From "5 faith facts about Lawrence Lessig: long shot, freedom fighter" in The Washington Post, under bullet-point 2: "He lost his faith in England." Later in the piece, it says: "Lessig may be mum on his own faith, but...."
What's up with "mum" and "vague"? Maybe "mum" and "vague" is a religion. Not all the mum-n-vaguers are atheists. No need to jump to the conclusion that Lessig is another one of the in-the-closet atheists who decline to participate in the public image of atheism, which is rather irritating and hostile and could stand some dilution.
ADDED: Grew up in "a church-going 'right-wing lunatic Republican'" what? WaPo could use some editing. Presumably it's "family," but it could be "city." (He grew up in Williamsport, Pennsylvania.) Why would a candidate for President talk about his family/community with language like "right-wing lunatic Republican"? It's so divisive and abrasive. Maybe I was wrong to think that if he came out as an atheist, he'd mellow the existing atheist brand.
AND: Dialogue at Meadhouse.
MEADE (after reading the post): You say you lost your faith, but that's not where it's at.
ME: I was thinking about Bob Dylan too. I was thinking: "It's something I learned over in England."
MEADE (singing): You say you lost your faith, but that's not where it's at. You had no faith to lose, and you know it.
पोस्ट्स
६१ टिप्पण्या:
Sixth fun fact about Lessig: No way in hell will he be elected.
so does he still consider himself a libertarian / liberal?
Sounds like he's getting into the big government groove
John Henry
Colleges at Cambridge introduce the aristocrats to real knowledge withheld from the commoners who are fed propaganda to keep them from thinking for themselves and throwing off the Monarchy. That's old news.
The assumption that thinkers who deal in real knowledge cannot believe in God is silly, Bertrand Russell types notwithstanding. is the other way around. But staying mum is the Anglican compromise for sure.
Nobody grows up as a church-going right-wing lunatic Republican. It is a learned behavior.
"Lessig left England 'no longer much of a theist' despite the school’s Christian name and heritage. 'He came back a different person,' Lessig’s sister Leslie told Wired in 2001. 'His views of politics, religion, and his career had totally flipped.' "
This is likely due to buggery.
All the British upper-crust schools are rife with buggery.
Buggery in the library rows, buggery in the bushes, buggery in the Chapel.
He was 'totally flipped' by buggery, both literally and metaphorically.
British buggery.
I am Laslo.
“I am a libertarian in the context of free speech issues,”
And in the context of using the state to limit political speech.
Bill Clinton, for a time a Rhodes Scholar, came back from his buggery experiences overcompensating: hence the women.
British buggery.
I am Laslo.
Sounds like the "bullshit" tag is appropriate.
So is "right-wing" lunacy? Or is "Republican" lunacy.
Sounds like a jerk* either way.
*heavily edited
Given that one half of all people must be above (and below) the mean, how does "right-wing" become an excusable curse?
No true Scotsman could ever be right of center, says I.
Well, Lessig may have clerked for Scalia, but, boy, he certainly didn't learn much.
Bernie polls well and every egotistical freak and crackpot crawls out from under their rock/cozy academic haven because they think they've finally got a shot.
"Why would a candidate for President talk about his family/community with language like "right-wing lunatic Republican"?"
-- Because his family/community is more likely to be forgiving and embrace him anyway while he can score points with other folks.
Grew up in "a church-going 'right-wing lunatic Republican'" what? WaPo could use some editing.
It is the in that is throwing you off. Your post title does not include the in.
"Sounds like the "bullshit" tag is appropriate."
The "civility bullshit" tag doesn't mean "bullshit" and there is not "bullshit" tag.
The "civility bullshit" tag, which I put on this post, applies to the subject of civility, which is promoted sometimes but not all the time, and I consider it bullshit. I'm using it on this post because of the failure of civility in the context of talking about "right-wing Republicans."
Laslo Spatula said...
This is likely due to buggery.
Read the article. The buggery started before he went to England.
What I'm hearing in "right-wing lunatic Republican" is the kind of casual humor that a lawprof might use in the context of like-minded law folk, where it would seem sweet and self-effacing and not nasty. He's talking about his own background, you see.
Take it out of that context and it sounds over-the-top.
"where it would seem sweet and self-effacing and not nasty. "
-- Right-wing lunatic isn't in the same vein as "pinko Commie," which is kind of an over-exaggerated insult. When someone calls you a right-wing lunatic, they imply you're a Unabombing, militiaman who would kill abortion doctors. It is intended to be as insulting as fascist or Nazi.
He was sexually abused by his choir master. I could see that having more impact on his religious faith than his years studying theology.
I sang in the church choir for a very brief time when I was a little kid.
Had the other kids been nice to me, instead of mean to me, I might be religious today.
A thinking person cannot ignore such possibilities.
Anyone seriously concerned about "fair" elections and getting money and corruption out of politics should be calling on Hillary to drop out of the race, otherwise I refuse to believe they're serious about the issue.
Bernie Sanders makes a big stink about how awful it is that the rich are buying their way in--if he's sincere, and not just "signalling" to his right-thinking fawners, he will announce that there's no way he'll ever endorse Hillary Clinton as she is the embodiment of money buying access.
Take it out of that context and it sounds over-the-top.
Or, when heard by the people he is intentionally insulting, it sound intentionally insulting.
And anyone who is NOT using right-wing lunatic in that way is the same as someone allegedly trying to take a racial slur and use it in a way that isn't insulting. Sure, I guess, you can TRY to use it in a neutral way, but the connotation and loadedness of the term makes it hard to "take back."
"Read the article. The buggery started before he went to England."
It is not the mere act of buggery that causes the change, it is specifically the British Schools Buggery.
Hence: British Buggery.
It is like how how Scheisser Videos need to be German to have meaning.
I hope that explains things.
I am Laslo.
Almost all of Lessig veep selections would be deal-killers for me. And of course the Vice President would be very important in a Lessig administration. Most important Vice-President ever!
His "short list"
Elizabeth Warren
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Robert Reich
Van Jones
Jon Stewart
Sheryl Sandberg
Bernie Sanders
Hillary Clinton
Jim Webb
Martin O'Malley
Joe Biden
I would vote for Lawrence Lessig-Jon Stewart before I would vote for Donald Trump-anybody. I like Jon Stewart. Here he is with Mike Huckabee, debating abortion.
Donald Trump, on the other hand, thinks his sister would be a phenomenal Supreme Court Justice.
One of the ironies of the Lessig campaign is that it's disenfranchising. You're voting for a guy who's going to resign. So you're actually voting for...whom? You don't know. Nobody knows. So if we nominate Lawrence Lessig, then he plays king-maker. He decides who his Vice-President is going to be, and he does so (presumably) after you have handed over your vote to him.
That's like a Marxist version of populism. A populist charade!
Unless Lessig picks one of the outsider candidates who are not running for anything. Then he could (and should) announce his veep selection earlier, so that our votes are informed, and not ignorant.
I generally like Lessig, as a law professor. He's one of the liberals I like. Which probably means that his campaign will end up just like Mickey Kaus' campaign.
Converts are always the most radical. Cambridge continues as a religious institution even as the religious text has changed. I don't believe Anglican clergy are expected to believe in God these days. That said, Oxford probably makes more converts.
He is not a candidate for president and it is silly to consider him as one.
If he taught at any other law school but Harvard he would not be getting any media attention.
"One of the ironies of the Lessig campaign is that it's disenfranchising. You're voting for a guy who's going to resign. So you're actually voting for...whom? You don't know. Nobody knows. So if we nominate Lawrence Lessig, then he plays king-maker. He decides who his Vice-President is going to be, and he does so (presumably) after you have handed over your vote to him."
That depends--is he running on a party ticket or as an independent? If the former, it's still up to the party to officially pick the VP, and in both cases the voters will see and decide on his VP pick.
Of course, there's no guarantee he resigns after taking office.
Would that I had a dollar for every Dylan reference made at Meadhouse . . .
Althouse understood:
Law professors often casually insult those who are insufficiently collectivist.
What I'm hearing in "right-wing lunatic Republican" is the kind of casual humor that a lawprof might use in the context of like-minded law folk, where it would seem sweet and self-effacing and not nasty. He's talking about his own background, you see.
Take it out of that context and it sounds over-the-top.
No, it sounds over the top in any context. It's not sweet or self effacing in the least; it's pure tribal signaling. Law professors might usually keep this in the confines of the faculty lounge, but I doubt Lessig cares if he insults people who aren't going to vote for him anyway.
I have always thought him a tool. He seems to jump into a new area of the law (for me, it was computer law and IP), make some stupid suggestions, where everyone ohs and ahs about his brilliance, and then he goes on elsewhere. My problem with him is that his notoriety exceeds his competence and esp his knowledge, and so is givenmuch more credence than it deserves.
The other thing that Lessig could do is commit to placing the #2 in the Democrat primaries on his ticket.
Thus if Hillary Clinton has the second largest group of delegates, it would be a Lessig-Clinton ticket. (In his article discussing his run, Lessig uses the pronoun "her" to describe his hypothetical running mate).
So if you are a Democrat who wants to vote for Hillary, sort of, but also think our political system is largely rigged in favor of the super-wealthy, and you are worried the Clintons are deeply corrupt, why not vote for Lessig-Clinton? That's like voting for Hillary with an asterisk. You're holding your nose and voting for Hillary, even as you recognize her deep corruption.
I am certainly hoping that Lessig's campaign gets some traction!
What I'm hearing in "right-wing lunatic Republican" is the kind of casual humor that a lawprof might use in the context of like-minded law folk, where it would seem sweet and self-effacing and not nasty.
"If that's what intellectuals were doing — kicking members of an out group when they were on the outside — before the outsiders were on the inside and it became awkward to disrespect them to their face, then why should I be impressed by this history of intellectual discourse?" -- Someone or other, 5/5/13
Of course, there's no guarantee he resigns after taking office.
Maybe a Republican Congress scuttles the legislation so that Hillary is forced to stay veep!
Lessig is an important thinker on tech issues in public policy, but he's pretty useless otherwise.
I think Republicans should support Lessig, if only because he might be the 2016 version of Operation Chaos.
I definitely want Lessig in the Democrat debates! Hillary Clinton is synonymous with big money in politics. And for all I know Lawrence Lessig is a stealth libertarian. His candidacy is implicitly as critical of Hillary as it is of Jeb Bush or any other Republican.
Anyway, here is his Ted talk. It's pretty interesting.
CStanley said..."What I'm hearing in "right-wing lunatic Republican" is...sweet and self-effacing and not nasty. He's talking about his own background, you see.
Take it out of that context and it sounds over-the-top."
No, it sounds over the top in any context. It's not sweet or self effacing in the least
Exactly. What's sweet or self effacing about viciously insulting your own family? Like Malcolm Gladwell last year gratuitously slamming his home town, Lessig's willingness to destroy those closest to him for no better reason than to reaffirm his liberal bona fides is disgusting.
That depends--is he running on a party ticket or as an independent?
He's running in the Democrat primary.
To participate in the debates he has to make the 1% polling threshold the DNC has established.
There is a whole category of Roman Catholics the Church is always ready to welcome back, known as Lapsed Catholics.
We refer to ourselves that way to differentiate ourselves from Former Catholics, who have no hope of reintegration with the faithful. And from the heretic Protestants, who will all of course go to Hell for their sin of heresy.
Catholics have it all figured out.
"To participate in the debates he has to make the 1% polling threshold the DNC has established."
Hopefully he makes it onto the stage--I'd very much like to see some discussion of the "buying of candidates" among the Democrats, so we can see Hillary trying to slither around that.
It'd be nice to see some questions for Hillary: "do you expect the American people to believe that none of the big money donors to your campaign are expecting to get some personal benefit from their donation?"
"Can you guarantee that no donors to your foundation, campaign or your family did any business with you in your role as Secretary of State?"
"Do you expect the American people to believe that your family made millions of dollars in speaking fees and your foundation raised billions, and that none of the donors made these payments expecting anything in return from you?"
This guy doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Lessig is good on IP abuse. The part about banning certain political speech is perhaps not quite so libertarian.
We never find out what about England made him stop believing in the place.
"Given that one half of all people must be above (and below) the mean..."
You meant median.
What I'm hearing in "right-wing lunatic Republican" is...sweet and self-effacing and not nasty. He's talking about his own background, you see.
Sure. It's like if that Kentucky county clerk said that back when she was in college she was the biggest fag hag around.
I grew up not far from Williamsport, and one of my many brothers lives and works there. I grew up around a lot of believing Christians, though they were mostly Democrats, to be honest. I was never one, and I knew it the day I got a copy of the New Testament for Christmas. I don't ever use that kind of language though, even in an effort to be "self effacing" because I know that it is hurtful to a lot of people, and is only an effort to get in good with people who believe the "right-wing lunatic Republican" stuff un-ironically and do hate the kinds of people I have called family and friends and whom I know are not hateful.
That's a good point, how do you stop believing in England?
It's like the old joke: "Do you believe in baptism? Believe in it?!? I've seen it done!"
"...freedom fighter"
Not a fighter for freedom, mind you.
Unknown:
I was assuming a normal distribution in which mean = median.
But you are correct that I should have been more precise and not assumed the reader understood my assumption of a normal distribution.
Never back down Birkel!
Those who can do and those who cannot teach that it cannot be done... Faith that is.
I'm trying to determine if he has Jon Stewart and Neil deGrasse Tyson on his VP list because he is serious or because he is trying to get the attention of a particular type of voter that might just give him enough support to get into a debate. Leaning towards the latter. However, this is Harvard where very intelligent people believe very stupid things so one cannot be sure.
If you were to make me guess, Stewart would think the idea of being President to be ridiculous and would decline. I wouldn't hazard a guess with Tyson, but I would say that I'd rather have Stewart.
"If you were to make me guess, Stewart would think the idea of being President to be ridiculous and would decline. I wouldn't hazard a guess with Tyson, but I would say that I'd rather have Stewart."
That doesn't mean they wouldn't go along with him--they may figure rightly that while he'll get some attention, he isn't getting anywhere close to getting elected but they want to lend some notoriety to his cause.
This is the cycle that everyone should just jump in. Make it the circus it deserves to be!
""Lessig says he grew up a church-going 'right-wing lunatic Republican'.""
ADDED: Grew up in "a church-going 'right-wing lunatic Republican'" what?
There's no "in" in the original quote. Listening to Dylan lyrics can damage one's ability to parse actual language.
"People have a hard time accepting anything that overwhelms them." Dylan
Unknown:
Dylan was exactly wrong. People are much more likely to accept the things that overwhelm, confuse or terrify them.
Despite the Dylan love on this website, I divine no particularly deep thinking by the man. And I saw him in concert way back when.
"People have a hard time accepting anything that overwhelms them." Dylan
He's right, they start thinking it's an "inside job" and it isn't really the terrorist (whom they actually are afraid of) that they need to be afraid of, but Republicans! Because it is a lot easier to sleep at night knowing that it is only those Republicans who are out to get you, and not those scary terrorists!
"buggery in the bushes"
?
I grew up not far from Williamsport
So did I!
Nothing signals the gravitas of a political candidate like naming TV stars, celebrities and a mix of anti-American anarchists and decrepit democrat party lifers for your cabinet. Surprised he didn't include Oprah, Edward Snowden, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, and The Rent's Too Damn High guy too. Guess we'll have to wait until after the inauguration for the rest of the esteemed members.
so it's true about universities being indoctrination camps run by godless commies. thanks.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा