Potpourri XXXV

You know there used to be this old-fashioned concept called "class." Class is a state of mind, more than anything else. It's the sort of attitude that says you're a person of standards, of some standing. It's the unspoken thing that tells you not to tell particular jokes in mixed company or not make a professional or political fight personal. Why? Because it's just the sort of thing that a gentleman or lady would not do. Never mind, we're a classless society now--in more ways than one--which is how a reporter can make a crack about hoping Rush Limbaugh's kidneys fail, and President Obama laughs! Really now, Mr. Obama. We expected better of you.

The Times of London has an interview with King Abdullah of Jordan. Among other bits of good news: he expects Israel to negotiate with all 57 states of the Arab League, and if there aren't negotiations, then there is going to be another Arab-Israeli next year. On the plus side, the Pope's visit is going well. Thank Heaven for small favors.

Also from the UK: The Daily Mail is reporting on the upcoming Shuttle mission as its "most dangerous" to Hubble.

Star Trek is looking at a $75 million weekend. Not a record-breaker, but it's been a long time since a Trek film made that kind of money on opening weekend. Another thought on why I liked the new movie: the lack of condescension. Some of the Next Generation movies suffered from that. Want an example? Here's Jean-Luc Picard talking to a 21st-century primitive about his (liberal) future superiority:

"No money? You mean you don't get paid?"
"Acquisition of wealth is no longer a driving force in our lives. We wish to better ourselves & the rest of humanity."

Barf. Anyhow, I hold with Malcolm Reynolds in Serenity:

"Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that."

The reason I like the cast and acting of the new Star Trek is that they're recognizably human. The "We're better in the future" attitude is gone. They're still people, and I can relate to them. Just sayin'.

Jerry Pournelle always has interesting things to say about politics, and his take on the departure of Arlen Specter from the Republican Party deserves consideration if conservatives hope for their party to gain a governing majority again.

Also from Pournelle...recommend reading: The Lays of Rome, including Horatius at the Gate. Once considered part of our normal education, 60-odd years ago.

Just off the wall, but funny: The Onion has a story on Touchstone Pictures threatening to make a sequel to Coyote Ugly if box office receipts don't improve. Memorable (bowlderized) quote: "We are dead serious, you a$$#oles," Zaiff said. "You're going to like what we tell you to like, end-of-f@#$ing-story. Now fill up those seats, or so help me God, it's Coyote Ugly II: Get Uglier."

Joanne Manaster is conducting an online poll on which celebrity she looks like. She is then going to up the ante by having a computer analyze her facial features and compare them with said celebrities and see if "the wisdom of crowds" actually matches reality. My vote still goes to Lynda Carter. We'll see what the computer says.

Jeff Foust has some good stuff "from the archives" on Norm Augustine, who is chairing President Obama's panel/review of the Constellation Program and has had numerous dealings with NASA before this.

A fellow space blogger, Douglas Mallette, has some good thoughts on extending Shuttle. One must, indeed, wonder what the future of America's human space flight program is to be. I'd like to think that Augustine and his panel would keep things moving on plan, but while I do have a dog in that fight (writing for Ares), it's not my place to tell the judge that a friend's dog is better than someone else's...or do I? Here's one of those situations where Dar's hopes for a collaborative Office of Technology Assessment might come in handy.

The War is Boring blog on the U.S. Navy's concerns about China's new "carrier-killer" missiles.

I suppose I should quit there. Monday is bound to be a busy news day, and I'll be under the radar, watching it all. Peace.

Morning Potpourri

I've got a blood test before work today, so I've got a little time to blog and blather this morning.

Darlene has made another addition to her "Sexy Scientist" FlickR page: Joanne Manaster, a biology instructor. She does video/YouTube reviews of books, so I might have to add her to the blog list.

The White House is now trying to spin President Obama's gaffe at bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Again, had this been Bush, it would've been the #1 story for weeks on end--proving his incompetence, stupidity, cupidity, etc., but because it's Obama, it'll get some play on Fox and Drudge, and then sink into the peat bog of the conservative blogosphere, never to be heard of again. That would be an unevent, as Orwell would say.

*

Now I do take some pretty serious potshots at the President, liberals, etc., on this page, and I don't apologize for them. I try to keep the rhetoric out of the blatant insult range and focus on policy, but I'm not above questioning motives or competence. That said, I don't begrudge anyone their right to respond. What I've found lately--especially in Facebook--is a certain contempt for differing opinions. The Libertarians slam the Republicans. The triumphant liberals pound the heck out of Christian conservatives. The conservatives ping Obama. And around and around it goes.

Awhile back, I watched a TV show or read an article describing signs of divorce in a married household. One of the leading contenders is contempt by one partner for another. I was under the impression that Americans were known for their fair-mindedness, sense of fair play, or acceptance of differing viewpoints. Apparently that is going by the wayside. It's not just a matter of John believes X while Mary believes Y, it's that Mary must be evil, stupid, corrupt, or a scumbag if she believes Y, and therefore has no right to her opinion. This is not healthy for our republic. It's a short step from attitude to legislation, especially in the hothouse that is Washington, DC. Political arguments are not just political, but referenda on individuals' moral worth. Or, to turn it around, politics has become very personalized, with a healthy helping of contempt, and if you can discredit the individual, you can thereby discount the logic or merit of any argument they make.

Again, my objection is not to the arguments--those are healthy and necessary in a dynamic civilization like ours--but their tone. The level of contempt is rising, as is the "winner-take-all" philosophy of the governing parties. If you're in power, you do everything you can to force your opinions and policies down the throats of everyone before you're out of power. If you're out of power, you do everything to stop whatever the party in power is doing. And if it's a split decision, both sides take their swipes to ensure a better opportunity to get into power.

I suppose this might be "politics as usual," but being a student of rhetoric (hence the title of this blog), I take words very seriously. I dislike terms like revolution, heads will roll, treason, violence, secession, or balkanization, all of which have crossed my inbox from various sides of the aisle. The level of rhetoric is heating up to an unnecessary degree. The nation has serious issues confronting it. We're the most powerful nation in the world, the stakes are high, and everyone and his brother thinks he could do a better job than the President. (I don't, by the way. I wouldn't want the job.) Criticism is no longer couched in some highfalutin' sense of "the good of the country," which I'd actually prefer, but as a game of "smashmouth" politics. Every fault must be pointed out and pounded relentlessly as a personal failing. Every failed policy is part of some conspiracy. Every speech is a lie or a d@mned lie.

I'm tired of it. I vote, because that's the quietest way I know to enforce my opinions. I express my opinions here, but that doesn't mean they have any force of law. I'd like to think I'm contributing to a conversation, albeit a high-level and sometimes-deadly-important one. They are my opinions, and you're welcome to yours. No one needs the insults or questions of character when all I'm doing is disagreeing with yours. "Live and let live" is still a good philosophy, but it's becoming very rare indeed, between political leaders and private individuals, to the loss of us all.