Author: Aaron Weber

I’ve often ranted on about conflicts inherent in the Republican party: the economic conservatives with a libertarian streak, vs. the social conservatives with a paternalistic streak. Both, I’m sure, fit into the model of strict-father politics as opposed to nuturing parent politics, but that doesn’t mean that they are in any other way philosophically compatible.

At any rate, your standard neoconservative line is to deregulate business, devolve power to the states and local governments, (in the EU this is called subsidiarity and in the US it’s more or less equivalent to “state’s rights,” although the term was used to defend Jim Crow and slavery). They feel that the government should get out of people’s hair generally, and the federal government should be involved only in matters of interstate trade, international policy, and defense.

But in certain cases, as I’m sure you’re all aware, we see those principles bent. The re’s a test you can take about the consistency of your beliefs, but I don’t know if we could get all our politicians to take it, much less apply its lessons to their daily lives.

I am told that the Republican party’s social conservatism has its roots in its original moral crusade: abolition. Republicans of those days wanted to abolish all sorts of other moral scourges, too– alcohol, for example. Oh, you say, so that’s why we’ve got hardline maniacs running the DEA and trying to keep medicine out of the hands of terminally ill cancer patients: it’s only moral to make sure death is as painful and miserable a process as possible.

The whole media world seems to be dishing and raving over Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, which I find incredibly annoying, although I’d have been perfectly mesmerized by it if I’d been in front of a TV last night.

Positive coverage from Orlando Sun-Sentinel, the LAT, Pittsburgh Live, the Salt Lake Tribune (aren’t they too conservative for that?). Discerning cynicism from the Washington Post and of course Salon .

We’ve got two trends here. One of them is the metrosexual, which used to be known as “high-maintenance straight guys,” or “male grooming,” or just “fops and dandies.” Basically, men are now expected to dress well, trim their nose-hair, and so forth. I’m not sure this is a “new” thing though– men were expected to look good back in the day, and nose-hair trimmers have been around for ages. Stil, it was laugh-out-loud funny to hear The Economist, in discussing David Beckham’s supposed metrosexuality, discuss the trend in waxing the“Back, Crack, and Sack”. (Maybe it’s already too late for metrosexuals, though. Way-ahead-of-the-curve Vice Magazine has been mocking over-feminized straight men repeatedly, to the point of putting men with hairy backs in their DO section and putting the hairless South-beachers under DON’T.)

The other trend one is the gay-men-on-TV thing, as represented by America’s Fabulous Gay Friend. You’ve come a long way, baby. Now in addition to being Grace’s gay roommate, you can help out the straight guys without having them beat you to death or run screaming.

I’m not convinced that depicting gay men as style-obsessed, snark-dishing, crank-snorting divas is much of a step up from depicting them as Baron Harkonnen or the punchline of some joke about walking into the wrong bar. Nor, for that matter, is it very fair to portray straight men as filthy, sartorially incompetent, armpit-scratching knuckle-draggers. It’s probably amusing, which I suppose is what TV is for, but although it explains the stereotyping, it doesn’t exactly excuse it.

You ever go back and watch a movie from the 70s or 80s and suddenly realize how heavy-handed it was about sex and race? Yeah, that’s what this will look like in ten years.

Arrr, it’s the Worst Date Ever. My friends Nat and Taylor once tried to think up the Worst Date Ever– it involved planning ahead to get random people to attack or insult them and their date on the street (“Hey, Nat, you still owe me those fifty bucks!”), to have the waitstaff at the restaurant spill things on them and be mean, then of course to be rude during the date. I can’t remember all the details but the description of the hypothetical evening just kept getting worse.

USA Today has covered Linux, which I think is a good sign. Mel Gibson has gone all religious-nut on us, though, which I don’t think is such a good idea. On the other hand, the concern about whether it’s antisemitic still strikes me as a little alarmist and conspiracy-minded.

But then again, I’m the sort who plays Massively Multiplayer Roleplaying Games (MMRPGs), so what the hell do I know.

One more thing: I’m still trying to think about humanity’s place in the natural world. The “Do we need nature” question is obviously just a tease, and I don’t think addressing it directly is a winner. What the essay really needs is a nuanced, but firm, statement of the role of humanity in the larger world. Obviously we depend on nature and are part of nature: but what part is that? How should we behave? What principles should guide our environmental, economic, industrial policy?