Mother, May I Sleep With Knee-Jerk Ideological Orthodoxy?

You may also like...

11 Responses

  1. Mad Rocket Scientist says:

    Quite often, as I read the Intertubes, I come across an essay or post that I knee jerk react to, and I start to write a hurried rebuttal. Usually, in the process of writing said rebuttal, as I turn my arguments in my head while deciding on the best way to present my crushing rejoinder, I begin to trip over the logical holes in my argument. Usually, within a few minutes, I've decided that I am full of shit, have no idea what I am blathering on about, delete the post, and go play with my dogs (who still love me, even though I was almost wrong on the internet).

    I wish more professional writers did that.

  2. Goober says:

    If we discovered that PeopleEnergyCom had used money and influence to convince elected officials to detain citizens so PeopleEnergyCom could use them as human batteries to provide cheap power, progressives like Rosenberg would be saying “corporations are so awful!,”

    Yes, they would, as they do today when they point out how a few large businesses have us all by the gonads, all the while failing to realize that without government help, these businesses could never have gotten so powerful in the first place.

    and Rosenberg’s conservative equivalents would be saying “government is so awful!”

    Yes, they would, all the while defending these quasi-governmental organizations hiding under a thin veneer of corporation and for-profit enterprise, as if that makes their use of the violence and coercive abilities of government okay.

    [Libertarians would be saying "PeopleEnergyCom should only be able to do that if they negotiate arms-length revocable contracts at market rate with their human batteries!"]

    Yes, they probably would, and to me this is the only just way that something like this could ever happen – making an uncoerced, free-will contract with the INDIVIDUAL to make this happen. So funny to me how people can see injustice being done to a class of people rather than to individuals, themselves. A perfect example of this is the Kelo decision. Kelo was not a pro- or anti-emminent domain case. It was a case that determined whether a private individual should be able to use the government's power of emminent domain to take another private indivudual's property. It puts the government in the chair of picking winners and losers, and creates things like solyndra. They shouldn't be doing this.

  3. Ariel says:

    I have to agree with Goober about the Libertarians, it's a hell of a lot better to make a deal, or not, with the Devil than to just be grabbed and tortured (I watch way to much "Supernatural")

    I have a feeling that Goober's arguments about conservatives and progressives has something about them wearing the Emperor's new clothes, but I never understood that story much.

  4. Burt Likko says:

    Are you doing the IPO for PeopleEnergyCom? I would like to invest.

  5. John Regan says:

    Nuance and seeing different angles of the same problem is a fine thing. But please, please don't tell me your conclusion is that there's no truth at the bottom of any dispute and everyone will see what they are predisposed to see based upon their ideological predilections.

    You don't mean that exactly, do you?

  6. marco73 says:

    So dear, dear Alyssa is upset that some has-been actress is going to make a Lifetime movie about Kelo and eminent domain?
    Oh boo-freakedy-hoo.
    Ask anybody who has ever worn a uniform how they feel about the total crap that has been generated by Hollywood in the last 10 years, major productions mind you, not lame cable fare, that portray all members of the miliary as moronic psycho-killer child-rapists.
    Of course dear, dear Alyssa probably doesn't know anyone who knows which end of a gun goes boom.

  7. Mel says:

    I've been following tirades about the MERS implosion at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com . With bad enough luck, the eminent domain abuse can just be one part of a trend. The problem is that sloppy procedures have destroyed records of ownership for the notes for a huge number of securitized mortgages. There's been strong pressure to change legal standards so that the problem goes away.

    I see a wost-case progression:
    * This morning, niceties are waived to help an unfortunate mortgage servicer whose dog really did eat the paperwork
    * This afternoon, foreclosures without documents are being done by mistake
    * Tomorrow morning made-up foreclosures are a new growth industry.

  8. Xenocles says:

    Mel-

    I don't remember the first step happening but the second already has – and continues to.

  9. Mike says:

    I have nothing to add on eminent domain.

    I am impressed with your reference to a terrible, terrible 1990s movie. If any of your other readers have ever seen it, I will be duly impressed.

  10. Ken says:

    It was mostly a Lifetime movie reference.

    There used to be a hilarious Lifetime Movie Title generator on the net, but it seems to have vanished.

  11. andrews says:

    [Mel: ``Tomorrow morning made-up foreclosures are a new growth industry.'']

    You're behind the times on this. While DOCX has collapsed, their fraudulent paperwork pollutes many court files today. Many judges pretend to believe that it is legitimate. And there is no indication that the Palm Harbor cabal has stopped producing similarly fraudulent paperwork; neither is there any indication that judges are becoming sceptical about it.

    I'm seeing not only summary judgments, but bench verdicts, where the judges are acting as though the made-up paperwork is perfectly fine. Of course you do not get a jury trial in FC because it is supposed to be equitable. The judge's natural bias is toward clearing his docket.

    Maybe a few years ago, you would have been a prophet. Now you are merely a reporter of stale news.