Great points, novakant. I don't know as much as I should about Iran and its history, so I agree that Wood's background and in-country experience is not something I dismiss out of hand. Of course, claiming to represent civilization isn't something restricted to Iranians, Stephen Miller said this at Charlie Kirk's memorial We are the storm. And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion. Our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello. Our ancestors built the cities. They produced the art and architecture. They built the industry.
Erika stands on the shoulders of thousands of years of warriors, of women who raised up families, raised up city, raised up industry, raised up civilization, who pulled us out of the caves and the darkness into the light.
Words fail.
I would recommend Marjane Satrapi's graphic novels Persopolis (1 and 2) are excellent and her newest, Women, Life and Freedom is something I'm getting for my school library.
Questions that should be asked more often when it comes to evaluating Iran's place in the international community is:
"What has Iran actually done geopolitically to deserve its reputation in, say, the past 25 years, what have other nations operating in the ME done and how does it compare? What is the death toll that resulted from Iran's actions and how does it compare to that of other nations operating in the ME?"
I think any objective observer will find that, if you set aside the rhetoric, the actual actions of the Iranian regime amount to very little compared to those of other nations. The operative phrase here is "setting aside the rhetoric" because since the hostage crisis and later Ahmadinejad, a narrative has emerged that describes the "islamofascist theocracy" in Iran as the "greatest danger to ME peace". This is completely unjustified if you look at the historical facts.
The geopolitical argument against Iran is then often bolstered by bringing up the domestic policies of the Iranian regime, which are certainly deplorable. However, they are sadly not unique in the region and elsewhere and despite claims to the contrary the regime does not have totalitarian grip on the very complex and multilayered society of Iran.
What is also almost completely ignored is the fact that the regime is more about money and power than about religion. Most observers simply are ignorant of or choose to ignore the vast amount of wealth the ruling elite from Khamenei down to the rannk and file revolutionary guard member control and their understandable desire to hold on to it. One tool to perpetuate this control is religion, but I would say in and of itself it is actually secondary.
Finally, as much as parts of Iranian society are westernised, even they don't want a society determined by US money and influence - many might hate the regime but they want to do their own thing and understandably view foreign interference with strong suspicion. And that is much more so the case with much of the conservative, religious population who just have different ideas about how to live.
I think Wood is actually better postioned than most to comment on Iran because of his educational background and having actually travelled in the country, though that seems to have been a while ago. However, he seems to succumb in part to the usual US foreign policy establishment groupthink which prioritises regime change narratives. I would just challenge everyone fixated on this to tell me what an Iran post-regime change would look like, especially considering the many different ethnic groups that make up the country.
As for Iran being an old civilization, that's certainly one source of the national pride, though it depends on who you talk to, because it can sit uneasily with the grim current relity. It's also kind of a running gag among some, who make fun of this tendency to trace back every invention and accomplishment of the past 2000 years to the Persian empire. I heard the Greeks do the same and there is apparently a scene in "My big fat Greek wedding" making fun of this.
One thing is for sure, no matter what the results of the next election: His Orangeness will cry fraud and try to overturn those parts he does not like. Iirc he already tries to persuade courts to forbid gerrymandering in blue states while allowing it in red ones. His campaign to have voting by mail declared illegal will also play a part (even if the courts do not agree).
Good on you, wj. Every further development (e.g. Comey's indictment, and the firing of anyone who tries to support the rule of law, see below) supports the conclusion that neither election to the house nor the senate can continue to be gerrymandered so as to give the Rs, and therefore Ubu, an ironclad control of American politics and the unfettered ability to continue to subvert the constitution.
Last week, Mr. Trump fired a U.S. attorney in Virginia who determined there was insufficient evidence to indict James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Letitia James, the New York State attorney general, both political targets of the president. The Virginia prosecutor was replaced by a Trump loyalist who convinced a federal grand jury on Thursday to indict Mr. Comey on two counts.
Documents reviewed by The New York Times show that the July 15 firing of Ms. Beckwith occurred less than six hours after she told Mr. Bovino, the Border Patrol chief in charge of the Southern California raids, that a court order prevented him from arresting people without probable cause in a vast expanse that stretches from the Oregon border to Bakersfield. She was removed not only from her post as acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of California, but from the office altogether.
Can I just say, I was talking (and thinking) very carelessly upthread @4.05 on Charlie Kirk. For clarity's sake, I have no idea whether or not Kirk's influence was "malevolent", since I have no idea what his real wishes were. I do not necessarily take his Christianity at face value, and not only for the excellent reasons lj gives immediately above. But there is nonetheless no doubt in my mind that his influence was malign, and despite the undoubted tragedy of his murder, and the terrible and understandable grief of his family, it is somewhat sickening to see the rightwing glorification of this deeply problematic person. He might have changed for the better, as bc seems to suggest was a possibility, but he might also have changed for the worse. Murder and political violence are a curse wherever they occur, and neither their perpetrators nor their victims need by glorified in order to condemn them.
We just got the materials for the Special Election November 4. I'm working this one, not just because I usually try to work elections, but because these days it's an affirmation that elections will happen.
The only item on the ballot is Proposition 50: AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS' PARTISAN REDISTRICTING. Talk about brutally honest proposition titles! (Something that has not been universal here, in my observation). The ads are already starting to run. On one side, Governor Newsom talking about defending democracy from Trump. On the other, arguments for preserving the nonpartisan redistricting that we established, for excellent reasons, back in 2010. Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I note that this doesn't abolish the Redistricting Commission, just allows a one-time redistricting outside the usual process. The Con ads (deliberately) make it sound like a permanent change.
I am personally strongly in favor of our nonpartisan approach. In fact, at one point I applied to be on tthe commission. But, "circumstances alter cases." I suspect that the economy will be sufficiently trashed by 2026 that the Democrats end up with a majority in the House regardless of Republican efforts elsewhere. Especially as some of the hardest hit places are already being deep red rural areas. But I'm also in belt-and-suspenders mode these days.
bc, thanks for this too. I knew of Charlie Kirk, but I didn't follow much, so I'm not going to try and dig up stuff, I think that was a mode of commenting that caused/causes a lot of problems (remember fisking?)
However, I have to say that his turn to Christianity seems a bit of a grift. In a podcast recently, he claimed it was 5th grade when he saw the light, but there is no sign of that until after Trump's second election. While it's possible that his marriage was an important influence (his wife graduated from Liberty University), the claim about the 5th grade conversion is probably a lie.
btw, you can see turning point ads (and find other ads) here
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/1E9X/turning-point-usa-help-us-take-back-our-country
There are a few with nods to Christianity, but those seem to be in conjunction with Trump trying to please that demographic.
Thanks bc! Glad you liked it. I had a checkered career as a horn player (I've hung it up) and one disappointment is that I never played much French orchestral music. I mentioned that to the conductor of the university orchestra here and he said well, French orchestral music, as opposed to German (and I suppose that Tchaikovsky et al is really stuff in the German tradition) requires a lot more from the strings.
Love the Saint-Saëns piece. Always nice to hear the horn played well. I played his Cavatine in music school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kKUuFECQ48
And I had a chance to hear some of his choral works sung in the place where they were intended to be sung last year when my son's college choir toured France and sang in La Madeleine (where Saint-Saëns was the organist).
Regarding autism, I dealt with a neurologist professionally as an expert for TBI in accident cases. He had an interesting take on autism diagnosis. He was bothered because autism and ADHD and other mental and behavioral disorders are primarily diagnosed based solely on symptoms rather than focusing first on potential physical or neurological causes. 20/20 had an episode and showed one child diagnosed for years with severe autism. He rocked back and forth much of the time ignoring the outside world. An MRI was normal, but the specialized EEG this doctor had developed showed brain seizures. Anti-seizure meds had the kid going from something like a 30-word vocabulary to 200 in a month, and up to speed in fairly short order. It always has me wondering when I meet a kid on the spectrum at the severe end of the scale what an MRI, this specialized EEG and neuropsych eval might reveal.
I worked on a paper for a while where I argued that we might want to consider autism a cultural trait. Here in Japan, students often behave in ways that are similar to what people have said are symptoms of autism. Unfortunately, though I thought it was very enlightening (and continues to be as I deal with student post covid and see their adaptations to changed circumstances) I was never able to get the right tone. It may have been, like novakant says, I was instrumentalizing autism to deal with some debates about Japanese students and education, but I did think I was on to something interesting.
btw, I love the first link with the links to papers in each section. So much better than trying to follow Youtube vids!!
Ages ago I took part in a seminar at uni that looked at autism within the context of the philosophy of mind, specifically the old problem of naturally assuming but not being able to prove that others have mental states ("other minds"). The question was that if autism is characterised in part by having difficulties conceptualising other people's mental states, can that tell us anything about how "normal people" do this. I remember "mindblindness" being a term used to characterise autism and Simon Baron-Cohen (not the comedian) drawing some interesting if controversial conclusions regarding ethical responsibility. Back then it seemed fascinating, but also a but like autism research was being instrumentalised by philosophers to liven up age old debates, rather than to help those who have to deal with the condition.
It seems that the debate has moved on since then towards a more inclusive view:
I still think it is important though to hold on to the diagnostic category of autism, while being aware of all the caveats and avoiding stigmatising those falling under it, in order to support those displaying signs of the condition especially children.
TP: Most of it has to do with race. Frex: 1) I get his point about the DEI/merit debate. He went too far IMHO naming specific people (Michelle Obama et al) and essentially calling them not so bright. They apparently all admitted that affirmative action helped them in one way or another. But he was unkind and it detracts from his argument. 2) I think it is wrong to throw out MLK's impact due to his personal character issues, as bad as those have been alleged to have been. 3) I understand his argument with respect to the Civil Rights Act, and agree to a point (that it has led to unconstitutional DEI programs and, as some say, has become a "second constitution" unto itself). However, its initial impact was so very good and important and I didn't see him acknowledging that. In short, while he reached out to, encouraged and mentored many young black conservatives, these comments were, at best, tone deaf.
I also diverge to a point on immigration. I think his position is rational (enforce the law) and I largely agree with that. I would personally soften the edges somewhat of what can lawfully be done under the conditions we face now due to Biden's open border policy.
I would have more exceptions for abortion.
There are other issues, and I think Charlie had other rough edges, but it seemed to me that he was a work in progress. He was still quite young. I think marriage and kids was good for him. And now we won't see what he might have become.
1912, from German Autismus, coined 1912 by Swiss psychiatrist Paul Bleuler from Greek autos "self" (see auto-) + -ismos suffix of action or of state (see -ism). The notion is of "morbid self-absorption."
but I like your etymology better. I was looking for some indication of what Bleuler was thinking, but a quick search didn't find anything.
wonkie, that's a neat observation, and I will shamelessly use it to launch into what is happening with the archive. There are just under 9000 posts and here are the categories with how many posts in each. The categories are non-exclusive and uncategorized is the default
abroad 49
books 6
corruption 32
culture-and-stuff 200
current-affairs 778
economy 59
energy-environment 5
ethics 52
film 2
food-and-drink 6
foreign-affairs 97
geekstuff 87
health-care 81
humor 131
iraq-and-terrorism 867
law 224
maher-arar 55
music 4
national-security 18
Not Yet A Buddha 136
nothing-else-fit 329
policy-wonkery 36
politics 2,050
religion 59
science 56
sports 36
technical-issues 93
telecom 40
television 2
torture-and-detention 138
travel 5
uncategorized 3,167
versifying 25
web-tech 10
Weblogs
weblogs 7
what-would-brian-boitano-do 162
Why Are They Saying Those Things? 177
I just added that to the sidebar (the design only has a right sidebar instead of two and I've not implemented a pulldown menu for either the archive date or the categories because I'm dropping in to try and catch errors) The founders up to hilzoy and publius were pretty careful about adding categories. After that, Eric didn't really categorize but Gary did, so at about 2010, you only have the occasional category and it looks like in 2012, they just aren't used. I've never really used a category and I'm still trying to find the origin of what-would-brian-boitano-do.
We also had tags, but only fiddler and Gary used them to any great extent.
Finally, hsh’s joke reminds me of my favorite jokes where a guy goes to Picasso while he is standing next to his portrait of his wife Jacqueline, and the guy says ‘geez, how can you say that looks like your wife? It doesn’t look anything like it’. Picasso says ‘do you have a picture of your wife?’. The guy gets a photo out of his wallet and shows it to Picasso, and says ‘this is exactly what my wife looks like’. Picasso looks at it for a moment and then says ‘your wife has a very small head…’
In the "Kuzushi and Charlie Kirk" thread I wrote: I give Saint Charles of Kirk credit for one thing: unlike the gun fetishists we used to joust with on the old ObWi, he was willing to admit that an occasional massacre is the unavoidable cost of, and an acceptable price to pay for, our god-given 2nd Amendment. And I meant it. Although his position disgusts me, I really do appreciate the honesty of it. Here's the "full clip", to avoid accusations of quoting him out of context.
I mention it because this, from bc, caught my eye: There was a lot I didn’t agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described.
Out of sincere, no-fooling curiosity, I wish bc would mention one or two of those things he didn't agree with. We might have common ground, somewhere.
--TP
Wonkie's last sentence reminds me of an old Steven Wright joke where someone points out that he's wearing mismatched socks because they're different colors, and he responds, "I go by thickness."
It's ironic that this post is "uncategorized" because I wonder if the spectrum itself is a construct of the human predilection for categorizing rather than a discovered phenomenon.
For example, let's suppose that we had a high need for athletic skills in order to be even moderately successful in life. Let's suppose that those without the high level skills were viewed as outliers. Would we have categories of lower skilled people? Would they be considered handicapped? Once labeled, would they become a focus and/or target (beyond the usual targeting that people get for being outliers of any kind)? Would we fail to notice anything special about people on the functional end of the autism spectrum but be highly concerned about the clumsy guy who can't dance well or the one who hits his thumb rather than a nail? What about people with poorly developed sense of spatial relationships?
Humans exist on multiple spectrums and human development from fertilized egg to viable baby is extraordinarily complex. People come out all kinds of ways.
I understand that there are conditions of life that mean an individual truly cannot survive, let alone thrive, without extensive support; however, I also wonder sometimes if we categorize too much and think that maybe if we as a culture put more emphasis on being accepting of variations the categories wouldn't be necessary.
I also think we should consider the possibility that some of our categories aren't grounded in anything that actually matters, the equivalent of saying that birds with red breasts should be a category, not birds that perch.
You know, in the absence of video showing Kirk saying many of the things he is accused of saying (none of which have been exactly denied), I looked at his own old tweets etc. His wholehearted, full-throated defence of RFK Jnr, a man who is looked on by the entire worldwide scientific and medical community as an idiot and a very serious risk to human health (at the very least responsible for 80 deaths in a measles outbreak in Samoa, and who knows how many to come in the US) were enough to absolutely confirm the opinion of his malevolent influence. And telling Taylor Swift " Engage in reality more and get outside of the abstract clouds. Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge" makes it much harder to doubt the things he is alleged to have said about black people, and jews.
I'd say the word 'autism' stems from the same root as the original Greek 'idiot', i.e. a self-centered person and loner who does not take part in communal activities. Epicureans were almost by definition idiots in the original sense, since they kept out of politics etc.
But man is a zoon politikon, a 'political animal', and thus being 'idiotic' or 'autistic' was seen as abnormal and - again in typical human fashion - of course stupid.
Kennedy (is it allowed to call him a moron*? ;-) ) sticks to that peiorative understanding.
*or moran in the meme
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/get-a-brain-morans
Ahhh, got it. I'll have to slap Hartmut on the wrist /joke/
In my defense, I was more suggesting that Lei Feng was closer (and I wish I had remembered Stakhanov) and saying that all four have some commonalities. While I appreciate taking time, the difference between Kirk and the other three is that only in the US case were people fired from their jobs.
Even though I cannot tell you how letdown I am by Ezra Klein's recent stuff and I have found Corey Robin to be a bit glib, this youtube dialogue between the two is quite good (here's the deadtree link, though it may disappear behind the paywall soon)
Here's a bit Klein: What we were talking about with the Red Scare, it took a long time to build that. The Trump administration is speed-running this — very fast.
Robin: This is the scary part of the story: The Second Red Scare succeeded.
Part of what deprived McCarthy of oxygen wasn’t just that he went after the military. It was that they had really drummed out — at the level of what their ambitions were, they had succeeded in stopping the New Deal from where it was heading. His electoral returns were diminishing to some degree.
The parallel I would highlight is just as the Red Scare came about to stop the New Deal, the MAGA movement has come about to erase all of the things that AOC listed.
bc - AOC’s response starts out strong but then devolves and illustrates two things: 1) My point above, that it wasn’t really what was in the proclamation but what wasn’t; and 2) her penchant for taking things out of context. I do see her point, but similar things could have been said about Hortman’s legislative agenda.
AOC's statement (https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-statement-charlie-kirk-resolution-and-trump-administrations) deserves a bit of close reading and analysis because I don't think that she said anything out of context. Her argument is pretty straightforward and does not stray into anything that is not relevant to the resolution. AOC says:
House Republicans today brought to the floor a resolution ‘honoring the life and legacy’ of Charlie Kirk. I voted NO.
Condemning the depravity of Kirk’s brutal murder is a straightforward matter – one that is especially important to help stabilize an increasingly unsafe and volatile political environment where everyday people feel at risk. We can disagree with Charlie and come together as a country to denounce the horror of killing. That is a bedrock American value.
These are the grounds for her argument. In divisive political moments where the civil peace is breaking down, it falls to our representatives to come together and denounce the act in a way that is not divisive.
It then only underscores the majority’s recklessness and intent to divide by choosing to introduce this resolution on a purely partisan basis, instead of uniting Congress in this tragedy with one of the many bipartisan options to condemn political violence and Kirk’s murder, as we did with the late Melissa Hortman. Instead, the majority proceeded with a resolution that brings great pain to the millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry today.
Here she is pointing out the "nettlesome" nature of the praise that the resolution authors included in the text and says that this creates division where the situation calls for some unifying theme - a reaffirmation of common cause.
“We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was: a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a ‘mistake,’ who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that ‘some amazing patriot out there’ should bail out his assailant, and accused Jews of controlling ‘not just the colleges – it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.’ His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans – far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority in this resolution.
These examples are not a shift into an ad hominem attack on Kirk. She is providing support for her argument that the majority's statement is divisive. Her examples are chosen to support her earlier claim that "millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry" are being nettled because Kirk's statements that she highlights here do not promote unity. But it's not Kirk's statements that she is objecting to, it's the mischaracterization of him "‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority." And her use of "We" at the beginning is an important qualifier that limits her context. We means "we representatives issuing this resolution" not "we as a society."
Which is why her final paragraph is about the surrounding rhetorical context that has been created by Trump and his FCC.
I don't see anything that is out of context or lacking in relevance to the resolution.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Ran, ran, ran, I blog Iran”
Great points, novakant. I don't know as much as I should about Iran and its history, so I agree that Wood's background and in-country experience is not something I dismiss out of hand. Of course, claiming to represent civilization isn't something restricted to Iranians, Stephen Miller said this at Charlie Kirk's memorial
We are the storm. And our enemies cannot comprehend our strength, our determination, our resolve, our passion. Our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello. Our ancestors built the cities. They produced the art and architecture. They built the industry.
Erika stands on the shoulders of thousands of years of warriors, of women who raised up families, raised up city, raised up industry, raised up civilization, who pulled us out of the caves and the darkness into the light.
Words fail.
I would recommend Marjane Satrapi's graphic novels Persopolis (1 and 2) are excellent and her newest, Women, Life and Freedom is something I'm getting for my school library.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/mar/16/marjane-satrapi-interview-persepolis-woman-life-freedom
"
Questions that should be asked more often when it comes to evaluating Iran's place in the international community is:
"What has Iran actually done geopolitically to deserve its reputation in, say, the past 25 years, what have other nations operating in the ME done and how does it compare? What is the death toll that resulted from Iran's actions and how does it compare to that of other nations operating in the ME?"
I think any objective observer will find that, if you set aside the rhetoric, the actual actions of the Iranian regime amount to very little compared to those of other nations. The operative phrase here is "setting aside the rhetoric" because since the hostage crisis and later Ahmadinejad, a narrative has emerged that describes the "islamofascist theocracy" in Iran as the "greatest danger to ME peace". This is completely unjustified if you look at the historical facts.
The geopolitical argument against Iran is then often bolstered by bringing up the domestic policies of the Iranian regime, which are certainly deplorable. However, they are sadly not unique in the region and elsewhere and despite claims to the contrary the regime does not have totalitarian grip on the very complex and multilayered society of Iran.
What is also almost completely ignored is the fact that the regime is more about money and power than about religion. Most observers simply are ignorant of or choose to ignore the vast amount of wealth the ruling elite from Khamenei down to the rannk and file revolutionary guard member control and their understandable desire to hold on to it. One tool to perpetuate this control is religion, but I would say in and of itself it is actually secondary.
Finally, as much as parts of Iranian society are westernised, even they don't want a society determined by US money and influence - many might hate the regime but they want to do their own thing and understandably view foreign interference with strong suspicion. And that is much more so the case with much of the conservative, religious population who just have different ideas about how to live.
I think Wood is actually better postioned than most to comment on Iran because of his educational background and having actually travelled in the country, though that seems to have been a while ago. However, he seems to succumb in part to the usual US foreign policy establishment groupthink which prioritises regime change narratives. I would just challenge everyone fixated on this to tell me what an Iran post-regime change would look like, especially considering the many different ethnic groups that make up the country.
As for Iran being an old civilization, that's certainly one source of the national pride, though it depends on who you talk to, because it can sit uneasily with the grim current relity. It's also kind of a running gag among some, who make fun of this tendency to trace back every invention and accomplishment of the past 2000 years to the Persian empire. I heard the Greeks do the same and there is apparently a scene in "My big fat Greek wedding" making fun of this.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
One thing is for sure, no matter what the results of the next election: His Orangeness will cry fraud and try to overturn those parts he does not like. Iirc he already tries to persuade courts to forbid gerrymandering in blue states while allowing it in red ones. His campaign to have voting by mail declared illegal will also play a part (even if the courts do not agree).
"
Good on you, wj. Every further development (e.g. Comey's indictment, and the firing of anyone who tries to support the rule of law, see below) supports the conclusion that neither election to the house nor the senate can continue to be gerrymandered so as to give the Rs, and therefore Ubu, an ironclad control of American politics and the unfettered ability to continue to subvert the constitution.
Last week, Mr. Trump fired a U.S. attorney in Virginia who determined there was insufficient evidence to indict James B. Comey, the former F.B.I. director, and Letitia James, the New York State attorney general, both political targets of the president. The Virginia prosecutor was replaced by a Trump loyalist who convinced a federal grand jury on Thursday to indict Mr. Comey on two counts.
Documents reviewed by The New York Times show that the July 15 firing of Ms. Beckwith occurred less than six hours after she told Mr. Bovino, the Border Patrol chief in charge of the Southern California raids, that a court order prevented him from arresting people without probable cause in a vast expanse that stretches from the Oregon border to Bakersfield. She was removed not only from her post as acting U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of California, but from the office altogether.
On “Precursors”
Can I just say, I was talking (and thinking) very carelessly upthread @4.05 on Charlie Kirk. For clarity's sake, I have no idea whether or not Kirk's influence was "malevolent", since I have no idea what his real wishes were. I do not necessarily take his Christianity at face value, and not only for the excellent reasons lj gives immediately above. But there is nonetheless no doubt in my mind that his influence was malign, and despite the undoubted tragedy of his murder, and the terrible and understandable grief of his family, it is somewhat sickening to see the rightwing glorification of this deeply problematic person. He might have changed for the better, as bc seems to suggest was a possibility, but he might also have changed for the worse. Murder and political violence are a curse wherever they occur, and neither their perpetrators nor their victims need by glorified in order to condemn them.
On “Where are the 5 words?”
We just got the materials for the Special Election November 4. I'm working this one, not just because I usually try to work elections, but because these days it's an affirmation that elections will happen.
The only item on the ballot is Proposition 50: AUTHORIZES TEMPORARY CHANGES TO CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT MAPS IN RESPONSE TO TEXAS' PARTISAN REDISTRICTING. Talk about brutally honest proposition titles! (Something that has not been universal here, in my observation). The ads are already starting to run. On one side, Governor Newsom talking about defending democracy from Trump. On the other, arguments for preserving the nonpartisan redistricting that we established, for excellent reasons, back in 2010. Perhaps I am a bit biased, but I note that this doesn't abolish the Redistricting Commission, just allows a one-time redistricting outside the usual process. The Con ads (deliberately) make it sound like a permanent change.
I am personally strongly in favor of our nonpartisan approach. In fact, at one point I applied to be on tthe commission. But, "circumstances alter cases." I suspect that the economy will be sufficiently trashed by 2026 that the Democrats end up with a majority in the House regardless of Republican efforts elsewhere. Especially as some of the hardest hit places are already being deep red rural areas. But I'm also in belt-and-suspenders mode these days.
On “Un morceau de blog”
Fascinating stuff on autism - thank you novakant, lj and bc!
On “Precursors”
bc, thanks for this too. I knew of Charlie Kirk, but I didn't follow much, so I'm not going to try and dig up stuff, I think that was a mode of commenting that caused/causes a lot of problems (remember fisking?)
However, I have to say that his turn to Christianity seems a bit of a grift. In a podcast recently, he claimed it was 5th grade when he saw the light, but there is no sign of that until after Trump's second election. While it's possible that his marriage was an important influence (his wife graduated from Liberty University), the claim about the 5th grade conversion is probably a lie.
btw, you can see turning point ads (and find other ads) here
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/1E9X/turning-point-usa-help-us-take-back-our-country
There are a few with nods to Christianity, but those seem to be in conjunction with Trump trying to please that demographic.
On “Un morceau de blog”
Thanks bc! Glad you liked it. I had a checkered career as a horn player (I've hung it up) and one disappointment is that I never played much French orchestral music. I mentioned that to the conductor of the university orchestra here and he said well, French orchestral music, as opposed to German (and I suppose that Tchaikovsky et al is really stuff in the German tradition) requires a lot more from the strings.
"
Love the Saint-Saëns piece. Always nice to hear the horn played well. I played his Cavatine in music school. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kKUuFECQ48
And I had a chance to hear some of his choral works sung in the place where they were intended to be sung last year when my son's college choir toured France and sang in La Madeleine (where Saint-Saëns was the organist).
Regarding autism, I dealt with a neurologist professionally as an expert for TBI in accident cases. He had an interesting take on autism diagnosis. He was bothered because autism and ADHD and other mental and behavioral disorders are primarily diagnosed based solely on symptoms rather than focusing first on potential physical or neurological causes. 20/20 had an episode and showed one child diagnosed for years with severe autism. He rocked back and forth much of the time ignoring the outside world. An MRI was normal, but the specialized EEG this doctor had developed showed brain seizures. Anti-seizure meds had the kid going from something like a 30-word vocabulary to 200 in a month, and up to speed in fairly short order. It always has me wondering when I meet a kid on the spectrum at the severe end of the scale what an MRI, this specialized EEG and neuropsych eval might reveal.
"
I worked on a paper for a while where I argued that we might want to consider autism a cultural trait. Here in Japan, students often behave in ways that are similar to what people have said are symptoms of autism. Unfortunately, though I thought it was very enlightening (and continues to be as I deal with student post covid and see their adaptations to changed circumstances) I was never able to get the right tone. It may have been, like novakant says, I was instrumentalizing autism to deal with some debates about Japanese students and education, but I did think I was on to something interesting.
btw, I love the first link with the links to papers in each section. So much better than trying to follow Youtube vids!!
"
Ages ago I took part in a seminar at uni that looked at autism within the context of the philosophy of mind, specifically the old problem of naturally assuming but not being able to prove that others have mental states ("other minds"). The question was that if autism is characterised in part by having difficulties conceptualising other people's mental states, can that tell us anything about how "normal people" do this. I remember "mindblindness" being a term used to characterise autism and Simon Baron-Cohen (not the comedian) drawing some interesting if controversial conclusions regarding ethical responsibility. Back then it seemed fascinating, but also a but like autism research was being instrumentalised by philosophers to liven up age old debates, rather than to help those who have to deal with the condition.
It seems that the debate has moved on since then towards a more inclusive view:
https://www.thetransmitter.org/spectrum/theory-of-mind-in-autism-a-research-field-reborn/
https://embrace-autism.com/autism-and-theory-of-mind-whats-new/#:~:text=Theory%20of%20mind%20(ToM)%20refers,of%20our%20social%20communication%20struggles.
I still think it is important though to hold on to the diagnostic category of autism, while being aware of all the caveats and avoiding stigmatising those falling under it, in order to support those displaying signs of the condition especially children.
On “Precursors”
TP: Most of it has to do with race. Frex: 1) I get his point about the DEI/merit debate. He went too far IMHO naming specific people (Michelle Obama et al) and essentially calling them not so bright. They apparently all admitted that affirmative action helped them in one way or another. But he was unkind and it detracts from his argument. 2) I think it is wrong to throw out MLK's impact due to his personal character issues, as bad as those have been alleged to have been. 3) I understand his argument with respect to the Civil Rights Act, and agree to a point (that it has led to unconstitutional DEI programs and, as some say, has become a "second constitution" unto itself). However, its initial impact was so very good and important and I didn't see him acknowledging that. In short, while he reached out to, encouraged and mentored many young black conservatives, these comments were, at best, tone deaf.
I also diverge to a point on immigration. I think his position is rational (enforce the law) and I largely agree with that. I would personally soften the edges somewhat of what can lawfully be done under the conditions we face now due to Biden's open border policy.
I would have more exceptions for abortion.
There are other issues, and I think Charlie had other rough edges, but it seemed to me that he was a work in progress. He was still quite young. I think marriage and kids was good for him. And now we won't see what he might have become.
On “Un morceau de blog”
Nous, enlightenment!
"
The Ur scene for "What Would Brian Boitano Do" - from South Park
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNJmfuEWR8w
"
Hartmut,
Etymon online has this
1912, from German Autismus, coined 1912 by Swiss psychiatrist Paul Bleuler from Greek autos "self" (see auto-) + -ismos suffix of action or of state (see -ism). The notion is of "morbid self-absorption."
but I like your etymology better. I was looking for some indication of what Bleuler was thinking, but a quick search didn't find anything.
wonkie, that's a neat observation, and I will shamelessly use it to launch into what is happening with the archive. There are just under 9000 posts and here are the categories with how many posts in each. The categories are non-exclusive and uncategorized is the default
abroad 49
books 6
corruption 32
culture-and-stuff 200
current-affairs 778
economy 59
energy-environment 5
ethics 52
film 2
food-and-drink 6
foreign-affairs 97
geekstuff 87
health-care 81
humor 131
iraq-and-terrorism 867
law 224
maher-arar 55
music 4
national-security 18
Not Yet A Buddha 136
nothing-else-fit 329
policy-wonkery 36
politics 2,050
religion 59
science 56
sports 36
technical-issues 93
telecom 40
television 2
torture-and-detention 138
travel 5
uncategorized 3,167
versifying 25
web-tech 10
Weblogs
weblogs 7
what-would-brian-boitano-do 162
Why Are They Saying Those Things? 177
I just added that to the sidebar (the design only has a right sidebar instead of two and I've not implemented a pulldown menu for either the archive date or the categories because I'm dropping in to try and catch errors) The founders up to hilzoy and publius were pretty careful about adding categories. After that, Eric didn't really categorize but Gary did, so at about 2010, you only have the occasional category and it looks like in 2012, they just aren't used. I've never really used a category and I'm still trying to find the origin of what-would-brian-boitano-do.
We also had tags, but only fiddler and Gary used them to any great extent.
Finally, hsh’s joke reminds me of my favorite jokes where a guy goes to Picasso while he is standing next to his portrait of his wife Jacqueline, and the guy says ‘geez, how can you say that looks like your wife? It doesn’t look anything like it’. Picasso says ‘do you have a picture of your wife?’. The guy gets a photo out of his wallet and shows it to Picasso, and says ‘this is exactly what my wife looks like’. Picasso looks at it for a moment and then says ‘your wife has a very small head…’
On “Precursors”
In the "Kuzushi and Charlie Kirk" thread I wrote: I give Saint Charles of Kirk credit for one thing: unlike the gun fetishists we used to joust with on the old ObWi, he was willing to admit that an occasional massacre is the unavoidable cost of, and an acceptable price to pay for, our god-given 2nd Amendment. And I meant it. Although his position disgusts me, I really do appreciate the honesty of it. Here's the "full clip", to avoid accusations of quoting him out of context.
I mention it because this, from bc, caught my eye:
There was a lot I didn’t agree with, and some of his interactions somewhat resemble what was described.
Out of sincere, no-fooling curiosity, I wish bc would mention one or two of those things he didn't agree with. We might have common ground, somewhere.
--TP
On “Un morceau de blog”
Wonkie's last sentence reminds me of an old Steven Wright joke where someone points out that he's wearing mismatched socks because they're different colors, and he responds, "I go by thickness."
"
It's ironic that this post is "uncategorized" because I wonder if the spectrum itself is a construct of the human predilection for categorizing rather than a discovered phenomenon.
For example, let's suppose that we had a high need for athletic skills in order to be even moderately successful in life. Let's suppose that those without the high level skills were viewed as outliers. Would we have categories of lower skilled people? Would they be considered handicapped? Once labeled, would they become a focus and/or target (beyond the usual targeting that people get for being outliers of any kind)? Would we fail to notice anything special about people on the functional end of the autism spectrum but be highly concerned about the clumsy guy who can't dance well or the one who hits his thumb rather than a nail? What about people with poorly developed sense of spatial relationships?
Humans exist on multiple spectrums and human development from fertilized egg to viable baby is extraordinarily complex. People come out all kinds of ways.
I understand that there are conditions of life that mean an individual truly cannot survive, let alone thrive, without extensive support; however, I also wonder sometimes if we categorize too much and think that maybe if we as a culture put more emphasis on being accepting of variations the categories wouldn't be necessary.
I also think we should consider the possibility that some of our categories aren't grounded in anything that actually matters, the equivalent of saying that birds with red breasts should be a category, not birds that perch.
On “Precursors”
You know, in the absence of video showing Kirk saying many of the things he is accused of saying (none of which have been exactly denied), I looked at his own old tweets etc. His wholehearted, full-throated defence of RFK Jnr, a man who is looked on by the entire worldwide scientific and medical community as an idiot and a very serious risk to human health (at the very least responsible for 80 deaths in a measles outbreak in Samoa, and who knows how many to come in the US) were enough to absolutely confirm the opinion of his malevolent influence. And telling Taylor Swift " Engage in reality more and get outside of the abstract clouds. Reject feminism. Submit to your husband, Taylor. You're not in charge" makes it much harder to doubt the things he is alleged to have said about black people, and jews.
On “Un morceau de blog”
I'd say the word 'autism' stems from the same root as the original Greek 'idiot', i.e. a self-centered person and loner who does not take part in communal activities. Epicureans were almost by definition idiots in the original sense, since they kept out of politics etc.
But man is a zoon politikon, a 'political animal', and thus being 'idiotic' or 'autistic' was seen as abnormal and - again in typical human fashion - of course stupid.
Kennedy (is it allowed to call him a moron*? ;-) ) sticks to that peiorative understanding.
*or moran in the meme
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/get-a-brain-morans
On “Precursors”
...this youtube dialogue between the two is quite good
I listened to the whole video. It's interesting and informative.
"
lj: The Horst Wessel comparison came first.
Ahhh, got it. I'll have to slap Hartmut on the wrist /joke/
In my defense, I was more suggesting that Lei Feng was closer (and I wish I had remembered Stakhanov) and saying that all four have some commonalities. While I appreciate taking time, the difference between Kirk and the other three is that only in the US case were people fired from their jobs.
Even though I cannot tell you how letdown I am by Ezra Klein's recent stuff and I have found Corey Robin to be a bit glib, this youtube dialogue between the two is quite good (here's the deadtree link, though it may disappear behind the paywall soon)
Here's a bit
Klein: What we were talking about with the Red Scare, it took a long time to build that. The Trump administration is speed-running this — very fast.
Robin: This is the scary part of the story: The Second Red Scare succeeded.
Part of what deprived McCarthy of oxygen wasn’t just that he went after the military. It was that they had really drummed out — at the level of what their ambitions were, they had succeeded in stopping the New Deal from where it was heading. His electoral returns were diminishing to some degree.
The parallel I would highlight is just as the Red Scare came about to stop the New Deal, the MAGA movement has come about to erase all of the things that AOC listed.
"
GtfNC/Wonkie: I remember that too, and Wonkie's comment in particular about a campaign against her sister's church. I would be interested in that too.
"
bc - AOC’s response starts out strong but then devolves and illustrates two things: 1) My point above, that it wasn’t really what was in the proclamation but what wasn’t; and 2) her penchant for taking things out of context. I do see her point, but similar things could have been said about Hortman’s legislative agenda.
AOC's statement (https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/press-releases/ocasio-cortez-statement-charlie-kirk-resolution-and-trump-administrations) deserves a bit of close reading and analysis because I don't think that she said anything out of context. Her argument is pretty straightforward and does not stray into anything that is not relevant to the resolution. AOC says:
House Republicans today brought to the floor a resolution ‘honoring the life and legacy’ of Charlie Kirk. I voted NO.
Condemning the depravity of Kirk’s brutal murder is a straightforward matter – one that is especially important to help stabilize an increasingly unsafe and volatile political environment where everyday people feel at risk. We can disagree with Charlie and come together as a country to denounce the horror of killing. That is a bedrock American value.
These are the grounds for her argument. In divisive political moments where the civil peace is breaking down, it falls to our representatives to come together and denounce the act in a way that is not divisive.
It then only underscores the majority’s recklessness and intent to divide by choosing to introduce this resolution on a purely partisan basis, instead of uniting Congress in this tragedy with one of the many bipartisan options to condemn political violence and Kirk’s murder, as we did with the late Melissa Hortman. Instead, the majority proceeded with a resolution that brings great pain to the millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry today.
Here she is pointing out the "nettlesome" nature of the praise that the resolution authors included in the text and says that this creates division where the situation calls for some unifying theme - a reaffirmation of common cause.
“We should be clear about who Charlie Kirk was: a man who believed that the Civil Rights Act that granted Black Americans the right to vote was a ‘mistake,’ who after the violent attack on Paul Pelosi claimed that ‘some amazing patriot out there’ should bail out his assailant, and accused Jews of controlling ‘not just the colleges – it’s the nonprofits, it’s the movies, it’s Hollywood, it’s all of it.’ His rhetoric and beliefs were ignorant and sought to disenfranchise millions of Americans – far from ‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority in this resolution.
These examples are not a shift into an ad hominem attack on Kirk. She is providing support for her argument that the majority's statement is divisive. Her examples are chosen to support her earlier claim that "millions of Americans who endured segregation, Jim Crow, and the legacy of that bigotry" are being nettled because Kirk's statements that she highlights here do not promote unity. But it's not Kirk's statements that she is objecting to, it's the mischaracterization of him "‘working tirelessly to promote unity’ as asserted by the majority." And her use of "We" at the beginning is an important qualifier that limits her context. We means "we representatives issuing this resolution" not "we as a society."
Which is why her final paragraph is about the surrounding rhetorical context that has been created by Trump and his FCC.
I don't see anything that is out of context or lacking in relevance to the resolution.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.