Libertarian Morality

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.

Snark Snark Snark

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.

Assorted Random Thoughts

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?

Genuine Attempts at Not Being a Bitter Jerk

OK, a real attempt to post something uplifting.
This is sort of nice: Instructions for management on how to defuse bad employee feelings. Hey, people are actually thinking about how they ought to treat other people!

The song New Partner by Palace, a.k.a. Will Oldham, which seems somehow uplifting to me. It makes me feel like I’m moving forward, like I’m able to live in the present and not still completely destroy my past. Those who know me know what I mean, I think, perhaps.

Smart People, Smart Thinking

I dedicate so much time to stupidity and the negative here, I’d like to point out a few smart people. Of course they tend to say negative things too sometimes, but they point out hope as often as not.
Eric Hobsbawm, historian and thinker. Stan Goff, former military man, although he’s quite cynical and his authenticity has been questioned often enough. Lewis Lapham over at Harper’s. Heck, Harpers and its wonderful weekly update. A.S. Byatt defending adult literature against the popularity of fluff.

I guess most of that is still pretty negative there. Well, call me a nattering nabob. I’ll have to try again later.

Ironic Things

Apparently people come to this site looking for irony. That’s not ironic. The Guardian has a great article about other things that irony is, or isn’t.

Also not ironic is the fact that Africa is all messed up.. Meanwhile, arguably imortant peopple actually defend nepotism. The defended features of “positive nepotism” are really mere brakes on an otherwise corrosive practice. Note that the word comes from the Latin for “nephew,” and described the favored sons (disguised as nephews) of priests and especially popes during one of the more celebrated periods of corruption in the rennaisance Church.

Requisite Political Crap following Independence Day: I have decided that I disagree with Dean on everything but war and sodomy.

  • I am in favor of expanded trade (and migration/immigration); he wants NAFTA repealed. I fail to see how cutting trade with our neighbors will improve our economy.
  • He more prone to taking a hawkish side in the Palestine/Israel thing, which is better than nothing, but still not the unbiased stance I’d like.
  • He’s anti-drug. I favor deregulation.

This leaves me with Kucinich, who’s even less electable, and the undifferentiated mass of moderates. What annoys me is that my only influence on the process is primary-picking, since MA is going to go for the Dems no matter what. Well, I guess that says “Kerry,” really, although Edwards would be probably have a wider appeal if he had the cash to pull it off.

Slogans:

  • Howard Dean, the McGovern of 2004.
  • Lieberman: Conservative enough for a Republican; pH Balanced for a Democrat.

My Crackpot Economic Theory Again

OK, I have written to Semi-Daily Journal and the Wall Street Journal and now to the Economist with my crackpot economic theory. This is becoming a ridiculous quixotic campaign. I re-edited the letter to make it more Economist in style– that is, snarkier and more subtle:

Sirs:
Your article “Judges Come Out for Gays” (June 19, 2003) neglected an important argument for the recognition of gay marriage: deregulation. The wedding industry in North America is in trouble due to a relatively static number of weddings each year. Allowing gay marriage will expand the wedding pool and benefit the wedding industry (and retailers who host wedding registries).

The US wedding industry has not yet recognized the threat to its competitiveness, but it will once US homosexuals start taking their wedding dollars northward. Soon, the Republican party will be faced with yet another split in its constituency: neoliberals who would deregulate marriage, and religious conservatives who would restrict yet another avenue of commerce to a class it favors morally.