tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post593164338159442514..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Refuting Extremists and Their Ideas: Worth the Time and Energy?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger68125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-87387590110855877172010-10-04T17:00:11.185-04:002010-10-04T17:00:11.185-04:00"We have strayed so far from our constitution..."We have strayed so far from our constitution that it is meaningless."<br /><br />@Jim -- I'm with Beck 100% on the idea that government has grown too large and intrusive. In fact, what I don't like about Beck and Palin is grounded in the fact that, unlike them, I've actually read the Constitution. Nowhere in there is the U.S. built as a "Christian nation," for example. And, interestingly, for all the Tea Party talk of "going back to not regulating business," the authority of the federal government to regulate interstate commerce IS in the Constitution (10th Amendment). And so on.<br /><br />Beck is quick to mention the Constitution when he thinks it supports him, but his overall familiarity with the document often seems more than a bit hazy, which leads me to believe he's far more interested in stirring the pot than he is in making any legitimate contribution to society.Kirth Gersenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771084733414305421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-145290440615010912010-09-29T04:25:04.958-04:002010-09-29T04:25:04.958-04:00I respect your effort but where is the depth? I co...I respect your effort but where is the depth? I couldn't make it through the whole post because your arguments lack substance. You express your opinions and ideas but you barely scratch the surface of the issues at hand. Maybe this blog is meant for those who know everything about the topics but for those of us who don’t, we need supporting material. <br /><br />I don’t always agree with Beck but you gave me nothing to convince me that his opinions and positions were off the wall. Was the dress Michelle was wearing made out of a Nazi flag? Obviously not but my point is, how do I know I don’t agree with Beck? Why even mention his opinion on something like that anyway? Are opinions like that and the others you mentioned reason enough to claim that his ideas are dangerous? Maybe they are but why? Sorry for my ignorance. Maybe this blog is not for people like me but I gained nothing from this article.Thadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09209722237723769566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67172532240989751302010-08-04T10:01:11.679-04:002010-08-04T10:01:11.679-04:00@Jim Fischer, ever look at the Snopes entry on Oba...@Jim Fischer, ever look at the Snopes entry on Obama's birth certificate? Or is that merely a liberal mouthpiece, too?<br /><br />http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.aspMichael De Dorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054469707295070655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-63225250618638261122010-08-04T08:33:44.093-04:002010-08-04T08:33:44.093-04:00Right, he was laughing hysterically at the hilario...Right, he was laughing hysterically at the hilarious notion of poisoning Pelosi, what a funny joke. I bet jim adkisson thought such jokes were funny, too.<br /><br />By the way, latest Glenn Beck crazy train stop: promoting a white nationalist form on his twitter account. What a hero.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21347600674928267562010-08-03T16:48:42.298-04:002010-08-03T16:48:42.298-04:00There is no way to take Beck murdering Nanci Pelos...<i>There is no way to take Beck murdering Nanci Pelosi in effigy out of context.</i><br /><br /> Really Hume? Thats what he meant? He wasnt joking? The context was that he will actually murder Pelosi? Man what a hypocrite, after all the times I heard him say to protest peacefully. To use no form of violence. What a let down.Danielle Lynnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10369780363351454369noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46669203206074016582010-07-29T21:36:16.705-04:002010-07-29T21:36:16.705-04:00There is no way to take Beck murdereing Nanci Pelo...There is no way to take Beck murdereing Nanci Pelosi in effigy out of context. <br /><br />But that's besides the point, when you traffic in violent, apocalyptic, conspiratorial memes which echo the extremist literature they originally came from about radical antiAmerican, possibly to probably Satanic marxists planning to institute the New World Order, at which point patriots (read: evangelical conservative Christian supply-siders) are rounded up and slaughtered or enslaved you're already making an appeal that is going to play to the prejudices of the irrational and extreme among us, giving them both a sense of legitimacy and urgency.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26474246139851222822010-07-29T17:02:16.083-04:002010-07-29T17:02:16.083-04:00Thanks for a good post! It complements well with J...Thanks for a good post! It complements well with Julias post about if "non-experts should shut up". I agreed that they should not. I actually like J-S Mills argument that if all ideas, also the crazy and false ones, can be heard it forces the ones with good arguments and rational ideas to sharpen their argument even more and speak out. It creates a live debate in a democratic society where, hopefully, the best and most rational and/or ethical arguments "win".<br /><br />Michael had a similar argument:<br /><br />"At the least, one might be able to prevent people in this middle from sliding toward extremism. If rationalists refrain from presenting their side, moderate Americans might be swayed to the extreme, thus making the problem much worse."<br /><br />That I think is a good argument for why one should take the debate and debunk bad arguments.<br /><br />There is though an option to taking on the bad arguments from people explicitly. One can write, debate, etc in public newspapers and popular science magazines, radio shows and so on, debunking bad arguments in creationism etc in general. Instead of argue against a particular statement from an extremist. In that way one can sort of refuting their ideas without referring to them.<br />Just an idea.Jojjehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05703561074763409951noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26602456124051495412010-07-29T11:52:18.089-04:002010-07-29T11:52:18.089-04:00Ian, could you rattle off the names of a couple li...<i>Ian, could you rattle off the names of a couple liberals who have the power, influence, rhetoric, and temperament that Glenn Beck</i><br /><br /><br />Shouldnt you be asking Ian for names of liberals that have ideas and beliefs that are as rediculous as Beck, Palin and Limbaugh?<br /><br /> When did we stop debating content and start debating power and influence.<br /><br /> Shouldnt their power and influence be a motivator to debate their content?Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-25509178450080718722010-07-29T09:24:38.326-04:002010-07-29T09:24:38.326-04:00Michael,
I am not sure how many different ways ...Michael,<br /> I am not sure how many different ways I can say this. You have yet given me another example of my exact point with your posting of the Huffington Post link. <br /> My point is this: You are writing a post of whether or not people on the left should engage in debate on the subjects of Right wing icons such as Glenn Becks, without having any idea of what Glenn Beck actually says or believes etc. You obviously have no idea what his show is about or what his beliefs are. You are making a case that it may be reasonable (or not) to just write off Glenn Beck based off of what you read from the Huffington Post, not the origonal source.<br /> It is funny since Glenn beck is constantly preeching to always use origonal source material whenever possible. Dont take someone else word. This is why I am complimenting Hume. I completely disagree with Hume fundementally, but at least we are debating the same source of material. How can you debate someone about Glenn Beck, when all you have as your source is what the Huffington Post says about him (or other left sources).<br /> If you actually watched Beck, then you would know that about an average of once a show he talks about how important it is that we do not use violence. Here is the Huffington Post claiming that this looney was incited by Glenn Beck. If this looney actually listened to Beck and how he constantly says "this needs to be a fight fought in the minds of men and not with violence".<br /> This is why I spend a considerable amount of time reading material from the left (as I think I am proving by being here). I dont take Becks or anyones word for what the left thinks, I go to the source and find out for myself. I engage in debate.<br /> From reading the responses to Massimo's Veil post, I can see there is some common ground between the left and right. There were some absolutly awesome responses from very left minded intellectuals that defended individual rights over the group. and they were written far better than I can. If you use the Huffington Post as your source for what the right is thinking, the spin is magnificent. <br /> They throw out quotes like:<br /><br /><i> "To the day I die, I am going to be a progressive hunter."</i><br /><br /> He was talking about shedding light on who the progressives are, not literally hunting.<br /><br /><i>* "[Y]ou will have to shoot me in the forehead before you take away my gun" and "before I acquiesce and be silent."</i><br /><br /> He was talking about 2nd amendment rights.<br /><br /> Every line printed in this post has a completely new meaning if it is taken in context. I cant count the number of times I have heard beck say this fight needs to happen peacefully. Despite that he said it countless times, you have never heard him say it. You want to make a judgement on the qualifications of debate having no idea who it is your talking about. By doing this, you are driving an even bigger wedge between the two sides and giving far less opportunity for common ground. Your starting point is not with the truth. It is with the Huffingtons Post version of Glenn Beck. <br /> I see the looney posts from this article, Many of them are willing to throw the first amendment away because of this article and not the truth of how Beck feels about violence and what he actually says about violence. Thats just wonderful journalism. Huffington Post is inciting worse results than anything Beck is. They are all in the same boat as you. they dont know the truth about what Beck says, they know what the HP says that Beck says. <br /> Thank God you have no actualy authority to decide how debate actually is done and who gets to play! I fear like minded men do.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82525725339817140252010-07-28T22:25:02.832-04:002010-07-28T22:25:02.832-04:00Fyi, I wrote a post on this topic four years ago f...Fyi, I wrote a post on this topic four years ago for the original Incarnation of Unclaimed Territory. Do to the iPad's general difficulty working with blogspot, I can't seem to paste the url. If you google search "why respond to malkin unclaimed territory" it will come up.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-64955941447214173492010-07-28T20:36:46.074-04:002010-07-28T20:36:46.074-04:00"More concretely, if (say) global warming den..."More concretely, if (say) global warming denialists were mostly liberals, would our opposition to them be as vociferous?"<br /><br />On the issue of global warming, surely. <br /><br />Ian, could you rattle off the names of a couple liberals who have the power, influence, rhetoric, and temperament that Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and others currently have?Michael De Dorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054469707295070655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-84238746717321125542010-07-28T20:30:10.250-04:002010-07-28T20:30:10.250-04:00For all, here's a story about the practical im...For all, here's a story about the practical impact of Beck's ideas that I ran across:<br /><br />http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-boehlert/glenn-becks-incendiary-an_b_660429.htmlMichael De Dorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054469707295070655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-22299149397925045962010-07-28T20:29:58.939-04:002010-07-28T20:29:58.939-04:00Jim,
I don't know why you're still fault...Jim, <br /><br />I don't know why you're still faulting me for not dismantling Beck's ideas. The point of my essay was to discuss whether or not doing so is worthwhile.Michael De Dorahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16054469707295070655noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6904680835324062172010-07-28T13:24:01.163-04:002010-07-28T13:24:01.163-04:00So if you didnt conclude from what I said. I belie...So if you didnt conclude from what I said. I believe Beck is more accuratly reflecting FDR's history than it currently is. As far as Ford goes, perhaps you know more than me.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15728223669645591452010-07-28T12:30:53.211-04:002010-07-28T12:30:53.211-04:00No worries Hume, I understand you dont mean to sid...No worries Hume, I understand you dont mean to side with beck in any way. I am simply complimenting you because you are at least forming your opinion with actual knowledge of the material and not using 29 second clips to argue if his ideas need to be debated or not.<br /> That being said, I really wish people (including Beck) would lay off on using the word Fascist to describe anything they dont like. Beck used it to describe FDR because of his socialist agenda. Although FDR was out of control and severly robbed the power from the legislative branch to the executive branch and came very close to doing the same with the Judicial branch through the Supreme court. In his power grabbing way I guess you could compare FDR with Fascism, but the same as I didnt like your comparison of Beck with racists, I dont like Beck comparing FDR with Fascist. Everyone is always trying to tie everything they dont like with the extermination of millions of Jews. Its insulting to the Jews loss. And it is always an attempt to make something sound far worse than it is. Fascism is difficult to explain.I read a book called "Liberal Fascism" that I think gave me an appreciation to minimize my use of the word. <br /> <br /><i>The damage to history is not any less severe because Beck believes what he says. </i><br /><br /> I am not sure FDR's history could be any more damaged. The man that single handedly damaged this country more than any other president I can think of is FDR. Yet our history books have him as the "New Deal" hero. The man who invented the plan the kept his country in depression for almost 15 years is known for bringing us through the great depression unharmed. He owned the press. He owned congress. He also proved democracy alone does not work with his win of 99% of the electoral college. The man the scared congress into presidential term limits would still be president today if he somehow could live. His social security plan, the list goes on and on. History on FDR as one of the great presidents is about as damaged as it gets.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46841548115301251062010-07-27T21:18:48.552-04:002010-07-27T21:18:48.552-04:00Just to be clear, I don't consider Beck's ...Just to be clear, I don't consider Beck's apparent sincerity to be a virtue. When William Clifford's ship builder in "The Ethics of Belief" convinced himself his ship was safe, his sincerity did not excuse his unjustified belief in the safety of his vessel, nor absolve him of wreckless negligence when his ship sank.<br /><br />Likewise, Beck is not excused by his sincerity when he tells his audience that FDR was fascist while portraying Henry Ford - a man with more direct connection to the Holocaust than any "progressive" Beck has ever attacked - as an anti-fascist hero. When Beck creates for his audience the impression that fascism is a form of progressivism, and that the New Deal was fascist, he is doing the same thing, failing to mention that actual fascists like the Bund opposed the "Jew" Deal and actual fascists like the Black Legion infamously killed a WPA worker. <br /><br />The damage to history is not any less severe because Beck believes what he says.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-48683499598874830762010-07-27T12:37:56.856-04:002010-07-27T12:37:56.856-04:00I guess I should at least say in relation to Micha...I guess I should at least say in relation to Michaels post that I feel the majority of people like M and Michael that say Beck is crazy and need not be taken seriously have no idea what he actually stands for. If you say he doesnt need to be debated your alienating the majority of what americans are feeling now. I also feel that aside from Hume, most people here have no idea what the actual content of Becks shows are (in fact you have basically proven that to me). Posts like this are why the average American may be biased against intellectuals. I point out the constant need for intellectuals to debate the issue of who they need to debate. This in itself sets off the alarms of many people. it is far easier to put the issue of Obama's racism into the catagorie of lunacy than it is to tackle it in debate. It is far easier to attack Beck as a looney and discredit him with out of context clips than it is to debate the over all good of massively increasing the size of our federal government through health care, IRS workers, and supposed financial reform.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11460624476390800002010-07-27T09:51:46.265-04:002010-07-27T09:51:46.265-04:00Hume,
I compliment you. At least your willing to...Hume,<br /> I compliment you. At least your willing to debate the substance of Becks show. Although I completely disagree with your points from earlier and I do think you were intentionally distorting and removing context. I dont disagree with your latter comment. I didnt see the show you are referring to. <br /> As I watch Beck sometimes I try to picture what it must be like for the left to watch him and know that his technique can often be poor. He often says things off the cuff that obviously do not have much thought put into it.<br /> So why is it he has such a massive audience? Not to mention a growing one? I can often pull out Becks mistakes in his arguements. But the mistakes are not "lies" as you point out. If fact I think he is very honest. A little off the cuff perhaps, but very honest. The reason people are flocking to him is because they agree with his main points. Progressivism is a cancer to America. We have become a democracy and need to return to the Republic that our founders laid out in our constitution. <br /> This is what the Tea Party is about (no, it isnt lower taxes). People are educating themselves with much of Becks recommended reading like "Free to Choose","Road to Serfdom", and "5000 year Leap", and they now understand that America is moving in the wrong direction. There is a progressive idea that our constitution is not apt for these times. People understand that the concepts of limited federal power and seperation of powers are timeless. There will never be a time period where massive centralized government will not lead its people to Serfdom. The prosperous people of this nation are terrified of Serfdom as am I. The left is stearing us in that direction. The people will forgive Becks rhetoric and sometimes misguided mistakes to have a spokes person that believes in the same principles that they do. He makes mistakes and he often admits as much. But he aligns with what the people want. Limited governemnt that follows its own constitution. We have strayed so far from our constitution that it is meaningless. People are reading the Federalist papers to understand what the founders intentions were. They dont agree these were concepts fit for a long ago time. Although much of Becks show last night did not have substance, his main point, that Obama is not worried about Cap and Trade because he does not need congress to pass it anymore. The executive branch now has the power to accompish what it wants without it. He made a solid prediction that Cap and Trade will happen without any bill being passed by congress. I agree with it. How far we have fallen when the executive branch can accomplish that! They (congress) are passing bills that are impossible to undestand (and intentionally so). The reason for this is that the executive branch will now interpet and apply these bills. Imagine passing bills that you have no idea what the substance is? If anyone reading this can actually tell me they understand what is in the financial bill and how it will apply to law, I feel fairly confident that you are a liar or at least misguided. If you tell me you know congress had a clue what they were voting on then I am also confident of the same. The Czars in the executive branch now have the power greatly offsetting the seperation of powers in our 3 headed eagle. <br /> If you want to argue Beck should not be debated becuase he is saying rivers dont light up. Thats fine. We will soon be doing the debating on how to restore the Republic for you. I am not sure why I get into this. I am perhaps far better off letting people think they're excluding the Beck audience from the debate. The Beck audience and the Tea Partiers and the 9-12'ers, they are all the same. and they have massive common ground.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-35059269942695269642010-07-27T02:58:52.017-04:002010-07-27T02:58:52.017-04:00We'll need to address our brains first...
http...We'll need to address our brains first...<br />http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_backfire/?page=fullRickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17356126435473659571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20535459410872824292010-07-26T20:38:35.791-04:002010-07-26T20:38:35.791-04:00"lies" isn't really appropriate to d..."lies" isn't really appropriate to describe Beck. He lives in his own alternate universe, yet not only is it constructed out of untruths, but is bizarrely incoherent.<br /><br />Like, for instance, when Beck told his audience concerns over pollution were nonsense because rivers don't catch on fire anymore. "lie" doesn't do justice to such a claim, which is manages to be disengenuous, utterly stupid, ignorant and hypocritical all at the same time. The river he's alluding to was cleaned up as a result of the environemntal movment which he likes to demonize as being part of the century long progressive plot to enslave mankind. Beck, of, course, left that part out and acted like clean rivers was something that just spontaneously a happened because people don't like pollution. And then there is the sheer, amazing audacity of stupid, to suggest that unless rivers are catching on fire there is no pollution happening.<br /><br />My favorite, though, was Beck's nine minute rant on how the art at Rockeffeler Plaza reveals the commie fascist nexis all the way through Mussolini to Obama and Van Jones. It was like a conspiracy cross between the Da Vinci Code and a Beautiful Mind.Hume's Ghosthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13551684109760430351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38919396804331918022010-07-26T14:35:37.355-04:002010-07-26T14:35:37.355-04:00What are the lies????What are the lies????Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-65128638975601375972010-07-26T13:37:35.957-04:002010-07-26T13:37:35.957-04:00@Jim:
I think a discussion of Obama's views on...@Jim:<br />I think a discussion of Obama's views on race is legitimate, though the question does not interest me personally.<br /><br />But Beck is a poisoned well. He is known to be an out-and-out liar and extremely, almost proudly biased, even by people like you who broadly share his worldview. That is why people here attack the man instead of his arguments.<br /><br />Do I really need to spell out how stunningly unethical it is to knowingly lie (death panels anyone) when you have a viewership of millions?<br /><br />I know I'm repeating myself, but this is important. Beck is systematically lying to you about fact questions. That is, like, 100x worse than slashing your tires.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-89827485853896189292010-07-26T12:42:58.492-04:002010-07-26T12:42:58.492-04:00Jim Fisher: Right-wing propaganda Kool-Aid Drinker...<i>Jim Fisher: Right-wing propaganda Kool-Aid Drinker. Nothing else to say really. </i><br /><br /> I am not really sure what to say to that? but please let me know if that is the concensus. I am trying to bring on debate rather than debate of debate. 3 of the 5 posts on the front page of this blog are about debate itself and who gets to participate in what. <br /><br /> Pollock,<br /> Although I am defending Beck, I hope my larger point is getting though that no one is attacking Becks commentary or any thing he says specifically (unless taken out of context), they just attack beck himself.<br /><br /> If I am going to attack Micheal Moore, I am going to carefully dismantle his logic after watching one of his movies (which doesnt take much effort) becuase I know personally of people that watch him (now there is some propaganda) and take him in. I am not going to make decisions from 20 second clips and material taken out of context and then have a discussion if Micheal Moore should be debated. <br /> Beck has his issues, dont get me wrong, but my worry on a larger scale is that by saying we dont have to discuss his logic or material (like is the president racist) is far bigger than Beck, and he shouldnt be used as a vehicle to write this point off. He (Obama)spent 20+ years involved in Black Liberation Theology and I dont think the subject gets to be dismissed because of Beck. Why is it that the subject is untouchable? Because he is black he cant be racist? Because Beck discusses it and then only the 29 second clip where he actually says he is racist gets played. <br /> Listen to the words of his reverend (who he had to distance himself with to win the presidency). The vehicle used to remove these subjects from debate is disingenuous at best. The Black Panther exibition was proof of it. These are the reasons people are flocking to the tea partys. While you guys discuss if the so called "extremists" are worthy of your time. Those extremists are going to be in power soon and change this country in the opposite direction its heading. You had better start debating with them. Or at least listening to them in more than 29 seconds at a time.Jim Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16928807367473160898noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30161192767704346312010-07-25T11:29:24.014-04:002010-07-25T11:29:24.014-04:00"He has his pick from truthers, anti-vaxxers ..."He has his pick from truthers, anti-vaxxers (sort of), AIDS/HIV denialists, alternative healthists, nuclear energy fearmongers, anti-globalization activists, hardcore Palestine supporters... the list is fairly long."<br /><br />Many of these examples are topics that are discussed often by skeptics. If anything the problems introduced by Beck, etc. are less discussed by skeptics in order to avoid politics/ideologies. My point is that we shouldn't shy way from them just because they are political in nature, and that giving token examples from the other side (whatever that other side is) is fine but not necessary if that is not the topic of discussion. There is something unique about the Beck, Limbaugh, Palin appeal that doesn't apply to "the other side."<br /><br />You are right to point out that different ideologies of people are lumped together within "conservative" and "liberal," and they are not necessarily related concepts. You can see this when you compare different countries... although some similarities do exist.ccbowershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11686910795750392419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72532363105252812792010-07-25T11:28:08.095-04:002010-07-25T11:28:08.095-04:00There is no obvious necessary connection between, ...<i>There is no obvious necessary connection between, e.g., wanting abortions to be legal and taxes to be progressive.</i><br /><br />Or, for that matter, being pro-life and for the death penalty (which seems in fact contradictory). There is a book by George Lakoff that addresses this issue: <i>Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think</i>. I found his ideas on these apparently accidental grouping of beliefs very interesting.JPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12609837930361362269noreply@blogger.com