Well, I spent some time in my darkroom a couple of weeks back. For those of you who know me, my recent move to Chicago has separated me from my darkroom by several hundred miles, so spending time in there is a special event. I did some organizing and cleanup, as well as developing film.
Because of my lack of organizational skills, I don’t always keep up with my work. That’s the bad news; I tend to start things that may not get finished for a while. But the good news is that I discovered some lovely images taken at our friends’ farm in New Brunswick, so I can share them with you now.
Enjoy. [Note: You can click on the image to see it full-size.]
Last night, Sarah Palin got to do her TV dress-up on Fox News. Her comments about Barack Obama somehow made me think of the great line in Mel Brooks’ “The History of the World, Pt. 1“:
We’ve flattened their fingers,
we’ve branded their buns.
Nothing is working,
SEND IN THE NUNS!
In a sign from His Noodliness – the Flying Spaghetti Monster – an infidel statue was struck by lightning and reconfigured in the image of the Great Pasta. CNN reported on the incident.
My friend Pati came to visit yesterday, and we went to The Purple Pig – a collaboration between Scott Harris of Mia Francesca fame and Jimmy Bannos of Heaven on Seven – for wine and swine. Don’t let the crappy website scare you away, this was a good destination for eating, drinking and chatting it up.
Most of the plates are small, so like tapas just dive in and prepare to share. Pati and I started with roasted beets with whipped goat cheese and a pistachio vinaigrette, which was to-die for. An asparagus and hazelnut salad was tossed in a lovely mint dressing, which was light and refreshing. And don’t forget the deep-fried manchego. The Purple Pig has a lovely selection of cheeses, but hey, it’s deep-fried. We also ordered a blade steak, which we simply call a pork steak in St. Louis. They can come from the butt or, in this case the shoulder, and it’s one cheap cut of meat that will rock your world. This one was grilled and served with a spicy Italian salami called Nduja (make sure you get both in the same bite.) A side of arugula gave a nice nutty flavor to the bite.
I convinced Pati to try the braised kale and pigs ear, which was topped with a basted egg. Two thumbs-up. We didn’t get a picture, because we snarfed it, but a great couple sitting next to us was also snapping away, and after chatting and having much fun we took pictures of their pig tails and serrano ham. It turns out that they were two chefs in town to eat and explore, so we talked about what they had found and where they might go later in the day. It really sounded like my kind of weekend.
Oh, the wine list is nice. There are a reasonable number of bottles served by the glass (a 5 oz. pour.) We tried a Cotes du Rhone (all Syrah) and a Couteaux du Languedoc (a blend of Carignan and Grenache.) While both were enjoyable the Couteaux had a fuller body and a bit more spice, which held up better against some of the pork.
Last but not least came the sweet, with a couple of double shots. My favorite was the Sicilian Iris, a beignet-type of pastry filled with chocolate and ricotta cheese. The Nutella panini was also good, although marshmallow creme is not real high on my list. The food was great, the lunch was long, and the company was entertaining. The Purple Pig was a great experience that I look forward to repeating. Next time you’re over on Michigan Avenue, think about giving it a try.
I love living in Chicago, but there is one thing I’ve noticed: city government doesn’t do much to curtail loose trash. Certainly, in such a large city with high population density, there is going to be trash on the street. All the more reason to try and mitigate the problem whenever necessary.
Let’s start with what I consider low-hanging fruit: the hand bills that are shoved into door frames, iron gates, or left on cars. I see people walking up and down my street every day with a shoulder sack full of these things, advertising Chinese food, waterproofing, or cleaning services. And, since most of the buildings are multi-family, dozens of them wind up in your gate or, to the point of this post, on the ground in your flower beds. Not to mention the rubber bands that have to be pulled off your door knob.
Now, I understand the desire of local businesses to get my attention (and they certainly have.) But why is this not considered littering? There’s more shit on the ground than gets into homes, and I can’t help but think that my neighborhood is getting trashed simply because someone doesn’t want to buy a name and address and affix postage. At some point we need to make a value judgment. Are we comfortable with waste in our front yard, or do we want to take small steps to clean things up?
There are people who will say that banning flyers will hurt business. That’s a poorly constructed argument, if not pure bullshit. If nobody can use flyers, then everybody will find a different way of communicating their message. As long as restrictions are fair, businesses will not suffer. In fact, I would not even insist upon a ban, but would be happy with citing companies for littering. Maybe the fines could pay for more trash cans on the street corners. Either way, Chicago would be a better place to live without these flyers blowing down our sidewalks.
I got called a liberal yesterday. Again. And, as you might expect, it was pejorative. These things don’t matter much to me; the names are usually hurled at the losing end of an argument, but there is something important we all need to consider about contemporary political debate.
Let’s start with the definition, since this post is going to focus on the use of words, and how their meanings can change. My Compact Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition (1989) defines liberal in a number of ways. The relevant ones include:
Favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms tending in the direction of freedom or democracy;
Free from narrow prejudice; open-minded, candid.
Judging from these statements, liberalism seems like a pretty positive philosophy. It was thought of in that way when, during the Enlightenment, political philosophers such as John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Thomas Jefferson conceived of returning liberty to individuals and limiting the power of monarchs. It is ironic that today, many of the ‘conservatives’ in America who claim dominion over the Founding Fathers refuse to recognize their liberal heritage.
Instead, Americans on the political left run from the word. George H.W. Bush – Bush I – used the term against Michael Dukakis in the 1988 presidential campaign, but I think it already had a negative connotation by then. Since that time, it has attracted so much detritus that Democrats are trying to replace it with the word ‘progressive’. While that may be a more accurate descriptor, it is nevertheless a response to civic ignorance.
Recently Timothy Ferris wrote an excellent piece on The Huffington Post entitled, “Conservative Is Not Opposite Liberal.” He makes the excellent point that, given our definition above, great conservative thinkers like Edmund Burke and John Adams were certainly liberal. That indeed, the opposite of liberal is not conservative, it is authoritarian. Since liberals tend to favor reforms that grant freedom, then the opposite would certainly remove freedoms. The question then becomes, what are liberals afraid of?
The American Right has been very effective creating memes since the days of Bush I and Lee Atwater. It is unabashedly visible today, with talk of ‘death panels’ in the Affordable Healthcare Reform for America Act, ‘bank bailouts’ in the financial reform bill, and socialism despite a quite different reality. Sadly, it demonstrates that the American electorate is sensitive to these marketing messages, regardless of their relationship to facts ‘on the ground’. That diverges greatly from the ultimate goal of incrementally improving society through science and reason as Jefferson had envisioned. Applying a skeptical eye to these messages is essential to returning the American electorate to a civil, intellectual debate.
When I hear the term ‘liberal’ used as a pejorative, I am confident in my presumption that the speaker is unaware of the history of political philosophy in the West. Which is a shame, because the American Right has strayed far from what was considered conservative. You know you have a problem when it’s important to characterize the philosophy as ‘paleo-conservative’ or ‘neo-conservative’, especially when movement icons like Russell Kirk and Barry Goldwater became disenfranchised from the contemporary ideology. I have already argued that the current Tea Party movement, and mouthpieces like Glenn Beck, bear much more resemblance to the French Jacobins than anything conservative. But the memes put forth by the marketing machine take hold, and the GOP propaganda operation that is Fox News has tremendous sway over those who do not question, and that bodes poorly for the future of honest debate in American politics.
I thought I would try this one in video. Sorry you have to watch my ugly mug, but the cocktail recipe is worth it!!
By the way, I shrank the size of the video for this blog skin. If you want to see a larger version, click on the viewer to watch it on YouTube.
For those of you who don’t want to watch, here is the recipe:
4 parts vodka
1 part sage-infused simple syrup
1 part apple juice
6 fresh blackberries
For the simple syrup, bring 1/2 cup water and 1/2 cup sugar to a simmer, dissolving the sugar. Add two sprigs of fresh sage and simmer for several minutes until aromatic (don’t boil the syrup.) Remove sage and allow to cool.
Muddle blackberries in a shaker. Add the ingredients and plenty of ice. Shake vigorously and strain into a chilled glass. Garnish with a lemon twist.
[Editor's Note: I love the word douche. It's like the new fuck. I'm happy that Megyn Kelly has given me an opportunity to use it. Although, if I watched Fox News more often I might have even more opportunities.]
Check out this stunning display of disingenuous reporting on Fox News. There are a couple of things to consider here:
Megyn Kelly is a lawyer;
Megyn Kelly is paid a lot of money to work for Fox News;
Megyn Kelly has an entire production staff at her disposal, for the purpose of providing her with accurate research.
So it’s kind of astonishing to see the discussion on Net Neutrality which aired Tuesday, May 11th, on her show America Live, between Josh Silver, the president of freepress.net, and Jim Harper, a fellow at the Cato Institute. Kelly displays a bias to the story from the moment the piece opens, whether she is calling Net Neutrality a government-takeover of the internet, or claiming that the Obama administration will have their hands in too many aspects of everyone’s business. Let’s remember, this show airs at 1:00p.m. ET, right in the middle of Fox News’ “fair and balanced” news reporting. It was just last fall when Michael Clemente, senior vice-president for news, made the distinction between Fox’s news programming and their shock-jock personalities like Hannity and Beck.
Please note how Harper is allowed to drone on and on, while Kelly interrupts Silver, telling him that her audience doesn’t understand the very clear talking point he asserted. When Harper’s statements are challenged, he falls back to idiotic Libertarian claims of big government that have no bearing on the subject, and Kelly gives him a pass.
Since Kelly is admittedly too stupid to understand that Net Neutrality is about preventing content discrimination on the internet, let me paint Harper’s suggestion in terms even she can understand:
If the internet were our highway system, then Harper wants all the roads to be owned by the trucking companies. As you traveled from one road to another, you would be subject to different rules by a different authority. Randomly, without warning, the rules could change and you might be prevented from driving on the road. You might not be allowed to go to certain locations, unless they were owned by the trucking company. Trucks could run you off the road, and you couldn’t do anything about it.
Now, does that sound like any way to enjoy a family vacation?
Cato must be in trouble, because Harper really gives them a bad name. He might want to go back to school and read a little Adam Smith or Frederick Hayek – both godfathers of libertarian economics – who discuss the necessity of fair playing fields and low barriers to entry for any free marketplace. Railing against ‘Big Government’ in this case is insulting, for the alternative is monopoly. Libertarians like Harper have a real PR problem: explaining how to live in a lawless, third-world society controlled by corporations that exist solely for the pursuit of greater profit, while providing services and protections to the public. I’m still listening…
As for Kelly, I can only thank her for allowing me to write this piece and highlight her bias and stupidity. And reinforce my decision not to watch Fox News Channel.
I found myself on YouTube the other day, viewing the new RNC web ad, which assumes their audience has a mental age of about 8. So far, the leadership of the Republican Party has yet to approach an issue with maturity, and I couldn’t help but post a comment to the page, asking if anyone didn’t feel offended by the aforesaid assumption. My question was: “I’m stunned by how many people can be swayed by this kind of trash, even in the face of the Arizona legislation, the GOP refusing to work on financial reform, and the plain lack of substance to many of the falsehoods being circulated. Do you really believe Michelle Bachmann when she talks about internment camps? Do you believe Sarah Palin when she threatens you with ‘Death Panels’? When does their credibility suffer?”
The response was swift. I was told that all would be made clear if I read the “Founding Documents” and stopped drinking Kool-Aid (no offense to the KraftFoods Corporation.) As justification for their paranoia, I was referred to FDR’s internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. It was asserted that the Department of Labor – responsible for the census – gave Roosevelt the information he needed to find people. Now we have to worry about Obama, because anyone who disagrees with the need for healthcare reform should be shipped off to central Nevada and be placed in holding pens.
Of course, I pointed out that there have been six decennial censuses since 1942, so why freak out now? Because our freedom is threatened: the government owns 96% of home mortgages, it has taken over student loans, and will force everyone to buy health insurance. After a couple of back-and-forths, this is how the argument lined up:
The new Arizona “Papers, Please” law is okay even though it presumes you are breaking the law;
Warrantless wiretapping is okay because it made us safe;
Holding Jose Padilla (a U.S. citizen) without charge for years was okay because he was obviously a terrorist;
But insuring (not owning) home mortgage securities so that banks will offer them at lower interest rates is tyranny.
These assertions seem nonsensical; they certainly don’t adhere to a consistent policy platform. How is this possible? Back in the 1980s, a Canadian psychologist named Bob Altemeyer did ground-breaking research to find an answer. Altemeyer studies authoritarianism, and has identified the ‘right-wing authoritarian’ (RWA) personality type.
Briefly, since this information rightly occupies multiple volumes, the RWA is characterized as being submissive to [proper] authority, or following established authorities without question; will aggressively support their established authority, even to the point of violence; can be described as conventional and reject moral relativism; separate into homogenous groups and hold prejudices against minorities; tend to lack skepticism and rely on information provided by their authorities; construct a moral standard and reject everything outside of it; and view the world as a dangerous place, with society on the brink of destruction. There is more, but I think the point is made. An RWA personality is capable of accepting an authority like the Bush Administration violating Constitutional tenets while claiming that last year’s stimulus package is ‘big government’, because Glenn Beck told them so.
Which brings us to the end of this post. Altemeyer would define figures like Beck, Sarah Palin and Dick Cheney as social dominators, those who score high on a Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale. While RWAs tend to be submissive by nature, SDOs are in control. They believe in a social Darwinism, will discriminate against minority groups, identify threats everywhere in the world, and are Machiavellian (sorry for the disrespect, Niccolo) in their approach to enemies. Interestingly, while they use morality as a talking point, their own behavior demonstrates little of it. If the RWAs are the wind, then SDOs are the sail.
There’s much more, so I’d like to just cite a couple of books, in case you want to keep going (I’m off for a tasty falafel sandwich.) While much of our media makes the Tea Party movement out to be something significant in contemporary politics, I see it differently: it is an incoherent fringe that has always existed, but is now being prodded by a major political party that’s out of power and willing to play hardball. Which was the point of my question on YouTube: if directly confronted with shameless manipulation by the Republican Party, the RWAs will happily lap up their milk and proceed as directed.
“Conservatives Without Conscience,” John W. Dean, Penguin Books, 2007
“The Authoritarians,” Bob Altemeyer, Self-Published, 2007
“The Authoritarian Specter,” Bob Altemeyer, Harvard University Press, 1996
