The absolute abortion that is the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) has committed its latest crime against humanity. Like a bad plot twist from T3, or a Matrix prequel, the computer that decides college football's championship game has decided that Ohio State is a better football team than USC. Both teams have one loss and are aiming to play Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl to decide the championship. Never mind that USC has absolutely destroyed their opponents and defending national champs Ohio State have barely eked by the competition regardless of ranking, the computer has decided that Ohio State is the second best team in all the land. (The "flawed" other polls which are based upon human assessments of talent have Ohio State as the 4th best team and USC the in their rightful place at number 2)
If there is one thing we know from the movies, the computers begin by corrupting the "small" things and continue until they reach their ultimate goal of destroying mankind. Be warned, if USC doesn't play in the Sugar Bowl this year, it will be the beginning of the End Times.
11/11/2003
We've discussed the Simpsons a couple of times before, but like Iraq or Bush's IQ it's a topic that's never tiresome. The good news is that the Simpsons are back!
After too many seasons of lo-brow, over-the-top humor, John Bonne writes:
The show has finally evolved into a modern incarnation that retains its heart without feeling tired or bouncing from gag to gag like Homer tumbling down the side of Springfield Gorge.
Moving away from an all-Homer all the time format into one that allows other characters to shine and in the process offers more of the subtle satire and soul that infused earlier seasons. Part of the credit goes to Al Jean who has returned as executive producer.
So is this a renaissance of the Simpsons or a short-lived blip in the cartoon's inevitable creative demise? And for that matter are the Homer-heavy episodes of the recent past really so bad?
After too many seasons of lo-brow, over-the-top humor, John Bonne writes:
The show has finally evolved into a modern incarnation that retains its heart without feeling tired or bouncing from gag to gag like Homer tumbling down the side of Springfield Gorge.
Moving away from an all-Homer all the time format into one that allows other characters to shine and in the process offers more of the subtle satire and soul that infused earlier seasons. Part of the credit goes to Al Jean who has returned as executive producer.
So is this a renaissance of the Simpsons or a short-lived blip in the cartoon's inevitable creative demise? And for that matter are the Homer-heavy episodes of the recent past really so bad?
10/24/2003
Kinsley on the incoherence of Bush's stem-cell stance:
It's not a complicated point. If stem-cell research is morally questionable, the procedures used in fertility clinics are worse. You cannot logically outlaw the one and praise the other. And surely logical coherence is a measure of moral sincerity.
It's not a complicated point. If stem-cell research is morally questionable, the procedures used in fertility clinics are worse. You cannot logically outlaw the one and praise the other. And surely logical coherence is a measure of moral sincerity.
10/22/2003
10/21/2003
Greg Easterbrook, an editor at The New Republic, was fired from ESPN.com for anti-semetic comments he made on his blog about the Quentin Tarantino movie Kill Bill. Easterbrook, for those of you who don’t know, is one of the best sportswriters in America, having entertained and informed millions with his weekly football column Tuesday Morning Quarterback (TMQ). He is also a man of letters, having penned a well-regarded book about religion while also writing articles on a variety of subjects for The New Republic, The Atlantic, and others.
Easterbrook’s TMQ column ran on ESPN.com, which is owned, by Disney, the same company that owns Miramax, the company that released Kill Bill. He criticized Disney CEO Michael Eisner and Miramax Chairman Harvey Weinstein (both who are Jewish) for chasing profit at the expense of morals by releasing the hyper-violent Kill Bill. After pointing out that the two executives are Jewish, he went on:
Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.
Some have said that his wording, awkward at best, out right disgusting at worst, shows the limits of blogging as a journalism tool. Revision, reflection, and editing being the tools of the writer’s craft, Easterbrook’s misstep was destined to strike the blogsphere. Others have expressed larger concerns. Once again media consolidation and the ability for a few people to silence smaller voices is a worry. As Lawrence Lessig wrote on his blog:
If ESPN fired Easterbrook because it overreacted to his comment, then that’s an injustice to Easterbrook, and a slight to society.
But it it fired Easterbrook because Easterbrook criticized the owner, that’s an offense to society, whatever the injustice to Easterbrook — at least when fewer and fewer control access to media. No doubt, anti-semitism has done infinitely greater harm than misused media mogul power. But if firing your critics becomes the norm in American media, then there will be much more than insensitivity to anti-semitism to worry about in the future.
Easterbrook’s TMQ column ran on ESPN.com, which is owned, by Disney, the same company that owns Miramax, the company that released Kill Bill. He criticized Disney CEO Michael Eisner and Miramax Chairman Harvey Weinstein (both who are Jewish) for chasing profit at the expense of morals by releasing the hyper-violent Kill Bill. After pointing out that the two executives are Jewish, he went on:
Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice.
Some have said that his wording, awkward at best, out right disgusting at worst, shows the limits of blogging as a journalism tool. Revision, reflection, and editing being the tools of the writer’s craft, Easterbrook’s misstep was destined to strike the blogsphere. Others have expressed larger concerns. Once again media consolidation and the ability for a few people to silence smaller voices is a worry. As Lawrence Lessig wrote on his blog:
If ESPN fired Easterbrook because it overreacted to his comment, then that’s an injustice to Easterbrook, and a slight to society.
But it it fired Easterbrook because Easterbrook criticized the owner, that’s an offense to society, whatever the injustice to Easterbrook — at least when fewer and fewer control access to media. No doubt, anti-semitism has done infinitely greater harm than misused media mogul power. But if firing your critics becomes the norm in American media, then there will be much more than insensitivity to anti-semitism to worry about in the future.
10/20/2003
Some critics of the recall results consider Schwarzenegger’s election as a triumph of style versus substance, the empty headed masses deluded by big screen dreams and empty rhetoric into voting first for a recall that was unwarranted and then to vote for a candidate who was unqualified. "Finally", they proclaimed, "the inevitable triumph of all that is trite in American culture. The ignorant have had their say".
Others aren’t so sure. Andrew Sullivan is a supporter (if not a voter) of the new way shown by the Governor. As he wrote in the Sunday's Times:
Schwarzenegger used his celebrity power to forge a new politics. That politics - the missing element in American life right now - is a blend of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and foreign policy hawkishness. As governor, Arnold's foreign policy aspect is minimal. But here is a Republican who is pro-choice on abortion, environmentally-conscious, and comfortable with gay people his whole life. But he's also very tough on taxation and very skeptical of excessive government power. When he complained that Californians pay a tax each time they flush the toilet in the morning, he was tapping into deep conservative instincts. But in his transition team, announced last Thursday, he included the left-wing mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, and former Michael Dukakis campaign manager, Susan Estrich. He's also married to the Kennedys. This left-right combo plays directly to the new American center. It's far more potent than Howard Dean's bitter Michael-Moore routine. And it's far fresher than Dubya's Texan propriety.
Other high profile pre-election supporters include Mickey Kaus, Most of the Kennedy family, and Warren Buffett. However the latest blow to the “Arnold-voters-are-ignorant-masses-blinded-by-their-lack-of-understanding-of-political-dynamics” meme was the shocking announcement by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer that he voted for Arnold. Interestingly enough his announcement came at a conference populated by a feuding and confused Democratic party still reeling and struggling to make sense of what happened. Since state Democrats are still clearly befuddled, can someone explain what happened? Is there a way for politicians, of every stripe to harness this movement? Is this is a phenomenon or are there larger implications for American politics?
Maybe in America’s most diverse state a new political standard has erupted. If you listen closely, you can hear the old ways scream as they die.
Others aren’t so sure. Andrew Sullivan is a supporter (if not a voter) of the new way shown by the Governor. As he wrote in the Sunday's Times:
Schwarzenegger used his celebrity power to forge a new politics. That politics - the missing element in American life right now - is a blend of fiscal conservatism, social liberalism and foreign policy hawkishness. As governor, Arnold's foreign policy aspect is minimal. But here is a Republican who is pro-choice on abortion, environmentally-conscious, and comfortable with gay people his whole life. But he's also very tough on taxation and very skeptical of excessive government power. When he complained that Californians pay a tax each time they flush the toilet in the morning, he was tapping into deep conservative instincts. But in his transition team, announced last Thursday, he included the left-wing mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, and former Michael Dukakis campaign manager, Susan Estrich. He's also married to the Kennedys. This left-right combo plays directly to the new American center. It's far more potent than Howard Dean's bitter Michael-Moore routine. And it's far fresher than Dubya's Texan propriety.
Other high profile pre-election supporters include Mickey Kaus, Most of the Kennedy family, and Warren Buffett. However the latest blow to the “Arnold-voters-are-ignorant-masses-blinded-by-their-lack-of-understanding-of-political-dynamics” meme was the shocking announcement by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer that he voted for Arnold. Interestingly enough his announcement came at a conference populated by a feuding and confused Democratic party still reeling and struggling to make sense of what happened. Since state Democrats are still clearly befuddled, can someone explain what happened? Is there a way for politicians, of every stripe to harness this movement? Is this is a phenomenon or are there larger implications for American politics?
Maybe in America’s most diverse state a new political standard has erupted. If you listen closely, you can hear the old ways scream as they die.
10/15/2003
10/14/2003
10/07/2003
Harry Truman had a sign on his desk reading "The Buck Stops Here." He felt a leader ultimately holds the responsibility. Tired of politicians constantly shifting blame to others, Californian voters today recalled Gray Davis and replaced him with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Neither the vote on the recall, nor the race to replace Davis was particularly close. The economy, once again, was the deciding factor in an election almost as noticeable for its high voter turnout as it was for its diverse list of candidates. Some consider this a populist vote reflective of the ever changing and accelerating state of political affairs. Others consider the recall campaign another in a long line of efforts to undermine the spirit, if not the law, of high-profile elections. California has once again shown the fearsome power and Faustian bargain that is democracy.
10/03/2003
The always engaging Dahlia Lithwick on the Constitutional "smackdown" at the heart of the Do-Not-Call case.
9/30/2003
"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors." Bush Sr. at a 1999 dedication.
Does Andrew Sullivan really think this is much ado about nothing?
Does Andrew Sullivan really think this is much ado about nothing?
9/28/2003
Nextel says it doesn't actually "own" the color yellow afterall. Millions of crayon-pushing school kids rejoice.
9/26/2003
Does California wine really suck? Mike Steinberger thinks so.
Personally, I think the 1970s and 1980s was the golden age of California winemaking; the most successful wines of that era—Ridge Monte Bello, Phelps Eisele Vineyard, Heitz Martha's Vineyard—had ripeness and power, but they also had finesse and elegance, qualities not currently found in many California wines. These days, the signature California style is flashy and in-your-face—"hedonistic fruit bombs," in the Parker vernacular. Though these wines tend to flow across the palate with all the subtlety and grace of the Soviet Army rolling into Prague, they do have a certain burlesque appeal
Personally, I think the 1970s and 1980s was the golden age of California winemaking; the most successful wines of that era—Ridge Monte Bello, Phelps Eisele Vineyard, Heitz Martha's Vineyard—had ripeness and power, but they also had finesse and elegance, qualities not currently found in many California wines. These days, the signature California style is flashy and in-your-face—"hedonistic fruit bombs," in the Parker vernacular. Though these wines tend to flow across the palate with all the subtlety and grace of the Soviet Army rolling into Prague, they do have a certain burlesque appeal
9/15/2003
Is America in decline? Laura Secor for the Boston Globe writes that there is certainly a recent rise in “declinism”.
Wherever anyone believes in progress, someone, possibly the same one, believes in decline. Declinism emerges today from the triumphalism of the right: In our greatness, conservatives say, there is much to lose, and many who threaten us. So, too, does it emerge from the pessimism of the left: Power corrupts, and the corrupt will get their comeuppance. At present, both impulses -- triumphalist and pessimistic, chest-beating and self-lacerating -- are on the upsurge. So too, then, declinism….. . .Many of those who argue that US power is currently ebbing draw on the pathbreaking work of Yale historian Paul Kennedy. In his 1987 classic, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," Kennedy analyzed former great powers such as the Netherlands, Austria-Hungary, and Spain. He observed that historically, wars were won and empires sustained by those who possessed superior economic, rather than simply military, strength, and that an excess of foreign commitments left great powers particularly vulnerable.
While empires collapsing has long been the stuff of legend it appears as if there are a greater number of vocal declinists today than in recent memory.
In books released in the last 12 months, the leftist SUNY-Binghamton sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, Clinton security advisor and Georgetown international relations specialist Charles A. Kupchan, and French demographer Emmanuel Todd contend, for very different reasons, but each with a debt to Kennedy, that Pax Americana has come to a close. America, writes Wallerstein in "The Decline of American Power" (July 2003), is "a lone superpower that lacks true power, a world leader nobody follows and few respect, and a nation drifting dangerously amidst a global chaos it cannot control." That the United States has come unmoored is evident, writes Kupchan in "The End of the American Era" (October 2002), from its "contradictory and incoherent behavior" since the end of the Cold War. And as Todd, author of the French bestseller "Apres l'Empire" (forthcoming in English translation from Columbia University Press), told the British magazine Prospect, in Iraq the United States "used military means in response to a nonmilitary problem. I believe this shows it has lost its omnipotence."
What then to make of all this? Is America in decline or a state of flux reflective of a world immersed in change? What can be done to protect this nation state? What should be done?
Wherever anyone believes in progress, someone, possibly the same one, believes in decline. Declinism emerges today from the triumphalism of the right: In our greatness, conservatives say, there is much to lose, and many who threaten us. So, too, does it emerge from the pessimism of the left: Power corrupts, and the corrupt will get their comeuppance. At present, both impulses -- triumphalist and pessimistic, chest-beating and self-lacerating -- are on the upsurge. So too, then, declinism….. . .Many of those who argue that US power is currently ebbing draw on the pathbreaking work of Yale historian Paul Kennedy. In his 1987 classic, "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers," Kennedy analyzed former great powers such as the Netherlands, Austria-Hungary, and Spain. He observed that historically, wars were won and empires sustained by those who possessed superior economic, rather than simply military, strength, and that an excess of foreign commitments left great powers particularly vulnerable.
While empires collapsing has long been the stuff of legend it appears as if there are a greater number of vocal declinists today than in recent memory.
In books released in the last 12 months, the leftist SUNY-Binghamton sociologist Immanuel Wallerstein, Clinton security advisor and Georgetown international relations specialist Charles A. Kupchan, and French demographer Emmanuel Todd contend, for very different reasons, but each with a debt to Kennedy, that Pax Americana has come to a close. America, writes Wallerstein in "The Decline of American Power" (July 2003), is "a lone superpower that lacks true power, a world leader nobody follows and few respect, and a nation drifting dangerously amidst a global chaos it cannot control." That the United States has come unmoored is evident, writes Kupchan in "The End of the American Era" (October 2002), from its "contradictory and incoherent behavior" since the end of the Cold War. And as Todd, author of the French bestseller "Apres l'Empire" (forthcoming in English translation from Columbia University Press), told the British magazine Prospect, in Iraq the United States "used military means in response to a nonmilitary problem. I believe this shows it has lost its omnipotence."
What then to make of all this? Is America in decline or a state of flux reflective of a world immersed in change? What can be done to protect this nation state? What should be done?
9/09/2003
Dahlia Lithwick and Julia Turner in part one of a four-part series on what the Patriot Act says and does.
9/08/2003
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)