I’ve Tried »

By Michael

Patrick Appel plays devil’s advocate to an argument against an idea that Ross Douthat came up with regarding marriage/unions (I came up with this idea as well almost a year ago).

Ross says that this domestic partnership would allow for adoption. Following Ross’s guidelines, let’s pretend that I’m a heterosexual male in a domestic partnership with my heterosexual best friend. We decide that we want to adopt a child together, a right it seems we would have under Ross’s law. What happens, several years later, when one of us meets a woman we want to marry? How do you resolve the domestic partners’ financial obligations to each other and the custody battle?

The best I could do with the conundrum that Appel serves up (I too came up with the same problem) was that the arrangement should be held to a business standard having renewal dates and fiduciary duties that would detail points of action for dissolving the partnership (e.g. penalties, support for children, etc).  Such action plans would be necessary if there were children involved.  Or they could just do what most family court judges do and award custody of the child to the female, or most effeminate partner.  Oh please, as if you thought there was something else they were doing.

• • •

Waxing Poetic »

By Michael

In regards to the reason why humans (particularly men) past, present, and future wax poetic regarding love (i.e. sex), I have surmised that characterizing these outlets as “forms of art” is putting it all rather nicely.  They are merely the letters of ordinary people that have come back return to sender.  And those musings when disseminated to the public abroad simply become the idea onto which someone else projects their own daydream.

They might be art now, but don’t be mistaken because they were never written for the sake of art.

Even more relevant today, a lover could never read any greater piece of literature than by an author whose professional title is, “Sugardaddy.”

• • •

Huh? »

By Michael

Arnold  Kling writes:

Incidentally, Idiocracy is a really bad movie, but it has to be seen.

No, Arnold, no it doesn’t.

• • •

Penmanship »

By Michael

Someone, probably Megan McArdle (although I’m still hoping for George Will), will probably write something soon regarding how the lack of Americans writing in cursive, while not the downfall of the United States, is simply one of the signs of how far we have fallen, or how far we will fall.  Watch this space…

• • •

Bonjourrrrrrrrr, yah cheese-eatin’ surrender monkeys! »

By Will

Ryan Sager writes:

Chance a U.S. household that owns a Prius also owns an SUV: 1 in 3.

That’s from the Harper’s Index, October issue, according to Cowen. It would surprise you, if you didn’t read this blog and already know that we’re constantly calculating the trade-off between being able to see ourselves as good people and the cost of engaging in all that non-advantageous goodness.

I’ve never met an SUV owner whose personal sense of self suffered because their “other car” was not a Prius. From my experience, the ownership is based on usefulness: An SUV is useful for comfortably transporting a family of four, a dog, and luggage. Because the Prius is most efficient when stopping-and-going, it’s useful for short distance trips such as running to the food store and taking the kids to the park.

Comfort and headroom are two variables that seem to be disregarded by efficiency-seeking car buyers. So, if you can afford it, why not have the best of both worlds?

(h/t The Daily Dish)

• • •

Imprint Your Opinion »

By Michael

The Economic Policy Institute posted an article/blog post/brainstorm regarding the possibility of positive payoff from the government’s bailout/investment/OhmyGodCivilizationIsEnding of the banks within the past year. Of course, this included many programs since TARP and so forth and so on.

Now, mercifully, they actually provide a good deal of caveat saying that this could all still blow up in our faces in terms of monetary loss. But, they add this:

Bloggers have been quick to point out that the early profits touted this week are by no means proof that the government response will transform the worst financial crisis in nearly a century into a pleasant, money-making venture.

When even the Economic Policy Institute does the whole “Bloggers said this…” garbage, it strikes a nerve with me. Especially, when one of those lowly, non caring, bloggers is Matt Taibbi, who is by no means a slouch; nor is he completely under the radar.

Listen, here is my point. We should take note when someone, or something, is being marginalized so that a point, or narrative, has the ability to be taken as prevailing opinion. And right now, saying “bloggers” is a great way to allow someone’s audience to put a face on something so that it seems untrustworthy, or unreliable.

Back to the bailout repayment though, EPI does still allow credence (they may be optimistic about getting profit from the bailout, but not completely nuts about the real reason why it was implemented) to Taibbi’s argument, which is that the bailout could still not return any money when all the sub-totals are summed. And when you figure that we still need better numbers from Fed on their part in buying securitized assets, you realize that there is still a long way to go before we start counting chickens.

On the whole, the EPI’s article is a good, even necessary read, but remember that the “bloggers” who have been wondering about the final bottom line have a well worth point to be heard.

• • •

I’ve Gone Galt in your Closet »

By Will
Culture: I’ve Gone Galt in your Closet

His shirt reads “Gone Galt.” God bless capitalism. Buying shitty, meaningless merchandise is an activity that unites us all.

(h/t Balloon Juice)

• • •

Stop it, Contd. »

By Michael

Not you too, Ron Paul:

The real inconvenient truth is…

…we are becoming annoyed.

• • •

Old People and New Communication »

By Michael

Why can no one see how absolutely insane these demands are? Places of employment and schools now are requesting for the passwords to social website accounts of their would-be employees or current students.

In the latest such case, a cheerleader was disciplined for comments made in a private message on Facebook. That message was not even directed at an official of the school, but another member of the squad who had been engaging in harassing behavior. The other students deleted their accounts and did not provide a password when asked.

Specifically to this case, this is all quite absurd. It was a private message. To wit, the message was intended for no one else but the recipient. It was akin to intercepting an email, tapping a phone call, or opening someone’s mail. Just because they asked does not take away from the fact that no one should have to follow up with such a request.

Here is a question. Do the employers / school districts realize what they are asking for? And not only that, but what do they feel like accomplishing other than coercion?

My point is that this is a slippery slope. If people feel too frightened to express their thoughts in a certain medium, they’ll switch. They will start writing letters if they feel it necessary. And the real question is this: How far are we going to let these encroachments go until we realize that we’ve unleashed Big Brother?

WhoisIOZ is right. Land of the free, indeed.

• • •

Subaru Impreza STi v. Mitsubishi Evolution »

By Michael

Warren Brown over at the Washington Post had a car culture column that was pretty decent. Although it actually had less to do with car culture, and more to do with car industry as of late, which was okay, and more importantly, prescient. The column is now defunct thanks to more budgets cuts in the Washington Post regarding columns that people actually like to read, rather than columns people read out of morbid curiosity (can anyone say Charles Krauthammer).

But, I feel as if I never really got a full amount of culture out of “Car Culture.” One item I’d like to discuss today regards that of the personality differences between Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution owners versus owners of the Subaru Impreza WRX STI.

These two vehicles begot themselves simply out of necessity. Both Japanese manufacturers found they had a knack for producing vehicles to compete in the World Rally Championship. More relevantly (today at least), these manufacturers continue to produce these two vehicles for the sole purpose of homologation. That is to say, they make these vehicles simply so that those vehicles can compete in the Production class of the World Rally Championship. Take note that the Ford Focus and Citroen C4 make absolutely no appearance in the P-WRC because in real life, they have no 4-wheel drive variant.

So, after testing the waters with each other in the North American market, by 2003 these two manufacturers were making complete product entry with these two vehicles in the North American market.

From the beginning, these two vehicles set themselves apart from the rest of the sub compact market. How you may ask? Well, while one could argue that their sheer performance and their all-wheel drive WRC heritage was what did it, I see it as something else. Price point. The easiest way to get undereducated teenagers to not drive your flagship car is to not let them afford it.

So, either you have extremely knowledgeable and dedicated, or ignorantly affluent, people purchasing these vehicles. But something happened along the way.

At some point, when fellow Subaru owners found that they were a select few on the road and started forming collegial friendships regarding their mutual vehicle interests, Mitsubishi owners trended away to lone wolf status. And dickish ones to boot.

While the Lancer Evolution and Impreza WRX STI are comparably priced in the high 30s to low 40s, the rest of the Mitsubishi lineup is priced in the value range, while the remainder of the Subaru lineup is priced a bit higher. This only furthers the gap between the buyers of these two manufactures.

My good friend, Adam, has acquaintances in the Evolution community and explained it to me thusly:

“I always have other Subaru owners willing to help me out with something with my car if I needed anyone’s help. I’m not completely sure on how the Evolution community is. But I feel Subaru is a better community.”

The greatest example of the difference between these two vehicles owners comes in this online exchange where my friend, Adam, invited members from the Evolution web forums to a meet in Ocean City. Since Adam was organizing the meet, the main page was on NASIOC (North American Subaru Impreza Owners Club) web forums. The posts went something like this:

Adam: Hello, we would greatly enjoy the company of the Evolution members for a meeting of turbo charged all wheel drive vehicles.

Evolution forum member: Fuck you, faggot.

When people wonder why an American, Israeli, Iranian, Pakistani, or Indian cannot get along, I point them to these exchanges.

So, why the gap between these two car brand owners? I’ll posit a simple theory. It’s all about looks. The Subaru has been a very quirky looking car for quite some time. Their owners affectionately call the different front ends of various years “blob eye” or “bug eye.” With that considered. I think inherently, many …well… nerds have grown into this community. On top of that, Subaru has always advertised the technology in their vehicles very prominently.

The Evolution owners on the other hand seem to have completely bypassed the rally heritage inherent in their vehicles. Most – probably considerably more than Subaru owners – of Evolution owners have purchased their vehicle out of a need for grabbing into a subculture. That is to say, it’s about the Fast and the Furious for them. Ironic then that it is the Subaru community, out of its quest for brand independence, which has created a much more close knit community.

• • •
12345Next Page >