Stump Lane
in the dirt since history began

MAYBE “CRAZY” ISN’T THE WORD, but I don’t quite “get” Orson Scott Card’s line of argument here: State job is not to redefine marriage. (Via: The Poor Man Institute)

Montag: As someone leaning towards the ‘no, the state shouldn’t go on’ end of the ‘what should we do about empire?’ spectrum, I don’t know why I would get so worked up over something like state recognized marriage, especially Orson Scott Card’s take on it. Except that

1. I loved him in Ender’s Game and want to respect OSC, and
2. aside from acknowledging marriage is “the primary unit of patriarchal currency” there are particular (human rights) benefits to state recognized marriage that, as long as we’re stuck with this “state,” amount to something in my view: That Ms. Montag will be in charge if I go into a coma or something — and that if I die, Ms. Montag and the kids get everything (and vice-versa if the unthinkable should happen with our situations reversed.) State recognized marriage guarantees the first and all but guarantees the second of these things, and why shouldn’t gays have an equally easy way to obtain the same consideration?

Fehlleistungen: Usually I can follow OSC‘s arguments pretty well, but I think he’s writing for a “home” audience here, which seemingly alleviates the need to make any sense whatsoever. I alternately agree with and disagree with him throughout the article — logically, he’s very inconsistent. For example:

Here’s the irony: There is no branch of government with the authority to redefine marriage. Marriage is older than government. Its meaning is universal: It is the permanent or semipermanent bond between a man and a woman, establishing responsibilities between the couple and any children that ensue.

He has no perspective from which to utter proclamations on the universality of a definition of marriage, or the relative age of marriage/government. It’s just rhetoric. On the other hand, he’s right — in a sense, the government doesn’t have the authority to redefine marriage for any given individual or even community of believers — though that doesn’t mean it won’t assume that authority.

Montag: So far the government hasn’t. Churches don’t have to recognize or perform just any heterosexual marriage as it is now. Score one for separation of church and state.

Fehlleistungen: So, on the one hand, Card points up the separation of church and state and argues against government authority (which I applaud) but then on the other hand he’s panicking because he’s accepting government mandated definitions of marriage as establishing his reality. It’s a lose-lose situation for him. Boo hoo.

Montag: That’s exactly why i don’t get Card’s argument. Though as they say, politics make strange bedfellows. (Oops. See what i did there? Gross!) If I’m truly going to be for the dissolution of American empire, then perhaps I should look past the shaky part of Card’s argument and embrace his willingness “…to destroy that government and bring it down,” though I’d then have to find a way to stop him before he got around to the “…so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support [OSC's definition of] marriage,” part.

Fehlleistungen: This is what makes his argument hypocritical and uninventive — he actually embraces government control, so long as it’s in line with his own moral code.

Montag: Little authoritarian for my taste. Dude takes his Daddy State serious.

WACKY.

“It sounds like a good time to re-start the conversation about getting Reagan on the $10 bill,” Norquist said. “I don’t know why the Bush administration has dropped the ball on this.”
[Examiner.com:Yeas & Nays - Only three years left till Reagan’s birthday!]

I think this is a fantastic idea. What better way to honor one of Our most beloved forefathers— the one responsible for laying the groundwork of our exploitive corporate financial system, and advocating a system of political corruption as a means of control over the legislature —than to replace his image on the tenpiece with that of the greatest look-good, do-nothing executive figurehead, the crown of Hamilton’s achievement, representing the very zenith of Empire?

WELL HERE WE ARE with the 69th edition of Carnival of the Liberals, (but let’s all be studious and earnest in our attempts to not giggle about that.) This is a sort of ‘no-frills’ edition, where we will let the sampling of liberal writings speak for themselves for the most part. However, in order to fulfill my duties as host in a very minimal way, Your Montag will provide the ‘value added’ service of answering-questions-that-were-never-meant-to-be-answered and providing rhetorical-questions-where-no-questions-needed-asking. It may be the most annoying conceit ever devised for this carnival, and for that I apologize.

The Ridger, FCD at The Greenbelt writes “Unfortunately”? That’s not what’s unfortunate!:

What is with the AP – and Washington – and their insistence on a position which holds that Iran is not entitled to defend itself?

Answer: There is a lesser-known corollary to one of our leaders’ guiding principles: “It’s only terrorism when they do it,” and that is: “It’s only self defense when we do it.”

Marcella Chester at abyss2hope writes Why Do Those Who Advocate Shame Have None Themselves?:

He isn’t asking himself to have any shame for acting as if sperm only comes from self-serve outlets. He turns all boys and all men into morality-optional creatures.

A: The titular question is adequately answered, I think, by the last sentence of the excerpt.

Doctor Biobrain at And Doctor Biobrain’s Response Is… writes Corporate Masters Unite!:

…the big question always has been: Why should Joe Schmo Limbaugh Listener agree? What’s in it for them? They’re never going to be in the big corporate seat calling the shots.

A: They’re never going to be a professional athlete either, but that doesn’t mean they should let steroids, videotaping, corrupt referees or off-field scandals get in the way of cheering for winners.

mw at Divided We Stand United We Fall writes “This really is a black mark, not only on Democrats, but on the Congress, and the history of the United States.”:

…every single expansion of government power over citizens is ultimately abused by those entrusted with that power.

Question: Why shouldn’t those in power be entrusted with the power to give themselves even more power? OR: Who’s the fucking nihilists here, anyway?

Martin at The Lay Scientist writes Inertia Creeps: Oil-Balls and the Election:

He states there that “… drilling in ANWR alone would yield 100m barrels a day.” This ridiculous figure has about as much basis in reality as Don King’s hairdo[.]

AND green | rising writes Who Turned Out The Lights?:

…coal plants are being shut down before they open (yeah!) , nuclear is on the hot seat and now solar projects are on hold for up to two years. From where will we get all the energy we need to waste?

A: (Quoting IOZ.) “Carbon fuel is a singularly efficient concentration of caloric energy. It has an affinity for combustion. It is refinable and fungible. Its unique qualities define the made geography of our entire society. We aren’t going to put hydrogen fuel cells into our cars and long-haul fleets and continue put-putting around, but Green! The “alternative to oil” is not a new substance at the filling station. The alternative to oil is the radical physical revision of the entire structure of our civilization.”

Batocchio at Vagabond Scholar writes Skippy and the Mystery of the Missing Journalism:

Barack Obama held an economic roundtable with 16 Democratic governors.

Q: What aspect of this event could be more newsworthy than state leaders gathering to discuss how the economy is affecting people from a state and local perspective? A: Why, the arrogance of Obama’s campaign designing a personalized knock-off of the presidential seal! Q: But when you really look at it, isn’t the real story here the Obama campaign’s graphic artists’ crimes against aesthetics?

(Went a little off-format there with the ‘question–answer–yet another question’ formulation. Nonetheless…)

Justin at We Op-Ed writes We Op-Ed Interview: The Next Greatest Generation with Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais:

Millennials are young Americans born 1982-2003.

Q: The kids these days: Are they being properly indoctrinated in the ways of global capitalist democracy?

Barry Leiba at Staring At Empty Pages writes No liberal option:

Starting on 20 January 2009, our country will be run by one right-leaning president or another. . . . what happened to Mr Liberal, Mr Change?

AND Deborah White at Deborah’s US Liberal Politics Blog writes Second Thoughts about Suitor Obama:

…should I adjust my expectations that he’ll fufill his silken words? Should I have known all along that courtship is merely a time of delightful foolishness, designed only to attract my vote… er, affections.

A: That wise little spoon boy from The Matrix explains:

“Do not try and bend the spoon. That’s impossible. Instead… only try to realize the truth.”
“What truth?”
“There is no spoon.”
“There is no spoon?”
“Then you’ll see, that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself.”

That’s all for this edition of Carnival of the Liberals. The next one will be in two weeks at Cult of Gracie. Special thanks to TNG who is the one that started this thing, and who plays an instrumental role in coordinating every single edition, and maintains the mailing list, and website!

I heard the audio from this last night on NPR and couldn’t finish dinner.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQHFFbD_-Pg “You look like you’re doing well to me,” the Canadian agent says.

ISSUE: The rules that require us to report to a secret court that issues warrants which allow us to secretly monitor the communications of our citizens are too restrictive of our ability to protect the country from terrorism.

REASONABLE REPUBLICAN ARGUMENT: We need greater flexibility to monitor these communications without first getting a warrant from the secret court. AND… Corporations who may have helped us monitor communications in the past should be protected from civil lawsuits brought by their customers who may have been subject to unwarranted surveillance.

REASONABLE DEMOCRAT ARGUMENT: Greater flexibility to secretly monitor the communications of our citizens is perfectly reasonable, so going forward we should eliminate the need of first getting a warrant. HOWEVER… Corporations shouldn’t automatically get retroactive immunity for helping us do this in the past when it used to be illegal.

UNHINGED OFF-THE-MAP LUNATIC ARGUMENT: There’s a secret court to allow the government to spy on people?! WHAT THE FUCK? That’s bizarre and frightening. Look, we should be demanding more transparency in government, not less. If our society worked they way they told us it would in 9th grade Civics class, at the very least, “they” should have to go to a regular, non-secret court and get a warrant before conducting this kind of surveillance. In reality, however, “they” can’t be trusted with the power that “they” already wield, let alone even more.

Carnival of the Liberals #69 (heh) will be hosted right here next Wednesday, but we need your work! The submissions are already trickling in, but we’re looking for a deluge here. Your Montag is ten times angrier, twice as cynical and more completely alienated from “politics” now than the last two time’s Stump Lane has hosted this carnival, so it’s going to take extra special effort to kiss up to this COTL host.*

Do submit before, say, 8:00pm EDT Tuesday July 15th— (The sooner the better!) —and we’ll try to have your carnival up by noon on Wednesday.

Submissions should be made using the Blog Carnival form.

* Hint: check Stump Lane’s mission statement (courtesy philosopher Slavoj Žižek) for a vague idea of how to get a submission on the inside track.

SO I HEAR General Motors is in trouble. Even heard whispers of the ‘bankruptcy’ word the other day. Today, GM looks at job cuts and to possibly shed some ‘brands’:

…the company will continue to reconsider its mix of brands. One under examination is Saturn, a maker of economy cars that analysts believe has never made money in its nearly 20-year history.
[Wall Street Journal: GM Weighs More Layoffs, Sale of Brands]

Which might remind one of that movie from a couple of years ago, about the plug-in sports car, the one made by General Motors’ Saturn division: Who Killed the Electric Car?

It just seems like— You could have— That a commitment to this technology— What with today’s concern over gasoline prices— Fuck all of you backward dinosaurs who didn’t see this coming is all Your Montag is trying to say.