Ross Judson: Spiral Dive

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 20:03:43 GMT

Protocols Plugin.

I've begun organizing some of my source code with Sten-Erik Bergner's Protocols Plugin for Eclipse. What it does is provide a decent and clean way to organize the members of a Java class. You declare section names and give it a sort order. Then, in the Java Browsing perspective (not the Java perspective), you can drag and drop from the member types window into the list of member categories ("protocols").

The plugin organizes your source code as you go. What you end up with are pretty nice looking source files that have all members that correspond to a given category ("accessing", "creation", "event handling", or whatever) all bunched together, in sorted order.

When you're working with your code, you can click on any Protocol in the Protocols view and have your list of members filtered to include only members of that category. When you're working with larger classes or more mature systems, this is a godsend. You can quickly zero in on public stuff, property handlers, and whatever else you want.

You can make up your own protocol names...I wrote a paper a while back that describes a series of method classifications. I've made some protocol names that correspond to those.

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:20:26 GMT

Secret Identity.

I've just posted a number of the things I've written over at The Ministry Of Minor Perfidy, where I've been writing lately...you might want to check that out if you want to stay current, or read things written by better writers than me.

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:17:44 GMT

The True Cost of Iraq

Brad DeLong highlights a Tom Friedman column that advocates immediately moving into the Israeli-Palestinian situation and forcing Israel's withdrawl.

Let's put a few facts down: First, we spend around $200 Billion and 500 soldier's lives so we can capture Saddam Hussein (there doesn't seem to be any other reason for the war, that was given before the war, that's held up).

Second, we spend aroun $4 Billion a year on aid for Israel, mostly in the form of military aid.

Third, the burn rate for cash in Iraq is around $4 Billion a month.

Fourth, building a Palestinian economy from the ground up would probably cost less than $10 Billion, and it might be a lot less than that. And that's presuming we'd see no long term assets or returns.

Fifth, the primary reason that Palestinians object to the fence is that their economy would be destroyed.

Sixth, the single most significant justification given for Islamic hatred of the US is its support of Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people.

If you add all that up, you realize that instead of throwing all that cash away in Iraq blowing shit up so we can have a theocracy there, we could have forced the creation of the wall between Palestine and Israel, made our aid to Israel contingent on acceptance of our designation of the line's path, and then rebuilt the Palestinian economy by investing an amount equal to the Israeli aid directly behind the wall.

Taking a page from Irshad Manji, we could have used micro-loans to jumpstart the businesses, and we could have specified that fully 50% of those loans must be made to women.

What does all this achieve? It puts significant economic power in the hands of women, which directly counters the stupidest and most pathetically mysoginistic parts of what purports to be Islam in the Palestinian territorires. It gives both sides peace and security. It gives the Palestinians something to do, and a way to feed their families. It will also significantly improve America's standing around the globe, and particularly in Islamic countries.

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:17:26 GMT

Bush Tax Increases

It strikes me that Bush's Administration has done a magnificently bad job of managing government spending. Republicans can crow all they like about tax rates and so forth; yes, there are a few Americans who are paying significantly less federal tax under this President. Most people's tax burdens are pretty much unchanged. What has changed, dramatically, are the outlays.

Bush's war of choice in Iraq is costing every American taxpayer thousands of dollars, personally. That's right, boys and girls -- what does your chunk of $200 Billion come out to? With around 130 million taxpayers, that adds up to over $1500 each. So while Bush giveth a $300 tax cut to the common man (under duress -- Bush didn't want the $300 credit; he wanted a tax cut for the wealthy), he taketh $1500 for this stupid war. That's what you're going to be paying.

The winner of MoveOn's video contest shows children working in factories to pay off the deficit. It's dead on. Interest payments on the debt currently run around $175 Billion per year. That's going to escalate dramatically over the next ten years. While all this debt is accruing, interest rates are going to begin to rise, making that debt dramatically more expensive to service.

Compound interest is a wonderful thing if you're an investor. If you're a debtor, it really, really sucks.

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:17:06 GMT

Being Female in the New Iraq

Riverbend has some critical reading on the subject...what, exactly, does our New Iraq have in store for her?

Let's keep in mind that she's already lost her job because of fundamentalism. What freedom is she going to lose next?

It is not "OK" for the US to allow the religious nutjobs over there to set up any kind of stupid Sharia law system. It is utterly unacceptable to have these alternate, binding courts. Sure, apparently you can use this secondary court system only if there's agreement. Exactly how does that happen? There are all kinds of intimidation that can be brought to bear.

Irshad Manji's recent "The Trouble with Islam" delineates the treatment of Muslim women with distressing detail. Riverbend is becoming a casualty. What good have we done if we simply exchange one oppressor (Hussesin) for another (the anonymous mullah).

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:16:46 GMT

Mandatory Minimums

The wheels of American Justice, just turn and turn...assuming you can get a trial, of course (the SC has yet to weight in on the issue of whether the government really needs to give you a trial at all).

Somebody please explain to me how Andrew Fastow gets ten years for destroying the financial futures of tens of thousands of people by lying and stealing from the public, while a Young woman gets twelve years for being a "part" of a crime she didn't even know was taking place.

These people stole billions from unsuspecting investors. They lied about the state of their company. It's called fraud. Every single one of them should go to jail for the rest of their lives.

Except there's no room for them in jail: We have to continue to imprison people like this:

Date of birth: 1964
Federal sentence: Life plus 5 years
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute
crack cocaine
Prior convictions: None
Date of sentencing: 1992
Algernon Lundy, a Alabama businessman for 15 years and
a father, had never been in trouble with the law and maintains
his innocence. Prosecutors said his cleaning service business
was a cover for a massive crack distribution ring and that he
was the organizer and his friends Ronald and Alvin were his
deputies. No drugs or cash were found or seized, no specific
drug activity recorded, no controlled buys conducted and no
drug source or drug customers identified. Algernon was convicted
of an 18-month involvement in a crack conspiracy almost
entirely on the testimony of Ronald. The sentencing
judge indicated he was bound by mandatory laws to impose
the life sentence. After the trial, Ronald wrote the judge that
he had been threatened and manipulated into falsely testifying
against Algernon in exchange for a lower sentence. The
courts, however, have ruled that Algernon should remain in
prison for life. Ronald is serving a 20-year sentence; the third
co-defendant remains at large.

What the hell is that? No evidence of any actual drugs? Nothing? And the guy gets MORE time than Fastow? Amazing!

This is exactly what we need more of, Repulicans! A judicial system that makes damn sure a judge doesn't become all "activist" and sentence according to the specifics of a case.

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:16:23 GMT

WMDs?

Dean rants a bit about how the Left in this country wouldn't be satisfied if we found thousands of tons of Anthrax. Apparently the discovery of a few old shells with mustard gas in them satisfies him, in terms of "going to war 'cause of WMDs".

Do five seconds of research on the internet on Mustard Gas, and you discover that it isn't a weapon of mass destruction. With a lethality level of around 1% on the battlefield, it just doesn't fit the bill. Of course, if you're a Bush apologist who wants to make a little hay, you pretend it's a WMD.

Whatever.

If Bush had gone in and found those ten thousands tons, he'd have been vindicated. Most of the thinking left would have supported his action. But it didn't happen that way. Exactly where should the Buck Stop?

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:16:04 GMT

The Unlocked Box

Daniel Gross covers ground that, I seem to recall, we've covered here before.

Old folks is gettin' older. Payroll taxes is risin'. Income taxes is goin' down.

Why, pray tell, did we give the richest 1% of this country a massive tax cut? Why, they were going to invest it, right?

But we gave them an income tax reduction. Not an investment tax reduction. If they invest the money, long term, they were already getting a different, lower tax rate.

So why did we give a tax break on income that doesn't go to investment?

Beats me.

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:15:29 GMT

More Job Losses

The Bush economic juggernaut continues to roll right over everyone not directly connected to the GOP gravy train. See this WashPost article for reference.

So what happened last month? All the GDP growth produced...1000 jobs in December. Meanwhile, another 300,000 people stopped looking for work. So while the unemployment rate has "fallen", the far more important employment to population ratio is getting worse and worse.

We'll have to see what happens over the next few months.

Weak holiday hiring by retailers was to blame for holding back job gains. Analysts were surprised by the anemic job growth because they expecting companies to add 100,000 to 150,000 jobs to their payrolls last month. But the net gain was just 1,000 jobs -- which is "quite shocking," Cheney said. "I would certainly have not expected anything resembling that."

Cheney's shocked, huh? What the heck? Maybe the economy isn't quite as simple as tax cut in, standard of living up. Unless you're in that tip-top 1% or so, in which case you can't figure out which BMW or Mercedes you're going to spend your extra cash on (and it will take a lot of extra cash, 'cause the dollar has dropped by 25% versus the Euro).

There's a decided muting to the crowing of GOP cheerleaders...they're all happy about the GDP growth...but where are the jobs?

Oh yeah. They're overseas. And income mobility? Disappearing faster than Powell's "hard evidence" of WMD in Iraq. Raise taxes on the poor, decrease them on the wealthy...what's the effect of that? You prevent regular folks from ever saving up enough money to start their own businesses, and you lock into place the class hierarchy that's becoming increasingly evident in this society.

If you're in Bush's GOP elite, that's precisely what you want. And you're getting it, in spades.

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:15:04 GMT

Jane Galt Can't Add

Or if she can, she chooses to do it only with special, made-up numbers! See Jane obfuscate.

50 comments on that article and not ONE person has bothered to go to the IRS web site and look up the actual data? OK, maybe some of them have. Links follow.

It occurs to me that perhaps Jane ought to have done at least that before invoking the all-magic, all-powerful "he's lying" spell, usable by all sides in all political battles.

I've found reasonably complete information, in the form of spreadsheets, for the tax year 2000. It's probably fairly representative, although subject to some change.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/article/0,,id=96586,00.html

This link will give you an EXE file that decompresses into a series of spreadsheets. These contain plenty of data on income, distributed into fairly narrow bands.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/00inalcr.exe

10 minutes with Excel, and I've found the following:

The average TAXPAYER (not family) with an income under $50,000 pays an average of $2187 in federal taxes. This represents around 13.5% of his income. Since a family of four will have a lot more deductions, the $1600 tax figure seems pretty reasonable to me. According to the IRS spreadsheets, people with incomes below $50,000 pay an average of 13.5% of their income in federal income tax.

Of course, our taxpayer is ALSO paying around 15.8% (his half and employer's half) of his income for the social security boondoggle (which is actually just a flat tax system on the poor, since the money just goes in the general fund anyway). If we adjust the 15.8% for the employer portion (by adding that to total income), it becomes 14.6%.

Add the two of them together, and our guy is paying:

14.6% + 13.5% = 28.1%

Fascinating so far, huh? Our folks under 50k are all paying around 28% of their incomes to the federal government. I'd be pissed off if I was one of them.

So that means are the wealthiest 0.1% of our population are paying more, right? Let's take a look:

In 2000 there were around 240,000 returns filed with incomes in excess of $1,000,000. The average taxpayer in this bracket paid $945,191. Wow. Taxes paid by folks in these bands averaged 30.1% of income. That is ever-so-slightly higher than that paid by our 50k guy. Note that social security payments, as a percentage of income for these taxpayers, are almost non-existent. We can fairly safely factor them out.

If anybody out there wants a flat tax system, I've got news for you: We already have one. People making multi-million dollar incomes pay the same percentage as very hard-working, low-paid folks. And don't cry "investment income" or any such bullshit. All that kind of income has ALREADY been factored out of all of these calculations...taxable vs. non-taxable income.

The bottom line: Clark's numbers are right. He gives the reduction on taxes on those below 50k as around $33 Billion. A 5% tax increase on those over $1,000,000 in income (NOT including that first million), by my numbers, comes to around $35 Billion or so. Seems in balance to me, as of 2000 numbers.

Break out your spreadsheet, and crunch the numbers yourself. You want to leave everything to frickin' pundits and goddamn politicians? Or even worse...bloggers? Like me?

My socialist Canadian education taught me how to use a spreadsheet.

And one other point: If real rich folks use tactics to move more of their income out of the taxable income category, us poor folks win anyway...because to do that, they'll have to invest the money, or put it into non-taxable bonds, or some such thing. These activities benefit the public...

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:14:30 GMT

USS Clueless - Consistent resolve

Den Beste is a good writer, and I certainly wouldn't want to get into any kind of intellectual pissing match with him; I wouldn't last long.

But.

"For thirty years we've been told that patriotism was shameful. " " For thirty years we've been pelted with the message that there was nothing about America that justified any pride."

What the hell is he talking about? "Pelted" with this message? By who? Most of the time? Some of the time?

Be honest. Exactly how much of the time are you pelted with the message that there is "nothing about America that justifies pride". The answer is, of course, hardly ever. The reason? The world's gray, and so is America. There are some very great things about this country and some not very great things.

In Den Beste's America, you're either with him, or you're against him. That is exactly what America is not about.

Several hundred words of bitching about poor, trod-upon "Patriotism", and he doesn't bother to define the term. That seems like something of an omission, until you realize that is isn't an omission. Everybody's definition of patriotism is going to be different. Den Beste's might be "unquestioning adoration for anyone who kicks random ass in response to terrorism". Mine might be "liberty and truth for all". Who knows? But it is almost certain that we disagree.

Den Beste further obscurs by failing to point out that virtually all criticism of America comes from overseas. His "real Americans" are in a sea of, well, people who don't agree with them! Dammit!

The constitution is a fuzzy document, deliberately, so that multiple viewpoints can find a home in this country. We reign in the extremes, and trust that the majority will be reasonably correct.

The poll question I'd like to see answered: Given what we now know about Saddam Hussein's WMD (there aren't any), would you have supported the invasion?

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:14:08 GMT

76 Days

This NY Times article on Captain James Yee's case is rather sobering. Yee, as a few citizens in America may remember, was charged by the military with aiding the enemy, treason, or some such nonsense.

The result of all that is that there has been no evidence whatsoever supporting the charges. They are a complete fabrication. Good, you may say to yourself...the system worked.

Except that this guy spent 76 days, a fair number of them in leg chains, while the assholes who put him there did everything they possibly could to justify their having done so. They've destroyed his life, his family, and everything they could get their hands on.

The military's reaction to this? Pretty much nothing. Would somebody please explain to me how two officers, being charged with exactly the same crime, can be treated so differently? One is given immunity from prosecution, and tells her story. The other is thrown in jail for two and a half months. There must be some kind of legal principle that prevents this. Of course, that may not apply in military courts.

I am just stunned by the whole thing. At what point does a prosecutor figure that it's time to back off?

The double standard is appalling.

I wonder if Donanld Sensing, the team players at LGF, Winds of Change might care to refine their assessment of the case, and perhaps state their views on prosecutor infallibility.

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:13:37 GMT

Fox Hopes Fiancé Delivers Big Fat Win

This show is what they're basing their hopes on? Gimme a break! Idiots! Arggh!

Fox had one of the best shows in memory in their stable in 2002 -- the vastly underappreciated "Firefly". Having purchased the DVDs and finally watched the episodes in order, I can say that this show would have been their season. Dumb-asses!

I have been busy writing a screenplay for a dead show, over the past few days. It's a boatload of fun.

Die Fox, Die!

Mon, 19 Jan 2004 17:12:54 GMT

The Decembrist: Fundraising Letters that Work

You might want to read this particular Republican Fundraising Letter. What's it about? Simple!

" Please help us reach our goal of 450,000 AMERICAN grassroots contributors to the Presidents campaign."

This is a direct attack on Dr. Dean's unprecedented contributions from over 540,000 AMERICANS. Bush has been campaigning, or been president, for almost six years now. During that time he's amassed around 400,000 supporters, the majority of whom are direct beneficiaries of his policies. Dean's only been on this roll for about a year, and he's already got more individual contributors.

Bush's problem is that he's hit the folks who are going to give him cash already. Republicans have always relied on a small number of wealthy donors to drive their fundraising. They've done it through a laundry list of perqs and "access" come-ons. I've had GOP neighbors ask me to attend a dinner, or attend fundraisers, and $5,000 a plate. "Why?" I would ask. "Because you'll meet ALL the right people", they explain. "You'll be able to get to know people who can help you."

That's my GOP fundraising experience so far. We should probably note at this point that I'm Canadian, and as such, cannot (and will not) contribute to any election, at least in monetary terms.

That GOP fundraising letter is an attempt to mislead supporters into believing that the gosh-darned foreigners are trying to buy the election. Foreigners like George Soros!

Except....the Soros is an American citizen.

You gotta love these blatant attempts to fan the flames of racism and xenophobia. You gotta be scared of the people it works on.

Thu, 08 Jan 2004 04:19:28 GMT

Jane Galt Can't Add.

Tue, 16 Dec 2003 04:02:03 GMT

Laughing at the Environment.

Gregg Easterbrook sounds off on the lack of positive press coverage of Bush's "environmental initiatives".

I started wandering around the CBO site and the EPA site, trying to get a feel for how the budgets have changed over the past decade or so. It's pretty hard to do -- the budget offices have conveniently changed their categories and document formats, seemingly every year...which makes it really hard to break out a category, such as air quality, and understand it.

EPA gives the 2004 legal services budget as $46 million or so. That sure doesn't seem like much; $46 million to chase after every non-compliant polluter in the country? My understanding is that the EPA is absolutely snowed under -- major polluters are out there that they simply do not have the budget to go after. In some of these cases, there are crimes being committed. The budget just isn't there to pursue it.

My overall impression is that Bush has gutted the enforcement end of the EPA budget. We all know that nothing pisses off a Republican more than some pinko commie environmentalist wanting to save a stupid squirrel or spotted crap-warbler or whatever it is that's currently in front of the bulldozer. Scattered searches have shown me that there's been around a 20% reduction in enforcement manpower over the past two years.

One way to avoid having pollution laws is to stop enforcing them. This is the Bush method.

Easterbrook says "The rub is that existing Clean Air Act power-plant regulations and "state implementation plans," which govern overall airshed quality, have led to runaway litigation, with the typical Clean Air Act rule taking ten years of legal proceedings to finalize, according to a study by Steve Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute. Bush's Clear Skies bill would scrap the litigation-based system and substitute the "cap and trade" approach that has been spectacularly successful at reducing acid rain. "

Makes me wonder if a "cap and trade" system would work for crime. You know, criminals in low-crime communities could buy the right to beat people up or kill people from criminals in high-crime communities. Everybody wins! Crime goes down.

Or, maybe we realize that pollution is a bad thing, and whatever we can do to reduce it is probably a good idea.

Let's remember that Bush is gutting the current legislation, which would have achieved the pollution targets far more aggressively (particularly with regard to mercury -- remember that Bush's EPA suppressed a study on mercury for nine months because they didn't like the scary sounding results), in favor of a much slower approach. The justification is that the current system is "litigation intense". It doesn't make sense to complain on one hand that a system can't litigate fast enough, and then to cut that legal department on the other hand. Bush is essentially creating a problem (or, to be fair, making it worse) by cutting the budget, then pointing at that problem as the reason for scrapping the program.

All I see here is that we could have chosen to enforce the current laws, and air pollution would have been dramatically cleaned up inside of five years. Instead, we're on a 15 year merry-go-round, subject to the whatever the current whims of the energy industry are, as channelled by Bush and Corporation.

Tue, 09 Dec 2003 04:15:24 GMT

Morality, I Guess.

Rosemary (Dean's World) points out the following post, written from a Christian moral perspective, on the "gay issue". Here's my response...

You want someone to challenge your logic, or challenge your assumptions. I wonder if you have looked at what you've written, and have an understanding of the assumptions therein. My short list:

1. You assume some may view you as fascist. This is highly unlikely; by inserting this drastic word, you grant yourself immunity -- you can say, "I am not that bad. I am not that extreme".

2. You assume homosexuality is a choice. As others have pointed out, the act is a choice, but the feelings are not. Unless you have a mechanism for knowing what's inside someone else's head, you're just going to have to take their word for it. I certainly won't pretend to know what goes on in your head.

3. You assume concepts drive human beings. We are many parts logic and many parts emotion.

4. You state that there is a high correlation between drug use and homosexuality without providing a single serious source. Without an unbiased source this does not stand.

5. You provide no examples of "all sorts of unfortunate consequences", with which we might connect homosexuality. What consequences, exactly, are you speaking of?

6. You indicate that disagreement with the "choice" theory is in fact "denial". This is only true if the "choice" theory is in fact true. If the choice theory is wrong, then there is no denial. Support your choice theory with actual evidence, generalize it, and then perhaps you have a denial argument. Otherwise, nothing.

7. You indicate that the position holding that AIDS is not a homosexual disease is once again "denial"; denial is against your pattern of morality, therefore such denial is immoral. Homosexuality is emotion and a set of physical choices, made in the context of those emotions. Certain physical choices in the gay male community have resulted in increased rates of AIDS in that community. There are millions of heterosexual persons all over the world who've made certain physical choices, and AIDS has been the result. Statistically most AIDS victims in the world are heterosexual. There are numerous other sexually transmitted diseases, the very vast number of which are equally available to hetero- and homo-sexual persons. Is there some reason why you single out AIDS, as opposed to other diseases, as an indicator of lack of morality? Perhaps you intend that _any_ sexually transmitted disease is evidence of behavior that contradicts your moral pattern.

8. You state that the homosexual population "at large" should "accept responsibility". For what? What should they confess to? If you are referring to the "homosexual disease" notion, you need to back that up with some kind of statistical evidence. I don't see it. If you're referring to the "choice" argument, prove its a choice, and we can talk. You haven't proven it. You've _stated_ it.

9. I must confess that I do not know what a "bug-chaser" is. If I did, I would probably disagree with you.

10. You indicate that there are homosexual "demands". You make several assumptions: First, that homosexuals are the only ones who want these social changes to happen. I am happy to be your first counter-example. Second, you assume that the homosexual community is homogeneous in demanding, rather than supporting. It is highly unlikely that the gay community is sigificantly unlike any other community in this regard -- a minority of persons feel extremely strongly about an issue and press very hard, while most simply favor one side or the other and go about their lives. I am certain that within your Church community, you find a similar spectrum of activity with regards to gay issues.

11. You make the rather ridiculous assumption that 100,000 happy, lifelong monogramous gay couples do not presently exist. I'm just one guy who barely knows any gay people at all, and I know two couples like that. Come to think of it, that's 50% of the gay people I know. ;) Do that math on that.

12. You make the assumption that there is something that needs to be _proven_ to you, or to other people, at all. Why should gay people have to do _anything_ to convince you of the "correctness" of their lifestyle? At which point, exactly, did your particular brand of religion become a benchmark? The founders of this country were very explicit in their desire that religion be a fundamental freedom. The heart of that is the notion that personal religious choices _must_ be protected; to ensure that, the _public_ does not make such choices. Where possible, society usually chooses to engage in religious acts in circumstances that are _voluntary_, thus ensuring personal religious choice.

13. You make the assumption that homosexuals are offended (and "adolescent") by your notion that morality be a part of marriage. My opinion is that they are not offended by the notion; they're offended by your definition of morality. You confuse the two. Of course "morality" can be part of the marriage discussion, but you've got to agree on what that is. You've made no argument as to the correctness of your "morality", other than your opinion that it is in fact the "best". History gives us a lot of examples within your religion and others of people saying it also. You might want to provide some evidence you're right.

14. You're not advocating responsbility and morality. You're advocating acceptance of a moral framework, then defining responsibility as the act of gauging oneself according to that framework. Can there be no responsibility outside that framework?

15. You assume that the teachings of today's Churches (or religions) do, in fact, represent a "combined wisdom of ages". Give the fact that historically most repression, violence, and hatred has had religion at the core, how do you presume this? Personally, I think organized religions have a hell of a long way to go before they can presume to tell anything to anybody about morality.

16. You state that you're not going to "give up and let homosexual advocates freely erode our standards". You assume that "your" standards are "our" standards. You also assume that something like gay marriage represents an "erosion" of standards. Feel free to give evidence for either one of these assumptions.

The point by point is over, but...I have to agree with Dean on how short the conversation _should_ be, ideally.

If we start with the notion that all persons are equal in this country, we note that the structural institution of marriage conveys with it a certain relationship with the state (taxation, granting of power of attorney, right to visit, etc). This particular state is granted to married persons. Is this special relationship a "reward" that the state provides to encourage marriage? It is not. The government provides a means with which we can define familial bonds, and thereby derive the answers to many other important questions, such as responsibilities of a person (parent to child, man to wife), inheritance, accessibility (next of kin for health purposes), genetic compatibility (cousins marryin') and so on.

You want to _deny_ this choice to two people who happen to be gay. You don't know these people and their lives have no intersection with yours. This falls squarely into the "telling other people what to do" category. Why should you be allowed to tell other people what to do?

Well, there might be some _direct_ effect on you, and there are _indirect_ effects. I am quite hard-pressed to think of a direct effect on you, Nathan, if two gay men in Iowa get married. So I assume that you are talking about indirect effects.

Which brings us back to the "consequences" argument above: You made the assumption that being gay brings a host of negative consequences without providing any examples that this is so. You could try to find some correlation between homosexuality and crime rates, or homosexuality and tax evasion, or homosexuality and any other generally agreed _secular_ negative phenomenon, I guess. Maybe you can dig something up that shows a "decay" of that type. If so, bring it on. You have a path to legitimacy there. Contravening your personal moral code doesn't count.

You do have a right to educate your kids as you see fit, and it seems you have taken that path. The generally agreed-upon standard that we have in society is that we favor tolerance. If someone is gay, let them be gay. If someone is X, let them be X. But we also teach that if someone swings their fist and impacts your nose, you don't need to let them swing their fist.

Are you saying that you believe tolerance towards gays (and other groups) should not be taught in schools? Or do you believe that intolerance should actively be taught? You are unclear on this point. The consensus within society is, at the moment, that being homosexual is no big deal. You don't have a right to punch someone in the face for being gay. Teaching kids that it's not OK to punch someone in the face for being gay is not the same as encouraging them to be gay. I remain perplexed as to why certain religious conservatives cannot make this distinction.

So the core of this argument becomes: How does this affect you at all? What logic or justification provides you with the right to control the definition of marriage and grant or deny a relationship with the state as a result? What justification do you provide for imposing your will on other people by creating inequity with respect to the state?

I haven't seen any yet.

Fri, 05 Dec 2003 07:36:10 GMT

I Am The Enemy Of All That Is Purple.

Dear AL,

Must be great to be you, what with the keeper-of-the-truth T-Shirt you got from God, or wherever. I lost mine a while back. Or, I think I used to own one. I'm not sure.

Let's assume that we're both reasonably intelligent people, capable of figurin' on our own.

We reach our opinions through a combination of experience, trusted facts/sources, logic, and emotional inclination. Is there a category I missed? Some kind of green misty field that warps truth?

What dismays me about most right-wing debate is the lack of specificity. You use loose words to describe nebulous concepts; you use sweeping generalizations to juxtapose an opinion you don't like with an evil that is unquestioned.

I asked if I'm "Idiotarian" or not. Nobody seems to be answering. Are you just being nice? Or, given a moment to think about it, does the term just seem a little unclear?

Where are the tripwires? What are your issue tests to qualify/disqualify?

Generalizing can be fun. I can start by picking a few groups, like terrorists, anti-abortion militants, Bush's economic advisors, and street drug dealers. A bad lot, all around.

I think I'll call them "Purples", and then I'll wax all axiomatic about how there's a big Purple love-fest going on, with plenty of winking and solidary and people-eating for all. See how it's all part of the same conspiracy?

Which is all ridiculous, of course. And so is...the I-Word. If you can't define it.

Diversity is a beautiful thing.

And to all, a good night...

Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:16:51 GMT

Anti-Anti-Idiotarianism.

Joe Katzman cheerfully avoids the discomfort of actually having to answer the question I posed: exactly how big is the "big tent" of Idiotarianism?

"Leftists" in universities wink at Jihadists in the same way that "Rightists" at CCC meetings wink at cross burners.

You (the collective you) draw connections where they don't exist. Can a female university student believe that Palestinians have a legitimate cause, as a people? Not in Katzman's world: her belief structure means she is a "feminazi", an "islamofascist", an "anti-semite", an "animal rights nazi"... you get the idea. But there's more! She's also "hostile to rational thought", "winking at jihadists", an an apologist for murder, to boot!

Wow, that's a lot of evil in one little girl. Who knew?

All I say is she thinks the Palestinians might have a point. But your dots become fully connected, defensively, instantly...

And yes, Joe, filling a few paragraphs fifty percent full of insult and bluster cheapens discourse.

I believe in national health care. Did that qualify me for "radical left"? I think we need more regulation on corporations. Did that qualify me? Taxes don't really bother me all that much, although they should, given what I pay. I can keep going, if I haven't qualified yet.

Maybe I can take a brief time-out, and refer to you as a McVeigh Republican. Makes sense to me; if I have only one brush. You like guns and shootin' stuff and smaller government and blowin' stuff up, and so did he. But I won't, because it's just stupid. You're a more complex individual than that, and because you share one characteristic (smaller government) with a real bad guy, doesn't mean you share the entire belief system.

A system of belief is a complex, evolving entity. Simplification of this is a very bad idea because over-simplicity creates conflict. We need to have room to move. Diplomacy needs to be able to maneuver. Tolerance is based in flexibility. Viewing social issues as members of a class of NP-complete problems renders the whole unsolvable.

The "anti-idiotarian", nose in the air, close-minded, take no shit, f-you-and-the-horse-you-rode-in-on, superiority complex delivered by the average invoker of the word seems, to many of us, to be a great way to create enemies unnecessarily. And that's how my family gets endangered.

Tolerance starts with respect, which is apparently in short supply these days.

So am I or ain't I the big "I"?

Do you want a label, or a discourse? The last line I hear from the right wingers I argue with (sorry, "debate with") in person is almost always "I can't respond to that, but you just have to respect the fact that I believe something different from you".

So I do. It's a start, because they're never going to change their minds if you don't.

Thu, 04 Dec 2003 07:15:49 GMT

Shiny Red Button Worship.

I bow down to all you badass motherf@#$@rs. The kick'em in the teeth crowd; the take-no-shit crowd; the make-me-a-sandwich boys. You own the playground. You can tape signs on the backs of the nerds.

Then you grow up. You work in a gas station. And the nerd working in corporate fires your ass.

Den Beste gives us a marvelous example of true extremism -- the casual contemplation of nuclear genocide to rid ourselves of a tiny, nasty minority within a population with which we are currently somewhat adversarial. I find his words to be a smooth, oily kind of evil. This rush to judgement, rush to the end-game...it's an unnecessary exercise of brinksmanship and absolutism.

Is this the point at which I need to reassert myself as a card-carrying citizen of whatever democracy? Say a few things to earn respect? Boo-ya. Capitalism kicks ass. Taxes suck! I support the troops! I like pancakes and Samurai Jack. That's the limit of rote platitudes I can muster, in this moment.

I have said repeatedly that what the Arabs need to fear the most is that we begin to think about them the way they (or their extremes) think about us. But what do they really think about us? Would you kill Savas, the generous and kind Arab who showed me Istanbul? Because when you guys talk about your armies and your shiny red buttons, and how very much you'd like to push them, but only if somebody absolutely makes you do it.

Exactly how close do you all think we are, to the brink? Are we one step removed from annihilation?

We've been there for forty years, and the extremists had nothing to do with it. We put ourselves there. We built the technology; we built it, and now they've come, in the night. But we can't put the jack back in the box. It doesn't work that way.

There are two essential positions vis-a-vis the terrorists/extremists in this world. You can either do something to get'em to love us, or you can try to get'em to fear us.

Den Beste and rest of the button pushers sure do definitely want them to fear us. Never mind the cost of such an action to our souls, the very heart of what makes our countries fundamentally better. We try to do the right thing.

Is there not a 40 year object lesson in Israel right now that teaches us about this particular endgame? It leads nowhere. If we are unwilling to engage a final (read: death to them all) solution, a population cannot be suppressed through fear and violence. It only incites more violence and hatred. Like a bully in a playground, the blows rain down on someone who can't fight back, won't fight back. And then a gun shows up in the hands of the victim, and someone dies, and then the cycle starts again...the history of the world is written in these small cycles, and expanded to the larger canvas of civilizations.

I refuse to accept the playground. There are other ways. We can grow up, grow out of this. Hatred can be eased, when we recognize it on both sides for what it is.

Those in the center must find the strength to reject attempts at domination by the extremists.

This has been a circuitous route to "Idiotarianism"...but here's the point: You cannot eliminate terrorism through force. If you think it can be done through force, you are an idiot. Thousands of years of human history tell us, with exacting clarity that in any population there are misfits, there are malcontents, and there are those who are insane. The only defense we have against these sad souls is a population that doesn't want them around. People are the early warning system.

If America had ten Timothy McVeighs, and they went to Moscow, they rented ten white vans, bought twenty tons of fertilizer, and blew holes in buildings, killing a few thousand Russians, we'd have a number of people in this country who'd say "good riddance". A Russian Den Beste might push his button at that point, which would be idiotic.

Technology is dangerous. I get that, deeply and fundamentally. It places more and more power into the hands of fewer and fewer people, as every year goes by. There is no way to stop it. Suitcase nukes, an aerosol of death, radioactive dust...and in the future, we may have nuclear-powered nanites carrying tiny bladders of vile poison deep into the heart of the enemy, whoever that is.

When the next destructive wonder comes along, will you play the same risk analysis game? Will you decide that the newest technology wonder is too dangerous for others to have, and that it requires a pre-emptive strike? If we don't push our button, maybe we won't get the chance...and God won't give us 50 points at the Pearly Gates for having "smited enemies when we had the damn chance."

Holy Christ, I'm one of the pansy peaceniks, or something. I mean, why would God have given the US an Army if he didn't intend for it to be used?

Commenter Ben informs us: So the left will become more frustrated, radicalized, and dangerous. You shoot mad dogs. You may not like it, but you really have no choice. Either shoot the mad dogs, or let them destroy you and your family, your friends, and your nation.

With that paragraph I think we've arrived at the reason why "Idiotarian" bothers me so much. It's a big, obvious hook on which the narrow-minded, vicious hard right can hang anything or anyone they don't understand or don't like. It's a parrot-talk word. It cheapens the intellectual underpinnings of the true conservative and re-renders genuine argument into lead-based pablum. It's a single-color paintbrush in a multi-color world.

Right now there are tens of thousands of relatives of thousands of newly dead Iraqis who have developed a permanent hatred of the US. A significant chunk of that emotion is generated by the right-wing rhetorical chaining of 9/11 to Iraq; the perception is that they're being killed in retribution for something that they didn't do. I can't think of a better way to piss people off than that.

I know how the average American would react if he was convicted of something he didn't do. He'd scream bloody murder, vow revenge, and find a way to get back at whoever put him there. Why expect people in other countries to be any different?

Maybe they're on 3/5 of a person, per person, over there. Maybe it's less.

Yes, the rambling needs to stop. Here's one last bit of nasty perspective:

Den Beste says that "what we're trying to do in Iraq seems to be the only way to keep the body count in this war from making WWII look small". Let's go horrible, terrible-case and assume a nuke in terrorist hands...a crude suitcase model will do.

Deaths in Hiroshima: 65,000 in the first four months. That's about what would happen in a modern city, too, with a nuke of comparable size, within a factor of two or three.

Deaths in World War II: Around 50 MILLION.

Why don't we lay off on the comparisons between Al Qaeda and WWII, ok? It's BS. The only thing that could possibly generate truly high and horrific deaths are biologicals, which are going to be substantially easier to work with in the future than nukes. It's probably a bad time to "accidentally" kill an Arab microbiologist's son.

Al Qaeda are criminals. You don't nuke a neighborhood because it produces criminals. You don't walk into the neighborhood and shoot randomly, unless you don't think humans live in the neighborhood. Don't be suprised if the feeling is mutual, then..

This would be a great time for Buckethead to get a word in edgewise, and demonstrate to me just how far out of my tree I have managed to get myself.

Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:31:25 GMT

The Great Divide.

Here's a little reading...the gap between the western and arab press never ceases to amaze me...

Hearts and Minds - US style

Dozens killed in Samarra carnage

Thwarted Ambush Was Highly Coordinated, U.S. Officials Say

U.S. Forces Kill 54 Iraqis After Ambushes

You can see the dramatic differences...

Here's the thing: Last night the lead on Aljazerra was this:

"Innocents killed in Samarra bloodbath Al-Jazeera, Qatar - 17 hours ago US troops in the Iraqi town of Samarra have admitted to perpetrating a bloodbath, with one occupation spokesman confirming nearly four dozen people were killed ... "

I just cut and pasted that from google's news cache...now, if you click through that same story reads like this:

"US occupation authorities in Iraq have raised the Samarra carnage toll to 54.

An unnamed military spokesman on Monday did not specify if those killed were resistance fighters or civilians."

The Aljazeera headline was revised between last night and today. The question is, what does the Arabic headline say? Who revised it? Who wrote it in the first place? I am still trying to find a cached version of the page from last night, which basically said that US forces went in and shot up a bunch of civilians, in a "bloodbath".

At first I thought that was completely ridiculous. I still do, but this morning I heard another report describing a number of civilian casualties during this event. It is clear that at least some civilians died. It is also very clear that the "resistance" fighters melt into the local population, and therefore put that population at risk. A US soldier has the right to shoot back, when he's being shot at.

My old line about Arabs applies in this situation. What the Arab should fear the most is that we begin to think about him the same way he thinks about us. If that ever happens...they only think they know suffering.

The sheer level of disinformation that the average Arab must wade through is incredible. Read this piece by John Burns. It's a conversation between Iraqis and a reporter. It's amazing. These are smart people; how did they get to this point? How are their information sources so corrupt, so inaccurate?

If you've got the time, I also suggest reading Greg Packer's New Yorker article, which gives us great examples of the hope and frustration on both sides. It's lengthy, so set aside some time, but well worth it. I read the print version, but this online version has additional content.