Disqus - Latest Comments for Ashish

Re: Tropophy Winner of the Week: Virgin Galactic

Ashish — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 11:28:30 -0000

I'm not sure envy is quite what I'd feel toward someone who would spend 200,000 dollars on such a trip. Everyone is entitled to their fun and their mental health, but any form of recreation with such a hefty price tag also carries a hefty opportunity cost. Imagine what a 200,000 dollar contribution to St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital, for example, could do.

I understand and appreciate the point that the development of this kind of technology toward more useful ends requires consumers to provide an incentive to entrepreneurs by way of their purchases, but that shouldn't necessarily stop us from stigmatizing people who put their own pleasure ahead of a greater potential gain to those in their community. And if you are a political liberal who thinks the government should expand its welfare provisions at home and international aid abroad, you should play the role of benefactor to the greatest extent possible before asking the state to compel your fellow citizens to do so through tax burdens they may not want to carry.

Re: Tropophy Winner of the Week: Virgin Galactic

Ashish — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:44:01 -0000

I think we can both agree the new Star Trek film is something to look forward to. The franchise has really gone downhill since the end of DS9 (my favorite Trek series). Voyager was mediocre, Nemesis was disappointing, and the less said about Enterprise the better. But I was really impressed by Cloverfield, so I think Abrams might be up to the task.

Re: Sustainable Diets [Guest Post]

Ashish — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 17:45:09 -0000

Good post, Bruce. Deciding when and which produce to buy can be a complicated choice. But one very simple thing all of us can do to move society toward a more sustainable path is go vegan. America's factory farms are one of the nation's great ethical and environmental shames. As Matthew Scully, a former speechwriter for President Bush (!), described the case:

"Corporate farmers hardly speak anymore of 'raising' animals, with the modicum of personal care that word implies. Animals are 'grown' now, like so many crops. Barns somewhere along the way became 'intensive confinement facilities' and the inhabitants mere 'production units.'

The result is a world in which billions of birds, cows, pigs, and other creatures are locked away, enduring miseries they do not deserve, for our convenience and pleasure. We belittle the activists with their radical agenda, scarcely noticing the radical cruelty they seek to redress."

http://www.amconmag.com/2005_05_23/cover.html

And this, too, comes with a hefty cost to the environment:

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory....

Though it may seem unrealistic, the truth is a vegan diet is very healthy and practical, provided you're willing to do a little bit of research.

Re: Sustainable Diets [Guest Post]

Ashish — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:53:32 -0000

Your point about vegans potentially contributing a lot of carbon waste is fair, but I would wager that even a vegan who isn't particularly interested in the origin of his or her food has a lower carbon impact than a meat-eater who researches the relevant data on vegetables and fruits. Exhibit A:

"Researchers at the University of Chicago compared the global warming impact of meat eaters with that of vegetarians and found that the average American diet – including all food processing steps – results in the annual production of an extra 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent (in the form of all greenhouse gases) compared to a no-meat diet. Researchers Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin concluded that dietary changes could make more difference than trading in a standard sedan for a more efficient hybrid car, which reduces annual CO2 emissions by roughly one ton a year."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0220/p03s01-ussc....

As the article indirectly points out, many of the environmental problems associated with meat wouldn't really go away even if the animals were raised in a more humane fashion.

At the level of the individual, buying humanely-raised meat would certainly be an improvement from buying meat from factory farms. But what we should be concerned about when we talk about sustainable development, as I understand it, is the choices we would like society to make. And while humanely raised meat will always be an option for countercultural types--and let's face it, anyone who gives much thought to these matters is going against the prevailing indifference of contemporary American culture--it cannot work for 300 million Americans. For one thing, where is the land to support enough livestock to feed so many people? For another thing, where are the farmers? If meat remains the order of the day, we have reached a point of no return; the factory farm will be our only option.

Hunting has the same problem. It can be practiced conscientiously by a few, but it cannot be relied on to provide for a large swathe of the population. (And then there's the question of why you should kill an animal at all when you get all the nutrition you need from non-animal products.)

Re: Wacky Weather

Ashish — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:15:07 -0000

Well, the citizens of the Scandinavian countries regularly report some of the world's highest levels of happiness, so I don't think grim weather dooms or even significantly predisposes people to melancholy. I suspect our aversion to cold, nasty weather stems from considerations both practical (we can do more when the weather is nice) and aesthetic (more pretty days means more pretty girls).

Re: Wacky Weather

Ashish — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:35:34 -0000

The Scandinavians report some of the highest levels of happiness in the world. That suggests to me that either grim weather doesn't significantly predispose people to melancholy or that the Scandinavians have a lot to smile about (social democracy, green environmental policies, and a strong sense of community, for instance). Either way, Scandinavia is awesome.

Re: Will You Put Your Life In Google’s Hands?

Ashish — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:51:15 -0000

No. Why would you want to multiply the number of people who can access the most intimate details of your life? And why, in the wake of the dismal history of the confluence of corporations, governments, and personal privacy (see, for but the latest example, Yahoo's recent selling out of Chinese dissidents), would you trust Google to be virtuously dispassionate keepers of so much juicy and potentially valuable information?

Re: Sunday Cooking…With the Internet

Ashish — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:21:55 -0000

Taylor, you should try some vegetarian or vegan cooking. I can assure you that you don't have to sacrifice flavor or taste when you make cruelty-free choices at grocery stores and restaurants!

http://www.vegcooking.com/

As the unsustainability and cruelty of factory farming becomes more and more immediate--see, for example, the recent beef recall, which was the largest in U.S. history--isn't it incumbent on those of us who regard ourselves as conscientious consumers to, as Gandhi put it, be the change we want to see in the world? You always come across as sensitive and well-informed, so I hope you'll make the compassionate choice in the future.

Re: Sunday Cooking…With the Internet

Ashish — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:33:07 -0000

Dude, did you not see Kucinich on Colbert a while back? Vegans have mad comedic skillz.

Re: Sunday Cooking…With the Internet

Ashish — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 10:49:57 -0000

Taylor--
I'm glad you try to buy humanely raised meat. While I do think the case against eating meat is strong, I think the case against factory farming is simply overwhelming.

By the way, since this blog is largely devoted to the incredible opportunities technological advances afford us, it is worth pointing out that factory farming is one of the best examples of the ways in which technology can actually make our lives more convenient while simultaneously making our society unambiguously worse off as a moral entity.

Joel--
Check out Kucinich's appearance on The Colbert Report from a few months back. It's probably one of the best comedic performances by a vegan in TV history (okay, so maybe "comedic performance by a vegan" won't be an Emmy category any time soon, but still...)

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/10/d...

Re: Sunday Cooking…With the Internet

Ashish — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:10:58 -0000

It occurred to me that I would be remiss if I didn't give a nod to The Meatrix in this thread.

http://www.themeatrix.com/

Re: Sunday Cooking…With the Internet

Ashish — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:07:12 -0000

I suppose I would be remiss if I didn't post this while we're on the subject of factory farming and technology.

http://www.themeatrix.com/

Re: Whoa whoa whoa…. dunces?

Ashish — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:17:09 -0000

Jarred, Jacoby doesn't simply dismiss Johnson's point about toddlers. She uses an empirical claim to counter it--namely, "In a study released last August, University of Washington researchers found that babies between 8 and 16 months recognized an average of six to eight fewer words for every hour spent watching videos."

Bruce makes a good point about the ignorance of prior generations, but I largely agree with Jacoby about the detrimental effect of an emphasis on digital and video media. I think Jacoby would have been better served emphasizing reflection rather than concentration as the chief virtue of absorbing books, magazines, and other print media. When you buy or pick up a book, the experience forces you to step back and situate its content in relation to your life and sense of self. That book, unique among the tens of thousands at Borders or Barnes and Noble, will be your companion for the next few hours. The sheer quantity of digital or video media a person consumes in a given day, on the other hand, is so diffuse in its breadth and perspective that zeroing in on specifics is difficult. In a one hour period, you may read twenty different blog posts on twenty different subjects. How much can any of us really expect to retain?

To be clear, I am not saying there is anything inherent in digital or video media that makes us dilettantes. If we really wanted to, all of us could spend hours contemplating what we encounter online. But these media incentivize quick, rapid consumption; understandably, people want to sample the buffet line in full, and that may simply mean only grabbing a few bites of each dish.

Another trend Jacoby could have identified as worrisome is the tendency for people to specialize at the expense of well-roundedness. ISI gave college seniors a simple test of civic literacy, and the results are pretty dismal.

http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/

The test itself, as you will see, is far from perfect in what it tests for, but it's hard to think of a good reason for no college to earn better than a D+.

College used to be about making yourself a better person, but it is now largely a way for society to certify that individuals are ready to be employed. So while people may be more well-trained for their careers than ever before, they have become only marginally better equipped to function as capable citizens because the traits needed to be a good citizen--a sense of history, critical thinking, an ability to discern good arguments from bad, and most importantly, a commitment to your community--will largely be a function of a person's values, and values are one thing colleges have largely forfeited as a luxury as more and more students have gone on to higher education.

Re: Watch What You Put Online… Even If You’re A Prostitute

Ashish — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 14:38:03 -0000

I'm reminded of a scene in Pulp Fiction. John Travolta and Uma Thurman are in a 1950s-themed restaurant, and Thurman orders a $5.00 milkshake. John Travolta asks in disbelief, "Five dollars for a milkshake? That's milk and ice cream?" He softens a bit though when he finally tastes it. "That's a damn good milkshake. Not five dollars good, but stil..."

Re: Questioning Things, Vol. I

Ashish — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:56:36 -0000

Jarred, "I drink your milkshake" is one of the greatest absurd/insane/hilarious movie quotations ever. Unfortunately, I think it will go largely unappreciated by people our age, many of whom probably still think Old School is the alpha and omega of quotable cinema.

Re: Satellite Challenge #10

Ashish — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:01:11 -0000

Notre-Dame de Reims?

Re: Satellite Challenge #11

Ashish — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:33:34 -0000

So...We're really trying to think of a person and not a place? And we have to battle through a double negative that may or may not be intended to throw us off the scent?

Re: Questioning Things: Vol. III

Ashish — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 11:20:50 -0000

I think one of the most difficult lessons a person can learn is that there is a world of difference between feeling close to someone and being close to someone, even though mistaking the latter for the former is distressingly easy. I suspect a lot of people absorb this--or feel the disorienting implications of this, at least--soon after college, and the conjunction of the shock and the miscues attendant to navigating a new social environment can be a bit too much.

That said, someone who feels connected to other people all the time is missing out on a key component in the development of a mature person--the comprehension of what it means to be an outsider. Compassion requires imagination, and being lonely, sad, and even depressed can make us all better people if we are willing to take away the right lessons from our alienation.

Jarred, have you read Claire Messud's book The Emperor's Children? I think you'd really enjoy it. It explores these themes with uncanny precision and admirable compassion. Messud puts into words what most of us can only inarticulately gesture towards.

Re: Pork Across the Pond and Here at Home

Ashish — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:30:19 -0000

Good post, Taylor. You're absolutely right about Smithfield.

I don't really understand the omnivore's dietary justifications though. Pigs are at least as smart as dogs. Would an omnivore eat dog meat, as people do in some parts of the world, if it tasted as good as bacon does?

Re: Pork Across the Pond and Here at Home

Ashish — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:42:35 -0000

I highlighted the similarity between the intelligence levels of pigs and dogs because most people separate animals in their mind according to, inter alia, how clever the animals supposedly are. So most people place dogs, cats, horses, apes, monkeys, and dolphins on one fairly high level of moral consideration and cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, and birds on a much lower level. The first group of animals elicits a great deal of solicitude and anthropomorphization. But we are largely indifferent to the second group's welfare, even when those animals are charmingly portrayed in media (Charlotte's Web, Chicken Run, etc.)

Of course, you're right that people have an emotional attachment to dogs that prevents them from eating Fido. But do you really think emotional attachments are the proper foundation for moral consideration? If not, what is? What determines the moral status of an entity?

I also don't really follow what you take to be the significance of this: "For better or for worse, whether by evolution and natural selection or by the decree of God, we’re at the top of the animal foodchain. Our role, as I see it, is to occupy that position with dignity and justice — whether your personal choice be not to exercise that role at all (vegan/vegetarian), or to make sure your food was not abused while living, or something else." The fact that we occupy a place of dominance in the natural world doesn't justify the conventional understanding of that role. In other words, this claim begs the question against animal rights proponents. It doesn't do to say, "Oh, eating meat is everyone's personal choice to take up or forgo because that option is our inheritance." What is precisely at issue and where the debate between animal rights folks and defenders of the status quo takes places is at the intersection of what we have inherited and what we have claimed for ourselves without due cause.

Your reasoning could just as easily be deployed this way: "For better or for worse, whether by evolution and natural selection or by the decree of God, we men are the dominant sex. Our role, as I see it, is to occupy that position with dignity and justice — whether your personal choice be not to exercise that role at all (believing in equal rights/feminism), or to make sure your wife's submission isn't taken to the point of degradation." Clearly, the fact that men do possess some physical attributes that could let them physically dominate women wouldn't settle the issue. And, thank goodness, it didn't--but only because of the work of people who challenged the unreflective invocation of "the natural order of things."

Re: Pork Across the Pond and Here at Home

Ashish — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:22:41 -0000

Since I posed the question to you, I should probably answer it myself...I think the proper basis for moral consideration is not species membership or the soul, but mental properties, and in particular the ability to feel pain and have interests. The pain inflicted on animals on farms and the termination of their interests through their deaths outweighs our interest to have a good meal, particularly when comparable experiences can be had through alternative vegetarian or vegan meals. Therefore we should not eat meat.

Re: Pork Across the Pond and Here at Home

Ashish — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 13:01:38 -0000

Taylor--
It's best not to get too tangled up in notions of "rights" here. There is only one real right I think animals can claim from us, and that is the most important right of all--the right to be left alone. So the question isn't really whether animals have rights, but whether they deserve moral consideration.

I noticed neither you nor Jarred have suggested what you think the proper basis for moral consideration is. If I were a meat-eater, I would probably balk at the prospect as well because it is difficult to draw a moral circle that includes those entities we want to see protected while excluding those we want to see on our plates.

Could species membership be the proper foundation for moral consideration? That would certainly seem to make our sympathy for a range of fictional non-human characters (Data from Star Trek, ET, etc.) seem silly. Could it be free will and the ability to participate in moral communities? That criterion would exclude severely retarded infants, who do not and will never possess those traits. Could it be the soul? Well, possibly, but that would require establishing various theological principles that are very difficult to demonstrate.

As for Pollan's comments...No animal rights theorist's arguments depend on establishing that animals and humans have identical responses to stress. Suppose, following Dennett, that we make a distinction between pain and suffering (a distinction that might, indeed, be accurate). Even factory farm animals that lack robust self-consciousness--and again, pigs do not fall in this category--or Lockean personhood will experience severe pain during throughout their lives. It doesn't matter if the cow heading for slaughter dreads the blade or reflects on his fate the way a prisoner heading to the electric chair would; what matters is if the cow has a nervous system similar enough to ours that we can reasonably say that the cramped, filthy conditions leading up to that grim march frustrated the animal's natural instincts and inflicted discomfort and if you can imagine the pleasure you receive from your meal outweighing those misfortunes. A person would certainly suffer much more torment in factory farm conditions than a cow or pig, but that doesn't soften the pain factory farmed animals experience. And let's be clear: Factory farmed animals endure those cramped, filthy conditions for months while you savor your meal for a few minutes.

Pollan's invocation of "animality" reminds me of the appeal to the "sanctity of marriage" made by gay marriage opponents: Both are conveniently numinous ideas that circumvent empirical and analytical scrutiny. And the vaguer an idea is, the harder it is to refute. At any rate, I think there are higher virtues than those offered by our ancestral inheritance--mercy, for one. As Milan Kundera put it, "True human goodness, in all its purity and freedom, can come to the fore only when its recipient has no power."

Jarred--
Interests are cognitive properties related to seeking and avoding various environmental cues, and cognitive properties emerge from the mind. Plants lack minds, so they lack interests too. But if you can cite any biologists or philosophers of mind who think plants have minds, I'd be interested in seeing their, um, reasoning. But even if plants did have interests, we would simply be forced to choose between the lesser evil--eating corn, say, or eating a full-grown mammal.

But you know what all those animals in factory farms eat? Plants. In fact, "Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/...

Re: Monday Links: April 21st, 2008

Ashish — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:33:40 -0000

Speaking of meat-related novelties...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/us/21meat.htm...

Re: Schoolhouse Blog?

Ashish — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:06:20 -0000

I think blogs would work very well for some courses and very poorly for others. If a professor's goal is to create a passion for inquiry and an interest in an exchange of ideas within the group, I imagine blogging could be quite effective. So an introductory ethics class, for example, could use blogging to great effect. But the more rigorous the courses, the more difficult it will be to distill anything of very much significance into a blog post.* And let's face it: Even at the most competitive schools, there will be a daunting number of students who really aren't too interested in sharing ideas or sharpening their opinions so much as they are in identifying and following the recipe required to get a good grade. There's no obvious reason to think blogging will rouse these students unless the blogging is tied to making a good grade, and even then these students wouldn't really be participating with the inquisitive spirit I think we'd all like to see more of.

*I had a professor who suggested that all philosophy journals have appendices that present the arguments in the journals in premise-conclusion form so as to maximize clarity and discourage obfuscation. The next time you read a blog post, imagine what its argument would look like in premise-conclusion form. I think this exercise will neatly illustrate the limitations of blogging.

Re: Politicians Abandoning the Social Web

Ashish — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:50:59 -0000

This really isn't directly related to your post (or is it?), but it looks like the Arcade Fire and Superchunk will be rockin' for Obama in North Carolina.

http://www.mergerecords.com/news.php?month=Apr%...

Keep the campaign bus running!

Re: Questioning Things: Vol. VII

Ashish — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:42:12 -0000

3. I think we should get rid of the pledge of allegiance altogether. Will Wilkinson put it well: "Freedom and independence are general features of a place or people and are valuable wherever they occur. I may love America for it’s freedom, but then I should love Canada for its freedom, too. And I do! To love a place because of its general features implies that love may wane or disappear as the manifestation of those valued qualities change. But Patriotism, the love of country, is particularistic. It is a 'monogamous' sentiment. If you claim to be an American, Canadian, Danish, and Japanese patriot all at the same time, because you love qualities all these societies excellently exemplify, people will look at you funny. Patriotism requires that you 'pick one,' which implies that it is not about the general features of a place, but about special attachment. (Dual citizens may get away with picking two, but that’s just because there are two attachments, and even this is suspect.)

If you meet a women with all the attributes you claim to love about your wife, only better, and you run off with her because of their excellence, then you never really loved your wife. You loved her attributes. You can rightly claim never to have been unfaithful. Indeed, to stay would have made you untrue — to your values. But to fully love a woman, or a country, is to love some one particular thing. Now, it is surely better to love a woman than to love her qualities. But when it comes to countries, it is better by far to give your heart to freedom, and to love countries themselves incidentally and faithlessly."

http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/03/...

Re: Questioning Things: Vol. VIII

Ashish — Fri, 23 May 2008 14:34:28 -0000

1. I have a preternatural aversion to the cold but heat doesn't bother me, so spring, of course.
2. If you were a hot dog, would you eat yourself? (Correct answer: Yes.)
3. I'm not very good at it, but chess. Monopoly is my least favorite.

Re: Questioning Things: Vol. VIII

Ashish — Fri, 23 May 2008 19:14:42 -0000

That John McCain banner at the top of this page has got to go, dude.

Re: Movie Review: Iron Man

Ashish — Wed, 28 May 2008 10:32:49 -0000

Yeah, Iron Man was pretty solid.

I think the reason Stane didn't stop Potts was that as she exits the building she runs into that guy from SHIELD--or what ends up being called SHIELD by the end of the movie--and takes his protection. I agree with you about Paltrow's talent and beauty. I only wish she would get more and better roles. Check out Proof if you want to see what's she really capable of when given a first-rate script.

It's kind of sad that this movie is the most exposure many Americans will have to the harsh reality of the military-industrial complex, which is responsible for so many of our foreign policy ills. We've gone from Eisenhower--whose name, coincidentally, means Iron-Hewer--to Tony Stark! But I suppose we could do worse than Robert Downey Jr. as a tribune of the people.

By the way, who else gets chills just thinking about how good The Dark Knight is going to be?

Re: Monday Links: June 9th, 2008

Ashish — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 12:35:28 -0000

I mentioned this to you before, but if you enjoy Garfield Minus Garfield you'll probably also like the Nietzsche Family Circus.

http://www.losanjealous.com/nfc/

Re: Monday Links: June 16th, 2008

Ashish — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 10:00:39 -0000

You know, I was hoping Obama could be the type of candidate (or, eventually, president) who could say, "No, we don't need more cops on the street. We need fewer laws for cops to enforce."

Re: Monday Links: June 16th, 2008

Ashish — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:26:42 -0000

Obama disappoints for what will surely not be the last time.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives...

Re: Happy Independence Day from Tropophilia!

Ashish — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:47:47 -0000

Congratulations!

Re: Joel on Tony Snow

Ashish — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 00:55:20 -0000

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.

Re: Monday Links: July 21st, 2008

Ashish — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:20:16 -0000

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.

Re: Joel on Tony Snow

Ashish — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:30:33 -0000

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.

Re: Joel on Tony Snow

Ashish — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:56:58 -0000

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.

Re: Distracted by Shoes

Ashish — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:25:43 -0000

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.

Re: Transparent and Responsive Governance

Ashish — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:02:17 -0000

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...

Re: Transparent and Responsive Governance

Ashish — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 12:56:30 -0000

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.

Re: Transparent and Responsive Governance

Ashish — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:48:48 -0000

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.

Re: Web Celebrations: The Return of Full RSS Feeds

Ashish — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:02:39 -0000

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

Re: Monday Links: September 29th, 2008

Ashish — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 14:23:09 -0000

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.

Re: Blogging Your Passions (or, How I Got Into Google)

Ashish — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:14:04 -0000

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

Re: Monday Links: October 13th, 2008

Ashish — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:34:37 -0000

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

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

Re: Three Weeks To Go: Get Informed, America!

Ashish — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:13:48 -0000

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.

Re: Three Weeks To Go: Get Informed, America!

Ashish — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:19:38 -0000

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

http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/

Re: 05.08.09

Ashish — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:40:13 -0000

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?
'

Re: 05.08.09

Ashish — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 18:50:26 -0000

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.

Re: Monday Links: November 24th, 2008

Ashish — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:22:50 -0000

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.

Re: Monday Links: December 22nd, 2008

Ashish — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:13:12 -0000

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.

Re: Monday Links: December 22nd, 2008

Ashish — Mon, 22 Dec 2008 17:27:35 -0000

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

Re: Long Weekend Links: January 16th, 2009

Ashish — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:22:01 -0000

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

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

Re: Long Weekend Links: January 16th, 2009

Ashish — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:12:45 -0000

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.

Re: Name three songs you’d put on a road trip mix tape.

Ashish — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 22:08:56 -0000

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.

Re: How Twitter Content Can Be Simple, Compelling, and a Source of Community

Ashish — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 06:56:34 -0000

"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!"

Re: TED Talks: Jonathan Harris

Ashish — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:03:58 -0000

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.

Re: Ron Paul

Ashish — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 20:01:54 -0000

I think nationalism is generally understood as being expansive while patriotism is defensive. Nationalists--think of the mindset at work in the Balkans in the 1990s--argue that their borders and territories are insufficient, that they have been, in some fashion or other, slighted by their neighbors and rivals. Patriots, meanwhile, seek to preserve their own traditions, lands, and habits but do not make a habit of laying claim to what others have.

Now, I suppose you could say that Paul's notions of border sovereignty are misguided manifestations of what he would regard as his own patriotism, and there may be some truth to that. But nationalism isn't the proper word to describe what motivates Paul's positions. (The other Republican candidates on the other hand...)

Re: Kindlenomics

Ashish — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 14:17:15 -0000

It's true that Messud's prose is often a little too "precious", although that adjective is thrown around so promiscuously these days I'm not completely sure what it means anymore. I'll also grant that the character of Murray Thwaite is drawn a little too broadly. And the book's heavyhanded foreshadowing is annoying. But ultimately Messud's treatment of the themes of friendship, meaning, and personal myths (remember the quotation from Dance to the Music of Time?) struck me as more than enough reason to pardon the novel's faults.

I think one of the reasons the novel was so well-received was because everyone could relate to at least some aspect of the main characters. Who hasn't felt as adrift as Marina at some point in their lives? Or as alone as Bootie? Or as frustrated as Danielle?

Do you have any more specific criticisms of the book? I'm surprised you didn't like it, and I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate.