In the constellation of terrible political punditry there are many blazing examples: Cal Thomas, Peggy Noonan, Thomas Friedman, to name just a few. But David Brooks has immortally cemented his position as the greatest with this column: Been there, Done that, so now the rest of you who go there and do that should go to prison.
Brooks has written some of the most truly pathetic columns imaginable - just a few weeks ago he wrote a piece pointing out the complete irrelevancy and meaninglessness of ideologically lazy political pundits, the chief notable example being himself - but this column must go down in history as the definitive piece of sheer ass-hattery. The man has produced entire books which consist of him making up stories and claiming them to be data points, but that's just simple fraud. This column moves beyond that.
He spends the entire column discussing the complete lack of danger associated with marijuana, as evidenced by his own personal experience: his worst personal experience was botching a speech in English class, and the vast majority of his friends naturally outgrew it. He concludes that legalizing pot is good for personal freedom (Isn't this the rallying cry of the Tea Party Republicans? Freedomz!).
He then concludes with the banal fact that spending all of your time smoking pot is not the best possible life, and in the ultimate act of mind-boggling hypocrisy and willful ignorance suggests that society should therefore continue to discourage marijuana use. At no point does the brute fact that society currently sends men with guns to lock you up in jail with murderers and rapists and take your house and prevent you from holding hundreds of classes of jobs again and take away your right to vote cross David Brook's alcohol-fogged tiny little mind (because you know the bastard was drunk as a skunk while he wrote this - he had to be: no sane human mind could commit such a heinous act of indifference while sober). Thus does society "discourage" pot use; by putting it in the same class as using heroin, meth, burglary, and assault. By destroying lives and swelling prisons.
If David Brooks had been "discouraged" when he was smoking pot, he wouldn't have a cushy job writing banal idiocies for a national audience. Or maybe he would; Brooks has spent his entire life in an atmosphere where rich white guys get second chances (and thirds, and fourths, and....).
To advocate a policy while remaining willfully blind to its actual implementation is one thing; to do so when said policy would have ruined you had it been applied to you is something entirely different. Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are evil clowns, but they are clowns. David Brooks is vastly more wicked: he makes people comfortable with hypocrisy. Brooks has column in a old and venerable newspaper, a national audience, and a cushy paycheck - and he uses it every week to display brazen hypocrisy, for which he is continually rewarded. This amounts to society encouraging hypocrisy, as long as it's hypocrisy for rich old white men. All the pot smokers in the world cannot add up to the harm David Brooks personally inflicts on the national character.
David Brooks has just endorsed the police state: he has formally asserted that social culture should be enforced by the power of the state through criminal law. He is the drug war's Leni Riefenstahl.
Sunday, January 5, 2014
Friday, December 27, 2013
The Time of the Doctor
Has a TV show ever paid such close attention to its fans?
After much internet buzz that Matt Smith could not be the Doctor in the Xmas special because he had cut his famous mop while filming a movie, the scriptwriters shaved his head and put him in a wig. Hard to believe that during months of speculation, that simple little solution didn't seem obvious.
They also settled the question of regeneration. We knew they would; Dr. Who is far to valuable a franchise to kill off simply because long-established canon says you're on your last face of Doctor; but it's nice to see that they cared about it enough to dedicate an entire conversation where the Doctor counts up all of the past events.
It was, however, a bit much that the excess energy from this regeneration was apparently sufficient to destroy a Dalek battleship. For the man who almost never fires a weapon (during this episode devoted to a long war the only direct kill we see him make is convincing a Cyberman to shoot himself) it was a dangerous precedent. But of course, that Doctor is gone now, and the scriptwriters get another chance to create rules and limitations they can then dramatically break later down the line.
After much internet buzz that Matt Smith could not be the Doctor in the Xmas special because he had cut his famous mop while filming a movie, the scriptwriters shaved his head and put him in a wig. Hard to believe that during months of speculation, that simple little solution didn't seem obvious.
They also settled the question of regeneration. We knew they would; Dr. Who is far to valuable a franchise to kill off simply because long-established canon says you're on your last face of Doctor; but it's nice to see that they cared about it enough to dedicate an entire conversation where the Doctor counts up all of the past events.
It was, however, a bit much that the excess energy from this regeneration was apparently sufficient to destroy a Dalek battleship. For the man who almost never fires a weapon (during this episode devoted to a long war the only direct kill we see him make is convincing a Cyberman to shoot himself) it was a dangerous precedent. But of course, that Doctor is gone now, and the scriptwriters get another chance to create rules and limitations they can then dramatically break later down the line.
Sunday, December 22, 2013
An example of Privilege in action
This Duck Dynasty thing that's burning up the interwebs - turns out some Southern cracker is a homophobe, and apparently that's like news or something? - is the perfect example of privilege in action.
The cracker gives an interview, in which his homophobia is made plain; his employer decides that makes him not a cost-effective employee insomuch as his job is entertainment; and the right-wingers go ballistic because they think his freedom of speech is being abridged.
Three points. One, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. You can say anything you want, and people can react to it anyway they want.
Two. If the Federal Government sends men with guns to silence you, that's an abridgement of freedom of speech. Anything less... not so much.
Three, and by and far the biggie. The first two are just basic failure to understand concepts, which is nothing new. But the most important thing to notice here is that the people calling for the Federal cavalry to defend this man against his employer are the very same people who think that employers should be allowed to fire and hire at will for any reason including race, creed and color.
Apparently it should be OK by Federal law to fire a man for being black... but not for being a homophobe. You can refuse to sell cakes to gay weddings... but you can't refuse to employ people who say things about gays you don't like.
Here we see the knife of privilege cutting exactly one way, and one way only. Basically, they support freedom of speech when its speech they like. And apparently, there are lots and lots of people who like to talk smack about gay people.
I wonder how long they can keep the wall up? Given that they've pretty nakedly admitted that bashing gay people is protected speech, but defending gay people is not; how much longer before they just come out and admit that bashing black people is protected speech, but bashing racists is not? We came perilously close with the Paula Deen affair, and this seems like another step in that direction.
I, for one, would welcome it. Just say what you actually mean. Honesty is always the best policy. I read some of the things the Duck Dynasty patriarch said, and as one pundit said, they were at least said without malice. No doubt Duck Dude is a little surprised at all the froufrou (just as Paula Deen was). That's just the way he thinks. I applaud him for his honesty, and I wish the rest of the right-wingers would hurry up and join him. Just come right out and say it. Put down the dog whistles and plainly say what you mean.
Of course, it would be the near-instantaneous destruction of the Republican party; but even if it weren't, I would still prefer a world in which racism, sexism, and homophobia were openly recognized as what they are.
"The best antiseptic is sunlight," Mencken said, and I'm sure some long dead Greek guy said a similar thing. To put it in military terms, identifying the enemy is the first step in destroying him.
The cracker gives an interview, in which his homophobia is made plain; his employer decides that makes him not a cost-effective employee insomuch as his job is entertainment; and the right-wingers go ballistic because they think his freedom of speech is being abridged.
Three points. One, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence. You can say anything you want, and people can react to it anyway they want.
Two. If the Federal Government sends men with guns to silence you, that's an abridgement of freedom of speech. Anything less... not so much.
Three, and by and far the biggie. The first two are just basic failure to understand concepts, which is nothing new. But the most important thing to notice here is that the people calling for the Federal cavalry to defend this man against his employer are the very same people who think that employers should be allowed to fire and hire at will for any reason including race, creed and color.
Apparently it should be OK by Federal law to fire a man for being black... but not for being a homophobe. You can refuse to sell cakes to gay weddings... but you can't refuse to employ people who say things about gays you don't like.
Here we see the knife of privilege cutting exactly one way, and one way only. Basically, they support freedom of speech when its speech they like. And apparently, there are lots and lots of people who like to talk smack about gay people.
I wonder how long they can keep the wall up? Given that they've pretty nakedly admitted that bashing gay people is protected speech, but defending gay people is not; how much longer before they just come out and admit that bashing black people is protected speech, but bashing racists is not? We came perilously close with the Paula Deen affair, and this seems like another step in that direction.
I, for one, would welcome it. Just say what you actually mean. Honesty is always the best policy. I read some of the things the Duck Dynasty patriarch said, and as one pundit said, they were at least said without malice. No doubt Duck Dude is a little surprised at all the froufrou (just as Paula Deen was). That's just the way he thinks. I applaud him for his honesty, and I wish the rest of the right-wingers would hurry up and join him. Just come right out and say it. Put down the dog whistles and plainly say what you mean.
Of course, it would be the near-instantaneous destruction of the Republican party; but even if it weren't, I would still prefer a world in which racism, sexism, and homophobia were openly recognized as what they are.
"The best antiseptic is sunlight," Mencken said, and I'm sure some long dead Greek guy said a similar thing. To put it in military terms, identifying the enemy is the first step in destroying him.
Sunday, November 24, 2013
The Day of the Doctor
Just saw it in 3D at the theater. Short analysis: Brilliant.
Two things really stood out for me. One, this is the first time I found any value-added from the 3D experience; there is a 3D painting in the movie, and getting to see it was in 3D before being told it was in 3D was dramatically moving.
The second was how John Rawl's original position is just tossed out there as a solution to a minor plot point. Of course the Dr. knows about Rawl's work; it's that the script writers knew about that impresses me.
I am always a sucker for any movie that can work a bit of serious philosophy seamlessly onto the screen. So my longer analysis of The Day of The Doctor is: Bloody brilliant.
Two things really stood out for me. One, this is the first time I found any value-added from the 3D experience; there is a 3D painting in the movie, and getting to see it was in 3D before being told it was in 3D was dramatically moving.
The second was how John Rawl's original position is just tossed out there as a solution to a minor plot point. Of course the Dr. knows about Rawl's work; it's that the script writers knew about that impresses me.
I am always a sucker for any movie that can work a bit of serious philosophy seamlessly onto the screen. So my longer analysis of The Day of The Doctor is: Bloody brilliant.
Saturday, November 9, 2013
Sword of the Bright Lady
The amazing Lou Anderson over at Pyr has bought Sword of the Bright Lady, intent on inflicting it on an innocent and unsuspecting world sometime in October 2014.
I am very happy about this development, as you can imagine. SotBL was my first full-length novel, written in a feverish three months almost ten years ago. Since then it's undergone a lot of editing, almost all of which was fixing the the first half wherein I committed every sin expected of a beginning fantasy author. Now the first half is about a quarter of what it was, and the sinning has been reduced to a tolerable din.
Pyr is the SF&F arm of Prometheus, one of my favorite publishers. Lou Anders is a Hugo-award winning editor. This book could not have landed in better hands.
I am very happy about this development, as you can imagine. SotBL was my first full-length novel, written in a feverish three months almost ten years ago. Since then it's undergone a lot of editing, almost all of which was fixing the the first half wherein I committed every sin expected of a beginning fantasy author. Now the first half is about a quarter of what it was, and the sinning has been reduced to a tolerable din.
Pyr is the SF&F arm of Prometheus, one of my favorite publishers. Lou Anders is a Hugo-award winning editor. This book could not have landed in better hands.
FICTION: FANTASYMicheal Planck’s debut flintlock fantasy SWORD OF THE BRIGHT LADY, an unassuming forty-year old mechanical engineer becomes a pawn in a cosmic game when he stumbles into a world where he must pit wit and rudimentary firearms against magic and monsters to open a pathway home to his wife, to Lou Anders at Pyr, an imprint of Prometheus Books, in a nice deal, by Kristin Nelson at Nelson Literary Agency (World English).
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Philosophy in politics
And you thought this was a rhetorical question:
No, Rep. Rogers, it is not a new standard in the law. As any first year Philosophy or Law student could tell you. If you violate my rights, you have violated my rights, even if I don't know about it.
But the fact that this very basic question of epistemology has now been raised in a Congressional hearing is less important than the fact that the elected representative got it wrong. This either demonstrates the radical epistemological underpinnings of the Reactionary Right... or their simple ignorance.
And by simple, I mean most people recognize that phrase as rhetorical. It's not an actual arguing point; it's just a place holder for a reminder that "objective reality" trumps political ideology. But Rep. Rogers is so unused to intelligent conversation that he doesn't understand that.
Vladeck: I disagree with that. If a tree falls in the forest, it makes a noise whether you're there to see it or not.
Rogers (astounded): Well that's a new interesting standard in the law.
No, Rep. Rogers, it is not a new standard in the law. As any first year Philosophy or Law student could tell you. If you violate my rights, you have violated my rights, even if I don't know about it.
But the fact that this very basic question of epistemology has now been raised in a Congressional hearing is less important than the fact that the elected representative got it wrong. This either demonstrates the radical epistemological underpinnings of the Reactionary Right... or their simple ignorance.
And by simple, I mean most people recognize that phrase as rhetorical. It's not an actual arguing point; it's just a place holder for a reminder that "objective reality" trumps political ideology. But Rep. Rogers is so unused to intelligent conversation that he doesn't understand that.
An American Halloween
I was having lunch at a burger joint on Halloween, and the staff was dressed up. It's not a big holiday here yet (we had about 7 trick or treaters all night) but it's growing.
I was the first person to recognize his costume, so he gave me a bag of Blue Crystal. I guess being an American has its perks after all. :D
I was the first person to recognize his costume, so he gave me a bag of Blue Crystal. I guess being an American has its perks after all. :D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)