Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Which cocoon lets in less light, the left or the right?
The one that intentionally shut all the windows on the real costs of healthcare under ObamaCare until one month after the vote was taken.
1. The problem of epistemic closure goes beyond failing to read the other side. I come hear to read the other side, but it's a real mental fight to read the other side with an open mind instead of being primed to reject everything I read.
2. From the link: "if a cocooned lib does not know that Obama has been lying...."
Maguire mistakes the "liberal" MSM for actual liberalism. Readers of lefty blogs know that Obama's a moderate-left politician, a little left of Harold Ford and to the right of his two main primary opponents in '08, Clinton and ScumbucketHair. The actual liberals don't expect that much more truth than you'd get from a typical politician.
The world is more than a rightwing bubble and a "liberal" bubble defined as the MSM that doesn't understand the left side of the political spectrum.
3. TigerHawk's favorite left blogger, Ezra Klein, is also fairly moderate-left. If TH wants to stretch his views, he should try Crooked Timber, Brad DeLong, Feministing, and Climate Progress.
Jonathan Chait of "I hate President George W. Bush” fame, got the ball rolling on the epistemic closure debate: "the phenomenon of total epistemic closure that Sanchez describes is almost entirely limited to the right." As if such a partisan has the credibility to make an objective judgment on that issue! Chait’s opining on the relative amount of epistemic closure in the left versus the right has as much credibility as one of Hugo Chavez’s higher-ups stating that there is no corruption in Venezuela. Propaganda is masquerading as objective judgement.
Chait’s statement on epistemic closure is just another variation on the following time-worn narrative: : “libs are brighter, better educated, better traveled, more knowledgeable, more tolerant, less bigoted …blah...blah...blah… than the wingnuts. Yes, we libs are God’s gift to the universe." This narrative has been going on since at least the days of Adlai II.
Quico/Francisco Toro, one of the co-proprietors of the Venezualan oppo (anti-Chavista) blog, Caracas Chronicles, took this Julian Sanchez quote from Chait’s article.
One of the more striking features of the contemporary conservative movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure.
Quico/Francisco Toro then transformed the Sanchez quote into a statement about Venezuela in Caracas Chronicles:
One of the more striking features of the contemporary chavista movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure.
This is an accurate statement about Chavistas and their news sources. What is interesting is that in at least two ways Quico/Francisco Toro made the point that he agreed with Chait about the relative amount of epistemic closure between left and right in the US. First he put in a “find and replace” MS tool picture: “find and replace conservative with chavista” into his article. Second, he posted a comment at Chait’s epistemic closure article :
04/02/2010 - 10:28am EDT | Francisco Toro
The overlap between your right and our left amazes me again and again:
Since the right wing in the US saw through Chavez a lot faster than the left did, and what support there remains for Chavez in the US is on the left, I wonder why Quico/Francisco Toro wants to sneer, along with Jonathan Chait, at the right wing in the US.
(Fortunately, Juan Cristobal, the other co-proprieter of Caracas Chronicles, disagreed with Quico/Francisco Toro on epistemic closure.)
Brian, I would love to give people credit for making that attempt to hear the other side, but I don't see that the facts are on your side. As I work in human services, I am surrounded entirely by liberals at work. They make noises that they are cynical about politicians, including Obama, and don't believe everything he says.
But they do believe it, essentially. They think his comments, or Reid's, or the newspapers, networks, leftie blogs, etc are a little exaggerated and sometimes over-the-top, but that is all. Because they have chosen a style of belief which is an imitation of skepticism, they think they are actually skeptical. They are not. They dress in unchanging belief but put on a skeptical scarf. This is a more subtle self-deception, as they are even more convinced they are open-minded, simply because they nod politely at the virtue in theory. They tell themselves they consider both sides, yet always end up believing a somewhat milder version of the DNC talking points. Because they automatically deduct 10%, they believe they have not been taken in. Would you think a creationist who chuckled and said "Well, maybe it was eight or nine days for creation" was some model of objectivity?
I don't say this because they don't change their minds when presented with facts - changing one's mind can take a long time - but because they are completely undented by facts the next day. They believe Tea Partiers are deeply concerned with Obama's birth cert, and that the group is riddled with people who have contact with violent organizations; they believe Bush stole the 2000 election; they believe a hundred misquotes of Palin, or Limbaugh, or Bush.
It is one thing to still believe that climate change is real and a danger, but it is insanity to believe that recent events have not undermined the science in the slightest. There is a resumption of the narrative regardless of any data. We see this on the right as well, of course, but we see it at the fringes.
I will say again that liberalism is a social and emotional POV, not an intellectual one. It is perpetuated by condescension, ridicule, and social pressure, not by data.
"It is one thing to still believe that climate change is real and a danger, but it is insanity to believe that recent events have not undermined the science in the slightest. There is a resumption of the narrative regardless of any data. We see this on the right as well, of course, but we see it at the fringes."
What I'd call resistance to data is triumphing the record snow in parts of the US this last winter when the globe as a whole has been either exceptionally warm or at record warm levels, depending on which data set you use.
Climate emails raised no questions about the science according to two of three official inquiries, with the last inquiry yet to report in.
Climate skeptics set up a skewed betting market at Intrade that they tried to use to ridicule Gore, and now they're losing their skewed bet at a 3:1 ratio.
I know this will just bounce off of people who don't want to hear it. That's human nature.
Brian, I am not sure your evidence is a relevant as you would like. At least, the presentation seems hit-or-miss and scattered.
You may be reacting against people being unnecessarily insulting and oversimplified here, which I understand. But gaming the peer review system and covering up possible flaws in the data is in itself an effect on "the science," regardless of what conclusions people later come to. As an analogy, discovering fraudulent votes means that there is a problem with the election system that is itself a political credibility problem, even if later examination shows that the person with the most votes won.
Boludo, you quoted TAS way back when:
"In 1970, he became the first Southern senator to hire a black staffer and he was the first to recommend a black man to be a federal judge."
Second half is flat out wrong, and first half is misleading (and wrong date, it was 1971).
Boludo, you quoted TAS way back when: "In 1970, he became the first Southern senator to hire a black staffer and he was the first to recommend a black man to be a federal judge."
Second half is flat out wrong, and first half is misleading (and wrong date, it was 1971).
Let’s examine your claim. First, let’s deal with "Second half is flat out wrong."
When you go back to what I quoted, instead of selectively quoting it, which is rather MISLEADING on your part, it is clear that American Spectator refers to Senators(s). Here is what I quoted in full:
“In 1970, he became the first Southern senator to hire a black staffer and he was the first to recommend a black man to be a federal judge. He then sent his daughter to a heavily integrated public school. During the 1970s, Thurmond continued to distance himself from his fellow Southern Senators, nearly every single one of whom was a Democrat, when Thurmond supported black judicial nominees for the federal bench.”
When read in complete context, instead of using your selective and misleading quote, the “Second half” clearly refers to Senators from the South. FLAT OUT RIGHT.
Boludo, you also hate to include the context that it was Jimmy Carter who deserves primary credit for nominating Matthew Perry to be a judge in South Carolina. All Thurmond did was to agree to it.
As for "Thurmond continued to distance himself from his fellow Southern Senators, nearly every single one of whom was a Democrat, when Thurmond supported black judicial nominees for the federal bench" no evidence has been provided in support. In contradiction, Perry was confirmed unanimously by the Senate, so where's the distancing? Judge Thompson was confirmed by the Senate the next year in Alabama, I assume with support of Alabama senators. So that second TAS sentence is also in doubt.
I read "first to recommend" as first senator. If you read it as first southern senator to recommend (which I agree now is a plausible read) then Thurmond appears to get "credit" for being the first to rubber stamp the groundbreaking actions by President Carter.
And here's another sentence from the same TAS article, immediately preceding the ones Boludu quoted:
"Although Thurmond was born and raised in the segregated south, he eventually renounced his past."
Not true. TAS isn't to be trusted as an info source.
Boludo, you also hate to include the context that it was Jimmy Carter who deserves primary credit for nominating Matthew Perry to be a judge in South Carolina. All Thurmond did was to agree to it…Thurmond appears to get "credit" for being the first to rubber stamp the groundbreaking actions by President Carter..
I am glad that Carter made that nomination. What I "hate" [your words] is that you didn’t remember or bother to read my previous posting. Which is not the first time. And I quote:
“Matthew Perry was "the first black lawyer from the deep south ever appointed to the federal bench" when Gerald Ford appointed him to the United States Court of Military Appeals in Washington D.C. Strom nominated him.[NYT wording: as if someone who is NOT a lawyer could become a federal judge!]
Strom: the Complicated Personal and Political Life of Strom Thurmond, by Jack Bass and Marilyn Thompson, has Matthew Perry’s reaction to the nomination: “I was astounded… Some people on the national scene had doubts about whether I should do this — the court was not that well known. But many felt it could be a breakthrough. It had never been done before.” [page242-43] I recommend you scroll down and read more pages.”
While YOU may not consider Strom to be a ground breaker, it is interesting that Griffin Bell, Carter’s Attorney General, found it useful to use what Strom did to persuade recalcitrant Southern Senators from the Democratic Party. From: Strom: the complicated personal and political life of Strom Thurmond, page 243. I linked to this book in my comment. You can verify the quote by linking to my comment:
Four years later, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter responded to a campaign pledge and began making the first lifetime appointments of black federal district and court of appeals judges in the South. He sought to name at least one in every state.Attorney General Griffin Bell found it helpful in persuading Southern senators that such appointments would be politically safe by pointing out Thurmond’s role four years earlier. [And what would be that role, I ask.]
As the Democratic Senator in a Democratic administration, Fritz Hollings happily agreed to elevating Perry to the District Court in South Carolina.
By the admission of the Carter Administration, Strom’s nominating Matthew Perry to the United States Court of Military Appeals in 1975 gave them political cover for Carter’s making “the first lifetime appointments of black federal district and court of appeals judges in the South” in 1979. Hollings, not Strom, nominated Perry for the District Court. In that sense your referring to the 1979 appointment is irrelevant, as the TAS quote referred to nominations. It pissed off Strom not to be at least a co-nominee, given what he had done four years before. But such is politics. Check it out.
Boludo, you quoted TAS way back when:"In 1970, he became the first Southern senator to hire a black staffer and he was the first to recommend a black man to be a federal judge.”
…..and first half is misleading (and wrong date, it was 1971).
Now we deal with ”first half is misleading (and wrong date, it was 1971).”
While Moss didn’t begin working for Thurmond until March 1971, the job offer came in 1970:
Thurmond called Moss in late December and asked him to come work for him…He called Thurmond the next day and accepted…On Moss’s first day on the job in March…
It all depends on your definition of “hiring.” The job offer came in 1970. Unless the job offer was on December 31- not likely, given the holiday nature of December 31 in our culture- the acceptance also came in 1970. Some may define hiring as the day of job acceptance. Some may define hiring as the day one begins a job. For my part, I have always defined “hiring” as the day I accepted a job offer, not the day I began working the job. IOW, "wrong" is open to debate.
Lloyd Bentsen did not carry around the Confederate/Jim Crow baggage that Strom did. He was a fluent Spanish speaker from the Rio Grande Valley- not too many blacks there- whose paternal grandparents were immigrants from Denmark. Bentsen’s father, born and raised in South Dakota, came to Texas as an adult. Strom’s father was the personal lawyer and campaign manager for US Senator Pitchfork Ben Tillman. Strom’s father worked for a racist SOB. Bentsen’s father paid his Hispanic laborers at twice the prevailing rate. While it was in scrip redeemable at his store, it was still a better deal for Hispanic laborers than other contractors offered. The point is to show that Strom and Bentsen came from very different backgrounds regarding the issue of fair treatment of minorities. Given their respective backgrounds, it was much more of a repudiation of one’s background for Thurmond to hire a black staffer than it was for Bentsen. Bentsen assumed office in January 1971. There was at most several months’ difference in hiring dates for black staffers for Bentsen and Strom, depending on how you define “hire.” Given all this, I see misleading as a stretch.Granted, it could have been written with more precision.
And here's another sentence from the same TAS article, immediately preceding the ones Boludu quoted: "Although Thurmond was born and raised in the segregated south, he eventually renounced his past."Not true. TAS isn't to be trusted as an info source.
Would Strom have hired a black staffer or nominated a black for a federal judgeshp back in 1948? In 1965? Hell, no. You do not consider those deeds to be a reunuciation of his past, even though there is no way he would have done them before 1965. So be it. You previously spoke positively of George Wallace’s renouncing his past, contrasting that to what you considered Strom’s not renouncing his past. After he got shot in 1972, George Wallace definitely renounced his past, in words and in deeds, which is to his credit. Let us consider the situation in 1971, before George Wallace was shot.
The August 1971 issue of Ebony Magazine on “White Voices of the South” featured short pieces written by George Wallace and Strom Thurmond, among others. While both politicians had plenty of boilerplate and denial in their pieces regarding white-black relations in their respective pieces, only Strom acknowledged that he and blacks had a problem- and he did so in his first paragraph.
Recently a friend and supporter of mine in South Carolina related the following story to me. A black person, when asked to support me for reelection to the United States Senate replied, “Senator Thurmond has never stabbed us in the back; he might stab us in the front, but never in the back." My reaction to the story was one of mixed emotions. I was naturally pleased that someone thought me innocent of the charge of being two-faced, a charge often made against those holding political office. Yet it was quite disturbing to realize that perhaps this man spoke for other black citizens in South Carolina, and that many of my constituents might view me as strongly opposed to their interests.
While Stom went on to write more boilerplate and denial regarding white-black relations in the South, Strom did at least acknowledge there is a problem, which Wallace didn’t. Strom went on to mention his hiring of Thomas Moss:
From my experience in working with Tom Moss, it is apparent that blacks in South Carolina are interested in performance, not promises; in practical accomplishment, not political theory.”
Deeds versus words. Sound familiar?
And here's another sentence from the same TAS article, immediately preceding the ones Boludu quoted: "Although Thurmond was born and raised in the segregated south, he eventually renounced his past.” Not true. TAS isn't to be trusted as an info source.
What is interesting about the article in Ebony magazine I linked to in the previous post is that the October 1971 issue of Ebony Magazine ( page 13) had a letter to the editor. This gives some interesting feedback on Brian's claim that while George Wallace had renounced his past, Strom had not.
“When I read the statement by George Wallace I was forced to realize how difficult it is still going to be to really gain Black respect and prominence all over America. It would seem as though this naive man really believes that "there has always been genuine good feeling between blacks and whites down here.”
Can this be an elected official? What a mockery? [sic] This man is a blind, deaf idiot who could only be elected by a majority of the same. In my opinion the best thing that could happen to Mr. Wallace is to wake up one morning black. This would be an injustice to a great race but an eye-opening experience for this unaware bigot.”
It is of note that while there is one letter to the editor that considered George Wallace’s statement to Ebony to be nonsense, there is no such letter regarding Strom Thurmond. When it comes to highlighting the hypocrisies of Southern white politicians, most would consider Ebony Magazine an “equal opportunity employer.” IMHO, had there been a corresponding letter about Strom Thurmond, Ebony would have published it.
This is at least circumstantial evidence that in 1971, blacks considered Strom Thurmond’s efforts to reconcile with his black constituents to be genuine, but still saw George Wallace as an “unaware bigot.” While George Wallace changed his tune after he got shot on the campaign trail in 1972, the above evidence would support the assertion that in 1971 Strom Thurmond’s turnaround on race was earlier than that of George Wallace, and at the time, blacks considered Strom’s talk about racial reconciliation more genuine than such statements coming from George Wallace.
From Jack Newfield’s American Monsters: Forty Four Rats, Blackhats, and Plutocrats:
When black State Senator Kay Patterson of Columbia agreed to eulogize Thurmond, it was front-page news all across the state. Patterson said, "Strom's experience is on the road to Damascus. I have supported him since he left his segregationist ways and became a real American citizen and tried to be the senator for all the people of the state.”
I find it hard to believe that a black politician from the Democratic Party in South Carolina would have made such a statement if he didn’t believe that Strom had “renounced his past.”
TAS or Brian: which isn’t to be trusted as in info source?
Boludo, please point to where I said, "in 1971, Wallace had renounced his past racism but Thurmond had not."
I think it's fairly obvious since we're talking about two dead men that the question is whether they ever did it. I don't know enough about their evolving racists viewpoints in the 1970s to say when Wallace overtook Thurmond, but he clearly did.
As for the rest, I don't find it convincing. Up to other readers to decide for themselves.
Probably should've added that the Armed Forces Court of Appeal is an administrative judge and part of the executive branch, not an Article III judge that you generally think of when you think about federal judges.
Didn't know that fact about Thurmond, though. A small credit in his favor against decades of demerits that include his refusal to match his colleagues renunciation of their past racism.
I didn't know that fact about Thurmond, though. A small credit in his favor against decades of demerits that include his refusal to match his colleagues renunciation of their past racism.
I had already documented it in a previous posting. There is thus no excuse for your not previously knowing it. Passive aggressive ignorance? Saber.
Boludo, please point to where I said, "in 1971, Wallace had renounced his past racism but Thurmond had not."
You never said that, nor did I ever claim that you did, as regards 1971. I do not appreciate your attempt at putting words into my mouth. Here is what I stated in this thread:
“You previously spoke positively of George Wallace’s renouncing his past, contrasting that to what you considered Strom’s not renouncing his past.” I consider that an accurate paraphrase of what you previously said: “I understand that Thurmond, unlike Wallace, never expressly renounced his segregationist views.”
My point is that whatever turnaround either of the two had made, by 1971 Strom had made much more of a turnaround than George Wallace. Well documented. Words, deeds. Therefore, your using George Wallace to beat up on Strom on the issue of racial reconciliation –call it what you will- is rather foolish, since Strom started doing the right thing before George did.
Both George and Strom were snakes who would have sold their grandmothers to the devil if it would have gotten them votes. Both George as a judge, and Strom as a governor, showed evidence of fairer treatment of Blacks than was politically necessary, doing the right thing as opposed to doing what would get them votes. Because at the time, Blacks didn’t have the vote in the South. Both George and Strom later decided that race-baiting would get them more votes. Both subsequently changed their their behavior- and perhaps their thoughts also. No more race-baiting - to the credit of both, whatever their inner motivation. Senator Patterson thought that Strom had changed, and he has a little more credibility on the issue than you or I have, as he is a Black from South Carolina, and a Democrat. Give the devils their due- and I don’t mean Senator Patterson.
You are also assuming that George Wallace’s public mea culpas may have been sincere. They may have been, they may have not been. Deeds are worth much more than mea culpas, because one does not know how sincere mea culpas are. The point is both George and Strom modified their behavior for the better, mea culpas aside. Both deserve credit for that. Regarding who ultimately deserves more credit, is a fool’s game, or perhaps better said not worth making claims on without detailed study of the issue. I doubt you are willing to make the effort. I am not willing to make the effort, and I have done more research than you at this point.
I think it's fairly obvious since we're talking about two dead men that the question is whether they ever did it.
While this is an agnostic statement, you had enough of an opinion on the matter to trash Strom and TAS, which implies that at the time you thought you knew.
I don't know enough about their evolving racists viewpoints in the 1970s to say when Wallace overtook Thurmond, but he clearly did.
You are then admittedly making a claim- “he clearly did”- about which you admit you “don’t know enough.” You admit don’t know enough about something, but you claim you know enough to state “he clearly did.” Is that knowledge through faith? You provided no evidence that what George Wallace did was better than Strom, mea culpas aside. You just claimed it. Myself, I don’t know.
As for the rest, I don't find it convincing.
Of course you don’t find it convincing. Your pattern is to ignore, dismiss, or deny. Why do I have to bring things up multiple times- well documented- before you acknowledge them? When it happens more than once ( integrated school, Strom recommend Perry in 1975), there is a pattern. BTW, You brought up George Wallace to begin with, not I.
You will continue to view TAS as an unreliable wingnut source, and ignore, dismiss, or deny evidence from other sources which contradicts that point of view. Just as you have in the very extended discussion re Strom.
"Both George and Strom were snakes who would have sold their grandmothers to the devil if it would have gotten them votes."
Perhaps, but in their case it is hypothetical. BO, on the other hand, publicly threw his grandmother - the woman who raised him because his parents couldn't be bothered - under the bus, disparagingly referring to her as a "typical white person".