Subscribe via RSS Feed

Casting Couch

[ 43 ] October 8, 2014 |

One of my favorite games to play with my mom (as an adult) was Casting Couch. Much less exciting than it sounds, it was basically just my mom and I recasting classic movies with modern casts.

Well, it appears Paul Feig is looking to make several of my dreams come true at the same time, as he is rebooting “Ghostbusters”…with a female cast. I am giddy.

So, what do you say? Wanna play Casting Couch? Who should be in the new “Ghostbusters?”

Share with Sociable

Thanks. Also, Music

[ 16 ] October 8, 2014 |

It’s a bit difficult to come back to active blogging after the fundraising campaign for my stolen computers and–far, far worse–the lost documents for my book. At least I had submitted the thing already so even if I have significant revisions, it’s not like I have to start the whole project over. But still, it’s basically the worst thing ever. It’s also the 5th certifiable catastrophe to happen to me since I moved to Rhode Island, which is just bizarre. Luckily none of those things have resulted in injury.

I confess that I wasn’t very comfortable with being the center of a fundraising campaign. I am after all pretty Protestant about my relations with the rest of the world and while I totally support fundraising for others, for myself, it’s hard. So I do very much appreciate the donations. Basically, it will allow me to buy a new computer–a machine that will never be in the same place as my office computer so that the same calamity can never happen again–and some adaptators, the purchase of cloud space, etc. I know some people who don’t use Paypal were interested in an address and you can send it to my work address here. I think that’s enough about all of that except to say that your generosity in helping me out of a horrible situation is greatly appreciated and won’t be forgotten anytime soon. Anything additional would be used to get me back to the West for those sources. And you are all too nice to me. OK, enough of beating this dead horse.

Anyway, now that my life is starting to reorder itself a bit, I should be able to get back to blogging more or less at my regular pace (although I do have a conference most of next week). To start that process and connect it to my perils, I found this piece about too much music interesting because I’ve been feeling that myself lately. I didn’t know it would be possible to have too much music and I guess it isn’t. But because I had so much music (and so much lost although not all of it because I never got rid of my old CDs + stuff on the itunes cloud + some favorites I had burned onto a CD to play in my car) I realized I was struggling to connect to most of it. There was the occasional thing that broke through–Wussy, Frank Ocean, Mary Halvorson, Mates of State, realizing after many years of not hearing them how amazing L7 was–but mostly I’d listen to something a few times and then it would fade into the background. This isn’t so good. Over the past week, with my far more limited available music, I’ve actually been enjoying it more because it’s all stuff I love.

That doesn’t mean I’m not actively seeking to reconstruct my collection. But I think this is a good time to really edit the heck out of it. My policy in the past was to basically keep everything I ever acquired unless I really hated it. But do I really need the Frank Zappa live tracks I picked up 20 years ago in college? No, most of them aren’t very good. I’ll keep a few that I still like. Or all the mediocrities I took flyers on over the years? Probably not. Or even the discs upon discs of Appalachian music from the 20s with all the poor recording quality that implies, even though I actually like that stuff. On the other hand, I might take the opportunity to really invest in more jazz albums from the 40s-mid 60s. I’ve been into avant-garde jazz since I started listening to the genre, often to the expense of the earlier periods.

And in any case, actually listening to the 100 or so albums I most love over and over again, is actually a really good thing to do.

Share with Sociable

Against Devolution

[ 94 ] October 8, 2014 |
Some 2004 nostalgia for you today.

Some 2004 nostalgia for you today.

One of the earliest blog posts I ever wrote was a response to (not entirely serious) calls from the left that the blue states should secede and join Canada after the 2004 election when George W. Bush was (narrowly) re-elected. You may or may not remember the then-ubiquitous maps of the “United States of Health Care and Education” vs. “Jesusland,” but at the time they represented a real fear that the blue states were permanently in the minority, out of touch with “real America,” and just as “un-American” as right-wing culture warriors have always claimed. The idea was that, by removing the Blue States from a permanently Republican America, we’d now be able to pass universal health care and all the other liberal reforms supposedly impossible in the nation as a whole. Then 2006 and 2008 happened, and this theme dropped out of American political discourse for the most part.

It’s come up again in the wake of the Scottish referendum, where I was puzzled by more than a few in the left in both the U.S and the U.K being in favor of devolution, not only for Scotland, but also for the North of England and other English regions (notably Jon Cruddas, head of Labour’s policy review, is incredibly bullish on devolution to cities and regions). At the same time, the New Scientist recently came out with an article cheerfully proclaiming the death of the nation-state and an escalation of devolution to local “neo-feudalism” complemented with some form of international “networks.” Supposedly this is good for the left, because nationalism = racism.

In this post, I intend to make the case that devolution is a terrible idea for the left.

Read more…

Share with Sociable

Is the Supreme Court Refusing to Grant Cert in The Same-Sex Marriage Cases Like Dred Scott? (SPOILER: No.)

[ 81 ] October 8, 2014 |

Matthew Franck offers many reasons for his comparison.  You will be surprised to learn that they are all terrible. Let’s start:

Like Dred Scott, judicial decisions in favor of same-sex marriage needlessly divide the country on an important moral issue about which people differ, and could otherwise debate their differences in the democratic process, on the pretext that there is a genuine constitutional issue in the cases.

Same-sex marriage will an issue that “will divide the country,” at least in the short term, whether the Court intervenes or not. (A Supreme Court ruling that bans on same-sex marriage are constitutional would also be divisive.) Also note that this proves too much, as one could say the same thing about Brown v. Board. Judicial review is a part of the American democratic process, and the same-sex marriage cases present a genuine constitutional issue.

Like Dred Scott, such decisions rest on transparently fallacious legal reasoning with no connection to the Constitution’s words, historic meaning, or underlying principles.

This is absurd, but we’ll return to this in a second.

Like Dred Scott, these decisions rely, in part, on the conflation of the due process clause with a constitutionally ungrounded and so far unexplained power of the judiciary to decide what is “arbitrary” or “reasonable” or “just” in legislation, known by the laughable oxymoron “substantive due process.”

On a minor point, while substantive due process might sound like an oxymoron, it is in fact deeply embedded within American constitutionalism. (Note that McLean, dissenting in Dred Scott, accepted the premise that people had a 5th Amendment right to take their property into the territories; he dissented from the holding that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because “a slave is not property beyond the operation of the local law which makes him such.”) This doesn’t make it inherently correct, but the idea that the concept of “due process of law” guaranteed more than fair procedures was not an opportunistic invention of the slave power (although the application of the principle by the slave power was certainly opportunistic.)

But this argument is misleading in a much more important sense. It’s true that, because of the Windsor holding, the circuit court rulings that state bans on same-sex marriage generally did cite the due process clause. But Windsor was a due process case because of reverse incorporation — that is, the well-settled holding that the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment binds the federal government through the due process clause of the 5th Amendment just was the due process clause makes most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. It is much more accurate, although inconvenient for Franck’s silly Dred Scott analogy, to describe these cases as equal protection cases, not substantive due process cases.

At this point, the absurdity of Franck’s assertion that the circuit court holdings have “no connection to the Constitution’s words” becomes readily apparent. If a state classification that excludes a group of persons who have historically been subject to invidious discrimination has “no connection” to the explicit constitutional requirement that states shall not deny anyone the “equal protection of the laws,” it’s not clear what content the equal protection clause is supposed to have.

Like Dred Scott, decisions for same-sex marriage rely on a false anthropology that drives a political decision made by judges. In Dred Scott it was the false idea that some human beings can own other human beings, and that a democratic people cannot say otherwise. In the same-sex marriage rulings it is the false idea that men can marry men, and women can marry women, and that democratic peoples cannot say otherwise.

This is obviously offensive for the reasons explained in the original Millhiser post. In addition, Franck’s assertion that same-sex marriage is a “false idea” will be useful to those who need an example of what “begging the question” means.

Skipping some pure gibberish about how the decisions will impair the ability of people to do something called “living the truth” about same-sex marriage (that apparently goes beyond merely being free to choose not to marry a same-sex partner and to state your views that same-sex marriages are morally objectionable), we get this:

Like Dred Scott, same-sex marriage rulings, for all the reasons above, amount to a comprehensive threat to republican government, raising the question Lincoln asked in his First Inaugural Address, whether the American people are entitled to govern themselves, or must surrender to government by an “eminent tribunal” of judicial despots.

Republican government, as it exists in the United States, permits legislative enactments to be reviewed by the judiciary. One can fairly argue about whether this is a good thing, but it is not obviously inconsistent with democratic government. And, of course, Franck does not believe this either; after all, he “agree[d] with the dissenters” in NFIB v. Sebelius, making him by his own lights an enemy of democracy and the contemporary equivalent of Roger Taney.

If Franck wants a recent decision that actually uses Dred Scott‘s constitutional reasoning (as opposed to being like Dred Scott because every exercise of judicial review one doesn’t like is like Dred Scott), I have one for him

Share with Sociable


[ 76 ] October 8, 2014 |

For all the abuse Yost got for the wildcard game, what Matt Williams did tonight was indeed far worse. In fairness, nobody could have predicted that a managerial protege of Kirk Gibson would turn out to be shaky.

And now we have a Giants/Cardinals NLCS, which for neutral observers must be by far the most dreary matchup. Well, you can take the Expos out of Montreal but…

Share with Sociable

It’s Like, How Much More Ron Fournier Could This Be?

[ 53 ] October 7, 2014 |

We will never reach peak High Broderism:

Bipartisanship is here…if you want it! Should we get two houses of Republican overlords in January, their failure to cooperate with the White House will be because of Barack Obama’s failure to lead, with leadership. One day we will get a president truly willing to Bully Pulpit the Overton Window Under the Bus.


Share with Sociable

This Has Been Straightforward Answers To Idiotic Questions

[ 313 ] October 7, 2014 |

Via Jeb, a HOT TAKE from Tim Teeman:

But my most immediate thought was: Why take pictures of yourselves having sex, or naked, in the first place, which you then choose to share electronically? In doing those things, haven’t you already compromised your privacy long before a pervy hacker has figured out a way to get their grubby mitts on your pictures?


Being naked in your home does not constitute consent for people outside your home to look at you. Storing nude pictures on a home computer or password protected cloud does not constitute consent for other people to look at them. Appearing in revealing clothing onstage does not constitute consent for people to look at you offstage. Walking around on the street with a wallet does not constitute consent for someone to take your money. The fact that the last point is not in dispute but the first three are might just have something to do with the gender makeup of the typical targets, doncha think?

If there’s anything worse than a transparently dumb argument, it’s a transparently dumb argument that Ann Althouse already made nearly a decade ago.

consent, how does it work?

Share with Sociable

An LGM podcast: SEK and Arturo Garcia discuss the Doctor Who episode “Listen”

[ 14 ] October 7, 2014 |


This podcast is a bit of experiment in format, production, and distribution, as was necessitated by the death of the computer that had all the LGM podcast templates on it.*

If all goes well, at the bottom of this post there will be a podcast, and if you’re subscribed to the podcasts via iTunes, there will be one there too.

As for its content — as you well know, I’m a fan of Doctor Who, as is my Raw Story colleague Arturo, and we were talking the other day and thought, “You know what? Our conversations might could make a fine podcast.” So we’re trying it out.

Arturo is also the editor of Racialicious, and this podcast is basically a live-action version of the kind of conversations we have anyway. If there’s interest, we’ll do more of these. If there isn’t, you’ll merely have hurt our feelings and we’ll resent you forever. On that note:


*They are in the process of being rebuilt, but it’s slow-going because once things work, I tend to forget how I got them to.  Also, Steve and I have two more Game of Thrones podcasts in the can — or sort of in the can, as I have to reconstruct them — and are planning on covering the second season before the next one starts.

Share with Sociable

“Things Are Going To Hell Faster Than When That Son-of-a-bitch Roosevelt Was In Charge.”

[ 96 ] October 7, 2014 |

Syndicated columnist William F. George is very excited about a Republican hack about to be trounced in a Senate election. Why? His exciting old ideas:

Because Bell speaks incessantly about the dangers of fiat money and the wisdom of the gold standard, some people dismiss him as a one-issue candidate whose issue is an anachronism. He calls this “chronological snobbery”: The gold standard is a bad idea because it is an old idea and because the economics profession opposes it. Besides, his supposed single issue (actually, he has many) is the declining value of money, which affects everything.

His audiences, he says, are not just disgusted by today’s feeble economy, they are puzzled by it. So he explains that Wall Street “has been having a party” paid for by near-zero interest rates, which have had their intended effect of driving liquidity into stocks in search of higher yields, a bonanza for the 10 percent of Americans who own 80 percent of the directly owned stocks. This “wealth effect” is supposed to prompt spending and investing that will trickle down to the 90 percent. Meanwhile, near-zero interest rates punish savers.

Bell wants to alert the nation before the government again has to pay 4 percent interest on its borrowing, thereby adding, he estimates, $400 billion to the deficit. He is running because “something substantive ought to be offered before the 2016 cycle.”

Shorter Jeff Bell: “After a period of extended unemployment, government policy should make unemployment worse while punishing debtors. We therefore need interest rates to go up before interest rates go up — it’s totally going to happen any year now — and add to the deficit. GOLD!!!!!!!!! I am not a crackpot.”

Kramer: “Hmm! Oh! Yeah. I’ll tell you who is an attractive man; George Will.”

Jerry: “Really!”

Kramer: “Yeah! He has clean looks, scrubbed and shampooed and….”

Elaine: “He’s smart….”

Kramer: “No, no I don’t find him all that bright.”

Share with Sociable

The Internet Is Real

[ 39 ] October 7, 2014 |

If you’re going to be in the LA area, please try to check out the art installation “A Woman’s Room Online” by Skepchick and artist, Amy Roth.  It’s a project that tries to put a tangible face on the abuse and harassment that women–especially prominent feminists–face online.

Too often women are told that the internet is “not real,” but it is real. As Greta Christina explains here, not only is it real, it’s where many of us–for all intents and purposes–live our lives. Saying that internet harassment is too ethereal and fleeting to count is bonkers. To women who are deluged with ugliness, it certainly does not feel light and ethereal, it feels suffocating and oppressive. I’m glad Ms. Roth  found a way to make something both beautiful and awful with that feeling.

In funnier news, please get your Social Justice Warrior buttons here. I still call “Social Justice Warlord.”

Share with Sociable

Come around tomorrow and I’ll take you again

[ 179 ] October 6, 2014 |

Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me. They possess and enjoy early, and it does something to them, makes them soft, where we are hard, cynical where we are trustful, in a way that, unless you were born rich, it is very difficult to understand.

– F. Scott Fitzgerald, “The Rich Boy” (1926)

There’s a rich tradition in American culture of celebrating wealth and the possibility of achieving it. This tradition is built upon something of a paradox: the belief that, on the one hand, rich people deserve their economic and social status because they have always had the rare personal qualities that led to their acquisition of wealth uncountable, and on the other, that you — the purchaser of this book, or lecture series, or self-improvement DVDs etc. — can now acquire these rare personal qualities, through sheer discipline and effort (and with the help of a few, very reasonably priced, authorial tips).

The whole power of positive thinking racket is based on ignoring the latent tension between these beliefs. The Gospel of Prosperity, The Millionaire Next Door, The Secret — it’s all the same grift in the end, and yet we the people never seem to tire of it. Consider this delightful specimen of the genre from Steve Siebold, author of, among other works, Problems in Kierkegaard and How Rich People Think.

The truth is successful people are confident because they repeatedly bet on themselves and are rarely disappointed. Even when they fail, they’re confident in their ability to learn from the loss and come back stronger and richer than ever.

This is not arrogance, but self-assuredness in its finest form.The wealthy have an elevated and fearless consciousness that keeps them moving toward what they want, as opposed to moving away from what they don’t want. This often doubles or triples their net worth quickly because of the new efficiency in their thinking. Eventually they begin to believe they can accomplish anything, and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. As they move from success to success, they create a psychological tidal wave of momentum that gets stronger every day, catapulting their confidence to a level so high it is often interpreted as arrogance.

The ideological function of this sort of hokum is fairly clear. What’s less clear, perhaps, is what continues to make it so attractive, in a culture in which the increasingly vast differences in life circumstances between people born into different classes ought to make the concept of some sort of pseudo-Darwinian meritocracy increasingly implausible.

Share with Sociable

Deciding to Let Others Decide on SSM

[ 73 ] October 6, 2014 |

If you choose not to decide, a Canadian philosopher once observed, you still have made a choice. When it comes to the Supreme Court and same-sex marriage, it’s at least a second-best-case scenario.

…Lithwick is right on what the Court should have done.

Share with Sociable
Page 50 of 1,928« First...1020304849505152607080...Last »