totalitarianism today

A decent Cartel.

Cartel's show at Iota proved to be surprisingly satisfying, even for a music-skeptic such as myself who often leaves a show less than sated. DCist interviewed them following the show. 

Comparisons to Coldplay abound, though I hear more Cure and even a little UK punk influence under the covers. Interesting fact: Jason Caddell, formerly of Dismemberment Plan, engineered and mixed their latest demo. Try Polly Jean or Fleets from their Safety In Numbers EP.

Mark confirmed my sense that Polly Jean is about PJ Harvey, whom I also hear as an influence on at least part of the band. (Could this be a dividing influence in the band's future growth and sound?) I quote Monsieur Mark: "In six months and after talking to hundreds of people you are the first person to figure that out. And no, I'm not joking." Sheer brilliance on my part, or just a penchant for stating things so patently obvious that anyone else might be embarassed to say them? My money is on the latter.

Every rose has its thorn.

And some roses have more thorns than others. And, frankly, some roses have been genetically modified to lack thorns, so the very idea of "thorns" as a necessary correlate is demode.

While it may be the case that Republican infighting over immigration will continue, I can't imagine what wing of the party is directing the adjacent robin. What a long, strange spring this could be...

Brothel bust in Annandale.

Browsing through the nightlife and entertainment pages of the DC City Paper makes it clear that politicians and policy types are having their "needs" met by prostitutes or call girls on a regular basis. But poor immigrants visiting prostitutes in Annandale is not what one might expect if one's expectations are limited to the predictable and self-evident.

Then again, little in the current legal approach to prostitution is self-evident. Can we really form reasonable expectations about human behavior if laws discourage a reasonable understanding of human action and behavior? For example, in USA v. Wade Charles Edward, which came before the DC Court of Appeals in 1998, the judges essentially quibble over a conflict between the federal government's application of common law to a older statute before deciding to vacate an order of abatement, thereby siding with the defendants. Note that the language of the discussion shows that owning a brothel, or a house used for the purpose of prostitution, used to enter the legal system as a violation of D.C. Code § 22-2717, providing criminal penalties for anyone convicted of keeping "a bawdy or disor- derly house" in the District of Columbia.

In the accompanying footnote, the court characterized the house of prostitution "as a typical 'disorderly house,' " id. at 514 n.5, which, of course, it was. As we have pointed out, however, that a bawdy house is a disorderly house does not imply that the reverse is necessari- ly true. Because there is no doubt that the property in Raleigh was used for "lewdness, assignation, or prostitution," D.C. Code § 22-2713, there is no question that it fell within the ambit of sections 2713 and 2717.

The Raleigh court did not have before it the question whether a disorderly house not used for such purposes is the kind of nuisance referred to in section 2717. Nevertheless, even if its discussion of disorderly houses purported to decide that section 2717 applies to a disorderly house of any kind, we would still not be bound by it. Because that issue was not before the court, its overly broad language would be obiter dicta and not entitled to deference.

Kendall, 35 F.3d at 466. Accordingly, we conclude that, if confronted with this question, the D.C. Court of Appeals would hold that conviction for keeping a disorderly house under section 2722 will require an abatement order pursuant to section 2717 only if that house was used, at least in part, for the purposes described in section 2713.

A "disorderly house" is not really about messiness or drugs or even moral hazard in general-- it is a very specific criminalization of running a prostitution establishment. Andrea Dworkin would be pleased to note that the pimps/owners are punished rather than the prostitutes, since the code does not touch the question of agency in the case of individual sex entrepreneurs.

Socialist realism and the Randian aesthetic.

Reading Fyodor Vasilievich's Cement, I was struck by the similarities between Ayn Rand's "romantic realism" and socialist realism. Both share similar types of ideal, heroic protagonists; both emphasize non-religious moral virtues, especially hard work; both make use of an aesthetic emphasizing the gargantuan and un-ornate-- really, there are too many similarities to let this pass and still be accused of good taste. Let me be specific. 

According to the Columbia Online Encyclopedia, socialist realism can be defined as "Soviet artistic and literary doctrine". Continuing:

The role of literature and art in Soviet society was redefined in 1932 when the newly created Union of Soviet Writers proclaimed socialist realism as compulsory literary practice. As conceived by Stalin, Zhdanov, and Gorky, socialist realism prescribed a generally optimistic picture of socialist reality and of the development of the Communist revolution. Its purpose was education in the spirit of socialism. Its practice is marked by strict adherence to party doctrine and to conventional techniques of realism. Socialist realism has been widely condemned as stifling to artistic values. After the death of Stalin in 1953 some relaxation of strictures was evident, although socialist realism continued as the official doctrine. A similar approach to the creation of art and literature was also enforced for a time in the People's Republic of China.

Given the Stalinist state's economic interest in the promotion of heavy industry, socialist realism tended to portray peasants as the laggards of society-- the dregs on the creation of commi-topia-- while idealizing the hard-working iron man of industry. The least desirable characters in socialist fiction and Soviet propaganda were the dreaded "parasites", those who found value in activities apart from working to add value to the coffers of the Soviet state.

In a 1934 document outlining the goals and distinctions of Soviet fiction, chief propagandist and founder of Cominform Andrey Zhdanov attacked "bourgeouis, capitalist fiction" on the grounds of its moral looseness and lack of vision:

A riot of mysticism, religious mania and pornography is characteristic of the decline and decay of bourgeois culture. The "celebrities" of that bourgeois literature which has sold its pen to capital are today thieves, detectives, prostitutes, pimps and gangsters. . . .

Rand also places an almost maniacal attention on the dangers and immoralities of mystical, non-realist  thinking. For Rand, as for Zhdanov, spirituality is a direct moral affront. In The Romantic Manifesto, Rand explains how an eye to the heroic stimulates man's sense of morality:

It is not abstract principles that a child learns from Romantic art, but ... the emotional experience of admiration for man's highest potential, the experience of looking up to a hero - a view of life motivated and dominated by values, a life in which man's choices are practicable, effective and crucially important - that is, a moral sense of life.

And a "moral sense of life" necessarily includes certain values, many of which might be traced to Judeo-Christian teachings. Did Rand and Soviet propagandists also share a poetic preference for cement and steel? There are certainly endless passages depicting protagonists in the throes of handling railroad steel and cement.

• For a parody of socialist realism, watch an episode of The Simpsons with the fictional cartoon, "Worker and Parasite".
• For more on Rand's high regard for "the projection of ideal man", see the Editor's Preface to her short story, "The Husband I Bought".
• Chris Sciabarra noted a while back that Rand's philosophic influences were steeped in historical materialism. I just want to make a similar point about her aesthetic and moral influences.
• James G. Lennox's review of Sciabarra's study of Rand's influences.

Oy, the FEC...

Ryan Sager expresses annoyance over the FEC's recently announced plans to apply the McCain-Feingold joke to the web, including, yes, those innocuous little half-rodents of publication called "blogs". I quote Sager at length:

McCain-Feingold didn't require regulation of the Internet, so the FEC gave it a blanket exemption. But the reform lobby decided that since the law didn't forbid regulation of the Internet, a lawsuit could force the FEC's hand.

The lawsuit was ostensibly filed by Reps. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Marty Meehan (D-Mass.) — the House sponsors of the McCain-Feingold law. But as Cleta Mitchell (a Republican campaign-finance lawyer with the firm Foley & Lardner) points out, the real plaintiffs were the reform lobbyists.

The lawyers for Shays and Meehan are Fred Wertheimer and Donald Simon. Representing McCain and Feingold in an amicus brief is Trevor Potter.

Wertheimer, Simon and Potter are, respectively, president of Democracy 21, former general counsel of Common Cause and president of the Campaign Legal Center — the same groups whose "nibbling" tactics Treglia explained on that tape.

The FEC's draft regulations, published last week, would set the following rules for the Internet:

* Online banner and pop-up ads would face the same limits as any other advertising.

* The "media exemption" from McCain-Feingold would be extended to some online news and commentary sites (such as Slate, Salon and the Drudge Report) — though not necessarily to bloggers.

* Individual, uncompensated online commentators could only conduct election-related activities from personal or publicly available (library, Internet café) computers. Use of an employer-supplied computer could violate the law.

Now, these rules aren't so innocuous to begin with. Any regulation of blogs opens up a large class of small-time political commentators — without access to The New York Times' legal team — to frivolous complaints and endless harassment by way of the FEC. And you can be sure it will be the most successful bloggers, those doing the most to sway public opinion for or against candidates, who will be targeted.

But the problems will only grow once the mice get started with their nibbling.

For now, the definition of an "advertisement" is fairly limited. But it could be expanded at the FEC's whim — or by court order.

For now, the media exemption will protect some Web sites. But remember the case of Sinclair Broadcast Group? It wanted to air a documentary critical of Sen. John Kerry and was immediately accused of making an "in kind" contribution to President Bush. The Democratic Party complained to the FEC that this shouldn't fall under the media exemption, and Sinclair had to alter its plans.

And for now, uncompensated bloggers can forward information from campaigns they support without getting in trouble for "coordinating." But the campaign-finance lobby has relentlessly tried to expand the definition of coordination when it comes to off-line activities, and can be trusted to do the same for online politics.

Ceausescu makes rounds.

Why can't Romanians just move on?

Logging business miles.

• Recent data released by the US Census Bureau shows that white women earn less than their similarly-sex-endowed Asian and African-American counterparts on their B.A. Maybe Jerry Falwell is right-- we should just stay at home and make sure the curtains match the carpet. All this thinking can't be good for unpigmented women.
• Jack Welch makes a chapter of his new book on leadership available to the querulous public.
• For John Mackey watchers, Charles Fishman's 2004 profile for Fast Company is still the best work I've seen to date on his ideas and thoughts. Something tells me John is not the kind of man to avoid writing a book on his business philosophy.....
• Richard Wilner says "Sorry, Soros". I am only sorry insofar as the costs of appealing the decision might take Soros' money away from funding drug reform. First there was the Kerry campaign, and now this.
• European ministers are already preparing a counterweight to neutralize the effect of Wolfowitz's ascendance at the World Bank.
• The Economist bubbles about "takeover fever" in Japan. Takeovers, while morally neutral on their face, certainly have an added cool when the ones doing the taking over are young, hip, and willing to buck the status quo.
• We all know that busybody, Bible-thumping do-gooders have a tendency to miss the forest for the trees when trying to help those in need, but does the same problem exist in the case of international food aid? The National Bureau of Economic Research takes a look.

That's me in the corner, buying my religion.

Jonathan Mahler's bit on the rise of the lifestyle churches for the New York Times magazine reminds me of this "nondenominational" leviathan of a worship-center that I attended a year ago with friends. Quite the capitalist endeavor, the church sold Stabucks coffee, t-shirts, pizza, and other worship needs to distracted, chatty suburban moms and their eager-to-go-golfing husbands. More like a day at Chucky Cheese's than church, I found it quite tolerable, especially since "hanging out" beats religious orthodoxy anyday.

The rise of such amusement park churches has yet to be analyzed for its impact on doctrinal content and evolving social norms. One thing is sure-- the devout need never go without again, thanks to internet tools like Flockfinder, which make it easier for relocating families to find the "right" religious flock, or to purchase a ready-made social network. Too bad religion taps in to my deepest fear of commitment, otherwise, all this "praising" might seem like fun.

Markets failing me?

In a global market, why can't I find a DVD of Radu Mahaileanu's Train De Vie for less than $45 in a language other than Portugese? "Low demand" is not a satisfactory response, since there are quite a few fans of this film in the States. As is the case with most affections, my love affair with markets becomes tempestuous over particulars.

Parents for parents.

Courtesy of the adversarial legal system's contentious divorces, parents aren't doing such a good job of thinking about their children anymore. Enter "parenting coordinators"-- appointed by judges to to "act as legal agents in helping parents develop or follow post-divorce custody agreements with the aim of reducing parental conflict and unnecessary court appearances".

Judges appoint parenting coordinators as special masters of the court--meaning the judges delegate their decision-making to the coordinators because they have greater expertise. In Washington DC, the coordinators have quasi-judicial immunity since they are considered "judicial appointments". Parenting coordinators can testify in court. In fact, judges sometimes request oral reports in front of both parties if litigation is ongoing.

California and Virginia have similar provisions for parental coordinators. My question is how these coordinators discipline/enforce/reward child-friendly behavior on the part of battling parents while retaining their supposed neutrality. After all, coordinators are individuals, not automatons, who respond to individualized preferences. Would it be surprising if the preference of one coordinator just so happened to be slightly distraught, attractive freshly-divorced mothers?

Look, I agree that divorcing parents need to be more considerate of their children's needs, but  parent coordinators do not provide the most effective policy solution, as the intended policy goals don't match up with forseeable outcome. Why not abandon the political agenda of "keeping families together" and just allow the chips to settle where they may? Keeping families together on bad terms results in mean, unhappy parents and sad, miserable children (think Leo and Sonya Tolstoy). And subjecting delicate matters like family separation to blood-thristy attorneys working on commission is a recipe for destruction.