Post what you want, when you want it. Self-linking is even better than maple bacon.
- To quote Feministe: The Best Thing You Will Read Today: A column on princesses, ultimate fighting, bikinis and gender roles.
- 18 Killed in Wave of Homophobic Violence in Puerto Rico – COLORLINES
- “Claims that children need both a mother and father presume that women and men parent differently in ways crucial to development but generally rely on studies that conflate gender with other family structure variables. We analyze findings from studies with designs that mitigate these problems…”
- In defense of Canada: Canadian doctors aren’t flocking to the US, Canadians aren’t flocking here for health care, doctors aren’t less satisfying practicing there, hip replacements in the US are quicker because our single-payer medicare system is fast, and more.
- Electronic cigarettes don’t give off smoke, but some areas are starting to ban them – The Washington Post The faster e-cigarettes spread among smokers, the healthier Americans will be.
- Super Obvious Secrets That I Wish They’d Teach In Art School
- David Simon, creator of The Wire, had a witty response to the Attorney General.
- Wrongful Convictions: How Many Innocent Americans Are Behind Bars?
- On the Set of Ghostbusters – The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man
- Just believing in the American People doesn’t make 5% growth for a decade a viable policy goal.
- The recovery/deficit-reduction deal the two parties should, but won’t, strike
- The Senate is doing less than ever before. Republicans blame the Democrats for not proposing more legislation. Democrats blame the Republicans for the virtually automatic filibuster, making proposing new legislation pointless. I think the system is broken.
- Wedding Dress Made From Parachute That Saved Groom’s Life
- Portland Gets Trans-Inclusive Healthcare. Hooray for my home!
- Rick Santorum demonstrates hypocrisy of ‘intolerant homosexuals’ lie
- The “massive” new oil discovered in the Gulf of Mexico is only massive by current-day standards; if this is what now counts as “massive,” that proves that we are running out.
- An Orthodox Jewish basketball player, Naama Shafir, can’t play in Europe because she wears a t-shirt under her tank top to comply with religious modesty rules. I agree with Abe Foxman. I wonder if there are any Orthodox Jewish male basketball players in Europe, and if so if they’re permitted to play while wearing skullcaps?
- “I’m not racist, but…” (“I search public facebook posts for “not racist but” and post examples of how not racist people are.”) and “I’m not sexist, but…” (you get the idea).
- Leaked! Herman Cain’s New Campaign Video “We are the Real America” is Seeking Actors: Here is the Call for Extras. Unintentionally hilarious. Example: “Upwardly Mobile Black Professional. He is a slight to small framed African American who wears glasses. With a clean cut look (no dread locks or other ethnic haircut) he is very excited and charmed by Herman Cain’s presence. They will likely embrace each other and exchange a high five.” What kind of person hires someone to pretend to be his black friend?
- New lion cub born in zoo. The cuteness! It burns, it burns!
- The Pentagon’s $435 hammer was apparently not as wasteful as I’ve assumed; it was odd accounting practices, not overpaying for hammers.
- “…a substantial portion of the higher tax burden that Europeans pay is really illusory. They are really just paying their health insurance premiums through their taxes rather than through lower wages, as we do.”
- The Gender Pay Gap Starts Right Out Of College
- Miami Police Beat, Threaten, Point Guns At, Arrest Citizen Videographer
- Richard Wiseman has a small gallery of Erik J’s photoshopped photos. This one in particular I thought was great.
- Decriminalizing Drugs in Portugal a Success, Says Report – TIME
- Ballgame posts his reaction to the problematic issues surrounding the anti-circumcision referendum
This only makes sense if you assume that their productivity equals zero.
All sensible people oppose democracy. The only difference is HOW opposed to democracy we are. For example, I imagine that you don’t think toddlers should get to vote. I just draw the voting-restriction line further out than you do. All sensible people are also opposed to despotism, and again we might vary in the strength of our conviction.
The thing is, most of suspect there’s a sweet spot somewhere in between total universal suffrage, and total despotism. I happen to think that in a country of 100 million people, it is much better to have 10 million voters than it is to have one voter. I also think it’s better to have 10 million voters than 90 million voters.
We vary amongst ourselves on the location of the sweet spot.
Myca, in this country I would say that a conservative opposes pure democracy and wishes to preserve the foundational principles in the Constitution that have made it a democratic republic with soverignty shared among the Federal government and those of the several States. So if that’s what you mean by “conservatives oppose democracy”, then I think you are correct. If you mean that conservatives desire to remove the democratic aspects of our Republic and make it an oligarchy, I think you’re wrong.
Amp, the fact that public employees provide value (one would hope) for the taxes they consume on a net basis does not mean that they don’t consume those taxes. We may get what we pay for – or, being a resident of the State of Illinois, I may not – but we still pay.
Let me be clear that I don’t favor a means test for voting. But it is dangerous to democracy when democracy means people who have not earned money are free to take it from the pockets of those who have. There must be limits to that power.
Just a clarification … when I said, “look at the source,” I was referring to conservative ideology in general, not to either Robert or Ron in specific. I don’t want either of you guys to experience that as a personal attack.
My stance on democracy is that it’s the only thing that legitimizes government, and that unrepresented people bear no responsibility to respect the authority of the government or its laws.
And I’m in favor of both social stability and broad equality, therefore I believe in one-man-one-vote democracy. I realize that this isn’t a belief that is shared by conservative ideology.
As I said to Amp last night … you guys are ‘anti-democracy’ in the same sense that we’re ‘anti-liberty.’ Both are cheap shots, but I think that there can be an essential trade-off between absolute democracy and absolute liberty.
—Myca
My stance on democracy is that it’s the only thing that legitimizes government…unrepresented people bear no responsibility to respect the authority of the government or its laws.
To the second part:
So 17-year olds don’t have to obey the law?
Ah, but you riposte, the 17-year old is being represented indirectly by the people taking care of him or her. True! And the people who contribute nothing economically to the polity can similarly be represented by the people taking care of THEM.
A representational FORM of government suffices for the legitimizing function of democracy; total suffrage is not required. The US government is legitimate even though I couldn’t vote for President in 1982. And I think it would have been legitimate even if my dad couldn’t have voted (being a military man), if that desuffrage was done in a facially nondiscriminatory fashion.
To the first part, I think two other things legitimize government: tradition and pragmatic utility. Representation also legitimizes, but representation is also found within the tradition: if everyone respects the royal family or line of emperors or constitutional monarchs or whatever that we’ve had for umpteen generations, then that bolsters the value of the tradition, but the tradition itself adds legitimacy.
Pragmatic utility works for any government type. I would consider a despotic land where the king genuinely cares for the people and the government is honest and effective, to be a more legitimate regime than a pure democracy rife with official corruption and operated as a kleptocracy for the benefit of the rulers.
This country was founded on the philosophy that what legitimizes government is the consent of the governed. Here’s context for that phrase (emphasis mine):
Our current govenmental structure was founded upon the principle that the form of government that seemed most likely to effect our safety and happiness is a democratic republic. It is inherently conservative in that rapid changes in principles and structures are difficult to achieve and require in the most extreme cases a 3/4 majority of the constituent States – unlike most countries, the highest level of government cannot of itself make such changes, it can only recommend them to a more local level. In fact, the constituent States can impose a Constitutional change over the objections of the Federal government.
Now, when you say “democracy”, do you think that our republican form of government is fairly described as such? Or do you think that it lacks legitimacy? Do you think that only a pure democracy can truly express “the consent of the governed”?
I would consider a despotic land where the king genuinely cares for the people and the government is honest and effective, to be a more legitimate regime than a pure democracy rife with official corruption and operated as a kleptocracy for the benefit of the rulers.
On that basis Illinois needs a benevolent King.
“I would consider a despotic land where the king genuinely cares for the people and the government is honest and effective, to be a more legitimate regime than a pure democracy rife with official corruption and operated as a kleptocracy for the benefit of the rulers.”
Part of the reason why this never works in the real world is because people have different ideas about what counts as “genuinely cares for the people” and “effective”. We hash out those differences in a democratic or quasi-democratic system and that lends legitimacy to the results.
You know that lots of Christians believe it to be “genuinely caring” to try to convince gay people to renounce homosexual acts and become celibate. They are wrong that it is a good idea, but they would believe they were “genuinely caring” for the people if they tried to ram that down my throat as dictators.
That’s true.
That’s not true. Some might, but the concept of free will applies to this sin as fully as it does towards others.
Slightly NSFW – Kate Beaton (and friends) have created a great parody about Strong Feminist Role Models as portrayed by popular culture.
RonF:
Fundamentally, the assumption behind the American rags-to-riches ideal is meritocracy; everyone starts out equal and gets what they earn based on merit. Your examples (intelligence, stronger work ethic) showcase that.
But that’s a legal fiction. It’s not true. American society is not a meritocracy. In fact, measuring by social mobility, it’s less of a meritocracy than many other Western nations. Americans, and especially “Conservative” Americans, don’t want to pay the price of a real meritocracy.
If Americans really wanted a merit-based system, they would advocate for universal health care for children. What is merit-based about a child receiving healthcare, or not, on the basis of whether her parents have work with benefits or oodles of money?
If Americans really wanted a merit-based system, they would advocate for a very large inheritance tax, even a 100% tax. What’s merit-based about getting money for free from parents whom you could not choose?
If Americans really wanted a merit-based system, they would advocate for health care for people who were injured through no fault of their own, like a passenger in a train which crashes. What’s merit-based about losing your hard-earned life-savings because a conductor was texting while driving.
We could come up with examples all day. Conservative Americans advocate against all of these things (and so do many “Liberal” Americans). They want to call it a meritocracy, and they want everyone to buy into that notion, while at the same time passing along every unfair advantage they can to their children.
I love my children, and I want them to do well, and have access to opportunity. But I want them to have it because everyone has it, not because resources are limited, I happen to have more, and I actively worked toward kneecapping the people who have less.
It’s all well and good to advocate for whatever you want: no inheritance tax, reduced public funding of education, minimal public funding of healthcare, etc ad nauseum. But if you do, you can’t then honestly turn around and say, “Our system is awesome because it’s not a lottery.”
It’s a lottery. Humans can’t control or compensate for everything, so to some extent it will always be a lottery. But there are plenty of ways in which we could make it LESS of a lottery, and we don’t do them, and then we praise ourselves for living in the land of opportunity.
And that’s hypocrisy.
Grace
Pingback: Fair is fair: Kindergarten and the American Dream | Alas, a Blog