Month: May 2010

Douthat pulls out his red pen. 

A reader writes:

My real problem with New York is literary. Because the bulk of American literary agencies, publishing, and criticism occurs in New York, authors are rewarded for overindulging in New York as a setting. And when they set their novels in New York, it's considered acceptable to geographically structure the work in such a way that non-native readers are punished. Street intersections and local landmarks can be alluded to without the slightest regard for descriptive context because the people who are really important (the publishers and the agents and the critics) will get the reference. The rest of us, I guess, just have to stomach the void in setting this entails, and hope the author writes well enough for the characters to interact meaningfully in a vacuum.

Auster and Lethem are two authors whose writing I respect a great deal, but make excellent examples of this phenomenon. Though, in light of this, I've found that steering clear of the New York Review of Books and, really, any fiction published to acclaim within the last 10-20 years often saves me the trouble of leaving books unfinished.

Another:

The iconic example of NYC snobbery is early bar closing times — 2am in Boston, and 1am in Ptown.  "What?  They're closing??  You know, in New York, everything's open til at least 4!"  Once, at Spiritus Pizza, I responded to the New Yorker's complaints thus: "I bet if you got in your car now, you could make it back to New York in time for last call.  Not only would you be happier – so would I."

A few readers come to the city's defense. One writes:

I was raised here and know a lot of others who were. We all came out just fine and in fact were far more prepared for what the real world is REALLY like rather than the manufactured innocence and boredom of the suburbs. New York forces you to think on your feet, trust your gut, and do your homework.

One needs to work one's ass off to send their kids to private or parochial school if they can afford it. But being a kid in NY means being exposed to major institutions of learning and scholarship and some of the best brains in whatever industry. All through elementary and high school, we had field trips to the Museum of Natural History, the Met, the Brooklyn Academy of Music, and the MoMA. All we had to do was jump on the subway or walk around the corner. That shapes you and your expectations; I think for the better.

I would much rather be old in New York City vs. Florida or Arizona. You can spend the rest of your days mentally stimulated by art, lectures, world-class music and culture and still have the independence to be able to leave your home without being forced to drive and put your life and the lives of others at risk. I'd rather do that than golf.

Granted NYC is not the easiest place to live. But I think what comes off as narcissism is more about pride. If you can live in what is a congested, crowded and dirty place and still have an occasional smile on your face, you'd be proud of yourself too. New Yorkers are survivors. That's what makes us strive to be better.

Another:

I'm from a redneck town of about 50,000 people in Missouri, and I've lived in Brooklyn and worked in Manhattan for almost 7 years now. One of the things I love about New York is that there is really no such thing here as a big fish in a small pond (I'm sorry to use this cliche). A big fish in the pond of New York is, I don't know, Bjork. Most of the rest of us — at least those of us who are not fundamentally assholes to begin with — have been humbled by the realization that while we might have been one of the smartest and artiest 10 people in our hometowns, in New York there are hordes of us — tens of thousands of people the same age, with the same clothes and the same music and the same "obscure" books. Once this really sinks in, it makes one much less of a dick. And for this reason I'll take New Yorkers over St. Louisans or the coolest 20- and 30-somethings in Kansas City any day.

TNC admires Maddow's interviewing chops:

That interview would have gone a lot better for Rand Paul if Maddow had have just thrown her notes in the air and accused him of being a bigot, and a covert member of the Klan. That's what they want. And I don't simply mean conservatives–I mean people you disagree with. I know I've won a debate when my adversary says, "What the fuck type of name is Ta-Nuh-hah-see, anyway?" It translates to "I've got nothing." Much scarier is the opponent who takes your argument, with whatever nuances it may or may not possess, and politely disagrees with the argument as it is.

I try to do this in writing, with some success. Much more difficult, for me, is to do it in person. I'm always impressed by broadcast journalists who can, without getting angry, grab the point of contention and drive at it in a manner that is as civil as it is relentless. This is the art of killing softy, of quietly twisting the knife.

It's also, in my view, the answer to the cable news dilemma. Instead of going to FNC propaganda route, or the CNN fake "neutrality" route, you have a host who has a point of view but is open to other points of view, and can keep his or her cool under fire. Yesterday was a good day for cable news in that respect. Maddow offered a glimpse of a more useful future.

Michael Shermer goes after climate denial, evolution denial, Holocaust denial, AIDS denial, 9/11 denial, vaccine denial, and tobacco denial:

Scepticism is integral to the scientific process, because most claims turn out to be false. Weeding out the few kernels of wheat from the large pile of chaff requires extensive observation, careful experimentation and cautious inference. Science is scepticism and good scientists are sceptical.

Denial is different. It is the automatic gainsaying of a claim regardless of the evidence for it – sometimes even in the teeth of evidence. Denialism is typically driven by ideology or religious belief, where the commitment to the belief takes precedence over the evidence. Belief comes first, reasons for belief follow, and those reasons are winnowed to ensure that the belief survives intact.

Ronald Bailey adds biotech crop denialism, drug war denialism, and market denialism to the list. Debora MacKenzie also explores the subject:

[O]ther denialisms suggest psychology, not just ideology, is crucial. There is no obvious connection between conservatism and vaccine or AIDS denial, and flu denial was promulgated by a left-leaning group suspicious of the vaccine industry.

Nevertheless, some connections exist that hint at a wider agenda. For example, there is considerable overlap in membership between the vaccine and HIV deniers, says John Moore, an AIDS researcher at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York. Both movements have massive but mysterious funding.

Obama’s approval ratings among Independents:

Not much, according to Andrew Gelman:

[Y]ou can’t learn much from primary elections. They can be important in their effects—both directly on the composition of Congress and indirectly in how they can affect behavior of congressmembers who might be scared of being challenged in future primaries—but I don’t see them as very informative indicators of the general election vote. Primaries are inherently unpredictable and are generally decided by completely different factors, and from completely different electorates, than those that decide general elections.

The British coalition government published its joint plans today. What strikes me is the rebound of British liberty in this fusion of Whiggery and Toryism. Check out the devolution of power and the firming up of civil liberties proposed. They're even going to take down some of the CCTV cameras:

Vowing that the coalition would end “the culture of spying on its citizens,” Mr. Clegg said it would “tear through the statute book,” scrapping a nationwide system of identity cards on which the Labour government spent huge sums, and abandoning a new generation of “biometric” passports that would hold a vastly expanded archive of personal data. In addition, he said, there would be new restrictions on the government’s right to intercept and hold personal Internet and e-mail traffic and to store DNA data from people not convicted of any crime.

Constitutionally, the coalition government is offering a new Great Reform Act:

The plan would also create a fully elected House of Lords, scrapping heredity and political favor as a passport to power, and commit to a referendum on changing the voting system for the House of Commons. Under the proposed “alternative vote” system, candidates would have to gain 50 percent or more of the vote in their constituencies to secure election, effectively shaking up the politics of “safe” parliamentary seats that has given many M.P.’s what amounts to lifetime employment.

In addition, the plan would adopt an American-style power of recall, opening the way for restive voters to unseat errant lawmakers by gathering 10,000 signatures on a petition, and introduce new laws to regulate Britain’s $3.5-billion-a-year political lobbying industry.

Bagehot parses:

I think that the underlying principle of the document and the coalition—that the areas where the two parties can agree offers them ample scope for reform, and that they should concentrate on those—is sound. No government can do everything at the same time. And, in any case, in these pinched times there isn't the cash to do everything either party would like to anyway.

The big worry for the coalition, it seems to me (and others), is not what's in the document but what isn't and couldn't be—in other words, events, such as, most obviously, foreign-policy crises or indeed a terrorist incident at home. How will the coalition cope with the resulting strains? Asked about that today, Mr Cameron talked about the need for proper, formal decision-making and dialogue, etc. Hmmmn.

(Photo: Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, delivers a speech setting out the Government's plans for political reform at the City and Islington College on May 19, 2010 in London, England. By Oli Scarff-WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Wiegel stands up against the "racist" critique. Robert A. George counters smartly:

Why aren't they — as libertarians — outraged that Jim Crow laws themselves infringed on private property and free exchange of goods? Jim Crow said whites and blacks couldn't eat together or live in the same hotels. If you were a white restaurant owner and wanted to serve blacks, you could be shut down. Once again, Jim Crow prevented whites and blacks from engaging in a basic economic relationship. That is the power of the state at its worst.