Your Analytic Analeptic

Legalize it

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Thu, 09 Apr 2015 04:00:00 +0000

The following was written by a good friend of mine some time ago for this very blog. I finally publish it here for your enjoyment and edification.

Gallup reports that, for the first time, a majority of Americans support legalizing marijuana.

Good.

My first encounters with pot came in high school. They consisted of furtive moments with joint or soda can pipe in hand and always with a friend and sometimes with people I didn't even know. I think I've always had a problem with anxiety, so I didn't much care for the social aspect of getting high, because being around other people when I was high made me paranoid. I couldn't really relax, and that was a serious problem, because that pot was being wasted on me.

I didn't really discover the joys of smoking pot until graduate school. How did I get my pot? I don't recall. But now I was buying it myself, in bags that would last two or three weeks. I would go to classes during the day and get high at night, by myself, and listen to music, mostly shoegaze, as I recall. My favorite album is still probably My Bloody Valentine's Loveless, which sounds incredible sober, but sounds indescribably divine high.

I had already learned that pot could enhance the listening experience. As an undergraduate, I loved listening to The Cure high, Pornography in particular, and especially "The Figurehead" and "A Strange Day." I loved Robert Smith's voice at the time. It was probably all that reverb:

But as a graduate student, I shared an apartment with a person who would leave me alone, and I was under no obligation to share my pot or socialize while I consumed it. I admit that it may not have been exactly healthy to get as stoned out of my mind as I could almost every night for three weeks at a time, but I wasn't responsible for anyone but myself, and it was hardly like snorting coke or shooting heroin or smoking meth. (Not that I've done any of those things. I'm not stupid.) I would wake up the next morning feeling a bit out of it but more or less good as new. And I could enjoy listening to my music to a degree that hadn't been possible before.

Once I had earned my worthless Masters degree, it was on to a different institution to work on my Ph.D. When I wasn't drowning my anxiety in Old Style, I was sometimes fortunate enough to have access to pot and another apartment with friends and tenants who would leave me alone. I can't tell you how many times I listened to Philip Glass's Koyaanisqatsi high.

And there was the slowcore masterpiece from which this song came:

When I got a real job and was no longer around friends with connections, I stopped smoking pot altogether. The drug laws in this country are so insanely draconian, I simply couldn't risk getting arrested. The stakes are even higher now that I have a daughter. I haven't smoked pot in well over a decade. In fact, I have been deterred from using it for so long that I don't know if I could bring myself to use legal recreational pot. Which brings me to the point of this post.

Legalize it. Just do it, already.

Do you know who argued that we should legalize marijuana? Carl fucking Sagan, that's who. And he's a lot smarter than either you or me. Here's what he had to say about pot and music:

A very similar improvement in my appreciation of music has occurred with cannabis. For the first time I have been able to hear the separate parts of a three-part harmony and the richness of the counterpoint. I have since discovered that professional musicians can quite easily keep many separate parts going simultaneously in their heads, but this was the first time for me.

That's the thing with pot. I have little doubt that almost everyone who smokes it has no interest in violence or wrongdoing. They really only want to experience the high and experience life while high. That's it. They simply want to enjoy themselves. Is that so wrong? People out there who want to deny this experience to others remind me of puritans who H.L. Mencken defined as harboring "the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

I am sure that some people worry that stoners are a danger to those around them. But I don't think they are. Sagan's comments on this point agree with my own experience:

In the cannabis experience there is a part of your mind that remains a dispassionate observer, who is able to take you down in a hurry if need be. I have on a few occasions been forced to drive in heavy traffic when high. I’ve negotiated it with no difficulty at all, though I did have some thoughts about the marvelous cherry-red color of traffic lights. I find that after the drive I’m not high at all. ... If you’re high and your child is calling, you can respond about as capably as you usually do. I don’t advocate driving when high on cannabis, but I can tell you from personal experience that it certainly can be done. My high is always reflective, peaceable, intellectually exciting, and sociable, unlike most alcohol highs, and there is never a hangover.

I myself would not smoke pot when I'm responsible for caring for my daughter. But I believe that Sagan is telling the truth about his own experience and I have my own anecdotal evidence that his experience is typical. It's certainly different than my experience with alcohol. Consuming alcohol was enjoyable on occasion. But when I wasn't careful (which was usually the case), I became a tear-soaked depressive or an inappropriately friendly annoyance who really wanted to make someone his special lady. Then, of course, was the occasional blackout, the nausea, the excruciating hangover, the embarrassment, the self-loathing, the absurd talking to God. I would waste an entire day trying to recover. The best part, of course, was that it was all perfectly legal!

When the opportunity arises, I will tell anyone who will listen, "Alcohol is overrated." Because it is. Marijuana is not, I assure you. Frank Zappa did not enjoy marijuana. "It gave me a sore throat and made me sleepy," he wrote. "I couldn't understand why people liked it so much." But I believe that his experience was atypical. Pot has not only recreational value but also great potential in medicine. Add to this the fact that marijuana prohibition has its roots in racist economic fear-mongering against Mexicans in the 1930's. Americans have known since the mid-1940's that the alleged dangers of marijuana use were oversold. Indeed, marijuana has been extensively researched and it can be relatively safe for adults to use in moderation if it is used responsibly.

Now that David Brooks has weighed in on legalization, many of us are finding out that one important function of criminalizing marijuana is to remove as many African-Americans from the streets as possible. Whites and blacks use marijuana at roughly equal rates, but blacks are almost four times as likely to be arrested for possession. Rather than harassing African-Americans, shouldn't the law treat them ... equally?

Even setting aside all of these arguments for legalization, there is an additional argument for the legalization of pot, perhaps the strongest: people have a right to lead their lives as they see fit and in accordance with their own values, so long as in doing so, the rights of others are not violated. I can't see how the use of pot that I have described violates this principle.

So legalize it.

Well, one's a black Democrat, and the other's a white Republican.

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Wed, 22 Jan 2014 04:46:00 +0000

I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist raised communist educated communist nurtured subhuman mongrel like the ACORN community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America. —Ted Nugent, 17 January 2014

I'll tell you this right now: If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will either be dead or in jail by this time next year. ... It isn't the enemy that ruined America. It's good people who bent over and let the enemy in. If the coyote's in your living room, pissing on your couch, it's not the coyote's fault. It's your fault for not shooting him. ... Remember, we're Americans because we defied the king. We didn't negotiate and compromise with the king. We defied the emperors. We are patriots. We are Braveheart. We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November. —Ted Nugent, 14 April 2012

Obama, he's a piece of shit. I told him to suck on my machine gun. Hey Hillary, you might want to ride one of these into the sunset, you worthless bitch. —Ted Nugent, 21 August 2007

We've disagreed with a lot of administrations in the past, but none of our rhetoric included threatening lives. [Members of Rage Against the Machine] are over the top, but they're the lunatic fringe that even your average democrat and liberal doesn't agree with. But unfortunately, nobody is silencing these guys — or not necessarily silencing, but condemning this outrageous violence that they're recommending. —Ted Nugent, 2 May 2007

Fuck Mordor

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Wed, 25 Dec 2013 04:41:00 +0000

Photo credit: Jamison Wieser

So here's Erick Erickson comparing liberals to "the evil bands of Mordor." Erickson writes,

Some PR representative who should have known better joked on twitter that she was going to Africa and would not have to worry about getting AIDS because she was white. Prior to this, in her twitter timeline, she had railed against the actor Kirk Cameron because he dared express his Christian beliefs.

The PR representative is Justine Sacco. Unfortunately for her,

the orcs of the left consumed one of their own. By the time the PR lady got to Africa, she was without a job and her reputation destroyed by her own side.

Erickson seems to indicate in his reaction to this matter that he places a premium on loyalty:

It was a rather disgusting thing to watch the pretentious hipsters on twitter destroy a career over a tweet claiming she should have known better. Yes, she should have, but should we not also show some grace? Mordor never does.

Yeah. Fuck Mordor, right, Erick? If only people like Greta van Susteren and Megyn Kelly had shown a bit more loyalty to you when you told them that they shouldn't be breadwinners, then everything would be fine, I gather.

Check out this orc, consuming one of his own, David Frum. As the Navy Yard shooting was in progress,

Frum started up with anti-gun nonsense. As a shooter roamed the Navy Yard, a relatively secure facility, and as people who worked there were dead or dying or bleeding, David Frum became a twitter stream about gun control — comparing America to third world countries.

That orc, also named "Erick Erickson," recommends that people "grow the hell up. ... You too David Frum." What an asshole!

Erick is right. What we need is some grace. But there's this bad-ass orc out there who means business. Erick tells us, "if you flip to the end of the Bible we know that when Jesus 'Mr. Love' Christ comes back, he’s going to be loving with a sword in his hand, sending a whole host of souls into hell fire." (Never mind that this savior orc never said a word about homosexuals.) That's harsh, innit? An eternity in hell fire for part of a human lifetime spent in loving companionship with someone of the same sex? What an asshole!

Fuck Mordor indeed!

The Finger

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 05:54:00 +0000

I know that Jennifer Lawrence doesn't need yet another person out there singing her praises. And I know that this image is almost a year old. (It is from the Academy Awards last February.) But this has got to be my favorite image from 2013. Oh, and I should mention that she's an incredible actor and I will somehow find the time to watch every movie she's ever been in. Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

A Puzzle for "Pro-lifers"

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Thu, 19 Dec 2013 04:21:00 +0000

Something occurred to me the other night when I should have been in bed.

The stereotypical Republican is anti-abortion but endorses the NRA's interpretation the 2nd Amendment, according to which any infringement on an individual's right to bear arms is unconstitutional. Why does this seem problematic to people like me? Well, how pro-life can you be when you're against any moderate measures to stem gun violence, and in particular the mass murder of children like we saw in Newtown? When I say "moderate measures," I mean universal background checks, a limit on magazine capacity, a ban on weapons that fire rounds at a certain especially lethal velocity, and increased funding for mental health. I don't want to take away all the guns, because our need to protect ourselves must be balanced against the right to bear arms, which is an important right.

The answer, it seems to me, is "not very pro-life." Anti-abortion activists are willing to allow abortions only in very few cases, and some of them aren't willing to allow any abortions at all. Now, if we assume that there is a conflict in the case of abortion between the right to bodily integrity and the right to life, the right to bodily integrity is usually or always overridden by the pro-lifer for fear that a person who can exercise it will abort a fetus and take a life. Analogously, however, if we assume that there is a conflict between the right to bear arms and the right to life, shouldn't the right to bear arms also be overridden usually or always, for fear that a person who can exercise it will kill a child and take a life?

Some people argue that there is no conflict here, because the best way to stem gun violence is to arm as many "good guys" as possible. There is surely a kernel of truth in this. (Though you have to wonder how effective the good guy can be when the bad guy is wearing body armor.) Notice, however, that the moderate measures I advocate would not deprive the good guys of their firearms. Well, not all of their firearms, anyway. What it would do is cut into the profits of corporations that are making a killing off of their killing machines. And that's what's really behind Congress's inability to act in the wake of Newtown. The corporations are running the show. Fortunately for you, pro-life gun lover, your interests and the interests of the corporations making your firearms just happen to agree. But for how long, I wonder?

Money must serve, not rule

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Sun, 15 Dec 2013 05:19:00 +0000

I never thought I would ever quote a pope or find my views in near-perfect harmony with his. What follows is from Francis's first important papal text, which you can find here.

I. Some challenges of today’s world

52. In our time humanity is experiencing a turning-point in its history, as we can see from the advances being made in so many fields. We can only praise the steps being taken to improve people’s welfare in areas such as health care, education and communications. At the same time we have to remember that the majority of our contemporaries are barely living from day to day, with dire consequences. A number of diseases are spreading. The hearts of many people are gripped by fear and desperation, even in the so-called rich countries. The joy of living frequently fades, lack of respect for others and violence are on the rise, and inequality is increasingly evident. It is a struggle to live and, often, to live with precious little dignity. This epochal change has been set in motion by the enormous qualitative, quantitative, rapid and cumulative advances occuring in the sciences and in technology, and by their instant application in different areas of nature and of life. We are in an age of knowledge and information, which has led to new and often anonymous kinds of power.

No to an economy of exclusion

53. Just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

Human beings are themselves considered consumer goods to be used and then discarded. We have created a “throw away” culture which is now spreading. It is no longer simply about exploitation and oppression, but something new. Exclusion ultimately has to do with what it means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s underside or its fringes or its disenfranchised – they are no longer even a part of it. The excluded are not the “exploited” but the outcast, the “leftovers”.

54. In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed. Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase. In the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

No to the new idolatry of money

55. One cause of this situation is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

56. While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

No to a financial system which rules rather than serves

57. Behind this attitude lurks a rejection of ethics and a rejection of God. Ethics has come to be viewed with a certain scornful derision. It is seen as counterproductive, too human, because it makes money and power relative. It is felt to be a threat, since it condemns the manipulation and debasement of the person. In effect, ethics leads to a God who calls for a committed response which is outside the categories of the marketplace. When these latter are absolutized, God can only be seen as uncontrollable, unmanageable, even dangerous, since he calls human beings to their full realization and to freedom from all forms of enslavement. Ethics – a non-ideological ethics – would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: “Not to share one’s wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs”.

58. A financial reform open to such ethical considerations would require a vigorous change of approach on the part of political leaders. I urge them to face this challenge with determination and an eye to the future, while not ignoring, of course, the specifics of each case. Money must serve, not rule! The Pope loves everyone, rich and poor alike, but he is obliged in the name of Christ to remind all that the rich must help, respect and promote the poor. I exhort you to generous solidarity and to the return of economics and finance to an ethical approach which favours human beings.

No to the inequality which spawns violence

59. Today in many places we hear a call for greater security. But until exclusion and inequality in society and between peoples are reversed, it will be impossible to eliminate violence. The poor and the poorer peoples are accused of violence, yet without equal opportunities the different forms of aggression and conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society – whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee tranquility. This is not the case simply because inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the socioeconomic system is unjust at its root. Just as goodness tends to spread, the toleration of evil, which is injustice, tends to expand its baneful influence and quietly to undermine any political and social system, no matter how solid it may appear. If every action has its consequences, an evil embedded in the structures of a society has a constant potential for disintegration and death. It is evil crystallized in unjust social structures, which cannot be the basis of hope for a better future. We are far from the so-called “end of history”, since the conditions for a sustainable and peaceful development have not yet been adequately articulated and realized.

60. Today’s economic mechanisms promote inordinate consumption, yet it is evident that unbridled consumerism combined with inequality proves doubly damaging to the social fabric. Inequality eventually engenders a violence which recourse to arms cannot and never will be able to resolve. It serves only to offer false hopes to those clamouring for heightened security, even though nowadays we know that weapons and violence, rather than providing solutions, create new and more serious conflicts. Some simply content themselves with blaming the poor and the poorer countries themselves for their troubles; indulging in unwarranted generalizations, they claim that the solution is an “education” that would tranquilize them, making them tame and harmless. All this becomes even more exasperating for the marginalized in the light of the widespread and deeply rooted corruption found in many countries – in their governments, businesses and institutions – whatever the political ideology of their leaders.

"These are mountain people."

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Thu, 01 Aug 2013 02:54:00 +0000

So I just got back from a wedding in eastern Tennessee, just a few miles south of the Virginia border. My father-in-law had lived there for five years or so, and when he described the area for us as he drove us around, he often condescendingly said of the locals, "These are mountain people." The bride, my sister-in-law, was marrying one of those mountain people, a very nice and responsible man, and she asked me to create a playlist of '80's music for the reception.

Not long after the festivities began, it became clear that there had been a slight change of plans, as a large South Pacific islander from New Zealand (if I heard correctly) took the stage with his wife, several microphones, and a computer-assisted karaoke machine and sang "Can't Help Falling In Love" to the dancing couple. I love Elvis's version of the song, and I had suggested it to them for their first dance and brought it with me on my iPod. He also sang something by f-ing Engelbert Humperdinck. Anyway, we spent most of our time playing suicide karaoke. I gave my wife an assist on The Talking Heads's "Burning Down the House." And because my wife hates it so much, my sister-in-law wanted me to sing "Achy Breaky Heart" to her, and I gleefully did. (One of my brothers-in-law told me afterwards, "You're family, so I feel I can be honest with you: you're not a good singer, but you're one hell of a showman.") I got to try my first moonshine, and it was incredible. It tasted like apples and cinnamon and burned all the way down. My father-in-law complained that, at 40 proof, it was weak, but I liked it.

I think everyone had a good time, in spite of the two teen-aged girls in attendance who insisted on singing a few contemporary dirges like Rihanna's "Stay." And so did I, in spite of the fact that my playlist wasn't used, even though I had spent many hours and a significant amount of coin to put it on the iPod for everyone's amusement. Perhaps it was the sight of my 18-month-old daughter on the dance floor.

So here it is: my playlist for an '80's-themed wedding reception:

George Michael, "Faith"
Duran Duran, "Hungry Like the Wolf"
Bangles, "Walk Like an Egyptian"
Depeche Mode, "Just Can't Get Enough"
Dead or Alive, "You Spin Me Round (Like a Record)
Paula Abdul, "Straight Up"
Dexys Midnight Runners, "Come On Eileen"
Peter Gabriel, "In Your Eyes"
Whitney Houston, "So Emotional"
Thomas Dolby, "She Blinded Me with Science"
Billy Ocean, "Get Out of My Dreams, Get Into My Car"
The Human League, "Don't You Want Me"
Belinda Carlisle, "Heaven is a Place on Earth"
Micheal Jackson, "Beat It"
Bon Jovi, "Livin' On a Prayer"
Heart, "Alone"
Devo, "Whip It"
MC Hammer, "U Can't Touch This"
a-ha, "Take On Me"
Fine Young Cannibals, "She Drives Me Crazy"
Bruce Springsteen, "Dancing in the Dark"
Guns n' Roses, "Sweet Child O' Mine"
Van Halen, "Jump"
Men without Hats, "The Safety Dance"
Def Leppard, "Pour Some Sugar On Me"
The Power Station, "Get It On (Bang a Gong)"
Soft Cell, "Tainted Love"
Phil Collins, "Two Hearts"
Cyndi Lauper, "Girls Just Want to Have Fun"
Simple Minds, "Don't You (Forget about Me)"
Yello, "Oh Yeah"
Janet Jackson, "When I Think of You"
David Bowie, "Modern Love"
New Order, "Blue Monday"
Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"
INXS, "New Sensation"
Prince, "1999"
Robert Palmer, "Addicted to Love"
Adam Ant, "Goody Two Shoes"
Eurythmics, "Missionary Man"
The B-52's, "Private Idaho"
Talking Heads, "Wild Life"
Aerosmith, "Angel"
Big Country, "In a Big Country"
A Flock of Seagulls, "I Ran"
The Cure, "Just Like Heaven"
Scritti Politti, "Perfect Way"
The Police, "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic"
Talk Talk, "It's My Life"
Frankie Goes to Hollywood, "Two Tribes"
Howard Jones, "Things Can Only Get Better"
The Psychedelic Furs, "Love My Way"
Paul Simon, "You Can Call Me Al"
ABC, "The Look of Love (Part One)"
Oingo Boingo, "Weird Science"
Wang Chung, "Dance Hall Days"
Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark, "So In Love"
Madonna, "Into the Groove"
Billy Idol, "Dancing with Myself"
The Buggles, "Video Killed the Radio Star"
Vanilla Ice, "Ice Ice Baby"
The The, "Infected"
Electric Light Orchestra, "Hold On Tight"
The Smithereens, "A Girl Like You"
Gary Numan, "Cars"
The Fixx, "One Thing Leads to Another"
Adam and the Ants, "Stand and Deliver"
XTC, "The Mayor of Simpleton"
Tom Tom Club, "Genius of Love"
The English Beat, "I Confess"
Bryan Ferry, "Kiss & Tell"
Roxy Music, "More than This"
Golden Earring, "Twilight Zone"
The Vapors "Turning Japanese"
Asia, "Heat of the Moment"
Daryl Hall and John Oates, "Private Eyes"
Rush, "Time Stand Still"
Wire, "Ahead"
The Smiths, "How Soon Is Now?"

Maddow blogger shovels it

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Sun, 23 Jun 2013 05:10:00 +0000

I really like Rachel Maddow. But even her bloggers can shovel it once in a while. Here's an example.

Steve Benen criticizes Republicans for complaining about the length of some pieces of legislation. You might remember when the Affordable Care Act was going through Congress and Republicans were complaining that the bill was so long that no one really knew what was in it. And you might remember a picture I borrowed and published of that zany congressman from Iowa, Steve King, carrying a copy of it on his shoulder.

Benen writes, "When opponents of a bill are reduced to talking about the literal, physical size of the legislation, they've completely given up on the pretense that public policy matters. If opponents of immigration reform want to debate the merits of the proposal, great. But focusing on pages and pounds is the absolute worst form of debate."

Benen makes some good points. He says that we live in a complex world, so legislation will also be complex, and it is the job of those in Congress to read, understand, and evaluate it. In addition, the format of legislation makes it look significantly longer than it actually is. "For example, if the immigration bill is about 1,075 pages, in terms of the number of words, it's about half the length of Sarah Palin's first book," writes Benen.

Benen goes wrong, however, in his penultimate paragraph. He writes, "So why does this talk persist? I think it speaks to the post-policy anti-intellectualism that too often plays a role in conservative commentary. Big bills must be bad bills because they're, you know, big."

That, I think, is unfair. The greater the length and complexity of a bill, the more time is needed to read, understand, and evaluate it. Now, Republican complaints about the Affordable Care Act were pure bullshit. They had plenty of time to study that bill. But I can imagine cases in which the length and complexity of a bill could be a legitimate concern, and certainly there have been actual cases in which it has been. The USA PATRIOT Act, for example, became law a mere one and a half months after 9/11, and it's 132 pages, single-spaced. Could our elected officials think clearly about that bill, while Attorney General John Ashcroft is warning them "that further terrorist acts were imminent, and that Congress could be to blame for such attacks if it failed to pass the bill immediately"? I doubt it.

But Benen seems to think that there are no good reasons for concern over the length of a bill. Well, I think he's shoveling it.

McConnell is whining

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Sun, 23 Jun 2013 04:30:00 +0000

Here's something from Media Matters that I found especially interesting.

(Now before I start, I should say that I am well aware that Media Matters has its critics. Some people think that Media Matters should not have tax-exempt status. That has no relevance to the accuracy of its reporting, however. Since Media Matters targets only the conservative media, others consider them biased and therefore don't respect their research. But the fact that Media Matters targets only conservative media does not show that their research isn't worthy of respect. This blog focuses on the conservative media, but I have what I take to be very good criticisms of my targets and they must be judged on their own merits.)

Oliver Willis quotes Sen. Mitch McConnell's speech at the American Enterprise Institute yesterday as follows:

Last June I stood here and warned of a grave and growing threat to the First Amendment. That threat has not let up at all. Our ability to freely engage in civic life and organize in defense of our beliefs is still under coordinated assault from groups on the left that don't like the idea of anyone criticizing their aims. And from a White House that appears determined to shut up anybody who disagrees with it. Now on the outside there is a well-documented effort by a number of left wing groups like Media Matters to harass and to intimidate conservatives with the goal of scaring them off the political playing field and off the airwaves as well. An internal Media Matters memo from January 2010 showed the extent to which these tactics have been turned, literally, into a science. In it, we learned of the group's plan to conduct opposition research into the lives of on-air news personalities and other key decision makers over at Fox News. And to coordinate with 100 or so partner groups to pressure the network's advertisers and shareholders to, get this, by the threat of actual boycotts, rallies, demonstrations, shame, embarrassment and other tactics on a variety of issues important to the progressive agenda.

Willis writes that, in response to McConnell, Media Matters president Bradley Beychok said, "Mitch McConnell seems to be implying there is something underhanded or sinister about what Media Matters does. That is not the case. We monitor and correct conservative misinformation in the media." I have been reading Media Matters long enough to know that Beychok's assertion is generally true. And that, by the way, is good enough: absolute perfection in the pursuit of one's goal is too much to ask.

Let's think carefully about what McConnell said, granting, at least for the sake of argument, that Media Matters' mission is exactly what Beychok says it is.

McConnell complains that organizations like Media Matters are trying to "harass and intimidate conservatives" with the intention of "scaring them off the political playing field." How are they doing this? By using "boycotts, rallies, demonstrations, shame, [and] embarrassment" to apply pressure to Fox News advertisers and shareholders. Why? Because they disapprove of criticism of their liberal agenda. At stake is the freedom of conservatives to "engage in civic life and organize in defense of [their] beliefs."

Now, think about that, and ask yourself, what really is wrong with any of this? I know for a fact that there is much misinformation in the conservative media. Correcting it does not necessarily imply or require a political agenda. None of my criticisms of Lori Ziganto's anti-abortion posts, for example, took issue with her position; rather, I criticized her bad arguments and misinformation in support of her position. But suppose that Media Matters has a political agenda. Again, what is wrong with this? Fox News has a political agenda. Mitch McConnell has a political agenda. Shouldn't conservatives disapprove of criticism of their agenda? Why wouldn't they? Would there be anything wrong with conservatives using boycotts, rallies, demonstrations, and so on, to apply pressure to, say, MSNBC advertisers and shareholders? No. No activity McConnell mentions is against the law. And freedom of speech does not protect anyone from having to confront those who disagree with them. Rather, the "grave and growing threat to the First Amendment" is represented by those like McConnell who believe that they have a right not to be challenged in the marketplace of ideas. Seriously, who is a bigger threat to the First Amendment: those who protest against Fox News, or those who have a problem with such protests? And McConnell's claim that conservatives' freedoms are endangered is ludicrous. Conservatives have all the freedoms everyone else has. But conservatives also have to face the consequences of exercising those freedoms, just like everyone else. If you want to broadcast the crazy shit one is apt to find on Fox News, people are going to get upset. And by the way, isn't that what you're counting on? You want your own people to get upset so that they'll write those checks, right?

What's really going on here is that McConnell is whining. Never have I heard as much whining and moaning from Republicans as I've heard since Obama was elected in 2008. They complain about NPR because NPR refuses to lean to the right and consequently they want to defund the CPB. (You might think that NPR has a liberal bias. I listen to NPR every day, and I can tell you that you are wrong.) Broadcasting should be privately funded, they surely believe, especially tea party types. Well, if Fox News has to compete in the marketplace with everyone else, then they will have to put up with consumers, some of whom are well organized, who don't like them.

Now, you might say that my reasoning is good, but the assumption that I began with is false: Media Matters' mission is not what Beychok says it is, but is in fact some other sinister thing. My challenge to you is this: show me that you're right. Show me your evidence. Make a case for your point of view. I am open-minded enough to consider good arguments, and I have in the past gone where the evidence has taken me and changed my mind. (Once, I thought that the death penalty is morally justified. How wrong I was about that!)

Here's what shuffle play spat out at me

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 04:07:00 +0000

So a friend of mine published an iTunes shuffle play playlist on Facebook the other day. I told him that I couldn't publish a similar list because I have too many guilty pleasures on my iPod. He said that if I like a song, I have no reason to feel guilty about it. He may be right. So I thought about publishing a shuffle play playlist here, and here it is.

It's not very interesting. I like progressive rock, alternative or college rock, and classic rock most. And that's what's on the list. And no guilty pleasures, so publishing this was easy.

Oceansize, "Remember Where You Are," Effloresce
Simon & Garfunkel, "The Times They Are A-Changin'," Wednesday Morning, 3am
Astra, "Quake Meat," The Black Chord
Coldplay, "Viva La Vida," Viva La Vida or Death and All His Friends
Mr. Bungle, "Retrovertigo," California
Death Cab for Cutie, "Company Calls," We Have the Facts and We're Voting Yes
Moby, "Inside," Play
The Left Banke, "Lazy Day," There's Gonna Be a Storm
Bjork, "Isobel," Post
Foo Fighters, "Everlong," The Colour and the Shape
Pink Floyd, "Sysyphus: Part Three," Ummagumma
Tom Petty, "Time to Move On," Wildflowers
A Perfect Circle, "Lullaby," Thirteenth Step
The Chameleons UK, "John, I'm Only Dancing," Strange Times
Ultra Vivid Scene, "Medicating Angels," Rev
Electric Light Orchestra, "Everyone's Born to Die," On the Third Day
Daniel Amos, "It's Sick," Vox Humana
Sonic Youth, "Shadow of a Doubt," Evol
Frank Zappa, "The Man from Utopia Meets Mary Lou," The Man from Utopia
De La Soul, "Eye Know," 3 Feet High and Rising
The Wolfgang Press, "Question of Time," Queer
Dead Kennedys, "I Am the Owl," Plastic Surgery Disasters
Rush, "Limelight," Different Stages
The Pains of Being Pure at Heart, "Heart In Your Heartbreak," Belong
Stan Ridgway, "Drive She Said," The Big Heat
Thinking Fellers Union Local 242, "Cup of Dreams," Strangers from the Universe
Andy Partridge, "The Tiny Circus of Life," Fuzzy Warbles Vol. 6
Peter Schilling, "Fast Alles Konstruiert," Fehler Im System
Interpol, "Wrecking Ball," Our Love to Admire
Killing Joke, "Wintergardens," Brighter than a Thousand Suns
Todd Rundgren, "Word Made Flesh 1.0," No World Order
This Moral Coil, "Loose Joints," Blood
Fleetwood Mac, "Hypnotized," Mystery to Me
Mew, "Reprise," No More Stories Are Told Today...
Electric Light Orchestra, "Letter from Spain," Secret Messages
Ben Folds Five, "Steven's Last Night In Town," Whatever And Ever Amen
Thomas Dolby, "Dissidents," The Flat Earth
The Futureheads, "Skip to the End," News and Tributes
The Cure, "Bananafishbones," The Top
Elbow, "The Fix," The Seldom Seen Kid
The Smiths, "The Boy with the Thorn in His Side," The Queen is Dead
Chevelle, "Closure," Wonder What's Next
The Cure, "I'm Cold," Join the Dots
Ride, "Here and Now," Nowhere
Big Country, "Wonderland," The Crossing
The JV Allstars, "Today's Going to Be a Long Tomorrow," Take Me Back to Spectre
Sigur Ros, "Avalon," Agaetis Byrjun
Cheap Trick, "Oh, Candy," Cheap Trick
The Cure, "Jumping Someone Else's Train," Boys Don't Cry
The Cure, "The Baby Screams," The Head on the Door

The Fine Art of Bullshitting 5: Please do not be mesmerized by this woman.

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 00:57:00 +0000

I am immediately skeptical of anything I hear or read that comes from a conservative news source. Why? Allow me to present an example.

I saw a link to this on my Facebook news feed. (By the way, I'm not sure why so many of the suggested posts I see in my news feed are for conservative Facebook pages. Zuckerberg knows me better than that. He must be trying to sell me something.) According to the author, Kristin Tate,

It must get exhausting constantly dancing around the numerous scandals currently engulfing the White House. President Obama needs a vacation!

The president and his family are taking a vaca to Africa later this month. It’ll only cost us taxpayers $60 to $100 million — gotta love how frugal those Obamas are!

Most of that taxpayer money for the trip will go to security for the President and his family. Hundreds of US Secret Service agents will be joining the family in Senegal, South Africa, and Tanzania during their extended trip. A Navy aircraft carrier or amphibious ship, fully staffed with a medical trauma center, will also be stationed off shore. Ya know, just in case of an emergency!

Also on the receipt: military cargo planes, lifting 56 support vehicles into the air. This includes 14 limousines (gotta travel in style!) and trucks fully packed with sheets of bullet proof glass, to cover windows of the first family’s hotels.

Fighter jets will be flying in shifts giving the family 24-hour security. From airspace, they will be able to intervene if a threatening plane gets too close.

Where did Tate get all of this information? Tate writes,

The Washington Post obtained a confidential internal planning document, that outlines the incredible security provisions.

Really? So I did a few simple searches at Google and The Washington Post and found the story here. Could Tate have failed to mention any pertinent information, I wonder? Why, yes, I believe she did! According to the Washington Post,

The elaborate security provisions — which will cost the government tens of millions of dollars — are outlined in a confidential internal planning document obtained by The Washington Post. While the preparations appear to be in line with similar travels in the past, the document offers an unusual glimpse into the colossal efforts to protect the U.S. commander in chief on trips abroad.

So the measures are like those taken to protect previous presidents. Go on.

The first family is making back-to-back stops from June 26 to July 3 in three countries where U.S. officials are providing nearly all the resources, rather than depending heavily on local police forces, military authorities or hospitals for assistance.

Really? And why wouldn't they depend on the locals for the necessary resources?

“Even in the most developed places of Western Europe, the level of support you need for mass movements by the president is really extraordinary,” said Steve Atkiss, who coordinated travel as special assistant for operations to Bush. “As you go farther afield, to less-developed places, certainly it’s more of a logistical challenge.”

Because the locals are not able to provide them. I see. How could the need to vacation justify this great expense, though?

White House officials said the trip was long overdue, marking Obama’s first visit as president to sub-Saharan Africa aside from a 22-hour stopover in Ghana in 2009. The emerging democracies on the itinerary are crucial partners in regional security conflicts, Rhodes said.

Obama will hold bilateral meetings with each country’s leader and seek to forge stronger economic ties at a time when China is investing heavily in Africa. He also will highlight global health programs, including HIV/AIDS prevention.

The first lady, who toured South Africa and Botswana without the president in 2011, will headline some events on her own during the week. The stops will add to the logistical challenges, because she will require her own security detail and vehicles, the planning document shows.

So the first family is not going on vacation? They're actually working during this trip? But Kristin Tate told me that it was a vacation! You mean I can't believe everything Kristin Tate tells me?

Still, what about that safari the first family had planned during this trip? That doesn't sound like work to me!

Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush also made trips to multiple African nations involving similarly laborious preparations. Bush went in 2003 and 2008, bringing his wife on both occasions. Bush’s two daughters went along on the first trip, which included a safari at a game preserve on the Botswana-South Africa border.

You mean W. and the family went on a safari in Africa, just like the Obamas had originally planned? Well, good for them, I suppose.

So, here's what we have. The first family is not going on a vacation. Rather, in an effort to promote the United States' security and economic interests, the first family is going on a diplomatic mission to Africa. Since the host countries cannot themselves provide the resources needed for the trip, the president will bring them with him, and this contributes to the trip's relatively high price tag.

Discovering the true story was easy. All it took was a few searches and some light reading. Yet I'm confident that the fine folks who commented on the story couldn't be bothered to do the slightest bit of research, as the following sampling shows:

Janice Simpson
It would be worth it if they only receive one-way tickets, then lock and bar the doors!

Kim Triesler · Madison, Alabama
Sounds like they're life style is "Let 'em eat cake!" while the economy is on the skids, unemployment is still way too high (I should know, I'm in that rut myself and it sucks!), and yet they go out and about like they haven't a care in the world.

Dan A. Zembsch · Washington High School, Cherokee, IA
Come on folks he just wants to take his family to his native country. Maybe he wants to show them where he was born and where the next presidential library will be.

Eric Kessen · North texas horseshoeing institute
I find it totally disgusting the way they are abusing their positions to get free stuff ! This shouldn't be allowed period ! Besides ; why all that security when all they got to do is go native since they would blend in so well with the locals and according to him guns don't keep us safe ? Lol .

Walter Sterling · Account Executive at Country Legends Radio
Can't he just stay with his brother in his shack or his family hut that he grew up in?

Jack Eaton · Top Commenter · Truck Driver at Old Dominion Freight Line
Let him go visit his homeland on his own money. He has swindled enough out of us already.

The problem for conservative news sources, however, is that even independents will eventually learn that they are being deceived by the bullshitters, and will no longer trust them. That's one reason why conservatives aren't doing so well in elections for national political office. More and more, the only people who believe what conservative bullshitters tell them are conservative voters, i.e., the people who were going to vote for Republicans anyway. They can thank motivated skepticism for that, along with a bit of racism, I think. (Our former, whiter presidents stayed in hotels and traveled in limousines. This uppity one should stay in a shack and take taxis, I suppose.)

Kristin Tate's most conspicuous redeeming quality is that she would be conventionally regarded as incredibly hot:

(At first, I thought, "This picture is part of an ad for a dating website, right?") So, good for you, Kristin! Now instead of trying to keep conservatives' "partisan donors in a constant state of agitation to keep them ignorant, jumpy and writing checks," why not put your writing skills to good use and stick with the facts?

Gentleman: please do not be mesmerized by this woman. She is part of the conservative media's strategy of shutting your brain down while they shovel the bullshit. Not everything that is beautiful is good and trustworthy. Believe me, I know this from experience.

Two more reasons why I hate The Weather Channel

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 16:25:00 +0000

If you visit the Weather Channel online, you will find the following videos, all of which are labeled as Top Stories:

Cat Really Doesn't Want Bath
Wow, Bridge Moved in 6 Hours
A TARANTULA as Big as Your Face!
Gate To Hell Discovered!
Oddest Tax Deductions Ever!
Wild and Wet Videos!
Cat Plays Mom To Puppy
Fish Has Human Teeth!
The Adventures of Mighty Bug!
What Next? Nests for Humans!
Ever Been to Pig Beach?
Watch: ATM Blows Up!
Dog Walks on Grass for First Time
Baby Does Pull-Ups
Otter Teaches Baby to Swim
Sea Lion Pup is Backseat Driver

And if you look for the video about a possible tornado outbreak this week, you will find this:

If "Millions At Risk" isn't hysterically alarmist, I don't know what is.

Good thing I'm on meds now.

Let the adults do the blogging

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 21:55:00 +0000

I have never seen a good argument against gay marriage. This is my word of caution to you: if you ever see an argument against gay marriage, be very skeptical.

Here's an illustration: Erick Erickson's recent post "Why Not Incest?" defending Jeremy Irons' recent comments on gay marriage. The argument is that if gay marriage is acceptable, then so must be homosexual incest:

If life comes down to who you love and who loves you back, if a father and son love each other so much they want to get married, there is little moral difference between two people of the same sex getting married who are not related and want to be and two people of the same sex who already are related becoming closer.

Notice that Erickson is attributing to those of us who support gay marriage something like the following argument:

If two people love each other, then they should be allowed to marry.
Many persons in homosexual relationships love their partners.
Therefore, homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

The problem is that supporters of gay marriage do not endorse this argument. To deny the right to marry to persons who love each other is wrong, but certain other conditions must obviously be met if they are to be allowed to marry, and those conditions are met by many homosexuals in committed relationships. One condition is that both partners freely consent to the marriage. So gay marriage supporters would reject (1).

Erickson is doing what many who oppose gay marriage have done for years: attribute straw men to the opposition. Either Erickson knows that his argument is fallacious, or he lacks to intelligence to see that it is fallacious. So, for his edification, and the edification of all those who are manipulated by Erickson's argument, allow William Saletan to explain how someone could support gay marriage but oppose same-sex incestuous marriage.

According to Saletan, "[Six] years ago, Ohio's Supreme Court upheld the incest conviction of Paul Lowe, a former sheriff's deputy, for what the court called 'consensual sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter.'" The conviction was upheld because "'a sexual relationship between a parent and child or a stepparent and stepchild is especially destructive to the family unit.' This destructive effect, the court reasoned, occurs even if the sex is adult and consensual, since 'parents do not cease being parents … when their minor child reaches the age of majority.'" This puts same-sex incest and gay marriage on a different moral plane. As Saletan explains:

Morally, the family-structure argument captures our central intuition about incest: It confuses relationships. Constitutionally, this argument provides a rational basis for laws against incest. But it doesn't provide a rational basis for laws against homosexuality. In fact, it supports the case for same-sex marriage.

When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. Homosexuality is largely immutable, as the chronic failure of "ex-gay" ministries attests. So if you forbid sex between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy, faithful heterosexual family. The best way to help them form a stable family is to encourage them to marry each other.

Incest spectacularly flunks this test. By definition, it occurs within an already existing family. So it offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic—sexual tension—into the mix. Think of all the opposite-sex friendships you and your friends have cumulatively destroyed by "crossing the line." Now imagine doing that to your family. That's what incest does.

So how can the supporter of gay marriage oppose same-sex incest? By appealing to this or that utilitarian moral principle. Gay marriage maximizes happiness, and same-sex incestuous unions do not. Gay marriage is therefore permissible, and same-sex incestuous unions are not.

Let's suppose that Erickson, for some reason, does not understand this important difference between gay marriage and same-sex incest. Perhaps he simply lacks the intelligence to grasp it. Or perhaps, due to the influence of religious indoctrination, he refuses to attempt to grasp it. Or maybe he's simply phoning it in. In any event, he should consider a career change. And let's suppose that Erickson does understand this difference but writes posts like "Why Not Incest?" anyway. Again, I say, he should consider a career change, because he is manipulating his readers with bullshit. He's clearly not someone to be trusted.

Erickson closes by saying, "The truth is, many, many, many of the same people who are now in support of gay marriage, but would oppose this or polygamy will, once the next step is advanced, support these things too." No, they won't, asshole, as I have just explained.

Erick, why don't you go away and let the adults do the blogging, all right?

An hysterical Erickson predicts

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:05:00 +0000

According to Erick Erickson,

There are many, many people denying that gay marriage and religious freedom are incompatible. Many of those who deny it are, in fact, hostile to religious freedom to begin with or, when the fight becomes more clear, will be against the church.

I am one of those people who believe that gay marriage and religious freedom are compatible. It's actually pretty simple. Churches should be allowed to marry whoever they want, without interference from the state. (This freedom cannot be absolute, of course.) Analogously, the state should be allowed to marry whoever it wants, without interference from the church. That's what the separation of church and state is all about. Gay marriages would be sanctioned by the state, not by the church. What's the problem?

But I am not hostile to religious freedom. Indeed, even though I am an atheist, I consider religious freedom to be one of our most important freedoms, because I wish to be free to be atheist. I must therefore respect the freedom of others to worship, or not worship, as they choose. (This freedom can't be absolute either.) Freedom of religion is just a species of a more general freedom of thought which believers and non-believers should be able to enjoy.

Now, a lot of people seem to think that legalizing gay marriage will infringe on the religious freedom of Christians. For example, John Hawkins writes:

The moment gay marriage becomes the law of the land, all sorts of First Amendment freedoms involving the free exercise of people's religion will likely be infringed upon as a consequence. No pastor should be forced to marry a gay couple. No wedding photographer, cake maker, caterer, or wedding planner should be forced to be involved in these weddings. No church or any other location should be forced to be the site of a gay wedding. Children will be taught in schools that gay marriage is normal, legal, and moral -- and it directly contradicts the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. To create this special privilege for gay Americans would mean impinging on the First Amendment rights of more than 200 million Americans.

This passage is terribly confused. As conservatives know, progressives defend the separation of church and state. And that doctrine would prevent many of the consequences Hawkins mentions! Churches would be free to marry who they wish. Wedding photographers and others aren't forced to be involved in any weddings now; why suppose that they would be if gay marriage is legalized? Children may be taught in schools that gay marriage is normal, but churches aren't allowed to dictate what is taught in the public schools now, and they can redouble their efforts to teach homophobia in their Sunday school classrooms.

Erickson predicts a similar catastrophe. He claims that if gay marriage is legalized, "churches will not be able to open their doors to the unchurched unless they include everyone." Cities will "pass anti-discrimination laws that would prohibit churches from being able to say no to sin without running afoul of the law."

But here's the main problem with this sort of argument. People like Erickson and Hawkins assume that they have a religious right to persecute those with whom they disagree. Now, they call it a right to religious freedom. But they are already free to practice their religion and worship freely. What they really want is a right to dictate to others how they shall lead their lives. And that's persecution. Further, they assume that this right overrides the fundamental right of another person to marry whoever her or she loves. This has to be one of our most important rights: to decide with whom we shall spend the rest of our lives. If there is a conflict of rights here, it seems obvious to me that the right to marry is more important and fundamental than any other right Erickson and Hawkins might have in mind. It is therefore overriding.

In defense of his own conception of marriage, Erickson appeals to the authority of the Bible, and claims that liberal Christians "willfully ignore Christ’s definition of what a marriage is — one man and one woman united to become one." This is itself incoherent. Erickson complains that the left will silence conservative Christians in their campaign to impose their conception of marriage on the state, and yet that is precisely what Erickson wants to do, i.e., impose his own conception of marriage on the state. In addition, Erickson seems unaware of the difficulty of explaining why anyone should give a flying fuck what Jesus allegedly said or did not say about marriage, and why the state should conform to Erickson's religion. I personally couldn't care less what Matthew 19: 4-6 or the rest of his fucking religion says, and he hasn't given me a reason to care.

If we don't do what Erickson tells us to do, and if we legalize gay marriage, an hysterical Erickson tells us what we can expect:

Within a year or two we will see Christian schools attacked for refusing to admit students whose parents are gay. We will see churches suffer the loss of their tax exempt status for refusing to hold gay weddings. We will see private businesses shut down because they refuse to treat as legitimate that which perverts God’s own established plan. In some places this is already happening.

This is just another manifestation of Republican leaders' lack of connection with reality. We saw in in November when Dick Morris, Karl Rove, and even Mitt Romney couldn't believe the election returns they were seeing. We saw it more recently when Gary Bauer declared that polls showing support for gay marriage are "skewed." And now we have Erickson's ludicrous, apparently hallucinogenic-induced prognostications.

Erick Erickson, are you out of your fucking mind?

Stop

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 04:49:00 +0000

I saw this on Facebook. It was the text of a picture posted by Pro Labor Alliance Inc. I have edited it a bit:

Stop

You are not a machine.

Your natural genetic design does not tolerate 2-4 hours of travel per day, 8-12 hours of slave labor, 5-6 days per week for whatever monetary compensation on 5-6 hours of sleep in a system built on a penalistic principle and a life under judgmental surveillance.

Like it or not, you are human.

Stress, harassment, constant financial worries, fear, and a sense of inadequacy destroys the health of any human.

This is a scientific fact.

So why is it we accept and tolerate a system that in actual reality demands that you erase your needs, and in effect commit a slow joyless suicide for someone else's profit?

You have a choice.

Stop pretending you don't.

Your Horoscope

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Fri, 15 Mar 2013 22:13:00 +0000

Aries. I guess you want to know what your day’s going to be like. How the hell am I supposed to know? Aries, lemme give it to you straight: astrology is complete bullshit. I don’t know anything about you and I don’t care. So please stop bothering me.

Taurus. Oh, you too? Look, celestial objects have absolutely no effect on you or what happens to you. They exert some gravitational pull on your body, but that’s about it. Wait, I got it. Here’s your horoscope: get a life. Read something else, you nitwit. Jesus.

Gemini. What’s the matter with you people? Hey, Gemini: Aries hates your guts. He said that you’re a pussy, Gemini. That’s right. Do you want to fight him? Go ahead. Go punch his lights out. Oh, by the way, I have your horoscope: you will get in trouble with the law today.

Cancer. All right, here it is: your horoscope is a work of fiction. Oh, why so horrified, Cancer? Why don’t you just go to China House Buffet and crack open a fortune cookie? It’s just as reliable! Here’s what your fortune cookie says, Cancer: “You disappoint everyone with your irrational belief in astrology.”

Leo. Does Leo have to be the life of the party again? Leo, I know you think you’re the bomb, but being born between July 23 and August 22 isn't some great accomplishment, all right? It means absolutely nothing. So why don’t you do something productive and leave the rest of us alone, you attention whore?

Virgo. Prepare, for the Day of Judgment is at hand. Just kidding! Look, the sun and the planets have nothing to do with you. You’re not nearly as special as you think you are. Are you crying, Virgo? There’s no crying in astrology!

Libra. Jesus, I am so sick of this crap. Libra, I don’t know if that boy will have intercourse with you today. I don’t care, the sun doesn’t care, and none of the planets care either.

Scorpio. Hey, Scorpio. I know a lonely, hot Libra. Tell her that her horoscope says, “You will make sweet love to a Scorpio today,” and wait for the fireworks. Oh, and by the way, you’re an idiot.

Sagittarius. You will read your horoscope today, just like you do every day, you moron. Except that today, you will feel insulted for some reason.

Capricorn. You will wake up today. And then you may or may not do all that stuff you usually do, and you might even do some stuff you don’t usually do. You may or may not eat or drink anything. Then you will go to bed. Maybe.

Aquarius. Hey, ever heard that song about the dawn of the Age of Aquarius? That was astrological bollocks with some drug-induced hippie bollocks thrown in. This isn't the Age of Aquarius. This is the Age of Gullible Scientifically Illiterate Fools. I know, it’s depressing. But with any luck, you’re peaking at this point and you can cry into that groovy beer you’re nursing.

Pisces. That’s it. I’ve had it. I’m out of here. All of you morons can go fuck yourselves.

Tribute or theft?

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:46:00 +0000

Back in 1987, I was a volunteer DJ at a college rock station. And I fell in love with The Ophelias' self-titled debut. The Ophelias were a short-lived college rock band from San Francisco featuring Leslie Medford on vocals. Here's "In America the Other Day," a song from that album:

Fast-forward to 2012, 25 years later. Now I'm a volunteer DJ at another college rock station, but this time I'm doing a progressive rock show. And I'm exploring the genre, listening to lots of progressive rock that I've never heard before, like Van der Graaf Generator, with Peter Hammill on vocals. And I hear this song, "Scorched Earth," from the 1975 album Godbluff:

Certainly, Leslie Medford is a fan of Peter Hammill and Van der Graaf Generator. The similarities, down to the feedback-drenched song endings, can't be a coincidence. I don't know whether to call Medford's vocal style tribute or theft.

When I first heard The Ophelias, I was impressed with the freshness of their sound. It wasn't quite as fresh as I thought, as it turns out. The same could be said for most music, I'm sure.

I have a thing for spaceflight.

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Thu, 14 Mar 2013 18:23:00 +0000

Source SPACE.com: All about our solar system, outer space and exploration

Laurence W. Britt, "Fascism Anyone?"

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 02:18:00 +0000

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.

Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical, so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

Note

1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

References

Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld, 1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York: Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books, 1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York: Seven Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.

Laurence Britt’s novel, June, 2004, depicts a future America dominated by right-wing extremists.

Source

Another great Langston Hughes poem

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 15:53:00 +0000

God

I am God—
Without one friend,
Alone in my purity
World without end.

Below me young lovers
Tread the sweet ground—
But I am God—
I cannot come down.

Spring!
Life is love!
Love is life only!
Better to be human
Than God—and lonely.

Source

Blowing It

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 02:38:00 +0000

Here is Romney's new ad:

And this is what the president actually said:

But you know what, I’m not going to see us gut the investments that grow our economy to give tax breaks to me or Mr. Romney or folks who don’t need them. So I’m going to reduce the deficit in a balanced way. We’ve already made a trillion dollars’ worth of cuts. We can make another trillion or trillion-two, and what we then do is ask for the wealthy to pay a little bit more. . . .

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there.

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together. That’s how we funded the GI Bill. That’s how we created the middle class. That’s how we built the Golden Gate Bridge or the Hoover Dam. That’s how we invented the Internet. That’s how we sent a man to the moon. We rise or fall together as one nation and as one people, and that’s the reason I’m running for President -- because I still believe in that idea. You’re not on your own, we’re in this together.

Which is a less artfully stated version of this argument from Elizabeth Warren:

“There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear: You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory, and it turned into something terrific or a great idea: God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.” ---Elizabeth Warren

Slate's David Weigel calls the sound bite from Obama's speech

a magic word gaffe—a statement that reveals not what a politician believes, but what you already feared, in your bone marrow, that a politician believes. Democrats still can’t understand why Obama’s speech is supposed to offend anyone. Republicans know that he’s a closet socialist, and that this sentiment only comes out when his energy is flagging.

So, here's the deal: any intelligent voter is going to figure out that Romney has taken this quotation out of context with the intention of misleading voters. And while Republicans believe that the quotation confirms what they already believe about the president, Romney is wasting his time talking to them. Those republicans will suffer from temporary idiocy and eagerly take the quotation out of context and pretend that the rest of the speech doesn't exist. They wouldn't vote for Obama in a million years. Romney should be trying to reach independents. But Romney can't count on independents to share Republicans' preexisting beliefs about the president. And I'm sure that most of them don't like being manipulated by a deceptive politician. So I don't know how this ad is going to do the job.

Hey, Republicans: why should I vote for your candidate when he has to mislead me and resort to fiction to get me to vote for him?

Republicans: your terrible candidate is blowing it.

Smarter than you think

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Fri, 20 Jul 2012 03:59:00 +0000

I can't believe that I'm making the time to write this.

Dana Stevens is a film critic for Slate. I like her reviews. But I have a problem with something she said in her review of Katy Perry: Part of Me. And no, I haven't seen the movie and I don't plan to. Anyway, here's what she said, first about the movie, and then about one of Perry's hits:

There’s no mention of Brand’s well-documented struggles as an alcoholic and drug addict—in fact, there are no unwholesome substances anywhere on view in Part of Me, with the exception of the you-go-girl blackout drinking Perry espouses in her mega-hit “Last Friday Night.”

About “Last Friday Night.” Not to sound like a scold, but I agree entirely with the comedian Rob Delaney’s brilliant line-by-line breakdown of this song, in which he takes the unnamed protagonist (and by association, Perry) to task for glamorizing a nightlife that includes unprotected sex with strangers, drinking to the point of amnesia, and possibly sexual assault. Why do I care whether a pop singer I never voluntarily listen to hits it big with a cute ditty about how awesome it is to spend your Friday nights doing stupid, dangerous shit? Maybe because I have a daughter who’s a born ham, someone who, like the younger Katy Perry we see in old home video footage in Part of Me, has dreams of standing on a stage one day doing something—singing, dancing, playing an instrument—in front of a cheering crowd. If and when that time comes, I want her to know she has options besides spraying whipped cream out of her bra.

I am a casual fan of Perry, but it's not because of her above-average looks. I like her music. I don't love it. It's not good enough to love, and her albums are too goddamned loud. I just listened to "Last Friday Night" again, and like too many casualties of the loudness war, it really does sound like dogshit. But I don't think that's Perry's fault. Anyway, I know a little something about this.

Stevens should tell us why we should assume, as she does, that a songwriter who sings about a morally objectionable lifestyle thereby approves of it or espouses it or glorifies it. If Stevens had taken the time to listen to the lyrics of "Last Friday Night," she would have heard the following:

Yeah, I think we broke the law
Always say we're gonna stop
But this Friday night
Do it all again

That doesn't sound like glorification to me. That sounds like an indictment of the meaninglessness and pointlessness of the lifestyle Stevens finds so morally objectionable. And isn't that what one might expect from a songwriter who still considers herself to be a Christian? Stevens writes that she "left the film with a slightly higher opinion of Perry as a singer and songwriter." Then why not give Perry some credit and consider the possibility that the song has more than one layer of meaning? And by the way, why not teach your child to think, creatively and critically, about the music she consumes?

I grew up listening to the Dead Kennedys. On the surface, some of their songs appear to glorify horrible things. But of course their intention was to condemn those things, not glorify them. A perfect example is their song "Riot." Jello Biafra seems to celebrate the joys of rioting in the song as he describes the riot in detail:

Now you can smash all the windows that you want
All you really need are some friends and and a rock
Throwing a brick never felt so damn good
Smash more glass
Scream with a laugh
And wallow with the crowds
Watch them kicking peoples' ass

But a closer look at the lyrics reveals that he actually has contempt for the rioters. Here's the chorus:

Riot - the unbeatable high
Riot - shoots your nerves to the sky
Riot - playing into their hands
Tomorrow you're homeless
Tonight it's a blast

At the end of the song, we can hear the rioter's high wearing off as he realizes that he's destroyed his own neighborhood, and perhaps it wasn't worth it after all.

So it's not difficult for me to imagine that Perry is ridiculing the lifestyle she describes in "Last Friday Night," and ridiculing those who enjoy that lifestyle and who also believe that Perry has expressed her approval of them in the song. And I suspect that she's a lot smarter than most of us think.

A Crook or a Liar

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 17:47:00 +0000

From "Obama Campaign Says Mitt Romney Is Either A Crook Or A Liar," a Time Magazine story by Michael Scherer:

Mitt Romney wants you to know that both of these things are true: 1. He remained the “controlling person” in a number of Bain Capital investments between 1999 and 2002, when he left to work on the Salt Lake City Olympics. 2. He had no actual personal control over those investments during that time. . . .

Statement number one comes in several contemporaneous SEC filings, which the Obama campaign has been sending around to reporters. Statement number two comes from Mitt Romney and Bain Capital, and was certified on a federal financial disclosure in 2011, when Romney said he left active management of Bain Capital to work on the Olympics in 1999. That means that Romney’s position is he was both the “controlling person” and had no active management responsibilities.

This does not surprise me. For Romney, the truth is to be crafted rather than acknowledged.

But think about it: Romney, the sole stockholder of Bain Capital, had no control over its investments? I'm not buying it.

But I wonder how much this story could possibly hurt him with the base and Republicans in general. Look, Romney was a venture capitalist, and many conservatives will tell you that the only thing a capitalist should be concerned about is making a profit. I think that view is not only false but at least slightly insane. But that's what they believe. Anyway, a lot of Republicans won't care that Romney outsourced American jobs, because they believe that capitalists can do whatever they want as long as it increases profits.

The Boston Herald broke this story. Read it here.

Courting the White Racist Vote

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Thu, 12 Jul 2012 20:00:00 +0000

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I guess Mitt doesn't like the subsidy that would allow poor black people to purchase health insurance. Perhaps the white racist doesn't realize that it would also allow poor white people to purchase health insurance. I think Mitt just doesn't want to be bothered with thinking about poor people. He did say, "I'm not concerned about the very poor," after all. I say we take his word for it.

Mitt tells us where to go

noreply@blogger.com (Φ) — Sun, 20 May 2012 05:10:00 +0000

Have you seen Romney's new ad?

It only confirms that my decision not to vote for Mitt is sound. (I'm not thrilled about voting for the other guy, because he didn't veto the NDAA. But that's a different story.)

Anyway, that ad inspired the following response from Democratic Underground:

I have my own response, and it contains more profanity:

Approve Keystone pipeline = tell Nebraskans who are worried about the Ogallala aquifer to go fuck themselves
Tax cuts that reward job creators = either make deep cuts to government programs that benefit the poor and middle class, or increase the tax burden on the middle class to make up for lost tax revenue, and tell the poor and middle class to go fuck themselves
End Obamacare = reward the freeloaders who refuse to insure themselves and who expect those of us to are insured to continue to pay for their visits to the emergency room while we are told to go fuck ourselves

Mitt, I'm so sorry you had to sell your soul to get the nomination, just like McCain before you. But now that you sound like you are completely out of your mind, you can't expect me to take you seriously, much less vote for you. So why don't you go fuck yourself?