Politblogo

Pirates and terrorism

theoria, a buddy from my undergrad alma mater, has started an eponymous blog, after switching to Typepad from his LiveJournal, which I would like to welcome to the internets.  (No relation to the popular Daily Kos participant by the same name.)  theoria specializes in political philosophy.  Many of my readers may find some of the style of philosophy rather off-putting, and I myself often find it either impenetrable or implying what are to me rather absurd results.  But after having been reading his writing for a while, some of it makes sense, and some of it is fascinating.

His first few steps into non-LJ blogging are definitely on the fascinating side, where he contemplates parallels between pirates and terrorists and their moral and political status.  Some of it includes details that quite surprise me, even though I suspect they shouldn't:

theoria: Pirate Democracy: First, pirates are the lowest of the low; the most disenfranchised; they chose a career path that leads to certain death -- i.e., piracy as capital offense -- in order to enter into war against "all mankind" or "all the world". Burgess, however, is happy to leave the point stated simply: it isn't the world understand in a particular way or "mankind" or "civilization" understood in a particular way; rather, it is the entire world and everyone living in it. Pirates aren't, as Burgess tells us, opposed to a particular constituted juridical order -- one, for instance, that would kill them for taking their disenfranchisement to its logical conclusion -- but are rather opposed to order as such. This is interesting given his second paragraph: he cites Sam Bellamy who claims, by virtue of capturing and commanding a ship, to be on the same level as anyone else possessing means of violence. Bellamy describes himself in two ways: as a "free prince" and as having "authority". Clearly, Bellamy isn't opposed to order at all: he understands order for what it is and wants a part of it. Finally, we come to the most troubling aspect of piracy for Burgess: "pirate democracy". Not only do some bands of pirates organize themselves around constitutions and democratic principles, they also create forms of social welfare approximately two hundred and some years before comparable schemes are governmentalized in the European states.

If you read the rest of the post, theoria is definitely not afraid to push the envelope and open himself to claims of sympathy with the Bad Guys, even when the claims are pretty illogical themselves (something that, between him and I, we wasted a heck of a lot of time fighting on another forum).

Anyway, welcome theoria.

Peak Oil: Solved!

[One last Blog Like A Conservative Day post.]

Once again, I have to really admire how strong the American "liberal" blogosphere has been today!  Hilzoy at Oblivian Wings does an amazing takedown of the wingnut tomfoolery.

Obsidian Wings: "Peak Oil": Not Even A Molehill: If you correct these two errors, and ask whether the price of the CPI's basket of goods in real dollars has gone up over the last five years, the answer is no. So much for wailing of the right-wing gloom-and-doom brigade.

Indeed!

Update: Adithemopur at cinematic::rain has more.

Superior terminology

[More Blog Like A Conservative Day.]

Ann Bartow is always on the mark:

SIVACRACY.NET:  Embellish With Your Favorite Sports Metaphor: Mandos at Politblogo claims "liberal" might not be an accurate label, but since the blog appears to originate from Canada, I will assume it is all a big cultural misunderstanding, and urge you to read that blog no matter how it characterizes itself or is mischaracterized by the MSM. Indeed.

I can only add to Ann's excellent comments that "liberal" in Canada means "somewhat socially liberal and somewhat economically conservative" in present-day US parlance, ie, closer to the more classical definition of "liberal."  I'm not sure I qualify for the "economically conservative" part so well.  Heh.

Update:  Ann says,

Yes, I'm about the 100th person to do Glenn Reynolds, but I feel entitled, as I actually periodically run into the guy in real life at professional conferences. Disturbing and true.

I find myself doing Instapunditisms today as well because it is so mockable.  And I can't find myself doing LGFisms.

Another update:  Looks like Ann has turned off comments.  Must be all those conservative trolls supporting the war or something.  Disturbing, if true.

Yet another update: Jo Fish has more stuff on the MSM, none of it relevant to this post.

Idle note in the midst of sorrow

I was reading Le Monde's coverage of the London bombings when I noticed an interesting mistake in an article on blog-coverage of the chaos.

Le Monde.fr : Des témoignages immédiats par centaines sur le Web:  Le blog de la mairie de Londres a également relayé tout au long de la journée les informations sur la situation, les blessés et les victimes.

The unfortunate part, though, is that the linked site is actually NOT the official blog of the mayoralty of London.  It is instead a site devoted to opposing New Labour.  Red Ken is insufficiently radical for them, you see.   But the reporter who wrote the article didn't read far enough into the blog to find this out.  I'll check back later to see if they've corrected it.

Monarchist clean-up

I actually dealt with most of Walsingham's post in my previous post, it seems, but I'll do a little bit of cleanup now.  I'll post again regarding a comment he made that I think is also quite instructive.

The Monarchist: An olive branch - and rebuttal part N: And do not say it is because not every Western Canadian is a Reformer/contemporary CPCer, and you just want to keep their poor little souls in good old Canada. No tyranny of the majority can be without casualties – but it should respect the actual wishes of the actual majority.

Despite the fact that any separatist push is, um, rather hypothetical, I do not have a necessary attachment to Canada in its present form.  In fact, if I felt that there were grounds for separatism, then I would be a separatist.  I think there have been, from time to time, grounds for serious resentment of aspects of the central Canadian establishment by parts of the Western provinces. And there will be again.

But if there is to be a separatism, it should be on correct grounds.  Obviously, I disapprove of separatisms on grounds I disagree with, more than I would otherwise.  And, reading carefully, that is really all that you are accusing me of doing.  And, if so, then I am guilty, but it is not such a great charge.

And a separatism based on a particular choice has consequences for all involved, including the victims of that policy in the putative entity.  So yes, I am also concerned for those left behind.  But there are so far sufficiently many of them that, like I said, the discussion of separatism itself is hypothetical. 

No, I think it is because the splintering of Canada would represent a failure of your ideology – clearly more closely approximated by Liberal power than by CPC power - to convince everyone in this land of its merits; and the end of your ability to see your ideology manifested - or imposed, as the case may be - in a grand, contiguous and continental-scale implementation.

In fact there is a large conversation on the "left" end of the political spectrum, particularly among people who claim to be more radical than I, as to whether or not a large central state is actually beneficial in the larger picture, or harmful.  There's an argument to be made that the distance an alienation of the central state makes it easier to...surreptitiously implement neoliberal policy (if you are familiar with that use of "liberal"), as well as impeding local movements by developing an unhealthy and distracting dynamic exploited by the likes of Ralph K. 

For various reasons, I'm not totally sure I agree with them.  And that is a whole other discussion, which elsewhere I am presently having!  (It is part and parcel of the internal conflict of the NDP over asymmetrical federalism and the like which manifested itself publicly in the last election).  But perhaps you can see that the blanket categorization of "[my] ideology" may not be quite appropriate.  It is a matter of methodology, not an ideological commitment.  So at the very root this is not even a very relevant accusation, but instead once again instructive as to the misconceptions that have prompted your epiphany.

In a sense, it would represent the end, or at least the truncation, of a system that you hold very dear. I am not mocking (at least the philosophically worthy aspects of) that system, or your allegiance to it. But I am saying that I will not countenance the sacrificing of the rights of others to hold their own beliefs, to live their lives they way they choose, to structure their “systems” the way they see fit; in order to maintain the illusion of a harmonious Canada under the soft-singing Trudeaupian banner – especially when I detest that banner myself.

This is rather hyperbolic.  I am not going to force anything on anyone.  Nothing of the sort has occurred except through the normal processes of elections.  It is, in fact, changing the subject.  My original criticism of you focused on  your characterization of the motives of those who would not choose the CPC.  And the CPC and its supporters are no strangers to telling people how to live their lives, and what to think. So this is simply a bit of rhetorical fluff to cast me as aggressor rather than defender. Medice, cura te ipsum.

I certainly will not do it just to keep my map of Canada nice and pretty, or because I’m afraid of the future of a re-constituted Canada. And I will not feel the least bit embarrassed that it is the horrors of the conduct of the now purely disgraceful Liberal government of Canada that have pushed me to fully examine the real situation, and the full range of available alternatives.

It is not a matter of a "reconstituted Canada."  It is a matter of which reconstituted Canada.  This is once again nothing more than accusing me of having a particular opinion as to national outcomes.  Guilty!

What is to me least responsible, though, is to make use of Adscam as a vehicle to make a sudden! realization! that conveniently gets the policies that you want implemented into the doorway.  That isn't politically very...up front.  And, to bring this back to where it all began, Canadians (meaning people across this country, not just Ontario), suspect this.  And to paraphrase Yoda, that is why you fail.

The kaleidoscope of blind spots

I am still somewhat embroiled in the Battle of Tipping Point, but I would like to preserve on my own blog this particular exchange between me and The Monarchist on his blog, in fact on Walsingham's post.  (It should be noted, carefully, that the eponymous Monarchist and Walsingham are two different people.  Some people, including myself, originally failed to notice this.  Walsingham continues to proclaim loudly his desire not to read my writing even as he has responded to me.)

UPDATE: Walsingham has changed his mind, and he is responding to me, and I will <i>try</i> to get an answer to him tomorrow.

In this response, I use the issue of same-sex marriage as a a case in point to show the weakness of the Reformatories in their failure to grasp the true nature of the difficulties that they are in.  They have a long series of blind spots including that one, ones that are quite obvious to me and probably most of my readership, prevent them from addressing the roots of their failure to obtain any long-term traction.  Or perhaps these aren't blind spots: they are a result of being rooted in the Reform Party's Alberta base, ultimately, and being unable to extend outward from there, as evidenced by such things as Belinda Stronach's departure. 

In any case, it is unfortunate for Canada that it is not up to the task.  As I noted before, it impedes the growth of the party I favour as well.

The Monarchist: The Tipping Point - Part II: The most galling presumption in politics today is the attitude that other parties have to "prove" their ability to be a "national alternative", while the Liberals, regardless of their appalling lack of morality, regardless of the extent of their corruption and misconduct, regardless of their own mediocrity, regardless of their regional dependency on Ontario; don't have to prove a bloody thing."

The "proof" demanded is simply a set of policies that a majority of voters in a majority of ridings can accept, AND the belief that the adoption of these policies is halfway genuine and not a mask for ideologies that people reject.

Let me give you a case in point: SSM. Like it or not, there are people in this country who view it as a matter of civil rights, not a matter to be thrown to the whim of the majority. The CPC position has been even until now, somewhat, um, negative on the issue. So what are these people supposed to do: choose a party that allegedly promises purity but does not accept their position on their civil rights? Or live with a corrupt party that gives a half-way decent chance of recognizing their rights and passing the SSM bill?

Of course, you can say, "vote for the NDP!" But it isn't so easy: if a vote for the NDP means that (assuming the SSM bill is pushed until after an election) a CPC government will come to power, then it would be that much harder to pass the SSM bill.

This is but a single case. There are many other slices. That you aren't willing to address these questions is precisely why the Liberals are easily able to peel away sections of the electorate. That you believe that corruption is the worst possible fate betrays a lack of imagination. You cannot dismiss such "special interest groups". Special interest groups, all together, are the electorate. And they will keep defeating the CPC.

Long-suffering me

Hello, it may look like I've been neglecting this blog, but really what I've been doing is failing to resist the temptation to argue with Mustafa Hirji and posting on Points of Information. I posted here and here. The posts are not entirely serious (the second, earlier one--reverse chronological order--is not serious at all), but they make the points that I wanted to make.  Points of Information lacks comments, since the owner is stubborn, and trackbacks aren't working, so feel free to "me too" here in my comments.  Or not.

Mustafa's shock and horror

My goodness, my old Points of Information nemesis Mustafa Hirji has been kicking up a storm lately, being his Western Alien self.  He is extremely angry at Layton, apparently, for agreeing to prop up the Liberals in the budget deal, and he repeats a lot of old tropes about the budget deal.  But he totally misses the point: the budget deal's purpose was not for itself, but to (rightly) change the subject to other matters.  Ironically, the NDP loses if it looks like the Conservatives are going to win (rush of swing voters to the Liberals).  And there are issues that we need to vote on other than the silly sponsorship scandal, which has about 50% bored me by now.

Layton is not a prostitute for making this deal.  He is performing the role that the NDP should perform, what its most stable base wants it to perform, which is, above the din of sordid, transitory political scandal, to make the point that there are issues in Canada that are perpetually neglected.

The Internal Life of Darkness

The latest mini-fad on the internets: The Darth Side: Memoirs of a Monster.  It's amazing.  It's written as though Darth Vader had a blog, and even takes his perspective as someone wronged (if evil).  However, I'm still suspicious that this is as much anti-Darth propaganda as the movies are, in that there are lies mixed with truth.  For instance, he appears to like unions; if this were true, then all the other evil acts must be the worst kind of slander.

Entertaining, nevertheless.

Death and catharsis

Electrolite points out a truly amazing blog post that's been making the rounds of the internets.

Creek Running North: One morning twenty years ago this month, I opened the front section of the Washington Post and read that my friend Stephen Peter Morin had been executed by the state of Texas for capital murder.

There are two reasons that that sentence, while accurate, felt awkward to write.

First reason: it has been a long time since I thought of Morin as a friend. He was a twisted, manipulative and malevolent person, and if I hate anyone in the world or out of it I hate him.

It's so good I thought I'd pick up on it, even though it's apparently even been posted to the Guardian (?).  I can't imagine knowing someone like that, let alone as, in a strange way, part of the family.  Knowing that he's been executed.  And writing it in such a matter-of-fact way.  As Electrolite says, do read the comments too.  A family drama is played out there, among other things.  Amazing.