MY NEW TOY

Yes, I know the plastic scratches. But I couldn’t help myself and bought two new iPod nanos for me and the DP. I got a black one. Technically, they’re no better than my old iPod, and actually contain fewer songs. Aesthetically, they’re irresistible. More grist for Virginia. I know I’m guilty of hypocrisy since I’ve whined about what iPod culture is doing to social interaction (while admitting at the time that I was an addict). I’m also guilty of pure consumerism. I just like the look and feel of the thing. Beautiful things need no utilitarian defense. What Apple understands is that beauty matters for its own sake; indeed, that beauty is ultimately all I was buying. In an often ugly world, that’s good enough for me.

TOMASKY AND THE RIGHT

Of course, he’s correct in general about the healthiness of recent conservative intellectual debate over Bush’s often unconservative presidency. Money quote:

Unlike the boy who cried wolf too many times, today’s Republicans — and conservative commentators — are the boys who never cried wolf. On the size of government and the size of the deficit, for example, the Bush administration has been as anti-conservative as an administration can possibly be — and has faced only scattered criticisms from most conservatives.

Ahem. Some of us were criticizing him on conservative grounds for the past two and a half years. Not everyone was silent. Cato and Heritage yelled about big government conservatism. George Will has been consistently skeptical about this administration. Bill Kristol has been after Rumsfeld for quite some time. Some of us even endorsed Kerry because of Bush’s record. I know we’re a tiny minority, but do none of us principled conservatives count?

EMAIL OF THE DAY

“Arnold did not capitulate on gay rights. From his response after the veto of the bill:

“California Family Code Section 308.5 was enacted by an initiative statute passed by the voters as Proposition 22 in 2000. Article II, section 10 of the California Constitution prohibits the Legislature from amending this initiative statute without a vote of the people. This bill does not provide for such a vote.
The ultimate issue regarding the constitutionality of section 308.5 and its prohibition against same-sex marriage is currently before the Court of Appeal in San Francisco and will likely be decided by the Supreme Court.
This bill simply adds confusion to a constitutional issue. If the ban of same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, this bill is not necessary. If the ban is constitutional, this bill is ineffective.”

This is not a capitulation. It is an adherence to the laws of the State and it makes perfect sense.”