Disqus - Latest Comments for strangedoctrines

Re: Canadian!

on the beach voucher codes — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 11:22:54 -0000

How can become a Canadian get a freedom? Is there anything that I don't know as USA citizen?

Re: Learning from Milton Friedman’s Rhetoric

strangedoctrines — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 21:13:51 -0000

Would that more propagandists had such a pleasant bedside manner.

Re: The Tragic Flute

strangedoctrines — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 22:20:56 -0000

Sen isn't "assuming away the relevance of property rights." What he's assuming is a background of stable property rights and conventions - from which reliably flow undesirable outcomes in certain classes of cases. What is the solution? Not to put words in Sen's mouth, but he at least appears to think that "MORE, AND MORE AWESOME, MARKET MECHANISMS!" is an incomplete approach. Of course we need to improve market mechanisms and clarify property rights. But the earthly performance of markets, like the neurological implementation of rationality, is bounded in its perfection. So as with our imperfect brains, we need to consider supplementing our imperfect markets with other methods of intelligent allocation. This in turn requires that we think as clearly as we can about, among other things, desert, need, and fairness.

Re: Guns and Presidents

strangedoctrines — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:00:49 -0000

Yes, Oswald was a left-wing wacko. And yes, he assassinated the president of the United States. But at least he was a gun enthusiast. Let's not ignore his redeeming qualities.

Re: Guns and Presidents

uknowbetter — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:56:44 -0000

Oswald was a far-left communist. Just to get that out there more so the ignorant Leftists of today are aware.

Re: Guns and Presidents

strangedoctrines — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:22:19 -0000

Other possible sets for Venn diagramming fun: the people bringing firearms to town halls and the people praying for Obama's death.

I'd write more, but I have to go pray to the majestic, semi-divine symbol of national identity now.

Re: Guns and Presidents

strangedoctrines — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 09:00:09 -0000

Oswald was comparably lucid in his post-assassination interview.

Re: America Lost

strangedoctrines — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 09:53:12 -0000

Me too - whatever works, I say! Which is why I'm in favor of torturing any evildoer's wife or baby in his presence; studies show this is much more efficacious than torturing the evildoer himself.

Don't let it be said that Americans aren't a pragmatic people.

Re: What We Are Not Embarrassed Of

strangedoctrines — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:56:15 -0000

"The most powerful way to argue the affirmative is to compare the number of human beings murdered by the devotees of each. That line of attack ought to be decisive..."

Yes! Also, one should be more embarrassed to have been influenced by the Beatles than by Britney Spears.

Re: And Speaking Of Protests And Hypocrisy . . .

strangedoctrines — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 21:35:39 -0000

Re paragraph 1: That certainly is one difference. (Clarificatory question: The second sentence appearing in quotation marks is of your own authorship, yes?)

Re paragraph 2: Yes, the reaction to the Dubai Ports affair was ridiculous. Then again, the ridiculousness was bipartisan. (I'll see your Schumer and Emanuel and raise you Frist and Hastert.) In any case, the moderate hysteria that attended the Dubai Ports affair is not an apt analogy to the Orgy of the Death Panels, the "moderate" part having been thoroughly discarded.

Last word's yours.

Re: And Speaking Of Protests And Hypocrisy . . .

Pejman_Yousefzadeh — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:27:19 -0000

The difference between us, I guess, is that I don't see a difference between "they are racists," and "they have cultural and racial anxieties that cause them to take certain political positions in response to the presence and actions of the first African-American President the United States has ever had." I would be willing to credit the latter observation if a shred of proof was proffered in support of it. None was.

As for racial resentments in the Democratic party, I would hardly call it "marginalized," given the events surrounding the Dubai Ports World affair. None of us are really going to go through the charade of pretending that if the foreign company in question was based in Europe, rather than in the Arab Middle East, the same controversy would have arisen nonetheless, are we? And none of us are really going to go through the charade of pretending that the anti-Arab bigotry present in the DPW tempest was "marginalized" when people like Charles Schumer, and Rahm Emanuel readily partook in using anti-Arab prejudice to further the political prospects of the Democratic party, are we?

Re: Democracy and the Grounds of Distrust

strangedoctrines — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 11:13:28 -0000

Yes, the claim that the U.S. would wrongfully invade a country and the claim that the U.S. would set up "death panels" to euthanize Sarah Palin's baby are both equally credible.

Re: Health Care Reform: Department Of Bad Analogies Division

strangedoctrines — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:39:43 -0000

I am not sure about it either.

Re: And Speaking Of Protests And Hypocrisy . . .

strangedoctrines — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:24:20 -0000

We seem to be talking past each other. I think there are two explanations for the phenomenon on the table. Yours (I take it) is that it's the result of well-founded concerns based on well-understood facts about the historical and prospective success of government-run institutions. The other (Krugman's) is that it's an epiphenomenon of "cultural and racial anxiety." I think the latter explanation is the better one. That observation does not "smear health care protesters [much less "dissenters"] as racists." It merely contends that racial resentments are probably a substantial factor for a substantial number of them. I don't find that contention difficult to credit. Of course Democrats have racial and cultural resentments at well (its own "crazification factor"), but the vector of these resentments seems broader to me, and in any case seems much more marginalized in the case of the Democratic party than it is in the case of the Republican Party. And I think the difference of degree is enough to make it a difference in kind.

The last word is yours, if you care to take it.

Re: And Speaking Of Protests And Hypocrisy . . .

Pejman_Yousefzadeh — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:03:33 -0000

Come now. You are smart enough to see that Krugman tried to smear health care protesters as racists without a shred of proof to back up his insinuation.

Re: Health Care Reform: Department Of Bad Analogies Division

Pejman_Yousefzadeh — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:01:42 -0000

Well then, if there are more people who conclude that the Post Office does a better job delivering the mail than their parents' private insurance carrier does in delivering health care, the Obama Administration should be all set in its efforts to give us mandatory health care reform.

I am not sure this is the case, however.

Re: Health Care Reform: Department Of Bad Analogies Division

strangedoctrines — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:29:04 -0000

My contention is what I wrote. And what I wrote is pretty obviously consistent with Obama's aside about the Post Office's "always having problems" (even if one insists on interpreting his aside in a stingy, literal manner).

Re: And Speaking Of Protests And Hypocrisy . . .

strangedoctrines — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 09:26:02 -0000

Observing that the birther and bagger movements are fraught with "cultural and racial anxiety" seems like an almost trivially true observation from this distance. But, as you say, it's one far afield from the point Saunders attempts (rightly or wrongly) to make.

Re: And Speaking Of Protests And Hypocrisy . . .

Pejman_Yousefzadeh — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:32:07 -0000

That's not all Pelosi and Hoyer wrote, however. They didn't just write a plea for civility. They also made an argument for their policies, and stated that the "un-American" protesters are afraid "of the facts themselves," which supposedly is the reason why they need to "drown out" opposing views. The protesters are not merely being called "un-American" for their behavior. Their very political stances are being tied in a none-too-subtle way to their supposed "un-Americanness."

But let's assume for the sake of argument that I am wrong, and you are right. Here is another accusation concerning the protesters, one that claims that they are racists:

Now, people who don’t know that Medicare is a government program probably aren’t reacting to what President Obama is actually proposing. They may believe some of the disinformation opponents of health care reform are spreading, like the claim that the Obama plan will lead to euthanasia for the elderly. (That particular claim is coming straight from House Republican leaders.) But they’re probably reacting less to what Mr. Obama is doing, or even to what they’ve heard about what he’s doing, than to who he is.

That is, the driving force behind the town hall mobs is probably the same cultural and racial anxiety that’s behind the “birther” movement, which denies Mr. Obama’s citizenship. Senator Dick Durbin has suggested that the birthers and the health care protesters are one and the same; we don’t know how many of the protesters are birthers, but it wouldn’t be surprising if it’s a substantial fraction.

And cynical political operators are exploiting that anxiety to further the economic interests of their backers.

Does this sound familiar? It should: it’s a strategy that has played a central role in American politics ever since Richard Nixon realized that he could advance Republican fortunes by appealing to the racial fears of working-class whites.

Of course, all of this discussion is far afield from the original point Saunders rightly makes; namely, that dissent is no longer seen as being as patriotic as it was portrayed when George W. Bush was President.

Re: Health Care Reform: Department Of Bad Analogies Division

Pejman_Yousefzadeh — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 00:11:26 -0000

Is it your contention that Obama's statements, as shown in the video above, are somehow complimentary concerning the work done by the Post Office?

Re: Health Care Reform: Department Of Bad Analogies Division

strangedoctrines — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:24:40 -0000

How did he claim "the opposite"?

Re: And Speaking Of Protests And Hypocrisy . . .

strangedoctrines — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 22:18:22 -0000

You chopped off the prepositional phrase "...for opposing health care." To wit, what I said was that no one is being accused of treason (or "being un-American") for opposing health care.

The quotation op-ed you link to does not rebut my contention in the least; the statement Pelosi and Hoyer make is this: "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American." I'm inclined to agree with that statement, though your mileage may vary.

Re: And Speaking Of Protests And Hypocrisy . . .

Pejman_Yousefzadeh — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:41:09 -0000

Oh, actually, yes there have been accusations of treason. Or at least, accusations that opponents of health care reform are un-American. I trust that is close enough to an accusation of treason, no?

Re: Health Care Reform: Department Of Bad Analogies Division

Pejman_Yousefzadeh — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:39:27 -0000

Then you should write speeches for the President urging him to stay away from arguments and analogies claiming the opposite.

Re: And Speaking Of Protests And Hypocrisy . . .

strangedoctrines — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 21:25:37 -0000

Not that you (and Ms. Saunders) have absolutely no point here. But, you know, there are some pretty obvious material distinctions. For instance, no one (as far as I know) has been accused of treason for opposing health care reform. Dissent isn't fraught with the same kinds of risk in every given policy area. This is easy to see by considering another analogy: keep everything the same, and use any president you like, but make the substantive area under scrutiny (say) the Fed's new parking policy. Same result?