Oh, I love quizzes that tell me about myself

Gawker has a great takedown of David Brooks and his love of crypto-racist Charles Murray.

Brooks, like Jeff Jacoby, seems to exist solely as a token conservative who reassures liberal newspaper-buyers that conservatives are idiots. But I think that’s not really the case. Well, not for Brooks. Jacoby’s opinions really are such a caricature of conservatism I can’t actually believe he’s serious, or that anyone would publish him as an honest and sincere advocate for anything.

But Brooks does a slightly better job of seeming reasonable. I mean, he’s identifying actual problems, like a widening cultural divide accompanying the widening economic divide. But his understanding of the causes and solutions are so stupid it just burns.

Anyway, Murray has a quiz he wants isolated upper-crusters to take to determine about engagement with the 99%. Gawker fills it out for all the candidates, and of course, Obama wins. Durh.

Housepainting

There must already be a poem about painting houses; how it’s all preparation, and goes faster if you’re patient and careful at the start; about cutting in with an angled brush pushed against the grain to just reach an edge or corner; about cleanup and dropcloths and stray speckles found weeks later. Every human endeavor, in good light, is like this.

Redefining marriage is the path to anarchy

Brad Delong has a fantastic takedown of the right’s hand-wringing about marriage. National Review talks lovingly of Athenian philosophers and uses them to oppose Teh Gay, which is … well, let’s just not go there.

But seriously, this argument that changing marriage is putting us on the road to anarchy? Just rewind a couple hundred years and imagine the same tale:

Marriage has always and forever been one thing and one thing only: A sacred contract between a husband and his fathers-in-law, whereby a girl ceases to be the property of her father and becomes the property of her husband, subservient to the prior wives in the marriage. And a marriage like this is a key means of cementing tribal alliances and settling blood debts.

Yes, it may seem unfair to make these arrangements without the consent of the bride, but this is the way things have always been done, and it is the way they must continue to be done. Why, if we could not settle a blood debt by giving a daughter away as chattel, how could we end a vendetta? Without chattel marriage, anarchy and murder would reign!

Recently Shared By You

A list of items I have found interesting recently:

A Softer World: Glass Half Empty: Funny comic.

Texts from Last Night: Cake: Drunken memos rarely speak such great truths.

Brad Delong: Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo: Math plus grammar equals awesome.

Angry Bear: Why The Rich Love High Unemployment: Everybody knows the game is fixed.

Felix Salmon: The Gingriches and Tiffany: When a Loan Becomes Lobbying. The poor stay poor and the rich stay rich.

Teichman: Cobe Learns English and Hammond Organ Simulation. Funny writing about great hacks.

Note to Moderate, Electable Democrats: You’ve Gone Too Far Right

I’m a Massachusetts Liberal, so I know I’m to the left of most electable politicians. It may be the stereotype, but I’m basically the sort who thinks it would be cool to double the tax on gasoline and use the money to build trains powered by unicorns and rainbows. So when moderate electable Democratic politicians disappoint me, nobody’s surprised. They never do what I want.

When they disappoint and infuriate my mother-in-law, that’s news. She’s a middle-of-the-road moderate Democrat who lives in suburban Atlanta. She’s Catholic, married once and still married—to a military man no less—so she’s hardly what you’d call a fire-breathing liberal. She’s been voting for moderate, electable Democrats since JFK, but without being involved in any activism, boat-rocking, or any of that. She’s practically the definition of a mainstream Democratic voter.

And this entirely sensible woman, who appreciates compromise and knows the difficulty of policy-making in Washington, is absolutely furious. She is enraged that the President and the legislature are failing to stand up to defend the social safety net. She’s angry about threats to everything, not just the things that benefit her, like Medicare and Social Security. She wants to know why more people aren’t outraged, aren’t warning the world about what will happen if we cut early-childhood programs, women’s health, nutrition, education, the environment, Medicaid, and food stamps.

She called me on a tear this week, and wanted to know how she could get a message to Washington that she and everyone she knows want Democrats to fight back harder against Tea Party-led destruction of the good that government can do in this country.

Reasonable grown-up Democrats, this is a warning: My mother-in-law is your base. She has been your reliable vote since the middle of the last century. If you’ve moved so far to the right that suburban Atlanta housewives are angry at you, you’re just following the Tea Party over a cliff.