Arguments

by F.M. Cornford in his 1908 treatise, Microcosmographia Academia There is only one argument for doing something; the rest are arguments for doing nothing. Since the stone axe fell into disuse at the close of the Neolithic Age, two other arguments of universal application have been added to the rhetorical armoury by the ingenuity of mankind. They are closely akin; and, like the stone axe, they are addressed to the Political Motive. They are called the Wedge and Dangerous Precedent. Though they are very familiar, the principles, or rules of inaction involved in them are seldom stated in full. They are as follows: The Principle of the Wedge is that you should not act justly now for fear of raising expectations that you may act still more justly in the future--expectations that you are afraid you will not have the courage to satisfy. A little reflection will make it evident that the Wedge argument implies the admission that the persons who use it cannot prove that the action is not just. If they could, that would be the sole and sufficient reason for not doing it, and this argument would be superfluous. The Principle of the Dangerous Precedent is that you should not now do any admittedly right action for fear you, or your equally timid successors, should not have the courage to do right in some future case, which, ex hypothesi, is essentially different, but superficially resembles the present one. Every public action that is not customary, either is wrong, or, if it is right, is a dangerous precedent. It follows that nothing should ever be done for the first time. Another argument is that "the Time is not Ripe." The Principle of Unripe Time is that people should not do at the present moment what they think right at the moment, because the moment at which they think it right has not yet arrived.

New Rule by Bill Maher

New Rule: You can't use the statement "there will be no cooperation for the rest of the year" as a threat if there was no cooperation in the first half of the year. Here's a word the president should take out of his teleprompter: bipartisanship. People only care about that in theory, not in practice. The best thing that's happened this year is when President Obama finally realized this and said, "Kiss my black ass, we're going it alone, George W. Bush style." Two months ago, conservative Fred Barnes wrote, "The health care bill is dead with not the slightest prospect of resurrection." Well, if it's dead, you just got your ass kicked by a zombie named Nancy Pelosi. Seriously, the last time a Democrat showed balls like that John Edwards' girlfriend was filming it. Make all the botox jokes and she-shops-too-much jokes you want, but this is the biggest political victory a woman has ever achieved in America. Yes, Nancy Pelosi likes nice clothes. So does Sarah Palin. The difference is Nancy Pelosi pays for hers. But even before the Democrats got to take a single victory lap they were already being warned not to get used to the feeling, and not to get drunk with power. I disagree. All you Democrats: do a shot, and then do another. Get drunk on this feeling of not backing down and doing what you came to Washington to do. Democrats should not listen to the people who are now saying they shouldn't attempt anything else big for a while because health care was such a bruising battle. Wrong -- because I learned something watching the lying bullies of the Right lose this one: when they're losing, they squeal like a pig. They kept saying things like, the bill was being "shoved down our throats" or the Democrats were "ramming it through." The bill was so big they couldn't take it all at once! And I realized listening to this rhetoric that it reminded me of something: Tiger Woods' text messages to his mistress that were made public last week, where he said, and I quote, "I want to treat you rough, throw you around, spank and slap you and make you sore. I want to hold you down and choke you while I fuck that ass that I own. Then I'm going to tell you to shut the fuck up while I slap your face and pull your hair for making noise." Unquote. Continued at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/new-rule-you-cant-use-the_b_515354.html

Nation’s Pride in a Single Pitch

Kevork Djansezian/Getty Images URASOE, Okinawa — A year later, the play lives on in Japan and South Korea, where the World Baseball Classic has taken on a megalife in its fledgling four-year existence that far surpasses the impact the tournament has had in the United States. The South Korean pitcher who gave up the extra-inning single that gave Japan its second straight W.B.C. championship continues to pursue his craft — with the Tokyo Yakult Swallows. The player who had the winning hit — Ichiro Suzuki — is hoping that his markedly improved Seattle Mariners will find their way back to the postseason. And the intrigue over what really happened on March 23, 2009, continues to percolate, at least in these two countries, which are intense rivals. The 2009 game was played in Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles before 54,846 boisterous fans. A year later, it is still being replayed in this part of the world, most recently in a prime-time Japanese television program, “The Man Who Betrayed His Country.” The “Man” of the show’s title was the pitcher who lost the game, Lim Chang-yong. It was Lim who challenged Suzuki with the game on the line that night, even though he simply could have walked him. The score was tied, 3-3, in the top of the 10th with two outs and runners on first and third when Suzuki came to the plate. On a 1-0 pitch, the runner on first took second on defensive indifference. continued at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/sports/baseball/28korean.html?hp

House of Anger

by Timothy Egan of The Times Unfairly or not, the defining images of opposition to health care reform may end up being those rage-filled partisans with spittle on their lips. Whether the outbursts came from inside Congress — the “baby killer” shout of Rep. Randy Neugebauer, and his colleagues who cheered on hecklers — or outside, where protesters hurled vile names against elected representatives, they are powerful and lasting scenes of a democracy gasping for dignity. Now, ask yourself a question: can you imagine Ronald Reagan anywhere in those pictures? Or anywhere in those politics? Reagan was all about sunny optimism, and at times bipartisan bonhomie. In him, the American people saw their better half. Compare that to the closing days of a week that will soon be chiseled into the larger American story. One Democrat, Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, said he was called a “wetback” by Tea Party hecklers at a meeting a few days before the vote. Black members of Congress say they were spat on, and called racial epithets. Bricks were thrown through the office windows of two other Democrats. And now, the inevitable death threats. From the leader of the opposition, at least, was expected a level of decorum. But instead, Rep. John Boehner, the Republican who wants to be the next speaker of the House, predicted “Armageddon,” and shouted “Hell, no!,” his perma-tan turning crimson in rage. Most of these vignettes are isolated incidents — a few crazies going off in a vein-popping binge. But the Republican Party now has taken some of the worst elements of Tea Party anger and incorporated them into its own identity. They are ticked off, red-faced, frothing — and these are the men in suits. In trying to explain his intemperate shout over a bill that in fact explicitly outlaws using public funds for abortion, Congressman Neugebauer said he was representing the views of people back home in Texas, as expressed in town hall meetings. By this logic, he’d throw his popcorn on somebody’s head if enough people did it in movie theaters in his district. “Let’s beat the other side to a pulp!” Rep. Steve King, Republican of Iowa, shouted to the last stand of Tea Partiers on Sunday night. “Let’s chase them down! There’s going to be a reckoning.” Indeed there will. But as the party of the hissy fit, Republicans are playing with fire. On Monday morning, most Americans awoke with some relief that the epic battle was over. Then, they tried to figure out what health care overhaul would mean to them. They found out that insurance companies would no longer be allowed to drop people if they get sick. They saw that older children could stay on their insurance through age 26. And the elderly, the most consistent voting block, discovered that the new law would gradually end a prescription drug donut hole that causes many of them to cut their pills in half to get through a month. No death panels. No socialized public option. No forcing people to change doctors or providers. And the most contentious part of the new law — requiring nearly everyone to get health coverage or pay a fine — does not kick in until 2014. Little wonder then, as the focus turned away from legislators cutting deals to a new law of the land that tries to help average people, the polls showed public sentiment starting to shift. Armageddon was nowhere to be seen. The stock market ticked up Monday and Tuesday, continuing an upward run of more than 40 percent in the broader S&P index since Obama became president, including the best first year of the market for any president since Franklin Roosevelt. (The shares of some big insurance stocks fell). A USA Today/Gallup poll showed a plurality now favored the new law — yes, favored. After months of Republicans saying Democrats were going against the will of the people, a plurality — 49 to 40 percent — said passing the bill was “a good thing,” the poll found. Of course, public sentiment is a fickle thing. And no one can predict whether health care overhaul will work for most Americans, or add to the distrust people already have for the ruling and business classes. But it’s always better to be building something than destroying it. John McCain had a positive campaign slogan in 2008 — “Country First.” This week, he vowed “no cooperation for the rest of the year.” This is an adolescent living in the shell of a former statesman. He took his position, he said, using the same justification as the Texan who yelled “baby killer,” because “the American people are very angry.” Having welcomed Tea Party rage into their home, and vowing repeal, the Republicans have made a dangerous bargain. First, they are tying their fate to a fringe, one that includes a small faction of overt racists and unstable people. The Quinnipiac poll this week found only 13 percent of Americans say they are part of the Tea Party movement. But consider the policy positions. Do Republicans really want to campaign in favor of insurance companies’ right to drop people when they get sick? Do they really want to knock the 25-year-old graduate student, living on Top Ramen and hope, off his parents’ health care? Are they going to deny tax credits for small businesses? It was the ancient Greeks who gave us a sense of what Republicans will be living with under this pact with rage. Many people are afraid of the dark, the saying goes. But the real tragedy is those who are afraid of the light. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/house-of-anger/

Against 'Pro-Israel'

Robert Wright, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation, writes every Wednesday about culture, politics and world affairs. He is editor-in-chief of Bloggingheads.tv and The Progressive Realist. He is the author of The Moral Animal, Nonzero, and, most recently, The New York Times best-seller The Evolution of God. He has written for The Atlantic, The New Yorker, Time, Slate, and many other magazines and has taught philosophy at Princeton and religion at the University of Pennsylvania. Are you anti-Israel? If you fear that, deep down, you might be, I have important news. The recent tension between Israel and the United States led various commentators to identify hallmarks of anti-Israelism, and these may be of diagnostic value. As you’ll see, my own view is that they aren’t of much value, but I’ll leave it for you to judge. Symptom no. 1: Believing that Israel shouldn’t build more settlements in East Jerusalem. President Obama holds this belief, and that seems to be the reason that Gary Bauer, who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, deems Obama’s administration “the most anti-Israel administration in U.S. history.” Bauer notes that the East Jerusalem settlements are “entirely within the city of Jerusalem” and that Jerusalem is “the capital of Israel.” That’s artful wording, but it doesn’t change the fact that East Jerusalem, far from being part of “the capital of Israel,” isn’t even part of Israel. East Jerusalem lies beyond Israel’s internationally recognized, pre-1967 borders. And the common assertion that Israel “annexed” East Jerusalem has roughly the same legal significance as my announcing that I’ve annexed my neighbor’s backyard. In 1980 the United Nations explicitly rejected Israel’s claim to possess East Jerusalem. And the United States, which normally vetoes U.N. resolutions that Israel finds threatening, chose not to do so in this case. In short, accepting Gary Bauer’s idea of what it means to be anti-Israel seems to involve being anti-truth. So I don’t accept it. (And if you’re tempted to accept the common claim that Israel is building only in “traditionally Jewish” parts of East Jerusalem, a good antidote is this piece by Lara Friedman and Daniel Seidemann, published on Foreign Policy Magazine’s excellent new Middle East Channel.) Symptom no. 2: Thinking that some of Israel’s policies, and America’s perceived support of them, might endanger American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (by, for example, giving Jihadist recruiters rhetorical ammunition). This concern was . . . continued at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/against-pro-israel/?hp

House Approves Health Care Reform

Photo by Luke Sharrett of NYT In the end what this day represents is another stone firmly laid in the foundation of the American dream. Tonight, we answered the call of history as so many generations of Americans have before us. When faced with crisis, we did not shrink back from our challenges. We overcame them. We did not avoid our responsibilities, we embraced it. We did not fear our future, we shaped it. -President Obama

Homosexuality can cost you your life

As a wise man once said, "It's not religion that poisons. It's the poisonous people who use religion who poison everything." -JYB 'Tis true. Maybe it's fundamentalism that poisons everything.

I studiously avoid looking at myself in a mirror. It would not be productive. If we think we have physical imperfections, obsessing about them is only destructive. Low self-esteem involves imagining the worst that other people can think about you.