Robert Baratheon

I'm not really a fan of any of the above entertainers, and it's important to remember that's what they are - entertainers. Some are more ideologically offensive than others (Beck the least so, in my opinion), but they all suffer from a lot of theatrics and little substance - poor content to playtime ratio for my own tastes. I generally enjoy programs like EconTalk because they are jam-packed with information and interesting viewpoints, and the back-and-forth interview format is a more "human" experience for the listener. Perhaps it's a sign of adult-onset ADHD that I can't listen to a 5+ minute monologue from anyone without shifting uncomfortably in my seat and looking toward my watch desperately for some relief. When I noticed the above segment was a bit over seven minutes in length, that was almost enough in itself to turn me away from it. Watching an hour-or-more pundit program would be one of the most brutal tortures I could envision for my psyche. My real problem with Stewart, in particular, is that he gleefully operates within an unwarranted double standard. He relentlessly attacks his fellow news-format entertainers, then takes umbrage when they return fire on the basis that he is a "comedian" and thus beyond reproach. Since he's an admitted socialist and regularly works his political views into his program, I don't see how he is in effect any different from a Limbaugh or a Savage who are providing the same entertainment value to their audiences.

Do you have any evidence from my post to support your "belief" that I am a racist who is afraid of minorities? Please feel free to quote it here. If you cannot, an acknowledgement of the fact that you cannot would be appropriate at this time. For someone supposedly making a stand against unfair generalizations, you seem quite eager to make such generalizations yourself. It doesn't much bother me, mind you, I'm only taking a moment to point out the hypocrisy. I've been called a "racist" by progressives countless times for no reason other than that I oppose affirmative action, which, ironically, I oppose precisely because I view it as institutionalized racism. Your accusation seems to be a similar strain of that "logic" (I call it faith). I'm further puzzled as to what you viewed as a "law-and-order rant" in my post. As a minarchist libertarian for legalization of all drugs and reduction or elimination of most prison sentences, I can honestly say I've never been characterized as "law-and-order" before. Please don't be so cruel as to keep us guessing, and quote the offending text here so people can judge for themselves. Again, if you cannot, an acknowledgement would be appropriate.

Reminds me of one of my favorite movies:

In my final year of law school, I was applying for prosecutor positions and came across the Nassau County District Attorney's website. I downloaded their employment application and filled out all the standard fields, but at the end of the application there was an unusual section entitled "Gun Ownership." This section required that all applicants sign a statement that ADAs are prohibited from owning a handgun without the express written permission of Lunatic-Control-Freak DA Kathleen Rice, who I understand ran unsuccessfully for New York Attorney General in 2010, The application is still up on their website today (http://www.nassaucountyny.gov/agencies/DA/documents/ADAapplicant2013.pdf). I wrote Ms. Rice a letter informing her that her handgun policy is patently unconstitutional and morally repulsive, and I would not be applying to her office solely for that reason. I never did receive a response.

I don't know what you're talking about. The fantasy of Jeannie as a mystical captive sex slave never entered my consciousness.

Of course everything is "related" in the broadest sense. However, a more thoughtful analysis recognizes degrees of relatedness as well. My point was that Yglesias's paternalistic attitude toward the lower classes with regard to language is consistent with progressive philosophy more generally and can be seen manifested in other areas of public policy, such as with the "ban the box" movement. I haven't said anything racist here, so I don't see how your "coloreds" narrative is at all topical. I'm also not sure why you think anyone is singling out convicts - it's just one piece of available information that employers can use to guide their decisions. Everyone understands that a convict "might" make a better employee than any other given applicant, but the information is relevant because it tells them something about past behavior. It's the same reason why grades and test scores are requiredd when applying to colleges, or why they ask whether you were fired from your last job. Prohibiting employers from even asking the question is progressive paternalism of the worst kind. It's saying both that convicts need to be granted special status under the law, and that employers can't be trusted to make thoughtful decisions on their own without the guidance and watchfulness of the state over their shoulder.

One of my minor annoyances at work is the 50+ crowd who assumes that if you're under 30 you obviously haven't seen any of the movies or television shows with which they grew up. They're always surprised to learn I grew up watching Gilligan's Island, I Dream of Jeannie, I Love Lucy, Bewitched, The Twilight Zone, Hogan's Heroes, F Troop, and all the same shows they did. What the hell do they think I spent my nights watching all those years after Nickelodeon stopped running cartoons at 8pm?

Michael - You raise a number of relevant points. Yglesias's followers quickly piled on with a good old-fashined bout of "We should be more like Finland/Spain/fill-in-the-blank." Besides the logical counterpoints that English has become an international language; is an incredibly rich language due to the sheer volume of its vocabulary; and doesn't suffer from the numerous idiosyncrasies of other languages (don't get me started on gendered nouns); what I found most disturbing was the characteristically paternalist progressive mindset Yglesias displays toward those he considers beneath him on the social pyramid. An implicit tenet of progressive ideology is that certain demographics require constant protection and guidance from their social superiors, just as serfs would from their noble lords. What Yglesias is really saying, dressed up in typical PC leet speak, is that the poor are (for whatever socioeconomic reason) too ignorant or lazy to learn how to spell, so we should change the social fabric of our culture to create a "Harrison Bergeron" environment in which everyone can compete equally and effortlessly with everyone else. Everyone gets an "A" in this world, contingent upon nothing but their existence and participation. A philosophically related initiative that has appeared in many blue states is the "ban the box" movement, where "the box" refers to what you check on an employment application to signify that you have or have not been convicted of a felony in recent years. According to the advocates, it isn't *fair* to those convicted of crimes (violent or otherwise) that employers be allowed to request this information and weigh it accordingly. So however relevant the fact that someone robbed a liquor store at gunpoint may be to, say, the owner of a liquor store seeking a responsible cashier for his business, the employer would be prohibited by law from even considering such information as part of the hiring process. We can only speculate as to how Yglesias and his followers would treat an e-mailed resume riddled with egregious spelling and grammatical errors when hiring on behalf of their own organizations. If we are to take the argument seriously, considering such information would be tantamount to oppression and the more rational and moral course of action would be to pretend that such errors tell the reviewer absolutely nothing relevant about the applicant.

A progressive writer for Slate by the name of Matt Yglesias (formerly associated with the Center for American Progress, and apparently a big deal in that community) posted a statement to his Twitter account yesterday that I found interesting. Though I don’t follow Yglesias on Twitter and had not heard of him before, the post came to my attention when it was retweeted by a buffoonish progressive blogger I do follow for the sole purpose of publicly shaming him in what can be best analogized as a regular pheasant hunt on the grounds of my digital estate. Yglesias’s tweet, most likely written in response to the National Spelling Bee coverage, was as follows: “English’s inordinately difficult spelling makes for entertaining contests, but it’s horrible for social mobility. Reform is needed.” Presumably, Yglesias’s argument goes something like this: poor people don’t have the same opportunities to learn spelling as the other classes; therefore, English spelling rules function as barriers to social blending and must be overhauled. Putting aside the obvious practical concerns surrounding such an action (philosopher kings don't concern themselves with such matters), Yglesias’s view of English as a top-down control mechanism – a tinker’s tool for producing desirable social outcomes – runs counter to what Hayekians might point to as the emergent nature of language. We don't know if Yglesias would recommend the creation of such a body, but there is no Central Authority that controls spelling or vocabulary for all of society. Language is, and has been for centuries, shaped by each one of us, through usage, every day. Literally anyone can invent a word or adopt a new spelling at any time, and if enough people use it, it becomes a part of our shared means of communication - a part of our culture and social norms. It’s indicative of the core temperamental differences between libertarians and progressives that my take on spelling is the polar opposite of Yglesias’s. Whereas Yglesias sees spelling as a tool of oppression beating down the poor, I view it as a great equalizing opportunity *for anyone willing to put in the effort.* Spelling is nothing more than a system of rules and exceptions learned through experience, memorization, and practice. Unlike in the past, when books were true rarities affordable only by the elite, the entirety of the English language is now directly accessible to anyone with a library, book store, or computer. With a simple grammar book and a bit of practice, there is nothing preventing the poorest of the poor from learning to express themselves every bit as eloquently as the richest of the rich. Compare the written word to mansions, luxury cars, finely tailored clothing, and other social status symbols long beyond the grasp of all but the super wealthy. Or compare it to exclusionary factors not so easily changed, such as accent, mannerisms, or physical appearance. If language is a barrier for the lower classes, what a cheap and accessible barrier it is, and once you've climbed over that initial hurdle, nobody can rightly tell the prince from the pauper on the other side.

Mark - I don't intend to prolong the discussion, but I just want to say that, as somebody who attended Jewish school for many years, I found your statement about the Talmud being taken with mother's milk laughable. The vast majority of American Jews couldn't give you a coherent description of what the Talmud is, much less be able to tell you anything that's in it. You and SB probably know more about it than 95% of the ethnic Jews in this country. The idea that it's a guiding philosophy for how modern Jews live their lives is ludicrous.

The two major failings of socialism are its over-reliance on altruism and its economic inefficiency. The idea that there can be "property" in a context with no scarcity, such as the digital world, is a contradiction in terms. In the digital world, it doesn't matter if people "steal" software or hoard it on their computers. Once software comes into existence, everyone benefits from its rapid and widespread distribution. In many ways, open-source software is Hayekian economics in action because it utilizes dispersed, local knowledge to improve products from many different angles. The only remotely plausible justification for intellectual property is utilitarian - that it will preserve a financial incentive to create where none would otherwise exist. I think it's an open question whether granting creators content monopolies through top-down government administration is really necessary (I suspect that it isn't), but it's worth pointing out that there are many ways of making money through software that don't rely on selling pieces of plastic, there are ways of protecting software without IP, and not everyone is motivated primarily by money. According to the logic of IP defenders, something like Wikipedia should not be able to exist or would be so unreliable as to be unusable.

Even as someone SB considers "Jewish" (although I don't personally identify as such), I don't have any fundamental problem with discussing anti-semitism, race-based social movements, or related topics here. There are certain insights to be found in what SB has to say - such as the value of a high-trust culture - but much of the core anti-semitic reasoning does fall into the category of "bigoted crap" that isn't worthy of serious consideration. I've noticed that blatant logical fallacies and tautologies (e.g., "All Jews are bad, except those who aren't" -type arguments) are tolerated by the practicioners of such ideologies based on what appears to be little more than the radical appeal of an outside-the-mainstream viewpoint. It isn't logically possible to argue against such tautologies, where every "bad Jew" is chalked up as confirmation and every "good Jew" is an exception, so the value of the conversation will be inherently limited by that framework. Rules are necessary to some degree, and censorship can be justified provided that the moderator is up-front with expectations and consistent in enforcement. I'm a bit sensitive on the issue because I was labeled a "troll" on the progressive blog where I used to comment (simply for disagreeing with them), then later banned on the basis that I had "libeled" a local teacher's union that just happened to be a major advertiser on the blog (the "libel" consisted of a widely reported criminal conviction of a union leader). In light of that experience, I'm perhaps more hesitant than most to urge banning of "trolls" or censorship of "offensive" content. But this is something MSK can sort out.

The Wire is the definitive work on the failure, injustice, and self-reinforcing nature of liberal/Democratic urban political systems. Season 1:drug war/minority poverty cycle; Season 2: union hypocrisy; Season 3: corrupt politicians; Season 4: failed public schools; Season 5: hopelessness. I very much enjoyed the tour of my blue-state childhood. I think The Sopranos gives it a good run for its money in terms of Best-Ever Series.

Both are good series. The UK House of Cards is also worthwhile and different enough that you can enjoy both versions. Nobody should be particularly surprised by my recommendation of Game of Thrones. While a fantasy series on its face, there is a lot of "human" truth to be found in the characters and events. Liberal blogger Ezra Klein wrote a jaw-droppingly stupid piece on House of Cards in which he disputes the premise of the fictional TV program and defends Washington's politicians: https://www.facebook.com/ezraklein/posts/422392561181132 And here I thought that Gregory House was a real medical doctor all these years, and that all life-threatening medical conditions could be effectively diagnosed through social interaction and personal epiphany within a neat 42-minute timeframe.

When it comes to distinct plots of land, there is rarely a compelling argument for public space. Many government agengies (including Office of White House, DOD, DOJ, etc.) have seen the light and, instead of operating exclusively from "public" buildings, now rent office space from private landowners. It's cheaper, more efficient, and the quality of the facilities tends to be much higher. Roads are a trickier issue because they involve exponentially larger numbers of land owners and the transaction costs become astronomical. There are private roads and highways out there - I drove on one recently in Virginia - but since these are the rare exception, it's no wonder that progressives *love* to bring up public roads at every opportunity in defense of statist expansion. I'm sympathetic to minarchist ideas because I concede it's vastly easier for a central authority to establish roads than private actors, and it's probably worth the liberty cost in that specific case. I value individualism more highly than most, but it's not an absolute for me. The real issue in the "roads" debate is whether the discussion is worth having in the first place when there are so many dubious areas of government involvement that should be prioritized first.

6.1 on imdb.com means the movie is essentially trash. I'm not a snob about many things, but I am a movie snob, and I won't watch anything below 6.7.

Amen! It is delightful seeing reason at work in a head not my own. That's what OL is for: rare treats of rationality. --Brant watch the gears go 'round, albeit rarely Agreed! RB is much better when not laced with Kacy. I'm hesitant to interrupt the praise, PDS, and it is very much appreciated. But in the interest of full disclosure, my comments were a rebuttal to post #2 in which Kacy's admonished Sarah Palin for not authoring everything published under her name.

Michael - Frankly, I was off the topic until Brant reintroduced it and you responded. I interpreted that as a green light to share my input as a participant in said feud. I apologize if it was not intended as such. Looking forward to many good discussions on OL.

Michael - I'm furiously rereading my post to determine how you misunderstood my meaning so badly. That we receive value here through dialog was precisely the point I was attempting to make. It is the reason I read and post here, and I neither expect nor deserve any monetary compensation for it. As SB said, ideas are the coin of this realm, and that is precisely the kind of return on investment I am seeking here. My list of examples (to which Dennis and SB so kindly added) was intended to demonstrate that Kacy *can* be convinced of his wrongheadedness, but a controlled blasting of his calcified mental defenses (what I believe you call cybernetic programs) is required before any real progress can be made. This is why your chastisement of the "Alex Jones sucks" game didn't take the first round, and subsquent entries in the "Fill-in-the-blank sucks" series materialized shortly after. I'm sure you recognize the pattern of antagonizing conservatives even more clearly now that you are familiar with his social media feed.

Michael - SB and I have been up-front that we're here for our own entertainment. Since we aren't being compensated for our contributions, I think it's safe to say that most here are seeking the same in some form or another. As Brant points out, idle hands perform the devil's work. All I really asked from Kacy was a demonstrated willingness to question his own assumptions and engage in good-faith debate. Unfortunately, that prerequisite was never met by him, so our tires were perennially stuck in the mud with ad hominem back-and-forth and other junk-food entertainment where the substance should have been. "Glenn Beck sucks" "No, he doesn't" becomes a wearisome exercise rather quickly, and one gets the distinct impression in such threads that we're really just an audience to the originator playing solitaire with himself. I'm not particularly concerned with what popular entertainers (it's important to remember they are entertainers) say on their programs to get ratings. Nor do I consider "Rand Paul - drug warrior" to be topic worth any serous investigation or response. Now if the topic were "How principled do we want to be with our votes?," I find that a much more interesting topic, which is why I attempted (and failed) to steer the discussion in that direction.

But on what basis can you claim that humanity has no chance of altering this future scenario? It seems entirely plausible to me that technology could advance to the point where we could prevent any or all of the above from occurring as set in motion by our natural environment. How can you claim that we have no chance of preventing our sun from dying with any more degree of certainty than someone who claimed that man would never leave the earth a century or two ago? Why do you believe it impossible that humanity will colonize other planets and solar systems over this time period?

What evidence do you have in support of this prophecy of doom? We are notoriously bad at making even short-term predictions. Few, if any, from a century ago could conceive of something like the internet or modern commercial flight. How can you say with certainty that the distant future of our species will keel over and die without anything to say about the matter? This is religion masquerading as wisdom, or worse, science.

This species will not have 1.5 billion years on Earth. As a matter of fact biological species do not have a tremendously long shelf-life.; At best we could last in the tens of millions of years. More likely we will be extinct before that. There are two chances that humanity will get of this planet alive; slim and none. Ba'al Chatzaf There has never been a species on this planet that is anything like humanity. We already have the capacity to shape our planet and control our future to a large degree. I see no reason why, thousands or millions of years from now, we may not be able to shape our solar system. The simple fact is we just don't know what the future holds.

Baal - In the span of a few lifetimes, humanity has gone from horseback to space shuttles, from telegraphs to smart phones. Do you concede the possibility that over the next 1.5 billion years we could potentially change the course that has been set for us by our environment?

Myers=Briggs suffers from the horoscope problem - the "types" are defined in such broad terms that anyone who so chooses can see truth in them and deemphasize that which doesn't fit ("I must just not be 100% J"). At best, it can serve as a catalyst for more meaningful introspection. At worst, its hocus pocus being peddled to the gullible for profit.