The best thing about Nieps is that, if I forget to revisit an old political argument I've made for long enough, I can reliably depend on him to provide intelligent support. Whatever else we may disagree about re PEDS, I give #115 a full "what he said."

re 115, ahhh... [Ignored Comment] is bliss.

The reason I no longer pay attention to David is that he is always willing to subvert his considerable intellect in the service of his rather antic beliefs.

Anyone who can so relentlessly lambaste the left (who in turn so often deserve it), and not find endless, bloody humor in the murderous clowning of the right--in fact, endlessly defend it--has reduced himself to an apologist and charlatan.

Pity. He's a pretty smart fellow.

Anyone who can so relentlessly lambaste the left (who in turn so often deserve it), and not find endless, bloody humor in the murderous clowning of the right--in fact, endlessly defend it--has reduced himself to an apologist and charlatan.

Not that arkitekton will see this, apparently, but I attack the right plenty. I certainly don't like McCain; I was not defending him qua him, but simply defending him against inaccurate attacks. McCain scares me; he's really a lot more like Bush than people seem to think, with more articulateness and less of a theocratic tinge. The only thing I can say in his favor is that he isn't a Democrat, and since Democrats control and will continue to control Congress, I want a Republican president. And he's the only one left who fits that description.

It does seem as if I defend the right more than the left around here, but that's just because BTF is so heavily tilted towards the left. In conservative fora, the opposite happens.

Damn...where is Ross Perot when you need him?

Damn...where is Ross Perot when you need him?

Lighting his cigars with $1000 bills.

Robert Heinlein once proposed that only veterans be allowed to vote ...

<Sci Fi geek interlude>But Heinlein included all who performed public service in the category of veterans. The hypothetical in Starship Troopers was, if I recall, a blind, deaf, mute who would be given the task of counting the fuzz on a catepillar if that was all he could do to serve.</interlude>

DLF: there's some controversy about how to interpret that passage, but I think the best reading is that you had to enlist in the military, and if you did, they had to take you, regardless of your physical abilities, and give you a job commensurate with your abilities -- not that any government job was sufficient to qualify you as a veteran.

David ~ If the military is broadly enough defined to encompass fuzz counting (or freezing on an experimental station on Pluto, or draining the swamps of Venus, or other Heinleinian make-work tasks) what governmental job would not be military? He certainly wasn't limiting it to Cap Troopers or the cute & bald Navy pilots.

Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion ...

Ugh. I should have known you guys would all fall in line behind the severely over-rated Heinlein.

DLF: I think you're making the Kevin mistake (no offense) of confusing the job with the uniform. The job you do could be counting fuzz on a caterpillar or researcher or soldier; what makes you military is the uniform. There were civilian government employees in the book -- a local sheriff who arrests the child killer, for instance, a cop in Seattle. Civilians who worked on the military base where they went for R & R.

117 - arkitekton:

I like you. We got into politics on an earlier thread and I remember that while I disagreed with you (this fwiw is where I got my impression that you were generally "left," as least as far as it would be typically described), I thought you played fair. Which is why you ought to unblock Nieporent and read what he wrote, since it's not trollish and serves as a very apt response to your points. And I certainly don't think of him as a monochromatic right-winger by any means. Given what I know of him from his comments on Volokh (where I have been talking to him under various guises for years now) and here, he's a sharp critic of the right from a libertarian-oriented perspective. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Nieporent).

Although he is apparently an Orioles fan, which is a major blow to his credibility. And he's totally wrong on the PED issue.

P.S.: Concerning McCain and the "Roberts vs. Alito" issue, it seems clear to me that if he said that quote at all (and I suspect he probably did), the point he was making was merely that he would generally prefer quieter judicial conservatives like Roberts, since they would have a much easier time getting confirmed in a Senate that will almost certainly be dominated by Democrats. I think that the way he fought for both Roberts and Alito in the Senate speaks for itself. And I also think that the "Gang Of 14" was one of his finest, most Burkean conservative moments: getting key judges confirmed whilst preserving the tradition of the Senate filibuster for a time (that came very quickly) when Republicans would not be the majority party in Congress.

I like you. We got into politics on an earlier thread and I remember that while I disagreed with you (this fwiw is where I got my impression that you were generally "left," as least as far as it would be typically described), I thought you played fair. Which is why you ought to unblock Nieporent and read what he wrote, since it's not trollish and serves as a very apt response to your points. And I certainly don't think of him as a monochromatic right-winger by any means. Given what I know of him from his comments on Volokh (where I have been talking to him under various guises for years now) and here, he's a sharp critic of the right from a libertarian-oriented perspective. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, Nieporent).


If arkitekton played fair with you, I'd suggest that you experienced an anomaly. I got called an idiot for not accepting his armchair psychological evaluation of Bush as a "psychopath" and told I need help because I didn't see how Bush is a madman for not taking Bianca Jagger's pleas for an axe-murderer seriously. If DMN is being ignored by this chap, he should consider it one less headache - arkitekton's one of only two people on my ignore list and I was quite surprised to see someone join RETARDO.

And I also think that the "Gang Of 14" was one of his finest, most Burkean conservative moments: getting key judges confirmed whilst preserving the tradition of the Senate filibuster for a time (that came very quickly) when Republicans would not be the majority party in Congress.

Without getting quite that philosophical about it, I thought the Gang of 14 was admirable also; the fact that some Republicans attack him for it shows to me how deranged some Republicans are. (Or, perhaps, it's an illustration of Jane's Law: "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.") Getting rid of the filibuster for judges would be a great idea, for Republicans, if the GOP were guaranteed to be in power forever. It's like they never considered the possibility that some day Democrats might run the place and they themselves might want to filibuster. (The weirdest thing about their complaint is that they act like it was a defeat for Republicans, as if ending the filibuster was their goal rather than the means to an end.)

Plus, I note that there's no principle which distinguishes between confirmation of judges and passing legislation; the same procedural argument which could eliminate the filibuster in the former case could do so in the latter case. As a libertarian, I like the filibuster for legislation; anything that can prevent Congress from passing laws is a good thing.

Concerning McCain and the "Roberts vs. Alito" issue, it seems clear to me that if he said that quote at all (and I suspect he probably did), the point he was making was merely that he would generally prefer quieter judicial conservatives like Roberts, since they would have a much easier time getting confirmed in a Senate that will almost certainly be dominated by Democrats.

That may have been his argument, but the weird thing about it is that neither McCain nor just about anybody on the planet except law professors and the most politically-aware lawyers could tell you the difference between Roberts and Alito, in terms of their judicial approach or philosophy. The reason Roberts had an easier time being confirmed than Alito had solely to do with the question of who they were replacing.

The reason Roberts had an easier time being confirmed than Alito had solely to do with the question of who they were replacing.

Roberts was originally nominated to replace O'Connor, and was well on his way to an easy confirmation when Rehnquist died.

No, the main reason Roberts had an easier time being confirmed than did Alito was that Roberts didn't have a major anti-abortion opinion on his resume, or really any specific thing on his record that could be held up as an indicator that he was going to shift the Court to the right. Alito did.

-- MWE

#128 - Nieporent:

Jane's Law: "The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane."

Throwaway Megan McArdle reference = +100 points, level up. We have clearly been reading the same blogs for a long time now.

The reason Roberts had an easier time being confirmed than Alito had solely to do with the question of who they were replacing.

Perhaps so. But I remember there being a reasonably significant difference in perceptions insofar as Roberts, upon nomination, had the absolute perfect Golden Boy resume (pretty much the ideal qualifications in terms of school + academic & professional achievement), plus a telegenic mien and (critically) few judicial opinions from DC Circuit with which he could be attacked. He just looked the part of a calm, likable conservative candidate. Whereas Alito had a history of sensible jurisprudence long enough for his Casey opinion to be used against him, and generally just didn't look as "cuddly" as Roberts. (Sad to say it, but superficial perceptions matter. Even Alito's Italian heritage was being used against him...remember all the "Scalito" barbs?)

Roberts was the dream nominee...but there are very few John Roberts types out there. If McCain wins in November (and assuming the Dems still retain control), I think Michael McConnell would be the best choice. He is well-loved by both liberal and conservative judicial scholars alike, despite being a conservative jurist.

Throwaway Megan McArdle reference = +100 points, level up. We have clearly been reading the same blogs for a long time now.

At least nobody's threatened to take a 2x4 to anyone else yet.

Which is why you ought to unblock Nieporent and read what he wrote, since it's not trollish and serves as a very apt response to your points.

Fair enough. I'll take a look tomorrow evening.

As for Dan, I'm surprised at his remarks here. My description of Bush's behavior was analytical rather than vitriolic, and at any rate had nothing to do with anything Dan had been saying. It was Dan who began the personal attacks and name calling. For him to be crying foul play over that thread seems misplaced, imo.

Roberts was the dream nominee...but there are very few John Roberts types out there. If McCain wins in November (and assuming the Dems still retain control), I think Michael McConnell would be the best choice. He is well-loved by both liberal and conservative judicial scholars alike, despite being a conservative jurist.

Nobody who's on record as calling Roe "illegitimate" is going to be confirmed for the Supreme Court while the Democrats control the Senate. (I'm assuming that the next retiree is Stevens. If a conservative justice leaves, then McConnell could be confirmed.)

The fifth vote to overturn Roe, if it exists at all, is going to have to come via stealth nominee. And frankly, I'm not even sure about that. It's going to be a war. If a President McCain appoints a Souter, he'll be lucky if Republicans don't sneak into the White House at night and deport him back to the Hanoi Hilton. But if the Democrats approve someone who has openly stated he'll overturn Roe, NARAL members will be strapping dynamite to themselves and attacking DNC headquarters.

The antipathy between blacks and Latinos really may sink Obama in the general election, if he gets there. OTOH, McCain is genuflecting to the right on immigration right now. That's going to be the stuff of ads in the general. OTOH...

I'll have to disagree, mildly, with regard to McCain v Clinton. I think in that particular case the Latino vote could well be decisive, and put Clinton in. If they don't bloody each other too much, and if Clinton asks Obama to be on the ticket, and if he agrees, then I really don't see McCain winning.

I agree in the sense that I picked Clinton, not Obama, to get the Demo nom about two months ago, mostly because I thought she would take NY, CA and TX. This may well apply to the general as well, and might get her past McCain, but the general is a different animal than the primaries--more independent voters, more young voters, some voters who did not vote in the primaries, more TV, more buzz, more focus on personalities. If the Demo nom comes down to some kind of backroom negotiation, I am sure that the main argument for Clinton would be that she can deliver those states.

You mentioned immigration--among the several (12-15) working-class Latino voters I spoke to, (I teach adult ed) that was far down the list. It was all gut stuff. In a culture that is heavily Catholic and has a low divorce rate, Latino women identify very heavily with a woman who stayed with her husband even though he plays around with younger women and is now trying to do something big "on her own". Latino males like her, too--the "machismo" thing seems to kick in with hot women (they wouldn't vote for Salma Hayek) but they like strong matriarchs. One of the students, a guy about 40, called Clinton "a tough mamacita."

Against this, you have a slick black guy with a Muslim name (three working-class voters I know--one white, two Latin, have told me they believe Obama is Muslim and would never vote for him) from a midwestern state that they don't know much about.

I noted Obama's wins over the weekend, and also heard a young Latino university student, who is big on Obama, talking about him last Friday and why this guy is bucking his family to vote for a black man. In terms of popular culture, Obama has brought back something we have not had in America in awhile: the charismatic crossover pioneer/icon. Obama, win or lose, is now in some respects a public figure in the tradition of Jackie Robinson, Sidney Poitier, and in a different way, Michael Jordan, and that is a powerful thing to the media and to much of the population, which is a lot of the reason he is giving Clinton such a tussle.

Looking at the thread, the order of events was:

- Zim said Bush was an idiot, not evil
- Arkitekton said Bush was a psychopath
- Zim said that it was armchair psychology
- Arkitekton replies that Zim was (and I quote) incoherent, unable to read, unable to research, ignorant, unsure whether he was thinking or thought he was thinking, pathetic, unable to argue a cae, mean-spirited, and pitiful.
- Zim calls Arkitekton far left and implies that he's retarded

Why, unless you have an agenda here, do you selectively omit Dan's mocking tone in his "armchair psychology" post, complete with his stated "<snicker>"? If that's not a rhetorical call to battle, what would be? Before I can reply to him, Dan next in 1136 piles on with another attempt at mockery, and a mischaracterization of my position. I did feel that after that he was fair game. If you want to tell me I overreacted, I won't argue, but Dan began the sniping, so he doesn't get to complain when it's returned.

Unless Arkitekton can demonstrate that he's qualified for making a clinical diagnosis of psychology (he claimed he was making a clinical diagnosis and he had no ill will towards Bush) and diagnosed Bush through a proper, personal evaluation of Bush's psyche, Zim's diagnosis of armchair psychology is factual and Arkitekton's shotgun reply was clearly the first volley.

Here's what I actually wrote, in post 1132:

I don't know any Bush detractors who think he thought the invasion had anything to do with necessarily getting popular, Dan. I've been unsparing in my criticism of Bush, but I believe that he's not evil as much as he is a true psychopath. I mean that in the clinical sense rather than any particularly derogatory sense.

Why mischaracterize what I said? Note that I stated specifically I was trying to observe the standard of clinical definition, and not that I was making a "clinical diagnosis". There's a world of difference. I also wrote "I believe", and made no attempt to present my opinion as fact. "Psychopath" is a term that gets chucked around a lot. Like the word "fascist", which often simply means an ideology the speaker despises, "psychopath" is routinely used as an epithet. I wanted to be clear I wasn't using it that way.

If a "personal" evaluation is your standard, then you simply and flatly forbid any attempt to understand the psychological state of a world leader. Why take that off the table? Why wouldn't an attempt to understand that psychology be useful in predicting future behavior? Doing so is an accepted method of evaluation and prediction. It's called "profiling", as doubtless you know. In the case of Bush, attempting to understand his psychological state and how that might lead him to pre-emptively invade Iran--and how I can best continue to do my nonviolent bit to prevent that... it's not merely about whiling away a couple of hours during a blizzard.

As far as being a clinical psychologist goes, I'm happy to say I'm not. In that vein, though, I can't imagine you'd reserve the right to talk about medicine exclusively to doctors, and so on. Is attempting to diagnose from a distance subject to error (as is diagnosing in person)? Of course it is. Is it sometimes done as part of a dishonest agenda? Of course it is. Notwithstanding, can it prove useful, and might it be accurate? Of course it might.

Reread my post 1132 if you like. It's quite measured, and I offer evidence. Follow that with David N.'s post in 1134, where he simply disagrees, and offers counter-explanations. I often find David's approach grating, and to defend the Texas justice system as he does is incredible to me, but he's more than entitled to disagree with me, and I respect the manner in which he did so, in that particular post.

Why mischaracterize what I said? Note that I stated specifically I was trying to observe the standard of clinical definition, and not that I was making a "clinical diagnosis". There's a world of difference. I also wrote "I believe", and made no attempt to present my opinion as fact. "

That's bullcrap and I say that as someone who actually is one of those left-of-Chomsky posters that Zim feels populate the site. You said that he was psychopathic "in the clinical sense" which implies a medical understanding of the issue. You tried to add weight to your argument with the phrase in the "clinical sense" in order to make it look like Zim was just being petty but you had the ability to rise above the argument because you were making a medical opinion, not simply one based on personal disagreement.

And no, you didn't add evidence. The war is an abomination, one which pushes Bush down to the level of the James Buchanans of American history, but you did in fact make your case for Bush being a psychopath with the "isolated, carefully selected, single-sentence out-of-context snippets" that Zim suggested (not the exact quote). In fact, one could very accurately argue that the tactics you used to support your argument that Bush is a psychopath are kith and kin to the tactics that neo-cons have used to get their way over the last years. It would be difficult to fault Zim for it causing him to not take you seriously when it also causes us not not take neo-cons seriously.

With regard to your objections to my use of "chickenhawk", I must call fowl.

Whether or not the misspelling of "foul" was deliberate, I rather enjoyed it.

Now you're just trolling, Shawn. You preclude a "medical understanding" for reasons known to you, I guess. Sorry to hear/read it, especially considering I've enjoyed other of your posts.

It is surely possible that Bush is a psychopath. Since direct analysis is impossible, conjecture on what evidence is available has to suffice. If you think the subject is unthinkable, and simply must not be entertained, then you don't have to. Ad hominem attacks and skewed imputations don't cut it, though.

With regard to your objections to my use of "chickenhawk", I must call fowl.

Whether or not the misspelling of "foul" was deliberate, I rather enjoyed it.

Thank you. I'll be here all week.