So, I need entertainment during my work day, and no one else is making DLDs (note, now that I’ve said that I’ll probably be second in line today.
- Sometimes Yglesias has a stupid. Other times, it’s a smart.
- Sometimes, when you lavishly praise someone they embarrass you. Other times, they are Bob Herbert
- If your morning needed a sobering thought, it doesn’t anymore
- I wish we had a Senator with the ability to explain lies and the lying liars who tell them.
- Never forget, I noticed something in Douthat before everyone else.
Also, in baseball news, ** denizens ignore a certain someone’s outrage that Alex Rios is not an A. You read that right, someone is mad we aren’t paying Rios this:
’08:$0.735M, ’09:$5.9M, ’10:$9.7M, ’11:$12M, ’12:$12M, ’13:$12.5M, ’14:$12.5M, ’15:$13.5M club option ($1M buyout)
Free Kraut: my internet happy box
FK makes for a better internet happy box than that one. Especially when the wee folk make my Unread Comments widget sing.
“make the widget sing”
*snerk*
“wee folk” — Dodgers fans?
5. Bullshit. I avoided looking at the column on your first reference, but now that I read it … it confirms exactly what I expected: he’s wrong.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Given the evidence he cites, “we” (and Ba’al do I loathe that Rattoesque gesture of deploying the 1PP … no, I’m not down with it) are liberal up to the point at which it costs us, when — it becomes (a) someone else’s fault and/or (b) IOKIYAR.
Fuck you, Douthat, and fuck your ideas about how “we” ought to behave. You’re a fucking prig and a prude.
Yeah, and fuck the internet happy box, too. Right in the hole on the side.
Welcome to the party (and I don’t think I linked that one before, maybe I did).
I can certainly see a larger point (we believe strongly in ideas right up until they impact us), which would suggest that for conservatives it is conservatism and for liberals it is liberalism. Basically, “I believe in X right up until it becomes inconvenient” is a common human failing (and why older people tend to be more conservative – it never becomes inconvenient to believe in giving yourself more money)
Douthat, per his opening sentence, is talking about social conservatives. His stance as a mouthpiece for social conservatives is less problematic than Ratto’s stance as a mouthpiece for anything other than pie. Of course, the statement that social conservatives are prigs and prudes is fair (in my opinion), but given that they probably wouldn’t deny the labels I don’t see how that really matters.
No, you’re wrong — by the time he deploys the 1PP, he’s clearly talking about Americans writ large, not soc-cons.
You’re right. He is talking about America (as compared to Europe).
Of course, I think he’d freely admit that the reason America is so different from Europe is that we have lots of social conservatives.
Social conservatives: the 2 weeks every season that Crosby hits well
Yeah, that column seems pretty incoherent to me. This –
– does not seem like a message that a social conservative should be pushing.
And, more generally, neither does pointing out the hypocrisy of the “we” who “believe in the sanctity of marriage” and “sentimentalize the family” but have high rates of divorce and teen pregnancy. Funny how the same columnist who last week was pushing the idea that “red states” are in better shape than “blue states” fails to mention where these problems are most prevalent. Gee, Ross, maybe all that sentimentalizing and sanctifying that you do doesn’t change anyone’s behavior. Who woulda thunk it.
There’s also the always-meretricious “I have found the pop-cult ephemera that garnish my fully cooked thesis!”
The “Red State” column was definitely a case of Douthat having a stupid.
Your blockquote, of course, goes to the assertion that marriage and not having abortions end up making your life better (central ideas on the red side of the culture wars). I imagine you knew that.
I don’t understand your last paragraph. You’re mad that he’s pointing out contradictions within social conservatism why? I bet you didn’t have the same reaction to Obama’s (great) discussions of black fathers who shirk their responsibilities.
Again, you’re misreading Asshat — he’s not pointing a crooked finger of critique at soc-cons, but at “us,” without regional/political distinctions. And per andeux’s point, those “contradictions” disappear for a large part of the non-con populace once you parse them out.
This time I disagree with you.
Sure contradictions between conservative beliefs and actual behavior only apply to those with conservative beliefs. But are you denying that America, taken as a whole, is more conservative than Europe? If not, isn’t it interesting that, at least in those areas, we have more liberal laws? I happen to think it’s a good thing, I’m sure Douthat doesn’t.
Ultimately, I (and, fwiw, Klien and Yglesias) thought it was an interesting take on a set of movies. Sure it doesn’t match my perspective on live, but it is refreshingly far removed from, say, Krisol’s NYT columns.
Another part of the conservative message is that sexual promiscuity will result in negative consequences, and a “happily ever after ending” undermines that. But now I see your point on that one, as for Douthat abortion is the much greater evil.
On the other point, he’s not pointing out contradictions in social conservatism. (Like monkeyball, I read the “we” as pretty clearly referring to all of America, not just his own faction.) He brings up facts that should lead him to point out these contradictions, but then completely fails to draw the obvious conclusions from them.
I didn’t read it as a “liberals are bad, conservatives are good” piece at all. And I think he does draw the obvious conclusions.
This is funny, but it won’t be once conservatives start linking to it as “OBAMA/HITLER’s SECRETS REVEALED!!!!!111”
Chris Hayes is pretty darn good at what he does.
Yep.
As is Bob Herbert.
As is Matt Taibbi (although it’s something quite different from what Herbert does and what Hayes does):
The crazies are, quite literally, on the verge of flinging poo.
Odds that she’s an astroturf plant?
My guess is 93%
Do these town hall meetings just represent that there a re a lot of people in this country who take Glenn Beck seriously or…?
(and please excuse my FK absence…I think I’ve got pig fever, which is similar to dance fever, but with less Danny Tario)
That’s my astroturf comment. I think they represent that people are paid to go.
Actual concerned citizens would not behave this way.
I think it’s somewhere between your and LB’s concerns/assumptions. Yes, there’s a bunch of astroturfers, but they’re more on the organizational end — the crazies, the dipshits carrying guns to these events and really flipping out, are genuine crazies being prodded into actions by the astroturf email chains and buses and whatnot.
I honestly fail to see how anyone on the left can make these “astroturf” comments with a straight face.
Link me to where liberals are using an astroturf strategy.
There are many people who are genuinely worried about Obama’s healthcare reform, and the White House is content to brush them aside as astroturfers, so that they don’t actually have to listen. So when the left buses people in, pays them, and gives them pre-made protest signs and tells them what to do and say, it’s not astroturfing?
Are their protests more valid?
Bull. Yes, both sides are throwing organization and money into ensuring crowd presence (so far as I can tell, neither side is actually paying anyone to attend and be vocal); but (a) most of the action by the reform opponents has been of the shout-down-the-speakers/yell-about-fluoridation-of-the-water variety, and (b) from POTUS on down the food chain, the elected officials have uniformly expressed the sentiment that they want to hear measured, rational contra arguments.
a) I think the shout-down-the-speakers approach is idiotic
b) I agree that measured arguments would be ideal, but since when were protests about measured arguments?
Free speech is only available on their terms now?
Perhaps I’m misinterpreting statements towards a few radical dissenters as shots at all protesters. But the DNC “mob” comments marginalize the people that are exercising their First Amendment rights.
EDIT: I went back and read the text of the DNC statement.
Unless I’m reading that wrong, the DNC is saying that Republican Party = out of touch right wing extremists. Sure, it’s the same type of thing they’re always saying about the GOP. But it doesn’t make it true. Using the extremists as an example of the stereotypical republican is disingenuous.
Well, the extremists are being actively supported by mainstream GOP support apparatus and mainstream GOP politicians — both on this issue and on the whole birther thing. Yes, absolutely, both sides paint each other as extremist and out-of-touch, but those wielding power in the GOP are doing precious little to invalidate that right now.
Now, to go off on a tangent …
The Bush Admin and campaigns regularly had people arrested who were peacably (and, for the most p[art, silently) wearing t-shirts or carrying placards or not even expressing themselves at rallies/townhalls but had driven to the event in a car with an anti-Bush bumper sticker.
Obama/Pelosi et al. have requested that people be, y’know, polite and respectful — which, as I understand it, are traditionally considered conservative models of behavior.
You won’t find me defending the Bush administration.
And Pelosi’s request “that people be … respectful” is full of disrespect towards the protesters. I don’t disagree with the “respectful” angle.
I’m finding myself between a rock and a hard place, because I’m growing increasingly impatient with the GOP, but I still lean conservative. I mostly disagree with the left on key issues, but I have no side that tactfully represents what I stand for.
Your second link is, to be blunt, absurd. The part about the hispanic guys, if true, would be clear astroturfing but the blogger shot his credibility into so many pieces it’s just as likely that he’s making it up.
I could go point by point, but for starters:
Hard core stalinists? I don’t think so.
Nancy is right:
Also, the “Read the Bill” image is priceless. There isn’t a bill to read.
The sfmt is great.
Nancy is right that they used Nazi imagery to condemn the protesters. How that makes them astroturfers is beyond me. Besides, those who used such signs are make up a small portion of all protesters, yet the whole group of protesters is marginalized.
This is probably a better link from the sfmt site. Yeah, Stalinist isn’t quite accurate.
Sorry, but I actually stopped reading the 2nd link after this paragraph:
Yeah, I find that observation right there pretty telling. It tells me I’ll be wasting my time if I read the rest of that blog, because it sounds like the writer’s primary objective is to fan the hysteria of those unpaid citizens that are holding signs about arsenic and communism.
I agree with your point about astroturfing, though. It’s politics, reality, like it or not, and it’s not new, and both sides do it with varying degrees of lies depending on the circumstance.
Or, as this commenter said about the “I was never civically engaged until now, but stop trying to turn my beloved country into Russia!!!” woman…
I admit, there’s a lot of bull in that article. I’m not endorsing it. I’m merely presenting it as evidence that, as monkeyball says,
I agree that the solution isn’t to shout over people so that actual discussion can’t be had. But the argument I’m hearing from the White House and much of the left is that no “real people” actually oppose the reform.
I think it’s quite obvious that a lot of people do. I understand that not all of their concerns are necessarily valid, but that doesn’t change the fact that many people feel like the Administration is out of touch with the common person, and therefore seek to let them know.
In the end, whether Obamacare will succeed or not is irrelevant to the point I made in the first place: for a Democrat (the party of community organizing and forced grassroots movements) to call someone on the right an astroturfer is outright hypocrisy, unless they simultaneously decry the organized astroturfing on the left. Then again, maybe I’m misunderstanding the term.
I appreciate this comment, and I guess part of the problem is that I’m not hearing the same message. You hear the argument that no “real people” actually oppose the reform, I hear the argument that there are likely “real people” who oppose the reform, but they aren’t making any honest criticisms.
I agree with you that the former point is wrong, but the latter seems (to me) spot on.
As to your ultimate point, there’s a difference between voluntary organizing (like the retired teacher mentioned above) and astroturfing (like hiring random mexicans to hold signs and boost your numbers). The former is a staple of politics on both sides, the latter is problematic, and something that seems to me to be a primarily conservative tactic. That may be my bias, and if it is I’d be interested to hear counter-examples, but I am not aware of anything on the order of the Brooks Brothers riot (for example) orchestrated by liberals.
For the record, my second link was more for the pictures than the accompanying text. I knew it’d get the reaction it got.
One thing we know for sure: the A’s sure don’t astroturf supporters at the Coliseum.
Best comment:
And wtf is “astroturf”? Apparently I don’t read enough political blogs…
Fake grassroots.
Astroturf = giving the impression of a grassroots organization (i.e. paying people to pose as members of the public)
our business?
I had never thought of selling them by the avoirdupois pound.
You missed the insidious anti-Obama message. It’s a doctor’s office that will no longer be able to afford baby scales because the commies are going to redistribute all of their payments to a single welfare queen in Chicago.
A smart business manager would shift the office’s focus from postnatal to eldercare, buy these, and sell the old folks by the pound.
Too late, I just bought it so I can go hunt the last bluefin tuna.
Inevitable result of the NHS.
We’re all now subjects in the court of the Crimson King.
What the Fripp does that have to do with anything?
I’ve been waiting for a King Crimson reference for quite some time.
I thought such a comment would be belew you.
And someone has some odd categorical notions about parenting.
Astonishing.
Once again, I will insist that the biggest problem with journalism is with the editors.
While not disagreeing with your larger point, there’s something to be said for leaving the author’s crazy in an opinion piece.
That’s an especially interesting point now that “not publishing” really isn’t an option. With so many outlets and such low publication costs, the piece would just come out somewhere else.
So … what do people think of the Alex Rios waiver claim?
I don’t understand doing that after not trading Halladay — they still have to replace Rios’ production, which means they’ll likely overpay in terms of money (if they go FA), talent (trade), or risk (if they count on unproven minor-leaguers to develop). Rios’ contract, by all accounts, is right about at market value (the only people who say it’s not say it’s either under or over by a small margin), and while, sure, by the end of the contract he’ll likely be declining, inflation will surely render the contract at that point not too bad of a loss.
I think it’s interesting (and a logical progression from the pre-season FA pool).
Bascially, Rios’ contract is about right based upon a certain set of assumptions (and, of course, the Jays have already got most of the surplus value out of it) but those assumptions (specifically $/WAR) appear to be uncertain.
In a world where so many FAs last season didn’t get paid, did sign 1-year deals, and will therefore be on the market again, it’s entirely possible that overpaying on a FA in the offseason will result in similar production (Rios isn’t a special player, just a very good one) at a somewhat reduced salary with reduced years (and therefore risk).
I should add that I’m surprised they didn’t get some token prospect or two so they could tell their fans it wasn’t a pure salary dump.
Agree with both/all of your points.
I still don’t understand doing this and keeping Halladay, though — there’s no way (even with a passel of below-market over-achiever FAs next year) they compete in the ALE. This is a half-step commitment to rebuilding.
That’s certainly true. I think that just became a pissing contest where JP would feel like he lost if he accepted any offers on the table, and no one was willing to give him any more value.
Yeah, Ricciardi (I can’t really use his initials) seems to have a wee bit of a problem ignoring the media.
While I’m whacking pinatas …
That’s a whole lot of stupid. My money quote:
The problem isn’t that I don’t trust free markets (they work correctly every time). The problem is that free markets want to maximize costs and minimize services. The rational response of any insurance company is to deny every claim. Government, however, won’t do that.
Exactly. Insurance company incentives are only “perverse” for those who aren’t willing to stand behind what they claim to be their own free-market principles. As JMM et al. have been saying for some time, the GOP oppo is simply unwilling to come right out and say they want the poor and unlucky to simply die.
Do we care?
If the A’s get any of that money, I’m fine with it.
If the Coliseum Authority gets any of that money, and uses it to benefit fans (say, parking price reduction), I’m fine with it.
If the money vanishes without any tangible benefit, I’m a little sad but not really surprised.
#3
Nothing has changed (comment from a Brewers fan at BTF):
Nothing has changedEvery team is the same: parent club refuses to call up OF Travis from AAAHoly shit!
Congrats, Dan!
happy and sad news all in one.
A take I’d never heard before.
The business community (as distinct from the insurance sector), especially the small business community (help me out here, LB), really wants health insurance reform — because the crazy cost increases aren’t just hitting patients, but employers as well.
Really, the thing to do is to either nationalize and/or compete-into-irrelevance/insolvency the health insurance companies.
I firmly believe that if everyone could opt into Medicare-type coverage other insurers would either adapt or die and, either way everyone would be better off.
For now, though, I just want the Yglesias’ eightfold path to happen. Can someone please tell me that, like Sotomayor, this thing is going to happen as soon as the yelling stops? Please?
ANY kind of relief from a small business standpoint would be huge. Insurance is just another outrageous advantage that larger businesses have over smaller businesses.
Our new socialist avatar: Leopold the Signmaker
Rosie the Riveter and Leopold the Signmaker.
{sigh}
Whoa
Okay… walk me through this like I’m a 4-year-old…
I’m not sure why Isakson’s statement of vehement opposition to the bills is seen as contrary to his earlier comment about why the “death panels” thing is nuts. I don’t think his pointing out the nutsiness of a grotesque fallacy means that he secretly supports the bills or that he was claiming to have drafted their language.
Yeah. I don’t get the controversy either.
1. He said something sensible about “death panels”
2. Obama pointed to it
3. He pointed out that he hates Obama in an attempt to appeal to his base
The whole thing is pretty much standard isn’t it?
I guess I’m flummoxed by the tendency (on both sides) to look for flipflopping where there might not actually be any…
Honestly, I think it’s because the label was so effective against Kerry that Democrats started to use it too.
In the end, the whole thing is silly since anyone who never changes their mind on anything is the definition of an idiot.
I guess that some people have this idea that issues are black and white. Circumstances change, opinions change, peoples’ level of understanding changes. Consistency is surely important, but if you never change your mind on anything, you’re probably not thinking.
Basically, what you said.
What, are you on your way over here with an actual Politics for Preschoolers book? Thanks!
JediLeroy,
I’m interested in your take on this description of where responsible people actually differ on health care reform. I tend to agree with Klein, but I’m not who he’s talking about.
First, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your response above. I think give-and-take is important, and even if we don’t agree, it’s nice to take the time to better understand where the other side is coming from, and how views are shaped.
I think that, for the most part, people agree that some health care reform is necessary. It just seems that most on the right would prefer other forms of legislation (tort reform, etc.) to lower costs. I think that most politicians on the right do have legitimate fears about the legislation, but I definitely feel that many on the right are playing politics with Obama. In the past, Obama has shown himself to be somewhat averse to conceding anything, since he clearly feels that he has a mandate. The 15% that they supposedly don’t agree on seems like a larger number due to the complexity of those few issues that they don’t agree on. The moment they get on board with the 85% is the moment that they’re forced to swallow the 15%.
At the same time, many people are afraid to support anything that Obama pushes because of statements that he has made in the past about preferring single-payer. They’re afraid that the public option will be a trojan horse that eventually rids consumers of the private options.
Klein’s 85% assessment seems a bit oversimplified. On the other hand, I’m not exactly the most insightful or nuanced voice on the issue. I’d be interested to actually see and hear some of the debate going on in the higher ranks.
Thank you.
I completely agree with your last point, and I share your last thought about higher-rank debate. I think personally I worry that there isn’t any serious discussion on the higher rank R side, but that is almost certainly wrong. The posturing in public and “waterloo” stuff can’t be the whole story.
As an aside, I find tort reform fascinating. It seems to me that if you were to ask a totally a-political person where they stand on tort reform, you’d instantly learn whether they’re likely to be left or right leaning.
Does it come with a Mother’s Day bucket hat?
I think you’re right in that “tort reform” is a shibboleth — but it’s only a shibboleth, esp. for the right {cough}BorksuesHarvardoverpodium{cough}.
I have a sad story to share with the class: I watched Brazil last night and absolutely hated it. I have no idea how it makes any top lists at all, let alone all of them.
I have no response to that.
That is sad.
I know. I really expected to be wowed.