VVV Did Ney and Jones really imagine that their "freedom fries" stunt wouldn't backfire quite viciously? I'm sure that private restaurant owner who first changed the name came out ahead, with all the free publicity drawing in enough France-haters to more than make up for any locals put off by his posturing. And maybe those two's districts are sufficiently jingoistic to make the move politically worthwhile. But in the wider court of public opinion, they've done their side no favors. posted by Stentor Danielson at 22:13 -- link --
14.3.03
VVV Directly and indirectly via Jane Galt, I've come across twoarticles making the "slippery slope" argument against gay marriage. The argument is essentially that if we legalize gay marriage, then we'll soon be allowing polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, and whatever other types of undesirable relationships the author can think of. Because these more unconventional relationships are either undesirable in and of themselves, or because (as Stanley Kurtz argues in the second link) allowing so many relationships would make marriage meaningless, we don't dare loosen the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
What I find interesting about this argument is that it implies that there's nothing inherently wrong with gay marriage, and nothing particularly special about heterosexual monogamy. The only thing wrong with gay marriage is that legalizing it would be a change, and the only thing that heterosexual monogamy has going for it is that it's the current status quo. This is a conservative argument in the classical sense. (Conservatism as I'm using it here is not synonymous with right-wing philosophies -- for example, the argument that homosexuality is a sin is a moralist argument used by the right. Classical conservatism can be found on the left as well, for example in the "precautionary principle" with regard to the environment. I should also point out that this definition, while applicable to the case at hand, is more strict than the definition offered by John Quiggin, who characterizes conservatism as a preference for gradual or bottom-up change over sudden or imposed change.) Classical conservatism is risk-averse with respect to new practices. It assumes that, in the absence of substantial proof, changing society is too risky and brings with it too many potential catastrophes to be desirable.
In the case of gay marriage, one could make an equivalent slippery slope argument against a (hypothetical) tightening of the definition of marriage. If we outlaw interracial marriage, it opens the door to outlawing marriages between the rich and poor, and between people whose parents don't approve, and pretty soon nobody will be able to meet the requirements for getting married. When we put the two slippery slopes together, what we get is a view of society precariously balanced on the status quo. A little movement could send things spiralling off into destruction. In this way, conservatism offers little hope for the future, as it postulates that the best we can do is to stay where we are (or perhaps backtrack a bit on the most recent social changes). This involves the assumption that social stability is achievable (doubtful), present in the status quo (wrong), and desirable (questionable, depending on the context).
I don't mean to suggest that slippery slope arguments are always bad, though I don't find the one about gay marriage particularly convincing. But I am skeptical about a philosophy whose basis is slippery slopes. posted by Stentor Danielson at 12:34 -- link --
VVV For those who wish the media would come out and say it when someone (by which they usually mean "President Bush") lies, a story from the Christian Science Monitor:
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
For the most part I agree with the obvious implication of this story, that it's wrong to support the war because you think Saddam was behind September 11, and wrong to encourage that belief in order to rally support. It gets irritating to hear about September 11 all the time from some hawks, and I sympathize with a protest sign I saw somewhere that said "don't hijack our grief." But at the same time I can't entirely blame Bush for bringing up the attacks. While there may be no connection between Saddam and September 11, the attack on the World Trade Center is the type of scenario that hawks motivated by national security concerns fear. It provides a poignant reminder of the sort of devastation that can be wrought by an attack on America. While I'm skeptical of the claim that the war will reduce the threat of a future September 11-like event that is carried out by Iraq, I can accept that it's a plausible argument given the levels of uncertainty surrounding nearly everything we know about the situation. And if we grant the legitimacy of the argument, there's nothing any more disingenuous about invoking September 11 than there is in doves' invocation of the horrors of war. The problem comes when the argument slips into blaming Iraq for September 11. posted by Stentor Danielson at 00:38 -- link --
13.3.03
VVV Two houses down from where I live is the Massachusetts headquarters of Eckankar, which Ethan describes as "like Scientology, only not as successful." From my brief online acquaintance with it, it seems like a fairly typical New Age religion. One of the defining features of New Age religion seems to be its radical syncretism. This is often encapsulated in its leader's spiritual heritage, as New Age leaders claim that they are the latest (and greatest) of a line of prophets that includes most of the major religious leaders of history -- Abraham, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammad, etc. The idea is that all these religions, at least in their true form, share the same underlying spiritual truth.
It seems that we can classify religions' attitudes toward other faiths into four main types -- absolutist, relativist, syncretist, and situationist. Absolutist is the best known (due to Christianity's long history of rigid and strict absolutism), and often when we describe a belief as "religious" we are accusing it of being absolutist. Absolutist religion asserts that there is One True Faith, which is the same for all people, and all other belief systems are at best mistaken and at worst pernicious. Note that absolutist religion need not be intolerant. America's founders formulated the idea of religious freedom based on a form of absolutism that said that, while there is One True Faith, it is inappropriate to coerce others into following it.
Relativist religion says that all faiths are equally valid. Few people take a fully relativist approach, though the accusation of relativism is often thrown against syncretists, situationists, and tolerant absolutists. Relativism is most often promoted by religions that find themselves on the outs in society, and therefore turn to relativism to shield themselves from criticism.
The third type, syncretism, is where New Age religion falls. Syncretism denies the differences between religions, arguing that they are all valid because they share a spiritual core. In essence, syncretism claims that there is one true religion, but everyone already practices it.
Situationist religion is where I would place myself. Situationism says that there is a true religion (or at least that some religions are more true than others), but that the true religion may be different for different people. The correctness of a religion is not an absolute quality, but rather a function of the particular personal characteristics and context of the believer.It differs from syncretism because it maintains that there are meaningful differences between religions, and from relativism because it's possible to make a wrong choice. posted by Stentor Danielson at 23:54 -- link --
12.3.03
VVV To update this post, New Orleans was short on lewd publications as well. I guess they get enough of that kind of thing in real life. posted by Stentor Danielson at 01:23 -- link --
11.3.03
VVV On some level I think my Explanation in Geography professor wants to be persecuted. I don't mean that it's some big driving force for him, but it shows through sometimes that he would be invigorated by a little effort to silence him. After making particularly radical or controversial statements, he tends to turn to Dai or Mohammad and say "I bet I wouldn't be able to get away with saying that in China/Iran!" and he seems a bit disappointed when Mohammad says that the Iranian thought police have loosened up a bit in recent years. He also keeps telling us about how last semester he disparaged God, and some students in the class filed a formal complaint with the Dean.
I suspect it may be partly because he's a Marxist. Radical leftist theories tend to fit things into a paradigm of hegemony and resistance, and make a point of siding with resistance. So these theories work best when they're repressed, because repression validates their hegemony/resistance schema. Reading the chapter in this professor's book that describes the rise of Marxist geography, I got the distinct sense that in his opinion the worst thing that could befall Marxists is for them to be successful. posted by Stentor Danielson at 20:38 -- link --
10.3.03
VVV There must be something to Kabalarian name-analysis -- how else can you explain how they managed to give the exact opposite assessment of nearly every important aspect of my personality (and my weight)? If it were purely random, they'd have gotten at least half of them right.
As Stentor, you are spontaneous, happy-go-lucky, and you enjoy the company of others--the more the merrier. You make friends easily as people are attracted to your warm and generous nature. However, you have to watch that others do not take advantage of your generosity, for you are apt to be influenced by hard-luck stories and give when it might be more prudent not to. You are ever on the watch for ways and means of making some "easy money" because this name destroys initiative and ambition, producing an easy-going, come-what-may nature which attaches value to money only for the self-enjoyment it can offer. Misunderstandings could exist in your personal life because of this emotional power which you have difficulty controlling and also because of a difficulty in accepting a responsibility and seeing it through. You are apt to leave a project unfinished and go on to something else. Routine and system are foreign to your life, and, of course, these assets are an integral part of any successful undertaking. You are fond of sweets and rich foods and your tendency to eat heavily, causes overweight. You could be subject to skin disorders, swelling of the legs and ankles, fluid function disorders or weakness affecting the back.
VVV I've always thought Flynn and I didn't really see eye-to-eye on the war, but maybe it's more of a glass half full/half empty kind of thing. He links approvingly to a column arguing that an intensified and competently and multilaterally run "little war" -- the sanctions and containment being used against Iraq -- is a viable option for avoiding a "big war" (i.e., invasion) now or in the future, as well as avoiding the problems of losing credibility and encouraging Saddam that would be encountered if we simply packed up and dropped the war question. I've been hearing this type of thing a lot lately from moderate and/or realist doves who are tired of hearing that the antiwar movement has no alternative strategy to offer. I think it makes a good deal of sense, though it won't appeal to the types who think the best way to deal with Iraq is to eliminate capitalism. posted by Stentor Danielson at 22:38 -- link --
VVV (politics post now, maybe some geography conference later)
The problem with public opinion is that it lacks subtlety. I don't mean that members of the public don't have nuanced views of things. I mean that the message our leaders recieve as "public opinion" is a caricature, a yes/no for/against response rather than an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches to an issue. This is on my mind because I'm wondering how to describe myself once the war starts.
I can't call myself pro-war, because that would imply an endorsement of the Bush administration's conduct of the war, which -- and I hope he surprises me -- I don't expect to think very highly of. But I can't really call myself anti-war either, because that would imply that extricating ourselves from the war as soon as possible is better, which I don't believe. If we're going to do war, we ought to do it right. "the silent speaker" on the Brunching board said it well: "We can debate whether or not we should be throwing this punch, but the only thing throwing half a punch can result in is a broken wrist." In essence I have a dual-peaked preference -- I prefer no war over war, but I also prefer an effective war over a war compromised by misgivings and hesitation. The Afghanistan campaign would have gone better had we not been concerned that reports of American casualties would weaken domestic support, and thus held back on sending in ground troops. Then there's the issue of what goals I want the war to be effective in pursuing. I'd like to see Bush's stated goals -- the liberation of the Iraqi people, the encouragement of democracy in the Middle East, reducing our reliance on and stationing of troops in Saudi Arabia, the neutralization of whatever weapons Saddam has -- achieved. But there's no good way to communicate a message of "keep your word." posted by Stentor Danielson at 17:59 -- link --
