Sunday assorted links


3. Are nickels still called "jitneys" anywhere? How about the bus for which the five-cent fare was named (or vice versa?)?

Joyce is so over rated.

Joyce likely remains vastly underappreciated: I think he continues to do his job whenever he inspires reflection on experience (surely Joyce tells us that it is not merely the experience of Dubliners [or natives of Cork] that exhaust all human possibilities, representative humans though Dubliners [as residents of Cork] surely remain).

If anything, Joyce and his work (especially his novels) still await proper assessment: maybe by the centenary of his death . . . .

5. True.

False. Another cudgel to beat men with. What is this “men”? Some men, maybe many, enjoy the camaraderie, the hardship, even the adrenaline of serving and thus think they love war. But many don’t.

In fact, some do and some don’t.

Also true.

Or perhaps some or many do like shooting at the enemy. But some/many isn’t all, or even most.

‘It makes no difference what men think of war, said the judge. War endures. As well ask men what they think of stone. War was always here. Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner. That is the way it was and will be. That way and not some other way.’

Men make war, they do not make stones. Wars do not come out of the blue, they, as crime, are someone'responsibility.

Prophet Bandarra predicted that someday war will end forever and , then, in the worlds of Isaiah, "The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them". Famous French philosopher Auguste Comte, who inspired Brazil's flag, predicted that one day war will cease, armies will become civilian conservation corps and, in the words of Isaiah, "they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more".

I read this article a few days ago and was quite affected by it. I spoke about it with my father, a former soldier. Although I did not raise it in our conversation, I feel something of a guilt about not pursuing a career in the army. It's what my great-grandfather, grandfather and father did. I had a military scholarship at school, but decided against a military career back in 2000 because I did not trust Tony Blair. I think that was the right decision, borne out by events, but I still feel that I shirked some sort of responsibility. Samuel Johnson said, "every man feels meanly of himself for not being a soldier". My father said, "wars are old men's power games, that blight young men's lives". My final point is that whilst some men love violence, many also seem to pay a heavy price for this love, as do their families and communities where trauma can ripple down generations.

Holy smokes, what a fantastic post. Thank you.

The moral equivalent thereof...

2. Indeed, power to the imagination. I'll let the French be French. As for us, the imagination of the right in America is fascinating, from AG Palmer to Sen Joseph McCarthy to Pres Nixon to VP Cheney to the current occupant of the WH, each setting off alarms that the left is at the gates, ready to defile your daughters and take your money. Fortunately in America we have libertarians, who stand ready to defile your daughters (Hanson) and take your money (Silicon Valley). All the while the left is as powerless as Puerto Rico.

1. All the while the left is as powerless as Puerto Rico. Hanson blames (or gives credit to) the shift from a hunter-gatherer culture/economy to a farm culture/economy. What? Indeed, what happened to the industrial revolution and the political revolution? My observation is that the industrial revolution eventually (with emphasis on eventually) greatly improved many lives, and that the information revolution greatly improved a few. And the insurrection, if it comes, will come from the right. Puerto Rico.

rayward isn't any defter than prior at shoehorning his prewritten paragraphs into the discussion.

i bet you get less poon than an incel

Right. That and vagina caps are how both sides of the aisle keep their bases in the game.

Not only PR. In early 2013, immediately after the Sandy Hook school child massacre, both CT and NY banned and criminalized AR-47's or 15's and flash suppressors and pistol grips and high clip capacities and . . . As powerless as Puerto Rico, but NY is in less horrid fiscal condition than CT, about 7% of the affected, now felons, complied resulting in scores of CT and NY school massacres and 93 million Americans shot each day (Terry McAuliffe).

4. Networks and trade.
From the abstract:
Theoretical work has considered both static and dynamic matching environments in a framework of many-to-many matching. The literature on trade and production networks is at an early stage, and there are a large number of unanswered empirical and theoretical questions.

We have new math to help, which the authors know about. Give me a fair sample of loans and deposits and I will tell you how many people waiting line at department stores. That kind of stuff,,. compact distributions that represent the minimal coherent state variable given the data sample. Once we have that then we have access to a bunch of graph theories that let us compare goods distributions like it was an accounting variable. Perform detailed accounting on the entire egg industry, as if it were a family farm.

#5 No, just the smell of napalm in the morning. It is a joke.
Actually, Brazil's Army's anthem says, "We feverishly yearn for peace/War only pains us/However, if the beloved Fatherland ever be insulted, we will fight fearlessly". Brazil's Proclamation of Republic Anthem says - and I quote - "If it is to be that from brave chests/Our banner will be bloodied/The living blood of the hero Tiradentes/Baptized this bold flag!/Messenger of peace, it is peace for which we yearn/From love comes our force and power/But in war, in the greatest ordeals/You shall see us struggling and victorious!"

As we can see, two of the most famous, beloved and official Brazilian songs (one of them celebrating a revolution, the 1889 Revolution against Brazil's last Emperor and his daughter, and the other one celebrating the country's invencible army) speak highly of Brazil's people's, men and women alike, yearning for peace with honor and its unshakeable resolution to fight in defense of the aforementioned honor and the aforementioned peace. It is not war we love, but honor and peace. In consequence, in almost two centuries of independent history, Brazil has never, ever fought a war of aggression, but, when deemed both proper and necessary, it has trampled out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored and crushed its enemies with its righteous might. Between 1864 and 1870, for example, Brazil killed about 95% of the adult male population of aggressor country Paraguay. Such a draconian, for lack of a better name, policy was supported by men and women alike. Suffices to say that a Brazilian matron (the mother of our then-future first President, Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca), whose sons were all fighting in Paraguay, when told that Brazil, after years of bloody and expensive stalemate, were about to open peace negotiations with the enemy, replied that she would rather have all her seven sons buried in Paraguay than ever see them again alive before the final victory of Brazil and the unconditional surrender of the enemy. One can not help remembering the Spartan women of yore, who used to tell their sons and husbands before battle, "Come back with your shield or on it", i.e. victorious or dead.

3. touches upon associative mania, which James Joyce had for his hometown of cork. I’m sure Brazil is a nice place Thiago, but you’re obsessed with it, orders of magnitude more than you should be. The word “Brazil” should feature no more than once every 20-30 comments from you. Have some more self awareness.

The man has mental problems, leave him alone.

No, I don't have. I am very sane. I am a pillar of my community and looked up to by my neighbors.

Yet, Brazil's Independence Anthem says, "Congratulations, O Brazilians/Already, with virile garb/From the Universe among Nations/Shines brightly that of Brazil/From the Universe among Nations/From the Universe among Nations/Shines brightly that of Brazil."

3. This is the interesting part:

"The encounter became even more "curious" when he and another visitor were leaving and Joyce, his wife Nora and son Georgio burst into an animated conversation in Italian.

"It was very, very strange suddenly getting this shock from these extremely Irish people, realising that their natural language was Italian," said O'Connor."

Presumably it's due to the son being born in Trieste?

Joyce was an unusual person in many ways, and also brilliant, people misunderstand those who are more intelligent than them often.

As you said, how shocking that he talked to his Trieste-born son in Italian !

That being said, Joyce was too much of an Ibsen fan-boy to be taken seriously, at least until the last few years of his life. Who respects a musician who plays in "cover bands" until his late 40s, except in the limited respect we respect anyone who works for an honest living?

#2 was great, after a ponderous start. Of course Camus was right and Sartre wrong. Camus was a centrist and no fool, unlike Sartre (who, one feels, was always one short step away from positing that the communist revolution would solve life’s existential dilemmas and problems). You know, “after the Revolution, comrades, we will never suffer from [fill in with: cancer, angst, unhappiness, etc] again.”

Btw, who is Rayward and does he actually read the links he discusses or just rant?

Yet, according to Soviet tourist guides, after the 1917 Revolution, heart-broken people ceased to use a famous bridge (in Ukraine, I think) as a stepping stone for suicide.

Good thoughts. I'd even go so far as to say that Camus was a great man, Sartre a despicable one.

Agreed. This is borne out in how they treated people. Even with allowances are made for the era they lived in, Sartre treated people badly, esp women and esp Simone de B.

There is no reason to think that Simone de B was not equally as bad when it came to treating other people - if not worse - and was utterly complicit in the way that Sartre treated her.

rayward is an old man who somehow has learned nothing about anything, but thinks he knows a lot about many things. He also doesn't understand the concept of paragraphs.

Cowen 's links usually are not what readers think they are. That's the challenge (and fun) of reading this blog. It's like deciphering short stories, or poems, in college, and learning critical reading (and thinking) skills. Cowen and Tabarrok challenge their readers and, I assume, their students. For those who have not read the interview of Robin Hanson at Slate, you need to. Hanson and the interviewer were speaking both a different language and on a different level.

Regarding Hanson, I would have thought Tyler would post something by Jonathan Swift instead.

#5 is perhaps the clearest example of obvious fiction I have read in quite some time. Not surprised it's from 1984. Were there any honest writers in the 1980s?

Thanks so much for the recycled utter bullshit, Tyler!!

Thanks for the confirmed confirmation!

5. "But life without death has no meaning; nor, at its deepest level, does love without war. Without war we could not know from what depths love rises, or what power it must have to overcome such evil and redeem us. It is no accident that men love war, as love and war are at the core of man. It is not only that we must love one another or die. We must love one another and die. War, like death, is always with us, a constant companion, a secret sharer."

True. The goal of perpetual peace is fundamentally flawed even if it could be achieved in practice as it would mean the end of man as a truly ethical being (in this respect Hegel > Kant).

I disagree and I’m a veritable war-monger. (I believe in pulling out of the Iran deal debacle; I supported removing Saddam, etc.)

The existence of war is likely given our species make up, but it’s contingent not preordained.

And what you say is provided by war, we can find in adversity, fighting a disease, striving in life (esp physically) and maybe in intense sporting events. Or facing death. War is special no doubt but not utterly unique.

War is indeed special and those other things are not near substitutes. Only in war are people forced to be willing to sacrifice everything for the sake of their whole way of life (the universal). A world without the possibility of war would therefore lead to varying degrees of moral and civic degeneration. Of course, human beings have a reliable capacity to behave worse than the most vicious beasts, so I'm not that worried about perpetual peace.

Item 2 was interesting. I toured Europe in 1968. We camped. Lived the #vanlife.

Though, being 10, I may have missed some of what was going on.

I suppose, history aside, the question is what movements are nascent now, among the youth. As opposed to the angry and backwards looking #MAGA of the old men.

Where are the millennials? Buying Bitcoin and trying to get hired by Google? That might say that revolution is not in the offing, and that the young have bought in to corporatism, if it is new-ish and founder led, the new pattern for success.

Maybe at less than 60 I will live to see the world the kids make, and the olds (who try to burn it down on Sunday shows) depart (lookin' at you, Rudy).

The youth don't need movements to propagate ideas nowadays, when they have media on which they can generate content - Facebook but also blogs. Whereas Cohn-Bendit and friends couldn't access 60s media controlled by old men without a movement. It seems that Cohn-Bendit at least may have been happy to just propagate the ideas, without the Trotskyite appendages of insurrection and revolution, which he thinks were just a fun historical moment in retrospect.

1968 was a farcical echo of 1848, playing at revolution. Big swing and a miss by Hannah Arendt there, among others.

Where are the students of '68 now and how do they vote?

It's not clear that Cohn-Bendit, Arendt or in fact anyone else, outside the pre-existing communist movements, wanted a political revolution. It also seems trivially true that the spirit of 1968 is what Trump and the MR race-theory, HBD, incel army are kicking down against, so points to Arendt once again.

Here's Hannah:

“It seems to me that the children of the next century will once learn about 1968 the way we learned about 1848.”

Perhaps you can tell me what was accomplished in 1968. Here we are, two decades into the next century, and it looks like a nothingburger compared to 1848.

Your last sentence is just bizarre.

But 1848 didn't achieve much. In France, a Republic (the "second Republic") was proclaimed, but it was brain-dead after one year, and it completely disappeared after three, replaced by the "second empire" of Napoleon III. In Germany, the enthusiastic movement to unify all the small German states into one single country failed miserably. In Sicilia, the revolution chased the Bourbon kings but they came back a few months later. Italy's effort to unification went nowhere. The revolution in Hungary was crushed after one year by the Austrian and Russian armies, as were all nationalistic/pro-independence movements in Austria's empire.

One could say that 1968 was more impactful, in that it changed the mores in Europe and North America in a significant way.

I don't understand the last sentence of Millian's comment either. What is "MR race-theory"? What is "HDB"? How is Trump anti-1968? Only the ultra-marginal incel movement (is it serious to speak of an "incel army"?) may indeed be seen as an anti-1968 reaction, as explained by Houellebecq/Douthat/etc.

It seems that Cohn-Bendit at least may have been happy to just propagate the ideas, without the Trotskyite appendages of insurrection and revolution, which he thinks were just a fun historical moment in retrospect.

A lot of his friends wanted more. Gerhard Schröder, for instance, felt the need to help Horst Mahler, a founding member of the Baader Meinhof Gang, get out of prison and regain his law license. That might be a bit embarrassing once Mahler became a convert to Naziism. In contrast Joschka Fischer just let them sleep at his place.

Although you miss what Danny also really wanted - kindergarten children to play with his penis. Couldn't have got that without a movement.

He didn't want that. Hope you are in America, where lies count as free speech, rather than Europe.

3. I stopped reading at "the internationally notorious Joyce." Nobody has ever before seriously suggested that Joyce was a bad guy. Learn some English, dude.

Well, he drank a lot and for parts of his life was known to get into physical scuffles (no relationship there, I'm sure). And was stupid about money. But I took "notorious" to refer to the controversies surrounding Ulysses and Finnegans Wake.

1. At least Gorsuch (for the moment) is doing better than Kennedy and Roberts.

His job is to vote like the R donors told him to and to not die for a long time. That's it. Hard to screw it up unless he gets bored and starts thinking for himself. R's learned their lesson nominating smart people who might develop their own opinions and diverge from the party line with Kennedy. Now it's strictly obedient types.

R's learned their lesson nominating smart people who might develop their own opinions

Kennedy's opinion is whatever's fashionable in his social circles.

Strange that "thinking for oneself" never, ever applies to Democratic appointees (unless RBG's refusal to retire early to allow a Democratic president to try to replace her with another liberal counts as independence).

Opinions, of his own or others, don't have anything to do with Supreme Court decisions. The Court is supposed to decide legal disputes in terms of the Constitution. Since it's written in simple English that a literate 14 year-old can easily understand, their job is an easy one.

Applying an originalist or textualist approach to judicial interpretation of the Constitution isn't as easy as you seem to think because the Constitution was designed to last for generations and therefore isn't a simple contract.

woo, woo, woo, -- marginal revolution, get's a shout out

lil, f o, s faces

tom do this, tom do that, tom, don't do that

the big sound, coming 2u, in the face

shipping up & schumped

a super bad, chirps up, ,,, yea baby

we is all in this together. big space out there. ...

5. As a child, I knew something was off about my father. He would primarily watch films of war and violence. He would smile when the "bad" guy was conquered and chuckle when an enemy was eviscerated. The more brutal, the better.

The military conditions men to violence and war. Practice is required. Acclimation to gunfire, situational awareness, becoming comfortable with weaponry, and psychological conditioning. My father was 18 when he enlisted and went from basic training to the hell that was Vietnam. Malleable.

The author's account is devastating and bittersweet. I remember when the tremors began. A man who had prided himself on control, could not keep his arms and legs from twitching. Parkinsons's is a cruel disease. When his cancer could no longer be contained we knew the end was near. What no one tells our soldiers is that the pride they feel in battle will become humiliation in their death. And the ones who love them will suffer the most. The children who are exposed to the uncontrollable and unpredictable rage. The wives who suffer with reintegration, PTSD, and eventually hospice.

So the next time you feel the need to advocate for war, I hope you will remember the collateral damage.

Thanks for this.

What on Earth happened to you? This is just a bizarre post.

So your father loved Tom and Jerry? So do most eight year old boys. That does not mean they are traumatized veterans of Vietnam. Somehow it is better to be sad when the Evil Villain dies?

There is not a lot of evidence that conditioning men to the confusion and noise of war has any adverse impact on them at all. Vietnam was hell? Not until the Communists won.

What is weird about this is that you are blaming Parkinsons and cancer on service in Vietnam? Why? What is your evidence for that? Lots of people get Parkinsons - including Muhammed Ali who very famously - I suppose you do not remember - declined to go to Vietnam.

What no one tells our soldiers is that the pride they feel in battle will become humiliation in their death.

All veterans die because of their service? A significant fraction? What is your evidence?

And the ones who love them will suffer the most. The children who are exposed to the uncontrollable and unpredictable rage. The wives who suffer with reintegration, PTSD, and eventually hospice.

Yeah. Dying is so much easier than putting up with the Old Man.

Heartless. And fact-free.

i play a song like that, i don't give n s 'bout your response

Your writing is very good and very meaningful

5. A great piece of writing, but I'm not sure if his perception is as encompassing as he thinks. He notes that he's not sure if he ever killed anyone in Vietnam. Maybe if he had, he would write differently about the experience. Maybe he's just one of many men who go off to war imagining the glory and not actually experiencing the reality.

Comments for this post are closed