Excellent analysis of the campaign to ban gay marriage in California by T.A. Frank, writing in the New Republic, and focusing on the extent to which proponents of Proposition 8 have used code words and civility to garner support for their agenda.
Of course, the usual suspects on the Christian fringe are present as well.
I've noticed that my template is screwy and lines are appearing where they shouldn't be. When I get a chance (tomorrow evening, I hope), I will fix this.
Sorry, no posts at all today -- work was miserable, and I didn't get home until 10:45.
Here's something I was thinking about on the drive home tonight.
If planned obsolescence was the great innovation of capitalism in the 1950s and since, what will be the next innovation regarding product durability and replacement? I was thinking something like a shift toward temporary platforms and subscription services which are always becoming obsolete, but instead of purchasing new goods/hardware, the consumer is grafted onto a system of perpetual replacement and updates, for which he or she pays a flat subscription fee. What does that mean for the technological economy? Will it have broader implications for the real economy as more and more of the "real" becomes virtual? How will that shift, if it will be the case, affect human social interactions and economic behavior?
A video report from Die Zeit -- in my opinion, the premier newspaper in the world -- from a retirement home in Belle Fourche, S.D. In English with German subtitles. A side of America you don't get in daily media, be it MSM or otherwise.
The bigger point (and I know I'm a broken record here) is this. Whatever direction you think conservatism should be going in from here on out, the absolute worst thing the members of a losing political movement can do - if they ever want to win again, at least - is attempt to pre-emptively close off debate about the movement's future. Conservatives need to have arguments, not promise excommunications, or else pretty soon there won't be very much worth arguing over.
Top Ten Reasons for Conservatives to Vote for Obama
From Andrew Sullivan, and most of them are pretty applicable to progressives. A solid argument nonetheless, especially when compared to the other side.
10. A body blow to racial identity politics. An end to the era of Jesse Jackson in black America.
9. Less debt. Yes, Obama will raise taxes on those earning over a quarter of a million. And he will spend on healthcare, Iraq, Afghanistan and the environment. But so will McCain. He plans more spending on health, the environment and won't touch defense of entitlements. And his refusal to touch taxes means an extra $4 trillion in debt over the massive increase presided over by Bush. And the CBO estimates that McCain's plans will add more to the debt over four years than Obama's. Fiscal conservatives have a clear choice.
8. A return to realism and prudence in foreign policy. Obama has consistently cited the foreign policy of George H. W. Bush as his inspiration. McCain's knee-jerk reaction to the Georgian conflict, his commitment to stay in Iraq indefinitely, and his brinksmanship over Iran's nuclear ambitions make him a far riskier choice for conservatives. The choice between Obama and McCain is like the choice between George H.W. Bush's first term and George W.'s.
7. An ability to understand the difference between listening to generals and delegating foreign policy to them.
6. Temperament. Obama has the coolest, calmest demeanor of any president since Eisenhower. Conservatism values that kind of constancy, especially cmopared with the hot-headed, irrational impulsiveness of McCain.
5. Faith. Obama's fusion of Christianity and reason, his non-fundamentalist faith, is a critical bridge between the new atheism and the new Christianism.
4. A truce in the culture war. Obama takes us past the debilitating boomer warfare that has raged since the 1960s. Nothing has distorted our politics so gravely; nothing has made a rational politics more elusive.
3. Two words: President Palin.
2. Conservative reform. Until conservatism can get a distance from the big-spending, privacy-busting, debt-ridden, crony-laden, fundamentalist, intolerant, incompetent and arrogant faux conservatism of the Bush-Cheney years, it will never regain a coherent message to actually govern this country again. The survival of conservatism requires a temporary eclipse of today's Republicanism. Losing would be the best thing to happen to conservatism since 1964. Back then, conservatives lost in a landslide for the right reasons. Now, Republicans are losing in a landslide for the wrong reasons.
1. The War Against Islamist terror. The strategy deployed by Bush and Cheney has failed. It has failed to destroy al Qaeda, except in a country, Iraq, where their presence was minimal before the US invasion. It has failed to bring any of the terrorists to justice, instead creating the excresence of Gitmo, torture, secret sites, and the collapse of America's reputation abroad. It has empowered Iran, allowed al Qaeda to regroup in Pakistan, made the next vast generation of Muslims loathe America, and imperiled our alliances. We need smarter leadership of the war: balancing force with diplomacy, hard power with better p.r., deploying strategy rather than mere tactics, and self-confidence rather than a bunker mentality.
Those conservatives who remain convinced, as I do, that Islamist terror remains the greatest threat to the West cannot risk a perpetuation of the failed Manichean worldview of the past eight years, and cannot risk the possibility of McCain making rash decisions in the middle of a potentially catastrophic global conflict. If you are serious about the war on terror and believe it is a war we have to win, the only serious candidate is Barack Obama.
What the hell is an 8-year-old boy doing firing an Uzi?
Nice work, NRA. This is the kind of idiocy that your lobbyists push for.
WESTFIELD, Mass. (AP) -- An 8-year-old boy died after accidentally shooting himself in the head while firing an Uzi submachine gun under adult supervision at a gun fair.
The boy lost control of the weapon while firing it Sunday at the Machine Gun Shoot and Firearms Expo at the Westfield Sportsman's Club, police Lt. Lawrence Vallierpratte said.
Police said the boy, Christopher Bizilj (Bah-SEAL) of Ashford, Conn., was with a certified instructor and called the death a ''self-inflicted accidental shooting.''
As the boy fired the Uzi, ''the front end of the weapon went up with the backfire and he ended up receiving a round in his head,'' police Lt. Hipolito Nunez said. The boy died at a hospital.
The boy's father and older brother were also there at the time, a gun club member and school official said. Francis Mitchell, a longtime member and trustee of the club, said he was told the boy's father was supporting his son from behind when the shooting happened.
Update: Aside from the stunning absurdity that it's legal for an eight-year-old to fire a submachine gun -- or, for that matter, that submachine guns are available on the market -- what the hell was this kid's father thinking? Common sense would come to the quick conclusion that that constitutes reckless endangerment, but the gun laws in this country aren't written by common sense; they're written by the gun lobby.
Jim Nuzzo, a White House aide to the first President Bush, dismissed Mrs Palin's critics as "cocktail party conservatives" who "give aid and comfort to the enemy".
He told The Sunday Telegraph: "There's going to be a bloodbath. A lot of people are going to be excommunicated. David Brooks and David Frum and Peggy Noonan are dead people in the Republican Party. The litmus test will be: where did you stand on Palin?"
Anyone else thoroughly unimpressed by this supposedly "devastating" tape of Obama speaking about redistributing the wealth in 2001? Drudge is wetting his pants over it, but this really doesn't seem like much of an issue. By definition, any tax redistributes wealth, whether it's from the affluent to the less affluent, from individuals to the government, from the government to the affluent, etc. "Wealth redistribution" doesn't equate to socialism -- it's a necessary element in the structure of the modern state system. The fact of the matter is that, in the past decade or so, wealth redistribution has been rampant -- just in the direction of the government and the less affluent to the affluent. If you think that's equitable wealth redistribution, fine, but don't pretend like redistribution only exists when it comes to extending unemployment benefits or erecting a national health care system.
Obama's point seems to be a much narrower view of the extent to which social change and progressive wealth redistribution is possible through the judicial system -- and, as Orin Kerr points out, it's not entirely clear what Obama concludes.
The New York Times published a feature in the Sunday Styles section on "pundit school," where individuals interested in manipulating and obscuring public debate can hone their skills in delivering pithy one-liners, distorting their opponents' positions, and reducing complex discussions into empty sound bites.
The piece profiles J. P. Freire, a 26-year old managing editor at The American Spectator, who apparently needs to brush up on his ability to get air time on Hannity & Colmes. Because nothing says "anti-elitist" like spoon-feeding viewers premade opinions in pseudo-debate that they can mindlessly spout at rallies.
It's sad that political discourse has sunk to a level so low that both sides feel the need to train their talking heads to manage opinion.
Private Property and Social Liberalization in China
Interesting post connecting the dots among greater rights to private property and broader acceptance of homosexuality in urban China. Courtesy of the Volokh Conspiracy.
I think there's definitely a strong argument to be made for the relationship between private space and the expression of viewpoints or behaviors contrary to broad social norms. Legally protected private space is indispensable to liberty, so long as it's thoroughly sacrosanct; the number of tools available today to violate private space demands extra safeguards and vocal defense. Private property may provide the wellspring of personal and intellectual freedom, but it's incorrect to argue from that to the superiority of an unfettered market. Only with proper safeguards and regulation to protect the inviolability of that private space can it fulfill its potential. That means restricting the ability of corporations to engage in data mining and of governments to wiretap and invade privacy.
Catch Sarah Palin falling all over herself trying to provide a rationale for the cool $150,000 in clothing the RNC picked up for her. They're not really my clothes -- I'm just a down to earth hockey mom! Against the backdrop of the recent rumors regarding increasing tension between McCain and Palin, it's hard to see this as anything but Palin attempting to do damage control and position her damaged brand as standing to benefit from McCain's loss. Palin's trying to out-maverick the "maverick," in a telling display of political opportunism and the every man for himself attitude on the right.
Chinese scientists are hard at work developing a drug that could allow for the permanent erasure of painful or unpleasant memories. Personally, that's what I always thought alcohol was for. But all joking aside, the potential applicability of such a drug to humans raises a number of ethical questions, most of them frightening. The broader question -- and one which a number of scientific innovations in the pipelines, such as genetic modification and biological-technological interfaces -- is to what extent is the instrumental manipulation of the human condition appropriate?
I realize I'm a week behind on this, but I just watched Colin Powell's CNN interview again, and it really is a striking example of the difference between a responsible conservatism predicated on policy differences and the fulminations of the new McCarthyites on the right.
TOKYO (AP) - Police say a 43-year-old Japanese piano teacher's sudden divorce from her online husband in a virtual game world made her so angry that she logged on and killed his digital persona.
She used his identification and password to log onto popular interactive game "Maple Story" to carry out the virtual murder in mid-May, a police official in northern Sapporo City said on condition of anonymity, citing department policy.
"I was suddenly divorced, without a word of warning. That made me so angry," the official quoted her as telling investigators and admitting the allegations.
The woman had not plotted any revenge in the real world, the official said.
She was charged with illegal access onto a computer and manipulating electronic data, police said. If convicted, she could face a prison term of up to five years or a fine up to US$5,000.
Great article by Paul Weldman on the big supposedly-"liberal" media's refusal to so much as ponder whether the electoral events of 2006 and (hopefully) 2008 represent a progressive shift in the nation's cultural politics. I agree with Paul's analysis, and think that what it really represents is the extent to which the MSM has become so terrified of denunciations by the rabid and vocal right for being "liberal" that they refrain from making sensible conclusions that would seem to give the slightest scrap of ammunition to the NRO crowd.
Comparisons to our friends in Sweden aside, a look at the issue terrain at the moment shows a public firmly in the progressive camp. On foreign policy, on economic policy, on social policy, on just about everything, it's the progressive position that is more popular. The median voter in 2008 is pro-choice, supports civil unions for gay Americans (a position that seemed insanely radical only a decade ago), rejects the Bush foreign policy, supported the recent increase in the minimum wage, wants strong environmental protections, favors reasonable restrictions on gun sales, thinks the wealthy and corporations don't pay their fair share of taxes, and wants the government to guarantee universal health coverage. Does that sound conservative to you? And younger generations are more progressive than their elders -- in fact, it is the pre-baby-boom generation that is the most conservative on most issues. And they will only be around for so long.
Exactly. Perhaps Americans have come around to realize that the politics of hatred, personal attacks, theocracy, and bigotry are just ciphers to mask the complete intellectual bankruptcy of the right. If this election cycle is teaching us anything, it should be that the Reagan era is decisively over -- and we can hope that a return to a more sensible, equitable, and pragmatic politics is on the horizon.
Although I consider myself a staunch progressive, I have nothing personal against true conservatism -- gentlemen like Andrew Sullivan, Colin Powell, Ross Douthat, Fareed Zakaria, etc. all contribute to a sensible and rational debate of politics and culture in America. I may disagree with certain of their views, but I'm certain that if we were to sit down and debate issues like health care, tax policy, and foreign affairs, we could at least do so in a civil manner, even if there were significant differences in policy advocation. The problem is that for so long now, intellectual conservatism has been hijacked by the Bush-Limbaugh-Rove radicals for whom conservatism is nothing but a means to more power and secrecy. Let's hope that November 4th represents a double turning point -- one of America toward a more progressive outlook and one of conservatism back to its intellectual roots. Debate is good for America. Republican thuggery is not.
Slow on the posting lately... or always, I guess. Work takes the life and creativity out of me -- a good sign it's time to find a new -- or the right -- profession. Spending upward up ten hours a day playing in Excel files, manipulating meaningless statistics for the sake of a -- well let's just say -- a major international retailer, violator of environmental standards, and exploiter of its laborers doesn't really do much for me.
I would really like to quit and focus full-time on writing creative fiction and blogging, since that's where my passion really is. Thanks for wrecking the economy Reaganism, because I'm too terrified of abject poverty to do what I need to do for the sake of my sanity. Grumble, grumble.
So that the ignorance and racism exhibited by these people and disgracefully whipped up by McCain, Palin, and the rabid right doesn't stay in control of this country.
"The same people that are now claiming credit for this rescue are the same ones that were willing co-conspirators in causing this problem that it is... You know their names. You will know more of their names." --John McCain, yesterday in Wisconsin.
Names like... John McCain?
And another monument to the utter intellectual bankruptcy of "conservatism" -- exposed for the failed ideology that it is, it points the finger anywhere but at itself. Co-conspirators? If the situation weren't so serious at the moment, this would be hilarious.
Goes to Matt Apuzzo of the AP for this gem: "Trying to head off a potentially embarrassing state ethics report on GOP vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin, campaign officials released their own report Thursday that clears her of any wrongdoing."
I'm incredibly sad that I've missed out on blogging these past few weeks, as the McCain and then McCain-Palin campaign has become the dark side of postmodernism's poster child, but I hope to make up ground quickly, starting with this.
The parallel, spin-centered universe in which McCain lives finds full justification in clearing Palin -- an absurd proposition that any rational person would laugh at -- because nobody cares about facts. Factuality is completely irrelevant to this campaign. What matters is presenting a counter-narrative and caricaturizing any inquiries into potential malfeasance as one of a number of tropes: "elitism," "the left-wing mainstream media," or "partisan politics." As far as the campaigns, the media, and most voters (at least the ones whose engagement with politics goes no further than watching the 6 o'clock news and CNN/Fox/MSNBC) are concerned, all that matters is that a suitable narrative can be spun out of the air, to be defended passionately by its adherents and scoffed at by "the other side."
The notion of a politically-engaged public sphere capable of rational-critical debate, to put it in Habermas' terms, is a complete fiction in contemporary America.
After five weeks of missed appointments, phantom phone calls, and pathetic customer service, Verizon finally installed our internet today. Five weeks!
In any case, that means I'm now free to develop this site away from work, which is a big relief and quite exciting. I'm looking forward to using the miniscule pockets of time I will have as best I can to put my own spin on the election, politics in general, the role of the media in politics, social networking, literature, philosophy, etc.
Unfortunately, my time is going to be even more pinched than I had expected for the next two months -- I've decided to take the December LSAT and rush in applications to Yale and Harvard, in the hope that one of them can save me from the poor decision I made to work -- at a marketing research firm, no less. If all goes well, I'll be a law student next fall; if neither school bites, I'll polish my credentials and apply to a full cycle next fall for fall 2010. Hopefully it won't come to that.
Still no internet at home. There will be a length screed denouncing Verizon the great Satan when I finally get set up. Work doesn't afford many (safe) opportunities to post, so sadly, it's going to be another week or so before we're up and running for real.
27-yr old Midwestern boy who's a book lover, book seller, media critic, Germanophile, LGBT activist, Cubs/Bulls/Arsenal nut, and unrepentant progressive who writes fiction and assorted commentary.
