The immigration Debate
Apparently it is more complicated then we even thought.
Sententia-ae. fem, Latin for: opinion, view, judgment; purpose, intention; (law) sentence, verdict; (in the Senate) motion, proposal, view; meaning, sense; sentence; maxim. See also: garrulitas, magnificentia, opinio, praejudicum.
It's called Conservapedia. Jon Swift, who bills himself as a 'reasonable conservative' has the whole sorry story.
That's right folks. You have another chance to win a prize (to be determined). Try to guess which subset of the human race Michael Medved is being most insulting to in this quote taken from a recent column:
There is no rational basis for discomfort at playing with athletes of another race since science and experience show that human racial differences remain insignificant. The much better analogy for discomfort at gay teammates involves the widespread (and generally accepted) idea that women and men shouldn’t share locker rooms. Making gay males unwelcome in the intimate circumstances of an NBA team makes just as much sense as making straight males unwelcome in the showers for a women’s team at the WNBA. Most female athletes would prefer not to shower together with men not because they hate males (though some of them no doubt do), but because they hope to avoid the tension, distraction and complication that prove inevitable when issues of sexual attraction (and even arousal) intrude into the arena of competitive sports.Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn’t welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they’d welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright “hot”) most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her.
Labels: homosexuals, sports, stereotypes, twits
All these accidental discoveries come from Wired magazine.
Labels: brandy, modern science, silliness
Annie B., a good friend of mine down in the capital of Jeb Bush land, has recently retired after 35 years as a high school English teacher. This is what she has to say about ending her career:
It was getting too frustrating dealing with students with ringing cell phones that take pictures of tests, who send text messages with test answers, and who have lost the desire to read because they camp out in parking lots to buy $600 play stations while playing other video games. Books are almost a thing of the past, and so are many parents who back teachers who expect high standards.
Well, not exactly the Rumpole, but his creator, John Mortimer. The WSJ (love those initials) has his top five works of fiction dealing with the Anglo-American legal system. Shakespeare is on the list, as is Trollope, and Dickens (twice) and the only living 20th century author, P. D. James who turned the detective novel into real literature. She's also the author of Children of Men by the way. A very impressive author.
Another review of Dinesh D'Souza's The Enemy at Home, this one by Scott Johnson in the New Criterion. Worth a read, especially if you are not going to read the entire book itself (and I probably won't). It is easy to mischaracterize a book with some selective quotes, but the sentence “The cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11," is about as clear a thesis statement as I have ever seen.
Now that I have burnt through an entire morning reading the e-news and posting here, I think I'll go have lunch. I'll take some of the work I should have been doing and make it a working lunch. Honest. I am taking a book on 11th century Maine (the one in France) written by a friend of mine. He is a good medievalist even though he is, as they say up where I work, "off the mountain." He lives in one of the cities of the plain.
Edwards' campaign stumbled at least a bit when the brouhaha broke out over the bloggers he had hired and the reaction to what they had written on their own blogs. A lot of words have blasted around blogland over it, most of them nonsense.
Labels: blogger problems, politics, twits
Michael Burleigh has written a book called Sacred Causes, reviewed here in the Wall Street Journal. It is worth a read since it makes me want to read the book as an antidote to a certain smug triumphalism on the part of soi-disant secularists. While I consider myself a secularist in a political sense it is because I am a child of the Enlightenment. I do not share the view that a totally secular society is something good in its own right, nor is it the end point of human social and intellectual development. So I find this paragraph, for example, compelling:
By undermining European stability, Mr. Burleigh notes, World War I created a space for radical alternatives to the bourgeois norms that had gone before. He shows how the Protestant middle classes in Germany, for instance, distanced themselves from their churches, viewing traditional religious observance as the remnant of a discredited past. Science and culture, along with militant nationalism, filled the role that churches had once played, and the pattern replicated itself beyond Germany. A traditional outlook gave way to cultural pessimism, intensifying throughout the 1920s.
Labels: books, religion, secularism
What are we to do with families trying to make their way across the borders until our government can make a ruling on their status and decide what to do with them? We used to take the children away and house them in federal facilities while their folks were locked up.
Granted political asylum and now living temporarily in a home for immigrant women and children in Austin, Hosen said that she and other parents in Hutto were threatened regularly with separation from their children for minor infractions such as youngsters running inside the prison. She lost 30 pounds while detained, and her son lost weight and suffered from diarrhea. Concerned about her son's health, Hosen asked for a multivitamin for him but was denied the request, she said.
There has been some bad feelings among female members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus lately. The problem reached a flash point when Rep Loretta Sanchez resigned from the caucus over a remark the caucus chairman, Rep Joe Baca, allegedly made. According to this article in the Washinton Post Sanchez 'said that Baca called her a "whore" in a conversation with another Latino politician in Sacramento last summer. She said she did not hear the remark firsthand but learned about it later, and she has not revealed the source.'
How can we do that?
Saturday I took Carmen and Clovis down to the big Twin City to see Pan's Labyrinth. All three of us loved it (and all three of us despised the fact that the giant mega cinema we saw it in wouldn't even bother to clean up the garbage between shows). Most of the popular movies the mega cinema was showing had Rotten Tomatoes ratings of single digits (e.g. Norbit). The more exotic fare, like Pan's Labyrinth and The Queen has respectively 96% and 98%. I'm not sure what that means exactly but it was striking.
Labels: history, movie reviews, Pan's Labyrinth
Now that I am trying to improve my French, and have already written a lot on this blog about Muslims in this age of terror, here is my idea of a contemporary hero.
From The Week magazine:
A proposed law in Maryland that would promote the use of eco-friendly "hybrid" cars is being opposed by advocates for the blind -- because hybrid cars are harder to hear. "We use the sound of the traffic not only to determine when to cross the street but to navigate," said Chris Danielsen of the National Federation of the Blind, "and hybrid vehicles are silent." The NFB is asking that the law be amended to require hybrids to make noise.
Labels: autos, Moral dilemmas
Years ago Camen and I watched a hilarious kung-fu epic callen Wing Chun, mainly because it had caused a stir at a local lesbian film festival.
Labels: Chinese movies, tofu breath, Yeoh
... the one at least some of us are descended from. A holocaust denier attacked Elie Wiesel, holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner in a San Francisco hotel. After roughing up the 78 year old and berating him, the attacker fled. Later someone calling themselves Eric Hunt left a post on an anti-Zionist site taking credit for the attack and explaining he was simply trying to force Wiesel to "truthfully answer my questions regarding the fact that his nonfiction Holocaust memoir Night is almost entirely fictitious."
Labels: Holocaust deniers, twits on stilts
... and not very smart ones at that.
Some little time ago I asked if Mormons were regarded as Christians and would this have an effect on Christian voters. Now there is at least a partial answer to this question in a new Foxx TV poll that is posted on RealClearPolitics. Here is the question on Romney's religion:
Are you more or less likely to support a candidate who is a Mormon?
Republicans only:
More likely 8% (a lot more likely 4%, somewhat more likely 4%)
Less likely 30% (a lot less likely 19%, somewhat less likely 11%)
Not a major factor 59%
The 59% who say it would not be a major factor is probably a bit too high, on the theory that just like people answering polls rarely admit they would not vote for a black candidate because of race, people might not want to appear to vote against a candidate for his religion. The theory is that a significant number are probably lying.
With at least a third of those polled, and we will never know what portion of them may actually vote, saying they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon, Romney might face an uphill battle among the very social conservatives he ought to otherwise appeal to.
But then again, as I was reminded the other night at my Episcopal book club, many people said the same thing about John Kennedy's Catholicism. Since these figures reflect only Repubs, maybe the general electorate would feel differently.
Any ideas would be appreciated.
And please notice I've learned how to spell Mormons in the meantime. It does NOT follow the example of the Normans.
Tech-support staffer: Type http://...
Lately I have become disenchanted with Hanson for drinking too much of the kool-aid about Iraq. Here he is on Iran, though, and what we should do about it. It is an interventionist policy, but restrained. Here is a sample of his plan:
And we should announce in advance that we don't want any bases in Iran, that we don't want its oil, and that we won't send American infantry there. That would preempt the tired charges of imperialism and colonialism.
The United States also must stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. The last thing Iran wants is a democratic and prosperous Middle East surrounding its borders. The televised sight of Afghans, Iraqis, Kurds, Lebanese and Turks voting and speaking freely could galvanize Iranian popular opinion that in time might overwhelm the mullahs.
Compared to what we have been dealing with from the administration this is reasonable and restrained. No infantry into Iran. As for bombing, he doesn't call for that exactly. On the other hand, he doesn't rule it out. He does, however, hint darkly that Israel might - which is something I think most observers agree with.
Anyway, read it for yourself and remember, a nuclear armed Iran is a threat to a lot of people out there other than Americans. Iran's rockets can't hit the US, but they can hit Europe and all points in between.
As I said, Dinesh D'Souza's The Enemy at Home is getting roundly trashed almost wherever it is reviewed. Now Stanley Kurtz at National Review Online gives his take. It is by far the most sympathetic and nuanced review of the work, and the more damning for all that. The review is worth a read, though, because Kurtz uses D'Souza to spin off some interesting ideas about Islam, Muslim society, and the roots of the violence that he promises to develop in more depth.
I have had a torturous relationship with the French language since I first signed up for a special graduate class for reading French (I have a less conflicted relationship with the French themselves ... I like and admire them). Since I was not sure I had the talent or the brains to ever complete my PhD I did not work at it very hard. Same with my reading German class which was much more difficult.
Don't know how I feel about this, though I think I don't like it*. European criminal justice is often held up for admiration in this country because they don't have the death penalty. But here is a case of a five time stone-cold murderer sentenced to five life sentences. She is not repentant at all but she is a free woman.
Dinesh D'Souza, whose first book or two I rather liked, has now come out with The Enemy at Home. In it he concludes that the main reason the jihadists hate America and want to attack it, or rather 'us', is because we have become so disgustingly immoral. I could say a lot about that general premise, but it has been said a lot better by Bruce Bawer, who I am told, is a conservative.
Leftists railed that America had gotten its payback for imperialism; Jerry Falwell insisted that pagans, abortionists, gays, and others of that ilk had “helped this happen.” This claim was elaborated in an unpublished text later sent to me by a retired member of the Norwegian Parliament who blamed 9/11 on the stateside degenerates—principally “homosexual heroes and anal addicts” (yes, “anal addicts”)—who offend Muslim family values. Now right-wing hack Dinesh D’Souza makes this same accusation in a jaw-droppingly repulsive screed, The Enemy at Home. Charging that “the cultural left in this country is responsible for causing 9/11,” he wants good Christians to recognize that Islamic values resemble their own—and that the real enemy is those fags next door. If only they’d retarget their rage, thereby showing their respect for “traditional values,” Muslims would stop hating the USA.
It seems that Jonah Goldberg over on National Review Online dared Juan Cole to make a bet with him. Cole refused - alas! Here is the result, as reported on Salon.com:
Today is Feb. 8, 2007, a fact we mention only because on Feb. 8, 2005, National Review (and now Los Angeles Times) columnist Jonah Goldberg had the following to say about Iraq in a back-and-forth pissing match with Juan Cole:
"I do think my judgment is superior to [Cole's] when it comes to the big picture. So, I have an idea: Since he doesn't want to debate anything except his own brilliance, let's make a bet. I predict that Iraq won't have a civil war, that it will have a viable constitution, and that a majority of Iraqis and Americans will, in two years time, agree that the war was worth it. I'll bet $1,000 (which I can hardly spare right now). This way neither of us can hide behind clever word play or CV reading. If there's another reasonable wager Cole wants to offer which would measure our judgment, I'm all ears. Money where your mouth is, doc."
Cole declined to make what he called "a wager on the backs of human beings."
So what does Goldberg have to say for himself now? He admits that he would have lost the bet if Cole had taken it, but he seems to resent the fact that folks are reminding everyone -- including media outlets who now carry his column -- that his underlying argument was so totally wrong. In a new post up at the National Review, Goldberg complains that the "vitriol and bullying of this crowd is something to behold."
I love that last line. I guess like Juan Cole many of us lack Goldberg's grasp of "the big picture."
Want to bet on another two years?
One of my favorite bloggers, Jim McCulloch, aka Huitzil, has a short essay up that starts with a near religious experience in Paraguay that caused him to doubt his faith in science, and ends up with an account of Aime Bonpland, a botanist, and Dr Francia, a dictator.
Over on National Review Online's in house blog, 'The Corner,' Mark Krikorian has a post about honest work, among other things. He spins it off from an alleged quote of Karl Rove's which may or may not mean something. What I think it means, though, is that we are moving rapidly towards a society like that of the Late Great Roman Empire - a society of Potentiores and Humiliores. This is most visible among Republicans at the moment, but it is true of both parties and of all our political and economic elites.
Labels: immigration, Rove, twits
Carmen is working on her second murder mystery set in Laos. This one is The Coroner's Lunch by Colin Cotterill. It is about an aging doctor, educated in Paris (where he met and married a committed Communist), now a disillusioned veteran of the 'revolution' that put the Pathet Lao in control of Laos (this was once daily newspaper fare in my young days). Carmen says she likes the novels because they remind her of Cuba. Cotterill has lived some years in Laos and seems to have an accurate ear for dialogue. Here is a taste, a conversation between Dr Siri and another old comrade from his Pathet Lao days:
"How was your weekend?"
"Sensational. Spent both days up in Van Viang at a political seminar. You?"
"Dug a ditch."
"How was it?"
"Sensational. My block won first prize in the 'Uplifting Work Songs' competition."
"Well done. What did you win?"
"A hoe."
"Just the one?"
"We got it for a week each, alphabetically. What's the big news of the month up on the roundabout?"
"Big news? We made it to the top of a world list last week."
"Lowest crime?"
"Highest inflation."
"In the world? Wow. We should have a party or something."
"Then there's the ongoing puppet scandal."
"Tell me."
"The party ordered the puppets at Xiang Thong temple in Luang Prabang to stop using royal language, and said they had to start calling each other 'comrade.'"
"Quite right, too. We have to show those puppets who's pulling the strings." Civilai hit him with a lettuce leaf. "What happened?"
"Puppets refused."
"Subversive bastards."
"The local party members locked them up in their box, and they aren't allowed out till they succumb."
"That'll teach them."
Carmen has gotten another Laotian murder mystery from the library - one of the perks of working in a library. It has yet another brief but tantalizing mention of the plant life in Laos:
He walked reluctantly along the embankment and kicked up scents from the Crow Shit blossoms that grew there. On the far bank, Thailand stared rudely back at him.Apparently Laotians have an interesting sense of humor. Check my earlier post if you missed it. Almost makes you want to go there.
I have never been much of a fan of Michel Foucault or the school of post modernism. I am, though, something of a fan of Camille Paglia, despite her self-promotional lunacy. For one thing, you can never be quite sure what she will come up with next. She also writies with such passion about culture that after reading her chapter in Sexual Personae on Spencer I found myself in the library reading Faerie Queene. She even got me started on Emily Dickenson! Good or bad, an author who can do that to a reader has real power. It helps, of course, if you have a taste for crazed invective.
Foucault's analysis of "power" is foggy and paranoid and simply does not work when applied to the actual evidence of the birth, growth and complex development of governments in ancient and modern societies. Nor is Foucault's analysis of the classification of knowledge particularly original -- except in his bitter animus against the Enlightenment, which he failed to realize had already been systematically countered by Romanticism. What most American students don't know is that Foucault's commentary is painfully crimped by the limited assumptions of Saussurean linguistics (which I reject).
Foucault, for all his blathering about "power," never managed to address Adolph Hitler or the Nazi occupation of France, I received a congratulatory letter from David H. Hirsch (a literature professor at Brown), who sent me copies of riveting chapters from his then-forthcoming book, The Deconstruction of Literature: Criticism After Auschwitz (1991). As Hirsch wrote me about French behavior during the occupation, "Collaboration was not the exception but the rule." I agree with Hirsch that the leading poststructuralists were cunning hypocrites whose tortured syntax and encrustations of jargon concealed the moral culpability of their and their parents' generations in Nazi France.
American students, forget Foucault! Reverently study the massive primary evidence of world history, and forge your own ideas and systems. Poststructuralism is a corpse. Let it stink in the Parisian trash pit where it belongs! [my emphasis - you can see why I like her]
Remember Hurricane Katrina? I just finished listening to the Recorded Book version of Kim Stanley Robinson's Green Mars and was struck by this account of Frank Chalmers, one of the characters who had died somewhere before this volume of the Mars Trilogy even starts.
The Florida panhandle was one of the poorest areas of the nation at the beginning of the twenty-first century, with Caribbean immigration, the closure of the local military bases, and Hurricane Dale combining to cause great misery. "You felt like you were working in Africa," one National Service Corps worker said. In his three years there we get our fullest view of Chalmers as a social creature, as he secured grants to expand a job program that made an immense impact on the entire coast, helping thousands who had moved into shelters after Dale.
The great apes are funny creatures in that they challenge Homo Sapiens exceptionalism. Most of our most cherished talents they have to some degree. Now there is a provocative interview in Salon.com with Barbara J. King about what gorillas can tell us about God - or at least that is the way the editors bill the story. Take a look, it's interesting (you may have to click through as a guest, but I think you can view it). Here are the first two questions:
Why would an anthropologist who studies apes be interested in religion?
I think religion is all about emotional engagement and social action. And we can get a whole new read on the evolutionary history of religion by asking the kinds of questions that we ask of language and culture. We can see that way back in our past -- literally, millions of years ago -- some practices are visible in the archaeological record that reflect the deepest roots of religion. And apes today are pretty good stand-ins for those very early human ancestors. So when I go to the National Zoo in Washington, or spend time in Kenya looking at monkeys, what I see is very social. It's about emotional connection that's at the very ancient roots of religion.
So you're not saying that the great apes you study are religious -- or have spiritual lives -- but they show behaviors that are required if you're going to develop religion.
That's right. I'm not suggesting that apes are religious. In fact, I have to say that, because Jane Goodall, who is such a renowned and loved figure for her chimpanzee studies, has said very provocatively that chimpanzees may have an incipient sense of religious awe. For example, when she comes upon them looking at a waterfall -- something in nature that is amazing -- they're riveted. She's wondering what's going through their minds and if they may be spiritual in some sense. That's a fascinating idea, but that's not my approach. I don't look for things in apes that are religious. I look at how their behavior relates to the very foundation of what later became religion. For me, the question turns on how I understand religion. I want to be very careful to differentiate between what we think about religion today and how it evolved. I'm really talking about the earliest origins of religion, which was a social and emotional process.
Here is a quote from former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) speaking to an aide during a photo op, while visiting tsunami-ravaged Sri Lanka.
I am not sure what has been going on, but Blogger seems to have gone crazy the last 48 hours. Maybe it is better now. About a week ago it gave me no options for signing in except to convert over to new Blogger, which I tried to do. Unfortunately it didn't bother to tell me that my e-mail address would now be my new user name. Since I only have one e-mail address for personal use, I dutifully plugged it in when asked. But that meant two different blogs with two different user names and two different passwords were now trying to fit into one account.
Labels: blogger problems, luddites, technological friction