Excellent post on the (non)justifiability of torture over at Kos. It got me thinking a bit about Bush's current defense of his policies: his administration had an 'accountability moment' -- the election -- and since the American people apparently approved of his policies, they are now exempt from attributions of blame for their actions prior to the election. Hence, it seems to go, because a slight majority of Americans voted for Bush and his administration, they are not morally responsible for Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, even if they approved of those policies themselves.
This strikes me as completely bizarre in two ways, both of which tie into Bush's rhetoric of moral absolutes. First, it is an explicit argument that one's moral accountability for one's actions can be negated by events after the action in question. Granted, I'm not an ethicist, but the idea of ex post facto exculpatory circumstances strikes me as ludicrous (and, in a legislative setting, in violation of the Constitution): you can't justify stealing a loaf of bread because two days later your boss unexpectedly fired you. There is a legal notion of a statute of limitations: a time limit after which one cannot be prosecuted for a crime; but such a statute must still be in place prior to the crime's committal, and I suspect this is largely pragmatically rather than ethically grounded. By contrast, the background for Bush's moral absolutism is a fundamentalist Christian theology of hellfire and damnation, in which humans are to be divinely judged for all their sins and sentenced to eternal punishment.
The second bizarre contrast is with the explicit, and quite radical, moral relativism of the argument: the citizenry must be actively and self-consciously responsible for determining who may and may not be held morally accountable for their actions. It is not that mere social conventions, out of anyone's real control, have just happened to lead to Bush's moral exemption; rather, the people themselves have granted him this status through their deliberate choice. Most pointedly, it is not God who has determined whether or not to hold these men and women responsible.
All of this is driven home by the fact that this extreme moral relativism is used to justify the methods of prosecution of the war on terror[ism] (the Jus in Bello), while the necessity of its prosecution (the Jus ad Bellum)is justified (by Bush) with moral absolutist rhetoric. (cf. Wikipedia's entry on Just War)
February 11, 2005
February 10, 2005
The Bush Administration: Incompetastic (but not politically)!
So it turns out that
And not only that, but also
Five months. That would be October. That would be right before the election. That would be right right before the election in which several people I know voted for Bush because they thought he would do better at keeping us safe from terrorists.
Thanks, guys!
In the months before the Sept. 11 attacks, federal aviation officials reviewed dozens of intelligence reports that warned about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, some of which specifically discussed airline hijackings and suicide operations, according to a previously undisclosed report from the 9/11 commission.
And not only that, but also
The Bush administration has blocked the public release of the full, classified version of the report for more than five months, officials said, much to the frustration of former commission members who say it provides a critical understanding of the failures of the civil aviation system. The administration provided both the classified report and a declassified, 120-page version to the National Archives two weeks ago and, even with heavy redactions in some areas, the declassified version provides the firmest evidence to date about the warnings that aviation officials received concerning the threat of an attack on airliners and the failure to take steps to deter it.
Five months. That would be October. That would be right before the election. That would be right right before the election in which several people I know voted for Bush because they thought he would do better at keeping us safe from terrorists.
Thanks, guys!
February 09, 2005
Cavalcade of evolutionary psychology continues!
Over at Echidne. I've never liked Steven Pinker, ever since I read some of his stuff in a class I took back in college on evolution. Stephen Jay Gould referred to the work of evolutionary psychologists as 'Just So stories', and the 'research' these people turn out really is pretty craptacular. Steven Pinker is somewhat better than a lot of these lunatics -- but that's not saying much.
Storm on the horizon
Two excellent pieces on the contemporary abortion-rights movement over at Salon.
Questions of legal rights ultimately (or at least should ... ) reduce to moral questions. The anti-choice movement has been slowly but steadily gaining ground for the past twenty years because of the failure of pro-choice advocates to maintain their core position: there is nothing immoral about abortion, and reproductive autonomy in general. It is complicated and fraught with emotion, as most things involving people are, but it is not immoral. What is immoral is the anti-choice position, which demeans women, pregnancy, children, and the conditions in which people actually live in favour of pursuing a fiction of motherhood as the raison d'etre of women.
However, the reader should note that the rejection of this fiction is not the rejection of motherhood: indeed, it is only once one recognizes the autonomy of a woman's choice whether to be a mother or not that one can truly appreciate motherhood. In a way, the fiction that women are 'meant' to be mothers undermines the very notion that it is meant to glorify, reducing it to a necessity like eating or breathing rather than making the hard choice to undertake a difficult and noble project. The only true parent is someone who has chosen to be a parent.
Both of the Salon articles are inspired from this essay.
But, Kissling said, 'I think it's pretty sad if the reality of pro-choice thought is that a discussion of morality leads to an antiabortion position.' Kissling has always trod the delicate line between her pro-choice compatriots and her Catholic belief. The Roman Catholic hierarchy remains the mortal enemy of reproductive freedom -- be it abortion or birth control. 'I've thought about the morality of this ad nauseam for 35 years and come to the conclusion that making the choice [to have an abortion] can be a profoundly morally correct decision,' said Kissling. 'It can be morally incorrect too, but so can having a baby.'
Questions of legal rights ultimately (or at least should ... ) reduce to moral questions. The anti-choice movement has been slowly but steadily gaining ground for the past twenty years because of the failure of pro-choice advocates to maintain their core position: there is nothing immoral about abortion, and reproductive autonomy in general. It is complicated and fraught with emotion, as most things involving people are, but it is not immoral. What is immoral is the anti-choice position, which demeans women, pregnancy, children, and the conditions in which people actually live in favour of pursuing a fiction of motherhood as the raison d'etre of women.
However, the reader should note that the rejection of this fiction is not the rejection of motherhood: indeed, it is only once one recognizes the autonomy of a woman's choice whether to be a mother or not that one can truly appreciate motherhood. In a way, the fiction that women are 'meant' to be mothers undermines the very notion that it is meant to glorify, reducing it to a necessity like eating or breathing rather than making the hard choice to undertake a difficult and noble project. The only true parent is someone who has chosen to be a parent.
Both of the Salon articles are inspired from this essay.
February 05, 2005
The Best Thing Ever
Yet another entry in "The Best Thing Ever" competition making a run at the title. Watch this and you will be amazed and hilarified.
Thanks to Anne for sending me the link!
Thanks to Anne for sending me the link!
February 03, 2005
The evolution of the ass
Echidne has hilarious parody of the sort of 'reasoning' prevalent in evolutionary psychology. Go read her for the full context.
Maybe humans inherit big buttocks from their fathers, too? But why did this gene (if it exists in humans) survive? Here's where the scientific evolutionary psychology comes to my aid. The rules are something like this: Figure out how something that appears today might have once been useful, then explain its prevalence by the fact that it was once useful. It's a neat method, as lots of time is being saved by not having to go out to gather evidence or set up laboratory experiments, and it has the additional advantage (to me, at least) that nobody can prove my theory wrong. So here's my theory entitled 'How Buttocks Came to Be'.
A long time ago and far away lived a tribe of humans. Some of them were slender as a reed, and where we have buttocks they only had a small tight knot. Others had very large buttocks dragging behind them on the ground as they walked. Yet others were just right, not too slim and not too fat. Like we are.
Once a year the tribe would gather together for a mating ceremony in which all the men would fight each other for the right to inseminate all the females. (The females, as is common in evolutionary psychology in general, are going to be ignored from now on.) The mating ceremony took three days: On the first day all men would sit in a circle until they couldn't take it anymore. All those no longer sitting at sunset were discontinued. On the second day all remaining men would run around in a circle, nonstop, until the sun set. The fastest runner at this time would be declared the winner of the insemination ceremonies. The third day was spent on insemination.
Well, dear reader, you can guess what happened. None of the stick-figurelike knot guys could sit on the ground all day. They developed terrible sitting sores and despite firm determination and great stamina eventually had to admit defeat and get up just to get the blood moving again.
The really big-butted guys had a wonderful time with the first day's tournament. They could have easily sat for another week. But the next day they had to run and run, and as they ran their buttocks dragged behind, hit rocks and sticks and just hurt. Then they started bleeding. Besides, it's hard to run fast with something like that. However, valiant they were, these men, too, were disqualified. Only the fastest of the just-right guys got to pass his genes on.
And that's how buttocks came to be.
We must destroy this safety net in order to save it
There's lots of stuff all over the blogosphere today about the unveiled Social Security plot plan; I'm not going to bother with the digest, you're all big girls and boys. Atrios, though, has what I consider the definitive smack-down of this nefarious scheme dumbass plan.
I was born in 1980; many of you were born right around that time as well. According to the lovely chart the CBO has provided for us, I am scheduled to receive $20.5k (in 2004 dollars) the first year I collect social security. Not great, of course, but better than nothing. And significantly better than the $13k total (social security + kinda-private account) I can expect from the Republican plan.
'But wait, Mister Smarty-pants Liberal Commie Fascist Pinko!' you might be saying, 'Dear Leader told us Social Security's going to be bankrupt, and you won't get that $20.5k anyways; $13.1k isn't great, that's true, but it's better than nothing!' That's where we look at the third column of the CBO chart: payable benefits. Assuming we don't do what we've done in the past and tweak the system to keep it running, I can still get $19.7k my first year on social security. That's roughly half as much again as what quasi-privatization is going to give me! And the younger you are, the more the system is going to screw you!
And that's not all! Not only will paid benefits be significantly smaller, but this system will cost a shitload more than the current one. Two reasons: transition and administration costs. This is a windfall of epic proportions for the private brokerages who will manage your semi-private account. Or it would be if the real goal of this plan wasn't to make the Social Security system so cumbersome and facile that it would be easier just to scrap it twenty years down the line. 'Starving the beast' was the way Milton Friedman, the free market messiah most of these supposedly pious Christians truly worship, put it.
I was born in 1980; many of you were born right around that time as well. According to the lovely chart the CBO has provided for us, I am scheduled to receive $20.5k (in 2004 dollars) the first year I collect social security. Not great, of course, but better than nothing. And significantly better than the $13k total (social security + kinda-private account) I can expect from the Republican plan.
'But wait, Mister Smarty-pants Liberal Commie Fascist Pinko!' you might be saying, 'Dear Leader told us Social Security's going to be bankrupt, and you won't get that $20.5k anyways; $13.1k isn't great, that's true, but it's better than nothing!' That's where we look at the third column of the CBO chart: payable benefits. Assuming we don't do what we've done in the past and tweak the system to keep it running, I can still get $19.7k my first year on social security. That's roughly half as much again as what quasi-privatization is going to give me! And the younger you are, the more the system is going to screw you!
And that's not all! Not only will paid benefits be significantly smaller, but this system will cost a shitload more than the current one. Two reasons: transition and administration costs. This is a windfall of epic proportions for the private brokerages who will manage your semi-private account. Or it would be if the real goal of this plan wasn't to make the Social Security system so cumbersome and facile that it would be easier just to scrap it twenty years down the line. 'Starving the beast' was the way Milton Friedman, the free market messiah most of these supposedly pious Christians truly worship, put it.
January 30, 2005
Sex and genius
On Friday, the Association for Women in Mathematics chapter at my school hosted a mathematician with a background in women's studies who spoke on the notion of 'genius', with some attention to the Larry Summers fiasco. In a paper she's currently writing, she argues that the idea of 'genius' -- at least in the Western tradition -- is a bundle of slightly incompatible notions, including perseverence, innateness of ability, independence and autonomy, transcendence (disconnectedness from the mundane world), and masculine virility. A sub-thesis of her work is that this bundle of notions might explain the treatment of brilliant women, who almost universally are regarded as either sub-par intellectually or as unfeminine.
Though I only skimmed her paper, and she did not talk about the connection much during the talk, I believe her argument is one I've seen before, in such feminist philosophers as Monique Wittig and Simone de Beauvoir: all the above 'virtues of genius' can be identified with 'qualities of masculinity', and set opposed to 'qualities of femininity'. Women, according to classical stereotypes which are still prevalent in various degrees today, are capricious and unreliable, innately mentally and physically deficient compared to men, dependent on a husband or father and simultaneously responsible for the care of others, domestically fertile rather than heroically virile, and immanent (completely of the mundane world; it is an antinomous with transcendent in the above list). Hence, according to this dichotomy, an intellectual woman is, by definition, a contradiction in terms: either a 'failure' as a woman or a failure as an intellectual.
I've emailed her, asking for permission to link to the paper so you can read it for yourself (not that any of you will actually be interested); for the time being, you can check out her website.
Update: She has let me know that she doesn't want her paper available quite that publicly; however, feel free to contact her via the email address on her site.
Though I only skimmed her paper, and she did not talk about the connection much during the talk, I believe her argument is one I've seen before, in such feminist philosophers as Monique Wittig and Simone de Beauvoir: all the above 'virtues of genius' can be identified with 'qualities of masculinity', and set opposed to 'qualities of femininity'. Women, according to classical stereotypes which are still prevalent in various degrees today, are capricious and unreliable, innately mentally and physically deficient compared to men, dependent on a husband or father and simultaneously responsible for the care of others, domestically fertile rather than heroically virile, and immanent (completely of the mundane world; it is an antinomous with transcendent in the above list). Hence, according to this dichotomy, an intellectual woman is, by definition, a contradiction in terms: either a 'failure' as a woman or a failure as an intellectual.
I've emailed her, asking for permission to link to the paper so you can read it for yourself (not that any of you will actually be interested); for the time being, you can check out her website.
Update: She has let me know that she doesn't want her paper available quite that publicly; however, feel free to contact her via the email address on her site.
Democrotastic!
Iraqis vote today, and, of course, the NYT has a glowing article on how well things are going. Like the Afghani elections that, to my knowledge, didn't really do much of anything, what's important here is not, as the article suggests, how many eligible voters turn out and how much violence occurs; this election is only worthwhile to the extent that it actually helps calm things down there -- to the extent that, a decade from now, it is looked upon as the first election of a legitimate Iraqi democracy. Personally, I remain skeptical.
There's also this piece, which briefly discusses women's attitudes towards the election. It's kind of hard to see the point of this article, since it basically amounts to 'Some women are going to vote independently of their husbands and religious leaders; some are not.' Gee, thanks for the profound insight, New York Times! This quotation caught my eye:
Oh, how nice of you! You've given your wife permission to think for herself! You're so much better than the guy Echidne points out:
There's also this piece, which briefly discusses women's attitudes towards the election. It's kind of hard to see the point of this article, since it basically amounts to 'Some women are going to vote independently of their husbands and religious leaders; some are not.' Gee, thanks for the profound insight, New York Times! This quotation caught my eye:
Muhammad Abboud, a journalist, speaking of his wife in a response that was revealing in itself, said: "Basically, I've given her full freedom on whom to follow politically. I don't oppose any political attitude."
Oh, how nice of you! You've given your wife permission to think for herself! You're so much better than the guy Echidne points out:
Al-Yawer was among the first to cast his ballot, voting alongside his wife at election headquarters in the heavily fortified Green Zone in central Baghdad. As poll workers watched, he marked two ballots and dropped them into boxes, and then walked away with an Iraqi flag given to him by a poll worker.
''I'm very proud and happy this morning,'' al-Yawer told reporters. ''I congratulate all the Iraqi people and call them to vote for Iraq.''
January 29, 2005
I think about weird things
Michel Foucault, a late 20th century French philosopher, argued for a notion of an ars erotica, sexuality as a form of self-expression akin to art. By this I believe he meant to give sexuality a place outside the usual normative moral structures: sexual acts, like artistic acts, are not to be interrogated according to whether they are 'right' or 'wrong'.
But, prima facie, this leads to the possibility that sexual acts like rape cannot be condemned. So, if we are inclined to follow Foucault in liberating sexuality in this way, what must we do to establish this anormative space? Perhaps morality (in some sense; Foucault himself often seems critical of all normativity) can establish the boundary of such a space, but not determine the internal structure? Then, as a less theoretical matter, how is this boundary to be established?
But, prima facie, this leads to the possibility that sexual acts like rape cannot be condemned. So, if we are inclined to follow Foucault in liberating sexuality in this way, what must we do to establish this anormative space? Perhaps morality (in some sense; Foucault himself often seems critical of all normativity) can establish the boundary of such a space, but not determine the internal structure? Then, as a less theoretical matter, how is this boundary to be established?
I Hope Johnny Mack Is Playable
I know some of you out there like the Outlaw series of games (Golf and Volleyball for the uninitiated) and, well, it looks like there's another formerly tame sport that's about to get it's x-treme factor turned up to eleven.
Pokemon Causes Cancer!!!
From Gamespot's weekly Rumor Control feature:
Here's the link to the actual Sloan-Kettering place.
Few things provoke as severe a love/hate reaction as Pokémon games. That said, even the most rabid Pikachu-basher wouldn't accuse the franchise of being carcinogenic (though the TV show based on the games was accused of causing seizures). However, in the purest technical sense, "Pokemon" does cause cancer. That's because "Pokemon" is also the name of a cancer-causing gene that was recently discovered. In a study published in the January 20 issue of Nature, researchers at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer outline how they isolated the POK Erythroid Myeloid Ontogenic factor--or POKEMON, for short. What's next? A leukemia gene called Dragon Ball Z? A terminal case of Yu-Gi-Oh! Syndrome?
Here's the link to the actual Sloan-Kettering place.
US Foreign Policy: Preventing Perpetual Peace
Hidden in the middle of David Brooks' latest banalism was this disturbing statement:
Organizations like the UN and World Court have been formed by nation-states in an attempt to manage international affairs peacefully, in an effort to stop conflict before it starts and provide a forum for fairly resolving all those issues which must be managed on a global scale. Hence, they have been regarded almost universally by theorists of international relations as the only route to a long-term peaceful and just global society. Ad hoc coalitions like the neocons praise can never function in the long term the way a body like the UN can; while they may be of some use in particular cases, rejecting universal organizations in favor of the ad hoc ones is a rejection of the universal humanitarianism Bush claimed to support in his state of the union address.
Their favorite kinds of institutions are the kinds they created in response to the tsunami disaster: the kind with no permanent offices and no permanent staff, the kind that is created to address a discrete problem and then disappear when the problem is over. The phrase for this is coalitions of the willing.
Organizations like the UN and World Court have been formed by nation-states in an attempt to manage international affairs peacefully, in an effort to stop conflict before it starts and provide a forum for fairly resolving all those issues which must be managed on a global scale. Hence, they have been regarded almost universally by theorists of international relations as the only route to a long-term peaceful and just global society. Ad hoc coalitions like the neocons praise can never function in the long term the way a body like the UN can; while they may be of some use in particular cases, rejecting universal organizations in favor of the ad hoc ones is a rejection of the universal humanitarianism Bush claimed to support in his state of the union address.
January 27, 2005
Good news, bad news
The FCC, now that Michael Powell is gone, won't be appealing to the Supreme Court for permission to basically do away with media ownership restrictions. That's the good side of things.
The bad side is why they made this decision:
Granted, not quite as big a deal, but less respect for the theocrats getting all worked up over a skimpy bathing suit on the OC would've been nice.
The bad side is why they made this decision:
Officials said one reason the administration decided not to seek Supreme Court review is that some lawyers were concerned that the case could prompt the justices to review related First Amendment issues in a way that could undermine efforts by the commission to enforce indecency rules against television and radio broadcasters. Over the last year, the agency has issued a record number and size of fines, and has been pressed by some conservative and other advocacy groups to be more aggressive.
Granted, not quite as big a deal, but less respect for the theocrats getting all worked up over a skimpy bathing suit on the OC would've been nice.
Theodicy
This thoughtful piece in the Guardian comes quite close to my own views.
My aphorism is: Science can describe the world of our experience, but philosophy and art are there to ask 'why?'
Surely Professor Dawkins was ... confusing scientific explanation with metaphysical interrogation. Science - atheistical science, if you will - can tell us how the world works, but cannot answer the eternal metaphysical wail: why do we suffer so?
My aphorism is: Science can describe the world of our experience, but philosophy and art are there to ask 'why?'
Stop Propaganda Act
Any speculation on how this is going to be spun?
It's absolutely necessary, of course, and doesn't stand a chance of passing under this administration and this congress. But even just proposing this is an excellent move by the Senate Dems.
It's absolutely necessary, of course, and doesn't stand a chance of passing under this administration and this congress. But even just proposing this is an excellent move by the Senate Dems.
'Government'? 'Freedom'?
Thoughtful musings over at Echidne:
One example of this is in the use of the word 'government'. As a crude oversimplification, Americans mean something very different from Europeans when they use this word. For many Americans, the government is a potentially tyrannic meanie that is after the hard-earned money of the tax-payers and has no real reason for existing in the first place. For many Europeans, at least those from the so-called old Europe, the government may be something viewed with a bit of sceptism but it's not seen as inherently different from other organizations human beings create. If governments are not to be wholly trusted, neither are large firms or large churches and so on.
This is all linked to the meaning of the word 'freedom', and this is surely the one word where definitions vary all over the place. Who knows what George Bush has in mind when he talks about freedom? He appears to believe that the god of the Methodists has given it to all the people on this earth, but he has never given a Biblical reference to this promise, nor has he ever explained what he means by freedom. I suspect that he's talking about the freedom of corporations from laws and regulations, not really about the freedom of individuals from exploitation by corporations. His actions support this view more than any other view.
January 26, 2005
Must ... choke back ... vomit ...
Via Atrios,
Daniel Okrent's nothing amazing, but he's a hell of a lot better than what that shitasstic (note spelling) hack would be.
Times insiders say Safire turned down Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr.’s offer to succeed Daniel Okrent as the newspaper’s ombudsman.
Daniel Okrent's nothing amazing, but he's a hell of a lot better than what that shitasstic (note spelling) hack would be.
January 25, 2005
And the liberation progresses ...
Shouldn't be any surprise that the status of women in Iraq is pretty craptacular.
Incidentally, if you haven't seen Osama yet, I highly recommend it. It's an excellent film, but extraordinarily depressing. Like, Requiem for a Dream depressing.
A year ago, in the weeks after the invasion, hundreds of women marched in the streets outside this hotel in central Baghdad. The women were optimistic, most walked without veils and they made forceful speeches in front of the TV cameras.
Those days of mass protest are over. Today there are barely a dozen women present. Half are veiled and most have come with male relatives or colleagues for protection. It is a quiet indictment of the occupation and underscores the astonishing collapse in security, particularly for women, that it has brought. "Do you feel how threatening it is to go out in the streets? Can you guarantee that you are safe and alive by the end of the day?" asks Yanar Mohammad, the conference organizer and one of the most ardent women's rights activists in Iraq. "It is the insecurity that handicaps the organizing of women."
The few women there describe how things have changed for them since the fall of Saddam Hussein and the subsequent rise in Islamic parties. Many more cover their hair now, sometimes in belief, often through peer-group pressure or simply to protect themselves in anonymity. "Veils are imposed on young girls," says Nadam Moaeed. "What do girls understand from this veil? It will have a bad psychological effect. She will become a negative presence in society."
[...]
It was not always this way. In the 1950s, Iraq was the first Arab country to appoint a female government minister. Women worked freely in banks and government and administrative departments and were involved in a vibrant public debate. The changes came in the 1990s, when Saddam began to appease the tribes and the imams. He allowed men to take four wives and ruled there would no longer be any punishment for a man who killed a woman in his family if he suspected her of an "honor crime".
Incidentally, if you haven't seen Osama yet, I highly recommend it. It's an excellent film, but extraordinarily depressing. Like, Requiem for a Dream depressing.
City of WOW
City of Heroes just had a wallpaper contest for the fans -- the results are pretty awesometastic.
January 24, 2005
Your fingers are incorrect for parking!
Some Germans have done a `study' which `explains' why women `are' bad at things like parallel parking: their ring fingers are often too short! Read about it over at Echidne, which I'm now adding to my blogly rotation.
Be sure to check out the comments, too; came across a link to this largely irrelevant but still interesting article.
Be sure to check out the comments, too; came across a link to this largely irrelevant but still interesting article.
More sex and science! Hooray!
Following up on the post none of you read because you all suck, there's a halfway decent article in the NYT that actually presents some variety of perspective.
January 23, 2005
Cavalcade of gender and science!
Bit of a kerfluffle today in blogland and on the NYT over some Harvard colloquium last week. I suppose, as our resident self-appointed commentator on feminist topics, I should put up something.
Okay, first, a digest of links: Atrios, again, and one more time; Echidne, references by Atrios. Apparently she'll have more later. There are also some inane op-eds in the Times itself, one by an evolutionary biologist who recently wrote a book on sex among animals, and another by one of the authors of the Bell Curve. As Atrios points out, the last one is the sign that this discussion has official jumped the shark, so feel free to not even bother with any of this.
Okay, now, my thoughts. My speciality is no longer politics or economics, but philosophy, and my interest in this debate is the issue -- touched on to some extent by Echidne and the Judson op-ed -- of 'essential' gender or sex differences. My position, following Anne Fausto-Sterling, starts with the observation that, notoriously, we can't study essential differences between groups of humans, simply because we can't isolate a (group of) human subject(s) from their sociological environment, nor from our own background. Prejudice and bias simply creep in too easily. A great example of this is a study I read about a few years back, which purportedly demonstrated an innate difference between the way men and women pursue mates, along pretty classical (and completely bullshit) lines: men show off and compete amongst each other to impress women the most, and a woman chooses from among her suitors for the one who's demonstrated the most impressive qualities. The evidence the authors of the study had? A survey of a couple thousand American college freshman and sophomores.
(Somewhere, there was a mention of current studies by biologists on sexual dimorphism and other clear, dramatic physiological differences between the sexes of other species. The difference between studying essential sexual differences between male and female humans and fruit flies is, obviously, that we're bringing a lot less cultural baggage to the table with the fruit flies. Feminist philosophers of science, and like-minded commentators, have pointed out subtle but telling instances of sexual bias creeping into science, however -- fertilization was traditionally thought of as an active sperm cell penetrating a completely passive egg cell, mirroring Victorian beliefs about proper sexuality, for example, while recent work has shown the egg is almost as active as the sperm in the process. So the alternative below applies to biology more generally, though often the prescription is not as radical as with investigations concerning humans.)
But even more, this inability to get a handle on 'human nature' suggests that trying to work towards such an objective account might be a mistake from the beginning. The alternative Fausto-Sterling suggests is to do away with the essential/environment (or nature/nuture) distinction altogether: a human being (or any organism) is a product of the interaction between genetics and environment in such a way that neither can be considered in isolation. Without the environment, the genes are just long fatty acid chains; and without genes, the potential organism is just a disorganized blob sitting in some surroundings.
One of Atrios' post is an excellent illustration of something similar in an economic context: you can't take either gender discrimination by employers or the path of a woman's career as fundamental, because the two determine each other by their interaction. Hence the proper object of investigation should be the relationship between and interactions of gender and employment -- and how the situation can be rectified -- not assuming one is fundamental and asking how it determines the other.
On the broader question of gender and our society as a whole, I would therefore suggest that it's a mistake to ask, eg, whether fewer women are engineers and scientists because (a) some essential difference in ability or preference, or (b) differential attitudes and treatment of women interested in engineering and science. Instead, ask whether a gender-neutral corps of scientists and engineers would be better (and in what sense of better) than our current non-gender-neutral corps, and how we can go about encouraging (or discouraging, I suppose, if that's the conclusion you ended up with) that gender-neutral corps. Not whether discrimination against a group is 'rationally justified', but whether and how the situation can be changed.
Okay, first, a digest of links: Atrios, again, and one more time; Echidne, references by Atrios. Apparently she'll have more later. There are also some inane op-eds in the Times itself, one by an evolutionary biologist who recently wrote a book on sex among animals, and another by one of the authors of the Bell Curve. As Atrios points out, the last one is the sign that this discussion has official jumped the shark, so feel free to not even bother with any of this.
Okay, now, my thoughts. My speciality is no longer politics or economics, but philosophy, and my interest in this debate is the issue -- touched on to some extent by Echidne and the Judson op-ed -- of 'essential' gender or sex differences. My position, following Anne Fausto-Sterling, starts with the observation that, notoriously, we can't study essential differences between groups of humans, simply because we can't isolate a (group of) human subject(s) from their sociological environment, nor from our own background. Prejudice and bias simply creep in too easily. A great example of this is a study I read about a few years back, which purportedly demonstrated an innate difference between the way men and women pursue mates, along pretty classical (and completely bullshit) lines: men show off and compete amongst each other to impress women the most, and a woman chooses from among her suitors for the one who's demonstrated the most impressive qualities. The evidence the authors of the study had? A survey of a couple thousand American college freshman and sophomores.
(Somewhere, there was a mention of current studies by biologists on sexual dimorphism and other clear, dramatic physiological differences between the sexes of other species. The difference between studying essential sexual differences between male and female humans and fruit flies is, obviously, that we're bringing a lot less cultural baggage to the table with the fruit flies. Feminist philosophers of science, and like-minded commentators, have pointed out subtle but telling instances of sexual bias creeping into science, however -- fertilization was traditionally thought of as an active sperm cell penetrating a completely passive egg cell, mirroring Victorian beliefs about proper sexuality, for example, while recent work has shown the egg is almost as active as the sperm in the process. So the alternative below applies to biology more generally, though often the prescription is not as radical as with investigations concerning humans.)
But even more, this inability to get a handle on 'human nature' suggests that trying to work towards such an objective account might be a mistake from the beginning. The alternative Fausto-Sterling suggests is to do away with the essential/environment (or nature/nuture) distinction altogether: a human being (or any organism) is a product of the interaction between genetics and environment in such a way that neither can be considered in isolation. Without the environment, the genes are just long fatty acid chains; and without genes, the potential organism is just a disorganized blob sitting in some surroundings.
One of Atrios' post is an excellent illustration of something similar in an economic context: you can't take either gender discrimination by employers or the path of a woman's career as fundamental, because the two determine each other by their interaction. Hence the proper object of investigation should be the relationship between and interactions of gender and employment -- and how the situation can be rectified -- not assuming one is fundamental and asking how it determines the other.
On the broader question of gender and our society as a whole, I would therefore suggest that it's a mistake to ask, eg, whether fewer women are engineers and scientists because (a) some essential difference in ability or preference, or (b) differential attitudes and treatment of women interested in engineering and science. Instead, ask whether a gender-neutral corps of scientists and engineers would be better (and in what sense of better) than our current non-gender-neutral corps, and how we can go about encouraging (or discouraging, I suppose, if that's the conclusion you ended up with) that gender-neutral corps. Not whether discrimination against a group is 'rationally justified', but whether and how the situation can be changed.
January 22, 2005
Burning down the house
Here's a bit of literary-ideological analysis of the inaugural speech.
As a rule, I'm not fond of this sort of psychoanalytic method; I feel it's too hard to really get at other people's motivations, thoughts, and feelings. But this is interesting.
As a rule, I'm not fond of this sort of psychoanalytic method; I feel it's too hard to really get at other people's motivations, thoughts, and feelings. But this is interesting.
In which I laugh my ass off, but in a depressing fashion
For once, I wish
David Brooks was right, and not a complete tool:
Sounds awesome. Of course, you'd have to be a complete idiot to actually think this administration was going to be anything more than 100% opportunistic about its foreign policy (via Kos):
What can I add to this but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA?
David Brooks was right, and not a complete tool:
With that speech, President Bush's foreign policy doctrine transcended the war on terror. He laid down a standard against which everything he and his successors do will be judged.
When he goes to China, he will not be able to ignore the political prisoners there, because he called them the future leaders of their free nation. When he meets with dictators around the world, as in this flawed world he must, he will not be able to have warm relations with them, because he said no relations with tyrants can be successful.
His words will be thrown back at him and at future presidents. American diplomats have been sent a strong message. Political reform will always be on the table. Liberation and democratization will be the ghost present at every international meeting. Vladimir Putin will never again be the possessor of that fine soul; he will be the menace to democracy and rule of law.
Sounds awesome. Of course, you'd have to be a complete idiot to actually think this administration was going to be anything more than 100% opportunistic about its foreign policy (via Kos):
White House officials said yesterday that President Bush's soaring inaugural address, in which he declared the goal of ending tyranny around the world, represents no significant shift in U.S. foreign policy but instead was meant as a crystallization and clarification of policies he is pursuing in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East and elsewhere.
Nor, they say, will it lead to any quick shift in strategy for dealing with countries such as Russia, China, Egypt and Pakistan, allies in the fight against terrorism whose records on human rights and democracy fall well short of the values Bush said would become the basis of relations with all countries.
What can I add to this but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA?
January 21, 2005
ewww
You can almost HEAR the disturbing sound of William Safire going down on Bush. I thought this guy was retiring.
Anyway, for those of you who think this linguistic fellatio might actually contain a legitimate dichotomy between the ideals of universal freedom and universal peace, I just wanted to say that I can't think of a single instance where freedom was won through warfare alone. Yes, violence played an important role in razing an undemocratic system in certain instances, but after the government lay smouldering, it was the work of the people to rebuild. And in recent decades, violence hasn't done a lot of liberating; mostly it's been a tool by, and for the ends of, tyrants.
There is no necessary conflict between peace and freedom; and the end of European colonialism and the US civil rights movement suggests peace may be one of the best paths to freedom.
Fucking Safire.
Anyway, for those of you who think this linguistic fellatio might actually contain a legitimate dichotomy between the ideals of universal freedom and universal peace, I just wanted to say that I can't think of a single instance where freedom was won through warfare alone. Yes, violence played an important role in razing an undemocratic system in certain instances, but after the government lay smouldering, it was the work of the people to rebuild. And in recent decades, violence hasn't done a lot of liberating; mostly it's been a tool by, and for the ends of, tyrants.
There is no necessary conflict between peace and freedom; and the end of European colonialism and the US civil rights movement suggests peace may be one of the best paths to freedom.
Fucking Safire.
January 19, 2005
There's Gold In Them Thar Hills!
Something Awful's Comedy Goldmine Wednesday's are a lot like their Photoshop Phridays, except that they usually suck. This week, however, is different!
January 18, 2005
At Least He Didn't Poison His Opponent Like That Crazy Guy From Ukraine!
Salon has a nice summary of the scandals of Bush's first term. Who knows what he'll do now?!
Fuck EA, Fuck Them In Their Stupid Asses
So, remember how Electronic Arts paid the NFL three hundred million dollars for the exclusive use of the players and teams of the league just when Sega, their closest rival, began to nip at their heels with Sega’s ESPN Football line? Well today EA has entered into a 15-year exclusive deal with ESPN to make games with the ESPN brand. Man, you fuck with EA and they don’t just kill you, they kill your whole family…what a bunch of assholes.
January 16, 2005
This Is A Non-Smoking Planet, Thank You For Your Cooperation
I know you guys check Space.com every day anyway, so this post is probably a waste of everybody's time, but I wanted to let everyone that NASA and the European Space Agency have landed a probe on Titan, one of Saturn's moons, and has been sending back some pretty sweet pictures. Evidently Titan is rocky with liquid methane oceans. Pretty sweet.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Presdent of the Yunitud States
Over at the panda which has left, Jesse has some 'highlights' from W's interview with the Post. Here's the bit that makes me hurt in the soul:
This is a vile, vile man.
I was talking to Manda about what kind of scandal could get him thrown out of office, and I honestly don't know. His supporters don't seem to care that he lied to get their children shipped off to Iraq and blown up, or that his new Attorney General thinks torture and the elimination of habeas corpus are just super-duper. At this point, if the White House chef came forward and announced to the world that W eats a live baby for dinner every night, we would see the following reaction from serious conservative 'intellectuals':
1. The chef, originally employed by Clinton, is clearly carrying out a Democrat smear campaign;
2. Even if it was true that W ate live babies for dinner, he was simply carrying out a practice initiated by Bill Clinton, who lied about sex to the American people shortly after eating a DOZEN babies;
3. In our post-September 11th world, we must trust our President to do what needs to be done, even if we find those actions to be unsettling.
And then, the entire South shrugs its shoulders and goes back to such important things as who will be America's Next CEO Supermodel, while I run off to write up lecture notes for this week's classes so I can stave off crushing depression.
President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
This is a vile, vile man.
I was talking to Manda about what kind of scandal could get him thrown out of office, and I honestly don't know. His supporters don't seem to care that he lied to get their children shipped off to Iraq and blown up, or that his new Attorney General thinks torture and the elimination of habeas corpus are just super-duper. At this point, if the White House chef came forward and announced to the world that W eats a live baby for dinner every night, we would see the following reaction from serious conservative 'intellectuals':
1. The chef, originally employed by Clinton, is clearly carrying out a Democrat smear campaign;
2. Even if it was true that W ate live babies for dinner, he was simply carrying out a practice initiated by Bill Clinton, who lied about sex to the American people shortly after eating a DOZEN babies;
3. In our post-September 11th world, we must trust our President to do what needs to be done, even if we find those actions to be unsettling.
And then, the entire South shrugs its shoulders and goes back to such important things as who will be America's Next CEO Supermodel, while I run off to write up lecture notes for this week's classes so I can stave off crushing depression.
Paul O'Neill's half-assed proposal
Paul O'Neill, the former Bush II Treasury Secretary, has an op-ed over the NYT today (meaning Sunday). There are some good bits -- the idea that ' Those of us who are more fortunate can help those who are not.' is rather refreshing. But, on the whole? He still wants mandatory, though government-supplemented, savings by workers in anticipation of their retirement.
Now, why does he want to do away with the perfectly well-functioning current system, in which today's workers support their parents and grandparents? Why is it a problem that today's 'contributions are a tax, not savings'?
Ummm, no Paul, sorry; not only is that not a definition of financial security, it's not even a necessary condition of financial security. One of the reasons Stalinism has been so appealing to underemployed Eastern Europeans over the last ten years is, in that system, where they owned nothing, they were guaranteed financial security: everyone got a warm apartment and the basic necessities to get by. And, obviously, 'ownership' doesn't come into play there.
Social security is a brilliant, healthy system. Yes, it will require minor tweaks in thirty or forty years, but thus far Americans have always been willing to make those changes, and I expect they will be able to make them in the future. Privatization is a scheme concocted by radical laissez-faire ideologues to shrink the role of government in making sure everyone has a decent life. Don't listen to them, and don't listen to Paul O'Neill's craptacular compromise.
Now, why does he want to do away with the perfectly well-functioning current system, in which today's workers support their parents and grandparents? Why is it a problem that today's 'contributions are a tax, not savings'?
Let me define what I mean by financial security. Financial security begins with ownership of real assets; so the money saved each year in this plan would be the property of the person who saved it.
Ummm, no Paul, sorry; not only is that not a definition of financial security, it's not even a necessary condition of financial security. One of the reasons Stalinism has been so appealing to underemployed Eastern Europeans over the last ten years is, in that system, where they owned nothing, they were guaranteed financial security: everyone got a warm apartment and the basic necessities to get by. And, obviously, 'ownership' doesn't come into play there.
Social security is a brilliant, healthy system. Yes, it will require minor tweaks in thirty or forty years, but thus far Americans have always been willing to make those changes, and I expect they will be able to make them in the future. Privatization is a scheme concocted by radical laissez-faire ideologues to shrink the role of government in making sure everyone has a decent life. Don't listen to them, and don't listen to Paul O'Neill's craptacular compromise.
January 15, 2005
The Counter-Feminist Noble Lie
The Tool's latest is a nice illustration of what I call the Counter-Feminist Noble Lie, which runs as follows: Ladies! That biological clock is ticking! Better have kids when you're young, and put that career on hold, or you'll wind up barren and miserable!
The first, and most obvious, problem with this is that it presumes women want both children and a profession; and many of those who end up not having children will suffer 'a profound, soul-encompassing sadness'. Yes, I'm sure Gallup asked whether those women who never had children experienced deep Angst over their decision. For my purposes here, though, I'll assume most people would, ceteris paribus, like both a few (1-3) children and moderate career success. I will also readily concede that the current model for the life of a professional is based a man dedicating himself to his job for several decades, while his wife maintains the house and raises his children; the gendered terms in there are deliberate.
Now, let's take a look at The Tool's central argument for the Noble Lie:
In short: 'Being a stay-at-home mom takes lots of energy, so you'd better do it when you're young, ie, in your 20s! Lots of tough decisions to make in your career, so better do it when you're in your 30s and 40s, and you know what exactly you're looking for!' The thing is, both full-time childcare and pursuing a professional life require lots of time, lots of energy, and lots of tough decisions; his argument is, to use some debate lingo, not unique to his conclusion -- an argument of the same form leads to the opposite conclusion.
Why is this actually a lie, and not just a crappy argument? Because, for a couple of twentysomethings who want both a couple of kids and a couple of successful careers, there are many many more options than `she should raise the babies now' and `she should raise the babies later'. For example, here's what I can imagine as a perfectly plausible day in my life, ten years hence:
In the mornings, my partner makes sure the kids are awake, fed, and get to school, then goes off to her office -- she's an up-and-coming doctor or lawyer or engineer, and they start bright and early. A short while later, I head off to the university, where I'm a few years into a tenure-track position: my day consists of teaching a few classes, starting around midmorning, a little time grading and meeting with students, and a lot of time doing research. Midafternoon, the kids are out of school and either show up at my office or I'm waiting at home for them. We spend the afternoon together, and I have dinner ready when my partner gets home from work. We eat and spend time together as a family, then I have to spend the evening working on my current article, while my partner enjoys her time with the kids. Once they're in bed, she and I have our time together.
Obviously, a schedule like this requires the flexibility of an academic career, so that I can be home early in the afternoon most days; a pair of, say, a doctor and a lawyer might not be so fortunate. The solution, I feel, is to change the model of career development -- to move away from 'the professional man supported by his wife', and not offer women 'graduate school for homemakers', but instead give young professionals the sort of scheduling leeway they need to divide their time evenly between job and family. In this model, professional development and family development are both equally important components of one's personal development, irregardless of gender.
In other words, women -- and men -- should be able to have both a career and a family, if that's what they want; not terrified by the spectre of empty nest syndrome and falling into the old pattern of domestic wife supported by her professional husband. Once a couple is in that pattern, it's hard -- especially for her, so many years out of school and so set in one routine -- to get back out of it. As the Chronicle of Higher Education documented a few months ago, once someone leaves school for more than a year or two, their ability to return drops spectacularly, whether they leave after their high school diploma, bachelor's degree, or master's degree. This is why the supposed tension between family and career is so insidious anti-feminist.
The first, and most obvious, problem with this is that it presumes women want both children and a profession; and many of those who end up not having children will suffer 'a profound, soul-encompassing sadness'. Yes, I'm sure Gallup asked whether those women who never had children experienced deep Angst over their decision. For my purposes here, though, I'll assume most people would, ceteris paribus, like both a few (1-3) children and moderate career success. I will also readily concede that the current model for the life of a professional is based a man dedicating himself to his job for several decades, while his wife maintains the house and raises his children; the gendered terms in there are deliberate.
Now, let's take a look at The Tool's central argument for the Noble Lie:
For example, consider a common life sequence for an educated woman. She grows up and goes to college. Perhaps she goes to graduate school. Then, during her most fertile years, when she has the most energy for child-rearing, she gets a job. Then, sometime after age 30, she marries. Then, in her mid-30's, when she has acquired the maturity and character to make intelligent career choices, she takes time off to raise her kids.
In short: 'Being a stay-at-home mom takes lots of energy, so you'd better do it when you're young, ie, in your 20s! Lots of tough decisions to make in your career, so better do it when you're in your 30s and 40s, and you know what exactly you're looking for!' The thing is, both full-time childcare and pursuing a professional life require lots of time, lots of energy, and lots of tough decisions; his argument is, to use some debate lingo, not unique to his conclusion -- an argument of the same form leads to the opposite conclusion.
Why is this actually a lie, and not just a crappy argument? Because, for a couple of twentysomethings who want both a couple of kids and a couple of successful careers, there are many many more options than `she should raise the babies now' and `she should raise the babies later'. For example, here's what I can imagine as a perfectly plausible day in my life, ten years hence:
In the mornings, my partner makes sure the kids are awake, fed, and get to school, then goes off to her office -- she's an up-and-coming doctor or lawyer or engineer, and they start bright and early. A short while later, I head off to the university, where I'm a few years into a tenure-track position: my day consists of teaching a few classes, starting around midmorning, a little time grading and meeting with students, and a lot of time doing research. Midafternoon, the kids are out of school and either show up at my office or I'm waiting at home for them. We spend the afternoon together, and I have dinner ready when my partner gets home from work. We eat and spend time together as a family, then I have to spend the evening working on my current article, while my partner enjoys her time with the kids. Once they're in bed, she and I have our time together.
Obviously, a schedule like this requires the flexibility of an academic career, so that I can be home early in the afternoon most days; a pair of, say, a doctor and a lawyer might not be so fortunate. The solution, I feel, is to change the model of career development -- to move away from 'the professional man supported by his wife', and not offer women 'graduate school for homemakers', but instead give young professionals the sort of scheduling leeway they need to divide their time evenly between job and family. In this model, professional development and family development are both equally important components of one's personal development, irregardless of gender.
In other words, women -- and men -- should be able to have both a career and a family, if that's what they want; not terrified by the spectre of empty nest syndrome and falling into the old pattern of domestic wife supported by her professional husband. Once a couple is in that pattern, it's hard -- especially for her, so many years out of school and so set in one routine -- to get back out of it. As the Chronicle of Higher Education documented a few months ago, once someone leaves school for more than a year or two, their ability to return drops spectacularly, whether they leave after their high school diploma, bachelor's degree, or master's degree. This is why the supposed tension between family and career is so insidious anti-feminist.
January 13, 2005
Even more on Creationism ...
Jesse has an excellent post on Creationism and schools over at the panda which has left.
Just to develop my bizarre proposals for seconday education even further, I would also be in favor of having religion classes in high school as electives. Not theological indoctrination classes, but classes on the history of a religion, its influence on the culture it was practiced in, and various theologies which have developed in the religion. This has been tried, occasionally, but usually it's taught and attended by religious people who turn it into an unconstitutional theological indoctrination class.
What came through most clearly in textual interpretation of religion was how little we actually discuss what was in the core of those texts. Popular religion exists through understandings, not readings. In much the same way, a tradition of understanding through repetition rather than exploration and analysis leads one to assume other traditions with hierarchies of knowledge (the sages and scholars alongside 'the rest of us') work in much the same way. 'Understandings' combat with each other, and therefore science, which is rigorously impersonal in a way that religion isn't, becomes a simple series of 'understandings', and it simply works the way they understand (read: desire) it to.
Just to develop my bizarre proposals for seconday education even further, I would also be in favor of having religion classes in high school as electives. Not theological indoctrination classes, but classes on the history of a religion, its influence on the culture it was practiced in, and various theologies which have developed in the religion. This has been tried, occasionally, but usually it's taught and attended by religious people who turn it into an unconstitutional theological indoctrination class.
January 12, 2005
Intelligent design and schools
I've been thinking a bit about Creationism and Intelligent Design the past few days -- I think there was an article in Salon this weekend, or late last week, that might be what got me started. But I'm not going to bother tracking it down: all you need to know is that there is a drive, burnishing over the past few years, to supplant the status quo in high school biology classes with a `balanced' presentation of `several alternative theories of species development' and some of the `scientific criticisms' of Darwinian Natural Selection. The scare quotes are there because the only alternative that ever comes up is Intelligent Design, and the criticisms come from fringe wackos, not actual mainstream biologists who, for example, get published in peer-reviewed journals.
If you don't know, Intelligent Design is basically a `guided evolution' theory: when it's actually presented as a scientific theory, and not the ravings of some lunatic Christian, it sounds just like Natural Selection, only it picks out certain features of organisms which it claims are too complicated to have happened by chance, and then hypothesizes/concludes some supernatural intelligent agent was responsible for somehow intervening in evolution so these features would come about.
In and of itself, it's a philosophically interesting, defendable theory. I don't think it holds up, but that's only incidental to my point here. You see, I'm broadly in favor of the inclusion of Intelligent Design, along with Natural Selection, in the standard high school biology curriculum.
Breathe. I can explain.
What I do not want is a platform in classrooms for idiots to spout off their own nonsensical religious beliefs. But a discussion of Intelligent Design, and the controvery surrounding theories of evolution more generally, would be a fantastic chance to get teenagers to think about what science actually is: what a scientific theory is (and is not); what constitutes evidence for and against a theory; maybe even the place science holds in our society and culture. In a sense, I want the current curriculum, where students learn about Darwin's finches and so on over the course of a week or so, but then a week of just a little philosophy of science.
What I like most about this idea (besides exposing teenagers to philosophy) is that it appears to be a concession to the Intelligent Design movement, but might serve to undermine it -- let this crappy idea wither in the sun, or be left on the shelf of the marketplace of ideas, whatever metaphor you prefer. It probably wouldn't actually work that way, but a philosophy can dream. Even if it doesn't kill off ID, I still think this plan's ability to foster discussion among teenagers about intellectual topics is fantastic.
If you don't know, Intelligent Design is basically a `guided evolution' theory: when it's actually presented as a scientific theory, and not the ravings of some lunatic Christian, it sounds just like Natural Selection, only it picks out certain features of organisms which it claims are too complicated to have happened by chance, and then hypothesizes/concludes some supernatural intelligent agent was responsible for somehow intervening in evolution so these features would come about.
In and of itself, it's a philosophically interesting, defendable theory. I don't think it holds up, but that's only incidental to my point here. You see, I'm broadly in favor of the inclusion of Intelligent Design, along with Natural Selection, in the standard high school biology curriculum.
Breathe. I can explain.
What I do not want is a platform in classrooms for idiots to spout off their own nonsensical religious beliefs. But a discussion of Intelligent Design, and the controvery surrounding theories of evolution more generally, would be a fantastic chance to get teenagers to think about what science actually is: what a scientific theory is (and is not); what constitutes evidence for and against a theory; maybe even the place science holds in our society and culture. In a sense, I want the current curriculum, where students learn about Darwin's finches and so on over the course of a week or so, but then a week of just a little philosophy of science.
What I like most about this idea (besides exposing teenagers to philosophy) is that it appears to be a concession to the Intelligent Design movement, but might serve to undermine it -- let this crappy idea wither in the sun, or be left on the shelf of the marketplace of ideas, whatever metaphor you prefer. It probably wouldn't actually work that way, but a philosophy can dream. Even if it doesn't kill off ID, I still think this plan's ability to foster discussion among teenagers about intellectual topics is fantastic.
And It's Official
Christine Gregoire has been certified as the next governor of Washington State as Dino Rossi sucks on eggs. I'll be really interested to see how this effects the election in four years...
Taxonomy Of Nerddom
I know not everyone follows Penny Arcade, so for those that missed this a few days ago, here is the heirarchy of nerdity. I think I'm somewhere in the middle of the chart in terms of actual nerd points, which I think supports my claim to the nerd thrown because I have enough nerd cred to relate to the majority of nerds while remaining unnerdy enough to have some outside perspective to my nerdity. Like any good King, of course, I would have plenty of advisors both more and less nerdy than I.
Song of The American Fat Lady
Well, I'm back in New Jersey and back in classes, so it's time for me to get back in the saddle of blogging.
First up, today we can celebrate the end of the search for WMD in Iraq with nothing to show for it. Sure, the Right gave up on WMD in Iraq a long time ago and moved on to other justifications, but the bottom line is that this WAS the main reason given for starting a war with Iraq and it's turned out to be a colossal screw up at best or a devious lie at worst. What's the death count in Iraq at now? 1200 with ten times that many injured? Iraq's threat to us was in passing on weapons they couldn't use to terrorists that could. The weapons, and therefore the threat, simply didn't exist.
Imagine this country today where rather than getting bogged down in this quagmire we had simply worked with special forces around the world for several small engagements with terrorist camps without full scale invasion of the country. Our military wouldn't be stretched paper thin; we wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a fruitless exercise; our soldiers would be safer and America would be equally as safe. Even though we'd still probably have a shitty president, the fact that of those two possible worlds we're in this one is criminal.
First up, today we can celebrate the end of the search for WMD in Iraq with nothing to show for it. Sure, the Right gave up on WMD in Iraq a long time ago and moved on to other justifications, but the bottom line is that this WAS the main reason given for starting a war with Iraq and it's turned out to be a colossal screw up at best or a devious lie at worst. What's the death count in Iraq at now? 1200 with ten times that many injured? Iraq's threat to us was in passing on weapons they couldn't use to terrorists that could. The weapons, and therefore the threat, simply didn't exist.
Imagine this country today where rather than getting bogged down in this quagmire we had simply worked with special forces around the world for several small engagements with terrorist camps without full scale invasion of the country. Our military wouldn't be stretched paper thin; we wouldn't be spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a fruitless exercise; our soldiers would be safer and America would be equally as safe. Even though we'd still probably have a shitty president, the fact that of those two possible worlds we're in this one is criminal.
January 10, 2005
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Where Was God?
William Safire (I can't wait until this tool is gone from the NYT Op-ed page forever) offers his own 'solution' to the Problem of Evil:
Now, in regards to the tsunami: maybe it's just my crazy atheist reasoning, but I think it'd be better if God hadn't caused a giant wall of water to fall on several hundred thousand people, even if most of them got to go to heaven. Presumably, they're going to heaven because they're good people, not because of the giant wall of water thing. If you get something you were going to get anyway, it's not exactly a reward.
Job's moral outrage caused God to appear, thereby demonstrating that the sufferer who believes is never alone. Job abruptly stops complaining, and - in a prosaic happy ending that strikes me as tacked on by other sages so as to get the troublesome book accepted in the Hebrew canon - he is rewarded. (Christianity promises to rectify earthly injustice in an afterlife.)
Now, in regards to the tsunami: maybe it's just my crazy atheist reasoning, but I think it'd be better if God hadn't caused a giant wall of water to fall on several hundred thousand people, even if most of them got to go to heaven. Presumably, they're going to heaven because they're good people, not because of the giant wall of water thing. If you get something you were going to get anyway, it's not exactly a reward.
January 06, 2005
National Review solves the Problem of Evil
Well, Happy New Year and all that. I thought I'd get us started again with one of my patented Long-ass Very Boring Posts on Philosophy Stuff You Don't Care About. In particular, the Problem of Evil.
The PoE is one of the major arguments against the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent, Christian-type God; I personally find it quite persuasive. The dilemma goes something like this:
I'm not going to defend this by really fleshing it out in great detail -- there are some obvious objects one can make to this setup. But what's important is the contradiction between the loving, paternal nature of God according to Christians et al., and the gratuitous suffering inflicted on humanity by nature. There's evil, and yet God is supposedly not evil.
Well, Michael Novak (I think he's the son or something of Bob Novak, that op-ed guy who blew Valerie Plame's cover) has solved the Problem of Evil. His response has two parts. First, he notices that the people who use the Problem of Evil as an argument against the existence of God are using it AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD! Those damn sneaky atheists, trying to use an apparent contradiction to refute an idea!
Then, secondly, Novak points out that God is the creator and so, like, a lot more powerful than us and stuff, and we shouldn't go around judging him, because he can kick our collective asses. Hence, he has a far superior love for any human than we do. That's right -- all those kids who were swept out to sea and drowned, or instantaneously crushed when a 30-foot-tall wall of water landed on them, are an example not of cruelty and unnecessary suffering, but of God's perfect love. Because, you see, God knows (or knew) all those children he killed personally, not as the abstraction you or I know them.
Thank God for mercilessly slaughtering 150,000 people! Hallelujah!
The PoE is one of the major arguments against the existence of a benevolent and omnipotent, Christian-type God; I personally find it quite persuasive. The dilemma goes something like this:
1. If God were benevolent and all-powerful, he would not allow pointless harm to come to human beings.
2. Events like the tsunami and diseases like AIDS or Ebola cause pointless harm to human beings.
3. Hence God is not both benevolent and all-powerful
I'm not going to defend this by really fleshing it out in great detail -- there are some obvious objects one can make to this setup. But what's important is the contradiction between the loving, paternal nature of God according to Christians et al., and the gratuitous suffering inflicted on humanity by nature. There's evil, and yet God is supposedly not evil.
Well, Michael Novak (I think he's the son or something of Bob Novak, that op-ed guy who blew Valerie Plame's cover) has solved the Problem of Evil. His response has two parts. First, he notices that the people who use the Problem of Evil as an argument against the existence of God are using it AS AN ARGUMENT AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD! Those damn sneaky atheists, trying to use an apparent contradiction to refute an idea!
Then, secondly, Novak points out that God is the creator and so, like, a lot more powerful than us and stuff, and we shouldn't go around judging him, because he can kick our collective asses. Hence, he has a far superior love for any human than we do. That's right -- all those kids who were swept out to sea and drowned, or instantaneously crushed when a 30-foot-tall wall of water landed on them, are an example not of cruelty and unnecessary suffering, but of God's perfect love. Because, you see, God knows (or knew) all those children he killed personally, not as the abstraction you or I know them.
Thank God for mercilessly slaughtering 150,000 people! Hallelujah!
December 19, 2004
Un-Fucking Believable
I might not have time to post tomorrow before I shove off for home, but I wouldn't mind if this was my last post for a while. This clip is real, and it's fan-freaking tastic.
December 14, 2004
Hooray for sexual anarchy!
I guess some Catholics are upset the "V***** Monologues" (because everyone knows `vagina' is a dirty word for a dirty dirty place) are going to be performed at Notre Dame. Here's an entertaining bit:
Note that `truth' is used here not to refer to certain factual situations involving gender and sex, represented in dramatic form in the play, but rather to the ideas some people have about the way things should be regarding gender and sex.
"The play violates the truth about women, the truth about sexuality, the truth about male and female and the truth about the human body," he said.
Note that `truth' is used here not to refer to certain factual situations involving gender and sex, represented in dramatic form in the play, but rather to the ideas some people have about the way things should be regarding gender and sex.
Hey! You! Academic! Get practical!
Here's a bizarre suggestion. My reaction is pretty well summed up in the letter I emailed to the Times just now:
As a graduate student in both pure mathematics and philosophy, I find Dean Kunhardt's proposal completely opaque. What exactly does he think pure mathematicians should be inventing, besides new techniques for doing mathematics, ie, doing conventional mathematics research? And the idea of a philosphical invention makes even less sense. While practical innovation does seem appropriate for inclusion in an engineer's or possibly even a physicist's tenure dossier, it would be completely inappropriate in other fields, more removed from practical affairs and marketable devices.
December 08, 2004
Parents these days!
There's a fantastic thread over on the City of Heroes forums with some great stories about parents playing the game with their kids. I remember my dad and I played ... ummm ... Hexen, I think, a few times, back around the time he and my mom divorced. He wasn't so good at it, but we played cooperative instead of deathmatch and I lead the way. It was fun; one of the few things we could actually share at that point.
Videogames: Not just for teenage misanthropes anymore!
Videogames: Not just for teenage misanthropes anymore!
December 07, 2004
Banana phone!
It's that time of year again. The weather gets crappy and many of us are yet again crushed with the obligations of the end of another semester. Hopefully this will cheer your day up. Incidentally, you can get this as a ring tone if you use Sprint.
Commence uncontrollable giggling in 3, 2, 1 ...
Atrios. If you scroll up a few posts higher, you can find something a bit more thoughtful, but for some reason I just find this most amusing.
December 06, 2004
USA! Number uhhhh
So American teenagers can't do math. This wasn't a surprise. Perhaps I'll go cry now.
In positive math education news, next semester I'll be teaching multivariable calculus. That's right, not TA-ing, actually teaching.
In positive math education news, next semester I'll be teaching multivariable calculus. That's right, not TA-ing, actually teaching.
Huh?
So:
In what parallel universe do people like this guy live? Or maybe he was just in a coma for the past year?
If all he said was that he thinks political figures should talk about Jesus more, then that's his opinion and he's welcome to it. But how, with a straight face, do you say politicians never ever talk about Jesus, and then compare that situation with slavery? Well, okay, I suppose you could say `This situation is completely unlike slavery', but that's not the route he chooses.
Via II
Why is the name of Jesus and, more importantly, the calling upon his authority consistently missing from the rhetoric of political leaders? Could it be because politicians might think it would somehow jeopardize their political well being? Possibly, the failure to openly acknowledge Jesus Christ is closely tied to keeping 'church and state' separated. Or, has the citizenry become so complacent in respect to his name that politicians are merely following suit?
In what parallel universe do people like this guy live? Or maybe he was just in a coma for the past year?
If all he said was that he thinks political figures should talk about Jesus more, then that's his opinion and he's welcome to it. But how, with a straight face, do you say politicians never ever talk about Jesus, and then compare that situation with slavery? Well, okay, I suppose you could say `This situation is completely unlike slavery', but that's not the route he chooses.
Via II
Pat Robertson = Cave Man?
December 03, 2004
Test: It's Been A While
I was gone for Thanksgiving having a grand old time in Boston and Cape Cod with some old friends, which explains why you all haven't heard peep from me in a good long while. I'm back now, but the flip side is that I've got finals starting next week followed immediately by a trip home for the holidays, so I'm going to be pretty scarce for the next several weeks, but I'll post as I'm able.
The other reason for this post is that I'm at school right now and Blogger doesn't seem to like this network sometimes so I'm testing it to see if it will let me post all the great stories I want you to read before I type them up and loose them to the digital monster that seems to love eating my work.
The other reason for this post is that I'm at school right now and Blogger doesn't seem to like this network sometimes so I'm testing it to see if it will let me post all the great stories I want you to read before I type them up and loose them to the digital monster that seems to love eating my work.
December 02, 2004
Because it's Christmastime
I've got a present for you: an atheist's reaction to two of the nativity stories in the Gospels.
What did you expect, an announcement of sudden conversion?
Note that I'm taking his guy's claims with a grain of salt, and you should too, unless you know a lot more about Biblical scholarship than I do. But I have heard a few of these conflicts before; they're another one of those little things about Christianity that makes me go hmmmm and scratch my chin in a thoughtful, philosophical manner.
What did you expect, an announcement of sudden conversion?
Note that I'm taking his guy's claims with a grain of salt, and you should too, unless you know a lot more about Biblical scholarship than I do. But I have heard a few of these conflicts before; they're another one of those little things about Christianity that makes me go hmmmm and scratch my chin in a thoughtful, philosophical manner.
Welcome to America: Thank you for not gettin' it on
Henry Waxman (D-CA) has just finished a report on the content of some 'abstinence-only' curricula. Would you believe the curricula aren't entirely accurate? Even downright offensive, sexist, and heterosexist?
Like the rest of you, I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that the people responsible for abstinence-only sex ed would promote misogynist and anti-homosexual views along with bad statistics about other birth control methods.
More seriously: Come on, people! Do you really think your fourteen year old is too stupid to understand `Wait to have sex and alcohol. But if the temptation gets to be too great, we want you to be safe and responsible, so here's how you can make STDs a lot less likely and what to do for alcohol poisoning'? And then giving them misinformation on top of it, so they're actually less likely to use birth control when those damn hormones get out of control! Have you no respect at all for your own children? No concern for their well-being under all possible circumstances?
Via the Panda which has left
Some course materials cited in Waxman's report present as scientific fact notions about a man's need for 'admiration' and 'sexual fulfillment' compared with a woman's need for 'financial support.' One book in the 'Choosing Best' series tells the story of a knight who married a village maiden instead of the princess because the princess offered so many tips on slaying the local dragon. 'Moral of the story,' notes the popular text: 'Occasional suggestions and assistance may be alright, but too much of it will lessen a man's confidence or even turn him away from his princess.'
Like the rest of you, I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that the people responsible for abstinence-only sex ed would promote misogynist and anti-homosexual views along with bad statistics about other birth control methods.
More seriously: Come on, people! Do you really think your fourteen year old is too stupid to understand `Wait to have sex and alcohol. But if the temptation gets to be too great, we want you to be safe and responsible, so here's how you can make STDs a lot less likely and what to do for alcohol poisoning'? And then giving them misinformation on top of it, so they're actually less likely to use birth control when those damn hormones get out of control! Have you no respect at all for your own children? No concern for their well-being under all possible circumstances?
Via the Panda which has left
November 28, 2004
Bush's Social Security Plan Is "Said" to Require Vast Borrowing
Okay, I've calmed down a little.
Check out this "journalism": Bush's Social Security Plan Is Said to Require Vast Borrowing
Here's a copy of the letter I'm sending to the editor:
Check out this "journalism": Bush's Social Security Plan Is Said to Require Vast Borrowing
Here's a copy of the letter I'm sending to the editor:
Dear Editor,
First, it is clear that Bush's idea for Social Security is just that, an idea, and not a plan -- if it were a plan, he would have some way to fund it, details on how these mandatory savings accounts were going to work, and solid numbers on how the movement of money would be different from the status quo. Since he has none of these, his is not a plan but a vague idea.
Second, and more importantly, this "plan" is said to require vast borrowing because it will require vast borrowing. This isn't some baseless partisan claim thrown out by some Democrats; if benefits for the unemployed and elderly aren't coming from the current payroll taxes (as in the current system) or income taxes (the only other real source of revenue the federal government has), they'd have to come from deficit spending, ie, borrowing. It is not something that "could be necessary" if this "plan" was implemented; it would be necessary. As the article itself points out, even people in favor of this idea recognize it would require borrowing at least hundred of billions of dollars!
Finally, the article fails to evaluate the "plan" from the point of view of the young people who would retire under it. Social security exists as a safety net, guaranteed by the government, so that people need not worry about how they are going to get by when they are unable to work. Under the current system, a young person like me does not need to worry about fifty years from now; my generation's children and grandchild will subsidize me at roughly the same rate I and my parents are currently subsidizing my grandparents. But investing in mutual funds, stocks, and bonds is nowhere near as certain as the status quo: what about a 65-year-old woman who had made plans to retire in late 2001, only to discover her mutual fund had overinvested in technology stocks and her $100,000 in savings was now $35,000?
On the other hand, the claims of the advocates for keeping the current system, just tweaking it in twenty years when the surplus starts to wear thin, were also left unexamined.
I am incredibly disappointed at the quality of the journalism displayed in this article. Mr. Stevenson should be ashamed at his inability to objectively evaluate the claims of his sources and actually educate his readers.
What is feminism?
Rape makes me ill. Just reading this summary makes my stomach twist and my blood boil, makes me want to scream and pick up a two-by-four and proceed to beat every man who has done this to a woman until they couldn't even be recognized by matching dental records.
I'm not being facetious. Those of you who know me personally know I'm quite the serious pacifist. But that all vanishes in face the rape. Every violent instinct I possess has been redirected towards someone who is, I think, so vile as to not even deserve to be considered human. As one comment to this piece says, rape is a crime against humanity, meaning it is a crime against every human when it is committed.
I find rape so appalling just because of the way it symbolizes the oppression of women: the victim is violently reduced to an object of sexual gratification and, in wartime, a de-individuated appendage of the enemy's community. The men who raped these women; the man who date-raped a friend of mine, drugging a fourteen-year-old's beer so she was awake but couldn't move, not even to scream; the man who drug another fourteen-year-old into the back of his van and left her in a ditch by the side of the road; these men do not deserve to be treated as persons after the way they have denied personhood to their victims, even though they were simply treating women the way societies all over the world have treated women up until this past century.
So what is feminism? Feminism is being appalled by rape, and the daily gender inequality which it represents and is born of. Feminism is recognizing that the value of a person, what is important in their life, should be decided by the free choices they make for themselves, not by what shape their genitals are, and other people think that means. Feminism is about justice, and is the antithesis of rape.
I'm not being facetious. Those of you who know me personally know I'm quite the serious pacifist. But that all vanishes in face the rape. Every violent instinct I possess has been redirected towards someone who is, I think, so vile as to not even deserve to be considered human. As one comment to this piece says, rape is a crime against humanity, meaning it is a crime against every human when it is committed.
I find rape so appalling just because of the way it symbolizes the oppression of women: the victim is violently reduced to an object of sexual gratification and, in wartime, a de-individuated appendage of the enemy's community. The men who raped these women; the man who date-raped a friend of mine, drugging a fourteen-year-old's beer so she was awake but couldn't move, not even to scream; the man who drug another fourteen-year-old into the back of his van and left her in a ditch by the side of the road; these men do not deserve to be treated as persons after the way they have denied personhood to their victims, even though they were simply treating women the way societies all over the world have treated women up until this past century.
So what is feminism? Feminism is being appalled by rape, and the daily gender inequality which it represents and is born of. Feminism is recognizing that the value of a person, what is important in their life, should be decided by the free choices they make for themselves, not by what shape their genitals are, and other people think that means. Feminism is about justice, and is the antithesis of rape.
November 27, 2004
David Brooks: Let's compare apples and unicorns!
Okay, so, as everyone should know by now, David Brooks is a tool. Let's look at some statements he makes.
First,
Okay, let's assume for the minute that this is true. Naturally, I wouldn't trust David Brooks to hose me down if I were on fire, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. However, this doesn't really mean shit. The global economy grew fantastically in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was called `imperialism', and it didn't work out so well for places that weren't Europe and the north Atlantic coast of the US.
So why does David Brooks think the current boom is so great?
Because supply-side economics works, of course! Look, these irrelevant statistics prove it! (Again, I'll assume his statistics are accurate, and the comparison between 'living on less than $1 a day' and 'extreme poverty' was appropriate.)
Here's the thing: there is a broad trend towards economic integration on a global level; there is also a broad trend towards higher standards of living. But the people responsible for the second one aren't the ones responsible for the first one. Amartya Sen -- who won a Nobel prize in economics, something not even David Brooks believes David Brooks has done -- argued in Development as Freedom a few years ago that the Indian states that have improved their standard of living the most over the past 20+ years are the ones that have weighted their options carefully, not done what the Western capitalists wanted because it would supposedly make their economy go whoooosh. (As Argentina and Russia will tell you, those Western capitalists turned out to mostly be wrong.)
In other words: yeah, local economic growth is generally a good thing. But don't confuse an increased real GDP with more health care and literacy and rights for women. The people and their leaders need to channel and regulate the direction 'those guys in pinstrip suits' want to take them. And David Brooks is still an incoherent and craptacular writer.
First,
we're in the 11th month of the most prosperous year in human history. Last week, the World Bank released a report showing that global growth "accelerated sharply" this year to a rate of about 4 percent.
Okay, let's assume for the minute that this is true. Naturally, I wouldn't trust David Brooks to hose me down if I were on fire, but we'll give him the benefit of the doubt here. However, this doesn't really mean shit. The global economy grew fantastically in the 17th and 18th centuries. It was called `imperialism', and it didn't work out so well for places that weren't Europe and the north Atlantic coast of the US.
So why does David Brooks think the current boom is so great?
This is having a wonderful effect on world poverty, because when regions grow, that growth is shared up and down the income ladder. In its report, the World Bank notes that economic growth is producing a "spectacular" decline in poverty in East and South Asia. In 1990, there were roughly 472 million people in the East Asia and Pacific region living on less than $1 a day. By 2001, there were 271 million living in extreme poverty, and by 2015, at current projections, there will only be 19 million people living under those conditions.
Because supply-side economics works, of course! Look, these irrelevant statistics prove it! (Again, I'll assume his statistics are accurate, and the comparison between 'living on less than $1 a day' and 'extreme poverty' was appropriate.)
Here's the thing: there is a broad trend towards economic integration on a global level; there is also a broad trend towards higher standards of living. But the people responsible for the second one aren't the ones responsible for the first one. Amartya Sen -- who won a Nobel prize in economics, something not even David Brooks believes David Brooks has done -- argued in Development as Freedom a few years ago that the Indian states that have improved their standard of living the most over the past 20+ years are the ones that have weighted their options carefully, not done what the Western capitalists wanted because it would supposedly make their economy go whoooosh. (As Argentina and Russia will tell you, those Western capitalists turned out to mostly be wrong.)
In other words: yeah, local economic growth is generally a good thing. But don't confuse an increased real GDP with more health care and literacy and rights for women. The people and their leaders need to channel and regulate the direction 'those guys in pinstrip suits' want to take them. And David Brooks is still an incoherent and craptacular writer.
November 24, 2004
Okay, one more
I'm going 2 blocks away for Thanksgiving, my roommates are gone and we don't have cable. What else would I be doing but posting?
If you, like me or Alton Brown, enjoy both cooking and science, here's a neat little article. The rest of you can go have hot dogs and Kraft macaroni and cheese. Bastards.
If you, like me or Alton Brown, enjoy both cooking and science, here's a neat little article. The rest of you can go have hot dogs and Kraft macaroni and cheese. Bastards.
Turkey day
This is just brilliant. And insane. They tend to get along rather well.
Just for the record, I will not be eating turkey tomorrow, as animals are my friends and I don't eat my friends. I will, however, and unfortunately, be eating in the vicinity of turkey. That's what I get for going to the house of some omnivores for Thanksgiving.
Enjoy yours.
Just for the record, I will not be eating turkey tomorrow, as animals are my friends and I don't eat my friends. I will, however, and unfortunately, be eating in the vicinity of turkey. That's what I get for going to the house of some omnivores for Thanksgiving.
Enjoy yours.
November 23, 2004
Realigning the Frame: Liberty is about 'Opportunity', not Ownership
From a diary over at Kos
Spread the meme ...
'OWNERSHIP SOCIETY' IS GOP SPEAK FOR 'DEREGULATED MARKETS': Conservatives talk about ownership without bothering to talk about how the under advantage will become owners. This is dangerous. It spreads the false idea that ownership is the pure product of hard work, rather than the result of well managed social and economic opportunity.
AN 'OWNERSHIP SOCIETY' WOULD BE RULED BY ARISTOCRATS AND KINGS: Who's the symbol of an ownership society? The King of England, that's who. The framers of our constitution understood that in order for everyone to have opportunity, government must insure equal opportunity for all by limiting the ability of a few wealthy owners to slowly amass the majority of the nations wealth. Conservatives disagree with this vision held by the very founders of this country.
'OWNERSHIP SOCIETY' DOESN'T MEAN YOU'LL BE ABLE TO OWN A HOME: It means that you'll have an increasingly difficult time buying that first home because there will be no regulations in the market. Ownership will be the exclusive domain of those who already have equity--either through inheritance, access to corporate wealth, or through personal gain. To be against Bush's 'ownership society' is actually to be FOR the rights of first home buyers.
AMERICA IS THE LAND OF OPPORTUNITY FOR EVERYONE, NOT A LAND WHERE A FEW WEALTHY PEOPLE OWN EVERYTHING: When Americans think about 'Liberty' they don't think about ownership, they think about the Statue of Liberty. Nobody can own liberty because it only result from freedom and opportunity for all, not the amassing of wealth.
Spread the meme ...
Then why did you vote for him?
Apparently, many Americans don't understand that, when you vote for a candidate for president, you're endorsing that person's political projects.
So, basically, people choose their president the way they choose senior class president. I'm really, really glad I have City of Heroes and a paper on Berkeley to distract me from this, otherwise I'd be really depressed right now.
Across the board, the poll suggested that the outcome of the election reflected a determination by Americans that they trusted Mr. Bush more to protect them against future terrorist attacks - and that they liked him more than Mr. Kerry - rather than any kind of broad affirmation of his policies. ...
Even as two-thirds of respondents said they expected Mr. Bush to appoint judges who would vote to outlaw abortion, a majority continue to say they want the practice to remain either legal as it is now, which was Mr. Kerry's position, or to be legal but under stricter limits.
Americans said they opposed changing the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which Mr. Bush campaigned on in the final weeks of his campaign. A majority continue to support allowing either same-sex marriages or legally recognized domestic partnerships for gay people.
So, basically, people choose their president the way they choose senior class president. I'm really, really glad I have City of Heroes and a paper on Berkeley to distract me from this, otherwise I'd be really depressed right now.
November 22, 2004
Well, this is depressing
So it turns out the average American `doesn't know what to say' about evolution.
I can't decide what this means, nor which is more depressing: that people have been shuffled through our crappy publication education system and don't understand what a `scientific theory' is, how science works, and so on; or that the people who favour ridiculously literal readings of the Bible are that prominent.
Comment: I have tried and tried to understand why contemporary evolutionary theory is a threat to fundamentalism. A hundred years ago, Darwinian biology is associated with Social Darwinism (`the rich are richer because they're better, so screw the poor!'); that's why William Jennings Bryan, an awesome Evangelical populist, argued against it during the Scopes trial. But that association's long since faded. And if you want reactionary fundamentalist moralism, you just need Paul's books, or Deuteronomy if you're Jewish; Genesis, especially the creation story, isn't going to do that much for you. Why is taking a metaphorical reading there so important?
Incidentally, you can read my defence of evolution here. I haven't reread it in a while, so I can't say I endorse all of it now, but it was well-received when I wrote it a couple years ago.
I can't decide what this means, nor which is more depressing: that people have been shuffled through our crappy publication education system and don't understand what a `scientific theory' is, how science works, and so on; or that the people who favour ridiculously literal readings of the Bible are that prominent.
Comment: I have tried and tried to understand why contemporary evolutionary theory is a threat to fundamentalism. A hundred years ago, Darwinian biology is associated with Social Darwinism (`the rich are richer because they're better, so screw the poor!'); that's why William Jennings Bryan, an awesome Evangelical populist, argued against it during the Scopes trial. But that association's long since faded. And if you want reactionary fundamentalist moralism, you just need Paul's books, or Deuteronomy if you're Jewish; Genesis, especially the creation story, isn't going to do that much for you. Why is taking a metaphorical reading there so important?
Incidentally, you can read my defence of evolution here. I haven't reread it in a while, so I can't say I endorse all of it now, but it was well-received when I wrote it a couple years ago.
William Safire's garbage
So, no surprise, William Safire starts shilling for an amendment that would allow Ahnuld to run for president. I don't have any particular opinion on this either way, actually, but here are some phrases that made me go `huh?'
Now, I'm not in law school, so I could be wrong -- but I thought the children of American citizens were automatically American citizens. It doesn't matter where you were born so much as the citizenship of your parents at the time.
I haven't been following Californian politics as closely since I moved off the West Coast. But I do glance at the front page of the Chron every couple weeks, and talk about the issues of the day every so often with my admittedly liberal parents. So, again, I could be wrong -- but I don't think Ahnuld has done shit in the past year. He got some emergency bonds passed, but hasn't done anything to reign in spending; I'm not sure he was even running on anything else. Possibly the stem-cell research funding initiative was his idea, but that wasn't a legislative achievement.
Maybe after Safire leaves the Times will bring in Barbara Ehrenreich permanently. That would make me happyful.
That makes all naturalized citizens - including taxpayers, voters, servicemembers - slightly less than all-American. Even children born abroad of U.S. citizens have fallen under the shadow of Article II; this has caused pregnant women to race back to our shores to make certain their children's political potential is not somehow beclouded.
Now, I'm not in law school, so I could be wrong -- but I thought the children of American citizens were automatically American citizens. It doesn't matter where you were born so much as the citizenship of your parents at the time.
He's a libertarian conservative, a man of the right whose popularity is rising on the Left Coast. Under the tutelage of former Secretary of State George Shultz and former Gov. Pete Wilson, he is using his celebrity, charisma and political moxie to break up the logrolling logjam that put this state into the hands of easily rolled legislators and budget-busting initiative rule.
I haven't been following Californian politics as closely since I moved off the West Coast. But I do glance at the front page of the Chron every couple weeks, and talk about the issues of the day every so often with my admittedly liberal parents. So, again, I could be wrong -- but I don't think Ahnuld has done shit in the past year. He got some emergency bonds passed, but hasn't done anything to reign in spending; I'm not sure he was even running on anything else. Possibly the stem-cell research funding initiative was his idea, but that wasn't a legislative achievement.
Maybe after Safire leaves the Times will bring in Barbara Ehrenreich permanently. That would make me happyful.
November 21, 2004
Women vs. Wal-Mart
In Nickel and Dimed a couple years back, Barbara Ehrenreich spent some time working at Wal-Mart. Her conclusions? Wal-Mart is a shitty place to work: no benefits, crappy pay, a domineering management system. Oh, and systemically sexist. Then Wal-Mart got sued for that last one.
The way that Wal-Mart underpays women and doesn't promote them, despite the fact that so many women who work there are supporting their families, is shockingly hostile. As one of the plaintiffs pointed out, "They don't even pay you enough to pay a babysitter." In their company culture, they've always had the idea that to move into management, people have to be willing to relocate. [Uprooting the family] can be tremendously disruptive to families for either men or women. It's clearly something that can be avoided, especially now that there are so many Wal-Marts everywhere. You hardly need to be sent to another state to work at a different Wal-Mart. ... What's disturbing is that Wal-Mart is really profiting from female poverty -- both from its workers and its shoppers. Part of the problem with the Wal-Mart business model is that it requires more poverty in order to grow. They really have no incentive to improve working conditions. If they are lowering living standards everywhere they go, people have no choice but to shop at Wal-Mart.
The Republican party doesn't care about national security
So you're a Republican in the House. Which is more important to you:
(a) protecting the citizens of the United States from further terrorist attacks, by enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, or
(b)protecting the political territory of your buddies in the Pentagon?
Answer here.
(a) protecting the citizens of the United States from further terrorist attacks, by enacting the recommendations of the 9/11 commission, or
(b)protecting the political territory of your buddies in the Pentagon?
Answer here.
November 20, 2004
A Lack Of Originality!
To copy Drew, who was himself copying someone else, I have a fun experiment we can all do! Here are the first ten songs randomly selected by itunes from my library of 3011 songs:
1. The Same Old Song - The Temptations
2. Stealing From A Thief - Anthrax, The Threat Is Real! Volume 8
3. Prince - Housequake - DJ Rhettmatic, The Wedding Mixer
4. Vacant - Dream Theater, Train of Thought
5. ...And Justice For All - Metallica, ...And Justice For All
6. Born Mimic - Joe Beats Conspiracy, Reverse Discourse
7. Atlantis - Stratovarious, Dreamspace
8. What's Goin' On - Marvin Gaye
9. Silent Lucidity - Queensryche, Empire
10. One Of My Turns - Pink Floyd, The Wall
Unlike Drew, however, I invite you all to post your top tens in the comments. See, Drew has people that actually post regularly, so he doesn't have to encourage it. Keep in mind, this is supposed to be the first ten songs chosen randomly by the program.
That's a pretty good crossection of my music, though obviously in 10 songs there are some significant genres missing and Dream Theater is a little under represented considering how many albums worth of music are in the library, but feel free to tell me all about how bad my taste is in the comments!
1. The Same Old Song - The Temptations
2. Stealing From A Thief - Anthrax, The Threat Is Real! Volume 8
3. Prince - Housequake - DJ Rhettmatic, The Wedding Mixer
4. Vacant - Dream Theater, Train of Thought
5. ...And Justice For All - Metallica, ...And Justice For All
6. Born Mimic - Joe Beats Conspiracy, Reverse Discourse
7. Atlantis - Stratovarious, Dreamspace
8. What's Goin' On - Marvin Gaye
9. Silent Lucidity - Queensryche, Empire
10. One Of My Turns - Pink Floyd, The Wall
Unlike Drew, however, I invite you all to post your top tens in the comments. See, Drew has people that actually post regularly, so he doesn't have to encourage it. Keep in mind, this is supposed to be the first ten songs chosen randomly by the program.
That's a pretty good crossection of my music, though obviously in 10 songs there are some significant genres missing and Dream Theater is a little under represented considering how many albums worth of music are in the library, but feel free to tell me all about how bad my taste is in the comments!
This shit ALREADY?
Republicans on the joint committee responsible for merging the
two drafts of the spending bill into one uniform bill to be approved
by both houses of Congress have added language that would
allow hospitals, insurers, and other non-human entities to refuse to provide abortions, and not suffer any spending penalties.
Below is the text of the email I'm sending both of the senators from Illinois:
two drafts of the spending bill into one uniform bill to be approved
by both houses of Congress have added language that would
allow hospitals, insurers, and other non-human entities to refuse to provide abortions, and not suffer any spending penalties.
Below is the text of the email I'm sending both of the senators from Illinois:
Dear Senator XXX,
The amendments to the spending bill announced this weekend, with provisions likely to further degrade womens' rights to choose, are completely inappropriate, and contrary to the expressed desires of the majority of Americans -- recall that only a small percentage of very vocal social conservatives want restrictions on access to abortion. I strongly encourage you to support Senator Boxer in her opposition to these amendments: do not vote in favor of the revised spending bill, do not vote to end the fillibuster she is likely to launch. I ask you this as a concerned citizen of Illinois.
Sincerely,
Dan Hicks
What? who?
The rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated. I've just had an insanely busy four weeks. Grad school's a bitch that way. Fortunately, I should be considerably less busy in the near future, and then I'll be on vacation in California for most of December, where you will once again not hear from me.
Look at it this way: no 2,000 word essays on obscure philosophers taking up three screens' worth of space until January-ish. Celebrate!
A few good things you should read:
Brand Democrat | Oliver Willis
Pandagon on Kerry's "Every Child Protected" bill (which petition I have signed)
Atrios on health insurance. The guy's an economist, isn't he? Well, you should read it anyway, get some edumacation.
Oh, and Stuff from the Bible. Because I just want to see if certain people actually read this thing like they claim they do ...
Look at it this way: no 2,000 word essays on obscure philosophers taking up three screens' worth of space until January-ish. Celebrate!
A few good things you should read:
Brand Democrat | Oliver Willis
Pandagon on Kerry's "Every Child Protected" bill (which petition I have signed)
Atrios on health insurance. The guy's an economist, isn't he? Well, you should read it anyway, get some edumacation.
Oh, and Stuff from the Bible. Because I just want to see if certain people actually read this thing like they claim they do ...
November 17, 2004
I'm Number 2! I'm Number 2!
I'm totally copying Matty Y here, but since Andrew Sullivan thinks it's sooooo important for liberal bloggers to mention the murder of Theo van Gogh, here you go. Murder is wrong kids, and people who do it are bad. And boom, I've just claimed the moral high ground.
Haven't heard about this before now and don't think this is a huge story? Yeah, you're not alone...
Haven't heard about this before now and don't think this is a huge story? Yeah, you're not alone...
Flat Tax Crushed
Matty Y's got a very short, elegant take down to all the "tax simplification through a flat tax" that Bush talking about lately.
The Moral Party?
Head on over to Josh Marshall for a couple posts about how dirty the Republicans still are. In the early nineties they tried to the party of greater morals by passing a rule that any Republicans under indictment could not be in leadership posts. Now that Tom DeLay is under indictment, however, it looks like they're going to be getting rid of that silly ass rule.
November 16, 2004
Yesterday's News, Today!
Well, we seem to have fallen off the bleeding edge of the news cycle here at the ol' Staff of Ra, but in case you didn't know, Colin Powell Bush Administration official to drop out after one term, and Bush has replaced him with Condoleezza Rice. Behind Powell, evidently Rice was the person with the most credibility at the beginning of Bush's first term, but given the higher profile of the Secretary of State it's likely that, like Powell whatever little credibility she had left will be flushed.
November 14, 2004
A Tale of Two Spartans
In a great commentary on the literary life of the country, the official Halo 2 strategy guide has become one of the best selling "books" of the decade.
Incidentally, Halo 2 rules.
Incidentally, Halo 2 rules.
November 12, 2004
New Games Journalism & Halo 2
I'm pretty sure I posted about New Games Journalism back in the summer, but back then the site was getting around three hits a day. I'm going to give you these in reverse order so you know what to look for, but start with this article explaining what New Games Journalism is, then read the inspiration for that article.
New Games Journalism is not reviewing in the traditional sense of the word, but they are a kind of review. The goal, as I see it, is to relay the unique experiences in the game as best you can to the reader; to take them into the world of the game and show the reader the amazing or terrible aspects which might induce someone to buy it.
So, that primer out of the way, I'd like to talk about Halo 2 a bit. First, I'm not done with the single player game yet, so there're be more to come on that front. My Xbox has been offline since August due to being on a new and oftentimes unstable wireless network. On Wednesday I hooked up the wireless network adapter thinking it would be a major pain to set up, but in fact it only took a little bit of fiddling to get me up and running. As Halo 2 loaded, I received a voice messsage from Brandon, an occasional contributer here. I haven't seen Brandon in person since his wedding over a year ago, but I received a voice mail message through a game telling me about a game he had played the night before with Czar, another occational poster here and another person I haven't seen in forever, and told me that I should join in with them. Seconds after the messsage ended I saw that Brandon was not online playing Halo 2, but was in fact offline playing the single player campaign. Moments later I had recorded my own voice message where I told him of my current availability, only to shortly thereafter hear back from Brandon saying that he would find a good stopping point and then we could play. Then he soundly beat my ass. I got some good licks in though.
Anyway, that's hardly a very good example of New Games Journalism, but I've never been so amazed with the way a non-communication (read: cell phone) device can connect people separated by a continent. Halo 2, so far, is a spectacularly good game, but it's blowing my mind how it's able to bring people together so they can digitally kill each other.
New Games Journalism is not reviewing in the traditional sense of the word, but they are a kind of review. The goal, as I see it, is to relay the unique experiences in the game as best you can to the reader; to take them into the world of the game and show the reader the amazing or terrible aspects which might induce someone to buy it.
So, that primer out of the way, I'd like to talk about Halo 2 a bit. First, I'm not done with the single player game yet, so there're be more to come on that front. My Xbox has been offline since August due to being on a new and oftentimes unstable wireless network. On Wednesday I hooked up the wireless network adapter thinking it would be a major pain to set up, but in fact it only took a little bit of fiddling to get me up and running. As Halo 2 loaded, I received a voice messsage from Brandon, an occasional contributer here. I haven't seen Brandon in person since his wedding over a year ago, but I received a voice mail message through a game telling me about a game he had played the night before with Czar, another occational poster here and another person I haven't seen in forever, and told me that I should join in with them. Seconds after the messsage ended I saw that Brandon was not online playing Halo 2, but was in fact offline playing the single player campaign. Moments later I had recorded my own voice message where I told him of my current availability, only to shortly thereafter hear back from Brandon saying that he would find a good stopping point and then we could play. Then he soundly beat my ass. I got some good licks in though.
Anyway, that's hardly a very good example of New Games Journalism, but I've never been so amazed with the way a non-communication (read: cell phone) device can connect people separated by a continent. Halo 2, so far, is a spectacularly good game, but it's blowing my mind how it's able to bring people together so they can digitally kill each other.
November 09, 2004
I don't entirely agree with his politics
but Howard Dean has shown over the past year+ that he can get people involved in, even excited about, the Democratic party. I think he could be a brilliant party chair.
November 08, 2004
Today's reading assignment
Pretty much everything they've posted over at pandagon today is well worth your time.
This strategy for the Democrats, being a sincere but ultimately ineffectual opposition party, taking the optimistic and moral high ground, is much, much more appealing to me than the other two that have been floating about the blogosphere lately: lurching even further to the right, or forming a propaganda network as manipulative and disingenuous as the movement conservatives'. While building a strong progressive voice in the mainstream media is important, what we really need is a journalistic establishment whose primary mission is to check and evaluate the claims of the propagandists. If journalists were actually, you know, journalists, and the Democrats were actually, you know, the party of the non-wealthy and non-bigoted, movement conservatism wouldn't stand a chance.
This strategy for the Democrats, being a sincere but ultimately ineffectual opposition party, taking the optimistic and moral high ground, is much, much more appealing to me than the other two that have been floating about the blogosphere lately: lurching even further to the right, or forming a propaganda network as manipulative and disingenuous as the movement conservatives'. While building a strong progressive voice in the mainstream media is important, what we really need is a journalistic establishment whose primary mission is to check and evaluate the claims of the propagandists. If journalists were actually, you know, journalists, and the Democrats were actually, you know, the party of the non-wealthy and non-bigoted, movement conservatism wouldn't stand a chance.
Halo 2
Halo 2 drops tonight at midnight in many places. Not being a car owner, I'm unable to make it down to the game store tonight, but my Moot Court Brief is done so I'm going Halo 2 crazy tomorrow.
Incidentally, I heard a report about a week ago that there were over 1.5 million pre-orders for Halo 2. Let's figure that out: $50 x 1.5 million = $75 on the first day. If anyone doubted that games have arrived as a force in society, let that doubt be gone.
Incidentally, I heard a report about a week ago that there were over 1.5 million pre-orders for Halo 2. Let's figure that out: $50 x 1.5 million = $75 on the first day. If anyone doubted that games have arrived as a force in society, let that doubt be gone.
November 07, 2004
Damn liberal media!
You know, it's a good thing the New York Times published an article explaining that the Bush administration is incompetently waging its war on terror[ism] before the election, so the electorate could be reminded of this important detail.
Oh, wait. The election was last week, wasn't it? Shit. Don't you hate it when the liberal media pulls shit like this, publishing stories that hurt Bush after the election, in a transparent ploy to lead swing voters to Kerry?
Oh, wait. The election was last week, wasn't it? Shit. Don't you hate it when the liberal media pulls shit like this, publishing stories that hurt Bush after the election, in a transparent ploy to lead swing voters to Kerry?
Welcome My Friends, To The Show That Never Ends...It Just Takes Long Breaks
In the midst of being woefully behind in my progress towards completing the brief I'm working on, and supposed to be finished with for tomorrow, I went to Philly last night to see my friend Drew's band, The Trap, perform. I haven't had a friend in a band since high school, so I had forgotten how much more the girls would rather have sex with, or even talk to, the cute guitarist than with me. That's alright, such things would have really fucked up this whole "Friar without the faith" thing I've got going on.
The show rocked though. I implore you all to go to The Trap's web page and download their songs. There were two other bands there, well, two that mattered, and though I've gotta jet now I might post their websites later if I can find them.
The show rocked though. I implore you all to go to The Trap's web page and download their songs. There were two other bands there, well, two that mattered, and though I've gotta jet now I might post their websites later if I can find them.
November 05, 2004
The Saddest Shit Evva
Now that the election is over I can start posting more traditionally geeky things, like the Miss Digital World Contest, aka the thing we geeks that try to be cool shake our heads at.
I Loved Bees
The I Love Bees saga is over, and what a ride it's been. For those that have no idea what I'm talking about, well, I've posted a million times about it, but here's some help.
I haven't listened to them yet, but evidently you get the story from these audio files. What a bitchin' way to sell a game.
I haven't listened to them yet, but evidently you get the story from these audio files. What a bitchin' way to sell a game.
Time To Strategize
While we're licking our wounds from this election disaster I found a bitchin' chess program online to hone our strategic abilities so we can kick conservative ass next time.
November 04, 2004
So THAT'S what happened
A sixteen-year-old girl just explained to me what happened on Tuesday (screenname removed to protect her identity):
[04-11-2004 13:04:21] ----: because he's always bitchin at Bush about him outsourcing jobs, right? Yet, his wife owns Heinze (actually, she doesn't own jack shit, its her dead husband's company and money) and it ousourcing thousands of jobs. If they moved Heinze to the US, think of how many jobs there would be. But, no, they're keeping it wherever the fuck it is.
[04-11-2004 13:05:24] SecretAgentDan: ... you think people chose Bush over Kerry because Heinz ketchup manfactures overseas?
[04-11-2004 13:05:30] SecretAgentDan: wow
[04-11-2004 13:05:34] SecretAgentDan: when did you go insane?
[04-11-2004 13:05:35] ----: that's not even what I'm saying
[04-11-2004 13:05:41] ----: I was giving you a REASON
[04-11-2004 13:05:43] ----: A REASON
[04-11-2004 13:05:44] ----: one
[04-11-2004 13:05:47] ----: there are countless
[04-11-2004 13:05:56] SecretAgentDan: uh huh
[04-11-2004 13:06:04] ----: and I'm not insane
[04-11-2004 13:06:07] ----: you're the fucking moron
[04-11-2004 13:06:16] ----: now i know why I don't keep company w/ liberals
[04-11-2004 13:06:27] ----: I seriously think I'm dumber having talked to you about politics
[04-11-2004 13:06:42] SecretAgentDan: how, exactly, am I a moron?
[04-11-2004 13:09:34] ----: because you're so wrapped up in your Liberal world view you have no idea how badly this country would be if we had someone like Kerry in office. You want to know one of the reasons the economy is bad? Because that dumb ass Bill Clinton made the land that has our oil in Alaska "protected land" or whatever the fuck he called. Therefore causing us to have to get it from other countries. And since gas prices are so fucking high, people aren't buying new cars because they can't afford to fill the tanks. And since people aren't buying cars, peopel who make cars are getting laid off. If Bush could get it to where we could get our own oil from our own land, we'd have a way better economy. But, no, your dumb ass DEMOCRATIC president fucked that up.
November 03, 2004
The Day After
Ok, let me first say that all is not lost. Even though the networks promised that they wouldn't call anything until the was absolutely clear they called Ohio for Bush last night, but it's close this morning. The NYT has Ohio still as a tossup and the EV count 249-242. This is desperation setting in, but it IS still really close.
That being said, I've never felt more cynical and ashamed of Americans. Given all that has happened in the last four years, half the country (more than even think that Bush is doing a good job) voted for the status quo. The Youth vote didn't happen. The momentum in what 70% of Democrats said was the most important election in their life fizzled like crazy. Kerry should have mopped the floor with Bush given the terrible decisions the guy's made, but unlike 2000 we're probably not even going to win the nationwide popular vote. Granted, I had had a couple beers last night, though I was hardly drunk, but it was the first time I've ever really considered moving to a different country. Not only do I not know how I'm supposed to work with people for a more perfect union when they choose ignorance over the facts and "strong morals" over mistakes piled to the sky, but I'm also left with a swath of the population that continually lets me down in fights where it really counts. This is an election where young people REALLY could have made a difference. I think Micheal Moore is right, when you ask people questions on the issues (should gays get some more rights, should we do stem cell research, etc) most Americans are Democratic, and yet they disapeared right when we needed them.
So again, there's an outside chance that we could squeak this one by and Kerry could pull out a win, but we shouldn't be in this situation. We should be winning by large margains and I'm disgusted that people who agree with us on the issues at hand couldn't manage to help us in our darkest hour.
That being said, I've never felt more cynical and ashamed of Americans. Given all that has happened in the last four years, half the country (more than even think that Bush is doing a good job) voted for the status quo. The Youth vote didn't happen. The momentum in what 70% of Democrats said was the most important election in their life fizzled like crazy. Kerry should have mopped the floor with Bush given the terrible decisions the guy's made, but unlike 2000 we're probably not even going to win the nationwide popular vote. Granted, I had had a couple beers last night, though I was hardly drunk, but it was the first time I've ever really considered moving to a different country. Not only do I not know how I'm supposed to work with people for a more perfect union when they choose ignorance over the facts and "strong morals" over mistakes piled to the sky, but I'm also left with a swath of the population that continually lets me down in fights where it really counts. This is an election where young people REALLY could have made a difference. I think Micheal Moore is right, when you ask people questions on the issues (should gays get some more rights, should we do stem cell research, etc) most Americans are Democratic, and yet they disapeared right when we needed them.
So again, there's an outside chance that we could squeak this one by and Kerry could pull out a win, but we shouldn't be in this situation. We should be winning by large margains and I'm disgusted that people who agree with us on the issues at hand couldn't manage to help us in our darkest hour.
November 02, 2004
Election 2004
Well it's at least another hour before we start hearing anything real on this thing, and I'm about to go crazy. I actually didn't think I'd get this jittery, and yet I can't get any work done because I can't stop turning the TV on and off seeing if anything's happened. I think I need a drink...
Also, I hope you all got out there and voted. I cast a proud vote for Kerry and all the Dems on my ticket. I'm crossing my fingers, hoping, and wishing I was on the West Coast so it wasn't so late by the time I find anything out. Later all...
Also, I hope you all got out there and voted. I cast a proud vote for Kerry and all the Dems on my ticket. I'm crossing my fingers, hoping, and wishing I was on the West Coast so it wasn't so late by the time I find anything out. Later all...
November 01, 2004
Big Day Tomorrow Huh?
So I've been off the radar for quite a while, but I needed to pop in to remind you all that, yes, there is a rather large election tomorrow. Your asses had better all vote. I'll try to muster the strength to post something else, but I think I'll probably end up just kicking it all out tomorrow in a huge, mega even, election day buffet.
American nightmare
Gary Kamiya explains why he calls Bush `one of hte worst in the history of the republic' on Salon:
There's a lot more in this powerful lament to the utter disaster this administration has been, for both our nation and our world.
Perhaps the most dispiriting aspect of the whole sorry chapter has been the collapse of national memory and accountability. One outrage follows the next with dreamlike regularity, lies about aluminum tubes to 9/11 revelations to Ahmed Chalabi to Joseph Wilson to cooked intel to Abu Ghraib to illegal detentions to lost explosives, and nothing ever happens, no one is ever punished, everything is for the best in the best of all possible six-gun-brandishing worlds. In an age of reality-TV war, where nothing is asked of Americans except that they rage and fear on color-coded command, the death of responsibility offers a happy ending to all -- except for those killed in Iraq.
There's a lot more in this powerful lament to the utter disaster this administration has been, for both our nation and our world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)