[And Also: My Future Boyfriend is a charming romantic comedy from ABC Family concerning a man from the future who comes back to our day to learn about love. A nod to Fred Willard, who yet again shows his low key comic charms here in a supporting role.]
Thus, I find them a good source for my basic theory that "both sides" aren't the same there. No "[equal] pox on both their houses." Rick Hasen [I comment some at the link, in part noting filibuster reform is a key] over at Slate reviews their book, but can't accept that, though other than noting maybe its their voters' fault and that Democrats you know aren't perfect, doesn't really say why. Daily Howler, after noting the two suddenly aren't on the Sunday talk show circuit, noted "Both of these channels now traffic in bogus facts and crackpot logic." That is, both MSNBC and FOX, you know, since they are basically the same thing.
This is poisonous stuff really. We can ignore it, since there are some many problems and it is going to be hard to convince many people who have strong partisan views one way or the other. There is something to that and I do find it tedious when some specific issue is at stake (let's say banning a certain abortion procedure or a certain aspect of the death penalty) and the debate goes mega -- so, I try to explain that judges do have the power to override jury rulings on the death penalty and are not reprobates for doing so (as is a theme for certain people on a certain blog) and a person insists on asking if I'm against the death penalty, since if I am, well, you can't trust me. Any nuance is just b.s. Yeah okay.
And, I find it unproductive to just basically question the good faith of one side. I realize -- see Chris Mooney's new book -- that how one views the world does matter. There is a reason why logic and facts won't convince sometimes, even if (as some claim is the problem, as if comments on blogs are term papers) you provide detailed source material (and then it's too much and they move on) for your claims. Still, and it might be a fool's errand sometimes and you have to pick your battles ("don't feed the trolls"), I still find it important to try to find some common ground, find some way to show that the logic is wrong. See my last post, where I think one of the people at that blog who repeatedly has ideological blinders but still (as I might have there, if it wasn't Facebook land) try to explain.
This is in part because often it is a matter of degree and people do change their minds, especially over time. Nonetheless, they are not both the same. If we are going to change, we have to accept on some level the facts of the matter. The two parties, surely on the national level, are not the same. MSNBC (though admittedly I don't watch it during the day) is not the same as FOX News. And, in fact, the two sides on the Supreme Court are not the same. There is no equivalent to a far left Thomas, even if the "liberals" on certain issues can be fairly liberal.
Some, like the authors of the book cited above, realize this without being members of the left wing of the Democratic Party. I'm all for focusing on other things when appropriate, but will also continue to keep this in mind.
The reality may be that the Republican Party’s movement to the Right has been faster and more consistent than even the Supreme Court’s. So, for example, the Republican reaction to Heller may not have been “Hurray,” so much as “What took so long?” and “Exactly how many gun regulations does this strike down?” As savvy veteran political scientists Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein have recently put the point, albeit in stronger and more colorful terms than I would: “The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its . . . opposition.” If Mann and Ornstein’s characterization is remotely descriptive of the attitude held by even a significant minority of Republicans (and the percentage of Republicans in some states who say they believe the President is not a citizen, or not a Christian, suggests Mann and Ornstein do have a point), then no conservative victories at the Court are going to seem to be enough: Striking down Obamacare on reasoning that leaves Romneycare, or the Fed, for that matter, intact would result in a half-empty glass at best.This was cited in a discussion of some poll data that suggests the Supreme Court has had a significant drop-off in public support, which is notable, since the courts tend to be (and still are -- a majority still have positive opinions; Congress would love to get close to that). These two, who also wrote Broken Branch (good book), are not just "savvy veteran political scientists," but lean center/right. More than I, for sure.
Thus, I find them a good source for my basic theory that "both sides" aren't the same there. No "[equal] pox on both their houses." Rick Hasen [I comment some at the link, in part noting filibuster reform is a key] over at Slate reviews their book, but can't accept that, though other than noting maybe its their voters' fault and that Democrats you know aren't perfect, doesn't really say why. Daily Howler, after noting the two suddenly aren't on the Sunday talk show circuit, noted "Both of these channels now traffic in bogus facts and crackpot logic." That is, both MSNBC and FOX, you know, since they are basically the same thing.
This is poisonous stuff really. We can ignore it, since there are some many problems and it is going to be hard to convince many people who have strong partisan views one way or the other. There is something to that and I do find it tedious when some specific issue is at stake (let's say banning a certain abortion procedure or a certain aspect of the death penalty) and the debate goes mega -- so, I try to explain that judges do have the power to override jury rulings on the death penalty and are not reprobates for doing so (as is a theme for certain people on a certain blog) and a person insists on asking if I'm against the death penalty, since if I am, well, you can't trust me. Any nuance is just b.s. Yeah okay.
And, I find it unproductive to just basically question the good faith of one side. I realize -- see Chris Mooney's new book -- that how one views the world does matter. There is a reason why logic and facts won't convince sometimes, even if (as some claim is the problem, as if comments on blogs are term papers) you provide detailed source material (and then it's too much and they move on) for your claims. Still, and it might be a fool's errand sometimes and you have to pick your battles ("don't feed the trolls"), I still find it important to try to find some common ground, find some way to show that the logic is wrong. See my last post, where I think one of the people at that blog who repeatedly has ideological blinders but still (as I might have there, if it wasn't Facebook land) try to explain.
This is in part because often it is a matter of degree and people do change their minds, especially over time. Nonetheless, they are not both the same. If we are going to change, we have to accept on some level the facts of the matter. The two parties, surely on the national level, are not the same. MSNBC (though admittedly I don't watch it during the day) is not the same as FOX News. And, in fact, the two sides on the Supreme Court are not the same. There is no equivalent to a far left Thomas, even if the "liberals" on certain issues can be fairly liberal.
Some, like the authors of the book cited above, realize this without being members of the left wing of the Democratic Party. I'm all for focusing on other things when appropriate, but will also continue to keep this in mind.