2/28/2006
So fans of Sean Hannity have their own dating site. (A place where even folks like this guy can hook up.)
2/24/2006
Wow. That's all I can say. Donald Rumsfeld's handwritten notes drawing a line straight for Iraq. I'm not going to jump onto any conspiracy theory bandwagons, but this clearly shows a rush to judgment. Wow.
2/23/2006
2/22/2006
One of the best (i.e. most reasonable) articles about the port fiasco. Not as fun as ignorance-fueled hysteria, but common sense still has a place...
2/21/2006
Frank Fukuyama's mea culpa (sort of) is getting a ton of press in the blogsphere and beyond. Not only a public lamblasting of the misguided wanderings of the neo-cons in this administration, a tight and meaningful prescription for American foreign policy post-Iraq.
He's most dead on when he talks about the cognitive dissonance between neo-cons abhorance for social experiments domestically but their almost gleeful willingness to radicalize foreign policy.
He's most dead on when he talks about the cognitive dissonance between neo-cons abhorance for social experiments domestically but their almost gleeful willingness to radicalize foreign policy.
1/19/2006
Bin Laden offers a "truce". This is a fascinating and important development. It will be interesting to see how the United State's policy of not negotiating with terrorists will be held to this new situation.
1/13/2006
1/12/2006
Fresh on the heels of our discussion about veterans making peaceful politicians (and thanks for all the great feedback btw) Slate weighs in with the notion that drunks are the best leaders.
1/11/2006
Interesting piece about why the Supreme Court tends to make justices liberal.
(short answer: “fundamental attribution error”)
(short answer: “fundamental attribution error”)
1/09/2006
Right is more precious than peace. -- Woodrow Wilson
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. -- Dwight David Eisenhower
War leaves an indelible mark on a man. It seems the witnesses of the carnage of battle are working the hardest to find peaceful alternatives and just resolutions.
John McCain's successful campaign to pass anti-torture legislation was in no small part driven by the time he spent in the Hanoi Hilton. While pundits and politicians argue about the effectiveness of torture, it took one who experienced it to galvanize the political opposition.
Ariel Sharon's stroke may have ended the latest effort at reaching a peaceful compromise in the region and it raises again the possibility that ex-soldiers are the best to lead us to peace. Sharon was involved in every major Israeli battle since the 1948 War for independence, including the slaughter that occurred in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. His first wife died in a car crash, his second to cancer. His 10 year old son died in his arms. The old soldier had seen enough death and was working for peace when his stroke occurred.
One doesn't have to look far to find examples of vets who fought in wars and later fought War. Examples include Colin Powell, the impotent "dove" of the Bush administration, who not only supported McCain's anti-torture bill, he also was the cabinet member most reluctant to invade Iraq. At the dawn of the Cold-War, Eisenhower, the general turned US President, famously warned of a military industrial complex and its systemic opposition to peace. During the Vietnam war battle scarred returning veterans infused energy and credibility to the anti-war movement.
It's difficult not to compare and contrast the beliefs about war these men have to so-called "chicken-hawks". It's long been believed that men who have never seen battle are more likely to send other men to battle for less reason. Is the corollary that old-warriors are best suited to lead us to peace?
I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity. -- Dwight David Eisenhower
War leaves an indelible mark on a man. It seems the witnesses of the carnage of battle are working the hardest to find peaceful alternatives and just resolutions.
John McCain's successful campaign to pass anti-torture legislation was in no small part driven by the time he spent in the Hanoi Hilton. While pundits and politicians argue about the effectiveness of torture, it took one who experienced it to galvanize the political opposition.
Ariel Sharon's stroke may have ended the latest effort at reaching a peaceful compromise in the region and it raises again the possibility that ex-soldiers are the best to lead us to peace. Sharon was involved in every major Israeli battle since the 1948 War for independence, including the slaughter that occurred in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatila. His first wife died in a car crash, his second to cancer. His 10 year old son died in his arms. The old soldier had seen enough death and was working for peace when his stroke occurred.
One doesn't have to look far to find examples of vets who fought in wars and later fought War. Examples include Colin Powell, the impotent "dove" of the Bush administration, who not only supported McCain's anti-torture bill, he also was the cabinet member most reluctant to invade Iraq. At the dawn of the Cold-War, Eisenhower, the general turned US President, famously warned of a military industrial complex and its systemic opposition to peace. During the Vietnam war battle scarred returning veterans infused energy and credibility to the anti-war movement.
It's difficult not to compare and contrast the beliefs about war these men have to so-called "chicken-hawks". It's long been believed that men who have never seen battle are more likely to send other men to battle for less reason. Is the corollary that old-warriors are best suited to lead us to peace?
1/04/2006
Tonight the most anticipated college football game of the past 50 years will finally be played. Two undefeated conference champions match up in what's slated as a game for the ages. At the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, the two-time defending national champs USC Trojans will be going for an unprecedented third straight title. Led by a backfield that possess two Heisman winners (and perhaps next year's winner as well) USC is an offensive juggernaut the likes of which hasn't been seen in decades.
On the other side of the ball is a Texas team lead by a dynamic and breathtaking QB with a golden arm and enough running ability to leave Michael Vick awestruck.
USC's suspect defense is seemingly healthy again and Texas' choker reputation seems to be left in the dust of last year's Rose Bowl victory leading this blogger to believe that tonight will be a game that our grandchildren will ask us about.
So let's hear your picks. USC or UT? Will the game itself live up to the hype? (Is it possible that any game can?) Which of USC's plethora of stars will prove most valuable? Will Vince Young handle the defensive schemes of a coach who can be considered nothing short of genius? What does the Ohio State/Notre Dame game tell us about tonight? And if USC wins, where do they rank against the all-time teams?
On the other side of the ball is a Texas team lead by a dynamic and breathtaking QB with a golden arm and enough running ability to leave Michael Vick awestruck.
USC's suspect defense is seemingly healthy again and Texas' choker reputation seems to be left in the dust of last year's Rose Bowl victory leading this blogger to believe that tonight will be a game that our grandchildren will ask us about.
So let's hear your picks. USC or UT? Will the game itself live up to the hype? (Is it possible that any game can?) Which of USC's plethora of stars will prove most valuable? Will Vince Young handle the defensive schemes of a coach who can be considered nothing short of genius? What does the Ohio State/Notre Dame game tell us about tonight? And if USC wins, where do they rank against the all-time teams?
Why did some parts of the world achieve so much more than others? Huge disparities in wealth, scientific knowledge, and military might have been evident throughout the globe throughout time. These gaps have created conflict and opportunity, but genesis of these gaps have long been debated.
Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" recently waded into this long-waging ideological battle. In it he states that the dominance of some people over others is largely the result of geographic happenstance. A popular new book however has fired a volley over Diamond's bow. "The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success" by Rodney Stark argues that Christian thought, as much as anything, has lead to Western dominance in the modern world.
Why did Europeans excel at metallurgy, shipbuilding, or farming? The most convincing answer to these questions attributes Western dominance to the rise of capitalism, which also took place only in Europe." He traces the origins of capitalism to the belief in reason, which he in turn locates uniquely in Christian theology: "While the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone embraced reason and logic as the primary guide to religious truth."
While seemingly an ancient dynamic, Stark argues that Christianity's reach isn't nearing an apex. Conversely:
"[t]he fact is that Christianity is becoming globalized far more rapidly than is democracy, capitalism, or modernity." He locates this spectacular growth in part to Christianity's "appeal to reason and the fact that it is so inseparably linked to the rise of Western Civilization. For many non-Europeans, becoming a Christian is intrinsic to becoming modern. Thus," he concludes, "it is quite plausible that Christianity remains an essential element in the globalization of modernity."
Jared Diamond's "Guns, Germs, and Steel" recently waded into this long-waging ideological battle. In it he states that the dominance of some people over others is largely the result of geographic happenstance. A popular new book however has fired a volley over Diamond's bow. "The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success" by Rodney Stark argues that Christian thought, as much as anything, has lead to Western dominance in the modern world.
Why did Europeans excel at metallurgy, shipbuilding, or farming? The most convincing answer to these questions attributes Western dominance to the rise of capitalism, which also took place only in Europe." He traces the origins of capitalism to the belief in reason, which he in turn locates uniquely in Christian theology: "While the other world religions emphasized mystery and intuition, Christianity alone embraced reason and logic as the primary guide to religious truth."
While seemingly an ancient dynamic, Stark argues that Christianity's reach isn't nearing an apex. Conversely:
"[t]he fact is that Christianity is becoming globalized far more rapidly than is democracy, capitalism, or modernity." He locates this spectacular growth in part to Christianity's "appeal to reason and the fact that it is so inseparably linked to the rise of Western Civilization. For many non-Europeans, becoming a Christian is intrinsic to becoming modern. Thus," he concludes, "it is quite plausible that Christianity remains an essential element in the globalization of modernity."
12/09/2005
What's perhaps the biggest argument against using torture as a tactic in the War on Terror? Bad intel. It doesn't get much worse than this.
12/03/2005
Jesus. Aristotle. Alexander. Hitler. Dr. King. These men have all cast long shadows over human affairs and ultimately have driven the forces of history. As this century takes form it’s clear that this age will be shaped by one of two people; Ayn Rand or L.Ron Hubbard.
Both leaders have spawned legions of influential disciples who drive the twin engines of culture and commerce. The followers of both groups often find themselves under attack from critics from within and without, but each day their reach expands.
Jenny Turner chronicles the quiet ubiquity of the Randians in the latest London Review of Books:
Objectivism is also promulgated by the Objectivist Center in Washington DC, ... The Center supports lectures and social events, a journal called the New Individualist (until recently the Navigator), a venture called the Atlas Society and an online Objectivism Store selling T-shirts, bags, hats, badges and inspirational posters.
Rand is everywhere on the internet: stickers, coasters, car number plates, CDs featuring a Randian ‘Concerto of Deliverance’ at starshipaurora.com. Randians can meet ‘at least’ four thousand others, it is claimed, through the Objectivist dating agency at theatlasphere.com, …Professional philosophers can join the Ayn Rand Society at aynrandsociety.org.
Rand’s influences are noticeable in the political ethos that flourished in the literary environment she provided. A politics that manifested itself in the form of Ronald Reagan and his political offspring. An ideology that focused on destroying the overt collectivism of the Soviets and the more subtle socialism found in western democracies. Money is the fountainhead of political societies and her impact is even more direct in this regard. The business focused climate she facilitated ushered in an unrepentant form of hyper-capitalism that remains the hallmark of her adopted nation. Long time U.S. Federal Reserve Bank chairman Alan Greenspan (who was a flute playing early acolyte of Rand’s) has used his pulpit to shape global monetary policy in a way that many consider to be in adherence with Randian goals.
Her death hasn’t stalled the movement. The emotional content of her writing has helped her words to find leverage in the hearts of adolescents around the world, and her books continue to be bestsellers. Turner describes Rand’s continued popularity as a combination of rapture and intellectual fireworks: Post-Rand, Objectivism has become more secular and suburban, but as is the way with suburbs, also more widespread. If nothing else, Objectivism might inject romance, victimhood, entertainingly bohemian personal chaos, into the otherwise uneventful right-wing life
Her adherents are diverse and growing. As Scott McLemee describes:
(Randians include) the novelist and screenwriter Nora Ephron, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the Canadian bombast-rock group Rush. (The album 2112 was inspired by her philosophy.) Rand died in 1982, but her spirit lingers in Silicon Valley, with its anarcho-entrepreneurialism. At least one dozen Playboy centerfold models have named The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged as their favorite book. And Camille Paglia has proclaimed Rand an intellectual prototype of her own bad self--than which no higher praise can be imagined, from that source.
Meanwhile Scientology has grown to become the pre-eminent religion in the employ of those who control celebrity culture. Since its beginnings, Scientology targeted celebrities to grow the profile of the fledging church. To this day the high profile of some the church’s more celebrated members like Tom Cruise and John Travolta are only the most public face of group that has been able to recruit followers from all walks of life. From prison out-reach, school drug treatment programs, to the foot soldiers offering e-meter testing on the sidewalks of cities across the globe, Scientology has used yeoman tactics to grow its base. Hubbard’s text Dianetics (subtitled: The Modern Science of Mental Health) has become the bible for millions of followers around the world. Recently, the Guinness Book of World Records recognized the late founder as the most translated author in the history of the world.
Scientology’s appeal lies largely in its ability to tap into man’s quest for self-examination and self-improvement. While rigorously (and litigiously) maintaining secrecy about the inner-workings of the church the faith is welcoming to any and all who strive.
Like the Randians, Scientologists are mired in controversy. Some consider the church little more than a pyramid scheme wrapped in a pious veneer. Others criticize the church for being more cult than religion. And most recently the church has found itself waging an increasingly public (and at times surreal) battle with the medical establishment. These skirmishes over the image of the church has brought the fight into a battlefield it knows all too well; the realm of popular culture.
Both leaders have spawned legions of influential disciples who drive the twin engines of culture and commerce. The followers of both groups often find themselves under attack from critics from within and without, but each day their reach expands.
Jenny Turner chronicles the quiet ubiquity of the Randians in the latest London Review of Books:
Objectivism is also promulgated by the Objectivist Center in Washington DC, ... The Center supports lectures and social events, a journal called the New Individualist (until recently the Navigator), a venture called the Atlas Society and an online Objectivism Store selling T-shirts, bags, hats, badges and inspirational posters.
Rand is everywhere on the internet: stickers, coasters, car number plates, CDs featuring a Randian ‘Concerto of Deliverance’ at starshipaurora.com. Randians can meet ‘at least’ four thousand others, it is claimed, through the Objectivist dating agency at theatlasphere.com, …Professional philosophers can join the Ayn Rand Society at aynrandsociety.org.
Rand’s influences are noticeable in the political ethos that flourished in the literary environment she provided. A politics that manifested itself in the form of Ronald Reagan and his political offspring. An ideology that focused on destroying the overt collectivism of the Soviets and the more subtle socialism found in western democracies. Money is the fountainhead of political societies and her impact is even more direct in this regard. The business focused climate she facilitated ushered in an unrepentant form of hyper-capitalism that remains the hallmark of her adopted nation. Long time U.S. Federal Reserve Bank chairman Alan Greenspan (who was a flute playing early acolyte of Rand’s) has used his pulpit to shape global monetary policy in a way that many consider to be in adherence with Randian goals.
Her death hasn’t stalled the movement. The emotional content of her writing has helped her words to find leverage in the hearts of adolescents around the world, and her books continue to be bestsellers. Turner describes Rand’s continued popularity as a combination of rapture and intellectual fireworks: Post-Rand, Objectivism has become more secular and suburban, but as is the way with suburbs, also more widespread. If nothing else, Objectivism might inject romance, victimhood, entertainingly bohemian personal chaos, into the otherwise uneventful right-wing life
Her adherents are diverse and growing. As Scott McLemee describes:
(Randians include) the novelist and screenwriter Nora Ephron, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the Canadian bombast-rock group Rush. (The album 2112 was inspired by her philosophy.) Rand died in 1982, but her spirit lingers in Silicon Valley, with its anarcho-entrepreneurialism. At least one dozen Playboy centerfold models have named The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged as their favorite book. And Camille Paglia has proclaimed Rand an intellectual prototype of her own bad self--than which no higher praise can be imagined, from that source.
Meanwhile Scientology has grown to become the pre-eminent religion in the employ of those who control celebrity culture. Since its beginnings, Scientology targeted celebrities to grow the profile of the fledging church. To this day the high profile of some the church’s more celebrated members like Tom Cruise and John Travolta are only the most public face of group that has been able to recruit followers from all walks of life. From prison out-reach, school drug treatment programs, to the foot soldiers offering e-meter testing on the sidewalks of cities across the globe, Scientology has used yeoman tactics to grow its base. Hubbard’s text Dianetics (subtitled: The Modern Science of Mental Health) has become the bible for millions of followers around the world. Recently, the Guinness Book of World Records recognized the late founder as the most translated author in the history of the world.
Scientology’s appeal lies largely in its ability to tap into man’s quest for self-examination and self-improvement. While rigorously (and litigiously) maintaining secrecy about the inner-workings of the church the faith is welcoming to any and all who strive.
Like the Randians, Scientologists are mired in controversy. Some consider the church little more than a pyramid scheme wrapped in a pious veneer. Others criticize the church for being more cult than religion. And most recently the church has found itself waging an increasingly public (and at times surreal) battle with the medical establishment. These skirmishes over the image of the church has brought the fight into a battlefield it knows all too well; the realm of popular culture.
Even Wall St. sees the folly of the current drug policy.
It's time to consider a dramatic shift in policy. Instead of the battle cry "war on drugs," let's try the mantra "legalization, regulation, and taxation."
It's time to consider a dramatic shift in policy. Instead of the battle cry "war on drugs," let's try the mantra "legalization, regulation, and taxation."
11/11/2005
Speaking of nutty right-wingers, Pat Robertson says God will smite a town for voting against intelligent design.
Bill O'Reilly thinks San Francisco shouldn't be a part of America. But he doesn't stop there:
"If Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
What a douche.
"If Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."
What a douche.
11/07/2005
Thanks for all the kind words of support about Dublin. Some of the emails have been really amazing.
One of the funniest shout outs came from the reader who said the posting reminded them of this Onion story.
One of the funniest shout outs came from the reader who said the posting reminded them of this Onion story.
11/06/2005
Americans love their dogs. We spend more on pets than on candy or toys. Philanthropists have funded research into cloning pets, and recent genetic successes have created a nascent industry.
This isn't about America in the aggregate, it's about me. More to the point, my dog. Her name was Dublin. We put her down this morning. She was diagnosed with an extremely aggressive form of cancer, operated on, had a kidney removed (along with the tumor) and struggled for the past two weeks. We waited with desperation for her to pee the first few days after the surgery, in the hope that her one remaining kidney would work. About 3 days after the operation she walked out into our bushes and squatted. It was night and we realized we might not be able to see her urinate so I shoved my hand under her and felt the warm, golden liquid. I was ecstatic. Never before had being peed on by a dog brought me such unmitigated happiness.
But the next few days put to rest our fledgling hope. Even though she continued to pee test results showed that her lone kidney wasn't working as hoped. She hadn't eaten since the surgery and was losing weight and what little strength she had. The only time she got up from her bed was to vomit. Each day brought less and less hope that she'd make a real recovery.
She was my dog, but really she was my wife's dog. She got Dublin from a pound in Southern California just before she left for college. Her first dog on her own, a sign, to my wife at least, of her growing independence and connected to her sense of the possible. Many years later I met my wife in a dog park. Of all the gifts our dogs gave us, this was undoubtedly the greatest.
So now we have one dog. A strange sensation for two people who spent so many years going to dog parks and learning to watch two dogs simultaneously go in opposite directions. The four of us went to Chrissy Field, an expanse of beach on the San Francisco Bay that is a favorite for all City dogs, and watched the fog roll over the bridge and waves crest against the sand where Dublin once chased giant black birds with an abandon that is reserved for the innocent and the free. This was our last act as a family of four before we took her to her in. Before we held her as the vet injected one shot, and then another, and she went to sleep forever.
Often people without pets are amazed. "How can you spend so much money on medical bills?" they ask. "How can you spend so much on toys...on food...on everything?" As I sit at home self-medicating (i.e. getting drunk) in the misbegotten hope that the virgin chasm will somehow ignore me for a moment or two, I realize that our love affair with animals is as much about us as it is about them.
This isn't about America in the aggregate, it's about me. More to the point, my dog. Her name was Dublin. We put her down this morning. She was diagnosed with an extremely aggressive form of cancer, operated on, had a kidney removed (along with the tumor) and struggled for the past two weeks. We waited with desperation for her to pee the first few days after the surgery, in the hope that her one remaining kidney would work. About 3 days after the operation she walked out into our bushes and squatted. It was night and we realized we might not be able to see her urinate so I shoved my hand under her and felt the warm, golden liquid. I was ecstatic. Never before had being peed on by a dog brought me such unmitigated happiness.
But the next few days put to rest our fledgling hope. Even though she continued to pee test results showed that her lone kidney wasn't working as hoped. She hadn't eaten since the surgery and was losing weight and what little strength she had. The only time she got up from her bed was to vomit. Each day brought less and less hope that she'd make a real recovery.
She was my dog, but really she was my wife's dog. She got Dublin from a pound in Southern California just before she left for college. Her first dog on her own, a sign, to my wife at least, of her growing independence and connected to her sense of the possible. Many years later I met my wife in a dog park. Of all the gifts our dogs gave us, this was undoubtedly the greatest.
So now we have one dog. A strange sensation for two people who spent so many years going to dog parks and learning to watch two dogs simultaneously go in opposite directions. The four of us went to Chrissy Field, an expanse of beach on the San Francisco Bay that is a favorite for all City dogs, and watched the fog roll over the bridge and waves crest against the sand where Dublin once chased giant black birds with an abandon that is reserved for the innocent and the free. This was our last act as a family of four before we took her to her in. Before we held her as the vet injected one shot, and then another, and she went to sleep forever.
Often people without pets are amazed. "How can you spend so much money on medical bills?" they ask. "How can you spend so much on toys...on food...on everything?" As I sit at home self-medicating (i.e. getting drunk) in the misbegotten hope that the virgin chasm will somehow ignore me for a moment or two, I realize that our love affair with animals is as much about us as it is about them.
10/17/2005
It is possible to fail in many ways...while to succeed is possible only in one way. -Aristotle
The USC Trojans, down by three, facing a 4th down and 9, deep in their own territory, knew for the first time all season the vicious sting of uncertainty. The 27 game winning streak was in peril, as was their season long quest to become the first team to win three consecutive national titles. Perhaps worst of all, it was going to happen on the hallowed, but hostile, ground that Notre Dame calls home. Everybody’s All-American Matt Leinart made a pass that kept the Trojan’s dwindling hopes alive, and then he made the decision that instantly became legend. The Trojans won in a game that some are calling the greatest college football game ever. A magic game on a day filled with the sublime spectacle that college football is at its very best. As Josh Levin, writing for Slate offered:
In what might have been college football's best day ever, Michigan and Boston College won on last-gasp touchdown passes, Alabama took out Ole Miss on a final-play field goal, and West Virginia and UCLA came from way back to win overtime slugfests.
College football is a game that is fueled by friendly controversy. Who deserves to be #1? Perhaps as importantly, who deserves to be #2? How soon until we get a playoff system? What is the greatest rivalry in all the land? Which conference is the strongest? Did USC cheat to win and does it even matter? Who will win the Heisman?
Part way through this season we can mostly only speculate, but this past Saturday gives us a chance to reflect and look ahead. As the leaves turn and the crisp air of autumn renews our school ties, for a few hours this past weekend a group of young men reminded us what the only appropriate answer is when faced with immovable obstructions; Fight On!
The USC Trojans, down by three, facing a 4th down and 9, deep in their own territory, knew for the first time all season the vicious sting of uncertainty. The 27 game winning streak was in peril, as was their season long quest to become the first team to win three consecutive national titles. Perhaps worst of all, it was going to happen on the hallowed, but hostile, ground that Notre Dame calls home. Everybody’s All-American Matt Leinart made a pass that kept the Trojan’s dwindling hopes alive, and then he made the decision that instantly became legend. The Trojans won in a game that some are calling the greatest college football game ever. A magic game on a day filled with the sublime spectacle that college football is at its very best. As Josh Levin, writing for Slate offered:
In what might have been college football's best day ever, Michigan and Boston College won on last-gasp touchdown passes, Alabama took out Ole Miss on a final-play field goal, and West Virginia and UCLA came from way back to win overtime slugfests.
College football is a game that is fueled by friendly controversy. Who deserves to be #1? Perhaps as importantly, who deserves to be #2? How soon until we get a playoff system? What is the greatest rivalry in all the land? Which conference is the strongest? Did USC cheat to win and does it even matter? Who will win the Heisman?
Part way through this season we can mostly only speculate, but this past Saturday gives us a chance to reflect and look ahead. As the leaves turn and the crisp air of autumn renews our school ties, for a few hours this past weekend a group of young men reminded us what the only appropriate answer is when faced with immovable obstructions; Fight On!
10/14/2005
Uof Chicago poli-sci professor and uber-blogger Daniel Drezner was up for tenure. He was denied. Now many are wondering if his blog was the reason.
10/12/2005
Frear. What is it goof for? Apparently for the fear entrepreneurs it's a chance to make a buck or a point.
10/07/2005
A new structure is cause for pause and reflection. After years of political squabbles the new M.H. de Young Memorial Museum is about to open in San Francisco. Designed by Swiss architects Pierre de Meuron and Jacques Herzog, the resurrected fine arts museum is over 293,000 sq. ft, offers breathtaking interiors, and is draped in a copper skin that blends into the trees of Golden Gate Park and simultaneously stands in stark relief.
The most controversial element of the design is the soaring, twisting tower that rises above the redwood trees. Some derisively compare the tower to an aircraft carrier, others to an undulating snake. It’s clearly the signature design element of the exterior, and one meant to be provocative. John King, the Chronicle’s Urban Design writer muses:
The tower, for instance, defies all efforts to pin it down or sum it up. It is a presence more than a distinctive form -- blunt from one angle and statuesque from another, muddy in the fog and aglow in bright sun. On the north and south sides it seems to dissolve, where the copper encasing the fire stairs becomes a lacy web that lets the light stream through.
The original de Young was irreparably damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. City voters twice turned down initiatives to fund the rebuilding of the de Young and instead turned to private financing. Museum board president Dede Wilsey led the fundraising effort, a challenge that was compounded by contentious battles over parking, park use, and the collapse of the dotcom economy. Wilsey’s pitch was created when she spoke with a wealthy patron at a cocktail party, ``You have money, and I need some.'' She never stopped asking. And now in the year 2005 San Francisco has its de Young back. (Quicktime tour of the musuem)
King goes on to describe how Mueron and Herzog refreshingly create structures that place function over form and make full use of familiar materials in evocative ways. The duo is notable by the fact that they don’t have a signature look. The space, materials, purpose, and location have a greater impact on their designs than does their egos. King writes, “The key to Herzog and de Meuron's work: They're interested in sensations, not forms. They strive to create architecture that touches all your senses -- an overall experience rather than an image on a page.”
This sensual construction occurs, perhaps most successfully, with the interior. Kenneth Baker, the Chronicle’s art critic, takes us on a (podcast)tour of the inside, describing the building and the pieces it houses.
The new de Young deploys its resources to encourage our recognition that the meanings of art, even of the decorative arts, lie neither wholly within the art object nor wholly outside it.
The layout of the building encourages visitors to take a path of their choosing, rather than creating a de facto hierarchy of branches of art. The central court, which has elements left from the original de Young, is at the beginning (or end) of any path taken. As always with Herzog ad de Meuron’s designs that materials on the inside are precise, stoic, and generous. From the rich eucalyptus of the second floor, to the grand staircase leading up to the Oceania collection (the one section that could truly be called extravagant) the importance of materials to the overall design of the museum becomes apparent.
Kenneth Baker ponders at the beginning of his review “What should a 21st century museum look like?” Pierre de Meuron, Jacques Herzog, and Dede Wilsey have given their answer.
The most controversial element of the design is the soaring, twisting tower that rises above the redwood trees. Some derisively compare the tower to an aircraft carrier, others to an undulating snake. It’s clearly the signature design element of the exterior, and one meant to be provocative. John King, the Chronicle’s Urban Design writer muses:
The tower, for instance, defies all efforts to pin it down or sum it up. It is a presence more than a distinctive form -- blunt from one angle and statuesque from another, muddy in the fog and aglow in bright sun. On the north and south sides it seems to dissolve, where the copper encasing the fire stairs becomes a lacy web that lets the light stream through.
The original de Young was irreparably damaged in the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. City voters twice turned down initiatives to fund the rebuilding of the de Young and instead turned to private financing. Museum board president Dede Wilsey led the fundraising effort, a challenge that was compounded by contentious battles over parking, park use, and the collapse of the dotcom economy. Wilsey’s pitch was created when she spoke with a wealthy patron at a cocktail party, ``You have money, and I need some.'' She never stopped asking. And now in the year 2005 San Francisco has its de Young back. (Quicktime tour of the musuem)
King goes on to describe how Mueron and Herzog refreshingly create structures that place function over form and make full use of familiar materials in evocative ways. The duo is notable by the fact that they don’t have a signature look. The space, materials, purpose, and location have a greater impact on their designs than does their egos. King writes, “The key to Herzog and de Meuron's work: They're interested in sensations, not forms. They strive to create architecture that touches all your senses -- an overall experience rather than an image on a page.”
This sensual construction occurs, perhaps most successfully, with the interior. Kenneth Baker, the Chronicle’s art critic, takes us on a (podcast)tour of the inside, describing the building and the pieces it houses.
The new de Young deploys its resources to encourage our recognition that the meanings of art, even of the decorative arts, lie neither wholly within the art object nor wholly outside it.
The layout of the building encourages visitors to take a path of their choosing, rather than creating a de facto hierarchy of branches of art. The central court, which has elements left from the original de Young, is at the beginning (or end) of any path taken. As always with Herzog ad de Meuron’s designs that materials on the inside are precise, stoic, and generous. From the rich eucalyptus of the second floor, to the grand staircase leading up to the Oceania collection (the one section that could truly be called extravagant) the importance of materials to the overall design of the museum becomes apparent.
Kenneth Baker ponders at the beginning of his review “What should a 21st century museum look like?” Pierre de Meuron, Jacques Herzog, and Dede Wilsey have given their answer.
So Catholic bishops in England have discovered (or more germane, disclosed) what most of us accepted once we grew past believing in Santa Claus, the Bible shouldn't be literally interpreted.
Â?We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,Â? they say in The Gift of Scripture
Now if we can get Bussupportersrs on board, we might start making progress.
Â?We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,Â? they say in The Gift of Scripture
Now if we can get Bussupportersrs on board, we might start making progress.
Malcolm Gladwell on Harvard's long history of using a variety of tools and tactics to keep the university WASP-y enough to maintain its "elite" perception.
The fall television season is a few weeks old and all ready winners and losers are starting to emerge. As always, there is a mix of quality and dreck, shows that are at risk too soon, and shows that should have been shot at the first pitch meeting.
Perhaps the biggest potential flop is NBC's latest offering from the Apprentice franchise. The Martha Stewart version has the hottie ex-con running an obstacle course for a bunch of nattily attired, upwardly mobile, professionals. The reality genre seems to be showing its age in general, the Apprentice in particular, and Martha's comeback appears to have hit a road block. The lastest ominous sign is that NBC has moved the program's start time (never a good sign) and positioned it against ABC's juggernaut Lost.
Showing more early success is the Geena Davis vehicle Commander in Chief. The show, about a woman ascending to the Presidency, enjoyed strong support from ABC, driven by a Disney-sized marketing campaign that included an inaugural ball. In a minor controversy reminiscent of the political wrestling that is occurring over movies, conservative critics have pointed out that the show is actually a nefarious effort by liberals to promote the notion of a female president.
The successful new shows run the gamut in terms of networks and show a return of sorts for scripted programming. Winners include the Chris Rock project Everybody Hate Chris. Considered by many an updated Cosby show, it has all ready become one of the most successful shows in UPN history. NBC has scored with My Name is Earl the story of a ne'er-do-well who wins the lottery and attempts to go back and do good to all the people he has done bad to. Fox is enjoying a surge with the serial Prison Break, a bright light on a dark night for Fox. Prison Break follows two quality programs that seem headed to oblivion. (It's not a new show, but Fox treats it like a new show. Arrested Development is so money, if anyone has a cousin who works at Fox, implore them not to cancel the show)
Another struggling new show is FX's ripped from the headlines Over There. Steven Bochco, of Hill Street Blues and LA Law fame, has brought a searing and poetic look into the lives of soldiers serving in Iraq. A verisimilitude that is perhaps, a little too close for comfort.
Perhaps even more than the movie business, television responds and reacts to the whims and desires of the viewing public. And like the variety that marks the American populace there are a variety of television shows, one of which is perfect for you.
Perhaps the biggest potential flop is NBC's latest offering from the Apprentice franchise. The Martha Stewart version has the hottie ex-con running an obstacle course for a bunch of nattily attired, upwardly mobile, professionals. The reality genre seems to be showing its age in general, the Apprentice in particular, and Martha's comeback appears to have hit a road block. The lastest ominous sign is that NBC has moved the program's start time (never a good sign) and positioned it against ABC's juggernaut Lost.
Showing more early success is the Geena Davis vehicle Commander in Chief. The show, about a woman ascending to the Presidency, enjoyed strong support from ABC, driven by a Disney-sized marketing campaign that included an inaugural ball. In a minor controversy reminiscent of the political wrestling that is occurring over movies, conservative critics have pointed out that the show is actually a nefarious effort by liberals to promote the notion of a female president.
The successful new shows run the gamut in terms of networks and show a return of sorts for scripted programming. Winners include the Chris Rock project Everybody Hate Chris. Considered by many an updated Cosby show, it has all ready become one of the most successful shows in UPN history. NBC has scored with My Name is Earl the story of a ne'er-do-well who wins the lottery and attempts to go back and do good to all the people he has done bad to. Fox is enjoying a surge with the serial Prison Break, a bright light on a dark night for Fox. Prison Break follows two quality programs that seem headed to oblivion. (It's not a new show, but Fox treats it like a new show. Arrested Development is so money, if anyone has a cousin who works at Fox, implore them not to cancel the show)
Another struggling new show is FX's ripped from the headlines Over There. Steven Bochco, of Hill Street Blues and LA Law fame, has brought a searing and poetic look into the lives of soldiers serving in Iraq. A verisimilitude that is perhaps, a little too close for comfort.
Perhaps even more than the movie business, television responds and reacts to the whims and desires of the viewing public. And like the variety that marks the American populace there are a variety of television shows, one of which is perfect for you.
This defies the imagination. Bush is threatening to veto (his first veto ever) the recently passed anti-tortue bill.
10/06/2005
10/03/2005
"We are being propelled into this new century with no plan, no control, no brakes." -Bill Joy
Ray Kurzweil is on a speaking tour promoting his new book The Singularity Is Near. In it he describes a not too distant reality where human and machine traits will blend, "a destiny we have come to refer to as the Singularity."
"The Singularity" argues that technology is a continuation of the life-improvement process commonly called evolution. DNA created biological life forms. Biological life forms advanced over eons and developed Homo sapiens. Their big brains and opposing thumbs and forefingers made them adept toolmakers. Today their cutting-edge tools -- computers, software, gene-splicing techniques and nanotechnology -- are poised for integration with human biological systems to evolve a hybrid life form.
Near term advancements like respirocytes, artificial hyper-oxygenated red blood cells, powerful computers that will seamlessly augment our ability to think (which as Kurzweil reminds us is nothing more than pattern recognition), and nanotechnologies which might be applied to the most basic of human functions.
Kurzweil welcomes this future but understands that the potential for abuse exist and admonishes that research be conducted in an open and vigorous environment.
Others are concerned about the Singularity movement. Bill McKibben 2003's book Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. McKibben is an modern day proponent of Ghandhi's adage; "There is more to life than increasing its speed"
McKibben laments "satisfaction inflation" or the idea that the greater the capabilities of the individual the greater the challenge required to fulfill him. "What actually makes people happy is full engagement," McKibben said. "You are most alive when working at the limit of your abilities."
Ray Kurzweil is on a speaking tour promoting his new book The Singularity Is Near. In it he describes a not too distant reality where human and machine traits will blend, "a destiny we have come to refer to as the Singularity."
"The Singularity" argues that technology is a continuation of the life-improvement process commonly called evolution. DNA created biological life forms. Biological life forms advanced over eons and developed Homo sapiens. Their big brains and opposing thumbs and forefingers made them adept toolmakers. Today their cutting-edge tools -- computers, software, gene-splicing techniques and nanotechnology -- are poised for integration with human biological systems to evolve a hybrid life form.
Near term advancements like respirocytes, artificial hyper-oxygenated red blood cells, powerful computers that will seamlessly augment our ability to think (which as Kurzweil reminds us is nothing more than pattern recognition), and nanotechnologies which might be applied to the most basic of human functions.
Kurzweil welcomes this future but understands that the potential for abuse exist and admonishes that research be conducted in an open and vigorous environment.
Others are concerned about the Singularity movement. Bill McKibben 2003's book Enough: Staying Human in an Engineered Age. McKibben is an modern day proponent of Ghandhi's adage; "There is more to life than increasing its speed"
McKibben laments "satisfaction inflation" or the idea that the greater the capabilities of the individual the greater the challenge required to fulfill him. "What actually makes people happy is full engagement," McKibben said. "You are most alive when working at the limit of your abilities."
10/02/2005
There is no more fundamental axiom of American freedom than the familiar statement: In a free country we punish men for crimes they commit but never for the opinions they have. - Harry S. Truman
It began as an off-the-cuff response to a caller on his radio show and has turned into a Rorschach test for political pundits, Washington watchers, and black and white America. Bill Bennett responding to the suggestion that if abortion had been illegal Social Security would be more solvent offered an argumentum ad absurdum:
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
The reference to Freakonomics, of course, refers to Steven Levitt's controversial, but as of yet irrefuted, research that shows a correlation between the legalization of abortion and a nationwide decrease in crime. Levitt, commenting publicly on the controversy, clarifies that he draws no significant connection between race and crime (as related to the abortion debate) and further explains:
It is true that, on average, crime involvement in the U.S. is higher among blacks than whites. Importantly, however, once you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide.
Bennett is clearly opposed to abortion and isn't advocating the abortion of blacks, but the question for some observers is why he reflexively inserted race into a discussion about crime. Many blacks fret that much of America has an atavistic reaction to blacks in general and black men specifically. One that equates blackness with crime or crime with blackness. Others argue this is because (Levitt's findings notwithstanding) blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime in America, so it's not only understandable, but appropriate to ponder the relationship of race to crime.
What is apparent is that Bennett's comments once again demonstrates the risks of voicing controversial ideas. Bennett believes the controversy is driven by "a campaign making hay of my remarks and taking them out of context and totally reversing my obvious meaning". Some suggest that Bennett's "mistake" was publically proclaiming what many others privately believe.
It began as an off-the-cuff response to a caller on his radio show and has turned into a Rorschach test for political pundits, Washington watchers, and black and white America. Bill Bennett responding to the suggestion that if abortion had been illegal Social Security would be more solvent offered an argumentum ad absurdum:
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both -- you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well --
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
The reference to Freakonomics, of course, refers to Steven Levitt's controversial, but as of yet irrefuted, research that shows a correlation between the legalization of abortion and a nationwide decrease in crime. Levitt, commenting publicly on the controversy, clarifies that he draws no significant connection between race and crime (as related to the abortion debate) and further explains:
It is true that, on average, crime involvement in the U.S. is higher among blacks than whites. Importantly, however, once you control for income, the likelihood of growing up in a female-headed household, having a teenage mother, and how urban the environment is, the importance of race disappears for all crimes except homicide.
Bennett is clearly opposed to abortion and isn't advocating the abortion of blacks, but the question for some observers is why he reflexively inserted race into a discussion about crime. Many blacks fret that much of America has an atavistic reaction to blacks in general and black men specifically. One that equates blackness with crime or crime with blackness. Others argue this is because (Levitt's findings notwithstanding) blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crime in America, so it's not only understandable, but appropriate to ponder the relationship of race to crime.
What is apparent is that Bennett's comments once again demonstrates the risks of voicing controversial ideas. Bennett believes the controversy is driven by "a campaign making hay of my remarks and taking them out of context and totally reversing my obvious meaning". Some suggest that Bennett's "mistake" was publically proclaiming what many others privately believe.
An ad from Boeing claims their new chopper "descends from the heavens. Ironically it unleashes hell". Folks are not amused.
The FBI sometimes taps the wrong phones during Patriot Act-enabled terrorism investigations. That's comforting to know.
Steven Levitt weighs in on the Bill Bennett/abortion controversy. He pretty much nails it on the head I believe. Essentially Bennett was speaking off the top of his head (always a risky proposition) but reflexively going to race demonstrates a bias that is unsubstantiated by Levitt's research.
And Bennett's tepid defense is here. Along with a fisking of his comments.
And Bennett's tepid defense is here. Along with a fisking of his comments.
10/01/2005
A.O. Scott, writing for the New York Times, takes on the assumption that Hollywood is ruled by liberal elites. Willing to stipulate (if not entirely endorse) the notion that Hollywood has historically been ran by left-leaning folks who create movies that view the world with liberal sensibilities, Scott opines this is clearly changing. As always, the driving force behind this change are box office receipts. Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ clearly showed the appetite for movies targeted to more conservative audiences and the cavalcade of right-leaning hits continue:
Last fall, "The Incredibles" celebrated Ayn Randian libertarian individualism and the suburban nuclear family, while the naughty puppets of "Team America" satirized left-wing celebrity activism and defended American global power even as they mocked its excesses. More recently we have learned that flightless Antarctic birds, according to some fans of "March of the Penguins," can be seen as big-screen embodiments of the kind of traditional domestic values that back-sliding humans have all but abandoned, as well as proof that divine intention, rather than blind chance, is the engine of creation. …The objection to such message-hunting, whether it seeks hidden agendas of the left or the right, and whether it applauds or scorns those agendas, is always the same: it's only a movie…Should movies like "Emily Rose," released by Sony, and "Just Like Heaven," from DreamWorks, be interpreted as peace offerings in the culture wars, or as canny attempts to open a new front in the endless battle for the soul of the American public? Will liberals now have a chance to complain, as conservatives have for so long, that Hollywood is ideologically biased and out of touch with its audience? Will we ever be able to sit back and say, "It's only a movie"? I hope not. The arguments we are having among ourselves are too loud and insistent to be drowned out or silenced in the false comfort of the movie theater.
But was Hollywood ever the bastion of liberalism that some critics claim? Movies like “It's a Wonderful Life”, “Saving Private Ryan” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” all were wildly successful while advocating notions of Americans that seem to be appealing to conservatives as well as liberals. Mick LaSalle, film critic for the San Francisco Chronicle writes about the impact of the nuclear bomb on cinema. A sense of festering dread and “human impermanence” that was the result of the constant threat of nuclear annihilation crated a culture that sought the comfort of normalcy, a feeling moviegoers sought in the dark, warm rooms of the cinema. The Bomb-movie-era, according to LaSalle, fed off the growing nihilism of film noir which lead to a soullessness bred from spiritual dread. Perhaps it isn’t political inclinations moviegoers seek but popular art that speaks to who they are and aspire to be. Something that has occurred with growing infrequency. Perhaps this isn’t about politics at all.
William Faulkner saw this all coming. In his Nobel banquet speech in 1950, upon winning the prize for literature, he criticized the current trend in writing as no longer being about "problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up?" He said that the writer "must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid. ... Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion."
He could have been describing movies, as well, especially movies in the decades since he spoke. "Lust without love" and victories "without pity or compassion" have become the province of popular entertainment, while movies featuring "defeats in which no one loses anything of value" are the province of independent film. But across the board, a faith that life is big, important and meaningful is missing from movies. It's what's missing, period.
Last fall, "The Incredibles" celebrated Ayn Randian libertarian individualism and the suburban nuclear family, while the naughty puppets of "Team America" satirized left-wing celebrity activism and defended American global power even as they mocked its excesses. More recently we have learned that flightless Antarctic birds, according to some fans of "March of the Penguins," can be seen as big-screen embodiments of the kind of traditional domestic values that back-sliding humans have all but abandoned, as well as proof that divine intention, rather than blind chance, is the engine of creation. …The objection to such message-hunting, whether it seeks hidden agendas of the left or the right, and whether it applauds or scorns those agendas, is always the same: it's only a movie…Should movies like "Emily Rose," released by Sony, and "Just Like Heaven," from DreamWorks, be interpreted as peace offerings in the culture wars, or as canny attempts to open a new front in the endless battle for the soul of the American public? Will liberals now have a chance to complain, as conservatives have for so long, that Hollywood is ideologically biased and out of touch with its audience? Will we ever be able to sit back and say, "It's only a movie"? I hope not. The arguments we are having among ourselves are too loud and insistent to be drowned out or silenced in the false comfort of the movie theater.
But was Hollywood ever the bastion of liberalism that some critics claim? Movies like “It's a Wonderful Life”, “Saving Private Ryan” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” all were wildly successful while advocating notions of Americans that seem to be appealing to conservatives as well as liberals. Mick LaSalle, film critic for the San Francisco Chronicle writes about the impact of the nuclear bomb on cinema. A sense of festering dread and “human impermanence” that was the result of the constant threat of nuclear annihilation crated a culture that sought the comfort of normalcy, a feeling moviegoers sought in the dark, warm rooms of the cinema. The Bomb-movie-era, according to LaSalle, fed off the growing nihilism of film noir which lead to a soullessness bred from spiritual dread. Perhaps it isn’t political inclinations moviegoers seek but popular art that speaks to who they are and aspire to be. Something that has occurred with growing infrequency. Perhaps this isn’t about politics at all.
William Faulkner saw this all coming. In his Nobel banquet speech in 1950, upon winning the prize for literature, he criticized the current trend in writing as no longer being about "problems of the spirit. There is only the question: When will I be blown up?" He said that the writer "must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid. ... Until he does so, he labors under a curse. He writes not of love but of lust, of defeats in which nobody loses anything of value, of victories without hope and, worst of all, without pity or compassion."
He could have been describing movies, as well, especially movies in the decades since he spoke. "Lust without love" and victories "without pity or compassion" have become the province of popular entertainment, while movies featuring "defeats in which no one loses anything of value" are the province of independent film. But across the board, a faith that life is big, important and meaningful is missing from movies. It's what's missing, period.
9/29/2005
Bill Bennett in trouble for touching the subjects of race and abortion. From early emails I can tell this controversy isn't going to go away. (it's a bad excerpt, one that taken out of context is tough to spin: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down")
I think the fuller context of the conversation changes the dynamic of the quote changes, regardless this is a chance to plug one of the my favorite books of the past year Freakonomics. We covered Levitt a while back, and it's his theories that are really the genesis of this conversation. Read the book, open your mind, and debate his ideas.
I think the fuller context of the conversation changes the dynamic of the quote changes, regardless this is a chance to plug one of the my favorite books of the past year Freakonomics. We covered Levitt a while back, and it's his theories that are really the genesis of this conversation. Read the book, open your mind, and debate his ideas.
9/27/2005
9/26/2005
9/25/2005
Andrew Sullivan calls Pat Tillman's mother a "more credible" Cindy Sheehan. Did you know one of Tillman's favourite authors was Chomsky? A searing story about the death, and subsequent cover up, of a hero.
The Right-leaning blogsphere has taken Aaron Broussard, President of Jefferson Parish to task for his emotional meltdown on Meet the Press. Today Broussard met Time Russert again, and he held his own.
Listen, sir, somebody wants to nitpick a man's tragic loss of a mother because she was abandoned in a nursing home? Are you kidding? What kind of sick mind, what kind of black-hearted people want to nitpick a man's mother's death? They just buried Eva last week. I was there at the wake. Are you kidding me? That wasn't a box of Cheerios they buried last week. That was a man's mother whose story, if it is entirely broadcast, will be the epitome of abandonment. It will be the saddest tale you ever heard, a man who was responsible for safekeeping of a half a million people, mother's died in the next parish because she was abandoned there and he can't get to her and he tried to get to her through EOC. He tried to get through the sheriff's office. He tries every way he can to get there. Somebody wants to debate those things? My God, what sick-minded person wants to do that?
Listen, sir, somebody wants to nitpick a man's tragic loss of a mother because she was abandoned in a nursing home? Are you kidding? What kind of sick mind, what kind of black-hearted people want to nitpick a man's mother's death? They just buried Eva last week. I was there at the wake. Are you kidding me? That wasn't a box of Cheerios they buried last week. That was a man's mother whose story, if it is entirely broadcast, will be the epitome of abandonment. It will be the saddest tale you ever heard, a man who was responsible for safekeeping of a half a million people, mother's died in the next parish because she was abandoned there and he can't get to her and he tried to get to her through EOC. He tried to get through the sheriff's office. He tries every way he can to get there. Somebody wants to debate those things? My God, what sick-minded person wants to do that?
Foreign Policy and Britain's Prospect magazine has a list of the "Top-100" public intellectuals. They're trying to whittle the list down to the Top-5. Now these lists are really just an excuse to debate and discuss, so I'd like to hear you thoughts. First, some folks have to be eliminated from the list. Francis Fukuyama, largely debunked. Send him home. Now. Christopher Hitchens, ditto.
My picks (which are avowedly very American-centric)
James Q. Wilson-even though he's generally/historically connected with UCLA (a 2nd tier university for those of you in other countries) his work with crime has impacted the lives of millions of Americans. He's also a very "public" man in that his theories have trickled down to common folks like me. Almost everyone knows (at least in passing) his "broken window" theory of crime prevention.
Fareed Zakaria-he's helped the common man and the policy maker better understand the Middle East. Obviously, ME studies is a "growth" industry for thought workers, so he's a celeb. in a hot vertical. He makes my list.
Vaclav Havel-is what we call in the business a "5-tool" intellectual. Writes, speaks, and wins elections. Gives a voice to a generation and demands that that voice be heard. Big ups for the H-Man.
Bill James, the former solder who created Sabermetrics. He's revolutionized the way sports fans see and understand the game of baseball. Students of his school of stats have gone on to become the GM's of the Oakland A's and the Los Angeles Dodgers, further changing the game, this time from the management side.
Lastly, I chose Lawrence Lessig. His work to free culture clearly as wide reaching ramifications in the digital age against a backdrop of growing corporate hegemony.
My picks (which are avowedly very American-centric)
James Q. Wilson-even though he's generally/historically connected with UCLA (a 2nd tier university for those of you in other countries) his work with crime has impacted the lives of millions of Americans. He's also a very "public" man in that his theories have trickled down to common folks like me. Almost everyone knows (at least in passing) his "broken window" theory of crime prevention.
Fareed Zakaria-he's helped the common man and the policy maker better understand the Middle East. Obviously, ME studies is a "growth" industry for thought workers, so he's a celeb. in a hot vertical. He makes my list.
Vaclav Havel-is what we call in the business a "5-tool" intellectual. Writes, speaks, and wins elections. Gives a voice to a generation and demands that that voice be heard. Big ups for the H-Man.
Bill James, the former solder who created Sabermetrics. He's revolutionized the way sports fans see and understand the game of baseball. Students of his school of stats have gone on to become the GM's of the Oakland A's and the Los Angeles Dodgers, further changing the game, this time from the management side.
Lastly, I chose Lawrence Lessig. His work to free culture clearly as wide reaching ramifications in the digital age against a backdrop of growing corporate hegemony.
9/24/2005
Apparently (allegedly?) Bush is drinking again. Granted, it's from the Natty Enquirer, but remember they had fewer factual errors than the NY Times during the OJ trial.
A decorated captain from the US Army describing systemic abuse in Iraq. A telling and sobering article.
9/21/2005
9/20/2005
Super Girl wins China's version of American Idol and the government is scared witless. Millions of people voted and the grass roots "movement" scares the totalitarian government.
It appears we've won the war on terror, at least on the domestic front. Why else would the FBI be looking for recruits for its new anti-porn task force?
9/19/2005
Robert "Reason" Reich on the paradox that drives the Bush admin. Incredibly disciplined at running and winning campaigns, incredibly inept at the act of governing. This paradox has a downside according to Reich:
The easy answer to the paradox is that Bush cares about winning elections and putting his ideological stamp on the nation, but doesn't give a hoot about governing the place. But that's no explanation because the two are so obviously connected. An administration can't impose a lasting stamp without being managed well, and a president's party can't keep winning elections if the public thinks it's composed of bumbling idiots.
The real answer is that the same discipline and organization that's made the White House into a hugely effective political machine has hobbled its capacity to govern. Blocking data from lower-level political appointees and civil servants that's inconsistent with what it wants to do or sheds doubt on its wisdom, for example, may be effective politics, in the short term. It keeps the media and the opposition party at bay.
(Speaking of Republicans at odds with reality, check out Former Rep. Bob Livingston blaming the deficiet on Clinton.)
The easy answer to the paradox is that Bush cares about winning elections and putting his ideological stamp on the nation, but doesn't give a hoot about governing the place. But that's no explanation because the two are so obviously connected. An administration can't impose a lasting stamp without being managed well, and a president's party can't keep winning elections if the public thinks it's composed of bumbling idiots.
The real answer is that the same discipline and organization that's made the White House into a hugely effective political machine has hobbled its capacity to govern. Blocking data from lower-level political appointees and civil servants that's inconsistent with what it wants to do or sheds doubt on its wisdom, for example, may be effective politics, in the short term. It keeps the media and the opposition party at bay.
(Speaking of Republicans at odds with reality, check out Former Rep. Bob Livingston blaming the deficiet on Clinton.)
Howard Kurtz takes on the MSM for finally discovering the poor. Kurtz says the press largely ignored the poor.
But why is that? This is not a story, like whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that was difficult to get at. But journalists rarely venture into impoverished neighborhoods these days, except for quick-hit features. When a woman from one of these communities goes missing, it doesn't attain the status of a Natalee Holloway drama.
But why is that? This is not a story, like whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, that was difficult to get at. But journalists rarely venture into impoverished neighborhoods these days, except for quick-hit features. When a woman from one of these communities goes missing, it doesn't attain the status of a Natalee Holloway drama.
Why are some great books well received the moment they come out and others take a while to catch on? This Carlos Fuentes ponders.
Robert A. George writes about how difficult it is to be a black Republican in light of the party's seeming inddiference.
First came House Speaker Dennis Hastert openly considering "bulldozing" parts of New Orleans -- at a point when the city was still 80 percent under water, bodies were still being fished out and people were still stranded in the convention center. As we've discussed, his spokesman's attempt at damage control were hardly successful.
Then, former First Lady Barbara Bush uttered words in a radio interview which will unfortunately haunt her remaining years: "What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." Those that heard the contents state that she notably "chuckled" during the last phrase.
Now, for some, Katrina may present new opportunity. But if poor children lost their parents and were adopted by a wealthy couple, would one chuckle that things were "working well for them"?
And then, to complete the hat trick, an actual Louisiana congressman pops up telling lobbyists, "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." Baker claimed that he was misquoted or misheard or something...
Honestly, I might be inclined to give Baker the benefit of the doubt, if it didn't seem like this disaster has given Republicans the opportunity to "share" how they really feel. Similarly, under normal circumstances, I wouldn't include Barbara Bush's comments. But, not this time. It just happens to often to ignore them anymore.
First came House Speaker Dennis Hastert openly considering "bulldozing" parts of New Orleans -- at a point when the city was still 80 percent under water, bodies were still being fished out and people were still stranded in the convention center. As we've discussed, his spokesman's attempt at damage control were hardly successful.
Then, former First Lady Barbara Bush uttered words in a radio interview which will unfortunately haunt her remaining years: "What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality. And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this is working very well for them." Those that heard the contents state that she notably "chuckled" during the last phrase.
Now, for some, Katrina may present new opportunity. But if poor children lost their parents and were adopted by a wealthy couple, would one chuckle that things were "working well for them"?
And then, to complete the hat trick, an actual Louisiana congressman pops up telling lobbyists, "We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." Baker claimed that he was misquoted or misheard or something...
Honestly, I might be inclined to give Baker the benefit of the doubt, if it didn't seem like this disaster has given Republicans the opportunity to "share" how they really feel. Similarly, under normal circumstances, I wouldn't include Barbara Bush's comments. But, not this time. It just happens to often to ignore them anymore.
9/15/2005
At least Bill Clinton's new group Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) isn't biting off more than they can chew. CGI's goals: wiping out poverty, ending conflict, rolling back climate change and promoting better governance worldwide.
(If you're going to take a cut, swing for the fences)
(If you're going to take a cut, swing for the fences)
The Dutch are going to create a database that stores information on ever citizen from the time they are born until they leave this earth. Privacy concerns notwithstanding, I actually am supportive of this idea.
The rabid-right enjoyed such success going after Dan Rather during memogate it looks like they're trying it again with the entire "potty photo" issue. Reuters explains how the photo came to be taken, the process of getting it on the wires, etc. They also mention that they used Photoshop to balance the colors in the photo. A process, according to the article, that is common and clearly legitimate. So what headline does Drudge run the article under?
"REUTERS has acknowledged Bush 'Potty Note' photo was enhanced via photoshop..."
Bottom line, don't let the so-called conservative cabal mislead with the headline. The note wasn't altered in any significant way by the press. Nice try guys, but if you're going to go after the "liberal media" try toning down your bias.
"REUTERS has acknowledged Bush 'Potty Note' photo was enhanced via photoshop..."
Bottom line, don't let the so-called conservative cabal mislead with the headline. The note wasn't altered in any significant way by the press. Nice try guys, but if you're going to go after the "liberal media" try toning down your bias.
'Liberal Comedian Sues Blogger' So reads the headline as Garrison Keillor sues a blogger. Horrible PR move Mr. Keillor. Keillor jeopardizes whatever catchet he might have had.
Arianna Huffington is interviewed in Wired about her new blogging venture The Huffington Post. She too has gotten religion when it comes to blogs, especially in constrast to the MSM:
The problem isn't that the stories I care about aren't being covered, it's that they aren't being covered in the obsessive way that breaks through the din of our 500-channel universe. Because those 500 channels don't mean we get 500 times the examination and investigation of worthy news stories. It often means we get the same narrow, conventional-wisdom wrap-ups repeated 500 times. Paradoxically, in these days of instant communication and 24-hour news channels, it's actually easier to miss information we might otherwise pay attention to. That's why we need stories to be covered and re-covered and re-re-covered and covered again -- until they filter up enough to become part of the cultural bloodstream. As for improving the quality of journalism, we must (find) ways to give mainstream journalism what it most desperately needs: a spine transplant.
The problem isn't that the stories I care about aren't being covered, it's that they aren't being covered in the obsessive way that breaks through the din of our 500-channel universe. Because those 500 channels don't mean we get 500 times the examination and investigation of worthy news stories. It often means we get the same narrow, conventional-wisdom wrap-ups repeated 500 times. Paradoxically, in these days of instant communication and 24-hour news channels, it's actually easier to miss information we might otherwise pay attention to. That's why we need stories to be covered and re-covered and re-re-covered and covered again -- until they filter up enough to become part of the cultural bloodstream. As for improving the quality of journalism, we must (find) ways to give mainstream journalism what it most desperately needs: a spine transplant.
The aptly names sportswriter Field Maloney asks us to consider the contrasting fates of the two biggest country club sports; golf and tennis.
Golf's popularity originally surged in the late 1950s and '60s. You had a golf-nut president, Dwight Eisenhower, and a charismatic regular-guy star, Arnold Palmer… Yet, during the '70s and into the early '80s, tennis appeared poised to grab the limelight. Golf seemed too fusty and stiff for prime time, too male, too redolent of Republicans and retirees, less prepared to shed its exclusive aura. Tennis courts could be found in neighborhoods rich and poor, and the sport already had its Tiger Woods figure: Arthur Ashe.
However similar their popular beginnings, it’s clear that golf is the dominant sport in American life. More people watch, play, and frankly, get excited about golf than tennis, and this has tennis fans and players scratching their heads. Maloney claims this divergence has come because golf has held onto its elitism, which ironically fuels its populism:
The irony is that golf has thrived and tennis withered precisely because tennis has worked so hard to expand into a wider demographic.
In the '70s and '80s, more public courts were built, more outreach programs were started, and racquets got cheaper and easier to use. Andre Agassi, in his younger, wilder years, played in black denim and lime-green Lycra.
Noting that the Bush’s, a tennis and golf family, appears to take pains to demonstrate an affinity for golf over tennis, Maloney opines that tennis has become more than just uncool, politically it’s the jock version of having a poodle:
Tennis has become a political liability: effete, preppy, what high-schoolers call a "wussy sport." Whereas golf, no matter how fey the links attire or how pricey the greens fees, has become so solidly red-blooded and all-American that even our folksy president can embrace it.
As a tennis fan and player, I too am dismayed by the relative lack of interest in the game. It’s populated by some of the most attractive stars in sports, currently has a player that is so immensely talented he draws comparisons to the greatest to ever step on the court, and can be played for free in just about any city in America. So what can be done? Impede the racket “arms-race” by deadening the balls? Playing the game on the moon? Reaching out even more to the inner-city in the hopes of bringing a new demographic to the game? Perhaps all tennis needs is for someone to produce a tennis version of Caddyshack.
9/14/2005
9/13/2005
Northwest Airlines and Delta both could file for Chp. 11 protection as soon as tomorrow. This can't be good for the economic prospects of America over the near term, but it might be a sign that our system actually works well over the long run.
Inefficient carriers burdened with ancient labor agreements and hub-and-spoke flight models are being crushed by newer (read: smarter, more efficient) airlines. This story has been played out ad nasuem by the financial press, so it's important to remember that this is a healthy (though painful) development of that larger dynamic.
Inefficient carriers burdened with ancient labor agreements and hub-and-spoke flight models are being crushed by newer (read: smarter, more efficient) airlines. This story has been played out ad nasuem by the financial press, so it's important to remember that this is a healthy (though painful) development of that larger dynamic.
CA lawmakers pass a bill that makes it a crime to sell violent videogames to minors. Not everyone is happy with AB1179.
Michael Kinsley is leaving the LA Times. And from this email he sent to staffers it appears the break-up is "bitter".
Kinsley is amazingly talented and the little interaction I've had with him has impressed me with his intellect, drive, and unique perspective. My guess, he'll have a new job within a month.
Kinsley is amazingly talented and the little interaction I've had with him has impressed me with his intellect, drive, and unique perspective. My guess, he'll have a new job within a month.
Bush admits responsibility for screw-ups related to Katrina.
Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility.
In other news, hell has, indeed, frozen over.
Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government. And to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility.
In other news, hell has, indeed, frozen over.
"All men can see the tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved."-Sun Tzu
Fresh on the heels of his hostile takeover of Peoplesoft, Larry Ellison has made another of his former proteges bow to his will. Beleaguered CRM maker Siebel, still nominally headed by Ellison's rival Thomas Siebel, announced they are being bought by Oracle for the tune of $3.61 billion. (Actual purchase price is close to $6b minus the $2b+ Siebel has sitting around in petty cash).
The purchase allows Oracle, the world's largest database manufacture, to potentially migrate millions of Sielbel's CRM customers over to their technology stack. The purchase instantly makes Oracle the largest CRM company in the world, and more clearly sets the contrast between traditional client server software manufactures and those who advocate an on-demand model. Most notable among the on-demand camp is former Oracle sales executive and current Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff. Speaking at the SFDC conference Benioff said:
"When I was at Oracle, we watched Computer Associates buy all those mainframe software companies and milk them for their license revenue. I never thought that's what Oracle would be doing one day, and yet, here it is."
Industry watchers are mixed, some are concerned about a coming lack of innovation in a rapidly consolidating space, others feel Oracle has instantly given a lift to one of their most unsophisticated divisions (CRM/PRM), others think it will have little impact on a space that has clearly matured.
Regardless of what this deal appears to be on the surface, the x-factor is clearly the man at the helm, Larry Ellison. He's vanquished most of his rivals in Silicon Valley, clearly has his sights set once again on Redmond, just agreed to pay $100 million to charity to settle an insider trading case, and is reminding everyone that the art of war is based on deception.
Fresh on the heels of his hostile takeover of Peoplesoft, Larry Ellison has made another of his former proteges bow to his will. Beleaguered CRM maker Siebel, still nominally headed by Ellison's rival Thomas Siebel, announced they are being bought by Oracle for the tune of $3.61 billion. (Actual purchase price is close to $6b minus the $2b+ Siebel has sitting around in petty cash).
The purchase allows Oracle, the world's largest database manufacture, to potentially migrate millions of Sielbel's CRM customers over to their technology stack. The purchase instantly makes Oracle the largest CRM company in the world, and more clearly sets the contrast between traditional client server software manufactures and those who advocate an on-demand model. Most notable among the on-demand camp is former Oracle sales executive and current Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff. Speaking at the SFDC conference Benioff said:
"When I was at Oracle, we watched Computer Associates buy all those mainframe software companies and milk them for their license revenue. I never thought that's what Oracle would be doing one day, and yet, here it is."
Industry watchers are mixed, some are concerned about a coming lack of innovation in a rapidly consolidating space, others feel Oracle has instantly given a lift to one of their most unsophisticated divisions (CRM/PRM), others think it will have little impact on a space that has clearly matured.
Regardless of what this deal appears to be on the surface, the x-factor is clearly the man at the helm, Larry Ellison. He's vanquished most of his rivals in Silicon Valley, clearly has his sights set once again on Redmond, just agreed to pay $100 million to charity to settle an insider trading case, and is reminding everyone that the art of war is based on deception.
9/10/2005
It's a long shot, but it's not too late to lobby Arnold to sign the bill allowing gay marriage. Here's a link with the contact information needed to lobby TheGov.
Nice to know Yahoo! is doing its part to make sure Chinese dissidents go to jail. Profits vs. human rights sadly seems to be an easy conflict for most companies to resolve.
9/09/2005
Turning to his pre-war address to the UN Security Council, when he forcefully made the case for invasion and offered proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, General Powell said that he felt terrible about the claims he made. Asked whether the speech would tarnish his reputation, he replied: "Of course it will. It;s a blot. I'm the one who presented it on behalf of the United States to the world, and (it) will always be part of my record. It was painful. It's painful now." -
That's former Sec. of State Colin Powell in a candid interview. He blames himself and the Bush administration for the half-truths that led up to the war and slams BushCo. horrifically mismanaging the occupation. It's tempting to say "better late than never", if it weren't for all those pesky dead bodies.
That's former Sec. of State Colin Powell in a candid interview. He blames himself and the Bush administration for the half-truths that led up to the war and slams BushCo. horrifically mismanaging the occupation. It's tempting to say "better late than never", if it weren't for all those pesky dead bodies.
Jack Shafer at Slate reminds us that late Chief Justice Rehnquist was once addicted to Placidyl. An addiction so severe he required hospitalization in 1982. Shafer mentions that most obit omitted this aspect of his life (as is SOP for the MSM) and reminds us why it's worth remembering today:
The Rehnquist story deserves a third airing today if only to illustrate the ugly double standards that excuse extreme drug use by the powerful, especially if their connection is a prescribing doctor, and condemns to draconian prison terms the guy who purchases his drugs on the street.
The Rehnquist story deserves a third airing today if only to illustrate the ugly double standards that excuse extreme drug use by the powerful, especially if their connection is a prescribing doctor, and condemns to draconian prison terms the guy who purchases his drugs on the street.
9/07/2005
9/06/2005
If FEMA head Michael Brown makes it through the month, it will be a miracle. (But on the other hand, this is the administration that gives out Medals of Freedom for lethal levels of incompetence). More examples of FEMA's deadly ineffectiveness.
9/05/2005
9/04/2005
The message is short. So short it would fit on a postcard. It lingers in cyberspace waiting for a response.
"Family of 4 willing, wanting to help. Can drive to get you. Stay as long as you need to here in Albuquerque. God bless you. We care. Howard and Lisa Neil."
More than 2,000 messages on Craigslist offering housing to hurrican survivors. Sometimes the goodness of people is nothing short of amazing.
"Family of 4 willing, wanting to help. Can drive to get you. Stay as long as you need to here in Albuquerque. God bless you. We care. Howard and Lisa Neil."
More than 2,000 messages on Craigslist offering housing to hurrican survivors. Sometimes the goodness of people is nothing short of amazing.
Anne Rice, writing in the New York Times, asks us if we really "Know what it means to lose New Orleans"?
Nature has done what the Civil War couldn't do. Nature has done what the labor riots of the 1920's couldn't do. Nature had done what "modern life" with its relentless pursuit of efficiency couldn't do. It has done what racism couldn't do, and what segregation couldn't do either. Nature has laid the city waste - with a scope that brings to mind the end of Pompeii.
Kudos to Rice for taking on the issue of race, adding another perspective, and writing from the heart.
But to my country I want to say this: During this crisis you failed us. You looked down on us; you dismissed our victims; you dismissed us. You want our Jazz Fest, you want our Mardi Gras, you want our cooking and our music. Then when you saw us in real trouble, when you saw a tiny minority preying on the weak among us, you called us "Sin City," and turned your backs.
Nature has done what the Civil War couldn't do. Nature has done what the labor riots of the 1920's couldn't do. Nature had done what "modern life" with its relentless pursuit of efficiency couldn't do. It has done what racism couldn't do, and what segregation couldn't do either. Nature has laid the city waste - with a scope that brings to mind the end of Pompeii.
Kudos to Rice for taking on the issue of race, adding another perspective, and writing from the heart.
But to my country I want to say this: During this crisis you failed us. You looked down on us; you dismissed our victims; you dismissed us. You want our Jazz Fest, you want our Mardi Gras, you want our cooking and our music. Then when you saw us in real trouble, when you saw a tiny minority preying on the weak among us, you called us "Sin City," and turned your backs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)