tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33440722024-03-13T12:25:09.305-04:00The Sound And Fury"There's three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way." "Isn't that the wrong way?" "Yeah, but <b>faster</b>!"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger1000125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-899575352003-03-01T11:31:00.001-05:002008-06-18T12:26:57.274-04:00THE NEW SITE IS <a href="http://maxpower.nu/">http://maxpower.nu</a>. Change your bookmarks. (This means you, Instapundit.)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-863003142002-12-19T22:10:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:56.958-04:00SO, NU? What are you doing here? In case it wasn't clear, <a href="http://maxpower.nu/">The Sound and Fury weblog</a> has moved to <a href="http://maxpower.nu">http://maxpower.nu</a> thanks to the tireless efforts of Le Garçon Combustible. Change bookmarks, etc. Apologies that links to the old Blogger archives now appear permanently shot. I'd pass the hat and ask for money to pay for the not-free Movable Type hosting, but I make a good living. If you were inclined to donate money to this site, I'll instead encourage you to donate a chunk of change to <a href="http://magendavidadom.org/aboutus.html/">Magen David Adom</a> and drop me a line that it's been done.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-862834212002-12-19T14:52:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:56.966-04:00IN RESPONSE TO MY post below, Matt Evans attempts to <a href="http://www.stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2002_12_01_stuartbuck_archive.html#86205182">defend the rape exception</a> to the Republican pro-life position. Evans's argument, however, does not stand up to scrutiny.
<br />
<br />Evans starts by arguing from analogy: imagine a putative father who had semen extracted by force and, as a result, fathered a child. Surely no one would insist that this father pay child support for his unwanted child? Ergo, no one would insist that a mother support a pregnancy incurred by force.
<br />
<br />There are two problems with this analogy. First, it's unclear that the premise is correct. The hypothetical is so outlandish that there is no precedent directly on point (a problem with some pro-choice analogies, as well, such as <a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/himma/phil102/trans5.htm">Judith Jarvis Thomson's violinist</a> example). But unlike the Thomson case, there are cases parallel to the Evans analogy. Men have been ordered to pay child support even when they have no biological connection to the child. The only cases to the contrary--cases involving <a href="http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/appellate/a1544-98.opn.html">custody of frozen in vitro embryos</a> after divorce--justify the refusal to force the ex-husband to be an unwanted father on the precedent of Roe v. Wade. If Roe v. Wade disappears, then so does the rationale for not allowing ex-wives to implant frozen embryos without the fathers' consent, and the state would very likely enforce child support requirements in such a circumstance.
<br />
<br />Second, failure to pay child support just isn't the same thing as abortion. A father without the ability to pay ends up without legal obligation. The existing state of child support laws just does not map onto the world where abortion is illegal; an impoverished pregnant woman would still be required to carry her child to term in such a world, even if she would suffer undue financial hardship because of her pregnancy.
<br />
<br />Evans's concluding rationalization is "a woman becomes a mother she assumes affirmative duties to protect her child from harm; women who become mothers through force should be exempted from these legal duties." (We'll ignore for purposes of this post Evans's misleading use of "child" to refer to a zygote or embryo.) The fallacy in this statement is obvious: Evans surely is not claiming that a rape victim can carry an unwanted child to term, deliver the baby, and then let it starve without legal consequence. The conclusion therefore has to be modified: "women who become mothers through force should be granted the right to an exerciseable option to either terminate the pregnancy or assuming the affirmative legal duties of parenthood." But once Evans and pro-life politicos make this concession, he acknowledges one of the two underlying principles of the pro-choice position: abortion is not infanticide, and there is an appropriate moral distinction between the two. And the politically acceptable pro-life position is once again forced into an untenable contradiction.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-862157572002-12-18T07:41:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:56.997-04:00MARGERY LANDRY, formerly of the US Foreign Service, <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3867-2002Dec17.html">sentenced to twenty years for shooting friend's husband</a>. <blockquote>Landry, 48, who had pleaded guilty in September to first-degree assault, burglary and other crimes, said that the shooting was a "mistake" and that she had planned only to plant child pornography in the home to help her friend in the divorce case.</blockquote>The <a href="http://www.washingtonian.com/people/deadlytriangle.html">Washingtonian</a> has a good background piece on the case, including the following observation from the victim:<blockquote>Meanwhile, Slobodow is trying to raise the boys and move on with his life, which he hopes will include another relationship. “The shooting kind of turns women off,” he says.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-862154292002-12-18T07:29:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:57.003-04:00<a href="http://www.cptspaulding.blogspot.com/">CAPTAIN SPAULDING</a> on the latest Buffy episode:<blockquote>Tonight's episode of Buffy was really good as it ramps up the apocalypse against the First Evil. Buffy's speech at the end where she says she's through running and will take the fight directly to the First was particularly great.
<br />
<br />Presumably in the next episode, Buffy's first strike policy will be called inhumane. Protestors will demand that she work through the UN and perhaps try to understand the root causes of the First Evil. Maybe Mike Farrell will hold an anti-apocalypse press conference and Sean Penn will visit the First Evil and the Ubervamp. </blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-862087002002-12-18T02:32:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:57.009-04:00WOO-HOO! <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3964-2002Dec17.html">FTC Plans Registry To Block Sales Calls</a>. <blockquote>FTC officials expect 60 million Americans to register when the list becomes operational -- which won't be for at least several more months. It still faces logistical and legal hurdles, including a possible lawsuit by the telemarketing industry, which makes more than 100 million calls a day.
<br />
<br />If and when the list is up and running, telemarketers would have to scour it every three months and would be barred for five years from calling the consumers who signed up. Consumers would then have to renew their registration. If they get called anyway, those on the list can call another toll-free number to complain. The FTC would then investigate and could fine telemarketers up to $11,000 for each banned call. </blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-861642882002-12-17T08:29:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:57.032-04:00MSNBC'S JERRY NACHMAN INTERVIEWS <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64541-2002Dec16.html">Al Franken</a> about the Gore decision:<blockquote>Nachman: Did you know about this on Friday?
<br />Franken: About Gore's decision?
<br />N: Right.
<br />F: I was there when he called Lesley Stahl.
<br />N: Right.
<br />F: He had only told me, Lorne ["SNL" executive producer Lorne Michaels], [writer] Jim Downey, a few members of the cast.
<br />N: Is that true?
<br />F: No.
<br />N: No?
<br />F: No.
<br />N: So, you didn't know.
<br />F: I didn't know.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-861547862002-12-17T02:00:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:57.036-04:00THE CLEAN WATER ACT has created a potential ecological disaster in <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/16/tech/main533206.shtml">the Chicago River</a>. (via <a href="http://www.warliberal.com">Thomason</a>)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-861541452002-12-17T01:40:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:57.039-04:00LIFE IMITATES TREEHOUSE OF HORROR XII: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/15/magazine/15SELF.html">The Self-Cleaning Dinner Table</a>. (via <a href="http://www.gizmodo.com">Gizmodo</a>)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-861530192002-12-17T01:06:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:57.048-04:00I'VE MENTIONED <a href="http://www.skyscrapers.com">Skyscrapers.com</a> before as a marvelous site, but I'm all the more impressed now that I know that they also have prominent low-rise buildings like one of my favorites, Prague's <a href="http://www.skyscrapers.com/english/file/0.9/141135/dim6/index.html">"Ginger & Fred"</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-861521312002-12-17T00:40:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:57.053-04:00MARK GOLDBLATT HAS A good piece on the <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-goldblatt121602.asp">Central Park Jogger</a> case.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-861479022002-12-16T23:01:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:57.064-04:00ETIQUETTE QUESTION: When an ex-girlfriend sells a 4,500-word essay to an on-line literary magazine about her history with penises, should I be relieved that I was left out, insulted at the omission, or appalled that the most sexually timid woman I ever dated is trying to market herself as the next Candace Bushnell? (Sorry, no link. My parents read this site.) Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-860149142002-12-14T22:44:00.000-05:002009-06-12T17:09:57.079-04:00IN CASE YOU'RE WONDERING how I'd rank them, I put it as (1) The White Stripes; (2) <a href="http://www.wtev.com/entertainment/story.aspx?content_id=9C8FD98E-29C5-43D1-9D4C-E5C71CDF7F85">The Vines</a>; (3) The Strokes; and (4) The Hives.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-859800822002-12-14T00:36:00.000-05:002002-12-15T01:38:53.000-05:00I LIKE STUART BUCK. He's intelligent, he's a good writer. But every once in a while, he'll drop my jaw with something shockingly... I don't know, "stupid" is too insulting, and also unfair. But a recent <a href="http://stuartbuck.blogspot.com/2002_12_01_stuartbuck_archive.html#85947341">post on abortion</a> shows a viewpoint that is sheltered, to say the least.
<br />
<br />To wit, Buck suggests that Democrats should oppose abortion because abortions deprive them of future voters; anti-choice voters will continue to have babies, while pro-choice voters will abort theirs. It's the kind of pat argument I've heard self-satisfied activists make unthinkingly; Buck has done this elsewhere, as when he claimed (incorrectly) that there's never been a home-schooler shooting.
<br />
<br />More importantly, it is foolish argumentation on many levels.
<br />
<br />1) Leaving aside the fact that it's not quite the case that political viewpoints are inherited, it's also far from the case that there's an inverse relationship between abortion rates and birth rates. Sweden, for example, has far fewer abortions per person than the United States does, but also a lower birth rate. (One of the many ironies of the U.S. anti-abortion movement is that they overlap greatly with the strongest opponents to the sort of reforms in sex education and contraceptive availability that might reduce the abortion rate, with the side benefit of also reducing the unwed pregnancy rate and the social problems caused by that. If you believe abortion is murder, why oppose reforms that would reduce the "murder" rate by millions a year? Especially when those same reforms would also help break the cycle of poverty? It's little wonder that pro-choice supporters view much of the anti-abortion movement with skepticism.)
<br />
<br />1a) Imagine the same argument as applied to gay rights. Certainly gay rights supporters are more likely to be childless than those who oppose gay rights, but which way has the trend gone in the last thirty years? Sometimes issues of social justice are resolved on the merits rather than by heredity.
<br />
<br />2) Why are Democrats pro-choice? It's an interesting example of public choice theory. Abortion was not always an issue that cleanly divided Republicans from Democrats: it was a Nixon appointee that wrote the opinion in <i>Roe v. Wade</i>, and it was a Kennedy appointee who was the strongest and loudest dissenter. The anti-abortion movement, in conjunction with the Christian right, threw their support to the Republican party, which systematically over the last quarter-century purged its rolls of pro-choice members. It quickly became known that a Republican soft on abortion issues (such as, for example, the 1980 edition of George H.W. Bush) would have political troubles. Quick, name four prominent pro-choice Republicans! Christine Todd Whitman, Arlen Specter, maybe George Pataki, and... um... Laura Bush if you pressed her on the subject, but she won't be running for the Senate in 2008. Pro-choice supporters had little option but to move to the Democratic party, which in turn forced its members to toe the line: Al Gore and Dick Gephardt are among prominent Democrats who have flipped on the issue in the last 25 years as a matter of political survival.
<br />
<br />2a) Besides, you know, sometimes politicians, on occasion, stand up for principles because they're right. Shocking, but true.
<br />
<br />3) I hereby suggest that the Republican position on abortion is far more cynical, politicized, and unprincipled than the Democratic position. The two principled justifications for government limitation on the ability to have an abortion are (a) enforcing morality in the sense of a belief that sex is only appropriate as a means of procreation, and/or (b) a conceptual argument that to cause the death of a zygote/embryo/fetus is akin to murder. I don't see any Republicans calling for a repeal of the <i>Griswold</i> ban on bans of selling contraceptives; it's safe to say that there's a trend against laws against various forms of fornication, with a strong chance that the infamous <i>Bowers v. Hardwick</i> case will be thrown out this term by the heavily Republican Supreme Court. (The original Georgia anti-sodomy statute at issue in <i>Hardwick</i> has already been struck down by the Georgia Supreme Court, without much public outrage.) Nor are Republicans willing to admit to government legislation of morality calling for a subordinate role of women restricting them to childbearing duties. Indeed, I daresay the majority of rank-and-file Republicans, and even a larger majority of Republican political leaders, support the legalized sale of contraceptives and the presence of women in the workforce.
<br />
<br />So that leaves "abortion is murder" as the only principled reason for a politician to oppose abortion.
<br />
<br />Except if you look at the Republican platform, and the public statements of every anti-abortion politician from W. Bush on down, there's always an exception: make abortion illegal, except in cases of rape and incest.
<br />
<br />Why the exception? Either abortion is murder, or it isn't. If life begins at conception, why does the spawn of a rapist and his victim have any less rights than any other unwanted pregnancy? Buck may find Democratic support of abortion mysterious, but it ain't half as mysterious as the willingness of Republicans to carve out an abortion exception for rape victims.
<br />
<br />Okay, it isn't all that mysterious: the answer is votes. Something like <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/specialReports/pollSummaries/sr020122ii.asp">74%-84% of Americans</a> support the right to abortion in cases of rape. Any politican principled enough to stand loudly by the proposition that life begins at conception and rape victims have to carry pregnancies to term would have to answer to the voters.
<br />
<br />Say what you will about the Democrats and abortion, but at least they're internally consistent.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-858183502002-12-10T22:34:00.000-05:002002-12-10T22:34:28.633-05:00<A HREF=http://girlsarepretty.com/2002_12_01_girlsarepretty_archive.html#85788642">HAPPY KURT COBAIN DAY!</A><blockquote>A lot of people think they can observe Kurt Cobain day simply by wearing a cardigan sweater to work. When these people die they are going to go to hell.
<br />
<br />Solemn and heartful observance of Kurt Cobain day involves three brief, measured rituals:
<br />
<br />First, make some French Toast. This is to demonstrate that you know that if Kurt Cobain's ghost came into your kitchen while you were eating French Toast, he'd probably lick his pretty pink lips and say, "Man, I sure wish I could eat some French Toast." Then he'd probably just hover over your table and look really jealous. When you're finished with your breakfast, look up at Kurt Cobain's ghost and say, "Shouldn't have killed yourself, Cobain. Fame might be a bitch, but French Toast is still delicious."</blockquote>(warning: language stronger than your ordinary bear)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-857552372002-12-09T19:55:00.000-05:002002-12-09T19:55:53.456-05:00GOOD PIECE IN Slate about the appalling Rhodes award to <a href="http://slate.msn.com/?id=2075224">Chesa Boudin</a>. Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-857508002002-12-09T18:19:00.000-05:002002-12-09T18:19:48.056-05:00EXCELLENT ANALYSIS OF <a href="http://www.genehealy.com/archives/002760.php#002760">The Sopranos</a>, and, even better, of the Slate talkfest on The Sopranos. (via <a href="http://www.listenmissy.com/blog">Missy</a>)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-855284052002-12-05T03:29:00.000-05:002002-12-05T03:29:22.286-05:00<a href="http://www.linuxprofessionalsolutions.com/pavlicek/tv.html">BUILD YOUR OWN TIVO</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-854472942002-12-03T17:15:00.000-05:002002-12-03T17:15:12.330-05:00INTERVIEWS WITH LAW FIRM PERSONNEL who have been caught publicly criticizing their employer tend to have the feel of well-meaning attempts by journalists to get the word on the Pyongyang street. This <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1036630512782">story on Clifford Chance</a> is no different: "We're six of the happiest people here; we really love the firm."Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-854311222002-12-03T10:58:00.000-05:002002-12-03T10:58:13.743-05:00OVER THE LAST THREE years, <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits3?statsId=4762&type=batting">Jim Thome</a> hit .256 on the road, 63 points lower than in Jacobs Field. And Veterans Stadium is no Jacobs Field for hitters. And how a fellow hits at age 32-37 tends to be somewhat worse than how he hits at age 29-31. I'm a big Thome fan, and the Braves are due for a fall, but the Phillies need more than Thome and David Bell to make up the 20+ games between them and the Braves, as sweet as an Abreu/Burrell/Thome lineup looks. (When did David Bell become a savior? He's a competent third baseman, but hardly a dramatic upgrade.) Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-854292982002-12-03T09:52:00.000-05:002002-12-03T17:50:37.000-05:00I'D HAVE TO CHECK, but I imagine that the New York Times was among the leaders in pooh-poohing Jack Welch's perks at General Electric--certainly <a href="http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ForRicher.html">Paul Krugman did</a>. (Corporations often give perks instead of salary to high executives because the perks are tax-deductible and the salary isn't -- thus, the corporation can provide the executive with a higher standard of living at a lower cost to shareholders than they could by just raising his salary. Whether corporations where the executives live like kings or where the cost of such perks are hidden from shareholders are well-run is another question for another time.)
<br />
<br />I mention this because I was amused by a recent <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/01/travel/sundaytravel/01nyluxe.html?pagewanted=3">article in the travel section of the Times</a>. The writer, who was a Times editor, spent three nights with his wife in different New York City luxury hotel suites and justified it with a story about the experience, presumably for all those Times subscribers who are trying to choose between the various $1000+tax hotel rooms available when they visit the home city of the New York Times. A $322 dinner at Lespinasse merited a whole sentence, a $102 afternoon tea half a sentence, but the $150 worth of massages at the St. Regis got edited out. I'm curious if New York Times shareholders footed the entire $5,000 bill, or if the rank-and-file writers at the Times get the same opportunities for expense accounts.
<br />
<br />[<b>CORRECTION:</b> I am now informed that the perks are subject to stricter tax rules than straight income, so my sentence in the first paragraph about the reasoning behind corporate perks is incorrect. I still have to wonder whether corporations try to get deductions for some of the perks we have read about in the press. Certainly a number of the "perks" at my job are quite appropriately treated as business expenses by my employer even if they also have the incidental effect of improving my quality of life.] Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-854279012002-12-03T09:02:00.000-05:002002-12-03T09:02:16.026-05:00KREMLIN-WATCHERS TAKE NOTE: The State Department is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A570-2002Dec2.html">refurbishing the Iraqi embassy in Washington, D.C.</a>, which had been abandoned since diplomatic relations were cut off in 1991. $40,000 in frozen Iraqi bank accounts are being used to repair the roof and add a new gutter and downspout system. The State Department refused to deny that the restoration was in preparation for regime change.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-853329512002-12-01T10:44:00.000-05:002002-12-01T10:44:21.720-05:00A SPECTACULAR <A HREF="http://www.oratory.com/johndamien/shadow/index.html">OPTICAL ILLUSION</A>. (via <a href="http://volokh.blogspot.com">Volokh</a>)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-853324362002-12-01T10:26:00.000-05:002002-12-01T10:26:47.816-05:00<a href="http://cptspaulding.blogspot.com">CAPTAIN SPAULDING'S</a> discussion of spin-offs and cross-overs got me surfing, and caused me to discover a bit of trivia I never knew: Lois from <a href="http://www.toonopedia.com/hilois.htm">Hi & Lois</a> is the sister of Beetle Bailey. Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3344072.post-853318722002-12-01T10:07:00.000-05:002002-12-01T10:07:13.320-05:00WHO KNEW THAT there was a 1931 version of Hammett's <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Title?0022111">The Maltese Falcon</a>? The lead, Ricardo Cortez in the Bogart role of Sam Spade, later went on to play <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Title?0027428">Perry Mason</a> in a 1936 movie; starlet and Marx Brothers heroine Thelma Todd played Iva Archer, and horror-movie character actor Dwight Frye was Wilmer. Reviews indicate that the pre-Code version was more explicit than the more-famous 1941 edition, but John Huston did a better job in capturing Hammett's style. (via <a href="http://atlanticblog.blogspot.com">Sjostrom</a>)Unknownnoreply@blogger.com