Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Newark, OH
Pronounced Ne'rk if you were wondering. DUI for operating a barstool is lame. Harshin' my vicarious buzz.
The Bar Stool Guy
has shit all figured out. Why's the man gotta be bringin him down and harshin his buzz? At least they didn't impound his barstool-mobile. That woulda been total dick.
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
But, Rand was right about...
... the perversely backwards system of incentives that can result when government becomes too intimately intertwined with business. The novel is a great way to communicate that to people, and to encourage a deep suspicion of the efficacy of government programs, a point that seems too often get lost today.
Anyway, this op-ed by a quitting AIG exec reminded me of the Rand discussion and I think, if it is possible to recuperate her ideas, it would be in an episode like this. As this exec makes clear, the money is important but its not just the money--he's not going to stick around working long days while he gets trashed in every media outlet, in Congress, and from his boss above. I'm not sure how much a I believe him when he claims he had no responsibility, but I sure do believe him when he says that the populist backlash, centered around the bonus discussion, is going to push anyone with a modicum of sense, talent, or responsibility out of AIG.
Anyway, this op-ed by a quitting AIG exec reminded me of the Rand discussion and I think, if it is possible to recuperate her ideas, it would be in an episode like this. As this exec makes clear, the money is important but its not just the money--he's not going to stick around working long days while he gets trashed in every media outlet, in Congress, and from his boss above. I'm not sure how much a I believe him when he claims he had no responsibility, but I sure do believe him when he says that the populist backlash, centered around the bonus discussion, is going to push anyone with a modicum of sense, talent, or responsibility out of AIG.
Monday, March 23, 2009
I have to go now, my planet needs me.
Starbuck pulled a Poochie. Nevertheless, I'm really sad that Battlestar Galactica is over. On the whole it was a really good show, and 7/10ths of the time it was a fantastic show.
I'm looking for a new show to fill the big hole left by BSG. I thought the first three episodes of Kings was really good, but apparently it tanked in the ratings, so it may not be around long. Watch it before it gets cancelled. Your king needs you!
P.S. Your king is your penis. Probably.
I'm looking for a new show to fill the big hole left by BSG. I thought the first three episodes of Kings was really good, but apparently it tanked in the ratings, so it may not be around long. Watch it before it gets cancelled. Your king needs you!
P.S. Your king is your penis. Probably.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Two (or maybe more) points on Atlas Shrugged
First, Whittaker Chambers is absolutely right to call her protagonists "operatic caricatures." This leads (and I forget whether it is Chambers or someone else who makes this point) into some disturbing but illustrative parallels between Atlas Shrugged and Nietzsche's thought, which many Rand-fans disavow or won't take seriously.
Secondly, I don't think you can really bracket the sexual ethics of Atlas Shrugged and set them aside. For Rand, sex is a mirror game where its highest form is realized by engaging in it (usually violently and with lots of scratching and blood, btw) with the most virtuous (read, most profitable) person around you can find. On the flip side, without economic virtue mirrored in both partners, sex becomes a shameful act of self-loathing. Either way, there's a consumptive violence here (either in the act of attempting to achieve that virtue, through sex with many partners, as Dagny does, or through economic acquisition, as Reardon does) that Rand acknowledges only on the side of the looters. When the good guys do it, that violence morphs into pleasure. Maybe some Freudian thinker could untangle this mess, but at the very least its a dishonest parallel.
Look, on the whole I think Rand is right about some things, and the book is pretty good; but I don't really think we need take it as seriously as Rand insists it should be taken. Hers is a totalizing world-view that brooks no compromise (which is why it is just as vulnerable to conservative critiques as it is to liberal ones ), and her over-sized characters are a symptom of that. I mean, Watchmen puts forth a sort of politics, too (which, ultimately might be a more realistic one that Rand's), but you don't see people arguing for the full-scale totalizing implementation of that politics.
But that's the box that Rand puts her followers into. It's all or nothing. You're in or you're out. You're a producer or a looter. The minute you enter the real world and attempt to effect policy change you've left Rand's paradigm and belong to the category of looters, because you will by necessity end up compromising your position as you enter the messy realm of policy, even if you are ultimately trying to curtail the scope and power of government.
Rand is, ultimately, either utopian or revolutionary, neither of which are conservative positions. Which is why she was so fully excommunicated from conservative order, I'm guessing. The tone of Atlas Shrugged makes it nearly impossible to rehabilitate or co-opt any of her individual positions piecemeal, which is exactly how she wanted it. Her work and thought dwells on the periphery because she chose that position. Now that most conservative politicians and policy-makers dwell there too (though not especially by choice), any sort of alliance is going to be problematic for conservative electoral politics.
[Edit: I just glanced at that NRO piece, and it looks like my points are the same as John Bean's. I didn't look at it first, honest!]
[Edit the second: Bert, you characterized that NRO piece as if it was saying that Rand is relevant in the age of Obama. The majority of those writers seem to be saying that Rand was barely ever relevant, and that she definitely is not now. Their tone is dismissive and haughty--I mean, I was at least fairer than that. Though offering a fair and honest analysis is a pretty low bar that NRO nevertheless rarely manages to clear these days. Ok, no more edits. And, super-zing, NRO!]
Secondly, I don't think you can really bracket the sexual ethics of Atlas Shrugged and set them aside. For Rand, sex is a mirror game where its highest form is realized by engaging in it (usually violently and with lots of scratching and blood, btw) with the most virtuous (read, most profitable) person around you can find. On the flip side, without economic virtue mirrored in both partners, sex becomes a shameful act of self-loathing. Either way, there's a consumptive violence here (either in the act of attempting to achieve that virtue, through sex with many partners, as Dagny does, or through economic acquisition, as Reardon does) that Rand acknowledges only on the side of the looters. When the good guys do it, that violence morphs into pleasure. Maybe some Freudian thinker could untangle this mess, but at the very least its a dishonest parallel.
Look, on the whole I think Rand is right about some things, and the book is pretty good; but I don't really think we need take it as seriously as Rand insists it should be taken. Hers is a totalizing world-view that brooks no compromise (which is why it is just as vulnerable to conservative critiques as it is to liberal ones ), and her over-sized characters are a symptom of that. I mean, Watchmen puts forth a sort of politics, too (which, ultimately might be a more realistic one that Rand's), but you don't see people arguing for the full-scale totalizing implementation of that politics.
But that's the box that Rand puts her followers into. It's all or nothing. You're in or you're out. You're a producer or a looter. The minute you enter the real world and attempt to effect policy change you've left Rand's paradigm and belong to the category of looters, because you will by necessity end up compromising your position as you enter the messy realm of policy, even if you are ultimately trying to curtail the scope and power of government.
Rand is, ultimately, either utopian or revolutionary, neither of which are conservative positions. Which is why she was so fully excommunicated from conservative order, I'm guessing. The tone of Atlas Shrugged makes it nearly impossible to rehabilitate or co-opt any of her individual positions piecemeal, which is exactly how she wanted it. Her work and thought dwells on the periphery because she chose that position. Now that most conservative politicians and policy-makers dwell there too (though not especially by choice), any sort of alliance is going to be problematic for conservative electoral politics.
[Edit: I just glanced at that NRO piece, and it looks like my points are the same as John Bean's. I didn't look at it first, honest!]
[Edit the second: Bert, you characterized that NRO piece as if it was saying that Rand is relevant in the age of Obama. The majority of those writers seem to be saying that Rand was barely ever relevant, and that she definitely is not now. Their tone is dismissive and haughty--I mean, I was at least fairer than that. Though offering a fair and honest analysis is a pretty low bar that NRO nevertheless rarely manages to clear these days. Ok, no more edits. And, super-zing, NRO!]
25-DVD gift update
They actually were North American format.
Money quote:
"But don't forget, folks: Somewhere in Texas a village has been reunited with its idiot, and we now have the whip-smartest administration of David Brooks's lifetime."
Beating up on David Brooks just doesn't get old.
Money quote:
"But don't forget, folks: Somewhere in Texas a village has been reunited with its idiot, and we now have the whip-smartest administration of David Brooks's lifetime."
Beating up on David Brooks just doesn't get old.
Rand is always relevant
While I think Whittaker Chambers got it right, Rand is very relevant in the age of Obama as NRO discusses. Some critical some sympathetic, most maligning her novels' literary value.
I liked this though: "Still relevant in the Age of Obama? With all due respect to Whittaker Chambers, if we didn’t already have her, we’d have to invent her, double-quick."
I enjoyed the two novels I read, but I'll leave the lit crit to our resident scholar, er...whatshisname...lanky kong...blittzo...some such corduroy-patched-elbows-wearing english professor dood.
I liked this though: "Still relevant in the Age of Obama? With all due respect to Whittaker Chambers, if we didn’t already have her, we’d have to invent her, double-quick."
I enjoyed the two novels I read, but I'll leave the lit crit to our resident scholar, er...whatshisname...lanky kong...blittzo...some such corduroy-patched-elbows-wearing english professor dood.
McCain
I thought McCain would have been a poor president especially tempermentally. However, I thought Obama would be worse especially on policy and judges--worse enough to make voting worth while.
McCain would have been bad on economics but certainly more fiscally responsible and hesitant about massively increasing gov't debt. He also could have surrounded himself with better economic advisers than Obama and probably would have although the Paulson and the Bush Treasury was bad at the end. I'm sure he'd have signed some stupid things to look as though he were "doing something" to help.
I'm fairly certain, however, that McCain would have expended some political capital to fight the Democrats' stimulus package. I think he would've been way better on that. McCain voted against the stimulus, and I think he would not have thrown away nearly a trillion dollars, and would have put any stimulus to better use if only marginally. Then again he could've caved to an opposition Congress on something slightly less egregious, but I have my doubts. There was or at least could have been enough public opinion against outrageous spending especially with an administration making the argument.
I am hesitant to say it, because I'm not anti-Fed like you, Slaps. But the Federal Reserve has been part of the problem by putting so much emphasis on banks getting cash to lend. And McCain might not have fought the Fed. I understand that the availability of credit is important in our economy, but seeing as how much of our current situation came about because of easy credit, the government's policy should be for tightening credit a bit or a least letting the tightening that the market reaction to the crisis would have brought about happpen. Obama even said our economy can't be too reliant on consumer (over)spending with the necessary (unspoken) corrollary that consumers were carrying too much debt. Obama's policy has been, however, to try and spend spend spend and encourage consumer spending and taking on more debt! Re-inflate the bubble rather than letting it burst and understanding that the plunge in the market was to some extent a reflection that stocks/property/etc. were overvalued. The policy should be to allow the market to adjust to more accurate valuation and not pretend like the government can or should try and ensure the DOW never loses value.
McCain would have been bad on economics but certainly more fiscally responsible and hesitant about massively increasing gov't debt. He also could have surrounded himself with better economic advisers than Obama and probably would have although the Paulson and the Bush Treasury was bad at the end. I'm sure he'd have signed some stupid things to look as though he were "doing something" to help.
I'm fairly certain, however, that McCain would have expended some political capital to fight the Democrats' stimulus package. I think he would've been way better on that. McCain voted against the stimulus, and I think he would not have thrown away nearly a trillion dollars, and would have put any stimulus to better use if only marginally. Then again he could've caved to an opposition Congress on something slightly less egregious, but I have my doubts. There was or at least could have been enough public opinion against outrageous spending especially with an administration making the argument.
I am hesitant to say it, because I'm not anti-Fed like you, Slaps. But the Federal Reserve has been part of the problem by putting so much emphasis on banks getting cash to lend. And McCain might not have fought the Fed. I understand that the availability of credit is important in our economy, but seeing as how much of our current situation came about because of easy credit, the government's policy should be for tightening credit a bit or a least letting the tightening that the market reaction to the crisis would have brought about happpen. Obama even said our economy can't be too reliant on consumer (over)spending with the necessary (unspoken) corrollary that consumers were carrying too much debt. Obama's policy has been, however, to try and spend spend spend and encourage consumer spending and taking on more debt! Re-inflate the bubble rather than letting it burst and understanding that the plunge in the market was to some extent a reflection that stocks/property/etc. were overvalued. The policy should be to allow the market to adjust to more accurate valuation and not pretend like the government can or should try and ensure the DOW never loses value.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Some quick responses
1. This is mainly directed at Bert, but anyone else is welcome to chime in. About all this financial business, do you really think McCain would have done anything different? He was talking about paying for all the bunk mortgages during the campaign. That's not really a rhetorical question, either. Do you really think he wouldn't have forced a shitty "emergency" bill through Congress? All this goes back to my point that voting doesn't matter when you wind up with the same result.
2. Bob Barr was in Borat, so it only seems fair that Ron Paul is in Cohen's new movie. I'll probably go see it, with my friend Mister hip flask full of whiskey.
3. About that survey of virginal girls....Poor sample selection is my guess. I mean, it's only coming from Wellesley, not really an objective set of students. Anyway, everybody knows that the trampiest girls are in the liberal arts and education!
4. We can discuss George R.R. Martin when you're done with book 4 Nick. Don't want to ruin anything for you.
2. Bob Barr was in Borat, so it only seems fair that Ron Paul is in Cohen's new movie. I'll probably go see it, with my friend Mister hip flask full of whiskey.
3. About that survey of virginal girls....Poor sample selection is my guess. I mean, it's only coming from Wellesley, not really an objective set of students. Anyway, everybody knows that the trampiest girls are in the liberal arts and education!
4. We can discuss George R.R. Martin when you're done with book 4 Nick. Don't want to ruin anything for you.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Bad news Slaps
But also good....this means it wasn't totally our lack of smooth, we just picked the wrong majors.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Pith
From Taranto at WSJ yesterday:
The problem, as we argued last week, is that the president seems more interested in ensuring that everyone has unionized, carbon-neutral health insurance than in dealing with the crisis now affecting the economy.
We're Writing In Al Gore
"Hansbrough, Curry Among Wooden Candidates"--headline, Associated Press, March 13
The problem, as we argued last week, is that the president seems more interested in ensuring that everyone has unionized, carbon-neutral health insurance than in dealing with the crisis now affecting the economy.
We're Writing In Al Gore
"Hansbrough, Curry Among Wooden Candidates"--headline, Associated Press, March 13
Interesting
Changes/Cuts coming at Defense? I'm inclined to agree with the Derb that you can never have enough nukes (or other powerful military tools). Rumsfeld tried some of this and failed miserably. Interesting that Gates would go the same direction after the success of the surge and more boots on the ground. Let's hope missile defense isn't on the chopping block at least.
Gibbs v. Cheney
When the WaPo is giving Cheney a fair shake you know the administration must be screwing up pretty badly. The President needs to reign in Gibbs and stop with this nonsense about Rush Limbaugh. It makes him look petty, small, and unserious. All of it is a distraction, as Cheney pointed out, so as to avoid having to defend a massive expansion of federal government intervention into healthcare, the economy, energy production, etc.
Monday, March 16, 2009
lolcats on a lonely monday night
I bet if you were half drunk from an evening alone with a bottle of wine (not that I know from experience) lolcats hilariousness is increased tenfold.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Take it easy, Rothfuss
This blog post from Patrick Rothfuss made me feel a little better about my life. Not because he's seemingly lamenting the changes in his life due to successfully publishing a pretty good novel, but because it sorta makes a compelling case for just writing for yourself--write what you like, read it, share it with friends, write more. Publishing, as tough as it is, opens the door to a darker, different world.
It was linked from a post on George R.R. Martin's blog. I'm on Book 4 there, and I feel like I have a lot to talk about with other people (read: John and Slaps) who have read the series. In a nutshell: I think the series does some amazing things for fantasy while still somewhat falling prey to the perils of overserialization and indulgence. But unlike Robert Jordan, I don't think I'll be putting this one down.
It was linked from a post on George R.R. Martin's blog. I'm on Book 4 there, and I feel like I have a lot to talk about with other people (read: John and Slaps) who have read the series. In a nutshell: I think the series does some amazing things for fantasy while still somewhat falling prey to the perils of overserialization and indulgence. But unlike Robert Jordan, I don't think I'll be putting this one down.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Porkulous
From Best of the Web at the WSJOnline yesterday:
Your Tax Dollars at Work
"More than one out of every five dollars of the $126 million Massachusetts is receiving in earmarks from a $410 billion federal spending package is going to help preserve the legacy of the Kennedys," the Associated Press reports from Boston:
The bill includes $5.8 million for the planning and design of a building to house a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate. The funding may also help support an endowment for the institute.
The bill also includes $22 million to expand facilities at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum and $5 million more for a new gateway to the Boston Harbor Islands on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, a park system in downtown Boston named after Kennedy's mother and built on land opened up by the Big Dig highway project.
We suppose if you can't make history, you might as well buy it with other people's money.
Your Tax Dollars at Work
"More than one out of every five dollars of the $126 million Massachusetts is receiving in earmarks from a $410 billion federal spending package is going to help preserve the legacy of the Kennedys," the Associated Press reports from Boston:
The bill includes $5.8 million for the planning and design of a building to house a new Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the Senate. The funding may also help support an endowment for the institute.
The bill also includes $22 million to expand facilities at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum and $5 million more for a new gateway to the Boston Harbor Islands on the Rose Kennedy Greenway, a park system in downtown Boston named after Kennedy's mother and built on land opened up by the Big Dig highway project.
We suppose if you can't make history, you might as well buy it with other people's money.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Friday, March 06, 2009
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Obama is a genius
I figured out that the President is a sly fox. You thought he was just spending us into debt and ruining the economy. However, he is really just trying to solve the illegal immigration problem by making our country less attractive to immigrants.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)