As an official policy, yes. I think they became a lot more common in the 1980s once the drinking age was raised to 21 and there were a lot of scare stories about binge drinking in the media.
I generally think that pretentiousness is a very easy charge to level and make at something. And I often find that I have a hard time figuring out why things are considered pretentious?
Ozu produced domestic dramas about middle-class families being gently torn apart at the seams by equally compelling forces of modernity and tradition. Kurosawa made Samurai films and modern noirs for much of his career some of which were adapted from Shakespeare (Throne of Blood, The Bad Sleep Well, Ran). Star Wars is basically an homage to Kurosawa's the Hidden Fortress. Goddard got wonky and non-narrative so I will grant that he could be pretentious. Truffaut never struck me as pretentious. Neither does Rohemer or Bergman.
Likewise, I never quite understand why non-representative artists like the Abstract Expressionists always get labeled as pretentious. As I mentioned in another thread on the league, I find that it is Imperialistic propaganda of the Pre-Raphaelites to be pretentious. I strongly dislike their glorified and false paintings of courtly life from the Middle Ages. There is more reality and beauty in a Rothko painting than in the pomposity of seeing a lady crown a knight on his way to or home from Imperialist adventure.
I will rue the day when Cat Macros and Gifs are displayed in MOMA and the Guggenheim.
And I am not sure that is true. The modern artists (Cornell, Richard Serra, De Koening, Wayne Theobaud, and many more) will always considered part of high culture. Same with writers like Beckett and Joyce. Shostakovich was always high culture. They might have been rejected by a large part of the cultural establishment but no one would consider them to have ever been "low culture". Same with filmmakers like Truffaut, Goddard, Bergman, etc. Were they ever considered low culture?
I don't think there is anything wrong with liking the things you mentioned.
However, I do find it troubling that many people in their 20s and 30s seem to be absolutely rejecting "high" culture or at least culture that is somewhat more difficult to appreciate. There is value in humanity when it can produce Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or deeply experimental artists like Philip Glass, Meredith Monk, Robert Wilson, Judy Chicago, etc. Not everything has to be silly and easy to digest.
I still find long-form criticism like the New Yorker, New Republic, N plus One, Bomb, The Believer, etc to be highly valuable. I still think one of the most valuable things a critic can do is encourage people to seek out more obscure and difficult art.
I can't help but think that when liberal and progressive sites like Think Progress are almost exclusively dedicated to fandom stuff on their culture pages, it is because they have been scared by the Palinistas for being out of touch urban elitists.
"Socialist in economics, liberal in politics, conservative in culture"-Daniel Bell
I think they are largely coextensive. Many to most or all libertarians are nerds but not all nerds are libertarians.
I would argue that nerd rage (TM) is stronger because it is largely dealing with entertainment and lifestyle stuff over serious policy issues. A variant on Kissinger's observation on university politics. The lower the stakes, the increase in brutality/rage/backstabbing, etc.
Every nerd has his or her sacred thing and any variance on said thing will produce nerd rage, nothing can calm nerd rage down. It is called fandumb for a reason sometimes.*
*Disclaimer/Admission: I used to be heavily into anime and was a strong member of my alma mater's SF/Fantasy/Gaming club. For reasons unknown to me, anime immediately lost its appeal during my first year out of university. I still like Star Trek (though I am weird and DS9) is my favorite series but the excesses of fandom are odd to me. I have no desire to spend every weekend and holiday going to cons. Or any weekend or holiday really. Plus I never liked filk. Plus some nerd explanations really bug me. When Osama was killed, the NY Times ran a picture of a guy in his 20s celebrating by wearing a Captain America mask and shield. I thought this was inappropriate and proof of the silliness of "America, Fuck Yeah" attitudes. Someone I kind of know defended said guy by saying "He is probably just a really big nerd/kid and wanted to do something to celebrate and join in." I'm still not convinced that being a big nerd is a good defense for that kind of immaturity.
I am also perplexed by the dominance of fandom in the zeitgeist now and the somewhat cultural conservative/snob in me wonders why everyone is sticking with their 12-year old comfort food. Where are the 20 and 30 somethings getting into art house cinema and experimental stuff? During my parents youth in the 1960s/70s, it seemed like there was a bit more of an expectation to try and like Art House. Where are the Bergmans, Truffauts, Goddards, Cassavettees, etc?
Though I was kind of sad when my alma mater switched from being a wet campus to a dry campus. That being said, I think there is a strong argument for universities to be wet over dry. There will be stupidity but once universities go dry, students tend to switch from beer to hard alcohol more and that causes more problems.
Considering the damage to the NYC-NJ metro area, I am not sure how things can be in good enough shape.
Con Edison seems to think it will be at least a week before power is back on line. There is still major flooding that needs to be pumped. Who knows how many absentee/mail-in ballots were destroyed by flooding. Or how many voting machines.
Though you are right that the campaigns will start being more get out the vote.
As I said above, the only people going against Silver are either old-school horse race journalists who don't like his use of math/quantative analysis or right-wing partisan pundits who lash out using the typical insults.
Show me a source criticisizing him with a less vested interest. I am not saying Obama has it in the bag but Silver seems to be using somewhat more advanced techniques than the typical journalist or pollster.
I don't think either campaign is acting like Obama has a 70 percent chance of winning because it would be foolish for either to do so. Arrogant for Obama and defeatist for Romney.
Philadelphia was (and maybe still is) notoriously race divided as a city.
The West and Pacific Northwest are rather homogeneous still in terms of demographics. Only 10 percent of Black-Americans live in the West/Northwest. Even San Francisco feels a lot more homogeneous to me compared to my native New York. When I visited Portland, I was a bit shocked about how homogeneous (and largely white) the city is.
But by your admission that they would vote for Romney anyway, I am guessing you do not live in a purple district. You might not even live in a purple mountain west state.
I am still seeing plenty of Obama/Biden pride in blue-land California. Same with my friends in blue-land New York. See my thought below on how geographic location can shade our predictions.
I'm generally against predictions like this because of non-rational part of my brain believes that showing too much gloating/glee can botch things. For example, I generally cringed when my fellow liberal friends were practically begging for the Republicans to make Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Newt, or Palin their nominee. My theory is to work on a "What if they win theory?"
I don't know who is going to win because the polls are so close and there are too many different ones. Nate Silver is a balm to me but it is almost certainly going to be very close. I think that whoever wins the election will win the popular vote very narrowly (less than 51 percent.) I think Romney is gaffing a bit this the auto bailout stuff and Obama is going to get some props for how he is handling Sandy.
That being said, I think your Senate predictions are wrong. I think the Democrats will maintain the Senate and pick up a few seats. I think Elizabeth Warren will win in Mass, Claire McClaskil will hold on in Missouri. Democrats will keep Connecticut and Wisconsin. There is even a reasonable chance of Democrats keeping Nebraska, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Dakota. Tester is neck and neck in Montana.
Republicans will almost certainly keep the house but I think Democrats will gain a few seats.
I wonder how much of our predictions are hampered because of politics or more interestingly geographic location. It is very easy for someone in a deep blue state to think Obama is going to win 290 electoral college votes. Likewise, it is very easy for someone in a deep red state to think Romney will win 290 electoral college votes.
What if a totally innocent woman has a pregnancy which is threatening her life and is also likely to have a 50/50 chance that the baby will not live the birth even with the help of medical technology? If the woman terminates her pregnancy, she will live.
Wouldn't the pro-life stance be to let the woman terminate her pregnancy and let her live?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Embarassing Annals of Libertarianism and Policy Writing.”
@DRS:
Jackson Pollock? He died way before cellphones were invented.
"
As an official policy, yes. I think they became a lot more common in the 1980s once the drinking age was raised to 21 and there were a lot of scare stories about binge drinking in the media.
As actual practice, almost certainly not.
On “Voting on a Prayer”
:(
I still get the Weekend issues of the Saturday and Sunday times on paper.
Reading the Sunday Times at Brunch is a great way to spend a Sunday morning.
Granted I have been described as an old-soul.
On “Embarassing Annals of Libertarianism and Policy Writing.”
Yup. I prefer reading on actual paper and with binded books. Reading on a screen gives me a headache and hurts my eyes.
"
Or for the more representational, there is more beauty in the social realism of the Ashcan school.
Or the social realist Jewish painters from the Lower East side like Raphael Soyer:
http://www.artclon.com/OtherFile/raphael_soyer_xx_annunciation_1980.jpg
"
I generally think that pretentiousness is a very easy charge to level and make at something. And I often find that I have a hard time figuring out why things are considered pretentious?
Ozu produced domestic dramas about middle-class families being gently torn apart at the seams by equally compelling forces of modernity and tradition. Kurosawa made Samurai films and modern noirs for much of his career some of which were adapted from Shakespeare (Throne of Blood, The Bad Sleep Well, Ran). Star Wars is basically an homage to Kurosawa's the Hidden Fortress. Goddard got wonky and non-narrative so I will grant that he could be pretentious. Truffaut never struck me as pretentious. Neither does Rohemer or Bergman.
Likewise, I never quite understand why non-representative artists like the Abstract Expressionists always get labeled as pretentious. As I mentioned in another thread on the league, I find that it is Imperialistic propaganda of the Pre-Raphaelites to be pretentious. I strongly dislike their glorified and false paintings of courtly life from the Middle Ages. There is more reality and beauty in a Rothko painting than in the pomposity of seeing a lady crown a knight on his way to or home from Imperialist adventure.
"
I will rue the day when Cat Macros and Gifs are displayed in MOMA and the Guggenheim.
And I am not sure that is true. The modern artists (Cornell, Richard Serra, De Koening, Wayne Theobaud, and many more) will always considered part of high culture. Same with writers like Beckett and Joyce. Shostakovich was always high culture. They might have been rejected by a large part of the cultural establishment but no one would consider them to have ever been "low culture". Same with filmmakers like Truffaut, Goddard, Bergman, etc. Were they ever considered low culture?
"
I don't think there is anything wrong with liking the things you mentioned.
However, I do find it troubling that many people in their 20s and 30s seem to be absolutely rejecting "high" culture or at least culture that is somewhat more difficult to appreciate. There is value in humanity when it can produce Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, or deeply experimental artists like Philip Glass, Meredith Monk, Robert Wilson, Judy Chicago, etc. Not everything has to be silly and easy to digest.
I still find long-form criticism like the New Yorker, New Republic, N plus One, Bomb, The Believer, etc to be highly valuable. I still think one of the most valuable things a critic can do is encourage people to seek out more obscure and difficult art.
I can't help but think that when liberal and progressive sites like Think Progress are almost exclusively dedicated to fandom stuff on their culture pages, it is because they have been scared by the Palinistas for being out of touch urban elitists.
"Socialist in economics, liberal in politics, conservative in culture"-Daniel Bell
"
I think they are largely coextensive. Many to most or all libertarians are nerds but not all nerds are libertarians.
I would argue that nerd rage (TM) is stronger because it is largely dealing with entertainment and lifestyle stuff over serious policy issues. A variant on Kissinger's observation on university politics. The lower the stakes, the increase in brutality/rage/backstabbing, etc.
Every nerd has his or her sacred thing and any variance on said thing will produce nerd rage, nothing can calm nerd rage down. It is called fandumb for a reason sometimes.*
*Disclaimer/Admission: I used to be heavily into anime and was a strong member of my alma mater's SF/Fantasy/Gaming club. For reasons unknown to me, anime immediately lost its appeal during my first year out of university. I still like Star Trek (though I am weird and DS9) is my favorite series but the excesses of fandom are odd to me. I have no desire to spend every weekend and holiday going to cons. Or any weekend or holiday really. Plus I never liked filk. Plus some nerd explanations really bug me. When Osama was killed, the NY Times ran a picture of a guy in his 20s celebrating by wearing a Captain America mask and shield. I thought this was inappropriate and proof of the silliness of "America, Fuck Yeah" attitudes. Someone I kind of know defended said guy by saying "He is probably just a really big nerd/kid and wanted to do something to celebrate and join in." I'm still not convinced that being a big nerd is a good defense for that kind of immaturity.
I am also perplexed by the dominance of fandom in the zeitgeist now and the somewhat cultural conservative/snob in me wonders why everyone is sticking with their 12-year old comfort food. Where are the 20 and 30 somethings getting into art house cinema and experimental stuff? During my parents youth in the 1960s/70s, it seemed like there was a bit more of an expectation to try and like Art House. Where are the Bergmans, Truffauts, Goddards, Cassavettees, etc?
"
Well played.
"
True.
Though I was also sad of semi-nostalgic reasons. I liked the pub at alumni house and that we were a wet campus.
"
True.
Though I was kind of sad when my alma mater switched from being a wet campus to a dry campus. That being said, I think there is a strong argument for universities to be wet over dry. There will be stupidity but once universities go dry, students tend to switch from beer to hard alcohol more and that causes more problems.
On “The Joy Of Opening Time Capsules”
Considering the damage to the NYC-NJ metro area, I am not sure how things can be in good enough shape.
Con Edison seems to think it will be at least a week before power is back on line. There is still major flooding that needs to be pumped. Who knows how many absentee/mail-in ballots were destroyed by flooding. Or how many voting machines.
Though you are right that the campaigns will start being more get out the vote.
"
As I said above, the only people going against Silver are either old-school horse race journalists who don't like his use of math/quantative analysis or right-wing partisan pundits who lash out using the typical insults.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/nerds-rush-nate-silvers-defense/58516/#
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/10/ive-had-enough-of-you-water-drinking-air-breathing-urban-elitists#comments
Show me a source criticisizing him with a less vested interest. I am not saying Obama has it in the bag but Silver seems to be using somewhat more advanced techniques than the typical journalist or pollster.
I don't think either campaign is acting like Obama has a 70 percent chance of winning because it would be foolish for either to do so. Arrogant for Obama and defeatist for Romney.
"
The people going against Silver are right-wing pundits/partisans or old-horse race journalists who don't understand Math.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/10/nerds-rush-nate-silvers-defense/58516/#
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/10/ive-had-enough-of-you-water-drinking-air-breathing-urban-elitists#comments
On “Embarassing Annals of Libertarianism and Policy Writing.”
Is the University of Texas really private property?
On “The South Hasn’t Risen Again”
Morgan Freedman said the same thing.
Philadelphia was (and maybe still is) notoriously race divided as a city.
The West and Pacific Northwest are rather homogeneous still in terms of demographics. Only 10 percent of Black-Americans live in the West/Northwest. Even San Francisco feels a lot more homogeneous to me compared to my native New York. When I visited Portland, I was a bit shocked about how homogeneous (and largely white) the city is.
"
The Republican Party seems to have largely written off cities as a potential source for votes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/republicans-to-cities-drop-dead.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
On “Embarassing Annals of Libertarianism and Policy Writing.”
Is Libertarian rage stronger or weaker than Nerd Rage(tm)?
On “The Joy Of Opening Time Capsules”
I am still wondering what happens in the East Coast is still struggling to get power back on-line post Sandy. Will it cause a Constitutional Crisis?
"
But by your admission that they would vote for Romney anyway, I am guessing you do not live in a purple district. You might not even live in a purple mountain west state.
I am still seeing plenty of Obama/Biden pride in blue-land California. Same with my friends in blue-land New York. See my thought below on how geographic location can shade our predictions.
"
Dick Morris is hack who has not been right for a long time.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/10/31/why_does_the_hill_still_publish_dick_morris.html
"
Oh yeah, Democrats might win Indiana!
"
I'm generally against predictions like this because of non-rational part of my brain believes that showing too much gloating/glee can botch things. For example, I generally cringed when my fellow liberal friends were practically begging for the Republicans to make Cain, Bachmann, Santorum, Newt, or Palin their nominee. My theory is to work on a "What if they win theory?"
I don't know who is going to win because the polls are so close and there are too many different ones. Nate Silver is a balm to me but it is almost certainly going to be very close. I think that whoever wins the election will win the popular vote very narrowly (less than 51 percent.) I think Romney is gaffing a bit this the auto bailout stuff and Obama is going to get some props for how he is handling Sandy.
That being said, I think your Senate predictions are wrong. I think the Democrats will maintain the Senate and pick up a few seats. I think Elizabeth Warren will win in Mass, Claire McClaskil will hold on in Missouri. Democrats will keep Connecticut and Wisconsin. There is even a reasonable chance of Democrats keeping Nebraska, Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and North Dakota. Tester is neck and neck in Montana.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/poll-democratic-senate-candidates-lead-in-ohio-florida-and-virginia/
Republicans will almost certainly keep the house but I think Democrats will gain a few seats.
I wonder how much of our predictions are hampered because of politics or more interestingly geographic location. It is very easy for someone in a deep blue state to think Obama is going to win 290 electoral college votes. Likewise, it is very easy for someone in a deep red state to think Romney will win 290 electoral college votes.
On “The South Hasn’t Risen Again”
What if a totally innocent woman has a pregnancy which is threatening her life and is also likely to have a 50/50 chance that the baby will not live the birth even with the help of medical technology? If the woman terminates her pregnancy, she will live.
Wouldn't the pro-life stance be to let the woman terminate her pregnancy and let her live?
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.