Around the Web

• “We are only 50 percent of the way to knowing what trees really do for us,” says botanist Lester Rowntree in Jill Jonnes' article about the role of trees in the life of the city
• "I've never had colleagues in the sense that I do here," says Jonathan Lethem who's headed for liberal arts college bliss at Pomona (I wondered if he planned write a book that doesn't take place in New York but, alas, this article says his next book is set in Queens)
• I've made my picks for Slate's Oscar Pool game
• "By the time I got around to Vampire’s Kiss and then Bad Lieutenant and now this movie, Drive Angry and then also Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, I had realized that I’d developed my own style and process and school of acting which is called Nouveau Shamanic. That’s the new style of acting and at some point I’ll have to write a book.” -Nicholas Cage (!), quoted by Movieline

 

Born Back Ceaselessly Into the Past

Specifically about 1990...check out this awesome online version of "The Great Gatsby" game for the original Nintendo.

Why (Self-Identified) Conservatives Are Rare in Academe

At a recent social psychology conference, UVA Professor John Haidt made a familiar point about ideological diversity by asking conservatives and moderates in attendance to raise their hand. This exercise touches on an interesting, perennial question: why are so there so few conservatives in the academy?

Among “movement conservatives,” it is practically an article of faith that liberal bias discourages right-leaning students from pursuing careers in academia, particularly careers in the social sciences and humanities. But is this just right-wing paranoia, or worse, a politically-convenient way for conservatives to diminish the standing of potential ideological foes?

A working paper by sociologists Neil Gross and Ethan Fosse suggests that the widespread liberalism is largely the result of self-selection. The authors identify several characteristics that predispose one towards liberalism and find that they are disproportionately present amongst academics. Specifically, when compared with other Americans, professors:

- tend to have higher income and education levels
- are less likely to be theologically-conservative Protestants
- are more likely to be Jewish or non-religious
- are more tolerant of controversial ideas
- have a greater disparity between their income and educational levels

Gross and Fosse argue that the ubiquity of these liberal-friendly characteristics in the professorate has gradually resulted in academia being “typed” as a liberal profession, in much the same way nursing has been typed a “feminine” profession. They cite research by Amy Binder and others showing that conservative students (of all ability levels) are less likely to feel ideological kinship with their professors and thus are less likely to aspire to join academia.

To me, their argument sounds reasonable: if a top student thinks the private sector promotes innovation and raises living standards, he's probably more likely to accept its generally more lucrative and flexible offerings than one who frowns upon “big business." This probably holds true for undergrads and grad students alike. And the private sector isn't the only other option for cerebral conservatives.

For secular folks, the academe is one of relatively few fields where an individual can devote his or her professional energies to contemplating and propagating his or her conception of the “Truth.” Religious conservatives can also consider the clergy (there are roughly 500,000 members of the Protestant clergy in the US and about 25,000 philosophy professors, per the AP and the BLS, respectively) or any number of faith-based organizations. Conservative think tanks probably took an ideological bite out of academia early on, but by now I suspect their impact is canceled out by left-leaning think tanks. The Defense sector probably absorbs more conservative thinkers in the aggregate.

These factors seem to go a long way towards explaining the relative rarity of conservative academics, but political bias still plays a role in some cases. In some disciplines, influence will be harder to come by for those who don't take certain political views for granted. Likewise, at some institutions, conservatism is stigmatized and so challenging sensitive liberal shibboleths might open you up for professional or even personal criticism (I have Pat Moynihan in mind on this issue).

Of course, it's also worth remembering that "liberal" and "conservative" can be unstable terms in academia. Greg Mankiw, Andrew Bacevich, Jean Bethke Elshtain, and Francis Fukuyama could all be called conservatives and yet could all have different views on any given issue. Foreign policy and economic conservatives probably meet the least resistance in most disciplines. Likewise, the term liberal is similarly pretty expansive; it's just as likely to be used for a free trade-backing Clinton fan as it is for an avowed Marxist. Given their backgrounds, I'd wager most academics who identify as liberal in the US aren't that in favor of challenging the status quo.

 

Here's the working paper. Here's a NY Times article that does an okay job discussing it.
Some of this was adopted from a previously deleted blog post.

File Under: Reasons for Revolution

Apparently, in 2008, Goldman Sachs found a neat little trick for keeping those balance sheets tidy: just get rid of December altogether. Even more impressive, they managed to do so without giving up their holidays!

News to me.

"Chicago School" of 80's Cinema

In any genre, it's hard to make a movie that will age well, but it's particularly difficult to make a mainstream comedy that lasts. Some jokes lose relevance and Hollywood is by no means averse to recycling successful gags, characters, set-ups and plot devices. A few great movies can survive this borrowing (e.g. "This Is Spinal Tap"), while some good ones lose a bit of their luster (I think I would have enjoyed "Risky Business" more if I hadn't seen its premise copied and updated by "The Girl Next Door").

Now, I've heard the criticisms about 80s pop culture, but, in my view, the decade produced a remarkable number of mainstream comedies that stand the test of time. Flicks that come to mind include "Planes, Trains and Automobiles," "Farris Bueller's Day Off," "Trading Places," "The Blues Brothers" and of course, "Groundhog Day." One of the reasons I think these movies last is that they tend to couple sarcasm with an essentially optimistic view of the human spirit.

These movies were not generally heavy on political content, it would be a mistake to consider them to be totally sympatico with the "Morning in America" thing going on. The dean in "Animal House" (okay, technically 1979) is basically a Nixon figure. The protagonists in these movies are often savvy, worldly types given to making sarcastic jokes. You could maybe argue that these movies dealt with big issues superficially, but I have yet to see a PSA that hits me like the end of "Planes, Trains..." They aren't perfect or even that elegant, but I think these movies tend to hit on something resonant.

"Groundhog Day," in my view, is one of the best of this genre. Here's an interesting article that talks about how adherents of various religious traditions (Eastern and Western)  find echoes of their philosophies in the film.

Then again, maybe, as a Reagan baby, I'm just being sentimental...

* I used the term "Chicago School" because many of the people involved have Chicago ties (Bill Murray, Harold Ramis, the brothers Belushi, John Landis, John Hughes).  Even some of the relevant Canadians (John Candy, Dan Ackroyd) have ties to the Toronto satellite of Chicago's "Second City" troupe. This also has a useful connotation: the Midwestern and Canadian cultures are stereotyped as earnest. And for those keeping track, they also have strongly Progressive elements.

A pretty good year for Hollywood...

To my thinking, 2010 was a pretty good year for the movies.  We could be in for a pretty good Academy Awards, too, since some of this year's noteworthy flicks (True Grit, The Black Swan, The Social Network, The Kids Are Alright, Inception etc.) did pretty well at the box office.

Metacritic aggregated a bunch of critic's top ten lists and came up with this:

1	The Social Network
2	Winter’s Bone
3	Black Swan
4(tie)	Inception
	Toy Story 3
6	The Ghost Writer
7	The Kids Are All Right
8	The King’s Speech
9	Carlos (released on TV first, thus ineligible for statues)
10	127 Hours

I'll put out my own list after a few more visits to the megaplex, but  a few thoughts for now:

• It's remarkable how many good movies didn't make this list: True Grit, Howl, The Green Zone, Greenberg, Get Low and plenty more.  I'm not saying all of these were better than those listed, but there were plenty of opportunities to catch a flick and not leave disappointed.
• This was also a good year for popcorn flicks: the A-Team remake was a blast, as were The Expendables and Iron Man 2.  I've heard great things about The Town and Red from several people.  Get Him to the Greek was pretty funny.  Consensus seems to be that the Wall Street sequel was better than expected. Unstoppable wasn't earth-shattering but it was better than it had to be.  I look forward to seeing The American.
•  Two documentaries were widely-released and well-regarded: Client #9 and Inside Job.  Haven't seen either yet, but trailers for both look interesting.

 *Footnote:  I'm mostly talking about commercial cinema, but I want to recommend Sweetgrass, which is the best documentary I've seen in a long time (but be forewarned: it requires a bit more patience than your average doc.)

"And while I'm at it..."

Retiring diplomats' parting shots...

A Sign of the Times

I said it during the end of his presidency and I'll say it again now: I still like George W. Bush more than I like most prominent Republicans these days.  This is more a comment on the state of the Republican Party than it is on his Presidency.

At least Bush tried in earnest (relatively speaking) to do something about issues like immigration, prescription drugs for seniors, and AIDs in Africa. He was pragmatic in improving our relationship with India (and handled the Tsunami relief very well), and he helped curb prejudice against Islam in the wake of 9/11. 

Like most Democrats, I disagree with him on a lot of issues (particularly domestic ones) and I'm not convinced his temperament was the best fit for the job. But compared to Rick Perry, Pat Toomey, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry, he isn't looking so bad.

Slate-y Headlines

Any old rag spit out a smugly heterodox conclusions week after week (jus' playin, I still love you Marty Peretz!), but it takes Slate to really help fill in the gaps for us readers. Fortunately, of course, other publications are now using Slate-y headlines (which often begin with "how""why," or "what").  Which is convenient because just yesterday, I wondering what a New School adjunct might have to say about what Barack Obama could learn from the Chilean wine industry.

Also I just love those new political commentators they have (disclaimer: I didn't work on the Crimson with any of them).  Sometimes it takes a 25 year old with a bevy of unpaid internships under his belt to set a guy like Brad DeLong straight on monetary theory.  Also, I, for one, was glad to hear somebody finally point out the real reason  why healthcare reform took so long. 

Enter Ambien Man

Congratulations Dick Gephart, you're off the hook. This profile seems to confirm suspicions that Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is now the most boring Presidential contender in recent memory.

What a line-up...

So the GOP's midterms lineup now includes:

• Nevada's Sharon Angle (Senate) who thinks black football jerseys are "thoroughly evil"
• Kentucky's Rand Paul (Senate) who supports the right of private establishments to discriminate based on skin color (and who apparently forced a coed to pray to "Aqua Buddha" when he was in college)
• Delaware's Christine O'Donnell who's so nutty that the Weekly Standard (!) won't even endorse her
• Arizona's Jan Brewer, who lied was mistaken about her dad's WW2 death survival and about Border Patrol finding decapitated bodies in the desert. She also canceled all debates after bombing the first one.
• Michigan's Andrew Raczkowski (Congress), who's a birther
• Arizona's Ben Quayle- see last post.  Imagine Stifler from "American Pie," only more entitled and much less charming
• Texas's Rick Perry- he's expressed secessionist sympathies, but he's not totally averse to government regulation; he mourned the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas

There are general election nominees. From both coasts and the middle. Most, if not all, of the above have actually won primaries and some are current officeholders.

A Chip Off the Old Block....

Ben Quayle, in his bid for office, proves that foot-in-mouth disease may have a genetic basis. 

Update:
Just learned that Ben played on his college lacrosse team (Duke, incidentally). Très shocking, no?

Bush and Putnam on Immigration

This short Independence Day op-ed by Jeb Bush and Bowling Alone sociologist Robert Putnam is worth a glance, if you're not busy.

Also, I'd be interested to hear how the piece came to fruition. My money says Jeb made the first call.

Around the Web

Quick non-sequitor: what a great Masters Tournament.

• Vanity Fair profile of General Petraeus praises his drive and competence but also portrays him as unyieldingly ambitious
• The latest salvo in Matt Taibbi's tussle with David Brooks.  Granted, Taibbi's writing tends to be a little hyperbolic.  But sometimes things are more fun that way. In this particular post, I don't think he's taking any unfair shots
• The Daily Show on the recent Catholic disgrace: “If any other organization had done anything close to what the Church is being accused of, they’d be done! the Church is barely showing any contrition - for God’s sakes, look how sorry Domino’s was just for their shitty pizza! They had a bad sauce recipe, (and) they’ve been out there nonstop - ‘Oh, we’re so sorry. Here, have some Crazy Bread!’”

Update:

Also,  the trailer for the new A-Team movie

ISI list of 50 best books...no big surprises

Ranking books, music and movies according to some notion of "quality" is gimmicky and best and foolish at least.  But, if these kind of rankings aren't taken too seriously, they can be fun and interesting.
The conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute has released their list of the 50 best books of the twentieth century.   Unlike a lot of other top books lists, this one omits literary fiction. While the list has a decidedly conservative/traditionalist tilt (which is no surprise, given the ISI's advocacy for "Great Books" curricula), I think most people would get a lot out of reading most of the books on the list.  There is more balance than you might expect (they include Autobiography of Malcolm X, for instance.)

Still there are some glaring omissions (what no Timothy Leary?*).  I think a few get an unfair ideological bump from likeminded editors, but there's plenty on there that I haven't actually read,  so this is just speculation.

Their worst books list is much more crassly political and not really worth reading.

*joking.