Taxi Driver

(OR: Big Blue Taxi took away my left wing of American politics)

Grand unified theory of American politics. A sweeping post on some serious issues with Obama's both-sides-now rhetoric that also happens to tell an admirably compressed story of movement conservatism in the US.

I'm still not entirely convinced that Obama's rhetoric isn't just rhetoric, but I find that lately, every time he opens his mouth, I start thinking about Edwards, and sometimes even Clinton. At least all three alternatives (Clinton, Obama, Edwards) are sane, as opposed to Huckabee, Romney or McCain. Right now, I'd be happy if we got any one of the democrats, because the species of conservative that breeds in the wild in the US is just crazy. That they are so well-funded, organised and embraced by institutions with money and power is very unnerving. Our local variety is much more sidelined, for which I am thankful, but as I've said before: when the US does things, it affects everyone. The president of the United States is one of the people that exercise the most influence on my life and well-being. Our local movement conservatives are energised and schooled by the US variety. Sooner or later, this could lead to something. For now, they are sidelined but they have powerful friends.

To wit: My cab driver today turned out, during the course of ordinary chit chat to be a central-ish figure in the Norwegian Christian coalition. He was a member of the board of so-fundamentalist-they-had-to-split-from-the-other-fundamentalists-newspaper Norge IDAG (because sometimes you need to capitalise words in newspaper titles so that people can tell you're serious!). He was fresh from a paid trip to Washington DC to a meeting where people of the conservative persuasion from around the world met the GOP candidates.

Our driver was all about Huckabee. Such a firm handshake, Huckabee. Also, never gave an inch on abortion. And I mean, really, what with US schools being positively awash with sodomy and perversity, you really need a man like Huckabee. ("They teach it, you know!" Of course they do. The stories I could tell you from GV Junior High School.) That firm handshake, that steady gaze - hearing the arguments, in front of those tv cameras, so you knew he wasn't lying - you really got the sense that this was a great president in the making. And he never voted for any law about abortion, and with that handshake, you knew he wasn't lying.

(also: Chuck Norris supports him. Run-to-the-hills-scary and funny! And he plays bass! Though not very well. I'm way better than he is. His right-hand technique stinks and while he keeps rhythm, his groove is bland and boring. Also, in this clip, he's playing Sweet Home Alabama which contains the lyrics "Watergate don't bother me." Seriously. Btw, remember that Bill Clinton played the saxophone? He wasn't very good, either. And Alan Greenspan played the clarinet very badly, they say.)

So anyway, I hope that the US puts its house in order now and puts the conservatives back in their cabs and church bands where they belong. Not deciding the geopolitical fate of the rest of the world.

...Time to get ready for primary season, anyway. I think I'm with Krugman on the Obama issue. I'm just about to start the health-care chapter in Krugman's latest book.

*

And almost just in time for Christmas: way to be in the spirit of Jesus.

Which Islam, exactly?

A blogpost I wrote in October of 06 has become a part of an FAQ over at Eurofascism.info. Actually, it was a comment on the post. We were discussing the Muhammed caricatures and criticism of Islam. Since that particular comment actually has gotten quite a lot of attention from the weirdest of places, I reproduce it (in Norwegian) below. Øyvind Strømmen did a translation (and also added some bits) of the most important part of the comment into English is in the FAQ.

Warning: my comment was written quite off-handedly as a comment, so it's not very well-written.

Du [Kapitalismus] spør meg om hvordan vi skal bedrive islamkritikk. Det er et relevant spørsmål, men jeg mener at det vi heller bør diskutere er hvorvidt det å kritisere islam er relevant og interessant.

Og ikke bare kan jeg ikke gi deg ett svar, jeg er nødt til å svare deg med to spørsmål:

1. Hva er islam?
2. Hva er kritikk?

Altså, ett: Forstår du islam som verdisystem, verdensforståelse, et sett med kulturelle praksiser, et sett med politiske styresett, etc.? Alle disse størrelsene kaller seg islam, eller muslimske.

Vi kan ikke tenke på islam som en monolittisk størrelse. Til tross for den ortodoks/kjettersk-dikotomien som ligger innebygd i urtekstene til de monoteistiske religioner, så er islam ikke en homogen størrelse, men et heterogent spenningsfelt. Det er en rekke kulturelle praksiser, en rekke politiske bevegelser, et verdensbilde, en matkultur, et språk, en retorikk. Det som kaller seg selv islam er noe som griper langt, langt inn i livene til 1.3 milliarder mennesker og deres naboer og medborgere og venner og bekjente og kjæledyr etc., og som defineres ulikt av hver enkelt.

Hvis du kritiserer islam kan du i praksis kritisere alt fra musikken til Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan til Talibans styresett, til en kvinnekultur i Etiopia, til Irans regjeringsmakt, til dervishene, til den kosmologiske verdensforståelsen til en beduin, til en gren av poesi, til intensjonene til en oudspiller i Istanbul, til arabiske slavehandlere på 1800-tallet.

Og to: Med kritikk, mener du en vennlig diskusjon over en kaffekopp, en aviskronikk, lovgivning, utfrysning, segregering, apartheid, vennlig erting, karikaturer eller krig? Kritikk kan ta enormt mange former, og formen er helt essensiell. Formen kan være vold og overgrep, eller respekt og dialog.

Poenget mitt er at det å kritisere islam som sådan er nesten alltid en eller annen form for kulturelt overgrep, fordi a) islam er ikke en monolittisk størrelse og b) tendensen er alltid henimot at noen ekstreme, voldelige og undertrykkende fundamentalistiske grupper er målet for islamkritikk. Dermed får de definere islam i vestlige øyne. Men islam er mye, mye mer. Å si at man ikke kan respektere islam eller kristendommen er å fordømme et ideologisk ståsted, og er i siste ende (slik jeg ser det) en posisjon som beveger seg ut i det samme ortodokse feltet det prøver å kritisere. Jeg tror du ville være overrasket over hvor mange mennesker du kjenner som ville ha beskrevet seg selv som kristne, om du hadde presset dem litt.

Vi må alltid sette et menneskes praktiske væren i verden foran når vi skal bedømme mennesket. Jeg mener at det blir feil å fordømme islam når det i praksis betyr at du fordømmer mennesker man rent faktisk har utrolig mye til felles med. Det er ikke sånn vi lærer oss å leve sammen og fungere. Igår oppdaget jeg ved et tilfelle at en person jeg har kjent i flere måneder er muslim. Skulle jeg brått fordømme de gode samtalene vi har hatt, alle de tingene vi har til felles? Er det ikke bedre å finne berøringspunkter oss imellom heller enn å definere oss selv som fundamentalt annerledes allerede i utgangspunktet?

[...]

Spørsmålet er altså hvorvidt det er hensiktsmessig, både ideologisk, realpolitisk og etisk, å kritisere islam. Jeg mener at man alltid rammer noen uskyldige forbipasserende med den kritikken. I siste ende er det dem som dør av den holdningen.

La oss derfor heller diskutere praksiser, med utgangspunkt i menneskerettigheter. Kjønnslemlestelse er ikke et problem fordi det er en praksis som ligger innenfor den muslimske kultursfæren, men fordi en kvinne blir skadet for livet. Burqaen er ikke et problem fordi den er muslimsk, men fordi den er obligatorisk og kvinneundertrykkende (men samtidig kan den også være et selvvalgt uttrykk, og det kan vi godt fordømme, men vanskelig lovgi mot). Al-Qaeda er ikke et problem fordi de ber til en skikkelse som de kaller Allah, men fordi de dreper mennesker. På samme måte er ikke kvinnesynet til fundamentalistiske muslimer problematisk fordi det tar utgangspunkt i en lesning av koranen, men fordi kvinner blir undertrykte.

Jeg fordømmer ikke Bush fordi han er kristen, jeg fordømmer ham fordi han er en katastrofalt dårlig president. Jeg fordømmer deler av ideologien hans, og noe av det faller innenfor en kristen kulturforståelse, men det er ikke derfor jeg fordømmer den. Jeg fordømmer den fordi den dreper mennesker.

Online writings of Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937). I haven't read enough of Gramsci, even though I've loved almost everything I have ever come across by him. I want to read these.

*

Massive profile of Benazir Bhutto from 1993 in the New Yorker.

Activist media activates voters?

Broad base, sharp peaks: partisan media leads to increased voter turnout, according to Daily Kos and TPM. I think Kos is right. The key isn't partisan media or not, it's grassroots media or not. It's the distinction between single-channel partisan media and massive activist media. Activism leads to more activism when it's done right.

The evidence is actually quite clear that partisan media are engaging and energizing a new generation of voters, driving participation in our political process higher than before. Aside from the silliness over the "vital center", the fact is people want a choice, and when given one, they are much happier to take part.

Archaeology, Assyriology, Anonymity,

Or: two completely unrelated posts for the price of one.

An assyriologist has discovered a cuneiform tablet which is a record of a Biblical person and an event from the Bible. We've spent so much time opposing the Bible as a source of truth and religious doctrine that we occasionally forget that it is also, in some sense, a historical document (although not an immensely trustworthy one).

*

That comes from this list of the Top 10 most important archeological discoveries this year. Another one, the discovery of urbanization at Tell Brak in Syria, is very interesting too, suggesting that urbanization happened at the same time in both ancient Mesopotamia and in ancient Syria. That's cool because it suggests that cities were just one of those ideas that happen to pop up in several places at once. Like differential calculus, photography or steam engines.

(btw, note that one of the discoverers of Tell Brak is named Jason Ur. Ur, famous for the well-named Great Ziggurat of Ur, which is a huge ziggurat in Ur, is the name of one of the earliest known cities in Mesopotamia. Apopheniaville.)

*

There's an interesting discussion of anonymity vs. full name in online discussions over at Design Observer. I'm of two minds on this one. While I agree that a major problem in online discussions is anonymous trolling and people flinging unproductive comments out into the aether, I also enjoy some of the benefits of pseudonymity quite often. For one thing, despite much evidence to the contrary, I like not having every single one of my opinions and statements in the semipublic sphere made googleable by merely typing in my full name. At least make the stalkers work for it, I say.

The pseudonym makes people loosen up in conversation. It allows them to be a little more permissive, a little more flexible and a little more creative with their persona and language and so forth. It makes conversations more interesting when you're not thinking of the comment you're leaving as being similar to posting a letter to the editor of a newspaper, but instead as just throwing an idea out into a conversation.

And last but not least: it's not a perfect public sphere of enlightened discussion. In fact, it's positively swarming with jerks, stalkers, trolls, psychopaths and the mentally ill, as well as interesting combinations of the above. This means that there is much to be said for the idea that some things can't be said openly without some sort of personal repercussions.

One important example: women writing about sex or sexuality, particularly their own sex or sexuality. This just isn't done in public without taking fire. Especially if one wants to get ahead in the world. Some discussions can only be had under cover of pseudonymity or anonymity. Bitch PhD. in the sidebar is one such example (she is an academic female blogger, using an aggressive persona to discuss feminism, politics and academia. She's gone slightly public-ish lately, but some of the things she was saying probably couldn't have been said without the cover of another name.

This is why I don't think that full name is the ultimate answer to productive online discussions. I think the big secret can be summed up in six words: moderation, moderation, moderation, community-building, community-building, community-building.

Guy waterboards himself for science. That's dedication.

Abraham Lincoln tells a ripping yarn

Whenever people remark that all these newfangled, L337, chat-culture multiple exclamation marks are just! not!! to!!! be!!!! used!!!!! in polite writing, I say "if it was good enough for Abraham Lincoln, it's good enough for me":

Appropos [sic] of this, let me tell you an anecdote. Douglas introduced the Nebraska bill in January. In February afterwards, there was a call session of the Illinois Legislature. Of the one hundred members composing the two branches of that body, about seventy were democrats. These latter held a caucus, in which the Nebraska bill was talked of, if not formally discussed. It was thereby discovered that just three, and no more, were in favor of the measure. In a day of two Dougla's [sic] orders came on to have resolutions passed approving the bill; and they were passed by large majorities!!!

He went on to say: "Like, ZOMG, no0bz!1! ;-))) They r teh LAM0!!1!"

This week in God

[beep bopbop boop bop bop beep]

Theologian John Haught is interviewed in Salon. His view of theology and Darwinism makes me think that there might actually come a time where religious people and non-religious people can peacefully co-exist. That religious people will stop using their religion's core messages of love and peace as justifications to blow people up, while atheists will realise that atheists probably blow up other people just as much as religious people do. I also live in hope that one day, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens will stop writing stupid books on their ridiculous atheist fundamentalism, or at the very least no longer be thought of as somehow representative for secularists.

In other God-related news, there's a really nice interview with Philip Pullman, the author of the His Dark Materials trilogy (recently turned into a not-very-good Hollywood Blockbuster) at a Christian film blog named FilmChat. The interview is (sadly) remarkable for being reasonable, well-argued and respectful on both sides. It is even more remarkable for being followed by a huge stream of comments (which I have been subscribing to via Blogger's new subscription feature) most of which follow the spirit of the interview in being reasonable and polite.

Of course, every once in a while, there is some terrible fundamentalist or someone raging and delusional ("YUOU BUTTFUCKING FAGGOT MY DICK IS THREE TIMES AS LARGE AS YOUR ATHIEST PENIS. GOD MADE IT THAT WAY!" begins the charming and rigorously argued last comment. I expect it to be deleted soon, like the other trolls). The thread itself, I think, stands for what religion really is: mostly reasonable people's ideas about the world, followed by a couple of very loud, very attention-getting violent psychotics who would probably be violent no matter their beliefs.

I want to quote two bits of what Pullman says which I find intriguing and helpful. The first is a discussion of consciousness, which leads into his concept of "Dust" in the books:

Those who are committed materialists (as I claim to be myself) have to account for the existence of consciousness, or else, like the behaviourists such as Watson and Skinner, deny that it exists at all. There are various ways of explaining consciousness, many of which seem to take the line that it's an emergent phenomenon that only begins to exist when a sufficient degree of complexity is achieved. Another way of dealing with the question is to assume that consciousness, like mass, is a normal and universal property of matter (this is known as panpsychism), so that human beings, dogs, carrots, stones, and atoms are all conscious, though in different degrees. This is the line I take myself, in the company of poets such as Wordsworth and Blake.

I think this is an incredibly interesting point of view, not least because it clearly borders on/bordercrosses into the territory of religious belief. One of my own articles of faith is that at some level, no matter the degree of complexity to which we can build our explanations and ability to predict the universe, any explanation of the world rests on assumption - reasonable or not - which is the same as faith. Henry Perowne, the decidedly materialist neurosurgeon who is the main character in Ian McEwan's Saturday has a firm belief in the idea that someday soon, there will be a theory that bridges the gap between the firing of the neurons he does "elegant plumbing" on for a living, and the macroscopic phenomena of consciousness. Me, I don't see that happening any time in the next five hundred years. But I'm wouldn't be at all surprised to be proven wrong.

And speaking of surgery:

I was brought up in the Church of England, and whereas I'm an atheist, I'm certainly a Church of England atheist, and for the matter of that a 1662 Book of Common Prayer atheist. The Church of England is so deeply embedded in my personality and my way of thinking that to remove it would take a surgical operation so radical that I would probably not survive it.

I want to memorise this quote because it very accurately describes - once you substitute "The Church of England" with "Den Norske Statskirken" etc. - the feelings of a lot of my friends. This is one of those phrases that are just instantly helpful.

Interesting discussion of foreign aid at Crooked Timber. Lots of interesting back-and-forth in the comment threads. Links to research papers on the topic.

We're screwed: facts and figures for the apocalypse

The shorter Paul Krugman on climate change:

The US is our biggest problem. China is our second-biggest but fastest growing problem, Europe is our third biggest problem.

More statistics:

China:
1.3. billion people.
GDP: 10.17 trillion.
CO2 emissions per capita: 3.84 tonnes in 2004, probably a lot more now, given the Δx on Krugman's graph. Maybe as much as 5?

India:
Population: 1.12. billion.
GDP: 4.1 trillion.
CO2 emissions per capita: 1.20 in 2004. Their economy is the second-fastest growing major economy in the world, with an almost 10 % growth last year, so probably some big movement on this one as well.

United States:
Population: 301 million.
GDP: 13.13. trillion.
CO2 emissions per capita: 20.4

It looks to my haven't-done-a-statistics-course-in- 10 - years-eyes as if CO2 has a much stronger correlation with GDP than with population. If that's true, then that relationship is asymptotic. As China and India's GDP keep growing at respectively 9.5% and 11.1 % per year, their emission rates are at the cusp of gaining a much, much faster rate of change-for-the-worse.

I mean, I knew we were basically screwed when it came to India and China re: CO2. Just not how bad. (If I'm right.) Obviously, this doesn't tell us anything new, except to underline that there can be no fixing climate change unless the US, India and China are all onboard.

But I'm not a statistician, so I'm hoping that all this means is that CO2 emissions are not correlated to GDP at all, just a heap of other factors which are growing at a far slower rate.

[Update: actually, ignore this post. CO2 emissions are obviously far more complex than a direct correlation to GDP. It also involves technological levels, energy production methods, degree of urbanisation, wage levels and so on and so forth. I was just really tired when I wrote this, and I didn't feel like just throwing all those facts and figures away after I had meticously dug them up after maybe as much as four or five minutes of googling and hyperlinking.]

,

(!)

Hey, look! The word weblog is 10 years old today! How do we know? Datestamp. Also, Jill's new book has a cover. In other, weblog-related news, I hope to post Chapter 2 of the Bluffer's Guide to my thesis later tonight or tomorrow morning.

[Update: and by tomorrow morning, I mean later tonight. Real life got in the way.]

Knol

Google takes on Wikipedia. Usually, I'd just be happy for the couple of minor improvements in the technical design over Wikipedia, but for reasons I am not yet completely able to articulate, I am skeptical. I think it has to do with Knol apparently being rigged in the Google results, but maybe this tool will be a supplement to Wikipedia? Whatever happens, it will certainly take many years to reach the level of detail that Wikipedia has.

Btw, one of the internet tricks I use most is to google [topic] + wikipedia. You go straight to the top-ranking Wikipedia article (almost universally the English-language one) and you can use that as the beginning of a research process. It's a nice way of just quickly touching base with the most basic facts about something, and can also be used to find specific information to supplement my vaguer understanding about what I'm researching. Like today, for purposes of a bad joke coming to this space soon, I wanted to double check whether the birth of Derrida did indeed coincide with the birth of New Criticism. It did, sorta.

UPDATE: Ezter Hargittai from Crooked Timber raises some excellent issues here.

Also, I think I have worded my initial skepticism more thoroughly: Google should no longer be just a private company. It has now become such an integral part of the infrastructure of the entire world that it should either act entirely like infrastructure and not as a corporation with a separate agenda from the people it serves or it should be supernationalised, become a UN body. If Google starts rigging the results according to their own agenda, they are no longer doing what they should be doing to fulfill their part of the Google - Public contract.

Manifester i alle land, manifester eder.

Hvis du er på venstresiden i norsk politikk bør du ta og abonnere på Manifests nyhetsbrev Orientering. Det er veldig gode. Masse gode, tankevekkende artikler og debattinnlegg fra ukens løp som formidles til den travle sosialisten i tidsklemme.

Eksempelvis denne ukens utspill fra Victor Normann, et utrolig interessant intervju om opptøyene i Frankrike for to uker siden eller en artikkel om politisk islams samspill med imperialisme fra forrige uke.

Om du lurer på hva jeg mener om manifester kan du forresten gå hit. Jeg har sterke, sterke meninger om manifester. De er meninger, jeg har dem og de er sterke.

The Moby Quotient: Mathematically speaking, how much is band X selling out?

"London Calling" was the first CD I ever bought. Sigh. The Man wins every time.

Bailing out on Bali

Japan, Canada and - surprise, surprise - the US are doing their utmost to fuck up the climate meeting in Bali. Avaaz has an emergency action online campaign up. Go sign it, then send it to all your friends.

The emission caps agreed on by the rest of the world are already not enough. If the US, Canada and Japan get to run away with this, they'll complete demolish any hope of seriously rolling back climate change for the next five or ten years.

wtf?

Så nettopp Al Gores Nobelforedrag Det er et herlig øyeblikk ca. 4 minutter inne i talen der kamera går ned i publikum, og man ser Carl I. Hagen sitter og ser pottesur ut, og rett bak ham sitter Erik Solheim og gliser.

Litteratur på Blå - Slippefestextravagan(t)zabonanza! - Vagant, Kritiker, Gasspedal, Au Petit Garage

Noen ganger driver jeg sånn på med eposter og Underskog og Fjesbok og alt det der at jeg helt glemmer å skrive bloggposter om hva som skjer. I morgen er det altså dette fantastiske som skjer:

VAGANT! KRITIKER! GASSPEDAL! AU PETIT GARAGE! AUDIATUR! GUTTORM "WASABI" ANDREASSEN! PEPPERKAKER! STORE BOKSTAVER! UTROPSTEGN!!!

Blå, 11. desember kl 19:

Til julefest og årets siste arrangement slår Litteratur på Blå på stortrommen og inviterer til kollektiv slippefest for nye nummer av Vagant og Kritiker, samt mikroforlaget Gasspedals nye utgivelse: Sigurd Tenningens Gæa. Det vil også bli førpremiere på Simen Hagerups Michaux-gjendiktning Streker, som kommer snart på Gasspedal. Au Petit Garage og Audiatur bokhandel inviteres som gjester. Høytlesning, samtale om tidsskrifter og vill fest hele natten. Vi forsøker å booke julenissen, men lover intet.

OPPDATERING: Julenissen var litt travel for tiden, men Guttorm "WASABI" Andreassen er bedre enn julenissen. Han kommer til Litteratur på Blå og snurrer plater under sloganet "mindre reinsdyr - mer musikk!"

Nice interview with Radiohead in the NY Times. Covers lots of interesting ground. Mostly the recording process of in Rainbows and the pay-what-you-want strategy they chose for releasing it. It turns out that the band has said that the estimate on how they eventually came out (how many users paid, how many took the music and ran) that I linked to a few weeks back is inaccurate. I thought those were kinda disappointing, so if it's true, I'm glad to hear that.

This is a man's, man's, ma-a-an's world

Edvard Hoemosocialus Heteronormativisaurus Rex ble intervjuet i Klassekampen forleden dag. Min reaksjon til dette intervjuet, i sin helhet, er som følger:

Blæh.

Mvh.
Mann
(i krise)

I detect the aroma of rattus norvegicus

Some excellent reporting in the NY Times today:

WASHINGTON, Dec. 6 — The Central Intelligence Agency in 2005 destroyed at least two videotapes documenting the interrogation of two Al Qaeda operatives in the agency’s custody, a step it took in the midst of Congressional and legal scrutiny about the C.I.A’s secret detention program, according to current and former government officials.

The videotapes showed agency operatives in 2002 subjecting terror suspects — including Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee in C.I.A. custody — to severe interrogation techniques. They were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes documenting controversial interrogation methods could expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy, several officials said.

Isn't that weird, though? That they destroyed the tapes because it could "expose agency officials to greater risk of legal jeopardy"? Why it's... it's almost as if they knew they were doing something wrong. Or even illegal.

I want to write a book called Speaking Truth to Power - how the rise of citizen journalism and the blogosphere changed everything

Former White House communications director and counselor to the president (Bush jr. that is) Dan Bartlett (no relation to Jed Bartlet) in an interview with Texas Monthly:

Yeah, or what if [conservative blogger] Hugh Hewitt called?

That’s when you start going, “Hmm . . .” Because they do reach people who are influential.

Well, they reach the president’s base.

That’s what I mean by influential. I mean, talk about a direct IV into the vein of your support. It’s a very efficient way to communicate. They regurgitate exactly and put up on their blogs what you said to them. It is something that we’ve cultivated and have really tried to put quite a bit of focus on.