September 16, 2003
Hmm. A Boycott?
Warning. I'm about to link to Clayton Cramer's weblog.
Clayton Cramer has an interesting post about somebody he knew once who decided to boycott the carrying of 20 dollar bills. I wonder if I could find a way to manage doing the same. (Andrew Jackson, for those who don't know, is my personal pick for most evil American president in history, though he does have some stiff competition.)
Starting next month I won't be carrying American currency very much for about a year, so I guess that would be a start. And this might well be too much trouble to be worth the effort. But I do think it's a nice symbolic gesture and the sort of eccentric motion of principle I generally admire in other people.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Taken out of context
"Using simple linear regression, we find that about half of the variation in Quality is a function of Easiness and Sexiness."
And here's the context.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Internationalist Jurisprudence, yet again
If, like most of the rest of us, you didn't feel like slogging through the 66-page decision from the 9th circuit today that enjoined the California recall (previous post here), you probably missed a rather entertaining paragraph about how Democracy in Iraq affects the election for governor in California:
In addition to the public interest factors we have discussed, we would be remiss if we did not observe that this is a critical time in our nation’s history when we are attempting to persuade the people of other nations of the value of free and open elections. Thus, we are especially mindful of the need to demonstrate our commitment to elections held fairly, free of chaos, with each citizen assured that his or her vote will be counted, and with each vote entitled to equal weight. A short postponement of the election will accomplish those aims and reinforce our national commitment to democracy.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Republicans
In the wake of this weekend's Republican convention, newspapers are rife with speculation on whether or not Tom McClintock will step down to clear the field for Arnold.
However, despite the fact that McClintock's withdrawal would probably ensure a republican victory, such a move is, I think, highly unlikely. For the conservative core of the Republican party--the Bible-thumping moralists who never met a tax cut they didn't like--Swarzenegger would literally be no better than a democrat. Not only is he unacceptably liberal on the hot-button issues such as abortion, gay rights, and gun control, he hasn't even promised not to raise taxes. For the Republican party to force out McClintock to clear the way for Swarzenegger would alienate their most faithful, committed, and energetic members. At that price, I suspect that the party hierarchy will find the governer's mansion too dear.
Of course, all of this sort of speculation may become irrelevant, as the ninth circuit has approved an injunction to delay the recall election.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
The Case for Irresponsibility
Eric Muller wishes that Instapundit hadn't posted a picture of the WTC "Jumper" leaping to his death (other posts here and here). Mulller was rather upset and shaken by seeing the picture, and now he's swearing off of Instapundit, at least for a while. Interestingly, he's taken an incredibly quantity of flak from his commenters over this, much of which has devolved into pretty un-helpful argument. All right.
I'm posting about this because I, too, posted the Jumper picture. In fact, I had the Jumper picture on my wall for over a year when I was living in the dorms, and now that I think about it I do think it made some people pretty uncomfortable. Now, I don't want to join the firestorm of silly people lambasting Mr. Muller for being disturbed by the image-- his post has nothing to do with his feelings about 9/11, his machismo, or his moral worth, at least, nothing that I can discern. But I also don't agree that Instapundit's original decision was an error in editorial judgment. Muller writes:
What I said was that Glenn Reynolds made an error in editorial judgment when he chose to put a photograph of a WTC jumper atop his enormously popular and widely read blog "Instapundit." I said that some people have worked to avoid exposure to those photos, and that as unsuspecting Instapundit readers who are familiar with its ordinary tone and content, these people could not reasonably expect to have this graphic image greet them when they click their way to his site. I think that's a big mistake in editorial judgment for a widely read, general-interest blog like Instapundit.
Blogging is journalism, of course, and bloggers are expected to exercise judgment. There are blogs I don't read regularly because I find the tone too snarky or the content and commentary too uncontrolled. As it happens, these are the reasons I don't read Instapundit. But even though blogging is journalism, the expectations about what one can blithely post are different than in mainstream media. Thus, even the famously magnanimous Eugene Volokh blogs about vibrators, though he puts a warning label on the post (which presumably makes Mr. Muller happy). I actually disliked the warning label, but maybe that's another matter too.
The point I want to make is that a lot of the fun of reading blogs (for those for whom reading blogs is fun) is in picking which blogs to read and which not to. Another part of what makes blogs fun is their relative human-ness, their edginess, their unedited-ness. Sure this leads to the occasional incoherent post, and sure it means that sometimes the things that a blogger wants to say aren't the things that his readers want to read right then. But since most bloggers derive only satisfaction and not renumeration from doing what they do (the paltry paypal pleading notwithstanding), bloggers ought to be more willing to toe the line, and even to tread across it from time to time.
Which is to say that edgy, slightly disturbing pictures are what the alternative medium is for and if it shook Eric Muller up a bit, that doesn't mean he's a bad person. It means that Glenn Reynolds is a good blogger. Art (and the photo, whatever else it is, is clearly art) can do that, and part of its power is in being unexpected. I understand if Mr. Muller feels he was emotionally manipulated and doesn't want to go back to Instapundit. But I'm sorry that Instapundit took the photo down, because I think posting it was ballsy. (Though there's nothing "un-ballsy" about disliking the same picture.)
In other words, if blogging is going to be as responsible, as bowdlerized, as fit-for-the-consumption-of-every-man-and-child as print news media, what's the point (though don't forget that the Jumper photo originally ran in the New York Times, albeit not on the front page)? If Muller wants to stay away from Instapundit, okay. [Easy for you to say!--ed.] If he wants to stay away from this blog (which I gather he does), okay. But a blogger shouldn't try to appeal to all of the blogosphere all of the time. [Nor should anybody take it up with Mr. Muller or argue he's a coward. There's no accounting for taste, which is what's at issue here.]
It's true that some or most of Instapundit's readership might have been caught by surprise. But I'm not sure that's a bad thing, all things considered. Part of the role of a poet, a bard, and (yes) a blogger, is to surprise as well as to inform. Sometimes these surprises are pleasant. Sometimes they are un-. I think that's a good way for things to be. [Incidentally, if you posted a picture of the Jumper on a blog of your own, please drop me a line and let me know.]
Eric Muller finds a picture of a man jumping from a building so disturbing it shouldn't be in the general content of a blog. Fair enough. I find the same picture so poetic, so moving, that I'm filled with admiration for others who post it. Also fair enough, one should hope. So here's to a little bit of "irresponsible" blogging.
TrackBack URL for this entry: