Month: July 2008

In this 1996 article, Thomas Edsall lamented Clinton’s move to the center:

Clinton’s presence in the White House has facilitated the work of the conservative revolutionaries in a way that a fully Republican-controlled government could not have. In his bargaining with the congressional leadership Clinton has moved much further to the right than Ronald Reagan would have considered doing. In the past year Clinton has attempted to structure his Administration as a rearguard holding action, protecting whatever possible of the liberal state. In practice, however, he has been a crucial, if unknowing, participant in an assault on that very state. For both the public and the press, the bipartisan nature of the debate in Washington gives the prospective outcome a legitimacy and a protective cover that would not be possible if a Republican were in the White House with Republican majorities in the House and the Senate.

That’s why I liked his substantive legacy, of course. And why Bush’s resurrection of massive, profligate government drove me and so many others up the wall.

Tyler Cowen reviews Don Thompson’s The $12 Million Stuffed Shark: The Curious Economics of Contemporary Art:

Many people recoil from the contemporary art market as the home of pretension and human foible, but as expensive pursuits go, the art market is a relatively beneficial one. The dead shark cost $12 million to buy but, of course, it didn’t cost nearly that much to make. So the production process isn’t eating up too many societal resources or causing too much damage to the environment. For the most part, it’s money passing back and forth from one set of hands to another, like a game — and, yes, the game is fun for those who have the money to play it. Don’t laugh, but we do in fact need some means of determining which of the rich people are the cool ones, and the art market surely serves that end.

The art market sells fame more than it sells objects. Focusing on the shark misses the point: conceptual art emphasized the idea over the object, and the art market responded by commodifying the idea. When the rich buy artwork, they may be buying their way into a select group of the "cool" rich but they are also asserting their understanding of contemporary art. That most people wouldn’t buy a $12 million stuffed shark, even if they had the money, is part of the allure.

Meanwhile, Winkleman hears whispers in Chelsea about another art market crash.

Participants enjoy mud during the Boryeong Mud Festival at Daecheon Beach on July 12, 2008 in Boryeong City, South Korea. The annual mud festival, now in its 11th year, features mud wrestling, mud sliding and a mud king contest. By Chung Sung-Jun/Getty Images.

Creative UPC codes.

Ezra joins the debate:

How dangerous is biking, really? It certainly feels dangerous. Over at Grist, Alan Durning explored this very question. His answer, basically, was that biking is pretty dangerous, but not biking is even more dangerous, and it would be simple to make biking safer. The breakdown is that bikers are at increased risk for accidents, but that risk is outweighed by their decreased risk for health problems (namely cardiovascular disease). Meanwhile, the dangers of biking have a cultural component. American drivers aren’t very used to bikers. They’re not on the lookout for them. When they do see them, they tend to be offended by their presence, and dumbfounded that they’d try and take up a lane and slow down the road’s rightful users: Cars. In Europe, attitudes are different, and so too are outcomes.

A reader writes:

Wilkinson seems to assume that the only people on the street are in cars or on bikes.  The traffic rules he objects to are also there to protect pedestrians.  I live in Manhattan and do most of my daily traveling on foot.  Unfortunately, as far as I can tell few bikers obey the stop-signs, traffic lights and one-way signs.  I have seen many more bike-pedestrian accidents than car-pedestrian ones.  Consequently, I think that bikes are less, not more, compatible than with the greenest mode of transportation — feet.

Another quips:

I hope you are willing to apply your conservative sense of personal responsibility to cyclists flagrantly ignoring the rules of the road. In Los Angeles I see cyclists flying through stop signs, creeping through red lights, weaving in and out of pedestrians on sidewalks, cycling against traffic without lights (I almost hit one myself in my car the other night), etc etc. Now, while I don’t think they deserve to die for cycling in that way, they shouldn’t be surprised if they do. And I hope that you agree that they should have no grounds to prosecute any driver who has the misfortune of knocking them down as a result of their abandon.

Cyclists often seem to want to have it both ways: to ignore rules of the road, but then also to complain that cars don’t give them no respect. It seems obvious that the rules of the road are a common language that in the end ensure the greatest safety for the greatest number of people.

Taos, New Mexico, 1.45 pm.

Many readers have written in about this film:

You should know about Alexander Sokurov’s 2002 film "Russian Ark," a dazzling sprint through 400 years of Russian history, filmed in 33 halls and galleries of the Hermitage museum with a cast of 2,000.  The entire 96 minutes is one long tracking shot, filmed with a Steadicam; there’s not a cut nor an edit in its entire breathtaking length.

Another reader adds:

It covered acres of ground with a cast of hundreds, took months to prepare, and the museum gave the producers literally one chance and one day to shoot it.  A 2-hour charge battery was invented to power the camera, one that could not be recharged.  It was all or nothing.

Ross has a sane post on the economic politics of both parties:

When economic times are tough, Democratic politicians and pundits tend to go way overboard exaggerating how dire things are, while Republican politicians and pundits tend to go way overboard insisting that everything’s fine and the public needs to stop whining, stop listening to the media, and start enjoying the good times. In 1979, the tendency to play to type produced Jimmy Carter’s famous malaise speech, in which the American people were informed that the solution to their economic problems was to accept a wartime mentality in which the government would massively regulate the energy sector and everyone would have to make do with much, much less. In the 2000s, it’s produced too many Republicans who think and talk like Phil Gramm, whether they’re insisting that a sluggish economic recovery with weak wage growth for most middle-income Americans actually represents "the greatest story never told," or claiming that we can just "drill our way out" of the current energy crunch.

A reader writes:

I do think that you come dangerously close to a double standard in defending the Danish cartoonists on the one had – while referring to PZ Myers as a catholic bigot on the other.  However, (in your defense) your position is complicated further by the fact that you have strongly condemned exploiting a prisoner’s religious beliefs when questioning them, while consistently criticizing abuse of the Koran in particular.  This- then – would actually seem consistent with your calling PZ Myers a catholic bigot.

Anyway – I do think you have a bit of work to do here. It’s not going to be easy.  You could always invoke Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”  I don’t even think this would be an entirely unfair response.  The fact is that Catholicism and Islam are at different crossroads in their socio-cultural development, and so it is perhaps reasonable to treat them differently (and not necessarily a sign of personal bias).

In adding the necessary nuance to your position, it is well worth remembering that much of Islam’s response to the Danish cartoons was quite simply directed at the fact that these cartoonists had reproduced Mohammed’s image, which is blasphemous to a Muslim.  Catholicism (to its credit) isn’t so easily offended (crosses in jars of Urine to the contrary).  Moreover, it would seem obvious that abusing the Eucharist is much more similar to abusing the Koran – than it is to caricaturing Islam.   Of course – it is also worth remembering that PZ Myers hadn’t yet abused the Eucharist, but, rather, had merely advocated doing so (when and if he does, then the situation changes).  So – how does his right to advocate abuse the Eurachist compare to Danish cartoonists rights to caricaturing Islam?

Moreover – the situation is further complicated by the fact that PZ Myers was in part defending another, Webster Cook, who – more innocently it would seem – had “borrowed” the Eucharist, mentioned this in his blog – and had himself been viciously attacked.  What about this third party?  Is he also Catholic bigot?  Or, rather, doesn’t the viciousness with which Cook was attacked (death threats, calls for his expulsion from university) mitigate PZ Myers response at least a bit?

Another adds:

We do not have the right to go through life without ever being offended; we do not have the right to expect those who offend us to suffer punishment from the government, or to threaten them with violence.  But surely, civilized people should not go about stealing objects sacred to groups to which they do not belong and desecrating them.  The Koran, as a physical object, does not belong to Christians or atheists; it belongs to Muslims, and Christians and atheists should handle it respectfully or leave it alone.  The same goes for what is sacred to Christians or to any other faiths.  (There’s a big difference, by the way, between what Myers is doing and your reader’s suggestion of a Catholic desecrating the Body of Christ as a protest against the Church’s crimes—again, ownership matters.)  Myers can make fun of our beliefs, point out how ridiculous they sound, joke about us digesting Jesus and pooping him out, whatever.  But to take what is not his, but ours (or perhaps God’s, but let’s not get into that), and desecrate it is way over the line.  If he can get his hands on a communion wafer (supposing we forget, for a moment, that this requires somebody to steal it first), desecrating it would of course be his legal right.  But he’s still being a complete asshole and he fully deserves his Moore Award nomination.

Thanks for the defenses. My objection to PZ Myers – even as I defended his right to say whatever he wants and wouldn’t want him punished in any way – is not, in my view, a double standard. Printing a cartoon for legitimate purposes is a different thing than deliberately backing the physical desecration of sacred objects. I’d happily publish a Mohammed cartoon if it advanced a genuine argument, but I would never knowingly desecrate a Koran purely to mock religion.