tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-43096636442471153782024-03-13T07:47:46.878-07:00ParthenonAgishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-86334052054159483762012-10-23T19:39:00.003-07:002012-10-23T19:39:29.043-07:00We should apologize<br />
<div id="intro" style="background-color: white; color: #242424; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13.333333015441895px; line-height: 14.999999046325684px; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
As we are all too painfully aware, one of Mitt Romney's most persistent lies during this campaign season is that Obama went on an "apology tour" after he was elected. That he traveled around the Middle East and apologized for past actions of the United States. </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
The response to this claim has been nearly universal: it is a lie. Democrats and their affiliates have pushed back against this lie with great vigor. </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
The response we’re not hearing, however, is the fact that we should apologize. Or, the fact that this machismo "no apologies" bullshit being peddled by the right wing noise machine is bad for our culture. That it hurts us, it hurts the world, it prevents us from being the nation we should be, and that it sets a bad example for all generations. (That’s right, I played the "think of the children!" card)</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
So let's cut to the chase, the bottom-line that can’t be refuted and should be pointed out by those on the left:</div>
<blockquote style="background-color: #f6f3ec; background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; border-bottom-color: rgb(226, 226, 225); border-bottom-style: solid; border-bottom-width: 1px; border-top-color: rgb(226, 226, 225); border-top-style: solid; border-top-width: 1px; line-height: 1.4; margin: 1.2em 0px; padding: 20px;">
People are dead because the United States fucked up.</blockquote>
Before storming on with my angry rant. We should take a moment to let that sink in. Human beings are dead. Their loved ones grieve them still. And, if it matters, if it sinks in deeper, many of these people were American soldiers, they were ours. Our country and our leaders owed them a duty to give them our best, because they promised to give us theirs, and we fucking failed. And, there were other soldiers of others countries, civilians, children, parents, fiancées, spouses, teachers, neighbors, security officers, public officials . . . dead, when they didn’t have to be, when they shouldn’t be. <div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Are we really so arrogant and full of bluster that we not only refuse to apologize for that FACT, but we act like the very notion that someone might think about saying something that could remotely be interpreted as an apology is shameful. </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
You know what is shameful? Someone who hurts people and won't even offer them the dignity of an apology (let alone reassurance that it won't happen again). </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
<span style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4;">Anyone who is moderately informed (or over the age of 26 and with a functioning memory) should be able to agree on some basic facts:</span></div>
</div>
<div class="article-body" id="body" style="background-color: white; color: #242424; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size: 13.333333015441895px; line-height: 14.999999046325684px; margin: 0px; overflow: hidden; padding: 0px;">
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
• the invasion of Iraq was based on the claim that there were wmd's (even if the right later tried to etch a sketch the reason into removing Saddam)<br style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />• there were not the wmd's we thought and claimed there were<br style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />• the invasion of Afghanistan was screwed up when we failed to secure Osama Bin Laden early in the conflict<br style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />• the failure to kill Bin Laden early in the conflict extended the Afghanistan conflict's timeline and scope<br style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />• we failed to commit enough troops to the early occupation of Iraq<br style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />• that failure resulted in extending the conflicts timeline and scope and required the later "surge" of troops<br style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />• as a result of these tactical and policy errors people died.</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
It doesn't really matter if you believe the Iraq or Afghanistan wars were mistakes or not. Everyone should be able to agree that mistakes were made, at the very least, in the implementation of these wars. </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
So what do you do if your screw up causes hurt to others? What do we teach every single human being at the youngest of ages to do? You fucking apologize. </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
You say "I'm sorry, it will not happen again." and you MEAN it. The concept is in every kindergarten and pre-school in the country, but the notion of it sends our highest elected officials into fits of denial and finger pointing? Seriously? Fuck those assholes. </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
And yet I don’t seem to see any media voices push back on this issue at all. It’s not a difficult concept, it is directly and easily analogous to events we face in our own lives. </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
The examples are not difficult to think up:</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
• Say you think a traffic light is green and you hit and injure someone, but later video evidence proves that the light was red. What do you do? <strong style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Apologize.</strong><br style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />• Say you start a business venture and convince a bunch of friends to invest in it, but then you mismanage it and they lose a bunch of money. What do you do? <strong style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Apologize.</strong><br style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />• Or maybe your juice box is stolen and you think Timmy stole it so you punch him, but then it turns out he didn't. and then you engage in two poorly executed simultaneous wars which result in the horrific deaths of hundreds of thousands. what's the next step here guys? <strong style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">Fucking Apologize.</strong></div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
We literally expect toddlers to understand this concept, this is not complicated policy mumbo jumbo.</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
Unfortunately, the Republicans are poisoning our culture with their apology tour bullshit. Like so much in political discourse it isn't just about winning elections. The idea they are pushing is that apology is weakness. That only cowards acknowledge mistakes. When we all know that it's the exact opposite. <br style="line-height: 1.4; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;" />Maybe it’s time we say it aloud. That maybe the greatest nation in the world should be able to stand the fuck up and say “we made mistakes, and we are sorry to those who have been hurt by them. We have always and will always strive to be better and to learn from history.”</div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
This idea that apology is weakness is only bolstered by the Democrats' cries of "he didn't apologize!" – the lie is countered, the election may be one, but our culture takes one step closer to the dark side. </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
The Obama campaign has an election to win, and they need to stay on target and can't be fighting ideological battles. But people on the left need to stand up and fight those battles for them. </div>
<div style="font-size: 13px; line-height: 1.4; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-top: 1em; padding: 0px;">
That means we should be pointing out that we know Obama didn't apologize for the United States, because those of us on the left are upset at him about it, because we should.</div>
</div>
Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-77911539445788866452012-08-28T18:28:00.001-07:002012-11-14T19:42:13.576-08:00The Psychological Power of Guns shouldn't be ignored[shorter version: guns don't kill people, people kill people; but, if we think about the psychology behind guns, we will come to the realization that guns are about power, not action]<br />
<br />
The intake for the water line was clogged. This meant a hike 900 feet up into the hills behind our cabin in order to clear the intake filter. We brought the shotgun. It was pretty unlikely that we would encounter a bear, but better to have and not need, and all that. <br />
<br />
Gun use and gun safety was one of the first things we ran through after getting off our float plane and dropping our bags in the fishing cabin, that would be our home for the next three months, on the south end of Kodiak, Island. I had grown up around commercial fishing, bears, and guns, but my long time friend and co-crewman had not. So a gun lesson was high on the list of to-do's before my father left, and the two of us were left to fend for ourselves. <br />
<br />
Kodiak Island is home to the largest bears in the world. As salmon and berry eaters, they don't have to be dangerous, but as enormous wild animals they certainly are. I am a fairly large athletic guy, but the weight ratio between an average Kodiak Bear and me is the same as the weight ratio between me and a two year old toddler.<br />
<br />
The short hike up our waterline was not bear country. The bears should be up at the streams, eating their fill of salmon. But, we had specifically switched to using black electrical tape on the water line instead of silver duct tape because the duct tape seemed to attact the attention of wandering bears, and result in bite damage, bears could wander to this area. <br />
<br />
When we reached the water line I handed the shotgun to my friend and began clearing the filter. That's when he said it: <br />
<br />
"I could kill any animal on earth right now."<br />
<br />
I looked at him, and saw that the statement was made, not in bloodlust, but in astonishment. He was right. A 12 gauge loaded with 8 slugs packed a lot of potential punch. Now, I don't know how it would do against a bull elephant, or charging rhino, but that wasn't the point. The point with this simple tool my friend was transformed from a slow, awkward ape with a large brain, to a contestant for most powerful animal on earth. <br />
<br />
There are a lot of fantasy stories which center around the corrupting influence of power. In the fantasy setting it usually takes the form of an item of great power which the good guys must destroy. Inevitably someone suggests that they use this item for good, to defeat the big bad. It is just a 'tool' after all, surely they could harness it. But the item has a corrupting influence, it cannot be used for good, not because of some innate feature of the 'tool,' but because of the influence it has in the mind of the wielder. <br />
<br />
In the super hero setting the source of power cannot be destroyed. Instead it must be harnessed, and most super heroes get an early lesson in the corrupting influence of their power. Learning that they have to respect their power, and that there will always be a temptation to abuse it. Those who don't learn this lesson become villains, lured away by the corrupting influence of power.<br />
<br />
Power is intoxicating, and meant to be used. Power wants to be used. <br />
<br />
So you see, my friend wanted a bear to attack us, and so did I. <br />
<br />
Throughout my life I've killed dozens of bears. I've rescued my family, friends and strangers from vicious bear attacks. My friend and I were charged by bears numerous times while cleaning the water filter, and each time I was forced to use my training and save us from the charging animal. Because, when you're warned that something terrible could happen, and when you're prepared, a part of you, sometimes a large part, wants that thing to happen. You see it, you picture it, you act it. It's part of being ready. Even if it never actually happens outside of your own mind, it happens. <br />
<br />
I don't know what happened during the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin" target="_blank">shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman</a>. But I do know that Zimmerman wanted to be attacked that night. Because I know what it is to carry a gun. More specifically, I know what it is to fear something and to no longer fear it because you're carrying a gun. Zimmerman had shot Trayvon lots of times before that fateful night. He'd shot him to stop robberies and burglaries. He'd shot him defending himself, and he'd shot him defending others. He was ready. He had a gun. He was the most powerful thing on earth. <br />
<br />
Spend time with people who spend significant time in rural Alaska and you'll find a common approach to nature: respect. The best bush pilots know not to test the weather, the best boat captains know when to stay in harbor and all Alaskans know that you don't mess with bear safety. The so called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_Man" target="_blank">"Grizzly Man"</a> was a source of fascination for many. But in Alaska he's a fool who lacked proper respect for the 'wild' part of 'wild-animals,' and his lack of respect got someone else killed. But this respect is just a recognition that you're dealing with something much more powerful than yourself and your tools. <br />
<br />
Nature makes us feel our own powerlessness. Everyone in rural areas knows of someone who has fallen victim to the merciless cruelty of the great outdoors. A plane crash, freezing waters, and yes, the occasional bear mauling.<br />
<br />
But there are those moments when nature makes you feel invincible. Standing strong in the path of something furious, something truly mighty, is empowering. Being at sea in a storm, having your tent hold up to powerful winds, reaching the peak of an intimidating mountain, and yes, facing down a charging bear - gun in hand. <br />
<br />
Most of us, of course, do not live in anything that could be described as wilderness. But, we do live in just as intimidating environments. The truth is that life is fragile, and that many of us are powerless. A big city, a big nation, a crowded highway, a cruel economic system, can cast us aside or smash us under its heel as easily as a winter storm or 1200 lb. animal. An emperor, king or dictator wields impossible power, you can no more stand up against that, as a naked individual, as you can stand up against the ocean. <br />
<br />
Guns are a tool. A tool designed for killing. That's their design, but their effect is to dramatically transform the power of the wielder. Hold a gun, and you are capable of anything. Therein lies the true power of the tool. There in lies it's corrupting influence. Therein lies the fantasy. When you hold a gun you secretly hope you're attacked by a bear. You secretly hope someone attacks your family. Because if that happens, you can stop it, you can stop it with your gun. <br />
<br />
The intoxicating psychological effect of a gun is central to our discussions about them, and too often ignored. Guns are tools of power. Some tools are purchased to be used. You buy a table saw to cut wood. If you never need to cut wood, you don't buy a table saw. But a gun serves a powerful purpose without ever being used. In all those hikes up that waterline, we never fired a single shot. But in all those hikes up that waterline, the gun we brought served its purpose. <br />
<br />
If you face a bear attack, without a gun, your best option is to play dead. Lay down, don't move, and hope the bear loses interest before inflicting too much damage. You cannot run from a bear, they run faster than quarter horses. You cannot out climb a bear, they are quite effective climbers. Running downhill from a bear will not cause it to tumble head over heels and facilitate your escape. Play dead, hope the bear buys it, and live. It's not the kind of scenario that allows for heroics, even in one's imagination. Bear attacks may be extremely rare, (until just last week there had never been a person killed by a bear in Denali National Park in Alaska) but they happen all the time in the minds of hikers and campers. You look into the brush around you and think "what if . . ." Without a gun, that imagined scenario should always end with you laying still, trying not to move, waiting for the danger to pass on its own.<br />
<br />
You can't fight a revolution against modern military technology with an automatic rifle. But if you have a gun you're never forced to play dead when you ask the question "what if . . .." When you have a gun you can create any number of scenarios, any number of possibilities can answer that question. The gun has transformed you from powerless peon in an impossibly large system, to the most powerful animal on earth. <br />
<br />
The low probability of needing a gun does nothing to change this psychology of power. If I tell a gun owner that he is extremely unlikely to need a gun to defend his home from burglars, his person from muggers, or his neighborhood from "suspicious" characters, how is that different than telling me and my friend, walking along that water line, that we really weren't in an area bears traveled. We weren't. But what will we think we ponder "what if . . ." <br />
<br />
And if I point out to that gun owner that they are so powerless, so insignificant, that even with their gun, they could not stand against a modern military, that their tool of empowerment is futile, aren't I just reinforcing the very feeling of impotence in the modern world that the gun serves to counter? If the gun is a tool which primarily creates a feeling of power, how could I possibly undo the gun's hold on our culture by more emphatically pointing out just how powerless we all are?<br />
<br />
Gun culture is not built on the need of guns. Guns are designed to kill. It's preposterously rare for any of us to need to kill anything, and yes, that includes bears in bear country. Gun culture is built on the feeling of powerlessness we all feel in the face of things larger than ourselves, be they mountains or be they governments. <br />
<br />
Sometimes, late at night, I contemplate whether I should have a gun for home safety. Sure, I don't live in a dangerous neighborhood, but I'm responsible, I'm careful, and it's better to have and not need, than to need and not have, isn't it? What options would I have if someone broke into my home, if someone attacked my family, except to play dead, except to hope the danger passes without choosing to do too much harm? <br />
<br />
The truth is that I haven't held a loaded weapon in several years now. The guns are safely stored, locked away, far from where I live. The ammo somewhere entirely different. But, you see, my gun makes me feel powerful. With it there is no danger on this earth that I couldn't give a run for its money. Sure, that's not technically true. But if it feels true, it doesn't really matter does it? It's not like I actually think black helicopters will come for me, or that armed criminals will assault my home, so it doesn't matter what my actual chances would be. It matters how I feel.<br />
<br />
To change gun culture, we have to change the way people feel, not the way they think. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-81280479468862477732012-06-15T10:24:00.001-07:002012-06-15T10:24:07.840-07:00Murder InsuranceWell, the title may be a bit strong, but NRA members are being encouraged to purchase exclusive <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/13/497635/nra-stand-your-ground-insurance/">'self defense' insurance</a>. The insurance would cover civil and criminal legal fees for shooting someone in self defense. Although it should be noted that you only get your criminal fees back if you are acquited or the charges are dropped. So, y'know, it's only a little crazy, not totally crazy. <br />
<br />
I would like to take this opportunity to launch my far less expensive "don't shoot people"(tm) defense plan. If you pay me just $50 a year I will send you a daily email which states:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Do not shoot anyone today. Yes, even if they are trying to take your stuff. If you think someone wants to hurt you, try going somewhere where they are not. </blockquote>
As an added bonus to the plan, if you actively retreat from someone and they track you down with a deadly weapon and you are forced to shoot them, and you are still prosecuted with a crime, then I will personally fly to your location and take the bar exam in your state and defend you for free. <br />
<br />
This deal is too good to pass up. Please send me my free money now. Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-30945447788062801182012-06-04T11:28:00.001-07:002012-06-04T11:28:46.433-07:00The Friend Zone is Bullshit<a href="http://chzdatingfails.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/dating-fails-friend-fail.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" src="http://chzdatingfails.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/dating-fails-friend-fail.jpg" style="cursor: hand; display: block; height: 374px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 500px;" /></a><br />
<br />As someone who used to suffer from being 'friend zoned' and felt wronged by it as a 'nice guy' I'm appalled that I was unable to see that the entire idea behind the friend zone relies on the primary value a woman has to offer a man being her vagina, and that if she refuses to offer up that vagina in reward for patient friendship she is somehow wronging the male friend. <br />
<br />Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-44528166079115200972012-06-01T15:02:00.002-07:002012-06-01T15:02:57.888-07:00Nearly half of Americans creationists<a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold-Creationist-View-Human-Origins.aspx?version=print">This poll </a>from Gallup finds that 46% of Americans believe God created human beings in their current form. <br />
<br />
My first reaction to this poll is to think that there's something in the question itself skewing the results. It has been shown time and time again that the phrasing of a poll question can dramatically change the results. <br />
<br />
Certainly most Americans believe that God guided human evolution . . . so that kind of belief is getting mixed into these results. So let's look at the exact question asked by Gallup: <br />
<div align="center">
<br /></div>
<div align="center">
<img alt="Trend: Which of the following statements comes closest to your views on the origin and development of human beings? 1) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, 2) Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process, 3) God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" border="0" class="imgBorder0" height="424" hspace="0" src="http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/mtmhrggv0u278tchtddptw.gif" style="display: block;" width="584" /></div>
<br />
So, lets look at the answer 46% of American respondents gave:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.</blockquote>
Again:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
. . . within the last 10,000 years or so . . . </blockquote>
So, ok, this isn't some polling error. This is the response people gave. 46% of people asked feel that people were created in their current form sometime after the oldest cave paintings, or petroglyphs. <br />
<br />
My second reaction to this poll is to wonder who these people are. Where are these 46%? It accents to me exactly how insulated I am from a huge portion of American culture. I just don't regularly encounter nearly half of the people who live in this country. At least I hope I don't, because I would not hesitate at a dinner party conversation about politics or science to openly state that creationism is a preposterous position. Apparently I would be insulting 4-5 out of every 10 people. <br />
<br />
My final reaction is to tell myself that many of these respondents are just defying the position they are "supposed" to have. So that this response is more about defying authority than it is about actual ignorance on the topic.<br />
<br />
It's not a good choice. Either a huge portion of the population is amazingly ignorant about basic human history, or a huge portion of the population feels a desire to express ignorance as a way to say 'you can't tell me what to think' to scientists and pointy headed intellectual liberals.<br />
<br />
The Catholic Church embraced evolution as part of God's grand plan in 1996, the end of a road started in 1950. It amazes me that the American populace can't seem to catch up. Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-27267998871049497852012-04-02T09:48:00.001-07:002012-04-02T09:49:34.085-07:00On Hate Crimes<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/opinion/keller-tyler-and-trayvon.html?hp">This is a standard argument against hate crimes.</a> And I think there's some merit into it, but it's ultimately incomplete and really leaves the case for hate crime legislation hanging.<br /><br />I think he's blurring a few issues here. Hate crimes legislation doesn't intend to perfect human nature, it seeks to distinguish crimes that are, in my opinion, meaningfully different. I think the term "hate crimes" seems to focus too much on the emotion and belief of the perpatrator; the real focus should be on the intended effects of the crime, and therefore, I'd just call almost all hate crimes "terrorism."<br /><br />First, Hate Crimes law has never been about regulating speech or belief. Neither is constitutionally permissible or and the latter isn't possible anyway. You're free to go to Klan rallies or Pentecostal churches or neo-Nazi meetings and say whatever you want. Keller says that "the government is authorized to punish you for thinking those vile things, if you think them in the course of committing a crime," but that's not exactly true. The government is authorize to punish you not for thinking those vile things but for committing an act motivated by those vile things. Similarly, you can be punished differently for a murder intended to eliminate a witness, and we're not surprised that your thoughts, intents, and motivation affect your sentence. If your motivation is independent, you're off the hook, at least on that wing.<br /><br />He also spends too little time on the point that hate crimes are different because they terrorize an entire community, saying that any crime will instill fear in neighbors. True, all crimes do that, but all crimes are not intended to do that, and I think that's a very important difference. If you break every window of every synogogue in a five mile radius, your act has a fundamentally different effect than if you're just causing random mayhem. You are aiming your gun at people not present, and illegally coercing them. You create a very real and immediate threat of violence to those who aren't your victim, and it's not a side effect but your intended act. That's a real problem, and not one that's captured if we treat all acts of vandalism equally without noting these community effects. Furthermore, you're either tacitly or explicitly recruiting by acting this way. Perpatrators of hate crimes don't see themselves as criminals, like a mugger does, but as heroes. When uncaught, they seek to define their acts as those of the community, and when captured, they hope to be a martyr to the cause and inspire others to match them. Again, these aren't true of ordinary crimes.<br /><br />He then skips past arguments that we must protect the vulnerable by pointing out others are vulnerable, too, and we don't protect them. But we do! And I'd happily argue that we should expand those protections. And we never have hesitated to punish pedophiles differently and worse than other sex criminals. We're happy to pick out these motivations and bring down more justice.<br /><br />This is another red herring: "The distinction Hurd makes — convincingly, I think — is that when you penalize intent you are punishing matters of choice. One can choose not to pull the trigger, not to throw the rock, not to steal the purse. 'You can’t choose not to be prejudiced or biased — at least not willy-nilly, on the spot.'" No, you can't choose not to be bigoted. Not really. But we're not really asking citizens to forbear their bigotry. We're asking them not to commit crimes motivated by bigotry, to keep their bigotry nonviolent. And that's far from an impossible task.There are patterns of violence which you can't participate in and pretend they're outside the pattern. They're manifestly different crimes. And sure, we can't execute people twice, so to some extent, hate-crime-murders aren't really important, it's all the other crimes where there's a scale to be made. But this isn't about trying to convert the hateful. It's about restraining behaviors to remove specific threats to the peace which differ from their underlying crimes.Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900674042716762854noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-84167543284763572492012-03-10T16:23:00.000-08:002012-03-10T16:24:10.380-08:00Great Video<span ><iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IYQhRCs9IHM?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe></span>Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-5490520792947179802012-03-09T15:39:00.001-08:002012-03-09T18:03:14.440-08:00It's All RelativeWhat do people want? It’s a broad question that could spur a discussion well beyond the confines of a single blog post. There is one succinct answer to this question which highlights a disturbing aspect of the political noise coming from conservative America. Before getting to that, let’s set a scene we all know well . . .<br /><br />Waiting in line. We’ve all done it. So, it’s not difficult to imagine yourself waiting in line. For purposes of illustration lets imagine you’re in line for movie tickets. Your happiness in the moment will likely depend on the speed of the line. Even if you are very patient when it come to lines, spending 5 minutes in line is better than 30 minutes. So let’s say you spend 15 minutes in line. Now your happiness has been adjusted down by a set amount equivalent to spending 15 minutes in a line. That’s probably not really an adjustment at all. You, like most people, will be about as happy as you were when you started waiting in line. <br /><br />So now let’s add to the scenario. Instead of one line for movie tickets, there are four. Four separate lines, and you pick one at random. Now imagine standing in line while three other lines move toward the same goal: precious movie tickets. This time, your line whizzes by, while the other three lines stand relatively still. That feels pretty good. So if your speedy line still takes 15 minutes, you’re probably a bit happier at the end than you were in the single line scenario. <br /><br />But what if, and you know where I’m going by now, your line moves like molasses. It seems that every person ahead of you line contemplate for ages on which movie to see, and then decides to pay in pennies dug from the bottoms of their pockets. You’re line still takes 15 minutes. 15 agonizingly long minutes while the other three lines move forward with a steady efficiency. We’ve all been there. It’s frustrating. <br /><br />So in all three scenarios you wait in line for 15 minutes. It’s the same result. And yet the emotional reaction to each scenario will be dramatically different. <br />So what do people want? One of many answer is that people want to be better off than other people. It’s hard wired into our very being. We’d like to think that we want that line to move quickly. But, when it comes down to it, we’re pleased if our line moves faster than everyone else’s line. <br /><br />It’s a disturbing reality that poisons a lot of political discourse on government benefits, wealth and employee benefits. <br /><br />The Republican Party is largely the party of privilege. White Christian men trying to hold onto the privilege afforded to them by the nature of their position. Privilege is really just a stand in for doing better than others. Even a poor man is master of his wife. Even an uneducated white person can look down upon the immigrant. <br /><br />So much of the Republican Party rhetoric seems to be about slowing down other people’s lines. About taking away food stamps, or benefits, or retirement. This message taps into something deep and dark within people. <br /><br />Unfortunately it isn’t an easy message to counter. It takes clarity of purpose and reason that isn’t always easy to communicate.<br /><br />The difference is the difference between hearing that a retired California government worker is living on a six figure retirement income and thinking “why does he get all that” versus thinking “why don’t more workers get that”Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-68738460793741031462012-03-05T08:13:00.002-08:002012-03-05T08:18:12.258-08:00C'mon, Sir CharlesOn the reports of the Gregg Williams bounty issue: <a href="http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/03/05/charles-barkley-rips-punk-and-snitch-who-ratted-on-gregg-williams/">"“You have to be a punk to snitch that out,” "</a><br /><br />Adults talking about "snitching" is not a productive part of society. Reporting wrongdoing, even anonymously, is heroic. It took down Richard Nixon, it stopped the abuse of Abu Ghraib, and it will make the NFL safer. It's protected by law under whistleblower statutes. Grow the hell up, Barkley.Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900674042716762854noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-28579151899935525152012-03-04T16:55:00.004-08:002012-03-04T17:46:50.002-08:00Gregg Williams, You're Ruining it for Us All<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/03/sports/football/nfl-says-saints-had-bounty-program-to-injure-opponents.html">Gregg Williams paid his players to injure opponents</a>. Direct hits to the head, neck, and knees, by players carrying an amount of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/31/sports/football/31hit.html?pagewanted=all">force similar to an automobile</a>. This tears ligaments, breaks bones, and above all, causes concussions. This, above everything else, is the one thing that would make football intolerable. Fixed games, steroids, players with criminal records, instant replay, more commercial breaks, the two-point conversion, expansion—none of these things would even approach the impact of the NFL allowing this to continue.<br /><br />I'm never loath to quote superhero comics when making a serious point. They deal with issues of such exaggerated importance they'll occasionally give us a moment of really profound wisdom. Here's a chance to use Uncle Ben's best line, from Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility." Usually that's the kind of thing that comes up in political situations, but it's almost never applied so literally. These guys carry enormous power on the field. Literal force: they clobber each other. We understand that that creates a risky game, where injuries are a part of life. Legitimate moral questions are raised even in the day-to-day experience of football, and the answer to those questions is deeply tied to the NFL's ability to assume the responsibility created by the violence of the game.<br /><br />Sometimes the responsibility emerges cleanly: after Kevin Everett was paralyzed after a collision during a kick return in Buffalo, he regained the ability to walk thanks to advanced techniques researched under grants from the league. The NFL also has funded extensive research into concussions, and consistently updates its rules to limit the hits that cause them.<br /><br />But this is a new ballgame. We're not talking about the incidental risks of a dangerous activity, we're talking about deliberate violence, intended not to win the game but to break the opponent, in ways that destroy seasons, careers, and lives. A sadism induced by thousands of dollars. That's why the NFL needs to bring the maximum penalties in its jurisdiction against Gregg Williams. A lifetime ban is a minimum beginning. Public release of all documents pursuant to the investigation, and availability of league resources to any pending criminal cases or liability suits. And then, they need to find out where else this is happening, and bring down a similar wrath.<br /><br />Thankfully, most fans are outraged by this, but there are plenty who are saying that this is just part of the game. And they're matched by players who refer to it all as no big deal; just an incidental burst of violence among the rest. This is obviously more evidence of the coarse sadism that I've written about before, but there's a secondary point to be made here: this is evidence of objectification of people.<br /><br />Objectification is most commonly thought of in terms of sexual objectification, of which plenty has been written. I'm not trying to compare them—but the point is that this is a result of the same phenomenon. Fans stop thinking of the players as people, but something less. Not even animals: Michael Vick's dogfighting ring gained far more universal condemnation than Gregg Williams humanfighting ring. We're looking at men as machines, or perhaps, simulations. We forget that there is a human cost to Sunday's results.<br /><br />We overcome the objectification of football players when we afford them essential human dignity—their safety is public concern, we respect the emotional and physical cost of the game and respond appropriately. To some extent, even fans' resentment of players' ability to negotiate pay for their services smacks of this objectification. The players' personal agency is dismissed. Shut up and play the game. That's what we need to stop.<br /><br />The players' own indifference to injury or the bounties is no counterproof. They are surely under significant pressure to act as tough as possible, to prove to teammates and coaches and fans that their performance is unimpeded by any personal concerns. Beyond that, they have spent their entire lives in this enviroment—and in a culture that reinforces it—and are willing to objectify themselves, and take on a false consciousness about their role as humans. This is not to completely dismiss their statements on the matter—resisting objectification demands that their subjective views of the matter be fully relevant—but under no circumstances can this continue.<br /><br />Roger Goodell, you've been a commissioner with a strong hand in punishment and a crucial concern for player safety. End this now.Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900674042716762854noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-58334363357358223132012-02-21T11:50:00.002-08:002012-02-21T13:11:53.666-08:00Interesting Things<span ><span style="font-size: 100%;"><blockquote></blockquote>Sometimes when I am crawling through the tubes of the interwebs I encounter an article that I think would be great for this blog. One course of action would be to post that article onto the blog. An entirely different, and perfectly valid, course of action is to leave that particular tab open until there is time to post the article later. This way I will have time to think of insightful and interesting commentary to go along with the post. </span></span><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; ">On what might be a slightly related note, the top of my current browser window is a jammed full of tiny </span><span >unreadable</span><span style="font-size: 100%; "><span > tabs. So now I'm going to </span></span><s><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Courier New'; ">dump on</span></s><span style="font-size: 100%; "><span > </span></span><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; ">give you these wonderful and interesting links. Here we go:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; "><br /></span></div><div><span ><b>Sometimes People Hate Science:</b></span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; "><a href="http://skepchick.org/2012/02/scientist-finds-the-earth-isnt-rotating/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Skepchick+(Skepchick)">Here</a> is a long, insane video on why the earth is not rotating on its axis. Fortunately the video is accompanied by a short summary of the highlights. The summary of the summary is that a guy made a 30 minute video to explain how the earth is not actually rotating on its axis. This video was made in order to prove that the bible is accurate when it states "the earth is absolutely not moving." (citation needed . . .)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; "><br /></span></div><div><span >This video is a particularly extreme example of someone trying to defend religion from the evil of science. There's a sad irony in these attempts, as they are founded in a depressing lack of faith and divinity. A very smart and scientifically savvy Christian I know summarized the way anti-science Christians undermine their own faith with these arguments with a simple quote:</span></div><div><span ><blockquote>God is not afraid of science</blockquote></span></div><div><span >Separate from the religious motivation for the video, the video itself raises a cool science question: how do we <b>know </b>the earth is rotating on its axis? I mean, we can kind of see it from outer space, or we can see that other planets are rotating and assume that earth is rotating as well. But, in space, all motion is relative. Is it possible that the earth is perfectly still in space and everything else in the universe is spinning around use in a zany way, making it appear that the earth is rotating? While the relative nature of motion is a fun though experiment, the answer is still no. We can actually measure the earth's rotation very simply using something called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum">Foucault Pendulum</a>. Click the link, it's cool stuff. </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span ><b>It Really is about Keeping Women in the Kitchen</b></span></div><div><span ><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span ><a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/154144/why_patriarchal_men_are_utterly_petrified_of_birth_control_--_and_why_we%27ll_still_be_fighting_about_it_100_years_from_now?akid=8270.34521.aRSTza&rd=1&t=8">This is a great short article </a> arguing that birth control is one of the greatest achievements of the 20th century. The basic notion is that without reliable birth control women were always second class citizens, and men could claim that it was a requirement of biology. In fact, men still claim this, even with reliable birth control. The article argues that the hard line against birth control is a recognition that it allows women to break the shackles of a sexist society. Now, we're seeing a backlash against contraception itself by organization steeped in traditional male authority, like the Catholic Church. </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >The point that birth control may be the most important invention of the 20th century, and yet it's something that the reader (and myself) has never seen on a list of great invention of the 20th century is fascinating. Birth control has fundamentally changed a social dynamic that has existed as long as humans. What we're seeing now in politics (and yes, I include the debate over choice and abortion) is the fight over the dramatic social shift that comes from gender equality. </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span ><b>Humor Break</b></span></div><div><span ><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span >Politics is depressing. Watch <a href="http://www.catgifpage.com">these amazing cat gifs</a> for a break. </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span ><b>Romney As Sociopath? </b></span></div><div><span ><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span >Cruelty to animals is something that connects on an emotional level in a way that cruelty to humans often does not. It's why the story about Romney's family dog, Seamus, is the kind of story that sticks. It is likely to stick to Romney as an indication of his uncaring nature, even more than his quote about not caring about the very poor (because they already have a safety net). </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >The summary is that when his family moved, he put the dog in a carrier and strapped it to the roof of the car. At some point during the drive the dog shat itself. Romney hosed it off at a rest stop and kept going. Ever practical. It demonstrates a certain heartlessness that fits with the image of Romney as a rich calculating machine. There are indications that this story will continue to linger:</span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >Here is a <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/new-web-video-shows-mitt-romney-hounded-by-dog-problem/">humorous web video</a> which pokes at the issue. </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >Gingrich even used the issue in <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/seamus-returns-gingrich-ad-revives-romneys-dog-debacle/">one of his ads</a>. </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span ><b>Oh, Santorum . . . </b></span></div><div><span ><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span >You didn't think you were going to get out of this link dump post without a healthy dose of Santorum did you? It feels like he spews crazy faster than even the internet can keep up. Here's the small sampling that ended up on my tab bar: </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >Rick Santorum needs to be President to counter the influence <a href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/rick-santorum-thinks-satan-has-taken-over-america/">of Satan</a>. Even more than the Satan stuff though, this article points out a Santorum quote that could cause more damage to his campaign than any of the crazy that he's spewed out: </span></div><div><span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 24px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><blockquote>of course we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is in shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.</blockquote></span> </div><div><span >When your run for President relies entirely on turnout among protestant evangelicals, in might not be a good idea to say that they aren't Christians .. . </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >Santorum may want to remove the plank from his own eye before worrying about the splinters in the eyes of American Protestants, seeing as review of tax returns has revealed that he gives a <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/16/news/economy/santorum_charity/index.htm?source=cnn_bin">minuscule fraction of his significant income to charity</a>. Many people would say that a foundation of Christian belief is charitable donation, especially when churches count as charities for such giving (Which I believe represents a huge part of Romney's significant giving).</span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span >Of course we know that being the "Christian" candidate in today's politics isn't about being kind to others, forgiveness, or giving. It's about trying to turn the clock back to a time before the United States provided any services or legal protections to anyone. So Santorum is putting forward his conservative chops by attacking that scourge upon humanity: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-gop-race-20120219,0,2831889.story">public education</a>. If you don't have the stomach for the whole article, here's the money quote: </span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></span><blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">"Yes, the government can help, but the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that the state government should be running schools, is anachronistic."</span><br style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">(Aside from schools for the children of military personnel, the federal government does not actually operate schools. Most U.S. schools are supported primarily by state or local funding, or a combination of the two.)</span><br style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Santorum said the public education system was an artifact of the Industrial Revolution, "when people came off the farms where they did home school or had a little neighborhood school, and into these big factories … called public schools."</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "></span> </div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; "> <b>Not as Conservative as It Seems</b></span></div><div><span style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; "><b><br /></b></span></div><div><span >Conservatives make a lot of noise in our society. The noise itself can be fairly frightening, but it's important to remember that polls continually demonstrate that the populace is not nearly as stupid or conservative as the echo chamber makes it seem. Unfortunately, the importance of voting turn out, and the primary system, tend to make politicians more extreme than the generally populace. A recent poll in Virginia indicates once again, that where the state government is doing crazy things, the people who live there are <a href="http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2012/feb/19/tdmain01-poll-finds-most-back-status-quo-ar-1700089/">far more moderate in their positions on these issues</a>. </span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div>Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-17737080703660664712012-02-19T15:41:00.000-08:002012-02-19T15:44:09.067-08:00Fantasy Settings and the Roman WorldI've been thinking a bit recently about why fantasy novels are set in medieval worlds. Or even if they're not properly fantasy, if we want a story told about times before modernity, it always goes to the tales of knights and castles and kingdoms. I think there's fascinating ideas out there from even earlier, of the Roman Republic and the Athenian philosopher-kings, and I've written up a few points about what would make a story essentially classical instead of medieval: a necessary task if we're leaving the real timeline.<br /><br />* Urban vs. rural: I think this is an element that makes things particularly compelling. The castle is replaced by the polis for affairs of state. I think the results of this is a much larger political universe: medievalist fantasy usually focuses on the conflicts between the king and the nobles, or the various squabbles of competing petty warlords. There's a lot more to deal with if you're in charge of a city - fully capable political classes to contest authority, and powerful nonpolitical actors: guilds, mobs, organized crime, artists, beggars, merchants. And of course, those things are all interesting to explore beyond political struggles - there are more people doing more different things in a city than in a pastoral setting, where you're either a knight or a farmer. Maybe an innkeeper.<br /><br />* Power of the state: There's a bit of a paradox here - the classical ruler is more checked by rival powers in the city, but simultaneously much more potential authority, should he dominate those elements. Medieval kingships tended to be low-stakes affairs, and royalty was its own prize. The greater organization of a Roman-style state opens up a lot more avenues for characters to interact with the state, both successfully or otherwise. Or attempt to interact with the populace, should they be rulers themselves.<br /><br />* Range and diversity: I think in a classical setting, your characters are much more able to travel. A medieval affair tends to concern itself in one realm, which is fairly homogenous. Rome encompassed Egypt and England alike, and you are able to regularly mix things up with different cultures, religions, or powers running across things. You have cosmopolitan characters able to seek these things out, too, and more places to flee. At the same time, there's much more of a continuum between insiders and outsiders. A foreigner is not nearly as obvious.<br /><br />*Monarchy vs. republic: A medieval setting almost never considers the idea that maybe people shouldn't be ruled by a king. A classical setting can really take up this argument, all the more urgent if the choices are a republic or an empire. Warlords can aspire to more power by claiming the imperium, and dissidents can do more than support the just and fair younger brother of the king. You get to inject very potent, resonant idealisms into a conflict over power.<br /><br />*Barbarians at the gates: Always a loaded question, I think in a classical setting you can explore more the line between civilization and barbarism - and at the same time, undermine that distinction. As above, it's not an insular society like so many medieval kingdoms, instead you have a very distinct line that separates the Romans from the Germans, which characters are going to lean on. It's also a way to empower emperor-types, who are going to win prestige by turning back the hordes, and use fear of same to command their authority. Their supporters will be more complex than the toadies of the evil king.<br /><br />*Thinkers: more than plotters, you get to have characters who are philosophers, and able to influence events with ideas. With consequences as disastrous as anything else, of course, as Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle were able to witness.<br /><br />*Atmospherics: Here's where we get the robes-for-chain mail swap, but some of this is interesting in its own right. You get to move away from the colder north lands to the lush Mediterranean, and from wood and stone to marble. Villas. You can play a lot with tone here.Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900674042716762854noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-85217825158204781112012-02-17T12:33:00.001-08:002012-02-17T12:34:06.417-08:00Does anyone really think this?<a href="http://chzdatingfails.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/dating-fails-stock-photo-stereotype-flaws-in-the-system.jpg"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 500px; height: 825px;" src="http://chzdatingfails.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/dating-fails-stock-photo-stereotype-flaws-in-the-system.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><div>Seriously? Who are these men who spend their time bitching about being men in a male dominated society?</div>Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-68218143723830827152012-02-14T17:36:00.001-08:002012-02-14T17:38:00.123-08:00Making Me Happy this Week<a href="http://i.usatoday.net/life/_photos/2012/02/14/Adeles-21-likely-to-top-charts-again-3810A69D-x.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 245px; height: 184px;" src="http://i.usatoday.net/life/_photos/2012/02/14/Adeles-21-likely-to-top-charts-again-3810A69D-x.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />This blog has been a little bit on the grim side, all told. So I wanted to change the tone.<br /><br />Adele won pretty much all the Grammys. That's the best thing to happen in pop music since the Beatles were on Ed Sullivan.Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900674042716762854noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-86800491297490595472012-02-14T12:31:00.001-08:002012-02-14T12:53:54.092-08:00Sadism and Parenthood.So, <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/n-dad-shot-daughter-laptop-facebook-rant-i-article-1.1021887">this has been tearing its way across the Internet for a while</a>. I really didn't want to watch the video, but since I've committed to writing this post, I obviously have to.<br /><br />This is seriously messed up. You know what's not a tool of parenting? Firearms. Discharging a gun and saying "this is what you deserve" is not something you do around people you love, it's what you do when you're a sociopath. It's certainly not a valid response to a kid whining about chores on Facebook. Whining kids are annoying, I'm sure. I get that. But guns are designed to kill people. Kill animals. Kill intruders. Eliminate threats. Whatever your stance is on gun control, the point is that guns aren't made to fix things. They're made to destroy things. Invoking your power to use an implement of raw destruction when angry is terrifying. “This right here is my .45,” he says, before unloading nine bullets into a laptop. Nine bullets.<br /><br />But honestly, this guy is the least of my problems. Some people are crazy, I can deal with that. What bothers me is that the poll attached to the article has over 2/3s of voters supporting him. Unscientific polling or not, I'm guessing that there's probably a real majority position there. And the reason for it, as is increasingly dominant in American culture, is one of sadism: those who we dislike are to be neither corrected, convinced or reformed, nor contained, isolated, and ignored. They are to suffer. And so, we get to read the supportive commenters, who say that bratty kids deserve pain, humiliation, and suffering.<br /><br />"[M]aybe he should have affixed a pic of "lil precious" to the laptop b4 he'd emptied the clip in it!" adds the most egregious of them. Others wish she had been physically struck along with threatened, and more just congratulate their conquering hero, who decided to use his gun to teach his daughter a lesson about "respect."<br /><br />The other examples of the sadist culture are easy to find. Those cheering, on national talk shows, Marines who urinated on dead Afghani soldiers: so quickly can inalienable human dignity be discarded. Those who cheered at Rick Perry's execution hit list, or at Ron Paul's calls for the poor and sick to be left to die. Or Liz Trotta, in the post below by Agis, who supports rape against women who dare to join the military. The point isn't about who the person is on the other side, whether they're as heroic as female combat soldiers, as ordinary as whiny teenagers, or as loathsome as murderers and enemy soldiers. The point is that we, as a society, are finding moments of glee in our ability to inflict pain on these people, and it is this essential element that denatures our claim to do justice in the world and turns us into cruel tyrants seeking revenge.Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900674042716762854noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-28090696656916077602012-02-13T17:43:00.000-08:002012-02-13T18:17:51.626-08:00"Honey" Sauce<div style="text-align: center;"><span><br /></span></div><span><span style="font-size: 100%;">I admit it, I occasionally go to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">KFC</span>. I do this because <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">KFC</span> food is amazing (and because I steeply discount future utility). I make no excuses. </span></span><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">Anyone who has ever been to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">KFC</span> or talked to a person who has been to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">KFC</span> knows that their biscuits are delicious. They are fried butter masquerading as baked dough. When I have had these little dumplings of happiness in the past, I have put honey on them instead of butter. It was a tiny healthy decision inside the Russian nesting dolls of unhealthy decisions that is <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">KFC</span>.</div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">However, today, it was pointed out to me that I have been putting "Honey" sauce on my biscuits, not honey:</div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 240px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-pD0e2T1Ynuk/Tzm9AdE9F8I/AAAAAAAAAEY/vZbVy_uavgw/s320/photo.JPG" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5708801818171873218" /><div><br /></div><div>My phone's camera resolution is low, but the pocket actually lists the ingredients for <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">KFC</span> "Honey" sauce. They are as follows:</div><div><br /></div><div><blockquote>Ingredients: High fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, sugar, honey, fructose, less than 2% coloring etc. </blockquote></div><div>This ingredient list is so absurd as to be comical. It's the kind of ingredients a writer would dream up for an <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">SNL</span> fake commercial about fast food. Honey is an alternative sweetener to sugar! Some type of sugar is the first three ingredients before honey! </div><div><br /></div><div>When food, in particular fast food, is regulated, there is usually an outcry of some sort. But, I feel that labeling is an important first step. Many people claim that mandating label changes or posting of nutritional information doesn't make any difference. But if it really makes no difference, than <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">KFC</span> would label it's "Honey" sauce what it is: honey flavored syrup. </div><div><br /></div><div>UPDATE: there is a hilarious South Park episode about KFC - <a href="http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s14e03-medicinal-fried-chicken">watch here.</a> </div>Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-39964483696899737172012-02-12T23:39:00.001-08:002012-02-12T23:52:25.798-08:00This is the worst thing<span ><span style="font-size: 100%;">There is an amazing bevy of conservative commentators in the United States who say really messed up stuff. So it's really something when I come across something that is so horrible, so shockingly callous, as to leave me truly stunned. </span></span><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; ">Liz Trotta, from Fox News (where else), has really set a new standard. The executive summary of her comments is that women in the United States military should expect to get raped by their fellow soldiers, and spending money on trying to prevent these rapes is the epitome of government waste. If that upsets you as much as it should, be warned, video and quotes to follow:</div><div style="font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 100%; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; "><br /></div><div><span ><object width="320" height="240"> <param name="movie" value="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf"> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"> <param name="flashvars" value="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?f=/static/clips/2012/02/12/22888/fnc-anhq-20120212-womenmilitary.flv"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><param name="allownetworking" value="all"><embed src="http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?f=/static/clips/2012/02/12/22888/fnc-anhq-20120212-womenmilitary.flv" allowscriptaccess="always" wmode="transparent" allowfullscreen="true" width="320" height="240"></embed></object></span></div><div><span ><br /></span></div><div><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); "></span><blockquote><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); ">TROTTA: ...just a few weeks ago, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta commented on a new Pentagon report on sexual abuse in the military. I think they have actually discovered there is a difference between men and women. And t</span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); font-weight: bold; ">he sexual abuse report says that there has been, since 2006, a 64% increase in violent sexual assaults. Now, what did they expect? These people are in close contact</span><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); ">, the whole airing of this issue has never been done by Congress, it's strictly been a question of pressure from the feminist.</span><br style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); "><br style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); "><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); ">And the feminists have also directed them, really, to spend a lot of money. They have sexual counselors all over the place, victims' advocates, sexual response coordinators. Let me just read something to you from McClatchy Newspapers about how much this position on extreme feminism is costing us. "The budget for the Defense Department's Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office leapt from $5 million in fiscal 2005 to more than $23 million in fiscal 2010. Total Defense Department spending on sexual assault prevention and related efforts now exceeds $113 million annually." That's from McClatchy Newspapers.</span><br style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); "><br style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); "><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); ">So, you have this whole bureaucracy upon bureaucracy being built up with all kinds of levels of people to support women in the military who are now being raped too much.</span><br style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); "><br style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); "><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); ">SHAWN: Well, many would say that they need to be protected, and there are these sexual programs, abuse programs, are necessary --</span><br style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); "><br style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); "><span style="text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 204); ">TROTTA: That's funny, I thought the mission of the Army, and the Navy, and four services was to defend and protect us, not the people who were fighting the war.</span></blockquote>It's hard to muster any kind of response to this. After calming down slightly, and trying to imagine a place where this kind of 'commentary' needs any response at all, I would think that if one was upset about needing to spend millions to prevent sexual assault within our military that person would be upset that people are getting raped and harassed in the first place. </div><div><br /></div><div>Also, Fox News is a joke. The next time anyone tries to suggest that it's anything anyone should ever watch I'm going to send them this clip. </div>Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-975833158810210722012-02-10T12:23:00.001-08:002012-02-10T12:26:30.592-08:00Riddle:When is a law which received 415 votes in the House in 2005, and was signed by George W. Bush not conservative enough?<div><br /></div><div><a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/10/1063489/-Senate-Republicans-push-to-weaken-Violence-Against-Women-Act?detail=hide&via=blog_1">When you're a republican Senator in 2012</a>.</div><div><br /></div><div>The even shorter version of the summary linked to above, is that the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee all voted against reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. You see, the law treats homosexuals equally and is too soft on immigrants. Also, we spend too much money on it. "It" being preventing violence against women, of course. </div><div><br /></div><div>I'd like to blame this on election year politics. I can't tell if that would make it better or worse. </div>Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-57260942358314305042012-02-08T13:25:00.000-08:002012-02-08T13:40:41.661-08:00Brain on rape.<span style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); ">Look, I get it. You trust your brain. I trust my brain. Our brains have served us well in our lives. Wherever we are, we wouldn't be there without our brains. Our brains understand things. When an object is coming toward our head, our brain knows to duck, often before we do! Our brain understands subtle body language and facial expressions that I would never notice. But, sometimes we need to show our brain who's boss. We need to say "no brain, I know you think it's like that, but it's not, it's just not." Sometimes, our brain is so used to being right that it thinks it's better than facts. </span><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); "><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); ">For instance, my brain thinks sex is about sex. This is so simple, that my brain is really convinced it's correct on this one. So when my brain hears about a rape, it thinks "that guy must have really wanted to have sex with her." Wrong brain! You see, my brain is not a rapist (thankfully), and so it doesn't really understand how rape works, or why it happens. So my brain might think, maybe that rape wouldn't happen if the victim hadn't been so sexy looking. Because, (my brain figures) then the rapist wouldn't wanted to have sex with her so badly. But, wow, just wow, brain, that's all kinds of wrong. It's factually incorrect. So, sometimes, we have to tell our brain to take a backseat. Us, as a society, we have to take charge, and use facts to over-ride our brain. It doesn't always work, and it's certainly not easy. But in policy and public discourse, it's essential.</div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); "><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); ">Take, for example, the fact that someday I am going to die. Both my brain and I agree on this fact. We, however, disagree on the method of my death. I'm fairly certain that I will die of heart disease, stroke or maybe a car crash someplace near my home. My brain on the other hand is pretty sure I will die in an airplane crash, an armed robbery or from a spider hidden in my shoe. I told you before, sometimes my brain is an idiot. So when a plane goes through some turbulence, my brain makes sure that I'm good and scared, because I'M IN A FLYING TUBE OF METAL! Yet at the same time, my brain will let me shovel bacon cheeseburgers into my mouth like they're tic <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">tacs</span>, without so much as a tiny bit of adrenaline. What's up with that brain? And, really, this isn't a big deal. I'm capable of making decisions in my life. It requires work, and effort, and knowledge, and ordering salad instead of fries (and recognizing that an iceberg lettuce salad with thousand island dressing isn't much better than fries). The real problem emerges when we all start talking together, and making decisions together, as a society and a culture. </div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); "><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); ">You see, it's fine for me to grab the armrest of an airplane with a <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">deathgrip</span> every time the airplane I'm in adjusts its flaps, but if I insist that billions of dollars be shifted from heart disease research into increased airplane safety, well, that's not fine. That's not OK brain! It would result in more people dying, probably me among them. </div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); "><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); ">So, on rape. I get it. Guys, and people closely related to guys, are scared that AT ANY MOMENT some slutty lady will seduce him and then, upon realizing that other people will judge her for voluntarily having sex, accuse him of rape. Then his life will be over. Sure, it's a pretty scary scenario. Your word against hers. It would also be pretty scary to fall from the sky in a giant metal tube. And, here's the thing, the trump card your brain can always play: It does happen! It happens. So no matter what kind of facts we throw at our brain, it can always point this out. But, it's a brain trick. The fact that something is technically possible, doesn't really do us any good in addressing whatever it is we should be addressing. </div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); "><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); ">The facts on the issues of rape are clear. But so many people's brains don't like them. Rapists don't rape for sex. They rape as part of violence, dominance and power. They choose victims based on opportunity. Does that mean they sometimes pick victims who are dressed provocatively? Yes. But it is because the provocative dress or behavior provides an opportunity, not because they it inspires the rapist to want to have sex with that person. Our brains might not get it, but it's how it works. Often, this opportunity is increased because society will assume that that person was "asking for it." The person will know society will assume this. The person will be less likely to report the rapist. Because of us. Our brains' belief that rape is about sex actively empowers rapists to get away with rape. Bad brain! So, we must have the ability to look at reality, and say 'no, brain, that's not right." </div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); "><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); ">Even if we wanted to lower the number of false rape accusations. Lets just pretend that is our priority. Then why are we attacking women for slutty behavior? Aren't those attacks *<b>the exact reason why we think women make up rape accusations*</b>? So now our brain has us both empowering rapists AND <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">incentivising</span> women to accuse innocent young men of rape. After all, if they don't accuse the first guy of rape, then we will use the fact she slept with that first guy so willingly as an example of how she's being stupid by increasing her risk of being raped, because she's a slut. </div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); "><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); ">Our brain says rape is about sex, and then says that therefore <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">sluttiness</span> leads to rape, which results in us empowering rapists to get away with it, AND we creating the very environment that causes our brain to imagine that women are out there "crying rape" all the time. (Guess what brain? They're not! Repeated studies show that false rape accusations occur at the same rate as false accusations for other crimes.)</div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); "><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); ">Back to the airplane analogy. Our rape situation is even worse than redirecting all our heart disease money to excessive airplane safety. It's more like redirecting all our heart disease money to making airplane flaps not make that scary noise. More people will die of heart disease, and, at the same time, just as many airplanes will crash. Because our brain doesn't understand why airplanes crash. Our brain is stupid when it comes to airplanes! We have to spend time to learn about airplanes before we know how they work!</div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); "><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); ">Intuition serves us well in many areas of our lives. Sexual assault is not one of them (neither is airplanes). So, yeah. It takes a lot of work and a lot of knowledge to tell our brains to shut up.</div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); "><br /></div><div style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; text-align: -webkit-auto; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.917969); ">Sexual assault is very real. Somehow this is true despite the fact that we have been slut shaming for quite awhile. So it's time we look at the facts, and tell our brains who's boss. </div>Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-42932583732036830262012-02-01T23:12:00.000-08:002012-02-01T23:18:21.390-08:00Dr. Pepper is delicious<div><br /></div><div><br />Dr. Pepper is delicious. Diet Dr. Pepper is the best tasting diet pop ever. Unfortunately, the owners of Dr. Pepper decided that running ads that say "diet Dr. Pepper is delicious, you should drink it because it tastes good," is too easy. Instead, they created a new product called Dr. Pepper 10. At first the ads are offensive. Then they are stupid. Then, they are so stupid they become offensive in an entirely new way.<div><br /></div><div>Now I am forced to drink the slightly less delicious root beer. My life is hard. Here is a comic to provide some relief from our difficult lives:</div></div><div><br /></div><a href="http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/310373/837.png"><img style="display:block; margin:0px auto 10px; text-align:center;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 720px; height: 519px;" src="http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/310373/837.png" border="0" alt="" /></a><br /><div><br /></div><div><br /></div>Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-21107924666697741142012-01-31T21:47:00.000-08:002012-01-31T22:16:17.970-08:00Nice Guy TMSometimes culture invents a new phrase or name. Sometimes these names are labels that name something we already understand. Swingrich, discussed below, is such a term. It's a great name for something we already understand.<div><br /></div><div>But sometimes learning the meaning of a new label means learning something new, beyond the name itself. The concept exposes us to an idea which increases our understanding of how the world, or people in the world, work. </div><div><br /></div><div>Nice Guy TM was such a concept for me. From seeking to understand the label, I gained insight into our culture and the people in it. I could write a lot on the idea of Nice Guy TM, but really I just wanted to take a minute to throw up a couple posts around the internet that explain and have various takes on the idea. I'd like to think that reading the content at these links would have done 16-25 year old me some good.</div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Nice_guy_syndrome">Nice Guy Syndrome</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://restructure.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/nice-guy-tm-at-xkcd/">Nice Guy Comic</a></div><div><br /></div><div><a href="http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2007/12/explainer-what-is-nice-guy.html">What is a Nice Guy?</a></div>Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-22265796875505026642012-01-29T11:44:00.000-08:002012-01-29T11:56:49.518-08:00Real Republican Candidates Preparing for FutureThe 2012 Republican Primary has been a parade of political punchlines in the form of "candidates." Liberals would like to believe that it is the state of the Republican Party which as forced them into this terrible condition. That is likely at least partially true. However, the reality is that the real dangerous candidates in the party have decided to sit 2012 out. I think it's pretty clear they don't want to run against Obama in a year where it looks like the economy will continue to improve up to election day. So they can afford to wait until 2016.<div><br /></div><div>One of these candidates appears to have an awareness of how quickly the gay rights debate is moving, and what that political landscape will like in four years. Governor Christie has <a href="http://gay.americablog.com/2012/01/nj-gop-gov-christie-appoints-gay-man-to.html">appointed a gay man to the state supreme court. </a></div><div><br /></div><div>It's a move that doesn't force him to come out of the closest to his party as not a bigot. But, in four years, when he's running for President, it will give him cover on this issue. He will be able to claim during the general election, that he always believed in whatever level of rights he is proposing as part of his platform (something calculatingly moderate, like believing gay marriage and adoption is a question of states' rights, and that the federal government shouldn't be involved at all). </div><div><br /></div><div>I think this news story demonstrates that smart politicians know full well where the gay rights debate is headed, and how fast it's getting there. Now that Don't Ask Don't Tell has been repealed, and absolutely none of the world ending scenarios predicted by the conservatives have come to pass, the credibility of the anti-rights individuals is evaporating quickly. </div><div><br /></div><div>When we're told that gay marriages, or gay parents, will result in a world where cats chase dogs and babies steal our candy, it will be even less believable than it already was. </div><div><br /></div><div>Smart politicians like Christie know this, and they know they need to plan for the future. </div>Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-24610696045383380772012-01-23T19:26:00.000-08:002012-01-23T21:57:52.485-08:00On "Fixing" Star WarsFor years after the Star Wars movies first came out (New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi) Star Wars fans were treated to hours of entertainment. Mostly this came in the form of watching Star Wars movies, talking about how awesome Star Wars is, trying to use the force, pretending a stick is a <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_0" class="blsp-spelling-error">lightsaber</span>, watching the movies again, hunting down people who had not yet seen the movies and making them watch the movies, then trying to use the force again, and then talking some more about how awesome Star Wars is.<br /><br />It seems likely that this pattern will repeat itself indefinitely into the future, providing unmeasurable entertainment.<br /><br />It is also true that the new Star Wars movies (Phantom <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_1" class="blsp-spelling-error">Menace</span>, Clone Wars, Vader is Back - or something) have provided a near endless supply of entertainment for Star Wars fans. However, 99.9% of this entertainment comes in the form of sitting around and talking about the ways the movies could have been better.<br /><br />It is impossible to talk about these movies without, even by accident, mentioning a way by which they could have been improved.<br /><br />Most of the methods of improvement can be summarized quite simply. They are ways in which the movies could be *better*. Better characters, better story, better moments, better casting, better writing . . . etc.<br /><br />I can agree with that, but I've always had one huge issue with the challenge presented by Episodes I-III of Star Wars: at the end, the bad guys win.<br /><br />That seems to me to be a structural flaw in the story that no amount of "better" is going to fix. At the end of the movie Obi-Wan <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_2" class="blsp-spelling-error">Kenobi</span> and Yoda, two cherished characters from the original movies, lose. A moment which I imagine goes something like this:<br /><br /><br /><blockquote><br /><p><strong>Yoda:</strong> How did your battle with <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_3" class="blsp-spelling-error">Anakin</span> <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_4" class="blsp-spelling-error">Skywalker</span> go?<br /><strong><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_5" class="blsp-spelling-error">Kenobi</span>:</strong> Great, I cut off all his limbs and left<br />him on fire next to a river<br />of lava<br /><strong>Yoda:</strong> At least the terrible evil who<br />betrayed us all and killed the Jedi is<br />dead<br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_6" class="blsp-spelling-error"><strong>Kenobi</strong></span>: . . . .<br /><strong>Yoda:</strong> He is dead right?<br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_7" class="blsp-spelling-error"><strong>Kenobi</strong></span>: . .<br />. so, uh, how was your fight with <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_8" class="blsp-spelling-error">Palpatine</span>?<br /><strong>Yoda:</strong> oh, that . . . yeah, that<br />was fine, <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_9" class="blsp-spelling-error">y'know</span>,<br />basically like<br />yours<br /><strong><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_10" class="blsp-spelling-error">Kenobi</span>:</strong> like mine?<br /><strong>Yoda:</strong> yeah, uh, limbs .<br />. . lava . . . or something<br /><strong><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_11" class="blsp-spelling-error">Kenobi</span>:</strong> . . .<br /><strong>Yoda:</strong> . . .<br /><span id="SPELLING_ERROR_12" class="blsp-spelling-error"><strong>Kenobi</strong></span>: So, want to go hide out on remote planets for the next twenty<br />years?<br /><strong>Yoda:</strong> sounds good</p></blockquote>The bottom line is that Vader and the Emperor standing triumphant over a crushed republic and hundreds of dead <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_13" class="blsp-spelling-error">Jedis</span> is an ending that no amount of "better" is going to rescue.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate a serious movie with a serious ending as much as the next guy. The Thin Red Line is one of my favorite movies of all time, and it ends with the harsh realities of war. But there are limits. You can't make a prequel of Saving Private Ryan that ends with the Nazis celebrating in the streets of France. That's going to be a terrible movie, even if it doesn't have Jar Jar Binks.<br /><br />Those limits are especially applicable to an action movie about cowboy ninja wizards in space.<br /><br />So how do we fix it?<br /><br />The fact of that matter is that Episode IV starts in a dark place. The Jedi are dead, democracy is toast, and the Death Star is complete and blasting planets out of the sky. The prequels have to get us to that bad spot.<br /><br />The answer, as with the corrections to all of George Lucas' idiocy, is pretty simple.<br /><br />Episode III needs to end the moment before Episode IV begins. This way the triumphant ending of the movie can be the rebels <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_14" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">successfully</span> stealing the plans to the Death Star; the very theft which initiates the plot of Episode IV.<br /><br />It's not that tricky to do. <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_15" class="blsp-spelling-corrected">Simply</span> lop off Episode I entirely. This way the first Star Wars movie is about the friendship and training between Obi Wan and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_16" class="blsp-spelling-error">Anakin</span>. The second movie is about the betrayal of <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_17" class="blsp-spelling-error">Anakin</span>, the emergence of the Emperor and the fall of the Jedi. Then the third movie can be about the rise of the rebellion, and mostly center around Princess Leia. At the end, she manages to organize a group of rebels for the daring theft of the Death Star plans.<br /><br />The third movie has the added benefit of allowing an explanation for why Yoda and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_18" class="blsp-spelling-error">Kenobi</span>, the two most powerful good guys in the galaxy, are hiding in caves on remote planets. Yoda and <span id="SPELLING_ERROR_19" class="blsp-spelling-error">Kenobi</span> helped to organize the rebellion initially. However, their strength in the force allowed the Emperor and Vader to detect their presence, and could be used to give away the location of rebel bases and outposts.<br /><br />This structure would mirror the basic outline for the first three movies. The first one is where we meet our characters and learn a bit about their struggles. In the second one the bad guys win. In the third, the good guys regroup and emerge with a gritty victory against all odds.<br /><br />It's the formula by which all cowboy ninja wizards in space should live.Agishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01074828202399142807noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-1862322846568390542012-01-20T15:20:00.000-08:002012-01-20T15:21:50.943-08:00<a href="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GhQvu2WoL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 300px;" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41GhQvu2WoL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a><br />This book is blowing my mind.Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900674042716762854noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4309663644247115378.post-24926814624628619712012-01-20T15:16:00.000-08:002012-01-20T15:20:16.121-08:00Really?I got linked here by Amanda Marcotte's tweet: https://twitter.com/#!/AmandaMarcotte/status/160439693220118528<br /><br />It's a dude writing an advice columnist asking for permission to skip a wedding because his girlfriend - who is the maid of honor - has, in the past, kissed other members of the bridal party. I can't muster a better response than....REALLY?<br /><br />I can note that somehow, this fella is a member of my chosen profession, which is depressing, and manages to use the phrase "the repercussions of her actions" to describe his bowing out.<br /><br />I have a lot of tolerance for teenagers acting like morons. That's why I put up with weird characters on teen shows. You can allow it, they're undeveloped! But law students have to be adults, and it's just frustrating and nothing more when they're these kinds of dillholes.Mikehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05900674042716762854noreply@blogger.com2