|
Friday, March 18, 2005Immigration Problem Solved!Sitting in a local Borders this morning, I heard a young Latina discussing with a friend how only in America would we do this or that. She went on to compare our practices with those in Mexico, favoring Mexico. I hear these conversations a lot here in the Bay Area. I understand they have such conversations a lot in LA and New York too. So here's my idea: A Proposal for Population Balance Be it resolved that in an effort to - alleviate the grievances of Americans who dislike America and - find a place for those who would come to America The United States of America shall henceforth - grant to any citizen the right to allow entry to the immigrant of his or her choosing provided that - said citizen has provided proper authorities with proof of resettlement in another country and - foresworn the rights of American citizenship, which will be transferred to the immigrant designated. 
posted by gbarto at 11:30 PM Kill a Barber, Go to Heaven! According to the NYT, the ultimate advocates of the religion of peace have found another route to holiness. They're slaughtering barbers who give improper haircuts or trim beards too closely. This newly emergent attention to manly fashion dovetails nicely with observations we've earlier made about Islamist misogyny, irritation with the female form and unhealthy appreciation of male bonding and companionship, but we're not going to go there today. No, today we're just going to wonder aloud what it might take to get the New York-Bay Area crowds to see the villainy in these people. Not to judge, for we eschew that, but still, but isn't there something a little barbarous in slaughtering barbers? We understand that the wholesale slaughter of the Kurds was not enough to stir Manhattan socialites, but violating the stylist-client relationship? Surely this is beyond the pale. Incidentally, whether Manhattan socialites appreciate the importantce of the stylist-client relationship or not, the New York Times gets it. When one young barber they spoke to requested anonymity, they showed their appreciation for the gravity of the situation by giving only his first name and no identifying details. It would have been even better if they hadn't printed a full color picture of him giving a possibly unorthodox haircut. Gotta love the Times.
posted by gbarto at 11:27 PM Harvard Faculty: "Oh dear me, what do we do now?" The Harvard Faculty is so used to passing meaningless resolutions, that it never occurred to them that voting "no confidence" on Pres. Larry Summers would actually have an impact on anything: Several professors declined to be interviewed because they said they were at such a loss to understand what had happened and the implications for the future that they had nothing to say.When an Arts & Letters prof is at a loss as what to say, you know things are rough. Here, then, is the way things would unfold in a rational world: Larry Summers issues the following statement: It has been brought to my attention that the Harvard Faculty has taken a vote indicating it has "no confidence" in me. I sorely wish I could say the feeling weren't mutual. A long time ago, William F. Buckley, Jr. quipped that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than the Harvard Faculty. I am beginning to see his reason.A chastened Faculty would respond by agreeing not to meddle in administration if he promises not to be a daring professor who raises thought provoking questions anymore.
posted by gbarto at 10:15 PM Wednesday, March 16, 2005Talking with the Ghost of Tony Randall? At Vodkapundit.
posted by gbarto at 9:24 PM Tuesday, March 15, 2005Hewitt's writing all over the place about the filibustering of judicial nominations. Just scroll along.For the record, I have never understood the place of the filibuster to begin with. Yes, the minority needs a voice. Yes, we need protections to insure the government doesn't go crazy on us. Yes, we need assurances that a runaway legislature doesn't thrust nonsense upon the people. Isn't that why we have checks and balances? As to the case of presidential appointments, that is special in the sense that the Senate is the solitary check upon the president. That is a reason for caution, of course. But caution in two senses. If it is right that popular passions need be tamed by an insular Senate, it is also right that our civil institutions need be protected from the doddering of a clubby and self-righteous Senate. Republicans and Democrats alike have used the filibuster to keep the Republic from its business when majorities ought to have been given their way long enough to hang themselves. As pompous and obstructionist as the Senate already is in the name of its self-importance, we needn't seek an extra-Constitutional imperative to assure an even greater level of noxiousness. Dump the filibuster. And dump Reid.
posted by gbarto at 10:24 PM Monday, March 14, 2005How wondrous is the microwave -The strangest oven there's been: It makes your meal steaming hot And yet ice-cold within!
posted by gbarto at 3:26 PM Gay Marriage in the news again When I saw the AOL headline, "Gay Marriage Ban Rejected," my first thought was, "Wow! I wonder where?" Then it occurred to me I hadn't heard of any special elections and my "wow" was replaced with "oh." Yup. A San Francisco Superior Court Judge (are you surprised yet?) ruled: It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.Howzabout this? Because California has laws on the books specifically limiting marriage to being between a man and a woman. [And on NRO, it's noted that this law was enacted by a 60-40 vote of the people; I would have been in the 40%, but that would be the losing side.] The California Governor and legislature, if they so desire, can rewrite those statutes tomorrow, provided they're willing to face the voters. If they did so, I for one would support them. But a lot of other people wouldn't. Our elected officials, in deciding these matters, must respond to the will of those they govern. This judge, on the other hand, is a law unto himself. Because I favor gay marriage or at least something closely approaching it, I am naturally appalled at this latest ruling. In other contexts, it might be bold or visionary. But in the face of countless successful citizens' initiatives to ban gay marriage, such judicial tweaking of supposed unenlightened masses does not set the stage for greater tolerance but invites the assumption that gays are part of a liberal elite whose disdain for the rules and practices of everyday society requires yet more citizens' initiatives to more firmly close the door on a movement that should be making progress. If gays and lesbians truly want to make a dent in things, they should keep doing what they did during the Clinton years when the temptation to revolt seemed less obvious: live normal lives in relative harmony, leaving those who know them unable to understand the laws we now have on the books. Instead of pushing for more rulebreaking, gays should follow some classic rules to the tee. In forging gentleman's agreements vis-à-vis property, in writing careful wills, in living as "roommates" while quietly acknowledging a deeper bond but not forcing it upon people, gays could put society in the spotlight as judges decided whether to refuse to enforce binding contracts among adults and side-step honoring the departeds' last wishes while ordinary folks tried to explain just what business of theirs it was what people did after the doors were closed. To borrow a page from the gurus, if the gays want marriage rights, they should live as though they had them, voluntarily granting to their partners the privileges that come with married life and accepting the attendant restraints and responsibilities. In this way, they would force society to shift its attitudes as it became clear that they had less to answer for in wanting to marry than society does in wanting to deny grown people the ability to make their own decisions about how and with whom they wish to live.
posted by gbarto at 2:37 PM Sunday, March 13, 2005Somehow, I haven't managed to be. Just the kind of Philistine I am. Or, at least, that I expect advertisers to be. From Calvin Klein to the Benneton controversies, in fact, I've never managed to be more than amused at all the free exposure (lots of exposure in some cases!) generated by the fuss. Give the folks who came up with this ad a little credit, though. They've managed to come up with more than their own cockamamie theories to justify it. This one, they say, was inspired by the DaVinci Code. The DaVinci Code is a sharp thing to tack onto. What other book has managed to inspire special editions of magazines and other books probing it all within a year or two of its release? As a marketing phenomenon, it's unrivaled. After all, most of the "shocking revelations" of the Code and Angels & Demons also popped up in Foucault's Pendulum. But Eco isn't nearly as photogenic as Brown and he presented the mysteries to make fun of them, not marvel wide-eyed with his readers over them. (via Ann Althouse)
posted by gbarto at 2:26 PM Heteronormativism and anime meet at Chizumatic! (March 10 entry) And speaking of heteronormativism, etc, here's a lot of speculation on what's happening to gender in Japan from an earlier page.
posted by gbarto at 12:50 PM Cicero: Barbara Ehrenreich owes us an apology - for shallow column entitled "God owes us an apology." Notes Cicero, the religious left would have an easier time of it if their compadres weren't so casually dismissive of Christians.
posted by gbarto at 12:16 PM |
Archives
|
Day By Day© by Chris Muir.Old TurkeyBlog here.
