Tagged: politics RSS

  • A 8:11 pm on February 8, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , politics   

    Reductio Alert 

    In an effort to combat resurgent food fadism, Pastor Wilson has invoked arguments that seem reminiscent of the population control folks. Cultural issues are making the strange bedfellows!

    He says that the subdivision of property make it impossible for everyone to farm indefinitely. This is irrelevant to the discussion, because there’s more than enough room for everyone to farm if they want. But we aren’t arguing that everyone should farm (and I don’t want to!), we’re arguing that our food system oppresses the poor here and abroad and needs a complete overhaul.

    There is much to deride in so-called sustainability. Permanence or tradition might be a better word with less baggage.

    Time for less reductios and straw men, and more engagement with the economic and political issues that under-gird this discussion.

     

  • A 12:29 pm on February 1, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: libertarian, politics   

    The Week in Review 

    Found the anti-libertarian Sun King article from Dr. Leithart challenging.

    Also appreciated this tweet from Pastor Wilson: “A pastor is called to be a garden wall, not the biggest vegetable in the garden. If no wall, and he is biggest, the deer just eat him first.” Is it anti or pro vegetable? Discuss.

     

  • A 1:42 pm on September 1, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: bs, gossip, news, politics   

    Don’t Read the News 

    I haven’t written something in forevs, so here’s the new newness: Don’t Read the News! My favorite bit o’ bs from it: Liberal bias is to be expected in the news, because the news prioritizes change over permanence, and that’s hostile to a conservative outlook. Like everything I do, I mean it all with an almost painful sincerity.

     

    • F 1:46 pm on September 8, 2009 Permalink

      Alright, Austin. Here are my long-promised comments.

      The very survival of the news business depends on promoting a view of life as jumpy and disconnected. This is the reason for “liberal bias.” The news relies on change, and change is a fundamentally un-conservative sentiment.

      I don’t know if I fully agree. I think that “news” requires a “storied” perspective—one that acknowledges movement in life, resisting that which is static and stagnant. But is change fundamentally “un-conservative”? I’m not sure that’s wholly true. Davey and I still consider ourselves conservatives (I think), but we also believe in the necessity of change and growth. And I don’t think this means we contradict ourselves.

      Aside from that, my chief question is: how do we keep up with current events while ignoring the “news”? You obviously distinguish between the two, and while I agree we need to be less concerned with what Jon & Kate are up to, there is a legitimate need to be acquainted with what’s going on in the rest of the world. Is Front Porch Republic really enough?

      You’ve piqued my interest and made me think, but I still plan to follow the National Post every day like I do. Sorry.

    • A 12:01 am on September 9, 2009 Permalink

      Thanks for the comments! I certainly don’t think of myself as against change, per se, but certainly against the perspective of constant, violent change the news seems to promulgate. I like the local news better, because you’re more likely to get the “soft” pieces that portray more constant things in life. This puts me in a weird place, because I also hate local news.

  • D 7:57 am on April 15, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: global warming, politics,   

    Delicious 

    Get this: Gov. Sarah Palin, former global warming skeptic, has changed her tune:

    “We Alaskans are living with the changes that you are observing in Washington,” she said. “The dramatic decreases in the extent of summer sea ice, increased coastal erosion, melting of permafrost, decrease in alpine glaciers and overall ecosystem changes are very real to us.”

    Why this 180? Palin says we need more gas drilling. In Alaska. In the same Alaska that recently saw its projected 9 billion dollar budget surplus turn into a 1.65 billion dollar shortfall. There is, of course, no correlation between falling oil prices and Palin’s newfound belief in the necessity of global warming-induced natural gas production.

     

  • F 12:21 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: politician dogpile, politics, South Korea   

    If At First You Don’t Succeed 

    1091448bin

    That picture almost speaks for itself. From the National Post:

    A South Korean parliamentary committee on Thursday introduced a free trade bill with the United States, sparking a fight where sledgehammer-swinging MPs tried to break through a barricade of office furniture.

    You can read the rest of the article here. And I must admit, I find that picture strangely satisfying. But do politicians even know how to use a sledgehammer or throw a punch? If this happened in Ottawa or Washington, D.C., I feel like the fight would turn into one huge slap-fest. Especially if Obama was involved.

     

    • D 1:35 pm on December 18, 2008 Permalink

      I think ninnyness is a bi-partisan affair, Mr E. My favorite cage fight would be lil’ Henry Waxman vs. pre-diet Mike Huckabee.

    • C 1:53 pm on December 19, 2008 Permalink

      It appears to me as if the gentleman in the white shirt is actually being stabbed. In the head.

  • D 7:47 am on December 9, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , politics   

    Illinois governor arrested by FBI 

    About time.

    I admit, there’s something perversely pride-inducing about hailing from a state with such distinguished politicians. We’ve got the best of the criminal class: Daley, Rostenkowski, Ryan, and now Blagojevich.

    UPDATE (7:50 a.m.): The really staggering part of this story for me is the fact that Blagojevich is not charged with any of the fraud or acts of bribery that he’s committed over the past 4-6 years. He’s being charged with putting a for sale sign on the open Senate seat created by Obama’s presidential victory. This is incredible! Blagojevich has been under the most minute scrutiny for the past three years (thanks to the remarkable Patrick Fitzgerald), and he still has the audacity to try and profit financially from the Senate appointment.

    Amazing.

     

  • D 9:52 am on November 13, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: british, parliament, politics   

    I wish… 

    There are many reasons I prefer the British parliamentary system to our own. Foremost: the sheer brutishness of the PMQs.

    HT: Alex Massie
    Counterpoint: Peter Suderman

     

  • D 1:16 pm on November 3, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , politics   

    What to Watch For | Newsweek Politics: Campaign 2008 | Newsweek.com 

    For participants in tomorrow night’s soiree, check out this hour-by-hour guide to election night. Several states will have closed their polls by the time we congregate. We’ll jump in, in medias res-style.

     

  • D 10:53 am on October 28, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , politics,   

    The End Of Conservatism 

    Conservatism is dead.

    Conservatives’ repudiation of Bush is part of their own self-denial. By pretending that he is entirely separate from them, they can delude themselves into thinking his defeat will not reflect on their own political future. But it will: Bush lacks a domestic policy, and the Republicans lack what Weber calls a “coherent national agenda,” because the conservatives, who provided both policy and agenda for the party over the last decade, are no longer capable of doing so.

    Quiz: Guess what year this was written.

     

  • F 9:36 pm on October 26, 2008 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: criminals, murder, , politics, Toronto   

    Criminals 

    The National Post has a story about a tragic and bloody weekend in the city of Toronto, primarily focusing on the death of a twenty-four-year-old woman who was killed when a man opened up fire in a bar.

    According to the Post,

    Mayor David Miller spoke out yesterday, repeating his call for tougher gun control. He said despite this weekend’s violence, gun crime is down in Toronto from previous years.

    I just don’t know what to say to that. Particularly when, earlier in the article, the man who opened fire in the bar was described thus:

    Police yesterday issued an arrest warrant for second-degree murder for 24-year-old Kyle Weese.

    Detectives told a press conference that Mr. Weese has an “extensive” criminal record and is well-known to the officers in the area.

    “This is an extremely violent man with an extremely violent history,” Det. Sgt. Gary Giroux said. “My concern is not only for the citizens of the city but for our uniformed police officers… He should be considered armed and extremely dangerous.”

    I can only shake my head about this. Sadly, I see these kinds of stories at the Post time and time again. And it makes me wonder, just what can we do about it? Will we ever be able to dig past all the political BS and actually get somewhere where we learn to treat criminals as criminals and not merely as naughty toddlers? Don’t call me idealistic. Something must be done, and I don’t intend to stop mulling this over anytime soon.

     

    • D 9:13 am on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      But Frank…

      How would gov’t penalties fix this man’s morals?

      *runs and hides*

    • F 12:47 pm on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      Maybe I’m not so much concerned with this man’s morals as I am with having some sort of system that would keep “well-known” “extremely violent” men with “extremely violent” histories off the streets.

      And no, I don’t think prison is the answer. Think on that how you will.

    • D 12:52 pm on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      I agree. I guess I’m wondering why you feel less inclined to apply the same conservative approach to economics, tho…

      *going back into hiding*

    • F 12:57 pm on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      Can hate be a crime?

    • C 1:04 pm on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      Frank, you’re so idealistic.

    • D 1:50 pm on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      “An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.”

    • F 1:57 pm on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      I’m glad you feel so free to ignore my questions.

    • D 2:07 pm on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      Fair enough, Mr. E. Fair enough.

      I guess my answer depends on your definition of “hate” and “crime.” I promise to answer your question once we’ve settled on your choice of definitions.

      As for the quote I posted, I’m gonna hazard this dangerously provocative statement: despite what the author says, the two examples given are criminal. The latter example may even be a capital offense, biblically speaking. What say ye?

    • F 2:09 pm on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      Crime = an act punishable by the state.

      Hate = what Jesus was talking about when he said that “hating your brother” is equivalent to breaking the sixth commandment.

      I’ll disagree with you, but plead ignorance on what the Bible says.

    • D 2:14 pm on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      Thanks. And I think those are excellent definitions to work with.

      So: Yes, hate is a crime if it’s acted upon in ways the Bible prohibits.

      I would contend that “[poisoning] produce to make it last longer” is a form of hate that a righteous judge should prosecute under criminal charges. Same goes for other practices of economic oppression.

    • C 2:18 pm on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      I posted a big ol’ comment about how I think the Bible plays into all of this. Fate and random photons interfering with my computer processor seem to have conspired against my sophistry.

      For the record, F, I was trying to agree with you when I wrote. My previous comment was entirely in jest.

    • D 3:19 pm on October 27, 2008 Permalink

      Okay… I have the desire to move on to lighter fare. So one last thing which will hopefully clear the smog, considering the fact that my oblique arguments have prolly confused things.

      Getting back to the original article, I completely and totally agree with Mr. Jason Frank Ewert about how righteous rulers have an obligation to prosecute criminals, regardless of their heart motives. Frank and I had a conversation offline about the Michael Novak quote that I mentioned a few comments up. I was arguing that law is necessarily moral, and therefore it is impossible *not* to legislate morality. I think Frank definitely agrees when it comes to violence (such as in this horrible situation in Toronto). Where I’m not sure he agrees is on the question of market “violence,” or injustice. I tend to believe that men can oppress other men economically, just as they do with physical acts of violence. And just like with acts of physical aggression, a righteous ruler will not, for example, allow a businessman to “poison his produce to make it last longer,” or any thing that harms his neighbor.

      I’m guessing that Frank is more sympathetic to this than my confusing statements may have allowed. Mea culpa.

      Hope that makes things a little clearer. Now I will post a video in penance.

Older Posts →

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel