Back in July, the David family had breakfast during Shore Leave convention with George Takei and Brad Altman, and naturally we discussed the upcoming wedding. They were talking about how they’d had to whittle the invite list from several thousand to two hundred. And I had to ask the question that I”m sure you would have asked: “Are you inviting Shatner?”
“Yes,” said Brad, nodding firmly, and George agreed, adding, “I think it’s time to let the past go.” They could not have been more definitive: the olive branch was being extended, bygones allowed to be bygones, hatchets being buried and every other cliche you’d care to roll out.
The result? The invite, which was sent to Shatner’s manager, was never forwarded to Shatner for whatever reason, and now a video Shatner released in which he excoriates George is getting all kinds of media play.
“George came out. Who cares?” asks Shatner in the video. The answer to that, of course, is the opponents of gay marriage who are circulating e-mails and fliers filled with baseless scare tactics in order to try and push through Proposition 8. A Proposition that would make sure joyous days such as the one Kath and I shared with George, Brad and a couple hundred guests–which could have included William Shatner–will never occur again for anyone who’s gay in California. Those bigots, those jerks, those killjoys…they’re the ones who care, Mr. Shatner.
So that answers your questions: The questions of why George Takei didn’t invite you (he did) and who cares that George is gay (those who want to push through Prop 8). So here’s my question to you:
What are you going to do about it?
PAD
• 
“A friend of mine, during a radio production class, had a reasonably well-known talk radio personality come in to address the class. Said personality indicated that most, if not all, of talk radio’s big names are NOTHING like they seem on the air, but they need to Sell It For The Audience. So, does that make the internet Everyman’s Talk Radio Call In Show?”
Wow… They had Lionel come in and speak in their class?
“… or Rhodes ramping it up for the rubes…”
When I lived down in the Sunshine State I actually met her once before she became a big name. She’s actually just about that messed up in real life or at least comes off that way.
“A friend of mine, during a radio production class, had a reasonably well-known talk radio personality come in to address the class. Said personality indicated that most, if not all, of talk radio’s big names are NOTHING like they seem on the air, but they need to Sell It For The Audience. So, does that make the internet Everyman’s Talk Radio Call In Show?”
Wow… They had Lionel come in and speak in their class?
“… or Rhodes ramping it up for the rubes…”
When I lived down in the Sunshine State I actually met her once before she became a big name. She’s actually just about that messed up in real life or at least comes off that way.
“Sunshine State”
Queensland? LOL
The regulars here know you’re referring to me, Bill. As I’ve said on other occasions, directing this kind of hate at me but being incapable of saying my name has all the toughness of starting and losing a stare-down. Way to ignore me, Bill.
The regulars here know you’re referring to me, Bill. As I’ve said on other occasions, directing this kind of hate at me but being incapable of saying my name has all the toughness of starting and losing a stare-down. Way to ignore me, Bill.
The wicked flee when no man pursueth.
Who’s showing back, Bill?
Posted by: Luigi Novi
Rene
Luigi Novi: The fundamentalist or right-wing ones, at least.
The left-wing, “liberation theology” preaching ones, however…
========
I know this is hopeless – but Mike and Bill will you two fer cat’s sake shut the hëll up if all you have to say is sniping at each other?
Some comments I’ve read elsewhere in the Internet painting “rednecks” almost as sub-human slobs make me uncomfortable. It’s no excuse that some on the Right also paint the liberals as sub-human degenerates.
I can only speak for myself, but if it makes you feel any better, I can say with certainty that I have always maintained that liberals are fully human degenerates.
Actually I think it’s seriously helped conservatives that liberals tend to look down on us. It makes them underestimate us badly. Sometimes even misunderestimate us. There’s traditionally been a certain overconfidence–not to say arrogance– among the left in this country. The very term “progressive” radiates self-righteous arrogance: not only can self-proclaimed progressives discern what progress is, but they claim to embody it. Is there anything more pompous than a book called What’s the Matter With Kansas? As though the cognoscenti can better discern what’s in the best interest of Kansans better than, you know, Kansans can. Paul Begala, at least, recognized that this was why it’s been so hard to flip a red state. “Elites need to understand that middle-class Americans view values and culture as more important than mere trickery. Democrats have to respect their values and reflect their values, not condescend to them as if they were children who’ve been bamboozled.”
That’s what’s bothered me so much about the GOP over the last few years. We’ve become you. The Federal government has spread like mold into places it doesn’t belong, the national debt is the size of a small galaxy, and worst of all, our politicians have started tossing out bromides about the pro-America part of America. Reagan and Bush 41 didn’t do that crap. Even Bush 43 didn’t sink that low. I have no problem with attacking leftist candidates as ineffectual bleeding hearts. (Look at Mondale and Dukakis and tell me we were wrong. I mean really.) I’m on board with criticizing Kerry for being irresolute in a dangerous world. But irrational ad hominem attacks used to be the hallmark of the left. (“Bush lied, people died!” sounds better than “Every intelligence agency in the western world screwed up and we made a hash of it,” evidently. And it seems that we fought a war for oil when it would just be cheaper to buy every drop in the Middle East, or alternately it was all a scheme to funnel money to Cheney’s friends at Haliburton, because Karl Rove is secretly Lord Voldemort.) We’re supposed to be better than that. Lately we haven’t been.
For one of the earlier posts, I Googled a Ronald Reagan quote that I wanted to make sure I had right. Reading over the things that popped up depressed me. There was a positive, conservative voice that I haven’t heard coming from my side lately. I want my party back, dámņìŧ.
I’m not completely sold on soon-to-be-President Obama. However, he does seem to have the potential to be the inspirational leader that this country has lacked since Cowboy Ron rode off into the sunset. I hope you guys are right about him. I hope the guy who gave the 2004 keynote speech was the real Obama. If he’s really that guy, we need him.
Some comments I’ve read elsewhere in the Internet painting “rednecks” almost as sub-human slobs make me uncomfortable. It’s no excuse that some on the Right also paint the liberals as sub-human degenerates.
I can only speak for myself, but if it makes you feel any better, I can say with certainty that I have always maintained that liberals are fully human degenerates.
Actually I think it’s seriously helped conservatives that liberals tend to look down on us. It makes them underestimate us badly. Sometimes even misunderestimate us. There’s traditionally been a certain overconfidence–not to say arrogance– among the left in this country. The very term “progressive” radiates self-righteous arrogance: not only can self-proclaimed progressives discern what progress is, but they claim to embody it. Is there anything more pompous than a book called What’s the Matter With Kansas? As though the cognoscenti can better discern what’s in the best interest of Kansans better than, you know, Kansans can. Paul Begala, at least, recognized that this was why it’s been so hard to flip a red state. “Elites need to understand that middle-class Americans view values and culture as more important than mere trickery. Democrats have to respect their values and reflect their values, not condescend to them as if they were children who’ve been bamboozled.”
That’s what’s bothered me so much about the GOP over the last few years. We’ve become you. The Federal government has spread like mold into places it doesn’t belong, the national debt is the size of a small galaxy, and worst of all, our politicians have started tossing out bromides about the pro-America part of America. Reagan and Bush 41 didn’t do that crap. Even Bush 43 didn’t sink that low. I have no problem with attacking leftist candidates as ineffectual bleeding hearts. (Look at Mondale and Dukakis and tell me we were wrong. I mean really.) I’m on board with criticizing Kerry for being irresolute in a dangerous world. But irrational ad hominem attacks used to be the hallmark of the left. (“Bush lied, people died!” sounds better than “Every intelligence agency in the western world screwed up and we made a hash of it,” evidently. And it seems that we fought a war for oil when it would just be cheaper to buy every drop in the Middle East, or alternately it was all a scheme to funnel money to Cheney’s friends at Haliburton, because Karl Rove is secretly Lord Voldemort.) We’re supposed to be better than that. Lately we haven’t been.
For one of the earlier posts, I Googled a Ronald Reagan quote that I wanted to make sure I had right. Reading over the things that popped up depressed me. There was a positive, conservative voice that I haven’t heard coming from my side lately. I want my party back, dámņìŧ.
I’m not completely sold on soon-to-be-President Obama. However, he does seem to have the potential to be the inspirational leader that this country has lacked since Cowboy Ron rode off into the sunset. I hope you guys are right about him. I hope the guy who gave the 2004 keynote speech was the real Obama. If he’s really that guy, we need him.
Sorry, Dad…
I think a fair look at what Obama has done so far reveals a man who is very unlikely to be the wild eyed radical his opponents are trying to paint him as. I’ll be shocked if he blows it once in office by taking huge risks. In fact I’ll bet that there will be a lot of unhappy folks on the left who will be grousing about how he’s not the guy they thought they were getting (with the election seemingly assured even Elizabeth Edwards is sniping at his health care plan. There will be a lot of that.)
I think he’ll be fine, which is apparently more than what Joe Biden believes.
I think a fair look at what Obama has done so far reveals a man who is very unlikely to be the wild eyed radical his opponents are trying to paint him as. I’ll be shocked if he blows it once in office by taking huge risks. In fact I’ll bet that there will be a lot of unhappy folks on the left who will be grousing about how he’s not the guy they thought they were getting (with the election seemingly assured even Elizabeth Edwards is sniping at his health care plan. There will be a lot of that.)
I think he’ll be fine, which is apparently more than what Joe Biden believes.
There’s traditionally been a certain overconfidence–not to say arrogance– among the left in this country. The very term “progressive” radiates self-righteous arrogance: not only can self-proclaimed progressives discern what progress is, but they claim to embody it
Well, I’ve always disliked the very labeling of “left” and “right.” Left, so associated with evil that it shares Latin roots with the word “sinister.” The sheer status of being left-handed was reportedly so deplored in Catholic schools that nuns would wrap lefties on the knuckles to force them into using their right hands. As opposed to the right. Right-handedness is far more accepted in our society. We drive on the right side of the road. The word “right” means “correct.”
PAD
There’s traditionally been a certain overconfidence–not to say arrogance– among the left in this country. The very term “progressive” radiates self-righteous arrogance: not only can self-proclaimed progressives discern what progress is, but they claim to embody it
Well, I’ve always disliked the very labeling of “left” and “right.” Left, so associated with evil that it shares Latin roots with the word “sinister.” The sheer status of being left-handed was reportedly so deplored in Catholic schools that nuns would wrap lefties on the knuckles to force them into using their right hands. As opposed to the right. Right-handedness is far more accepted in our society. We drive on the right side of the road. The word “right” means “correct.”
PAD
“The left-wing, “liberation theology” preaching ones, however…”
I think Liberation Theology became so popular in Latin America for two reasons: poverty and hunger being more widespread than in the US, and right-wing military dictatorships being common in the 60s and 70s.
When democracy was restored, the Right emerged ashamed and fragmented, the Left emerged as the good guys. The Catholic clergy that sided with the Left were seen as the good guys inside the Church.
But now that the last two Popes have been very conservative, and we have powerful left-wing regimes that are dictatorships in all but name (I mean Hugo Chavez), I think Liberation Theology is becoming a little weaker.
“I can only speak for myself, but if it makes you feel any better, I can say with certainty that I have always maintained that liberals are fully human degenerates.”
Thanks, that was so sweet. :p
“The left-wing, “liberation theology” preaching ones, however…”
I think Liberation Theology became so popular in Latin America for two reasons: poverty and hunger being more widespread than in the US, and right-wing military dictatorships being common in the 60s and 70s.
When democracy was restored, the Right emerged ashamed and fragmented, the Left emerged as the good guys. The Catholic clergy that sided with the Left were seen as the good guys inside the Church.
But now that the last two Popes have been very conservative, and we have powerful left-wing regimes that are dictatorships in all but name (I mean Hugo Chavez), I think Liberation Theology is becoming a little weaker.
“I can only speak for myself, but if it makes you feel any better, I can say with certainty that I have always maintained that liberals are fully human degenerates.”
Thanks, that was so sweet. :p
I don’t know what Bill hoped to accomplish from running from a fight with me he started, but he also:
If you are so indifferent to the thinnest standard of fairness to hold his relentless cyber-bullying against me, you can go perform an impossible intimate act on yourself.
I don’t know what Bill hoped to accomplish from running from a fight with me he started, but he also:
If you are so indifferent to the thinnest standard of fairness to hold his relentless cyber-bullying against me, you can go perform an impossible intimate act on yourself.
Where’s Cesar Millan to silence the yipping Mike, er dog, weh you need him?
You’re attacking the messenger and not the message. Thank you for not invalidated anything I’ve said, and for volunteering to be counted among those who run from fights with me you’ve started, you chicken-šhìŧ coward.
You’re attacking the messenger and not the message. Thank you for not invalidated anything I’ve said, and for volunteering to be counted among those who run from fights with me you’ve started, you chicken-šhìŧ coward.
“I have a lot of problems with that viewpoint. For one thing, it implies that babies are an unfortunate side effect of having sex, like satyriasis from taking Viagra.”
For people that want to have an abortion for no more reason than they don’t want to have a baby, it is. There’s a simple way to avoid getting pregnant…don’t have vaginal intercourse. There’s plenty of ways to have “sex” that are 100% guaranteed to not result in any chance of a pregnancy. So rather than view pregnancy as an unfortunate side effect of vaginal intercourse, maybe we should be teaching kids that it’s a consequence you’d better be willing to bear if you’re going to engage in that act. Like accepting the consequences of driving recklessly, or firing a gun off randomly.
“One of the few genuinely dumb things Sen. Obama has said during this campaign was that, were one of his children to have sex too young, he wouldn’t want his daughter “punished with a baby” for that mistake. Babies aren’t punishment.”
I think there’s room for debate there, as a pregancy that’s the result of rape may very well be seen as punishment. But I think Obama’s pretty clearly pro-choice, so his comments doesn’t strike me as dumb. I’d rather it be accompanied with a statement about how hopefully he as a parent would have educated his children well enough so that they’d be able to make responsible decisions when it comes to sex.
“Nor are they side effects or the products of bad luck.”
Again, I think that depends on your prespective. If your only interest in sex is self gratification or shared gratification, but you don’t really want to become a parent, then pregnancy is a result of bad luck, influenced by poor choices.
“I think any comparison between a child as the result of reckless behavior (sex) and a wreck as the result of reckless driving is really inapposite.”
It’s no more inapposite than the analogy of being hooked up, against your will, to a total innocent, making their life dependant upon your life, for any period of time. Because in most cases, that’s not what pregnancy is…it’s not, as you’re pointing out for me, some random act that just happens to you one day. In almost all cases, it happens when you make some active, conscious choice…to have sex. You’re not being hooked up against your will. You’re engaging in an act that you know could result in the creation of a new life. It’s a very different set of circumstances than Thomson’s hypothetical.
Bringing in the societal and legal consequences of other things we do, like reckless driving, isn’t meant to infer that parenthood is some kind of punishment. What it’s meant to do is show that society imposes a legal responsibility on people when their actions infringe upon the lives of others. It’s illogical to relieve people of those responsibilities when that imposition is on a newly created life. The baby asks to be created no more than the innocent driver asks to be struck by the joyrider…yet our culture is willing to let the reckless parent-to-be get off, but imposes sometimes life-changing responsibility on the driver.
“If the child isn’t punishment, then that argument has another problem. Even if we, as a culture, think people who engage in risky behavior in some sense deserve what happens to them, we don’t keep them from getting help to ameliorate the condition. If you drive recklessly, you may be held civilly or criminally liable for the wreck, but you’re still allowed to get treatment at the hospital for your injuries.”
I’m not arguing for eliminating all abortion. I think it needs to be regulated more, and education has to be better about the topic. At the same time, there are alternatives to accepting parenthood. Adopting out your child means the mother has to go through the entire 10 month (and human gestation is a lot closer to 10 months than 9) period and then labor and delivery, but isn’t that a better option than just terminating it because it might be inconvienent for the mother’s plans for her life? People have their plans changed all the time…mostly without their consent or consultation. Is the career auto worker that gets laid off 10 months before his pension vests given a chance to abort the lay-off because it’s not what he plans to do? Is the sports star that gets injured before he signs a big contract extension able to abort the play he was injured on? Life imposes consequences. Actions willingly taken involve risk. Yet sex is one of the few actions that we allow people to dodge the consequences that naturally follow. It makes no sense, because we’re not just talking about one life, as in the cases above…at some point, everyone can agree that we’re talking about two lives.
“It’s still a leap to say that by engaging in a –what, 3%?– chance of pregnancy for unprotected sex, the woman thereby waives her right to defend her own bodily integrity.”
I disagree.
We have libidos that are optimized for 30-year lifespans, for a species for which recognizable-civilization occupies in its history the same as the layer of paint at the top the Eiffel Tower. Thinking you can think through a problem founded in nonsensical urges no one would ever be the first to choose if they had their choice how to procreate demonstrates a profoundly problematic detachment from reality.
We have libidos that are optimized for 30-year lifespans, for a species for which recognizable-civilization occupies in its history the same as the layer of paint at the top the Eiffel Tower. Thinking you can think through a problem founded in nonsensical urges no one would ever be the first to choose if they had their choice how to procreate demonstrates a profoundly problematic detachment from reality.
The very term “progressive” radiates self-righteous arrogance: not only can self-proclaimed progressives discern what progress is, but they claim to embody it.
Hey, if Conservatives would stop doing such a good job demonizing the names the Left comes up for itself they wouldn’t be scraping the bottom of the barrel for names these days.
The very term “progressive” radiates self-righteous arrogance: not only can self-proclaimed progressives discern what progress is, but they claim to embody it.
Hey, if Conservatives would stop doing such a good job demonizing the names the Left comes up for itself they wouldn’t be scraping the bottom of the barrel for names these days.
That’s what’s bothered me so much about the GOP over the last few years. We’ve become you.
While your post is pretty accurate, I think it’s safe to say that you’ve not ‘become’ us, but that you always were exhibiting this kind of behavior as well, but it’s only now being pointed out to you. 🙂
That’s what’s bothered me so much about the GOP over the last few years. We’ve become you.
While your post is pretty accurate, I think it’s safe to say that you’ve not ‘become’ us, but that you always were exhibiting this kind of behavior as well, but it’s only now being pointed out to you. 🙂
Well, I’ve always disliked the very labeling of “left” and “right.” Left, so associated with evil that it shares Latin roots with the word “sinister.” The sheer status of being left-handed was reportedly so deplored in Catholic schools that nuns would wrap lefties on the knuckles to force them into using their right hands. As opposed to the right. Right-handedness is far more accepted in our society. We drive on the right side of the road. The word “right” means “correct.”
Huh. never thought of it that way. When did left and right become synonymous with liberal and conservative anyway? And why? (did they used to sit on right and left sides of congress or parliament or something?)
It’s the fault of the French, going back to the French revolution’s national assembly.
It’s the fault of the French, going back to the French revolution’s national assembly.
Figures.
Figures.
I thought it was the British Parliament. Also the “Liberal” thing. Here, capital letter “Liberal”, is the name of the major conservative party (the current “Opposition” party.
I thought it was the British Parliament. Also the “Liberal” thing. Here, capital letter “Liberal”, is the name of the major conservative party (the current “Opposition” party.
David the lawyer: “There’s traditionally been a certain overconfidence–not to say arrogance– among the left in this country. The very term ‘progressive’ radiates self-righteous arrogance…”
You’re exhibiting what conservative commentator David Brooks aptly calls “the narcissism of the partisan.” You see things through a distorted lens, believing wrongly that those who agree with you are more virtuous than those who do not. In this way, you are the very sort of person you criticize.
You’re exhibiting what conservative commentator David Brooks aptly calls “the narcissism of the partisan.” You see things through a distorted lens, believing wrongly that those who agree with you are more virtuous than those who do not. In this way, you are the very sort of person you criticize.
Not at all. Ted Stevens votes the way I would on a lot of issues. I don’t at all think he’s more virtuous than, say, Russ Feingold, who would agree with me only on such things as “the sun is hot.” By contrast, I agreed with the post-1994 version of Bill Clinton (Clinton version 2.0) on a lot of substantive issues; nonetheless, he was too slimy to leave in the White House.
I was really trying to make two points. My first point is that What’s the Matter with Kansas?— a book that became quite popular among the set of people who don’t agree with me– implies that something is, in fact, wrong with Kansas, that the author is right, the Kansans are wrong (or duped, which is worse), and what the hëll is their problem that they can’t get on board with the program? It’s hubris in written form. One of the strongest arguments for conservatism in my mind is a combination of risk-aversion and a recognition that the human race isn’t necessarily as smart as it thinks it is. People who attempt to remake the world– even with the best of intentions– are not omniscient, and the law of unintended consequences is a bìŧçh. Attempting to create the Great Society did anything but. Best to have slow, gradual change, particularly when the status quo– living in the United States– isn’t at all bad. We are freer and more prosperous than any civilization in human history, recession notwithstanding. Governments have the potential to make things a lot worse; keeping government limited and letting people manage their own affairs got us here, let’s not blow it now.
My second point is that the right has started making the left’s mistakes. We’ve become arrogant. We’ve expanded the government enormously, more than was necessary to defend against terror. We’ve tried to reshape the world in our image, and frankly it hasn’t worked out any better for GWB than it did for LBJ. (I don’t think either of those presidents was a complete disaster, incidentally, but I don’t think the two of them will be on a Mt Rushmore annex any time soon, either.)
Learned Hand– probably the most well-respected American jurist never to be nominated for the Supreme Court– once said that Oliver Cromwell’s anguished cry, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken,” should be carved into the front entrance of every legislature and courthouse in America. Funny name, smart judge.
You’re exhibiting what conservative commentator David Brooks aptly calls “the narcissism of the partisan.” You see things through a distorted lens, believing wrongly that those who agree with you are more virtuous than those who do not. In this way, you are the very sort of person you criticize.
Not at all. Ted Stevens votes the way I would on a lot of issues. I don’t at all think he’s more virtuous than, say, Russ Feingold, who would agree with me only on such things as “the sun is hot.” By contrast, I agreed with the post-1994 version of Bill Clinton (Clinton version 2.0) on a lot of substantive issues; nonetheless, he was too slimy to leave in the White House.
I was really trying to make two points. My first point is that What’s the Matter with Kansas?— a book that became quite popular among the set of people who don’t agree with me– implies that something is, in fact, wrong with Kansas, that the author is right, the Kansans are wrong (or duped, which is worse), and what the hëll is their problem that they can’t get on board with the program? It’s hubris in written form. One of the strongest arguments for conservatism in my mind is a combination of risk-aversion and a recognition that the human race isn’t necessarily as smart as it thinks it is. People who attempt to remake the world– even with the best of intentions– are not omniscient, and the law of unintended consequences is a bìŧçh. Attempting to create the Great Society did anything but. Best to have slow, gradual change, particularly when the status quo– living in the United States– isn’t at all bad. We are freer and more prosperous than any civilization in human history, recession notwithstanding. Governments have the potential to make things a lot worse; keeping government limited and letting people manage their own affairs got us here, let’s not blow it now.
My second point is that the right has started making the left’s mistakes. We’ve become arrogant. We’ve expanded the government enormously, more than was necessary to defend against terror. We’ve tried to reshape the world in our image, and frankly it hasn’t worked out any better for GWB than it did for LBJ. (I don’t think either of those presidents was a complete disaster, incidentally, but I don’t think the two of them will be on a Mt Rushmore annex any time soon, either.)
Learned Hand– probably the most well-respected American jurist never to be nominated for the Supreme Court– once said that Oliver Cromwell’s anguished cry, “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken,” should be carved into the front entrance of every legislature and courthouse in America. Funny name, smart judge.
I was really trying to make two points. My first point is that What’s the Matter with Kansas?– a book that became quite popular among the set of people who don’t agree with me– implies that something is, in fact, wrong with Kansas, that the author is right, the Kansans are wrong (or duped, which is worse), and what the hëll is their problem that they can’t get on board with the program?
Ironically, the guy whom most of the people posting here hope will get elected on Tuesday is half Kansan…
I was really trying to make two points. My first point is that What’s the Matter with Kansas?– a book that became quite popular among the set of people who don’t agree with me– implies that something is, in fact, wrong with Kansas, that the author is right, the Kansans are wrong (or duped, which is worse), and what the hëll is their problem that they can’t get on board with the program?
Ironically, the guy whom most of the people posting here hope will get elected on Tuesday is half Kansan…
David the lawyer: “Not at all.”
Oh, yes. You continue to imply that “arrogance” is the sole purview of “the left,” and that conservatives who display arrogance are acting like liberals. As though arrogance is somehow antithetical to conservatism! Arrogance isn’t a liberal trait or a conservative trait. It’s a human trait.
“One of the strongest arguments for conservatism in my mind is a combination of risk-aversion and a recognition that the human race isn’t necessarily as smart as it thinks it is.”
One of the strongest arguments against free-market conservatism is the current economic mess, caused in part by inadequate regulation of financial services firms. Even Alan Greenspan himself admitted as much.
Before anyone makes any wild leaps of illogic, I’m not against the free market. I merely believe that the idea of a purely unregulated market providing the greatest good is a fiction.
This current economic mess was the result of both foolish liberal and conservative economic policies. Liberal policies resulted in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac extending home loans, either directly or by providing funds to banks and other mortgage lenders, to those who could truly not afford them. This increased the number of home buyers and inflated housing prices.
Conservative policies of deregulation allowed banks to get into the brokerage business, which made it easier to securitize the aforementioned subprime mortgages without disclosing to investors just how much risk they were taking on by purchasing those securities. This increased the demand for subprime mortgages, which further encouraged banks to lower lending standards so they could offer more mortgages which could then be securitized and sold. This further contributed to the housing bubble.
When the bubble burst, financial services organizations found themselves sitting on assloads of subprime mortgages and/or securities backed by such mortgages that were no longer worth a tinker’s dámņ. Banks began failing. Lehman brothers collapsed, the government refused to step in, and that set the rest of the dominoes falling.
And here we are.
We need neither the arrogance inherent in hardcore rigid conservatism, nor the arrogance inherent in rigid hardcore liberalism. We need sensible governance, in which the government isn’t in the business of trying to provide equal outcomes to all, but is in the business of placing limits on the damage that can be done by the stupidity of corporate executives in key industries such as financial services.
Before anyone makes any wild leaps of illogic, I’m not against the free market. I merely believe that the idea of a purely unregulated market providing the greatest good is a fiction.
This current economic mess was the result of both foolish liberal and conservative economic policies. Liberal policies resulted in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac extending home loans, either directly or by providing funds to banks and other mortgage lenders, to those who could truly not afford them. This increased the number of home buyers and inflated housing prices.
Conservative policies of deregulation allowed banks to get into the brokerage business, which made it easier to securitize the aforementioned subprime mortgages without disclosing to investors just how much risk they were taking on by purchasing those securities. This increased the demand for subprime mortgages, which further encouraged banks to lower lending standards so they could offer more mortgages which could then be securitized and sold. This further contributed to the housing bubble.
When the bubble burst, financial services organizations found themselves sitting on assloads of subprime mortgages and/or securities backed by such mortgages that were no longer worth a tinker’s dámņ. Banks began failing. Lehman brothers collapsed, the government refused to step in, and that set the rest of the dominoes falling.
And here we are.
We need neither the arrogance inherent in hardcore rigid conservatism, nor the arrogance inherent in rigid hardcore liberalism. We need sensible governance, in which the government isn’t in the business of trying to provide equal outcomes to all, but is in the business of placing limits on the damage that can be done by the stupidity of corporate executives in key industries such as financial services.
1. The liberals are guilty in that they acted unfaithfully to regulatory principles.
2. There was a market demand for those loans. Interest was kept low, and people wanted someplace to put their money. So the legitimate loans were all bought up. Then people started gambling on riskier loans. Blaming liberals for this is something people like to do, but that’s all it is, something they like to do regardless of the absence of evidence.
JHC, Ayn Rand was just plain wrong. Let John Galt go already.
1. The liberals are guilty in that they acted unfaithfully to regulatory principles.
2. There was a market demand for those loans. Interest was kept low, and people wanted someplace to put their money. So the legitimate loans were all bought up. Then people started gambling on riskier loans. Blaming liberals for this is something people like to do, but that’s all it is, something they like to do regardless of the absence of evidence.
JHC, Ayn Rand was just plain wrong. Let John Galt go already.
Oh, yes. You continue to imply that “arrogance” is the sole purview of “the left,” and that conservatives who display arrogance are acting like liberals. As though arrogance is somehow antithetical to conservatism! Arrogance isn’t a liberal trait or a conservative trait. It’s a human trait.
Yes and no. I completely agree that it’s a human trait. I never said that it was the “sole purview” of the left. I said that it was a trait that the left in this country demonstrated to an exaggerated extent. I believe that to be empirically true. And I said that the right has gotten as bad as the left has traditionally been. I didn’t say it was a trait previously alien to conservatives, nor is that a logical corollary of what I said. I quoted Hobbes with approval earlier in this thread, remember? “In the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death. And the cause of this is not always that a man hopes for a more intensive delight than he has already attained to, or that he cannot be content with a moderate power, but because he cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more.” Our entire republic, and most good political philosophy, is premised on the idea that unconstrained factions cannot be trusted. Whatever gave you the idea that I thought conservatives to be immune? Recent behavior by ascendant conservatives, though depressing, is perfectly consistent with Madisonian theory. And for that matter, Lord Acton.
I think your summary of the housing/financial bubble is basically right.
One of the things that drove prices up so drastically in some areas was “flipping” – buying properties you have no intention of living in, in order to sell them at a profit to someone else in a few months.
And they, likely as not, figured to do the same thing.
Eventually, the “bigger fool” theory of economics catches up with that stuff. Sooner or later you *can’t* find a bigger fool to nuy it from you at a profit. And the person who finds himself in that position when the music stops is He Who Gets Slapped.
It’s said that Joe Kennedy got out of the market before the 1929 Crash when he got nervous because his shoeshine boy asked him for market tips.
I’d been nervous about the housing market for some time, and then i saw an ad for this book, and i knew we were looking at a disaster waiting to happen. And it didn’t wait very long.
One of the things that drove prices up so drastically in some areas was “flipping” – buying properties you have no intention of living in, in order to sell them at a profit to someone else in a few months.
And they, likely as not, figured to do the same thing.
Eventually, the “bigger fool” theory of economics catches up with that stuff. Sooner or later you *can’t* find a bigger fool to nuy it from you at a profit. And the person who finds himself in that position when the music stops is He Who Gets Slapped.
It’s said that Joe Kennedy got out of the market before the 1929 Crash when he got nervous because his shoeshine boy asked him for market tips.
I’d been nervous about the housing market for some time, and then i saw an ad for this book, and i knew we were looking at a disaster waiting to happen. And it didn’t wait very long.
I thought it was the British Parliament. Also the “Liberal” thing. Here, capital letter “Liberal”, is the name of the major conservative party (the current “Opposition” party
No, Micha’s correct. I researched it once. “Left” and “right” stems from the notion that the more progressive members congregated on the left side of the national assembly, and the more conservative on the right.
PAD