And here’s the obligatory Glenn Reynolds attack on me for saying I wanted Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick. Evidently that means I want him assassinated. I mean really, if I said I wanted someone to kill Wayne LaPierre I would have just said it. Why would I mess with metaphor in talking about the NRA? On the other hand, metaphor is really, really hard for conservatives to understand.
Author Page for Erik Loomis
A wannabe David Horowitz has written this about me calling the NRA a terrorist organization on Twitter. It is entitled, “Professor calls for assassination of NRA CEO.”
The only downside is crazy people flooding my e-mail in box during finals week. But so be it.
…..You will all be happy to know that one of these lunatics called the Rhode Island state police accusing me of calling for the assassination of Wayne LaPierre. 2 officers came to the house. I was in a meeting on campus. I now have to meet these police officers at a gas station in the middle. Yes, this sounds a bit suspicious to me too. If this is a trap and I get shot tonight, let it be known that someone had to say these things.
…..Not dead yet. Do have a meeting with the dean tomorrow though. Yay!
The Underlying Text of the Protocol of the Elders of Zion Is Revealed: The NBA Playing Games on Christmas
San Francisco Chronicle sports columnist Bruce Jenkins has uncovered the true Jewish War on Christmas–David Stern saving us all from the hell of spending time with our families by making us watch NBA games.
One of the most distasteful aspects of commissioner David Stern’s legacy – ruining Christmas for far too many people – comes into play again this year with five televised games scheduled. “It used to be two teams,” retired coach Phil Jackson said. “But I don’t think anybody should play on Christmas Day. Your little kids are putting batteries in their new toys, all kinds of family stuff going on, and now you’re supposed to get focused on a game in the middle of the afternoon?”
Jackson is among many observers who point out the obvious: that Stern, who celebrates Hanukkah, has no real feel for Christmas in the first place. “Here’s an idea,” scoffed former Orlando coach Stan Van Gundy, always one of Stern’s most vocal critics. “Let’s play 10 games. Start at midnight on Christmas Eve and play them all through the next day, so there’s not a minute of Christmas when there’s not an NBA game on TV. Because it’s just so great. Christmas is the NBA, to me. It’s what it’s all about.”
Criticisms of David Stern, though certainly not all illegitimate, are often tinged with anti-semitism: the idea that he’s a schemer (the lottery is rigged every year, right?), that he’s greedy (other comissioners don’t fine their personnel for infractions?) or that he’s especially mendacious (because most league commissioners are consistently forthright?)—all of these play into old, negative tropes about Jews, and shouldn’t be the basis for reasoned critiques.
This particular criticism of Stern is not so much “tinged” with anti-semitism as it is basted in anti-semitism, and it breaks down under examination: Thanksgiving may not be a religious holiday, but it’s just as important a gathering for many people, and I’ve never seen anyone claim that the NFL ruined Thanksgiving “for far too many people,” except maybe Lions fans. And let’s not forget the years when Hanukkah, invoked here to mean “David Stern is Jewish,” has actually overlapped with Christmas. Such as last year.
My hatred of David Stern is hard to overestimate. I fully believe he personally intervenes in the league to ensure that the big market teams like the Lakers get calls at the right time to advance in the playoffs (see the 2000 Western Conference Finals that broke my heart against the Blazers) and trades that no one thought were possible to pull off (Gasol, Howard, etc). The league is fixed. Stern has basically destroyed my love for professional basketball, which was my sport bar none until I was about 25.
So there’s plenty to ways to say David Stern sucks without resorting to anti-Semitism.
Plus what the hell else I am supposed to do on Christmas after opening gifts? Now it’s time for 18 hours of chit-chat with the in-laws! Thanks Christians for eliminating unnecessary distractions to this great day!!!!
Can we charge terrorist Wayne LaPierre with some crimes here?
….Also, it was clearly Alabama’s overly restrictive gun control laws that allowed this to happen!
At what point do we start holding the National Rifle Association morally responsible for all these shootings? At what point do we get over our idiotic national love of guns and start acting like grownups in this country?
Talk about your gun rights all you want. People also have a right not be shot in movie theaters and schools. That’s a right far more important than your ability to own an AK-47.
….It seems that up to 27 people are dead. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison. You are goddamn right I am politicizing this tragedy. The NRA is a criminal organization and should be treated as such. Even if it is 1 person dead.
….Below is the gun used in the shootings. A .223 rifle. Can anyone tell me why this gun should be legal?
I’m not saying an interview on Barbara Walters means a whole lot here, but Obama saying he would not go after Washington and Colorado for legalizing marijuana is a good sign. Does this mean he will call off the DEA in those states? Will he allow the states to set up stores? All the details need to be worked out, but it’s at least useful that Obama is talking in these terms.
What does it mean to be a leftist?
Let me start by saying that this is a pretty wankertastic question. Who cares, right? I think a discussion of the merits of various Ray Price albums would lead us closer to a more just society. It’d also be more fun. Also the answer is of course Night Life.
Anyway, you’ll have to indulge me here in a question with which I hate to engage. Nothing has served the left less than cleaving off those who weren’t “left” enough to increasingly ideologically pure and small organizations. I guess the Weather Underground was pretty left all right. And they were 50 people whose major accomplishment was blowing a few of themselves up making a bomb. Great.
But if we were going to define the left, at least in this country, I guess I’d say that it would revolve around something like people who were committed to the eradication of social, political, economic, gender, sexual, and environmental inequality both in the United States and around the world through the use of a variety of means, ranging from an activist government to revolutionary cadres. I don’t know, maybe you’d have a different definition. By all means feel free to argue the point.
Anyway, I would certainly include myself in this definition of the left. I don’t really identify with liberalism per se. Liberals can most definitely be leftists although many are most certainly not. Now, my first rule of life is that no one’s description of themselves should be taken seriously. I think that’s a very good rule to live by. So your opinion about whether I am left or liberal or whatever is a lot more important than my own.
That said, I believe in pretty much the entire range of left-liberal ideas. That includes the entirety of the socialist welfare system of Europe, gay marriage, stringent environmental regulations, access to abortion, etc. I’d argue that I am far to the left of most self-described leftists on organized labor, largely because I think many of them just don’t care or see it is an anachronism. I am opposed to much of U.S. foreign policy. And yes, like most self-identified leftists, I am disgusted by the so-called war on terror, torture, the treatment of Bradley Manning, etc.
Now none of this is particularly notable. But I have other positions as well that would certainly be more controversial and pretty “left” I think. Here’s a list of 10.
1. Make recognition of the state of Israel dependent on moving the boundaries back to the 1967 lines and destroying the settlements.
2. Repeal the 2nd Amendment
3. A constitutional amendment to guarantee employment
4. A constitutional amendment to guarantee collective bargaining
5. Extend the most vigorous provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the entire nation
6. A government ban on the harvesting of most fish with vigorous regulations and punishment provisions for violators
7. An 100% estate tax. You die, the government takes it all.
8. Pricing based upon percentage of income. You go to the gas pump–the price of gas is based upon last year’s income that would be encoded on a card you have to show.
9. U.S. companies can move overseas if they want–but the U.S. minimum wage applies to those workers. Also to contracted suppliers.
10. A constitutional guarantee to terminate a pregnancy, no questions asked.
I don’t really talk about these things much. Why? They are irrelevant. They are so far out of what is possible that why bother. Do they make me more of a leftist? Who cares.
The one area I am less convinced of the so-called leftist position is drones. Or DRONES!!!!!, to paraphrase those who are outraged by them. The only difference I can see between drones and the rest of the immorality of American militarism is that drones kill less people than human-piloted aircraft. I’ve yet to see anyone present a convincing case that drones are MORE immoral than other forms of warfare. They are immoral without a doubt. But the closest thing I’ve seen to a real argument about drones’ special immorality comes down to being like a video game and the fact that the opposition doesn’t have a chance to fight back against American soldiers. The first is a reality of our technological fetishism pervading our entire society, the latter grotesque. Please convince me why I am wrong.
That brings me to the real point here: Freddie deBoer.
de Boer’s comment to Scott’s post caused me to choke up my morning ice water (I don’t drink coffee, it’s gross):
6. This blog once attacked publications like Slate and TNR for being reflexively antileft, and pressured Democrats from the left on issues like foreign policy and espionage. It is now reflexively antileft itself, and pressures liberals from the right on issues like foreign policy and espionage. It’s to the point where you’re concern trolling Bradley Manning’s torture, despite the fact that the UN torture chief found that Manning had been tortured.
Freddie defines the left as holding his own precise position on the issue that he has chosen as the moral issue of the day. Moreover, he defines the left as supporting what he wants in precisely the same method he chooses–namely not voting for Democrats in elections if they don’t follow his line of policy. Freddie has decided that torture and drones–not labor rights, not abortion rights, not the climate–is the single moral issue of our time. If you agree with him and his tactics for dealing with it, you are on the left. If you don’t, if you see nuance, if you see other issues as of equal or greater moral weight, you are excluded from his left. Therefore, because some of us here at LGM fall into the latter category and defend our position against third party flirtations and Obamaney foolishness, we are “antileft.”
Now, Corey Robin is right enough that de Boer provided some evidence for Scott’s question. It’s extremely weak evidence–Alan Dershowitz? Bill Clinton? Really? That’s as good as you can do? But he absolutely did not provide any evidence for his claim that “No, I think liberals want to be forced to support torture. What liberals want is ultimately to do what conservative hawks want to do, but only after experts and leaders assure them that they have no choice. They want extreme events to make the choice for them.” Do I count as one of these liberals? Do I want to be forced to support torture? Does Farley? Lemieux? Who precisely are these people, at least among the liberal writers on the blogosphere? Have any of us ever provided the slightest bit of evidence to this point?
I ask because Freddie is basically saying these things about LGM, the anti-left blog. He holds LGM up as everything that is wrong with the Democratic Party and liberal blogosphere. This is a blog that evidently thinks of Obama (or Bill Clinton) as a “liberal crush object.” And of course:
This is the most elementary, most important point of all: there is no internal pressure for Democrats to reform, precisely because of people like Tbogg and the crew at LGM. Defenders of Obama lay down lines you can’t cross in every direction, shrinking the bounds of the responsible or the fair or the mature or the realistic or the pragmatic or the strategic… And then you look up and there is nothing for you to do. You become Paul Begala or you are a traitor. What would Tbogg tell me to do, if he actually stopped building a monument to his own sarcasm and cleverness, if he stepped outside of his meticulously curated temple of snark and flippancy, and if he actually considered the question of what to do if you want America to stop killing children? He’d say to grow up. He has no other arrow in his quiver.
By the way, I still haven’t received my check from the Democratic National Committee for all the power I used to keep the left in line during the election. Do you people have my address? Tbogg, have you heard anything?
Back in November, Freddie said that I was going to have an interesting 2013 since I was just a pro-drone Obot Democratic Party hack who would never demand anything for my vote. What this obviously showed is that Freddie had never read a single word I had written before the post he was responding to, which was me saying essentially that Matt Stoller was a self-promoting posturing idiot, a point to which I assume we can all agree. But notice what Freddie was doing here in defining the left as precisely what he cared about to the exclusion of all else:
There are a few people out there who both associate themselves with liberalism (or progressivism, if you prefer the weasel term) and who assert the actual legitimacy and morality of the drone program. To them, well, vaya con dios. We aren’t likely to be able to talk about much of value. But most people on the broad left are defending Obama in spite of the drone program, insisting that you must (and almost all of them say we must) vote for Obama even though they disagree with this drone program. Yes, the drone program is a terrible mistake. But still, you must vote for Obama. Before the election is not the time. The years to come will be the right time. Congressional elections will be the right time. Not now, but later. Wait. Bide your time.
Well Freddie, I actually am going to have an interesting 2013. That’s because we are going to see higher taxes on the rich. We are going to see some kind of filibuster reform. We are almost certainly going to see substantive immigration reform. We might see a move toward voting standards. We might see the end of Republican hostage-taking over the debt limit. We might see a few other things as well.
That’s not leftist policy. Obama naming Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense is stupid. His labor policy is tepid. His public lands policy is non-existent. His agricultural policy is terrible. His drone policy is awful. His education policy is abysmal. But on all but the last, he’s still better than the alternative in American political life in 2012. This plus the real positive changes that do happen make people’s lives better. And it’s certainly going to be better than Freddie’s preferred alternative. 10% of Americans voting for Jill Stein would have moved the agenda to the left precisely how? How has this strategy worked through American history? How has change actually happened in American history? What is the relationship between the left and change in American history? What tactics have worked and what have not worked? As my readers know, studying these issues is the point of most of my academic and non-academic writing.
So this discussion of what’s left or antileft or whatnot is pretty pointless except that it’s insulting to be accused of such a thing in such an absurd manner. As Scott said to Freddie,
This assumes that you are to my left; I believe there is no actual basis for this assumption, since I don’t believe that a willingness to endorse transparently counterproductive tactics is a litmus test for one’s leftist commitment. It is precisely your belief that you are the Last True Lefist bravely pointing out heretics that seems to be the source of the silly generalizations under discussion here.
If the definition of left is being exclusionary of issues outside of the one you choose to emphasize, then I guess de Boer is to Scott’s left. In the real world, I don’t see any evidence of it at all. I certainly don’t question Freddie’s qualifications as being a person on the left. But then, what difference does it really make if he is or not? Or if I am or not? Nada. Not to real people’s lives.
I will tell you one thing though–no left I am a part of uses the kind of sexist language de Boer throws around. Not to mention his, uh, rather questionable writings about himself as a feminist in the past. See here for awesomeness. “Man up?” Christ Freddie, is left politics a contest about penis size? If so, count me out. For any number of reasons.
I’ve been remiss in not talking about the Michigan right to work disaster. Part of it is that it’s so bloody depressing, part is that I’m really focusing on my book and thus have reduced some of the political writing. That said, my basic thought on the matter is that organized labor failed pretty massively in Michigan. It put its eggs into the ballot measure basket that would have enshrined collective bargaining in the state constitution. That failed miserably, but it was a good idea. The problem here is that labor operates too much like a political get out of the vote machine these days. That means that it can move people on election day but there’s a hangover in the aftermath. Michigan Republicans clearly took advantage of this and labor was caught completely flat-footed. Why anyone believed Rick Snyder when he said he wouldn’t pursue right to work is beyond me. Labor shouldn’t believe Democratic politicians but it sure should NEVER trust a Republican. The reality is that the United Auto Workers is simply not set up for mass mobilization and long-term campaigns in 2012. That structure was taken apart long ago, starting even back in the Reuther days and the UAW simply has not found a way back to the mass mobilizations that made it great.
Supposedly the UAW is going to make Michigan Republicans pay in 2014. Well maybe. But labor does not win through playing politics as its primary tool. Will it force a future Democratic governor to sign a law repealing right to work? I liked the ballot measure because it’s so rare for labor to play offense in the 21st century, but it’s dismal failure was not promising for the future.
….Also, in a good entry for a black comedy contest, one Republican legislator tried to make an exemption in the right to work bill to include correctional officers. Why? Her husband is a correctional officer.
This is an interesting, if somewhat older, discussion of the Chinese architect Ma Yansong and his so-called “organic architecture.” The piece focuses on his so-called “Marilyn Monroe” building in Mississagua, Ontario.
Reading about this drove home a few points about architecture to this somewhat educated person (though by no means any kind of expert) on the subject.
First, buildings like this are a nice counterweight to the boring box apartment tower that dominates in the early 21st century. This is as true in China as in soulless North American developments.
Second, I am skeptical of grand architectural theory, even when articulated by someone as seemingly innocuous as Ma. I neglected to comment on Oscar Niemeyer’s passing last week, but his design of Brasilia is contemptible as a place for human beings. Nothing reeks of the worst of high modernism as the complete disinterest by architects in the needs of people in their buildings. The too-common phenomenon of people-free architectural models in the pre-building process is a sign of how pervasive this is within architecture. Probably the most architecturally important building with which I have an intimate familiarity is the Rem Koolhaas designed Seattle Public Library. It’s pretty cool in many ways. It does a lot of things well. It also shows some shocking disregard for how people use space, ranging from an odd lack of bathrooms to the fact that following the stacks to the end puts you in the middle of nowhere, so much so that staff have taped signs to walls leading you to the exit from that point. So grand architectural ideas make me, well, worried.
Seattle Public Library
Third, even the best of this kind of architectural thought shows major problems within the planning of human settlements. Ma I think rightfully centers ideas of nature in his buildings. But you know what would be better than buildings that simulate nature? Nature. Take this:
The human relationship to nature is one of Ma’s fixations; lately, he has been particularly interested in traditional Chinese gardens, which harness nature to spiritual ends. “You can imagine one person sitting in a pavilion looking out to the pond and listening to music,” he says. “Real nature and artificial nature all mix together to create this scene. Those trees, rocks and pavilions are what you see, but what you feel is what’s special.”
These days, of course, traditional gardens are overrun by tourists, so Ma wants to incorporate that feeling of spiritual connection to nature into modern buildings. He has already done this in Fake Hills, a vast seaside residential complex in Beihai, Guangxi. Originally, the developer wanted a box-standard collection of towers, but Ma realized this would prevent many apartments from having a sea view, so he transformed the entire project into an long, thin mountain range, whose peaks and valleys create space for large garden terraces and whose shape allows each apartment to face the ocean.
Fake Hills indeed. Traditional gardens would probably be less overrun if China mandated the construction of gardens and parks within its cities.
I know it’s not within the mandate of capitalism and the profit motive (and for the love of god please no one promote the fiction that China is not capitalist) to create living spaces that promote the traditional spaces between houses that provide much needed tiny green spaces. But Fake Hills is nothing more than fake hills. It’s cool and harmless. But actual trees and such would be a lot cooler. To be fair, it does look the one photo of the model in the article at least includes trees on top of the building, which is something.
This isn’t to take anything away from Ma’s buildings, which seem important, popular, and refreshing. But it is a worthy entry point into discussing some of the issues with high-end architecture.