Giuliani Implosion Watch

He's like Britney Spears.

You know it's going to happen. He's just going to piss off too many people with his ego, or otherwise self-destruct. And for many Republicans, the whole Giuliani appeal is that he could win -- once he starts to look vulnerable, his support will plummet because even his supporters don't love him. And he's a candidate running from his strength on national security when he's never actually done anything for national security. Surely somebody will notice.

Finally, he's said so many times, "Thank God George Bush is our president," it's hard for me to see how that can help him?

Anyway, what will be Giuliani's downfall? Public spat with ex-wife? Ranting tirade at Romney? New policy to ban pizza deliveries? Shaves head? Marries Kevin Federline?

Points for creativity...

Repression

August's post about repressing abhorrent urges (e.g. pedophilia) raises a number of issues.


One is the notion that in order for a feeling or urge to be effectively dealt with, it must be brought out to the light and examined. A corollary is that we shouldn't judge someone's urges unless they are acted on, and indeed someone who experiences a strong temptation and resists it is worth of praise(addressed by JTF and Ender)

There are obvious counter-examples. A military leader (or even a grunt) who is scared to death of being killed in battle is probably better off repressing that urge rather than prattling on about it and realizing that it comes from being scared of his alcoholic father.

But of course, that's a short term. A soldier is only going to be in battle for a short time, wherein repression might be feasible. The assumption is that some with abhorrent urges will have them the rest of his life, so that repression may not be an effective long term strategy.

If I may offer a tangential note on Catholic morality -- it teaches that temptation itself is not a sin -- Jesus Himself was tempted in the desert. At the same time, Jesus also taught that a married man who fantasizes about having sex with another woman has already committed adultery in his heart. So, there seems to be a line between getting that initial tug of temptations (hey -- that's a good looking woman) and following it, even if we don't follow it all the way. We have a responsibility to "avoid the near occasion of sin."

It seems to me that de-stigmatizing abhorrent urges would have two effects:

• Those with those urges may be better positioned to effectively confront them, not it will not manifest itself in actual abuse.
  
• The increased tolerance for the urges will slip into increased tolerance of acting on those urges, resulting in more actual abuse.
  

My suspicion is that the second effect outweighs the first effect, and thus our current norm of stigmatizing the urge is appropriate. But I can't prove it, and I don't even know how I would go about proving it. The only empirical proof I can offer is that I cannot think of an instance where de-stigmatizing a desire for something resulted in less acting out of that urge. But I could be wrong.

Who is this Grant Miller?

I see he is circulating two pictures of himself.

A picture of a youngish man who is somewhat normal looking and appears to be attempting humor or menace. [source]














And then there's this picture, which appears to date back to 1970. [source]














One of these pictures is the Real Grant Miller, and one of them is the Fake Grant Miller. Feel free to speculate.

Something Old, Something New...

Well, this new voice recognition software is finally getting used for what it is designed for. I've got the new houseape in my arms and I'm writing away busily. Thank goodness the microphone did not pick up the huge working man's belch he just gave me. I've got all this brand new stuff, but so much is still just the same as it's always been.

It’s been two weeks, and the world is settling into its new grooves now that he's finally here. His mother and my son are in the other room talking about their relationship yet a-fargin’-gain, and I'm not sure where this is going to go. A lot of my incomprehension is that I'm very tired, but still. All this nonsense seems very juvenile to me. But it's not my relationship so who am I to say.

He's kind of fussy. We just changed him and I’m feeding him, but I’ve got the audacity to insist that he burp halfway through guzzling his meal. How rude! But I think we've worked it out. There's always a certain amount of learning about each other at the beginning of all of this. Each baby likes their own position, and their own lullabies. We’ll figure it out as we go. He's only been at this whole life-thing for two weeks, after all. He's not sure where his own limbs are much less what he likes.

The girls are in the room tittering about something at the top of their lungs. One of them was on the phone with her ex-boyfriend for quite some time and they’re probably rehashing the whole conversation looking for signs of meaning like priests sifting through the entrails. It's funny to me how much rune-casting and maneuvering is required for just a simple thing as a phone call or even talking in the halls. I guess it's just another symptom of how old I'm really getting.

Sometimes I begin to wonder how I’m going get through all this. I don't now how older parents do this. I'm 38 for crying out loud and I'm about ready to go Elven postal. (Believe it or not this crazy software actually has “Elven postal” as a selection under phrases) I can't imagine starting off with the baby and size of him right now and be staring down the barrel of the next 20 years like so many of my peers are doing. I know I could do it if I had to, but it seems foolish in the extreme.

It’s kind of peaceful, though. This situation, I mean. It certainly brings back a lot of memories. And it takes quite a few of the rough edges off today. I spend a lot of time fumbling around, but this squishy weight on my chest just sort of simplifies a whole lot of stuff right into insignificance. It boils all the priorities down to brass tacks. It’s starting to show with his mom and my son, too.

All that emo feeling and crap washing around that was so important to them just a couple weeks ago became Priority 5. For Priority 1 and 2 you’ve got what he needs and what he wants. Then comes whatever it takes to get those things for him in third place. Then what the parents actually need comes in fourth. You don’t even get to wants and what have you until after all that. And most of the time you just don’t have a way to get that out of the amount of energy and time that there is in a given day. I told them, but it takes having that warm weight in your own arms before you can really understand it, I guess.

It doesn't last long though. They hash out whatever they’ve got their knickers knotted about and her mom has come to pick her and the baby up. The tide of giggling in the other room has risen again, and Mr. Fussy here is doing his damndest to kick off his blanket. That’s life for you.

Label Restrictions Lifted

With the label cloud out of the header, there’s really no more reason to limit labels to author and series. So, feel free to label your posts with whatever labels you see fit.

China's Foreign Relations

What country's relationship with China is the most important for understanding global politics?

Answer: Russia. China is, even today, predominately a Central Asian nation. Meaning -- its borders with the various 'Stans, with India, and especially with Russia tend to dictate its foreign policy. Rocky relationships with Russia tend to mean smoother relationships with the West, and vice-versa. In the most famous example, the Sino Soviet Split lead Mao (interrupted by the Cultural Revolution) to turn to his traditional enemy, the United States, thus bringing about the Nixon visit. Since Clinton sent an aircraft carrier through the Taiwan Straits (I think that was '95), Sino-Russian relations have been relatively warm. And now, a very interesting blog post by Daniel Drezner suggests an additional shift.

Apparently, U.S. leaders are finally sufficiently chastened by the Iraq fiasco that they are at least eating a little crow. Not so the Russians, and thus there is a possibility of backlash. It's really just a hint at this point, but worth keeping an eye on.

Drezner's fourth item is worth quoting:

4) When it comes to the transatlantic relationship, China is the 800-lb. elephant in the room. It's rising power cannot be ignored. The $64,000 question is whether China's rise will cause the Americans and Europeans to compete for Beijing's favor or force greater coordination between the US and EU.

Another way of posing the question: is "The West" still a meaningful way of talking about relationships with China? I suspect so, but I'm deeply ambivalent about the implications. I want the United States-Europe relationship to be close, but I'm not wild about viewing China as an enemy.

And while we're on the topic of pesky foreigners, Thy Goddess is in Turkey at the moment. Be sure to wish her well.

Easy there, Mr. Friedman

Tom Friedman would be funny, if the stakes weren't quite so deadly. It's like reading the transcript of a psychoanalytical session:

"Now Mr. Friedman, we'll do a little role playing today. Pretend you're the president of the united states, and you'd written a few dozen columns, er, speeches about Iraq's threat of chemical weapons and 'doing it right'. Unfortunately, it didn't go as planned. What do you tell the American people?"

"I..."

"Yes, you can do it."

"I... was..."

"Oh, very good, Mr. Friedman. Very good. Please go on!"

"I was ...wrong. There. I said it."

"Oh, very good."

"I'm so sorry, America. He didn't have any WMD. He wasn't a thre--

"Mr. Friedman?"

"wasn't a th--

"Nurse?"

"wasn't a... wasn't..."tyranny! nihilism! car bombs! Islamists! Iraq! Do it right, do it right, DO IT RIGHT!"

"Okay Mr. Friedman, that's enough for today."

"heeheeheedoitrightdoitrightdoitright..."

"Nurse!"

Question About Sex

Because there's no place like an anonymous internet message board to look for expertise on such matters.


Dan Savage, the syndicated gay sex advice columnist who is more likely than anybody else I know to say something horrifying and something incredibly wise in a twenty minute span of conversation, said that he thought some of the most admirable people around were pedaphiles who had sexual urges and managed to control these urges.

I thought his reasoning was interesting. He said that pedaphiles who act on their urges are clearly monsters. Furthermore, in most cases we distinguish between a sexual thought and a sexual action (or do we? -- see below). So a married man who sees a woman and finds her attractive is not an adulterer. But someone who finds a child attractive is automatically a pedaphile, and are usually terrified of seeking any kind of help. So, Dan theorized, there must be a whole class of people who are basically attempting to minister themselves to keep themselves from becoming monsters. And these people deserve praise, as well as enough social leeway to be able to get help for their problem.

Do you agree with any or all of that? To what extent do you think sexual urges can be separated from sexual actions? Do you think containing/repressing/otherwise channeling sexual urges is possible? If so, is there a way to hold up certain people as role models (or at least as praiseworthy exemplars)? Do we have a good way of talking about different degrees of attraction?

For my part, I suspect Dan Savage is right, but I don't see how we can identify, to say nothing of celebrating, the celibate pediphile. It strikes me as a case of moral luck rather than moral strength. Thus, reviving an old discussion, it seems to me another argument for a kind of grace (or lack thereof).

Interested in your thoughts...

Here's How It (Doesn't) Work

If nobody posts on the blog, then

there's nothing to discuss in the forum. If there's no posts on the blog and no discussion in the forum, then there's no Wikifray. If there's no posts on the blog, no discussion in the forum, and no Wikifray, then I may just cease to exist.