Top 5 Summer Movies I'm Excited For

By Dave

In addition to politics, I love movies! It's not a great summer for film really, but there are still a couple to get excited about. Here are the top five I'm waiting for:

1) Inception starring Leonardo DiCaprio and directed by Christopher Nolan. DiCaprio has been pretty much awesome in everything since Catch Me If You Can. Christopher Nolan hasn't stepped wrong since Memento and it looks like he's going to do it again here. I'm not even really aware of what the plot is about. All I know is, I want to see it. Bad.



2) The Killer Inside Me starring Casey Affleck and directed by indie filmmaker Michael Winterbottom. It's based on a book by Jim Thompson. Praising the book, Stanley Kubrick said it was "probably the most chilling and believable first-person story of a criminally warped mind he had ever encountered." Now that's an endorsement! Also it gets points for a really creepy trailer.




3) Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World starring Michael Cera. Looks awesome! Edgar Wright is another who hasn't stepped wrong. Both Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz were excellent. I haven't read the comic but I like the video game feel of the movie. I think it'll be sweet!



4) Cyrus starring John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill. This movie has everything. A little sweetness, a little sadness, and a whole lotta funny. I love everyone involved.




5) The American starring George Clooney. George Clooney is this generations Carey Grant: cool, suave, and sophisticated. I really like the look and feel of this movie.



Special mention: Predators. I know, I know. It could be cheesy and really bad...but its produced by Robert Rodriguez and stars Adrian Brody. So, I want to see it anyways

Misreading the History of Progressivism

By Dave

Michael Tomasky believes Progressives are misreading their own history and as a result find themselves continually disappointed and in despair. This has the potential to jeopardize liberalism in the long-run.

Too often, when progressives think of American history, we think only of the snapshots: those glorious moments when a historic bill is signed into law, or when the great progressive leader thunderingly confronts the forces of reaction. It’s good to remember those; they are our lodestars. But they are moments. Actual history is slower, more tedious, and certainly less uplifting. It’s not for Obama’s sake, but for liberalism’s over the long haul, that we need to consider this reality and proceed in full awareness of it. It’s only by seeing this fuller picture that we can know how history actually unfolds in real time and place our present experience within that context.

The whole article is worth reading. I think we need to remember politics is a process and context is king. The limitations of the system are real and daunting. Great politicians, and great political moments, are the product of the right political conditions. Whether it was the emergence of the welfare state, or the civil rights movement, or even health care reform, the moments of victory were the products of the small marginal victories that preceded it.

Change takes time. Making the world a more prosperous, peaceful, and equitable place is the not just the work of a lifetime but of many lifetimes. The fight never ends. Utopia does not exist. The social system can not be remade in whole, instead each generation improves on it the best they can. Sometimes you win big and sometimes you win small, and it is vanity alone that makes us turn down a big win (like Health Care Reform) because it doesn't meet our expectations of utopia. Incremental revolution is the only real and sustainable revolution.

For me, this is a reminder that every victory counts.  Its also a reminder that we need to celebrate our victories a little more and use them to energize us for the fights ahead instead of using them as fodder to fight each other.

Where Does Your Hip-Hop Come From?

By Dave

Kon and Amir Present the 50 Greatest Hip-Hop Samples of All-Time. It's amazing how many come from really cool 50's and 60's jazz albums.

Can Charter Cities End Poverty?

By Dave

It's an idea being pushed by Stanford economist Paul Romer (son of former Colorado Governor Roy Romer). The idea is simple: the cornerstone of economic growth and development is rules. The rule of law, copyright law, property law, etc. Poor countries generally have awful rules and as a result have poor incentives structures necessary for economic growth.

To correct this, Romer proposes that developing countries grant a charter to allow foreign nations to build a city in their country. The foreign nation would import their laws and would administer the governance of the city. In theory, their name and recognition would give potential investors the incentive to invest which would provide jobs and wealth to anyone who chose to move to the city. Ordinary citizens of weak or broken states would have the opportunity to step on the economic ladder.

So if you're starting to think this is sounding a little neo-colonial.... well, yeah. Here's from the article:

But Romer is not just arguing for enclaves; he is arguing for enclaves that are run by foreign governments. To Romer, the fact that Hong Kong was a colonial experiment, imposed upon a humiliated China by means of a treaty signed aboard a British warship, is not just an embarrassing detail. On the contrary, British rule was central to the city’s success in persuading capitalists of all stripes to flock to it. Romer sometimes illustrates this point by citing another Communist country: modern-day Cuba. Cuba’s rulers have tried to induce foreign corporations to set up shop in special export zones, and have been greeted with understandable caution. But if Raúl Castro convinced a foreign government—ideally a rich democracy such as Canada—to assume sovereignty over a start-up city in Cuba, the prospect of a mini Canada in the sun might attract a flood of investment.

So, it's actually exactly neo-colonialism but it's of the willing sort. But does that mean it's a bad idea?

I don't know. From the article, it sounds like some countries might be interested. My biggest concern would be feasibility and security. Wouldn't a successful charter city be a target for terrorism? What about cultural clashes and ethnic tensions? What does this mean for the sovereignty of the host country?

Morally, I think if the host country wants a charter city and their citizens have the freedom to enter and leave the control of the city at their whim, then the neo-colonial aspects are not as abhorrent. Further, if it really is alleviating poverty and suffering, then that's a good thing.

I'm really interested in what others think on this. Comments and discussion are welcome!

Update: Here's Romer giving a talk at TED. It's worth listening to his argument for why charter cities are not colonialism.