Advice Goddess Blog
« Previous | Home | Next »

How To Explain Theft To Socialists
After the John Edwards blogger brouhaha, I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I hopped on Pandagon, the group blog of, among others, Amanda Marcotte, who ultimately resigned her job with Edwards' campaign. I found her shrill, male-bashing, simplistic and illogical. Yawn. Nothing to see there, move along.

Yesterday, I was talking about the Edwards blogging debacle with my editorial assistant, and I hopped on Pandagon again. I was extremely offended by what I saw. Not by the silly headline on the entry by Chris Clarke suggesting libertarians are dim -- "How To Explain Things to Libertarians" -- and not even by the ridiculous blowhardism that followed.

It was the fact that they appear to have published a B. Kliban cartoon, from the B. Kliban book, Two Guys Fooling Around with the Moon, without permission. Here's a thumbnail of the Pandagon entry:

PandagonpubKliban.jpg

I left a comment below the entry at Pandagon questioning whether they had the rights to the cartoon. My comment was "awaiting moderation," the dialogue box said. And awaiting and awaiting.

Other posts posted later than mine went up. A whole string of them. Mine still did not appear.

I refreshed the page a number of times over the next hour or so, and my comment was still "awaiting moderation." Here's a screen shot I took at 3:07 Pacific Time, according to the time-stamp in my computer:

pandagonalkoncomment.jpg

My comment still hadn't been posted when I took the screen shot, but many others had been posted below it -- Em's and Stephen Stralka's, for example. (FYI, I believe Pandagon is on Eastern Time.)

At 1:00 am, PST, there are 165 responses posted -- just not mine. I'm guessing that if I were wrong about the cartoon, and they actually had paid for the right to use it, my comment would have been posted with some snide reply telling me how wrong I was.

The difference between a libertarian blog like Reason magazine's and Pandagon? Well, if my suspicions about the cartoon are correct, a respect for the intellectual property and property rights of others.

And then, freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas and differing opinions. I have yet to have a comment, no matter how critical of a Reason author or the magazine, deleted over in the free minds/free markets zone.

For those who want a sane, balanced, and informed idea what libertarianism really is, turn to Brian Doherty's excellent new book, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.

Posted by aalkon at February 24, 2007 6:01 PM

Comments

Are those folke trying to be serious or is that like the National Lampoon of the left?

When they leap into the "history of Libertarianism" with this:


The French Philosopher in question is, as some of you have guessed (and with whose description a few of you are no doubt ready to quibble), Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, who famously penned the Libertarians’ Sekrit Motto, “Property is Theft.” Of course unlike modern Libertarians, Proudhon meant that as a condemnation.

right after stealing someone's work, I must question what is really going on here.

Also, how did they get from "Property is Theft" to "Taxation is Theft" or did they even bother? I have never heard anybody remotly identifying as a libertarian say "Property is Theft". Is this one of those 'big long stories' at the Humanities Department that those students hear often enough that they assume it is the truth and all others should know it?

BTW, they still had not bothered to post your comment at my reading a moment ago.

Posted by: Guy Montag at February 24, 2007 6:01 AM

Forget it. The folks at Pandagon are marginal thinkers. Trying to explain Adam Smith or Milton Friedman to them is like trying to explain thermodynamics to a dog.

They hear the words and act like they mean something, but ultimately you're just wasting your breath.

They know only hate. Hate of Republicans, captialism, and men. Oh, and Catholics. They really hate catholics.

Posted by: brian at February 24, 2007 6:17 AM

Here's Proudhon by a guy who isn't an idiot:

http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2006/01/proudhon.html

He (Sheldon Richman) says that Proudhon wrote:

"Where shall we find a power capable of counterbalancing this formidable might of the State? There is no other except property.... The absolute right of the State is in conflict with the absolute right of the property owner. Property is the greatest revolutionary force which exists" (Theory of Property).

Richman continues:

So how can property be theft? As stated in Wikipedia, "The apparent contradiction is resolved when it is realized that, in What is Property?, he was using 'property' to mean idle natural resources that, through coercion and conquest, individuals were being prevented from using by the force of the state."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 24, 2007 7:44 AM

Hey Norman, read Amy's last comment. Even through property, freedom isn't just given to people, they have to earn it.

Posted by: Crid at February 24, 2007 8:07 AM

Here's a worthwhile post on Proudhon by Brad Spangler: http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/511. Proudhon was no collectivist.

Posted by: Sheldon Richman at February 24, 2007 8:40 AM

They are clueless political bloggers/hacks. The typical shrill, shrieking and lack of substance writing style that is prevalent in today’s political discourse. The article is full of vague simplifications, generalities and typical stereotypes. Similar to right-wingers labeling libertarians as hedonistic, irresponsible libertines.

"Libertarianism originated in the philosophy of a left-wing French political philosopher who also influenced Karl Marx.”

Wrong. Modern libertarianism was influenced by two schools of thought out of the 19th Century. The British and the French Classical Liberal philosophy. Writers like Locke, Smith, Bastiat, de Tocheville and Constant. Anyone can sum up the classical-liberal philosophy in 2 areas:

1. The importance of individual rights.
2. The value of property rights.

There are sympathies towards Proudhon's and other anarchists’ writings on the abuses of the state, but that is it. Most left-libertarians-black flag anarchists types support Proudhon's political writings such as Chomsky and the people at the Agorist Institute.

Why bother going into the other inaccuracies of the piece?

My suspicion behind the true intentions is not an honest blogger sphere debate, but to galvanize the faithful for the elections in 2008 within the Democratic party. Why? There have been approaches made by certain beltway libertarians towards the Democratic Leadership Council in the last 6 months to make the party more approachable to libertarian-independent voters. The DLC’s main purpose is to get the Democratic party away from the self destructive McGovernite-progressive wing.

Don’t be surprised by similar articles and posts appearing in the other usual suspects political blogger sites.

Posted by: Joe at February 24, 2007 8:45 AM

Years ago the Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto, not the conquistador, wrote the book, The Other Path, arguing for free market solutions to the statism endemic throughout South America. Much of the early part of the book dealt with the squatter communities in the suburbs and the land sezure movements in the rural areas. At the time his description o the illegal seizures of private farm and ranch land, unoccupied buildings and public property made me a little leery.

De Soto used Proudhon's arguments as a weapon to be used against the landed aristocracy and the State to legitimize these seizures. Unlike some of the current property seizures in Venezuela and Bolivia where it is the State that seizes property in the name of the people. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Posted by: Pat Patterson at February 24, 2007 8:50 AM

Theft is theft, no matter who's doing the stealing.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 24, 2007 9:57 AM

Have we got a candidate for you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1PfE9K8j0g

Whatcha gonna do when she decides she can do good things with all that advice column money?

Posted by: Crid at February 24, 2007 10:40 AM

The fool's finger wobbles back to the fire.

Posted by: Casca at February 24, 2007 11:07 AM

My mom is going to be real upset that someone said she stole her condo from the Gabriellenos.

Posted by: Pat Patterson at February 24, 2007 11:23 AM

Bloody hell! I am not sure why I am surprised that they would 1) swipe somebody's IP and then 2) refuse to post your inquiry.

Tis most curious...

Posted by: André-Tascha at February 24, 2007 11:32 AM

Bloody hell! I am not sure why I am surprised that they would 1) swipe somebody's IP and then 2) refuse to post your inquiry.

Tis most curious...

Because 1) all property is theft, so they did not steal it first and 2) free speech is great, as long as you agree with what they heard in their Humanities studies

Posted by: Guy Montag at February 24, 2007 12:03 PM

Oh, and Catholics. They really hate catholics.

Hogwash. If all it takes to be labeled "anti-catholic" is to criticize the Pope's/church's stand on birth control, abortion and homosexuality, then I know a lot of practicing Catholics who qualify.

Posted by: deja pseu at February 24, 2007 6:52 PM

Amy, I'm curious. What specifically did you read at Pandagon that you felt was anti-male?

Posted by: deja pseu at February 24, 2007 6:54 PM

I know you like her site, but I read a bunch of entries and found her to be a shrill "patriarchy"-blamer, and didn't think highly of some of the others' entries on the site. I didn't save the links, as I had no idea I'd be linking to anything on the site.

This piece on libertarians is typical. There are things to criticize libertarians for -- this piece is filled with inaccuracies, not funny, and just a mess...and topped by what appears to be evidence of their own respect for property rights.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 24, 2007 7:25 PM

Ah. If my computer weren't constantly freezing up, I'd get into why "patriarchy" isn't about individual men, but I'll save it for another time. Mr. Deja is out right now shopping for a new PC. I know, I know, but my work applications won't run on Macs.

Posted by: deja pseu at February 24, 2007 7:31 PM

Oh, and tempting PC fate here, but actually there's a lot of areas where you and Amanda share similar views: religion, Iraq, Bush, and yes, porn.

Posted by: deja pseu at February 24, 2007 7:33 PM

Yes, I'm sure we do, but I found her shrill, humorless, and a lazy thinker in the entries I read. That, for me, is the most stunning part of Edwards hiring her. There's real dunderheadedness there, too, on Edwards' side and on hers, in thinking she could be in that job. There are simply people who are not appropriate to be hired by political campaigns, left or right. Me, for example. I'm an outspoken, vulgar, immature, anti-god-believing jokester; albeit with a serious side. If a campaign called to hire me, I'd tell them they were making a mistake. A suicidal one.

The "progressives" are too clueless for that, I guess, probably because they don't live in the real world. And why is it that people who run around yelling stuff like "Power to the people!" are so often the people who think nothing of taking property from people without paying?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 24, 2007 7:51 PM

> why "patriarchy" isn't about
> individual men, but I'll save
> it for another time.

On the westside, chops are licked in anticipation.

Remember that song? Antici

pation.

This is going to be so, so good

Posted by: Crid at February 24, 2007 8:06 PM

deja pseu.

Amy, I'm curious. What specifically did you read at Pandagon that you felt was anti-male?

Perhaps you missed anything written there about the Duke LaCrosse players?

Oh yea, that was washed in the memory hole. No way there are any other examples.

Posted by: Guy Montag at February 24, 2007 8:34 PM

Don't forget Amanda also has a persecution complex:

"In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to "silence" me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems."

(The 'he' is referring to William Donohoe of the Catholic League.)

So how does one equate leaving the Edwards campaign voluntarily as being silenced??? Oh those nasty rightwing noise machines.

I do read her blog when I need a laugh. She really opened my eyes on the hidden sexism found in Burger King ads. Now I am a better person.

Posted by: Joe at February 24, 2007 8:50 PM

Now I am a better person.

Tragically, I am not.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 24, 2007 9:00 PM

Okay, let me revise my position on Marcotte: The woman is a raving moron.

I saw the Duke posts, and some other stuff (I do so much reading every day, I can barely remember what flight Gregg always comes in on, let alone stuff I think is shit not worth keeping in my already overcrowded head). Initially, I went there, looked around, said to myself, "Oh, another raving dimwit man-basher," and probably clicked onto something smart, like Respectful Insolence, for a mental shower of sorts.

Anyway, this "sexual politics of greasy fast food" Marcotte posted on Pandagon that Joe mentions above takes the fucking cake.

http://pandagon.net/2006/05/04/the-sexual-politics-of-greasy-fast-food/

Here's a quote:

But in the years since, it’s become difficult for me not to notice that not only is vegetarianism something that’s coded as female, but that meat-eating is coded as most definitely masculine.

I won’t go into that too deeply, because you have the link to Adams’ stuff there and you can peruse it. What I find interesting about it is that the consumption of meat as a way of homosocial bonding through the disdain of women fits really neatly into other media portrayals of how men are supposed to bond–generally by a shared loathing and/or objectification of women.

Whaddya wanna bet Marcotte doesn't have permission to use the image from the nitwit's slideshow? Just guessing of course, but there's a bit on Carol J. Adams site about "booking" the slideshow. Even though she's a nutwad feminist, and probably a socialist, I'm betting she still doesn't give shit away free.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 24, 2007 9:51 PM

Speaking of Carol J. Adams, she's HILARIOUS!

Check this out, from her site, from a Harvard Crimson i-view by Elizabeth W. Green:

http://www.triroc.com/caroladams/interviews.html

Carol J. Adams, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat and The Pornography of Meat, drew fame in feminist-vegan-theory circles when she linked “species” oppression to gender oppression. She argues that the objectification of women and animals follow similar patterns

...1. You were billed across campus as a “feminist-vegetarian theorist” offering an “ecofeminist analysis of the interconnected oppressions of sexism, racism, and speciesism.” In your presentation in the Quincy House dining hall last week you called asparagus a phallic symbol and said parsley was representative of pubic hair. Should we really take you seriously?

Since when is a cigar only a cigar and an asparagus only an asparagus? Most people aren’t willing to look at things other than how we have been trained to look at them. Images that are in our face naturalize oppression, and re-enforce dominance by animalizing women and feminizing nonhuman animals—serving them both up as consumable.

Here's more:

4. You coined the phrase “anthropornography.” Can you define that term, with reference to the popular science fiction series “Animorphs”?

Anthropornography is the depiction of non-humans as prostitute-animals who desire to be eaten. From this month’s Vanity Fair with a dead chicken in high heels, to the “Turkey Hooker,” animals’ suffering is made into sexualized fun. With anthropornography the inequality of species conveys the inequality of gender; desire hides dominance. While vegetarians, vegans and animal activists are accused of anthropomorphizing animals—of projecting human qualities onto nonhuman animals—it seems that really it is meat eaters and anthropornographers who do this. Animal activists know that animals are like human beings because human beings are animals. “Animorphs,” through its sympathetic magic theme, suggests this truth too.

5. I would ask you your favorite anthropornographic animal, but I feel like that would lead to a lesser-of-two-evils situation. So: if you could choose any anthropornographic character to punch in the face, which would it be?

Personally, I believe in nonviolence, but some of my friends have offered to take down Hugh Heifer for me.

Sick bitches.

I can't think of a single friend or acquaintance who would, even as a joke, offer to kill somebody for me. I guess that sort of thing is for the better among us, like the feminist-vegan theorists and a rather too-wide swath of believers from "The Religion of Peace."

PS In case you're wondering, I have a vagina (although I can't imagine getting on stage and screaming about it)...AND I eat steak (as rare as possible, thanks!) and consider it a tasty dinner and a good way to keep from getting anemic.

Does that make me:

1. A self-loathing woman ever ready and willing to suck off the patriarchy?

2. Sane?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 24, 2007 10:00 PM

Ladies and Gentleman. Carol Adams, the next Andrea Dworkin for the 21st century.

Posted by: Joe at February 24, 2007 10:36 PM

PS In case you're wondering, I have a vagina (although I can't imagine getting on stage and screaming about it)...AND I eat steak (as rare as possible, thanks!) and consider it a tasty dinner and a good way to keep from getting anemic.

Does that make me:

1. A self-loathing woman ever ready and willing to suck off the patriarchy?

2. Sane?

Well, if you are smaller than a cow and easy on the eyes doesn't that make you an anorexic brainwashed barbie slave to men?

Perhaps the new crop of college gals has a new set of words for the same nonsense? You know, new words for new grants and all that.

Posted by: Guy Montag at February 25, 2007 12:55 AM

Well, if you are smaller than a cow and easy on the eyes doesn't that make you an anorexic brainwashed barbie slave to men

I like to think of myself as "The Intelli-Bimbo."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 25, 2007 1:15 AM

Crid-


I believe I understand your point, but it seems you're missing mine. When I suggest flooding a country with, say, wap phones, you can't get past the point that you would have to spend good dollars to own one of these items, and they're being given away free, like some kind of welfare program, and that's not going to develop a work ethic, is it? Bribing these people won't work; it's not shortage of consumer goods that makes 'em ornery. (Correct me if I don't understand you.)


My intent is quite different. I'm pointing at the moon, and you're looking at my finger. The free goods are a channel through which a society-changing power can flow. It's not the phones, it's the effect they have on a population denied free access to, or exchange of, information, either about themselves, or about the rest of the world.


Of course it's possible that the free flow of information would not have the liberating effect I imagine. Perhaps one more episode of "Friends" would just be the last straw that would inflame the mullahs to more hatred. I could understand that.

Posted by: Norman at February 25, 2007 1:24 AM

I don't think Saddam maintained authority in Iraq by convincing people of things that weren't true. His threats were real. This wasn't a failure to communicate.

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 4:34 AM

Change of premiss! The topic (this time) was Amy's question:


How do you modernize primitive thinkers? Anybody have any ideas?

Spreading globalization is the best I can come up with.

And if women can't even drive and are sort of 1/3 of a person in these cultures, it seems a rather ineffective suggestion.
My wap phones are for spreading globalization, not toppling tyrants. (I do think they are connected, but that's not the point at issue here.)


Question: why did (does?) the Church try to prevent publication of books like those by Copernicus & Galileo? Because ideas can be powerful, and books spread them. IT can do the same.

Posted by: Norman at February 25, 2007 5:36 AM

> spreading globalization, not toppling
> tyrants. (I do think they are connected,
> but that's not the point

It is or it isn't. You just said

> a channel through which a society-
> changing power can flow.

Do you or do you not think the problem is communications? I think the problem is not that there weren't enough cell phones in Baghdad in the 1990's; the problem was that if Saddam didn't like what you were saying into one, he'd shoot you in the head.

I like to think of you as Dry-Goods Norman, the Yerope'yan who advocates World Peace through Free Stuff. I like you because you personify a critique of liberal thinking that has yet to be disproved, that liberals find fault with things, not people. Guns, cellphones, whatever: Lefties think that if we just put all the STUFF where it needs to be, we'll all get along.

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 5:52 AM

Crid - go clean your room. If you put all the stuff where it needs to be, mommy will be happy!

See, that's where so-called "progressives" get it from. They have infantilized everyone around them and see everyone and everything through the eyes of the overbearing parent that just wants the kids to behave.

And figures that if the kid won't clean up the stuff they've already got, maybe they can be bribed with new stuff.

Which is why their kids shoot up schools and beat homeless men to death on the street.

Posted by: brian at February 25, 2007 6:43 AM

You know, I think that there's some pretty fuzzy thinking and "shrillness" on both sides of the spectrum (Michelle Malkin, anyone?). I consider myself a centrist with progressive leanings, and I'm plenty grounded in reality, thanks. I've worked since I was 16, have had my way paid by no one, and believe in financial and personal self-reliance. Most of the "progressives" I know IRL fall into the same category.

BTW, I read Pandagon mainly for entertainment, and don't read every post, not do I agree with everything I read (just like here). In all honesty, I haven't read the Duke posts, and probably won't. There are other places I go for more in-depth and thoughful political commentary.

There's real dunderheadedness there, too, on Edwards' side and on hers, in thinking she could be in that job. Have to admit I agree with you here, Amy. I don't think Edwards was well-advised on this.

Posted by: deja pseu at February 25, 2007 7:04 AM

Also agree with you on the "politics of meat" nonsense. I'm a confirmed carnivore, with no plans to change.

Posted by: deja pseu at February 25, 2007 7:10 AM

Heck, Crid - I'm not advocating peace through plenty. I'm advocating a form of warfare - one that's tilted way over to our advantage, because we can produce stuff like never before in history. So use it as a weapon, already! I don't know how many more times I can say the same thing. I don't see where Brian's coming from but it sounds awful similar to Crid.


It's not a question of seeing the kids happy at Xmas because we've given them shiny new toys and they're grateful. It's a matter of destroying repressive regimes with weapons they can't resist, put directly into the hands of the populations they hold down. Saddam might not have liked what people were saying, but if every Iraqi adult had a phone and Saddam couldn't control them, don't you think it would have helped an insurgency to organize? You bet he wouldn't like what they would be saying. That's the point. (Especially if we _also_ provided hand guns and ammo!)


Lefties think that if we just put all the STUFF where it needs to be, we'll all get along. If that's what you hear me saying, read my post again more slowly. I'm advocating putting stuff where it needs to be in the same way a sniper puts a bullet where it needs to be. I wouldn't mind your disagreement - what rattles my cage is that you don't seem to hear me. You're not being deliberately obtuse, are you, Crid dear?

Posted by: Dry-Goods Norman at February 25, 2007 7:25 AM

Everyone here agrees: If these nations were secular and tolerant capitalist democracies, we'd not be having these problems. Knowing this doesn't tell us how to proceed, any more than knowing that inner-city Americans need better opportunities.

> put directly into the
> hands of the populations

You keep saying that like it means something. Have you ever watched American TV? We've got this guy named Bob Barker who gives out free washing machines. (As a bonus, he's nice to animals, and priapic with the show's curvaceous models.) If Bob Barker's going to pass out cell phones in Tikrit --or shoot them at people through a cell-phone rifle yet to be developed-- he's going to have to get started quickly, because he'll soon retire. It may be too late.

> if every Iraqi adult had a phone and
> Saddam couldn't control them,

But he can control them. Listen, heart disease would be no problem if it didn't interfere with the delivery of oxygen to the body's aerobic tissues. But it does.

As it turns out, Saddam himself has been dealt with. So let's take it from the top somewhere else:

http://tinyurl.com/29n2s8

It's Planet DG Norman, your world, and we're going to do whatever you want in order to fix this. Where do we begin? Specifically? I gotta a ship full of can openers, garden hoses and toaster ovens sitting in the Sea of Japan, just off the coast near Wonsan.

Where to, Boss?

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 8:33 AM

Deja,

We are not carnivores or omnivores in Carol Adams' eyes, but blocked-vegetarians.

Posted by: Joe at February 25, 2007 8:47 AM

Norman - Crid and I appear to agree more often than not, at least on measures of economics and the spreading thereof.

In this case, he and I agree that you cannot bribe a nation into behaving. China controls what people can see on the internet, with the assistance of American corporations, no less. Iran and Saudi Arabia have pretty decent cell-phone penetration into the populace at large, and yet communications are still monitored and punished. Egypt hunts down bloggers and puts them in jail for "contempt of islam".

You seem to believe that the people have the capacity to overpower the governments in their surveillance state. They do not. They have been (as in England) disarmed by the state. They have no more ability to influence their government than you do to influence the weather.

In the US, the government has to at least PRETEND to listen because we can shoot them if they don't. The people of Iran and other similarly oppressed nations have no such ability. Please note the effectiveness of China's crushing of the student democracy movement. Tiannenmen Square has been flushed down the memory hole, and nobody's even talked about representative democracy since.

If we want Iran to change, we have to actually DO what they have accused (with poor lies and photoshops) us of doing - arm the populace. Freedom only comes when the government fears the governed. And the only thing governments fear is armed insurrection.

Posted by: brian at February 25, 2007 8:57 AM

> You seem to believe that the people
> have the capacity to overpower the
> governments in their surveillance state.

How could you possibly think this? I supported the GD invasions!

You agree with Norman? You wanna spread "economics"? That's a great idea! But economics isn't just stuff. It also means education, opportunity, infrastructure, commerce, legal contexts. These things produce the dry goods, not the other way around.

Form a circle; hold hands! Repeat after me: "If NK (Iran/Iraq/Sudan) were a tolerant capitalist democracy, every dawn would be Christmas morning!"

So what?

Captain Cridelwood is still sitting offshore with that Valdez full of Nokias and Samsungs. Where do you want 'em?

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 9:11 AM

We are not carnivores or omnivores in Carol Adams' eyes, but blocked-vegetarians.

The way there are lacto-ovo-vegetarians, I'm a rare filet mignon-o-vegetarian.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 25, 2007 9:23 AM

Crid -

Please go back and re-read my post.

I was AGREEING WITH YOU!

Norman is the one who believes in the failed ideology of realism. Not me.

The entirety of my criticism was directed at Norman, not you.

Please parse coffee and reprocess posting .

Posted by: brian at February 25, 2007 9:31 AM

Carol J. Adams, author of The Sexual Politics of Meat and The Pornography of Meat, drew fame in feminist-vegan-theory circles when she linked “species” oppression to gender oppression.

If this country was run by vegetarian women rather than flesh eating-men, this whole air disaster would never have happened.

Posted by: Akira MacKenize at February 25, 2007 9:33 AM

Of course the HTML parser has to eat the old-school method of grinning on me. There's a grin at the end of that last post, no hostility intended.

I believe that throwing stuff at people at best creates a "cargo-cult" mentality, and at worst creates new avenues for official oppression.

Which is why cell phones in Saudi have been a boon for the Church Police. They can now find all the naughty little sluts that send text messages to filthy little boys and punish them both.

Posted by: brian at February 25, 2007 9:34 AM

Oh. Here then is a full Litella: "Never mind."

Hey Norman! The cell phones are starting to leak out of the cargo hold here... Let's DO this, babe! Where do you want 'em?

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 9:45 AM

They can now find all the naughty little sluts that send text messages to filthy little boys and punish them both.

They're looking for Lena?

No, just kidding. Lena does not use a cell phone, except on rare emergency occasions.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 25, 2007 9:59 AM

I dropped this comment on the entry in question, it got past moderation. We'll see if it stays up, or not. Maybe someone there will get it.

Posted by: Adam Selene at February 25, 2007 10:21 AM

I have a friend who used to say that he was a "lacto-ovo-pesco-bovo-avo-vegetarian."

Posted by: deja pseu at February 25, 2007 11:24 AM

Was he hungry?

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 11:27 AM

Nope, because he ate everything except green vegetables.

Posted by: deja pseu at February 25, 2007 11:32 AM

OK, so the topic has turned from Amy's original question ... to what, exactly? You want to turn North Korea from its present state into a liberal capitalist democracy?


First, I see that Brian has joined in, though Crid has as much trouble reading his posts as he does with mine. Down, Crid! Brian's a friend!


I don't understand the "GD" and "DG" references.


Brian, you, me and Crid all agree that you can't bribe a nation into behaving. That's not what I propose. Wayyyy back, in another thread a long time ago (weeks and weeks ago) I proposed a new form of warfare. I don't quite claim to be able to turn NK into a LCD. What I claimed was that it might be possible to destroy its capacity to be a military threat, almost without firing a shot. The conventional way is to spend our tax dollars (or pounds, in my case) on ordnance, ship it to the enemy and use it to destroy roads, bridges, comms networks etc. Keep doing this until your enemy surrenders or is no longer able to pose a threat. The trouble is that you have to destroy a lot of perfectly good roads, bridges etc for this to happen. Think of Germany at the end of WWII. Then when your enemy is no longer your enemy, someone has to pay to rebuild everything. Think Marshall Plan. Meantime, lots of perfectly innocent people die of disease, starvation, and stray bullets.


I don't know of anyone who thinks this is a satisfactory system for turning enemy states into friendly ones. It's _very_ expensive.


So I looked around for an alternative method of destroying an enemy's ability to wage war. We know that economic protectionism and dumping is bad for the dumpee. That's how third world farmers can't get off the ground in, say, sugar production: the first world can dump sugar at lower prices than they can produce it, so no-one in the third world makes a living growing sugar. (Maybe it's not sugar today. Substitute the commodity of the day.) What would happen if the west deliberately dumped not just sugar but every kind of commodity that an economy wanted? Not just cheaply, but absolutely free? Food, medicine, books, toys, guns, furniture - everything. I reckon the target economy would collapse. Economies work on the basis of exchange of scare resources. If resources are not scarce, there is no economy. Just like there is no economic value for gravity or air (though air does have economic value in special circumstances). No-one would need to work. And if no-one _needs_ to work, people can just thumb their noses at authority. If the government tries to put people in prison, the people can run away from their shanty towns. Free goods are everywhere. Why would anyone be a prison warder? Besides, people may start to shoot back if you try to arrest them. Eventually the enemy leader would have no followers left.


I don't know how long it would take or how much commodity you'd have to dump - I'm not an economist. But Iraq, to use one example, shows that conventional warfar is not cheap or quick.


The effect on the home economy is also better. The government still has to collect taxes to buy the supplies for war. But the supplies are all civilian, not military. So the civilian economy gets a terrific boost at home.


I hope you can see this is not bribery - but it is corruption. It is destroying an economy by turning people into benefit junkies. It's not being nice, not at all.


Crid, you asked what to do with your boat load of Nokias. We need a way to get your stuff safely into the country. Then we dump it widely, so that it falls in people's back yards, and come back for more. Your boat load is just a pinprick, but it's a start.

Posted by: Norman at February 25, 2007 12:58 PM

Hundreds of words later -

> We need a way to get your stuff
> safely into the country.

Let us know when you've got that worked out.

Norman, what do you do for a living?

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 1:14 PM

Apologies for the length... I tried to reduce it to one-liners, but that didn't work.


Systems admin in a university Computer Science dept. Do you think that's the real problem?

Posted by: Norman at February 25, 2007 1:42 PM

Posted by: Norman at February 25, 2007 1:45 PM

It just sounds so theoretical. I can't remember anything about the author, or the context, which continent, or even which century it came from, but there was a passage that went like this: "The problem with theory is that in theory, there's no difference between theory and reality. But in reality, there IS a difference."

Is your facility all micros, or do you big iron too?

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 1:55 PM

Adam, here's the reply from Chris Clarke -- a weenie who brushes off my accusation of stealing, and pretends my post accusing him of theft wasn't deleted, then accuses me of stealing from Dan Savage, whose column is only like mine in that it's an advice column that runs in alt weeklies (some of which run both of our columns in the same paper). The humor in our columns is totally different.

Chris Clarke writes:

Haven’t seen the questions. See above. But I did see mention of them on the Reason blog, and if that one sentence summary was accurate then I assume they have something to do with IP issues involved in reproducing a low-res copy of a piece widely available on the net in a use that generates no income, said work being credited to the artist, who is dead.

If so, has Ms. Alkon issued screeds against people blogging YouTube videos? Or does her righteous outrage extend only to people who openly disagree with her politics?

And did she ever reimburse Dan Savage for ripping off, and watering down, his schtick?

A copyright is a copyright. It's ownership. That cartoon is not public domain, it's owned by someone. Posting it is theft, and if it is "widely available" on the net, that doesn't make stealing okay.

I posted this because of the hilarious juxtaposition of a socialist railing against libertarians and heading off his piece with an apparently stolen piece of property. It was just too glaring to ignore. If you read the legal notice on B. Kliban's site, you'll see they're a little less blasé about stolen reprints of B. Kliban's work.

Furthermore, what I do has nothing to do with Dan Savage. FYI, Dan writes a sex column; I write a relationships column (with a lot of data behind certain columns). I started writing a column in the 90s for the New York Daily News with my former Advice Lady partners, pretty much in the exact same style I do now. Back then, "Ask Isadora" was in a lot of papers, and I hadn't heard of Dan or seen his work.

FYI, I started giving advice on the street corner in 1988 with Caroline Johnson and Marlowe Minnick, never expecting it to be more than a weekend prank. My greatest influence in terms of my humor is Marlowe, who made my humor much more visual, and even darker, and had an incredible sense of the absurd. If there's anybody I copy, at least in the spirit of my humor, it's her, and I'll freely admit it to anyone who wants to know. Fran Lebowitz is another big influence.

PS Marlowe died a few years back, and I miss her terribly. Fran Lebowitz is still alive, but is, perhaps, the least productive writer to ever hit the planet.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 25, 2007 1:56 PM

P.S. It's not a surprise somebody who blogs at Pandagon would sneer at my column, since I'm known for being fair to men, and for refusing to pathologize male sexuality.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 25, 2007 2:03 PM

In theory there's no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there is. You're quite right - it is all theory. Not even theory - just an idea. But it's way off this thread's topic. What's your interest in my living?

Posted by: Norman at February 25, 2007 3:42 PM

OT (if that is possible now): NASCAR runs their first hybrid fuel race at, of course, Fontana, CA.

More horsepower but less engine reliability due to redusce lubrication of the valve train.

Posted by: Guy Montag at February 25, 2007 4:58 PM

> refusing to pathologize

Deja's patriarchy theme is going to be a lot of fun for everyone.

> What's your interest in
> my living?

Never having been a warrior myself (b.'59, never even had to register), I wanted to know where the battlefield innovations of tomorrow are coming from.

War's an ancient enterprise where anyone who can bring anything new --no matter how insane or counterintuitive-- has a strong motivation to give it a try. Sex is like that too. But eventually you really gotta bring it, y'know? The captain of our cargo ship full of cell phones has lost interest in your plan, and is sailing to Taiwan and Singapore where the goods can be liquidated on the black market (if only for a loss). You wanna try it again, you have to put up the money. The American taxpayer has moved back to M14's and Daisy Cutters.

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 5:10 PM

Deja's patriarchy theme is going to be a lot of fun for everyone.

I think she might be in hiding now!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 25, 2007 5:13 PM

No, not hiding, just getting the new computer set up, making dinner, and because I still have to get the munchkin bathed and ready for bed, you're going to get the short version.

From Wikpedia, Patriarchy (from Greek: patér, genitive form patris, which shows the root form patr- meaning father; and arché meaning old, beginning or, metaphorically, rule) is a word used to describe the cultural expectation that fathers have primary responsibility for the welfare of families (in ancient cultures, this included management of household slaves). The word is often used, by extension, to refer to societies where men are also expected to take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as a whole, and hence take on the duties of public office. The adjective is patriarchal and patriarchalism refers to the practice or defence of patriarchy.

My nickel tour: Patriarchy is a system or paradigm that assumes a certain set of expectations for men and women, and generally places higher value on qualities associated with "male" than those associated with "female." Now, individual men are no more resposible for this system/paradigm that has evolved over the last few thousand years than they are for the El Nino, which is why it's my contention that criticising patriarchal values isn't equivalent to male-bashing.

And that's the short version and I'm off to bathe the kid.

Just one note before I go, I'm noticing that a few of the commenters here have made the same kind of ad hominem comments attacking liberals and progressives (we're stupid, we haven't had any "real world" experience) that they (rightly) noted that some of the Pandagon commenters had made about Libertarians. Just sayin'.

Now you may resume throwing rotten fruit in my direction.

Posted by: deja pseu at February 25, 2007 7:39 PM

When I use the term "the patriarchy," I use it to mean the notion of a vast conspiracy against women by men, and related silly notions, like the idea women who try to look attractive for men are doing it because they're brainwashed, not because, well, as I once wrote in a column: "If you want to trap a bear, don't go off into the woods carrying a Tupperware container of salad."

And I used the term "progressives" above, in quotes, to mean that those particular "progressives," are anything but.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 25, 2007 8:04 PM

Amy - give up. You're getting into an argument over definitions with a person who will change those definitions to tell you that you're wrong. Jeff at Protein Wisdom has been kicking this particular deceased equine for some while now.

The mark of the modern progressive is to make an outrageous argument thus: "The patriarchy must be crushed so that women can be truly free". When confronted with this statement, and asked to show evidence of a male conspiracy to hold women down, they redefine the terms of the argument and call their challengers stupid.

Then they go about putting words in your mouth, forcing you on the defensive. At which point they claim victory and go running off to piss in someone else's Post Toasties.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

This would also explain why every time their preferred candidate loses it is a result of some far-reaching conspiracy, and not due to a character or intellectual defect on the part of the candidate or his supporters.

Posted by: brian at February 25, 2007 8:18 PM

Yeah, I don't think of it as any kind of current conspiracy, just a dominant paradigm, if you'll excuse the new-agey term.

Posted by: deja pseu at February 25, 2007 8:21 PM

Scuse me there Brian, but the definition I'm going by is the dictionary/encyclopedia definition. I think you're the one "changing the definition" to include the conspiracy element.

Posted by: deja pseu at February 25, 2007 9:03 PM

We won't!

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 9:06 PM

And BTW, I sure didn't think I was involved in an "argument" with Amy. I've clarified my definitions, she's clarified hers, and maybe we're understanding where the other is coming from a bit better. Why does it always have to be so polarized? Can't we agree to disagree with a little equanimity and respect? To me that's what's wrong with politics today: it's just a matter of demonizing those with different viewpoints and I guess a modern day version of "counting coup."

Posted by: deja pseu at February 25, 2007 9:08 PM

No, no argument with you, deja...just a civilized disagreement.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 25, 2007 9:32 PM

As noted elsewhere today, there's much to admire in the space between people. Folks who insist that everyone get along almost never mind stepping on toes, often heavily, in order to sustain the fiction. Hitchens quotes a friend (someone I'd never heard of) as saying "We've been through a a rough time, but we're seeing encouraging signs of polarization...." This has nothing to do with "politics today". There was no golden age of discourse, there's nothing new under the sun. Ya want warmth, ya getta puppy. Ya wanna share your beliefs, ya talk to people.

One of the most disappointing parts of the blog revolution --which on the whole has brought a tremendous amount of clarity and amusement-- was how some early participants thought that it a shortcut to rock stardom. Last week's New York piece on shameless young web brought that analogy out once again: http://tinyurl.com/yrwynk

A lot of useful, clever bloggers wanted to be Elvis. And when they saw that Reynolds or Kos or Drudge or whomever was in a better position for that, their hearts broke and they decided to pretend that this new Rock 'n' Roll wasn't good for much anyway. And I'm embarrassed for them (all the way up the food chain, and they know who they are), because they'd forgotten that the Tupelo truck driver just wanted to sing... He wasn't the king of anything but peanut butter sandwiches. Not every communications revolution means that you or I or Ann Althouse has missed an opportunity to be Humanity's Savior.

I'm grateful to the surviving bloggers, from Alkon to Posner, who remember that this is all about sharing opinions, and that greater expression of diverse thinking is an unalloyed good... Even if it hurts the feelings of those who aspire to be debutantes at Cotillion.

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 9:37 PM

Shameless young web PEOPLE etc... The link is worth reading.

Posted by: Crid at February 25, 2007 9:40 PM

I'm grateful to the surviving bloggers, from Alkon to Posner, who remember that this is all about sharing opinions,

Thanks, Crid...that's what I like about the group of people who comment here. Sometimes, especially on my deadline days, I post something and then can't check back for a bunch of hours, and when I do, I'm amazed how somebody's used what I've posted as a springboard to talk about some interesting new thing, or taken what I've said much further (or told me I'm full of shit, and given me reasons why). One of the best things about the crowd here is how diverse it is. I looked at the comments at Pandagon -- it's pretty damn homogenous, and thus, pretty damn boring.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 25, 2007 9:57 PM

It's not about hurt feelings, Crid, it's about maybe gaining new understanding. If everyone comes into a discussion with a closed mind, then all you get is a lot of stones being thrown, and not much else. It starts to sound like a couple of kids on the playground, "you're stupid!", "no YOU'RE stupid!" ad infinitum. I'm not suggesting a world where we all sit around and sing kumbaya and eat finger sandwiches, and you know it. You're grabbing at something you can use to ridicule. I'm no fucking debutante either so you can shove that one too. There, feel better now?

Posted by: deja pseu at February 25, 2007 9:58 PM

I think I'll stop humming kumbaya now!

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 25, 2007 9:59 PM

Ok, but you must try the watercress sandwiches, they're delish!

Posted by: deja pseu at February 25, 2007 10:05 PM

> it's about maybe gaining
> new understanding.

Whose understanding? When is it gained? I bet you have strong ideas about that. As it turns out, people who bemoan the lack of civility and respect in these fora also have strong ideas about the viewpoints presented. Do you want to get along with everybody and break the polarity? Fine! Fold your cards and agree with them! Or did you want me to change my opinion? It seems more likely that that's what you had in mind. This indulges the the self-aggrandizing fantasy of being an essentially peace-loving person (i.e., "maybe gaining") who happens to be right about everything. It's a twofer.

I need to come up with a name for this, or find the guy who's already written a book about it: When people dream about stuff, they daydream BIG, where as many needs as possible are answered per metric unit of imagination. People don't just imagine showbiz success that makes their mother proud. They imagine dropping by parachute onto Hollywood and Vine at dusk, walking up to the Kodak signing autographs all the way, winning the Oscar, having a quick retrocopulation with Knowles backstage ("great perfume, 'Yonce!"), socializing with Hanks & Spielberg as they eat salmon entrees prepared by Wolfgang Puck at the after-party, then driving out of town via the Angeles Crest Highway in their Ferrari as dawn clears the San Gabriels, with the Big O rattling around in the glovebox as they navigate the mountain curves.

People don't just imagine that Al Gore would have been right about the war. They imagine he'd have been right about global warming and education and prescription drugs and agrarian reform and God Knows what.

When people dreamt about the power of the blogosphere a few years ago, they didn't just imagine a point-to-multipoint revolution wherein everyday opinions and expertise could be globally expressed at the preferred depth for trival expense. They imagined that the whole world would come to realize how wonderfully right THEY PERSONALLY were about everything. Actually, they imagined a shortcut to the kinds of media success they'd wanted from newspapers and TV, having assumed that the problem theretofore was that they had simply not been HEARD.

When I have opinions about stuff, I don't think that I'm part right and you're part right and the truth's is somewhere in the middle, and we'll have a better understanding of this at some future point when tensions are lower. I think I'm right and you're wrong all the way. Right now.

If feelings get hurt a little bit, it's hardly the end of the world... Puppies are available at the pound for the cost of a spay or neuter. And that's for the pet's genitals, not your own.

Posted by: Crid at February 26, 2007 4:34 AM

I think I'm right and you're wrong all the way. Right now.

And if your goal is to try to get people to see it your way, being an asshole usually has the opposite effect.

Posted by: deja pseu at February 26, 2007 5:48 AM

People who come to the arena for a wet kiss and a handy, or an inclusive, non-judgmental celebration of comforting acceptance and sustainable warm vibes, don't really have their minds on the issues anyway. If you can't agree with someone without liking them, t'ellwidya.

Posted by: Crid at February 26, 2007 5:57 AM

Crid, this ain't personal. I've agreed with you on several occasions and have said so.

You and Brian and a few others here are basically doing exactly what everyone is stomping on the posters and commenters at Pandagon for doing, which making wholesale declarations that those with differing viewpoints are stupid or liars or both. You can pound someone's head into the pavement until they yell "uncle" but it doesn't mean you've made your point.

I actually came to Amy's blog for the first time because someone had linked something she'd said that I strongly disagreed with. I find it intersting to engage with people with different opinions in discussing ideas. Some people enjoy arguments and one-upmanship, fine. I'll leave you to it.

Posted by: deja pseu at February 26, 2007 6:45 AM

It's OK if it's personal.

Posted by: Crid at February 26, 2007 6:56 AM

Deja -

I am not trying to get anyone to agree with me, nor am I saying that if you do not agree with me you are stupid.

I'm saying that it is stupid to see a conspiracy around every corner. Amynda has a persecution complex as wide as the Grand Canyon. In her world, there is an organized group called "the patriarchy" that is conspiring to keep her from having sex without making babies.

Yes, she has admitted as much. Although I don't know how much of that survived the great purge.

Amynda has further shown her intellectual deficiency by believing that a gang-rape occurred at Duke with all evidence pointing to precisely the opposite. An intelligent, mature being would either shut the hell up, retract their statement, or offer an apology. She did none of these, and instead restated her belief in an even more offensive and over the top fashion.

So, yes, I disagree with her. And yes, I call her stupid. But I don't call her stupid because I disagree with her.

I disagree with her because she is stupid, and unapologetically so.

Note to hyper-literalists, possessing stupidity is not the only reason I will disagree with someone, but it is the only case in which I will refuse to offer any quarter to the opposition's arguments.

Posted by: brian at February 26, 2007 9:24 AM

I see it exactly the way Brian does. And I see nothing on calling her on it with words like "stupid."

Posted by: Amy Alkon at February 26, 2007 9:33 AM

Well, I haven't called anyone stupid. Just wrong. This why they are wrong. This how they can correct themselves from making future errors. But never stupid.

Posted by: Joe at February 26, 2007 7:07 PM

Hah! It's all Mars vs Venus stuff. Men are linear in their thinking, women are not. Thus, women are comfortable looking for concensus bound with emotion, while men are comfortable going directly at things, feelings be damned. It's the way we're wired, and of course there are exceptions that prove the rule. It's the reason why men are suckers for two groups of women; the visually stimulating, and the mentally stimulating. Both are relatively rare.

Posted by: Casca at February 27, 2007 10:44 AM

By the way, B. Kliban's rep confirmed to me by e-mail that Pandagon did not have the right to use the piece of art. Here's our e-mail exchange:

In a message dated 3/15/07 9:58:12 AM, catinfo@eatmousies.com writes:


Hi Amy,
Thanks for your email! No, that wasn't an authorized use. With the
internet and the low resolution threshold for displaying images on
computers, it's very difficult to prevent unauthorized use of images.
Thanks for your help!
On Feb 23, 2007, at 3:07 PM, AdviceAmy@aol.com wrote:

> Hi there -- I'm a creator as well (I write a syndicated newspaper
> column distributed by Creators), and I'd like to inform you of a
> possible theft of a B. Kliban cartoon I spotted on the net. If you
> gave this site permission to use, please disrgard my message.
>
> The link is here:
>
>
> http://pandagon.net/2007/02/23/how-to-explain-things-to-libertarians/
> #more-4789
>
> I've attached a screenshot of their use.
>
> I left the following comment on the site (comments are "moderated" so
> they may choose not to post it). I'm very concerned about copyright
> violation and defend my own copyrights. Please e-mail me and let me
> know if this was permitted use or not, as I may blog it. Best, Amy
> Alkon
>
> COMMENT I LEFT ON PANDAGON IS BELOW:
>
> So, did you buy the right to use that B. Kliban cartoon?
>
> How do you explain private property and apparent copyright violation
> to a socialist?
>
> If you don't have permission, isn't that what's commonly known as
> THEFT?
>
> How do you justify that?

Posted by: Amy Alkon at April 12, 2007 12:52 AM

Nina Berman took an aware winning picture of a Marine disfigured in Iraq at his wedding.

http://www.ninaberman.com/index3.php?pag=prt&dir=marine

Amanda decided to use it as part of a post entitled, "Blogger Fuckfest 2007: Not as fun as it sounds"

Several people took issue with her use of the photograph:

# Jay Tea Mar 1st, 2007 at 8:52 pm

Gee, I wonder if it ever occurred to the author to ask the subjects of that photo if they minded their images being used to make some sort of political point?

Nah. That would be the decent, responsible, honorable thing to do. If they don’t like it, fuck ‘em.

J.
# 12 Amanda Marcotte Mar 1st, 2007 at 8:56 pm

As yes, Jay—politics. Where we shouldn’t use curse words or get angry, because it’s not real.

Fuck you, you sleazy fucking asshole. Your belief that politics has no bearing on real life—and your willingness to cut corners and make ridiculous assertions to score cheap points like you just did(if you look at Doc’s link, you’ll see that the photographer grew close to the couple)—is why this young man nearly died. Your game took his face, his hands, and nearly took his life.

But it’s a game and we are big meanies you use curse words and make “political” points, “political” points meaning points that have to be made to stop sociopathic assholes like you who think this is a game and has no bearing on real life.

I asked Amanda if she had obtained copyright permission:

jerry Mar 1st, 2007 at 9:20 pm

I don’t see that Jay Tea said anything particularly conservative or liberal in nature.

I am not certain under what conditions they released that photo, or if have permission of the copyright holder to use it, but I think that before someone makes a political point with another person’s photograph, common decency would be to ask permission to do so.

Assuming you don’t have their permission, I find your desire to use it here understandable, but exploitive.

You really don’t know the context of the photograph. You don’t know what the woman was feeling. You feel it with your projections, but it could have just been one bad camera moment out of a very joyous day. Because of the doubt about the context, I think it is exploitive to use that photograph without getting further information and permission from the couple.

and followed that with:


jerry Mar 1st, 2007 at 10:12 pm

Ah! Following Lindsay’s link, I do find the photo at reduxpictures. Their copyright says:

Please note: all images are subject to copyright laws and may not be sold, distributed or otherwise displayed without the explicit permission of the copyright owner. By making this feed available, the owner has agreed to allow you to display the images as part of a feed in the context of an RSS reader, website or blog. That permission can be withdrawn at any time by the owner, and the owner reserves all rights regarding the display, distribution and sale of the images. Feeds are restricted to personal, non-commercial use only.

So you do have conditional permission to use them as part of a blog, but no other permission, and the owner can withdraw that at any time.

At BAG News, they reiterate that the images are for commercial sale.

Ah! Nina Berman says at her website: All photographs contained in this web site are © Nina Berman, all rights reserved. They may not be copied or reproduced without written pemission.

But the one thing I haven’t found anywhere is any text describing the picture. So I just happen to think that since it is a photograph and not a painting, it is presumption on our part to place the photograph in the context that Amanda is.

I suspect she’s right, but it could just be pre-wedding jitters, and not a contemplation of a marriage to someone so harmed by the war.

Ms. Berman’s contact information is here:

http://www.ninaberman.com/index3.php?pag=con

It should be pretty easy for you to speak with her and obtain permission.

I emailed Ms. Berman, cc'd to Amanda, and had a response within an hour or so in which Ms. Berman thanked me, agreed with me, and asked Amanda to remove the photo from her post.

Amanda did so, without explaining to anyone why, so hours later (to give her some time) I added the following:

jerry Mar 2nd, 2007 at 12:34 am

Amanda,

Do you think you owe your readers an explanation?

Here was her response the next morning:

Amanda Marcotte Mar 2nd, 2007 at 9:45 am

Interestingly, the copyright troll emailed the photographer and openly lied to her about his intentions and misrepresented himself as sympathetic, when of course he’s all about maximizing the amount of soliders who hav to suffer like this.

Right wingers are interesting people. Their willingness to lie, cheat, steal and kill (so long as it’s done by others and out of sight) seems not to prickle the conscience like pretty much ever. I’m really beginning to see how the Good German mentality formed. Hell, you see tons of bloodthirsty Good Germans on this thread.

I am about as left as they come, and am proud to have lived in the two People's Republics. The PR of Santa Monica as well as the PR of Berkeley. And I have my own issues with copyright, mainly the way that Disney and others have turned it from a temporary and reasonable monopoly into a permanent monopoly.

And I have been against this war since before it started and I have the emails to prove that.

I think that not understanding theft is one of the least of Amanda's problems.

Posted by: jerry at July 13, 2007 9:06 AM

Sigh, I see MT has done horrible things to my italics tags.

I think you can get what I intended but I want to clarify that Amanda's last response was this:

Amanda Marcotte Mar 2nd, 2007 at 9:45 am

Interestingly, the copyright troll emailed the photographer and openly lied to her about his intentions and misrepresented himself as sympathetic, when of course he’s all about maximizing the amount of soliders who hav to suffer like this.

Right wingers are interesting people. Their willingness to lie, cheat, steal and kill (so long as it’s done by others and out of sight) seems not to prickle the conscience like pretty much ever. I’m really beginning to see how the Good German mentality formed. Hell, you see tons of bloodthirsty Good Germans on this thread.

Posted by: jerry at July 13, 2007 9:14 AM

What a sleazebag. I'm going to post this. Thanks for adding it to this string.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 13, 2007 9:15 AM

I forgot to add the obvious. After the last post, she banned me of course.

Posted by: jerry at July 13, 2007 10:24 AM

Thanks for adding that -- will add to my blog item for tomorrow about this. P.S. Not a surprise in the least.

Posted by: Amy Alkon at July 13, 2007 10:51 AM

Leave a comment