Sunday assorted links

Comments

Do 2 and 3 go the same place?

You mean the NYT?

If diversity means anything, it means getting all of your information from the NYT.

". . . getting all your information from the NYT." Means you are sorely misinformed. That's how America we got stuck with eight horrid years of Obama.

De Mortuis nil nisi bonum.

So, I regurgitated after scanning three paragraphs of Douhat's poorly composed detritus.

Douhat could not carry Hef's ice bucket.

Hefner wasn't a philosopher. He was a fornicator and a pornographer/exploiter of women (seems they loved him/it). The former is A-OK with moral morons. The latter is one of your mortal sins.

Take him for what he was. Don't judge him. I'll do that.

Excellent article by Ross Douthat and valuable survey by Timur Kuran.

Douthat's bitter denunciation seems a little over the top. I suppose you can plausibly draw a line from Playboy Centerfolds to xtube or whatever, but it is a long and not necessarily straight one. Seems a little unfair to blame the guy for the excesses that followed his decision to publish a few pictures of boobs and butts 60 years ago.

It corrupts people and demeans both women and men, it cheapens human bonds.

So do those etchings on ancient Greek vases. Pornography is part of the human condition. Ben Domenech, bless him, got closer to the essence of Hefner's life than Douthat did. Everything has an upside and a downside, but to only discuss the downside to a more liberal sexual culture and not recognize the fact that it is what a great many people wanted is a little foolish.

Hef was the ultimate individualist, throwing off, fighting, rejecting big government central planners dictating how each individual must think and act.

Ross is the advocate of a return to the past when the central planners had total control and dictated everything from Rome. Where they collected all the porn and decided who could see it: old men ordered to never have sex, or thoughts of sex. As well as all the novel ideas.

Hef is too much like Martin Luther who advocated each person see for himself and decide for himself. Luther fought to get the bible distributed to the people in their own language. Hef opened up the most hidden parts of the Vatican library.

Trump is like the Vatican central planner collecting the rents from around the world, and overseeing the Vatican library and browsing on its pleasures, and making them real as heaven on earth, based on being God's most favored.

Hef countered with the promise of hope to be like that Vatican official, like Trump. An instruction book in how to be Trump. Trump is Hef's greatest success.

Great hot take. You should flesh this out to 500 words and submit it to Buzzfeed.

That is not a bad comment but when Trump can discuss Picasso and jazz, and publish stories by Updike, I'll put him in the same category as Hef. Hell, Trump doesn't even know who William F. Buckley was. Hef interviewed him regularly.

What makes you think that Hefner could discuss Picasso and jazz? You mean he performed in public? You know that he had people working for him that prepared his questions, right?

In the end the best imitation of Hefner was by Bart Simpson. Donald Trump is more his own man but close. There is no evidence that Hefner was that smart, but to sell porn as respectable he had to print the articles. He lived a rather juvenile alternative life where he tried to present himself as a man of sophistication and taste. Except he wasn't. He was just a teenage boy who liked to j@ck off and never grew up. But the image was important to him and he worked it. The porn gave him money to surround himself with smarter people and a platform to interview even smarter people. All to distract from what his real business and real interests where - masturbation fodder for the masses and the ruthless exploitation of stupid blonds for his own pleasure.

"All to distract from what his real business and real interests where – masturbation fodder for the masses and the ruthless exploitation of stupid blonds for his own pleasure."

And Hefner was almost as bad. I do not understand how America, the country of Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Emerson and Gibbs became a country controlled by Trumps and Hefners.

The very first issue of Playboy, which Hefner wrote himself, had a "manifesto" called "What kind of man reads Playboy" and it said, one who "invites in a female for a quiet discussion on Picasso, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." So I don't know that he could discuss them, but I do know that he thought those were topics that might appeal to sophisticated people of the time.

It sounds like he was selling something. The man was a pimp who used to throw qualude parties with bill Cosby.

Shouldn't you be in bed by now, prior?

Jeff R October 1, 2017 at 2:30 pm

Douthat’s bitter denunciation seems a little over the top. I suppose you can plausibly draw a line from Playboy Centerfolds to xtube or whatever, but it is a long and not necessarily straight one. Seems a little unfair to blame the guy for the excesses that followed his decision to publish a few pictures of boobs and butts 60 years ago.

Of course it is a direct and straight line. Without Hefner making porn semi-respectable - and he was a genius and packaging the product as sophistication not w@nk fodder - there would have been no liberalization for people lie Hustler and the rest.

But more to the point, Hefner thought it was a direct and straight line. He often said so. The excesses are what he wanted. Rumor has it he was a little excessive himself. Herner got what he wanted. What he wanted was what we have now.

Two things:

1. A healthy culture ought to be able to set reasonable limits, though, yes? There is plenty of middle ground between a burqa and a bikini. Likewise, it seems like common-sense to me that our public morality could be constituted such that could tolerate a Playboy magazine but consider kink.com a bridge too far.

2. Keep in mind that a lot of the current culture that Douthat decries (and I'm generally sympathetic to his views) was made possible by technological advances. It seems to me that pornography did not become ubiquitous or mainstream or whatever term you want to use until the internet enabled discreet acquisition/distribution. With that in mind, it seems like a stretch to hang our current travails on Hefner, who, whatever else he might have been, was not a computer scientist and remained a simple T&A magazine publisher lo these many years.

Well we can't set any limits. Hefner, the ACLU and the Supreme Court have seen fit to make sure of that. Anything is protected self expression these days. Which requires taking masturbation fodder seriously as a political statement. Which in turn depends on Hefner's image manipulation. He pretended to raise porn out of the sleazy Mob-linked gutter into something sophisticated which is why lawyers could argue in front of the Supreme Court that a picture of a girl going through a meat grinder was anything but a picture of a girl going through a meat grinder.

However I agree it is possible to imagine a society that allowed topless photos but not girls wearing dog collars eating excrement. But in practice it probably means we are all willing to tolerate the porn we like but hold porn we do not like in disdain. Which means that the situation is never stable. There will always be people arguing that the porn they like, whatever it is, is harmless and should be allowed. On what grounds could you allow Playboy and not something harder?

I agree technology has enabled porn to reach into every home and corner. But pornography was mainstream long before that. When Kissinger was willing to grace the pages of Playboy, it was mainstream and acceptable. If anything the technology has enabled the more extreme interests in porn to come out of the closet, so to speak, and enter into everyone's homes which is pushing the slight wave of disgust against the industry.

Well, call me crazy but given your perspective, wouldn't the ACLU and the Supreme Court be far more responsible for the current situation than one guy who ran a magazine?

Grounds for setting distinctions between sitting around naked for a few photos and Max Hardcore: I dunno, how about not being a filthy herpes-ridden prostitute?

Hefner liberated women to be sluts just like men. STDs were the biggest winner.

Yes. I have no opinion of Heffner and not much interest in the subject, but this column shows that Ross Douthat is really a great writer.

Hef hasn't fucked a girl in 15 years.

Of course, and now he's wormfood. During his life Hefner's upper lip smelled every kind of hole he was interested in. Douthat's transparently resentful of his own lot.

Of course, and now he’s wormfood. During his life Hefner’s upper lip smelled like every kind of hole he was interested in. Douthat’s transparently resentful of his own lot.

Possible, I don't know much about Douthat, and I see him as a cuckservative. But does has it occurred to EmanuelNoriega that not every man wants to be Ghengis Khan? Many do, no doubt, but not every movie star, famous musician, or politician takes advantage of the opportunities presented to him to be the next Donald Trump or Bill Clinton.

Emanuel gets it.

Ross is a bitter loser and he constantly attempts to detract from his betters.

Hef was an epic winner. He changed society to his liking, he lived like a king, and he lived as he pleased.

Rest well Hef, you were the man.

Bitter and misguided. Hefner is the sort of misogynist who raises his daughter to run the family business; without him we may never have known the name Shel Silverstein.

I'd trade a hundred Douthats for a Hefner.

"Hefner is the sort of misogynist who raises his daughter to run the family business"

And we all envy her. LOL.

though at least he made a perfunctory attempt to protect her from his lifestyle....

""When Christie would turn up," Steinem reported in New York magazine that Lovelace told her, "the mansion was cleaned up, the kinky stuff put away, and the Parcheesi board taken out. There was an apparent effort to keep Christie from knowing what was going on."

(...)

"While I have always had a good relationship with my father, much of the time it has been a very limited relationship until I was older," she says. "So you can't really give him credit or blame for how I turned out. I think when you're on a visiting relationship rather than a living relationship, it's kind of hard to have impact as a parent.""

A great example of damning with faint praise. Really hard to see ANY redeeming value in this guy's life. But it's just a tribal thing, he pisses off the Red tribe, so the Blue tribe can't help but like him.

Link:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1983/12/04/cristie-hefner-daughter-of-the-revolution/1f8cbd84-c3a3-4e5b-a791-fdecb7953257/?utm_term=.33dbb07aaebf

The Blue Tribe likes him?? What?

He's been irrelevant for decades. I don't think it's a red tribe blue tribe thing.

I think when Hefner came along, the Blue Tribe had to like him because they had the same enemies. Every day was like Footloose.

But when he died, the Blue Team response was interesting because they are clearly divided. Yes, it was a good thing he stabbed Christian America in the heart. But they have moved so far beyond those battles that they did not need to excuse his vile behavior towards women. Christian America is dead. They are now battling the even bigger enemy of market-based sexual exploitation. Or as Roissy is won't to say, the idea that men ought to have any freedom in sexual matters or women any limits.

It has to be a crushingly lonely world out there for the 55 year old shel Silverstein porn addict.

Shel's travelogues are great for those interested in setting a fun tone to their travels to faraway places to fuck.

Cool for those of us who played sports in high school we didn't need travelogues or travel for the matter.

Before you disrespect Shel Silverstein please read this: https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2014/03/11/he-was-my-closest-friend/

5. Don't shoot the messenger. In a world where women are heavily evaluated according to their fashion decisions, for the NYT to fail to report on said decisions only reduces the ability of women to communicate messages that they have already chosen to send.

Are men better off for not having to pay such attention to their clothes and hair? Or worse off, for lacking granularity in the kinds of messages they can send via fashion? As usual, the answer is some combination of "It's complicated" and "wrong question."

When conceptual models of the mind are ready for rigorous scientific use, much nonsense will fade. ;)

4. Agree with the point of the article, Hefner was a man with no redeeming values, whose contribution to the world was a net negative. Yet, that wouldn't have been published in the NYT without the grovelling to feminism: the points about "male entitlement" and how "the social liberalism he championed was the rotten and self-interested sort, a liberalism of male and upper-class privilege." The NYT may run articles decrying society for being too sexually conservative or too sexually liberal: but all must toe the party line on whose fault it is: men's.

5. Got a kick out of that article. To the male feminists out there, there's always room for one more in the New Right. Don't stay where you aren't wanted.

"To the male feminists out there, there’s always room for one more in the New Right."

Why wouldn't? Do Nazis and White Supremacists take that much space?

That sad thing is that there should be an alt.right that is more than refashioned Nazism, but there really is not (sometimes it's "lite" or "ultra-lite," but always containing real Nazi flavor).

That's why I said New Right rather than alt-right. It's disappointing, but shouldn't be unexpected, that with the rise of the alt-right all the media attention would go to the brown clowns with the official representatives of the "lite" branch being hucksters such as Alex Jones. I'm thinking the Sailersphere, MGTOW, and the non-cucked portions of the rationalist community.

I associate New Right with religious right; the alt-right is different. There is an intellectual, non-fascist alt-right, and what you called the Sailersphere is an example; so are "Mencius Moldbug," Taki, Milo, and parts of the rationality community (can we please have a discussion that does not use the word "cuck"?). I am not part of this movement but they are making a real contribution.

" I’m thinking the Sailersphere, MGTOW, and the non-cucked portions of the rationalist community."

Some of that is what I call "ultra-lite." It's often interesting and insightful, but you end up in a place that anyone who isn't white and Christian is on the enemy (or at least the away) team.

Judah Benjamin Hur October 1, 2017 at 4:49 pm

Some of that is what I call “ultra-lite.” It’s often interesting and insightful, but you end up in a place that anyone who isn’t white and Christian is on the enemy (or at least the away) team.

We all get the elected officials we deserve. But we also get the opposition we deserve as well. Why is it a problem that the alt-right is flirting with the Nazis? There are reasons for that. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Nazi will do that - and everyone does that. Even the Republicans. If everyone who isn't White and Christian puts themselves on the Away Team, you can hardly blame the alt-right for noticing.

So Much For Subtlety October 1, 2017 at 6:13 pm

"Why is it a problem that the alt-right is flirting with the Nazis? There are reasons for that. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Nazi will do that – and everyone does that. Even the Republicans. If everyone who isn’t White and Christian puts themselves on the Away Team, you can hardly blame the alt-right for noticing."

No, the alt.Nazis (alt.right or whatever they're calling theselves this second) are focring everyone else on the the enemy/away team. Digging your own grave isn't actually a reasonable option, but thanks for playing.

Judah Benjamin Hur October 1, 2017 at 8:06 pm

No, the alt.Nazis (alt.right or whatever they’re calling theselves this second) are focring everyone else on the the enemy/away team. Digging your own grave isn’t actually a reasonable option, but thanks for playing.

It is not obvious to me that is what is happening. Everyone else is on the Away Team. It is true that the Republicans have been able to recruit quite a few non-White elected officials these days. Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal. They have are willing to flirt with the occasional African American who has genuine Republican values - Alan Keyes for instance. I suspect the alt-Right does like Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas.

However there is simply no denying the massive one-sided nature of race in American politics. There are very few Black voters who will vote Republican - although Trump is getting a surprising amount of love from prominent Black men recently. There are very few Jewish voters who will either.

Digging their own grave? Perhaps. On the other hand the most solidly pro-Israel community in America are the southern evangelicals. AIPAC is not powerful because of its skills or the American Jewish community. It is powerful because it can rely on the Southern Baptists. How do Jewish Americans view Southern Baptists? Well pretty much as you can see in Deliverance. Since the Sixties I doubt there has been a single Jewish writer or film maker who has not viciously attacked southern Whites. So how is that working out for the Southern Baptists? They have followed your strategy to a tee. It has got them nothing but more contempt. These days there is no acceptable expression of Southern White identity. How much more abasing do you think they should do?

I agree with So Much For Subtlety on this. The open antisemites should be marginalized, and they usually make it easy, but we're done with the tone policing.

. Since the Sixties I doubt there has been a single Jewish writer or film maker who has not viciously attacked southern Whites

That's insane.

So Much For Subtlety

"However there is simply no denying the massive one-sided nature of race in American politics. There are very few Black voters who will vote Republican – although Trump is getting a surprising amount of love from prominent Black men recently. There are very few Jewish voters who will either."

Interestingly, Jews vote Republican at a higher rate than Hindus, Buddhists, or Moslems.

"Digging their own grave? Perhaps. On the other hand the most solidly pro-Israel community in America are the southern evangelicals. AIPAC is not powerful because of its skills or the American Jewish community. It is powerful because it can rely on the Southern Baptists. How do Jewish Americans view Southern Baptists? Well pretty much as you can see in Deliverance. Since the Sixties I doubt there has been a single Jewish writer or film maker who has not viciously attacked southern Whites. So how is that working out for the Southern Baptists? They have followed your strategy to a tee. It has got them nothing but more contempt. These days there is no acceptable expression of Southern White identity. How much more abasing do you think they should do?"

I doubt even a significant percentage of Jewish writers have attacked Southern Whites. I have no doubt you can come up with a long list, but the list of Jewish tv and film writers is endless. That said, I am frustrated and disgusted at how a majority of liberal Jews treat evangelicals and other conservative Christians. I'm not sure urban liberal non-Jewish Whites are any different, but Jews should appreciate the tremendous gesture of friendship. I live in the Deep South and can promise that the small number of Jews here are, on average, more appreciative.

Christian religious conservatives is part of the traditional (post 60s) conservative coalition that welcomes minorites. That's not alt.anything.

The problem I'm discussing is that groups that want a more science-based discussion of matters like immigration, employment, college admissions, policing, and so forth come up with many interesting ideas, but ultimately are motivated by hostility towards everyone non-White Christian.

Judah Benjamin Hur October 1, 2017 at 10:50 pm

Interestingly, Jews vote Republican at a higher rate than Hindus, Buddhists, or Moslems.

Yeah. Great. The insane thing about this is that Jews have been happy to align themselves with open anti-Semites. Democrats write articles about what is wrong with Kansas but no one asks why the richest communities in America vote Left. Especially when that party was full of members of the KKK in the good old days when FDR was in the White House, or people with a fondness for Louis Farrakan today. Race and historic racial grievances trump economic interests every time.

I doubt even a significant percentage of Jewish writers have attacked Southern Whites. I have no doubt you can come up with a long list, but the list of Jewish tv and film writers is endless.

Well of those that do write about Southern Whites I would expect that the number that do so with anything less than vitriol - vitriol that would be called Racial Hatred if it was directed at any other community - would be roughly zero. Not entirely zero because Jews are a notoriously fractious community. There are even Jewish neo-Nazis. But close to it.

That said, I am frustrated and disgusted at how a majority of liberal Jews treat evangelicals and other conservative Christians.

What do you think drives it?

The problem I’m discussing is that groups that want a more science-based discussion of matters like immigration, employment, college admissions, policing, and so forth come up with many interesting ideas, but ultimately are motivated by hostility towards everyone non-White Christian.

Because a science-based approach notices that Jews have not trended to the mean. Assimilation has been a myth. Despite an utter lack of anything like anti-Semitic persecution, on the whole Jews continue to hold grudges. So when it comes to immigration why would anyone argue that allowing yesterday's or today's enemies into America will suddenly make them tomorrow's friends? White Christian values are pretty much confined to White Christians. Which is why the fewer White Christians any one place has, the worse it is as a place to live.

Strange what gets deleted here, that entire conversation survived except for my comment about the rationalist community being full of literal cuckolds, that was beyond the pale.

+1. One of the reasons young men are abandoning social conservatism in droves is because while they don't necessarily approve of the degeneracy, they see social conservatism as being "let's blame men for feminism." They love to criticize pornography because it's a primarily male vice(at least the visual kind), while ignoring the whorish behavior of men and women which actually occurs in real life rather than as a fantasy. To criticize the latter would mean putting part of the blame on women, which they won't do. Pornography is a contributing factor to degeneracy, but is not the main cause. Seeing the social conservatives silent on the main cause of degeneracy while harping on tangential issues in order to blame men makes the libertarian "consenting adults blah blah blah" look pretty good in comparison.

Now, I sure some of the social conservatives don't really believe this and think they are secretly signalling opposition to feminism. Perhaps Douthat is among them. Well, tell you what: your crypsis is lost on the younger generations. When they see crypsis, they don't see cleverness but cowardice, and they are right. A cowardly ideology which must hide its true goals is an ideology which won't perpetuate itself and doesn't deserve to.

they see social conservatism as being “let’s blame men for feminism.”

That's a phenomenon within evangelicalism (and one of fairly recent vintage). Dalrock harps on it a great deal. It's not a feature of social conservatism generally.

As a term social conservatism is pretty much synonymous with evangelicalism, which is why many on the New Right have the same kind of views but don't usually call themselves social conservatives.

There's a large Catholic contingent among the SoCons. Catholics after all were the first abortion foes.

Trump is the product of "reading" Playboy and trying to live like Hef.

Hef created the dream of lavish living in the open with beautiful women. Trump made it his reality. Every day Trump recreates a few pages out of Playboy. Trump in a tux with a woman in a gown on his arm and fawning beautiful rich people around.

Huma Abedin can properly be blamed for the election of Donald Trump. Her horrible computer security practices led to the FBI reopening the investigation of the e-mail scandal. You can't blame FBI director Comey for that -- he was only doing what he was compelled to do by the files found on Weiner's computer. Abedin caused that and cost Hillary the election.

Right Mark, voters made a totally rational decision in response to Abedin/Comey. They bear no critical responsibility.

Responsible for not electing Hillary? I cop to that any day.

Naw, it was Bill Clinton that sealed the deal - 'Former F.B.I. director James Comey confirmed during his testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday that it was Bill Clinton’s private meeting with former attorney general Loretta Lynch on the tarmac of a Phoenix airport last summer that ultimately led him to speak publicly about the bureau’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s e-mail server.

Many believe the letter Comey wrote about Clinton’s e-mail servers cost her the election. Lynch said at the time that the two spent the 45-minute, unplanned meeting talking about golf, the recent Brexit vote, and their grandchildren, while some observers were upset about the optics of such a meeting at the time. The meeting convinced him to go public in an “ultimately conclusive way,” Comey said during Thursday’s highly anticipated testimony.

Comey said on Thursday that he grew increasingly concerned when Lynch directed him to refer to the Clinton probe as a “matter,” not an “investigation”—a linguistic parallel to how the Clinton campaign was describing what was, indeed, a criminal investigation. Comey said Lynch’s insistence made him “queasy,” because it seemed the Justice Department was trying to align its public comments with those of the Clinton campaign.' https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/comey-testimony-clinton-tarmac-meeting

Weiner's connection to his wife just gave Comey a second opportunity to bring up that issue in public.

But it was the timing, right before the election. Without those files on Weiner's computer, the e-mail scandal would have cooled down and had lesser influence on the election.

The timing was interesting, particularly as it turns out the suspicion that maybe, possibly, conceivably, something related to Clinton's e-mail scandal just might be found on Wiener's computer was actually ungrounded.

The groundwork had already been laid by Bill, months previously.

You're missing some facts, there.

Clinton's emails did in fact pass through and reside on Wiener's computer. That's certainly related to the scandal.

The FBI was unable to find her _classified_ emails on his computer, but they were going through the thousands of related documents from his computer as fast as they could to figure that out at the time of the letter. Eventually, the FBI turned over 7,000 documents to the State Department from his computer.

Lynch should have resigned after the meeting.

Huma Abedin can properly be blamed for the election of Donald Trump.

The smart money says Mr. Dick Pix computer cadged about six votes for DJT.

2. Could use a reminder that LATE ≠ ATE.

4. I am not a Hefner fan, but it is probably a mistake to see no light between Hefner and say Larry Flint.

We've had tame objectification (Miss America, NFL cheerleaders, original Charley's Angels) for a long time, and the slide to total internet depravity is a story worth telling .. but a honest version probably wouldn't put it all on Hef.

Perhaps it should center on the court decisions that made depravity into free speech.

The wallpaper in my bedroom is of that image.

#4 With all the praise of Hefner, it's good that some people are arguing that he was culturally a net negative. That said, I'm grateful that I could get my hands on some Playboy magazines when I was 12 and 13 years old.

#4 - Whether or not it is the entire story of Hefner's life, I found this article to be remarkably pure and pointed with no hint of jadedness, hipness, or ethical compromise. Bravo.

Are you sure? According to comments above, talking about objetification is surrendering to feminazis.

To be frank, I don't see what the big deal is. Americans place money above everything else. If one makes lots of money, it does not matter if it is destroying the nature, corrupting foreign governments, exploring poor people, selling weapons or selling unhealthy food. It is hard to believe the Right is honest (and it frightening if it really is) when it says Hefner (and a few other Hefners-lite) are the only unethical businessmen in the world.

#4 - Ross is obviously jealous of Hef.

Perhaps he sees too many Playboys in DC thanks to the GOP. The past week scandal revolves around Trump cabinet members living like Trump who lives the lifestyle Hef created as the promised American Dream. Replace Donald or several of his cabinet members with Hef and the photos would hardly change.

I think Ross has been doing all right:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/fashion/weddings/30tucker.html?mcubz=0

http://www.simonandschuster.com/authors/Abigail-Tucker/411578495

Two daughters and a son.

Since he's morally against contraception, I'd say he's in a living nightmare. Three kids eh?

Come to think of it that might explain his inane op eds. And his rants against pornography.

Here's hoping someone hacks and releases his internet browsing history!

Yep everyone who disagrees with you is secretly a hypocrite.

Douthat may indeed be virtuous. Anonymous could have gone for the more general critique. We have 2000 years of off and on Christian good intentions, but also hypocrisy surrounding sex. In that time we have never reached a happy end state (on earth) free from sin.

So what should be legislated? A no-nude US cinema is one counterfactual.

It's not hypocrisy, it's sin

"feels the need to promote himself and his academic credentials in the NYT"

Jealous?

Of all the people I might be jealous of, Ross Douthat is definitely in the top 38 million. Granted he may rise, as I've only just today contemplated his existence.

not very attractive woman,

The pretense is tiresome.

The commentary here on Douthat's piece is a long string of ad homs now reduced to making absurd statements about his wife.

Some of us can recall when terms like 'liberal', 'progressive' and 'Democrat' were not synonyms for 'asshole'. It's been a while.

LOL Art have you read Ross' Harvard memoir??! His wife probably got passed around the Harvard Rowing Team before they gave her to Ross.

Cool I guess that's why you guys hate trump so much too.

insert joke about Catholics thinking they're better off dead.

5a. I've heard rumours about these strange creatures called "male feminists", but I've never met one, nor understood why any man would want to do such a masochistic thing. If this Whedon fellow managed to get laid by pretending to be a feminist, then it makes it a bit more understandable, although not less pathetic.

Incidentally, the NYT helpfully suggests that I might be interested in a related article entitled "How to raise a feminist son". Sounds like a form of child abuse to me, but what do I know.

Nothing wrong with being a first wave feminist. Feminists didn't go insane until the 20th century

Canada's equivalent would be Jian Ghomeshi, a musician and TV presenter with impeccable feminist credentials who was eventually charged with four counts of sexual assault.

#2 - is bogus. I leave it to the intelligent reader to figure out why, from the below. Anything 'in retrospect' can fit any narrative, in fact, that's how soothsayers make a living. The trick is to fit your narrative to something 'out of sample' - RL

From Nakamura et al (not the chess grandmaster Nakamura either) paper, "Identification in Macroeconomics" -
There is a prevalent view in macroeconomics that if your empirical strategy is to calculate the same moment in real-world data as in data from a set of models, you might as well focus on very simple moments such as unconditional means, variances, and covariances of key macro time series (Kydland and Prescott, 1982; Prescott, 1986). A moment is a moment, the argument goes. So, we might as well pick simple moments. Why go through the trouble of constructing much more complicated and controversial “identified” moments? …

What is the most convincing evidence we have for monetary non-neutrality? When we have asked prominent macroeconomists this question, the most common answers have been: Friedman and Schwartz (1963), the Volcker disinflation, and Mussa (1986). 14 Friedman and Schwartz (1963) famously argued that the severity of the Great Depression was due to bad policy by the Federal Reserve. They also point to a doubling of reserve requirements by the Federal Reserve between June 1936 and January 1937 as a major cause for the sharp recession of 1937. Paul Volcker dramatically tightened monetary policy after taking office as chairman of the Federal Reserve in August 1979.

Friedman and Schwartz (1963, p. 688)argue in the summary of their monumental work on U.S. monetary history that three policy actions taken by the Federal Reserve in the interwar period were 1) “of major magnitude” and 2) “cannot be regarded as necessary or inevitable economic consequences of contemporary changes in money income and prices”. They furthermore argue that “like the crucial experiments of the physical scientist, the results are so consistent and sharp as to leave little doubt about their interpretation.

We have indicated with light blue vertical bars in Figure 1 the times of the two policy mistakes Friedman and Schwartz highlight. The first of these is October 1931. At this time, the Fed raised the rediscount rate sharply from 1.5% to 3.5% in response to a speculative attack on the US dollar that followed Britain’s decision to leave the gold standard. The Fed drastically tightened policy at this time even despite the fact that industrial production was in free fall and a wave of bank failures was underway. At first pass, this may seem like a very clean monetary shock. But the difficulty with it is that the subsequent fall in industrial production is not very different from the fall in the previous two years. It is not clear how much of the fall in industrial production between October 1931 and March 1933 is due to this policy shock as opposed to other developments that led to the equally rapid fall in the two years before October 1931.

The Great Inflation of the late 1970’s and early 1980’s is another landmark event in US macroeconomic history. Volcker truly broke with prior behavior of the Fed and embarked on a sustained, deliberate disinflation. The behavior of output during this period is consistent with the view that monetary non- neutrality is large. Output fell dramatically in the spring and summer of 1980 shortly after the Fed raised interest rates sharply. Output then rebounded strongly in late 1980 shortly after the Fed reduced interest rates sharply. Output then fell by a large amount for a sustained period in 1981- 1982 while the Fed maintained high interest rates to bring down inflation. Finally, output started recovering when the Fed eased monetary policy in late 1982. Many economists find the narrative account above and the accompanying evidence about output to be compelling evidence of large monetary non-neutrality. 18 However, there are other possible explanations for these movements in output. There were oil shocks both in September 1979 and in February 1981 (see Table A.1 in the appendix). Credit controls were instituted between March and July of 1980. It may even be that anticipation effects associated with the phased-in tax cuts of the Reagan administration played a role in the 1981-1982 recession (Mertens and Ravn, 2012). While the Volcker episode is consistent with a large amount of monetary non-neutrality, it seems much less consistent with the commonly held view that monetary policy affects output with “long and variable lags.” To the contrary, what makes the Volcker episode compelling is that output fell and then rose and then fell again in relatively contemporaneous sync with the actions of the Fed. If not for this, it would have been much harder to attribute the movements in output to changes in policy

5. ...some are using the word “feminist” inappropriately. The preferred term, they argue, is “feminist allies.” The rationale is that white people who fight against racism wouldn’t call themselves “black,” just as straight people who rally for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights wouldn’t call themselves “transgender.”

Feminism is an ideology, so why should one have to call oneself a woman to be a feminist? Did one have to be a slave to be an Abolitionist? And if gender is a social construction, then who are those twits to deny a person's claim to identify as a woman in the context of one's intersectional identity as a feminist?

It's an ideology, nobody said it was a coherent one.

#4 I just hope Douthat has written several similar columns in the last 15 years while Hefner was alive. After the guy is dead, what's the point?

A release of steam after years of self-loathing and religious moralizing, perhaps.

Did your mom tell you hef was your dad or something? Because she lied to you. She doesn't know who your dad is.

As famous French philosopher Comte, who influenced Brazil's ideas, pointed out, the dead rule the living.

Comte was not all that bright. Everyone knows that. He was a barrel of laughs at the bars in the Sorbonne after the work day but in class, lecturing - clueless, boring, and exasperatingly unaware of how clueless and boring he was. Axa - Douthat does not like Trump and (I say this as a fellow Catholic) wrote a despicably sinful diatribe against Trump, basically hoping for bad things to happen to him. He was willing to risk the mortal sin of Hatred because, well, he disapproved of Trump. And even in his very well written description of why Hugh Hefner was not the man he was born to be (with his gifts, Hugh could have laughed off his first wife's infidelity and started a small business, in which many people would have prospered - but no, he had to be a Pornographer, the poor little sad little pimp - maybe you are an ugly male who never has had access to beautiful woman, or maybe you are the most interesting man in the world - in either case, you have to know how sad it is that Hefner made such poor sad choices - well, back to Douthat, now: even when he was writing maybe the best column of his little Ivy League boho life, he had to throw in a slander that tells us real Catholics that he is not a prayerful person - he slandered poor Melania, calling her husband a playboy. In the present tense. Not an honorable guy - there is a word for Jews who are a shame to Jews, I forget it - there is no equivalent word for Catholics who are a shame to Catholics, but I think Douthat deserves that word for his nastiness to Melania in his otherwise beautiful column. Well, he has talent, little Ross does, but I wonder if he knows how many people think he has no real honor?

And Chesterton, God bless his little heart, said it better: the democracy of that most obscure of classes, the dead. God loves us all no matter when that which is we started our journey on that which is this world (much clearer in the original Latin "nobis omnibus Deus praevidit amicis futuribus qua(o)scumq[ue] annos venientibus in terram." ) You remember, whether you think you do or don't.

Well if Ross writes columns on gluttony, anger, and slander similarly drenched in bile, I will be impressed! That being said, poor Hef really was a dirtbag, albeit one who did do some charitable work (even little Howard Stern may make it to heaven for his impressive love of animals = God bless him and his wonderful wife...) and hats off to Ross for saying it well. But remember:gluttony, anger, and slander are also really big sins! (That being said I ate a whole box - if that is what you call those round tubes - of Pringles today! Sad! But they tasted good.... I didn't get angry at anybody, though)

sorry, to be completely accurate, I ate slightly more than half of the dill onion potato chips in the new Pringles half size grab'n'go containers (i.e., about 10 or 11 "potato chips") - one owes it to Gene Wolfe and to Ross, both good writers, to be completely accurate in these matters. See how easy it is to apologize for words that were not spoken truthfully from the heart? Nothing could be easier.

"my yoke is easy and my burden is light" - think about it. God is good, this is not 2017, hatred is always wrong but bravery is always right, and bravery is easy, Because you care. Peace, brother.

gotta commend this guy's consistency

Your fantasy life is rather gruesome.

Has anyone read Douthat's bio? His most important sexual experience was his teenage meeting during which he was cajoled into skinny dipping with Bill Buckley. Please take the time to read it. It clues you into the bromance between him and Tyler.

+1 People REALLY need to read his book about his time at Harvard to get the real picture of Ross.

The problem with this is that you don't exactly ooze sexual satisfaction. In fact you seem like a devoted undersexed acolyte who can't come to grips with the fact that a playboy hasn't ever gotten anyone laid.

3. Well, I get the sense that Matt Yglesias is a nice guy.

4. Geez... Tell me what you really think.

I don't think Tyler expressing his true views would raise his status.

What? Hetero men like to look at pictures of fertile female bums and boobs? That's just very inappropriate. Somebody really ought to make them stop doing that.

Anyone catch that Bertrand Russell interview on xvideos.com?

What are neoliberals? This is like capitalism - The ideological opponent defined the descriptive word and thus it has mostly no value. Free Markets is a much more fitting descriptive given that capitalists can very well be communists of the One Party.

But hey, modern people in a post-modern world have no time for clear and precise wording it seems.
This is even more evident in general daily news media.

here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

"neoliberal" has a way more stable definition than "conservative" or "liberal"

Hef was fine and a net contributor to US culture and society; though we're still far too puritan.

Douthat. Doofus.
You'd think someone on the "right side of the spectrum" like Douthat wouldn't mind someone profiting from masturbation.
Who really cares?

3. So they are not responsible for getting pregnant? Because young women have absolutely no control of their sex life? Seriously? Why, because sex is a visceral desire? Well, a rapist also has no control over his animal impulses to rape women (and men's animal impulses are much stronger) and therefore rape shouldn't be criminalized.

Comments for this post are closed