From theatlantic:

Where Did All the Workers Go? 60 Years of Economic Change in 1 Graph

President Obama’s State of the Union speech was surprisingly bullish on reviving manufacturing, prompting one very clever person on Twitter to say something along the lines of: “Democrats want the economy of the 1950s, while Republicans just want to live there.”

It got me thinking: What did the economy look like in the 1950s? If you could organize all the jobs into buckets and compare the paper-shuffling professional services bucket to the manufacturing bucket, what would they look like around 1950, and how has the picture changed in the last 60 years? Read more.

[Image: Brian McGill and Peter Bell/National Journal]

washingtonpoststyle:

Stephen Colbert interviews Maurice Sendak.

This is the greatest interview in the history of “The Colbert Report.” (Go to our actual tumblog if you have trouble watching on the dashboard.)

newsweek:

BFFs 4 life.

From discoverynews:

In Event of Moon Disaster

On July 18 of 1969, as the world waited anxiously for Apollo 11 to land safely on the surface of the Moon, speechwriter William Safire imagined the worst case scenario as he expertly wrote the following sombre memo to President Nixon’s Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman. Its contents: a contingency plan, in the form of a speech to be read out by Nixon should astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin become stranded on the moon, never to return, followed by some brief instructions relating to its broadcast. Luckily for all those involved, the memo was never needed.

Image courtesy of The National Archives.

amyvernon:

Wookie the Chew.

DYING FROM THE CUTE.

As someone who didn’t really grow up with Santa—but is now forced to include Santa into my child’s developing mythological landscape—I share many of the sentiments below. Particularly since my threats are hollow (since the presents are already purchased and waiting in the basement). Besides, I’d like to be thanked (since I bought many of those presents). But the thing I find most difficult about Santa is this: If Santa brings presents to kids (let’s face it, regardless of behavior), then why bother having any agency? Why should my son buy his sister or any member of his family a gift, since Santa will take care of it? The conceptual victims of the Santa myth are agency and responsibility.

From kohenari:

Over at 3 Quarks Daily, Scott Aikin and Robert Talisse recently had some fun with the whole idea behind Santa Claus and his gift-giving:

The trouble with Santa’s surveillance is that it affects our motives. When we know that we are being watched by an omniscient judge looking to mete out rewards and punishments, we find ourselves with strong reasons to act for the sake of getting the reward and avoiding the punishment. But in order for our actions to have moral worth, they must be motivated by moral reasons, rather than narrowly self-interested ones. In short, under Santa’s watchful eye, our motivations become clouded, and so does the morality of our actions.

There’s a brilliant Kantian strain undergirding this post, highlighting the importance of doing the right action simply because it’s the right action. And, of course, there are also some really interesting atheistic charges leveled against the notion inherent to some religions that one should behave morally because of the grave consequences of not behaving morally.

One could also spend some time fruitfully ruminating on the idea of Santa Claus as a quintessential example of Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon (and, by extension, Michel Foucault’s claims about the pervasive element of surveillance in contemporary society in Discipline and Punish), or even Santa Claus as the answer to Glaucon’s famous parable of the Ring of Gyges in Plato’s Republic. Clearly, there’s an incredible amount that I could write about this excellent discussion of religion and morality, but I’m going to focus on what’s missing: a discussion of deterrence.

Let me preface all of this by saying that everything I know about Santa Claus comes from movies and television shows, not from any personal experience. In my world, presents were given to children by parents and grandparents because it was Hanukkah and not for any other reason. The only holiday in which presents required some action on my part was Passover: If I found a lost piece of matzoh, I could demand a ransom for it. I don’t know — and I don’t care to know — what my life would have been like if Hanukkah presents had been contingent on admirable behavior during the year, except that I probably wouldn’t have received as many presents. It’s not that I was particularly badly behaved during the non-Hanukkah months; it’s that I was a kid and kids are seldom moral exemplars.

And this gets directly to the point I want to make about Santa Claus and deterrence, namely that he ought to be one of the better examples of deterring bad behavior but he almost certainly isn’t. What I mean is this:

At some point, a child is told that Santa Claus exists and brings Christmas presents to good children; Santa gives bad children a lump of coal or tosses them in a burlap sack or eats them (depending, as I understand these things, on where you were born). The child is also told that Santa is always watching and always keeping track of good or bad behavior. Presumably, parents use the threat of Santa throughout the year. But even if they don’t, it’s likely that such a threat makes its annual return in November or early December. The closer we get to Christmas, the more powerfully the threat of Santa ought to be felt, though children should know from pop culture that Santa is remarkably vigilant and his list-keeping is impeccable.

So … is it the case that children, confronted with this all-seeing, all-knowing entity, behave better? This is an empirical question, one that I’m hoping someone will study.

My sense is that such a study would demonstrate what I’d like to call the Bart Simpson principle: No matter the threat, no matter how important it is to avoid bad behavior, children seemingly cannot help themselves. Parents of young Christian children will likely attest to the fact that there isn’t a notable change in behavior with the approach of the Christmas season. Presumably, these children should be deterred from their normal bad behavior. But anecdotal evidence suggests that they’re not.

In the very first episode of The Simpsons, the issue of bad behavior in full view of Santa Claus is tackled head on: Bart accepts a dare from Milhouse to pull off the beard of a poor “Mall Santa,” who turns out to be his father. If the threat of Santa properly deterred, if children altered their behavior in order to avoid receiving coal (or worse), then Bart’s bad behavior in his dealings with Santa (or his representative) wouldn’t resonate with the audience. But, of course, Bart’s bad behavior does resonate … especially with parents, who forever use the threat of Santa to generally poor results.

If a perfectly omniscient being like Santa fails to deter, how can we make the case for deterrence more generally?

From derekfuego:

The Internet Justice League

If there’s a “war on Christmas,” it seems Christmas is fighting back!

From npr:

prostheticknowledge:

Godzilla Christmas Tree

Yes, a Christmas tree in the form of Godzilla …

Godzilla-shaped Christmas tree spews smoke, Aqua City Odaiba shopping mall, Tokyo, Japan. (2006)

I saw this on Tumblr’s Radar, so there’s probably no point in re-blogging it. But I can’t help myself. It made laugh. —Wright

shortformblog:

imwithkanye:

Angry Bird Couture

Teija Vesterbacka, the wife of Peter Vesterbacka, head of Rovio — the company behind Angry Birds — at a formal event at the Finnish Palace to celebrate the country’s independence. [via]

The greatest fashion statement involving a bird since Bjork’s swan song.

npr:

What’s Behind A Temper Tantrum? Scientists Deconstruct The Screams

Toddlers outfitted with high-tech wireless recording devices have helped researchers discover that tantrums have a very distinct, predictable pattern. Understanding that tantrums have a rhythm can not only help parents know when to intervene, but also give them a sense of control.

Source: YouTube (by permission), iStockphoto.com

Credit: NPR