Political anti-intellectualism

Submitted by Trickster on Tue, 10/31/2006 - 11:58am

In another recent thread, one of the site's respected liberal posters associated "anti-intellectualism" with "the right." One of the site's respected conservative posters responded by accusing the liberal of perpetuating a hackneyed "liberals = smart, conservatives = dumb" argument.

With respect, "me smart, you stupid" is not the message here. Extremely intelligent people can promote anti-intellectualism for their own purposes.

A small quibble but I missed the vote

Submitted by Timmy on Tue, 10/31/2006 - 12:24am

on the elimination of diaries. You know the vote which established the parameters for the procedure. But then again I really wasn't paying attention to all the bumping of gums that was going on at the time. It really wasn't of any interest to me and that certainly hasn't changed. It does seem that if you take it to its logical conclusion (more libs than conservatives on this site). That we ought to just change the name of the site to Wings and be done with it, or pursue a recruiting effort of my conservative brethren and change the name to Red States.

 

Root-canaling the dying pulp

Submitted by Kierkegaard on Mon, 10/30/2006 - 2:56pm

The latest paid circulation figures for major newspapers are out (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003316421), and as the US celebrates its 300 millionth citizen, they paint a bleakly depressing picture of the future of the newspaper industry in this country. The yearly numbers are down for nearly every major publication, except for the tabloid-style New York Post. The industry itself has been quick to blame the Internet for this decline in readership--and since the two most widely read news sites belong to the New York Times and Washington Post, there may or may not be a corresponding decline in ad revenue--but I feel this is a facile explanation. Even self-serving.

The Astounding Lack of Debate

Submitted by jackson mead on Mon, 10/30/2006 - 11:04am

We are a little more than one week away from the mid-term election and here at The Forvm and, as near as I can tell, at most other politically oriented websites there is a depressing lack of substantive debate. Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of snarky finger pointing, name calling and trash talking, but little debate.

I have suspicions as of why. First, the Republican Party, which has ridden to the political summit as "The Party of Ideas" has become instead the Party of "we'll keep you safe" and "the other guys won't" and seems bereft of new ideas and utterly incapable of telling a compelling story about well, anything. The Democrats, long derided as the "Party of No" has certainly chosen to focus its 2006 campaign around The President. All negative, all the time. The Dems actually have a six point plan but has anybody heard about it? To be fair, it is so filled with goals without tactics for achieving them or any concrete specifics that it is hard to defend.

A Sceptic's defense of G-D

Submitted by vinteuil on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 9:08pm

Consider all of the infinitely many worlds that could possibly exist.

To say that something - anything - is "possible" is just to say that it actually *is* the case in *at least one* of those infinitely many possible worlds.

(E.g.: a flower, a cloud, you, etc.)

To say that something - anything - is "necessary" is just to say that it actually *is* the case in *all* of those infinitely many possible worlds.

(E.g.: A is A, 2 + 2 = 4, the plumber didn't come on time, etc.)

So much for defining our terms. Let's begin, then.

(1) God is, by definition, a necessarily existent being - i.e., a being that exists in all possible worlds. (See Anselm, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, etc.)

Who shall be Punditus Maximus?

Submitted by Wagster on Sat, 10/28/2006 - 1:09pm

UPDATED BELOW With only a little more than a week to go till the election it's time for a little election pool. The prize? Nothing monetary and nothing to imbibe... just the honor of placing the hallowed title "Punditus Maximus" in your sig line. You will allowed to wear this crown until the next go-round when -- as in beauty pageants -- you will humbly relinquish it to the next winner, who will be crying tears of joy at the honor.

Here are the rules:

1. Guess the Democratic swing in the Senate. (For these purposes, Bernie Sanders will be counted as a Democrat.)
2. Tiebreaker one: guess the Democratic swing in the House.

Impact of Libertarians

Submitted by jackson mead on Fri, 10/27/2006 - 3:35pm

Via Greg Mankiw we get a column in the National Journal by Clive Crook, a Brit, regarding the role of Libertarians in the American electorate and the Republican Party. [Caveat: I have voted for Libertarian candidates many times including twice for President]. Some key sections follow:

The vaunted ability of the Republican Party to get out the vote where it really matters is about to be tested. If the party can survive the midterm elections without heavy losses (especially if it retains control of the House) despite the current abysmal poll ratings for the Bush administration and the congressional leadership, then its strategy of attending to its loyalist base will be vindicated. If the party gets the drubbing that Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, assorted congressional scandals, and those awful poll numbers all point to, then the message for 2008 will be different: Republicans must look beyond that loyalist base and care more, as they used to, about support from uncommitted voters.

The door that the Foley story opened appears to be closing in on Webb

Submitted by Timmy on Fri, 10/27/2006 - 11:54am

This morning on the way to work Imus spoke to Chris Dodd about James Webb and some passages which Jim had written in a couple of his novels. The question is, will the MSM play this like they have played the Foley story nationally or the Allen stories locally?

Rolling The Dice

M Scott Eiland's picture
Submitted by M Scott Eiland on Fri, 10/27/2006 - 11:43am

With their backs to the wall, the Tigers are not going to start Kenny Rogers--the hottest pitcher around--in Game Five with full rest, with Jim Leyland hoping that Justin Verlander can stop the Cards and send the series back to Detroit for the last two games of the Series. Some are questioning Leyland's choice here, and I tend to agree. A win in Game Five would actually give the Tigers the home field advantage back, and a burst of confidence for them and their fans as they returned to friendly surroundings. Unless Leyland is afraid that Rogers is going to turn back into a pumpkin and get blasted, I can't defend this choice. Of course, if Verlander shuts down the Cards in front of their own fans and Rogers wins Game Six, it's going to set up one whale of a Game Seven, and Leyland will look like a genius if the Tigers win the rubber match of the Series and the all-time confrontation between the Cardinals and the Tigers. History will have to be the judge of Leyland's choice today.

A topic worth revisiting: Torture

Submitted by callmeishmael on Thu, 10/26/2006 - 11:23pm

The Vice President advocates for it. It barely creates a ripple in the news stream. I mean, really, is this defensible?

"It's a no-brainer for me" he states.

Really? Have we fallen so far that this doesn't even bear comment no less condemnation?

Syndicate content