There's something very Chinese about this one.
By all means, check out this site. (And yes, he's very careful of the bugs.)
Friday, November 30, 2007
Bug Art
This is just too cool. Sort of throws a whole new monkeywrench into the "What is Art?" issue.
There's something very Chinese about this one.
By all means, check out this site. (And yes, he's very careful of the bugs.)
There's something very Chinese about this one.
By all means, check out this site. (And yes, he's very careful of the bugs.)
You Can Tell When They're Really Afraid
If it hadn't been something that's happened before, particularly with Bush's "town meetings," this, from Steve Benen, would simply note one of those WTF? moments.
This is America for crying out loud. Somebody expects me to take a loyalty oath to a political party?
Get real.
This is America for crying out loud. Somebody expects me to take a loyalty oath to a political party?
Get real.
Tasers, Brownshirts, and the Like
A lengthy and sobering post by Arthur Silber on tasers and how they reflect the worst trends in contemporary American society:
In brief: tasers can kill people, or cause very serious injury; tasers are "commonly used...to gain compliance" -- from people who are usually unarmed and who pose no serious threat whatsoever; and tasers are frequently used on suspects who have already been subdued and immobilized.
I don't really have a lot to add to this, but if you can get past the shrillness of some of the rhetoric (and keep in mind that Silber at his worst is sort of the left-wing equivalent of Malkin on a normal day), there's some interesting information. It's part three of a multi-part series, and just happens to be the one I stumbled across.
One thing that really jumps out, and it should be no surprise: every incident Silber discusses is marked by poor judgment, arrogance, and bullying on the part of the police. It's no secret that police and other paramilitary organizations tend to be attractive to a certain personality, those whose guns and nightsticks substitute for the penises they're afraid they don't have. There is also way too much of a club atmosphere in their dealings -- too many of the inquiries have exonerated the officers when the evidence is quite clear that they were overreaching, or even completely out of line.
And yes, this is relevant:
Last night Joe Klein sat in on one of Frank Luntz's focus group sessions for the Republican debate. It was one of those deals where each participant got a "dial" that allowed them to register instant approval or disapproval of what each candidate said. Klein's report:
The other big loser: John McCain saying we shouldn't torture people. In fact, it was an even bigger loser. It turns out that the only thing these GOP voters hated more than helping the poor was being told that it's wrong to torture people.
The UN, by the way, has declared tasering to be torture.
In brief: tasers can kill people, or cause very serious injury; tasers are "commonly used...to gain compliance" -- from people who are usually unarmed and who pose no serious threat whatsoever; and tasers are frequently used on suspects who have already been subdued and immobilized.
I don't really have a lot to add to this, but if you can get past the shrillness of some of the rhetoric (and keep in mind that Silber at his worst is sort of the left-wing equivalent of Malkin on a normal day), there's some interesting information. It's part three of a multi-part series, and just happens to be the one I stumbled across.
One thing that really jumps out, and it should be no surprise: every incident Silber discusses is marked by poor judgment, arrogance, and bullying on the part of the police. It's no secret that police and other paramilitary organizations tend to be attractive to a certain personality, those whose guns and nightsticks substitute for the penises they're afraid they don't have. There is also way too much of a club atmosphere in their dealings -- too many of the inquiries have exonerated the officers when the evidence is quite clear that they were overreaching, or even completely out of line.
And yes, this is relevant:
Last night Joe Klein sat in on one of Frank Luntz's focus group sessions for the Republican debate. It was one of those deals where each participant got a "dial" that allowed them to register instant approval or disapproval of what each candidate said. Klein's report:
In the next segment — the debate between Romney and Mike Huckabee over Huckabee's college scholarships for the deserving children of illegal immigrants — I noticed something really distressing: When Huckabee said, "After all, these are children of God," the dials plummeted. And that happened time and again through the evening: Any time any candidate proposed doing anything nice for anyone poor, the dials plummeted (30s).
The other big loser: John McCain saying we shouldn't torture people. In fact, it was an even bigger loser. It turns out that the only thing these GOP voters hated more than helping the poor was being told that it's wrong to torture people.
The UN, by the way, has declared tasering to be torture.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
I Love It When Wingnuts Debate
From Andrew Sullivan, this tidbit:
[Duncan] Hunter basically said that the military is a Judeo-Christian institution and therefore should keep gay service-members permanently under threat of being fired. At least Hunter is principled: when you are part of a religiously-based organization, the GOP, and believe that religion should define public institutions, including the military, of course, there needs to be an enforcement of religious moral norms in public service.
"Hunter is principled"?? 'Scuse me? This is why I think Sullivan is subject to fits of brainlessness brought on by too much navel-gazing. This is a man running for president of the United States, which not only declares religious freedom as part of the basic rights of every American, but also specifically states that there will be no religious test for any public office, who baldly states that our military is a "Judeo-Christian organization" and should maintain the religiously based moral norms inherent in that idea. Sullivan is willing to give Hunter the benefit of the doubt, apparently, by caving to his definitions. To me, a statement like that takes Hunter out of the realm of the principled immediately.
The disturbing part is thinking about how many of our top brass agree with Hunter. And I think I would limit that to upper brass -- a reader at TPM has this to say:
Are the Republican hopefuls really that naive? I'm an active duty officer currently in Korea. If they believe that the military is a Christian-right, conservative institution they need to spend a few nights in the "ville" around a military base here...they would be "shocked!" by what they saw. After 17+ years in the military, most of it overseas, nothing amazes me anymore. It would make most people's heads spin what goes on, on a daily basis, at bars and clubs here.
Although with the right-wing tolerance for cognitive dissonance, I'm sure the goings-on would fit within the category of "boys will be boys."
For color commentary on the rest of the debate, see this post from Down With Tyranny!
Support the Troops Note:
From Tapped:
In a breathtaking moment for us queer folk, a question submitted by an openly gay retired brigadier general was aired by Anderson Cooper, who is rumored to be gay. The general not only challenged the "Don't ask, don't tell" military policy; he did so by turning the tables. Why, he wanted to know, did the candidates not trust the professionalism of American soldiers to work with gay men and lesbians?
As it turns out, the good general was in the audience, and when Cooper gave the elderly gentleman -- who served more than 40 years in the military -- the microphone, Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr (ret.) was booed by an audience of Republicans. There's your patriotism for you.
[Duncan] Hunter basically said that the military is a Judeo-Christian institution and therefore should keep gay service-members permanently under threat of being fired. At least Hunter is principled: when you are part of a religiously-based organization, the GOP, and believe that religion should define public institutions, including the military, of course, there needs to be an enforcement of religious moral norms in public service.
"Hunter is principled"?? 'Scuse me? This is why I think Sullivan is subject to fits of brainlessness brought on by too much navel-gazing. This is a man running for president of the United States, which not only declares religious freedom as part of the basic rights of every American, but also specifically states that there will be no religious test for any public office, who baldly states that our military is a "Judeo-Christian organization" and should maintain the religiously based moral norms inherent in that idea. Sullivan is willing to give Hunter the benefit of the doubt, apparently, by caving to his definitions. To me, a statement like that takes Hunter out of the realm of the principled immediately.
The disturbing part is thinking about how many of our top brass agree with Hunter. And I think I would limit that to upper brass -- a reader at TPM has this to say:
Are the Republican hopefuls really that naive? I'm an active duty officer currently in Korea. If they believe that the military is a Christian-right, conservative institution they need to spend a few nights in the "ville" around a military base here...they would be "shocked!" by what they saw. After 17+ years in the military, most of it overseas, nothing amazes me anymore. It would make most people's heads spin what goes on, on a daily basis, at bars and clubs here.
Although with the right-wing tolerance for cognitive dissonance, I'm sure the goings-on would fit within the category of "boys will be boys."
For color commentary on the rest of the debate, see this post from Down With Tyranny!
Support the Troops Note:
From Tapped:
In a breathtaking moment for us queer folk, a question submitted by an openly gay retired brigadier general was aired by Anderson Cooper, who is rumored to be gay. The general not only challenged the "Don't ask, don't tell" military policy; he did so by turning the tables. Why, he wanted to know, did the candidates not trust the professionalism of American soldiers to work with gay men and lesbians?
As it turns out, the good general was in the audience, and when Cooper gave the elderly gentleman -- who served more than 40 years in the military -- the microphone, Brig. Gen. Keith Kerr (ret.) was booed by an audience of Republicans. There's your patriotism for you.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
A Somewhat Unfocused Post on Marriage
Mostly because I'm a little unfocused myself. Do you suppose it's from living on root beer, ginger ale, and vitamin C for a week?
However, this this somewhat puzzling post by Bean at LG&M generated some very interesting comments. Bean takes off from an OpEd by Stephanie Coontz which is largely an outline of the history of marriage as an institution that these days somewhat awkwardly straddles religious-governmental-private territory. However, I think Bean's comments miscast Coontz' piece:
Here's the nub of Coontz's argument:
I am with her 100%. When I suggested as much in my property class during my first year of law school, during a discussion of marital assets, people were shocked and appalled by the idea that marriage should be a religious institution and the state should be in the business only of civil unions for all couples, gay or straight. I would like to think that Coontz's piece is a sign that notions are changing. But then again, that law school discussion was only two years ago.
First off, Coontz' reference to "licit" marriage refers specifically to the Church's decision that only marriages performed in a church were licit, but that couple married outside a church were still married.
For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.
This obviously has nothing to do with whether "licit" marriages should alone carry the "married" status, as Bean seems to imply. Bean seems to be reinforcing the idea that the word "marriage" itself is essentially a term with religious connotations and that the churches should have exclusive authority for its use, which, as you well know at this point, I think is poppycock. In fact, one of the commenters points out:
As an anthropologist, I have to tell you that in the overwhelming majority of cultures in the world marriage is a secular and not religious institution. This, by the way, includes Islamic societies. Under Sharia (Islamic holy law) marriage is a civil contract negotiated between the parties. There are really only a handful of non-Judeo-Christian societies where marriage is a religious sacrament (including Hinduism and the Hopi). Even in the West, marriage remained a largely secular affair until the late Middle Ages when the Catholic church hijacked it.Kind of punches majaor holes in your argument. Marriage is, and should remain, funadmentally a secular social relationship which regulates the care and assignment of children, the disposition of property, and the division of labor, among other things.
That accords pretty well with my understanding of the role of the state, the church, and the individual. The comments, as seems to be the case generally with left-wing blogs (at least, the left-wing blogs I read), are generalyl intelligent and well informed. It's just that the initial post is so vague.
However, this this somewhat puzzling post by Bean at LG&M generated some very interesting comments. Bean takes off from an OpEd by Stephanie Coontz which is largely an outline of the history of marriage as an institution that these days somewhat awkwardly straddles religious-governmental-private territory. However, I think Bean's comments miscast Coontz' piece:
Here's the nub of Coontz's argument:
Perhaps it’s time to revert to a much older marital tradition. Let churches decide which marriages they deem “licit.” But let couples — gay or straight — decide if they want the legal protections and obligations of a committed relationship.
I am with her 100%. When I suggested as much in my property class during my first year of law school, during a discussion of marital assets, people were shocked and appalled by the idea that marriage should be a religious institution and the state should be in the business only of civil unions for all couples, gay or straight. I would like to think that Coontz's piece is a sign that notions are changing. But then again, that law school discussion was only two years ago.
First off, Coontz' reference to "licit" marriage refers specifically to the Church's decision that only marriages performed in a church were licit, but that couple married outside a church were still married.
For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
In 1215, the church decreed that a “licit” marriage must take place in church. But people who married illictly had the same rights and obligations as a couple married in church: their children were legitimate; the wife had the same inheritance rights; the couple was subject to the same prohibitions against divorce.
This obviously has nothing to do with whether "licit" marriages should alone carry the "married" status, as Bean seems to imply. Bean seems to be reinforcing the idea that the word "marriage" itself is essentially a term with religious connotations and that the churches should have exclusive authority for its use, which, as you well know at this point, I think is poppycock. In fact, one of the commenters points out:
As an anthropologist, I have to tell you that in the overwhelming majority of cultures in the world marriage is a secular and not religious institution. This, by the way, includes Islamic societies. Under Sharia (Islamic holy law) marriage is a civil contract negotiated between the parties. There are really only a handful of non-Judeo-Christian societies where marriage is a religious sacrament (including Hinduism and the Hopi). Even in the West, marriage remained a largely secular affair until the late Middle Ages when the Catholic church hijacked it.Kind of punches majaor holes in your argument. Marriage is, and should remain, funadmentally a secular social relationship which regulates the care and assignment of children, the disposition of property, and the division of labor, among other things.
That accords pretty well with my understanding of the role of the state, the church, and the individual. The comments, as seems to be the case generally with left-wing blogs (at least, the left-wing blogs I read), are generalyl intelligent and well informed. It's just that the initial post is so vague.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
In the Land of the Blind
The One-Eyed Man is as likely to be set upon by an angry mob as to be made king.
From Andrew Sullivan:
"A headline last Sunday about a Muslim man and an Orthodox Jewish woman who are partners in two Dunkin’ Donuts stores described their religions incorrectly. The two faiths worship the same God — not different ones," - The New York Times, November 25.
Of course, any idiot realizes that. Except the likes of Gen. Keith "My God is Bigger than His God" Boykin. (Angry mob? Follow Sullivan's link to John Hinderaker's comment at Powerline for a free chuckle: Hinderaker calling NYT "arrogant." Sorry -- there's enough foo shit there for everybody.)
From Andrew Sullivan:
"A headline last Sunday about a Muslim man and an Orthodox Jewish woman who are partners in two Dunkin’ Donuts stores described their religions incorrectly. The two faiths worship the same God — not different ones," - The New York Times, November 25.
Of course, any idiot realizes that. Except the likes of Gen. Keith "My God is Bigger than His God" Boykin. (Angry mob? Follow Sullivan's link to John Hinderaker's comment at Powerline for a free chuckle: Hinderaker calling NYT "arrogant." Sorry -- there's enough foo shit there for everybody.)
About That Infinite Universe
This is so cool:
From IT Wire:
The Mersini-Houghton team, however, says it is another universe at the edge of our own. They looked at string theory for the explanation. In string theory, [10 to the 500th power] [sorry for that, but Blogger can't handle some not-very-complicated functions, such as superscripts] universes (or string vacuums) are described, each with unique properties. They contend that the largeness of our universe is due to its vacuum counterbalancing gravity. This counter-gravity of the vacuum keeps our universe very large (rather than shrinking due to gravity)—larger than the other multitude of universes. The team says that smaller universes are positioned at the edge of our universe, and because of this interaction they are seen by us.
The team predicts that another giant void will eventually be found. The already found void is in the northern hemisphere. They contend another one will be found in the southern hemisphere.
One of the more exciting parts of this story is that they're already prepared to make a prediction on the existence of others.
Here's a report on Space.com from this summer.
Thanks to AmericaBlog.
From IT Wire:
The Mersini-Houghton team, however, says it is another universe at the edge of our own. They looked at string theory for the explanation. In string theory, [10 to the 500th power] [sorry for that, but Blogger can't handle some not-very-complicated functions, such as superscripts] universes (or string vacuums) are described, each with unique properties. They contend that the largeness of our universe is due to its vacuum counterbalancing gravity. This counter-gravity of the vacuum keeps our universe very large (rather than shrinking due to gravity)—larger than the other multitude of universes. The team says that smaller universes are positioned at the edge of our universe, and because of this interaction they are seen by us.
The team predicts that another giant void will eventually be found. The already found void is in the northern hemisphere. They contend another one will be found in the southern hemisphere.
One of the more exciting parts of this story is that they're already prepared to make a prediction on the existence of others.
Here's a report on Space.com from this summer.
Thanks to AmericaBlog.
From the Pulps to the Pentagon
I wonder if anyone in the military reads science fiction. If they did, it might save them from some really embarrassing gaffes (remember the "gay bomb"?) and produce some constructive inquiries like this:A 2004 "universal needs statement," obtained by DANGER ROOM and signed Lt. Gen. Jan Huly -- then the Marines' Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and Operations -- asks to "accelerate" the development of "self-powered, controllable, wearable exoskeletal machine system" that will "increase the speed, strength, and endurance of Marines. . . ."
According to Pentagon budget documents, a project to build a "personal combat vehicle," allowing a soldier to "carry 150 pounds while feeling only a small part of the load" is making its way from the blue-sky technologists at Darpa to the Army's more practically-focused engineers.
Exo-suits, known also as "zoot suits," are at this point a staple of science fiction, particularly military sf. I think Robert Heinlein started that ball rolling (as he did so many others), in Starship Troopers. They get most play in military sf because military sf tends to be gadget-heavy.
Of course, the concept has gone far beyond that. (Anyone remember Robocop? Or -- 'scuse me -- Star Wars?) For some interesting background -- and a good take on how science fiction does permeate our collective whatever, see this article from Answers.com. It's pretty amazing. It also reminded me of something I'd almost forgotten: the obverse of the big, bulky powered-body-armor kind of suit is the "skinsuit" concept, used by Dan Simmons and David Weber (and I'm sure a few others).
OK -- I really am back
It's that point after a bad fever, when it finally breaks and you look around and everything's in focus. Just don't ask me what I've been doing for the past week, because I'm not really sure.
(Gad! A week's a hell of a long time to be sick -- I can't imagine having something that takes an extended recovery. I'd go nuts.)
(Gad! A week's a hell of a long time to be sick -- I can't imagine having something that takes an extended recovery. I'd go nuts.)
Sunday, November 25, 2007
He Lives!
I think. This is the first time I've been out of bed for an extended period since Wednesday. I seem to have suffered no ill effects from yesterday's mashed potatoes, so I may treat myself to a jelly doughnut this morning -- I can't quite nerve myself up for a cream-filled Bavarian. I have this real hankering for sweets. I must need quick calories (the mashed potatoes were the only solid food I've had in three days). Maybe pick up some bananas, too.
And some broth.
I'm still a little tight around the middle, but I think that's just from lying in bed not moving for 72 hours. You think?
Strangely enough, politics isn't so interesting today.
And some broth.
I'm still a little tight around the middle, but I think that's just from lying in bed not moving for 72 hours. You think?
Strangely enough, politics isn't so interesting today.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Well, that was a bust
Thanksgiving, I mean. Came down with a really vicious intestinal bug on Wednesday afternoon and have basically been in bed ever since. It seems to have cleared up, pretty much, but my middle is still sore from the muscle spasms, and I'm afraid to eat any solid food.
I certainly hope your holiday was better.
I certainly hope your holiday was better.
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The Conservative Agenda
Andrew Sullivan seems to have a good take on it.
If you follow the link to Hugh Hewitt, you discover that he is still an idiot. Actually, reading through the comments, the real idiot is the commenter Catmman, whose ignorance is simply breathtaking. I would have left a comment, but TownHall wants too much information before they'll let you post. I'm certainly not giving Hugh Hewitt my home address.
If you follow the link to Hugh Hewitt, you discover that he is still an idiot. Actually, reading through the comments, the real idiot is the commenter Catmman, whose ignorance is simply breathtaking. I would have left a comment, but TownHall wants too much information before they'll let you post. I'm certainly not giving Hugh Hewitt my home address.
Wounded Vets
OK -- I thought bureaucratic screw-up on this story until I read this sentence:
At the forefront was a bill introduced last week and sent to committee that targets a Defense Department policy preventing eligible soldiers from receiving their full bonuses if discharged early because of combat-related injuries.
This is not a screw-up -- this is policy. And I thought the general negligence at Walter Reed was an atrocity.
How does a military like this expect to win a war? Oh, wait. . . .
Here's a story on the bill from Jason Altmire's website. He's the congressman who introduced the legislation, and -- he's a Democrat. Funny how that happens.
Update:
Thinking on this a bit more, have you noticed that the so-called "conservative" attitude toward "supporting the troops" translates into unquestioning obedience to foolish and misguided policies and complete disregard for the human beings involved? This story is of a piece with those about wounded vets receiving bills for their hospital care and those drummed out of the service under DADT being expected to repay any monies paid for school. Much as we might like to think so, no bureaucrat who is that stupid (and there are some -- I've met them) ever gets into a position with that kind of authority.
But then, what can you say about an institution that actually adopts policies like these? Consider, as I feel I must at this point, also the fact that the military is disproportionately composed of evangelical and conservative Christians (if we are to believe reports), and that the president, who keeps reminding us that he is the Commander-in-Chief professes himself to be a born-again Christian, and you really have to wonder what Christianity has become, at least in some parts of the population. Do you really want these people running the country?
That's a really scary picture of our future.
Update II:
I notice at GovTrack that Altmire's bill has 35 cosponsors -- of whom 4 are Republicans.
Let's see, now -- who was it who was supporting the troops?
At the forefront was a bill introduced last week and sent to committee that targets a Defense Department policy preventing eligible soldiers from receiving their full bonuses if discharged early because of combat-related injuries.
This is not a screw-up -- this is policy. And I thought the general negligence at Walter Reed was an atrocity.
How does a military like this expect to win a war? Oh, wait. . . .
Here's a story on the bill from Jason Altmire's website. He's the congressman who introduced the legislation, and -- he's a Democrat. Funny how that happens.
Update:
Thinking on this a bit more, have you noticed that the so-called "conservative" attitude toward "supporting the troops" translates into unquestioning obedience to foolish and misguided policies and complete disregard for the human beings involved? This story is of a piece with those about wounded vets receiving bills for their hospital care and those drummed out of the service under DADT being expected to repay any monies paid for school. Much as we might like to think so, no bureaucrat who is that stupid (and there are some -- I've met them) ever gets into a position with that kind of authority.
But then, what can you say about an institution that actually adopts policies like these? Consider, as I feel I must at this point, also the fact that the military is disproportionately composed of evangelical and conservative Christians (if we are to believe reports), and that the president, who keeps reminding us that he is the Commander-in-Chief professes himself to be a born-again Christian, and you really have to wonder what Christianity has become, at least in some parts of the population. Do you really want these people running the country?
That's a really scary picture of our future.
Update II:
I notice at GovTrack that Altmire's bill has 35 cosponsors -- of whom 4 are Republicans.
Let's see, now -- who was it who was supporting the troops?
Tim Kaine
An interesting article in WaPo on Virginia Gov. Timothy Kaine. I don't necessarily agree with his specific positions, but I like his approach. It strikes me as pragmatic and reality-based, unlike the agenda of his Republican-controlled General Assembly. On abstinence-only programs:
"The research shows programs that are abstinence-only are not successful," Kaine said. "The budget will not have funding for abstinence-only programs. If the people look at the research, the answer is pretty clear."
Kaine points to a congressional study released in April that concluded that students in abstinence-only programs did not have fewer sexual partners or wait any longer to have sex than those who did not participate in the programs. Conservatives say the study was flawed. . . .
Because the Bush administration restricts sex education grants to groups that teach only abstinence, Planned Parenthood is calling on states to refuse the federal matching grants. Virginia would become the 14th state to do so.
People always think that studies they don't agree with are flawed. I haven't seen the congressional study, but it seems consistent with other results that I've seen summaries of. I haven't seen a credible study that concludes that abstinence-only programs actually work. Maybe it's because the only reference they make to sex is "don't".
At any rate, it'll be interesting to see how Virginia works out over the next couple of years. I especially liked this comment:
Even so, conservatives now feel on the defensive.
That's music to my ears.
"The research shows programs that are abstinence-only are not successful," Kaine said. "The budget will not have funding for abstinence-only programs. If the people look at the research, the answer is pretty clear."
Kaine points to a congressional study released in April that concluded that students in abstinence-only programs did not have fewer sexual partners or wait any longer to have sex than those who did not participate in the programs. Conservatives say the study was flawed. . . .
Because the Bush administration restricts sex education grants to groups that teach only abstinence, Planned Parenthood is calling on states to refuse the federal matching grants. Virginia would become the 14th state to do so.
People always think that studies they don't agree with are flawed. I haven't seen the congressional study, but it seems consistent with other results that I've seen summaries of. I haven't seen a credible study that concludes that abstinence-only programs actually work. Maybe it's because the only reference they make to sex is "don't".
At any rate, it'll be interesting to see how Virginia works out over the next couple of years. I especially liked this comment:
Even so, conservatives now feel on the defensive.
That's music to my ears.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Quote of the Day
It couldn't come from anyone but Michael Medved.
MICHAEL MEDVED:…And this clearly just weakens the whole institution of television.
From being the "Great Wasteland," TV has become an "institution." Who knew?
I really was of two minds -- should this be a "Quote of the Day" or a "Joke of the Day"? But I don't think Medved did it on purpose.
(Sidebar: As for the WGA strike -- maybe the studios will outsource scriptwriting to Bollywood.)
MICHAEL MEDVED:…And this clearly just weakens the whole institution of television.
From being the "Great Wasteland," TV has become an "institution." Who knew?
I really was of two minds -- should this be a "Quote of the Day" or a "Joke of the Day"? But I don't think Medved did it on purpose.
(Sidebar: As for the WGA strike -- maybe the studios will outsource scriptwriting to Bollywood.)
Persons
I've run across a couple of references to this story in the past day or two, and, as you might expect, it does lead to some not-so-tangential thoughts, including one on synchronicity -- I just happened to have gone back to this post. Yes, in the world of Hunter at Random, these do fit together.
Let's start with the nonsense of Richard John Neuhaus' desperate defense of Catholic dogma regarding homosexuality. Among its other virtues (ahem), it illustrates very well the tendency of Christian apologists to objectify human emotional relationships, especially those of which they don't approve. Actually, thinking about that, it's not necessarily an "especially" -- note the insistence on the idea that sex is purely for procreation and that marriage is the validation -- the social permission -- to engage in sex. Even within marriage, non-procreative sex is immoral. And at the same time, although not, as I recall, explicit in Neuhaus' ramblings, is the idea that the love between a man and a woman is somehow special, and that only Church-approved sex -- i.e., making babies -- can encompass this love. If that's not schizoid enough for you, this comes from an institution that has, historically, been dubious about the natural materialism of science -- the idea that the only acceptable data is that which can be studied and measured objectively and that all natural processes can be described as mechanisms that operate only within the natural, empirical universe. And yet its first reaction to the complexity of human desire and emotion is to reduce it to a bodily function (all the while decrying those such as Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson who suggest that there might be a biochemical basis for all of it).
At any rate, the Christian position can easily be summarized, in a somewhat minimalist but not necessarily inaccurate way, as "people are breeding stock." It's the sort of trap you fall into when you start with the idea that there is -- there must be -- a purpose to everything.
Now, to the Colorado initiative. (And I wonder why it is that Colorado, which is, after all, a fairly cool state, is the one that keeps coming up with the completely anti-American ballot iniatives -- remember Amendment 2? Of course, that's the state that gave us Marilyn Musgrave.) At any rate, a representative of one of the sponsors of a measure that is very clearly designed to outlaw abortion -- and most likely a number of birth-control methods, particularly the morning after pill -- says:
[Kristi] Burton said the initiative would simply define a human.
"It's very clearly a single subject," Burton said. "If it's a human being, it's a person, and hey, they deserve equal rights under our law."
First of all, the gall of trying to define a human being is, while breathtaking, not beyond the capabilities of those who have a hammerlock on The Only Truth. But look at their definition of a "person" -- a fertilized egg.
That's certainly a reductivist view of humanity, now isn't it? A fertilized egg -- which stands something like a 40% chance of never being more than that -- is your equal and deserves all the rights and privileges that you, as a grown-up, thinking, productive member of society expect. (Except those of you who are gay -- it deserves more rights and privileges than you do.) I really wonder how a fertilized egg is going to exercise its right to peaceably assemble.
Barbara O'Brien has this comment about the Christianist tendency to objectify people. She's only one of many to comment on this particular video, and like most, is focusing on the objectification of women, brought about by the unfortunate metaphor employed (I seem to remember that in my high-school days, the accepted non-dirty slang word for vagina was "box."):
Today many people are posting this anti-abortion video and noting the subliminal message — that women are just objects, not people.
The point is, people are just objects. All of us. It's the same thinking -- if you define a fertilized egg as a person, you've elevated an egg to human-being status. You've also reduced the rest of us to the level of a fertilized egg. Women exist to bear children. Gays have sex only for pleasure. Any sex that does not produce children is immoral. It's a purely mechanistic view of humanity.
Needless to say, believing as I do that there is an element of the divine in everything, I can't buy this. That's quite aside from knowing first-hand that men are as capable of loving other men and completely and fully as any man ever loved a woman, and that I am something more than a cock. In fact, I'm a lot more than a cock.
Let's start with the nonsense of Richard John Neuhaus' desperate defense of Catholic dogma regarding homosexuality. Among its other virtues (ahem), it illustrates very well the tendency of Christian apologists to objectify human emotional relationships, especially those of which they don't approve. Actually, thinking about that, it's not necessarily an "especially" -- note the insistence on the idea that sex is purely for procreation and that marriage is the validation -- the social permission -- to engage in sex. Even within marriage, non-procreative sex is immoral. And at the same time, although not, as I recall, explicit in Neuhaus' ramblings, is the idea that the love between a man and a woman is somehow special, and that only Church-approved sex -- i.e., making babies -- can encompass this love. If that's not schizoid enough for you, this comes from an institution that has, historically, been dubious about the natural materialism of science -- the idea that the only acceptable data is that which can be studied and measured objectively and that all natural processes can be described as mechanisms that operate only within the natural, empirical universe. And yet its first reaction to the complexity of human desire and emotion is to reduce it to a bodily function (all the while decrying those such as Richard Dawkins and Edward O. Wilson who suggest that there might be a biochemical basis for all of it).
At any rate, the Christian position can easily be summarized, in a somewhat minimalist but not necessarily inaccurate way, as "people are breeding stock." It's the sort of trap you fall into when you start with the idea that there is -- there must be -- a purpose to everything.
Now, to the Colorado initiative. (And I wonder why it is that Colorado, which is, after all, a fairly cool state, is the one that keeps coming up with the completely anti-American ballot iniatives -- remember Amendment 2? Of course, that's the state that gave us Marilyn Musgrave.) At any rate, a representative of one of the sponsors of a measure that is very clearly designed to outlaw abortion -- and most likely a number of birth-control methods, particularly the morning after pill -- says:
[Kristi] Burton said the initiative would simply define a human.
"It's very clearly a single subject," Burton said. "If it's a human being, it's a person, and hey, they deserve equal rights under our law."
First of all, the gall of trying to define a human being is, while breathtaking, not beyond the capabilities of those who have a hammerlock on The Only Truth. But look at their definition of a "person" -- a fertilized egg.
That's certainly a reductivist view of humanity, now isn't it? A fertilized egg -- which stands something like a 40% chance of never being more than that -- is your equal and deserves all the rights and privileges that you, as a grown-up, thinking, productive member of society expect. (Except those of you who are gay -- it deserves more rights and privileges than you do.) I really wonder how a fertilized egg is going to exercise its right to peaceably assemble.
Barbara O'Brien has this comment about the Christianist tendency to objectify people. She's only one of many to comment on this particular video, and like most, is focusing on the objectification of women, brought about by the unfortunate metaphor employed (I seem to remember that in my high-school days, the accepted non-dirty slang word for vagina was "box."):
Today many people are posting this anti-abortion video and noting the subliminal message — that women are just objects, not people.
The point is, people are just objects. All of us. It's the same thinking -- if you define a fertilized egg as a person, you've elevated an egg to human-being status. You've also reduced the rest of us to the level of a fertilized egg. Women exist to bear children. Gays have sex only for pleasure. Any sex that does not produce children is immoral. It's a purely mechanistic view of humanity.
Needless to say, believing as I do that there is an element of the divine in everything, I can't buy this. That's quite aside from knowing first-hand that men are as capable of loving other men and completely and fully as any man ever loved a woman, and that I am something more than a cock. In fact, I'm a lot more than a cock.
Climate Change
As we're calling it these days. Here's one for the "the science isn't settled" crowd:
Georgia's on my mind. Atlanta, Ga. It's a city in trouble in a state in trouble in a region in trouble. Water trouble. Trouble big enough that the state government's moving fast. Just this week, backed up by a choir singing "Amazing Grace," accompanied by three Protestant ministers, and 20 demonstrators from the Atlanta Freethought Society, Georgia's Baptist Gov. Sonny Perdue led a crowd of hundreds in prayers for rain. "We've come together here," he said, "simply for one reason and one reason only: to very reverently and respectfully pray up a storm." It seems, however, that the Almighty -- He "who can and will make a difference" -- was otherwise occupied and the regional drought continued to threaten Atlanta, a metropolis of 5 million people (and growing fast), with the possibility that it might run out of water in as little as 80 days or as much as a year, if the rains don't come.
FEMA doesn't want to think about it, apparently. Of course, we knew this administration can't handle the disasters it's created, much less the ones that happen by themselves.
It's not just the Southeastern U.S. It's worldwide. Read the article.
One: I'm very glad I live in a city that draws its water from the Great Lakes.
Two: This is not happening just this minute. The last time I was in North Carolina, which is at least five years ago, we went up Little Buck Creek (where my mother grew up, and where I spent chunks of my childhood). The creek was running at about half its normal flow. I wonder if there's any creek left. It was sobering, to say the least. The photo above is of a river in Virginia.
Even here, where two years ago we had a drought, while the summer was fairly rainy, we haven't had any appreciable rain for weeks -- during what is normally the rainiest time of year. We didn't really have all that much snow last year, either.
There are a lot of contributing factors here, but the one that I've always seen as the root cause is overpopulation.
But let's just go ahead and outlaw birth control, which is the ultimate aim of the right-to-lifers. That'll help a lot.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Jim Neal
Jim Neal is running for the Senate from North Carolina, which is a weird state. Pam Spaulding has written several posts on his candidacy, and I think this one lays out the points very well. Quoting from The Charlotte Observer:Schumer and the national Democrats, who boast of their party's inclusiveness, effectively ignored Neal, who is openly gay. After he announced his campaign in October, he telephoned Schumer. The call wasn't returned. Neal was the first Democrat to step up to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole.
Instead, Schumer, of New York, called Hagan, who had taken herself out of the race, and encouraged her to jump back in. She later did.
...Neal, however, falls into a coveted category of candidates: self-funder, someone who will sink a chunk of his own wealth into the race. Such candidates typically get at least a courtesy meeting from their party's national political committees, particularly in the state where former U.S. Sen. John Edwards showed that an unknown with a lot of money can succeed.
Neal, 50, and others suggest that the fact that he is gay drove the actions of the Democratic Senate committee and other leaders of a party that criticizes Republicans for their anti-gay rights platform.
...A former staffer at the national Democratic Senate committee said he was surprised Schumer didn't at least meet with Neal. The gay community has reliably contributed to Democrats, said the former staffer, who asked not to be identified because he still deals with committee staff.
I have been less and less confident in the Democrats' support for gay issues and gay candidates -- in fact, I'm not so sure of their support for real Democrats -- and it looks like another case of the Rahm Emanuel strategy: field candidates who will reliably vote against the party and call them Democrats anyway. It's quite obvious that the DSCC is worried about backlash, but I'd like to point out one thing: North Carolina is probably less monolithic than most other "Southern" states, from the Bible-thumpers in the hills (my relatives) to the hotbeds of liberalism in Chapel Hill and Charlotte. It's a rapidly growing state, and the major populations centers are not filled with rednecks. I know a number of artists and dancers who have migrated to NC because the cultural climate is very supportive, which to me translates into a much more diverse and open society than the DSCC is willing to credit. North Carolina routinely elects Democrats to statewide office.
Of course, the DSCC doesn't seem to be much in touch with anything outside of the Beltway anyhow. And I start to think that what bothers them about Neal is not only that he's gay, but that he's not a yes-man. For that reason alone, I think people all over the country should be supporting his candidacy, and not just gays.
Hey, at least half of me's from North Carolina -- we don't respond well to authority.
A Nation Divided
A bit from Crooks and Liars about the PBS special Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, about Kitzmiller vs Dover School District. The program has been getting a lot of play in the blogosphere (well, on the left, anyway), but this struck me:
. . . it literally pitted “friend against friend, and neighbor against neighbor” within the small community that serves as a microcosm of an America still divided over evolution.
For some reason, the phrase "divided over evolution" just stuck out. I sit here asking myself "How can that be?" Of course, it's not so hard to figure out: those who oppose the teaching of evolution represent an ideology that renounces empirical evidence in favor of belief, and the belief is itself an element of obedience to outside authority. I don't really understand that -- my dad was a science teacher, and you'd better believe I got a full dose of thinking rationally when I was a kid. He's also a major sceptic. (All things considered, it's odd to think of my father as a product of the Enlightenment, but there you have it.)
The anti-science crowd makes a big deal about evolution being "a religion," and a doctrine promulgated as "orthodoxy," which is, of course, specious. Science is a self-correcting system of thought that bases its laws and theories on what we know objectively. Scientific orthodoxy is simply the result of overwhelming evidence. It's subject to change as new evidence comes to light, which is why we can never say that a scientific theory is "proven." You can't prove anything in science, you can only disprove its opposite -- there's always the possibility of new evidence. That's what makes science so exciting.
In the case of Kitzmiller, it's instructive that the creationists' "expert witnesses" admitted that ID is not science. The thinking seems to be -- spot me on this -- that their beliefs should trump everything else, which in a pluralistic, secular nation is a little bit beyond arrogant.
Of course, it doesn't help that this kind of unthinking, incurious obedience is being exploited by a group of politicians disguised as "religious leaders" simply in order to accumulate political power. I think their followers should be ashamed of themselves for being so gullible, if for no other reason.
But I still find it incredible that the country can be "divided" over evolution. We might as well be divided over gravity.
. . . it literally pitted “friend against friend, and neighbor against neighbor” within the small community that serves as a microcosm of an America still divided over evolution.
For some reason, the phrase "divided over evolution" just stuck out. I sit here asking myself "How can that be?" Of course, it's not so hard to figure out: those who oppose the teaching of evolution represent an ideology that renounces empirical evidence in favor of belief, and the belief is itself an element of obedience to outside authority. I don't really understand that -- my dad was a science teacher, and you'd better believe I got a full dose of thinking rationally when I was a kid. He's also a major sceptic. (All things considered, it's odd to think of my father as a product of the Enlightenment, but there you have it.)
The anti-science crowd makes a big deal about evolution being "a religion," and a doctrine promulgated as "orthodoxy," which is, of course, specious. Science is a self-correcting system of thought that bases its laws and theories on what we know objectively. Scientific orthodoxy is simply the result of overwhelming evidence. It's subject to change as new evidence comes to light, which is why we can never say that a scientific theory is "proven." You can't prove anything in science, you can only disprove its opposite -- there's always the possibility of new evidence. That's what makes science so exciting.
In the case of Kitzmiller, it's instructive that the creationists' "expert witnesses" admitted that ID is not science. The thinking seems to be -- spot me on this -- that their beliefs should trump everything else, which in a pluralistic, secular nation is a little bit beyond arrogant.
Of course, it doesn't help that this kind of unthinking, incurious obedience is being exploited by a group of politicians disguised as "religious leaders" simply in order to accumulate political power. I think their followers should be ashamed of themselves for being so gullible, if for no other reason.
But I still find it incredible that the country can be "divided" over evolution. We might as well be divided over gravity.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Speaking of Orchids
which have been added to the sidebar, there's this news from Yosemite -- a new orchid species. It is reported by one source to smell like sweaty feet.
Nature has her own standards of beauty.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)