Totally Psyched!
Posted by
tgirsch
I’m pretty sure, I’ve linked this before, but it’s a brilliant piece of satire. Flame on!
Totally Psyched!
Originalism Is Fun!
Posted by
tgirsch
I’ve been thinking about this more, and I’m thinking that maybe the “legal conservatives” are right on this one. Perhaps the original intent really is the only thing that matters in Constitutional jurisprudence. As a result, I’m forced to concede that any laws banning individuals from owning flintlock rifles and muskets must be found unconstitutional.
UPDATE: Uncle adds in comments:
And they can ban speech on the internet. But if you own your own printing press, go for it.
Yay originalism!
Tgirsch’s Theory of Music Appreciation
Posted by
tgirsch
I have a confession: I don’t “get” Elvis Costello. Kevin, our gracious host, is a huge Elvis Costello fan. This is far from our only difference of opinion when it comes to music. We have almost nothing in common in terms of musical taste. And I think I know why.
I submit that you can divide pretty much all of the music fans in the country into two distinct groups. The first group (of which I am a member) listens first and foremost to the music, while the second group (of which Kevin is a member) listens first and foremost to what the song has to say. Within either group, of course, musical tastes will vary widely, and two people within the same group may still have virtually nothing in common — after all, there’s no accounting for taste, as the old expression goes. But the two groups still hold, I believe. And this is an important distinction. For ease of distinction, I’ll refer to my group as the Bubblegum Pop Team (BPT), and Kevin’s group as the Important Music Team (IMT).
For the Bubblegum Pop Team, music is entertainment, first and foremost. There may or may not be a message to the song, but it doesn’t much matter, because members of the BPT generally have no idea what most of the songs they like are even about, if they’re about anything at all. This is true, by the way, even if they know all the words to the song. Listening to music is a passive activity for them, and as such, they’re not really paying attention to what they’re hearing. This is why BPTs often like music which, if they paid any attention to the message, they’d find abhorrent (which explains Eminem). It’s a simple function of, “Do I like the music? Do I like the singer’s voice? Does this entertain me?” Or, to dust of repressed memories of American Bandstand, “Can I dance to it?” For BPTs, this is what’s important. BPTs are the people who like manufactured pop like Britney Spears, or who (like me) got into the 80’s hair metal thing, or stuff like Outkast, Fergie, or just about any other popular music.
For the Important Music Team, on the other hand, music is a form of expression. As such, the message of a song is important. IMTs are acutely aware of what a song has to say, and that message — coupled with whether or not they agree with that message — will have a profound effect on whether or not they like a particular song. Listening to music is active for IMTs; they’re the type of people who would discard a Van Halen album, because “they have nothing to say” (a phrase I actually once read in a review of a Van Halen album, by the way). IMTs like stuff like Elvis Costello, Rites of Spring, and Tom Waits. IMTs look at BPTs happily bopping around to Semi-Charmed Life and wonder how people can be cheered by a song about a downward spiral into drug addiction. (They’re also likely to take great pleasure in ruining a BPTs mood by telling them that’s what the song is about…)
As a general rule, IMTs and BPTs look at each other with confusion. IMTs look at BPT music and wonder what the redeeming social value is. BPTs look at IMT music and wonder what all the fuss is about, complaining that “the guy can’t sing,” or “it doesn’t have a good beat,” or “why do all the songs have to be so damn depressing?” The truth of the matter is, because of the completely incompatible ways in which the two groups do something as fundamental as listening to music, they’re likely to never understand one another.
That said, the groups are not completely mutually exclusive. From time to time, there are artists that manage to have appeal across both groups. some of which can do so without being accused of “selling out.” Bruce Springsteen and Green Day spring to mind as artists that write “important” music, but which have a broad following even among BPTs. I’m sure if EMTs thought about it for a while, they could come up with some artists or songs they like, despite the fact that they have no coherent message or redeeming social value. But these crossovers are uncommon, and the exception to the rule.
With all that groundwork laid, there’s one more important thing to point out: BPTs far outnumber IMTs, probably by at least one order of magnitude. Don’t believe me? I can give you a single anecdotal example which, for me anyway, is compelling proof: Reagan’s use of Springsteen’s Born In The USA as a campaign song. If even a third of the population consisted of IMTs, there’s no way Reagan gets away with this: the message of the song had nothing at all to do with the message or the mood that Reagan was trying to convey, and IMTs recognized this immediately. They even complained about it at the time. This fell on deaf ears, because most Americans are BPTs, who heard the words “Born In The USA” and an uptempo tune, scratched their guts, held up their PBR beers, and screamed “Whooooo! USA #1!!”
Need another example? How about the cruise line commercials that play Iggy Pop’s Lust For Life? I’m pretty sure heroin addiction isn’t what the cruise line is trying to sell (or, subliminally, maybe it is). Most people (BPTs) hear it, hear the words “Lust For Life” sung to an upbeat tune, and think, “Fun! Adventure!”
Well, that’s my theory. Have fun tearing it to shreds. 
(I should note that there are two other groups, who do not fit neatly into this dichotomy. The first is the Musician Group. Musicians are an odd bird, and they tend to like things that are musically challenging or complex, whether or not they’re any good. This explains why they’re so enamored of the Dave Matthews Band. The other group is the Psychoactive Drug Group. This group is the only way I can explain Pink Floyd, The Doors, and Bob Dylan.)
A Recipe For Eternal Flame
Posted by
tgirsch
Let’s mix a gun control debate with a semantic debate, and see what happens. At issue here: Whether a pro-gun ruling in Heller would recognize a “new” Constitutional right. I’m still slogging through the comments, but so far this one is among the best (after the fold):
Why Clinton Won Texas
Posted by
tgirsch
Because Texas Republicans are afraid of Obama, and voted for her to try to stop him?
“As Republican participation increased, Hillary got more votes,” Mann said. Some of them came from Allison Cavey’s family. “My whole family actually voted for Hillary in the Texas primaries and we are all McCain supporters,” said Cavey, 32, a Dallas resident who works for a medical software company. “We all thought it would be easier to beat Hillary in the fall. Also, we all agreed that if for some reason a Democrat won the election we would be better off with Hillary than Obama… scary thought!”
It’s an interesting hypothesis, but I’m skeptical — it plays into my biases just a little too conveniently. Even though the right-wing AM radio blowhards are actively pushing the strategy, if the exit polls are to be believed, Obama beat Clinton among self-described Republicans by 7 points. I suppose it’s possible that the Republican voters who followed Limbaugh’s marching orders also lied about their party affiliation in the exit polls, but that’s just a wee bit too conspiratorial for me.
Still, it gives us something other than whose pastor said what to chew on over the weekend.
Quote of the Day, 2008-03-14
Posted by
tgirsch
A fine example of IOKIYAR, summed up by TPM commenter EM:
What drives me crazy is how this could have been avoided so easily if Wright was the slightest bit media-savvy. Had he merely controlled his tongue and limited himself to advocating an attack on Iran to encourage massive worldwide Muslim attacks leading to a fulfillment of the biblical prophecy of end-times and bringing about Armageddon and the summary slaughter of every Jew, Muslim, Catholic, and non-believer on the planet while rapturing him and his flock up to heaven, then followed it up by denouncing Catholics as cult members and blaming Hurricane Katrina on gay people, this story wouldn’t be metastasizing like this. One five minute milquetoast repudiation by Obama and it would all be behind him.
But what does Wright do instead? He spews this vile “God damn America” bile. What a psycho.
Double-standard? What double-standard?!
Difference Maker
Posted by
tgirsch
I was unable to watch this without imagining Uncle blustering angrily. That didn’t stop me from laughing my ass off, however:
Meanwhile, in other guns in bars news. Of course, if more people in the bar had been armed, I’m sure the situation would have been much more orderly, and fewer people would have gotten hurt. I mean, it’s just common sense.
Open Obama/Power Thread
Posted by
tgirsch
Not much to say about this flap, other than to direct you to David Corn (H/T: Hilzoy):
The big news today–if you listen to the Hillary Clinton camp–is that Samantha Power, a foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama (and author of the Pulitzer Prize-winning A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide), referred to Clinton as a “monster” in what she believed was an off-the-record remark with a reporter. She did apologize. But the Clintonites, ever on the lookout for an issue (or non-issue) to hype, quickly called on Obama to fire Power.
Non-News Flash: Aides to presidential candidates routinely refer to the competition in harsh terms, particularly when they talk to reporters off the record. More than once, a top Clinton person has told me that s/he believes Obama is a self-righteous fraud–or worse. It was, of course, always off the record. But if I had reported any of these remarks, I could have gotten the pop The Scotsman has received for disclosing Power’s comment.
The Clinton people do deserve chutzpah points for trying to turn this nothing-burger into a full-course feast. During a conference call with reporters yesterday, Clinton’s top spinner, Howard Wolfson, compared Obama and his aides to Kenneth Starr because they dared to question Clinton’s refusal to release her income taxes. (In The Washington Post, Dana Milbank credited me with asking the question that prompted the Ken Starr remark –a quip obviously locked and loaded before the call.) The comparison was ridiculous. But in Democratic circles, there’s not much of a bigger slur than, Hey, you’re Ken Starr! For Democrats, Starr is the functional equivalent of a monster.
So the Clinton crowd does not have the moral high ground in this round.
I figured I’d leave an open thread for discussion. How bad does this hurt, what’s the best response, etc.
Correction
Posted by
tgirsch
Oh, did I say buy a gun? I’m sorry, I meant vote.
Sorry for any confusion this may have caused.
(Kudos to Stormy Dragon and LarryE, who figured out what I was up to.)
UPDATE: Just to be clear, my argument was not intended to be in favor of a gun registry, but rather against laws like Indiana’s voter ID law. No, the analogy isn’t perfect, but many of the same objections apply (e.g., it disproportionately harms the law-abiding; it won’t substantially reduce crime; there’s no evidence that the crime in question is actually widespread; etc.).
Proposed New Law
Posted by
tgirsch
I’d like to propose a new state law. Basically, I think that there are a lot of fraudulent gun purchases being made, and I want to put a stop to it. So here’s what I’m proposing:
- We create a statewide gun purchase registry. Anyone who wishes to buy a gun of any kind must register in advance.
- When a resident wants to buy a gun, they must show a state-issued photo identification.
- Anyone selling a gun must check the purchaser’s photo identification. The name and address on the ID must exactly match the statewide gun registration list. If it does not, the purchase must be refused.
This seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me. Nobody who is legally allowed to buy a gun today would be prevented from buying a gun under this law, and it would prevent fraudulent gun purchases from taking place.
Thoughts?
UPDATE: I’ve issued a correction.
Third Party Redux
Posted by
tgirsch
Let’s try this another way.
Suppose you’re stuck in an all-day meeting with twelve other people. Lunch is going to be brought in, and they’ve offered up four choices: Papa John’s Pizza, Subway Subs, P.F. Chang’s, or Taco Bell.
Papa John’s and Taco Bell aren’t your favorite, but you could live with either one of them. What you really want is P.F. Chang’s — it’s your favorite. And you absolutely despise Subway.
The problem is, they’re going to bring in food for everyone from just one of those places. They’re going to vote by secret ballot, and you only get one vote.
Asking around, you learn that five people are strongly in favor of Papa John’s, and five more are strongly in favor of Subway. The other two are split between Taco Bell and Chang’s.
So in this scenario, what do you do? Do you vote for Chang’s because that’s what you want, even though it has no chance of winning, and even though this increases the likelihood of you having to eat Subway, which you hate? Or do you vote for Papa John’s (effectively voting against Subway), and take a less-than-ideal lunch that you nevertheless don’t mind instead of having to suffer through Subway?
Why Third Parties Can’t Work
Posted by
tgirsch
Duverger’s Law. Via FactCheck.org
How To Attract The Crazies And Start A Flame War In One Easy Lesson
Posted by
tgirsch
“Guns.”
UPDATE: I’ve already said this in comments here, but I think it’s important enough to deserve a front-page mention. I shall rise to the narcissism level of the Gospel of John, and cite myself (with minor updates):
It’s probably a good time to let the record show that I do not favor a repeal of the Second Amendment, and that (at least as liberals go) I’m moderately pro-gun (to the extent that I am a CCW permit holder). So it’s not like I’m some “Brady bunch gun grabber” or whatever the derisive term du jour is.
In truth, I find both of the vocal sides of the gun debate to be incredibly tiresome. The fact that neither side wants to admit is that there’s probably nothing that could have prevented the Omaha attack. The guy took his own life! You really think the possible presence of a packing CCW holder was likely to deter him? Sure, there’s a chance that an armed CCW holder may have shot the attacker before he took all those lives, but I think that chance is an awful lot smaller than most of the rabidly pro-gun folks want to admit. [And the odds that such a person would have inadvertently injured an innocent bystander rather than the shooter are probably higher than the rabidly pro-gun folks want to admit.] At the same time, as has been pointed out by gun rights advocates ad nauseum, it was already illegal for this guy to have the gun in the mall, so it’s [highly unlikely that] any additional legislation would have prevented it [either].
And let’s call a duck a duck: Even if the presence of CCW holders would have reduced the death toll, the anti-gun crowd still wouldn’t support this. Even if additional legislation would substantially reduce the number of gun deaths in this country, the pro-gun crowd still would oppose it. So it’s not like we’re arguing about anything where anyone is even remotely willing to reconsider their position.
So what we’re left with, then, is a bunch of virtual ink spilled, and over what? The idea that my slippery slope can beat up your slippery slope? It’s a tragedy that was almost certainly non-preventable, and attempts — by either side — to coopt it to score cheap political points are, in my view, reprehensible.
Why Reagan’s Race Record Matters
Posted by
tgirsch
And there’s a substantive, non-petty reason why I try to persuade people to see Reagan rather than Saint Reagan – namely, the lionization of Reagan has modern political and policy implications.
Whatever you think of him, it’s pretty undeniable that Reagan’s record has some rather repulsive elements (much like other Presidents). Race particularly stands out, given the systematic hostility that Reagan and his agencies had for civil rights efforts. But there’s also Iran-Contra, and Negroponte’s death squads in Central America, to name a few. That said, Reagan got some things right too. Marginal tax rates, for instance, were too high for some income brackets in 1979.
The point is not that Reagan is irredeemably evil, but that he doesn’t deserve the deification he receives not only from Republicans, but from the public as well. His race record doesn’t discredit his entire administration, but it does mean that we shouldn’t name airports after him.
…snip…
Modern race policy arguably turns on whether federal interventions remain necessary in light of the state-sponsored interventions of the past (which had been around, oh, 350 years or so). To me, the fact that the President of the United States from 1980 to 1988 successfully exploited race – and so actively opposed civil rights initiatives – is itself evidence that we’re not there yet. Indeed, the problem is not solely Reagan, but that Reagan reflected public opinion. If the public thought “welfare queens” and Philadelphia campaigns were ok, then that’s further evidence that we’re not there yet.
The upshot is that a honest appraisal of Reagan’s racial record would inform modern policy debates. But if we lionize him – and whitewash his record by repressing the negative in favor of a “Morning in America” narrative – then we lose sight of that record.
And those that forget the past… continue to employ David Addington and John Negroponte.
[Emphasis in original]
As they say, read the whole thing.
That Crazy Texas Shotgun Guy
Posted by
tgirsch
By now, you’ve probably heard about the guy in Texas who, while on the phone with 911, gunned down two people who were burglarizing his neighbor’s house. If you haven’t, the story (with 911 transcript) is here.
SayUncle complains about the “hysteria” of the “anti-gunners”:
Texas has some of the more lenient defense of property laws but they’re still pretty limiting
…snip…
Why would he think that a law that eliminates the duty to retreat instead justifies killing two burglars that were not an imminent threat to him and were not on his property? Probably because he heard that line repeated over and over by the anti-gunners in press coverage of the bill.
I’m not sure I agree with Uncle here. For one thing, Texas’ defense of property laws don’t seem all that limiting to me. Have a look, specifically at Sections 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43. IANAL, but as I read these, you do have a right to use deadly force against someone to prevent them from committing burglary, even of someone else’s property. 9.42.2B explicitly includes a fleeing suspect as a valid target; coupled with 9.43.1, I think he may actually have a valid defense here. All he has to demonstrate is that he “reasonably believed” the use of deadly force was the only way he could prevent the burglars from getting away with the goods.
Uncle may be right that this has nothing to do with so-called “Castle Doctrine” laws, but that’s still splitting hairs, in my opinion. The bottom line is, I think that most of us (including most pro-gun folks) would agree with Uncle’s assessment that the shooting is “sketchy at best and criminal at worse [sic],” yet it might be perfectly legal in Texas.
And that, to me, is just scary. It strikes me as an open invitation to vigilantism. I’m more pro-gun than most on the left, but this is just ridiculous.
As a side note, if you’re a supporter of gun rights and defense of property laws in general, you should probably hope that the shooter does get some sort of legal punishment. Because if he doesn’t, this will almost certainly galvanize a repeal movement.
$7 Billion A Year for S-CHIP?
Posted by
tgirsch
No, that’s way too much money. Far better to spend six times that amount fighting the eeeeevil Marijuana problem.
A more even-handed look is here.
Rumors of its Demise…
Posted by
tgirsch
…are greatly exaggerated. This article from the Times of London discusses the declining political influence of the American South. I think it’s entirely too optimistic. As much as I wish the 19th-century values of much of the South were on their way to irrelevance, I just don’t see it happening. Not yet, anyway. I won’t be ready to declare Dixie’s demise until a couple of presidential elections are won convincingly without carrying the South. (If only!) Until then, however, I fully expect politicians to continue pandering to a demographic that believes the Civil Rights era was nothing more than the federal government imposing injustice, rather than working to correct it.
A Modest Request
Posted by
tgirsch
I try not to ask too much, but in this case, I can’t stand it anymore, and feel that I must make this request:
Is it at all possible that we could agree to stop referring to the USA as the “Homeland?” Pretty please, with sugar on top? I mean, Jesus-effing-Christ, could we come up with anything that sounds more like a two-bit Communist banana republic if we tried? Of the many things, large and small, that make me hold our president in contempt, his popularization of that term, as trivial as it may seem, is near the top of that list.
That is all.
The View From the Sinister Side of Life
Royalty was like dandelions. No matter how many heads you chopped off, the roots were still there underground, waiting to spring up again.
It seemed to be a chronic disease. It was as if even the most intelligent person had this little blank spot in their heads where someone had written: "Kings. What a good idea." Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was its tendency to bend at the knees.
-- Terry Pratchett, Feet of Clay
Recent
- NHL Conference Finals
- Hillary’s Grand Exit
- Complacency as a Moral Goal
- New Blog Up on Student Activism
- Corruption Hearings
- A Brief Discussion of The June Issue of F & SF
- TennViews RoundUp
- The Stadium Collection
- NHL Second Round - Tgirsch’s Take
- NHL Second Round
- Baby Names
- Missing the Point
Links
Contact Us
Straighter Posts
First Looks
Interesting Blogs
- &c
- Ain't No Bad Dude
- Alex
- Beacon Broadside
- Beyond Corporate
- Body and Soul
- Brad DeLong
- BusyBusyBusy
- Corrente
- Crooked Timber
- Daily Kos
- Demosthenes
- Dissociated Press
- Doc Sears
- Dougal
- Doxagora
- Dubya's Daily Diary
- Eschaton
- Firedog Lake
- Gail Online
- Gamer's Nook
- Get Donkey
- Hullabaloo
- Interesting Times
- Jim Henley
- Kevin Drum
- Lady Green
- Law and Politics
- Liberal Oasis
- Mad Kane
- Mar A. R. Kleiman
- Matt
- Matthew Yglesias
- Max Speaks
- Memeorandum
- Michael Silence
- Mike
- Move Left
- MyDD
- Natan Newman
- Norbizness
- Off the Kuff
- Oh!pinions
- Outside the Text
- Pandagon
- Partisan Witch Hunt
- Politics From the Zeros
- Public Nuisance
- Rittenhouse Review
- Road to Surfdom
- Robert's Ramblings
- Ruminate This
- Says Uncle
- Seeing the Forest
- Shakespeare's Sister
- Sideshow
- Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
- South Knox Bubba
- Talk Left
- Talking Points Memo
- Tbogg
- Terminus
- The Hamster
- The Talking Dog
- Trey Jackson
- UggaBugga
- Unclaimed Territory
- Ungodly Politics
- Wampum
- Whoviating
- WordPress
Literary Blogs
Interesting Sites
Archives
- May 2008 (3)
- April 2008 (37)
- March 2008 (43)
- February 2008 (49)
- January 2008 (57)
- December 2007 (47)
- November 2007 (41)
- October 2007 (33)
- September 2007 (32)
- August 2007 (45)
- July 2007 (40)
- June 2007 (42)
Categories
- General (1973)
- Politics (2762)
- Sports (277)
- NFL (64)
- MLB (45)
- NHL (34)
- Olympics (5)
- College Hoops (6)
- World Cup (5)
- College FB (3)
- Auto Racing (4)
- Legal Issues (452)
- I do too have a life (297)
- Bloggin (364)
- Church & State (233)
- Reviews (42)
- School (31)
- Economics (270)
- Religion (276)
- Environment (93)
- Writing (106)
- Culture (880)
- Science (159)
- Health (151)
- Libertarian Problem Solving (52)
- Iraq (398)
- Privacy (88)
- Weekend Flame Bait (60)
- Terrorism (257)
- Education (61)
- Travel (27)
- Holiday (108)
- Media (229)
- Books (58)
- Evidence of Harm (8)
- Katrina (46)
- Pets (7)
- Doggie Bloggin’ (14)
- Darfur (11)
- Humor (97)
- Satire (154)
- Food & Cooking (17)
- Technology (38)
- News & Current Events (132)
- Iran (22)
- Immigration (7)
- NSA (3)
- Math (4)
- Fiasco (17)
- Torture (36)
- 9/11 Report (1)
- North Korea (1)
- Read Your Bible (5)
- Race (40)
- NBA (1)
- Climate Change (24)
- How Capitalism Will Ruin You (10)
- Blegging (6)
Stats
RSS
Entries RSSComments RSS