Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

I would like to try another one. US institutional reform is a little general but we could figure something out.

theham88@gmail.com is my main contact

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

Off topic, but how do you find the Apollo Project Dvlogs? There is no link on the front page. I've seen a link from time to time and I'm not sure how I got there. Does it rotate or is it linked to certain pages? Just curious.

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

One way: visit apollo.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs.

Another way: Go to any specific regular diavlog video page, scroll down a bit, and look in the left column for an icon like this:

http://static.bloggingheads.tv/image...d-viewer15.png

(Note that in these two cases, the most recent Apollovlog will start playing, but you can pause it and get to the others from that page.)

Still another way: Go to the Apollo section in the forums, then go to the thread in that section connected to the diavlog you're interested in. Note that you'll have to edit the link connected to the "View Diavlog" icon -- prepend apollo. to the URL; e.g.,

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/24630 -> http://apollo.bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/24630

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

Thanks. I should have done a bit of research since it now seems obvious that the link is on specific dvlog pages rather than the front page. DOH!!

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

y/w

No prob. A lot of times, it's more efficient just to ask a question, and now that the Q&A exists, it might be easier for someone else to find it.

Don Zeko was conned
 

http://static.bloggingheads.tv/image...rroll_Conn.jpg

I think Preppy and Nikki should be, too, as a rite of passage for our political Apollonians.

Preppy, I was thinking you should try to get the big dog, you know, Bob, to talk about the changing media.

Nikki, how about...hmmm, let me think...how about Reihan! or Douthat, to discuss the future of the Republican Party? Approach them with a request to interview them on their book?

Re: Don Zeko was conned
 

Have they not done a bhtv episode about their book yet? I can't remember; does anyone have a link?

Re: Don Zeko was conned
 

Re: Don Zeko was conned
 

Thought so. Thanks.

Public space/sphere/options anyone?
 

Anyone interested in a conversation on the political connotations of public space? Can, does public space affect political discourse?

The word "public" and its etymological cousins: 'Pubic', 'Puberty' comes with the built-in notion that what is public is inherently adult or, at least, post-pubescent. Yet in practice, public space is --often enforced by law--pre-pubescent-- in that so called 'adult' activities are generally proscribed from public space. In Excesses: Eros and Culture, Alphonso Lingis made a very subversive connection between what we understand to be our 'private parts' and what is arguably an essential quality of capitalism: the right to proscribe, to exclude, to discriminate and, by extension, to define boundaries. Is public space really possible in capitalist society? Is the notion of shared space so utterly obscene as to represent a kind of civic exhibitionism that must be tightly regulated if not outright prohibited? Is the Castro district during Gay pride all that different from Miami beach during spring break? Who writes 'zoning laws' for the human body? (How much of it can be made public.)
Is this why the European style Piazza--Something very different from a park or a plaza-- is generally absent in American cities? Isn't public space the ideal market place?

Is that why walking around naked through public spaces is often perceived to be a leftist activity?

What's the libertarian attitude towards public space?

(I'm an architect, more of a theorist than a builder and this is a somewhat ongoing conversation in architecture and urban planning circles; yet, almost perversely, it rarely involves non-architects. I'm more interested in what the people we design for think than what other designers do...but I'll take other architects too.)

Re: Public space/sphere/options anyone?
 

You might want to check this. The latin poplicus and pubis don't sound that similar, plus one is second declension, the other is third declension.

Some specificity might help here. Are you talking about expressive content or expressive form. Because it certainly seems as if adult-oriented expressive content pervades public space. Or do you mean "adult" as in nudity as an expressive form?

What's your definition of "public?" Is it possible in any society? The ability to use space inherently includes the ability to exclude other uses. I can't use a public baseball diamond to play baseball without excluding other people from it for a period of time. I can't use a track of land as a park without excluding someone else from building a shopping mall there. You can refrain from choosing by law whose competing uses win or lose, but you can't refrain from choosing at all whose competing uses win or lose. Someone has to win, be it by law, by custom, by societal pressures, or by force.

I think you need to separate several related concepts here: 1) public in the sense of physically open to view, 2) public in the sense of accessible to population at large, 3) public in the sense of an open forum, and 4) public in the sense of owned by the people collectively. A park could be all four. A vacant lot could be 1, but not 2, 3 or 4. A town hall could be 2, 3 and 4, but not 1. A community center could be 2 and 3, but not 1 and 4. A private art gallery could be 3, but not 1, 2 or 4.

Different how? Physically? Culturally? Different in a way that can't be explained by the different history and growth patterns of the cities?

Not precisely sure what you are asking. But 1st Amendment absolutism, which is concerned that all speech restrictions in a public forum be content-neutral, is a big point for many libertarians. A certain amount of libertarian work explores the way informal systems evolve to regulate common resources. Libertarian legal theory tends to focus on minimizing arbitrary, partial, or differentially-applied rules; on promoting stewardship through ownership; on preventing waste by ensuring efficient alienability; and on recognizing the interconnected nature of competing land uses.

Re: Public space/sphere/options anyone?
 

Sounds like you found a sparring partner! :)

Re: Public space/sphere/options anyone?
 

Depends on what the answers are. They probably determine whether what he or she really wants to discuss is inside or outside my realm of competence.

Re: Public space/sphere/options anyone?
 

Go for it!

The topic sounds like TED material, it would be refreshing to listen to an architectural discussion, if both of you can have a reasonable PM/e-mail exchange you'll know if the chemistry is right for a diavlog conversation.

Good Luck!

Re: Public space/sphere/options anyone?
 

Hello Jim,

I'm not a Latin scholar but it seems that the Latin root of the word 'public': 'Publicus' is influenced by 'pubes', adult population.

Here's an online etymological dictionary definition:

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=public

mid-15c., "pertaining to the people," from O.Fr. public (c.1300), from L. publicus, altered (by influence of L. pubes "adult population, adult") from Old L. poplicus "pertaining to the people,"

If you think of a building as the embodiment of a boundary between public and private, you can also think of your clothing that way. While there are no building codes that I know of that prohibit that you build a completely transparent dwelling, there are laws, usually local and gender specific, that regulate how much of your body can be exposed in public even from within private property if that property is in sight of public space. So by extension, if you want to shower in your transparent house you either have to wear a bathing suit or build a fence. (yes, the steam in the shower would probably be occlusive enough. But but you know what I mean.)

I'm not sure I have a personal definition of public, but lets say for argument's sake--and within the context of physical space--public space is shared space: The sidewalks and the streets, parks, plazas, beaches. Anywhere an individual doesn't have a right to privacy. That may well include in some instances business that are open to the public, but not a private club. Sure, a baseball diamond in a public park excludes one pair teams from playing while another one is, but that's just like saying I cant stand exactly where you are standing until you move a bit or sit on an occupied shady bench in a park until someone stands up. no laws are needed, just common courtesy. As for the public appropriation of space by force of law, or expropriation: We don't seem to mind doing it to build highways and shopping malls; but without a commercial interest to satisfy, (with the pretext of a larger common good such as jobs and traffic,) we rarely, if ever, see land expropriated to devote space for the public's use anymore. (Here I use public as a noun in the sense of people, the general public: Pupulus) The last great expropriation was for the national parks I think. Some argue that forced environmental conservation is a kind of expropriation, or even worst, a conspiracy to affect property values; but that doesn't necessarily involve access by the Public. In fact it may even result in the government proscribing both public and private access to such 'protected' land.

The old European piazza isn't like a park or a plaza in the sense that unlike those it wasn't meant for recreation or relaxation. It's more like a town square. Parks and landscaped public spaces came later in the form of public gardens in the tradition of the great French and English gardens. Piazzas are just empty city blocks. They don't have trees and lawns nor usually benches. There's no shade so sitting for long isn't very comfortable. You do find monuments and statues of national heroes, or a fountain; Piazza Navona in Rome is probably the more well known one. In general the piazza is used as a meeting place. A place you go take a walk in the hope you'll run into an acquaintance, (before text messaging that is.) Piazzas are generally in front of large cathedrals or mayoralties. They are more like open air market places although in larger cities markets had their own open spaces close to ports or areas more easily accessible from the countryside. Piazzas tend to be in the center of towns. In smaller towns the piazza could double as market but in general the piazza is the city's civic heart. Anything you wanted to make public, say announce a new law or decree, an execution, you'd do in the piazza. I suppose the equivalent in America are the town squares you'd find in the old northeastern towns. But then again these towns retained much of the European traditions of the early american colonizers. (17th-18th century English architecture is heavily influenced by Italian Renasaince, or Italian Mannerism as it was called.) Not to be nostalgic but we don't see town squares in post colonial towns and cities. And we probably never will again since the internet seems to have absorbed their functions. There are many schools of thoughts on the disappearance or nonappearance of the piazza or town square. Some posit that they are places where the public, the people can organize to promote social unrest. Tea party anyone? Others have argued that since the invention of the printing press and the advent of mass communication it afforded, piazzas and town squares became obsolete as places for official mass announcements.

I mean the question in the sense you mention when you write "promoting stewardship towards ownership". It seems that for a libertarian, private ownership of everything is an ideal goal. I suppose that I find that notion absurd, or at the very least, to be the codification of a simplistic and infantile egotism as a social system. While it may be true that every man is an island, we can't all live in islands. Public stewardship of some social resources such as education and judicial services tend to promote if not guarantee a necessary and essential continuity against the fickle nature of commercial markets.

Which brings me to the original paradox of public space, in that at least by pedigree it's an inherently adult space that needs to be infantilized to protect minors and prudish sensibilities in a way that doesn't infringe on rights of free expression and rights to associate. Yes there's plenty of 'adult' content being expressed in public albeit implicitly. Even in NYC where I live, there's no porn on the streets. And I couldn't post a large billboard with a provocative a quote from "Catcher in the Rye' which my son read in 6th grade, in Public school. Even a pregnant abdomen is considered inappropriate by many. I'm not trying to make an argument for porn on the streets, I consider it the professional wrestling of sexual relations. But I'm just trying to point out what i perceive to be a slow but ever increasing tendency for privatizing shared social resources in order to avoid having to deal politically with these contradictions. I don't think there's a conspiracy behind this, I do think it's a kind of natural evolution of a society that avoids dealing with difficult issues by pretending they don't exist or worst, by convincing itself they shouldn't exist.

Since we can't really privatize the streets, that's where you'll find most examples of private behavior in public space. The path of least resistance for indecent exposure seems to be down seventh avenue on gay pride, or Daytona beach during spring break, or bourbon street during Mardi Gras. I don't know of many other examples but I will guess many college towns have a similar tolerance for such behavior. I only bring up these issues because it seems to be the only form of expression that isn't protected under the first amendment. At least the ACLU hasn't brought about any lawsuits about it yet. And because societies that tolerate so called 'adult' forms of expression tend to also be the freer ones.

Public space is, in this sense, politically dangerous, and hard to control. Better not have it then?

You seem to know quite a bit about libertarian theory, I just know what I've heard Ron Paul argue in sound bites and reading through the Libertarian party website, so another question for you:

Is there, or has there ever been any purely libertarian societies in the world?

or in other words has it been tried out successfully anywhere?

Would you consider early american society before emancipation to be purely libertarian?

What's 'efficient alienability'? I couldn't find a definition online except for a mention in a summary of property law from a course at NWU...

Re: Public space/sphere/options anyone?
 

Well, I hope it's more like a conversation, but I'll wear head gear just in case.

Re: Public space/sphere/options anyone?
 

Re: Public space/sphere/options anyone?
 

That's hilarious!

This page is a great resource for Fun Latin:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/omnibus.html

My favorite is:

Da mihi sis crustum Etruscum cum omnibus in eo.

Crustum Etruscum = pizza!

And the names of the seven dwarfs:

Severus = Grumpy

Re: Public space/sphere/options anyone?
 

Well, what you call common courtesy, I call a custom or a societal practice. It's not a formal law, but it is a rule of some sort. And even this soft rule defines a boundary. Even if there were no laws against public nudity, there would still be some opinion about when nudity violated common courtesy. This is all as a way of trying to respond to your point about Alphonso Lingis, private parts, capitalism, and boundaries/exclusion. In a capitalist society property is a useful and ready analogy to the boundaries we inevitably put up regarding what is allowable in public space, but it is not capitalism that precipitates the formation of boundaries.

To clarify. When I say "promoting stewardship through ownership" I am referring only to property, not services. Things, places, and ideas all have value, and we want to keep that value from going to waste by making sure whoever controls it has an incentive to take care of it, and an incentive to put it into the hands of someone else if that someone else will get more value from it. How and who should provide public services is a different, even if related, question.

Private ownership is certainly the default solution, but it isn't necessarily the best solution, or even alway a practical possibility. When you have a common resource, sometimes the best solution is to divide it up into many chunks and only let people use their own chunks. Sometimes it is best to give the resource to a single steward and let that person set the rules for all others who want to use the resource. Sometimes you want to make the resource public and let rules for its use emerge informally. Sometimes you want to make the resource public and set formal rules. Sometimes you make the resource private, but then also set formal rules.

Libertarians generally stress the problems with formal rule-making and the difficulties in figuring out what rules will result in the best value. So they favor institutions that will let decentralized processes figure these things out.

Alienability means the readiness with which property can transfer from one hand to another. So if property rights over a resource are set up right, the rights and/or responsibilities for it will be able to easily (efficiently) move from the hands of those making the resource less valuable to those who will make it more valuable, where value is a subjective concept.

Has there ever been a purely liberal society in the world? a purely conservative society? I don't think of libertarianism as a set package of policies, but as a movement of political philosophies like any other.

America has been libertarian in various degrees and in various way throughout its history, but never in all respects at once, and never in all places, or at all levels of government. Notably, slavery, the very antithesis of liberty, was law of the land until 1865, but even in free states, married women had no property rights until the 1840s or 1850s. Freedom of speech wasn't made national until 1868, and the courts didn't enforce it until the 1920s.

If you are looking for a test case for libertarian economic theories like the Soviet Union was for communist economic theories, Hong Kong is probably the closest you can get.

* * * * *

But to return to the task at hand. Am I understanding you right that what you want to talk about is the public sphere, in the sense that having a public sphere necessitates thinking about problems of what gets to be allowed in the public sphere? It seems like you are toying with the concept that we as a society are more comfortable getting rid of the public sphere where we can than having to face thinking about what gets to be allowed, which is an interesting concept.

I can't say that I have any special competence with those exact issues, and so if you are looking to talk to anyone with some specific expertise or some specific counter-opinion, you might want to hold out for someone else. But if not, I'd be happy to play the part of interviewer. Send me a private message if you want, and we'll work out the details there.

Re: Public space/sphere/options anyone?
 

If you do it, please provide plenty of photo links to prove your point!

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

I'd like to give this a try. I don't normally talk politics with people I've just met so I might not be very impressive, though... I'm most interested in general philosophy stuff, ethics, epistemology, and international relations. I'm pretty disagreeable so I'm up for playing devil's advocate for any unpopular positions except defending Bill Kristol *shudder*

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

I think the onus is on you to come up with a fairly specific topic you're interested in doing a DV on. What do you want to talk about?

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

Agreed.

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

So have people stopped answering requests, or has BhTV lost interest in posting these?

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

How many requests have been made lately? I'd be up for a DV, but haven't had any particular topics in mind lately, nor have I seen a request for a topic that I felt at all informed about.

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

That's pretty much how I feel about it, too. I was taking notice that there hasn't been a new one for some time now, and I remember pampl's request, a little while ago. (Have you picked a topic, pampl?)

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

I was holding out waiting for current events to deliver something good but the news has mostly been about the oil spill and I don't know enough about it to make a diavlogue worthwhile. I'm going to go camping soon and will have time to think of a good topic, so I'll have something around next Monday.

Re: Human Agency, Poverty & Education and Social Equity
 

I know that's a mouthful, and I'd need to lay out some discussion talking points. But the general concept is: starting with what goes into social equality, whether we can really do something about it through education, and then what specifically can be done via policy.

I'm willing to set up a framework, put together a possible reading list/notes, and would love to have someone who'd be interested in discussing/debating the issues. My background is in social sciences/social work and low-income education/teaching.

You can check out my blog at http://supervidoqo.blogspot.com/. The thought of doing a diavlog and being on the spot like that makes me nervous, but it's probably pretty fun. :)

Re: Human Agency, Poverty & Education and Social Equity
 

I'd like to do a DV with you, but I think we'll need to massage the topic quite a bit in order to discuss things that I have the policy chops to talk about. unfortunately, education is not my wheelhouse at all. Plus, I just read this post on your blog:

And I fear that I would wind up in the "incredibly hackish" camp if we wound up at all in the weeds of education policy.

Re: Human Agency, Poverty & Education and Social Equity
 

You've got the right idea on how to proceed next. If you put together a list of topics/theories/propositions and short reading list, I personally guarantee that someone will be willing to converse with you.

Re: Human Agency, Poverty & Education and Social Equity
 

lol. Well, I assure you that it was a pretty personal criticism of Yglesias. I really enjoy his writing, but am endlessly frustrated with the degree to which he backs certain positions (on education) while - in my humble opinion - ignoring their criticisms. It's kind of a bugaboo for many of us who (lovingly) comment on his site.

But yeah - I'm wondering how a stimulating discussion might go. As a teacher who is pretty familiar with education debate, I have strong opinions on a lot of issues. And I think the least interesting diavlogs are devoid of disagreement. But at the same time, there are a lot of interesting unknowns that can be chewed over, in the event that I can't find any "opposition".

Also, I'm less interested in particular education policy that the underlying issues around what education even means in society - in terms of social justice, citizenship, etc. But it sounds like it would be worth putting something together. I'll see what I can come up with and post it. Cheers.

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

I think there's some internal discussion at BHTV about where to go with this. And, it's good to be back posting here. I sort of fell out of all my various forums and boards in the last months of my trip, as I got deep into the weeds of the reporting, but I'm back now!

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

Good to see you back.

Resource Depletion
 

I feel a little awkward making this proposal, but since Bloggingheads has neglected to fulfill my request for a diavlog on this topic, I figure I could give a shot at filling this niche.

I'm mainly informed about oil/coal, but can tangent off to other less popularized resources like Cadmium/Helium or a few others. I'd also like to make a brief foray into what resource "x/y/z" is used for, and potential substitutes, in order to give some context on the importance of a possible shortage in "x/y/z". Because of my want to give a little background, and time constraints, we would probably need to settle on one or two resources.

I suppose I am moderate enough to take either position, but would be a little more comfortable on the peak/shortage side, so if there is an extraction guy out there that wants to show me why everything I know is wrong, you would be an ideal partner.

Populism and the Right
 

I am wondering if anyone else out there was had any (it need not be a lot) interesting experiences with party caucuses/conventions and/or grassroots politics. I am interested in having a conversation centered around populism and the modern right. My interlocutor need not be on the right, but I would prefer someone who can bring some personal experiences to bear on the subject.

The impetus for this diavlog idea is partly some of the comments Dave Weigel made on JournoList. What some have characterized as anti-right statements that show he's a flaming liberal, I find resonate with the ambivalence I feel as a committed member of the right about the direction that the right is heading.

Topics I am think about discussing: how insiders and elites in a movement respond to populism, limits of direct democracy mechanisms, and what to do when a mass movement threatens to reintroduce discredited ideology to a movement. The topic list could be altered to reflect your own experiences.

Re: Populism and the Right
 

I wish I thought I had the kind of experience you're asking for. In any event, I hope you find somebody that does; and I'll be interested in the conversation.

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

Pivoting off of some comments in the big forum, I was wondering if anybody that's not an Obama supporter because of disagreements with him from the left wants to talk about his record on civil liberties, war powers, etc.

Re: Populism and the Right
 

as will i.

[added] Jim, and his partner, and anyone else interested in these issues, may wish to read this piece. Tony Judt's new book, Ill Fares the Land, raises some similar questions relating to the left.

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

Hmm, I am on the left, and disagree with Obama on a lot of things, but I don't think I'm strictly speaking 'to' his left or 'to' his right, so much as I just have a different set of starting political principles altogether. So but I don't think I'm your chosen partner. But I'd be totally interested in hearing this chat.

Re: Single diavlogger seeks same for stimulating conversation
 

Ok, let me try to flesh out my thoughts on this topic a bit to see if I can catch anybody's interest. Obama's, or his administration at least, has been getting a lot of flack from the left. The most strident examples of this are probably coming from Jane Hamsher and the Firedoglake crowd and Glenn Greenwald. Chief points of criticism include failing to get the public option in HCR, not taking more drastic action with the financial sector, not nominating more liberal Supreme Court justices, escalating the war in Afghanistan, moving slowly on DADT, not prosecuting Bush-era lawbreaking (i.e. torture), making claims of executive legal power as sweeping as Bush if not more so, etc. etc. etc. Some of Obama's most strident critics have suggested that his presidency is so compromised that liberals/progressives should oppose his agenda outright, i.e. Jane Hamsher, Russ Feingold on Financial Reform.

I think that when it comes to domestic policy, almost all of these criticism are simply incorrect. For the most part, Obama hasn't pursued a more aggressively Liberal domestic policy because it is not possible to do so, and even with severe constraints imposed by the Senate, he has made huge accomplishments that Liberals ought to be very happy about.

On the rest of the list, however, I think that the situation is much worse. Particularly when it comes to executive power, torture, and the various other legal issues wrapped up in the GWOT, Obama hasn't just failed to do good, he's done wrong. So I figure there are two things to talk about. The first is whether or not progressives are right to be harshy critical of Obama on issue x, y, and z. I've spelled out my take on that above. The second is what we ought to do about it. Should Liberals continue to vote/volunteer/whatever for Obama? If not, who should we vote for/support?

Because 3rd parties are basically an electoral dead end and the Republican Party is promising to be far worse on all of these questions, i think we have no choice but to stick with Obama and the Democrats. If anyone has issues with this analysis that could be discussed for 20-60 minutes, let me know.