?

Log in

No account? Create an account
[links] Link salad puts its chest port to use today - Lakeshore — LiveJournal
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2011-05-13 05:51
Subject: [links] Link salad puts its chest port to use today
Security: Public
Tags:art, cool, culture, funny, gay, healthcare, interviews, iraq, links, media, personal, politics, publishing, religion, science, tech, weird
SFFWRTCHT: A Chat With Author/Editor Jay Lake — An edited transcript of my recent appearance on #sffwrtcht on Twitter.

Science fiction: Images from other worlds – in picturesA new exhibition at the British Library presents the rich history of SF down the ages, from Lucian of Samosata in the 2nd century to the Russian novel that inspired 1984. (Thanks to AH.)

Why don't we love our intellectuals?The fact that a nation that lives by its considerable wits should be in denial about its reliance on the life of the mind is truly weird. This article is about the UK, but the anti-intellectual strain of American conservatism has overwhelmed our culture as well.

Texas Passes Bill to Make Some Fish Tales a CrimeTelling tall tales may be a matter of pride in Texas. But it may soon be against state law to tell one about a fish. (Thanks to Dad.)

The iPad in Your Hand: As Fast as a Supercomputer of Yore — Plus clustering!

Future Splashdown in Ligeia Mare? — Sending a boat to Titan. Wow.

German TV: 'Star Trek' terrorists killed bin Laden — Um, yeah...

Morgellons: A hidden epidemic or mass hysteria?It's a mysterious condition that affects tens of thousands worldwide. But what is it?

Nine of the 10 loudest climate-denying scientists tied to ExxonClimate change deniers like to point out that they have scientists on their side, too. But an analysis of more than 900 papers supporting climate skepticism showed that about 20 percent of those papers came from the same 10 scientists, and nine of them, according to The Carbon Brief, have ties to ExxonMobil. (Thanks to [info]danjite.)

My hope is built on nothing less — Slacktivist Fred Clark on the politicization of Evangelicals, and the shibboleths of homosexualtiy and abortion. These two pre-eminent issues — abortion and homosexuality — have become the crux of American evangelicalism (pun intended) in part due to the politicization of evangelicals over the past three decades, years in which evangelical Christians have come to be regarded, by both outsiders and insiders, as primarily a bloc of voters. A great deal of money was spent during those years to convince evangelicals to come to think of themselves in this way and that money has had its intended effect.

What's wrong with the political class in this country

Creeping Sharia a 2012 Republican Primary Issue — Confidential to the GOP: This is one of those issues, like Birtherism and evolution denial, that makes the entire conservative movement look like batshit screaming lunatics to anyone who isn't already invested in the ideology. Pick an issue with meaning, like abortion or tax policy, and we can at least disagree without everyone else laughing hysterically at you.

Seniors, Guns and Money — Paul Krugman on the silliness and venality of the GOP congressional delegation. (Including the bizarre "don't pick on us for Medicare" whinge.)

?otD: Got implants?



5/13/2011
Writing time yesterday: 1.0 hours (galley edits to Endurance)
Body movement: 30 minute stationary bike ride
Hours slept: 7.5 hours (fitful, Vicodin-assisted)
Weight: 242.4 (broke my diet badly last night, on purpose)
Currently reading: Sasha 124 by Alex Tillson

Post A Comment | 19 Comments | | Link






cathshaffer
User: cathshaffer
Date: 2011-05-13 13:04 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
"Batshit insane" is too weak a word for the sharia thing. Also, it makes the genuinely insane look bad. We need a phrase that means, "Willfully and belligerently ignorant to the point that one not only doesn't understand the terms and concepts one is using--but one doesn't care." But it needs to be more scathing and witty than that. I'm stumped.
Reply | Thread | Link



mlerules: ANTS
User: mlerules
Date: 2011-05-13 14:06 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:ANTS
I concur.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Zachary Spector
User: blackmonkeymage
Date: 2011-05-13 21:30 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
ignorantist
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



mlerules: Stitch HAT
User: mlerules
Date: 2011-05-13 14:06 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:Stitch HAT
Um, I gotta couple pots o' tulips which I'mplanning to plant imto the garden once I'm home again on a nice sunny day. Does this count? ;-P
Reply | Thread | Link



jordan179
User: jordan179
Date: 2011-05-13 14:57 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
This is one of those issues, like Birtherism and evolution denial, that makes the entire conservative movement look like batshit screaming lunatics to anyone who isn't already invested in the ideology.

Right. Because it can never happen here. America is so exceptional a country that we could never suffer what Europe has been suffering. Um ... God wouldn't let it happen?
Reply | Thread | Link



kellymccullough
User: kellymccullough
Date: 2011-05-13 15:21 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I suppose it would be really really tragic if we suffered Europe's sensible health care and social policies. I for one would hate to see our life-satisfaction and expectancy ratings go up to what we see across the pond. It would probably drive the modern Republican party into premature extinction and we might even get back to a two party system that was marginally functional.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



jordan179
User: jordan179
Date: 2011-05-13 16:22 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I suppose it would be really really tragic if we suffered Europe's sensible health care and social policies.

Since this was in response to a thread on the reality or unreality of the threat of shari'a in America, are you trying to claim that Europe's health care and social policies are to blame for the growth of shari'a in Europe? Or that failing to enforce national laws on immigrant minorities is a "sensible social policy?" Or were you merely trying to derail my comment, and (foolishly) hoping that I wouldn't notice what you did and call you out on it?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



kellymccullough
User: kellymccullough
Date: 2011-05-13 17:48 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Neither, I was noting that we have a lot to learn from Europe. Though if you want a more direct response, I'm much more concerned about the way the American conservative movement is trying to impose its version of biblical law on America than I am about any of the quite obviously overblown concerns about Sharia in America. If you're worried about the imposition of religious law in America, look no further than the Republican party.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Andrew Trembley
User: bovil
Date: 2011-05-13 15:22 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
It can't happen here because the folks who want "Christian" law have an overwhelming head start. Creeping Sharia (sounds like landscaping) is only a bogeyman to make that palatable to more people.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



jordan179
User: jordan179
Date: 2011-05-13 16:24 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
It can't happen here because the folks who want "Christian" law have an overwhelming head start.

You don't think that the US Constitution is more of a protection against shari'a? Witness the recent cases in which American burned their own copies of Korans -- in Europe, that would have been illegal as "hate speech," while in America it is protected under the First Amendment. The same, of course, is why it's legal to burn Bibles, or American flags, in America.

Creeping Sharia (sounds like landscaping) is only a bogeyman to make that palatable to more people.

Then why is the "bogeyman" actually materializing in Europe?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Andrew Trembley
User: bovil
Date: 2011-05-13 18:15 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Let's go back to square one:

Do you believe that Creeping Shari'a will really be the legal kudzu of America?

I get your argument that it's taking over Europe. I don't necessarily agree to the extent, but I get it. But look at it this way, most European nations have state-established churches and a very different relationship between religion and government. Religious practice tends to be a bit weak, even in strong-church states.

Your arguments about shari'a in America, on the other hand, are, well, incoherent. I'm assuming the "exceptional" consideration was sarcasm, but then you follow with how strong a protection our constitution is. Are we a bunch of weaklings ripe for enslavement by powerful Islamic hordes, or are we a nation of laws where our lack of a state-established church makes it easy for different religions to battle for supremacy but impossible for any of them to win?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



jordan179
User: jordan179
Date: 2011-05-13 20:50 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I think that our Constitution will protect us if we enforce it against government imposition of shari'a. Fortunately most parts of the United States of America seem to be enforcing the US Constitution against the unconstitutional claims of shari'a. This is not the case in European countries, which lack such strong protections of the rights of their citizens.

The other threat is the de facto enforcement of shari'a by Muslim community organizations (backed by Muslim gangs and militias). This is a very real threat in Europe, and in a few parts of the United States (notably parts of Michigan State and New York City). I don't think that this will get very far in America, mostly because we boast an armed and surly populace, and one difficult to intimidate.

Are we a bunch of weaklings ripe for enslavement by powerful Islamic hordes, or are we a nation of laws where our lack of a state-established church makes it easy for different religions to battle for supremacy but impossible for any of them to win?

The latter. But not because of a mystical American exceptionalism, but rather because we're a lot less submissive than are the Europeans, and because this lack of submissiveness is backed up strongly by the US Constitution. Especially the First and Second Amendments to the US Constitution.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Zachary Spector
User: blackmonkeymage
Date: 2011-05-13 21:59 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
You know how Catholic bishops, or even the Pope himself, will occasionally issue pronouncements of what the church considers virtuous or sinful?

That is what Shari'a is.

If anyone were proposing to make it enforceable by police I'd have a problem with that, but if it's only enforceable by excommunication, I merely feel fortunate that I'm not part of that religion. It's the same deal with Mormons.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



ericjamesstone
User: ericjamesstone
Date: 2011-05-13 15:05 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Why don't we love our intellectuals? Because our intellectuals are so incredibly stupid. If you can't see the difference between Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush (or think the latter's crimes are worse), you just might be an intellectual. If you can't understand that it's legitimate to kill a military target even when he's unarmed, you just might be an intellectual.
Reply | Thread | Link



russ: quo vadis
User: goulo
Date: 2011-05-13 19:25 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:quo vadis
What about killing civilians?

Bush killed far more civilians than bin Laden ever did. (And Obama continues to kill them.)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



ericjamesstone
User: ericjamesstone
Date: 2011-05-14 05:45 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
If the moral distinction between intentionally maximizing civilian casualties while targeting civilians and trying to minimize civilian casualties that occur while targeting combatants is too nuanced for you to comprehend, you just might be an intellectual.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



russ: quo vadis
User: goulo
Date: 2011-05-14 07:47 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:quo vadis
If the moral distinction between starting unnecessary wars and trying to minimize civilian casualties is too nuanced for you to comprehend... well, I won't presume to speculate what you just might be.

(I was never fond of that silly "If X then you just might be Y" meme. Was it first popularized by Jeff Foxworthy in the redneck series of humor books?)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



kellymccullough
User: kellymccullough
Date: 2011-05-14 17:12 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Genuinely minimizing civilian casualties would have involved not invading a country that had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



ubiquitous_a: bg-fieldtrip
User: ubiquitous_a
Date: 2011-05-13 19:54 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Keyword:bg-fieldtrip
German TV: 'Star Trek' terrorists killed bin Laden

I sent this article to some co-workers earlier in the week. One of them responded with this:

"I don’t think the German’s messed up. In fact, they uncovered the real truth. Bush had put the full resources of the United States’ military towards finding Bin Laden yet they failed. Obama being more open minded towards other cultures, decided to enlist the help of the Klingons to find Bin Laden, albeit covertly. It was in fact a joint SEALS-Klingon mission that was able to track down Bin Laden and to take him out. I congratulate the Germans for their investigative prowess and in reporting the real truth."
Reply | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
January 2014
2012 appearances