Thursday, May 14, 2015

Politics and Primary Education

Quoth the headline: "Kansas could put teachers in prison for assigning books prosecutors don't like."

Perhaps the only way to keep politics out of the schools is to keep the government out of schools. Who's with me?

Didn't think so, but perhaps that's because you're a hypocrite! (Yes, you!) Conservatives and liberals alike need to remember that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

David Simon on the Two Americas

David Simon is right that there are two Americas, but this is nothing new (the use of the word 'now' is misleading), and it doesn't relate to capitalism specifically.

Consider: Switzerland is a capitalist nation, but Simon's analysis of America's two nations wouldn't apply there in quite the same way, would it?

No, the original cause of the two Americas is the racial caste system set up after the enslavement of Africans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.

Tuesday, May 12, 2015

Flash Gordon (1980)

On the one hand, I appreciate the film's retro-future look, inspired by the Golden Age of science fiction, together with its fantastic and gaudy design, seemingly inspired by 70s rock album covers. But the writing, direction, and production are terrible.

It turns out the director is Mike Hodges of "Get Carter" (1971) fame. This is a shocker, since "Get Carter" is one of the best British gangster films ever.

The Wikipedia entry for "Flash Gordon" does contain an exculpatory quote from Lorenzo Semple, Jr. (the writer of the picture): a lot of the film's problems were caused by the fact that both he and producer Dino de Laurentis dithered between whether they wanted to make a humorous, campy film or a more "serious" action film (it ended up doing neither well, of course).

Surprisingly, the film was profitable, making more than twice its budget.

Here is the hawkmen battle scene:


The infamous football fight scene:


The China-Russia Alliance


The birth of a new anti-Western alliance: China and Russia are rivals in Central Asia, but otherwise they have a lot of common interests, and seek to create an alternative to the current U.S.- and Europe-dominated world order. This short article in the Los Angeles Times provides some insightful analysis.

On the one hand, China, Russia, and other nations should certainly be able to make a contribution to the international order. On the other hand, the governments of China and Russia are currently very corrupt and authoritarian, so one fears the contribution that they are currently poised to make.

On a related note (via Marginal Revolution), a recent Harvard and MIT study maps out China's ideological spectrum. In brief:
Individuals who are politically conservative, who emphasize the supremacy of the state and nationalism, are also likely to be economically conservative, supporting a return to socialism and state-control of the economy, and culturally conservative, supporting traditional, Confucian values. In contrast, political liberals, supportive of constitutional democracy and individual liberty, are also likely to be economic liberals who support market-oriented reform and social liberals who support modern science and values such as sexual freedom. 
This is notably different from the ideological spectrum in the United States, in which conservatives often support free markets and individual liberty (at least rhetorically). I wonder if Russia has a similar ideological spectrum to China. In any case, the authoritarian side is quite powerful in both China and Russia, which could bode ill for the new world order which they seek to create.