eclecticism

I’ll freely admit that I’m not terribly happy about Obama’s announcement that he’s planning on continuing and expanding Bush’s ‘Faith Based’ programs. However, I think that John Scalzi has a very interesting take on what this might mean for the Presidential race.

Now, I’m a firm believer in never discounting the Democratic party’s ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory; I’m still appalled at the incompetence of the Kerry campaign in 2004 and for that matter, the bad strategy of the Gore campaign in 2000, which involved separating their man from the most popular president in recent history. In this case I think the people involved in the presidential campaign are doing pretty smart things, and it might be the other folks who blow it.

To them I would suggest that they consider that the Obama campaign is paying them a compliment, in that they are making the (not necessarily self-evident) assumption that they’re all smart enough to realize that tacking toward the center in the campaign is going to pay huge dividends for the left when at the end of the 2008 election it finds itself in charge of the executive and legislative branches, and finds itself in a position to fill two or possibly even three seats on the Supreme Court in the next four years, and possibly in the bargain create a sturdy new left-leaning political base that lasts as long as the GOP base that Reagan used as a foundation three decades ago. I guess we’ll see if that compliment pays off.

It’s definitely worth reading his whole post for the leadup to those two paragraphs, as well.

I’m still uncomfortable with just how much Obama’s pandering to the ultra-religious. I just hope Scalzi’s got the right idea on where this is going.

Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harrassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We’ve been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.

Except that it’s nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn’t photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn’t photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn’t photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren’t being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn’t known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about — the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 — no photography.

Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don’t seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?

Because it’s a movie-plot threat.

From the Christian Science Monitor, a funny editorial advertising Restraint®, a cure for Deficit Attention Disorder (DAD)!

Have you ever wondered how the federal government can bail out banks and mortgage-holders, cut your taxes, try to protect Social Security, expand your Medicare benefits, and send you a stimulus check – all at the same time? These may be symptoms of an embarrassing condition afflicting political parties, banks, and households across America: Deficit Attention Disorder (DAD).

Unchecked, normal individuals (as well as politicians and bank CEOs) afflicted by DAD start to believe in money that doesn’t exist. This silent assassin of fiscal sanity overheats your credit card, sells you a make-believe mortgage, makes your pension go “poof,” and drops a whopping entitlement tab on your kids.

Fortunately, there’s a new way to get DAD under control – without any of the cosmetic remedies prescribed by spin doctors. By combining an ancient Zen secret with a cure-all from your grandmother, our researchers are proud to introduce: Restraint®.

Y’know, it’s really sad that this kind of polite, civil, and amusing discourse is so rarely seen these days. Two people on very different sides of an issue who, rather than loudly proclaiming their absolute certainty that they are right and the other is wrong, are able to amiably chat and joke with each other about the differences in their viewpoints.

Part one:

Part two:

This is neither pro-Obama nor anti-Clinton in my mind — I haven’t officially taken a stance yet, though unofficially I’m throwing my vote in with Cthulhu (why settle for the lesser of two evils, after all?) — I just think it’s really funny. It’s also ganked in full from the Slog:

Uh oh. Earlier this week Hillary Clinton instructed supporters to bet on the filly in the Kentucky Derby. In other words: Bet on Eight Belles, the only female in the horse race (and, Clinton obviously hoped, a potentially promising metaphor/omen for herself and her chances of winning the Democratic nomination).

Well, as local sports fanatic Seth Kolloen just pointed out via email (and on his blog), it didn’t go so well for the filly today.

In a development that you couldn’t even make up, Eight Belles finished second, but broke both her ankles during the race, collapsed at the end, and was immediately euthanized on the track.

(Oh — while it shouldn’t need to be clarified, just to cover my bases with the terminally dense: no, the injury and death of the horse is not funny. The “seemed like a good idea at the time” and subsequently horrifically botched political analogy is hilarious.)

Now here’s a presidential candidate I can get behind.

McClane was fighting the war on terror before it even had a name — and he’s proven he can win it.

John McClane believes in strong health care — he just doesn’t have time to get to a doctor when he’s being shot at.

McClane gets that technology creates as many problems as it solves. Relying on a gadget is no replacement for doing it yourself.

McClane knows that patriotism isn’t about waving a flag while you sit on the couch watching ‘American Idol’. It’s about getting off your butt and fighting for what’s right.

McClane is the American cowboy for our times. He gets how important action-packed portrayals of true heroism are.

Since he hasn’t announced a running mate yet, given that I’m not in entire agreement with his stance on technology, may I suggest Angus MacGyver? Equally as able to get out and get things done, but his willingness to use and adapt available technology would be a nice balance to McClane’s ‘hands-on’ approach.

(via nyquil.org)

A couple of disclaimers to start with:

1. I don’t use digg (outside of setting up an account which has rarely been touched).

2. The analogy is probably quite strained, and I keep bouncing between two ways of expressing it, neither of which I think are quite right:

• internet : politics :: digg : internet
• neocons : politics :: diggers : internet

That said…

Wil went on a rant today about diggers dragging the ‘net down to somewhere below the least common denominator.

I’ve been a Digger for a long time, and always felt like I could rely on Digg’s homepage to reliably and consistently direct me to interesting and useful content, accompanied by insightful, funny, and interesting commentary.

My, how things have changed in just a few months. The links (that make it past the bury brigade) are still pretty good, but for whatever reason, the maturity and behavior of the average Digger has evolved into, well, something resembling a middle school lunch room. While Digg has always been a great way to share your creation with a large audience on the Internet, the associated grief that frequently comes with being exposed to Digg’s userbase has lead to several sites blocking Digg, shutting off comments because of abusive Diggers, and using complicated .htaccess rewrites to send Digg’s traffic away.

This struck me as being the same basic premise of part of what Mike was talking about here (some of which I mentioned yesterday) only applied to neocons and the internet in relation to politics, rather than to diggers.

I think this is a specific result of the rise of neoconservatives to cultural and political power. Note that I don’t attribute this to conservatives or conservatism, but specifically to neoconservatives. I don’t believe that the neoconservative political or social culture is interested in conducting their affairs with civility or with any degree of compromise — and therein lies the problem, as it creates a culture of war. I may not have written about politics in quite a long time…but during that interim, I’ve constantly linklogged to neoconservatives’ actions throughout the American political and social culture, and they are always extremist and seemingly operating under the slogan of “no quarter given.” And although I had hoped this extremism might die with the end of Bush’s Presidency, it seems as if moderates are willing to metamorphose into extremists if it gets them the power they seek (McCain) or that other extremists are ready to jump into the situation the moment a void forms (Romney).

It’s that same all-or-nothing, no-quarter-given, us-or-them, black-and-white viewpoint that our culture is rapidly sinking into. No matter whether the arena is politics or the net, online or off, there seems to be no room left for people who actually want to talk to each other, even if they don’t agree. Respectful discourse, on the whole, doesn’t exist anymore — and how can it, when we’re too busy shouting down the opposition to actually listen to what they have to say?

This has my support, my signature if I find someone canvassing for signatures, and my vote if it should actually make it to the ballot: the Washington Defense of Marriage Alliance’s Initiative 957.

If passed by Washington voters, the Defense of Marriage Initiative would:

• add the phrase, “who are capable of having children with one another” to the legal definition of marriage;
• require that couples married in Washington file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage automatically annulled;
• require that couples married out of state file proof of procreation within three years of the date of marriage or have their marriage classed as “unrecognized;”
• establish a process for filing proof of procreation; and
• make it a criminal act for people in an unrecognized marriage to receive marriage benefits.

Absurd? Very. But there is a rational basis for this absurdity. By floating the initiatives, we hope to prompt discussion about the many misguided assumptions which make up the Andersen ruling. By getting the initiatives passed, we hope the Supreme Court will strike them down as unconstitional and thus weaken Andersen itself. And at the very least, it should be good fun to see the social conservatives who have long screamed that marriage exists for the sole purpose of procreation be forced to choke on their own rhetoric.

I’m in. Of course, other people aren’t so excited…

Cheryl Haskins, executive director of Allies for Marriage & Children, agreed with [I-957 filer Gregory] Gadow’s group on at least one point about the initiative: “It’s absurd,” she said.

Haskins said opponents of same-sex marriage “have never said that the sole purpose of marriage is procreation.”

“When we talk about defending the institution of marriage, we’re talking about the union of a man and a woman,” she said. “Some of those unions produce children and some of them don’t.”

With I-957, “you’re dictating people’s choices in a way that is utterly ridiculous,” she said.

Which, of course, is the point.

The [Washington State Supreme Court majority] opinion [upholding Washington’s ban on same-sex marriage] written by Justice Barbara Madsen concluded that “limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the state’s interests in procreation and encouraging families with a mother and father and children biologically related to both.”

Gadow said the argument is unfair when you’re dealing with same-sex couples who are unable to have children together.

“What we are trying to do is display the discrimination that is at the heart of last year’s ruling,” he said.

I’d add that the language as written is also unfair to heterosexual couples who can’t (or for any reason prefer not to) have children, hetero- or homosexual couples who adopt, or any other combination or situation you can come up with that’s not the husband, wife, and two point five children scenario. I was disgusted with the ruling them, I still am, and I’m quite amused by I-957’s approach to poking at the issue.

Sign me up!

I just heard about this through last Sunday’s ‘Wait Wait… Don’t Tell Me!’ show (which I just found out is available as a podcast, since I never manage to remember to turn on the actual radio), and I think this might be the best Iraq War analogy I’ve heard yet:

Read the rest of this entry »

The Sonics — who used to be the Seattle Sonics until Seattle voters passed Initiative 91, “which prohibited the city from using tax dollars to subsidize a pro team unless the subsidy generates a certain profit for the city,” and are now searching for another city to house them — want to build a $530 million dollar arena…and they want taxpayers to pony up for $300 million of it.

The Sonics can kiss off, as far as I’m concerned.

I’ve always been flabbergasted at the amount of money poured into professional sports, and especially the amount of money thrown at professional athletes. It just makes my head hurt when those people in charge of such things then ask that the public — many of whom couldn’t give two figs for professional sports in general, let alone any particular team — essentially be required to pay to support them.

You want $300 million of my tax dollars? Put it towards education. Put it towards actually doing something to improve transit in Seattle, instead of half-assing your way through a series of stopgap measures, or instead of bickering about what to do for so long (or stubbornly insisting on ridiculous, expensive, impractical options, like the [thankfully, now dead] tunnel replacement for the Alaskan Way Viaduct) that nothing ever gets done. Put the money towards something — or anything — that would actually benefit everyone, not just those who get their rocks off by watching other people play a game.

Heh. This is very cool (that is, cool that a Muslim was elected, and very cool that he’s going to be sworn in on the Koran and not the Bible…not so cool that some idiots are up in arms about this)…

Rep.-elect Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, found himself under attack last month when he announced he’d take his oath of office on the Koran — especially from Virginia Rep. Virgil Goode, who called it a threat to American values.

Yet the holy book at tomorrow’s ceremony has an unassailably all-American provenance. We’ve learned that the new congressman — in a savvy bit of political symbolism — will hold the personal copy once owned by Thomas Jefferson.

[…]

Ellison will take the official oath of office along with the other incoming members in the House chamber, then use the Koran in his individual, ceremonial oath with new Speaker Nancy Pelosi. “Keith is paying respect not only to the founding fathers’ belief in religious freedom but the Constitution itself,” said Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert.

One person unlikely to be swayed by the book’s illustrious history is Goode, who released a letter two weeks ago objecting to Ellison’s use of the Koran. “I believe that the overwhelming majority of voters in my district would prefer the use of the Bible,” the Virginia Republican told Fox News, and then went on to warn about what he regards as the dangers of Muslims immigrating to the United States and Muslims gaining elective office.

Excuse me? The “dangers of Muslims immigrating…[and] gaining elective office?” Just what ‘dangers’ are there? And this guy’s a Representative?

How incredibly sad. I’m glad he doesn’t represent me.

We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof; and that conviction depends upon evidence, and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine and remember that we are not descended from fearful men. Not from men who feared to write, to associate, to speak, and to defend the causes that were, for the moment, unpopular. This is no time for men who oppose Senator McCarthy’s methods to keep silent, or for those who approve. We can deny our heritage and our history, but we cannot escape responsibility for the results. We proclaim ourselves indeed as we are, the defenders of freedom, wherever it continues to exist in the world. But we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. The actions of the junior Senator from Wisconsin have caused alarm and dismay amongst our allies abroad, and given considerable comfort to our enemies. And whose fault is that? Not really his, he didn’t create this situation of fear, he merely exploited it, and rather sucessfully. Cassius was right: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves.” Good night, and good luck.

— Edward R. Murrow, as portrayed by David Strathairn in George Clooney’s Good Night and Good Luck

Every time I hear this monologue, it strikes me — and I’m very sure that this was Clooney’s point — just how topical it is. How easy it would be to replace the references to Sen. McCarthy with references to President Bush and have it read just as accurately.

I avoided saying much of anything yesterday, preferring to spend a quiet day wandering the local zoo with Prairie, rather than participating in either a maudlin celebration memorial of the 9/11 attacks or yet another caustic condemnation of the Bush regime and their conduct in the last five years. For us, it was the perfect way to spend the day: gorgeous weather that was neither too hot nor too cool, the animals were nice and active, and the zoo wasn’t very crowded at all.

Today I’ve been working on uploading the rest of the photos from the zoo, sending them up in small batches, and bouncing around the ‘net while photos upload. I checked out Apple’s new announcements (the ‘Cover Flow’ eyecandy in iTunes 7 is slick, and the newer, smaller iPod Shuffle is incredible), started a silly little group on Flickr called the Googly Eyes Project, and other random oddments.

While skimming over my LiveJournal Friends Page, sirriamnis led me to this ‘Special Comment’ by Keith Olbermann. It’s one of the few things I’ve found worth using YouTube’s embed feature for — this is good. For the bandwidth challenged, the transcript is under the jump (courtesy of Crooks and Liars).

Read the rest of this entry »

Meh. Not a happy thing.

Reports on the decision:

• Washington Courts: Press Release

  This morning, the Washington Supreme Court issued a decision in Andersen v. King County, a consolidated case regarding Washington’s Defense of Marriage Act.

  The Court’s lead opinion was authored by Justice Barbara Madsen, holding the Washington Defense of Marriage Act does not violate the Washington State Constitution. This decision overturns trial court decisions in King and Thurston Superior Courts in this case.

• Seattle PI: State’s high court upholds ban on gay marriage

  The state Supreme Court today upheld Washington’s law that defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, rejecting the argument of 19 same-sex couples that they’ve been unfairly denied the right to wed.

  In a splintered decision, Justice Barbara Madsen wrote that the state’s marriage law was enacted to “promote procreation and to encourage stable families.”

  “The legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers the State’s legitimate interests in procreation and the well-being of children.”

• Seattle Times: State Supreme Court upholds gay marriage ban

  The decision came as a sobering defeat for gays and their advocates, who’d hoped the court would strike down the so-named Defense of Marriage Act — DOMA — which restricts marriage to one man and one woman.

  Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Barbara Madsen said DOMA is constitutional because in establishing DOMA “the legislation was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents.”

  As such, DOMA does not violate the state Constitution’s privileges and immunities clause, which requires that any benefit granted to one group must be granted equally to all. “Allowing same sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes,” she wrote.

It’s all about the children. Meh. What a crappy argument. Admittedly, I haven’t read the official arguments yet (the court documents are linked to in both newspaper articles), so maybe there’s a bit more to it than that, but from what the papers boil it down to…meh.

So marriage is about procreation and the survival of the human race? What about married couples who either cannot or choose not to have children? Does this mean that according to our state Supreme Court, it’s better to be in an unhappy, unfulfilling, loveless relationship that’s pumping out another child every ten months than it is to be in a happy, committed, healthy, loving relationship that happens to be childless?

And if we’re “encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children’s biological parents,” then shouldn’t we be outlawing adoption? Sorry, you had the kid, it’s better for the kid if you raise it, even if you’re a teenager, unable to support yourself, on drugs, or any number of other reasons why you might not want to raise the child you just bore. Don’t even get us started on gay couples adopting children!

Sorry gays. We don’t care if you love each other. You don’t have children, and marriage is all about the children, so you can’t get married.

Meh. What a stupid, weak, cowardly cop-out. I expected better.

“Son of a Gun” by K.M.F.D.M. from the album XTORT (1996, 4:23).

(via vebelfelzer)

“I Want it That Way” by Dynamite Boy from the album Punk Goes Pop (2002, 3:33).