1 The term derives from the Italian caricare, which means to "charge" or "load".

Or, as Shrillary would say, "RESET!"

2 Wow Monty. Lotta words there. I'll have to finish that after my Ritalin kicks in...

3 Well, written Monty, as always.  But I'm not sure I can go along with your thesis completely given the current situation.  No form of moderation on our part will be matched by our enemies.  They must be portrayed with ruthless mocking/derision/contempt.  The true Leftists are not reformable at this point - those who were came over to our side after 9-11.  All that remains is to instill in the mind of the "middle" folks - the so-called moderates that we, unfortunately, need - an image of the Leftist as what he will be once he gets his way.  That thing is a combination of pot smoking hippie tree hugger trash, combined with a treasonous, Stalin-like mass murderer.  This is the future reality.  Better to warn our fellow Americans now.  Polarization is already real - best to do all we can to turn it to our advantage and harden hearts as much as possible against our foe.  That way, if the worst-case situation if forced upon us, we will have enlarged our forces to the maximum possible degree.  I think the Right will win the civil war regardless for various reasons, but the more immediate and crushing our victory the better it will be for America.

4 Another home run Monty.

5 To early to think..will read it later today.

6 Oops - I meant to say "well written Monty, as always."  That will teach me to post before having coffee...

7 Resist epistemic closure!

8

A major health-care bill that affects every single citizen in the country can be ramrodded through Congress without a single vote by the opposition party, and still declared by its supporters as an "historic success".

Not only that but is mischaracterized as combining the input of both parties.

9

Excellent piece Monty.

We have reached a point now, much as we did in the 1850's, where compromise seems completely impossible.

Dennis Prager often says we are in a civil war of sorts in this country right now.  Think we reach a point when it becomes "uncivil"?

 

10 In this country, the gulf between the politically Left/liberal and the Right/conservative is explained by this habit of thinking in caricature more than anything else. Most people can explain their own beliefs with fair accuracy, but often fall back on caricatures when describing that of their opponents.

Sorry, Monty, but I have to disagree on both accounts.  The difference between the right and left is best explained in the fact that anyone can live with a conservative, as the conservative doesn't impose his way of life on another.  Conservatives are federalists who give states the power to fashion themselves into whatever liberal hellholes they want to be.  Liberals can be liberals under conservatives, as they have very liberal states they can move to and lead their stupidly liberal lives (bossing around the conservatives in those states and forcing them, too, to lead liberal lives), but conservatives are not allowed to be conservaitves under liberals, as liberals are for a national government that forces all states to be liberal states (as liberals don't extend states any real sovereignty or choice in their administration).  This is the basic asymmetry between the left and the right and the clearest distinction between the two.

As to my second point of disagreement, liberals can never explain their own beliefs accurately, since the liberal world-view is fraught with inconsistencies, stupidities and nastiness.  The liberal world-view is not logical and ,therefore, not affording of any logical defense or explanation.  The closest one came to a serious and honest description of the liberal world view was when The Precedent said that he considered empathy to be the most important characteristic a judge can have.  This is, obviously, still an attempt to be disingenuous about the liberal creed, which rests firmly on the notion of the "rule of Man" over the "rule of law", but it was close enough for most to understand this point (not including idiots like Lady Lindsey, of course, who let the wise, empathetic Latina out of committee with his treasonous vote to bring her to a committee vote).

11 Sadly, we will soon have no choice left to be subtle and careful in what we say and do. Things are coming to a head and sides must be picked. The Communists want us to be reasonable; it is to their advantage.

12 My head all hurty from all your big words, Monty.  But I'm just a troglodyte teabagger../sarc

Another good excellent post.  But here's the great question for our time

How willing are you to stand up for and sacrifice for the things that you believe?

13 But seriously, I think Monty is right. I've been finding myself feeling pretty uncomfortable lately with how knee jerk I've been in resisting Obama Administration initiatives. I've just gotten lazy, figuring that if a left wing administration likes it, I must hate it, and then just skimming the surface of the commentary in an effort to confirm my preconceived notions. I'm quite sure that if I took the time to really dig in and understand the left's position, I would still oppose it, but the fact that I can't be bothered makes me a less effective participant in the public discussion and that's probably not a good thing.

14 Monty-you are a professor of something arent' you? We need educators like you helping our kids to see truth, think rationally, and use good grammar. As with caricatures, I think part of the demise of our society is related to our inability to express ourselves well, and correctly. Texting, with it's shorthand terminology has lessened the need for people to think about things like proper spelling, punctuation, subject-verb placement, etc. Strangely, thinking about these things causes the writer to think about what he or she is saying, and thus, think more profoundly. And that, I would hope, would cause individuals to think about their positions on issues, and come to logical, reasonable answer. At least, I hope it would. Obviously, someone taught you well, and you listened. Many, many thanks.

15 The real problem, is the left makes caricatures of themselves, as well as the right. There is no reasoning with them, it's counterproductive to even try.

16 >>What purpose do you serve on this earth (if any)?

Did you have to bring that up again?

17

Conservatives are federalists who give states the power to fashion themselves into whatever liberal hellholes they want to be.

You aren't talking about me are you?

18 Kratos! 
The hillbilly PA kelbosi intertubes are back!

19 19 Kratos!  You got internet back!  Welcome back brother!

lol, thank you, but I'm actually at "work".  Got some small things to do at this place that finances my vices.

20 Bomber will never be able to get through this post today.  I fear he is projectile vomiting right now.

21 21 Kratos! 
The hillbilly PA kelbosi intertubes are back!

Hi mpfs.  I didn't know I was this popular...*blushes*.

No, I'm at "work" right now.  I'll find out if my "kelbosi intertubes" are back a little later.

22 Who knew cowboys from the darkest heart of Wyoming could be so smart ?
A lot of us actually .
It's those on the left that insist on seeing  ya'll  as illiterate misanthropes . It's a caricature that exists only in their minds eye .

23 24 Working on a Sunday?  Ouch.

No worries CDR M.  If you can call it "work".  That's what I love about the biological sciences - there's some things that take a lot of time, but not much effort.  /Western blotting, for instance.

24 Most people can explain their own beliefs with fair accuracy, but often fall back on caricatures when describing that of their opponents. We see this all the time in the abortion arguments: pro-abortion advocates describe their foes as anti-female, anti-civil-rights, knuckle-dragging cave-dwellers; anti-abortion advocates describe their foes as baby killers and death-fetishists.

Well those beliefs may not describe all pro-abortion zealots, it does describe a lot of them;

Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we donÂ’t want to have too many of. --Ruth Bader Ginsburg

25 Hi mpfs.  I didn't know I was this popular...*blushes*.

Kratos, my sister is thrilled you are coming to the party!  She says the more the merrier.  We will have plenty of room for you to crash.  My friend, Jim, from Las Vegas is also coming.  He's had lots of schoolin' in phsixs and stuff.

26 We have no obligation to defend ourselves and our Republic in just the right way. We may do it sloppily and crudely, if we want. Victory comes first. Also, thinking in caricature is not necessarily all bad; it focuses the mind on the true problem: we can't compromise anymore. The analysis you like, Monty, has already taken place in our conscious minds and in our sub-conscious minds, and that analysis has given birth to thinking in caricature.

27 #29  Kratos, my sister is thrilled you are coming to the party!  She says the more the merrier.  We will have plenty of room for you to crash.  My friend, Jim, from Las Vegas is also coming.  He's had lots of schoolin' in phsixs and stuff.

Awesome!  I'm looking forward to this, thanks again for the invitation, mpfs!

(Some cross it deliberately, of course: much political caricature is deliberately cruel rather than humorous.)

Indeed.  And sometimes it's used to incite genocide - the caricature of Jews by the Nazis as rats is the classic example. 

28 Whenever thousands of Rightists gather there is order and peace. Quite the opposite for Leftists, and with much smaller numbers. Why do Leftists need violence to get their point across? They certainly don't get many converts that way - from the Right or Center. It seems their only aim is to get publicity, not to really make any point or to state their beliefs. Its as though thet are attention starved children, and spoiled children at that.

29 Don't caricature me, bro!

30 Victory comes first. How do you define "victory"? Do all conservatives share that definition? Is "victory" an event or a process? Will "victory" be clear at the time, or obvious only in retrospect?

31 A caricature in words.

Dallas police arrested a Fort Worth middle school principal Saturday morning after they say she left her 3- and 4-year-old children in a room at the Adolphus hotel while she tried to get into a downtown nightclub.
(appropriate action based on the facts forthcoming)

32 Indeed. And sometimes it's used to incite genocide - the caricature of Jews by the Nazis as rats is the classic example. Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) How many Jews died because they refused to believe the caricature of the Nazis as genocidal maniacs until it was too late?

33 Indeed.  And sometimes it's used to incite genocide - the caricature of Jews by the Nazis as rats is the classic example. 

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 09, 2010 10:43 AM (9hSKh)

I think the Nazis would have gone on with their attempted genocide of Jews, and others, without the caricatures.  The genocide was going to happen, no matter what portrayals had been offered.

I see nothing wrong with any sort of caricatures.  People are not moved by any of these representations.  It is more the case that the representations are merely expressions of what is already present in society.

34 Read The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America, by Richard Ellis.  It's an analysis by a Leftist professor of history of why movements that start out preaching egalitarianism and equal rights (Abolitionism, socialism, feminism, etc.) most often devolve into "some animals are more equal than others" elitism and frequently enough into outright violence.  It's not caricature, it's the interaction of group and individual psychology and the effect that occurs when reality stubbornly refuses to conform to ideological theory.

35

Excellent post, Monty.

(There are a couple-few things you wrote that aren't sitting right with me, though. I'll have to give your essay some thought. I'll be back.)

36 How many Jews died because they refused to believe the caricature of the Nazis as genocidal maniacs until it was too late?

Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 10:49 AM (ONBbr)

About the same number who are at serious risk, now, of being incinerated and wiped out in Israel because Americans (and many American Jews, in particular) refused to understand the reality (not caricature) of what the Indonesian Imbecile and his leftist junta represent.

37 We see this all the time in the abortion arguments: pro-abortion advocates describe their foes as anti-female, anti-civil-rights, knuckle-dragging cave-dwellers; anti-abortion advocates describe their foes as baby killers and death-fetishists.

Oh, and to expand on this, I have never seen a pro-lifer who has in any way justified his or her beliefs by opposing women or "civil rights". Yes, some justify their positions primarily around their religious views, which I guess to the left is knuckle dragging. This is however ridiculous, and not something we should be validating.

Looking at the pro-abortion side, certainly the primary reason most support abortion is they don't want their girlfriend, or themselves, to be pregnant and damn all else. However, the eugenicist aspect of the left is one hundred years old now, and has never seriously flagged. Especially now with the rise of fundamental Gaianism, they want those damn brown people to stop having so many kids by any means necessary.

So, overall, I don't think your comparison is particularly valid.

38

Here's a caricature:  Big white cop demands papers from meak "Hispanics"

Here's the truth:  I've lived in South Texas for 30+ years.  Most cops here are Mexican-American.  (Most people are Mexican-American.)  They can tell one of the own from a <em>mojado</em> at about 200 paces, applying any one of dozens of simple criteria.

If a cop in England demanded my papers, and I claimed to be a Bristol native, he'd run me in.  Why American cops can't make these judgements is a mystery.

 

39

An outstanding post as usual, Monty.

It seeems as though we are being forced by the times to define what we believe. Personal issues and beliefs that were once private and only discussed among the closest of friends are now being called out.

We now have a country where hundreds of millions of insane people are running around.

Always keep in mind the commercial with Glen Close and her sister reminding us that one in six Americans has some sort of mental imbalance. Often times this can be treated with drugs and counseling, but in some cases, it's simply a spiritual disorientation that can be remedied with the proper information and direction. Not letting your emotions rule over you is the first step.

40 The real problem, is the left makes caricatures of themselves, as well as the right. There is no reasoning with them, it's counterproductive to even try.

Posted by: Rebar at May 09, 2010 10:29 AM (Or4Gk)

This is recent btw. I remember in the 90s you could often have intelligent political discussions. I think the left drove itself mad after Bush won the 00 election...

41 34, "Victory comes first." How do you define "victory"? Do all conservatives share that definition? Is "victory" an event or a process? Will "victory" be clear at the time, or obvious only in retrospect? Posted by: Monty I do not know exactly what victory will look like, but I suspect it won't be hard to recognize. I think victory is impossible until we see the Left for what it is: arsenic in America's soup. We are not engaged in a High School debate with the Left.

42
We are not engaged in a High School debate with the Left.

Posted by: eman at May 09, 2010 10:57 AM (ONBbr)

This is a fundamental point we are on the right need to grasp. The left doesn't care about rules, traditions, or fairness. They play to win, because they believe that their positions are right.

Either we need to adopt a similar dedication, or accept that we will lose.

43 Monty, you are one of the most able and witty descriptors/explainers of phenomena that I have had the immense pleasure to come across but I'm kind of at a loss as to what you are aiming for here.

Are you troubled by manifestations of "Epistemic-Closure" in the dextro-sphere?

I don't know what your beef really is and most of this post feels like a weird circumlocution.

Normally, I wouldn't care one way or another, but in my peculiar universe of ideas, when "Monty from AoSHQ" gets a worry, I start applying some of my brain-cells in the direction he points.

Are you asking the commentors here not to be such a passel of morons in general?

Why?

Do you want to have a more nuanced and less cartoony discussion of specific issues?

Okay, name them and let's hash it out.

I assure you that I, like most others who are drawn to this blog, spend an inordinate amount of time harassing my basic beliefs and assumptions.

They never get to sleep, the poor dears.

Some of this cruelty is your fault because you often cause me to poke them with sharp sticks.

Now?

I got nothing.

I am missing your point, which disturbs me.

44 #37  I think the Nazis would have gone on with their attempted genocide of Jews, and others, without the caricatures.  The genocide was going to happen, no matter what portrayals had been offered.

I didn't mean to imply that the inhuman caricatures of Jews were the sole cause of the Holocaust, but they certainly helped enable a large number of the German populace to be willing accomplices.  Remember Mackay's postulation:  that individually-sane people become more prone to irrationality when part of a larger group. The mechanism seems to be the diffusion of responsibility for outcome: if things go wrong, no one person can be blamed, yet the benefit (if any) accrues to all.

45 And the Nazis certainly weren't the only people who dehumanized their enemies through caricatures. 

46 is that why i think of the republicans as a bunch of limp wristed pussies?

47 Monty, I think basically you are rehashing advocating Detente with the USSR. Please, we tried that. It failed. Read some Reagan, dude.

48 Words pretty.  Monty smart.

49 50 is that why i think of the republicans as a bunch of limp wristed pussies?

Unfortunately that's not just a caricature.

btw, any new caricatures of AZ because of your new law?  Or is it just standard "AZ is teh racist for being concerned about immigration!" crap?

50 Either we need to adopt a similar dedication, or accept that we will lose.

Then we are no longer conservative.

51

 We have reached a point now, much as we did in the 1850's, where compromise seems completely impossible.

This is really the heart of the argument, but I have a slightly differnet perspective on it.  To go back to the American Civil War, I'm going to sight a conversation in the movie Gettysburg which I always found to be profound.  It's the conversation between Col. Freemantle, the British observer with the Confederate Army, and Gen. Longstreet.  Freemantle comments on the similarities between the soldiers on the two sides (I'm paraphrasing from memory here): 

 "Same history, same stories, same names, but different dreams.  Different dreams.  How sad."

This is the crux of the problem in this country.  Liberals and conservatives no longer share the same dream of what the future should be.  What America should be and what it should stand for.  I just don't care that much what the details of the liberal plans are anymore because the end point they are striving for is something a see as not a dream, but a nightmare.

 

 

 

52 I think a caricature reveals alot of truth and perhaps we don't like the cariacture because it does just that.  It doesn't just incite or defame, it drives us to question and investigate.  Perhaps we are offended, most people are when their faults are revealed, but one cannot blame the artist/creator for our lack of insight.   And I'm not certain that to say the descriptions of Jews in Nazi Germany were caricatures is entirely correct.  Sme of the earlier ones possibly were but later the posters were meant to dehumanize the Jews, to make them animals.  This is not a caricature, which must have an element of truth to it.

53 >>>The left doesn't care about rules, traditions, or fairness.

It's even worse.  The left are specifically out to destroy rules, traditions and fairness.  They hate all of those concepts, with a burning passion.

>>>They play to win, because they believe that their positions are right.

The left knows that their positions are wrong.  That's why most of them are leftists, though.  Leftism is staticism, which is stagnation, which is death.  Most leftists are that way because they are looking to kill modern society or steal whatever they can get their hands on, since the staticist leftists don't understand the concept of wealth being created and they, therefore, want to grab as much of a static resource (wealth) as they can.

>>>Either we need to adopt a similar dedication, or accept that we will lose.

Posted by: 18-1 at May 09, 2010 11:00 AM (bgcml)

Sadly, this is a race to the bottom, which is the intent of the left.  This is how they destroy systems, by introducing so much volatility that the system vibrates to pieces.  THis is what The Precedent and his junta have done with our legislative process, breaking all traditions, sense, and taboos in pushing their insane bills through and, sadly, leaving us no recourse but to overload the system in an effort to undo the immense damage they have done.  In the end, our legislative processes and institutions suffer irreparable damage - which was what the leftists (and The Precedent, in particular) wanted to affect. 

We see the same dynamics in attempts to fight leftist lunacy concerning bans.  Many on the right like to fight leftist bans by pointing out leftist hypocrisy, but that hypocrisy is precisely the great power of the left, and pointing it out (i.e. pointing out hate speech by leftists, when the whole idea of hate speech is idiotic) only helps the left guide society to a path towards devastation.

The point is that once insane leftism is unleashed, there is little a society can do, as much of the required fight against insane leftism is dangerous, itself - like general radiation necessary to fight a concer that is already metastasized and overwhelming the body.  This is why I say that America declared national suicide on Nov 4th, 2008.  Once that step was taken, America's fate was pretty surely sealed.

54 53 Words pretty.  Monty smart.

Only because your troglodyte brain can understand the racist undertones of this post.  j/k

White House says Pakistan Taliban behind NY bomb

55 Either we need to adopt a similar dedication, or accept that we will lose. Then we are no longer conservative. Posted by: LC LaWedgie Conservatism, like the Constitution, is not a suicide pact. Consider how our soldiers during WWII killed their fellow human beings in great number and with terrible ferocity. Did they return home and continue the slaughter? No. They returned to their lives as men living in peace. BTW, I am not advocating or worshiping violence. I am saying boundaries and human minds are much more durable and elastic than most people think. Defeat the Left, then write poetry about it. We may speak up, we may take action, we may be crude, we may be outrageous. It's ok. We are defending ourselves and our children.

56 Great observations!...................but, Liberal Progressive Leftwing ideologues ARE ignorant, shallow minded, whiney  spoiled brats with a dangerous amount of power.
Just sayin'.

57 Never has so much been said about so little...

58 Are you troubled by manifestations of "Epistemic-Closure" in the dextro-sphere? Well...not in the sense you mean it, I think. I am a "let me tell you a story" kind of guy, so...let me tell you a story. I left my Christian faith in my late teens because I was disenchanted with it. It just seemed to me at the time like a lot of silly ritual and empty cant. I claimed to believe because I had been raised that way; I was a Christian because I had been raised by Christians. When I became able to make my own choices, I could answer the "what?" part of the question but not the "why?". It was only later in life, at the other end of a lot of years that I became able to answer the "why?" question, and was baptized in my church. It just seems to me that political thought is part of our ethos, and as such, we should be able to explain ourselves: not just the "what?" part, but also the "why?" part.

59 #58  And I'm not certain that to say the descriptions of Jews in Nazi Germany were caricatures is entirely correct.  Sme of the earlier ones possibly were but later the posters were meant to dehumanize the Jews, to make them animals.  This is not a caricature, which must have an element of truth to it.

I failed to see the difference.  Thanks for the clarification.

60 Ah...a phoenix trog.

61 To compromise with one's spouse or neighbor is a noble goal...

...to compromise with evil is not. That's what Neville Chamberlain attempted to do. There can be no compromise with the current Left, because they are not what they once were. They are intent on subjugating the American People, and they cannot be allowed to.

62 >>>I didn't mean to imply that the inhuman caricatures of Jews were the sole cause of the Holocaust, but they certainly helped enable a large number of the German populace to be willing accomplices. 

I understood that, but I disagree.  My point was that the German population were going to be willing accomplices, wtih or without any caricatures.

>>>Remember Mackay's postulation:  that individually-sane people become more prone to irrationality when part of a larger group. The mechanism seems to be the diffusion of responsibility for outcome: if things go wrong, no one person can be blamed, yet the benefit (if any) accrues to all.

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 09, 2010 11:01 AM (9hSKh)

Yes, but the larger group existed already. Europe has always had tribalism at its core - to this very day.  That's why European governmental structures are tribalistic (party-oriented) and almost dismissive of the individual, whereas the US' political architecture is exactly the opposite, with political parties not even being Constitutional entities, of any sort.

If attempted genocide of Jews in Europe had started with the Nazis, that would be one thing, but that is not even close to the case.  Europe has made a sport of killing Jews in large numbers for most of its history.  The Nazis were not that much of a deviation.  And now, Europe is working feverishly towards a similar level of destruction with its obvious attempts to weaken and kill Israel.

The big difference for Europe, in the modern, late and post-colonial era, is that white guilt has hit them hard and they have been trying to destroy themselves, too.  They couldn't do it with two world wars, so they stopped having kids and decided to import and bow to muslims who hate their guts and everything they stand for.

63 I get a laugh anytime a moderate uses that word when it comes to politics.

Compromise is a game of increments with liberals.
They are only interested in compromise when it moves their agenda forward.

64 Agree with G.

We have polarized. It's radical reform or worse. We are on the debt Titanic and no lazy, spineless, wordsmith Indonesian can extract us. There is hope. Utah bounced an incumbent. Rip Van Winkle begins to stir.

65 It just seems to me that political thought is part of our ethos, and as such, we should be able to explain ourselves: not just the "what?" part, but also the "why?" part. Posted by: Monty Ok, but in your essay you also told us not think in caricature, not just to be ready to explain ourselves well to others. Are you still saying we should not think in caricature? After all that has been said here, do you think we really do think merely in caricature?

66 54 kratos arizona...... caricatured? lol!

67 eman - my problem is not with the fight or even the crudeness, it's with fighting without rules, traditions, or fairness, the "outrageousness" part if that makes any sense.

68 One serious issue I have with politics and the media today is that supposed 'moderates' are really just members of the opposing party who will always reliably roll over and vote against their own party. The whole 'reach across the aisle' business has really become code for 'unprincipled pansy whom can be bullied' or 'their vote can be easily bought'. 

69 I failed to see the difference.  Thanks for the clarification.

Posted by: Kratos (missing from the side of Mt Olympus) at May 09, 2010 11:18 AM

I think the problem lies in the intial article which assumes that thinking in caricature, so to speak,. is inherently bad.  I'm not so certain it is.  Perhaps it is only getting past the facades and to the truth. The article also assumes we can eliminate our own bias of others and ourselves, which is probably impossible.  Monty appears to want moderation and centrist thinking by all, but I'm afraid that would lead to very little if any accomplishments.  We need those extremists on both sides.  They are our goaders, our caricatures, our hidden elements of truth.

70 LC LaWedgie, I know what you mean, but remember the Left will use your love of doing the right thing in a fair way against you.

71 The right are alot more familiar with the details and reasoning behind leftist postions than the left or the uninformed center are with right ones, as leftists ones pervade media and education. So we tend to think in caricatures alot less than the leftist, or at least our caricatures are much more accurate than those of the left than simply paint all disagreement as one stripe of hate/irrational fear or another.

72

Excellent post Monty.  Unfortunately, the human mind (especially when operating in a group) loves caricature above all else -- that's why it works so well when used as propaganda.  It takes a certain amount of mental discipline to not think in caricature, and an even greater discipline to not respond in kind when one is caricaturized.  I doubt very strongly that this is something that can be fixed, as it would go against human nature.

So here we all are -- it has happened before, and will happen again.

73 Deanna at May 09, 2010 11:27 AM - The fine line exists in the fairness of the magnification, not in the "Mobyism" of deceit. If the caricature can be proven false, you lose your own credibility.
Let the left throw eggs at a post, not a straw.

74
I swear to God, Monty, if you praise pantomimes or jugglers...

75 Are you still saying we should not think in caricature? After all that has been said here, do you think we really do think merely in caricature? I think everyone does to a certain degree; it's part of the human condition. The human mental process seems to depend on it when dealing with unknowns or new situations. And "merely" is the wrong word, I think -- we resort to caricature out of instinct and habit, not out of malice (usually). Politicians take ruthless advantage of this tendency. Consider the usual political campaigns: how many polticians actually campaign on their own records rather than abstract adherence to the "conservative" or "liberal" idea-bin? (Consider a creature like Arlen Specter -- surely there was never a human on earth so filled with caricature and so empty of real ideas!) I try very hard not to caricature my opponents' beliefs. Not because I agree with them, or am swayed by their arguments; but because by trivializing them I endanger myself. Any idea or ethos not continually tested and improved by conflict is doomed to stasis, sclerosis, and death. (A muscle must be exercised to remain strong!)

76 "I think the problem lies in the intial article which assumes that thinking in caricature, so to speak,. is inherently bad.  I'm not so certain it is. "

I agree; caricatures are not bad per se; ones that fail to reflect some fundamental truth or that outright lie are bad.

77 Two for two Monty. 2 for 2. Outstanding.

78
btw, can we hate on fairs, particularly renaissance fairs, in this thread? There's nothing in the world that gathers stupid merchants selling stupid crap and stupid customers in one place.

79 Politics is a distraction. An ego driven waste of time. The time for thinking in gray and pondering compromise are over.

In war, good tactics call for divide and conquer strategy. We have been conquered. That includes the left. They just don't know it yet. They tend to figure those things out, long after their party disembarks and the evil right takes over. Then the right, consumed by the same thinking, blames the left. And all the while, while we fight, the politicians and the elite steal us blind.

We all are getting a ride on the debt Titanic. We have whacked the ice cube. All that remains now, is determining who goes down with the ship.

80

Posted by: mesquito at May 09, 2010 10:54 AM (XPn6L)

Amen and Amen.

I live in west TX and I can tell within 15 seconds of meeting a Mexican whether they were born on this side or not. I know a lot of Mexicans who are 3rd or 4th generation Americans who can't even converse in Spanish any more. The assumption that cops can't do the same thing is absurd. Which is why east coast pundits and politicians need to shut the fuck up.

81 A caricature is not necessarily a product of intellectual laziness. Sometimes it is the underlying truth; and even when it is not wholly accurate, it can be a good thing because it is powerful and serves a good cause well. I do not agree making a caricature is trivializing something.

82

This is recent btw. I remember in the 90s you could often have intelligent political discussions. I think the left drove itself mad after Bush won the 00 election...

Posted by: 18-1 at May 09, 2010 10:56 AM (bgcml)

Agreed. I once enjoyed having political arguments with lefties--if for no other reason, because it would force me to challenge and justify my own positions. Regardless of where the argument would go, my lefty opponent and I would remain on friendly grounds. Hell, back then I would've actually been willing to vote for a "good" Democrat.

After a decade of screeching and assassination fantasies from the left, I now presume that all so-called "liberals" are fucking insane and I don't trust any of them.  In addition, I consider every last Democrat politician to be my enemy and I would sooner cast my vote for a Nazi.

What a difference 10 years makes, eh?

83 Ten years is indeed, a long time.

84 So what your saying is all liberals suck.

85 Precisely

86 That spirit was lost almost as soon as the Republic was established, though, and has only grown more pronounced as the population has grown in both size and diversity.


But that isn't true.  Certainly there were fissures from the beginning that cracked open in the 1850's and were only healed in the 20th century.  But the nation has experienced remarkable unity, especially for a nation-state of such complexity and size.  The successful assimilation of millions who became citizens in the 19th and 20th centuries was a profound achievement, probably unequaled anywhere on earth.  It was also an achievement made possible by the self-confidence of its national culture, something our current elites no longer possess.

It's astonishing that the Republic has lasted as long as it has (and it was a close-run thing). And we have managed it by forcing ourselves, often with the greatest of pain, to compromise. To force ourselves to get rid of the mental caricatures and adapt ourselves to the real world.

Paradoxically, the next great opportunity to get rid of the mental caricatures and hence to compromise and cooperate may come as the old structure clearly disintegrates - as we run out of money - and as the old machinery clanks to a halt.  It may, if we are very lucky, force us into a pragmatic reevaluation of who we want to be.  What do we keep?  What do we jettison and reinvent?

Cultures can reinvent themselves with astonishing swiftness.  Postwar Great Britain became socialist in less than a decade, led by its elites.  Eastern Europe did the reverse again in less than a decade, led mainly by those who were not among its elites.

The same could easily happen here, with equally unpredictable results.  The essential problem for us as conservatives is in formulating a positive and widely accepted vision of the future following the collapse of the Bismarckian welfare state.  We all know what is wrong.  It is identifying alternatives that is hard.  It is made harder because the Hegelian vision of that state is still as powerful as ever and there will be a great temptation to rebuild it once it collapses.

It is a failure of imagination.  We should be talking much less about the old and much more about inventing the new, in making it just and tolerant and prosperous - as the Republic was designed to be - and in making people comfortable with the idea of the new. 

87 Sweet, my Northern friend, well struck-skook.

88 Guy Fawkes at May 09, 2010 - They're more like a fan -- you stand in front of them and they try to blow smoke up your butt, you stand behind them, then they suck...  you stand alongside and they try to do both.

89 It bears remembering that Barack Obama is now President of the United States because many voters voted for a caricature (a favorable one, but a caricature nonetheless) rather than for the actual man. I do think, as a matter of fact, that conservatives are less prone to extreme caricaturization than liberals are, but that mainly stems from the liberal Utopian mindset versus the conservative Tragic mindset. But I still catch myself from time to time ascribing motives to liberals based on my own prejudices rather than on knowledge of the liberal's own motivations. Still: how do you avoid it? Some political shorthand is necessary; how else could we deal with a political edifice as large as ours?

90 It bears remembering that Barack Obama is now President of the United States because many voters voted for a caricature (a favorable one, but a caricature nonetheless) rather than for the actual man. Posted by: Monty Replace favorable with inaccurate and you will see caricature in a better light, I think.

91 I think the left drove itself mad after Bush won the 00 election...

True. Also...

I think the left drove itself mad after Nixon won the 72 election...
I think the left drove itself mad after Reagan won the 80 election...
I think the left drove itself mad after Bush won the 92 election...

Well, maybe not so much that last one.But the others... whew. Bush Derangement Syndrome is only the latest manifestation of some weird leftist disease. BDS was preceded by RDS (Reagan Derangement Syndrome), and before that, NDS (Nixon Derangement Syndrome), which is the granddaddy of them all.

I remember in the 90s you could often have intelligent political discussions.

I think that may have been because Clinton was president, so the lefty universe had some comforting stability in it for them. But before that, Reagan and Thatcher ruled the earth and the left spent a decade howling in a paroxysm of rage.

92 'Right' is not a political ideology. It is a resistance to one. Left is an ideology. Hitler was a Leftist in every sense of the word. Name a policy of the Reich and you will be talking a leftist policy.
Caricatures are used de-humanize. It is harder, I suppose, to incite the masses to kill children but probably simple to incite them to kill rats in the name of the Fatherland, Mother Earth or Fairness or whatever.

93 It bears remembering that Barack Obama is now President of the United States because many voters voted for a caricature (a favorable one, but a caricature nonetheless) rather than for the actual man.

Posted by: Monty at May 09, 2010 11:56 AM (O3eFQ)

America knew what it was voting for with the indonesian Imbecile.  There was no doubt.  He was friends with terrorists.  He was advocating socialism. He was the son of a muslim, the step-son of a muslim, raised as a muslim in a muslim country.  He was anti-American, in his very being and had not one ounce of American sensibilities about him.  None of this was a secret, as McShame spent half of his campaign screaming at his own supporters for even mentioning it.  No one watches a US Presidential campaign stop in friggin' Germany and thinks that there is something American about the people who planned that.  IN FRIGGIN' GERMANY!!

America knew, full well, that a vote for the Indonesian Imbecile was a vote for the death of America and everything America was founded on and stood for, and America decided, in the throes of a psychotic break brought on by the credit crisis and combined with the powerful force of white guilt, to choose national suicide.

94 Artruen at May 09, 2010 12:04 PM - If you accept "left" as an ideology, you have to accept "right" as one also.  Reference radical Islam where the rule of law is paramount to any sort of mercy or interpretation of law and maximum punishment is certain.

95 It just seems to me that political thought is part of our ethos, and as such, we should be able to explain ourselves: not just the "what?" part, but also the "why?" part.

Posted by: Monty at May 09, 2010 11:18 AM (O3eFQ)

Oh, Fish!

You are so wet and you don't even know it!

Actually you are more of a shark as compared to my cleaner-shrimp status...

Why do you think that you are so popular with the morons?

Why do you think that most unmarried 'nettes would bed you in an instant if you would deign to have them?

Yes, you are exceedingly clever with words but the big draw has always been a serious and interesting consideration of "the why" underneath it.

That's just the way folks around here seem to roll.

Making jokes about lesbian pron, waiting for a serious philosopher like Monty to show up in the comments and give us something to chaw on.

I did not know that you did not know this.

Huh.

I imagine that most of what gets posted here in the comments falls into the category of "the what" as a means of calibrating and checking "the why".

Perhaps we should be more conscientious and explicit about it, from time to time.

Sorry to be so "inside baseball" about this but the more generalized formulation that people "think in Caricature" seems to have fallen flat.

96 *stomps feet and shakes tiny fist at the dotty lines, which randomly show up to ruin posts*

97 ur post iz mah cheezburger

98 My stance is reflected in what I saw on "Sunday Morning" as I was helping the girls make Mother's Day breakfast for my sweetie.  In a review of the new Robin Hood movie they couldn't help themselves but to compare Robin Hood to Che Guevara as hero.

I cannot out caricature what they do to themselves. 

99 But being reasonable is no fun.

100 105, A sure ratings winner.

101 I want to say, also, since it's part of the topic here, that neither of the titles I use for BHO - The Precedent and the Indonesian Imbecile - are caricatures.  They are both perfectly accurate descriptions of what we know about him.  He is, first and foremost The Precedent, as that was what many elected him to be (as he had no other skills or talents that they wanted to elect, other than for him to be "historical" - i.e. a precedent) and "Indonesian Imbecile" is, likewise, accurate so much as we know.  He was raised, for the bulk of his formative years, in Indonesia, and his thinking is more Indonesian than American (as he has little American thinking, at all), so to call him Indonesian is accurate (as well as the fact that he seems to have held Indonesian citizenship, too, making it legally accurate).  As to the "imbecile" part, I am not saying that he is a clinically determined imbecile, but that he is dumb enough to come under the general understanding of that term as used in casual conversation.  "Profit and earnings ratios" should have erased any doubts one might have about that, but if not, there are hundreds of other stupid ideas he's expressed to lend credibility to the argument that he is clearly, in the coloquial sense, an imbecile.  He probably scored no higher than 920 on his SATs, so people can determine what they would call that.

102 106, Tempting the Goddess Irony, I see.

103 tl;dr

104 President Obama gave a commencement address at Hampton University today.  The transcript : LINK

105 But being reasonable is no fun.

Posted by: snapdragon at May 09, 2010 12:23 PM (5Etcj)

Don't worry.  You and your ilk never even come close to being reasonable.  You lefties hate reason.  You are worshippers of empathy and emotions, in general.

106 Cultures can reinvent themselves with astonishing swiftness.  Postwar Great Britain became socialist in less than a decade, led by its elites.  Eastern Europe did the reverse again in less than a decade, led mainly by those who were not among its elites.

The same could easily happen here, with equally unpredictable results.  The essential problem for us as conservatives is in formulating a positive and widely accepted vision of the future following the collapse of the Bismarckian welfare state.  We all know what is wrong.  It is identifying alternatives that is hard.  It is made harder because the Hegelian vision of that state is still as powerful as ever and there will be a great temptation to rebuild it once it collapses.

And then somebody called Skookumchuk drops in and says something well.

And so it rolls...

107 Recently read some excerpts from a book called, "The Little Black Book of Violence". It is good reading and applies to the train of thought in this post because of the authors' belief that one should not engage lightly in a violent act, that one must differentiate between an offense and a violent attacker. There is simply too much to lose and there are too many variables to know the eventual outcome.
The point is in an anecdote in the book. A serial killer stalked a small female down a hiking trail. He attacked her but what he didn't know was that she was a serious marshal artist. She managed to disarm him and fought him to a draw. At this point he said to her, "Look, all I want is you ATM number and your cards." Weary of the fight, she let down her guard. He tied her up and tortured her over the course of several days before killing her.
The left just wants your ATM number and cards.
It is hard to caricature a serial killer enough.

108 progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 12:26 PM

SHALLOW empathy

FIFY

109 "You and your ilk never even come close to being reasonable. "

Because help out less fortunate Americans is so unreasonable?

110 116, The planted axiom strikes again.

111 SHALLOW empathy

FIFY

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at May 09, 2010 12:31 PM (wpMA7)

Out-of-control empathy, for the Western left.  They have runaway empathy much as they have runaway guilt.  Neither of these strong emotional forces are connected to any reality, but they are so intense in the Western leftist personality that leftists are slaves to them, thrashing about in all attempts to subdue or alleviate these illusory feelings.  This is what leads them to societally suicidal positions.

Leftists' understanding of empathy is shallow, indeed, but the emotion is extremely deep in the leftist - like a child who sees a horror movie and is unable to turn off his imagination, which gets out-of-control and scares the crap out of him - enough that he can't be in the dark or alone without having a terrifying anxiety attack.  That is the hellish internal world of the leftist, but with empathy and guilt.

112 Still: how do you avoid it? Some political shorthand is necessary; how else could we deal with a political edifice as large as ours? Posted by: Monty This shorthand is necessary because the general populace today is not educated in the political process, and, moreover, refuses to educate themselves. Slogans, rhymes, short videos are the pamphlets and town criers of yore. (I have always wanted to use that word in a sentence!!) They satisfy a flabby mind that refuses to exercise. Though it is a dirty business, conservatives need to create the ad/slogan/campaign that resonates with lazy minds, and hopefully jumpstarts them into action. Is that fighting dirty? Not necessarily. We can do it with grace and dignity, and truth. Will the populace buy it? Sadly, there is no guarantee of that, because of that predilection of man to find the path of least resistance-which is what the liberals offer them. They are the embodiment of the slimey man offering children candy, with foul intent behind it. The children only see the candy, and not the danger lurking.

113 snapdragon at May 09, 2010 12:34 PM


Where the White Things Are

114

Let me take a stab at the abortion issue without using caricatures, but first let's take a trip to the Italian Peninsula.

If you look at a map of Italy, you'll see the Republic of San Marino. It's totally surrounded by Italy, it uses Italy's money as its own (first lira, now euros), and its people speak Italian. Everything about San Marino depends on the country and the region surrounding it. Though its own sovereign state, it's harldy independent from Italy. As goes the big country, so goes the little one. It's easy to confuse the two countries into one. So:

The anti-abortion people begin with the assumption that fertilized eggs are human beings, distinct though not separate from their mothers -- or to use geography to illustrate biology, a fertilized egg, zygote or fetus is as much an individual person as San Marino is a country. It naturally follows this assumption that beliefs would be absolute: Any action that deliberately ends such a person's life would be murder, plain and simple, no exceptions. It makes total sense.

Abortion rights advocates assume that these are not actually human beings, that for a while after an egg is developed, it is merely a part of the mother's body. A pregnancy, then, is a medical condition that includes and affects exactly one person: the mother. It naturally follows this assumption that the mother can address her pregnancy however she wishes, whether with a regimen of prenatal care or by having the growing cluster of cells removed from her body. And no church official in Rome (see what I did there?) has the right to tell her what to do. This, too, makes total sense.

Enter the mental shorthand, which Monty calls a caricature. Each side, bringing their own assumptions about the issue to the arena, comes up with an exaggerated, almost comical depiction of other. Pro-lifers see abortionists as depraved, bloodthirsty animals. Pro-choicers see their counterparts as Puritan would-be dictators. But, as Monty pointed out, the constructions people make of their opponents get in the way of reasoned, rational, and empathetic discourse. The caricatures present perceived differences between the two sides instead of their actual differences, making any sort of a resolution impossible.

So, why perpetuate the differences? Because it's easy? Sure, there's that, but I'll posit that there are people with an interest in keeping these obstacles in place. In other words, some people benefit from others' intellectual and rhetorical laziness. The pro-life and pro-choice movements, to continue the example, have become industries. Sadly, they all benefit at our expense.

Right on, Monty, with your conclusion: "it is incumbent to bear your beliefs in detail, so that the purpose and intent are not misstated." Though there's strength in numbers, we each act as an individual.

115 #116  Because help out less fortunate Americans is so unreasonable?

When's the last time you've helped out a less fortunate American yourself?

116 Slogans, rhymes, short videos are the pamphlets and town criers of yore. (I have always wanted to use that word in a sentence!!) They satisfy a flabby mind that refuses to exercise. Wise men profit more from fools than fools from wise men; for the wise men shun the mistakes of fools, but fools do not imitate the successes of the wise. -- Cato the Elder Dour old Cato had the truth of it.

117 Because help out less fortunate Americans is so unreasonable?

Posted by: snapdragon at May 09, 2010 12:34 PM (5Etcj)

LOL.  No one stops you from giving all your money to help whomever you want.  But leftists really don't like giving any of THEIR money away.  They are notoriously stingy with respect to charity and they are jealous that conservatives, and especially religious conservatives, care more about the actual lot of others, as a personal concern, than the leftists.

Leftists are only about controlling others in the interim and eventually destroying everything that reminds them of themselves.  You are not about helping less fortunate Americans out; you are about harming better off Americans, as your Precedent expressed so clearly when he said that he would still raise capital gains taxes, even with the assumption that it would result in reduced receipts to the government.  He didn't care about helping anyone, only harming the successful people.  He, and the rest of you, try to hide behind a perversion of the word "fairness" but anyone with a brain knows exactly what you slugs are about.

Tell me more about how a modern society should value empathy as the most important trait of a judge - rather than fidelity to the word and spirit of the rule of law.  After that, we can move on to your many other areas of insane emotion-based policy.

118 progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 12:38 PM -- Clever how it's always someone else's earnings, no?

119 Liberals are fuckheads.

120 progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 12:46 PM  I'd call that a double post.  (heh)

121

Shit.  Is it too much to ask that when you read a bunch of words about caricature, and finally come to a link that says "Continue reading", that you will as you expect, see some funny-as-hell... what's was that stuff again?  Oh yeah: caricature!  Instead, what do I get?  A whole shitload more words!  Damn, I was looking forward to some really good caricatures of Barky and the Wookster!

Slightly OT, but not really very much, Leonard Pitts today takes the fucking cake and hits it out of the park.  He also writes a whole bunch of words about terror attacks through the years, and just when you are wondering "WTF kind of racially-oriented topic can this be leading up to?" because he really never writes anything else, well he finally does write something else!

It turns out the message is... there is nothing we can do to prevent terrorist attacks for sure, so just chill and prepare to die if that's what's in the cards!  No way we can always be perfect and always be lucky, so not to worry.

Now I am sure that the fact that Barky and Janet have just dropped the ball for about the third time and pulled lucky horseshoes out of their asses for about the third time... well, that's probably got nothing at all to do with Leonard going off of topic #A001.  Nah.  He just wanted you to know, when the luck runs out, it won't be Barky's fault, because you know, it's just fucking inevitable.

And did you know that in this context, the fact that GWB kept us "safe" for 8 years is totally meaningless?  Me neither, until Leonard very carefully explained why.  I can't quite remember how he did it, but it was smooth.

ps. Leonard, as they say, don't quit your race-baiting job - at least there you have the advantage there of writing about something in which you have some expertise.  When you opine on national security, you come across like a complete slimeball apologist for terrorism who just wants to cover his hearthrob's ass for the time coming up when his ineptitude becomes horribly impossible to ignore.

pps. Leonard, you are a POS, you know that, right?

 

 

122 I'd call that a double post.  (heh)

Posted by: LC LaWedgie at May 09, 2010 12:49 PM (wpMA7)

Great minds, LC.

123 Like rats relentlessly gnawing through concrete, the progs will never give up in their quest to dominate.

124 "Leftists are only about controlling others..."

Lefties don't want to force women into becoming baby machines, do they?

And they really don't care if you want to smoke a little herb in the privacy of your own home.

125

So how is calling a baby killer a baby killer a caricature?  

 

Does abortion kill babies?  yes.  thus those that practice abortion are in fact baby-killers.  That is not a caricature.  that is plain spoken truth.   the fact that YOU think it is a caricature in fact tells everyone that you think in caricature and can not handle the truth. 

 

 

126 Because help out less fortunate Americans is so unreasonable?

Posted by: snapdragon at May 09, 2010 12:34 PM (5Etcj)

It's your job, not the government. This is why arguments break down with the right and left. Emoting is no way to make a point, though it is effective in framing the argument because nobody wants or wills the less fortunate to be so.

I work with a reasonable man, integrity oozes out of him and he is an ethical creature. All of it breaks down when he begins to discuss the Indonesian. He often says, "do you really think he wants to harm America?", as if this is the only question to ask about Obama. My friend is black and is in deep with the party of the 'little man'.

Compassion cannot be distributed by the government, only funds, which it takes from the governed. If the gov't is allowed to 'be compassionate' it is also free to take that back and distribute something else, 'for the good of the governed'. The problem from cycle to cycle is what the gov't deems 'good for the people'.

The individual is responsible before God and man to dispense 'good'. What is 'good'? Love justice & mercy, walk without pride. Take care of the orphans and widows. If individuals did due diligence in these areas, the gov't could go about its business of providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare.

127 snapdragon at May 09, 2010 12:52 PM - No, you want to turn women into fucking machines.

128 Lefties don't want to force women into becoming baby machines, do they?

No one forces a woman to become pregnant.  Especially today, no woman becomes pregnant unless she wants to or she is a total dope - minimal number of rape pregnancies notwithstanding.

But lefties are very much into trying to force women to have abortions.  They like women to be open sex machines, in full defiance of simple biology and the long-established structural roles of men and women in society.  Leftists like to pretend that sex is the same for men and women, even though men and women have totally different roles in sex and risk totally different outcomes.  But, leftists hate Nature, too.

And they really don't care if you want to smoke a little herb in the privacy of your own home.

Posted by: snapdragon at May 09, 2010 12:52 PM (5Etcj)

LOL.  They've banned me from smoking legal cigarettes just about everywhere.  Leftists have enjoyed destroying the basis of individual liberty - private property rights - just to make themselves feel better about controlling my cigarette smoke.

Sure, leftists don't care if someone is shooting heroin in the street, but light up a cigarette ... and the sky will fall.  Because, again, leftists love to just control others and dictate what every can and can't do.  But that isn't even enough, leftists want to control what everyone can think.  You slimeballs are the lowest of the low.

But, thanks for letting me have a joint in my living room.  You are anti-cigarette but pro-joint.  Very reasonable, crapdragon ...  Yep.  And then the idiot left likes to argue that smoking pot isn't bad for your lungs.  But cigarettes will kill you in no time!!  ROFLMAO.

129

Lefties don't want to force women into becoming baby machines, do they?

 

they don't?  Then why do they reward women for having more babies with more welfare?

And they really don't care if you want to smoke a little herb in the privacy of your own home.

It's always easier to control the masses if they are too stoned to think clearly. Thus to gain control the left wants you to smoke weed so they can then control every aspect of your life because you are too stoned to care/think straight/ and/or vote.

Drug use is all about control. 

 

 

130 Well, Wedgie, birth control technology is advancing so fast maybe men won't be able to turn women into any kind of machine soon.

131 Posted by: LC LaWedgie at May 09, 2010 12:56 PM (wpMA7)

Dang!  Double post the other way around, now.  LC, get out of my head! 

132 The false dilemma is a staple of the left.

"What about abortions when the mother is raped?"

*You mean the less than 2% of the time abortions are executed because of this occurrence?*

133
Didn't take long to start pointing fingers and preaching, did it?

We already have one of those on the news everyday, don't need another.  Especially here.

134 snapdragon at May 09, 2010 01:00 PM- I suggest you form a cartel and you can use your pot money to perform hysterectomies on your whoredom.  Move to Nevada and have at it.  It really doesn't matter how many people get killed in the drug trade, does it?

progressoverpeace at May 09, 2010 01:01 PM - Ahgggg! (heh)  Must be the air.

135
What is this, an essay contest or a comment thread?

136 But the reality is the shrill paranoid caricature wins the political debate against calm reasonable disagreement. The "reasonable" man is constantly forced to compromise.

Look at the radical eco-left. All they do is scream that we are killing the planet. So we improve safety measures and reduce pollution. Are they satisfied? No, they scream all the louder. They just move the goalposts. We go from parts per million to parts per billion, but they still fling the same accusations.

Today the environment is cleaner and safer than it has ever been. There is less risk to human health from pollution and contamination than at any point in the industrial age .... and yet the average person believes they are being poisoned and we spend billions because we are terrified to drink tap water.

Reasonableness loses. The way to win in politics is to accuse, accuse, accuse. Show no mercy. Your opponents are not reasonable people who disagree. They are sub-human spawns of evil motivated by power and cruelty. They lack decency and basic humanity. Obama rose to power on a wave of Alinsky-ite political terrorism.

This is a war and being reasonable is tantamount to unilateral disarmament.

137

The problem started with abolition of the poll tax.  Letting anyone vote means that tricking and bribing the ignorant and uninvolved is more effective than persuading the savvy.

We need voter identification, voter proof of residency, voter proof of literacy, and voter proof of payment of taxes.

138

What is this, an essay contest or a comment thread?

Think of it as a thread of long-form comments.

139

Having a difficult time with this line of 'reason'. As i read Monty's cry for 'total understanding', I kept flashing on  my brother, who never worked, and thought the government owed him a living. On the clentched fists of "black power', on the Code Pink idiots, on the anti-war protesters rioting, on most things 'left', and guess what? THEY ARE FUCKIN CARICATURES!!!

Of any reasonable, normal thinking person, these idiot sticks just are. More like cartoon caricatures. sheesh!!Loved the line 'arsnic in Americans soup.'

140 Dang Straights at May 09, 2010 01:02 PM - Yeah, seems it started about #116.

141 "Abortion rights advocates assume that these are not actually human beings, that for a while after an egg is developed, it is merely a part of the mother's body. A pregnancy, then, is a medical condition that includes and affects exactly one person: the mother. It naturally follows this assumption that the mother can address her pregnancy however she wishes, whether with a regimen of prenatal care or by having the growing cluster of cells removed from her body. And no church official in Rome (see what I did there?) has the right to tell her what to do. This, too, makes total sense." Posted by: FireHorse The view of pregnancy is constructed as a convenience, something made up to divert our eyes from the fundamental fact that taking no action results in a new human being being born. It does not make total sense. It makes sense only within the boundaries it sets for itself. This view of pregnancy and abortion is a tactic, a means to an end. It is part of the general strategy of the Left: weaken your foe with lies, confusion, and sweet-tasting poison.

142 No one will die in the drug trade once we lift our silly prohibition, wedgie.

I'm not sure what you you mean by my "whoredom."

Do I detect some religious righteousness in that statement?

Or just the usual desire to control women?

143 Let's find out why the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor. Was it something we said?

144 Control women? When in the fuck has that ever happened? When men get pussies I suppose.

145 #12 from progressoverpeace
The difference between the right and left is best explained in the fact that anyone can live with a conservative, as the conservative doesn't impose his way of life on another.  Conservatives are federalists who give states the power to fashion themselves into whatever liberal hellholes they want to be.

The funny thing is, so many conservatives really believe this.

Then they turn around and want to impose themselves between a woman and her doctor.  Then they want to impose their "defense of marriage" morals attitudes on the whole country.

I think you completely miss the point of the article.  We have to look inward at our own motivations as opposed to only concentrating on criticizing the positions of our opponents.

What do conservatives stand for right now?  What is the goal of the GOP in 2010?  Answer: To be against anything and everything the Dems come up with.

That's a platform?  It may get us elected, but where from there?

146 @ 152

I don't understand that assertion by the left, either. Women have all the control because they have the chastity belt (veiled religious term meant to control women).

Heck, I watched the Patriot and they sewed up Heath in a potato sack. Who was in control?

147 Sorta OT and sorta not: I'm out mowing my yard just now and I see a big dried-up leaf. I run over it, and alas! 'Twas not a leaf but a frog. Being generally pro-frog, I now have guilt. And a messy mower-deck to clean up.

148 Barack Obama just told a bunch of graduates that his opponents are getting their"distracting" "information" from iPods, X-Boxes and Playstations.

Any caricature of Obama is just redundant.

(Pixy: are you fracking kidding me? Google.com is a banned URL?!)

149 snapdragon at May 09, 2010 01:16 PM - Sure, the drug cartels will willingly accept plantation status with undocumented, unfed, abused workers, providing you with cheap, easy grass (with the addition of a hefty sin tax from yours true compadres in Washington.)

As far as whoredom goes, religious righteousness aside, a whore's a whore, and many whores --  well you are good at twisting words to corrupt their meaning...  I dunno, a love corporation?

Appears that you seek to control and dehumanize:
"...maybe men won't be able to turn women into any kind of machine soon."  I'm sure you'll love and cherish each and every one.

150 And they really don't care if you want to smoke a little herb in the privacy of your own home. Posted by: snapdragon at May 09, 2010 12:52 PM (5Etcj) lolwhut: http://tinyurl.com/mov94x

151 101 Artruen at May 09, 2010 12:04 PM - If you accept "left" as an ideology, you have to accept "right" as one also.  Reference radical Islam where the rule of law is paramount to any sort of mercy or interpretation of law and maximum punishment is certain.

Wedgie. yes. My pre-coffee point is that American Conservatives have not sat around for the last 90 years stratergerizing on how to seize political power, we have rather been live and let live and now we find ourselves faced with a Leftist takoever of our entire system and it is just beginning to dawn on most of us that it is here and it is for real. Now we stand here wringing our hands trying to figure out what to do about it. And no, I have no answers other than to be as politically active as possible and produce caricatures when I feel it necessary.

152 Chi Town,

Every time a law is enacted, it is imposing a moral code. Anytime someone asserts something about morals, they are making a value judgment on its 'rightness'; they are imposing morality on someone else. The question ought to be, "Which moral choice is closer to the standard?"

Asserting a moral or morality assumes that there is an inherent claim of rightness. There must be a reason or two for someone to 'impose' their view or morals on someone else. Just because you don't prefer them doing so doesn't negate the benefits or the truth/mistruth of the matter.

153 Chi-Town Jerry, the examples you've given are heavy in libertarian / liberal cant, and assume axioms which are debatable at best.

In particular, the man/woman definition of marriage has been "imposed" by any and all societies until very recently. Now that you want to change that, by use of the state, and suddenly the conservatives are help-help-being-the-oppressors?

Give me a god-damned break, and a juicebox.

154
you guys hear the latest stats of single women having babies? 4 in 10.

The Left is very very happy. They destroyed the family in order to undermine our society.

155 >>>The funny thing is, so many conservatives really believe this.

It's true.

>>>Then they turn around and want to impose themselves between a woman and her doctor.

Abortion is a question about the beginning of life. The determination of the beginning of life belongs in the same place where the determination of the end of life resides - the states.

>>>Then they want to impose their "defense of marriage" morals attitudes on the whole country.

We have a family-based immigration system, so the definition of marriage has many federal implications. I don't care if gays want to marry in California, but they cannot impose their perversion of marriage on anyone else and they cannot expect to have immigration treatment as if they had an actual marriage. You can have any sort of localised marriage that you and your insane states want, but that cannot be extended to other states, nor to federal immigration policy nor adoption rules outside of that state.

>>>I think you completely miss the point of the article. We have to look inward at our own motivations as opposed to only concentrating on criticizing the positions of our opponents.

I think you completely miss lots of points. Don't you worry about my reasoning. It is sound.

>>>What do conservatives stand for right now? What is the goal of the GOP in 2010? Answer: To be against anything and everything the Dems come up with.

To save the US, which the left is almost finished destroying. It just turns out that one must be against just about everything the left is for in order to save the US. That is what happens when such an enemy has made inroads as the left has.

>>>That's a platform? It may get us elected, but where from there?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at May 09, 2010 01:24 PM (Do52

Yes. Defense of the US is indeed a platform.  There is little else as important. From getting elected, the task is removing all the crap that the left imposed on us and getting this nation back to respecting the Constitutional prescriptions for our governmental entities. I don't see why this is so difficult for you to understand.  I have to wonder where you're coming from with this.

156 A new world order of hen pecked sissies wearing nightgowns. Should increase the progressive party dramatic. Hand out voter registration cards in the nursery. Sweet.

157 "The Left is very very happy. They destroyed the family in order to undermine our society."

Now that's a caricature!

Home run.

158 Only when you are able to restate an opponent's argument, to his satisfaction, are you prepared to actually debate the proposition.

159 "The Left is very very happy. They destroyed the family in order to undermine our society."

Now that's a caricature!

Home run.

It's the truth.  It has been one of the lefts long term goals for over a hundred years now to change the basis of "the family".  Learn something about the roots of the progressive movement when it was first starting out, why don't you?

160 "The Left is very very happy. They destroyed the family in order to undermine our society."

Now that's a caricature!

Posted by: snapdragon at May 09, 2010 01:36 PM (5Etcj)

It's the truth.   What percent of new births are bastards, these days?  Try again, crapdragon.  Maybe you don't understand what "caricature" means (as would be typical of a lefty).  Read Monty's explanation of it again.  I'll give you a hint that Dems would understand, Shrillary would say that the word derives from "reset!", in Shrillary laughable-diplo-speak, of course.

161 I keep thinking that one day we will figure out the national distraction. While fighting, the thieves have nearly cleaned us out.

One day soon, the left and the right will discover the real enemy because at that point-the threat will loom so large- that to do nothing will pose economic death. That day comes soon, libtards and trolls. They won't offer you any special quarter for party loyalty. They won't care, they never do.

162 "It's the truth."

Thanks for being this thread's poster child, pop.

163

It does not do you any good to have sincerely caricatured your opponents in your understanding of them. But you can't fall prey to wishful thinking either, in seeking to reach too much understanding. There's such a thing as giving too much credit. "Oh, they couldn't think that". An unwillingness to admit to a profound (and profoundly uncomfortable and distressing) difference in core values and in one's very assessment of reality.

In that manner, a caricature can be hyperbolically positive as well as negative. Take a certain (ostensibly leftist) view of jihadism. In wanting to 'understand' it, they project their own sensibilities onto the radical islamist, insisting he can't be as bad as he is, and must be reasonable, has legitimate greviances, and is able to be placated by addressing them.

Especially when often people do not understand themselves. If you call the political philosophy underpining the left in this country socialism or marxism, they'll cry caricature. But it isn't.

Most pro-choice people are not pro-abortion or pro-infanticide. But some are. You look at groups like NARAL or Planned Parenthood, they're outride eugenicists. And that isn't a caricature.

Then they turn around and want to impose themselves between a woman and her doctor.  Then they want to impose their "defense of marriage" morals attitudes on the whole country.

Perhaps true for some. For many, utter nonsense. I don't turn around and want to impose myself between a woman and her doctor.

You're caricaturing the views of the pro-life argument you nit.

The issue is whether the fetus has rights. I do not seek to deny anyone any rights in the context of abortion. I seek only to protect rights.

As for 'defense of marriage', barring homosexuals from state-approved marriage contracts is no more or less "imposing moral attitudes" than demanding homosexuals have access to state-approved marriage contracts. 

And in that same sense, all law is legislative morality. No law - or policy -  whatsoever, ever fails to legislate morality.

I think you completely miss the point of the article.  We have to look inward at our own motivations as opposed to only concentrating on criticizing the positions of our opponents.

Homosaywhat? 'As opposed to only' is an interesting phrase. It implicitly concedes that we should be doing some cricitism of our opponents. I'm perfectly clear on what my own motivations are.

In light of your caricatures above I think you may wish to read again.

164

eman, well-stated at #149: The view of pregnancy is constructed as a convenience, something made up to divert our eyes from the fundamental fact that taking no action results in a new human being being born. It does not make total sense.

Sound reasoning is the application of valid logic based on true premises. But if someone accepts a false premise, the reasoning can still be valid. Using good logic with a bad starting point makes a stronger impression than just making up a dubious conclusion.

It makes sense only within the boundaries it sets for itself.

That's always the objective, isn't it? To confine the entire debate within convenient boundaries.

This view of pregnancy and abortion is a tactic, a means to an end. It is part of the general strategy of the Left: weaken your foe with lies, confusion, and sweet-tasting poison.

A bigger part if the Left's strategy is to weaken their followers with lies, confusion and poison.

I think what Monty was trying to say is that we on the Right (or in the Middle or wherever we are) should be on guard so as not to fall into a similar trap.

165 Thanks for being this thread's poster child, pop.

Dude,

166 Only when you are able to restate an opponent's argument, to his satisfaction, are you prepared to actually debate the proposition. Yes, but this presupposes that your opponent can state his own argument to his satisfaction. That is not generally the case these days. Liberals do seem to be far more prone than conservatives to conflating disagreement with misunderstanding. That is, if you express disagreement with them, they tend to assume that you just didn't understand what they said.

167
A hundred years the Left decided the best way to defeat capitalism and Western culture was destroy the family. So they created farcical social issues to undermine our Judeo-Christian values that underpin our great society.

DADT and gay marriage are just latest manifestations of their insidious plan. 

168 “If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." -Samuel Adams

169 Snapdragon seems to assume this is the "Reefer Madness" wing of the conservative movement . There's a caricature for 'ya.
Think I'll spin and smoke a fatty .
Thus I refute snapdragon.


Well , Not really a fatty , my sinsemilla is too good to smoke in large quantities . Three tokes is too much .

170 Chi-Town Jerry at May 09, 2010 01:24 PM - So, just how many healthcare bucks are you willing to pay out for the good times of the less fortunate's cradle to grave STD treatments and abortions?

Artruen at May 09, 2010 01:29 PM - The "honesty" of the pre-Industrial Revolution capitalists was that they were "right" -- tyrannical, yet philanthropic to their own interests - now they are, as Pelosi, Kennedy and Kohl, guilt-ridden bleeding hearts seeking to spend the treasury as their own personal pot of gold.

171 this presupposes that your opponent can state his own argument to his satisfaction. That is not generally the case these days.

Word.  An aversion to definition is a signature attribute of the liberal herd .  At least in my experience. 

They like to speak in generalities and get down right angry when you push them for specifics.  They assert, not as a argument meant to sway you, but as a club, to beat you into conformity.

172 A bigger part if the Left's strategy is to weaken their followers with lies, confusion and poison. I think what Monty was trying to say is that we on the Right (or in the Middle or wherever we are) should be on guard so as not to fall into a similar trap. Posted by: FireHorse I don't think that is what Monty was trying to say. But he can certainly speak for himself.

173 Monty,

The editor in me must let this out or I will be forced to attack my monitor with a red pen. The first 7 para's can be and should be made into one.

That said, it seems commenters got caught up in the political gambit of caricature so much that they didn't get to the conclusion. If I read it correctly it seems  similar to that bit of Sun Tzu:

"If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle."

Mokimoki

Political caricature isn't solely the result of a great and uneducated mass. Aside from the point that knowledge does not equal wisdom, there is a large percentage of any given population that is a-political. As Ace wrote earlier this week, this group doesn't enjoy politics and views the whole subject as a chore. The natural inclination is to use shorthand as a means of fulfilling the minimum required in civic duties. More over, shorthand in thinking is one of the basic skills in life. The most successful among us are so because they make the few miscalculated shortcuts, not the fewest shortcuts.

My point being, don't shit on the average person if you don't have to, especially if you hope to convince that person of voting with you.

174 "A hundred years the Left decided the best way to defeat capitalism and Western culture was destroy the family."

That's funny considering the states with the high rates of divorce, alcoholism and out of wedlock births are all Red States.

The Red States are rather low in per capita income, too.

It's almost as if "conservative" beliefs were to blame for the destruction of the family.

Quite a mystery.

175
horseshit

176 I don't think that is what Monty was trying to say. But he can certainly speak for himself. Well, I must confess that the essay is more a 'seeking' than a 'finding' kind of thing. If I had to boil it down (and I probably should have), I would say "Know your own mind first, then know you opponent's mind." I would also add: assume that your opponent is acting with pure motives (i.e., don't simply assume bad or diabolical intent) until it becomes clear that they're not. (Sometimes in never does become clear. In that case...it's a judgement call.) Thomas More, in Bolt's A Man for All Seasons has this to say: "“God made the angels to show Him splendor — as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But man He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of his mind.”

177 I always liked this G. K. Chesterton quote:

It’s not merely true that a creed unites men. Nay a difference of creed unites men—so long as it is a clear difference . . . So a Tory can walk up to the very edge of Socialism if he knows what Socialism is. But if he is told that Socialism is a spirit, a sublime atmosphere, a noble indefinable tendency, why then he keeps out of its way; and quite right too. One can meet an assertion with an argument; but a healthy bigotry is the only way in which one can meet a tendency.


The modern left is completely ensnared in tendency.

178 "I would also add: assume that your opponent is acting with pure motives (i.e., don't simply assume bad or diabolical intent) until it becomes clear that they're not." .....and it's not too late.

179
Maybe next week Monty can tackle Dostoevsky's chapter The Grand Inquisitor. I'm curious to see which side people here fall on.

180 You know, when I  wake up on a lazy Sunday morning and turn to AoSHQ, I'm not really looking to be lectured to by a "moderate." Please, save this stuff for own personal blog,  where I'm unlikely to ever run across it.

181 CRAPDRAGON CN dragon (sewage) BASE STATISTICS CR 1; Size Small; Hit Dice d4 Speed 15 ft., swim 45 ft. Natural Armor +1; Breath Weapon cone of sewage Str 7, Dex 8, Con 15, Int 8, Wis 5, Cha 3 ECOLOGY Environment Amphibious. Home is a sewer, but swims ashore to Ace's comment threads Organization Solitary, or in company with d4 trolls Treasure stacks of crusty pr0n mags, chee-tos, vaseline SPECIAL ABILITIES &NBSPBite (Su) A gumming from the toothless crapdragon doesn't hurt, but it leaves a slimy feeling that imposes -1 penalty on Dexterity for 3 rounds. &NBSPBreath Weapon (Su) A standard action. Spews crap all over the place in a cone, as per the Red Dragon. Leaves target region covered in poo, requiring a full turn to wash off. No damage is caused but the crapdragon's self/b>-regard improves by 3 points for the duration. &NBSPFlame suppression The crapdragon's rubbery hide renders it entirely resistant to logic; and it is resistant to flame attacks as well but only for the duration of the battle. Real damage strikes it later at night when the crapdragon realises what a pathetic life it leads; this may be cured only by chee-tos. This is why the crapdragon delays sleep until 3 AM.

The crapdragon is the undisputed master of his fetid pool of human waste. But since this is unpleasant even for him, he frequently must go forth to forage in comment threads inhabited by his betters. Since being kicked out of YouTube, he has migrated to other sites - where he may be found prowling in Ace Of Spades HQ. The spankings he encounters there validate his existence, but it comes at a high cost in his chee-to and potato chip supply. He looks forward to the Day Of The Banhammer, which he will use as his passport to gain entry into the coveted Lizard Swamp.

182 That's funny considering the states with the high rates of divorce, alcoholism and out of wedlock births are all Red States. Er...I think I know where you got that canard, and you misread it in exactly the same way they did. What that 'study' really found was that poor people tend to have more fractured families than wealthier ones, for the obvious reasons that a) men are far more likely than women nowadays to be long-term unemployed and thus unable to care for their families, and b) that out-of-wedlock birth has become so normalized everywhere that no stigma remains on it. Marriage is increasingly becoming seen as a ritual reserved for the well-to-do. But the babies keep coming. The illigitimate-birth rate among black women is nearing 70%. Among Hispanics it's nearing 50%. Surely you are not arguing that this demographic is representative of conservative politics?

183 91 So what your saying is all liberals suck.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 09, 2010 11:48 AM (7VvJB)

Well, yeah--though, the term "leftists" is far more accurate given that they are only "liberal" with regard to abortion.

On top of that, though, I was lamenting the end of reasonable discourse from my own perspective.  I once did subscribe to Monty's assertion that one mustn't merely dismiss an adversary via caricature but, rather, to formulate arguments through a deep understanding both his and one's own viewpoints.  Alas, those days appear to be over as leftists are uninterested in reasoned debate but, rather, hysteria.  Rules are only relevant should all concerned parties abide by them so I'm no longer playing.

But, if all you get out of that is "all liberals suck," then, well, so be it.

184  No leading spaces? D'oh.

185 &NBSP&NBSP&NBSP&NBSP&NBSPnevermind

186 Extreemism in the pursuit of boorishness .
We like Monty . Piss off .

187 The Red States are rather low in per capita income, too.

Spoken like a true, high brow troll. 40 million food stamp collectors can't be wrong, huh Snappy?

Here's the deal. The vast majority of blue states, are all financially underwater. Snappy, you fuckers are broke, but unlike us, you think you aren't. You practice the same thought processes as dear leader from the great broke dick state of Illinois. And that other bastion of financial strength on the left coast.

Yea, you got it going on.

You are an idiot. The problem is that you don't have the good sense to understand this. They'll send you a message from Garcia soon.

188

That was a really great opinion piece; regrettably, it should have been published on the Daily Kos, or The Huffington Post.

It's like those ridiculous "COEXIST" or "NOT IN MY NAME!" bumper stickers so prevalent in "progressive" America.

They need to be pasted on every tenth vehicle in Riyadh and Karachi where no dissent is tolerated, not in Austin and Seattle where everybody already co-exists.

When I see a demonstrated willingness amongst "progressive" politicians and pundits to compromise and understand where conservatives are coming from, I'll start doing the same, until then, I'll keep buying ammo, practicing at the range, and adding more names & addresses to my list.

189 "horseshit"

Tony, here are the states with the highest divorce rates in America:

1 Nevada      
2 Arkansas     
3 Alabama      
3 Wyoming      
5 Idaho      
6 West Virginia    
6 Kentucky      
8 Tennessee      
8 Florida:      
10 Mississippi      
11 Arizona     
11 Colorado

They look mighty "conservative" to me.

190 "All politics today is but dress rehearsal for the coming civil war"

191
hahaha @ NV being #1
what a joke -- it's the easieat state to get married in and divorced in

funny how you overlook the fact that those people are getting married IN THE FIRST PLACE.

192 ATTENTION: Do not feed the Troll. I repeat, do not feed the troll.

♫♪ This has been another AoSHQ public service announcement.♫♪

"The more you know, the more you fucking wish you didn't!"

193

Not to jump on Major Tony Nelson here, but forget Dostoyevsky. What about Steinbeck? I mean, the third chapter of The Grapes of Wrath is about a turtle. This turtle is crossing the road. Let's not get into why the turtle crossed the road because the author never explained it. So there's this turtle, crossing the road, and it this chapter reads really slow because it's a freaking turtle. Then Tom Joad picks it up, or something. I don't get it. I didn't get any of it.

What say you? For or against? Do you understand it at all?

194
I read GoW in high school and I don't remember any of it. Or maybe it was Of Mice & Men. I dunno. I read one of them.

195 The turtle is crossing the road to fuck the chicken, again.

196 That was a really great opinion piece; regrettably, it should have been published on the Daily Kos, or The Huffington Post. I get the feeling that when you say "that was a really great opinion piece" that you don't really mean it. It's just a vibe I'm getting.

197 Reading Bazooka Joe formed my character.

198 nevermind Posted by: Zimriel
The thing you're looking for is "<blockquote>". Hit the View/Edit Source button and insert it as html code. 

199 I'd like to thank "Snapdragon" for illustrating so perfectly how liberals have completely abandoned thinking for themselves in favor of repeating caricatures and empty slogans.

Snapdragon does us a valuable service -- we get to hear all the lame, hackneyed liberal catch-phrases, and we get to see clever, razor-sharp responses. As he unthinkingly repeats the same meaningless jargon, the responses get smarter and clearer.

Snapdragon is creating Invincible Conservative Memes.

200
speaking of turtles...

This season of Breaking Bad is starting off slowly but is getting really good. And the 'Tortuga' backstory was explained, which was cool.

201 And here are the states with the highest rates for out of wedlock births:

1 Mississippi 45.5%
2 Louisiana 44.9%
3 New Mexico 44.1%
4 South Carolina 38.7%
5 Arizona 38.4%
6 Delaware 37.1%
7 Florida 36.6%
8 Georgia 36.2%
9 Arkansas 35.1%
10 New York 34.9%

So I think you'll understand why when "conservatives" like Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh talk about Lefties "destroying the family" with out of wedlock births and divorces the Lefties just laugh and laugh.

You have met the enemy (of families) and it is you guys.

202 Thrillaminute, actually I was trying to indent the comment. "     " Ah well...

203 6 Delaware 37.1%

Oddly out of place, at least to my eye.  All the other places are high in AA or Hispanic populations.

204
so correlation = causation

nice conclusion jumping, nitwit

As Monty pointed out, ignoring the demographics helps your case.

205 snapdragon: You might want to check the relative demographics of your out-of-wedlock birthrates by state. You'll note that all the states with high out-of-wedlock birthrates also have large black and/or latino communities. It's not a coincidence. I should add that white out-of-wedlock birth rates have been climbing as well, to 30%, and also are almost exactly in-line with economic status. Poorer women are much more like to give birth to a child out of wedlock than a wealthier one, and this is true for most other industrialized countries as well. (Britain's out-of-wedlock birthrates are truly scarifying.)

206 damian 211, also missing were WV, ID, and WY; high in divorce, low in unwed births

207
while you're at it, look up 'confounding variables'

208 (violating self-announced rule)

talking dildo says:
"And here are the states with the highest rates for out of wedlock births:"

You don't want to go their, dil. Losing proposition.

"Forty-five percent of all Hispanic births occur outside of marriage, compared with "24 percent of white births and 15 percent of Asian births. Only the percentage of black out-of-wedlock births—68 percent—exceeds the Hispanic rate."


(/violating self-announced rule)

209 Oddly out of place, at least to my eye. Delaware is a poor and fairly rural state, actually. Get much south of Newark/Wilmington and it's a wasteland except on the wealthier beachfronts. That statistic doesn't surprise me at all.

210 Thrillaminute, actually I was trying to indent the comment. " " Ah well... Posted by: Zimriel Like that, right?

211 Snapdragon thinks he's making a devastating argument -- but manages to only illustrate how little liberals actually represent or care about poor people in America.

So, they're the party of the rich states, eh, Snappy?  Kind of makes you a liar in your earlier comments.  But that doesn't matter -- just cut and paste some other empty slogan and change the subject.

212 I can see Russia from my house

213 Speaking of the divorce rates, what do you suppose has driven the rate up past 51%?  Is it the courts making it easier to get a divorce than to work out the issues within the marriage?  Or is it hollywood fantasies of the "perfect marriage" that has warped peoples ideas of what marriage should be like?  A combination of the two perhaps?

214

What say you? For or against? Do you understand it at all?

Posted by: FireHorse at May 09, 2010 02:19 PM (cQyWA)

I think the turtle is supposed to be an allegory of Steinbeck novels.

215 I'm actually in complete agreement with the people who think the time for compromise and understanding is past.  Liberals don't hesitate to caricature conservatives -- when they're not flat-out lying, of course.  We can be civil and watch them continue to wreck the country and plunge the entire fucking planet into a new Dark Age, or we can put down the white gloves and the Marquess of Queensbury rulebook and fight them with their own weapons.

216 222 thead winnah

217 Considering the rich Blue states subsidize all the poor Red states through their higher taxes I'd say the Lefties put their money where there mouth is, tri.

218 nice out today, back reading the comments. Happy Mothers Day to all you Mothers out there. and....

But, if all you get out of that is "all liberals suck," then, well, so be it.

Posted by: Herr Blücher at May 09, 2010 02:06 PM (PmyE1)

Dude, I understood the post, my comment was snark as the post was talking about caricatures.

219 So you're admitting the Democrats are the party of the rich, Snappy?  If they're so rich, why do they have to raise taxes on everyone else?  How about just writing checks to the poor?

And why do these poor people actually vote AGAINST tax increases and Democrat social spending?  Maybe they don't think wasteful government programs will actually help?

220 I can't wait for the next copy/paste assertion from our provincial interlocutor.

221
okay, Michael Moore

222 Posted by: Zimriel at May 09, 2010 02:05 PM (KUkfs)

ROFLMAO!  That was great!  Especially the "amphibious" part.

As to non-breaking spaces, I think you left off the semi-colon at the end.  I'll try it here:

&nbsp;&nbsp;space test with semi-colons

223 Considering the rich Blue states subsidize all the poor Red states through their higher taxes I'd say the Lefties put their money where there mouth is, tri.

Which "rich" blue states would those be?  CA? MA? NY?  I can't think of any blue states that are not facing a fiscal crises right now.

Actually, I can't think of any states that are not facing a fiscal crises.

224 Yes, he's frantically searching the archives on Kos or HuffPo, looking for new catch-phrases to throw out.

I'm betting he goes with the "war on science" lie next.

225 I'm betting he goes with the "war on science" lie next.

5/4 it's racism.  It's their all purpose goto.

226 I guess not (on the semi-colon).

It seems that this text entry converts the ampersand to \&amp on its own (as this text entry box does tons of things on its own).

If you call up the source and put the "[amp]nbsp;" in there, it seems to be okay.

        source written space test.

227 here are the states with the highest divorce rates in America:

1 Nevada   

Clearly, you understand this one, I hope.  (hint: drunk elvis weddings)

228

Dude, I understood the post, my comment was snark as the post was talking about caricatures.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at May 09, 2010 02:39 PM (7VvJB)

Argh. Sorry, my bad. I'll just blame the Val-U-Rite hangover for the lack of snark detection.

And Bush.

229

Monty:

I did enjoy the post.  If progressives were rational people who made decisions based upon facts, logic and reason, with some basis upon history and science, I would certainly advocate, as you have, discussing matters with them, reaching a consensus, and implementing a compromise that 85% or 90% of our citizens can tolerate. 

Well, theyÂ’re not rational.  TheyÂ’re primarily emotional, and unstudied in history, economics, or hard science.  ItÂ’s therefore much like talking to a willful, petulant, early teen.  They KNOW what they KNOW, donÂ’t confuse them with the facts.

The way I see it, on myriad issues from Anthropomorphic Global Warming (AGW) to defense, to the economy, individual liberty, personal responsibility, the GWOT, or whatever we’re calling it this week, to welfare and the size of government, I believe the vast majority of self labeled “progressives” are willfully or otherwise divorced from reality, and they’re dragging my family and I with them!

I will no more seek compromise or understanding with them than I will with a functionally illiterate Taliban foot soldier in South Waziristan.  They havenÂ’t the knowledge or disposition to allow them to think rationally.  TheyÂ’ll require several years of education and experience wearing someone elseÂ’s shoes before theyÂ’ll have the knowledge and emotional / intellectual maturity to even understand the arguments I would make on these topics.

In short, I believe many “progressives” and conservatives are addressing issues from such different frames of reference that the gap is now neigh unbridgeable. 

ItÂ’s like the slave owning cavalier aristocracy of the South before the Civil War vs. the emancipation advocates.  They both spoke of freedom and liberty, but they were looking at it from such different points of view and with such firmly planted convictions that they never could reconcile their differences.

It will come to bloodshed sooner or latter unless some huge unforeseen outside threat unites us. 

Extraterrestrial invasion anyone?  It may be the only way to fix things between us before weÂ’re all wiped off the face of the earth.

 

 

230 My thought is not to make the whole Left out to be caricatures. But those factions of the Left which actually are caricatures - the mainstream Press, SEIU, ACORN - really are illegitimate participants in the national discourse. Let the wishy-washy middle know that these guys are a mafia. We do that by treating these guys as a mafia.

Some liberals, we can treat as honest. That is not the case for the Leftists currently in power.

Besides, we already knew all that: "don't be such a jerk that others get caught in the crossfire". We got the picture when someguy was banned / blocked / told to go to his rubber room and chill for a few weeks. Monty's post doesn't add anything to the sum of knowledge here.

231 I pick "War on Science" with a specific mention of Jesus riding on a dinosaur.

232 Too many comments to read.  Let me just give a "good show, lad" to Monty for this piece.  Your point is well-taken.  I'm not sure where we're headed, though, but I'm not sure anyone else is either.  I would like to think we can find common cause, but I don't see it happening.

233 Hey, Snapdragon!  We've picked out your next lines for your and everything.  Get off your ass and post some more empty slogans!  Do we have to do ALL the work around here?

234
I think Monty coulda summed it up in one sentence: Don't be like Sean Hannity by speaking in bullet points.

235 Oh, crapwagon, don't omit the word deniers. It's an instant winner and a real crowd pleaser.

236 OT-ishly OT: David Brooks got his pants all wrinkled on Meet the Democrats today. Sorry, no link to Newsbusters. He is outraged. “This is a damn outrage,” a disgusted David Brooks, the faux conservative columnist for the New York Times, declared on Sunday’s Meet the Press reacting to Republican Senator Bob Bennett’s loss Saturday at Utah’s Republican convention"

237 I would also add: assume that your opponent is acting with pure motives (i.e., don't simply assume bad or diabolical intent) until it becomes clear that they're not. (Sometimes in never does become clear. In that case...it's a judgement call.)

Posted by: Monty at May 09, 2010 01:57 PM (O3eFQ)

The Indonesian Imbecile was very clear about his malevolent motivations (and the fact that his main motivation was revenge) when he was asked, during a primary debate, about his desire to raise capital gains taxes.  Even given the hypothesis that raising the capital gains tax would result in reduced receipts to the government, the Indonesian Imbecile said that he would still raise the taxes, for "purposes of fairness".  There can be no reasonable conclusion to draw from this, other than the Indonesian wants to hurt the successful more than he cares about helping the poor.  There were many other instances where one could easily gleen The Precedent's malevolent desire to take the US and the West down.  I'm not sure how anyone could get any other impression from him.  Social and economic justice are more about "dispensing justice" (i.e. exacting revenge) than about helping anyone on the other side.

The exact transcript from that debate follows:

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

You can't get much clearer about intentions than that.  He would hurt the poor in order to hurt the rich.  From there (and that was way back in the Dem Presidential primary) everyone should have been aware of the malevolence of the Indonesian Imbecile towards the US and the West.

As to the feelings of the rest the modern Western left (whom The Precedent despises, as he despises all things Western) their malevolent intentions are documented all over the place and easily seen in the threads that connect all of their policies.

238 “This is a damn outrage,” a disgusted David Brooks, the faux conservative columnist for the New York Times, declared

The peasants are revolting.

239 “This is a damn outrage,” a disgusted David Brooks, the faux conservative columnist for the New York Times, declared. The Caricaturist in me sees Marvin the Martian, hands fisted at his sides and vibrating with anger. "This makes me so angry!" Who gets to be Duck Dogers?

240 "So you're admitting the Democrats are the party of the rich, Snappy? "

No, but I'll admit the Democrats are the party for rich people who don't really mind paying a few extra bucks in taxes to help out less fortunate Americans.

241 I'll admit the Democrats are the party for rich people who don't really mind paying a few extra bucks in taxes to help out less fortunate Americans.

Word.

242
The Kennedys evaded paying their fair share when Rose Kennedy died.

243
Theresa Heinz avoids paying taxes by using various tax sheltered investments.

244 No, but I'll admit the Democrats are the party for rich people who don't really mind paying a few extra bucks in taxes to help out less fortunate Americans.

Posted by: snapdragon at May 09, 2010 03:13 PM (5Etcj)

Who stops rich dems from paying as much in taxes as they want to?  They do know that they can cut checks as large as they want to the federal government, right?  If Warren Buffet thinks he should pay more in taxes, why doesn't he?  Why does he give it to Bill Gates to play around with, instead?

Answer:  Because dems are despicable, lying scumbags.

245 I'll admit the Democrats are the party for rich people who don't really mind paying a few extra bucks in taxes to help out less fortunate Americans. Word. Posted by: tim geithner Um, yeah, me too.

246 I donated my used underwear to the unfortunate.

247 Not a huge fan of this essay, because I think it tries too hard to be "even." Liberals are much more often driven by their emotions and perceptions; it's the rare Conservative that holds the "Yeah! Just Cause!" mentality.

Using the example of abortion, I'm as pro-life as they come, but my perception of most pro-choice people is that they have the "Let's just sweep it under the carpet and hope it never comes back" mentality that Americans get when they want a "free lunch." In this case, obviously, irresponsible sex.

The handful of Pro-Life crazies either have gone after abortion doctors (who do seem to have the power to be monstrous) or just use the cause because it's fun to scream.  I don't think there's ever been a recorded case of a Pro-Life extremist hunting down women who've had abortions. And it's actually a complicated example, but the Tiller murder last year did have a "Just because he was Pro-Life" streak to it.  

And I imagine that's true for most Conservative principals. So while this is all fine in intellectual hypothetical,  I think this essay dangerously misdiagnoses political reality.
  

248

this presupposes that your opponent can state his own argument to his satisfaction. That is not generally the case these days.

---

An aversion to definition is a signature attribute of the liberal herd .  At least in my experience.  They like to speak in generalities and get down right angry when you push them for specifics.

---

The modern left is completely ensnared in tendency.

---

Well, theyÂ’re not rational.  TheyÂ’re primarily emotional

They're non-foundational.

http://tinyurl.com/25vncy6

This is why they will shriek caricature at any attempt to define them whatsoever. They wish to exist without definition.

The above essay will give you a good analysis of what they put forth, but does not address the fact that it is a lie. It does mention that it's basically an impossibility.

You cannot draw rational conclusions with assumed value judgements. You can't operate outside of a framework that defines operation (because even if you operate without a perscriptive method, a descriptive definition of what framework you employ is still possible).

Everyone, at some level, takes certain assumptions for granted. Even if they will not admit what they are (even to themselves).

The problem with (in attempting to avoid caricature) arguing with your opponent on his own terms, and accepting a definition of his views that he will himself support, is that they will not define their views. They do not know themselves. They haven't an idea what they themselves are.

Ace has talked about this often. It is the tendency to point to the liberal view as being the basic (non-partisan, non-liberal) truth. The reasonable moderate. They'll make liberal assertions but claim they are not asserting, simply expounding upon the plain nature of things with no ideological dog in the fight.

In that matter, is it tempting to caricature them, because they beg caricature. Because they beg definition by others, since they will not define themselves.

My own epiphany into the nature of non-foundationalism came from this website, arguing with a troll (I think Androminos?). The discussion was about how the courts have redefined the meaning of 'public' to allow them to regulate the behavior of people running private business on private property by claiming it is 'public'. (The same topic that once made Ann Althouse cry).

The lefty comes in an stakes a position on the example (not the debate, the example - this is a common occurance). They argue the minituia of the example and make a case-by-case consequentialist, utilitarian judgement on what's best. Their decision is purely pragmatic and not based on any ideology.

A thousand examples were tossed out, ones no one could have anticipated when the discussion begun. All the varied uses of this clause the government has invoked over the years to regulate behavior. In every single case, every single one, the lefty comes down on the side of the ideologically statist position that government may do whatever it wants, but all the while denying any ideological component. Denying even that there is any ideological debate to be had. Denying ideological principles had any place or made any sense.  Arguing only the specifics of examples and denying the existance of any overarching theme to be discussed.

With every example, he quickly produced a (often convoluted and complex) reasoning that, on a case-by-case consequential basis, this example should be decided thus, always concurring with a certain ideological viewpoint, but always denying he had any such view, saying only that his assertions and anaylsis about the specific case lent to his conclusion as the pragmatic, effective view. And always missing the point of the example (the discussion of the underlying principle) entirely.

Thus the problem with avoiding (subjective) caricature. They will always cry caricature. They will not, by and large, admit to any definition of what they actually are.

249 I am absconding to the "Freedom is Slavery" top thread. Thanks to everyone for reading my essay -- you've given me quite a lot to think about.

250
254 Bill Clinton

I donated my used underwear to the unfortunate.

Frick: I got a pair of Bill Clinton's used underwear.

Frack: How unfortunate!

(Frick sprays Frack with seltzer)

251
166 Damien

Only when you are able to restate an opponent's argument, to his satisfaction, are you prepared to actually debate the proposition.

That "to his satisfaction" is very important-- in my debates with hard-left types (especially over the past ten years or so), I've had less and less success in finding people who could state my views to my own satisfaction. Usually I get a weird mishmash of cliches about conservative beliefs, and the heck of it is that I can't correct them! If I try, I usually get a sort of dismissive "nonono...", followed by a slow, patient reiteration of what they think I believe. So I've pretty much given up debating politics with people like that because there's just no communication.

252

So I've pretty much given up debating politics with people like that because there's just no communication.

Well heavens me, it does appear you're accusing them of some kind of.... epistemic closure or something.

253
260 Entropy

Well heavens me, it does appear you're accusing them of some kind of.... epistemic closure or something.

Heh. I once heard someone use the term "ontology lock"; maybe it means the same thing, but I took it to mean the kind of thing that happens to paranoids when even contrary evidence "proves" that their delusions are true. I suppose the idea is that I can't really believe what I say I believe, because if I did I wouldn't fit their caricature of conservatives. Therefore I must be either too stupid or too dishonest to have a real conversation with, and they act accordingly...

254
261

Chesterton was more concise; he wrote, "There is a kind of thought that destroys thought."

255

Yes. Same thing.

Since you are not an approved channel of information (that being one that feeds into the close-loop narrative) you are dismissed. They've even figgured out what their opponents arguments will be without any external input from their opponents. Closed off to new information.

Epistemic closure.

Projection is more than just a river in Egypt, you know.

256 Always keep in mind the commercial with Glen Close and her sister reminding us that one in six Americans has some sort of mental imbalance. Often times this can be treated with drugs and counseling, but in some cases, it's simply a spiritual disorientation that can be remedied with the proper information and direction. Not letting your emotions rule over you is the first step.

That's the edgy shit she needs to put into her work. Loved her when she played the rabbit-boiling stalker.

257 The Founders clearly were not men who thought in caricature, or at least knew enough to suppress the temptation. They tried hard to listen to their political opponents, to understand even when they did not agree. They knew that reasonable compromise can only flow out of mutual understanding.

Politics has always been dirty, and back in the day, smartasses like Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin distributed pamphlets, probably with caricatures and cartoons. But the rumor about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings was put out by a bitter political foe who had been rejected for a position as Postmaster General. Even though it was a ridiculous lie, the caricature of Jefferson as a privileged gentlemen with a stable of mocha-skinned concubines, a man who privately got off on power, a control freak -- nothing could be further from the truth, but the caricature stuck.

258 Clearly, you understand this one, I hope.  (hint: drunk elvis weddings)

It will be seven years on August 2!

259 "We have polarized. It's radical reform or worse."

The left wanted this for years, and now they have complete control of our government. The New Party, MoveOn.org and Center For American Progress were all out to push this country very hard to the left, starting with their own Democratic party. Ted Kennedy wrote letters to the Soviets. Bill Ayers wanted reeducation camps. John Holdren wanted population control. These are weird times, and our opponents haven't a shred of moderation. When they are out of power, or that power has at least been checked, then I will take my fingers out of my ears and stop going LA LA LA FASCISTS I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!

260
That's funny considering the states with the high rates of divorce, alcoholism and out of wedlock births are all Red States.

The Red States are rather low in per capita income, too.

It's almost as if "conservative" beliefs were to blame for the destruction of the family.

Quite a mystery.



Not really.

If you don't get married, you can't divorce.

If you part of a group that favors abortions, the number of "out of wedlock" births might be quite low.

Per capita income is relative to cost of living.

The destruction of the family is based in a loss of morality because of moral relativism and victim mentality.....the product of  the "educated but dumb" pop culture class imo.

261

ProgressOverPeace,

You confirm what I've been wondering ... whether the radical left considers hypocracy a feature, not a bug.  Al Gore's website shows him hard at work behind his desk.  The huge HDTV is on in the background, and he has !three! of those ?26? inch apple monitors running.  How can they miss the picture of power consumption?  How can they accidently be the polar opposite of what they preach?  What other explaination is there?

262 The last picture I had drawn of myself was a side shot with the hog out.  And from the sheer massivity of the thing, I can tell you it was no caricature.
Yep, that Harley is one big bike.
What?

263 #256 - comments like those are the reason I still look through these things.

264 led digital watch led digital watches led display watch vintage led watch