Does 1 In 2 Republicans Think That "Deep Down" Obama Is A Muslim?
Jesus. The fever swamps may be getting progressively more fetid
Imagine a hand palming a human face forever
We cannot be absolutely certain that trees are objectively real....therefore the craziest theory you can think of must be true.Don't fall for that shit. It's stupid.
Not calling a blatant grab and hold on Winslow on Duke's game tying possession in regulation is as bad of officiating as it gets. Tyus Jones drove off a ball screen set by Winslow who wrapped up his own defender. It was awful. I don't need to get into a “Duke gets the calls” “Let 'em play” debate, that is a foul on any possession in any gym in the country. Those officials should be reprimanded, it was pathetic.One reason that this thing was so annoying was that it's such a paradigmatically dookie move. Along with the flopping, the kicking out on 3s, interfering with the ball on made baskets, the incessant handchecking and all the other crap that K apparently coaches. (Then, of course, in the last game there were the convenient clock issues when Duke was winded...and just in time to ice the Carolina free-throw shooters... )
Commentators on both the left and right have correctly pointed out that Chait’s praise for reasoned debate fails to acknowledge the ways in which political radicals, immoderate speech and dogmatism have contributed to major movements for social reform.Well, I have no doubt that radicalism has often worked. It's a safe bet that it's even occasionally worked for the good. How often it's done more good than harm...well, that's a question for historians. I'd certainly be interested in the answer.
UnarmedWitsCompetitor:I, too, appreciate that Rosenberg is engaging Chait's points, and is trying to be reasonable. That, in my book, is more important than the fact that I disagree with many of her substantial points.
Even if the assumption is true - knee jerk presumption of guilt/wrong doing has long term benefits - it is just seems wrong and anti American.
A variation on the "we are doing something too important for it to be subject to reason" theme. Radicalism can create change, yes. It can also create something like a runaway train, doing far more harm than good. And when that happens, sometimes nobody can apply the brakes -- not Danton, not Jon Chait, and not Alyssa Rosenberg. We are getting close to a runaway train on college campuses, where due process has been scuttled, misinformation abounds and a kind of mob justice is taking over -- these things cannot be described as moderate.
But thanks for engaging his argument, and not simply attacking him for being a straight white guy, like so many others did, so predictably.
If I've read right, Alyssa's premise is that radical verbage can stimulate more in-depth discussions and thought. However, such verbage can also replace critical thought and close off discussions. Max Blumenthal's "Republican Gomorrah" describes how radical verbage displaced critical thinking and hijacked the Republican party in the Tea Party movement. One part of being 'nice' is respecting another's point of view and allowing the expression of other opinions. Niceness may be misplaced in emergency situations and imminent disasters, but for normal situations, it's a good thing.
Many progressive critics have written off the piece as the whining of an out-of-touch white guy, and that's certainly a fair response.Well, first, I've always been suspicious of the term "progressive." To my mind, "progressives" are either (i) people who fled the term 'liberal' when liberalism was out of fashion (hence, well, wimps) or (ii) people who are actually to the left of liberals (hence not liberals). But that may be a dead end with respect to the real topic at hand. There's probably no reason to fight about that word.
One way—perhaps the best way—to demonstrate someone's lack of toughness or strength is to attack them and show they are either unwilling or unable to defend themselves—thus the rough slang I used above. … Someone who can't or won't defend themselves certainly isn't someone you can depend upon to defend you.Not to put too fine a point on it, liberals need to punch back against the illiberal left.
The first [step toward a good asset-building program] would be to reengineer the misguided asset-building policy that the federal government already has in place, the most prominent parts of which are the home-interest deduction and tax-subsidized retirement plans. It’s a well-funded effort at some $500 billion a year. The trouble is that those policies are tilted overwhelmingly toward increasing the wealth of people who already have it—that is, homeowners and people with retirement accounts. Think of this as an accelerator to Piketty’s r > g. According to the Corporation for Enterprise Development, the wealthiest 5 percent of American households receive more than half of federal asset-building subsidies— $265 billion worth—while the bottom 60 percent receive only 4 percent. According to Shapiro et al.’s calculations, African Americans get just 3.5 percent of the total. That’s about $50 billion less per year in asset-building assistance than they’d be given if their share matched blacks’ 13 percent of the population.I'm conservative enough to be very wary about changing what seem to me like tried-and-more-or-less-true programs like these...but those are pretty damning numbers...