Politics, open government, and safe streets. And the constant incursion of cycling.

Category: Society Page 4 of 69

20 Years of Bombs Over Baghdad

From TPM:

TPM Reader CS points out that today is the 20th anniversary of the Persian Gulf War, which started as an air campaign on January 17, 1991. “I don’t see a peep about it in the news,” he writes. “Is it just me, or is that surprising?”

Seminal, for me.  And many others.  Recall:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJGs2BDKq5g[/youtube]

Consider that.  Two decades the US has been killing people in Iraq.  Twenty.fucking.years.  Longer than some of the kids doing it have been alive.  And that’s just directly.

Oh, Poor You: The Story of America’s Newest Whiny Little Bitches*

Alex Parnee starts it off:

[ . . . ] 28 years later, it’s hard to imagine even a deeply Republican Congress opposing a holiday dedicated to Dr. King — in part because some contemporary conservatives like to pretend the civil rights activist was or would be a Republican, but mostly because conservatives have spent years pretending to be a persecuted minority group.

That’s why something like Sarah Palin claiming to be a victim of “blood libel” doesn’t raise an eyebrow among the true believers. It’s the myth that keeps the checks rolling in for most right-wingers. The liberals are all-powerful and they oppress us.

It’s become a core part of the Republican/conservative identity, it seems, to claim to be a horribly oppressed group (that just happens to have the upper hand in most of society’s levers).  I’ve got zero patience for this bullshit, and I urge others to adopt the same stance.  Aren’t these the same people always going on about civility and the importance of responsibility?  Well, if that’s so important, why can’t they be honest about the actual state of things?

*And truly, I mean that in the most offensive way possible.  Pat Buchanan, feeling like he’s got a lynch mob after him?  Seriously, Pat, go to hell.

Violent Political Rhetoric? Look Right.

Still not much useful to say about the sad events of this past weekend.  My one venture into it (elsewhere) has been to argue that we just don’t know enough about the shooter to start ascribing causes.  While much of this country appears not to recognize any line between crazy and political, I’m still willing to draw one.  But the larger conversation has already started about violent political rhetoric, and I’m seeing far too much of this “both sides need to tone it down” approach.

Bullshit.

Violent political rhetoric comes overwhelmingly from the right in America these days, and it’s echoed well up into the Republican ranks.  While I’m certain you can find instances of calls for violence on the left, you’ll be digging in website comments for it or pointing to some kid at a World Bank protest.  Paul Krugman explains the difference:

And it’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

And there’s a huge contrast in the media. Listen to Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, and you’ll hear a lot of caustic remarks and mockery aimed at Republicans. But you won’t hear jokes about shooting government officials or beheading a journalist at The Washington Post. Listen to Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, and you will.

The Republican party likes to harp on about responsibility.  It should familiarize itself with the concept and actually take some.  Not that I expect it will happen.  Instead of behaving like adults who have a stake in society, we’re just going to get more whining attempts at turning themselves into victims.  It’s what they do.

24 Hour Timelapse of Global Airliner Traffic

This is quite something to see:

I’d love to match it up to a timelapse of a comparable period in ship-based travel in the early 1900s. It’s amazing (and mostly wonderful) how much easier humans have made global travel.

(via Waldo)

The Social Contract Between Drivers/Cyclists/Pedestrians

As you might imagine, I could go on for quite some time about what I imagine the terms of this contract *should* be.  But for now, here’s a link to an interesting discussion of what they appear to be to a number of generally smart people in DC.

Don’t Fence Me In

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHjKBjM1ngw[/youtube]

Border fences are monuments to human failure.

Instant Experts

This Patton Oswalt article – Wake Up, Geek Culture. Time to Die. – has been making the rounds. And not just amongst the geeks. For me (hey, shut up), this was a great exploration of something we’ve lost at the hands of the Internet:

The problem with the Internet, however, is that it lets anyone become otaku about anything instantly. In the ’80s, you couldn’t get up to speed on an entire genre in a weekend. You had to wait, month to month, for the issues of Watchmen to come out. We couldn’t BitTorrent the latest John Woo film or digitally download an entire decade’s worth of grunge or hip hop. Hell, there were a few weeks during the spring of 1991 when we couldn’t tell whether Nirvana or Tad would be the next band to break big. Imagine the terror!

But then reflect on the advantages. Waiting for the next issue, movie, or album gave you time to reread, rewatch, reabsorb whatever you loved, so you brought your own idiosyncratic love of that thing to your thought-palace. People who were obsessed with Star Trek or the Ender’s Game books were all obsessed with the same object, but its light shone differently on each person. Everyone had to create in their mind unanswered questions or what-ifs. What if Leia, not Luke, had become a Jedi? What happens after Rorschach’s journal is found at the end of Watchmen? What the hell was The Prisoner about?

If you just went “yes!”, then you need to click on over and read the rest of it.  If you haven’t already seen it and a dozen critiques of it, that is.

Map of Slavery in the United States

The NYT, via Flowing Data, brings this map to our attention:

Map of Slavery in the US

Makes you wonder about all sorts of overlays, doesn’t it?

The NYT describes its provenance:

The 1860 Census was the last time the federal government took a count of the South’s vast slave population. Several months later, the United States Coast Survey—arguably the most important scientific agency in the nation at the time—issued two maps of slavery that drew on the Census data, the first of Virginia and the second of Southern states as a whole.

And, as always, the map tells you about more than geography:

The map reaffirmed the belief of many in the Union that secession was driven not by a notion of “state rights,” but by the defense of a labor system. A table at the lower edge of the map measured each state’s slave population, and contemporaries would have immediately noticed that this corresponded closely to the order of secession. South Carolina, which led the rebellion, was one of two states which enslaved a majority of its population, a fact starkly represented on the map.

Conversely, the map illustrated the degree to which entire regions—like eastern Tennessee and western Virginia—were virtually devoid of slavery, and thus potential sources of resistance to secession.

Much credit to Susan Schulten, the author of the NYT piece.  She’s a history professor at the University of Denver and the author of “The Geographical Imagination in America, 1880-1950.”

It’s Done

DADT repealed.  Closure of a dark chapter in American history.  Thank you to everyone that helped, but particular thanks to those serving who put their careers on the line – and sometimes lost them – to make this happen.

Update:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGxhphlJN-I[/youtube]

Powerful.

Bush v. Gore: Ten Years Later

Ten years ago, I was sitting in the Worldport Terminal at JFK, on my way home.  I’d just picked up some Burger King french fries, waiting for a connecting flight back to DCA, while I watched the news.  And it was there that I heard the result of Bush v. Gore.  I can still tell you exactly where I was sitting.  And then I saw the opinion read out on the television.  And I was shocked.

Stupified.  Confounded.  Stunned.

The five justices in the majority helped complete my legal education in a way that I – at the time – truly didn’t think was possible.

The idealism of youth, I suppose.  Or something like that.

To review, the majority applied a principle that they’d never cared about in a way that they’d never done before to a specific set of circumstances they said should never be considered in the future.

~

I have very little interest in talking about Bush v. Gore.  There’s nothing to say about it, from a legal standpoint.  Sure, it’s a little useful as a basic honesty test, but those that defend it almost always reveal themselves as charlatans well before you ever get to the case itself.  But I do hope that it’s taken as a lesson by new generations.

So long as the Republican party that produced the 5-4 result exists, it’s important that everyone involved in politics understands what happened.

Page 4 of 69

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén