You have until noon on Tuesday to guess it. City and/or state first, then country. Please put the location in the subject heading, along with any description within the email. If no one guesses the exact location, proximity counts. Be sure to email entries to VFYWcontest@gmail.com. Winner gets a free The View From Your Window book. Have at it.
Emma Young shares some scientific suggestions for shedding holiday pounds. Number one, get vaccinated:
If you catch a cold this holiday season you may have to stock up on new clothes as well as tissues. That's because at least one common cold virus has been linked to obesity. Nikhil Dhurandhar of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana discovered that adenovirus-36 (Ad-36) boosts both the number of fat cells in the body and the amount of fat inside these cells. He also found that obese people are nearly three times as likely as those of healthy weight to test positive for Ad-36 antibodies, indicating current or past infection.
(Hat tip: Kottke)
Calling for a "centrist" approach to the Drug War, Kevin Sabet laments in the NYT that "a few tough-on-crime conservatives and die-hard libertarians dominate news coverage and make it appear as if legalizing drugs and 'enforcement only' strategies were the only options, despite the fact that the public supports neither." David Sirota begs to differ:
Mere weeks after Gallup’s new poll showed a majority of Americans support full legalization of marijuana, Sabet insists that it’s a "fact" that the public doesn’t support legalization. And mind you, it’s not just Gallup’s surveys that show public support for legalization — in state-based polls in politically diverse states like Massachusetts and Colorado, it’s essentially the same thing: widespread public support for pot legalization. … [I]n comparison to the mass public, [Sabet is] the fringe extremist.
Although Sabet doesn't specifically mention marijuana in his op-ed and instead lumps together all drugs, his argument is a de facto case against marijuana, since that is the only drug being seriously debated today. Scott Morgan calls into question Sabet's "centrist credentials" by noting he was a speechwriter for several drug czars. Pete Guither makes a more substantive point:
Legalization isn’t an extreme. It is, rather, an entire range of options — essentially all of the options available to society except for the single destructive and failed policy of prohibition (where drug distribution is put in the hands of criminals). Sabet is looking for nuances in the policy of criminal drug distribution, and that’s just absurd. Legalization is where you find the centrists. Take a look at LEAP, for example. Many LEAP members are opposed to drug use and strongly advocate extensive regulation of drugs. That’s certainly not the free-for-all libertarian model that Kevin Sabet seems to imagine to be the entire legalization world.
(Image from a Good infographic)
In getting to the answer, Derek Thompson shows how it wasn't always that way:
[T]he first instances of what film archeologists would actually call "movies" around 1910 featured different prices for different films. Movies were priced according to their length, stars, and popularity. For three decades until the 1940s, one theater would have the rights to each movie within a certain zone, and movies received grades (A, B, or C) that corresponded with ticket prices at those theaters. If the rules of the 1920s ruled today, Mission Impossible might be $15 and Young Adult might be $7. What changed?
Everything. For starters, the famous Paramount anti-trust case broke up monopolies between producers and distributors. Multiplexes replaced single-serving theaters. A recession after World War II coincided with the popularity of television to gut studio revenue, forcing them to rely on fewer, more expensive movies.
Tyler Cowen rephrases the question:
Especially in the days of robust DVD sales, why did they not offer first weekend modest coupon bonuses — as distinct from price discounts — for the most popular movies? That would drive up attendance, without damaging the gross (as a lower p would), and boost "advertising" for the DVD and the subsequent foreign openings.
The related thread on whether movie theaters can survive here, here, here and here.
Canada gets cocky:
Nona Willis Aronowitz wonders if independents will ever organize themselves:
In the Occupy Wall Street era, an off-the-script option makes all the sense in the world. We're fed up with the political system and how it's funded, and many of us bemoan voting for the lesser of two evils. But when it comes to independents, we underestimate our own power of mobilization and assume they'll lose. We long for third-party candidates to win, but we give up on them before they start.
A Gallup poll in May found that 52 percent of the nation think a third party is needed. There are more independents than registered Democrats or Republicans—37 percent in all. There have been grassroots efforts to pick an independent, even as most people roll their eyes at the possibility. But why? This group is the one who swings elections. They're the ones candidates pander to in the presidential race. Every time an independent or third party candidate surfaces, he or she dares us to prove what's possible when we flex our democratic muscle. Why have we been too chicken to respond?
Steve Coll runs the numbers on past Libertarian turnout and how they've affected the general election:
If Paul did run again as a Libertarian, he would surely exceed the Party’s best-ever performance in a Presidential election of about a million votes nationally, in 1980, another year of discontent. (The candidate was Ed Clark.) Carla Howell, the Party’s executive director, told me this week that Libertarian Party will qualify for the general-election ballot in virtually all states—"the high forties, if not fifty"—and there is good reason to think it could.
Friday on the Dish, Andrew foretold the end of Republican fusionism, called Santorum out on the polygamy canard and cafeteria Catholicism, defended Ron Paul's views on Iran and libertarianism, shot NRO a warning about the consequences of Christianist "pro-Israel" fervor, challenged David Brooks' political taxonomy, mocked the GOP candidates' pleas of poverty, and welcomed Frum to the Beast! Santorum was Dubya redux and a culture warrior, Romney may have already won (with a boost from New Hampshire demographics), and Huntsman's sanity sunk him. Obama followed through on campaign promises, the New Hampshire Union Leader was self-aggrandizing, and John Yoo fought for a monopoly on the world's chutzpah supply.
We grabbed blogger reax to the two biggest non-campaign U.S. news items, Obama's new defense strategy and the happy-looking jobs report, and followed news from around the world: Syrian protestors demanded our attention while bombs went off in Damascus, Iran probably couldn't afford a naval war, the collective European identity buckled, and the Egyptian political scence remained unsettled. Hussein Ibish and Jeffrey Goldberg debated Islamism in the Arab Spring and Daveed Gartenstein-Ross faced off with Fawaz Gerges over al-Qaeda's remaining strength.
Egalitarian values may (or may not) have shown us how to fix educations systems, humanities degrees were totally awesome, and publicly funded convention centers didn't make a whole lot of sense. An innocent beard was victimized, the movie theater thread kept on keeping on, and fiction could inspire the social movements of the future. VFYW here, Chart of the Day here, Cool Ad here, AAA here, Quote for the Day here, Face of the Day here, and MHB here.
Bathsheba, Barbados, 12 pm
Thursday on the Dish, Andrew blasted Santorum's anti-freedom agenda, labelled Romney the uber-awkward "John Kerry" of 2012, found a heavy anti-Paul bias at the WaPo, and defended the consequences of Paul's ideas on foreign policy. He noted Santorum's lucky timing, exposed the self-proclaimed moral paragon's long history of corruption, praised Obama's Iran policy and political strategy on the CFPB appointment, and unearthed more evidence that the President defied right-wing charicature. Romney looked likely to get hit both as a flip-flopper and extremist in the general, planned to make the deficit worse, and appeared dominant in New Hampshire (where Huntsman flailed). Gingrich was a "festering white-head of loathing," Santorum may actually have won Iowa (a no-recount caucus) but looked to have some issues in Iowa, and Ron Paul was in it for the looooooooooooong haul. Moderate GOPers were SOL, the media had a clear interest in lying to you about New Hampshire and "Queen Esther" reared her head at CPAC.
Iran imitated Palin (ironically enough given that moniker), Assad's victims extended beyond his borders, and the international climate on climate change looked slightly better. Ryan Avent thought positively about the economy come election time, Reihan hoped for GOP party-switchers, George Will got hit for betraying conservatism in favor of consumerism, and readers and readers kept discussing why terrorists suck at their jobs and whether movie theaters were on the decline. White girls said dumb things to black girls, naked male bodies were sexy off and on the screen, the drag TV show "Work It" was still awful, and the wives of high-profile marriage equality opponents differed quite publicly. Also, George Washington may have gotten high.
MHB here, Faces of the Day here, Correction of the Day here, Cool Ad here, AAA here, and VFYW here.
Wednesday on the Dish, Andrew assessed the post-Iowa GOP freakout (hint: there's a meep, meep involved), defended Paul's against TNC's Farrakhan comparison, praised the candidate's moral imagination, noted Santorum's "neoconservatism on steroids," mocked the GOP's Iran paranoia, and kept the heat on Glenn Reynolds for being a shameless propagandist. We corralled a big Iowa reax, a reader brilliantly diagnosed the implications of the results for the party, Bachmann called it quits, Paul wasn't done and may actually get the most delegates, Jay Rosen blasted the whole affair, and readers dinged our coverage for overusing the Santorum puns (though Dan Savage won Iowa).
Santorum's day in the sun got extra scrutiny – we looked at his odious views on Palestine, documented his craziness and argued it made him unelectable, demanded proof that his gay supporters existed, and found an awkward choice of mascot. Newt said something stupid (it is a day ending in Y), but also intriguingly geared up to help Santorum bash Romney. Writers guessed at Romney's strategy for the general, debated Paul's effect on belief in non-interventionism, wondered if Pawlenty should have stayed in, and found Huntsman generally deaf to tone.
The Syrian opposition may have called for intervention, readers discussed airport security, and the military thought about technology that could Eternal Sunshine you, and Charles Taylor posed a challenge for liberal democracy. Bloggers had the Sullivan look, Netflix tried to do everything, and horror blurred the reality/fiction line. Buffet psychology made some of us eat more, America was fat, and eating snot was a real thing.
VFYW here, Cool Ad here, Hathos (Red) Alert here, Malkin nominee here, AAA here, Face of the Day here, and MHB here.
Tuesday on the Dish, Andrew liveblogged the photo-finish Iowa caucuses, fired a cannon shot in the libertarianism and racism wars (follow-up with TNC here), defended the claim that Ron Paul was improving the GOP, engaged with readers on the Paul v. Huntsman question, explained why Santorum really is a big-government radical, tracked Romney's PAC shadiness, and checked in on the Euro.
Romney lied (constantly), Jim Geraghty speculated that he might do worse than in Iowa than in 2008 despite not being hit too hard, and Packer worried about whether Romney's campaign boxed him in to insane governance. Paul won the Log Cabin Iowans (all 7 of them) and cruised ahead in the Drudge caucus. Santorum appeared set to win even by losing, rocked the sweater vest to victory, got some neocon love, and ludicrously proposed to ban contraception, In other candiate news, Huntsman was still a Republican and maybe should have campaigned in Iowa, Gingrich got killed by the media, and the Perry/Bachmann/Gingrich trifecta looked screwed. Pundits debated how to interpret Iowa in advance and tracked the polls. Iowans were both peeved about being misrepresented by the media and not super-excited by the caucuses.
Egypt had an army problem, Iraq had a Maliki problem, the US had a drone problem. Robert Wright started a new blog, Will Willkinson renounced the libertarian label, readers continued to debunk the assisted suicide slippery slope canard, and a gaggle of writers microscoped ethanol policy. Readers talked about calendars and path dependence, the planet was super-old, and we looked at a photograph one year in the making. Parking policy was silly, trying to make a fake $1 millon bill to buy a microwave was silly, and a terrible drag show was also – you guessed it – silly.
Quote For The Day here, Chart of the Day here, VFYW here, VFYW contest here, Hewitt nominee here, (gross) Meme of the Day here, AAA here, and MHB here.
By Win McNamee/Getty Images
Today on the Dish, Andrew assessed Ron Paul's scrambling effect on America's left/right binary, heaved at extended exposure to Santorum, worried that the Christianist par excellence would blunt Paul's impact on the GOP, and was sure that he would almost certainly take America to war with Iran. We kept up on the latest Iowa polls (a state that matters, though South Carolina might not), foresaw some negativity from the Gingrich campaign, noted the end of ethanol pandering in Iowa, and exposed the deep-seated desires of the political press corps. Romney seemed inevitable, Gingrich embarrased himself, Santorum appeared to hit trouble beyond Iowa, and the winner of the election would not end America. Joe Klein thought negative attack ads worked better this year than in the past, but some research suggested ads in general turn off some undecided voters.
Syria greeted the new year with protests, Andrew Exum considered how his background helped him get through war, and the TSA sucked. Bees taught us about democracy, the world isn't ending this year, and Roger Ebert sparked a discussion over whether movies were fading away. We defended British cuisine, tried to keep kids from getting fat, and mapped out what we know about taste.
Roger Scruton developed a green conservatism, McArdle called us out on infographics, and Reagan's actual policies confused Eric Cantor. Robin Hanson pushed the debate on working hours forward, the religious got autoerotic, an economist revamped parking, pot helped people through the Great Recession, and science explained both snow and "tit for tat."
The Dish aired your responses to Andrew's year-end reflections and celebrated many new readers – who, along with our old readers, should enjoy some regular features. So without further ado, Quotes For The Day here and here, MHB here, Map of the Day here, AAA here, Faces of the Day here, and VYFW here.
– Z.B.
Gareth Harding expands on a point the Dish has been making:
The European Union was built on the myth that we are one people with one common destiny — an "ever closer union," in the words of the 1957 Treaty of Rome that founded what was then called the European Economic Community. We are now discovering that regional and national differences are not dissolving and that Europeans think and act very differently from one another. The British view of the state's role is very different from the French view. The Greek or Italian concept of law is very different from that of Sweden or Denmark. Latvians have a very different view of Russia from Germans. What an Irishman is prepared to pay in taxes is very different from what a Dane or Belgian will allow.
This lack of unity is Europe's third and most profound crisis, one that underlies the continent's economic and political woes. Most Europeans have little idea what the EU stands for in the world, what binds its people together, where it has come from in the past, and where it is going in the future. After more than 60 years of EU integration, 200,000 pages of legislation, and a hefty (and still growing) stack of treaties, we have succeeded in building a European Union without Europeans.
(Photo: A self-made euro sign is attached to the tip of a christmas tree in front of the European Central Bank [ECB] in Frankfurt am Main, western Germany, on December 21, 2011. By Boris Roessler/AFP/Getty Images.)
In New Hampshire Joe Klein watched Huntsman deliver what he calls "the most sane and substantive, but still conservative, stump speech" from a Republican this year. Why Huntsman is nevertheless behind in the polls:
Others have suggested that [Huntsman] “offended” the Republican base by acknowledging his belief in evolution and man-made climate change. If so, the Republican base badly needed offending. But Huntsman’s real sin is deeper than that: his is a vitriol-free candidacy. There is no gratuitous sliming of Barack Obama or his fellow Republican candidates. There is no spurious talk of “socialism.” He pays not the slightest heed to the various licks and chops that Rush Limbaugh has made into stations of the cross for Republican candidates.
He is out-of-step with the anger that has overwhelmed his party and puts it at odds with the vast, sensible mainstream of this country. Because he has refused to engage in such carnival tactics–because he hasn’t had any oops! moments, extramarital affairs, lobbying deals with Freddie Mac or flip-flops–the media have largely ignored him. That makes us complicit in a national political calamity. But Republican voters have been complicit, too: a conservative party that doesn’t take Huntsman seriously as a candidate has truly lost its way.
The Dish 
