And the proportions of Jasmine's face don't really match the "Hollywood ideal"--that's quite a schnozz she's got.
Indeed, I like how the whole discussion doesn't mention Jasmine at all. Even though she was overtly nonwhite. Even though "Aladdin" was the second of the "golden era" movies.
"I think this is one of the biggest roadblocks to constructive discussion of race in America..."
The biggest roadblock is people who are so desperate to Fight Evil For A Just Cause that they'll invent evil just so they can have some to fight.
You're right that most people don't think about why they associate the color black with evil and fear. It doesn't follow that they must be racist. If we associate the color yellow with warmth it doesn't mean that we believe Asians have higher body temperature!
That sounds great, but the local grocery store gave up on memorizing codes; register-bangers now just look at pictures to figure out the code for the item you handed them.
My only real interaction with checkers, in the past five years, has been when I try to buy beer in the self-checkout line and one has to check my ID.
This discussion rises again, in a way; the "Thor" movie now has a member of the Asgard pantheon who is black. In context, this would be like a movie about 1776 where Alexander Hamilton was black.
People think of funboys in bondage gear singing Streisand tunes because that's the only image of homosexuality they have. There simply aren't any other examples. It's like that old Onion article about "gay pride parade sets acceptance of gays back by 20 years".
Now, you can argue about who's to blame for this--the media for presenting the loopy side of the issue, or these people for not seeking out other perspectives--but it's not like it's hard to understand where the fear comes from, and why something as simple as seeing you can change everything.
I think that you're reading way too much into other people's attempts at chatty banter. "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" is a pretty standard observational-humor fallback in conversations with people who don't know and whose name you've already forgotten.
I'm sorry to learn that you're a moron like Sarah Palin who uses the term "snow machine".
I mean, everyone says she's a moron because she said "snow machine", so I guess it stands to reason that you're a moron too, right? Because there's no way that everyone could be wrong.
I also think that "health insurance::car insurance" is an improper analogy, but not for the "you HAVE to buy health insurance" reason.
Instead, it's because if car insurance were health insurance, it would be the kind of "high-deductible catastrophic-illness" insurance that we're all supposed to hate.
My car insurance basically covers nothing but collision damage. (There's some stuff in there about covering medical bills of persons injured in an accident, but that's not a benefit that I'd receive so it isn't really relevant.) Windshield repairs are free; collision damage has a deductible that I pay out-of-pocket and then it's covered 100%. (of course, I have to go to the body shop the insurer likes.)
If this were health insurance, then it's probable that any emergency treatment or long-term serious illness (i.e. cancer) would be covered 100% after a deductible (as long as I used the insurer's preferred vendor, and the vendor gets to pick the treatment regime.) Everything else--including regular preventive checkups and treatment of non-emergent injury or illness--would be paid by me, out-of-pocket, in full.
And, actually, I'd kind of be okay with that. I'd be happy with the notion of Healthcare Spending Accounts (HSA) being made a national thing, with money in the account rolling over instead of vanishing at the end of the year, and patients being expected to just pay cash for medical services. But this would have to be paired with significant changes in the pricing structure for those services--in particular, the default assumption that insurance is paying for everything would have to go away.
I use a fake email address because I want to avoid spam-scrapers. I figure that if anyone wishes to reply to my comment, they can do it right there at the website.
I use a somewhat-distinctive pseudonym to make it easier to find things I've written.
As far as internet privacy: Given that every packet I send or receive goes through at least one computer not controlled by me, I figure that internet privacy was nonexistent right from the get-go. Maybe the specific person who's mad at me can't find out who I am with their own resources, but it's not as though *nobody* could *ever* match my username to a real-world identity.
Although I believe that privacy, in general, is an entirely fictional concept; it's a social convention, not a fundamental right.
There's nothing stopping you paying for medical treatment full-price out-of-pocket in America. It's just crazy expensive, and you often have to jump through a bunch of hoops (i.e. for some reason I can't just walk into a lab and ask for blood tests, I have to have them ordered by a doctor first. And don't get me started about needing a prescription to buy medication and equipment for chronic conditions.)
It seems that they key is "state regulates the prices". Well, and the fact that A: Canada has caps on malpractice awards, and B: Canada has a national nonprofit malpractice insurer. The USA has neither of these things.
I'm not so sure about state-regulated prices, but I recognize that the unique nature of health services requires something different than pure capitalism. However, the other side of that coin is acting to ensure that the doctors' costs of operation doesn't drive them into bankruptcy.
You know--I'm just going to go on a tangent, here, and I'm not blaming the blogger specifically, but...
It's not "free reign". Okay? It's "free rein". The aphorism refers to riding a horse and dropping the reins, and thus the horse is completely uncontrolled and will do whatever it wants, completely at random, often something bad. The aphorism implies undirected action, not unrestricted action.
"Duck? Can you weigh in on whether this argument was, in fact, an “America can do no wrong” argument?"
No, it is not. In the hypothetical I proposed, there are completely-functional and demonstrably effective police and fire departments.
James Hanley's argument...well, I'm not sure what he's actually arguing. He seems to be inventing an argument that I didn't make and responding to that argument.
I guess if you insist on mapping my analogy one-to-one with consensus reality, then yes, I could be claiming that America fills the role for the world as a whole that is, on a local level, filled by police and fire departments. But...so? Is he saying that police and fire departments are unnecessary? Is he saying that the Chinese would do a better job of maintaining global order than America, and so we should let them do it? Even granting this extension, I'm left wondering where we're supposed to go with it.
Of course, the answer to my original hypothetical is "no", and that pretty much blows the shit out of his OP, so I can understand why he wouldn't want to engage it.
Are you seriously saying that WWI was an entirely ground-based affair, that no naval action of consequence occurred, and that naval issues were never more than a passing concern?
Indeed, let's put it a different way. Let's say that some private citizen decided that they were going to start their own police and fire departments, with a full range of equipment and installations, and they claimed the same traffic-control and law-enforcement priviledges as the extant departments.
Would we claim that this invalidates the notion of police and fire departments?
Perhaps they aren't fashionable to you, or socially acceptable in your preferred society, but "I don't like them" is not transitive to "they're not fashionable or socially acceptable".
There are historical records of German deliberations regarding hostilities and military buildups, and the general consensus was that Germany could probably beat Britain, but only if the United States didn't get involved. Wilson declaring that America wouldn't get involved in European wars was what allowed World War I to start in the first place.
Oh, and for another triumph of American nonintervention policy, see the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
I know it's very satisfying to claim that the enlightened, intellectually- and morally-defensible position is to let all the woggies kill each other, but we're well past the point in world societal development where America can close its borders and say "got mine, fuck you".
"Justin: the only fashionable, socially acceptable conspiracy theories seem to be anti-Russian. that in itself could form the basis of a very convincing conspiracy theory"
9/11 troofers? Birthers? Moon-landing-hoax? Exploding Pinto? There are plenty of "fashionable, socially acceptable conspiracy theories". Just because it's on snopes.com doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory; such thinking comes from the same place as urban legends.
On “Blonde on the Tracks*”
And the proportions of Jasmine's face don't really match the "Hollywood ideal"--that's quite a schnozz she's got.
Indeed, I like how the whole discussion doesn't mention Jasmine at all. Even though she was overtly nonwhite. Even though "Aladdin" was the second of the "golden era" movies.
"
"I think this is one of the biggest roadblocks to constructive discussion of race in America..."
The biggest roadblock is people who are so desperate to Fight Evil For A Just Cause that they'll invent evil just so they can have some to fight.
You're right that most people don't think about why they associate the color black with evil and fear. It doesn't follow that they must be racist. If we associate the color yellow with warmth it doesn't mean that we believe Asians have higher body temperature!
On “American Manufacturing and Employment”
That sounds great, but the local grocery store gave up on memorizing codes; register-bangers now just look at pictures to figure out the code for the item you handed them.
My only real interaction with checkers, in the past five years, has been when I try to buy beer in the self-checkout line and one has to check my ID.
On “Euripides, Iphigenia at Aulis, Agamemnon’s Guide to Childrearing”
Here's some discussion of how actual Classical cultures treated women: http://www.tor.com/blogs/2010/06/the-classical-approach
On “Antitrust/Media Consolidation: A Liberaltarian’s Manifesto”
A professional writer should NOT have trouble with "its/it's".
On “On Hobbits, Race, and Self-Contained Worlds”
This discussion rises again, in a way; the "Thor" movie now has a member of the Asgard pantheon who is black. In context, this would be like a movie about 1776 where Alexander Hamilton was black.
On “Do Gay Rights Hurt Democrats?”
People think of funboys in bondage gear singing Streisand tunes because that's the only image of homosexuality they have. There simply aren't any other examples. It's like that old Onion article about "gay pride parade sets acceptance of gays back by 20 years".
Now, you can argue about who's to blame for this--the media for presenting the loopy side of the issue, or these people for not seeking out other perspectives--but it's not like it's hard to understand where the fear comes from, and why something as simple as seeing you can change everything.
On “Marriage as Another Country”
I think that you're reading way too much into other people's attempts at chatty banter. "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" is a pretty standard observational-humor fallback in conversations with people who don't know and whose name you've already forgotten.
"
I'm sorry to learn that you're a moron like Sarah Palin who uses the term "snow machine".
I mean, everyone says she's a moron because she said "snow machine", so I guess it stands to reason that you're a moron too, right? Because there's no way that everyone could be wrong.
On “Economic Commands are Different from Political Commands or Taxes”
I also think that "health insurance::car insurance" is an improper analogy, but not for the "you HAVE to buy health insurance" reason.
Instead, it's because if car insurance were health insurance, it would be the kind of "high-deductible catastrophic-illness" insurance that we're all supposed to hate.
My car insurance basically covers nothing but collision damage. (There's some stuff in there about covering medical bills of persons injured in an accident, but that's not a benefit that I'd receive so it isn't really relevant.) Windshield repairs are free; collision damage has a deductible that I pay out-of-pocket and then it's covered 100%. (of course, I have to go to the body shop the insurer likes.)
If this were health insurance, then it's probable that any emergency treatment or long-term serious illness (i.e. cancer) would be covered 100% after a deductible (as long as I used the insurer's preferred vendor, and the vendor gets to pick the treatment regime.) Everything else--including regular preventive checkups and treatment of non-emergent injury or illness--would be paid by me, out-of-pocket, in full.
And, actually, I'd kind of be okay with that. I'd be happy with the notion of Healthcare Spending Accounts (HSA) being made a national thing, with money in the account rolling over instead of vanishing at the end of the year, and patients being expected to just pay cash for medical services. But this would have to be paired with significant changes in the pricing structure for those services--in particular, the default assumption that insurance is paying for everything would have to go away.
"
Actually, the US *already* offers public health insurance, and everyone *already* has to pay higher taxes for it--Medicare and Medicaid.
On “On Expectations of Privacy and Internet Anonymity”
I use a fake email address because I want to avoid spam-scrapers. I figure that if anyone wishes to reply to my comment, they can do it right there at the website.
I use a somewhat-distinctive pseudonym to make it easier to find things I've written.
As far as internet privacy: Given that every packet I send or receive goes through at least one computer not controlled by me, I figure that internet privacy was nonexistent right from the get-go. Maybe the specific person who's mad at me can't find out who I am with their own resources, but it's not as though *nobody* could *ever* match my username to a real-world identity.
Although I believe that privacy, in general, is an entirely fictional concept; it's a social convention, not a fundamental right.
On “Economic Commands are Different from Political Commands or Taxes”
There's nothing stopping you paying for medical treatment full-price out-of-pocket in America. It's just crazy expensive, and you often have to jump through a bunch of hoops (i.e. for some reason I can't just walk into a lab and ask for blood tests, I have to have them ordered by a doctor first. And don't get me started about needing a prescription to buy medication and equipment for chronic conditions.)
It seems that they key is "state regulates the prices". Well, and the fact that A: Canada has caps on malpractice awards, and B: Canada has a national nonprofit malpractice insurer. The USA has neither of these things.
I'm not so sure about state-regulated prices, but I recognize that the unique nature of health services requires something different than pure capitalism. However, the other side of that coin is acting to ensure that the doctors' costs of operation doesn't drive them into bankruptcy.
On “Revolver”
You know--I'm just going to go on a tangent, here, and I'm not blaming the blogger specifically, but...
It's not "free reign". Okay? It's "free rein". The aphorism refers to riding a horse and dropping the reins, and thus the horse is completely uncontrolled and will do whatever it wants, completely at random, often something bad. The aphorism implies undirected action, not unrestricted action.
On “Conspiracies and Pseudo-Skepticism, Part I”
I don't see how my comment implies that I use different definitions than those found in the dictionary.
If anything, you're the one insisting that 100% of people must find a theory acceptable for it to be called "socially acceptable".
On “Wednesday’s Words of Wisdom”
And--just to make this absolutely clear--"policemen exist" is not an "America Fuck Yeah!" argument.
"
"Duck? Can you weigh in on whether this argument was, in fact, an “America can do no wrong” argument?"
No, it is not. In the hypothetical I proposed, there are completely-functional and demonstrably effective police and fire departments.
James Hanley's argument...well, I'm not sure what he's actually arguing. He seems to be inventing an argument that I didn't make and responding to that argument.
I guess if you insist on mapping my analogy one-to-one with consensus reality, then yes, I could be claiming that America fills the role for the world as a whole that is, on a local level, filled by police and fire departments. But...so? Is he saying that police and fire departments are unnecessary? Is he saying that the Chinese would do a better job of maintaining global order than America, and so we should let them do it? Even granting this extension, I'm left wondering where we're supposed to go with it.
Of course, the answer to my original hypothetical is "no", and that pretty much blows the shit out of his OP, so I can understand why he wouldn't want to engage it.
"
Here's the part where you explain why the analogy is bad and why its failures render it useless as an argument.
"
Are you seriously saying that WWI was an entirely ground-based affair, that no naval action of consequence occurred, and that naval issues were never more than a passing concern?
"
Indeed, let's put it a different way. Let's say that some private citizen decided that they were going to start their own police and fire departments, with a full range of equipment and installations, and they claimed the same traffic-control and law-enforcement priviledges as the extant departments.
Would we claim that this invalidates the notion of police and fire departments?
On “Conspiracies and Pseudo-Skepticism, Part I”
Perhaps they aren't fashionable to you, or socially acceptable in your preferred society, but "I don't like them" is not transitive to "they're not fashionable or socially acceptable".
On “Wednesday’s Words of Wisdom”
There are historical records of German deliberations regarding hostilities and military buildups, and the general consensus was that Germany could probably beat Britain, but only if the United States didn't get involved. Wilson declaring that America wouldn't get involved in European wars was what allowed World War I to start in the first place.
Oh, and for another triumph of American nonintervention policy, see the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
I know it's very satisfying to claim that the enlightened, intellectually- and morally-defensible position is to let all the woggies kill each other, but we're well past the point in world societal development where America can close its borders and say "got mine, fuck you".
"
Because American isolationism worked out so well in 1914.
On “Conspiracies and Pseudo-Skepticism, Part I”
"Justin: the only fashionable, socially acceptable conspiracy theories seem to be anti-Russian. that in itself could form the basis of a very convincing conspiracy theory"
9/11 troofers? Birthers? Moon-landing-hoax? Exploding Pinto? There are plenty of "fashionable, socially acceptable conspiracy theories". Just because it's on snopes.com doesn't mean it's not a conspiracy theory; such thinking comes from the same place as urban legends.
On “Michael Moore posts bail for Julian Assange”
So you're just asking questions, then?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.