Elena Kagan most likely to be new SCOTUS Justice

[Merkinball]

There is quite a difference between free speech and deliberately telling the same lies over and over again as part of a concerted propaganda campaign. But being so busy that you never have a chance to watch Fox News as you continue to claim, I can see why you might be so confused over the difference.

I would think you'd be more concerned about the lies and misinformation coming out of the president than you would be about Fox News.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Which is why this administration is making such an overt effort to discredit and destroy media entities that don't fall in line. Right? Beck, Limbaugh, and Fox News are hardly accurate 100% of the time, but they do serve as a check and balance within the media, and as a check and balance on our current government. The falsehoods that come out of these entities are no more numerous than the gross falsehoods and lies that have come out of the administration, or the lies that are promulgated throughout the mainstream press. The idea that the government can selectively choose which entities to castigate based on political grounds is dangerous to free speech.

Free Speech doesn't require that we pretend that liars aren't lying, or that Fox News is an actual news organization. For the last few generations, every conservative politician has claimed every ten minutes that the media is liberal, or is distorting facts against them, or isn't telling the truth about something important to the politician. But no one has ever claimed that the stupid "liberal media" myth is dangerous to free speech (because it's not). "Castigating press entities based on their political views" has been one of the defining elements of conservatism since the 1970s!

Oh yes, I've been mysteriously absorbing the mythos of Glenn Beck as I've spent non-stop 16 hour days for weeks trying to finish my degree.

In the elite spheres of academia and government in which she has learned and worked, Kagan, 50, has more typically exhibited an analytical style, a knack for forging consensus, a pragmatism rather than a passion for her own ideas.

Where did I get this? From Limbaugh? From Hannity? FROM GLENN BECK!

No. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051002787.html

Elena Kagen is a pragmatic individual. I do have the freedom of choice to make clearly obvious factual statements right?

And I don't really think it's even worth debating that Sunstein is a pragmatist. It's not a pejorative. That's their philosophy. Not a big deal and I am not attacking them.

Hey, I don't know what you do with your days, I'm just pointing out that you're talking Beck-ese, and saying things like "they are pragmatists," in a context where "they" refers to the cabal of people working with Barack Obama to change the country as they see fit, is some Beck stuff.

That may be so, but that doesn't make it any less totalitarian and antithetical to the notions of liberty and freedom. Despite what you and Cass may think, rationality and irrationality are not universalities that rest squarely on your shoulders. What's even worse about Sunstein, is that his statist vision creates an aura that he claims to seek to destroy, and simply goes to show how nefarious he really is. He loved cash for clunkers because of the illusion it created, despite how the "fact of reality" about the program was that it was a complete and total failure across every metric. Cass tries to have his cake and eat it too so long as it's suites on personal ideological and political view, and he will use government to do everything in his power to ensure that it happens. It's a dystopic novel at its best. The worst part about Sunstein's self dubbed paternal libertarianism is that the paternal aspect destroys they very fabric of liberty that this country was founded upon. Despite what pragmatists like Sunstein and Clinton may feel, there's nothing wrong with the Amish, or any other group who does not adhere to their own philosophical world view. It's none of my business if a girl wants to destroy her life by partaking in premarital sex at 14, and then get an abortion (Cass will surely not try to nudge a girl away from this), and it's none of Cass's business how the food is presented in the lunch line, or if we save for our retirement.

I still don't think you "get" the book. I realize that childhood obesity is an issue that liberals like, and so every conservative has now decided to understand that the Road to Serfdom is paved with healthy school lunches, but to build on the school lunch example you mention, you're missing the point. It's not that in the absence of a choice architect schoolchildren select their food in some paradise of perfectly free choice that Cass Sunstein wants to destroy with some bureaucrat's mandate -- the line from which they pick their food is still a line, i.e., it cannot help but be ordered in some way. Somebody has to make the decision of how to order the food. It's a choice that must be made at some point. So why not make that choice with the kids' health in mind?

Of course, I'm probably arguing this point with someone who thinks that the nutritional content of lunches presented to children in public schools is an illegitimate concern for the government, which makes the whole thing pointless. So let's get back to the OP:

I ask again, what is Elena Kagan's philosophy on major issues of the day? What is her "narrow worldview" you claimed to have knowledge of? And how do you know that?

Seriously, there's very little evidence of Kagan's philosophy out there, and I think you'd really help a thread devoted to her nomination if you provided some sources we could look at.

Cleo

 

[Merkinball]

Free Speech doesn't require that we pretend that liars aren't lying, or that Fox News is an actual news organization. For the last few generations, every conservative politician has claimed every ten minutes that the media is liberal, or is distorting facts against them, or isn't telling the truth about something important to the politician. But no one has ever claimed that the stupid "liberal media" myth is dangerous to free speech (because it's not). "Castigating press entities based on their political views" has been one of the defining elements of conservatism since the 1970s! - Cleo

I agree. I have no qualms with people like George Soros funding Media Matters to expose the lies of Beck and Limbaugh. I have no problems with the existence of the Daily Kos, or the slightly liberal mainstream press. I don't even have a problem with the press attacking media entities that they don't like.

I have a problem with the government attacking media entities and specific media figureheads. You understand the difference and the potential implications right? It is abhorrent that a house rep is attacking the sponsor of a media outlet. It's wrong for the president to call any political speech troublesome, or to set up an organization to "flag" information that it disagrees with. They are terrible precedents to set, for just as sure as Obama will do it, a Republican will take the reigns one day and do the same damn thing to you.

Hey, I don't know what you do with your days, I'm just pointing out that you're talking Beck-ese, and saying things like "they are pragmatists," in a context where "they" refers to the cabal of people working with Barack Obama to change the country as they see fit, is some Beck stuff. - Cleo

Nope. Not really. I was speaking specifically of Kagen and Sunstein. To a lesser extent Obama, although I think he's way too incompetent to be called a pragmatist. Really, the only reason I said that is because both of them have pragmatic tendencies from what I've heard.

I still don't think you "get" the book. I realize that childhood obesity is an issue that liberals like, and so every conservative has now decided to understand that the Road to Serfdom is paved with healthy school lunches, but to build on the school lunch example you mention, you're missing the point. It's not that in the absence of a choice architect schoolchildren select their food in some paradise of perfectly free choice that Cass Sunstein wants to destroy with some bureaucrat's mandate -- the line from which they pick their food is still a line, i.e., it cannot help but be ordered in some way. Somebody has to make the decision of how to order the food. It's a choice that must be made at some point. So why not make that choice with the kids' health in mind? - Cleo

This will go along the lines of the first comment. It isn't necessarily the school lunch in and of itself that bothers, or the concern of children eating healthy. Of course I want children to eat more healthy, and get outside instead of playing computer games. Of course I want them to read books and do their homework. You, Cass, and I all want the same net result. But there is a divergence in how achieve those ends. Cass is looking to use his government pulpit to enforce these policies. It is that use of federal power to impose a specific individual point of view that I find completely and totally disturbing. If Cass was out there in the private sector operating a consultancy firm and publishing self-help books I would have no problem with him. It is that he is currently in the business of mandating, regulating, taxing, and fining the people via government fiat to "nudge" us to living how he wants us to. You don't have to be naive about it, the second you open the door to government intervention like this, the government will take that inch and turn into a mile.

Of course, I'm probably arguing this point with someone who thinks that the nutritional content of lunches presented to children in public schools is an illegitimate concern for the government, which makes the whole thing pointless. - Cleo

Of course it is. The content of school lunches presented in a children's public school rests with the parents who send their kids to that school, and those parents alone. If parents are dissatisfied with the quality of school lunches then it is incumbent upon them to ensure proper changes take place. What makes Cass Sunstein's opinion about the nutritional content in school lunches any more valid than an adult with a child in that school? Especially if that adult is satisfied with the diet of his child?

I ask again, what is Elena Kagan's philosophy on major issues of the day? What is her "narrow worldview" you claimed to have knowledge of? And how do you know that?

Seriously, there's very little evidence of Kagan's philosophy out there, and I think you'd really help a thread devoted to her nomination if you provided some sources we could look at.

Cleo

Didn't I already do that? What more do you want? You're right, there's not a lot about her out there, but there's enough out there that a libertarian such as myself should be worried. She has questionable opinions and comments on freedom of speech, she seems to forward positive rights over negative rights, she's an advocate of indefinite detention, and doesn't seem to forward gay marriage. Are sources for this information really necessary? You're all about this sort of stuff, this is your alley, I'm sure you've read all this before.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Didn't I already do that?

With a single nonsensical editorial from the Moonie Times and a couple of out-of-context quotes about things other than Elena Kagan?

What more do you want?

What can I say? "Whatever the True Father says" isn't quite good enough for me.

Cleo