This may have to be a new feature: historical comparisons so stupendously inane as to exist beyond a point in which logic and argument are possible. Caught this one today from Matt Yglesias' Twitter:
National Review writer Daniel Foster in responding to news about the growth in the U.S. real GDP in the first quarter of 2010 retorts that: "The Soviet economy grew every year from 1985-1989."
Do yourself a favor if you haven't already and go through Ta-Nehisi Coates' recent blogging to see the series of posts he did responding to Confederate History Month. They're informed by not only expansive reading and deep insight, but gorgeous writing. Here's a representative one on how Robert E. Lee is remembered vis a vi the Confederacy and slavery.
Nearing the end of my first year of graduate school, with the 2008 election dominating so much of our time and energy, I increasingly noticed how poorly politicians and many in the media employed historical analogies and narratives as part of explaining current day issues. This led me to think "hey, maybe someone should have a blog about that problem!" And I apparently then decided that I was the one I had been waiting for. So I started Banalogies. But blog writing is hard and I eventually stopped. So, why try to revive it now? Let me put this in the classic three point argument format that guarantees undergraduates at least a B on their papers:
1) I've read a lot more: 2 years and many hundreds of articles and books later I think I have a much better knowledge base and grasp on a lot of the relevant history for writing this blog.
2) Broader focus: While poor and misleading use of history by politicos and journalists will remain a focus, I also will be expanding my range of topics. In part, I plan to devote some space towards thinking through the material I'll be absorbing for dissertation research. I also will try and write more general political/historical posts, as well as looking at how popular culture (especially film) portrays and interprets historical and political events and issues.
3) People read blogs differently now: Last, but perhaps most crucial. When I was first writing Banalogies, Twitter wasn't around and folks were just getting started with RSS feeds. Thus, the way to keep people reading revolved around creating a lot of material. Now, however, with so many ways to alert people to your writing, the need for constant content is reduced. So expect only semi-regular posting, but it should all be pretty good.
This may have to be a new feature: historical comparisons so stupendously inane as to exist beyond a point in which logic and argument are possible. Caught this one today from Matt Yglesias' Twitter: