My Photo
Bookmark and Share

New Music

  • The Arcade Fire -

    The Arcade Fire: Neon Bible
    A good friend of mine convinced me to buy "Funeral," Arcade Fire's first album, last year and I'd say my reaction to that album was mixed. I recognized that the band had some unique ideas, and an interesting sound, but it just didn't really fit my musical tastes. "Neon Bible" may be less inventive, but all in all, I think it is more enjoyable to listen to than "Funeral." However, I actually went to an Arcade Fire show here in DC last weekend, and I have to admit that the songs they played from "Funeral" were much more energetic and exciting than the selections from "Neon Bible." The concert, like the recordings, come off as highly orchestrated and refined rock compositions. There is little wasted space, and the music features an interesting, although somewhat off-putting blend of instruments and vocals. The finished product takes some getting used to, but once you've acquired the Arcade Fire taste, it's hard to put these albums down. (****)

  • Bloc Party -

    Bloc Party: A Weekend in the City
    Sure enough, Bloc Party validated my predictions and avoided the dreaded "sophomore slump" with their second album. While Silent Alarm was a bit more polished, A Weekend in the City takes more chances, and offers a more diverse and creative set of songs than the band's first album. There are clear allusions to Radiohead's Kid A throughout this album, but Bloc Party does a good job of continuing to hone their own unique sound. "I Still Remember" is the sort of anthemic single that could propel Bloc Party onto the national spotlight. (****)

  • Thom Yorke -

    Thom Yorke: The Eraser
    This is basically a solo version of Kid A, although you can't really tell it's solo since there isn't really any instrumental background, only synthesized stuff like on Kid A and Amnesiac. I like this album, but i'm still really looking forward to the full band's new album which is expected in a couple of months. The Eraser is basically an addendum to Kid A/Amnesiac, and that's ok. But im excited to hear what's next. (****)

  • The Strokes -

    The Strokes: First Impressions of Earth
    This is my first Strokes CD, and the first album in a recent foray of CD buying over the last week or so. Knowing almost nothing about the band, I first listened to this CD with an open mind, and I liked what I heard. Although there aren't many especially interesting songs, the overall sound is pleasing, and even a bit catchy at times. To me, Julian Casablancas' singing basically makes this band what it is. He has an extremely deep voice, and he features his impressive singing ability much more so on this album than on the other two. I went out and bought "Is this it" as an encore, but I am so far dissapointed in the older album. Sorry, AMG, but we just can't agree this time. (***)

  • Brad Mehldau -

    Brad Mehldau: Day is Done
    Another fine addition to the Brad Mehldau collection. On this newest album, the trio welcomes Jeff Ballard on drums to replace Jorge Rossy at least temporarily, and I must say Ballard provides a refreshing new feel to a trio that was in danger of becoming somewhat repetitive and dull. As usual, Mehldau delights those of us who supplement our Jazz listening with recordings from the real world as he begins this album with a rendition on the Radiohead composition "Knives Out." This is one of Mehldau's better albums in recent years. I don't want to completely sell out Rossy, but this trio seems to have more energy and spontaneity than it had on the previous few albums. (*****)

  • Bloc Party -

    Bloc Party: Silent Alarm
    After hearing a short clip online, I decided to see these guys perform at Music Midtown. Typically with rock-type bands, I know whether I'm going to like them or not within the first 30 seconds. Clearly, since I just bought the CD, Bloc Party impressed me from the outset and maintained my interest throughout their hour-long performance. In danger of becoming just another English band in the form of Coldplay or Keane, Bloc Party has thus far succeeded with a unique sound that blends the smooth and clean style of those former two bands with the type of rock heard on some of, dare I say, Radiohead's older albums like the Bends and Pablo Honey. Just released in March, this first album has a lot of good stuff on it. Bloc Party has serious potential. (****)

  • Joe Lovano -

    Joe Lovano: I'm All For You
    As far as ballad-oriented albums go, this one is pretty damn good. Offering fresh renditions of standards as well as a few originals, Lovano's tone and expression remains unique but also traditional as he moves around these charts and improvises. This is really my first exposure to Lovano other than seeing him live once in New York. I like the album a lot and personally think he handles the ballads much better than Michael Brecker on his Ballad Book album a few years ago. (****)

Newsvine Top News

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 04/2004

« More Comcast Hate | Main | Boo-birds »

Monday, April 10, 2006



i was there and i think zach's description of the event is accurate. I don't know what the NY Times article said, but I just want to say how incredibly shocked I am that they would write a left-leaning article on the abortion issue!!!!! WOW! I am sure it is entirely accurate, just like Dan Rather's memo about President Bush's war service.
I guess a question I would have is when did the Times write a detailed article about what happens to the fetus during a partial birth abortion, or say, any abortion for that matter? And then we could ask ourselves: Is that fairly gruesome? Is that disgusting? Is that a crime within itself, akin to a woman dying due to back-alley abortions? In Mexico, where abortion is mostly illegal, to my understanding a couple thousand women die every year due to back-alley abortions. That is a far cry from the million-plus abortions that occur here every year. Couple thousand deaths vs. one million deaths, you do the math.

Nicholas Carlson

I'd do the math, but I'm not very good at it. Instead I'll defer to a Harvard Economist on why I think its a bad idea to force women to give birth to unwanted children:

Perhaps the most dramatic effect of legalized abortion, and one that would take years to reveal itself, was its impact on crime.

In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years-the years during which young men enter their criminal prime-the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals. And the crime rate continued to fall as an entire generation came of age minus the children whose mothers had not wanted to bring a child into the world. Legalized abortion led to less unwantedness; unwantedness leads to high crime; legalized abortion, therefore, led to less crime.

This theory is bound to provoke a variety of reactions, ranging from disbelief to revulsion, and a variety of objections, ranging from the quotidian to the moral. The likeliest first objection is the most straightforward one: is the theory true? Perhaps abortion and crime are merely correlated and not causal.

It may be more comforting to believe what the newspapers say, that the drop in crime was due to brilliant policing and clever gun control and a surging economy. We have evolved with a tendency to link causality to things we can touch or feel, not to some distant or difficult phenomenon. We believe especially in near-term causes: a snake bites your friend, he screams with pain, and he dies. The snakebite, you conclude, must have killed him. Most of the time, such a reckoning is correct. But when it comes to cause and effect, there is often a trap in such open-and-shut thinking. We smirk now when we think of ancient cultures that embraced faulty causes-the warriors who believed, for instance, that it was their raping of a virgin that brought them victory on the battlefield. But we too embrace faulty causes, usually at the urging of an expert proclaiming a truth in which he has a vested interest.

How, then, can we tell if the abortion-crime link is a case of causality rather than simply correlation?

One way to test the effect of abortion on crime would be to measure crime data in the five states where abortion was made legal before the Supreme Court extended abortion rights to the rest of the country.

In New York, California, Washington, Alaska, and Hawaii, a woman had been able to obtain a legal abortion for at least two years before Roe v. Wade. And indeed, those early-legalizing states saw crime begin to fall earlier than the other forty-five states and the District of Columbia. Between 1988 and 1994, violent crime in the earlylegalizing states fell 13 percent compared to the other states; between 1994 and 1997, their murder rates fell 23 percent more than those of the other states.

But what if those early legalizers simply got lucky? What else might we look for in the data to establish an abortion-crime link? One factor to look for would be a correlation between each state's abortion rate and its crime rate. Sure enough, the states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s, while states with low abortion rates experienced smaller crime drops. (This correlation exists even when controlling for a variety of factors that influence crime: a state's level of incarceration, number of police, and its economic situation.) Since 1985, states with high abortion rates have experienced a roughly 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion states. (New York City had high abortion rates and lay within an early-legalizing state, a pair of facts that further dampen the claim that innovative policing caused the crime drop.) Moreover, there was no link between a given state's abortion rate and its crime rate before the late 1980s-when the first cohort affected by legalized abortion was reaching its criminal prime-which is yet another indication that Roe v. Wade was indeed the event that tipped the crime scale.

There are even more correlations, positive and negative, that shore up the abortion-crime link.

Secret Santa

Nich, I think I agree with what you write, but I don't think you should've dignified that comment with a response. Marlowe, aside from its inanity, your comment is tactless. Unfortunately (for society!), the loudest mouths all too often use misguided opinions like yours to convince those who don't take the time to think.

Travis Lloyd

Hot damn, Nich loves Freakonomics! I think he's got the right idea here, or at least a better one than the G.W. boys have. Your post is offensive, not positively provocative, Zach. And I'm inclined to stoop to Santa's level regarding Marlowe's opinion.

I can't respond fully right now, for the same reason you shouldn't be writing these posts, Zach. So I'll just sling some mud and leave. Examssssssssssss....


Of course, the theory above crumbles if we consider abortion in itself to be a crime. Obviously, it is legal, but killing babies in itself is a moral crime, thus we aren't really reducing the amount of violent acts or unethical behavior.
Logically, we could reduce crime dramatically by legalizing lots of things! We could legalize violent assaults, and then congratulate ourselves on the drop in violent crime. It would be duplicitous, but nonetheless, it would work quite well.
That is exactly the case with abortion. The fact is that 1.3 murders occur per year in the US that are not considered "crime." If we were to add these actual murders onto the rest of the murders that are "crime," we would see that the murder rate has, in fact, skyrocketed since 1973. Thus, the actual crime rate may have gone down, but at the cost of an outrageous and gruesome "solution." (Hasn't that word been used in a similar context?)


By the Mr. Santa, you are more proof to the fact that the radical left cannot provide substantive arguments to conservatives. All ad hominem attacks... (and then you wonder why you all get your asses kicked in presidential elections)... Also, the cowardice that you display in not posting your actual name adds to the stereotype of the cowering, scared, communistic leftist.

Secret Santa

Oh dear, Marlowe. Who said anything about the left? This is going to hurt your chances for Moot Court.

Secret Santa

Besides, my "attack" (gee, I'm probably a terrorist) was ad argumentum, not ad hominem. Were I to "attack" you ad hominem, I'd call you fat. Once again, I'm doing you a favor; calling that rubbish an argument.

otium cum dignitate

Alright Marlowe. Don't forget this blog is in the public domain, and you just blew your chances at the Supreme Court.

Secret Santa, you are clearly someone I know well, as you drew referene to Marlowe's "fat" story. But your cowardice is quite disgraceful. Reveal yourself.

Lastly, Nich. Freakonomics did in fact talk about your crime + abortion correlation, but then qualified it with something along the lines of Marlowe's response.

Gotta love the abortion debate.


What did I do? secretsantaisapieceoftrash wrote that nasty thing. i have a feeling secret santa is jordan, but i'm not sure. if it is, no wonder, the little weasel massachussetts stupidity is coming through. if not, i apologize jordan, you aren't really a little weasel. oh, and secret santa never gave an actual reason for why i am wrong. never countered my argument. again, shows the leftist unintelligence. also, this probably shows the DNA of a little pinko commie internationalist traitor. he's probably a terrorist and probably hates freedom. let us pray to god for the soul of this treacherous imbecile.


sorry dude, not me.

I'm insulted. three reasons why I am not this wierdo guy:
1) I actually DO know the difference between ad hominem and ad argumentum.
2) my ad hominem attacks are much more clever than "you're fat," or just calling you inane and tactless--- my comment would probably involve using a bleeding hemorrhoid as a metaphor for your political viewpoints. but that's just me.
3) flame-wars are SO craigslist.


but, since I am being falsely accused of being this santa-guy, I'll have to weigh in on the debate.

First of all, I think the freakonomics argument is terrible. Even if the economic benefits of abortion could be conclusively shown (which they can't), it STILL doesn't justify making abortion legal: there's a ton of stuff we can do to offset any increase in abortion-caused-crime. If you consider abortion a 'moral-crime,' the economic benefits just don't outweigh the moral hazzard: if abortion is wrong, it's wrong if its economically viable too.

The center of the abortion debate is, was, and always will be whether or not you think a fetus is a life. if you do, you are against abortion. if not, you are pro-choice. it really is that simple.

look, I'm pro-choice, but I'm pro-choice because I don't think that there's any life-rights in a jumble of unformed stem-cells. I think the line between a rights-bearing life and a dependant zygoteotic grouping of nothingness is thinner than Kate Moss's septim. Ultimately this isn't a choice i'd want to give to the government. Let the government do what it always should do in cases where difficult moral decisions are to be made: trust the moral compass of the citizens-- who are, after all, the state's boss.



The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Reads

  • Erik Larson: The Devil in the White City:  Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America

    Erik Larson: The Devil in the White City: Murder, Magic, and Madness at the Fair that Changed America
    I had been meaning to read this one for awhile. With some persuasion, I finally picked it up a couple of weeks ago, and I'm glad I did. This is a nonfiction book that reads so much like a novel, that I found myself repeatedly checking the back flap to make sure it was, indeed, listed as "History." Larson interweaves a personalty-driven historical account of the Chicago World Fair construction with the gruesome plot of a professional serial killer named H.H. Holmes. Well-written, informative, and a redeeming read -- few history books are this entertaining. (*****)

  • Michael Chabon: The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay

    Michael Chabon: The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay
    This book is long, and took me nearly all summer to read, but the time spent was well worth it. The plot of this book is somewhat convoluted and hard to really identify with, but the writing is really good, and it's probably a good idea that I took my time with the reading. Chabon has one section on the war that seems really pointless and unnecessary. The book stumbles a bit towards the end, but again the writing makes up for any deficiencies of plot or structure. (****)

  • Michael Lewis: Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game

    Michael Lewis: Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game
    I finally read this seminal baseball book. And yes, I have read other books since finishing the last baseball book reviewed here. Moneyball brought to the forefront the "sabermetric" revolution in baseball statistics. Lewis uses the example of the Oakland A's management to explain how low-budget baseball teams can stay competitive by exploiting inefficiencies in the market. This is probably the best sports book I have ever read. It's extremely well-done, and absolutely necessary reading for any serious baseball fan. I cannot believe I waited so long to finally read it. (*****)

  • John Schuerholz: Built to Win: Inside Stories and Leadership Strategies from Baseball's Winningest GM

    John Schuerholz: Built to Win: Inside Stories and Leadership Strategies from Baseball's Winningest GM
    An interesting glimpse into the inner workings of the Braves' front-office over the last fifteen years. This book is an easy read, but probably less interesting if one isn't a Braves fan. Schuerholz seems quite confident in his approach to the GM position, and rightly so. But is it a coincidence that the Braves' first dissapointing season in fifteen years came after this book was published? (***)

  • Scott Turow: One L: The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School

    Scott Turow: One L: The Turbulent True Story of a First Year at Harvard Law School
    Maybe I should have read this before deciding on law school. Scott Turow recounts his first year at Harvard Law School, and the day-to-day tribulations bear a striking resemblance to my first year at GW law. One L helped me to realize that I wasn't the only one feeling so distraught during 1L. It was therapeutic to read after the first year, but could scare one off if read the summer before beginning law school. (***)

  • Steven D. Levitt: Freakonomics

    Steven D. Levitt: Freakonomics
    After trying to wait for it to come out in paperback, I finally read my dad's hardcover copy (that I bought him for Christmas). Freakonomics is short and somewhat pointless, but it is interesting (I relegated it to the beach over spring break so I wasn't expecting much). The authors introduce a couple of interesting studies that attempt to undermine basic assumptions on crime and education, to name a few topics. It's probably worth your read, but not until it comes out in paperback. (***)

  • Joseph J. Ellis: His Excellency: George Washington

    Joseph J. Ellis: His Excellency: George Washington
    This book, bearing the title of both my city and law school, is a rare example of really good biographical writing. By condensing this candid account of Washington's personality into a mere 275 pages, Ellis somehow avoids what seems an inevitable verbosity with most biographies. Ellis attempts to overcome the stale mythologies that surround most of Washington's legacy, but finds that even the most honest account of America's hero must admit a certain amount of heroic attributes. Although I learned a lot about Washington from this book, Ellis' writing itself is what really impressed me most. For aspiring non-fiction writers (or perhaps young law students), I recommend this book as a study in how to maintain high-quality writing, even when addressing the most academic topics. (****)

  • Bill Clinton: My Life

    Bill Clinton: My Life
    To be honest, I may have learned more about American Politics from this book than I did from any individual class at college. The best part of this book, though, is the first half that details Clinton's journey from a fatherless, poor home in the middle of Arkansas to the Oval Office. At times, Clinton writes brilliantly and evocatively. This book certainly drags on far longer than it needs to. But a faithful and complete reading of the book will give the reader an in-depth understanding of Bill Clinton as both a person and a politician. (****)

  • Khaled Hosseini: Kite Runner

    Khaled Hosseini: Kite Runner
    This is the only normal-sized book that I have ever finished in less than 24 hrs. All 371 pages of it. Needless to say, this novel reads extremely fast. Set in Afghanistan, this book helps to familiarize us with a region of the world that Westerners struggle to understand and develop. Chilling accounts of Russian and Taliban brutality in Afghanistan enlighten the reader about what it actually was like to live over there during the last few decades. Although the story told here is gripping and persuasive, the historical and cultural background of this book made a more lasting impression on me than the characters and plot. (***)

  • John Searles: Strange But True

    John Searles: Strange But True
    This was a perfect page-turner during my week at the beach. Searles writes a lot like David Sedaris. Sardonic and humorous, Searles' characters occupy the fence between caricature and grotesque. A well-written, well-organized novel, but still a "beach-book" nonetheless. (***)

My Online Status