This is Theo's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Theo's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Theo
Recent Activity
If Tara Reade said she made a mistake and it was not Joe Biden but Donald Trump that assaulted her in 1993, the news embargo about her claims would be instantly lifted, she would be on CNN more than Dr Gupta and Rachel Maddow would declare that Reade was the most credible person ever.
Toggle Commented Apr 29, 2020 on Here We Go Again at JustOneMinute
TK @ 6:57 — In their minds they are voting in a way that is true to the Constitution. The Constitution dictates that the leaders will be elected through a democratic process. It does not demand that voters make smart choices. There is nothing inimical to the Constitution for people to vote for Bernie Sanders or Hillary Rodham or Nancy Pelosi. Our goal should be to persuade people not to vote for these types.
Toggle Commented Feb 25, 2020 on Late Night Corona Watch at JustOneMinute
Henry — And who appoints and approves the judges? In the end, it’s all about votes.
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2020 on Late Night Corona Watch at JustOneMinute
Ignatz @ 3:55 — Very clever. A variation on the old saying “ if you grab them by the testicles their hearts and minds will follow.” But if we want to be true to our Constitution and the principle of democracy, the only way to achieve the policies we want is through the ballot box. That requires actual persuasion without any shooting. Now, if we want to throw out the Constitution and impose our policy preferences on the country regardless of whether the public agrees or not, then I think guns will be necessary.
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2020 on Late Night Corona Watch at JustOneMinute
JMH @ 3:45 - I totally agree with you that progressives have used their positions in, for example, education, to propagate propaganda in support of their views of society. But that does not address my point. By definition democracy is a system by which leaders are elected and policies decided by counting votes. If you want to win a dispute in a democracy, you need to persuade people to vote the way you favor. There is simply no alternative within the framework of democracy. I think that your point really addresses how one goes about such persuasion. Changing the educational system for example is very important but that too requires votes, perhaps at the school board level. So I maintain that the alternatives are either votes or guns. Votes require persuasion. The use of guns to achieve the kind of society one wants is, by definition, anti democratic. I don’t think this sets up a false choice at all.
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2020 on Late Night Corona Watch at JustOneMinute
Winning hearts and minds is the ONLY way to win disputes in a democracy. Other forms of conflict resolution, such as the force of arms, are (besides being ridiculous when applied to today’s America) incompatible with democracy. You can try to persuade people or you can try shooting them. In the latter case, the outcome is terrible whether you are successful or not.
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2020 on Late Night Corona Watch at JustOneMinute
jimmyk @1:31 — Your analysis makes a lot of sense if you assume that Bloomberg s goal is to win the nomination. But if that was his real goal he would have announced his candidacy a year earlier than he did. It seems to me that his real goal all along has been to prevent Bernie from being nominated. He got in because he saw Biden failing. Under that assumption the all out attack on Sanders makes sense.
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2020 on Late Night Corona Watch at JustOneMinute
https://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-levin-warns-conservatives-theres-nothing-to-celebrate-about-sanders-victory
Toggle Commented Feb 24, 2020 on Late Night Corona Watch at JustOneMinute
sbw — Much better description than usurpation.
Ignatz @ 9:10 — I am not entirely sure what you mean by your comment but I assume that you did not mean it as a compliment. I really do enjoy your commentary even when I disagree with you. I am sorry if you do not feel the same way. Oh well..........
KK — To be clear, you are entitled to your own view of what the Constitution does and does not permit Congress to do. Just because the Supreme Court disagrees with you does not mean that you have to surrender your opinion. But at the end of the day it is up to the Supreme Court to decide whether or not a law passed by Congress is constitutional. You and I are free to express our opinions on the issue, but the only authoritative opinion is that of the majority of the Supreme Court.
KK @ 9:06 — I think that Obamacare was a terrible law and disagreed with the court ruling upholding it as constitutional. But there is simply no way to rationally describe Obamacare as a “usurpation of power.” The law was passed by the duly elected representatives of the people and signed into law by the duly elected president. A majority of the duly constituted Supreme Court held that it was constitutional. As terrible as the law and the ruling may have been, it was not a usurpation of power. It was an exercise of power provided for in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court. As you will recall, some progs complained about the elimination of the state and local tax deduction in the Trump tax bill passed by Congress. I think some of them even challenged the constitutionality of that law. I assume that they lost. If a prog referred to this as a “usurpation of power” you would rightly think the argument ridiculous. Just because you ( and I) don’t like a law or a court decision does not make it an illegitimate use of power.
TK @ 8:46 — I THINK that I understand your argument, but I want to make sure. Let me see if I have this correct. I think your argument boils down to these three points: 1 Progressive politicians are as a general proposition lacking in virtue, morality and decency (apparently the evidence for this is that poor little old me cannot definitely point out a particularly moral or virtuous lefty politician); 2 progressive politicians are elected by left leaning voters; therefore 3 progressive voters must in general lack qualities of virtue, morality, etc. If I misunderstood you, I apologize. On point 1, as I said I am reluctant to point to ANY politician as being a paragon of virtue. I don’t think that left leaning politicians are inherently more or less honest than right leaning politicians. YMMV. If you look at politicians who have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar, I don’t think there is one party or ideology that is significantly more likely to be corrupt than another. Point 2 is obviously true. I don’t think it advances your point. Point 3 does not follow. As you suggest, maybe the voters are unaware of the moral failings of the politicians that they elect. My real point is not that progs are all or even mostly all really good and decent people. I agree with Mark Twain that humans are somewhere below the angels and above the French. My point is that in my opinion, morality, decency, virtue etc are unrelated to political beliefs. There are fine people and there are scoundrels (or worse) on both the left and the right. I believe that conservatives have better IDEAS that progs on issues of public policy. I do not think that conservatives by and large are any more (or any less) moral, honest or virtuous than progressives. Just my opinion.
Jane @8:44 — I do not know if you spend any time at all reading comments on left leaning blogs. I spend very little time doing so but it does not take much time to realize that they see things pretty much the way you do (except in mirror image), to wit, they think (as you appear to) that OUR side too often plays by Marquis of Queensberry rules and our advocates are wimps and wussies who are afraid of getting their clean togas dirty while the OTHER side regularly uses groin kicks and eye gauges and gets away with it. As I recall, this very argument was used to justify some of Trump’s behavior on the theory that “he fights.” I see MOSTLY sincere and well meaning people on both the right and the left but the more passionate people (on both sides) become the more willing they are to engage in rough and tumble tactics to obtain their ends. You suggest that the left “gets away” with such tactics more than the right does. I am not sure how to measure that. But I really don’t think that there is any real difference in the tactics of the left and the right. Both sides by and large believe that their policy preferences are better than the others (however, as Ig has said, we are right and they are wrong about that). Both sides can be aggressive in attempting to prevail.
KK @8:43 — I agree with you this far: as a general proposition, todays liberals have an expansive view of the role of government in society. They generally favor more bureaucracy, more regulation and more taxation. But it is simply not true that liberals favor power and coercion and conservatives do not. Both sides want the government to be coercive, just towards different ends. Conservatives tend to want government to have a muscular military, to enforce laws against abortion and those who who are in this country illegally. Liberals by and large do not want government power to be used towards those ends. It is too simplistic to say that liberals want power and control and conservatives do not. Yes, in a democracy the way to achieve ones policy goals is through persuasion. Convince your friends, relatives, neighbors and countrymen to vote for candidates who favor the same policies that you do. There is no practical or even realistic alternative.
Buckeye — Which high school?
Buckeye — Wright State University near Dayton. This was a long time ago and it was not near as prestigious then as it is now. One of my brothers still lives in that area.
Ignatz — No, I think reality actually exists. I do think that POV influences how people perceive reality, but reality exists apart from perception. No matter how many people perceive that the sun goes around the earth, the opposite is true. The fact that the medieval church dictated otherwise did not change that reality. The church’s POV influenced how many people thought about the issue but the earth still went around the sun.
TK — Sure, politicians get elected by appealing to the voters’ opinions about how society should be organized. What is your point? The fact that politicians compete for votes from the public does not make either the left or the right more moral or honest than the other. History is full of both Republicans and Democrats taking bribes for example. Corruption is pretty much non ideological.
Buckeye @7:34 — I cannot comment on any litmus test that you might have for who you allow to walk your dog. I went to college in Ohio. Great place, nice people. But in the places that I have lived since, you probably would have to walk your own dog. I do not claim to know a representative sample of left of center friends/acquaintances. However my sense is that most of them would vote for Anyone But Trump, most assuredly if that “anyone” was not named Bernie Sanders. My sense is that they are not strongly committed to any particular candidate but wish to hell that a standard issue liberal Democrat would arrive on the scene. They don’t think Bernie can win in November and are worried that he might. All of the moderate Dem alternatives have features that give them pause. I know of no one who is firmly committed to any Dem candidate. For whatever that is worth.
KK - I am not following your argument. By definition, government exerts coercion. The argument is not whether the government should exercise coercion, but to what ends. A conservative wants government to, for example, use it’s coercive power to protect private property. A liberal might want the coercive power of the state to force a baker to bake a cake for an event that violates the baker’s religious sensibilities. As I see it, both sides want power and control to be used in order to create or maintain the kind of society they favor. It is directionally true that libertarians would favor less use of coercion into private behavior. Conservatives in general might likely favor reducing or even eliminating, say, the power of the FDA to enforce things like CAFE standards. But neither side is opposed to government coercion in support of their agenda. A whole lot of conservatives favor using the power of the state to deport people here illegally while many liberals would refrain from such an exercise of coercive power. Or to use Ig’s favorite example, many social conservatives want to use the coercive power of the state to prevent abortions in cases where the government presently takes no action. Power and control do not exist in the abstract. Both sides want to use it to further their view of what society should be and both sides do not want such power to be used contrary to their vision for society.
TK — Thanks. I was actually referring to citizens and not politicians. Having spent most of my life in Chicago, the notion of an honest politician strikes me as an oxymoron. In any event there are approximately 235 (?) Democrats in the House and 47 Democrats in the Senate. I don’t know enough to say how moral or honest most of them are. My view remains that in the wider population there are decent and honest liberals (even if I disagree with them politically ) and thorough going scoundrels among conservatives (and of course vice versa). Again, my opinion is that the difference between liberals and conservatives is a difference of opinion about the best way to organize society. It is not a clash between paragons of virtue and those who wish to do evil. I certainly have known in my own life well meaning liberals who sincerely believed that the policies that they favored would be good for society. Of course there are liberals (and conservatives) who pretend to have a hig minded agenda while advancing their own interests. Anyway, thanks for asking.
TomR — My understanding (which might not be correct) is that if the judge grants a motion for a new trial, the same judge will usually preside over said new trial. If, on the other hand, a new trial is ordered by the court of appeals the standard practice is to randomly reassign the case to another judge.
TomR @ 3:34 — Totally agree. We have a democracy and live in a country with a wise spectrum of political and cultural views. Winning requires persuasion and compromise and accommodation to entice the center and the center left to side with the right against the extreme left. It is simply paranoid nonsense to think that moderate liberals such as you describe are unwittingly paving the way to slavery. Too insist to the contrary is to drive moderates into siding with the left against the right. Of course one can compromise too much and it is a mistake to treat enemies as allies. But in a pluralistic society some compromise is necessary to build winning coalitions. One simply cannot define as “allies” those who totally agree and condemn as “enemies” those who share most but not all of our values and ideas. You can’t always get what all of what you want in politics. Treating potential allies as enemies because they are not fellow true believers is certainly not a wise strategy. I am not sure what “cultural wars” you are referring to. The front lines today seem to be about pronouns and gender fluidity and bathrooms and the intersectionality fetish. We can win these wars by appealing to the common sense of the general public. But for those decrying the victory of 1960s libertinism, that war is over. Widespread acceptance of premarital sex, divorce and homosexuality is here to stay. The sexual mores of the 1950 s are never coming back. It is time accept that and move on.
JMH @11:21 am (yeah I am way behind) — I really did not intend to get bogged down in the comparison of the Flynn and McCabe cases. As I said many times, the cases are not identical and it is possible to argue that either one of them should be prosecuted and the other not. My actual and larger point was to use these cases as illustrations on how perceptions are influenced by political perspectives. As far as Flynn and McCabe go, my own view is that they both lied to the FBI, they both deserved to be fired and neither should have been prosecuted. (To be clear, I mean that McCabe should not be for matters referred to in the IG Report. If Durham finds other stuff, I assume he should be prosecuted for those things.) But I don’t feel that strongly in my opinions about the two men and reasonable people of good faith could disagree. Let me ask you to indulge in a thought experiment. Suppose that Hillary had won in 2016. (Ugh, I know.) imagine further that she appoints a national security advisor who has essentially the same conversation with the Russian ambassador that Flynn did and subsequently lied to the FBI as Flynn actually did. One more imaginative step here — imagine that somehow or another Bill Barr is appointed special counsel to look into something or other (the meeting between Lynch and Bill Clinton in Phoenix?) and ends up recommending that Hillary’s national security advisor be prosecuted for lying to the FBI. Would you feel different about such a prosecution as you do about the prosecution of Flynn? If so, why? Let me try a different one, perhaps even easier to set up. Imagine that McCabe did everything as described in the IG report, which was basically lying to his boss about being involved in a leaked story. Imagine again that Hillary wins in 2016. Then imagine that McCabe is, instead of a highly partisan Democrat is a huge MAGA Trump supporter. Imagine that Hillary’s AG recommends that McCabe be prosecuted for lying to the FBI. Would you feel different about Trump supporter McCabe being prosecuted by Hillary’s DOJ than you would about Democrat McCabe being prosecuted by Trumps DOJ for doing exactly the same thing? In other words, if the shoe were on the other foot in these cases, would it make a difference as to hw you saw them? I just think that partisanship affects the way all of us view things. For a great many people the desire to give Flynn a pass and prosecute McCabe (or vice versa) is not based on principle but on some kind of herd instinct to protect “our” people and attack “their” people. I do think that the left and right are mirror images, but apparently you do not. I don’t quite understand how you think we are different other than in our ideas but this is enough for now.
Toggle Commented Feb 16, 2020 on Clouds On The Blue Horizon at JustOneMinute