Disqus - Latest Comments for pacatrue

Re: Political Census

pacatrue — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:41:18 -0000

Why do I keep imagining a socialist / racist musical number in the spirit of JibJab?

Re: Discontinuing Self-Published Reader Comments

pacatrue — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:03:53 -0000

Speaking of Twitter, one possibility would be a Facebook group page for TMV. Facebook can load the blog automatically (albeit with a delay that can take a couple of hours) and then people could comment upon the loaded posts there. It would largely require losing anonymity. That can be a negative. At the same time, assuming no one takes the time to moderate the Facebook page, a lack of anonymity could cut down on some of the comments people would be unwilling to make under their own name. (Pros and cons to that, of course.) If anyone is interested, I could theoretically set up a TMV page -- um, in a couple of weeks. I literally have to turn in my 300 page dissertation in about 10 days. I've never actually created a Facebook group, but there are so many inane ones, it can't be horribly nasty.

And thanks to Dr. E for all her hours and hours of work!

Re: Political Census

pacatrue — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:58:56 -0000

Hahhahaha!!! Love this cartoon!

Re: Discontinuing Self-Published Reader Comments

pacatrue — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 15:00:38 -0000

I must add my two cents to the chorus. First up, it is the moderators' site and their time, so I respect whatever they decide to do. No one owes anything to me.

That said, I won't stop by much without the comments. It is the dialogue at TMV that frequently happens that makes the site worthwhile. With a few exceptions, most of the opinions can be found just as well elsewhere. It's the fact that the opinions get to talk to each other that's beneficial.

For instance, I was thinking of writing up a guest post about searching for non-governmental ways to accomplish tasks. The purpose of the guest post was not really so that everyone could be enlightened by my stunning words. It's so that I could get feedback to the ideas through comments.

Best wishes to the TMV crew either way.

Re: We’ve Seen These Faces Before

pacatrue — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:40:21 -0000

And here's an example of what I will take as an insult (following on my other comment).

"Changing the subject when attacked is about all your side seems to know how to do."

What side is this? My only guess is that "your side" is anyone who thinks that the government should be involved with getting citizens access to health care as the government already does with things like the VA hospitals and medicare. I guess I think increased access is good, and so that must be "my side". Therefore, I'm all angry that chipsilicon has just claimed I cannot carry on an argument or make valid points using my sense of morality and knowledge of facts.

Of course, chipsilicon wasn't referring to me. He has no idea who I am. But he was happy to insult millions of Americans through quick language.

The problem is we don't have time to make these sorts of claims accurately. The only way his claim could possibly be accurate would be to make it circular.

Of course, maybe he does think that everyone who supported the health care reform package is a moron, in which case he falls under Dr_J's mentioned umbrella of people who have no interest in understanding the motives behind people he disagrees with.

Re: We’ve Seen These Faces Before

pacatrue — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 00:30:29 -0000

Hey, waggle. To speak for Dr_J (always a brilliant idea) my guess is that the condescension comes this way: There are several on this board with libertarian impulses of various sorts that are actually quite principled. At least as principled as my liberalism which is haphazard. They have serious, significant issues with the expanse of federal government, such as with health care. Now, you and Rich seem to be telling those people that they don't know their own minds and are in fact angry because of racism, sexism, and homophobia. I often disagree with Dr_J, but I've seen little evidence of that with him. That's how it is condescending.

The problem is, of course, that you aren't actually addressing Dr_J as a person, which both of you know probably. I think the issue is that, and now I'm really speaking inappropriately for Dr_J, he thinks of the people that you are referring to as closer to the principled individual he is.

To put it another way, I sometimes get insulted on these boards when people go off about the Left and the Liberals and the Other Things with Capital Letters. Now, they have in mind some sort of Daily Kos denizen of an extreme variety. But I'm basically to the left, so I think of... me. And what they say is insulting to me, even though I and liberals like me weren't truly their target.

All that said, and it was more than enough, there is real racism that is some part of what's going on. People were claiming they wanted their country back when Obama hadn't even done anything yet and health care was still an idea to start working on. They weren't reacting to actual policies, but to perceived culture changes. I have no idea how to state this, I believe, fact without mischaracterizing others that it does not accurately describe.

Re: GOP Governor Candidates Stay The Course On Immigration Reform In California

pacatrue — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:16:46 -0000

What does this mean, EuropeanQueen? (Interesting name....) What are your feelings about the Italian, Polish, Lithuanian, German, Swedish, Chinese, Japanese, and French immigrants we have had (and still have in smaller proportions)? None of them spoke English when they showed up here. I've spoken to a man from Niagara Falls who only knew Italian as a child until he went to school. French is only now, 200 years later, dying out of southern Louisiana.... Should none of them have been allowed here since they didn't speak English on moving? Or are you suggesting that we ban their languages upon arrival? And are we going to do this while maintaining we believe in small government and free markets? It's hard to have a small government and yet try to set rules about the very words that come out of people's mouths.

Re: GOP Governor Candidates Stay The Course On Immigration Reform In California

pacatrue — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 23:07:48 -0000

I agree about the troll content.

So far, my suspicions are confirmed. Many people say it is the illegality that they hate, but many do not want immigrants here at all, no matter how many papers they have.

Re: GOP Governor Candidates Stay The Course On Immigration Reform In California

pacatrue — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 20:09:40 -0000

Just a curious question: How many people who oppose illegal immigration extremely strongly support larger legal immigration? In other words, if part of the solution was to crack down on controlling borders AND increasing the legal immigration numbers so that the free market determined jobs and residency, would you support it?

I ask because I suspect many people who claim they are only mad at the illegality component of the issue also do not want more immigrants even with papers. Especially if they are from THOSE places.

Please show me I am wrong.

Re: Good Times in Appalachia

pacatrue — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 15:01:01 -0000

Well, I love Asheville. Never lived there, but visited often, and it's always been great. I suppose it's kind of like Austin in Texas. I'm sure many Texans think Austin's a crazy place, but it's good for Texas to have both sorts of places and people can choose which they like better.

And, yes to Elrod, Nantahala is one of my absolute favorite places in the U.S.

Re: Good Times in Appalachia

pacatrue — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 01:25:20 -0000

Nice post. I'd also like to add that Appalachia is not only cool for the things they embrace from outside Appalachia, but also for the things Appalachia has created. Bluegrass, for instance, remains a vibrant form of popular art.

Re: Quote of the Day: Proof of the Double Standard On Recess Appointments

pacatrue — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:58:06 -0000

My position on recess appointments is about the same as filibusters. If used sparingly and in "extreme" circumstances, they can be good. If used as an end-run around the appropriate parties having their voice, bad. Of course, one must then haggle over what extreme is and what sparingly is. If "extreme" becomes the mainstream of the opposition party, you've failed.

Re: We’ve Seen These Faces Before

pacatrue — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:55:04 -0000

Dang, this is getting ridiculous.

Anyway, to express how collectivist we are, where we all have to rush in to defend how conservatives or liberals or libertarians as a single group are seen, I will come on and say that 1) of course, not everyone strongly opposed to health care legislation is the intellectual descendant of Southern racists. 2) The violence that has occurred should continue to be condemned.

The end. And I am in fact the descendant of Southern racists. The good news is that racism doesn't descend.

Re: Who Should Win The Google Fiber Contest?

pacatrue — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:01:53 -0000

My community has their request in:

http://hi-google.org/

There are a lot of very good reasons Hawaii would be a nice choice -- nice blend of rural and urban, self-contained in a virtually unique way for the U.S., linguistic diversity, etc.

I think the mythology of Hawaii will keep it from happening. Lots of Americans don't even consider Hawaii part of the U.S. (such as Clinton's campaign manager), so it won't sound as good in a PR statement to put fiber in Hawaii as it would to put it in Nebraska. It's just a mythology, but PR is based upon myths.

Re: Obama Makes 15 Recess Appointments: Another Sign of a Political Style “Shift”?

pacatrue — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 19:38:58 -0000

I'd want to know more context before "approving" Obama's actions, such as tracking down the specific cases. If these are all highly qualified people that are not "extreme" to most of the electorate AND the Republicans are only holding them up to make political points, then I agree. If these are very poor decisions, such as Bolton was, or somehow exceptional, then I think Obama should not have made the recess appointments.

Re: Thread On Nature Of Morality And Its Role In Politics

pacatrue — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 22:24:07 -0000

Yes, mikkel, I would certainly agree with the mythos -- at least among the educated group of people I hang with. There's a possibility that, for instance, all my friends from East Asia have been told over and over that they are collectivist as part of their years of education, so they say they are. I don't know what happens if you grab a street vendor. Still, yes.

I think we'd make more progress advocating our moral views if we could use the language and principles of the culture we are talking to. Chinese intellectual culture has always valued information and knowledge at least as much as the U.S. The more we can highlight freedom of speech as a Chinese virtue, which it is, the more effective we'd be.

Re: Thread On Nature Of Morality And Its Role In Politics

pacatrue — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:59:24 -0000

Collectivism / individualism. Sometimes a helpful distinction, but very often misleading. I've done research on this exact issue regarding South Korea and the U.S. I'm supposed to be revising it for a journal publication.

First, anecdotally, there is no way to visit a supposed collectivist society for very long without noticing people acting in many of the same ways that are supposed to be individualist -- desire for individual power, desire for more stuff, disregard for the effects on others, etc.

Similarly, there are lots of tell-tale signs of collectivism in the supposedly individualist U.S. that have nothing to do with modern progressive politics. When I grew up in the small town South, I was always "one of the Last Name boys." Identified as one of a family. I went to a concert once with a friend and he started acting really obnoxiously to a woman near us. I felt horribly embarrassed by his actions (I hadn't done anything myself) and wanted to apologize to her. Americans also accept notions such as certain sports teams are representatives of large groups of people. An Olympian is representing America and must behave so as to show Americans well. If we were pure individualists, we shouldn't care, since we didn't go to Country X and make fun of their flag or get drunk and break something or whatever.

I'm not arguing that Korean and American cultures are the same. They are clearly not. However, sometimes we have stereotypical views of ourselves not born out by reality. For instance, we might on the one hand think Western society is atomist where each one is out for themselves and then simultaneously feel it is our moral duty to help a friend or defend a family member. Similarly, Koreans will often label themselves collectivist while wanting to achieve personal glory, partly to show how amazing they are as individuals.

The real differences between the two cultures probably have a little less to do with being group-oriented or individual-oriented, but in deciding what groups in particular we care about. Americans might take responsibility for their family and, often, a shifting group of friends, people we have a personal connection to. The groups that people take responsibility for in Korea might be the family again, but often a both wider and more precise definition of family, plus other groups such as an employer.

Re: Thread On Nature Of Morality And Its Role In Politics

pacatrue — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:38:09 -0000

Moral systems do not have to be little boxes of rules or principles checking off the good and the bad actions. There's been a lot of work on the idea of moral saints, who may or may not be religious. The critical observation is that a lot of our moral role models are really different from one another. This is true even within just the list of official ordained Catholic Saints. St. Theresa didn't have much in common with Aquinas who didn't have much in common with Francis. Similarly, if you add in other role models one might have, such as Ghandi, MLK Jr., etc. is there anything in common? I'm not sure. Within Catholicism, one answer is that they all obeyed the will of God. I will leave others to the debate of that doctrine. My point is mainly that there appear to be many, many ways to be moral.

Does that mean there is no morality? Not necessarily. It might mean that morality is not an unordered list of things that are good and bad, but instead a system that helps the individual reach their full potential. Since people are different, the systems may be different as well. I bored TMV with a long post on this 2.5 years ago. (http://themoderatevoice.com...

Re: What are rights (and what do they have to do with health care)?

pacatrue — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 20:20:52 -0000

gcotharn, I don't think you can argue something isn't a right simply because it is gradient and we must decide the limits. Speech is about as absolute a right as we have in the U.S., but you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, legally. We've had to set the limits to free speech, and we still fight over it all the time. Is preaching religion in a public school covered by free speech or not? Contentious. Are political donations considered free speech? Contentious. What's the dividing line between incitement of terroristic threats and freedom of political speech? Contentious. Do private organizations have the right to restrict speech within their own domain? Contentious.

We have to decide the limits to every constitutionally guaranteed right.

(If you note above, I don't think that health care is a clear constitutional right. I'm just arguing that it cannot be excluded on the basis of gradience.)

Re: Growing Evidence That High Fructose Corn Syrup Plays A Role In Obesity

pacatrue — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:52:22 -0000

Nevermind.

Pecan pie without corn syrup: http://allrecipes.com/recip...

Re: Growing Evidence That High Fructose Corn Syrup Plays A Role In Obesity

pacatrue — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:49:58 -0000

Two things that are difficult to locate without HFCS are BBQ sauce and bottled salad dressings. I've found that Bullseye actually doesn't have HFCS, and it's a Texas style which is real BBQ to me. For salad dressings, you have to almost buy a French-style vinaigrette or make your own. Ooh, ooh and teas. Lipton makes a bottled tea called pure leaf that is actually made from water, tea leaves, and sugar. Lipton (and other companies) make other brands that are all colored corn syrup.

If we are to avoid HFCS, I have a real legitimate request. I need a pecan pie recipe without corn syrup! Giving up HFCS is one thing, but you can't expect me to stop eating pecan pie.

(Really, I'd love a recipe that uses a simple sugar syrup.)

Re: What are rights (and what do they have to do with health care)?

pacatrue — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 18:19:00 -0000

There seem to me to be several competing positions in this thread and I would like to attempt a summary at least with regards to the various positions.

1) There is no constitutional right to health care AND the federal government is overstepping its legal bounds to attempt to provide it. (This would appear to render medicare and medicaid unconstitutional unless one makes a claim that only certain parts of the current legislation are unconstitutional and those parts do not describe medicare.)

a) However, a state government does have a moral obligation, which should be turned into a legislative obligation, to provide health care to all its citizens. This will inevitably require some infringement on other rights, the limits of which will be decided in the legislature and courts.

b) And a state government also has no moral obligation to provide health care, particularly because doing so infringes upon other rights.

2) There is no constitutional right to health care but the federal government is not prevented constitutionally from providing it should it choose to do so.

a) However, providing such care through federal legislation may not infringe on any constitutional rights.

b) In general, the government cannot step on rights to provide the care, but what that means must be decided through legislation and interpretation. For instance, a tax or fine, which is a sort of seizure of property, would be okay, but other things might not be.

3) The federal government is constitutionally obliged to provide health care as a legal right.

Well, it's an attempt at summary. I guess, if I had to label myself, I'd say I'm a (2b). The government may choose to provide health care should it choose to do so and the exact limits to that should be set through the legislative and judicial systems.

To be honest, my basic political view currently is that I'm "liberal" and (but?) would like to accomplish as much of those liberal goals away from government as much as possible or through as local government as possible. The key point there is "as possible". And I've never figured it out. (This paragraph is really an aside, however.)

Re: Obama Beats GOP On Health Care

pacatrue — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:39:52 -0000

Scha, I take your point that people choose to enter an LLC, but I disagree with your reply in a couple ways.

1) You clearly shifted the focus away from the individual to government. I was presenting the argument that an individual who was the beneficiary of community-provided healthcare could be more free than someone who lacks health care.

2) We're having the same old debate that is hundreds if not thousands of years old about the nature of liberty. Is liberty freedom from imposition or the ability to accomplish one's own will? If no one is stopping me from doing anything, but I cannot accomplish my will due to lack of resources, am I completely free? One can make up extreme cases to make the point. It was a common debate recently in Iraq where some Iraqis believed they were better off with more security restrictions on them that allowed them to stay safe than freedom from government to die at the hands of "insurgents".

Re: Obama Beats GOP On Health Care

pacatrue — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 02:07:31 -0000

Intriguing idea, Scha. I think where I disagree is that it seems to assume people never vote for liberty and freedom. However, I think they clearly do. The idea presented (not clear if it's a quote or not) has a very low opinion of people.

Also, for many (I've always been mixed and ill-informed on the health care issue), universal coverage is actually a vote for liberty. Those who are unable to invest in business ideas because they are strapped with health debt, or those who cannot work as they wish due to lack of adequate medical support, are not as free as they could be.

Think of it like incorporation and limited liability. The idea behind LLCs is that we limit the personal risk of doing business, which then allows people to do more than they would otherwise try. We hope that the result is net innovation and entrepreneurship. Similarly, if a person cannot leave their current job or move to another state or whatever, due to health care ties, then they are not being as innovative as they wish. If we can remove that risk, it could be to the benefit of society generally. This is not bondage. One of the critical ideas we hear is that we want a flexible workforce who can move and innovate as the economy changes -- but then we sometimes tie that same workforce to a single company through health benefits.

Re: Frum: Republican Waterloo

pacatrue — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:20:20 -0000

I don't quite understand Frum's point. The Senate bill is sort of what you would get if there had been genuine compromise. As has been mentioned, mandated private insurance used to be the Republican alternative to the Dem plans as recently as the mid-90s. There are some further things I would have liked to see in a "compromise bill". Probably a slower roll-out of certain features as finances improved, malpractice insurance is a real issue, etc. But, if there is going to be something like national health care, this IS the compromise bill. Is Frum's idea that the Republicans will get no credit for the good things in the bill since they opposed the whole thing always?