Against the Stream

Left Behind

Slacktivist has another segment of The World's Longest Book Review up today, describing the relationship between "hero" Rayford Steele (aka, the Evangelical Adonis with a Porn Star's name), and "villain" Hattie Durham (aka, the bad, bad slutty-girl):

I'd held out some hope that the depiction of Rayford's kinky control-freak stringing along of Hattie was deliberate, but that smart/lucky/naive sentence eliminates that possibility. Rayford feels guilty, but only about his considering sleeping with someone other than his saintly dead wife. He doesn't feel any guilt -- and L&J don't ascribe him any guilt -- for the way he has used and misused Hattie.

He "didn't much care what happened to her family" and he didn't much care what happened to her. She, on the other hand, was worried sick about him and his family. The dynamic is simple: Hattie loves him. He does not love her, or even seem to consider her fully human.

Yet for L&J, the one loving person in this lopsided relationship is the villain of the piece. Villains must be punished, and they have quite the punishment in store for this little slut.

One does have to wonder about the moral world in which Jenkins and LeHaye dwell.

Moral Values

What Kevin says:

A SHINY NEW BUDGET....Here's your new Republican budget:

The House and Senate broke a lengthy impasse over federal spending Thursday night, narrowly adopting a $2.56 trillion federal budget for 2006 that aims to trim the growth of Medicaid by $10 billion over five years, add $106 billion in tax cuts and clear the way for oil drilling in an Alaskan wildlife refuge.

Attaboy! Reduce the deficit $10 billion by cutting back on healthcare for the poor, and then turn around and increase the deficit $106 billion by approving additional tax cuts for the rich. Moral values, baby, moral values.

You have GOT to be kidding!

From Obsidian Wings:

Today, the House passed The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA), a bill making it illegal to transport a minor across state lines to circumvent laws in the state in which the minor lives that require parental notification before an abortion. The Democrats offered several amendments to this bill; one, for instance, exempts cab drivers and bus drivers from prosecution. But the Republicans, in issuing the committee report, took it upon themselves to rewrite the amendments' descriptions in the official committee report to make it read as though they concerned sexual predators, even though neither the bill nor the amendment has anything to do with sexual predators. The revisions are as follows:

"DEMS: a Nadler amendment allows an adult who could be prosecuted under the bill to go to a Federal district court and seek a waiver to the state’s parental notice laws if this remedy is not available in the state court. (no 11-16)
GOP REWRITE:. Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have created an additional layer of Federal court review that could be used by sexual predators to escape conviction under the bill. By a roll call vote of 11 yeas to 16 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Nadler amendment to exempt a grandparent or adult sibling from the criminal and civil provisions in the bill (no 12-19)
GOP REWRITE: . Mr. Nadler offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were grandparents or adult siblings of a minor. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 19 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Scott amendment to exempt cab drivers, bus drivers and others in the business transportation profession from the criminal provisions in the bill (no 13-17):
GOP REWRITE. Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution if they are taxicab drivers, bus drivers, or others in the business of professional transport. By a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 17 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Scott amendment that would have limited criminal liability to the person committing the offense in the first degree (no 12-18)
GOP REWRITE:. Mr. Scott offered an amendment that would have exempted from prosecution under the bill those who aid and abet criminals who could be prosecuted under the bill. By a roll call vote of 12 yeas to 18 nays, the amendment was defeated.

DEMS: a Jackson-Lee amendment to exempt clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles or first cousins from the penalties in the bill (no 13-20)
GOP REWRITE. Ms. Jackson-Lee offered an amendment that would have exempted sexual predators from prosecution under the bill if they were clergy, godparents, aunts, uncles, or first cousins of a minor, and would require a study by the Government Accounting Office. By a roll call vote of 13 yeas to 20 nays, the amendment was defeated."

Ladies and gentlemen, classic bullshit!

So, er, I think Kevin Smith likes "Revenge of the Sith"

Here's a bit from his review (Warning: Spoilers behind the link):

"Revenge of the Sith" is, quite simply, fucking awesome. This is the "Star Wars" prequel the haters have been bitching for since "Menace" came out, and if they don't cop to that when they finally see it, they're lying. As dark as "Empire" was, this movie goes a thousand times darker.

I've already been pretty thoroughly spoiled on this flick by now. I've been reading spoiler sites and even sat down at Barnes & Noble a few weeks ago and read the comic book. But I'm still dying to see this movie. It's pretty much the culmination of the dominant cultural mythology of my life. It started when I was 7 and has threaded throughout my life ever since. It captures my imagination more thoroughly than my own actual religion. And here we get the completion of the story. Man, I'm looking forward to it!

Things Your I-Pod Can Tell You About Yourself

Ok, so I got an i-Pod. It's very cool. I've spent most of the last several days uploading as much of my music as will fit into it. Basically, a lot of the stuff that I tend to listen to on a fairly regular basis, plus some all-time classics have made it into the i-Pod.

What have a learned about myself as a result? Well, I've got pretty diverse musical tastes, with folk, bluegrass, rock, pop, etc. all making appearances on the I-Tunes category list.

But, and here's the key thing, according to i-Tunes, the vast majority of the music that I have on my i-Pod falls into the category of "Alternative & Punk."

Now, "Alternative" is a pretty broad category, and it largely used to identify a vast swath of '90s music, which makes sense since that represents my own musical "coming of age." They'll probably be playing "Garbage" (the band, that's not a value judgment!) on the oldies station when I'm in my decrepitude.

So, that makes sense. But why is punk coupled with alternative? I like some punk. Sure I do, and at least some of the music I've got uploaded clearly falls into the category of punk, but Michelle Shocked? Michelle Shocked??? Whatever she may be, I have a hard time putting her into a category labled "punk." (On the other hand, she does have that line in "Anchorage": "What's it like to be a skateboard punk rocker," but it's a line that's betrayed by the actual melody of the song).

So, apparently I'm into punk. Who knew. I'll have to get my tongue pierced now.

"24"

Kevin Drum is back in TV analysis mode at Washington Monthly. All season long, he's been exploring the validity of the argument that the creepily excessive amount of torture in 24 this season is a subtle critique of the idea that torture is an effective interrogation technique. Given the fact that torture kept revealing bad or no information, that was a pretty good theory. But recent weeks have challenged Kevin's interpretation:

Well, this theory was always a little shaky, and the past couple of weeks have blown it completely out of the water. To recap: last week Jack shanghaied a suspect and used a taser to force him to reveal the location of the primary bad guy. At that point my theory was hanging by a thread.

This week the thread snapped: it turned out that the torture worked perfectly. The location the bad guy coughed up was accurate and Jack & Co. promptly surrounded the bad guy's working headquarters (though he subsequently escaped). But it's actually worse than that. Not only did the torture work, but Jack did it despite specific instructions from the president not to. Because of this, the president (who was VP until a couple of hours ago, when Air Force One got shot down) was very clearly presented as an indecisive wimp who was unable to make manly decisions like authorizing the torture of suspected terrorists. The writers have left us in no doubt: not only does torture work, but real men approve of it while wimps stand around wringing their hands about consulting the the attorney general. This is not an anti-torture message.

So I was wrong. Really, really, wrong. Tomorrow I will turn in my TV merit badge and retire from pop culture criticism.

Don't be so hasty, Kevin. I think the theory was pretty good. I'd be willing to bet that the producers received their marching orders from the pentagon: "If you want to continue to be part of the propaganda arm of the U.S. government, you'd better get on board with our policy of gratuitous torture!" So, on board they climbed.

The "new president is a feckless coward" theme is interesting to me. The "real" new president this season really didn't have much opportunity to distinguish himself as a character after two seasons of the very powerful President Palmer (though he's now got a murdered son that ought to be the basis of further character development later on). The new guy, however, gets character traits (bad ones!) right from the beginning. It makes the narrative more interesting, I'll confess. And it gives them an excuse to bring back Palmer, which I appreciate. But from a moral perspective, it underscores the integrity of Jack's infallible brutality against the ineffectual calculation of politicians with (the horror! The horror!) scruples!

Still, I agree with Kevin, it's nice to see Chloe coming into her own as an agent. If you handed me a rifle, I'd probably try to use it as a pogo stick.

Bullshit

In conjunction with my previous post, I followed this link from Michael Bérubé's blog to an interesting post on David Horowitz and the fine art of Bullshit. I'll leave you to read the Horowitz stuff on your own (though I agree with Michael's assessment that Graham captures the essence of Horowitz's oevre quite well.

What's of interest to me is the larger conception of the nature of Bullshit (as in "Bob Dole unloaded a stinking, steaming pile of bullshit in the New York Times today). Graham helpfully quotes from Harry G. Frankfurt’s book On Bullshit:

“the fact about himself that the liar hides is that he is attempting to lead us away from a correct apprehension of reality; we are not to know that he wants us to believe something he supposes to be false. The fact about himself that the bullshitter hides, on the other hand, is that the truth-values of his statements are of no central interest to him; what we are not to understand is that his intention is neither to report the truth nor to conceal it.”

This is a distinction worth preserving in light of contemporary American political culture. The problem with the political power structure as it currently stands isn't that it's constituted of liars. The problem is that it's constituted of bullshitters. It's not that they're trying to peddle something to us that they know to be untrue. It's that they don't care about the truth or the falsity of anything they say or do.

The fact that Bob Dole, who was generally considered to be a man of integrity when he was in the Senate, who cried "where's the outrage!?!" when the American public overwhelmingly prefered Clinton to him, could become a servant in thrall to the god of Republican Bullshit is evidence of just how far down the entire party has sunk.  The worst thing that you could ever say about Nixon was that he was a liar. The worst thing you could say about Clinton was that he was a liar. But even with all of their lies, they shine like beacons of integrity next to the current Republican party.

No doubt some folks would happily point me to examples that the Democrats are no better, but I'd disagree. There are plenty of Democrats who are liars. But in their lies they pay a backhanded service to the truth. But by embracing the practice of bullshit, however, the Republicans have abandoned truth altogether. And that's more to their shame than any lie could be.

Let's Be Honest

Bob Dole has an editorial in today's New York Times. The subject? The end of the filibuster in the U.S. Senate. Dole starts off promisingly, noting that he still hopes that the leaders of the parties will be able to carve out a compromise. Then we get this howler:

But let's be honest: By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the Senate to function as an institution.

Sure, Bob. Let's be honest. Let's be honest about the fact that the Republicans blocked many, many of Clinton's nominees, who, due to parliamentary tricks of the trade, were never even voted out of committee, never mind given an "up or down vote on the Senate Floor."

Let's be honest, Bob. Let's be honest about the fact that the Republicans have been changing the rules as they went along, in any way that would advance their agenda. Changing the Blue Slip rule from requiring that both Senators from a judge's home state could block their nomination to a rule that required only one Senator for doing so. And then changing the rule again when Bush got into office.

Let's be honest Bob. Let's be honest that the Republicans have, piece by piece, dismantled the process that allowed the minority to exercise a voice in the nomination of judges, thus leaving the Democrats the filibuster as their only option.

Let's be honest, Bob. I know you know all of this. You're stupid if you don't. So don't peddle a bunch of bullshit to me about how this is all the responsibility of Democratic intransigence and partisanship. This mess has been caused by the Republican insistence on ideological purity and it's absolute refusal to respect any idea, argument, or tradition that stood between it and its complete dismantlement of 60 years of progressive reform in this country.

Let's be honest, Bob. You're entire editorial is a piece of steaming crap. The New York Times knows it, too. And it should be ashamed of letting you run such disingenuous tripe.

Progressive

It's been light blogging lately, and it's certainly not been because there's nothing going on in the world. In addition to being very busy, though, I find that the smart kids in the neighborhood always say what I'm thinking before I get around to writing anything.

Of course, sometimes the smart kids point something out that I didn't even notice. This is the case with the recent posts by Atrios and Kevin Drum on the mendaciousness of the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The issue: The tax burden on the wealthy. Here's Kevin Drum:

Now, it's true that the rich and the upper middle class pay the bulk of U.S. taxes. But you know why? It's because the rich and the upper class also have the bulk of the money: the top 20% of taxpayers pay 67% of federal taxes, but they also earn 60% of all income.

And how about the super rich? Here's the Journal's half of the story: according to their tax wonks, the share of federal taxes paid by the top .1% of the country — those making roughly a million bucks a year — doubled between 1979 and 1999, rising from about 5% to about 11%.

But here's the second half of the story that the Journal mysteriously left out: during that same period, the share of income received by the top .1% tripled, from about 3% to about 10%.

So in 1979 the super-rich earned 3% of the money and paid 5% of the taxes. In 1999 the super-rich earned 10% of the money and paid 11% of the taxes. The Journal clearly has a different definition of "grew more progressive" than the rest of us.

In fact, these numbers might start you wondering. If the income share of the super-rich tripled but their tax share only doubled, doesn't that mean that their tax rates must have gone down? Indeed it does.

Of course, these are the same people who, in 2000, accused Al Gore of using "fuzzy math"* on economic issues, when what they really meant was simply "math."

*And, by the way, "fuzzy math" is a real thing. Computer's use fuzzy math all the time. Fuzzy math is essential to much of the high-level computer programming being done today. If George Bush has a problem with "fuzzy math" then it's simply further evidence that he doesn't understand the world in which he dwells.

Moral Relativism

Well, I was going to post something about Pope Benedict and "Moral Relativism," but I see that David Vellman has done it for me. Matt has a gloss on it:

My best guess is that Benedict XVI is mostly concerned about moral authoritarianism rather than relativism and anti-relativism. Even Protestants who do think the Bible provides an authoratative account of moral truth accept that nobody in particular has privileged access to the correct understanding of the text. Catholics are all committed to some stronger brand of authoritarianism about this (it's an ugly-sounding term, but this isn't meant to say that they're secretly hankering for dictatorship) and back in the day Benedict XVI was known for trying to strengthen this element of Church operations, thinking it very important to get all the Bishops on more-or-less the same doctrinal page. But I'm not completely sure that's the full extent of his concerns.

The only kind of real relativism that I hear anyone seriously endorsing (as opposed to sloppily seeming to endorse when they're not really thinking through what they're trying to say) is agent-relativism about the past. That is, it seems natural to take a relaxed attitude to, say, George Washington's slave holding or Abraham Lincoln's racism on the grounds that they were "men of their times." People don't go full-bore on this and usually say it was good of Lincoln to have been a racist but people don't really condemn him for it the way they would if a contemporary politician were to turn out to have those views. Probably the best interpretation of that practice is to steer it away from relativism and say it's an effort to try and avoid a wrongful self-righteousness. Lincoln held more enlightened views on this subject than did most of his contemporary and we all understand that beliefs and behaviors are heavily affected by background culture, so it would be pointless to get too up in arms about the fact that Lincoln reflected to a large extent the bad ideas that prevailed during his lifetime. But in an abstract sense, racism wasn't "more okay" in the 1860s than it is today.