Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Evidence We're in a Third--or Fourth--Turning - Page 423







Post#10551 at 01-16-2006 11:08 AM by Virgil K. Saari [at '49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains joined Jun 2001 #posts 7,835]
---
01-16-2006, 11:08 AM #10551
Join Date
Jun 2001
Location
'49er, north of the Mesabi Mountains
Posts
7,835

We hold these truths

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. John Gray
The idea that we must choose between liberalism and relativism reflects
the poverty of the contemporary political imagination and a disabling
loss of historical memory. Kwame Anthony Appiah's
Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers is a welcome
attempt to resurrect an older tradition of moral and political
reflection and to show its relevance to our current condition. Appiah,
a professor of philosophy at Princeton, seeks to
revive cosmopolitanism, a view of humans as citizens of the world that
was advanced by the Cynics in Greece in the fourth century BCE and
elaborated by Stoic philosophers in Roman times. In Appiah's view
cosmopolitanism has two intertwined strands: the idea that we have
obligations to other human beings above and beyond those to whom we are
related by ties of family, kinship or formal citizenship; and an
attitude that values others not just as specimens of universal humanity
but as having lives whose meaning is bound up with particular practices
and beliefs that are often different from our own. Appiah sees this
cosmopolitan perspective re-emerging in the Enlightenment and expressed in the
1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and Kant's idea
of a League of Nations.


As a position in ethical theory, cosmopolitanism is distinct from
relativism and universalism. It affirms the possibility of mutual understanding between
adherents to different moralities but without
holding out the promise of any ultimate consensus. There are human
universals that make species-wide communication possible--and yet these
commonalities do not ground anything like a single universally
valid morality or way of life. Clearly this is a position that carries
within it a certain tension. The idea that we have universal moral
obligations is not always easily reconciled with the practices and
beliefs that give particular human lives their meaning.
Appiah recognizes this tension, and writes: "There will be
times when these two ideals--universal concern and respect for
legitimate difference--clash. There's a sense in which
cosmopolitanism is the name not of the solution but of the challenge."
Quote Originally Posted by JG
... Again, Michel de
Montaigne is surely one of the great early modern exponents of
cosmopolitan ethics. He affirmed a common humanity transcending
differences of custom and tradition--and at the same time denied that
any one way of life was best for everyone. These modern cosmopolitans
were too aware of the intractability of human affairs to imagine that
great human evils such as anarchy, war and tyranny could be overcome by
seeking to make a single form of government universal. They believed--to
my mind rightly--that pursuing such a goal would only add to the
sum of human evils. Nothing could be more alien to these cosmopolitan
thinkers than the missionary certainties of the kind of liberalism that
seeks to establish one type of regime throughout the world.

There is a strange presumption in recent thought about human values.
When we think about basic issues in ethics and politics, it is taken as
a given that we face a choice between liberalism and relativism.
Believing that human values are cultural constructions that vary widely
across time and space, relativists urge us to be conscious of
difference. If they have a political message it is one of tolerance:
"Don't try to impose your way of life on others; be sensitive to the
claims of cultural minorities in your own society." Liberals, on the
other hand, insist that there are requirements of justice or rights that
apply to all human beings regardless of the communities or cultures to
which they belong. The liberal political message is one of universalism:
"The human species is--or may one day become--a single moral community
in which the same values are honored everywhere." Either we commit ourselves to liberal universalism or we must embrace moral relativism.







Post#10552 at 01-16-2006 12:02 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-16-2006, 12:02 PM #10552
Guest

Lamb, all you do is write about how bad liberals are.
Balance. All I read in these threads is how wonderful liberals are, and how America eagerly awaits the blessed return (and rapid expulsion of the evil, rotten, racist, bigoted, homophobic neanderthal Republicans) of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:







Post#10553 at 01-16-2006 12:02 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-16-2006, 12:02 PM #10553
Guest

Lamb, all you do is write about how bad liberals are.
Balance. All I read in these threads is how wonderful liberals are, and how America eagerly awaits the blessed return (and rapid expulsion of the evil, rotten, racist, bigoted, homophobic neanderthal Republicans) of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:







Post#10554 at 01-16-2006 12:06 PM by Brian Beecher [at Downers Grove, IL joined Sep 2001 #posts 2,937]
---
01-16-2006, 12:06 PM #10554
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Downers Grove, IL
Posts
2,937

To me it is ironic that such things as smoking bans have taken off more in so-called "liberal" areas than in conservative ones. I although liberals were champions of human rights, and yet they have come down quite hard on this issue. Today a smoking ban takes effect in Chicago, although bars that don't serve food have until July 2008 before they have to comply. There is one suburb here that is contemplating a ban on the sale of cigarettes. I have never been in favor of smoking, but to me it is an example of the reach of big-brotherism. This scenario seems to be to this 3T what alcohol prohibition was to the last.







Post#10555 at 01-16-2006 12:06 PM by Brian Beecher [at Downers Grove, IL joined Sep 2001 #posts 2,937]
---
01-16-2006, 12:06 PM #10555
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Downers Grove, IL
Posts
2,937

To me it is ironic that such things as smoking bans have taken off more in so-called "liberal" areas than in conservative ones. I although liberals were champions of human rights, and yet they have come down quite hard on this issue. Today a smoking ban takes effect in Chicago, although bars that don't serve food have until July 2008 before they have to comply. There is one suburb here that is contemplating a ban on the sale of cigarettes. I have never been in favor of smoking, but to me it is an example of the reach of big-brotherism. This scenario seems to be to this 3T what alcohol prohibition was to the last.







Post#10556 at 01-16-2006 12:41 PM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
01-16-2006, 12:41 PM #10556
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Lamb, all you do is write about how bad liberals are.
Balance. All I read in these threads is how wonderful liberals are, and how America eagerly awaits the blessed return (and rapid expulsion of the evil, rotten, racist, bigoted, homophobic neanderthal Republicans) of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:
Eh, I sort of stick my nose up at both sides. I have been to Democratic meetings where the very stereotyped liberals you speak of get up and spew their garbage. But I am not mad at them for "hating America" like you seem to be. I just think they are dumb - and "dumbness" comes in all ideologies.

Likewise I had the chance at the airport this week to peruse Kate O'Beirne's latest book "Women Who Make the World Worse" and roll my eyes and sigh in depression. Why does she care about Jane Fonda and Sex and the City and Hillary Clinton? Why, oh why, does she care. Why does she need to poison the intellectual marketplace with her own psychobabble that reexamines the feminist movement forty years after the fact?

But Kate, "our Kate" as Michael Novak called her this week in his National Review column, is just hopelessly old and boring. Her cavetching has been done, and people have reacted to right wing reactionaries and moved on.

In Novak's column he falsely laments the "death" of the Democratic Party even while his former majority leader is in trouble of getting reelecting in his home district, and the Abramoff scandal is tainting only Republicans, the president's approval number has been hovering around 40 for nearly a year, the Congress hasn't passed one major piece of legislation in that time, and the vice president's former cheif of staff has been indicted.

That's not to say I am thrilled with the Senate Dems. But I'll take Dick Durbin's false outrage over the propganda-lite crap coming out of John Cornyn's mouth. Just look at this crap -

CORNYN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Judge Alito, welcome to the committee, and to your family as well.

I'm a little surprised to learn that you have a triply high burden for confirmation here. I guess we'll get a chance to explore that, and the fairness of that, or whether all nominees ought to have the same burden before the committee.

What I want to also make sure of is that we don't hold you to a double standard, that we don't expect of you answers to questions that Justice Ginsburg and others declined to answer in the interest of the independence of the judiciary and in the interests of observing the canons of judicial ethics.

Nevertheless, we have already heard a great deal about you and your credentials for the Supreme Court. As has been noted, you serve with distinction on the court of appeals. You served as United States attorney. And, indeed, you served your entire adult life in public service.

We've also heard a bit today, and you'll hear more as these proceedings unfold, about the testimonials from people who have worked with you, people who know you best. Whether liberal, moderate or conservative the judges on your court have praised you as a thoughtful and open-minded jurist, and we'll hear more from them later in the week.

CORNYN: The same can be said of the law clerks who've worked with you over the last 15 years. As you know, law clerks are those who advise appellate judges on the cases they hear. And you've had law clerks from all political persuasions, from members of the Green Party to Democrat clerks, even a clerk that went on to serve as counsel of record for John Kerry's campaign for president.

And every single one of them says that you will make a terrific Supreme Court justice, that you apply the law in a fair and even- handed manner, and that you bring no agenda to your job as a judge.

If fairness, integrity, qualifications and an open mind were all that mattered in this process, you would be confirmed unanimously, but we know that's not how the process works or at least how it works today.

We know that 22 senators, including five on this committee, voted against Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation just a few short months ago. And my suspicion is that you do not come here with a total level playing field.

I'm reluctantly inclined to the view that you and other nominees of this president to the Supreme Court start with no more than 13 votes on this committee and only 78 votes in the full Senate, with a solid, immovable, unpersuadable block of at least 22 votes against you no matter what you say and no matter what you do.

CORNYN: Now, that's unfortunate for you, but it is even worse for the Senate and its reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body.

The question is: Why, with so many people from both sides of the aisle and across the ideological spectrum supporting your nomination are liberal special interest groups and their allies devoting so much time and so much money to defeat your nomination?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that there are a number of groups who really don't want a fair-minded judge who has an openness to both sides of the argument. Rather, they want judges who will impose their liberal agenda on the American people; views so liberal that they cannot prevail at the ballot box.

So they want judges who will find traditional marriage limited to one man and one woman unconstitutional. They want judges who will ban any religious expression from the public square. They even want judges who will prohibit school children from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

As I say, none of these are mainstream positions embraced by the American people, so the strategy is to try to impose their agenda through unelected judges.

Judge Alito, the reason why these groups are trying to defeat your nomination because you won't support their liberal agenda is precisely why I support it.

I want judges on the Supreme Court who will not use that position to impose their personal policy preferences or political agenda on the American people.


CORNYN: I want judges on the Supreme Court who will respect the words and the meaning of the Constitution, the laws enacted by Congress and the laws enacted by state legislatures.

Now, this doesn't mean, as you know, that a judge will always reach what might be called a conservative result. It means that judges will reach whatever result is directed by the Constitution, by the law, and by the facts of the case.

Sometimes, it might be called conservative; sometimes it might be called liberal. But the point is that the meaning of the Constitution and other laws should not change unless we the people change them.

A Supreme Court nomination and appointment is not a roving commission to rewrite our laws however you and your colleagues see fit. I'll give you one example where I believe our Supreme Court has been rewriting the law for a long time. It's a narrative near and dear to me and others in this country. And I'm speaking of the ability of people of faith to freely express their beliefs in the public square.

There is no doubt where the founding fathers stood on this issue. They believed that people of faith should be permitted to express themselves in public. They believed that this country was big enough and free enough to allow expression of on enormous variety of views and beliefs.

They believed that freedom of expression included religious views and beliefs, so long as the government did not force people to worship in a particular matter and remain neutral on what those views and beliefs were.

CORNYN: But this country has gotten seriously off track under the Supreme Court when it went so far as to limit the right of even private citizens to freely express their religious views in public.

As I mentioned to you when we met early on in these proceedings, I had an opportunity, as some have had on this committee, to argue a case before the United States Supreme Court.

When I was attorney general, I argued a case -- helped argue a case called -- Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The school district in that case had the temerity to permit student-led, student-initiated prayer before football games. And, of course, someone sued. I repeat, this was student-led, student-initiated, voluntary prayer. The Supreme Court held by a vote of 6-3 that this was unconstitutional.

The decision led the late Chief Justice Rehnquist to remark that the court now, quote, "exhibits hostility to all things religious in public life." And it's hard to disagree with him.

Depictions or expressions of sex, violence, crime are all permitted virtually without limit; but religion, it seems, never.

Now, this is where you come in, Judge.

I appreciate your record on the 3rd Circuit respecting the importance of neutrality of government when it comes to religious expression on a voluntary basis by individual citizens.

It's my sincere hope that when confirmed that you will persuade your colleagues to reconsider their attitude toward religious expression and grant it the same freedom currently reserved for almost all other non-religious speech.

No wonder many in America seem to believe that the court has become one more inclined to protect pornography than to protect religious expression.

Most people in America don't believe that "God" is a dirty word, but the sad fact is that some Americans are left to wonder whether the Supreme Court might have greater regard for it if it was.


CORNYN: Again, welcome to the committee, and thank you for your continued willingness to serve our great nation.

SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Cornyn.

Yeah, it's pretty clear (wink wink, nudge nudge) that Cornyn and Alito have the same agenda - which is basically overturning any rulings that social conservatives disagree with. But I am surprised that they are too cowardly to come forward and say it outright. Why? Because conservatives know that once the abortion debate enters the legislative branch, they will lose. They will lose the public debate.

That's why they can't just come out and say "Yes, I will overturn Roe v. Wade" or are forced to tip toe through proceedings making sure that the nominee gives enough signals that he meets the litmus test of their rabid, immature base, but doesn't give the people any genuine statement of his true thoughts on the subject.

You guys are cowards. You have to hide everything in rhetoric and back room deals and smokescreens. Yeah, "we are going into Iraq because of the WMD" - you had to make up a logical reason, because even you knew that nobody in thier right mind would buy your true agenda. And the same thing goes for your social agenda. You are too cowardly to actually say what it is - even when you are the majority in government, because you know that you'd lose.

Like I said I am not your typical Dem. I am not too worried about the overturn of Roe. Because I know the day that happens, my state and all the progressive states in the union will affirm that right for its citizens. And it will be signed into law by Republican executives from California to New Hampshire. Because they want to stay in office, and that's how they'll stay in office.

But I am still awed by conservative cowardice. Imagine an ideology so afraid of itself it's afraid to say, even in the position of electoral victory, what it really stands for for all to see.
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#10557 at 01-16-2006 12:41 PM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
01-16-2006, 12:41 PM #10557
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Lamb, all you do is write about how bad liberals are.
Balance. All I read in these threads is how wonderful liberals are, and how America eagerly awaits the blessed return (and rapid expulsion of the evil, rotten, racist, bigoted, homophobic neanderthal Republicans) of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:
Eh, I sort of stick my nose up at both sides. I have been to Democratic meetings where the very stereotyped liberals you speak of get up and spew their garbage. But I am not mad at them for "hating America" like you seem to be. I just think they are dumb - and "dumbness" comes in all ideologies.

Likewise I had the chance at the airport this week to peruse Kate O'Beirne's latest book "Women Who Make the World Worse" and roll my eyes and sigh in depression. Why does she care about Jane Fonda and Sex and the City and Hillary Clinton? Why, oh why, does she care. Why does she need to poison the intellectual marketplace with her own psychobabble that reexamines the feminist movement forty years after the fact?

But Kate, "our Kate" as Michael Novak called her this week in his National Review column, is just hopelessly old and boring. Her cavetching has been done, and people have reacted to right wing reactionaries and moved on.

In Novak's column he falsely laments the "death" of the Democratic Party even while his former majority leader is in trouble of getting reelecting in his home district, and the Abramoff scandal is tainting only Republicans, the president's approval number has been hovering around 40 for nearly a year, the Congress hasn't passed one major piece of legislation in that time, and the vice president's former cheif of staff has been indicted.

That's not to say I am thrilled with the Senate Dems. But I'll take Dick Durbin's false outrage over the propganda-lite crap coming out of John Cornyn's mouth. Just look at this crap -

CORNYN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Judge Alito, welcome to the committee, and to your family as well.

I'm a little surprised to learn that you have a triply high burden for confirmation here. I guess we'll get a chance to explore that, and the fairness of that, or whether all nominees ought to have the same burden before the committee.

What I want to also make sure of is that we don't hold you to a double standard, that we don't expect of you answers to questions that Justice Ginsburg and others declined to answer in the interest of the independence of the judiciary and in the interests of observing the canons of judicial ethics.

Nevertheless, we have already heard a great deal about you and your credentials for the Supreme Court. As has been noted, you serve with distinction on the court of appeals. You served as United States attorney. And, indeed, you served your entire adult life in public service.

We've also heard a bit today, and you'll hear more as these proceedings unfold, about the testimonials from people who have worked with you, people who know you best. Whether liberal, moderate or conservative the judges on your court have praised you as a thoughtful and open-minded jurist, and we'll hear more from them later in the week.

CORNYN: The same can be said of the law clerks who've worked with you over the last 15 years. As you know, law clerks are those who advise appellate judges on the cases they hear. And you've had law clerks from all political persuasions, from members of the Green Party to Democrat clerks, even a clerk that went on to serve as counsel of record for John Kerry's campaign for president.

And every single one of them says that you will make a terrific Supreme Court justice, that you apply the law in a fair and even- handed manner, and that you bring no agenda to your job as a judge.

If fairness, integrity, qualifications and an open mind were all that mattered in this process, you would be confirmed unanimously, but we know that's not how the process works or at least how it works today.

We know that 22 senators, including five on this committee, voted against Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation just a few short months ago. And my suspicion is that you do not come here with a total level playing field.

I'm reluctantly inclined to the view that you and other nominees of this president to the Supreme Court start with no more than 13 votes on this committee and only 78 votes in the full Senate, with a solid, immovable, unpersuadable block of at least 22 votes against you no matter what you say and no matter what you do.

CORNYN: Now, that's unfortunate for you, but it is even worse for the Senate and its reputation as the world's greatest deliberative body.

The question is: Why, with so many people from both sides of the aisle and across the ideological spectrum supporting your nomination are liberal special interest groups and their allies devoting so much time and so much money to defeat your nomination?

The answer, I'm afraid, is that there are a number of groups who really don't want a fair-minded judge who has an openness to both sides of the argument. Rather, they want judges who will impose their liberal agenda on the American people; views so liberal that they cannot prevail at the ballot box.

So they want judges who will find traditional marriage limited to one man and one woman unconstitutional. They want judges who will ban any religious expression from the public square. They even want judges who will prohibit school children from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.

As I say, none of these are mainstream positions embraced by the American people, so the strategy is to try to impose their agenda through unelected judges.

Judge Alito, the reason why these groups are trying to defeat your nomination because you won't support their liberal agenda is precisely why I support it.

I want judges on the Supreme Court who will not use that position to impose their personal policy preferences or political agenda on the American people.


CORNYN: I want judges on the Supreme Court who will respect the words and the meaning of the Constitution, the laws enacted by Congress and the laws enacted by state legislatures.

Now, this doesn't mean, as you know, that a judge will always reach what might be called a conservative result. It means that judges will reach whatever result is directed by the Constitution, by the law, and by the facts of the case.

Sometimes, it might be called conservative; sometimes it might be called liberal. But the point is that the meaning of the Constitution and other laws should not change unless we the people change them.

A Supreme Court nomination and appointment is not a roving commission to rewrite our laws however you and your colleagues see fit. I'll give you one example where I believe our Supreme Court has been rewriting the law for a long time. It's a narrative near and dear to me and others in this country. And I'm speaking of the ability of people of faith to freely express their beliefs in the public square.

There is no doubt where the founding fathers stood on this issue. They believed that people of faith should be permitted to express themselves in public. They believed that this country was big enough and free enough to allow expression of on enormous variety of views and beliefs.

They believed that freedom of expression included religious views and beliefs, so long as the government did not force people to worship in a particular matter and remain neutral on what those views and beliefs were.

CORNYN: But this country has gotten seriously off track under the Supreme Court when it went so far as to limit the right of even private citizens to freely express their religious views in public.

As I mentioned to you when we met early on in these proceedings, I had an opportunity, as some have had on this committee, to argue a case before the United States Supreme Court.

When I was attorney general, I argued a case -- helped argue a case called -- Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The school district in that case had the temerity to permit student-led, student-initiated prayer before football games. And, of course, someone sued. I repeat, this was student-led, student-initiated, voluntary prayer. The Supreme Court held by a vote of 6-3 that this was unconstitutional.

The decision led the late Chief Justice Rehnquist to remark that the court now, quote, "exhibits hostility to all things religious in public life." And it's hard to disagree with him.

Depictions or expressions of sex, violence, crime are all permitted virtually without limit; but religion, it seems, never.

Now, this is where you come in, Judge.

I appreciate your record on the 3rd Circuit respecting the importance of neutrality of government when it comes to religious expression on a voluntary basis by individual citizens.

It's my sincere hope that when confirmed that you will persuade your colleagues to reconsider their attitude toward religious expression and grant it the same freedom currently reserved for almost all other non-religious speech.

No wonder many in America seem to believe that the court has become one more inclined to protect pornography than to protect religious expression.

Most people in America don't believe that "God" is a dirty word, but the sad fact is that some Americans are left to wonder whether the Supreme Court might have greater regard for it if it was.


CORNYN: Again, welcome to the committee, and thank you for your continued willingness to serve our great nation.

SPECTER: Thank you, Senator Cornyn.

Yeah, it's pretty clear (wink wink, nudge nudge) that Cornyn and Alito have the same agenda - which is basically overturning any rulings that social conservatives disagree with. But I am surprised that they are too cowardly to come forward and say it outright. Why? Because conservatives know that once the abortion debate enters the legislative branch, they will lose. They will lose the public debate.

That's why they can't just come out and say "Yes, I will overturn Roe v. Wade" or are forced to tip toe through proceedings making sure that the nominee gives enough signals that he meets the litmus test of their rabid, immature base, but doesn't give the people any genuine statement of his true thoughts on the subject.

You guys are cowards. You have to hide everything in rhetoric and back room deals and smokescreens. Yeah, "we are going into Iraq because of the WMD" - you had to make up a logical reason, because even you knew that nobody in thier right mind would buy your true agenda. And the same thing goes for your social agenda. You are too cowardly to actually say what it is - even when you are the majority in government, because you know that you'd lose.

Like I said I am not your typical Dem. I am not too worried about the overturn of Roe. Because I know the day that happens, my state and all the progressive states in the union will affirm that right for its citizens. And it will be signed into law by Republican executives from California to New Hampshire. Because they want to stay in office, and that's how they'll stay in office.

But I am still awed by conservative cowardice. Imagine an ideology so afraid of itself it's afraid to say, even in the position of electoral victory, what it really stands for for all to see.
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#10558 at 01-16-2006 01:38 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-16-2006, 01:38 PM #10558
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
To me it is ironic that such things as smoking bans have taken off more in so-called "liberal" areas than in conservative ones. I although liberals were champions of human rights, and yet they have come down quite hard on this issue. Today a smoking ban takes effect in Chicago, although bars that don't serve food have until July 2008 before they have to comply. There is one suburb here that is contemplating a ban on the sale of cigarettes. I have never been in favor of smoking, but to me it is an example of the reach of big-brotherism. This scenario seems to be to this 3T what alcohol prohibition was to the last.
Welcome to the PoMo version of the left. Their focus on the PC way is both a distraction (even if you buy it, which I don't, there are much more important issues) and an afront to the open minded. I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#10559 at 01-16-2006 01:38 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-16-2006, 01:38 PM #10559
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
To me it is ironic that such things as smoking bans have taken off more in so-called "liberal" areas than in conservative ones. I although liberals were champions of human rights, and yet they have come down quite hard on this issue. Today a smoking ban takes effect in Chicago, although bars that don't serve food have until July 2008 before they have to comply. There is one suburb here that is contemplating a ban on the sale of cigarettes. I have never been in favor of smoking, but to me it is an example of the reach of big-brotherism. This scenario seems to be to this 3T what alcohol prohibition was to the last.
Welcome to the PoMo version of the left. Their focus on the PC way is both a distraction (even if you buy it, which I don't, there are much more important issues) and an afront to the open minded. I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#10560 at 01-16-2006 01:56 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-16-2006, 01:56 PM #10560
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Lamb, all you do is write about how bad liberals are.
Balance. All I read in these threads is how wonderful liberals are, and how America eagerly awaits the blessed return (and rapid expulsion of the evil, rotten, racist, bigoted, homophobic neanderthal Republicans) of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:
Eh, I sort of stick my nose up at both sides. I have been to Democratic meetings where the very stereotyped liberals you speak of get up and spew their garbage. [snip Republicans are evil v. Democrats are so so stuff]
In 1993, Clinton nominated Ginsberg for SCOTUS. Ginsberg had all the feminist/ACLU baggage we conservative find extremist and offensive. Ginsberg, dispite being more evasive on legal matters than Alito, was confirmed by a Senate vote of 97-3, based upon legal qualifications for the position. Ginsberg was not attacked for what her personal beliefs but rather how she judged cases before her.

Alito, despite having fifteen years and over 4000 cases under his belt, was nevertheless attacked 90% of the time on his personal beliefs, membership in organizations and judical ethics. Furthermore, Alito will barely garner 2-5 Democrat votes for confirmation.

Now, I know you'll see nothing strange about these two nominations other than, well, duh, that's because Ginsberg is wonderful and Alito is an evil crook, balh blah blah. So, what's the point of debating it, huh? I'd rather hear more about how America eagerly awaits the blessed return (and rapid expulsion of the evil, rotten, racist, bigoted, homophobic neanderthal Republicans) of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:







Post#10561 at 01-16-2006 01:56 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-16-2006, 01:56 PM #10561
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
Lamb, all you do is write about how bad liberals are.
Balance. All I read in these threads is how wonderful liberals are, and how America eagerly awaits the blessed return (and rapid expulsion of the evil, rotten, racist, bigoted, homophobic neanderthal Republicans) of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:
Eh, I sort of stick my nose up at both sides. I have been to Democratic meetings where the very stereotyped liberals you speak of get up and spew their garbage. [snip Republicans are evil v. Democrats are so so stuff]
In 1993, Clinton nominated Ginsberg for SCOTUS. Ginsberg had all the feminist/ACLU baggage we conservative find extremist and offensive. Ginsberg, dispite being more evasive on legal matters than Alito, was confirmed by a Senate vote of 97-3, based upon legal qualifications for the position. Ginsberg was not attacked for what her personal beliefs but rather how she judged cases before her.

Alito, despite having fifteen years and over 4000 cases under his belt, was nevertheless attacked 90% of the time on his personal beliefs, membership in organizations and judical ethics. Furthermore, Alito will barely garner 2-5 Democrat votes for confirmation.

Now, I know you'll see nothing strange about these two nominations other than, well, duh, that's because Ginsberg is wonderful and Alito is an evil crook, balh blah blah. So, what's the point of debating it, huh? I'd rather hear more about how America eagerly awaits the blessed return (and rapid expulsion of the evil, rotten, racist, bigoted, homophobic neanderthal Republicans) of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:







Post#10562 at 01-16-2006 02:03 PM by scott 63 [at Birmingham joined Sep 2001 #posts 697]
---
01-16-2006, 02:03 PM #10562
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Birmingham
Posts
697

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
To me it is ironic that such things as smoking bans have taken off more in so-called "liberal" areas than in conservative ones. I although liberals were champions of human rights, and yet they have come down quite hard on this issue. Today a smoking ban takes effect in Chicago, although bars that don't serve food have until July 2008 before they have to comply. There is one suburb here that is contemplating a ban on the sale of cigarettes. I have never been in favor of smoking, but to me it is an example of the reach of big-brotherism. This scenario seems to be to this 3T what alcohol prohibition was to the last.
Welcome to the PoMo version of the left. Their focus on the PC way is both a distraction (even if you buy it, which I don't, there are much more important issues) and an afront to the open minded. I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:
Perhaps Left/Right is not the only, or even most important political distinction. Look at the Trotskyist roots of the Neo-Cons. Anyone who converts from one idealogy to another demonstrates the principle. The worldview may change utterly but the "style" does not. Saul/Paul was just as gungho for Christianity as he was formerly for Judaism (if you accept everything written by/about him). One of these enduring distinctions would certainly be tolerance/authoritarianism. Those who rise to national prominence are bound to be the control types - they have more incentive to attain the positions of power which they can wield in service of their particular revolution.
Leave No Child Behind - Teach Evolution.







Post#10563 at 01-16-2006 02:03 PM by scott 63 [at Birmingham joined Sep 2001 #posts 697]
---
01-16-2006, 02:03 PM #10563
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Birmingham
Posts
697

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
To me it is ironic that such things as smoking bans have taken off more in so-called "liberal" areas than in conservative ones. I although liberals were champions of human rights, and yet they have come down quite hard on this issue. Today a smoking ban takes effect in Chicago, although bars that don't serve food have until July 2008 before they have to comply. There is one suburb here that is contemplating a ban on the sale of cigarettes. I have never been in favor of smoking, but to me it is an example of the reach of big-brotherism. This scenario seems to be to this 3T what alcohol prohibition was to the last.
Welcome to the PoMo version of the left. Their focus on the PC way is both a distraction (even if you buy it, which I don't, there are much more important issues) and an afront to the open minded. I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:
Perhaps Left/Right is not the only, or even most important political distinction. Look at the Trotskyist roots of the Neo-Cons. Anyone who converts from one idealogy to another demonstrates the principle. The worldview may change utterly but the "style" does not. Saul/Paul was just as gungho for Christianity as he was formerly for Judaism (if you accept everything written by/about him). One of these enduring distinctions would certainly be tolerance/authoritarianism. Those who rise to national prominence are bound to be the control types - they have more incentive to attain the positions of power which they can wield in service of their particular revolution.
Leave No Child Behind - Teach Evolution.







Post#10564 at 01-16-2006 02:10 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-16-2006, 02:10 PM #10564
Guest

I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:
Are you in for a rude awakening? I don't recall Strauss and Howe categorizing the 4T as anything but the triumph of a new Authoritarian crowd. You sound a lot like the tree-hugging Meese, who believes we're on the cusp of a new enlightened Aquarian Age!







Post#10565 at 01-16-2006 02:10 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-16-2006, 02:10 PM #10565
Guest

I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:
Are you in for a rude awakening? I don't recall Strauss and Howe categorizing the 4T as anything but the triumph of a new Authoritarian crowd. You sound a lot like the tree-hugging Meese, who believes we're on the cusp of a new enlightened Aquarian Age!







Post#10566 at 01-16-2006 02:20 PM by scott 63 [at Birmingham joined Sep 2001 #posts 697]
---
01-16-2006, 02:20 PM #10566
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Birmingham
Posts
697

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:
Are you in for a rude awakening? I don't recall Strauss and Howe categorizing the 4T as anything but the triumph of a new Authoritarian crowd. You sound a lot like the tree-hugging Meese, who believes we're on the cusp of a new enlightened Aquarian Age!
Yea. You don't exactly see Colin Powell shouting it out with Hillary over whether the Left will be "Nice" and "Fair" or will impose the Global Village on all those slobering Red Staters. Even her triangulation involves the Flag Burning Amendment!
Leave No Child Behind - Teach Evolution.







Post#10567 at 01-16-2006 02:20 PM by scott 63 [at Birmingham joined Sep 2001 #posts 697]
---
01-16-2006, 02:20 PM #10567
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Birmingham
Posts
697

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:
Are you in for a rude awakening? I don't recall Strauss and Howe categorizing the 4T as anything but the triumph of a new Authoritarian crowd. You sound a lot like the tree-hugging Meese, who believes we're on the cusp of a new enlightened Aquarian Age!
Yea. You don't exactly see Colin Powell shouting it out with Hillary over whether the Left will be "Nice" and "Fair" or will impose the Global Village on all those slobering Red Staters. Even her triangulation involves the Flag Burning Amendment!
Leave No Child Behind - Teach Evolution.







Post#10568 at 01-16-2006 02:24 PM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
01-16-2006, 02:24 PM #10568
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
In 1993, Clinton nominated Ginsberg for SCOTUS. Ginsberg had all the feminist/ACLU baggage we conservative find extremist and offensive. Ginsberg, dispite being more evasive on legal matters than Alito, was confirmed by a Senate vote of 97-3, based upon legal qualifications for the position. Ginsberg was not attacked for what her personal beliefs but rather how she judged cases before her.

Alito, despite having fifteen years and over 4000 cases under his belt, was nevertheless attacked 90% of the time on his personal beliefs, membership in organizations and judical ethics. Furthermore, Alito will barely garner 2-5 Democrat votes for confirmation.

Now, I know you'll see nothing strange about these two nominations other than, well, duh, that's because Ginsberg is wonderful and Alito is an evil crook, balh blah blah. So, what's the point of debating it, huh? I'd rather hear more about how America eagerly awaits the blessed return (and rapid expulsion of the evil, rotten, racist, bigoted, homophobic neanderthal Republicans) of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:

Oh Christ, Cornyn sucks. I mean every time that guy got on the mic I had to hear about how "honrble" and "daycent" Judge Alito was. And then you turn on FAUX news and the headline is "Vicious Dems Drive Alito's Wife to Tears." Yep, that's why I am on the margins of participatrory democracy, Strauss and Howe. That' s why I am not involved and the prospect of future involvement doesn't look good. Because this "democracy" is more often than not, a joke.

And sure Alito could be confirmed based on his record - but it's your stinky president that's fouling up the process. Citizens, represented by Democrats and a cadre of Republicans including Collins, Snow, and Chafee who have all said they may not vote for Alito, are worried about the growing power of the executive branch and they don't want a guy who believes in the power of the "unitary executive" to sit on the bench and nod his head to whatever the monarch dictates.

That's the issue. Will the Supreme Court become as much of a joke as the executive branch has become? Probably, and with your support. :lol:

But you're a funny guy, Lambeau. You're into jokes. :lol:
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#10569 at 01-16-2006 02:24 PM by Uzi [at joined Oct 2005 #posts 2,254]
---
01-16-2006, 02:24 PM #10569
Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
2,254

Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
In 1993, Clinton nominated Ginsberg for SCOTUS. Ginsberg had all the feminist/ACLU baggage we conservative find extremist and offensive. Ginsberg, dispite being more evasive on legal matters than Alito, was confirmed by a Senate vote of 97-3, based upon legal qualifications for the position. Ginsberg was not attacked for what her personal beliefs but rather how she judged cases before her.

Alito, despite having fifteen years and over 4000 cases under his belt, was nevertheless attacked 90% of the time on his personal beliefs, membership in organizations and judical ethics. Furthermore, Alito will barely garner 2-5 Democrat votes for confirmation.

Now, I know you'll see nothing strange about these two nominations other than, well, duh, that's because Ginsberg is wonderful and Alito is an evil crook, balh blah blah. So, what's the point of debating it, huh? I'd rather hear more about how America eagerly awaits the blessed return (and rapid expulsion of the evil, rotten, racist, bigoted, homophobic neanderthal Republicans) of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:

Oh Christ, Cornyn sucks. I mean every time that guy got on the mic I had to hear about how "honrble" and "daycent" Judge Alito was. And then you turn on FAUX news and the headline is "Vicious Dems Drive Alito's Wife to Tears." Yep, that's why I am on the margins of participatrory democracy, Strauss and Howe. That' s why I am not involved and the prospect of future involvement doesn't look good. Because this "democracy" is more often than not, a joke.

And sure Alito could be confirmed based on his record - but it's your stinky president that's fouling up the process. Citizens, represented by Democrats and a cadre of Republicans including Collins, Snow, and Chafee who have all said they may not vote for Alito, are worried about the growing power of the executive branch and they don't want a guy who believes in the power of the "unitary executive" to sit on the bench and nod his head to whatever the monarch dictates.

That's the issue. Will the Supreme Court become as much of a joke as the executive branch has become? Probably, and with your support. :lol:

But you're a funny guy, Lambeau. You're into jokes. :lol:
"It's easy to grin, when your ship's come in, and you've got the stock market beat. But the man who's worth while is the man who can smile when his pants are too tight in the seat." Judge Smails, Caddyshack.

"Every man with a bellyful of the classics is an enemy of the human race." Henry Miller.

1979 - Generation Perdu







Post#10570 at 01-16-2006 03:13 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-16-2006, 03:13 PM #10570
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by scott 63
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:
Are you in for a rude awakening? I don't recall Strauss and Howe categorizing the 4T as anything but the triumph of a new Authoritarian crowd. You sound a lot like the tree-hugging Meese, who believes we're on the cusp of a new enlightened Aquarian Age!
Yea. You don't exactly see Colin Powell shouting it out with Hillary over whether the Left will be "Nice" and "Fair" or will impose the Global Village on all those slobering Red Staters. Even her triangulation involves the Flag Burning Amendment!
Perhaps we can focus on results over ideology next time, though the possibility that the authoritarian ideologues will rule is quite high. I'm not interested in being 'guided' by HRH any more than GWB. We have some serious issues that need to be addressed, and the pre-conceived agendas of the Culture Warriors is not helpful.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#10571 at 01-16-2006 03:13 PM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
01-16-2006, 03:13 PM #10571
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by scott 63
Quote Originally Posted by Devil's Advocate
I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:
Are you in for a rude awakening? I don't recall Strauss and Howe categorizing the 4T as anything but the triumph of a new Authoritarian crowd. You sound a lot like the tree-hugging Meese, who believes we're on the cusp of a new enlightened Aquarian Age!
Yea. You don't exactly see Colin Powell shouting it out with Hillary over whether the Left will be "Nice" and "Fair" or will impose the Global Village on all those slobering Red Staters. Even her triangulation involves the Flag Burning Amendment!
Perhaps we can focus on results over ideology next time, though the possibility that the authoritarian ideologues will rule is quite high. I'm not interested in being 'guided' by HRH any more than GWB. We have some serious issues that need to be addressed, and the pre-conceived agendas of the Culture Warriors is not helpful.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#10572 at 01-16-2006 09:35 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-16-2006, 09:35 PM #10572
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas
Quote Originally Posted by The Devil
I'd rather hear more about how America eagerly awaits the blessed return... of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:
Oh Christ...
You talkin' to me?







Post#10573 at 01-16-2006 09:35 PM by [at joined #posts ]
---
01-16-2006, 09:35 PM #10573
Guest

Quote Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas
Quote Originally Posted by The Devil
I'd rather hear more about how America eagerly awaits the blessed return... of true liberalism circa the "regeneration" 4T. :wink:
Oh Christ...
You talkin' to me?







Post#10574 at 01-17-2006 01:48 AM by Acton Ellis [at Eastern Minnesota joined May 2004 #posts 94]
---
01-17-2006, 01:48 AM #10574
Join Date
May 2004
Location
Eastern Minnesota
Posts
94

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
To me it is ironic that such things as smoking bans have taken off more in so-called "liberal" areas than in conservative ones. I although liberals were champions of human rights, and yet they have come down quite hard on this issue. Today a smoking ban takes effect in Chicago, although bars that don't serve food have until July 2008 before they have to comply. There is one suburb here that is contemplating a ban on the sale of cigarettes. I have never been in favor of smoking, but to me it is an example of the reach of big-brotherism. This scenario seems to be to this 3T what alcohol prohibition was to the last.
Welcome to the PoMo version of the left. Their focus on the PC way is both a distraction (even if you buy it, which I don't, there are much more important issues) and an afront to the open minded. I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:


Of course smoking is quite different from drinking. It does not have quite the association with vice that drinking did. Also, when you go to a place that serves alcohol, you don't have to drink if you don't want to. When you go somewhere where there is smoking, you smoke along with the smoker. The laws are important if only to protect employees and performers such as Dana Reeve, who has lung cancer.







Post#10575 at 01-17-2006 01:48 AM by Acton Ellis [at Eastern Minnesota joined May 2004 #posts 94]
---
01-17-2006, 01:48 AM #10575
Join Date
May 2004
Location
Eastern Minnesota
Posts
94

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
Quote Originally Posted by Brian Beecher
To me it is ironic that such things as smoking bans have taken off more in so-called "liberal" areas than in conservative ones. I although liberals were champions of human rights, and yet they have come down quite hard on this issue. Today a smoking ban takes effect in Chicago, although bars that don't serve food have until July 2008 before they have to comply. There is one suburb here that is contemplating a ban on the sale of cigarettes. I have never been in favor of smoking, but to me it is an example of the reach of big-brotherism. This scenario seems to be to this 3T what alcohol prohibition was to the last.
Welcome to the PoMo version of the left. Their focus on the PC way is both a distraction (even if you buy it, which I don't, there are much more important issues) and an afront to the open minded. I think this Authoritarian-Left crowd needs to go almost as much as the crowd on the Authoritarian-Right. :evil:


Of course smoking is quite different from drinking. It does not have quite the association with vice that drinking did. Also, when you go to a place that serves alcohol, you don't have to drink if you don't want to. When you go somewhere where there is smoking, you smoke along with the smoker. The laws are important if only to protect employees and performers such as Dana Reeve, who has lung cancer.
-----------------------------------------