Month: April 2012

by Zack Beauchamp

Steven Lloyd Wilson wonders:

We are teetering on the edge of being able to create absolutely anything in photorealistic detail, provided the artist or filmmaker has the skill to actually pull it off. That doesn’t mean all CGI looks great, or even should always be the tool used, anymore than the existence of dictionaries and word processors means we’re all Shakespeare. But it does mean that the barrier of what makes a story unfilmable moves away from technical ability and into the actual strengths of the medium. There are stories that simply cannot be done justice in the form of film.

by Maisie Allison

Andrew Ferguson reflects on Allan Bloom's bestselling book, dubbed the "first shot in the culture wars":

Bloom’s reputation for fuddy-duddyism rested largely on his instantly notorious discussion of the “gutter phenomenon” of rock music, in which he deploys words (orgiastic, barbaric) straight from a pulpit-pounding preacher circa 1955. To anyone under the age of 30 he sounded like the old crank next door hollering, “Turn it down!” But again, his case against rock was entirely his own. He didn’t worry that the music would unleash passions but that it would deaden them, especially the passion required for real inquiry and learning. “My concern here,” he wrote, “is not with the moral effects of this music?—?whether it leads to sex, violence, or drugs.” His critics to the contrary, Closing placed Allan Bloom to the left of Tipper Gore, who spent the eighties crusading against the depredations of Mötley Crüe and Def Leppard (and the nineties apologizing for it).

Ferguson notes that despite the partisan fanaticism that surrounded the treatise, Bloom was "never a movement conservative." As Jim Sleeper explained in 2005: 

Far from being a conservative ideologue, Bloom, a University of Chicago professor of political philosophy who died in 1992, was an eccentric interpreter of Enlightenment thought who led an Epicurean, quietly gay life. He had to be prodded to write his best-selling book by his friend Saul Bellow, whose novel ''Ravelstein'' is a wry tribute to Bloom. Far more than liberal speech codes and diversity regimens, the bêtes noires of the intellectual right, darkened Bloom's horizons: He also mistrusted modernity, capitalism and even democracy so deeply that he believed the university's culture must be adversarial (or at least subtly subversive) before America's market society, with its vulgar blandishments, religious enthusiasms and populist incursions.

by Zoë Pollock

A genuine query:

The great symphonies of the 19th century were not inspired by science, even though they were composed in a scientific age. … For much of human history, the religious impulse and the art-making impulse were deeply tied together. Most of the great works of art from every civilization are testimony to this basic fact. The same cannot be said of science and no amount of fine rhetoric from Richard Dawkins or anyone else will prove otherwise. It is a thing to consider, that science does not seem to go together with the kind of wonder that moves the artists. It is an incompatibility that seems to go deeper than any question of funding or who pays for the art. Is it, actually, something deeper?

by Patrick Appel

Is not who you'd expect:

Swing voters are least likely to be found among strong partisans (12 percent of this group); more likely to be found among independent leaners (27 percent) and weak partisans (28 percent); and most likely to be found among pure independents (40 percent). But since pure independents are such a small group, they wind up being just 13 percent of all swing voters, actually less than the number of strong partisans among swingers (18 percent). Another 28 percent of swing voters are independent leaners, and the largest group, 42 percent, are weak partisans. Thus the overwhelming majority (70 percent) of swing voters are weak or independent leaning partisans …

Today on the Dish, I defended the idea that liberal democracy was here to stay, spoke up in favor of gyms (follow-up here), and clarified a point on drug legalization versus criminalization, while Patrick debunked a wildly misleading statistic from the Romney campaign. Today's nontroversy merited a meh, the Buffet Rule tested the GOP's elasticity, Mitt needn't fret about the empathy gap (an attribute that probably didn't matter much in Presidents anyway), and Eisenhower's approach got deconstructed. We took in arguments as to why Obamacare wouldn't increase the deficit, spotlighted Connecticut's decision to ax the death penalty, and kept up the political labels v. intelligence debate. Ad War Update here.

We also glimpsed the life of gay teenagers gripped by ex-gay theory, examined "dating with disability" (follow-up here), and further distanced asexuality from anti-intimacy. Readers debated the VAT as tax simplification, paying for education with future earnings, and fighting in hockey. War might have been less likely if it was harder to start, Communtiy explained real wars, the quality of American food fell off - as did walking, stay-at-home mothers were less well off, and Microsoft Word sucked. Pet obituaries created problems and a dog talked. Ask Charles Murray Anything here, the (above) Hathos Alert here, VFYW here, FOTD here, and MHB here.

– Z.B.

 by Zack Beauchamp

Keith Humphreys takes me to task for elliding a critical distinction in this post:

I am writing only to point out that Portugal hasn’t legalized drugs, it has decriminalized them. Pain medications are legalized, i.e., there is a legal industry, advertising, lobbying, a government controlled regulatory system, no civil or criminal possession penalties etc. None of this is true of marijuana, heroin, cocaine etc. in decriminalization regimes such as exist in Portugal, which simply remove criminal penalties (Portugal still has civil penalties) for possessing small amounts of drugs and for using drugs.

Keith is quite right that I should have been clearer on the difference between decriminalization and legalization. It's important to keep those two separate in drug policy reform discussions. But my aim was not to advocate for legalization as opposed to decriminalization based on the data from Portgual, but rather simply use the data as evidence against Mead's sloppy thinking.  Pete Guither's gracious defense makes the point better than I did:

If you are caught using opioids for recreational purposes in the United States, you go to jail. If you do so in Portugal, you don’t. That’s why [Zack] sees Portugal as a better indicator of legalization than the so-called “legal” prescription market. Zack is properly pointing out that using the prescription system that exists today as an argument against legalization is faulty, because no recreational user can legally get a prescription. You may quibble with how he expressed that, but that’s more semantics than analytical error. 

by Chris Bodenner

A reader tips us off to the Text From Dog tumblr. Many lolz to be found, including:

by Patrick Appel

Contrary to popular belief, Ben Smith shows that at-home parenting isn't a luxury good:

While stay-at-home motherhood has become less common over time, the women who stay at home are increasingly those whose low education means they can't earn enough money to making working outside the home worthwhile.

by Zack Beauchamp

A reader writes:

Fat people don't go to the gym. Do we pay thousands of dollars for membership? Yes, on top of all the other stuff you're supposed to be buying as a certified fat person (diet books, Weight Watchers memberships, and every single thing they advertise on The Biggest Loser no matter how fucking stupid it is). Do we go to the gym? Nope. Because the only thing worse than being fat in our culture is being visible and exercising while being fat (well that's not true, eating lunch while being fat is probably the worst possible thing you could do). So the gym may be awesome for you, but don't act like it's a "solution" to the "obesity problem," because for that to be true, fat people would have to stop being shamed out of public places – and the gym is the lion's den of body-shaming. 

Just for anecdotal fun – I had a gym membership that really worked for me once. The gym was across the street from my work and there was a deal for $50 a month membership – instead of the usual $86 a month. I was making $11.50/hr at a coffee shop, but I really wanted to try to be a gym person for once, so I did it. I got a deal on a 3 session personal trainer session. I was like "Great! now I'll feel more confident and I won't be so lost when I go in." But I forgot I was fat and personal trainers don't actually know how to train people who aren't already "in shape."

This jock had me do jumping-jacks out on the circuit training floor. I objected on account of my 38DDD boobs (another thing that tends to shame me out of exercising in front of people), and he told me I was being lazy. Because here's the thing – gyms don't actually care whether you feel comfortable or welcome. That's why they have the 12 month contract and 19 year old "trainers" who have no idea what health and wellness are. They care about your money, and that's it.

Another differs:

Friedman’s advice is just plain stupid.  One of the main barriers to exercise is getting off your butt in the first place.  Having a goal and a place that offers classes and a schedule can help shape the path to exercise.  You can find workout buddies to hold you accountable.  You can find professionals who can advise you on how to meet your goals.  You have the damn equipment. For the truly self-motivated, yes, a gym may be unnecessary, but for most people hitting the gym on the way home will mean actually working out, rather than getting home, being exhausted, and then eating a pizza while watching TV.

A final reader gives tips on making the gym work:

You wrote, "The guilt created by shelling out a bunch of cash was a pretty strong motivator to at least try [the gym] out." In fact, there's a more direct and perhaps more effective way to motivate yourself. You may already know about this, but can I suggest Stickk?

This service will set up an enforceable incentive for you to achieve your goals, such as hitting the gym. You pick a goal, a time frame, an incentive, and a referee. At the end of the period, the referee logs onto the account and indicates whether or not you met your goal. If not, then the incentive kicks into effect. 

For example, you could set it up such that if you don't go to the gym at least 3 times per week for 12 weeks, then you automatically make a $500 donation to NOM. I bet that would get you out of your chair.

by Patrick Appel

Not necessarily:

Republicans win all the time without closing the empathy gap. This is because Democratic candidates are generally perceived as more empathetic — more likely to “care about people like me” — than Republican candidates, regardless of who wins. … In general, be wary of any claim that there is a single path to victory, particularly if that path involves a candidate’s personality.

 Kilgore nods.