From today’s readings

(1) A comment I left at a post by Bill Quick on SciFi:

I think the debate over the definition of terms around SciFi and Fantasy as literary genres will never end. I think there is far less acrimony between writers of each genre than the depictions in pop culture show, however. I’ve always thought of SciFi as answering the question: “what if something we know about science were just a little different?” As for my taste in the genre, I prefer soft SciFi stuff that serve more as sociological and psychological treatises than I do the material details of hard SciFi.

A little bit of action, no matter the genre, always helps. And sex, right?

That and people can only write the action details of space battles so many times before things get a little too common.

(2) Stephan Segraves has something to say about how we generally consume products, as a people:

Part of this is consumer habits, we are a nation of junk consumers. I’m guilty and I am pretty sure you are too. The difference between now and 20 years ago is that now we want our junk at a lower price, even if it means cutting jobs here. Maybe our culture needs to think back to 1950s lifestyle and look at pictures from era Life and Time magazines, home and work life were simpler. And what is wrong with that? The struggle is digging ourselves out of hole when the mentality is, “why get out, we’re already here”.

Let me top that by saying that nowadays the idea of wealth is not a matter of how much money we have in our bank accounts and investments, but how much stuff we have to show for it. Nice idea if everything were bought on cash and we still have a lot more in savings, but that hasn’t been a trend for a while. Changes in consumptive behaviour, though, will lead to a market contraction. Like every economist I read would say: we can’t spend our way out of this.

(3) Here’s an awesome argument between Jeff Goldstein and Patterico, on the subject of Rush Limbaugh, the Post-Modernist Media, and how to win against the latter. Gist? That fighting against the Post-Modernist Media on their terms is basically capitulation. I think Goldstein’s point is missed by a lot of people who wish to “present the Conservative message” in a certain way, and it’s that no matter our ideas and how nice we play, we will always be vulnerable to their distortions. This is where the great polemic, Ann Coulter, excels: she goes on the attack, and speaks in terms that are so clear that the only thing liberals can do is cringe and call her “offensive,” without being able to actually debate the merits of her arguments.

(4)Jeff Emmanuel at RedState is applauding ten House Republicans over their offer for BHO to veto the current spending bill and to “work with him” to produce a better one. In his post, he states the following benefits: First, in reaching out to him, they are giving him the opportunity to show that he really can, contra his entire past record, work across the aisle and find areas of agreement across party lines[...] and, Second, the House Republicans really are throwing down the gauntlet on the “change” President Obama promised to “bring” to Washington when he relocated to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from his previous position, way down the street on Capitol Hill.

I have a better idea. How about introducing every measure possible to trim it down, not voting for the bill when it hits the floor, and then banging the drum when Pelosi and BHO don’t consider your suggestions? I say the GOP shouldn’t afford him the opportunity to actually polish his image. Heck, that’s what the Dems did to take both houses of Congress.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>