DISQUS

What do you make of the effect of Twitter, YouTube, etc. on the political debate over the situation in Iran? I agree with you that the impact of modern technology on how we observe--I wouldn't say "experience"--history really is remarkable, but I'm worried that in addition to the genuinely worthwhile opportunity to get more information about events on the ground, new technology lends itself to exploitation by our very own demagogues here at home.

As Will WIlkinson said recently: "So folks on Twitter have been turning their avatars (little profile photos) green to show solidarity with the protesters in Iran. There are websites to help you do this. But why do this? How does it help? I want the Iranian people to live in freedom, just as I want all people to live in freedom. But the point of the gesture eludes me, unless the point of the gesture is to be seen making the gesture by others who will credit you for it. Like so many political gestures, it is vanity dressed up as elevated moral consciousness. It doesn’t help. Is it harmless? Unlike the stupidly grandstanding House resolution, the ruling regime probably won’t be pointing to verdant Twitter avatars as evidence that the uprising is an American plot. So I wouldn’t worry about that. Here’s what I do worry about. When people feel pressure to signal, and it’s free, they’ll signal. But sending the signal creates a small emotional investment in the overt message of the signal — solidarity with opponents of the ruling Iranian regime. As every salesman knows, getting someone to make a big, costly commitment is best achieved by getting them to first make a tiny, costless commitment. The tiny, costless commitment of turning Twitter avatars green is thin edge of the persuasive edge for the neocons who would like to sell the public a war in Iran. Since I would rather not be Bill Kristol’s useful idiot, I will conspicuously leave my avatar as is, and continue hoping for the best."

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/06/...

Like Wilkinson, I am afraid that the in-your-face--and sometimes creepy, as in the appropriation of Neda Agha-Soltan--media coverage creates an excitable public. And good things rarely result from politicians' realization that the public is excitable.

"Davidson is a college that is not afraid of God." I think I know what that applicant-cum-future College Republican meant, but that line made me think of this Kids in the Hall sketch about the danger of such ambiguity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoGxvB1llbc

"That's right, gentlemen. We could wind up constantly wiping our eyes in a downpour while trying to dance to Leonard Cohen music!"

1. "Night Moves" by Bob Seger. One of the most evocative songs ever written.
2. "Dancing Days" by Led Zeppelin. "I told your momma I'd get you home. But I didn't tell her I had no car."
3. "Common People" by Pulp. There's a great book waiting to be written about why the United Kingdom has produced more first-rate pop music than the U.S. despite having only a fraction as many people. This song will be as good a place as any for the author to start.

More on King and the history of MLK day, this time from Ari Kelman, a professor of history at UC-Davis.

http://edgeofthewest.wordpress.com/2009/01/15/r...

"A riot is the language of the unheard." Too true.

Roderick Long on the radicalism of King, Lincoln, and Jefferson:

http://aaeblog.com/2008/05/05/find-the-unpatriot/

Slight revision...I should have said: "It looks like the movie will have some new characters and Hugh Jackman will get a chance to fillet various baddies, but it seems like we're gradually lowering our standards if all it takes for an action blockbuster to fill the seats is a familiar premise and a little kiss-kiss-bang-bang panache."

Also, it occurs to me that the point about action movies keeping actors in crowd-pleasing but none too bold roles works more-or-less symetrically for screwball/romantic comedies and actresses. Take Anne Hathaway. She's shown flashes of brilliance, most notably in Brokeback Mountain and this year's Rachel Getting Married. But she's following up on her latest succcess with...Bride Wars.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdHJnPC_Uvo

Last spring, Ross Douthat wrote: "Let me clarify, then: My problem is not with the existence of superhero movies, but with their proliferation, which the success - both artistic and commercial - of Iron Man is likely to further dramatically. I love genre films as much as the next cultural populist, but it's possible to have too much of a given genre even when the movies in question are good. And having Iron Man and The Dark Knight and The Incredible Hulk (did we really need another one so soon?) as summer tentpoles, with quasi-superhero movies like Hancock and Hellboy 2 thrown in, feels to me like the equivalent of having three James Bond movies coming out at more or less the same time. Or, more aptly - since superhero films are more dissimilar from one another than than Bond movies are - it's like having a Narnia movie and a Lord of the Rings movie and, say, an Ursula K. Le Guin adaptation all being released in the same movie season, with countless more adaptations of lesser fantasy works in the pipeline for the next few years. Which is to say, it feels like too much of a good thing even if all the movies turn out to be good (which they won't), and I'd like to see some of the talent involved turn their attention to other genres for a while."

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/archives/200...

That X-Men trailer made me think much the same thing. It looks like the movie will have some new characters and Hugh Jackman will get a chance to fillet various baddies, but it seems like we're gradually lowering our standards if all it takes for an action blockbuster to fill the seats is familiar characters and a little kiss-kiss-bang-bang panache.

2007 was a phenomenal year for movies. No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, The Lives of Others, The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days will all stand the test time as classics. But I think most people agree that 2008 was fairly lackluster. Now, would things have turned out differently if Edward Norton, Daniel Craig, etc. had tried on more ambitious, psychologically realistic roles? Maybe, maybe not. But I would much rather see a film that tries to stir my heart and fails than one that shoots for the title of Most Indecipherable Fight Scenes and succeeds.

Freely conceding the point that there might be some worthwhile free market reforms to be made, I'm a bit puzzled by this bit from the Politico article to which Yglesias links:

"Kimberley Strassel, an editorial writer for the Wall Street Journal, argued that Republicans would have to expand the electoral playing field by pioneering new initiatives in suburban policy.

“'Conservatives have had a tendency to dismiss any quality of life issues that could be characterized as ‘green,’ like sprawl,” Strassel said. “It does affect people’s daily lives, and if conservatives can come up with ideas for making transportation, movement, communication work better, I think that would be a good thing.'"

Two questions:

1. Is there any empirical evidence suggesting that voters place an emphasis on these issues that could translate into electoral gains if sound policy were enacted? In other words, is there a statistically identifiable group of people out there who would normally vote for another party or not vote at all but might be convinced to vote Republican in part or in whole because of such reforms?

2. Isn't bringing up sprawl when your party is being weighed down by support for an unpopular war and the alienation of Hispanic voters a bit like suggesting a gunshot victim drink some water? It might help, but there are more obvious solutions at hand.

Yeah, apparently time travel is a major fulcrum of the plot. I've tried, with moderate sucess, to avoid reading too many spoilers, but if you think about the cast and the villains of the film you can probably get a good idea of how time travel figures in.

Still, Simon Pegg as Scotty? Good decision, Abrams.

Looks pretty good. But if "remember when" is the lowest form of conversation (as Tony Soprano said), then time travel is the most unimaginative gimmick for storytelling. Also, when are the Cardassians going to get some love--or perhaps I should say hate--as Trek movie villains?
'

And speaking of the future of the Republican Party, Ross Douthat is on a roll.

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/

McKinney 100%
Nader 95%
Barr 68%
Obama 65%
McCain 31%

Jarred, I think being well-informed is important, but people who want a more well-informed electorate should also stress other aspects of responsible belief-formation. It's not enough to simply have all the facts; you have to see how they fit together and how your vote will be interpreted. Under the right circumstances a vote for a liberal Democrat could, in the long run, contribute to making the country more conservative in the long-term and a vote for a conservative Republican could usher in a Democratic majority down the road. (Personally, I think reformist Republicans should hope McCain loses so that the GOP takes a good four year-long look in the mirror instead of enjoying the lethargy that comes with such a long time in power.) And I think it's often very hard to tell who is properly assessing the justification and potential impacts of their votes--or, indeed, if we ourselves are.

As fellow geeks, I know you and Jarred will appreciate this.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/sco...

After this election, I hope I never hear the word "maverick" again unless we're talking basketball.

That story about the attack on the mosque is indeed dispiriting. But in more encouraging news about societal prejudices...

"As an Internet company, Google is an active participant in policy debates surrounding information access, technology and energy. Because our company has a great diversity of people and opinions -- Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, all religions and no religion, straight and gay -- we do not generally take a position on issues outside of our field, especially not social issues. So when Proposition 8 appeared on the California ballot, it was an unlikely question for Google to take an official company position on.

However, while there are many objections to this proposition -- further government encroachment on personal lives, ambiguously written text -- it is the chilling and discriminatory effect of the proposition on many of our employees that brings Google to publicly oppose Proposition 8. While we respect the strongly-held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality. We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 -- we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love."

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-posi...

Jarred, you should be very proud.

Even by the standards of Dookies, those shirts are obnoxious.

Jarred, I use Wikipedia as much as anyone, so I'm not discounting the value of being able to instantly and easily look up topics with which I'm not all that familiar. But I think a certain amount of portable knowledge is critical because it's not immediately obvious what lessons a person should take from American history or our current political landscape. A person who can find a lot of commentary and information on, say, Roe v. Wade may understand the history of the case, the subsequent objections to and defenses of the ruling, and the decision's effect on the two parties. But being able "to quickly digest, compare, and make choices and judgments about information" won't really help you here because the proper governmental posture toward abortion isn't really a topic a person can settle solely through the aid of outside input.

In other words, what matters is what happens when you step away from the computer. What do you feel about what you've read, heard, and seen? The digital age can do a lot of things, but it can't make people synthesize their experiences any better or any worse than members of preceding generations could. That's why we need people to be able to summon, unaided, a decent knowledge of their history, traditions, and culture: So they can use those moments of quiet to shepherd the information they take in to a purposeful conclusion.

I've linked to this before here, but maybe this will help you understand where I'm coming from, Pat (Dr. Sellers?).

http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/index.html

The civic literacy quiz administered to college seniors produced some dismal results, and no school was represented particularly well. I don't think the questions were unrealistically difficult either. If we can't expect college students to know the basics about American history, how can we expect them to know any other country's? And what would you expect the results would have been if the test had been given to those who never went to college?

I'd like to see more people involved in politics as well, but only if those people make the effort to understand the issues involved. I don't trust "shortcuts" or bumper stickers (what does compassionate conservatism mean? what exactly does Obama think we can do?), and I certainly don't trust politicians to use such mechanisms for the greater good when they could much more easily use it to keep them in power. (Witness the vacuity of the current campaign.) I'd much rather a smaller group of wonkish and thoughtful people made decisions for the country than a large group of superficially informed dilettantes.

Given how poorly informed the public is and how poorly informed everyone is on at least some important matters, how do you think all this will help the typical person (i.e., a person not particularly inclined to research the issues or get organized with people who are)? Isn't the big problem with all the efforts to make people well-informed, mobilized citizens the fact that the vast majority of people don't really care if they're poorly informed and inert--sometimes with justification, sometimes without? How do you change the culture beyond simply making it easier for people to find countercultures (and let's face it, the world of political engagement is itself a counterculture)?

Speaking of which, the trailer for Oliver Stone's movie on Bush is pretty sweet.

http://showhype.com/video/oliver_stone_s_w_bush...

Big questions!

I think a lot of this is inextricably bound up with the extent to which we view consumption as a form of expression. The people who waited in line to make sure they were among the first to get an iPhone, for instance, were making a statement about who they were as much as they were making one about the exciting novelty of the iPhone. I think it's a good thing that our wealth has allowed us the luxury of devoting so much energy to these pursuits--I'm sure many East Germans burst into tears the first time they stepped inside a West German store--but I think it's easy to lose sight of the boundary between using our shopping choices to augment our growth and using those choices to fill in for our normal processes of maturation.

I'm flattered, albeit a bit surprised, that you recall my "not well formulated or presented" question for Snow so vividly. The feat is all the more impressive since I only spoke for about ten seconds--hardly enough time to squeeze in a paragraph--before Snow guillotined what I had to say. Are you sure your memory of the event is not one of those self-serving deceptions of which you've admitted your guilt? Perhaps Snow's observation that you reminded him of a younger version of himself was far less complimentary than you thought.

I'm not sure why you think my opinion of Snow is "not grounded in any basis of judgment." I'm judging based on the fact that he (1) lied to us, (2) abetted the deceptions of an administration he apparently had strong disagreements with, and (3) fell short in his public life of the very values Davidson works to bequeath to its students. Since you haven't contested (1) and (2), I assume you don't think these are mere flights of fancy.

You write, "But moreover, 'by NO means' is an exceptionally strong choice of words for judging the character of a person you never really met." Not at all. Your letter supports the idea that Snow was a "really genuine guy", and the adverb makes all the difference. You weren't vouching for Snow's being "fitfully" or "personally" genuine, both of which would have been narrow claims; a really genuine person is, under any plausible reading, fairly consistently so in all aspects of their lives. But again, in his public life as press secretary Snow was consistently not genuine (or, more charitably, genuinely malign), so unqualified praise here would be unwarranted.

The idea that the absence of personal acquaintance should prevent us from issuing emphatic judgments about public figures is also risible. Did you ever smoke a cigar with Che Guevara? Or go to mass with Mother Teresa? No? Well, I'm guessing you have very strong opinions on those two, and I doubt your overall opinion would change very much if you met acquaintances of theirs who assured you Guevara was a considerate friend or that Mother Teresa had a mean streak because--and here's the key part--strong statements aren't exhaustive statements. We can always accommodate a person's redeeming (or negative) traits within a generally negative (or positive) conception. More to the point, if I say, "Suzy Q was by no means a saint", it doesn't mean Suzy Q was incapable of goodness or even that she was a bad person. It just means exactly what it says: calling her a saint would badly miss the mark because she didn't meet the high bar of saintliness. Ditto Tony Snow and his being really (i.e., very or essentially) genuine.

I think both of you are responding with a bit more venom than my post merited. Let's review...

1. Joel echoed the view of Snow's colleagues that Snow was a "really genuine guy."
2. I pointed out that as a public servant and as a speaker at his alma mater that tirelessly stresses integrity to the members of its community, Snow was not above lying (do either of you dispute this?).
3. I concluded this is not consistent with being a genuine guy.

I didn't say Snow was personally unpleasant or that Joel had an inordinate fondness of the memory he mentions. But if a person's private virtues are the same as their public shortcomings, we do ourselves--and the complexity of our subjects--a disservice by attributing to them traits that only tell half the picture. There is no malice in the search for a textured view of a person.

As for Joel's snide non sequitur about my own interaction with Snow, it appears he joins Snow's boosters in being able to only conjure half the truth. Joel's right that Snow swatted aside my question to end the exchange, but he omits or forgets how he did so: by interrupting me and not letting me finish what I was going to ask him. You can call that skillful if you like, but I suspect most would just call it rude.

I'm all for effectively making meat more expensive, but I'm afraid Klein overstates the extent to which consumer choices would track cost in this case.

Economists speak of Giffen goods, which are items that become even more sought after when prices rise because consumers regard the items as indispensable. Most Americans regard meat as an indispensable part of their diet. Indeed, the idea of having a full belly without eating meat or other animal products--Klein's point about the cost of meat not being proportionate to the required resources and externalities applies equally well to dairy products and eggs--would probably strike most people as an ascetic's dystopian project. So how would we expect them to respond to a rise in the cost of animal products? By forgoing the healthier items in their shopping cart and deploying that money towards the purchase of the now pricier meat, dairy products, and eggs, of course.

That does sound like an admirable illustration of Snow's affability. But let's not get carried away. Snow was by no means a "really genuine guy." In fact, as I pointed out at the time in The Davidsonian, Snow had so little regard for us as an audience that he casually lied to us about his own view of Bush administration policies. When someone asked him whether or not he had significant disagreements with the administration, he replied in the negative. And yet...

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/25/snow-on-bush/

But hey, if Davidson is going to honor Woodrow Wilson and Dean Rusk--two men with more blood on their hands than a drunk surgeon--as notable alums, I suppose Tony Snow will be one of the least objectionable idols in the pantheon.

Congratulations!