Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, February 01, 2014

OTP - Feb 2014: Politics remains a hurdle for immigration reform

Yet Obama might find his best-chance legislative compromise in an issue that lately has seemed to be on life support: an overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws.

Curiously, immigration was an issue the president barely mentioned in this year’s speech. Maybe he does not want to interfere with those Republicans who actually agree with him on the need to bring the nation’s millions of undocumented workers out of the shadows.

Bitter Mouse Posted: February 01, 2014 at 04:01 PM | 3524 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 22 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >  Last ›
   2101. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:05 AM (#4662002)
Ventura won in a flukish three way race.


What do you mean by flukish? I know a fair bit about that election (in my backyard and all) and while it is the case he benefited from going against two terrible candidates in Skip and Norm, still neither were a complete train wreck (though both were boring, generic, and the product of the political machinery gone awry).

He won fair and square, with a very solid campaign and some of the best political advertisements ever. He benefited from the MN tradition of third parties, but still, it did happen and was legit.
   2102. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM (#4662004)
much more of an analytical movement than a political one, but there is general agreement that political violence and revolution have no place in neoreactionary thought


So you get to define what it is, absent real world events, and then declare others are wrong? Great gig if you can get it. Communists have done that dance for decades, but the fact of the matter is that in the real world political movements are about politics, and while you want to ascribe everything negative to Liberals you are just being silly. Right and left both have their fair share of atrocities.

I blame the North Korean Democracy Fairy.
   2103. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:15 AM (#4662015)
So you get to define what it is, absent real world events, and then declare others are wrong?


Can we call this the No True Reactionary fallacy? Please?
   2104. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4662021)
Is Deval Patrick a serious Presidential candidate? I know he says he's not running 2016, but he's young. Are Dems loathe to elect another Massachusetts candidate?

Why isn't Jay Nixon considered more of a possible candidate? Popular governor in a red (former purple) state. I don't know if he'd win MO, but he'd put it in play.
   2105. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:21 AM (#4662023)
Ventura won in a flukish three way race.

What do you mean by flukish? I know a fair bit about that election (in my backyard and all) and while it is the case he benefited from going against two terrible candidates in Skip and Norm, still neither were a complete train wreck (though both were boring, generic, and the product of the political machinery gone awry).

He won fair and square, with a very solid campaign and some of the best political advertisements ever. He benefited from the MN tradition of third parties, but still, it did happen and was legit.


I didn't say he cheated, or that he didn't run an imaginative and innovative campaign, only that his election was flukish. He won with but 37% of the vote in a year where neither major party put up a formidable candidate. I still say that Buckley and Mailer were far more likely to be both the model and the fate of any Alec Baldwin mayoral candidacy.
   2106. The Good Face Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4662028)
So you get to define what it is, absent real world events, and then declare others are wrong?


Yes, I DO, in fact, get to define what my political beliefs are and tell other people they're wrong when they misconstrue or fail to understand them.

Communists have done that dance for decades, but the fact of the matter is that in the real world political movements are about politics,


I've already told you that neoreaction is not a political movement. Communism is as communists DO; modern reactionaries (all maybe 10,000 of them) don't do much of anything but write and analyze.

and while you want to ascribe everything negative to Liberals you are just being silly. Right and left both have their fair share of atrocities.


No, you're just seeing what you want to see. There have been plenty of misdeeds done by folks on the right, although the left is far worse; leftist singularities put rightist atrocities to shame for the most part. I'm simply pointing out that political violence and revolution are leftist tactics; overthrowing the established order is an inherently leftist act. Doesn't mean folks on the right can't or won't use the tactic, but I think they're wrong to do so.
   2107. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:29 AM (#4662031)
leftist singularities put rightist atrocities to shame for the most part. I'm simply pointing out that political violence and revolution are leftist tactics; overthrowing the established order is an inherently leftist act.


Right wing atrocities, in no particular order:

The Holocaust. (No, you're not going to get out of the fact that fascism is a right wing populism.)
The West African slave trade.
The European elimination of Native American tribes.

Nothing to see here. Only a few liberals complaining out of context, I'm sure.
   2108. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:33 AM (#4662032)
So you get to define what it is, absent real world events, and then declare others are wrong?


That's been GF's shtick for quite some time.

Yes, I DO, in fact, get to define what my political beliefs are and tell other people they're wrong when they misconstrue or fail to understand them.


Yes you do, we all do, what you don't get a free pass in doing is appropriating a real world label for an idea, or concept, which label has a more or less agreed meaning to other people, assign a new definition to the label and declare everyone else to be wrong.

If you want to call yourself a "reactionary" fine, but if that word means something different to you than to everyone else you should be upfront about it, instead you engage in this endless back and forth solely for the purpose of annoying people.
   2109. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:34 AM (#4662034)
Meanwhile, here's today's entry in the Schadenfreude Olympics:

Bitcoin dealt possible fatal blow after Web site of exchange goes offline

And gee, who could've possibly predicted it? A "currency" favored mainly by con artists, speculators, drug dealers, and tax avoiders---what's not to like?
   2110. spike Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:38 AM (#4662039)
He benefited from the MN tradition of third parties, but still, it did happen and was legit.

The number of times celebrity candidates fail seems far more germane than their very occasional successes
   2111. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:40 AM (#4662040)
No, you're just seeing what you want to see.


When you say stuff like this that seems so stunningly un-self-aware, do you do it with a chuckle knowing fill well how this is going to come across?

Or are you genuinely this clueless and lacking in introspection

Of all the the regular posters on BTF you are by far the one most likely to impute your [apparent] character flaws to others- the thing is I have no idea if it's an act or not. Given that you are willing to admit to motivations that most other "convservatves"' are not I'm guessing it's not an act. You really believe that "you're just seeing what you want to see" applies to others and not yourself.
   2112. BrianBrianson Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:45 AM (#4662043)
The European elimination of Native American tribes.


Trying to put smallpox and cholera on a left-right political scale is just silly. Better to follow up the West African Slave trade with the East African Slave trade, or the North African slave trade ;)
   2113. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4662053)
Trying to put smallpox and cholera on a left-right political scale is just silly.


I'm not suggesting an intentional spreading of smallpox. Are you suggesting that the Native American genocide would not have happened if they had had better antibodies to cholera?
   2114. Publius Publicola Posted: February 25, 2014 at 11:57 AM (#4662064)
The Irish Famine was certainly a rightwing atrocity. Not the fungus itself but the Malthusian way the landowners put profit above human need.
   2115. tshipman Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4662066)
This, to me says all you need to know about Bitcoin.

Mt. Gox, until recently the largest bitcoin exchange, is actually an anagram for: Magic The Gathering Online Exchange.
   2116. The Good Face Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4662067)
The Holocaust. (No, you're not going to get out of the fact that fascism is a right wing populism.)


The Nazis were sui generis; they belong just as much to the left as the right. I'll give you half credit for this one.

The West African slave trade.
The European elimination of Native American tribes.


Nope. Those were not actions driven by explicit right/left political ideology. They were generally undertaken with the support and participation of society in general.

Meanwhile, the left has to answer for; the French Revolution, the Holodomor, Stalin's Russia, the Cambodian killing fields, Mao's Cultural Revolution AND Great Leap Forward, Zhang Xianzhong's genocidal depopulation of Sichuan in the 17th century, etc.

Yes you do, we all do, what you don't get a free pass in doing is appropriating a real world label for an idea, or concept, which label has a more or less agreed meaning to other people, assign a new definition to the label and declare everyone else to be wrong.

If you want to call yourself a "reactionary" fine, but if that word means something different to you than to everyone else you should be upfront about it, instead you engage in this endless back and forth solely for the purpose of annoying people.


Here's the thing. A "reactionary" historically referred to one who wished to restore the Ancien Regimeof France. Although Louis XIV was indeed a pimp, there are not many of those guys around nowadays. Ignorant people (or malicious leftists, but I repeat myself) have attempted to pervert the term to make it interchangeable with fascist, which is ahistorical and incorrect. Thus, the neologism, "neoreactionary," to describe rightist political thought often informed by reactionary thought of the past, but not necessarily invested in another Bourbon restoration. And since neoreaction is an analytic movement rather than a political one, we cannot look at what they DO to determine who and what they are, but rather at what they SAY. Which is what I've done here.
   2117. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:02 PM (#4662068)
The number of times celebrity candidates fail seems far more germane than their very occasional successes


I agree.
Usually these vanity campaigns go down in flames.
Also when you see "businessmen" launching self funded campaigns- those go down in flames a significant chunk of time. Usually it involves not just a successful businessman, but one who is also egotistical and delusional- surrounded by people they pay to fawn over them. Running for office and actually taking office are wholly different than being a business owner. Hell lots of people are effective in one business and not in another.

Bloomberg in NYC was almost a total fluke, he ran (to take his own word for it) because he was bored. He ran as a Republican because the GOP in NYC was dead for all intents and purposes (The City and State GOP had a habit of telling anyone with any interest in the GOP nomination, "fine, do you have your own money? We don't have any, but if you have your won money and promise to at least pretend to actively campaign you can have the ballot spot"*) So he bought the GOP nomination, and then 9/11 happened and the Dem nominee, Mark Green, threw the race (he literally threw the race, 9/11 happened and he no longer wanted to be Mayor, he literally spend all his time after getting the nomination publicly picking fights with other Dem politicians and prominent Dem supporters. OTOH Giuliani was riding a post 9/11 surge in popularity, endorsed and even campaigned a bit for Bloomberg who narrowly won 745,000 to 709,000.

*This tactic failed most spectacularly with Pierre Rinfret, the State GOP gave him the nod for Governor simply because he had the deepest pockets of those who'd shown any interest, the State party felt that Rinfret could spring for some staff and TV ADs on his own, leaving the state party to work on some winnable local seats... Nope, Pierre's "campaigning" consisted of him making a couple of cross state trips, seemingly for the sole purpose of doing newspaper interviews where he'd bash the State Party for not helping him. He lost 53 to 21. In hindsight the 1990 race was probably winnable for the GOP, but they/Rinfret threw it away.
   2118. spike Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:06 PM (#4662071)
an anagram

that's an acronym, but one I never knew. Most illuminating.
   2119. BrianBrianson Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:06 PM (#4662072)
Are you suggesting that the Native American genocide would not have happened if they had had better antibodies to cholera?


Harder to say. There were still genocides in the Belgian Congo (and Jeez, if you're looking for a right wing atrocity, this is prime example!) and Namibia, at least. But the overall die off and displacement was much lower in Africa, which was mostly resistance to Old World diseases (well, and European non-resistance to Yellow Fever and the like). There's perhaps some argument in Africa being colonised later than the Americas, but that's probably the result of the ability of the inhabitants to put up resistance (hard to do when ~half your society drops dead every decade), rather than any other factor.
   2120. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:07 PM (#4662073)
the Malthusian way the landowners put profit above human need


The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus is horrified you are using his name that way. As per Wiki ...

He wrote in opposition to the popular view in 18th-century Europe that saw society as improving and in principle as perfectible. He thought that the dangers of population growth precluded progress towards a utopian society: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". As a cleric, Malthus saw this situation as divinely imposed to teach virtuous behaviour. Malthus placed the longer-term stability of the economy above short-term expediency. He criticized the Poor Laws, and (alone among important contemporary economists) supported the Corn Laws, which introduced a system of taxes on British imports of wheat.

Malthus argued that two types of checks hold population within resource limits: positive checks, which raise the death rate; and preventive ones, which lower the birth rate. The positive checks include hunger, disease and war; the preventive checks, abortion, birth control, prostitution, postponement of marriage and celibacy. In later editions of his essay, Malthus clarified his view that if society relied on human misery to limit population growth, then sources of misery (e.g., hunger, disease, and war) would inevitably afflict society, as would volatile economic cycles. On the other hand, "preventive checks" to population that limited birthrates, such as later marriages, could ensure a higher standard of living for all, while also increasing economic stability.[40] Regarding possibilities for freeing man from these limits, Malthus argued against a variety of imaginable solutions, such as the notion that agricultural improvements could expand without limit.


I am not suggesting sainthood or even correctness, just that he is commonly given a bad name, mostly from those misusing his work on political economics.
   2121. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4662075)
And since neoreaction is an analytic movement rather than a political one, we cannot look at what they DO to determine who and what they are, but rather at what they SAY. Which is what I've done here.


What you DO overrides what you SAY every single time, buddy.
   2122. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM (#4662077)
I'm not suggesting an intentional spreading of smallpox. Are you suggesting that the Native American genocide would not have happened if they had had better antibodies to cholera?

Possibly not. When Europeans conquered lands where the "natives" were not as vulnerable to infectious diseases they generally did not replace the natives with settlers (natives made a useful labor source after all), they'd merely take the "commanding heights" and the better land for themselves.

I think the clearest case for a conscious effort to literally kill all the natives to take their land and resettle with whites was in German South West Africa.

The conduct of the Belgians in the Belgian Congo was deplorable but wasn't aimed at genocide- it was aimed basically at mass enslavement.
   2123. BrianBrianson Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:10 PM (#4662079)
Indeed, two countries have a lower population today than the did in 1800. Ireland and Zaire. Both prime, unambiguously right wing atrocities.
   2124. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4662085)
A "reactionary" historically referred to one who wished to restore the Ancien Regimeof France.


This is ridiculous. You are defining reactionary and "neo-reactionary" as a very limited thing. So there is the big bad left, which is huge and spans everything from hard core communists to US Democratic Nominees, but on the right, reactionaries are just, you know people interested in restoring various monarchies. And are mostly analytics and not really political at all.

You get to define what you are. You don't get to define the entire left/right spectrum of thought according to your idiosyncratic whim. Just like you don't get to define North Korea as a Democracy just because it makes you feel better about Monarchies (or whatever your bizarre motivation is).

Out of curiosity what do you call the political movement, authoritarian in nature, that is opposed to the "bottom up" left wing movements and is also not Monarchist? Because everyone else in the world calls them right wing and at the far end reactionaries.



   2125. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:15 PM (#4662086)
Here's the thing. A "reactionary" historically referred to one who wished to restore the Ancien Regime of France.


and left wing and right wing referred to where certain people physically sat in the French General Assembly a long long time ago.

No one* uses those words that way any more.
If you are referring to someone whose beliefs track those of a 19th century liberal you don't call them a "liberal" you'd call them a "classical liberal."

Sure words evolve, and sometimes they tack back to their original meaning, but you do merely to sow confusion and engage in semantical fights



*Ok, you do, and a 90 year old professor I had in college 25 years ago did... and SBB wants to (why else does he take pains to refer to liberal's as "modern liberals"
   2126. spike Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:26 PM (#4662090)
Turns out the Georgia militia members were plotting on Facebook and someone dropped a dime on them.
   2127. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:27 PM (#4662092)
but that's probably the result of the ability of the inhabitants to put up resistance (hard to do when ~half your society drops dead every decade), rather than any other factor.


Sure the Spaniards captured and assassinated the Aztec and Incan primary rulers early on, but that didn't settle things. Cortes was expelled from Tenochtitlan by force, and his return (leading an army comprised mostly of thousands of other indians- the Aztec had been quite despotic in their rule over Mexico, it was not hard for Cortes to find allies- many groups miscalculated that in this case the devil they knew was worse than the one they didn't) was not going well either- until the Aztec started dying of disease en masse- a lot of his allies eventually died too, but the Aztec got sick and died FIRST, reverse that order and Cortes' conquest fails.

In Peru the Aztec Empire had been destabilized because a wave of small pox had reached the empire before the Spanish did- but still it took nearly 40 years AFTER Atahualpa was murdered and the massacre at Cajamarca before the Spanish truly consolidated their hold on what had been the Incan Empire.
   2128. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:36 PM (#4662097)
In Peru the Aztec Empire had been destabilized because a wave of small pox had reached the empire before the Spanish did- but still it took nearly 40 years AFTER Atahualpa was murdered and the massacre at Cajamarca before the Spanish truly consolidated their hold on what had been the Incan Empire.


I have been studying a bit about the Incas (for a role playing game, if you care), and they were an interesting group. But yeah it is interesting how much disease shaped the "New World" and how it came to be what it is today.
   2129. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:40 PM (#4662104)
Indeed, two countries have a lower population today than the did in 1800. Ireland and Zaire. Both prime, unambiguously right wing atrocities.


The population of the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" is about 76 million, find it hard to believe that it was greater than that in 1800 (but I suppose it's possible).

The population of Ireland (North and South) is about 6.5 million, it had reached 10 million the 19th century, and dropped to under 4 million at one point. Not all the decline was due to death of course, there was massive emigration (Obviously there are many times more Irish in the US than in Ireland, but forget the US, there are more Irish in Canada/Australia/New Zealand/South Africa than there are in Ireland.)
   2130. BrianBrianson Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:47 PM (#4662108)
I must've gotten that from an old book. Looks like Congo would've returned to it's pre-Belgian Congo population in the 1960s or 1970s. The 1890 population was only ~20 million (with not insignificant uncertainty).

So, err, mea culpa.
   2131. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 12:51 PM (#4662109)
Not all the decline was due to death of course, there was massive emigration


Driving the snakes out instead of killing them is still ethnic cleansing.
   2132. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 01:05 PM (#4662120)
I'm relatively certain - like 70-80% - that I have a cousin that's married into that Cannon family from spike's link @2126. Maybe not that wing of them, but definitely into that family.
   2133. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 25, 2014 at 01:14 PM (#4662130)
Driving the snakes out instead of killing them is still ethnic cleansing.

I believe the term you're looking for is "collateral damage".
   2134. Random Transaction Generator Posted: February 25, 2014 at 01:49 PM (#4662150)
Not the Onion:
GOP Lobbyist Wants to Ban Gay Players from the NFL

In an interview with the Huffington Post, Jack Burkman, the CEO of Burkman LLC, said he had five members in the House and one senator who would put their weight behind the bill. He predicted up to 36 House members and up to five senators would join the effort in the next three weeks.

Burkman declined to name any of the supportive lawmakers and no official language for the legislation has been released.


My favourite part?

"This is not about bigotry. It is about common decency and civility," he said. "Society is moving to a point where we are going to have unisex bathrooms and the next generation thinks that is OK."
   2135. Random Transaction Generator Posted: February 25, 2014 at 01:54 PM (#4662157)
That's some unfortunate timing:
Merkel and Netanyahu
   2136. zenbitz Posted: February 25, 2014 at 01:55 PM (#4662159)
Not to get off on a rant here but...

What difference does it make what pole of the political spectrum (which of course is not 1-dimensional) committed more or worse atrocities? They aren't bad because of their political or religious or moral beliefs - THEY ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY COMMITTED ATROCITIES.

Just like 5 pages back discussion whether Red or Blue fringe-y supporters made the most offensive comments. All just crap labels like whatever tiny brush TGF is trying to paint himself with.

Almost makes me long for updates on Obama's polling numbers.


And 30 Rock was awesome. Between that and Glen Gary Glen Ross I will always appreciate Alec Baldwin, even if he does have a bit of a mouth. But I like Bonds too, so... Pretty sure I saw Baldwin walking down Broadway around W. 85th back in 1999 or so, but I didn't say hi (before 30 rock!)



   2137. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:00 PM (#4662165)
The photo at 2135 made me laugh out loud. Well done.
   2138. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:01 PM (#4662166)
Almost makes me long for updates on Obama's polling numbers.


there's no updates of note, polling results- Obama, Congress, whatever, have been more or less static for weeks now, with no movement it's been getting had for TYC to data mine for stuff to support his narrative, but I'm sure random variation will yield a useful nugget again soon enough.
   2139. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4662175)
Ventura won in a flukish three way race. Ahnold capitalized on a revulsion against Gray Davis in a recall election.
Arnold won because he's a famous and popular actor. Davis' reputation after his 2002 election was that he'd have a shot at the presidency at some point, but the Enron fiasco destroyed his career (not to mention crippling California's finances for the rest of the decade). Davis didn't exactly cover himself in glory during the crisis, but it's always disappointed me that Pete Wilson, who deregulated the California energy market, and Schwarzenegger, who went out of his way to protect Enron and deregulation, skated completely on the issue while Davis was saddled with the entirety of the political blame.
   2140. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:12 PM (#4662183)
Ventura won in a flukish three way race.


Was Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 also a "flukish three way race"?

He won with but 37% of the vote in a year where neither major party put up a formidable candidate.


Bill won with 43% of the vote. And I think a case could be made it was just as flukish as the Ventura win, unless any non-major party victory is flukish and no major party win is flukish.

   2141. Lassus Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:21 PM (#4662189)
I think comparing Clinton and Ventura is simply too much of a reach.
   2142. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:26 PM (#4662197)
Was Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 also a "flukish three way race"?


Well, that was certainly the talking point on the right from 1992-1996. Bill Clinton's first term was "illegitimate" because he didn't win a majority of the vote. He didn't have a "mandate" because he only won due to the siphoning off of "conservative" voters by His Lord of Giant Ears and Charts.

The more applicable analogy would be Ventura to Perot.
   2143. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:29 PM (#4662201)
Was Bill Clinton's victory in 1992 also a "flukish three way race"?

He won with but 37% of the vote in a year where neither major party put up a formidable candidate.

Bill won with 43% of the vote. And I think a case could be made it was just as flukish as the Ventura win, unless any non-major party victory is flukish and no major party win is flukish.


Clinton's win was indeed flukish, but in a much more common way: He benefited from a third party siphon, as opposed to being the third party himself.

But anyway, my original point wasn't about celebrities in California or Minnesota who show up in exactly the right set of circumstances. I never even mentioned them. It was about celebrities with intellectual pretensions who try to run for Mayor of New York City, which is why I think Buckley's 13% and Mailer's 5% make for much better predictors of a Baldwin candidacy than Jesse or Ahnold's victories.

And the reason I brought up Christie is that political aspirants with reputations for unchecked tempers seldom rise much beyond their existing fanbase. Christie was a long shot before Bridgegate**, and now his chances for the presidency are about as great as Baldwin's becoming the next Mayor of New York.

**A minor long shot to win the GOP nomination, and a major long shot to win a general election against Hillary or any other center/right to center/left Democrat who gains the nomination in the absence of major intraparty warfare.
   2144. Rants Mulliniks Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:31 PM (#4662203)
#2136 - the silly Left/Right, Red/Blue comparisons always leave me feeling frustrated too, which is why I often go weeks in between posts on these OTP threads.
   2145. The Good Face Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4662204)
There were still genocides in the Belgian Congo (and Jeez, if you're looking for a right wing atrocity, this is prime example!)


Yes, if you're looking for a good right wing atrocity, King Leopold's actions in the Belgian Congo are a sorta-kinda reasonable example, although Leopold's actions didn't really hinge on his powers as a Monarch; he basically formed a corporation, hired mercenaries, and just sort of grabbed the territory and exploited it. Any sufficiently rich, motivated and sociopathic person could have done the same; mostly a testament to individual greed and lust for power than anything else.

What you DO overrides what you SAY every single time, buddy.


Sure. Now tell me, what are neoreactionaries DOING? Because other than writing/blogging, the answer to that appears to be "not much". As I said, an analytical movement, not a political one.

What difference does it make what pole of the political spectrum (which of course is not 1-dimensional) committed more or worse atrocities? They aren't bad because of their political or religious or moral beliefs - THEY ARE BAD BECAUSE THEY COMMITTED ATROCITIES.


This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who...

It makes a difference because so many of the atrocities have ideological underpinnings in common. It behooves thinking people to more closely examine those ideologies, to better understand them and their appeal, and to learn, if possible, how to prevent their adherents from coming to power and committing more atrocities in the future.
   2146. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4662206)
I think comparing Clinton and Ventura is simply too much of a reach.


Why? And note I am not saying they are the same, I am asking why 43% is totally not a fluke and 37% is complete fluke territory.

Look I did not vote for Ventura. Did not like him, did not want him as my governor. But he ran a legitimate campaign, had roughly the same experience his major opponent did (both had previously been mayors of large MN cities), had legitimate political advisors and so on. his opponents were not sunk by a scandal, there was not a freak weather event which changed turnout in part of the state or anything like it.

Ventura getting elected was unusual. It was a longshot. But unless we are just defining any victory by any third party candidate as a fluke, his election was not a fluke. it was - sadly - a legitimate election outcome.


Fluke
unlikely chance occurrence, esp. a surprising piece of luck.


It was a bit unlikely, but it was not chance. There was very little luck - other than going against a couple bad opponents - involved. And they were not horrific candidates, just boring and ill fitting to the times. If that is all it takes to be a fluke, then a huge percentage of elections are flukes - starting with all the tea party Senate candidates that lost; were those winners fluke winners also?
   2147. BDC Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:33 PM (#4662207)
Pretty sure I saw Baldwin walking down Broadway around W. 85th back in 1999 or so, but I didn't say hi

And to that you owe any teeth that remain in your head :)
   2148. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:36 PM (#4662209)
It was about celebrities with intellectual pretensions who try to run for Mayor of New York City, which is why I think Buckley's 13% and Mailer's 5% make for much better predictors of a Baldwin candidacy than Jesse or Ahnold's victories.


Fair enough I guess, but elections are funny things. Most vanity candidacies die on the vine, but some do survive. I just thought you were a bit too flip in dismissing any chance of a vanity candidacy. Not a huge deal though I admit.
   2149. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4662210)
It makes a difference because so many of the atrocities have ideological underpinnings in common.


And even more a difference when you are desperately trying to impose a commonality where none exists so as to confirm your own personal bias. Which is what we are objecting to.
   2150. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:39 PM (#4662215)
Sure. Now tell me, what are neoreactionaries DOING? Because other than writing/blogging, the answer to that appears to be "not much". As I said, an analytical movement, not a political one.


The neoreactionaries you *like* are writing dry blog posts about theoretical value in monarchist societies. The neoreactionaries you don't like are planting pipe bombs along MLK Day parade routes in the Pac NW. The fact that you want to cut out the bad seeds who bring your high falutin' rhetoric crashy down to the rocky shores of reality is no more relevant than all of those textbook communists who assure us that Pol Pot wasn't really part of the cool kids club.
   2151. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:42 PM (#4662221)
#2136 - the silly Left/Right, Red/Blue comparisons always leave me feeling frustrated too, which is why I often go weeks in between posts on these OTP threads.


If you have some idea of how to get tribal politics out of politics, I'd be interested in hearing it at least in theory. I mean, what do you expect political discussion to be? The world is not the Cambridge debate society.
   2152. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4662225)
Pol Pot wasn't really part of the cool kids club


Truly underrated as a mass murderer.

He presided over a communist dictatorship that imposed a radical form of agrarian socialism on the country. His government forced urban dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects. The combined effects of executions, forced labor, malnutrition, and poor medical care caused the deaths of approximately 25 percent of the Cambodian population. In all, an estimated 1 to 3 million people (out of a population of slightly over 8 million) died due to the policies of his four-year premiership.


That is inner circle Hall of Fame adjusted for country size. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler had much more to work with, but Pol Pot was able to more with less. He had a can do attitude, for a horrific monster that is.
   2153. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:45 PM (#4662226)
Ventura getting elected was unusual. It was a longshot. But unless we are just defining any victory by any third party candidate as a fluke, his election was not a fluke. it was - sadly - a legitimate election outcome.

"Fluke" is not equivalent to "illegitimate". And yes, even though Clinton's win was the product of years of planning and a well run campaign, its ultimate success was largely due to the intrusion of Perot into the picture.

-------------------------------------

This is supposed to be a happy occasion! Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who...

It makes a difference because so many of the atrocities have ideological underpinnings in common. It behooves thinking people to more closely examine those ideologies, to better understand them and their appeal, and to learn, if possible, how to prevent their adherents from coming to power and committing more atrocities in the future.


Good point. We might begin by being on careful guard against candidates who make emotional appeals against Hidden Forces who Control Us, and who rail against "illegal aliens" and other minority groups who are "leading America away from what it used to be", or employ other such racially charged messages.
   2154. The Good Face Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:49 PM (#4662229)
The neoreactionaries you don't like are planting pipe bombs along MLK Day parade routes in the Pac NW. The fact that you want to cut out the bad seeds who bring your high falutin' rhetoric crashy down to the rocky shores of reality is no more relevant than all of those textbook communists who assure us that Pol Pot wasn't really part of the cool kids club.


The "neoreactionaries" you claim I don't like are not neoreactionaries. To make it as simple as possible, they do not share neoreactionary beliefs OR tactics. They don't self-identify as neoreactionaries. There is literally no reason to think of them as neoreactionaries other than your desire to tar everybody you disagree with as some sort of fascist thug.

And even more a difference when you are desperately trying to impose a commonality where none exists so as to confirm your own personal bias. Which is what we are objecting to.


I think "communist" is a perfectly accurate commonality for horrific atrocities. And if I'm supposed to own fascist yahoos, then you guys need to own the communists and all the blood on their hands.
   2155. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4662234)
And if I'm supposed to own fascist yahoos...
But you won't.
   2156. The Good Face Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:54 PM (#4662235)
We might begin by being on careful guard against candidates who make emotional appeals against Hidden Forces who Control Us,


Like folks who actually blame things on Vast Right Wing Conspiracies? Candidates like that?
   2157. OCF Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:56 PM (#4662237)
That is inner circle Hall of Fame adjusted for country size. Stalin, Mao, and Hitler had much more to work with, but Pol Pot was able to more with less. He had a can do attitude, for a horrific monster that is.

The thankfully unexplored question is whether Abimael Guzman and Sendero Luminoso would have followed this path had they ever actually taken over Peru. (They didn't, and Guzman is in prison.)
   2158. The Good Face Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:57 PM (#4662238)
And if I'm supposed to own fascist yahoos...

But you won't.


Why won't you own the communists?

If you guys would turn off the 2 minute hate and actually try thinking, you'd realize that it's because I'm not a fascist and you're (probably) not communists (some of you anyway).
   2159. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 25, 2014 at 02:59 PM (#4662240)
Right wing atrocities, in no particular order:

The Holocaust. (No, you're not going to get out of the fact that fascism is a right wing populism.)
The West African slave trade.
The European elimination of Native American tribes.

Nothing to see here. Only a few liberals complaining out of context, I'm sure.


In other words, you've defined "right wing" as bad, therefore anything bad must be "right wing."

Can anyone please make the stupid stop?
   2160. The Yankee Clapper Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4662241)
Ventura won in a flukish three way race. Ahnold capitalized on a revulsion against Gray Davis in a recall election.

Make what you will of Ventura's 37% vote in a 3-way contest, but Schwarzenegger won that recall election by a wide margin, 1,300,000 votes, getting 48% in a large field of candidates, and more importantly, Schwarzenegger was re-elected with 56% of the vote in 2006, a very difficult year for GOP candidates. Ventura was certainly a flash-in-the-pan candidate, Schwarzenegger not so much.
   2161. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:01 PM (#4662242)
In other words, you've defined "right wing" as bad, therefore anything bad must be "right wing."


Alternately, you could read the thread and grasp basic English. For example, earlier when I said Communism - inclusive of course of the atrocities of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot - came of left wing radicalism. But that wouldn't play to your preferred narrative of me picking sides, would it Teddy Bear?
   2162. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4662244)
and SBB wants to (why else does he take pains to refer to liberal's as "modern liberals"

To distinguish modern liberalism and classical liberalism.
   2163. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:02 PM (#4662245)
Why won't you own the communists?


Perhaps you would do well to turn off your own two minute hate and note that I have already placed the atrocities of Stalinistic Communism on the left, and not one of the resident liberals in this thread has argued against it.
   2164. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:03 PM (#4662246)
To distinguish modern liberalism and classical liberalism.


To set yourself up as a high and might good man of history, above it all.
   2165. Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:06 PM (#4662248)
If you guys would turn off the 2 minute hate and actually try thinking, you'd realize that it's because I'm not a fascist and you're (probably) not communists (some of you anyway).
Like others have pointed out, your definitional arguments are completely arbitrary. "If it's violent, it's left," isn't a serious attempt at any sort of ideology. People here aren't hating on the right, they're hating on your faux-paradigm.
   2166. The District Attorney Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4662249)
Is Deval Patrick a serious Presidential candidate?
In 2016? I certainly wouldn't think so. After that? Way too early to tell.

Why isn't Jay Nixon considered more of a possible candidate?
Well, his name's "Nixon." :-) No, I have no idea.

the Dem nominee, Mark Green, threw the race (he literally threw the race, 9/11 happened and he no longer wanted to be Mayor
Is there a cite of someone close to him saying this? I would think his ass-like behavior was due to his being an ass, which was already established. Also, Bloomberg ran a good campaign. It was a) saturation advertising, but b) the good kind of saturation -- low-key ads promoting "Mike for Mayor" (i.e., think of him as "Mike", not the multibillionaire corporate titan.) And as you say, Giuliani's support at that point in time would have been significant, or at least significant enough to swing a couple thousand votes in a close race.

Speaking of celebrity campaigns in NY, Donald Trump is making noise about running for governor. Although Trump seems to have perfected the art of the celebrity campaign, insofar as he never actually runs, and thus doesn't have to spend money, nor get humiliated by losing.

I agree that the "please refudiate" line of attack is an intellectually bankrupt one, but it's a briar patch that seems impossible for the attackee to resist, sadly.
   2167. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:07 PM (#4662250)
Alternately, you could read the thread and grasp basic English. For example, earlier when I said Communism - inclusive of course of the atrocities of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot - came of left wing radicalism. But that wouldn't play to your preferred narrative of me picking sides, would it Teddy Bear?

I don't know anything about "picking sides" but there was nothing "right wing" about any of the three things you mentioned. The slave trade and Native American policies were supported by the entire societies that perpetrated them and the mainstream political parties within them.

Nazi ideology, as Face has noted, was a mongrel ideology combining a unique Germanic propensity to order and strength with ad hoc, mildly collectivist, anti-Depression economics that lucked into working. It had no real historical antecedents and has few if any adherents today. The German Right at the time of Hitler's rise were still lamenting the fall of the Hohenzollerns.

The Nazi movement was an exultation of the masses -- the so-called German Volk. (As is Communism to a large extent. The 20th Century was the age of Mass Man.) The Right, properly defined, can't stand the ####### masses.
   2168. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:09 PM (#4662251)
   2169. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:11 PM (#4662254)
If you guys would turn off the 2 minute hate and actually try thinking, you'd realize that it's because I'm not a fascist and you're (probably) not communists (some of you anyway).


And yet you refuse to own the Monarchy of North Korea. You refuse to own any atrocities or even any politics at all. You ascribe your philosophy to a dusty section of the quiet room* in a library.

Well I guess we agree your philosophy is pretty much a dead letter, but still you want people to act like it is vital and significant in most discussions. It is a bit like the Libertarians with their "just do this" prescriptions for all the world's problems, who never seem to fully get that in all of history no one really uses their philosophy for a reason.

It is awkward belonging to a vital and used political tradition, you get stuck with the failures, and in real life they are legion. But in my opinion it is worse to have a philosophy with neither recent successes or failures to its credit.

* I suspect these are the same quiet rooms Mitt referenced.
   2170. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4662256)
I don't know anything about "picking sides" but there was nothing "right wing" about any of the three things you mentioned. The slave trade and Native American policies were supported by the entire societies that perpetrated them and the mainstream political parties within them.

Nazi ideology, as Face has noted, was a mongrel ideology combining a unique Germanic propensity to order and strength with ad hoc, mildly collectivist, anti-Depression economics that lucked into working. It had no real historical antecedents and has few if any adherents today.


Dude, I've had this "we can't damn an entire theory with a few overly specific historical examples" conversation with too many dyed-in-the-wool, actual Communists to have much patience to do the same dance with you. I've had too many people write off Stalin, and Mao, and Castro as monsters of history who didn't really represent the "movement" to deal with the same #### from you.

The slave trade and Native American policies were supported by entire societies because those societies were deeply conservative and deeply right wing.
   2171. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:14 PM (#4662258)
You refuse to own any atrocities or even any politics at all


This is the fundamental breaking point of TGF's ivory tower, yes.
   2172. The Good Face Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4662260)
Perhaps you would do well to turn off your own two minute hate and note that I have already placed the atrocities of Stalinistic Communism on the left, and not one of the resident liberals in this thread has argued against it.


But that's not the burden that you've attempted to place on me. You've claimed that my political beliefs are tantamount to those of fascists because I'm on the right and you believe, mistakenly, that fascism lies on the right. Ergo, you must accept that YOUR political beliefs are tantamount to those of communists since you're on the left. I won't hold my breath.

Like others have pointed out, your definitional arguments are completely arbitrary. "If it's violent, it's left," isn't a serious attempt at any sort of ideology. People here aren't hating on the right, they're hating on your faux-paradigm.


No, I've already acknowledged several right wing atrocities. I've pointed out that several specific types of violence are, definitionally, leftist tactics, but that's not the same thing.
   2173. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:19 PM (#4662262)
The slave trade and Native American policies were supported by entire societies because those societies were deeply conservative and deeply right wing.

No, they weren't. There were few, if any, monarchists in the United States and the United States was explicitly founded on anti-monarchist, democratic/republican principles.

You're simply (and wrongly) grafting modern/postmodern terminology onto those societies, and thereby falling prey to the tautological, "if it's bad, it's right wing" fallacy.

The slave trade and the Native American atrocities were perpetrated by the nation that, by far, paid the most heed to the wisdom and political necessity of the common man. The United States of those times wasn't remotely "right wing" or "conservative."

   2174. Lassus Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:22 PM (#4662267)
...you'd realize that it's because I'm not a fascist and you're (probably) not communists (some of you anyway).

Weren't you asked once what your most-favored nation was at the moment? Who currently was the Good-Face-iest, as far as a government/regime that America - or anyone else - could aspire to, in your own neo-reactionary paradise? Did you answer? I don't remember. Some place must be - if not acceptable - at the top of the list, right? I'm legitimately curious, as I've heard a lot about the places that are declining, or terrible, or unacceptable (thanks to leftists), but where ISN'T?
   2175. The Good Face Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:27 PM (#4662268)
The slave trade and Native American policies were supported by entire societies because those societies were deeply conservative and deeply right wing.


This is the same "It was right wing because it was bad and it was bad because it was right wing" reductionism SBB called you out on earlier. There was precious little right wing about Revolutionary War era America. The right wingers at that time were British Loyalists, and they pretty clearly didn't carry the day.

And yet you refuse to own the Monarchy of North Korea.


Why on earth would I? North Korea is the result of decades of communism. It belongs on your side of the ledger, not mine.

You refuse to own any atrocities or even any politics at all.


Both falsehoods. I've discoursed at great length about my politics and have conceded several right wing atrocities on this very page.
   2176. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:29 PM (#4662269)
You're simply (and wrongly) grafting modern/postmodern terminology onto those societies, and thereby falling prey to the tautological, "if it's bad, it's right wing" fallacy.


I've already rebutted this. Examples are clearly available within the last two or three pages of this thread. Your inability to read is not my problem.

The slave trade and the Native American atrocities were perpetrated by the nation that, by far, paid the most heed to the wisdom and political necessity of the common man. The United States of those times wasn't remotely "right wing" or "conservative."


This, of course, is the sop you want to get away with. The founding of the US was a liberal win, yes. In 1781. The slave trade and the beginnings of the Native American genocide, of course, predate that war by centuries. And the slave trade held out in the liberal, Republican United States after that war near universally due to the most conservative, right wing elements of the nation - the Deep South.

You want to claim anything that didn't come from King George III was "liberal." You want desperately to write the atrocities of the right out of history, so your version of a right wing that only serves the good of God and Man can be valid. History is soaked in the blood of your mistake.
   2177. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:32 PM (#4662272)
But yeah it is interesting how much disease shaped the "New World" and how it came to be what it is today.


I think that also applies to the Old World. The Black Death was hugely important.
   2178. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:34 PM (#4662274)
Is there a cite of someone close to him saying this? I would think his ass-like behavior was due to his being an ass, which was already established


Him admitting it? No, but many of his aides and campaign workers believed he was deliberately throwing the race, I worked in NYC at the time and thought he was trying to throw the race.

Green had campaigned before, won office before (and lost)- he did not behave the way he did after 9/11 during the mayoral campaign. He ran a few years ago for his old post, Public Advocate, he lost but didn't behave like as ass in the process.

Maybe he didn't deliberately/consciously throw the race, maybe after 9/11 he looked around and rather than being attracted to the Mayor's office the job now scared him shitless, and he choked.

He had a massive lead in the polls (any Dem would have), Bloomberg was an inexperienced, arrogant, obnoxious rich guy, not nearly as popular as he would later become, and Green spent two months getting into pointless public spats with everyone [well not "everyone" just everyone he should have been courting as an ally instead of antagonizing as an adversary).
And have you seen footage of him from that election night? Green looked relieved, he looked like George Costanza after his fiance died from mucilage poisoning.
   2179. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:35 PM (#4662275)
You want desperately to write the atrocities of the right out of history, so your version of a right wing that only serves the good of God and Man can be valid. History is soaked in the blood of your mistake.

I have no desire whatsoever to write the atrocities of the right out of history and have no idea how you could think such a thing.

   2180. zenbitz Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:36 PM (#4662276)
It makes a difference because so many of the atrocities have ideological underpinnings in common.


Yes. The ideology is \"#### you I win". This cannot be claimed or gainsayed by the right or the left.
   2181. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:43 PM (#4662279)
I have no desire whatsoever to write the atrocities of the right out of history and have no idea how you could think such a thing.


Well, you seem to be engaged in this page of this thread in attempting to argue that the West African slave trade, Native genocide and Holocaust were atrocities "of the left." That seems a bit like writing things out of history to me.
   2182. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:47 PM (#4662281)
I think that also applies to the Old World. The Black Death was hugely important.


Not in the same way- in Europe the Black Death deeply impacted the existing social order and actually introduced a degree of social mobility lacking immediately before, but ethnically you still had the same people living in the same place.

In the New World smallpox killed a huge number of people in short period of time, completely destabilizing most existing societies AND at the same time other people began moving in, as a result of smallpox native american were outnumbered (in their own homeland) within a generation or two.

The European analogy isn't small pox, it's the Antonine Plague (believed to have been small pox or even measles)- which killed a Roman Emperor- and up to 1/3rd the Roman Army- at a time when Rome was trying unsuccessfully to push back Germanic southward migration- the manpower shortage in the Roman legions lead directly to the hiring of barbarian mercenaries (which in the long run did not work out too swell for Rome).

   2183. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:48 PM (#4662283)
So, Face, as our resident monarchist, do you support the Dingell dynasty's reign in Michigan?
   2184. Jolly Old St. Nick Still Gags in October Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4662284)
We might begin by being on careful guard against candidates who make emotional appeals against Hidden Forces who Control Us,

Like folks who actually blame things on Vast Right Wing Conspiracies? Candidates like that?


Hillary's one time outburst was directed against a specific set of political opponents who had never made any secret of their wish to destroy her husband's presidency.** She never engaged in silly rhetoric about "Cathedrals", and never directed her aim at racial or ethnic scapegoats.

**as freely admitted by the former GOP operative David Brock, when he told about payoffs he had given to Arkansas state troopers in exchange for testimony against Bill Clinton that he had used in another book.

-------------------------------------------------------

Ventura won in a flukish three way race. Ahnold capitalized on a revulsion against Gray Davis in a recall election.

Make what you will of Ventura's 37% vote in a 3-way contest, but Schwarzenegger won that recall election by a wide margin, 1,300,000 votes, getting 48% in a large field of candidates, and more importantly, Schwarzenegger was re-elected with 56% of the vote in 2006, a very difficult year for GOP candidates. Ventura was certainly a flash-in-the-pan candidate, Schwarzenegger not so much.


I'd agree with that. Schwarzenegger's golden opportunity was handed to him on a silver platter by Davis, in a manner few people could have predicted in the aftermath of Davis's previous election, but once he was in office he governed in a far more traditional (and inclusive) manner, as can be seen by his sweeping re-election.

Now all you have to do is to tell Alec Baldwin how Schwarzenegger's example might translate into any prospective candidacy that he might be contemplating. (smile)
   2185. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:49 PM (#4662285)
Why on earth would I? North Korea is the result of decades of communism. It belongs on your side of the ledger, not mine.


Wait, now you think North Korea is communist? Last week it was a Democracy according to you. What changed?

Of course here in the real world it is an authoritarian regime most closely approximating a monarchy (the latest king is third generation I believe - generally neither Democracy nor Communism have countries handed down generation to generation). It came from and was boosted by communism certainly, but currently and for decades it is pretty much an authoritarian monarchy.
   2186. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:51 PM (#4662286)
The European analogy isn't small pox, it's the Antonine Plague (believed to have been small pox or even measles)- which killed a Roman Emperor- and up to 1/3rd the Roman Army- at a time when Rome was trying unsuccessfully to push back Germanic southward migration- the manpower shortage in the Roman legions lead directly to the hiring of barbarian mercenaries (which in the long run did not work out too swell for Rome).


Recent evidence shows that the Justinian plague was, in fact, the Black Death. Same organism.
   2187. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:53 PM (#4662289)
Yes. The ideology is \"#### you I win". This cannot be claimed or gainsayed by the right or the left.


We have a winner, let's change the subject.

Rob Ford was interviewed by Matt Lauer this morning, dodged a question about whether he's done drugs since November... then went to a Press Conference and... refused to answer the same question...

   2188. The District Attorney Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:55 PM (#4662291)
He ran a few years ago for his old post, Public Advocate, he lost but didn't behave like as ass in the process.
That is, of course, a lot less of a spotlight than running for mayor. But he was always prickly...

And have you seen footage of him from that election night? Green looked relieved, he looked like George Costanza after his fiance died from mucilage poisoning.
To be fair, doesn't everybody? And if anything, it's more so with the habitual campaigners who probably long ago lost track of why they wanted the post to begin with. (I think of Romney and Gore, who were probably running more to fulfill their father's wishes than their own -- man, did they look happy to be done.) But across the board, pretty much everyone looks more eloquent and graceful in conceding than they did in the days leading up to the loss.

Your other points are taken. It could be the case, although usually all of the campaign workers' gripes get dumped as soon as the candidate loses (we saw this with McCain, Romney, Christine Quinn...), so I think the fact that no one went on the record with it is evidence against it.
   2189. zenbitz Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:57 PM (#4662293)

Regarding forms of government and political thought leading irrevocably to bad outcomes. Correlation (even 100% correlation for nation-state sized "Communist" regimes) is not causation. Terror dominated authoritarian / totalitarian states murder for the sake of power and nothing more. "Ideological Purity" - "Ethnic Cleansing" - "Heretical Thought" - who cares.

The obsession with it is like the obsession with weapons of mass destruction. You are just as dead and probably at least as painfully so if you are killed by a nuke, poison gas, shrapnel in the gut, stray drone strike, starvation, small pox whatever.

   2190. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 03:59 PM (#4662294)
Of course here in the real world it is an authoritarian regime most closely approximating a monarchy (the latest king is third generation I believe - generally neither Democracy nor Communism have countries handed down generation to generation).


While you're clearly on the side of reality in the debate with Good Face here, I'll pick this nit. Communist systems tend, near universally, to degrade over time (often short periods of time) into authoritarian dictatorships. Authoritarian dictatorships tend to devolve, over time, into the trappings of monarchy. This makes some sense, in that monarchies of the traditional varieties were simply the most progressive forms of authoritarian dictatorships of their time. Or, to shorten it up:

authoritarian warlords >> Tribal chieftain >> feudal princes >> monarchs >> liberal democracies >>// communist states >> authoritarian warlords >> feudal princes >> monarchs

We see this in North Korea. We see this in Hussein's Iraq. We see this in Cuba. About the only communist nations we don't see this in, outright, is the former USSR (which has recently devolved into a sort of neo-feudal Russia) and China.
   2191. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 04:00 PM (#4662295)
So 2186 confused me for a bit. In case others are confused the two plagues are different beasts.

Antonine Plague
The Antonine Plague of 165–180 AD—also known as the Plague of Galen, who described it—was an ancient pandemic brought back to the Roman Empire by troops returning from campaigns in the Near East. It has been suspected to have been either smallpox[1] or measles,[2] but the true cause remains undetermined. The epidemic may have claimed the life of Roman emperor Lucius Verus, who died in 169 and was the co-regent of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, whose family name, Antoninus, was given to the epidemic. The disease broke out again nine years later, according to the Roman historian Dio Cassius, and caused up to 2,000 deaths a day in Rome, one quarter of those infected.[3] Total deaths have been estimated at five million.[4] The disease killed as much as one-third of the population in some areas and devastated the Roman army.[5]

Ancient sources agree that the epidemic appeared first during the Roman siege of Seleucia in the winter of 165–166.[6] Ammianus Marcellinus reports that the plague spread to Gaul and the legions along the Rhine. Eutropius asserts that a large population died throughout the Empire.


Justinian Plague
The Plague of Justinian (AD 541–542) was a pandemic that afflicted the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire), including its capital Constantinople. It has been called one of the greatest plagues in history. Recent research has confirmed that the cause of the pandemic was Yersinia pestis, the organism responsible for bubonic plague.[1][2] The plague's social and cultural impact during the period of Justinian has been compared to that of the Black Death. In the views of some 6th-century Western historians, the plague epidemic was nearly worldwide in scope, striking central and south Asia; North Africa and Arabia;[citation needed] and Europe all the way to Denmark and Ireland.[citation needed] Genetic studies point to China as having been the primary source of the contagion.[3]

Throughout the Mediterranean basin, until about 750, the plague returned in each generation.[citation needed] The waves of disease had a major effect on the future course of European history. Modern historians named this plague incident after the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian I, who was in power at the time of the initial outbreak; he contracted the disease himself yet survived.


So yeah I agree the whole world has been shaped greatly by disease.
   2192. Bitter Mouse Posted: February 25, 2014 at 04:05 PM (#4662299)
Communist systems tend, near universally, to degrade over time (often short periods of time) into authoritarian dictatorships.


I am just trying to distinguish between authoritarian systems and hereditary authoritarian systems: China, not a Monarchy, North Korea, Monarchy, both authoritarian.

As to the evolution of governments, I have a sneaking suspicion income and education (information) tends to (eventually) lead towards democratic systems of government, but I allow that may be pollyannaish and may be short circuited by future technologies exploited by ruthless authoritarian governments. And who knows what government our new AI overlords will impose on us?
   2193. Lassus Posted: February 25, 2014 at 04:08 PM (#4662301)
The Antonine Plague of 165–180 AD—also known as the Plague of Galen

We could use a little Plague of Gaelan in this thread.
   2194. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 04:12 PM (#4662305)
So 2186 confused me for a bit. In case others are confused the two plagues are different beasts.


Sorry, my point there was that we have new evidence tying the Justinian Plague to the organism that causes Black Death, so I would not write off completely the Black Death in the Antonine Plague either. We don't have a lot of evidence for measles or anything else, to my knowledge, but the recent discovery about the Black Death in Justinian times suggests a possible wave pattern to Black Deaths in Europe.
   2195. The Good Face Posted: February 25, 2014 at 04:14 PM (#4662308)
So, Face, as our resident monarchist, do you support the Dingell dynasty's reign in Michigan?


Is that a serious question?

Terror dominated authoritarian / totalitarian states murder for the sake of power and nothing more. "Ideological Purity" - "Ethnic Cleansing" - "Heretical Thought" - who cares.


It matters because ideological murders have no end point. If you're killing based on race/ethnicity/religious faith, you kill until the undesired people are eliminated. Kill the Tutsis! Rawr, smash! Ok, anybody see any Tutsis still breathing? No? Ok, let's get some drinks. But when you kill for political ideology, how do you know when to stop? Is Comrade Zenbitz TRULY a loyal member of the Innermost Party's Council of 16? Or does he harbor deviationist inclinations? He DID kind of look at me funny in the hallway yesterday...

That's why leftist singularities are so terrifying; they eat their own.
   2196. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: February 25, 2014 at 04:16 PM (#4662311)
Is that a serious question?


Decade after decade of family reign over a small province. What's not to love, right?
   2197. Monty Predicts a Padres-Mariners WS in 2016 Posted: February 25, 2014 at 04:19 PM (#4662315)
Not in the same way- in Europe the Black Death deeply impacted the existing social order and actually introduced a degree of social mobility lacking immediately before, but ethnically you still had the same people living in the same place.


Oh, sure. I didn't mean that the Black Death did the same things as what happened in the New World. Just that there was an epidemic that did so much that it's impossible to tell the history of Europe without it. In general, I think histories tend to focus on the purposeful actions of people, because they're more relatable than giant semi-random events. (There are exceptions, of course)
   2198. Lassus Posted: February 25, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4662316)
That's why leftist singularities are so terrifying; they eat their own.

But rightest singularities are so cuddly?

I still want to know what government is currently close to what you want. No, I won't tell you to move there.
   2199. The Good Face Posted: February 25, 2014 at 04:20 PM (#4662318)
Is that a serious question?


Decade after decade of family reign over a small province. What's not to love, right?


Ok, so no. Not a serious question.
   2200. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: February 25, 2014 at 04:23 PM (#4662319)
Recent evidence shows that the Justinian plague was, in fact, the Black Death. Same organism.


different plague, Anonine Plague was 150 AD or thereabouts

Justinian plague was 500 or so, and yes was the same microbe responsible for the black death.

One of the benefits of living in an interconnected world is there are no longer diseases that have been incubating (so to speak) in one population for generations, just waiting to break out of that population and afflict a "virgin" population.

Now the worries are diseases that "jump" from one species to another, mutations and bio-war.

Why was small pox so lethal in the Americas? It took out up to 90% of some populations- no microbe is that lethal on "purpose," it's wholly counterproductive for smallpox to kill 90% of its host organisms- a virus would/could never "evolve" to do that*.
Small Pox had afflicted the Old World for many generations and was never that deadly- if it was that deadly at the outset it would have burned itself out, so let's say it killed 10-20%, well the survivors are virtually immune and their ancestors are on average more resistant than earlier generations- now unless small pox itself evolves our evolving immune systems will eventually kill it off (which has happened to diseases in the past), so small pox gets hardier, get better at evading our immune system- so smallpox keeps killing off 10-20% but in cat BOTH smallpox and our immune systems are getting stronger - then centuries later this super evolved version of small pox runs into a human population that had never been previously exposed to smallpox - and bingo, the 165 AD version of Small Pox likely would have killed 10-20% of the Indians it encountered- but the two never met,the 1500 AD version? It's impact was apocalyptic-

small pox had been getting better at infecting humans and defeating our immune systems for at least a thousand years before small ox and Amerindians encountered eachother- we no longer have to worry about that- there is no disease that has evolved in humans for multiple generations- that our (specific individual) ancestors have not encountered.

*Ebola does, but that fact keeps Ebola from becoming a pandemic, Ebola outbreaks burn out too quickly- and we're not Ebola's "natural" or usual host, some other organism is, if we were Ebola's host organism Ebola would have gone extinct long ago. Oddly enough the worry with something like Ebola is god forbid it becomes LESS virulent.
Page 22 of 36 pages ‹ First  < 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Chicago Joe
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogGraphic designer creates Star Wars/MLB mash-up logos for all 30 teams
(15 - 4:14am, Aug 02)
Last: Barnaby Jones

NewsblogMike Carp designated for assignment, Mookie Betts called up - Over the Monster
(31 - 4:00am, Aug 02)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(218 - 3:08am, Aug 02)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogOT:  2014 College Football pre-season thread
(10 - 2:46am, Aug 02)
Last: Every Inge Counts

NewsblogCubs deal Emilio Bonifacio, James Russell to Braves
(47 - 2:38am, Aug 02)
Last: Mess with the Meat, you get the Wad!

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(43 - 2:22am, Aug 02)
Last: Norcan

NewsblogJim Bowden Caught Stealing From Fake Twitter Account, Deletes Everything
(35 - 1:33am, Aug 02)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogMiklasz: Mozeliak sets off a loud wake-up call
(14 - 1:13am, Aug 02)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogGiants Designate Dan Uggla, Tyler Colvin
(13 - 12:26am, Aug 02)
Last: Infinite Joost (Voxter)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-1
(29 - 12:13am, Aug 02)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogRosendo ‘Rusty’ Torres found guilty of 5 counts of sex abuse, acquitted of 3 other charges
(15 - 12:11am, Aug 02)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread- July 2014
(1081 - 10:39pm, Aug 01)
Last: Quaker

NewsblogGeorge "The Animal" Steele Mangles A Baseball
(160 - 9:12pm, Aug 01)
Last: NJ in DC (Now unemployed!)

NewsblogBill James Mailbag - 7/13/14 - 7/22/14 (Subscription Required)
(11 - 8:40pm, Aug 01)
Last: robinred

NewsblogJose Bautista, Casey Janssen “frustrated” and “disappointed” by Jays’ lack of deadline activity
(6 - 8:31pm, Aug 01)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

Page rendered in 0.7433 seconds
53 querie(s) executed