mushinnoshin

I sort of feel bad for the Clinton supporters — watching the debates Tuesday, I did get the distinct feeling there was some media bias towards Obama. Not much mind you, nothing that she couldn’t overcome if she was a more likable candidate*, and absolutely nothing like what some of her more unhinged supporters seem to believe**, but to be sure, some.

Of course I don’t remember the Clinton fans standing up for Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, and Gravel when the media was shutting them out, so it’s hard to feel too sorry for them.

* To some extent, just letting her talk could be construed as a pro-Obama tactic

** zOMGWTFBBQ did you hear what they said??? They said “let’s pause for a commercial”!!! You know, “pause”!!! Totally a sly reference to menopause!!! Which itself can be thought of as “men – no – pause” which is a subtle way to reinforce the superiority of the patriarchy!!!!!!!

Meanwhile, back on the other side of the aisle, RIP Mr. Buckley. Though I certainly disagree with many things the man said and believed, you had to respect his intellectual integrity and his desire to elevate the level of discourse.

So compare and contrast the honest-if-wrong ideas of William F. Buckley to the manipulative race-baiting of William H. Hobbs* (links abound), and you’ll see why I have nothing good to say about today’s GOP. Between the passing of Buckley and the death of the Paul campaign, can we finally hold a funeral for the Old Right and lay to rest the myth that the bigots, theocrats, and warmongers of modern conservatism are anything more than superficially connected?

* Dude, when you’re at odds with Karl Fucking** Rove, and Rove comes off as the good guy…

** I hope no one “misinterprets” my use of his middle name. In no way should anyone think I’m subtly suggesting that Karl Rove ever has sex.

It seems that even “Socks” Clinton has crossed over to endorse Barack Obama:

Probably at least partially in retaliation for the gross indignity of being named “Socks”.

How surreal. I have Slayer’s Rein in Blood playing in the office, while Maria Callas belts out Madama Butterfly in the kitchen. I wander back and forth as I refill my drink.

There’s a spot in the hallway where they start to mingle, and I find I can create some blends in the ambiance by moving around and between the fields. Sadly a moment unmiked and unrecorded.

Anyway as I typed this up I came across this fucking riot:

It may seem obvious, but symbols are hugely important, and a young, inspiring, black anti-war President with the middle name Hussein sends one hell of a fucking message. It’s an olive branch to all the countries saner than ours who have watched with dropped jaws as the world’s greatest nation got hijacked by a corrupt, war-mongering, right-wing hillbilly half-wit, and then we re-elected him.

– Rob aka Demonbaby
[who also gave us the viral World According to Americans]

I just got through watching Mona Lisa Smile. In a nutshell, Dead Poets’ Society for feminists.

Absolutely fantastic movie, I recommend everyone see it. That said, I’m not really sure what to write about it. I’m tempted to tell you how I’ve got all these emotions whirling through my system which I can’t be expected to tie to any sort of rational analysis, that I only have “feelings” about what I saw — but I suspect I would have difficulty convincing my readers that I’m only teasing :)

Bah, I really don’t know what to say. To be fair, I’ve had a few shots of the Mad Monk already, so bear with me.

I guess what’s hard for me is that the only thing I know to write about, the only thing on which I can speak with any authenticity, is on the subject of how difficult it is to grow up as an enlightened male in this time of transition. Which doesn’t rise to a blip on the radar compared to what you’ve been through, and isn’t really worth writing about.

You might remember that a few weeks ago we discovered that Phil Valentine needs gay marriage to be illegal, because government permission is the only thing keeping him from giving in to his cravings for a lifetime of hot bovid lovin’. Well Phil, if you get a chance, tonight’s your last chance to see the TN Rep perform Edward Albee’s The Goat or, Who is Sylvia?, which might help you understand why it’s a bad idea, whether or not the government approves.

Personally I thought the play was very funny, though I have trouble reading too many questions of philosophical import into it, aside from the simple value of forcing the audience to ask questions they’d probably just rather not ask. Wikipedia on the other hand mentions that the point may have something to do with finding the “limits of an ostensibly liberal society”, but I have some problems with that perspective.

First, because no matter who or what the man’s adulterous companion was, the fact is he betrayed his pledge to his family. While one might argue for an acceptance of open relationships as being a liberal value, betrayal — violating a trust that has no agreed allowance for polyamory — most certainly is not. One can perfectly well condemn the man without even addressing his particular fetish and still be genuinely “liberal”.

Second, the question is greatly clouded by the character’s seemingly sincere belief that he and the goat were “in love”. The outright absurdity of this premise, combined with the scene one references to the man’s declining mental state, paint a picture of a man in need of psychological (and possibly medical) help, and the manner in which his illness is manifested is irrelevant. If you want to discuss whether liberalism must allow for bestiality, you have to start with a character of sound mind, who clearly understands what he’s doing.

I suppose one could ask whether a liberal should have compassion, rather than condemnation, for the man and his illness. And I would say certainly. But even at that — well, the family’s reaction is still quite understandable given the devastating bomb dropped upon them — we must have compassion for them as well. This leaves Ross, whose reaction and attitude I agree can be condemned under this interpretation — but the simple explanation that he is a singular asshole seems more likely than the extrapolated presumption that most liberals would behave the same.

As to the unaddressed question itself — absent betrayal, and given a person of sound mind — must liberalism regard bestiality as acceptable? I would have to suppose the answer becomes dependent on the next question of animal rights, yielding three possible answers. One who recognizes no rights in animals has little left to condemn. One who recognizes animal rights has to then ask whether they believe the animal, umm, likes it. Personally, since I — at the risk of using what could almost be construed as a triple-entendre — have no dog in the hunt — am quite content to leave the question unanswered. But Phil, if you want to understand whether your goat fetish is immoral, these are the questions you’re going to have to address.

This adorable LOLCat made me think of my previous cat Waddy, who also had crossed-eyes.

My current friend Genghis Kat is awesome, but Waddy was with me for seven years or so, through some of the roughest times of my life. I miss him so much sometimes.

Mutualist Kevin Carson:

New Class progressivism continued to flourish among welfare statists after WWII; it heavily influenced both interest group pluralism and neo-conservatism, and the shadowy borderlands in-between [...] The most notable modern descendant of the “progressive” social engineer, by the way, is Hillary Clinton. Her ideal government is a giant matriarch, like Godzilla in an apron, who constantly chants “Momma don’t allow, Momma don’t allow”–all to protect us from ourselves, of course. Or as Joseph Stromberg wrote, “the body of Leviathan and the head of a social worker.” Those who view Hillary as a radical leftist are delusional. A woman who made a 10,000% profit in cattle futures and served as a director of Wal-Mart, is hardly a threat to the power of the ruling class. She and her ilk just want to protect upper middle class soccer moms with SUVs and cell phones from any underclass disruption of their white bread suburban world.

Nick Bradley, writing for the paleolibs at LewRockwell.com:

So, is Obama a left-libertarian? No; Obama’s platform is more akin to “Soft Paternalism”, a gentler, less threatening approach to controlling people’s lives (sometimes incorrectly referred to as Libertarian Paternalism).

In the grand scheme of things, Obama is far less statist than Hillary (socialism at home, hegemony abroad) and McCain (fascism at home, endless warfare abroad). If Obama wins the democratic nomination, I suspect he’ll run with Bill Richardson (who likes market solutions on pragmatic grounds as well) [...] Don’t get me wrong: in a hypothetical match up in the fall between Obama and McCain, I’ll either abstain from voting or write in Paul’s name. But for the electorate as a whole, Obama would be the more liberty-minded choice over the statist, warmongering, ill-tempered and possibly unstable John McCain.

So to reiterate: the left-libertarian finds Clinton unacceptable. The right-libertarian grudgingly admits Obama is not the Devil. This, in a nutshell, is the difference between these campaigns, and it perhaps gives some insight into why the hate. Make no mistake, there is more than one battle at stake here. Not only are the Democrats fighting for the presidency, but factions fight for ascendancy in the Democratic Party. The question is simple — will this party finally acknowledge the Libertarian Democrat, or will it make the same mistakes of the past?.

People’s Branch is doing Death and the Maiden. It’s really very powerful, go see it if you can.

Of course part of the message is “torture == bad” — so Republicans may want to skip it.

On a side note, the play is loosely based on the happenings in Chile under the Pinochet regime — a regime with some notable connections to and influence from “libertarian” Milton Friedman. I point to this not to damn Friedman necessarily — I do recognize that sometimes we are presented with utilitarian choices between evils, and that he may well have worked only within the framework presented in order to effect the best outcome possible. But the consequence of taking a utilitarian position is that you must always be judged in accord with that position, which history can only do if the facts remain front and center.

It has recently occured to me that Barack Obama, being born August 4, 1961, would make history in another way apart from the obvious — he would also be the first president from Generation X.

To me this has a lot of important implications, and I can’t quite wrap my head around all of them them right now. But Sharon Cobb says some things which I think are related.

Certainly our generation’s reputation for cynicism is not unfounded. If Obama can play his part in helping to finally heal these deep wounds in our nation’s psyche that go back forty-plus years, that will be an extraordinary thing. This, I think, is why his message of hope rings true — because we understand how powerful this could be.

But I say this while still bearing in mind Gravel’s words of caution, understanding how dangerous the fall could be. But then, courage is precisely doing that which is dangerous but necessary. Perhaps having the courage to hope is the part our generation must be willing to do for ourselves — and if we can pull that off, the rest is easy.