Friday, January 29, 2010

Decline of an interesting voice

http://chronicle.com/article/The-Trials-of-Tony-Judt/63449/
(via Marginal Revolutions)


An interesting and frequently controversial voice in history, international politics,
and political science is in slow decline.

Excerpt follows:


"If the state was held at a safe distance," Judt said, "then extremists of right and left alike would be kept at bay." Public responsibilities have been drastically shifted to the private sector. Americans and, to a lesser extent, Europeans have forgotten how to think politically and morally about economic choices, Judt warned, his fragile, British-accented voice growing louder. To abandon the gains made by social democrats—the New Deal, the Great Society, the European welfare state—"is to betray those who came before us as well as generations yet to come."

The lecture, which lasted nearly two hours, yoked together a few themes that have long preoccupied Judt: the role of intellectuals and ideas in political life, and the failure of both Americans and Europeans to understand and learn from the past century. (We live, Judt has written, in an "age of forgetting.") He concluded his remarks on a pragmatic note. "It would be pleasing—but misleading—to report that social democracy, or something like it, represents the future that we would paint for ourselves in an ideal world," he said, carefully pronouncing each word. "It does not even represent the ideal past. But, among the options available to us in the present, it is better than anything else to hand."


...

"We have watched the decline of 80 years of great investment in public services," he says. "We are throwing away the efforts, ideas, and ambitions of the past." It is plainly difficult for him to speak, but he is doggedly eloquent. His eyes, forced to do the work of his entire body, are strikingly expressive; when he gets excited, he arches his brows high and opens them wide, which he does when he says, "Communism was a very defective answer to some very good questions. In throwing out the bad answer, we have forgotten the good questions. I want to put the good questions back on the table."

How to Report the news, Charlie Brooker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtGSXMuWMR4

via Boing Boing

Thursday, January 28, 2010

This is a rather vacuous title

This post contains a link a generic incendiary blog post, (via of bOING bOING).

http://faultline.org/index.php/site/item/incendiary/

Sunday, January 24, 2010

They Live, and Health Care

http://www.bigfatwhale.com/archives/bfw_418.htm

Webcomic uses "They Live" imagery to dramatize the fact that governments can
do some things effectively.

Corset Reacts to Carbon Dioxide Levels in the Air

This is smart clothing with only novelty and artistic value. Still, an amusing statement.
Article at Wired.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Is this the end for campaign finance reform?

http://www.slate.com/id/2242209/

No more limit on corporate contributions to PACs. I'm not happy about this.

Unfortunately, the bugginess of the human mind tends to respond well to repetition,
unless there is already outright hostility. The money to buy repetition, and reduce airtime
of other views bodes not well. Of course, with a de facto control of major media sources
already, I'm not much more worried - except that this precedent discourages many kinds
of potential future reforms.

This makes net neutrality all the more vital. Or strong, socially integrated ad hoc discussion.

I am displeased.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Football - it's no surprise

This is why I've not liked the sport of football since I was a child.

It is also why drinking makes it tolerable.

Only 11 minutes of onscreen action per game. Spot on.

American football, waste of time, television, time, TV, waste

First thing, we get rid of the marketers

Well, no not really. There is the benign work of marketing which seeks to assess what customers really want in a product - there is nothing wrong with that.

Nor is there anything wrong with entertaining prospective customers, in hopes that they will talk about you and remember you. That is nothing more than trying to be charming.

It is creating a deceptive or pretentious image that I object to.

The unfortunate reality is that it is difficult to create or maintain strong emotions, especially in a large number of people, on purely rational grounds. Symbols then enter in, to facilitate such reactions towards abstractions which may or may not reflect reality. And without a truly deep scrutiny, the kind that consumes your life, how would you know?

Anyway, I like this article from The Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/jan/16/naomi-klein-branding-obama-america