See below the beginning of a recent diavlog (as it is known) between national security reporters Spencer Ackerman (The Washington Independent) and Eli Lake (The Washington Times). I have seen these guys before and normally they would spend time discussing the ins and outs of foreign policy issues from Iran to Afghanistan to Pakistan. They are full blown reporters (not just talking head pundits) with deep sources on all these national security issues.
Yet, they spend the opening of their recent discussion on hip-hop, specifically a new conservative rapper called Hi-Caliber. The ease with which the throw around references to Jeezy, Nas, 50 and Rick Ross shows their deep familiarity with the topic...
Now, what I find interesting about this is just how this crosses up so many stereotypical lines and how modern culture facilitates this sort of cultural sampling and cross-pollination such that it allows these 2 guys (of all people) to be both foreign policy wonks AND hip-hop heads without there being any real contradiction between the two identities.
Moreover, as they reference in the discussion above, they collaborated on their own rap regarding the Rod Blagojevich saga. See link below.
The thing is, I think it is really good. The production value is obviously low and their "flow," if you will, leaves something to be desired. But the rhymes are inventive and definitely "ill," as Eli would say.
My favorite:
I'm Axelrodding, be finishing this by Hanukkah
I'm jacking jews for they lists and their yarmulkas
You cut a check or I squeal like a Monica
Obama's collar getting hotter than Andromeda
Check it out, yo.... (Warning: NSFW)
Monday, March 23, 2009
Long Time, No Blog
What can I say? At least I didn't increase the subscription rate.
However, I did just come across this 1967 video which forecasts the coming of the Internet Age. It's almost spooky in its accuracy.
However, I did just come across this 1967 video which forecasts the coming of the Internet Age. It's almost spooky in its accuracy.
Friday, March 6, 2009
News of the weird (and the clumsy)
Man falls down same cliff twice:
Via The Daily What.
George Stastny tripped on a narrow footpath and fell down a 20ft cliff as he was enjoying a stroll in the Teesdale Valley, close to his home in Whorlton, near Barnard Castle in County Durham.
His fall was broken by rocks and trees, but the 66-year-old broke his nose and injured his back.
He was still conscious, so his wife, Mary, managed to drag him back to the top of the cliff, where he eventually passed out.
Without a mobile phone, Mrs Stastny, 53, decided to run for help, leaving her husband safely away from the cliff.
But as she turned away, he stood up, fainted again, and fell back down the cliff.
[snip]
"I turned around to see him stand up and to my horror, he fell down again. He fell right down the cliff to where he was before.
"There were these awful noises coming from him, there were all sorts of moans and groans," the landscape gardener said.
[snip]
"He felt fine," Mrs Stastny said. "He said he woke up and thought: 'I've seen this branch before'.
Via The Daily What.
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Wilkinson casts Cloak Of Chaos spell
Front Porch Republic (FPR) is a new conservative blog with the following mission statement:
So, now that we've established that we are living in a veritable hell on earth, let the wailing and cries for mercy commence!
Will Wilkinson posts this response to an early post on FPR by Daniel Larison titled Patrimony and Autonomy. It may not surprise to note that Larison is all in favor of venerating the former, but as to the latter? Not so much.
Here's Wilkinson:
The economic crisis that emerged in late 2008 and the predictable responses it elicited from those in power has served to highlight the extent to which concepts such as human scale, the distribution of power, and our responsibility to the future have been eliminated from the public conversation. It also threatens to worsen the political and economic centralization and atomization that have accompanied the century-long unholy marriage between consumer capitalism and the modern bureaucratic state.
We live in a world characterized by a flattened culture and increasingly meaningless freedoms. Little regard is paid to the necessity for those overlapping local and regional groups, communities, and associations that provide a matrix for human flourishing. We’re in a bad way, and the spokesmen and spokeswomen of both our Left and our Right are, for the most part, seriously misguided in their attempts to provide diagnoses, let alone solutions.
So, now that we've established that we are living in a veritable hell on earth, let the wailing and cries for mercy commence!
Will Wilkinson posts this response to an early post on FPR by Daniel Larison titled Patrimony and Autonomy. It may not surprise to note that Larison is all in favor of venerating the former, but as to the latter? Not so much.
Here's Wilkinson:
I think I am going to really enjoy Front Porch Republic (motto: “Place. Limits. Liberty.”), which as far as I can tell is an enterprise devoted to the idea that a world filled with little islands of intense moral chauvinism is a better world. Anyway, I was drawn in by this amusing passage by Daniel Larison:Q.E.D.
Let us reflect on the fallen state of man. How did it happen, and what was the cause of the Fall?
Our ancestors chose to try to be as gods and willed the one thing that God had forbidden them. Individual autonomy is at the heart of the Fall, and so it is part of our fallen nature, the part that St. Maximos described as the gnomic (deliberative) will. This is how we are now, but this is not how we were created.
As fallen creatures we can embrace this autonomy, celebrate it and make it one of our highest goods, as most modern traditions would have us do, or we can turn back to God and change our mind.
I read this to Kerry who submits that “it sounds like he’s talking about Dungeons and Dragons or something,” which I think is about right. I know it’s rude for unbelievers to step into conversations between people who take wizards seriously, but I imagine Larison has a point we can all appreciate, and I’d like to know what it is.
My secular reconstruction, which I’m sure leaves out the ineffable essence of the thought, is that the ideal of individual autonomy is alien to human nature and we would be better off surrendering ourselves to our little platoons to be made as they see fit. Is that it?
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Donkeys and elephants living together... Mass hysteria!
Will Wilkinson and Jonah Goldberg debate below the value and efficacy of liberaltarianism: the possibility of a fusionist political philosophy that marries liberal social concerns with libertarian economic ones.
The term was coined by Cato's Brink Lindsey in an article wherein he lays out the logic of the political pairing:
The Wilkinson/Goldberg repartee in response to Lindsey's thesis touches on several of the memes that have surfaced on this blog recently with respect to morality, traditionalism, economics and political philosophy.
Goldberg lays out the straight-up Burkean conservative thesis for opposing change, liberaltarian or otherwise:
The basic conservative view is that our freedom and society are very fragile and that we shouldn't cavalierly make changes to our social order because we don't know where we are going to find ourselves as a result.
Wilkinson responds by drawing out a comparison between liberals and conservatives as distinguished by their moral sensibilities, rather by political philosophy or party affiliation (though clearly there is a logical overlap).
As noted in a prior GingerPost, Jonathon Haidt's research into moral psychology posits 5 vectors of moral sensibilities:
Wilkinson argues, essentially, that liberals and libertarians are "liberal" by moral disposition, as denoted by Haidt's moral reasoning research, rather than because they agree with commonly described "liberal" political policy positions on economics. The challenge then for libertarians, like Wilkinson, is to convince Democratic Party liberals that their moral intuitions would be better served through an alliance with libertarians on economic issues rather than by turning to big-government European-style progressivism to address issues of social justice.
I have to say that I agree with much of this.
On the one hand, Goldberg/Kalb/Dreher and other traditional conservatives have to account for the Scandinavian phenomenon, which is the fact that culturally liberal environments, as defined by Haidt, tend to be more highly functioning, prosperous and civilized societies. Would you rather live in Sweden or Saudi Arabia?
On the other hand, given that we are proceeding through such an unusual environment economically-speaking at present, there is a great danger that Obama (even assuming he is philosophically disposed to do so) will be unable to reign in Democratic impulses to lay a much greater claim by government on our collective economic life as the end-game of the present emergency-driven legislative process rather than simply as a temporary crisis mitigation strategy. And, if this is the ultimate political outcome, then I don't have terribly high hopes for its successful conclusion. Hell, even as a crisis mitigation strategy, it isn't like there isn't already a terrible lot of risk on the table.
But, on the more significant question, what does the animal look like on the liberaltarian bumper sticker of Wilkinson's new political party? A donkey-head with an elephant-butt or the other way around?
The term was coined by Cato's Brink Lindsey in an article wherein he lays out the logic of the political pairing:
The conservative movement--and, with it, the GOP--is in disarray. Specifically, the movement's "fusionist" alliance between traditionalists and libertarians appears, at long last, to be falling apart.
[snip]
Libertarian disaffection should come as no surprise. Despite the GOP's rhetorical commitment to limited government, the actual record of unified Republican rule in Washington has been an unmitigated disaster from a libertarian perspective: runaway federal spending at a clip unmatched since Lyndon Johnson; the creation of a massive new prescription-drug entitlement with hardly any thought as to how to pay for it; expansion of federal control over education through the No Child Left Behind Act; a big run-up in farm subsidies; extremist assertions of executive power under cover of fighting terrorism; and, to top it all off, an atrociously bungled war in Iraq.
This woeful record cannot simply be blamed on politicians failing to live up to their conservative principles. Conservatism itself has changed markedly in recent years, forsaking the old fusionist synthesis in favor of a new and altogether unattractive species of populism. The old formulation defined conservatism as the desire to protect traditional values from the intrusion of big government; the new one seeks to promote traditional values through the intrusion of big government. Just look at the causes that have been generating the real energy in the conservative movement of late: building walls to keep out immigrants, amending the Constitution to keep gays from marrying, and imposing sectarian beliefs on medical researchers and families struggling with end-of-life decisions.
[snip]
Today's ideological turmoil, however, has created an opening for ideological renewal--specifically, liberalism's renewal as a vital governing philosophy. A refashioned liberalism that incorporated key libertarian concerns and insights could make possible a truly progressive politics once again--not progressive in the sense of hewing to a particular set of preexisting left-wing commitments, but rather in the sense of attuning itself to the objective dynamics of U.S. social development. In other words, a politics that joins together under one banner the causes of both cultural and economic progress.
[snip]
Furthermore, it has become increasingly clear that capitalism's relentless dynamism and wealth-creation--the institutional safeguarding of which lies at the heart of libertarian concerns--have been pushing U.S. society in a decidedly progressive direction. The civil rights movement was made possible by the mechanization of agriculture, which pushed blacks off the farm and out of the South with immense consequences. Likewise, feminism was encouraged by the mechanization of housework. Greater sexual openness, as well as heightened interest in the natural environment, are among the luxury goods that mass affluence has purchased. So, too, are secularization and the general decline in reverence for authority, as rising education levels (prompted by the economy's growing demand for knowledge workers) have promoted increasing independence of mind.
Yet progressives remain stubbornly resistant to embracing capitalism, their great natural ally.
[snip]
Hence today's reactionary politics. Here, in the first decade of the twenty-first century, the rival ideologies of left and right are both pining for the '50s. The only difference is that liberals want to work there, while conservatives want to go home there.
The Wilkinson/Goldberg repartee in response to Lindsey's thesis touches on several of the memes that have surfaced on this blog recently with respect to morality, traditionalism, economics and political philosophy.
Goldberg lays out the straight-up Burkean conservative thesis for opposing change, liberaltarian or otherwise:
Goldberg:
"When you listen to libertarians there is sometimes, not always, a sense that we can throw all this stuff [conservative cultural traditions] into the dustbin of history [...] and a pox on these silly opiates of the masses when it may be that those opiates of the masses have the remarkable preventative effect of keeping us free."
The basic conservative view is that our freedom and society are very fragile and that we shouldn't cavalierly make changes to our social order because we don't know where we are going to find ourselves as a result.
Wilkinson responds by drawing out a comparison between liberals and conservatives as distinguished by their moral sensibilities, rather by political philosophy or party affiliation (though clearly there is a logical overlap).
As noted in a prior GingerPost, Jonathon Haidt's research into moral psychology posits 5 vectors of moral sensibilities:
We present theoretical and empirical reasons for believing that there are five psychological systems that provide the foundations for the world's many moralities.
The five foundations are psychological preparations for detecting and reacting emotionally to issues related to:
1) harm/care,
2) fairness/reciprocity,
3) ingroup/loyalty,
4) authority/respect, and
5) purity/sanctity.
Political liberals have moral intuitions primarily based upon the first two foundations, and therefore misunderstand the moral motivations of political conservatives, who generally rely upon all five foundations.
Wilkinson argues, essentially, that liberals and libertarians are "liberal" by moral disposition, as denoted by Haidt's moral reasoning research, rather than because they agree with commonly described "liberal" political policy positions on economics. The challenge then for libertarians, like Wilkinson, is to convince Democratic Party liberals that their moral intuitions would be better served through an alliance with libertarians on economic issues rather than by turning to big-government European-style progressivism to address issues of social justice.
Wilkinson:
Political institutions and economic institutions rest on a cultural underpining that in turn rests on a certain calibration of people's moral sentiments. So, at an abstract level, we're probably in agreement.
But looking at the data, the more liberal a place is in terms of its moral intuitions, the better it is on a lot of metrics. And that's the thing that is hard for a lot of conservatives to swallow.
[snip]
What I want to do is say: If you care about welfare and justice, then I am going to tell you how to do that. You need a high level of economic growth, you need a government limited to a certain set of functions that it can perform competently, and that the things you care about as a dispositional liberal are going to be best served by the moderate liberal-libertarian political identity. Don't be seduced by the statist Democrats because they aren't going to achieve the liberal ends that you care about.
I have to say that I agree with much of this.
On the one hand, Goldberg/Kalb/Dreher and other traditional conservatives have to account for the Scandinavian phenomenon, which is the fact that culturally liberal environments, as defined by Haidt, tend to be more highly functioning, prosperous and civilized societies. Would you rather live in Sweden or Saudi Arabia?
On the other hand, given that we are proceeding through such an unusual environment economically-speaking at present, there is a great danger that Obama (even assuming he is philosophically disposed to do so) will be unable to reign in Democratic impulses to lay a much greater claim by government on our collective economic life as the end-game of the present emergency-driven legislative process rather than simply as a temporary crisis mitigation strategy. And, if this is the ultimate political outcome, then I don't have terribly high hopes for its successful conclusion. Hell, even as a crisis mitigation strategy, it isn't like there isn't already a terrible lot of risk on the table.
But, on the more significant question, what does the animal look like on the liberaltarian bumper sticker of Wilkinson's new political party? A donkey-head with an elephant-butt or the other way around?
The Price of Love
I have often remarked that, if I could do it all over again, I should have been an economics major. I was the curve-setter in my micro-econ class and ended up with over 100% for the semester. And my interest in the topic has continued far beyond my college years. In fact, I may be one of the few living Americans (human beings??) who has watched an entire session of (former CBO Director) Douglas Holtz-Eakin's testimony to a session of Congress live on C-SPAN.
Talk about your riveting drama. I mean who could take their eyes off this guy when he's discussing the deadweight cost of proposed tax legislation? (Notice the gritty stubble mildly evoking the Don Johnson-Miami Vice look, but sans the pastel-hued linen sportcoat to maintain an aura of gravitas.)
(Douglas Holtz-Eakin)
In any case, had I followed this potential lifepath, not only might I have had the chance to hang out with Doug (or Holtzie-E as he's known on "the street"), but it is possible that I could have more efficiently won the affections of my lovely wife through the use of love ballads such as the one noted below.
I mean, what woman could withhold her heart when courted with the likes of this:
"Girl Your Marginal Benefits" (listen here)
Now girl being with you has always been so tough
With each passing minute your marginal cost goes up
But my love is inelastic and it all belongs to you
I'm the only love producer and my good is for you to consume
Cause girl your marginal benefits far outweigh your marginal costs
Without our equilibrium baby well you know I'd be lost
Trapped inside this market I need you to buy my love
Girl without your complementing goods well I'm just not enough
Now you say that I'm producing below my ATC
But I'm optimizing quantity baby, why can't you see?
We could share this surplus each and every day
If you would just buy my love I'd make my fixed costs go away
Baby I want to keep you for the long run (Oh yeah)
I think our supply and demand will become one
Cause girl your marginal benefits far outweigh your marginal costs
Without our equilibrium baby well you know I'd be lost
Long run equilibrium is no place for me
I need the profits of our love to grow exponentially
Courtesy of Greg Mankiw.
Talk about your riveting drama. I mean who could take their eyes off this guy when he's discussing the deadweight cost of proposed tax legislation? (Notice the gritty stubble mildly evoking the Don Johnson-Miami Vice look, but sans the pastel-hued linen sportcoat to maintain an aura of gravitas.)
(Douglas Holtz-Eakin)
In any case, had I followed this potential lifepath, not only might I have had the chance to hang out with Doug (or Holtzie-E as he's known on "the street"), but it is possible that I could have more efficiently won the affections of my lovely wife through the use of love ballads such as the one noted below.
I mean, what woman could withhold her heart when courted with the likes of this:
"Girl Your Marginal Benefits" (listen here)
Now girl being with you has always been so tough
With each passing minute your marginal cost goes up
But my love is inelastic and it all belongs to you
I'm the only love producer and my good is for you to consume
Cause girl your marginal benefits far outweigh your marginal costs
Without our equilibrium baby well you know I'd be lost
Trapped inside this market I need you to buy my love
Girl without your complementing goods well I'm just not enough
Now you say that I'm producing below my ATC
But I'm optimizing quantity baby, why can't you see?
We could share this surplus each and every day
If you would just buy my love I'd make my fixed costs go away
Baby I want to keep you for the long run (Oh yeah)
I think our supply and demand will become one
Cause girl your marginal benefits far outweigh your marginal costs
Without our equilibrium baby well you know I'd be lost
Long run equilibrium is no place for me
I need the profits of our love to grow exponentially
Courtesy of Greg Mankiw.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Sunday, March 1, 2009
It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back
Via Andrew Sullivan, a photographic series called Root Ginger:
Redheads are a pretty big deal. From naughty Eve in the Garden of Eden, without whom some might argue none of us would be here at all, to Britain's most renowned monarchs - Henry-the-serial-wife-killer and his daughter Elizabeth-the-virgin (perhaps some connection there), not to mention the recent Prince Harry-the-rascist. People have been singing ballads to readheads since time immemorial (especially the Irish).
More recently there was Valerie, so lamented by The Zutons and Amy Winehouse in the song of the same name. Would the song worked if Valerie had been a brunette? It’s impossible to say. Yet despite their abundant tenacity, gingers receive a very bad press and have often found themselves the objects of ridicule and the victims of what remains in our society, apparently, the last acceptable discrimination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
