Wednesday, November 22, 2006
'Whaddaya want from me, tears?'
A Thanksgiving eve Hub Blog special: Another smorgasbord of random thoughts and links. You've been warned. Now onward. ... David is urging Deval to ignore 'friendly advice' from people like Scot. I don't know. Don't agree with everything Scot wrote. But advising people to ignore friendly advice strikes me as not exactly inclusive, something Deval claims he wants to achieve in his administration. Maybe someone should advise Deval to ignore advice about ignoring advice. (You just did it.-ed. Right!) ...
One thing that irks me about Scot's piece: The Duke I and Duke II comparisons. The former, as defined by some CW types, represents naive idealism. The latter is supposed to represent realism. But didn't Duke II lead to what might be called Duke III? You know, the one who stayed in office too long and looked the other way while a certain legislative leader ran roughshod over principled politics in this state? Duke III was a direct consequence of Duke II. So, really, I'm kind of happy Deval is talking like Duke I. It's refreshing. Now, Deval, some friendly advice you shouldn't ignore just because it's friendly advice: Sign an anti-patronage executive order bringing the state into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1990 Rutan decision. It will accomplish two things: 1.) It would live up to the ideals of Duke I, who didn't have Rutan to fall back on in the '70s. 2.) It would serve as a pragmatic Duke II-like realism buffer when those who want a return to Duke III come calling for favors and jobs. It won't solve everything. But it will help. ... Too bad Mitt never did it. But we all now know Mitt's commitment to reform was fickle from day to day. ...
... Oh look. Howie is writing about an old character from the good old Duke III days. No connection per se to Duke III. But it's good to have these flashbacks now and then as a sort of Duke II reality check of how you can drift too far away from Duke I idealism. ...
... I loved this story. It has everything: pompous generalizing, sociology journalism, experts galore and, as a special bonus, a scold from the haute bourgeoisie about how the masses don't understand that the Thanksgiving they celebrate isn't the Thanksgiving they were taught. Favorite lines: "Americans, as a whole, have lost touch with the ritual of the shared homemade meal." (No attribution. Just stated as fact. Well, I guess all of us, as a whole, also haven't read Under the Tuscan Sun.) And: "Besides, historians have recently concluded that the premise of Thanksgiving might be a lie. 'It turns out,' he said, 'that the Indians were not so forthcoming, and the Pilgrims were not so grateful.'" (Really? Clever people, these haute bourgeoisie.) ... Can't wait for tomorrow's Happy Genocide Day editorials. ...
Finally: Can someone tell me who the Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth folks are? Wingnut righties or loony lefties? I poked around the site a bit and came to the conclusion they're off-the-chart loony lefties (the Bush Stole 2000 Election material was a big tip off). But they're sort of like the androgynous Pat character from SNL: You can never be quite sure. They have that paranoid righty wingnut ring to them that keeps you guessing. (Boston Tea Party via Adam.)
A Thanksgiving eve Hub Blog special: Another smorgasbord of random thoughts and links. You've been warned. Now onward. ... David is urging Deval to ignore 'friendly advice' from people like Scot. I don't know. Don't agree with everything Scot wrote. But advising people to ignore friendly advice strikes me as not exactly inclusive, something Deval claims he wants to achieve in his administration. Maybe someone should advise Deval to ignore advice about ignoring advice. (You just did it.-ed. Right!) ...
One thing that irks me about Scot's piece: The Duke I and Duke II comparisons. The former, as defined by some CW types, represents naive idealism. The latter is supposed to represent realism. But didn't Duke II lead to what might be called Duke III? You know, the one who stayed in office too long and looked the other way while a certain legislative leader ran roughshod over principled politics in this state? Duke III was a direct consequence of Duke II. So, really, I'm kind of happy Deval is talking like Duke I. It's refreshing. Now, Deval, some friendly advice you shouldn't ignore just because it's friendly advice: Sign an anti-patronage executive order bringing the state into compliance with the U.S. Supreme Court's 1990 Rutan decision. It will accomplish two things: 1.) It would live up to the ideals of Duke I, who didn't have Rutan to fall back on in the '70s. 2.) It would serve as a pragmatic Duke II-like realism buffer when those who want a return to Duke III come calling for favors and jobs. It won't solve everything. But it will help. ... Too bad Mitt never did it. But we all now know Mitt's commitment to reform was fickle from day to day. ...
... Oh look. Howie is writing about an old character from the good old Duke III days. No connection per se to Duke III. But it's good to have these flashbacks now and then as a sort of Duke II reality check of how you can drift too far away from Duke I idealism. ...
... I loved this story. It has everything: pompous generalizing, sociology journalism, experts galore and, as a special bonus, a scold from the haute bourgeoisie about how the masses don't understand that the Thanksgiving they celebrate isn't the Thanksgiving they were taught. Favorite lines: "Americans, as a whole, have lost touch with the ritual of the shared homemade meal." (No attribution. Just stated as fact. Well, I guess all of us, as a whole, also haven't read Under the Tuscan Sun.) And: "Besides, historians have recently concluded that the premise of Thanksgiving might be a lie. 'It turns out,' he said, 'that the Indians were not so forthcoming, and the Pilgrims were not so grateful.'" (Really? Clever people, these haute bourgeoisie.) ... Can't wait for tomorrow's Happy Genocide Day editorials. ...
Finally: Can someone tell me who the Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth folks are? Wingnut righties or loony lefties? I poked around the site a bit and came to the conclusion they're off-the-chart loony lefties (the Bush Stole 2000 Election material was a big tip off). But they're sort of like the androgynous Pat character from SNL: You can never be quite sure. They have that paranoid righty wingnut ring to them that keeps you guessing. (Boston Tea Party via Adam.)
