Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
So This Is The New Year, and I Don't Feel Any Different
Happy 2006, Reasonoids! Consider this an open thread for resolutions, predictions, reflections, top 10 lists, or whatever else feels appropriate to ring in the new year.
|1.1.06 @ 4:30PM|#
I would just like to take this opportunity to announce the retirement of biggus dickus. In view of recent events, it no longer seems appropriate to parody gaius marius, for we are all gaii marii now.
|1.1.06 @ 4:36PM|#
"Blogging is inherently libertarian."
Agree or disagree?
Disagree. Blogging is where anyone can have their opinion read by
others, but how many blogs are necessarily libertarian?
|1.1.06 @ 4:46PM|#
Transatlanticism was a much better album than Plans. Maybe the
OC and Postal Service are spreading the band too thin, or maybe
it's just regression to the mean after an extraordinary good album,
but Plans is just OK. What's wearing groves into my ipod now
is
The Weight is a Gift from Nada Surf
Close to the Edge from Yes
Miss Halfway from Anya Marina (who is also a DJ at 949fm in
SD)
Happy New Year everyone.
|1.1.06 @ 5:03PM|#
"Blogging is inherently libertarian."
I'm going to say "disagree", but I'll immediately qualify that by
saying that blogging is inherently decentralized and independent*,
which makes it more libertarian-friendly.
* I was going to say "democratic", which is how I've often seen it
described, but then I thought about it and said, "No, there nothing
'democratic' about it - rather, each person is individually
empowered."
|1.1.06 @ 5:17PM|#
Talking about blogs is stupid. Somebody say something smart
about...bird flu?
What's a good libertarian to think of the WHO? Any way to maintain
ideological purity without advocating for policies that could
decimate the world population? If not, is anyone here that
ideologically pure?
|1.1.06 @ 5:34PM|#
If bird flu pauses in the middle of denouncing Milton Friedman
as unconscionably statist to snort something off a Richard Hell cd
case, he's a libertarian.
The good kind.
|1.1.06 @ 6:17PM|#
o There will be unrest in the middle east.
o The size and scope of the Federal Government will get
larger.
o Our tax burden overall will increase.
o Constitutional rights and civil liberties will be eroded for our
own protection or 'economic improvements'.
o Gas prices will go down, unless they don't, or stay roughly the
same.
Jim Anderson|1.1.06 @ 6:20PM|#
Top Ten Groan-Inducing Headlines at Hit and Run, among other things. Happy New Year.
|1.1.06 @ 6:56PM|#
I found as interesting article on BBC�s website.
�Nuclear secrets of 1975 revealed: Cabinet papers from 1975
detailing the government's plans in the event of nuclear war are
among new documents released by the National Archives.�
The BBC has a sound file available that was going to be broadcasted
over the radio if Russia had attack Britain during the Cold War
years.
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4565880.stm#
|1.1.06 @ 7:12PM|#
top 2 movies that have a compound fracture
Diliverance
the deer hunter
what really sucks is the list used to be 6 but I have since
forgotten
|1.1.06 @ 7:26PM|#
Top six movies with Cananablism
Eating Raool
Delicatesin
Attack of the Killer Tomatos ("does anyone have any
katsup"..classic)
Parents
Ravenous
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover
note: "Alive" and "Silence of the Lambs" suck...but manhunter was
good...did that have canabilism??
|1.1.06 @ 7:34PM|#
not only is blogging decentralized and independent, blogging creates a strong sense of personal ownership, encourages appreciation of freedom of speech, and seems to make even the most statist of people distrust federal regulation. Just look at how right and left suddenly became knee-jerk libertarians when the prospect of FEC regulation was raised.
Warren|1.1.06 @ 7:36PM|#
I call upon all regular H&R commenters to link to their best
comment of 2005.
Personally I don't think I topped my winter solstice comment a few
weeks back
Comment
by: Warren at December 21, 2005 10:41 AM
|1.1.06 @ 7:54PM|#
m g,
I've long felt that cyberspace is a refuge from government, and I
feel it always will be, because the habitues will be that much
smarter than bureaucrats.
I'm not willing to say blogging is anything more than a phase in
the evolution of cyberspace as Earth's "Holidome."
Our goal should be to get true, authentic mind alteration into
cyberspace.
As an advocate of H&R trying to be satisfied with simply being
the Vestal Virgins, keepers of the flame, I do share your
enthusiasm for the fact that blogging makes keeping of the flame
more tranparent, as it were. I mean, like monks and temple-keepers,
we're not really trying to hide anything. That would be the
Masons.
|1.1.06 @ 7:57PM|#
Seahawks will win the superbowl
tax reform will be passed
Rupublicans will lose seats in the house but retain a
majority
Democrats will loose a seat or seats in the senate
No drilling will be allowed in ANWR
Mary Hunt douglas county commisioner will lose her election to a
republican in the primary.
The singularity will occure in 2013 and libertarians will initially
hate it...but grow to love it.
Rumsfeld will resign and this time Bush will accept it.
Subscriptions to Reason will reach 80,000
I will still be unable to purchase a black reason t-shirt
Joe will try to build a house and will start sounding more like a
libertarian. M1EK will be pissed.
I will admit that my choice to support the war was a mistake and
aborant to my libertarian views.
The situation in Iraq will improve to such a degree that only the
most adamint anti-war partisan will be unable to conseed
this.
Thoroeu will get in an arguement with me about science and he will
probably win that arguement.
All the married resonoids will have more sex then all the unmarried
reasonoids.
Jeff P.|1.1.06 @ 7:58PM|#
I don't know exactly where my best comments are posted, but the
three dead-horses I beat repeatedly this year are:
1: The most vocal bio-conservatives are monsters, and usually twice
as old as the average lifespan of a century ago.
2: Christians who insist that their way of life is under dire
assault need to experience some real persecution.
3: The U.S. has not won a war that has begun since the completion
of the Pentagon.
(For the hair-splitters, read "won" as "achieving a military
victory and all meeting a majority of the goals laid out")
In '06 I intend to prove that anti-science legislation and
institutionalized ignorance are a larger threat to our culture than
the Cold War was, and should be treated as such.
|1.1.06 @ 8:04PM|#
Redskins! Redskins! Redskins!
Joe Gibbs is the greatest coach in the history of the NFL.
...and everyone that disagrees isn't a real libertarian.
|1.1.06 @ 8:13PM|#
"3: The U.S. has not won a war that has begun since the
completion of the Pentagon."
Jeff P.,
Without me looking it up, how would it change your thought if we
said the U.S. hasn't won a war since the "War Dept" was re-named
the "Defense Dept."
And have terrorists just been incensed/incentivized since the
re-naming?
|1.1.06 @ 8:27PM|#
Happy New Year to all!
Interesting new blog by libertarian economist David Friedman. Quite
thought provoking.
http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Found it via Volokh Conspiracy.
|1.1.06 @ 8:33PM|#
Seahawks will win the superbowl
Nah, they'll choke. They couldn't win the Superbowl on the
winningest day of their life with an electrified winning machine.
And I say this as a lifelong Seattlite.
The singularity will occure in 2013 and libertarians will
initially hate it...but grow to love it
What does this mean?
|1.1.06 @ 8:38PM|#
Bill O'Reilley, John Gibson, Jerry Falwell and the rest of the
Christer hegemonists will insist that the new year be referred to
as not merely 2006, but 2006 a.d.
Those who take Christianity seriously will still fail to recognize
that Jesus needs no defense from a loofa/falafel wielding dirty old
man. They will also still fail to recognize that their God is not
such a weenie that He needs help from Caeser.
|1.1.06 @ 8:41PM|#
The situation in Iraq will improve to such a degree that
only the most adamint anti-war partisan will be unable to conseed
this.The situation in Iraq will improve to such a degree that only
the most adamint anti-war partisan will be unable to conseed
this.
If so, then I'll be among those "most adamant anti-war
partisans".
I'll wear my black Reason T at the next get together/photo op and a
buncha you guys will be envious. But not to fear; Reason will
respond to market demand in 2006 and make em available.
I resolve to finally start using the Preview button!! What? Quit
laughing!
|1.1.06 @ 8:48PM|#
Back in the fall, when the Little Woman and I were visiting
Cherished Daughter in Napa, CA, before all was recently--as I
speak--washed clean away into SF Bay, we had occasion to enter an
elementary school (semi-long story) wherein I got photographic
proof of California perversions. On the wall of a classroom were
four posters in a vertical line, thus:
"D" is for Democracy.
"C" is for Conformity.
"B" is for Bullying.
"A" is for Anarchy.
Naturally the amateur description of anarchy was what caught my
anarchist eye in the first place:
"Lowest level of behavior
Absence of order
Aimless and chaotic
Absence of government
ANARCHY IS THE FUNDAMENTAL ENEMY OF CIVILIZATION"
Harking back to my comment just above, is our government a little
too "defensive"?
|1.1.06 @ 9:14PM|#
Let's see, New Year's Resolutions. Besides the standard-issue
exercise more and use my credit cards less, I resolved to read at
least five novels that aren't mysteries or science fiction. (I
generally read those and history books.) I would love to see the
Reasonoids suggestions.
Others: I've resolved to make sure my sons get to bed earlier. I
love being able to resolve for other people. Also, I'm going to use
my china more. The boys need to learn that we can eat off plates
other than major holidays or when Nana visits and washes the
dishes.
Predictions: Someone will win the Rose Bowl and the Super Bowl and
the Texas Governor's race, and I almost certainly won't like any of
'em. (Hook 'em Horns, for all the good it'll do.) It will be hot
and dry in Austin and my lawn will die. For real: Tom DeLay will
not go to prison, but will be frozen out of the House leadership,
which amounts to the same thing.
Now, I'm off to enforce my sons' resolution to go to bed earlier.
Happy New Year to all of you.
|1.1.06 @ 9:18PM|#
Jim Anderson,
You forgot the "Nearly Headless Nick" post referring to Nick Berg's
beheading. We actually got NG or TC, I can't remember which, to
either change the headline or remove the thread.
Shem,
The singularity
can be defined as when true AI comes online, resulting in a much
more accelerated technical advancement, due to AIs developing their
future incarnations. At that point, it basically becomes as hard to
predict what the following fifty years will look like as it was in
1900 to predict what 1950 would look like. No airplanes to
passenger travel, cars changing from oddities to common appliances,
outhouses to indoor toilets, etc.
|1.1.06 @ 9:32PM|#
John in Nashville,
I was born and reared in Nashville, the buckle of the Bible
Belt.
Most Christers know God needs no help from Caesar, but the hang-up
is that Caesar is God's "agent" for earthly affairs as was
Jesus.
It's as if Superman needs, not just his Clark Kent, but a
manservant.
The Green Hornet needed Gayto, eh?
We won't achieve it, but it would be good to talk up a separation,
not of church and state, but of God and His agents/lobbyists.
Angels are guilty as hell as well of being agents. They all should
be tarred.
We need to take this whole story-line again from the top.
Perhaps Tom Delay could ponder a way out of the morass while he
does his time in jail. Chuck Colson did some deep and useful
thinking, nicht wahr?
|1.1.06 @ 10:07PM|#
Ray Kurzweil has a new book out on the subject. I haven't read
it yet but the volume is a topic of much focus.
http://www.singularity.com/
|1.1.06 @ 10:16PM|#
Karen Cox,
In the spirit of sprinkling a rose petal or two onto your path, we
had a thread about books we perverts here recommend.
Somebody here will surely link to it.
My suggestion was Frankland by James Whorton, Jr.
Has anybody seen smacky lately?
|1.1.06 @ 10:37PM|#
Shawn-Much appreciated. I see what he means. That is kind of
scary to think about.
Cool too, though.
|1.1.06 @ 11:15PM|#
In answer to Fall Dog's question:
There is no reason whatsoever to believe that individuals, working
together cooperatively, couldn't achieve the legitimate purposes of
any government entity. As far as I'm concerned, that belief is a
close corollary to what libertarianism is all about.
If we're faced with an imminent, urgent situation (there's no
evidence of that in this case, is there?), we may have to admit
that it's not the best time to destroy the old order and create
new, noncoercive institutions. But that wouldn't be a breach of
philosophical purity; it would be coping with the effects of a
statist status quo.
|1.1.06 @ 11:15PM|#
Ruthless,
"Has anybody seen smacky lately?"
Nope, not since summer. But I would guess she took off for warmer
places. Good for her!
|1.1.06 @ 11:17PM|#
Victory will be declared in Iraq.
Minor, highly publicized, troop withdrawal from Iraq.
Troop withdrawal nullified by realignment that puts them
back.
War against totalitarian government will go unreported.
The MSM will finally go mainstream.
Shit will hit the fan and wind up on taxpayer sandwiches with your
choice of mustard or mayo.
|1.1.06 @ 11:45PM|#
I predict that there will be another Denver Reasonoid gathering. There will be drinks a-plenty, as well as lots of cool people and nifty conversation.
Warren|1.1.06 @ 11:50PM|#
Has anybody seen smacky lately?
Wasn't Jennifer holding her hair back at the Chrismahoniquanzica
party? I hope she didn't try to drive home.
|1.1.06 @ 11:50PM|#
Also...
I predict that Jeff will say all sorts of mean things about
organized sports.
Gunnels will post some interesting stuff whilst being a total
prig.
Gaius Marius will alternately infuriate me and cause me to sadly
nod my head in agreement.
Thoreau will continue to be friendly and levelheaded, while
blinding creationists with science. (Yes, I also predict he will
break that New Year's resolution)
I'll go off half-cocked and ranting like a madman at some
point.
Jeff P.|1.2.06 @ 12:18AM|#
Mediageek: I swear to you here and now that I will only belittle
professional sports (or its fans) when extra-long games or
protracted post-seasons cause me to be at my broadcasting job
several hours longer than usual (as I'm salaried, not hourly).
Waiting for the end of a six hour game before I can go home and
drink is unacceptable.
And that's "professional" sports. Sports as a concept (organized or
otherwise) are fine. I played football and hoop a lot in my day. It
is only the leviathan of pro-sports, which warps money and legal
issues around it like a black hole, that needs to die a horrible
death.
Except Womens' Roller-Derby, which is making a comeback, and is the
purest art form I know...
|1.2.06 @ 12:53AM|#
Interesting new blog by libertarian economist David
Friedman.
Sorry, but he lost me when he called ID a "science" and science
itself as being "faith based."
We could do with fewer "libertarians" like him. I don't care how
many Noble Prizes his daddy won.
|1.2.06 @ 1:04AM|#
"Waiting for the end of a six hour game before I can go home
and drink is unacceptable."
Indeed,
it does.
|1.2.06 @ 1:30AM|#
So This Is The New Year, and I Don't Feel Any
Different
The thing is, I do feel different.
|1.2.06 @ 2:57AM|#
Sorry, but he lost me when he called ID a "science" and
science itself as being "faith based."
I think that ID is indeed a scientific speculation, albeit an
incorrect one. Also, many of the proponents of ID twist scientific
results to support ID.
I haven't gone to Friedman's site yet but an argument that
some science is "faith based" can be made on charges of
the uncritical acceptance of dominant paradigms.
But whatever, the thing is that these matters are not political and
so Friedman's pronouncements on em do not directly diminish his
excellent work on anarchist libertarianism. BTW, he has at least
one degree in physics, and also in econ.
BTW Akira, on the thread where you listed what you got for
Christmas, and you told of your Dobsonian telescope and also your
Sherlock Holmes volume; I thought; How cool! As I am also both an
owner of a "light bucket" and a big Sherlock Holmes fan, myself.
Anyway, I assumed that your first name was a female one, (forgive
me. I'm not so worldly in some matters) and I thought: "Wow, what a
cool gal, I wonder if she's cute?" It was kinda funny.
|1.2.06 @ 3:14AM|#
I just visited Friedman's site, which I'm anxious to cite, as it
really is a sight.
Is there a word for what I just did? Also, it appears that I was
wrong about his having an econ degree. He has a PhD in Physics.
But, he has written econ textbooks. Has that ever happened the
other way around? I'm guessing, no.
|1.2.06 @ 3:29AM|#
When I said: "The thing is, I do feel different." What I mean is, is that I feel that the Broncos are going to go to the Super Bowl this year, and I'm not BSing. I really do think so this time!
|1.2.06 @ 4:05AM|#
Top Ten Groan-Inducing Headlines at Hit and Run, among other
things. Happy New Year.
I simply cannot abide such a list that so egregiously omits
How Much Is That Dodgy Innuendo? which should not been anywhere
below number one, much less failing to make the cut altogether.
Forget the BCS, I demand a Congressional investigation into the
obviously flawed process behind the compilation of this list!
;)
|1.2.06 @ 5:20AM|#
I haven't gone to Friedman's site yet but an argument that
some science is "faith based" can be made on charges of the
uncritical acceptance of dominant paradigms.
Not really. Science never "accepts" any hypotheses or explanations.
There's only two options in the scientific method - "reject" and
"fail to reject." And it's not just a semantic difference.
|1.2.06 @ 5:33AM|#
Rick Barton,
You can count another fan of Sherlock Holmes here. In the early
sixties, as a kid I received a copy of THE COMPLETE SHERLOCK HOLMES
for Christmas one year. It's the one with the forward by
Christopher Morley;I still have it. Small world, huh?
|1.2.06 @ 9:20AM|#
Rick Barton,
I second your prediction! It's going to be a Broncos-Giants
rematch, and the Broncos are going to thump the Little Boys
Blue.
If they have to spank Seattle instead, so be it.
|1.2.06 @ 10:12AM|#
jw - I'm another Sherlock Holmes fan. I wonder if there's a connection between libertarianism and Holmes-fannishness. Faith in reason and all that...plus Victorian London actually sounds pretty decent: no gun laws, no drug laws. They did have an income tax, but there seems to have been a sizable lower-end cutoff, and rates were low, AFAICT. You celebrated Blue Carbuncle Day, I hope? I even ate goose on BCD, although that was mostly a coincidence.
|1.2.06 @ 10:49AM|#
Karen Cox:
It's been out for awhile, but if you haven't read it, you might
enjoy The Kite Runner. I thought it was one of the best books I
read in 2005.
|1.2.06 @ 10:59AM|#
I'll just chime in that I was happy to get the full run of the old Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes Mysteries for Christmas.
|1.2.06 @ 12:23PM|#
Ruthless -
re the ABCD thing: every schoolkid knows that A is
better than D, right? Ergo, Anarchy is better
than Democracy. QED. (BTW, apologies if this post looks
weird - I'm using a different browser.)
|1.2.06 @ 12:36PM|#
Cool! All these Sherlock Holmes fans! Yeah, I think that we've established another libertarian affinity, to go with the widely recognized libertarianism-science fiction affinity. (Remember way back when Reason had a regular sci-fi column?) Capitalism and other aspects of individual liberty do seem to permeate the Doyle's depictions of Victorian London, and there is the application of Reason that JD mentioned.
|1.2.06 @ 12:49PM|#
Science never "accepts" any hypotheses or explanations.
There's only two options in the scientific method - "reject" and
"fail to reject." And it's not just a semantic
difference.
That construction seems too confining. There are theories, which
assume and are built on the assumption of both various hypotheses
and even other theories being correct.
|1.2.06 @ 1:02PM|#
That construction seems too confining. There are theories,
which assume and are built on the assumption of both various
hypotheses and even other theories being correct.
Fair point. Some theories are so well supported that we use those
results to inform new models. However, those new models don't
really assume that the entire edifice of the older theory is 100%
correct.
For instance, suppose that I wanted to explain the interactions of
two large molecules. I hypothesize that the interaction is
dominated by certain features of the molecules. In order to model
that interaction, I need to invoke the thoroughly tested theory of
electromagnetism.
My model won't actually depend on the entire edifice of
electromagnetism being correct. I only have to assume that certain
features of the theory are correct, and that those features are
only correct to however many decimal places the experimental data
is accurate to. If my model only invokes electrostatic forces
(charge repulsion) but not electromagnetic waves (light), then I
don't really care if
So, strictly speaking my model wouldn't assume that all of
electromagnetic theory is true. It would only assume certain
aspects of electromagnetic theory are true. If my model wasn't
accurate, it would mean that at least one of my assumptions was
wrong. Most likely the wrong assumption would be something other
than electromagnetic theory.
|1.2.06 @ 1:27PM|#
"Capitalism and other aspects of individual liberty do seem to
permeate the Doyle's depictions of Victorian London, and there is
the application of Reason that JD mentioned."
Don't forget that Sherlock solves cases which baffle the police,
and his intelligent-but-lazy brother works for the government.
|1.2.06 @ 1:48PM|#
Other Holmes trivia - I visited 221B Baker Street AKA The Sherlock Holmes museusm a few days ago. Sad to say - the "Empty House" across the street has been torn down for office space.
|1.2.06 @ 3:03PM|#
I predict that it will be discovered that GWB watches "Deadwood" and has someones head in a box like Al Swearengen has. It is rumored that the head belongs to OBL and GWB was reported to be talking to it regularly.
|1.2.06 @ 3:15PM|#
I resolve to do more work when I'm at work, which means less
time spent on the internet. Off to a brilliant start, I am!
Dammit. I'm starting the South Beach Diet and I forgot the sliced
steak for my delicious salad. I'll have to think of another protein
or risk starvation.
|1.2.06 @ 5:26PM|#
I resolve to believe the exact opposite of everything coming out of the GWB spin machine.
|1.2.06 @ 6:23PM|#
Ray Kurzweil has a new book out on the subject. I haven't
read it yet but the volume is a topic of much focus.
Ignore this man, he knows nothing of computing technology.
NOTHING...
|1.2.06 @ 6:57PM|#
Rick, I will have salmon tomorrow. Always on Tuesdays and Thursdays 'cause they serve it in the cafeteria here. This habit will serve me well now that I'm doin' SBD. Dr. Whatsit does say I can have lean beef on this diet too. And Canadian bacon! I'm having no trouble with the eating tons of vegetables requirement. But, I'm sorry to say he's very down on potatoes, pastries, and waffles drowned in syrup and butter. Those are a few of my favorite things.
|1.2.06 @ 11:09PM|#
me,
Good luck with it. The low carb thing worked for me and I hope it
works for you, me. I'm not even a little overweight any more. (ok.
I did put a little on since Thanksgiving, but that'll come off
quick.)
|1.2.06 @ 11:41PM|#
thoreau PhD,
Thanks for putting a finer point on it with that illustrative
example.
(I wasn't sure if the permission that you kindly granted me to
address you sans mention of your degree extends into the New Year.
Please be so kind as to let me know.)
(Attention Newbies: Although thoreau really does have a PhD in
physics, the rest of that business is just me trying to be
funny)
|1.3.06 @ 12:35PM|#
That construction seems too confining. There are theories,
which assume and are built on the assumption of both various
hypotheses and even other theories being correct.
Hey, if you kids want to know how science really works, read
"Personal Knowledge, Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy? by Michael
Polyani:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226672883/reasonmagazineA/
First learned of it some twenty years ago by way of the ?Harvard
Business Review?
|1.3.06 @ 12:36PM|#
That construction seems too confining. There are theories,
which assume and are built on the assumption of both various
hypotheses and even other theories being correct.
Hey, if you kids want to know how science really works, read
"Personal Knowledge, Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy" by Michael
Polyani:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226672883/reasonmagazineA/
First learned of it some twenty years ago by way of the "Harvard
Business Review"
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245