OK, it actually is a surprise that Michele Bachmann dropped out of the GOP race. I didn't think she had that much brains, or humility. Weirder yet is the Palinistas telling her to drop out, so as to unite social conservatives.
More on how others, from James Dobson on, are looking for the anti-Romney, here.
Semi-surprised she'd endorse Ron Paul instead of Rick Santorum. See, while Paul is a small-government type, AND, he's pro-life, and he's not as pro-legalization on drugs as Paul-tards make him out to be, his social conservativism ends entirely at water's edge. To riff on Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul is NOT in "the Amen corner" of American Protestant millennialists writing blank checks to Israel.
Santorum and Rick Perry both are. After New Hampshire, the GOP heads south, so Perry still has a limping chance. Both have better chances than Paul, long-term. That said, it would be fun to see him bolt the party again, and this time square off against Gary Johnson for the Libertarian nod. Both are libertarian nutbars, but with nuanced differences, including that Johnson's not so anti-Fed nor such a goldbug, nor a fellator of Austrian school economics in general.
Back to the GOP, though. Will Paul struggle in New Hampshire? Will he then fall flat in South Carolina? And, can Santorum "do Southern"? Can Newt win in S.C. himself? Or will he rather, as Mother Jones hinted, try to blow up the GOP as a last act of petulance? Stay tuned.
That includes you, Doug Christie, Mitch Daniels, et al.
But Kevin Drum probably has it right By Super Tuesday, it could well be just Romney and Santorum, with the Mittster coming near to locking up the nomination on that primary date or even going over the top.
January 05, 2012
January 04, 2012
Did Obama steal Anita Perry's backbone?
First, we here in Texas, especially, know why Rick Perry reassessed his reassessment of the state of his campaign. Wife Anita, who could be a slightly less Stepford version of Cal(l)ista Flockhart Gingrich, has had his cojones in her personal jewel box ever since rumors about Brokeback Rick and his allegedly pending offshore divorce plans nearly a decade ago.
In other words, the "god" that told Rick Perry to run has a first name, and it's Anita.
That said, Barack Obama has found a backbone that Michelle Obama never had to worry about stealing from him, or so it temporarily seems.
Recess appointments not only to head the consumer finance agency but to bring the National Labor Relations Board up to full strength? What, other than the 2012 presidential elections, is up with that?
Actually, on the NLRB, it's probably clear, as Keystone XL is also indicating. Obama believes he needs both the numbers and organizing potential of unions to shore up his candidacy and rebuild enthusiasm that young Occupiers probably won't all have for him. So, this backbone probably won't extend to environmental issues. And, even with unions, it will be subverted to Dear Leader's version of "triangulation" on other economic-related issues. What if the debt stupid-committee or the Catfood Commission open their collective mouths, though?
Stay tuned.
In other words, the "god" that told Rick Perry to run has a first name, and it's Anita.
That said, Barack Obama has found a backbone that Michelle Obama never had to worry about stealing from him, or so it temporarily seems.
Recess appointments not only to head the consumer finance agency but to bring the National Labor Relations Board up to full strength? What, other than the 2012 presidential elections, is up with that?
Actually, on the NLRB, it's probably clear, as Keystone XL is also indicating. Obama believes he needs both the numbers and organizing potential of unions to shore up his candidacy and rebuild enthusiasm that young Occupiers probably won't all have for him. So, this backbone probably won't extend to environmental issues. And, even with unions, it will be subverted to Dear Leader's version of "triangulation" on other economic-related issues. What if the debt stupid-committee or the Catfood Commission open their collective mouths, though?
Stay tuned.
#ESPN fluffs #MLB non-#HOF players again
The baseball writers at ESPN have a VERY "wide" view of the Baseball Hall of Fame, and this new year is no exception. Jim Caple not only voted for Bernie Williams, he thinks writers should be able to vote for more than 10 candidates per years. David Schofield is a half-fluffer, saying he's "on the fence" for Jack Morris, while saying he "doesn't think" he can climb over it. Still too much wiggle room. He is right on Jeff Bagwell, though, giving the slugging power at 1B and Baggs' relatively short career, I don't think him waiting another year or two (although it will be dicey with Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens on the roids issue, and some people's thoughts on Baggs on that) would be a "travesty." And, he's more right about Barry Larkin.
My predictions? Larkin gets in as a solo. Tim Raines breaks 50 percent. Bagwell breaks 50 percent, but not 60 percent. Williams breaks 40 percent just because he's a Yankee and because of yutzes like Caple.
None of the other returning players on the ballot makes major positional changes, despite Schofield's half-fluffing of Morris.
My personal thoughts. Larkin deserves in. I think Raines does, too. Rickey Henderson overshadowed him so that we don't realize how good he, Raines, was. Trammell? Torn on him. Nobody else on the list deserves in, in my opinion.
My predictions? Larkin gets in as a solo. Tim Raines breaks 50 percent. Bagwell breaks 50 percent, but not 60 percent. Williams breaks 40 percent just because he's a Yankee and because of yutzes like Caple.
None of the other returning players on the ballot makes major positional changes, despite Schofield's half-fluffing of Morris.
My personal thoughts. Larkin deserves in. I think Raines does, too. Rickey Henderson overshadowed him so that we don't realize how good he, Raines, was. Trammell? Torn on him. Nobody else on the list deserves in, in my opinion.
January 03, 2012
Book review: Cynics
Cynics by William DesmondMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
This is a very good introduction to Capital-C Cynicism the philosophy, which is much different in many ways from cynicism the social behavior, though Cynics did at times act in a way that we might today call specifically cynical.
In the first semester of my college Philosophy 101 course, Cynics (and Skeptics) got short shrift among ancient Greek philosophies, not only compared to Socrates/Plato/Aristotle, but also compared to the Stoics, the Presocratics and to a degree, even the Epicureans.
Which is too bad, and was partially founded on wrong ideas.
First, the Cynics aren't sprung from the font of Socrates; the movement arguably has Presocratic roots, as Desmond shows. And, since Zeno the founder of Stoicism studied from a Cynic before going off on his own, Desmond notes the parallels between the two, and the likely direction of influence, an influence that continued as late as Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius both shows tints of Cynic stances.
Second, Desmond shows that Cynics were acting the way they were in what might be called an activist Westernized version of Zen. At their best, Cynics were encouraging a kind of activist detachment from conventional thoughts and mores, and even from all but the barest of physical needs.
That said, while some of their antics, like Diogenes telling Alexander to get out of his light, sound courages and enlightened, others, like Diogenes' masturbating in public, were as repulsive to his fellow Greeks as they are to readers today. But that was the intent.
Finally, Desmond addresses the "new search for the historical Jesus" types like John Dominic Crossan, who claim Jesus was the Jewish equivalent of a Cynic sage, and finds them largely wanting. It is true that Gadara of Legionary demoniac fame was an old center of Cynic thought, but the parallels between Jesus and a Iamblichus or similar are few and tendentious.
You'll learn all that and much more in this easy-to-read introduction to a sadly neglected and misunderstood school of philosophical thought.
View all my reviews
January 01, 2012
Greenwald gets clear-eyed yet myopic on #RonPaul
Yes, Glenn, Ron Paul has pointed out civil liberties issues and other problems that cut across Democratic/Republican lines. But, in your column condemning horse-race narratives and other mainstream media coverage of politics, by calling Ron Paul the only "major presidential candidate in either party" on these issues, or whatever, or quoting Conor Friesdorf about Paul being the only "major" candidate aren't you playing into the MSM and GOP-intraparty efforts to "anoint" people yourself? I'd say yes on the MSM side by talking about "either party" without immediately noting that third parties are different indeed on this issue; I'd say both MSM and GOP on who's "major" within GOP candidates and by whose definition. That's especially true in light of two things.
1. You only mentioned Gary Johnson as an afterthought, in noting he's becoming a libertarian. You fail to describe his campaign in any depth beyond offering a link to a previous post, not noting he's more sensible in some ways than Paul, but even more radical in line of GOP orthodoxy than Paul is.
2. You don't mention the Green Party, either as a party or Dr. Jill Stein or any other announced presidential candidates, and civil liberties issues, at all.
You know better, Glenn. From starting by referencing just two parties, to only posting video clips of Paul, and not Johnson, Stein or others, this gave the impression that, "Gee, if Paul weren't such a racist, I'd support him over other candidates fighting for civil liberties." At the least, it gives the impression that you'd support an economic libertarian over a Green- or socialist-type candidate if the civil liberties issues are equal.
Sorry, Glenn, but this is a big fail. Especially given your sexual orientation status and Paul's iffiness there, you of all people should recognize how selective his civil liberties ideas really are. More here on Paul's anti-gay stance from those infamous newsletters of his past.
(Of course, your pinning of hopes on billionaire independent candidates, rather than third parties, to try to reform the current two-party duopoly, says some things, too. The link is from an Out magazine profile of Greenwald.)
Unfortunately, Ross Douthat falls into the same trap, thinking that Paul is the only candidate crying out about some of these issues. And so does Robert Wright, who may think this isn't a "nonzero" of Paul vs. others
On Greenwald, this is why I really like him 70-80 percent of the time, like him 10-15 percent of the time, but somewhere around 15 percent of the time, sometimes more (such as his refusal to tout any civil liberties organizations besides ACLU, which is problematic given ACLU's current rulership) he's just a "cropper."
This is probably why, since My Yahoo doesn't support Salon's feed of Greenwald, I kind of miss seeing what he was writing on a regular basis, but not hugely.
Visit this blog post, also in comments below, about the Out profile I linked above. The author says, overall rightfully, that Greenwald doth protest too much, and shows how Glenn is ultimately a full-blown libertarian still. True progressives should realize he'll never give the time of day to Greens or Socialists. And, the fact that he still has half a political man-crush on Paul shouldn't be surprising.
I'll probably remove him from my blog roll soon. There's other reasons, including one big one.
Basically, for Glenn, civil liberties defense begins and ends with the ACLU. He refuses to tout other organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights. And, he's never written about the Romero/Strosser "coup" in the ACLU a few years back, well documented by Wendy Kaminer and blogged about by me. It's enough to make me wonder if he doesn't get consulting fees or something from the ACLU when he flies back from Brazil.
And, no, I don't expect him to talk about left-of-center third parties, like Greens or Socialists, in the near future.
1. You only mentioned Gary Johnson as an afterthought, in noting he's becoming a libertarian. You fail to describe his campaign in any depth beyond offering a link to a previous post, not noting he's more sensible in some ways than Paul, but even more radical in line of GOP orthodoxy than Paul is.
2. You don't mention the Green Party, either as a party or Dr. Jill Stein or any other announced presidential candidates, and civil liberties issues, at all.
You know better, Glenn. From starting by referencing just two parties, to only posting video clips of Paul, and not Johnson, Stein or others, this gave the impression that, "Gee, if Paul weren't such a racist, I'd support him over other candidates fighting for civil liberties." At the least, it gives the impression that you'd support an economic libertarian over a Green- or socialist-type candidate if the civil liberties issues are equal.
Sorry, Glenn, but this is a big fail. Especially given your sexual orientation status and Paul's iffiness there, you of all people should recognize how selective his civil liberties ideas really are. More here on Paul's anti-gay stance from those infamous newsletters of his past.
(Of course, your pinning of hopes on billionaire independent candidates, rather than third parties, to try to reform the current two-party duopoly, says some things, too. The link is from an Out magazine profile of Greenwald.)
Unfortunately, Ross Douthat falls into the same trap, thinking that Paul is the only candidate crying out about some of these issues. And so does Robert Wright, who may think this isn't a "nonzero" of Paul vs. others
On Greenwald, this is why I really like him 70-80 percent of the time, like him 10-15 percent of the time, but somewhere around 15 percent of the time, sometimes more (such as his refusal to tout any civil liberties organizations besides ACLU, which is problematic given ACLU's current rulership) he's just a "cropper."
This is probably why, since My Yahoo doesn't support Salon's feed of Greenwald, I kind of miss seeing what he was writing on a regular basis, but not hugely.
Visit this blog post, also in comments below, about the Out profile I linked above. The author says, overall rightfully, that Greenwald doth protest too much, and shows how Glenn is ultimately a full-blown libertarian still. True progressives should realize he'll never give the time of day to Greens or Socialists. And, the fact that he still has half a political man-crush on Paul shouldn't be surprising.
I'll probably remove him from my blog roll soon. There's other reasons, including one big one.
Basically, for Glenn, civil liberties defense begins and ends with the ACLU. He refuses to tout other organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights. And, he's never written about the Romero/Strosser "coup" in the ACLU a few years back, well documented by Wendy Kaminer and blogged about by me. It's enough to make me wonder if he doesn't get consulting fees or something from the ACLU when he flies back from Brazil.
And, no, I don't expect him to talk about left-of-center third parties, like Greens or Socialists, in the near future.
A new mindset
Shortly after I moved to Odessa, Texas in 2009, the sports editor at the paper recommended a Thai restaurant as a good eating place. As it turns out, it was next door to my apartment complex there.
Well, I never went there. And, my last night in Odessa, as I walked around the complex, I was glad.
And, there's a story behind that.
More than a decade ago, in southeastern New Mexico, my office manager was an interesting, and generally good-at-heart person. Her religious/philosophical/psychological beliefs were a mix of Joyce Meyer's riff on the success gospel and a vaguely Christian/New Age mashup of "things are meant to happen."
She wanted out of the city, and definitely to a better position. And she was smart enough.
That said, she sometimes said words to the effect of, "I probably haven't gotten out of here because I haven't done X."
Well, for various reasons, those words stuck in my mind after I was fired at that newspaper and moved on to a new newspaper job, new city. I thought, at times, maybe I haven't left here yet because I haven't "done X."
Well, I eventually got moved to metropolitan Dallas, where there are a million X-es to do. After my newspaper in our suburban chain closed, I was trying to get out of my rural East Texas newspaper job after that as soon as possible. But, I didn't have that mindset, nor did I even think about it.
Nor did I after I got back to Dallas. Then, the entire chain closed.
And, I eventually wound up in Bush-ville.
And, as I walked past that Thai restaurant, I didn't think about not having gone there. I did think about how that old "thing must happen for a reason" and related mindset was pretty well purged.
And, that's my New Year's resolution for myself and wish for you readers: A new mindset.
Skeptical about "received wisdom" in the best way, skeptical about myself in the best way, and open to new growth in the best way.
Happy New Year.
Well, I never went there. And, my last night in Odessa, as I walked around the complex, I was glad.
And, there's a story behind that.
More than a decade ago, in southeastern New Mexico, my office manager was an interesting, and generally good-at-heart person. Her religious/philosophical/psychological beliefs were a mix of Joyce Meyer's riff on the success gospel and a vaguely Christian/New Age mashup of "things are meant to happen."
She wanted out of the city, and definitely to a better position. And she was smart enough.
That said, she sometimes said words to the effect of, "I probably haven't gotten out of here because I haven't done X."
Well, for various reasons, those words stuck in my mind after I was fired at that newspaper and moved on to a new newspaper job, new city. I thought, at times, maybe I haven't left here yet because I haven't "done X."
Well, I eventually got moved to metropolitan Dallas, where there are a million X-es to do. After my newspaper in our suburban chain closed, I was trying to get out of my rural East Texas newspaper job after that as soon as possible. But, I didn't have that mindset, nor did I even think about it.
Nor did I after I got back to Dallas. Then, the entire chain closed.
And, I eventually wound up in Bush-ville.
And, as I walked past that Thai restaurant, I didn't think about not having gone there. I did think about how that old "thing must happen for a reason" and related mindset was pretty well purged.
And, that's my New Year's resolution for myself and wish for you readers: A new mindset.
Skeptical about "received wisdom" in the best way, skeptical about myself in the best way, and open to new growth in the best way.
Happy New Year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)