Politics and Culture

To Cubanology which turned 5 years old on the 12th. Jose is a very nice guy and puts a lot of time on his sight. He's one of the bloggers with whom I first communicated.

It's geared towards twenty-somethings. I can tell because I don't know any of the bands on the playlists. I don't know if it'll help McCain, but I'm sure it won't hurt. I like the name- it gives it a fun feel. I'll read it on occasion.

Shane is a blogging buddy I met at blogworld. He has a radio show you can hear here. Have fun.

I've heard Greenwald interviewed on two radio shows and was impressed with his lack of conspiracy-based nuttiness. In fact, Greenwald's subversion of the hosts' expectations threw the Prager and Hewitt fill-in and fellow blogger Dean Barnett (Soxblog) for a loop, leaving Prager and Barnett speechless. So, it was with some disappointment (I may have to look for another reasonable liberal blogger) that my friends at Magnasquids alerted me to this ridiculous, petty post yesterday.

Apparently a man who lives by a Greg Brady-like "exact words" ethos, Greenwald wrapped his intellect around the super-important isssue of Sowell's non-hobgobblinish inconsistency.

Greenwald responded to the following Sowell generalization:

We all believe that people are innocent until proven guilty. Some on the left believe that they are innocent even after being proven guilty.

It either means that liberals don't think that people convicted of crimes are really guilty, the framed by society argument. Or, that liberals believe that the condemned committed the crime, but are virtually innocent because society compelled them to steal and murder, the victim of society argument. Unless everything I've known in my lifetime is wrong, that's essentially correct. Would anybody deny that the defenders of Mumia Abu-Jamal and other cop-killers as well Stanley "Tookie" Williams and other literary-inclined gang founders were mostly liberal?

If one were to say, "conservatives want to kill murderers or incarcerate criminals instead of trying to rehabilitate them," that would be mostly correct as well, wouldn't it?

So, Sowell thinks that the government over-punished Scooter Libby for a questionable crime and that his prosecution and conviction may have been politically motivated. Greenwald thinks that his Libby opinion contradicts his generalization and that the contradiction makes him something of a hypocrite. This isn't a very smart thing to say because:

1. Sowell just makes a generalization. Does his contrasting of liberal and conservative views on crime prohibit Sowell from thinking on individual cases? Should he have said, "I think this was unfair, but because I believe that Republicans never question jury decisions, I have to ignore the problems with the case." Sowell isn't being hypocritical, he's thinking, making exceptions.

2. At no time did Thomas Sowell say that Scooter Libby was innocent. He said that his punishment didn't fit the crime and that the case was politically motivated. Again, should he ignore the truth?

3. Hilariously, Greenwald substitutes Sowell's mostly true generalization for one that's demonstrably untrue. He summons the masturbatory theory that conservatism is a mental disorder ("were the sane ones. why should we waste time arguing with the mentally deficient?"):

Research reveals that authoritarian followers drive through life under the influence of impaired thinking a lot more than most people do, exhibiting sloppy reasoning, highly compartmentalized beliefs, double standards, hypocrisy, self-blindness, a profound ethnocentrism, and -- to top it all off -- a ferocious dogmatism that makes it unlikely anyone could ever change their minds with evidence or logic.

So, the liberals who want to tell people where to go for health care; employers whom they may hire, fire, and what they can pay them; parents where they can send their children to educate; and everybody how much of their salary they can keep, are calling conservatives authoritarian (of course, the irony is that if Sowell did submit to authority, he wouldn't question the justness of the case).

Let's have examples of:

Read more »

Recent additions for Politics+ include Freedom Eden, and Cigar Intelligence Agency.

Freedom Eden caught my eye because the lady behind it, Mary, shares a great many interests with the Asymmetric staff (OK, it's only me for the moment). She likes Scifi, listens to KRLA, and has a moderate/realistic view of politics. In fact, differentiating between her opinions and mine is like distinguishing between Mr. Pibb and Dr. Pepper.

Her blog is of the medium format variety, meaning that she chooses news stories relevant to her blog's theme and comments upon them. The medium format is perfect for blogging and is what creates what's called "buzz." The quotes she places on the side is also a great feature that I haven't seen before.

Next up is Cigar Intelligence Agency. People often have a special place in their hearts for those who hail from a country that produces something of interest to them. I annoy every German I meet because I like classical music. Gourmets may especially like the French. Sausage lovers have a soft spot for the Austrians. People who like cigars, like those at CIA, may find Cubans interesting (although the only time I've smoked a Cuban cigar [in Iraq], I became ill, much to the amusement of my battle buddies), which may be one of the reasons he posted about Asymmetric. His style is friendly and conversational. Good points can be found throughout like this one in which he applies lessons from D-Day to our present conflict. His posts are also of medium length, though some are quite short.

Here's a funny cat picture from here.

Welcome on board. If any of you know of any blogs I should check out, let me know.

I honor all of my brothers and sisters in the military, people who voluntarily offered to risk their lives for their country. And, of course, I grieve along with those parents who have lost their children to the war.

Now, I was going to criticize Indiana Bob of the Daily Kos for using a nation's condolences to further a political cause, but it was Andrew Bacevich, the father of a fallen Iraqi veteran, who decided to use that sympathy for political reasons (not an attack. It's just being accurate, no?), so I won't mention that aspect of the post. Some points, however:

1. Do soldiers have more credibility on the war or not? Should we listen to parents of fallen soldiers or not? Unless you conduct a survey and alter your opinion accordingly, DON'T MENTION THE FALLEN SOLDIERS OR THEIR PARENTS TO MAKE A POLITICAL POINT. It is what it is: emotional exploitation.

How much would you like to bet that Indiana Bob had the same opinion before he read about Bacevich or any other soldier's family? How much would you like to bet that Indiana Bob would have the same opinion had Bacevich come to a different conclusion about the war after his son's death? How much would you bet that Indiana Bob would have the same opinion had 100% of the fallen soldier's families been in favor of continued involvement in Iraq?

The president honors soldiers because that's part of his job, but I wouldn't like him to say something like "Joe's dad wanted to say that he supports the war." If he has, he should be ashamed.

2.

I would like every single democratic congressman to listen to this piece before they vote on Thursday, especially when a grieving father asks the following:

¨

What kind of a democracy is this when the people do speak, and the people´s voice is unambiguous, but nothing happens?¨

¨Our voices,¨ he says, ¨are simply lost.

Is that a smart thing to say? Do you think congressmen, who have been studying this war and its consequences for America and the world for four years, are just going to dump all of their opinions because of that statement? Is that how you want the congress to govern? Why don't we all just send them quotes instead of offering solid reasoning?

Besides, does Indiana Joe think the last election was unambiguous? So all of those millions upon millions of words and contrary opinion and analysis on the war was for nothing? Please! As if Indiana Bob said the 2004 congressional vote was unambiguous. Don't insult us, Mr. Bob.

Again, is the public right or not? If you're going to give weight to public opinion, then you should change along with them, no?

This is something everybody does: When the public votes for the other guy, the public are "sheeple," stupid, uninformed, etc. When they vote for your guy, the public is "awakening," wise, and should be heeded. So when they change back, do they get stupid again? The education system fell apart overnight only to improve four years later only to fall...

Please, Indiana Bob, Don't insult your audience with this stuff.

Paxety Pages has joined the Asymmetric Blogroll Nice looking site. The stories are well-written and long which, in this case, means thoughtful.