This one's particularly good, for at least two reasons:
- It's really silly.
- It's a funny premise about a political story--but it isn't itself particularly political.
Enjoy:
Sep 26, 2009
Behind "You Lie!"
Like most people, I tend to think Saturday Night Live was funniest when I was ~18 years old. I haven't watched it on TV in years--but I have admired a lot of its political humor when I've seen clips on the internets.
This one's particularly good, for at least two reasons:
Enjoy:
This one's particularly good, for at least two reasons:
Enjoy:
Sep 25, 2009
Good and bad news from the places-I-live-or-have-lived food front
Good: double food stamps at my neighborhood farmers market.
Good: more good-food PR from the feds.
Bad: apparently mega dairy farming is destroying my home state's water supply. Mmm, destructive status quo no one supports but not enough people will stand up to...
Good: more good-food PR from the feds.
Bad: apparently mega dairy farming is destroying my home state's water supply. Mmm, destructive status quo no one supports but not enough people will stand up to...
Sep 17, 2009
Long time no blog
Moving! Work! School! Wedding planning! One million out-of-town houseguests! Ahh!
See you on the other side. Meanwhile, link blogging continues unabated.
See you on the other side. Meanwhile, link blogging continues unabated.
Aug 26, 2009
A post on the ELCA churchwide assembly, but not much of one
In response to those who have asked: Yes, naturally I have some thoughts about the ELCA churchwide assembly and decisions re: gays and lesbians. What I don't have is the time to write a post of any length--it's moving week. For now, here's Nadia Bolz-Weber's sermon from last Sunday. I think she gets it more or less right, and she tells a very moving story from the debate on the floor.
Also, it's worth pointing out that the assembly also dealt w/ stuff unrelated to sexuality. Not least, I'm now in full communion with Dave. A relief; that one's been real awkward for awhile...he's all "hey Steve, maybe once I get ordained, I could come celebrate communion at your church! My church loves the idea, and you guys are cool with the Episcopalians so why not us?" and I'm like, "hey, so how about that health-insurance reform bill?" or whatever.
Also, it's worth pointing out that the assembly also dealt w/ stuff unrelated to sexuality. Not least, I'm now in full communion with Dave. A relief; that one's been real awkward for awhile...he's all "hey Steve, maybe once I get ordained, I could come celebrate communion at your church! My church loves the idea, and you guys are cool with the Episcopalians so why not us?" and I'm like, "hey, so how about that health-insurance reform bill?" or whatever.
Aug 20, 2009
Franky Schaeffer overshoots again
I wholeheartedly support health-insurance reform, and I've already noted that I find the disruption of town halls--for the purpose of ending, not changing, the conversation--despicable.
Still, I think this clip is just further evidence that Frank Schaeffer has jumped the shark:
I don't doubt that there are seriously dangerous people on the right-wing fringe-of-the-fringe. (And sure, perhaps there's a left-wing equivalent too--certainly there has been in the past--but lately we've seen more evidence of the former.)
Still, it seems to me that the reason the more mainstream right is promoting these obnoxious and unconstructive tactics is not that they'll get someone to kill the president or a member of Congress but because they may well kill health-insurance reform. It's cynical, dishonest politics, but it's also effective politics. While it might, God forbid, inspire violence from someone on the fringe, that isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to derail health-insurance reform and weaken Obama, and there's no reason to doubt that this is the purpose because it's a very effective way of achieving something conservatives want very badly.
Still, I think this clip is just further evidence that Frank Schaeffer has jumped the shark:
I don't doubt that there are seriously dangerous people on the right-wing fringe-of-the-fringe. (And sure, perhaps there's a left-wing equivalent too--certainly there has been in the past--but lately we've seen more evidence of the former.)
Still, it seems to me that the reason the more mainstream right is promoting these obnoxious and unconstructive tactics is not that they'll get someone to kill the president or a member of Congress but because they may well kill health-insurance reform. It's cynical, dishonest politics, but it's also effective politics. While it might, God forbid, inspire violence from someone on the fringe, that isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to derail health-insurance reform and weaken Obama, and there's no reason to doubt that this is the purpose because it's a very effective way of achieving something conservatives want very badly.
Aug 19, 2009
Aug 17, 2009
Really, you and I can understand this
Health-insurance reform is complicated! You'll never be able to understand it, so you should probably just be opposed to it.
Even if the above made sense on its own terms, which it doesn't, it still rings false because it isn't actually that hard to understand the broad outline of what's being proposed. To that end, here's a cheat sheet by Alec MacGillis. And here's a flow chart by Nicholas Beaudrot, per Chris Hayes.
Elsewhere, Bob Herbert does that rare op-ed writer thing--reporting--and takes a look at successful, low-cost publicly funded health care already in action.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are moving the bars again. Coming soon: "Allowing people to use their tax refund to pay their enormous medical bills from when their insurance company denied them coverage based on some trumped-up preexisting condition thing is a government takeover of health care!"
Even if the above made sense on its own terms, which it doesn't, it still rings false because it isn't actually that hard to understand the broad outline of what's being proposed. To that end, here's a cheat sheet by Alec MacGillis. And here's a flow chart by Nicholas Beaudrot, per Chris Hayes.
Elsewhere, Bob Herbert does that rare op-ed writer thing--reporting--and takes a look at successful, low-cost publicly funded health care already in action.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are moving the bars again. Coming soon: "Allowing people to use their tax refund to pay their enormous medical bills from when their insurance company denied them coverage based on some trumped-up preexisting condition thing is a government takeover of health care!"
Aug 13, 2009
ImprovingKilling health care reform
The most disturbing thing about this video--in which activists opposed to Democratic-proposed health care reform harrass Rep. Lloyd Doggett in Austin--isn't the evidence that conservative activists have organized their people so well that it actually looks like a majority of Americans are opposed to reform. (They aren't.) It isn't people's rudeness and intensity--you see that in political rallies and events of various stripes and in various places. It isn't even the loose connection between activists' complaints and the realities of the reforms being considered.
It's the fact that, once they've driven the congressman away, they break out applauding:
By harrassing an elected official--who might or might not be THEIR elected official--they succeed in...shutting down the conversation entirely. This is a victory, worthy of applause? That's bizarre and absolutely unproductive.
Unless, of course, they don't want conversation, a more conservative solution to the country's health care problems, or a more bipartisan approach (whatever that means). If their goal is simply to derail everything the Democrats do that's related to trying to improve health care--and to benefit politically from the resulting failure--this may be a pretty productive way to get that done.
It's as if I know first aid, and someone else desperately needs it, and a third person is trying to administer it but I don't like the way he's doing it, so I intervene. But I don't take over--instead I pull the guy off and simply hold him down, maybe make fun of him a little, while the injured person dies for lack of attention. Then I blame the other guy for the death.
In short, it's completely despicable.
It's the fact that, once they've driven the congressman away, they break out applauding:
By harrassing an elected official--who might or might not be THEIR elected official--they succeed in...shutting down the conversation entirely. This is a victory, worthy of applause? That's bizarre and absolutely unproductive.
Unless, of course, they don't want conversation, a more conservative solution to the country's health care problems, or a more bipartisan approach (whatever that means). If their goal is simply to derail everything the Democrats do that's related to trying to improve health care--and to benefit politically from the resulting failure--this may be a pretty productive way to get that done.
It's as if I know first aid, and someone else desperately needs it, and a third person is trying to administer it but I don't like the way he's doing it, so I intervene. But I don't take over--instead I pull the guy off and simply hold him down, maybe make fun of him a little, while the injured person dies for lack of attention. Then I blame the other guy for the death.
In short, it's completely despicable.
Aug 6, 2009
Aug 5, 2009
Wesley vs. me
This one's been making the rounds on the innertubes:
Raising a deeply personal question for me. In short, is this guy a cooler little kid than I was? In my favor:
Raising a deeply personal question for me. In short, is this guy a cooler little kid than I was? In my favor:
- I played and sang by myself when I was a good deal younger than five.
- I played actual chords.
- I sang in tune.
- Instead of churchy songs about Jesus, he's playing a Johnny Cash song about murder.
- His guitar doesn't have a picture of Mickey Mouse on it.
- the whole YouTube-sensation thing
- I bet he does't cry when his dad won't let him play his guitar until he catches a baseball 10 times in a row.
- nice hair
Aug 4, 2009
Individual-carbon-footprint-colored glasses
Good food column from Ezra Klein last week--on the unpopular but irrefutable point that very few of the consumer choices frequently touted as cutting our Carbon Footprints® have anything like the impact of eating less meat and other animal products.
Still, as Ezra and others often do, he irritates with his myopic global-warming perspective, with the implication that carbon dioxide emissions are the long and short of environmental harm:
And more so here:
But here's the thing: for me, and most of the food-movement folks I know, this has never been about tabulating our own environmental impact, carbon-emission-focused or otherwise. It's about movement-building--showing others that their options aren't as limited as they may have assumed they are. Every time we have someone over for dinner and serve them a locally grown tomato, there's a potential convert--someone else to support a local farmer, eat tastier and more healthful food, and invite other friends over to taste the tomatoes. Focusing on each individual's literal impact is silly when you're dealing with a growing movement--the idea is to get it to snowball and to build the collective impact over time.
Unless, of course, Ezra knows of a way to simply get everyone in the country to eliminate one meat meal each week. That certainly would be more effective than the slow work of building the food movement. But it seems to me that the way to get a large group of people to make a small change is for a small group of people to demonstrate how easy, even enjoyable, it can be to make a larger change.
Still, as Ezra and others often do, he irritates with his myopic global-warming perspective, with the implication that carbon dioxide emissions are the long and short of environmental harm:
The average American would do less for the planet by switching to a totally local diet than by going vegetarian one day a week.Well yeah, if what you're doing for the planet is reduced only to the carbon emissions for which you're responsible. But what about the soil quality and erosion problems caused by large-scale monocropping and mitigated by diversified, smaller-scale farming? What about the effect of monocropping and national/international distribution on biodiversity? What about the local economies--the people, who last I checked were a significant part of the planet--that are devastated by agribusiness but supported by eaters who give a preferential option to local, family-owned farms?
And more so here:
It would be a whole lot better for the planet if everyone eliminated one meat meal a week than if a small core of die-hards developed perfectly virtuous diets.Sure. I might or might not be one of those die-hards--my diet certainly is not perfectly virtuous, but the fact that today I ate almost nothing that Nadia didn't grow herself on a small farm right outside Chicago indicates that I might be part of the group this shot is aimed at.
But here's the thing: for me, and most of the food-movement folks I know, this has never been about tabulating our own environmental impact, carbon-emission-focused or otherwise. It's about movement-building--showing others that their options aren't as limited as they may have assumed they are. Every time we have someone over for dinner and serve them a locally grown tomato, there's a potential convert--someone else to support a local farmer, eat tastier and more healthful food, and invite other friends over to taste the tomatoes. Focusing on each individual's literal impact is silly when you're dealing with a growing movement--the idea is to get it to snowball and to build the collective impact over time.
Unless, of course, Ezra knows of a way to simply get everyone in the country to eliminate one meat meal each week. That certainly would be more effective than the slow work of building the food movement. But it seems to me that the way to get a large group of people to make a small change is for a small group of people to demonstrate how easy, even enjoyable, it can be to make a larger change.
Aug 3, 2009
The well-sent-up Palin speech
Weeks after Governor Palin's resignation speech, the question remains: what's the silliest parody of the speech?
Is it this markup of the transcript, prepared by Vanity Fair's research and copy desks?
Is it this copycat speech, by someone who should have even better access to good writers than Palin does?
Or is it this version of the original, by William Shatner:
Is it this markup of the transcript, prepared by Vanity Fair's research and copy desks?
Is it this copycat speech, by someone who should have even better access to good writers than Palin does?
Or is it this version of the original, by William Shatner:
Jul 31, 2009
The Explainer on disorderly conduct, etc.
Yesterday's beer summit came and went, with no surprises (unless you count the vice president's participation, NA beer in hand, as a surprise).
The only reason I'm posting about it again is to highlight this Slate piece from last week. I've always been uneasy about any incident hinging on a disorderly conduct charge--aka POPO--but I'm hardly an expert in either police work or any kind of law. A lawyer friend alerted me to this piece, which makes it pretty clear: there was absolutely not legitimate reason to arrest Dr. Gates.
The only reason I'm posting about it again is to highlight this Slate piece from last week. I've always been uneasy about any incident hinging on a disorderly conduct charge--aka POPO--but I'm hardly an expert in either police work or any kind of law. A lawyer friend alerted me to this piece, which makes it pretty clear: there was absolutely not legitimate reason to arrest Dr. Gates.
Lies, damn lies, and obvious mistakes major newspapers don't bother to correct
It's become a pretty common thing for conservatives to get simple facts wrong--a very different thing from presenting different opinions, or even highlighting DIFFERENT facts--related to health care and health care reform. Jonathan Chait rounds up a few examples here, attributing the problem to conservatives' general lack of interest in health care policy.
Here's what I'd call the most egregious example: Martin Feldstein's op-ed in Tuesday's Post, in which he states the following:
In other health-care-reform news, yesterday the president presented eight essential features of reform. It's a good list.
Here's what I'd call the most egregious example: Martin Feldstein's op-ed in Tuesday's Post, in which he states the following:
Obama has said that he would favor a British-style "single payer" system in which the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are salaried but that he recognizes that such a shift would be too disruptive to the health-care industry.Notably, the WSJ article to which Feldstein links gets the facts (again, not opinions or spin) right:
A single-payer system would eliminate private insurance companies and put a Medicare-like system into place where the government pays all health-care bills with tax dollars.Perhaps it's an honest mistake. But if Feldstein doesn't know the difference between socialized health care and socialized health insurance--between the UK and Canada--then why is he writing an op-ed on the subject for the Washington Post? And, his intentions aside, will we see a correction from the Post? I won't hold my breath.
In other health-care-reform news, yesterday the president presented eight essential features of reform. It's a good list.
Jul 30, 2009
Three bottles of much-scrutinized beer
Tom Philpott offers a self-consciously inconsequential critique of this afternoon's just-three-guys-talking-it-out-over-a-beer event at the executive picnic table: while Dr. Gates is drinking a marginally respectable Red Stripe, why are James Crowley (I still can't believe that's his name!) and the president drinking, respectably, fake Belgian beer made by an American swill monolith and formerly American swill now owned by a Belgian monolith?
Elsewhere, a couple of Christian temperance folks have an equally inconsequential but evidently entirely UN-self-conscious suggestion: drink lemonade instead! Leave aside the question of whether drinking corn syrup and flavoring--I'm assuming they have in mind regular-guy, I-swear-I'm-not-an-arugula-eating-elitist lemonade, as with the beer choices--is a net improvement on drinking 12 ounces of something that's 5 percent alcohol. Here's the real question--can anyone read this quote, from Rocky Twyman:
Elsewhere, a couple of Christian temperance folks have an equally inconsequential but evidently entirely UN-self-conscious suggestion: drink lemonade instead! Leave aside the question of whether drinking corn syrup and flavoring--I'm assuming they have in mind regular-guy, I-swear-I'm-not-an-arugula-eating-elitist lemonade, as with the beer choices--is a net improvement on drinking 12 ounces of something that's 5 percent alcohol. Here's the real question--can anyone read this quote, from Rocky Twyman:
Studies show that alcoholism leads our previous youth to use harder drugs like cocaine that is responsible for vicious youth crimes, especially in inner-city America that gave Obama large electoral margins.and deduce that our country's great moral failing is not a power and principality of racism that poisons (often well-intentioned) people's actions but instead...drinking?
Jul 28, 2009
U.S. fruit growers learn from an Iranian scientist
I love fresh fruit. I know, so do you, but understand: I geek out over fresh fruit. I've been lusting after a $75, heavy-duty cherry pitter, which would immensely speed up one of my favorite summertime hobbies, second only to complaining about the heat: pitting a huge amount of cherries in front of a baseball game (helps to be a fan of such a slow-moving sport), after which either Nadia or I makes something tasty out of the ones I don't accidentally eat. We're getting married in January, so it'd be pretty intuitive to wait and register for the thing. But I'm itching to buy it now. (I'm also getting frighteningly fast at pitting cherries the old-fashioned way: inside my mouth. I've half-filled a small bowl with pits while writing this post...but it's kind of gross to make a cobbler that way.)
Anyway: are you interested in reading about an Iranian pomologist who has done a lot to help growers in the Pacific Northwest learn how they can diversify the varieties they grow? Of course you are! As a guy who loves apples but hates Red Delicious apples, I found this article totally fascinating. Not interested? What if I told you that you likely would never have encountered a Fuji apple in the States were it not for this guy's work? Pretty cool.
Anyway: are you interested in reading about an Iranian pomologist who has done a lot to help growers in the Pacific Northwest learn how they can diversify the varieties they grow? Of course you are! As a guy who loves apples but hates Red Delicious apples, I found this article totally fascinating. Not interested? What if I told you that you likely would never have encountered a Fuji apple in the States were it not for this guy's work? Pretty cool.
Jul 24, 2009
Disqualified for belief alone
This is pretty crappy: a pediatrician in the U.K. was removed from an adoption panel based on her opposition to adoptions by same-sex couples.
As far as I can tell from this story in the Daily Mail, she wasn't covertly sabotaging individual adoptions or strategically hiding her opinions on the subject, which she attributes to her Christian faith. Instead, she was up front about her beliefs and asked to be allowed to recuse herself from cases with same-sex couples.
Isn't this pretty much exactly what she should have done in this situation? What more could she reasonably have been expected to do--change her beliefs? Winkingly say she had done so?
As far as I can tell from this story in the Daily Mail, she wasn't covertly sabotaging individual adoptions or strategically hiding her opinions on the subject, which she attributes to her Christian faith. Instead, she was up front about her beliefs and asked to be allowed to recuse herself from cases with same-sex couples.
Isn't this pretty much exactly what she should have done in this situation? What more could she reasonably have been expected to do--change her beliefs? Winkingly say she had done so?
Jul 23, 2009
The fight over whether or not we have common ground
The Ryan-DeLauro abortion reduction bill was introduced in the House today. The bill is being pushed hard by White House Priest Corps members Joel Hunter and Jim Wallis, among others, and it looks likely that the administration will support the bill's approach, despite objections related to contraception and sex education.
Tony Perkins is less than impressed. Kristin Williams takes the attacks on point by point.
Meanwhile, the anti-abortion folks have a much larger piece of legislation in their sights as well: health care reform.
And here's an interesting, less beltway-focused take on common ground between pro- and anti-abortion rights people.
Tony Perkins is less than impressed. Kristin Williams takes the attacks on point by point.
Meanwhile, the anti-abortion folks have a much larger piece of legislation in their sights as well: health care reform.
And here's an interesting, less beltway-focused take on common ground between pro- and anti-abortion rights people.
Jul 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
