On Feminism and Misandry

The following is an adaptation of a post to a heated facebook thread that was started with the uncharitable question, (not mine) "By default, do feminists hate ducks?"

The discussion turned to whether the kind of hostile, misandrous feminism that we commonly run across on the internets represents the majority of feminists or the minority and whether it is really feminism at all. The Santa Barbara shooter was mentioned in the context of men's rights, as was the "PATRIARCHY", and generally a good time was had by all. Enter yours truly:

I think the question of how a movement should deal with their radical fringe is a really interesting one. Should we hold moderate Muslims accountable to those who do terrible things in the name of Islam? Is murderous hostility toward non-Muslims the "true" Islam? I think not.

That said, what do we think of the Occupy movement? Personally, I fault them for allowing their message to be hijacked by crazy hobos and black block anarchists. The "true" Occupy was well-intentioned and had good ideas, they just failed to get the right message to the top of the heap. That's kind of on them.

So there does seem to be a degree of culpability. I'd take issue with a Muslim who refused to emphatically condemn religious terrorism, after all.

By the same turn, the feminist movement has a duty (if not to anyone else, then) to itself to keep its message on point. You can write off misandry as "oh but men have it so great", but misandry is extremely toxic, and not just to men. Misandry is toxic to individual women and it is toxic to feminism. It is the very antithesis of feminism, lurking right under feminism's protective wing.

This toxic, misandrist brand of "feminism" is worthy of attention because it has hit the mainstream. It is all over Jezebel, XoJane, Slate, Salon, Daily Kos, etc. It is not some "fringe" thing that can be dismissed with a wave. Much of what is said passes for honest feminism. The biggest danger is that the two things, feminism and misandry, become so inextricable from one another that they cannot be thought of as separate animals, as the increasingly common refrain of "feminists hate men" illustrates is already happening.

Men will inevitably bring this issue up more than women. That is because we are understandably more sensitive to it, because it affects us directly. Misandry, for men, is an emotional thing. It gets us riled up the way misogyny used to only get women riled up.

I don't see a reason to dismiss that sensitivity as "too early". The pendulum is swinging right now, and misandry will increasingly affect men in real ways (like in the workplace). When we discuss the power dynamic between women and men we are not talking slaves and slave owners here. We are talking men and women, hand in hand, and on our darkest days, icy dagger met with icy dagger. "The Patriarchy" is such an outmoded, myopic, intrinsically sexist (in both directions) way of thinking of gender relations it makes me blanch. Do you need to read about Hera torturing the ill-fated sons of Zeus's mistresses to realize that power has never been held entirely in the hands of one sex?

It is for this reason that the true feminism, the always feminism, is the pursuit of equal rights for both sexes and the fighting of prejudice in its many forms. To take on misandry masquerading as feminism is just as central to the ideology as taking on misogyny masquerading as paternalism, and just as crucial to its success.

End Note: Sorry, I got a little carried away there at the end. Please indulge me.

Advertisements and Feminism

This post is a response to the below video, promoted by Upworthy here. While Upworthy's take on it was pretty obnoxious, the video itself is charming:

Ketchup Bottle Ad
This ad is actually still funny-- though it was probably a lot more true at the time than it is now since opening ketchup bottles has as much to do with force of will as it does with physical strength. The ad would also never appear in modern advertisement, and this is a testament to the cultural changes wrought by second wave feminism. A modern counterpart to the ad might be the "strong enough for a man, but made for a woman" deodorant campaign-- once again they are playing off the fact that men are generally stronger and bigger (and consequently stinkier) than women. Of course, the fun part is that the deodorant campaign's trick plays into the "ra ra" of feminism. Appeals to feminism are not at all uncommon in modern advertising. I'm sure plenty will gripe that it's a cartoonish kind of feminism, to which I say if you're going to complain that media is obnoxiously cartoonish, then you're consuming the wrong media. Vote with your feet.

Sexualization and Objectification
Regarding the sexualization and objectification of women-- this is true and this is long-standing and this is near and dear to advertising, which seeks to seduce. As women make an increasingly significant proportion of the national income (projected to make more than men for my generation), you can also witness the increasing objectification and sexualization of men in the exact same mediums. That trend will undoubtedly continue.

There is a lot of hand-wringing about this trend, seeing it as "making men more effeminate". I think calling it that is missing a lot. This issue touches on a question at the heart of a lot of feminist debate-- how much should equality involve women becoming more like men or men becoming more like women? The other big question of course being "How far is far enough?" I think the end result of feminism will be terribly nuanced, and that in some ways men and women cannot but help to retain distinct identities, and that there's nothing intrinsically wrong with people associating one gender more with some things than others.

To those who feel that objectification itself is inherently masculine, I say that while this is an essentially sexist sentiment, it probably has some merit. You'll note the brief portion where the video discussed the presentation of men as strong, dominant and aggressive-- this is an objectification of character, which may perhaps be an oxymoron, but as the video points out it is certainly an idealization that impacts men's aspirations and expectations, and not necessarily positively.

Mock Rape and Debasement in Fashion Magazines
First of all, its worth noting these are advertisements that are meant to appeal to women. Now you can't take that at face value because they are also self-consciously high art, and the intention is to provoke/confront rather than to please the audience persay. These ads are are playing off feminist  ideals. They aren't going up against them as much as they are forcing the audience to think about sexuality and submission/dominance. To treat these ads as merely anti-feminist propaganda is to give the ads' makers and their audience too little credit-- this is part of the modern conversation about sex relations, and it is excruciatingly self-aware.

Role Reversal
The role-reversal is hilarious and perhaps the most educational part of the video, because it inspires reflection on a couple of interesting points.

First, the pictures (for sake of humor, I'm sure) mostly illustrate fat not-especially-attractive men, which is demeaning in its own right and obviously inverts more than just the subject of objectification's gender. It's an unwitting commentary on the too-close relationship between feminism and what I'll call male slobbism (it could less charitably be described as female chauvinism, though it is by no means specific to women).
 
Second, with the more attractive men playing the role of women, I was struck by how closely they mirrored many fashion ads for men's clothing and accessories (Ambercrombie comes to mind). This comes back to the point that equality in advertising seems to be following right along with growing equality in broader culture, driven of course by the desire to sell things. Advertisements must work within the cultural norms of the time and often, if it is to catch the audience's attention, play off of them. In my humble opinion, the influence of culture on ads and ads on culture constitutes a feedback loop, but a fairly benign one in which the former influence acts as primary driver.

San Franciscan Morality

Since before the 1906 earthquake, San Francisco has been reviled by conservative Christians as a place of hedonism. Back then it was nicknamed Frisky City, and not a few religious figures of the time interpreted the great fires that burned the city to the ground as God's retribution against the city's sinfulness, likening it to Sodom and Gomorrah.

Not a whole lot has changed. There continues to be some truth to the characterization of San Franciscans as hedonistic-- we believe in enjoying ourselves and we do. The best word I've found to describe San Franciscans is gay-- in the classic sense (in addition, of course, to the newer sense). On sunny weekend days, San Franciscans dress lightly, fashionably, and in bright colors. They eat brunch with mimosas or seek out the best bakery in town for pastries. They bring their dogs to the park or picnic with friends. San Francisco is truly a gay, happy city. It's also, truly, the most moral city I've ever called home.

San Francisco is a bastion of "radical humanism", as my friend so aptly put it. That lends itself to investing in social programs, ethically produced food and bike lanes. More personally, San Franciscans believe in doing what they enjoy and encouraging others to do the same, whether that be drinking blow-your-mind-good coffee or wearing red pants and a brilliant paisley scarf or having gay sex or smoking weed in the park or getting a sex change or... I think you get the idea.

That may sound dangerously unbounded to people from more religious parts of the country, but it is actually very simply and rigidly bounded by a second principle: not infringing on or diminishing others' happiness. The minute the crazy homeless guy shoves someone is the moment when tolerance turns to intolerance. The minute a public discussion invokes racial epithets is when the eyes of every bystander's eyes darken.

As extensive as San Franciscan acceptance is, the rules of humanism follow right along. Humanism is, after all, a moral tradition at least as venerable as Christianity, predating it by a fair margin. There is no slippery slope here. For example, orgies do happen in San Francisco. They're not commonplace but everyone knows someone who's been to an orgy. However, there is none of the Bacchanalian destructive abandon associated with Roman orgies. Real San Franciscan orgies, by every account I have heard so far, are extremely structured environments. That everyone be safe and comfortable is of primary importance. The implicit assumption is that such a thing is not worth doing if it causes harm. San Franciscan morality is outlined in black and white, just along different lines than conservative Christian morality.

San Francisco's combination of hedonism and moralism is also embodied by the kink community. The Society of Janus describes itself on its website thusly: "SOJ is a not-for-profit, all volunteer, San Francisco-based education and support organization devoted to the art of safe, consensual and non-exploitative BDSM." The society's mission is to teach people about BDSM, to share what they enjoy and likely have enjoyed for a long time. My experience reading dating profiles of people so inclined reinforces the impression that people in the kink community treat BDSM with strict sobriety and a careful eye for ethical pitfalls. Bestiality (which conservatives are so fond of mentioning in the same breath as homosexuality) is not remotely ethical, because an animal cannot give consent.

The BDSM community is only a small part of the city, but that emphasis on ethical behavior characterizes San Franciscans more broadly. Since I have moved here, many things that I have done thoughtlessly have been questioned by people around me, and discussed reasonably. The extreme moral conscientiousness of this city is remarkable, and the only people I've met of comparable moral conscientiousness are truly devout Christians. The difference is that instead of citing verses to explain why doing a given thing is wrong, San Franciscans will tell you exactly how it hurts people (or animals). Frankly, I find the moral intensity of both church groups and San Franciscans to sometimes be oppressive, but I appreciate the commitment.

San Franciscans are very familiar with how difficult it is to come out of the closet as gay. Every gay person has to deal with a feeling of non-acceptance from society at large, even those who were born and raised by accepting parents in the city itself. Being gay is far more difficult and alienating if someone comes from a conservative Christian family. Gay sons or daughters coming out of the closet to a conservative family risk disownment, but the reality for most gays is more subtle. There will be a certain distance created by the revelation and a certain sustained discomfort for both parties, because neither side can truly accept the other's viewpoint without giving up their own. Religious families are inclined to attempt to persuade their wayward sheep away from "the gay lifestyle". Even if a family resists this impulse, a certain level of frustration is an inevitable product of the rub between religious convictions and gay realities. It is a softer estrangement, but it still leaves lingering damage, damage that any gay person can tell you about (if they're comfortable doing so). Gays who grew up with strong religious convictions are forced into a crisis of faith, as they try to reconcile the teachings etched into them with their own nature, and must grapple with religiously-derived guilt. Gays, and San Franciscans more broadly, see firsthand the damage that religion can and does cause. This damage piques our San Franciscan sense of morality. When it comes to gays versus conservative Christianity, there is no question with which side this morality sides.

I think there's an unvoiced sentiment among conservative Christians that true love can only exist in a heterosexual relationship, or that romantic love in a heterosexual relationship is somehow different from romantic love in a gay relationship. We here in Frisky City know differently from experience. Of course, it's not rocket science. For every vocally happy recovering gay who has returned to the fold, there are a million vocally happy practicing gays. San Franciscans know that decisions have consequences, and further they know what decisions have what consequences, because they've tried out the options in true rational humanist fashion. We know that the only way for a gay person to find true romantic love is in a gay relationship, and that finding such love is among the most gratifying and fulfilling things in life. From the perspective of humanism, the truly immoral thing is trying to dissuade people from finding that love.

San Franciscans also know quite well what innocent fun is. This brings me, finally, to Hunky Jesus. The Hunky Jesus Competition, put on by the in-drag charity organization Nuns of Perpetual Indulgence, is innocent fun. The competition may be irreverent, but in San Francisco this is an integral part of its moral appeal. There is a need, particularly in gay San Francisco, to dance on Jesus' grave a little bit, to poke fun, to make light of the force of conservative Christianity, clearly discernible despite the distance (media carries it to us), that presses in on our little bastion of humanism with at best disapproval and at worst unabashed hostility.

That irreverence is entirely harmless unless, say, some idiot would deliberately troll and upset his conservative Catholic uncle by sending him an article about the event. Like I said, I'm not entirely in agreement with San Francisco's intense moralism, but I think I at least understand it. I hope you understand it better now too. San Francisco is a very different world from middle America, but despite both regions' best intentions, they are still one America.

If you visit me on a sunny weekend, I will suggest we get brunch in the Castro and order mimosas and eggs benedict. We can watch people go by, living their lives gaily. I promise you will enjoy it.

On Prop 37 and Genetic Modification

This is probably the California proposition I've heard talked about most, and it happens to be the one I care about the most. Prop 37, if effective in convincing agribusiness to abandon GM crops, would be expensive, but I'm more concerned about the expense of the lawsuit wars it would open up and the complete lack of impact it's likely to have on anything and everything.

Since the idea of Prop 37 is to give consumers choice, let's investigate that. First of all, the idea of labeling is to provide information, but it turns out to be information we already have. Essentially all conventional cotton, canola, corn and soybean products will be at least partially derived (and typically mostly derived) from GM crops. After that, sugar beets, squash and papaya are the only remaining crops for which commercial GM crops can be found. No genetically modified animals have been approved by the FDA. So, not a whole lot of uncertainty to be resolving there. Second of all, those opposed to or afraid of GMOs who want products containing one of these seven crops can buy organic or foods labelled GMO-free.

With this in mind, it's really very difficult to interpret Prop 37 as anything but a referendum on genetic modification itself. Unfortunately, the public understanding of genetic modification is rife with misinformation. There are a number of myths about genetically modified crops that I'd like to dispell (I'd like to credit NPR for some of the material here):

"Everything is GMO these days" and "We don't know what's GMO and what's not"
Like I said-- there isn't much mystery about what is or isn't genetically modified and only seven crops are even potentially GMO-- every tomato you can find in a store, no matter how anemically pinkish and tasteless, is GMO-free.

"Monsanto will sue you for growing their patented GMOs if traces of those GMOs entered your fields through wind-blown pollen"
This has more to do with Monsanto than GMOs, really, but this is a myth. The full explanation can be found on the previously-mentioned NPR article.

"GMO crops give people allergic reactions"
Genetic modification that may introduce allergens into crops is something the FDA specifically prohibits, looks out for and makes sure doesn't happen.

"Seeds from GMOs are sterile"
Way back in 1998, there was a big controversy when Monsanto suggested making GMOs with "terminator genes", which would make crops that could otherwise be replanted act instead like hybrid seedless watermelon seeds-- farmers would have to keep coming back to get their fix. The public outcry over this was enormous and Monsanto quickly shelved the idea, never to revisit it.

"GMO crops have animal genes in them"
Like the terminator gene, this was something people became very worried about in the late nineties. There was some conception of genetic modification creating half-animal frankenplants-- a silly fear that grossly overestimates our ability to change the genetic make-up of organisms. Nonetheless, US law prohibits inserting animal genes into crops.

"GMO crops are poorly understood"
This last one I'm going to take some time with.

The testing required for FDA approval of a new GMO is very expensive-- to the tune of 50+ million dollars. This is the reason that only a handful of crop varieties are genetically modified-- most vegetables don't have enough market share to justify such an expense (squash and papaya with virus resistance genes inserted were licensed before FDA approval became so expensive). Part of the testing is knowing exactly where the inserted gene is (transgene is the word used in science). There is also thorough testing of the gene product, or the protein that the gene codes for, to ensure that it is safe for human consumption. So, for every commercial GMO, we know exactly where the transgene is, what protein it codes for and we have extensively tested the protein for safety. To quote this article, "every major scientific authority on the subject – from the American Medical Association to the National Academies of Science to the American Dietetic Association to the World Health Organization – has confirmed the safety of eating currently approved foods made with biotechnology."

Genetic modification has been used in science since the early 70's, and for the last two decades transgenic organisms have been one of the most important tools used by scientists to learn about cell biology. I've personally genetically modified E. coli and I've worked with many strains of transgenic C. elegans. Those who understand the science of genetic modification and have personally worked with genetically modified organisms overwhelmingly support genetic modification as a technology to improve agricultural crops' productivity, nutritional content, disease resistance, environmental tolerance, etc., not to mention non-agricultural uses like making insulin and other drugs. Indeed, a number of Nobel Prize-winning scientists have come out against Prop 37.

At the end of the day, whether or not Prop 37 passes, I hope its existence on the ballot encourages conversation about genetically modified crops and that the public comes to a clearer understanding of what genetically modified food is, because there is a lot of misplaced fear. With a little knowledge, consumers can avoid GM food if they want, but GM food is unequivocally safe and therefore does not merit labeling. More importantly, Prop 37 is just a poorly-written proposition, written by and for regulation litigators (to whom it would create additional business) and organic grocery stores (who have an ideological axe to grind). It is opposed by scientists, farmers, food companies and the majority of California newspapers.

How to Vote Like a Christian

Voting morally is an essential duty of every true Christian. If your church's congress or Pope or local Priest/Minister make suggestions it's easy, but if they don't provide sufficiently extensive guidance or if you want to figure out for yourself how to best carry out God's will, you may find yourself in a quandary.

For all the lip service that is lent to the Ten Commandments being the foundation of good law and for all the tablets and inscriptions of those commandments in American houses of law, you may be shocked to learn that only two of the commandments are written into law: thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not kill. Considering that America is an overwhelmingly Christian nation, it seems puzzling that we enforce only the two commandments that every nation on earth, Christian and heathen alike, enforce.

There are a few famous examples of Christian-run governments that attempted to enforce God's law to a more thorough extent, but unfortunately they were infamously harsh and/or authoritarian (Geneva circa the Reformation comes to mind). Let us dispense with past mistakes and begin anew.

Unfortunately, modern American law only partially encourages observance of God's commandment "thou shalt not kill". We should do everything in our power to make abortion illegal once again, but that's just the beginning of voting according to God's law.

Just as Jesus stayed an entire crowd's hands by saying "He who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her", so too should we depart from the institution of capital punishment, as the blood of those criminals is on all of our hands, as voters.

We should also vote against unnecessary warfare. It is one thing to protect ourselves from a genuine invasion and quite another to bomb vast countrysides on the other side of the world, killing tens of thousands of innocents, for some theoretical insulation from a repeat of 9/11, which killed a relatively paltry two thousand. This sort of violence is appalling and decidedly unChristian.

As taxpayers are currently footing the bill for the massive killing machine that is our military and this military facilitates an aggressive attitude toward international politics, we should also downsize our military to one reflective of an attitude of self-defense, not of aggressive enforcement of worldwide dominance. This will also promote a greater sense of humility across our nation. Our international actions this past decade have frequently been grounded in pride, selfish fear and an insufficient love of our neighbors. Downsizing our military budget by an order of magnitude would go a long way towards stifling those American sins.

Sodomy and all manner of sexual perversions should of course be prohibited. Until these things can be outlawed, nothing resembling acceptance or tolerance of such behavior should ever be passed into law. This behavior is never okay and we as Christians should make this holy truth clear with our votes.

Even more important for protecting our country's social fabric, though, is preventing divorce and sex before marriage-- the two biggest contributors to social fragmentation and destruction of the family unit. The legalization of "no fault" divorce across states in the early 1970's had an appalling affect on the social fabric of America. One of the most important steps to bringing that fabric back together is going to be reversing that legislation and forcing married couples to work things out.

The problem of sex before marriage is a more difficult snarl to untangle. Abstinence-only sex education has done little or nothing to stem the rising tide of babies born out of wedlock. There is a deeper root cause at work here: young people are waiting until very late in their lives to marry and have children intentionally, and they are succumbing to temptation in the meantime. This is a result of a shifting economy, but Mormons have demonstrated that marrying early and having children within wedlock is feasible. Mormons consequently have a much lower rate of out-of-wedlock births. We should start by prohibiting sex before marriage and then institute a program to encourage marrying early, perhaps just out of high school as was typical in the 1950's.

An important topic of the Lord's teachings that we also need to take into consideration at the voting booth is that of poverty and wealth. Jesus said "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." He also suggested to his apostles, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." Between these two quotes I think we have a clear God-given mandate for how to structure our government's tax and entitlement systems.

First of all, American government should take money from the rich until they are no longer rich, and in so doing save their souls. We should then take this wealth and distribute it to the poor and save America's soul. It is very simple and it is very much in keeping with the gospel. The fact that America, as the most God-fearing of first world countries, does the least redistribution of wealth in this most moral of directions quite frankly boggles my mind.

These are the first and foremost things we need to vote for to save our souls and the soul of our nation. There are many further things we could do, such as formally recognizing America as a Christian nation and enforcing all ten of the commandments, but those must wait until America is ready for our holy vision. Baby steps, my fellow Christians, baby steps.

For those of you who enjoyed this dose of common sense, I recommend checking out my friend Rob's Reasonable Person's Guide to the Bible.

Gay Marriage Part 2: After Reason

I have tried approaching this topic reasonably. I attempted to craft a logical, facts-based argument in favor of gay marriage. The impact was unfortunately negligible. My mistake was in treating gay marriage as an issue for which reason plays any role. Living in San Francisco has also changed my attitude towards the issue. I had spent a lot of energy trying to understand the conservative viewpoint, but it turned out I didn't adequately understand the liberal viewpoint. The following is an adapted version of a letter I wrote to my uncle. Pierre, I apologize for singling you out when you are no more guilty than anyone on your side, you were just the catalyst.

I know it's surprising and potentially upsetting to think that so many Catholics are ignoring the Pope, but excluding Hispanics from the statistics in the article wasn't actually that disingenuous. The second article I sent says, "For all the opposition by leaders in the Catholic Church, their flock isn’t following. 'Nearly six-in-ten white non-Hispanic Catholics (59%) favor allowing gays and lesbians to marry,' Pew reports, 'as do 57% of Hispanic Catholics.' This shouldn’t come as too surprising. Catholics have been leading the way on same-sex marriage for some time now."

I agree that the emphasis on white Catholics of the first article raises an eyebrow, but at a 2% difference it's hardly something to get up in arms about. Considering that both Hispanic Catholics and non-Hispanic Catholics are roughly 10% more in favor than the national average of 48% from the same report, it doesn't seem far-fetched to generalize that Catholics as a group are a major demographic leading the charge on gay marriage.

As to the question of whether or not these are "real" Catholics, the pollsters do their best, but it would be much more difficult/expensive to parse an additional variable for cross-control (ie. churchgoing rates of respondents). By the flip side of the coin, are you really so interested in disowning the vast majority of those who call themselves Catholic? "You're not a real Catholic unless you single-issue-vote for theocracy, have had sex the same number of times you've had children and flagellate yourself every morning before coffee."

The argument that legalizing gay marriage represents a slippery slope or opens a Pandora's box is absurd. California or New York would sooner pass Jim Crow laws than legalize first cousins marrying (both are cut from the same Southern cloth, in our minds). There is no other "rights" group looking for an expansion of marriage law with even a trace of the sincerity, fervor or political legitimacy of the gay rights movement.

Based on your own very technical definition of "deviant", I will disagree that gay marriage is "merely an attempt to make themselves non-deviant." By your definition, they will never be "non-deviant", but they can be treated like first-class citizens and granted rights that cost the rest of us nothing. Gays are looking for their (theoretically secular) government to acknowledge that they exist in the most sensible legal way available. Don't tell me extensive legal documents or civil unions are the same thing. They are clumsy workarounds to a glaring hole in contemporary law. The hole is one generated by a social reality that's at least 40 years old: gay people act remarkably like heterosexual people. They find someone they want to spend their lives with, they own houses together, they adopt children, etcetera. The elegant solution staring us in the face is legal marriage-- but that's not the argument to endorse it. The real argument to endorse it is that to willfully ignore and actively lobby against that elegant solution is insulting. You're telling people, "fuck you, this may be a secular government, but it's a democracy and you will play your charade of open, legally-recognized homosexuality over my dead body and every other REAL christian this country can muster."

Do you have any idea how ugly your side is? Do you have any idea how many people hate Middle America, the Pope, Jesus because of people like you? I have heard so many people in this city speak fervently about how ugly religion is and, coming from my background, I didn't understand at first. Living here for awhile you realize that nobody cares if a person gay. People don't play guessing games, they don't gawk, they don't ask, they just don't care. That is true non-judgement, not the silly mainline christian charade of "hate the sin, love the sinner". Do you have any idea how liberating, how utopian that feels, even to someone who isn't gay? It becomes very easy to understand why people here think of Middle America as a hell pit of judgement and scorn. I've seen it from both sides and I know your heart is in the right place, but I understand people here when they wrinkle their nose at the idea of living in Louisiana-- too much racism and religious zealots and judgement, they say-- and it's true! Isn't judgement for the afterlife? When did Jesus say that good people should tell other people how to live with their words and, when that becomes socially uncouth, with their votes? Y'know, I don't even care what Jesus said, because that wouldn't make it less ugly.

Blackout for SOPA and PIPA

Well, I can't figure out how to blackout this blog, but I will have you know that I stand in solidarity with Wikipedia, Google, Facebook, Reddit, Yahoo, Twitter, Ebay, AOL, LinkedIn, Mozilla, a whole host of other websites and a legion of regular citizens against SOPA and PIPA. If you don't know, these are bills in Congress that go up for a vote in the coming days. They are nothing less than an all-out assault against a free and open Internet. I encourage all of you to contact your representatives today about this bill. Wikipedia will help you.

Here is what Wikipedia looked like at the time this post was published.

For a thorough but readable analysis of these two bills, see Reddit's blog.

It wasn't until I tried to contact my Representative that I discovered who my Representative is. Can you guess? It's fucking Nancy Pelosi!UPDATE: SOPA was shelved after the overwhelming response elicited by the blackout protest. PIPA is undergoing revision. A new version of anti-piracy legislation is expected to return to the floor sometime in February. As Wikipedia states in its banner, "we're not done yet".

Change is Happening

This is an exciting time to be a citizen of the world right now, but it's also an abjectly terrifying time. If you, like me, have largely slept the slumber of apathy for most of the last decade, now is the time to awaken. Important things are happening across the world and here at home. This is the most formative moment in world and national history since the fall of Communism in 1989 or the protests of 1967. At stake is no less than the new world order. If you've ever wanted to change the world, now is your window of opportunity to do so. Change is happening faster than I ever thought possible.

In the last year, three Arab countries have overthrown their government to set up democracies. The European Union is skirting the precipice of either economic collapse or essentially making the equivalent leap that the United States made from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution. Six Tibetan monks have immolated themselves in protest against brutal Chinese rule. In December Hillary Clinton will be the first Secretary of State to visit Burma in over fifty years. USA-Pakistan relations have nearly completely deteriorated. The USA will be stationing military presence in Australia to counter expanding Chinese ambitions. Mexican protesters are calling for an end to the war on drugs. WikiLeaks and Julian Assange have been brought to their knees. Activity from Anonymous has exploded. Scores of repressive regimes are making concessions like allowing free elections and rolling back censorship. Scores of countries (including some of the same ones liberalizing) stand on the precipice of civil war. Occupy- and Indignants-inspired protests have spread to 951 cities and 82 countries.

In more local news, Congress has been locked in political gridlock for the last year, apparently completely incapable of changing the budget from a course of economic stagnation and extraordinary debt. Occupy Wall Street is fighting for a complete reevaluation of the structure of American democracy. A bill is going through Congress with evidently enthusiastic bipartisan support that will fundamentally change the relationship between government and internet, allowing the government to block entire websites and making it a felony to stream or view copyrighted material --like listening to a song or watching a clip of a TV show on YouTube. Another bill going though Congress seeks to define America as a warzone and thereby authorize the military to arrest American citizens on American soil and hold them captive indefinitely without trial, making it the natural successor to the PATRIOT Act and step two on the road to authoritarianism.

At stake is freedom, justice and the financial future of the world. Become aware. Raise your voice. Take action. Utilize the enormous mobilizing potential of the Internet. Don't forget to think. Terrible things are about to happen. Amazing things are about to happen. The world stands on the tip of a double-edged sword. Don't forget to think, but by all that is holy, participate!

Oh The Humanity: Regarding Foie Gras

I saw this banner on Facebook:

"Humane Foie Gras?

aldf.org

If you have purchased Foie Gras, believing it was humanely raised, we want to hear from you. Contact the Animal Legal Defense Fund."

I figured it merited a reply.
Dear Animal Legal Defense Fund,
I have bought Foie Gras with the knowledge that the poultry I am eating represents some of the most humanely raised meat available for purchase in the United States. I have seen the videos of geese eagerly lining up for their feeding and the idyllic living circumstances of high dollar French foie gras geese. These birds are not suffering. To assert that they are suffering amidst a backdrop of the breathtakingly inhumane treatment of the average American chicken is so absurd as to be motivationally suspect. Does any of your funding come from the poultry industry?

Sincerely,
Max


Dear Mr. Vidrine,
Thank you for your email. I appreciate your interest in animal welfare. I would be very interested in speaking with you further about this issue. Would you be available to speak by phone in the next week, and if so, when would be a good time?

Meanwhile, I will explain briefly Animal Legal Defense Fund’s position on foie gras:

While the video featuring Mr. Bourdain suggests that the conditions in force-fed foie gras farming are humane, it appears that it shows only the early stages of the force-feeding process. Our research has shown that ducks in the mid and late stages suffer serious health consequences as a result of the high-calorie, nutritionally deficient diet they are fed. Aside from the risk of injury to the esophagus from repeated insertion of the feeding tube, ducks develop lameness, bone and skin disorders, respiratory problems, and an inability to groom properly as a result of obesity. Some ducks, unable to walk, attempt to push themselves around their pens with their wings, causing themselves injury. In some cases the excess food leads to aspiration pneumonia. Many ducks develop painful foot infections due to the combination of their increased weight and the wire-mesh flooring of their pens. Finally, the accumulation of fat in the liver interferes with liver function. Many ducks slaughtered for foie gras would otherwise die of liver failure or other conditions brought on by the force-feeding. Based on this information, we do not believe that this production is humane.

You can find more information in an EU study of foie gras production and in a report by the Humane Society of the United States.

Although it is true that some ducks naturally gorge in preparation for migration, the amount of food that is force-fed to ducks in foie gras operations is well beyond what a duck would normally ingest, even while gorging.

Finally, I assure you that Animal Legal Defense Fund does not accept funding from any industry that exploits animals. We are fully in agreement with you that the treatment of chickens in factory farms is unacceptable and inhumane. Addressing those conditions is one of our aims as an organization. The attention we give to foie gras is in no way meant to express an endorsement of other forms of factory farming.

Sincerely,
Michelle Lee


Dear Ms. Lee
After perusing the literature you linked, it seems clear that foie gras production has been subject to considerable rationalization in the last 20-30 years and that it is no longer as uniformly idyllic as my father and Anthony Bourdain would present it.

That said, most of the health consequences you mentioned refer back to the ducks/geese being made extremely fat. I'm afraid I do not find the existence of such health problems troubling. This is because of two things, the first being that fatness is the point of force feeding and the second being that these animals only live in such an extremely fat state for a relatively short period of time before they go to slaughter.

Frankly, as a foodie, being indulged to the brink of death doesn't sound so bad. Furthermore, however rationalized most foie gras production now is, the fact remains that the poultry involved are substantially better off than mainline poultry on factory farms. Also important is the fact that foie gras ducks/geese represent a tiny, delicious minority of all poultry produced and consumed.

Now apart from the humane-ness or inhumane-ness, I dislike foie gras restriction as a political issue. It sits, along with curtailing deer hunting (deer are overpopulating throughout the US without natural predation from wolves), as one of the most misguided routes attempted in the name of animal rights. Don't get me wrong, I understand why it is brought up as an issue: it is both moralist and populist without actually affecting the welfare of poultry in any significant way. It makes activists feel like they are accomplishing something without incurring the wrath of business-conscious conservatives. Imported luxury goods are always an easy political target to raise a rabble with.

Unfortunately, this does nothing to address the very real problem of inhumane living conditions for chickens and other factory-farmed poultry. It wastes political capital on eliminating one of the handful of reasonably ethical segments of the poultry industry. It discourages people like me who eat meat, but would like to see meat not produced in a living poultry hell. It is a slap in the face to gourmets (who, generally speaking, do care about how their food is treated). It discredits animal rights as a movement by giving emphasis to its bleeding heart, little picture, meat-is-murder contingent.

I'm glad your organization receives no money from the poultry industry, but I hope you understand my distaste for foie gras as an animal rights issue. Thank you for bringing me to a better understanding of how foie gras is actually produced.

Regards,
Max Vidrine

Between you and me, I lied about having bought foie gras. I've only eaten it, but now I'm super hungry for some. If only I weren't so poor...

Legalizing Pot

I thought this day would never come. Well, I at least thought it would take another ten or twenty years before a measure to legalize recreational marijuana would be seriously considered by an American constituency. I was wrong. California's Proposition 19, that will legalize recreational pot use, is just barely behind in the polls.

This is spectacularly cool for a number of reasons, the foremost being the realization of a truer liberty in America. I've long thought that our founding fathers must be rolling in their graves to know that an essentially harmless drug like marijuana would be made formally illegal. If Ben Franklin were alive today I'm sure he'd be a fan of pot.

I will grant that marijuana is not entirely harmless. Like caffeine, THC can stunt childrens' growth, like alcohol it lowers inhibitions and though there is no indication that extensive abuse causes brain damage the way alcohol does, residual THC (aka permastone) can dampen brain function for a month or two, though only noticeably so if epic quantities of pot are involved. I think every informed person will grant that the social risks of marijuana use are vastly overshadowed by alcohol and the health risks are overshadowed by tobacco.

I think it's fairly obvious that the decrease in price and increase in availability of pot will result in an increase in its consumption. I'd like you to pause for a moment and consider whether that's a bad thing. Prop 19 opponents will point out that many people have abuse problems with the drugs we already have legal, so why should we allow consumption of yet another drug? The answer is that while alcohol and prescription drugs do cause problems, there is an overwhelming good that comes from their being legal. I know I've enjoyed the benefits of responsible alcohol use.

THC is a non-habit forming drug, in contrast to nicotine, caffeine and, yes, alcohol. That means that consumers must repeatedly make the conscious, non-coerced choice to continue smoking pot. It is a drug consumed more voluntarily than any major legal recreational drug, to say nothing of hard drugs like meth, cocaine and heroin. Honestly, if not for the deference of American common law to consensus --that is, approaching this from a purely constitutional perspective-- marijuana use has far better grounds as a individual right than alcohol or tobacco.

There is some concern that legalizing pot would increase availability of the drug to minors. If Prohibition was any indication, though, bringing pot consumption above ground will make it easier to control who the drug is made available to. Right now minors have better access to pot than cigarettes or alcohol.

One figure I heard estimated the annual value of the Californian pot crop at twelve billion dollars. That's roughly three times the value of every other field crop in the state combined. That crop's value will diminish considerably if Proposition 19 passes. A modest chunk (1.5 billion) will go into taxes. Based on a projected 80% decrease in marijuana prices, that only leaves about one billion for the pot growing industry. Granted, these figures assume no increase in consumption, but these figures project a collapse in industry value by a factor of ten.

Of the original 12 billion, 1.5 billion will go to taxes and around a billion will go to run the industry. The remaining nine billion will be stolen back from the black market economy. Mexican drug cartels make a majority of their income from marijuana trafficking, so we can be sure that a significant amount of money will no longer be making it southward or indeed into organized crime across the state. Further, the profit margins that growers, distributors and dealers once made will disappear in the blink of an eye. Without the risk of incarceration those jobs will no longer pay unreasonably well. It is worth mentioning that Kush Magazine, everybody's "premier cannabis lifestyle magazine" had an ad in it opposing Prop 19, paid for by a medical marijuana dispensary. Middle school dope peddlers and Mexican drug lords won't be the only people suffering if Prop 19 is passed, let's not forget California's newest capitalists.

Voting for Proposition 19 is the correct choice from both a practical standpoint (improving government finance at the expense of cartels) and a civil liberties one. Legalizing a relatively harmless recreational drug like marijuana is fundamentally American and would make California a beacon of liberty. It would also probably set up a Supreme Court battle worth talking about.

Though September polls showed Prop 19 leading in September, it has slipped since then. Arnold Schwarzenegger is preparing a consolation prize should the Proposition fail-- decriminalization. A fairly even vote will also get people thinking about the ins and outs of legalization. There's a decent chance that a loss now will set up a victory later. That said, don't plan on losing this quite yet. The vote is still close and a recent study showed that Prop 19 polls are subject to a strong social desirability bias.

Rambling About Economics

The following exchange refers to an engaging article entitled "Full Employment" which can be found at:
http://nplusonemag.com/full-employment

Hi uncle Jacques,

Did you ever read that article? I promise I'm not trying to ambush you with a liberal tirade. Excepting the rather abrupt thesis at the end (which I disown), it's not propaganda at all, just a thoughtful dissection of economics and economic theory.

Dear Max,

Yes, I did read Mr. Kunkel's interesting but meandering article concerning the concept of 'full employment'.

I thought that his overall knowledge of various economic theories and his ability to interrelate widely variant postulations were quite impressive.

As I am sure you noticed, however, he completely disregards the deleterious effects of governmental interference into what many people still believe is a 'free' enterprise system. That's like attempting to calculate E=mc2 while assigning "c" a value of zero!

I will grant that Mr. Kunkel did briefly complain about the recent pitiful attempts by Congress to encourage hiring via tax credits to business, and he certainly was not impressed with ARRA, the preposterous so-called "Stimulus Bill" that achieved absolutely nothing but to pay off many of Obama's political cronies and fawning unions. But that doesn't deter him from his unwavering belief that the ultimate solution to the employment problem still lies in governmental action, . . . . he just believes that it should be handled "correctly", i.e., in the manner that he believes it should be implemented. (This is evidenced by his admiration for the WPA's public projects in the late 1930's.) Obviously he completely disregards the deleterious net effect that this outrageous outlay of public funds had on this country's economy, and how current economists almost unanimously agree that about all that those programs accomplished was to unnaturally prolong the Great Depression.

Apparently the idea never occurs to Mr. Kunkel that interference by the government and its ham-handed fetters on the free enterprise capitalistic system could possibly always have a detrimental effect. Wow! Now that's a novel concept!

So, yes, I agree with you . . . the article was quite interesting and very thought provoking. I also agree with you that Mr. Kunkel's proposed remedy is dead wrong. He concludes with a pipedream, a crevasse into which many an idealistic ultra-liberal almost inevitably falls.

Dear Uncle Jacques,

I'm glad you found it interesting. What I took away from the article was an explanation of the world economy and its likely direction. His ideas fit in with some wordless thoughts of my own, which is maybe why I got so excited about it (the transient nature of our grasp on power, the fact that economic equilibrium will come with the rising of boats across the world rather than the downfall of the American standard of living barring peak oil, etc.).

I repeat that I did not mean to goad you about politics. However, it appears that willingly or not you were goaded just a bit. Frankly, I'm a little amused by your complaint which I mentally reduced to (I hope you don't mind) "this article all looks very interesting but the author conspicuously didn't shill for the foundational doctrine of my political ideology!"

If he could have said something interesting about a topic which has been so beaten to death, I would have been eager to hear it. The fact that he couldn't, however, is completely unsurprising. Like a typical theorist, it seems that when he encountered a subject so entirely dull he decided to ignore it completely, invoking the almighty implicit black box.

I say dull because it is so incredibly hard to quantify the benefits or costs of the inefficiency of bureaucracy, particularly when so many people (in error, I think) are so quick to cite as a benefit the fact that it "creates jobs". Frankly, the ambiguity of the proposed "answers" to that query has been a major factor in my gradual drift towards the right of American politics, or at least the middle.

The problem with the left is that they assume programs come with a tolerable level of inefficiency. The right, in turn, assumes zero benefits, such that any calculation of the inefficiency yields the conclusion that it is at an unacceptable level. I'll explain why I believe that there is in fact an optimal level of government regulation and spending, not that I propose to know what that level is.

The derivation is similar to that of the Laffer Curve (a theory which I've since grown fond of like a pet zombie). Zero government regulation and spending on social programs doesn't make sense. Massive control and spending on social programs (a la USSR) doesn't make sense either. Never mind the human rights implications, government cannot possibly be efficiently applied to managing the details of people's lives, nor is it possible that the unique position of government cannot be applied effectively to certain circumstances where a "blunt instrument" works, like the post office until the advent of email, food labeling, interstate freeways and public education.

Ultimately, I've settled on a case-by-case basis, which is problematic for different reasons. How can you know whether or not a given program will be effective without extraordinary knowledge of policy-making or extraordinary trust in someone with extraordinary knowledge of policy-making and so forth? Unfortunately, that is where my line of reasoning has come to rest.

You and my dad seem to think that even a layperson can gain extraordinary knowledge of policy-making, but I'm not so convinced. I prefer the latter solution, the one built on trust, because I have no illusions about my limitations for becoming an expert in everything (and this coming from someone who is considerably closer to achieving that than the average person).

And yes, his conclusion was a pipedream. I'm afraid that doesn't excite me the way it does you.

Cheers
Max

On Vegetarianism

I should warn you that I am a cold-hearted bastard and I would like to remove sentiment from all but my most personal interactions. The following was originally written as a response to Rob's post Tony the Tofurkey.


I am among those who asks each vegetarian I meet why they are vegetarian. There are many reasons, and some are more justifiable than others. It allows insight into the minds of people in addition to being fun to discuss.

It's true that most people couldn't kill a chicken set before them. I could do it, but I'd have a hard time. After all, I've never done it before and I've had chickens as pets. I interpret this reluctance as weakness, as disconnection from our roots. In times when food was less abundant, people had no moral quandaries about killing for food. Evolution and culture discouraged cannibalism but they couldn't deny the practicality of a nutrition-rich food source like animal flesh. I can't either and I have the additional concerns of cuisine. Chicken is delicious.

The apparent hypocrisy of a woman eating a hamburger with her precious dog in her lap troubled me for a time, but I've realized that the worth of anything is determined by our emotional attachment. I don't care much about far off murders or grandmas dying of cancer. I care about my grandma and my people. That other grandma is a statistic to me, as are far off murders. Those deaths represent tremendous loss to someone, but when diluted by perspective, how could I care? That's not my job. I will deal with my tragedies as they come and I will help those I know or meet with their tragedies.

That is to say the dog in her lap is worth more than enough to her to justify her protectiveness. Neither human life nor animal life has any intrinsic worth. It should be unsurprising that from a singular perspective different lives should merit different worth. The chicken on the farm is worth more dead than alive and thus we kill it, or pay for it to be killed.

I know I and everyone else is perfectly capable of slaughtering a nameless animal. Our grandparents were certainly capable, and I can find no fault in their actions. We just don't have opportunity or incentive to. I don't mind other people doing my dirty work for me, because I don't think it's "dirty work" in the pejorative sense. I will jump at the opportunity to kill an animal for food, with the greater motivation being intellectual curiosity and the second motivation being a desire to overcome my own resistance to what I am already comfortable with in theory.

Regarding the trophic level issue, first of all, chickens require 3 pounds of grain for one pound of meat or egg. That can be lower grade grain that we would not eat, which explains the fact that grain at the store can cost as much as chicken per pound. Furthermore, man can not subsist on bread alone, as we well know. Do you sincerely think that the hoops vegans jump through to meet their nutritional requirements are free? Do you still think it inefficient to eat some chicken with your rice? Furthermore, I thought it was widely known that human starvation is a problem of distribution and overpopulation, not supply. The food you don't eat will not magically find it's way to that starving child's hands.

On Media

This post is not inspired by the death of Walter Cronkite. In fact, he can be only viewed as the catalyst of this post in the most roundabout of ways. I've been planning on writing this for a long while, and the last person I planned on mentioning was the iconic anchorman of someone else's generation. I am, after all, generationally-minded, and this is a commentary on the media of my generation, not my parents'. However, it would not have been without Walter Cronkite's death that Jon Stewart would be named America's Most Trusted Newscaster, and if that isn't a headline worthy to catalyze this post, I don't know what is.

When I started high school, I started to read the Los Angeles Times. I read the front page and the funnies practically every day for those four years. I'd delve deeper into the paper as time permitted and every week I read the Food section. The Times was one of my great high school loves.

With a firm understanding of political events gleaned from the paper, I started to watch the Daily Show my senior year. It inspired me to pay attention to mainstream TV News when my parents watched it. I finally had an explanation for why public discourse was so stilted and myopic. I realized that the events told in the Times were only half of the story, how events were extruded through televisions into people's brains was an incredibly important component to understanding public opinion. You see, most people's only source of news comes from the major TV News networks.

Never mind the "rich people control the world through media" bullshit, TV News is just not very informative. I never really watched it because it was boring. It took five or ten minutes for the TV to tell me what I could have gleaned in thirty seconds from skimming a news article. During "breaking news", a similar quantity of information is conveyed over the course of a few hours. Worst of all, the feedback between giving the people what they want and people wanting what they know produces what's known as the news cycle. And of course like a sorority house, all the networks' cycles sync up so that every channel provides a practically identical set of stories.

This willingness to follow results in a hulking mass of media might that answers to the whims of chance or whoever is smart enough to lead it around, and this kind of media tends to amplify the public's natural fickleness and retard their critical thinking. The truth is that mainstream media does not appreciably help the left nor the right. Rather, it changes the rules by which they play. If a trumped up scandal can be dropped on one's opponent at the opportune time, such that that is all anybody's talking about on election day, plus ten points for you!

Thus, it came to pass that I blamed the media more than the Bush administration for the invasion of Iraq. I watched coverage of Hurricane Katrina with disgust. I found the overplayed empathy obnoxious. Anderson Cooper should try harder to be an anchorman, not a saint.

When it comes down to it, it's the show that once followed profane puppets that tells it like it is and challenges both the people they report on and the populace they serve to think. It's not surprising that the Daily Show's preeminence is not obvious to everyone. The show's reliance on the world to provide material means that it is inconsistent and there's always plenty of low brow humor, but damn, when John Stewart went on Crossfire, I was starry-eyed with admiration. The man single-handedly had a show cancelled, but it wasn't his power that impressed me, it was his unabashed intellegence and his willingness to call a spade a spade on the rare occasion it's necessary. It was the same qualities that make him a such an amazing interviewer. I won't pretend like all of his interviews are riveting, but at their best they are the most intelligent conversations on television.

On a more somber note, my first media love is dying. The LA Times is smaller every time I go back home. I hear the quality has suffered too. When I left for school, I planned to read the Christian Science Monitor online in lieu of the Times. It's a well-written, relatively unbiased (certainly more neutral than the Times) and most importantly free online newspaper for those of you raising eyebrows at the name. Unfortunately, school was distracting and reading online just wasn't the same. I mean it's great if you want to google current events for something specific, but to get a good, reputable overview is a little trickier. Maybe I'm being picky or maybe the CS Monitor just isn't as good, but I think I'd read the news more if the Los Angeles Times was delivered to my door, skinny or not.

I think what will really happen is that smaller papers will stop printing altogether and having the paper delivered to your doorstep will become a luxury. I don't think the fee vs advertising business model question has been settled, but I and my age bracket certainly prefer advertising, so I hope time will see that win out.

Amateur blogs like this aren't a good source of news, but they're a nice digestion point, and some blogs like the Davis Vanguard are going professional and competing with established newspapers for quality reporting. I think a little turnover will be beneficial to everyone except some mediocre newspapers.

On Partisan Differences

This is an edited version of a comment I made regarding my friend Kern's blog post comparing liberal and conservative ideologies.

Both parties/philosophies appeal to a range of socioeconomic classes and intellectual levels. It's a common fallacy of both sides to only notice the lowest level of the opposition's appeal. Rush Limbaugh continuously explains to his listenership why liberalism has a more basic, superficial appeal. I think most of my readers will find that Rush appeals to, in turn, an intellectual level beneath us. That's not to say his criticisms of liberalism are invalid. They are valid. He's just selecting the dumbest, most extreme targets within the liberal camp.

Taken too far, it might sound like there aren't differences between Democrats and Republicans or Liberalism and Conservatism--and there are. The media structure is a case in point. However, we mustn't forget that both parties must necessarily appeal to the lowest common denominator (and the highest) to stay afloat, albeit through different but equally reprehensible means.

Part of my generation's confusion is caused by the fact that the parties act differently depending on whether they're in or out of power. The parties are generally more hypocritical and aggressive when they're in power.

Remember that at the ideologies' cores lie different foundational assumptions about the world. Liberals assume that glitches of the free market are efficiently repaired by bureaucratic intervention. They assume people will do things whether they're illegal or not. They assume people need help to survive hardship and to rise to the top. They assume that laws reflect realities.

Conservatives assume that bureaucracy is less efficient than free market. They assume laws proceed from morals. They assume laws are effective. They assume that enabling is the greater danger to not helping. They assume people will survive hardship and that cream rises to the top.

All of those assumptions are flawed, but grounded in seeds of truth. Frequently, liberals and conservatives battle over the position of an optimization curve (ie the Laffer curve) that is poorly defined. In the absence of solid statistics pointing out the obvious answer to a dilemma, people resort to their assumptions, and this is where most political disagreements originate--from the gray areas. If it was black and white, we'd be in agreement.

The California Aggie

UC Davis is not a school with a reputation for journalism. It shouldn't be expected to have a stellar student periodical. Yet it is slightly embarrassing that I myself am a better writer than most of the California Aggie's staff. And it's not just me. Guest editorials and letters to the editor consistently outshine the general staff's contributions.

Two Aggie columnists have something interesting to say and are more-or-less capable of articulating it. Michelle Rick works the sassy/clever approach for her column. Though the approach is deeply cliché and sometimes interferes with the actual content of her articles, she otherwise executes it well and, let's face it, it's a medium whose principle objective is to entertain rather than to inform. While I appreciate her talent, her flippancy and posed coolness have earned her one of my friends' undying hatred. Lior Gotesman on the other hand is a solid, if stereotypical, advocate of philosophy. He's hostile to thoughtless consumerism and passionate about the meaning of life. It would put me to sleep if it wasn't interestingly written.

The columnists have improved since last year to the point of consistent mediocrity (except columnist/editor-in-chief Richard Procter who is an excellent writer). There is no low hanging fruit for me to pounce on. The same cannot be said of the Aggie's editorial section.

Zach Han is the worst writer I have ever seen published. He generally chooses topics immediately after they have been beaten to death by mainstream media. He then manages to demonstrate misunderstanding of even TV news' terribly oversimplified explanations of current events. It's as if he took a fractured understanding of a Fox news report, applied some ill-conceived restructuring and then imposed some asinine moral summation he'd heard from a passerby. To add insult to injury, he goes out of his way to use big words and complex sentence structures beyond his apparent reach. The result is a series of syntactical and logical errors that confound the flow of his insipid conclusions. I am appalled by Zach Han's writing on so many levels that just thinking about it makes me see red.

In diametric opposition to Han is the finest Aggie writer I have come across, one James Noonan. There is no minority perspective so persecuted or valuable at a liberal university as the intelligent conservative's and James Noonan is living proof. He writes articulately and fearlessly, exposing hypocrisy and waste in our university and country. Noonan is no partisan hack, though. One of my favorite articles was his caustic assault on Bill O'Reilly.

Unfortunately, Noonan and Procter are in the stark minority at our campus paper. Most Aggie readers pick it up for the Sudoku rather than its bumbling calendar section, comic strips, articles, columns or commentary on world events. I find myself reading it more to mentally shred the writing than for information. Instead, I've taken to scrounging the faculty and staff's weekly periodical, Dateline UC Davis.

In contrast to the Aggie, Dateline UC Davis is interesting, competent, informative, coherently structured and unobtrusively written. It is especially good for finding seminars, guest lectures and Mondavi Center events. It also finds fascinating campus research to report and thoughtfully probes into campus trends and occurrences. By trying for less, Dateline is ultimately more useful to students than the paper the students directly fund.

Dateline is produced by the full-time UC Davis News Service, so its professionalism shouldn't be surprising. I just have trouble legitimizing the university staff having access to higher quality campus information than students. Furthermore, I have trouble understanding why the Aggie can't tap into the student potential that letters to the editor assure me exists.

25 Facts About Max

Like so many things, my first reaction to the "25 Things" meme was haughty but after a few weeks continued exposure to people's various lists I came around. Without an obvious route to entertaining the audience I think writing about oneself is poor form. That may come as surprise considering my particularly intense self-love and the very fact that I write a blog. However, I feel that, properly done, blogs manage to entertain while simultaneously wallow in self-absorption. It's become apparent that "25 Things" share that quality. Thus, I present 25 Facts About Max:

1. I am didactic. I'm always explaining things to people whether or not they're curious, because if they aren't curious, they ought to be. I'm enriching their lives!

2. I am a critic. Like a movie critic, except of everything.

3. I love to argue. Or at least I have a hard time not instigating arguments and a hard time extricating myself from them. I enjoy the exchange of ideas and the friendly competition.

4. I love getting schooled in an argument. Of course I'm disconcerted at first, because that rarely happens, but it's nice to be reminded that I still have things to learn. Props to Aaron Robinson for schooling me in history this past October.

5. If I thought I had the talent my ideal job would be writing.

6. I'm so sick of hearing about and seeing Obama everywhere. Stop beating him to death! Nobody can hold up to these obscene expectations. He is not Jesus.

7. I bicycle everywhere and almost always take the stairs. This is motivated by impatience rather than by health or environmental considerations.

8. Apparently I have a bit of a lisp. I had no idea until this past summer when I was listening to a recording of my radio show and I mentioned to Brandon that it almost sounded like I had a lisp, and he was like, "Yeah, you do a little."

9. I'm an Eagle Scout. Everyone seems surprised to hear that one. Go figure...

10. I was taught to try anything once. I think my parents meant food, not everything. My dad was pretty disconcerted when I took a puff of his friend's cigar when offered, like I'd transgressed some bond of trust. I'm just extending the rule he taught me so well.

11. That said, addictive substances scare the crap out of me. It has only recently occurred to me that a coffee addiction might be a net positive.

12. I approach my life very analytically. I approach my politics very analytically. People tell me it comes off cold when I approach lifesaving legislation as a numbers game, who knew?

13. That said, I believe logic to be a flawed system. Socrates is a douche.

14. I am a moral relativist and do not believe that any principle is absolute.

15. I consider creativity to be a major component of intellect and I consider intellect to be the most important quality in a person.

16. I grew up in a household culture where we constantly made fun of eachother's quirks and flaws. I love people who can take that sort of abuse and I love still more those who can also dish it out.

17. In the early stages of my music obsession I sold my soul to allmusic.com for it's wisdom. Even now, you'll find my opinions of albums and artists to suspiciously mirror star ratings found on the site.



18. I'm fascinated by the androgyny of glam rock. I think it'd be totally badass to dress like the New York Dolls.

19. Four staples compose the majority of my calorie intake: frozen pizza, potatoes with cheese, chili with rice, and beer.

20. Freshman year I was named "honorary asian" by a group of asian kids on my floor, cause I was better with chopsticks and ate weirder stuff than they did. Later they revoked it, but it was for personal reasons. They just didn't like me anymore. Or maybe I sucked too much at Smash Bros...

21. I grew up helping my dad make wine, yet I prefer beer. Oh the shame. But wine is such a heavy drunk.

22. I own 31 vinyl LPs because it's trendy, but I don't even have a record player.

23. I think we are in the midst of the greatest golden age the world has ever seen.

24. The justification for every financial corner I cut (and I rarely buy required textbooks) is that I am saving up to travel.

25. My first kiss was within the last six months.