Internal Monologue

Here's #2: The conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. ... Conservatives are champions of custom, convention, and continuity because they prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. The interesting thing to point out here is that under this formulation, anything unknown is implicitly considered to be the devil. I think this reveals a fear of change that goes far deeper than a prudent skepticism of untried methods and ideas (which I think is a very good thing). It smacks of a knee-jerk reaction against any possible form of improvement or betterment: Even if circumstances now are hellishly bad (i.e. the devil they know), they are preferable to what might otherwise come about (the devil they don't know). I am doubly suspicious when this formulation comes from the mouths of those who are tremendously well-off with "the devil they know" and are directing this "wisdom" at those who are suffering from the defects of the current sys

Up on Daily Dish, one of Sullivan's guest bloggers has posted 10 conservative principles , with a poll asking to which of them Sullivan's readers subscribe. I think a "yes-no" response is too simple, so here are the principles and my reactions to them: 1. The conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent. ... Hmm. First of all, a liberal wouldn't use sexist language when trying to articulate truths about an enduring moral order, but we'll let that slide for now. I do believe that human nature has been constant, but that may change now that we finally have the tools to actually mess with it: genetic engineering, psycho pharmacology, cybernetic brain enhancement, etc. are either here or just around the corner. These offer the possibility of messing with our "source code" so-to-speak, and for the first time we really will be

The Kossacks are not happy about Congress giving Bush what he wants on the FISA bill : The Democrats in the US Senate are systematically getting rolled, once again, by veiled threats of terrorism, closed briefings about "traffic", and the implicit threat that if they don't give George Bush EXACTLY WHAT HE WANTS, they will be targeted in the next election. Where are the real patriots? Where are the men and women who value the American Experiment enough to stand for the Constitution, and the Civil Rights of citizens over campaign cash, and Rovian threats, deliverd with no subtlety, no real skill, and no power to effect, if they just stood up on their hind legs and made the case for the Separation of Powers? Neither is Liz Mair, posting on Daily Dish : It won't surprise many people to know that I am skeptical of what was passed. While I do feel that Congress needed to do something on the issue of surveillance before heading off on holiday, I had thought the propos

This test gives you an Asperger's Syndrome Quotient , or "AQ". Mine is 24, which means I'm pretty geeky: more geeky than the average computer scientist, but less geeky than the average math contest winner. (HT: Sullivan )

Here's a fun quote from a piece about the "Republican Unburdening of the Soul Ritual": "See, you (meaning 'liberals', even though I had not offered him any political affiliation; all academics are liberals) hate George Bush because he represents everything you hate. I hate George Bush because he represents everything I believe in being completely fucked up and ruined." The profundity of that struck me. I've not yet heard a more concise, eloquent explanation of what the non-brainwashed part of the right-leaning electorate is experiencing these days. It also struck me as incredible that this is what political discourse v2007 sounds like: two people of opposing ideologies arguing about who hates George Bush more. Via Heraldblog .

Digby has another post on how the Republican party is dooming itself : The sheer numbers of non-whites are changing things, and that has the rightwingers working themselves into a full blown panic. The Bushies were right on this one. They needed to cool the racist ardor of their base, but they couldn't get it done. And now you see neocons like Frum trying to join the wingnut populist bandwagon with thinly veiled racist appeals to solidarity with the Pat Buchanan wing. (His conflation of "illegal immigrants" who allegedly have no stake in the country with the large numbers of young Hispanic Americans who were born here gives the game away.) But the numbers are just not on their side. I suspect that this impending panic attack may even be at the root of Karl Rove's rather desperate US Attorney "voter fraud" gambit. They needed to cool the racist base, pass some kind of worker program as a sop to business AND suppress the vote in the west and southwest in orde

Slacktivist makes a good point : Cleaning up George W. Bush's mess will not be easy. The next president will have to deal with several very difficult problems all at the same time and there will be, as Biden says, very little margin for error. I don't imagine that everything that will need to be done will be popular, but I do think the people will understand and respect the necessity of it if the next president explains the gravity of the situation. That's why I think it is important that the candidates running for president begin explaining this now. Making that case -- explaining to the people that real and difficult problems will require real and difficult solutions -- may not seem like the easiest way to run for office, but it is the only way to campaign if a candidate hopes to be able to actually do the job once he or she is elected.