just some emotional "social justice policy" of the week endevour.

    Yes, comrade, I'm familiar with the dialectic as well. Are you really so incapable of seeing the rhetorical tricks you're employing here? Your emotional appeals to value are timeless and real values, but mine are temporary indulgences? Please. Social justice is not a passing fad.

    >political correctness - a problem with liberals much more than it exists in conservatives.

    I mean in the sense that it's an emotional phrase used by conservatives.

    >Liberals after all are the party of compassion, equality and fairness. Afterall, what cad would want to go against that?

    A. You're right. That explains the one-party state in this country.

    B. Conservatives after all are the party of liberty, freedom and security. Afterall, what wimp would want to go against that?

    >ahh, nu, I was waiting for something about class warfare.

    A. Clas warfare is itself an appeal to emotion that is not itself an argument.

    B. If old, white people live longer and tend to have more money than old black people, then making all old people work longer until they can get benefits imposes a greater cost on black people than white people. You can not care about this, but it's still a consequence.

    ReplyDelete
  163. >Are you really so incapable of seeing the rhetorical tricks you're employing here? Your emotional appeals to value are timeless and real values, but mine are temporary indulgences? Please. Social justice is not a passing fad.

    Oh, I know I am using rhetorics, but can't you see why? An example is, the latest discussion is whether or not birth control should be free because its now been filed under "women's rights." Can you see why conservatives use this rhetoric? It's because liberals make a farse out of themselves. Gender equality in sweden is also social justice you know, and not a passing fad to them. But.....I can't make a carictuture out of the Left when they are doing it to themselves in so many ways.

    >I mean in the sense that it's an emotional phrase used by conservatives.

    Well...you need SOME word to describe it. We are a species that communicates with words after all.

    >You're right. That explains the one-party state in this country.

    No, you misunderstand. There are two parties all right, but one is considered a cad next to the other. I JUST had this happen to me last night at a birthday when somone I know is a democrat question how I can't possibly care for the poor and only care for the rich. ME!!!!! The guy that earns less than Ezzie if thats even possible.

    >Conservatives after all are the party of liberty, freedom and security. Afterall, what wimp would want to go against that?

    So there you go, Conservatives are heartless cads, and liberals are wimps.

    >Clas warfare is itself an appeal to emotion that is not itself an argument.

    Well there is no way around it then. If liberals appeal to class warfare, the right is going to need some rudimentary phrase to describe what the left ACTUALLY does.

    >You can not care about this, but it's still a consequence.

    Question is, why MAY that be a consequence. Why are black people not succeeding as much as that white guy. Afterall, not every white guy is living it up rich and being carrying around like a king. Obviously, this is a question for a different post.

    ReplyDelete
  164. >Conservatives after all are the party of liberty, freedom and security. Afterall, what wimp would want to go against that?

    BTW, being biased myself, I don't think this a good counter example to my previous one for the following reason. My "cad" example and how people perceive conservatives was understated. My example has a sense of a group of people being bad and evil. Being a "wimp" is not in of itself bad or evil. Many liberals you will find will gladly admit saying patriotism and things like borders are not progressive enough, but it doesn't make them bad or evil people. But liberals actually think conservatives are bad, selfish and all their reasons are nefarious in nature.

    ReplyDelete
  165. >Oh, I know I am using rhetorics, but can't you see why?

    Sure, I agree, conservatives dislike liberal ideas and use language that demonstrates it, and liberals do the same, mutatis mutandis.

    >But.....I can't make a carictuture out of the Left when they are doing it to themselves in so many ways.

    And old ladies holding signs saying, keep the government away from my medicare are also pretty funny. There are idiots everywhere.

    >If liberals appeal to class warfare, the right is going to need some rudimentary phrase to describe what the left ACTUALLY does.

    A. Class warfare goes both ways. When Reagan complains about welfare queens in cadillacs, or when limbaugh complain about unions, or when Palin disses mainstream media or east coast liberals, that's not appeals to class warfare?

    B. There are different groups of society. Studying or being concerned with the different ways tey fare in society is not necessarily class warfare. CW is a perjorative term describing that study, and is not a neutral way of describing the phenomenon at all. You're not calling a spade a spade.

    ReplyDelete
  166. >My example has a sense of a group of people being bad and evil.

    Right, because if you're a leftist who is considered a traitor and a fascist, that can be a good thing. Your distinction does not hold water. Both sides feel aggrieved.

    ReplyDelete
  167. >Right, because if you're a leftist who is considered a traitor and a fascist,

    I have heard traitor...but fascist? That is something I have heard only against the right during the bush era

    >And old ladies holding signs saying, keep the government away from my medicare are also pretty funny. There are idiots everywhere.

    But an old lady holding a gun doesn't change anything. American's have always held guns. It doesn't fundamentally change anything the way... example again, something like what they are attempting in Sweden. Gender equality. How long is it going to take before it gets here? This woman in Sweden is not a wacko, its just the next logical step.


    >Class warfare goes both ways. When Reagan complains about welfare queens in cadillacs, or when limbaugh complain about unions, or when Palin disses mainstream media or east coast liberals, that's not appeals to class warfare?

    How IS that class warfare? By this logic anything ANYONE complains about will always be class warfare. Class warfare is something very specific in terms of how it views the rich and the poor.

    >You're not calling a spade a spade.

    I AM calling a spade a spade when the left purposely creates tension and creates an atmosphere of "class tension" where none exist. This whole "private jet" thing lately from the president??? Though not the ACTUAL point to the greater point of the budget he was talking about, was obviously stroking at class warfare.

    President Obama:

    “What Is It About Working Men And Women That They Find So Offensive?”

    http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/09/06/remarks-president-laborfest-milwaukee-wisconsin

    ReplyDelete
  168. Come on. Class warfare has been used by the left since Marx.

    ReplyDelete
  169. not that every liberal is a leftist either.

    ReplyDelete
  170. vox why are we fighting when all this could be settled on a friendly game of backgammon.





    ....in which case I would destroy you.

    ReplyDelete
  171. >I have heard traitor...but fascist? That is something I have heard only against the right during the bush era

    Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg.

    Basically, liberalism = progressivism = statism = fascism.

    >But an old lady holding a gun doesn't change anything. American's have always held guns.

    Guns?

    >By this logic anything ANYONE complains about will always be class warfare.

    Unless we're defining class warfare as poor people complaining about rich people, how is it not class warfare? Reagan is portraying poor people as spongers off productive Americans. Ayn Rand's whole struggle between the producers and the parasitic consumers is classic class warfare.

    >I AM calling a spade a spade when the left purposely creates tension and creates an atmosphere of "class tension" where none exist.

    A. If that happens, that is class warfare.

    B. However, someone (me) merely noting that legislation can have a disparate impact on rich and poor people is not class warfare, any more than noting that higher tax rates on rich people are higher tax rates than on poor people. Calling every such attempt to note these disparaties class warfare, is, ironically, class warfare.

    ReplyDelete
  172. >vox why are we fighting when all this could be settled on a friendly game of backgammon.

    The game of plutocrats? I think not.

    ReplyDelete
  173. HH - Of course. Like the riots.

    Just like the riots that occurred when retirement age was raised from 65 to 67.

    Vox Pop - Our drug sentencing is insane, but no one can do anything about it.

    Huh? Just change the damn laws. Decriminalize drug use, regulate it, etc instead of sending hundreds of thousands to "crime school".

    ReplyDelete
  174. >Just like the riots that occurred when retirement age was raised from 65 to 67.

    Was referring to countries in europe. It was tongue-in-cheek

    ReplyDelete
  175. >Huh? Just change the damn laws. Decriminalize drug use, regulate it, etc instead of sending hundreds of thousands to "crime school".

    Okay, so do it. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  176. Vox pop - By comparison, government spending in the UK accounts for 47.3% and 51.8% in Denmark.

    That's not a fair comparison because their numbers include [most of] healthcare and a few other things as well. Add our 12-13% spent on healthcare into the 40% and we're already at 52+%!

    ReplyDelete
  177. Vox pop - Okay, so do it. Good luck.

    In the end we will do it. It's just a question of how many lives will be ruined between now and then.

    Or maybe Mexico will completely disintegrate and we will have a "terrorist"-like rogue state on out most porous border.

    ReplyDelete
  178. >In the end we will do it. It's just a question of how many lives will be ruined between now and then.

    Memah nafshach? If it's a bad policy that you think will be repealed, then have faith in the all curing power of the people's wisdom, and trust that gay marriage will be repealed as well. If you don't think the people can get rid of stupid laws, then admit that conservatives are just as boneheaded as liberals when they get a bee in their bonnet.

    ReplyDelete
  179. >That's not a fair comparison because their numbers include [most of] healthcare and a few other things as well. Add our 12-13% spent on healthcare into the 40% and we're already at 52+%!

    What?

    ReplyDelete
  180. Vox pop - and trust that gay marriage will be repealed as well.

    I want ALL marriage to be repealed. Government has no place in marriage whatsoever. If there need to be a few contractual things in place for married people (any genders and any number, not my business what other people do in their personal lives), they can draw up contracts (perhaps even standard ones) as necessary.

    ReplyDelete