The Book of Genesis
Chapter 2
1: Thus the heavens and the earth and all that shit were finished.
2: And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested. Not that he needed to rest, because God is perfect. And not that he needed seven days to make the world, because God is all powerful. Shut up and proceed to verse 3.
3: And God blessed the seventh day, and treated himself by skipping church.
4: And God started to reminisce about all the things he had done in Chapter 1. Thus God invented the flashback.
5: The LORD God recalled that he had not caused it to rain upon the earth and there was not a man to till the ground. Of course, the ground didn’t need to be tilled, because there was no man.
6: But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the mist cleared God’s sinuses.
7: And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. But he also got God’s sinuses.
8: The man was just sort of hovering in mid-air, which was creepy. So the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden (because the land west of Eden already contained a Popeye's Chicken) and put the man there.
9: And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. These last two trees, strangely, never grew anywhere else in the world ever again. But they were very real and not at all metaphorical.
10: And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted. God wanted to show off to Adam so he split the river into four heads. But Adam didn’t pay any attention because he was urinating and he thought his insides were coming out. And the urination ceased. But Adam was so distressed that he began to vomit upon the ground, and he once again thought his insides were coming out. And the vomiting ceased. And Adam got dizzy and passed out.
11: The name of the first river is Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold;
12: And the gold of that land is good, unlike the bad gold that is often found elsewhere. There is nothing worse than shitty gold.
13: And the name of the second river is Gihon: the same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And this is how Ethiopia became known as the land of rivers and gold, and has continued to this day to be the most prosperous of any land in the world.
14: And the name of the third river is Tigris: that is it which goeth toward the east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates. And God called this land Mesopotamia because of the two rivers, and he blessed the land, and promised that nothing bad would ever happen between these two rivers, because this land was so special to Him.
15: And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden in a manner very similar to verse 8.
16: And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. To which the man replied, “What’s a tree?” God then taught him English.
17: And the LORD continued, “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. This is very important: I made this tree especially for you not to eat it.
And Adam said, “Just so I can be clear, and make sure that I’m not even tempted to eat from it: Where is the tree of knowledge of good and evil?” And God said, “You’re leaning against it right now.”
And Adam said, “What the fuck, God?! You couldn’t put it farther away, like on another continent? Or at least in another freakin' garden where I can’t see it? I’m the only person on the entire planet! And there’s only one thing on this entire planet I am supposed to avoid, and you’ve put it right here next to me?”
18: Adam was beginning to make sense, so the LORD God changed the subject to puppies.
19: And out of the ground the LORD God formed the cutest animals he could think of; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and Adam got to name the cute animals. And he kept a little beagle, and named it Goharf.
20: God had been planning on letting Adam give names to all the animals--but not if Adam was going to call them names like Goharf. Adam said, “Fine, then let’s just call them all Adam II.” God sighed and decided to stick with their original Latin names. This also made it easier to index them taxonomically.
21: Adam began to copulate with the beasts of the fields. He didn’t know why; but it felt right. And now when the insides came out of his body he enjoyed it. Adam quickly realized that most of his existence revolved around finding various things to put into his body and then trying to get them back out of his body.
After removing many fluids from his body, Adam went to sleep: and God took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22: And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made He a woman, and brought her unto the man. And the Lord was so happy with this that he wondered why he hadn’t made her earlier, especially since he had made females for all the other animal species.
23: When Adam woke up, he cried out in pain. “My rib! Someone stole one of my ribs! I’ve heard about this kind of thing happening, but I thought it was an urban legend! It’s probably in Kazakhstan by now! ”
But then he saw Woman. Nekked.
And Adam wanted to turn to her, embrace her, and boldly say, “Now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: you shall be called Woman, because you were taken out of Man.” But instead he just mumbled and asked if she happened to know the time.
Adam knew the five most important things in the world (ranking them based upon the order in which they were created by God) were:
1) Drinks
2) Food
3) Gold
4) Dogs
5) Women
24: When the Woman realized that Adam was the only man around, they coupled. He decided that this was much better than fucking the beasts of the field, because Woman was able to give Head. And thereafter Adam only fucked sheep occasionally.
25: And they were all naked: the man, his wife, and his beagle Goharf. And they were not ashamed.
And Adam sneezed.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
A Quick, Late-Night Post
I have an unfortunate inability to wash the dishes without listening to my i-Pod. This usually leads to even more unfortunate singing, by yours truly. In college it was worse: we didn’t have i-Pods back then, so I had to pump up the stereo in the living room of the Fort Worth house I was living in loud enough for the sound to travel through the living room, the dining room, and into the kitchen. Needless to say: for my own personal safety, I only do the dishes when I am alone.
So when someone rang my doorbell tonight, I thought it was a neighbor complaining that I was singing along to Muse too loudly while doing the dishes. But it turned out to be a representative from ACORN asking me to sign a petition urging Governor Paterson not to defund the local schools of a portion of their funding in order to balance the budget. I signed the petition.
As I did, the ACORN rep mentioned that they accepted donations. I told him no. Even one dollar? I told him I am not working.
It reminded me of the Tuesday night in November 2006 when the Democrats retook Congress, because that was the night two communists came to my door selling subscriptions to the Daily Worker. I’m not sure if the communists are out on the streets every night peddling their paper; or if they chose election night to ride the wave of anti-Bush fervor, hoping people would take the leap from American Democrat to American Communist. But there was something especially pathetic about them. Because they were the first communists I'd ever met.
The woman who did the speaking meekly told me about the exciting things happening with the Chavistas in Venezuela and Latin America. But she spoke as if she expected the door to be slammed in her face at any second and was surprised to actually have the opportunity to give her entire spiel. She may as well have been a Jehovah's Witness.
I don’t remember it all, but it was very concise as communist spiels go. I was generous to the communists because the Democrats had just beaten the Republicans. I felt like I was time traveling back to the era when the knock of a communist at your New York apartment door actually mattered.
I am a liberal, but a skeptical one. If I was ever going to believe in Utopia, it would have happened when I was a teenager; and it didn’t. So I settle for what comes along. I will probably never be as politically happy as I was on that night in 2006. When the Democrats--as imperfect as they were, and remain--regained control of our Congress, I felt the way you do when you’ve gotten the wind knocked out of you and then regain your breath. I didn’t feel as though our county was where it ought to be; but I felt as though it was breathing again.
I think it will be strange to describe the Bush years to my children.
I am suspicious of metaphors. It seems to me that every metaphor needed by humankind was created by Homer. But I recall using that metaphor (of breathing) to my friends in 2006 because it was all I could think of to explain how I felt. I didn’t even realize that I had needed to breathe, until I drew breath.
In his autobiography, Whittaker Chambers recalled being able to tell which of the newsstand proprietors in New York was communist by whether or not they prominently displayed the Daily Worker. (At least this is how I remember it. I’m too tired to find the citation in his book, though I will recommend Witness to people of any political persuasion; it is that good.) This was in the 1920’s and 1930’s. This was when there were actual Stalinists in the U.S. government.
Actual Stalinists in the U.S. government in the 1930s--when the Depression had American soldiers marching on Washington; when business interests debated the merits of a fascist coup against Roosevelt; when one fourth of the workforce was out of work. And yet America survived.
And Fox News claims there are Stalinists in the White House. As if any American would even know how to be a Stalinist in 2009. He's nothing but a mustache to us.
And Fascism? Glenn Beck is so conservative that even his enemies are 80 years old. If communism didn’t work then, what chance does it have now? Does he really think that a cautious politician who managed to wrestle the establishment from Hillary Clinton has managed to turn about face into a radical dictator before his first year is up? All by bailing out GM and advocating for health care?
It took a number of historically unprecedented things for Hitler to come to power and to retain power in Germany. Glenn Beck seems to think that it took only his new contract at Fox to usher in a new American Fascism--which lo and behold he is around to point out to us.
Those of you who read my blog on a regular basis know that I’ve been dwelling on this issue quite a bit. (To those of you who are new readers, you’ve probably been forwarded to my blog via my pop-up on the DirtyBrazilianBabes porn site. Please bear with me. The sooner you finish this post, the sooner you will be returned to your hardcore Brazilian pornography.)
And yes, I have been dwelling lately on the habit of the American right to label the Obama administration as socialist, fascist, Stalinist, Maoist. I am fascinated by this because even though I must assume that at least some of the people who use this rhetoric actually believe it, I don’t understand what they think they believe.
It must be remembered that much of this rhetoric took hold in the early days of the administration and even during the presidential campaign, when it was helpfully suggested that Obama may be the Antichrist. But a Stalinist for sure. Was either Stalin or Mao really known for their brilliant electoral strategies? Both had rousing ground operations in Iowa gymnasiums and precints did they?
I’ve come to believe that there is nothing more dangerous than a person who thinks he knows his history. Or worse, claims to other people that he knows it. Osama bin Laden knows a great deal of history. Adolph Hitler had some interesting theories about German history. Tony Soprano loved to watch the History Channel. Glenn Beck loves to tell you what he found on the internet the night before he does his broadcasts.
I can confidently say that I studied history for years and I don’t know shit: You should not believe anything that I write. (Unless it has to do with the increased occurrence of facial hair in the Jacksonian social, political, and racial reform movements of the antebellum American frontier. And people wonder why I abandoned graduate school after writing my thesis!)
In our country there are some fundamental ways in which people who live in New York can barely understand people in Alabama, and vice versa. What makes people in either New York or Alabama think they can understand Russian and Chinese peasants in the 1920s and 1930s? Or the Taiping rebels, the Girondists, the Jacobeans ? Much less the founders of our country. Hell, I’m usually confused by whoever is sitting next to me on the subway.
And I will grant the Right that on the big issue of the later 20th century, they won. "Communism bad. Capitalism good." But that doesn't mean, "Capitalism perfect." And they definitely got the wrong idea about Christianity, which meant less than shit when it came to winning the Cold War.
Besides, most liberals in America also believed, "Communism bad. Capitalism good." Because if there had been enough Stalinists to take our government down, they would have taken it down before my father was born. And if even one percent of today's Arab-Americans were terrorists, we would have already suffered untold attacks instead of living in total peace with our millions of Arab-American citizens. How many Americans have been killed here in the U.S. by politically motivated Arab-Americans since 9/11? I can think of zero. (If anyone knows of an instance, do let me know in the Comments section.)
So I am not interested when Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or any Television Republican attempt to describe the modern American liberal. They seem to have learned about liberals by watching John Wayne movies, listening to the Nixon tapes, and skimming the headlines of magazine articles. They think that the liberals of today are the same as the extreme radicals of 80 years ago.
When they talk about communists or ACORN I wonder if they've ever had either of them knock on their front door, asking pathetically for donations.
So when someone rang my doorbell tonight, I thought it was a neighbor complaining that I was singing along to Muse too loudly while doing the dishes. But it turned out to be a representative from ACORN asking me to sign a petition urging Governor Paterson not to defund the local schools of a portion of their funding in order to balance the budget. I signed the petition.
As I did, the ACORN rep mentioned that they accepted donations. I told him no. Even one dollar? I told him I am not working.
It reminded me of the Tuesday night in November 2006 when the Democrats retook Congress, because that was the night two communists came to my door selling subscriptions to the Daily Worker. I’m not sure if the communists are out on the streets every night peddling their paper; or if they chose election night to ride the wave of anti-Bush fervor, hoping people would take the leap from American Democrat to American Communist. But there was something especially pathetic about them. Because they were the first communists I'd ever met.
The woman who did the speaking meekly told me about the exciting things happening with the Chavistas in Venezuela and Latin America. But she spoke as if she expected the door to be slammed in her face at any second and was surprised to actually have the opportunity to give her entire spiel. She may as well have been a Jehovah's Witness.
I don’t remember it all, but it was very concise as communist spiels go. I was generous to the communists because the Democrats had just beaten the Republicans. I felt like I was time traveling back to the era when the knock of a communist at your New York apartment door actually mattered.
I am a liberal, but a skeptical one. If I was ever going to believe in Utopia, it would have happened when I was a teenager; and it didn’t. So I settle for what comes along. I will probably never be as politically happy as I was on that night in 2006. When the Democrats--as imperfect as they were, and remain--regained control of our Congress, I felt the way you do when you’ve gotten the wind knocked out of you and then regain your breath. I didn’t feel as though our county was where it ought to be; but I felt as though it was breathing again.
I think it will be strange to describe the Bush years to my children.
I am suspicious of metaphors. It seems to me that every metaphor needed by humankind was created by Homer. But I recall using that metaphor (of breathing) to my friends in 2006 because it was all I could think of to explain how I felt. I didn’t even realize that I had needed to breathe, until I drew breath.
In his autobiography, Whittaker Chambers recalled being able to tell which of the newsstand proprietors in New York was communist by whether or not they prominently displayed the Daily Worker. (At least this is how I remember it. I’m too tired to find the citation in his book, though I will recommend Witness to people of any political persuasion; it is that good.) This was in the 1920’s and 1930’s. This was when there were actual Stalinists in the U.S. government.
Actual Stalinists in the U.S. government in the 1930s--when the Depression had American soldiers marching on Washington; when business interests debated the merits of a fascist coup against Roosevelt; when one fourth of the workforce was out of work. And yet America survived.
And Fox News claims there are Stalinists in the White House. As if any American would even know how to be a Stalinist in 2009. He's nothing but a mustache to us.
And Fascism? Glenn Beck is so conservative that even his enemies are 80 years old. If communism didn’t work then, what chance does it have now? Does he really think that a cautious politician who managed to wrestle the establishment from Hillary Clinton has managed to turn about face into a radical dictator before his first year is up? All by bailing out GM and advocating for health care?
It took a number of historically unprecedented things for Hitler to come to power and to retain power in Germany. Glenn Beck seems to think that it took only his new contract at Fox to usher in a new American Fascism--which lo and behold he is around to point out to us.
Those of you who read my blog on a regular basis know that I’ve been dwelling on this issue quite a bit. (To those of you who are new readers, you’ve probably been forwarded to my blog via my pop-up on the DirtyBrazilianBabes porn site. Please bear with me. The sooner you finish this post, the sooner you will be returned to your hardcore Brazilian pornography.)
And yes, I have been dwelling lately on the habit of the American right to label the Obama administration as socialist, fascist, Stalinist, Maoist. I am fascinated by this because even though I must assume that at least some of the people who use this rhetoric actually believe it, I don’t understand what they think they believe.
It must be remembered that much of this rhetoric took hold in the early days of the administration and even during the presidential campaign, when it was helpfully suggested that Obama may be the Antichrist. But a Stalinist for sure. Was either Stalin or Mao really known for their brilliant electoral strategies? Both had rousing ground operations in Iowa gymnasiums and precints did they?
I’ve come to believe that there is nothing more dangerous than a person who thinks he knows his history. Or worse, claims to other people that he knows it. Osama bin Laden knows a great deal of history. Adolph Hitler had some interesting theories about German history. Tony Soprano loved to watch the History Channel. Glenn Beck loves to tell you what he found on the internet the night before he does his broadcasts.
I can confidently say that I studied history for years and I don’t know shit: You should not believe anything that I write. (Unless it has to do with the increased occurrence of facial hair in the Jacksonian social, political, and racial reform movements of the antebellum American frontier. And people wonder why I abandoned graduate school after writing my thesis!)
In our country there are some fundamental ways in which people who live in New York can barely understand people in Alabama, and vice versa. What makes people in either New York or Alabama think they can understand Russian and Chinese peasants in the 1920s and 1930s? Or the Taiping rebels, the Girondists, the Jacobeans ? Much less the founders of our country. Hell, I’m usually confused by whoever is sitting next to me on the subway.
And I will grant the Right that on the big issue of the later 20th century, they won. "Communism bad. Capitalism good." But that doesn't mean, "Capitalism perfect." And they definitely got the wrong idea about Christianity, which meant less than shit when it came to winning the Cold War.
Besides, most liberals in America also believed, "Communism bad. Capitalism good." Because if there had been enough Stalinists to take our government down, they would have taken it down before my father was born. And if even one percent of today's Arab-Americans were terrorists, we would have already suffered untold attacks instead of living in total peace with our millions of Arab-American citizens. How many Americans have been killed here in the U.S. by politically motivated Arab-Americans since 9/11? I can think of zero. (If anyone knows of an instance, do let me know in the Comments section.)
So I am not interested when Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or any Television Republican attempt to describe the modern American liberal. They seem to have learned about liberals by watching John Wayne movies, listening to the Nixon tapes, and skimming the headlines of magazine articles. They think that the liberals of today are the same as the extreme radicals of 80 years ago.
When they talk about communists or ACORN I wonder if they've ever had either of them knock on their front door, asking pathetically for donations.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Re-Revised, Unauthorized, Sub-Standard, Holy Bible, Genesis, Chapter 1
The Book of Genesis
Chapter 1
1: In the beginning, 6,000 years ago, God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, "Let there be light: and there was light."
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6: And God realized that the world looked like a Salvador Dali painting and said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters so that they don’t bleed into each other. Because this is tripping me out; and I don’t need this shit on my first day."
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God decided to change the name of "firmament" to “heaven” because he wanted to use up all the short words first. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9: And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear": and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Heaven. And He said, “Crap, I already used that one, didn’t I?” And so God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good, but could use a little salt. And God added a pinch of salt to the Seas. It made all the difference.
11: And God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth": and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God was on a roll. And because there was no one around to hear him, God shouted, “Boo-ya!”. But even though he was alone he still felt like a dork. And the LORD stopped shouting “Boo-ya!”
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day, which he called Hump Day. And God laughed because he had said “hump”.
14: And God made the stars so that they made designs. God’s favorite was the little hat. But then he changed his mind and killed the stars. They have been dying ever since, but God is so powerful that he made them too strong; and so they continue to shine to this very day.
15: Besides, they help to see at night.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also (which you'd already know if you'd paid attention to verse fourteen).
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, which is very similar to what he just did a minute ago but not quite.
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good enough.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20: And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind": and God assumed it was good.
22: And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." But the animals had already started to copulate so his order was redundant.
23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24: And God thought about whether he wanted more than just cattle, creepers, and beasts. He decided that instead of three kinds of animals he wanted millions and millions of kinds. God had an extreme personality.
And so God said, “Let there be leopards with really cool spots. And let there be jaguars, which will look basically like leopards but will actually be a little bit different. And let there be ocelots, which will also have fur similar to the leopard, but will also be a little bit different.
In fact, let there be ten different sub-species of ocelots: Let there be Leopardus pardalis pardalis; Let there be Leopardus pardalis aequatorialis; Let there be Leopardus pardalis albescens; Let there be Leopardus pardalis melanurus; Let there be Leopardus pardalis mitis; Let there be Leopardus pardalis nelsoni; Let there be Leopardus pardalis pseudopardalis; Let there be Leopardus pardalis puseaus; Let there be Leopardus pardalis sonoriensis; Let there be Leopardus pardalis steinbachi.” And God looked at the ten slightly different kinds of ocelots that he had made and they were all fine.
Then he moved on to the Octodontidae family of rodents, and made all 13 species of octodontid rodents. And then he put them all in the same southwestern region of South America.
And God made coral to live in the seas. He gave the coral the ability to communicate; to eat plankton and catch fish with its tentacles; and to reproduce both sexually and asexually. He made many kinds of coral, including over 3,000 species of Octocorallia, all of which were made with 8-fold symmetry.
God did the same thing for the millions and millions of different types of animals that creepeth on the earth and fill the waters in the seas, and fly in the sky—until finally he finished making animals. He made them all in the same day, and they haven’t changed since.
The LORD realized that he had made over 20,000 species of bees. And He said to no one in particular, “I think I was just on autopilot at that point!”
And God also realized that through a slip of the tongue he had combined all the different types of caterpillars and all the different types of butterflies into one creature, so that caterpillars would actually turn into butterflies. And God laughed about it, and told no one in particular what had happened and said, “True story!”
25: And then the LORD made thousands of different types of dinosaur bones and He buried them around the world underneath the ground so that when humans eventually dug them up, they would be confused and think that perhaps God wasn’t real. The humans would then think that the bones represented an ancient species that had gone extinct millions of years previously. But the joke would be on the humans because the ones who believed in the dinosaurs would go to hell for doubting God. And God smiled at no one in particular. And God decided to make humans.
26: And God, using the grammatically rare first pre-person pre-plural imperative tense, said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Some of them are less than one millimeter wide with no internal structure, and made up of only three layers of cells. Others, like the coral reefs and the orangutans, are as complex as the man I shall make.
But I don't see why the humans shouldn't be in charge of them all."
27: So God created man in his own image. And God said, “Does my forehead really look like that?”
28: And God told man, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue everything that I just spent all day yesterday making.”
29: And God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, (some of which are immoral to use). And every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed (some of which are poisonous to eat). And to you shall be meat (as long as you cook it thoroughly). Don't worry, you'll figure it out.”
30: God didn’t tell man about petroleum because man didn’t need it just yet. This is why God buried it deep in the ground.
31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was okay but definitely needed to be subdued. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Chapter 1
1: In the beginning, 6,000 years ago, God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, "Let there be light: and there was light."
4: And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5: And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6: And God realized that the world looked like a Salvador Dali painting and said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters so that they don’t bleed into each other. Because this is tripping me out; and I don’t need this shit on my first day."
7: And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8: And God decided to change the name of "firmament" to “heaven” because he wanted to use up all the short words first. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9: And God said, "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear": and it was so.
10: And God called the dry land Heaven. And He said, “Crap, I already used that one, didn’t I?” And so God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good, but could use a little salt. And God added a pinch of salt to the Seas. It made all the difference.
11: And God said, "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth": and it was so.
12: And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God was on a roll. And because there was no one around to hear him, God shouted, “Boo-ya!”. But even though he was alone he still felt like a dork. And the LORD stopped shouting “Boo-ya!”
13: And the evening and the morning were the third day, which he called Hump Day. And God laughed because he had said “hump”.
14: And God made the stars so that they made designs. God’s favorite was the little hat. But then he changed his mind and killed the stars. They have been dying ever since, but God is so powerful that he made them too strong; and so they continue to shine to this very day.
15: Besides, they help to see at night.
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also (which you'd already know if you'd paid attention to verse fourteen).
17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, which is very similar to what he just did a minute ago but not quite.
18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good enough.
19: And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
20: And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.
21: And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind": and God assumed it was good.
22: And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth." But the animals had already started to copulate so his order was redundant.
23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.
24: And God thought about whether he wanted more than just cattle, creepers, and beasts. He decided that instead of three kinds of animals he wanted millions and millions of kinds. God had an extreme personality.
And so God said, “Let there be leopards with really cool spots. And let there be jaguars, which will look basically like leopards but will actually be a little bit different. And let there be ocelots, which will also have fur similar to the leopard, but will also be a little bit different.
In fact, let there be ten different sub-species of ocelots: Let there be Leopardus pardalis pardalis; Let there be Leopardus pardalis aequatorialis; Let there be Leopardus pardalis albescens; Let there be Leopardus pardalis melanurus; Let there be Leopardus pardalis mitis; Let there be Leopardus pardalis nelsoni; Let there be Leopardus pardalis pseudopardalis; Let there be Leopardus pardalis puseaus; Let there be Leopardus pardalis sonoriensis; Let there be Leopardus pardalis steinbachi.” And God looked at the ten slightly different kinds of ocelots that he had made and they were all fine.
Then he moved on to the Octodontidae family of rodents, and made all 13 species of octodontid rodents. And then he put them all in the same southwestern region of South America.
And God made coral to live in the seas. He gave the coral the ability to communicate; to eat plankton and catch fish with its tentacles; and to reproduce both sexually and asexually. He made many kinds of coral, including over 3,000 species of Octocorallia, all of which were made with 8-fold symmetry.
God did the same thing for the millions and millions of different types of animals that creepeth on the earth and fill the waters in the seas, and fly in the sky—until finally he finished making animals. He made them all in the same day, and they haven’t changed since.
The LORD realized that he had made over 20,000 species of bees. And He said to no one in particular, “I think I was just on autopilot at that point!”
And God also realized that through a slip of the tongue he had combined all the different types of caterpillars and all the different types of butterflies into one creature, so that caterpillars would actually turn into butterflies. And God laughed about it, and told no one in particular what had happened and said, “True story!”
25: And then the LORD made thousands of different types of dinosaur bones and He buried them around the world underneath the ground so that when humans eventually dug them up, they would be confused and think that perhaps God wasn’t real. The humans would then think that the bones represented an ancient species that had gone extinct millions of years previously. But the joke would be on the humans because the ones who believed in the dinosaurs would go to hell for doubting God. And God smiled at no one in particular. And God decided to make humans.
26: And God, using the grammatically rare first pre-person pre-plural imperative tense, said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. Some of them are less than one millimeter wide with no internal structure, and made up of only three layers of cells. Others, like the coral reefs and the orangutans, are as complex as the man I shall make.
But I don't see why the humans shouldn't be in charge of them all."
27: So God created man in his own image. And God said, “Does my forehead really look like that?”
28: And God told man, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue everything that I just spent all day yesterday making.”
29: And God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, (some of which are immoral to use). And every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed (some of which are poisonous to eat). And to you shall be meat (as long as you cook it thoroughly). Don't worry, you'll figure it out.”
30: God didn’t tell man about petroleum because man didn’t need it just yet. This is why God buried it deep in the ground.
31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was okay but definitely needed to be subdued. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
The More Than One Percent Doctrine
If there's a 1% chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al-Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response. It's not about our analysis . . . It's about our response.Dick Cheney
What if Al Gore, John Kerry and thousands of scientists and security experts and leaders around the world are wrong? What’s the worst that would happen if we do the things we’re proposing? Well, if we respond adequately, change our energy habits, provide new technologies and solve the problem on a global basis, the worst that would happen is we are all healthier because of cleaner air; we will have transformed our economies and created millions of clean energy, high value added, sustainable jobs; we will have lived up to our environmental responsibility to create sustainable development policies, planted and saved forests and reduced disease and toxic poisoning that comes from antiquated industrial practices; we will have lived up to our humanitarian responsibilities to help developing countries avoid disease and dislocation; and we will have hugely enhanced our security by becoming less fossil fuel and foreign-oil dependent. That’s the worst that will happen if we’re wrong!John Kerry
When disgraced former Vice President Dick Cheney enunciated his “One Percent Doctrine”, he put the primacy of our response to threats above our analysis of threats. This is what made “the One Percent Doctrine” the most idiotic doctrine since . . . the Bush Doctrine.
I’m not sure who gets to have a doctrine and who doesn’t. I often say things that should be made into doctrines, but I usually enunciate them at bad times. Like while I’m swimming; or at home alone watching SportsCenter; or when I happen to have a mouthful of food. (The latter particularly applies to my Doctrine of Biscuit Consistency, which sets out my criteria for baking a perfect Popeye’s biscuit).
I also don’t usually say any of these things in the presence of the President, which makes it hard for these comments to become enshrined as doctrine. Perhaps I should just start a cult and make them into commandments.
Dick Cheney is part of a cult which used to be known as the Republican Party. What used to be the Republican Party was based on a philosophy that used to be called conservatism. Conservatism is no longer a philosophy but an emotion—and at worst a pathology.
In the preface to Russell Kirk’s The Conservative Mind, publisher Henry Regnery wrote (quoting someone else) that “a conservative knows that two plus two always, invariably, equals four.” This is no longer the math of American conservatism, where one percent equals one hundred percent and 4.5 billion years equals 6,000 years.
Conservative Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said that “everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” I am not especially conservative politically and so have never largely agreed with the opinions of Republicans. But today it is hard to say whether Republicans even have any actual opinions, because they have replaced facts with wishes. This makes most of what modern Republicans have to say quite worthless. If your facts are wrong then your opinion becomes invalid, however amusing it may to watch on Fox.
A great number of conservatives don’t believe in global warming. There seem to be two main reasons for this. The first is Christianity. For a rational person, the existence of global warming and its catastrophic consequences make sense, because of the nature of science and the history of man’s effects on our planet. But if you don’t believe in evolution; and you don’t believe that the earth is more than six thousand years old; and if you believe that all of those red words in the Bible are literally what Jesus said two generations before the first gospel was written; then I suppose it is possible to believe that global warming is not true.
Although to be honest I’m still fuzzy on exactly why that means many Christians don’t believe global warming isn’t true. What if God is doing it? Or the devil? Whoever is doing it, it can still be true.
The other reason for not believing in global warming is political ideology. It is the art of not believing something because you don’t want to believe it. There are any number of reasons for not wanting global warming to exist. Of course people don't want global warming to exist. Well, except some Russians, who are excited that melting ice has finally given them access to Arctic shipping lanes. There are also some who are excited that the thinning permafrost in Siberia (which has begun melting for the first time since the Ice Age) could open the region up to farming. If only the Cold War were still on. America could have gathered support for fighting climate change with one slogan: Russia likes it!
But conservatives have political reasons for not wanting global warming to exist. First, if it exists, then that means that the environmental movement was right about it. Conservatives hate it when environmentalists are right about things, because conservatives hate environmentalists.
They didn’t used to. Classical conservatism was based on a deep distrust of the industrial revolution and its effects on both the natural world and the human soul. Thus Coleridge (who is quoted in The Conservative Mind) lamented the 19th century economy, which he was sure “would dig up the charcoal foundations of the Temple of Ephesus to burn as fuel for a steam-engine”. Today Coleridge could be no conservative for saying such things. He must either chant “Drill baby, dill!” or take his place with the wild-eyed liberals, who still believe in conserving things such as, say, the tops of mountains.
Strange, but I would have thought that even conservatives might think it perverse to remove the tops of mountains in the name of commerce. I’d think that the obvious sickness of such a thing might transcend both religion and ideology. But today, to conserve is no longer the philosophy of conservatives.
The second reason conservatives don’t like global warming is that the most likely way to stop it will be through government intervention. Conservatives don’t like the idea of using the government to combat global warming because conservatives don’t much like the idea of using the government for anything. I mean, nobody really enjoys paying taxes, and most people get frustrated with bureaucracies (probably even bureaucrats). But the modern Republican Party hates government not in terms of ends but of means.
I’ve heard conservatives say that they are against certain things because they include government involvement. They are against the growth of government involvement almost as a principle, regardless of the issue. What a funny thing to believe in. I don’t know any liberals who say that their philosophy is “more government involvement”. I don’t know any liberals whose philosophy is to grow the government as much as possible out of general principle. The liberals and moderates that I know are simply more willing to accept some government involvement in areas where they think it will help a given situation.
Of course it will take a great deal of government involvement to save the planet from the most destructive effects. The threat of global warming is one of the biggest threats to humanity we’ve ever faced. (It’s also one of the biggest threats our fellow creatures in this world have ever faced, but we don’t get to talk about them because they do not vote. The only time conservatives tend to mention animals is when they worry that gay marriage might lead to people marrying turtles.)
But not liking the solution is not a valid reason to deny the problem. I very much suspect that I don’t like spleen surgery. But if I ever get . . . cancer of the spleen--or whatever it is that causes spleens to be removed--I won’t deny that I have a . . . spleen problem. (This is a rare exception to my usually steadfast Doctrine of Avoiding Spleen Metaphors.)
There is actually a third reason for claiming that global warming is not true. It occurs when powerful people know something that they wish wasn’t true because it goes against their interests; and so work to convince other people that it isn’t true. This is called lying. People who make their living from oil and gas will often fall into this category. Some of them may very well not believe in global warming but I’m damn sure a lot of them are smart enough to know the truth. But if you’re a billionaire who owns an oil company, or a millionaire who runs an oil company, what lies would you not tell in order to save your business and your power? You don’t get to be powerful by telling the truth; you get to be powerful by telling your truth.
I’m worth a few thousand dollars, and you don’t want to know what kind of lies I would tell to earn a few thousand more, or to keep from losing what I do have. Do you really think that people who are worth billions will not do everything they can to convince people that global warming is not real?
And if they happen to fund much of the Republican Party, so much the better. Republicans love the idea of sacrifice if it is humans that are being sacrificed. This is why Dick Cheney was able to say that if there is even a one percent chance of al-Qaeda getting a nuclear bomb, it is thus necessary to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and set up an extra-legal detention center at Guantanamo Bay and establish torture as a matter of American policy and suspend habeas corpus and arrest thousands of American Muslims without charging any of them with a crime. Lord help us if there were a two percent chance!
America versus the terrorists is something Dick Cheney can understand. He can get it up for that kind of war. But the effort to stop global warming? That requires a different kind of sacrifice. Americans might have to sacrifice some of their money, and perhaps even pay more taxes. Halliburton might have to sacrifice some of its profits. We might have to change the way we drive and consume energy. The economy might even take a hit. And we don’t even get to kill anybody? Where’s the fun in that? It hardly sounds like a war at all.
Not that Dick Cheney has ever fought in a war; he seems to have always been a pussy. At least Bill Clinton had the guts to be against the war when he dodged the draft. But now the modern conservative movement, which used to pride itself on being able to look at hard truths with a cold eye, has no shortage of mental weaklings who refuse to accept any reality which they can't define. They don't respond to evidence, only their desires. They don't care for the message or the messenger, and have no problem fighting both. Conservatism has gone from being hard-nosed to being Utopian; and from being valuable to being pathetic.
And yet as John Kerry points out, many of the things we need to do to stop the worst effects of global warming are things we should have done even if global warming never happened. We should disentangle ourselves from foreign oil. We should stop polluting our air.
But surely even Dick Cheney would admit that there is at least a one percent chance that global warming is real. That there is at least a one percent chance that it will be catastrophic. And if it were catastrophic it would be catastrophic for much of the world, not just one building, or one city, or one region.
It is simply not in the interest of Dick Cheney or any energy tycoon--or of the politicians they fund--to acknowledge the threat of global warming. It is in their interest to ignore inconvenient challenges and win the battles they choose to fight. It just seems odd that normal citizens are willing to fight alongside them. But such is the state of conservative ideology in these times.
Imagine the following scenario. The Democrats and Republicans are playing a game of baseball. A Democrat is up to bat. A Republican is pitching. The Republican puts his ball and glove down on the mound and puts on boxing gloves. He walks up to the batters' box and knocks out the batter with a right-handed uppercut.
The Democrats can all charge out onto the field and complain about the fact that the pitcher didn't throw a pitch. They can complain that he didn't play by the rules. They can complain that he wasn't even playing the right sport.
The Republicans would simply cheer because they had won the boxing match.
"It's not about our analysis . . . It's about our response."
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Hollywood's Got Nothing on the Republican Party
I first heard of Joe the Plumber while traveling in India last October. I didn't pay much attention to American news while I was over there and was glad to have the opportunity to enjoy a respite from the fevered final month of the "campaign season". (If only our campaigns did last just a season. Three out of every four years in political America consist chiefly of campaigning--two of them involve the presidency. A child conceived on the night Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucus was well born by the time he won the country in November. It should not take a shorter amount of time to create an entire human life than to pick from amongst about five or six contenders for a job.)
It took no time at all, however, to create Joe the Plumber. From my hotel room in northern India I heard John McCain mention "Joe the Plumber" in a debate. I assumed he was a fictional character that the McCain campaign had trotted out to give a name to their grievances. It was only when I returned home that I realized Joe the Plumber was an actual guy. I'm still not convinced he isn't fictional, however. His script certainly was. And as I write this, the first in a line of descriptions on Joe Wurzelbacher's Wikidpedia page says that he "is an American celebrity".
And this week we had another of last year's 2008 models, former governor Sarah Palin, speaking to her fellow Alaskans on the need to:
With delusions like these, Hollywood's got nothing on the Republican Party.
Sarah Palin was obviously not chosen as the vice presidential nominee based on her one-and-a-half years' experience as governor of the third smallest state in America. She was chosen for her photogenic face and her delicate, tiny body. She was plucked from obscurity and turned into a GOP starlet based upon her ability to read a teleprompter in a way that political operatives found "folksy". Folksiness is not an actual character trait that people have; it's a marketing concept, like "zesty". No one actually meets someone and says, "I like that guy--he's so folksy".
She has quit as governor to avoid having to be a lame duck. Many governors actually wait until their second term to become lame ducks, but I suppose Palin, good Republican that she is, just believes in preemption. Now she is fee to do one of the many things that good ole' plain folks do: host a talk show, write a book, or become a fundraising tool in support of the second amendment.
Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber are the stars of the modern Hollywood GOP, which can make you famous no matter your lack of talent. They are characters in a grotesque reality show of conservatism's own creation. After all, if you're going to create your own reality, you have to stock it with participants. And if they go off script or walk off the set: what else is to be expected? Everyone wants to direct someday.
Whoever fights celebrities should see to it that in the process she does not become a celebrity. When Sarah Palin speaks out against Hollywood she is attacking a straw man. But why shouldn't she? She's a straw woman. And I feel like I've seen people made of straw before . . . courtesy of Hollywood.
It took no time at all, however, to create Joe the Plumber. From my hotel room in northern India I heard John McCain mention "Joe the Plumber" in a debate. I assumed he was a fictional character that the McCain campaign had trotted out to give a name to their grievances. It was only when I returned home that I realized Joe the Plumber was an actual guy. I'm still not convinced he isn't fictional, however. His script certainly was. And as I write this, the first in a line of descriptions on Joe Wurzelbacher's Wikidpedia page says that he "is an American celebrity".
And this week we had another of last year's 2008 models, former governor Sarah Palin, speaking to her fellow Alaskans on the need to:
stiffen your spine to do what's right for Alaska when the pressure mounts, because you're going to see anti-hunting, anti-second amendment circuses from Hollywood and here's how they do it. They use these delicate, tiny, very talented celebrity starlets, they use Alaska as a fundraising tool for their anti-second amendment causes. Stand strong, and remind them patriots will protect our guaranteed, individual right to bear arms, and by the way, Hollywood needs to know, we eat, therefore we hunt.Ms. Palin is part of a long tradition of the GOP agitating against "elites". This elite is a devious cabal made up of most of the voters in this country. It was this elite group who elected Barack Obama president with 53% of the vote. I'm not up on my metaphysics, but by definition: is it even possible for an elite be a majority? Perhaps it is, in a world where white men are the aggrieved minority.
With delusions like these, Hollywood's got nothing on the Republican Party.
Sarah Palin was obviously not chosen as the vice presidential nominee based on her one-and-a-half years' experience as governor of the third smallest state in America. She was chosen for her photogenic face and her delicate, tiny body. She was plucked from obscurity and turned into a GOP starlet based upon her ability to read a teleprompter in a way that political operatives found "folksy". Folksiness is not an actual character trait that people have; it's a marketing concept, like "zesty". No one actually meets someone and says, "I like that guy--he's so folksy".
She has quit as governor to avoid having to be a lame duck. Many governors actually wait until their second term to become lame ducks, but I suppose Palin, good Republican that she is, just believes in preemption. Now she is fee to do one of the many things that good ole' plain folks do: host a talk show, write a book, or become a fundraising tool in support of the second amendment.
Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber are the stars of the modern Hollywood GOP, which can make you famous no matter your lack of talent. They are characters in a grotesque reality show of conservatism's own creation. After all, if you're going to create your own reality, you have to stock it with participants. And if they go off script or walk off the set: what else is to be expected? Everyone wants to direct someday.
Whoever fights celebrities should see to it that in the process she does not become a celebrity. When Sarah Palin speaks out against Hollywood she is attacking a straw man. But why shouldn't she? She's a straw woman. And I feel like I've seen people made of straw before . . . courtesy of Hollywood.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Abolish the Senate?
I don't remember what prompted the thought, but at some point yesterday I found myself wondering if it might finally be time--as Larry Sabato suggests-- to convene a Second Constitutional Convention at some point in the next decade or so. Actually, I do remember what triggered the thought: I was reminded of the existence of Senators James Inhofe and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma. Both of them are pretty repulsive characters who manage to do something that is admittedly very easy to do--namely, to give a bad name to Oklahoma and the United States Senate. These men, who do real damage to our country, were elected by a state that has half as many citizens as the city I live in.
Now, as much as I always dreaded going through Oklahoma on my many drives from Kansas to Texas over the years, I do not wish to do away with the state of Oklahoma. Besides, I googled the phrase "Abolish Oklahoma" and apparently there are no organizations dedicated to this prospect. I'm much too lazy to be in the vanguard of the Abolish Oklahoma movement. But abolishing the Senate? Now we're talking!
I think that the idea of abolishing the Senate is one of those little ideas that a lot of people have had over the years, but, thinking they were the only ones who had it, decided that they were probably crazy and went back to watching SportsCenter (Chomsky often describes such craziness). But the idea has been around for a while--no doubt probably longer than I am aware. The first time I read about it was when Richard Rosenfeld suggested it in Harper's in 2004 (unfortunately you can't read it without a subscription). It was at that point that I realized while I was probably still crazy, at least there was a magazine which occasionally published other crazy people.
And let me define crazy. I do not mean that I am crazy in the way that insane people are crazy. I mean that I am crazy in the way that people who care about politics but are only engaged as laypeople can feel like they are crazy. Until, that is, they find out that other people have these same thoughts. Then they realize that they are either not crazy, or they are crazy but not alone. And this is much better, because lonely crazy people tend to make dirty, anonymous phone calls to that hot girl who works at their gym. (Lonely insane people make calls to C-Span).
And so it happens that while I've been wondering whether we should abolish the Senate (or at the least reform it as Professor Sabato has suggested), Matthew Yglesias has brought it up more recently:
Look, those of us who want health care reform now, and want real efforts to combat global warming now, are not going to take up arms against the government the way the whackos on the right do. And we're not gonna try to make Obama a dictator or get him re-elected to a third term, the way any number of likely badger-fondling right-wing commentators have suggested we will. But I am convinced that we are going to take a long hard look at the apparatus of our national government--which has needed reform for a long time--and decide that it might be time to make it viable for a 21st century democratic republic rather than an 18th century aristocratic republic. For all the talk of America being a Judeo-Christian nation, the Founders cared much more about Ancient Rome than about Jesus.
To return to my original example: there is really no case to be made that there is anything democratic about the United States Senate--its undemocratic nature is kind of the whole point of its existence. (In this it is very much like the electoral college, whose existence is so laughable that every schoolchild who is taught about it is quite sure they didn't hear the teacher correctly. Once they realize that this is actually how the electoral college works, the smart kids begin smoking.)
There are political ideals that are eternal. But our Constitution is not eternal. It is a founding document. If we attempt to live under it 2,000 years from now it will be as silly as a Christian trying to live by the letter of the Bible today.
Our constitution is an 18th century document that set up a new political system for the thirteen states and its population of under four million (scrapping, by the way, our previous constitution). I will not liken our modern political system under an 18th century document to trying to become a 21st century scientist using an 18th century textbook, or trying to become a lawyer in 2009 using only Blackwell and Coke. But it is not radical in the least to suggest that there will come a time when our Constitution will no longer serve its purpose in its present form. The question is when we will have reached that point, and what form it should take when we do reach that point. And yes: whether or not we have now reached that point.
The American Constitution has been remarkably durable. Even those who propose a new Constitutional Convention would leave most of the document intact. The government that the Founders set up was a new kind in the history of humanity. It must always remain our founding document.
It is also a conservative document which set up a number of checks and balances, and a number of mechanisms for small minorities to stymie large majorities. In some ways this is necessary, because if pure democracy was a bad idea in a nation of four million it is certainly a ridiculous notion in a country of 300 million. California has shown the limits of popular refernda, and with the added benefit of legislative dead ends. (And democratization is not the answer to all things, by the way--at this moment few Americans place saving the environment at the top of their list of concerns, even though it should be.) But in other very real ways, it has served to stifle progress for generations and to lead not to proper checks and balances but to filibustering gridlock.
Over the centuries America has nonetheless become profoundly more democratic. It is time to discuss the ramifications of a country whose electoral laws have become more democratic while its political structure has not.
The Economist blog suggests that the two ways disaffected liberals react to legislative failure is to either tune out (like Generation X) or to unleash a new kind of democratic movement (like SDS in the '60s). "Maybe it's just a passing phase" they write, "but there seems to be something going on with these guys . . ."
My blog is not remotely as influential as any of those quoted above. (Hi Mom!) So I can only speak for myself when I say that if the truly important things--regarding health care reform and climate change--cannot get accomplished in the 111th Congress, apathy will not be my response. And it is not just a passing phase.
Now, as much as I always dreaded going through Oklahoma on my many drives from Kansas to Texas over the years, I do not wish to do away with the state of Oklahoma. Besides, I googled the phrase "Abolish Oklahoma" and apparently there are no organizations dedicated to this prospect. I'm much too lazy to be in the vanguard of the Abolish Oklahoma movement. But abolishing the Senate? Now we're talking!
I think that the idea of abolishing the Senate is one of those little ideas that a lot of people have had over the years, but, thinking they were the only ones who had it, decided that they were probably crazy and went back to watching SportsCenter (Chomsky often describes such craziness). But the idea has been around for a while--no doubt probably longer than I am aware. The first time I read about it was when Richard Rosenfeld suggested it in Harper's in 2004 (unfortunately you can't read it without a subscription). It was at that point that I realized while I was probably still crazy, at least there was a magazine which occasionally published other crazy people.
And let me define crazy. I do not mean that I am crazy in the way that insane people are crazy. I mean that I am crazy in the way that people who care about politics but are only engaged as laypeople can feel like they are crazy. Until, that is, they find out that other people have these same thoughts. Then they realize that they are either not crazy, or they are crazy but not alone. And this is much better, because lonely crazy people tend to make dirty, anonymous phone calls to that hot girl who works at their gym. (Lonely insane people make calls to C-Span).
And so it happens that while I've been wondering whether we should abolish the Senate (or at the least reform it as Professor Sabato has suggested), Matthew Yglesias has brought it up more recently:
Even if Barack Obama manages to sign a universal health care bill, that bill will be a much worse piece of legislation than the legislation he could have signed if the Senate operated on a majority rules principle. That bill, in turn, would be somewhat worse than the bill Obama could have signed if the Senate Democratic caucus could at least bring itself to set greed and egomania aside and agree to vote for cloture no matter what. And that bill, in turn, would be substantially worse than the bill Obama could sign were there no U.S. Senate at all. And the reason—the only reason—that the Senate exists at all is that it was deemed a pragmatically necessary political compromise over 200 years ago.The Economist's Democracy in America blog has hit on something that has also led me to belive that I am not the only one asking a question I don't want to ask: does America have a functioning government? The Economist quotes Matt Taibbi:
The dead hand of that compromise has been responsible for enormous human ills over the interim period and will continue to be responsible for such ills even under optimistic scenarios. Consider energy legislation. People will die—a lot of people—as a result of this compromise. And nobody wants to talk about it!
Here we had a political majority in congress and a popular president armed with oodles of political capital and backed by the overwhelming sentiment of perhaps 150m Americans, and this government could not bring itself to offend ten thousand insurance men in order to pass a bill that addresses an urgent emergency.And Ezra Klien:
Something might get done. And if that something that gets done extends health-care coverage to 40 million people who don't now have it, that will be a big deal, and a big improvement in the lives of many, many Americans. It's important for people who get good health care and have the luxury of seeing this as an intellectual and political project to keep that in mind.As Democracy in America notes, Yglesias, Klein, and Taibbi are progressives, but are:
But whatever gets done will be much too expensive because the political system is very afraid of harming any of the relevant industries. Taibbi is right that this, like climate change, is a litmus test for our government. Both are serious, foreseeable and solvable threats to our society. One threatens to bankrupt the country. The other threatens irreversible damage to the planet we live on. Responding to such threats is the test of a political system. And our system will fail it. We will not avert catastrophic climate change. We will not protect ourselves from health-care inflation.
You can argue over why that is. Taibbi implies that Americans stand foursquare behind action on health-care reform, and there's no evidence that that's true for any particular health-care reform you might attempt. But nor is it true that even a relatively united populace -- as we had on the stimulus -- could guarantee a decent outcome. And so the end result remains the same: The country, and the system, will continue to whistle while our wages get eaten up and our government tumbles further into debt and our interest rates rise and other priorities get squeezed out and a serious and painful fiscal reckoning inches ever closer.
fundamentally moderate, process-oriented wonks who, long before the Obama campaign even began, had accepted that the pragmatic limitations of real-world American politics rule out any utopian, or even first-best, solutions to most public-policy problems. They have happily dedicated themselves to figuring out what kinds of reform are possible within the constraints of corporate and interest-group lobbying, ideological and partisan divisions, and America's kludgey, creaking 220-year-old machinery of government.Everyone, including myself, has been more concerned with the venal character of the Republican party and the dangerous resurgence of racism and paranoia in mainstream conservatism than with the consequences for liberals of a failed liberal agenda under a president, House, and Senate run by Democrats.
Look, those of us who want health care reform now, and want real efforts to combat global warming now, are not going to take up arms against the government the way the whackos on the right do. And we're not gonna try to make Obama a dictator or get him re-elected to a third term, the way any number of likely badger-fondling right-wing commentators have suggested we will. But I am convinced that we are going to take a long hard look at the apparatus of our national government--which has needed reform for a long time--and decide that it might be time to make it viable for a 21st century democratic republic rather than an 18th century aristocratic republic. For all the talk of America being a Judeo-Christian nation, the Founders cared much more about Ancient Rome than about Jesus.
To return to my original example: there is really no case to be made that there is anything democratic about the United States Senate--its undemocratic nature is kind of the whole point of its existence. (In this it is very much like the electoral college, whose existence is so laughable that every schoolchild who is taught about it is quite sure they didn't hear the teacher correctly. Once they realize that this is actually how the electoral college works, the smart kids begin smoking.)
There are political ideals that are eternal. But our Constitution is not eternal. It is a founding document. If we attempt to live under it 2,000 years from now it will be as silly as a Christian trying to live by the letter of the Bible today.
Our constitution is an 18th century document that set up a new political system for the thirteen states and its population of under four million (scrapping, by the way, our previous constitution). I will not liken our modern political system under an 18th century document to trying to become a 21st century scientist using an 18th century textbook, or trying to become a lawyer in 2009 using only Blackwell and Coke. But it is not radical in the least to suggest that there will come a time when our Constitution will no longer serve its purpose in its present form. The question is when we will have reached that point, and what form it should take when we do reach that point. And yes: whether or not we have now reached that point.
The American Constitution has been remarkably durable. Even those who propose a new Constitutional Convention would leave most of the document intact. The government that the Founders set up was a new kind in the history of humanity. It must always remain our founding document.
It is also a conservative document which set up a number of checks and balances, and a number of mechanisms for small minorities to stymie large majorities. In some ways this is necessary, because if pure democracy was a bad idea in a nation of four million it is certainly a ridiculous notion in a country of 300 million. California has shown the limits of popular refernda, and with the added benefit of legislative dead ends. (And democratization is not the answer to all things, by the way--at this moment few Americans place saving the environment at the top of their list of concerns, even though it should be.) But in other very real ways, it has served to stifle progress for generations and to lead not to proper checks and balances but to filibustering gridlock.
Over the centuries America has nonetheless become profoundly more democratic. It is time to discuss the ramifications of a country whose electoral laws have become more democratic while its political structure has not.
The Economist blog suggests that the two ways disaffected liberals react to legislative failure is to either tune out (like Generation X) or to unleash a new kind of democratic movement (like SDS in the '60s). "Maybe it's just a passing phase" they write, "but there seems to be something going on with these guys . . ."
My blog is not remotely as influential as any of those quoted above. (Hi Mom!) So I can only speak for myself when I say that if the truly important things--regarding health care reform and climate change--cannot get accomplished in the 111th Congress, apathy will not be my response. And it is not just a passing phase.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Through the Bent-Backed Tulips
There is a game I occasionally play; and no doubt I am not the only one who plays it. It's the "Partisan Switch" game (i.e. "Would I Still Hold This Viewpoint If the Other Side Held It?"). It's a good game to play when you suspect that you may be blindly following some political doctrine or belief, or being intellectually lazy.
Granted, it's not so much a game as a mental exercise. And when I say that other people probably play it, I assume that these other people are huge political nerds with a lot of time of their hands--the kind of people who own the OMB's annual swimsuit calender (hint: don't look at this calender unless you are a huge fan of Peter Orszag). But I'm not a nerd with a lot of time on my hands; I'm an unemployed writer.
In order to play this game you have to first acknowledge which side you are on. Now, I am officially registered as an "unaffiliated" voter. When I was younger I even convinced myself that I was a true independent. But when I was younger I also convinced myself that Alf was real because he appeared on Hollywood Squares (I later realized that no one who appeared on Hollywood Squares was real). But I figured that since there were some things I liked about the Democrats, some things I liked about the Republicans, some things I liked about the Greens, and some things I liked about the Libertarians, I was an independent. I was basically the kind of person who would have said "I'm not into labels." Of course, such people are labeled as "People who are not into labels." It's good to be intellectually honest and inquisitive, but a sane mind also has to be an ordered mind. Anyone with a truly independent mind or unique point of view is probably suffering from a dangerous mental illness.
Better, I think, to keep in mind Quentin Tarantino's belief that:
And for any number of reasons, I am a liberal.
Ross Douthat asks:
Douthat asks these things because as a practicing Catholic he strives to determine where his faith and the teachings of the Pope must determine his political beliefs and where they must not. If an American based his politics strictly on Catholic doctrine he would, to my understanding, be an anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-divorce, pro-income redistribution, pro- welfare, pro-union, environmentalist who would not have supported the war in Iraq but may have cautiously supported the one in Afghanistan.
In other words, this person would have no natural party if he held all of these views and held them with equal fervor. Douthat thus reminds his readers "that our present political alignments are not the only ones imaginable, and that truth may not be served by perfect ideological conformity." Conor Friedersdorf also writes "that America is ripe for a mass movement that upends our political landscape."
I believe that if this new movement does occur it will likely happen on the conservative spectrum, as a break between the remaining GOP conservatives (yes they still exist) and the other conservatives. The other conservatives are the ones who have abandoned the GOP and are now loaded up with arsenals to protect themselves from our illegal immigrant president sending the Justice Department to round up all the Christians, confiscate their guns and homes, and force affordable health care on them. All while taxing rich people whom these particular conservatives have never ever met, and who will still be plenty rich even after they're taxed. And believe me, I grew up in Kansas--these conservatives exist.
Whether or not any political realignments happen, I have to say that at no point in my life has the liberal agenda seemed so clear and the conservative agenda so diseased. I try to play the Partisan Switch game, but it is getting harder and harder for me to understand the other side. I've been trying.
I have plenty of conservative friends who try to explain their thinking to me, which is good because it reminds me that they have sincere reasons for being wrong. I've gone back and read William F. Buckley (he was amusing but even when he was correct about something he usually managed to be correct in the wrong way) and Whittaker Chambers (he was more correct about communism than many liberals give him credit for, but was wrong about the antidote).
At least Buckley and Chambers were readable and engaging figures. I've also tried watching Fox News for the first time in years, but I gave up when I came across Glenn Beck, who seemed to be a closeted homosexual Republican with dyed-hair who eats pudding. I've since found out he's not homosexual, but the pudding was all too real.
Maybe we get more ideologically stubborn once we're out of college, or maybe living in New York turns you into an elitist. But I don't think so. (If I am an elitist I wish I'd start getting paid like one.) The answer seems easy to me, and I hate to say it, because I always wanted to be one of those people who could never be pinned down ideologically. But the Democrats are the only sensible party in America right now. Liberals are right on the big issues of our day; just as they were right on most of the big issues of the 20th century. The conservative viewpoint in this country is becoming less and less legitimate. Politics is one thing. I understand that the two sides can argue about corporate tax rates, about card check (which I hate to say I really don't give a damn about), about defense appropriations. I can see things from the other side's perspective, even if I disagree with it. Hell, I even think that abortion is the single issue that is much less clear-cut than either side acknowledges.
But to call global warming a hoax? To suggest that privatized health insurance is a goal in and of itself, damn the dying? To take a political stand in support of torture? These opinions should not be taken seriously in a modern republic, and they are the tenets of virtually an entire American political party! And people are leaving it because they think it's too moderate!
It makes me angry, and I don't like being angry because it causes me to care about things too much and write things that aren't funny. And I just want to go back to being funny-- the way Al Franken used to be before he started caring about things too much.
But there I go again. Enough ranting about politics. Time to stop writing and listen to some Beatles.
Granted, it's not so much a game as a mental exercise. And when I say that other people probably play it, I assume that these other people are huge political nerds with a lot of time of their hands--the kind of people who own the OMB's annual swimsuit calender (hint: don't look at this calender unless you are a huge fan of Peter Orszag). But I'm not a nerd with a lot of time on my hands; I'm an unemployed writer.
In order to play this game you have to first acknowledge which side you are on. Now, I am officially registered as an "unaffiliated" voter. When I was younger I even convinced myself that I was a true independent. But when I was younger I also convinced myself that Alf was real because he appeared on Hollywood Squares (I later realized that no one who appeared on Hollywood Squares was real). But I figured that since there were some things I liked about the Democrats, some things I liked about the Republicans, some things I liked about the Greens, and some things I liked about the Libertarians, I was an independent. I was basically the kind of person who would have said "I'm not into labels." Of course, such people are labeled as "People who are not into labels." It's good to be intellectually honest and inquisitive, but a sane mind also has to be an ordered mind. Anyone with a truly independent mind or unique point of view is probably suffering from a dangerous mental illness.
Better, I think, to keep in mind Quentin Tarantino's belief that:
When it comes to important subjects there's only two ways a person can answer. Which way they choose tells you who that person is. For instance, there's only two kinds of people in the world: Beatles People and Elvis People. Now, Beatles People can like Elvis, and Elvis People can like the Beatles; but nobody likes them both equally. Somewhere you have to make a choice. And that choice tells you who you are.As should be clear by now, I get most of my political ideas from movies and television. Most of my foreign policy views can be traced directly to Saved by the Bell.
And for any number of reasons, I am a liberal.
Ross Douthat asks:
Why should being pro-environment preclude being pro-life? Why can’t Republicans worry about economic inequality, and Democrats consider devolving more power to localities and states? Does opposing the Iraq war mean that you have to endorse an anything-goes approach to bioethics? Does supporting free trade require supporting the death penalty?
Douthat asks these things because as a practicing Catholic he strives to determine where his faith and the teachings of the Pope must determine his political beliefs and where they must not. If an American based his politics strictly on Catholic doctrine he would, to my understanding, be an anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-divorce, pro-income redistribution, pro- welfare, pro-union, environmentalist who would not have supported the war in Iraq but may have cautiously supported the one in Afghanistan.
In other words, this person would have no natural party if he held all of these views and held them with equal fervor. Douthat thus reminds his readers "that our present political alignments are not the only ones imaginable, and that truth may not be served by perfect ideological conformity." Conor Friedersdorf also writes "that America is ripe for a mass movement that upends our political landscape."
I believe that if this new movement does occur it will likely happen on the conservative spectrum, as a break between the remaining GOP conservatives (yes they still exist) and the other conservatives. The other conservatives are the ones who have abandoned the GOP and are now loaded up with arsenals to protect themselves from our illegal immigrant president sending the Justice Department to round up all the Christians, confiscate their guns and homes, and force affordable health care on them. All while taxing rich people whom these particular conservatives have never ever met, and who will still be plenty rich even after they're taxed. And believe me, I grew up in Kansas--these conservatives exist.
Whether or not any political realignments happen, I have to say that at no point in my life has the liberal agenda seemed so clear and the conservative agenda so diseased. I try to play the Partisan Switch game, but it is getting harder and harder for me to understand the other side. I've been trying.
I have plenty of conservative friends who try to explain their thinking to me, which is good because it reminds me that they have sincere reasons for being wrong. I've gone back and read William F. Buckley (he was amusing but even when he was correct about something he usually managed to be correct in the wrong way) and Whittaker Chambers (he was more correct about communism than many liberals give him credit for, but was wrong about the antidote).
At least Buckley and Chambers were readable and engaging figures. I've also tried watching Fox News for the first time in years, but I gave up when I came across Glenn Beck, who seemed to be a closeted homosexual Republican with dyed-hair who eats pudding. I've since found out he's not homosexual, but the pudding was all too real.
Maybe we get more ideologically stubborn once we're out of college, or maybe living in New York turns you into an elitist. But I don't think so. (If I am an elitist I wish I'd start getting paid like one.) The answer seems easy to me, and I hate to say it, because I always wanted to be one of those people who could never be pinned down ideologically. But the Democrats are the only sensible party in America right now. Liberals are right on the big issues of our day; just as they were right on most of the big issues of the 20th century. The conservative viewpoint in this country is becoming less and less legitimate. Politics is one thing. I understand that the two sides can argue about corporate tax rates, about card check (which I hate to say I really don't give a damn about), about defense appropriations. I can see things from the other side's perspective, even if I disagree with it. Hell, I even think that abortion is the single issue that is much less clear-cut than either side acknowledges.
But to call global warming a hoax? To suggest that privatized health insurance is a goal in and of itself, damn the dying? To take a political stand in support of torture? These opinions should not be taken seriously in a modern republic, and they are the tenets of virtually an entire American political party! And people are leaving it because they think it's too moderate!
It makes me angry, and I don't like being angry because it causes me to care about things too much and write things that aren't funny. And I just want to go back to being funny-- the way Al Franken used to be before he started caring about things too much.
But there I go again. Enough ranting about politics. Time to stop writing and listen to some Beatles.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
A Mistaken Idea of Freedom
Thirty years ago tonight, Jimmy Carter gave what should have been known as one of the greatest speeches in American history. Instead it is known as the Malaise Speech.
I was eleven months old when he gave the speech, so my recollection of it is a bit hazy. I seem to remember the speech being given by Cookie Monster, but the historical records have shown this memory to be false. (I still stand by my assertion, however, that Ronald Reagan was actually shot by the Hamburgler).
The speech did not start off great. It began with him reading letter after letter from Americans about how miserable they were. Misery isn't like beauty: if there's one thing miserable people don't need, it's to be told they're miserable. Carter's litany included his own acknowledgment of the country's poor economy, its "crisis of confidence", his own unpopularity, and the continuing popularity of disco. He did everything except confess to committing adultery in Argentina--but only because he'd already confessed to doing it in his heart.
But when it came to the energy crisis, Carter brought a bit more truth to his speech than a politician is supposed to. He cast blame on an American culture in which "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns."
Carter is remembered, quite justly it seems, as one of our worst modern presidents. He was certainly the most ineffective. Five days after this speech, he asked for the resignation of his cabinet (five members obliged him). But this speech was his best moment as president; and the impotence of Americans in its aftermath continues to be one of our greatest shames. Instead of freedom from oil we chose the freedom of ease.
Politicians often say that they are speaking hard truths to the American people, but they usually do so with words of butter. Carter, more than any modern president, spoke to the American people that night as if they were adults. But they responded like elven month-olds. At least I had an excuse.
And now this summer, Congress seeks to pass an energy bill that, for all its meagerness, some say tries to do too much. Or that we must put it off for a later day. But today's anniversary reminds us that we have already done too little, and have already put it off for too long. And as serious as the energy crisis was in 1979, it's even more serious now that we know about climate change. It has gone from "serious" to "serious as shit".
Some great speeches are beautiful, but this one is not. It is clumsy, it is too long, and it is a laundry list of things to do. But it is great because of its attempt to do these things, even from a position of weakness. The weakness proved too great.
The great speeches resonate through time because they continue to speak to larger truths. Unfortunately this speech resonates through time because it continues to speak to specific truths. Thirty years on, this speech resonates too much--because it is a speech that still needs to be given today and a warning that still needs to be heeded. Unfortunately there are some anachronisms in the excerpt below, in the form of goals never reached. At least we got rid of disco.
I was eleven months old when he gave the speech, so my recollection of it is a bit hazy. I seem to remember the speech being given by Cookie Monster, but the historical records have shown this memory to be false. (I still stand by my assertion, however, that Ronald Reagan was actually shot by the Hamburgler).
The speech did not start off great. It began with him reading letter after letter from Americans about how miserable they were. Misery isn't like beauty: if there's one thing miserable people don't need, it's to be told they're miserable. Carter's litany included his own acknowledgment of the country's poor economy, its "crisis of confidence", his own unpopularity, and the continuing popularity of disco. He did everything except confess to committing adultery in Argentina--but only because he'd already confessed to doing it in his heart.
But when it came to the energy crisis, Carter brought a bit more truth to his speech than a politician is supposed to. He cast blame on an American culture in which "too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption. Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but by what one owns."
Carter is remembered, quite justly it seems, as one of our worst modern presidents. He was certainly the most ineffective. Five days after this speech, he asked for the resignation of his cabinet (five members obliged him). But this speech was his best moment as president; and the impotence of Americans in its aftermath continues to be one of our greatest shames. Instead of freedom from oil we chose the freedom of ease.
Politicians often say that they are speaking hard truths to the American people, but they usually do so with words of butter. Carter, more than any modern president, spoke to the American people that night as if they were adults. But they responded like elven month-olds. At least I had an excuse.
And now this summer, Congress seeks to pass an energy bill that, for all its meagerness, some say tries to do too much. Or that we must put it off for a later day. But today's anniversary reminds us that we have already done too little, and have already put it off for too long. And as serious as the energy crisis was in 1979, it's even more serious now that we know about climate change. It has gone from "serious" to "serious as shit".
Some great speeches are beautiful, but this one is not. It is clumsy, it is too long, and it is a laundry list of things to do. But it is great because of its attempt to do these things, even from a position of weakness. The weakness proved too great.
The great speeches resonate through time because they continue to speak to larger truths. Unfortunately this speech resonates through time because it continues to speak to specific truths. Thirty years on, this speech resonates too much--because it is a speech that still needs to be given today and a warning that still needs to be heeded. Unfortunately there are some anachronisms in the excerpt below, in the form of goals never reached. At least we got rid of disco.
Point one: I am tonight setting a clear goal for the energy policy of the United States. Beginning this moment, this Nation will never use more foreign oil than we did in 1977—never. From now on, every new addition to our demand for energy will be met from our own production and our own conservation. The generation-long growth in our dependence on foreign oil will be stopped dead in its tracks right now and then reversed as we move through the 1980's, for I am tonight setting the further goal of cutting our dependence on foreign oil by one-half by the end of the next decade—a saving of over 4 1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day.
Point two: To ensure that we meet these targets, I will use my Presidential authority to set import quotas. I'm announcing tonight that for 1979 and 1980, I will forbid the entry into this country of one drop of foreign oil more than these goals allow. These quotas will ensure a reduction in imports even below the ambitious levels we set at the recent Tokyo summit.
Point three: To give us energy security, I am asking for the most massive peacetime commitment of funds and resources in our Nation's history to develop America's own alternative sources of fuel—from coal, from oil shale, from plant products for gasohol, from unconventional gas, from the Sun.
I propose the creation of an energy security corporation to lead this effort to replace 2 1/2 million barrels of imported oil per day by 1990. The corporation will issue up to $5 billion in energy bonds, and I especially want them to be in small denominations so that average Americans can invest directly in America's energy security.
Just as a similar synthetic rubber corporation helped us win World War II, so will we mobilize American determination and ability to win the energy war. Moreover, I will soon submit legislation to Congress calling for the creation of this Nation's first solar bank, which will help us achieve the crucial goal of 20 percent of our energy coming from solar power by the year 2000.
These efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent. Unlike the billions of dollars that we ship to foreign countries to pay for foreign oil, these funds will be paid by Americans to Americans. These funds will go to fight, not to increase, inflation and unemployment.
Point four: I'm asking Congress to mandate, to require as a matter of law, that our Nation's utility companies cut their massive use of oil by 50 percent within the next decade and switch to other fuels, especially coal, our most abundant energy source.
Point five: To make absolutely certain that nothing stands in the way of achieving these goals, I will urge Congress to create an energy mobilization board which, like the War Production Board in World War II, will have the responsibility and authority to cut through the redtape, the delays, and the endless roadblocks to completing key energy projects.
We will protect our environment. But when this Nation critically needs a refinery or a pipeline, we will build it.
Point six: I'm proposing a bold conservation program to involve every State, county, and city and every average American in our energy battle. This effort will permit you to build conservation into your homes and your lives at a cost you can afford.
I ask Congress to give me authority for mandatory conservation and for standby gasoline rationing. To further conserve energy, I'm proposing tonight an extra $10 billion over the next decade to strengthen our public transportation systems. And I'm asking you for your good and for your Nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel. Every act of energy conservation like this is more than just common sense—I tell you it is an act of patriotism.
Our Nation must be fair to the poorest among us, so we will increase aid to needy Americans to cope with rising energy prices. We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our Nation's strength. Every gallon of oil each one of us saves is a new form of production. It gives us more freedom, more confidence, that much more control over our own lives.
So, the solution of our energy crisis can also help us to conquer the crisis of the spirit in our country. It can rekindle our sense of unity, our confidence in the future, and give our Nation and all of us individually a new sense of purpose.
You know we can do it. We have the natural resources. We have more oil in our shale alone than several Saudi Arabias. We have more coal than any nation on Earth. We have the world's highest level of technology. We have the most skilled work force, with innovative genius, and I firmly believe that we have the national will to win this war.
I do not promise you that this struggle for freedom will be easy. I do not promise a quick way out of our Nation's problems, when the truth is that the only way out is an all-out effort. What I do promise you is that I will lead our fight, and I will enforce fairness in our struggle, and I will ensure honesty. And above all, I will act.
We can manage the short-term shortages more effectively and we will, but there are no short-term solutions to our long-range problems. There is simply no way to avoid sacrifice.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
With Waste Like This, Who Needs Socialism?
It may seem absurd to worry about whether wealthy or well-insured people get every last test and exotic or speculative treatment when millions of Americans have no health insurance and millions more have gaping holes in their coverage. But the well-insured happen to include virtually all the people making the key decisions about health-care reform . . .
Michael Kinsley, The Washington Post, June 26, 2009
I am currently undergoing physical therapy for a minor knee ailment, for a reasonable copay of fifteen dollars per visit. Perhaps this is the sort of high-end treatment that will be "rationed" under a new system; I don't know. What I do know is that in order to undergo this therapy I must deal with the following entities:
1) my former employer
2) New York State COBRA insurance
3) Trion, the benefits administration company
4) OrthoNet, the orthopedic specialty benefit management company
5) Blue Cross
6) Professional PT, the physical therapy center
7) My dad, who I call on the phone whenever I have a subtle question about the fine points of how insurance works (such as "Dad, how does insurance work?").
To quote Groucho Marx's Otis B. Driftwood in A Night at the Opera: "Say, is it my imagination or is it getting crowded in here?"
I am nonetheless grateful to have insurance at all; but there are those who would tell me that I should also be grateful because (excluding #2) I have efficient, private-sector insurance. This is also, by the way, the efficient, private-sector insurance that Americans spend about twice as much on as other developed nations--16% of our GDP.
And some Americans fear that under a new health care system, the government will stand between you and your doctor? As if there is any room left for the government to wedge itself into? I'm afraid the government will have to get in line, because there are already quite enough insurers, middle-men, and mangers on my list already wedged in between me and the professionals who actually fix my body.
Some Americans fear socialized medicine? Our country has long managed to outspend the actual socialists and still maintain inadequate, bureaucratized health care for not even all of its citizens. Those of us who have inadequate, bureaucratized health care are the fortunate ones. There is no existing political word for the kind of health care system America has. It can only be described adjectivally, by its deficiencies, its contradictions, and its embarrassments.
Some Americans fear the rationing of services? No country in the world provides all of the health care that all of its citizens would like all of the time. Every country in the world rations health care; it's just a matter of how they ration it. Our health care system today already has a very simple rationing program: we ration people. If you are a health risk, you don't get private insurance. And if you do have insurance, you might get denied full coverage for certain procedures. This is rationing, but there are those who would have you prefer it because it is not a government bureaucrat denying you coverage; it is a corporate bureaucrat. Our choice is not between rationing and non-rationing; it's between a rationing that is inconvenient and a rationing that is inhumane.
But some Americans are worried that we will move our system closer to that of Canada or England or one of those European countries? 82 per cent of Canadians prefer their own system to ours. Many commentators in America decry a British single-payer system that has a shortage of dentists. Not that I begrudge the British their desire for more dentists (Please note the joke that I do not tell. I suppose I am growing up, alas.) But I daresay that the British will prefer their shortage of dentists to the American shortage of human beings who have any insurance at all. The invaluable Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic has traveled extensively in Europe. He has seen the benefits of other health care systems and he has also seen their flaws (and others certainly do have their flaws). But he writes that not once did he "encounter an interview subject who wanted to trade places with an American."
What is surreal about the arguments against health care reform is that the things that are being used to scare us already exist in our system to a higher degree than they exist in the health care systems of other rich countries. High costs, bloated bureaucracy, rationing, inefficiency, subsidization, middle-men and intermediaries, are already the trademarks of American Health Care--for those of us who are blessed with it. The United States of America has managed to encumber its health care regime with all the means of the most ineffectual socialist systems without accomplishing the ends of the best.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Guns Are for Pussies
We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.
--anonymous Bush administration official
You my have seen this quote before. I remember reading it for the first time in the New York Times Magazine. I was sitting on a couch in my Greenpoint apartment (Which is still the best apartment I've ever lived in, except for its proximity to the G train. Legend has it that the G train actually runs occasionally but I think this is one of those New York City subway myths, akin to the 2nd Avenue line.)
It was my first year in New York, when I still spent my days wandering around Manhattan just to see what it was like. The days when I still couldn't believe that that was the Empire State Building outside my window. Even though I'd grown up in Kansas, I'd never been a conservative. But this quote, as soon as I read it, made be truly frightened of conservatism for the first time in my life. This quote struck me, and still does, as the most ominous and telling statement uttered by an American conservative in the last generation. It represents the abdication of modern conservatism as a legitimate governing philosophy.
As I said: I've never been a conservative; but I did go through a libertarian phase in my late teens and early '20s. This lasted right up until I found out that the canonical text of libertarianism is the one thousand page-plus Atlas Shrugged. I promptly decided to become an adherent of any other philosophy; preferably one that could be distilled within the confines of a short PBS documentary. Conservatives can make all the claims they want on efficient leanness: their syllabus (Ayn Rand, The Wealth of Nations, the Bible) is numbingly bloated. No wonder the historical worldwide preference for Marx and Engels' little pamphlet. Most of us would prefer time to grab a little lunch before we embark upon the revolution . . .
American conservatism used to have a reputation for being based on a willingness to look at hard truths with a cold eye. Conservatives considered themselves realists holding back the wild-eyed utopianism of the left. (It seems the left wants the world to be run by the United Nations. Not only have I never met a liberal who actually advocates such world government--but the United Nations cannot pull itself together enough to organize a proper happy hour, much less world domination.) We were told that conservatives knew that human beings are fallible and therefore capable of horrendous things. At the confluence of conservatism and libertarianism is the notion that because human beings are terrible, awful, sinful creatures, we should all be free to do whatever we want without the government getting in our way. And we should have guns.
Here's the thing: there is nothing more utopian than libertarianism. Because they want to be free and untethered from the government, libertarians have created a fiction that human activity is only beneficial when done free and untethered from the government. Libertarianism is not an ideology; it is a wish.
And what conservatives called skepticism about human nature was too often simply skepticism about government. Conservatives were positively optimistic about human nature when it came to humans wearing American military uniforms, business suits, or clerical vestments. And when they called themselves realistic about human nature, what they meant was that they were able to acknowledge evil in the world. And what they actually meant by this was that they were able to acknowledge evil in the rest of the world. There never was a cold-eyed conservatism in the United States; only a Cold War conservatism.
There is indeed something a bit frightening about the loss of individual control that comes with a powerful government. But with or without government, we've already lost control. The dangers of worldwide nuclear proliferation and global warming require global, political solutions, and you don't need to be a proponent of some creepy world government to believe so. You only need to see these threats with a clear eye.
Conservatives have lost the ability to make such diagnoses. Their suspicion of government, which was once a philosophically-based skepticism, is now a politically-based skepticism. And there is another word for that: cynicism.
Senator James Inhofe, who has managed the almost miraculous feat of being the dumbest person from Oklahoma, suggests that global warming might be “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people".
Reader: imagine a room full of climatologists. These are men who have decided to spend their lives analyzing long-term atmospheric oscillations and creating computer models to measure simple things like radiative equilibrium. They probably have glasses and wear the same two sweaters (both of which were purchased in 1973) over and over again. They are not making eye contact with you, because you are not an algorithm.
Now picture a room full of politicians. Does anyone doubt who is perpetrating the hoax?
George Will is fond of saying that a true conservative temperament is a pessimistic one. This may have been true in other places and times, but is there any doubt that one of the biggest dangers of American conservatism is its willful optimism? The idea that you can choose your own reality and thus choose which dangers are real and which are not?
There are dangers to our country not named Osama. A powerful and active American federal government, working with the other governments of the world (dare I say even leading them?) to confront the real threats to our planet is our only hope for survival. At this date in the 21st century, those with the strength to be pessimistic must be liberals. Or conservatism must change. Because our guns won't save us.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Things My Gmail Account Thinks Would Interest Me
"Denture Cream Poisoning". (It seems that "Poligrip or Fixodent May Cause Damage".)
I don't know what kind of emails I've been writing, but my life has clearly taken a wrong turn.
I don't know what kind of emails I've been writing, but my life has clearly taken a wrong turn.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
My Other, Less Funny Writing
I've got a new post up on the More Intelligent Life blog. Thanks to John Patrick for introducing me to the website I write about.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Losing My Illumination
Now that I don't have to take the train to work everyday I'm trying to get by without my monthly MetroCard. So I've begun using cash to buy my cheaper MetroCards, which means I've also been getting change from the MTA machines in the form of those damn Sacajawea dollars. (By the way, "Those Damn Sacajawea Dollars" is an official term authorized by the US Mint. I mean, does anybody actually like these coins? I doubt even Sacajawea uses them.)
A few years ago I took some money away from a homeless guy down inside the 86th and Lexington subway entrance. It isn't as bad as it sounds--I had given him the money before I took it back. Or does that make it sound much worse?
You see, I occasionally give money to beggars, and I had recently been carrying some of those damn Sacajawea dollars in my pocket, so I thought I may as well give them to the homeless guy. He reached out his hand and I gave him the coins, but they turned out to be quarters.
For those of us who don't own a washing machine, quarters are more precious than dollars. I mean, if a thief robbed me at gunpoint I would give him my wallet; but if he asked for my quarters, I'd probably make a move on him and hope the shot would miss my vital organs.
I buy copies of the New York Post solely to get back the fifty cents in change. Really, is there any other reason to buy the New York Post?
And that's why everyone hates the Sacajawea dollars in the first place--they're too easy to confuse with precious quarters. Dollars belong in your clip and coins belong in your pocket. So within a second of placing the quarters in his outstretched hand I grabbed them back and said "sorry".
He hadn't even had time to close his hand before I took back my money. It seemed to me that the five-second rule applied. This also meant that I was, at that moment, almost literally treating a human being like a doormat. If I had thought about it I would have just let him have the money. But I didn't have time to think about it so I acted. I realized I wanted the quarters and I took them.
The homeless guy was not happy. He said "You can't do that!" I apologized again and said something in the way of a quick explanation. "You can't do that!" he repeated. "You can't take it back. You'll lose your illumination!" I'm not sure what he meant by that. It is quite possible that in addition to being a homeless guy, he was also a crazy guy. I mean, I've certainly been yelled at by a few homeless people in my day, but none of them told me I was losing my illumination. Quite frankly I didn't even know I had an illumination. No one had mentioned it to me, not even the other homeless people. But whatever--by this time I was on my way to the turnstile and my ride home. And I couldn't stop laughing.
Then I told my friends about it and they laughed, but were also kind of appalled at me. Well, maybe not appalled. Their reaction was more of the "Bradley, why would you do that?" variety. Anybody who becomes friends with me inevitably finds themselves asking that question quite often. The smart ones will usually come up with a "Bradley, why would you do that?" facial expression to save time.
I've always been a pretty nice guy. But especially when I was younger--say, my late teens and early twenties--I could be a dick to people. Nothing awful, but I've yelled at a few waitresses who didn't deserve it; I've made some insulting comments to friends who didn't deserve it. (I was also sometimes a jerk to girls but that doesn't count cos they kind of liked it, which I still don't understand. I certainly don't like it when they're bitches.) Now I had officially taken money from the outstretched hands of a homeless person.
But I've gotten more patient in recent years. For the most part I save my anger for those who deserve it, and I've even found myself holding my tongue when people do deserve it. (To the point that I sometimes wonder if I've grown too patient with people.)
Obviously in the scheme of things, pissing off that homeless guy isn't the worst thing I've ever done. I didn't act out of meanness, just selfishness. And it was only fifty cents. But whenever I see a Sacajawea dollar I think about it. Now thanks to the MTA I'm carrying around those damn Sacajawea dollars again--and if they start to weigh me down, I'm giving them to the first homeless guy I see. I don't know what illumination is, but I'm determined to get it back.
A few years ago I took some money away from a homeless guy down inside the 86th and Lexington subway entrance. It isn't as bad as it sounds--I had given him the money before I took it back. Or does that make it sound much worse?
You see, I occasionally give money to beggars, and I had recently been carrying some of those damn Sacajawea dollars in my pocket, so I thought I may as well give them to the homeless guy. He reached out his hand and I gave him the coins, but they turned out to be quarters.
For those of us who don't own a washing machine, quarters are more precious than dollars. I mean, if a thief robbed me at gunpoint I would give him my wallet; but if he asked for my quarters, I'd probably make a move on him and hope the shot would miss my vital organs.
I buy copies of the New York Post solely to get back the fifty cents in change. Really, is there any other reason to buy the New York Post?
And that's why everyone hates the Sacajawea dollars in the first place--they're too easy to confuse with precious quarters. Dollars belong in your clip and coins belong in your pocket. So within a second of placing the quarters in his outstretched hand I grabbed them back and said "sorry".
He hadn't even had time to close his hand before I took back my money. It seemed to me that the five-second rule applied. This also meant that I was, at that moment, almost literally treating a human being like a doormat. If I had thought about it I would have just let him have the money. But I didn't have time to think about it so I acted. I realized I wanted the quarters and I took them.
The homeless guy was not happy. He said "You can't do that!" I apologized again and said something in the way of a quick explanation. "You can't do that!" he repeated. "You can't take it back. You'll lose your illumination!" I'm not sure what he meant by that. It is quite possible that in addition to being a homeless guy, he was also a crazy guy. I mean, I've certainly been yelled at by a few homeless people in my day, but none of them told me I was losing my illumination. Quite frankly I didn't even know I had an illumination. No one had mentioned it to me, not even the other homeless people. But whatever--by this time I was on my way to the turnstile and my ride home. And I couldn't stop laughing.
Then I told my friends about it and they laughed, but were also kind of appalled at me. Well, maybe not appalled. Their reaction was more of the "Bradley, why would you do that?" variety. Anybody who becomes friends with me inevitably finds themselves asking that question quite often. The smart ones will usually come up with a "Bradley, why would you do that?" facial expression to save time.
I've always been a pretty nice guy. But especially when I was younger--say, my late teens and early twenties--I could be a dick to people. Nothing awful, but I've yelled at a few waitresses who didn't deserve it; I've made some insulting comments to friends who didn't deserve it. (I was also sometimes a jerk to girls but that doesn't count cos they kind of liked it, which I still don't understand. I certainly don't like it when they're bitches.) Now I had officially taken money from the outstretched hands of a homeless person.
But I've gotten more patient in recent years. For the most part I save my anger for those who deserve it, and I've even found myself holding my tongue when people do deserve it. (To the point that I sometimes wonder if I've grown too patient with people.)
Obviously in the scheme of things, pissing off that homeless guy isn't the worst thing I've ever done. I didn't act out of meanness, just selfishness. And it was only fifty cents. But whenever I see a Sacajawea dollar I think about it. Now thanks to the MTA I'm carrying around those damn Sacajawea dollars again--and if they start to weigh me down, I'm giving them to the first homeless guy I see. I don't know what illumination is, but I'm determined to get it back.
I Guess That Really Is Their Job
During the day yesterday I tuned into C-Span for the first time in a few years. I literally saw a member of the House giving a speech on naming a post office. On C-Span2, Senator Burr of North Carolina was complaining about excessive regulation of tobacco.
In a world that sometimes moves too fast, I'm glad to know some things never change.
In a world that sometimes moves too fast, I'm glad to know some things never change.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
I Know I'm White. I'm Just Not White Like You.
While working on another blog post that I've yet to publish, I got to thinking about all the things I've been called.
I'm basically white. My father is Jewish (of Ashkanazi descent), my mother is of English ancestry, and I was raised in Kansas. Okay, I guess that makes me really white. It's no sweat. I got no problem being white. My president's half-white.
I'm not exotic looking, so people don't spend too much time trying to figure out "what" I am. I have a buddy who, because he's somehow convinced that I look Irish, always asks people what they think I am. They usually respond by ignoring my buddy. Then he presses them and they just say, "I dunno, he just looks white." It's not a very fun game. Although occasionally they do guess Irish, which gives my friend hope.
A black co-worker of mine once told me I am black because:
a) I always came in late for work.
b) Whenever I got hungry I dropped whatever I was doing without telling anyone and went to lunch for the entire hour no matter how busy I was.
c) I never stayed past 5:00 no matter what.
No one ever thought I was gay until the past few years, when I moved to New York and started dressing a bit better. Now I've had to explain to more than one gay man (and worse, straight women) that I'm just well-dressed. One drunk gay guy at a bar once asked me if I am gay, or just sensitive. I wasn't thrilled with the choices, but I settled for sensitive.
My (non-Jewish) grandmother is southern, and to my friends in Kansas who knew this, that made me part Confederate, albeit a Jewish Confederate. (It's not implausible, by the way.)
I've been told that I'm Japanese because I am skinny and shy.
A friend once told me that I would get laid more if I were a girl, because I am skinny and shy.
Some people think I'm funny. My humor has been called dry, Jewish, whimsical, British, angry, under-the-radar, cute, New York-ish, Midwestern, quick, mean, "like one of those Daily Show guys", subtle, and laugh-out-loud hilarious. I think some of those things contradict themselves. I think what these people are trying to say is: I'm funny. Or maybe they're lying thru their teeth and are just grasping for cliches so that I'll be satisfied with the compliment and stop trying so hard to be funny.
I have a condition called Raynoud's (which makes my blood thin) When my doctor first diagnosed me in high school, she also made sure to tell me that it most often occurs in black females.
But let's face it--I'm a straight white guy who pretty much looks and acts like a straight white guy. Yet I have a minor litany of dissenting opinions, or at least suggestions.
So I guess I can kind of see how people who are actually exotic-looking or who grow up in confusing ethnic, racial, religious, sexual situations can go crazy trying to figure out "what" they are and are not. Not to mention trying to convince other people what they are and are not.
It makes me sort of relieved to be simply what a homeless guy shouted at me with a huge grin on his face during my first summer in New York: "Hey, Whitey!"
I'm basically white. My father is Jewish (of Ashkanazi descent), my mother is of English ancestry, and I was raised in Kansas. Okay, I guess that makes me really white. It's no sweat. I got no problem being white. My president's half-white.
I'm not exotic looking, so people don't spend too much time trying to figure out "what" I am. I have a buddy who, because he's somehow convinced that I look Irish, always asks people what they think I am. They usually respond by ignoring my buddy. Then he presses them and they just say, "I dunno, he just looks white." It's not a very fun game. Although occasionally they do guess Irish, which gives my friend hope.
A black co-worker of mine once told me I am black because:
a) I always came in late for work.
b) Whenever I got hungry I dropped whatever I was doing without telling anyone and went to lunch for the entire hour no matter how busy I was.
c) I never stayed past 5:00 no matter what.
No one ever thought I was gay until the past few years, when I moved to New York and started dressing a bit better. Now I've had to explain to more than one gay man (and worse, straight women) that I'm just well-dressed. One drunk gay guy at a bar once asked me if I am gay, or just sensitive. I wasn't thrilled with the choices, but I settled for sensitive.
My (non-Jewish) grandmother is southern, and to my friends in Kansas who knew this, that made me part Confederate, albeit a Jewish Confederate. (It's not implausible, by the way.)
I've been told that I'm Japanese because I am skinny and shy.
A friend once told me that I would get laid more if I were a girl, because I am skinny and shy.
Some people think I'm funny. My humor has been called dry, Jewish, whimsical, British, angry, under-the-radar, cute, New York-ish, Midwestern, quick, mean, "like one of those Daily Show guys", subtle, and laugh-out-loud hilarious. I think some of those things contradict themselves. I think what these people are trying to say is: I'm funny. Or maybe they're lying thru their teeth and are just grasping for cliches so that I'll be satisfied with the compliment and stop trying so hard to be funny.
I have a condition called Raynoud's (which makes my blood thin) When my doctor first diagnosed me in high school, she also made sure to tell me that it most often occurs in black females.
But let's face it--I'm a straight white guy who pretty much looks and acts like a straight white guy. Yet I have a minor litany of dissenting opinions, or at least suggestions.
So I guess I can kind of see how people who are actually exotic-looking or who grow up in confusing ethnic, racial, religious, sexual situations can go crazy trying to figure out "what" they are and are not. Not to mention trying to convince other people what they are and are not.
It makes me sort of relieved to be simply what a homeless guy shouted at me with a huge grin on his face during my first summer in New York: "Hey, Whitey!"
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Wikipedia Sentences of the Day
There is something about Wikipedia that lends itself to especially amusing sentences. Probably the fact that it written by everyone, and thus not actually written by anyone. Sometimes I can't hold back on my desire to share them, so here are a couple for today. The quotes usually stand best on their own, but I've provided the links to show that--for now at least--these sentences exist on Wikipedia. (And to show you all the lame and disturbing things I read about on Wikipedia)
She pointed to one thing in the article that she said was untrue; she said she did not feed her son chicken from a box meal after the team's loss to Troy University.
A witness reported a gorilla was driving a Volvo similar to Epstein's that night.
She pointed to one thing in the article that she said was untrue; she said she did not feed her son chicken from a box meal after the team's loss to Troy University.
A witness reported a gorilla was driving a Volvo similar to Epstein's that night.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The Law of Diminishing Accents
I recently watched I,Claudius for the first time. It was very good, and very BBC. Lots of pale actors walking around in togas on a soundstage (you can hear the echos). And of course: full of British accents. Largely because the cast was British, but also because I, Claudius takes place in ancient Rome.
Any film production that takes place in ancient Rome is required to follow the cinematic law of diminishing accents. All the actors portraying anyone powerful-- aristocrats, emperors, generals--must speak with British accents. More specifically the accents must be English and suitably upper class.
In the final episode of I, Claudius, the emperor returns from having reconquered Britannia. He brings with him a British prisoner, Caratacus. So in a production in which all of the Romans speak with English accents, how did the BBC portray a British character? They gave him a northern, almost Scottish accent. It begins to remind me of those SAT comparison questions. (Britannia is to Rome as Scotland is to . . .)
When a production includes non-English actors, the accents must still conform. In the BBC/HBO series Rome, the Irish Ciarán Hinds (who plays Caesar) and the Scottish Kevin McKidd (who plays a centurion) both use the necessary English accent.
When Americans play Romans they must do the same as long as they are playing someone like an emperor(see Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator). But if the actor is playing a slave, he can use his normal voice. And thank God for that rule, because it saved the world from hearing either Kirk Douglas or Tony Curtis attempt English accents in Spartacus. Gladiator however, contains my favorite example of the convoluted rule of accents: Russel Crowe, an Austalian, uses an English accent to portray a Spaniard who would have been speaking Latin.
Fellini cheated a bit because his actors spoke Italian. But I'll bet they spoke it with British accents.
One would assume that this rule exists largely because the English so recently surpassed even Rome in the scope of its empire. England just seems like the closest thing the modern world has had to ancient Rome. Rome's aristocracy is probably also more easily reflected by England's class stratifications. I'm not sure about that one--Rome was not only aristocratic; it was oligarchical. And America reflects that quite well.
And is America an empire.? I'll believe it when I see it on screen.
Any film production that takes place in ancient Rome is required to follow the cinematic law of diminishing accents. All the actors portraying anyone powerful-- aristocrats, emperors, generals--must speak with British accents. More specifically the accents must be English and suitably upper class.
In the final episode of I, Claudius, the emperor returns from having reconquered Britannia. He brings with him a British prisoner, Caratacus. So in a production in which all of the Romans speak with English accents, how did the BBC portray a British character? They gave him a northern, almost Scottish accent. It begins to remind me of those SAT comparison questions. (Britannia is to Rome as Scotland is to . . .)
When a production includes non-English actors, the accents must still conform. In the BBC/HBO series Rome, the Irish Ciarán Hinds (who plays Caesar) and the Scottish Kevin McKidd (who plays a centurion) both use the necessary English accent.
When Americans play Romans they must do the same as long as they are playing someone like an emperor(see Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator). But if the actor is playing a slave, he can use his normal voice. And thank God for that rule, because it saved the world from hearing either Kirk Douglas or Tony Curtis attempt English accents in Spartacus. Gladiator however, contains my favorite example of the convoluted rule of accents: Russel Crowe, an Austalian, uses an English accent to portray a Spaniard who would have been speaking Latin.
Fellini cheated a bit because his actors spoke Italian. But I'll bet they spoke it with British accents.
One would assume that this rule exists largely because the English so recently surpassed even Rome in the scope of its empire. England just seems like the closest thing the modern world has had to ancient Rome. Rome's aristocracy is probably also more easily reflected by England's class stratifications. I'm not sure about that one--Rome was not only aristocratic; it was oligarchical. And America reflects that quite well.
And is America an empire.? I'll believe it when I see it on screen.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Oh, I've Wasted My Life
Religion has created a lot of delusions among human beings, but the one legitimate concept that religion has long prepared us for is apocalypse. Thanks to nuclear technology, we humans now have the power to kill our entire species. (At least in theory. But I'm convinced that no matter what happens we'll never get rid of Dane Cook.)
For Christians, who have been expecting the End of Times since the New Testament was written, the end of the world is nothing new. But for those of us who don't truck in such nonsense, nuclear annihilation is now one of the leading threats to humankind's existence (along with the dreaded Zombie Apocalypse). And unlike Christians, non-believers like me see the end of the world as a bad thing.
There is another concept that is quite ancient, which is the destruction of a nation. This should be familiar to any American. After all, I'm writing this from an island called "Manhattan"; and that ain't Dutch. But in the nuclear world (i.e. the world) the destruction of a nation can now happen frighteningly quickly. This is a very serious topic, even without the zombies. It's a topic I'm going to return to on my next blog post. But first:
My favorite newspaper column of all time is Bernard Lewis's Wall Street Journal piece from August 8, 2006. Titled "August 22: Does Iran have something in store?", Lewis suggested that Iran might have chosen August 22, 2006 to launch a nuclear attack on Israel and bring about the end the world:
"It would be wise to bear the possibility in mind." This was his advice! Two weeks before the day he predicted the world would end! In the Wall Street Journal! Before Rupert Murdoch owned it!
Unless you're a cult leader trying to get all the females in the cult into bed, there is no logical incentive to predict the end of the world. If you're correct, everyone will be dead and you will get no credit for being right. If you're wrong, everyone will know it and you will be that crazy guy who predicted the end of the world and got us all to spend what we thought would be our last hours having desperate strung out sex with our ugly and now impregnated neighbor from down the hall, and eating shrimp even though we're allergic to it, and sending a mass fuck you email to everyone we know but secretly hate because we thought we were about to die anyway.
And nobody likes that kind of crazy guy.
For Christians, who have been expecting the End of Times since the New Testament was written, the end of the world is nothing new. But for those of us who don't truck in such nonsense, nuclear annihilation is now one of the leading threats to humankind's existence (along with the dreaded Zombie Apocalypse). And unlike Christians, non-believers like me see the end of the world as a bad thing.
There is another concept that is quite ancient, which is the destruction of a nation. This should be familiar to any American. After all, I'm writing this from an island called "Manhattan"; and that ain't Dutch. But in the nuclear world (i.e. the world) the destruction of a nation can now happen frighteningly quickly. This is a very serious topic, even without the zombies. It's a topic I'm going to return to on my next blog post. But first:
My favorite newspaper column of all time is Bernard Lewis's Wall Street Journal piece from August 8, 2006. Titled "August 22: Does Iran have something in store?", Lewis suggested that Iran might have chosen August 22, 2006 to launch a nuclear attack on Israel and bring about the end the world:
What is the significance of Aug. 22? This year, Aug. 22 corresponds, in the Islamic calendar, to the 27th day of the month of Rajab of the year 1427. This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to "the farthest mosque," usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (cf Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world. It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.
"It would be wise to bear the possibility in mind." This was his advice! Two weeks before the day he predicted the world would end! In the Wall Street Journal! Before Rupert Murdoch owned it!
Unless you're a cult leader trying to get all the females in the cult into bed, there is no logical incentive to predict the end of the world. If you're correct, everyone will be dead and you will get no credit for being right. If you're wrong, everyone will know it and you will be that crazy guy who predicted the end of the world and got us all to spend what we thought would be our last hours having desperate strung out sex with our ugly and now impregnated neighbor from down the hall, and eating shrimp even though we're allergic to it, and sending a mass fuck you email to everyone we know but secretly hate because we thought we were about to die anyway.
And nobody likes that kind of crazy guy.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Straw Dogs
One day six years ago (during my first summer in New York) the lights and A.C. went out in the blackout of 2003. I don't remember what day that was, but on what ever the next day was, people started selling "I survived the 2003 blackout" shirts. New Yorkers may be tough, but they are not stoic--they're too touchy for stoicism. Instead they fetishize and promote their own vision of toughness and their own ability to survive things such as electrical outages. During the summer of 2003, when New Yorkers were re-living their war stories of their one day without air conditioning, Baghdad was virtually without electricity entirely. Today the situation is not much better, so I guess Iraqis will have to wait for their t-shirts until they can be sure they've actually survived the blackout of 2003--_____.
Some New Yorkers have a kind of nostalgia for the New York of the 1970s. In Vanity Fair James Wolcott fondly remembers the New York of the 1970s, the "Mogadishu on the Hudson". He admits that in some ways this was an era that "no one would wish to time travel back to", but for Wolcott the ascetic grittiness of that crumbling city of rubble surpasses today's sterile "spiky glass buildings".
Wolcott was actually here during the '70s. So at least he's not some poseur like the New York writer who wanted the "authentic" New York experience. He moved to Bushwick, got the shit knocked out of him, and moved back to California.
I’ve only been in New York for a few years. I’ve never been robbed, never seen a gun, never been beaten.
But I am friends with a girl who twice had a knife held to her throat while living in Brooklyn. I know another girl who was held at knife point in Harlem and on another occasion had a gun pointed at her in Brooklyn. A girl I knew in college was robbed and when she resisted, was stabbed in the ribs. I met a girl at a party who saw a guy get shot in the back on the streets of Astoria. And of course there are the 9/11 stories.
I live in Harlem; my neighborhood is pretty safe. An employee at my local Dunkin’ Donuts was shot and killed a few years ago. And last week a seventeen-year-old kid was shot dead on W. 141st Street. I live, well, basically on W. 141st Street. But he was shot like three avenues over from where I live. I mean, I live in Harlem, and he was shot over in Har-lem. The pictures of him getting killed were in the Post. There's enough violence in New York for me, thank you.
It would be hypocritical to begrudge anyone their impulse to excitement in atmospheres of violence. I'm susceptible to it--the most exciting moments of my life have been the most dangerous. Of course violence is exciting and boredom is boring. If I were M.I.A. I'd probably be bored living in Bed-Stuy instead of Sri Lanka too.
But while Wolcott waxes nostalgic about the good old days and New York being a "near-death experience", there are tens of thousands of New Yorkers who aren't nostalgic for the '70s. They aren't nostalgic for anything because they were murdered in the 1970s. Wolcott writes about '70s New York as art, but so much of the New York of the '70s was violence. Taxi Driver is a great movie but it was forged from the sins of a scarred city on the verge of collapse. This is nothing new; this is the eternal tragedy of art's necessity: Guernica is rightly a masterpiece but I would rather it hadn't needed to be painted in the first place.
And so as bored as I am (and I am bored) I can't wish for a return to the circumstances that made Taxi Driver necessary, even if I can appreciate that Taxi Driver and the movies of the '70s grappled with their world much more forcefully than today's movies grapple with ours. Instead, the most trenchant cinematic attempt thus far to come to grips with our post-9/11 world was The Dark Knight. I wish that today's filmmakers had the guts and brains of Scorsese. (Shit, I wish Scorsese had the guts and brains of Scorsese.)
But great art is not reason enough to wish for New York to go back to dystopia. Salman Rushdie said: "I mean, what’s a life? That's not much, you know. A book’s much more important." He can say that, because it's his book and it's his life he was talking about. If you're going to place art above life, it sure as hell better be your art and it better be your life you're waging.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Strikeouts Are Fascist
Over the past few years I have become more and more enamored with soccer. This is largely because I formerly worked for a British magazine that allowed us to skip bits of work to watch World Cup matches in our boardroom. (If I had been allowed to take time off work to watch armadillo polo you'd no doubt be reading a blog post about armadillo polo right now.) But I have to admit that I continue to find soccer maddening, and for the usual reason--I'm American.
Yesterday in London, Chelsea--after leading Barcelona for almost the entire match--gave up a goal in stoppage time. With the game now tied 1-1, Barcelona erupted into celebrations (i.e. running around in circles) because even though they had tied the game rather than winning it, they had won their semifinal round of the UEFA Champions League. Barcelona accomplished this victory by tying Chelsea not once, but twice. How do two ties equal a victory? Perhaps a quick look at the Champions League tie-breaker rules will clarify this:
OK, so it's never a good idea to look to any European document for clarification on anything. (I'm just thankful that UEFA didn't try to sneak some sort of transcontinental dairy regulation into their rules.)
It is no secret that one of the many reasons Americans dislike soccer is the fact that Americans dislike ties. We avoid draws at all costs. We like overtime, penalty shots, sudden death, walk-off home runs, and Monopoly (the goal of which is "grinding your opponents into dust").
After the yesterday's draw the Times' soccer blog noted:
On Tuesday night the Washington Nationals and Houston Astros baseball game was postponed due to rain in the eleventh inning. The game was tied 10-10 at the time, so it will be resumed on July 9 to determine a winner. Keep in mind: both teams are in last place in their divisions. This is one game out of 162. But they'll be damned if someone isn't going to eventually win this game two months from now. Because every game counts.
There are two basic American ideas about war: You only truly win if your opponent admits unconditional surrender, and a loss doesn't count if you don't actually declare war. Therefore our victories over Germany and Japan in World War II were total, and our stalemate in Korea was really just a conflict anyways.
There's something to be said for not annihilating your opponents in real life. Nuclear weapons sort of took the fun out that. (Well, okay, it was kinda fun until our enemies got them.)
But soccer? In a tournament? They should play until someone fucking wins. The UEFA championship isn't Vietnam--this counts.
Yesterday in London, Chelsea--after leading Barcelona for almost the entire match--gave up a goal in stoppage time. With the game now tied 1-1, Barcelona erupted into celebrations (i.e. running around in circles) because even though they had tied the game rather than winning it, they had won their semifinal round of the UEFA Champions League. Barcelona accomplished this victory by tying Chelsea not once, but twice. How do two ties equal a victory? Perhaps a quick look at the Champions League tie-breaker rules will clarify this:
Based on paragraph 6.05 in the UEFA regulations for the current season, if two or more teams are equal on points on completion of the group matches, the following criteria are applied to determine the rankings:
1. higher number of points obtained in the group matches played among the teams in question;
2. superior goal difference from the group matches played among the teams in question;
3. higher number of goals scored away from home in the group matches played among the teams in question;
4. superior goal difference from all group matches played;
5. higher number of goals scored in all group matches played;
6. higher number of coefficient points accumulated by the club in question, as well as its association, over the previous five seasons.
OK, so it's never a good idea to look to any European document for clarification on anything. (I'm just thankful that UEFA didn't try to sneak some sort of transcontinental dairy regulation into their rules.)
It is no secret that one of the many reasons Americans dislike soccer is the fact that Americans dislike ties. We avoid draws at all costs. We like overtime, penalty shots, sudden death, walk-off home runs, and Monopoly (the goal of which is "grinding your opponents into dust").
After the yesterday's draw the Times' soccer blog noted:
The away goals rule is peculiar to soccer and is positively alien to most American fans. Perhaps it is accepted, perhaps not.
Should the teams instead play extra time, then, if still tied, go to penalty kicks? Are PKs more equitable in resolving a game, or are they just as unsatisfying?
On Tuesday night the Washington Nationals and Houston Astros baseball game was postponed due to rain in the eleventh inning. The game was tied 10-10 at the time, so it will be resumed on July 9 to determine a winner. Keep in mind: both teams are in last place in their divisions. This is one game out of 162. But they'll be damned if someone isn't going to eventually win this game two months from now. Because every game counts.
There are two basic American ideas about war: You only truly win if your opponent admits unconditional surrender, and a loss doesn't count if you don't actually declare war. Therefore our victories over Germany and Japan in World War II were total, and our stalemate in Korea was really just a conflict anyways.
There's something to be said for not annihilating your opponents in real life. Nuclear weapons sort of took the fun out that. (Well, okay, it was kinda fun until our enemies got them.)
But soccer? In a tournament? They should play until someone fucking wins. The UEFA championship isn't Vietnam--this counts.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Vote For George O'Brien!
A friend of mine texted me yesterday that he was at a subway station watching three M.T.A. workers spray a 2x4. There was one worker doing the spraying and two workers holding the "Watch the Gap" template. His point, I gather, was that no private company would ever get away with hiring three people to do a job that can be done by one person. (In fact, based on my past experience working long-ass hours in an office, the corporate world is entirely the reverse, with every one doing the work of two people. Three during a recession).
Occasionally a person like me needs a reminder that my friends and I are very lame. Trading text messages about municipal union inefficiencies is one of those reminders.
I support unionization in theory, but rarely in practice--especially when I am forced to patronize a unionized service. There is an almost 30% fare increase pending at the end of this month, with talk already beginning of another fare increase later this year. Nothing pisses off New Yorkers like a subway fare increase, for the simple reason that the subway service in this city never gets any better.
Everything in this city is too expensive; we're used to that. But while we may pay fifteen dollars for a cocktail, we pay for them at some of the trendiest bars and clubs in the world. I would be willing to put up with a 30% fare hike if the subway system would actually improve by 30%. But the subway service in this city is one of the worst in the world, as you will know if you've ever taken . . . any other subway in the world. If they are going to raise the price of my MetroCard by almost a third then they should do their part by firing every third worker in the M.T.A.
I don't say this lightly. I know a thing or two about unemployment (Hint: It's a weekday afternoon and I'm writing this from home while watching a DVD).
But I also know that I spent twenty-five minutes waiting for the subway on Wednesday evening. This wasn't at midnight either; it was at 6:30. I needed to travel thirty-five blocks in order to play softball. It would have been faster if I had run the thirty-five blocks instead of waited for the train. I don't know how the M.T.A. gauges success, but I consider any subway system in which a person would be better off running to their destination as "shitty subway service". At one point the train I was waiting for did pass by--but it didn't stop. The next train stopped and so I did end up getting to my game, albeit thirty minutes late. This didn't matter because I suck at softball. But what if I was good at softball? My team might have gotten very angry with me.
When I visited India last year I noticed that whenever there was a job to be done there were three or four people doing it. Every time we checked into a hotel, there were four people behind the counter: one person checking us in and three people watching the person who was checking us in. There was always a bellboy, and he usually had one person watching him. They all expected tips.
India, however, is still a very poor country. It's about the size of the U.S. but with three times as many people. So it makes sense that there are a certain number of Indians who have nothing better to do than sweep dirt on the side of the road. (I wish I were joking, but I literally saw Indians with brooms sweeping dirt on the side of the road. This is testament to human nature and our inclination to find some task, any task, to accomplish during the day. Anyone who says working is not natural hasn't been to a poor country.)
Some people might tell you that my idea of laying off one-third of all M.T.A. workers has not been completely thought-out. These people are absolutely correct. But a civic entity that has three employees spray-painting a sign while trains are stopping only every thirty minutes during rush hour doesn't deserve the time it would take me to come up with a fully thought-out plan. I mean, just because I don't have a job doesn't mean I'm not busy.
I've got some sweeping to do.
Occasionally a person like me needs a reminder that my friends and I are very lame. Trading text messages about municipal union inefficiencies is one of those reminders.
I support unionization in theory, but rarely in practice--especially when I am forced to patronize a unionized service. There is an almost 30% fare increase pending at the end of this month, with talk already beginning of another fare increase later this year. Nothing pisses off New Yorkers like a subway fare increase, for the simple reason that the subway service in this city never gets any better.
Everything in this city is too expensive; we're used to that. But while we may pay fifteen dollars for a cocktail, we pay for them at some of the trendiest bars and clubs in the world. I would be willing to put up with a 30% fare hike if the subway system would actually improve by 30%. But the subway service in this city is one of the worst in the world, as you will know if you've ever taken . . . any other subway in the world. If they are going to raise the price of my MetroCard by almost a third then they should do their part by firing every third worker in the M.T.A.
I don't say this lightly. I know a thing or two about unemployment (Hint: It's a weekday afternoon and I'm writing this from home while watching a DVD).
But I also know that I spent twenty-five minutes waiting for the subway on Wednesday evening. This wasn't at midnight either; it was at 6:30. I needed to travel thirty-five blocks in order to play softball. It would have been faster if I had run the thirty-five blocks instead of waited for the train. I don't know how the M.T.A. gauges success, but I consider any subway system in which a person would be better off running to their destination as "shitty subway service". At one point the train I was waiting for did pass by--but it didn't stop. The next train stopped and so I did end up getting to my game, albeit thirty minutes late. This didn't matter because I suck at softball. But what if I was good at softball? My team might have gotten very angry with me.
When I visited India last year I noticed that whenever there was a job to be done there were three or four people doing it. Every time we checked into a hotel, there were four people behind the counter: one person checking us in and three people watching the person who was checking us in. There was always a bellboy, and he usually had one person watching him. They all expected tips.
India, however, is still a very poor country. It's about the size of the U.S. but with three times as many people. So it makes sense that there are a certain number of Indians who have nothing better to do than sweep dirt on the side of the road. (I wish I were joking, but I literally saw Indians with brooms sweeping dirt on the side of the road. This is testament to human nature and our inclination to find some task, any task, to accomplish during the day. Anyone who says working is not natural hasn't been to a poor country.)
Some people might tell you that my idea of laying off one-third of all M.T.A. workers has not been completely thought-out. These people are absolutely correct. But a civic entity that has three employees spray-painting a sign while trains are stopping only every thirty minutes during rush hour doesn't deserve the time it would take me to come up with a fully thought-out plan. I mean, just because I don't have a job doesn't mean I'm not busy.
I've got some sweeping to do.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Call Me Ish
There is something unsure about the term “Jewish”. It is noncommittal—a tentative word to describe a tentative people. The conquerors of modern history are solid in their identity: Ottoman. German. Russian. American.
The persecuted lived in fear that their identity might betray them: Jewish. Irish. Polish. These are words for people on the periphery. As if perhaps they might choose to jump out of their identity in a moment of danger in hope of survival.
(“Am I a Jew? No, no, just a little . . . Jewish . . . it’s nothing really.”)
The persecuted lived in fear that their identity might betray them: Jewish. Irish. Polish. These are words for people on the periphery. As if perhaps they might choose to jump out of their identity in a moment of danger in hope of survival.
(“Am I a Jew? No, no, just a little . . . Jewish . . . it’s nothing really.”)
Gaddafi: The First Family of Fashion
As a coda to my earlier post, I feel obliged to share this (courtesy of my old friends at The Economist).
I don't know what's going on in Libya, but I've gotta take a vacation there.
I don't know what's going on in Libya, but I've gotta take a vacation there.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Does That Make Me a Tripartite?
Charles Krauthammer on the president's "tripartite social democratic agenda":
So Obama's ultimate mission is to level social inequalities? There is much to be said for leveling social inequalities, but does Krauthammer really think Obama's agenda is so ideological that his policies are merely means to that end? Does he think that Obama felt the need to nationalize something, federalize something, and tax something--and just happened to decide on health care, education and carbon emissions?
It seems to me that the president's agenda here is to provide health care for American citizens, educate American citizens, and try and help save the planet, which contains a great many American citizens.
Obama's plans are ambitious and far-reaching. But I don't know what his philosophical "ultimate mission" is. He doesn't seem like the kind of man who thinks in those terms.
In the service of his ultimate mission -- the leveling of social inequalities -- President Obama offers a tripartite social democratic agenda: nationalized health care, federalized education (ultimately guaranteed through college) and a cash-cow carbon tax (or its equivalent) to subsidize the other two.
So Obama's ultimate mission is to level social inequalities? There is much to be said for leveling social inequalities, but does Krauthammer really think Obama's agenda is so ideological that his policies are merely means to that end? Does he think that Obama felt the need to nationalize something, federalize something, and tax something--and just happened to decide on health care, education and carbon emissions?
It seems to me that the president's agenda here is to provide health care for American citizens, educate American citizens, and try and help save the planet, which contains a great many American citizens.
Obama's plans are ambitious and far-reaching. But I don't know what his philosophical "ultimate mission" is. He doesn't seem like the kind of man who thinks in those terms.
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Devil Doesn't Wear Prada
We Americans have long taken our stock of foreign leaders by visual means. In the old days, it was simple:
mustache = evil
Today, the easiest way to gauge world leaders is by their clothing: The evilness of a head of state is inversely proportional to the variety of his wardrobe. Certain leaders may be evil, but they are media savvy; they understand the importance of branding themselves to the public. After all, there are quite a few evil leaders out there and it is in their interest to make sure they are easy to remember.
Kim Jong Il is perhaps the most evil man in the world. It is not surprise then, that his fashion is the most staid of the world leaders, with his brown workers' uniform.
Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad can often be seen in a tan jacket (which I think belonged to my grandfather before he died). It resembles Kim's jacket, but he wears it open, in a more casual manner.
Hugo Chavez prefers the red long-sleeved, buttoned-up shirt (beret optional).
The most flamboyant is, of course, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. He's one of those world leaders who doesn't necessarily wear the same thing all the time. But whatever he's wearing, you only need to look at the clothes and you know it's him.
I have to admit that for a good guy, President Obama cuts it close. Not that he doesn't have style, but he almost always wears a dark suit with a pastel red or blue tie. This trend reached its apex of uniformity last summer, when Obama and Joe Biden made their first joint appearance together. Biden appeared to have creepily dressed in one of Obama's spare tops.
I prefer to find my comfort in the prospect of America's goodness in the First Lady.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
