Sandy Levinson has some comments that open up another aspect of the concerns I mentioned (all too briefly) in this post.
Still, the story walks on eggs with regard to one of the most important aspects of Ms. Goodling, her religious zeal. Lipton mentions that she graduated from Regent Law School, '99, and notes that that is Pat Robertson's law school. But there has still been no genuine examination of the extent to which Ms. Goodling used her remarkable clout within the Justice Department to focus on hiring not only conservative Republicans, but also persons who were equally opposed to what she no doubt believes is the sinful secularism of modern society. I doubt that she was preferring Evangelical Protestants as such; rather, I think the key to being hired might well be a strong religious identification, and one proxy for that was attending identifiably religious law schools, including, for example, Brigham Young, Regent, Catholic University (though not Georgetown, I strongly suspect), or Marquette. Sooner or later, someone should go through the bios of people hired over the past three years or so, i.e., since the triumphalist election of George W. Bush in 2004 (I refuse to call it a "re-election"), and see how many of them graduated from such schools, as against more secular schools (and, of course, how many of those hired from the latter had been vetted by virtue of their affiliation with the Federalist Society and the like, apparently something highly important to Ms. Goodling).
No one wants to talk about things like this -- it's "not nice." Of course, the people who are the most dangerous in this regard make full use of that reluctance -- you know, the ones who scream "religious freedom" when they're trying to take away yours.
Consider that former AG John Ashcroft held prayer meetings at Justice. Attendance was "voluntary." If you wanted to keep your job, you went. Consider the disproportionate numbers of graduates of law schools such as Regent who have come to infest the DoJ. Consider also that (and I'm having another memory lapse here) a video for a conservative Christian organization was made at the Pentagon, starring something like seven senior officers. In uniform. Consider that Gen. Boykin, whose God is bigger than Allah, received not even a reprimand when he should have been busted.
Of course, consider that the Deciderer is taking instructions directly from God. Apparently his hearing isn't so good.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Finally!
Another gallery at a/k/a Hunter. More nudes from 2000.
This one got edited out.
(For some reason, Blogger doesn't want to deal with direct links to the site or the page in the post. Don't know why. I did the links right. Feh.)
This one got edited out.(For some reason, Blogger doesn't want to deal with direct links to the site or the page in the post. Don't know why. I did the links right. Feh.)
On Haircuts and Hypocrisy
This grows out of my fed-uppedness with a thread at EA Forums. The thread was started with the story of John Edwards' $400 haircut, with a comment to the effect of "Isn't this interesting? And don't you think it's important to know these things about presidential candidates?"
Well, it's not, which was also the reaction for the first few replies, and no, I don't. It's not newsworthy, in any sense, and the first thing I would do would be to wonder why anyone was killing trees and/or electrons to push a story like this. Turns out this version started at Politico. Oh. OK.
What struck me, particularly after I pointed out that this was an old Republican campaign trope left over from the last presidential election (complete with a link to Adam Nagourney's NYT piece taking the blame -- sort of), was that those who brought it up not only refused to consider that the whole story might be a right-wing smear attempt -- with the MSM piling on for the ride -- but that they accused me of partisanship because I insisted on looking under the surface. I think I finally hit the "to hell with this" point when, after all the complaints about "knee-jerk partisanship," someone pointed out that the lesson to be learned was "not tell anyone how much your haircuts cost." And then insisted that was the real lesson.
Jesus H. K. Hornblower Christ. I don't think I need to say any more about that grand conclusion.
Call it cause and effect. That's the effect. Here's something about the causes. From Jamison Foser, at Media Matters:
Cavuto suggests it's hypocritical for Edwards, a wealthy man, to want to eradicate poverty. That is essentially what Beck and Cafferty and Tucker said, too. And it's what The Washington Post's Bill Hamilton suggested when he justified front-page treatment for the article about Edwards' house sale by pointing out that it involved a "presidential candidate [who] just happens to be a millionaire who is basing his campaign on a populist appeal to the common man."
This is simply insane.
It is no more an example of "hypocrisy" for a rich man to want to help the poor and middle class than it is "ironic" to experience rain on your wedding day. That just isn't what the word means.
An example of hypocrisy would be a politician who claims to care about the poor and middle class while pursuing policies that line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the nation. A "compassionate conservative," for example. That's hypocrisy.
A rich man who says he cares about poverty and pursues policies designed to fight it? That isn't hypocrisy, that's empathy.
There's also a post at Carpetbagger Report about Roger Simon and The Haircut.
The comments on this are interesting, particularly those relating to Edwards as a populist candidate and populism in general. There's also an illuminating list of Edwards' legislation -- which you haven't heard about from WaPo or NYT. It's much more "newsworthy" (and, dare I say it, useful for those with a desire for access to power) to focus on a $400 haircut -- which, let us remember, is something that Edwards can well afford. I know people who routinely pay that much for haircuts. They are also very much committed to a more equitable society: they feel they've been given great opportunities and that they should give something back. The press, however, would much rather have us think there's something wrong with being rich and caring about people who aren't, and that being rich and not giving a damn about anyone else is fine.
And, regrettably, there are those who will buy into it. Happily.
Well, it's not, which was also the reaction for the first few replies, and no, I don't. It's not newsworthy, in any sense, and the first thing I would do would be to wonder why anyone was killing trees and/or electrons to push a story like this. Turns out this version started at Politico. Oh. OK.
What struck me, particularly after I pointed out that this was an old Republican campaign trope left over from the last presidential election (complete with a link to Adam Nagourney's NYT piece taking the blame -- sort of), was that those who brought it up not only refused to consider that the whole story might be a right-wing smear attempt -- with the MSM piling on for the ride -- but that they accused me of partisanship because I insisted on looking under the surface. I think I finally hit the "to hell with this" point when, after all the complaints about "knee-jerk partisanship," someone pointed out that the lesson to be learned was "not tell anyone how much your haircuts cost." And then insisted that was the real lesson.
Jesus H. K. Hornblower Christ. I don't think I need to say any more about that grand conclusion.
Call it cause and effect. That's the effect. Here's something about the causes. From Jamison Foser, at Media Matters:
Cavuto suggests it's hypocritical for Edwards, a wealthy man, to want to eradicate poverty. That is essentially what Beck and Cafferty and Tucker said, too. And it's what The Washington Post's Bill Hamilton suggested when he justified front-page treatment for the article about Edwards' house sale by pointing out that it involved a "presidential candidate [who] just happens to be a millionaire who is basing his campaign on a populist appeal to the common man."
This is simply insane.
It is no more an example of "hypocrisy" for a rich man to want to help the poor and middle class than it is "ironic" to experience rain on your wedding day. That just isn't what the word means.
An example of hypocrisy would be a politician who claims to care about the poor and middle class while pursuing policies that line the pockets of the wealthy at the expense of the rest of the nation. A "compassionate conservative," for example. That's hypocrisy.
A rich man who says he cares about poverty and pursues policies designed to fight it? That isn't hypocrisy, that's empathy.
There's also a post at Carpetbagger Report about Roger Simon and The Haircut.
The comments on this are interesting, particularly those relating to Edwards as a populist candidate and populism in general. There's also an illuminating list of Edwards' legislation -- which you haven't heard about from WaPo or NYT. It's much more "newsworthy" (and, dare I say it, useful for those with a desire for access to power) to focus on a $400 haircut -- which, let us remember, is something that Edwards can well afford. I know people who routinely pay that much for haircuts. They are also very much committed to a more equitable society: they feel they've been given great opportunities and that they should give something back. The press, however, would much rather have us think there's something wrong with being rich and caring about people who aren't, and that being rich and not giving a damn about anyone else is fine.
And, regrettably, there are those who will buy into it. Happily.
Saturday, May 12, 2007
On Brahms and Growing Up
I have always loved Brahms -- at least since about age 8, when I encountered the legendary recording of the Brahms D Minor Piano Concerto on scratchy, hand-me-down 78s and went completely birdshit. However, I never liked the second piano concerto (the B-flat Major) very much, until I happened to be listening to it recently (yes, for review -- check GMR on May 20 or thereabouts). It's much better than I remembered. It's grown-up Brahms, I think. If I recall correctly, the D Minor was about the first of Brahms' works performed, while the B-flat Major happened when he was older, established, and a household word.
It's really a mature work, with all the grandeur and scale that we associate with Brahms. The fire of the D Minor is toned down some, but still there, if you're listening. All the raw edges are knit together, the power is just as strong as ever, and that incredible architecture is, if anything, even clearer. I enjoyed listening to it quite a bit. Maybe it's just that I've grown up a little.
But nothing can ever take the place of the D Minor. I haven't grown up that much.
It's really a mature work, with all the grandeur and scale that we associate with Brahms. The fire of the D Minor is toned down some, but still there, if you're listening. All the raw edges are knit together, the power is just as strong as ever, and that incredible architecture is, if anything, even clearer. I enjoyed listening to it quite a bit. Maybe it's just that I've grown up a little.
But nothing can ever take the place of the D Minor. I haven't grown up that much.
Racism, Terrorism, Immigrationism
Anyone who thinks that there couldn't possibly be an element of racism in our approach to "terrorists" is living in a fantasy world. I'm not talking about just the government here. I'm talking about the press and the blogosphere.
Look at the difference in tone here. First, the Fort Dix Six, via CNN:
"The philosophy that supports and encourages jihad around the world against Americans came to live here in New Jersey and threaten the lives of our citizens through these defendants," New Jersey U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie said at a news conference Tuesday.
High drama, no? (He's probably afraid of being put on "that list.")
And then the report on "The Free Militia (from Fox, no less):
"Today's arrest and search warrants have been significant due to the success of the combined efforts by ATF, as well as our state, local and federal partners," Cavanaugh said Thursday. "The communities in the area are safer, considering the fact that large quantities of live grenades and other explosive materials have been safely removed. Excellent investigative team work led us to this point in our investigation."
A Google search under "The Free Militia" turns up 1,030 items, headed by "The Free Militia Field Manual" at Public Eye and a few news reports. "Fort Dix Six" turns up 149,000 -- headed by (you guessed it) Powerline, Hot Air, and Rhymes with Right. What's the difference? The Fort Dix Six are all -- excuse the term -- brown people. They probably wear turbans or something.
Gee, you might ask, where is all this racist slant coming from? See the leading hits for "Fort Dix Six." (Thanks to Dave Neiwert at Orcinus and TRex at Firedoglake for some good insights.)
When you factor in blowhard right-wing tools like Lou Dobbs, you start to see the despicable uses this incipient racism is routinely put to by rabble-rousing demagogues.
After being called out by Lesley Stahl last week on "60 Minutes" about his bogus report on immigrants carrying leprosy into this country, Lou Dobbs and CNN Correspondent Christine Romans still stand by their original claim. Here's a montage from the "60 Minutes" interview and his defense on CNN the other day.
Dave Neiwert, in a post titled "Lou Dobbs: Making Up Racist Shit", has the facts behind Dobbs' "facts":
On "Lou Dobbs Tonight" this past Monday, Dobbs said he stands "100 percent behind" his show's claim that there had been 7,000 new cases of leprosy in the United States over a recent three-year period, and he further suggested that an increase in leprosy was due in part to "unscreened illegal immigrants coming into this country."
Dobbs' endorsement of the claim came after CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl challenged the leprosy figure during a profile of Dobbs on "60 Minutes" this past Sunday. Stahl cited a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services document that reported 7,029 cases over the past 30 years -- not three.
... The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the number of leprosy cases diagnosed in the United States peaked at 361 in 1985. The figure reported on Dobbs' show is easily refuted with just a few minutes of research on the Internet.
HTML Mencken (the artist formerly known as "Retardo Montalban"), in a thoughtful post at Sadly, No!, confronts some of these issues head on in a very good discussion of immigration. (Let's be honest here -- immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the favorite whipping boys right now -- as long as they're brown. I don't hear much about illegal Polish cleaning ladies taking jobs away from home-grown hillbillies.)
I think I probably agree with his main points -- i.e., there is such a thing as too much immigration and you don't have to be a racist to say so. There is only so much stress any system can manage, and runaway immigration is going to stress every system we have past the breaking point. There are practical considerations here, and I don't buy into the google-eyed lefty position of taking something good and throwing it around so it's no longer good for anyone, much less everyone. You may not like the idea of nation-states, but we have them and they aren't going away soon. Let's hear some realistic alternatives if you want that kind of thinking to be taken seriously. The UN? Puh-leeze.
I see no quandary, moral or otherwise, in a nation treating its citizens differently than it treats those who are not (with some major exceptions, mostly in the areas of basic human legal rights such as habeas corpus, public trial, access to legal counsel, that sort of thing, quaint as it is considered in some quarters). I don't see that a welfare check every month is an inalienable human right. The comments at Sadly, No! are well worth reading -- they do constitute a real discussion of the issues that Mencken raises in his post. (How rare in the blogosphere.)
However, back to the main topic: there is, always has been, and perhaps always will be an element of racism in most discussions of most topics of national interest. I think it's largely due to the seemingly innate human differentiation between "us" and "them," which is something you see in hominids and simians across the board. I don't take that as definitive, however. It's just that the traditional means of differentiation fall into easily recognizable categories -- race, religion, ethnic background (and add sexual orientation as a stealth candidate -- it's not necessarily obvious, you know). "American" is not an ethnic identity, unfortunately. It's also a very fluid identity, so that totalitarian wannabes like James Dobson or Pat Robertson can call people who disagree with them "un-American" and get away with it.
It's not a matter of leaving "us/them" thinking behind, because I'm not at all convinced that's possible. I think, though, if we start redefining just who "us" is, it can make some surprising changes, not least of which is pulling the teeth of hate-mongers like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter.
That can't be all bad.
Look at the difference in tone here. First, the Fort Dix Six, via CNN:
"The philosophy that supports and encourages jihad around the world against Americans came to live here in New Jersey and threaten the lives of our citizens through these defendants," New Jersey U.S. Attorney Christopher J. Christie said at a news conference Tuesday.
High drama, no? (He's probably afraid of being put on "that list.")
And then the report on "The Free Militia (from Fox, no less):
"Today's arrest and search warrants have been significant due to the success of the combined efforts by ATF, as well as our state, local and federal partners," Cavanaugh said Thursday. "The communities in the area are safer, considering the fact that large quantities of live grenades and other explosive materials have been safely removed. Excellent investigative team work led us to this point in our investigation."
A Google search under "The Free Militia" turns up 1,030 items, headed by "The Free Militia Field Manual" at Public Eye and a few news reports. "Fort Dix Six" turns up 149,000 -- headed by (you guessed it) Powerline, Hot Air, and Rhymes with Right. What's the difference? The Fort Dix Six are all -- excuse the term -- brown people. They probably wear turbans or something.
Gee, you might ask, where is all this racist slant coming from? See the leading hits for "Fort Dix Six." (Thanks to Dave Neiwert at Orcinus and TRex at Firedoglake for some good insights.)
When you factor in blowhard right-wing tools like Lou Dobbs, you start to see the despicable uses this incipient racism is routinely put to by rabble-rousing demagogues.
After being called out by Lesley Stahl last week on "60 Minutes" about his bogus report on immigrants carrying leprosy into this country, Lou Dobbs and CNN Correspondent Christine Romans still stand by their original claim. Here's a montage from the "60 Minutes" interview and his defense on CNN the other day.
Dave Neiwert, in a post titled "Lou Dobbs: Making Up Racist Shit", has the facts behind Dobbs' "facts":
On "Lou Dobbs Tonight" this past Monday, Dobbs said he stands "100 percent behind" his show's claim that there had been 7,000 new cases of leprosy in the United States over a recent three-year period, and he further suggested that an increase in leprosy was due in part to "unscreened illegal immigrants coming into this country."
Dobbs' endorsement of the claim came after CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl challenged the leprosy figure during a profile of Dobbs on "60 Minutes" this past Sunday. Stahl cited a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services document that reported 7,029 cases over the past 30 years -- not three.
... The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that the number of leprosy cases diagnosed in the United States peaked at 361 in 1985. The figure reported on Dobbs' show is easily refuted with just a few minutes of research on the Internet.
HTML Mencken (the artist formerly known as "Retardo Montalban"), in a thoughtful post at Sadly, No!, confronts some of these issues head on in a very good discussion of immigration. (Let's be honest here -- immigrants, both legal and illegal, are the favorite whipping boys right now -- as long as they're brown. I don't hear much about illegal Polish cleaning ladies taking jobs away from home-grown hillbillies.)
I think I probably agree with his main points -- i.e., there is such a thing as too much immigration and you don't have to be a racist to say so. There is only so much stress any system can manage, and runaway immigration is going to stress every system we have past the breaking point. There are practical considerations here, and I don't buy into the google-eyed lefty position of taking something good and throwing it around so it's no longer good for anyone, much less everyone. You may not like the idea of nation-states, but we have them and they aren't going away soon. Let's hear some realistic alternatives if you want that kind of thinking to be taken seriously. The UN? Puh-leeze.
I see no quandary, moral or otherwise, in a nation treating its citizens differently than it treats those who are not (with some major exceptions, mostly in the areas of basic human legal rights such as habeas corpus, public trial, access to legal counsel, that sort of thing, quaint as it is considered in some quarters). I don't see that a welfare check every month is an inalienable human right. The comments at Sadly, No! are well worth reading -- they do constitute a real discussion of the issues that Mencken raises in his post. (How rare in the blogosphere.)
However, back to the main topic: there is, always has been, and perhaps always will be an element of racism in most discussions of most topics of national interest. I think it's largely due to the seemingly innate human differentiation between "us" and "them," which is something you see in hominids and simians across the board. I don't take that as definitive, however. It's just that the traditional means of differentiation fall into easily recognizable categories -- race, religion, ethnic background (and add sexual orientation as a stealth candidate -- it's not necessarily obvious, you know). "American" is not an ethnic identity, unfortunately. It's also a very fluid identity, so that totalitarian wannabes like James Dobson or Pat Robertson can call people who disagree with them "un-American" and get away with it.
It's not a matter of leaving "us/them" thinking behind, because I'm not at all convinced that's possible. I think, though, if we start redefining just who "us" is, it can make some surprising changes, not least of which is pulling the teeth of hate-mongers like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter.
That can't be all bad.
The Gonzales/Goodling Legacy
This article is, to those of us who care about this country, fairly
creepy-repulsive.
Mr. Comey said that if the accusations about Ms. Goodling’s partisan actions were true, the damage was deep and real.
“I don’t know how you would put that genie back in the bottle, if people started to believe we were hiring our A.U.S.A.s (Assistant United States Attorneys) for political reasons,” he said at a House hearing this month. “I don’t know that there’s any window you can go to to get the department’s reputation back if that kind of stuff is going on.”
Fire everybody and start over?
creepy-repulsive.
Mr. Comey said that if the accusations about Ms. Goodling’s partisan actions were true, the damage was deep and real.
“I don’t know how you would put that genie back in the bottle, if people started to believe we were hiring our A.U.S.A.s (Assistant United States Attorneys) for political reasons,” he said at a House hearing this month. “I don’t know that there’s any window you can go to to get the department’s reputation back if that kind of stuff is going on.”
Fire everybody and start over?
Friday, May 11, 2007
Time
Don't have a lot of it right now. Somehow, no one wants me except all at the same time: heavy writing schedule over the next few days along with a lot of office time. Don't expect much here.
(Of course, that's as much a function of the fact that the news is -- well, the news.
Just to tide you over, see this post by Dave Neiwert at Orcinus. Neiwert points out something I've been saying all along: the most effective approach to scotching terrorist attacks is what the Europeans have been doing: police work. Within the framework of our traditional safeguards.
It works.
(Of course, that's as much a function of the fact that the news is -- well, the news.
Just to tide you over, see this post by Dave Neiwert at Orcinus. Neiwert points out something I've been saying all along: the most effective approach to scotching terrorist attacks is what the Europeans have been doing: police work. Within the framework of our traditional safeguards.
It works.
The Logical End
to identity politics: Atrios summarizes Mark Schmitt:
. . . in basically any non-landslide election almost every nontrivial population subgroup could arguably be the key swing voter group. The key is to find voters you can attract without dramatically compromising on core issues which will alienate other voters who are... part of another key swing voter group.
Mmm -- there you have it.
. . . in basically any non-landslide election almost every nontrivial population subgroup could arguably be the key swing voter group. The key is to find voters you can attract without dramatically compromising on core issues which will alienate other voters who are... part of another key swing voter group.
Mmm -- there you have it.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Specious Argument of the Day
Ramesh Ponnuru on hate crimes at The Corner.
Bradford Plumer takes another stab at the issue. He seems to think that it would be bigoted for conservatives to accept laws against hate crimes while opposing their extension to cover hate crimes motivated by hostility to gays. I don't see why a conservative who thinks hate-crimes laws are a bad idea generally couldn't conclude that they aren't going to be uprooted from the statute books but shouldn't be expanded in scope, either. Politicians make this sort of judgment all the time.
Plumer also tries to provide more evidence for the claim that local law enforcement agencies have a special problem finding funds to fight hate crimes, and thus require federal assistance. But that evidence, at least on first glance, seems to indicate a lack of interest rather than a lack of resources on the local agencies' part. And a relative lack of interest in prosecuting hate crimes in particular may reflect a legitimate set of priorities. Some jurisdictions may not have a lot of hate crimes, for example; and the diversity of jurisdictions' needs is a reason to stick with federalism.
What's glaringly obvious here is the complete lack of regard for the specifics, as Andrew Sullivan so succinctly points out.
Obviously, there's couldn't be any correlation between Ponnuru's standing as one of the major right-wing theoreticians and the hammerlock the rabid anti-gay Christianists have on the far right. (You know -- the devout Christians like Donald Wildmon and James Dobson who think worrying about poverty and environmental destruction will divert resource from the Real Fight.) None whatsoever, I'm sure. If the present bill were just an amendment of the existing law that didn't include protections for gays, I'm sure the opposition would be just as vociferous.
Considering the rampant religious bigotry and racism coming from the right wing these days, it seems like Ponnuru is arguing that, "Hey, look, we have to soft-pedal the race and religious baiting -- that's really bad PR -- so we should concentrate on bashing gays. Again."
Bradford Plumer takes another stab at the issue. He seems to think that it would be bigoted for conservatives to accept laws against hate crimes while opposing their extension to cover hate crimes motivated by hostility to gays. I don't see why a conservative who thinks hate-crimes laws are a bad idea generally couldn't conclude that they aren't going to be uprooted from the statute books but shouldn't be expanded in scope, either. Politicians make this sort of judgment all the time.
Plumer also tries to provide more evidence for the claim that local law enforcement agencies have a special problem finding funds to fight hate crimes, and thus require federal assistance. But that evidence, at least on first glance, seems to indicate a lack of interest rather than a lack of resources on the local agencies' part. And a relative lack of interest in prosecuting hate crimes in particular may reflect a legitimate set of priorities. Some jurisdictions may not have a lot of hate crimes, for example; and the diversity of jurisdictions' needs is a reason to stick with federalism.
What's glaringly obvious here is the complete lack of regard for the specifics, as Andrew Sullivan so succinctly points out.
Obviously, there's couldn't be any correlation between Ponnuru's standing as one of the major right-wing theoreticians and the hammerlock the rabid anti-gay Christianists have on the far right. (You know -- the devout Christians like Donald Wildmon and James Dobson who think worrying about poverty and environmental destruction will divert resource from the Real Fight.) None whatsoever, I'm sure. If the present bill were just an amendment of the existing law that didn't include protections for gays, I'm sure the opposition would be just as vociferous.
Considering the rampant religious bigotry and racism coming from the right wing these days, it seems like Ponnuru is arguing that, "Hey, look, we have to soft-pedal the race and religious baiting -- that's really bad PR -- so we should concentrate on bashing gays. Again."
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Tuesdays
Tuesdays are the beginning of my weekend (normally), and come on the heels of a looong Monday, so I'm generally pretty burnt.Today, I am bored with the news, I am bored with politics (same old, except to note that Mitt Romney is as big an ass as John McCain and Joe Lieberman is still a "stealth" Republican [in quotes because he's not fooling anyone]), I am more than fed up with news reporting (yesterday's AP story about how the Democrats may not find it so easy in 2008 as everyone expected -- "everyone" in this case being -- surprise! -- AP and its fellows). I'm even fed up with the blogs.
And my Internet connection is wonky this morning, so I can't even put up a new gallery at a/k/a Hunter.
And it's supposed to be warm and sort of sunny today. Park. Zoo. Sitting outside at the coffeeshop trying to figure out the latest example of that brand of scholarship known as "getting lost in the forst trying to dissect the trees." Plus an anthology of gay science fiction stories that is, perhaps, tied too closely to movement politics, and suffers all the same weaknesses. Out of eight stories, seven are by women and one by a straight man. Is there, perhaps, a missing point of view here? I mean, it's not like there are no gay men writing science fiction. And, from the science fiction side, it's a bit retro. Been there. So has science fiction, quite some time ago.
And somewhere along the line I have to think of something intelligent to say about Glenn Gould's 1955 recording of the Goldberg Variations. (I mean, something better than the Goldbergs drive me crazy.) What can you say about that? (Except that Gould was really good-looking and had these huge hands.)So tomorrow, if we get the promised thunderstorms, I'll do laundry and that sort of stuff. It looks like an outside day today.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Frank Zappa:
Some scientists claim that hydrogen, because it is so plentiful, is the basic building block of the universe. I dispute that. I say there is more stupidity than hydrogen, and that is the basic building block of the universe.
That's all, folks.
That's all, folks.
Another WTF? Moment
From Stars & Stripes:
On his wedding night in July 2004, then-Petty Officer 3rd Class Jason Knight finally accepted a truth he had fought against for years: he was gay.
Almost immediately, he moved to get his marriage annulled. He apologized to the woman he’d married. And when it came time to explain his changing circumstances to the Navy, he left nothing out. Under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, he was quickly discharged from the service.
But now — whether through a clerical oversight or what some claim is an unwritten change in policy to keep more gay servicemembers in the ranks at a time of war — Jason Knight is back on active duty.
Since promoted to petty officer second class, Knight is finishing a scheduled one-year tour in Kuwait with Naval Customs Battalion Bravo. And, already kicked out of the Navy once, he sees no need to hide his sexual orientation.
In light of events such as this, McCain's rationalizations are a real hoot:
“I believe polarization of personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well-intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units,” Sen. John McCain, a presidential candidate and former Navy officer, wrote in an April 16 letter explaining his support of the policy.
“Most importantly, the national security of the United States, not to mention the lives of our men and women in uniform, are put at grave risk by policies detrimental to the good order and discipline which so distinguish America’s armed services.”
This can just as easily be taken as a condemnation of DADT as support: the policy itself creates polarization and breakdown of unit effectiveness. It's the result of a bunch of generals with their knickers all twisted because of prejudices they've never bothered to examine. The lightbulb goes on when you realize that most personnel serving with gays know they are serving with gays and don't care.
As far as Peter Pace and his support for the policy, he's a yes-man, otherwise he wouldn't be chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- not in this administration.
On his wedding night in July 2004, then-Petty Officer 3rd Class Jason Knight finally accepted a truth he had fought against for years: he was gay.
Almost immediately, he moved to get his marriage annulled. He apologized to the woman he’d married. And when it came time to explain his changing circumstances to the Navy, he left nothing out. Under the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, he was quickly discharged from the service.
But now — whether through a clerical oversight or what some claim is an unwritten change in policy to keep more gay servicemembers in the ranks at a time of war — Jason Knight is back on active duty.
Since promoted to petty officer second class, Knight is finishing a scheduled one-year tour in Kuwait with Naval Customs Battalion Bravo. And, already kicked out of the Navy once, he sees no need to hide his sexual orientation.
In light of events such as this, McCain's rationalizations are a real hoot:
“I believe polarization of personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well-intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units,” Sen. John McCain, a presidential candidate and former Navy officer, wrote in an April 16 letter explaining his support of the policy.
“Most importantly, the national security of the United States, not to mention the lives of our men and women in uniform, are put at grave risk by policies detrimental to the good order and discipline which so distinguish America’s armed services.”
This can just as easily be taken as a condemnation of DADT as support: the policy itself creates polarization and breakdown of unit effectiveness. It's the result of a bunch of generals with their knickers all twisted because of prejudices they've never bothered to examine. The lightbulb goes on when you realize that most personnel serving with gays know they are serving with gays and don't care.
As far as Peter Pace and his support for the policy, he's a yes-man, otherwise he wouldn't be chairman of the Joint Chiefs -- not in this administration.
Conservatives for Darwin (Again)
Ann Althouse has a post that has some interesting tidbits in it. A discussion of the validity of conservatism as proved by Darwinism, according to Larry Arnhardt, who apparently knows less about Darwin than he does about history:
Darwinists and conservatives share a similar view of human beings: they are imperfect; they have organized in male-dominated hierarchies; they have a natural instinct for accumulation and power; and their moral thought has evolved over time.
The institutions that successfully evolved to deal with this natural order were conservative ones, founded in sentiment, tradition and judgment, like limited government and a system of balances to curb unchecked power, he explains. Unlike leftists, who assume “a utopian vision of human nature” liberated from the constraints of biology, [political scientist Larry] Arnhart says, conservatives assume that evolved social traditions have more wisdom than rationally planned reforms.
There are some assumptions in these statements that don't quite hold up to examination.
(Reading his comments in light of what conservatism has become in the last generation is the irony of the day -- maybe of the month. His arguments don't have a lot to do with the Bush-league stuff we're seeing these days. Limited government? Gone. Checks and balances? Anathema. Male-dominated hierarchies and accumulation and power are still going strong.)
Darwinism has periodically been invoked as a paradigm for social organization, and it always comes a cropper. The only area outside of biology I've ever seen that can make use of the concepts of evolution is linguistics. (I think I've discussed Merritt Ruhlen's excellent The Origin of Language in that context.) Darwinism vis-a-vis society generally works out as a rationale by the top of the food chain for maintaining the status quo. I haven't read Arnart's book (and I have no intention of doing so -- it would probably give me fits), so I'm simply going to focus on the implications of what Althouse has quoted.
The most glaring flaw is the first sentence of the second paragraph. Cart, horse. Arnhart arbitrarily designates historical institutions as "conservative." It's not even a complete list. How about infanticide? Is that a conservative institution? It has ample historical and biological precedent. Polygamy and harems? Lots of them in many societies, and that's an institution that also appears in our nearest relatives. What about the institution of the berdache in North American societies and similar institutions elsewhere? What's his conservative/Darwinian explanation for that? Representative democracy? That's certainly anti-Darwinian. What about those societies that have been matriarchal or matrilineal, such as the early Celts and the Pelasgian peoples (pre-Indo-European) of Greece?
He also, I think. misrepresents the liberal view of human nature. He leaves out two of our most salient characteristics: we as a species are highly adaptable and easily educable. (I know, the "easily" part is open to debate, but comparatively speaking, we can learn faster and more completely than any other species.) That is really what the "utopian vision" is founded on. The Founders, of course, were the products of classical liberalism, so I could make the argument that he is arguing against the American system of government here. It certainly has some utopian features.
OK -- that's just from a paragraph and a half of Arnhart's thought, and I'm not even pursuing some of his points.
The more I think about this, the more I'm inclined just to throw up my hands. What a putz.
(PS -- Looking at this again, I didn't really mean this to be a "But what about. . . ?" post, but it seems to me that Arnhart is being very selective in his examples of "conservative" institutions that are the product of evolution, and drawing sweeping generalizations based on a highly edited survey of the evidence. In other words, I think my examples are bigger than his examples. Read that as you will.)
Darwinists and conservatives share a similar view of human beings: they are imperfect; they have organized in male-dominated hierarchies; they have a natural instinct for accumulation and power; and their moral thought has evolved over time.
The institutions that successfully evolved to deal with this natural order were conservative ones, founded in sentiment, tradition and judgment, like limited government and a system of balances to curb unchecked power, he explains. Unlike leftists, who assume “a utopian vision of human nature” liberated from the constraints of biology, [political scientist Larry] Arnhart says, conservatives assume that evolved social traditions have more wisdom than rationally planned reforms.
There are some assumptions in these statements that don't quite hold up to examination.
(Reading his comments in light of what conservatism has become in the last generation is the irony of the day -- maybe of the month. His arguments don't have a lot to do with the Bush-league stuff we're seeing these days. Limited government? Gone. Checks and balances? Anathema. Male-dominated hierarchies and accumulation and power are still going strong.)
Darwinism has periodically been invoked as a paradigm for social organization, and it always comes a cropper. The only area outside of biology I've ever seen that can make use of the concepts of evolution is linguistics. (I think I've discussed Merritt Ruhlen's excellent The Origin of Language in that context.) Darwinism vis-a-vis society generally works out as a rationale by the top of the food chain for maintaining the status quo. I haven't read Arnart's book (and I have no intention of doing so -- it would probably give me fits), so I'm simply going to focus on the implications of what Althouse has quoted.
The most glaring flaw is the first sentence of the second paragraph. Cart, horse. Arnhart arbitrarily designates historical institutions as "conservative." It's not even a complete list. How about infanticide? Is that a conservative institution? It has ample historical and biological precedent. Polygamy and harems? Lots of them in many societies, and that's an institution that also appears in our nearest relatives. What about the institution of the berdache in North American societies and similar institutions elsewhere? What's his conservative/Darwinian explanation for that? Representative democracy? That's certainly anti-Darwinian. What about those societies that have been matriarchal or matrilineal, such as the early Celts and the Pelasgian peoples (pre-Indo-European) of Greece?
He also, I think. misrepresents the liberal view of human nature. He leaves out two of our most salient characteristics: we as a species are highly adaptable and easily educable. (I know, the "easily" part is open to debate, but comparatively speaking, we can learn faster and more completely than any other species.) That is really what the "utopian vision" is founded on. The Founders, of course, were the products of classical liberalism, so I could make the argument that he is arguing against the American system of government here. It certainly has some utopian features.
OK -- that's just from a paragraph and a half of Arnhart's thought, and I'm not even pursuing some of his points.
The more I think about this, the more I'm inclined just to throw up my hands. What a putz.
(PS -- Looking at this again, I didn't really mean this to be a "But what about. . . ?" post, but it seems to me that Arnhart is being very selective in his examples of "conservative" institutions that are the product of evolution, and drawing sweeping generalizations based on a highly edited survey of the evidence. In other words, I think my examples are bigger than his examples. Read that as you will.)
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Maverick, or Just Desperate?
John McCain hasn't been high on my list of potential presidents since about 1992. I've watched him slide farther and farther into Neverneverland over the past couple of years, and his performance in this campaign so far has been laughable. Apparently I'm not the only one so impressed: he's now tied with Fred Thompson for second place (at 14%, behind Giuliani's 30%) in the polls.
The latest hint of insanity has to do with DADT. Most Americans are in favor of repealing it, including a majority of serving military -- but not The Base. So what's McCain's position?
I believe polarization of the personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units.
Most importantly, the national security of the United States, not to mention the lives of our men and women in uniform, are put at grave risk by policies detrimental to the good order and and discipline which so distinguish America’s Armed Services. … I remain opposed to the open expression of homosexuality in the military.
Read the whole letter. It is just so wrong from beginning to end -- no contact with reality whatsoever. And it is viciously slanted. Even in this excerpt, note the phrasing: "elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units." He just doesn't get it.
Anyone who thought DADT was good policy to begin with is, in my humble opinion, of questionable intelligence. Anyone who still thinks so is beyond the pale.
This is a letter from a man who would govern on mythology, not facts. We've had seven years of that already, thank you very much.
The latest hint of insanity has to do with DADT. Most Americans are in favor of repealing it, including a majority of serving military -- but not The Base. So what's McCain's position?
I believe polarization of the personnel and breakdown of unit effectiveness is too high a price to pay for well intentioned but misguided efforts to elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units.
Most importantly, the national security of the United States, not to mention the lives of our men and women in uniform, are put at grave risk by policies detrimental to the good order and and discipline which so distinguish America’s Armed Services. … I remain opposed to the open expression of homosexuality in the military.
Read the whole letter. It is just so wrong from beginning to end -- no contact with reality whatsoever. And it is viciously slanted. Even in this excerpt, note the phrasing: "elevate the interests of a minority of homosexual servicemembers above those of their units." He just doesn't get it.
Anyone who thought DADT was good policy to begin with is, in my humble opinion, of questionable intelligence. Anyone who still thinks so is beyond the pale.
This is a letter from a man who would govern on mythology, not facts. We've had seven years of that already, thank you very much.
Friday, May 04, 2007
Hate Crimes, Part II
Managed to lose a long, detailed post on hate crimes, thank to the weird interface between my computer and the Internet. A reconstruction.
Andrew Sullivan is convinced that the president's threatened veto of the new hate crimes bill, just passed by the House, is based on the homophobia of his base. I was somewhat dubious when he first brought it up, but he does make a case. Bush claims no prejudice, but since we've seen ample evidence that truth is an infrequent visitor to this administration, I'm not giving those protestations much credit. Since his base is all he has left, that makes a lot of sense -- he has no one else to cater to. I don't think we can take quotes from James Dobson as completely indicative of the White House's thinking, but we know where the pressure's coming from. (As though this were some sort of surprise).
Frankly, I think the president's veto threat owes as much to the fact that this is a bill passed by a Democratic Congress as to the moral repugnance of mandating stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry. It's noteworthy that the first three vetoes of his presidency have all been on bills with broad bipartisan support.
I am still trying to find cogent arguments against hate crimes laws, and everything I've found so far leaves out what, to me, are some of the most important concepts involved. Sullivan, for example, makes passing reference to such things as "its chilling effect on free speech, its undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on." These accord in general with the arguments I've seen against hate crimes legislation. What seems to be missing is, first, any sense of history, and second, a concept basic to our traditions of jurisprudence, which is to say "harm" and "remedy," which go together like (dare I say it?) lesbians and children. Robbie at The Malcontent, for example, in this post, attempts to draw a parallel between the law as an instrument of injustice and hate crimes legislation:
In criminal convictions and sentencing, it is vital that private moral preferences be discarded in favor of equal treatment under the law. The Supreme Court rightly recognized that a disapproval of homosexuality had no place in determining singularly harsh punishment. When a crime is committed, all people should be punished equally without regards to whether or not we feel certain moral dimensions are particularly reprehensible.
So it is with hate crimes laws. Murder is murder. However, gay rights groups and others would have us believe that murder is especially bad when motivated by a nebulous philosophy of hate. It isn't enough to sentence a criminal according to standards currently outlined in law. No, like the Kansas courts, we must "send a message" that disdain for minority groups is deserving of more aggressive punishment. We must substitute the impartiality of law in favor of our own political and moral beliefs.
The first thing that jumps out at me is that hate-crimes legislation does not embody anyone's private moral preferences. In fact, it removes those preferences as a basis for condoning certain crimes. It is, quite openly, a statement of social policy: bigotry is not something that we consider beneficial to our society. It neither conforms to our stated ideals nor does it contribute to the well-being of our citizens. Increased penalties for bias crimes are one way of making that clear.
The second thing that jumps out is that hate crimes laws do not deal with "nebulous philosophies of hate." There is a bit of probably unintentional misrepresentation here. Hate crimes laws deal with specific crimes perpetrated against specific groups, not with nebulous philosophies. The groups protected are those that we recognize as historically subject to mistreatment because of bias. And, in case anyone still has doubts, it's pretty well accepted that bias crimes tend to be more violent, their victims are more likely to wind up dead or seriously injured, and their effects reach farther into the community. Both aspects of the law come into play here: harm and remedy and social policy. The harm is obvious; since remedies for those who are dead are pretty much moot, all we can do is to insist that we exact the maximum penalty for future incidents in the hope of deterring them.
Matt also has posted on this issue at The Malcontent:
A corollary to this, of course, is hate-crimes laws: If we are going to treat the perpetrators of different crimes disparately, depending on the favored group being victimized, then the groups “protected” by hate-crimes legislation have been granted rights that aren’t conferred on the larger population.
If “equality” is at the heart of the gay-rights agenda, then some of the proponents are being highly selective in its application.
The "special rights" argument is one that has never made much sense to me. I suspect that's because of its dubious history as a buzz-word for opponents of equality. We first saw it, as I recall, used against affirmative action (another of those remedies that is perhaps not the best, but the only one we seem to have available), and it has since become a staple of the religious right's war against gay equality. (The degree of double-talk here is breathtaking. The "special rights" argument is, as has been pointed out by Sullivan and others, an argument for removing religion, race, and national origin from the mix, which I don't see anyone from the Dobson Gang advocating.) It literally has no meaning in this case, since "rights" are not in question here -- once you're dead, you're dead, and the whole subject of rights is moot. It is, really, eliminationist rhetoric of a particularly insidious sort, based on the idea that there are only so many rights to go around and if someone else gets some (assuming, of course, that someone is "undesirable" in some way), that means less for you. It's always seemed to me that freedom is like love: the more you have, the more you can create. (If you want a thoroughly documented and thoughtful exposition on the social context of hate in this country, see David Neiwert's series on "Eliminationism in America" at Orcinus. It's another one of those sidebar things that he does.)
The third main point that seems to come up with regularity is what Sullivan calls the "chilling" effect on free speech. It's one that Matt addresses in his post, and I think the argument is pretty much off point. First, I am never persuaded by arguments from anecdote. For any general rule, you can find an exception, but that doesn't mean that the exception necessarily disproves the rule. Second, the examples that Matt cites really have nothing to do with hate crimes laws. They are, if anything, examples of orthodox PC-ism run amok and school "zero-tolerance" policies applied without common sense. In spite of the religious right's continued trumpeting about "thought control" and the like, this is another point that really has no basis. No one is being punished for their nasty thoughts. Nor are they being punished for their nasty words. They are being punished for perpetrating violence against certain classes of people. The motivation for a crime is always relevant. Is anyone arguing that the penalties for premeditated murder should be the same as the penalities for manslaughter? Seriously? The difference is motivation.
So far it seems that the arguments against hate crimes laws rely on dismissal of some fundamental concepts in law and a refusal to confront history. If carried to their logical end, these arguments could, I think, quite plausibly lead to the conclusion that violent crimes against minorities are perfectly fine, since that's what we've always done.
Dale Carpenter and Marty Lederman have some comments on this particular bill, which I will try to get to at some point. (Or not -- as a lawyer, I'm a great philosopher, and they make their arguments better than I can.)
Related post: Hate Crimes
Update: Speaking of Dave Neiwert, see this post on hate crimes and the arguments against. It's a very strong post, which in part reinforces my arguments above and in part brings in some new directions. The following post has more.
Andrew Sullivan is convinced that the president's threatened veto of the new hate crimes bill, just passed by the House, is based on the homophobia of his base. I was somewhat dubious when he first brought it up, but he does make a case. Bush claims no prejudice, but since we've seen ample evidence that truth is an infrequent visitor to this administration, I'm not giving those protestations much credit. Since his base is all he has left, that makes a lot of sense -- he has no one else to cater to. I don't think we can take quotes from James Dobson as completely indicative of the White House's thinking, but we know where the pressure's coming from. (As though this were some sort of surprise).
Frankly, I think the president's veto threat owes as much to the fact that this is a bill passed by a Democratic Congress as to the moral repugnance of mandating stiffer penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry. It's noteworthy that the first three vetoes of his presidency have all been on bills with broad bipartisan support.
I am still trying to find cogent arguments against hate crimes laws, and everything I've found so far leaves out what, to me, are some of the most important concepts involved. Sullivan, for example, makes passing reference to such things as "its chilling effect on free speech, its undermining of the notion of equality under the law, and so on." These accord in general with the arguments I've seen against hate crimes legislation. What seems to be missing is, first, any sense of history, and second, a concept basic to our traditions of jurisprudence, which is to say "harm" and "remedy," which go together like (dare I say it?) lesbians and children. Robbie at The Malcontent, for example, in this post, attempts to draw a parallel between the law as an instrument of injustice and hate crimes legislation:
In criminal convictions and sentencing, it is vital that private moral preferences be discarded in favor of equal treatment under the law. The Supreme Court rightly recognized that a disapproval of homosexuality had no place in determining singularly harsh punishment. When a crime is committed, all people should be punished equally without regards to whether or not we feel certain moral dimensions are particularly reprehensible.
So it is with hate crimes laws. Murder is murder. However, gay rights groups and others would have us believe that murder is especially bad when motivated by a nebulous philosophy of hate. It isn't enough to sentence a criminal according to standards currently outlined in law. No, like the Kansas courts, we must "send a message" that disdain for minority groups is deserving of more aggressive punishment. We must substitute the impartiality of law in favor of our own political and moral beliefs.
The first thing that jumps out at me is that hate-crimes legislation does not embody anyone's private moral preferences. In fact, it removes those preferences as a basis for condoning certain crimes. It is, quite openly, a statement of social policy: bigotry is not something that we consider beneficial to our society. It neither conforms to our stated ideals nor does it contribute to the well-being of our citizens. Increased penalties for bias crimes are one way of making that clear.
The second thing that jumps out is that hate crimes laws do not deal with "nebulous philosophies of hate." There is a bit of probably unintentional misrepresentation here. Hate crimes laws deal with specific crimes perpetrated against specific groups, not with nebulous philosophies. The groups protected are those that we recognize as historically subject to mistreatment because of bias. And, in case anyone still has doubts, it's pretty well accepted that bias crimes tend to be more violent, their victims are more likely to wind up dead or seriously injured, and their effects reach farther into the community. Both aspects of the law come into play here: harm and remedy and social policy. The harm is obvious; since remedies for those who are dead are pretty much moot, all we can do is to insist that we exact the maximum penalty for future incidents in the hope of deterring them.
Matt also has posted on this issue at The Malcontent:
A corollary to this, of course, is hate-crimes laws: If we are going to treat the perpetrators of different crimes disparately, depending on the favored group being victimized, then the groups “protected” by hate-crimes legislation have been granted rights that aren’t conferred on the larger population.
If “equality” is at the heart of the gay-rights agenda, then some of the proponents are being highly selective in its application.
The "special rights" argument is one that has never made much sense to me. I suspect that's because of its dubious history as a buzz-word for opponents of equality. We first saw it, as I recall, used against affirmative action (another of those remedies that is perhaps not the best, but the only one we seem to have available), and it has since become a staple of the religious right's war against gay equality. (The degree of double-talk here is breathtaking. The "special rights" argument is, as has been pointed out by Sullivan and others, an argument for removing religion, race, and national origin from the mix, which I don't see anyone from the Dobson Gang advocating.) It literally has no meaning in this case, since "rights" are not in question here -- once you're dead, you're dead, and the whole subject of rights is moot. It is, really, eliminationist rhetoric of a particularly insidious sort, based on the idea that there are only so many rights to go around and if someone else gets some (assuming, of course, that someone is "undesirable" in some way), that means less for you. It's always seemed to me that freedom is like love: the more you have, the more you can create. (If you want a thoroughly documented and thoughtful exposition on the social context of hate in this country, see David Neiwert's series on "Eliminationism in America" at Orcinus. It's another one of those sidebar things that he does.)
The third main point that seems to come up with regularity is what Sullivan calls the "chilling" effect on free speech. It's one that Matt addresses in his post, and I think the argument is pretty much off point. First, I am never persuaded by arguments from anecdote. For any general rule, you can find an exception, but that doesn't mean that the exception necessarily disproves the rule. Second, the examples that Matt cites really have nothing to do with hate crimes laws. They are, if anything, examples of orthodox PC-ism run amok and school "zero-tolerance" policies applied without common sense. In spite of the religious right's continued trumpeting about "thought control" and the like, this is another point that really has no basis. No one is being punished for their nasty thoughts. Nor are they being punished for their nasty words. They are being punished for perpetrating violence against certain classes of people. The motivation for a crime is always relevant. Is anyone arguing that the penalties for premeditated murder should be the same as the penalities for manslaughter? Seriously? The difference is motivation.
So far it seems that the arguments against hate crimes laws rely on dismissal of some fundamental concepts in law and a refusal to confront history. If carried to their logical end, these arguments could, I think, quite plausibly lead to the conclusion that violent crimes against minorities are perfectly fine, since that's what we've always done.
Dale Carpenter and Marty Lederman have some comments on this particular bill, which I will try to get to at some point. (Or not -- as a lawyer, I'm a great philosopher, and they make their arguments better than I can.)
Related post: Hate Crimes
Update: Speaking of Dave Neiwert, see this post on hate crimes and the arguments against. It's a very strong post, which in part reinforces my arguments above and in part brings in some new directions. The following post has more.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Milestone
Sometime yesterday this blog broke 10,000 hits. In less than a year and a half. That's something for a blog I figured no one would ever read.
Yee-Hah!
PS -- Thanks, everybody.
Reviewers
Interesting comments on reviewing and what makes a "professional" -- if, indeed, there is such a thing. Serendipity: I was talking yesterday with one of the editorial staff at the Reader about people's perceptions of various media. The print media as a whole are in desperate trouble as costs go up and revenues go down but still have the cachet of some sort of "substance," while online media are still considered in some circles to be not quite "legitimate." In the case of rewiewing (and I resolutely refuse to call myself a "critic" -- I'm not, never have been, and never will be), as it happens, online sources are far outstripping print media in particular in terms of quantity, quality, and relevance. (See this little rant at Chasing Ray for some intelligent commentary on the state of books in this country. She even makes some recommendations, which is not something you're going to find on the book review pages of any paper.)
I happen to be very enthusiastic about new things, as long as I'm convinced they're not completely pernicious. Sort of like a cat with a new toy: it has to be investigated thoroughly -- you know, sniff it for a while, poke it a couple of times to see what it does -- but once I've decided it's OK, I'm in. That explains at least partly why I spend mumbledy-mumble hours a day online: information. There is lots of it there, it's easy to get at, and it's free, mostly. (It does, however, require some analysis -- a lot of that information is more or less bogus.)
As for the online-versus-print review thing, look at it this way, which reflects a comment I made to my colleague yesterday: I've been told my stuff is "too serious" for a local paper which shall remain nameless. And, let it be said, their purview is local; that's all they're interested in. I, however, have an international audience for my reviews (heaviest in English-speaking countries, obviously, since that's the language I write in), and probably have a potential traffic of half a million readers per month from the various sites I write for. (That's sort of a wash -- people aren't going to read a review, no matter the medium, of a book they're not interested in to begin with, but how many papers can boast a circulaton of half a million?) I get responses -- from the U.S., from Canada, from the UK, from Germany, from Australia. Some are filled with praise, some are filled with damnation, but that's the life of a reviewer. I even get e-mails asking if I'm interested in reviewing such-and-such a book. Could I expect this from a local print weekly? I doubt it very much. More important, do I want to place myself in a context where the reviews are seen more and more as frivolous and shallow? No. I do write fairly substantial reviews. I don't see any reason to give my readers less, although I'm actually thinking of experimenting a little bit for venues that are less oriented toward serious commentary and more interested in consumer reaction (Green Man Review versus Epinions, for example). I pride myself on my flexibility as a writer -- about time I demonstrated it. Again.
On Name-Calling
Since this came up in the comments on my post hate-crimes legislation, I thought I'd bring it to your attention.
Periodically I comment on a post by a right-wing blogger (and he/she may be extreme right, although those I don't usually bother with -- they are self-evidently specious -- or on the near right, which are the ones that usually deserve comment) and, if I get a response at all, it seems to start off with the standard attack vocabulary. Somehow, the reality on that side of the middle is that anyone who disagrees with their positions is by definition a hateful, vicious, vitriolic, America-hating, etc., etc. lefty on a smear campaign. The right, of course, is marked by civility and reason, as witness the results a recent study on one of the right's most popular spokesmen:
Bill O'Reilly may proclaim at the beginning of his program that viewers are entering the "No Spin Zone," but a new study by Indiana University media researchers found that the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric.
The IU researchers found that O'Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.
"It's obvious he's very big into calling people names, and he's very big into glittering generalities," said Mike Conway, assistant professor in the IU School of Journalism. "He's not very subtle. He's going to call people names, or he's going to paint something in a positive way, often without any real evidence to support that viewpoint."
This is not something unique to O'Reilly. I'd be willing to lay odds that a similar study of any major right-wing media voice -- Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Jame Dobson -- is going to find similar results. I'd be interested, as well, to see something about a major left-wing media voice, if anyone can figure out who that might be. (Time to trot out the anonymous commenters on Daily Kos, I guess.)
And about the racisim mantra, which was part of my post:
"Our results show a consistent pattern of O'Reilly casting non-Americans in a negative light. Both illegal aliens and foreigners were constructed as physical threats to the public and never featured in the role of victim or hero," the authors concluded.
Before you start throwing stones. . . .
This actually ties into the whole idea of "discourse" and right-versus-left tactics. This response by Andrew Sullivan to this piece by Jon Chait (registration required) sort of distills it. I even agree with Sullivan, except that I'd point out that the left is nowhere near as disciplined, which I think is part of its charm. Sort of highlights the difficulty of finding a left-side spokesman similar to those right-siders I mentioned above. (Sullivan links to a substantial response by Matthew Yglesias, and I found this comment by Digby that brings us back to the progaganda trope.)
Part of the problem here for those on the right who do not want to be identified with the racists, misogynists, and homophobes is that, because of this disipline regarding the message, they are perceived as part and parcel of that ideology, no matter their views on individual issues because they don't make an effort to distance themselves. The only time I see any disagreement with the O'Reillys and Dobsons is when someone takes these "moderates" as part of the group, and then it's not a condemnation of their methods or stances, it's "I don't agree with that," which is pretty close to Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's "I think all Americans should be treated the same" response to questions on gay civil rights. Lame, no?
Maybe this unity on message is why I get these brickbats. Perhaps it's just that the right can't deal with disagreement. It's not really difficult -- it's just a matter of not making emotional investments in what should be a question.
My only recommendation is that, if you want to be perceived as having an independent viewpoint and not buying into the David Duke wing of the Republican party, attack them as viciously and rather more intelligently as you attack the rest of us. Then I might believe you.
Periodically I comment on a post by a right-wing blogger (and he/she may be extreme right, although those I don't usually bother with -- they are self-evidently specious -- or on the near right, which are the ones that usually deserve comment) and, if I get a response at all, it seems to start off with the standard attack vocabulary. Somehow, the reality on that side of the middle is that anyone who disagrees with their positions is by definition a hateful, vicious, vitriolic, America-hating, etc., etc. lefty on a smear campaign. The right, of course, is marked by civility and reason, as witness the results a recent study on one of the right's most popular spokesmen:
Bill O'Reilly may proclaim at the beginning of his program that viewers are entering the "No Spin Zone," but a new study by Indiana University media researchers found that the Fox News personality consistently paints certain people and groups as villains and others as victims to present the world, as he sees it, through political rhetoric.
The IU researchers found that O'Reilly called a person or a group a derogatory name once every 6.8 seconds, on average, or nearly nine times every minute during the editorials that open his program each night.
"It's obvious he's very big into calling people names, and he's very big into glittering generalities," said Mike Conway, assistant professor in the IU School of Journalism. "He's not very subtle. He's going to call people names, or he's going to paint something in a positive way, often without any real evidence to support that viewpoint."
This is not something unique to O'Reilly. I'd be willing to lay odds that a similar study of any major right-wing media voice -- Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Jame Dobson -- is going to find similar results. I'd be interested, as well, to see something about a major left-wing media voice, if anyone can figure out who that might be. (Time to trot out the anonymous commenters on Daily Kos, I guess.)
And about the racisim mantra, which was part of my post:
"Our results show a consistent pattern of O'Reilly casting non-Americans in a negative light. Both illegal aliens and foreigners were constructed as physical threats to the public and never featured in the role of victim or hero," the authors concluded.
Before you start throwing stones. . . .
This actually ties into the whole idea of "discourse" and right-versus-left tactics. This response by Andrew Sullivan to this piece by Jon Chait (registration required) sort of distills it. I even agree with Sullivan, except that I'd point out that the left is nowhere near as disciplined, which I think is part of its charm. Sort of highlights the difficulty of finding a left-side spokesman similar to those right-siders I mentioned above. (Sullivan links to a substantial response by Matthew Yglesias, and I found this comment by Digby that brings us back to the progaganda trope.)
Part of the problem here for those on the right who do not want to be identified with the racists, misogynists, and homophobes is that, because of this disipline regarding the message, they are perceived as part and parcel of that ideology, no matter their views on individual issues because they don't make an effort to distance themselves. The only time I see any disagreement with the O'Reillys and Dobsons is when someone takes these "moderates" as part of the group, and then it's not a condemnation of their methods or stances, it's "I don't agree with that," which is pretty close to Hillary Clinton's or Barack Obama's "I think all Americans should be treated the same" response to questions on gay civil rights. Lame, no?
Maybe this unity on message is why I get these brickbats. Perhaps it's just that the right can't deal with disagreement. It's not really difficult -- it's just a matter of not making emotional investments in what should be a question.
My only recommendation is that, if you want to be perceived as having an independent viewpoint and not buying into the David Duke wing of the Republican party, attack them as viciously and rather more intelligently as you attack the rest of us. Then I might believe you.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Heads Up
Two remarkable posts from The Republic of T on school shootings:
Part I, and
Pat II.
Thanks to Wulfgar at A Chicken Is Not Pillage for the alert.
Part I, and
Pat II.
Thanks to Wulfgar at A Chicken Is Not Pillage for the alert.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)