April 24, 2009

notthatkindagay:

mikespez:

soupsoup:

chuckmore:

Hillary Clinton Owns the Abortion Argument

Far and away my favorite video of the week!

(via)

Hill-Dawg gives me such a bonar.

 721 in the morning? Gross.

•
The Postmodern Right

I had something by this title this kicking around in my drafts for a little bit today while I was working on some other stuff today, but someone on Andrew Sullivan’s blog pulled the trigger first. Here’s the letter in its entirety:

I think is more appropriate to point out what conservativism has done to Cheney — that is, a kind of conservatism.  Your essay brought to mind Karl Rove’s distinction between “those who make history” and those who study what the makers of history have done, “the reality-based community.”  Packed into Rove’s distinction are hints of Hegelian and Nietzsche ideas. Indeed, modern Hegelian ideas have reemerged with Alexandre Kojeve, Carl Schmitt and Leo Strauss. I would guess that you are quite familiar with this. 

I spent some time reading in Wikipedia and then went back to the website of Shadia Drury.  And once again, I presume you have heard her name and probably read some of her material. In particular, I read her essay, Gurus of the Right, a review of Saul Bellow’s Ravelstein. This quote caught my eye:

“What kind of politics does this sort of duplicity suggest? In my view, it is the basis of postmodern politics—a politics that dispenses with truth.

Hannah Arendt once said that totalitarianism was the triumph of politics over truth. But she never imagined that this sort of politics would become business as usual. She never imagined that postmodern thinkers such as Leo Strauss and Michel Foucault would see no conflict between truth and power. Truth, especially moral truth, or what is usually called values, is but a function of power. The powerful are those who are able to make their values triumph. They are the ones who decide what is to be admired and what is to be despised.”

In short, I am suggesting that another kind of conservatism has supplanted and is even hostile to objective truth and the rule of law. Indeed, this strand of conservatism, I would argue, has deeply influenced Cheney and much of modern conservatism. 

And so, why did no one resisting the White House?  It was not a matter of conscience; it never occurred to them.

I want to add two things to this.

a) When Sokal’s Hoax went down, the fake essay (Hermeneutics of Quantum Mechanics or whatever) had a few sentences at the end about how scientific knowledge and methodology needs to be subjugated to leftist political goals for a ‘liberatory’ science. Sokal would later pinpoint this part of the fake essay and say, in effect, ‘what the fuck, guys? How the hell can something like this make it past peer review?’ There’s been a significant amount of this same sort of thinking going on in the past eight years under Bush / Cheney, except it hasn’t been a joke and it hasn’t been just science. As Foucault realized toward the end of his life (I think), you can subjugate reality to whatever power you hold and people will act on it with real consequences. But that doesn’t change the nature of reality, contrary to what are (apparently) the beliefs of Mr. Cheney.

b) The philo blogger philosoraptor picked up on this awhile ago and has written a bunch of it, especially on subjugation of hard science (a thing he termed Lysenkoism). Probably 90% of his criticism is still valid even outside of hard science and into softer science.

•
DOD fixin' to release a fuckload of pictures of people having the shit tortured out of them

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Defense Department will release “a substantial number” of photographs showing abuse of prisoners at prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

The release will be in response to an open-records lawsuit filed by the ACLU, the group said in a written statement. The statement released late Thursday said the photos were taken at facilities other than Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

“These photographs provide visual proof that prisoner abuse by U.S. personnel was not aberrational but widespread, reaching far beyond the walls of Abu Ghraib,” Amrit Singh, an ACLU attorney, said in the release. The photos are to be released by May 28, the ACLU said.

•
So suddenly I’m really excited about free jazz again. Above, Mary Halvorson and Jessica Pavone.

So suddenly I’m really excited about free jazz again. Above, Mary Halvorson and Jessica Pavone.

•
April 23, 2009
Mike Goldfarb: how can u be 4 gay marraieg and against torture it makes no sense

Is Mike Goldfarb the stupidest and most obtuse person alive? All I know is that my gut says maybe.

•

For SP, and anyone else interested in junk science / energy policy. This is Texas Rep Joe Barton asking the new secretary of energy where oil comes from and strongly hinting that the correct answer is ‘Jesus put it there’.

edit: also something something climate change or whatever

•

If you think that Plan B (or any contraception) is murder

then you believe that life begins PRIOR TO conception.

Fuck, man.

(This post brought to you by the FDA making that good decision on Plan B and making it OTC for women as young as 17 years old.)

•

rendit:

I’ve often said that The Economist is to DC faux-intellectualism what The New Yorker is to NYC’s same; the magazine for which it’s more important to be seen reading on the subway platform than to actually be able to articulate anything within the binding.

So.  I guess this is their Woody Allen writing “OMG!” in a fiction piece moment?

h8 u, social science.

 The Economist : Interesting and thoughtful journalism :: Metallica’s St. Anger : Interesting and thoughtful music

•
More evidence that torture was used to come up with an Iraq-AQ link

Fatally, it was also, according to the Senate report, a way to coerce evidence of an al Qaeda-Saddam link. Remember that the Bush-Cheney techniques were most aggressively used by the Communist Chinese to extract false confessions. These false confessions legitimized the torture and provided the justification for the next torture. This is the Imaginationland some of us have been worried about for quite a while now. Once you have abandoned the rule of law and placed your trust in the hands of human beings with the power to torture, there is no returning. All you can do at some point is turn the lights on and see exactly the human wreckage and reality that remains.

Hooray.

•

An Argument for Diversity

Pardon the vague wording — that which is poorly written is poorly thought, etc.

When I was a dopey college kid taking endless political theory classes, I remember a class discussion about the importance of marginalized groups being present on boards or teams. The purpose for this, my class more or less agreed, was that it was crucial to have people who understood what it was to exist as such-and-such member of a marginalized group to ensure that their experiences aren’t ignored — I think the case under discussion was the issues of people with disabilities and some well-meaning gentleman saying ‘well, why does every public restroom need such a huge stall anyway?’ or something like that, to which a woman with a special needs child reminded him that there are a lot of disabled people out there who need large bathroom stalls.

That said, here’s a bit of some blog post from the whole strip search case in front of the Supreme Court yesterday:

Adam Wolf, the ACLU lawyer who represents Redding, explains that “the Fourth Amendment does not countenance the rummaging on or around a 13-year-old girl’s naked body.” Wolf explains that he is arguing for a “two-step framework,” wherein schools can use a lower standard to search “backpacks, pencil cases, bookbags” but a higher standard when you “require a 13-year-old girl to take off her pants, her shirt, move around her bra so she reveals her breasts, and the same thing with her underpants to reveal her pelvic area.” This leads Justice Stephen Breyer to query whether this is all that different from asking Redding to “change into a swimming suit or your gym clothes,” because, “why is this a major thing to say strip down to your underclothes, which children do when they change for gym?”

This leads Ginsburg to sputter—in what I have come to think of as her Lilly Ledbetter voice—”what was done in the case … it wasn’t just that they were stripped to their underwear! They were asked to shake their bra out, to stretch the top of their pants and shake that out!” Nobody but Ginsburg seems to comprehend that the only locker rooms in which teenage girls strut around, bored but fabulous in their underwear, are to be found in porno movies.

•
April 22, 2009
Torture used to seek Iraq-Al Queda link

If this is true, fuck everyone forever.

•

Just to clarify...

sexypants:

lemonkaytee:

If a guy talks to you, he wants to fuck you.
Because this is the only reason a guy would ever talk to a girl.
Ever.

Because “women is objects.”

And don’t you fucking forget it.

We mostly just chat about burritos and doin’ it doggy.

 Someone upload the classic Product of a Catholic Education masterpiece, Women is Objects, the best song I ever wrote.

•
“

Why do so many refuse to acknowledge the legitimate objections some people have to state recognition of gay marriage and hesitate to challenge them on the level of ideas? Why do they resort to name-calling as a means of discourse?

Their preference for slurring gay marriage opponents parallels the way they and their peers respond to the Tea Parties. Instead of listening to their adversaries’ arguments and acknowledging the sincerity of their concerns, they treat them as a bully treats the defenseless kid on the playground.

They think they can get away with it because the MSM encourages their insults. And doesn’t hold them to account for their mean-spirited attempts to demean their adversaries.

Our society could gain by a serious discussion of gay marriage. Gay people in particular would benefit from such a conversation. Yet, the supposed advocates of this change would rather score points in some imaginary contest with conservatives than make a point about the social benefits of extending the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples.

Name-calling: the supposedly smart set’s preferred means to respond to gay marriage opponents and others offering a politically incorrect point of view

Listen, I purposely rarely ever talk about gay marriage on this blog as I have very mixed feelings about it. I tend to be more sympathetic towards a more traditional view of marriage, but by no means do I have a firm stance on it. I hate to admit it but I simply do not have a set opinion on the gay marriage issue. For someone as opinionated as me, this is a very unsettling thing. I don’t like being a mushy, lukewarm type of guy but I refuse to have an opinion just for the sake of it. I thought I knew but I admit that at this point, I just don’t know. I am fiercely passionate about issues such as illegal immigration and abortion. I am all for having healthy debate about said issues but it is highly, highly unlikely that my mind will be changed. However, when it comes to gay marriage I am very much open to it but remain unconvinced.

And this is where my grievances begin with some gay marriage proponents and the reason why I posted the above quote. It’s not so much the issue itself, it’s the methodology used to promote it. For the most part, the rhetoric I’ve heard from the pro gay marriage folks has been, well, ugly. Very, very ugly. As soon as someone stands up and expresses an objection to gay marriage, the attacks that are thrown at them are vicious, belittling, and plain intolerant. And it’s a shame because I suspect many conservatives feel the same way I do when it comes to gay marriage: they’re skeptical of both sides but are willing to listen and perhaps find a conviction they can stand by.

So I go to one side and I hear about the negative consequences of legalizing gay marriage; I hear about the ramifications it would have on the institution of marriage; I hear how, under equal protection, marriage would then have to be open to all sorts of other arrangements outside of the one man/one woman combination; I hear the religious reasons for it; I hear about the social impact it will have on children; I hear pretty much well-reasoned and calm arguments against gay marriage.

And I say, “OK, cool, let’s see what the other side has to say.” And when I get there and I express even a doubt about gay marriage, all I hear is “You bigot!”, “You backwards hateful redneck!”, “How can you not be for equality? What’s the matter with you?”, “You’re so insensitive!”, “You religious zealot!”, “You crazy homophobe wingnut, keep your stupid beliefs away from me!”, and so on and so on. And, yea, what am I left to do but be immediately turned off by the gutter contempt this side has for those who feel even remotely different from them? So, I walk away.

Of course, there are plenty of reasonable people in favor of gay marriage, but they are not the dominant voice of the movement. People like those activists who targeted private citizens back when Prop 8 passed, Perez Hilton, Jon Stewart, and Margaret Cho (to name just a few) hurt the cause of gay marriage. Civility and reason are not tactics that they use. Their aim is to ridicule and humiliate those who differ in opinion, and it seems that this way of doing business has spread like wildfire among a vast amount of gay marriage supporters. It doesn’t persuade, it isolates.

(via randyhaddock)

(via billda)

I agree with this. We can’t shame people into voting for equality. We need to convince them.

(via notthatkindagay)

You guys ever read Andrew Sullivan on this topic? The fact that marriage, with all its restrictions and confusions and theoretical problems and political this-and-that has been accepted by the giblet community at large is kind of a trip. I think for a good chunk of the 90s the giblet community was really wedded (haaaa) to more postmodernist bents and abstract theory crap a la Judy Butler, Wendy Brown, and (the ultimate purveyor of this kind of crap, except taking it to a totally worthless extreme) Stan Fish*. And with a lot of these more radical viewpoints shaping the lefty discourse, marriage was seen as a restrictive thing, tied up in political inequality and forced gender roles by nature. As people argued then, why would giblets as a group want anything to do with such an inherently oppressive social institution?

That the discourse on marriage has shifted to one of equal rights and access instead of dumping an outdated oppressive union is really kind of surprising, and I think represents a real moderation from radical to liberal viewpoints in the fight for giblet equality which is very heartening, in my opinion.

Perhaps more relevant to the subject matter of the above, I would note that few if any of the people writing and arguing against legal gay marriage are actually making good arguments not rooted in either prejudice or off-kilter religious belief. I would also note that using the goofy opinions of extremes on either ‘side’ is a fairly standard technique used by everybody in this country to dismiss people who disagree with them.

* I have a soft spot for Judy Butler and love Wendy Brown’s writing but in a perfect world Stan Fish would never be able to write again.

•
Congratulations to my friend Miles, who just put out this LP on Fedora Corpse records.

Congratulations to my friend Miles, who just put out this LP on Fedora Corpse records.

•

If someone talks about the Midwest at all, they are probably talking about what a shithole Detroit is. Detroit is a great example of what happens when a city and its industries are all owned and operated by people who are greedy, evil, insane, or a combination of the three.

Here is some evidence for the above opinion, from a Detroit city council meeting. Suffice to say that Kwame did not come out of nowhere.

•