Right and left takes

Earlier I linked to Callimachus’s post, Serendipity. In this post Callimachus observes:

The “right” seems to have been stung particularly by the “stingy” sneer from the U.N. Perhaps that helps ratchet up their focus on the relief work, to play smackdown with the U.N. fool. That could be a partial explanation. But how does that explain the relative lack of interest on the left? Unless you want to factor in its desire to prove that America is, in fact, the evil, niggardly, self-righteous place many of their leading lights tirelessly tell us it is?

More likely the overall difference I notice (if it is genuine, and I am sure there are some left blogs hard at work on raising relief money) reflects the right-left perspective shift that left me often on the “right” side of things.

I’ve taken a look at the first eight days of coverage of the Sumatran tsunami and its aftermath from December 26 to January 2 in the top four blogs in the left and right hemispheres of the blogosphere (based on the TTLB Ecosystem) and have summarized the findings in the following tables. I’ve tried to include every post.

Blog 12/26 12/27 12/28 12/29 12/30 12/31 1/1 1/2
Left
Daily Kos I C ICI BBCB   B    
Talking Points Memo     IB

I C      
Eschaton I   B   C   I  
Kevin Drum   C            
Right
Instapundit II CCCII PIPICI FICPC IC ICIC CIIUII ICIIU
Powerline I   PP CI   C   I
LGF I   IIC I

UC IU    
Wizbang I C IIIIII UII IIIC I UI I

Key to table

Code Interpretation
I the post is really actual information
C the post is about private contributions in whole or in part
B the post is an opportunity to bash Bush (in whole or in part)
U the post is an opportunity to bash the UN (in whole or in part)
F the post is an opportunity to bash the French (in whole or in part)
P the post is an opportunity to bash the Press (in whole or in part)

12/28 from Daily Kos: “Any formal donation drive must wait for Markos.” [ed. we’re still waiting]

These tables only include the actual appeals and references in posts to contributions. Blog ads were not included although, to their credit, most of the blogs did include tsunami relief ads in their sidebars.

I don’t interpret this relative lack of interest in private contributions (other than as a stick to bash the president with) as any lack of sympathy, compassion, or even lack of interest in the relief efforts on the part of the left half of the blogosphere. My interpretation is that the right half of the blogosphere has a fairly traditional de Tocquevillian American reaction: if you believe in something, do it. The left half of the blogosphere has more of a European-style social democrat reaction: if it’s worth doing, it should be done by the government. This explains both the lack of column space devoted to contributions and the inclination to bash Bush for not doing more.

And, by the way, don’t make the mistake of thinking that left-leaning bloggers aren’t pitching contributions. Lots and lots of them are. But it’s interesting to see what the big dogs are doing.

As a final note the table above also gives us a hint as to why Glenn has the most traffic in the blogosphere. He posts more than anybody else and he posts stuff that people want to read.

UPDATE: Submitted to the Beltway Traffic Jam.

5 comments

Rising tides, journals, and heart’s desire

I’d like to thank Dean Esmay for linking to Clay Shirky’s fabulous post Power Laws, Weblogs, and Inequality in his own post of the same name. I’ve seen it referred to before but I hadn’t actually read it until now. I definitely agree when Dean writes:

The data used in the article is out of date. But I see no reason to believe that the trends it noted are anything other than self-evidently true today–or that they won’t still be true ten years from now. (Hey what do you know? Economics really is a science after all!)

A quick look at the TTLB Ecosystem certainly supports the claim.

From my own small point-of-view it’s great with me if Glenn gets a million hits an hour. He works very hard at it and he’s been doing it for some time. I visit his site several times daily and I think he’s earned the traffic. If Instapundit didn’t exist, we would be forced to create him.

For me the really neat thing is that—even with the power-law effect of blog traffic described in the link above—as the number of people reading and writing blogs increases even a small-fry like me who’s only been in operation for about eight months probably gets as much traffic as Glenn did after his first eight months of operation. That’s certainly more than I expected to get when I started out. As far as traffic goes I’ve already achieved the small goals I set for myself when I began.

The goal that I’m working on now is opening the discussion more and creating more of a community with the little coterie of bloggers and readers that I interact with most. That and becoming a better writer and more effective and more honest advocate. In my opinion those are goals that are really worth going after. And isn’t that the very best thing about blogging? Blogs are the perfect Horatio Alger universe. If you have the ability and you work hard enough you can achieve your heart’s desire.

1 comment

Catching my eye: morning A through Z (UPDATED)

Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

  • Just when you thought that the set of all possible Carnivals was complete…Carnival of the Doodles
    is now up at Ambivablog. It’s still accepting entries so if you’ve always been looking
    for a venue for your doodles now’s your golden opportunity. It seems a bit estrogen-intensive
    at this point so male doodlers—submit your work.
  • Different River has a great post on birth control, pregnancy, and experts.
  • Read Callimachus of Done With Mirrors post on Serendipity.
  • Juan Cole of Informed Comment on the downsides of partitioning Iraq.
  • Donald Sensing of One Hand Clapping has more first-hand accounts of the Sumatran tsunami and its aftermath.
  • Pennywit on activists versus commentators.
  • The Daily Demarche speculates on what would have happened if we had never invaded Iraq.
  • Without additional comment I suggest you examine this post which demonstrates how the United States caused the Sumatran tsunami. You be the judge. (Hat tip: Tigerhawk)

That’s the lot

0 comments

Carnival of the Liberated

This week’s Carnival of the Liberated, a sampler of some of the best posts from Iraqi bloggers from the last week, is up on Dean’s World. This week there’s excitement and anticipation about the upcoming election, Ali explains his departure from Iraq the Model, a death in the family, and a lot more.

0 comments

Building the case for Social Security reform

Steve Verdon has responded to my challenge to proponents of Social Security reform actually to build a case for reform with a post that I consider to be reasonable, reasoned, and temperate. I haven’t completely digested his arguments yet but his post is definitely worthy of consideration. He includes a good question for me:

Over at the Glittering Eye, the bar is set to preclude arguments such as the one above [ed. adverse secondary effects of the current system], but why? If a policy has a potentially serious flaw in it…shouldn’t we fix it? We saw pandering similar to that described above with the Prescription Drug Program for Medicare. Do we really want to keep policies in place that continuiously tempt politicians to pander with tax dollars?

I was trying to apply a commonsense standard. When you bring in a repairman to repair your refrigerator you don’t expect him to throw the refrigerator out because it uses too much energy and we should be eating fresh-picked vegetables immediately and meat not at all (even if these things are true). Bringing actuarial soundness to the Social Security system is (in my opinion) a worthy objective and something we should be able to achieve consensus on. Even if the additional critiques of the system are true and similarly worthy they’re a form of changing the subject.

I’m absolutely not opposed to a broader critique of the system but not in the context of a discussion of bringing actuarial soundness to the system. Not only does it change subject but it weakens the potential consensus by making some—like Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall—suspect that the consideration of reform is just a stalking horse for abolition of the program entirely.

2 comments

Catching my eye: morning A through Z

Here’s what’s caught my eye this morning:

  • The Bullmoose advises Democrats: being an opposition party is not enough.
    They should actually, like, have alternatives. Or they can just connect with the voters.
  • Infidel of Duophony on Bruce Cumings on Korea.
  • Arnold Kling writes on Tech Central Station about Capitalism without capital
  • Phil Carter of Intel Dump reflects on whether we have the army we need.
  • Lawrence Solumn has a great tutorial on intention in legal theory on Legal Theory Blog.
  • Tyler Cowen of Marginal Revolution comments on
    Randall Parker of FuturePundit’s ideas about health care reform.
  • Medpundit
    pens a requiem for the drug store.
  • Angela Winters of Politopics notes the challenges facing the 109th Congress.

That’s the lot.

0 comments

Chicago-bound jet hit with laser light

ABC Chicago is reporting that a laser was trained on a plane bound for Chicago from Nashville yesterday:

January 3, 2005 — Investigators are looking into another incident of a laser pointed at a commercial airplane. The latest involved a United flight headed for Chicago.

The flight landed safely at O’Hare airport, but shortly after it took off from Nashville international airport, the pilots reported seeing a green laser.

The plane was a United Airlines regional jet with about 30 people on board.

Passengers say they didn’t notice anything different.

This is the latest in a string of incidents across the country. Laser beams can temporarily blind or disorient pilots, possibly even causing the plane to crash.

Clayton Cramer, SgtStryker, and others have observed that these incidents may have been target acquisition exercises.

0 comments

Submitted for your consideration

As you may or may not already be aware, members of the Watcher’s Council hold a vote every week on what they consider to be the most link-worthy pieces of writing around… per the Watcher’s instructions, I am submitting one of my own posts for consideration in the upcoming nominations process.
Here is the most recent winning council post, here is the most recent winning non-council post, here is the list of results for the latest vote, and here is the initial posting of all the nominees that were voted on.

0 comments

Burden of proof and Social Security Reform

The burden of proof in an argument refers to what each side has to prove in order to prevail. In the United States in a criminal case the prosecution must prove that the accused is guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”. In a civil case the party bringing suit must prove his or her case with a preponderance of the evidence.

In an argument the burden of proof falls mostly on whichever party is proposing a change from the status quo. If, instead of making a case for change, the advocate for change attempts to shift the burden of proof to the party defending the status quo, it is considered a logical fallacy. The proponent must make a case. Contrariwise it is sufficient for the opponent or counter-advocate to refute a case. And if the proponent fails to fulfill his or her burden of proof, the opponent must be considered to have the stronger case.

Today I’ve seen a number of posts on Social Security reform—Brad DeLong, Steve Verdon, and Josh Marshall all have recent posts on the subject. I posted a round-up of posts on Social Security reform here. Over the last week or so I’ve participated in debates of the comments sections of a half dozen or so blogs on the subject. And in most cases I’ve noticed the same thing: advocates are not meeting their burden of proof.

In general, for an advocate for change in the current Social Security system to meet his or her burden of proof the case must be made that

  1. There is a problem with the current system.
  2. The problem is a pressing problem i.e. the problem must be dealt with now.
  3. The proposed solution must actually address the problem that has been identified.

I haven’t seen many affirmative cases that do any of these things. Arguing that we should never have begun the Social Security system does not meet the burden of proof. Arguing that any proposed plan would be better i.e. cheaper, fairer, better secondary effect, etc. does not meet the burden of proof. Arguing that opponents of change have ulterior motives does not meet the burden of proof. Arguing that opponents of change don’t know what they’re talking about or have made mistakes does not meet the burden of proof.

Let’s have an honest discussion of this issue. If you’re an advocate for change—whether for partial privatization, complete privatization, or some other plan, make your case. Attacking the Social Security system isn’t enough.

1 comment

Sunday quick glances (UPDATED)

Here are a few things work taking a glance at this morning:

  • I see that Wretchard of Belmont Club’s thoughts expressed here
    echo mine expressed here.
  • Brad DeLong vs. David Wessel: grading Democrats on Social Security reform.
  • Arnold Kling’s EconLog has a very interesting post on the bell curve in medical care outcome data.

    Does it make a difference for health care policy whether the outcome data is bell-curved or shark-fin shaped? How about compensation? Both bell-curved? Outcome data bell curved and compensation shark-fin shaped? Remember that the formidable barriers to entry in the health care industry preclude a market in health care services.

  • Nelson Ascher of Europundits reflects on 2004.
  • The Laughing Wolf notes that reknowned science fiction illustrator Kelly Freas has died. May he rest in peace and perpetual light shine upon him.

I’ll be updating this throughout the day.

1 comment