25.1.03

VVV

David Maybury-Lewis writes that many societies organize their social thought and institutions in patterns of opposites. In Western thought the most salient of these are the contrasts between competitive individualism (gesellschaft) and communalism (gemeinschaft), between regimes of self-interest and regimes of trust. Such regimes are incommensurate. Social stability is maintained by strategies' temporal alternation: Each rhetoric has its period of ascendance in which the excesses of the opposite are corrected, as evidenced by the role of two-party systems in maintaining democracy. - Brian J.L. Berry, "An Alternation Of Opposites?" Urban Geography 14 (1): 1-2.

I think this is a good way of looking at things, though I would suspect that there are multiple sets of opposites (some with more than two poles) that alternate with varying wavelengths (though not infinitely variable, given the constraints of human cognitive and lifespan biology which I suspect affect the timing of changes) and are not in sync with each other.
posted by Stentor Danielson at 22:55 -- link --

VVV There is an unfortunate tendency among Democrats to view Al Sharpton's candidacy as a problematic spoiler, siphoning votes away from candidates who have a real chance of winning the nomination and the presidency (and let's face it, Sharpton can do neither). I think it would be much more productive to view Sharpton as a challenge for the other candidates, rather than an annoying obstacle. Sharpton holds two things the Democratic party needs in order to win -- charisma and blacks.

Sharpton demonstrated his charisma at a recent NARAL forum, blowing front-runners John Edwards, John Kerry, and Joe Lieberman out of the water in his ability to energize a crowd (the content of the speeches wasn't an issue, as the forum was a chance for the candidates to demonstrate that they can toe the pro-choice line). There is a tendency to look at Sharpton's charisma as some sort of dirty trick. Instead, the other candidates should look at Sharpton's public speaking abilities as a standard that they'll have to meet to win the hearts of voters. Howard Dean was successful in this respect at the NARAL forum, and Edwards' trial-and-error strategy may see him using a more Sharptonesque style in his next appearance.

Sharpton's strongest support comes from black voters. The Democrats tend to assume minorities will vote for them, and use that as a base from which to reach out to moderate whites. There will be a temptation to depend on a few reminders of the Trent Lott affair to keep blacks in the Democratic column. Nevertheless, there are complaints from some corners that the Democrats take the black vote for granted, which may ammount to a charge of hypocrisy after the opportunistic way Democrats criticized Republicans' stance on racial issues this winter. The support of blacks is especially critical to the race's New Englanders -- kerry, Liberman, and Dean -- since conventional wisdom says only southern Democrats can win over southern states (with their growing share of the Electoral College), so non-southerners will be in even greater need of the south's traditionally liberal black voters. Democrats should not be satisfied with dismissing Sharpton as an anti-Semitic race baiter. While he may be those things, it is important to take a positive tack in winning the support of blacks. Democratic candidates should view Sharpton's candidacy as a challenge to articulate a clear vision on race, as well as issues like inner-city poverty that disproportionately affect non-whites. Sharpton says he's in teh race to raise issues important to minorities, so let's accept that challenge rather than conceding the issue to him. A vigorous debate over race can energize the minority base, leading to an electoral payoff for whichever Democrat wins the nomination and embarassing the Republicans.
posted by Stentor Danielson at 20:00 -- link --

24.1.03

VVV It annoys me when I think of a political cartoon, and I'm all set to draw it, and then I realize that I don't actually agree with the message of the cartoon. For example, this week I was thinking of doing one where a reporter is interviewing a guy in prisoner's stripes.
Reporter: "Congratulations, your death sentence was just commuted by Illinois Governor George Ryan. What are you going to do now?"
Convict: "I'm going to Disney Land! ... to kill some more people."
Then again, maybe I shouldn't let political principles get in the way. The guy who made the "Sore Loserman" signs in the 2000 post-election was a Gore supporter who couldn't think of any clever plays on "Bush-Cheney."
posted by Stentor Danielson at 13:56 -- link --

VVV

Sharon Inquiry Leak Triggers Row Over Press Freedom A row over press freedom has broken out in Israel after authorities threatened to prosecute a newspaper reporter for not revealing the source of a story about the Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. On January 7 [Baruch] Kra, a crime reporter, revealed in the left-wing newspaper Ha'aretz that Israeli prosecutors are investigating Mr Sharon for suspected fraud in relation to a secret $US1.5million ($2.5million) payment from a close friend in South Africa. Mr Sharon initially denied he knew anything about the payment, saying that his son Gilad organises all his finances. He has since refused to answer questions about the matter, dismissing it as an opposition ploy to seize power in Tuesday's elections.

This sounds like Sharon's just dodging the issue, claiming it's a political ploy to avoid defending himself against the content of the accusations. Typical politician stuff. But a bit farther on, we discover that Sharon was exactly right:

Lawyers for Ms Glatt-Berkovich [who leaked the story to Ha'aretz] say she leaked the information for "ideological reasons", because she was concerned that her son was about to be conscripted into the army and she did not want things to carry on as they have done under the hawkish Mr Sharon. Initially placed under house arrest, Ms Glatt-Berkovich is likely to face dismissal and prosecution.

Also typical politician stuff.
posted by Stentor Danielson at 04:22 -- link --

VVV

Court Dismisses McDonald's Obesity Case A lawsuit by a group of American teenagers who claim the fast food chain McDonald's is responsible for their obesity has been thrown out of court by a New York judge. "It is not the place of the law to protect them against their own excesses," Judge Robert Sweet said, adding the suit failed to "allege sufficiently" McDonald's food is addictive.

This is good news, if not particularly surprising news to those of us who think that the epidemic of frivolous big-dollar lawsuits is as much an artefact of media coverage as of the courts. Even if the case doesn't become a tort reformers' urban legend with the fact of the case's dismissal dropped, just filing the suit (with the attendant media coverage) has done its damage. As Fox News predicted so well, fat people suing purveyors of food is an archetypal frivolous lawsuit. It even provides a parallel between the gluttony which is presumed to have caused the obesity, and the palintiffs' greed for money. It helped to cement in the public mind the idea that Americans will sue anyone rather than take personal responsibility, and in so doing increased the likelihood of future frivolous lawsuits ("if those people could sue McDonald's for making them fat, then why shouldn't I sue over my problem?").

Of course, filing a frivolous lawsuit isn't necessarily a big problem -- the case against the frivolous lawsuit epidemic rests on the fact that judges have a history of dismissing the worst suits and reducing the damages on those that end in a conviction. A perception that there are lots of stupid lawsuits out there may even make juries less sympathetic to the plaintiffs, because they're identified with a much-reviled archetype (though it could have the opposite effect, if it alters jurors' perceptions of what a normal response to a particular type of case would be, given that people are inclined to do what seems socially typical). What could be a problem is altering the defendant's perception of what suits are likely to win. If defendants believe that frivolous lawsuits routinely get big payouts, they're more likely to settle out of court on a case that in reality they would have won in court (as has happened with medical malpractice). The media coverage given to many suits doubtless encourages settling, since any court-related publicity is bad publicity no matter who wins. All in all, the epidemic of frivolous lawsuits could easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
posted by Stentor Danielson at 04:05 -- link --

21.1.03

VVV Right Thinking From The Left Coast (link via Junius via CalPundit) has a photo of a protest sign that says "God bless Iraq" (scroll down a bit on his page). I've been thinking of getting a sign like that. Not because I'm some sort of Iraq-supporter, as Right Thinking construes the protester holding the sign to be, but because if any country could use some blessings right now, it's Iraq*. By current world standards God has blessed America pretty thoroughly, with our democratic government and civil liberties and relatively healthy economy. Iraq could use a little GDP growth or freedom of speech.

*Well, Iraq and North Korea and Zimbabwe and Turkmenistan and Tajikistan and Congo and ...
posted by Stentor Danielson at 14:09 -- link --

19.1.03

VVV über über über über!
posted by Stentor Danielson at 20:29 -- link --