![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Good morning, citizens. How do you feel about a city that aims to prototype the dystopia of Minority Report, claiming it will be good for everyone to have their irises scanned at all times, and that most people's lives are already well-documented on-line by a horde of entities anyway. Well, it would certainly be easier to keep everyone in a social straightjacket with the knowledge that if you nip out to the bar or to the bondage club, there will be a record of it, which someone can hack and blackmail you for, or the government can put more eyes on, or that your neighbors will be alerted to so they can know you're an antisocial deviant and be suspicious of you.
After all, when we have asinine school policies that forbid women from wearing tuxedoes to their senior pictures and remove them from the yearbook because of that decision, and books that reinforce rigid gender norms and insist that their targets follow them to the letter if they ever want a chance of dating, do we really want to give the power of the panopticon to the people who are least likely to use it responsibly?
Out in the world today, it's not just Muslims and/or Hispanic-origin people in the United States that get the eyes and the "go away" motions. France is moving Roma people out of the country, offering them a pittance if they agree to go voluntarily back to Romania, and A Danish political party is ready to insist that no-one from a non-Western country be allowed to immigrate to Denmark. And, following on from earlier, the former IDF soldier who posted herself and Palestinian prisoners bound under the caption of "The Best Days of My Life" is unapologetic about the post or the attitude that produced the caption.
Will the last combat brigade leaving Iraq leave the lights on for all the contractors and advisory troops? The mission may change, but the people are still there. As one might guess, the presence in Iraq will still be there, and still be felt - we've just moved all of the officially-there-for-combat troops out. That's not to say that the leaving of the troops hasn't induced anxiety in the Iraqi people. When all is said and done, though, I wonder whether we'll look back on this much like the kamikaze pilots of World War II - impressive, yet steeped in something significantly alien to our own world. Or whether we'll be shocked by the amount of difficulties, murders, suicides, and violence committed as we try to reintegrate soldiers coming home.
A court in Saudi Arabia is considering whether to inflict paralysis on an attacker convicted of cutting and paralyzing his victim, in a manner reminiscent of Hammurabi more than God, despite the claims of the Shylocks insisting on their pound of flesh.
Dimming the chances of having three land wars in Asia going on at the same time, The United States believes Iran will take longer to copmlete steps toward a nuclear weapon than Israel, and is trying to convince Israel of its timeline, not theirs, in hopes of stalling a pre-emptive strike. For those who are invested in demonizing Iran as fanatics and are certain the only way to stop them is through pre-emptive strikes, this is just one more reason to call the Obama administration cowards and hope that Israel decides to act on Iran unilaterally.
Catholic adoption agencies in the United Kingdom have failed in their bid to exclude lesbian and gay parents from adopting through their agencies.
And finally, Canadian officials found bears in a marijuana crop field as they were seizing the plants. Apparently the bears were not aggressive, though, so if they were intended to be guards, they didn't do a whole lot.
Domestically, noted anti-feminist Sarah Palin cast her lot with noted racist and anti-feminist Laura Schlessinger, believing the former radio host to be more dangerous now that she's not shackled to the sponsors. Other than the bit where Ms. Palin commits the same rhetorical fault about First Amendment rights, if Schlessinger follows the Palin way, Palin might have a point. But could the political stage handle them both, or would then anihiliate each other in a matter-antimatter explosion, especially over single mother Bristol Palin?
The Republicans and their money-making enterprises seem to be focusing on governor's races this year, with good reason - redistricting after a census, which would make it easier for them to draw districts that will elect Republicans for the next ten years. In that context, the contributions of News Corp and other corporations made possible by the Citizens United decision makes more sense. Citizens United is definitely the best thing to happen to conservative candidates for a while, as it allows the management to make political decisions on behalf of the workers and customers, many who will not agree with those decisions nor want their money to be used in such a manner. That will certainly make it interesting how prices and politics intersect.
On the matter of the Park 51 community center in New York, the AP provides a serious linguistic and factual smackdown, giving good reasons for anyone who says "Ground Zero Mosque" in relation to the project to be looked at askance if not laughed at.
The projections for the American economy's recovery are anemic, and despite the efforts of the party in power, their attempts at legislation and doing something continue to be blocked by the opposition.
Into opinions we go, where the Park 51 Center, and Islam in general, is still foremost in the columnists' minds. Ms. Ali provides a framing insight into how conservatives view Park 51 - as yet another battleground in the clash of civilizations between the West (yaaay) and Islam (boooooo), one which Islam is winning with superior propaganda and Wastern unwillingness, especially President Obama, to promote themselves as unqieu, special, and exceptional. Drawing from that viewpoint, the insistence that Park 51 is a Mosque At Ground Zero, an Insult to Americans, and a reminder of Islam's triumph against the West on 11 September becomes a little bit easier to read and understand, regardless of the truth value of the argument. And they contextualize the continuing panic over Shariah law, working off of the rather bonkers assumption that it will be stealthed or openly made a part of American law with force and will then be used to commit officially-sanctioned killings, maimings, demean women, and otherwise create the Islamic States of America reasonably well - if you see them as barbarians, of course you're going to focus on the worst parts of the barbarism to scare your own people into killing them first.
Today's opinions also highlight that while the left thinks of the Republicans and the Tea Partiers as two heads of the same hydra, those aligning themselves with the Tea Partiers insist that the Republicans will have to do some things, once elected, to keep their continued support or want to distance themselves from Republicans, whome they see as part of the spending problem.
Ms. Malkin wants you to see a major ethics problem involving a former SEIU lawyer on the National Labor Relations Board, but the case she makes is, well, light. Or, at least, it lacks a conclusion. She throws out all these problems and apparent conflicts-of-interest, but doesn't tie it together into something to be panicing about, other than "people who've worked on a contract before are re-hired if a new contract comes through at the same location.", which is apparently really bad, but I can't figure out why.
Mr. Sowell at least finds his point, that tax increases on the rich and corporations are always passed on to the people who can least afford cost increases, early on, but he misses the logical conclusion, preferring instead to see it as a problem of government taxing, rather than corproations and rich individuals ducking and shirking responsibility for their fellows by passing on the costs of taxes on their profits.
On a similar missed point exercise, The WSJ complains that a drug that costs a significant amount, only provides a moderate benefit on average, and runs the risk of some very toxic side effects should be approved by the FDA anyway, in the name of "choice" for patients anyway. An interesting slide from the usual metric of means-testing, choosing this time to say that we should approve for the small amount who will benefit greatly, when in almost any other arena of government, they copmlain about rules, laws, and regulations that will benefit only a small amount greatly. To be contrarian is to be consistently inconsistent, apparently.
Mr. Vadum returns to an old well, bringing up new reasons to be afraid of the "corrupt" community group ACORN, after praising an Appeals court decision that said the Congressional bill to strip their funding based on lies was not actually a bill of attainder. I think ACORN is being primed to be the next fear target again, once Park 51 runs its course.
Finally, in opinions, the ACLU and the Washington Times agree that Amazon shouldn's have to turn over records of all the people in North Carolina who bought material from Amazon - the ACLU because it would violate the privacy of the consumers, the Times because they think trying to force residents to pay sales tax on all that they bought from Amazon is making Amazon into a government agent, and they hate private enterprise being forced to become government agents. (Contracted and paid to do it, though? Go right ahead!)
Last for tonight, Aphoristic wisdom from Mr. Charlie Chan. And a tit.
After all, when we have asinine school policies that forbid women from wearing tuxedoes to their senior pictures and remove them from the yearbook because of that decision, and books that reinforce rigid gender norms and insist that their targets follow them to the letter if they ever want a chance of dating, do we really want to give the power of the panopticon to the people who are least likely to use it responsibly?
Out in the world today, it's not just Muslims and/or Hispanic-origin people in the United States that get the eyes and the "go away" motions. France is moving Roma people out of the country, offering them a pittance if they agree to go voluntarily back to Romania, and A Danish political party is ready to insist that no-one from a non-Western country be allowed to immigrate to Denmark. And, following on from earlier, the former IDF soldier who posted herself and Palestinian prisoners bound under the caption of "The Best Days of My Life" is unapologetic about the post or the attitude that produced the caption.
Will the last combat brigade leaving Iraq leave the lights on for all the contractors and advisory troops? The mission may change, but the people are still there. As one might guess, the presence in Iraq will still be there, and still be felt - we've just moved all of the officially-there-for-combat troops out. That's not to say that the leaving of the troops hasn't induced anxiety in the Iraqi people. When all is said and done, though, I wonder whether we'll look back on this much like the kamikaze pilots of World War II - impressive, yet steeped in something significantly alien to our own world. Or whether we'll be shocked by the amount of difficulties, murders, suicides, and violence committed as we try to reintegrate soldiers coming home.
A court in Saudi Arabia is considering whether to inflict paralysis on an attacker convicted of cutting and paralyzing his victim, in a manner reminiscent of Hammurabi more than God, despite the claims of the Shylocks insisting on their pound of flesh.
Dimming the chances of having three land wars in Asia going on at the same time, The United States believes Iran will take longer to copmlete steps toward a nuclear weapon than Israel, and is trying to convince Israel of its timeline, not theirs, in hopes of stalling a pre-emptive strike. For those who are invested in demonizing Iran as fanatics and are certain the only way to stop them is through pre-emptive strikes, this is just one more reason to call the Obama administration cowards and hope that Israel decides to act on Iran unilaterally.
Catholic adoption agencies in the United Kingdom have failed in their bid to exclude lesbian and gay parents from adopting through their agencies.
And finally, Canadian officials found bears in a marijuana crop field as they were seizing the plants. Apparently the bears were not aggressive, though, so if they were intended to be guards, they didn't do a whole lot.
Domestically, noted anti-feminist Sarah Palin cast her lot with noted racist and anti-feminist Laura Schlessinger, believing the former radio host to be more dangerous now that she's not shackled to the sponsors. Other than the bit where Ms. Palin commits the same rhetorical fault about First Amendment rights, if Schlessinger follows the Palin way, Palin might have a point. But could the political stage handle them both, or would then anihiliate each other in a matter-antimatter explosion, especially over single mother Bristol Palin?
The Republicans and their money-making enterprises seem to be focusing on governor's races this year, with good reason - redistricting after a census, which would make it easier for them to draw districts that will elect Republicans for the next ten years. In that context, the contributions of News Corp and other corporations made possible by the Citizens United decision makes more sense. Citizens United is definitely the best thing to happen to conservative candidates for a while, as it allows the management to make political decisions on behalf of the workers and customers, many who will not agree with those decisions nor want their money to be used in such a manner. That will certainly make it interesting how prices and politics intersect.
On the matter of the Park 51 community center in New York, the AP provides a serious linguistic and factual smackdown, giving good reasons for anyone who says "Ground Zero Mosque" in relation to the project to be looked at askance if not laughed at.
The projections for the American economy's recovery are anemic, and despite the efforts of the party in power, their attempts at legislation and doing something continue to be blocked by the opposition.
Into opinions we go, where the Park 51 Center, and Islam in general, is still foremost in the columnists' minds. Ms. Ali provides a framing insight into how conservatives view Park 51 - as yet another battleground in the clash of civilizations between the West (yaaay) and Islam (boooooo), one which Islam is winning with superior propaganda and Wastern unwillingness, especially President Obama, to promote themselves as unqieu, special, and exceptional. Drawing from that viewpoint, the insistence that Park 51 is a Mosque At Ground Zero, an Insult to Americans, and a reminder of Islam's triumph against the West on 11 September becomes a little bit easier to read and understand, regardless of the truth value of the argument. And they contextualize the continuing panic over Shariah law, working off of the rather bonkers assumption that it will be stealthed or openly made a part of American law with force and will then be used to commit officially-sanctioned killings, maimings, demean women, and otherwise create the Islamic States of America reasonably well - if you see them as barbarians, of course you're going to focus on the worst parts of the barbarism to scare your own people into killing them first.
Today's opinions also highlight that while the left thinks of the Republicans and the Tea Partiers as two heads of the same hydra, those aligning themselves with the Tea Partiers insist that the Republicans will have to do some things, once elected, to keep their continued support or want to distance themselves from Republicans, whome they see as part of the spending problem.
Ms. Malkin wants you to see a major ethics problem involving a former SEIU lawyer on the National Labor Relations Board, but the case she makes is, well, light. Or, at least, it lacks a conclusion. She throws out all these problems and apparent conflicts-of-interest, but doesn't tie it together into something to be panicing about, other than "people who've worked on a contract before are re-hired if a new contract comes through at the same location.", which is apparently really bad, but I can't figure out why.
Mr. Sowell at least finds his point, that tax increases on the rich and corporations are always passed on to the people who can least afford cost increases, early on, but he misses the logical conclusion, preferring instead to see it as a problem of government taxing, rather than corproations and rich individuals ducking and shirking responsibility for their fellows by passing on the costs of taxes on their profits.
On a similar missed point exercise, The WSJ complains that a drug that costs a significant amount, only provides a moderate benefit on average, and runs the risk of some very toxic side effects should be approved by the FDA anyway, in the name of "choice" for patients anyway. An interesting slide from the usual metric of means-testing, choosing this time to say that we should approve for the small amount who will benefit greatly, when in almost any other arena of government, they copmlain about rules, laws, and regulations that will benefit only a small amount greatly. To be contrarian is to be consistently inconsistent, apparently.
Mr. Vadum returns to an old well, bringing up new reasons to be afraid of the "corrupt" community group ACORN, after praising an Appeals court decision that said the Congressional bill to strip their funding based on lies was not actually a bill of attainder. I think ACORN is being primed to be the next fear target again, once Park 51 runs its course.
Finally, in opinions, the ACLU and the Washington Times agree that Amazon shouldn's have to turn over records of all the people in North Carolina who bought material from Amazon - the ACLU because it would violate the privacy of the consumers, the Times because they think trying to force residents to pay sales tax on all that they bought from Amazon is making Amazon into a government agent, and they hate private enterprise being forced to become government agents. (Contracted and paid to do it, though? Go right ahead!)
Last for tonight, Aphoristic wisdom from Mr. Charlie Chan. And a tit.
