This site will look much better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Atlas Blogged

« January 2009 | Main | March 2009 »

February 27, 2009

The Crisis of Credit Visualized

The Short and Simple Story of the Credit Crisis, by Jonathan Jarvis.

The 11 minute long video is interesting not only because it attempts to define some fairly complicated financial terminology and processes, but also because of how it attempts to do so. Jarvis says, "This project was completed as part of my thesis work in the Media Design Program, a graduate studio at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena, California." Sure, it looks and sounds a bit like a PSA filmstrip from half a century ago. But even ten years ago, what adult would have exposure to that sort of thing?

I find it fascinating to see this project specifically designed for the internet and aimed at adults. As print newspapers are dying and the entire media industry is evolving to the new conditions of connectivity, this type of video may represent a large part of the future of educational journalism.

I'll now allow our resident economists to weigh in with their criticisms.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)






Intellectualism vs gimmick

"Talley" at Fr33 Agents posted this video clip of Rob Kampia, the co-founder and executive director of the Marijuana Policy Project, on the Glenn Beck program.

I am sharing it here because it seems to support my point in an ongoing debate with Rammage about intellectualism vs gimmick in the present and future of the Right. Glenn Beck identifies himself in this clip as a libertarian, and then proceeds to display a complete inability to have an intellectual conversation about legalization of marijuana. He just does cartoon voices and tries to belittle anybody he doesn’t agree with. He is bereft of facts, and he is a bufoon. In contrast, Kampia is dull and dry and not entertaining, but he’s got an intellectual argument about the topic at hand. Personally, I find that much more valuable. I see nothing redeeming in Beck’s performance here, and I don’t understand why people who care about the future of the Right would want to encourage Beck-like behavior.

Sorry, Rammage. I think the Right needs Joe the Plumber as a panelist on a CPAC Conservatism 2.0 Conference (“Activists, bloggers, students and scholars discussing new media strategies to shape the future of conservatism”) about as much as we need a William Buckley, Jr. to fix our leaky faucets. It’s not that Joe the Plumber or Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck are bad people, or even that they are necessarily wrong on the issues. It’s that the anti-intellectualism that fuels their popularity is as unnecessary and non-compelling coming from the Right as it is coming from the Left.

When the Right embraces anti-intellectualism, it signals to young aspiring intellectuals that their home is in the Liberal Elite. Is that where we want our brightest young people? What message do you think they get when they see the Right championed by the likes of Glenn "there's two brain cells up in my head" Beck?

Yes, there is certainly a place for the average Joe, and in fact the Right should arguably mostly be average Joes. But they shouldn't be the ones at the vanguard of policy debates or even necessarily running for high office. To suggest that the average Joe is the best option is to suggest that he has something that a conservative or libertarian intellectual does not, and I reject that argument. Ought we not to find the people who have that something, plus intellect? Isn't that the best future for the Right?

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)






February 26, 2009

"Stop talking about it."

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)






February 20, 2009

"Obama Cartoon": It's all about the framing...

From the AP:
NY Post apologizes--to some--over Obama cartoon

So... the AP characterizes the cartoon in question as an "Obama cartoon"?

Yes, offense has been inferred by those who are understandably sensitive to any racist implications that may ever be displayed against Mr. Obama, but the NY Post and the cartoonist have both stated that offense was not intended, and I think the AP headline goes beyond what is reasonable in referring to the cartoon as an "Obama cartoon". The president was not directly referenced or depicted in the cartoon, and it is questionable whether the indirect reference was intended (especially given how much press coverage has been given to the fact that the stimulus bill was written not by Mr. Obama but by House Democrats).

It is not objectively an "Obama cartoon", and to call it such is to assert that the inferred racism was in intended. The AP loses credibility by making this assertion. They have framed the story instead of reporting it.

If the AP wants to say that the NY Post cartoonist and editors were (or should have been) fully aware of the implications of their choice of imagery and wording in every cartoon, then they should be held to the same standard. The AP and every other media outlet that refers to this as an "Obama cartoon", by the very argument of those offended by the cartoon, are guilty of purposely opining rather than reporting. Clearly they have to be aware of the way in which they frame this story... as journalists, they can't claim to be ignorant of the power of words and the effect they will have when used this way. It is purposely inflammatory and defamatory against the NY Post and editorial cartoonist Sean Delonas. The intent is clear, because the writer and the editor of the story are--as professional journalists--fully aware of the impact and nuance of every choice of words. Right?

For the record, it wasn't a good political cartoon. And for the record, I do think the editors at the Post should be capable of foreseeing that some would think it was a racist comment. But for the record, I don't believe that it was intended to be racist. To quote Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "I don't believe it is accurate to call the cartoon racist. Insipid, yes."

If you can't be objective as a journalist, at least have the decency to wear your ideology openly, like we bloggers do.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)






February 16, 2009

Open Fields Doctrine

An interesting question from Norfolk political blogger Vivian Page:

A front page story in Sunday’s Virginian Pilot raised an interesting question.

Game wardens had put a hidden camera in a tree, pointed at VanKesteren’s soybean fields, after receiving a complaint about protected birds getting caught in predator traps.


The camera wasn’t just placed in any tree: it was placed in a tree on Steve VanHersteren’s property, without his knowledge or consent. The video was used to convict the Eastern Shore man for a violation of the federal Migratory Bird Act. His only alternative is an appeal to the US Supreme Court, an expensive proposition.

So, do you agree with the magistrate and the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals that, while troubling, such surveillance can done without a warrant?

Or is this an invasion of privacy and, as such, the conviction should be overturned?

Now I might be something of a rube when it comes to Constitutional Law, but it seems to me that if the officers can do this kind of thing without any kind of issuance from a judge, then there really is no such thing as private property outside of my house and car. And I'm not even talking about it from an anarchist point of view.

Among Vivian's commenters is one Timothy Watson who asserts that this is well covered by case law--some "open fields doctrine" that they never covered in my physics classes and about which I am therefore ignorant.

My question is, What constitutes an open field? How easy does this make it to violate the spirit of the law while following the letter? And why don't they teach this to us rubes in high school, before we go off and major in hard sciences?

Case law would make a great high school elective.

Wulf Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)