Tag: Open Thread

This Pony Party is an Open Thread!  Chat away…I’m sure something interesting happened today!

From Tolouse Street, a wonderful reflection on Mardi Gras in The Spirit of the Mask:

For Caslos Casteneda, entry into Don Juan’s hermetic world required a medicine man’s chest of hallucinogenic plants to break down the initiate’s dependence on the mind paths of a trained academic. For entry into the secret heart of Carnival the gateway is not as Odd. You must simply find or make a mask, one that calls you to wear it, that dictates the costume that accompanies it, that leads you to surrender yourself to the spirit of the mask.

It need not even be a mask. My “mask” this year is a tri-corner, Asian-styled hat. I do not have the costume, but I already see the costume. When you can see the character in the object, when you can see yourself in the character, you will have found the one.

Without that mask, you can only be The Tourist. We see them at Carnival common as sparrows, and the camera is their mask. They come, take Carnival’s blurry picture and go home with fabulous hangovers. They see Carnival pass them by, but they are not of Carnival. They are like Lucky Dog vendors, a bit of the backdrop. Perhaps they have fun. I imagine they do. They do not experience Carnival.

Open Thread is open!

This Pony Party is an open thread!  Please do not rec the Pony Party!  If you do…we’ll have to add more exclamation points!!!

Criticisms, political pressure and Barack Obama

by Glenn Greenwald, Salon

Tuesday Jan. 13, 2009 08:47 EST

Politicians, by definition, respond to political pressure. Those who decide that it’s best to keep quiet and simply trust in the goodness and just nature of their leader are certain to have their political goals ignored. It’s always better — far better — for a politician to know that he’s being scrutinized closely and will be praised and supported only when his actions warrant that, and will be criticized and opposed when they don’t.

Right this moment, there are enormous pressures being exerted on Obama not to make significant changes in the areas of civil liberties, intelligence policy and foreign affairs.  That pressure is being exerted by the intelligence community, by the permanent Pentagon structures, by status-quo-loving leaders of both political parties, by authority-worshipping Beltway “journalists” and pundits (such as the ones who wrote the wretched though illustrative “What Would Dick Do?” cover story for this week’s Newsweek).

If those who want fundamental reform in these areas adopt the view that they will not criticize Barack Obama because to do so is to “help Republicans,” or because he deserves more time, or because criticisms are unnecessary because we can trust in him to do the right thing, or because criticizing him is to “tear him down” or “create a circular firing squad” or “be a Naderite purist” or any of those other empty platitudes, then they are ceding the field to the very powerful factions who are going to fight vehemently against any changes.  Do you think that those who want the CIA to retain “robust” interrogation powers and who want the federal surveillance state maintained, or want a hard-line towards Iran and a continuation of our Middle East policies, or who want to maintain corporate-lobbyist-domination of Washington, are sitting back saying:  “it’s not right to pressure Obama too much right now; give him some time”?

It’s critical that Obama — and the rest of the political establishment — hear loud objections, not reverential silence, when he flirts with ideas like the ones he suggested on Sunday.  This dynamic prevails with all political issues.  Where political pressure comes only from one side, that is the side that wins — period.

…

Obama is about to become one of the world’s most powerful political leaders, if not the single most powerful.  He begins with sky-high approval ratings, his political party in control of Congress by a large margin, and enjoys reverence so intense from certain quarters that such a loyal following hasn’t been seen since the imperial glow around George Bush circa 2002.  He’s not going to crumble or melt away like the Wicked Witch if he’s pressured or criticized.  The far more substantial danger is that he won’t be pressured or criticized enough by those who are eager to see meaningful changes in Washington, and then — either by desire or necessity — those are the voices he will ignore most easily.

Greenwald, Crooks and Liars, and Firedog Lake

Obama’s allegedly “new” centrism and his ABC interview today

by Glenn Greenwald, Salon

Sunday Jan. 11, 2009 08:23 EST

Update II: Regarding Obama’s apparent desire to have a new process created where torture-obtained evidence can be used (and/or where the standards of proof are lowered), the U.S. Supreme Court, in the 1935 case of Brown v. Mississippi, addressed the question of whether the U.S. Constitution allowed the State of Mississippi to use a confession obtained by beatings and other forms of coercion to convict African-American defendants of murder (h/t lennonist).  The Court invalidated the convictions because they were secured by coerced confessions and said (emphasis added):

In Fisher v. State, 145 Miss. 116, 134, 110 So. 361, 365, the court said: ‘Coercing the supposed state’s criminals into confessions and using such confessions so coerced from them against them in trials has been the curse of all countries. It was the chief iniquity, the crowning infamy of the Star Chamber, and the Inquisition, and other similar institutions.  The Constitution recognized the evils that lay behind these practices and prohibited them in this country. . . .  The duty of maintaining constitutional rights of a person on trial for his life rises above mere rules of procedure, and wherever the court is clearly satisfied that such violations exist, it will refuse to sanction such violations and will apply the corrective.’

There’s absolutely no good reason for Obama not to close Guantanamo immediately and simply try the detainees in our already-extant courts of law.  That’s how we’ve convicted all sorts of accused terrorists in the past.  The only reason not to do so is a desire to disregard — violate — these long-standing American principles and instead create a new process that allows torture-obtained evidence to be used.

A Stars Hollow Gazette

A lot of people (including Stephen Colbert) are down on Wikipedia because it is edited by just anyone.

First of all this is not exactly true and with just a little bit of surfing ability (which I’d tell you all about in excruciating detail except I already have 17 lives) you can find all the fights just as surely as you can in orange.

Oh you mandarins get that, I know you do.

And that’s exactly the point.  When you cite Wikipedia you are citing the common wisdom, the battleground, the future history.

The contested record.

So if your facts contradict Wikipedia you’d maybe like to cite an alternate source.

What I don’t like about Wikipedia is they’re making all the articles shorter which makes narrative harder to put together and some parts much weaker than others.  When I was sketching out my history of the Revolutionary War I found pivotal events that had been a minor part of a collective battle or campaign in context either minimized to an unquotable obscurity or expanded into a tome of self indulgence (a very powerful magic item indeed).

I mention this in the context of some long term research I’ll be sharing into Martin Luther King Jr. and his teachings about activism, and Keynesian Economics.  If I tend to quote the most simplistic summaries it’s simply because they are common and accepted.

Wikipedia has sadly fallen down in the area of pop culture, partially due to copyright cops deleting many quotes and redacting plot summaries and story arcs.  As ever anything you read about a celebrity is carefully vetted by their publicist and lawyer if they have any self respect at all.  Even so I never find a paucity of undeniable facts to hate.

Ditto corporations and politicians, if you’re muckraking Wikipedia isn’t the place to start but it is a public record.

Crossposted at Rainbow Mittens.

I don’t know how many of my friends are gay.  I have a lot of them.

Me?  Not so much.  No fantasies or childhood experimentation, except the hetero kind.

In fact sex is kind of icky, if only because it fools with your emotions.  Makes you irrational.

I hate that.

I’m constantly surprised by the sexual lives of my friends, many seem to choose the most inappropriate people who bring out their worst characteristics.

My life is certainly like that.  My fiance gave me unconditional love, but I am Captain of the Enterprise and she was not it.

So maybe it wasn’t that unconditional after all.

But that’s not the story I want to tell.