Blogging Through The Ages

Via Glenn we come across a James Joyner discussion of the evolution of political blogs:

Aaron Brazell is doing some research on the evolution of blogging in recent years and has asked for my input. I started OTB in January 2003 and have seen a lot of change. I should note at the outset that my experience is almost entirely with the political blogosphere, a tiny fraction of the whole enterprise, and that my observations mostly apply in that realm.

Well, since I started JustOneMinute back in April 2002 I hope to be madly insightful on this topic.  Eventually.  Maybe even later today.

PRE-GLACIAL:  What earnest young scribbler wrote this?

Back to Basics

Perhaps in response to the pounding administered in the blogosphere last week by Mickey Kaus, Andrew Sullivan, Jane Galt, and the folks at Best of the Web, Paul Krugman has retreated to the safety of the Economics 101 classroom. Professor Krugman presents a clear column on a subject of general interest that is within his area of expertise - how refreshing. And "Stick to what you know" is good advice for all of us, although I'm damned if I'm going to limit this blog to "Winning Tactics for Hearts - Windows 98".

And as a bit of a cautionary tale - only the link to the original Krugman column still works.

Comments

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Speaking of evolution being only a theory, the Fly Under the Bridge Academy recently received this offer:

From: Mildred Lee

To: [email protected]

Subject: The New Palgrave Dictionary of
Economics - Announcing the first new edition in 21 years!
Date: Jun 4, 2008 3:01 PM

Hello there!

I’m pleased to announce the arrival of the new edition of The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. This is the first revision in 21 years of what has been the standard reference book for economists since its foundation by Sir R. H. Inglis Palgrave in 1894.

The eight volumes of the new dictionary contain 1,872 signed articles by 1506 of the world’s leading economists, including 25 Nobel Prize winners. Together the articles provide an unrivalled snapshot of modern economics.

This new edition has maintained the tradition of economic and scholarly cooperation and draws

together eminent contributors from across the spectrum of methodological and ideological schools. The Editors have included articles on new areas of research that were scarcely conceived 21 years ago, such as behavioral economics, the economics of transition from communism and neuroeconomics. Revisions also reflect the dramatic changes in areas that have seen extensive growth in the past 21 years. These include experimental economics, macroeconomics, labour economics, econometrics and game theory. As the discipline expands and economic research becomes increasingly specialized economists can become distanced from the work of their colleagues. By making the Dictionary fully searchable online, The New Palgrave hopes to make a serious contribution to the economic community by enabling economists to access research in specialist areas other than their own.

If interested, we will be happy to provide you with a 2 week reviewer password for the online edition. Please reply to this email and we’ll get you set up.

[Ralph L]

only the link to the original Krugman column still works
So much for the immortality of cyberspace.

[kim]

You see Ralph, why I'm a Luddite, and hate to link.
=================================

[Ralph L]

Oh, I thought you were just lazy!

[kim]

Well, that, too. Lots of reasons for Ludditery.
========

[Daddy]

I seem to remember that there are 2 anti-techgroups, Luddites and Troglodytes. One group I think hates technology and the other fears it, but I can't remember which. I'd google it, but I'd hate doing that, plus I'm afraid of doing it wrong. Anyone know if its possible to be a Luglodyte, and if so is that like being a Met's fan?

[clarice]

The Anchoress is emailing everyone the url to this piece where the Washington Post admits that Bush did not lie and says the Rockefeller report claiming he did, itself refutes that charge.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/08/AR2008060801687.html>Bush did not lie

[kim]

Marvelous link, clarice.
==============

[kim]

What price Val Plame, Joe Wilson, and Larry Johnson? It is a little shocking that I can't get a rise from anyone on an Obama site. They are too embarrassed to comment.
=========================

[kim]

Hiatt's piece is a powerful indictment of the disloyalty of the opposition. McCain should crow about this.

What's the chance of that when he is still ashamed of our fine President?
====================

[kim]

Hey, read Dan Eggen in the WaPo today, also, about Bush's legacy.

Will the Post oppose Obama?
=========================================

[clarice]

Well, read Pincus--he's still pimping for the fifth column.

[Neo]

In the report's final section, the committee takes issue with Bush's statements about Saddam Hussein's intentions and what the future might have held. But was that really a question of misrepresenting intelligence, or was it a question of judgment that politicians are expected to make?

Doesn't this bring up the matter of political judgement as an important factor when selecting a President ?

Let's see should it be the guy who hung out with the racist preacher for 20 years, the 60's radical in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge ? Me thinks not.

Oh, and thanks for the heads up Sen. Rockefeller .. fool

[Patrick R. Sullivan]

Arthur Herman calls out the defeatists:

1) We need to acknowledge that the Iraq war wasn't a "distraction" from the War on Terror, as critics still complain, but its centerpiece.

It's not mere coincidence that our success against al Qaeda globally comes along with success in Iraq. For all its setbacks and frustrations, the Iraq war drew jihadists into a battle they thought they could win, because it would be fought on their home turf - but which they're now losing disastrously.

2) The US decision to "stay the course" in the Iraq war, which was also widely mocked and criticized, served to thoroughly demoralize the jihadist movement.

From its start in spring 2003, the Iraqi insurgency has been entirely built on the premise that it could use suicide and roadside bombings, sectarian slaughter and the torture and murder of hostages to force America out of the Middle East.

If Democrats had won the White House in 2004, the jihadists might have succeeded.

Instead, America doggedly refused to give in to terror, despite 4,000 combat deaths and massive antiwar sentiment, and unwaveringly supported an Iraqi government that was at times feeble and confused - and proceeded to break the jihadist movement's back.

[kim]

PRS, another wonderful link. It feels like a birthday party, today. I'm celebrating at Hilzoy's Headquarters and starting to get a few nibbles.
==============================

[glasater]

Kim--It's scary over there at HH.

I sure didn't mean to sound snotty over the linking thing--but 89 was being such a pain and smart *ss--and shot my fingers off too quickly.

Apologies

[JM Hanes]

I loved this bit from the Legacy article:

Unfortunately for the president, many historians have already reached a conclusion. In an informal survey of scholars this spring, just two out of 109 historians said Bush would be judged a success; a majority deemed him the "worst president ever."

You know the Academy has jumped the shark when historians start predicting history.

[Sue]

Totally off topic, but the word "scary" reminded me of something I wanted to mention. I smile everytime I see Larry Johnson referred to as Scary. You will see it all over the net. I wonder if Scary knows I started it? ::grin::

[JM Hanes]

Sue:

Maybe we can prevail on Tom to memorialize your awesome role in defining Scary Larry for the ages! You deserve official recognition for Outstanding Public Service, and I'm thinking we should plan for an Award Ceremony on Friday night.....

[glasater]

"predicting history

Whatever happened to that guy Fukuyama talking about the end of history?
If he's right, historians shouldn't care too much about GWB and how his administration ends.

However, I tracked down a review of a McCain advisor's book "The Return of History & the End of Dreams" by Robert Kagan over at RCP that was interesting.

[Jane]

You deserve official recognition for Outstanding Public Service and I'm thinking we should plan for an Award Ceremony on Friday night.....

I concur completely. I will bring dip.

[Sue]

JMH,

LOL. I'm not sure it deserves that much of an honor. Just a passing thought I had when I noticed someone on a blog I never visit calling him Scary.

[MayBee]

Be careful in claiming the credit, Sue. Larry knows the guys that took out Pablo Escobar, you know.

[Sue]

Be careful in claiming the credit, Sue. Larry knows the guys that took out Pablo Escobar, you know.

I know. That's why I nicknamed him Scary. ::grin::

[kim]

I'm tellin' you, you can trash Larry Johnson and Joe Wilson and Val Plame on the Obama loving sites with impunity. Half of the Democrats have figured out they are liars.
===============================

[kim]

Had a little fun today, huh, glasater?

I have a peculiar relationship with links. I don't like to blog with them because I know they fail and if having the link is what makes your argument, it dies with the link. Nonetheless, sometimes they can make your argument when nothing else can. I try to say what the meaning of the link is, then give enough hints to find it.

Also, I have this conceit that if you make someone look a little for something they are more likely to appreciate it. If I tell someone about a link, and they bother to find it and read it, I believe it is pedagogically more useful than if you make it too easy see.

But, I sure value the links the rest of you put up.

See, lots of reasons for Luddolery.
=========================

[kim]

Sue, what I used to particularly like about Scary was his habit of banning you spectacularly and in large caps, then forgetting to leave the ban in place so you could sneak back on when they were least expecting it. I think I was banned 4 or 5 times before it stuck.
============================

[JM Hanes]

Don't you really mean lots of "reasons" for Luddolery?

[kim]

I really mean lots of excuses for it.
=====================

[glasater]

Kim--The folks over at Obsidian were mostly polite. Had never been there before and it was interesting.
Got a kick out of self-employed versus employed arguments. "Fairness" and all of that when paying SS taxes.
They mostly ignored me and my links--nada on the "bare knuckle" one:-)
And I have to say that I have learned much tracking down your and narcisco's references. Am on my second Mccarry book thanks to n.
And yes, King county is/was a mess in '04. Did you know they let dead people vote and also those that live in mailboxes?;-)

[Elliott]

Am on my second Mccarry book thanks to n.

The Tears of Autumn?

[kim]

Heh, Hilzoy made the mistake of posting about climate. This may be fun.
=================================

[glasater]

Elliot--Better Angels first--now Second Sight. But will get to Tears for sure.

[kim]

What irritated me most about that race, g, was that everytime they came up short, the Democrats created new votes. Once they finally got ahead, end of story. It took two or three tries to do it.

Where's the book? The evidence is, as c says, compelling.
========================

[Sue]

Sue, what I used to particularly like about Scary was his habit of banning you spectacularly and in large caps, then forgetting to leave the ban in place so you could sneak back on when they were least expecting it. I think I was banned 4 or 5 times before it stuck.

The last time he banned me it was permanent, apparently. I haven't been able to post there since. Not that I try too hard, though. I just sometimes post a snarky comment just to see if it will go through. I think he banned me the last time over spelling errors. How great is that? I had a typo in a word and he went to great lengths to make a showing of it. Mine was clearly a typo since I had been spelling the word correctly up to that point. I kindly pointed out his continued misspelling of ambassador and he went nucking futs. Or it might have been when I questioned the name of his blog and how no quarter meant delete, delete, delete. I even had my own thread there discussing whether I'm male or female. Scary was on the side of me being male. Makes you wonder how he ever managed to get into the CIA as an analyst. ::grin::

[glasater]

Kim--Have spoken with Sam Reed on the '04 election and my take on it is that it was such an awful situation--no one wants to revisit it.

The power the progs have on that side of the state is incredible.

I know my state senator Mike Hewitt pretty well and ask him.

[kim]

Yeah, I used to tease him that the deleting was him constantly begging for quarter. I've not been able to get on since they changed the format; it's not the same place anymore anyway. When did you last see an ALLCAP rant from Scary? I said awhile ago that when Scary was scary he wasn't scary, but now that he's no longer scary, he's scary.

Anyway, all the Obamamites know he's a fraud. They may yet figure out the same about Joe Wilson and Val Plame.
==============================

[kim]

I went to a farmer's market once up by UDUB, and thought it was an alien invasion.
====================================

[glasater]

Yes, Kim--

A pretty healthy storm rolled through here last night. Am concerned for the Midwest and more rain.

[glasater]

Kim--Good work over on Obsidian--terrific even.
Were you casting pearls before.........?

Year ago when I was getting my private pilots license--I thought I had the "weather stuff" squared away---not.

Did read and have Dixie Lee Ray's books on climate and computer models. They made a lot of sense at the time and still do.

[kim]

Ah, much gracious. Several of them strung them and hung them around their necks.

Iowa and Minnesota are in trouble with floods.
====================