Tuesday assorted links

by on December 1, 2015 at 12:08 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

1 Adrian Turcu December 1, 2015 at 12:31 pm

#2: a hundred??

2 Anonymous December 1, 2015 at 12:56 pm

I don’t really “get” people who are so into music.

3 joe December 1, 2015 at 1:29 pm

With another 100 honorable mentions – which makes you wonder how many he listened to that didn’t make the list. I imagine most people have experience the way that repeated listenings to any recording can radically change how the music is perceived and appreciated. How many times could he have actually listened to these to form a reasonable judgement.

4 Jeff R. December 1, 2015 at 1:40 pm

+1

5 rr December 1, 2015 at 2:05 pm

I listened to all albums on that list. Only found three with songs I liked (Adele, Omar suleyman, and becca Stevens) . Thought the list was pretty bad but had fun deciding they were bad. Modern music just isn’t up to par compared to African or Latin classics from the last century. Incidentally, Islamic radicals hate good music- another reason to “ultimately destroy” them. Their repertoire does have a few good songs that deserve to be included on this list.

6 Mark Thorson December 1, 2015 at 10:40 pm

“Allahu Akbar” is number 1 on the UK charts.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4731975,00.html

7 meets December 1, 2015 at 11:05 pm

I listen to this list every year (often skipping an artist after a few songs) and I always find some gems that really appeal to my personal taste that I would have never found otherwise.

Definitely worth a listen before you bash.

8 Josh B December 1, 2015 at 7:36 pm

Yea you do, they either hear something you don’t, or pretend to. This is not at all a mysterious phenomena.

9 Anonymous December 2, 2015 at 8:53 pm

Music to me is like flowers on the dinner table. Sure some of it is nice I guess, but some huge thing I want to spend a giant portion of my waking hours thinking about.

10 dere December 1, 2015 at 4:38 pm

I just don’t understand how the pop albums that make it onto the list of someone who lists so few pop albums included Kendrick Lamar and The Decemberists. Kendrick is a good rapper, but he has not yet made a noteworthy collection of songs. (If you liked what he was attempting To Pimp a Butterfly, just go listen to D’Angelo’s Black Messiah.) The Decemberists are middling, although I’ll acknowledge they’re great in the niche of extremely nasal vocals.

11 Jack C December 1, 2015 at 8:37 pm

Because the list is an exercise in self-indulgence, listing Kendrick Lamar shows the broad/interesting cultural lens of the author.

12 Dzhaughn December 1, 2015 at 12:34 pm

I nominate Shapiro’s piece (1b above) for compulsory inclusion in high school curriculum. Strike that, make it college, high schoolers are too dangerous to be thus informed.

13 Todd December 1, 2015 at 12:50 pm

#2: The Hamilton musical sountrack album is great. Would get my vote for nexus of best/most fun album of year.

14 rayward December 1, 2015 at 1:03 pm

7. I suppose it’s endearing for a writer to criticize his own work (and to list his rejections by publishers), but when it’s the writer’s “life’s work” (Sumner began work on the book in 1986, before most of Cowen’s students were born)? Maybe Sumner is modest, maybe he wants to lower expectations, maybe he doesn’t want anybody to read his book, maybe he’s put so much of his life in the book that he had no choice but to publish it and, once and for all, be done with the “Curse”. Whatever his motivations and however the book is received, Sumner has earned his well-deserved reputation as an economics blogger. Now it’s time for his book on the Great Recession, monetary policy, and NGDP targeting. That will be his “life’s work”. And the Paradox.

15 leppa December 1, 2015 at 1:48 pm

Seeing the way Scott responds to commenters on his blog , a real gentleman.

16 JMCSF December 2, 2015 at 7:16 am

Some of the commenters are real dicks though.

17 Cliff December 1, 2015 at 8:25 pm

It was finished in 2005 though

18 JK Brown December 1, 2015 at 1:46 pm

4. “These results are consistent with a for-profit sector that maximizes profits and a public sector that sets capacity to balance its budget.”

Well, since the paper is exploiting a regulatory change that led to higher pay and employment for dental assistants, it would seem more the for-profit sector reacts to market forces, i.e., increase demand for dental assistant training, while the public sector simply trudges on with centrally planned quantities thus exacerbating to market shortages. It should be noted, that those public sector schools that charged a premium for DA training did increase their enrollment capacity in response to the demand.

In other words, the for-profit adjusts to meet the demand of consumers while the public sector follows the dictates of bureaucrats to the harm of consumers. Or as the sentence above puts it, the for-profits maximize profits while the public sector maximizes bureaucrat job performance metrics.

19 Jack PQ December 1, 2015 at 6:48 pm

4.) I am surprised to see typos and other errors in a Columbia University job market paper (the references). This is supposed to be a flawless piece of work. What kind of signal does it give readers and interviewers?

20 Gochujang December 1, 2015 at 1:57 pm

3. Douthat’s piece is pretty good, but he fudges a bit in calling attacks on Planned Parenthood isolated. They are an example of open source terrorism. I forget who coined that term, some pundit of the early 2000s. The idea is that with social media you create a value network, repeat a pattern of action. Indeed we see it with loosely connected offshoots of Al Qaeda or ISIS. A group of guys read on-line how it’s done, what the goals are, organize themselves locally and do it. In the case of Al Qaeda or ISIS there are survivors who retroactively endorse the action … but then Robert Lewis Dear had fans on Twitter as well.

21 T. Shaw December 1, 2015 at 2:25 pm

No, that was work place violence.

“Social media . . . value network, . . . ” That didn’t exist in 637 AD.

“In moments like this, it is always wise to remember Klavan’s First Rule of Mainstream Media Reporting: Whenever the prejudices and illusions of left-wingers are confirmed by an individual incident, the incident is treated as representative; when those prejudices and illusions are contradicted (as in jihadi massacres), the incident is considered an aberration — and treating it as representative is deemed hateful.”

“Ignorance is strength.” Orwell, 1984

22 Gochujang December 1, 2015 at 2:33 pm

Try to hold it together. If you put all the crazy in one post it will be too obvious.

23 T. Shaw December 1, 2015 at 3:29 pm

When you condemn Islam for Muslim terrorists, you may condemn me for mass shootings.

24 Thomas Taylor December 1, 2015 at 3:56 pm

When you condemn Christianism for pogroms and ghettos, you may condemn Islam for Muslims terrorists. Evidently neither pogroms nor Muslim terrorists existed for most of the history of either religion,

25 T. Shaw December 1, 2015 at 4:07 pm

TT: Paris was two weeks ago. That other stuff was 500 years ago.

26 Thomas Taylor December 1, 2015 at 8:03 pm

Pogroms only 500 years ago? The ghettos, too? Are you serious? Come on, you can do better!
So “500 years ago”, Christianism was not Christianism, and before terorist attacks begun, Islam was not Islam. Christianism only started to be Christianism when Christians were forced to stop killing Jews, (even today, they complain about the secular evil society who prevents them from apply “God’s Law”–it would be their answer to sharia, if it were not preexistent–to non-believers), and Islam only started to be Islam when terrorist attacks begun (a few decades ago). So much for the inherent qualities of both religions!

27 j r December 2, 2015 at 12:24 am

Doing neither is a pretty good choice.

If you listen to the internet, one’s only alternatives in life are picking between stupid progressive argument and stupid reactionary argument.

28 So Much For Subtlety December 2, 2015 at 3:28 am

Thomas Taylor December 1, 2015 at 8:03 pm

(even today, they complain about the secular evil society who prevents them from apply “God’s Law”–it would be their answer to sharia, if it were not preexistent–to non-believers)

Sorry but name three Christians who have called for the application of God’s law to non-believers. Or to anyone actually. In the history of the human race there appears to have been one serious effort to work out what God’s law was and apply it – the Massachusetts puritans. The New Testament just isn’t a law book.

and Islam only started to be Islam when terrorist attacks begun (a few decades ago). So much for the inherent qualities of both religions!

Islam has never stopped with the terrorist attacks. They just couldn’t reach the West until the Soviets taught them how to blow up airliners. Australia’s first terrorist attack was a Turk shooting up a train over 100 years ago now.

29 Brad December 2, 2015 at 8:55 pm

Taiping Heavenly Court. Lords Resistance Army.

30 Anon December 1, 2015 at 4:01 pm

You have got to be kidding. Last week everyone I knew was talking about how ridiculous it was to link refugees or a Muslims to terrorism, about how terrorism was really very marginal etc. the very same people believe that we have a huge right wing terrorism problem and that Republicans are personally responsible. Either we accept in all cases that there are links between political discourse and terrorism and that groups of loosely similar people can be held responsible for the the acts of terrorists or we take the opposite position and say the average Muslim, Evangelical is not responsible. The problem is both the right and the left switch position depending on the particular incident.

31 Bernard Yomtov December 1, 2015 at 6:34 pm

But the question is what you consider “similar” people. For example, I don’t consider most Muslims to be similar to the jihadis any more than I consider most abortion opponents similar to Dear and the other murderers in that group.

Who I do hold responsible is the politicians who incite these things – yes, they do – with false and incendiary propaganda. Can anyone seriously claim that all the anti-Planned Parenthood rhetoric on the right has no effect on nuts like Dear?

32 JWatts December 1, 2015 at 6:46 pm

“Who I do hold responsible is the politicians who incite these things – yes, they do – with false and incendiary propaganda. ”

What incendiary propaganda? Who specifically was calling for these Abortionist murders?

33 So Much For Subtlety December 1, 2015 at 7:14 pm

Bernard Yomtov December 1, 2015 at 6:34 pm

For example, I don’t consider most Muslims to be similar to the jihadis any more than I consider most abortion opponents similar to Dear and the other murderers in that group.

Sure but what you think doesn’t really matter, does it? What matters is what most Muslims think. There is no significant opposition to the Islamists in the Sunni world. Not just physical resistance but an intellectual counter-argument.

Who I do hold responsible is the politicians who incite these things – yes, they do – with false and incendiary propaganda.

Sorry but who has incited anything? What is more, where is the falsehood? Yes, Planned Parenthood was selling baby parts. This is illegal but the Establishment is determined they should continue and so the media refuses to cover it. As they declined to cover the Gosnell case as far as they humanly could as well. The question really is is why more people aren’t outraged.

34 Bernard Yomtov December 2, 2015 at 10:22 pm

Actually, no. What they were doing was not illegal.

And the Gosnell case was amply covered in the media.

You need better sources.

35 Thomas December 1, 2015 at 9:57 pm

Gochujang, T. Shaw called you out, he was exactly correct, and you are too upset and dishonest to recognize it. Don’t worry, we all know that no matter what you do, you’ll think that you’re on the right side of history.

36 Gochujang December 1, 2015 at 10:09 pm

Slow down and think about it Thomas .. why did Shaw step up and identify himself, and Christians, with terrorism?

I never did, I just noted that there were networks of these violent people who attack clinics, and there are people who approve them.

Seriously, hold it together.

37 msgkings December 1, 2015 at 3:44 pm

@ T. Shaw: Klavan’s Second Rule is curiously identical to the First, except the word “left-” is changed to “right-“, and the examples are changed to fit that rule. So a representative incident is a jihadi massacre, and a school shooting is an aberration.

I guess what I’m saying is, like most of your unimaginatively partisan posts, this one works just as well when applied to the other side. Both kinds of ‘wingers’ do this exact same thing.

38 T. Shaw December 1, 2015 at 4:27 pm

Just asking: Do you believe that broadcasting video evidence of dead baby parts sales is “hate speech” that must be punished?

Have there been 10,000 school shootings since 2001? There have been that many jihadi terrorist acts, worldwide. Jihadi acts are presented in the Q’ran. Islam has been at (desultory) war with the both the East and West since 637 AD. Deranged shooters are not contemplated in the Second Amendment.

You’re right, though. I don’t subscribe to war against all Muslims. However, each time a maniac with a gun kills people, the left waves the bloody shirt and pushes more gun control/confiscation, or censorship against pro-lifers (this time), or whatever.

39 msgkings December 1, 2015 at 4:39 pm

Yes the left does that, just as the right tars all Muslims with the actions of the jihadi maniacs. What you are calling out the left for, the right does just as much. Each time a some poor kid gets knocked up and heads to the clinic the right waves the bloody video and pushes more restrictions on abortions. This isn’t even really in question. We’re all slaves to our priors.

Here’s one that interestingly cuts across the divide: currently people on terrorist watch lists in the US have no restrictions on gun purchases. Do you think that makes sense?

40 So Much For Subtlety December 1, 2015 at 5:32 pm

msgkings December 1, 2015 at 4:39 pm

Yes the left does that, just as the right tars all Muslims with the actions of the jihadi maniacs. What you are calling out the left for, the right does just as much.

I am sure it makes you feel better. But it is not true. The Right has gone out of their way not to blame all Muslims for the work of the rather popular radicals. Look at George W. Whereas the Left is calling this Colorado shooting Christian before the bodies are cold.

Each time a some poor kid gets knocked up and heads to the clinic the right waves the bloody video and pushes more restrictions on abortions. This isn’t even really in question. We’re all slaves to our priors.

People who want to save lives, try to save lives. Unlike the Left which did all it could to bury the Gosnell story so that people would not know what abortion actually means.

Here’s one that interestingly cuts across the divide: currently people on terrorist watch lists in the US have no restrictions on gun purchases. Do you think that makes sense?

Do you think there are any other fundamental rights the government should be allowed to take away without judicial process or review, simply by administrative fiat? How about the First Amendment? The government should be allowed to deny anyone the right to speak out just by adding their names to list? Does that make sense?

41 msgkings December 1, 2015 at 5:56 pm

I don’t think owning a gun is a fundamental right. Only life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are. And even those can be constrained. For example, you may forfeit your right to live if you are sentenced with death. You do not have the liberty to infringe on others’ rights. And if pursuing happiness means harming others, you don’t have that right either.

Gun ownership should be legal, with significant restrictions. One of those that seems obvious to me is if you are on a terrorist watch list, you either should not be allowed to purchase a gun, or perhaps have far greater safeguards to pass.

As far as your first two predictably hyperpartisan points: case not proven. Both sides do it, even if you say ‘nuh uh only the left does’

42 JWatts December 1, 2015 at 6:48 pm

“I don’t think owning a gun is a fundamental right.”

The Constitution disagrees with you.

43 So Much For Subtlety December 1, 2015 at 7:04 pm

msgkings December 1, 2015 at 5:56 pm

So the Constitution has these amendments. None of which you think is a fundamental right – is that right? I am not misrepresenting you in anyway? And you think it is fine for some faceless anonymous bureaucrat to sign a piece of paper denying *anyone* any single one of these rights without judicial process, over sight or review?

That is actually, genuinely, your position?

George W’s record is a matter of public record. Not partisan politics. Not a single politician on the Left has been as careful to reach out to Christians and other ordinary Americans as W was to the Muslim community. Not that it did him a drop of good. This too is a matter of historical record.

As is the fact that the Left united to blame a lame graphic on Sarah Palin’s website for the Gabby Gifford’s shooting. That you cannot see this suggest the hyperpartisan problem is not mine.

44 Thomas December 1, 2015 at 10:02 pm

The left thinks that abortion is a more fundamental right than life itself. The left would never take away the right to abortion of a woman who intentionally became pregnant to kill the fetus. Guaranteed. That’s because of identity politics. The left doesn’t derive logic from the first principles of ‘rights’.

45 Jerry December 1, 2015 at 10:28 pm

The constitution doesn’t say anything about what is and isn’t a fundamental right.

46 msgkings December 2, 2015 at 12:10 am

@ Jerry: exactly

@ JWatts: is voting at age 18 a fundamental right? How about direct election of senators? Drinking alcohol?

Fundamental is pretty basic. Guns are not fundamental rights. By the way as I said I believe guns should be legal to own.

And you guys are deflecting as usual. My point was just that both sides do what T Shaw says only the left does. He’s wrong, it’s not even a question. I only brought up guns because the whole ‘possible terrorists can buy guns just like your mom can’ was interesting to me, as it pits two conservative principles against each other.

47 Bernard Yomtov December 2, 2015 at 10:24 pm

What are you talking about?

The vast majority of politicians, left and right, are Christians, or claim to be.

48 Gochujang December 1, 2015 at 10:25 pm

Why do so few think democracy is the answer to abortion, or other hard questions? Insufficient humility all around?

The history of pro-life and pro-choice is twisted, but currently pro-choice leads.

Democracy and done, right?

49 Gochujang December 1, 2015 at 10:32 pm

It is not unfair to note that rejection of democracy is central to Dear’s vision. In his pride he put his human interpretation of God’s word before that of every other citizen.

If they didn’t accept his faith, he’d kill them.

Sound familiar?

50 Dan Weber December 2, 2015 at 2:38 pm

If the answer to the abortion question is “democracy,” you want to nullify Roe v Wade and let the democratically-elected legislatures sort it out.

NB: I am not necessarily advocating that position. But it is the end position of wanting “democracy” to decide things.

Most people only say “democracy!” when the polls are in their favor, though.

51 dere December 1, 2015 at 4:49 pm

Haven’t a number of abortion clinic attacks been claimed by an American group calling itself the Army of God? Please forgive the bombastic Slate headline on my source, but this suggests to me that abortion-clinic attacks are more organized than Douthat thinks.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/11/robert_lewis_dear_is_one_of_many_religious_extremists_bred_in_north_carolina.html

52 Gochujang December 1, 2015 at 9:52 pm

CNN agrees:

“But violence ticked up dramatically in the 1990s. Anti-abortion extremists — particularly those aligned with the extremist group Army of God — began to make their position clear that killing abortion providers was the only way to stop the procedure from being performed.”

53 Millian December 1, 2015 at 2:01 pm

5. What will I learn from an interview from the AEI with one of these Dark Technotheoatheocons that I can’t already guess?

54 So Much For Subtlety December 1, 2015 at 7:07 pm

Well sure. Socrates was deemed the wisest man in Athens because he knew what he did not know. If you are convinced that you have nothing to learn, if your mind is so closed, I think we can agree it would be a waste of time to try.

55 Cliff December 1, 2015 at 8:28 pm

WTF is a Dark Technotheoatheocon??

56 EH December 2, 2015 at 12:06 am

Neocons.

57 Thomas December 1, 2015 at 10:03 pm

Millian, if the consumers of this blog have learned anything, it is that you are incapable of learning anything you don’t already agree with.

58 msgkings December 2, 2015 at 12:13 am

Honestly, Thomas, is anyone here much different?

59 Urso December 1, 2015 at 2:46 pm

4b seems fascinating, and would merit deeper discussion on an economics blog. But I unfortunately lack the skillset necessary to tell whether the authors are full of shit.

60 Anon December 1, 2015 at 3:16 pm

1b. ” it often works at least at the margins”.
Marginal evolution!

61 pyroseed13 December 1, 2015 at 5:09 pm

#2 I am not sure why Tyler continues to link to Ted Giora lists every year. Jazz is possibly the most irrelevant genre of music, and I say that as a fan. Very few jazz albums worth listening to have been made post-1970s. Even that Kamisai Washington album everyone has been raving about did nothing for me.

62 carlolspln December 2, 2015 at 6:19 am

“Get off of my lawn!” 😉

ps there’s lots of good music, every year, you just don’t need to call it j _ _ _

63 ed December 1, 2015 at 5:14 pm

Keep telling yourself you are a noble warrior for ethics in blog moderating as opposed to a mentally ill person with an unhealthy obsession and a distinct lack of shame.

64 Thomas December 1, 2015 at 10:05 pm

“a mentally ill person with an unhealthy obsession and a distinct lack of shame.”

-ed, who follows around one person on the Marginal Revolution blog.

65 Bryan Willman December 1, 2015 at 6:39 pm

It would appear that Sweden has conducted some “natural experiments” in both the social welfare state and with immigration – perhaps we should pay more attention to them?

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: