Comments on: Oppositional Moralities and Nobel Revisionism http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-nobel-revisionism/ Just another geek in the geek kingdom Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:38:37 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: r4 ds games http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-nobel-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-9705 r4 ds games Wed, 28 Oct 2009 07:11:10 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3712#comment-9705 It is not clear there is any kind of standard accomplishment associated with the peace prize other than an aversion to wanton destructiveness. keep posting. Will be visiting back soon. It is not clear there is any kind of standard accomplishment associated with the peace prize other than an aversion to wanton destructiveness. keep posting. Will be visiting back soon.

]]> By: forked tongue http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-nobel-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-9629 forked tongue Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:13:44 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3712#comment-9629 Oops, no HTML--I meant "the Nobel Prize" and "peace" to be struck out. Oops, no HTML–I meant “the Nobel Prize” and “peace” to be struck out.

]]> By: forked tongue http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-nobel-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-9628 forked tongue Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:12:38 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3712#comment-9628 Republicans, on the other hand, do not think he will ever deserve to win the Nobel Prize any accolades at all, even from people they hold in contempt, and may even think he’s been detrimental to peace eternal war by being soft against the enemy. Republicans, on the other hand, do not think he will ever deserve to win the Nobel Prize any accolades at all, even from people they hold in contempt, and may even think he’s been detrimental to peace eternal war by being soft against the enemy.

]]> By: Barry http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-nobel-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-9567 Barry Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:21:06 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3712#comment-9567 Good point, Brian! The two things that I think will be seen on the center-left are (a) nobody on the right has any credibility, and (b) accepting their accusations as even a little debatable is both erroneous and foolish. Good point, Brian!

The two things that I think will be seen on the center-left are (a) nobody on the right has any credibility, and (b) accepting their accusations as even a little debatable is both erroneous and foolish.

]]> By: Brian Moore http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-nobel-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-9566 Brian Moore Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:48:13 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3712#comment-9566 "It’s an incredible turnaround" Well, only if you think they should be loyal to the office of the President instead of to Republicans -- if the latter, they've been very consistent! :) (I'd prefer for people to be "loyal" to neither.) “It’s an incredible turnaround”

Well, only if you think they should be loyal to the office of the President instead of to Republicans — if the latter, they’ve been very consistent! :)

(I’d prefer for people to be “loyal” to neither.)

]]> By: Barry http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-nobel-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-9558 Barry Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:43:19 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3712#comment-9558 Julian: "And so now all reactions from the right with any kind of negative valence—angry, disappointed, mocking, skeptical—tend to be read as “outraged.”" We on the left watched for 8 years as the right ranted, railed and lied about Clinton - and those are the correct terms. The right then loyally supported Bush for 8 years, as he ran the country into the ground. Even at the end, 47% of those voting in 2008 voted for more GOP. Those same people are now ranting and railing against Obama. It's an incredible turnaround, and not due to any judgement deserving of respect. Julian: “And so now all reactions from the right with any kind of negative valence—angry, disappointed, mocking, skeptical—tend to be read as “outraged.””

We on the left watched for 8 years as the right ranted, railed and lied about Clinton – and those are the correct terms. The right then loyally supported Bush for 8 years, as he ran the country into the ground. Even at the end, 47% of those voting in 2008 voted for more GOP.

Those same people are now ranting and railing against Obama. It’s an incredible turnaround, and not due to any judgement deserving of respect.

]]> By: Nick http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-nobel-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-9554 Nick Tue, 13 Oct 2009 03:03:05 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3712#comment-9554 <i>It is not clear there is any kind of standard accomplishment associated with the peace prize other than an aversion to wanton destructiveness. </i>What? No. Kissinger. There is no standard accomplishment associated with the Peace Prize <i>at all</i>. It is not clear there is any kind of standard accomplishment associated with the peace prize other than an aversion to wanton destructiveness.
What? No. Kissinger. There is no standard accomplishment associated with the Peace Prize at all.

]]> By: Random Precision http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-nobel-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-9553 Random Precision Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:46:37 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3712#comment-9553 <i> Everyone seemed to recognize that it was a bit absurd to give the prize to a first-term president who, whatever his potential, and however promising you might find his rhetoric, hasn’t had much chance to do anything really substantive yet. </i> Well he didn't start any new wars. Is that substantive enough? It is not clear there is any kind of standard accomplishment associated with the peace prize other than an aversion to wanton destructiveness. Apparently, the Nobel committee prefered Obama over the other candidates, so he won. Or, maybe Obama really is the Magic Negro. Suck on that bitches ... Everyone seemed to recognize that it was a bit absurd to give the prize to a first-term president who, whatever his potential, and however promising you might find his rhetoric, hasn’t had much chance to do anything really substantive yet.

Well he didn’t start any new wars. Is that substantive enough?

It is not clear there is any kind of standard accomplishment associated with the peace prize other than an aversion to wanton destructiveness.

Apparently, the Nobel committee prefered Obama over the other candidates, so he won.

Or, maybe Obama really is the Magic Negro. Suck on that bitches …

]]> By: Other Ezra http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-nobel-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-9550 Other Ezra Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:40:20 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3712#comment-9550 Just a brief note on the Kelo case. I think you are right that some liberals had a knee-jerk counter-reaction to the conservative reaction to Kelo. (Although, as you acknowledge, not all --- note the cosponsors of the anti-Kelo bill included, e.g., Maxine Waters and John Conyers.) But there was ample justification to be wary of what the right was up to in that case: (1) Conservatives incorporated Kelo into the larger political narrative of Supreme Court nominations at the time (2005), as in, Kelo was wrong, therefore we need a far right nominee; (2) A number of anti-Kelo ballot initiatives snuck in "regulatory takings" measures, seeming to confirm liberal skepticism of "property rights" talk; (3) The conservative critique of Kelo, in my opinion, missed the mark, both in focusing on the federal Constitution instead of the actual democratically elected wrongdoers, and in hanging their hat on convincing the Court to shift in an entirely new direction in interpreting "public use." I could say a lot more about the last point, but for now I'll just add that a broad conception of active government, which is a foundation of liberalism, is not unrelated to a generous interpretation of "public use." None of that is to contradict your main point, though. I think it is well taken, although it seems like you are focused on opinion-makers rather than political philosophers (much less actual consumers of ideology). Pundits and other people playing politics generally have other motives at work than seeking the truth on any particular issue. Just a brief note on the Kelo case. I think you are right that some liberals had a knee-jerk counter-reaction to the conservative reaction to Kelo. (Although, as you acknowledge, not all — note the cosponsors of the anti-Kelo bill included, e.g., Maxine Waters and John Conyers.) But there was ample justification to be wary of what the right was up to in that case: (1) Conservatives incorporated Kelo into the larger political narrative of Supreme Court nominations at the time (2005), as in, Kelo was wrong, therefore we need a far right nominee; (2) A number of anti-Kelo ballot initiatives snuck in “regulatory takings” measures, seeming to confirm liberal skepticism of “property rights” talk; (3) The conservative critique of Kelo, in my opinion, missed the mark, both in focusing on the federal Constitution instead of the actual democratically elected wrongdoers, and in hanging their hat on convincing the Court to shift in an entirely new direction in interpreting “public use.” I could say a lot more about the last point, but for now I’ll just add that a broad conception of active government, which is a foundation of liberalism, is not unrelated to a generous interpretation of “public use.”

None of that is to contradict your main point, though. I think it is well taken, although it seems like you are focused on opinion-makers rather than political philosophers (much less actual consumers of ideology). Pundits and other people playing politics generally have other motives at work than seeking the truth on any particular issue.

]]> By: Weekly Web Watch 10/5/09 – 10/11/09 « EXECUTIVE WATCH http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-and-nobel-revisionism/comment-page-1/#comment-9546 Weekly Web Watch 10/5/09 – 10/11/09 « EXECUTIVE WATCH Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:49:16 +0000 http://www.juliansanchez.com/?p=3712#comment-9546 [...] Podhoretz).  On a more abstract level, I agree with Julian Sanchez that the initial reaction was agreement between right and left that this was an odd choice.  However, it quickly turned into a partisan litmus test, aided by the [...] [...] Podhoretz).  On a more abstract level, I agree with Julian Sanchez that the initial reaction was agreement between right and left that this was an odd choice.  However, it quickly turned into a partisan litmus test, aided by the [...]

]]>