User Tag List

First 23313233343543 Last

Results 321 to 330 of 798

  1. #321
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    I'm a big fan of:

    David Frum
    Yuval Levin
    Joe Scarborough
    Rod Dreher
    Ramesh Ponnuru
    Fareed Zakaria
    William Galston
    David Brooks
    Rich Lowry
    Derek Khanna (although I haven't read very much of his work)

    I'm sure there are more, but I'm kind of drawing a blank.

    There are a couple of folks over at Foreign Policy, The New Republic, and The Atlantic that I don't mind, but the slants at those respective publications keep me from visiting much (esp during an election year with partisan blood temps running high).

    I don't like many.

    For instance Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast comes across like nails on the chalk board to me.

    I find the lower brow publications/sites on the whole are more locked into their own personal narratives of how the world should work (politically and otherwise) than the more academic choices.

    The headline writers at Time/Newsweek can eat me.

    CNN does a better job of staying objective, although the stories CNN chooses to publish and push reflect a tendency cherry pick stories that (more often than I'm comfortable with) benefit one side. This seems to be a problem at the editor level as opposed to the writers.

    I spend a lot of time on politico but (as is the nature of any politically focused site) the percentage of stories I read there isn't huge.

  2. #322
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Not sure where to put this, and I think it does the Repubs a disservice by just focusing on the huge names... although I guess it is the point that some of the biggest names are impacting science education in this matter.

    http://news.yahoo.com/creationism-co...-politics.html

    In 2008, Jindal signed into law the "Louisiana Science Education Act," a law that according to the New Orleans Times-Picayune's Annette Sisco, "cleared the way for creationism to be taught in biology class." That led groups like the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology and the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology to boycott the state as host for national conferences.

    Jindal created a new firestorm around the evolution issue this summer when schools with bible-based curriculums ended up on the list of institutions included in the state's expanded voucher program. Under Jindal's education reforms, thousands of Louisiana students can use taxpayer dollars to attend schools that, as Lance Hill, executive director of Southern Institute for Education and Research, explained to Reuters in July, "use an evangelical curriculum that teaches that humans walked the earth 6,000 years ago with dinosaurs."

    A biology major at Brown and a Rhodes Scholar, Jindal has endorsed the idea that local school boards should determine whether creationism or intelligent design should be taught in schools. "I don't want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from [my children] because of political correctness," Jindal said during a 2008 appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation."
    The article also covers Chris Christie and Rand Paul (who bailed on the question), and Rubio. I was hoping they would look at a broader section of the party and what this kind of thinking meant.

    In Jindal's favor (and I'm trying to be open here), I'd think perhaps it's more about him not wanting to dictate a particular approach to studying world age and human origins (keeping the government out of it), but at the same time obviously the government steps in with many forms of science and math pursuits where there are known processes that can be quantified, as junk science doesn't work and thus could not be endorsed.

    Is this kind of thought (about creating an equal playing field in an area that is accepted by the majority of scientists and which some modern technologies are based on) detrimental to the party, or is it a positive thing, or what?

    (Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question. Maybe this topic is indicative of nothing in terms of party direction, or does it actually mean something and reflect itself in other hardline party stances? And how would things need to change for the Republicans to be more successful, or is their stance actually helpful?)
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #323
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post

    (Sorry if this sounds like a dumb question. Maybe this topic is indicative of nothing in terms of party direction, or does it actually mean something and reflect itself in other hardline party stances? And how would things need to change for the Republicans to be more successful, or is their stance actually helpful?)
    I read that in yahoo, and I thought about posting it, though I'm trying to more lurking and less talking...so I'm glad you brought it up.

    My favorite bit is from Religulous, but I did research just now and he came up as Democratic.


  4. #324
    Senior Member BAJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ISFP
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    631

    Default

    One of my conservative friends (yes I have some) posted this on facebook. I like this. It's slightly awkward, as he is largely reading from notes. However, since I voted Libertarian, yea conservatives may imagine this appeals to me. How can this ascend? What great calamity must occur before this becomes "the way"?


  5. #325
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Of the nascent conservative camps mentioned in the article posted on the last page, I consider myself first a Burkean revivalist of old conservatism.

    Secondly, I'm a Paleo-conservative... and lastly I'm a Light Libertarian.

  6. #326
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    If you're interested in the difference between actual conservatives and the right wing populism we see disguising itself as conservatism have a look at this article from The American Conservative by Daniel McCarthy.

    It's long so I'll bold the best bits.

    Outsider Conservatism

    From Burke to Buckley, traditionalism has never meant conformism.

    The problem with Republican Party outreach runs deeper than a failure to offer policies tailored to ethnic interests, such as amnesty for illegal immigrants. The core of the GOP’s demographic crisis isn’t just racial, it’s generational and cultural: as Leon Hadar has noted of the Asian vote, “younger and more educated Asian-Americans are drifting by large numbers to Obama’s party, very much like younger and more educated white Americans.”

    The average Asian-American (or white) high-tech entrepreneur, software engineer, or graphic designer may have benefited professionally and economically from the free-market environment of the 1990s. But he or she feels less comfortable with a political party perceived to be dominated by white politicians that many see as being intolerant toward minorities, gays, women and, yes, immigrants.
    Asian-Americans and Hispanics aren’t the only burgeoning blocs of voters eluding the GOP’s grasp: what does the party have to say to the increasing numbers of non-Christians and unmarried Americans—other than, quite literally, “go to hell”?

    The common denominator among the unchurched, non-white, and unmarried, aside from party preference, is their youth. The GOP’s aging white Protestant majority has failed to reproduce itself, in spirit even more than in the flesh. Already America has become a country facing a choice at the ballot box between a Mormon and a man with a Kenyan father. Within 30 years’ time, the voting public itself will seem just as exotic. What place can conservatism have in this future?

    A very large one, perhaps, if by conservatism we mean traditional conservatism.

    Before it became conflated with right-wing populism, conservatism was very much a movement of outsiders. Its leading lights after World War II—the first time any significant segment of the population embraced the previously alien and un-American “conservative” label—consisted largely of Catholics, Jews, and Mitteleuropean emigres. Catholics then were as suspect as any part of the Democrats’ coalition is today. Paul Blanshard’s American Freedom and Catholic Power was published the same year as the first book to herald postwar conservatism, Peter Viereck’s Conservatism Revisited. Viereck himself was a member of a minority whose 100-percent Americanism was in doubt—he was a German-American whose father had even been an agent of the Vaterland—and while he was Protestant, he answered the anti-Catholics of his day with a line that’s still remembered: “Catholic-baiting is the anti-Semitism of the liberals.”

    That’s the kind of response conservatives ought to give to Muslim-bashers today, but you won’t hear it from Rush Limbaugh. Ironically, the right now apes the identitarian attitudes that the populist theorist Sam Francis once advanced, but does so in the service of the corporate-governmental elite that Francis hoped to supplant. The result is a populism that hasn’t preserved white Protestant America but that has cast away the restraints of traditional conservatism. It’s become an inverted, right-wing liberalism.

    Always mordant, Francis was accurate, if not complimentary, when he described what the pre-populist right was like in his 1991 essay “Beautiful Losers”:

    National Review itself was not only Manhattanite but also Ivy League and Roman Catholic in its orientation, as well as ex-communist and ethnic in its editorial composition, and not a few of its brightest stars in the 1950s were personally eccentric, if not outright neurotic. Moreover, few of them reflected the ‘Protestant Establishment’ … . Of the twenty-five conservative intellectuals whose photographs appeared on the dust jacket of George H. Nash’s The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945, published in 1976, four are Roman Catholic, seven are Jewish, another seven (including three Jews) are foreign-born, two are southern or western in origin, and only five are in any respect representative of the historically dominant Anglo-Saxon (or at least Anglo-Celtic) Protestant strain in American history and culture (three of the five later converted to Roman Catholicism).
    The Ivy League flavor of early NR can mislead: the magazine’s key figures were misfits within the academy, even when they enjoyed great success. Willmoore Kendall, an Oklahoma pastor’s son, was so often at odds with Yale colleagues and administrators that the school finally bought out his tenure—offering him cash to pick and go, anywhere. Much of William F. Buckley’s charm, meanwhile, lay in the incongruity of his rebellion: here was this upstart Catholic, this Texan, telling Yale how to be true to its traditions.

    Conservatives of such conflicted backgrounds could not afford to be smug. They felt, and their work attested to, a tension in trying to conserve traditions to which they were in some senses alien—in trying, for example, to reconcile an adamant Catholicism with a democratic and Protestant culture. In general, conservatives who are conservatives and not reactionaries have had to reconcile the love of an old civilization with its protean modernity.

    This clash of time and place, the mixture and divergence of identities, was nothing new for Anglo-American conservatism; it was very nearly the essence of the thing. It’s a tradition, after all, that by convention begins with an Irishman serving in the English Parliament, a man who was of the Church of England but had a Catholic mother and sister. After Burke, the 19th-century apostle of “One Nation” conservatism was an Anglican and a Jew, Benjamin Disraeli; while a century later and an ocean away, Barry Goldwater would joke that the first Jewish major-party nominee for president had to be Episcopalian.

    Today, in a historical reversal, the populist right demands conformism along the lines once laid down by progressive nationalists such as Woodrow Wilson and Theodore Roosevelt. The rough edges of human difference must be rubbed down. This is what conservatives from Burke to Russell Kirk would not allow. Viereck forcefully warned of where this would lead:

    The Western heritage is not diversity alone nor unity alone but diversity within unity. Being a Christian-Hebraic-Roman-Hellenic amalgam, with inner contradictions sometimes reconciled but sometimes not, the Western heritage allows for a generous dose of tolerant pluralism. If you make no allowance for pluralism and and aim at too much unity, you will get no unity at all; you will only provoke the same internal strife and chaos that you condemn in those who seek too little unity.
    It’s a tart irony that people who imagine themselves champions of Christian, Western, and American tradition are in fact undermining the pluralism and elasticity that characterize those traditions in practice: conservatism like that is an act of taxidermy, preserving the form while losing the life. The West can adapt to post- or non-Western elements, and traditional conservatives have long shown the way, from Irving Babbitt’s study of the parallels between Buddhism and the Western frein vital to the Sanskrit lines with which T.S. Eliot concludes The Waste Land.

    If American conservatives once understood this, why do they seem to do so no longer? One answer is the primacy that partisanship has assumed over culture. To keep voters engaged in a struggle between parties with nigh identical economic and foreign policies, other differences must be heightened and presented as a clash between dualistic (and dueling) absolutes. Stark, winner-take-all political divisions must be given urgency by being read back into the culture, which on its own terms is more fluid and pluralistic. This is the task of Fox, Limbaugh, and the partisan press: you’re with us—indeed one of us—or you’re against us.

    Nothing could be more inimical to the spirit of Burkean conservatism. Just how inclusive Edmund Burke’s own understanding of tradition could be is indicated by a story Robert Nisbet relates in Conservatism: Dream and Reality: “On an occasion when a group of Indians was visiting London and had been unable to win the assent of Anglican or Dissenter alike to brief use of a church for their own religious services, Burke extended the use of his house for this purpose.”

    Burke rebuked the conspiracy-minded Catholic-haters of his time, who saw subversion in minority religion, even at the risk of being labeled a Catholic himself. “I could not prevail on myself to bestow on the Synagogue, the Mosque, or the Pagoda the language which your pulpits lavish on a great part of the Christian world,” he wrote to John Erskine in 1779. Of his own preferred policy, Burke said, “I would give a full civil protection, in which I include an immunity, from all disturbance of their public religious worship and a power of teaching in schools as well as temples, to Jews, Mahometans, and even pagans….”

    A century later, Nisbet notes, such religious attitudes and even more radical ones, “including agnosticism and atheism, seem to have mattered surprisingly little to the Victorians” and were well attested among conservatives; in the U.S., “Robert Ingersoll, staunch conservative Republican and pillar of bar and bourse, was a militant atheist.”

    Predicating conservatism on a narrow cultural or religious identity is untrue to conservatism itself, as well as strategically suicidal. As Paul Weyrich, a Melkite Catholic deacon and the man who gave Jerry Falwell the name “Moral Majority,” emphasized in his 1991 essay “Cultural Conservatism and the Conservative Movement”:

    By insisting on religious beliefs as a pre-condition of membership, the Religious Right has been exclusive rather than inclusive. As military theorist Col. John Boyd points out, the essence of strategy is building connections, and the essence of strategic failure is isolation. The Religious Right has been self-isolating, and in this it has failed strategically.

    … Christ Himself was careful to talk to people in language they could understand, and He went to great efforts to seek out those who had turned away, who were deemed ‘unclean.’ To say we should not work with any who do not share our religious belief smacks, frankly, of Phariseeism.
    The art of politics—especially for the traditional conservative, who shuns utopian dreams of making men all alike, whether in class, creed, virtue, race, or anything else—has always been the art of integration: reconciling hoi polloi and hoi aristoi, the rich and the poor in the Greek city state; reconciling Catholic and Protestant, Scots and English in the United Kingdom; keeping intact the polyglot empire of Austria-Hungary or the racially and regionally divided United States. The challenges the U.S. faces today are not different in kind from those that other polities have confronted in the past, with various degrees of success; conservatism’s task is to serve as the pin that holds together a society in whirl.

    Daniel McCarthy is editor of The American Conservative.

  7. #327
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    Rob Dreher posted a list of writers he hoped to hear more from on the conservative side. Among the ones I particularly appreciate are Patrick Deneen and Mark Mitchell from Front Porch Republic.

    Dreher says the following about Mark's latest book, The Politics of Gratitude:

    I started re-reading it at lunch today, and found myself thinking, “Man, if I were a booker for a thoughtful radio or TV program — Diane Rehm, say, or Charlie Rose — this is exactly the kind of conservative I would want to have on the show.” Mark is a really good writer, and he articulates a deeply thoughtful case, from the Right, for why both the mainstream liberalism and mainstream conservatism fail us, and how we might build a politics on thinking outside of our usual limited categories. He’s interested in reframing our politics by asking more basic questions about what it means to live, and live together, by an ethic of stewardship and thankfulness. This is what “Crunchy Cons” would have been like had it been written by an actual intellectual, or what Wendell Berry might read like if he were a political theorist, not a poet and essayist. And Mark writes with such plainspoken clarity, and in a style that invites the reader to engage, not to cheerlead or to get defensive. Literally one hour ago, I sat at my table reading his book and thinking, “This guy. This is the guy. More people ought to know his stuff. We ought to be listening to him.”
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  8. #328
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,804

    Default

    The republican establishment is already trying to preempt Rand Paul by ending the Iowa straw poll.

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...l-in-2016.html
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

  9. #329
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    Q: "How old do you think the earth is?

    Rubio: "I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute among theologians and I think it has nothing to do with gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the earth was created in seven days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  10. #330
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    Q: "How old do you think the earth is?

    Rubio: "I'm not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that's a dispute among theologians and I think it has nothing to do with gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I'm not a scientist. I don't think I'm qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the earth was created in seven days, or 7 actual eras, I'm not sure we'll ever be able to answer that. It's one of the great mysteries."
    Well, that seals the deal there. I will never vote for Rubio under any circumstance. Being a Young-Earth Creationist is a deal breaker for me. And the fact that he thinks the age of the universe has zero to do with the economy only further exposes how clueless he is.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

Similar Threads

  1. Former Republican staffer's extremely scathing critique of the Republican party.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 11-23-2011, 07:29 PM
  2. The Future of Microprocessors
    By ygolo in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-15-2011, 04:23 AM
  3. Unity within the upper echelons of the Republican Party begins to crack.
    By DiscoBiscuit in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-26-2009, 12:18 PM
  4. The Death of the Republican Party, Stardate Unknown
    By Wind Up Rex in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-08-2009, 01:58 PM
  5. Your Predictions About the Future of Psychotherapy
    By ThatsWhatHeSaid in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-06-2008, 07:58 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO