|
Post by B.E. on Aug 31, 2019 14:10:08 GMT
EDIT - I guess this post could have just been this sentence: You don't get to criticize someone as definitively hypocritical or immoral for not following your version of their religion, and it's especially odious when you're doing it for political points.
I get that it's an opinion piece, but I don't care for the tone. As you state, he's looking to score political points. We seem to learn just enough about Sister Pimentel to (inadequately) define good religion/real faith and, more importantly, set up and take down Trump (who prefers to cage "vulnerable souls"). According to Egan, there's apparently nothing difficult or complicated about the situation on the border. Then, there's the "chief bootlicker" remark and, of Evangelical Christians, "their religion is Play-Doh". Kapitan, the Gospel passages and your analysis is very interesting. Far more enjoyable than Egan's article! As an aside, a growing pet peeve of mine is that humanity seems to revel in identifying hypocrisy and labeling others as hypocrites. It doesn't seem to matter how minor or infrequent the infractions are. We ALL contradict ourselves. It's not a big deal. It's not particularly harmful. That doesn't mean that hypocrisy is good or that there aren't hypocrites in this world, but does telling a lie make you a liar? Does committing a sin make you evil? No.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 31, 2019 15:08:59 GMT
I think the same basic column could have been written criticizing certain policies and behavior without the blatantly partisan examples and "I know real Christianity (and you don't)" tone. Frankly I wish he had kept religion out of it entirely, but if he felt it necessary to include it, I think he should have made more clear the wildly varied messages different people get out of the same books.
And if calling out hypocrisy was so important to him, would it have killed him to point out some liberal examples, too? Or was it essential to make sure we all knew Jesus was an anti-Catholic Democrat?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 31, 2019 15:34:51 GMT
How about something I enjoyed for a change!?
The topic is especially popular on the right, though also with a certain highly visible set of contrarian types (yes, the "Intellectual Dark Web," the dumbly named batch of people like the Weinstein brothers, Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Jonathan Haidt, Steve Pinker, etc.), often raised as a serious problem in today's colleges.
But how serious is the problem? Left-leaning types tend to laugh it off at best, or say it's just some attempt by the right to legislate, regulate, or buy their way to influence of this traditionally left-leaning crowd. Conservatives sometimes act as if the world were on fire, with campuses more or less a Stalinist Red Square.
That inability to discuss the issue as an issue but not necessarily the issue is maddening. Just yesterday I had a friend over for drinks on the patio and this came up (prior to me reading the column). I got that same kind of "oh, god, you and your forced centrism...this isn't even an issue" response I always get from this relatively radical leftist. "They're just whining that Milo isn't allowed on campus. Has there ever been a serious issue about so-called free speech on campus?"
I gave him a few, like Nick Christaukas at Yale, the Middlebury incident, and especially the Evergreen College one with Bret Weinstein. He knows these. We've discussed them. But for some reason, it just never seems to penetrate his pre-existing position, which never changes a bit. (Maybe I'm just not convincing!) I don't expect a person to suddenly take my position--that's silly--but to act as if it's not even a remotely valid topic and can be dismissed entirely as FoxNews fake hysteria? I see him mirroring mainstream media's perspective on that.
Anyway, this column: it discusses the issue in a more measured way. Maybe most of all, it makes the underused point that nobody serious on the issue is saying colleges and universities themselves are squashing diverse viewpoints; rather, it is saying that (unusually! unprecedentedly?) students themselves are asking to have speech policed, unpopular viewpoints squashed, often under the guise of safety. I find that absolutely insane and totally contrary to everything I experienced and thought at that age, as well as what I've heard and read about all young adults, everywhere, ever. It's bizarre to me. But it does seem to be real, according to those who study the topic.
Enough from me. If the topic is interesting to you, give the article a read.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 12, 2019 23:23:32 GMT
Another night of (probable) nonsense ... and yet here I am, poor sucker, planning fully to watch the damn thing.
We're down to 10 people on stage, which would mean more if we hadn't had 10 people on stage in both previous debates, too! Despite the quantity being the headline, the more appropriate one might be that we're down to one night.
The TV show itself seems likely to be similar, though at three hours, I believe it's longer than the previous ones. But we're looking at 60-second opening statements ad 60-second answers, e.g., scripted, superficial talking points intended to make for viral clips.
Participants (in alphabetical order) are Biden, Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Harris, Klobuchar, O'Rourke, Sanders, Warren, and Yang. My guess is that Booker, Castro, O'Rourke, and Harris really come out swinging--probably mostly at Biden, though it'll be interesting to see whether any of them take aim at Sanders or Warren. I would be surprised if Warren attacks anyone: I suspect (but could be proven wrong) she is going to let Bernie be the more confrontational one from the progressive wing, relatively confident that she's going to beat him eventually regardless. People are saying Klobuchar has to go on the offensive, but it's so much out of character for her, I'm curious to see whether or how that would happen. She might go for it on some substantive point, but she isn't one to do personal attacks (Kavanaugh hearings notwithstanding). Yang, I think, will play to his brand and position himself as outside of / above the political fray, probably instead commenting on the inanity of it in the hopes of winning points that way.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Sept 13, 2019 12:36:32 GMT
I didn't watch it. Actually, I forgot it was on until I read your post last night. You don't have to elaborate (unless you want to), but do you have any quickie winners and losers?
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 13, 2019 12:54:31 GMT
Losers: American people
Winners: Election-based industries like mainstream media, political commentators, consulting firms, polling firms, advertisers, activist and lobbying groups, etc.
I've known it intellectually for my entire adult life, but increasingly I'm bothered by how obviously artificial the whole process is. I don't mean it's rigged in the Bernie or Trump rhetorical way, but just fake. Reality television with people reciting scripted lines in pandering tones. You almost have to score it the way you'd review a play, but of course at the end of a play, you don't have to choose an actor to help run the country based on how well s/he performed on the stage. It's so fake.
(Rant over.)
As far as actual performances, I thought Booker, O'Rourke, Buttigieg, and Warren probably performed the best. Booker got more airtime than previously and seemed both charismatic (which he always has been) and for the first time like a combination of inspiring and sensible. O'Rourke has been riding a wave since the El Paso shooting (is that a reason to start supporting somebody?) and kept that up with his promise to take back guns. Buttigieg was himself, the cool character. Warren just kept riding that wave, knowing her stuff (whatever you think of her answers).
Harris had the most interesting strategy: she spoke about, and directly to, Pres. Trump in almost every answer. At first I was annoyed by it, as they were discussing healthcare or something and she was asked about it more than midway through the topic. She said something like "I'm annoyed here that five people have spoken and nobody mentioned President Trump." I thought, 'god, does everything have to be about him?' But I realized soon, her strategy last night was to talk about AND TO him, knowing that he tends not to take direct criticism or comment without making it about him, tweeting, talking, etc. In other words, it was a ploy to get her flagging campaign back into the spotlight by tricking the president into making it seem like the race is him versus her. That said I don't think he took the bait: if I'm not mistaken, he said he thinks it's between Biden, Sanders, and Warren.
Yang stumbled, especially on foreign policy (not surprising for an American entrepreneur...), though he recovered when they turned back to domestic issues like public education. The others were status quo: Biden was in turn charming, strong, fumbling, and confused; Castro was an asshole, especially against Biden; Klobuchar was sensible and entirely uninspiring; Sanders was Sanders.
It's hard to imagine last night as having changed anyone's mind, other than maybe deciding enough is enough with someone or another.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 17, 2019 13:08:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 21, 2019 14:11:45 GMT
The president is sending troops to Saudi Arabia, purportedly to help the kingdom defend itself against any further attacks by whoever it has been (the Houthis from Yemen, who are backed by Iran, or Iran itself).
I hope it's purely defensive and nothing further happens. A larger regional war could become very dangerous, especially considering Russia's role backing Iran and our close ties (which are of questionable wisdom in my opinion) to the Saudis.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 21, 2019 14:27:56 GMT
The Trump whistleblower has captured my attention. I'm very curious to find out exactly what Trump said.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 22, 2019 13:08:45 GMT
Well, now we know a little more. The reports are that Pres. Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate VP Biden's son Hunter, who had business in Ukraine while Joe was vice president, and that Trump may have dangled the then-still-delayed military aid package as the carrot.
Meanwhile the president says nothing he said to Ukraine was improper and that an investigation into the Bidens is warranted.
This sort of story is really difficult. There just isn't any way we, as normal citizens, can possibly know what is real and what isn't without good, accurate reporting. Meanwhile, even the pillars of media that have traditionally served as the shared set of facts, are somewhat rightly seen as partisan media, leaving us basically to choose between propaganda wings.
I'd imagine most people have already made up their minds about whether Biden or Trump is guilty in this story despite none of us having the information required to do so.
My own personal observation: it's deeply ironic that the president is alleging some sort of profiteering on the part of the Bidens for Joe's son using his political office for financial gain considering Pres. Trump is the only modern president not to have put his assets into a blind trust and putting his own sons in charge of his business, which by all accounts is being used to profit from his own presidency. Maybe next he'll complain that Joe Biden hasn't released his taxes.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 22, 2019 15:08:28 GMT
This is an interesting article assessing the factions within the major American political parties, as understood by overlaying a philosopher's systems of cultural values with the recent Pew voter typology data.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 22, 2019 19:20:29 GMT
If it's true that Trump withheld aid for personal gain (and there's evidence of it), then he should be impeached. I read the "Conflict of Interest" article which is linked within the "Whistle-Blower" article - it's full of red flags. There very well may be cause to investigate Biden and/or his son, but this isn't the way to do it. I think this story is also difficult because there's a lot of moral and legal gray areas. Unethical, impeachable, and criminal behavior aren't always the same. This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think Democrats are erroneously fixated on the presence of foreign actors in these types of stories. I think the veracity of information and actual unethical and impeachable behavior of US officials is more pertinent. For instance, if a foreign government has evidence of wrongdoing by US political figures, why should the source invalidate it? If a Ukrainian intelligence officer sent a recording of the phone call to Senator Warren would she be an accomplice to the "attacking of our election system"? What if she requested it? And so on...
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Sept 24, 2019 19:47:17 GMT
The Trump whistleblower has captured my attention. I'm very curious to find out exactly what Trump said. According to Trump, the transcript will be released tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 24, 2019 20:05:48 GMT
The Trump whistleblower has captured my attention. I'm very curious to find out exactly what Trump said. According to Trump, the transcript will be released tomorrow. “According to Trump” hasn’t exactly been a great predictor up to now of what was about to happen. But we shall see. I’m still withholding judgment, but it wouldn’t surprise me if the Bidens AND Trump are guilty of at least unethical (and possibly illegal) behavior.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 24, 2019 21:51:19 GMT
Well, here we go.
The House of Representatives is opening a formal impeachment inquiry. In practical terms it might not really amount to much difference from the past year or so, as it's still just a bunch of committees investigating assorted allegations. But they are doing so under the "umbrella of impeachment inquiry," and depending on the results of those "best cases on potentially impeachable offenses," the whole matter may end up in the Senate for an impeachment hearing.
Obviously, barring something dramatic and beyond what we've heard alleged so far, the Republican-led Senate will not convict on impeachment. If they take it that far, it is a huge political risk: if they impeach and he is not convicted, it will both be red meat for the pro-Trump base and quite possibly take in swing voters on the narrative that Democrats were just investigating any- and everything for personal and political reasons, but not substantive ones. Turnout on the right in '20 would be overwhelming. But of course there is the gambit that this also activates the left, and THEY turn out in overwhelming numbers, too.
Despite being very anti-Trump and believing full investigations of obstruction of justice charges, emoluments issues, and (related) his finances (which I suspect are still the biggest unreported and unknown issue) under a different Congress or in a different era may well have gotten him convicted in an impeachment trial (not to mention his sexual dalliances would have made him both unelectable and then impeachable), this is not a different era with a different Congress. And in the reality we inhabit, I just don't think it is the right move.
I think it could easily backfire in a pretty big way and somehow manage to leave the nation even more divided than we have been. So rather than read anything else about it, I'm going outside to read about something else entirely, get some fresh air, and watch the chipmunks who seem to have found solace in my yard run around.
|
|