Making Baby Jesus Cry

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Jack Shafer didn't care for it that much:

"Sloppy writing like Posner's is enough to erode my trust in American jurisprudence."

To the extent Posner contends that the established press further left, I'd have to agree with Shafer's assessment. Perhaps Posner should stick to writing about our future Robot Overlords.

It's time for Posner to retire from the bench, go back to academia, and let his crusty, curmoudgeonly ramblings go largely unnoticed by those who aren't Federalist Society members convinced he's the reincarniation of Marie Antoinette, but in a good way.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I don't get lesbians and dildos. Can you explain? I can see lesbians not liking male genitals, but I don't see rejecting guys then buying fake male genitals and having them used on you by another woman.

Lesbians don't forfeit their nerve endings. Its built to be filled every now and again. Lesbians just prefer women do the filling. Nothing complex or contradictory about it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's time for Posner to retire from the bench, go back to academia, and let his crusty, curmoudgeonly ramblings go largely unnoticed by those who aren't Federalist Society members convinced he's the reincarniation of Marie Antoinette, but in a good way.

Shafer is right that Posner says some things in that piece that seem empirically wrong. For example, the thing about CNN moving left in response to Fox. You could only think that if you spend a lot of time watching Fox and have your barometer screwed up as a result. I was just writing a blog post about the same point, and hadn't seen Shafer's critique.

What's valuable about Posner's piece is the recognition that the media industry is a business, and that the stuff it generates is affected by commercial motives. When there were relatively few media outlets, it made sense for them to be moderate, to try to get the largest audience. As the outlets multiply, it makes sense for them to go after niche markets -- e.g., what Fox has done. This economic analysis has a lot more force, it seems to me, than the usual junk about bias. Their bias is towards making money.

Posner's piece would be more persuasive if he understood the business a little better. He seems to have accepted uncritically the (right-wing propounded) notion that journalists -- and not editors or publishers -- get to decide what stories to write and emphasize.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am particularly proud of those posts. The fact that you can find those posts so quickly, and that you are still thinking about them, just reinforces my initial inclination that all is not well in NCS land.

Good on you that you are proud of them. I am proud for you. Excellent foreshadowing of your overall PB persona.

I have never bothered to reply seriously to you because your posts do speak for themselves (that is, you look like an ass, though you apparently don't realize this), but in light of your pride in your early work, let me fill you in on a thing or two.

My first post to you was a joke post. It was a combination penske riff (that is why there were a number of acronyms in it) and Hank not-so-inside reference to his signature block at the time (the constructive criticism thing). I don't generally reply substantively to people on the politics board because I come to these boards for amusement, not to bicker with people about partisan politics. Frankly I think both political parties in our country could stand some serious competition based on their failure to do much beside pander to their loudest constituencies, but I digress. In addition, it was clearly a slow day for me, because I only read the PB on slow days.

So I posted a joke post and you flipped your lid. Fine. You are nothing if not a literalist. So I engaged a bit and then you go off on this rant making some assumption that you know anything at all about me, my personality off the boards and my ability to hold pleasant conversation. Interesting engagement style. Seems defensive to me. Others pointed this out to you and you jumped their shit too. Good times.

The reason why I reposted yesterday is that paigow thought I was being mean to you with the "social cripple" bit. I thought she should understand that you are the one who threw that around initially. Just some context, if you will. Paigow has told me in the past that my dealings with you amused her, and I'm sure she was curious as to why I am so mean to you, because generally I get along with most people here. Mainly because fighting with people would decrease my enjoyment of the boards, so I have no particular interest in doing so.

But, your arguing style on this board in particular is offensive. I am not the only one telling you so. I may have been the first person you were an asshole to, but I am by no means the last. A prime example would be your engagements with dtb and Ty yesterday. You have a condescending, know-it-all demeanor here and you consistently mischaracterize the viewpoints of those arguing with you. Just not pleasant to be around. You characterized dtb's arguemnts as pro-Castro when her posts yesterday clearly established that she is personally quite anti-Castro and his regime for reasons far more developed than the shit you spew here. All she was telling you was that from her personal experience he is quite popular there. And in you view that makes her pro-Castro. Maybe you should look more for nuances and shades of gray in people's viewpoints instead of reading positions counter to yours in some sort of absolutist light. People here are smart (sebby excluded) so you should give them some credit instead of playing "liberals are evil" absolutist games. And you shouldn't condescend to them unless your goal is to look the fool.

So it turns out social cripple fits. Well played, playa.

This is as much energy as I intend to expend on you today, so don't count on some PB debate over whether or not you are in fact an ass with me. I'm heading over to the FB to enjoy myself with people I actually like.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
People here are smart (sebby excluded) so you should give them some credit instead of playing "liberals are evil" absolutist games. And you shouldn't condescend to them unless your goal is to look the fool.

You have it backwards.

I disagree that people here are smart. Its a bunch of people googling silly academic support for a pile of wild incendiary positions. The only person here who appears to have more than a ADD addled dilletante’s knowledge of the geopolitics debated is Ty, and he might actually be over-read.

Spanky's just that stupid.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Shafer is right that Posner says some things in that piece that seem empirically wrong. For example, the thing about CNN moving left in response to Fox.

Yes. The factually correct description is that CNN moved more towards sucky in response to Fox.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Have you ever taken a political geography class? You seem to think the US has the right - no, the obligation - to act as a star chamber, deciding for the world which despots and dictators get to stay in power.

Its unfashionable these days, but there is a thhing called international law. You seem to think we can act like a schoolyard bully and run some sort of Global Manifest Destiny policy (which is the Neocon's entire platform).*

We are not the World's policemen. We can't just destroy whatever doesn't appeal to our moral tastes. Your belief that we have a moral right to blow out states all over the place because they oppress their people is a modern repackaging of the Crusaders' mentality. I'm sure many European nations look at our system as persecuting millions of poor US citizens. If they were bigger than us, would they have the right to attack us to "liberate" us? Of course not.

You're totally ignoring international law. If we chuck the sovereignty of states, even a state run by a tin pot despot like Hussein, then we're saying "There is no intl law except 'might makes right.'" You do that and you're basically rolling back civilization a few hundred years.

*The neocons are not brilliant at all. Bill Kristol and Perle are uncreative hacks. A fucking four year old could come up with the idea of Global manifest Destiny. And a ten year old who studied Roman and British history for half a day could explain why such a policy is hopelessly naive and idiotic.

A law isn't really a law unless it can be enforced. Until the UN sets up some sort of police force that enforces international law it doesn't really exist. I reject your idea of a sovereign nation being sacrosanct. And thankfully so has almost every U.S. Presdient this century.

The idea behind international law is to promote justice. Not just to have laws. If Hitler had never invaded anyone but started exterminating the Jews, under your understanding of international law we could do nothing. I reject that.

You are a moral relativist. I am not. I think some systems of government are better than others. I believe in international human rights and I don't think any leader (recognized by the international community or not) has the right to abuse human rights.

The funny thing is in a amoral world might is right. If different nations have different ideas of right and wrong how the hell are you supposed to agree on international laws.

If there was a coup in this country and some dictator started extermination large swaths of the population I would hope some foreign power would step in and stop it.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You have it backwards.

I disagree that people here are smart. Its a bunch of people googling silly academic support for a pile of wild incendiary positions. The only person here who appears to have more than a ADD addled dilletante’s knowledge of the geopolitics debated is Ty, and he might actually be over-read.

Spanky's just that stupid.

Don't forget Burger.

eta: And RT on healthcare issues and fringey and wonk on tax issues. Even though I usually scroll through those topics, the seem genuinely to know what they're talking about.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by taxwonk
It's time for Posner to retire from the bench, go back to academia, and let his crusty, curmoudgeonly ramblings go largely unnoticed by those who aren't Federalist Society members convinced he's the reincarniation of Marie Antoinette, but in a good way.

I take it you read his blog, then.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Yes. The factually correct description is that CNN moved more towards sucky in response to Fox.

Aaron Brown needs to go. The man doesn’t interview anyone. He regales people with his own observations and experiences. I don’t want to watch Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s reactions to Aaron Brown’s experiences as a young reporter around the time of Watergate. How did someone so dull and egocentric become CNN's main anchor? He makes Brit Hume look pleasant and dynamic.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
The funny thing is in a amoral world might is right. If different nations have different ideas of right and wrong how the hell are you supposed to agree on international laws.

That is the most utterly amoral thing I have seen in quite some time. Might is right? Thus, in Iraq, Saddam was right? In the USSR in the 40's when we didn't really have the ability to stop him, Stalin was right?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Don't forget Burger.

eta: And RT on healthcare issues and fringey and wonk on tax issues. Even though I usually scroll through those topics, the seem genuinely to know what they're talking about.

You forgot me on pensions. West* is publishing my first installment of Dangerfield on Pensions.

I agree; I was merely talking about geopolitics, which takes up about 90% of the debates here.

* Editor's Note: West Croatian Pamphlet, Ltd. is in no way affiliated with West Publishing.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I take it you read his blog, then.

Not more than once.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Aaron Brown needs to go. The man doesn’t interview anyone. He regales people with his own observations and experiences. I don’t want to watch Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein’s reactions to Aaron Brown’s experiences as a young reporter around the time of Watergate. How did someone so dull and egocentric become CNN's main anchor? He makes Brit Hume look pleasant and dynamic.

2. And Tammy Faye Messner was on Larry King Live again to talk about her latest bout with cancer. Small wonder CNN's getting clobbered in prime time.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
A law isn't really a law unless it can be enforced. Until the UN sets up some sort of police force that enforces international law it doesn't really exist. I reject your idea of a sovereign nation being sacrosanct. And thankfully so has almost every U.S. Presdient this century.

The idea behind international law is to promote justice. Not just to have laws. If Hitler had never invaded anyone but started exterminating the Jews, under your understanding of international law we could do nothing. I reject that.

You are a moral relativist. I am not. I think some systems of government are better than others. I believe in international human rights and I don't think any leader (recognized by the international community or not) has the right to abuse human rights.

The funny thing is in a amoral world might is right. If different nations have different ideas of right and wrong how the hell are you supposed to agree on international laws.

If there was a coup in this country and some dictator started extermination large swaths of the population I would hope some foreign power would step in and stop it.

They did this script already... its called "Team America."