In response to the SFSU events I discuss here, the task force has met, labored mightily, and brought forth a mouse. Islamic studies proposed for S.F. State. “Trying to improve relations between pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli students at San Francisco State University, a task force has recommended that the college create an Arab and Islamic studies program.”
Charles Johnson has comments as well; but my take is simple.
First, I’m typically dubious about [fill-in-the-ethnic-group] studies, even though there are a number of legitimate things to study, because in fact they typically become job programs and sinecures for those who make their living in ‘racial identity’ politics. I know there is a Jewish Studies department there, and so in the abstract it’s probably not a bad thing to also have one for Islamic Studies.
But…the lack of significant condemnation and consequence (a moderately strong letter from the University Presdent to the GUPS regarding the hateful poster, and defunding of GUPS for one year) to what were outrageous and repressive actions by the GUPS-led counterdemonstrators blows the decision into the stratosphere.
Here’s a thought experiment. The demonstrators were African American. The counter-demonstrators were white. Imagine the same words spoken, the same actions taken. We’ll skip over the fact that the counterdemonstrators would have needed police protection as the justifiably outraged demonstrators reacted; what would the moral reaction be? Even if one were under consideration, would we be seeing a ‘department of Christian Identity Studies” right now? So obviously not that the very idea is absurd.
Here’s the deal. The reported behavior of the GUPS-led counterdemonstrators was outrageous. There has been no report anywhere that I have read that has suggsted that the reported behavior didn’t happen. So we’ll assume it happened. The University is now complicit in this behavior by a) tolerating it in the first place, only reacting late (which certainly gives the appearance of reacting to the public response, not the event), reacting to it minimally, and now by doing something which while possibly reasonable on its own (establishing a Muslim Studies Department) sure gives the impression of rewarding the wrongdoers.
Great. Just great.

From WahooPundit:

As some of the comments on your blog have alluded to: a Wahoo is a fish that can drink twice its weight. The Wahoo is a long, narrow fish — similar to a gar — with many sharp teeth and a bad temper. It certainly makes for a much fiercer mascot than a Terrapin, a Tarheel or a Hokie.
As for the official version, I defer to the Unofficial Fan Page of Virginia Sports — The Sabre.com
“Legend has it that Washington & Lee baseball fans dubbed the Virginia players Wahoos during the fiercely contested rivalry that existed between the two in-state schools in the 1890s. By 1940, Wahoos was in general use around Grounds to denote University students or events relating to them. The abbreviated Hoos sprang up later in student newspapers and has gained growing popularity in recent years.
Cavaliers is derived from those who supported the Restoration of the Monarchy during the English Civil War — in opposition to the Roundheads who backed Oliver Cromwell.

I’ve read a great deal about anonymity in the last few days; mostly critical to be sure. From comments on Electrolyte:

Regarding blog pseudonyms: I don’t like ’em. I try not to make an issue out of it, and I know people of all stripes who feel they have good reason to use them. But it bothers me. When I’m in a dispute with someone who calls themself “Pericles” or whatever, I feel very much at a disadvantage. Patrick Nielsen Hayden is a real person; you can look me up in the phone book, you can accost me in front of my office building, you can find me at conventions and public appearances. “Pericles” is a drive-by with mirrored glass windows. (comment by Patrick Nielsen Hayden)

From Den Beste:

When someone won’t even reveal his name, it should set off alarm bells unless he provides a legitimate reason for keeping it secret. If someone is confident about what they’re saying, they should be willing to own up in public to holding those opinions. A person who debates anonymously may not be wrong, but you should certainly be far more skeptical about anything they say.

Now, to be blunt, I think these comments are directed here and here, more than at me.
But they do give me pause to reflect, and to try and explain why I chose to be, and for now, still choose to be anonymous.
First, because one of the reasons I started this blog is to try and reconcile some of what I perceived to be contradictions in my own politics. How can I have dinner with Jeff Cooper (that one, not the law one) and still send money to Amnesty International (although I’ve stopped in light of their recent piss-poor performance in the Middle East)? How can I believe in progressive taxation, and be opposed to teacher’s unions?
One of the features of modern political life (that I continue to beat on in the vain hope that it will get up and walk and talk, thereby dazzling my readers) is the fact that we are first and foremost formed into narrow political teams. We wear our team colors, and sing the fight songs from scripts handed us by the marketing division of the team that’s playing today.
The problem is that there is no “America’s team” any more (Sorry Jerry Jones), even though pretty much every team would have us believe that secretly, it’s really them.
And, like a lot of people, I belong to more than one. So when I talk to my progressive friends, it’s hard to address shooting or gun rights without triggering yet another dead-end disagreement. When I’m with my friends who shoot, I really don’t spend a lot of time debating environmental policy, because I’m not going to convince them to look beyond what Rush has said. It’s simpler that way. When I’m with my friends who work in politics, I don’t spend a lot of time dwelling on the failures of our electoral system, because no matter how diplomatically I couch what I say, I’m talking about them and their livelihood.
Now the reality is, that I lose and they lose in that, because I can’t express my full self…can’t as it were come out of the closet…and they don’t get their worldviews broadened. It even feels kind of cowardly right now as I write it.
But the reality is that our political lives are so Balkanized (meaning that we passionately defend and exploit the boundaries in the narrowly fragmented landscape) that I have to question whether it’s worth it to be engaged in battle every day, and so I quietly hold my tongue.
This page is where I get to speak out.
There are other petty practical issues as well. I contract for a living, meaning that like an actor, I need to audition for work several times a year. (did I mention that I’m looking for consulting right now?) Getting and not getting work can seem capricious and in fact is highly political. Which means that I need to exercise care not to overtly offend those who put bread on my family table.
And on this page, I get to offend them. Like almost everyone else in the Blog-verse, I’d love to make my living opining, and so be free to stand behind my words. I’d also love a pony, as long as you’re delivering on wishes…

I wasn’t going to blog this, because it’s not like Matt Welch needs traffic from me, but moral consistency (and an instinctive desire to tweak Ann’s reflexive ‘protect all Democrats’ instincts) forced my hand.
Short version: Gov. ‘SkyBox’ Davis offers $650 Million to Movie Studios.
Now this is something I know little bit about, and the reality is a) that the costs of production in Canada are lower in part because of the Canadian/U.S. dollar spread, and b) because the Canadians gave a significant tax incentive to produce there. Davis proposes to offset this with a state tax credit.
I’m not inherently opposed to tax credits or other government incentives. But the sad reality is that they more often reflect the desire of politicians to be close to those incented…often to ensure the steady supply of donations…than any kind of reasoned effort to grow the economy.
So the incentives often go to the places that need it least…sugar growers, as a good example. There’s actually a great quote from this article: “The U.S. sugar program is the most efficient tax we have,” says Kempner with bitter sarcasm. “It comes directly from consumers and goes directly to the growers, who turn around and give some of the money to the politicians. It never goes through Washington at all.”.
The film (and music) industries have been critical to the health of the California economy. Sadly, they are facing huge structural challenges right now, as anyone who reads Instapundit or Eric Olsen knows. There’s a huge budget shortfall in the state. You gotta ask yourself; is this the right place to spend our cash right now? Well… is it, Governor?

Biggest Guy is starting UVA in a few weeks (I’ll be there next week, who’s close to there in the Blogosphere?), and one thing has tormented me for the entire time he’s been there (he’s been working in a research lab for over a year, trying the place out before deciding to go there). How does the school…mascot Cavaliers (makes sense, Southern light cavalry and all)…wind up with the nickname ‘Wahoos’??
And, aimlessly surfing the blogs this morning, I discovered…wait for it…the WahooPundit. Email has been sent, and an answer anxiously awaited.

Today, Patrick Nielsen Hayden and Instapundit comment on the Brad DeLong post I disuss here.
Check out the discussion thread on Hayden’s site, where Buckaroo Banzai references fly unchecked.
More important; it remains a two-dimensional tug-of-war in which one small team gains and another loses. I’ll restate that the rest of us are watching from the cheap seats as the game itself becomes increasingly irrelevant to us and our lives.
Except for the taxes, laws, and wars. Stuff like that which leads me to want to take the game back.

Mike Hendrix, of Cold Fury, weighs in on hard times (forgive the extended quote, link over and give him some traffic, but this is too good):

ABC’s presentation was just as lame. I don’t remember the specifics like names and places and whatnot completely, but I do remember quite well that they spent a good bit of time on some guy whose stocks had dropped in value by a third (!) due to the recent fluctuations. Yep, that’s right – this poor poor man had lost around 370,000 dollars. That of course means that he originally had over a million bucks worth before the market nosedived, and how much do you want to bet that he made most of that nut back during the ’90’s bubble? And I’ll guarantee you he has way more than a million tucked away elsewhere, like real estate and 401k’s and such. But the still-rich-by-my-standards little snot still had the audacity, the sheer tacky gall, to complain about possibly having to keep on working past age 55 just like Mr. Chest-butt above did.
Let me tell you a little story about my mom and stepdad. My stepdad is almost 65. He has no thought of retiring – he still works in the cotton mill he’s worked in for 40 years and will most likely keep right on until they wheel him out, and he ain’t doing it because he loves the work either. My mom has been unable to work for years due to the gradual worsening of a neck injury she suffered in a car accident 35 years ago. They’re on something like their 4th or 5th mortgage and have no hope of ever paying off the house, until they die and the insurance does it for ’em. They provide constant care and a living space for my mom’s sister, who has emphysema and requires the assistance of an oxygen tank to breathe. They do the usual sort of complaining about money that we all do, but nothing like the sort of whining these dickless yuppies are doing now. They have absolutely no expectation whatsoever that the Almighty Federal Government is going to step in and save their asses either and would be somewhat amused by the thought, which is probably why ABC News won’t be putting them on TV anytime soon. My mom gets a very small amount from Social Security and my aunt is on Medicare, and that’s the limit of federal assistance they figure on getting.
Let me tell you a little story about myself now. I don’t own stocks, I don’t have a retirement plan, and I barely scrape by month to month. I work my ass off and have never taken a vacation in my entire working life – not once. I’ve ducked out on the occasional Friday for a long weekend, sure, but a full-fledged week-long pleasure trip, never. I don’t expect the government to bail me out of any financial woes I may have anymore than my mom does. I’ve made my own choices over the years and it’s my responsibility to find a way to deal with the potential adverse consequences of them.

Now remind me again who federal policies are supposed to assist?
See, I am a liberal. I do believe that government should help folks who need help.
But seeing us look to help those whose portfolios dropped from $1 million to $100,000 really doesn’t make me feel all soft and warm. You were a grownup when you asked for the cards and put your money on the table. Ther’s nothing in the Constitution about a vacation house in Aspen. Get over it.
But if there were a group of Democrats who were looking at Mike and his parents…trying to figure out how he could retire without working as a greeter at Wal-Mart, and how they could get health care and still pay the mortgage…well, I’d bet there is a consituency out these who would vote for them.
I know I would.

…well, not really…
Ann Salisbury points to the S.J. Mercury-News article about the noxious Intuit bill restricting free state e-filing dying.
I’m off to paint a picture of a lobbyist on the side of my motorcycle…

Brad DeLong, who is smarter (and probably better-looking) than I am, launches on the ‘rhino neoliberals’ who, he says, are bridging over to the neoconservative side.

Kaus has thus passed through the third of the four stages of becoming a Rhinoceros… excuse me, a neoconservative.
The first stage is to hold that the flaws–the mighty flaws–of the center-left in American politics are important enough to more-or-less balance the flaws of the right. The second stage is to start making desperate and implausible excuses for Republican politicians and functionaries. The third stage is to lose contact with the substance of public policy issues, and focus instead on intellectual and rhetorical “errors” made by those left of center. And the fourth stage is to start acclaiming right-wing political hacks as noble thinkers, and right-wing office holders as bold and far-sighted leaders with a plan to guide us to utopia.

It was a little frightening to me to read this…kind of like one of the “you may be an alcoholic if…” articles where you start recognizing some of your own behavior.
Then I thought about it a bit.
Here’s the deal: I think Brad is conflating two different sets of issues, which are rooted in our political ecology.
One set are substantive, and have to do with policy, governance, and what exactly we want the government to do…in my case, offer great day care, have a moderately progressive tax code, etc. etc. … the other set are procedural, and have to do with how the government makes decisions and constitutes itself.
Substantively, I stand with the liberal side of the house (with a few wrinkles on guns and foreign policy).
But procedurally, I think that the mainstream liberal and conservative actors are indistinguishable, and I have a huge problem with them and with the process that maintains them.
Let’s take California for an example. I’ll take a wild-ass guess and say there are 3,000 jobs that will change hands over a two-year period if Republican Simon is elected over Democrat Davis. Officially, I’ll bet there are something like 500 – 1,000 exempt jobs…jobs that are exempt from civil service and are truly ‘political appointees’. But an additional few thousand jobs will shift as the new bosses hire and promote folks who they are more comfortable with, have more experience with, and who look at the world in the same way they do.
Brian Linse focuses on the importance of these jobs:

…But I still maintain that having the State in the hands of the Dems is more important for the ’04 nationals than having a better man in the job up in Sacramento. Riordan would be a better man, but it now seems certain that Simon would not, so the BadDude endorsement stays with Davis.

So what we have is a revolving pool of five or six thousand political operatives, variously liberal and conservative, Democratic and Republican, who do a large dosi-do when elections change the party in power.
The ones out of power become lobbyists, columnists, professors, political campaign advisors, go into private practice of law or other professions, and bide their time.
But they remain a part of an insular political class, and as that class gets more and more reified, elections become essentially contests between two branches of the same bureaucratic organism.
The first problem this presents is that it has been almost impossible for a true outsider (Riordan) to come in and play on a big level. Simon was wealthy, the ranks of attractive Republicans in California is thin, and from the talks I’ve had with the Republicans I know, no one thought Davis was beatable.
(Jesse Ventura will come up later in the argument).
The second problem is that the views of the ‘operative class’ become more and more insular and parochial as they increasingly interact with and talk to themselves. They are upper-middle class, educated, and articulate. They are my kind of people, they are fun to hang around with and chat about political gossip. But they live in the better bobo suburbs and have the option of sending their kids to private schools, because they can afford it.
The third, and to me biggest, problem is that the rest of us…the folks outside the political process…begin to get increasingly alienated from both the process and the people in it. See my discussion on legitimacy below, and the two books on legitimacy in the ‘must read’ section below. The average voter (or more realistically, the average non-voter) really doesn’t give a damn about the politicians, the laws they pass, or, increasingly, about the polity that we are all part of.
Why? Because instead of any effort to engage the broader population in discussion or debate, politics has become entirely tactical. What matters is how I can get positive coverage for my team, and negative coverage for theirs. And the metaphor of teams holds up, as we start talking about whether the Democrats will draft Gore as their QB in ’04, or if the plucky understudy Lieberman, will get the nod.
The people aren’t stupid, they get it, they see that it’s MLB and that the best they can do is but a ticket in the cheap seats (the SkyBoxes are already filled with the patrons of the game). And when presented with an attractive option, the non-voters (who Ventura singled out as his base) come out.
For me, I have to say that the broader issue of the isolation and alienation absolutely trumps the narrower issues which divide the electable left and right. Because I believe that if we don’t begin to deal with those, it really won’t matter who we elect.

Race-based voting, in which voters are defined by race and then can only vote for a candidate of that race is proposed for a British NGO. Electoral apartheid comes to Britain
(from Junius)