Month: December 2010

Building off my post on religion and myth, Andrew Sprung outlines his problem with the "the doctrine of the fall" which he regards "as a really pernicious myth that fundamentally miscasts the human condition":

[I]n an era in which humanity has built up detailed if fragmented understanding of how organisms interact with each other and with the nonorganic physical world, how the body processes nourishment and fights off disease, how our behavior is related to that of our primate ancestors and mammalian cousins– and how our values and behavior have evolved over time — the notion that our limitations and nonadaptive impulses derive from some fundamental originary act of disobedience — whether understood collectively or individually — is simply not adequate, not helpful, not in keeping with the factual knowledge we have acquired.  We are what the physical universe and the biology of this planet have made us. Increasingly, as we acquire knowledge, we are what we make ourselves — we have the capacity to at least partially shape our own evolution, for better or for worse. If the notion of an "unfallen" society haunts us, it should be as a hope of the future, not a dream of the past.

Unsurprisingly, I disagree. But it's a huge topic. The key to wisdom about human affairs, in my view, is the rejection of any concept of a future utopia, of a return to a pre-lapsarian fate. Yes, we can make things better, attend to and adjust our laws and lives to new facts or social change or random events. But we make things better best in the knowledge of no perfection. I guess that's why I remain a conservative and Andrew is a liberal. I reman deeply skeptical of any idea of progress that leads to the resolution of the deepest problems.

This, in fact, is my most heretical thought: a doubt about the Second Coming. This is how Christianity deals with the psychologically hard concept of no future earthly salvation – a future divine salvation for all. What interests me more is what interested Oakeshott: an idea of salvation that has nothing to do with the future.

A wonderful piece from animator Ryan Woodward:

"[It came from a] desire to unite several of my passions into one art piece.  Figurative works, 2d animation, EFX animation, and contemporary dance…(and) a theme centered around the complexities of intimate relationships." To find the right song to accompany the art, Woodward chose "World Spin Madly On" by The Weepies. What can we say? Just watch.

Here's almost a definition of a successful compromise:

A slender 11 percent of those polled back all four of the deal's primary tax provisions: an across-the-board extension of Bush-era tax cuts, additional jobless benefits, a payroll tax holiday and a $5 million threshold for inheritance taxes. Just 38 percent support even two of the components.

But put all four items together, and 69 percent of all Americans support the package … In the poll, 69 percent of liberal Democrats support the agreement, which Obama has called a framework for legislation.

Are the Dems really dumb enough to vote against this?

How far away are we actually, from this?

WASHINGTON—Citing a sharp increase in casualties among combat troops in Syria, top military officers Wednesday called for the distribution of improved body armor to all soldiers in the region while also expressing regret for informing the nation of the ongoing Syrian War in this admittedly awkward way.

Jonathan Schanzer warns:

Although a unilateral Palestinian declaration of statehood is a seemingly attractive alternative to negotiations and is gaining credence among a growing group of countries, it is an almost surefire recipe for war. If the Palestinian government unilaterally claims land where an estimated 400,000 Israeli settlers currently reside in the West Bank, don't expect them simply to pull up and move, especially if they were not consulted on the matter. Expect them to fight.

Ezra Klein thinks there is a silver lining for health care proponents in this ruling:

The real danger to health-care reform is not that the individual mandate will be struck down by the courts. That'd be a problem, but there are a variety of ways to restructure the individual mandate such that it doesn't penalize anyone for deciding not to do something (which is the core of the conservative's legal argument against the provision). Here's one suggestion from Paul Starr, for instance. The danger is that, in striking down the individual mandate, the court would also strike down the rest of the bill. In fact, that's exactly what the plaintiff has asked Hudson to do.

Hudson pointedly refused. 

Clay Shirky heralds it:

[Nick] Carr … pointed out that Google news showed 11,264 separate outlets for the Somali pirate story in 2009, almost all of them re-running the same couple of stories. (I was similarly surprised, last year, to discover that syndicated content outweighed locally created content in my old hometown paper by a 2:1 margin.)

The idea that syndication should be different in a digital era has been around for a while now. Jeff Jarvis’s formulation — “Do what you do best and link to the rest” — dates from 2007, and the AP started talking about about holding back some stories from subscribers in order to drive their PageRank up last year. What could make 2011 the year of general restructuring is Google’s attempt to give credit where credit is due, in the words of their blog post, by offering tags that identify original and preferred sources for syndicated stories.

(Hat tip: Alexis)

Chait wants Obama to let the Bush tax cuts expire in 2012 and then rejigger taxes:

I do like the policy goal of broadening the tax base, eliminating favorable treatment for different kinds of income, and lowering the rates. However, the administration isn't going to be able to do this before the question of the Bush tax cuts is settled. A tax reform agreement is going to be premised on being revenue neutral (all or virtually all the proceeds of eliminating loopholes and credits will go toward lower rates) and being distributionally progressive or neutral (the rich will pay an equal or greater share of the tax base.)

The problem is, neither side agrees what base to start from. Republicans are going to want to base that off the status quo, with the Bush tax cuts in effect.

Why not just accept that as a starter and then have a second debate about the level of taxation as a whole? My own view is that targeting and attacking the long-term debt is the key to Obama's next two years. If he punts on debt for these reasons, the GOP will take credit for the tax deal and keep – however unfairly – outflanking him on fiscal conservatism.

Mickey pulls an impressive – and probably accurate – triple flip:

I'm not sure that Democrats who want to preserve the estate tax shouldn't secretly like the new Republican position of 35% after a $5 milllion exemption. That's low enough that it might actually stick–Republicans would have a hard time ginning up "double taxation" outrage at a 35% rate. A relatively high exemption would also minimize the need to engage in elaborate estate planning transactions to avoid the tax. All those lawyers and accountants and life insurance salesmen constitute a waste of social energy that extends way beyond a few thousand families and is surely the tax's greatest cost.

A reminder of Jesus’ actual radicalism, in contrast to Fox News pablum: