FIRST CLASS CAT FLIES FIRST CLASS

Via Def Agent lorilori : more evidence that Japanese TV commercials are how TV commercials should be done.

"Tanya Tucker-The Night The Lights Went Out In Georgia" (Watch on YouTube)

Taking care of business,

This is dF

====================

EDITED TO ADD [seven hours later]: I've since noticed that the cat isn't traveling by air, but by train, which makes my headline completely pointless. Still, so is this blog, so why not, eh?

GAY MARRIAGE: BAD FOR NO REAL REASON

ITEM: tongodeon  has been reading the transcripts of the court hearing in California revisiting Prop 8, in which anti-gay-marriage lawyers are arguing that gay marriage is bad for California and bad for America, therefore the state has a compelling interest in banning it.

According to the transcripts, though, no one seems to know just how or why gay marriage is bad – not even the lawyers arguing against it.

The crux of the anti-gay argument is that the state’s compelling interest is “channeling procreative activity into enduring relationships”.

When the judge asked the most sensible question to this – “Okay, but how exactly would allowing gays to form stable, enduring relationships prevent heteros from procreating in similar relationships?” – the state’s response is this:

MR COOPER: Your Honor, my answer is: I don't know.
THE COURT: Does that mean -- does that mean if this is not determined to be subject to rational basis review, you lose?
MR. COOPER: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. COOPER: I don't believe it -- it does.
THE COURT: Just haven't figured out how you're going to win on that basis yet?
MR. COOPER: Well, your Honor, by -- by saying that the state and its electorate are entitled, when dealing with radical proposals for change, to a bedrock institution such as this to move with incrementally, to move with caution, and to adopt a wait-and-see attitude.

Translation: “I have no idea what the consequences of legalizing gay marriage would be and I can’t prove that they would definitely bad, but let’s ban it anyway just in case they are.”

The excerpts are good reading, especially when the anti-gay-marriage lawyer starts veering into Rumsfeld territory with the “there are things we cannot know” meme.

None of this surprises me, of course. Opposition to gay marriage pretty much started as a religious argument (“It’s bad because God said so”) and its subsequent homophobic cousin (“It’s part of the Homosexual Agenda to turn yr children gay”) – both of which work great in television ads, but not so much in a court of law that generally expects you to have some kind of rational (if not logical) argument and evidence/precedent to back it up (unless the court is in Louisiana, of course, but let’s not go there or we’ll be here all night).

As far as I know, the “rational arguments” against gay marriage only cropped up after opponents were forced to think of some and retrofit them, and of the ones I've seen, none of them hold up to reality. The only half-decent one I’ve ever heard is the Libertarian one that goes, “Govts have no business sanctioning marriage of any kind” – and I can’t take that one seriously either, because I don’t see any of these people suing the govt to end secular marriage. You can’t have it both ways.

In any case, it’s fascinating to watch someone from the anti-gay-marriage crowd admit that his “rationale” for banning it is that “some unspecified bad thing might happen”. By which they may or may not be referring to Ezekiel 25:17. Either way, I’d say they’ve just about run out of excuses.

Not that it’ll stop them. On the other hand, even the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff admits that the military is running out of justifications for Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and that it’s probably time to drop it.

Which would make both the Pentagon and Iowa more progressive than California.

Imagine that.

Bang me gavel,

This is dF

SAVAGE TALES FROM THE AMAZON.COM (2010 EDITION)

It seems like every six months or so, I’m forced to consider whether or not I should keep giving Amazon.com my money.

The latest kerfluffle involves Amazon declaring war on Macmillan over e-book prices. To wit: Amazon sells e-books at a set maximum price, Macmillan raises its e-book prices above that ceiling, Amazon delists every book (electronic and print) Macmillan publishes until they bring e-book prices back down – only to eventually cave in anyway.

There’s a number of ways to look at this, but it’s helpful to understand how the publishing industry works and how Amazon works. Charles Stross explains that here, and Tobias Buckell has his own take here. And as John Scalzi has explained further in length, even if you understand why Amazon did what it did (basically that price ceiling is there because Amazon wants to sell more Kindles), there’s really no way to paint Amazon’s actions in a good light. And while one could argue that Macmillan wants to charge way too much for an e-book (and personally I think $14.99 is way too high), that doesn't justify Amazon nuking their entire catalog.

So yes, Boo Amazon.

However, I don’t know that an Amazon boycott would really matter. The problem with an Amazon boycott (and Scalzi explains it better here) is that it wouldn’t just impact Amazon (if at all): it would impact the publishers and (more importantly) authors who rely on Amazon for a chunk of their income.

In my own case, I only use Amazon to buy stuff I can’t buy physically in Hong Kong or when I travel overseas. I also use it for my stateside Christmas shopping. So whether I drop Amazon depends on whether I can find suitable replacements. Better World Books is pretty good for books (not least because the international shipping is cheaper), but they don’t sell CDs. So if anyone has suggestions on where to buy CDs online that also have a wide selection and ship overseas at reasonable rates, please send them along. Meanwhile, I’ll probably keep using Amazon as a last-resort option (which, technically, I do anyway).

As for e-books specifically, the whole fiasco shows in no uncertain terms just what is wrong with the Kindle business model – it’s basically Amazon using its market leverage to tell a publisher what they can or can’t charge for a book because they control both the device and the ecosystem that serves it and if you don’t like it, fuck you and yr entire catalog because where else are you going to go?

I’ve said before that I don’t oppose e-books or the Kindle itself so much as the ecosystem that basically sells me something I have little control over in the same way I do over a physical version of the same product. The Amazon/Macmillan feud isn’t doing anything to change my mind.

Name yr price,

This is dF