by hilzoy

Haymaker

You are one of life’s enjoyers, determined to get the most you can out of your brief spell on Earth. Probably what first attracted you to atheism was the prospect of liberation from the Ten Commandments, few of which are compatible with a life of pleasure. You play hard and work quite hard, have a strong sense of loyalty and a relaxed but consistent approach to your philosophy.

You can’t see the point of abstract principles and probably wouldn’t lay down your life for a concept though you might for a friend. Something of a champagne humanist, you admire George Bernard Shaw for his cheerful agnosticism and pursuit of sensual rewards and your Hollywood hero is Marlon Brando, who was beautiful, irascible and aimed for goodness in his own tortured way.

Sometimes you might be tempted to allow your own pleasures to take precedence over your ethics. But everyone is striving for that elusive balance between the good and the happy life. You’d probably open another bottle and say there’s no contest.

What kind of humanist are you? Click here to find out.

— Excuse me? It’s a really fun quiz, and it asks really interesting questions, and, yes, I did choose a vacation in a large house in Tuscany with a pool and all my friends and family over retracing Darwin’s voyage to the Galapagos, and no, my idea of the perfect garden is not rectilinear, and yes, I do have fun, but: this is the most inaccurate summary of my personality anyone has ever come up with. I was not attracted to atheism, or anything else, by the prospect of liberation from the Ten Commandments. If I don’t see the point of abstract principles, I’m not sure who does. I mean, for heaven’s sake, I’m a Kantian moral philosopher! I loathe both Shaw and Brando (well, maybe not the very young Brando.) But my favorite actor is Alan Rickman, and as for people I admire, there are lots of them, but tinny playwrights with thin reedy philosophies are not among them.

Sheesh.

On the other hand, do you think the sexiest man alive would be more likely to appear in my living room if I were a haymaking Kantian? If so, I’ll just have to curl up with Saint Joan.

Consider this an open thread.

Read more

by hilzoy

Enough with the serious stuff. Here, via Steve Clemons, is the worst right-wing rock I think I have ever heard. It’s called ‘Bush Was Right’, by, well, the Right Brothers. You must, must, listen to the sample. Just do it. I’ve posted the lyrics on the flip, so you can sing along. And you will surely want to. Heh heh.

Seriously, though, I think the left writes much better right-wing music than the right does. Just think of the songs in Bob Roberts: the wonderful ‘thump-ada thump-ada’ bass behind these lyrics:

“Some people are rich
Some people are not
But they complain and complain and complain and complain and complaaaaaaiin!”

Or the plaintive, Stevie-Nicks-imitates-Joan-Baez folkie singing:

“We are marching for the children
We are marching for the poor
We are marching for self-interest
We’ll march forever more…”

(if you haven’t seen Bob Roberts, you must. The world-view is a bit wacky and conspiratorial for my taste, but the music is great. Plus, you get to see Alan Rickman, playing a campaign manager accused of swindling an S&L and a charity while running drugs for the CIA, decline to answer questions about this, and then bark: Excuse me; I have to go pray.”)

So here’s the deal: if anyone wants to write a parody right-wing rock song, do it. Better still, if anyone wants to record a parody right-wing song (paging xanax), do it, put it on the web somewhere, and post the link. If you don’t have space, email the music file to me (within reasonable limits), and (since I have some space on my .mac account) I’ll host it and link to it here. We cannot allow the unintentional self-parodies of the right to go unanswered. Best entry wins a virtual gold star.

Read more

For those interested in trenchantism, read the always-readable Hilzoy on HIV and AIDs.  For those looking for meandering bloviating that goes nowhere, there’s more below the fold.

Read more

There was a delightful essay by Nichols Fox in the NYTimes on Saturday about how we Americans have permitted ourselves to be turned into unpaid employees of companies who charge us quite handsomely for the privilege:

It began in the 1970’s. Or at least that’s when I became conscious of it. People began cleaning up after themselves in fast-food restaurants. I had been living abroad and didn’t know about such things, but my children, faster to pick up on American cultural expectations, made sure I took back my tray and put my trash in the appropriate bin.

Cleverly, the restaurants made this choice not only easy but gratifying. Customers were given the sense of being good citizens or helping out the teenage minimum-wage workers who wiped off the tables.

I was never fooled. I knew what was going on. We were doing the restaurant’s work and if we didn’t we felt guilty. My children would shrink into their coats while people stared disapprovingly if I tried to abandon a cluttered table.

In fact, it was a manifestation of the Great Labor Transfer. Companies that had already applied every possible efficiency to their businesses were looking for other ways to cut costs and saw an entirely new pool of workers who didn’t have to be paid. Call them consumers.

Fox supports his thesis with a short history of other situations where we used to be served that we’ve willingly volunteered to do for ourselves, including

Read more

by hilzoy

After posting yesterday’s poem, I realized to my shame and horror that I had been indulging a bias in favor of good poetry. I was mortified: how, after all, can one justify privileging quality? Doesn’t justice require a special effort to overcome the natural yet indefensible tendency to discriminate in favor of excellence? Shouldn’t we strive to be inclusive, giving everyone a voice, regardless of whether they conform to our narrow, historically situated notions of “talent”? Isn’t the very idea of “good” poetry just a reification of our contemporary biases constructed by narrow-minded academics to protect their arbitrary disciplinary fiefdoms? With such thoughts in mind, I have decided to rectify my previous errors by posting works by James McIntyre (1827-1906), the Ontario Cheese Poet. (He was not trying to be funny when he wrote and published these works, as far as I know.) I have put one above the fold and a few more below, because after all, is it really possible to have too much of a bad thing? (Don’t answer that.) (But do read at least the first below the fold, ‘Ode on the Mammoth Cheese’. It’s amazing.)

Prophecy of a Ten Ton Cheese

Who hath prophetic vision sees
In future times a ten ton cheese,
Several companies could join
To furnish curd for great combine
More honor far than making gun
Of mighty size and many a ton.

Machine it could be made with ease
That could turn this monster cheese,
The greatest honour to our land
Would be this orb of finest brand,
Three hundred curd they would need squeeze
For to make this mammoth cheese.

So British lands could confederate
Three hundred provinces in one state,
When all in harmony agrees
To be pressed in one like this cheese,
Then one skillful hand could acquire
Power to move British empire.

But various curds must be combined
And each factory their curd must grind,
To blend harmonious in one
This great cheese of mighty span,
And uniform in quality
A glorious reality.

But it will need a powerful press
This cheese queen to caress,
And a large extent of charms
Hoop will encircle in its arms,
And we do not now despair,
But we shall see it at world’s fair.

And view the people all agog, so
Excited o’er it in Chicago,
To seek fresh conquests queen of cheese
She may sail across the seas,
Where she would meet reception grand
From the warm hearts in old England.

– James McIntyre

Read more

Yesterday’s vote in the Senate has taught me that appealing to America’s sense of pride in our land or responsibility to future generations as a means toward discouraging drilling in ANWR is a losing battle. Americans want cheap gas today, even it it means we’ll find ourselves right back where we are 5 years from now. Therefore, it’s time to appeal to the only emotion apparently still capable of motivating Americans to act politically: fear. (Hey, if Bush can constantly use it, who among his supporters can complain?)

Drilling for oil in ANWR will benefit China. China, the emerging economic superpower that’s still run by Communists, will be the real winner if a large amount of oil is extracted from beneath the Arctic soil.

Why? In a word: geography.

Tom Friedman quotes noted energy economist Philip Verleger, who explains:

"Oil in Alaska cannot easily or efficiently be shipped to our Gulf Coast refineries. The logical markets are on the West Coast of the United States and in Asia. Consumers in China and Japan, not the U.S., will be the real beneficiaries of any big Alaska find.

"With a big find, China and Japan will be able to increase imports from a dependable supplier – the U.S. – while consumers in the U.S. will still be at the mercy of unreliable suppliers, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. It is simple geography. [Also], a big find will lead to lower prices in the short term, promoting more emissions and more warming."

Moreover, focusing exclusively on squeezing out a little more supply will only discourage conservation, Mr. Verleger added, setting the stage for higher prices again in three or four years – "when exhausting oil reserves and burgeoning demand from China and India will drive the price of oil to well above $100 a barrel." That will put even more money in the pockets of some of the world’s worst governments.

That’s right. Drilling in ANWR, which is being touted by the administration as necessary to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, will actually do nowhere near as much toward that end as Norton is suggesting. Rather, it will help the nation that’s set to challenge our #1 Superpower position .

Read more

Via just about everybody at this point comes this addressed to Tulsa-based blogger Michael at Bates Line from a local newspaper:

I am writing on behalf of World Publishing Company, publisher of the Tulsa World. We have recently learned that your website, www.Batesline.com, has reproduced (in whole or in part) articles and/or editorials from the Tulsa World newspaper or has inappropriately linked your website to Tulsa World content.

The Tulsa World copyrights its entire newspaper and specifically each of the articles and/or editorials at issue. The reproduction of any articles and/or editorials (in whole or in part) on your website or linking your website to Tulsa World content is without the permission of the Tulsa World and constitutes an intentional infringement of the Tulsa World’s copyright and other rights to the exclusive use and distribution of the copyrighted materials.

Therefore, we hereby demand that you immediately remove any Tulsa World material from your website, to include unauthorized links to our website, and cease and desist from any further use or dissemination of our copyrighted content. If you desire to use (in whole or in part) any of the content of our newspaper, you must first obtain written permission before that use. If you fail to comply with his demand, the Tulsa World will take whatever legal action is necessary to assure compliance, Additionally, we will pursue all other legal remedies, including seeking damages that may have resulted as a result of this infringement.

We look forward to your immediate response and cooperation in this matter. Please acknowledge your compliance by signing below and returning to me.

Sincerely,

(signed)
John R. Bair
Vice-President [sic]
Tulsa World

Apparently, for bloggers, this is going to come up again and again, so it’s probably time to work toward an agreement. But what is the law? Here’s how Fair Use is currently interpreted by the US Copyright Office’s website:

Read more