On this day in 1914, a cap was popped in the ass of the Archduke Ferdinand. Five years later to the day, the Treaty of Versailles was signed.
Rousseau was born on June 28th. So was Mel Brooks, John Cusack, Jackie O., and John Elway. Pat Morita and Gilda Radner, too.
And joy of all joys, it’s the day we randomly christened as Iraqi Sovreignty Day back on ’04.
Today is also this particular punkass’s birthday, which will be celebrated at work, due to the fact that I’m in the middle of a project raging so far out of control that missing a day would back my workload up so badly that managing it for the rest of the week would suck all the fun out of playing hooky.
But that doesn’t mean the rest of you can’t celebrate for me, and if you’re looking for party starters, I heartily recommend that you take a gander at Obsidian Wings‘ basic intro to the philosophy of John Rawls posted this morn.
I love Rawls for all kinds of reasons, one of the most prominent being his ability to capture the essence of liberal thinking as the opposite of the egocentric limitations faced by aggro wingnuts we discussed yesterday.
Like any philosophy, Rawls’ isn’t perfect, but if you find resonance with his reasoning, it’s probably because you’re inclined to think beyond yourself, outside yourself, when considering rights and laws. While wingnuts say things like “it’s MY money, I earned it,” usually it’s the liberals who try to extract their own situation from the equation and balance ideas against the entire class, race, and gender spectrum. Rawls tries to formalize that process. To simplify it even more than OW’s reduction, he asks people to step outside of their specific lot in life and imagine that they could be cast into _any_ position/class/race/gender/etc. in society when governing/legislating.
Interestingly, he is relying on self-interest as a motivating force, that you might think things like “what if I were a working-class Hispanic mother of two?” and suddenly be inclined to offer at least minimal protection to every subsection of society such that, if you were cast into that position, you could at least manage to get along. So Rawls isn’t arguing for pure altruism. What he is asking you to do, though, is think outside of your specific interests before you call something fair, and that’s what the wingnuts often seem unwilling to do.
Senator Coburn says that he is descended from a raped woman and that it’s unfair to allow abortions because he specifically might not exist if his great-grandmother had gotten one. But has he ever thought of his great-grandmother? Or any other raped woman? Is he even capable of even _trying_ to imagine what it would be like if he was forced against his will to carry to term and raise to adulthood a product of his rape? I honestly don’t know if he’s able to do what Rawls asks. And that’s why I like Rawls so damn much. He exposes the self-absorbtion of conservative thinking.
Rawls coherently argued that you have to extract your specific life situation before you can apply the concept of fairness. It follows that you should consider what it would be like to be the people most affected by whatever you’re promoting or fighting. For example, the 101st Fighting Keyboardists can’t seem to grasp why we badger them for sending other people to die abroad because they think it helps them sleep a tiny bit better every night. We wonder “what if it were _me_ having to battle insurgents and fear an IED every goddamn day?” and thus apply some version of Rawls’ fairness instinctively. They seem wholly incapable of doing the same, even when confronted with the question. For many of us, there would be threats to our country big enough to warrant a call to arms, and we can imagine enlisting for certain reasons, but the very concept of “if you wouldn’t fight in it, you can’t support it” comes from a line of reasoning similar to Rawls’.
So on this, the day of one punkass’s birthday, I hope you’ll take some time to read Obsidian Wings’ thorough, yet enjoyable, explanation of Rawls. No one can ever truly extract all of her own particular biases or fully situate themselves in someone else’s shoes when evaluating a problem or solution, but I think fairness ought to be based on trying.
That’s Marc in the argyle sweater.
Is that you with the mustache and crossed eyes then?
Yes. Yes, it is.
Then I think I’m about to make out with your wife in that pic.
I’m tickling your mom’s ear with my party favor.
That’s okay, I’m more concerned about why the 40-year-old alter girl is about to spit on my plate.
Man, I wish I was that plate.
Because of the spitting, not cause it’s yours.
That’d just be gross.
Hey Auguste, de gustibus non disputandum est.
Nec laudas nisi mortuos poetas: tanti non est, ut placeam, perire.
Ahem-nitpick alert-
Jackie O was born on July 28.
Carry on. I love the Dawn-mocking.
Woo-hoo! Countdown to Jackie O’s birthday!
Or not. Happy birthday, Marc.
Gentlemen, there will be no Latin on this blog. Not even on Marc’s birthday.
a lot of people don’t know about Rawl’s early work on passive resistance, conscientious objection, etc. just sayin’…
Happy Birthday !! If you start to feel that ol’ existential despair, remember that you could be like me and have to share your birthday with Sir Paul. [shudder]
[passes buffalo wings and a couple of cold beers. I figured everyone else would bring cake.]
Not to mention “You Made Me So Very Happy.”
Thanks, all! I’m off to party hearty. I tried to get a post done tonight, but it’ll just have to wait till the morn.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY
PUNK ASS MARC !!!!
A Very Merry Unbirthday to everyone but PAMarc!
Happy Birthday, it was my friend’s kid’s 3rd today as well (nice little garden party in NE Austin). I think you and he should get kicked out of Casino el Camino together.
Quchjaj qoSlIj Punkass Marc!
(yes, that’s “Happy Birthday” in Klingon. I shall now return to Dork Town.)
Happy day-late birthday! Hope it was a blast.
Who knew.
Happy Birthday to the lucky boy with the magical girlfren’….
@ Pandagon
Thanks, James. I am _definitely_ lucky.
Happy birthday, Punkass!
Also:
Is he even capable of even _trying_ to imagine what it would be like if he was forced against his will to carry to term and raise to adulthood a product of his rape?
You have put an incredibly disgusting picture in my mind, so I feel I must share it with all and sundry: imagine any one of these anti-choicers being accosted, forced to spew their man-juice (yuk!), and then slapped with a paternity suit nine months later. Then try and imagine how quickly they’d reverse their stands on this sort of issue. Especially if their offspring was being raised by a gay couple of either gender.
Once you’re done imagining, I can make a few calls and get the project underway…
sorry I’m so late at the party – I just got to your site yesterday from reclusive leftist and I love you and your posters. oh to be at your party
…and to Neil the Ethical Werewolf: you are writing klingon (or claim to be – how would I know?) and you think you may even temporarily have left dork town.
Happy Happy Happy Happy Happy! (belated) Happy Happy…repeat until fade