ToddSeavey.com

•Since the past two days’ entries mentioned time travel, the Victorian British, and imperialism, it might be a fitting time to note that I stumbled across this nineteen-minute sketch featuring Rowan Atkinson (among others) as a comedic version of Doctor Who. Not bad. (The Doctor’s British-eccentric combination of wanderlust, tolerance, and very-reluctant interventionism may have contributed to my own rather moderate and Britishy attitude toward imperialism and interventionism — but we can discuss that at our August 12 debate on imperialism at Lolita Bar, especially if you e-mail me to volunteer to argue against imperialism.)

•In other geeky news — perhaps the gothiest news I’ve heard since Peter Murphy did guest vocals on a Nine Inch Nails cover of a Joy Division song (“Dead Souls”): a remake of The Crow is due out in 2012, and the screenwriter is none other than Nick Cave, dark alternative rock singer and the not-bad Faulkner-esque (via Australia) novelist who wrote And the Ass Saw the Angel, which I gave to Francis Heaney as a birthday present at some point.

As long as Cave’s Crow is better than Wim Wenders’ atrocious pseudo-sci-fi film Until the End of the World, I’ll be happy — though that film’s rock soundtrack may remain the best I’ve ever heard (with the possible exception of Natural Born Killers, from that film directed by that Hitler apologist who hates Bush). The Until the End of the World soundtrack features wonders including Nick Cave’s darkly hilarious bomb-maker-narrated drinking song “’Til the End of the World.”

•In still geekier news, I should note that reportage from last weekend’s San Diego Comic-Con revealed that Joss Whedon is officially directing the ensemble Avengers movie, with more-or-less confirmed team members (or allies) Thor, Hulk, Iron Man, Captain America, Black Widow, and Hawkeye.

And we learned that next year’s Thor and Captain America movies will be linked, in what has become the expected way with Marvel-based movies, through the device of Read the rest of this entry »

ToddSeavey.com Book Selection of the Month (July 2010): Victorian Norwich by Arthur Lester Lathrop

Until Helen gave me a copy, I had no idea anyone had written a book about the town I grew up in, Norwich, CT (there’s been more than one such book, apparently).

Thanks to Lathrop’s tome, which depicts the different-yet-very-familiar Norwich of the latter half of the nineteenth century, I now know about such things as Norwich’s schizoid relationship to the temperance movement (literally going back and forth between making booze illegal and legal on roughly an annual basis) and about Norwich being, yes, the croquet capital of the U.S. for a good forty years, though the town baseball players were virtually all Irish. (Similar revelations help explain why England seems almost as much like home to me as New England does.)

Another chapter details the close ties between my high school (Norwich Free Academy) and Yale. The town saw its commercial peak, though, in the trolley car (or, if you will, steampunk) era, and the book ends with Norwich’s grandest-ever self-celebration, 101 years ago, a parade/festival overseen by (familially Norwich-linked) President William Howard Taft himself, after which it was all downhill — but still in an English-Victorian progressive sort of way — straight to late-twentieth-century economic doldrums and me.

(And herewith a flashforward to my August, September, and October Book Selection entries, which will include, respectively, After the Victorians; the Taft-related Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism; and the Jonah Goldberg-edited anthology Proud to Be Right, featuring my vaguely steampunk-like essay defending, explicitly at long last, the tradical idea of “Conservatism for Punks.” Taft is a reminder, by the way, that America is capable of producing presidents who are both fat and in favor of minimizing business regulations, so there may be a bright future for Chris Christie.)

In New York City, one is conscious of history — and newness — at every turn, but I am pleased to learn that simply by growing up in Norwich, I have walked the same streets walked by such characters as Read the rest of this entry »

Jacob Levy notes J.E.H. Smith has attacked 80s music — or rather, has captured perfectly how a forty-year-old Gen Xer of a certain sort (e.g., me) feels about whether to stay hip or indulge in musical nostalgia…or both…or neither (I also really like the first comment below the article).

I will note that I am not and have never been a fan of 80s music per se but rather of alternative rock, where that means something broad like “the strain of music roughly beginning with Velvet Underground and running through glam rock, punk, New Wave, grunge, and in the narrow sense indie, along with some of the things resembling or influencing those genres, such as garage rock, some prog rock, and alt-country.”

This shows (for good or ill) greater consistency on my part — and far less interest in nostalgia — than if I regarded, say, the Dead Kennedys and Katrina and the Waves as interchangeable (and, by the way, I really think the latter should have done a benefit concert to aid victims of post-hurricane flooding in New Orleans). I was even more enthusiastic about decade-old Who songs when I was ten than I am about twenty-year-old Nirvana songs now, I swear. And I still don’t like, for example, Bon Jovi, whose songs sound like they were designed to cause people to sing off-key in karaoke decades later.

All that being said: setting aside quality for the moment, my nominee for “most quintessentially 80s song” is Kenny Loggins’ “Danger Zone.”

P.S. Speaking of time travel, here’s what (Brown alum) Josh Friedman, who produced the tragically short-lived Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles TV series, has been up to lately (as pointed out by Megan McArdle): confronting someone who partially stole his identity (but is probably not a robot duplicate from a decade in the future). And by the way, I correctly guessed who the writer of that blog entry was even without knowing his last name, ’cause I’m just that nerdy.

Perhaps the most surprising moment on this weekend’s Freedom Watch (for which I write) is the moment when hulking professional wrestler Kane is asked what he thinks about liberty and he gives host Judge Andrew Napolitano an erudite citation of nineteenth-century French economist Frederic Bastiat.  You can find clips from past shows here, and you can watch the new episode on Fox Business Network at 10am and 8pm Saturday, 7pm and 11pm Sunday, Eastern, so surely you’ll want to catch it at least once.  Besides Kane, it’s got Ann Coulter, Bob Barr, espionage-analyzing Washington Post reporter Dana Priest, and more.

I’m pleased to see that this clip of a pug dog who (ostensibly) sounds like he’s saying “Batman” (followed by ABC anchor-banter that reminds me oddly of some dates I’ve been on) has already gone viral…and been transformed (as my friend Paul Taylor points out) into this musically-enhanced version using the theme from the 1960s show.

In slightly more sophisticated geek-entertainment news, Ali Kokmen, who really ought to be made the head of his own nerd-oriented publishing company or division, with a simply immense salary (because he’s just that good), points out that the Libertarian Futurist Society has just given out its annual Prometheus Awards for libertarian sci-fi.

P.S. I’m not sure what it tells us about io9 readers that their comment threads contain some of the first uses I’ve seen in several months (mercifully) of the beaten-to-death nerd would-be-sophisticate humor-trope of feigning hesitation through the use of constructions such as “Um, not so much.”  I hate with a murderous passion every last living person who is still doing that, and I will not apologize for it, even if they are sad teenage girls with few other outlets for their creativity and opinions.

By contrast, I admit I have on rare occasions made use of “uh” on this blog to feign confusion, but that’s different, and when I do it, it’s cute.

I see that tonight brings a performance at Le Poisson Rouge in the Village by Boyd Rice, punkish noise artist and ex of performance artist Lisa “Suckdog” Carver.  Rice mainly interests me because he’s sort of a Social Darwinist anarchist with Church of Satan influences, whereas among my friends, only one person holds that philosophy, a sad reminder how predictable people are, really.

A DJ at tonight’s Rice show: David Johansen, formerly of New York Dolls.  Yes, that’s right, the guy who had a hit with “Hot Hot Hot” under the name Buster Poindexter, with the hair.  Didn’t expect to see that guy onstage with a Satano-anarchist the last time you heard the song used in a TV ad about spicy food, did you?

Bobby Steele is not only a past Lolita Bar debater (much as you can be if you volunteer to argue against imperialism for August 12), he’s also a punk-rocking veteran of the Misfits and the Undead — and a conservative — and he’ll be performing in the highly-capitalist venue of the Jamba Juice in between 47th and 48th (which can be entered from Broadway or 7th) tonight from 6:30-9.

Why not check him out before attending the nearby monthly Manhattans Project gathering I host, from 7-10pm on the third Monday of the month, at Langan’s bar/restaurant (47th near 7th), for people interested in politics and/or media?  That’s my plan.  Sounds like a perfect evening.

Jamba Juice is a reminder you don’t need alcohol to have a punk time, and Steele is a reminder you don’t need the Green Party either.

I see that a couple weeks ago I was evoked as an example of a libertarian with conservative cultural sympathies (due to my debate with Kerry Howley), in a Daily Caller column defending gay marriage.  I don’t want to exaggerate my conservatism, since I also have my punk side (as the blog slogan suggests), but there are certainly times when I think there is something fundamentally awry with the anything-goes cultural attitudes of our fallen era, like the religiony folk are always telling me.  I think we’d all be better off if we listened to many of their cultural and psychological points regardless of whether their empirical claims about the structure of the universe are, strictly speaking, true.

Take, for example, the divide about what to teach children regarding sex.  It’s easy to condemn the puritanical religious types (some of them my New England ancestors, as I’ll explain in greater detail in about one week when my Book Selection of the Month will be Victorian Norwich), those who want to fill the kids with taboos and ignorance and tales of hellfire.  On the other hand, I hope I’m not the only non-religious-fanatic who’s noticed that there really does seem to be some countervailing mania on the part of some educators out there — be they hippies, perverts, or just religion-bashers — to impose as much sex-info on kids as early as possible, despite most of us turning out just fine with a large dose of mystery on these topics until adolescence or so.

Take this story about efforts to acquaint grade-schoolers with the fine points of anal sex and the like.  Is this necessary?  Surely there’s a happy medium somewhere between that and nuns forcing people to take cold showers.  The kids will piece it together from movies eventually anyway.

The most generous interpretation of the push to teach the young everything immediately may just be that it’s a case of hyper-egalitarianism, treating all potentially useful info about everything under the sun equally, as if it’d be suspicious to suggest that genitalia be treated in a more circumspect fashion than, say, computer programming.  I’m sure many people keen on creating a gender-neutral culture would see that sort of egalitarianism as a natural corollary of their position.  I only hope society never becomes so gender-neutral that it ceases to produce songs — and excellent videos — like “Girl U Want” by Devo.

That song was used to good effect in Tank Girl, which reminds me that perhaps we’ll hear some interesting (and thoroughly gendered) reactions next year as Watchmen director Zack Snyder once more mines comic books, this time to create an homage not to Charlton Comics heroes (or zombies) but to crazy chicks: Sucker Punch.  Again, as something of a conservative, I don’t think the culture needs a wave of crazy-chick chic.  But the movie will probably be better than Tank Girl.  Someday, perhaps classes on film and gender (which I’m sure Brown is still teaching 24/7) will present compare-and-contrast screenings of Snyder’s films Sucker Punch and 300.  Will either truly be feminine, though?  And is 300 kinda gay?

•I understand David Mamet’s play Race got some negative reviews, but I liked it — sort of a Twelve Angry Men with gruff racial arguments thrown in, with enough layers of un-p.c. expectations-thwarting and reverse-reverse-racism to keep things ambiguous. (And Eddie Izzard looks a bit like comic book industry legend Scott Nybakken, as a bonus.)

•Even more complicated, though, was Chris Nolan’s multilayered corporate-spies-within-dreams thriller Inception, which I hope does very well, though it’s just a little longer and more ponderous than it needs to be, as may be the way with Chris Nolan, I’m beginning to think.

•I have not seen — but am intrigued by the juvenile premise of — Dinner for Schmucks, in which an IRS agent is brought to a dinner party not realizing he’s there because of a contest to see who can bring the dumbest dinner companion. Mainly, I’m just glad a scriptwriter thought “stupid” and then thought “government bureaucrat.”

•Speaking of stupid, here’s something related to entertainment from last year — Optimus Prime doing a Top Ten List on Letterman. And here’s the man behind the robot, or at least the robot’s voice, which I gather many ladies consider hunky-sounding. On a more low-tech note, here’s a real-life owl who functions very much like a Transformer.

•In other biomechanical news, I skipped a Laurie Anderson concert this week but often recall the story of her performing a concert in a town in Africa that had only had electricity for about two days, which is very neat, though it must have made most of the subsequent uses of electricity there seem a bit anticlimactic. If you volunteer to argue against the idea of “benign imperialism” in our August 12 Debate at Lolita Bar on that topic, maybe you can point to Anderson as a troublemaker (that debate will likely be the highlight of this blog’s planned “Month of Imperialism” in August, so stay tuned…).

…or at least he now calls for libertarians to ally with moderates instead of, as he desired two years ago, liberals.  What hasn’t changed is that he still hates those rotten no-good conservatives, even the Tea Party ones.  I wonder if, in the end, he will have any friends at all.

Jonah Goldberg and Matt Kibbe annihilate him in the Reason colloquium linked above. You can also find two former editors in chief of the print version of Reason — and one ex-boss of mine from ABC — among the guests on this weekend’s episode of Freedom Watch, so by all means watch on Saturday or Sunday, on Fox Business Network.

As for Lindsey and his “liberaltarian” mission: it seems to me the liberaltarians, some of whom openly voted for Obama, basically zigged when the nation zagged, ideologically speaking.  But they are allowed to learn and grow, just like the rest of us.  Anyone who still cannot see libertarian potential in the Tea Party movement but can see it in the Democratic Party, though, is about as ideologically blind, albeit in a less dangerous way, as the unrepentant Stalinists of the 1950s.

Comic book writer Harvey Pekar passed away this week, but while he lived, he wrote the graphic novel biography of my friend Michael Malice, a one-man walking anarchist revolution (and former Cato Institute intern).  Malice recalls the experience in this article.  I wish this were a typical comic book death and thus likely to be reversed within a couple years.  But thinking like that leads to religion, and as Malice is a Stirnerite, he’d lose all respect for me.

Happy Bastille Day.  While I don’t hold the French Revolution in much higher esteem than I do the Bolshevik Revolution, both (unsurprisingly) ending in mass murder, I do think this is an apt day for asking radical/revolutionary questions.  One that keeps cropping up in conversations on this blog and elsewhere is what the foundation of libertarian thinking is.

Clearly, for some people — perhaps for a growing portion of libertarians as new, younger people enter the movement — libertarianism is a messy enough bundle of things, from personal autonomy to constitutionalism to national sovereignty, that it’s almost surprising libertarians’ answers to moral and policy questions are as consistent as they are.

And, to be sure, diverse rhetorical modes have long been there in the movement — sometimes individualistic, sometimes conservative, sometimes revolutionary, sometimes bean-counting, sometimes coo-coo-liberationist — but I think it’s always been clear to the deepest and most careful thinkers in the movement, from Robert Nozick to Milton Friedman to Murray Rothbard, that property rights has to be the real basis, not because, say, we arbitrarily prefer shopping to meditation or charity but because all the other candidates for a foundation are so subjective that they simply don’t lead in a predictable way to the sorts of answers to moral and policy questions that the movement keeps generating.

I can tell you that burglary, taxation, and contract fraud all involve someone taking someone else’s property without permission, and it’s not that great a logical leap (however debatable a move one might think it in utilitarian terms) from there to saying all government regulation is an intrusion, etc.  By contrast, all the fuzzier candidates for underlying principles, such as “autonomy” or “individualism,” seem to lead most people to moral conclusions as diverse and strange as the dreams of poets.  Does property enhance autonomy?  OK, I guess.  Does an NEA grant also enhance autonomy?  Maybe sometimes Read the rest of this entry »

Revolutions don’t always start for the reasons you think they should have, and they don’t always work out the way you expect.  A libertarian acquaintance of mine, despite being sympathetic to freer immigration, notes that the conflict over immigration laws in Arizona could end up being the spark that leads to states making greater use of nullification, invoking the Tenth Amendment or de facto seceding from DC.

That thought has to leave someone who wants open borders — or no borders at all, to put it in more anarcho-capitalist, post-nationalist terms — with mixed feelings.  If the fifty states near-simultaneously abandoned DC, like outlying regions of China more or less ignoring Beijing, but did it so they could keep out Mexicans, it would be a strange case of the libertarian movement almost repeating the circa-1980 phase of conservatism, when it was sometimes ambiguous when the concept of “states’ rights” was being unfairly depicted by liberal foes as a veil for racism and when the concept really was just being invoked as a veil for racism.

Not that I’m equating resistance to illegal immigration and Jim Crow.  Rather, I’m saying that in each case, after Arizona, people with motives far removed from property rights can now cloak those motives in anti-centralization talk — even though greater decentralization as an outcome would still be a wonderful thing, much appreciated by many of us who really do have property rights as our main goal (when in doubt, go with diversity — I want the states to be free from DC, and free to experiment, for roughly the same reason I don’t at all mind having a mix of Mexicans, Swedes, Japanese, etc. in the country and don’t even expect them to feel bound by every technicality of our immigration laws any more than the average Tea Partier feels obliged to respect every detail of environmental regulation).

Maybe Spain winning the World Cup will decrease condescending attitudes toward our Spanish-speaking brethren in this hemisphere a bit.  That still leaves countless immigration issues — such as how to handle covertly anti-democratic Islamic radicals who are not actually committing any crime — to be addressed.  And it just so happens that Gerard Perry, who knows his stuff (even when I disagree with him), has started a blog to address those issues, called UnreceivedWidsom.

Having heard him debate immigration and Obamacare at Lolita Bar — and being indebted to him for guiding me to Brooklyn College for the under-attended second iteration of my Ayn Rand declamations this spring — I am confident he’ll have interesting things to say.

But tomorrow something even more revolutionary: Bastille Day!  Regardez-vous!

Congrats to Spain.  I’m reminded that a friend of mine was recently falsely labeled a fascist by a leftist, and his one concession to her charge was that he might have picked the opposite side from hers if forced to fight in the Spanish Civil War.

By contrast, he and I have a mutual acquaintance who is ostensibly an admirer of Burkean organic/traditionalist thinking but also likes street brawls, Nietzsche, the Catholic Church, brutalist architecture, folk music, urban planning, labor unions, working-class solidarity, Continental philosophy, anti-bourgeois and anti-individualist thinking, rigid class/gender roles, self-conscious elites, unapologetic regional loyalties, and Carl Schmitt’s insistence that politics requires conjuring and fighting an enemy.  So it is almost as if we know Mussolini, even while being horrified by such views, like all good-hearted people who have learned from the nightmares of history.

But speaking of learning from history: perhaps this week of Bastille Day is a good time to contemplate the causes and aims of…revolutions.

As the final World Cup match approaches, I can’t help thinking there is something familiar — and sinister — about the world delighting in combative arena-revels while thinking of a prophetic, tentacled beast with purported psychic powers.

And speaking of dread Cthulhu:

•This two-year-old story about a ban on photographs of H.P. Lovecraft’s grave was just brought to my attention.

•This news story about a woman living among her beloved dead sounds rather Lovecraftian.

•But Julian Sanchez, as one of my co-workers points out, has nicely summarized why we needn’t run around being either dogmatic or completely agnostic all the time.

So don’t waste too much time fearing that today’s game will end with the winning team swearing allegiance to Paul the psychic octopus and ushering in an era of global darkness and bloodshed that will leave us all speaking with sorrow of “the strange events of 7/11” (in a non-convenience-store sense). That probably won’t happen.