Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Church Chat
John Lofton, the hardest of the hard-core hard-right Christians, hectors -- sorry, interviews -- Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr. Barr displays remarkable patience, though it's clearly fraying by the end.
If you'd like a quick summary of the candidate's answers, here you go: Barr admires Ayn Rand because of her support for individual liberty, not because she's an atheist; Barr is a Methodist; Barr thinks the role of government is defined by the Constitution, not God; Barr supports laws against molesting children; Barr does not think homosexuality is "lewd and depraved"; Barr does not think the government should punish Sabbath-breaking; Barr is pro-life; Barr thinks the individual states should determine the penalties for abortion; Barr does not care to discuss what he believes the penalty for abortion should be in Georgia; Barr supports the death penalty; Barr does not think the federal government should have been involved in the Terri Shiavo case; Barr does not believe Shiavo's death was a murder. And Barr would really, really prefer to be talking about taxes, education, free speech, and government surveillance.
Bonus link: From 20 years ago, Lofton's interview with Allen Ginsburg, which is -- I think I can say this without hyperbole -- the greatest interview in the history of human conversation.
|6.4.08 @ 11:57AM|#
Nice little sparring match to get in shape with. Tonight he goes mano-a-mano with Colbert. A win tonight keeps him fighting. But if Colbert scores a knock down, or even just beats him on points, it could KO the rest of the campaign.
|6.4.08 @ 11:57AM|#
I concur with the greatness of the interview. If we're
proclaiming things the greatest, I say the greatest thing ever
written in the English language is Hunter S. Thompson's "The Song of the
Sausage Creature".
My hands had seized up like claws and the rest of my body was numb.
I felt nauseous and I cried for my mama, but nobody heard, then I
went into a trance for 30 or 40 seconds until I was finally able to
light a cigarette and calm down enough to ride home.
|6.4.08 @ 12:01PM|#
John Lofton, the hardest of the hard-core hard-right Christians,
Um, Jesse? Gary North thinks that people who fail to "honor thy
mother and father" as specified in the 10 Commandments should be
stoned to death. North, an economist, favors stoning because the
implements of execution are free and available to everyone.
Icl|6.4.08 @ 12:04PM|#
The interview might show that Barr is not a complete nut-job, but he is still not a libertarian.
Steve|6.4.08 @ 12:06PM|#
the greatest interview in the history of human
conversation.
Wow, that was actually very cool, i would love to read more one on
one sparring like that, it's honest. Anyone have any
suggestions?
|6.4.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Judge Roy Moore (the Ten Commandments Alabama judge) also
supports public stoning - as the Bible is "higher" law than the
Constitution.
The Libertarian Party can gain from the GOP's close identity with
the Christo-Nutjobs if Barr exploits this.
The only problem? Some of the same nutjobs have gravitated over to
the Libertarian side.
Jesse Walker|6.4.08 @ 12:09PM|#
Wow, that was actually very cool, i would love to read more
one on one sparring like that, it's honest. Anyone have any
suggestions?
Low-hanging fruit: Track down the original, longer version of the
Lofton-Ginsburg interview, which appeared in Chronicles in
1988 but unfortunately does not seem to be online. (I linked to the
edited version that appeared in Harper's two years
later.)
Gary North thinks that people who fail to "honor thy mother and
father" as specified in the 10 Commandments should be stoned to
death. North, an economist, favors stoning because the implements
of execution are free and available to everyone.
What a wuss! Lofton wouldn't pussyfoot around with secular
economic arguments.
|6.4.08 @ 12:13PM|#
The interview might show that Barr is not a complete
nut-job, but he is still not a libertarian.
Purity test alert! Whooop! Whooop! Whooop!
|6.4.08 @ 12:14PM|#
The interview might show that Barr is not a complete
nut-job, but he is still not a libertarian.
Drink, I believe.
Seriously, not a lot to hate in those answers (as summarized)
[insert standard disclaimer on abortion, reasonable minds,
etc.]
Icl|6.4.08 @ 12:16PM|#
"Purity test alert! Whooop! Whooop! Whooop!"
What if Ron Paul was interviewed by Stormfront and said that not
all blacks and jews are evil?
It's kind of like that.
Steve|6.4.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Low-hanging fruit: Track down the original, longer version
of the Lofton-Ginsburg interview, which appeared in Chronicles in
1988 but unfortunately does not seem to be online. (I linked to the
edited version that appeared in Harper's two years
later.)
I'm 23 years old, if it's not online i don't bother. lol! In all
seriousness though it's rare to find an interview of that sort
anywhere, such honesty from both of them. It's so much easier to
get sucked into the conversation because whether you agree with
them or not (an in my case i found them both to be radically weird)
you know that what they are saying is true to what they beleive.
there's no pandering, ass-kissing, or fronting involved.
It's a shame this isn't more common, what i see now are "objective"
interviews, which frankly are too dull to sit through, biased
interviews where the interviewer is doing little but agreeing with
the subject and asking for more, and the 1-sided "o'reilly" style
of bullying.
There's no wit, intelligence, or honesty involved, like everyone
now is afraid to be open to judgment.
Thank you for the bonus link, gives me something to chew on for the
day.
|6.4.08 @ 12:18PM|#
Oh, this is the fuckwad who hectored Frank Zappa on Crossfire. Look up that video, it's a riot.
|6.4.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Jesse, that Ginsburg-Loften interview is funny as shit! Thanks
man!
This Lofton guy, I've honestly never heard of him, but what a
character:
"I'm a Christian. So I don't fantasize."
That is hilarious stuff.
|6.4.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Thanks for the summary, Jesse. I'll probably still read the whole thing anyway just to confirm my bias against the religious right.
Colin|6.4.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Each day I seem to like Barr more.
Great interview -- but don't understand why he bothered with that
nut -- no one listening to him is going to vote for a
libertarian.
|6.4.08 @ 12:22PM|#
The bonus link was great. But if Lofton had the interview published in Chronicles, does that mean that he (and the editors of Chronicles) could not see how badly Ginsberg cleaned his clock?
|6.4.08 @ 12:28PM|#
Lofton was on Politically Incorrect back in the day and Sandra Bernhard said to him "If you were my child, you would have been an abortion" (or words to that effect) and then spit on him.
|6.4.08 @ 12:29PM|#
"But if Lofton had the interview published in Chronicles, does
that mean that he (and the editors of Chronicles) could not see how
badly Ginsberg cleaned his clock?"
He probably thought he cleaned Ginsburg's clock. He arrogantly
asserted his own righteousness. He called his interviewee a sinner.
And he proclaimed the Good News. From the standpoint of his ilk he
ran the tables...
Steve|6.4.08 @ 12:29PM|#
jbd-
Depends on your perspective doesn't it? To Lofton and his readers
the interview confirmed their worst fears about Ginsbrrg, that he
was a mentally ill heathen pervert. To Ginsberg and his fans it
confirmed what they believed about Lofton and his people, that they
are repressed hostile and afraid of anything different from what
they know.
There's only a "winner" if you are looking for one...
Steve|6.4.08 @ 12:33PM|#
I think that they were both right about each other, and the real winner is me, reading it 20 years later...
whatever|6.4.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Barr did quite well. Terri Schiavo was obviously murdered by her husband who threw her down the stairs and beat her, but that wasn't the direct question posed, so he gets a pass.
|6.4.08 @ 12:36PM|#
There's only a "winner" if you are looking for
one...
Bingo.
Einstein famously said - "What we 'see' depends on the theories we
use to interpret our observations"
Lofton's 'theories' are constricted and mundane - but popular. I am
sure he would be declared winner by vote.
|6.4.08 @ 12:36PM|#
Warty,
Sorry but I have to disagree. The greatest tome ever assembled in
the English language, is Dune
|6.4.08 @ 12:36PM|#
can someone please explain to this Alabama dullard/yokel what it is to be "hectored?"
Orange Line Special|6.4.08 @ 12:41PM|#
I'm still waiting to hear back on how I can interview Barr. Maybe Reason could help that along, since they obviously want to have a fair and open debate about the issues I cover.
Mark|6.4.08 @ 12:47PM|#
The greatest tome ever assembled in the English language, is
Dune
Anything written by Flannery O'Connor would mop the floor with
Dune, those movies were terrible anyway...
|6.4.08 @ 12:48PM|#
Lonewackoff said:
"I'm still waiting to hear back on how I can interview Barr"
The "Barr" may be set pretty low for interviews with a LP
candidate, but I'm pretty sure that you fall below it.
Jesse Walker|6.4.08 @ 12:50PM|#
I'm still waiting to hear back on how I can interview
Barr.
Here's the secret formula.
1. Contact his campaign.
2. Ask.
Not so hard. You've got a blog; it has readers; he's clearly
willing to talk with crazy people; he just might say yes.
Then you can post his answers on YouTube and the entire
political world will quake.
|6.4.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Wow! I've spent a great deal of time with Ultra hardcore fundamentalist christians and I have never ever met anyone as rude and unloving as that Lofton comes across in that old interview. Oh, and he seemed rather stupid compared to Mr. Ginsburg imho.
Fluffy|6.4.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Wait a second - is Lonewacko actually looking for facilitation
of his interview plan from Reason?
Damn, dude, fucking Urkobold will get a Barr interview out of Welch
before you do.
|6.4.08 @ 1:04PM|#
Not so hard. You've got a blog; it has readers; he's clearly
willing to talk with crazy people; he just might say
yes.
Jesse Walk-ers away with the win.
|6.4.08 @ 1:05PM|#
Jewls like this are why I love Hit and Run sooooooo much! Excellent job Mr. Walker.
Fluffy|6.4.08 @ 1:05PM|#
May I suggest editing the Wikopedia entry for Barr to include the fact that he has not granted you an interview?
robc|6.4.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Anything written by Flannery O'Connor would mop the floor
with Dune, those movies were terrible anyway...
I have to agree with Warren. And bringing up the movies does
nothing to change that. I once declared that Dune is the all time
"winner" in Quality(book) - Quality(movie). Considering Q(movie) is
negative for Dune (especially the original release), it only
reenforces the greatness of the book (in this measure).
robc|6.4.08 @ 1:11PM|#
I once claimed that the 3 greatest american novels of the 20th
century were (in no particular order):
Dune
Atlas Shrugged
Sometimes a Great Notion
I think that combo says something about me (other than libertarian
sci-fi fan), but Im not sure what.
|6.4.08 @ 1:11PM|#
We need more interviews like the Lofton/Ginsberg gem you posted to. And we need them to be live on television.
robc|6.4.08 @ 1:17PM|#
Sigh, apparently Sometimes a Great Notion, the movie, is being
remade. 2010 release.
Sigh. Okay, now I know what my 3 novels have in common. They cant
reasonably be made into movies.
|6.4.08 @ 1:18PM|#
Yes that was the greatest interview ever. Lofton is either baldly lying to himself or to others when he says he has no fantasies. Ginsburg makes a lot of sense. He realizes the crucial distinction that there is a big difference between thinking about or desiring something and actually doing it. It's why all the people who play GTA games don't go out on crime sprees.
Episiarch|6.4.08 @ 1:26PM|#
Dune is the greatest novel? Are you kidding? It's very good, and
Herbert's universe is extremely complex and layered, but come on.
Really, there is no "greatest novel" just like there is no
"greatest movie".
By the way, if you like intricately detailed book worlds, try
George R.R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire series. That
dude is possibly the most detailed writer I've ever read. The
realism and cruelty he shows his characters are mind-blowing.
ed|6.4.08 @ 1:36PM|#
there is no "greatest novel" just like there is no "greatest
movie"
That works for most things but there is a greatest baseball player
and he's still Babe Ruth.
robc|6.4.08 @ 1:37PM|#
Epi,
Ive avoided Song of Ice and Fire for some reason. I think its to
avoid getting dragged into series Im not going to finish.
Even with Dune, I quit after God Emperor.
robc|6.4.08 @ 1:39PM|#
Epi,
After looking it up, I know now why I avoided it. I tend towards
sci-fi over fantasy. Ive never understood why most bookstores mix
them. They should be two separate sections.
Timmy Mac|6.4.08 @ 1:40PM|#
You're right-that Ginsberg interview is the GREATEST.
GINSBERG: He says: "Do I contradict myself? Very well. I
contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes," Do you know
what he meant by that?
LOFTON: Probably nothing good.
Franklin Harris|6.4.08 @ 1:41PM|#
Lofton was on Politically Incorrect back in the day and Sandra Bernhard said to him "If you were my child, you would have been an abortion" (or words to that effect) and then spit on him.
Eww. Who knows where that spit had been?
svf|6.4.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Sigh. Okay, now I know what my 3 novels have in common. They
cant reasonably be made into movies.
Come on now, Brangelina's Atlas Shrugged will be a
film for the ages!
robc|6.4.08 @ 1:45PM|#
svf,
While Jolie as Dagny works for me, I dont think there is a
character in the movie that fits Brad Pitt.
There is no way that movie will do the book justice.
|6.4.08 @ 1:50PM|#
Epi,
Sorry I got the wrong classic Val Kilmer movie earlier. Nice
shout-out to Song of Ice and Fire.
robc,
The bigger problem with this series is that Martin will probably
never finish it at the pace he's going. But you should have read
the rest of the Dune books, all were magnificent (though I haven't
read any of Brian Herbert's).
Smart people on ice!
Steve|6.4.08 @ 1:51PM|#
other than libertarian sci-fi fan
I'm guessing that would make you a fellow Heinlein fan? V. Vernor?
Stross?
Steve|6.4.08 @ 1:53PM|#
damn typos, i meant Vernor Vinge, i just finished Rainbows End he's still got it, i'm really into Ken Macleod lately too.
|6.4.08 @ 1:54PM|#
There is no way that movie will do the book justice.
Vadim Perelman is a tremendously gifted director. And he's
adapting.
On a different note, I concur that the Ginsberg/Lofton dialogue is
f'n great.
Steve|6.4.08 @ 1:56PM|#
Am I the only one that thought of O'Reilly while reading the
interview?
Not even close, Lofton actually let Ginsburg get a word in...
robc|6.4.08 @ 1:56PM|#
V. Vernor
Was that supposed to be Vernor Vinge?
If so, I was just about to recommend A Deepness in the Sky. Hugo,
Nebula, and Prometheus (best libertarian sci-fi) Award
winner.
I preferred A Fire Upon the Deep, but they are both excellent.
Deepness is a prequel to Fire, but they are independent of each
other (there is some stuff that isnt explained in Deepness that is
understandable if you have read Fire but it matters not at
all).
I didnt particularly care for Rainbow's End, but I need to read
more Vinge.
rbenchley|6.4.08 @ 2:02PM|#
The prequel novels that Brian Herbert wrote are pretty decent, but the books that pick up where Chapterhouse Dune left off are awful.
Rhywun|6.4.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Ginsburg makes a lot of sense.
I was never a great fan... until now. Damn, that made my day.
Ive avoided Song of Ice and Fire for some reason.
I stopped in the 4th book, which means now I'll probably have to
read them all over again. Not too bad, since I enjoy them
tremendously and I'm sure I missed a lot of details anyway.
Steve|6.4.08 @ 2:06PM|#
I didnt particularly care for Rainbow's End, but I need to
read more Vinge.
Across Realtime (collection of a trilogy) is the one to
read, fantastic! I went about 2 weeks expecting to see national
monuments bobbled up!
Jesse Walker P0wnage Central|6.4.08 @ 2:07PM|#
Continuing to stoop low, Jesse Walker writes:
Here's the secret formula. 1. Contact his campaign. 2.
Ask.
Someone else - such as the vast majority of those above 3rd grade -
would realize that the fact that I've already asked is implicit in
my earlier statement that "I'm still waiting to hear
back". That statement indicates that I have contacted them and
am now "waiting to hear back". In fact, there can be no "waiting to
hear back" without me having asked them, which I've actually done
twice.
Perhaps there are students from local elementary schools who'd be
willing to help Reason out with previewing comments, posts, and the
like.
|6.4.08 @ 2:09PM|#
The current crop of British hard SF writers are all doing great work. Neal Asher, Alistair Reynolds, John Meany, Adam Roberts, Richard Morgan, Charles Stross, and, of course, the incomparable Iain Banks.
|6.4.08 @ 2:13PM|#
Oh, this is the fuckwad who hectored Frank Zappa on
Crossfire. Look up that video, it's a riot.
I hadn't looked it up, but I thought that this must be that same
guy as I was reading the Ginsburg interview. I second the
recommendation to look up the Zappa video on YouTube. Zappa gives
this little turd a much harsher smackdown than the more genteel
Ginsburg did.
Ginsburg was right, of course. I'm sure an analysis into Lofton's
subconscious would reveal far darker stuff than anything Ginsburg
could have dreamed up. "I don't fantasize." Uh-huh.
Dog\'s New Clothes|6.4.08 @ 2:19PM|#
GINSBERG: Nothing is completely black-and-white. Nothing.
THE DEVIL: Nothing's black and white, nothing's black and
white-what about a panda? What about a panda, you dumb fuck! What
about a fucking panda!
|6.4.08 @ 2:20PM|#
As to the Barr interview, I think it's a brilliant strategy for
him to do interviews with loony fundamentalist types. They are not
his intended audience; we are. Such interviews are the most
striking way for him to distance himself from his Republican past
and anything non-libertarian he said and did while in
Congress.
Furthermore, I believe there is still a strong "leave me alone"
streak among many fundies. That is originally why they joined the
GOP back in the day. They may not agree with many of Barr's
positions, but his overall limited-government view will resonate in
that community.
|6.4.08 @ 2:26PM|#
Steve,
Meh. He performs the same socialist fallacy the trolls here do:
purposefully conflating anarchy and libertarianism in order to
denigrate libertarianism. (I get it MacLeod... you're a commie...
that came through loud and clear...) I like the Engines of Light
stuff better, but Newton's Wake is practically Naomi
Klein's Disaster Capitalism shtick verbatim and so only
represents a sad return to form.
(And for the record: I don't care for overtly libertarian SF either
(sorry L. Neil Smith fans.) Heinlein gets a pass because he can
actually produce non-political work as well.)
|6.4.08 @ 2:35PM|#
The interview might show that Barr is not a complete
nut-job, but he is still not a libertarian.
* Drinks *
Really? Other than his support for the death penalty, all of Barr's
positions outlined by Jesse Walker are arguably libertarian, unless
you believe True Libertarians TM shouldn't follow the Constitution,
and can't be pro-life because they hold different opinions from you
on when a fetus becomes a human being.
Jason|6.4.08 @ 2:37PM|#
I couldn't help but think of "Stranger in a Strange Land" while reading the Ginsburg interview. He seemed to remind me of Valentine Michael Smith. I don't know why, though.
robc|6.4.08 @ 2:38PM|#
SugarFree,
If you havent read him, I dont consider Vinge's stuff "overtly"
libertarian.
Jesse Walker|6.4.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Don't ever change, Lonewacko. You aren't much of a comedian, but you're a great straight man.
robc|6.4.08 @ 2:40PM|#
prolefeed,
Im not even sure support for the death penalty isnt arguable
libertarian too. If we are going to punish criminals, isnt it
possible to deserve death? There are many pragmatic reasons to
oppose the death penalty, but Im not sure of the liberty argument
against it.
Steve|6.4.08 @ 2:40PM|#
SugarFree-
I don't think he's as overt as you make him out to be, and The
Stone Canal was very fair to anarcho-capitalism in my opinion.
And i thought the real heroes of Newton's Wake
was the AO group, hardley socialist...
Episiarch|6.4.08 @ 2:43PM|#
I stopped in the 4th book, which means now I'll probably
have to read them all over again. Not too bad, since I enjoy them
tremendously and I'm sure I missed a lot of details
anyway.
That's what happened with me. I just don't read much any more
(which is why I can't hold a good conversation with the rest of you
about the current state of sci-fi), but I'll be damned if I'm going
to let this series go. I'll ram my way through A Feast for
Crows even if I have to take a plane to Australia to do
it.
robc, you may be a sci-fi guy, but a) Martin has done excellent
sci-fi short stories, and b) A Song of Ice and Fire is
beyond anything else I've ever read in terms of its realism and
detail.
|6.4.08 @ 2:46PM|#
By the way, if you like intricately detailed book
worlds,
You need to be reading the Malazan books by Stephen Erikson. Way,
way up there in the pantheon.
Episiarch|6.4.08 @ 2:51PM|#
To expand on this, Martin's characters are incredibly real and
believable. They are massively complex, with motivations that make
sense (instead of pushing the plot along). They are flawed. While
there are characters we are ostensibly supposed to root for, all of
them have their good and bad traits.
And he is so viciously cruel to his characters, and by default to
the readers who come to love the characters. He will kill them, and
you have no idea it's coming (The Red Wedding is an
example). He will maim them, rape them, and take from them what
they love most. Just like the real world. The brutality of his
books is striking, not only because of its intensity, but also for
its realism.
He's not telling you this story because he wants you to feel all
happy when the hero kills the bad guy. He wants you to
feel the lives of the characters.
It's very difficult to describe how intense it all is. I really
suggest you read it.
robc|6.4.08 @ 2:54PM|#
Just did a quick count, I have only read 20 of the top 50 from
here:
Top 100 Sci Fi Books
Ive used this list to catch up on my "classics". This time last
year I had only read 8 of the top 10. So I bought the other 2 and
now, with the adjustments that happen, I have only read 8 of the
top 10.
|6.4.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Steve,
Not looking to start a pitched battle, but...
The "libertarian" planet was filthy, covered in advertising,
everyone was a hair-trigger gun nut, and was basically pitched as
having no laws except those to protect corporations. Calling a
set-up like that "libertarianism" is being insulting to
libertarianism. And the libertarian antagonist of the novel
eventually enslaves millions of uploaded human minds.
Libertarianism = slavery? WTF?
It also must be contrasted with the socialism depicted in
Cassini Division where everything is la-di-da perfect and
the only opposition to his preposterous Utopia comes from
villainous capitalists. His RL associations with the Wobblies and
the praise he heaps on unions through all the books also makes his
politics pretty clear.
I don't think the books are badly written, but the sparks from his
grinding axe get kind of old after a while.
|6.4.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Top 100 Sci Fi Books
93/100
I would have had more but I have one of them and haven't read it
yet (Ilium, Dan Simmons), and I loath Orson Scott
Card.
Having said that, any list that has Jurassic Park down as
a better novel than Stars My Destination can suck on my
big old hairy nuts.
David
Pringle's list is fairly representative of my tastes, but it
was complied in the mid-80s and is a bit outdated.
ed|6.4.08 @ 3:09PM|#
brotherben,
I say Ruth has the edge because he was a hell of a pitcher
before he became one of the greatest sluggers.
And that interview is far from the greatest anything.
Sorry.
Dormouse|6.4.08 @ 3:09PM|#
There are many pragmatic reasons to oppose the death
penalty, but Im not sure of the liberty argument against
it.
Part of the reason I'm a libertarian/anarchist is because of my
atheism. I don't believe in God, nor do I believe people have the
right to act as gods. I believe human minds to be intrinsically
fallible. Coming from that perspective, I find the death penalty to
be abhorrent. There simply is no guarantee that the person being
executed actually committed the crime.
That said, the definition of libertarian is not set in stone. If
Barr wants to call himself libertarian, that's fine. But if I vote
for him, it will be because of the policies he supports, not a
self-imposed label.
|6.4.08 @ 3:10PM|#
"Perhaps there are students from local elementary
schools..."
That's very nice of you to think of your classmates, Lonewacko,
even when they give you wedgies every recess.
|6.4.08 @ 3:14PM|#
prolefeed,
Im not even sure support for the death penalty isnt arguable
libertarian too. If we are going to punish criminals, isnt it
possible to deserve death? There are many pragmatic reasons to
oppose the death penalty, but Im not sure of the liberty argument
against it.
Killing somebody sure deprives them of their liberty, but I see
your point about "in principle" versus "in practice". Heinlein's
"The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress" argues that the death penalty, in
that extremely severe environment, could be a libertarian
action.
Let me back off a bit from my statement and say that, with the
government we currently have and will almost certainly have in the
foreseeable future, we should not permit them the power to kill
people because they can't be fucking trusted -- which is, as you
noted, a pragmatic argument.
Good point. Thanks for bringing it up.
Oh, and I thought Bob Barr handled the interview that is the topic
of this thread very well, trying to not alienate potential
right-lib converts while sticking to his libertarian guns in the
face of some very aggressive questioning. I think Ruwart would have
totally fucked up that interview, not that she would have agreed to
do it in the first place.
svf|6.4.08 @ 3:19PM|#
not that she would have agreed to do it in the first
place.
more likely: not that she would have been interviewed at all in the
first place.
zoltan|6.4.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Niven's tech might be good, but his grasp on the English language and fundamentals of storytelling and characterbuilding fucking suck.
|6.4.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Bingo,
Started out waiting for Olympos to come out so I would
read them together, but I got on a "re-read all of Grant Morrison"
kick. I still have the Peter Hamilton Judas Unchained
books lurking on the shelf as well.
robc|6.4.08 @ 4:10PM|#
zoltan,
Ive had this discussion with a friend of mine. Niven doesnt try to
build characters (which is why his short stories are so strong). He
builds places (The Ringworld, The Smoke Ring, Avalon) or cultures
(Pak, Mote).
I disagree about the fundamentals of storytelling. Especially in
the short stories/novellas. In his novels, he tends to break
traditional storytelling and instead goes with a different form,
the character or group of characters travelling throw odd locations
and having adventures. More like the Odyssey than traditional
novels.
His best works are about exploring the oddities and possibilities
of a situation. The characters are there to advance the story from
place to place.
CFroh|6.4.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Got help our country, with the majority either wanting Big Government to let them be parasites, or using Big Government to kill perverts and abortionists. So good for Bob Barr for his resistance to interfering in State matters, and especially good for Ginsberg in exposing Lofton to his own inner sadist. I would kill to have seen Ginsberg teaching the nutty fundamentalist how to meditate! Makes me proud that Ginsberg and the other Beat Poets had such a positive impact on my post-college "living on the edge" days!
Rhywun|6.4.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Top 100 Sci Fi Books
Harrumph. Like all Lists, my favorite artists are there but my
favorite *works* by those artists are not, or are listed way below
the more popular works.
I loath Orson Scott Card
Ender's Game is fantastic. Every following novel got worse than the
last one, culminating in his recent Mormon series which is
practically unreadable.
GILMORE|6.4.08 @ 10:01PM|#
I cant believe the lofton fellow actually has the gall to talk
about civics when he refuses to acknowledge any even minor
difference between the role of religion vis a vis the state.
Basically, he's no different than any mullah who demands that their
fatwas become law, through pure scriptural rule.
I mean for fucks sake, barr was tossing him bones from time to
time, but the guy wouldnt accept anything short of "death penalty"
for 'abortionists'.
What the fuck is wrong with people
|6.4.08 @ 11:03PM|#
On Ken MacLeod --
After reading three out of four books in the Fall
Revolution series, I was under the impression that MacLeod was
pro anarcho-capitalist libertarian, with some lefty
sympathies. (I think he's actually the other way around,
now.)
I thought The Star Fraction was very pro an-cap, as was
The Stone Canal. Even the Trotskyite mercenary in The
Star Fraction thought the an-cap enclave was a beautiful
thing; he said he just wanted to go even further and see a society
that was even more free (as he saw it). And the an-cap society on
New Mars in The Stone Canal was IMO just a portrayal of
"warts and all" capitalistic anarchy -- which made it a lot more
convincing than a libertarian utopia such as the one portrayed in
L. Neil Smith's The Probability Broach (which I also
enjoyed nevertheless). Society on New Mars was portrayed as
exciting, interesting, messy, wealthy, and technologically
advanced, and most residents seemed to be happy to be there.
Did it have people who thought it was okay to enslave intelligences
that did not possess organically human brains, but digital? Yes. It
also had an abolitionist movement, whose members were also an-caps.
The achievement of a libertarian society doesn't mean all social
problems and questions will be immediately solved.
The harshest critic of New Martian society Canal was the
catamite who went on a killing spree because he couldn't accept
that if he gives his consent to an action, he bears
responsiblity for that, even if none of his choices were ideal. At
least this raised an interesting philosophical point.
I will admit that The Cassini Division threw me a bit,
with its overly idealistic (IMO) view of a socialistic society. But
even here, MacLeod shows that some people aren't happy in that
society, and prefer to live in capitalistic reservations. And in
that book, the viewpoint socialist character also happens to be a
horrible, horrible bigot.
I think MacLeod's portrayal of an an-cap libertarian society was
complex and more than fair. Hell, The Star Fraction won a
Prometheus Award (given to outstanding examples of pro-libertarian
science fiction).
|6.4.08 @ 11:16PM|#
Ender's Game is fantastic.
I hear there's a movie in the works. I can't help but shudder at
how they will butcher it.
No love for Erikson's Malazan novels, eh? You people are missing
out. You should read something published in the last 10 years
sometime.
Jesse Walker|6.4.08 @ 11:19PM|#
The Reason interview with MacLeod is here. Like Stevo,
I get the impression (more from his blog than from his novels) that
his views have moved a bit leftward in the eight years since I did
that Q&A.
I should add that his most recent book, The Execution
Channel, is a great read; I think it's his best novel since
The Stone Canal.
|6.6.08 @ 8:34PM|#
"""Basically, he's no different than any mullah who demands that
their fatwas become law, through pure scriptural rule."""
Bingo.
I find it funny that Lofton demands people must live under his
laws. God gives you the choice through freewill. Lofton's more
uptight than God about how you should live.
Here's the Zappa crossfire clip. It's great.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ISil7IHzxc
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245