LarryM Asks a Good Question
In a comment on my rant re: right-wing tribalism, LarryM added:
There are many, many people on the cultural right who want to marginalize me & people like me as much as I want to marginalize them. You aren’t one of those people, but you make common cause with them on a daily basis. Do you worry about that sometimes? If not, why not?
I’ll try to give you an honest answer, which is hard because honesty will require an elliptical answer.
As I often mention — and I know it’s pretty tiresome — most of the people in my life are politically left-of-center, most are social liberals, and lot of them set out to lead lives informed by postmaterialist convictions, which you might call bohemian. I definitely fall into that last camp, at least when it comes to my unfulfilled aspirations, and I really do think that a certain kind of ambition and status consciousness can be poisonous. These categories I’ve identified don’t always overlap. I know a few “crunchy cons” who fall in that last category, for example, and I actually think that is a pretty coherent, comfortable place to be. I wouldn’t quite put myself in the crunchy camp — I’m too much of a modernist and, frankly, too much of an instinctive cosmopolitan to be a distributist — but I’m sympathetic to it, and to the effort to see society and the economy as a seamless whole. Because this is my milieu, I encounter a lot of people on its fringes who are intolerant snobs, unreflective simpletons, and miscellaneous jerks: I think this is true of any of us. A decent share of the people we encounter on a daily basis will be bozos. It so happens that I encounter far more lefty bozos than righty bozos, which I have to assume wouldn’t be the case if I didn’t live and grow up where I do/did.
Right. So what about the conservatives that I know? Well, the conservatives I know are far more the most part really self-questioning, thoughtful people. The conservatives I know who care about Iraq, who consider it their key issue so to speak, are generally people who’ve spent a lot of time there and have made some sacrifices — really serious ones, in the case of people in the armed forces and in NGOS; less serious ones in the case of people who’ve, say, chosen work in public service in lieu of far more lucrative work in some other field — and when I disagree with them, I find myself challenged by them. I take them very seriously. I’ll stress that this group includes hawks and doves, to oversimplify, but the balance is definitely in favor of hawks.
On social issues, the conservatives I know are generally people like me — people who like and respect the social liberals in their lives, and have reached considered judgments on these issues, out of religious conviction sometimes but usually out of empirical research or philosophical reflection. I think of myself as “a social conservative,” but I think it’s pretty obvious that I’m a decidedly unconventional social conservative. My convictions on these issues are motivated most of all by an instinct for mitigating the cruelty we direct against other people. So of course I react badly against homophobia and other forms of bigotry and prejudice. I just don’t think of, for example, opponents of abortion as bigots or as people who want to control women’s bodies — I think of them as people who believe that the fight against abortion is about treating all human lives equally. Frankly, I am a very unphilosophical person, and I think of myself as “pragmatic” on the issue of abortion, e.g., some number of abortions is probably ineradicable, yet I also find the argument from women’s autonomy to have a lot of weight. That’s why I favor an abortion regime more like what you see in western Europe (a democratic patchwork that is somewhat more restrictive) than what you see in the United States (something else).
But I struggle with this stuff. We impose a logic and a narrative on events and experience that defy simple characterization. My political self-understanding is that my mother’s experiences — as a brilliant woman who married young and sacrificed a great deal, probably too much, for her family because she grew up in a patriarchal society — informs my worldview. My mother also had a much younger brother, my uncle, who was born with Down’s syndrome, and I remember being held by him as a kid and his various idiosyncrasies.
Why didn’t I end up an ardent liberal? Well, I think of the tensions and complications in any family, and the tendencies I think of as good and constructive vs. those that I don’t. This is all hard to explain. I’m culturally conservative for the same reasons I support equal rights and dignity for lesbians and gays: it reflects my limited experience of the world. I doubt this answer will satisfy anyone.
Anyway, I also sense that lots of devout religious believers — I’m not one of them — are really interested in pursuing their projects and ways of life free of outside interference. I understand parents who want to shield their children from disorder, including social disorder and the misogyny and materialism that some sense in commercial culture. I don’t identify with them, but I have sympathy for them, and I buy this idea that we need conservative experiments in living just as much as liberal experiments in living to preserve and encourage what is best in our society.
A thoughtful and, in many respects, satisfying answer.
But I don’t think it fully explains your (incomplete, but still evident) attachment to the current GOP, which, whatever its virtues, has nothing at all in common with the kind of tolerant social conservatism that you preach.
Now I suspect that I know PART of the answer – you’re doing what you can do change the GOP. But in the meantime … well, I have my reservations about Obama also, but your enthusiasm for Palin, and … somewhat reluctant backing of McCain … don’t seem to me to square much with your narrative.
— LarryM · Sep 4, 09:28 PM · #
Thoughtful yes, but with respect I would disagree that it was satisfying. I grew up as a leftist in Texas, and thus my experience was in many ways the mirror image of Reihan’s. Most of the conservatives I knew were decent and well-meaning people even when we disagreed – and disagree we often did – but since most of the people I knew in total were conservatives, the snobs and jerks and simpletons also hailed from that category. Meanwhile, all the liberals I knew, just like the conservatives Reihan knows, were remarkably admirable to the last man. I think the reason is obvious: when your political ideology goes against the grain of your community, you more or less have to be thoughtful, intelligent and classy.
But these personal narratives, however valuable they are, have a very limited usefulness when it comes to how we as citizens should act in the political realm. The question in that arena is, where does the political power lie and in what direction is it pushing the country? Speaking for myself, I consider it an objective truth that in the American electorate as a whole, the conservative jerks and bozos far outnumber their liberal counterparts, and also wield substantially greater electoral clout. (Liberals enjoy more elite cultural exposure, but at the end of the day that doesn’t count for much.)
— Jeff S · Sep 4, 10:13 PM · #
Reihan,
Good response. The part about meeting bozos and snobs is what got me. I’m sure you must have met liberals like me, who grew up in rural towns in purple/red states and lived the mirror experience of yours. Only I could leave and go to New York. With your career, you can’t just move to Iowa or Georgia or a small town in Michigan. (Where I grew up and don’t tell me it’s a blue state. It’s blue/purple in total, but with some very red dots and splotches.) Plus, I know you don’t want to and you enjoy the boho/cosmo experience. We have that in common.
On an emotional, gut level, the anti-elitism chorus of the GOP is what makes me turn off so quickly. I worked my tail off to get into an Eastern school. I loved having conversations about art, history and politics. I loved the diversity of the city. I loved the idea of being able to go to a play any night of the week if I wanted to. (Hell, we didn’t get a movie theater in my hometown until the early 90s.)
So when the GOP slams the culture I came to and praises a culture that I know more about than Rudy or Mitt, I feel a little angry. Maybe more than a little angry. What was all the hard work for if all the “better” Americans stayed put? What do they even know about small town America, other than what studies tell them and campaign visits? (You sure as spit can’t put on a dress and walk down any street of my hometown, Mr. Mayor.) It goes both ways, you know. Liberal elites on the coasts look down on fly-over country but conservative elites on the coasts look up to it. And both are idiots. There’s pluses and minuses to both and the country needs both to survive.
Well, reading the above, I’m not sure conservatives on the coast actually look up to it. I’m sorry, but I have to believe that a lot of this is about the election and not genuine affinity. Maybe you and Ross and the like do have genuine affinity. But if I could trade places with you and grow up in Brooklyn or Massachusetts, I’d do it in a heart beat. But I don’t think you really would have liked growing up where I did. You may have come out with totally different political views and you would certainly know that there are as many right-wing “bozos” as there are on the left.
Emily
— e · Sep 4, 10:26 PM · #
Part of the problem is that since the 1960’s Democrats have been playing defense on almost every front. The court-sponsored and election-supported consensus liberals believed to exist from 1954 or so until 1965 disappeared in the late ’60s, and the left hasn’t been able to recover from being knocked down. So, being serious about your ideas doesn’t pay off, because you don’t win election with your ideas. Conservatives, on the other hand, win elections, at least at the presidential level, and thus have plenty of time to think seriously about issues afterward. It’s hard to disassociate any political program from the politics that allowed you to get there.
I believe that the election process, particularly at the presidential level, puts Democrats at a fundamental disadvantage from the start, and they aren’t able to recover from it. For example, a Republican can win the nomination for the president AND get elected without ever setting foot in any of the top 20 major metropolitan areas in this country (excepting perhaps Miami and Tampa Bay), where 110 million people live. Democrats, on the other hand, have to spend their time in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada, only one of which (Nevada) is at all representative of the demographic and socio-economic changes that are happening in this country. Now, it’s probably good that Democrats have to talk to people who don’t normally make up their base (and in this year, Obama was able to turn Iowa into a blue state), but it’s still a much harder path for them than Republicans.
On top of that, the electoral college stacks the deck against Democrats, who aren’t able to use their popularity in the top 20 metro areas in order to get elected, because almost all of these places are in red or blue states. If we had a true national election, city folks, who represent roughly half of the country’s population, wouldn’t be so frustrated when it comes to the presidential election, and probably wouldn’t have the same venom for people in low population, overrepresented states like Alaska.
I think our politics will be poisoned as long as the electoral college is in place, because it has served to divide us, now and in the past, in ways that aren’t representative of how we live our lives. In 2000, I fully expected us to scrap the electoral college in time for the next election. Now it seems off the table forever. I hope the next Congress will reconsider it, as it would really be good for all of us.
— Martin Johnson · Sep 4, 10:48 PM · #
The electoral college is one of the great acheivements of the founders. Men who knew how important it was for everyone to have equal representation regardless of the population of their state. Your argument is an example of the provincial snobbery that so many who live in urban areas possess. What about the Republicans living in Colorado, Washington, Illinois and California who have no say in state matters because their votes are overwhelmed by the liberal nature of the major cities within the states.
— Bfinlay · Sep 4, 11:01 PM · #
There are many, many people on the cultural right who want to marginalize me & people like me as much as I want to marginalize them. You aren’t one of those people, but you make common cause with them on a daily basis. Do you worry about that sometimes? If not, why not?
I live in Chattanooga, which is politically conservative, culturally Southern, and very very polite. It’s a young city, where enlightened and primitive behaviors intermingle with great regularity (I fall in the middle somewhere). Last weekend I went camping in the mountains with some of the reddest rednecks you can imagine, the kind who make crude jokes about every out-group they happen to be thinking about, especially Blacks and Mexicans. The week before that I got drunk with the offensive line of the Locomotion, Chattanooga’s woman’s football team, at a very popular gay and lesbian bar, The Big Chill. And the week before that I was lucky enough to be invited to a hippie jam session at some dude’s house on the river, where, with equal ease, bongs were smoked and religious righters were flamed. Meanwhile, when I’m not sampling from the margins, I’m hanging out with Junior League ladies and yuppie guys.
What’s the take-away from all this? For some reason, no matter who you’re with, joking about strippers blowing coke into your ear with a straw goes over much better in Chattanooga than in Huntsville, AL.
— JA · Sep 4, 11:09 PM · #
Maybe because you live in cities and hang out with left-liberal people, you seem more liberal jerks. Becuause you over sample them. I can assure you that there are plenty of conservative jerks out in the country.
Beyond that, who cares if random man on the street people are jerks if the policy is right. I mena, if you really care about policy then the policy should rule, not impressions of personality.
— cw · Sep 5, 01:47 AM · #
DFinlay: No, abolishing the electoral college is about reflecting ‘one person, one vote’ effectively. Shouldn’t the full value of a person’s vote be reflected, whether you are in a densely or sparsely populated state? Right now, people in lesser populated states are actually proportionally getting more than one vote. I don’t think demanding that we change this is “provincial snobbery”.
— dpabreja · Sep 5, 09:59 AM · #
Oops – Bfinlay, apologies for mangling your user name.
— dpabreja · Sep 5, 10:00 AM · #
dpabreja, besides the “quarantines ballot disputes argument I have a sentimental attachment to the eleectoral college because of the way it reflects Federalism. If I recall correctly Andrew Jackson (in my opinon: a barbarian) tried at one point to assert that his authority was much grater than Congress’ because he was an elected tribune of all the people — sort of in the way you describe — as opposed to being elected by piecemeal selection as they were. He was then of course completely shredded on successive days by the great speakers of the day (again — and recollection is hazy — I think they gave Calhoun first bite at the apple. Maybe thepseech is out there somewhere). So I find it deeply pleasing that the election of the President is somehow constrained to look like the distribution of the Congress. At a time when the Prsident seems so heedless of the other branches, that really seems to me to matter. Although I concede it might be empty symbolism to most people._
— Sanjay · Sep 5, 01:23 PM · #
Shorter ReihanSalam: I don’t know any right-wing jerks, so therefore none exist.
ShorterIkram: I hate Bobo blue-state conservatives. There’s a special place in Hell reserved for David Brooks and his coterie of useful idiots.
(The longer version is NSFW).
— Ikram · Sep 5, 01:47 PM · #
Am I the only one who thinks LarryM’s question — and Reihan’s answer — are fundamentally wrong in their assumptions? I mean, all those people really only want to marginalize LarryM in the sense that I really want to bang the actress from The Illusionist — yeah, wow, that sounds like it’d be super totally awesome and I’m completely down with it, but I’m not really working hard on the plans.
The political just isn’t so dominant. The day after Barack Obama’s speech I went to a dinner party and I was really burning to get my neighbors’ opinions — on how to winter my Sarracenias. I just moved to this climate and I’m not sure. Everyone discussed their gardens. At some point in the evening the election came up. We also talked about the schools reopening a lot. That’s normal. If I spend near as much time reading politics in a week as I do listening to music or futzing with my piano/guitars, I’d consider myself unwell. If I spend near as much time with music as I do with my wife and kids, I’m definitely unwell. Said wife is a lot more conservative than I. I can’t think of a way it has ever affected our relationship.
I’m not saying this stuff doesn’t matter or have huge implications for the context my “real” life takes place in or even that all those nice, go-their-own way people out there aren’t making decisions that lead ultimately to marginalizing LarryM. I’m just saying it’s not something they’re burning to do unless you really press them on it, and frankly if LarryM on the other hand is thinking hard about marginalizing Them, as the question implies — my sympathies are with Them, man, They might be able to keep the goddamn aphids off my tomatoes next year. I also accept that this is super fun for some people and that Reihan, say, probably gets together in kinda fun parties where people talk politics in the same way when I get together with certain people we have titanic arguments over science, and with other people we talk music, or whatever. But here’s a tip: for MOST people in MOST situations if you talk a lot about, or think a lot about, politics, people secretly find you a bore. Mulch is really more cool.
That’s reflected in what we do. I’ve organized a couple issue-related public gatherings and done a little campaign work (and, now that I have small children, won’t doit anytime soon). That seems as far as I can tell to make me much more politically involved than most people: I have in relative terms some cred. But in absolute terms it just doesn’t seem like a hell of a lot, really: a few weeks here and there where this stuff was eating a lot of my time, maybe a thing or two where I had some money and reputation staked to something. I’ve spent much more of my life playing my banjo. And I’m not very serious about my banjo.
Anyway: the point is, I think people are surprisingly tolerant and most of them are pretty decent and it doesn’t occur to me usually for a while what their politics might be. Which is not to say I don’t think it’s weird that Reihan seems to self-identify as a Republican, but to be honest I don’t really get political parties and why people feel the need to belong in one, and I genuinely don’t understand why people like golf either, and in both cases as far as I can tell I’m in the minority.
— Sanjay · Sep 5, 01:48 PM · #
I loved this post. But I have to agree with the first commenter in that I understand less now why you would support Mccain/Palin because of it.
— Jeff Pollner · Sep 5, 02:40 PM · #
Sanjay makes some good points. Rather than deploy a long response, where I quibble with some specific points, let me just summarize my biggest objection:
I think in normal times he would be (mostly) correct. I don’t think that these are normal times – I think that the sorry state of the current GOP, while not unprecedented, is particularly damaging to the body politic (not to mention the rest of the world), and worthy of a large amount of outrage. And it is just the apolitical attitude that Sanjay discusses (combined with the successful deployment of cultural politics) that allows it to continue.
Personally, when not confronted with particularly egregious examples of cultural politics (and, at the end of the day, it’s the GOP more than the Dems that deploy same), the only people who I REALLY want to marginalize are the people who want to continue the United State’s current hegemonic role in the world. Sadly, though, it’s people like myself, who would like us to return to the vision of America’s role in the world so well articulated in Washington’s farewell address, who are marginalized.
As you might imagine from the sentiments expressed in the preceding paragraph, I am none to enchanted with the Dems either. So however strong my feelings are on these issues, they are not “partisan” in the strictest meaning of the word.
It does bother me that social conservatives, wildly unsuccessful as they have been in enacting most of their agenda, have (in practice) served as useful tools in electing the most egregious supporters of the national security state. That’s somewhat ironic, as many social conservatives have serious reservations regarding torture, aggressive warfare, etc. Yet they put such objections aside for … what? Empty talk and no action about the issues that they really care about.
Others may point out that SOME social conservatives are enthusiastic boosters of the worst excesses of our foriegn policy, but this digression has gone on too long as it is.
— LarryM · Sep 5, 03:52 PM · #
I totally agree that there are very, very big issues afoot. A friend of mine who did a lot of work with the Reagan admin — a hardcore conservative — was by my office yesterday talking about current abuses of Presidential power and saying, “I don’t think people realize how close they’ve come to losing the Republic.” I think he’s right. But here’s the thing, LarryM: I think that that very point, the cruciality of it, makes what I said more true not less, and failing to appreciate that is both what makes the political tone so incredibly shrill and what causes movements with good bases to fail so spectacularly.
First let’s argue that that’s observationally true in my limited experience. I’ve spent most of my adult life in Berkeley and Cambridge, two places where people wear their political opnions very much on their sleeves very vocally and yet probably the two places in the country where the people are least affected by a lot of those national policies because of the activism of local government (I’m not saying those aren’t complex communities and buying into a Republican canard: I’m saying they’re not likely to change a lot as Federal laws change). Now I live in read, real red state territory and as it turns out almost all my neighbors are public servants just becuase of where I live, and everyone here feels changes in Federal policy pretty hard: slight alterations can have remarkable effects on home life and time. People move a lot, too, so there’s a lot of change. Now, I know most everyone on my street well — meaning: I know their kids, I know their living rooms, I know how they like their coffee.
And yet, I don’t know a single one of their political affiliations (OK, I can make the statistical guess — Republican, conservative — and probably be 80% right. But it’s just a guess).
I had this brilliant teacher once, Charles Maier, and I remember him getting philosophical about war art. He talked about how in World War One, when the soldiers were dying horribly far away, the rhetoric in England was hyperbolically overheated, the art was grim and depicted the Evil Hun, it was not done to perform Beethoven or Liszt publicly, and everyone talked so much about their deep solidarity with the fighters. In WWII, when the populace was being directly bombed and you didn’t have to “prove” your feelings — not so much. More lighthearted art and speech, and it’s OK to put on the Mozart.
That has proven over 20 years to be one of the profound insights of my life and I see it a lot today both in how we treat soldiers — and in the political sphere in general. Those who know what they’re talking about — are relaxed, ready. Those who don’t — are shrieking, and angry, and quick to take offense and throw around labels about who’s liberal and who’s conservative and so on. I might be naive but I believe that. Passion is often — not always, but often — the mark of distance from the issue.
— Sanjay · Sep 5, 04:31 PM · #
In brief, I don’t think that’s the way the world works.
But then, I’ll be the first to admit that shrillness probably won’t work either. I suppose that’s one reason I am so profoundly pessimistic about the future of our country.
— LarryM · Sep 5, 04:39 PM · #
I mean, look at Reihan. Calm, reasonable, good hearted. And who is he supporting this election? From my perspective, further decent into hell. Why? Again in my opinion, desperate wishful thinking about the McCain/Palin ticket which ignores the reality that they are not only more of the same, but much worse. Ultimately Reihan is part of the problem.
So where does calm deliberation and good faith get us?
— LarryM · Sep 5, 05:11 PM · #
I think for 2012 we need a third party to emerge and run strictly on a “Defending the Constitution” platform. It would be formed explicitly with the goal of reaching out to both liberals and conservatives who are aghast at the steady erosion of Constitutional rights. To that end, the party wouldn’t have a policy platform beyond strict measures of Constitutional restoration. The point wouldn’t be to win, of course, but to represent enough people and to siphon enough attention away from both parties that they are forced to put the issue of privacy rights and individual rights back into their public appeals.
— Freddie · Sep 5, 05:15 PM · #
Cheer up, Larry. In toto, we’re a lot less shrill than we used to be. We have less corruption, less brittleness, less vulnerability than ever before. We also have more freedoms than any other generation, and, regarding the freedoms we have in common, ours are less contingent and better protected. We’ve entered a new phase in jurisprudence where the power of Congress is slowly being rolled back to its proper boundaries, and we’ve finally entered an era where Executive powers are being articulated and constrained (seriously — if you don’t believe me, take a course in Constitutional Law; Art. II stuff lasts about three days because there’s very little interpretative history to study; in my Con Law textbook, Executive issues go from pg. 1051 – 1105). Plus, the new big thing in Judicial philosophy is minimalism: in scope of holdings, be only as broad as necessary, and as narrow as possible.
It’s not all roses, of course. The push toward a publicly transparent society — transparency when plugged into the “network” — presents a whole host of serious problems and difficult choices. Internal and external disruptions from globalization present even more. Our schools (largely) suck, we have a nation-wide and -deep problem with debt, and our media tends to amplify the worst of our pre-reflective tendencies as primates.
Worrisome, yes, but definitely not worth the Chicken Little routine.
Also, Washington gave that speech when our nation was weak, beholden and in danger of being torn apart by the machinations of the two great empires. It was a classic “third way” doctrine, which we saw once again in the Cold War in places like Tito’s Yugoslavia. There’s nothing sacred about staying weak and detached. Like being the strongest guy in school, hegemony is bad only when erstwhile and potential allies start forming adverse coalitions.
— JA · Sep 5, 05:19 PM · #
Freddie, the “Defending the Constitution” idea would require that people agree on what the “restored” constitutional rights should look like. In my experience you can rarely find any two people who agree on that issue, let alone a whole movement of people holding opposing political philosophies.
More to the point, I don’t think it would be much of a platform – rights erosions simply haven’t been all that profound in my view. But I’d love to see your expanded take on the issue – perhaps a blog post waiting to be written?
— Alex · Sep 5, 05:40 PM · #
. . . aghast at the steady erosion of Constitutional rights.
I’d love to know which rights you’re referring to, Freddie. How about a list — some short examples of what you are talking about when you use the words “steady”, “erosion” and “Constitutional rights.”
I can think of only two “inarguables”:
1. 5th via 14th takings “erosion” — Kelo vs. New London, a 5-4 opinion penned by Stephens and joined by Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer, though it was a small erosion since it simply restated the law in Midkiff and expounded on a fact-based test for “independent, legitimate, and genuine” government purpose. Of course, I tend to agree with O’Connor’s dissent.
2. political speech — Campaign Finance Reform, courtesy of you know who; and, secondly, grumblings about “fairness doctrine.”
Of course, there are several arguable erosions (nude dancing is no longer protected, for instance; there is a gray area around foreign unlawful enemy combatant). Also “Expectation of privacy” — recently “discovered” in the subtext of the Constitution — is still adjusting to the information age, etc.
But then you have all the outright expansions of liberties and protections. Griswold, Roe, Casey; O’Connor v. Donaldson; Brown v. Board of Education, Loving, Jones; Lopez and Gonzales.
Boumediene extended Constitution-based habeas jurisdiction to foreign detainees; Heller cemented an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense; Boy Scouts v. Dale upheld right of expressive association; Rosenberger struck down university funding discrimination toward religious groups; City of Hialeah upheld right to sacrifice animals; Reno v. ACLU struck down Communications Decency Act; Texas v. Johnson protects flag-burning; Lawrence decriminalizes all consensual sexual acts done in private, etc. etc.
Seriously, which rights are you talking about?
— JA · Sep 5, 06:37 PM · #
JA American citizens have been disappeared and held without trial or charge for years. The American government is extraditing prisoners to foreign countries to be tortured without due process of law or applicable extradition treaties. Americans are having their telephone conversations monitored by their government without warrants. Legal, peaceful protesters are being arrested without proper cause.
— Freddie · Sep 6, 12:14 AM · #
That has proven over 20 years to be one of the profound insights of my life and I see it a lot today both in how we treat soldiers — and in the political sphere in general. Those who know what they’re talking about — are relaxed, ready. Those who don’t — are shrieking, and angry, and quick to take offense and throw around labels about who’s liberal and who’s conservative and so on. I might be naive but I believe that. Passion is often — not always, but often — the mark of distance from the issue.
I tried to make another post that I’m not sure made it, but something else occurs to me. It’s exactly that distance that pisses off a lot of people, including some soldiers. People are over there fighting and dying. We’re just over here consuming products like nothing is happening. Worrying about aphids or whatever. When people are killing and being killed in your name, could you at least pretend to give a damn? I know it’s boring, but, come on.
That’s part of why war opponents are never “relaxed, ready” during any war—and why that reasoning will end up leading you to support basically every war.
— Consumatopia · Sep 6, 05:16 AM · #
Freddie, really? American citizens? For years?
I tend to use comparison to judge these things, a “the standard is not perfection; it’s the alternative” approach. From that standpoint, our government’s reaction to 9/11 — an extraordinary political crisis — has itself been extraordinary. Just not in the way you mean. In fact, it was “extraordinary” in the exact opposite sense: it was unbelievably restrained (look at Britain).
To be fair, I think a lot of that has to do with your political conspecifics, especially those who react to perceived encroachment with loud and numerous volleys of vehemence (sorry, couldn’t stop myself). Their overly sensitive radar has its uses, and this is surely one of them.
But that’s just it. To say Americans have suffered a “steady erosion of Constitutional rights” is, at best, an intemperate way of expressing worry. That’s because it’s provably true that American citizens enjoy more liberty — both positive and negative — than any other people, including Americans of yesteryear, ever have before.
So, I get your point about rendition, and I agree our government should be shamed into stopping this practice. But these aren’t citizens. Nor are they captured on American land (though right after 9/11, iirc, some non-citizens on American soil were detained for extended periods — a bad thing since fixed).
On the wire-tapping, the issue is much narrower than you say. For purely domestic calls, a warrant is still required. This is true for most foreign calls as well (though the standard you have to meet for the warrant is low, low, low). And should there be wire-tapping done outside the law, under the exclusionary rule none of the evidence gathered would be admissible in court. This still allows Hoover-type shenanigans, but we’ve always had to worry about that — and now, with our cultural attention and informational awareness making shenanigans riskier, far less than ever before.
On protesters being arrested, at least they’re not being shot, mauled and firehosed. If you’re point is, this is bad, I’m with you. But since you used the terms “steady” and “erosion”, terms of comparison, I have to say you are dead wrong.
— JA · Sep 6, 02:56 PM · #
2. political speech — Campaign Finance Reform, courtesy of you know who; and, secondly, grumblings about “fairness doctrine.”
I agree the latter is definitely inarguable. The airwaves are owned by the public, not by the broadcasters, and therefore radio and television broadcasts are, essentially, government communications. Regulating them is like a school board deciding which textbook to buy.
The fairness doctrine is a bad idea, but it’s obviously constitutional. Auctioning off the radio/tv part of the spectrum would be a better idea.
— Consumatopia · Sep 6, 03:18 PM · #
From that standpoint, our government’s reaction to 9/11 — an extraordinary political crisis
Certainly not relative to other threats our country has faced, especially since the reactions to the other crises tended to be explicitly temporary in scope, whereas now its all about the “long war”.
If you’re looking for intemperate over-reaction, it wasn’t in Freddie’s post, it was in our policy. Especially considering that our decision to invade Iraq has caused both America and the world much more harm than 9/11. (We learned a hard lesson on 9/11, but we’ve learned harder ones since then. Or at least we should have.) It’s the people who support the current war and ask for crazy new imaginary Article II powers that have taken leave of proportion.
Just not in the way you mean. In fact, it was “extraordinary” in the exact opposite sense: it was unbelievably restrained (look at Britain).
The contrast with Britain is telling. Sure, they’ve got CCTV all over London and I guess they’re getting a national ID card. But the Tory candidate is currently complaining that 42 days detention without trial is too long.
The two nations are both too large and complex for generalizations, but perhaps Britain has been more willing to sacrifice rights like privacy, while America has been more willing to sacrifice the rule of law.
On paper we may have more rights, but somehow the people named in SCOTUS cases over indefinite detention tend to stay in detention or end up extradited. Rights are worth nothing without oversight, and it’s here where there really is a steady erosion—Congress, whichever party runs it, is less interested than ever in curtailing these abuses. I’m not going to spend much time arguing this last point since most people in the argument accept it as a point of fact—that Congress is uninterested in taking responsibility for the actions of the executive. It’s just that Unitary Executive fans see that as a good thing.
To talk about what’s happening in terms of Supreme Court cases misses what’s happening—there’s a five to four majority that’s reserving the right to restrain the executive at a future date, but they don’t seem interested in actually doing so any time soon. And the other four—which are basically one McCain victory from becoming five or six—think any restraints on the executive are deeply offensive.
But even this obscures real problem. I think on this stuff Andrew Bacevich is entirely correct—we have a fossil fuel economy that requires us to have troops out there dominating foreign lands. This requires not only war, but the concentration of power in a single agent. Which is why, as you sunnily point out, legislative and judicial power is on the wane. But not executive power—war requires hierarchy, not deliberation, compromise, and consent. And I also think Bacevich and other apparent Obamacons are right that while McCain may be worse Obama is still deeply problematic in these areas.
But these aren’t citizens. Nor are they captured on American land
Some of them were citizens, some of them were on American land, some were both. I’m not sure any of them are still in Guantanamo, but that’s kind of the point—nobody’s really sure of anything. Even Bush pretends not to know when “bad apples” get up to funny business. But the administration’s lawyers have certainly been persistent in saying they have a right to do this to American citizens in America, and judging by their writing four SC justices may agree.
— Consumatopia · Sep 6, 04:00 PM · #
Especially considering that our decision to invade Iraq has caused both America and the world much more harm than 9/11.
The decision to invade Iraq had some gross costs, mostly to America’s (and W’s) short-term image. My unprovable suspicion is that, since we won/are winning the war, it will end up in the green, for America and the world. Bush will be the scapegoat, to carry off all our sins to the political wilderness. What he leaves behind, besides great examples of what not to do as President, is a more perfect world — yet another example of God, kids, drunks, and the United States of America. I doubt you’ll agree, though.
On the harm of 9/11, one of the implications of “symbolic utility” is the idea of “symbolic cost”. I think, given the immediacy of live TV and our media-saturated lives, and given the simplicity of the scheme and the tech-enabled potential of modern Army of Davids, 9/11 was one of the most symbolically harmful events to ever happen. It was the kind of political and collective-psychological crisis that happens once in lifetime.
Given that, you’d expect an equal and opposite reaction. That isn’t what you got.
I think on this stuff Andrew Bacevich is entirely correct—we have a fossil fuel economy that requires us to have troops out there dominating foreign lands. This requires not only war, but the concentration of power in a single agent.
If that’s what it requires, then that’s what we should be doing. The economy is a vital national interest.
But I disagree with the premise. Our interest is larger than fossil fuels; if it wasn’t, we’d just take it.
Our primary interests are prosperity and stability; to achieve that, we need minimum international consensus regarding objectives, voluntary elections across the board of a baseline ethic and system of values, and, above this, a minimally-agreeable distribution of power and agency in the pursuit of more selfish interests.
Also, I really don’t think Executive power is waxing as much as you say. Sure, it’s up since its nadir after Nixon; that’s to be expected. However, in the past the Executive has been far stronger than it is now.
Some of them were citizens, some of them were on American land, some were both.
If it happens to be true that American citizens are being disappeared, I will be very alarmed. Can you point me in the right direction?
— JA · Sep 6, 05:47 PM · #
Consumatopia, you prove my point. I have a lot — a lot — of soldier friends. My wife does a lot of volunteer work to help brain-injured soldiers (she is something of an expert in this area). Our guests last Thanksgiving were women with deployed husbands (one of whom is now helping me with my aphids). Our guests this Thanksgiving will be different women with deployed husbands. It’s not a charity or patriotic thing, it’s, these people are our friends and they and their kids have nowhere else to go, so I haul my vegetarian ass outside and grill a turkey. Given that I live near so many soldiers, these long deployments affect my life a lot. They really affect the temperament and safety of the children with whom my daughter plays. They affect the safety and security of my neighborhood and the welfare and family integrity of my friends. I’ve been on Skype with a few deployed soldiers, I will be again in the next couple weeks, and the weeks after that. I’ve been to a couple military ceremonies for deceased soldiers lately and been awed how powerful the tradition of the unanswered roll call is.
How many soldiers do you know? How many uniforms have you seen lately? Have you heard the first sergeant call the dead three times looking for an answer?
But that doesn’t stop you bitching me out with
Worrying about aphids or whatever. When people are killing and being killed in your name, could you at least pretend to give a damn? I know it’s boring, but, come on.
Get real. This is exactly my point: the overwrought response is a sure sign that somebody has little or no skin in the game. And the next time you think you’re going to take a moral stand on who does and who doesn’t give a crap about fighting men: go enlist, or shut the hell up.
Damn. My hummingbird feeder’s empty. We have one that visits every five minutes — you should see her chase off intruders. Makes my heart sing.
— Sanjay · Sep 6, 06:02 PM · #
JA, I think there’s some dishonesty in your answer but you and Freddie are way, way away from the post topic. Let’s wait until one of the ‘Sceners goes there, then pounce.
— Sanjay · Sep 6, 06:06 PM · #
there’s some dishonesty in your answer
What a tease; however, I think you mean “inaccuracy” rather than “dishonesty”.
And another lesson on blog-ethics!
— JA · Sep 6, 06:28 PM · #
I don’t mean to be a prude, JA. It’s just that my point was illustrated well. Anyone wants to go deciding on a blog that somebody is a closet fascist or commie or baby-killer or troop-hater, go for it, benedicte, dude. Just don’t go saying I didn’t warn you you’re making an ass of yourself like Consumatopia did.
— Sanjay · Sep 6, 07:48 PM · #
Reihan you are correct about one thing…..it is tribalism all the way down.
but the left side and the right side are the inverse map to the bellcurve.
its not a culture gap, its an IQ gap.
religion is selfesteem for the 40percent, the people that will never understand quantum mechanics or evolutionary biology.
— matoko_chan · Sep 7, 12:59 AM · #
This comment removed by gracious request of the commenter.
— Consumatopia · Sep 7, 04:27 AM · #
This comment removed by gracious request of the commenter.
— Consumatopia · Sep 7, 04:33 AM · #
Dang. My angry, resentful posts make it through just fine, but my more reasonable ones get lost. Which seems like the exact opposite of the intension of required-preview-before-submit feature. So much for “choice architecture”.
Last night after I calmed down, I realized that Sanjay was right I had made an ass of myself. Sanjay, I apologize. I was an ass, and I wish I could take back my last two posts.
I still find the distance between the American consumer and the American soldier to be a vast collective shame, and I still object that enlistment is the wrong response to this distance. But I was completely and absolutely wrong to suggest Sanjay personally played any part in this collective shame.
And I also think Sanjay’s proposed heuristic of ignoring the people who you think are “overwrought” would lead a typical person to ignore some of history’s most insightful voices. But I probably should have made that point by just linking to this comic strip
There’s no excuse for what I said and I probably shouldn’t be posting here, and I wouldn’t blame you for ignoring everything else I ever say. Just don’t be like me:
Part of the reason I get so angry is because I’m deeply ashamed that I dismissed the “shrill” people before the war. The anger those people displayed was counter-productive—it only made it more likely for wavering Bush voters like myself in 2002 stop thinking and retreat to our respective sides. Those people were unreasonable and self-undermining—just like me yesterday.
But they were also correct about the war. And I think there’s a lot of similar situations throughout American history. The annoying people weren’t always correct, but the people who were correct tended to be annoying.
— Consumatopia · Sep 7, 01:42 PM · #
Consumatopia: that’s big of you. Not meant sarcastically. Let me clarify that I don’t think people who are strident are necessarily wrong or even distant, and certainly aren’t to be ignored! I’m just saying that stridency is also a proxy for lack of connection to events, and that lack of connection is so common, that statisticlaly shrillness = lack of real concern/information. Look at your example — Thoreau: the quiet, calm voice. His civil disobedience was the ultimate in simple self-action, no large scale screaming. Of course there’s a time for outrage. And there’s stuff that just pisses us off — I find the suggestion that the soldiers I’m surrounded by are displaying a lack of concern for the troops when mostly they want to talk sports, really offensive (and again, I admire your climbing off of it).
Now, coming back to LarryM’s question, and your initial response to me, which illustrates the answer. What I’d initially said to LarryM really was, people can associate across party or ideological lines because, really, those lines are for most people an almost negligible part of their public and private personae. That’s really a banal, obvious statement.
You responded dropping the nuclear weapon there: how dare you not be discussing/thinking about politics when peple are killing and being killed? Which is obviously a goofy queston. Show me somebody who seriously hasn’t spent alomst all of his time since Septeber 11 thinking about banal everyday stuff, and I’ll show you somebody certifiable. Seriously, is someone so worried about the soldiers that he covers his TV in black during the Olympics, doesn’t read novels, stops fucking? And that’s where LarryM’s confusion comes in. The political rhetoric is take-no-prisoners. The reality is entirely something else. The question, and to some extent Reihan’s answer, aren’t grounded in reality.
— Sanjay · Sep 7, 02:38 PM · #
His civil disobedience was the ultimate in simple self-action, no large scale screaming.
I think at this point I don’t have the credibility required to continue the larger conversation, and you make some really good points. I think you should make more explicit distance between your position and the keep-shopping-or-the-terrorists-win school of 9/11 response.
But I’m just going to ay that while I agree that the Thoreau’s lower case civil disobedience was exactly as you describe, the rhetoric of his famed essay Civil Disobedience is far more strident than anything I said here, so in that sense I think it illustrates both our points.
— Consumatopia · Sep 7, 02:49 PM · #
Anyone wants to go deciding on a blog that somebody is a closet fascist or commie or baby-killer or troop-hater, go for it, benedicte, dude.
I’m genuinely confused by this. Was this supposed to be directed at me?
— JA · Sep 7, 03:42 PM · #
@JA. No. I mean, yes, in that I was telling you my position, but, no, in that I don’t you have done any of the above. That I know of. Here.
— Sanjay · Sep 7, 04:51 PM · #
A very important corrective though on the moral utility of enlistment. I hear Consumatopia’s argument about soldiers from my fellow Berkeley liberals a lot. It’s dumb. Prisoner abuse came to light through the courageous action of junior officers and has been fought tirelessly through the occasionally self-career-destroying actions of junior military and other foreign service personnel. (heh — not running to church with wife, can correct my typos). Remember that military jury that just whacked down the administration in the Hamdan verdict? The JAGs that revealed some of the incredibly biased natures of the tribunals to the public and fought to make them more just? There is substantial moral utility to enlisting right now.
That’s because officers do not uphold policy. They uphold the law, and that law may be under assault. If you loathe the policy it is thoroughly foolish to make a conclusion about the morality of their service from it. And if you believe in that law, in the moral vision it can potentially support: support those officers. Bemoan that more people who think like you — well, think like you, and are fleeing rather than joining their ranks. Those military are fighting entrenched interests and jeopardizing their futures, sometimes their lives, to do so. They have been in this conflict, as in many before, great heroes of the republic.
— Sanjay · Sep 7, 05:05 PM · #
Prisoner abuse came to light through the courageous action of junior officers and has been fought tirelessly through the occasionally self-career-destroying actions of junior military and other foreign service personnel. (heh — not running to church with wife, can correct my typos). Remember that military jury that just whacked down the administration in the Hamdan verdict? The JAGs that revealed some of the incredibly biased natures of the tribunals to the public and fought to make them more just?
This part is all true, and it’s something I remind people of when they accuse the media of exaggerating the abuse of prisoners—it wasn’t the media that uncovered these stories, it was soldiers and intelligence officers who saw that what was happening was wrong.
So, I’m familiar with this argument. What you’re missing, though, is that I and many others think this war is not only being illegally fought, but is itself deeply immoral even if, in some sense, legal. Those officers uphold the law, and the law upholds the policy. For me to enlist would be to take an oath to do something I find deeply immoral.
If you loathe the policy it is thoroughly foolish to make a conclusion about the morality of their service from it.
I didn’t make this sufficiently clear. I didn’t make a conclusion about the morality of their service from it, but I am making a conclusion about my enlistment. My enlistment would be taking an oath to do something that I find deeply immoral even if not illegal—it would become illegal for me to not do the immoral thing. That would be an immoral oath for me to take.
I don’t think the military is the source of the problem. Honestly, although they sure aren’t helping, I don’t think even our government’s civilian leadership is the source. The source of the problem is the civilian consumer economy—it’s our greed, stubbornness, indifference, and paranoia that drives our law and policy in imperial directions. The symptoms are over there. But the pathogen is over here. So I’m staying here.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone claim that the problem with our foreign/military policy is that the particular people who are wearing the uniforms happen to be immoral people, and if you replaced them with war protesters everything would be peachy. (I’m fairly confident that things would get worse.) But that’s the only premise from which “enlist or shut up”, the “chicken dove” argument, makes sense.
— Consumatopia · Sep 7, 06:38 PM · #
Also, even from the point of view of strict legality, I don’t think this strategy of mass enlistment would work. For one thing, I don’t think greatest lawbreakers are the ones in uniform—the White House, Veep’s office, CIA, and who-knows-who-else seem interested in crossing as many Rubicons as they can possibly find just as a matter of principle. If those wearing uniforms aren’t crazy enough for our civilian leadership, new organizations, new levers of power will be created to put insanity into action.
— Consumatopia · Sep 7, 07:22 PM · #
The “enlist or shut up” argument — which I stand by — is “enlist or shut up” before criticizing others for not caring about war. Unless you have demonstrable skin in the game it’s safe to assume everyone feels as strongly about it as you do. I do think there’s a “chicken dove” argument that sticks to the most extreme about military action: those who oppose war in general, or who want soldiers to be free to follow their personal moral judgement over Congress’, ought not to push for, say, action in Kosovo or Darfur.
That said, I can’t support universal enlistment (without a draft) — there’re people out there (Quakers, etc.) for whom such a thing is not possible and there’re people with genuine moral qualms. And the stuff is hard. Probably most of us should stay the hell away from the Army. I’m not sure I buy though that the oath to uphold the law forces you into a bad moral position.
Moral principles often come into conflict. The American soldier serves the highest of them, which is, that might does not make right (highest because without it, all the others are moot). It’s underappreciated what a remarkable thing that is! The history of the world is a history of military coups; the power to compel does not belong to courts or Congresses but to generals. Nonetheless America has lasted amazingly long because these people suck it up and go on missions they think are crap. At least in theory what gets them out of a moral quandry is just that: they accept that the immense power they’re given to wield — any simple company commander has at his disposal considerable force, and that’s just a captain! — is given in exchange for the loss of considerable discretion on its use. Furthermore I think he/she can take comfort in knowing that unless the military act this way, no other vision of a just society can be, because society will move, as it always has, at the whims of generals.
Furthermore good people can still influence policy. Tom Ricks’ Fiasco shows how, even obeying the dictates of Congress and the President, different officers interpret them differently, so they can be implemented (at some risk) with respect and compassion for the invaded civilians, or with contempt and brutality. That means those officers can shape the moral calculus of war in profound ways both consequentialist (in that different application probably would have lead to different outcomes) and abstract (in that the very question of what it means to have in invasion changes). So there is a very powerful case for people of good will to seek out public service offices.
I have a gazillion thoughts about Bush and encouraging sacrifice at home, but have walked way beyond LarryM’s point, drawn on by your elegant elevation of the discussion. Besides all anyone’s going to want to read about tomorrow is Freddie Mac.
Incidentally, these guys aren’t about fighting to protect consumerism (which I think the military ethos dislikes). I bike to work every morning past where a bunch of Rangers do PT (how do I know they’re Rangers? Think, a whole lot of BIG, SCARY guys in the IPFU who average about 4% body fat). When someone calls out about the bike (the roads here are not bike-friendly) my stock answer is, I’m defending the country too, I’m saving oil. That always gets a couple “Hooah“s. They saw me doing it in a snowstorm (in shorts) once and gave me a standing ovation: my finest hour. (Which is not to say, judging by the roads around here, that all the enlisted guys don’t seem to all drive gas-guzzling muscle cars and freakishly souped-up light trucks. They all care about the planet and stuff, but it can’t make them not young and dumb).
— Sanjay · Sep 8, 12:56 AM · #
I have complicated feelings on war. Weirdly enough, my studies in algorithmic information theory lead a former hawk like me to study the writings of Gandhi (long story, wait for the book). I’m not convinced that he’s right about violence never being necessary, but he’s not as obviously wrong as we tend to think he was.
But there’s a far more modest principle at stake here then the utility of war in general, one that’s always seemed inarguable to me.
War should always be the last resort.
My earlier madness pushed this discussion in an unfortunate direction—it has nothing to do with how much skin you have in the game, and everything to do with what else you tried before dropping the bombs, and what else you’re trying to do to find an alternative to continuing to drop the bombs.
The distance between the American consumer and the American soldier is part of this—it suggests that we have not and are not taking every avenue we ought to take to avoid violence. Whatever it is we’re fighting for—justice, liberty, security, prosperity—we did not and do not take every alternative to war in pursuit of that goal. And that is to our shame.
“Enlist or shut up” as a retort to someone making this argument is obviously nonsensical.
The history of the world is a history of military coups; the power to compel does not belong to courts or Congresses but to generals.
The power to compel anatomically lies in the nervous system—in the human mind and soul. That power can come from fear, yes. But it can also come from greed and need. Our civilian economy has a larger impact on the world and has done more for our survival than our military leadership—such that I’m convinced that we could survive as a nation, probably a stronger nation, without a large standing army or draft registration. I thank the engineers, the bureaucrats, the entrepreneurs, the managers, and the tradesmen before I thank the generals, if I’m inclined to thank them at all.
That’s not even to mention that the power to compel can also come from truth and love, as with men like Dr. King who also sacrificed to prove that might did not make right. The examples of this aren’t as easy to find as for compulsion by fear or by greed, but I think that says more about our willingness to try this approach than it’s effectiveness.
Gandhi’s take on the “history of the world” argument is definitely worth reading . (I’m referring to “Editor’s” answer to the first “Reader’s” question.)
Nonetheless America has lasted amazingly long because these people suck it up and go on missions they think are crap.
If by “crap” you mean immoral—no way. This was decided at Nuremberg—you’re still morally responsible even under orders. Soldiers who followed orders they believed to be immoral did a disservice to their country, their species and their God. There are categorical imperatives that go beyond the law, and categorical means irrespective of any oaths you happen to take. This doesn’t mean you’re “free” to just disregard orders—no, you’re morally obligated to willingly accept the penalty for dereliction of duty. But dereliction of duty, while wrong, isn’t the worst wrong. There is a higher, non-negotiable duty.
The Rangers story is awesome. Thanks for the discussion—I obviously learned a lot, and I wouldn’t have if you were less gracious regarding my serious mistakes. Thank you.
— Consumatopia · Sep 8, 02:24 PM · #
Consumatopia, you write, “Weirdly enough, my studies in algorithmic information theory lead a former hawk like me to study the writings of Gandhi (long story, wait for the book).“
Can you give us a little more? I’m an algorithmic information theory aficionado, too, and I can probably guess what you mean. However, I’d like to know what you mean.
— JA · Sep 8, 04:44 PM · #
I think there are parallels between logical reversibility and ahimsa, between compressibility and bramacharya, and between Gandhi’s conception of mankind’s relationship to Truth and Chaitin’s number.
Metaphorical parallels, not logical parallels, of course. It will probably be just a matter of weeks or months before I have something more substantial posted online about this (book may have been an exaggeration).
— Consumatopia · Sep 8, 05:18 PM · #
Good, can’t wait. And thanks for the teaser.
There is much evidence for your position, especially in cognitive and network science. Violence is high-heat, both in terms of entropy (uncertainty of consequences) and in terms of interpersonal and cognitive breakdown (it erodes a person’s executive ability to override his TASS systems, and dissolves “the ties that bind” in ways very similar to the chemical effects of heat). Criticality, dissipation, and phase-change are all terms that describe a violent event. Thermal/computational irreversibility means Humpty-dumpty can’t be put back together, which means we’ve lost something forever.
And I agree: a purely informational understanding of event-processing by complex algorithms — up to and including violent acts — clearly demonstrates your idea that reversibility and ahimsa are connected: violence and destruction are the exemplars of irreversible processes.
{I should note: I’ve been working on this for years now, using Rosenzweig’s definition of the Godhead; funny that you are doing the same thing from a different direction. One thing I’ve been forced to conclude is the existence of an inflection point for reversibility, after which a system retreats from the Godhead back toward the Nothing. None of this affects your point about ahimsa, of course.}
On compressibility, I’ve been focusing solely on its use in epistemology (see my question below as to why I stopped using it as a stand-in for the Good; not that you are doing this, mind). Same with Omega: Truth is irreducible, which means a capture of it would be infinitely complex.
Question: have you read Charles Bennett and his definition of complexity as ‘logical depth.’ This might modify your take on compressibility and brahmacharya — I assume, since I haven’t read it — since “logical depth” almost certainly is a realization of the Godhead. This implies that the brahmacharya of a complex living system, properly understood, is to exist on the boundary between order and chaos, which would dichotomize our priorities into compressibility on one end, and algorithmic complexity on the other.
P.S. Also very interesting, if you have oodles of free time like I do, is J.G. Miller’s Living Systems.
— JA · Sep 8, 08:19 PM · #
Yeah, you get what I’m getting at (probably better than I do ;)). Dang it, if you’re gonna give me new ideas, that’s just gonna make me push back the release date even further. ;)
Anyway, we are SUPER FAR off topic. Send me a message to ninjascience at hotmail.com (Or offer up some other place we can take this) and I can give you a fuller rundown.
— Consumatopia · Sep 8, 10:38 PM · #
Yeah, will do. And on the release date, mine’s become Steven’s Last Night in Town.
Trust me when I say, this has had a tremendous impact on my girlfriend’s sense of humor.
— JA · Sep 8, 10:55 PM · #
I’m with consumatopia over Sanjay here. I don’t see why playing your banjo and being complacently admiring (in a vaguely groupie-ish way) of all the soldier dudes on your block is such a morally admirable position. The Iraq war is right or it’s wrong, if it’s wrong that’s sort of a big deal. While pitching a fit about it at your neighborhood cocktail party is useless annoying behavior that one should restrain, vocally opposing the war will get more done than either silence or uncritical support of our brave soldier boys.
— MQ · Sep 9, 05:03 AM · #