NOW He's the President Elect

You know, it's actually annoyed me somewhat that the press has been referring to Barack Obama as the "president-elect." It's especially annoyed me (and made me wonder about the legality) that he's been acting from the Office of the President Elect (which is, in fact, a real office, created by the Presidential Transition Act of 1963).

Until the electoral college met, he was the president-designate. Now, as of 3:00pm yesterday, he's the president-elect.

Is this just nit-picking? I mean, it's a matter of law, isn't it?

Brains: God Is In The Details

Trinity Broadcasting documents it's own staff assisting in the violation of military regulations

( Heads had better roll over this one. )

WND: Will Christian mom lose daughter to lesbian?

( WND, Classy as ever. )

Congress declares war on war on Christmas.

( Because all the really serious problems have been dealt with. )

Are (social) liberals better parents that (social) conservatives?

Margaret Talbot looks past the numbers on why teenage pregnancy is more common among self-identifying "conservative" families than "liberal ones," and concludes:

The "pro-family" efforts of social conservatives–the campaigns against gay marriage and abortion–do nothing to instill the emotional discipline or the psychological smarts that forsaking all others often involves. Evangelicals are very good at articulating their sexual ideals, but they have little practical advice for their young followers. Social liberals, meanwhile, are not very good at articulating values on marriage and teen sexuality–indeed, they may feel that it's unseemly or judgmental to do so. But in fact the new middle-class morality is squarely pro-family. Maybe these choices weren't originally about values–maybe they were about maximizing education and careers–yet the result is a more stable family system. Not only do couples who marry later stay married longer; children born to older couples fare better on a variety of measures, including educational attainment, regardless of their parents' economic circumstances. The new middle-class culture of intensive parenting has ridiculous aspects, but it's pretty successful at turning out productive, emotionally resilient young adults. And its intensity may be one reason that teen-agers from close families see child-rearing as a project for which they're not yet ready. For too long, the conventional wisdom has been that social conservatives are the upholders of family values, whereas liberals are the proponents of a polymorphous selfishness. This isn't true, and, every once in a while, liberals might point that out.

The meta is that conservatives focus on sexual issues, which bring them to the forefront of teenager's thoughts, whereas liberals focus on personal issues, and give teenagers reasons to avoid sex-- and risky sex, should they have it-- that are immediate and attention-getting.

One thing that Talbot doesn't concentrate on, to the article's weakness, is the way liberal's don't have a "forgiveness" meme as powerful as the redemptive memes of conservatism, and the way liberals don't automatically and cultural value "unwanted" children, whereas the primitive, muscular conservatism of which Sarah Palin was postergirl views any child as an automatic blessing.

One thing that doesn't jibe at all, though, is that the majority of evangelicals don't believe sex will be pleasurable-- so why do they do it at all? Why do they have the earliest "sexual debuts," and the highest rates of sexual activity? In contrast, Jewish teenagers are the most likely to believe sex will be pleasureable-- and yet they have the lowest rates of teenage sexual activity and very late sexual debuts.

Article: Red Sex, Blue Sex

Attention, Muse!

Dearest Muse:

I just got your latest memo. You are aware that our schedule has been fitful of late, correct? Yes, we finally finished another Yowler story, but I don't particularly care for it: it's deperately short of furniture.

But going back to the Caprice stories again? Really? All these ideas add up to something, but a prequel?.

I'll have to think about that one.

It's time for duelling George Orwell quotes.

It's duelling George Orwell quotes!

For the true socialist, in tying himself to the ideal of mechanical efficiency, ties himself to the ideal of softness. But softness is repulsive; all progress is seen as a frantic struggle toward an objective he hopes and prays will never be reached...

The apostle of 'progress' will sometimes declare that this is not the case, but you can usually drive him into a comer by pointing out the horrible lengths to which the process can be carried. There is really no reason why a human being should do more than eat, drink, sleep, breathe, and procreate; everything else could be done for him by machinery. Therefore the logical end of mechanical progress is to reduce the human being to something resembling a brain in a bottle. That is the goal towards which we are already moving, though, of course, we have no intention of getting there.

Orwell's whole point is that his real fear, at least in 1937 (when Road to Wigan Pier, from which the quote comes, was written-- 12 years prior to 1984), was that Socialism-- and Orwell was a Socialist-- would fail because the bright, shiny, sterile world that was the mode of expression of most Socialists, most notably H. G. Wells, was heading not to Animal Farm or 1984, but to a book that had already been written, and which Orwell fully admired: Brave New World, an ugly, unhappy world that repelled most English citizens. Socialism was doomed as long as the Wellsian view remained dominant.

Orwell believed that Socialism's ultimate goal, if the popular view of Socialism put forth by Wells and his cadre were considered seriously, was what we would now call the Singularity. Orwell wanted a Socialism that looked more like the pastoralism of Tolkien than the technocracy of Wells, but he wanted Socialism all the same.

Orwell is probably spinning in his grave to know that not only have some people embraced the whole 'brain in a bottle' idea, but they've gone far, far beyond it, and that they expect capitalism to deliver.

[Edit: Oh, grief. A Google for "The Road to Wigan Pier" and "the Singularity" brings up only one hit directly linking the two concepts, and it's a doozy: Charles Rubin's contribution to the execrable Human Dignity and Bioethics, from President Bush's Council of Bioethics. I'm mortified.]