Dear Mr. Mommsen:
Thank you for your letter concerning flag burning. I am a proud cosponsor of legislation to create a Constitutional Amendment to ban the burning of the flag. In supporting this Amendment, I am not seeking to compromise or sacrifice the basic and essential freedoms of the FirstAmendment, which the United States Supreme Court has interpreted toinclude the burning or desecration of the American flag. However, in acknowledging and respecting the complete and essential protections of the First Amendment, I seek to place the American flag, the great symbol ofour country, our freedoms, and our great democracy above our individual political protests.
My best regards.
Sincerely,
Mark Dayton
United States Senator
_________________________________
Dear Mr. Mommsen:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your opposition to a constitutional amendment allowing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the U.S. flag. While I disagree with you on this issue, I appreciate you taking the time to contact me and I value your input. Thank you once again for taking the time to contact me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of further assistance to you.
Sincerely,
Norm Coleman
United States Senate
__________________________________
No comment necessary. That is all.
29 Juni 2005
Debunking conservative talking points: torture
This past weekend I had a series of rather intense arguments with my ignorantly conservative relatives. One of those deals where I won, but they thought they won. I now realize what I should have known to more effectively combat blind pro-administration arguments: their arguments are based on moving from point to point. None of these points will hold up under strict scrutiny, so it is important to change the subject. By not effectively recognizing this, I missed an opportunity to easily win. So for future reference, I'm creating a list of pro-torture arguments that conservatives use, and how to combat them.
The argument that almost all anti-torture people use goes something as follows: American exceptionalism, if it exists, is not a God given right. It results because of our appreciation of freedom, our strict observation the rule of law and our belief in the principle that all people should be treated well. We hold these as universal principles, and see it as our duty to bring them to people who are not free. Torture is something we oppose because it violates both the rule of law (via civil liberties) and the principle that people should be treated humanely. Ergo, torturing prisoners is irreconcilable with our justifications for American exceptionalism. A pro-torture person will attempt to bring several arguments against this:
1) Torture has helped to get life saving information from detainees
The beauty of principle is that it tolerates no exception*. We cannot allow the mentality that the ends justify the means, especially when our most hallowed principles are at stake.
2) They're the terrorists; we're the good guys. They're trying to kill us. Gitmo/Abu Ghraib is nothing compared to Saddam.
Remember, our status as the "good guys" is entirely dependent on holding ourselves to a higher standard. This is the premise of American exceptionalism. As soon as you compare the United States to the terrorists, then you defeat this premise. We can't cave to this kind of relativism. The US should categorically reject torture on the basis of principle. Terrorist is as terrorist does; terrorists torture, not Americans fighting for freedom.
3) There hasn't been that much torture, and those who've done it have been court martialed/held accountable.
The scandal isn't necessarily that there has been torture. It's that the torture has been condoned by the administration, through their repeal of the the Geneva conventions. Furthermore, Bush has been unable to come out and condemn torture on the basis of principle, or demand accountability in our treatment of prisoners. There has been no review of our standards for treating prisoners during the war on terror.
4) The Nuclear Option: You don't support our troops/you hate America/you support the terrorists
This one is the most egregiously stupid, and at this point, the anti-torture party has pretty won the debate. Obviously, one of the principles we all hold dear is the freedom of political speech. That's one of the most important things our troops are fighting for, and that's what makes America America, and differentiates us from the terrorists. Furthermore, it's terrible to invoke "the troops," or "America" in defense of torture. It is ridiculous to assert that some dissent within the American people is going to affect the effectiveness of the Army, especially when the Army's real problem is lack of soldiers and proper equipment.
Well, that should pretty much cover all the pro-torture talking points. Note that when you put 'em together you get the following argument: torture has done some good things, but we don't do it as much or as bad as the terrorists, and when it happens we certainly don't condone it, we court martial them. The point is SUPPORT THE TROOPS! This string is so full of cognitive dissonance and contradiction, it's crazy.
The use of shifting talking points that don't hold up is common among dogmatic administration apologists. I will compile similar lists for some other issues.
*Thanks to the Washington Post editorial on flag desecration amendment.
The argument that almost all anti-torture people use goes something as follows: American exceptionalism, if it exists, is not a God given right. It results because of our appreciation of freedom, our strict observation the rule of law and our belief in the principle that all people should be treated well. We hold these as universal principles, and see it as our duty to bring them to people who are not free. Torture is something we oppose because it violates both the rule of law (via civil liberties) and the principle that people should be treated humanely. Ergo, torturing prisoners is irreconcilable with our justifications for American exceptionalism. A pro-torture person will attempt to bring several arguments against this:
1) Torture has helped to get life saving information from detainees
The beauty of principle is that it tolerates no exception*. We cannot allow the mentality that the ends justify the means, especially when our most hallowed principles are at stake.
2) They're the terrorists; we're the good guys. They're trying to kill us. Gitmo/Abu Ghraib is nothing compared to Saddam.
Remember, our status as the "good guys" is entirely dependent on holding ourselves to a higher standard. This is the premise of American exceptionalism. As soon as you compare the United States to the terrorists, then you defeat this premise. We can't cave to this kind of relativism. The US should categorically reject torture on the basis of principle. Terrorist is as terrorist does; terrorists torture, not Americans fighting for freedom.
3) There hasn't been that much torture, and those who've done it have been court martialed/held accountable.
The scandal isn't necessarily that there has been torture. It's that the torture has been condoned by the administration, through their repeal of the the Geneva conventions. Furthermore, Bush has been unable to come out and condemn torture on the basis of principle, or demand accountability in our treatment of prisoners. There has been no review of our standards for treating prisoners during the war on terror.
4) The Nuclear Option: You don't support our troops/you hate America/you support the terrorists
This one is the most egregiously stupid, and at this point, the anti-torture party has pretty won the debate. Obviously, one of the principles we all hold dear is the freedom of political speech. That's one of the most important things our troops are fighting for, and that's what makes America America, and differentiates us from the terrorists. Furthermore, it's terrible to invoke "the troops," or "America" in defense of torture. It is ridiculous to assert that some dissent within the American people is going to affect the effectiveness of the Army, especially when the Army's real problem is lack of soldiers and proper equipment.
Well, that should pretty much cover all the pro-torture talking points. Note that when you put 'em together you get the following argument: torture has done some good things, but we don't do it as much or as bad as the terrorists, and when it happens we certainly don't condone it, we court martial them. The point is SUPPORT THE TROOPS! This string is so full of cognitive dissonance and contradiction, it's crazy.
The use of shifting talking points that don't hold up is common among dogmatic administration apologists. I will compile similar lists for some other issues.
*Thanks to the Washington Post editorial on flag desecration amendment.
28 Juni 2005
The impact of blogs is overstated
If you're reading this, you are most likely aware of the supposedly tremendous impact that blogs have had upon political discourse in this country. I'm here to tell you, on my blog of course, that the whole thing is way overblown. Bloggers and blog denizens make several arguments to justify the assertion that the internet is revolutionizing the media and political reporting:
1) The mainstream media is declining in popularity and influence.
While somewhat true, the idea that this somehow demonstrates that blogs are making a serious dent in mainstream media consumption is absurd at this point. Although the major television networks have undergone a significant decline in viewership, most of these viewers have been redirected to cable. Cable television is essentially run by the same type of corporate oligarchy that operates network TV (Fox, Turner, Disney, General Electric, CBS). Also, although newspaper readership may be down somewhat, major newspaper websites still crush blogs in traffic rankings. From my cursory research, WSJ, WaPo, NYT and the Star Tribune all have significantly higher traffic than DailyKos. DailyKos is by far the most visited and popular political blog. The lesson: content is king. Blogs don't have the resources to report the news and create real original content, and until they are able to pay and outfit reporters, they will always be secondary to the mainstream media.
2) Despite a smaller audience, blogs have influenced the media by keeping the oligarchy accountable
Bloggers and their allies will point to recent media scandals like Jason Blair at the New York Times, the Newsweek Quran story and Rathergate to demonstrate that the mainstream media is losing its reputation. Although there have been a few reporting issues in the last year, this is a prime example of bloggers throwing stones from a glass house. If you look at blogs on a given day, you will find what is essentially a bunch of garbage accusing the media of being to liberal or conservative, depending on the point of view. If anybody ever tried to hold a particular blog accountable over an extended period of time, I have no doubt one could find misrepresentations and falsehoods weekly. Nobody cares about this, though, since blogs are largely unimportant. In a sense, blogs are using irrelevance to assert their relevance as a watchdog group. Furthermore, blogs will always be dependent on the mainstream media to report the stories. Go read a blog, and notice that they all link in mainstream sources whenever something comes up.
3) OK, blogs will never replace the mainstream media as news reporting agencies, but the opinions columnists are doomed.
Is everybody reading the same blogs here? Most blogs are just a bunch of partisan hackery. DailyKos is interesting if you want to see intelligent debate within the Democratic Party, as is Redstate for the Republicans. The only blog that provides real independent analysis, however, is Andrew Sullivan. He's a mainstream writer too. The point is, you can find any opinion you want on blogs, but you have to sift through a lot of garbage to find the good ones. There are very few bloggers who consistently offer good and independent opinions. You can count on the New York Times columnists for thoughtful opinions from across the ideological spectrum, all the way from Dowd and Krugman to Tierney. So for people who don't have all day to surf through the blogosphere, and want to consider all kinds of good opinions, the columnists are here to stay. What blogs represent is an increasing ability to filter the kind of opinions we hear. This is a dangerous development, and allows people to cocoon themselves within an ideology and simply strengthen their existing dogmas. Thus, if blogs are replacing columnists, it's probably a bad thing.
4) The influence of the internet as a political organizing mechanism should not be discounted.
I can actually agree with this. Blogs have the unique ability to bring like minded people from all across the country together at an extremely low cost. Thus, blogs have great potential as political influencers. However, Kos is the only community so far that has come close to harnessing this potential. Also, the mainstream media was never supposed to be an organizer, so there is an unoccupied niche here for blogs.
1) The mainstream media is declining in popularity and influence.
While somewhat true, the idea that this somehow demonstrates that blogs are making a serious dent in mainstream media consumption is absurd at this point. Although the major television networks have undergone a significant decline in viewership, most of these viewers have been redirected to cable. Cable television is essentially run by the same type of corporate oligarchy that operates network TV (Fox, Turner, Disney, General Electric, CBS). Also, although newspaper readership may be down somewhat, major newspaper websites still crush blogs in traffic rankings. From my cursory research, WSJ, WaPo, NYT and the Star Tribune all have significantly higher traffic than DailyKos. DailyKos is by far the most visited and popular political blog. The lesson: content is king. Blogs don't have the resources to report the news and create real original content, and until they are able to pay and outfit reporters, they will always be secondary to the mainstream media.
2) Despite a smaller audience, blogs have influenced the media by keeping the oligarchy accountable
Bloggers and their allies will point to recent media scandals like Jason Blair at the New York Times, the Newsweek Quran story and Rathergate to demonstrate that the mainstream media is losing its reputation. Although there have been a few reporting issues in the last year, this is a prime example of bloggers throwing stones from a glass house. If you look at blogs on a given day, you will find what is essentially a bunch of garbage accusing the media of being to liberal or conservative, depending on the point of view. If anybody ever tried to hold a particular blog accountable over an extended period of time, I have no doubt one could find misrepresentations and falsehoods weekly. Nobody cares about this, though, since blogs are largely unimportant. In a sense, blogs are using irrelevance to assert their relevance as a watchdog group. Furthermore, blogs will always be dependent on the mainstream media to report the stories. Go read a blog, and notice that they all link in mainstream sources whenever something comes up.
3) OK, blogs will never replace the mainstream media as news reporting agencies, but the opinions columnists are doomed.
Is everybody reading the same blogs here? Most blogs are just a bunch of partisan hackery. DailyKos is interesting if you want to see intelligent debate within the Democratic Party, as is Redstate for the Republicans. The only blog that provides real independent analysis, however, is Andrew Sullivan. He's a mainstream writer too. The point is, you can find any opinion you want on blogs, but you have to sift through a lot of garbage to find the good ones. There are very few bloggers who consistently offer good and independent opinions. You can count on the New York Times columnists for thoughtful opinions from across the ideological spectrum, all the way from Dowd and Krugman to Tierney. So for people who don't have all day to surf through the blogosphere, and want to consider all kinds of good opinions, the columnists are here to stay. What blogs represent is an increasing ability to filter the kind of opinions we hear. This is a dangerous development, and allows people to cocoon themselves within an ideology and simply strengthen their existing dogmas. Thus, if blogs are replacing columnists, it's probably a bad thing.
4) The influence of the internet as a political organizing mechanism should not be discounted.
I can actually agree with this. Blogs have the unique ability to bring like minded people from all across the country together at an extremely low cost. Thus, blogs have great potential as political influencers. However, Kos is the only community so far that has come close to harnessing this potential. Also, the mainstream media was never supposed to be an organizer, so there is an unoccupied niche here for blogs.
27 Juni 2005
Stop worshipping Republican unity
Another diary I posted on Kos:
Last week brought about a typical exchange on the progressive community. First, Durbin makes his apt but controversial comments about torture and liberals say he shouldn't apologize. Then he does, and we scream bloody murder, and basically that the Republicans never apologize. Next, Rove makes his sickening commments, and we scream bloody murder again. Liberals also point out knowingly that Rove will never apologize for something like this, and that the Republican caucus stuck together behind Rove.
To frustrated and out of power liberals like the Kos community, this demonstrates some strength in the Republican party. I don't think this is the case. Being unified and wrong has been an Administration trademark this term, and that extends to Rove's comments.
The basis of this strategy for the Republicans is the interpretation that the last election was extremely polarized, and that they won because of base turnout. While this is certainly true to an extent, the assumption that the 51% of voters who voted for Bush in November are homogenous and wingnutty in their views is patently absurd. Thus, the Bush administration has projected the views of the few wingnut Republicans who did help him win the election, and assumed them to be the entirety of his voters, and by extension the electorate.
This assumption allows the administration to feel justified in being extremely stubborn. It also encourages preaching to the choir. This has been demonstrated first and foremost in the Adminstration's top priority: Social Security reform. There was never enough Congressional or popular support for this program, but Bush has attempted to create the illusion of support through his well documented "town-hall" meetings. The result has been a colossal waste of the administration's precious time on an issue which is both bad policy and has little public support.
The next debacle to result from this unified stubborness was the Schiavo case. Obviously, the majority of Americans were apalled by the way this was handled by Frist and Bush, but of course they managed to maintain a unified front. Even after the autopsy proved them absolutely wrong, Frist attempted to defend himself. They stayed unified, but the public saw right through unity and knew that they were wrong.
This exact template applies to issues like Rove's comments. The Republicans stood behind Rove, despite the fact that he politicized September 11. Of course it is easy for the Administration to find enough wingnuts to agree with them. This does not preclude the possibility (fact) that many voters are not solidly in either camp. There are independents, it's just that the political environment has become so polarized and acrimonious these days, independents are forced to one extreme or another.
And increasingly, the unified and wrong Republicans are alienating those independents with their stifling of criticism and "if you're not with us, you're against us" rhetoric. According to this poll, independents are starting to look a lot like Democrats in their approval of how Bush is handling his job. So don't mistake unity of message for popularity or effectiveness. Powerline, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard will always agree with the Republicans, but this doesn't mean the message machine is working on the general public. It is frustrating when Democrats stab each other in the back, but people are finally getting sick of the way the Republicans stifle dissent and divide the electorate by moving far to the right.
Last week brought about a typical exchange on the progressive community. First, Durbin makes his apt but controversial comments about torture and liberals say he shouldn't apologize. Then he does, and we scream bloody murder, and basically that the Republicans never apologize. Next, Rove makes his sickening commments, and we scream bloody murder again. Liberals also point out knowingly that Rove will never apologize for something like this, and that the Republican caucus stuck together behind Rove.
To frustrated and out of power liberals like the Kos community, this demonstrates some strength in the Republican party. I don't think this is the case. Being unified and wrong has been an Administration trademark this term, and that extends to Rove's comments.
The basis of this strategy for the Republicans is the interpretation that the last election was extremely polarized, and that they won because of base turnout. While this is certainly true to an extent, the assumption that the 51% of voters who voted for Bush in November are homogenous and wingnutty in their views is patently absurd. Thus, the Bush administration has projected the views of the few wingnut Republicans who did help him win the election, and assumed them to be the entirety of his voters, and by extension the electorate.
This assumption allows the administration to feel justified in being extremely stubborn. It also encourages preaching to the choir. This has been demonstrated first and foremost in the Adminstration's top priority: Social Security reform. There was never enough Congressional or popular support for this program, but Bush has attempted to create the illusion of support through his well documented "town-hall" meetings. The result has been a colossal waste of the administration's precious time on an issue which is both bad policy and has little public support.
The next debacle to result from this unified stubborness was the Schiavo case. Obviously, the majority of Americans were apalled by the way this was handled by Frist and Bush, but of course they managed to maintain a unified front. Even after the autopsy proved them absolutely wrong, Frist attempted to defend himself. They stayed unified, but the public saw right through unity and knew that they were wrong.
This exact template applies to issues like Rove's comments. The Republicans stood behind Rove, despite the fact that he politicized September 11. Of course it is easy for the Administration to find enough wingnuts to agree with them. This does not preclude the possibility (fact) that many voters are not solidly in either camp. There are independents, it's just that the political environment has become so polarized and acrimonious these days, independents are forced to one extreme or another.
And increasingly, the unified and wrong Republicans are alienating those independents with their stifling of criticism and "if you're not with us, you're against us" rhetoric. According to this poll, independents are starting to look a lot like Democrats in their approval of how Bush is handling his job. So don't mistake unity of message for popularity or effectiveness. Powerline, the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard will always agree with the Republicans, but this doesn't mean the message machine is working on the general public. It is frustrating when Democrats stab each other in the back, but people are finally getting sick of the way the Republicans stifle dissent and divide the electorate by moving far to the right.
24 Juni 2005
tom friedman = shameless self promoter
I like most of what Thomas Friedman writes. I even agree with most of it. But what the hell is going on with the absolutely blatant and shameless attempts to plug his book in every single column he writes? Today:
"The French economic instinct is not one we want to start emulating now, just as the global playing field is being flattened, bringing in more competitors from Poland to China to India."
OK, so he makes some good points in the column, even though CAFTA's probably not the best thing in the world. But Friedman's constant references to "the world is flat," the playing field is "flattening" etc. is absolutely killing me. Hey Tom: your catchphrase isn't really a catchphrase! The worst part about it is that he acts so sly about it. No Tom, every time you mention that phrase, it sticks out like a sore thumb (now there's a real catchphrase).
I applaud you for writing another book about how globalization is coming and countries need to come to terms with it. A lot of your policy prescriptions are good. Now come up with some new IDEAS for your column and book. Changing the word "globalization" to "flattening" doesn't make the shit new in my book. Every column he writes, you can basically predict what he's going to say.
I was pretty ambivelant on CAFTA because it seems like small potatoes. Now I hope it fails so the world can be round again.
"The French economic instinct is not one we want to start emulating now, just as the global playing field is being flattened, bringing in more competitors from Poland to China to India."
OK, so he makes some good points in the column, even though CAFTA's probably not the best thing in the world. But Friedman's constant references to "the world is flat," the playing field is "flattening" etc. is absolutely killing me. Hey Tom: your catchphrase isn't really a catchphrase! The worst part about it is that he acts so sly about it. No Tom, every time you mention that phrase, it sticks out like a sore thumb (now there's a real catchphrase).
I applaud you for writing another book about how globalization is coming and countries need to come to terms with it. A lot of your policy prescriptions are good. Now come up with some new IDEAS for your column and book. Changing the word "globalization" to "flattening" doesn't make the shit new in my book. Every column he writes, you can basically predict what he's going to say.
I was pretty ambivelant on CAFTA because it seems like small potatoes. Now I hope it fails so the world can be round again.
23 Juni 2005
Air America
I brought my headphones to work, and I was really excited to try out Air America Radio. Progressive talk? Some intelligent banter that leans to the left and with a few little shots at Bush... it would have made my day. Unfortunately, I found Al Franken and his cohosts to be utter hacks. You can get mad at the right-wingers for just parroting administration talking points. The left doesn't even have talking points, though, so Franken's show is just a big bunch of Frist/Bush bashing crap. The depressing fact is that most of the left is no less hackish than the right. Is Paul Begala really any more reasonable than Tucker Carlson? Are Atrios and Gilliard less full of shit than Powerline and Captain's Quarters, just because I happen to agree with them? What we're left with is the depressing fact that the only outlet that actually tries to get to the facts of any matter is CPB. And now there's a wingnut in charge of that too. What follows is an indication of my boredom: it's a categorization of media outlets by bias and quality.
Right wing talking points argued hackishly; don't bother:
Little Green Footballs
Powerline
Michelle Malkin
Hugh Hewitt
Fox News
Michael Savage
Right wing, slightly more reasonable:
Wall Street Journal opinions page
Lean right; highly recommend:
Andrew Sullivan
Redstate
ChargingRino.blogspot.com
Jesus' General
Dead center:
Washington Post
NY Times (Not opinions page)
Wall Street Journal (Not opinions Page)
Public Radio
Lean left; very good:
Matthew Yglesias
NY Times opinions
Slate/Chatterbox
KausFiles
Liberal hacks; don't bother:
Air America Radio
Far left, but still must read:
Kos
Atrios
And the place from which everybody should get all their political information:
Wonkette!
Right wing talking points argued hackishly; don't bother:
Little Green Footballs
Powerline
Michelle Malkin
Hugh Hewitt
Fox News
Michael Savage
Right wing, slightly more reasonable:
Wall Street Journal opinions page
Lean right; highly recommend:
Andrew Sullivan
Redstate
ChargingRino.blogspot.com
Jesus' General
Dead center:
Washington Post
NY Times (Not opinions page)
Wall Street Journal (Not opinions Page)
Public Radio
Lean left; very good:
Matthew Yglesias
NY Times opinions
Slate/Chatterbox
KausFiles
Liberal hacks; don't bother:
Air America Radio
Far left, but still must read:
Kos
Atrios
And the place from which everybody should get all their political information:
Wonkette!
22 Juni 2005
a little faith in humanity... and then they took it away
The New York Post writes:
"This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word. "
Clearly, the Hillary Clinton book to which I alluded earlier has gotten pretty much awful critical reviews. This is no surprise. What surprised me about this episode is that finally the right wingers have stood up and seen bullshit in something that smears a Democrat. Powerline, Fox News and even that racist fuckup Michelle Malkin have said that they don't see anything new in it, and that the number of unsubstantiated sources is disturbing. Well it's about time. So you'd think that putrid reviews from all across the political spectrum would be enough to keep people from getting fleeced out of $24.95.
Think again. Yes, this book is number two on the Amazon.com bestseller list. The really scary thing about the right is that many of them are even more hard right than Malkin. Here's a few of the excerpts from the amazon.com customer reviews:
"LIBERALS ARE RETARDED. Seriously, they lack logic - a crucial component of intelligence. Hillary, the leader of liberals, is one of the most vile human beings that exist. Even if you think this book is far from absolute, it must cause anyone to question (read: rescind) their support for Hillary."
"I am hopefull that this book will do for Hillary's presidential bid what the Swiftboat Vets did for Kerry's bid. Klein has done a very patriotic deed by writing this book."
OK, so I'm not going to find any more. Those are painful. Where to even begin with the bullshit that leads wingnuts to rate a book denounced by MICHELLE MALKIN five stars? I thought the rightist partisan blogs were the worst of the political debate. I am happy to see that their hackery has limits. However, it is extremely frustrating to see that there is apparently a large sector of the population that will buy this salacious bullshit and give it a good review. So now the right wing noise machine becomes a semblance of sanity in the center of a storm of right wing popular opinion? yu76y76ukizsdksdkisdfmksdfnmksdfmksdfsdfa (That's me banging my head on the keyboard)
*Full disclosure: I have not read this book. I hope this does not diminish my credibility in discussing the political implications.
"This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word. "
Clearly, the Hillary Clinton book to which I alluded earlier has gotten pretty much awful critical reviews. This is no surprise. What surprised me about this episode is that finally the right wingers have stood up and seen bullshit in something that smears a Democrat. Powerline, Fox News and even that racist fuckup Michelle Malkin have said that they don't see anything new in it, and that the number of unsubstantiated sources is disturbing. Well it's about time. So you'd think that putrid reviews from all across the political spectrum would be enough to keep people from getting fleeced out of $24.95.
Think again. Yes, this book is number two on the Amazon.com bestseller list. The really scary thing about the right is that many of them are even more hard right than Malkin. Here's a few of the excerpts from the amazon.com customer reviews:
"LIBERALS ARE RETARDED. Seriously, they lack logic - a crucial component of intelligence. Hillary, the leader of liberals, is one of the most vile human beings that exist. Even if you think this book is far from absolute, it must cause anyone to question (read: rescind) their support for Hillary."
"I am hopefull that this book will do for Hillary's presidential bid what the Swiftboat Vets did for Kerry's bid. Klein has done a very patriotic deed by writing this book."
OK, so I'm not going to find any more. Those are painful. Where to even begin with the bullshit that leads wingnuts to rate a book denounced by MICHELLE MALKIN five stars? I thought the rightist partisan blogs were the worst of the political debate. I am happy to see that their hackery has limits. However, it is extremely frustrating to see that there is apparently a large sector of the population that will buy this salacious bullshit and give it a good review. So now the right wing noise machine becomes a semblance of sanity in the center of a storm of right wing popular opinion? yu76y76ukizsdksdkisdfmksdfnmksdfmksdfsdfa (That's me banging my head on the keyboard)
*Full disclosure: I have not read this book. I hope this does not diminish my credibility in discussing the political implications.
free katie!
Well, I don't normally do celebrity gossip (here's a bone for Bowen), but when Katie Holmes is going to marry into some weird cult, something has to be done about it. As far as I can tell, there are a few possible reasons that this shit is happening, but the totality of what is happening is likely to remain beyond our understanding.
Possibility 1: Tom Cruise is gay, and Katie Holmes is the prop.
Possibility 2: Katie Holmes is a failed actress who needs the publicity boost.
Possibility 3: Tom Cruise is going to turn Katie into Patty Hearst.
Possibility 4: Katie actually buys Scientology. No, this is too scary to believe.
Regardless of anything relating to Katie Holmes, his association with Scientology has made it impossible for me to enjoy anything that has to do with Tom Cruise anymore. If you're not all that familiar with Scientology, know I am not making this up:
"Those that reach the higher teachings (OT III) within the Church of Scientology will learn all about Xenu, the evil intergalactic ruler who implanted "thetans" or alien spirits, in earth's volcanoes 75 million years ago, after which they escaped and invaded human bodies. The ultimate belief of Scientology is that you are possessed by the spirits of aliens murdered 75 million years ago by "Xenu" and you have to exorcise these spirits."
Possibility 1: Tom Cruise is gay, and Katie Holmes is the prop.
Possibility 2: Katie Holmes is a failed actress who needs the publicity boost.
Possibility 3: Tom Cruise is going to turn Katie into Patty Hearst.
Possibility 4: Katie actually buys Scientology. No, this is too scary to believe.
Regardless of anything relating to Katie Holmes, his association with Scientology has made it impossible for me to enjoy anything that has to do with Tom Cruise anymore. If you're not all that familiar with Scientology, know I am not making this up:
"Those that reach the higher teachings (OT III) within the Church of Scientology will learn all about Xenu, the evil intergalactic ruler who implanted "thetans" or alien spirits, in earth's volcanoes 75 million years ago, after which they escaped and invaded human bodies. The ultimate belief of Scientology is that you are possessed by the spirits of aliens murdered 75 million years ago by "Xenu" and you have to exorcise these spirits."
Get it people? Tom Cruise has gone completely insane. How am I supposed to watch and like "War of the Worlds" a movie about aliens which stars a guy who thinks we are all infested with alien spirits? This could be the end of the world.
21 Juni 2005
work update
Actually, a lot has happened since I stopped talking about work and started ranting about political issues. I'm witnessing the ugly side of laissez faire capitalism that is known as outsourcing. Essentially, the entire department in which I work is being contracted out to IBM, and so every tech person has to reapply to work for IBM, with about 1 in 3 odds of getting a job. This is harsh. I think people are going to have me read and edit their resumes, since I'm good at documentation and have a lot of spare time on my hands.
Outsourcing is a messy project, as necessary or unnecessary as it may be. The higher-ups said it had to be done because IBM can be more efficient due to economies of scale. However, it is pretty well recognized that Shared Services had really bad processes that had been mandated by those very same higher-ups. Plus, the head of Shared Services stands to gain a lot by coordinating the outsourcing. Even though her department is disappearing, female VPs are always in demand. And rumor has it that a VP that coordinates an outsourcing pretty much immediately doubles his or her salary.
Finally, there are a bunch of messy office politics regarding who gets to keep their job. There will be a group of about 30 people who will manage the contract with IBM who are guaranteed job security. These yet to be named people have already been dubbed the "chosen 30" around the water cooler, and the battle over who fills these is going to be a bloody mess.
All of this eschews the fact that productivity has essentially gone in the toilet since they announced outsourcing last Thursday. Most of the best people saw this coming, and already had new jobs lined up. So as the summer progresses, the best permenant employees will leave. This will leave behind temps and contractors, along with people who couldn't find other jobs. My boss applied for seven jobs on Thursday night. My aunt says she is going to wait and see if they will pay her a bonus to hang on 'till the bitter end, which apparently outsourcing companies are wont to do.
Without any motivation, and with everyone looking for a new job, it's clear that the remaining employees and contractors are not doing as much work as they once did. Apparently web surfing has doubled since Thursday, and they had to upgrade the bandwith to accomodate it because the systems were crawling to a halt. They haven't been checking what people are doing on the web, because they haven't installed the capturing software. But who cares: everyone's on Monster and Hotjobs, and there's nothing the higher-ups can (or should) do about it.
Well, I've got to go. I've got a resume to edit.
Outsourcing is a messy project, as necessary or unnecessary as it may be. The higher-ups said it had to be done because IBM can be more efficient due to economies of scale. However, it is pretty well recognized that Shared Services had really bad processes that had been mandated by those very same higher-ups. Plus, the head of Shared Services stands to gain a lot by coordinating the outsourcing. Even though her department is disappearing, female VPs are always in demand. And rumor has it that a VP that coordinates an outsourcing pretty much immediately doubles his or her salary.
Finally, there are a bunch of messy office politics regarding who gets to keep their job. There will be a group of about 30 people who will manage the contract with IBM who are guaranteed job security. These yet to be named people have already been dubbed the "chosen 30" around the water cooler, and the battle over who fills these is going to be a bloody mess.
All of this eschews the fact that productivity has essentially gone in the toilet since they announced outsourcing last Thursday. Most of the best people saw this coming, and already had new jobs lined up. So as the summer progresses, the best permenant employees will leave. This will leave behind temps and contractors, along with people who couldn't find other jobs. My boss applied for seven jobs on Thursday night. My aunt says she is going to wait and see if they will pay her a bonus to hang on 'till the bitter end, which apparently outsourcing companies are wont to do.
Without any motivation, and with everyone looking for a new job, it's clear that the remaining employees and contractors are not doing as much work as they once did. Apparently web surfing has doubled since Thursday, and they had to upgrade the bandwith to accomodate it because the systems were crawling to a halt. They haven't been checking what people are doing on the web, because they haven't installed the capturing software. But who cares: everyone's on Monster and Hotjobs, and there's nothing the higher-ups can (or should) do about it.
Well, I've got to go. I've got a resume to edit.
20 Juni 2005
screw confederates part II
I'm still pissed about the Confederacy thing. It's unbelievable that this bullshit survives. All the straw polls on the internet give people the choice between identifying the Confederate flag with racism or Southern tradition. What Southern tradition is the Confederate flag identified with? Northerners sure as hell aren't trying to make corn grits or fried chicken illegal. We're even coming to terms with NASCAR. What's the one issue where the Feds have had to drag the Old South kicking and screaming along? The Southern States are hiding behind the veil of states rights and Southern culture to continue to espouse racism. If the federal government were weaker, the Little Rock Nine don't get to attend Central High. Wallace allows his cops to pretty much shoot the protesters in Birmingham with little repercussions. And James Meredith doesn't get to go to Ole Miss. Ole Miss's mascot is still the Rebs. If the Rebs had their way, James Meredith would've been shot instead of being escorted by Federal agents into the University.
The Ku Klux Klan has a pretty good idea what people mean by Southern Culture. That's why they've coopted the Confederate flag as one of their symbols. So have over 500 fringe and extremist groups across the South. Sure it's tradition. Sure it's culture. But it's a tradition and culture that I think most of us would rather do away with.
Sure it was an important part of Southern history. Just like Nazism was an important part of German history. Exactly how many German states use the Swastika in their flags? I don't know, but I have a pretty good guess. You should check. And of course, the Swastika is recognized as the hateful form of speech that it is, both in America and in Germany. So why do the stars and bars, which propogate the same kind of hate, manage to survive under the lame pretense of Southern pride? Racism, slavery and extremist reactionary movements are absolutely nothing to be proud of. Recognize the Confederate flag for what it is: an object symbolizing one of the nastiest and most evil movements in American history.
The Ku Klux Klan has a pretty good idea what people mean by Southern Culture. That's why they've coopted the Confederate flag as one of their symbols. So have over 500 fringe and extremist groups across the South. Sure it's tradition. Sure it's culture. But it's a tradition and culture that I think most of us would rather do away with.
Sure it was an important part of Southern history. Just like Nazism was an important part of German history. Exactly how many German states use the Swastika in their flags? I don't know, but I have a pretty good guess. You should check. And of course, the Swastika is recognized as the hateful form of speech that it is, both in America and in Germany. So why do the stars and bars, which propogate the same kind of hate, manage to survive under the lame pretense of Southern pride? Racism, slavery and extremist reactionary movements are absolutely nothing to be proud of. Recognize the Confederate flag for what it is: an object symbolizing one of the nastiest and most evil movements in American history.
screw confederates
We were driving back from the cabin yesterday and saw a pickup with a Confederate flag license plate. I asked my dad what statement he thought it made. "I hate black people." That's what it means. States rights, Southern tradition, what a bunch of horseshit. It means "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE." How is this acceptable?
States rights and southern tradition are simply euphemisms for the ugly truth concealed by the Flag. After all, the primary purpose of the secession of the Confederacy was not defense of states rights as an ends; the idea was to defend states in rights such to keep slavery legal. And "southern tradition" means the same thing. The only portion of southern tradition represented by the blight on America that is the stars and bars is an inefficient and lazy slavery driven economy that refused respect the humanity of all its people. The Confederacy was a hate filled institution, and the continued use of its symbol can only represent perpetuation of that hate.
Furthermore, the Confederate flag represents principles that rub against the Anglo-American tradition in the deepest possible sense. Liberty. Equal opportunity. Justice. We as Americans see ourselves as citizens of a country under which all of these objects are fundamental rights ensured to all. In short, these goals toward which we strive are the opposite of slavery, and when part of a population is enslaved, none are free. This is the irony of a person who puts a Confederate and an American flag in their pickup truck, or waves a Confederate flag while attempting to ban flag burning. The Confederate flag represents principles so profoundly opposite to everything that is represented by the American flag, it is essentially rejecting the United States as an entity, and all of its traditions and founding principles. In short, it is worse than flag burning.
The other horror of the Confederate flag is the fact that such a hate-filled and un-American symbol has become so trite today. Lynyrd Skynyrd can use the stars and bars on their set without any outrage. People put it on their trucks, and it is in several state flags. In a country where freedom and equality is our goal, and black/white relations is THE most important national issue over time, this should not be acceptable. Everyone should attempt to strive toward freedom and equality, not make veiled statements about their contempt for equality. If you don't care for equality; if you want a country where discrimination is the norm; if you want to harken back to a time and place where white people sat around where black people worked for nothing you can find a new fucking country. Because it's one thing to say that the government is failing and not living up to the principles that make America America, and it's quite another to say you don't believe in those principles.
We shouldn't ban the stars and bars, because that'd be almost as un-American as racism. But it's an absolute outrage that something so terrible is so acceptable.
States rights and southern tradition are simply euphemisms for the ugly truth concealed by the Flag. After all, the primary purpose of the secession of the Confederacy was not defense of states rights as an ends; the idea was to defend states in rights such to keep slavery legal. And "southern tradition" means the same thing. The only portion of southern tradition represented by the blight on America that is the stars and bars is an inefficient and lazy slavery driven economy that refused respect the humanity of all its people. The Confederacy was a hate filled institution, and the continued use of its symbol can only represent perpetuation of that hate.
Furthermore, the Confederate flag represents principles that rub against the Anglo-American tradition in the deepest possible sense. Liberty. Equal opportunity. Justice. We as Americans see ourselves as citizens of a country under which all of these objects are fundamental rights ensured to all. In short, these goals toward which we strive are the opposite of slavery, and when part of a population is enslaved, none are free. This is the irony of a person who puts a Confederate and an American flag in their pickup truck, or waves a Confederate flag while attempting to ban flag burning. The Confederate flag represents principles so profoundly opposite to everything that is represented by the American flag, it is essentially rejecting the United States as an entity, and all of its traditions and founding principles. In short, it is worse than flag burning.
The other horror of the Confederate flag is the fact that such a hate-filled and un-American symbol has become so trite today. Lynyrd Skynyrd can use the stars and bars on their set without any outrage. People put it on their trucks, and it is in several state flags. In a country where freedom and equality is our goal, and black/white relations is THE most important national issue over time, this should not be acceptable. Everyone should attempt to strive toward freedom and equality, not make veiled statements about their contempt for equality. If you don't care for equality; if you want a country where discrimination is the norm; if you want to harken back to a time and place where white people sat around where black people worked for nothing you can find a new fucking country. Because it's one thing to say that the government is failing and not living up to the principles that make America America, and it's quite another to say you don't believe in those principles.
We shouldn't ban the stars and bars, because that'd be almost as un-American as racism. But it's an absolute outrage that something so terrible is so acceptable.
17 Juni 2005
the slippery slope
I posted this on DailyKos, so I'm putting it here too. Maybe not the most compelling, but I'd been thinking about it for a while.
I know most people don't consider debating a rhetorical device like the slippery slope entirely relevant. But having heard this technique used and abused so many times in so many different environments, I had to get this off my chest. The use of this argument is particularly relevant given the way it is being used in two pertinent issues: the so called "right to life" and the torture scandals in our detainment camps.
The slippery slope is an argument under which the arguer equates an action with its logical extreme extension. This is clearly bullshit, because it fails to recognize our ability to take action in a given situation under those particular circumstances.
This argument is siezed upon by the right-to-life extremists, who claim that as soon as we kill a little bundle of cells, then we're on the fast track to killing people. The obvious fallacy here is that we can differentiate between unborn children, little bundles of cells and full blown adults. The problem is that every single debate can be cast in terms of two different slippery slopes: what about the slippery slope of government intervention in the case of abortion? What else can the government regulate? So given this, we have to take the conflicting priorities of individual liberty and the sanctity of human life, and arrive at decisions on the basis of each individual case.
This argument is siezed upon by the right-to-life extremists, who claim that as soon as we kill a little bundle of cells, then we're on the fast track to killing people. The obvious fallacy here is that we can differentiate between unborn children, little bundles of cells and full blown adults. The problem is that every single debate can be cast in terms of two different slippery slopes: what about the slippery slope of government intervention in the case of abortion? What else can the government regulate? So given this, we have to take the conflicting priorities of individual liberty and the sanctity of human life, and arrive at decisions on the basis of each individual case.
We draw lines on slippery slopes all the time. The drinking age, the voting age and the legality of hunting rifles but not bazookas are all perfect examples. If we took every decision and extrapolated it to the final conclusion of it's intended direction, who the hell knows what would happen? So let's make good law regarding the right to life, reconciling with the right to privacy as best we can, and not worry about how destroying little bundle of cells might lead to us killing full blown adults.
But this isn't all. I think that liberals make the same mistake in their condemnation of torture in Gitmo. The reason we shouldn't torture somebody isn't because we'll be on the fast track to totalitarianism if we do. I have pretty good faith that American democracy will survive. But the fact is, we've drawn lines on the slope that are supposed to govern how prisoners are treated. We can't break away from these because it's the WRONG THING TO DO. Not because we'll become totalitarian, but because we've agreed not to do it. We made the tough decisions about what rights people and prisoners should have, and now our government has to uphold these rights for all people.
And the real slide down the slippery slope only happens when you disobey the lines you've drawn to keep you from sliding down.
I know most people don't consider debating a rhetorical device like the slippery slope entirely relevant. But having heard this technique used and abused so many times in so many different environments, I had to get this off my chest. The use of this argument is particularly relevant given the way it is being used in two pertinent issues: the so called "right to life" and the torture scandals in our detainment camps.
The slippery slope is an argument under which the arguer equates an action with its logical extreme extension. This is clearly bullshit, because it fails to recognize our ability to take action in a given situation under those particular circumstances.
This argument is siezed upon by the right-to-life extremists, who claim that as soon as we kill a little bundle of cells, then we're on the fast track to killing people. The obvious fallacy here is that we can differentiate between unborn children, little bundles of cells and full blown adults. The problem is that every single debate can be cast in terms of two different slippery slopes: what about the slippery slope of government intervention in the case of abortion? What else can the government regulate? So given this, we have to take the conflicting priorities of individual liberty and the sanctity of human life, and arrive at decisions on the basis of each individual case.
This argument is siezed upon by the right-to-life extremists, who claim that as soon as we kill a little bundle of cells, then we're on the fast track to killing people. The obvious fallacy here is that we can differentiate between unborn children, little bundles of cells and full blown adults. The problem is that every single debate can be cast in terms of two different slippery slopes: what about the slippery slope of government intervention in the case of abortion? What else can the government regulate? So given this, we have to take the conflicting priorities of individual liberty and the sanctity of human life, and arrive at decisions on the basis of each individual case.
We draw lines on slippery slopes all the time. The drinking age, the voting age and the legality of hunting rifles but not bazookas are all perfect examples. If we took every decision and extrapolated it to the final conclusion of it's intended direction, who the hell knows what would happen? So let's make good law regarding the right to life, reconciling with the right to privacy as best we can, and not worry about how destroying little bundle of cells might lead to us killing full blown adults.
But this isn't all. I think that liberals make the same mistake in their condemnation of torture in Gitmo. The reason we shouldn't torture somebody isn't because we'll be on the fast track to totalitarianism if we do. I have pretty good faith that American democracy will survive. But the fact is, we've drawn lines on the slope that are supposed to govern how prisoners are treated. We can't break away from these because it's the WRONG THING TO DO. Not because we'll become totalitarian, but because we've agreed not to do it. We made the tough decisions about what rights people and prisoners should have, and now our government has to uphold these rights for all people.
And the real slide down the slippery slope only happens when you disobey the lines you've drawn to keep you from sliding down.
16 Juni 2005
i'm frustrated
Sometimes I like to read websites I disagree with to see the other side of the political spectrum. It's partially an exercise in futility, because most of the right-wingers right now are pretty much unreasonable. But what really got me fed up was that a few of these sites were talking about how Michelle Malkin had been a great addition to the blogosphere. So I checked out Michelle Malkin's website. And I checked out her books. One of which was titled In Defense of Internment: The Case for Racial Profiling in the World War II and the War on Terror. And I thought, fine, anybody can be racist, incoherent, stupid and fascist. But the real frustration was that people actually gave this book good reviews. The United States formally apologized for internment in the 1980s! Reagan signed the internment reparations bill into law! Yeah, Reagan was just a politically correct lefty.
The positive reviews of this book are really an insight into some dark netherworld of America. I have no idea what the hell happens there. And I was grotesquely curious. Who are these people? Where do they get their facts and ideas? So I poked around in the books that customers who bought Malkin's book had also bought. We've got the flattering biography of Kerry Unfit for Command. The book about Hilary Clinton that is essentially a big personal smear, including a baseless claim that Bill Clinton had "raped" her. And Men In Black, the contradiction laden anti-judicial polemic/farce that claims somehow that Plessy and Dredd Scott were activist decisions. It also claims that the decisions that required a warrant for wiretapping were unconstitutional, because the "constitution does not include anything about wiretapping. Yes, the moment you use anything that was invented after the Constitution was signed, your Constitutional rights immediately vanish, since it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution. By this standard, the government should be allowed to limit everything printed on laser printers, because the First Amendment doesn't mention laser printers, now does it?
Now these books have a few things in common, besides being massively flawed. They are all perceived as such a joke by most reviewers that not a single one garnered a legit editorial review on Amazon. All the books also got a lot of customer reviews, most positive. This is, as I said, a scary netherworld where one simply seeks out what he agrees with, and rubberstamps it. There is no regard for the facts. It's all about conservative and liberal. There's nothing about true and false.
And speaking of that bullshit dichotomy, conservative and liberal are not coherent ideologies anymore. Time was, conservatives actually stood for smaller government. Now they want a bigger government too, so long as it can turn Public Broadcasting to their ends, channel money to religious organizations and schools and defend some sort of unrigorous and subjective standard called the "sanctity of life." Intervening in Terry Schiavo case = small government? Torturing possibly innocent detainees = small government? Allowing federal agents to conduct searches without a warrant or look at the library books we check out = small government? Invading anothe country to insert a liberal democracy = conservative small government? That's some sick and twisted world. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
Don't fuck with me today. At least until after work.
The positive reviews of this book are really an insight into some dark netherworld of America. I have no idea what the hell happens there. And I was grotesquely curious. Who are these people? Where do they get their facts and ideas? So I poked around in the books that customers who bought Malkin's book had also bought. We've got the flattering biography of Kerry Unfit for Command. The book about Hilary Clinton that is essentially a big personal smear, including a baseless claim that Bill Clinton had "raped" her. And Men In Black, the contradiction laden anti-judicial polemic/farce that claims somehow that Plessy and Dredd Scott were activist decisions. It also claims that the decisions that required a warrant for wiretapping were unconstitutional, because the "constitution does not include anything about wiretapping. Yes, the moment you use anything that was invented after the Constitution was signed, your Constitutional rights immediately vanish, since it wasn't mentioned in the Constitution. By this standard, the government should be allowed to limit everything printed on laser printers, because the First Amendment doesn't mention laser printers, now does it?
Now these books have a few things in common, besides being massively flawed. They are all perceived as such a joke by most reviewers that not a single one garnered a legit editorial review on Amazon. All the books also got a lot of customer reviews, most positive. This is, as I said, a scary netherworld where one simply seeks out what he agrees with, and rubberstamps it. There is no regard for the facts. It's all about conservative and liberal. There's nothing about true and false.
And speaking of that bullshit dichotomy, conservative and liberal are not coherent ideologies anymore. Time was, conservatives actually stood for smaller government. Now they want a bigger government too, so long as it can turn Public Broadcasting to their ends, channel money to religious organizations and schools and defend some sort of unrigorous and subjective standard called the "sanctity of life." Intervening in Terry Schiavo case = small government? Torturing possibly innocent detainees = small government? Allowing federal agents to conduct searches without a warrant or look at the library books we check out = small government? Invading anothe country to insert a liberal democracy = conservative small government? That's some sick and twisted world. Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit.
Don't fuck with me today. At least until after work.
14 Juni 2005
today is tuesday
At least it's not Monday. A few items of note. I remember talking about the mandate on racial makeup of juries, and not really knowing exactly what the rules were, just that the Supreme Court had said that an all white jury for a black defendant is not a jury of peers. I looked it up, and the landmark decision Batson v. Kentucky makes the standard more procedural than about the actual makeup of the jury.
In other non-news, they are starting to give me some work to do here. That doesn't mean I'm working every minute, or even half the time, but it's much better than before. I'm getting used to the old people. I don't like them a whole lot, and I don't really respect them, but everybody gets along pretty well because nobody likes work very much. Everybody's always looking forward to Friday. That's why Mondays are so miserable. That whole thing could change if I ever meet some of the other interns. I've been getting some emails from them trying to organize activities and they don't really sound like the kind of people I'll like. First of all, most of them are either Business or Communications majors, which is strike one. Plus, none of them seem cynical enough. Whatever. I think I'm going to meet them all on Thursday, so I'll report back after that.
In other non-news, they are starting to give me some work to do here. That doesn't mean I'm working every minute, or even half the time, but it's much better than before. I'm getting used to the old people. I don't like them a whole lot, and I don't really respect them, but everybody gets along pretty well because nobody likes work very much. Everybody's always looking forward to Friday. That's why Mondays are so miserable. That whole thing could change if I ever meet some of the other interns. I've been getting some emails from them trying to organize activities and they don't really sound like the kind of people I'll like. First of all, most of them are either Business or Communications majors, which is strike one. Plus, none of them seem cynical enough. Whatever. I think I'm going to meet them all on Thursday, so I'll report back after that.
13 Juni 2005
12 Juni 2005
saturday
Went and saw my little brother run at the state track championships. He needed to be 9th for all state, and ended up in 10th by about a meter. Oh well, you can do worse than 4:23 for the mile. It was a good day.
10 Juni 2005
one of my pet peeves
One of the issues that frustrates me the most has cropped up in the news this past week. That manifested itself in the form of one Natalee Holloway, the Alabama high school senior who went missing in Aruba. Now I have nothing against Holloway herself; by all accounts she is bright, charming and is missed very much by her family. But why is this national news? There have been seven stories in the past week devoted to the story of this one girl on CNN.com, a national website. I suggest there are a few reasons why stories like Laci Peterson, Chandra Levy, the runaway bride in Georgia or whatever and Dru Sjodin (for those of you in MN) get major press, while other stories are pushed off the front page.
1) The pretty, white, young, rich, female victim. 'Nuff said.
2) Pushy parents who are always on TV attempting to garner sympathy for their plight. They basically create the news to make sure the story has legs.
3) People are afraid to talk about what's wrong with America, so they cover victims who didn't do anything wrong. The kidnapping or murder of young, rich white women in society is not a problem, but the murder rate in our society is obscenely high. So instead of investigating the cause of all the murders in the United States, they focus on the cases where the usual causes don't apply. There are almost 700 murders in New York City alone each year. Is this a problem? I would say yes. So why don't we investigate the problems that cause all these murders. Would we be able to cut down on all these murders with tighter gun control policy? Stricter drug laws? Maybe if we reduced poverty, people wouldn't do drugs as much.... The point is, that most kidnappings and murders have a cause, and we should be investigating the causes of the murder epidemic, not finding the most innocent victims we can and publicizing the shit out of it.
I think this is the fundamental problem with "Bowling for Columbines." Michael Moore claims that he wants to find the cause of the high murder rate in the United States. But by focusing on a school shooting, he's absolutely looking in the wrong place. Are school shootings disturbing? You bet. Should we do what we can do stop them? Absolutely. But if we want to find why our murder rate is so high, we should be looking in South Bronx, East Brooklyn, Oakland, Watts and South Side Chicago. These places are where most of the murders happen. Why? I'm not sure. There's probably a lot of drugs involved. How do we stop it? I'm not sure, but we sure ought to think about it.
But there has to be a reason that nobody is interested in covering what we could do to reduce the murder rate in the United States. It seems to me that covering reasons for all the murders in America's slums would make suburbanites feel uncomfortable. They wouldn't want to read the newspaper or watch TV if they felt there were actual fundamental problems causing murder and death in America's streets. It's much more comfortable to cover a phenomena that has no fundamental cause, because nobody's really at fault, except for the wackos who did it. And nobody sympathizes with them anyhow. If we took a careful look at the murder rate, I think we would find that poor people kill each other a lot more. Is there a causal relationship there? Could rich people do something about it? Well, better not to find out and make rich people feel bad.
Update: Eugene Robinson has a good Op/Ed on this in the Washington Post. And my co-workers are talking about it, which just confirms my "uncomfortable suburbanite" thesis.
1) The pretty, white, young, rich, female victim. 'Nuff said.
2) Pushy parents who are always on TV attempting to garner sympathy for their plight. They basically create the news to make sure the story has legs.
3) People are afraid to talk about what's wrong with America, so they cover victims who didn't do anything wrong. The kidnapping or murder of young, rich white women in society is not a problem, but the murder rate in our society is obscenely high. So instead of investigating the cause of all the murders in the United States, they focus on the cases where the usual causes don't apply. There are almost 700 murders in New York City alone each year. Is this a problem? I would say yes. So why don't we investigate the problems that cause all these murders. Would we be able to cut down on all these murders with tighter gun control policy? Stricter drug laws? Maybe if we reduced poverty, people wouldn't do drugs as much.... The point is, that most kidnappings and murders have a cause, and we should be investigating the causes of the murder epidemic, not finding the most innocent victims we can and publicizing the shit out of it.
I think this is the fundamental problem with "Bowling for Columbines." Michael Moore claims that he wants to find the cause of the high murder rate in the United States. But by focusing on a school shooting, he's absolutely looking in the wrong place. Are school shootings disturbing? You bet. Should we do what we can do stop them? Absolutely. But if we want to find why our murder rate is so high, we should be looking in South Bronx, East Brooklyn, Oakland, Watts and South Side Chicago. These places are where most of the murders happen. Why? I'm not sure. There's probably a lot of drugs involved. How do we stop it? I'm not sure, but we sure ought to think about it.
But there has to be a reason that nobody is interested in covering what we could do to reduce the murder rate in the United States. It seems to me that covering reasons for all the murders in America's slums would make suburbanites feel uncomfortable. They wouldn't want to read the newspaper or watch TV if they felt there were actual fundamental problems causing murder and death in America's streets. It's much more comfortable to cover a phenomena that has no fundamental cause, because nobody's really at fault, except for the wackos who did it. And nobody sympathizes with them anyhow. If we took a careful look at the murder rate, I think we would find that poor people kill each other a lot more. Is there a causal relationship there? Could rich people do something about it? Well, better not to find out and make rich people feel bad.
Update: Eugene Robinson has a good Op/Ed on this in the Washington Post. And my co-workers are talking about it, which just confirms my "uncomfortable suburbanite" thesis.
09 Juni 2005
my life is boring...
It's lunch time again, and I don't have anything to do except for update my blog. This is kind of a conundrum, because I have pretty much nothing to update about. Oh, I finished Goedel Escher Bach, but who's interested in hyperintellectual musings about number theory? Just me? OK, moving on (my dad actually called me a beatnik for being interested in this kind of stuff).
In the absence of anything substantive to update about, I have a few philosophical and political musings to fill the time and space. The first philosophical point is on the point of consciousness. A large part of Goedel Escher Bach is devoted to discussing how we might describe our own consciousness, and whether we might be able to replicate this phenomenon in machines. The problem is that by our current science, it is impossible to describe consciousness in terms of the laws of physics and the relations between neurons in our brains. So what the hell is it? It's some kind of epi or meta phenomena that springs forth from the interactions of many smaller groupings and subgroupings of these groupings. The problem is that no matter how much we know about ourselves, it is impossible to describe consciousness itself without the faculties of consciousness. Shit. Infinite regress. But everything is infinitely regressive, like our trust in the scientific method. Once you question stuff like consciousness, then you get tangled up, because there's no way we can discover the meta-rules which govern the rules that govern us. And if we were to do so, there would always be rules above these. So we have to accept consciousness, and try to discover what it is.
One of the interesting questions Hofstadter raises is what happens to consciousness after you die? There's a group of people who want to say that we have some sort of sould which dies or leaves the body. But this is difficult to substantiate. So what really happens? How do concepts (and consciousness) just disappear? What we have here might be the makings of an existential crisis. Of course, to be conscious is in its essence to be confused, so I'm pretty damn conscious.
Political musings... I figure that since I read three to five political blogs and the opinion pages of four newspapers every day, I am well qualified to leave my two cents. I thought the Democrats were looking pretty good this term... the filibuster compromise frustrated the religious right and seemed to kill Frist. The problem is that Janice Rogers Brown is a real wacko (who believes in a law higher than the constitution). And the Senate approved her, so the filibuster compromise doesn't look nearly as good. It's a pretty big deal, but what matters is whether or not the Dems can get the filibuster to hold up on the second Supreme Court nomination. The first one is likely to be Michael McConnell to replace Rehnquist. McConnell is a pretty well respected legal scholar, and he's just replacing Rehnquist, who's really conservative anyhow, so that's a wash.
The other big deal this term has been Social Security. This issue should have major legs for the Dems, since the Repubs' plan is pretty much fiscally moronic. Why do you swallow the medicine now, when you have a huge deficit? It would cause trillions in government borrowing, and might cause interest rates to spike out of hand. The Democrats did a good job killing it, but they haven't been public enough about the fact that they won. They should rub it in... this can really help them out in important states like Florida and Arizona.
Bush's other issue this term seems to be CAFTA. Here's an issue where I actually agree with him. Robert Zoellick had an editorial in the Washington Post basically saying that the benefits are 20 fold greater that the losses. That means with a mere 5% of the gains, we could pay the people whose jobs are outsourced to do absolutely nothing. Three cheers for trade liberalization. And get rid of farm subsidies too.
In the absence of anything substantive to update about, I have a few philosophical and political musings to fill the time and space. The first philosophical point is on the point of consciousness. A large part of Goedel Escher Bach is devoted to discussing how we might describe our own consciousness, and whether we might be able to replicate this phenomenon in machines. The problem is that by our current science, it is impossible to describe consciousness in terms of the laws of physics and the relations between neurons in our brains. So what the hell is it? It's some kind of epi or meta phenomena that springs forth from the interactions of many smaller groupings and subgroupings of these groupings. The problem is that no matter how much we know about ourselves, it is impossible to describe consciousness itself without the faculties of consciousness. Shit. Infinite regress. But everything is infinitely regressive, like our trust in the scientific method. Once you question stuff like consciousness, then you get tangled up, because there's no way we can discover the meta-rules which govern the rules that govern us. And if we were to do so, there would always be rules above these. So we have to accept consciousness, and try to discover what it is.
One of the interesting questions Hofstadter raises is what happens to consciousness after you die? There's a group of people who want to say that we have some sort of sould which dies or leaves the body. But this is difficult to substantiate. So what really happens? How do concepts (and consciousness) just disappear? What we have here might be the makings of an existential crisis. Of course, to be conscious is in its essence to be confused, so I'm pretty damn conscious.
Political musings... I figure that since I read three to five political blogs and the opinion pages of four newspapers every day, I am well qualified to leave my two cents. I thought the Democrats were looking pretty good this term... the filibuster compromise frustrated the religious right and seemed to kill Frist. The problem is that Janice Rogers Brown is a real wacko (who believes in a law higher than the constitution). And the Senate approved her, so the filibuster compromise doesn't look nearly as good. It's a pretty big deal, but what matters is whether or not the Dems can get the filibuster to hold up on the second Supreme Court nomination. The first one is likely to be Michael McConnell to replace Rehnquist. McConnell is a pretty well respected legal scholar, and he's just replacing Rehnquist, who's really conservative anyhow, so that's a wash.
The other big deal this term has been Social Security. This issue should have major legs for the Dems, since the Repubs' plan is pretty much fiscally moronic. Why do you swallow the medicine now, when you have a huge deficit? It would cause trillions in government borrowing, and might cause interest rates to spike out of hand. The Democrats did a good job killing it, but they haven't been public enough about the fact that they won. They should rub it in... this can really help them out in important states like Florida and Arizona.
Bush's other issue this term seems to be CAFTA. Here's an issue where I actually agree with him. Robert Zoellick had an editorial in the Washington Post basically saying that the benefits are 20 fold greater that the losses. That means with a mere 5% of the gains, we could pay the people whose jobs are outsourced to do absolutely nothing. Three cheers for trade liberalization. And get rid of farm subsidies too.
08 Juni 2005
this is my lunch break
My boss gave me a little chore to do, but I'm not really used to working, so it's taking me all day. Too bad for them. Fortunately, it's not nearly as menial as the last chore, which took me all week to put together, and involved repeating one wizard about 1,200 times. This wizard involved 5 screens, so I clicked through 6,000 screens in order to complete the project. Now let us never speak of it again.
OK, so I'm gonna be real Minnesotan for a minute and talk about the weather. It rained when I was biking to work today, so I was all wet. When I walk through the office with my T-shirt all soaked through, really dirty, and pretty much looking like hell, my coworkers give me some funny looks. The environment's pretty conservative here. But I always get the last laugh: after all, I'm 19 years old, I'm skinny, I've got a full head of hair (that's kind of turning into a mop top) and I'm (hopefully) going to be doing something meaningful when I'm their age.
I realize this elitism is a terrible attitude to have. What if my life turns out to be just as meaningless as the people that I'm disparaging now? Well, currently I would consider myself a failure. Strangely, doing something really meaningful is actually beyond my current life goals, which pretty much involve being out of debt sometime before the year 2030. Great.
Interesting article on Slate today about sperm donation. It's hilarious that there's a place called the "masterbatorium."
OK, so I'm gonna be real Minnesotan for a minute and talk about the weather. It rained when I was biking to work today, so I was all wet. When I walk through the office with my T-shirt all soaked through, really dirty, and pretty much looking like hell, my coworkers give me some funny looks. The environment's pretty conservative here. But I always get the last laugh: after all, I'm 19 years old, I'm skinny, I've got a full head of hair (that's kind of turning into a mop top) and I'm (hopefully) going to be doing something meaningful when I'm their age.
I realize this elitism is a terrible attitude to have. What if my life turns out to be just as meaningless as the people that I'm disparaging now? Well, currently I would consider myself a failure. Strangely, doing something really meaningful is actually beyond my current life goals, which pretty much involve being out of debt sometime before the year 2030. Great.
Interesting article on Slate today about sperm donation. It's hilarious that there's a place called the "masterbatorium."
07 Juni 2005
so i'm not working when i should be...
Again, I'm at work, but not working. I just finished my mindless and tedious task, and nobody is here to give me another one. It's a funny thing about work, that once you have something assigned, everything else becomes infinitely more entertaining.
One thing that's always entertaining is finding funny stories on the internet. Like this: http://startribune.com/stories/389/5443033.html I can't believe that story was above the news about GM cutting 25,000 jobs on the Star Tribune website. Oh well, I guess nobody really cares about low skill workers. Road signs in rural municipalities are much more important.
I'm also alleviating my boredom at work by planning ahead for my trip to Europe. I bought event tickets for some cross-country ski races at the Torino (Italy) Olympics in February. This will be part of a grand European adventure over my two month break that might include Seville, London, Paris, Dublin, Prague, Budapest, Vienna, Madrid and Rome. Sheesh, I haven't even started school and I'm already looking forward to a nice little break.
Not much is going on here. I'm going to take a break from doing nothing to do nothing while eating lunch.
One thing that's always entertaining is finding funny stories on the internet. Like this: http://startribune.com/stories/389/5443033.html I can't believe that story was above the news about GM cutting 25,000 jobs on the Star Tribune website. Oh well, I guess nobody really cares about low skill workers. Road signs in rural municipalities are much more important.
I'm also alleviating my boredom at work by planning ahead for my trip to Europe. I bought event tickets for some cross-country ski races at the Torino (Italy) Olympics in February. This will be part of a grand European adventure over my two month break that might include Seville, London, Paris, Dublin, Prague, Budapest, Vienna, Madrid and Rome. Sheesh, I haven't even started school and I'm already looking forward to a nice little break.
Not much is going on here. I'm going to take a break from doing nothing to do nothing while eating lunch.
05 Juni 2005
observations
So the purpose of this blog is to post little observations I have that I think are smart or worthwhile, but aren't quite worth hitting everybody over the head with a mass email. That would pretty much encompass the entire summer, since everybody goes somewhere that's not school in the summer, but not everybody writes mass emails. However, since I'm a fat egoist, I'm going to use the excuse of going abroad in the fall to send occasional messages.
Observation #1: As pretty much everybody who will listen knows, I absolutely hate my job. The only saving grace is that it pays. However, the new twist is that the people in the office are extremely annoying. Particularly this new guy. The problem is that he combines this grating and abrasive type of forced friendliness with a bunch of interests that I find pretty much despicable. Most people at CSS are obsessed with consumerism, consumerism, consumerism and alcohol. All they do is buy things like flat screen TVs, lawn mowers and property. Additionally, they all go to happy hour and get trashed. That's exactly what we need: 40 year olds getting drunk in the middle of the day. I've never needed a buddy to talk politics with more. Kos and Yglesias have become very good friends.
Observation #2: Another puny work related observation. I was going to cut my hair, because it's getting a little shaggy and I want to look pro in the white collar environment. However, I'm going to let it grow, because it's a nice way silently sticking to all the prematurely bald, fat men that roam the office.
Oh, this may seem like minutiae, but I'm almost done with another book. I highly reccommend Goedel Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. It's certainly not for everybody, but if you like philosophy, logic or number theory (woohoo) and want an entertaining read with some really bright ideas, do check it out.
LSAT studying hasn't gone anywhere at all, for those scoring at home.
Observation #1: As pretty much everybody who will listen knows, I absolutely hate my job. The only saving grace is that it pays. However, the new twist is that the people in the office are extremely annoying. Particularly this new guy. The problem is that he combines this grating and abrasive type of forced friendliness with a bunch of interests that I find pretty much despicable. Most people at CSS are obsessed with consumerism, consumerism, consumerism and alcohol. All they do is buy things like flat screen TVs, lawn mowers and property. Additionally, they all go to happy hour and get trashed. That's exactly what we need: 40 year olds getting drunk in the middle of the day. I've never needed a buddy to talk politics with more. Kos and Yglesias have become very good friends.
Observation #2: Another puny work related observation. I was going to cut my hair, because it's getting a little shaggy and I want to look pro in the white collar environment. However, I'm going to let it grow, because it's a nice way silently sticking to all the prematurely bald, fat men that roam the office.
Oh, this may seem like minutiae, but I'm almost done with another book. I highly reccommend Goedel Escher Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. It's certainly not for everybody, but if you like philosophy, logic or number theory (woohoo) and want an entertaining read with some really bright ideas, do check it out.
LSAT studying hasn't gone anywhere at all, for those scoring at home.
03 Juni 2005
intro
So I have a blog now. Don't look here for anything passive aggressive though. This will just be a place for me to post little observations, witticisms and other such nuggets that I don't feel important enough for a mass email. Oh, and I'll also be posting photos occasionally, now that I have a digital camera.
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)