The late, great Roy Orbison on Dutch television in 1964.
Will Wilkinson touches on an interesting dynamic of current political discourse in the U.S.:
It sometimes does seem as though the American left has more or less ceded the language of liberty to the right. . . . Why is that?
I think "the left’s confusion over how to respond ideologically" to the right’s libertarian-sounding arguments flows in part from the left’s own confusion about what it stands for. If the contemporary right is an uneasy fusion of conservative and libertarian articles of faith, the contemporary left is an uneasy fusion of technocratic progressive and liberal-democratic conviction.
One sees progressive managerial elitism most clearly in the left’s public-health and environmental paternalism. The rarely uttered idea is that the people who know best need to force the rest of us to do what’s good for us. Whatever you think of this sort of state paternalism, it isn’t liberal or liberty-enhancing in any non-tortured sense. The progressive technocrat’s attitude toward liberty is: "Trust us. You’re better off without so much of it."
The more the left is inclined to stick up for this sort of "activist government" as a progressive, humanitarian force, the less it is inclined to couch its arguments in terms of liberty. And that’s just honest. More honest, I would add, than social conservatives who in one breath praise liberty and in the next demand the state imposition of their favourite flavour of morality.
I agree with [Peter] Beinart that engaging the right’s worries about liberty by couching the left’s agenda in the language of liberty would improve the Democrats’ prospects. But I don’t think he should discount the extent to which a consistently liberal philosophy of government clashes with cherished and deep-seated parts of the American left’s identity. (For example, the part that insists on defending Woodrow Wilson despite the profound depths of his illiberalism.)
Those Americans currently agitated about the threat Democrats pose to liberty are not wrong to be worried. Where they go wrong is in thinking Republicans are better on this score. Democrats might be able to argue this point effectively if only their own commitment to liberty was less conflicted.
The inclination of both major political parties to increase state power has ominous implications for citizens. Is it possible to change?
At least that’s the case when it comes to getting around dubious drug prohibition policies. Check out this WSJ article:
When the housing market crashed in 2008, David Llewellyn’s construction business went with it. Casting around for a new gig, he decided to commercialize something he’d long done as a hobby: making drugs.
But the 49-year-old Scotsman didn’t go into the illegal drug trade. Instead, he entered the so-called "legal high" business-a burgeoning industry producing new psychoactive powders and pills that are marketed as "not for human consumption."
Mr. Llewellyn, a self-described former crack addict, started out making mephedrone, a stimulant also known as Meow Meow that was already popular with the European clubbing set. Once governments began banning it earlier this year, Mr. Llewellyn and a chemistry-savvy partner started selling something they dubbed Nopaine-a stimulant they concocted by tweaking the molecular structure of the attention-deficit drug Ritalin. [. . .]
Mr. Llewellyn is part of a wave of laboratory-adept European entrepreneurs who see gold in the gray zone between legal and illegal drugs. They pose a stiff challenge for European law-enforcement, which is struggling to keep up with all the new concoctions. Last year, 24 new "psychoactive substances" were identified in Europe, almost double the number reported in 2008, . . .
Particularly interesting is Mr. Llewellyn’s “foolproof” safety testing method for new drugs:
[Mr. Llewellyn] boasts that his safety testing method is foolproof: He and several colleagues sit in a room and take a new product "almost to overdose levels" to see what happens. "We’ll all sit with a pen and a pad, some good music on, and one person who’s straight who’s watching everything," he says.
In observance of Halloween, one of my wife’s favorite cinematic dance scenes.
Is there any song that Norah Jones does not cover well?
The title of this post refers to the thought process of the folks described in this New York Magazine article who are obsessed with following a severe calorie restriction diet.
And as if that isn’t bad enough, this NY Times article reports on the large number of 40-somethings who are consumed with training and competing in triathlons. The article points out that some of the participants got into triathlons because their bodies were already breaking down under the stress of long-distance running!
What is utterly lacking in the lives of all the people described in these two articles is any sense of balance. Rather than eating a sensible and balanced diet, calorie restriction advocates deprive themselves in the hope that it will increase their lives for a few years. Maybe so, but how fulfilling is that extended life if one does not consume enough food to maintain a livable level of lean body mass?
Meanwhile, the triathletes punish themselves training under the delusion that more exercise is always better for their health. They ignore the substantial research that indicates that adequate rest and recovery after exercise is just as important for good health as the exercise itself.
What is it about life in America in 2010 that provokes people to do such things to themselves?
Bob Newhart provides his hilarious version of cognitive behavioral therapy.
Check out this cool video.
