by on

Republican Congressman Allen West has some hints for the modern woman (video here):

“What made the Spartan men strong, it was the Spartan women. Because the Spartan women at the age of nine gave up their male sons… when they were finally ready to join the Spartan army, it was not their father who gave them their cloak and shield, it was their mother… and she said: ‘Spartan, here is your shield. Come back bearing this shield, or being borne upon it.” 

There are many references I could make here. I could reference Douglas Adams’ The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:

“‘In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were REAL men, women were REAL women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.'” 

I also could reference this song from Gilbert and Sullivan’s Princess Ida. (How can I not after West says “male sons” in this context?) This is but a sample; there were many such wise-guy quips I could think of.

But, after all, this does actually provide us with a little window into the Conservative mindset. It’s related to what I talked about in this post, although I think West is more militaristic than even your average Conservative.

What I need to find out now is how accurate his history is. I (shamefully) don’t know enough about this period to judge.

by on

These videos (here’s the original) amaze me. To be able to set those economic theories into rhyme–fairly good rhyme–and still have it be coherent is a feat I would have thought none but W.S. Gilbert could achieve.

Admittedly, the videos are a little biased in Hayek’s favor, but still, they are well done.

by on

Jen Bosier wonders about movie actors vs. voice-actors playing roles in video games. It’s a good article, but I take issue with one thing:

“Voice work is, undeniably, shorter, easier work than shooting a live-action movie (hours in a sound booth as opposed to months on location), and as major talent your only job is to show up and be, well, you. Take for instance, Mass Effect 2 and Martin Sheen. Truly, I can think of few better actors for such a role.”

 I can think of one who backs up Bosier’s larger point quite well. Fred Tatasciore plays the very similar role of Henry Leland in Obsidian’s Alpha Protocol, and in my opinion he does a spectacular job. Nothing against Martin Sheen, but I’ve always felt his performance is dry and dull compared with Tatasciore’s oddly likeable corporate villain.

Still, it’s an interesting read.

by on

What was he thinking of? What were his advisors thinking of? In my opinion, this makes it look like he caved in to the endless demands of conspiracy theorists. It just sends the wrong message. It seems to me to say: “demand something for long enough, and no matter how stupid it is, eventually I’ll do it.”

But, then again, I have friends who disagree and think it was a brilliant move on the President’s part.

by on

As always, don’t do anything I wouldn’t do while I’m away.

Although I have no way of monitoring that… which reminds me, why does Brian Williams on the NBC Nightly News always sign off with “we hope to see you here again tomorrow”? He can’t see us….

Anyway… I’ll be back by Friday at the latest.

by on

I was reading an interesting profile of Paul Krugman in New York Magazine. A particularly good passage:

“Back in 2006, when he was writing The Conscience of a Liberal, Krugman found himself searching for a way to describe his own political Eden, his vision of America before the Fall. He knew the moment that he wanted to describe: the fifties and early sixties, when prosperity was not only broad but broadly shared… [His wife] suggested that he describe his own childhood, in the middle-class suburb of Merrick, Long Island…

Would he prefer Merrick in the sixties to his current life? ‘Knowing that I am in fact me, this is a much better society for me to live in. And not because of the money but because it’s more open, more tolerant,’ Krugman says.” 

 The whole article is quite good, and Krugman is an interesting guy. I’ve been re-reading Conscience of a Liberal concurrent with Rick Perlstein’s Nixonland. Both very good books, and both of which examine the issue of, as the above article puts it, “the Fall”.

I’m sure it’s partly exaggerated “good old days” stuff, but still, it’s amazing how relatively peaceful and prosperous people say that the country was back in the fifties and early sixties.

by on

Kevin Williamson at National Review has an article about Governor Perry of Texas and his call for Texans to pray for rain. He makes four points in the post. My responses to them:

  1. Yes, I do have a better plan. 
  2. Then they don’t need the Governor to tell them.
  3. See #1.
  4. Well, maybe Perry knew the forecast.

by on

I see that Sean Hannity had a special show last night documenting the alleged “history of the liberal media”. This is a key element in the Republican story of recent history. In fact, I think it is something of a deus ex machina in that story.

Television news–excluding Fox News, obviously–is dominated by liberals. I’m willing to admit that, actually. But note that I say “dominated by”, not “biased in favor of”. This may seem somewhat strange, but I think that while most individual journalists lean towards liberalism, particularly social liberalism, they try to keep their biases in check. (I suspect that that’s the first thing they teach you in journalism school.)

It is my belief that, rather than creating a liberal bias in the media, this concentration of liberalism has the effect of making a conservatives a type of entity which the media covers with uncomprehending interest. If “familiarity breeds contempt”, as the old line goes, then unfamiliarity has bred a kind of fascination.

The press in general tends to display their liberalism not, as you might expect, by always deriding or marginalizing conservatives, but by treating them as if they are some exotic type of creature they have never seen before. They react, not with outrage, but with surprise and curiosity when they hear a conservative spout some standard talking point.

For example, last year then-Senate Candidate Rand Paul said that he liked the 1964 Civil Rights Act insofar as it desegregated public places, but was uncomfortable with it desegregating private ones. This is a fairly typical libertarian position, but the press reacted like they’d never heard it. They did not smear Paul as a racist, however, despite what some people might say.

They reacted with a general lack of understanding and a realization that this was controversial. They knew this wasn’t what they all believed about the Civil Rights Act, and so they were just sort of puzzled.

This process repeats itself on issue after issue. Liberal journalists simply do not know that much about Conservatives, and so always cover them with a curiosity and, oftentimes, interest. In fact, while their coverage is not always glowing, I believe it may provide the Conservatives with an advantage in terms of getting their issues covered.

Incidentally, Eric Alterman wrote a very interesting book called What Liberal Media? that examined some of these issues. The book has a lot of flaws, particularly in just how broadly Alterman is willing to define “bias”, and obviously he’s a liberal himself; but it’s still one of the better books I’ve read on the topic.