Month: December 2008

by Chris Bodenner
In response to Huckabee and Stewart sparring over gay marriage, Ta-Nehisi writes:

The case for/against gay marriage is hung-up on this idea of choice–i.e. we should frown on gay marriage because it’s a deviant lifestyle. Or we shouldn’t frown on it because it isn’t a lifestyle, it’s a biological fact. This is where the comparisons with race come in. But I always hated this argument. Whenever people say, "You should not discriminate against people because they didn’t chose to be black," I hear the mild tones of wild liberal condescension.

Implicit in that logic is a kind of judgment, the notion that if I could choose, I obviously would choose to be white. But what if I just like being black? What if I could choose and would still choose black? Ditto for homosexuality. So what if you do choose to be gay? I understand that a lot of the science says you don’t, but why do we accept this implicit idea that heterosexuality is, necessarily, what everyone would chose?

by Chris Bodenner

Dish researcher Patrick Appel, in his natural environment:

That photo is attached to a news release with this tantalizing intro: "A Japanese research team has revealed it had created a technology that could eventually display on a computer screen what people have on their minds, such as dreams."

By Patrick Appel

Smith Lake, Alabama, 3 pm.

by Chris Bodenner
The Economist pegs Buenos Aires as a new destination for gay tourists:

The city’s combination of European architectural elegance and Latin American flair at knock-down prices has attracted tourists of all sexual orientations. But unlike many other Latin American cities, Buenos Aires has established a reputation as being open and tolerant in a region where homophobia remains prevalent. It has been a regional leader in expanding gay rights. The city council has approved a law authorising same-sex civil unions….

by Chris Bodenner
A reader writes:

You accuse Thomas Frank of believing that "women shouldn’t have full control over their bodies when it comes to surrogacy." Exactly where in Mr. Frank’s article does he make this claim? Is he demanding legislation to prevent women from seeking pregnancy surrogates? Is he advocating the bombing of fertilization clinics? There is an enormous difference between expressing distaste for someone’s choices and attempting to mandate someone’s choices through legislation or through force.

Another reader adds:

Name just a few that would like to outlaw or restrict surrogacy–let alone "many."

I see a lot of problems with surrogacy–among them, class and the belief that raising a child with your genes is more desirable than adoption (to women who are having trouble getting pregnant). Criticizing women for their choices is different from wanting to legally restrict their choices. I am pro-choice, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t problems with abortion or other reproductive issues. You can’t put up a wall saying, "it’s a choice" and expect all questions and criticisms to be deflected. People choose to be all sorts of things that are perfectly legal but also morally questionable.

Agreed, well put.  I actually didn’t mean to imply that Frank himself wants to see legal restrictions on surrogacy.  I used him more as a foil to illustrate the tension within left-liberalism between the greater good (restricting surrogacy to prevent exploitation) and personal liberty (keeping abortion unrestricted).  His column conveys that tension, but I should have been more careful not to conflate his personal criticism of Kuczynski’s surrogacy with a desire to see it infringed.

By Patrick Appel
A reader writes:

I think Colbert does better interviews than Stewart.  Stewart’s interviews are usually, but not always, too cautious when he’s talking to someone he disagrees with, but his real weakness is with people he agrees with, where his interviews are basically boring. Colbert is most interesting with people his character disagrees with, since he’ll ask people really good questions that they should be able to answer, and which they’re usually unprepared for. From where I sit, going mano-a-mano with Colbert looks a lot harder.

Another reader makes a related point:

 

John Stewart is not a great interviewer because he has a double standard: Hiding behind the excuse that it’s not his job to ask hard-hitting questions when it’s a guest he wants to coddle, lobbing them nothing but softball questions. But swinging away with satire, sarcasm and tough questions for guests he and his audience oppose. He used to be more cloaked, but the Bush years and the corresponding rise in popularity of liberalism seem to have emboldened him to be openly biased.

 

But since Huckabee and others know the game and still do the show, who can blame him for continuing the bit?

By Patrick Appel
Jack Balkin:

This report is the beginning of a necessary process of bringing to light repeated abuses condoned or encouraged at the very highest levels of government. I doubt that any of the top officials who encouraged or approved these practices will ever be criminally prosecuted, in part because of the immunity granted by the infamous Military Commissions Act of 2006 and in part because the Office of Legal Counsel was repeatedly employed to justify the Administration’s detention and interrogation practices in the equally infamous Torture Memos. People relying on OLC advice will likely have strong defenses under the criminal law, even though the OLC’s advice giving capacities were corrupted during the Bush Administration precisely to allow the Administration to do whatever it wanted in this area.

By Patrick Appel
Carr frets over cognitive enhancement pills:

I worry more, though, about the possibility of leveling the cognitive playing field, as institutionally supported programs of brain enhancement impose on us, intentionally or not, a particular ideal of mental function.

by Chris Bodenner

(Hat tip: Boing Boing)