In world news, Greek riots 
stemming from the shooting of a teenager by police have shifted to economic concerns.
Zimbabwe faces a cholera epidemic 
and the inept government cannot do anything to stop it.
Closer to home, the Blagojevich scandal 
still dominates the headlines. Opinions differ on how much, if at all, this will effect Obama, and whether these effects will be positive or negative.
A new generation of activists 
strive to make gay marriage legal. This time, they come armed with technology (in reference to the picture).
Lawmakers cut the automotive bailout down to $15 billion out of the original $25 billion (then $34 billion) asked for. It seems to be one of those 'agreement in principle 
' deals, so I won't go out on a limb with predictions as I did yesterday.
In pop culture news, Britney is back 
. Does anyone care anymore? The 'Nanny 
,' Fran Drescher, wants a shot at Hillary's senate seat. If that happens, I don't think I could ever watch C-Span again for fear of encountering that grating voice.
In sports, some big baseball trades 
are happening. It's not baseball season, so I'm not really paying attention. On the more controversial side of sports, the Dolphins' Porter defends Burress' need for a gun 
.
Can anyone tell that I've been avoiding grading with all my might this week?
Comments :
inept or evil?
As far as I'm concerned, Zimbabwe's government is pure evil, and is the cause of this epidemic. It's almost offensive to suggest that they are simply incompetent and/or powerless.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Difficult to say
I have a hard time defining evil, but in most respects people suffering and dying for a blatant power grab is close enough.
By inept, I meant that even if Mugabe did care, his government is so impotent now that only international intervention will prevent the oncoming numerous deaths.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
not part of the solution, not part of the problem -- not evil
If Mugabe cared, he could have allowed international relief agencies to operate in Zimbabwe. His government has actively undermined international attempts to help the people of Zimbabwe.
All of that is on top of what his thugs have done to intentionally disrupt the lives of many people in Zimbabwe during the election season, which is on top of the their long-term looting which has had the side-effect of making it impossible for people to take care of themselves.
For example, recently
...
Earlier
...
As for the nature of evil in this world...
In the real world, this is the be-all and end-all of evil. Stuff like frivolous sadism is a rare abberation.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I'm enjoying the high quality open threads
You and stinerman do a much better job than I ever did covering the news. Keep procrastinating on your grading!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Thanks
I figured giving a number of topics to discuss would increase the chances of replies. It's been a drought around here lately (understandable post-election--yes, I stil lurk around here even when I don't comment).
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
The argument for cognitive enhancing drugs
A new commentary in Nature argues for regularization of cognitive enhancing drugs
(CED). The Economist ran a similar commentary/report 
a few months back (using data from a survey of Nature's readers).
Both of these articles provoke a sense of inevitability -- people are using CED, and they will do so more-often as they become more available...so we might as well make the best of it. I don't know if the Nature commentary is public access, but here's the lead paragraph.
I haven't read the whole thing yet, but I will, and may have more comments. Right now, I'm expecting the main opposition to come from:
1) Anti-drug ideology
2) Concerns about how this would impact the competitive structure of society. Will it increase the gap between the smarter and less-smart, or will it narrow that gap? Will competitive pressure cause people to use these drugs in the face of substantial risks, even when an objective evaluation of risk/reward wouldn't justify such risks?
I'm sure this will be a hot issue of debate over the next few decades...
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I think the anti-sleep drugs
will be the big game changers, moreso than the memory enhancers. I keep meaning to write a diary about the subject (and the science of sleep as a whole).
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
...but sleep gets in the way
Let me finish your thought for you:
...but you've got to sleep sometime.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
If only there weresome kind of pill...
-nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Sarah beats Obama!
At least in the Google zeitgeist rankings. :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Sounds like an S&M fantasy of yours.....
... just kidding.
I survived the Bush Administration
Redstate opposes drug prohibition. WTF?
Tlaloc tempted me to look at some silly red-state diary (in yesterday's OT), which then got me to look at their recommended list.
I found this one:
http://www.redstate.com/jaded/2008/12/04/this-story-is-why-the-war-on-dr...
It had >50 comments, only a few of which defended the drug war. Most were quite libertarian about it, even going as far as deploying some libertarian class theory (in the comment called "Unfortunately"; comments don't seem to have permalinks over there).
I was shocked. Is this the norm over there? Are they a libertarian-conservative crowd, or do they include the stereotypical disciplinarian social conservatives also?
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I noticed that one too
it is very atypical. Usually in a RS drug diary you have a pretty even split between libertarian and social conservatives. The weird thing about the diary you highlight is that the social conservatives were being pretty vocally anti-drug war (not botherng to mention that it was pretty much their baby from the start, naturally). I actually was going to post a quickie about the article but decided I was doing too much that revolved around RS. They seem to be becoming more and more marginal.
To answer your question RS leans much more socon than libertarian. They have Libertarians (some of whom I quite enjoy reading) but the site as a whole is pretty hard right. A brouhah came up recently because the only ideological litmus test for front pagers (beyond being generally republican) is that you have to be absolutely pro-life. The non-socons got a bit ruffled that that's the only issue where RS contributors cannot countenance disagreement or debate.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
I did a drug diary on Redstate way back when
There were more libertarians at that time, and my diary
was fairly muted, so the reception was mostly positive. There was still some spirited debate in the comments, though.
I would guess the vitriol hurled at Ron Paul on Redstate drove off some libertarians, and the difficulty of finding common ground with the socons probably drove off some more.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Saw the Dark Knight
My reactions can be boiled down to a few points:
Batman Smash!
One of the things I disliked about Batman Begins is also in full force here- Batman is portrayed as about as subtle and skillful as Bricky MBrickerson smashing bricks with a sledgehammer made of bricks. Could he be any flashier and destructive in simply getting from point A to B? Could he fight with any less grace and skill? He looks like a damn professional wrestler in a drunken brawl. Could he be any less cunning or clever when it comes to dealing with issues (his main response to crime seems to be to leap at an enemy like some PCP spazz).
Here's an example- Not once but twice in the movie he gets chewed up by dogs. Now what would be much more batman is he gets chewed up by a dog the fist time, then he puts together a little ultrasonic whistle that will paralyze dogs in proximity with pain. That would be, you know, him learning and reacting. The Dark Knight batman has no learning curve. The Dark Knight batman rates below flatworms in terms of reacting to stimuli.
Another example- Batman's incredibly casual destruction when driving the bike through the streets. He was just blowing up civilian cars willy nilly. The idea he did so without killing a few dozen people breaks any kind of suspension of disbelief.
This character is really the Punisher dressed up as Batman.
Dent Good, Joker Okay
Despite all the rave reviews I didn't find Ledger's Joker to be all that great. I strongly suspect that Ledger's untimely death led to the usual public inflation of the person's worth. Don't get me wrong, I didn't hate his interpretation of the Joker. It was servicable, it just wasn't anything special.
On the other hand I thought the guy who played Dent/Two Face was a much better supporting actor and I'm sorry that they apparently killed off Two Face.
Stupid Ending
The ending was beyond contrived. B. E. Y. O. N. D.
Let's see Harvey Dent is too important a symbol for Gotham for us to let people know he became Two Face. At the same time he killed five people so we have to be able to assign that blame somewhere. Damn, it's really too bad that the VAST MAJORITY OF THE MOVIE didn't revolve around some total psychotic clown who has killed dozens of people already. Because if it HAD then that guy might make a pretty good patsy to blame those five deaths on. Would anyone really question it?
No, instead of doing the blindingly obvious thing, we have to make batman take the fall for it, because it'll be so much better for Gotham if, in the wake of the Joker's rampage, they not only see Dent dead but have their only remaining symbol labeled a murderer. Go team!
Could it be any more obvious that they just wanted to make Batman seem more noble and heroic by taking on this sacrifice?
Rachel dead = good
I certainly like Maggie Gyllenhaal more than Katie Holmes, she actually had a tiny bit of chemistry with Bale (unlike Holmes), but she can't save the fact that he character is utterly pointless and tacked on. I can only hope that the writers, embarrassed by the obvious attempt to recreate Kristen Dunst's Mary Jane Watson, made amends by killing the character before it could do too much more harm (earlier in the movie would have been better).
The circumstance of the character's death were decently plotted and acted out. Mostly, though, it was the satisfaction of a bad character removed that pleased me.
Stupid voice is stupid
I cannot even begin to describe how much I hate Christian Bale's stupid Batman voice. He sounds like a high school kid trying to imitate his father on the phone. It doesn't sound scary. It sounds pathetic. And there's no reason for it. You could easily have Batman putting a voice modulator into the suit so that his voice isn't recognizable, and then you could make the voice actually sound cool in post production, rather than like Batman's fighting a bad pneumonia or doing a Doctor Girlfriend imitation.
Movie is long but moves along
TDK is not a short movie but it has good pacing and seems to keep moving right along. I was surprised by how much they managed to actually fit into the movie, which is not at all a bad thing.
This probably sounds more negative than it really is. I thought the movie was on par with Batman Begins, which means I found it watchable and a huge improvement on the old Batman movies, but still woefully short of a really good Batman movie. Too many plot holes and too many liberties taken with the character. One last point to make:
Preview for Watchmen makes me sticky
The preview for the Watchmen movie touches me in moist geeky places, and I respond with secretions. Oh yeah. I have concerns about the plot getting dumbed down (as with V for Vendetta) but visually it looks sweet.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes, that ending was lame
I was thinking wtf as I watched it... I suppose they are setting up the background for the next movie.
I thought Ledger was pretty good, he gave the character an unbalanced edginess. I think on balance I liked Begins better, though.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
I was surprised about the scarecrow
They got the guy to reprise his role (and I thought his casting was very good) but then they didn't really do anything with him, just a quick cameo at the beginning. It's nice to have continuity but it just seemed kind of odd. Personally I woul have either made his role bigger (maybe including being part of the mob council) or cut it out entirely.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
What the bible really says about traditional marriage
Newsweek
creates a stir putting the biblical meaning of marriage in context of bible scripture.
Looking for specific quotes about marriage in the bible one can find all kinds of interesting tidbits, and the social conservatives idea of what traditional marriage means is decidedly lacking.
-------
A. Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5)
B. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines in
addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21)
C. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a
virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21)
D. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden.
(Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30)
E. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9)
F. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10)
----------
I think some folks might be a bit surprised, even appalled, by what the bible actually says about 'traditional' marriage.
I'm only half stupid
G.
G. One doesn't need to follow the OT if they find something that says the might not need to in the NT.
Matthew 5:17-18
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
nice find
and nice list.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Yeah who knew that's there's
Yeah who knew that's there's polygamy in the Bible, what earth shattering news is discovery is Newsweek going to come up with next!
Mike Huckabee, apparently
He said something to the effect that it is a historical fact that modifying marriage leads to the destruction of the nation....so apparently, he thinks that marriage has always been as it is, except for a few abberant (and short lived) nations.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
its just pointing out the hypocracy
I think this newsweek article is just a polite way of pointing out that all this Bible-thumping is hypocritical BS.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
The article just takes note
that there have been many different 'traditions' in marriage. Polygamy was popular because the goal at the time was to create bigger vigorous tribes for the sake of survival.
I am not sure what passage in the bible gives us the definition of what some describe as traditional marriage, or if Christ sanctioned a particular legal arrangement codified by the church and the state as being the norm.
I'm only half stupid
If you study much of any anthropology
or history it becomes very clear that the current interpretation of marriage is far from universal. It is in fact extremely recent. Just a couple hundred years ago in western society marriage was a property contract in which the woman, as chattel, was transferred from owner ship by her father to ownership by her husband.
That's very different than the nominal union of equals we strive for in modern marriage. In non-western cultures (and even in strange corners of the westen cultures) you find plenty of alternatives to "traditional" marriage practiced.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Yes, although I'll think you
Yes, although I'll think you will find one thing in common until very recently, and that's that marriage has always included two sexes. So if one is a conservative and respects tradition, this is all more of an argument for legalizing polygamy than it is for gay marriage.
Common? Yes.
Universal? no.
Hell, in some places it has involved two species :)
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Finally Done
Oh, was that a nightmare!
Long story short (and the long story may be detailed one day), I'm moved in enough to get back to posting at SC. Of course, now that I have an 8a-5p job (later becoming 12n-9p), I won't be as active as I'd like, but I'm sure I'll find the time to say my peace.
Hopefully this weekend I'll find the time to post a diary or two about a few things I've been thinking about lately.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Glad to have you back (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
yea! (n/t)
Brendan gets to leave the comment field empty, but I can't even get away with leaving a space character (" ").
Gee.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
I used to leave a dot, until stinerman
made me change to blank, he said it was bothering him =)
If you switch to the plain text editor you can enter a space as
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Congrats :)
I really need to get a job soon.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Lets just...
...hope that you're computer keeps on working properly
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Watching the Cops
Today's version
of what weeded out (pun intended) the Klan from the ranks of the police department, decades ago. My own city Denver was notorious for police brutality. No one needed to even apply for a job with the police department unless they were a member of the klan. They had lots of fun with their billy clubs.
With the advent of cameras, citizens used to follow the police and snap photos that could not be spun of police 'enforcing' the law with brutal beatings.
Today's version is the video camera. Buy a grow light in Texas and you can expect a visit by the police, hot on your tail with a warrant? Only this time it was a set up and the 'criminals' were growing the sacred Christmas trees.
There are way too many people in prison with stiff sentences for marijuana. It's a sham and a shame and sometimes it's a set-up, that smells bad, but not like marijuana.
I'm only half stupid
Why are Chicago politics so corrupt?
Scott Turow
ponders that perhaps it is the fact that in the state of Illinois there are literally no limits to campaign contributions. None.
If this is the case, then if flies directly in the face of conservative arguments that money should be viewed as free speech, and that any law such as McCain/Feingold stifles free speech. It would seem that the opposite is true. The less restrictions there are on campaign contributions, the more likelihood that pay to play will be the modus operandi creating all sorts of crazy opportunities for skullduggery. Scott Turow is an author and a lawyer who was ironically appointed by the infamous Gov. of Illinois to head an ethics reform committee.
I'm only half stupid
How does it look now?
Earlier, I had my own HTML troubles. :-)
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
http://signicide.blogspot.com/
Thank you my precious
I would like to also say that it is so refreshing to have you back, with your wit and foresight. :)
Also thrilled that 2 (two) specialists were wrong in their diagnosis of your baby. (bah, PhD's are sometimes too smart for their own good. It's a bit startling that two experts would come up with the wrong diagnosis.)
It seems like if I push preview it reverts back to the fancy code, from the plain text editor. Then if you push plain text again it screws up the whole post with code. Ack! I am still working on 'getting it'.
I'm only half stupid
That's a symptom, not the disease
Ask yourself why IL has no such law and the answer is because a corrupt system has no desire to put them in place, so you are back to asking "why is it corrupt in the first place?"
I think the obvious answer isthat the state, and particularly Chicago, became thoroughly corrupted during prohibition and the rise of the american based maffia. Once the system was compromised it was much easier for it to stay in such a state than to get better. The people benefited by the corruption are benefiting dirctly and richly. The people who would benefit from reduced corruption would benefit indirectly and weakly (particularly at first).
That said I agree that money cannot be free speech, if it is then that automaticaly invalidates all prostitution and gambling law for one (things that are only illegal when they involve the transfer of cash cannot be illegal if you have a first amendment right to spend as a form of speech). Strangely the same people who push political graft as free speech will never accept paying a call girl as falling under the same banner.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Maybe I'm too tired to get
Maybe I'm too tired to get what you're saying, but you seem to be saying that a campaign contribution is as much speech as prostitution and gambling. It seems real clear to me they're not the same.
How so?
I'm seriously asking, why is it that giving money to one person is speech and giving it to another is not? In my opinion neither is speech, rather both are commerce and congress has the constitutional power to regulate that.
Speech involves communication, not the transfer of resources.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
If you pay a campaign to get an ad on the radio or T.V.
than you're clearly giving money to express yourself, or to say something. Now, I'll grant you that this expression is indirect and may or may not be fall under expression of speech in the constitution. However, when you pay a protistute how is that paying to express yourself or to say say anything, except if you construe the meaning of express or speech to the point where it really has no meaning. To be honest I don't have a hard and fast position on campaign finance ( basically because I think the maximum number people should be able to express themselves, and limiting how much airtime the billionaire gets might help the little guy get more.), and I can see the point for it on the basis of the government evening the playing field so that everyone has more freedom of speech, however I do think that campaigning is connected with speech more so than soliciting prostitutes.
But the argument
in this case is not that money allows for the free speech but that the very act of giving money is itself speech. Hence why they claim it is unconstitutional to limit giving to politicians.
Personally I think democracy is poorly served by allowing well funded ideas to win out, regardless of the merit. Various locales have experimented with publically funded elections with various degrees of success. It has to be designed carefully but I think it is ultimately much better and more fitting with the underlying concept o how our political system is supposed to work.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
giving to politicians is limited, and this limit is constitution
This has been resolved--limits on giving to politicians ARE constitutional. It's only generic limits on paying for advertisements (giving to issue groups) that are unconstitutional.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
That's like saying
"Abortion is a constituional right." Just because that's the current ruling doesn't mean everyone agrees. :)
There is definitely a wide spread view on the right that *any* form of campaign finance law is unconstitutional because the act of giving money to a politician is covered under the first amendment.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
is it widespread?
In my recollection, Congress is constantly considering new campaign finance regulations. I don't recall any meaningful drive to elimiante limitations on giving money to politicians.
I'm actually believe that many of these laws (as passed, before court review) are pretty bad infringements on free speech. The way I view it, if a person wants to communicate an idea to the public, he should be allowed to use all means at his disposal to do so.
I think I'm fairly extreme in this sense, but I'm not as extreme as you suggest many people are.
From my perspective, once a politician's campaign has enough money for him to travel around and plan his events, there's no reason that he would be substantially better at using my donation to spread "the message" than the next guy.
However, if I'm not allowed to buy an advertisement talking about that candidate, then my ability to spread my message has been substantially comprimised (not that I have money for that sort of stuff anyway).
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Well I am judging by the online right
which it is fair to point out is skewed more libertarian than the right in general. That said you see an awful lot of dumping on CFR from places like Redstate and they're much more socon than libertarian.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
there's always someone weirder than me
Hmmm... I thought I was pretty extreme in my disdain for campaign finance restrictions (but I am fairly moderate on the issue of public financing).
I guess there's always someone out there who will make me look like a moderate!
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Here are some quick examples
from a few minutes of googling:
http://www.promoteliberty.org/2002/03/cfr-direct-attack-on-first-amendme...
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-282.html
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0401mf.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/21/AR200711...
http://mccain-feingold-insurrection.blogspot.com/
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=4957&department=CWA&categoryid...
http://townhall.com/columnists/MittRomney/2007/04/25/the_fundamental_fla...
I should probably mention that the ACLU has also taken issue with some aspects of CFR. It's one of those rare times I find myself disgreeing with them.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Strange indeed
Yourself a professed anarchist, and netizen*, the common thread here is humans and their selfish motives coupled with a certain lack of foresight and a petulant need for instant self gratification.
Our world is filled with so many contradictions. Pay to play as free speech for sexual favors and political opportunities. The comparison between politicians and prostitution is obvious and has a long history.
Similarly, Nietzsche's writings were used by those on the right and the left, to justify both anarchy and authoritarianism. He appealed to left-wing Germans, and later right-wing Germans used his prose to justify the rise of German militarism.
I'd say that the common theme here is human weakness. If given the opportunity some humans will always screw up. What is most shocking is how many folks know what is going on and just look the other way.
I definitely agree that prohibition was a major culprit. Laws that are stupid create a backlash, and are an open invitation to disrespect for the authorities that make stupid laws.
Carrie Nation was a martyr, bitterly unable to cope with her husbands rejection. Is it possible that a woman scorned was the seed of the now infamous Chicago political machine?
*hat tip adam
I'm only half stupid
Well to be fair
I've consistentl maintained that the kind of anarchy I would like to see would involve a long slow process of us putting aside our current fetish for short sighted gain. I absolutely agree that people now are not capable of it. I just believe that's a transitory and not fundamental aspect of our nature.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Change.gov: open for questions
This could be interesting...it seems that Obama is interested in letting Netizens have some influence on the issues that he discusses.
http://change.gov/page/content/openforquestions
From his perspective, it's probably a lot easier than having his staff go thru a million letters/emails.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Netizens (!)
fun word.
An army of netizens.
I'm only half stupid
my grandmother is not a netizen
Normally, I avoid that word, because it is just too cute. But here, it makes an important distinctions between citizens who are comfortable with the Internet, and those who aren't. For example, my grandmother won't be participating. To the extent that we are dealing with a limited resource (governmental power/attention), this innovation will probably decrease her influence.
It seemed dishonest to say that this will allow citizens to provide more input.
In fact, it probably will also undermine the influence of activist groups who depend on their ability to rally thousands of letter writers for a cause. Now the government itself will be doing more of the organization, for good or ill.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.