Brutish&Short | For The Children |

Latest Headlines

What looks from Toronto like mob rule in Quebec

– May 16, 2012

The Globe and Mail can eat a dick. Their lede:

The fight over a proposed tuition-fee increase in Quebec is about something else now. It’s about whether decisions made by a democratically elected government can be overcome by force.

Commence whining about teh violins of teh mobz:

It would be one thing if the student demonstrators chose civil disobedience, accepted arrest and tried to win over public opinion by attempting to expose injustice. But they are not doing so.

Umm… peacefully blocking access to a CEGEP by creating a human barricade is a poster for civil disobedience. they HAVE chosen civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is precisely what they’ve chosen.

Also, a huge number HAVE “accepted” arrest, whatever “accepting” arrest means. Looking for solid source for these numbers, but according to wiki, 916 have had to so far. These arrests have been “accepted” even in the face of pretty extreme incidences of police brutality on the topic of which the editors have not a word to spare. Also, the several-hundred-thousand-body-mobilizing protests we’ve seen have been overwhelmingly peaceful — Wikipedia has the casualty count at TEN injuries. Throw on an additional 11 reportedly injured at the protest at the PLQ’s convention in Victoriaville last week and you get… 21. Twenty-one. Let that juxtaposition sink in: Multiple protests of ~200,000 people; twenty-one injuries. Just like The Day of the (fucking) Locust.

The Globe goes on to declare:

The hallmark of Canadian democracy is a peaceful settling of conflict.

O R E A L L Y ? (Bonus content! — A generally informative encyclopedia entry on the history of political violence in Canada)

Canada is just like every other democracy — the democratic process works great for the majority. For the minority… not so much. Canadian democracy — just like American democracy, just like Western-European democracy — isn’t working too well for the minority born after about 1980 who, to paraphrase the Globe — which is right, at least, in saying that these protests are about more than just tuition — need to shut up and accept that reasonable tuition, single-digit unemployment rates, a reasonable expectation to be able to buy a house, a reasonable expectation to be able to retire in reasonable comfort are/were all privileges reserved for their Boomer/Gen-X elders on whom we should now expect to have to depend and to whom we should be getting used to groveling.

Additional reason the Globe and Mail can eat a dick: They endorsed fucking Stephen “who needs a census when you can throw more kids in jail for minor drug offenses” Harper last election, lest we forget. We should care about such an editorial board’s opinion… why?

Also: Why is it so rare to see an acknowledgement that a 75% hike in tuition is a big, huge-assed hike in tuition — a big, huge-assed step in the direction of the utterly absurd rates demanded by American institutions driving the student-loan bubble that’s probably going to precipitate the next major economic crisis if Europe doesn’t beat it to it. The future ain’t what it used to be.

Also: Another point that seems almost never to be made in the English language media is that it’s not even these, purportedly selfish and entitled students that would be hit by the planned 75% tuition hike. Those that’ll be hit hardest are those that will only start their post-secondary education five years from now. They’re doing unto their youngers as they would have their elders do unto them.

Found Art of the Day

Tom OHare

– May 16, 2012

From an unopened card to one “Janet,” which I was really, really hoping would have a crisp $20 inside. Alas.

3/15/96

Dear Janet,

This is just a little note to say thank you for being the Christian amongst [sic] our group. During lunch, for example, I’ve never seen you participate in gossip or throwing stones. You are always in a cheerful mood & bearing a smile. So let this be a card saying “Thank you” but also one of encouragement from 1 sister in Christ to another: I saw Christ in you & it was a comforting relief. Thank you.

-Heidi

On Centrism and Civility, Briefly

Tom OHare

– May 12, 2012

I was having dinner with my friend-and-sexual-associate not too long ago, and we got into a discussion about civility versus decency, which, if you’ve read our Inflammatory Writ, has been a hobbyhorse of the proprietors of this website for a while now. Her point was that people are more likely to take you seriously if you don’t use bad words and argue in good faith, and mine was that some people simply aren’t worth arguing with — since their minds will never change — and can simply be told to fuck off.

I understand that this opens me up to criticism from the right along the lines of, “Fuck off, libtard,” and I’m perfectly fine with that. I think that’s a legitimate criticism, all things considered. But I only think it’s legitimate because it fundamentally expresses the truth: to wit, the right-winger and I will never agree on certain issues, and there is basically no point in discussing those issues with each other. So, “Fuck off”? Gladly. Why waste each other’s time?

My audience, however, isn’t (I hope) on the fence about issues like LGBTQ rights, or global warming, or the military-industrial complex’s negative effects on American foreign policy, or the disaster that is deregulated capitalism. If you are, can I please request that you kindly fuck off? We have nothing to talk about. These issues are urgent, and I profess absolutely no regret for being earnest in my advocacy for the far left position I take with regard to each. The Overton window either moves left or right, after all. I confess to hoping that I do some small service on behalf of making our national discourse more amenable to left-wing political views.

Which brings us — AS ALL THINGS DO — to William Lloyd Garrison, who expressed my position considerably more succinctly than I’ve been able to do so here:

I am aware that many object to the severity of my language; but is there not cause for severity? I will be as harsh as truth, and as uncompromising as justice. On this subject, I do not wish to think, or to speak, or write, with moderation. No! no! Tell a man whose house is on fire to give a moderate alarm; tell him to moderately rescue his wife from the hands of the ravisher; tell the mother to gradually extricate her babe from the fire into which it has fallen; — but urge me not to use moderation in a cause like the present. I am in earnest — I will not equivocate — I will not excuse — I will not retreat a single inch — AND I WILL BE HEARD. [Bold added.]

I’ve got “never give an inch” tattooed on my left arm. In one respect it is an ironic statement on the foolhardiness of brooking no compromise — which is, I would argue, the central theme of the book from which it was derived. That is, I don’t think Kesey was endorsing the notion that one should never give an inch, even if his protagonists lived and died by the slogan. But in another respect, it speaks to the meaning of core principles. What do you stand for? To what extent are you willing to back it up? And most importantly, where do you draw the line in the sand?

Ultimately, like it or not, you have to draw it somewhere. You don’t, of course, if you’re trying to make a living in the Tom Friedman/David Brooks version of the universe where intellectual consistency means a pay-cut. But you do if, like most of us, you’re simply trying to be a decent human being. To do so requires staking out positions and making arguments, regardless of how popular or unpopular they make you. Believe it or not, I have considerably more respect for a principled bigot than a pundit who tries to play both sides of an argument and ends up defending that bigot. While the bigot and I may never agree about anything, at least I know that a gentle “Fuck you” adequately expresses my point. With the pundit, one is tempted to mistake smarminess for an argument, when in actuality it’s simply a ploy to mask cowardice and intellectual dishonesty.

Taking a stand is important. Knowing what you believe in is important. Having principles is important. And, crucially now, making compromises is important, too. But with compromise, you always have to be playing the long-game, and you have to have an idea of what audience is worth playing games for. There are simply some people you’ll never be able to reach. In the meantime, never give an inch.

Doughy Pantload Gets the Hack List Treatment

Tom OHare

– May 11, 2012

I’m really digging the fact that Alex Pareene is spreading his Hack List out over the course of the year these days instead of making it a one-off annual tradition. The latest victim is Jonah Goldberg. Microwave some popcorn, sit back, and read the whole thing.

Pen Fifteen Redux

Celeste Broderick

– May 11, 2012

Another proud member! (also, it’s still Thursday in my time zone, phew!)

Ways in which New York City has failed me today

Tom OHare

– May 9, 2012

In response to my appeal of a parking ticket acquired one month ago.

The respondent has been charged with violating Traffic Rule 4-08(f)(7) by stopping, standing or parking a vehicle in a manner which obstructs a curb area which has been cut down, lowered or otherwise constructed or altered to provide access for persons with disabilities. As of 1/31/12, fine mitigation is no longer available simply by request of the respondent. Also, claim that respondent thought parking was legal fails to provide a valid basis for dismissal. Therefore, inasmuch as no persuasive evidence has beeva [SIC] submitted to warrant dismissal of the summons, the violation is sustained and the full fine is imposed.

Clearly, I am going to appeal this decision as well, based on its staggering incoherence indicated by the all-caps, bolded “SIC” above. I should also note that my appeal contained a photograph of a vehicle parked in the spot I was allegedly “illegally” parked in taken the very next night, sans ticket. This evidence was disregarded by the unfeeling pencil-pushers in the NYC Department of Finance, no doubt because they are Yankees fans and I am from Massachusetts — which, SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION MUCH, NYC?!?!?

Thought so. This isn’t over, New York. Not by a long shot.

Dean Baker shits on David Brooks so you don’t have to

Ben Nolan

– May 8, 2012

Link. Teaser:

I don’t know anyone who looks like cyclicalists that Brooks writes about. It would be good if he could toss out a few names for readers so that we know such people actually exist in the world and are not just Brooks’ hallucinations.Since the views Brooks attributes to the cyclicalists are sufficiently bizarre, it is hard to believe that such people exist.

For example, he tells us that the cyclicalists believe:

“the level of government spending is the main factor in determining how fast an economy grows.”

I have never come across anyone who had a view anything like this. I do know many economists, who argue that in a downturn more stimulus will lead to more economic growth, but this is nothing like the view that Brooks attributes to the cyclicalists. Does Brooks really think it is the same thing to say that more stimulus leads to more growth in a downturn and saying that government spending is the main factor determining growth in general? This is scary.

Krugman does too, without naming names.

3. Anyone who says something like “If deficit spending were the route to prosperity, Greece would be in great shape” should be immediately considered not worth listening to. People in my camp have repeated until we’re blue in the face that the case for fiscal expansion is very specific to circumstance — it’s desirable when you’re in a liquidity trap, and only when you’re in a liquidity trap. I know that some people like to project their own crudity onto others, but what they’re actually demonstrating is their own ignorance.

I don’t actually think Brooks is ignorant. I think he’s cynical and dishonest, which is worse.