Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Mr. Scorpio
Mr. Scorpio's Journal
Mr. Scorpio's Journal
February 27, 2013
A Charlie Brown Christmas Reunion
February 27, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/27/1644781/sequester-infographic/
This Virginia Class Submarine…
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/27/1644781/sequester-infographic/
February 27, 2013
Sade Live - No Ordinary Love
February 27, 2013
Sade - Keep Looking
February 27, 2013
Ridin' Dirty
February 27, 2013
Clearly, Cruz is the new McCarthy.
What The People Ted Cruz Describes As ‘Communists’ Actually Believe
Recently, it came to light that Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) suggested that roughly a dozen professors at Harvard Law would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the United States government. Through a spokesman, Cruz doubled down on these comments, saying Senator Cruzs substantive point was absolutely correct: in the mid-1990s, the Harvard Law School faculty included numerous self-described proponents of critical legal studies a school of thought explicitly derived from Marxism and they far outnumbered Republicans.
Not only is Cruzs follow-up not a defense of his original statement, but its wrong in and of itself. Critical Legal Studies (CLS) isnt derived from Marxism;although the movement was influenced by some Marxist ideas, its explicitly designed to be a critique of Marxist approaches to the law rather than an extension of them.
[blockqseves would say that they were revolutionary Marxists. ThinkProgress reached out to Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman, a leading crit (the term CLS exponents use for themselves). Heres what Seidman told us:
A 1992 article by crit Richard Michael Fischl backs up Seidman. As if anticipating Cruz, he wrote Those of us associated with cls think it grossly unjust when our critics make an analytically identical move and argue that Stalinist totalitarianism is the best worked-out, most consummated version of our position in the face of the fact that a common intellectual thread that ties together virtually all cls work is its rejection of the authoritarianism and vulgar determinism suggested by the Stalinist label.
So its clear enough: crits arent revolutionary Marxists. But Seidmans suggestion that CLS was designed to refute Marxist theories implies that even Cruz spokespersons reformulation was inaccurate: far from being explicitly derived from Marxism, CLS was explicitly seen as a critique of Marxist thought. So not only did Cruz get it wrong, but in a certain sense he got it backwards.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/27/1640821/what-the-people-ted-cruz-describes-as-communists-actually-believe/
Not only is Cruzs follow-up not a defense of his original statement, but its wrong in and of itself. Critical Legal Studies (CLS) isnt derived from Marxism;although the movement was influenced by some Marxist ideas, its explicitly designed to be a critique of Marxist approaches to the law rather than an extension of them.
[blockqseves would say that they were revolutionary Marxists. ThinkProgress reached out to Georgetown University law professor Louis Michael Seidman, a leading crit (the term CLS exponents use for themselves). Heres what Seidman told us:
I dont have anything thats not obvious to say about Cruzs disgusting comments. A lot of early crit work was designed to refute Marxist theories of law, although some crits were also influenced by Marx. I know of no crit who thought of himself as a communist or who supported the regimes in the Soviet Union or China.
A 1992 article by crit Richard Michael Fischl backs up Seidman. As if anticipating Cruz, he wrote Those of us associated with cls think it grossly unjust when our critics make an analytically identical move and argue that Stalinist totalitarianism is the best worked-out, most consummated version of our position in the face of the fact that a common intellectual thread that ties together virtually all cls work is its rejection of the authoritarianism and vulgar determinism suggested by the Stalinist label.
So its clear enough: crits arent revolutionary Marxists. But Seidmans suggestion that CLS was designed to refute Marxist theories implies that even Cruz spokespersons reformulation was inaccurate: far from being explicitly derived from Marxism, CLS was explicitly seen as a critique of Marxist thought. So not only did Cruz get it wrong, but in a certain sense he got it backwards.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/02/27/1640821/what-the-people-ted-cruz-describes-as-communists-actually-believe/
Clearly, Cruz is the new McCarthy.
February 27, 2013
Whenever you come across a person who says that they don't ever make mistakes…
Then that's the very first person that you should scrutinize if ever things go horribly wrong.
February 27, 2013
Most Republicans IN government are hostile to the ideal OF government
So they go out of their way to cripple the way that government can benefit most people, but favors the benefit of a select few.
Then they go out of their way to impede the ability of most voters to put in place people who do believe in a government that benefits all.
They know that they're the problem, but they place the blame on the people who ARE trying to help.
Anyone with eyes can see who's causing the problems here.
Profile Information
Member since: 2002Number of posts: 73,630