Now Playing

Imogen Heap – Headlock
Acid House Kings – That's Because You Drive Me
British Sea Power – The Land Beyond
Sigur Ros – Glosoli
Interpol – Obstacle 1
Joy Zipper – In The Never Ending Search For A Suitable Enemy
Death Cab For Cutie – Different Names For The Same Thing
Aqueduct – Tension
Clap Your Hands Say Yeah – Let the Cool Goddess Rust Away
Sufjan Stevens – Jacksonville
The New Pornographers – Sing Me Spanish Techno
American Analog Set – Sharp Briar
Margot & The Nuclear So-and-So's – Dress Me Like A Clown
The A-Sides – I'll Come Around
Arcade Fire – Haiti
Matt Pond PA – Halloween
Cat Power – The Greatest

On The Growing Hysteria Over Gay Rights

The Dan Savage rant I talked about here is one in a succession of such outbursts from him over the past couple of years; outbursts that have been growing in both frequency and intensity. It occurs to me that I've been noticing a very similar pattern from the only other writer I regularly read whom I know to be gay: Andrew Sullivan.

Sullivan seemed to loose his composure when Bush came out in favor of an anti-gay marriage amendment prior to the last presidential election, and he hasn't regained it since. Savage came off the tracks at around the same time (during Bush's first term). Since then, both have been using increasingly aggressive language to assail those with whom they disagree on matters of gay rights. That's easy to understand as both men obviously have significant personal stakes in issues like gay marriage and adoption rights. But while the increasingly hostile tone is understandable, it is quite counterproductive.

I sympathize with many of their stated goals, but disagree with the details of many of their specific proposals. I don't, for example, support a simple extension of marriage in its current state to include gay couples. I don't have any problem with a concept like civil unions, which are purely social and legal arrangements with no religious component. But marriage is, for many people, an arrangement that is primarily religious in nature. It is a part of their religious practice. Forcing those people to accept gay marriage against their will is forcing them to change a fundamental component of their religious practice, and I'm strongly against that. Decouple marriage as a religious rite from marriage as a social contract and I'll be on board the Sullivan/Savage express without reservation. It isn't the concept to which I'm oppossed; it's their specific vision of implementation.

I don't think a fair-minded person would find my position on the subject of gay marriage to be unreasonable. I don't think you can fairly describe me as a theocrat or "Christianist" (ala Sullivan) or accuse me of waging a holy war (ala Savage) based on my views. But that is essentially what they've been doing lately. Here they have a sympathetic conservative ready to strike a deal, but all they've been doing lately is attacking and demonizing people like me by lumping us in with a few outspoken fundamentalists whose influence among conservatives is badly overestimated. They aren't going to realize their goals with that approach.

Lashing out with righteous anger and rage can make you feel better, but it's no way to accomplish political goals. Savage and Sullivan need to make friends, not enemies. They already have plenty of enemies. When they indiscriminately attack people like me who simply disagree with some of their specific ideas, they move further away from a solution to their problems.

Stop demonizing. Stop attacking. Make friends. Cultivate symapthy. That's the winning strategy.

Now Playing

Elefant – Lolita
Decemberists – Billy Liar
Say Hi To Your Mom – I Think I'll Be A Good Ghost
Robbers On High Street – Dig The Lightning
Travis – The Beautiful Occupation
The Features – Me + The Skirts
Automato – Hollywood + Vine
Sufjan Stevens – Casimir Pulaski
Denali – Surface
Jets Overhead – Life's A Song
Aveo – 3:33 A.M./The Insomnia Waltz
M83 – Farewell/Goodbye
Death Cab For Cutie – Soul Meets Body
The Dears – Who Are You, Defenders Of The Universe
Hood – Still Rain Fell
Aqueduct – Frantic
Clap Your Hands Say Yeah – In This Home On Ice
Styrofoam – Front To Back
Dirty On Purpose – Mind Blindness
Spoon – Two Sides Of Monsieur Valentine
The Oranges Band – Drug City
American Analog Set – Cool Kids Keep
Acid House Kings – Wipe Away Those Tears
Nada Surf – In The Mirror
Sufjan Stevens – John Wayne Gacy, Jr.

Keeping Politics In Perspective

I recently commented on the rather extreme emotional investment many people make in politics these days. I was responding to a silly comment made by a musician to the effect of "I was disappointed to learn that so-and-so was a Republican." My basic point was that people who take a strong emotional stake in such issues are silly and should be ridiculed.

I'm a fairly strict pragmatist when it comes to politics. Politics aren't typically an issue of life and death, so I don't treat them as such. They are the means by which people who already largely agree on most fundamental issues come together to hash out the details.

I noticed a nice study in contrasts on this issue in the latest A.V. Club. First, representing the emotionally-invested side of the debate, is one of my favorite weekly reads, Dan Savage's Savage Love:

Straight Rights Update: Earlier this month, Republicans in South Dakota successfully banned abortion in that state. Last week, the GOP-controlled state house of representatives in Missouri voted to ban state-funded family-planning clinics from dispensing birth control. "If you hand out contraception to single women," one Republican state rep told the Kansas City Star, "we're saying promiscuity is okay." On the federal level, Republicans are blocking the over-the-counter sale of emergency contraception and keeping a 100 percent effective HPV vaccine—a vaccine that will save the lives of thousands of women every year—from being made available.

The GOP's message to straight Americans: If you have sex, we want it to fuck up your lives as much as possible. No birth control, no emergency contraception, no abortion services, no life-saving vaccines. If you get pregnant, tough shit. You're going to have those babies, ladies, and you're going to make those child-support payments, gentlemen. And if you get HPV and it leads to cervical cancer, well, that's too bad. Have a nice funeral, slut.

What's it going to take to get a straight-rights movement off the ground? The GOP in Kansas is seeking to criminalize hetero heavy petting, for God's sake! Wake up and smell the freaking Holy War, breeders! The religious right hates heterosexuality just as much as it hates homosexuality. Fight back!

As much as I like Dan Savage, that's just silly. Actually, unhinged is probably a better word. While I'm not a Republican, I have voted pretty much straight GOP since the age of 18, so, party affiliation details notwithstanding, I'm sure Savage would consider me his political enemy. Yet I don't oppose contraception or life-saving vaccines in any way, shape or form. I don't think I know anyone who holds those views. So does "If you have sex, we want it to fuck up your lives as much as possible" really accurately describe the attitudes and intentions of all, or even most, conservative voters? Of course it doesn't.

You can find within any group of any meaningful size individuals or groups of individuals who hold objectionable or even outrageous views. That doesn't implicate the entire group. If it did, the Democratic party would be defined by the San Francisco City Council and their unending stream of impeachment and anti-war declarations.

Savage is heavily invested in a very liberal (small "l") vision of sexual permissiveness and he's allowed himself to fully integrate that very important part of his own sense of self with his politics. As a result, disagreement on any given political aspect of the issue (like, for example, my opposition to unrestricted abortion on demand) represents not merely a disagreement on mundane social policy issues, but an attack on him personally. And he responds as you would expect someone to respond when personally attacked.

Billy Bragg, of all people, demonstrates a more rational and productive approach to politics in this article from the same issue of A.V. Club. You really need to read the entire article to get the full sense of his attitude, but here's a taste:

I don't mind being labeled as a political songwriter. I've chosen to do that. What really annoys me is being dismissed as a political songwriter. That really pains me, because life isn't all about love; it's not all about politics, either. It's a beautiful mixture of events that absolutely baffle you, and you think, "Why can't I do something about that?", whether those events are in your bedroom, or out there in the wide world. In our daily lives we engage with them at different times, and I'm trying to write about the whole human experience, or my perspective on it anyway. And to ignore one or the other would be foolish. I've done gigs with bands who only write political songs; every single one of their songs is polemical. And you know, they just beat the audience into submission with these ideas. There's very little concession to entertainment. My experience has been, if I can entertain people and get them to open up a little bit, then they're much more conducive to any ideas I might have, whether they're about relationships or politics. The most interesting songs, I think, are the ones where the two overlap.

Billy Bragg and I almost certainly disagree on just about every political issue of substance, but there's a distinct calmness in his thinking that makes it clear that we could easily enjoy a beer together and discuss politics or any other subject without feeling the need to yell at one another. Bragg clearly seems to understand that there is far more to life than politics and the related details of social organization. He doesn't feel compelled to demonize those who disagree with him. He just states his case and moves on, never losing sight of the humanity and basic decency on the other side of the political fence.

That's how I feel. I likely don't agree with Dan Savage on much of anything, politically speaking, but I love his writing and would guess that he'd be great fun to hang out with. It's hard to imaging that ever happening, though, because it's hard to see Savage ever looking past my political inclinations to the fuller and far more interesting person behind them. That's a shame.

Politics are just one small part of life, and political leanings should be just one small part of an individual. Those who allow themselves to be consumed by their politics are cheating themselves out of a full life.

Now Playing

Robbers On High Street – Spanish Teeth
Isobel Campbell & Mark Lanegan – The False Husband
Mazarin – For Energy Infinite
Spoon – I Summon You
Aveo – Newton And Galileo
Archer Prewitt – Go Away
And You Will Know Us By The Trail Of Dead – The Rest Will Follow
Sufjan Stevens – John Wayne Gacy, Jr.
American Analog Set – Cool Kids Keep
Imogen Heap – Just For Now
Long-View – In A Dream
Fine China – Bivouac
Margot & The Nuclear So-and-So's – Skeleton Key
Death Cab For Cutie – Brothers On A Hotel Bed

Now Playing – Twang Edition

Dwight Yoakam – 1,000 Miles
Wilco – Should've Been In Love
Rosanne Cash – House On The Lake
James McMurtry – Choctaw Bingo
Uncle Tupelo – No Depression
Vince Leggett – Stay Gone
Jackie Greene – Mexican Girl
Avett Brothers – Distraction #74
Lucinda Williams – Sweet Old World
Cory Morrow Band – The Preacher
Alison Krauss & Union Station – New Favorite

Now Playing

Ivy – Thinking About You
Fine China – Rated-R Movie
Stars – Set Yourself On Fire
Death Cab For Cutie – Different Names For The Same Thing
Charlatans UK – Judas
American Analog Set – Born On The Cusp
Margot & The Nuclear So-and-So's – Skeleton Key
Sun Kil Moon – Tiny Cities Made Of Ashes
Broken Social Scene – Major Label Debut
Panurge – You've Pleased The King
Figurine – Heartfelt
Robbers On High Street – Dig The Lightning
Husky Rescue – Sweet Little Kitten
Walking Concert – Audrey
Mazarin – Another One Goes By
Monarch – Turn Around
Say Hi To Your Mom – The Death Of Girl Number Two

Where Polite Fictions Lead

In the years since 9/11 we as a society have steadfastly maintained several polite fictions regarding Muslims in general and Arabs in particular. We've declared Islam to be a religion of peace. We've described anyone without a bomb belt as a moderate. We've hailed Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, Yemen, Bahrain, and the UAE as trusted allies.

Our political and intellectual elite have fastidiously avoided making an issue of the appalling behavior evidenced by these and other Arabs and Muslims over the past several years, believing that real and lasting progress can be acheived only through positive engagement. Two stories today covering Arab reaction to the UAE ports deal provide an interesting object lesson on the consequences of this approach. First, from Bahrain:

One of Bahrain's top politicians has warned that the US row surrounding DP World's takeover of P&O has taken on a worryingly racist tenor.

Sheikh Mohammed bin Essa Al-Khalifa, chief executive of the Bahrain Economic Development Board, said that the events surrounding the Dubai company's £3.9bn takeover of the UK ports group had also caused great consternation in the Gulf.

Sheikh Mohammed, who heads up Bahrain's economic investment authority, and is a key member of the island's government, said Arab countries could do little if the negative attitude towards the area persisted in the US.

Asked whether it was fair that many were describing the US reaction as racist, he said: "Absolutely, but it's something we can't speak about. I think it was a shame. The DP World deal was a good deal. But this is politics."

And the UAE:

The governor of the UAE central bank has sharply criticised US Congress opposition to the acquisition of six US ports by Dubai Ports World (DPW) and called for a reassessment of US trade links.

"The American side that opposed the deal mixed economic and investment matters with issues of security and politics and this is the wrong approach and it will hurt free trade and international investment," Sultan bin Nasser al-Suwaidi said in remarks published Monday in several UAE-based Arabic papers.

In a country that avoids controversy, Suwaidi's comments were the most critical made by any high-ranking UAE official since the DPW row erupted nearly one month ago.

"Trade and investment relations with the United States must now be viewed from a new perspective," Suwaidi was quoted as telling a conference in Abu Dhabi on the local bond market.

In their eyes, we are entirely to blame for the current surplus of animosity and mistrust in this country toward Arabs and Muslims. It's our racism. We're the problem. We're the ones in need of change. That's a perverse perspective to anyone in this country outside of the political and intellectual elite. For denizens of a region that has both wished and done us such great harm so consistently for such a long period to characterize our response to this issue in such a way demonstrates an almost incomprehensible lack of self-awareness on their part.

But this is the natural consequence of our polite fictions and anyone who believes a continuation of this approach will ever lead anywhere else is a fool. We are enablers. Muslims and Arabs commit a seemingly neverending series of appalling affronts to basic decency and we respond by nervously looking away and pretending it didn't happen. We invoke the myth of the moderate Muslim. We call for tolerance and understanding. We say Islam is a peaceful religion. We refuse to acknowledge reality and respond accordingly.

There will be no real reform among Arabs and Muslims until they are held to account for their social, cultural, political and moral failures. Until we acknowledge openly and honestly our basic contempt for the fundamentally backwards, intolerant, and repressive nature of their current political, social and religious culture, they will continue to nurture their fairy-tale sense of self and to act accordingly.

The Moderate UAE

Jay Nordlinger in National Review Online:

About a week ago, I got a call from a friend of mine, in high dudgeon. He had just been through the Dubai airport. (As it happened, this was during the UAE ports "crisis.") He had a little time to kill, so went to the airport's bookstore. And there, big as day, was Mein Kampf. But of course! From what I understand, Mein Kampf is more common in the Arab lands than a phone book.

Now Playing

Rogue Wave – You
Cut Copy – Future
Hockey Night – Renegades
South – A Place In Displacement
DJ Danger Mouse – Public Service Announcement
The New Pornographers – Sing Me Spanish Techno
Clap Your Hands Say Yeah – Over and Over Again (Lost and Found)
Nada Surf – Blankest Year
Mobius Band – I Had a Very Good Year

More On The Mythical "Moderate Muslim"

As I did here, David Warren wonders about moderate Muslims (via Powerline):

But Mr Bush was staking his bet on the assumption that the Islamists were not speaking for Islam; that the world’s Muslims long for modernity; that they are themselves repelled by the violence of the terrorists; that, most significantly, Islam is in its nature a religion that can be “internalized”, like the world’s other great religions, and that the traditional Islamic aspiration to conjoin worldly political with otherworldly spiritual authority had somehow gone away. It didn’t help that Mr Bush took for his advisers on the nature of Islam, the paid operatives of Washington’s Council on American-Islamic Relations, the happyface pseudo-scholar Karen Armstrong, or the profoundly learned but terminally vain Bernard Lewis. Each, in a different way, assured him that Islam and modernity were potentially compatible.

The question, “But what if they are not?” was never seriously raised, because it could not be raised behind the mud curtain of political correctness that has descended over the Western academy and intelligentsia. The idea that others see the world in a way that is not only incompatible with, but utterly opposed to, the way we see it, is the thorn ever-present in the rose bushes of multiculturalism. “Ideas have consequences”, and the idea that Islam imagines itself in a fundamental, physical conflict with everything outside of itself, is an idea with which people in the contemporary West are morally and intellectually incapable of coming to terms. Hence our continuing surprise at everything from bar-bombings in Bali, to riots in France, to the Danish cartoon apoplexy.

I would take issue only with his assertion that "people in the contemportary West are morally and intellectually incapable of coming to terms" with the true nature of contemporary Islamic culture. The West's elites, to be sure, seem almost uniformly incapable of such a reckoning, but the majority of the "normal folks" in this country, at least, seem to me to be perfectly capable of recogizing and accepting the reality of the situation. Hence the UAE backlash.

Moral Preening From An Unexpected Source

I commented on the UAE ports deal here a couple of days ago and breathed a sigh of relief hoping the issue was now dead. The President, it seems, was unable to let the matter go. The administration continued defending their support of the deal Friday. The President said:

"I'm concerned about a broader message this issue could send to our friends and allies around the world, particularly in the Middle East," the president said. "In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East."

Condoleezza Rice added:

"It means that we are going to have to work and double our efforts to send a strong message that we value our allies, our moderate allies, in the Middle East, that they are critical in the effort to winning the war on terrorism, that this is a long-term struggle in which we all find ourselves."

Good Lord, what do you say to that? This stubborn insistence that our behavior is the pivotal factor in the ongoing clash of the West vs. Islam has become absolutely perverse. We talk like battered spouses. What did we do to upset them? How can we make it better? That this line of thought has now found its way into the administration, for so long a lonely outpost in the battle against such thinking, is deeply disappointing and disturbing.

At what point do we say "Enough!"? At what point do we demand of Muslims the same sincere and sustained effort at tolerance? The same strained respect for ideas they don't like? At what point do we stop giving ground and insist on basic civilized behavior?

And when are we going to abandon this attachment to the myth of the moderate Muslim? We've been hearing about them for five years now. Where are they? I know where to find the extremists. They're burning embassies and blowing up tourists and decapitating aid workers and chanting "Death To America" and choosing Hamas as their elected representatives and murdering film makers and forcing bare-headed schoolgirls to remain inside burning schoolhouses and blowing up commuter trains and developing nuclear weapons and openly advocating the destruction of Israel and driving rented trucks into groups of college students. I know where the extemists are. Where are the moderates?

At what point does reality trump our diversity training? Not yet apparently, at least not for the administration. The UAE is our ally; our moderate Arab ally. Those three 9/11 participants? Don't concern yourself with them. Just repeat to yourself: "they are moderate and they are our friends...they are moderate and they are our friends...they are moderate and they are our friends." There now, doesn't that feel better? Of course it does. Fantasies often do.

Average Americans, at least, seem to be coming around. The authors of this story in the Washington Post seem genuinely perplexed to find an increasing number of Americans developing negative associations with Islam. It is, of course, quite impossible for those bathing in the soothing waters of the moderate Muslim myth to understand such a thing:

Conservative and liberal experts said Americans' attitudes about Islam are fueled in part by political statements and media reports that focus almost solely on the actions of Muslim extremists.

Of course. Perverse.

An Open Letter To The Woman Who Ran Me Off The Road Tonight

I was inline skating in my neighborhood tonight at around 10:00 when I was very nearly run over by an idiot driver. The road I was on runs North–South and I was moving North at the right edge of the road. The driver was moving South. In theory, she stays to her right, my left, and we pass safely, right? Worst case scenario, she goes down the middle of the road, I stay to the right and everyone's happy, right? Nope. She drove along the opposite side of the street directly at me, never correcting despite having me in her headlights for at least 100 feet, and forcing me into the gutter where I busted. She missed me by less than two feet. The following is directed to her:

To the woman who lives at 5128 Lurgan Road, Land O' Lakes, Florida 34638 and very nearly ran me over while talking on her cell phone and driving a red 4-door Jeep Cherokee Sport with gold pinstripe, Florida tag D33-9NU,

I understand idiot drivers. We all fall short of the glory at times and I myself have earned the title on more than one occassion. What I don't understand is the appalling lack of decency displayed by people like you.

To drive recklessly while talking on a cell phone and very nearly run over a pedestrian is one thing. To lack the decency to at least throw a "Sorry" at the situation is almost beyond comprehension. How do people like you become people like you?

Your behavior tonight was disgraceful. You should be ashamed.

Keeping Up Appearances

The United Arab Emirates has pulled out of the controversial ports deal that has had people in such a tizzy.

I supported the current administration in the past two elections largely because I appreciate their pragmatism on international issues. They strongly value actions over words; facts over appearances. I share that disposition. Facts and actions are what matter because words and appearances are simply too easy to fake.

When you place such currency in facts and actions, it's easy to allow yourself to develop a sort of contempt for the importance others place on words and appearances. It often feels like combat; an either/or proposition. Europeans talk; Americans act. The UN minds appearances; we stick to facts.

That facts and actions are far more important doesn't mean words and appearances are unimportant. They may not be as important, but they still matter. I think the administration lost sight of this on the UAE ports deal.

However well-suited to port management the UAE-based firm in question may be, and however helpful the UAE has been since 9/11, they produced three of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers. The appearance to most ordinary Americans (myself included) is that the UAE is at heart hostile to our country.

However secure the ports may be now and/or after the UAE takeover, and however pressing other security issues like the porous Mexican border may be, most Americans are convinced that our ports are one of our most significant security vulnerabilities.

When I first heard about this deal I cringed. It's not that I don't have confidence the administration weighed all the relevant details carefully and made the best possible factual decision regarding port management, but there was just no possible way to make this deal appear to most Americans (myself included) as anything other than handing over henhouse administration to the fox.

Facts and actions almost always trump words and appearances, and that's as it should be. But every once in a while, appearances win. This is one such occassion and I, for one, am greatly relieved.

Speaking Of Polygamy...

I've recently been interested in learning if there exists a compelling practical (as opposed to moral or ethical) argument against polygamy, or if it's just another case of the man trying to keep me down. My previous post on the growing gender imbalance in Asia provided the final bit of clarity I needed.

Imagine a hypothetical society that is normal in every respect. A natural birthrate will leave you with approximately 105 males for every 100 females. Let's say polygamy is the norm in this society and that each adult male is expected to marry two adult females. If you have 105 males and 100 females, with two wives for each male, there are only enough wives for the first 50 males. That leaves you with 55 chronically frustrated males. If three wives is the norm, only the first 33 males find wives (with one left over as a consolation prize for the 34th). That gives you 71 frustrated men. Universal polygamy creates a society in which the majority of men are sexually and emotionally frustrated and have no hope of relief. That's bad.

In hindsight, that seems like a terribly obvious point and I'm a little embarrassed not to have gotten it until now, but such is life. So, sorry guys. I'm convinced. Only one wife each.

The Geopolitics Of Sexual Frustration

I came across this very interesting article in Foreign Policy via Ajnabeeyeh:

The lost boys of Prof. Albert Macovski are upon us. Twenty years ago, the ultrasound scanning machine came into widespread use in Asia. The invention of Macovski, a Stanford University researcher, the device quickly gave pregnant women a cheap and readily available means to determine the sex of their unborn children. The results, by the million, are now coming to maturity in Bangladesh, China, India, and Taiwan. By choosing to give birth to males—and to abort females—millions of Asian parents have propelled the region into an extraordinary experiment in the social effects of gender imbalance.

Back in 1990, Nobel Prize-winning Indian economist Amartya Sen was one of the first to call attention to the phenomenon of an estimated 100 million “missing women” in Asia. Nearly everywhere else, women outnumber men, in Europe by 7 percent, and in North America by 3.4 percent. Concern now is shifting to the boys for whom these missing females might have provided mates as they reach the age that Shakespeare described as nothing but stealing and fighting and “getting of wenches with child.”

Now there are too few wenches. Thanks in large part to the introduction of the ultrasound machine, Mother Nature’s usual preference for about 105 males to 100 females has grown to around 120 male births for every 100 female births in China. The imbalance is even higher in some locales—136 males to 100 females on the island of Hainan, an increasingly prosperous tourist resort, and 135 males to 100 females in central China’s Hubei Province. Similar patterns can be found in Taiwan, with 119 boys to 100 girls; Singapore, 118 boys to 100 girls; South Korea, 112 boys to 100 girls; and parts of India, 120 boys to 100 girls.

Wow. 135:100. That's a remarkable imbalance and quite disturbing to anyone who understands the very real potential dangers of chronic, widespread male sexual frustration. Andrew Sullivan has recently commented on similar issues here and here.

There's been a lot of interesting commentary over the past couple of years on the implications of various domestic and international demographic and population trends: red states vs. blue states, US vs. Europe, first world vs. the third world. This is the most sobering I've seen in some time.

Laugh-Out-Loud Funny

Very funny post from Unsorted Mail:

Dear Sex,

Are you thinking about me, too?

Love,
Marie

Now Playing

Viva Voce – Lesson No. 1
Acid House Kings – I Write Summer Songs For No Reason
Pinback – The Yellow Ones
Broken Social Scene – It's All Gonna Break
Death Cab For Cutie – What Sarah Said
Arcade Fire – Power Out
Fine China – Bivouac
The New Pornographers – The Bleeding Heart Show
Margot & The Nuclear So-and-So's – Bookworm
Ambulance LTD – Michigan

Fairness In International Relations

Richard Cohen in the Washington Post on geopolitical double standards (via Andrew Sullivan):

The Israeli bomb threatens nobody. An Iranian bomb does. India has transferred its nuclear technology to no one. Pakistan has. No one worries about India or Israel making the technology available to terrorists. Everyone worries about Iran doing that. These are distinctions with great differences. They are, as critics charge, double standards, but to apply a single standard to both friend and enemy, while it might be fair, would be singularly stupid.

Read the whole thing. It does a nice job of clearly and concisely stating the basic counterpoint to the concept of geopolitical "fairness" that has become almost fetishized these days, particularly by those sharing the basic European and UN worldviews.

Patience, Pet

Glenn Reynolds has an interesting post on port security and the Department of Homeland Security. It seems the DHS has discovered a number of serious security issues at the ports of New York and New Jersey. Reynolds sees this as a failure of the administration:

You know, I've become convinced that the Dubai ports deal isn't a bad thing, but I absolutely can't defend the Administration on this, assuming these reports are true. And sadly, they're not at all unbelievable. I've been noting for years that homeland security is a bureaucratic nightmare, and, well, it is.

A reader responds with the same point I'd make:

Reader Eric Hall notes that the underlying problem is with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which is not a federal agency, and that the federal DHS found the problem.

Reynolds responds:

That's a fair point, but it's also true that the federal Homeland Security apparatus was sold as an answer to stuff like this. It's nice that they've found the problem, but it's been nearly four years since the DHS was created, and this sort of thing doesn't seem to be any more secure.

I think Reynolds is being a bit unfair here. As noted, the DHS doesn't have the power to step in and take over the ports of New York and New Jersey or much else of America's transportation infrastructure. In light of that fact, what exactly are they supposed to do? They are doing their job by serving in an oversight and coordination capacity. They found and exposed major security issues at highly sensitive locations. Is there no value in that? Does Reynolds propose a major expansion of DHS power, including the power to step in and take over state and local transportation infrastructure?

Reynolds may or may not be correct when he characterizes the DHS as a "bureaucratic nightmare," but I don't think this story does anything to support that position. The federal agency charged with improving domestic security has done just that. They've improved domestic security by alerting the relevant managing authorities to major security issues and making their findings public.

If the DHS does nothing beyond evaluating our national transportation infrastructure and reporting security issues to the appropriate managing authorities, I'll be content. If they can do more, great, but there is clearly value in what they've accomplished to this point. That's their role as I understand it now and as I understood it when the department was being sold to me.

And I am neither surprised nor bothered that this particular security finding comes four years after the establishment of the DHS. The task before them is quite obviously enormous and will without a doubt take many more years to complete. It would have been wonderful to have acheived a hardened domestic infrastructure a day or month or year after 9/11, but that was quite obviously not a realistic expectation. The DHS is engaged in a complex and serious business that will take quite a bit more time than any of us would like. Our impatience in the meantime is not evidence of incompetence within the DHS or the administration.

It's not often that Reynolds and I find completely opposite meanings in events, but this seems to be one of those occassions. He sees this as a DHS failure. I see it as a success.

Quantifying The Obvious

From It Is A Numeric Life:

All lovers feel that sexual intercourse with orgasm is better, more satisfying than an orgasm from masturbation alone. But how much better?

In biology terms, following orgasm, our body releases a hormone called prolactin, which make us feel satiated. In a recent study, (Biological Psychology, vol 71, p312), scientists shown that after orgasm from sexual intercourse, the increase in blood prolactin level is 400% higher in both men and women, when compared with after orgasm from masturbation.

Let me just say that my own personal research supports these findings and leave it at that.

Now Playing

Stars – Sleep Tonight
Ivy – Corners Of Your Mind
The A-Sides – I'll Come Around
Sufjan Stevens – The Predatory Wasp Of The Palisades...
Arcade Fire – Rebellion (Lies)
Silversun Pickups – ...All The Go Inbetweens
Delgados – Keep On Breathing
Clap Your Hands Say Yeah – In This Home on Ice
Clinic – Harmony
Elliott Smith – Pretty (Ugly Before)
Decemberists – The Engine Driver
Sun Kil Moon – Ocean Breathes Salty

Where's My Tin-Foil Hat?

I read my horoscope every once in a while because I enjoy being flattered, but I have no patience for devotees of any of the various flavors of sooth-saying in which people indulge. The idea that someone could achieve a deep, insightful understanding of my inner workings on the basis of a few odd questions or a bit of number crunching offends a carefully-nurtured sense of my own mysterious and compelling complexity.

That inveterate good sense was tested last night at Blogthings, a collection of playful little quizes that provide answers to questions like "At What Price Would You Sell Out?" and "How Evil Are You?" I was bored, so why not? The first few were what you'd expect and entertaining enough that I continued.

I came to How Machiavellian Are You?

You Are Somewhat Machiavellian

You're not going to mow over everyone to get ahead... But you're also powerful enough to make things happen for yourself. You understand how the world works, even when it's an ugly place. You just don't get ugly yourself - unless you have to!

Fair enough. I would have guessed I was more Machiavellian than that, but that's reasonably flattering. Nice. Next I came to What's Your Inner Blood Type?

Your Inner Blood Type is Type A

You seem cool and collected, though a bit shy. You are highly driven and a perfectionist, but that's a side you keep to yourself. Creative and artistic, you are a very unique person who doesn't quite fit in. People accept you more than you realize, seeing you as trustworthy and loyal. You are most compatible with: A and AB Famous Type A's: Britney Spears and Hilter

Again, nice. I could have done without the Britney Spears and Hitler comparisons, but the "People accept you more than you realize" part was a nice touch. On to What Temperment Are You?

You Have a Melancholic Temperament

Introspective and reflective, you think about everything and anything. You are a soft-hearted daydreamer. You long for your ideal life. You love silence and solitude. Everyday life is usually too chaotic for you. Given enough time alone, it's easy for you to find inner peace. You tend to be spiritual, having found your own meaning of life. Wise and patient, you can help people through difficult times. At your worst, you brood and sulk. Your negative thoughts can trap you. You are reserved and withdrawn. This makes it hard to connect to others. You tend to over think small things, making decisions difficult.

"Wise and patient..." Why yes I am, aren't I? OK, once again, not bad. Very horoscope-ish. Say something universally flattering and make it sound like it was written just for me. Next was What's Your Religious Philosophy?

You are a Self-Discoverer

You're not religious, but you've created your own kind of spirituality. Introspective and thoughtful, you tend to look inward for the divine. You are distrusting of all forms of organized religion. You especially dislike religious gurus and leaders, who you feel are charlatans.

Hmm. That's pretty good. I wonder how they knew about... Oh, it's not important. But so far, so good. They're telling me how great I am and, because of my powerful ability to suspend disbelief, I'm buying every word of it. Nothing unexpected, right? But here's where it starts to get a little strange. The Birth Order Predictor

You Are Likely A Forth Born

At your darkest moments, you feel angry. At work and school, you do best when your analyzing. When you love someone, you tend to be very giving. In friendship, you don't take the initiative in reaching out. Your ideal jobs are: factory jobs, comedy, and dentistry. You will leave your mark on the world with your own personal philosophy.

They can't spell "Fourth" but, hey, wait a second. They're right! I am the fourth born. The fourth of six. How could they know that? I mean, first or second born, you could just guess. They're predicting birth order at least four deep and doing so accurately. That's surprisingly impressive. How about What Age Do You Act?

You Are 34 Years Old

Under 12: You are a kid at heart. You still have an optimistic life view - and you look at the world with awe. 13-19: You are a teenager at heart. You question authority and are still trying to find your place in this world. 20-29: You are a twentysomething at heart. You feel excited about what's to come... love, work, and new experiences. 30-39: You are a thirtysomething at heart. You've had a taste of success and true love, but you want more! 40+: You are a mature adult. You've been through most of the ups and downs of life already. Now you get to sit back and relax.

Good God! I am 34! That's amazing! I started to get a little creeped out at this point. Remember, I was buying all the stuff about how sensitive and bright and powerful I am because that was the deal. They tell me I'm great and I believe them. But now they're actually getting objective facts right. Just think about the implications. Then came the ultimate test of otherworldly knowledge and insight: How Much Do You Weight?

You Should Weigh 180

If you weigh less than this, you either have a fast metabolism or are about to gain weight. If you weigh more than this, you may be losing a few pounds soon!

[snicker]...[chuckle]...bwahahaha...bwahahaha...[wipes away tears]. OK, spell broken. 180? Not quite, but thanks for playing. Thank God. I was starting to wonder what color robe I would have to wear and whether I'd need to send tithes on a weekly or monthly basis.

Still, those age and birth order results are head-scratchers. Their simple IQ test was also much more accurate than I expected, although they undercut my official IQ score by approximately 5%, an affront I shall neither forgive nor forget.

Now Playing

Wolf Parade – You Are A Runner
Nada Surf – In The Mirror
Imogen Heap – Have You Got It
Doves – Walk In Fire
Fine China – Are You On Drugs
Husky Rescue – Sunset Drive
Of Montreal – Wraith Pinned To The Mist And Other Games
Joy Zipper – 33x
TV On The Radio – Blind
Cat Power – The Greatest
Sun Kil Moon – Space Travel Is Boring
Aster – Doomed To Die
Underworld – Luetin
Styrofoam – Couches In Alley
Say Hi To Your Mom – Death of Girl Number Two
Arcade Fire – Tunnels
American Analog Set – Born On The Cusp
Long-View – I Would
M83 – Teen Angst

In Defense Of Cursing Like A Drunken Sailor

I'm not particularly rebellious, but I do insist that social conventions make some sort of sense before considering myself beholden. One social convention I've never been able to fully accept is the prohibition on swearing, cursing and colorful vulgarity.

Language taboos are historically rooted in prohibitions on blasphemy and other irreligious behavior. How those relatively sensible (for their time) conventions evolved into the current social prohibition against a collection of completely harmless words (mostly scatalogical or sexual in nature, rather than religious) is unclear to me.

I fail to see the harm in those few words that seem to so upset the delicate sensibilities of so many. To the contrary, I find such language enormously expressive and vibrant. Life in all its imperfect but passionate glory lives in those words. I never miss an opportunity to curse like a drunken sailor and I savor every delicious word.

I don't seek to offend, and thus avoid such language entirely when in the company of those who take easy offense. Neither do I seek to hurt. Any language, taboo or not, can be used as a club, and any such use is harmful and wrong. I've experienced firsthand the damage done by careless language and can attest to its real and lasting damage.

But I refuse to honor universal restrictions on the good-spirited use of every single word in the English language.

A Dumb Question Answered

A recent post on Slashdot:

The Senate has passed a renewal of the Patriot act, 89-10, after two extensions caused by months of negotiations. The only thing standing in the way of a full renewal is a House vote, expected to pass next week. The renewal comes with some privacy protections attached, however, some worry they are only cosmetic. Some lawmakers who voted for the package acknowledged deep reservations about the power it would grant to any president. "Our support for the Patriot Act does not mean a blank check for the president," said Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who voted to pass the bill package. Certain lawmakers supported passing the bill even though they were still wary about it - Arlen Specter urged his colleagues to pass it even as he promised to introduce a new measure and hold hearings on how to fix it. Terrorism aside, the bill also includes new legislation that has almost nothing to do with terrorism, like one measure, which would make it harder for illicit labs to obtain ingredients for methamphetamine by requiring pharmacies to sell nonprescription cold medicines only from behind the counter. I know that people like Arlen Specter promise further hearings - but why pass what you know is flawed?

Obvious answers to really dumb questions are included in the price of admission here, so without further ado: you pass legislation you know to be flawed because all legislation is known to be flawed. Perfection is impossible. If the good outweighs the bad and serves a vital purpose, you pass it. If you wait for perfection, you will never pass anything. Silly people might snicker and say that's a good thing. It isn't. The Patriot Act in its current form may not be perfect, but it's important and the good greatly outweights the bad. It needed to pass and it did. If you don't like it in whole or in part, delay is not the answer. Work through your elected officials to improve it. Kudos to the Senate for doing their job. Finally.

Rediscovering Music

You may have noticed all of the Now Playing posts. Every couple of days, I record a new five hour block of content from XMU, an exceptional XM satellite radio station devoted to indie music. Over the course of the following day or two I sift through the recorded content looking for treasure. The Now Playing posts record what I found; the stuff that really got my attention.

Music has been an enormously important part of my life since a very young age. In 1996, I moved from Chicago to Tampa with my then-girlfriend, now-wife, to start a new business and a new life. The complexities of that new life–careers, relationships, marriage, children–quickly pushed the music away and I became very isolated, musically-speaking. I had built a high quality collection by that time so I never completely lost touch with the muse. But after a decade of relying almost entirely on that collection, the air in my musical life had become decidedly stale.

I was introduced to XM when my car required extensive warranty service in early 2005. The loaner provided by my dealer had XM and I was quickly hooked. My wife gave me an XM receiver this past Christmas (the Delphi MyFi discussed a few days ago).

The days and weeks since then have felt like an emotional rebirth of sorts. Nothing affects me as profoundly as music. In fact, excepting personal relationships, there is very little outside of music that deeply moves me, so it is enormously satisfying to have rediscovered such an important source of comfort, support and inspiration.

If you enjoy indie music, you'll find it very rewarding to delve further into the titles on the Now Playing lists. I certainly have. It's good stuff. Very good stuff, actually.