Join Ricochet or renew and get 1 yearof National Review/Digital as a bonus!
I blog here.
Every time I hear Richard Epstein mention his class on Roman law, it makes me want to relocate to another part of the country, show up at his office door, and beg him to let me audit it.
Have you been to Lileks's site and seen the scope of what's there beyond his blog? I'd be surprised if #8 wasn't already in there somewhere.
The two teaser trailers for Man of Steel make it look like it's Terrence Malick meets Superman. Which is right up my alley, personally, though we'll see if the audiences are intrigued or confused by the approach.
While there's some value to promoting sales through affiliate programs and the like, and while there's certainly no harm in trying, I suspect that things like Amazon affiliate sales and whatnot will prove pretty marginal to Ricochet's income, more akin to the tip jar next to the cash register than the cash register itself.
I think the big fish, in terms of revenue, will be memberships (more of them, and higher tiers) and advertising. When it comes to an online community, I don't think there's an equivalent to the merchandising that accompanies Pixar films, and I don't know of a similar site bringing in the lion's share of their income through something other than subscription fees and advertising. (Not that Ricochet shouldn't get what it can from T-shirts, mugs, and affiliate programs, but I think they're going to prove secondary.)
That said, some sites pull in a lot of revenue off relatively small amounts of advertising. The business analyst/blogger Horace Dediu once did the math and figured out John Gruber was making somewhere around $400,000/year in advertising off Daring Fireball, a minimalist blog about technology, particularly Apple.
Bork was on the older side as Supreme Court nominees in the last few decades go. He was 60, and every nominee since has been in their 40's or early or mid 50's, except Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was 60, and Harriet Miers, who was 59 (though women, on average, live longer than men do).
While in a perfect world I might prefer to see older, more experienced judges appointed to the court, I can't blame either party for seeing the value in nominating younger judges whose impact will be magnified by a long tenure, minimizing the number of appointments a successor of another party might get. Clarence Thomas was appointed four years after Bork, but today he's only 64.
So as speculation heats up about whom President Obama might nominate to the Supreme Court, you can probably scratch from this list anyone born before 1953 or so.
While I've expressed less-than-positive thoughts about Bork elsewhere on Ricochet, and while my personal hunch is that I'm just as glad the seat ultimately went to Anthony Kennedy, whom I admire a bit more than most conservatives do, I must say Bork's book The Antitrust Paradox certainly influenced how I think about antitrust issues, and it deservedly remains the starting point for any serious discussion of the merits of antitrust law.
Thanks for the shout-out on the podcast, guys (and for getting my admittedly difficult online moniker right). I didn't expect that at all; I found out about it from my partner, who listened to the show a few hours before I did.
We're happy to help, and I look forward to doing more in the future to help Ricochet survive and thrive. An online community built around a civil discussion of politics and a lot of very sharp content, well, that doesn't grow on trees, y'know, so it's no wonder so many people here are determined to keep it going.
You're welcome, Dan. I'm glad I could help. And any libertarian-leaning squish with a Goldwater icon is a friend of mine.
I hereby grant DocJay a Peabody, and dub him Duke of Clarence and Avondale.
It's a little like my claiming to have been Time's Person of the Year because of that cover they did declaring the person of the year to be "You."
Of course, now that the European Union has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize (satire, once again, contemplates its own grave) there are just over 500 million people who can claim to be Nobel Laureates, including James Delingpole, who will surely greet this news with mixed emotions.
By the way, have I mentioned that I'm Batman?
It's fine for Republicans to argue for something other than a total RINO in states where such a thing is within the realm of possibility (though overreach on that front carried a considerable price in November). But a RINO from Massachusetts should be regarded as a gift from God. Yes, he'll vote with Democrats as often as Republicans, if not more so, but he'll also vote to put every chairmanship in the Senate in the hands of Republicans, most of whom are not RINOs, and to put a Republican in the majority leader's seat.
Politics is the art of the possible. What's possible in Massachusetts is Scott Brown, and then only maybe. What's possible in Maine is Olympia Snowe, and the Republican Party is no better off for having Angus King in her place.
Time's stated criterion for Person of the Year is whoever affected the world most, for good or ill, in the previous year. They've made plenty of choices in the past which can't be defended on those grounds, but it's hard to argue anyone had a bigger impact on the world this year than President Obama, as much as I wish it were not so. His health care bill survived the Supreme Court, he won a second term, and now he has Republicans arguing over just how large a tax increase they'll sign up for in exchange for how vague a promise of cuts and/or entitlement reforms in how distant a future.
At least Time actually chose a person instead of doing one of those dreadful cop-outs like slapping a piece of mylar on the cover and declaring the Person of the Year to be "You."
If the criterion was who did the most admirable thing this year, I'd choose Malala Yousafzai, the 15-year-old Pakistani girl shot in the head and neck by the Taliban for having the temerity to say loudly that girls ought to be educated.
I think it's a bit more complicated than that. For example, I've met quite a few young people whose views would fit neatly into the Republican base, but who can't bring themselves to vote for a party that opposes SSM. And I think there are Latino voters who would be receptive to joining up with the Republican base, but who can't even start that discussion because, as Marco Rubio said, they're convinced the Republicans want to deport their grandmother.
On the other side of the coin, I know diehard liberals who can't bring themselves to vote for a party they see as trying to take away their guns. (A minefield of an issue President Obama successfully avoided, for the most part, until about a week ago...)
There's a natural tendency when people choose sides in politics to conform their views to the rest of that party's stances, even if they do so half-heartedly, and even if those views aren't connected by much of a natural ideological thread. So while the number of truly on-the-fence independents may look small, the number of converts to be had is bigger.
Meth might help with the weight loss. · 11 hours ago
I know, but I've grown so very fond of my teeth. My parents spent a small fortune on orthodontia when I was a teenager, and are still alive to be disappointed to see all that go to waste.
A couple of years ago, my doctor prescribed one of those stimulant-based appetite suppressant drugs, to see if it might help a bit, and I lasted just a few days on it before I couldn't stand feeling so hyped up. One of the most pleasant sensations I've experienced came when I stopped taking them.
I'm afraid "speed freak" just isn't a career option for me.
I haven't used an illegal drug in decades, and were they all legalized tomorrow, that wouldn't change. (I'm 45 and trying to lose weight, so the last things I need are the munchies.)But I think we will regard this period of The War on Some Drugs as a prolonged bout of national madness, just as we view Prohibition as a brief bout of national madness. We will come to regard it as, perhaps, the pinnacle of government hubris: to think we could keep out of people's homes what we cannot even keep out of prisons.
I'm willing to bet we'd live in a much more pleasant country if drug abuse were treated as a health problem, like alcoholism, if we drained all the street profit out of the drug trade by selling it all from behind a counter at Walgreens, and if the prison space used to confine drug offenders were redeployed to put genuinely violent people and habitual criminals behind bars longer.
I hope to live long enough to see the day when this is all obvious in hindsight. (Another incentive for me to lose weight, I suppose.)
I'm curious if anyone has data to support the idea that upper middle class people of yesteryear were more directly engaged with the lower classes. I'm always nervous about assumptions rooted in anecdote and declinism.
If such engagement was more prevalent back in the day, I wonder how much of it represented a higher degree of engagement among members of extended families: providing direct help and best life-management practices less to the poor people down the street, but to, say, one's less fortunate cousin.
And I think it's worth asking whether social best practices were lost because the upper middle class washed their hands of the underclass, or whether it's because government provided huge incentives for dysfunction: subsidizing young single parents, building housing projects, regulating the smallest-scale entrepreneurship into oblivion, etc.
I mean, once so much of the underclass, particularly single mothers, were herded into dangerous housing projects on the wrong side of the tracks, is it possible disengagement between the classes followed from that more than it led up to that?
I wasn't Bork's biggest fan, and Slouching Toward Gomorrah gave me very little reason to regret that Anthony Kennedy ended up on the court instead.
While the Bork confirmation process is often cited as the beginning of a particular period of ugliness in Washington that has lasted through the present day, it seems to me the Supreme Court fight that should appall conservatives (and everyone else) isn't the Bork nomination, but Clarence Thomas's. The Bork hearings were at least about his ideas and his record, even if one doesn't like the outcome or doesn't think those things were fairly represented in that process.
Thomas, on the other hand, was subject to a humiliating public spectacle over an unresolvable, unsupported he said/she said claim. At least 60% of the outrage conservatives heap retroactively on the Bork confirmation process should be redirected to Thomas's, even if one thinks Bork would have proven an outstanding justice.
In the end, Kennedy and Thomas are on the court, Bork never was, and while we'll never know how things would have turned out otherwise, my hunch is that all three outcomes were for the best.
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In