Cobb

Patriotism

 

This photograph represents patriotism. True or False? Explain.

(Photo taken in 1939)

Sometimes It Is All About Me

But then it's only trivial. I answer questions asked today of one of my favorite authors, Iain M. Banks.

First record you ever bought
Getaway by Earth Wind & Fire. It was a 45.

First film you saw that really moved you
2001: A Space Odyssey. It was also the first big adult book I ever read.

Last lie you told
"Hey, no problem. I know you're busy."

First movie you ever went on a date to
Smokey & The Bandit

Last time you cried
When my gamer buddy Mike died several weeks ago.

First thing you do when you’ve got time off work
Discover too many other things I could have been doing.

Last great meal you cooked
Uhh. I just grill the meat.

Last extravagant purchase you made
MacBook Pro.

First crush
Shermalyn Thompson. Second grade. I found her again on Facebook last year.

Last book you read
Letters to a Young Contrarian by Christopher Hitchens

First great piece of advice you were given
A little bit of everything adds up to a whole lot of nothing.

Last time you were star struck
This is not a problem I’m afflicted with.

First thing you’d do if you ran the country
A huge public works project to fill up the Great Salt Lake.

Last meal on Earth – what would it be
I guess cyanide?

First song you’ll sing at karaoke
Crazy Little Thing Called Love. It is also the only song I will ever sing.

Last time you exploited your position to get something
I took the TV remote from my daughter last night.

First time you realised you were famous
When Michel Martin pronounced my full name, correctly, on her NPR show.

Last time someone criticised your work
Yesterday?

First three words your friends would use to describe you
That's just Bowen.

Last time you made an impulse buy and regretted it
Very expensive, and now lost, sunglasses.

First concert you ever attended
PFunk at the Fabulous Forum. Probably '76.

Last time you bought someone flowers
Does Rosemary count? If so, Mother's Day.

First thing you think of when you wake up in the morning
The pain in my lower back.

Last thing you think of before you go to sleep
God but this podcast is boring.

The Morality of Taxation

I pay my taxes. You pay your taxes. Is it moral?

I pay more taxes than you. Does that make me morally superior to you?

I want to pay less taxes. You want to make me pay more taxes. Does that make you morally superior to me? 

If you and I don't vote and we have no influence on government policy, does the fact that I pay more taxes make me more responsible for the policy of the government? What if I voted against the policy implemented? What if I voted for the policy implemented but paid less taxes than you? What if you voted for the policy and paid no taxes; are you still responsible?

What if the policy was capital punishment? What if the policy was free milk for babies? 

Can I make a moral statement in paying taxes or withholding from paying taxes that has a greater significance than mere compliance with tax law, or does the symbolism of taxation end on that note?

What about taxation without representation? Under what conditions of breach of social contract am I not obligated to pay my taxes? Is that social contract dependent on morality or is it just a condition of citizenship or residence?

--

In the discussions about taxation, there's a lot of slippery transference going on. 

I happen to believe that there is nothing we peasants can do about taxation. When Uncle Sam puts out his hand, pony up or prepare for a smackdown. Your complaint means nothing. Consequently, all symbolism about the payment or non-payment of taxes is moot. That is not a complaint for non-lobbyists to make. Unless you are involved in the crafting of tax law, it doesn't matter what you think about it. The government will collect, it is a Hoovering mouth unconnected to any locus of reason. The taxman collects like the shark eats, with witless and relentless efficiency. His hand is already in your boss's boss's pocket. Withholding is merely a convenient device. I've seen the other devices. 

Nevertheless, lots of squealing is made about the rights one has to one's own money being correlated to the work of government. Robert Reich did a bunch of mouthing off in this direction yesterday on Pat Morrison's NPR show covering the nomination of some wonk to a new 'consumer protection' agency. Reich very unsubtly suggested that it doesn't matter how sophisticated you think you are, the fine print of private business is getting even finer. Therefore all you peasants need a big brother in government to fight on your behalf. Which means of course, that the government is going to lay some thick fine print of its own on the baddies, who in this case are credit lenders. Bottom line is that the government is fighting the cheaters and we owe those good guys in government a little more tax. 

Whether or not this new agency will do a good job, it will cost us a little more tax. Whether or not we believe we need the help, it will cost us a little more tax. 

Obligatory Seriousness on the Voiding of Proposition Eight

I thought this matter was settled. And apparently it's going to have to go through the roof, as it just has. It would not surprise me if the Supreme Court of the US decided to invent a right to marriage. Doing so would convince me, not that we're going to hell in a handbasket, but that our government truly sucks, and that America has at long last become a semiotic swamp.

It may have always been, and perhaps my instinct and everyone else's to distrust the legal establishment is well-enough founded. But I would think that somewhere in that hierarchy was a bit more integrity and some firm belief that the People could decide. But the decision of the people has been voided.

Lest you be some anthropologist from the future in which Gay Marriage is obvious and a right, looking back to these 'backwards' days, let me reiterate my position which has been modified ever so slightly. The slight modification is directly due to my previous acknowledgment of the degree to which our democratic institutions are incompetent.

Marriage is a social convention of great age and acceptance. So are the traditions of homosexual bonds between men, and between women. None of them are equivalent. It is a lie to suggest otherwise. The recognition of common law marriage in our secular democracy is an acceptable baseline for me, and in that is my slight adjustment. I mean to suggest that a "civil union" is as much recognition that the Federal Government should give.

I wish to make a distinction between Holy Matrimony and what is commonly understood as Marriage between a man and a woman. My opposition to Gay Marriage is twofold.  Firstly, because of the implications of a redefined, state-recognized Marriage on various religions. Which is to say in the this  case, that rights of free exercise and freedom of assembly are abridged if a gay couple can sue a church forcing that church to recognize them as married - the state's definition trumping the religious definition. This is my primary objection. This distinction needn't be stressed if the state stops at "civil union".

The second objection is more subtle. 

I object to the fact that the offer of civil union was rejected by political activists for the cause of Gay Marriage. I interpret that rejection as an acknowledgment that their aims are social engineering. Which is to say, activists for Gay Marriage want the rest of the world to give gay couples the sort of respect and social acceptance that married couples enjoy. Aside from the fact that it is authoritarian, it attempts to get from the law what it cannot get from society - which is understanding and respect.

That judicial panels have been the undoing of several plebiscites in California only exacerbates the insult of this activism and it further hinders the cause of social understanding.

The longer this issue hangs around, especially in California, the less confidence I have in our democratic institutions to negotiate matters properly. That's bad news for all concerned. A state label of "Married" cheapens the brand, like a marriage license issued in Las Vegas it means less and less.

--

I hold out one hope. That should this degradation continue that the definition of Marriage will become so flexible and the law so contradictory that divorced women will not be able to sue for alimony. That kind of failure will be the inevitable necessity in the semiotic swamp.

Dignity

This picture represents dignity. True or False? Explain.

 

A Brief Conservative Snipe at Multiculturalism

Ultimately, what you have to ask yourself is what multiculturalism has delivered after twenty years. The answer is basically an anti-assimilation sentiment in the mainstream which has essentially fed social dislocation and identity politics.

For my part, I was a supporter of the idea that Americans all had lost identities that were sacrificed to assimilation into the mainstream - that it was a bad idea that Italian Americans no longer spoke Italian. But I have given up that premise. National identity and the national culture are always in need of repair and maintenance. And it is my opinion that what we need more than the relative autonomy of various cultural imperatives, is a social cohesion that defeats identity politics.

In short, I am against that thing I call 'radical autonomy'. I see radical autonomy as any collective group identity that seeks national recognition outside of the political process. That's about as deeply as I want to get into that.

Multiculturalism that demands its own channel of information to and from the mainstream is destructive.

'Diversity' is a meaningless term in today's society. It means race. It means gender. It means sexual preference. It means giving political meaning to identity absent any real difference in thought. It means giving preference to the body over the mind. 

PC is the language of 'diversity' and multiculturalism. It is nothing more or less than Orwellian.

Repo Men: Knives, Needles & Surgical Action

I just watched what is perhaps the grisliest movie I have seen since the Last Temptation of Christ. It was the unrated, high definition version of Repo Men. About halfway through it, I wanted to change my mind and watch a chick flick. It was that nasty.

One of my religious devotions is to protect myself from corruption. Friends of mine who know me, know my attitude about eyeballing babes, and all such matters as regards dollar ballets and the relative happiness of shiatsu endings.  "If you're not going to knock it out, don't get in the ring". That's Cobb's Rule #28 by the way. So I stay out of the ring, and I don't much comment on what I used to do or what I might or might not do if...  But it's rare that I find an entertainment that is not obviously worthless. And even though I wasn't absolutely dying to see this film, I found the premise intriguing. What happens to a man who repossesses artificial organs for a ruthless living when he is suddenly confronted with having the same problem?  Yeah ok it's not that intriguing, but as action movies go, it's fairly unique. And in fact, a basic R rating on this bad boy might have spared me the gross out, which I am about to share with you.

This film, like none other I have seen in the action genre, has knife fighting. Big knives, small knives, swinging, plunging, ripping. It also has what essentially amounts to just this side of surgery porn. I'm trying to imagine some Cronenberg that did so, and I'm blocked. But Repo Men gets that bloody.

If you prefer the intrigue parts of action flicks, spare yourself this one. Whereas Seven put your eyes into some gruesome crime scenes, Repo Men creates them in realtime. It's actively grisly. That's the last time I cross over the protection of an R rating. Jeez.

A Nation of Millions

Obligatory Seriousness on Assange

Some zealot named Assange is responsible for leaking the names of dozens of Afghan informants through WikiLeaks as part of a greater effort to fight the Pentagon. Over the past week many comments have been made to suggest that in light of this, perhaps unintended consequence of Assange's mission to disclose the ugly truth about war, that he doesn't have problems sleeping with the knowledge that these informants will be hunted down by the Taliban.

Aside from the matter of Assange's apparent moral fecklessness, there is the matter of his entry into the intelligence business. The fact that the release of such names has been disclosed in this instance does not mean such leaks have never taken place before - if so, how would we know? Clearly, Assange has decided to work at cross-purposes to the Administration's war effort. He is apparently not up to it. That he comes to us in large print, compromised in the same vector he wanted to be sainted.

Coincidence? I think not.

Songs Of Freedom