Feb 28, 2007 0
Feb 28, 2007 4
Broken
So, anyway, if you've tried to post a comment and gotten an error, or some other kind of bad behavior, could you send an email to matt at unlikelywords.com and let me know what, where, and when? I'm ever so grateful.
Stupid blog.
Feb 28, 2007 2
Time
Time between pitches: The allotment for delivering the ball with no one on base has been reduced, from 20 seconds to 12. The price for each violation is a ball.
Batter's box presence: Conversely, an automatic strike will be assessed each time a batter violates the rule requiring they keep one foot in the batter's box throughout his at-bat, except for certain game-play conditions -- during which he is still not allowed to leave the dirt area surrounding the plate.
While I don't like, in theory, the idea of a clock running in baseball, I have to say I think these changes make sense. 12 seconds is a pretty long time for a pitcher to hold the ball while no one's on base, but I think the second rule change is the more important. Batters stepping out after each pitch is really irritating, and maybe this will cut down on that. (If this means what it seems to mean, how will, say, Nomar Garciaparra possibly cope?)
I don't think that games are too long, necessarily, and I tend to leap to the defense of the game when someone calls it boring, but I'm all for keeping momentum moving during a game. This seems like it ought to help. I still like Bill James's suggestion (for which I can't find the reference) that rather than changing rules, if umpires just refused to grant time to hitters, the whole pace of the game would change for the better.
So, when does real baseball start? I need to get into a fantasy league for this year.
Feb 28, 2007 3
Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion
Dawkins probably won't change many minds, which is a shame, because he seems to be right in general (if not in every particular). The people that strongly disagree probably won't ever pick this book up (and would probably put it right back down again anyway), but it's important and thought-provoking. I wish more people would read it.
(The New York Review of Books has a less positive review. Daniel Dennett responds.)
Feb 28, 2007 0
Michael Pollan, The Omnivore’s Dilemma
If you care about food at all – that is to say, if you eat – you need to read this book. The structure is what pulls you in: Pollan turns the lens of investigative journalism on four meals, tracing them all the way from the patch of ground they grew in to the plate they end up on. What it turns into, though, is a polemic against the compromises and dangers of the "industrial food chain," and this is something that every consumer needs to be educated about. He even describes an alternative, in the ingenious Polyface Farm.
The Omnivore's Dilemmamay not change your mind completely, but you'll never look at corn the same way again.
Feb 27, 2007 3
Shut Up & Sing, 2006
Feb 27, 2007 1
John Wood, Leaving Microsoft to Change the World
Feb 26, 2007 3
24 Season 6. Episode 11, 4 PM – 5 PM
-I’m not sure how the President is going to avoid assassination.
-“Boys, boys!” Please stop fighting. You hate when the former terrorist and the Arab ambassador are getting into a catfight.
-I don’t think the President gets involved in petty threatening of ambassadors from unspecified Arab nations. He’s got deputies for that. Like Tom Lennox.
-I kind of hope that this is the last we see of Josh and Marilyn.
-Josh and Jack Bauer are going to go fishing when this is all over.
-“He reminds me of you.” That was the most wooden face touch in the history of TV.
-That hit man is a policy analyst and a hit man? A true renaissance man.
-Here’s what I don’t get: If Lennox had brought this threat to the attention of someone sooner, he could have still done all of his investigating AND someone would have been looking for him at this point. They would have looked in the steam closet and foiled the plot to kill the President.
-They won’t be able to make it look like a suicide if he’s got tape particles all over his mouth and wrists, but they can try!
-Chad Lowe has already started the rationalizing. “Killing the President is for the good of the country. Killing Tom Lennox only serves our purposes.” He’s such a ninny.
4:16: Kate and I don’t think Chad Lowe is any good at lying. Jessie would agree with us, but she’s heating up brownies.
4:19: “AA Sponsor”. It’s usually a friend, right? A friend with a name, right? They couldn’t come up with a name for the sponsor?
4:20: I think they’ve been updating the times a lot more frequently today.
-Jack Bauer got to wherever Charles Logan was in about 8 minutes.
-Charles Logan still gets regular intelligence updates? Isn’t he under house arrest? This isn’t a courtesy they’d suspend?
-Charles Logan is now a man of faith. “Don’t make the wrong call, Jack [Bauer].”
-We all know how much Jack Bauer loves going through back channels.
4:28: “Logan was behind the assassination of my brother.” Drama. Drama.
-Redemption. Drama.
-Aside from the fact that Jack Bauer is the most gullible person in the world, is there any reason we shouldn’t believe Logan?
-“I will commit the resources to hunt you down.” I’m fairly certain it would be impossible for an ex-president to escape and then remain in hiding for his entire life. Why would you even bother if you were staying at a retreat in Hidden Valley?
4:31: Is Morris’ apology right now one of the steps in AA?
-Come on, Morris, don’t let us down.
- I think Chad Lowe is what they call a simp. Or maybe a namby-pamby.
4:41: The ex-President’s lapel pin collection is funny. Franklin Mint should sell one.
-45 minutes? Jack Bauer’s going to be out of the spotlight for the next 45 minutes? This is like on a sitcom when someone gets pregnant and the character gets decentralized for a couple weeks and all their scenes are behind tables or sitting in billowy clothing.
-Morris’ sponsor is so bubbly. His sponsor left the program? What a terrible sponsor.
-We all think this a really annoying subplot.
4:44: Morris was taking a crap and Chloe thought he was taking a drink.
-Hopefully this will be the end of it.
-Except we all know Chloe is going to be right and that Morris was drinking.
-And there’s the whiskey. This is too easy.
-So he was drinking, but now he’s not? We’ll see. But I’m bitter the subplot isn’t over.
-Reed is still in love with Lennox, eh?
-That’s right, Lennox, you were against Reed from the start.
-It took 35 minutes to make that bomb? Why? It was just injecting a chemical into a tape player or something.
4:53: Chad Lowe is going through all the usual personal conflicts, consternation, personal pain that you get when you’re about to kill a President.
-Jessie and Kate are really impressed that Tom Lennox is reaching for the steam valve with his feet right now. They’re cheering him on. He’s only been taped up for about 75 minutes. Couldn’t make any extra effort before the bomb was armed?
-Whatever happens, Reed Pollack just attempted to kill the President.
-Did Assad just save the President?
OK, so let’s review? The President got exploded and NOTHING else happened. Glad I watched. I’m loath to say this, but the show is really terrible when they decide to go away from Jack Bauer for wide swaths of time. Next week might not be much better, either.
Feb 25, 2007 5
Not All Discrimination Is Equal
I’m struck, first of all, by Justin’s framing of the subject of our conversation as the “inevitable collision of the gay rights movement with certain fundamental freedoms, such as that of religion.” It’s hard for me to see how seeking to expand the civil rights of gay Americans impinges the religious freedoms of other Americans (or how the right to marry isn't as fundamental as freedom of religion), but his lengthy response urges me to try.
Firstly, I must correct a seeming misapprehension. Justin says:
For me to have a lack of sympathy for those whose conclusions I oppose would require me to believe that they are all lying about their motives and are, in fact, consciously striving for the downfall of our society. It is disheartening to think that the courteous and discoursive [sic] MRH might believe something equivalent from the other side.
Flattery will get you everywhere, you handsome and articulate fellow! Of course, there’s no need to ascribe to me such a negative view of opponents of same-sex marriage, just as there’s no need to assume that supporters of same-sex marriage believe that gay people and their supporters want to bring about the downfall of society. We can certainly disagree – and even disagree without sympathy -- without believing that the other’s motivations are so base. Take heart, Justin, that my courtesy does not merely cover disdain.
Our mutual good intentions thus assured, let us move to the actual matter at hand.
I view the denial of the right of same-sex couples to marry as a form of discrimination. And yet, if that right were granted, might there not be a new “reverse” discrimination against those who oppose it? Here’s Justin:
I offer you the not-so-hypothetical examples of a Christian organization that places adoptive children only with married couples and the business that only prints invitations for marriage ceremonies. In either case, with the civil-rights argument, that religion or that business has a definition of marriage — one that relates directly to their beliefs about the relationships that they are encouraging — that would, overnight, be invidious discrimination.
I’ll grant that, in a world where same-sex marriage is legal and discrimination based on sexual orientation is illegal, the invitation company might not be free to refuse to print invitations to same-sex marriages. Let’s also grant that, if they take public funds, the Christian agency might not be free to decline to place children into households where both parents are of the same sex. Their definitions of marriage would suddenly come into conflict with that of the state and, indeed, they would be guilty of legal discrimination.
Should our sympathy for this printing company and this adoption agency weigh more or less heavily than our sympathy for a gay couple that wants to marry? My initial answer was that, of course, we feel more for the latter, because I tend to sympathize with victims of discrimination, not agents of discrimination. Justin’s riposte was as follows:
My response to the expression of sympathy for "the victims of discrimination," rather than "agents of discrimination," is to wonder whether Matt's sympathies are applied on the basis of individual cases or he's speaking of victims and agents as class distinctions. If the former, one would expect his sympathies to cycle: The Catholics who are rebuffed for discriminating against homosexuals for purposes of adoption (to keep with the prior example) are, in turn, being discriminated against by the government in relation to the their ability to take private initiative in keeping with their beliefs about the most beneficial homes for children. If the latter, the application of sympathy — presumptuous in its assignment of roles — amounts to declaring a moral preference for homosexuals versus traditional Christians.
My sympathies apply to victims of discrimination both as individuals and as a class. Let’s address the challenge to the latter lemma first. In the spirit of cordiality and charity, I’ll interpret this as a rhetorical maneuver rather than as a genuine claim, but will respond with a rhetorical maneuver of my own: does sympathizing with the victims of racial discrimination, as a class, amount to a moral preference for blacks over whites? Of course, it does not. Rather, it amounts to a moral preference for equality and justice over inequality and injustice.
In the case of individual victims of discrimination, would my sympathies cycle, as Justin suggests, to Christians who are unable to deny service to homosexuals? I suspect it would not, because I don’t consider the imposition of equality to be discrimination. Was the decision in Brown v. Board of Education discrimination against segregationists? Surely not. Of course, the two cases are not entirely parallel. The distinguishing factor seems to be that the objections are motivated by religion rather than some other value system. I’m not sure that this should make a difference. Justin seems to think it does, however, and maybe some of you do as well, so let’s consider it so and proceed.
We are confronted with a choice, then. We either discriminate against same-sex couples by denying them the right to marry, or we discriminate against “traditional Christians” by forcing them to recognize same-sex marriages. Are we at an impasse? Faced with discrimination on either side, are we unable to judge between them? Of course not. Not all instances of discrimination are equal, and there is no moral obligation to tolerate intolerance. We must have a rubric to decide which is worse, and mine works by evaluating the harm done to the class or individual discriminated against. It seems clear enough to me that more harm is done by denying same-sex couples the right to marry than by granting it.
Justin said something else very interesting:
It oughtn't take but so much intellectual distance to realize that the struggle isn't between religious dogma and objective civil rights, but between two competing ideological worldviews with different understandings of what marriage, in its essence, is.
I don’t agree, unsurprisingly. I think extending marriage rights to same-sex couples is a simple question of civil rights. But Justin is right that there are competing ideas of what marriage is. And here is where we stop dancing around the real point. We’re arguing a point of public policy. We know what the traditional religious view of same-sex marriage is, but if we are to make it the law, we need another basis. Our secular democracy demands extra-Biblical justification for its law-making. So what is the secular, social argument against same-sex marriage?
Unfortunately, it’s not a very good one. Justin bases his opposition to same-sex marriage on:
… the utility of marriage to bind the genders in biologically affirmed union and to tie generations in an historical thread of ancestry and progeny, often with religious underpinnings. If this is the vision of marriage that one holds, then homosexual relationships, whether they inspire approval or disapprobation, are simply not marriage, and to redefine marriage to include them would inevitably erode the institution's utility.
As loath as I am, in general, to argue from marginal cases, surely defining marriage as a procreative pair cannot be sustained in the face of some simple counter-examples. Can a heterosexual couple who are (independently or mutually) infertile be said to be truly married under this definition? What about a married couple that abstains from sex? And do we want the state to invalidate marriages that do not produce progeny, or require fertility and genetic testing before validating a marriage certificate? Do we want the state to compel married couples to attempt to conceive? No, we do not.
The other side will counter, lamely I think, that it is not actual fertility, but rather some kind of potential, Platonic fertility that matters: a marriage must include male and female genitalia, whether they are joined in sexual congress or not. This is, of course, absurd.
How, practically, would redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships “erode the institution’s utility?” This is the question that has never been answered to my satisfaction. Marriage, as Justin points out, has many benefits to society. These include the strengthening of familial and societal ties, the establishment of persistent kin groups and affinities, and the financial stability of combining households, benefits, and assets. Where, in any of this, should gender matter? Is there a fear that, should the option of same-sex marriage become available, men and women that would otherwise marry each other and produce offspring will be tempted to instead marry members of the same sex? If this is Justin’s argument, I think he drastically overestimates the number of closeted homosexuals in our society.
Besides, any of the arguments that society depends on "traditional marriage" for its procreative potential apply just as well to same-sex marriage as they do to homosexuality simpliciter. Homosexuals are, by and large, going to refrain from marrying members of the opposite sex and reproducing with them whether same-sex marriage is legal or not. Do opponents of same-sex marriage also want to outlaw homosexual behavior? Do they want to compel heterosexual behavior?
Advocates of the right to same-sex marriage draw a clear distinction between religious marriage – marriage as defined to any particular religious group that offers it as a rite – and civil marriage – marriage as defined by the regulations and structures of legal statute. I have never seen an argument against same-sex marriage that was not grounded in religious belief. I believe strongly that any religious person should be free to decline to officiate at, attend, or acknowledge any marriage that offends his or her beliefs. I believe just as strongly that he or she should not have the right to enshrine those beliefs in law.
Feb 24, 2007 2
Unlikely Words’ Second Link Post
- We're setting the clocks forward about a month earlier. This is going to mess up a lot of people.
- There probably won't be a lot of YouTube videos on these posts. Well maybe once in a while. But this one is very cool!
- I've started to become obsessed with costs and prices. This coffee shop lets you pay what you want. And what if it cost more to drive during rush-hour?
- The East German secret police kept files on EVERYONE. When the wall came down they made the decision to open up most of their files. This guy read his.
- Everyone loves David Foster Wallace, but not everyone subscribes to the New Yorker.
- Michael Pollan wants you to stop eating junk food.
- This guy was a hacker who then went to work for the FBI.
- Now it's going to get political
- This is how the GOP "Supports the troops", fucking hypocrites. Most of these links are from AMERICAblog, which has been kicking ass on this issue since Sunday. Aiding the enemy, my ass.
- Germs don't support the troops either.
- Everyone loves David Sedaris, but not everyone subscribes to the New Yorker.
- All politics is local especially when the Gangster Disciples run for office.
- Better than Mosaicer?
- Three part story of a foreigner in a Japanese jail.
- This will make you feel stupid, but it will help you remember how many days are in each month.
- And finally, another long Vanity Fair article I didn't read yet.
![Unlikely Words [logo by Chris Piascik] Unlikely Words](/wp-content/images/headerimgs/UnlikelyLogo2.png)
Recent Comments