The best lefty reason for legalizing drugs: to transform drug-users into clients of the nanny government.

Glenn Greenwald and Ilya Somin are, in this long Bloggingheads segment, talking about drug legalization. You can watch that whole thing, but it exemplifies the kind of Bloggingheads style that I loathe. One person holds forth until he finally comes to a stop, and then the other one gets his turn and takes what he seems to have earned, the opportunity to expatiate for an equivalent expanse of time. There's no conversation and interplay, just 2 speeches. Put it in writing, and I could see what you're saying in a few seconds.

I don't want to look at you 2 talking unless something happens because the 2 of you are there at the same time. Sometimes Bloggingheads operates on this tedious concept that it's doing something by simply demonstrating — over and over and over — that 2 people with different viewpoints can talk to near each other. If bland, conventional etiquette is a valuable performance, why not put up video of them eating sandwiches and chewing with their mouths shut?

But I've clipped out 48 seconds of Glenn Greenwald talking because it's such a perfect display of the left-wing mindset. I've skipped over the part where he asserts that you don't have to want to use drugs to want drug legalization and that legalizing drugs would not increase drug use. Watch this:



See? He loves the idea of pulling people into the embrace of government. When drugs are illegal, there is a "wall of fear" separating the people who are drug users from government. But if drugs are legal, "the relationship between the government and the citizenry changes for the better and becomes much more constructive." Tear down that wall, and these people who avoid the grip of government can be enfolded in endless programs. A torrent of ideas for programs spews from the mouth of Greenwald. It's such an exciting idea for lefties: There's a big untapped pool of potential clients for nurturing government services. Let the druggies come to Big Mother government.

"Few states have done so good a job as Wisconsin when it comes to retaining a sense of a distinct radical history."

Says John Nichols at The Progressive:

That understanding is essential to the spread of uprisings and movements like the one that has developed in Wisconsin....

Make no mistake: What is often referred to simply as “Wisconsin” has spread. And it will continue to spread if activists in other states go to their own histories for inspiration.

Every state has radical roots....

In each state, we need to reclaim our progressive history, honor this heritage, and celebrate its continual life. There should be yearly progressive festivals in every state to invoke this unique collective progressive memory....

The empowerment comes from sensing that we are a part of something constant and strong.

To me, Nichols sounds...
	... inspiring.
	... creepy.
	... festive.
	... fascistic.
pollcode.com free polls

"It's like the president's not our boyfriend anymore."

For the netroots, it's like waking up in a cold tent alone, instead of in his arms. Well, you shouldn't have drunk all that Kool-Aid.

"Moving from would-be anarchist to successful business owner brings a few quandaries."

"If you oppose the idea of a state, should you pay taxes? Is it ethically sound to care for the animals of professionals while they are at work at institutions such as the International Monetary Fund? And if you don’t believe in corporations, should you buy health insurance from one?"

Ezra Klein "felt a swell of patriotism" when he read that "bin Laden's body would be handled in accordance with Islamic practice and tradition."

"Somehow, that’s a nice, final touch. But it speaks to what bin Laden was: a bag of bones and meat. A body, like any other. Most of what changed in this country after 9/11 was our choice, not his. And his death is a reminder that changing it back -- or revising it to better fit our future -- is, similarly, our choice, not his. We’ve killed him, but we haven’t revisited the ways in which he changed us, or the ways in which wechanged us in response to his attack. Maybe it’s time we did."

The lefty meme is: It's all about us.

"[P]eople who had tasted the bitter drink were more likely to register moral disgust, suggesting that having Cherry Coke in the jury room may be a smart move for good defense lawyers."

David Brooks opines on a study in which people were given "sweet-tasting, bitter-tasting and neutral-tasting drinks and then asked... to rate a variety of moral transgressions."

And Althouse opines that the liberal political nannies who want to ban "sugary" soda in schools and get kids to eat broccoli may live to regret it. All that plain water and bitter greens could turn the next generation into social conservatives.

The Smithsonian sent a curator to Madison to select protests signs "to document, in general, occasions when American citizens interact with their government and petition... for change."

Barbara Clark Smith "chose one that called on President Barack Obama to join the protest."

Incredible. It has to be about Obama! There were almost no signs bearing the name Obama, and I hear no talk or chants about Obama.

Smith collected a lot of other signs too, and she looked for counter-protest signs. She says she's collected signs at "many tea party events, but we don't at this moment have posters from Madison from the pro-Walker people." [ADDED: Perhaps it's because she's looking in the stacks of signs that had been taped to the walls of the Capitol. Only anti-Walkerites did that. Pro-Walker people showed up, but they took their trash out when they left.]

Here's a second link from the same paper (the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) asking "Where are all the great Republican artists?"

The organizers of "SolidARTity," an exhibit that presents a breadth of creative expression that's emerged in Madison in recent days, also wanted to include political art from the right, but couldn't find any to present.

The Project Lodge, which organized the show, put out a call to artists and got no submissions from artists aligned with Gov. Scott Walker or the Republicans. In fairness, SolidARTity was more than an art show, it's affiliated with a movement of artists that mobilized to protest the budget-repair bill, so perhaps right leaning aritsts didn't want to participate with this group.

Well, at least the columnist  — Mary Louise Schumacher  — realized how stupid her question was, but it didn't stop her from writing it up as a column. Why would any serious artist — of any political party — involve himself in projects with grade-school-group-project names like SolidARTity and The Project Lodge? I've done some art in my time, and my inclination would be to run like hell from something called The Project Lodge. And as for "SolidARTity" — whoever came up with that not only lacks a decent resistance to cutesiness, he/she also has no ear for language. I mean — get a clue! — you just put the "titty" in "solidarity."

Schumacher continues:

In 2008, when I wrote about the nationwide movement of artists who were creating work in support of Barack Obama's campaign for president, I did my best to track down artists who were engaged on the right. This, too, was pretty nonexistent.

Because, you see, if there were Republican artists, they'd be doing art about Republican politics! Here's another clue: Mixing politics and art makes bad art. And Republican artists are less likely to fall into the pit of badness that is political art, because Republicans, generally, want less government. Democrats are the ones who want government getting into all sorts of places where it doesn't belong, so naturally it gets into their art too.

And, may I remind you: To be a great artist is inherently right wing.

"I’m sad... They’re already talking online, so they don’t need a club."

So said "event organizer" Darwin Bebo, quoted in this article about the obsolescence of "social groups" for gay people.

The tug of war between the virtual and physical worlds is happening in every strata of society, but in the gay community the shift has been especially poignant and with significant implications. Social groups helped start the gay civil rights movement, and in recent decades they have raised millions of dollars for causes like same-sex marriage and the battle against H.I.V./AIDS....

The roots of many gay and lesbian social groups date to when homosexuality was a crime and gatherings were illegal.

“Social groups and networks founded the G.L.B.T. community as early as the 1950s,” said Paul Boneberg, executive director of the GLBT Historical Society. “It represented an ability to find each other.”

I wonder how the gay rights movement would have unfolded if the internet had been available all along. I imagine that gay people would have remained more physically dispersed if they could have found each other and formed relationships on a much more decentralized level. I'm guessing there would have been far less intertwining of gay rights issues and liberal/left politics. The core rights have to do with individual expression in the private sphere. These would have been won without forming large groups that meet in person.

The linked article ends with a second quote from Boneberg: "I don’t see the transition as a weakening of the community." Life on the internet is different. It's weaker in some ways and stronger in others. The "event organizer" is sad. People who used terms like "community" are equivocal. But I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't want to be organized and don't feel like they're in a community just because they have a particular sexual preference. The internet makes you stronger, if you're inclined toward individualism.

If the internet had been around all along, then, many private persons would have created satisfying lives for themselves, and some expressive, individualistic voices would have gained immense influence. And the amassers of groups would have had a lot less to do.

More sex. More speech. Less community organizing.

"I would say that the story per se is usually left-wing, in both good and bad ways."

"It elevates the seen over the unseen, can easily portray a struggle for justice, focuses on the anecdote, and encourages us to judge social institutions by the intentions of the people who work in them, rather than looking at their deeper and longer-term outcomes."

ADDED: And this is why those lefty teachers are so keen on getting kids to read fiction stories and not nonfiction as they learn to read. (Remember the great children-reading-nonfiction blog vortex of 2007?)

A professor is forced to resign after making a racist remark: Is he more likely right-wing or left-wing?

"A political science professor at Murray State University has resigned after telling an African American student that she didn't show up early to class because slaves were always late."

I see that the first commenter there says: "Another asshole, undoubtedly a Republican/TeaPartier."

My guess is exactly the opposite. What would possess a professor to say something like that? From my long experience with  professors, I think it is the left-wing professors who: 1. Feel confident in their own goodness on racial issues, 2. Analyze events in terms of race, 3. Think up "critical theory"-type explanations that explore ideas about racial difference, 4. Imagine that it's clever to express these ideas out loud, and 5. Are capable of making the mistake of thinking that the students will know that they are good people who do racial critique that is supposed to be understood as an attack on white people.

A "Republican/TeaPartier" is much more likely to be strongly committed to color-blindness. Ironically, that's something that, in academic circles, can quite easily get you called a racist. (Try asking a lefty lawprof about Chief Justice Roberts's statement that "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.")

Anyway, the professor in this incident is named Mark Wattier. The school is Murray State University. I haven't checked into what his actual political propensities are or what he really had in mind when he said whatever he said that is being reported the way you see it in the linked article. My motivation to write this post was the commenter's reflexive assumption that Wattier displayed right-wing ideology. That is absurd.

***

I noticed that story because John McWhorter and Glenn Loury are talking about it on Bloggingheads. Their discussion centers on whether the student is "lowering" herself by requesting an apology.

"Medical school ethics courses are...increasingly emphasizing 'social justice' over traditional notions of ethics — or the individual patient’s welfare."

"But 'social justice' is frequently just a euphemism for a socialist political agenda of leftist politics, redistribution of wealth, and heavy state controls over the marketplace."

Says Paul Hsieh (via Instapundit) in the context of explaining those Wisconsin doctors writing excuses for protesters — and tweaking our anxieties about Obamacare.

The Wisconsin protests have shown how some doctors are seemingly willing to subvert their professional integrity to serve the political ends of government special interest groups. Under ObamaCare, when similarly trained doctors have to choose between practicing in their patient’s medical interests or in the political interests of their government paymasters, which side will they choose? And will you want this new breed of doctor taking care of you when you’re sick?

Interesting questions, but to be fair, the doctors handing out the notes were helping individuals, not burdening the individuals for the sake of the greater good. Hsieh links to me and says:

University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse spoke with one of these doctors who was completely unapologetic for his actions, saying that it was “not dishonest” but rather “an ok thing to do” because it was in the interest of “social activism.”

To be extra accurate: I ask the man if what he's doing is "dishonest," and he says, "It's not dishonest. It might be a little social, oh, gosh, what do you call it?" I say "Activism?" He seems about to say one thing, the stops himself and says "It's an okay thing to do" then goes on to talk about how teachers matter a lot to him. He notes that he is genuinely "seeing" the patients (on the street corner) and they do have their symptoms. It's not the most explicit embrace and promotion of social activism. Indeed, he may very well be motivated by nothing more than a desire to help the nice teachers so they won't get in trouble at their jobs.

That said, I'm concerned about the general trend of medical ethics in the form of "social justice" ideology, if that's really what is going on. Is it?

"The campaign for 'intellectual diversity' legislation is a neoconservative ploy to secure the teaching of right-wing propaganda in the classroom, plain and simple."

"The authors of the campaign hide behind the mask of educational reformer, but what they seek is nothing short of educational control."

That's what I read when I followed the link at the end of this comment of Irene's:

Using the phrase "intellectual diversity" is itself an act of courage in the academic arena.

I once uttered "intellectual diversity" in a debate with a leftie (I use that term endearingly, of course).

The "discussion" ended with a link to an explanation that the phrase is code for a neoconservative plot.

Later, in that comments thread, there's this:

Scott M said... If "intellectual diversity" and "personal responsibility" have been deemed as code words of right-wing oppression, just what the hell words or phrases do they use when they are trying to talk about intellectual diversity or personal responsibility?...

Irene said... @Scott M, "Social Justice."

If only there were a lefty version of the Tea Party...

... The Nation would love it so.

"Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system."

That's a sentence I've already quoted in the previous post, but focusing on it in isolation, I see it's a stunning example of something I've been observing more and more: Today's liberals sound like yesterday's right-wingers.

Read that sentence closely: "Individuals who don’t purchase insurance they can afford have made a choice to take a free ride on the health care system." Doesn't Larry Tribe sound like your old man carping about welfare queens? There's no pity for people who are struggling to cover their basic expenses: Ah, don't be a bleeding heart — Larry/The Old Man scoffs — these people are choosing to sponge off the rest of us.

Tribe had to block out the possibility that people without health insurance aren't really making a choice. After paying for the things they think they need, they just don't have enough money left to cover a major expense that doesn't bring them a present good, only insurance against something that could go wrong.

Yeah, but that's why we need to force them to take responsibility, make them put insurance into their household budget along with the extra cupcakes and cars they're always blowing their money on — Larry/The Old Man snaps back at you.

Maybe now, you're thinking The Old Man was right! I'm not saying he wasn't. I'm just saying the liberals of today sound like The Old Man who used to enrage us with his heartlessness and his cynical observations about the lives of the people we thought of as vulnerable and unfortunate. That doesn't mean today's liberals are wrong. And I'll leave it to you to tease out the corresponding observation about the conservatives of today. Are they saying things that we Boomers, in our hippie days, used to scream back at The Old Man?

Why does the left hate free speech?

Because they don't know how to talk about the substantive merits when they are challenged. Having submerged themselves in disciplining each other by denouncing any heretics in their midst, they find themselves overwhelmed and outnumbered in America, where there is vibrant debate about all sorts of things they don't know how to begin to talk about. They resort to stomping their feet and shouting "shut up"... when they aren't prissily imploring everyone to be "civil."

UPDATE: Scott Lemieux, the blogger I linked to above, has written a new post in which he might think he's responding to my challenge and providing substance rather than crude denouncement. If you can slog through his laughably poor writing — "It’s not just liberals but Althouse herself who don’t believe in the standards of free speech she criticizes 'liberals' for not practicing" — you'll see he's come up with 3 links to posts of mine which supposedly show that I don't have principled free-speech values. Follow those links and see what I actually wrote.

"Very few people are really supportive of free speech, whether they're liberals or conservatives..."

"... The First Amendment for many years played the role, when it triumphed in the courts, of protecting the speech of people who tended to be on the left—so it was minorities or the powerless in our society. The liberals on the Supreme Court today would still protect those people and their rights... What's changed is that conservatives found some causes which they have used to vindicate genuine First Amendment rights."

So said the great First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams — in an interview, a year ago, with James Taranto, who just emailed me, a propos of my blog post today, "When did the left turn against free speech?"

When did the left turn against free speech?

One of the commenters declares that my "assertion that 'the best test of the truth is its ability to get accepted in the marketplace of ideas' was probably the most offensive part of her argument." When questioned about whether I really said that, he comes back with:

She cited a Justice whose name I haven't retained, as in: "As Justice X says, ..." followed by the verbatim passage I quoted.

She cited a Justice whose name I haven't retained.... Oh, for the love of God, why doesn't every educated person in America know the name of the Supreme Court Justice who said that... or at the very least know that it's embarrassing not to know? As if I'd thrown out some abstruse legalistic peculiarity!

And that was part of an argument by the commenter — echoing Bob Wright — that free speech is too dangerous because it might be false and it might inspire bad people to act out in terrible ways.

Remember when lefties were all about free speech? When did that change? Why did that change? Perhaps the answer is: Free speech was only ever a means to an end. When they got their free speech, made their arguments, and failed to win over the American people, and when in fact the speech from their opponents seemed too successful, they switched to the repression of speech, because the end was never freedom.

"Actually, I find it useful to contemplate my white privileges..."

"... and any other privileges into which I was born, like being a citizen of the richest country on earth, and did not obtain for myself," says Roy Edroso.

In fact, when I was growing up, it was customary for adults to remind children of such luck as they had inherited, like the food we had and "people starving in other countries" didn't. This was meant as a spur to gratitude and humility, and to not being such a whining little shit.

He's reacting to a program that in which government officials are prodding adult citizens to think about how privileged they are. The analogy to a parent-child relationship comes so easily to the left-wing mind.

And what kind of families — back in the olden days — encouraged their kids to think about how lucky they were to be white? Only racist parents would have said anything like that. Kindly parents back then had a simple message for their kids on the subject of race: There is only one race, the human race. It wasn't hard for them to figure out that that was the right thing to say, and it wasn't at all hard for kids to understand it.

Argument by nostalgia is highly manipulable.

Talking Points Memo turns 10.

"The post was about Ted Olson making his debut as the chief Bush lawyer in the emerging Florida Recount battle."

Yes, it's also the 10-year anniversary of the big Florida recount. I wish I'd been blogging then! It would have been so much fun to write about that every step of the way. I'd have liked to show you in real time that I really wanted my guy, Al Gore, to win, and I also accepted nearly everything the Supreme Court did in the complicated litigation over the recount. But there are so many missed blogging opportunities in the past. I'd have loved to have blogged the Clinton scandals too. And the Clarence Thomas hearings. The Bork hearings.

Here's that first TPM post:

As if things couldn't get any weirder, did you notice the name of the lawyer who made the Republicans' unsuccessful arguments before that federal judge today? That would be Ted Olson, a man Washingtonians often refer to as a 'Washington super-lawyer.' Who is Ted Olson? Well, that would be the same one knee-deep in the Arkansas Project, which in league with the American Spectator spent a ton of money digging dirt on Bill Clinton in Arkansas....

Well, now, isn't that weird? I just blogged this morning about that Think Progress blogger who confronted Justice Alito and he was going on about the Arkansas Project:

Last night, the American Spectator — a right-wing magazine known for its role in the “Arkansas Project,” a well-funded effort to invent stories with the goal of eventually impeaching President Clinton — held its annual gala fundraising event....

That first TPM post wove Justice Scalia into its conspiracy-ish riff:

Of course, Olson... is also the Olson from Morrison v. Olson, the supreme court case which upheld the constitutinality of the Independent Counsel statute. Olson was against it. Come to think of it, we Dems now think he and Scalia were right. So maybe chalk one up in his favor.

So that's how TPM first talked about law. Yikes. Spelled "constitutionality" wrong too.

I'm going to start reading the lefty blogs more and writing about them, I think. I'm interested in the way they string ideas together, and I think they need some more push back.

Do you want me to write more about lefty blogs?
	No. Don't give them traffic.
	No. I don't care what they say.
	Yes. They need monitoring and criticism.
	Yes. Broaden your view and see what happens.
	Eh. Not sure. Depends on how sharp and funny you make it.
pollcode.com free polls

In case anyone cares what a bunch of lefty academics in Berkeley are saying at a conference called "Fractures, Alliances, and Mobilizations: Emerging Analyses of the Tea Party Movement."

David Weigel has typed up his notes for your enlightenment. Good lord, the very idea of a Center for the Comparative Study of Right-Wing Movements makes me want to run in the other direction.