It has been more than a month since OSC has posted a new essay/editorial on The Ornery American. Anyone know what's going on? Did the Rhino kick him out or something?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
He's had gaps as long as this before. Consider it a good sign: it might mean he's too busy working on paid writing - such as the upcoming Enderverse novels - to contribute free (and poorly received on his websites) political columns to the Rhino.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
I like his articles.
They encourage critical thinking.
On all sides of the issue, usually.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
They do?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
Uh-oh...
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I'm holding my tongue. I'm going to be nice.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Hey. Anything that gets people critically thinking and refining their civil discourse skills, as they debate the issue amongst themselves, is good. If we all agreed with everything we heard, read, or saw, there wouldn't be a lot of learning and growing going on, would there . . .
I can't help it if some folks get hostile and rude. I can only hope that the rest of us will light the way.
Savvy?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: They do?
Apparently, the lesson is lost on some.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: I like his articles.
They encourage critical thinking.
On all sides of the issue, usually.
I think I'd like them better if HE applied some critical thinking to the issues he writes about.
He's far too into demonizing his opponents for my taste.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: They do?
Apparently, the lesson is lost on some.
Not really. it's just, at the risk of being rude, when I read his most of his political articles I don't really feel like I've learned anything new. I feel like it is targetted towards people who already agree with him, and if they disagree then there is name calling that ensues or snideness. Not only does that make me less sympathetic to his side and point of view, but it makes me more likely to merge with the opposite side. His article on JKR comes to mind. It made me MORE on her side, not less. I don't think there's any room for name calling in true discourse or thinking that the other side, for example, doesn't like America because they don't agree with what passes as American values or they don't agree with the war in Iraq. I like to question things and even if it's by someone I respect, I'm not just going to accept their word as the gospel truth and open my mouth like a robin and accept more worms. I'm going to think, "Perhaps that is true on a certain level, but the issue is a lot more complicated than that."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: Anything that gets people critically thinking and refining their civil discourse skills, as they debate the issue amongst themselves, is good.
I respectfully disagree. I'm going to agree with Lyr on this one, I'm afraid.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: They do?
Apparently, the lesson is lost on some.
Not really. it's just, at the risk of being rude, when I read his most of his political articles I don't really feel like I've learned anything new. I feel like it is targetted towards people who already agree with him, and if they disagree then there is name calling that ensues or snideness. Not only does that make me less sympathetic to his side and point of view, but it makes me more likely to merge with the opposite side. His article on JKR comes to mind. It made me MORE on her side, not less. I don't think there's any room for name calling in true discourse or thinking that the other side, for example, doesn't like America because they don't agree with what passes as American values or they don't agree with the war in Iraq. I like to question things and even if it's by someone I respect, I'm not just going to accept their word as the gospel truth and open my mouth like a robin and accept more worms. I'm going to think, "Perhaps that is true on a certain level, but the issue is a lot more complicated than that."
So it would seem his articles do encourage you to think critically. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:if they disagree then there is name calling that ensues or snideness.
see: 'leftaliban'
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:if they disagree then there is name calling that ensues or snideness.
see: 'leftaliban'
See? It totally trivializes things because there's a huge difference between people who lean to the left and people who will shoot a person for not growing a beard or not covering themselves if they are female.
It annoys me, but I ought to just ignore it and do something else.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Most recent post brings this to mind as well... Why is "activist judges" invariably used by people who have put blinders on to the existence of conservative activist judiciary?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Invariably? If you really mean that, I think you might have some blinders on yourself.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Accept that "invariably" must be something of an exaggeration, in as much as even if it were absolute truth at the moment of post, a single person's subsequent post could make it less than so.
But consider that in the first twenty results from Google to the query "activist judges", all but two are either about perceived liberal judiciary activism or commentary on the perception of liberal "activist judges", and on the query "conservative activist judges" all fall under one of those two headings.
When people are called to a course of political action (or worse) because of judicial activism, it's not conservative activism that is being observed the vast majority of the time.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Now I REALLY hope Obama wins. I was starting to get a little apathetic about his campaign because of some recent moves he's made to placate the centrists, but this:
quote:Instead, I must vote for you. And you must, for the sake of this country's future as a free land, win.
maybe reexcited me a little bit.
Who knew that an Obama win meant the end of this country's existance as a free land? Not only are Democrats evil, but they'll bring about a dictatorial apocalypse! I'm not usually one for anarchy, but I often feel an irresistable urge to poke the bear, and that makes me want to vote for Obama just to see what happens, regardless of all my policy positions and political orientations.
Dictator judges and judicial activism, what a joke. This has to be one of the best propaganda pieces the right has worked up, and the one with the absolute weakest floor beneath it. Yeah I think judges overreach sometimes, and generally get overturned by a higher court when they do, but the reason courts are there is so that all the beady eyed little bigots who pass unconstitutional laws will get slapped down when they attempt to do so. You want your anti-______ law made real? Change the constitution.
I inch closer every time I hear that crap to wanting the left to start railing away on conservative activist judges. I'd rather neither side picked at that particular scab, but if one side absolutely refuses to stop, we might as well all do it until the wound can't be ignored.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Well, at least the snide name-calling goes both ways. That's something, I guess.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Eh, "beady eyed" may have been a touch too much. One of those heat of the moment things I suppose. But if that's your biggest complaint, I think I'm doing alright.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
What also bothers me is... Well...
Take a look at the Urban Legends Web Page. Look at what's being circulated about Obama, and what's being circulated about McCain (particularly, note the level of veracity with regard to what's being said about Obama.)
You can always say "there's some snide, senseless attacks going on here", and yes, that will generally be true of both sides. But that doesn't capture the full story by a long shot.
The amount of sheer fear that many on the right are attempting to bring to bear makes me worry for the democracy. If the worst that were being said was "Obama is pulling out of Iraq just when we're showing signs of success in an important region" vs. "McCain will keep us embroiled for years in a war we can't afford", it would be one thing, but so much of what I hear aims directly for the reptilian mind: do this, or you'll DIE! DIE! DIE!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I tried to register at Ornery. That was more than a week ago. It seems I am not sufficiently ornery or that nobody is "manning the phones."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Don't worry, you aren't missing a lot.
Though I'll admit that discussions over there can be somewhat more fun because there are more conservatives that actively post and don't get dogpiled quite so much. But at the same time, the level of discussion isn't nearly as high there as it is here. People here are generally more courteous, which can make all the difference.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:The amount of sheer fear that many on the right are attempting to bring to bear makes me worry for the democracy.
Reminds me of all those actors who were so afraid of the future they were going to move to Canada and resign their citizenship if George W. Bush won.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's a shame that they were right. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No kidding. I miss their tax revenue...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You want your anti-______ law made real? Change the constitution.
One of the principal complaints people have about some court decisions is that they ignore this advice so readily by making sweeping constitutional changes without bothering to go through the long process of actually amending it.
One of the most basic examples: the constitution specifically allows the death penalty. It's right there in the text. Yet we've had justices who claim that the death penalty itself - for any crime, and no matter the procedural protections - is unconstitutional. The latest death penalty case made determinations that are absolutely supposed to be the prerogative of the legislature, such as whether one crime is worse than another, or whether the risk that child rapists will be be more likely to kill their victims if they face the death penalty is one worth taking. Those are not determinations that are supposed to be made by judges.
Other examples will be far more controversial, but the larger point isn't: 5 unelected, appointed-for-life judges have the power to effect change that can only be undone in two ways: by the long and cumbersome amendment process, or by making sure that the presidency and the senate are controlled by people who will appoint judges opposing the old court majority at the time a new vacancy opens.
quote:Why is "activist judges" invariably used by people who have put blinders on to the existence of conservative activist judiciary?
It's not.
quote:When people are called to a course of political action (or worse) because of judicial activism, it's not conservative activism that is being observed the vast majority of the time.
For one, conservative judicial activism tends to be correctable through legislative action. In one recent example, widely condemned as conservative judicial activism, SCOTUS held that minimum price agreements between manufacturer and reseller are not per se antitrust violations. Congress could pass a law tomorrow to change this opinion. They could even make such a change retroactive regarding civil penalties. (Edit: one counterexample is the recent D.C. handgun ban decision.)
Similar examples include cases where the Court held that, under the commerce clause, federal environmental regulations preempt more restrictive state environmental policies. Congress could change this by passing a simple law.
The same holds true in civil rights areas, to an extent. For example, the Court held in the 70s that there is no reporter privilege against disclosing confidential sources under the First Amendment. Congress can, and is considering doing so now, create such a privilege.
Look at the Kelo case, which upheld the right of the state to use eminent domain to transfer land to private entities. That has been legislatively restricted by numerous states since then. (One particularly idiotic criticism of an attempt to do so in Congress was that it would be "violating" a Supreme Court decision - as if the Court had held that Congress HAD to take private property in this manner, rather than merely holding that it had the power to do so.)
The effects of Roe v. Wade could not be reversed in that manner. Neither could the effects of Miranda (Congress tried and was struck down), the exclusionary rule, Court-created restrictions on the death penalty, or a host of other issues which conservatives generally bring up when they speak of judicial activism.
This distinction is important enough that I can understand why some consider it a difference of kind, not just degree. It also should make it clear why it's generally raised more often by conservatives - there are easier ways for liberals to undo the future effects of most court decisions they consider "bad."
[ July 26, 2008, 05:59 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
This thread is gay...according to the advertisement on the bottom! (chemistry.com with two gay guys hugging... Funny...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Currently (for me) the ad is an anti-Obama piece sponsored by the McCain campaign.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Ditto.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Me three.
Posted by Redskullvw (Member # 1549) on :
I think his articles on Ornery are, for lack of a better term, adequate. In so far as they often do get people across an entire political spectrum interested, and often angry enough, to pick them apart.
I f his goal is to engender discussion, then he has succeeded.
My main complaints against them as a body of work is that often he makes small errors in fact or omissions of factual context. This often leaves people who live outside of the South East with an impression that OSC is little more than a right wing conservative. For those living in the South, his point of view and presentation of that view is often in keeping with the differences between state level Democrat Party and National Democrat Party political agendas. People who live outside this region often are entirely unaware of this difference and spend hours of effort complaining about that fact in an attempt to prove OSC is indeed a Republican.
That to me seems less than valid critical effort.
I have often entirely disagreed with him as well as also changing my mind after reading one of his articles. At a very minimal level, he requires people to think. It has often been the case that when people post rebuttals on the World Watch forum, it is apparent that what they are rebutting isn't the actual article. What they are taking issue with is either the actual topic or OSC as a person. It has been interesting to have seen over the years people post what they think about a hot button issue and what they assume OSC wrote.
It is often the seeming case that these criticisms indicate that they probably did not read the article and have a personal axe to grind against OSC.
As to the lapse in frequency of the new articles, chalk it up to really nice weather in Dixie. If you knew that what you were typing away on was not likely to be accepted with shouts of joy, would you not becoming more willing to look out your office window and decide it is simply too nice outside to be stuck at a keyboard?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by lobo: This thread is gay...according to the advertisement on the bottom! (chemistry.com with two gay guys hugging... Funny...
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)