Mine! Mine! Mine!
Not seen: A Bug's Life
Not seen: Cars
5: Finding Nemo
4: Toy Story
3: Monsters, Inc.
2: The Incredibles
1: Toy Story 2
Cold, getting colder
In related news, all Au Bon Pain stores in New York started giving out free ice coffee forty six minutes ago and will continue to do so until they close today. I've never had their iced coffee, but their regular blend does nothing for me.
From global to local
Following up on yesterday's post which poorly applied concepts from political philosophy to statements of James Dobson and then discusse about how poor Richard Cohen's column was, Fontana Labs has a good post applying John Doris's (and other's) work on situationalism and the fundamental attribution error to that same Richard Cohen column. If you don't know what those things are, his post makes it clear (though doesn't use those terms) and is interesting besides.
Lots of people in my neighborhood have Obama signs in their window. I wonder if this would be legible if I put it in mine.
Finally, a guide to every slice-serving pizzeria in Park Slope, which will be of great use to me in my new digs. The only one in the guide which I've been to is Joe's Pizza of the Village, which seems to be his third or fourth favorite (he's only specific about ranking the top two, and otherwise mostly discusses the characteristics of each slice), I liked it and am excited to try out a lot of the others.
Because I'm right
Dobson reserved some of his harshest criticism for Obama's argument that the religiously motivated must frame debates over issues like abortion not just in their own religion's terms but in arguments accessible to all people.I was going to try to explain why Dobson is completely wrong here with reference to the Rawlsian doctrine of Overlapping Consensus, but it turns out I'm confusing my Rawls and I wanted to refer to the concept of Public Justification. Anyway, in short, while different people can support policies for different reasons internal to their “comprehensive doctrine” (which might be a religious belief, but also might be any other kind of belief system) they should also be able to argue for that policy based upon a public justification which doesn't presume all of the premises of their comprehensive doctrine. That way people of different comprehensive doctrines can agree on the legitimacy of a policy. I think I might be getting the level of abstraction at which Rawls applies these ideas totally wrong, but oh well. Dobson's position seems to be that he'll just persuade the people who already agree with him, and shouldn't be required to convince anyone else of anything.
He said Obama, who supports abortion rights, is trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality," labeling it "a fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution."
"Am I required in a democracy to conform my efforts in the political arena to his bloody notion of what is right with regard to the lives of tiny babies?" Dobson said. "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe."
Bonus stupid things people are saying while bashing Obama: “But what is far less forgivable is the socialist realism language he used to rationalize his decision.” It is my position that Richard Cohen does not know how to write in English and does not have an editor. While socialist realism is a style of art, the phrase “socialist realism language” does not refer to anything. For a more substantive criticism of the same Cohen column, which in short says that despite the fact that John McCain has changed his views on almost everything, we know where he stands, apparently, but not where Obama does because he didn't follow through on his pledge to “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a public ally financed general election,” see Publius.
This blog will make you poor
Labels: Non fafblog Lobsters
MAD, mad, I tell you
1. I considered following Bluebook rule 15.8(c)(i) in citing to this post. I think this means I've lost my mind.
2. Pun intended.
Seriously, fuck you
Via Josh Marshall
1. Given the format of the hearing, in which McClellan and others gave prepared statements and then McClellan answered questions, it's not clear to me that he ever had an opportunity to respond. But if he didn't, Smith's fellow committee members certainly could have as a prelude to their own questions, and someone should have said this, dammit.
Blogging the panopticon
For a tiny bit of original content/reporting, I was recently at a luncheon where the featured speaker was, among many other roles and titles he's held, one of of the original judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (I'm not naming him because I don't like to blog about co-workers, though I'm obviously doing so whether or not I name him, so perhaps it's a foolish precaution). During a question and answer period, he was asked what he thought of the current FISA situation, and seemed to be personally offended that the government was circumventing FISC Judges, noting that when he'd been on the court he was available at whatever hour was necessary to hear requests for surveillance even if he needed to travel to locations with encrypted phone lines in order to do so. He simply found it absurd that the government acted as if having to go before such a court was too much oversight. I don't know this person well, but it's also worth mentioning that every article which mentions him and discusses his political affiliation describes him as a Republican, though on the other hand those articles refer to his party from the 1970s and 1980s.
Update (3:57 6/20): Every person listed under Yeas at this link should be punched in the face. Every Democrat so listed should be punched in the face and then kicked in the shin, or somewhere else suitable.
Update II (5:38 6/20) (That Greenwald style I decried below is contagious!): It seems all too likely that sometime next week I'll be suggesting that future President of the United States Barack Obama should be punched in the face and then kicked in the shin. In regards to which, a brief note to the Secret Service: Brandenburg, Brandenburg, Brandenburg.
during their wedding photo shoot at a deserted catholic
seminary in Pengzhou in southwest China's Sichuan
province Monday May 12, 2008. Five couples were having
wedding photos taken when the earthquake struck, and
all escaped without injury. The century-old seminary was
destroyed in the quake, which left tens of thousands
dead in Sichuan. (AP Photo)
The photo and caption above are from an excellent and fairly new Boston Globe site (the NYTimes City Room blog, when linking to it, referred to it as a blog but I don't know what about its format makes it a blog as opposed to another form of web presence. But describing too many things as blogs is perhaps a rant for another time) which presents large size high quality photographs relating to various news events, and is cleverly entitled “The Big Picture.” The blog has only existed since May and is full of images which are alternately beautiful, awe-inspiring, and disturbing. Read the entire blog archive, it won't take long.
And if you take a look at the set of photos Big Picture posted yesterday, you'll notice that the Mississippi flooding has caused a great deal of damage in Iowa and elsewhere. I've been made to understand that the Red Cross is “strapped for [disaster relief] funds.” If you choose, you can donate here to the Red Cross's national office or here to one of the chapters covering some of the most severely effected areas.
Jeff Koons stopped eating cars, now he only eats guitars
I don't feel competent to say much about most purely visual art, though I would have some things to say about a film even if it functioned purely visually and non-narratively, but I liked this article about a major retrospective on the art of Jeff Koons in Chicago, and the following, concluding section especially.
With Koons, it's as though we're seeing objects from our own everyday world transported to a distant place where they have been transformed and reused to vastly different ends, then brought back down to us again without a key to their repurposing, leaving us with no choice but to use them as art. No wonder this show can leave a viewer reeling. Almost every object in it works like a Duchampian ready-made, but at many unearthly removes from its original function. It's as though Duchamp's urinal-become-fountain-become-sculpture were uncovered eons from now, and reused yet again to house a sacred relic. Then buried. Then re-rediscovered and presented as superb ancient art. The object's artistic aura might have been preserved, even increased, with time and its reuses, but its meanings would have become so layered and remote that they could never be deciphered.
I met Harold at the Playboy Party
Update (6/26/08): In some ways more disturbing, Obama denies the report above. Who will get to the bottom of this important issue?
Hyberbole is the worst rhetorical device ever
For the “This is a manufactured liberal outrage” view, see James Joyner or the somewhat less crazy than usual (except for the source she cites for an alleged use by Michelle Obama of “baby daddy” and resorting to her usual tactic of noting that because people are writing her mean, crazy, incorrect, or even racist emails she must therefore be correct) Michelle Malkin, who was on TV during the segment when the offending text appeared. And hey, there are certainly times when I feel that people (incl. liberals) have become outraged without a reason to be offended. That said, for the correct view that Fox should be shunned for pulling this kind of crap, John Scalzi has the best take by far.
Paul was a hero to most
One Thousand Words
Use Your Head or I'll Take It Off Your Shoulders
Also, what could Spencer, who's been obsessing over a Nas mix tape today, possibly be trying to imply by saying “I truly wish I didn’t like this one. Really truly. I try very hard to live a Wayne-free existence. But it’s good”?
I think the byline is a typo for “Scott Templeton”
Next he did a Google search for “what to do if you get locked in a bar.” “But Google did not have any good answers,” he said.The article that it comes from is here, but those couple of sentences probably tell you all you need to know. Except for the answers to these obvious questions: is the New York Times so hard up for stories that someone locking themselves in a bar twenty days ago now counts as news? Is the reporter pulling a prank on the paper? I locked myself in my own backyard quite recently (because I'm an idiot) and can report that the press has not been beating down my door to hear the thrilling details of that adventure.
1. Among a select set of people.
2. Resolved: "googled" is an ugly word, my past use of it not withstanding.
3. The search was not run as a phrase in the original, quotation marks merely indicate the search terms.
I wanted to ask for survival tips in case I am unexpectedly transported to a random location in Europe (say for instance current France/Benelux/Germany) in the year 1000 AD (plus or minus 200 years). I assume that such transportation would leave me with what I am wearing, what I know, and nothing else. Any advice would help.
I Nominated my DJ for President
I wish this were true, because I'm a liberal, I'd like to elect the most liberal Senator, and I'd like it to be the case that the most liberal Senator would win the Democratic Presidential primary, but it's not. Not only is it not, but there is literally no basis for claiming that he's accumulated the most liberal voting record in this Senate over his 4 years there, it's just made up. There is a basis for claiming he was the most liberal Senator in 2007, but that basis is a very thin reed, one, obviously flawed study in which by far the main reason that Obama came out as more liberal than e.g. Feingold is that he missed 33 of the 99 votes in their sample due to campaigning, and voted in the liberal position on 65 of the 66 he voted on. Many Senators voted in the liberal position more often, but not in a higher percentage of their votes. Obviously there are arguments about the proper way to rank how liberal or conservative someone is, but one widely used tool is the DW-Nominate rankings. In those rankings, Obama was tied for the 10th most liberal Senator in the 110th Senate through December 2007, and was the 21st most liberal Senator in the 109th Senate.
These details are all interesting, but my main point is that there is no basis at all for believing the thing John McCain said, he has no possible reason to believe it is true, it's not true, and he said it anyway because he thought it would help him get votes. Don't let McCain or his supporters spread this lie.
I don't agree with this review at all, since it's for a new Charlie Kauffman movie showing at Cannes that I haven't seen. But I am now very excited about the movie.
Who do you love?
On the other hand, Richard Cohen should be forbidden from writing anything ever again. Mostly it's just the stupidity of the first paragraph, and how it's totally disconnected from the rest of the op-ed, which lists some reasonable and some unreasonable complaints about the primary campaign and its coverage. But Cohen's whole premise is that when people say this a historic campaign, they're talking about the day to day minutia of the campaign, when this could not be further from the truth, and nothing he says vaguely supports it. The last two paragraphs are also disconnected from the litany of complaints in the middle.
*Dammit, my title has been coined by other bloggers.
Things I was recently wrong about
The obsessively-updated delegate tracking spreadsheet is, unsurprisingly, updated. It includes the results from Puerto Rico as well as the allocations from Michigan and Florida following the ruling from the Rules & Bylaws Committee. According to these numbers, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead and Barack Obama is still certainly going to be the Democratic Party Nominee for the Presidency of the United States.