schmevil

America’s Radical "Conservatism"
Lawrence Davidson, for Consortium News (via Truthout).
March 3, 2011

Instead of the traditional conservative approach of relying on time-tested solutions, Reagan espoused the so-called Laffer Curve, which gambled on the unrealistic notion that massive tax cuts for the rich would generate more tax revenue for the Treasury, just one example of the Right’s anti-conservative — and even crazy — “conservatism,” as Lawrence Davidson notes in this guest essay:

If you have the stomach to listen to the likes of Glenn Beck or track the antics of people like Sarah Palin, you might get the idea that today’s American political conservatives are a bunch of radicals and extremists. And, as we will see, you would be correct.

But this is not how it always was. There was a time when conservatism was a more low-key affair with a certain sense of pragmatism and even fair play.

There is not much of this traditional conservatism left here in the U.S., except in certain intellectual circles. And, even there, one has the sense that it is hanging on by its fingernails.

Read more.


GRAPH: As Union Membership Has Declined, Income Inequality Has Skyrocketed In The United States
Zaid Jilani, for ThinkProgress.
March 3, 2011



Read more.

Seriously why does this exist?

These fantasies always strike me as a little gross. ( cut for pinko ranting )

Also goddammit Hollywood, can we get some new stories?


PS. Red Dawn is apparently #15 in a list of Best Conservative Movies. Ha ha ha.

I really liked this piece:

'Soul Of A Citizen': Make A Difference, Knowing The Outcome Won't Be Perfect, by Paul Loeb

When people hesitate to take a stand on issues from the Gulf oil spill to the horror show off the coast of Gaza, it's often because they're unsure of the outcomes of their actions. The issues themselves can be complex and overwhelming. I've talked in an earlier Soul of a Citizen excerpt about the trap I call "the perfect standard," where we feel we need to know every conceivable answer before we start to take a stand. But we also hold back because all our actions seem fruitless or compromised and because we're uncertain just how they'll will play out. Yet acting despite this ambiguity is often the most effective way to make change.

Heartfelt social involvement inevitably leads us into uncertain spiritual and emotional terrain. Theologian George Johnson amplifies this point in Beyond Guilt and Powerlessness. "Most of us," he says, "are more comfortable with answers than with questions. When faced with a problem we generally approach it with the assumption that information, insights, and proper action will bring satisfactory solutions. We want to fix things right now."

But as Johnson explains, "the reality of a broken world" often leads to ambiguity rather than certainty. "What we thought, believed, assumed, or followed is suddenly brought into question .... Receiving more information unsettles us rather than making things clear and easy .... It should not surprise us that our journey into the lives of those who cry for help will be discomforting."

Read More

1. Atheists and charity. My working thesis is that the reason atheists donate less to charity on average than do church-going believers, is that they aren't part of charitable communities. Churches and temples regularly engage in fundraising and charitable works. Where does the atheist go for the same kind of in-built charitable community? We have to find or build that community, whereas believers are very often born into one, or can joining a large and thriving charitable community.

That atheists care less about their fellow humans is a proposition I'm going to reject outright. I give you: Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet, and even our borderline evangelist anti-theists, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.


2. National security, democracy, and good government. I'm of the opinion that substantive democracy requires a limited definition of national security. Fewer 'vital national interests', so governments have fewer excuses for foreign adventures. As much transparency as possible, so that the blanket of national security can't be used to hide things that must not be hidden, such as military, intelligence and governmental misconduct. A clear separation between national security and governmental integrity, ie. what hurts the party in power, does not necessarily hurt the country; or, the Prime Minister is not Canada.

The Afghan detainee scandal makes it clear: you can't have good government when the party in power is throwing around the excuse of national security. 'National security' is akin to 'terrorism' in its clarity, and in it's ability to inspire knee-jerk patriotism and panic. When a governing party starts to frame things with the rubric of national security, when they try to block the efforts of HM's Loyal Opposition, with that old boogie man, you know you're in trouble. Let's all be thankful we have such an awesome Speaker. Hail!

Anyway, I'm by no means a pacifist, but I'm deeply suspicious of security-creep. Because ultimately, national security is an excuse to go to war, to engage in all kinds of governmental tomfoolery and misconduct, it absolutely must not be allowed to expand without the input of the people. It's too important to leave up to the politicians!


3. Kids these days, and their lack of understanding of the workings of the internet. It's kind of a meme right now that Facebook will soon surpass Google, as an entry point to the internet. Facebook is already well on its way to kicking Google's ass in the 'exploiting your users for advertising dollars' department. Will Facebook soon become the world's homepage?

Firstly, I'm kind of doubtful that Facebook is going to be around for the long haul. Maybe it's reached a kind of critical mass of membership, and for that reason alone will be able to keep on trucking through the arrival of the next big thing. Maybe not. But I don't think that Facebook offers enough, is useful enough to stay in the top spot forever.

Facebook is a portal. It shapes your internet experience. Google, on the other hand, is a search tool that let's you go wherever you like. There aren't any alerts warning you that you're about to leave Google (oh noes!). There aren't the constant reminders that Jane likes Tokyo Hotel, and David would like to be friends. When Facebook is your portal to the internet, you're not really on the internet in a meaningful way. You're in the magical land of Facebookia, where everything is pre-formatted, works the same way, and connects back to your profile. If Facebook is your portal to the internet, and has always been your portal to the internet, then... do you actually know how to use the goddamn internet? Do you know what the hell it is? Do you know how to keep you and your information safe?

My experience with young teenagers says: sometimes yes, but oftentimes no. I spend a lot of time advising my ducklings on matters of internet-y import, and that just seems counterintuitive, doesn't in? They're supposed to be the internet generation!

Of course, it could just be my Facebook hate-on talking, but-- The longer a technology is around, and the more commonplace it becomes, the more users take it for granted, and the less they know about it, and how to fix it. Take cars, for example. Most people can drive. Few people know what a fanbelt looks like, much less its significance. The thing about all-encompassing portals like Facebook, is that they don't let you fiddle around, see the source code, build things yourself, or just talk about how things are built. Have we reached the drive-only internet generation?

Kids these days, get off my lawn! *grouse grouse*

Clinic: New Okla. abortion law hard on patients, AP.

The requirements of Oklahoma's new abortion law are drawing some emotional responses from patients, a clinic director said Wednesday, now that women must have an ultrasound and hear a detailed description of the fetus before the procedure can be done.

...

The new statute requires the person performing the ultrasound to describe the dimensions of the fetus, whether arms, legs and internal organs are visible and whether there is cardiac activity. It also requires the doctor to turn a screen depicting the ultrasound images toward the woman to see them.

Meek said no patient at the clinic had yet canceled an abortion after hearing a description of the fetus. Jennifer Mondino, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights that filed the lawsuit, said that so far no patient at the Tulsa clinic has decided to view the images.

Meek said requiring women to listen to a description can be traumatic, she said, especially for rape and incest victims and women with fetal abnormalities or whose pregnancy threatens their own life.

Read More.

***

No abortion in Canada's G8 maternal health plan, CBC

The federal government has disclosed for the first time that Canada will not fund abortions in its G8 child and maternal health-care initiative for developing countries.

...

International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda said the government would consider funding family planning measures such as contraception, but not abortion under any circumstances.

"We're saying that we're using the definition in our discussions of family planning, which does not include abortion," Oda told reporters on Monday in Halifax, where she was meeting with her G8 counterparts.

"We're not debating abortion; we're clarifying family planning."

Read More

Please take a read through this post for a primer on Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). It is, I guarantee you, relevant to your interests, as its aim is an iron-fisted copyright regime, and the criminalization of many things we take for granted online. Currently participating in the talks are the US, Japan, the EU, South Korea, Canada, Singapore, Mexico, NZ and Australia.

This Robot 6 piece returns us to the horror that is Marvel's Civil War. Well, for the record, I've always been vaguely in agreement with the idea of superhero registration. Superhuman registration is a step too far, and UN sanctioned superhero teams (like the Avengers or Justice League) are a step not-far-enough. If you transport superheros into a real world context, they're a lot harder to like. They're a lot harder to believe in. Who the fuck would want Tony Stark zipping around the world in flying, powered-armor, punching the shit out of 'bad guys'? And what about the Hulk? Man, publicly I'd be all about curing his sad, sad plight. Privately, I would be sympathizing with the Illuminati - yes, let's shoot this fucker out into space where he's no longer an unstoppable, rampaging force of id.

In the comments, Mark Waid says that "Superheroes are not about rules, they're about flying." And he's pretty much right. It's why grim-and-gritty, 'realistic' reboots of beloved superhero properties are so grating. But let's thought-experiment our way through this morass anyway. Sorry Mark, we're killing all ur fun! What if superheroes were real? Would your position on superhero registration change? ( Read more... )

This is a delicious must-read shredding of Bill Kristol's defense of Don't Ask, Don't Tell. With actual numbers to back them up The Economist exposes DADA for the blatant exercise in bigotry for what it is: a disgusting and absurd policy that's led to the discharge of 12,000 active duty soldiers, in the midst of two, large-scale, messy conflicts, that isn't even supported by a majority of soldiers.

It rests on the notion that some soldiers are homophobic and, therefore, any change to the policy might negatively affect morale. Yet he presents little evidence to back up his claim. Because I am startled by his blatant, unsupported, anachronistic bigotry, I thought I might amuse myself by offering up Mr Kristol's article in full, peppered with pointed interjections from myself.

In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama worried that “too many of our citizens have lost faith” in “our biggest institutions.” Many of those institutions have, of course, invited disillusionment with their feckless and irresponsible behavior. But poll after poll shows that at least one major American institution retains citizens’ faith. Indeed, this institution has improved its standing in recent years as respect for others has declined. That institution is the U.S. military.

So what institution does the president want to subject to an untested, unnecessary, and probably unwise social experiment? The U.S. military.

Social experiment? Open and peaceful cohabitation with non-heterosexuals is a social experiment that has been going on for decades, with fairly good results. But yes, it is "unnecessary", in the same way that allowing blacks to serve on equal terms was unnecessary, if you happened to be white.

“This year,” the president informed us, “I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.”

It’s hard to know where that “finally” came from. Until a year ago, Americans had elected presidents who were in favor of upholding “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”—so if action on this has been overdue, it’s only been for the single year of the Obama presidency.

The "finally" comes from over five years of polling (or "poll after poll" as Mr Kristol says) showing support for repealing the law. Or maybe it was "finally" as in "finally, eight years after beginning one war and six years after starting a second, concurrent one, stretching the forces to the breaking point, we are considering letting all able Americans serve openly."

But the repeal is something that Obama campaigned on. He believes in it.

Wait, not only is he lobbying to make this change, but he also "believes" in it? What an awkward misuse of elected office!

Read more.

The Guardian's live blog.

Oh, and Scans Daily gets topical: Persepolis and Unknown Soldier.



Now I'm off to see Up with my brother.

[The following is a meme post; text and pics not mine; original post by one_hoopy_frood]

( Read more... )