Well, to be fair, I want his son to burn it. If it’s published, I’m sure I’ll read it. But I do think that artists have a right to determine what portions of their work get published…and the public has no right whatsoever to demand a look at it.
James — April 29, 2008 at 10:23 am
Solly’s does PBR cans at reasonable rates.
William Burns — April 29, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Beer is the most downscale option? Speaks the man who’s never enjoyed a bottle of Thunderbird on a park bench in the afternoon. They’re not called winos for nothing.
Sonny, Dude, why do you hate the working man? And the immigrants? Cabbies in DC are no more or less scrupulous than journalists in DC.
Sonny Bunch — April 29, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Not to mention MD 20/20. Red was always my favorite.
Sonny Bunch — April 29, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I got no beef with the workin’ man. I do, however, have a problem with cabbies breaking the law by refusing to take me to my Southeast home and/or trying to charge me an extra zone. I’m not a tourist, dangit, I know the boundaries.
The problem of course, is that usually at said blog, it’s borderline unacceptable to question the “sexist intent” of anything, even if there is a fair amount evidence suggesting that reading sexism in to the example is a little unreasonable.
I mean, it’s understandable, since you often have plenty of anti-feminists throwing water on accusations of sexism for no other reason than to escape culpability. But that doesn’t mean every suggestion of caution is somehow coming from a raging anti-feminist.
““Any species came to be what it is now because of all sorts of interaction in the past,” he said.”
Didn’t these interactions occur in the wild, rather than as the result of deliberate “scientific” “playing God”?
Josh — April 30, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I disagree that human ethics includes principles like ‘don’t torture animals’. I wish that it did. However, it’s not a principle our society subscribes to, given that animals are grossly mistreated and reared for their flesh: animals raised for food are exempted from cruelty laws that apply to pets, even of the same species. The law requires that animals be tortured in order supposedly to establish the safety of consumer products and ingredients of them (see: LD50 and Draize tests). And we freely experiment on and kill millions of mammals a year in laboratories.
All this cruelty–and even the killing–would be unconscionable if we thought that animals had the same faculties that we do. For most philosophers and cognitive scientists, it is axiomatic that humans are different (as you write, “our ethics are human ethics because we are human beings”). If however, humans could breed with chimpanzees, it might very well establish that humans are much more like other animals than we might like to think.
If one is at all concerned about the way humans act toward non-human animals, then this would be a noble experiment indeed.
P.S. It also makes no sense to say that ‘don’t torture animals’ is a valid principle only if one considers the effect on the torturer. Of course it’s bad for the torturer, and that’s enough to make it wrong. But the effect on the animals is enough to make it wrong to torture them. On what basis do you exclude the effect on the animal?
principles like this collapse if torturing animals is bad only, or primarily, from the perspective of the animals being tortured. Torturing animals violates human ethics because it’s bad for the humans doing the torturing.
So to be clear, if we met a species of intelligent aliens, you would say that torturing them is not bad because of the harm it causes to them, but only because of the harm it causes to the human torturers? Philosophically, it seems rather absurd to base one’s morality on shared genetics alone, rather than some broader and more abstract characteristics; if moral principles are thought to be objective and timeless, whatever moral principles we adopt now must be ones that were already valid before the contingent process of evolution which shaped human DNA.
“Torturing animals violates human ethics because it’s bad for the humans doing the torturing.”
Unless it’s for food–then it’s okay. There’s no time for ethics on a slaughterhouse kill line. Profits are at stake.
James Poulos — April 30, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Nathan: yes.
Josh: one harsh example is the difference between making a calf suffer for veal versus making a calf suffer for kicks. Taking pain at face value doesn’t get us the traction we need for rigorous ethical thinking (or so I’d argue). Indeed, Nietzsche, Freud, and others have shown how relative the experience of suffering can be and is. That doesn’t mean that we ought to ignore cries of pain. It just isn’t enough, for ethical purposes, to stop the analysis there.
Jesse: only insofar as torturing is a bad thing to do — versus simply a bad thing to experience — can we make a powerful ethical argument against torture. There are lots of experiences we don’t want to have which nonetheless can be neutral or even beneficial experiences. If you take the torturer out of the moral calculus, it becomes impossible to make an intelligible account of cruelty, for instance. I’d submit that torture is always situated in particular experiences; there is no such thing as torture in the abstract. Thinking this way gives us a glimpse of how talking about torture in the abstract actually feeds justifications for torture by abstracting the relationship between torturer and tortured right out of consciousness — or repressing it, anyway.
And that, in turn, suggests something about the difference between timeless, objective moral and ethical principles and abstract ones. The problem with abstract moral thinking is it requires us to invent or appropriate rhetorical commonplaces and try to account for real life in terms which have no inherent (as academics say) ‘truth value’. The alternative involves beginning with the particular details of life as it’s lived among real persons — complete with our shared stories, experiences, and interrelationships — and working upward to generalize, not abstract, their meaning into principles that have grown organically out of our traditions, histories, and unelective affinities.
And some secular humanists might not find it that absurd to define ‘the human’ genetically. What other yardstick is there? At any rate, although being human isn’t just a matter of genetics, human genes — as opposed to, say, marmoset genes — are a constitutive and unique part of what it means to be human. Human genes, in short, are a necessary, but not sufficient, component of any adequate description of humanness.
Brendan Moran — April 30, 2008 at 8:54 pm
There is no such thing as a universal set of human ethics. If there were such a thing, it wouldn’t be dependent on some ill-defined mystical sense of holistic, inviolate human identity.
There is no rational basis for any set of ethics which holds such a sense of inviolate innate human nature to be self-evident and incontrovertible. On the contrary, all you’re really saying is “You can’t do that because… well, *because*.” There’s nothing there other than a vague sense of unarticulated, unjustified squeamishness.
Plainly put, the bioluddite position you’re advocating has no ethical work, but is instead basically the same fear of the unknown, the same anti-intellectualism, the same knee-jerk know-nothingism which is arguably humanity’s least appealing trait. You’re basically in the same boat as the redneck who hates homosexuals because they make him feel icky.
You don’t like it because you don’t like it, and you throw up a bunch of empty verbiage to dress up that sense of unease and disapproval as something with more intellectual or ethical weight, but no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig of your own ignorance, it’s still not kissable.
James Poulos — April 30, 2008 at 8:57 pm
PS Spine – just to be clear, I fully recognize that torturing animals even for flavor and profit ethically wrong for humans. The issue is what torturing an animal in the context of preparing it to be eaten means. Here there is room for argument, with reasonably clear-cut cases on either side. The key I think is that it’s the moral and ethical argument against making, say, veal that will, if anything, win the day — not an attempt to ban the practice through politics. The former approach fosters the kind of discussion we’re having now. The latter approach, I submit, tends to shut it down.
James Poulos — April 30, 2008 at 8:59 pm
PPS remember there are also instances in which the animals-to-food industry could AVOID torturing animals yet still be unable to prepare them for eating in a manner that isn’t revolting to our human ethics. For instance: bulldozing around dead cows. Or the mere machinery of mass slaughter itself. That I think is where the rubber really hits the road in terms of the philosophy of contemporary human-animal relations.
James Poulos, you didn’t answer my question about the intelligent aliens; it wasn’t a rhetorical question, I was asking it because I’m genuinely trying to understand the ethical principles you’re operating on. You say “some secular humanists might not find it that absurd to define ‘the human’ genetically”, but I imagine you’d find relatively few secular humanists who’d say that intelligent aliens should occupy a lower rung on the ethical ladder simply by virtue of not sharing our glorious human DNA. And if we are defining ethics in terms of shared genetics, what argument would you make against a white supremacist who believes that he owes moral duties only to members of his own race?
hn — April 30, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Perhaps I’m just missing them, but do the new blogs have rss feeds of their own? Also, they don’t seem to be coming through on Doublethink’s rss feed.
I’m with you on the sources of the wrongness of torture, James, but I don’t think your attempt at a principle that rules out humanzees manages to do the trick. There doesn’t seem to me to be any “making humans less human” involved in this research: rather, what they’re doing is making *new* creatures with human parents but non-human traits. That said, I still think it’s wrong, though I don’t think that we need to come up with a “principle” in order to show that. More here, if you want.
Your argument mostly seems to focus on the possibility that while aliens might be recognizably “intelligent” in certain ways, they might be extremely inhuman in others–all the sci-fi aliens you mention seem utterly lacking in companionable, friendly emotions like love and affection, which of course makes it harder for us to feel empathy for them, but which also seems pretty unrealistic for a social species. So to avoid stacking the deck against them, please imagine an alien species which really are pretty similar to humans in all broad mental features, including emotional ones. Alternatively, since you mention “rational animals like dolphins”, you could imagine animals such as dolphins which have been genetically engineered to have capabilities for language and thought similar to humans–you might argue that such genetic engineering is itself unethical, but if it was already a fait accompli, would you really argue that these beings would not deserve the same basic rights as people, or disagree that it would be unethical to enslave them or hunt them for food? Another science fiction possibility which might actually have a fair likelihood of being realized within this century is mind uploading, where an actual human brain is mapped and simulated at a microscopic level on a computer–such a being would not be biologically human, but if the technique was successful it would have a normal human personality, memories, and identity. Again, would you argue that this being would not be deserving of the same rights as humans, or that we would not owe the same ethical duties to it that we owe to humans?
For that reason, the argument I’d make against the white supremacist is that his conception of moral duty isn’t a real human ethics, precisely because it doesn’t take the human as its category of ethical analysis.
But here you haven’t attempted to argue for the notion that biological humanness should is itself an ethically significant category, you’re just asserting it. If I argue that the real significant category is something like “self-aware sentience”, and that humans owe their special ethical status to being members of this category rather than to their genetics, then I can similarly dismiss your conception of moral duty as “not a real self-aware sentient being ethics” because you don’t take self-aware sentient beings as your category of ethical analysis. You might say that you aren’t trying to have a “real self-aware sentient being ethics”, because you think we owe moral duties to humans that we don’t owe to other self-aware sentient beings, but of course the white supremacist could also say he isn’t trying to have a “real human ethics”, and argue that he owes moral duties to white people that he doesn’t owe to other races. You could appeal to moral intuitions that there is something inherently wrong about causing suffering to other humans, or exploiting them in the way we exploit animals, even if they aren’t members of your own race; but I think most people would feel the same moral intuitions about the hypothetical beings I describe above if they could actually meet a real-life example of such a being and have conversations with them, form friendships with them, and so forth.
James Poulos — May 2, 2008 at 6:32 pm
You give the game away by needing to hypothesize aliens who are so human-like that it makes us, has humans, uncomfortable to think of them as not at all human. If you want to propose that the ethics of we humans shouldn’t have anything to do with our being human — even though it should apparently have lots to do with generalizable human characteristics — I don’t see how you’re in any different boat than I am when it comes to making assertions. Bottom line is I think my human-ethics argument is about a zillion times stronger than the white supremacist’s argument, and I think this is so not only because we can tell reasonably persuasive stories about WHY this is so, but because such stories have actually persuasively been told through reason over the real course of human history. And I daresay that, as much as it might be reasonable to feel weird about torturing a computer that we’ve engineered to be ALMOST like a human but just not quite, it’d be even weirder to build that computer, which is about as horrible an idea as I can think of, not least because it makes a total hash of the ethics of REAL HUMANS, which I suppose I propose must anchor any REAL HUMAN ethics. It’s possible that one day we’ll discover a race of aliens which is so like us that treating them unlike humans creates major ethical problems for us. If so, they’ll be — I wager — humans themselves. If not, no one, including them, will be able to tell.
You give the game away by needing to hypothesize aliens who are so human-like that it makes us, has humans, uncomfortable to think of them as not at all human.
“So” human-like? All I said is that they wouldn’t be lacking in warm, friendly, social emotions. Given that such emotions seem to have arisen independently in different lineages of large-brained social animals on Earth–look at smart birds like parrots, whose last common ancestor with us would have been a much more antisocial reptile–I think it’s actually more implausible than not to suggest an alien civilization would be completely lacking in such emotions. Watch the movie The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill (or perhaps just the ‘Entertaining Parrots’ segment here) and see if you find parrots significantly more “alien” than smart nonhuman mammal species like monkeys.
In any case, my argument wasn’t meant to be based specifically on aliens, it was just a general argument about the inadequacy of using DNA as a basis for humanity’s special place in the ethical cosmos. The other thought-experiments, like mind uploading, work just as well for this purpose. You call mind uploading a “horrible idea”, but you don’t actually address what you think our ethical response should be if uploads already existed (and there are plenty of people in transhumanist circles who would like to be uploaded themselves, so if the technology exists I think it’s pretty likely to happen). Putting REAL HUMANS in caps doesn’t help me understand why this category should be central to a good ethical system. And you say “I don’t see how you’re in any different boat than I am when it comes to making assertions”, but I think I am in a different boat–I’m appealing to what I think our ethical intuitions would actually be if such beings existed, while you’re basically refusing to deal with the possibility, and perhaps implying that we should intentionally suppress whatever natural empathy we might feel for such beings for the sake of not muddying the waters of “human ethics”. I think any ethical system worth its salt should be able to deal with the complexity of arbitrary real-world situations, and not create arbitrary boundaries just because it’s easier for us to make decisions when we have nicely-defined boundaries. And as I said before, I also think a good ethical system should have a “universal” quality, so it could be applicable in any imaginable situation, and not be based on totally contingent features of our history (like the fact that there are no other branches of the hominid family tree still kicking around anywhere on Earth).
It’s possible that one day we’ll discover a race of aliens which is so like us that treating them unlike humans creates major ethical problems for us. If so, they’ll be — I wager — humans themselves.
“Humans themselves”? Should I take this to mean you don’t believe in evolution? Surely the chance that natural evolutionary processes would produce genetically identical beings on another planet is like a googolplex to one.
anon — May 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm
If what you really want to prohibit is hanging around in public spaces soliciting sexual transactions, it’s easy enough to prohibit that without also prohibiting “high class” prostitution. Are you telling us you’d come out in support of legalized prostitution per se, provided there were appropriate restrictions on time/place/manner of solicitation? Hey, that’s great news; welcome to the libertarian movement.
anon — May 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm
If what you really want to prohibit is hanging around in public spaces soliciting sexual transactions, it’s easy enough to prohibit that without also prohibiting “high class” prostitution. Are you telling us you’d come out in support of legalized prostitution per se, provided there were appropriate restrictions on time/place/manner of solicitation? Hey, that’s great news; welcome to the libertarian movement.
dervin — May 5, 2008 at 11:13 pm
There’s a difference between a chick flick and a date movie.
In the typical chick flick, all but one man is a nice guy, the female lead is a b*tch, but in the end she gets the nice guy. It’s just a repackaging of that Jane Austin book. Compare that to Titanic, the “Star Wars” for women.
Movies directed towards “Men” are really directed towards Adolescents, promising on little and delivering.
And any man would go see any movie his woman tells him to if he thinks there will be a blow job for him at the end of the night. Hollywood just isn’t making movies worth that much to a woman.
Sonny Bunch — May 6, 2008 at 10:19 am
So perhaps, Dervin, it is I who am asking the wrong question. Instead of wondering how to get men in the seats, Hollywood needs to offer women a movie worth, well, y’know…
I don’t know, James; this is pretty hardcore. Recalling the days when I could afford PBR, in places where kitsch isn’t the rule, this brings a smile to my face.
BryanK — May 6, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I hear he is known to break a leg or two.
BryanK — May 6, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Nobody likes Helen Hunt
BryanK — May 6, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Love Actually was a quality chick flick (or was it a date movie Mr. Bunch?)
Iron Man was practically flawless as a super hero flick; it drops pretty obvious hints that would indicate a sequel as well… i’m thinking the next one should be equally great
Exactly what part of Zakaria’s essay made you write this?
This isn’t just because I’m a nationalist; it’s because I’m convinced that the United States has, and depends upon, a globally unique system of government which is itself dependent upon America’s unique geopolitical, cultural, and religious heritage. The maintenance of that heritage demands a conscious effort not to regularize the American workforce into a system of migrant drones at the bottom and civil engineers at the top, two types of people with an affirmative interest in destroying citizenship and unmaking the American character.
Perhaps this is because I don’t read your stuff regularly, but I am truly confused: what is this supposed to mean? Strictly in policy terms, is this because Zakaria thinks that one of the choices America needs to make, to stay competitive, is a more open immigration policy, with more effort being made to attract high-skilled immigrants? Are you saying that the current policy — which, more or less, tries to regulate the influx of low-skill immigrants from Central and South America, and encourage high-skilled immigrants (technologically speaking) from Asia — is leading to a system with “migrant drones at the bottom and civil engineers at the top”, and even more catastrophically, “destroying citizenship and unmaking the American character”?
Why would you think that?
It doesn’t strike me that high-skilled immigrants (in particular, the engineers) are anywhere near the top of the power chain in America — far from it. Or are you just arguing against the fetishization of science and technology (and technologists) or when people consider science as humanity’s most profound achievement?
One way of knowing how much “power” technologists wield, is to look at all the bright kids in schools and their aspirations — what do they want to be? How many young boys and girls in schools here will tell you that they want to be engineers? I suspect not many (and I’ve asked a few). Bright kids here want to be lawyers, designers, writers, journalists, teachers, therapists, what have you. I was shocked to learn, when I first came to the US to do my Masters, that Columbia College received ten times the number of undergraduate applicants than the Fu Foundation School of Engineering, which was completely the opposite of what I saw in India.
(Now, if I asked the same question in India — 99% of the bright kids would answer that they want to be either doctors or engineers (not even lawyers). This doesn’t mean that engineers are at the top of the power chain in India either — but that is a topic for another time.)
Since the bright kids here shun science and engineering, America has to “import” its engineers and scientists. But this hardly places the technologists “at the top” (top, in terms of the amount of power wielded; in terms of income, engineers do very well), like you seem to think. The “top” in America — the real bastions of power — is where all the bright native born kids go — law, fashion, finance, journalism. These are the professions where the true “elite” come from, the ones who determine the policies, and who shape public opinion. Engineers make good money, true, but they’re almost always in the background.
But perhaps I misunderstand your point. In which case, I’d love to know what you mean exactly. And why, exactly, do engineers make bad citizens?
ps: And who cares what system is used to buy juice or milk or gasoline? But if someone is going to drop a statement that says that the metric system is based on “incorrect calculations” (even in jest) he has got to back it with at least a link or two.
alwsdad — May 7, 2008 at 8:04 pm
You have a very impressive vocabulary. Congratulations!
Just out of curiosity, what color is the sky in your world?
Instead, I will, as an engineer, congratulate you for being one of the few people to realize that globalization is driven by technology and not merely capital.
There is no central engineering new world order where we plot the future of the world. At least, I have never been invited to join such a body. But that does not mean that engineering is an a-political process.
I became involved in the design of the Web in 1992 because it brought together my interest in computer systems and my interest in politics. It has taken fifteen years but the Web is now starting to have the effect on the establishment media that it was designed to.
Fox News apart, the establishment media is no more biased today than it was ten years ago. The sudden decline in its reputation is due to the fact that the Web has created a feedback loop that exposes its deficiencies. That was the original plan I discussed with MIT back when it all started.
You should oppose us. The parochial nationalism that your article represents is precisely the type of thinking that the Web is rendering obsolete.
Uncle Jeffy — May 7, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I work with a number of engineers and have others among my circle of friends, and I can guarantee you that there’s no hegemony – in fact, most of the time they can’t get the twinkletoes types with the MBAs to listen to them.
mattc — May 8, 2008 at 10:55 am
“My distaste for migrant labor and the hegemony of engineers, each taken separately, is already almost incalculable because of my judgments about what ruins a healthy republic.” – James Polous
First and foremost, I’m another engineer responding to this post, so let’s get that out of the way (you sure do know how to make us miscreants of the republic emerge from the shadows).
The “globalization” call by Zakaria is overdone, but your analysis of it is just as tasteless. You complain about “migrant labor” then blast politicians who (rightfully) state that America is lacking in science and math education at almost every level of schooling. What do you think this leads to in a society in the midst of technological revolution? You guessed it: MORE MIGRANT LABOR. I took classes for my engineering masters that were comprised of 50% foreigners with student visas. Do you see that in law school? Do you find that in an MBA program? I would wager that you don’t.
Having said that, I agree with you that having a government openly working to implement education policies that produce more technologists (or laborers of any ilk) is anathema to the republic (I refute all government-lead educational efforts). What is healthy for the country is to instill a desire for critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity that inspires people to find their own answers to life’s great questions. You are right that this is/was a primary component of the American culture and the exportation of this ideal lead to the current rise of competing global markets. We didn’t export our engineering colleges, but we connected inquisitive minds to an idea engine (American free markets and our university network).
However, I feel that you are subtely ignoring the point of this argument. many fans of globalization are not trying to “restructure” the American labor force as you put it, but many of them are crying (too loudly I might add) about the possibility that these changes are so rapid that an aging, industrial population might not fully embrace them in time to maintain/maximize our competitive edge. You see this in the current Presidential election, where the candidates are rehasing the merits of NAFTA to voters in the Rust Belt that don’t understand why there is a dwindling market for metal welders. How can we be having this debate at the same time we have people(domestic and foreign, but increasingly more foreign) working on tissue regeneration, smart A.I., nanotechnology, etc…
Do you think we still NEED people to manually operate a blow torch??
That’s the emotion behind people like Zakaria. It’s misguided at times, but it has some merit. Your “distate” for their stance and policy choices is also misguided, but indeed has merit as well. I would posit that you are correct vis-a-vis the culture and the republic, but you have no clue how we’ll keep a competitive labor force for the next generation of technologists. We don’t have one now.
I think you miss what Zakaria is saying about globalizing America, though I have only read the Foreign Affairs article, not the book. I believe he is not calling for some “rigorously regulated process,” but more likely he is bemoaning the very real reluctance of Americans to foreign ideas. To make a cultural example, I’m an American living in Britain, and the televisions have shows from all over the anglophone world, and many French and American films can be seen in the cinemas. Not the case, of course, in America, where the vast majority of films are American, same on tv. There surely many foreign tv shows and films which would appeal to Americans, but for some reason we aren’t particularly interested. His point (correct or not) is applying this idea to more serious matters: Americans are reluctant to learn from the success of other countries, learn foreign languages, etc.
I haven’t read the book, but I’m pretty sure you’re wrong on this point.
dave.s/ — May 8, 2008 at 5:57 pm
One big problem for Nussbaum is that Client 6 was the Duke of Westminster, and he lost his position over his use of the same prostitution service.
dave.s/ — May 8, 2008 at 5:57 pm
One big problem for Nussbaum is that Client 6 was the Duke of Westminster, and he lost his position over his use of the same prostitution service.
Stefano Pian — May 8, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I find your attempt at establishing a connection between marital fidelity and honest political conduct quite weak. I’m pretty sure that even if Spitzer had been unmarried, and even if he had never promoted anti-prostitution laws, he would still have been grilled by American public opinion for his “misdeed”.
Stefano Pian — May 8, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I find your attempt at establishing a connection between marital fidelity and honest political conduct quite weak. I’m pretty sure that even if Spitzer had been unmarried, and even if he had never promoted anti-prostitution laws, he would still have been grilled by American public opinion for his “misdeed”.
Robbie — May 8, 2008 at 7:28 pm
yeah… there’s no reason to think that a guy who cheats on his wife would be differently honested in his public life.
Robbie — May 8, 2008 at 7:28 pm
yeah… there’s no reason to think that a guy who cheats on his wife would be differently honested in his public life.
DivGuy — May 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm
a basic public consensus that if you sleep around on your spouse you are a bad person, and to hell with your future in politics, because we still have enough talent in America to replace you with someone who isn’t a bad person and is nonetheless capable of being a ‘gifted’ and ‘dedicated’ public servant.
So, I presume that you will refuse to support John McCain, who cheated on his first wife and left her for his current wife and then-mistress, Cindy?
DivGuy — May 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm
a basic public consensus that if you sleep around on your spouse you are a bad person, and to hell with your future in politics, because we still have enough talent in America to replace you with someone who isn’t a bad person and is nonetheless capable of being a ‘gifted’ and ‘dedicated’ public servant.
So, I presume that you will refuse to support John McCain, who cheated on his first wife and left her for his current wife and then-mistress, Cindy?
q — May 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm
are there any sentences in this that don’t end in a question mark or exclamation point?
q — May 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm
are there any sentences in this that don’t end in a question mark or exclamation point?
So what counts towards this needed “ounce of moral character”? Voting against torture? Basing tax policy upon reasonably honest budget projections? Opposing wars that manifestly fail the just-war criteria? These all strike me as more important, from a moral point of view, than whether a particular politician has lived up to his marriage vows (which a whole lot of Americans–John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and Henry Hyde included–have not).
Vito Fossella sounds like an unpleasant man and I don’t feel much sympathy for his situation. But after watching what’s happened in our government over the last seven years, I have to dig pretty deep to find any outrage over it.
So what counts towards this needed “ounce of moral character”? Voting against torture? Basing tax policy upon reasonably honest budget projections? Opposing wars that manifestly fail the just-war criteria? These all strike me as more important, from a moral point of view, than whether a particular politician has lived up to his marriage vows (which a whole lot of Americans–John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and Henry Hyde included–have not).
Vito Fossella sounds like an unpleasant man and I don’t feel much sympathy for his situation. But after watching what’s happened in our government over the last seven years, I have to dig pretty deep to find any outrage over it.
Behelden — May 8, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Your premise is correct that someone who can’t be faithful to their spouse isn’t the type of person who should be entrusted with public office. They may or may not betray the public trust, but we have no reason to take the chance.
Additionally, let’s not forget that Spitzer was flouting the law while simultaneously serving in a role as the lead protector and enforcer of the law. The betrayal of the public’s trust in his case was complete and for Nussbaum to not comment on it somewhere in the midst of her pooh-poohing of America’s prudishness is rank.
Behelden — May 8, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Your premise is correct that someone who can’t be faithful to their spouse isn’t the type of person who should be entrusted with public office. They may or may not betray the public trust, but we have no reason to take the chance.
Additionally, let’s not forget that Spitzer was flouting the law while simultaneously serving in a role as the lead protector and enforcer of the law. The betrayal of the public’s trust in his case was complete and for Nussbaum to not comment on it somewhere in the midst of her pooh-poohing of America’s prudishness is rank.
worn — May 8, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Not being any sort of expert in the underlying subject matter of the post, I state without doubt that it makes absolutely no sense to me. “Civil engineers” are some sort of dangerous anathema to our country and its ideals? My goodness, these are the folks responsible for the roads, railways, dams, underground utility infrastructure, etc. of our nation.
That aside, as an architect, who has to deal daily with the wonderful measurement system bequeathed to us by the mother isle, the initial slag of the metric system is what caught my eye. Notwithstanding some of the historically oddball things upon which our system of units are based, please do tell me how having a measurement system whose sub-units change from a base of 12 to a base of 16* makes any sense whatsoever. It is also my understanding that the Imperial Foot has been defined as a percentage of the meter since 1958. So whatever that original (and unsubstantiated) “incorrect calculation” was, it’s in our units, too.
*Or more precisely, feet being divided first by 4 then by 3 to yield 12 inches, while sub-inch inch units increment by pure division by 4. And just as logical, moving from feet to the next unit, the yard, one must multiply by three.
Gary — May 9, 2008 at 1:55 am
Let’s see what Professor Nussbaum says or does if Senator Obama wins the White House, and nominates Cass Sunstein to the Supreme Court.
Gary — May 9, 2008 at 1:55 am
Let’s see what Professor Nussbaum says or does if Senator Obama wins the White House, and nominates Cass Sunstein to the Supreme Court.
Tom O'Gorman — May 9, 2008 at 7:18 am
Ben, you make some decent points, but my sense of this piece is that James isn’t especially outraged at the behaviour of Fossella, but at the notion that politicians shouldn’t have to maintain a basic minimum level of sexual fidelity in order to hold on to office. His ire is directed at Nussbaum’s argument, not so much the politician’s conduct.
You definitely have a point about McCain, Gingrich and Hyde, et al, although I think Hyde managed to address his moral failings honestly in the course of his political career. He also showed immense courage in taking on the cause of the unborn in US politics, which demonstrates a certain level of moral character.
Tom O'Gorman — May 9, 2008 at 7:18 am
Ben, you make some decent points, but my sense of this piece is that James isn’t especially outraged at the behaviour of Fossella, but at the notion that politicians shouldn’t have to maintain a basic minimum level of sexual fidelity in order to hold on to office. His ire is directed at Nussbaum’s argument, not so much the politician’s conduct.
You definitely have a point about McCain, Gingrich and Hyde, et al, although I think Hyde managed to address his moral failings honestly in the course of his political career. He also showed immense courage in taking on the cause of the unborn in US politics, which demonstrates a certain level of moral character.
mattc — May 9, 2008 at 7:37 am
“A man who did what Spitzer did would have a lot to discuss with his wife and family, but he would have broken no laws, and it would be laughable to accuse him of a betrayal of the public trust.”
This is what set Polous off. An entirely different post would be required to debate the policy stances that correlate with an “ounce of moral character.” I assure you, though, Spitzer had none. And neither does Fossela. Must be something in the water here in NY.
mattc — May 9, 2008 at 7:37 am
“A man who did what Spitzer did would have a lot to discuss with his wife and family, but he would have broken no laws, and it would be laughable to accuse him of a betrayal of the public trust.”
This is what set Polous off. An entirely different post would be required to debate the policy stances that correlate with an “ounce of moral character.” I assure you, though, Spitzer had none. And neither does Fossela. Must be something in the water here in NY.
bs23 — May 9, 2008 at 7:46 am
What I’m angling for here is simple: a basic public consensus that if you sleep around on your spouse you are a bad person, and to hell with your future in politics…
You’re not getting this consensus from me; I find it mildly offensive that elected officials should somehow have to serve as moral guides for citizens of a free state. I give as much attention to private lives of public officials as I expect them to give to mine. Not none, but not much.
Besides, I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that even if the guy had permission from his wife, you’d chide him just the same.
bs23 — May 9, 2008 at 7:46 am
What I’m angling for here is simple: a basic public consensus that if you sleep around on your spouse you are a bad person, and to hell with your future in politics…
You’re not getting this consensus from me; I find it mildly offensive that elected officials should somehow have to serve as moral guides for citizens of a free state. I give as much attention to private lives of public officials as I expect them to give to mine. Not none, but not much.
Besides, I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that even if the guy had permission from his wife, you’d chide him just the same.
Tel — May 9, 2008 at 11:46 am
“What I’m angling for here is simple: a basic public consensus that if you sleep around on your spouse you are a bad person, and to hell with your future in politics, because we still have enough talent in America to replace you with someone who isn’t a bad person and is nonetheless capable of being a ‘gifted’ and ‘dedicated’ public servant.”
He wasn’t married at the time, but Thomas Jefferson did father several children with one of his slaves, starting in 1795. Should his political career have been over? He would have never been President. Franklin Roosevelt would have been drummed out of politics in 1918. I doubt that we could have easily replaced either of those public servants. If we throw out all of the adulterers from public office, I would guess that about a quarter of government jobs would go unfulfilled. (Though that would certainly be a creative method of cutting the budget).
Tel — May 9, 2008 at 11:46 am
“What I’m angling for here is simple: a basic public consensus that if you sleep around on your spouse you are a bad person, and to hell with your future in politics, because we still have enough talent in America to replace you with someone who isn’t a bad person and is nonetheless capable of being a ‘gifted’ and ‘dedicated’ public servant.”
He wasn’t married at the time, but Thomas Jefferson did father several children with one of his slaves, starting in 1795. Should his political career have been over? He would have never been President. Franklin Roosevelt would have been drummed out of politics in 1918. I doubt that we could have easily replaced either of those public servants. If we throw out all of the adulterers from public office, I would guess that about a quarter of government jobs would go unfulfilled. (Though that would certainly be a creative method of cutting the budget).
Someone who fails in their private life like Vito or Bill or Eliot has failed in their public life, because they are the beneficiaries of a public trust which requires them to live out their daily lives during their term in office with an ounce of moral character.[...] the case of Vito Fossella is especially instructive, here, because it reveals how the adultery and the bastard child and the drunk driving are all part of an interlinked personal problem that does affect his ability to serve his constituents.
Could you give a few examples here of how these politicians actually, concretely failed their constituents, in the sense of actually not doing their jobs that they were elected to do?
Someone who fails in their private life like Vito or Bill or Eliot has failed in their public life, because they are the beneficiaries of a public trust which requires them to live out their daily lives during their term in office with an ounce of moral character.[...] the case of Vito Fossella is especially instructive, here, because it reveals how the adultery and the bastard child and the drunk driving are all part of an interlinked personal problem that does affect his ability to serve his constituents.
Could you give a few examples here of how these politicians actually, concretely failed their constituents, in the sense of actually not doing their jobs that they were elected to do?
I don’t think you’re wrong, necessarily, but if I can don my, inside-the-beltway-elitist hat (a black bowler, complemented by a gold rimmed monocle, natch): To win the presidency, the Dems need to recapture Reagan Democrats–i.e. white, poorer, working-class folks. Folks who, and I don’t think I’m being overly provocative here, remain less enlightened, racially-speaking, than their upper-crust, hyper-liberal, Northeastern/West Coast counterparts in the Democratic party.
I know a few people matching that Reagan Dem description in a crucial swing state that shall remain nameless, lifelong party members all. It would be pretty easy for some shadowy, Rovian political operator to come up with a campaign narrative capable of driving them directly into the arms of the GOP. It would look a little like this: “You can vote for the American Hero who was tortured by the VC, dedicated his life to public service, and doesn’t get along all that well with Dubya [voiceover on top of beatific montage of McCain in Navy garb, VC prison, and on the campaign trail], or you can vote for the uppity Ivy League law professor [insert photo of Obama, preferably in the embrace of the good Rev. Wright]. Which is better for America?”
And this is the point Hillary is driving at. Again, I’d say you’re probably right about the vast majority of Democratic primary electorate, but I don’t think you should underestimate the subset of that population amenable to this kind of appeal.
James Poulos — May 9, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Yes, I think this is right, or right too. A lot will stand or fall on how competent of an independent — and that doesn’t mean unconservative, far from it — candidate McCain can be. The worse a state Bush (and the Movement, for that matter) puts McCain in, or the less effective a campaigner McCain himself proves to be, the more likely you are to see this race dynamic used as an Easy button. But at the same time, the poorer a candidate McCain turns out to be, the better a time Obama will have attracting what Tocqueville called ‘coarse’ votes. The hinge here I think is how coarse white Democrats feel about McCain. Seems to me they’re not exactly lining up to give him their vote. Not yet, anyway.
Steve — May 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Okay, LP, how about the months of time and millions of dollars spent dealing with the fallout of Bill Clinton’s inability to keep it in his pants and his decision to lie about it while under oath? Think he might have been able to do something with all of that time?
Steve — May 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Okay, LP, how about the months of time and millions of dollars spent dealing with the fallout of Bill Clinton’s inability to keep it in his pants and his decision to lie about it while under oath? Think he might have been able to do something with all of that time?
To clarify: I’m talking about an instance of an adulterous politician failing to do his job, that isn’t based entirely on the fact that people got upset about the adultery (which is the attitude under discussion here). In other words, aside from the fact that it upsets people, does adultery actually correlate to falling down on the job?
To clarify: I’m talking about an instance of an adulterous politician failing to do his job, that isn’t based entirely on the fact that people got upset about the adultery (which is the attitude under discussion here). In other words, aside from the fact that it upsets people, does adultery actually correlate to falling down on the job?
Senescent — May 9, 2008 at 6:45 pm
It’s because in people’s private lives, we expect them to be acting on their own behalves; in their capacity as officials, we expect them to act on behalf of their constituency. So when someone sleeps around, or engages in “abusive” relationships in which they maximize for their own interests at the expense of their partners’, that’s not a violation of public trust – they’re pursuing their own aims in their own life. But bribery and corruption are violations – they’re pursuing their own aims in public capacity.
And even if you want to point to their tendency to periodically shrug off inconvenient bonds and commitments as a cause for concern, I mean, really, how does that play out in political life? Well, if officials take constituency, rather than personal, interests as a guide, it comes out as breaking party line or orthodoxy to “vote your district” or bring home pork. And while we might occasionally dislike that in the abstract, in terms of *our* representative doing it, we very often appreciate and encourage it in the specific.
Doug — May 10, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I was with you until “bad person.” I don’t think that label helps the discourse. I do agree that both Spitzer’s and Fossela’s behavior is disqualifying. It’s not simply infidelity, but the illegality (Spitzer) and the long-time secrecy (Fossela) that makes it problematic for me. For Bill Clinton, the disqualifying behavior was taking advantage of a subordinate and lying about it.
Doug — May 10, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I was with you until “bad person.” I don’t think that label helps the discourse. I do agree that both Spitzer’s and Fossela’s behavior is disqualifying. It’s not simply infidelity, but the illegality (Spitzer) and the long-time secrecy (Fossela) that makes it problematic for me. For Bill Clinton, the disqualifying behavior was taking advantage of a subordinate and lying about it.
conradg — May 10, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I think the “incorrect calculation” being referred to is that the meter was originally defined as being 1/10,000,000th of the circumference of the globe around the poles. This was back in the 19th century, and subsequently the measurement was discovered to be inaccurate by some small fraction. Rather than change the meter a wreck the system already in place, it was simply decided to redefine the meter, first to a bar of metal held in cold storage in France, and later to a certain number of wavelengths of a particular emission line of light. All that has nothing whatever to do with the actual utility of the meter, and is just Poulos’ way of asserting his cranky lack of understanding of all things scientific and modern.
Btw, this is an interesting blog post in that it appears to have not a single intelligent point made anywhere within it. Yet it’s being linked to around the web. Fascinating.
OK, if Poulos is right and marital fidelity is essential to the public trust of elected office, why don’t we just add a marital fidelity test for holding office to those for citizenship and age? Unless every candidate is subjected to a thorough background check before being placed on the ballot (not to mention recurring check-ups throughout his or her career), this whole mindset just lends itself to games of gotcha.
OK, if Poulos is right and marital fidelity is essential to the public trust of elected office, why don’t we just add a marital fidelity test for holding office to those for citizenship and age? Unless every candidate is subjected to a thorough background check before being placed on the ballot (not to mention recurring check-ups throughout his or her career), this whole mindset just lends itself to games of gotcha.
jag — May 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Apparently many readers have never had the misfortune to work FOR people who cheat on their spouses…..lets just say people who cheat on their spouses often have little regard for other laws, rules and scruples that they find “inconvenient”.
jag — May 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Apparently many readers have never had the misfortune to work FOR people who cheat on their spouses…..lets just say people who cheat on their spouses often have little regard for other laws, rules and scruples that they find “inconvenient”.
“as social-science tropes that define left-leaning intellectual worldviews leach down into the parlance of our times…”
Is it really that inevitable?
BigM — May 12, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I can’t quite agree with this equation of private adultery with public malfeasance. Do we have to then ask what kind of a father Ronald Reagan was? Should Rudy Giuliani have been refused the mayoralty of New York – a city that was virtually reborn under his leadership – because he was far less of a husband and father than David Dinkins? In politics, as in life, I try not to make judgments on what goes on in other people’s marriages.
But that is not to say that Nussbaum makes sense. Eliot Spitzer, the politician she defends, was a zealot, a man who delighted in harassing others. Is it relevant that the people he hounded were something Nussbaum dislikes (wealthy businessmen) rather than something she approves of (adulterous johns)? In any case, Spitzer would not have hesitated to prosecute a politician for the very acts that cost him his office.
It is also a bit nauseating to see Nussbaum, and others like her, prettify prostitution with euphemisms like “sex workers.” In fact, these are usually harshly exploited women, who have suffered far more than, say, Anita Hill, even if her boss did ask about a public hair on a Coke can.
BigM — May 12, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I can’t quite agree with this equation of private adultery with public malfeasance. Do we have to then ask what kind of a father Ronald Reagan was? Should Rudy Giuliani have been refused the mayoralty of New York – a city that was virtually reborn under his leadership – because he was far less of a husband and father than David Dinkins? In politics, as in life, I try not to make judgments on what goes on in other people’s marriages.
But that is not to say that Nussbaum makes sense. Eliot Spitzer, the politician she defends, was a zealot, a man who delighted in harassing others. Is it relevant that the people he hounded were something Nussbaum dislikes (wealthy businessmen) rather than something she approves of (adulterous johns)? In any case, Spitzer would not have hesitated to prosecute a politician for the very acts that cost him his office.
It is also a bit nauseating to see Nussbaum, and others like her, prettify prostitution with euphemisms like “sex workers.” In fact, these are usually harshly exploited women, who have suffered far more than, say, Anita Hill, even if her boss did ask about a public hair on a Coke can.
He wasn’t married at the time, but Thomas Jefferson did father several children with one of his slaves, starting in 1795. Should his political career have been over?
Tel: If memory serves, it’s not clear that that’s true; Sally Hemmings had children with someone in the Jefferson family, but the DNA evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was Thomas himself. Either way, of course his political career should have been over — he owned slaves!
He wasn’t married at the time, but Thomas Jefferson did father several children with one of his slaves, starting in 1795. Should his political career have been over?
Tel: If memory serves, it’s not clear that that’s true; Sally Hemmings had children with someone in the Jefferson family, but the DNA evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was Thomas himself. Either way, of course his political career should have been over — he owned slaves!
mark — May 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’ll offer this bit of gossip. Cass Sunstein was married when he and Nussbaum got together. (Sunstein’s wife famously threw his clothes out the window when she found out.) Which is only to say that Nussbaurm’s “enlightened” perspective on adultery is self-interested and consistent at once.
mark — May 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’ll offer this bit of gossip. Cass Sunstein was married when he and Nussbaum got together. (Sunstein’s wife famously threw his clothes out the window when she found out.) Which is only to say that Nussbaurm’s “enlightened” perspective on adultery is self-interested and consistent at once.
David Paz Sr — May 13, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Vito Fossella you must immediately resign. I say this as a life long Republican. But I am really disgusted Republican. Don’t put your family through this public trashing any longer. What you have done is almost as bad as what Spitzer did. Except that he got caught paying money for his. You have disgraced your wife, kids and family. You are unfortunately a CHEAT. You are unfit to serve your constituents. This wasn’t a momentary error in judgment or small mistake. You hid this for at least 3 years and only you getting caught DRUNK DRIVING brought it to light. Between you and Spitzer, the Republicans have a hard time preaching morality to anyone.
David Paz Sr — May 13, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Vito Fossella you must immediately resign. I say this as a life long Republican. But I am really disgusted Republican. Don’t put your family through this public trashing any longer. What you have done is almost as bad as what Spitzer did. Except that he got caught paying money for his. You have disgraced your wife, kids and family. You are unfortunately a CHEAT. You are unfit to serve your constituents. This wasn’t a momentary error in judgment or small mistake. You hid this for at least 3 years and only you getting caught DRUNK DRIVING brought it to light. Between you and Spitzer, the Republicans have a hard time preaching morality to anyone.
David Paz Sr — May 13, 2008 at 4:25 pm
To John Tobian,
In no way am I condoning slavery. But you comment about Jefferson and people of era who owned slaves is wrong.You need to investigate the origins of slavery. In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960’s have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplicistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas’ The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn’s The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own kins.
This explains why slavery became “black”. Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes).
David Paz Sr — May 13, 2008 at 4:25 pm
To John Tobian,
In no way am I condoning slavery. But you comment about Jefferson and people of era who owned slaves is wrong.You need to investigate the origins of slavery. In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960’s have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplicistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas’ The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn’s The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own kins.
This explains why slavery became “black”. Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes).
Meh — May 13, 2008 at 5:00 pm
As a USC graduate, I am personally upset that O.J. Mayo ever was recruited to play for the Trojans. He was hyped way too much and didn’t amount to anything (we lost in the first round of the NCAAs, something we’d done numerous times without him). Then, he left to go to the NBA after playing for just one year at the college level (he’ll probably disappoint there, too). And yet, his poor conduct will effect the program for years now, as the NCAA is sure to fine the school and even issue sanctions and things.
The overarching problem here is we force athletes to college when they don’t want to go in the first place. O.J. Mayo was told throughout his high school years that he was NBA-ready, but had to put up with college for a year before he could go, because of league rules. So, he did just that — put up with it but ignored the rules that others must follow. What does he care? It won’t effect him much.
I understand that most high school kids aren’t ready for the professional level, and see the point in the college experience. But in practice, it just doesn’t work, because the promise of wealth the pros can offer is just too tempting. And thus, the O.J. Mayo saga is sure to repeat itself.
Meh — May 13, 2008 at 5:00 pm
As a USC graduate, I am personally upset that O.J. Mayo ever was recruited to play for the Trojans. He was hyped way too much and didn’t amount to anything (we lost in the first round of the NCAAs, something we’d done numerous times without him). Then, he left to go to the NBA after playing for just one year at the college level (he’ll probably disappoint there, too). And yet, his poor conduct will effect the program for years now, as the NCAA is sure to fine the school and even issue sanctions and things.
The overarching problem here is we force athletes to college when they don’t want to go in the first place. O.J. Mayo was told throughout his high school years that he was NBA-ready, but had to put up with college for a year before he could go, because of league rules. So, he did just that — put up with it but ignored the rules that others must follow. What does he care? It won’t effect him much.
I understand that most high school kids aren’t ready for the professional level, and see the point in the college experience. But in practice, it just doesn’t work, because the promise of wealth the pros can offer is just too tempting. And thus, the O.J. Mayo saga is sure to repeat itself.
Meh — May 13, 2008 at 5:00 pm
As a USC graduate, I am personally upset that O.J. Mayo ever was recruited to play for the Trojans. He was hyped way too much and didn’t amount to anything (we lost in the first round of the NCAAs, something we’d done numerous times without him). Then, he left to go to the NBA after playing for just one year at the college level (he’ll probably disappoint there, too). And yet, his poor conduct will effect the program for years now, as the NCAA is sure to fine the school and even issue sanctions and things.
The overarching problem here is we force athletes to college when they don’t want to go in the first place. O.J. Mayo was told throughout his high school years that he was NBA-ready, but had to put up with college for a year before he could go, because of league rules. So, he did just that — put up with it but ignored the rules that others must follow. What does he care? It won’t effect him much.
I understand that most high school kids aren’t ready for the professional level, and see the point in the college experience. But in practice, it just doesn’t work, because the promise of wealth the pros can offer is just too tempting. And thus, the O.J. Mayo saga is sure to repeat itself.
Joules — May 14, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Given that no one has solved all our problems yet, I don’t expect Millennials to do so but I’m thrilled to see that so many are concerned for their fellow man.
Joules — May 14, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Given that no one has solved all our problems yet, I don’t expect Millennials to do so but I’m thrilled to see that so many are concerned for their fellow man.
jdbo — May 15, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Looking to your review of Speed Racer… probably just to disagree with you vehemently.
The sensory overload may not work for everyone (epileptics in particular should avoid this), but those who can process the visuals will likely love the film. The simple storyline and stylized acting provides a pleasingly simple baseline allowing the directors to push the sound and visuals even further than they could otherwise. And no, I’ve never tried acid, but I do enjoy the Cartoon Network.
That said, the Allam-Hitchens resemblance is startling. Had I known what Hitchens looks like I’d have been very distracted while watching the film.
I like this, James, and of course it applies to lots of things other than biotechnologies as well: e.g. air conditioning, high speed internet, cable TV, microwaves, air bags, carseats for seven-year-olds, cribs for infants, pasteurized foods, and so on. Our apparent “need” for things like those latter four examples is magnified by the fact that government sees fit to mandate them. But the overall arc of the story – we invent some new stuff, it helps us to do some new stuff, and then soon enough we have a brand-new need – is pretty much the same. A veritable paradox of freedom.
James — May 16, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Something to reiterate here about the paragraph quoted above is that there are other much cleaner and more courageous languages in which judicial activists can talk. Look at Brown vs. Board, for instance, a hopeless pamphlet from a constitutional law perspective but a towering achievement of practical Establishment liberal activism from a sheerly political one. Warren essentially DECLARES separateness to be necessarily unequal, with the footnote to Swedish sociological data more or less superfluous. I want to say more about this kind of declarative politics, specifically in the context of Aristotelian thoughts about what politics has to be in order for it to exist at all, but that’ll have to wait for a moment…
Did you notice how utterly laugh free “Speed Racer” was? I think that hurt its b.o. potential. But it all boils down to the built-in audience factor. Those with memories of the tv show are too old to be interested in a kiddie film, and today’s kids don’t know “Speed Racer” from the “Banana Splits.”
Hey, there’s a movie waiting to happen …
Rheoryn — May 20, 2008 at 11:43 am
I bear multiple copies of chromosomes. I have XX, XY and XXY sets in my cells. Depending on where you take the test, you get a different result.
What am I? How do you define my medical sex? I don’t want to go into the gory details of the other aspects of your definition of male and female, but let’s the trend of a little from column A and B continues through the rest.
Matt S. — May 20, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Don’t you mean third volume?
Matt S. — May 20, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Or rather, I’ve owned volume 2 for awhile and thought volume three was about to come out.
James Poulos — May 20, 2008 at 1:13 pm
It’s true that I’m playing catch-up. Hopefully in my infinite free time I can have something of use to say about “The Jew of Culture.”
As a libertarian, I see your point. But you forgt one thing in your analysis of the merits of Luke and Han: which one of them has the fucking sweet-ass lightsaber?
As a libertarian, I see your point. But you forgt one thing in your analysis of the merits of Luke and Han: which one of them has the fucking sweet-ass lightsaber?
Nerd alert! — May 21, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Wookiee is spelled with two Es.
Nerd alert! — May 21, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Wookiee is spelled with two Es.
JB — May 21, 2008 at 5:56 pm
That first long quote about John Wayne and American ass-kickery is from P.J. O’Rourke, not Hunter Thompson.
JB — May 21, 2008 at 5:56 pm
That first long quote about John Wayne and American ass-kickery is from P.J. O’Rourke, not Hunter Thompson.
Josh Thomson — May 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm
The idea that the Empire represented an improvement in the galaxy, that somehow a corrupt dictatorship kept in power by brute force that was exercised regularly and indiscriminately, somehow represents an improvement over a corrupt republic that failed to govern effectively seems a bit odd to me. (Unless one thinks that wiping out entire planets and enslaving the populations of others is a sign of stability.) But then again, I grew up idolizing the Star Wars films, so maybe this is just a continuation of the nerd alert above….
Josh Thomson — May 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm
The idea that the Empire represented an improvement in the galaxy, that somehow a corrupt dictatorship kept in power by brute force that was exercised regularly and indiscriminately, somehow represents an improvement over a corrupt republic that failed to govern effectively seems a bit odd to me. (Unless one thinks that wiping out entire planets and enslaving the populations of others is a sign of stability.) But then again, I grew up idolizing the Star Wars films, so maybe this is just a continuation of the nerd alert above….
Your first Hunter Thompson quote sounds suspiciously like P.J. O’Rourke.
mattc — May 21, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Don’t you EVER think about criticizing Will Smith.
Isn’t your hyposthesis on America essentially…that American (and American political philosophy) exists to simply to counterbalance nonexistance? Very Darwinian.
If that’s the gist of it, the Never Ending Story is a better movie reference.
mattc — May 21, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Don’t you EVER think about criticizing Will Smith.
Isn’t your hyposthesis on America essentially…that American (and American political philosophy) exists to simply to counterbalance nonexistance? Very Darwinian.
If that’s the gist of it, the Never Ending Story is a better movie reference.
James Poulos — May 21, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Sorry, foax – PJ it is. Thanks for keeping me sharp…!
James Poulos — May 21, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Sorry, foax – PJ it is. Thanks for keeping me sharp…!
Mike — May 21, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Why not a slightly LESS American America? Less disorderly and crime-ridden, less warmongering and power-crazed. Less, less, less, less, less. Not the America of John Wayne, but the America of Harding and Coolidge, may their memories be a blessing.
Mike — May 21, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Why not a slightly LESS American America? Less disorderly and crime-ridden, less warmongering and power-crazed. Less, less, less, less, less. Not the America of John Wayne, but the America of Harding and Coolidge, may their memories be a blessing.
keshmeshi — May 21, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I never thought Star Wars analysis could be so boring.
keshmeshi — May 21, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I never thought Star Wars analysis could be so boring.
Oh, come on, you’re just playing games. The word “intervention” has a simple meaning that encompasses any military action regardless of circumstances. This isn’t brain surgery.
James Poulos — May 22, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Well that’s the problem, isn’t it? If ‘intervention’ means anything with guns, it’s such an abstract term that the important differences between defensive, preemptive, preventive, and aggressive war are completely obscured. That’s horrible for public discourse and makes for crap foreign policy besides. I’m really not trying to belabor the semantics. Calling everything an intervention makes it almost impossible to make sound moral or political judgments about what’s been done, what we’re doing, and what we should do abroad.
Karen MacLaughlin — May 22, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“The legacy of political correctness is a will to illiteracy, a conscious destruction of particular meaning as an affront to abstract principles, an attack on the facticity of words in favor of their plasticity and contingency. We now want, and have created, a vocabulary of words designed to have no reliable meaning.”
Thank you for stating this so clearly. All I can do is weep.
Karen MacLaughlin — May 22, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“The legacy of political correctness is a will to illiteracy, a conscious destruction of particular meaning as an affront to abstract principles, an attack on the facticity of words in favor of their plasticity and contingency. We now want, and have created, a vocabulary of words designed to have no reliable meaning.”
Thank you for stating this so clearly. All I can do is weep.
That’s totally absurd. It’s like saying that calling everything edible “food” obscures the difference between fruit, vegetables, meats, grains, and dairy products, and that this somehow makes it impossible to discuss our diet.
davidwag — May 23, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Wait – Jimmy Kimmel guest-hosts for Larry King? When/how did this happen? And is he wearing Larry’s outfit as a joke, or is that required wardrobe for the post?
Sonny Bunch — May 23, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Yeah, I don’t know why Jimmy Kimmel was guest-hosting. And isn’t that outfit something else? My my.
Next question: Since when does the guy who pioneered “and now, girls jumping on trampolines” get to criticize how someone else seeks entertainment? Furthermore, I get the fact that you felt insulted by someone posting that you looked intoxicated, Jimmy, but a.) you do, in fact, always look intoxicated (he looked like he had smoked about five joints in the above clip) and b.) it’s a joke. Get over yourself.
All that being said: Good on Jimmy. She deserves every bit of merciless excoriation she receives.
You praise the Limoncello and blast the Careful Man’s Peachy Punch as revolting? Blasphemy!
James Poulos — May 23, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Hey — I said less undrinkable-sounding. LESS! Look — I’m a reasonable man, if not always careful: name your time, place, and 90 closest friends, and I’ll show up for Peachy Punch with bells on.
Red Stripe is indeed awesome, but ‘ve never known anybody who’s drank more than 2 and not had, er… intestinal problems.
S. Aleta — May 25, 2008 at 10:21 pm
She’s a kid. Blame whoever hired her and gave her “editorial power.” Don’t give kids guns or power over gossip pages. The rep for the company should be taking the heat. What cowards, including J. Kimmel, who should pick on someone his own size (in his own income bracket). He’s acting like a cur here.
Hugh V McLachlan — May 26, 2008 at 5:13 pm
‘I shouldn’t need to say this, and it’s quite horrific that any professor of philosophy should need it explained, but the ethical principle behind keeping the human species pure holds that our ethics are human ethics because we are human beings.’
This is drivel. It makes no sense. You have not specified any ethical principle that is infringed by the proposed research. I do not say that there is none. However, if there is such a principle, what is it?
The arguments against the creation of mixed species animals sound similar to the sorts of arguments that have been used in South Africa in the past to attack sex between blacks and non-blacks, i.e. it is unnatural, it is gainst the will of God and can result in the creation of sub-human beings.
People need to check out the real sleeper of cheap beers.
Schlitz!!!
We did a taste test at a BBQ with 20 participants. Blind tasted 3 beers
Bud Light
Schlitz
Busch
The winner by a landslide was Schlitz with 13 votes.
Aaron — May 29, 2008 at 1:46 pm
What – no Pimms cup? With cucumber and mint (and real eurolemonade – no Canada dry or worse, Sprite). Best with a splash of good fragrant gin – Aviation, for instance, or Hendricks (no Tanq 10, which is swill…)
P — May 29, 2008 at 6:40 pm
There’s no such thing as a summer drinking “don’t”. That’s absurd, James.
Phoenix — May 29, 2008 at 8:08 pm
What about the caipirinha? It is the best cocktail for summer. Try making it with the original lime recipe and with variations using fresh fruit. Cuca Fresca is the best, most mixable, cachaca that I have come across.
endorendil — May 30, 2008 at 7:39 am
Seems that you’re right in not trusting that page. According to the state department, terrorist attacks were flat in Iraq between 2006 and 2007. The number of casualties caused by them went actually up by about 6000. If Al-Qaeda’s attacks really went down from 60% of the total to 6%, the only conclusion is that there is now another terrorist organization (or several) that is just as prolific as AQ used to be, just more lethal. I’m not sure that that is a good thing.
In addition, the state department does not believe that AQ is beaten – they see them as restructuring and reconstituting as fast as their organization is compromised (see the report on terrorism it released).
To me it sounds like AQ top leadership is trying to disavow the carnage in Iraq that some of its affiliates are perpetrating. Or perhaps AQ is just bemoaning the loss of control over the movement it thought it led. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that we’re getting any closer to beating down the movement.
Official Washington is jumping on this information because it happens to be politically convenient: it gives a figleaf for the start of the retreat.
Joe Carter cited your post on his blog (www.evangelicaloutpost.com). I wrote up a response to it in the comments and here it is for your reference as well:
Goodness. “A lot to discuss with his wife and family?” [referring to Martha Nussbaum's claim that a politician in Europe so caught would not be sanctioned in the policial system] What a trivialization! What an incredible moral deafness to the reality of adultery, betrayal, and intimacy! To get such language from a moral philosopher ought to trigger spontaneous rounds of flabbergasted scoffing. But instead, we practical moral philosophers of everyday life seem to have convinced ourselves that we don’t have the luxury of counting on our public officials to exercise a minimum of self-control — even if only for the relatively few number of years they’re in office!
There’s gotta be a word to describe it when someone announces they consider something to be very important but then acts as if that value has no meaning at all. Here Poulos tells us that adultery is very important because it is a betrayal of intimacy. Fair enough but he tells us this because he is saying adultery needs to be attacked publically. But isn’t the public the very opposite of the intimate?
This is not a trivial distinction. A wife who privately learns of her husband’s adultery is free to use a host of tools at her disposal to address the attack on her marriage. One of them is to make the issue public by divorcing him, making her knowledge of the affair public or both.
What happens, though, when adultery is considered ‘fair game’ for political punditry? The wife is not empowered by learning of her husband’s affair but blindsided. She does not have the option of dealing with her husband privately while avoiding public humuliation. In fact, she probably faces tremendous pressure to “stand by her husband” for the sake of her family. In a culture where adultery is not considered fair game for punditry the wife has the leverage to threaten the wayward husband with the possibility of a public divorce in order to motivate him to reform for the sake of his family.
Only after the wife is put through the humiliation of the public press conference can she quietly decide to divorce her husband. If she doesn’t, though, he has in a sense won since his family has been ’saved’ and he can now return to politics as a ‘reformed man’. I’m not saying the husband enjoyed the public attention but it is the wife who bears the brunt of the insult and it is unjust since she is not at fault. After the dust settles, the wife has no real leverage besides pressing the ’self-destruct’ button and filing for divorce. So what’s been accomplished? You’ve basically ended up attacking the wife and afterwards telling her the choice she has is remain in the marriage in a humuliating status of submission or destroy her marriage. This is done in the name of being ‘pro-family’ and ‘pro-marriage’.
Poulos seems to suffer from the “we must destroy the village to save it” meme. Being able to attack politicians who have affairs is just so appealing (and politically it always carries with it the hope that when the opposing party has someone who seems undefeatable there’s always the long hope that the press will discover another woman on the side) that he is blind to the fact that he is actually advocating a state of affairs that is not healthy to marriage.
Joe Carter cited your post on his blog (www.evangelicaloutpost.com). I wrote up a response to it in the comments and here it is for your reference as well:
Goodness. “A lot to discuss with his wife and family?” [referring to Martha Nussbaum's claim that a politician in Europe so caught would not be sanctioned in the policial system] What a trivialization! What an incredible moral deafness to the reality of adultery, betrayal, and intimacy! To get such language from a moral philosopher ought to trigger spontaneous rounds of flabbergasted scoffing. But instead, we practical moral philosophers of everyday life seem to have convinced ourselves that we don’t have the luxury of counting on our public officials to exercise a minimum of self-control — even if only for the relatively few number of years they’re in office!
There’s gotta be a word to describe it when someone announces they consider something to be very important but then acts as if that value has no meaning at all. Here Poulos tells us that adultery is very important because it is a betrayal of intimacy. Fair enough but he tells us this because he is saying adultery needs to be attacked publically. But isn’t the public the very opposite of the intimate?
This is not a trivial distinction. A wife who privately learns of her husband’s adultery is free to use a host of tools at her disposal to address the attack on her marriage. One of them is to make the issue public by divorcing him, making her knowledge of the affair public or both.
What happens, though, when adultery is considered ‘fair game’ for political punditry? The wife is not empowered by learning of her husband’s affair but blindsided. She does not have the option of dealing with her husband privately while avoiding public humuliation. In fact, she probably faces tremendous pressure to “stand by her husband” for the sake of her family. In a culture where adultery is not considered fair game for punditry the wife has the leverage to threaten the wayward husband with the possibility of a public divorce in order to motivate him to reform for the sake of his family.
Only after the wife is put through the humiliation of the public press conference can she quietly decide to divorce her husband. If she doesn’t, though, he has in a sense won since his family has been ’saved’ and he can now return to politics as a ‘reformed man’. I’m not saying the husband enjoyed the public attention but it is the wife who bears the brunt of the insult and it is unjust since she is not at fault. After the dust settles, the wife has no real leverage besides pressing the ’self-destruct’ button and filing for divorce. So what’s been accomplished? You’ve basically ended up attacking the wife and afterwards telling her the choice she has is remain in the marriage in a humuliating status of submission or destroy her marriage. This is done in the name of being ‘pro-family’ and ‘pro-marriage’.
Poulos seems to suffer from the “we must destroy the village to save it” meme. Being able to attack politicians who have affairs is just so appealing (and politically it always carries with it the hope that when the opposing party has someone who seems undefeatable there’s always the long hope that the press will discover another woman on the side) that he is blind to the fact that he is actually advocating a state of affairs that is not healthy to marriage.
I saw “Lady in the Water” after all the horrible reviews/awful press/etc. and it still knocked my socks off. That’s how bad it was. Not sure there’s anything left in Night’s creative tank, but “The Happening” should give us a good indication of his current talent level. I’m always suspicious of creative types who are super-resistant to criticism,though.
Sonny Bunch — June 2, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I don’t throw around words like “unwatchable” lightly; I’ve never walked out of a movie, and I’ve never stopped watching one halfway through while at home. But man…I was sorely, sorely tempted to do so while watching ‘Lady in the Water.’ Dreadful stuff.
Will — June 3, 2008 at 4:19 pm
This statement is interesting:
“For a number of us foreign policy hawks, the problem with the Iraq war wasn’t the war itself but George W. Bush’s totally inept handling of it, compounded by his refusal to adapt to situations on the ground and loyalty to Donald Rumsfeld.”
I hear this justification pretty frequently (it’s even gotten it’s own pejorative label – “the incompetence dodge”), and I’m genuinely curious: What policies do you think would have salvaged the situation in Iraq circa 2003?
If anything, this war has convinced me that there are certain structural barriers to successfully occupying a potentially hostile Third World country that are extremely difficult (if not impossible) to overcome. We were (and still are) dealing with an heavily armed, intensely sectarian population with a tendency towards religious extremism. Throw in a native culture most American service-members are unfamiliar with and the inevitable resentment provoked by foreign occupiers, and I’m just not sure if tactical or operational changes would have saved the administration’s grand strategy.
Sonny Bunch — June 3, 2008 at 4:42 pm
This feels like its own post (one I don’t quite have time to write at the moment), but looking at the post-invasion chaos and the insufficient number of troops/atrocious strategy in the Sunni Triangle from late ‘04 to ‘06 are both good places to start. These problems can both be traced back to the Rumsfeldian insistence on lighter, faster-moving quick-strike forces rather than the Powell Doctrine, “go in with overwhelming force” option or Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy. I’ll go into this more tomorrow, I think…
Bill — June 4, 2008 at 8:46 am
It is scary to contemplate the ferociousness with which Clinton will pursue the VP slot on Obama’s ticket. It seems that for Obama to truly have his moment, which he richly deserves, he must make it clear that she will not be his running mate. I don’t agree with all of Obama’s political philosophy, but I’ll be happy to vote for him (if the psychopath Clinton is not on the ticket); he’s a good, decent, and admirable man.
Bernie Berkowitz — June 4, 2008 at 10:24 am
Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I hope that HRC gets the nod for Secty of DHEW. Conceivably she could do some good there. Additionally it would get her out of the Senate and let another Democrat in.
Regarding the threats of the damage she’d do in this election, I imagine even the press will grow tired of all the rants, and people will just become less interested in anything the Clintons have to say and join Ralph Nader in deserved obscurity. Hopefully by July 3.
Karen — June 4, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Wow, I can’t believe the majority of the tone I’m hearing in these comments. Apparently most Americans no longer consider adultery really “wrong,” it’s just something that’s between a man and his wife. I assume this man stood up in a church (or somewhere) and made a VOW to his wife that he would keep himself for her for all time. A person who refuses to keep the most basic vow of fidelity to what should be the most important person in his life becomes a betrayer, a cheater, a liar. Sex is not something that should be lightly tossed around, and it should NEVER be something that is shared with someone other than your spouse if you have promised before God to be faithful to that spouse. Illicit sex is also not some irresistable force that people just “fall into,” unlike how Hollywood likes to portray it–there are basic boundaries of decency and morality that a “good person” will fence themselves with to protect themselves from the temptation of an affair. You are dead right to say that this man is a bad person for deliberately cheating, betraying, and lying not only to his wife and his family but also to the public, who trusts him to be an honest and honorable man.
Karen — June 4, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Wow, I can’t believe the majority of the tone I’m hearing in these comments. Apparently most Americans no longer consider adultery really “wrong,” it’s just something that’s between a man and his wife. I assume this man stood up in a church (or somewhere) and made a VOW to his wife that he would keep himself for her for all time. A person who refuses to keep the most basic vow of fidelity to what should be the most important person in his life becomes a betrayer, a cheater, a liar. Sex is not something that should be lightly tossed around, and it should NEVER be something that is shared with someone other than your spouse if you have promised before God to be faithful to that spouse. Illicit sex is also not some irresistable force that people just “fall into,” unlike how Hollywood likes to portray it–there are basic boundaries of decency and morality that a “good person” will fence themselves with to protect themselves from the temptation of an affair. You are dead right to say that this man is a bad person for deliberately cheating, betraying, and lying not only to his wife and his family but also to the public, who trusts him to be an honest and honorable man.
I’m not a fan of the campari and soda. If you’re going to go the campari route (and I heartily recommend it) opt for the Americano or Negroni, both of which are excellent and good for summer months.
Will — June 4, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Fair enough, and I look forward to the post. I’m unsure, however, if the “Powell Doctrine” of overwhelming force is actually responsive to the demands of counterinsurgency in Iraq circa 2003-2004.
First, it’s unclear that more troops wouldn’t have provoked greater resentment against the US occupation. More importantly, however, is the fact that a good deal of the surge’s success relied upon a tactical alliance between the US and various sectarian militias against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Given the fact that the impetus for this “alliance of convenience” existed only after Al Qaeda had totally discredited itself, I’m not sure if any American policy would have been able to recreate the surge’s success in 2004 or 2005.
Sonny Bunch — June 4, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I’m going to have to put off that longer post until tomorrow (a couple of deadlines came together, leading to my lighter-than usual posting today), but I think that the resentment against the US occupation wasn’t so much a resentment towards the troops as it was resentment towards the troops not having control of the situation. More troops could have kept a tighter lid on the violence/theft, leading to a happier populace. But again, I’ll get into it more tomorrow…
Andrew Miller — June 5, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Both Toobin’s piece and Labash’s show the same thing- Roger Stone is the most dangerous man in America. Watch out, Barack Obama!
Will — June 5, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I’m sure you have better things to do than respond to random comments, and I doubt I’m changing anyone’s mind, but I do have a few problems with your analysis:
1.) Would there have been enough troops available to adequately police the country and secure the borders? We deployed 23 divisions in post-war Japan (an ethnically coherent state, by the way) to provide security and restore basic services. Given the fact that Japan is roughly the same size of Iraq, would a comparatively paltry troop increase really have made a difference? I was under the impression that we simply didn’t have enough soldiers to replicate the military personnel-to-occupied civilians ratio we maintained in post-war Japan and Germany.
2.) You briefly allude to a problem I raised in an earlier comment:
“The tipping point finally came sometime after the surge in 2007 when we had enough troops to clear AND hold cities and Iraqis got tired of the death squads roaming the streets.”
A great deal of the surge’s success is predicated on the tactical alliance between the United States and various ethnic militias against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Would the impetus for this collaboration have existed in 2003 or 2004? I doubt it, as Al Qaeda had yet to alienate the entire populace through a series of devastating attacks on civilian targets. In your hypothetical counter-factual, the United States would still be fighting both Al Qaeda and the indigenous resistance movement.
3.) Finally, you write:
“All I can say is that history–both American and otherwise–would argue differently. The Romans, Greeks, and Persians all spent centuries pacifying third world countries and imposing their will on the populace; America did the same thing in Japan and South Korea.”
Has a modern democracy ever successfully pacified an ethnically diverse, economically backwards country whose dominant socio-religious culture is averse (or at least ambivalent) to political liberalism? The successful examples you cite – Japan, Korea – were ethnically homogeneous states who were either allied with us or utterly defeated by us on the battlefield.
The Roman occupation of Gaul is hardly a hopeful precedent, either. I’m not sure our political system could survive brutality comparable to the Roman siege of Alesia. The costs of completely “taking the gloves off” would be prohibitively high for any liberal society.
The only example I can think of that bolsters your analysis is the United States’ occupation of the Phillipines. And even then, the country was beset by only one major cultural cleavage (Muslims v. Non-Muslims) and remains the basket case to this day.
I thought the article was pretty interesting as well, though I can imagine the likely liberal response: see, the problem is poverty, full stop. Their economic situation didn’t change, just their location. You can hear intimations of that in the latter part of the article where govt types talk about trying to relocate the social services these folks depend on.
Sonny Bunch — June 6, 2008 at 11:07 am
Well, as long as the boss at my day job doesn’t complain, I’ll keep responding (though probably more briefly).
1.) I think you’re right, we didn’t have enough troops (especially with the conflict in Afghanistan), which was kind of my point: it’s not that we were holding a ton of troops out, we just didn’t have them. Paring down the military in the ’90s/early ’00s led to an inadequate number of troops to fight a two-front war. (In other words, when I say “more troops” I mean a larger army.) This was both Rumsfeld and his predecessors’ fault.
2.) I would still argue that the resentment of Iraqi civilians had more to do with a lack of security than anything else. The resentment created by constant sectarian violence could have been avoided, and then we never would have needed to reach that tipping point in ‘07.
3.) Though I’m no expert on modern/recent-modern European society, I think you could certainly argue that the British and the Dutch “pacified” Africa (and India) for a very, very long time. The reason they failed, ultimately, was that their goals were different from our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan: they wanted to exploit those countries for resources; we don’t have too much interest in colonialism. We simply want allies who enjoy the same freedoms we do and stop exporting terror.
Sonny Bunch — June 6, 2008 at 1:25 pm
You’re probably right. Which is why I think Fisman’s article is so key…poverty itself isn’t the problem, it’s the behavior engaged in by the poor that’s the problem. Of course, for saying this I’m a classist boor. I really can’t wait for this Rosin article to hit the web…
You can “hope” that Obama will offer class-based instead of race-based AA, but it’ll be an unrequited one. My guess is that he’d just layer over a class-based system on top of the race-based one, so that the poor black kid got the most preference points, the poor latino a few less, and the poor white one even less. And that’s the real best-case scenario here…
You can “hope” that Obama will offer class-based instead of race-based AA, but it’ll be an unrequited one. My guess is that he’d just layer over a class-based system on top of the race-based one, so that the poor black kid got the most preference points, the poor latino a few less, and the poor white one even less. And that’s the real best-case scenario here…
You can “hope” that Obama will offer class-based instead of race-based AA, but it’ll be an unrequited one. My guess is that he’d just layer over a class-based system on top of the race-based one, so that the poor black kid got the most preference points, the poor latino a few less, and the poor white one even less. And that’s the real best-case scenario here…
Sonny Bunch — June 7, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Hope and change, man…hope and change.
(All I’ve got going for me at this point are Obama’s slogans…)
Sonny Bunch — June 7, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Hope and change, man…hope and change.
(All I’ve got going for me at this point are Obama’s slogans…)
Sonny Bunch — June 7, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Hope and change, man…hope and change.
(All I’ve got going for me at this point are Obama’s slogans…)
Corey — June 8, 2008 at 11:56 pm
The Celtics must be an exception to the defensive 3 seconds rule. They sometimes have 2 or even 3 guys guarding the same guy in the lane. It ruins everything for players like Kobe and Lebron.
Sonny Bunch — June 9, 2008 at 10:10 am
You’re absolutely right. Everyone praises the Celtics’ “switching” on defense, when by “switching” they mean “clogging the lane so no one can drive.” It is absurd.
When I read movie reviews in the Friday paper, I typically gloss over the wire reviews and concentrate on the paper’s homegrown critics. I have a relationship with them – and not with the wire folks (not to discredit them). I know their tastes, their style and their opinions. That helps me consider how seriously I should take their views.
Sometimes, it’s helpful to have a critic with whom I regularly disagree – as long as there’s some consistency with his/her approach.
Sonny Bunch — June 9, 2008 at 10:58 am
Exactly. I mean, national critics have their place–as I constantly write, I love Anthony Lane; he’s perfect for the high brow national audience. Owen Gleiberman at EW is a great middlebrow critic. But there’s something to be said for a homegrown critic, and something that’s lost in the rush to consolidation.
Yet there’s still a hunger out there for criticism. When I posted my link to my “Iron Man” review at Rotten Tomatoes the hits I got was staggering. People still care about critics … but maybe they’re willing to try online critics as well as print types.
This one really caught me off guard. The family dysfunction here is mesmerizing. Clearly, the parents didn’t give their kids the self-worth needed to repudiate their antiquated role models. Yet the director blames our culture all the same for their woes. Tricky terrain, to be sure, but certainly thought provoking through and through.
Sonny Bunch — June 11, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I think there’s an entire movie to be made about Mike Bell and the effect of the celebrity culture on him. Not steroid culture, per se, but him and the failure of his parents to make him realize that being in the big lights isn’t the be all and end all of life. The “American Dream” is not at all what Mike Bell aspires for.
Will — June 12, 2008 at 3:10 pm
So what’s the conservative/libertarian response to the “you can take people out of the hood but not the ‘hood out of the people” problem? I’m not a big fan of massive government mandates, but to me this piece suggests that the only way to deal with persistent poverty is to buff up our early-childhood intervention programs.
I used to think that people would naturally grasp the desirability of obtaining certain beneficial social skills once they were exposed to the right environment, but now I’m not so sure.
Sonny Bunch — June 12, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I don’t think there is one. The government can’t force people to behave like civilized members of society, short of implanting shock collars in recalcitrant criminals or locking up everyone we deem unfit for polite society. I think the real trick here is for liberals to give up on the idea that they can develop a magic bullet to cure poverty and bad behavior by the poor. We could also consider the possibility that it is better to have concentrated pockets of poverty/crime than spreading it all over the place and impacting decent people more than is necessary.
Will — June 12, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I’m willing to accept that poverty may always be part and parcel of the human condition, but what really worries me are the systemic barriers to social mobility that seem to be locked in place for generations.
For years, conservatives have eloquently described how a lack of “social capital” can hamper individual development, and I think this article’s findings confirm a lot of what they’ve been saying. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much effort to reorient the welfare state around dealing with persistent social deficiencies. I think that’s a better option than consigning our urban poor to crappy inner-city ghettos.
Beth — June 13, 2008 at 11:10 am
The dude isn’t a good actor, but he’s really attractive. I can’t take that away from him.
Will — June 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm
“When you engage in murderous activities outside the conventions of internationally agreed upon warfare, you lose your rights. You shouldn’t gain new ones heretofore never seen by our enemies.”
You lose rights only after you’ve actually been convicted of something. Being picked up by the US military in a confused combat environment isn’t exactly foolproof evidence that you’re a “monster.”
Sonny Bunch — June 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The whole concept of “rights” are entirely different in a “combat environment,” however. That’s my point. You shouldn’t get treated like a common criminal when you get caught consorting with terrorists engaging in activities counter to the established conventions of warfare.
Sonny Bunch — June 13, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Y’know, Will, I don’t think I’m being entirely clear here. I should strongly reiterate: holding innocent people in prison indefinitely while charging them with no crime is a bad thing. The military needs to devise a way to figure out who should be held out of military necessity, and who should be released, and they need to devise it quickly.
But giving suspected battlefield terrorists the rights and protections granted in a U.S. civilian court is not the answer. It will almost certainly lead to an excess of terrorists being freed and returned to the battlefield. And it’s a slap in the face towards decades of military jurisprudence. The suspected terrorists will now have more rights than the average captured German officers during World War II. I can’t help but feel that this is a mistake.
Will — June 13, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I agree that terror suspects probably shouldn’t be tried within the same legal framework as prisoners of war. But the court’s decision determined that the pre-trial combatant status review tribunals provided insufficient procedural protections to satisfy habeas corpus.
Maybe I misunderstood the decision, but I don’t think the Supreme Court abolished the entire Military Commissions Act or dictated an alternative legal framework for enemy combatants. Protecting habeas corpus does not provide prisoners with rights equivalent to US civilians, it only satisfies a baseline constitutional requirement.
Wahlberg fascinates me. Audiences either get the good Wahlberg performances (”The Departed,” “Invincible”) or the really awful ones (”The Yards,” “The Italian Job”). He’s got no middle mode …
It’s easy to pin it on his limited range, but perhaps he simply clicks with some directors and doesn’t with others.
Women I know do respond to him in a very visceral way, which should keep him employed for the forseeable future.
Sonny Bunch — June 13, 2008 at 5:06 pm
The problem with your argument is, I think, that no foreign combatants, legal or otherwise, have EVER enjoyed the right to access in American courts. Johnson v. Eisentrager made that pretty clear. So regardless of the reasoning–even if it’s simply to determine their habeas status–we’re granting presumed terrorists more rights than any enemy in the history of our country. This strikes me, in a word, as ludicrous.
Matt S. — June 14, 2008 at 2:05 pm
You should read the essay in the latest Atlantic Monthly on women and work.
Roger — June 16, 2008 at 12:47 am
I read Fantastic Voyage, The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity is Near, and they changed my life. I even found some of his lectures on Itunes and I find myself impatiently awaiting his next book.
Recently read another incredible book that I can’t recommend highly enough, especially to all of you who also love Ray Kurzweil’s work. The book is “”My Stroke of Insight”" by Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor. I had heard Dr Taylor’s talk on the TED dot com site and I have to say, it changed my world. It’s spreading virally all over the internet and the book is now a NYTimes Bestseller, so I’m not the only one, but it is the most amazing talk, and the most impactful book I’ve read in years. (Dr T also was named to Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People and Oprah had her on her Soul Series last month and I hear they’re making a movie about her story so you may already have heard of her)
If you haven’t heard Dr Taylor’s TEDTalk, that’s an absolute must. The book is more and deeper and better, but start with the video (it’s 18 minutes). Basically, her story is that she was a 37 yr old Harvard brain scientist who had a massive stroke in the left hemisphere of her brain. Because of her knowledge of how the brain works, and thanks to her amazingly loving and kind mother, she eventually fully recovered (and that part of the book detailing how she did it is inspirational).
There’s a lot of learning and magic in the book, but the reason I so highly recommend My Stroke of Insight to this discussion, is because we have powerfully intelligent left brains that are rational, logical, sequential and grounded in detail and time, and then we have our kinesthetic right brains, where we experience intuition and peace and euphoria. Now that Kurzweil has got us taking all those vitamins and living our best “”Fantastic Voyage”" , the absolute necessity is that we read My Stroke of Insight and learn from Dr Taylor how to achieve balance between our right and left brains. Enjoy!
KSE — June 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“What´s my concern? Not that people will, if ´left to their own devices´, fall into a morass of sinful liberaltarianism. (Or rather, that´s not my political concern.) Consider what lurks at the heart of the conservative fear: that liberaltarian lifestyles are, individually and socially, actually sustainable. Because if that´s so then the whole argument changes, and conservatives suspect, not without reason, that once you go down that road then conservatism degenerates into an argument about tempo and then into an aesthetic argument. And then into a losing argument. How to escape?
Well, you escape by pointing out that liberaltarianism is sustainable socially and individually only by shifting costs onto different institutions for managing those costs. And indeed new costs are piled up. Agony goes down, anxiety goes up, to take just one example. The costs of proving that a child can be raised just as well by preschool daycare as by a mommy and daddy afford another kind of example. The conservative argument ought to be that the costs and institutional management techniques propagated by social and individual liberaltarian lifestyles are unappealing from a utilitarian perspective, unbecoming from a philosophical perspective (Nietzschean or Christian!), and incommensurable with the exercise of true liberty from a political perspective.”
More on this, please!
Paul V — June 18, 2008 at 10:09 am
I voted Hilary Clinton, and only support Hilary Clinton, No matter what Hilary Does suspend her campaign concede her campaign. No matter what Hilary does she could even support Obama and campaign for Obama I will never Vote for Barack Obama, I do think America is ready for a black president, just not Barack Obama,,, The way The Democratic party handle this election with the Corporate Media propaganda the whole election, Turned this election upside down,, Obama could of ran over someone,, like Haley Berry, No one would care and still vote,, Obama..
There several million Voter right now like my self, will not ever vote for Barack Obama, Many like my self will be Voting for McCain, my reason is simple,, the Obama voter came on CNN & MSNBC and said if obama does not win the primary, Obama supporter will vote for McCain, Democratic party did not do anything to the obama camp to stop ,, why is obama party splitting the party in half, Now pelosi and many other are blaming Hilary and kept on with the propaganda Corporate Media, Obama Said on the new so many time,, does not Matter, if your Democrat or Republican,, you want the right person for the right Job,, He is so right,,when He said that we wanted Hilary,, Well Congrats to Obama his supporter got him to the primary,,,but He will never win the election,, for President, I will not stop with my blogging,, who is the best man for the job between Barack & McCain,, will vote for McCain he will be way better than Barack Obama, I can put up for McCain for 4 years and Hilary Can run again, Pelosi and the rest of the democrat party,, days are number at this point, For pushing Hilary out and ruining her Career, Even now During Clinton Exit speech,, Democratic party Told Hilary if she does not back there little puppet Barack Obama they will ruin her career,, In my opinion They all ready Ruined Hilary Clinton Career, Right Now I am going listen to one thing Barack Obama said, and that is, like I said, it does not matter if your Democrat or republican who is the right person for the job,,,, Hillary supporter need to stick together, Vote for McCain or just not vote for we need the right person,,, Hilary is up on stage right now saying what pelosi and the democratic party are telling her what to do,, or Economy is down and the way the propaganda Media is,, we are turning into a 3rd world country,, by rigging the election thru the media, Hilary Supporter who really want Hilary to be president Need to vote for McCain or just not Vote for Barack Obama, let McCain win,, there nothing more he can do as president, Congress will not let him it Congress who controls everything,, not the president, Pelosi and the a lot of the democratic party ruined Hilary Career, If all Hilary Voter, stick together, than We can restore Hilary Career and make her President, in 4 years. if you vote for Obama we have to wait maybe 8 years or 4 years and republican will be office, if Obama wins the presidency he will only be 4 year term,,, I say give all your supporter not to the democratic party, but to Hilary Clinton.. democratic party needs all of them need to leave office and get fresh people in there, who can unite the party not keep it separated and force unity, to who they want not who the voter want,, Hilary would of won this election, DNC screwed her with Florida and Michigan if those vote were counted at the beginning she would of won this race along time ago..and for the sexist Media, Like CNN & MSNBC… will continue to not report the new but Make it up as they see fit, All Hilary supporter need to unit together.. and stick together,, Margaret Thatcher was prime Minister 30 years ago,, but American Men and New Bias, is keeping woman down for personal gain, Like Keith Oberman, & Chris Mathews Who are the biggest Sexist on this MSNBC stations
Paulidan — June 18, 2008 at 9:02 pm
And never mind that the vast majority of emissions come from coal powered plants.
Solving that would require liberals to overcome their deep seated fear of physics and actual learn what a nuclear reactor is and why its the safest, cleanest form of electricity,
KSE — June 19, 2008 at 11:18 am
“I know I have to be very careful to admit that wealth, longevity, and happiness are not trivialities. But they certainly and unquestionably depend upon a great collective appreciation for trivialities — a commitment to living in a relatively very trivial society.”
Yes!
I imagine the counterargument would go something like this: Our society may be trivial, but at least we’re not killing each other. It’s the “sentimental moralist’s” obsession with “thick identities” and “meaning” that is responsible for cultural conflict. And at the root of this obsession is an inability to identify, scrutinize and overcome our natural inclination toward our own, the wonderful feeling of bringing forth new life, etc.
I happen to think that the defender of this trivial society is seriously underestimating the (also natural) human inclination toward novelty. There are only so many things you can throw in an omelette. And when you’re not committed to your “rites” for any other reason than because they’re new and interesting, boredom, restlessness, anxiety, etc. will follow. I myself might be seriously underestimating our ability to combine cultures creatively, but the way I see it boredom is itself a path to conflict.
The argument for “radical change” wouldn’t be nearly as straightforward as you’re supposing, though. I mean, I agree with you that that caps or some other big government solution will have a negligible effect, and even then years down the road.
At the same time, I think the issue of global warming/climate change is in the process of becoming a much bigger issue for Americans – especially those, right now, who live along the Mississippi and are wondering whether the devastation coming their way might in some way be connnected. Which, some suggest, it might.
As we have more Katrinas, more Iowa Cities (and not coincidentally more people watching the Weather Channel) the sense that the weather/environment is doing really strange things and we might, you know, want to do something about it will grow. That doesn’t necessarily translate into support for the big governmental solution, and hopefull will translate more into individual action.
Sonny Bunch — June 19, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Paulidan: You’re right, nuclear power would be a great thing to get started on. I’m fully in favor of dotting the landscape with nuclear power plants in an attempt to reduce emissions and cheapen energy.
Gil: I think the American people realize that Katrina and Iowa City weren’t caused by “climate change,” or “global warming.” Katrina was a category 3 hurricane that managed to hit New Orleans dead on and take out an outdated, broken down levee system left vulnerable by decades of corruption at the state and local level. Iowa City is a different case altogether, a 100 year flood. But even then, I think people realize that these things happen.
I don’t know, maybe I’m just overestimating the intelligence of the general populace, but I think that if, after a decade of indoctrination about the evils of global warming/climate change from the mainstream media, the American people STILL consider it only the 7th most important issue of the day, they’re never going to change their mind on their own. And, even if they did, let’s be honest: individual action doesn’t mean much without massive industrial change, change that won’t occur without government mandates.
Arthur — June 19, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Any chance of consensus here?
What about a program that would involve subsidizing wind, solar, and nuclear? Given the increasing price of both coal and natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear are becoming relatively cheaper sources of energy.
What about discouraging the construction of coal-fired power plants in favor of nuclear ones?
What about spending money subsidizing mass transit, which more and more people want anyway, given that gas prices are going through the roof?
There are a lot of politically palatable,
even popular, partial ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
By the way, people are beginning to move away from the suburbs to central cities and inner suburbs? Why? Because of the increasing price of gasoline. No central planning here–just the free market at work.
Arthur — June 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Sorry, the 1st sentence of the last paragraph should be a declaration, not a question.
…that weather “extremes and their associated impacts are now changing” – becoming more severe. We can debate why that might be happening, but my point is that people turn on the news and see the flooding in Iowa; as Andrew Freedman noted a few weeks back at the WaPo’s Capital Weather Gang blog, “even typically storm-hardy residents of tornado-prone areas of the country have begun asking: what is going on?”
A lot of people are asking, “What is going on?”
It seems that what you’re saying is that IF something is going on (realizing you’re not conceding that point), then we’re simply screwed. Governmental action is too burdensome to the economy, individual action insufficient to make a dent.
Sonny Bunch — June 19, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Arthur: Like I said, I’m totally in favor of pushing for more nuclear power. I’m less convinced of the feasibility of wind/solar power, but hey, if it works, great. I don’t think anyone opposes reducing greenhouse emissions–what people oppose is ruining the economy to do so. Cleaner energy is better than energy reduction, which is the real-life effect of plans like Kyoto.
Gil: I agree the floods are bad (I’ve even blogged something to that effect!) but I don’t think there’s any evidence that global warming/climate change is the culprit. It’s just easy to yell “climate change!!” when something weird happens weather-wise.
But let’s, for a moment, hypothetically say climate change is occurring. My most likely reaction would probably be something along the lines of: Okay, we’ll adapt. We’ll try to reduce emissions, but it doesn’t make any sense to do so in a radical way because global warming has pluses as well as minuses. More farmland, fewer hurricanes, less brutal winters–good comes along with the bad. We humans are a pretty resilient people. We’ve survived ice ages, and I’d bet we can survive heat ages (for lack of a better term) as well.
orogeny — June 19, 2008 at 3:36 pm
This is just one more example of “conservatives” crying wolf whenever a change in our economic habits is required. When the Clean Air was passed conservatives and Big Business screamed that it would bankrupt our society. The Clean Water act was supposed to wipe out the economy. CAFE standards would destroy the auto industry. Doing away with chlorofluorocarbons was going to make AC so expensive that no one could afford it. Doing what is necessary to reduce our carbon emissions will be expensive for some industries. It will cause economic hardship for some. But, for every industry that suffers, there will be a new industry that benefits. Employment will go down in the polluting industries thtt cannot or will not adapt, but will skyrocket in those that do. Industries producing or taking advantage of new, non-polluting technologies will prosper and eventually take the place of those dinosaurs that cannot adapt. In the long run, the world economy will be better off for the changes that we must make to address this issue.
Will — June 19, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I don’t get your calculus here:
“Putin wants to put Russia back on the map, extorting the West with threats of withholding oil and bullying the former satellites of the USSR into accepting its hegemony. Would a new Cold War be a good thing? Probably not. But it’s preferable to letting an autocratic Russia push around our putative allies in the former Eastern bloc.”
While it may not be ideal to concede Russia a hazy sphere of regional influence, isn’t that preferable to reigniting a cold war that risks global nuclear annihilation?
Maybe that’s hyperbolic, but I don’t really understand why confronting Russia over issues like Georgia’s territorial sovereignty enhances vital US national interests. The biggest problem I have with your hawkish foreign policy perspective is that it seems to assume that countries like Russia are aggressively revisionist. I think Russia wants greater freedom of action in its near-abroad and more international influence, but I doubt its leadership is intent on challenging US primacy. Putin has certainly been more assertive than his immediate predecessors, but his ambitions seem positively modest when compared to, say, the Romanovs or the Politburo.
Will — June 19, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I don’t get your calculus here:
“Putin wants to put Russia back on the map, extorting the West with threats of withholding oil and bullying the former satellites of the USSR into accepting its hegemony. Would a new Cold War be a good thing? Probably not. But it’s preferable to letting an autocratic Russia push around our putative allies in the former Eastern bloc.”
While it may not be ideal to concede Russia a hazy sphere of regional influence, isn’t that preferable to reigniting a cold war that risks global nuclear annihilation?
Maybe that’s hyperbolic, but I don’t really understand why confronting Russia over issues like Georgia’s territorial sovereignty enhances vital US national interests. The biggest problem I have with your hawkish foreign policy perspective is that it seems to assume that countries like Russia are aggressively revisionist. I think Russia wants greater freedom of action in its near-abroad and more international influence, but I doubt its leadership is intent on challenging US primacy. Putin has certainly been more assertive than his immediate predecessors, but his ambitions seem positively modest when compared to, say, the Romanovs or the Politburo.
Will — June 19, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I don’t get your calculus here:
“Putin wants to put Russia back on the map, extorting the West with threats of withholding oil and bullying the former satellites of the USSR into accepting its hegemony. Would a new Cold War be a good thing? Probably not. But it’s preferable to letting an autocratic Russia push around our putative allies in the former Eastern bloc.”
While it may not be ideal to concede Russia a hazy sphere of regional influence, isn’t that preferable to reigniting a cold war that risks global nuclear annihilation?
Maybe that’s hyperbolic, but I don’t really understand why confronting Russia over issues like Georgia’s territorial sovereignty enhances vital US national interests. The biggest problem I have with your hawkish foreign policy perspective is that it seems to assume that countries like Russia are aggressively revisionist. I think Russia wants greater freedom of action in its near-abroad and more international influence, but I doubt its leadership is intent on challenging US primacy. Putin has certainly been more assertive than his immediate predecessors, but his ambitions seem positively modest when compared to, say, the Romanovs or the Politburo.
jason — June 19, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Despite the propoganda by interested party, Global Warming is not at a stage that is changing weather patterns. When you look at the data, Katrina was not the result of Global Warming – it was the result of bad engineering and badly maintained levees. The amount of theorized global warming at present is not enough to support these conclusions. In 30 years? Maybe. Now? Absolutely not.
It’s “Sadaam’s got WMDs” all over again, but in an environmental form.
Nukes with solar power incentives for long term energy needs. More efficient cars for gas, but until then DRILL.
We can’t just abruptly stop using fossil fuels. The economic damage to our economy would not justify the future savings from reduced global warming (Present Value of Future Costs vs. Present Cost). What we should do is have a national energy plan that reduces carbon emissions over time as substitute clean energy sources are developed. We should also look at reducing the most polluting energy sources like coal while continuing to develop cleaner sources like natural gas and oil.
To say it is better to just buy foreign oil is wrong because of the damage that does to our foreign trade balance and value of the dollar. Environmentalists would be better off if the US would take the lead on global warming with rational policies and a strong economy to go along with it. Imagine if we just shut down all of the American industry that causes a lot of carbon emissions. Wouldn’t that reduce global warming a therefore be a good thing? Maybe not! In addition to destroying millions of US jobs, the production might move to a country like China that produces 4 times as much carbon for each unit of output as we do. That would actually make global warming worse. If we restrict drilling here, we could just buy more oil from Canadian tar sands. That again makes the global warming problem worse. A lot of environmentalists are good intentioned, but many times what seems like a straight forward answer to the global warming problem will actually make the problem worse. I discuss many of the economic issues related to global warming on my website: examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner
Arthur — June 20, 2008 at 4:25 am
Wind, by the way, is really taking off. Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens (about the last person on planet earth one would suspect of being motivated by sentimental environmentalism) has been investing very heavily in wind turbines. Nationally, the number of windmill projects is surging as people see an opportunity to make money. Just because a form of energy generation is relatively green doesn’t mean that it is unprofitable.
Climate change can very severely affect the food supply. A lot of fish species, for example, only thrive in cold water. (Cold water is much more oxygen-rich than warm water, and many fish species will only do well in cold water). If the oceans warm up, their populations will fall, with negative consequences for fisheries around the world.
No one is talking about centralized planning requiring people to live close to central cities. The suburbs (at least those that are located far away from public transportation) are entering a long period of decline, while central cities, inner suburbs, and suburbs located on rail lines will experience a boom.
No central planner is making this happen, and, as a matter of fact, American population patterns are merely returning to their pre-World War I arrangement. Before the advent of cheap gas, cheap cars, and massive local, state, and federal spending on roads and highways (e.g. the massive increase in highway spending during the Eisenhower era), Americans who didn’t live in small towns or farms lived in densely-packed cities or in suburbs that were connected to central cities by electric trolleys. Few people drove to work, but either walked or took the trolley.
As a result, population densities in cities, such as St. Louis, were much higher than they were today. We can expect a return to urban layouts of a century ago–and this change will largely come as a result of market scarcities–the high price of gasoline.
By the way, the expansion of the suburbs is, in part, a result of centralized planning–one of the reasons that people take cars to work is that they collectively have decided to spend huge amounts of money at the state, local, and federal level on developing a first-rate road and highway system. The boom in suburbia after world war II is largely due to cheap fuel and cheap cars, but is also in part the result of a deliberate decision by governments to spend taxpayer money on roads.
Sonny Bunch — June 20, 2008 at 10:52 am
But Putin doesn’t want Russia to be a regional player; Putin wants Russia to be a global player using petrodollars to push smaller countries–our allies–and us around. I agree that it’s probably not worth pointing nukes at Moscow over Georgia, but it’s not going to end there. Give a would-be tyrant an inch…
Sonny Bunch — June 20, 2008 at 10:52 am
But Putin doesn’t want Russia to be a regional player; Putin wants Russia to be a global player using petrodollars to push smaller countries–our allies–and us around. I agree that it’s probably not worth pointing nukes at Moscow over Georgia, but it’s not going to end there. Give a would-be tyrant an inch…
Sonny Bunch — June 20, 2008 at 10:52 am
But Putin doesn’t want Russia to be a regional player; Putin wants Russia to be a global player using petrodollars to push smaller countries–our allies–and us around. I agree that it’s probably not worth pointing nukes at Moscow over Georgia, but it’s not going to end there. Give a would-be tyrant an inch…
Will — June 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Two points:
1.) It’s reasonable (from an amoral realist’s perspective) to assume that certain large countries aspire to a regional sphere of influence. Given Russia’s authoritarian tendencies, this may be an unfortunate consequence of power politics, but it doesn’t signal the dawn of a new Cold War. The fact that Russia might object to US meddling in Georgia does not mean Putin is entertaining revanchist fantasies of reconquering Central Europe.
2.) Does Russia even have the capacity to be a global player anymore? Its military is hollowed out, its economy is entirely dependent on a single commodity, and its vast expanses have been largely depopulated. Even if Putin aspires to global dominance, there are certain pragmatic constraints that check aggressive revisionism.
An aggressively revisionist regime would have to posses both the means to challenge the status quo (ie a competent military, vibrant economy etc.) and the drive to acquire more territory/prestige/resources/whatever. There’s no indication that Russia’s leadership has cleared either hurdle.
Will — June 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Two points:
1.) It’s reasonable (from an amoral realist’s perspective) to assume that certain large countries aspire to a regional sphere of influence. Given Russia’s authoritarian tendencies, this may be an unfortunate consequence of power politics, but it doesn’t signal the dawn of a new Cold War. The fact that Russia might object to US meddling in Georgia does not mean Putin is entertaining revanchist fantasies of reconquering Central Europe.
2.) Does Russia even have the capacity to be a global player anymore? Its military is hollowed out, its economy is entirely dependent on a single commodity, and its vast expanses have been largely depopulated. Even if Putin aspires to global dominance, there are certain pragmatic constraints that check aggressive revisionism.
An aggressively revisionist regime would have to posses both the means to challenge the status quo (ie a competent military, vibrant economy etc.) and the drive to acquire more territory/prestige/resources/whatever. There’s no indication that Russia’s leadership has cleared either hurdle.
Will — June 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Two points:
1.) It’s reasonable (from an amoral realist’s perspective) to assume that certain large countries aspire to a regional sphere of influence. Given Russia’s authoritarian tendencies, this may be an unfortunate consequence of power politics, but it doesn’t signal the dawn of a new Cold War. The fact that Russia might object to US meddling in Georgia does not mean Putin is entertaining revanchist fantasies of reconquering Central Europe.
2.) Does Russia even have the capacity to be a global player anymore? Its military is hollowed out, its economy is entirely dependent on a single commodity, and its vast expanses have been largely depopulated. Even if Putin aspires to global dominance, there are certain pragmatic constraints that check aggressive revisionism.
An aggressively revisionist regime would have to posses both the means to challenge the status quo (ie a competent military, vibrant economy etc.) and the drive to acquire more territory/prestige/resources/whatever. There’s no indication that Russia’s leadership has cleared either hurdle.
“the sooner his star burns out at MSNBC, the better.”
Oh, I think it’ll be more of an mega-explosion rather than a burn-out. Maybe his head.. live on air would be good too.
Preening, stupid, and vindictive. Yep, he’s the Captain Hook of the fake-news biz.
Reggie — June 21, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“Maybe his head.. live on air would be good too.”
Just like the movie “scanners”. I can see that happening. Somebody at MSNBC should play a practical joke on him and announce that Bill O’Reilly has just been chosen Russert’s successor. That would probably do the trick.
Reggie — June 21, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“Maybe his head.. live on air would be good too.”
Just like the movie “scanners”. I can see that happening. Somebody at MSNBC should play a practical joke on him and announce that Bill O’Reilly has just been chosen Russert’s successor. That would probably do the trick.
Reggie — June 21, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“Maybe his head.. live on air would be good too.”
Just like the movie “scanners”. I can see that happening. Somebody at MSNBC should play a practical joke on him and announce that Bill O’Reilly has just been chosen Russert’s successor. That would probably do the trick.
J. Weiss — June 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Shame on you!
Olbermann publicly denounced that rumor. You’re not paying attention.
J. Weiss — June 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Shame on you!
Olbermann publicly denounced that rumor. You’re not paying attention.
J. Weiss — June 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Shame on you!
Olbermann publicly denounced that rumor. You’re not paying attention.
“Somebody at MSNBC should play a practical joke on him and announce that Bill O’Reilly has just been chosen Russert’s successor. ”
Ho ho. And tell him he has to kiss the ring on BOR’s finger — like the final scene in The Godfather with Michael Corleone.
Michele — June 22, 2008 at 12:23 am
To quote Al Franken. KO is “A Big Fat Idiot”..
Michele — June 22, 2008 at 12:23 am
To quote Al Franken. KO is “A Big Fat Idiot”..
Michele — June 22, 2008 at 12:23 am
To quote Al Franken. KO is “A Big Fat Idiot”..
Scott — June 22, 2008 at 12:39 am
Darn funny, Reggie and Jack. Although I have to admit, I’m not sure about this story’s accuracy.
Scott — June 22, 2008 at 12:39 am
Darn funny, Reggie and Jack. Although I have to admit, I’m not sure about this story’s accuracy.
Scott — June 22, 2008 at 12:39 am
Darn funny, Reggie and Jack. Although I have to admit, I’m not sure about this story’s accuracy.
regdunlop — June 22, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Wow, J. Weiss, Olbermann denied an unflattering report about himself!! It’s obviously false!! End Of Story!! EDWARD R. MURROW WOULD BE ASHAMED, SIR!!! SHUT THE HELL UP, SIR!!!
regdunlop — June 22, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Wow, J. Weiss, Olbermann denied an unflattering report about himself!! It’s obviously false!! End Of Story!! EDWARD R. MURROW WOULD BE ASHAMED, SIR!!! SHUT THE HELL UP, SIR!!!
regdunlop — June 22, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Wow, J. Weiss, Olbermann denied an unflattering report about himself!! It’s obviously false!! End Of Story!! EDWARD R. MURROW WOULD BE ASHAMED, SIR!!! SHUT THE HELL UP, SIR!!!
Sonny Bunch — June 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Scott: You know, I kind of doubt the accuracy of the story as well (I mean, it is Page Six, after all). But it’s telling that most people are more than willing to believe Olbermann would do something like this. It’s great stuff.
Sonny Bunch — June 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Scott: You know, I kind of doubt the accuracy of the story as well (I mean, it is Page Six, after all). But it’s telling that most people are more than willing to believe Olbermann would do something like this. It’s great stuff.
Sonny Bunch — June 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Scott: You know, I kind of doubt the accuracy of the story as well (I mean, it is Page Six, after all). But it’s telling that most people are more than willing to believe Olbermann would do something like this. It’s great stuff.
Kendrick — June 22, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I hope your head blows up, bitch.
Olbermann is a badass. Bill O’whatever isn’t shit.
Kendrick — June 22, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I hope your head blows up, bitch.
Olbermann is a badass. Bill O’whatever isn’t shit.
Kendrick — June 22, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I hope your head blows up, bitch.
Olbermann is a badass. Bill O’whatever isn’t shit.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Um, Kendrick, O’Reilly kicks Olbytard, CNN and HLN combined.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Um, Kendrick, O’Reilly kicks Olbytard, CNN and HLN combined.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Um, Kendrick, O’Reilly kicks Olbytard, CNN and HLN combined.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Olbytard won’t quit MSNBC because he has nowhere else to go. He is the only idiot stupid enough to take the job and think he can beat O’Reilly and he is too stupid to see he is a sacrificial lamb laid at the feet of the great O’Reilly every night.
I wouldn’t believe a word out of Olbytard’s mouth. He is a liar. He has reported night after night on things that have never been proven. Simply saying Goerge Bush lied or he is stonewalling may cut it with a moron but not me.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Olbytard won’t quit MSNBC because he has nowhere else to go. He is the only idiot stupid enough to take the job and think he can beat O’Reilly and he is too stupid to see he is a sacrificial lamb laid at the feet of the great O’Reilly every night.
I wouldn’t believe a word out of Olbytard’s mouth. He is a liar. He has reported night after night on things that have never been proven. Simply saying Goerge Bush lied or he is stonewalling may cut it with a moron but not me.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Olbytard won’t quit MSNBC because he has nowhere else to go. He is the only idiot stupid enough to take the job and think he can beat O’Reilly and he is too stupid to see he is a sacrificial lamb laid at the feet of the great O’Reilly every night.
I wouldn’t believe a word out of Olbytard’s mouth. He is a liar. He has reported night after night on things that have never been proven. Simply saying Goerge Bush lied or he is stonewalling may cut it with a moron but not me.
The idea of betting on a player winning golf’s Grand Slam is a draw unto itself. It’s the satisfaction of saying, hey, I called that, which moves beyond the realm of either markets or rational betting thought.
Consider the Giant fans who last August deemed the blue clad heroes worthy of a C-note wager to win the Super Bowl. Surely few of them looked at the team and declared that without top rusher from 2006, the Giants were the team to beat. Yet they bet. For loyalty, for pride, for the hell of it. I can’t say which. But I would say the inclination of golf fans is to bet on the least probable because it is historic and carries a psychic reward who monetary value is immeasurable. Perhaps these are the purchases Mastercard has been advocating? Winning at Augusta: $1.35 million.
Winning the US Open: $1.26 million
Winning the British Open: £720,000
Winning the PGA: $1.26 million
Actually betting that Tiger would do it the year he finally does it: Priceless
Sonny Bunch — June 23, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I mean, that’s fair enough, but is it really enough to induce someone to only get 3:1 odds on predicting an event that has, literally, never happened before? It kind of blows my mind that anyone would take that action. Needless to say, the original friend (the one who placed the bet), claimed to be hammered when he took the action. I don’t blame him.
I’ll say yes. But, I would also expect that a good deal of the action is of the alcohol induced variety. Such as what your aforementioned friend described.
FYI, JVL sent me this way shortly after you got started. I appreciate the quality of the writing and the sense of humor. Just in case you want demographics and referral info on one of your readers.
All the best,
Joe
Sonny Bunch — June 23, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. I’ll have to buy JVL a case of Honest Tea for sending so much traffic my way…
So, I responded over over at my joint, but I did want to ask one question I forgot to raise: Do you think that the American officials in questions are “despots, cranks, and scumbags”? Because you seem to be unworried about our people not being brought up on charges because it’s bad for the abstract idea of “international law,” and not because they’re unworthy targets of prosecution.
Senescent — June 24, 2008 at 6:42 am
But a big part of the new self-consciousness is being able to admit that, in fact, you are a statistic, right?
You can’t legislate being a good parent. It’s up to subtle forces, like peer pressure, to put a dent in the massive problem of negligent parenting. But peer pressure vs. a tide of awful parents? It’s a mismatch
You can’t legislate being a good parent. It’s up to subtle forces, like peer pressure, to put a dent in the massive problem of negligent parenting. But peer pressure vs. a tide of awful parents? It’s a mismatch
You can’t legislate being a good parent. It’s up to subtle forces, like peer pressure, to put a dent in the massive problem of negligent parenting. But peer pressure vs. a tide of awful parents? It’s a mismatch
Mitch — June 27, 2008 at 5:58 pm
What’s the point of this? Do you like Carlin and Apatow? Or hate them? Or like one and not the other?
I suspect some liberal minded critics don’t bend over backwards to assess films without their own biases leaking in — that would explain the constant raves for Michael Moore’s deeply flawed documentaries.
The “War, Inc.” review assignment … arguably the ultimate test for a right-leaning film critic. I still wanna see it though … bad reviews always make me curious.
Sonny Bunch — June 28, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I think most liberal critics willfully blind themselves to make films fit into their world view/preconceived notions. You remember last year when Dana Stevens and Ross Douthat were going back and forth over ‘Knocked Up’? Stevens said the movie never addresses abortion, which, as Ross pointed out, was a bizarrely ignorant comment. She needed to block out the “smushsmortion”/”take care of it” debate because she wanted to make a wider, feminist point about the fact that knuckledraggers have made abortion an outlaw topic. A lot of liberal reviewers are like that…they praise films like ‘War, Inc.’ for their “bravery,” as if it’s a critical or professional risk to make an anti-war, anti-Bush film.
I hear the word “brave’ uttered by a film critic or an actor and I head for the hills … firemen are brave; making an anti-war film or playing ugly on screen is a career boost.
Senescent — June 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
So what would we get out of resolving this tension that makes it worthwhile to other?
Senescent — June 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
So what would we get out of resolving this tension that makes it worthwhile to other?
Senescent — June 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Gah. Bother.
Senescent — June 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Gah. Bother.
Terry — June 30, 2008 at 12:09 am
I get it. I was born in 1950. The point is the current lack of comedic muscularity. Carlin for all his hipness was never metrosexual.
steve — June 30, 2008 at 10:30 am
One of the tenets of fundamentalism is control of all aspects of a person’s life. From that POV, this kind of stuff makes sense. Islam does the same kind of stuff. The Orthodox make it clear that only PIV sex (their term) is acceptable. For Christians, none of this is in the Bible. It is all added on stuff legitimized by tradition or some convoluted reasoning.
Steve
Shoals — June 30, 2008 at 4:18 pm
God, can you imagine Tim Russert being replaced by this idiot. Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who run NBC!!!
Shoals — June 30, 2008 at 4:18 pm
God, can you imagine Tim Russert being replaced by this idiot. Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who run NBC!!!
Shoals — June 30, 2008 at 4:18 pm
God, can you imagine Tim Russert being replaced by this idiot. Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who run NBC!!!
Talking, touching, holding, singing, eye contact . . . are all good ways to achieve optimal oxytocin levels because they urge the body and the mind to support its own oxytocin release. Even still, building trusting relationships is a process and is not something that takes place within a few moments in time or is limited to happening within a certain time period. It is quite possible that you may not even know it is happening until you experience that first smile or other unique cue, and respond appropriately. For that reason I use this sub-lingual homeopathic oxytocin accelerator. I find that it really supports these behaviors and helps me to feel more. Here is a Url to read more about it. http://www.oxy-tocin.com/
Talking, touching, holding, singing, eye contact . . . are all good ways to achieve optimal oxytocin levels because they urge the body and the mind to support its own oxytocin release. Even still, building trusting relationships is a process and is not something that takes place within a few moments in time or is limited to happening within a certain time period. It is quite possible that you may not even know it is happening until you experience that first smile or other unique cue, and respond appropriately. For that reason I use this sub-lingual homeopathic oxytocin accelerator. I find that it really supports these behaviors and helps me to feel more. Here is a Url to read more about it. http://www.oxy-tocin.com/
Bryan — July 2, 2008 at 5:50 am
The movie, almost, seems like an Obama campaign ad. Who is the candidate that is going to change America’s image?
I gave WALL*E a mixed review and got slammed for it. My beef isn’t with its politics – they are what they are and a film critic should note them and then move on – but the film simply didn’t entertain me down the stretch.
I suppose it’s possible some righty film critics took major points away for its message, but it’s also possible many lefty critics looked past its flaws for that very reason.
What those promoting energy conservation fail to realize is basic physics. An economy is about turning raw materials into goods and services people want to buy. To do that we must organize atoms to produce those goods and services. Steel has to be made from iron and coal only to be shaped into cars. Sand must be converted into silicon computer chips to power the accountants, bankers, and websites. That requires energy. The more goods and services we want the more atoms we need to move and the more energy we need to expend.
Conservation has its place, but it’s more an engineering and efficiency question. With an increasing population and their unlimited wants conservation will not get us out of our energy bind.
What those promoting energy conservation fail to realize is basic physics. An economy is about turning raw materials into goods and services people want to buy. To do that we must organize atoms to produce those goods and services. Steel has to be made from iron and coal only to be shaped into cars. Sand must be converted into silicon computer chips to power the accountants, bankers, and websites. That requires energy. The more goods and services we want the more atoms we need to move and the more energy we need to expend.
Conservation has its place, but it’s more an engineering and efficiency question. With an increasing population and their unlimited wants conservation will not get us out of our energy bind.
What those promoting energy conservation fail to realize is basic physics. An economy is about turning raw materials into goods and services people want to buy. To do that we must organize atoms to produce those goods and services. Steel has to be made from iron and coal only to be shaped into cars. Sand must be converted into silicon computer chips to power the accountants, bankers, and websites. That requires energy. The more goods and services we want the more atoms we need to move and the more energy we need to expend.
Conservation has its place, but it’s more an engineering and efficiency question. With an increasing population and their unlimited wants conservation will not get us out of our energy bind.
steve — July 4, 2008 at 9:38 am
So the question in my mind would be “Is it possible for an old Cold War warrior like McCain to play nice with Russia?” McCain seems to pretty clearly believe in American exceptionalism. He may not be able to accept Russia as a necessary partner. Obama, as is typical of Democrats, is feeling the need to posture as a “tough guy”. Hard to make a call here.
Steve
Sonny Bunch — July 4, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Yeah, I was actually pretty surprised how vehement the reaction against your review was (especially considering it was pretty mixed and not forthrightly negative). That being said: The movie was kind of awesome. Easily my favorite of the Pixar films.
Shannon — July 7, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Don’t take ‘widening’ so literally. Highway officials in southern california found an easy solution to add more lanes to the Harbor Freeway (110) south from downtown Los Angeles: http://cjw.id.au/WordPress/?p=37
JohnMcC — July 7, 2008 at 4:47 pm
You don’t have enough imagination!! Add a 2d story. That’s even better than widening a freeway because you get to pour billions of yards of concrete and buy millions of tons of re-bar (after bidding for it against the Chinese). That’s how a real-by-God-conservative would do it. Seriously–here in St Petersburg that is the plan for Gandy Blvd, one of the Tampa-St Pete connectors. To make it even bigger and…well…bigger, it’s built over a bridge. Which will require rebuilding from it’s footings. Very very manly conservatives down here. Why do you hate America? You and your girly mass transit.
Sonny Bunch — July 7, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Shannon: I’m actually intrigued by the concept of elevated freeways running over regular freeways, but the idea strikes me as a massive death toll waiting to happen in an earthquake-prone place like California.
John: Mass transit is in fact girly, but it’s so convenient! I love convenience. It’s probably due to the laziness.
moqui — July 7, 2008 at 7:38 pm
They are widening the 405 in my neighborhood (Brentwood Glen, in West LA) as we speak.
So easy to wave a magic wand and dismiss ideas as “unworkable”
Mike — July 7, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I think you give these people too much credit. If you’ve been living outside the Beltway you know that there’s plenty of highway widening going on everywhere; for example, the main street of my neighborhood in Florida was 2 lanes 30 years ago and now its 8.
What good has it done?
1. Outer suburbs easier to get to, so more outer suburban development, leading to longer commutes, leading to more poverty as fuel prices rise;
and
2. Also leading to more money spent on oil (al-Qaeda says thanks).
And the original excuse for it all (reducing congestion) is pretty much a lie. When fuel was cheap, the roads got clogged as soon as they get built or widened, because the new development in the outer suburbs meant that more traffic went to those suburbs. And now that fuel is expensive, people are going to be driving less so congestion is a distinctly lower priority.
Sonny Bunch — July 7, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Moqui: It is easy! I should do that more often. For the record: I don’t think lane widening is impossible, in DC or elsewhere. It can certainly be done–in some cases easily, in some cases with massive invocation of eminent domain and years of backups due to construction before the benefits are realized. All I was saying is that some details would be nice…details, to be fair, that Ross and Reihan didn’t have room/time to address in their book.
Mike: I think you’re basically right that widening the lanes won’t solve the underlying problem. This is why I said I favor developing some sort of rail system. (Of course, I don’t have the details handy I clamor so loudly for…but then again, I’m a blogger! I’m allowed to pontificate without any deeper knowledge than “Someone oughta…”)
Michael — July 7, 2008 at 10:27 pm
How moronic! Did it ever occur to you and your up-and-coming DC yuppies NOT to live in Stafford County, or Fredeick County, etc.
You decide your lifestyle requires working in DC and living in “the country.” Next thing you know, you HAVE to have wider highways, you HAVE to have snow-plowing, you HAVE to have mail delivery, etc.
Now, the people who’ve lived in Stafford county for generations find their taxes going through the roof to support YOUR lifestyle. Then they either leave or disappear into the ranks of poverty, and assholes like you talk about how great Stafford County would be if the commute were easier and if it weren’t for the “rednecks.”
How self-centered can one be? Clearly you’re a Republican.
Sonny Bunch — July 7, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Michael: Well now, Michael…that’s a lot of assumptions to throw around. Without going too deeply into my life story, I think it’s fair to let you know that I didn’t just move to Stafford to live in some big McMansion, enjoy the country air, and look down on the rednecks. I grew up there (I even had a number of redneck friends!) and lived with my folks for a year or so after college because I didn’t have a job that offered much in the way of rent money.
So, you know, keep the guesses about people you know nothing of to a minimum. If you don’t mind.
Just ordered that book from Amazon. Thanks for the tip. I think any critic today who constantly bemoans the current state of Hollywood needs to find a new gig. I used to work with a critic who was a super-nice fellow, but he gave even the biggest, best movies 1 1/2 stars. That really doesn’t help the reader, does it?
Well, since no one ever dominated tennis in the open era the way Federer has, expecting that to continue is unlikely.
But in the last year when Federer missed his normal training program, and had a serious illness, he destroyed Nadal while winning the year-end Master’s in December, made the Australian semi’s, made the French finals, made the Wimbledon finals, and will be favored at the U.S. Open.
At Wimbledon he came back from two sets down. Watching the two players after the end of the match I think if it had been best of 7 Fed would have won .
Federer could reasonably be expected to make at least two major finals a year for several years, which would lead to some major victories.
You also have to ask who is going to replace Federer as number one?
Nadal is great. But if he is going to supplant Federer, he has to do something AFTER JULY. He may. But he never has before. His hard court performance is not only spotty, but injury-prone. Perhaps he’ll fix that, but I don’t think we can simply assume he will.
Remember, when Djok. was supposedly going to match Nadal in supplanting Federer? Then the hard court season was over and so was he.
So, who is going to replace Federer? He’s still the best of a class of three that is separating from the field.
Sonny Bunch — July 8, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Bulleit’s not bad…it feels stronger than Weller, even though it’s a lighter proof. It definitely goes down a little less smoothly than the Wellers, though…
Sonny Bunch — July 8, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I hope you enjoy it…I’m feeling a lot of pressure now. I don’t often make such a whole-hearted recommendation. If you think it’s worthless, I’ll look quite the fool.
Sonny Bunch — July 8, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Jim: I think we’re going to enter an era of relative parity amongst players at the top–Nadal and Federer will clearly be the two best players in the world, but we’ll see more breakthroughs from players like Djokavic. My main point, again, is simply that Federer won’t be the dominant force in the game any longer. He’ll still win some majors, but the air of invincibility is gone…and that mental edge was Federer’s biggest weapon.
Max Winters — July 8, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Any player that can come back from 2 down on the “clay-like” surface that Wimbledon has become, against Nadal is not washed up.
Let’s watch the U.S. Open, but especially Australia next year.
Maybe someday, Wimbledon will return to the fast surface that made them stand out.
Daniel Bolton — July 8, 2008 at 7:12 pm
“let’s think about a better time when the champion of Wimbledon wasn’t a capri pants/cutoff t-shirt wearing Spaniard who moans on the court like a reject from the women’s tour.”
make your prejudices less transparent next time.
JonW — July 8, 2008 at 8:17 pm
We can all agree that Federer has been a great champion. Great champions respond to challenges. As tough a battle as we saw, don’t forget that Fed made over 50 unforced errors, and inexplicably tried too many approaches to Rafa’s forehand.
Sometimes it takes an epic loss to spur a champion to greater levels of play. 26/27 is pretty young, especially given his injury free career.
Thankyou for the linkage, Sonny. I can (obviously) second your recommendation of Phillip Lopate’s excellent book. There is little chance you will not enjoy it, unless you dislike reading film criticism, and in that case what would possess you to purchase a book titled “American Movie Critics” to begin with?
Matt S. — July 9, 2008 at 12:14 am
I have to say I’ve always thought Knob Creek was pretty serviceable. In fact, I typically lump it with Makers in being a decent middle of the road affordable bourbon. YES, Makers is “cooler,” but I’m not anti-Knob Creek.
For those who at some point have to buy cheap stuff — you know, in the plastic jugs — Faulkner drank Early Times when times were tough. And it appears in most Walker Percy novels.
Rodolfo — July 9, 2008 at 1:14 am
Well I totally disagree with this article. We are not talking about any regular player here, this is Roger Federer probably the best tennis player of all times. Federer will come back from this and will win many major tournaments.
There is one thing I might agree on, Federer probably wont dominate tennis like he has been doing, and this is only because he has truly found someone like Nadal able of beating him.
There is one more thing, yes Nadal is a fantastic player howecer he does have that injury that always keeps bothering him. Well see how that goes….
Federer will be back and soon.
Giuseppe Mirelli — July 9, 2008 at 2:04 am
First of all Mr. Suellentrop and Mr.Bunch get your facts straight before you write a piece and give your silly opinions. Federer won 12 majors not 11.
Furthermore since winning seems to be a priority for everyone who can’t differentiate between a winner and the most talented. Federer is unquestionably the most talented player of today and perhaps in history. The Nadals will come and go but Roger is irreplaceable. His style, his finesse, the totality of his game is exceptional. Nadal can beat Federer for the next 5 years but he will never be as talented as Roger.
Federer will undoubtedly break Sampras’ record and then go down in history as the greatest tennis player of all time.
Nadal is not great. When he approaches 12 slam titles then we can put him in the category of greatness. As of now he is not even half way there and his style of play is very short term.
adnan — July 9, 2008 at 2:08 am
I think that this article is almost completely wrong, I am a firm Nadal supporter and always has been but you have got to admit that Federer did not decline, its just that Nadal has really really continued to improve his game up to a point where he can be the dominant force. If there was no Nadal in this world, then Federer would have around 16 majors now and would still be the No.1 by far. Novak Djokovic is not really that much of a threat to Federer or Nadal.
Leo — July 9, 2008 at 3:44 am
Dear me, those journalists. Like vultures. Here’s another one who’s writing Federer off.
Please don’t forget his glandular fever. Not quite a life threatening disease, yet a serious problem for a competitive athlete, especially one of such high caliber. At the highest level it surely means the difference between winning and losing, getting to the ball on time or being half a step slow. And it can be pretty nagging, I’ve seen it trouble people for months. Considering the disease, the fact that Roger has still been so consistent this season is nothing short of a outstanding, and only attests his phenomenal ability. At the Australian Open, where he was apperently already ill, he only lost to Djokovic, who’s one heck of a player, in three close sets. I believe that Roger has only recently fully recovered from the mononucleosis. And it must also compromise one’s competitive edge. So given all that, the way he played agains the indefatigable Nadal in London, coming back and pushing it all the way to 7:9 (and beging affected by the darkness) proves that he’s far from spent, and if he still has the desire, he can come back with a vengeance. It’s nice to know you usually turn out to be wrong, and I sure hope you’re wrong big time on this one.
Ah, you mentioned Agassi and Lendl, but forgot Connors and Navratilova. Generally early bloomers also tend to lose it relatively early. Nadal is certainly an early bloomer, and his game is frighteningly physical, rather like Hewitt (and look where Hewitt is now), only he’s a better player overall than Hewitt. He works very hard for every point, and given the way he plays, I really can’t see Nadal maintaining this sort of intensity even into his late 20-ies. And I believe he’s already had foot and knee injuries. Federer, on the other hand, only came of age in early 20-ies, he is ease and elegance epitomized, doesn’t work nearly as hard for most of his wins. So the age difference between them becomes almost irrelevant. Again, it’s all up too Roger and whether he still has the desire to play and win. If he does, he might well stay at the top for another few years, perhaps with a break somewhere in between.
Sonny Bunch — July 9, 2008 at 9:13 am
Clearly I will not convince you guys to my POV, and hey, that’s fine! I’m fully willing to admit that I’m going out on a limb here–Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player I’ve ever had the privelege to watch, and if he proves me wrong I’ll give a tip of the homburg and be happy to admit it. I’m simply pointing to a trend: players as dominant as Federer can’t dominate forever, and 26/27 seems to be when they hit the wall. I would, however, like to follow up on two specific points.
Mr. Mirelli: You’re right, Federer has won 12 majors, but in the specific period I’m looking at (i.e., the ‘03 to ‘07 seasons, a period in which he’s clearly the greatest player in the world and dominating the game like no one in a decade had), he won 11.
Mr. Bolton: If this was a purely journalistic effort, I would have cut that line about Nadal and how he annoys me. (Actually, I probably would have found an anonymous source on the tour to make all of those complaints for me and kept it in the piece. That’s how journalists work.) But fortunately, this isn’t a purely journalistic effort! I can denigrate the Spaniard’s appearance all I want in my own joint, thank you very much.
Sonny Bunch — July 9, 2008 at 9:16 am
Evan: No worries; thank you for the excellent article. This younger generation of critics (many of whom are web-based, and of which I consider myself a part) should be forced to read your recommendations. Perhaps they will save us from the endless sea of snark we have to deal with these days…
AJS — July 9, 2008 at 10:13 am
I agree with you that it is unlikely that Federer will return to his previous unbelievable level of tennis, but he is probably the best player ever, and I still believe that he will break Sampras’s record and win many tournaments to come – particularly Wimbledon. However, you lost all credibility for me when you insulted Nadal, he may not have as much pure, raw talent as Federer, but you cannot deny that he has become a force to be reckoned with on and off the clay courts as well (there was the small matter of beating Djokovich on grass at Queen’s only weeks earlier). He has worked hard to get to where he is today – which is a damn good tennis player. Why don’t you be a little less biased and read what people who have actually lived through that kind of thing have to say (the names Bjorn Borg and Jon McEnroe spring to mind); they have admired Federer’s game for years, and agree with you about his talents, etc., but they also recognise how far Nadal has come. Finally, I think that being “possibly the best clay-court player of all time” (quote: Boris Becker) is a little bit more than just “a capri pants/cutoff t-shirt wearing Spaniard who moans on the court like a reject from the women’s tour.”
Noah — July 9, 2008 at 10:30 am
As an NYC resident I can say that the bikers are the more annoying breed. They run red lights going the wrong way on a one way street and then act like you did something wrong by being in their way.
Also, in NY the bikers have adopted this whole pseudo anarchist / communist look and attitude, which is particularly annoying. Not to mention the whole hipster custom bike clubs which ride around the village looking like a myspace page on wheels.
Bicycling for transportation is fine, but as a lifestyle it’s pathetic.
Sonny Bunch — July 9, 2008 at 10:39 am
AJS: I’m not disputing Nadal’s talent–he’s the best player I’ve ever seen on clay. Despite my aversion to dirtballing, I’m more than willing to grant him that. As a tennis player, Nadal is great. It’s his aesthetic that I despise; I had the same problem with Agassi early in his career.
Sonny Bunch — July 9, 2008 at 10:41 am
Oh man, don’t get me started on “biking-as-lifestyle.” The bike messengers roaming DC’s streets are the most obvious example, appearance-wise, but the general attitude of bikers is so high-and-mighty that it makes me sick. Note to bikers: just because you pedal to work, it does not make you a good citizen. I’d rather you put the CO2 into the air by driving than condescendingly lecture to me about the rules of the road and how great biking is.
Mike P — July 9, 2008 at 12:18 pm
3 cheers for Blanton’s! Very smooth and sippable. Also, I endorse Bulleit as well…I find it’s a bit sweeter than some of the other brands mentioned.
I found the last bottle of Wellers at a Capitol Hill liquor store before my dentist appointment today. I totally bought it.
Woodford Reserve has always reminded me of an expensive mixing bourbon…what rich people use instead of Beam to mix with Coke. It doesn’t work at all on its own, though it mixes quite nicely with ginger ale.
I’m intrigued by Pappy Van Winkle. I might buy a bottle at some point this summer.
Geoff — July 9, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I’m disagree for a couple of reasons.
First, Federer just hasn’t declined all that much in the last year. Check out the wikipedia page on Federer, scroll down to the bottom, and take a look:
He failed to win the high profile tournaments that he won last year, reaching only the semis in australia and the finals in wimbledon. But if you throw out australia because of the mono (which seems reasonable to me), then he has two finals instead of a win and a final. Plus, he was dominant in both those tournaments until he reached Nadal – which hints more at Rafa’s rise than Federer’s decline (after all, Fed’s performance against everyone else seems as strong as ever).
Plus, he exceeded his season last year in a few tournaments. Indian Wells? SF insetead of 2R. He went farther in Miami, matched his final at Monte Carlo, went farther in Fome, and just barely missed Hamburg (again, losing only to Nadal)…
If Rafa hadn’t been in the picture, it seems most likely that Fed wouldn’t have won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, as well as Monte Carlo and Hamburg. It’s speculation, of course, but who else gave Federer a serious challenge in these tournaments?
So I guess you can say Federer is “over”, but I think this definition dilutes the meaning of “over” to the point of ridiculousness.
Geoff — July 9, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Oops, should have said “seems most likely that Fed *would* have won…” rather than “woudldn’t” . Probably obvious, but figured I should clarify.
Wanda — July 10, 2008 at 9:50 am
Roger Federer may not be at the top of his game right now, but he has made it to the finals consistently. Though he has not won the French Open, neither did the Pete Sampras. Pete Sampras has 14 Grand Slams under his belt and Federer is closing in on that. I really believe Federer will eventually tie this record, but even if he does not–he will always be considered a great at the game. Can others show the consistency that we saw in Agassi, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Borg..etc..on and on.
What bothers me the most is that I feel the dying breed of serve and volley players on the decline. I have to admit I enjoyed watching the baseliners of the past, because I felt that they all brought some personality to the game. Now it is, basically, baseline play. I hope Federer stays and give us more magic, even if he may lose his ranking. I hate he lost Wimbledon, but the match was really to close to call him a real loser. I call great tennis when you can come back from being two sets down and make it to a very very close fifth set. What the sports writers are basically writing out there about the demise of Roger Federer is as sad as thinking I may never see another serve and volley player grace the game.
I hope he keeps playing just like Agassi did. I want to continue to watch his magic. I know many more do, as well. He is not done.
Ramesh Prabhu — July 10, 2008 at 9:58 am
To paraphrase John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious”
There are quite a few people that are writing Federer’s obituary – I’d like to add prematurely. You say done means he will probably win two or three more majors. I guess Roger’s biggest fault is that he has set himself a very high standard that even a slight slip is magnified as a huge fall.
Agreed that this year’s Wimbledon loss was huge, but considering the way that he bounced back from two sets down and almost (I bet that Borg is happy that his name is still in the record books) won his sixth consecutive title, I think Roger’s far from being done. Roger’s too classy to attribute his slip to the glandular fever that he suffered at the beginning of this year, but as someone who has followed his career for a long time, I could clearly see that he was a step slower. Roger can afford to be a step slower against most people and still beat them, but to beat Nadal, he has to be at his very best, and he has been at his very best at Wimbledon until this year. I have at the same time seen the fact that he has only gotten better as this year has gone by, and I would look for him to bounce back and win the Olympic gold and the U.S. Open.
Slice it and dice it any which way you want, even at his “advanced” age of 26, Roger’s ONLY threat is Nadal. Novak would like to believe that he is in the mix, but his second round defeat to Marat revealed a lot about his mental state – 10 double faults in one match (Roger had 6 the entire tournament). I can even explain why Nadal appears more of a threat than he really is. Go with me here… Roger’s “fault” is that he has been the second best clay courter the last four years. Unfortunately for Roger, this means he is going to run into Nadal every time they play on clay, and almost every time his game is bound to come up short. While Roger has the game to beat Nadal on any other surface as evidenced by his 5-3 record on surfaces that are not clay, his record against Nadal on clay has got to weigh on his mind every time they go head to head, especially after a clay court season where he has lost every final to his Spanish opponent. From Nadal’s perspective, this should give him more confidence and belief that he can beat Roger on other surfaces. If on the other hand, Roger had not been a very good player on clay (like Sampras) his aura of invincibility on other surfaces would be still there. Does that make sense?
You write about how you could see fear in Roger’s eyes. Let’s think about this… He has been the world’s number one for the last 4+ years with Nadal and the rest of the field breathing down his neck. I cannot imagine the pressure that he has faced day in and day out. It is simply astounding to think that he has swatted away most pretenders who have nothing to lose when facing him. I speak from experience when I say playing “up” is a lot easier… no pressure, just go out and play. My game is great when I know I am playing someone who is better than me, and I have nothing to lose. Conversely, it isn’t that great when I know I “have” to beat someone who I know doesn’t play as well as I do. If nothing, the Wimbledon final really revealed Roger’s famed mental edge. How many championship points did he have to save? And no, he didn’t win them because his opponent donated it to him… he had to hit winners to save them and all of this with the pressure of having to defend his Wimbledon streak. Agreed he did come up short – has happened to every great one so far. Roger without a doubt is the best big point player in the game, and that alone is going to be enough for the next few years.
Now, let’s get to how the futures are going to play out for Federer and Nadal… There is a HUGE difference in the effort that goes into either of their matches. While Roger is effortlessly efficient, Rafa’s bludgeoning, bruising approach means more wear and tear over the next few years. Don’t get me wrong, I like Rafa for the great player that he is and the great person that he is, but I don’t think he can sustain this level too long. His second half of the season every season is evidence enough as to the toll his body takes. Look at what happened when Leyton’s wheels (his incredible speed on the court) came off. As I mentioned before, Roger can afford to be a step slower and still win a few more slams. Write him off at your own peril. Question a great champion’s heart at your own risk.
Noah — July 10, 2008 at 11:45 am
I think a lot of this stems from how intellectually insulated modern left has become. If you live in a major city, attend a typical American university and avoid Fox news, you most become an adult and never encounter any view that challenges your world view. Anyone who doesn’t share the typical liberal world view is viewed as dim witted or evil. It never ceases to surprise me when I meet accomplished, well educated people who have lack the most basic understanding of conservatism.
On the flip side a person who lives up in a conservative community and attended on of the handful of conservative universities is still
Noah — July 10, 2008 at 11:46 am
…constantly exposed to modern liberal thought through pop culture.
Noah — July 10, 2008 at 11:49 am
Hit post comment by accident on the last one. Is there an edit function?
Great points, Noah. It can be frustrating to see media types deny their bias. But deep down, they can’t see the bias because their ideology is all they’ve ever known. So to them, the left position is neutral and doesn’t need to be balanced.
And every time i fear I consumer too much right-leaning content, I remember how often I read/see/absorb mainstream media outlets. I can’t help but get both sides.
Sonny Bunch — July 10, 2008 at 11:55 am
I don’t think there is. I kind of wish there was. I can make your comments disappear, but I don’t think I can edit them.
To address your main point, however, I think you’re basically right…it goes back to the old, apocryphal Pauline Kael quote: “How could Nixon have won? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”
Will — July 10, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Coming from movement conservatives, I think this “liberal insularity” trope is a bit rich. In fact, I think the Right has been most notable for its rigid intellectual insularity in recent years. When I read flagship conservative publications – National Review and the Weekly Standard come to mind – I’m struck by how little engagement there is between mainline conservatives and the their paleoconservative and libertarian counterparts on a wide range of issues.
I should note that I say this without passing judgment on the merits of either ideological tradition. To me, however, the Iraq War revealed a) certain fissures within the ideological Right and b) several damning critiques of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy that have yet to be grappled with by mainstream Republicans. Institutions like the Weekly Standard and National Review, however, don’t really air dissenting views about Republican foreign policy. I’d really like to see some real intellectual interaction between writers at say, the American Conservative and National Review on the subject of American foreign policy, but all I find is mutual contempt.
To a lesser extent, I think this insularity extends to domestic matters. I don’t believe it’s an accident that “Grand New Party” – a book you and other conservative pundits have hyped – takes Republican operatives to task for a mono-maniacal focus on issues like earmarks and wasteful spending at the expense of focusing on real economic anxieties or formulating a coherent, conservative response to anthropogenic global warming.
So yeah, maybe douchebags like Tariq Ali won’t consent to have their pieces re-printed in a Hitchens anthology, but I’m not sure if that has any broader implications for the character of the intellectual Left, especially when you consider the frequency of ideological clashes between centrist, hawkish “neo-liberals” and the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Agreed … del Toro worship has only just begun. The flick works best as a series of well choreographed set pieces … it’s not a story.
When I was writing my review that became crystal clear to me — how do I describe this to the reader? If I struggle putting the plot together, then something’s amiss with what the movie was trying to convey.
Makes you wonder how del Toro will botch “The Hobbit” …
Still, Perlman is a hoot as Red.
Sonny Bunch — July 11, 2008 at 11:00 am
The thing is, I love Del Toro…I think Blade II was a ton of fun, and Hellboy is one of the five best comic book movies ever made. Pan’s Labyrinth vies with Time Bandits for my favorite fantasy flick of all time. But this is definitely a misfire. I trust him with The Hobbit for two reasons: Peter Jackson is producing and has the force of will to keep him in line, and the story is already in place.
Jillian — July 11, 2008 at 11:19 am
I agree that full-time hipster bike weenies are annoying, but can you allow me the biking-as-lifestyle thing part-time? Biking to work in the morning makes me feel like a badass. I’m not actually a badass, of course (I dont even wear any hipster stuff…. just school logo bikewear and flowery pink spandex) but zooming through traffic and narrowly avoiding death IS a high, no matter how annoying it might be. I get there faster than you, I’m stronger than you, and I probably look hotter than you while doing it. And I’m the first to admit it – that added injection of cool is part of what gets me through my day.
I would, however, forgo some of that cool if I was fined. I mean, telling people to “obey the rules of the road” is a pretty crummy solution. No one is just going to do it because they’re nice. I want my cool and you want to get to work on time and drivers want to get in as much road rage as possible before they have to sit in a cube all day. You gotta sic more police on everyone….bikers, peds and drivers alike…. if you want the happy little world you talk about.
Sonny Bunch — July 11, 2008 at 11:35 am
Will: I think there’s a certain amount of truth in what you say–people on both sides of the aisle tend to ignore opinions they disagree with. (By the way, I take mild offense to being labeled a “movement conservative”–I most certainly am not–but I’ll live.) I would say, however, that the trend appears (to me at least) to be more pronounced on the left (especially in the academy).
Sonny Bunch — July 11, 2008 at 11:38 am
I am all for getting the police more involved with traffic enforcement. I think the police should pull over every biker who runs a red light or a stop sign. I think the police should pull over every driver who makes an illegal turn or almost runs over a pedestrian. I think the police should hand out more jaywalking tickets. Maybe then people will start, y’know, obeying the law.
regdunlop — July 11, 2008 at 12:58 pm
But Yglesias went to Harvard, man! HARVARD!!!!!
Sonny Bunch — July 11, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I often wonder how much the Ivy League instills a sense of entitlement in its graduates: after all, he matriculated from the Best. College. Ever. Shouldn’t we all care what Yglesias has to say about everything?
Kaba — July 11, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I must say that I completely agree with you. The fact that these two entities have strived to keep out of Georgian borders for this long proves they no longer want to deal with dubious and erratic Georgian behavior. I would also like to express my disdian for mainstream media in their reportings about this topic. I have till now not seen any articles from any major newspapers or websites that depict the Abkhazian side accurately, and that do not call it “Georgia”. Anyone who has a clear and keen sense of the history of this region will readily realize that no, Abkhazia is not Georgia. Neither is South Ossetia. These two states were forcibly attached to Georgian by Stalin, an ethnic Georgian himself. Coincidence? Highly unlikely. Let’s be intelligent for once and see this for what it really is: the US, via Georgia, trying to usurp Caucasian resources to benefit itself, all the sticking it to Russia, whose only course of action is to try to curb this encroachment on what was historically “their” territory by interfering with the region’s affairs in general. Ironically, that same interference now is aiding Abkhazia to complete its main goal, which is to hopefully gain independence.
Rest assured, there are millions more like me who feel this way and we all hope that the world will learn the truth and realize that these people have suffered long enough and are entitled to their freedom and not having to live as second-class citizens under Georgian rule.
Will — July 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I didn’t mean to offend. For what it’s worth, I enjoy reading your blog. But so far, I haven’t been able to pinpoint any meaningful distinctions between your own political philosophy and mainstream conservative thought. That doesn’t make you a bad person or anything. It’s just an observation.
A brief addendum to my earlier comments: I think Tariq Ali and Noam Chomsky are poor exemplars of mainstream leftist thought. The National Review’s willingness to run an article entitled “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” on the other hand . . .
Sonny Bunch — July 11, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I kid about being offended. But as a pro-choice, anti-drug war conservative I’d say I probably stray pretty far from the orthodoxy on at least a couple of issues. Plus, “movement conservative” usually means “activist Republican,” another thing I tend not to be…
Larry — July 12, 2008 at 8:38 am
Bush tried the “respectful friend” approach. Europe tried sycophancy. 0 for 2 so far.
Obama seems more likely to emulate Europe, but it’s hard to know just where he’ll end up.
McCain seems more likely to emulate the last President who had a successful policy re Moscow, namely Reagan. But times have changed…
Jesse A. — July 13, 2008 at 11:03 pm
See, I’m not sure this is entirely true. I just got back from the movie, and I have alot of thoughts about it. The theme which that scene plays on is the choice that Liz Sherman has between saving the world and saving her beloved. She chooses her beloved. Now, the whole entire rest of the movie pivots around other characters making the exact same choice. Abraham Sapiens chooses his beloved when he gives up the third piece of the crown to save the princess (of course, this fails.). The princess has to make the same choice, and gives up her life, and a life of love with Abe, in order to prevent her brother from killing Hellboy. Which is to say, the climax of the movie is an implicit critique of Liz’s choice. It also, I think, foreshadows what might come in a possible sequel. Whether that last point is true remains to be seen, but I don’t think that, as you say, the “theme isn’t examined at all.” The entire final sequence is an examination of this theme.
Sonny Bunch — July 14, 2008 at 9:12 am
That’s a fair point…I guess I was referring more to the Hellboy mythology in particular and Del Toro’s lack of movement on that front until we get to the scene with the Angel of Death. At that point it just kind of comes out of nowhere; after 90 minutes of nothing about Hellboy and the prophecy, we’re basically thrown right back to the end of the first movie. My complaint is more structural than thematic, I suppose…
Conor Friedersdorf — July 14, 2008 at 10:17 am
Cruzcampo is a sentimental favorite for me, the stuff I drank during my stints abroad in Seville, and although Heineken bought it awhile back I’ve never been able to find it anywhere in the United States (which Spaniards abbreviate EEUU, so maybe all the Cruzcampo shipments are simply lost in the mail).
Noah — July 15, 2008 at 10:45 am
Maybe I missed it, but was there any outrage or protest over this cartoon?
Or is Rolling Stone so irrelevant that no one bothered to pay attention?
Taeyoung — July 15, 2008 at 3:02 pm
“Pedestrians: when a crosswalk sign is flashing the little red man, it means DON’T GET INTO OFF OF THE SIDEWALK. There are usually cars trying to make a right turn on green, and they use the little break in pedestrian traffic at the end of the cycle to do so. “
There is one intersection (K Street, right between Georgetown and Foggy Bottom), where, in the afternoons, the walk sign comes on at the exact same time the right-turn signal lights up, which sends cars turning right into the pedestrian traffic. Every single time I cross — every day — I get some driver who tries to race through before the pedestrians can get across.
Most of the time the pedestrians start walking well before the walk signal comes on, because otherwise you’ll get drivers trying to run you over. And if you let one car get through, the next will follow quick on its heels, and you’ll never get across the road. Because the drivers don’t care that the walk light is on. They’re just following their own signals.
I blame the government first, as usual, for failing to coordinate the signals properly. And then drivers, who ought to have the common sense to wait when they see 10 people starting out across the road.
Sonny Bunch — July 15, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Taeyoung: That is entirely the District’s fault. I don’t blame car drivers for making a right on a green arrow, and I don’t blame pedestrians for entering the crosswalk with a walk sign.
Sonny Bunch — July 15, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I think it’s hard to get outraged by anything Taibbi says or does, and if that’s the case the picture won’t add any fuel to the fire.
Aggressive and belligerent cyclists are a dime a dozen here in Chicago. A few years ago a bicycle messenger murdered a pedestrian for being in the way.
I suppose, in the writer’s perfect world, dry independent dramas would be all the industry cranks out. Pathetic. There’s nothing wrong with a rock ‘em, sock ‘em blockbuster, just like there’s nothing wrong with a great, mindless pop song.
brooke — July 17, 2008 at 1:47 pm
You should see Six Degrees of Separation if you think Will Smith is limited to “kind of likable protagonist.”
Sonny Bunch — July 17, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Brooke: I don’t mean that as a negative, but let’s be fair…he’s kind of limited. Even in “Six Degrees”…
I was stunned by how conservative the film was in the ways you describe. But the left will clearly want to call this one their own … so let the spinning begin. I’ll be curious to read it.
But most of all the political commentary is so expertly woven into the story it’s hard to complain no matter where you stand.
Will — July 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm
RE: “The Spinning”
I think there are elements of the film (and the larger “Batman” mythos) that could be plausibly interpreted as criticism of an overly aggressive approach to terrorism.
Two things spring to mind:
1.) In the first film, the Joker’s emergence is EXPLICITLY described as a reaction to Batman’s heavy-handed tactics.
2.) I haven’t seen the second film yet, but from what I’ve gleaned from the reviews, the story arc implies the forces of good (Batman and Dent) are to some extent morally compromised by their responses to the Joker. Could Dent’s transformation be interpreted as an allegory for the way the War on Terror has compromised civil liberties, moral clarity etc.? Like I said, I haven’t seem the film yet, but that sounds like a fairly plausible interpretation to me.
In general, however, I think attempts to politicize movies that aren’t overtly political generally fail. We’re too prone to read our own biases into the script.
Sonny Bunch — July 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Christian: I’d be interested to see if the left tries to spin this in their favor. I’m guessing there will be more of an outright rejection of it as “fascist.”
Will: I would argue that the sequel postulates that that the Joker might be a reaction to Batman, but that this fact simply doesn’t matter. Regardless of his origin (or lack thereof), he needs to be dealt with, and sometimes the methods of dealing with such a man are distasteful. And, as I mention in my review, there’s a very real examination of whether it’s “possible for the two [Batman and Dent] to work in tandem without the dark corrupting the light?”
And I agree that it’s politicizing movies is, generally, a lose-lose proposition. But this is an EXPLICITLY political film.
Of course Smith is not above reproach. I’m just saying that this is really nothing new in Hollywood–Smith is just much, much better at that particular shtick than anyone else in the game. That being the case, it’s kind of silly to lament him as the endpoint of the evolution of trash cinema.
Of course Smith is not above reproach. I’m just saying that this is really nothing new in Hollywood–Smith is just much, much better at that particular shtick than anyone else in the game. That being the case, it’s kind of silly to lament him as the endpoint of the evolution of trash cinema.
DRF — July 18, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Someone once said that the definition of “zealot” was “someone who cannot look at anything without seeing his or her totem issue as the cause, result or other part of it.”
There are anti-Bush zealots and there are pro-Bush zealots, and they both obscure the truth of the matter.
John Bigenwald — July 18, 2008 at 6:37 pm
No need to make a distinction between well behaved and “otherly” behaved kids. Kids are kids and they all have a limit on how long they will sit in a dark room and watch something they don’t understand. Some last longer than others, but they will all start to squirm, whine and cry at some point.
I watched a lot of kids movies when I’d rather have watched something more adult — but that’s part of the job description… I also think it’s why PPV was invented.
Sonny Bunch — July 18, 2008 at 8:01 pm
True; kids can only take so much. Again: I have no problem with kids going to matinees, especially if they’re children’s movies. But they really have no place at a movie like ‘The Dark Knight.’ Parenting is all about sacrifices, right? (Easily enough said, I guess, when you’re childless.)
Sonny Bunch — July 18, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Totally right: this is why I’m typically so hesitant in ascribing political takes to the movies I review. I’d rather you break that down for yourself than have a reviewer tell you how it is. (Of course, I made an exception this week when I blogged about ‘The Dark Knight.’ But it is a striking film, one I haven’t been able to stop thinking about since I saw it on Monday. The politics are part of its…strikingness? Is that a word? It’s been a long week.)
I’m waiting for the liberal blowback on “The Dark Knight” … any minute now …
And you’re right about being very careful to ascribe your own political views into your reviews. MOST critics don’t bother with such professionalism, alas.
regdunlop — July 19, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Just mosey on over to the LA map and you’ll find that Brentwood and Bel-Air are among the city’s least walkable neighborhoods, surely due to the grinding poverty therein. But I’ll bet Yglesias has an ironclad response — after all, he went to HARVARD!!!
Philip Marlowe — July 19, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Thank you! Seriously, when I read her review I was all, like, “WTF?!”
mike hussein smith — July 20, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Poor Johnny one-note
sang out with “gusto”
And just overlorded the place
Poor Johnny one-note
yelled willy nilly
Until he was bleu in the face
For holding one note was his ace
— From “Babes in Arms” by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart.
My question, Sonny, is how many conservatives will denounce it for the terrible violence in the picture?
Seriously, saw it both at midnight and on the IMAX screen and I am amazed, both at the explicit politicization of the picture and at the abject nihilism of the Joker.
The trick of telling Batman that one is here and the other there and it being so, but not quite was chilling. I was reminded over and over watching Ledger’s stunningly magnetic performance that this is what a bad guy is supposed to be and mercy he did a fantastic job. I wrote in my long-winded diatribe that I never felt the Joker was telling the truth in the film. Exit question from me. The detonators on the ferries, they blew up the boat they were one, didn’t they?
I read many movie reviewer blogs, and they often write openly about their pro-Democrat positions. A few are blunt about it, a smaller group tend to be obnoxious in this arena. But while you explore the complicated nature of blending ideology with movie reviewing, these critics don’t seem a bit concerned about the subject.
Philip Marlowe — July 21, 2008 at 9:40 am
Yea, maybe. The difference is that Dana Stevens makes moronic, sophomoric political comparisons. Rememeber Autobots/Decepticons: Democrats/Republicans? And she is completely wrong about the ending to The Dark Knight. Only a partisan tool would come away from the movie with that view of the ending (”falsely heroic”?!). I remember Slate had a review of Fincher’s Zodiac, comparing it to Dirty Harry, and how Zodiac is a defense of a liberal understanding due process (I don’t think Dana Stevens wrote it, it was too subtle). I didn’t have a problem with that, because the analysis was pretty much spot on. Stevens’s reviews are just silly.
Buster — July 21, 2008 at 10:09 am
Reminds me of an Onion headline from a few years ago: “Will Smith: The Black Man Everyone At Work Can Agree On.”
Buster — July 21, 2008 at 10:09 am
Reminds me of an Onion headline from a few years ago: “Will Smith: The Black Man Everyone At Work Can Agree On.”
Sonny Bunch — July 21, 2008 at 10:25 am
Christian: Do you think this is a function of old media/new media? I’m kind of mired in that old media sensibility, especially when it comes to newspapers/magazines. At the blog I let loose a little more but still try to keep personal feelings/politics under wraps.
Philip: Yes, I do remember that. Stevens is clearly unable to set her politics aside while watching a film. David Denby is another reviewer in that vein (remember when he criticized ‘Iron Man’ because the good guy was, shock, fighting terrorists?).
Christian Hamaker — July 21, 2008 at 10:36 am
Thanks for the plug, Sonny. I was writing that post on the fly, more as an appreciation of what you’d written about Stevens than a critique of your Times review. But as I was linking, I saw that you’d posted earlier at your blog about the film. Rather than stop myself, read your earlier post fully, and take time to digest it — who wants to be patient? — I posted off-the-cuff at Arts and Faith.
I certainly agree that your Times review was not overtly political, and the difference between equating your *blog post* on the movie with Stevens’ *published review* is veering into apples-and-oranges territory. So apologies if I sounded miffed or angry. I was neither.
I should probably add that my Slate reading has cratered in the past year, and I hadn’t read Stevens’ review at the time I saw your post. I prefer Salon’s arts coverage, although the site’s overall political bent is one I rarely agree with. Those film writners are very, very *down* on the Batman film. As easy as it would be to attribute that to my impression that the film is indeed neocon-ish — at least in the early going — I think the concerns of Stephanie Z. and Andrew O’Hehir go deeper.
As I may have mentioned to you in a separate conversation, my own review of “The Dark Knight” came out much more positive than I was expecting. Walking out of the film, I felt a bit beaten down by its *length* and was thinking that aspect of the film might overwhelm my positive thoughts about “The Dark Knight.” The review went in the other direction — too positive, if anything.
Sonny Bunch — July 21, 2008 at 11:41 am
Christian: I think there’s an important point in your critique, though, namely a question of what’s the line in the age of new media. Where is the distinction between professional commentary and personal commentary? I’m not entirely sure…
Sonny,
I’m still not sure of the line … and I suspect editors/readers aren’t either. it’s a whole new world, and I’m a scared … and curious, too.
Sonny Bunch — July 21, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Joe: I’m a little surprised there hasn’t been more of a reaction against the PG-13 rating. It’s kind of a head-scratcher. And I think you’re right…if one of the ferries had used the detonator their own ship would have been destroyed.
I work with a fair few movie fans. The scary part is that only myself and one of my colleagues made the trip this week. (and me three times with one standard projection, one IMAX and one digital, because that’s the kind of geek I am) I fully expect over the next week, a half a dozen of those co-workers will see the picture.
I think the domestic box office for The Dark Knight is going to hit the $500-525 million range. I would not be surprised if it toppled Titanic.
I think being the last dog in the pack bodes well for Nolan’s epic. And as more comment comes out on the picture, it will carry. I also would not be surprised if it remains number one for a months.
To me the signal is that we arrived fifteen minutes before trailer start (pre-bought tickets in hand) heard the announcement that the next three shows after ours were already sold out and could not find a pair of seats together in the stadium section of the theater, that holds 431 people. And it was the emptiest of the performances we went to. Your mileage may vary, but from 7:10 – 9:20 four shows at $10 a seat and 400 seats filled is bang up business.
I work with a fair few movie fans. The scary part is that only myself and one of my colleagues made the trip this week. (and me three times with one standard projection, one IMAX and one digital, because that’s the kind of geek I am) I fully expect over the next week, a half a dozen of those co-workers will see the picture.
I think the domestic box office for The Dark Knight is going to hit the $500-525 million range. I would not be surprised if it toppled Titanic.
I think being the last dog in the pack bodes well for Nolan’s epic. And as more comment comes out on the picture, it will carry. I also would not be surprised if it remains number one for a months.
To me the signal is that we arrived fifteen minutes before trailer start (pre-bought tickets in hand) heard the announcement that the next three shows after ours were already sold out and could not find a pair of seats together in the stadium section of the theater, that holds 431 people. And it was the emptiest of the performances we went to. Your mileage may vary, but from 7:10 – 9:20 four shows at $10 a seat and 400 seats filled is bang up business.
I work with a fair few movie fans. The scary part is that only myself and one of my colleagues made the trip this week. (and me three times with one standard projection, one IMAX and one digital, because that’s the kind of geek I am) I fully expect over the next week, a half a dozen of those co-workers will see the picture.
I think the domestic box office for The Dark Knight is going to hit the $500-525 million range. I would not be surprised if it toppled Titanic.
I think being the last dog in the pack bodes well for Nolan’s epic. And as more comment comes out on the picture, it will carry. I also would not be surprised if it remains number one for a months.
To me the signal is that we arrived fifteen minutes before trailer start (pre-bought tickets in hand) heard the announcement that the next three shows after ours were already sold out and could not find a pair of seats together in the stadium section of the theater, that holds 431 people. And it was the emptiest of the performances we went to. Your mileage may vary, but from 7:10 – 9:20 four shows at $10 a seat and 400 seats filled is bang up business.
I don’t recall where I read it, having read reams of Bat-commentary on the day, but the word of a three-hour long director’s cut is interesting, as I think we would be surprised at how much Nolan cut. The disappearing pencil trick was so swiftly executed that it drew raucous shouts from each crowd I shared the Dark knight experience with. Unlike the disappearing icicle which gave me nightmares after first seeing Die Hard 2, there was only the reactions of others to sell the gruesomeness of what happened. It is remarkably stage blood free for all that was spilled.
kudos to the makers Dark Knight for their record breaking opening weekend… it’s no wonder there’s talk of another one coming out ASAP
Charlene — July 21, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I can not believe that Keith Olbermann gets paid to act like a baboon. What has this world come to? It is complete torture to listen to him because he must believe the garbage that is comes out of liberal mouth. Which idiot at MSNBC thinks this guys poop don’t stink?
Charlene — July 21, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I can not believe that Keith Olbermann gets paid to act like a baboon. What has this world come to? It is complete torture to listen to him because he must believe the garbage that is comes out of liberal mouth. Which idiot at MSNBC thinks this guys poop don’t stink?
Charlene — July 21, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I can not believe that Keith Olbermann gets paid to act like a baboon. What has this world come to? It is complete torture to listen to him because he must believe the garbage that is comes out of liberal mouth. Which idiot at MSNBC thinks this guys poop don’t stink?
Senescent — July 21, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Meh. Men playing the “female” role aren’t nearly as pitiful as unsuited men playing the “male” role badly out of inertia. Introduces coordination problems into courtship, but if the gays can figure out ways to signal and determine roles without relying on gender, so can we.
cole porter — July 22, 2008 at 10:09 am
I think the analogy between that position and being trapped in a paper bag is pretty apt. How about we don’t parse our way into any paper bags? It’s nice out here.
If my memory serves, part of what Titanic had going for it was the “screaming girl” factor. It’s funny to remember back, but Leonardo de Caprio was like Leif Garret after this movie. My little sister (who was in college!!) saw it 5 times in the theater specifically because she was so gaga over Leo.
The other question, of course, is can it pull in the hardcore “non-action move” crowd. People like my in-laws, who see a movie every weekend – usually a romantic comedy or well-reviewed drama. Who didn’t go see any of the Lord of the Rings movies, but saw Titanic. if those folks get intrigued and start showing up, then it’s off to the races.
Jenn Rosenberry — July 22, 2008 at 4:10 pm
If my memory serves, part of what Titanic had going for it was the “screaming girl” factor. It’s funny to remember back, but Leonardo de Caprio was like Leif Garret after this movie. My little sister (who was in college!!) saw it 5 times in the theater specifically because she was so gaga over Leo.
The other question, of course, is can it pull in the hardcore “non-action move” crowd. People like my in-laws, who see a movie every weekend – usually a romantic comedy or well-reviewed drama. Who didn’t go see any of the Lord of the Rings movies, but saw Titanic. if those folks get intrigued and start showing up, then it’s off to the races.
Jenn Rosenberry — July 22, 2008 at 4:10 pm
If my memory serves, part of what Titanic had going for it was the “screaming girl” factor. It’s funny to remember back, but Leonardo de Caprio was like Leif Garret after this movie. My little sister (who was in college!!) saw it 5 times in the theater specifically because she was so gaga over Leo.
The other question, of course, is can it pull in the hardcore “non-action move” crowd. People like my in-laws, who see a movie every weekend – usually a romantic comedy or well-reviewed drama. Who didn’t go see any of the Lord of the Rings movies, but saw Titanic. if those folks get intrigued and start showing up, then it’s off to the races.
Sonny Bunch — July 22, 2008 at 5:00 pm
PMM: That link is getting its own post it’s so awesome.
Floppy — July 22, 2008 at 6:21 pm
That was Grover. Not Elmo.
Sonny Bunch — July 22, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I’m pretty sure those were little Elmos in the tunnel scene of that YouTube…about 50 seconds into it. Note the creepy laughing, like a tickle-me-Elmo.
In order:
1) Yes
2) No
3) All of it.
4) Indefinitely
5) Per his NPR interview he’s willing to do whatever Obama asks him, so I say he was still in it.
6) No
Atlanta, a city incapable of selling out playoff baseball games, and site to the Olympics 12 years ago. I remember almost nothing about those Olympics other than the bombing and subsequent wrongheaded “investigation” of Richard Jewell.
Yes, I think we can safely contract Atlanta.
Sonny Bunch — July 23, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I remember watching the Olympic torch when it passed through Stafford. An Olympic biker was on it, and he blew through town at about 30 mph. We were all very excited.
I had the joy of watching one of my professors carry the torch down Franklin Street in Chapel Hill. That he was the legendary Chuck Stone had something to do with his assignment and my appreciation.
This essay-post seems to fit nicely with Joseph Bottum’s essay in the current First Things (The Death of Protestant America, available on the website), as the Bottum essay may explain why it has become so hard to make the cultural argument in non-partisan terms. We can live the virtuous life if we desire to do so, but these days we probably can’t convince other people to come along…
Or am I seeing a connection where none exists?
Sara — July 24, 2008 at 4:53 pm
As Ben Smith notes the Citizens of the World description derives from JFK
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.
Sara — July 24, 2008 at 4:54 pm
And if you read the speech- he also says I come to you as a fellow citizen of the world, he’s inferring that we are all citizens of the world.
JDS — July 24, 2008 at 4:55 pm
We are all citizens of the world and I believe an argument against that is hard to substantiate.
john — July 24, 2008 at 5:00 pm
i think most of america is tired of the expectations and responsibility of being on a pedestal too high for comfort. this is obama trying to come humbly without losing any dignity. i don’t see anything empty about it. critics that deride this kind of rhetoric are no longer relevant and do not resound with the base that obama is trying to win over: those that are ready to return to pragmatism and cooperation.
and besides, it’s just a metaphor. if you’re not at home in the metaphor, you’re not safe anywhere.
It’s a very common phrase, and not meant to be taken nearly as literally as you did. Easy, guy, easy.
Patrick Tomlinson — July 24, 2008 at 5:21 pm
“…the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible…”
Is it possible to be of a smaller mind than this?
Citizenship in the world is not only possible, it is essential. There is no greater polity than that of all humanity, no grander nation than mankind. To act and believe that we are not all members of this nation of man, as Mr. Poulos would have us do, is to deny the humanity of those outside of our arbitrarily formed boarders.
I am a human first, an American second. Think what we could all accomplish if everyone had these simple priorities straightened out.
Hoodwinked — July 24, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Poulos writes: “In addition to being meaningless — the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible — this is exactly the sort of redundantly empty rhetoric that does nothing to energize his base, nothing to allay the concerns of Middle America about his meta-attitude, and supplies the frantic and the furious on the right with a fresh tranch of attacks. Why did he do it? Bad advice? His own advice? Why couldn’t he just say “a big fan of the world,” or “a product of the world,” something that at least had the merit of being accurate? Anyone?”
This statement is really quite petty. Seriously, this is all you could come up with as criticism? What contributions are you making to the world, besides being snarky?
Chet — July 24, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Meaingless, eh? In France there’s a fairly large statue of an ancestor of mine – Thomas Paine, a writer, maybe you’ve heard of him? – with the golden inscription “citoyen du monde”: citizen of the world.
Apparently it was neither meaningless to our Founding Fathers nor to their French allies.
While Obama is busy crafting a vision of American statecraft we haven’t seen since the days of Adams and Jefferson, you’re busy nitpicking one phrase out of a thousand. You’re everything that’s wrong with the press these days.
Scott de B. — July 24, 2008 at 5:30 pm
The “citizen of the world” concept goes back much farther than JFK. It was the Greek philosopher Diogenes who first said “I am a citizen of the cosmos (cosmopolites)”, whence our word cosmopolitan.
Dan — July 24, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Mr. Poulos, with due respect, I think you’re very wrong on at least two counts:
1) “the world is not a polity”… That’s a valid opinion, especially if you believe — as was fashionable about 30 years ago — that a polity requires a government that can tax people and has a monopoly on legitimate violence. But the study of politics has changed a bit since then. Read, for example, Ruggie’s “Constructing the World Polity.”
2) By describing himself as a fellow citizen of the world, Obama was making a claim that the world is indeed a single community — or polity — both empirically and ethically. People around the world actually do affect each other, and we have obligations to each other, like upholding human rights, even when it’s not in one state’s narrowly-defined short-term self-interests. That is not “redundantly empty rhetoric,” in fact, but a very specific kind of claim. I think it’s one of the most important claims a presidential campaign can make.
You did get something right. The right wing doesn’t like this idea. That’s a heck of a newsflash!!! But let’s have an open debate on the substance of that claim, rather than avoiding it by trying to label Obama as some kind of vacuous utopian.
matt — July 24, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Somethings are said analogically. ‘Citizen of the world’ means that one has shared political interests and obligations with people around the world. You might think this is false, but its not meaningless.
Barrett Brown — July 24, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“In addition to being meaningless — the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible…”
Would you be open to considering the possibility that Obama is perfectly aware that he is not actually an official member of an organization called “the world” and did not intend to convey any such thing, but was rather making a figurative statement to the effect that he is committed to greater international cooperation?
Kris — July 24, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“Polity?” Geez, what a tight-assed little word to use. And so what if he cribbed a phrase from Kennedy’s inaugural speech? I’m tired of my country being seen as the knuckle-dragging bully. I’m sick to death of apologizing for my government’s xenophobia. And I’m sick at heart over the fact we have squandered our position of leadership and good will and are dangerously close to being reduced to a sideline spectator in the 21st century. I, for one, am quite ready to rejoin the “citizens of the world.”
ad — July 24, 2008 at 6:01 pm
‘Citizen of the World’ goes back to the eighteenth century and Enlightenment ideals of humanist cosmopolitanism, where you have a responsibility to others that goes beyond narrow national borders and self interests… it’s a pretty famous concept and not at all meaningless.
Germany has a great education system, maybe that one was for them. He did also lay it on with a trowel about loving America…
Muzzy — July 24, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Aristotle was the first recorded instance of a man declaring himself a citizen of the world.
Perhaps when little Jamie P. grows up he might like to read some Aristotle and learn something.
It is the first thing I remember hearing in Obama’s speech. It took my breath away to hear him say it, because it is the first moment in my lifetime that I could hear myself in the words of a presidential candidate.
steve — July 24, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“Our yearning for pan-human solidarity is an absurdity, the absurdity of the human condition, and the most utopian of all utopian ideas is the idea of a Brotherhood of Man: because the human race is not a family, just like it isn’t one big polity. ”
We share huge amounts of interests with Europe, culturally and politically. Start with NATO in Afghanistan and go on from there. Acknowledging, that we share common goals and aspirations, making us a group, and wanting to promote our common interests is hardly the same as giving up individual political liberty.
Steve
H. M. — July 24, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Why don’t you just admit it, Poulos, you don’t like Obama and you’re jealous. It’s pretty seventh-grade girly of yo to get so
whipped over a fairly common rhetorical phrase. “Fan of the World”? “Product of the World”? Surely you can’t be serious, or do
you really not get that “accuracy” wasn’t the goal. Are you truly the anal weenie you sound like here?
Reagan said the same thing. So did Bush Sr. This is mostly a rhetorical device noting that people have much in common, especially people of good will.
Steve
MK — July 24, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Poulos why are you insulting Ronald Reagan? Seriously, Reagan introduced himself to the UN General Assembly in 1982 as a “both a citizen of the United States and the world.” Was Reagan some kind of American-hating wako? Pushing this “citizen of the world” attack meme is solidly stupid. Before you do so again you should check your facts! You’d learn that not only Reagan, but George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy have used the same term “citizen of the world” in their speeches. Talk about grapsing for straws~!
Lars — July 24, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan made the same mistake:
“Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen:
I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world.”
Remarks in New York City Before the United Nations General Assembly Special Session Devoted to Disarmament
June 17th, 1982
Michael — July 24, 2008 at 9:02 pm
The world is most certainly a “polity”! It is represented by international bodies, such as the United Nations, and by intricate conventions manifested by international law. The term “polity” covers a lot more ground than you pretend.
Obviously, he was pandering to the Democratic Party’s powerful “cosmopolitan sophisticate” constituency.
David — July 24, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I sometimes wish there was some kind of annual “missing the point entirely” recognition ceremony. Does pointing out that one literally can’t vote for an earth-president (Paulos in ‘12!) in an election really pass as commentary? Do you think Obama was confused, perhaps believing that he owed small blue planet taxes? You mean you can’t REALLY be a citizen of the world? That’s the sound of me hitting my head against a coffee table in disappointment.
It was rhetorical, and while we’re being ridiculous, anal, and literal: Does Paulos really recommend that I “pick a presidential poison”? Surely, if I chose poison I would die, and that would be regrettable. Why couldn’t he have called his piece “choose a president that is ultimately bad for you but that has some short term positive effects.” Mmmm — the merit of accuracy…
At least if I drank poison I’d never again have to read such bloody minded literalism posing as intelligent commentary. Ugh. I need to take tomorrow off. This “fan of the world” is going to go lie down now.
RP — July 24, 2008 at 11:11 pm
God, you are a pathetic know all. A writer and a graduate student — quite smart, your family must be so proud that you can use a word like polity. It was a great speech. And the point about being a citizen of the world is that, as the world, we are all in this together. The issues of war and peace, global warming, and economic justice, to name a few,effect the whole world. And, unlike George Bush and the neocon idiots, many of whom were graduate students in government and writers like your self, most Americans actually understand that and would like a President who is respect by the world, not hated.
“the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible”
Poulos is apparently an extreme literalist and/or unacquainted with the concept of metaphor.
- Another fellow citizen of the world
Stephen — July 25, 2008 at 2:35 am
If you’re going to nitpick a phrase this literally, it helps to do a little research first. “Citizen of the world” as a phrase actually appears in the Oxford American dictionary as “a person who is at home in any country.” So by definition it is not meaningless. You could argue that Obama meant it in a sense that’s different from the established dictionary definition, and that would be slightly less anal than your analysis as it stands.
will thomas — July 25, 2008 at 2:50 am
Dude. You’re weird. It’s going to be strangely exciting/unsettling to see the heads of commentators such as yourself exploding in reaction to Obama’s third way.
Steve V — July 25, 2008 at 7:56 am
It isn’t just that he was using words Kennedy had used; he used the phrase to actually invoke Kennedy: the phrase is preceded by (in substance), “I come to you as others before have, …” namely Kennedy, that citzen of the world. Just like all the references to tearing down walls was an invocation of Reagan, this seemed to me to be a invocation of Kennedy. Not that enterprising righties won’t go into fits of faux outrage anyway.
Luis — July 25, 2008 at 9:51 am
Ah, so you’re taking the Humpty Dumpty line. Being a citizen of the world means “yearning for pan-human solidarity” and being everyone’s brother, naively and without regard to whether other folks want to bash your head in.
Just like being a citizen of the U.S. means “yearning for pan-human solidarity” (among that subset of humans) and being every American’s brother, naively and without regard to whether other Americans want to bash your head in.
Thanks for clearing that one up. I do so love it when people tell me what words mean.
Mark — July 25, 2008 at 10:05 am
And let’s not forget JFK:
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.
Brian — July 25, 2008 at 10:19 am
I’ve read this three or four times now, and while I find a good many rhetorical curlicues, I’m still not finding any sort of defense. “Our yearning for pan-human solidarity is…the absurdity of the human condition…” I’d still like to hear this backed up. Why, exactly, is this so? Lead me to the absurdity.
Elvis Elvisberg — July 25, 2008 at 10:26 am
This is a colorable argument as to why you don’t like the phrase. But it’s common parlance. Reagan, Bush Jr., JFK, et al have used it.
If I don’t like the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right,” and President Bush uses it, it’s not a valid criticism for me to claim that he is soft-headed or immoral or whatever on that basis.
elle loco — July 25, 2008 at 10:38 am
Mr. Poulos, when you’re in a hole, stop digging. Barack Obama is being head-butted by reactionary, xenophobic America for employing a rhetorical trope priorly invoked by Presidents John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush, among others. It is a sentiment in favor of human rights and the recognition of our common humanity and fate.
By your friends shall you be known, and judged. Your point is fatuous, overcooked, and objectively swinish.
“Knocking Obama’s phrasing is not an exercise in snark. ”
The fact remains that when countless other politicians who weren’t Obama used the same phrase (sometimes without even prefacing the phrase without “proud American” as many on the right seem to prefer not to mention), did you express the same deep worries about their character?
And frankly, your complaints aren’t very convincing. Is political liberty really a goal best served by only insularity? Is a sense of being in the same world as other and thus having to work out how to interact with them to achieve certain (western enlightenment) goals somehow a barrier to increased liberty instead of a boon?
You seem to be making an extremely forced interpretation in the service of a very unjustifiably absolutist point.
Paul — July 25, 2008 at 10:44 am
Take a step back. This is just self-regarding windbaggery. You pundits should all go on holiday until the first debates happen.
KJ — July 25, 2008 at 10:57 am
I do love it when the commenters are all smarter than the poster. Mr Poulous, wasn’t some blogger saying the same thing about the Black and White races back in the 50s? Our interdependence on each other grows daily, to the benefit of most in our dear world, and to deny that reality is simply putting makeup on xenophobia.
But that’s a larger point. The fact that “citizen of the world” is a common construction used by many a conservative politician and president should be embarrassment enough for you to stop.
Scott de B. — July 25, 2008 at 11:01 am
I think a world government should be the goal of human political development, and moreover I think it is an inevitable one, although I am realistic enough to believe it is around 300 years away. Such a government need not be inimicable to liberty — in fact I would argue that it is the best vehicle for preserving liberty.
We have too many common interests to think that we can live in splendid isolation, as the British Empire once did. Trade policies in the U.S. can make or break a third-world economy. Stock market fluctuations in Europe can trigger a recession in the U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions in Asia can lead to humanitarian catastrophes around the world. The decisions of Arab oil sheiks arguably have more impact on my day-to-day life than the actions of my House representative, so why shouldn’t I have a say in the former? That would seem to advance the cause of liberty.
In the end, the arguments that the U.S. and, say, Austria should be part of the same polity are no weaker than the arguments that Oregon and Alabama, Guandong and Xinjiang, or the Crimea and Kamchatka should be part of the same polity.
Patrick Tomlinson — July 25, 2008 at 11:03 am
How about until after the election?
matt — July 25, 2008 at 11:22 am
I think there’s a deep misunderstanding of internationalist cosmopolitanism here. The cosmopolitical bind between ‘citizens of the world’ does not make them closer; it doesn’t ‘bust borders’; it is adopted more in the interests of political liberty than ’social solidarity’; it has little to do with ‘the suffering of strangers’. Indeed, sophisticated cosmopolitanism depends upon borders, and upon the (even cultural) antagonism of nations.
mattc — July 25, 2008 at 11:31 am
“We share huge amounts of interests with Europe, culturally and politically. Start with NATO in Afghanistan and go on from there.”
There are many people who believe entangling alliances such as NATO are perfect examples of loss of individual political liberty.
“I think a world government should be the goal of human political development, and moreover I think it is an inevitable one, although I am realistic enough to believe it is around 300 years away.”
It’s a damn good thing I’ll be dead by then.
“We have too many common interests to think that we can live in splendid isolation, as the British Empire once did. Trade policies in the U.S. can make or break a third-world economy. Stock market fluctuations in Europe can trigger a recession in the U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions in Asia can lead to humanitarian catastrophes around the world. The decisions of Arab oil sheiks arguably have more impact on my day-to-day life than the actions of my House representative, so why shouldn’t I have a say in the former?”
If you think your House representative does little for you know vis-a-vis your day-to-day life, what influece do you think your WORLD representative will have.
Liberal internationalist do pine for pan-human solidarity. It’s one of the tenets of social democrats as well. Without us all accepting our “citizenship” to the world, these types of political and economic philosophies will continue to meet resistance. They don’t want that, and neither does Obama.
“Just like being a citizen of the U.S. means “yearning for pan-human solidarity” (among that subset of humans) and being every American’s brother, naively and without regard to whether other Americans want to bash your head in.”
No, citizenship only applies with regards to polity. Read James’ first post. That’s the point. You are a citizen of your town, state, and country because they have a government that represents you. Conversely, you are not a citizen of Brazil.
The rhetoric Obama used (as others have as well) specifically blurs this definition of citizenship. Some think it’s a rebuke to isolationism. I think it’s a rebuke to self-government and political liberty, as does James. Obama wants a social solidarity, a communitarian world-view, as much as any President I’ve seen in my lifetime. He similarly uses rhetoric to goad American’s into “social service” instead of pursuing private enterprise: his political fusion of the Social Gospel. I have no doubt that when he is President his policies will be focused on a) rewarding public employees, social workers, and union laborers and b) developing a communitarian foreign policy to directly contrast the “you are either with us or against us” policy of Bush. Either way, political liberty and self-government are NOT things Obama is concerned about.
Consider this a slightly related rant. There’s plenty of outrage about the US’s war with Iraq. Fine. Where is the outrage that the world didn’t stop Rwanda’s genocide … the Darfur quasi? genocide and so many other ills across the globe? Doesn’t any country get blamed for that? No outrage?
Getting back to your post … would love to hear some outrage over this announcement re: Iraq and the Olympics. I expect none.
Nice, subtle reference to Nazi’s in the fourth paragraph. Always a solid way to prove your point.
I think Poulos misses on a couple points, first that friendship isn’t the only trope, or metaphor, capable of accurately describing relationships with strangers, what about an “business partner.” The world is more economically intertwined than during any other time in history and it becomes more so every day. Countries and governments try to slow this change with tariffs and other trade limitations, with incomplete success. It is this selfish, economic drive that will propel countries around the world to cooperate, not high falutin’ moral goals of a utopian humanity.
His second shortcoming is in reference to “strangers” only being able to relate through “friendship.” That doesn’t make sense. Strangers would be more likely to be interested in a business partnership and less likely to want to be “friends.” But, let’s assume he is correct, there are a couple flaws with this. First, he assumes that the people of the world will always be “strangers” with each other. That was true when the philosophers and politicians that Poulos emulates wrote their ideas. Even 25 years ago, communication and travel was onerous enough to make a “world view” a rare commodity. That is no longer the case. Second, once two people become “friends” their outlook on competition and cooperation with each other changes. This fundamentally affects how they will work together.
Perhaps, at the heart of this debate is the definition of “citizen.” Poulos seems to imply that a global citizen somehow sheds all personal concern and only looks at the world with an unselfish, idealistic view. Others (Reagan, Bush Jr., Obama) view a global citizen as an entity that continues to work in their own best interests, but recognizes that more can be accomplished working with others, than alone. Sometimes that may mean giving, in order to receive.
Muzzy — July 25, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“Our apparently pan-human longing for pan-human solidarity may actually be a parochially European hang-up”?
European? Parochial?
And all this time I thought Gandhi was an Indian. How silly of me to assume that Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American! Thank you, Mr. Poulos, for setting the record straight. Wait, does that mean that Jesus of Nazareth was really just a parochial Dutchman in disguise?
Jeff — July 25, 2008 at 1:23 pm
James — You obviously fail to realize that there is a strain of “world citizenship” in which being a world citizen means essentially being able to be friends with varieties of peoples and countries outside the borders of one’s own nation. (The best example here is actually from post-war Germany, namely Jaspers.) Point is I think you’re tilting at windmills here, windmills which are largely the creation of your own intellectual narrowness.
James, you’re wrong all over the place. Why is it preferable to be cynical than it is to be idealistic? Idealists got us to the moon, for heaven’s sake. Idealists got us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The brotherhood of man exists in the phrase, “all men are created equal.” If we are created equal, then we are brothers, we are all “citizens of the world.” It’s not just a figure of speech; it’s an ideal. And while we humans — most notably you with these comments, James — fall short of the ideal, it does not obviate the need to reach for the ideal. We recognize the universality of being interdependent and united toward a common goal and a greater good for everyone, not just good for one group or nationality or religion.
You need to leave wherever you are and head out to where real people live.
“Citizen of the world” is so obviously a figurative and ceremonial concept in this context, as would be the meaning of such terms as “political liberty” and “self-government”. Communitarians are certainly as entitled to their rhetorical flights as libertarians are to theirs.
Sam Sutton — July 25, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I disagree on one point – that his comment is empty and will do nothing to energize the base. I am part of that base – lifelong Democrat, Obama supporter since mid-2006, and so on, and I find myself very energized by this comment and, more specifically, the attitude that it represents.
I believe firmly that striving for a more coherent, cooperative worldwide society is a good thing, and I despise those who are militantly, vehemently nationalistic. To this end I believe Obama represents a needed transition away from the our-way-or-the-highway approach of the Bush administration, and while I always knew Obama represented this I appreciate having it confirmed and enshrined in such strong terms.
So while I agree that it probably won’t help with “Middle-America” (although it still may just because it represents a move away from one of Bush’s hallmark legacies) and gives the right-wing wackos a fresh belt of ammunition, I don’t agree that it was a stupid thing to say. Obama has thrived by taking on “tough” issues directly, succinctly – and by not backing down or beating around the bush. He is merely doing the same thing here.
On an unrelated note, I think this characterization of the Joker as “blowback” is a pretty interesting response to your earlier interpretation of the Batman franchise’s politics. I’d be interested to read your take on it:
That take is forthcoming: I’m working on a post that should go up tonight at some point about politics and ‘The Dark Knight.’
Steve V — July 25, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I said this in the last comment thread and I’m going to try again. I believe the ONLY purpose for the insertion of that line was to invoke Kennedy. Look, Obama wanted to go to Europe and to identify with those notions of America which are popular with Europeans, as opposed to those notions which the Europeans despise (such as the current leadership). So he litters his speech with allusions to Kennedy and yes, Reagan whom I’m surprised would be popular with Europeans but there it is. The only purpose of including this verbiage, just like the repeated “tearing down of walls” verbiage, was to invoke the popular American leaders who originally said these things and to allow Obama to identify with them. And thus there was a great enthusiasm and waving of American flags. I seriously doubt that Obama has any particular attachment to the idea of “world citizenship” apart from this identification.
Mike — July 25, 2008 at 6:24 pm
From Casablanca:
Major Strasser: What is your nationality?
Rick: I’m a drunkard.
Captain Renault: That makes Rick a citizen of the world.
So it’s not Obama at all, it’s Bush.
elle loco — July 25, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Poulos, I hope you’re blotto drunk, like
Alcibiades at the end of the Symposium. Your audience is laughing hysterically at you. How reassuring.
J Grimes — July 26, 2008 at 12:25 am
Will Thomas, what exactly is Obama’s Third Way? Run of the mill neoliberal globalism?
Though Mr. Sutton is right on his first point. Obama’s base accepts the absurd, pure abstraction of Citizenry of the World as axiomatic.
Mediocrity Ferdinand! I highly recommend it! The more obfuscating you are…the more brutal you are.
Joachim Robert — July 26, 2008 at 5:42 am
There are also big differences between the people in one nation. But they are still called citizens. I don’t see the big increase in difference between people of the world from people of a nation that somehow should make it wrong to tag them as citizens. I live in this World, I am a citizen of the World; obviously that’s true.
You look at it with very nationalistic eyes, which I think is wrong.
Joachim Robert — July 26, 2008 at 5:44 am
Well, “nationalistic” not necessarily in the sense that one nation is better than the other, but more than you are focusing too much on the borders between nations.
Tim — July 26, 2008 at 11:47 am
I see The Dark Knight as probably the most intelligent movie response to 9/11 yet. The bombs on two boats scenario is based on `the prisoners` dilemma` derived from game theory. The idea being that two players in a game can choose between two moves; either `cooperate` or `defect`. The idea is that each player gains when both cooperate, but if only one of them cooperates, the other one, who defects, will gain more – but they can`t confer. (U can Google 4 more.) Joker wants to demonstrate that ultimately everyone is as murderous and ruthless as he is. The passengers could attempt to save their own lives by destroying the other boat, providing they act first. Joker expects one boat to do so. But there is also a moral dimension, by destroying a boat the survivors will also be mass murderers and both boats choose not to become so.
It`s telling this particular scenario was chosen for the film. On 9/11, if those in one tower could have saved themselves by choosing to destroy the other tower would they have done so? (But then becoming terrorists themselves.) Nolan is saying that no they wouldn`t have; they`d decide to take their own chances and someone else would have to take the moral responsibility as to whether they lived or died. The boat passengers’ decision not to blow up the other boat is a demonstration of basic humanity that is the real defeat of Joker and what he stands for.
Batman plays rough, but wants to hand over to the forces of law and order, if sufficiently strong and capable. He also has rules he won’t break. Harvey Dent suffers greatly in the film and arrives at a mental state that believes everything is arbitrary, that there is no morality, good, bad, justice or fairness in the world. Everything is morally equivalent. Two Face crucially abandons being led by moral choices, letting the coin flip do the work. He`s thrown into a nihilistic moral wasteland between Joker and Batman. And that is where US foreign policy is now with Guantanamo Bay and Iraq whilst pretending to itself that it is the world`s White Knight; preferring to believe the legend of Harvey Dent rather than the reality of what he became. (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is referenced in TDK.) Another key plot point is about the use of surveillance technology (ends and means), immensely topical given the Patriot Act and UK`s anti terror laws. There’s obviously more, it’s a very dense, complex film. What I love about these superhero characters is that they’ve becoming a pantheon of modern mythical figures – similar to those of Greek, Norse or Arthurian legends – whose stories can be endlessly retold and refashioned.
Will — July 28, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Doesn’t this kind of logic implicate the whole “introduce democracy to defeat terrorism” thing? Or am I missing a distinction somewhere?
Hector Mayorga — July 28, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Of course, Roger Federer is one of the best tennis players ever. But the greatest of them all is, and will probably remain so for many years, ROD LAVER
Sonny Bunch — July 28, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I’m not sure I follow you, Will; what does Africa’s failures have to do with democracy?
I agree with the 4 critics who found The Dark Knight weak with the exception of Mr. Ledgers disturbing and brilliant performance. Check out my full review on my blog – criticalmassnyc.blogspot.com
Drew — July 29, 2008 at 11:01 am
I thought it was b/c Chicago has replaced NY as the real-world Gotham city.
Sonny Bunch — July 29, 2008 at 11:41 am
Christopher: You didn’t like ‘The Dark Knight’ but you consider ‘Mongol’ to be a great artistic achievement? That makes me a sad panda.
Drew: But Gotham City is Chicago in the DC universe, right? Metropolis has to be NYC, making GC Chicago. At least, that’s what I always thought…
Michael — July 31, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Bill O’Reilly rules!!! Olbermann is an idiot and is soooo insanely jealous of Bill that it cracks me up. What a putz.
Michael — July 31, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Bill O’Reilly rules!!! Olbermann is an idiot and is soooo insanely jealous of Bill that it cracks me up. What a putz.
Michael — July 31, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Bill O’Reilly rules!!! Olbermann is an idiot and is soooo insanely jealous of Bill that it cracks me up. What a putz.
Robert Karol — August 1, 2008 at 9:21 am
So, how many of these people who think Obama’s rallying Nuremberg called out Reagan for going to Bitburg Cemetery?
Good idea: Reagan honoring dead SS soldiers.
Bad idea: Obama holding rally with peaceful Germans.
That makes so much sense.
Sonny Bunch — August 1, 2008 at 10:29 am
Robert: I mean, I didn’t really care that Obama went to Germany. I thought it was a little silly and presumptuous–he is still just a nominee, after all–but I was very “meh” on the whole thing. Ross’s point (and it’s a good one) is that liberals who try and compare McCain’s ad to ‘Triumph of the Will’ should pull their head out of their…rear. Obama’s the one who set up a photo op with hundreds of thousands of Germans in front of a German war memorial. It’s not McCain’s fault that it comes off a little, um, Fascist.
Given that international integration via increasing techno-economic and, by degrees, cultural globalization is, by his own admission, basically an inevitability for Friedman, anything that lessens America’s ability to stand out within that system (like shipping money to foreign oil barons, who in turn keep creeping the price and hurting the US economy, or at least so the analysis goes) is anathema to American nationalism. In Friedman’s mind it isn’t possible to unplug, so nationalism means being the biggest, fastest, most talented player on the field.
Which is a long way of saying that Friedman is likely projecting much of his own analysis on Pickens’ statement.
Given that international integration via increasing techno-economic and, by degrees, cultural globalization is, by his own admission, basically an inevitability for Friedman, anything that lessens America’s ability to stand out within that system (like shipping money to foreign oil barons, who in turn keep creeping the price and hurting the US economy, or at least so the analysis goes) is anathema to American nationalism. In Friedman’s mind it isn’t possible to unplug, so nationalism means being the biggest, fastest, most talented player on the field.
Which is a long way of saying that Friedman is likely projecting much of his own analysis on Pickens’ statement.
This is just silly – Yglesias is just acting the fool and “working the refs,” hoping that by throwing a few unsubstantiated (and false) claims about Slate’s political leanings, they’ll move to become less a close cousin of TNR and more like The Nation.
This is just silly – Yglesias is just acting the fool and “working the refs,” hoping that by throwing a few unsubstantiated (and false) claims about Slate’s political leanings, they’ll move to become less a close cousin of TNR and more like The Nation.
This is just silly – Yglesias is just acting the fool and “working the refs,” hoping that by throwing a few unsubstantiated (and false) claims about Slate’s political leanings, they’ll move to become less a close cousin of TNR and more like The Nation.
Sonny Bunch — August 2, 2008 at 12:15 pm
You know, I don’t think so. I think Yglesias actually thinks he’s either close to the center himself or imbued with a special power to see exactly where the center lies. Methinks Sullivan’s “Yglesias Award” has gone to his head…
Sonny Bunch — August 2, 2008 at 12:15 pm
You know, I don’t think so. I think Yglesias actually thinks he’s either close to the center himself or imbued with a special power to see exactly where the center lies. Methinks Sullivan’s “Yglesias Award” has gone to his head…
Sonny Bunch — August 2, 2008 at 12:15 pm
You know, I don’t think so. I think Yglesias actually thinks he’s either close to the center himself or imbued with a special power to see exactly where the center lies. Methinks Sullivan’s “Yglesias Award” has gone to his head…
Andy Hartzell — August 2, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I’m not sure I’m ready for the era of the seersucker-shorts-suits. But I’m relieved that the era of cargo-shorts hegemony may be coming to an end.
boqueronman — August 3, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I wouldn’t use the term “going out of business” in this case. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing usually leads to protection from creditors and breathing space to restructure. The core of the restructuring will probably be to close unprofitable units, but it probably doesn’t mean the company ceases to operate. It just means South Park kid will have to stay on the truck longer to get to the next Bennigans.
craig mclaughlin — August 4, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Chapter 7 is liquidation; give the keys to the trustee and walk away. Chapter 11 is corporate reorganization.
The only Bennigan’s I ever visited was in Pensacola Florida when I was in navy flight school nearly 25 years ago. My running mates and I went there because they had cute cocktail waitreses, we never bought any food.
Congratulations, Sonny. I was wondering where your Sunday Morning Show wrapups went to. Good for you.
Drew — August 5, 2008 at 10:44 am
Congrats, but I really liked the culture stuff here. Color me bummed.
Drew — August 5, 2008 at 10:46 am
Also, not to be too snarkty, but I think you would be an improvement over the Standard’s current print film critic.
Sonny Bunch — August 5, 2008 at 10:47 am
Joe: Thanks. I think Dean is going to do the wrap up from now on…I can’t say I’m terribly disappointed to get my Sundays back, though.
Drew: Well, I hope you follow me over to the ‘Times’ blog (once I find a link to it and figure out how often I’ll be writing for it, anyway). I’ll probably cross-post a little as well. I’m still kind of feeling it out at this point…
Will — August 5, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Congrats! Any thoughts as to what this blog will focus on from here on out?
Sonny Bunch — August 5, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Will: Thanks…I think the blog will focus a little more on the presidential election now than it did previously. Things are finally getting interesting.
Cue the Fairness Doctrine. If you can’t out-argue Rush, silence him. Sad. Speaks to a lack of self-confidence in one’s positions. Or arrogance.
Will — August 6, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Silencing disagreeable opinions is certainly deplorable, but I hardly think this tendency is UNIQUE to the American left.
On the earlier thread you link to, I posted pretty extensively on how mainstream conservatives have swept substantive disagreements between neocons, paleocons, and libertarians under the rug. It’s also worth noting that there has yet to be a serious intramural discussion about foreign policy in the wake of the Iraq debacle on the right.
Sonny Bunch — August 6, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Will: There is, I think, a substantial difference between an opinion magazine not publishing material they might disagree with than an open community like Daily Kos shutting down a longtime member’s account because he’s posting something the site’s moderator’s disagree with.
Paleos and Libertarians have their own publications (National Review/The American Spectator and Reason magazine, respectively), and they have their own views on the war. They differ from the editorial vision of the Weekly Standard. You wouldn’t argue that The New Republic should have to publish pieces from the editors of The Nation, would you?
That being said, I don’t think the Weekly Standard or NR would ban a contributor for saying something they disagree with. Consider one of my favorite contributors to the books and arts section of TWS, Christopher Hitchens. He says all sorts of stuff the editors of the TWS disagree with, but he still writes for them on a pretty regular basis. When Hitchens disagreed with The Nation on the war, however, he was excommunicated. That, I think, is the difference.
Will — August 6, 2008 at 2:30 pm
As an intellectual exercise, yes, I think it would be beneficial for TNR to actively seek out opposing viewpoints for occasional inclusion in their magazine. And while I don’t think NR would ban an author for expressing a viewpoint contrary to the party line, the ideological uniformity of their staff (Derbyshire is the only real outlier I can think of) suggests that they rarely hire people who hail from a different strain of conservatism. If anything, Hitchens at TWS is the exception that proves the rule.
Preserving a distinct institutional viewpoint is certainly a worthy goal, but I think debate and discussion can further that goal without detracting from the centrality of a magazine’s ideological foundations.
I’d also note that RedState’s decision to ban pro-Ron Paul commenters is almost exactly analogous to the DailyKos episode. In fact, I imagine that RedState’s justifications for a blanket ban – “they detract from real discussion; their discussions are irrelevant to the issues at hand; they’re annoying etc.” – are rather similar to the rationale behind the decision to eject the anti-Edwards blogger from the DailyKos. Needless to say, I think both decisions are silly, but to suggest this phenomenon is unique to the Left is a bit blinkered.
Troy — August 6, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Good question. If we are to reject the reasons for going into Iraq, then we must reject the war in Afghanistan as well.
Does anyone even know why we are there?
Sonny Bunch — August 6, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I would argue that magazines can have debates between each other’s stances without necessarily publishing those stances. Back and forth doesn’t need to occur within a single mag’s covers.
And I think that the RedState decision is a little different–in that case the Ron Paul supporters were basically trolls, hijacking conversations and driving away regular readers. If I remember correctly, Red State allowed anyone who had been there a certain amount of time (three months or so? something like that) to post all of the pro-Ron Paul stuff they wanted. But the Paulbots tended to be a disruptive force, as is their wont.
Sonny Bunch — August 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Though, that being said, I wasn’t entirely thrilled with the idea of banning them. It’s antithetical to the nature of the web…
Conor Williams — August 6, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Indeed. Obama may yet be the first candidate of the “elites” Christopher Lasch warned us about in Revolt of the Elites nearly twenty years ago. Welcome to the new meritocracy, the new mobility of opportunism, and the shattering of old bonds and limits of community. This may, in fact, be the one thing that worries me about Obama. His supporters form a bloc of dangerously transient, dissatisfied, young, liberal intellectuals who seem at times too detached from any meaningful connections to be trusted. If he is the man who keeps their company (or rather, needs their company to be elected), I find myself doubting.
Seriously though, I’m glad these Olympics are turning into such a giant mess. The IOC is a fraud, and if the world wants to make the Olympics respectable again then the world’s largest countries need to demand reform.
Rick — August 7, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Keith should have stayed with ESPN. It seems you only need an IQ of 4 to work there, Keith missed it by 2. I guess that is a prereq. to work at a sports news channel.
Rick — August 7, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Keith should have stayed with ESPN. It seems you only need an IQ of 4 to work there, Keith missed it by 2. I guess that is a prereq. to work at a sports news channel.
Rick — August 7, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Keith should have stayed with ESPN. It seems you only need an IQ of 4 to work there, Keith missed it by 2. I guess that is a prereq. to work at a sports news channel.
I’m sure that the neo-cons and a their compeers in the still-think-the-Cold War-rages-on cabal will go hog-wild over Saakashvili’s use of “Soviet Union”.
I’m sure that the neo-cons and a their compeers in the still-think-the-Cold War-rages-on cabal will go hog-wild over Saakashvili’s use of “Soviet Union”.
Martina — August 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Where were you for Iggy and The Stooges? It was AMAZING!
And The Go! Team. And Andrew Bird. Geez – the only thing to moan about was that there was TOO MUCH great music. Too bad you missed the real show.
Sonny Bunch — August 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I was interviewing Moby during Iggy’s set, driving to the race track/checking in during Go Team’s set, and checking out Shudder to Think during Andrew Bird’s set. The perils of having a one-man team covering a two-stage event…
It never ceases to amaze me what logic pretzels liberals create to defend their own. And this is from an accomplished author? Yikes.
Sonny Bunch — August 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Honestly, I doubt she even thought about it logically. She just wanted to point to a GOP operative and rub their nose in it. It is silly, not to mention sad
Sonny Bunch — August 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Honestly, I doubt she even thought about it logically. She just wanted to point to a GOP operative and rub their nose in it. It is silly, not to mention sad
Sonny Bunch — August 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Honestly, I doubt she even thought about it logically. She just wanted to point to a GOP operative and rub their nose in it. It is silly, not to mention sad
Reznor was also huge, by the way. He looked like he had been hitting the gym pretty hard. Y’know, when he wasn’t trying to figure out what was going on with that four toed statue, or how The Others made the island move.
ryan — August 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm
sadly, their albums are being held up by record labels, thats where.
The best part is that the IOC checked on the controversy by just checking the girls’ passports. Issued by China. As if the Chinese couldn’t have just whipped up some fake ones…
Beth — August 13, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The best part is that the IOC checked on the controversy by just checking the girls’ passports. Issued by China. As if the Chinese couldn’t have just whipped up some fake ones…
Beth — August 13, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The best part is that the IOC checked on the controversy by just checking the girls’ passports. Issued by China. As if the Chinese couldn’t have just whipped up some fake ones…
Sonny Bunch — August 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It’s like I’ve said: The IOC is in the pocket of the ChiComs. Boourns.
Sonny Bunch — August 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It’s like I’ve said: The IOC is in the pocket of the ChiComs. Boourns.
Sonny Bunch — August 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It’s like I’ve said: The IOC is in the pocket of the ChiComs. Boourns.
John Bigenwald — August 14, 2008 at 12:47 pm
A journalist thought it was reckless to investigate a Democrat Presidential candidate…
Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects.
Ruthie — August 14, 2008 at 7:09 pm
John Edwards talked about Dad’s mill,
While sleeping with a chick off the pill,
He lied and fibbed to the MS press,
And, awoke early to preen and dress.
His wife, Elizabeth, knew the lie in 2006,
But supported John in Iowa while sick,
They stole Hillary’s honest votes daily,
And laughed on cue, and hiding Rielle.
Why did John lie like a cheatin’ rat ?
No “New Deal” for the average Democrat,
While Obama and Hillary fought on the stump,
John Edwards watched Rielle grow a bump.
Now John’s love child is common news,
And Fred Baron has money to lose,
Rielle, now nursing, has jetted away,
Even Geraldo has joined the fray!
John’s affair has hurt his poor kids,
More than Clinton’s cigars ever did,
A sordid tale that some call a crock,
The only winner, a loser named Barack!
Like dogs in heat, Edwards did pant,
Defined forever, just like Hugh Grant,
Tabloids paid to get the sleeze,
Is it John’s baby, mister please?
While Elizabeth cries over her brood,
Baby mama with John was not a prude,
Gone the innocent days of Tom Sawyer,
John gettin’ love like a real trial lawyer.
Charlene — August 15, 2008 at 4:45 am
All the Chinese girls on the team should get their teeth checked. There’s no way a 16 year old still has baby teeth or a missing tooth.
Charlene — August 15, 2008 at 4:45 am
All the Chinese girls on the team should get their teeth checked. There’s no way a 16 year old still has baby teeth or a missing tooth.
Charlene — August 15, 2008 at 4:45 am
All the Chinese girls on the team should get their teeth checked. There’s no way a 16 year old still has baby teeth or a missing tooth.
Sonny Bunch — August 15, 2008 at 10:19 am
John: I was actually shocked that my journalist friend didn’t think this warranted discussion…he’s the kind of guy who goes after left and right with equal ferocity. I’m not sure why he wants to lay off here.
Ruth: That’s quite a poem. A Hillary fan, I take it?
Ihatedumbyanks — August 15, 2008 at 3:43 pm
suck my balls you dumb yanks. US is a country full of bigots and cheaters. Steroids seems to run free like mineral springs and performance enhancing drugs are like candies. So stop accusing others of cheating and take a good look at yourself you stupid yanks.
Sonny Bunch — August 15, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Ah…enlightened commentary from the peanut gallery. Nothing like it.
lolwut — August 16, 2008 at 6:13 am
u mad?
lolwut — August 16, 2008 at 6:13 am
u mad?
lolwut — August 16, 2008 at 6:13 am
u mad?
Julia — August 17, 2008 at 11:39 pm
WTF! Shut the hell up Mr. ihatedumbyanks…China completely cheated in the olympics…they had proof those gymnists were underaged and the IOC refused to look at it… notice how everything judged china wins unless they completely screwed up(gymnastics…boys and girls…and diving). The chinese are the biggest fricken cheaters and I can beleive people actually are supporting them…I realize that america has its problems and Im ashamed of any who cheated in the olympic games. But the fact is those judges are completely screwing everyone over not just america. I’ve watched tons of gymnists get screwed while 12 year old chinese girls take 10 balance checks on the balance beam and somehow get a better score than the ones who routines were almost perfect. Its totally rigged completely rigged!
Perhaps you know not that the very same thirty-six million votes,
including nine million spoilers and all, cast from January to June
that gave Obama about 150 delegate margin under the rule of
proportional allocation, the very same votes give Clinton 600 delegate
margin under the rule of Winner Take All as Republican Party have it.
Same republic, same voters, same votes and yet rule maker decides if
one nominee is 150 delegates ahead or on the contrary the other
nominee is 600 delegates ahead. Perhaps you do not see the foot prints
of Karl Rove outside the window of RBC, Democratic Rules and Bylaws
Committee. Good for your sanity if you don’t.
You and your friend are both wrong. The greates front man working in rock and roll today is Robert Pollard.
RBRO — August 19, 2008 at 2:02 pm
The reason for Crush On You was at the request of a young girl who apparently could say nothing else she was in such star shock.
Will — August 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I think Schwenkler raises two valid points:
1.) Torture goes beyond brutal physical punishment. Subjecting someone to psychological torment or physical discomfort over an extended period of time (”stress positions”) can also be plausibly described as torture.
2.) Free will matters. Your friend who crawled up a chimney in college was there because he wanted to be there. Incidentally, he also retained the option of crawling out at any time. Volunteering for mistreatment is quite different from being coerced into solitary confinement.
Given the awful state of the US prison system (a situation, I would note, that has attracted the concern of conservative stalwarts like Brownback), I don’t find your second paragraph all that compelling. I also think that demeaning long-term physical and psychological stress is an extremely blinkered position. Cutting off someone’s fingers is viscerally repulsive, but the after-effects of subjecting a person to stress positions and psychological torment can be comparable to more violent physical abuse.
Finally, I’d note that totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union frequently went to great lengths to ensure their victims didn’t retain any visible signs of mistreatment so they could be presented at show trials. That’s a pretty compelling rejoinder to the notion that only violent physical abuse constitutes torture.
Addressing your second note first: that’s exactly the point. If people I know would willing subject themselves to behavior that is, arguably, worse than being put in a box in Gitmo, it makes me hard to classify that activity as torture.
And I’ll agree that torture can go beyond simple brute force being applied to break a man’s will. I simply don’t think this qualifies. We’re at a point where people are arguing that any punishment that makes a captured terrorist uncomfortable, regardless for the reason that it’s being done, is now classified as “torture.” I find this absurd on its face.
Of all the great armies of rock fans, few can match the devotion of Bruce Springsteen’s. Anyone who has experienced Springsteen in concert will testify that the bond between audience and artist transcends the usual adulation. Something magical, almost mystical happens. Some might describe it as spiritual-most definitely it is life affirming. It is in trying to nail this phenomenon that the beautiful hardbound For You has arrived.
Edited by Lawrence Kirsch and replete with an amazing welter of outstanding photographs, it’s a mind-blowing collection of thoughts and stories from fans of every age and many nations, each explaining why Springsteen occupies such an important place in their hearts. Covering all four decades of Springsteen’s career it is possibly the ultimate fanzine for it is the fans who have made the journey and whose words tell us as much about them as they do about Springsteen. The warmth and humanity that flows from every page is truly moving and provides a beacon of hope from which we can all draw strength in these hard times. Not a book to be read at one sitting but rather to revisit and enjoy over time.
Les Brunswick — August 20, 2008 at 1:51 am
Kagan has always had a problem with coming up with practical specifics for action. He proposes a league of democracies, but tells us very little about what it could actually do.
Noah — August 20, 2008 at 1:23 pm
This site is my only remaining exposure to Yglesias and I don’t miss him. Is Chris Matthews a liberal? And wait there is more, according to Yglesias “One could say something similar, I think, about Paul Krugman’s role at The New York Times. And there really was something of a genuine “no liberals” rule.”
No liberal rule at the NY Times? I guess coming from a guy who thinks Slate is conservative I shouldn’t be surprised.
Sonny Bunch — August 20, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I feel compelled to link to Yglesias because he’s taken very seriously in the DC portion of the blogosphere. And sometimes he’ll make good points. But his perception of where the center is (squarely hovering somewhere over his head) boggles my mind.
Hang about. Google pretty much does that anyway. If I search from my computer, as I just did, “Poulos” the first two links I get are: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia1
and http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamespoulos
I don’t know if that’s you but google’s search has recognised that I don’t want insurrance etc but I’ve read a lot of posts about Georgia recently, hence the search results. No need for a liberal/conservative/insert mildly meaningful term search engine.
Z — August 21, 2008 at 9:13 am
And note that the Whitney Houston result on RushmoreDrive gets only 1 star from the “Rate” feedback, while Whitney Museum and Whitney Bank get 4 of 5 stars.
Saint Andeol — August 21, 2008 at 9:29 am
yeah, we wouldn’t want to inconvenience Whitney Houston fans by making them scroll down to the fourth result of a search, or by making them type an extra word into the search. All it takes is a rudimentary understanding of a search engine to use it properly, this is insulting.
Also, uh, shouldn’t a black reader take a certain amount of umbrage at the suggestion that, you know, of course they wouldn’t be Googling for an art museum, like white folk do?
James Poulos — August 21, 2008 at 10:26 am
Julian, yes, only ‘umbrage’ is a word for yacht-sailing, cucumber-sandwich-eating white folk. Although, wait: does Obama take umbrage? Now that’s hope and healing.
Carmen Ashhurst — August 21, 2008 at 10:48 am
Actually, a black person googling Whitney might be looking for Whitney Young (the late civil rights activist), or at least that might be what comes up on the search engine. A pop singer showing up first on the RushmoreDrive engine is actually pretty disturbing, if you ask me.
James — August 21, 2008 at 11:07 am
Agreed.
GeorgeSorwell — August 21, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I was quite surprised that the author didn’t find a way to blame something on Obama, since this post refers to, you know, black people.
But he got around to it in the comments, so okay.
Jay — August 21, 2008 at 2:07 pm
What does this have to do with you?
Will — August 21, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I don’t get this distinction. Perhaps you’re referring to degrees of patriotism? Or are you arguing that patriots, by definition, are veterans of some type of national service? I’m not sure if I like that formulation.
Dan — August 21, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Right on. Our Georgia policy may have been a bad idea to begin with, but hanging an ally completely out to dry might just be compounding our original mistake.
Sonny Bunch — August 21, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Well, semantically there’s clearly a difference between the words “patriotic” and “patriot.” One is an adjective, the other is a noun. I guess my question is this: can someone have the adjective applied to them without necessarily having the noun apply?
I suppose the distinction I’m looking at is one of action. It’s easy to say that someone is patriotic. But how do you prove that they’re a patriot?
Which gets back to my main point: if you ask someone “Is this law school professor a patriot?” they will probably answer “It depends.” But if you ask someone “Is this POW a patriot?” they will almost certainly say “Yes.” At least, I imagine they would, which leads to my lack of surprise that there’s a “patriot-gap.” The deeper question would be: why is this the case?
(Of course, I could just be rambling incoherently. That’s always an option.)
Sonny Bunch — August 21, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Dan: I’m just not sure what else we could have done. The Russians read the situation perfectly–we’re in no position to engage in another war and the American people won’t get riled up if we do anything, so screw it. We’re invading.
Whitney — August 22, 2008 at 9:04 am
I agree with julia. China is freaking rigging the games! It’s total bs! I have no doubt in my mind that those girls are underage and even when watching the women’s qualifying rounds, while our team messed up some…the chinese team messed up WAY more. This isn’t about racism or anything like that this is about being fair! We’re not the only ones getting cheated here! I hope the chinese never live it down. They said the parents of the gymnastics team feel indignant, well guess what? They should!
janet sullivan — August 22, 2008 at 8:39 pm
chinese are so used to lying they should really take this chance to look back and chance themselve, and stop putting in so much effort in trying to show the world how good they are, it makes me sick to the stomach.
janet sullivan — August 22, 2008 at 8:39 pm
chinese are so used to lying they should really take this chance to look back and chance themselve, and stop putting in so much effort in trying to show the world how good they are, it makes me sick to the stomach.
janet sullivan — August 22, 2008 at 8:39 pm
chinese are so used to lying they should really take this chance to look back and chance themselve, and stop putting in so much effort in trying to show the world how good they are, it makes me sick to the stomach.
John Bigenwald — August 22, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I agree — especially on the mildly interesting part. I thought it was going to be funny, then I realized it was what white liberal caricatures like. Not that there is anything wrong with poking fun at white liberals… the first 50 times…
Matt — August 23, 2008 at 2:01 am
Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck just released a great book on the growing Socialist Christian movement and what a load it truly is. Why We’re Not Emergent. It is a must read.
Matt — August 23, 2008 at 2:01 am
Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck just released a great book on the growing Socialist Christian movement and what a load it truly is. Why We’re Not Emergent. It is a must read.
Sonny Bunch — August 23, 2008 at 10:35 am
I actually found the blog really funny…for a little while. But when I saw the book, and realized that it was mostly a literal word for word rehash of the blog, I was pretty upset. Not to mention jealous of the six figure advance.
Dan — August 23, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I always wondered what the hulabaloo was about Watchmen, so I read it recently. It came off at first like any other comic book, which I wasn’t too fond of. But it sucks you in gradually. I think the film adaptation will do very well next year.
Let me begin by saying that i love your blog americasfuture.org a lot
now.. back to the post lol
I cant say that im 100% with what you typed up… care to explain more?
And, if I may be permitted to add, “The Shack”, while not Dickens, is apparently an interesting and controversial attempt to allegorize the Trinity. Certainly much more worth-while than 95% of bestsellers.
john — August 25, 2008 at 12:13 pm
honestly, china makes me sick, they are an evil people, i dont think i will ever respect the ioc after these olympics, they turned down toronto’s bid to give the games to a nation that doesn’t respect human rights, and also they are a disgusting people who eat shit
john — August 25, 2008 at 12:13 pm
honestly, china makes me sick, they are an evil people, i dont think i will ever respect the ioc after these olympics, they turned down toronto’s bid to give the games to a nation that doesn’t respect human rights, and also they are a disgusting people who eat shit
john — August 25, 2008 at 12:13 pm
honestly, china makes me sick, they are an evil people, i dont think i will ever respect the ioc after these olympics, they turned down toronto’s bid to give the games to a nation that doesn’t respect human rights, and also they are a disgusting people who eat shit
Sonny Bunch — August 25, 2008 at 12:51 pm
There we go! Two greats in a row–”The Shack” and “Watchmen.” (I’ll be honest: I haven’t read “The Shack”…but I’ll take your word for it, Gabriel.
And Dan, I think Watchmen definitely ramps up as it goes along. The one thing I’m worried about in the film adaptation is an over-interest in Dr. Manhattan. The teaser was very Manhattan-centric.
Ted — August 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Despite the Dems and the allied main stream media’s desperation to see Romney as McCain’s Veep, Mitt is clearly out, with (1) Obama doubling down on the class warfare theme (McCain’s 7 houses) and (2) McCain doubling down with ads showing the hypocrisy of Biden attacking Obama in the primaries — Romney did way more than that contra McCain.
This leaves only Govs Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty. Pro-abortion Ridge and Dem-Lieberman were never real considerations, despite relentless media goading. Pawlenty’s lackluster TV performances, coupled with Palin pizzazz, the primacy of oil drilling and the ticked off women/Hillary voters, does now portend a McCain/Palin checkmate on the Dems. This is so albeit the Dems and liberal media dare not mention Palin’s name, that is, everyone but…..
And if there’s any question as to Palin being uniquely positioned and able to more than nullify Biden in debate, see the excellent discussion at palinforvp.blogspot.com
Team McCain, well done!!!
Hoi Polloi — August 26, 2008 at 12:32 am
That’s easy for you and your upscale blogger buddies to say! I’m a downscale unemployed single dad of a 3-year old, so I don’t have the option of providing my son with NON-state supervised socialization, and I’m certainly not the shining eidolon of parenthood that your friend apparently is either (and I can assure you from plenty of playground observation that, despite WSJ claims to the contrary, I’m not the only subpar parent in this country). It’s just me and him, buddy, warts and all, 24/7, family’s all in other cities, no friends with kids — you think he’s better off than he would be if I could put him in the company of other children in a structured environment under the care of trained childcare professionals? Give me a break!
I will happily try to get him into a Head Start program this year, and if pre-K were available next year, I’d happily send him there. Not to mention, when I do get a job, I won’t be able to afford a preschool — he’ll be spending his days with cheap, state-subsidized caregivers, who, yes, will give him more structure than I do, but who certainly won’t deliver the goods that a preschool program can. Your friend can homeschool all he wants, but why should his worries that his children might not be as socially advanced as mine when they finally do go to school prohibit ME from being able to take advantage of an opportunity that would be a tremendous boon for MY son?
I don’t care if someone wants to call it “culturally conservative” or not — I consider myself “culturally conservative,” and I would jump at the chance to provide my son with something better than what he has! Not every single thing under the sun has to fit into someone’s ideology! Sometimes, an idea is just a good one that will help a lot of people.
Sonny Bunch — August 26, 2008 at 10:15 am
Ted: We’ll see. I still think Palin’s a little green, and Pawlenty has always looked terribly stiff on TV.
Ted — August 27, 2008 at 1:56 am
Theme song for the Sarah Palin VP intro at RNC next week:
I think the Reverend Wright story is fair game, but the Ayers connection seems so tangential I don’t understand why anyone would factor it into their decision-making process.
Isn’t it possible (indeed, probable) that Obama was simply unaware of Ayer’s checkered past until recently? My understanding is that they were acquaintances, not close personal friends. Expecting him to vet casual contacts is a bit much, methinks.
Sonny Bunch — August 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm
My understanding is that they were closer than acquaintances, but not necessarily “close friends.” Political allies, perhaps.
But Ayers was close enough to Obama to host the kickoff of his political career. And he’s been a longtime fundraiser for the man. I think it would be disingenuous to argue that Obama simply didn’t know about his connection to the Weathermen; he’s smarter/more in tune than that. You don’t think anyone in Hyde Park would have mentioned it, even off-handedly?
The reason this might be a big deal is because so much of the Obama mystique is based on his “good judgment.” Who you associate with is almost as key as what you do in that regard. And he’s associating (and failing to condemn) a series of shady dudes.
Will — August 27, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Again, I’m not sure if political ally = carefully vetted personal friend. And while I buy the idea that word of Ayers’ past exploits may have reached Barack Obama’s ears, would Ayers really have advertised his unrepentant stance towards political terrorism in polite company? Ayers strikes me as a bit of a poseur when it comes to his past exploits – he disavows it in some quarters while bragging about it in others.
On a deeper level, however, I’m curious to hear what you think the Ayers “connection” says about Barack Obama. Does Obama endorse political terrorism? Is Ayers’ 60s-era leftism indicative of an Obama Administration’s social policy? Or is this just some vague character attack that probably has no concrete implications whatsoever?
Brendon — August 27, 2008 at 4:03 pm
You really don’t see a difference between a driver getting cut off, and a driver intentionally running a cyclist off the road?
Sonny Bunch — August 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I don’t think there’s any actual policy implications of their friendship; I simply think it’s a poor choice of friends. And, again, when you’re electing someone almost entirely on personality and judgment (because, lord knows, Obama wasn’t chosen for legitimate policy reasons), friendships like this matter to people on a gut level if not an intellectual one.
Sonny Bunch — August 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm
If the van driver intentionally ran that guy off the road, then yes. Odds are it was just another whiny biker slowing down traffic. I mean, if I had to guess.
One thing is certain. Left leaners have much more tolerance for people with crazed ideas that go against this country.
And even if one argues Obama’s ties to Ayers are slim, why is it so hard to denounce the man outright? And better yet, why has Chicago’s left-leaning population embraced him – and employed him?
Noah — August 28, 2008 at 9:48 am
My two worst kinds of panhandlers:
-Bums who open the door for you at the ATM booth and then harass you for a payment once your both trapped inside. They have done you the great service of opening the door and now you must pay.
-Homeless kids / young adults with tattooed and pierced faces who just need a little money for a bus ticket home. They have spent more time perfecting their pseudo anarchist look than I spent getting in to college and now they flaunt their distaste for the working man while their entire existence is based off of other peoples productivity and generosity. Plus once you tattoo your face, there is no coming back from that one. You just took yourself out of the running for 99% of available jobs, it’s not my job to pick up the tab so you get to hang out all day looking rebellious.
*The above goes double for homeless kids with dogs. You can’t feed yourself jackass, lose the mutt.
Sonny Bunch — August 28, 2008 at 10:07 am
Noah: The ones who hang out around the banks are the worst. My entreaties of “But I don’t carry any cash!” never work with them.
John Bigenwald — August 28, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I listened to 20 minutes of the show last night. Every caller was saying WGN was irresponsible for “giving Kurtz airtime.” When asked for an example only one could provide any sort of answer – and it was easily refuted. The others just said it was “unfair” — ok, so is life.
If they are such outrageous smears send somebody down the street and go on the air…
Will — August 28, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Called out by name? I guess I feel obliged to sally forth and defend my honor . . .
I certainly don’t condone this sort of thing, and I think encouraging liberal partisans to bombard radio stations with obnoxious phone calls is not only wrong but also a massive political overreaction.
But if this is supposed to be conclusive evidence that the left is somehow less intellectually tolerant than the right, I think you still fall far short of the mark. After reading this piece, the first thing that came to mind was the right’s hysterical response to Walt and Mearsheimer’s contention that the Israel lobby disproportionately influences US policy in the Middle East (I should also note that both authors are respected IR scholars, not “smear-merchants”). A few excitable Obama supporters calling into a radio show don’t implicate an entire party’s intellectual apparatus.
Sonny Bunch — August 28, 2008 at 8:04 pm
It’s a little rude to call someone out and then disappear for six hours; my bad.
Will, I would argue that, were these random calls, or even MoveOn.org sponsored calls, I’d agree with you. But the Obama campaign sent out an email to its mailing list telling its supporters to flood the station with calls and show their displeasure. That’s an entirely different situation.
Obama is a lawyer and aspiring politician. It’s absurd to believe he had no curiosity about knowing who Ayers was, even though Ayers employed him, worked with him, and had influence in Chicago politics.
Ayers wife worked at Sidley Austin with Michelle Obama. Later Ayers hires Obama, a 3rd year associate, to head up his Chicago Annenberg Challenge board. Obama probably used his knowledge of Marxism and black militantism to ingratiate himself with Ayers.
I feel like I’m in an episode of “The Twighlight Zone.” This election season is just plaint weird.
Last night’s DNC Convention felt like a Pep Rally for adults. As a Coloradoan, I could write an entire page on my feelings about hearing an entire stadium chant in Spanish, but I shall not.
I like McCain’s pick. She’s female, west coast and a former beauty queen? What?
I’m just glad football season is starting so I can get excited about something really worth rooting for.
~Heidi
John — August 29, 2008 at 12:25 pm
The point is not that the Obama campaign is going to come out swinging against Palin because she has no experience. The point is that it effectively immunizes Obama from the McCain/Palin campaign making those accusations against HIM. And you can make a very good argument that that was the single strongest issue the GOP had going for it.
Sonny Bunch — August 29, 2008 at 12:50 pm
John: totally disagree. McCain’s experience over Obama is still a key issue. And what’re Obama/his supporters going to say in retort? “Well, how can you claim that experience is important when your VP pick (who, in all likelihood, will never occupy the Oval office) is just as experienced as I am?” Any time Obama hits out against Palin all McCain has to say is “Just as experienced as you. Nyah Nyah.”
P-Sax — August 29, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Wow…all I can say is wow. And not in a good way. McCain took his one and only opportunity to demonstrate his ability to make a presidential decision, and screwed it up so badly that Dan Quayle is now looking like a seasoned veteran. Don’t tell me Palin has the exact amount of experience as Obama – that’s like saying the chairman of my local school board has as much experience as the Secretary of Education. All this shows to me is that, when given the option of bucking the party’s owners (Rove, Big Oil, Christian fundamentalists, etc), McCain decided that he’d rather go with a crony than someone who is truly qualified. Her husband works for Big Oil, after all. Not to mention the fact that, despite all this hot air about her being a reformer and a GOP ‘maverick’, she too, like her colleague Ted Stevens, is under investigation by her own state legislature for forcing the Alaska public safety commissioner to fire a state trooper who just happened to be getting a divorce from her sister. All I can say is, I can’t wait to see her even try to go toe to toe with Joe Biden. It will be laughable, and sad all at the same time, because McCain is but a shell of the man he used to be. What a shame…
Sonny Bunch — August 29, 2008 at 1:34 pm
P-Sax: Your comment smacks of desperation. Drilling is a winning issue for the GOP; choosing a pro-lifer who is sympathetic to gay rights (if not an outright supporter of gay marriage) rallies the base while immunizing her to charges of being a “christianist”; and the state trooper issue seems to be a nonstarter.
Lorrainep — August 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Desperation as in a grand slam in the 9th! McCain rocks! I was ready to vote Democratic this time after last night. This morning reminded me why McCain, despite his age and party, is the better pick. Democrates talk about equality and Republicans live it.
McCain – Palin in 2008!
P-Sax — August 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Wow, again. Sonny, first of all, not only is she not a supporter of gay marriage, but her begrudging willingness to understand the pain of homosexual discrimination based on the fact that she has ‘a few gay friends’ is the same backwards comment people make when they say they understand black culture because they have one black friend. Indeed I am desperate – desperate to get the debates underway and see a truly superior Obama/Biden ticket squash these empty (pant)suits. And Lorrainep, I am genuinely offended by McCain/Rove’s belief that they can capture the 6 or 7 remaining Hillary-only supporters simply by bringing a woman, any woman, onto the ticket, regardless of the fact that she represents the exact opposite of what a truly inspirational leader like Hillary Clinton represents. They could have gone with Hutchinson, Fiorina, even Condi, all accomplished, strong women in their own right. But they went with an unqualified nobody to appease party owners. The fact that you not only agree with them, but support this type of blatant and disingenuous pandering, is telling in and of itself.
James — August 29, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Aww. Thanks, man. Sniff!
Julie C — August 29, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I don’t understand how a crash course in foreign affairs will be sufficient in this case. There is a significantly higher probability that McCain will not make it past his first term given that the average life expectancy of an American male is 75. His VP pick is a statement on who he thinks is capable of leading the country. Given his previous criticisms of Obama based solely on lack of experience, it looks like a large gaffe.
Julie C — August 29, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I don’t understand how a crash course in foreign affairs will be sufficient in this case. There is a significantly higher probability that McCain will not make it past his first term given that the average life expectancy of an American male is 75. His VP pick is a statement on who he thinks is capable of leading the country. Given his previous criticisms of Obama based solely on lack of experience, it looks like a large gaffe.
Steve — August 29, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’m not arguing the main point, or to say that executive experience isn’t more valuable than being in the senate, but isn’t it disingenuous to say they have “exactly” the same experience when Obama has spent twice as much time in higher office than Palin has. I know they’re both on their first terms, but Obama is almost 4 years in, while Palin is nearing 2.
Sonny Bunch — August 29, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Steve: He’s four years in, two of which he’s spent campaigning for the presidency. Plus, I’d argue that two years of executive experience is probably more valuable than four years of senatorial experience.
P-Sax: If her comments/actions on homosexuality are enough to make Andrew say “I like her personally–a good deal” in regards to gay rights, it’s good enough for me.
xyzzy — August 29, 2008 at 4:41 pm
As Brendan Loy says:
“With regard to the idea that Palin has “more experience” than Obama, one important fact to consider: Palin hasn’t been running for national office for 18 months. Obama has. Running a presidential campaign is a form of “executive experience.” At the very least, I’d say reasonable people can disagree about which type of experience is more relevant to serving (or potentially serving) as president: being mayor of a tiny town and governor of a tiny state (population-wise), or being “chief executive” of what has been, by most accounts, a massive and pretty damn well-run national organization that has successfully dethroned the Clinton Machine and remade the Democratic Party in its image.”
richard flohill — August 29, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I can’t imagine obama would be dumb enough to breathe a word about inexperience, but i might be wrong. He’s running for prez, she’s running for vice, a job once referred to as “important as a bucket of spit.”
Yeah, she’s only a heartbeat away, but inexperienced obamaman is going to be there.
John — August 29, 2008 at 6:47 pm
It’s really a shame that you can feasibly see McCain going away soon. His mom’s out there rooting for him and he’s pretty sharp I’d say. No 57 states, no calling his VP President, no stammering http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI5Eo9OMSgU
I truly believe in the McCain Palin ticket as the best way to get our nation moving forward. Both have bucked the party line to get things done for the people. Barack likes to speak of “change” in Washington in a bipartisan manner but it looks like he will just want to turn Washington left, hard and fast.
escondidoguy — August 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I have been “vetting” Governor Palin for the last 3 or 4 months – ever since her name came up on the “long” list. I can tell you that from what I have learned she is the real conservative deal and because she’s on the ticket I will change my vote from a write in vote of Duncan Hunter Sr. to John McCain.
Sarah Palin is someone that every Conservative should fall in love with. I don’t care if she’s unknown. She stands for everything I believe in. With her as VP and a number of new, young and energetic Republicans running out there this is a chance for a revitalization of the Republican party. I’ve already sent McCain my 25 bucks this morning – something I didn’t expect to do.
Now if McCain would cut Juan Hernandez loose I’d be a very happy camper.
What’s not to love in Sarah Palin? Only the brain dead looney left would turn this wonderful candidate into a target. Pathetic!
And what I love best about her is that she’s anti-babykiller !
escondidoguy — August 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I have been “vetting” Governor Palin for the last 3 or 4 months – ever since her name came up on the “long” list. I can tell you that from what I have learned she is the real conservative deal and because she’s on the ticket I will change my vote from a write in vote of Duncan Hunter Sr. to John McCain.
Sarah Palin is someone that every Conservative should fall in love with. I don’t care if she’s unknown. She stands for everything I believe in. With her as VP and a number of new, young and energetic Republicans running out there this is a chance for a revitalization of the Republican party. I’ve already sent McCain my 25 bucks this morning – something I didn’t expect to do.
Now if McCain would cut Juan Hernandez loose I’d be a very happy camper.
What’s not to love in Sarah Palin? Only the brain dead looney left would turn this wonderful candidate into a target. Pathetic!
And what I love best about her is that she’s anti-babykiller !
Holy Crap! Let’s nip that shit in the bud. Running a campaign in NOT “executive experience” much less akin to running a state. Are you fucking retarded?
Michael Collins — August 30, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Like a lot of people, Julie misunderstands life expectancy. It is 75 for the average male at birth. That does not mean that it is 3 years for someone who is 72 – the average of 75 is “pulled down” by all the men who die prior to age 75. The average life expectancy for a male age 72 is about 15 years, so if McCain makes the average, he’ll survive well beyond when his second term would end. (These are just averages, of course, but when you combine it with the fact his mother is alive well into her 90s, it’s not that likely he’ll die in his first term.)
Darryl — August 30, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Keith Olbermann is a simply a sorry human being and a poor excuse for a “journalist”, and a lying Son of a Bitch. I actually used to enjoy Olbermann on ESPN before he left their in ‘97 after having a fall out with Disney Corp, who purchased ABC and ESPN. He had a falling out that was mostly unexplained. Most who have worked with Olbermann have said he has this tendancy not only burn bridges with former employers, but “nuke” them as well. What really gets be about Keith Olbermann is that he claims to be unbiased. Bullshit! The fact that he uses an Edward R Murrow quote to close Countdown on MSNBC is a disgrace to Murrow’s name and journalism. Hey Olbermann, YOU ARE NO Edward R Murrow.
What is most disgusting is that he belittles the military service of many of those serving at home and abroad, not thinking even for once second that those men are fighting, even to keep his sorry ass alive. Olbermann may not be guilty of treason (yet), but he’s testing the waters there too. To me, Olbermann is nothing more than a media whore and a lying no credibilty M.F.’ing skank who is not man enough to admit that he’s a sideshow clown in a media circus. I question Olberman’s manhood, period!!! Oblermann, you don’t know news from your asshole, so FYKO, you SOB!!!! If you are as pissed at this asshole as I am, let him kmow…email Keithie at:
Keith Olbermann is a simply a sorry human being and a poor excuse for a “journalist”, and a lying Son of a Bitch. I actually used to enjoy Olbermann on ESPN before he left their in ‘97 after having a fall out with Disney Corp, who purchased ABC and ESPN. He had a falling out that was mostly unexplained. Most who have worked with Olbermann have said he has this tendancy not only burn bridges with former employers, but “nuke” them as well. What really gets be about Keith Olbermann is that he claims to be unbiased. Bullshit! The fact that he uses an Edward R Murrow quote to close Countdown on MSNBC is a disgrace to Murrow’s name and journalism. Hey Olbermann, YOU ARE NO Edward R Murrow.
What is most disgusting is that he belittles the military service of many of those serving at home and abroad, not thinking even for once second that those men are fighting, even to keep his sorry ass alive. Olbermann may not be guilty of treason (yet), but he’s testing the waters there too. To me, Olbermann is nothing more than a media whore and a lying no credibilty M.F.’ing skank who is not man enough to admit that he’s a sideshow clown in a media circus. I question Olberman’s manhood, period!!! Oblermann, you don’t know news from your asshole, so FYKO, you SOB!!!! If you are as pissed at this asshole as I am, let him kmow…email Keithie at:
Keith Olbermann is a simply a sorry human being and a poor excuse for a “journalist”, and a lying Son of a Bitch. I actually used to enjoy Olbermann on ESPN before he left their in ‘97 after having a fall out with Disney Corp, who purchased ABC and ESPN. He had a falling out that was mostly unexplained. Most who have worked with Olbermann have said he has this tendancy not only burn bridges with former employers, but “nuke” them as well. What really gets be about Keith Olbermann is that he claims to be unbiased. Bullshit! The fact that he uses an Edward R Murrow quote to close Countdown on MSNBC is a disgrace to Murrow’s name and journalism. Hey Olbermann, YOU ARE NO Edward R Murrow.
What is most disgusting is that he belittles the military service of many of those serving at home and abroad, not thinking even for once second that those men are fighting, even to keep his sorry ass alive. Olbermann may not be guilty of treason (yet), but he’s testing the waters there too. To me, Olbermann is nothing more than a media whore and a lying no credibilty M.F.’ing skank who is not man enough to admit that he’s a sideshow clown in a media circus. I question Olberman’s manhood, period!!! Oblermann, you don’t know news from your asshole, so FYKO, you SOB!!!! If you are as pissed at this asshole as I am, let him kmow…email Keithie at:
Is “running” Alaska the samething as running a state??lol Aren’t there more moose in Alaska than there are people? All kidding aside, I cannot believe that anyone would actually make the arguement that she has more experice than Obama, let alone Biden…But then they go so far as to say she has more experience than ALL three (Including the person who chose her as the VP). Let’s cut the crap for just a second. If you’ve EVER had to Hire someone, you know how to read a resume. Obama Graduated from Harvard, and was a professor of Law. Ok, Law seems like a good background for a President to have. Palin Graduated from University of Idaho? Majored in Journalism? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Obama gets the nod In the education department. Obama has been an active public servant in either Federal or state government for 14 years? Palin was on the city council for, and later became mayor of a city of 9,000 people. During this time, Obama was a state legislator (97-2004). What on EARTH could she be doing as Mayor of 9,000 people that gives her ANY relevant experience for a VP, let alone POTUS??? Ignoring the fact that there was almost a recall campaign against her, It’s quite obvious that Obama’s experience is more relevant than hers. Moving on, Obama moves to Senate in 04 while she moves to Gov. in 06. Again with the population….If Alaska were a city, it would have less people in it than almost half of our major cities/state capitals… but it’s not a city it’s a STATE. If you want to be fair, they’re both first terms. Fact is Obama has four years she has two in their respective positions. And if you want to claim he has 2 then you could also argue that she has 17-18 months. If he loses two years for campaigning then she can lose a couple months for being new to the job, because they both still had the title and were working, only Obama was working a little harder… Regardless, the FACT is that Biden, McCain, and yes even Obama have more experience than her. However, the POINT is she was selected for VP not POTUS. What you’re saying is that McCain made this pick so that Dems can’t say she doesn’t have experience to be president when she’s NOT RUNNING FOR POTUS. Where’s the logic in that?? You’re thinking that McCain will have the audacity to continue to claim Obama doesn’t have experience, not because of how young he is…but because he’s a senator, when McCain himself is a senator? His slogan wil be Vote for me, because my first-term Gov. VP has more experience than ALL of us, essentially run on his VP’s credentials?? He’s been trying to run AS the experienced candidate, not FOR her. You can say that it makes sense if you want I guess, but the bottom line is the ticket will read McCain-Palin, and logic indicates that she does not have more experience than Biden, who she should be on par with as that’s who she’s running againt. Needless to say she doesn’t compare to Obama or McCain either.
Sonny Bunch — August 31, 2008 at 1:08 am
In about 123 run on sentences, Mike has managed to compile every Democratic Party talking point (Palin is an uneducated idiot; Palin’s 2 years as governor isn’t nearly as keen as Obama’s 2 years as senator and 2 years as presidential candidate; Alaska’s a tiny, unimportant state; Biden’s a demigod; etc.). I think we should thank him.
Good word for the ending — innocuous. To make it better? Let’s either scrap the love interest or write it better … and let’s give Pearce’s character some flaws. That’s a start, but the movie needs more polishing than I can give it.
Good word for the ending — innocuous. To make it better? Let’s either scrap the love interest or write it better … and let’s give Pearce’s character some flaws. That’s a start, but the movie needs more polishing than I can give it.
I stopped reading Wells on my own accord recently … too much ignorance flowing from his keyboard. Now, I feel even better about the decision. Compare his reaction to feedback to that of Dirty Harry, who essentially says “Bring it on…”
And you, too, of course!
Sonny Bunch — August 31, 2008 at 2:08 pm
There are legit reasons to ban commenters–libelous/racist/spammy comments can go. I just don’t think “I disagree with you” is one of those reasons.
Sunnie57 — August 31, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Governor Sarah Palin is a commander of the Alaska National Guard, has a son in the army (so has a personal reason, as well) and shows good judgment in everything she does!
Compare her with Senator Obama, a senator who never showed good judgment, and Obama is the presidential candidate, and Palin is the VP running mate.
I’d feel very safe with Palin as commander-in-chief, but with Obama, I’d think about building a shelter.
Oil is very important for our national security, and Sarah Palin, as advisor to President McCain, will see to it that we get plenty of oil for all of our weapons, fighter planes, etc..
Sunnie57 — August 31, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Governor Sarah Palin is a commander of the Alaska National Guard, has a son in the army (so has a personal reason, as well) and shows good judgment in everything she does!
Compare her with Senator Obama, a senator who never showed good judgment, and Obama is the presidential candidate, and Palin is the VP running mate.
I’d feel very safe with Palin as commander-in-chief, but with Obama, I’d think about building a shelter.
Oil is very important for our national security, and Sarah Palin, as advisor to President McCain, will see to it that we get plenty of oil for all of our weapons, fighter planes, etc..
C Riske — September 1, 2008 at 12:25 am
Who the hell is this Olberman guy? He’s not even a suitable replacement for Jerry Springer!!
I won’t be watching this dick a second time.
C Riske — September 1, 2008 at 12:25 am
Who the hell is this Olberman guy? He’s not even a suitable replacement for Jerry Springer!!
I won’t be watching this dick a second time.
C Riske — September 1, 2008 at 12:25 am
Who the hell is this Olberman guy? He’s not even a suitable replacement for Jerry Springer!!
I won’t be watching this dick a second time.
T. Flanders — September 1, 2008 at 3:19 am
I saw this moron on tv one night and thought it was some kind of prank. But this idiot is for real. I can’t believe they let this retard on any network.
T. Flanders — September 1, 2008 at 3:19 am
I saw this moron on tv one night and thought it was some kind of prank. But this idiot is for real. I can’t believe they let this retard on any network.
T. Flanders — September 1, 2008 at 3:19 am
I saw this moron on tv one night and thought it was some kind of prank. But this idiot is for real. I can’t believe they let this retard on any network.
Ted — September 1, 2008 at 6:14 pm
This is a plus. As Mark Steyn points out in his recent best seller, America Alone, if our western civilization is demographically to survive in the increasingly “hostile to the west” islamic world — and not end up like the sinking European populations — these are the precise people (the Bristol Palins’) we should thank for increasing their progeny.
Nicely done, Sonny, and thanks of course for the link.
The bigger and much less subtle point that Yglesias misses is that Bristol Palin DID in fact have agency in this decision, and so DOES deserve to be praised for doing (what I take to have been) the right thing. That I think that X ought to be illegal does not mean that not doing X isn’t a praiseworthy thing. What an ass.
Here’s a question that’s gnawing at me- If the Palins were so concerned about Bristol’s privacy, why did they choose to throw their kid under the bus when it became politically expedient to do so? If they were genuinely concerned about making sure her pregnancy did not become an issue, they could have simply kept her out of the public eye for the next two months. That’s what they wanted to do anyway. Instead they decide to quell those “nasty rumors” by dropping the dime on their daughter. They could have simply released Trig’s birth records instead, and everyone would have gotten red in the face and slinked away. Something is definitely rotten in the Great White North Territory. This needs to be addressed. The Palin family and the McCain campaign have made it all fair game right from the beginning.
Sonny Bunch — September 1, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Merge: I don’t think that announcing your child is pregnant is tantamount to “throwing her under the bus.” Plus, if the campaign didn’t make it public, and someone found out in a month’s time, then they would be accused of “trying to cover it up.” Kind of a lose-lose situation…
Then I would suggest that she shouldn’t have pushed the “family values” card quite as hard as she did. I think McCain made a terrible choice with Palin (if indeed he did make that decision).
Fen-Fen Mattamal — September 2, 2008 at 6:06 am
I pity him. There are quite a few characters just like him at MSNBC. I laughed out laud ofen when watching MSNBC.
fen
Fen-Fen Mattamal — September 2, 2008 at 6:06 am
I pity him. There are quite a few characters just like him at MSNBC. I laughed out laud ofen when watching MSNBC.
fen
Fen-Fen Mattamal — September 2, 2008 at 6:06 am
I pity him. There are quite a few characters just like him at MSNBC. I laughed out laud ofen when watching MSNBC.
fen
Hi Sonny,
Just wanted to comment one on point you made. I may not be an orthodox conservative, I see myself as more libertarian, but lean conservative. I too am in favor of keeping abortion legal. That may be the libertarian aspect in me, but I see government intrusion in any aspect of life to be excessive and stifling.
Now as for the situation with Palin, I can only speak from my own experience, but the Palin pick ensured another McCain voter, and my wife is apolitical as a general rule. I think her daughter’s pregnancy re-enforces her connection with us, the common-folk, who have to deal with such things on a daily basis. In a day when the political class tends to be so far out of touch with “the folks” her place on this ticket may prove to be the humanizing touch to thaw the glacier like flow of our political discourse. However, like Ross, I am rooting for Palin to succeed. Gains of salt are provided for your convenience.
Sonny Bunch — September 2, 2008 at 10:28 am
Merge: Superficially it might appear that the family values types would disapprove of the teen pregnancy situation. At least, that’s what liberals think. The truth is, it probably shores up a lot of support amongst the Evangelical set. Think about it this way: yes, they disapprove of unwed teenagers having sex, but that bridge has been crossed. Now that she is pregnant, she’s doing the right thing (as far as the family values set goes, anyway) by having the baby and marrying the father.
I’m more interested in your second sentence, specifically your insinuation that McCain might not have picked Palin. If he didn’t do it then who, pray tell, did?
Joe: I think, politically speaking, that Palin is a great move for the ticket. She appeals very strongly to the “silent majority” and, if she proves she can handle herself on the campaign trail, will be a huge asset to the party for years to come.
Drew — September 2, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Where does all of this “respect” other magazine writers have for Andrew Sullivan come from? It certainly doesn’t seem to be from anything he has written over the last five years. Am I reading a differrent blog than you are, or are you just impressed with the publications that tolerate his byline? This is an honest question. The Daily Dish is repulsive and has been for five years now.
Sonny Bunch — September 2, 2008 at 1:30 pm
As a writer, Andrew is quite good. Effortlessly so, it seems. And I’ve always respected him for daring to publish stories about ‘The Bell Curve’ when he was EIC at the New Republic; that took guts. He was also one of the most logical, concise polemicists immediately after 9/11. Obviously, that’s changed in recent years, but I’ve continued reading anyway.
Noo Yark — September 2, 2008 at 9:14 pm
All I want to know is when did the RNC become the party of “change”???
Palin probably will never be in the Oval Office, but a VP is more than just a back up, they have very important tasks to do. or does everyone really think presidents handle every national/international issue themselves? I want the execitive branch occupied with people who have been “in the mix” for some time. who have travelled overseas. met with foreign leaders. AND FOR GOD’S SAKE HAVE AN OPINION ON U.S. POILCIES IN IRAQ!!!!! (when asked, Palin said “I don’t know) WTF?!???
any joe smoe on the street know WTF is going on over there and has an opinion.
Am I suppose to believe if McCain was looking for a Female VP that there are no other Female candidates with more experience????????
Well, it’s pretty well-established in the media that McCain preferred Lieberman but was told that was unacceptable. Also Tim Pawlenty was reportedly a McCain favorite. I don’t know why you’d deny that McCain was pressured to take someone representing “family values” in order to shore up the Republican “base”. Christian Conservatives had it in for McCain until this pick.
Sonny Bunch — September 2, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I don’t think there’s any doubt that McCain’s preference was for Lieberman, but that wasn’t in the cards. It would have been political suicide. You don’t win elections by picking off the party’s voters; you win by turning out your base. I haven’t really seen much to suggest that McCain had a huge attachment to Pawlenty. If he did, he would have just picked him. He’d do just as well with the base as Palin.
Your parenthetical “(if indeed he did make that decision)” suggests that McCain didn’t choose to take Palin on the ticket. It sounds vaguely conspiratorial. That’s all I was saying.
Mary — September 3, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Andrew Sullivan is OVER.
NO ONE reads his site; NO ONE gives a rat’s patootie what he has to say.
There’s a great story to be told in ‘whatever happened to Andrew Sullivan?’
Will — September 3, 2008 at 4:09 pm
First the cross in the dirt story, and now this?
I must say, I’m genuinely saddened by Andrew Sullivan’s obsession with Palin and over-the-top Obama-mania. I mean, the guy’s site basically introduced me to the blogosphere and I think he’s done some outstanding writing on a variety of other issues. I guess his man-crush on Obama has totally addled his senses.
PS – Nice digs, Bunch. Congrats on the move.
Will — September 3, 2008 at 4:18 pm
PPS – I think you accidentally imported Poulos’s blogroll. Better fix that fast before someone mistakenly IDs you as one of those hippy un-American paleocon-libertarian anti-war Islamofascists.
Yeah, that looks like James’s blog roll. It certainly isn’t mine. I actually don’t think I’m an admin over here (if I am, I don’t know it). I’ll let the techies sort that out.
Um, I may have e-mailed Sullivan this evening, nominating him for the Moore Award. Oops.
Seamus — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 am
I have a very good college friend who is one of the original “plank-owners” over at ESPN. This persons character is untouchable and is beloved by all over there. If I mentioned his name most would say a ‘total class act’
According to him, Keith Olbermann is the most arrogant egotistical bastard that he has EVER worked with. He has burnt more bridges then Kenny’s fifth Airforce and he is abhored at ESPN. It patently obvious that most of MSNBC think the guy is a total jackass and its just a matter of time before he self-destructs.
Seamus — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 am
I have a very good college friend who is one of the original “plank-owners” over at ESPN. This persons character is untouchable and is beloved by all over there. If I mentioned his name most would say a ‘total class act’
According to him, Keith Olbermann is the most arrogant egotistical bastard that he has EVER worked with. He has burnt more bridges then Kenny’s fifth Airforce and he is abhored at ESPN. It patently obvious that most of MSNBC think the guy is a total jackass and its just a matter of time before he self-destructs.
Seamus — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 am
I have a very good college friend who is one of the original “plank-owners” over at ESPN. This persons character is untouchable and is beloved by all over there. If I mentioned his name most would say a ‘total class act’
According to him, Keith Olbermann is the most arrogant egotistical bastard that he has EVER worked with. He has burnt more bridges then Kenny’s fifth Airforce and he is abhored at ESPN. It patently obvious that most of MSNBC think the guy is a total jackass and its just a matter of time before he self-destructs.
Mike P — September 4, 2008 at 4:55 pm
So nice of you to use the Ayers thing…let’s recall (again) how old Obama was when Ayers was running around. He has been accepted back into society (unless having a teaching position at a division of the University of Illinois is some sort of social ostracism I’m unaware of). That’s not saying I condone what Ayers did (and I doubt Obama does either).
Do I get why the argument is made? Sure. Is it still a pretty bogus argument? Yep.
Mike P — September 4, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I seriously doubt that Obama or Biden said what you’re saying in those terms.
What’s funny about all of this is that 3 weeks ago, I bet you wouldn’t have made the argument at all that she was ready to be president…now, however, being a small town and mayor and gov. of a sparsely populated state for about 2 years…”READY ON DAY ONE!”
Really?
Sonny Bunch — September 4, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Mike, I think I was pretty clearly being sarcastic/exaggerating for comic effect.
And I don’t really think she is qualified to president. But I do think she’s qualified to be VICE president. (Just as I think that Obama is perfectly qualified to be Joe Biden’s junior running mate.) Let’s be clear: if she did have to take over, there’s a 99% chance it’ll be after a significant period of time, 2 or 3 years into the presidency. 2 or 3 years as VP, combined with her previous executive experience, is more than enough time to get ready for the presidency.
Daniel Kennelly — September 4, 2008 at 5:38 pm
That’s actually why I brought up the Ayers thing. It, like the AIP “scandal”, is just more partisan hackery. I admit I could have done a better job of letting you all in on the fact that tongue was firmly implanted in cheek for that last point.
But as for Ayers having been accepted back into society? Well, I don’t remember getting a memo about that one. I suppose in a narrow legal sense, yes, he has. But I for one wouldn’t stand in the same room with the man.
Kresh — September 4, 2008 at 6:56 pm
“Now, maybe it’s just because I’m an egotist, but I would personally be flattered as hell to be dropped into one of these scenarios. Look, you’re living an ordinary and frankly dull life – bowl of Cheerios in the morning, desk job, etc.; all of a sudden, karma or a shadowy government agency or some staggeringly attractive female basically singles you out for a thrilling new life, one in which malevolent forces that previously took no notice of your existence are now thoroughly dedicated to fucking you up. Hey, at least you matter.”
Sure, but only if it’s still in a movie. In real life you’d soil your trousers and possibly develop a fatal aneuryism, if you end up being lucky to survive long enough.
As the saying goes: adventure is hardship fondly remembered. Also see: Interesting Times aren’t really as cool as they sound.
P.S. – I liked the post.
Tim — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I was appalled by the behavior of Keith Olbermann as I watched the final night of the Republican National Convention. His remarks were so clearly partisan and anti-Republican all evening it made the show unpleasant to watch. The icing on the “Shit cake” that he created was when he had the audacity to make that melodramatic “apology” to the viewers over the 911 memorial video. It was at that point when we simply couldn’t watch any longer and had to turn to another channel for coverage of the event. MSNBC really dropped the ball by assigning this idiot to cover the event.
Tim — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I was appalled by the behavior of Keith Olbermann as I watched the final night of the Republican National Convention. His remarks were so clearly partisan and anti-Republican all evening it made the show unpleasant to watch. The icing on the “Shit cake” that he created was when he had the audacity to make that melodramatic “apology” to the viewers over the 911 memorial video. It was at that point when we simply couldn’t watch any longer and had to turn to another channel for coverage of the event. MSNBC really dropped the ball by assigning this idiot to cover the event.
Tim — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I was appalled by the behavior of Keith Olbermann as I watched the final night of the Republican National Convention. His remarks were so clearly partisan and anti-Republican all evening it made the show unpleasant to watch. The icing on the “Shit cake” that he created was when he had the audacity to make that melodramatic “apology” to the viewers over the 911 memorial video. It was at that point when we simply couldn’t watch any longer and had to turn to another channel for coverage of the event. MSNBC really dropped the ball by assigning this idiot to cover the event.
Also, and more importantly, you really need to compile all of those random pieces of information you have, like that part about The Big Sleep, and put them all in a book. You’re a fountain of random yet incredibly interesting information.
e — September 5, 2008 at 12:18 am
No wonder his ratings are so horrible. He is sickening to watch and listen to.
e — September 5, 2008 at 12:18 am
No wonder his ratings are so horrible. He is sickening to watch and listen to.
e — September 5, 2008 at 12:18 am
No wonder his ratings are so horrible. He is sickening to watch and listen to.
jeffbodensteiner@hot — September 6, 2008 at 10:48 pm
In the NFL, without the benefit of guaranteed contracts, most of these guys do not have the lifetime of monetary security you reference. The average NFL career is not more than three years.
Again, I am with you on not feeling sorry for these guys. They make their choices. But most of these guys don’t have millions in the bank upon their retirement, because they never made millions to begin with.
Sonny Bunch — September 7, 2008 at 12:58 am
Jeff, the average career is about three years, yes…but the minimum (not the average, mind you) salary over that time frame totals to about $1.1 million. Now, we can argue about the effects of marginal tax rates on $1.1 million earned over three years as opposed to 20 years, but I’d have to think that a man who a.) receives a free college degree and b.) gets $1 million out of the gate can make a go of things in the real world absent our sympathy. The NFL salary alone may not be enough to sustain him for the rest of his life, but with competent money management and an average-paying job post-NFL, he’s pretty much set.
Here’s a link to the minimum NFL salaries…rookies/first year players make $285k, second years make $360k, third years make $435. Over three years, that adds up to $1.08M. Not a bad chunk of change.
A few months, I experienced a similar juxtaposition, only with a darker overtone: next to newly released pictures from Gitmo, there was an advertisement for skin care products.
Daniel Kennelly — September 8, 2008 at 9:46 am
I think it’s called Achilles’ Choice. And the whole point of it is that it’s a choice, right?
Sonny Bunch — September 8, 2008 at 11:19 am
I wouldn’t laugh too hard, David: those ads were prominently featured on James and I’s sites when we were arguing about what to do over Iran.
Sonny Bunch — September 8, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I think I finally realized I watch too many crappy movies while reading about the Hadron Collider and wondering what would happen if they did manage to create a black hole that threatened the Earth. In my mind’s eye I imagined a scrappy team of scientists–two or three renegades, one straight-laced careerist, a military pilot–hopping in some sort of device that would take them into the heart of the black hole, where they would detonate a nuke and seal the black hole forever.
Then I thought to myself “My god. I just described the plot of ‘The Core.’ I need to get out more often.”
Daniel Kennelly — September 8, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Ha. Yes. Well I’m not surprised you forgot about that movie. It was eminently forgettable.
Incidentally, for all you sf geeks out there: Charles Stross’ Accelerando, Dan Simmons’ Hyperion books, and Wil McCarthy’s Queendom books offer some interesting perspectives on the whole scientific Armageddon idea. (Why can’t Hollywood ever do smart sci-fi stories like these?)
Dave — September 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm
He’s not very good at sports either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave — September 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm
He’s not very good at sports either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave — September 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm
He’s not very good at sports either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Andrey Rybalchenko — September 8, 2008 at 9:17 pm
July 7, 2008 -> World renowned blogger pronounces “Federer is done.”
September 8th, 2008 -> Federer dominates the U.S. open, closing in on Sampras’ record.
Keith Olbermann is a joke! He is a proud, arrogant, nasty SOB. His job as a news anchor/commentator on MSNBC is a disgrace to that network and to journalism in general. He is by far the most partisan, unfair, and cynical reporter I have ever heard. I listened to him for about 5 seconds after John McCain gave his acceptance speech at the RNC and I had to turn the channel because I felt like I was about to vomit. His liberal bias was pouring out of his mouth. I hope Bill O’Reilly Kicks his ass one of these days!
Geoff Z — September 8, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Keith Olbermann is a joke! He is a proud, arrogant, nasty SOB. His job as a news anchor/commentator on MSNBC is a disgrace to that network and to journalism in general. He is by far the most partisan, unfair, and cynical reporter I have ever heard. I listened to him for about 5 seconds after John McCain gave his acceptance speech at the RNC and I had to turn the channel because I felt like I was about to vomit. His liberal bias was pouring out of his mouth. I hope Bill O’Reilly Kicks his ass one of these days!
Geoff Z — September 8, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Keith Olbermann is a joke! He is a proud, arrogant, nasty SOB. His job as a news anchor/commentator on MSNBC is a disgrace to that network and to journalism in general. He is by far the most partisan, unfair, and cynical reporter I have ever heard. I listened to him for about 5 seconds after John McCain gave his acceptance speech at the RNC and I had to turn the channel because I felt like I was about to vomit. His liberal bias was pouring out of his mouth. I hope Bill O’Reilly Kicks his ass one of these days!
Liked the film as well … wished the hero and his rat pal were a little more – animated. Both seemed a bit bland, but the beautiful visuals and ambitious storytelling saved the day.
Mike P — September 10, 2008 at 8:48 am
” If the Republicans do somehow manage to win the election–something I never could have imagined even two weeks ago–it will be entirely because of the left’s haughtiness and petulance. They brought this on themselves.”
I’m a Democrat and the first to admit that some folks have made some questionable attacks on Palin. However…not all of these attacks were made by Obama or his campaign (the media and Democrats are NOT the same, no matter how much conservatives want to conflate the two) and Republicans, as they often have, use stereotypes and accusations to paint liberals as being condescending to “values voters” or “middle America” when those facts are not always in evidence. I’d please ask you to examine the role that the party your support has to play in this. McCain’s campaign and other Republicans constantly say Barack Obama is not patriotic, while claiming they’re attacking his judgment rather than his patriotism (a transparently false attack, in my opinion), they’ve continually mocked his personal story as that of a celebrity (though his humble start has much more in line with most Americans than McCain’s does)…and on and on it goes.
Like I said, there has obviously been some overreaction to Palin (especially on the blogs). But to say that all liberals are at fault without examining the other factors at play here is more than a little unfair.
Mike P — September 10, 2008 at 8:49 am
And also…let’s not act that just because class might be more important than race (which I’m not certain of at this juncture) that race won’t play a factor. Go back and read George Packer’s dispatches from Kentucky this summer. It almost certainly will play a role in the election…we just can’t be sure until after the voting, sadly.
Sonny Bunch — September 10, 2008 at 10:29 am
Mike, I’ll agree with you that the Obama campaign has been very well behaved when it comes to Palin. Kudos to them.
His supporters–in the media, in the left blogosphere, and elsewhere–have not been, however. I wouldn’t argue that “all liberals” have misbehaved, but enough of them have to do serious damage to the Obama campaign. If there was a serious, concerted effort at, say, The Corner, on Rush Limbaugh, and on Fox News to say that Barack Obama was a Muslim terrorist sleeper agent, don’t you think that would cause some backlash from ordinary folks on the left?
Because that’s what ordinary, moderate folks on the right see as having happened to Palin. And it’s why McCain has opened up a ten point lead amongst “likely” voters, and pulled even with amongst all voters.
victor — September 10, 2008 at 10:54 am
Bill O’Reilly kicks his ass every night. That is what makes KO so crazy. I think he is fun to watch. If the GOP wins this fall he will self destruct on the air. Don’t miss it!
victor — September 10, 2008 at 10:54 am
Bill O’Reilly kicks his ass every night. That is what makes KO so crazy. I think he is fun to watch. If the GOP wins this fall he will self destruct on the air. Don’t miss it!
victor — September 10, 2008 at 10:54 am
Bill O’Reilly kicks his ass every night. That is what makes KO so crazy. I think he is fun to watch. If the GOP wins this fall he will self destruct on the air. Don’t miss it!
Thanks for the great summary, David. In terms of Haqqani’s actual remarks, however, they sounded like a generous portion of well-rehearsed rhetoric, something not unexpected given that he’s Pakistan’s ambassador here. His diplomatic (read: evasive) response to how Pakistan would react to further U.S. military operations on its soil was actually interesting, especially given the intensified use of U.S. Predator drones on or near the Pakistani border in the past two weeks.
He didn’t say anything that was out and out wrong, but his statements were ambiguous to the point that he didn’t really say anything very new. We all know the whole “Pakistan is a democracy,” and how “significant and important it is in its own right” shpeal. The need for a sustained Pakistan-U.S. engagement is also a given. We get it. What I would have really liked to know is how this government plans to rein in the Inter-Services Intelligence, an instrument that acts completely autonomously in Pakistan and has recently been suspected of having strong ties with the Haqqani Network, the very organization the U.S. military has claimed it is targeting in its latest raid campaign. I would also like to know how the Pakistani government plans to cooperate with the military so that they have a unified, concrete approach to countering the militant threat in the FATA and northwest areas, rather than two separate, contradictory strategies.
Will — September 10, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Not sure if class is the best way to describe it. I might go with “vague cultural anxiety.”
That said, I think race potentially amplifies the cultural disconnect between downscale whites and Obama. I’m not really sure how to articulate this, but if you already think Obama is an out-of-touch elitist, maybe you’re more likely to assume his racial background will negatively effect his policy choices.
Not in an explicitly racist sense – as in “I’ll never vote for a black guy because he’s intellectually inferior to the white candidate” – but downscale white voters may assume that Obama’s intellectual and racial background makes him more likely to be overly deferential to minorities. I think that dovetails with Republicans’ historic success at exploiting racialized tensions over welfare programs, affirmative action etc. etc.
I don’t think this will be the election’s deciding factor, but I could certainly see it influencing the campaign at the margins.
Tony T — September 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Olbermann is a pathetic excuse for a news reporter. His left wing vomit is toxically obnoxious and only further reinforces the fact that the powers to be at MSNBC (Mentally Subpar Nitwits Believing their own Crap) are all a joke and should be fired.
Tony T — September 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Olbermann is a pathetic excuse for a news reporter. His left wing vomit is toxically obnoxious and only further reinforces the fact that the powers to be at MSNBC (Mentally Subpar Nitwits Believing their own Crap) are all a joke and should be fired.
Tony T — September 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Olbermann is a pathetic excuse for a news reporter. His left wing vomit is toxically obnoxious and only further reinforces the fact that the powers to be at MSNBC (Mentally Subpar Nitwits Believing their own Crap) are all a joke and should be fired.
Daniel Kennelly — September 10, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Brilliant.
Damir Marusic — September 10, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Taibbi’s article on Friedman, which you duly link to, is probably one of my favorite articles of the last 10 years.
The Extispicator — September 11, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Daniel,
Don’t be afraid of Huglund. He’s just a nihilist.
Daniel Kennelly — September 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Must be exhausting.
Sonny Bunch — September 11, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism…at least it was an ethos.
Damir Marusic — September 11, 2008 at 7:52 pm
In the interest of not making this into an annoying Corner-like thread-fight, I’ll keep this in the comments.
First thing, Dan, I apologize, I was cutting and pasting over several pages, and a bit of the interview didn’t make it over. I have restored it to my post now. Here’s the missing part:
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.
But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.
We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.
So indeed, Palin is ready to go to war with Russia over Georgia. Because the “freedom” of Georgia and Ukraine matter that much.
Yes, I agree, Obama’s rhetoric on Georgia has been very disappointing. Biden’s speech at the DNC, where he roared about “keeping Russia accountable”, was unsettling. (Obama’s speech was more measured and nuanced, for what it’s worth. Probably not much, as it’s all politics in those venues.)
But overall, no, I reject the premise that there’s no difference between Obama and McCain as far as foreign policy folly goes. Obama’s support for Georgia which you cite above is carefully worded, lawyerly, hedged, and finishes with an olive branch to Russia. There is no “We are all Georgians now” nonsense. There is no mention of confronting Russia militarily.
These things matter very much in foreign affairs and diplomacy. After eight years of seat-of-the-pants decision-making, I’m hoping for a reprieve.
Mike P — September 11, 2008 at 8:47 pm
It’s lose/lose for Obama…he says nothing, McCain/Palin’s lies are able to stand, unchallenged, by an uncritical and craven media and people accuse him of being a wimp. He engages, he’s “losing the news cycle” because he’s playing on their terms.
Basically, you’re seeing the upside of running a campaign that knows the media won’t hold it accountable for anything.
Daniel Kennelly — September 11, 2008 at 10:53 pm
If it’s lose/lose, then why not choose the classy way to lose? Contrary to F. Scott Fitzgerald, there are indeed second acts in American life.
Damir Marusic — September 11, 2008 at 11:47 pm
As I’ve mentioned to you in person, Dan, I think Obama’s mistake was apologizing. It was a good, biting line, even if he didn’t mean it “that way”.
He should say something like “I think Governor Palin is a talented politician, but I think she’s wrong on the issues…” and just keep going. And use the line again and again while the other side squeals foul. It makes them seem whiny and you seem in control.
Well said. There’s a smugness to the series that turns me off, and you broke it down better than I could. It’s smart, sophisticated and better than your avg TV show, but that veneer keeps me at arm’s length.
Sonny Bunch — September 12, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Just another taste of what’s to come in Putin’s America if McCain wins.
Noelle — September 12, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Incidentally, one episode directly references The Apartment, which was released in 1960 (the year the first season is set in).
Am I wrong to suggest there’s a distinction between calling for a Membership Action Plan for Georgia and Ukraine and endorsing full NATO membership? My understand is that a MAP lays out certain criteria aspirant nations must meet before they can be considered for full membership. I suppose this is a shorter way of saying I agree with the comment above. Obama’s response appears to leave us a lot more room to maneuver than Palin’s (and McCain’s) open-ended commitment.
MamaMiaMaya — September 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I can’t take it anymore … I hate Olbermann and that jerk Chris Matthews. Talk about Obama butt smoochers! The only ray of light for me is that I saw a Washington Post article indicating they won’t let these 2 boneheads lead coverage during the actual election. What took you so damm long, MSNBC?? By the way, I think KO hates women …
MamaMiaMaya — September 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I can’t take it anymore … I hate Olbermann and that jerk Chris Matthews. Talk about Obama butt smoochers! The only ray of light for me is that I saw a Washington Post article indicating they won’t let these 2 boneheads lead coverage during the actual election. What took you so damm long, MSNBC?? By the way, I think KO hates women …
MamaMiaMaya — September 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I can’t take it anymore … I hate Olbermann and that jerk Chris Matthews. Talk about Obama butt smoochers! The only ray of light for me is that I saw a Washington Post article indicating they won’t let these 2 boneheads lead coverage during the actual election. What took you so damm long, MSNBC?? By the way, I think KO hates women …
Hank — September 13, 2008 at 7:24 am
Reminiscent of some of the Serbian leadership. I’m thinking not only of Slobo, but minor and more colorful figures like Velimir Ilić.
Hank — September 13, 2008 at 7:38 am
They sound more dead than fractured. At least seriously incapacitated.
This is reminiscent Marlboro’s underwriting of anti-tobacco advertisements, but to a lesser degree. It is a classic bootleggers-and-baptist sort of move; I’m sure that BP, Exxon, Chevron, et al will do fine in the wake of whatever environmental legislation emerges in the coming years.
Good call. Dan also points out that the tobacco companies have been doing this for years, but that this is one of the first times a company has done it without having just settled a multi-billion dollar class action suit. Preemptive PR?
Damir Marusic — September 16, 2008 at 12:25 am
Rank hackery, this piece. As if the Bushies were some kind of stalwart free-marketeers. As if McCain knows his ass from his elbow when it comes to anything except international relations (and even there he’s a danger to the nation and the world). As if the Republicans aren’t dominated by the same rank populism that drives the Democrats. This is a sad election all around. In the immortal words of Butthead: “You can’t polish a turd, Beavis.”
David Donadio — September 16, 2008 at 9:32 am
Ha. Quite. It ain’t a vindication of economic thinking in either party. Rather, a cruel reminder of just how much we have to look forward to. Maybe if our parents hadn’t all been Uncle Billy, we wouldn’t have to be Potter.
David Donadio — September 16, 2008 at 3:40 pm
We should certainly worry about our ability to fight a conventional war, but would you really complain if we brought a few more linguists and other colonial types into the mix? It’s not exactly hammers and nails these days in the FATA, which is, after all, a colonial holdover, and actually the central front in the war on terror.
Daniel Kennelly — September 16, 2008 at 3:50 pm
You’re spot on about the problem. What’s that saying—when you have only a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail? I wonder what happens when all you have is a global constabulary force…
And it’s not just the Iraq war pressing transformation in that direction. If you look at the 10 or so years prior to Iraq, there were all sorts of low-level engagements throughout the so-called Gap. Then along came 9/11 and Afghanistan and Iraq, which (initially, anyway) strengthened the crusaders’ arguments.
But as for Rome: hey, it worked for about half a millennium or so…well, kinda.
Damir Marusic — September 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Cunning linguists, perhaps?
Lisa — September 17, 2008 at 8:42 am
We are currently exploding like cash piñatas already – and the $$ is going to fund that fire from Karachi to Tangier. In comparison, I’m more than happy to be beaten with a stick if it means kids will have healthcare and quality schools.
Daniel Kennelly — September 17, 2008 at 11:35 am
Public figures wake up in a cold sweat from nightmares about being profiled by Matt Labash. He’s a national treasure.
I would say the odds are much more than 75% that your typical journalist writing a profile is just as biased as Aaron Sorkin writing a script of the West Wing. I’m not sure what the difference between a good journalist and a partisan hack is, but I would guess that it’s an awareness of one’s own bias and a willingness to combat it, at least occasionally.
This reminds me of a story I overheard. The scene is a graduate school politics classroom. The students are explaining their project proposals and how they’ll carry them out. Student A explains his hypothesis and then says he’ll go out and look for evidence that supports it. Student B objects that his method is biased. Student A replies that his method isn’t biased; it’s the scientific method.
Of course, student A is 100% wrong. A scientist dreams up a hypothesis and then devises a devilishly clever experiment designed to *disprove* his hypothesis. Or at least he should do this, because if he doesn’t, his scientific peers will, potentially embarrassing him.
Yes, it doesn’t always work that way in the scientific world. But it almost never works that way in the journalistic world.
There is clearly more to this story than you’re letting on. I don’t know what it is, but I’m sure of it.
Daniel Kennelly — September 17, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Yeah, I’m not a fan of taxation as a redistribution scheme either, for all the oft stated reasons.
But I’m pretty amazed Yglesias would even hint at something that frightening. I mean, isn’t this the kind of chicanery the Left has been accusing the Right of for eight years?
Laura — September 17, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Try talking to females outside the Beltway. I think she’s great, but then, I’m writing from flyover land.
David Polansky — September 17, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Actually I’m living in Chicago. I try to avoid talking to anyone inside the Beltway whenever possible.
curious — September 17, 2008 at 7:35 pm
So wait, McCain being relatively unpopular internationally is an asset towards–his becoming popular internationally?
Up is down. Left is right. Black is white.
Edward — September 17, 2008 at 8:28 pm
If John McCain is president come January, the world sees the same USA it has seen for the last 8. If Barack Obama is president, it will force widespread reevaluation and gives us our best shot at getting our European allies to pull their fingers out of their ears and stop yelling “I can’t hear you!” over and over. Maybe the smooth talker can get some cooperation, maybe not, but NOTHING changes with John McCain.
device — September 18, 2008 at 12:29 am
This of course, begs the question of ‘Benefit of the doubt’, non?
Howard — September 18, 2008 at 9:42 am
Democrats, like Sebelius, and their media hacks, like Gergen and Cafferty are sore losers, who use the race card every time Obama missteps, or falls behind in the polls. So far, the most prominent references to race in the primaries, as well as in the general election have been from the Obama campaign … usually in terms of the Obama campaign accusing anyone, and everyone of racism, who disagreed with Obama, or challenged his lack of credentials, or his lack of experience, as racism. Obama has also vocally predicted and anticipated racism, when nobody actually said or did anything racist. Obama also used the race card against Bill Clinton. And, now democrat, and Obama supporter Kathleen Sebelius is once again using racism as an excuse, in case Obama doesn’t win in November. But, what about the other side of the coin? 90% of Blacks in America are voting for Obama simply because he is black. This is racism also, but it always gets swept under the carpet.
No Wright, no Farrakahn, no Rezko, no Pfleger, no Ayers,
no mean Michelle, and, NOBAMA !!!
Daniel Kennelly — September 18, 2008 at 12:47 pm
>Up is down. Left is right. Black is white.
There is no luminiferous aether. Time and space are not absolutes. And lower taxes often lead to higher government revenues. The world is a funny place sometimes, isn’t it?
David Polansky — September 18, 2008 at 2:57 pm
You’re dead on here in the conclusion. The CCP does allow citizens to hold protests and in some cases to set up organizations dealing with consumer and environmental issues.
But, crucially, this is not an example of self-government, and the transparency that results. Rather, the party sees grassroots organization as one plank in the system, designed to balance against corporate interests and local governments, which the central government cannot hope to control all on its own.
As always, the party sits at the top of the pyramid. Inefficient feedback loops are just one of the prices it is willing to pay to maintain the status quo.
OK, I’ll bite. How is this any different than, say, a socially conservative organization calling for a boycott of companies who advertise during an objectionable TV show? I may find their aesthetic judgment lacking, but I don’t begrudge social conservatives the right to peacefully protest offensive material.
The Obama Campaign isn’t hiring thugs to intimidate television producers or leveraging state regulations to get these ads off the air. They’re simply encouraging supporters to challenge political programs they find unfair. So what’s the big deal?
Sonny Bunch — September 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I would argue there’s a substantive difference between boycotting a TV show you find distasteful and mobilizing masses of political supporters in order to intimidate journalists/journalistic outlets. One has to do with letting the market sort things out; the other has to do with silencing your critics.
Have you actually looked at the language that Obama’s camp is using about these guys? They called Freddoso a hate-monger. Because he wrote a book that doesn’t conform to Obama’s rosy picture of himself, David Freddoso should be silenced. I mean, really? Why not engage Freddoso and his book? Why not ask callers to, say, have a debate? Why flood studios with phone calls demanding that someone be removed from the airwaves because you disagree with them on a political point?
Again: this is creepy, Fascistic stuff. It shouldn’t be done in the political sphere.
Providing supporters with talking points? Directing their calls? Isn’t this what grassroots organizations do literally all the time?
I can’t speak to the Freddoso incident because I haven’t been following it, but this sort of thing hardly rises to the level of press intimidation.
Didn’t you just publish several posts (rightfully) taking Andrew Sullivan to task for hyperbolically describing the relationship between Palin and the media as “Putin’s America?” Where’s your sense of proportion?
Ideally, yes, all campaigns would honestly and thoughtfully engage with their opponents’ arguments. Tragically, even the Obamessiah can’t change the structure of electoral politics. And yes, after two terms of Bush, I find this sudden concern for preserving civil discourse on the Left a bit rich.
Sonny Bunch — September 19, 2008 at 3:54 pm
It would be one thing if they were giving their supporters talking points to engage in debate. “Mr. Freddoso says X happened when Y is really the case.” That’s not what is happening: the campaign is sending talking points designed to keep Freddoso et al off the air. They’re providing talking points designed to stifle debate, to shut it down. I’m sure you see the difference between mobilizing your supporters to engage on an issue/vote/whatever and mobilizing your supporters to bully a TV/Radio station into not interviewing someone.
If I wanted to get really hyperbolic, like Andrew, I’d hate titled this post Chavez’s America. But I don’t think it’s terribly over-the-top to suggest that mobilizing a mob, demonizing an ideological opponent, and trying to stifle debate shades into the realm of Fascism.
Daniel Kennelly — September 19, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Hey, look at it this way: At least Obama’s proving he can use his “community organizer” experience for something…
Daniel Kennelly — September 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Oh, and one way you can imagine this incident to fully realize how creepy it is: Just imagine that this is 2012 and he’s doing this in the midst of his re-election campaign.
Or for those who suffer from severe cognitive bias: Imagine this is 2004 and Bush is encouraging the “digital brownshirts” to call and complain.
I’m probably not willing to go as far as to call it “fascistic”, but I think it easily rises to the level of “Nixonian.”
Sonny Bunch — September 19, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Nixon was never this well organized…or this well liked.
Umm…Moore has long been on record as opposing any and all film-adaptations of his work. He neither asks for nor accepts any compensation, financial or otherwise, for the rights/movies. The options are owned by the publishers, not by him, and he goes so far as to deny the movie studios the right to put his name in the credits.
The point being, I suppose, that a) if the movies listed truly were crap (I haven’t seen them), he had nothing to do with their adaptation and implementation; and b) he didn’t want them made in the first place (he doesn’t own the rights – which spawns a much longer discussion of the creator rights debacle that is the modern comic market).
David Polansky — September 22, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Fair enough. This is what a comments section is for, I suppose. So why doesn’t Moore have more leverage in negotiations? He’s about as big a name as there is in comics these days, no?
Daniel Kennelly — September 22, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I wouldn’t call Watchmen pretentious and overrated in itself. I think its boosters tend to be a bit pretentious and to overrate it (uh, ok, yeah, then I guess it is overrated, strictly speaking). I mean, it’s great and all, but is it really, as per Time Magazine, one of the “100-best novels of all time”? Not quite. But it’s still plenty good.
If a broad consensus exists in favor of achieving certain goals (containing Communism comes to mind), perhaps a non-ideological approach to foreign policy is possible. Otherwise, I’m not sure I understand how you can disentangle the various approaches to foreign affairs from their ideological roots. Progressives, for example, are strongly attached to liberal internationalism. Isn’t that because it reflects their deeply-held political values?
Sonny Bunch — September 22, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I doubt Moore owns the rights to his work; DC almost certainly does. And he isn’t much of a force in mainstream comics any more, creatively. Even if he was, do you think Warners is going to say “Oh, okay, we’ll forego this nine figure movie project so Mr. Moore can write funny books as he sees fit.”
Agreed. I have been beating the divided government drum for two years on my blog. I voted for John Kerry to get divided government in 2004 and lost. I supported a straight Dem ticket in 2006 to get divided government and won. This year I will vote to re-elect divided government by supporting John McCain.
This scholarly article from a Constitutional lawyer puts more than a little academic cred behind the divided government thesis.
Anyway, Sonny – FWIW I recently initiated a “Coalition of the Divided” blogroll for anyone who says anything vaguely positive about divided government. You are now a member in good standing.
I’m of two minds here. On one hand, I get your point, and yes the law is stupid.
But on the other hand, and for the sake of conversation, is there a point at which there is too much, uh, “distress,” regardless of the fact that they’re about to be slaughtered?
Hank — September 23, 2008 at 10:48 am
Putin. Chigurh.
Daniel Kennelly — September 23, 2008 at 11:08 am
I love it. “Never be clever for the sake of being clever.”
Aw, you can’t let facts get in the way now, can you? Must be nice to rewrite your own history.
Daniel Kennelly — September 23, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Now, I’m not a lawyer, but is the wife’s knowledge of her husband’s crime necessarily treasonous, in a narrowly legal sense? She doesn’t become an accomplice simply by not turning her husband in, I thought, due to the fact that spousal privilege laws typically allow a spouse to refuse to testify except in certain cases involving children or domestic abuse or such. I presume that “refuse to testify” privilege also applies to refusing to report her husband’s crime to the authorities. Which is why the state in the Rosenberg case made such a big deal about whether or not she typed up those notes.
So, for instance, Robert Hanssen’s wife, who discovered him in the act of treason, didn’t turn him into the feds, and she was not even accused of treason, even when Robert subsequently resumed his spying and was finally caught.
Of course, the best way to be humane AND lower food prices/increase food supply would be to quit inefficiently processing grain, corn and clean water through animals bodies into meat in the first place.
Sonny Bunch — September 24, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I don’t know about that, Daniel. If your wife commits murder, you knew he was planning to do so, said nothing, knew he did it, said nothing, knew he was continuing to kill people, and said nothing…that’s not acting as an accomplice? I’m not sure…
Nicole Kurokawa — September 24, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I’m not arguing that there isn’t mistreatment at some of these facilities. I just think there are more efficient ways of dealing with the problem. One solution might be to get the information into the public domain, giving people the right to decide if they want to buy from cruel slaughterhouses or not. If nations are determined to enforce these rules, they can fine these facilities — laws that are on the books in almost all the EU nation states anyway, not necessitating additional formal European Commission laws. Also, these national research centers don’t have to be… national. They can be private, or in universities. I think forcing companies to hire, train, and certify an animal welfare officer is costly, and unfortunately also boils down to human judgment at the end of the day, despite certifications and training. I have the utmost faith that these public officials are as corruptible as the rest of them…
BOB — September 24, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Chris mattews and kieth olbermann need to go away and maybe the ratings will go up…
they are morons cranky old men and kieth sucks at trying to talk about football
BOB — September 24, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Chris mattews and kieth olbermann need to go away and maybe the ratings will go up…
they are morons cranky old men and kieth sucks at trying to talk about football
BOB — September 24, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Chris mattews and kieth olbermann need to go away and maybe the ratings will go up…
they are morons cranky old men and kieth sucks at trying to talk about football
Laura — September 25, 2008 at 7:44 am
LOL! And sometimes, in American households they *are* missles–if there are enough boys in the house who sneak into their sister’s things.
But, more to the point, rhetoric is still used the way it has always been, mis-.
Spike does have a way of doing that. Speaking of Spike, I tried watching the director’s commentary to Inside Man the other day. Worst solo director commentary I’ve seen. Won’t say evah, because surely some director fell asleep mid commentary and I just haven’t seen it.
Sonny Bunch — September 25, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Yeah, $525 is going to be pretty close. I’m surprised it kept going this long…
Solo director’s commentaries are almost always a bore. You need someone to riff off in a situation like that. Verhoeven is great in that regard: his commentary on “Starship Troopers” is amazing. If “Showgirls” had a commentary track I would buy it in a second.
From a strict story perspective, Michael Mann solo commentaries are stellar. But then again, this is Michael Mann. His Collateral Commentary is especially illuminating on backstory, character, his appreciation for Audioslave, etc. I am hoping next year gives us an Insider 10th anniversary with commentary, yadda yadda yadda.
David Donadio — September 25, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Thanks man. I oughtta add that I’m not sure a meltdown would be trivial, only that it would be exacerbated by a bailout that rewards people who made unsound investments and punishes everyone who didn’t. If the government keeps encouraging people to invest in excessively risky or underperforming assets, they will, and that’ll cause even bigger problems than we have now. The garbage has to go, and it’s up to investors to figure out what’s worth what, and what to sell off and what to buy up.
If, as some economists allege, there’s a lack of liquidity, and banks really can’t get the short-term loans they need to operate, then maybe the government can serve as a lender of last resort. That would keep it more neutral and leave investors reasonably free to figure things out for themselves, right? But the government shouldn’t throw $700 billion at bad debts whose true value no one can know, or take control of private institutions. If that happens, it’ll make the corruption at Fannie Mae look tiny by comparison.
Right now, the economy is like an addict in a low after the heroin wears off. He wants more heroin, but he’d live longer if he quit.
Daniel Kennelly — September 25, 2008 at 8:55 pm
That was an awesome mashup, btw. Though I did miss the part with the Joker’s “magic trick.”
Daniel Kennelly — September 25, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Don’t know if it’s true, but I once heard that a heroin addict is either on methadone or he’s using, for the rest of his life. I hope that doesn’t apply to this situation.
Central banks across Asia scrambled on Friday to meet a desperate demand for cash, both in their own currencies and the U.S. dollar, as the White House’s $700 billion bailout plan ran into unexpected roadblocks.
News of the biggest ever U.S. bank failure only added to the thirst for liquidity, with the government brokering a last-ditch purchase of thrift Washington Mutual
“The market is just frozen at the moment,” said Claudio Piron, a strategist at JPMorgan Chase Bank in Singapore.
“We are at such a point of absent liquidity that prices are beginning to fail in their usefulness as a signal – this in itself is disturbing,” Piron said.
David Polansky — September 26, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Arrggh!
goatshead — September 27, 2008 at 2:31 am
Keith olbermann is a total idiot. I watch him every once in a while so that I can laugh out loud. He should not make fun of McCain….he is a war hero. KO is an ass.
goatshead — September 27, 2008 at 2:31 am
Keith olbermann is a total idiot. I watch him every once in a while so that I can laugh out loud. He should not make fun of McCain….he is a war hero. KO is an ass.
goatshead — September 27, 2008 at 2:31 am
Keith olbermann is a total idiot. I watch him every once in a while so that I can laugh out loud. He should not make fun of McCain….he is a war hero. KO is an ass.
Daniel Kennelly — September 29, 2008 at 10:10 am
Fetid gas? Distended sphincter?
Nice. Next time wait till well after breakfast to spin such metaphors.
Damir Marusic — September 29, 2008 at 10:38 am
That’s the crux of our argument going forward. You’ll say that nothing’s working, and I’ll say that it would only be worse without intervention.
You, presumably, would argue that this is nonsense. I would argue that you’re being ideological in the face of facts.
Damir Marusic — September 29, 2008 at 10:52 am
Let me clarify—I don’t mean to slur like I did above. There’s evidence that we need closer to $3 trillion to be able to get out of this thing alive. So you tell me: is it better to spend nothing come what may?
The Dow Jones fell 777 points today when Congress failed to reach an agreement on a financial bailout. I’m reasonably certain that no matter what action the government takes right now, we’ll see some sort of economic downturn, not least because investors inevitably react adversely when public officials tell them every day for a week that an asteroid is headed their way. The qualification “unless we _____” probably doesn’t do much to allay their fears.
Should we honestly not be skeptical about the proposition that we should immediately give the Secretary of the Treasury an outsized sum — whether $700 billion or $3 trillion, as that WSJ article has it — to spend as he chooses to stave off catastrophe? That’s not ideology in the face of the facts, it’s caution in the face of fear.
If we do end up passing a bailout, I suspect whatever it is will solve a problem that no longer exists.
The market is an infinitely complex, endlessly shape-shifting web of individuals relying on good information to make rational decisions that, when aggregated, sometimes result in disaster. In this case, investors — government included — clearly don’t have good information. One story tells us we need to spend $700 billion, another says $3 trillion.
All of which brings to mind the old refrain about how we could win the war in Iraq if only we put half a million troops there. Well, that was never an option. There are certain things the American public just will not stand for, and doubling the federal budget in a single day is one of them.
It’s still not clear how the bailout’s proponents define success, but I’d say that, in essence, they’re setting an impossibly high standard for what politics can accomplish. I’m sure if we resurrected Bill Shakespeare, Beethoven, the dead Beatles, Adam Smith, J.P. Morgan and Milton Friedman and locked them up in a smoke-filled room together while Teddy Roosevelt went out and shot game, we could figure this all out, but that’s not gonna happen.
So how much should we spend, and on what? How much will it cost, short-term and long-term? What will it accomplish, and how will we know if it’s been a success?
Damir Marusic — September 30, 2008 at 8:57 am
a) No one said $700bn was required—the number was largely pulled out of thin air. This isn’t a question of appropriations and balancing budgets. It’s about picking a large enough number to credibly allay anxieties and unlock the credit markets. I feel like many people are misunderstanding what the plan is trying to do.
b) There’s no success metric—there’s just gambling with catastrophic failure. You seem to be fine with this, and you seem to believe that no action is preferable to action. That’s perfectly defensible, even a reasonable possible outcome of all of this. I guess I’m just more risk-averse than you.
Daniel Kennelly — October 1, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Kidney failure? Maybe he drank melamine-laced Chinese milk…
Daniel Polansky — October 1, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Haha. Very funny, although frankly I’m more saddened by the recent loss of the DC City Paper’s feature story than I am a 2nd rate Israel-obsessed broadsheet.
Daniel Kennelly — October 1, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Re: that video you posted. Man, I wish those interviews were scripted, but I know they’re not. I’ve known people like that myself.
Sonny Bunch — October 1, 2008 at 4:22 pm
It really is absurd. My favorite moment is the girl at the beginning who says, with a straight face after admitting she’s simply too cheap to buy health insurance: “And honestly, I feel it’s ridiculous that we live in a first world country where I have to pay for basic, um, health care.”
Thrift wrapped up in the flag of self-righteous indignation: that’s the heart of the universal health care movement right there.
So I’m totally down with your main point, but I disagree a bit with the framing. Maybe this is my own idiosyncratic take, but I’m uncomfortable with referring to everyone without health insurance as shiftless layabouts. I think a “more in sorrow than in anger” approach is called for – i.e. we acknowledge that not having health insurance sucks, but argue that the unintended consequences of providing universal health insurance outweigh any marginal benefits.
Then again, I suppose this wouldn’t be a very effective electoral strategy . . .
Sonny Bunch — October 2, 2008 at 10:13 am
Like I said, I know it’s not fair to call everyone without insurance a shiftless layabout. I just can’t stand people who frame the debate in terms of health care being this impossible-to-afford luxury that only the rich can indulge in. It’s very frustrating…
Well Said, Sonny. Well said indeed. I gave up on RedState long ago being anything other than a bunch of partisan hacks more interested in winning elections than in promoting a coherent theory of governance.
Vindicated! Good post, though. I think a unanimous condemnation is the best way to exorcise this sort of blacklisting from polite society.
Daniel Kennelly — October 2, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Hear Hear!
Sonny Bunch — October 2, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I shouldn’t write in frustration; I already see three things I’d like to edit in that post. But between Erick’s ridiculous post and my credit card company screwing with me (long story), I’m basically angry at life right now.
Sonny, I say we make them dead. You give the word and I’ll take care of it myself. one of the few quotable lines in that monstrosity
steven larsen — October 2, 2008 at 7:42 pm
if the government takes the garbage debt away what do they do in the future if more existing loans turn to trash. that scenario is entirely possible in a recessionary economy
You ever see that movie “Sunshine”? Solid enough little flick from Danny Boyle. It’s about the sun dying out in 50 years. I think this is how things started…no sunspots=bad news.
Daniel Kennelly — October 3, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Yeah, Sunshine was ok. The bit where they shoot themselves out into vacuum was pretty cool, but being the nerd I am, I immediately went to the web to see if it would really work that way. The verdict? Not quite: http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/vacuum.html
David Polansky — October 5, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Good to see someone else has seen this film. That movie scared the hell out of me, and it’s difficult to explain to people who haven’t seen it why a movie called “Sunshine” is frightening without having them think you’re deeply disturbed.
Sonny Bunch — October 6, 2008 at 11:08 am
The only complaint I had was with the ending; was it really necessary to introduce an indestructible monster into the third act? And even if you did want to introduce the man-as-monster trope, was it really necessary for him to follow Cillian onto the bomb? It struck me as kind of silly.
David Polansky — October 6, 2008 at 11:25 am
Yeah, I totally agree. It really brings the movie back down to earth (so to speak). Until then, though, it’s pretty solid. What I liked was the concept of the sun itself as some sort of malevolent god that keeps immolating them at every turn. Though, in retrospect, the plot does kind of require them to execute a series of really stupid maneuvers to help bring that about.
Daniel Kennelly — October 6, 2008 at 1:54 pm
It reminds me of that scene in Barcelona in which Ted (or is it Fred) says that maybe the sexual revolution didn’t turn everything upside-down. Maybe it had all been upside-down before, and the sexual revolution turned things right-side-up. And Fred (or Ted) says, “No, I don’t think that’s it.”
David Polansky — October 6, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Now, Barcelona is a film near and dear to my heart. At the time, I was living in Rome shortly after the invasion of Iraq, and dealing with shallow anti-Americanism had more or less become a part of my daily routine. After I saw it, I wanted to call up Whit Stillman and thank him personally.
It does indeed. I was reading lazily, and have now corrected the post. Thanks for the catch.
Daniel Kennelly — October 7, 2008 at 1:27 pm
So I take it you won’t be joining Obama in his call to “renegotiate” NAFTA? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Damir Marusic — October 7, 2008 at 3:00 pm
You should know better, Dan. You know my elitism is genuine and extends to suspicion of organized labor as well as heartland hickdom.
Lolly — October 8, 2008 at 9:36 am
This is hysterical. Thank you for posting. Why didn’t I see this? Oh yes, I’ve been conditioned to avoid SNL–how silly of me. Time to start Tivo-ing again. But how can a site be “scrubbed” when it’s like a virus?
It’s easy to understand why the DJ’s mom thought the charge was baseless. Because the MSM is doing all it can to tell her just that.
Sarah YP — October 9, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Seeing as how the Huskers split their five — count ‘em, five! — electoral votes, the congressional district that is Omaha will likely go his way. Score Nebraska as 4 for McCain, 1 (Omaha) Obama.
You’re not crazy, David. At least not on this count.
Sarah YP — October 9, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Seeing as how the Huskers split their five — count ‘em, five! — electoral votes, the congressional district that is Omaha will likely go his way. Score Nebraska as 4 for McCain, 1 (Omaha) Obama.
You’re not crazy, David. At least not on this count.
Sarah YP — October 9, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Seeing as how the Huskers split their five — count ‘em, five! — electoral votes, the congressional district that is Omaha will likely go his way. Score Nebraska as 4 for McCain, 1 (Omaha) Obama.
You’re not crazy, David. At least not on this count.
I used to live a few blocks from the Aragon, on Margate Terrace.
Have they ever improved the acoustics at the Aragon and the Riviera? I saw the Ramones farewell tour at one of those places and the sound was just sludge. Same for The Pogues 20 years ago, and the Clash 25 years ago. The only band that sounded good at the Aragon was U2 in 1983. They must have spent days on the soundcheck, but they always wanted to be the biggest band in the world.
There’s certainly a principal to be upheld and we should all strive to make sure nothing untoward is going on. But, just as we’ve seen with the economic meltdown, there is a little bit of evidence that race does play a part in this (if only at the edges). Recently we’ve seen some on the right attempt to lay the blame for the subprime meltdown squarely at the feet of blacks and other minorities and, with voter registration, we often see Republicans challenging their validity in areas that are usually heavily African-American.
Of course, that is not to say that Republicans are all racists or anything of the like. But I think you’re just seeing a collision of some facts (bad loans did have a lot to do with what happened, but the reasons for why those loans were made isn’t the fault of the people who received them; since blacks vote Democratic in large numbers, it makes sense that Republicans would want to make sure registrations were valid) with projection or wanting to find a scapegoat.
Mike P — October 13, 2008 at 11:35 am
There’s certainly a principal to be upheld and we should all strive to make sure nothing untoward is going on. But, just as we’ve seen with the economic meltdown, there is a little bit of evidence that race does play a part in this (if only at the edges). Recently we’ve seen some on the right attempt to lay the blame for the subprime meltdown squarely at the feet of blacks and other minorities and, with voter registration, we often see Republicans challenging their validity in areas that are usually heavily African-American.
Of course, that is not to say that Republicans are all racists or anything of the like. But I think you’re just seeing a collision of some facts (bad loans did have a lot to do with what happened, but the reasons for why those loans were made isn’t the fault of the people who received them; since blacks vote Democratic in large numbers, it makes sense that Republicans would want to make sure registrations were valid) with projection or wanting to find a scapegoat.
Sure there are principles to uphold, but some people also want to uphold the principle that everyone should be able to vote easily, which is why they run these registration drives.
You’re concerned about fraudulent registrations, and that’s great, but don’t take it so far as to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And for goodness-sake don’t use it for partisan ends.
We can’t just wave a magic wand and make groups like ACORN disappear and thus disenfranchise many, many more legitimate voters than there are fradulent ballots.
The point Yglesias is making is that the efforts of groups like ACORN are overwhelmingly positive in that most registrations and the vast magority of actual votes cast are legitimate. Basically, if the ratio of good-to-bad registrations is something like 100 to 1, it’s a big plus. If a more significant portion of ACORN registrations were fraudulent, there might be something to be concerned about.
Now, most everyone can agree with the principle that even ~1%ish fraudulent registrations should be minimized (even if they’re just names on the roll and don’t actually cast ballots). Fine, lets find some sane ways to do this, if we can.
But let’s not do it in a way that disenfranchises the ~99% of good registrations, and let’s not expect perfection from the convoluted registration process.
Mark A — October 14, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Sure there are principles to uphold, but some people also want to uphold the principle that everyone should be able to vote easily, which is why they run these registration drives.
You’re concerned about fraudulent registrations, and that’s great, but don’t take it so far as to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And for goodness-sake don’t use it for partisan ends.
We can’t just wave a magic wand and make groups like ACORN disappear and thus disenfranchise many, many more legitimate voters than there are fradulent ballots.
The point Yglesias is making is that the efforts of groups like ACORN are overwhelmingly positive in that most registrations and the vast magority of actual votes cast are legitimate. Basically, if the ratio of good-to-bad registrations is something like 100 to 1, it’s a big plus. If a more significant portion of ACORN registrations were fraudulent, there might be something to be concerned about.
Now, most everyone can agree with the principle that even ~1%ish fraudulent registrations should be minimized (even if they’re just names on the roll and don’t actually cast ballots). Fine, lets find some sane ways to do this, if we can.
But let’s not do it in a way that disenfranchises the ~99% of good registrations, and let’s not expect perfection from the convoluted registration process.
Dan Miller — October 14, 2008 at 5:06 pm
But preventing that tiny handful of fraudulent ballots has a cost. It makes it harder for people to vote–even people who legitimately should be able to. And preventing 100 people from voting legitimately is just as bad as allowing 100 fraudulent votes. For example, consider the ID law in Indiana, which studies have estimate prevents thousands of people from voting. Or consider the impact of erroneous purges of voter lists by overzealous secretaries of state. When was the last time you saw a Republican prominently complaining about that? Let alone the impact of having elections on a Tuesday, of all days.
In short, it looks like the GOP is a lot more interested in preventing poor people and African-Americans from voting than it is in protecting the validity of the ballot process. And it will continue to look that way until preventing people from voting is seen as just as serious as preventing voter fraud.
Dan Miller — October 14, 2008 at 5:06 pm
But preventing that tiny handful of fraudulent ballots has a cost. It makes it harder for people to vote–even people who legitimately should be able to. And preventing 100 people from voting legitimately is just as bad as allowing 100 fraudulent votes. For example, consider the ID law in Indiana, which studies have estimate prevents thousands of people from voting. Or consider the impact of erroneous purges of voter lists by overzealous secretaries of state. When was the last time you saw a Republican prominently complaining about that? Let alone the impact of having elections on a Tuesday, of all days.
In short, it looks like the GOP is a lot more interested in preventing poor people and African-Americans from voting than it is in protecting the validity of the ballot process. And it will continue to look that way until preventing people from voting is seen as just as serious as preventing voter fraud.
Dan Miller — October 14, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Sonny, why should you care if people are registered fraudulently? The problem only shows up when people try and VOTE fraudulently, which is vanishingly rare.
I work with voter files professionally, and I can tell you that they’re full of mistakes. People move out-of-state and don’t inform the post office, so they’re still listed on the voter rolls in their original state. They transcribe letters (for instance, there are 83 Texans in the DNC voter file with the first name “Jhon”–I’m sure some of those are typos, no?). But none of these typos and omissions and inclusions matter until someone votes, or is prevented from voting.
Do you disagree with any of the above? And if so, what?
Take, for example, purging lists of “felons” and “name-matching” those names to names in the voter rolls. They don’t just look for exact names. For example, according to the paper above “The Florida purge of 2000 discussed above — conservative estimates place the number of wrongfully purged voters close to 12,000 — was generated in part by bad matching criteria. Florida registrants were purged from the rolls if, in part, 80 percent of the letters of their last names were the same as those of known felons.“
This is sloppy. Furthermore, this kind of sloppyness is going to disproportionately effect communities who are disproportionately represented in the “felon” population. Combined with the fact that these purges are often done with no public notice or notification to those purged, then its really not surprising that some people have interpreted it as more than coincidence.
Take, for example, purging lists of “felons” and “name-matching” those names to names in the voter rolls. They don’t just look for exact names. For example, according to the paper above “The Florida purge of 2000 discussed above — conservative estimates place the number of wrongfully purged voters close to 12,000 — was generated in part by bad matching criteria. Florida registrants were purged from the rolls if, in part, 80 percent of the letters of their last names were the same as those of known felons.“
This is sloppy. Furthermore, this kind of sloppyness is going to disproportionately effect communities who are disproportionately represented in the “felon” population. Combined with the fact that these purges are often done with no public notice or notification to those purged, then its really not surprising that some people have interpreted it as more than coincidence.
Jonna — October 15, 2008 at 12:15 am
I know acting and I think there is a lot of very good looking actors none I would leave my husband for but this guy can not only act he can make me thing of things I never thought of
That’s an interesting point. So why go to the trouble of registering fraudulent names in the first place? Does ACORN have to reach some sort of mandatory registration target to receive federal funding?
On an unrelated note, I’d be curious to hear Sonny Bunch’s take on Christopher Buckley’s resignation (firing?) from National Review.
Sonny Bunch — October 15, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Testing, testing: this is only a test.
Sonny Bunch — October 15, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Ah, good, I seem to be able to make comments again. I had a longish reply to Dan get lost in the ether last night; I’m still mildly peeved.
But to answer your questions: I’m going to have to punt for the moment. I’m crashing on a couple of deadlines. Short versions: Dan, we register people for a reason, namely because fraudulent ballots can’t be retracted once they’ve been cast. As such it’s important to protect the integrity of the voter rolls. Will, I think there’s some behind the scenes tension between Chris Buckley and Rich Lowry that contributed mightily to this split. Just a guess. I have a feeling this has less to do with Buckley endorsing Obama than other, more personal issues. (Note: I have no special insight into the issue, it’s just what I gather.)
Dan Miller — October 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Will–to answer your question, it’s ACORN’s workers. Their performance is evaluated and their pay based on the number of registrations they hand in; although I believe there’s quality control, some employees do game the system.
Sonny–thanks for your reply; I do hope to eventually get a longer answer, because I suspect that I’ll still disagree with you but I’d like to hear more about your rationale. Best wishes.
Daniel Kennelly — October 15, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Yeah, about that bet, Damir… Let’s just say I’m getting in touch with my “Welsh” roots.
It’s a bit much to mention some talent agency flap in Hollywood without even touching on the Buckley/NRO brouhaha. Isn’t that a more significant example of political censorship? I know that the resignation was supposedly voluntary, but according to Buckley it was purely pro forma. Thoughts?
Sonny Bunch — October 16, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Again: my understanding is that this is much more personal than political in nature. If he hadn’t offered his resignation he’d still be at NR writing that back page column. No one forced him out for endorsing Obama. What was Lowry supposed to do, say “OK, you can go ahead and keep writing the column you were keeping warm for Mark Steyn”?
Daniel Kennelly — October 16, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I’m sorry, I don’t see the parallel, Will. What, exactly, was censored in CTB’s case? The column ran as is (as has at least one other Obamacon column on NRO). Surely NR readers have a right to think content in a magazine they pay money for is ill-advised, without anyone accusing them of censorship. And then there’s the fact that, in the wake of CTB’s departure, Lowry didn’t come out and say, as a matter of principle, that “offensive” content ought to be automatically removed.
“[Buckley] disputes this. “Last spring, Rich asked me if I would take over the Steyn column because Steyn was ‘giving it up,’ ” [Buckley] e-mailed me. “I said okay. That’s it in a nutshell. The notion that I was temping is simply not accurate.”
I’m not disputing National Review’s editorial prerogatives. But one of the Left’s tendencies Bunch has repeatedly criticized is their collective unwillingness to engage in dialog with the other side. Sure, Noam Chomsky has a right to refuse to debate Christopher Hitchens, but that doesn’t make his position intellectually defensible. In much the same way, I think it would have been better for National Review’s intellectual health to keep on a dissenting voice. Perhaps they could have sponsored a symposium on Obamacons?
Sonny Bunch — October 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Like I’ve said before, I think this is more of a personal squabble than a political one. And none of us really knows whether Buckley was “pushed” out the door or not. There’s a he-said-he-said situation and internal magazine politics (as opposed to external national politics) at play here.
If NR was eager to cut out dissenting voices, wouldn’t they have cut off contact with Kathleen Parker and David Frum, two vocal critics of the McCain campaign? Frum still has a personal blog over there for crying out loud.
There are too many unknowns (Was Buckley temping? What is his personal relationship with Lowry et al? Was Mark Steyn always planning on coming back to write that column after finishing up that nasty Canadian free speech business?) to label this as a case of conservatives disengaging with debate.
Dan Miller — October 16, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Sonny, you’re right to a point. But your argument would carry a lot more force if it had some actual occurences behind it. We have tonsofdocumentedinstances of erroneous purges and database mishaps preventing people from voting–frequently affecting thousands of voters. In comparison, the number of votes cast fraudulently is, as best we can tell, miniscule.
So in short, you’re going to have to convince me that a) there’s a problem and b) the cure isn’t worse than the disease. As far as I can tell, neither of those things is true.
Brendan — October 16, 2008 at 7:45 pm
This ACORN stuff does sound bad, unless you actually bother to research the facts As Hendrik Hertzberg points:
Sounds suspicious—unless you know that groups like ACORN are required by law to submit them, even if they’re obvious fakes. This is to prevent funny business, such as trashing forms that look like they might be Republican (or Democratic, as the case may be).
Sounds suspicious—unless you know that ACORN normally sorts through forms, flags those that look fishy, and submits the fishy ones in a separate pile for the convenience of election officials.
Sounds suspicious—until you reflect that the motivation of the misbehaving registration workers is almost always to look like they’ve been doing more work than they really have, and that the victim of the “fraud” is actually the organization they’re working for.
Sounds suspicious—unless you know that even if one of these fake forms results in a nonexistent person actually being registered, now under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, “any voter who has not previously voted in a federal election” must provide identification in order to actually cast a ballot. This will make it tough for Mickey Mouse, even if registered, to vote, no matter how big, round, or black his ears. Likewise, members of the Duck family (Donald, Daisy, Huey, Dewey, and Louie) who turn up at the polling place will have a hard time getting into the voting booth. (Uncle Scrooge might be able to bribe his way in, but he’s voting Republican anyway.)
So your solution would be to leave thousands of fake registrations on the rolls and never purge people who have moved/are fraudulently registered and simply hope that people who shouldn’t be on the rolls don’t vote? That strikes me as not much of a solution at all.
Dan Miller — October 17, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Absolutely not, and I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. Yglesias has some good ideas here: “A country with a modern constitution would probably establish an affirmative right to vote for adult citizens, requiring that election administrators make it possible for all qualified voters to cast legal ballots…it would be easy enough for a country that took voting seriously to keep track of this stuff. You can’t, after all, just get out of paying your credit card bills by moving — the banks can find you, and so could the Board of Elections if we bothered to care.”
That’s in an ideal world of course. But in the world we live in, attacking ACORN as a means of preventing voter fraud doesn’t make much sense. Attacking ACORN as a means of spreading FUD about the outcome of the election, and as a way to decrease voter turnout from groups that disproportionately benefit Democrats, seems a lot more probable. Given the widespread lack of real voter fraud, and the comparatively immense problem of disenfranchisement, it seems suspicious to focus on the first one and not the second, especially when focusing on the first problem will tend to suppress turnout amongst Democratic-leaning groups. This explains the widespread doubt about your motives, is all I’m saying.
You’ve pinpointed one of the reasons Apple tends to annoy me. When something goes wrong with their hardware or software, their emphasis always seems to be on “How did you screw it up?” instead of “How can we make it better?”
I think the focus on process over issues stems from a larger problem with the modern media in general. For whatever reason, reporters have abdicated their responsibility to judge ideas and policies. They feel that merely reporting what each side proposes fulfills their “fourth estate” obligation to the public. A very good reporter might even seek out the opinion of an expert, but would also find an expert saying the opposite to ensure “balance.”
It seems that the only thing media can have an opinion on these days is process — was it a good idea for McCain to go so negative? How well did they do attacking each other? Should Barack have worn a blue tie or a red tie? To talk about the issues and their potential impact on the American people, well, that’s just not part of what media folks do anymore.
I think it’s just good business to know what you do well and stick to it.
Daniel Kennelly — October 22, 2008 at 11:22 am
“His rubbery lips formed a crooked smile, exposing his slightly bucked teeth, which seemed brilliant against the contrast of his skin.”
This sounds like a circa 1942 Life magazine profile of, say, Tojo. Unbelievable.
Sonny Bunch — October 22, 2008 at 11:34 am
It really is absurd. If the Standard or the National Review had run a piece like this on Obama, the editors would have been burnt in effigy. But Jindal’s a conservative Republican, so who really cares?
Douglas Robertson — October 22, 2008 at 5:50 pm
“…For a canon in inversion is a dangerous diversion,
And a bit of augmentation is a serious temptation,
While a stretto diminution is an obvious allusion.”
Daniel Kennelly — October 22, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Maybe we could make retiring Boomers work for us by installing them in massive farms of bio-energy pods, Matrix-style.
Alissa — October 22, 2008 at 11:45 pm
it IS a blog.
Keep up the good work!
Alissa — October 22, 2008 at 11:46 pm
And I don’t mean the “good work” part sarcastically.
My one oasis in the mag world is Men’s Health. It’s blissfully free of politics … it’s just health/fitness/fashion/etc.
Until this month. Who’s the cover model with the fawning inside story (released less than a month before the election)? Gimme an O! gimme a B! … you know the rest.
Am canceling my subscription. Have grown a bit tired of the mag anyway, but this was the only straw I needed.
Evangelicals, Mormons, and rural Americans aren’t marginalized, vulnerable or otherwise victimized. American Muslims, on the other hand, are a small, ethnically distinct minority whose religion is associated with violent extremism. So yes, I think it’s appropriate for Powell to forcefully condemn anti-Muslim bigotry rather than reiterate the virtues of small-town America.
Sonny–I didn’t say anything about the naked pictures because I didn’t know if Spanierman’s page had nude commenters or nude ads (the former is avoidable, the latter is not). One Reason commenter suggested it was likely the latter:
“It doesn’t matter how many MySpace pages he had or what he put on them, they still would have been filled with pictures of semi-naked young people. MySpace has advertising contracts with, what seems like exclusively, “hot singles” advertisers. There is no option to have a different class of advertisement on a MySpace page … that’s all they have, and no mechanism for deviations.
(As a web programmer I have attempted to instruct them in how exceedingly simple it would be to include such a function, but they are wholly uninterested.)
So even if all the teacher included were Bible tracts, his MySpace pages would STILL have been patently offensive to anyone who doesn’t enjoy looking at slutty teens.”
But you’re right in that Spanierman should have known well enough to use a social network that was more kid-friendly (even if Myspace is 14 and up).
-M
Sonny Bunch — October 23, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Mike–
Rereading that post, my wording comes off as unclear, so I should emphasize: I wasn’t calling you dummy. Spanierman’s the dummy. And your commenter is probably right, insofar as MySpace being a den of ads that are probably in poor taste, especially when considering the target demo. Still, I have a hard time feeling sorry for this guy, especially since a teacher gave him a warning to knock it off before going to the principal.
Billy Joel — October 23, 2008 at 10:19 pm
David – New York magazine actually paraphrased me. When asked about any prior candidates I might have endorsed, I answered- “I just popped my cherry for Obama.” And the Dante quote is right. It’s from ‘The Inferno’. Check it out. Sincerely, Billy joel
Billy Joel — October 23, 2008 at 10:19 pm
David – New York magazine actually paraphrased me. When asked about any prior candidates I might have endorsed, I answered- “I just popped my cherry for Obama.” And the Dante quote is right. It’s from ‘The Inferno’. Check it out. Sincerely, Billy joel
Billy Joel — October 23, 2008 at 10:19 pm
David – New York magazine actually paraphrased me. When asked about any prior candidates I might have endorsed, I answered- “I just popped my cherry for Obama.” And the Dante quote is right. It’s from ‘The Inferno’. Check it out. Sincerely, Billy joel
Beth — October 24, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I largely agree with your point (and also believe we aren’t going to get anywhere in the global warming battle until we figure out to create more efficient airplanes, which create way, way, way more emissions than the most gas guzzling SUVs) I would say it’s a good idea to turn the air conditioner off when you aren’t using it. Turning off lights, unplugging unused electronics, etc., might not save the polar bears, but it certainly will cut down on the electric bill.
Sonny Bunch — October 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I don’t care what the thermostat is set to, so long as I’m not uncomfortable. Comfort is king.
maggie — October 24, 2008 at 2:17 pm
~snort~
good luck with that one, beth
David Donadio — October 24, 2008 at 11:31 pm
No reference to the Talmud?
pmm — October 25, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Yeah, barbarian references are so 9-11. It’s not like Al Qaeda can actually occupy our country, right? It’s not like we can’t just build more skyscrapers and airplanes.
You come up with analysis like that and have the brass ones to try to ’strategically’ analyze the Iraq war?
What exactly is your criticism? We can — and must, if we have any hope of winning — fight al-Qaeda without starting a fire from Karachi to Tangier. In war, it’s wise to divide and conquer your enemies, which in this case means preserving the sympathies of the overwhelming majority of the 1 billion Muslims who don’t want to kill us, and enlisting their support in handling the small minority who do. The way George W. Bush and John McCain work, we aggregate our enemies, and make an awful lot more Muslims sympathetic to them. That doesn’t help.
The Soviet Union was an existential threat to the United States; Al-Qaeda is not. We beat the Soviets without losing our cool or submitting willingly to nearly-unchecked executive power, and we can do the same with al-Qaeda. You might say that’s sooo-pre-9/11, but it’s a proper understanding of the Constitutional government your founders created, and the severity of the threats we face. It’s a proper understanding of the tradeoffs before us and the respective values that are at stake. In other words, it’s strategic analysis.
Daniel Kennelly — October 27, 2008 at 1:45 am
Will, I didn’t mean to say it wasn’t inappropriate to call anti-Muslim bigotry and fear-mongering for what it is. In fact, that’s why I called it “toxic intolerance.” As for Evangelicals and Mormons not being marginalized (and by the way, who said anything about “rural Americans”?)…well, I guess that may be true if you live in Utah or the South or something like that. But what about the West Coast or the Ivy Leagues or the corridors of power in Washington or New York? The mere handful of examples I pointed out aren’t exhaustive by any means.
The point isn’t that one prejudice is somehow equivalent in scope or scale to the other; it’s that they’re all bad and should be gotten rid of. Is that too much to ask?
mg — October 27, 2008 at 11:46 am
Brushing aside your contention that we are under no compulsion to honor a state’s sovereignty because they have uncontrolled borders, you think it’s better for our government to wage any number of small “secret wars” in our name all around the globe?
Stretching the analogy a bit, would it be acceptable for Russia or China to also conduct cross-border raids in secret anytime they felt that a threat existed near their military forces?
2480 Comments - add your own
Mr WordPress — April 18, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Hi, this is a comment.
To delete a comment, just log in and view the post's comments. There you will have the option to edit or delete them.
Joules — April 25, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Well, this’ll be an adventure! Good for you.
Senescent — April 27, 2008 at 4:17 pm
So does it follow from this that we should mind that the argument is immoral?
Sonny — April 27, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Well, to be fair, I want his son to burn it. If it’s published, I’m sure I’ll read it. But I do think that artists have a right to determine what portions of their work get published…and the public has no right whatsoever to demand a look at it.
James — April 29, 2008 at 10:23 am
Solly’s does PBR cans at reasonable rates.
William Burns — April 29, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Beer is the most downscale option? Speaks the man who’s never enjoyed a bottle of Thunderbird on a park bench in the afternoon. They’re not called winos for nothing.
Nathan P Origer — April 29, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Great call with PBR, James. I miss the Midwest, where I could actually get this for a dollar or so; this whole coastal trendy thing must go.
Nathan P Origer — April 29, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Great call with PBR, James. I miss the Midwest, where I could actually get this for a dollar or so; this whole coastal trendy thing must go.
Tim Carney — April 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Sonny, Dude, why do you hate the working man? And the immigrants? Cabbies in DC are no more or less scrupulous than journalists in DC.
Sonny Bunch — April 29, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Not to mention MD 20/20. Red was always my favorite.
Sonny Bunch — April 29, 2008 at 6:03 pm
I got no beef with the workin’ man. I do, however, have a problem with cabbies breaking the law by refusing to take me to my Southeast home and/or trying to charge me an extra zone. I’m not a tourist, dangit, I know the boundaries.
Jamelle — April 30, 2008 at 9:51 am
The problem of course, is that usually at said blog, it’s borderline unacceptable to question the “sexist intent” of anything, even if there is a fair amount evidence suggesting that reading sexism in to the example is a little unreasonable.
I mean, it’s understandable, since you often have plenty of anti-feminists throwing water on accusations of sexism for no other reason than to escape culpability. But that doesn’t mean every suggestion of caution is somehow coming from a raging anti-feminist.
Nathan P Origer — April 30, 2008 at 4:22 pm
““Any species came to be what it is now because of all sorts of interaction in the past,” he said.”
Didn’t these interactions occur in the wild, rather than as the result of deliberate “scientific” “playing God”?
Josh — April 30, 2008 at 6:21 pm
I disagree that human ethics includes principles like ‘don’t torture animals’. I wish that it did. However, it’s not a principle our society subscribes to, given that animals are grossly mistreated and reared for their flesh: animals raised for food are exempted from cruelty laws that apply to pets, even of the same species. The law requires that animals be tortured in order supposedly to establish the safety of consumer products and ingredients of them (see: LD50 and Draize tests). And we freely experiment on and kill millions of mammals a year in laboratories.
All this cruelty–and even the killing–would be unconscionable if we thought that animals had the same faculties that we do. For most philosophers and cognitive scientists, it is axiomatic that humans are different (as you write, “our ethics are human ethics because we are human beings”). If however, humans could breed with chimpanzees, it might very well establish that humans are much more like other animals than we might like to think.
If one is at all concerned about the way humans act toward non-human animals, then this would be a noble experiment indeed.
P.S. It also makes no sense to say that ‘don’t torture animals’ is a valid principle only if one considers the effect on the torturer. Of course it’s bad for the torturer, and that’s enough to make it wrong. But the effect on the animals is enough to make it wrong to torture them. On what basis do you exclude the effect on the animal?
Jesse M. — April 30, 2008 at 7:12 pm
principles like this collapse if torturing animals is bad only, or primarily, from the perspective of the animals being tortured. Torturing animals violates human ethics because it’s bad for the humans doing the torturing.
So to be clear, if we met a species of intelligent aliens, you would say that torturing them is not bad because of the harm it causes to them, but only because of the harm it causes to the human torturers? Philosophically, it seems rather absurd to base one’s morality on shared genetics alone, rather than some broader and more abstract characteristics; if moral principles are thought to be objective and timeless, whatever moral principles we adopt now must be ones that were already valid before the contingent process of evolution which shaped human DNA.
Spine — April 30, 2008 at 7:18 pm
“Torturing animals violates human ethics because it’s bad for the humans doing the torturing.”
Unless it’s for food–then it’s okay. There’s no time for ethics on a slaughterhouse kill line. Profits are at stake.
James Poulos — April 30, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Nathan: yes.
Josh: one harsh example is the difference between making a calf suffer for veal versus making a calf suffer for kicks. Taking pain at face value doesn’t get us the traction we need for rigorous ethical thinking (or so I’d argue). Indeed, Nietzsche, Freud, and others have shown how relative the experience of suffering can be and is. That doesn’t mean that we ought to ignore cries of pain. It just isn’t enough, for ethical purposes, to stop the analysis there.
Jesse: only insofar as torturing is a bad thing to do — versus simply a bad thing to experience — can we make a powerful ethical argument against torture. There are lots of experiences we don’t want to have which nonetheless can be neutral or even beneficial experiences. If you take the torturer out of the moral calculus, it becomes impossible to make an intelligible account of cruelty, for instance. I’d submit that torture is always situated in particular experiences; there is no such thing as torture in the abstract. Thinking this way gives us a glimpse of how talking about torture in the abstract actually feeds justifications for torture by abstracting the relationship between torturer and tortured right out of consciousness — or repressing it, anyway.
And that, in turn, suggests something about the difference between timeless, objective moral and ethical principles and abstract ones. The problem with abstract moral thinking is it requires us to invent or appropriate rhetorical commonplaces and try to account for real life in terms which have no inherent (as academics say) ‘truth value’. The alternative involves beginning with the particular details of life as it’s lived among real persons — complete with our shared stories, experiences, and interrelationships — and working upward to generalize, not abstract, their meaning into principles that have grown organically out of our traditions, histories, and unelective affinities.
And some secular humanists might not find it that absurd to define ‘the human’ genetically. What other yardstick is there? At any rate, although being human isn’t just a matter of genetics, human genes — as opposed to, say, marmoset genes — are a constitutive and unique part of what it means to be human. Human genes, in short, are a necessary, but not sufficient, component of any adequate description of humanness.
Brendan Moran — April 30, 2008 at 8:54 pm
There is no such thing as a universal set of human ethics. If there were such a thing, it wouldn’t be dependent on some ill-defined mystical sense of holistic, inviolate human identity.
There is no rational basis for any set of ethics which holds such a sense of inviolate innate human nature to be self-evident and incontrovertible. On the contrary, all you’re really saying is “You can’t do that because… well, *because*.” There’s nothing there other than a vague sense of unarticulated, unjustified squeamishness.
Plainly put, the bioluddite position you’re advocating has no ethical work, but is instead basically the same fear of the unknown, the same anti-intellectualism, the same knee-jerk know-nothingism which is arguably humanity’s least appealing trait. You’re basically in the same boat as the redneck who hates homosexuals because they make him feel icky.
You don’t like it because you don’t like it, and you throw up a bunch of empty verbiage to dress up that sense of unease and disapproval as something with more intellectual or ethical weight, but no matter how much lipstick you put on the pig of your own ignorance, it’s still not kissable.
James Poulos — April 30, 2008 at 8:57 pm
PS Spine – just to be clear, I fully recognize that torturing animals even for flavor and profit ethically wrong for humans. The issue is what torturing an animal in the context of preparing it to be eaten means. Here there is room for argument, with reasonably clear-cut cases on either side. The key I think is that it’s the moral and ethical argument against making, say, veal that will, if anything, win the day — not an attempt to ban the practice through politics. The former approach fosters the kind of discussion we’re having now. The latter approach, I submit, tends to shut it down.
James Poulos — April 30, 2008 at 8:59 pm
PPS remember there are also instances in which the animals-to-food industry could AVOID torturing animals yet still be unable to prepare them for eating in a manner that isn’t revolting to our human ethics. For instance: bulldozing around dead cows. Or the mere machinery of mass slaughter itself. That I think is where the rubber really hits the road in terms of the philosophy of contemporary human-animal relations.
Jesse M. — April 30, 2008 at 9:52 pm
James Poulos, you didn’t answer my question about the intelligent aliens; it wasn’t a rhetorical question, I was asking it because I’m genuinely trying to understand the ethical principles you’re operating on. You say “some secular humanists might not find it that absurd to define ‘the human’ genetically”, but I imagine you’d find relatively few secular humanists who’d say that intelligent aliens should occupy a lower rung on the ethical ladder simply by virtue of not sharing our glorious human DNA. And if we are defining ethics in terms of shared genetics, what argument would you make against a white supremacist who believes that he owes moral duties only to members of his own race?
hn — April 30, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Perhaps I’m just missing them, but do the new blogs have rss feeds of their own? Also, they don’t seem to be coming through on Doublethink’s rss feed.
John — May 1, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I’m with you on the sources of the wrongness of torture, James, but I don’t think your attempt at a principle that rules out humanzees manages to do the trick. There doesn’t seem to me to be any “making humans less human” involved in this research: rather, what they’re doing is making *new* creatures with human parents but non-human traits. That said, I still think it’s wrong, though I don’t think that we need to come up with a “principle” in order to show that. More here, if you want.
John — May 1, 2008 at 7:44 pm
* Sorry, I should have said, “what they’re doing is making *new* creatures each of which has a human parent but non-human traits”.
Jesse M. — May 2, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Your argument mostly seems to focus on the possibility that while aliens might be recognizably “intelligent” in certain ways, they might be extremely inhuman in others–all the sci-fi aliens you mention seem utterly lacking in companionable, friendly emotions like love and affection, which of course makes it harder for us to feel empathy for them, but which also seems pretty unrealistic for a social species. So to avoid stacking the deck against them, please imagine an alien species which really are pretty similar to humans in all broad mental features, including emotional ones. Alternatively, since you mention “rational animals like dolphins”, you could imagine animals such as dolphins which have been genetically engineered to have capabilities for language and thought similar to humans–you might argue that such genetic engineering is itself unethical, but if it was already a fait accompli, would you really argue that these beings would not deserve the same basic rights as people, or disagree that it would be unethical to enslave them or hunt them for food? Another science fiction possibility which might actually have a fair likelihood of being realized within this century is mind uploading, where an actual human brain is mapped and simulated at a microscopic level on a computer–such a being would not be biologically human, but if the technique was successful it would have a normal human personality, memories, and identity. Again, would you argue that this being would not be deserving of the same rights as humans, or that we would not owe the same ethical duties to it that we owe to humans?
For that reason, the argument I’d make against the white supremacist is that his conception of moral duty isn’t a real human ethics, precisely because it doesn’t take the human as its category of ethical analysis.
But here you haven’t attempted to argue for the notion that biological humanness should is itself an ethically significant category, you’re just asserting it. If I argue that the real significant category is something like “self-aware sentience”, and that humans owe their special ethical status to being members of this category rather than to their genetics, then I can similarly dismiss your conception of moral duty as “not a real self-aware sentient being ethics” because you don’t take self-aware sentient beings as your category of ethical analysis. You might say that you aren’t trying to have a “real self-aware sentient being ethics”, because you think we owe moral duties to humans that we don’t owe to other self-aware sentient beings, but of course the white supremacist could also say he isn’t trying to have a “real human ethics”, and argue that he owes moral duties to white people that he doesn’t owe to other races. You could appeal to moral intuitions that there is something inherently wrong about causing suffering to other humans, or exploiting them in the way we exploit animals, even if they aren’t members of your own race; but I think most people would feel the same moral intuitions about the hypothetical beings I describe above if they could actually meet a real-life example of such a being and have conversations with them, form friendships with them, and so forth.
James Poulos — May 2, 2008 at 6:32 pm
You give the game away by needing to hypothesize aliens who are so human-like that it makes us, has humans, uncomfortable to think of them as not at all human. If you want to propose that the ethics of we humans shouldn’t have anything to do with our being human — even though it should apparently have lots to do with generalizable human characteristics — I don’t see how you’re in any different boat than I am when it comes to making assertions. Bottom line is I think my human-ethics argument is about a zillion times stronger than the white supremacist’s argument, and I think this is so not only because we can tell reasonably persuasive stories about WHY this is so, but because such stories have actually persuasively been told through reason over the real course of human history. And I daresay that, as much as it might be reasonable to feel weird about torturing a computer that we’ve engineered to be ALMOST like a human but just not quite, it’d be even weirder to build that computer, which is about as horrible an idea as I can think of, not least because it makes a total hash of the ethics of REAL HUMANS, which I suppose I propose must anchor any REAL HUMAN ethics. It’s possible that one day we’ll discover a race of aliens which is so like us that treating them unlike humans creates major ethical problems for us. If so, they’ll be — I wager — humans themselves. If not, no one, including them, will be able to tell.
Jesse M. — May 2, 2008 at 7:13 pm
You give the game away by needing to hypothesize aliens who are so human-like that it makes us, has humans, uncomfortable to think of them as not at all human.
“So” human-like? All I said is that they wouldn’t be lacking in warm, friendly, social emotions. Given that such emotions seem to have arisen independently in different lineages of large-brained social animals on Earth–look at smart birds like parrots, whose last common ancestor with us would have been a much more antisocial reptile–I think it’s actually more implausible than not to suggest an alien civilization would be completely lacking in such emotions. Watch the movie The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill (or perhaps just the ‘Entertaining Parrots’ segment here) and see if you find parrots significantly more “alien” than smart nonhuman mammal species like monkeys.
In any case, my argument wasn’t meant to be based specifically on aliens, it was just a general argument about the inadequacy of using DNA as a basis for humanity’s special place in the ethical cosmos. The other thought-experiments, like mind uploading, work just as well for this purpose. You call mind uploading a “horrible idea”, but you don’t actually address what you think our ethical response should be if uploads already existed (and there are plenty of people in transhumanist circles who would like to be uploaded themselves, so if the technology exists I think it’s pretty likely to happen). Putting REAL HUMANS in caps doesn’t help me understand why this category should be central to a good ethical system. And you say “I don’t see how you’re in any different boat than I am when it comes to making assertions”, but I think I am in a different boat–I’m appealing to what I think our ethical intuitions would actually be if such beings existed, while you’re basically refusing to deal with the possibility, and perhaps implying that we should intentionally suppress whatever natural empathy we might feel for such beings for the sake of not muddying the waters of “human ethics”. I think any ethical system worth its salt should be able to deal with the complexity of arbitrary real-world situations, and not create arbitrary boundaries just because it’s easier for us to make decisions when we have nicely-defined boundaries. And as I said before, I also think a good ethical system should have a “universal” quality, so it could be applicable in any imaginable situation, and not be based on totally contingent features of our history (like the fact that there are no other branches of the hominid family tree still kicking around anywhere on Earth).
It’s possible that one day we’ll discover a race of aliens which is so like us that treating them unlike humans creates major ethical problems for us. If so, they’ll be — I wager — humans themselves.
“Humans themselves”? Should I take this to mean you don’t believe in evolution? Surely the chance that natural evolutionary processes would produce genetically identical beings on another planet is like a googolplex to one.
anon — May 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm
If what you really want to prohibit is hanging around in public spaces soliciting sexual transactions, it’s easy enough to prohibit that without also prohibiting “high class” prostitution. Are you telling us you’d come out in support of legalized prostitution per se, provided there were appropriate restrictions on time/place/manner of solicitation? Hey, that’s great news; welcome to the libertarian movement.
anon — May 4, 2008 at 2:23 pm
If what you really want to prohibit is hanging around in public spaces soliciting sexual transactions, it’s easy enough to prohibit that without also prohibiting “high class” prostitution. Are you telling us you’d come out in support of legalized prostitution per se, provided there were appropriate restrictions on time/place/manner of solicitation? Hey, that’s great news; welcome to the libertarian movement.
dervin — May 5, 2008 at 11:13 pm
There’s a difference between a chick flick and a date movie.
In the typical chick flick, all but one man is a nice guy, the female lead is a b*tch, but in the end she gets the nice guy. It’s just a repackaging of that Jane Austin book. Compare that to Titanic, the “Star Wars” for women.
Movies directed towards “Men” are really directed towards Adolescents, promising on little and delivering.
And any man would go see any movie his woman tells him to if he thinks there will be a blow job for him at the end of the night. Hollywood just isn’t making movies worth that much to a woman.
Sonny Bunch — May 6, 2008 at 10:19 am
So perhaps, Dervin, it is I who am asking the wrong question. Instead of wondering how to get men in the seats, Hollywood needs to offer women a movie worth, well, y’know…
Nathan P Origer — May 6, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I don’t know, James; this is pretty hardcore. Recalling the days when I could afford PBR, in places where kitsch isn’t the rule, this brings a smile to my face.
BryanK — May 6, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I hear he is known to break a leg or two.
BryanK — May 6, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Nobody likes Helen Hunt
BryanK — May 6, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Love Actually was a quality chick flick (or was it a date movie Mr. Bunch?)
Sonny Bunch — May 6, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Chick flick…but a tolerable one.
BryanK — May 6, 2008 at 9:45 pm
I respectfully disagree sir.
patrick — May 6, 2008 at 10:52 pm
Iron Man was practically flawless as a super hero flick; it drops pretty obvious hints that would indicate a sequel as well… i’m thinking the next one should be equally great
Sonny Bunch — May 6, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Only if you go against the family…
scritic — May 7, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Hi Poulos,
Exactly what part of Zakaria’s essay made you write this?
This isn’t just because I’m a nationalist; it’s because I’m convinced that the United States has, and depends upon, a globally unique system of government which is itself dependent upon America’s unique geopolitical, cultural, and religious heritage. The maintenance of that heritage demands a conscious effort not to regularize the American workforce into a system of migrant drones at the bottom and civil engineers at the top, two types of people with an affirmative interest in destroying citizenship and unmaking the American character.
Perhaps this is because I don’t read your stuff regularly, but I am truly confused: what is this supposed to mean? Strictly in policy terms, is this because Zakaria thinks that one of the choices America needs to make, to stay competitive, is a more open immigration policy, with more effort being made to attract high-skilled immigrants? Are you saying that the current policy — which, more or less, tries to regulate the influx of low-skill immigrants from Central and South America, and encourage high-skilled immigrants (technologically speaking) from Asia — is leading to a system with “migrant drones at the bottom and civil engineers at the top”, and even more catastrophically, “destroying citizenship and unmaking the American character”?
Why would you think that?
It doesn’t strike me that high-skilled immigrants (in particular, the engineers) are anywhere near the top of the power chain in America — far from it. Or are you just arguing against the fetishization of science and technology (and technologists) or when people consider science as humanity’s most profound achievement?
One way of knowing how much “power” technologists wield, is to look at all the bright kids in schools and their aspirations — what do they want to be? How many young boys and girls in schools here will tell you that they want to be engineers? I suspect not many (and I’ve asked a few). Bright kids here want to be lawyers, designers, writers, journalists, teachers, therapists, what have you. I was shocked to learn, when I first came to the US to do my Masters, that Columbia College received ten times the number of undergraduate applicants than the Fu Foundation School of Engineering, which was completely the opposite of what I saw in India.
(Now, if I asked the same question in India — 99% of the bright kids would answer that they want to be either doctors or engineers (not even lawyers). This doesn’t mean that engineers are at the top of the power chain in India either — but that is a topic for another time.)
Since the bright kids here shun science and engineering, America has to “import” its engineers and scientists. But this hardly places the technologists “at the top” (top, in terms of the amount of power wielded; in terms of income, engineers do very well), like you seem to think. The “top” in America — the real bastions of power — is where all the bright native born kids go — law, fashion, finance, journalism. These are the professions where the true “elite” come from, the ones who determine the policies, and who shape public opinion. Engineers make good money, true, but they’re almost always in the background.
But perhaps I misunderstand your point. In which case, I’d love to know what you mean exactly. And why, exactly, do engineers make bad citizens?
ps: And who cares what system is used to buy juice or milk or gasoline? But if someone is going to drop a statement that says that the metric system is based on “incorrect calculations” (even in jest) he has got to back it with at least a link or two.
alwsdad — May 7, 2008 at 8:04 pm
You have a very impressive vocabulary. Congratulations!
Just out of curiosity, what color is the sky in your world?
PHB — May 7, 2008 at 9:28 pm
This analysis is as incoherent as the left wing anti-globalization screeds. I posted a rebuttal on my own blog which I won’t repeat here.
http://dotfuturemanifesto.blogspot.com/2008/05/deconstructing-globalization.html
Instead, I will, as an engineer, congratulate you for being one of the few people to realize that globalization is driven by technology and not merely capital.
There is no central engineering new world order where we plot the future of the world. At least, I have never been invited to join such a body. But that does not mean that engineering is an a-political process.
I became involved in the design of the Web in 1992 because it brought together my interest in computer systems and my interest in politics. It has taken fifteen years but the Web is now starting to have the effect on the establishment media that it was designed to.
Fox News apart, the establishment media is no more biased today than it was ten years ago. The sudden decline in its reputation is due to the fact that the Web has created a feedback loop that exposes its deficiencies. That was the original plan I discussed with MIT back when it all started.
You should oppose us. The parochial nationalism that your article represents is precisely the type of thinking that the Web is rendering obsolete.
Uncle Jeffy — May 7, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I work with a number of engineers and have others among my circle of friends, and I can guarantee you that there’s no hegemony – in fact, most of the time they can’t get the twinkletoes types with the MBAs to listen to them.
mattc — May 8, 2008 at 10:55 am
“My distaste for migrant labor and the hegemony of engineers, each taken separately, is already almost incalculable because of my judgments about what ruins a healthy republic.” – James Polous
First and foremost, I’m another engineer responding to this post, so let’s get that out of the way (you sure do know how to make us miscreants of the republic emerge from the shadows).
The “globalization” call by Zakaria is overdone, but your analysis of it is just as tasteless. You complain about “migrant labor” then blast politicians who (rightfully) state that America is lacking in science and math education at almost every level of schooling. What do you think this leads to in a society in the midst of technological revolution? You guessed it: MORE MIGRANT LABOR. I took classes for my engineering masters that were comprised of 50% foreigners with student visas. Do you see that in law school? Do you find that in an MBA program? I would wager that you don’t.
Having said that, I agree with you that having a government openly working to implement education policies that produce more technologists (or laborers of any ilk) is anathema to the republic (I refute all government-lead educational efforts). What is healthy for the country is to instill a desire for critical thinking, problem solving, and creativity that inspires people to find their own answers to life’s great questions. You are right that this is/was a primary component of the American culture and the exportation of this ideal lead to the current rise of competing global markets. We didn’t export our engineering colleges, but we connected inquisitive minds to an idea engine (American free markets and our university network).
However, I feel that you are subtely ignoring the point of this argument. many fans of globalization are not trying to “restructure” the American labor force as you put it, but many of them are crying (too loudly I might add) about the possibility that these changes are so rapid that an aging, industrial population might not fully embrace them in time to maintain/maximize our competitive edge. You see this in the current Presidential election, where the candidates are rehasing the merits of NAFTA to voters in the Rust Belt that don’t understand why there is a dwindling market for metal welders. How can we be having this debate at the same time we have people(domestic and foreign, but increasingly more foreign) working on tissue regeneration, smart A.I., nanotechnology, etc…
Do you think we still NEED people to manually operate a blow torch??
That’s the emotion behind people like Zakaria. It’s misguided at times, but it has some merit. Your “distate” for their stance and policy choices is also misguided, but indeed has merit as well. I would posit that you are correct vis-a-vis the culture and the republic, but you have no clue how we’ll keep a competitive labor force for the next generation of technologists. We don’t have one now.
Thaddeus Bell — May 8, 2008 at 12:56 pm
I think you miss what Zakaria is saying about globalizing America, though I have only read the Foreign Affairs article, not the book. I believe he is not calling for some “rigorously regulated process,” but more likely he is bemoaning the very real reluctance of Americans to foreign ideas. To make a cultural example, I’m an American living in Britain, and the televisions have shows from all over the anglophone world, and many French and American films can be seen in the cinemas. Not the case, of course, in America, where the vast majority of films are American, same on tv. There surely many foreign tv shows and films which would appeal to Americans, but for some reason we aren’t particularly interested. His point (correct or not) is applying this idea to more serious matters: Americans are reluctant to learn from the success of other countries, learn foreign languages, etc.
I haven’t read the book, but I’m pretty sure you’re wrong on this point.
dave.s/ — May 8, 2008 at 5:57 pm
One big problem for Nussbaum is that Client 6 was the Duke of Westminster, and he lost his position over his use of the same prostitution service.
dave.s/ — May 8, 2008 at 5:57 pm
One big problem for Nussbaum is that Client 6 was the Duke of Westminster, and he lost his position over his use of the same prostitution service.
Stefano Pian — May 8, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I find your attempt at establishing a connection between marital fidelity and honest political conduct quite weak. I’m pretty sure that even if Spitzer had been unmarried, and even if he had never promoted anti-prostitution laws, he would still have been grilled by American public opinion for his “misdeed”.
Stefano Pian — May 8, 2008 at 6:30 pm
I find your attempt at establishing a connection between marital fidelity and honest political conduct quite weak. I’m pretty sure that even if Spitzer had been unmarried, and even if he had never promoted anti-prostitution laws, he would still have been grilled by American public opinion for his “misdeed”.
Robbie — May 8, 2008 at 7:28 pm
yeah… there’s no reason to think that a guy who cheats on his wife would be differently honested in his public life.
Robbie — May 8, 2008 at 7:28 pm
yeah… there’s no reason to think that a guy who cheats on his wife would be differently honested in his public life.
DivGuy — May 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm
a basic public consensus that if you sleep around on your spouse you are a bad person, and to hell with your future in politics, because we still have enough talent in America to replace you with someone who isn’t a bad person and is nonetheless capable of being a ‘gifted’ and ‘dedicated’ public servant.
So, I presume that you will refuse to support John McCain, who cheated on his first wife and left her for his current wife and then-mistress, Cindy?
DivGuy — May 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm
a basic public consensus that if you sleep around on your spouse you are a bad person, and to hell with your future in politics, because we still have enough talent in America to replace you with someone who isn’t a bad person and is nonetheless capable of being a ‘gifted’ and ‘dedicated’ public servant.
So, I presume that you will refuse to support John McCain, who cheated on his first wife and left her for his current wife and then-mistress, Cindy?
q — May 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm
are there any sentences in this that don’t end in a question mark or exclamation point?
q — May 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm
are there any sentences in this that don’t end in a question mark or exclamation point?
Ben — May 8, 2008 at 10:53 pm
So what counts towards this needed “ounce of moral character”? Voting against torture? Basing tax policy upon reasonably honest budget projections? Opposing wars that manifestly fail the just-war criteria? These all strike me as more important, from a moral point of view, than whether a particular politician has lived up to his marriage vows (which a whole lot of Americans–John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and Henry Hyde included–have not).
Vito Fossella sounds like an unpleasant man and I don’t feel much sympathy for his situation. But after watching what’s happened in our government over the last seven years, I have to dig pretty deep to find any outrage over it.
Ben — May 8, 2008 at 10:53 pm
So what counts towards this needed “ounce of moral character”? Voting against torture? Basing tax policy upon reasonably honest budget projections? Opposing wars that manifestly fail the just-war criteria? These all strike me as more important, from a moral point of view, than whether a particular politician has lived up to his marriage vows (which a whole lot of Americans–John McCain, Newt Gingrich, and Henry Hyde included–have not).
Vito Fossella sounds like an unpleasant man and I don’t feel much sympathy for his situation. But after watching what’s happened in our government over the last seven years, I have to dig pretty deep to find any outrage over it.
Behelden — May 8, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Your premise is correct that someone who can’t be faithful to their spouse isn’t the type of person who should be entrusted with public office. They may or may not betray the public trust, but we have no reason to take the chance.
Additionally, let’s not forget that Spitzer was flouting the law while simultaneously serving in a role as the lead protector and enforcer of the law. The betrayal of the public’s trust in his case was complete and for Nussbaum to not comment on it somewhere in the midst of her pooh-poohing of America’s prudishness is rank.
Behelden — May 8, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Your premise is correct that someone who can’t be faithful to their spouse isn’t the type of person who should be entrusted with public office. They may or may not betray the public trust, but we have no reason to take the chance.
Additionally, let’s not forget that Spitzer was flouting the law while simultaneously serving in a role as the lead protector and enforcer of the law. The betrayal of the public’s trust in his case was complete and for Nussbaum to not comment on it somewhere in the midst of her pooh-poohing of America’s prudishness is rank.
worn — May 8, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Not being any sort of expert in the underlying subject matter of the post, I state without doubt that it makes absolutely no sense to me. “Civil engineers” are some sort of dangerous anathema to our country and its ideals? My goodness, these are the folks responsible for the roads, railways, dams, underground utility infrastructure, etc. of our nation.
That aside, as an architect, who has to deal daily with the wonderful measurement system bequeathed to us by the mother isle, the initial slag of the metric system is what caught my eye. Notwithstanding some of the historically oddball things upon which our system of units are based, please do tell me how having a measurement system whose sub-units change from a base of 12 to a base of 16* makes any sense whatsoever. It is also my understanding that the Imperial Foot has been defined as a percentage of the meter since 1958. So whatever that original (and unsubstantiated) “incorrect calculation” was, it’s in our units, too.
*Or more precisely, feet being divided first by 4 then by 3 to yield 12 inches, while sub-inch inch units increment by pure division by 4. And just as logical, moving from feet to the next unit, the yard, one must multiply by three.
Gary — May 9, 2008 at 1:55 am
Let’s see what Professor Nussbaum says or does if Senator Obama wins the White House, and nominates Cass Sunstein to the Supreme Court.
Gary — May 9, 2008 at 1:55 am
Let’s see what Professor Nussbaum says or does if Senator Obama wins the White House, and nominates Cass Sunstein to the Supreme Court.
Tom O'Gorman — May 9, 2008 at 7:18 am
Ben, you make some decent points, but my sense of this piece is that James isn’t especially outraged at the behaviour of Fossella, but at the notion that politicians shouldn’t have to maintain a basic minimum level of sexual fidelity in order to hold on to office. His ire is directed at Nussbaum’s argument, not so much the politician’s conduct.
You definitely have a point about McCain, Gingrich and Hyde, et al, although I think Hyde managed to address his moral failings honestly in the course of his political career. He also showed immense courage in taking on the cause of the unborn in US politics, which demonstrates a certain level of moral character.
Tom O'Gorman — May 9, 2008 at 7:18 am
Ben, you make some decent points, but my sense of this piece is that James isn’t especially outraged at the behaviour of Fossella, but at the notion that politicians shouldn’t have to maintain a basic minimum level of sexual fidelity in order to hold on to office. His ire is directed at Nussbaum’s argument, not so much the politician’s conduct.
You definitely have a point about McCain, Gingrich and Hyde, et al, although I think Hyde managed to address his moral failings honestly in the course of his political career. He also showed immense courage in taking on the cause of the unborn in US politics, which demonstrates a certain level of moral character.
mattc — May 9, 2008 at 7:37 am
“A man who did what Spitzer did would have a lot to discuss with his wife and family, but he would have broken no laws, and it would be laughable to accuse him of a betrayal of the public trust.”
This is what set Polous off. An entirely different post would be required to debate the policy stances that correlate with an “ounce of moral character.” I assure you, though, Spitzer had none. And neither does Fossela. Must be something in the water here in NY.
mattc — May 9, 2008 at 7:37 am
“A man who did what Spitzer did would have a lot to discuss with his wife and family, but he would have broken no laws, and it would be laughable to accuse him of a betrayal of the public trust.”
This is what set Polous off. An entirely different post would be required to debate the policy stances that correlate with an “ounce of moral character.” I assure you, though, Spitzer had none. And neither does Fossela. Must be something in the water here in NY.
bs23 — May 9, 2008 at 7:46 am
You’re not getting this consensus from me; I find it mildly offensive that elected officials should somehow have to serve as moral guides for citizens of a free state. I give as much attention to private lives of public officials as I expect them to give to mine. Not none, but not much.
Besides, I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that even if the guy had permission from his wife, you’d chide him just the same.
bs23 — May 9, 2008 at 7:46 am
You’re not getting this consensus from me; I find it mildly offensive that elected officials should somehow have to serve as moral guides for citizens of a free state. I give as much attention to private lives of public officials as I expect them to give to mine. Not none, but not much.
Besides, I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that even if the guy had permission from his wife, you’d chide him just the same.
Tel — May 9, 2008 at 11:46 am
“What I’m angling for here is simple: a basic public consensus that if you sleep around on your spouse you are a bad person, and to hell with your future in politics, because we still have enough talent in America to replace you with someone who isn’t a bad person and is nonetheless capable of being a ‘gifted’ and ‘dedicated’ public servant.”
He wasn’t married at the time, but Thomas Jefferson did father several children with one of his slaves, starting in 1795. Should his political career have been over? He would have never been President. Franklin Roosevelt would have been drummed out of politics in 1918. I doubt that we could have easily replaced either of those public servants. If we throw out all of the adulterers from public office, I would guess that about a quarter of government jobs would go unfulfilled. (Though that would certainly be a creative method of cutting the budget).
Tel — May 9, 2008 at 11:46 am
“What I’m angling for here is simple: a basic public consensus that if you sleep around on your spouse you are a bad person, and to hell with your future in politics, because we still have enough talent in America to replace you with someone who isn’t a bad person and is nonetheless capable of being a ‘gifted’ and ‘dedicated’ public servant.”
He wasn’t married at the time, but Thomas Jefferson did father several children with one of his slaves, starting in 1795. Should his political career have been over? He would have never been President. Franklin Roosevelt would have been drummed out of politics in 1918. I doubt that we could have easily replaced either of those public servants. If we throw out all of the adulterers from public office, I would guess that about a quarter of government jobs would go unfulfilled. (Though that would certainly be a creative method of cutting the budget).
LP — May 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Someone who fails in their private life like Vito or Bill or Eliot has failed in their public life, because they are the beneficiaries of a public trust which requires them to live out their daily lives during their term in office with an ounce of moral character.[...] the case of Vito Fossella is especially instructive, here, because it reveals how the adultery and the bastard child and the drunk driving are all part of an interlinked personal problem that does affect his ability to serve his constituents.
Could you give a few examples here of how these politicians actually, concretely failed their constituents, in the sense of actually not doing their jobs that they were elected to do?
LP — May 9, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Someone who fails in their private life like Vito or Bill or Eliot has failed in their public life, because they are the beneficiaries of a public trust which requires them to live out their daily lives during their term in office with an ounce of moral character.[...] the case of Vito Fossella is especially instructive, here, because it reveals how the adultery and the bastard child and the drunk driving are all part of an interlinked personal problem that does affect his ability to serve his constituents.
Could you give a few examples here of how these politicians actually, concretely failed their constituents, in the sense of actually not doing their jobs that they were elected to do?
Sonny Bunch — May 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm
I don’t think you’re wrong, necessarily, but if I can don my, inside-the-beltway-elitist hat (a black bowler, complemented by a gold rimmed monocle, natch): To win the presidency, the Dems need to recapture Reagan Democrats–i.e. white, poorer, working-class folks. Folks who, and I don’t think I’m being overly provocative here, remain less enlightened, racially-speaking, than their upper-crust, hyper-liberal, Northeastern/West Coast counterparts in the Democratic party.
I know a few people matching that Reagan Dem description in a crucial swing state that shall remain nameless, lifelong party members all. It would be pretty easy for some shadowy, Rovian political operator to come up with a campaign narrative capable of driving them directly into the arms of the GOP. It would look a little like this: “You can vote for the American Hero who was tortured by the VC, dedicated his life to public service, and doesn’t get along all that well with Dubya [voiceover on top of beatific montage of McCain in Navy garb, VC prison, and on the campaign trail], or you can vote for the uppity Ivy League law professor [insert photo of Obama, preferably in the embrace of the good Rev. Wright]. Which is better for America?”
And this is the point Hillary is driving at. Again, I’d say you’re probably right about the vast majority of Democratic primary electorate, but I don’t think you should underestimate the subset of that population amenable to this kind of appeal.
James Poulos — May 9, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Yes, I think this is right, or right too. A lot will stand or fall on how competent of an independent — and that doesn’t mean unconservative, far from it — candidate McCain can be. The worse a state Bush (and the Movement, for that matter) puts McCain in, or the less effective a campaigner McCain himself proves to be, the more likely you are to see this race dynamic used as an Easy button. But at the same time, the poorer a candidate McCain turns out to be, the better a time Obama will have attracting what Tocqueville called ‘coarse’ votes. The hinge here I think is how coarse white Democrats feel about McCain. Seems to me they’re not exactly lining up to give him their vote. Not yet, anyway.
Steve — May 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Okay, LP, how about the months of time and millions of dollars spent dealing with the fallout of Bill Clinton’s inability to keep it in his pants and his decision to lie about it while under oath? Think he might have been able to do something with all of that time?
Steve — May 9, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Okay, LP, how about the months of time and millions of dollars spent dealing with the fallout of Bill Clinton’s inability to keep it in his pants and his decision to lie about it while under oath? Think he might have been able to do something with all of that time?
LP — May 9, 2008 at 5:45 pm
@Steve,
To clarify: I’m talking about an instance of an adulterous politician failing to do his job, that isn’t based entirely on the fact that people got upset about the adultery (which is the attitude under discussion here). In other words, aside from the fact that it upsets people, does adultery actually correlate to falling down on the job?
LP — May 9, 2008 at 5:45 pm
@Steve,
To clarify: I’m talking about an instance of an adulterous politician failing to do his job, that isn’t based entirely on the fact that people got upset about the adultery (which is the attitude under discussion here). In other words, aside from the fact that it upsets people, does adultery actually correlate to falling down on the job?
Senescent — May 9, 2008 at 6:45 pm
It’s because in people’s private lives, we expect them to be acting on their own behalves; in their capacity as officials, we expect them to act on behalf of their constituency. So when someone sleeps around, or engages in “abusive” relationships in which they maximize for their own interests at the expense of their partners’, that’s not a violation of public trust – they’re pursuing their own aims in their own life. But bribery and corruption are violations – they’re pursuing their own aims in public capacity.
And even if you want to point to their tendency to periodically shrug off inconvenient bonds and commitments as a cause for concern, I mean, really, how does that play out in political life? Well, if officials take constituency, rather than personal, interests as a guide, it comes out as breaking party line or orthodoxy to “vote your district” or bring home pork. And while we might occasionally dislike that in the abstract, in terms of *our* representative doing it, we very often appreciate and encourage it in the specific.
Doug — May 10, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I was with you until “bad person.” I don’t think that label helps the discourse. I do agree that both Spitzer’s and Fossela’s behavior is disqualifying. It’s not simply infidelity, but the illegality (Spitzer) and the long-time secrecy (Fossela) that makes it problematic for me. For Bill Clinton, the disqualifying behavior was taking advantage of a subordinate and lying about it.
Doug — May 10, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I was with you until “bad person.” I don’t think that label helps the discourse. I do agree that both Spitzer’s and Fossela’s behavior is disqualifying. It’s not simply infidelity, but the illegality (Spitzer) and the long-time secrecy (Fossela) that makes it problematic for me. For Bill Clinton, the disqualifying behavior was taking advantage of a subordinate and lying about it.
conradg — May 10, 2008 at 10:31 pm
I think the “incorrect calculation” being referred to is that the meter was originally defined as being 1/10,000,000th of the circumference of the globe around the poles. This was back in the 19th century, and subsequently the measurement was discovered to be inaccurate by some small fraction. Rather than change the meter a wreck the system already in place, it was simply decided to redefine the meter, first to a bar of metal held in cold storage in France, and later to a certain number of wavelengths of a particular emission line of light. All that has nothing whatever to do with the actual utility of the meter, and is just Poulos’ way of asserting his cranky lack of understanding of all things scientific and modern.
Btw, this is an interesting blog post in that it appears to have not a single intelligent point made anywhere within it. Yet it’s being linked to around the web. Fascinating.
Ben — May 11, 2008 at 2:47 pm
OK, if Poulos is right and marital fidelity is essential to the public trust of elected office, why don’t we just add a marital fidelity test for holding office to those for citizenship and age? Unless every candidate is subjected to a thorough background check before being placed on the ballot (not to mention recurring check-ups throughout his or her career), this whole mindset just lends itself to games of gotcha.
Ben — May 11, 2008 at 2:47 pm
OK, if Poulos is right and marital fidelity is essential to the public trust of elected office, why don’t we just add a marital fidelity test for holding office to those for citizenship and age? Unless every candidate is subjected to a thorough background check before being placed on the ballot (not to mention recurring check-ups throughout his or her career), this whole mindset just lends itself to games of gotcha.
jag — May 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Apparently many readers have never had the misfortune to work FOR people who cheat on their spouses…..lets just say people who cheat on their spouses often have little regard for other laws, rules and scruples that they find “inconvenient”.
jag — May 12, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Apparently many readers have never had the misfortune to work FOR people who cheat on their spouses…..lets just say people who cheat on their spouses often have little regard for other laws, rules and scruples that they find “inconvenient”.
Dara — May 12, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“as social-science tropes that define left-leaning intellectual worldviews leach down into the parlance of our times…”
Is it really that inevitable?
Dara — May 12, 2008 at 9:01 pm
“as social-science tropes that define left-leaning intellectual worldviews leach down into the parlance of our times…”
Is it really that inevitable?
BigM — May 12, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I can’t quite agree with this equation of private adultery with public malfeasance. Do we have to then ask what kind of a father Ronald Reagan was? Should Rudy Giuliani have been refused the mayoralty of New York – a city that was virtually reborn under his leadership – because he was far less of a husband and father than David Dinkins? In politics, as in life, I try not to make judgments on what goes on in other people’s marriages.
But that is not to say that Nussbaum makes sense. Eliot Spitzer, the politician she defends, was a zealot, a man who delighted in harassing others. Is it relevant that the people he hounded were something Nussbaum dislikes (wealthy businessmen) rather than something she approves of (adulterous johns)? In any case, Spitzer would not have hesitated to prosecute a politician for the very acts that cost him his office.
It is also a bit nauseating to see Nussbaum, and others like her, prettify prostitution with euphemisms like “sex workers.” In fact, these are usually harshly exploited women, who have suffered far more than, say, Anita Hill, even if her boss did ask about a public hair on a Coke can.
BigM — May 12, 2008 at 9:53 pm
I can’t quite agree with this equation of private adultery with public malfeasance. Do we have to then ask what kind of a father Ronald Reagan was? Should Rudy Giuliani have been refused the mayoralty of New York – a city that was virtually reborn under his leadership – because he was far less of a husband and father than David Dinkins? In politics, as in life, I try not to make judgments on what goes on in other people’s marriages.
But that is not to say that Nussbaum makes sense. Eliot Spitzer, the politician she defends, was a zealot, a man who delighted in harassing others. Is it relevant that the people he hounded were something Nussbaum dislikes (wealthy businessmen) rather than something she approves of (adulterous johns)? In any case, Spitzer would not have hesitated to prosecute a politician for the very acts that cost him his office.
It is also a bit nauseating to see Nussbaum, and others like her, prettify prostitution with euphemisms like “sex workers.” In fact, these are usually harshly exploited women, who have suffered far more than, say, Anita Hill, even if her boss did ask about a public hair on a Coke can.
John Tabin — May 13, 2008 at 10:41 am
He wasn’t married at the time, but Thomas Jefferson did father several children with one of his slaves, starting in 1795. Should his political career have been over?
Tel: If memory serves, it’s not clear that that’s true; Sally Hemmings had children with someone in the Jefferson family, but the DNA evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was Thomas himself. Either way, of course his political career should have been over — he owned slaves!
John Tabin — May 13, 2008 at 10:41 am
He wasn’t married at the time, but Thomas Jefferson did father several children with one of his slaves, starting in 1795. Should his political career have been over?
Tel: If memory serves, it’s not clear that that’s true; Sally Hemmings had children with someone in the Jefferson family, but the DNA evidence is inconclusive as to whether it was Thomas himself. Either way, of course his political career should have been over — he owned slaves!
mark — May 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’ll offer this bit of gossip. Cass Sunstein was married when he and Nussbaum got together. (Sunstein’s wife famously threw his clothes out the window when she found out.) Which is only to say that Nussbaurm’s “enlightened” perspective on adultery is self-interested and consistent at once.
mark — May 13, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’ll offer this bit of gossip. Cass Sunstein was married when he and Nussbaum got together. (Sunstein’s wife famously threw his clothes out the window when she found out.) Which is only to say that Nussbaurm’s “enlightened” perspective on adultery is self-interested and consistent at once.
David Paz Sr — May 13, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Vito Fossella you must immediately resign. I say this as a life long Republican. But I am really disgusted Republican. Don’t put your family through this public trashing any longer. What you have done is almost as bad as what Spitzer did. Except that he got caught paying money for his. You have disgraced your wife, kids and family. You are unfortunately a CHEAT. You are unfit to serve your constituents. This wasn’t a momentary error in judgment or small mistake. You hid this for at least 3 years and only you getting caught DRUNK DRIVING brought it to light. Between you and Spitzer, the Republicans have a hard time preaching morality to anyone.
David Paz Sr — May 13, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Vito Fossella you must immediately resign. I say this as a life long Republican. But I am really disgusted Republican. Don’t put your family through this public trashing any longer. What you have done is almost as bad as what Spitzer did. Except that he got caught paying money for his. You have disgraced your wife, kids and family. You are unfortunately a CHEAT. You are unfit to serve your constituents. This wasn’t a momentary error in judgment or small mistake. You hid this for at least 3 years and only you getting caught DRUNK DRIVING brought it to light. Between you and Spitzer, the Republicans have a hard time preaching morality to anyone.
David Paz Sr — May 13, 2008 at 4:25 pm
To John Tobian,
In no way am I condoning slavery. But you comment about Jefferson and people of era who owned slaves is wrong.You need to investigate the origins of slavery. In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960’s have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplicistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas’ The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn’s The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own kins.
This explains why slavery became “black”. Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes).
David Paz Sr — May 13, 2008 at 4:25 pm
To John Tobian,
In no way am I condoning slavery. But you comment about Jefferson and people of era who owned slaves is wrong.You need to investigate the origins of slavery. In 1807 Britain outlawed slavery. In 1820 the king of the African kingdom of Ashanti inquired why the Christians did not want to trade slaves with him anymore, since they worshipped the same god as the Muslims and the Muslims were continuing the trade like before.
The civil rights movement of the 1960’s have left many people with the belief that the slave trade was exclusively a European/USA phenomenon and only evil white people were to blame for it. This is a simplicistic scenario that hardly reflects the facts.
Thousands of records of transactions are available on a CDROM prepared by Harvard University and several comprehensive books have been published recently on the origins of modern slavery (namely, Hugh Thomas’ The Slave Trade and Robin Blackburn’s The Making Of New World Slavery) that shed new light on centuries of slave trading.
What these records show is that the modern slave trade flourished in the early middle ages, as early as 869, especially between Muslim traders and western African kingdoms. For moralists, the most important aspect of that trade should be that Muslims were selling goods to the African kingdoms and the African kingdoms were paying with their own people. In most instances, no violence was necessary to obtain those slaves. Contrary to legends and novels and Hollywood movies, the white traders did not need to savagely kill entire tribes in order to exact their tribute in slaves. All they needed to do is bring goods that appealed to the kings of those tribes. The kings would gladly sell their own kins.
This explains why slavery became “black”. Ancient slavery, e.g. under the Roman empire, would not discriminate: slaves were both white and black (so were Emperors and Popes).
Meh — May 13, 2008 at 5:00 pm
As a USC graduate, I am personally upset that O.J. Mayo ever was recruited to play for the Trojans. He was hyped way too much and didn’t amount to anything (we lost in the first round of the NCAAs, something we’d done numerous times without him). Then, he left to go to the NBA after playing for just one year at the college level (he’ll probably disappoint there, too). And yet, his poor conduct will effect the program for years now, as the NCAA is sure to fine the school and even issue sanctions and things.
The overarching problem here is we force athletes to college when they don’t want to go in the first place. O.J. Mayo was told throughout his high school years that he was NBA-ready, but had to put up with college for a year before he could go, because of league rules. So, he did just that — put up with it but ignored the rules that others must follow. What does he care? It won’t effect him much.
I understand that most high school kids aren’t ready for the professional level, and see the point in the college experience. But in practice, it just doesn’t work, because the promise of wealth the pros can offer is just too tempting. And thus, the O.J. Mayo saga is sure to repeat itself.
Meh — May 13, 2008 at 5:00 pm
As a USC graduate, I am personally upset that O.J. Mayo ever was recruited to play for the Trojans. He was hyped way too much and didn’t amount to anything (we lost in the first round of the NCAAs, something we’d done numerous times without him). Then, he left to go to the NBA after playing for just one year at the college level (he’ll probably disappoint there, too). And yet, his poor conduct will effect the program for years now, as the NCAA is sure to fine the school and even issue sanctions and things.
The overarching problem here is we force athletes to college when they don’t want to go in the first place. O.J. Mayo was told throughout his high school years that he was NBA-ready, but had to put up with college for a year before he could go, because of league rules. So, he did just that — put up with it but ignored the rules that others must follow. What does he care? It won’t effect him much.
I understand that most high school kids aren’t ready for the professional level, and see the point in the college experience. But in practice, it just doesn’t work, because the promise of wealth the pros can offer is just too tempting. And thus, the O.J. Mayo saga is sure to repeat itself.
Meh — May 13, 2008 at 5:00 pm
As a USC graduate, I am personally upset that O.J. Mayo ever was recruited to play for the Trojans. He was hyped way too much and didn’t amount to anything (we lost in the first round of the NCAAs, something we’d done numerous times without him). Then, he left to go to the NBA after playing for just one year at the college level (he’ll probably disappoint there, too). And yet, his poor conduct will effect the program for years now, as the NCAA is sure to fine the school and even issue sanctions and things.
The overarching problem here is we force athletes to college when they don’t want to go in the first place. O.J. Mayo was told throughout his high school years that he was NBA-ready, but had to put up with college for a year before he could go, because of league rules. So, he did just that — put up with it but ignored the rules that others must follow. What does he care? It won’t effect him much.
I understand that most high school kids aren’t ready for the professional level, and see the point in the college experience. But in practice, it just doesn’t work, because the promise of wealth the pros can offer is just too tempting. And thus, the O.J. Mayo saga is sure to repeat itself.
Joules — May 14, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Given that no one has solved all our problems yet, I don’t expect Millennials to do so but I’m thrilled to see that so many are concerned for their fellow man.
Joules — May 14, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Given that no one has solved all our problems yet, I don’t expect Millennials to do so but I’m thrilled to see that so many are concerned for their fellow man.
jdbo — May 15, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Looking to your review of Speed Racer… probably just to disagree with you vehemently.
The sensory overload may not work for everyone (epileptics in particular should avoid this), but those who can process the visuals will likely love the film. The simple storyline and stylized acting provides a pleasingly simple baseline allowing the directors to push the sound and visuals even further than they could otherwise. And no, I’ve never tried acid, but I do enjoy the Cartoon Network.
That said, the Allam-Hitchens resemblance is startling. Had I known what Hitchens looks like I’d have been very distracted while watching the film.
patrick — May 15, 2008 at 1:34 pm
he was also a villain in V for Vendetta
Sonny Bunch — May 15, 2008 at 2:03 pm
jdbo: I’ll say this about ‘SR’–it was a noble experiment. It just doesn’t hang together, at least not for me.
Patrick: Allam was pretty great as Prothero, one of the few things I really liked about ‘V for Vendetta.’
Senescent — May 15, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Um, what?
John — May 16, 2008 at 10:26 am
I like this, James, and of course it applies to lots of things other than biotechnologies as well: e.g. air conditioning, high speed internet, cable TV, microwaves, air bags, carseats for seven-year-olds, cribs for infants, pasteurized foods, and so on. Our apparent “need” for things like those latter four examples is magnified by the fact that government sees fit to mandate them. But the overall arc of the story – we invent some new stuff, it helps us to do some new stuff, and then soon enough we have a brand-new need – is pretty much the same. A veritable paradox of freedom.
James — May 16, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Something to reiterate here about the paragraph quoted above is that there are other much cleaner and more courageous languages in which judicial activists can talk. Look at Brown vs. Board, for instance, a hopeless pamphlet from a constitutional law perspective but a towering achievement of practical Establishment liberal activism from a sheerly political one. Warren essentially DECLARES separateness to be necessarily unequal, with the footnote to Swedish sociological data more or less superfluous. I want to say more about this kind of declarative politics, specifically in the context of Aristotelian thoughts about what politics has to be in order for it to exist at all, but that’ll have to wait for a moment…
Matt Frost — May 17, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Thor! Or not.
Christian Toto — May 17, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Did you notice how utterly laugh free “Speed Racer” was? I think that hurt its b.o. potential. But it all boils down to the built-in audience factor. Those with memories of the tv show are too old to be interested in a kiddie film, and today’s kids don’t know “Speed Racer” from the “Banana Splits.”
Hey, there’s a movie waiting to happen …
Rheoryn — May 20, 2008 at 11:43 am
I bear multiple copies of chromosomes. I have XX, XY and XXY sets in my cells. Depending on where you take the test, you get a different result.
What am I? How do you define my medical sex? I don’t want to go into the gory details of the other aspects of your definition of male and female, but let’s the trend of a little from column A and B continues through the rest.
Matt S. — May 20, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Don’t you mean third volume?
Matt S. — May 20, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Or rather, I’ve owned volume 2 for awhile and thought volume three was about to come out.
James Poulos — May 20, 2008 at 1:13 pm
It’s true that I’m playing catch-up. Hopefully in my infinite free time I can have something of use to say about “The Jew of Culture.”
Paul McLeod — May 21, 2008 at 2:02 pm
As a libertarian, I see your point. But you forgt one thing in your analysis of the merits of Luke and Han: which one of them has the fucking sweet-ass lightsaber?
Paul McLeod — May 21, 2008 at 2:02 pm
As a libertarian, I see your point. But you forgt one thing in your analysis of the merits of Luke and Han: which one of them has the fucking sweet-ass lightsaber?
Nerd alert! — May 21, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Wookiee is spelled with two Es.
Nerd alert! — May 21, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Wookiee is spelled with two Es.
JB — May 21, 2008 at 5:56 pm
That first long quote about John Wayne and American ass-kickery is from P.J. O’Rourke, not Hunter Thompson.
JB — May 21, 2008 at 5:56 pm
That first long quote about John Wayne and American ass-kickery is from P.J. O’Rourke, not Hunter Thompson.
Josh Thomson — May 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm
The idea that the Empire represented an improvement in the galaxy, that somehow a corrupt dictatorship kept in power by brute force that was exercised regularly and indiscriminately, somehow represents an improvement over a corrupt republic that failed to govern effectively seems a bit odd to me. (Unless one thinks that wiping out entire planets and enslaving the populations of others is a sign of stability.) But then again, I grew up idolizing the Star Wars films, so maybe this is just a continuation of the nerd alert above….
Josh Thomson — May 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm
The idea that the Empire represented an improvement in the galaxy, that somehow a corrupt dictatorship kept in power by brute force that was exercised regularly and indiscriminately, somehow represents an improvement over a corrupt republic that failed to govern effectively seems a bit odd to me. (Unless one thinks that wiping out entire planets and enslaving the populations of others is a sign of stability.) But then again, I grew up idolizing the Star Wars films, so maybe this is just a continuation of the nerd alert above….
Pithlord — May 21, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Your first Hunter Thompson quote sounds suspiciously like P.J. O’Rourke.
Pithlord — May 21, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Your first Hunter Thompson quote sounds suspiciously like P.J. O’Rourke.
mattc — May 21, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Don’t you EVER think about criticizing Will Smith.
Isn’t your hyposthesis on America essentially…that American (and American political philosophy) exists to simply to counterbalance nonexistance? Very Darwinian.
If that’s the gist of it, the Never Ending Story is a better movie reference.
mattc — May 21, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Don’t you EVER think about criticizing Will Smith.
Isn’t your hyposthesis on America essentially…that American (and American political philosophy) exists to simply to counterbalance nonexistance? Very Darwinian.
If that’s the gist of it, the Never Ending Story is a better movie reference.
James Poulos — May 21, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Sorry, foax – PJ it is. Thanks for keeping me sharp…!
James Poulos — May 21, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Sorry, foax – PJ it is. Thanks for keeping me sharp…!
Mike — May 21, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Why not a slightly LESS American America? Less disorderly and crime-ridden, less warmongering and power-crazed. Less, less, less, less, less. Not the America of John Wayne, but the America of Harding and Coolidge, may their memories be a blessing.
Mike — May 21, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Why not a slightly LESS American America? Less disorderly and crime-ridden, less warmongering and power-crazed. Less, less, less, less, less. Not the America of John Wayne, but the America of Harding and Coolidge, may their memories be a blessing.
keshmeshi — May 21, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I never thought Star Wars analysis could be so boring.
keshmeshi — May 21, 2008 at 10:53 pm
I never thought Star Wars analysis could be so boring.
John Tabin — May 22, 2008 at 11:51 am
Oh, come on, you’re just playing games. The word “intervention” has a simple meaning that encompasses any military action regardless of circumstances. This isn’t brain surgery.
James Poulos — May 22, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Well that’s the problem, isn’t it? If ‘intervention’ means anything with guns, it’s such an abstract term that the important differences between defensive, preemptive, preventive, and aggressive war are completely obscured. That’s horrible for public discourse and makes for crap foreign policy besides. I’m really not trying to belabor the semantics. Calling everything an intervention makes it almost impossible to make sound moral or political judgments about what’s been done, what we’re doing, and what we should do abroad.
Karen MacLaughlin — May 22, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“The legacy of political correctness is a will to illiteracy, a conscious destruction of particular meaning as an affront to abstract principles, an attack on the facticity of words in favor of their plasticity and contingency. We now want, and have created, a vocabulary of words designed to have no reliable meaning.”
Thank you for stating this so clearly. All I can do is weep.
Karen MacLaughlin — May 22, 2008 at 1:17 pm
“The legacy of political correctness is a will to illiteracy, a conscious destruction of particular meaning as an affront to abstract principles, an attack on the facticity of words in favor of their plasticity and contingency. We now want, and have created, a vocabulary of words designed to have no reliable meaning.”
Thank you for stating this so clearly. All I can do is weep.
John Tabin — May 22, 2008 at 7:49 pm
That’s totally absurd. It’s like saying that calling everything edible “food” obscures the difference between fruit, vegetables, meats, grains, and dairy products, and that this somehow makes it impossible to discuss our diet.
davidwag — May 23, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Wait – Jimmy Kimmel guest-hosts for Larry King? When/how did this happen? And is he wearing Larry’s outfit as a joke, or is that required wardrobe for the post?
Sonny Bunch — May 23, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Yeah, I don’t know why Jimmy Kimmel was guest-hosting. And isn’t that outfit something else? My my.
Next question: Since when does the guy who pioneered “and now, girls jumping on trampolines” get to criticize how someone else seeks entertainment? Furthermore, I get the fact that you felt insulted by someone posting that you looked intoxicated, Jimmy, but a.) you do, in fact, always look intoxicated (he looked like he had smoked about five joints in the above clip) and b.) it’s a joke. Get over yourself.
All that being said: Good on Jimmy. She deserves every bit of merciless excoriation she receives.
Sonny Bunch — May 23, 2008 at 5:53 pm
You praise the Limoncello and blast the Careful Man’s Peachy Punch as revolting? Blasphemy!
James Poulos — May 23, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Hey — I said less undrinkable-sounding. LESS! Look — I’m a reasonable man, if not always careful: name your time, place, and 90 closest friends, and I’ll show up for Peachy Punch with bells on.
Chris — May 24, 2008 at 11:57 pm
Red Stripe is indeed awesome, but ‘ve never known anybody who’s drank more than 2 and not had, er… intestinal problems.
S. Aleta — May 25, 2008 at 10:21 pm
She’s a kid. Blame whoever hired her and gave her “editorial power.” Don’t give kids guns or power over gossip pages. The rep for the company should be taking the heat. What cowards, including J. Kimmel, who should pick on someone his own size (in his own income bracket). He’s acting like a cur here.
Hugh V McLachlan — May 26, 2008 at 5:13 pm
‘I shouldn’t need to say this, and it’s quite horrific that any professor of philosophy should need it explained, but the ethical principle behind keeping the human species pure holds that our ethics are human ethics because we are human beings.’
This is drivel. It makes no sense. You have not specified any ethical principle that is infringed by the proposed research. I do not say that there is none. However, if there is such a principle, what is it?
The arguments against the creation of mixed species animals sound similar to the sorts of arguments that have been used in South Africa in the past to attack sex between blacks and non-blacks, i.e. it is unnatural, it is gainst the will of God and can result in the creation of sub-human beings.
Phil Packer — May 28, 2008 at 10:16 am
People need to check out the real sleeper of cheap beers.
Schlitz!!!
We did a taste test at a BBQ with 20 participants. Blind tasted 3 beers
Bud Light
Schlitz
Busch
The winner by a landslide was Schlitz with 13 votes.
Aaron — May 29, 2008 at 1:46 pm
What – no Pimms cup? With cucumber and mint (and real eurolemonade – no Canada dry or worse, Sprite). Best with a splash of good fragrant gin – Aviation, for instance, or Hendricks (no Tanq 10, which is swill…)
P — May 29, 2008 at 6:40 pm
There’s no such thing as a summer drinking “don’t”. That’s absurd, James.
Phoenix — May 29, 2008 at 8:08 pm
What about the caipirinha? It is the best cocktail for summer. Try making it with the original lime recipe and with variations using fresh fruit. Cuca Fresca is the best, most mixable, cachaca that I have come across.
endorendil — May 30, 2008 at 7:39 am
Seems that you’re right in not trusting that page. According to the state department, terrorist attacks were flat in Iraq between 2006 and 2007. The number of casualties caused by them went actually up by about 6000. If Al-Qaeda’s attacks really went down from 60% of the total to 6%, the only conclusion is that there is now another terrorist organization (or several) that is just as prolific as AQ used to be, just more lethal. I’m not sure that that is a good thing.
In addition, the state department does not believe that AQ is beaten – they see them as restructuring and reconstituting as fast as their organization is compromised (see the report on terrorism it released).
To me it sounds like AQ top leadership is trying to disavow the carnage in Iraq that some of its affiliates are perpetrating. Or perhaps AQ is just bemoaning the loss of control over the movement it thought it led. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that we’re getting any closer to beating down the movement.
Official Washington is jumping on this information because it happens to be politically convenient: it gives a figleaf for the start of the retreat.
Boonton — June 2, 2008 at 11:19 am
James,
Joe Carter cited your post on his blog (www.evangelicaloutpost.com). I wrote up a response to it in the comments and here it is for your reference as well:
There’s gotta be a word to describe it when someone announces they consider something to be very important but then acts as if that value has no meaning at all. Here Poulos tells us that adultery is very important because it is a betrayal of intimacy. Fair enough but he tells us this because he is saying adultery needs to be attacked publically. But isn’t the public the very opposite of the intimate?
This is not a trivial distinction. A wife who privately learns of her husband’s adultery is free to use a host of tools at her disposal to address the attack on her marriage. One of them is to make the issue public by divorcing him, making her knowledge of the affair public or both.
What happens, though, when adultery is considered ‘fair game’ for political punditry? The wife is not empowered by learning of her husband’s affair but blindsided. She does not have the option of dealing with her husband privately while avoiding public humuliation. In fact, she probably faces tremendous pressure to “stand by her husband” for the sake of her family. In a culture where adultery is not considered fair game for punditry the wife has the leverage to threaten the wayward husband with the possibility of a public divorce in order to motivate him to reform for the sake of his family.
Only after the wife is put through the humiliation of the public press conference can she quietly decide to divorce her husband. If she doesn’t, though, he has in a sense won since his family has been ’saved’ and he can now return to politics as a ‘reformed man’. I’m not saying the husband enjoyed the public attention but it is the wife who bears the brunt of the insult and it is unjust since she is not at fault. After the dust settles, the wife has no real leverage besides pressing the ’self-destruct’ button and filing for divorce. So what’s been accomplished? You’ve basically ended up attacking the wife and afterwards telling her the choice she has is remain in the marriage in a humuliating status of submission or destroy her marriage. This is done in the name of being ‘pro-family’ and ‘pro-marriage’.
Poulos seems to suffer from the “we must destroy the village to save it” meme. Being able to attack politicians who have affairs is just so appealing (and politically it always carries with it the hope that when the opposing party has someone who seems undefeatable there’s always the long hope that the press will discover another woman on the side) that he is blind to the fact that he is actually advocating a state of affairs that is not healthy to marriage.
Boonton — June 2, 2008 at 11:19 am
James,
Joe Carter cited your post on his blog (www.evangelicaloutpost.com). I wrote up a response to it in the comments and here it is for your reference as well:
There’s gotta be a word to describe it when someone announces they consider something to be very important but then acts as if that value has no meaning at all. Here Poulos tells us that adultery is very important because it is a betrayal of intimacy. Fair enough but he tells us this because he is saying adultery needs to be attacked publically. But isn’t the public the very opposite of the intimate?
This is not a trivial distinction. A wife who privately learns of her husband’s adultery is free to use a host of tools at her disposal to address the attack on her marriage. One of them is to make the issue public by divorcing him, making her knowledge of the affair public or both.
What happens, though, when adultery is considered ‘fair game’ for political punditry? The wife is not empowered by learning of her husband’s affair but blindsided. She does not have the option of dealing with her husband privately while avoiding public humuliation. In fact, she probably faces tremendous pressure to “stand by her husband” for the sake of her family. In a culture where adultery is not considered fair game for punditry the wife has the leverage to threaten the wayward husband with the possibility of a public divorce in order to motivate him to reform for the sake of his family.
Only after the wife is put through the humiliation of the public press conference can she quietly decide to divorce her husband. If she doesn’t, though, he has in a sense won since his family has been ’saved’ and he can now return to politics as a ‘reformed man’. I’m not saying the husband enjoyed the public attention but it is the wife who bears the brunt of the insult and it is unjust since she is not at fault. After the dust settles, the wife has no real leverage besides pressing the ’self-destruct’ button and filing for divorce. So what’s been accomplished? You’ve basically ended up attacking the wife and afterwards telling her the choice she has is remain in the marriage in a humuliating status of submission or destroy her marriage. This is done in the name of being ‘pro-family’ and ‘pro-marriage’.
Poulos seems to suffer from the “we must destroy the village to save it” meme. Being able to attack politicians who have affairs is just so appealing (and politically it always carries with it the hope that when the opposing party has someone who seems undefeatable there’s always the long hope that the press will discover another woman on the side) that he is blind to the fact that he is actually advocating a state of affairs that is not healthy to marriage.
Christian Toto — June 2, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I saw “Lady in the Water” after all the horrible reviews/awful press/etc. and it still knocked my socks off. That’s how bad it was. Not sure there’s anything left in Night’s creative tank, but “The Happening” should give us a good indication of his current talent level. I’m always suspicious of creative types who are super-resistant to criticism,though.
Sonny Bunch — June 2, 2008 at 12:38 pm
I don’t throw around words like “unwatchable” lightly; I’ve never walked out of a movie, and I’ve never stopped watching one halfway through while at home. But man…I was sorely, sorely tempted to do so while watching ‘Lady in the Water.’ Dreadful stuff.
Will — June 3, 2008 at 4:19 pm
This statement is interesting:
“For a number of us foreign policy hawks, the problem with the Iraq war wasn’t the war itself but George W. Bush’s totally inept handling of it, compounded by his refusal to adapt to situations on the ground and loyalty to Donald Rumsfeld.”
I hear this justification pretty frequently (it’s even gotten it’s own pejorative label – “the incompetence dodge”), and I’m genuinely curious: What policies do you think would have salvaged the situation in Iraq circa 2003?
If anything, this war has convinced me that there are certain structural barriers to successfully occupying a potentially hostile Third World country that are extremely difficult (if not impossible) to overcome. We were (and still are) dealing with an heavily armed, intensely sectarian population with a tendency towards religious extremism. Throw in a native culture most American service-members are unfamiliar with and the inevitable resentment provoked by foreign occupiers, and I’m just not sure if tactical or operational changes would have saved the administration’s grand strategy.
Sonny Bunch — June 3, 2008 at 4:42 pm
This feels like its own post (one I don’t quite have time to write at the moment), but looking at the post-invasion chaos and the insufficient number of troops/atrocious strategy in the Sunni Triangle from late ‘04 to ‘06 are both good places to start. These problems can both be traced back to the Rumsfeldian insistence on lighter, faster-moving quick-strike forces rather than the Powell Doctrine, “go in with overwhelming force” option or Petraeus’s counterinsurgency strategy. I’ll go into this more tomorrow, I think…
Bill — June 4, 2008 at 8:46 am
It is scary to contemplate the ferociousness with which Clinton will pursue the VP slot on Obama’s ticket. It seems that for Obama to truly have his moment, which he richly deserves, he must make it clear that she will not be his running mate. I don’t agree with all of Obama’s political philosophy, but I’ll be happy to vote for him (if the psychopath Clinton is not on the ticket); he’s a good, decent, and admirable man.
Bernie Berkowitz — June 4, 2008 at 10:24 am
Maybe it’s wishful thinking, but I hope that HRC gets the nod for Secty of DHEW. Conceivably she could do some good there. Additionally it would get her out of the Senate and let another Democrat in.
Regarding the threats of the damage she’d do in this election, I imagine even the press will grow tired of all the rants, and people will just become less interested in anything the Clintons have to say and join Ralph Nader in deserved obscurity. Hopefully by July 3.
Karen — June 4, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Wow, I can’t believe the majority of the tone I’m hearing in these comments. Apparently most Americans no longer consider adultery really “wrong,” it’s just something that’s between a man and his wife. I assume this man stood up in a church (or somewhere) and made a VOW to his wife that he would keep himself for her for all time. A person who refuses to keep the most basic vow of fidelity to what should be the most important person in his life becomes a betrayer, a cheater, a liar. Sex is not something that should be lightly tossed around, and it should NEVER be something that is shared with someone other than your spouse if you have promised before God to be faithful to that spouse. Illicit sex is also not some irresistable force that people just “fall into,” unlike how Hollywood likes to portray it–there are basic boundaries of decency and morality that a “good person” will fence themselves with to protect themselves from the temptation of an affair. You are dead right to say that this man is a bad person for deliberately cheating, betraying, and lying not only to his wife and his family but also to the public, who trusts him to be an honest and honorable man.
Karen — June 4, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Wow, I can’t believe the majority of the tone I’m hearing in these comments. Apparently most Americans no longer consider adultery really “wrong,” it’s just something that’s between a man and his wife. I assume this man stood up in a church (or somewhere) and made a VOW to his wife that he would keep himself for her for all time. A person who refuses to keep the most basic vow of fidelity to what should be the most important person in his life becomes a betrayer, a cheater, a liar. Sex is not something that should be lightly tossed around, and it should NEVER be something that is shared with someone other than your spouse if you have promised before God to be faithful to that spouse. Illicit sex is also not some irresistable force that people just “fall into,” unlike how Hollywood likes to portray it–there are basic boundaries of decency and morality that a “good person” will fence themselves with to protect themselves from the temptation of an affair. You are dead right to say that this man is a bad person for deliberately cheating, betraying, and lying not only to his wife and his family but also to the public, who trusts him to be an honest and honorable man.
Justin — June 4, 2008 at 3:33 pm
I’m not a fan of the campari and soda. If you’re going to go the campari route (and I heartily recommend it) opt for the Americano or Negroni, both of which are excellent and good for summer months.
Will — June 4, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Fair enough, and I look forward to the post. I’m unsure, however, if the “Powell Doctrine” of overwhelming force is actually responsive to the demands of counterinsurgency in Iraq circa 2003-2004.
First, it’s unclear that more troops wouldn’t have provoked greater resentment against the US occupation. More importantly, however, is the fact that a good deal of the surge’s success relied upon a tactical alliance between the US and various sectarian militias against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Given the fact that the impetus for this “alliance of convenience” existed only after Al Qaeda had totally discredited itself, I’m not sure if any American policy would have been able to recreate the surge’s success in 2004 or 2005.
Sonny Bunch — June 4, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I’m going to have to put off that longer post until tomorrow (a couple of deadlines came together, leading to my lighter-than usual posting today), but I think that the resentment against the US occupation wasn’t so much a resentment towards the troops as it was resentment towards the troops not having control of the situation. More troops could have kept a tighter lid on the violence/theft, leading to a happier populace. But again, I’ll get into it more tomorrow…
Andrew Miller — June 5, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Both Toobin’s piece and Labash’s show the same thing- Roger Stone is the most dangerous man in America. Watch out, Barack Obama!
Will — June 5, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I’m sure you have better things to do than respond to random comments, and I doubt I’m changing anyone’s mind, but I do have a few problems with your analysis:
1.) Would there have been enough troops available to adequately police the country and secure the borders? We deployed 23 divisions in post-war Japan (an ethnically coherent state, by the way) to provide security and restore basic services. Given the fact that Japan is roughly the same size of Iraq, would a comparatively paltry troop increase really have made a difference? I was under the impression that we simply didn’t have enough soldiers to replicate the military personnel-to-occupied civilians ratio we maintained in post-war Japan and Germany.
2.) You briefly allude to a problem I raised in an earlier comment:
“The tipping point finally came sometime after the surge in 2007 when we had enough troops to clear AND hold cities and Iraqis got tired of the death squads roaming the streets.”
A great deal of the surge’s success is predicated on the tactical alliance between the United States and various ethnic militias against Al Qaeda in Iraq. Would the impetus for this collaboration have existed in 2003 or 2004? I doubt it, as Al Qaeda had yet to alienate the entire populace through a series of devastating attacks on civilian targets. In your hypothetical counter-factual, the United States would still be fighting both Al Qaeda and the indigenous resistance movement.
3.) Finally, you write:
“All I can say is that history–both American and otherwise–would argue differently. The Romans, Greeks, and Persians all spent centuries pacifying third world countries and imposing their will on the populace; America did the same thing in Japan and South Korea.”
Has a modern democracy ever successfully pacified an ethnically diverse, economically backwards country whose dominant socio-religious culture is averse (or at least ambivalent) to political liberalism? The successful examples you cite – Japan, Korea – were ethnically homogeneous states who were either allied with us or utterly defeated by us on the battlefield.
The Roman occupation of Gaul is hardly a hopeful precedent, either. I’m not sure our political system could survive brutality comparable to the Roman siege of Alesia. The costs of completely “taking the gloves off” would be prohibitively high for any liberal society.
The only example I can think of that bolsters your analysis is the United States’ occupation of the Phillipines. And even then, the country was beset by only one major cultural cleavage (Muslims v. Non-Muslims) and remains the basket case to this day.
Michael Simpson — June 6, 2008 at 8:35 am
I thought the article was pretty interesting as well, though I can imagine the likely liberal response: see, the problem is poverty, full stop. Their economic situation didn’t change, just their location. You can hear intimations of that in the latter part of the article where govt types talk about trying to relocate the social services these folks depend on.
Sonny Bunch — June 6, 2008 at 11:07 am
Well, as long as the boss at my day job doesn’t complain, I’ll keep responding (though probably more briefly).
1.) I think you’re right, we didn’t have enough troops (especially with the conflict in Afghanistan), which was kind of my point: it’s not that we were holding a ton of troops out, we just didn’t have them. Paring down the military in the ’90s/early ’00s led to an inadequate number of troops to fight a two-front war. (In other words, when I say “more troops” I mean a larger army.) This was both Rumsfeld and his predecessors’ fault.
2.) I would still argue that the resentment of Iraqi civilians had more to do with a lack of security than anything else. The resentment created by constant sectarian violence could have been avoided, and then we never would have needed to reach that tipping point in ‘07.
3.) Though I’m no expert on modern/recent-modern European society, I think you could certainly argue that the British and the Dutch “pacified” Africa (and India) for a very, very long time. The reason they failed, ultimately, was that their goals were different from our goals in Iraq and Afghanistan: they wanted to exploit those countries for resources; we don’t have too much interest in colonialism. We simply want allies who enjoy the same freedoms we do and stop exporting terror.
Sonny Bunch — June 6, 2008 at 1:25 pm
You’re probably right. Which is why I think Fisman’s article is so key…poverty itself isn’t the problem, it’s the behavior engaged in by the poor that’s the problem. Of course, for saying this I’m a classist boor. I really can’t wait for this Rosin article to hit the web…
Michael Simpson — June 7, 2008 at 11:01 am
You can “hope” that Obama will offer class-based instead of race-based AA, but it’ll be an unrequited one. My guess is that he’d just layer over a class-based system on top of the race-based one, so that the poor black kid got the most preference points, the poor latino a few less, and the poor white one even less. And that’s the real best-case scenario here…
Michael Simpson — June 7, 2008 at 11:01 am
You can “hope” that Obama will offer class-based instead of race-based AA, but it’ll be an unrequited one. My guess is that he’d just layer over a class-based system on top of the race-based one, so that the poor black kid got the most preference points, the poor latino a few less, and the poor white one even less. And that’s the real best-case scenario here…
Michael Simpson — June 7, 2008 at 11:01 am
You can “hope” that Obama will offer class-based instead of race-based AA, but it’ll be an unrequited one. My guess is that he’d just layer over a class-based system on top of the race-based one, so that the poor black kid got the most preference points, the poor latino a few less, and the poor white one even less. And that’s the real best-case scenario here…
Sonny Bunch — June 7, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Hope and change, man…hope and change.
(All I’ve got going for me at this point are Obama’s slogans…)
Sonny Bunch — June 7, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Hope and change, man…hope and change.
(All I’ve got going for me at this point are Obama’s slogans…)
Sonny Bunch — June 7, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Hope and change, man…hope and change.
(All I’ve got going for me at this point are Obama’s slogans…)
Corey — June 8, 2008 at 11:56 pm
The Celtics must be an exception to the defensive 3 seconds rule. They sometimes have 2 or even 3 guys guarding the same guy in the lane. It ruins everything for players like Kobe and Lebron.
Sonny Bunch — June 9, 2008 at 10:10 am
You’re absolutely right. Everyone praises the Celtics’ “switching” on defense, when by “switching” they mean “clogging the lane so no one can drive.” It is absurd.
Christian Toto — June 9, 2008 at 10:51 am
When I read movie reviews in the Friday paper, I typically gloss over the wire reviews and concentrate on the paper’s homegrown critics. I have a relationship with them – and not with the wire folks (not to discredit them). I know their tastes, their style and their opinions. That helps me consider how seriously I should take their views.
Sometimes, it’s helpful to have a critic with whom I regularly disagree – as long as there’s some consistency with his/her approach.
Sonny Bunch — June 9, 2008 at 10:58 am
Exactly. I mean, national critics have their place–as I constantly write, I love Anthony Lane; he’s perfect for the high brow national audience. Owen Gleiberman at EW is a great middlebrow critic. But there’s something to be said for a homegrown critic, and something that’s lost in the rush to consolidation.
Christian Toto — June 9, 2008 at 11:48 am
Yet there’s still a hunger out there for criticism. When I posted my link to my “Iron Man” review at Rotten Tomatoes the hits I got was staggering. People still care about critics … but maybe they’re willing to try online critics as well as print types.
Christian Toto — June 11, 2008 at 9:53 am
This one really caught me off guard. The family dysfunction here is mesmerizing. Clearly, the parents didn’t give their kids the self-worth needed to repudiate their antiquated role models. Yet the director blames our culture all the same for their woes. Tricky terrain, to be sure, but certainly thought provoking through and through.
Sonny Bunch — June 11, 2008 at 4:24 pm
I think there’s an entire movie to be made about Mike Bell and the effect of the celebrity culture on him. Not steroid culture, per se, but him and the failure of his parents to make him realize that being in the big lights isn’t the be all and end all of life. The “American Dream” is not at all what Mike Bell aspires for.
Will — June 12, 2008 at 3:10 pm
So what’s the conservative/libertarian response to the “you can take people out of the hood but not the ‘hood out of the people” problem? I’m not a big fan of massive government mandates, but to me this piece suggests that the only way to deal with persistent poverty is to buff up our early-childhood intervention programs.
I used to think that people would naturally grasp the desirability of obtaining certain beneficial social skills once they were exposed to the right environment, but now I’m not so sure.
Sonny Bunch — June 12, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I don’t think there is one. The government can’t force people to behave like civilized members of society, short of implanting shock collars in recalcitrant criminals or locking up everyone we deem unfit for polite society. I think the real trick here is for liberals to give up on the idea that they can develop a magic bullet to cure poverty and bad behavior by the poor. We could also consider the possibility that it is better to have concentrated pockets of poverty/crime than spreading it all over the place and impacting decent people more than is necessary.
Will — June 12, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I’m willing to accept that poverty may always be part and parcel of the human condition, but what really worries me are the systemic barriers to social mobility that seem to be locked in place for generations.
For years, conservatives have eloquently described how a lack of “social capital” can hamper individual development, and I think this article’s findings confirm a lot of what they’ve been saying. Unfortunately, there hasn’t been much effort to reorient the welfare state around dealing with persistent social deficiencies. I think that’s a better option than consigning our urban poor to crappy inner-city ghettos.
Beth — June 13, 2008 at 11:10 am
The dude isn’t a good actor, but he’s really attractive. I can’t take that away from him.
Will — June 13, 2008 at 1:34 pm
“When you engage in murderous activities outside the conventions of internationally agreed upon warfare, you lose your rights. You shouldn’t gain new ones heretofore never seen by our enemies.”
You lose rights only after you’ve actually been convicted of something. Being picked up by the US military in a confused combat environment isn’t exactly foolproof evidence that you’re a “monster.”
Sonny Bunch — June 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm
The whole concept of “rights” are entirely different in a “combat environment,” however. That’s my point. You shouldn’t get treated like a common criminal when you get caught consorting with terrorists engaging in activities counter to the established conventions of warfare.
Sonny Bunch — June 13, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Y’know, Will, I don’t think I’m being entirely clear here. I should strongly reiterate: holding innocent people in prison indefinitely while charging them with no crime is a bad thing. The military needs to devise a way to figure out who should be held out of military necessity, and who should be released, and they need to devise it quickly.
But giving suspected battlefield terrorists the rights and protections granted in a U.S. civilian court is not the answer. It will almost certainly lead to an excess of terrorists being freed and returned to the battlefield. And it’s a slap in the face towards decades of military jurisprudence. The suspected terrorists will now have more rights than the average captured German officers during World War II. I can’t help but feel that this is a mistake.
Will — June 13, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I agree that terror suspects probably shouldn’t be tried within the same legal framework as prisoners of war. But the court’s decision determined that the pre-trial combatant status review tribunals provided insufficient procedural protections to satisfy habeas corpus.
Maybe I misunderstood the decision, but I don’t think the Supreme Court abolished the entire Military Commissions Act or dictated an alternative legal framework for enemy combatants. Protecting habeas corpus does not provide prisoners with rights equivalent to US civilians, it only satisfies a baseline constitutional requirement.
Christian Toto — June 13, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Wahlberg fascinates me. Audiences either get the good Wahlberg performances (”The Departed,” “Invincible”) or the really awful ones (”The Yards,” “The Italian Job”). He’s got no middle mode …
It’s easy to pin it on his limited range, but perhaps he simply clicks with some directors and doesn’t with others.
Women I know do respond to him in a very visceral way, which should keep him employed for the forseeable future.
Sonny Bunch — June 13, 2008 at 5:06 pm
The problem with your argument is, I think, that no foreign combatants, legal or otherwise, have EVER enjoyed the right to access in American courts. Johnson v. Eisentrager made that pretty clear. So regardless of the reasoning–even if it’s simply to determine their habeas status–we’re granting presumed terrorists more rights than any enemy in the history of our country. This strikes me, in a word, as ludicrous.
Matt S. — June 14, 2008 at 2:05 pm
You should read the essay in the latest Atlantic Monthly on women and work.
Roger — June 16, 2008 at 12:47 am
I read Fantastic Voyage, The Age of Spiritual Machines and The Singularity is Near, and they changed my life. I even found some of his lectures on Itunes and I find myself impatiently awaiting his next book.
Recently read another incredible book that I can’t recommend highly enough, especially to all of you who also love Ray Kurzweil’s work. The book is “”My Stroke of Insight”" by Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor. I had heard Dr Taylor’s talk on the TED dot com site and I have to say, it changed my world. It’s spreading virally all over the internet and the book is now a NYTimes Bestseller, so I’m not the only one, but it is the most amazing talk, and the most impactful book I’ve read in years. (Dr T also was named to Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People and Oprah had her on her Soul Series last month and I hear they’re making a movie about her story so you may already have heard of her)
If you haven’t heard Dr Taylor’s TEDTalk, that’s an absolute must. The book is more and deeper and better, but start with the video (it’s 18 minutes). Basically, her story is that she was a 37 yr old Harvard brain scientist who had a massive stroke in the left hemisphere of her brain. Because of her knowledge of how the brain works, and thanks to her amazingly loving and kind mother, she eventually fully recovered (and that part of the book detailing how she did it is inspirational).
There’s a lot of learning and magic in the book, but the reason I so highly recommend My Stroke of Insight to this discussion, is because we have powerfully intelligent left brains that are rational, logical, sequential and grounded in detail and time, and then we have our kinesthetic right brains, where we experience intuition and peace and euphoria. Now that Kurzweil has got us taking all those vitamins and living our best “”Fantastic Voyage”" , the absolute necessity is that we read My Stroke of Insight and learn from Dr Taylor how to achieve balance between our right and left brains. Enjoy!
KSE — June 16, 2008 at 1:40 pm
“What´s my concern? Not that people will, if ´left to their own devices´, fall into a morass of sinful liberaltarianism. (Or rather, that´s not my political concern.) Consider what lurks at the heart of the conservative fear: that liberaltarian lifestyles are, individually and socially, actually sustainable. Because if that´s so then the whole argument changes, and conservatives suspect, not without reason, that once you go down that road then conservatism degenerates into an argument about tempo and then into an aesthetic argument. And then into a losing argument. How to escape?
Well, you escape by pointing out that liberaltarianism is sustainable socially and individually only by shifting costs onto different institutions for managing those costs. And indeed new costs are piled up. Agony goes down, anxiety goes up, to take just one example. The costs of proving that a child can be raised just as well by preschool daycare as by a mommy and daddy afford another kind of example. The conservative argument ought to be that the costs and institutional management techniques propagated by social and individual liberaltarian lifestyles are unappealing from a utilitarian perspective, unbecoming from a philosophical perspective (Nietzschean or Christian!), and incommensurable with the exercise of true liberty from a political perspective.”
More on this, please!
Paul V — June 18, 2008 at 10:09 am
I voted Hilary Clinton, and only support Hilary Clinton, No matter what Hilary Does suspend her campaign concede her campaign. No matter what Hilary does she could even support Obama and campaign for Obama I will never Vote for Barack Obama, I do think America is ready for a black president, just not Barack Obama,,, The way The Democratic party handle this election with the Corporate Media propaganda the whole election, Turned this election upside down,, Obama could of ran over someone,, like Haley Berry, No one would care and still vote,, Obama..
There several million Voter right now like my self, will not ever vote for Barack Obama, Many like my self will be Voting for McCain, my reason is simple,, the Obama voter came on CNN & MSNBC and said if obama does not win the primary, Obama supporter will vote for McCain, Democratic party did not do anything to the obama camp to stop ,, why is obama party splitting the party in half, Now pelosi and many other are blaming Hilary and kept on with the propaganda Corporate Media, Obama Said on the new so many time,, does not Matter, if your Democrat or Republican,, you want the right person for the right Job,, He is so right,,when He said that we wanted Hilary,, Well Congrats to Obama his supporter got him to the primary,,,but He will never win the election,, for President, I will not stop with my blogging,, who is the best man for the job between Barack & McCain,, will vote for McCain he will be way better than Barack Obama, I can put up for McCain for 4 years and Hilary Can run again, Pelosi and the rest of the democrat party,, days are number at this point, For pushing Hilary out and ruining her Career, Even now During Clinton Exit speech,, Democratic party Told Hilary if she does not back there little puppet Barack Obama they will ruin her career,, In my opinion They all ready Ruined Hilary Clinton Career, Right Now I am going listen to one thing Barack Obama said, and that is, like I said, it does not matter if your Democrat or republican who is the right person for the job,,,, Hillary supporter need to stick together, Vote for McCain or just not vote for we need the right person,,, Hilary is up on stage right now saying what pelosi and the democratic party are telling her what to do,, or Economy is down and the way the propaganda Media is,, we are turning into a 3rd world country,, by rigging the election thru the media, Hilary Supporter who really want Hilary to be president Need to vote for McCain or just not Vote for Barack Obama, let McCain win,, there nothing more he can do as president, Congress will not let him it Congress who controls everything,, not the president, Pelosi and the a lot of the democratic party ruined Hilary Career, If all Hilary Voter, stick together, than We can restore Hilary Career and make her President, in 4 years. if you vote for Obama we have to wait maybe 8 years or 4 years and republican will be office, if Obama wins the presidency he will only be 4 year term,,, I say give all your supporter not to the democratic party, but to Hilary Clinton.. democratic party needs all of them need to leave office and get fresh people in there, who can unite the party not keep it separated and force unity, to who they want not who the voter want,, Hilary would of won this election, DNC screwed her with Florida and Michigan if those vote were counted at the beginning she would of won this race along time ago..and for the sexist Media, Like CNN & MSNBC… will continue to not report the new but Make it up as they see fit, All Hilary supporter need to unit together.. and stick together,, Margaret Thatcher was prime Minister 30 years ago,, but American Men and New Bias, is keeping woman down for personal gain, Like Keith Oberman, & Chris Mathews Who are the biggest Sexist on this MSNBC stations
Paulidan — June 18, 2008 at 9:02 pm
And never mind that the vast majority of emissions come from coal powered plants.
Solving that would require liberals to overcome their deep seated fear of physics and actual learn what a nuclear reactor is and why its the safest, cleanest form of electricity,
KSE — June 19, 2008 at 11:18 am
“I know I have to be very careful to admit that wealth, longevity, and happiness are not trivialities. But they certainly and unquestionably depend upon a great collective appreciation for trivialities — a commitment to living in a relatively very trivial society.”
Yes!
I imagine the counterargument would go something like this: Our society may be trivial, but at least we’re not killing each other. It’s the “sentimental moralist’s” obsession with “thick identities” and “meaning” that is responsible for cultural conflict. And at the root of this obsession is an inability to identify, scrutinize and overcome our natural inclination toward our own, the wonderful feeling of bringing forth new life, etc.
I happen to think that the defender of this trivial society is seriously underestimating the (also natural) human inclination toward novelty. There are only so many things you can throw in an omelette. And when you’re not committed to your “rites” for any other reason than because they’re new and interesting, boredom, restlessness, anxiety, etc. will follow. I myself might be seriously underestimating our ability to combine cultures creatively, but the way I see it boredom is itself a path to conflict.
James — June 19, 2008 at 12:49 pm
And what could be whiter than that?
Gil Smart — June 19, 2008 at 1:00 pm
The argument for “radical change” wouldn’t be nearly as straightforward as you’re supposing, though. I mean, I agree with you that that caps or some other big government solution will have a negligible effect, and even then years down the road.
At the same time, I think the issue of global warming/climate change is in the process of becoming a much bigger issue for Americans – especially those, right now, who live along the Mississippi and are wondering whether the devastation coming their way might in some way be connnected. Which, some suggest, it might.
As we have more Katrinas, more Iowa Cities (and not coincidentally more people watching the Weather Channel) the sense that the weather/environment is doing really strange things and we might, you know, want to do something about it will grow. That doesn’t necessarily translate into support for the big governmental solution, and hopefull will translate more into individual action.
Sonny Bunch — June 19, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Paulidan: You’re right, nuclear power would be a great thing to get started on. I’m fully in favor of dotting the landscape with nuclear power plants in an attempt to reduce emissions and cheapen energy.
Gil: I think the American people realize that Katrina and Iowa City weren’t caused by “climate change,” or “global warming.” Katrina was a category 3 hurricane that managed to hit New Orleans dead on and take out an outdated, broken down levee system left vulnerable by decades of corruption at the state and local level. Iowa City is a different case altogether, a 100 year flood. But even then, I think people realize that these things happen.
I don’t know, maybe I’m just overestimating the intelligence of the general populace, but I think that if, after a decade of indoctrination about the evils of global warming/climate change from the mainstream media, the American people STILL consider it only the 7th most important issue of the day, they’re never going to change their mind on their own. And, even if they did, let’s be honest: individual action doesn’t mean much without massive industrial change, change that won’t occur without government mandates.
Arthur — June 19, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Any chance of consensus here?
What about a program that would involve subsidizing wind, solar, and nuclear? Given the increasing price of both coal and natural gas, wind, solar, and nuclear are becoming relatively cheaper sources of energy.
What about discouraging the construction of coal-fired power plants in favor of nuclear ones?
What about spending money subsidizing mass transit, which more and more people want anyway, given that gas prices are going through the roof?
There are a lot of politically palatable,
even popular, partial ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
By the way, people are beginning to move away from the suburbs to central cities and inner suburbs? Why? Because of the increasing price of gasoline. No central planning here–just the free market at work.
Arthur — June 19, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Sorry, the 1st sentence of the last paragraph should be a declaration, not a question.
Gil Smart — June 19, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Actually Sonny, what we’ve seen in Iowa a 500-year floods. The Sioux didn’t see these type of floods; we have.
NOAA itself (and if I knew how to embed a link here I would so bear with me) says here:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/default.php
…that weather “extremes and their associated impacts are now changing” – becoming more severe. We can debate why that might be happening, but my point is that people turn on the news and see the flooding in Iowa; as Andrew Freedman noted a few weeks back at the WaPo’s Capital Weather Gang blog, “even typically storm-hardy residents of tornado-prone areas of the country have begun asking: what is going on?”
A lot of people are asking, “What is going on?”
It seems that what you’re saying is that IF something is going on (realizing you’re not conceding that point), then we’re simply screwed. Governmental action is too burdensome to the economy, individual action insufficient to make a dent.
Sonny Bunch — June 19, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Arthur: Like I said, I’m totally in favor of pushing for more nuclear power. I’m less convinced of the feasibility of wind/solar power, but hey, if it works, great. I don’t think anyone opposes reducing greenhouse emissions–what people oppose is ruining the economy to do so. Cleaner energy is better than energy reduction, which is the real-life effect of plans like Kyoto.
Gil: I agree the floods are bad (I’ve even blogged something to that effect!) but I don’t think there’s any evidence that global warming/climate change is the culprit. It’s just easy to yell “climate change!!” when something weird happens weather-wise.
But let’s, for a moment, hypothetically say climate change is occurring. My most likely reaction would probably be something along the lines of: Okay, we’ll adapt. We’ll try to reduce emissions, but it doesn’t make any sense to do so in a radical way because global warming has pluses as well as minuses. More farmland, fewer hurricanes, less brutal winters–good comes along with the bad. We humans are a pretty resilient people. We’ve survived ice ages, and I’d bet we can survive heat ages (for lack of a better term) as well.
orogeny — June 19, 2008 at 3:36 pm
This is just one more example of “conservatives” crying wolf whenever a change in our economic habits is required. When the Clean Air was passed conservatives and Big Business screamed that it would bankrupt our society. The Clean Water act was supposed to wipe out the economy. CAFE standards would destroy the auto industry. Doing away with chlorofluorocarbons was going to make AC so expensive that no one could afford it. Doing what is necessary to reduce our carbon emissions will be expensive for some industries. It will cause economic hardship for some. But, for every industry that suffers, there will be a new industry that benefits. Employment will go down in the polluting industries thtt cannot or will not adapt, but will skyrocket in those that do. Industries producing or taking advantage of new, non-polluting technologies will prosper and eventually take the place of those dinosaurs that cannot adapt. In the long run, the world economy will be better off for the changes that we must make to address this issue.
Will — June 19, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I don’t get your calculus here:
“Putin wants to put Russia back on the map, extorting the West with threats of withholding oil and bullying the former satellites of the USSR into accepting its hegemony. Would a new Cold War be a good thing? Probably not. But it’s preferable to letting an autocratic Russia push around our putative allies in the former Eastern bloc.”
While it may not be ideal to concede Russia a hazy sphere of regional influence, isn’t that preferable to reigniting a cold war that risks global nuclear annihilation?
Maybe that’s hyperbolic, but I don’t really understand why confronting Russia over issues like Georgia’s territorial sovereignty enhances vital US national interests. The biggest problem I have with your hawkish foreign policy perspective is that it seems to assume that countries like Russia are aggressively revisionist. I think Russia wants greater freedom of action in its near-abroad and more international influence, but I doubt its leadership is intent on challenging US primacy. Putin has certainly been more assertive than his immediate predecessors, but his ambitions seem positively modest when compared to, say, the Romanovs or the Politburo.
Will — June 19, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I don’t get your calculus here:
“Putin wants to put Russia back on the map, extorting the West with threats of withholding oil and bullying the former satellites of the USSR into accepting its hegemony. Would a new Cold War be a good thing? Probably not. But it’s preferable to letting an autocratic Russia push around our putative allies in the former Eastern bloc.”
While it may not be ideal to concede Russia a hazy sphere of regional influence, isn’t that preferable to reigniting a cold war that risks global nuclear annihilation?
Maybe that’s hyperbolic, but I don’t really understand why confronting Russia over issues like Georgia’s territorial sovereignty enhances vital US national interests. The biggest problem I have with your hawkish foreign policy perspective is that it seems to assume that countries like Russia are aggressively revisionist. I think Russia wants greater freedom of action in its near-abroad and more international influence, but I doubt its leadership is intent on challenging US primacy. Putin has certainly been more assertive than his immediate predecessors, but his ambitions seem positively modest when compared to, say, the Romanovs or the Politburo.
Will — June 19, 2008 at 4:13 pm
I don’t get your calculus here:
“Putin wants to put Russia back on the map, extorting the West with threats of withholding oil and bullying the former satellites of the USSR into accepting its hegemony. Would a new Cold War be a good thing? Probably not. But it’s preferable to letting an autocratic Russia push around our putative allies in the former Eastern bloc.”
While it may not be ideal to concede Russia a hazy sphere of regional influence, isn’t that preferable to reigniting a cold war that risks global nuclear annihilation?
Maybe that’s hyperbolic, but I don’t really understand why confronting Russia over issues like Georgia’s territorial sovereignty enhances vital US national interests. The biggest problem I have with your hawkish foreign policy perspective is that it seems to assume that countries like Russia are aggressively revisionist. I think Russia wants greater freedom of action in its near-abroad and more international influence, but I doubt its leadership is intent on challenging US primacy. Putin has certainly been more assertive than his immediate predecessors, but his ambitions seem positively modest when compared to, say, the Romanovs or the Politburo.
jason — June 19, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Despite the propoganda by interested party, Global Warming is not at a stage that is changing weather patterns. When you look at the data, Katrina was not the result of Global Warming – it was the result of bad engineering and badly maintained levees. The amount of theorized global warming at present is not enough to support these conclusions. In 30 years? Maybe. Now? Absolutely not.
It’s “Sadaam’s got WMDs” all over again, but in an environmental form.
Nukes with solar power incentives for long term energy needs. More efficient cars for gas, but until then DRILL.
John Ryden — June 19, 2008 at 5:37 pm
We can’t just abruptly stop using fossil fuels. The economic damage to our economy would not justify the future savings from reduced global warming (Present Value of Future Costs vs. Present Cost). What we should do is have a national energy plan that reduces carbon emissions over time as substitute clean energy sources are developed. We should also look at reducing the most polluting energy sources like coal while continuing to develop cleaner sources like natural gas and oil.
To say it is better to just buy foreign oil is wrong because of the damage that does to our foreign trade balance and value of the dollar. Environmentalists would be better off if the US would take the lead on global warming with rational policies and a strong economy to go along with it. Imagine if we just shut down all of the American industry that causes a lot of carbon emissions. Wouldn’t that reduce global warming a therefore be a good thing? Maybe not! In addition to destroying millions of US jobs, the production might move to a country like China that produces 4 times as much carbon for each unit of output as we do. That would actually make global warming worse. If we restrict drilling here, we could just buy more oil from Canadian tar sands. That again makes the global warming problem worse. A lot of environmentalists are good intentioned, but many times what seems like a straight forward answer to the global warming problem will actually make the problem worse. I discuss many of the economic issues related to global warming on my website: examiner.com/x-325-Global-Warming-Examiner
Arthur — June 20, 2008 at 4:25 am
Wind, by the way, is really taking off. Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens (about the last person on planet earth one would suspect of being motivated by sentimental environmentalism) has been investing very heavily in wind turbines. Nationally, the number of windmill projects is surging as people see an opportunity to make money. Just because a form of energy generation is relatively green doesn’t mean that it is unprofitable.
Climate change can very severely affect the food supply. A lot of fish species, for example, only thrive in cold water. (Cold water is much more oxygen-rich than warm water, and many fish species will only do well in cold water). If the oceans warm up, their populations will fall, with negative consequences for fisheries around the world.
No one is talking about centralized planning requiring people to live close to central cities. The suburbs (at least those that are located far away from public transportation) are entering a long period of decline, while central cities, inner suburbs, and suburbs located on rail lines will experience a boom.
No central planner is making this happen, and, as a matter of fact, American population patterns are merely returning to their pre-World War I arrangement. Before the advent of cheap gas, cheap cars, and massive local, state, and federal spending on roads and highways (e.g. the massive increase in highway spending during the Eisenhower era), Americans who didn’t live in small towns or farms lived in densely-packed cities or in suburbs that were connected to central cities by electric trolleys. Few people drove to work, but either walked or took the trolley.
As a result, population densities in cities, such as St. Louis, were much higher than they were today. We can expect a return to urban layouts of a century ago–and this change will largely come as a result of market scarcities–the high price of gasoline.
By the way, the expansion of the suburbs is, in part, a result of centralized planning–one of the reasons that people take cars to work is that they collectively have decided to spend huge amounts of money at the state, local, and federal level on developing a first-rate road and highway system. The boom in suburbia after world war II is largely due to cheap fuel and cheap cars, but is also in part the result of a deliberate decision by governments to spend taxpayer money on roads.
Sonny Bunch — June 20, 2008 at 10:52 am
But Putin doesn’t want Russia to be a regional player; Putin wants Russia to be a global player using petrodollars to push smaller countries–our allies–and us around. I agree that it’s probably not worth pointing nukes at Moscow over Georgia, but it’s not going to end there. Give a would-be tyrant an inch…
Sonny Bunch — June 20, 2008 at 10:52 am
But Putin doesn’t want Russia to be a regional player; Putin wants Russia to be a global player using petrodollars to push smaller countries–our allies–and us around. I agree that it’s probably not worth pointing nukes at Moscow over Georgia, but it’s not going to end there. Give a would-be tyrant an inch…
Sonny Bunch — June 20, 2008 at 10:52 am
But Putin doesn’t want Russia to be a regional player; Putin wants Russia to be a global player using petrodollars to push smaller countries–our allies–and us around. I agree that it’s probably not worth pointing nukes at Moscow over Georgia, but it’s not going to end there. Give a would-be tyrant an inch…
Will — June 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Two points:
1.) It’s reasonable (from an amoral realist’s perspective) to assume that certain large countries aspire to a regional sphere of influence. Given Russia’s authoritarian tendencies, this may be an unfortunate consequence of power politics, but it doesn’t signal the dawn of a new Cold War. The fact that Russia might object to US meddling in Georgia does not mean Putin is entertaining revanchist fantasies of reconquering Central Europe.
2.) Does Russia even have the capacity to be a global player anymore? Its military is hollowed out, its economy is entirely dependent on a single commodity, and its vast expanses have been largely depopulated. Even if Putin aspires to global dominance, there are certain pragmatic constraints that check aggressive revisionism.
An aggressively revisionist regime would have to posses both the means to challenge the status quo (ie a competent military, vibrant economy etc.) and the drive to acquire more territory/prestige/resources/whatever. There’s no indication that Russia’s leadership has cleared either hurdle.
Will — June 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Two points:
1.) It’s reasonable (from an amoral realist’s perspective) to assume that certain large countries aspire to a regional sphere of influence. Given Russia’s authoritarian tendencies, this may be an unfortunate consequence of power politics, but it doesn’t signal the dawn of a new Cold War. The fact that Russia might object to US meddling in Georgia does not mean Putin is entertaining revanchist fantasies of reconquering Central Europe.
2.) Does Russia even have the capacity to be a global player anymore? Its military is hollowed out, its economy is entirely dependent on a single commodity, and its vast expanses have been largely depopulated. Even if Putin aspires to global dominance, there are certain pragmatic constraints that check aggressive revisionism.
An aggressively revisionist regime would have to posses both the means to challenge the status quo (ie a competent military, vibrant economy etc.) and the drive to acquire more territory/prestige/resources/whatever. There’s no indication that Russia’s leadership has cleared either hurdle.
Will — June 20, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Two points:
1.) It’s reasonable (from an amoral realist’s perspective) to assume that certain large countries aspire to a regional sphere of influence. Given Russia’s authoritarian tendencies, this may be an unfortunate consequence of power politics, but it doesn’t signal the dawn of a new Cold War. The fact that Russia might object to US meddling in Georgia does not mean Putin is entertaining revanchist fantasies of reconquering Central Europe.
2.) Does Russia even have the capacity to be a global player anymore? Its military is hollowed out, its economy is entirely dependent on a single commodity, and its vast expanses have been largely depopulated. Even if Putin aspires to global dominance, there are certain pragmatic constraints that check aggressive revisionism.
An aggressively revisionist regime would have to posses both the means to challenge the status quo (ie a competent military, vibrant economy etc.) and the drive to acquire more territory/prestige/resources/whatever. There’s no indication that Russia’s leadership has cleared either hurdle.
Jack Bauer — June 21, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“the sooner his star burns out at MSNBC, the better.”
Oh, I think it’ll be more of an mega-explosion rather than a burn-out. Maybe his head.. live on air would be good too.
Preening, stupid, and vindictive. Yep, he’s the Captain Hook of the fake-news biz.
Jack Bauer — June 21, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“the sooner his star burns out at MSNBC, the better.”
Oh, I think it’ll be more of an mega-explosion rather than a burn-out. Maybe his head.. live on air would be good too.
Preening, stupid, and vindictive. Yep, he’s the Captain Hook of the fake-news biz.
Jack Bauer — June 21, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“the sooner his star burns out at MSNBC, the better.”
Oh, I think it’ll be more of an mega-explosion rather than a burn-out. Maybe his head.. live on air would be good too.
Preening, stupid, and vindictive. Yep, he’s the Captain Hook of the fake-news biz.
Reggie — June 21, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“Maybe his head.. live on air would be good too.”
Just like the movie “scanners”. I can see that happening. Somebody at MSNBC should play a practical joke on him and announce that Bill O’Reilly has just been chosen Russert’s successor. That would probably do the trick.
Reggie — June 21, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“Maybe his head.. live on air would be good too.”
Just like the movie “scanners”. I can see that happening. Somebody at MSNBC should play a practical joke on him and announce that Bill O’Reilly has just been chosen Russert’s successor. That would probably do the trick.
Reggie — June 21, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“Maybe his head.. live on air would be good too.”
Just like the movie “scanners”. I can see that happening. Somebody at MSNBC should play a practical joke on him and announce that Bill O’Reilly has just been chosen Russert’s successor. That would probably do the trick.
J. Weiss — June 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Shame on you!
Olbermann publicly denounced that rumor. You’re not paying attention.
J. Weiss — June 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Shame on you!
Olbermann publicly denounced that rumor. You’re not paying attention.
J. Weiss — June 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Shame on you!
Olbermann publicly denounced that rumor. You’re not paying attention.
Jack Bauer — June 21, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“Somebody at MSNBC should play a practical joke on him and announce that Bill O’Reilly has just been chosen Russert’s successor. ”
Ho ho. And tell him he has to kiss the ring on BOR’s finger — like the final scene in The Godfather with Michael Corleone.
Jack Bauer — June 21, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“Somebody at MSNBC should play a practical joke on him and announce that Bill O’Reilly has just been chosen Russert’s successor. ”
Ho ho. And tell him he has to kiss the ring on BOR’s finger — like the final scene in The Godfather with Michael Corleone.
Jack Bauer — June 21, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“Somebody at MSNBC should play a practical joke on him and announce that Bill O’Reilly has just been chosen Russert’s successor. ”
Ho ho. And tell him he has to kiss the ring on BOR’s finger — like the final scene in The Godfather with Michael Corleone.
Michele — June 22, 2008 at 12:23 am
To quote Al Franken. KO is “A Big Fat Idiot”..
Michele — June 22, 2008 at 12:23 am
To quote Al Franken. KO is “A Big Fat Idiot”..
Michele — June 22, 2008 at 12:23 am
To quote Al Franken. KO is “A Big Fat Idiot”..
Scott — June 22, 2008 at 12:39 am
Darn funny, Reggie and Jack. Although I have to admit, I’m not sure about this story’s accuracy.
Scott — June 22, 2008 at 12:39 am
Darn funny, Reggie and Jack. Although I have to admit, I’m not sure about this story’s accuracy.
Scott — June 22, 2008 at 12:39 am
Darn funny, Reggie and Jack. Although I have to admit, I’m not sure about this story’s accuracy.
regdunlop — June 22, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Wow, J. Weiss, Olbermann denied an unflattering report about himself!! It’s obviously false!! End Of Story!! EDWARD R. MURROW WOULD BE ASHAMED, SIR!!! SHUT THE HELL UP, SIR!!!
regdunlop — June 22, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Wow, J. Weiss, Olbermann denied an unflattering report about himself!! It’s obviously false!! End Of Story!! EDWARD R. MURROW WOULD BE ASHAMED, SIR!!! SHUT THE HELL UP, SIR!!!
regdunlop — June 22, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Wow, J. Weiss, Olbermann denied an unflattering report about himself!! It’s obviously false!! End Of Story!! EDWARD R. MURROW WOULD BE ASHAMED, SIR!!! SHUT THE HELL UP, SIR!!!
Sonny Bunch — June 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Scott: You know, I kind of doubt the accuracy of the story as well (I mean, it is Page Six, after all). But it’s telling that most people are more than willing to believe Olbermann would do something like this. It’s great stuff.
Sonny Bunch — June 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Scott: You know, I kind of doubt the accuracy of the story as well (I mean, it is Page Six, after all). But it’s telling that most people are more than willing to believe Olbermann would do something like this. It’s great stuff.
Sonny Bunch — June 22, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Scott: You know, I kind of doubt the accuracy of the story as well (I mean, it is Page Six, after all). But it’s telling that most people are more than willing to believe Olbermann would do something like this. It’s great stuff.
Kendrick — June 22, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I hope your head blows up, bitch.
Olbermann is a badass. Bill O’whatever isn’t shit.
Kendrick — June 22, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I hope your head blows up, bitch.
Olbermann is a badass. Bill O’whatever isn’t shit.
Kendrick — June 22, 2008 at 9:18 pm
I hope your head blows up, bitch.
Olbermann is a badass. Bill O’whatever isn’t shit.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Um, Kendrick, O’Reilly kicks Olbytard, CNN and HLN combined.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Um, Kendrick, O’Reilly kicks Olbytard, CNN and HLN combined.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Um, Kendrick, O’Reilly kicks Olbytard, CNN and HLN combined.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Olbytard won’t quit MSNBC because he has nowhere else to go. He is the only idiot stupid enough to take the job and think he can beat O’Reilly and he is too stupid to see he is a sacrificial lamb laid at the feet of the great O’Reilly every night.
I wouldn’t believe a word out of Olbytard’s mouth. He is a liar. He has reported night after night on things that have never been proven. Simply saying Goerge Bush lied or he is stonewalling may cut it with a moron but not me.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Olbytard won’t quit MSNBC because he has nowhere else to go. He is the only idiot stupid enough to take the job and think he can beat O’Reilly and he is too stupid to see he is a sacrificial lamb laid at the feet of the great O’Reilly every night.
I wouldn’t believe a word out of Olbytard’s mouth. He is a liar. He has reported night after night on things that have never been proven. Simply saying Goerge Bush lied or he is stonewalling may cut it with a moron but not me.
Brick — June 23, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Olbytard won’t quit MSNBC because he has nowhere else to go. He is the only idiot stupid enough to take the job and think he can beat O’Reilly and he is too stupid to see he is a sacrificial lamb laid at the feet of the great O’Reilly every night.
I wouldn’t believe a word out of Olbytard’s mouth. He is a liar. He has reported night after night on things that have never been proven. Simply saying Goerge Bush lied or he is stonewalling may cut it with a moron but not me.
Joe — June 23, 2008 at 3:05 pm
The idea of betting on a player winning golf’s Grand Slam is a draw unto itself. It’s the satisfaction of saying, hey, I called that, which moves beyond the realm of either markets or rational betting thought.
Consider the Giant fans who last August deemed the blue clad heroes worthy of a C-note wager to win the Super Bowl. Surely few of them looked at the team and declared that without top rusher from 2006, the Giants were the team to beat. Yet they bet. For loyalty, for pride, for the hell of it. I can’t say which. But I would say the inclination of golf fans is to bet on the least probable because it is historic and carries a psychic reward who monetary value is immeasurable. Perhaps these are the purchases Mastercard has been advocating? Winning at Augusta: $1.35 million.
Winning the US Open: $1.26 million
Winning the British Open: £720,000
Winning the PGA: $1.26 million
Actually betting that Tiger would do it the year he finally does it: Priceless
Sonny Bunch — June 23, 2008 at 4:00 pm
I mean, that’s fair enough, but is it really enough to induce someone to only get 3:1 odds on predicting an event that has, literally, never happened before? It kind of blows my mind that anyone would take that action. Needless to say, the original friend (the one who placed the bet), claimed to be hammered when he took the action. I don’t blame him.
Joe — June 23, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I’ll say yes. But, I would also expect that a good deal of the action is of the alcohol induced variety. Such as what your aforementioned friend described.
FYI, JVL sent me this way shortly after you got started. I appreciate the quality of the writing and the sense of humor. Just in case you want demographics and referral info on one of your readers.
All the best,
Joe
Sonny Bunch — June 23, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Thanks, I appreciate the kind words. I’ll have to buy JVL a case of Honest Tea for sending so much traffic my way…
Sonny Bunch — June 23, 2008 at 7:49 pm
So, I responded over over at my joint, but I did want to ask one question I forgot to raise: Do you think that the American officials in questions are “despots, cranks, and scumbags”? Because you seem to be unworried about our people not being brought up on charges because it’s bad for the abstract idea of “international law,” and not because they’re unworthy targets of prosecution.
Senescent — June 24, 2008 at 6:42 am
But a big part of the new self-consciousness is being able to admit that, in fact, you are a statistic, right?
v magyar — June 26, 2008 at 11:18 am
So, is everyone shopping yet?
vmb
Christian Toto — June 27, 2008 at 11:12 am
You’ve nailed the million-dollar question:
“I mean, what do you even do about this? ”
You can’t legislate being a good parent. It’s up to subtle forces, like peer pressure, to put a dent in the massive problem of negligent parenting. But peer pressure vs. a tide of awful parents? It’s a mismatch
Christian Toto — June 27, 2008 at 11:12 am
You’ve nailed the million-dollar question:
“I mean, what do you even do about this? ”
You can’t legislate being a good parent. It’s up to subtle forces, like peer pressure, to put a dent in the massive problem of negligent parenting. But peer pressure vs. a tide of awful parents? It’s a mismatch
Christian Toto — June 27, 2008 at 11:12 am
You’ve nailed the million-dollar question:
“I mean, what do you even do about this? ”
You can’t legislate being a good parent. It’s up to subtle forces, like peer pressure, to put a dent in the massive problem of negligent parenting. But peer pressure vs. a tide of awful parents? It’s a mismatch
Mitch — June 27, 2008 at 5:58 pm
What’s the point of this? Do you like Carlin and Apatow? Or hate them? Or like one and not the other?
Christian Toto — June 27, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I suspect some liberal minded critics don’t bend over backwards to assess films without their own biases leaking in — that would explain the constant raves for Michael Moore’s deeply flawed documentaries.
The “War, Inc.” review assignment … arguably the ultimate test for a right-leaning film critic. I still wanna see it though … bad reviews always make me curious.
Sonny Bunch — June 28, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I think most liberal critics willfully blind themselves to make films fit into their world view/preconceived notions. You remember last year when Dana Stevens and Ross Douthat were going back and forth over ‘Knocked Up’? Stevens said the movie never addresses abortion, which, as Ross pointed out, was a bizarrely ignorant comment. She needed to block out the “smushsmortion”/”take care of it” debate because she wanted to make a wider, feminist point about the fact that knuckledraggers have made abortion an outlaw topic. A lot of liberal reviewers are like that…they praise films like ‘War, Inc.’ for their “bravery,” as if it’s a critical or professional risk to make an anti-war, anti-Bush film.
Christian Toto — June 28, 2008 at 3:45 pm
I hear the word “brave’ uttered by a film critic or an actor and I head for the hills … firemen are brave; making an anti-war film or playing ugly on screen is a career boost.
Senescent — June 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
So what would we get out of resolving this tension that makes it worthwhile to other?
Senescent — June 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
So what would we get out of resolving this tension that makes it worthwhile to other?
Senescent — June 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Gah. Bother.
Senescent — June 29, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Gah. Bother.
Terry — June 30, 2008 at 12:09 am
I get it. I was born in 1950. The point is the current lack of comedic muscularity. Carlin for all his hipness was never metrosexual.
steve — June 30, 2008 at 10:30 am
One of the tenets of fundamentalism is control of all aspects of a person’s life. From that POV, this kind of stuff makes sense. Islam does the same kind of stuff. The Orthodox make it clear that only PIV sex (their term) is acceptable. For Christians, none of this is in the Bible. It is all added on stuff legitimized by tradition or some convoluted reasoning.
Steve
Shoals — June 30, 2008 at 4:18 pm
God, can you imagine Tim Russert being replaced by this idiot. Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who run NBC!!!
Shoals — June 30, 2008 at 4:18 pm
God, can you imagine Tim Russert being replaced by this idiot. Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who run NBC!!!
Shoals — June 30, 2008 at 4:18 pm
God, can you imagine Tim Russert being replaced by this idiot. Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who run NBC!!!
Doc — June 30, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Talking, touching, holding, singing, eye contact . . . are all good ways to achieve optimal oxytocin levels because they urge the body and the mind to support its own oxytocin release. Even still, building trusting relationships is a process and is not something that takes place within a few moments in time or is limited to happening within a certain time period. It is quite possible that you may not even know it is happening until you experience that first smile or other unique cue, and respond appropriately. For that reason I use this sub-lingual homeopathic oxytocin accelerator. I find that it really supports these behaviors and helps me to feel more. Here is a Url to read more about it. http://www.oxy-tocin.com/
Doc — June 30, 2008 at 8:45 pm
Talking, touching, holding, singing, eye contact . . . are all good ways to achieve optimal oxytocin levels because they urge the body and the mind to support its own oxytocin release. Even still, building trusting relationships is a process and is not something that takes place within a few moments in time or is limited to happening within a certain time period. It is quite possible that you may not even know it is happening until you experience that first smile or other unique cue, and respond appropriately. For that reason I use this sub-lingual homeopathic oxytocin accelerator. I find that it really supports these behaviors and helps me to feel more. Here is a Url to read more about it. http://www.oxy-tocin.com/
Bryan — July 2, 2008 at 5:50 am
The movie, almost, seems like an Obama campaign ad. Who is the candidate that is going to change America’s image?
Matt Frost — July 3, 2008 at 1:37 pm
At risk of pedantry, a rabbit punch to the gut is an oxymoron — like a gut-punch to the neck.
Christian Toto — July 3, 2008 at 5:07 pm
I gave WALL*E a mixed review and got slammed for it. My beef isn’t with its politics – they are what they are and a film critic should note them and then move on – but the film simply didn’t entertain me down the stretch.
I suppose it’s possible some righty film critics took major points away for its message, but it’s also possible many lefty critics looked past its flaws for that very reason.
Sean Hackbarth — July 3, 2008 at 5:27 pm
What those promoting energy conservation fail to realize is basic physics. An economy is about turning raw materials into goods and services people want to buy. To do that we must organize atoms to produce those goods and services. Steel has to be made from iron and coal only to be shaped into cars. Sand must be converted into silicon computer chips to power the accountants, bankers, and websites. That requires energy. The more goods and services we want the more atoms we need to move and the more energy we need to expend.
Conservation has its place, but it’s more an engineering and efficiency question. With an increasing population and their unlimited wants conservation will not get us out of our energy bind.
Sean Hackbarth — July 3, 2008 at 5:27 pm
What those promoting energy conservation fail to realize is basic physics. An economy is about turning raw materials into goods and services people want to buy. To do that we must organize atoms to produce those goods and services. Steel has to be made from iron and coal only to be shaped into cars. Sand must be converted into silicon computer chips to power the accountants, bankers, and websites. That requires energy. The more goods and services we want the more atoms we need to move and the more energy we need to expend.
Conservation has its place, but it’s more an engineering and efficiency question. With an increasing population and their unlimited wants conservation will not get us out of our energy bind.
Sean Hackbarth — July 3, 2008 at 5:27 pm
What those promoting energy conservation fail to realize is basic physics. An economy is about turning raw materials into goods and services people want to buy. To do that we must organize atoms to produce those goods and services. Steel has to be made from iron and coal only to be shaped into cars. Sand must be converted into silicon computer chips to power the accountants, bankers, and websites. That requires energy. The more goods and services we want the more atoms we need to move and the more energy we need to expend.
Conservation has its place, but it’s more an engineering and efficiency question. With an increasing population and their unlimited wants conservation will not get us out of our energy bind.
steve — July 4, 2008 at 9:38 am
So the question in my mind would be “Is it possible for an old Cold War warrior like McCain to play nice with Russia?” McCain seems to pretty clearly believe in American exceptionalism. He may not be able to accept Russia as a necessary partner. Obama, as is typical of Democrats, is feeling the need to posture as a “tough guy”. Hard to make a call here.
Steve
Sonny Bunch — July 4, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Yeah, I was actually pretty surprised how vehement the reaction against your review was (especially considering it was pretty mixed and not forthrightly negative). That being said: The movie was kind of awesome. Easily my favorite of the Pixar films.
Shannon — July 7, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Don’t take ‘widening’ so literally. Highway officials in southern california found an easy solution to add more lanes to the Harbor Freeway (110) south from downtown Los Angeles:
http://cjw.id.au/WordPress/?p=37
JohnMcC — July 7, 2008 at 4:47 pm
You don’t have enough imagination!! Add a 2d story. That’s even better than widening a freeway because you get to pour billions of yards of concrete and buy millions of tons of re-bar (after bidding for it against the Chinese). That’s how a real-by-God-conservative would do it. Seriously–here in St Petersburg that is the plan for Gandy Blvd, one of the Tampa-St Pete connectors. To make it even bigger and…well…bigger, it’s built over a bridge. Which will require rebuilding from it’s footings. Very very manly conservatives down here. Why do you hate America? You and your girly mass transit.
Sonny Bunch — July 7, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Shannon: I’m actually intrigued by the concept of elevated freeways running over regular freeways, but the idea strikes me as a massive death toll waiting to happen in an earthquake-prone place like California.
John: Mass transit is in fact girly, but it’s so convenient! I love convenience. It’s probably due to the laziness.
moqui — July 7, 2008 at 7:38 pm
They are widening the 405 in my neighborhood (Brentwood Glen, in West LA) as we speak.
So easy to wave a magic wand and dismiss ideas as “unworkable”
Mike — July 7, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I think you give these people too much credit. If you’ve been living outside the Beltway you know that there’s plenty of highway widening going on everywhere; for example, the main street of my neighborhood in Florida was 2 lanes 30 years ago and now its 8.
What good has it done?
1. Outer suburbs easier to get to, so more outer suburban development, leading to longer commutes, leading to more poverty as fuel prices rise;
and
2. Also leading to more money spent on oil (al-Qaeda says thanks).
And the original excuse for it all (reducing congestion) is pretty much a lie. When fuel was cheap, the roads got clogged as soon as they get built or widened, because the new development in the outer suburbs meant that more traffic went to those suburbs. And now that fuel is expensive, people are going to be driving less so congestion is a distinctly lower priority.
Sonny Bunch — July 7, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Moqui: It is easy! I should do that more often. For the record: I don’t think lane widening is impossible, in DC or elsewhere. It can certainly be done–in some cases easily, in some cases with massive invocation of eminent domain and years of backups due to construction before the benefits are realized. All I was saying is that some details would be nice…details, to be fair, that Ross and Reihan didn’t have room/time to address in their book.
Mike: I think you’re basically right that widening the lanes won’t solve the underlying problem. This is why I said I favor developing some sort of rail system. (Of course, I don’t have the details handy I clamor so loudly for…but then again, I’m a blogger! I’m allowed to pontificate without any deeper knowledge than “Someone oughta…”)
Michael — July 7, 2008 at 10:27 pm
How moronic! Did it ever occur to you and your up-and-coming DC yuppies NOT to live in Stafford County, or Fredeick County, etc.
You decide your lifestyle requires working in DC and living in “the country.” Next thing you know, you HAVE to have wider highways, you HAVE to have snow-plowing, you HAVE to have mail delivery, etc.
Now, the people who’ve lived in Stafford county for generations find their taxes going through the roof to support YOUR lifestyle. Then they either leave or disappear into the ranks of poverty, and assholes like you talk about how great Stafford County would be if the commute were easier and if it weren’t for the “rednecks.”
How self-centered can one be? Clearly you’re a Republican.
Sonny Bunch — July 7, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Michael: Well now, Michael…that’s a lot of assumptions to throw around. Without going too deeply into my life story, I think it’s fair to let you know that I didn’t just move to Stafford to live in some big McMansion, enjoy the country air, and look down on the rednecks. I grew up there (I even had a number of redneck friends!) and lived with my folks for a year or so after college because I didn’t have a job that offered much in the way of rent money.
So, you know, keep the guesses about people you know nothing of to a minimum. If you don’t mind.
Joe — July 8, 2008 at 9:34 am
Grazie, Santino. For the link and the book tip.
Sonny Bunch — July 8, 2008 at 11:20 am
I cannot recommend that book enough. It’s really quite excellent.
Christian Toto — July 8, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Just ordered that book from Amazon. Thanks for the tip. I think any critic today who constantly bemoans the current state of Hollywood needs to find a new gig. I used to work with a critic who was a super-nice fellow, but he gave even the biggest, best movies 1 1/2 stars. That really doesn’t help the reader, does it?
Noah — July 8, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I highly recommend Bulliet.
JimF — July 8, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Well, since no one ever dominated tennis in the open era the way Federer has, expecting that to continue is unlikely.
But in the last year when Federer missed his normal training program, and had a serious illness, he destroyed Nadal while winning the year-end Master’s in December, made the Australian semi’s, made the French finals, made the Wimbledon finals, and will be favored at the U.S. Open.
At Wimbledon he came back from two sets down. Watching the two players after the end of the match I think if it had been best of 7 Fed would have won .
Federer could reasonably be expected to make at least two major finals a year for several years, which would lead to some major victories.
You also have to ask who is going to replace Federer as number one?
Nadal is great. But if he is going to supplant Federer, he has to do something AFTER JULY. He may. But he never has before. His hard court performance is not only spotty, but injury-prone. Perhaps he’ll fix that, but I don’t think we can simply assume he will.
Remember, when Djok. was supposedly going to match Nadal in supplanting Federer? Then the hard court season was over and so was he.
So, who is going to replace Federer? He’s still the best of a class of three that is separating from the field.
Sonny Bunch — July 8, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Bulleit’s not bad…it feels stronger than Weller, even though it’s a lighter proof. It definitely goes down a little less smoothly than the Wellers, though…
Sonny Bunch — July 8, 2008 at 4:07 pm
I hope you enjoy it…I’m feeling a lot of pressure now. I don’t often make such a whole-hearted recommendation. If you think it’s worthless, I’ll look quite the fool.
Sonny Bunch — July 8, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Jim: I think we’re going to enter an era of relative parity amongst players at the top–Nadal and Federer will clearly be the two best players in the world, but we’ll see more breakthroughs from players like Djokavic. My main point, again, is simply that Federer won’t be the dominant force in the game any longer. He’ll still win some majors, but the air of invincibility is gone…and that mental edge was Federer’s biggest weapon.
Max Winters — July 8, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Any player that can come back from 2 down on the “clay-like” surface that Wimbledon has become, against Nadal is not washed up.
Let’s watch the U.S. Open, but especially Australia next year.
Maybe someday, Wimbledon will return to the fast surface that made them stand out.
Daniel Bolton — July 8, 2008 at 7:12 pm
“let’s think about a better time when the champion of Wimbledon wasn’t a capri pants/cutoff t-shirt wearing Spaniard who moans on the court like a reject from the women’s tour.”
make your prejudices less transparent next time.
JonW — July 8, 2008 at 8:17 pm
We can all agree that Federer has been a great champion. Great champions respond to challenges. As tough a battle as we saw, don’t forget that Fed made over 50 unforced errors, and inexplicably tried too many approaches to Rafa’s forehand.
Sometimes it takes an epic loss to spur a champion to greater levels of play. 26/27 is pretty young, especially given his injury free career.
It will be fun to watch how Roger responds.
Evan Derrick — July 8, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Thankyou for the linkage, Sonny. I can (obviously) second your recommendation of Phillip Lopate’s excellent book. There is little chance you will not enjoy it, unless you dislike reading film criticism, and in that case what would possess you to purchase a book titled “American Movie Critics” to begin with?
Matt S. — July 9, 2008 at 12:14 am
I have to say I’ve always thought Knob Creek was pretty serviceable. In fact, I typically lump it with Makers in being a decent middle of the road affordable bourbon. YES, Makers is “cooler,” but I’m not anti-Knob Creek.
For those who at some point have to buy cheap stuff — you know, in the plastic jugs — Faulkner drank Early Times when times were tough. And it appears in most Walker Percy novels.
Rodolfo — July 9, 2008 at 1:14 am
Well I totally disagree with this article. We are not talking about any regular player here, this is Roger Federer probably the best tennis player of all times. Federer will come back from this and will win many major tournaments.
There is one thing I might agree on, Federer probably wont dominate tennis like he has been doing, and this is only because he has truly found someone like Nadal able of beating him.
There is one more thing, yes Nadal is a fantastic player howecer he does have that injury that always keeps bothering him. Well see how that goes….
Federer will be back and soon.
Giuseppe Mirelli — July 9, 2008 at 2:04 am
First of all Mr. Suellentrop and Mr.Bunch get your facts straight before you write a piece and give your silly opinions. Federer won 12 majors not 11.
Furthermore since winning seems to be a priority for everyone who can’t differentiate between a winner and the most talented. Federer is unquestionably the most talented player of today and perhaps in history. The Nadals will come and go but Roger is irreplaceable. His style, his finesse, the totality of his game is exceptional. Nadal can beat Federer for the next 5 years but he will never be as talented as Roger.
Federer will undoubtedly break Sampras’ record and then go down in history as the greatest tennis player of all time.
Nadal is not great. When he approaches 12 slam titles then we can put him in the category of greatness. As of now he is not even half way there and his style of play is very short term.
adnan — July 9, 2008 at 2:08 am
I think that this article is almost completely wrong, I am a firm Nadal supporter and always has been but you have got to admit that Federer did not decline, its just that Nadal has really really continued to improve his game up to a point where he can be the dominant force. If there was no Nadal in this world, then Federer would have around 16 majors now and would still be the No.1 by far. Novak Djokovic is not really that much of a threat to Federer or Nadal.
Leo — July 9, 2008 at 3:44 am
Dear me, those journalists. Like vultures. Here’s another one who’s writing Federer off.
Please don’t forget his glandular fever. Not quite a life threatening disease, yet a serious problem for a competitive athlete, especially one of such high caliber. At the highest level it surely means the difference between winning and losing, getting to the ball on time or being half a step slow. And it can be pretty nagging, I’ve seen it trouble people for months. Considering the disease, the fact that Roger has still been so consistent this season is nothing short of a outstanding, and only attests his phenomenal ability. At the Australian Open, where he was apperently already ill, he only lost to Djokovic, who’s one heck of a player, in three close sets. I believe that Roger has only recently fully recovered from the mononucleosis. And it must also compromise one’s competitive edge. So given all that, the way he played agains the indefatigable Nadal in London, coming back and pushing it all the way to 7:9 (and beging affected by the darkness) proves that he’s far from spent, and if he still has the desire, he can come back with a vengeance. It’s nice to know you usually turn out to be wrong, and I sure hope you’re wrong big time on this one.
Ah, you mentioned Agassi and Lendl, but forgot Connors and Navratilova. Generally early bloomers also tend to lose it relatively early. Nadal is certainly an early bloomer, and his game is frighteningly physical, rather like Hewitt (and look where Hewitt is now), only he’s a better player overall than Hewitt. He works very hard for every point, and given the way he plays, I really can’t see Nadal maintaining this sort of intensity even into his late 20-ies. And I believe he’s already had foot and knee injuries. Federer, on the other hand, only came of age in early 20-ies, he is ease and elegance epitomized, doesn’t work nearly as hard for most of his wins. So the age difference between them becomes almost irrelevant. Again, it’s all up too Roger and whether he still has the desire to play and win. If he does, he might well stay at the top for another few years, perhaps with a break somewhere in between.
Sonny Bunch — July 9, 2008 at 9:13 am
Clearly I will not convince you guys to my POV, and hey, that’s fine! I’m fully willing to admit that I’m going out on a limb here–Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player I’ve ever had the privelege to watch, and if he proves me wrong I’ll give a tip of the homburg and be happy to admit it. I’m simply pointing to a trend: players as dominant as Federer can’t dominate forever, and 26/27 seems to be when they hit the wall. I would, however, like to follow up on two specific points.
Mr. Mirelli: You’re right, Federer has won 12 majors, but in the specific period I’m looking at (i.e., the ‘03 to ‘07 seasons, a period in which he’s clearly the greatest player in the world and dominating the game like no one in a decade had), he won 11.
Mr. Bolton: If this was a purely journalistic effort, I would have cut that line about Nadal and how he annoys me. (Actually, I probably would have found an anonymous source on the tour to make all of those complaints for me and kept it in the piece. That’s how journalists work.) But fortunately, this isn’t a purely journalistic effort! I can denigrate the Spaniard’s appearance all I want in my own joint, thank you very much.
Sonny Bunch — July 9, 2008 at 9:16 am
Evan: No worries; thank you for the excellent article. This younger generation of critics (many of whom are web-based, and of which I consider myself a part) should be forced to read your recommendations. Perhaps they will save us from the endless sea of snark we have to deal with these days…
AJS — July 9, 2008 at 10:13 am
I agree with you that it is unlikely that Federer will return to his previous unbelievable level of tennis, but he is probably the best player ever, and I still believe that he will break Sampras’s record and win many tournaments to come – particularly Wimbledon. However, you lost all credibility for me when you insulted Nadal, he may not have as much pure, raw talent as Federer, but you cannot deny that he has become a force to be reckoned with on and off the clay courts as well (there was the small matter of beating Djokovich on grass at Queen’s only weeks earlier). He has worked hard to get to where he is today – which is a damn good tennis player. Why don’t you be a little less biased and read what people who have actually lived through that kind of thing have to say (the names Bjorn Borg and Jon McEnroe spring to mind); they have admired Federer’s game for years, and agree with you about his talents, etc., but they also recognise how far Nadal has come. Finally, I think that being “possibly the best clay-court player of all time” (quote: Boris Becker) is a little bit more than just “a capri pants/cutoff t-shirt wearing Spaniard who moans on the court like a reject from the women’s tour.”
Noah — July 9, 2008 at 10:30 am
As an NYC resident I can say that the bikers are the more annoying breed. They run red lights going the wrong way on a one way street and then act like you did something wrong by being in their way.
Also, in NY the bikers have adopted this whole pseudo anarchist / communist look and attitude, which is particularly annoying. Not to mention the whole hipster custom bike clubs which ride around the village looking like a myspace page on wheels.
Bicycling for transportation is fine, but as a lifestyle it’s pathetic.
Sonny Bunch — July 9, 2008 at 10:39 am
AJS: I’m not disputing Nadal’s talent–he’s the best player I’ve ever seen on clay. Despite my aversion to dirtballing, I’m more than willing to grant him that. As a tennis player, Nadal is great. It’s his aesthetic that I despise; I had the same problem with Agassi early in his career.
Sonny Bunch — July 9, 2008 at 10:41 am
Oh man, don’t get me started on “biking-as-lifestyle.” The bike messengers roaming DC’s streets are the most obvious example, appearance-wise, but the general attitude of bikers is so high-and-mighty that it makes me sick. Note to bikers: just because you pedal to work, it does not make you a good citizen. I’d rather you put the CO2 into the air by driving than condescendingly lecture to me about the rules of the road and how great biking is.
Mike P — July 9, 2008 at 12:18 pm
3 cheers for Blanton’s! Very smooth and sippable. Also, I endorse Bulleit as well…I find it’s a bit sweeter than some of the other brands mentioned.
Sonny Bunch — July 9, 2008 at 4:16 pm
I found the last bottle of Wellers at a Capitol Hill liquor store before my dentist appointment today. I totally bought it.
Woodford Reserve has always reminded me of an expensive mixing bourbon…what rich people use instead of Beam to mix with Coke. It doesn’t work at all on its own, though it mixes quite nicely with ginger ale.
I’m intrigued by Pappy Van Winkle. I might buy a bottle at some point this summer.
Geoff — July 9, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I’m disagree for a couple of reasons.
First, Federer just hasn’t declined all that much in the last year. Check out the wikipedia page on Federer, scroll down to the bottom, and take a look:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer
He failed to win the high profile tournaments that he won last year, reaching only the semis in australia and the finals in wimbledon. But if you throw out australia because of the mono (which seems reasonable to me), then he has two finals instead of a win and a final. Plus, he was dominant in both those tournaments until he reached Nadal – which hints more at Rafa’s rise than Federer’s decline (after all, Fed’s performance against everyone else seems as strong as ever).
Plus, he exceeded his season last year in a few tournaments. Indian Wells? SF insetead of 2R. He went farther in Miami, matched his final at Monte Carlo, went farther in Fome, and just barely missed Hamburg (again, losing only to Nadal)…
If Rafa hadn’t been in the picture, it seems most likely that Fed wouldn’t have won both Roland Garros and Wimbledon, as well as Monte Carlo and Hamburg. It’s speculation, of course, but who else gave Federer a serious challenge in these tournaments?
So I guess you can say Federer is “over”, but I think this definition dilutes the meaning of “over” to the point of ridiculousness.
Geoff — July 9, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Oops, should have said “seems most likely that Fed *would* have won…” rather than “woudldn’t” . Probably obvious, but figured I should clarify.
Wanda — July 10, 2008 at 9:50 am
Roger Federer may not be at the top of his game right now, but he has made it to the finals consistently. Though he has not won the French Open, neither did the Pete Sampras. Pete Sampras has 14 Grand Slams under his belt and Federer is closing in on that. I really believe Federer will eventually tie this record, but even if he does not–he will always be considered a great at the game. Can others show the consistency that we saw in Agassi, McEnroe, Sampras, Federer, Lendl, Borg..etc..on and on.
What bothers me the most is that I feel the dying breed of serve and volley players on the decline. I have to admit I enjoyed watching the baseliners of the past, because I felt that they all brought some personality to the game. Now it is, basically, baseline play. I hope Federer stays and give us more magic, even if he may lose his ranking. I hate he lost Wimbledon, but the match was really to close to call him a real loser. I call great tennis when you can come back from being two sets down and make it to a very very close fifth set. What the sports writers are basically writing out there about the demise of Roger Federer is as sad as thinking I may never see another serve and volley player grace the game.
I hope he keeps playing just like Agassi did. I want to continue to watch his magic. I know many more do, as well. He is not done.
Ramesh Prabhu — July 10, 2008 at 9:58 am
To paraphrase John McEnroe, “You cannot be serious”
There are quite a few people that are writing Federer’s obituary – I’d like to add prematurely. You say done means he will probably win two or three more majors. I guess Roger’s biggest fault is that he has set himself a very high standard that even a slight slip is magnified as a huge fall.
Agreed that this year’s Wimbledon loss was huge, but considering the way that he bounced back from two sets down and almost (I bet that Borg is happy that his name is still in the record books) won his sixth consecutive title, I think Roger’s far from being done. Roger’s too classy to attribute his slip to the glandular fever that he suffered at the beginning of this year, but as someone who has followed his career for a long time, I could clearly see that he was a step slower. Roger can afford to be a step slower against most people and still beat them, but to beat Nadal, he has to be at his very best, and he has been at his very best at Wimbledon until this year. I have at the same time seen the fact that he has only gotten better as this year has gone by, and I would look for him to bounce back and win the Olympic gold and the U.S. Open.
Slice it and dice it any which way you want, even at his “advanced” age of 26, Roger’s ONLY threat is Nadal. Novak would like to believe that he is in the mix, but his second round defeat to Marat revealed a lot about his mental state – 10 double faults in one match (Roger had 6 the entire tournament). I can even explain why Nadal appears more of a threat than he really is. Go with me here… Roger’s “fault” is that he has been the second best clay courter the last four years. Unfortunately for Roger, this means he is going to run into Nadal every time they play on clay, and almost every time his game is bound to come up short. While Roger has the game to beat Nadal on any other surface as evidenced by his 5-3 record on surfaces that are not clay, his record against Nadal on clay has got to weigh on his mind every time they go head to head, especially after a clay court season where he has lost every final to his Spanish opponent. From Nadal’s perspective, this should give him more confidence and belief that he can beat Roger on other surfaces. If on the other hand, Roger had not been a very good player on clay (like Sampras) his aura of invincibility on other surfaces would be still there. Does that make sense?
You write about how you could see fear in Roger’s eyes. Let’s think about this… He has been the world’s number one for the last 4+ years with Nadal and the rest of the field breathing down his neck. I cannot imagine the pressure that he has faced day in and day out. It is simply astounding to think that he has swatted away most pretenders who have nothing to lose when facing him. I speak from experience when I say playing “up” is a lot easier… no pressure, just go out and play. My game is great when I know I am playing someone who is better than me, and I have nothing to lose. Conversely, it isn’t that great when I know I “have” to beat someone who I know doesn’t play as well as I do. If nothing, the Wimbledon final really revealed Roger’s famed mental edge. How many championship points did he have to save? And no, he didn’t win them because his opponent donated it to him… he had to hit winners to save them and all of this with the pressure of having to defend his Wimbledon streak. Agreed he did come up short – has happened to every great one so far. Roger without a doubt is the best big point player in the game, and that alone is going to be enough for the next few years.
Now, let’s get to how the futures are going to play out for Federer and Nadal… There is a HUGE difference in the effort that goes into either of their matches. While Roger is effortlessly efficient, Rafa’s bludgeoning, bruising approach means more wear and tear over the next few years. Don’t get me wrong, I like Rafa for the great player that he is and the great person that he is, but I don’t think he can sustain this level too long. His second half of the season every season is evidence enough as to the toll his body takes. Look at what happened when Leyton’s wheels (his incredible speed on the court) came off. As I mentioned before, Roger can afford to be a step slower and still win a few more slams. Write him off at your own peril. Question a great champion’s heart at your own risk.
Noah — July 10, 2008 at 11:45 am
I think a lot of this stems from how intellectually insulated modern left has become. If you live in a major city, attend a typical American university and avoid Fox news, you most become an adult and never encounter any view that challenges your world view. Anyone who doesn’t share the typical liberal world view is viewed as dim witted or evil. It never ceases to surprise me when I meet accomplished, well educated people who have lack the most basic understanding of conservatism.
On the flip side a person who lives up in a conservative community and attended on of the handful of conservative universities is still
Noah — July 10, 2008 at 11:46 am
…constantly exposed to modern liberal thought through pop culture.
Noah — July 10, 2008 at 11:49 am
Hit post comment by accident on the last one. Is there an edit function?
Christian Toto — July 10, 2008 at 11:53 am
Great points, Noah. It can be frustrating to see media types deny their bias. But deep down, they can’t see the bias because their ideology is all they’ve ever known. So to them, the left position is neutral and doesn’t need to be balanced.
And every time i fear I consumer too much right-leaning content, I remember how often I read/see/absorb mainstream media outlets. I can’t help but get both sides.
Sonny Bunch — July 10, 2008 at 11:55 am
I don’t think there is. I kind of wish there was. I can make your comments disappear, but I don’t think I can edit them.
To address your main point, however, I think you’re basically right…it goes back to the old, apocryphal Pauline Kael quote: “How could Nixon have won? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”
Will — July 10, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Coming from movement conservatives, I think this “liberal insularity” trope is a bit rich. In fact, I think the Right has been most notable for its rigid intellectual insularity in recent years. When I read flagship conservative publications – National Review and the Weekly Standard come to mind – I’m struck by how little engagement there is between mainline conservatives and the their paleoconservative and libertarian counterparts on a wide range of issues.
I should note that I say this without passing judgment on the merits of either ideological tradition. To me, however, the Iraq War revealed a) certain fissures within the ideological Right and b) several damning critiques of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy that have yet to be grappled with by mainstream Republicans. Institutions like the Weekly Standard and National Review, however, don’t really air dissenting views about Republican foreign policy. I’d really like to see some real intellectual interaction between writers at say, the American Conservative and National Review on the subject of American foreign policy, but all I find is mutual contempt.
To a lesser extent, I think this insularity extends to domestic matters. I don’t believe it’s an accident that “Grand New Party” – a book you and other conservative pundits have hyped – takes Republican operatives to task for a mono-maniacal focus on issues like earmarks and wasteful spending at the expense of focusing on real economic anxieties or formulating a coherent, conservative response to anthropogenic global warming.
So yeah, maybe douchebags like Tariq Ali won’t consent to have their pieces re-printed in a Hitchens anthology, but I’m not sure if that has any broader implications for the character of the intellectual Left, especially when you consider the frequency of ideological clashes between centrist, hawkish “neo-liberals” and the more progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
Christian Toto — July 11, 2008 at 10:55 am
Agreed … del Toro worship has only just begun. The flick works best as a series of well choreographed set pieces … it’s not a story.
When I was writing my review that became crystal clear to me — how do I describe this to the reader? If I struggle putting the plot together, then something’s amiss with what the movie was trying to convey.
Makes you wonder how del Toro will botch “The Hobbit” …
Still, Perlman is a hoot as Red.
Sonny Bunch — July 11, 2008 at 11:00 am
The thing is, I love Del Toro…I think Blade II was a ton of fun, and Hellboy is one of the five best comic book movies ever made. Pan’s Labyrinth vies with Time Bandits for my favorite fantasy flick of all time. But this is definitely a misfire. I trust him with The Hobbit for two reasons: Peter Jackson is producing and has the force of will to keep him in line, and the story is already in place.
Jillian — July 11, 2008 at 11:19 am
I agree that full-time hipster bike weenies are annoying, but can you allow me the biking-as-lifestyle thing part-time? Biking to work in the morning makes me feel like a badass. I’m not actually a badass, of course (I dont even wear any hipster stuff…. just school logo bikewear and flowery pink spandex) but zooming through traffic and narrowly avoiding death IS a high, no matter how annoying it might be. I get there faster than you, I’m stronger than you, and I probably look hotter than you while doing it. And I’m the first to admit it – that added injection of cool is part of what gets me through my day.
I would, however, forgo some of that cool if I was fined. I mean, telling people to “obey the rules of the road” is a pretty crummy solution. No one is just going to do it because they’re nice. I want my cool and you want to get to work on time and drivers want to get in as much road rage as possible before they have to sit in a cube all day. You gotta sic more police on everyone….bikers, peds and drivers alike…. if you want the happy little world you talk about.
Sonny Bunch — July 11, 2008 at 11:35 am
Will: I think there’s a certain amount of truth in what you say–people on both sides of the aisle tend to ignore opinions they disagree with. (By the way, I take mild offense to being labeled a “movement conservative”–I most certainly am not–but I’ll live.) I would say, however, that the trend appears (to me at least) to be more pronounced on the left (especially in the academy).
Sonny Bunch — July 11, 2008 at 11:38 am
I am all for getting the police more involved with traffic enforcement. I think the police should pull over every biker who runs a red light or a stop sign. I think the police should pull over every driver who makes an illegal turn or almost runs over a pedestrian. I think the police should hand out more jaywalking tickets. Maybe then people will start, y’know, obeying the law.
regdunlop — July 11, 2008 at 12:58 pm
But Yglesias went to Harvard, man! HARVARD!!!!!
Sonny Bunch — July 11, 2008 at 1:09 pm
I often wonder how much the Ivy League instills a sense of entitlement in its graduates: after all, he matriculated from the Best. College. Ever. Shouldn’t we all care what Yglesias has to say about everything?
Kaba — July 11, 2008 at 1:25 pm
I must say that I completely agree with you. The fact that these two entities have strived to keep out of Georgian borders for this long proves they no longer want to deal with dubious and erratic Georgian behavior. I would also like to express my disdian for mainstream media in their reportings about this topic. I have till now not seen any articles from any major newspapers or websites that depict the Abkhazian side accurately, and that do not call it “Georgia”. Anyone who has a clear and keen sense of the history of this region will readily realize that no, Abkhazia is not Georgia. Neither is South Ossetia. These two states were forcibly attached to Georgian by Stalin, an ethnic Georgian himself. Coincidence? Highly unlikely. Let’s be intelligent for once and see this for what it really is: the US, via Georgia, trying to usurp Caucasian resources to benefit itself, all the sticking it to Russia, whose only course of action is to try to curb this encroachment on what was historically “their” territory by interfering with the region’s affairs in general. Ironically, that same interference now is aiding Abkhazia to complete its main goal, which is to hopefully gain independence.
Rest assured, there are millions more like me who feel this way and we all hope that the world will learn the truth and realize that these people have suffered long enough and are entitled to their freedom and not having to live as second-class citizens under Georgian rule.
Will — July 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I didn’t mean to offend. For what it’s worth, I enjoy reading your blog. But so far, I haven’t been able to pinpoint any meaningful distinctions between your own political philosophy and mainstream conservative thought. That doesn’t make you a bad person or anything. It’s just an observation.
A brief addendum to my earlier comments: I think Tariq Ali and Noam Chomsky are poor exemplars of mainstream leftist thought. The National Review’s willingness to run an article entitled “Unpatriotic Conservatives,” on the other hand . . .
Sonny Bunch — July 11, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I kid about being offended. But as a pro-choice, anti-drug war conservative I’d say I probably stray pretty far from the orthodoxy on at least a couple of issues. Plus, “movement conservative” usually means “activist Republican,” another thing I tend not to be…
Larry — July 12, 2008 at 8:38 am
Bush tried the “respectful friend” approach. Europe tried sycophancy. 0 for 2 so far.
Obama seems more likely to emulate Europe, but it’s hard to know just where he’ll end up.
McCain seems more likely to emulate the last President who had a successful policy re Moscow, namely Reagan. But times have changed…
Jesse A. — July 13, 2008 at 11:03 pm
See, I’m not sure this is entirely true. I just got back from the movie, and I have alot of thoughts about it. The theme which that scene plays on is the choice that Liz Sherman has between saving the world and saving her beloved. She chooses her beloved. Now, the whole entire rest of the movie pivots around other characters making the exact same choice. Abraham Sapiens chooses his beloved when he gives up the third piece of the crown to save the princess (of course, this fails.). The princess has to make the same choice, and gives up her life, and a life of love with Abe, in order to prevent her brother from killing Hellboy. Which is to say, the climax of the movie is an implicit critique of Liz’s choice. It also, I think, foreshadows what might come in a possible sequel. Whether that last point is true remains to be seen, but I don’t think that, as you say, the “theme isn’t examined at all.” The entire final sequence is an examination of this theme.
Sonny Bunch — July 14, 2008 at 9:12 am
That’s a fair point…I guess I was referring more to the Hellboy mythology in particular and Del Toro’s lack of movement on that front until we get to the scene with the Angel of Death. At that point it just kind of comes out of nowhere; after 90 minutes of nothing about Hellboy and the prophecy, we’re basically thrown right back to the end of the first movie. My complaint is more structural than thematic, I suppose…
Conor Friedersdorf — July 14, 2008 at 10:17 am
Cruzcampo is a sentimental favorite for me, the stuff I drank during my stints abroad in Seville, and although Heineken bought it awhile back I’ve never been able to find it anywhere in the United States (which Spaniards abbreviate EEUU, so maybe all the Cruzcampo shipments are simply lost in the mail).
Noah — July 15, 2008 at 10:45 am
Maybe I missed it, but was there any outrage or protest over this cartoon?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/21129038/full_metal_mccai
Or is Rolling Stone so irrelevant that no one bothered to pay attention?
Taeyoung — July 15, 2008 at 3:02 pm
“Pedestrians: when a crosswalk sign is flashing the little red man, it means DON’T GET INTO OFF OF THE SIDEWALK. There are usually cars trying to make a right turn on green, and they use the little break in pedestrian traffic at the end of the cycle to do so. “
There is one intersection (K Street, right between Georgetown and Foggy Bottom), where, in the afternoons, the walk sign comes on at the exact same time the right-turn signal lights up, which sends cars turning right into the pedestrian traffic. Every single time I cross — every day — I get some driver who tries to race through before the pedestrians can get across.
Most of the time the pedestrians start walking well before the walk signal comes on, because otherwise you’ll get drivers trying to run you over. And if you let one car get through, the next will follow quick on its heels, and you’ll never get across the road. Because the drivers don’t care that the walk light is on. They’re just following their own signals.
I blame the government first, as usual, for failing to coordinate the signals properly. And then drivers, who ought to have the common sense to wait when they see 10 people starting out across the road.
Sonny Bunch — July 15, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Taeyoung: That is entirely the District’s fault. I don’t blame car drivers for making a right on a green arrow, and I don’t blame pedestrians for entering the crosswalk with a walk sign.
Sonny Bunch — July 15, 2008 at 3:34 pm
I think it’s hard to get outraged by anything Taibbi says or does, and if that’s the case the picture won’t add any fuel to the fire.
Christian Toto — July 16, 2008 at 11:45 am
Boo friggin hoo.
pst314 — July 16, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Aggressive and belligerent cyclists are a dime a dozen here in Chicago. A few years ago a bicycle messenger murdered a pedestrian for being in the way.
Christian Toto — July 17, 2008 at 9:12 am
I suppose, in the writer’s perfect world, dry independent dramas would be all the industry cranks out. Pathetic. There’s nothing wrong with a rock ‘em, sock ‘em blockbuster, just like there’s nothing wrong with a great, mindless pop song.
brooke — July 17, 2008 at 1:47 pm
You should see Six Degrees of Separation if you think Will Smith is limited to “kind of likable protagonist.”
Sonny Bunch — July 17, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Brooke: I don’t mean that as a negative, but let’s be fair…he’s kind of limited. Even in “Six Degrees”…
Christian Toto — July 18, 2008 at 11:08 am
I was stunned by how conservative the film was in the ways you describe. But the left will clearly want to call this one their own … so let the spinning begin. I’ll be curious to read it.
But most of all the political commentary is so expertly woven into the story it’s hard to complain no matter where you stand.
Will — July 18, 2008 at 3:02 pm
RE: “The Spinning”
I think there are elements of the film (and the larger “Batman” mythos) that could be plausibly interpreted as criticism of an overly aggressive approach to terrorism.
Two things spring to mind:
1.) In the first film, the Joker’s emergence is EXPLICITLY described as a reaction to Batman’s heavy-handed tactics.
2.) I haven’t seen the second film yet, but from what I’ve gleaned from the reviews, the story arc implies the forces of good (Batman and Dent) are to some extent morally compromised by their responses to the Joker. Could Dent’s transformation be interpreted as an allegory for the way the War on Terror has compromised civil liberties, moral clarity etc.? Like I said, I haven’t seem the film yet, but that sounds like a fairly plausible interpretation to me.
In general, however, I think attempts to politicize movies that aren’t overtly political generally fail. We’re too prone to read our own biases into the script.
Sonny Bunch — July 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Christian: I’d be interested to see if the left tries to spin this in their favor. I’m guessing there will be more of an outright rejection of it as “fascist.”
Will: I would argue that the sequel postulates that that the Joker might be a reaction to Batman, but that this fact simply doesn’t matter. Regardless of his origin (or lack thereof), he needs to be dealt with, and sometimes the methods of dealing with such a man are distasteful. And, as I mention in my review, there’s a very real examination of whether it’s “possible for the two [Batman and Dent] to work in tandem without the dark corrupting the light?”
And I agree that it’s politicizing movies is, generally, a lose-lose proposition. But this is an EXPLICITLY political film.
Sonny Bunch — July 18, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Of course Smith is not above reproach. I’m just saying that this is really nothing new in Hollywood–Smith is just much, much better at that particular shtick than anyone else in the game. That being the case, it’s kind of silly to lament him as the endpoint of the evolution of trash cinema.
Sonny Bunch — July 18, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Of course Smith is not above reproach. I’m just saying that this is really nothing new in Hollywood–Smith is just much, much better at that particular shtick than anyone else in the game. That being the case, it’s kind of silly to lament him as the endpoint of the evolution of trash cinema.
DRF — July 18, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Someone once said that the definition of “zealot” was “someone who cannot look at anything without seeing his or her totem issue as the cause, result or other part of it.”
There are anti-Bush zealots and there are pro-Bush zealots, and they both obscure the truth of the matter.
John Bigenwald — July 18, 2008 at 6:37 pm
No need to make a distinction between well behaved and “otherly” behaved kids. Kids are kids and they all have a limit on how long they will sit in a dark room and watch something they don’t understand. Some last longer than others, but they will all start to squirm, whine and cry at some point.
I watched a lot of kids movies when I’d rather have watched something more adult — but that’s part of the job description… I also think it’s why PPV was invented.
Sonny Bunch — July 18, 2008 at 8:01 pm
True; kids can only take so much. Again: I have no problem with kids going to matinees, especially if they’re children’s movies. But they really have no place at a movie like ‘The Dark Knight.’ Parenting is all about sacrifices, right? (Easily enough said, I guess, when you’re childless.)
Sonny Bunch — July 18, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Totally right: this is why I’m typically so hesitant in ascribing political takes to the movies I review. I’d rather you break that down for yourself than have a reviewer tell you how it is. (Of course, I made an exception this week when I blogged about ‘The Dark Knight.’ But it is a striking film, one I haven’t been able to stop thinking about since I saw it on Monday. The politics are part of its…strikingness? Is that a word? It’s been a long week.)
Christian Toto — July 19, 2008 at 11:37 am
I’m waiting for the liberal blowback on “The Dark Knight” … any minute now …
And you’re right about being very careful to ascribe your own political views into your reviews. MOST critics don’t bother with such professionalism, alas.
regdunlop — July 19, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Just mosey on over to the LA map and you’ll find that Brentwood and Bel-Air are among the city’s least walkable neighborhoods, surely due to the grinding poverty therein. But I’ll bet Yglesias has an ironclad response — after all, he went to HARVARD!!!
Philip Marlowe — July 19, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Thank you! Seriously, when I read her review I was all, like, “WTF?!”
mike hussein smith — July 20, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Poor Johnny one-note
sang out with “gusto”
And just overlorded the place
Poor Johnny one-note
yelled willy nilly
Until he was bleu in the face
For holding one note was his ace
— From “Babes in Arms” by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart.
It maks more sense when sung by Judy Garland:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IxJlcVYBvOY
Joe — July 21, 2008 at 8:33 am
My question, Sonny, is how many conservatives will denounce it for the terrible violence in the picture?
Seriously, saw it both at midnight and on the IMAX screen and I am amazed, both at the explicit politicization of the picture and at the abject nihilism of the Joker.
The trick of telling Batman that one is here and the other there and it being so, but not quite was chilling. I was reminded over and over watching Ledger’s stunningly magnetic performance that this is what a bad guy is supposed to be and mercy he did a fantastic job. I wrote in my long-winded diatribe that I never felt the Joker was telling the truth in the film. Exit question from me. The detonators on the ferries, they blew up the boat they were one, didn’t they?
Christian Toto — July 21, 2008 at 8:56 am
I read many movie reviewer blogs, and they often write openly about their pro-Democrat positions. A few are blunt about it, a smaller group tend to be obnoxious in this arena. But while you explore the complicated nature of blending ideology with movie reviewing, these critics don’t seem a bit concerned about the subject.
Philip Marlowe — July 21, 2008 at 9:40 am
Yea, maybe. The difference is that Dana Stevens makes moronic, sophomoric political comparisons. Rememeber Autobots/Decepticons: Democrats/Republicans? And she is completely wrong about the ending to The Dark Knight. Only a partisan tool would come away from the movie with that view of the ending (”falsely heroic”?!). I remember Slate had a review of Fincher’s Zodiac, comparing it to Dirty Harry, and how Zodiac is a defense of a liberal understanding due process (I don’t think Dana Stevens wrote it, it was too subtle). I didn’t have a problem with that, because the analysis was pretty much spot on. Stevens’s reviews are just silly.
Buster — July 21, 2008 at 10:09 am
Reminds me of an Onion headline from a few years ago: “Will Smith: The Black Man Everyone At Work Can Agree On.”
Buster — July 21, 2008 at 10:09 am
Reminds me of an Onion headline from a few years ago: “Will Smith: The Black Man Everyone At Work Can Agree On.”
Sonny Bunch — July 21, 2008 at 10:25 am
Christian: Do you think this is a function of old media/new media? I’m kind of mired in that old media sensibility, especially when it comes to newspapers/magazines. At the blog I let loose a little more but still try to keep personal feelings/politics under wraps.
Philip: Yes, I do remember that. Stevens is clearly unable to set her politics aside while watching a film. David Denby is another reviewer in that vein (remember when he criticized ‘Iron Man’ because the good guy was, shock, fighting terrorists?).
Christian Hamaker — July 21, 2008 at 10:36 am
Thanks for the plug, Sonny. I was writing that post on the fly, more as an appreciation of what you’d written about Stevens than a critique of your Times review. But as I was linking, I saw that you’d posted earlier at your blog about the film. Rather than stop myself, read your earlier post fully, and take time to digest it — who wants to be patient? — I posted off-the-cuff at Arts and Faith.
I certainly agree that your Times review was not overtly political, and the difference between equating your *blog post* on the movie with Stevens’ *published review* is veering into apples-and-oranges territory. So apologies if I sounded miffed or angry. I was neither.
I should probably add that my Slate reading has cratered in the past year, and I hadn’t read Stevens’ review at the time I saw your post. I prefer Salon’s arts coverage, although the site’s overall political bent is one I rarely agree with. Those film writners are very, very *down* on the Batman film. As easy as it would be to attribute that to my impression that the film is indeed neocon-ish — at least in the early going — I think the concerns of Stephanie Z. and Andrew O’Hehir go deeper.
As I may have mentioned to you in a separate conversation, my own review of “The Dark Knight” came out much more positive than I was expecting. Walking out of the film, I felt a bit beaten down by its *length* and was thinking that aspect of the film might overwhelm my positive thoughts about “The Dark Knight.” The review went in the other direction — too positive, if anything.
Sonny Bunch — July 21, 2008 at 11:41 am
Christian: I think there’s an important point in your critique, though, namely a question of what’s the line in the age of new media. Where is the distinction between professional commentary and personal commentary? I’m not entirely sure…
Christian Toto — July 21, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Sonny,
I’m still not sure of the line … and I suspect editors/readers aren’t either. it’s a whole new world, and I’m a scared … and curious, too.
Sonny Bunch — July 21, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Joe: I’m a little surprised there hasn’t been more of a reaction against the PG-13 rating. It’s kind of a head-scratcher. And I think you’re right…if one of the ferries had used the detonator their own ship would have been destroyed.
Joe — July 21, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I work with a fair few movie fans. The scary part is that only myself and one of my colleagues made the trip this week. (and me three times with one standard projection, one IMAX and one digital, because that’s the kind of geek I am) I fully expect over the next week, a half a dozen of those co-workers will see the picture.
I think the domestic box office for The Dark Knight is going to hit the $500-525 million range. I would not be surprised if it toppled Titanic.
I think being the last dog in the pack bodes well for Nolan’s epic. And as more comment comes out on the picture, it will carry. I also would not be surprised if it remains number one for a months.
To me the signal is that we arrived fifteen minutes before trailer start (pre-bought tickets in hand) heard the announcement that the next three shows after ours were already sold out and could not find a pair of seats together in the stadium section of the theater, that holds 431 people. And it was the emptiest of the performances we went to. Your mileage may vary, but from 7:10 – 9:20 four shows at $10 a seat and 400 seats filled is bang up business.
Joe — July 21, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I work with a fair few movie fans. The scary part is that only myself and one of my colleagues made the trip this week. (and me three times with one standard projection, one IMAX and one digital, because that’s the kind of geek I am) I fully expect over the next week, a half a dozen of those co-workers will see the picture.
I think the domestic box office for The Dark Knight is going to hit the $500-525 million range. I would not be surprised if it toppled Titanic.
I think being the last dog in the pack bodes well for Nolan’s epic. And as more comment comes out on the picture, it will carry. I also would not be surprised if it remains number one for a months.
To me the signal is that we arrived fifteen minutes before trailer start (pre-bought tickets in hand) heard the announcement that the next three shows after ours were already sold out and could not find a pair of seats together in the stadium section of the theater, that holds 431 people. And it was the emptiest of the performances we went to. Your mileage may vary, but from 7:10 – 9:20 four shows at $10 a seat and 400 seats filled is bang up business.
Joe — July 21, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I work with a fair few movie fans. The scary part is that only myself and one of my colleagues made the trip this week. (and me three times with one standard projection, one IMAX and one digital, because that’s the kind of geek I am) I fully expect over the next week, a half a dozen of those co-workers will see the picture.
I think the domestic box office for The Dark Knight is going to hit the $500-525 million range. I would not be surprised if it toppled Titanic.
I think being the last dog in the pack bodes well for Nolan’s epic. And as more comment comes out on the picture, it will carry. I also would not be surprised if it remains number one for a months.
To me the signal is that we arrived fifteen minutes before trailer start (pre-bought tickets in hand) heard the announcement that the next three shows after ours were already sold out and could not find a pair of seats together in the stadium section of the theater, that holds 431 people. And it was the emptiest of the performances we went to. Your mileage may vary, but from 7:10 – 9:20 four shows at $10 a seat and 400 seats filled is bang up business.
Joe — July 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I don’t recall where I read it, having read reams of Bat-commentary on the day, but the word of a three-hour long director’s cut is interesting, as I think we would be surprised at how much Nolan cut. The disappearing pencil trick was so swiftly executed that it drew raucous shouts from each crowd I shared the Dark knight experience with. Unlike the disappearing icicle which gave me nightmares after first seeing Die Hard 2, there was only the reactions of others to sell the gruesomeness of what happened. It is remarkably stage blood free for all that was spilled.
patrick — July 21, 2008 at 6:39 pm
kudos to the makers Dark Knight for their record breaking opening weekend… it’s no wonder there’s talk of another one coming out ASAP
patrick — July 21, 2008 at 6:39 pm
kudos to the makers Dark Knight for their record breaking opening weekend… it’s no wonder there’s talk of another one coming out ASAP
patrick — July 21, 2008 at 6:39 pm
kudos to the makers Dark Knight for their record breaking opening weekend… it’s no wonder there’s talk of another one coming out ASAP
Charlene — July 21, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I can not believe that Keith Olbermann gets paid to act like a baboon. What has this world come to? It is complete torture to listen to him because he must believe the garbage that is comes out of liberal mouth. Which idiot at MSNBC thinks this guys poop don’t stink?
Charlene — July 21, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I can not believe that Keith Olbermann gets paid to act like a baboon. What has this world come to? It is complete torture to listen to him because he must believe the garbage that is comes out of liberal mouth. Which idiot at MSNBC thinks this guys poop don’t stink?
Charlene — July 21, 2008 at 8:28 pm
I can not believe that Keith Olbermann gets paid to act like a baboon. What has this world come to? It is complete torture to listen to him because he must believe the garbage that is comes out of liberal mouth. Which idiot at MSNBC thinks this guys poop don’t stink?
Senescent — July 21, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Meh. Men playing the “female” role aren’t nearly as pitiful as unsuited men playing the “male” role badly out of inertia. Introduces coordination problems into courtship, but if the gays can figure out ways to signal and determine roles without relying on gender, so can we.
cole porter — July 22, 2008 at 10:09 am
I think the analogy between that position and being trapped in a paper bag is pretty apt. How about we don’t parse our way into any paper bags? It’s nice out here.
pmm — July 22, 2008 at 3:31 pm
The now defunct blog by Dave Cambell took this on back in 2006…the trick is the urge to make everyone “your guy”:
Jenn Rosenberry — July 22, 2008 at 4:10 pm
If my memory serves, part of what Titanic had going for it was the “screaming girl” factor. It’s funny to remember back, but Leonardo de Caprio was like Leif Garret after this movie. My little sister (who was in college!!) saw it 5 times in the theater specifically because she was so gaga over Leo.
The other question, of course, is can it pull in the hardcore “non-action move” crowd. People like my in-laws, who see a movie every weekend – usually a romantic comedy or well-reviewed drama. Who didn’t go see any of the Lord of the Rings movies, but saw Titanic. if those folks get intrigued and start showing up, then it’s off to the races.
Jenn Rosenberry — July 22, 2008 at 4:10 pm
If my memory serves, part of what Titanic had going for it was the “screaming girl” factor. It’s funny to remember back, but Leonardo de Caprio was like Leif Garret after this movie. My little sister (who was in college!!) saw it 5 times in the theater specifically because she was so gaga over Leo.
The other question, of course, is can it pull in the hardcore “non-action move” crowd. People like my in-laws, who see a movie every weekend – usually a romantic comedy or well-reviewed drama. Who didn’t go see any of the Lord of the Rings movies, but saw Titanic. if those folks get intrigued and start showing up, then it’s off to the races.
Jenn Rosenberry — July 22, 2008 at 4:10 pm
If my memory serves, part of what Titanic had going for it was the “screaming girl” factor. It’s funny to remember back, but Leonardo de Caprio was like Leif Garret after this movie. My little sister (who was in college!!) saw it 5 times in the theater specifically because she was so gaga over Leo.
The other question, of course, is can it pull in the hardcore “non-action move” crowd. People like my in-laws, who see a movie every weekend – usually a romantic comedy or well-reviewed drama. Who didn’t go see any of the Lord of the Rings movies, but saw Titanic. if those folks get intrigued and start showing up, then it’s off to the races.
Sonny Bunch — July 22, 2008 at 5:00 pm
PMM: That link is getting its own post it’s so awesome.
Floppy — July 22, 2008 at 6:21 pm
That was Grover. Not Elmo.
Sonny Bunch — July 22, 2008 at 7:13 pm
I’m pretty sure those were little Elmos in the tunnel scene of that YouTube…about 50 seconds into it. Note the creepy laughing, like a tickle-me-Elmo.
Joe — July 23, 2008 at 11:46 am
In order:
1) Yes
2) No
3) All of it.
4) Indefinitely
5) Per his NPR interview he’s willing to do whatever Obama asks him, so I say he was still in it.
6) No
YMMV
Joe — July 23, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Atlanta, a city incapable of selling out playoff baseball games, and site to the Olympics 12 years ago. I remember almost nothing about those Olympics other than the bombing and subsequent wrongheaded “investigation” of Richard Jewell.
Yes, I think we can safely contract Atlanta.
Sonny Bunch — July 23, 2008 at 1:43 pm
I remember watching the Olympic torch when it passed through Stafford. An Olympic biker was on it, and he blew through town at about 30 mph. We were all very excited.
Joe — July 24, 2008 at 6:51 am
I had the joy of watching one of my professors carry the torch down Franklin Street in Chapel Hill. That he was the legendary Chuck Stone had something to do with his assignment and my appreciation.
William — July 24, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Yow.
This essay-post seems to fit nicely with Joseph Bottum’s essay in the current First Things (The Death of Protestant America, available on the website), as the Bottum essay may explain why it has become so hard to make the cultural argument in non-partisan terms. We can live the virtuous life if we desire to do so, but these days we probably can’t convince other people to come along…
Or am I seeing a connection where none exists?
Sara — July 24, 2008 at 4:53 pm
As Ben Smith notes the Citizens of the World description derives from JFK
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.
Sara — July 24, 2008 at 4:54 pm
And if you read the speech- he also says I come to you as a fellow citizen of the world, he’s inferring that we are all citizens of the world.
JDS — July 24, 2008 at 4:55 pm
We are all citizens of the world and I believe an argument against that is hard to substantiate.
john — July 24, 2008 at 5:00 pm
i think most of america is tired of the expectations and responsibility of being on a pedestal too high for comfort. this is obama trying to come humbly without losing any dignity. i don’t see anything empty about it. critics that deride this kind of rhetoric are no longer relevant and do not resound with the base that obama is trying to win over: those that are ready to return to pragmatism and cooperation.
and besides, it’s just a metaphor. if you’re not at home in the metaphor, you’re not safe anywhere.
Scientific — July 24, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Why don’t you relax, James?
It’s a very common phrase, and not meant to be taken nearly as literally as you did. Easy, guy, easy.
Patrick Tomlinson — July 24, 2008 at 5:21 pm
“…the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible…”
Is it possible to be of a smaller mind than this?
Citizenship in the world is not only possible, it is essential. There is no greater polity than that of all humanity, no grander nation than mankind. To act and believe that we are not all members of this nation of man, as Mr. Poulos would have us do, is to deny the humanity of those outside of our arbitrarily formed boarders.
I am a human first, an American second. Think what we could all accomplish if everyone had these simple priorities straightened out.
Hoodwinked — July 24, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Poulos writes: “In addition to being meaningless — the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible — this is exactly the sort of redundantly empty rhetoric that does nothing to energize his base, nothing to allay the concerns of Middle America about his meta-attitude, and supplies the frantic and the furious on the right with a fresh tranch of attacks. Why did he do it? Bad advice? His own advice? Why couldn’t he just say “a big fan of the world,” or “a product of the world,” something that at least had the merit of being accurate? Anyone?”
This statement is really quite petty. Seriously, this is all you could come up with as criticism? What contributions are you making to the world, besides being snarky?
Chet — July 24, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Meaingless, eh? In France there’s a fairly large statue of an ancestor of mine – Thomas Paine, a writer, maybe you’ve heard of him? – with the golden inscription “citoyen du monde”: citizen of the world.
Apparently it was neither meaningless to our Founding Fathers nor to their French allies.
While Obama is busy crafting a vision of American statecraft we haven’t seen since the days of Adams and Jefferson, you’re busy nitpicking one phrase out of a thousand. You’re everything that’s wrong with the press these days.
Scott de B. — July 24, 2008 at 5:30 pm
The “citizen of the world” concept goes back much farther than JFK. It was the Greek philosopher Diogenes who first said “I am a citizen of the cosmos (cosmopolites)”, whence our word cosmopolitan.
Dan — July 24, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Mr. Poulos, with due respect, I think you’re very wrong on at least two counts:
1) “the world is not a polity”… That’s a valid opinion, especially if you believe — as was fashionable about 30 years ago — that a polity requires a government that can tax people and has a monopoly on legitimate violence. But the study of politics has changed a bit since then. Read, for example, Ruggie’s “Constructing the World Polity.”
2) By describing himself as a fellow citizen of the world, Obama was making a claim that the world is indeed a single community — or polity — both empirically and ethically. People around the world actually do affect each other, and we have obligations to each other, like upholding human rights, even when it’s not in one state’s narrowly-defined short-term self-interests. That is not “redundantly empty rhetoric,” in fact, but a very specific kind of claim. I think it’s one of the most important claims a presidential campaign can make.
You did get something right. The right wing doesn’t like this idea. That’s a heck of a newsflash!!! But let’s have an open debate on the substance of that claim, rather than avoiding it by trying to label Obama as some kind of vacuous utopian.
matt — July 24, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Somethings are said analogically. ‘Citizen of the world’ means that one has shared political interests and obligations with people around the world. You might think this is false, but its not meaningless.
Barrett Brown — July 24, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“In addition to being meaningless — the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible…”
Would you be open to considering the possibility that Obama is perfectly aware that he is not actually an official member of an organization called “the world” and did not intend to convey any such thing, but was rather making a figurative statement to the effect that he is committed to greater international cooperation?
Kris — July 24, 2008 at 5:57 pm
“Polity?” Geez, what a tight-assed little word to use. And so what if he cribbed a phrase from Kennedy’s inaugural speech? I’m tired of my country being seen as the knuckle-dragging bully. I’m sick to death of apologizing for my government’s xenophobia. And I’m sick at heart over the fact we have squandered our position of leadership and good will and are dangerously close to being reduced to a sideline spectator in the 21st century. I, for one, am quite ready to rejoin the “citizens of the world.”
ad — July 24, 2008 at 6:01 pm
‘Citizen of the World’ goes back to the eighteenth century and Enlightenment ideals of humanist cosmopolitanism, where you have a responsibility to others that goes beyond narrow national borders and self interests… it’s a pretty famous concept and not at all meaningless.
Germany has a great education system, maybe that one was for them. He did also lay it on with a trowel about loving America…
Muzzy — July 24, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Aristotle was the first recorded instance of a man declaring himself a citizen of the world.
Perhaps when little Jamie P. grows up he might like to read some Aristotle and learn something.
It is the first thing I remember hearing in Obama’s speech. It took my breath away to hear him say it, because it is the first moment in my lifetime that I could hear myself in the words of a presidential candidate.
steve — July 24, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“Our yearning for pan-human solidarity is an absurdity, the absurdity of the human condition, and the most utopian of all utopian ideas is the idea of a Brotherhood of Man: because the human race is not a family, just like it isn’t one big polity. ”
We share huge amounts of interests with Europe, culturally and politically. Start with NATO in Afghanistan and go on from there. Acknowledging, that we share common goals and aspirations, making us a group, and wanting to promote our common interests is hardly the same as giving up individual political liberty.
Steve
H. M. — July 24, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Why don’t you just admit it, Poulos, you don’t like Obama and you’re jealous. It’s pretty seventh-grade girly of yo to get so
whipped over a fairly common rhetorical phrase. “Fan of the World”? “Product of the World”? Surely you can’t be serious, or do
you really not get that “accuracy” wasn’t the goal. Are you truly the anal weenie you sound like here?
steve — July 24, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Forgot to link this. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=42644
Reagan said the same thing. So did Bush Sr. This is mostly a rhetorical device noting that people have much in common, especially people of good will.
Steve
MK — July 24, 2008 at 8:28 pm
Poulos why are you insulting Ronald Reagan? Seriously, Reagan introduced himself to the UN General Assembly in 1982 as a “both a citizen of the United States and the world.” Was Reagan some kind of American-hating wako? Pushing this “citizen of the world” attack meme is solidly stupid. Before you do so again you should check your facts! You’d learn that not only Reagan, but George H.W. Bush and John F. Kennedy have used the same term “citizen of the world” in their speeches. Talk about grapsing for straws~!
Lars — July 24, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan made the same mistake:
“Mr. Secretary-General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen:
I speak today as both a citizen of the United States and of the world.”
Remarks in New York City Before the United Nations General Assembly Special Session Devoted to Disarmament
June 17th, 1982
Michael — July 24, 2008 at 9:02 pm
The world is most certainly a “polity”! It is represented by international bodies, such as the United Nations, and by intricate conventions manifested by international law. The term “polity” covers a lot more ground than you pretend.
Robert Stacy McCain — July 24, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Obviously, he was pandering to the Democratic Party’s powerful “cosmopolitan sophisticate” constituency.
David — July 24, 2008 at 10:27 pm
I sometimes wish there was some kind of annual “missing the point entirely” recognition ceremony. Does pointing out that one literally can’t vote for an earth-president (Paulos in ‘12!) in an election really pass as commentary? Do you think Obama was confused, perhaps believing that he owed small blue planet taxes? You mean you can’t REALLY be a citizen of the world? That’s the sound of me hitting my head against a coffee table in disappointment.
It was rhetorical, and while we’re being ridiculous, anal, and literal: Does Paulos really recommend that I “pick a presidential poison”? Surely, if I chose poison I would die, and that would be regrettable. Why couldn’t he have called his piece “choose a president that is ultimately bad for you but that has some short term positive effects.” Mmmm — the merit of accuracy…
At least if I drank poison I’d never again have to read such bloody minded literalism posing as intelligent commentary. Ugh. I need to take tomorrow off. This “fan of the world” is going to go lie down now.
RP — July 24, 2008 at 11:11 pm
God, you are a pathetic know all. A writer and a graduate student — quite smart, your family must be so proud that you can use a word like polity. It was a great speech. And the point about being a citizen of the world is that, as the world, we are all in this together. The issues of war and peace, global warming, and economic justice, to name a few,effect the whole world. And, unlike George Bush and the neocon idiots, many of whom were graduate students in government and writers like your self, most Americans actually understand that and would like a President who is respect by the world, not hated.
Robert S. — July 25, 2008 at 1:40 am
“the world is not a polity, so citizenship in it is impossible”
Poulos is apparently an extreme literalist and/or unacquainted with the concept of metaphor.
- Another fellow citizen of the world
Stephen — July 25, 2008 at 2:35 am
If you’re going to nitpick a phrase this literally, it helps to do a little research first. “Citizen of the world” as a phrase actually appears in the Oxford American dictionary as “a person who is at home in any country.” So by definition it is not meaningless. You could argue that Obama meant it in a sense that’s different from the established dictionary definition, and that would be slightly less anal than your analysis as it stands.
will thomas — July 25, 2008 at 2:50 am
Dude. You’re weird. It’s going to be strangely exciting/unsettling to see the heads of commentators such as yourself exploding in reaction to Obama’s third way.
Steve V — July 25, 2008 at 7:56 am
It isn’t just that he was using words Kennedy had used; he used the phrase to actually invoke Kennedy: the phrase is preceded by (in substance), “I come to you as others before have, …” namely Kennedy, that citzen of the world. Just like all the references to tearing down walls was an invocation of Reagan, this seemed to me to be a invocation of Kennedy. Not that enterprising righties won’t go into fits of faux outrage anyway.
Luis — July 25, 2008 at 9:51 am
Ah, so you’re taking the Humpty Dumpty line. Being a citizen of the world means “yearning for pan-human solidarity” and being everyone’s brother, naively and without regard to whether other folks want to bash your head in.
Just like being a citizen of the U.S. means “yearning for pan-human solidarity” (among that subset of humans) and being every American’s brother, naively and without regard to whether other Americans want to bash your head in.
Thanks for clearing that one up. I do so love it when people tell me what words mean.
Mark — July 25, 2008 at 10:05 am
And let’s not forget JFK:
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.
Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.
Brian — July 25, 2008 at 10:19 am
I’ve read this three or four times now, and while I find a good many rhetorical curlicues, I’m still not finding any sort of defense. “Our yearning for pan-human solidarity is…the absurdity of the human condition…” I’d still like to hear this backed up. Why, exactly, is this so? Lead me to the absurdity.
Elvis Elvisberg — July 25, 2008 at 10:26 am
This is a colorable argument as to why you don’t like the phrase. But it’s common parlance. Reagan, Bush Jr., JFK, et al have used it.
If I don’t like the phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right,” and President Bush uses it, it’s not a valid criticism for me to claim that he is soft-headed or immoral or whatever on that basis.
elle loco — July 25, 2008 at 10:38 am
Mr. Poulos, when you’re in a hole, stop digging. Barack Obama is being head-butted by reactionary, xenophobic America for employing a rhetorical trope priorly invoked by Presidents John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush, among others. It is a sentiment in favor of human rights and the recognition of our common humanity and fate.
By your friends shall you be known, and judged. Your point is fatuous, overcooked, and objectively swinish.
Bad — July 25, 2008 at 10:40 am
“Knocking Obama’s phrasing is not an exercise in snark. ”
The fact remains that when countless other politicians who weren’t Obama used the same phrase (sometimes without even prefacing the phrase without “proud American” as many on the right seem to prefer not to mention), did you express the same deep worries about their character?
And frankly, your complaints aren’t very convincing. Is political liberty really a goal best served by only insularity? Is a sense of being in the same world as other and thus having to work out how to interact with them to achieve certain (western enlightenment) goals somehow a barrier to increased liberty instead of a boon?
You seem to be making an extremely forced interpretation in the service of a very unjustifiably absolutist point.
Paul — July 25, 2008 at 10:44 am
Take a step back. This is just self-regarding windbaggery. You pundits should all go on holiday until the first debates happen.
KJ — July 25, 2008 at 10:57 am
I do love it when the commenters are all smarter than the poster. Mr Poulous, wasn’t some blogger saying the same thing about the Black and White races back in the 50s? Our interdependence on each other grows daily, to the benefit of most in our dear world, and to deny that reality is simply putting makeup on xenophobia.
But that’s a larger point. The fact that “citizen of the world” is a common construction used by many a conservative politician and president should be embarrassment enough for you to stop.
Scott de B. — July 25, 2008 at 11:01 am
I think a world government should be the goal of human political development, and moreover I think it is an inevitable one, although I am realistic enough to believe it is around 300 years away. Such a government need not be inimicable to liberty — in fact I would argue that it is the best vehicle for preserving liberty.
We have too many common interests to think that we can live in splendid isolation, as the British Empire once did. Trade policies in the U.S. can make or break a third-world economy. Stock market fluctuations in Europe can trigger a recession in the U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions in Asia can lead to humanitarian catastrophes around the world. The decisions of Arab oil sheiks arguably have more impact on my day-to-day life than the actions of my House representative, so why shouldn’t I have a say in the former? That would seem to advance the cause of liberty.
In the end, the arguments that the U.S. and, say, Austria should be part of the same polity are no weaker than the arguments that Oregon and Alabama, Guandong and Xinjiang, or the Crimea and Kamchatka should be part of the same polity.
Patrick Tomlinson — July 25, 2008 at 11:03 am
How about until after the election?
matt — July 25, 2008 at 11:22 am
I think there’s a deep misunderstanding of internationalist cosmopolitanism here. The cosmopolitical bind between ‘citizens of the world’ does not make them closer; it doesn’t ‘bust borders’; it is adopted more in the interests of political liberty than ’social solidarity’; it has little to do with ‘the suffering of strangers’. Indeed, sophisticated cosmopolitanism depends upon borders, and upon the (even cultural) antagonism of nations.
mattc — July 25, 2008 at 11:31 am
“We share huge amounts of interests with Europe, culturally and politically. Start with NATO in Afghanistan and go on from there.”
There are many people who believe entangling alliances such as NATO are perfect examples of loss of individual political liberty.
“I think a world government should be the goal of human political development, and moreover I think it is an inevitable one, although I am realistic enough to believe it is around 300 years away.”
It’s a damn good thing I’ll be dead by then.
“We have too many common interests to think that we can live in splendid isolation, as the British Empire once did. Trade policies in the U.S. can make or break a third-world economy. Stock market fluctuations in Europe can trigger a recession in the U.S. Greenhouse gas emissions in Asia can lead to humanitarian catastrophes around the world. The decisions of Arab oil sheiks arguably have more impact on my day-to-day life than the actions of my House representative, so why shouldn’t I have a say in the former?”
If you think your House representative does little for you know vis-a-vis your day-to-day life, what influece do you think your WORLD representative will have.
Liberal internationalist do pine for pan-human solidarity. It’s one of the tenets of social democrats as well. Without us all accepting our “citizenship” to the world, these types of political and economic philosophies will continue to meet resistance. They don’t want that, and neither does Obama.
“Just like being a citizen of the U.S. means “yearning for pan-human solidarity” (among that subset of humans) and being every American’s brother, naively and without regard to whether other Americans want to bash your head in.”
No, citizenship only applies with regards to polity. Read James’ first post. That’s the point. You are a citizen of your town, state, and country because they have a government that represents you. Conversely, you are not a citizen of Brazil.
The rhetoric Obama used (as others have as well) specifically blurs this definition of citizenship. Some think it’s a rebuke to isolationism. I think it’s a rebuke to self-government and political liberty, as does James. Obama wants a social solidarity, a communitarian world-view, as much as any President I’ve seen in my lifetime. He similarly uses rhetoric to goad American’s into “social service” instead of pursuing private enterprise: his political fusion of the Social Gospel. I have no doubt that when he is President his policies will be focused on a) rewarding public employees, social workers, and union laborers and b) developing a communitarian foreign policy to directly contrast the “you are either with us or against us” policy of Bush. Either way, political liberty and self-government are NOT things Obama is concerned about.
Christian Toto — July 25, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Consider this a slightly related rant. There’s plenty of outrage about the US’s war with Iraq. Fine. Where is the outrage that the world didn’t stop Rwanda’s genocide … the Darfur quasi? genocide and so many other ills across the globe? Doesn’t any country get blamed for that? No outrage?
Getting back to your post … would love to hear some outrage over this announcement re: Iraq and the Olympics. I expect none.
SWL — July 25, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Nice, subtle reference to Nazi’s in the fourth paragraph. Always a solid way to prove your point.
I think Poulos misses on a couple points, first that friendship isn’t the only trope, or metaphor, capable of accurately describing relationships with strangers, what about an “business partner.” The world is more economically intertwined than during any other time in history and it becomes more so every day. Countries and governments try to slow this change with tariffs and other trade limitations, with incomplete success. It is this selfish, economic drive that will propel countries around the world to cooperate, not high falutin’ moral goals of a utopian humanity.
His second shortcoming is in reference to “strangers” only being able to relate through “friendship.” That doesn’t make sense. Strangers would be more likely to be interested in a business partnership and less likely to want to be “friends.” But, let’s assume he is correct, there are a couple flaws with this. First, he assumes that the people of the world will always be “strangers” with each other. That was true when the philosophers and politicians that Poulos emulates wrote their ideas. Even 25 years ago, communication and travel was onerous enough to make a “world view” a rare commodity. That is no longer the case. Second, once two people become “friends” their outlook on competition and cooperation with each other changes. This fundamentally affects how they will work together.
Perhaps, at the heart of this debate is the definition of “citizen.” Poulos seems to imply that a global citizen somehow sheds all personal concern and only looks at the world with an unselfish, idealistic view. Others (Reagan, Bush Jr., Obama) view a global citizen as an entity that continues to work in their own best interests, but recognizes that more can be accomplished working with others, than alone. Sometimes that may mean giving, in order to receive.
Muzzy — July 25, 2008 at 12:47 pm
“Our apparently pan-human longing for pan-human solidarity may actually be a parochially European hang-up”?
European? Parochial?
And all this time I thought Gandhi was an Indian. How silly of me to assume that Martin Luther King, Jr. was an American! Thank you, Mr. Poulos, for setting the record straight. Wait, does that mean that Jesus of Nazareth was really just a parochial Dutchman in disguise?
Jeff — July 25, 2008 at 1:23 pm
James — You obviously fail to realize that there is a strain of “world citizenship” in which being a world citizen means essentially being able to be friends with varieties of peoples and countries outside the borders of one’s own nation. (The best example here is actually from post-war Germany, namely Jaspers.) Point is I think you’re tilting at windmills here, windmills which are largely the creation of your own intellectual narrowness.
Eric — July 25, 2008 at 1:33 pm
James, you’re wrong all over the place. Why is it preferable to be cynical than it is to be idealistic? Idealists got us to the moon, for heaven’s sake. Idealists got us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The brotherhood of man exists in the phrase, “all men are created equal.” If we are created equal, then we are brothers, we are all “citizens of the world.” It’s not just a figure of speech; it’s an ideal. And while we humans — most notably you with these comments, James — fall short of the ideal, it does not obviate the need to reach for the ideal. We recognize the universality of being interdependent and united toward a common goal and a greater good for everyone, not just good for one group or nationality or religion.
You need to leave wherever you are and head out to where real people live.
Gerald Mullett — July 25, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“Citizen of the world” is so obviously a figurative and ceremonial concept in this context, as would be the meaning of such terms as “political liberty” and “self-government”. Communitarians are certainly as entitled to their rhetorical flights as libertarians are to theirs.
Sam Sutton — July 25, 2008 at 3:30 pm
I disagree on one point – that his comment is empty and will do nothing to energize the base. I am part of that base – lifelong Democrat, Obama supporter since mid-2006, and so on, and I find myself very energized by this comment and, more specifically, the attitude that it represents.
I believe firmly that striving for a more coherent, cooperative worldwide society is a good thing, and I despise those who are militantly, vehemently nationalistic. To this end I believe Obama represents a needed transition away from the our-way-or-the-highway approach of the Bush administration, and while I always knew Obama represented this I appreciate having it confirmed and enshrined in such strong terms.
So while I agree that it probably won’t help with “Middle-America” (although it still may just because it represents a move away from one of Bush’s hallmark legacies) and gives the right-wing wackos a fresh belt of ammunition, I don’t agree that it was a stupid thing to say. Obama has thrived by taking on “tough” issues directly, succinctly – and by not backing down or beating around the bush. He is merely doing the same thing here.
SMS — July 25, 2008 at 3:40 pm
BREAKING: “Citizen of the World” used by Plethora of Past Presidents http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/25/11915/3761/506/556820
Will — July 25, 2008 at 4:11 pm
On an unrelated note, I think this characterization of the Joker as “blowback” is a pretty interesting response to your earlier interpretation of the Batman franchise’s politics. I’d be interested to read your take on it:
http://www.cogitamusblog.com/2008/07/the-dark-night.html
Sonny Bunch — July 25, 2008 at 4:41 pm
That take is forthcoming: I’m working on a post that should go up tonight at some point about politics and ‘The Dark Knight.’
Steve V — July 25, 2008 at 5:20 pm
I said this in the last comment thread and I’m going to try again. I believe the ONLY purpose for the insertion of that line was to invoke Kennedy. Look, Obama wanted to go to Europe and to identify with those notions of America which are popular with Europeans, as opposed to those notions which the Europeans despise (such as the current leadership). So he litters his speech with allusions to Kennedy and yes, Reagan whom I’m surprised would be popular with Europeans but there it is. The only purpose of including this verbiage, just like the repeated “tearing down of walls” verbiage, was to invoke the popular American leaders who originally said these things and to allow Obama to identify with them. And thus there was a great enthusiasm and waving of American flags. I seriously doubt that Obama has any particular attachment to the idea of “world citizenship” apart from this identification.
Mike — July 25, 2008 at 6:24 pm
From Casablanca:
Major Strasser: What is your nationality?
Rick: I’m a drunkard.
Captain Renault: That makes Rick a citizen of the world.
So it’s not Obama at all, it’s Bush.
elle loco — July 25, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Poulos, I hope you’re blotto drunk, like
Alcibiades at the end of the Symposium. Your audience is laughing hysterically at you. How reassuring.
J Grimes — July 26, 2008 at 12:25 am
Will Thomas, what exactly is Obama’s Third Way? Run of the mill neoliberal globalism?
Though Mr. Sutton is right on his first point. Obama’s base accepts the absurd, pure abstraction of Citizenry of the World as axiomatic.
Mediocrity Ferdinand! I highly recommend it! The more obfuscating you are…the more brutal you are.
Joachim Robert — July 26, 2008 at 5:42 am
There are also big differences between the people in one nation. But they are still called citizens. I don’t see the big increase in difference between people of the world from people of a nation that somehow should make it wrong to tag them as citizens. I live in this World, I am a citizen of the World; obviously that’s true.
You look at it with very nationalistic eyes, which I think is wrong.
Joachim Robert — July 26, 2008 at 5:44 am
Well, “nationalistic” not necessarily in the sense that one nation is better than the other, but more than you are focusing too much on the borders between nations.
Tim — July 26, 2008 at 11:47 am
I see The Dark Knight as probably the most intelligent movie response to 9/11 yet. The bombs on two boats scenario is based on `the prisoners` dilemma` derived from game theory. The idea being that two players in a game can choose between two moves; either `cooperate` or `defect`. The idea is that each player gains when both cooperate, but if only one of them cooperates, the other one, who defects, will gain more – but they can`t confer. (U can Google 4 more.) Joker wants to demonstrate that ultimately everyone is as murderous and ruthless as he is. The passengers could attempt to save their own lives by destroying the other boat, providing they act first. Joker expects one boat to do so. But there is also a moral dimension, by destroying a boat the survivors will also be mass murderers and both boats choose not to become so.
It`s telling this particular scenario was chosen for the film. On 9/11, if those in one tower could have saved themselves by choosing to destroy the other tower would they have done so? (But then becoming terrorists themselves.) Nolan is saying that no they wouldn`t have; they`d decide to take their own chances and someone else would have to take the moral responsibility as to whether they lived or died. The boat passengers’ decision not to blow up the other boat is a demonstration of basic humanity that is the real defeat of Joker and what he stands for.
Batman plays rough, but wants to hand over to the forces of law and order, if sufficiently strong and capable. He also has rules he won’t break. Harvey Dent suffers greatly in the film and arrives at a mental state that believes everything is arbitrary, that there is no morality, good, bad, justice or fairness in the world. Everything is morally equivalent. Two Face crucially abandons being led by moral choices, letting the coin flip do the work. He`s thrown into a nihilistic moral wasteland between Joker and Batman. And that is where US foreign policy is now with Guantanamo Bay and Iraq whilst pretending to itself that it is the world`s White Knight; preferring to believe the legend of Harvey Dent rather than the reality of what he became. (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance is referenced in TDK.) Another key plot point is about the use of surveillance technology (ends and means), immensely topical given the Patriot Act and UK`s anti terror laws. There’s obviously more, it’s a very dense, complex film. What I love about these superhero characters is that they’ve becoming a pantheon of modern mythical figures – similar to those of Greek, Norse or Arthurian legends – whose stories can be endlessly retold and refashioned.
Will — July 28, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Doesn’t this kind of logic implicate the whole “introduce democracy to defeat terrorism” thing? Or am I missing a distinction somewhere?
Hector Mayorga — July 28, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Of course, Roger Federer is one of the best tennis players ever. But the greatest of them all is, and will probably remain so for many years, ROD LAVER
Sonny Bunch — July 28, 2008 at 11:57 pm
I’m not sure I follow you, Will; what does Africa’s failures have to do with democracy?
Christopher Jones — July 29, 2008 at 9:43 am
I agree with the 4 critics who found The Dark Knight weak with the exception of Mr. Ledgers disturbing and brilliant performance. Check out my full review on my blog – criticalmassnyc.blogspot.com
Drew — July 29, 2008 at 11:01 am
I thought it was b/c Chicago has replaced NY as the real-world Gotham city.
Sonny Bunch — July 29, 2008 at 11:41 am
Christopher: You didn’t like ‘The Dark Knight’ but you consider ‘Mongol’ to be a great artistic achievement? That makes me a sad panda.
Drew: But Gotham City is Chicago in the DC universe, right? Metropolis has to be NYC, making GC Chicago. At least, that’s what I always thought…
Michael — July 31, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Bill O’Reilly rules!!! Olbermann is an idiot and is soooo insanely jealous of Bill that it cracks me up. What a putz.
Michael — July 31, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Bill O’Reilly rules!!! Olbermann is an idiot and is soooo insanely jealous of Bill that it cracks me up. What a putz.
Michael — July 31, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Bill O’Reilly rules!!! Olbermann is an idiot and is soooo insanely jealous of Bill that it cracks me up. What a putz.
Robert Karol — August 1, 2008 at 9:21 am
So, how many of these people who think Obama’s rallying Nuremberg called out Reagan for going to Bitburg Cemetery?
Good idea: Reagan honoring dead SS soldiers.
Bad idea: Obama holding rally with peaceful Germans.
That makes so much sense.
Sonny Bunch — August 1, 2008 at 10:29 am
Robert: I mean, I didn’t really care that Obama went to Germany. I thought it was a little silly and presumptuous–he is still just a nominee, after all–but I was very “meh” on the whole thing. Ross’s point (and it’s a good one) is that liberals who try and compare McCain’s ad to ‘Triumph of the Will’ should pull their head out of their…rear. Obama’s the one who set up a photo op with hundreds of thousands of Germans in front of a German war memorial. It’s not McCain’s fault that it comes off a little, um, Fascist.
Scott H. Payne — August 1, 2008 at 11:08 am
Given that international integration via increasing techno-economic and, by degrees, cultural globalization is, by his own admission, basically an inevitability for Friedman, anything that lessens America’s ability to stand out within that system (like shipping money to foreign oil barons, who in turn keep creeping the price and hurting the US economy, or at least so the analysis goes) is anathema to American nationalism. In Friedman’s mind it isn’t possible to unplug, so nationalism means being the biggest, fastest, most talented player on the field.
Which is a long way of saying that Friedman is likely projecting much of his own analysis on Pickens’ statement.
Scott H. Payne — August 1, 2008 at 11:08 am
Given that international integration via increasing techno-economic and, by degrees, cultural globalization is, by his own admission, basically an inevitability for Friedman, anything that lessens America’s ability to stand out within that system (like shipping money to foreign oil barons, who in turn keep creeping the price and hurting the US economy, or at least so the analysis goes) is anathema to American nationalism. In Friedman’s mind it isn’t possible to unplug, so nationalism means being the biggest, fastest, most talented player on the field.
Which is a long way of saying that Friedman is likely projecting much of his own analysis on Pickens’ statement.
Michael Simpson — August 2, 2008 at 9:01 am
This is just silly – Yglesias is just acting the fool and “working the refs,” hoping that by throwing a few unsubstantiated (and false) claims about Slate’s political leanings, they’ll move to become less a close cousin of TNR and more like The Nation.
Michael Simpson — August 2, 2008 at 9:01 am
This is just silly – Yglesias is just acting the fool and “working the refs,” hoping that by throwing a few unsubstantiated (and false) claims about Slate’s political leanings, they’ll move to become less a close cousin of TNR and more like The Nation.
Michael Simpson — August 2, 2008 at 9:01 am
This is just silly – Yglesias is just acting the fool and “working the refs,” hoping that by throwing a few unsubstantiated (and false) claims about Slate’s political leanings, they’ll move to become less a close cousin of TNR and more like The Nation.
Sonny Bunch — August 2, 2008 at 12:15 pm
You know, I don’t think so. I think Yglesias actually thinks he’s either close to the center himself or imbued with a special power to see exactly where the center lies. Methinks Sullivan’s “Yglesias Award” has gone to his head…
Sonny Bunch — August 2, 2008 at 12:15 pm
You know, I don’t think so. I think Yglesias actually thinks he’s either close to the center himself or imbued with a special power to see exactly where the center lies. Methinks Sullivan’s “Yglesias Award” has gone to his head…
Sonny Bunch — August 2, 2008 at 12:15 pm
You know, I don’t think so. I think Yglesias actually thinks he’s either close to the center himself or imbued with a special power to see exactly where the center lies. Methinks Sullivan’s “Yglesias Award” has gone to his head…
Andy Hartzell — August 2, 2008 at 10:00 pm
I’m not sure I’m ready for the era of the seersucker-shorts-suits. But I’m relieved that the era of cargo-shorts hegemony may be coming to an end.
boqueronman — August 3, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I wouldn’t use the term “going out of business” in this case. A Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing usually leads to protection from creditors and breathing space to restructure. The core of the restructuring will probably be to close unprofitable units, but it probably doesn’t mean the company ceases to operate. It just means South Park kid will have to stay on the truck longer to get to the next Bennigans.
craig mclaughlin — August 4, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Chapter 7 is liquidation; give the keys to the trustee and walk away. Chapter 11 is corporate reorganization.
The only Bennigan’s I ever visited was in Pensacola Florida when I was in navy flight school nearly 25 years ago. My running mates and I went there because they had cute cocktail waitreses, we never bought any food.
But I still have fond memories of the place.
Joe — August 5, 2008 at 9:17 am
Congratulations, Sonny. I was wondering where your Sunday Morning Show wrapups went to. Good for you.
Drew — August 5, 2008 at 10:44 am
Congrats, but I really liked the culture stuff here. Color me bummed.
Drew — August 5, 2008 at 10:46 am
Also, not to be too snarkty, but I think you would be an improvement over the Standard’s current print film critic.
Sonny Bunch — August 5, 2008 at 10:47 am
Joe: Thanks. I think Dean is going to do the wrap up from now on…I can’t say I’m terribly disappointed to get my Sundays back, though.
Drew: Well, I hope you follow me over to the ‘Times’ blog (once I find a link to it and figure out how often I’ll be writing for it, anyway). I’ll probably cross-post a little as well. I’m still kind of feeling it out at this point…
Will — August 5, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Congrats! Any thoughts as to what this blog will focus on from here on out?
Sonny Bunch — August 5, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Will: Thanks…I think the blog will focus a little more on the presidential election now than it did previously. Things are finally getting interesting.
Christian Toto — August 6, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Maybe the new media will do the job the old media should do over the next week or so — expose what’s really happening in China.
Christian Toto — August 6, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Cue the Fairness Doctrine. If you can’t out-argue Rush, silence him. Sad. Speaks to a lack of self-confidence in one’s positions. Or arrogance.
Will — August 6, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Silencing disagreeable opinions is certainly deplorable, but I hardly think this tendency is UNIQUE to the American left.
On the earlier thread you link to, I posted pretty extensively on how mainstream conservatives have swept substantive disagreements between neocons, paleocons, and libertarians under the rug. It’s also worth noting that there has yet to be a serious intramural discussion about foreign policy in the wake of the Iraq debacle on the right.
Sonny Bunch — August 6, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Will: There is, I think, a substantial difference between an opinion magazine not publishing material they might disagree with than an open community like Daily Kos shutting down a longtime member’s account because he’s posting something the site’s moderator’s disagree with.
Paleos and Libertarians have their own publications (National Review/The American Spectator and Reason magazine, respectively), and they have their own views on the war. They differ from the editorial vision of the Weekly Standard. You wouldn’t argue that The New Republic should have to publish pieces from the editors of The Nation, would you?
That being said, I don’t think the Weekly Standard or NR would ban a contributor for saying something they disagree with. Consider one of my favorite contributors to the books and arts section of TWS, Christopher Hitchens. He says all sorts of stuff the editors of the TWS disagree with, but he still writes for them on a pretty regular basis. When Hitchens disagreed with The Nation on the war, however, he was excommunicated. That, I think, is the difference.
Will — August 6, 2008 at 2:30 pm
As an intellectual exercise, yes, I think it would be beneficial for TNR to actively seek out opposing viewpoints for occasional inclusion in their magazine. And while I don’t think NR would ban an author for expressing a viewpoint contrary to the party line, the ideological uniformity of their staff (Derbyshire is the only real outlier I can think of) suggests that they rarely hire people who hail from a different strain of conservatism. If anything, Hitchens at TWS is the exception that proves the rule.
Preserving a distinct institutional viewpoint is certainly a worthy goal, but I think debate and discussion can further that goal without detracting from the centrality of a magazine’s ideological foundations.
I’d also note that RedState’s decision to ban pro-Ron Paul commenters is almost exactly analogous to the DailyKos episode. In fact, I imagine that RedState’s justifications for a blanket ban – “they detract from real discussion; their discussions are irrelevant to the issues at hand; they’re annoying etc.” – are rather similar to the rationale behind the decision to eject the anti-Edwards blogger from the DailyKos. Needless to say, I think both decisions are silly, but to suggest this phenomenon is unique to the Left is a bit blinkered.
Troy — August 6, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Good question. If we are to reject the reasons for going into Iraq, then we must reject the war in Afghanistan as well.
Does anyone even know why we are there?
Sonny Bunch — August 6, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I would argue that magazines can have debates between each other’s stances without necessarily publishing those stances. Back and forth doesn’t need to occur within a single mag’s covers.
And I think that the RedState decision is a little different–in that case the Ron Paul supporters were basically trolls, hijacking conversations and driving away regular readers. If I remember correctly, Red State allowed anyone who had been there a certain amount of time (three months or so? something like that) to post all of the pro-Ron Paul stuff they wanted. But the Paulbots tended to be a disruptive force, as is their wont.
Sonny Bunch — August 6, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Though, that being said, I wasn’t entirely thrilled with the idea of banning them. It’s antithetical to the nature of the web…
Conor Williams — August 6, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Indeed. Obama may yet be the first candidate of the “elites” Christopher Lasch warned us about in Revolt of the Elites nearly twenty years ago. Welcome to the new meritocracy, the new mobility of opportunism, and the shattering of old bonds and limits of community. This may, in fact, be the one thing that worries me about Obama. His supporters form a bloc of dangerously transient, dissatisfied, young, liberal intellectuals who seem at times too detached from any meaningful connections to be trusted. If he is the man who keeps their company (or rather, needs their company to be elected), I find myself doubting.
Sonny Bunch — August 7, 2008 at 10:23 am
That is a lot of gin.
Seriously though, I’m glad these Olympics are turning into such a giant mess. The IOC is a fraud, and if the world wants to make the Olympics respectable again then the world’s largest countries need to demand reform.
Rick — August 7, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Keith should have stayed with ESPN. It seems you only need an IQ of 4 to work there, Keith missed it by 2. I guess that is a prereq. to work at a sports news channel.
Rick — August 7, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Keith should have stayed with ESPN. It seems you only need an IQ of 4 to work there, Keith missed it by 2. I guess that is a prereq. to work at a sports news channel.
Rick — August 7, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Keith should have stayed with ESPN. It seems you only need an IQ of 4 to work there, Keith missed it by 2. I guess that is a prereq. to work at a sports news channel.
Nathan P Origer — August 9, 2008 at 12:03 pm
WOW.
May I usurp the throne of Luxembourg and declare myself Grand Duke of the newly non-constitutional grand duchy?
Christian Toto — August 11, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Here’s the follow up story -
1. Will Stiller’s fellow actors rise to his defense (educated guess — silence)
2. Will anyone from Hollywood who’s not associated with the film play the First Amendment card? (educated guess — nope)
3. Will any press members ask any of today’s working actors their thoughts on the issue?
mattc — August 11, 2008 at 5:22 pm
But what happens to Al Gore?
Nathan P Origer — August 12, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I’m sure that the neo-cons and a their compeers in the still-think-the-Cold War-rages-on cabal will go hog-wild over Saakashvili’s use of “Soviet Union”.
Nathan P Origer — August 12, 2008 at 1:10 pm
I’m sure that the neo-cons and a their compeers in the still-think-the-Cold War-rages-on cabal will go hog-wild over Saakashvili’s use of “Soviet Union”.
Martina — August 12, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Where were you for Iggy and The Stooges? It was AMAZING!
And The Go! Team. And Andrew Bird. Geez – the only thing to moan about was that there was TOO MUCH great music. Too bad you missed the real show.
Sonny Bunch — August 12, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I was interviewing Moby during Iggy’s set, driving to the race track/checking in during Go Team’s set, and checking out Shudder to Think during Andrew Bird’s set. The perils of having a one-man team covering a two-stage event…
Christian Toto — August 12, 2008 at 7:08 pm
It never ceases to amaze me what logic pretzels liberals create to defend their own. And this is from an accomplished author? Yikes.
Christian Toto — August 12, 2008 at 7:08 pm
It never ceases to amaze me what logic pretzels liberals create to defend their own. And this is from an accomplished author? Yikes.
Christian Toto — August 12, 2008 at 7:08 pm
It never ceases to amaze me what logic pretzels liberals create to defend their own. And this is from an accomplished author? Yikes.
Sonny Bunch — August 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Honestly, I doubt she even thought about it logically. She just wanted to point to a GOP operative and rub their nose in it. It is silly, not to mention sad
Sonny Bunch — August 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Honestly, I doubt she even thought about it logically. She just wanted to point to a GOP operative and rub their nose in it. It is silly, not to mention sad
Sonny Bunch — August 12, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Honestly, I doubt she even thought about it logically. She just wanted to point to a GOP operative and rub their nose in it. It is silly, not to mention sad
Sonny Bunch — August 13, 2008 at 10:39 am
Reznor was also huge, by the way. He looked like he had been hitting the gym pretty hard. Y’know, when he wasn’t trying to figure out what was going on with that four toed statue, or how The Others made the island move.
ryan — August 13, 2008 at 2:49 pm
sadly, their albums are being held up by record labels, thats where.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Untitled_Shirley_Manson_solo_album
Beth — August 13, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The best part is that the IOC checked on the controversy by just checking the girls’ passports. Issued by China. As if the Chinese couldn’t have just whipped up some fake ones…
Beth — August 13, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The best part is that the IOC checked on the controversy by just checking the girls’ passports. Issued by China. As if the Chinese couldn’t have just whipped up some fake ones…
Beth — August 13, 2008 at 2:54 pm
The best part is that the IOC checked on the controversy by just checking the girls’ passports. Issued by China. As if the Chinese couldn’t have just whipped up some fake ones…
Sonny Bunch — August 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It’s like I’ve said: The IOC is in the pocket of the ChiComs. Boourns.
Sonny Bunch — August 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It’s like I’ve said: The IOC is in the pocket of the ChiComs. Boourns.
Sonny Bunch — August 13, 2008 at 3:00 pm
It’s like I’ve said: The IOC is in the pocket of the ChiComs. Boourns.
John Bigenwald — August 14, 2008 at 12:47 pm
A journalist thought it was reckless to investigate a Democrat Presidential candidate…
Major Strasser has been shot. Round up the usual suspects.
Ruthie — August 14, 2008 at 7:09 pm
John Edwards talked about Dad’s mill,
While sleeping with a chick off the pill,
He lied and fibbed to the MS press,
And, awoke early to preen and dress.
His wife, Elizabeth, knew the lie in 2006,
But supported John in Iowa while sick,
They stole Hillary’s honest votes daily,
And laughed on cue, and hiding Rielle.
Why did John lie like a cheatin’ rat ?
No “New Deal” for the average Democrat,
While Obama and Hillary fought on the stump,
John Edwards watched Rielle grow a bump.
Now John’s love child is common news,
And Fred Baron has money to lose,
Rielle, now nursing, has jetted away,
Even Geraldo has joined the fray!
John’s affair has hurt his poor kids,
More than Clinton’s cigars ever did,
A sordid tale that some call a crock,
The only winner, a loser named Barack!
Like dogs in heat, Edwards did pant,
Defined forever, just like Hugh Grant,
Tabloids paid to get the sleeze,
Is it John’s baby, mister please?
While Elizabeth cries over her brood,
Baby mama with John was not a prude,
Gone the innocent days of Tom Sawyer,
John gettin’ love like a real trial lawyer.
Charlene — August 15, 2008 at 4:45 am
All the Chinese girls on the team should get their teeth checked. There’s no way a 16 year old still has baby teeth or a missing tooth.
Charlene — August 15, 2008 at 4:45 am
All the Chinese girls on the team should get their teeth checked. There’s no way a 16 year old still has baby teeth or a missing tooth.
Charlene — August 15, 2008 at 4:45 am
All the Chinese girls on the team should get their teeth checked. There’s no way a 16 year old still has baby teeth or a missing tooth.
Sonny Bunch — August 15, 2008 at 10:19 am
John: I was actually shocked that my journalist friend didn’t think this warranted discussion…he’s the kind of guy who goes after left and right with equal ferocity. I’m not sure why he wants to lay off here.
Ruth: That’s quite a poem. A Hillary fan, I take it?
Ihatedumbyanks — August 15, 2008 at 3:43 pm
suck my balls you dumb yanks. US is a country full of bigots and cheaters. Steroids seems to run free like mineral springs and performance enhancing drugs are like candies. So stop accusing others of cheating and take a good look at yourself you stupid yanks.
Sonny Bunch — August 15, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Ah…enlightened commentary from the peanut gallery. Nothing like it.
lolwut — August 16, 2008 at 6:13 am
u mad?
lolwut — August 16, 2008 at 6:13 am
u mad?
lolwut — August 16, 2008 at 6:13 am
u mad?
Julia — August 17, 2008 at 11:39 pm
WTF! Shut the hell up Mr. ihatedumbyanks…China completely cheated in the olympics…they had proof those gymnists were underaged and the IOC refused to look at it… notice how everything judged china wins unless they completely screwed up(gymnastics…boys and girls…and diving). The chinese are the biggest fricken cheaters and I can beleive people actually are supporting them…I realize that america has its problems and Im ashamed of any who cheated in the olympic games. But the fact is those judges are completely screwing everyone over not just america. I’ve watched tons of gymnists get screwed while 12 year old chinese girls take 10 balance checks on the balance beam and somehow get a better score than the ones who routines were almost perfect. Its totally rigged completely rigged!
elizorwrightjr — August 18, 2008 at 11:25 am
Winner Take All:
Perhaps you know not that the very same thirty-six million votes,
including nine million spoilers and all, cast from January to June
that gave Obama about 150 delegate margin under the rule of
proportional allocation, the very same votes give Clinton 600 delegate
margin under the rule of Winner Take All as Republican Party have it.
Same republic, same voters, same votes and yet rule maker decides if
one nominee is 150 delegates ahead or on the contrary the other
nominee is 600 delegates ahead. Perhaps you do not see the foot prints
of Karl Rove outside the window of RBC, Democratic Rules and Bylaws
Committee. Good for your sanity if you don’t.
http://groups.google.com/group/dnc-2008-denver/browse_thread/thread/258c4f1d1ebff1e8/4a64a7e1959f
Comment by elizorwrightjr
Drew — August 19, 2008 at 11:59 am
You and your friend are both wrong. The greates front man working in rock and roll today is Robert Pollard.
RBRO — August 19, 2008 at 2:02 pm
The reason for Crush On You was at the request of a young girl who apparently could say nothing else she was in such star shock.
Will — August 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I think Schwenkler raises two valid points:
1.) Torture goes beyond brutal physical punishment. Subjecting someone to psychological torment or physical discomfort over an extended period of time (”stress positions”) can also be plausibly described as torture.
2.) Free will matters. Your friend who crawled up a chimney in college was there because he wanted to be there. Incidentally, he also retained the option of crawling out at any time. Volunteering for mistreatment is quite different from being coerced into solitary confinement.
Given the awful state of the US prison system (a situation, I would note, that has attracted the concern of conservative stalwarts like Brownback), I don’t find your second paragraph all that compelling. I also think that demeaning long-term physical and psychological stress is an extremely blinkered position. Cutting off someone’s fingers is viscerally repulsive, but the after-effects of subjecting a person to stress positions and psychological torment can be comparable to more violent physical abuse.
Finally, I’d note that totalitarian regimes like the Soviet Union frequently went to great lengths to ensure their victims didn’t retain any visible signs of mistreatment so they could be presented at show trials. That’s a pretty compelling rejoinder to the notion that only violent physical abuse constitutes torture.
somebody — August 19, 2008 at 4:10 pm
Even former POWs oppose McCain for president.
Sonny Bunch — August 19, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Addressing your second note first: that’s exactly the point. If people I know would willing subject themselves to behavior that is, arguably, worse than being put in a box in Gitmo, it makes me hard to classify that activity as torture.
And I’ll agree that torture can go beyond simple brute force being applied to break a man’s will. I simply don’t think this qualifies. We’re at a point where people are arguing that any punishment that makes a captured terrorist uncomfortable, regardless for the reason that it’s being done, is now classified as “torture.” I find this absurd on its face.
Rod — August 19, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Of all the great armies of rock fans, few can match the devotion of Bruce Springsteen’s. Anyone who has experienced Springsteen in concert will testify that the bond between audience and artist transcends the usual adulation. Something magical, almost mystical happens. Some might describe it as spiritual-most definitely it is life affirming. It is in trying to nail this phenomenon that the beautiful hardbound For You has arrived.
Edited by Lawrence Kirsch and replete with an amazing welter of outstanding photographs, it’s a mind-blowing collection of thoughts and stories from fans of every age and many nations, each explaining why Springsteen occupies such an important place in their hearts. Covering all four decades of Springsteen’s career it is possibly the ultimate fanzine for it is the fans who have made the journey and whose words tell us as much about them as they do about Springsteen. The warmth and humanity that flows from every page is truly moving and provides a beacon of hope from which we can all draw strength in these hard times. Not a book to be read at one sitting but rather to revisit and enjoy over time.
Les Brunswick — August 20, 2008 at 1:51 am
Kagan has always had a problem with coming up with practical specifics for action. He proposes a league of democracies, but tells us very little about what it could actually do.
Noah — August 20, 2008 at 1:23 pm
This site is my only remaining exposure to Yglesias and I don’t miss him. Is Chris Matthews a liberal? And wait there is more, according to Yglesias “One could say something similar, I think, about Paul Krugman’s role at The New York Times. And there really was something of a genuine “no liberals” rule.”
No liberal rule at the NY Times? I guess coming from a guy who thinks Slate is conservative I shouldn’t be surprised.
Sonny Bunch — August 20, 2008 at 3:52 pm
I feel compelled to link to Yglesias because he’s taken very seriously in the DC portion of the blogosphere. And sometimes he’ll make good points. But his perception of where the center is (squarely hovering somewhere over his head) boggles my mind.
James Schneider — August 21, 2008 at 8:58 am
Hang about. Google pretty much does that anyway. If I search from my computer, as I just did, “Poulos” the first two links I get are: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/georgia.russia1
and
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/jamespoulos
I don’t know if that’s you but google’s search has recognised that I don’t want insurrance etc but I’ve read a lot of posts about Georgia recently, hence the search results. No need for a liberal/conservative/insert mildly meaningful term search engine.
Z — August 21, 2008 at 9:13 am
And note that the Whitney Houston result on RushmoreDrive gets only 1 star from the “Rate” feedback, while Whitney Museum and Whitney Bank get 4 of 5 stars.
Saint Andeol — August 21, 2008 at 9:29 am
yeah, we wouldn’t want to inconvenience Whitney Houston fans by making them scroll down to the fourth result of a search, or by making them type an extra word into the search. All it takes is a rudimentary understanding of a search engine to use it properly, this is insulting.
Julian Sanchez — August 21, 2008 at 10:17 am
Also, uh, shouldn’t a black reader take a certain amount of umbrage at the suggestion that, you know, of course they wouldn’t be Googling for an art museum, like white folk do?
James Poulos — August 21, 2008 at 10:26 am
Julian, yes, only ‘umbrage’ is a word for yacht-sailing, cucumber-sandwich-eating white folk. Although, wait: does Obama take umbrage? Now that’s hope and healing.
Carmen Ashhurst — August 21, 2008 at 10:48 am
Actually, a black person googling Whitney might be looking for Whitney Young (the late civil rights activist), or at least that might be what comes up on the search engine. A pop singer showing up first on the RushmoreDrive engine is actually pretty disturbing, if you ask me.
James — August 21, 2008 at 11:07 am
Agreed.
GeorgeSorwell — August 21, 2008 at 12:25 pm
I was quite surprised that the author didn’t find a way to blame something on Obama, since this post refers to, you know, black people.
But he got around to it in the comments, so okay.
Jay — August 21, 2008 at 2:07 pm
What does this have to do with you?
Will — August 21, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I don’t get this distinction. Perhaps you’re referring to degrees of patriotism? Or are you arguing that patriots, by definition, are veterans of some type of national service? I’m not sure if I like that formulation.
Dan — August 21, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Right on. Our Georgia policy may have been a bad idea to begin with, but hanging an ally completely out to dry might just be compounding our original mistake.
Sonny Bunch — August 21, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Well, semantically there’s clearly a difference between the words “patriotic” and “patriot.” One is an adjective, the other is a noun. I guess my question is this: can someone have the adjective applied to them without necessarily having the noun apply?
I suppose the distinction I’m looking at is one of action. It’s easy to say that someone is patriotic. But how do you prove that they’re a patriot?
Which gets back to my main point: if you ask someone “Is this law school professor a patriot?” they will probably answer “It depends.” But if you ask someone “Is this POW a patriot?” they will almost certainly say “Yes.” At least, I imagine they would, which leads to my lack of surprise that there’s a “patriot-gap.” The deeper question would be: why is this the case?
(Of course, I could just be rambling incoherently. That’s always an option.)
Sonny Bunch — August 21, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Dan: I’m just not sure what else we could have done. The Russians read the situation perfectly–we’re in no position to engage in another war and the American people won’t get riled up if we do anything, so screw it. We’re invading.
Whitney — August 22, 2008 at 9:04 am
I agree with julia. China is freaking rigging the games! It’s total bs! I have no doubt in my mind that those girls are underage and even when watching the women’s qualifying rounds, while our team messed up some…the chinese team messed up WAY more. This isn’t about racism or anything like that this is about being fair! We’re not the only ones getting cheated here! I hope the chinese never live it down. They said the parents of the gymnastics team feel indignant, well guess what? They should!
janet sullivan — August 22, 2008 at 8:39 pm
chinese are so used to lying they should really take this chance to look back and chance themselve, and stop putting in so much effort in trying to show the world how good they are, it makes me sick to the stomach.
janet sullivan — August 22, 2008 at 8:39 pm
chinese are so used to lying they should really take this chance to look back and chance themselve, and stop putting in so much effort in trying to show the world how good they are, it makes me sick to the stomach.
janet sullivan — August 22, 2008 at 8:39 pm
chinese are so used to lying they should really take this chance to look back and chance themselve, and stop putting in so much effort in trying to show the world how good they are, it makes me sick to the stomach.
John Bigenwald — August 22, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I agree — especially on the mildly interesting part. I thought it was going to be funny, then I realized it was what white liberal caricatures like. Not that there is anything wrong with poking fun at white liberals… the first 50 times…
Matt — August 23, 2008 at 2:01 am
Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck just released a great book on the growing Socialist Christian movement and what a load it truly is. Why We’re Not Emergent. It is a must read.
Matt — August 23, 2008 at 2:01 am
Kevin DeYoung and Ted Kluck just released a great book on the growing Socialist Christian movement and what a load it truly is. Why We’re Not Emergent. It is a must read.
Sonny Bunch — August 23, 2008 at 10:35 am
I actually found the blog really funny…for a little while. But when I saw the book, and realized that it was mostly a literal word for word rehash of the blog, I was pretty upset. Not to mention jealous of the six figure advance.
Dan — August 23, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I always wondered what the hulabaloo was about Watchmen, so I read it recently. It came off at first like any other comic book, which I wasn’t too fond of. But it sucks you in gradually. I think the film adaptation will do very well next year.
christian — August 24, 2008 at 9:16 am
Let me begin by saying that i love your blog americasfuture.org a lot
now.. back to the post lol
I cant say that im 100% with what you typed up… care to explain more?
gabriel — August 24, 2008 at 11:25 pm
And, if I may be permitted to add, “The Shack”, while not Dickens, is apparently an interesting and controversial attempt to allegorize the Trinity. Certainly much more worth-while than 95% of bestsellers.
john — August 25, 2008 at 12:13 pm
honestly, china makes me sick, they are an evil people, i dont think i will ever respect the ioc after these olympics, they turned down toronto’s bid to give the games to a nation that doesn’t respect human rights, and also they are a disgusting people who eat shit
john — August 25, 2008 at 12:13 pm
honestly, china makes me sick, they are an evil people, i dont think i will ever respect the ioc after these olympics, they turned down toronto’s bid to give the games to a nation that doesn’t respect human rights, and also they are a disgusting people who eat shit
john — August 25, 2008 at 12:13 pm
honestly, china makes me sick, they are an evil people, i dont think i will ever respect the ioc after these olympics, they turned down toronto’s bid to give the games to a nation that doesn’t respect human rights, and also they are a disgusting people who eat shit
Sonny Bunch — August 25, 2008 at 12:51 pm
There we go! Two greats in a row–”The Shack” and “Watchmen.” (I’ll be honest: I haven’t read “The Shack”…but I’ll take your word for it, Gabriel.
And Dan, I think Watchmen definitely ramps up as it goes along. The one thing I’m worried about in the film adaptation is an over-interest in Dr. Manhattan. The teaser was very Manhattan-centric.
Ted — August 25, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Despite the Dems and the allied main stream media’s desperation to see Romney as McCain’s Veep, Mitt is clearly out, with (1) Obama doubling down on the class warfare theme (McCain’s 7 houses) and (2) McCain doubling down with ads showing the hypocrisy of Biden attacking Obama in the primaries — Romney did way more than that contra McCain.
This leaves only Govs Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty. Pro-abortion Ridge and Dem-Lieberman were never real considerations, despite relentless media goading. Pawlenty’s lackluster TV performances, coupled with Palin pizzazz, the primacy of oil drilling and the ticked off women/Hillary voters, does now portend a McCain/Palin checkmate on the Dems. This is so albeit the Dems and liberal media dare not mention Palin’s name, that is, everyone but…..
And if there’s any question as to Palin being uniquely positioned and able to more than nullify Biden in debate, see the excellent discussion at palinforvp.blogspot.com
Team McCain, well done!!!
Hoi Polloi — August 26, 2008 at 12:32 am
That’s easy for you and your upscale blogger buddies to say! I’m a downscale unemployed single dad of a 3-year old, so I don’t have the option of providing my son with NON-state supervised socialization, and I’m certainly not the shining eidolon of parenthood that your friend apparently is either (and I can assure you from plenty of playground observation that, despite WSJ claims to the contrary, I’m not the only subpar parent in this country). It’s just me and him, buddy, warts and all, 24/7, family’s all in other cities, no friends with kids — you think he’s better off than he would be if I could put him in the company of other children in a structured environment under the care of trained childcare professionals? Give me a break!
I will happily try to get him into a Head Start program this year, and if pre-K were available next year, I’d happily send him there. Not to mention, when I do get a job, I won’t be able to afford a preschool — he’ll be spending his days with cheap, state-subsidized caregivers, who, yes, will give him more structure than I do, but who certainly won’t deliver the goods that a preschool program can. Your friend can homeschool all he wants, but why should his worries that his children might not be as socially advanced as mine when they finally do go to school prohibit ME from being able to take advantage of an opportunity that would be a tremendous boon for MY son?
I don’t care if someone wants to call it “culturally conservative” or not — I consider myself “culturally conservative,” and I would jump at the chance to provide my son with something better than what he has! Not every single thing under the sun has to fit into someone’s ideology! Sometimes, an idea is just a good one that will help a lot of people.
Sonny Bunch — August 26, 2008 at 10:15 am
Ted: We’ll see. I still think Palin’s a little green, and Pawlenty has always looked terribly stiff on TV.
Ted — August 27, 2008 at 1:56 am
Theme song for the Sarah Palin VP intro at RNC next week:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWNtLt-pJik
Will — August 27, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I think the Reverend Wright story is fair game, but the Ayers connection seems so tangential I don’t understand why anyone would factor it into their decision-making process.
Isn’t it possible (indeed, probable) that Obama was simply unaware of Ayer’s checkered past until recently? My understanding is that they were acquaintances, not close personal friends. Expecting him to vet casual contacts is a bit much, methinks.
Sonny Bunch — August 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm
My understanding is that they were closer than acquaintances, but not necessarily “close friends.” Political allies, perhaps.
But Ayers was close enough to Obama to host the kickoff of his political career. And he’s been a longtime fundraiser for the man. I think it would be disingenuous to argue that Obama simply didn’t know about his connection to the Weathermen; he’s smarter/more in tune than that. You don’t think anyone in Hyde Park would have mentioned it, even off-handedly?
The reason this might be a big deal is because so much of the Obama mystique is based on his “good judgment.” Who you associate with is almost as key as what you do in that regard. And he’s associating (and failing to condemn) a series of shady dudes.
Will — August 27, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Again, I’m not sure if political ally = carefully vetted personal friend. And while I buy the idea that word of Ayers’ past exploits may have reached Barack Obama’s ears, would Ayers really have advertised his unrepentant stance towards political terrorism in polite company? Ayers strikes me as a bit of a poseur when it comes to his past exploits – he disavows it in some quarters while bragging about it in others.
On a deeper level, however, I’m curious to hear what you think the Ayers “connection” says about Barack Obama. Does Obama endorse political terrorism? Is Ayers’ 60s-era leftism indicative of an Obama Administration’s social policy? Or is this just some vague character attack that probably has no concrete implications whatsoever?
Brendon — August 27, 2008 at 4:03 pm
You really don’t see a difference between a driver getting cut off, and a driver intentionally running a cyclist off the road?
Sonny Bunch — August 27, 2008 at 4:29 pm
I don’t think there’s any actual policy implications of their friendship; I simply think it’s a poor choice of friends. And, again, when you’re electing someone almost entirely on personality and judgment (because, lord knows, Obama wasn’t chosen for legitimate policy reasons), friendships like this matter to people on a gut level if not an intellectual one.
Sonny Bunch — August 27, 2008 at 4:31 pm
If the van driver intentionally ran that guy off the road, then yes. Odds are it was just another whiny biker slowing down traffic. I mean, if I had to guess.
Christian Toto — August 28, 2008 at 1:19 am
Since all roads lead back to “South Park,” try to catch up with a recent episode where the homeless invade the kiddies’ sleepy little town. Classic!
Christian Toto — August 28, 2008 at 9:06 am
One thing is certain. Left leaners have much more tolerance for people with crazed ideas that go against this country.
And even if one argues Obama’s ties to Ayers are slim, why is it so hard to denounce the man outright? And better yet, why has Chicago’s left-leaning population embraced him – and employed him?
Noah — August 28, 2008 at 9:48 am
My two worst kinds of panhandlers:
-Bums who open the door for you at the ATM booth and then harass you for a payment once your both trapped inside. They have done you the great service of opening the door and now you must pay.
-Homeless kids / young adults with tattooed and pierced faces who just need a little money for a bus ticket home. They have spent more time perfecting their pseudo anarchist look than I spent getting in to college and now they flaunt their distaste for the working man while their entire existence is based off of other peoples productivity and generosity. Plus once you tattoo your face, there is no coming back from that one. You just took yourself out of the running for 99% of available jobs, it’s not my job to pick up the tab so you get to hang out all day looking rebellious.
*The above goes double for homeless kids with dogs. You can’t feed yourself jackass, lose the mutt.
Sonny Bunch — August 28, 2008 at 10:07 am
Noah: The ones who hang out around the banks are the worst. My entreaties of “But I don’t carry any cash!” never work with them.
John Bigenwald — August 28, 2008 at 1:16 pm
I listened to 20 minutes of the show last night. Every caller was saying WGN was irresponsible for “giving Kurtz airtime.” When asked for an example only one could provide any sort of answer – and it was easily refuted. The others just said it was “unfair” — ok, so is life.
If they are such outrageous smears send somebody down the street and go on the air…
Will — August 28, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Called out by name? I guess I feel obliged to sally forth and defend my honor . . .
I certainly don’t condone this sort of thing, and I think encouraging liberal partisans to bombard radio stations with obnoxious phone calls is not only wrong but also a massive political overreaction.
But if this is supposed to be conclusive evidence that the left is somehow less intellectually tolerant than the right, I think you still fall far short of the mark. After reading this piece, the first thing that came to mind was the right’s hysterical response to Walt and Mearsheimer’s contention that the Israel lobby disproportionately influences US policy in the Middle East (I should also note that both authors are respected IR scholars, not “smear-merchants”). A few excitable Obama supporters calling into a radio show don’t implicate an entire party’s intellectual apparatus.
Sonny Bunch — August 28, 2008 at 8:04 pm
It’s a little rude to call someone out and then disappear for six hours; my bad.
Will, I would argue that, were these random calls, or even MoveOn.org sponsored calls, I’d agree with you. But the Obama campaign sent out an email to its mailing list telling its supporters to flood the station with calls and show their displeasure. That’s an entirely different situation.
Carter — August 28, 2008 at 8:16 pm
Obama is a lawyer and aspiring politician. It’s absurd to believe he had no curiosity about knowing who Ayers was, even though Ayers employed him, worked with him, and had influence in Chicago politics.
Ayers wife worked at Sidley Austin with Michelle Obama. Later Ayers hires Obama, a 3rd year associate, to head up his Chicago Annenberg Challenge board. Obama probably used his knowledge of Marxism and black militantism to ingratiate himself with Ayers.
Heidi — August 29, 2008 at 11:50 am
I feel like I’m in an episode of “The Twighlight Zone.” This election season is just plaint weird.
Last night’s DNC Convention felt like a Pep Rally for adults. As a Coloradoan, I could write an entire page on my feelings about hearing an entire stadium chant in Spanish, but I shall not.
I like McCain’s pick. She’s female, west coast and a former beauty queen? What?
I’m just glad football season is starting so I can get excited about something really worth rooting for.
~Heidi
John — August 29, 2008 at 12:25 pm
The point is not that the Obama campaign is going to come out swinging against Palin because she has no experience. The point is that it effectively immunizes Obama from the McCain/Palin campaign making those accusations against HIM. And you can make a very good argument that that was the single strongest issue the GOP had going for it.
Sonny Bunch — August 29, 2008 at 12:50 pm
John: totally disagree. McCain’s experience over Obama is still a key issue. And what’re Obama/his supporters going to say in retort? “Well, how can you claim that experience is important when your VP pick (who, in all likelihood, will never occupy the Oval office) is just as experienced as I am?” Any time Obama hits out against Palin all McCain has to say is “Just as experienced as you. Nyah Nyah.”
P-Sax — August 29, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Wow…all I can say is wow. And not in a good way. McCain took his one and only opportunity to demonstrate his ability to make a presidential decision, and screwed it up so badly that Dan Quayle is now looking like a seasoned veteran. Don’t tell me Palin has the exact amount of experience as Obama – that’s like saying the chairman of my local school board has as much experience as the Secretary of Education. All this shows to me is that, when given the option of bucking the party’s owners (Rove, Big Oil, Christian fundamentalists, etc), McCain decided that he’d rather go with a crony than someone who is truly qualified. Her husband works for Big Oil, after all. Not to mention the fact that, despite all this hot air about her being a reformer and a GOP ‘maverick’, she too, like her colleague Ted Stevens, is under investigation by her own state legislature for forcing the Alaska public safety commissioner to fire a state trooper who just happened to be getting a divorce from her sister. All I can say is, I can’t wait to see her even try to go toe to toe with Joe Biden. It will be laughable, and sad all at the same time, because McCain is but a shell of the man he used to be. What a shame…
Sonny Bunch — August 29, 2008 at 1:34 pm
P-Sax: Your comment smacks of desperation. Drilling is a winning issue for the GOP; choosing a pro-lifer who is sympathetic to gay rights (if not an outright supporter of gay marriage) rallies the base while immunizing her to charges of being a “christianist”; and the state trooper issue seems to be a nonstarter.
Lorrainep — August 29, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Desperation as in a grand slam in the 9th! McCain rocks! I was ready to vote Democratic this time after last night. This morning reminded me why McCain, despite his age and party, is the better pick. Democrates talk about equality and Republicans live it.
McCain – Palin in 2008!
P-Sax — August 29, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Wow, again. Sonny, first of all, not only is she not a supporter of gay marriage, but her begrudging willingness to understand the pain of homosexual discrimination based on the fact that she has ‘a few gay friends’ is the same backwards comment people make when they say they understand black culture because they have one black friend. Indeed I am desperate – desperate to get the debates underway and see a truly superior Obama/Biden ticket squash these empty (pant)suits. And Lorrainep, I am genuinely offended by McCain/Rove’s belief that they can capture the 6 or 7 remaining Hillary-only supporters simply by bringing a woman, any woman, onto the ticket, regardless of the fact that she represents the exact opposite of what a truly inspirational leader like Hillary Clinton represents. They could have gone with Hutchinson, Fiorina, even Condi, all accomplished, strong women in their own right. But they went with an unqualified nobody to appease party owners. The fact that you not only agree with them, but support this type of blatant and disingenuous pandering, is telling in and of itself.
James — August 29, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Aww. Thanks, man. Sniff!
Julie C — August 29, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I don’t understand how a crash course in foreign affairs will be sufficient in this case. There is a significantly higher probability that McCain will not make it past his first term given that the average life expectancy of an American male is 75. His VP pick is a statement on who he thinks is capable of leading the country. Given his previous criticisms of Obama based solely on lack of experience, it looks like a large gaffe.
Julie C — August 29, 2008 at 3:55 pm
I don’t understand how a crash course in foreign affairs will be sufficient in this case. There is a significantly higher probability that McCain will not make it past his first term given that the average life expectancy of an American male is 75. His VP pick is a statement on who he thinks is capable of leading the country. Given his previous criticisms of Obama based solely on lack of experience, it looks like a large gaffe.
Steve — August 29, 2008 at 3:58 pm
I’m not arguing the main point, or to say that executive experience isn’t more valuable than being in the senate, but isn’t it disingenuous to say they have “exactly” the same experience when Obama has spent twice as much time in higher office than Palin has. I know they’re both on their first terms, but Obama is almost 4 years in, while Palin is nearing 2.
Sonny Bunch — August 29, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Steve: He’s four years in, two of which he’s spent campaigning for the presidency. Plus, I’d argue that two years of executive experience is probably more valuable than four years of senatorial experience.
P-Sax: If her comments/actions on homosexuality are enough to make Andrew say “I like her personally–a good deal” in regards to gay rights, it’s good enough for me.
xyzzy — August 29, 2008 at 4:41 pm
As Brendan Loy says:
“With regard to the idea that Palin has “more experience” than Obama, one important fact to consider: Palin hasn’t been running for national office for 18 months. Obama has. Running a presidential campaign is a form of “executive experience.” At the very least, I’d say reasonable people can disagree about which type of experience is more relevant to serving (or potentially serving) as president: being mayor of a tiny town and governor of a tiny state (population-wise), or being “chief executive” of what has been, by most accounts, a massive and pretty damn well-run national organization that has successfully dethroned the Clinton Machine and remade the Democratic Party in its image.”
richard flohill — August 29, 2008 at 4:48 pm
I can’t imagine obama would be dumb enough to breathe a word about inexperience, but i might be wrong. He’s running for prez, she’s running for vice, a job once referred to as “important as a bucket of spit.”
Yeah, she’s only a heartbeat away, but inexperienced obamaman is going to be there.
John — August 29, 2008 at 6:47 pm
It’s really a shame that you can feasibly see McCain going away soon. His mom’s out there rooting for him and he’s pretty sharp I’d say. No 57 states, no calling his VP President, no stammering http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eI5Eo9OMSgU
I truly believe in the McCain Palin ticket as the best way to get our nation moving forward. Both have bucked the party line to get things done for the people. Barack likes to speak of “change” in Washington in a bipartisan manner but it looks like he will just want to turn Washington left, hard and fast.
escondidoguy — August 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I have been “vetting” Governor Palin for the last 3 or 4 months – ever since her name came up on the “long” list. I can tell you that from what I have learned she is the real conservative deal and because she’s on the ticket I will change my vote from a write in vote of Duncan Hunter Sr. to John McCain.
Sarah Palin is someone that every Conservative should fall in love with. I don’t care if she’s unknown. She stands for everything I believe in. With her as VP and a number of new, young and energetic Republicans running out there this is a chance for a revitalization of the Republican party. I’ve already sent McCain my 25 bucks this morning – something I didn’t expect to do.
Now if McCain would cut Juan Hernandez loose I’d be a very happy camper.
What’s not to love in Sarah Palin? Only the brain dead looney left would turn this wonderful candidate into a target. Pathetic!
And what I love best about her is that she’s anti-babykiller !
escondidoguy — August 29, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I have been “vetting” Governor Palin for the last 3 or 4 months – ever since her name came up on the “long” list. I can tell you that from what I have learned she is the real conservative deal and because she’s on the ticket I will change my vote from a write in vote of Duncan Hunter Sr. to John McCain.
Sarah Palin is someone that every Conservative should fall in love with. I don’t care if she’s unknown. She stands for everything I believe in. With her as VP and a number of new, young and energetic Republicans running out there this is a chance for a revitalization of the Republican party. I’ve already sent McCain my 25 bucks this morning – something I didn’t expect to do.
Now if McCain would cut Juan Hernandez loose I’d be a very happy camper.
What’s not to love in Sarah Palin? Only the brain dead looney left would turn this wonderful candidate into a target. Pathetic!
And what I love best about her is that she’s anti-babykiller !
Ray Robison — August 30, 2008 at 10:47 am
Holy Crap! Let’s nip that shit in the bud. Running a campaign in NOT “executive experience” much less akin to running a state. Are you fucking retarded?
Michael Collins — August 30, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Like a lot of people, Julie misunderstands life expectancy. It is 75 for the average male at birth. That does not mean that it is 3 years for someone who is 72 – the average of 75 is “pulled down” by all the men who die prior to age 75. The average life expectancy for a male age 72 is about 15 years, so if McCain makes the average, he’ll survive well beyond when his second term would end. (These are just averages, of course, but when you combine it with the fact his mother is alive well into her 90s, it’s not that likely he’ll die in his first term.)
Darryl — August 30, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Keith Olbermann is a simply a sorry human being and a poor excuse for a “journalist”, and a lying Son of a Bitch. I actually used to enjoy Olbermann on ESPN before he left their in ‘97 after having a fall out with Disney Corp, who purchased ABC and ESPN. He had a falling out that was mostly unexplained. Most who have worked with Olbermann have said he has this tendancy not only burn bridges with former employers, but “nuke” them as well. What really gets be about Keith Olbermann is that he claims to be unbiased. Bullshit! The fact that he uses an Edward R Murrow quote to close Countdown on MSNBC is a disgrace to Murrow’s name and journalism. Hey Olbermann, YOU ARE NO Edward R Murrow.
What is most disgusting is that he belittles the military service of many of those serving at home and abroad, not thinking even for once second that those men are fighting, even to keep his sorry ass alive. Olbermann may not be guilty of treason (yet), but he’s testing the waters there too. To me, Olbermann is nothing more than a media whore and a lying no credibilty M.F.’ing skank who is not man enough to admit that he’s a sideshow clown in a media circus. I question Olberman’s manhood, period!!! Oblermann, you don’t know news from your asshole, so FYKO, you SOB!!!! If you are as pissed at this asshole as I am, let him kmow…email Keithie at:
KOlbermann@msnbc.com
countdown@msnbc.com
letters@msnbc.com
…and while you are at it, let his boss see these e-mails too, he is at:
dabrams@msnbc.com
FYKO!!!!
Darryl — August 30, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Keith Olbermann is a simply a sorry human being and a poor excuse for a “journalist”, and a lying Son of a Bitch. I actually used to enjoy Olbermann on ESPN before he left their in ‘97 after having a fall out with Disney Corp, who purchased ABC and ESPN. He had a falling out that was mostly unexplained. Most who have worked with Olbermann have said he has this tendancy not only burn bridges with former employers, but “nuke” them as well. What really gets be about Keith Olbermann is that he claims to be unbiased. Bullshit! The fact that he uses an Edward R Murrow quote to close Countdown on MSNBC is a disgrace to Murrow’s name and journalism. Hey Olbermann, YOU ARE NO Edward R Murrow.
What is most disgusting is that he belittles the military service of many of those serving at home and abroad, not thinking even for once second that those men are fighting, even to keep his sorry ass alive. Olbermann may not be guilty of treason (yet), but he’s testing the waters there too. To me, Olbermann is nothing more than a media whore and a lying no credibilty M.F.’ing skank who is not man enough to admit that he’s a sideshow clown in a media circus. I question Olberman’s manhood, period!!! Oblermann, you don’t know news from your asshole, so FYKO, you SOB!!!! If you are as pissed at this asshole as I am, let him kmow…email Keithie at:
KOlbermann@msnbc.com
countdown@msnbc.com
letters@msnbc.com
…and while you are at it, let his boss see these e-mails too, he is at:
dabrams@msnbc.com
FYKO!!!!
Darryl — August 30, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Keith Olbermann is a simply a sorry human being and a poor excuse for a “journalist”, and a lying Son of a Bitch. I actually used to enjoy Olbermann on ESPN before he left their in ‘97 after having a fall out with Disney Corp, who purchased ABC and ESPN. He had a falling out that was mostly unexplained. Most who have worked with Olbermann have said he has this tendancy not only burn bridges with former employers, but “nuke” them as well. What really gets be about Keith Olbermann is that he claims to be unbiased. Bullshit! The fact that he uses an Edward R Murrow quote to close Countdown on MSNBC is a disgrace to Murrow’s name and journalism. Hey Olbermann, YOU ARE NO Edward R Murrow.
What is most disgusting is that he belittles the military service of many of those serving at home and abroad, not thinking even for once second that those men are fighting, even to keep his sorry ass alive. Olbermann may not be guilty of treason (yet), but he’s testing the waters there too. To me, Olbermann is nothing more than a media whore and a lying no credibilty M.F.’ing skank who is not man enough to admit that he’s a sideshow clown in a media circus. I question Olberman’s manhood, period!!! Oblermann, you don’t know news from your asshole, so FYKO, you SOB!!!! If you are as pissed at this asshole as I am, let him kmow…email Keithie at:
KOlbermann@msnbc.com
countdown@msnbc.com
letters@msnbc.com
…and while you are at it, let his boss see these e-mails too, he is at:
dabrams@msnbc.com
FYKO!!!!
Mike — August 30, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Is “running” Alaska the samething as running a state??lol Aren’t there more moose in Alaska than there are people? All kidding aside, I cannot believe that anyone would actually make the arguement that she has more experice than Obama, let alone Biden…But then they go so far as to say she has more experience than ALL three (Including the person who chose her as the VP). Let’s cut the crap for just a second. If you’ve EVER had to Hire someone, you know how to read a resume. Obama Graduated from Harvard, and was a professor of Law. Ok, Law seems like a good background for a President to have. Palin Graduated from University of Idaho? Majored in Journalism? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think Obama gets the nod In the education department. Obama has been an active public servant in either Federal or state government for 14 years? Palin was on the city council for, and later became mayor of a city of 9,000 people. During this time, Obama was a state legislator (97-2004). What on EARTH could she be doing as Mayor of 9,000 people that gives her ANY relevant experience for a VP, let alone POTUS??? Ignoring the fact that there was almost a recall campaign against her, It’s quite obvious that Obama’s experience is more relevant than hers. Moving on, Obama moves to Senate in 04 while she moves to Gov. in 06. Again with the population….If Alaska were a city, it would have less people in it than almost half of our major cities/state capitals… but it’s not a city it’s a STATE. If you want to be fair, they’re both first terms. Fact is Obama has four years she has two in their respective positions. And if you want to claim he has 2 then you could also argue that she has 17-18 months. If he loses two years for campaigning then she can lose a couple months for being new to the job, because they both still had the title and were working, only Obama was working a little harder… Regardless, the FACT is that Biden, McCain, and yes even Obama have more experience than her. However, the POINT is she was selected for VP not POTUS. What you’re saying is that McCain made this pick so that Dems can’t say she doesn’t have experience to be president when she’s NOT RUNNING FOR POTUS. Where’s the logic in that?? You’re thinking that McCain will have the audacity to continue to claim Obama doesn’t have experience, not because of how young he is…but because he’s a senator, when McCain himself is a senator? His slogan wil be Vote for me, because my first-term Gov. VP has more experience than ALL of us, essentially run on his VP’s credentials?? He’s been trying to run AS the experienced candidate, not FOR her. You can say that it makes sense if you want I guess, but the bottom line is the ticket will read McCain-Palin, and logic indicates that she does not have more experience than Biden, who she should be on par with as that’s who she’s running againt. Needless to say she doesn’t compare to Obama or McCain either.
Sonny Bunch — August 31, 2008 at 1:08 am
In about 123 run on sentences, Mike has managed to compile every Democratic Party talking point (Palin is an uneducated idiot; Palin’s 2 years as governor isn’t nearly as keen as Obama’s 2 years as senator and 2 years as presidential candidate; Alaska’s a tiny, unimportant state; Biden’s a demigod; etc.). I think we should thank him.
So Mike, from all of my readers: Thank You.
/snark
Christian Toto — August 31, 2008 at 11:09 am
Good word for the ending — innocuous. To make it better? Let’s either scrap the love interest or write it better … and let’s give Pearce’s character some flaws. That’s a start, but the movie needs more polishing than I can give it.
Christian Toto — August 31, 2008 at 11:09 am
Good word for the ending — innocuous. To make it better? Let’s either scrap the love interest or write it better … and let’s give Pearce’s character some flaws. That’s a start, but the movie needs more polishing than I can give it.
Christian Toto — August 31, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I stopped reading Wells on my own accord recently … too much ignorance flowing from his keyboard. Now, I feel even better about the decision. Compare his reaction to feedback to that of Dirty Harry, who essentially says “Bring it on…”
And you, too, of course!
Sonny Bunch — August 31, 2008 at 2:08 pm
There are legit reasons to ban commenters–libelous/racist/spammy comments can go. I just don’t think “I disagree with you” is one of those reasons.
Sunnie57 — August 31, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Governor Sarah Palin is a commander of the Alaska National Guard, has a son in the army (so has a personal reason, as well) and shows good judgment in everything she does!
Compare her with Senator Obama, a senator who never showed good judgment, and Obama is the presidential candidate, and Palin is the VP running mate.
I’d feel very safe with Palin as commander-in-chief, but with Obama, I’d think about building a shelter.
Oil is very important for our national security, and Sarah Palin, as advisor to President McCain, will see to it that we get plenty of oil for all of our weapons, fighter planes, etc..
Sunnie57 — August 31, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Governor Sarah Palin is a commander of the Alaska National Guard, has a son in the army (so has a personal reason, as well) and shows good judgment in everything she does!
Compare her with Senator Obama, a senator who never showed good judgment, and Obama is the presidential candidate, and Palin is the VP running mate.
I’d feel very safe with Palin as commander-in-chief, but with Obama, I’d think about building a shelter.
Oil is very important for our national security, and Sarah Palin, as advisor to President McCain, will see to it that we get plenty of oil for all of our weapons, fighter planes, etc..
C Riske — September 1, 2008 at 12:25 am
Who the hell is this Olberman guy? He’s not even a suitable replacement for Jerry Springer!!
I won’t be watching this dick a second time.
C Riske — September 1, 2008 at 12:25 am
Who the hell is this Olberman guy? He’s not even a suitable replacement for Jerry Springer!!
I won’t be watching this dick a second time.
C Riske — September 1, 2008 at 12:25 am
Who the hell is this Olberman guy? He’s not even a suitable replacement for Jerry Springer!!
I won’t be watching this dick a second time.
T. Flanders — September 1, 2008 at 3:19 am
I saw this moron on tv one night and thought it was some kind of prank. But this idiot is for real. I can’t believe they let this retard on any network.
T. Flanders — September 1, 2008 at 3:19 am
I saw this moron on tv one night and thought it was some kind of prank. But this idiot is for real. I can’t believe they let this retard on any network.
T. Flanders — September 1, 2008 at 3:19 am
I saw this moron on tv one night and thought it was some kind of prank. But this idiot is for real. I can’t believe they let this retard on any network.
Ted — September 1, 2008 at 6:14 pm
This is a plus. As Mark Steyn points out in his recent best seller, America Alone, if our western civilization is demographically to survive in the increasingly “hostile to the west” islamic world — and not end up like the sinking European populations — these are the precise people (the Bristol Palins’) we should thank for increasing their progeny.
John — September 1, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Nicely done, Sonny, and thanks of course for the link.
The bigger and much less subtle point that Yglesias misses is that Bristol Palin DID in fact have agency in this decision, and so DOES deserve to be praised for doing (what I take to have been) the right thing. That I think that X ought to be illegal does not mean that not doing X isn’t a praiseworthy thing. What an ass.
merge divide — September 1, 2008 at 10:36 pm
Here’s a question that’s gnawing at me- If the Palins were so concerned about Bristol’s privacy, why did they choose to throw their kid under the bus when it became politically expedient to do so? If they were genuinely concerned about making sure her pregnancy did not become an issue, they could have simply kept her out of the public eye for the next two months. That’s what they wanted to do anyway. Instead they decide to quell those “nasty rumors” by dropping the dime on their daughter. They could have simply released Trig’s birth records instead, and everyone would have gotten red in the face and slinked away. Something is definitely rotten in the Great White North Territory. This needs to be addressed. The Palin family and the McCain campaign have made it all fair game right from the beginning.
Sonny Bunch — September 1, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Merge: I don’t think that announcing your child is pregnant is tantamount to “throwing her under the bus.” Plus, if the campaign didn’t make it public, and someone found out in a month’s time, then they would be accused of “trying to cover it up.” Kind of a lose-lose situation…
merge divide — September 2, 2008 at 12:24 am
Then I would suggest that she shouldn’t have pushed the “family values” card quite as hard as she did. I think McCain made a terrible choice with Palin (if indeed he did make that decision).
Fen-Fen Mattamal — September 2, 2008 at 6:06 am
I pity him. There are quite a few characters just like him at MSNBC. I laughed out laud ofen when watching MSNBC.
fen
Fen-Fen Mattamal — September 2, 2008 at 6:06 am
I pity him. There are quite a few characters just like him at MSNBC. I laughed out laud ofen when watching MSNBC.
fen
Fen-Fen Mattamal — September 2, 2008 at 6:06 am
I pity him. There are quite a few characters just like him at MSNBC. I laughed out laud ofen when watching MSNBC.
fen
Joe — September 2, 2008 at 8:12 am
Hi Sonny,
Just wanted to comment one on point you made. I may not be an orthodox conservative, I see myself as more libertarian, but lean conservative. I too am in favor of keeping abortion legal. That may be the libertarian aspect in me, but I see government intrusion in any aspect of life to be excessive and stifling.
Now as for the situation with Palin, I can only speak from my own experience, but the Palin pick ensured another McCain voter, and my wife is apolitical as a general rule. I think her daughter’s pregnancy re-enforces her connection with us, the common-folk, who have to deal with such things on a daily basis. In a day when the political class tends to be so far out of touch with “the folks” her place on this ticket may prove to be the humanizing touch to thaw the glacier like flow of our political discourse. However, like Ross, I am rooting for Palin to succeed. Gains of salt are provided for your convenience.
Sonny Bunch — September 2, 2008 at 10:28 am
Merge: Superficially it might appear that the family values types would disapprove of the teen pregnancy situation. At least, that’s what liberals think. The truth is, it probably shores up a lot of support amongst the Evangelical set. Think about it this way: yes, they disapprove of unwed teenagers having sex, but that bridge has been crossed. Now that she is pregnant, she’s doing the right thing (as far as the family values set goes, anyway) by having the baby and marrying the father.
I’m more interested in your second sentence, specifically your insinuation that McCain might not have picked Palin. If he didn’t do it then who, pray tell, did?
Joe: I think, politically speaking, that Palin is a great move for the ticket. She appeals very strongly to the “silent majority” and, if she proves she can handle herself on the campaign trail, will be a huge asset to the party for years to come.
Drew — September 2, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Where does all of this “respect” other magazine writers have for Andrew Sullivan come from? It certainly doesn’t seem to be from anything he has written over the last five years. Am I reading a differrent blog than you are, or are you just impressed with the publications that tolerate his byline? This is an honest question. The Daily Dish is repulsive and has been for five years now.
Sonny Bunch — September 2, 2008 at 1:30 pm
As a writer, Andrew is quite good. Effortlessly so, it seems. And I’ve always respected him for daring to publish stories about ‘The Bell Curve’ when he was EIC at the New Republic; that took guts. He was also one of the most logical, concise polemicists immediately after 9/11. Obviously, that’s changed in recent years, but I’ve continued reading anyway.
Noo Yark — September 2, 2008 at 9:14 pm
All I want to know is when did the RNC become the party of “change”???
Palin probably will never be in the Oval Office, but a VP is more than just a back up, they have very important tasks to do. or does everyone really think presidents handle every national/international issue themselves? I want the execitive branch occupied with people who have been “in the mix” for some time. who have travelled overseas. met with foreign leaders. AND FOR GOD’S SAKE HAVE AN OPINION ON U.S. POILCIES IN IRAQ!!!!! (when asked, Palin said “I don’t know) WTF?!???
any joe smoe on the street know WTF is going on over there and has an opinion.
Am I suppose to believe if McCain was looking for a Female VP that there are no other Female candidates with more experience????????
merge divide — September 2, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Well, it’s pretty well-established in the media that McCain preferred Lieberman but was told that was unacceptable. Also Tim Pawlenty was reportedly a McCain favorite. I don’t know why you’d deny that McCain was pressured to take someone representing “family values” in order to shore up the Republican “base”. Christian Conservatives had it in for McCain until this pick.
Sonny Bunch — September 2, 2008 at 10:28 pm
I don’t think there’s any doubt that McCain’s preference was for Lieberman, but that wasn’t in the cards. It would have been political suicide. You don’t win elections by picking off the party’s voters; you win by turning out your base. I haven’t really seen much to suggest that McCain had a huge attachment to Pawlenty. If he did, he would have just picked him. He’d do just as well with the base as Palin.
Your parenthetical “(if indeed he did make that decision)” suggests that McCain didn’t choose to take Palin on the ticket. It sounds vaguely conspiratorial. That’s all I was saying.
Mary — September 3, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Andrew Sullivan is OVER.
NO ONE reads his site; NO ONE gives a rat’s patootie what he has to say.
He’s finished.
John — September 3, 2008 at 1:11 pm
And this coming from the man WHO SEES (or “thinks”, I guess, if you’re Sonny Bunch) THAT THE NEOCON FOREIGN POLICY HAS BEEN A DISASTER. Wtf?
Christian Toto — September 3, 2008 at 2:23 pm
There’s a great story to be told in ‘whatever happened to Andrew Sullivan?’
Will — September 3, 2008 at 4:09 pm
First the cross in the dirt story, and now this?
I must say, I’m genuinely saddened by Andrew Sullivan’s obsession with Palin and over-the-top Obama-mania. I mean, the guy’s site basically introduced me to the blogosphere and I think he’s done some outstanding writing on a variety of other issues. I guess his man-crush on Obama has totally addled his senses.
PS – Nice digs, Bunch. Congrats on the move.
Will — September 3, 2008 at 4:18 pm
PPS – I think you accidentally imported Poulos’s blogroll. Better fix that fast before someone mistakenly IDs you as one of those hippy un-American paleocon-libertarian anti-war Islamofascists.
Sonny Bunch — September 3, 2008 at 8:18 pm
Yeah, that looks like James’s blog roll. It certainly isn’t mine. I actually don’t think I’m an admin over here (if I am, I don’t know it). I’ll let the techies sort that out.
Nathan P Origer — September 3, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Um, I may have e-mailed Sullivan this evening, nominating him for the Moore Award. Oops.
Seamus — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 am
I have a very good college friend who is one of the original “plank-owners” over at ESPN. This persons character is untouchable and is beloved by all over there. If I mentioned his name most would say a ‘total class act’
According to him, Keith Olbermann is the most arrogant egotistical bastard that he has EVER worked with. He has burnt more bridges then Kenny’s fifth Airforce and he is abhored at ESPN. It patently obvious that most of MSNBC think the guy is a total jackass and its just a matter of time before he self-destructs.
Seamus — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 am
I have a very good college friend who is one of the original “plank-owners” over at ESPN. This persons character is untouchable and is beloved by all over there. If I mentioned his name most would say a ‘total class act’
According to him, Keith Olbermann is the most arrogant egotistical bastard that he has EVER worked with. He has burnt more bridges then Kenny’s fifth Airforce and he is abhored at ESPN. It patently obvious that most of MSNBC think the guy is a total jackass and its just a matter of time before he self-destructs.
Seamus — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 am
I have a very good college friend who is one of the original “plank-owners” over at ESPN. This persons character is untouchable and is beloved by all over there. If I mentioned his name most would say a ‘total class act’
According to him, Keith Olbermann is the most arrogant egotistical bastard that he has EVER worked with. He has burnt more bridges then Kenny’s fifth Airforce and he is abhored at ESPN. It patently obvious that most of MSNBC think the guy is a total jackass and its just a matter of time before he self-destructs.
Mike P — September 4, 2008 at 4:55 pm
So nice of you to use the Ayers thing…let’s recall (again) how old Obama was when Ayers was running around. He has been accepted back into society (unless having a teaching position at a division of the University of Illinois is some sort of social ostracism I’m unaware of). That’s not saying I condone what Ayers did (and I doubt Obama does either).
Do I get why the argument is made? Sure. Is it still a pretty bogus argument? Yep.
Mike P — September 4, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I seriously doubt that Obama or Biden said what you’re saying in those terms.
What’s funny about all of this is that 3 weeks ago, I bet you wouldn’t have made the argument at all that she was ready to be president…now, however, being a small town and mayor and gov. of a sparsely populated state for about 2 years…”READY ON DAY ONE!”
Really?
Sonny Bunch — September 4, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Mike, I think I was pretty clearly being sarcastic/exaggerating for comic effect.
And I don’t really think she is qualified to president. But I do think she’s qualified to be VICE president. (Just as I think that Obama is perfectly qualified to be Joe Biden’s junior running mate.) Let’s be clear: if she did have to take over, there’s a 99% chance it’ll be after a significant period of time, 2 or 3 years into the presidency. 2 or 3 years as VP, combined with her previous executive experience, is more than enough time to get ready for the presidency.
Daniel Kennelly — September 4, 2008 at 5:38 pm
That’s actually why I brought up the Ayers thing. It, like the AIP “scandal”, is just more partisan hackery. I admit I could have done a better job of letting you all in on the fact that tongue was firmly implanted in cheek for that last point.
But as for Ayers having been accepted back into society? Well, I don’t remember getting a memo about that one. I suppose in a narrow legal sense, yes, he has. But I for one wouldn’t stand in the same room with the man.
Kresh — September 4, 2008 at 6:56 pm
“Now, maybe it’s just because I’m an egotist, but I would personally be flattered as hell to be dropped into one of these scenarios. Look, you’re living an ordinary and frankly dull life – bowl of Cheerios in the morning, desk job, etc.; all of a sudden, karma or a shadowy government agency or some staggeringly attractive female basically singles you out for a thrilling new life, one in which malevolent forces that previously took no notice of your existence are now thoroughly dedicated to fucking you up. Hey, at least you matter.”
Sure, but only if it’s still in a movie. In real life you’d soil your trousers and possibly develop a fatal aneuryism, if you end up being lucky to survive long enough.
As the saying goes: adventure is hardship fondly remembered. Also see: Interesting Times aren’t really as cool as they sound.
P.S. – I liked the post.
Tim — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I was appalled by the behavior of Keith Olbermann as I watched the final night of the Republican National Convention. His remarks were so clearly partisan and anti-Republican all evening it made the show unpleasant to watch. The icing on the “Shit cake” that he created was when he had the audacity to make that melodramatic “apology” to the viewers over the 911 memorial video. It was at that point when we simply couldn’t watch any longer and had to turn to another channel for coverage of the event. MSNBC really dropped the ball by assigning this idiot to cover the event.
Tim — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I was appalled by the behavior of Keith Olbermann as I watched the final night of the Republican National Convention. His remarks were so clearly partisan and anti-Republican all evening it made the show unpleasant to watch. The icing on the “Shit cake” that he created was when he had the audacity to make that melodramatic “apology” to the viewers over the 911 memorial video. It was at that point when we simply couldn’t watch any longer and had to turn to another channel for coverage of the event. MSNBC really dropped the ball by assigning this idiot to cover the event.
Tim — September 4, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I was appalled by the behavior of Keith Olbermann as I watched the final night of the Republican National Convention. His remarks were so clearly partisan and anti-Republican all evening it made the show unpleasant to watch. The icing on the “Shit cake” that he created was when he had the audacity to make that melodramatic “apology” to the viewers over the 911 memorial video. It was at that point when we simply couldn’t watch any longer and had to turn to another channel for coverage of the event. MSNBC really dropped the ball by assigning this idiot to cover the event.
Jeff Bridges — September 4, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Now I’ve just got to see the movie. And as for you being an egotist – NAW! You?? Never.
Jeff Bridges — September 4, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Also, and more importantly, you really need to compile all of those random pieces of information you have, like that part about The Big Sleep, and put them all in a book. You’re a fountain of random yet incredibly interesting information.
e — September 5, 2008 at 12:18 am
No wonder his ratings are so horrible. He is sickening to watch and listen to.
e — September 5, 2008 at 12:18 am
No wonder his ratings are so horrible. He is sickening to watch and listen to.
e — September 5, 2008 at 12:18 am
No wonder his ratings are so horrible. He is sickening to watch and listen to.
jeffbodensteiner@hot — September 6, 2008 at 10:48 pm
In the NFL, without the benefit of guaranteed contracts, most of these guys do not have the lifetime of monetary security you reference. The average NFL career is not more than three years.
Again, I am with you on not feeling sorry for these guys. They make their choices. But most of these guys don’t have millions in the bank upon their retirement, because they never made millions to begin with.
Sonny Bunch — September 7, 2008 at 12:58 am
Jeff, the average career is about three years, yes…but the minimum (not the average, mind you) salary over that time frame totals to about $1.1 million. Now, we can argue about the effects of marginal tax rates on $1.1 million earned over three years as opposed to 20 years, but I’d have to think that a man who a.) receives a free college degree and b.) gets $1 million out of the gate can make a go of things in the real world absent our sympathy. The NFL salary alone may not be enough to sustain him for the rest of his life, but with competent money management and an average-paying job post-NFL, he’s pretty much set.
Here’s a link to the minimum NFL salaries…rookies/first year players make $285k, second years make $360k, third years make $435. Over three years, that adds up to $1.08M. Not a bad chunk of change.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_league_minimum_salary_for_the_NFL
Evan — September 7, 2008 at 5:33 pm
A few months, I experienced a similar juxtaposition, only with a darker overtone: next to newly released pictures from Gitmo, there was an advertisement for skin care products.
Daniel Kennelly — September 8, 2008 at 9:46 am
I think it’s called Achilles’ Choice. And the whole point of it is that it’s a choice, right?
Sonny Bunch — September 8, 2008 at 11:19 am
I wouldn’t laugh too hard, David: those ads were prominently featured on James and I’s sites when we were arguing about what to do over Iran.
Sonny Bunch — September 8, 2008 at 1:44 pm
I think I finally realized I watch too many crappy movies while reading about the Hadron Collider and wondering what would happen if they did manage to create a black hole that threatened the Earth. In my mind’s eye I imagined a scrappy team of scientists–two or three renegades, one straight-laced careerist, a military pilot–hopping in some sort of device that would take them into the heart of the black hole, where they would detonate a nuke and seal the black hole forever.
Then I thought to myself “My god. I just described the plot of ‘The Core.’ I need to get out more often.”
Daniel Kennelly — September 8, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Ha. Yes. Well I’m not surprised you forgot about that movie. It was eminently forgettable.
Incidentally, for all you sf geeks out there: Charles Stross’ Accelerando, Dan Simmons’ Hyperion books, and Wil McCarthy’s Queendom books offer some interesting perspectives on the whole scientific Armageddon idea. (Why can’t Hollywood ever do smart sci-fi stories like these?)
Dave — September 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm
He’s not very good at sports either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave — September 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm
He’s not very good at sports either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dave — September 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm
He’s not very good at sports either!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Andrey Rybalchenko — September 8, 2008 at 9:17 pm
July 7, 2008 -> World renowned blogger pronounces “Federer is done.”
September 8th, 2008 -> Federer dominates the U.S. open, closing in on Sampras’ record.
LOL
Nathan P Origer — September 8, 2008 at 10:42 pm
I kinda want a hot dog now.
Geoff Z — September 8, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Keith Olbermann is a joke! He is a proud, arrogant, nasty SOB. His job as a news anchor/commentator on MSNBC is a disgrace to that network and to journalism in general. He is by far the most partisan, unfair, and cynical reporter I have ever heard. I listened to him for about 5 seconds after John McCain gave his acceptance speech at the RNC and I had to turn the channel because I felt like I was about to vomit. His liberal bias was pouring out of his mouth. I hope Bill O’Reilly Kicks his ass one of these days!
Geoff Z — September 8, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Keith Olbermann is a joke! He is a proud, arrogant, nasty SOB. His job as a news anchor/commentator on MSNBC is a disgrace to that network and to journalism in general. He is by far the most partisan, unfair, and cynical reporter I have ever heard. I listened to him for about 5 seconds after John McCain gave his acceptance speech at the RNC and I had to turn the channel because I felt like I was about to vomit. His liberal bias was pouring out of his mouth. I hope Bill O’Reilly Kicks his ass one of these days!
Geoff Z — September 8, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Keith Olbermann is a joke! He is a proud, arrogant, nasty SOB. His job as a news anchor/commentator on MSNBC is a disgrace to that network and to journalism in general. He is by far the most partisan, unfair, and cynical reporter I have ever heard. I listened to him for about 5 seconds after John McCain gave his acceptance speech at the RNC and I had to turn the channel because I felt like I was about to vomit. His liberal bias was pouring out of his mouth. I hope Bill O’Reilly Kicks his ass one of these days!
Christian Toto — September 9, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Liked the film as well … wished the hero and his rat pal were a little more – animated. Both seemed a bit bland, but the beautiful visuals and ambitious storytelling saved the day.
Mike P — September 10, 2008 at 8:48 am
” If the Republicans do somehow manage to win the election–something I never could have imagined even two weeks ago–it will be entirely because of the left’s haughtiness and petulance. They brought this on themselves.”
I’m a Democrat and the first to admit that some folks have made some questionable attacks on Palin. However…not all of these attacks were made by Obama or his campaign (the media and Democrats are NOT the same, no matter how much conservatives want to conflate the two) and Republicans, as they often have, use stereotypes and accusations to paint liberals as being condescending to “values voters” or “middle America” when those facts are not always in evidence. I’d please ask you to examine the role that the party your support has to play in this. McCain’s campaign and other Republicans constantly say Barack Obama is not patriotic, while claiming they’re attacking his judgment rather than his patriotism (a transparently false attack, in my opinion), they’ve continually mocked his personal story as that of a celebrity (though his humble start has much more in line with most Americans than McCain’s does)…and on and on it goes.
Like I said, there has obviously been some overreaction to Palin (especially on the blogs). But to say that all liberals are at fault without examining the other factors at play here is more than a little unfair.
Mike P — September 10, 2008 at 8:49 am
And also…let’s not act that just because class might be more important than race (which I’m not certain of at this juncture) that race won’t play a factor. Go back and read George Packer’s dispatches from Kentucky this summer. It almost certainly will play a role in the election…we just can’t be sure until after the voting, sadly.
Sonny Bunch — September 10, 2008 at 10:29 am
Mike, I’ll agree with you that the Obama campaign has been very well behaved when it comes to Palin. Kudos to them.
His supporters–in the media, in the left blogosphere, and elsewhere–have not been, however. I wouldn’t argue that “all liberals” have misbehaved, but enough of them have to do serious damage to the Obama campaign. If there was a serious, concerted effort at, say, The Corner, on Rush Limbaugh, and on Fox News to say that Barack Obama was a Muslim terrorist sleeper agent, don’t you think that would cause some backlash from ordinary folks on the left?
Because that’s what ordinary, moderate folks on the right see as having happened to Palin. And it’s why McCain has opened up a ten point lead amongst “likely” voters, and pulled even with amongst all voters.
victor — September 10, 2008 at 10:54 am
Bill O’Reilly kicks his ass every night. That is what makes KO so crazy. I think he is fun to watch. If the GOP wins this fall he will self destruct on the air. Don’t miss it!
victor — September 10, 2008 at 10:54 am
Bill O’Reilly kicks his ass every night. That is what makes KO so crazy. I think he is fun to watch. If the GOP wins this fall he will self destruct on the air. Don’t miss it!
victor — September 10, 2008 at 10:54 am
Bill O’Reilly kicks his ass every night. That is what makes KO so crazy. I think he is fun to watch. If the GOP wins this fall he will self destruct on the air. Don’t miss it!
Kalsoom — September 10, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Thanks for the great summary, David. In terms of Haqqani’s actual remarks, however, they sounded like a generous portion of well-rehearsed rhetoric, something not unexpected given that he’s Pakistan’s ambassador here. His diplomatic (read: evasive) response to how Pakistan would react to further U.S. military operations on its soil was actually interesting, especially given the intensified use of U.S. Predator drones on or near the Pakistani border in the past two weeks.
He didn’t say anything that was out and out wrong, but his statements were ambiguous to the point that he didn’t really say anything very new. We all know the whole “Pakistan is a democracy,” and how “significant and important it is in its own right” shpeal. The need for a sustained Pakistan-U.S. engagement is also a given. We get it. What I would have really liked to know is how this government plans to rein in the Inter-Services Intelligence, an instrument that acts completely autonomously in Pakistan and has recently been suspected of having strong ties with the Haqqani Network, the very organization the U.S. military has claimed it is targeting in its latest raid campaign. I would also like to know how the Pakistani government plans to cooperate with the military so that they have a unified, concrete approach to countering the militant threat in the FATA and northwest areas, rather than two separate, contradictory strategies.
Will — September 10, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Not sure if class is the best way to describe it. I might go with “vague cultural anxiety.”
That said, I think race potentially amplifies the cultural disconnect between downscale whites and Obama. I’m not really sure how to articulate this, but if you already think Obama is an out-of-touch elitist, maybe you’re more likely to assume his racial background will negatively effect his policy choices.
Not in an explicitly racist sense – as in “I’ll never vote for a black guy because he’s intellectually inferior to the white candidate” – but downscale white voters may assume that Obama’s intellectual and racial background makes him more likely to be overly deferential to minorities. I think that dovetails with Republicans’ historic success at exploiting racialized tensions over welfare programs, affirmative action etc. etc.
I don’t think this will be the election’s deciding factor, but I could certainly see it influencing the campaign at the margins.
Tony T — September 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Olbermann is a pathetic excuse for a news reporter. His left wing vomit is toxically obnoxious and only further reinforces the fact that the powers to be at MSNBC (Mentally Subpar Nitwits Believing their own Crap) are all a joke and should be fired.
Tony T — September 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Olbermann is a pathetic excuse for a news reporter. His left wing vomit is toxically obnoxious and only further reinforces the fact that the powers to be at MSNBC (Mentally Subpar Nitwits Believing their own Crap) are all a joke and should be fired.
Tony T — September 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Olbermann is a pathetic excuse for a news reporter. His left wing vomit is toxically obnoxious and only further reinforces the fact that the powers to be at MSNBC (Mentally Subpar Nitwits Believing their own Crap) are all a joke and should be fired.
Daniel Kennelly — September 10, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Brilliant.
Damir Marusic — September 10, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Taibbi’s article on Friedman, which you duly link to, is probably one of my favorite articles of the last 10 years.
The Extispicator — September 11, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Daniel,
Don’t be afraid of Huglund. He’s just a nihilist.
Daniel Kennelly — September 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Must be exhausting.
Sonny Bunch — September 11, 2008 at 6:13 pm
Say what you will about the tenets of National Socialism…at least it was an ethos.
Damir Marusic — September 11, 2008 at 7:52 pm
In the interest of not making this into an annoying Corner-like thread-fight, I’ll keep this in the comments.
First thing, Dan, I apologize, I was cutting and pasting over several pages, and a bit of the interview didn’t make it over. I have restored it to my post now. Here’s the missing part:
So indeed, Palin is ready to go to war with Russia over Georgia. Because the “freedom” of Georgia and Ukraine matter that much.
Yes, I agree, Obama’s rhetoric on Georgia has been very disappointing. Biden’s speech at the DNC, where he roared about “keeping Russia accountable”, was unsettling. (Obama’s speech was more measured and nuanced, for what it’s worth. Probably not much, as it’s all politics in those venues.)
But overall, no, I reject the premise that there’s no difference between Obama and McCain as far as foreign policy folly goes. Obama’s support for Georgia which you cite above is carefully worded, lawyerly, hedged, and finishes with an olive branch to Russia. There is no “We are all Georgians now” nonsense. There is no mention of confronting Russia militarily.
These things matter very much in foreign affairs and diplomacy. After eight years of seat-of-the-pants decision-making, I’m hoping for a reprieve.
Mike P — September 11, 2008 at 8:47 pm
It’s lose/lose for Obama…he says nothing, McCain/Palin’s lies are able to stand, unchallenged, by an uncritical and craven media and people accuse him of being a wimp. He engages, he’s “losing the news cycle” because he’s playing on their terms.
Basically, you’re seeing the upside of running a campaign that knows the media won’t hold it accountable for anything.
Daniel Kennelly — September 11, 2008 at 10:53 pm
If it’s lose/lose, then why not choose the classy way to lose? Contrary to F. Scott Fitzgerald, there are indeed second acts in American life.
Damir Marusic — September 11, 2008 at 11:47 pm
As I’ve mentioned to you in person, Dan, I think Obama’s mistake was apologizing. It was a good, biting line, even if he didn’t mean it “that way”.
He should say something like “I think Governor Palin is a talented politician, but I think she’s wrong on the issues…” and just keep going. And use the line again and again while the other side squeals foul. It makes them seem whiny and you seem in control.
Politics ain’t beanbag.
Daniel Kennelly — September 12, 2008 at 12:41 am
Right on.
Christian Toto — September 12, 2008 at 10:56 am
Well said. There’s a smugness to the series that turns me off, and you broke it down better than I could. It’s smart, sophisticated and better than your avg TV show, but that veneer keeps me at arm’s length.
Sonny Bunch — September 12, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Just another taste of what’s to come in Putin’s America if McCain wins.
Noelle — September 12, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Incidentally, one episode directly references The Apartment, which was released in 1960 (the year the first season is set in).
Will — September 12, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Am I wrong to suggest there’s a distinction between calling for a Membership Action Plan for Georgia and Ukraine and endorsing full NATO membership? My understand is that a MAP lays out certain criteria aspirant nations must meet before they can be considered for full membership. I suppose this is a shorter way of saying I agree with the comment above. Obama’s response appears to leave us a lot more room to maneuver than Palin’s (and McCain’s) open-ended commitment.
MamaMiaMaya — September 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I can’t take it anymore … I hate Olbermann and that jerk Chris Matthews. Talk about Obama butt smoochers! The only ray of light for me is that I saw a Washington Post article indicating they won’t let these 2 boneheads lead coverage during the actual election. What took you so damm long, MSNBC?? By the way, I think KO hates women …
MamaMiaMaya — September 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I can’t take it anymore … I hate Olbermann and that jerk Chris Matthews. Talk about Obama butt smoochers! The only ray of light for me is that I saw a Washington Post article indicating they won’t let these 2 boneheads lead coverage during the actual election. What took you so damm long, MSNBC?? By the way, I think KO hates women …
MamaMiaMaya — September 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm
I can’t take it anymore … I hate Olbermann and that jerk Chris Matthews. Talk about Obama butt smoochers! The only ray of light for me is that I saw a Washington Post article indicating they won’t let these 2 boneheads lead coverage during the actual election. What took you so damm long, MSNBC?? By the way, I think KO hates women …
Hank — September 13, 2008 at 7:24 am
Reminiscent of some of the Serbian leadership. I’m thinking not only of Slobo, but minor and more colorful figures like Velimir Ilić.
Hank — September 13, 2008 at 7:38 am
They sound more dead than fractured. At least seriously incapacitated.
Evan — September 14, 2008 at 10:33 pm
This is reminiscent Marlboro’s underwriting of anti-tobacco advertisements, but to a lesser degree. It is a classic bootleggers-and-baptist sort of move; I’m sure that BP, Exxon, Chevron, et al will do fine in the wake of whatever environmental legislation emerges in the coming years.
Jacob Grier — September 14, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Good pr for the company, no doubt. But keep in mind Chevron sells natural gas as well as gasoline, which I think is what the DC buses run on.
David Donadio — September 15, 2008 at 9:57 am
Good call. Dan also points out that the tobacco companies have been doing this for years, but that this is one of the first times a company has done it without having just settled a multi-billion dollar class action suit. Preemptive PR?
Damir Marusic — September 16, 2008 at 12:25 am
Rank hackery, this piece. As if the Bushies were some kind of stalwart free-marketeers. As if McCain knows his ass from his elbow when it comes to anything except international relations (and even there he’s a danger to the nation and the world). As if the Republicans aren’t dominated by the same rank populism that drives the Democrats. This is a sad election all around. In the immortal words of Butthead: “You can’t polish a turd, Beavis.”
David Donadio — September 16, 2008 at 9:32 am
Ha. Quite. It ain’t a vindication of economic thinking in either party. Rather, a cruel reminder of just how much we have to look forward to. Maybe if our parents hadn’t all been Uncle Billy, we wouldn’t have to be Potter.
David Donadio — September 16, 2008 at 3:40 pm
We should certainly worry about our ability to fight a conventional war, but would you really complain if we brought a few more linguists and other colonial types into the mix? It’s not exactly hammers and nails these days in the FATA, which is, after all, a colonial holdover, and actually the central front in the war on terror.
Daniel Kennelly — September 16, 2008 at 3:50 pm
You’re spot on about the problem. What’s that saying—when you have only a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail? I wonder what happens when all you have is a global constabulary force…
And it’s not just the Iraq war pressing transformation in that direction. If you look at the 10 or so years prior to Iraq, there were all sorts of low-level engagements throughout the so-called Gap. Then along came 9/11 and Afghanistan and Iraq, which (initially, anyway) strengthened the crusaders’ arguments.
But as for Rome: hey, it worked for about half a millennium or so…well, kinda.
Damir Marusic — September 16, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Cunning linguists, perhaps?
Lisa — September 17, 2008 at 8:42 am
We are currently exploding like cash piñatas already – and the $$ is going to fund that fire from Karachi to Tangier. In comparison, I’m more than happy to be beaten with a stick if it means kids will have healthcare and quality schools.
Daniel Kennelly — September 17, 2008 at 11:35 am
Public figures wake up in a cold sweat from nightmares about being profiled by Matt Labash. He’s a national treasure.
I would say the odds are much more than 75% that your typical journalist writing a profile is just as biased as Aaron Sorkin writing a script of the West Wing. I’m not sure what the difference between a good journalist and a partisan hack is, but I would guess that it’s an awareness of one’s own bias and a willingness to combat it, at least occasionally.
This reminds me of a story I overheard. The scene is a graduate school politics classroom. The students are explaining their project proposals and how they’ll carry them out. Student A explains his hypothesis and then says he’ll go out and look for evidence that supports it. Student B objects that his method is biased. Student A replies that his method isn’t biased; it’s the scientific method.
Of course, student A is 100% wrong. A scientist dreams up a hypothesis and then devises a devilishly clever experiment designed to *disprove* his hypothesis. Or at least he should do this, because if he doesn’t, his scientific peers will, potentially embarrassing him.
Yes, it doesn’t always work that way in the scientific world. But it almost never works that way in the journalistic world.
george becker — September 17, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Will it ever end?
David Donadio — September 17, 2008 at 3:10 pm
There is clearly more to this story than you’re letting on. I don’t know what it is, but I’m sure of it.
Daniel Kennelly — September 17, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Yeah, I’m not a fan of taxation as a redistribution scheme either, for all the oft stated reasons.
But I’m pretty amazed Yglesias would even hint at something that frightening. I mean, isn’t this the kind of chicanery the Left has been accusing the Right of for eight years?
Laura — September 17, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Try talking to females outside the Beltway. I think she’s great, but then, I’m writing from flyover land.
David Polansky — September 17, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Actually I’m living in Chicago. I try to avoid talking to anyone inside the Beltway whenever possible.
curious — September 17, 2008 at 7:35 pm
So wait, McCain being relatively unpopular internationally is an asset towards–his becoming popular internationally?
Up is down. Left is right. Black is white.
Edward — September 17, 2008 at 8:28 pm
If John McCain is president come January, the world sees the same USA it has seen for the last 8. If Barack Obama is president, it will force widespread reevaluation and gives us our best shot at getting our European allies to pull their fingers out of their ears and stop yelling “I can’t hear you!” over and over. Maybe the smooth talker can get some cooperation, maybe not, but NOTHING changes with John McCain.
device — September 18, 2008 at 12:29 am
This of course, begs the question of ‘Benefit of the doubt’, non?
Howard — September 18, 2008 at 9:42 am
Democrats, like Sebelius, and their media hacks, like Gergen and Cafferty are sore losers, who use the race card every time Obama missteps, or falls behind in the polls. So far, the most prominent references to race in the primaries, as well as in the general election have been from the Obama campaign … usually in terms of the Obama campaign accusing anyone, and everyone of racism, who disagreed with Obama, or challenged his lack of credentials, or his lack of experience, as racism. Obama has also vocally predicted and anticipated racism, when nobody actually said or did anything racist. Obama also used the race card against Bill Clinton. And, now democrat, and Obama supporter Kathleen Sebelius is once again using racism as an excuse, in case Obama doesn’t win in November. But, what about the other side of the coin? 90% of Blacks in America are voting for Obama simply because he is black. This is racism also, but it always gets swept under the carpet.
No Wright, no Farrakahn, no Rezko, no Pfleger, no Ayers,
no mean Michelle, and, NOBAMA !!!
Daniel Kennelly — September 18, 2008 at 12:47 pm
>Up is down. Left is right. Black is white.
There is no luminiferous aether. Time and space are not absolutes. And lower taxes often lead to higher government revenues. The world is a funny place sometimes, isn’t it?
David Polansky — September 18, 2008 at 2:57 pm
You’re dead on here in the conclusion. The CCP does allow citizens to hold protests and in some cases to set up organizations dealing with consumer and environmental issues.
But, crucially, this is not an example of self-government, and the transparency that results. Rather, the party sees grassroots organization as one plank in the system, designed to balance against corporate interests and local governments, which the central government cannot hope to control all on its own.
As always, the party sits at the top of the pyramid. Inefficient feedback loops are just one of the prices it is willing to pay to maintain the status quo.
Will — September 19, 2008 at 3:13 pm
OK, I’ll bite. How is this any different than, say, a socially conservative organization calling for a boycott of companies who advertise during an objectionable TV show? I may find their aesthetic judgment lacking, but I don’t begrudge social conservatives the right to peacefully protest offensive material.
The Obama Campaign isn’t hiring thugs to intimidate television producers or leveraging state regulations to get these ads off the air. They’re simply encouraging supporters to challenge political programs they find unfair. So what’s the big deal?
Sonny Bunch — September 19, 2008 at 3:21 pm
I would argue there’s a substantive difference between boycotting a TV show you find distasteful and mobilizing masses of political supporters in order to intimidate journalists/journalistic outlets. One has to do with letting the market sort things out; the other has to do with silencing your critics.
Have you actually looked at the language that Obama’s camp is using about these guys? They called Freddoso a hate-monger. Because he wrote a book that doesn’t conform to Obama’s rosy picture of himself, David Freddoso should be silenced. I mean, really? Why not engage Freddoso and his book? Why not ask callers to, say, have a debate? Why flood studios with phone calls demanding that someone be removed from the airwaves because you disagree with them on a political point?
Again: this is creepy, Fascistic stuff. It shouldn’t be done in the political sphere.
Will — September 19, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Providing supporters with talking points? Directing their calls? Isn’t this what grassroots organizations do literally all the time?
I can’t speak to the Freddoso incident because I haven’t been following it, but this sort of thing hardly rises to the level of press intimidation.
Didn’t you just publish several posts (rightfully) taking Andrew Sullivan to task for hyperbolically describing the relationship between Palin and the media as “Putin’s America?” Where’s your sense of proportion?
Ideally, yes, all campaigns would honestly and thoughtfully engage with their opponents’ arguments. Tragically, even the Obamessiah can’t change the structure of electoral politics. And yes, after two terms of Bush, I find this sudden concern for preserving civil discourse on the Left a bit rich.
Sonny Bunch — September 19, 2008 at 3:54 pm
It would be one thing if they were giving their supporters talking points to engage in debate. “Mr. Freddoso says X happened when Y is really the case.” That’s not what is happening: the campaign is sending talking points designed to keep Freddoso et al off the air. They’re providing talking points designed to stifle debate, to shut it down. I’m sure you see the difference between mobilizing your supporters to engage on an issue/vote/whatever and mobilizing your supporters to bully a TV/Radio station into not interviewing someone.
If I wanted to get really hyperbolic, like Andrew, I’d hate titled this post Chavez’s America. But I don’t think it’s terribly over-the-top to suggest that mobilizing a mob, demonizing an ideological opponent, and trying to stifle debate shades into the realm of Fascism.
Daniel Kennelly — September 19, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Hey, look at it this way: At least Obama’s proving he can use his “community organizer” experience for something…
Daniel Kennelly — September 19, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Oh, and one way you can imagine this incident to fully realize how creepy it is: Just imagine that this is 2012 and he’s doing this in the midst of his re-election campaign.
Or for those who suffer from severe cognitive bias: Imagine this is 2004 and Bush is encouraging the “digital brownshirts” to call and complain.
I’m probably not willing to go as far as to call it “fascistic”, but I think it easily rises to the level of “Nixonian.”
Sonny Bunch — September 19, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Nixon was never this well organized…or this well liked.
Will — September 19, 2008 at 4:46 pm
The people demand more Guided by Voices references.
UNDP Watch — September 20, 2008 at 9:57 am
should you be interested in reality inside UNDP – check UNDP WATCH at http://undpwatch.blogspot.com
James — September 20, 2008 at 7:54 pm
The unbuttoned. Vest. Must. Die.
Austin — September 22, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Umm…Moore has long been on record as opposing any and all film-adaptations of his work. He neither asks for nor accepts any compensation, financial or otherwise, for the rights/movies. The options are owned by the publishers, not by him, and he goes so far as to deny the movie studios the right to put his name in the credits.
The point being, I suppose, that a) if the movies listed truly were crap (I haven’t seen them), he had nothing to do with their adaptation and implementation; and b) he didn’t want them made in the first place (he doesn’t own the rights – which spawns a much longer discussion of the creator rights debacle that is the modern comic market).
David Polansky — September 22, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Fair enough. This is what a comments section is for, I suppose. So why doesn’t Moore have more leverage in negotiations? He’s about as big a name as there is in comics these days, no?
Daniel Kennelly — September 22, 2008 at 3:29 pm
I wouldn’t call Watchmen pretentious and overrated in itself. I think its boosters tend to be a bit pretentious and to overrate it (uh, ok, yeah, then I guess it is overrated, strictly speaking). I mean, it’s great and all, but is it really, as per Time Magazine, one of the “100-best novels of all time”? Not quite. But it’s still plenty good.
Will — September 22, 2008 at 3:36 pm
If a broad consensus exists in favor of achieving certain goals (containing Communism comes to mind), perhaps a non-ideological approach to foreign policy is possible. Otherwise, I’m not sure I understand how you can disentangle the various approaches to foreign affairs from their ideological roots. Progressives, for example, are strongly attached to liberal internationalism. Isn’t that because it reflects their deeply-held political values?
Sonny Bunch — September 22, 2008 at 5:37 pm
I doubt Moore owns the rights to his work; DC almost certainly does. And he isn’t much of a force in mainstream comics any more, creatively. Even if he was, do you think Warners is going to say “Oh, okay, we’ll forego this nine figure movie project so Mr. Moore can write funny books as he sees fit.”
mw — September 23, 2008 at 10:17 am
Agreed. I have been beating the divided government drum for two years on my blog. I voted for John Kerry to get divided government in 2004 and lost. I supported a straight Dem ticket in 2006 to get divided government and won. This year I will vote to re-elect divided government by supporting John McCain.
This scholarly article from a Constitutional lawyer puts more than a little academic cred behind the divided government thesis.
Anyway, Sonny – FWIW I recently initiated a “Coalition of the Divided” blogroll for anyone who says anything vaguely positive about divided government. You are now a member in good standing.
Amber Bryer-Wotte — September 23, 2008 at 10:44 am
I’m of two minds here. On one hand, I get your point, and yes the law is stupid.
But on the other hand, and for the sake of conversation, is there a point at which there is too much, uh, “distress,” regardless of the fact that they’re about to be slaughtered?
Hank — September 23, 2008 at 10:48 am
Putin. Chigurh.
Daniel Kennelly — September 23, 2008 at 11:08 am
I love it. “Never be clever for the sake of being clever.”
Christian Toto — September 23, 2008 at 11:29 am
Aw, you can’t let facts get in the way now, can you? Must be nice to rewrite your own history.
Daniel Kennelly — September 23, 2008 at 4:33 pm
Now, I’m not a lawyer, but is the wife’s knowledge of her husband’s crime necessarily treasonous, in a narrowly legal sense? She doesn’t become an accomplice simply by not turning her husband in, I thought, due to the fact that spousal privilege laws typically allow a spouse to refuse to testify except in certain cases involving children or domestic abuse or such. I presume that “refuse to testify” privilege also applies to refusing to report her husband’s crime to the authorities. Which is why the state in the Rosenberg case made such a big deal about whether or not she typed up those notes.
So, for instance, Robert Hanssen’s wife, who discovered him in the act of treason, didn’t turn him into the feds, and she was not even accused of treason, even when Robert subsequently resumed his spying and was finally caught.
Shawn Macomber — September 23, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Of course, the best way to be humane AND lower food prices/increase food supply would be to quit inefficiently processing grain, corn and clean water through animals bodies into meat in the first place.
Sonny Bunch — September 24, 2008 at 4:50 pm
I don’t know about that, Daniel. If your wife commits murder, you knew he was planning to do so, said nothing, knew he did it, said nothing, knew he was continuing to kill people, and said nothing…that’s not acting as an accomplice? I’m not sure…
Nicole Kurokawa — September 24, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I’m not arguing that there isn’t mistreatment at some of these facilities. I just think there are more efficient ways of dealing with the problem. One solution might be to get the information into the public domain, giving people the right to decide if they want to buy from cruel slaughterhouses or not. If nations are determined to enforce these rules, they can fine these facilities — laws that are on the books in almost all the EU nation states anyway, not necessitating additional formal European Commission laws. Also, these national research centers don’t have to be… national. They can be private, or in universities. I think forcing companies to hire, train, and certify an animal welfare officer is costly, and unfortunately also boils down to human judgment at the end of the day, despite certifications and training. I have the utmost faith that these public officials are as corruptible as the rest of them…
BOB — September 24, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Chris mattews and kieth olbermann need to go away and maybe the ratings will go up…
they are morons cranky old men and kieth sucks at trying to talk about football
BOB — September 24, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Chris mattews and kieth olbermann need to go away and maybe the ratings will go up…
they are morons cranky old men and kieth sucks at trying to talk about football
BOB — September 24, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Chris mattews and kieth olbermann need to go away and maybe the ratings will go up…
they are morons cranky old men and kieth sucks at trying to talk about football
Laura — September 25, 2008 at 7:44 am
LOL! And sometimes, in American households they *are* missles–if there are enough boys in the house who sneak into their sister’s things.
But, more to the point, rhetoric is still used the way it has always been, mis-.
Sign me: Barbie was always banned in my house!
Mike P — September 25, 2008 at 9:23 am
Why not wait and see the movie first?
David Donadio — September 25, 2008 at 9:35 am
You breaka you mama’s heart!
Joe — September 25, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Santino, molto spassoso. grazie.
Damir Marusic — September 25, 2008 at 4:43 pm
That’s disgusting. I didn’t even read the story, just the headline. Threw up a little in my mouth.
Damir Marusic — September 25, 2008 at 4:43 pm
That’s disgusting. I didn’t even read the story, just the headline. Threw up a little in my mouth.
Damir Marusic — September 25, 2008 at 4:43 pm
That’s disgusting. I didn’t even read the story, just the headline. Threw up a little in my mouth.
Sonny Bunch — September 25, 2008 at 4:43 pm
So much Italian on the site today. Spike Lee, changing the discussion yet again…
Joe — September 25, 2008 at 4:44 pm
And another thing. That 500-525 million I spouted off with seems like a pretty good number at this point.
Joe — September 25, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Spike does have a way of doing that. Speaking of Spike, I tried watching the director’s commentary to Inside Man the other day. Worst solo director commentary I’ve seen. Won’t say evah, because surely some director fell asleep mid commentary and I just haven’t seen it.
Sonny Bunch — September 25, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Yeah, $525 is going to be pretty close. I’m surprised it kept going this long…
Solo director’s commentaries are almost always a bore. You need someone to riff off in a situation like that. Verhoeven is great in that regard: his commentary on “Starship Troopers” is amazing. If “Showgirls” had a commentary track I would buy it in a second.
Joe — September 25, 2008 at 5:02 pm
From a strict story perspective, Michael Mann solo commentaries are stellar. But then again, this is Michael Mann. His Collateral Commentary is especially illuminating on backstory, character, his appreciation for Audioslave, etc. I am hoping next year gives us an Insider 10th anniversary with commentary, yadda yadda yadda.
David Donadio — September 25, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Thanks man. I oughtta add that I’m not sure a meltdown would be trivial, only that it would be exacerbated by a bailout that rewards people who made unsound investments and punishes everyone who didn’t. If the government keeps encouraging people to invest in excessively risky or underperforming assets, they will, and that’ll cause even bigger problems than we have now. The garbage has to go, and it’s up to investors to figure out what’s worth what, and what to sell off and what to buy up.
If, as some economists allege, there’s a lack of liquidity, and banks really can’t get the short-term loans they need to operate, then maybe the government can serve as a lender of last resort. That would keep it more neutral and leave investors reasonably free to figure things out for themselves, right? But the government shouldn’t throw $700 billion at bad debts whose true value no one can know, or take control of private institutions. If that happens, it’ll make the corruption at Fannie Mae look tiny by comparison.
Right now, the economy is like an addict in a low after the heroin wears off. He wants more heroin, but he’d live longer if he quit.
Daniel Kennelly — September 25, 2008 at 8:55 pm
That was an awesome mashup, btw. Though I did miss the part with the Joker’s “magic trick.”
Daniel Kennelly — September 25, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Don’t know if it’s true, but I once heard that a heroin addict is either on methadone or he’s using, for the rest of his life. I hope that doesn’t apply to this situation.
Damir Marusic — September 26, 2008 at 3:13 am
Here’s a taste:
David Polansky — September 26, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Arrggh!
goatshead — September 27, 2008 at 2:31 am
Keith olbermann is a total idiot. I watch him every once in a while so that I can laugh out loud. He should not make fun of McCain….he is a war hero. KO is an ass.
goatshead — September 27, 2008 at 2:31 am
Keith olbermann is a total idiot. I watch him every once in a while so that I can laugh out loud. He should not make fun of McCain….he is a war hero. KO is an ass.
goatshead — September 27, 2008 at 2:31 am
Keith olbermann is a total idiot. I watch him every once in a while so that I can laugh out loud. He should not make fun of McCain….he is a war hero. KO is an ass.
Daniel Kennelly — September 29, 2008 at 10:10 am
Fetid gas? Distended sphincter?
Nice. Next time wait till well after breakfast to spin such metaphors.
Damir Marusic — September 29, 2008 at 10:38 am
That’s the crux of our argument going forward. You’ll say that nothing’s working, and I’ll say that it would only be worse without intervention.
Evidence is mounting that Lehman shouldn’t've been allowed to fail as cavalierly as it was.
You, presumably, would argue that this is nonsense. I would argue that you’re being ideological in the face of facts.
Damir Marusic — September 29, 2008 at 10:52 am
Let me clarify—I don’t mean to slur like I did above. There’s evidence that we need closer to $3 trillion to be able to get out of this thing alive. So you tell me: is it better to spend nothing come what may?
David Donadio — September 29, 2008 at 8:15 pm
The Dow Jones fell 777 points today when Congress failed to reach an agreement on a financial bailout. I’m reasonably certain that no matter what action the government takes right now, we’ll see some sort of economic downturn, not least because investors inevitably react adversely when public officials tell them every day for a week that an asteroid is headed their way. The qualification “unless we _____” probably doesn’t do much to allay their fears.
Should we honestly not be skeptical about the proposition that we should immediately give the Secretary of the Treasury an outsized sum — whether $700 billion or $3 trillion, as that WSJ article has it — to spend as he chooses to stave off catastrophe? That’s not ideology in the face of the facts, it’s caution in the face of fear.
If we do end up passing a bailout, I suspect whatever it is will solve a problem that no longer exists.
The market is an infinitely complex, endlessly shape-shifting web of individuals relying on good information to make rational decisions that, when aggregated, sometimes result in disaster. In this case, investors — government included — clearly don’t have good information. One story tells us we need to spend $700 billion, another says $3 trillion.
All of which brings to mind the old refrain about how we could win the war in Iraq if only we put half a million troops there. Well, that was never an option. There are certain things the American public just will not stand for, and doubling the federal budget in a single day is one of them.
It’s still not clear how the bailout’s proponents define success, but I’d say that, in essence, they’re setting an impossibly high standard for what politics can accomplish. I’m sure if we resurrected Bill Shakespeare, Beethoven, the dead Beatles, Adam Smith, J.P. Morgan and Milton Friedman and locked them up in a smoke-filled room together while Teddy Roosevelt went out and shot game, we could figure this all out, but that’s not gonna happen.
So how much should we spend, and on what? How much will it cost, short-term and long-term? What will it accomplish, and how will we know if it’s been a success?
Damir Marusic — September 30, 2008 at 8:57 am
a) No one said $700bn was required—the number was largely pulled out of thin air. This isn’t a question of appropriations and balancing budgets. It’s about picking a large enough number to credibly allay anxieties and unlock the credit markets. I feel like many people are misunderstanding what the plan is trying to do.
b) There’s no success metric—there’s just gambling with catastrophic failure. You seem to be fine with this, and you seem to believe that no action is preferable to action. That’s perfectly defensible, even a reasonable possible outcome of all of this. I guess I’m just more risk-averse than you.
Daniel Kennelly — October 1, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Kidney failure? Maybe he drank melamine-laced Chinese milk…
Daniel Polansky — October 1, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Haha. Very funny, although frankly I’m more saddened by the recent loss of the DC City Paper’s feature story than I am a 2nd rate Israel-obsessed broadsheet.
Daniel Kennelly — October 1, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Re: that video you posted. Man, I wish those interviews were scripted, but I know they’re not. I’ve known people like that myself.
Sonny Bunch — October 1, 2008 at 4:22 pm
It really is absurd. My favorite moment is the girl at the beginning who says, with a straight face after admitting she’s simply too cheap to buy health insurance: “And honestly, I feel it’s ridiculous that we live in a first world country where I have to pay for basic, um, health care.”
Thrift wrapped up in the flag of self-righteous indignation: that’s the heart of the universal health care movement right there.
Will — October 1, 2008 at 9:27 pm
So I’m totally down with your main point, but I disagree a bit with the framing. Maybe this is my own idiosyncratic take, but I’m uncomfortable with referring to everyone without health insurance as shiftless layabouts. I think a “more in sorrow than in anger” approach is called for – i.e. we acknowledge that not having health insurance sucks, but argue that the unintended consequences of providing universal health insurance outweigh any marginal benefits.
Then again, I suppose this wouldn’t be a very effective electoral strategy . . .
Sonny Bunch — October 2, 2008 at 10:13 am
Like I said, I know it’s not fair to call everyone without insurance a shiftless layabout. I just can’t stand people who frame the debate in terms of health care being this impossible-to-afford luxury that only the rich can indulge in. It’s very frustrating…
Joe — October 2, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Well Said, Sonny. Well said indeed. I gave up on RedState long ago being anything other than a bunch of partisan hacks more interested in winning elections than in promoting a coherent theory of governance.
Will — October 2, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Vindicated! Good post, though. I think a unanimous condemnation is the best way to exorcise this sort of blacklisting from polite society.
Daniel Kennelly — October 2, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Hear Hear!
Sonny Bunch — October 2, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I shouldn’t write in frustration; I already see three things I’d like to edit in that post. But between Erick’s ridiculous post and my credit card company screwing with me (long story), I’m basically angry at life right now.
Joe — October 2, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Sonny, I say we make them dead. You give the word and I’ll take care of it myself.
one of the few quotable lines in that monstrosity
steven larsen — October 2, 2008 at 7:42 pm
if the government takes the garbage debt away what do they do in the future if more existing loans turn to trash. that scenario is entirely possible in a recessionary economy
Sonny Bunch — October 3, 2008 at 2:52 pm
You ever see that movie “Sunshine”? Solid enough little flick from Danny Boyle. It’s about the sun dying out in 50 years. I think this is how things started…no sunspots=bad news.
Daniel Kennelly — October 3, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Yeah, Sunshine was ok. The bit where they shoot themselves out into vacuum was pretty cool, but being the nerd I am, I immediately went to the web to see if it would really work that way. The verdict? Not quite: http://www.sff.net/people/Geoffrey.Landis/vacuum.html
David Polansky — October 5, 2008 at 11:20 pm
Good to see someone else has seen this film. That movie scared the hell out of me, and it’s difficult to explain to people who haven’t seen it why a movie called “Sunshine” is frightening without having them think you’re deeply disturbed.
Sonny Bunch — October 6, 2008 at 11:08 am
The only complaint I had was with the ending; was it really necessary to introduce an indestructible monster into the third act? And even if you did want to introduce the man-as-monster trope, was it really necessary for him to follow Cillian onto the bomb? It struck me as kind of silly.
David Polansky — October 6, 2008 at 11:25 am
Yeah, I totally agree. It really brings the movie back down to earth (so to speak). Until then, though, it’s pretty solid. What I liked was the concept of the sun itself as some sort of malevolent god that keeps immolating them at every turn. Though, in retrospect, the plot does kind of require them to execute a series of really stupid maneuvers to help bring that about.
Daniel Kennelly — October 6, 2008 at 1:54 pm
It reminds me of that scene in Barcelona in which Ted (or is it Fred) says that maybe the sexual revolution didn’t turn everything upside-down. Maybe it had all been upside-down before, and the sexual revolution turned things right-side-up. And Fred (or Ted) says, “No, I don’t think that’s it.”
David Polansky — October 6, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Now, Barcelona is a film near and dear to my heart. At the time, I was living in Rome shortly after the invasion of Iraq, and dealing with shallow anti-Americanism had more or less become a part of my daily routine. After I saw it, I wanted to call up Whit Stillman and thank him personally.
Matt Frost — October 7, 2008 at 12:34 am
But doesn’t “stemmed” mean “averted,” while you read it as “caused?”
Matt Frost — October 7, 2008 at 12:34 am
But doesn’t “stemmed” mean “averted,” while you read it as “caused?”
Matt Frost — October 7, 2008 at 12:34 am
But doesn’t “stemmed” mean “averted,” while you read it as “caused?”
Ryan — October 7, 2008 at 8:18 am
Haha you have to love living in Chicago! I’ll keep an eye out for those Manfest ads.
Damir Marusic — October 7, 2008 at 8:19 am
I dunno, I predict that a campaign full of xenophobic undertones will recover quite a bit of ground for him.
Dan — October 7, 2008 at 8:46 am
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
David Donadio — October 7, 2008 at 9:53 am
It does indeed. I was reading lazily, and have now corrected the post. Thanks for the catch.
David Donadio — October 7, 2008 at 9:53 am
It does indeed. I was reading lazily, and have now corrected the post. Thanks for the catch.
David Donadio — October 7, 2008 at 9:53 am
It does indeed. I was reading lazily, and have now corrected the post. Thanks for the catch.
Daniel Kennelly — October 7, 2008 at 1:27 pm
So I take it you won’t be joining Obama in his call to “renegotiate” NAFTA? (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
Damir Marusic — October 7, 2008 at 3:00 pm
You should know better, Dan. You know my elitism is genuine and extends to suspicion of organized labor as well as heartland hickdom.
Lolly — October 8, 2008 at 9:36 am
This is hysterical. Thank you for posting. Why didn’t I see this? Oh yes, I’ve been conditioned to avoid SNL–how silly of me. Time to start Tivo-ing again. But how can a site be “scrubbed” when it’s like a virus?
Daniel Kennelly — October 8, 2008 at 11:09 am
I hear he makes a mean Caucasian.
Carol Kymmer — October 8, 2008 at 12:36 pm
http:/www.mccainsnotepad.com
David Polansky — October 9, 2008 at 1:47 am
Senator McCain, you can be my wingman anytime.
Chirag — October 9, 2008 at 6:50 am
It does sound good…
Christian Toto — October 9, 2008 at 12:30 pm
It’s easy to understand why the DJ’s mom thought the charge was baseless. Because the MSM is doing all it can to tell her just that.
Sarah YP — October 9, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Seeing as how the Huskers split their five — count ‘em, five! — electoral votes, the congressional district that is Omaha will likely go his way. Score Nebraska as 4 for McCain, 1 (Omaha) Obama.
You’re not crazy, David. At least not on this count.
Sarah YP — October 9, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Seeing as how the Huskers split their five — count ‘em, five! — electoral votes, the congressional district that is Omaha will likely go his way. Score Nebraska as 4 for McCain, 1 (Omaha) Obama.
You’re not crazy, David. At least not on this count.
Sarah YP — October 9, 2008 at 3:07 pm
Seeing as how the Huskers split their five — count ‘em, five! — electoral votes, the congressional district that is Omaha will likely go his way. Score Nebraska as 4 for McCain, 1 (Omaha) Obama.
You’re not crazy, David. At least not on this count.
David Donadio — October 10, 2008 at 10:10 am
Hey, that’s our next Secretary of Health and Human Services you’re talking about. Show some respect.
John Bigenwald — October 10, 2008 at 12:18 pm
let’s just say that the GOP is trying to keep minorities from voting. It makes everything so much easier…
It’s the teaspoon of sugar that makes the medicine go down — unfortunately there’s never any medicine, just more sugar.
John Bigenwald — October 10, 2008 at 12:18 pm
let’s just say that the GOP is trying to keep minorities from voting. It makes everything so much easier…
It’s the teaspoon of sugar that makes the medicine go down — unfortunately there’s never any medicine, just more sugar.
Steve Sailer — October 11, 2008 at 2:05 am
I used to live a few blocks from the Aragon, on Margate Terrace.
Have they ever improved the acoustics at the Aragon and the Riviera? I saw the Ramones farewell tour at one of those places and the sound was just sludge. Same for The Pogues 20 years ago, and the Clash 25 years ago. The only band that sounded good at the Aragon was U2 in 1983. They must have spent days on the soundcheck, but they always wanted to be the biggest band in the world.
Brendan — October 11, 2008 at 1:34 pm
And it only took him a week
Joan Vinson — October 12, 2008 at 8:43 am
I want to view last night’s SNL, Oct. 12
Joan Vinson — October 12, 2008 at 8:43 am
I want to view last night’s SNL, Oct. 12
Joan Vinson — October 12, 2008 at 8:43 am
I want to view last night’s SNL, Oct. 12
Mike P — October 13, 2008 at 11:35 am
There’s certainly a principal to be upheld and we should all strive to make sure nothing untoward is going on. But, just as we’ve seen with the economic meltdown, there is a little bit of evidence that race does play a part in this (if only at the edges). Recently we’ve seen some on the right attempt to lay the blame for the subprime meltdown squarely at the feet of blacks and other minorities and, with voter registration, we often see Republicans challenging their validity in areas that are usually heavily African-American.
Of course, that is not to say that Republicans are all racists or anything of the like. But I think you’re just seeing a collision of some facts (bad loans did have a lot to do with what happened, but the reasons for why those loans were made isn’t the fault of the people who received them; since blacks vote Democratic in large numbers, it makes sense that Republicans would want to make sure registrations were valid) with projection or wanting to find a scapegoat.
Mike P — October 13, 2008 at 11:35 am
There’s certainly a principal to be upheld and we should all strive to make sure nothing untoward is going on. But, just as we’ve seen with the economic meltdown, there is a little bit of evidence that race does play a part in this (if only at the edges). Recently we’ve seen some on the right attempt to lay the blame for the subprime meltdown squarely at the feet of blacks and other minorities and, with voter registration, we often see Republicans challenging their validity in areas that are usually heavily African-American.
Of course, that is not to say that Republicans are all racists or anything of the like. But I think you’re just seeing a collision of some facts (bad loans did have a lot to do with what happened, but the reasons for why those loans were made isn’t the fault of the people who received them; since blacks vote Democratic in large numbers, it makes sense that Republicans would want to make sure registrations were valid) with projection or wanting to find a scapegoat.
Duncan — October 14, 2008 at 9:17 am
Kunstler has a weekly podcast. On his show about the bailout 2008 he said that he’s too busy to feel vindicated about any of this.
http://kunstlercast.com/shows/KunstlerCast_33_The_Great_Bailout_2008.html
Mark A — October 14, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Sure there are principles to uphold, but some people also want to uphold the principle that everyone should be able to vote easily, which is why they run these registration drives.
You’re concerned about fraudulent registrations, and that’s great, but don’t take it so far as to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And for goodness-sake don’t use it for partisan ends.
We can’t just wave a magic wand and make groups like ACORN disappear and thus disenfranchise many, many more legitimate voters than there are fradulent ballots.
The point Yglesias is making is that the efforts of groups like ACORN are overwhelmingly positive in that most registrations and the vast magority of actual votes cast are legitimate. Basically, if the ratio of good-to-bad registrations is something like 100 to 1, it’s a big plus. If a more significant portion of ACORN registrations were fraudulent, there might be something to be concerned about.
Now, most everyone can agree with the principle that even ~1%ish fraudulent registrations should be minimized (even if they’re just names on the roll and don’t actually cast ballots). Fine, lets find some sane ways to do this, if we can.
But let’s not do it in a way that disenfranchises the ~99% of good registrations, and let’s not expect perfection from the convoluted registration process.
Mark A — October 14, 2008 at 4:55 pm
Sure there are principles to uphold, but some people also want to uphold the principle that everyone should be able to vote easily, which is why they run these registration drives.
You’re concerned about fraudulent registrations, and that’s great, but don’t take it so far as to throw the baby out with the bathwater. And for goodness-sake don’t use it for partisan ends.
We can’t just wave a magic wand and make groups like ACORN disappear and thus disenfranchise many, many more legitimate voters than there are fradulent ballots.
The point Yglesias is making is that the efforts of groups like ACORN are overwhelmingly positive in that most registrations and the vast magority of actual votes cast are legitimate. Basically, if the ratio of good-to-bad registrations is something like 100 to 1, it’s a big plus. If a more significant portion of ACORN registrations were fraudulent, there might be something to be concerned about.
Now, most everyone can agree with the principle that even ~1%ish fraudulent registrations should be minimized (even if they’re just names on the roll and don’t actually cast ballots). Fine, lets find some sane ways to do this, if we can.
But let’s not do it in a way that disenfranchises the ~99% of good registrations, and let’s not expect perfection from the convoluted registration process.
Dan Miller — October 14, 2008 at 5:06 pm
But preventing that tiny handful of fraudulent ballots has a cost. It makes it harder for people to vote–even people who legitimately should be able to. And preventing 100 people from voting legitimately is just as bad as allowing 100 fraudulent votes. For example, consider the ID law in Indiana, which studies have estimate prevents thousands of people from voting. Or consider the impact of erroneous purges of voter lists by overzealous secretaries of state. When was the last time you saw a Republican prominently complaining about that? Let alone the impact of having elections on a Tuesday, of all days.
In short, it looks like the GOP is a lot more interested in preventing poor people and African-Americans from voting than it is in protecting the validity of the ballot process. And it will continue to look that way until preventing people from voting is seen as just as serious as preventing voter fraud.
Dan Miller — October 14, 2008 at 5:06 pm
But preventing that tiny handful of fraudulent ballots has a cost. It makes it harder for people to vote–even people who legitimately should be able to. And preventing 100 people from voting legitimately is just as bad as allowing 100 fraudulent votes. For example, consider the ID law in Indiana, which studies have estimate prevents thousands of people from voting. Or consider the impact of erroneous purges of voter lists by overzealous secretaries of state. When was the last time you saw a Republican prominently complaining about that? Let alone the impact of having elections on a Tuesday, of all days.
In short, it looks like the GOP is a lot more interested in preventing poor people and African-Americans from voting than it is in protecting the validity of the ballot process. And it will continue to look that way until preventing people from voting is seen as just as serious as preventing voter fraud.
Dan Miller — October 14, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Sonny, why should you care if people are registered fraudulently? The problem only shows up when people try and VOTE fraudulently, which is vanishingly rare.
I work with voter files professionally, and I can tell you that they’re full of mistakes. People move out-of-state and don’t inform the post office, so they’re still listed on the voter rolls in their original state. They transcribe letters (for instance, there are 83 Texans in the DNC voter file with the first name “Jhon”–I’m sure some of those are typos, no?). But none of these typos and omissions and inclusions matter until someone votes, or is prevented from voting.
Do you disagree with any of the above? And if so, what?
libarbarian — October 14, 2008 at 11:26 pm
See: http://brennan.3cdn.net/5de1bb5cbe2c40cb0c_s0m6bqskv.pdf
Take, for example, purging lists of “felons” and “name-matching” those names to names in the voter rolls. They don’t just look for exact names. For example, according to the paper above “The Florida purge of 2000 discussed above — conservative estimates place the number of wrongfully purged voters close to 12,000 — was generated in part by bad matching criteria. Florida registrants were purged from the rolls if, in part, 80 percent of the letters of their last names were the same as those of known felons.“
This is sloppy. Furthermore, this kind of sloppyness is going to disproportionately effect communities who are disproportionately represented in the “felon” population. Combined with the fact that these purges are often done with no public notice or notification to those purged, then its really not surprising that some people have interpreted it as more than coincidence.
libarbarian — October 14, 2008 at 11:26 pm
See: http://brennan.3cdn.net/5de1bb5cbe2c40cb0c_s0m6bqskv.pdf
Take, for example, purging lists of “felons” and “name-matching” those names to names in the voter rolls. They don’t just look for exact names. For example, according to the paper above “The Florida purge of 2000 discussed above — conservative estimates place the number of wrongfully purged voters close to 12,000 — was generated in part by bad matching criteria. Florida registrants were purged from the rolls if, in part, 80 percent of the letters of their last names were the same as those of known felons.“
This is sloppy. Furthermore, this kind of sloppyness is going to disproportionately effect communities who are disproportionately represented in the “felon” population. Combined with the fact that these purges are often done with no public notice or notification to those purged, then its really not surprising that some people have interpreted it as more than coincidence.
Jonna — October 15, 2008 at 12:15 am
I know acting and I think there is a lot of very good looking actors none I would leave my husband for but this guy can not only act he can make me thing of things I never thought of
Will — October 15, 2008 at 1:50 pm
That’s an interesting point. So why go to the trouble of registering fraudulent names in the first place? Does ACORN have to reach some sort of mandatory registration target to receive federal funding?
On an unrelated note, I’d be curious to hear Sonny Bunch’s take on Christopher Buckley’s resignation (firing?) from National Review.
Sonny Bunch — October 15, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Testing, testing: this is only a test.
Sonny Bunch — October 15, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Ah, good, I seem to be able to make comments again. I had a longish reply to Dan get lost in the ether last night; I’m still mildly peeved.
But to answer your questions: I’m going to have to punt for the moment. I’m crashing on a couple of deadlines. Short versions: Dan, we register people for a reason, namely because fraudulent ballots can’t be retracted once they’ve been cast. As such it’s important to protect the integrity of the voter rolls. Will, I think there’s some behind the scenes tension between Chris Buckley and Rich Lowry that contributed mightily to this split. Just a guess. I have a feeling this has less to do with Buckley endorsing Obama than other, more personal issues. (Note: I have no special insight into the issue, it’s just what I gather.)
Dan Miller — October 15, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Will–to answer your question, it’s ACORN’s workers. Their performance is evaluated and their pay based on the number of registrations they hand in; although I believe there’s quality control, some employees do game the system.
Sonny–thanks for your reply; I do hope to eventually get a longer answer, because I suspect that I’ll still disagree with you but I’d like to hear more about your rationale. Best wishes.
Daniel Kennelly — October 15, 2008 at 6:04 pm
Yeah, about that bet, Damir… Let’s just say I’m getting in touch with my “Welsh” roots.
meow — October 16, 2008 at 12:59 pm
america sucks. your bringing everyone down with you
Will — October 16, 2008 at 2:25 pm
It’s a bit much to mention some talent agency flap in Hollywood without even touching on the Buckley/NRO brouhaha. Isn’t that a more significant example of political censorship? I know that the resignation was supposedly voluntary, but according to Buckley it was purely pro forma. Thoughts?
Sonny Bunch — October 16, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Again: my understanding is that this is much more personal than political in nature. If he hadn’t offered his resignation he’d still be at NR writing that back page column. No one forced him out for endorsing Obama. What was Lowry supposed to do, say “OK, you can go ahead and keep writing the column you were keeping warm for Mark Steyn”?
Daniel Kennelly — October 16, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I’m sorry, I don’t see the parallel, Will. What, exactly, was censored in CTB’s case? The column ran as is (as has at least one other Obamacon column on NRO). Surely NR readers have a right to think content in a magazine they pay money for is ill-advised, without anyone accusing them of censorship. And then there’s the fact that, in the wake of CTB’s departure, Lowry didn’t come out and say, as a matter of principle, that “offensive” content ought to be automatically removed.
Will — October 16, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Fair enough, but this piece from Slate really makes it sound like he was pushed out the door:
http://www.slate.com/id/2202331/
Sample quote:
“[Buckley] disputes this. “Last spring, Rich asked me if I would take over the Steyn column because Steyn was ‘giving it up,’ ” [Buckley] e-mailed me. “I said okay. That’s it in a nutshell. The notion that I was temping is simply not accurate.”
Will — October 16, 2008 at 3:21 pm
RE: David Kennelly -
I’m not disputing National Review’s editorial prerogatives. But one of the Left’s tendencies Bunch has repeatedly criticized is their collective unwillingness to engage in dialog with the other side. Sure, Noam Chomsky has a right to refuse to debate Christopher Hitchens, but that doesn’t make his position intellectually defensible. In much the same way, I think it would have been better for National Review’s intellectual health to keep on a dissenting voice. Perhaps they could have sponsored a symposium on Obamacons?
Sonny Bunch — October 16, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Like I’ve said before, I think this is more of a personal squabble than a political one. And none of us really knows whether Buckley was “pushed” out the door or not. There’s a he-said-he-said situation and internal magazine politics (as opposed to external national politics) at play here.
If NR was eager to cut out dissenting voices, wouldn’t they have cut off contact with Kathleen Parker and David Frum, two vocal critics of the McCain campaign? Frum still has a personal blog over there for crying out loud.
There are too many unknowns (Was Buckley temping? What is his personal relationship with Lowry et al? Was Mark Steyn always planning on coming back to write that column after finishing up that nasty Canadian free speech business?) to label this as a case of conservatives disengaging with debate.
Dan Miller — October 16, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Sonny, you’re right to a point. But your argument would carry a lot more force if it had some actual occurences behind it. We have tons of documented instances of erroneous purges and database mishaps preventing people from voting–frequently affecting thousands of voters. In comparison, the number of votes cast fraudulently is, as best we can tell, miniscule.
So in short, you’re going to have to convince me that a) there’s a problem and b) the cure isn’t worse than the disease. As far as I can tell, neither of those things is true.
Brendan — October 16, 2008 at 7:45 pm
This ACORN stuff does sound bad, unless you actually bother to research the facts As Hendrik Hertzberg points:
Sounds suspicious—unless you know that groups like ACORN are required by law to submit them, even if they’re obvious fakes. This is to prevent funny business, such as trashing forms that look like they might be Republican (or Democratic, as the case may be).
Sounds suspicious—unless you know that ACORN normally sorts through forms, flags those that look fishy, and submits the fishy ones in a separate pile for the convenience of election officials.
Sounds suspicious—until you reflect that the motivation of the misbehaving registration workers is almost always to look like they’ve been doing more work than they really have, and that the victim of the “fraud” is actually the organization they’re working for.
Sounds suspicious—unless you know that even if one of these fake forms results in a nonexistent person actually being registered, now under the Help America Vote Act of 2002, “any voter who has not previously voted in a federal election” must provide identification in order to actually cast a ballot. This will make it tough for Mickey Mouse, even if registered, to vote, no matter how big, round, or black his ears. Likewise, members of the Duck family (Donald, Daisy, Huey, Dewey, and Louie) who turn up at the polling place will have a hard time getting into the voting booth. (Uncle Scrooge might be able to bribe his way in, but he’s voting Republican anyway.)
Read the whole article here:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/10/voter-fraud-fra.html
Sonny Bunch — October 17, 2008 at 11:00 am
So your solution would be to leave thousands of fake registrations on the rolls and never purge people who have moved/are fraudulently registered and simply hope that people who shouldn’t be on the rolls don’t vote? That strikes me as not much of a solution at all.
Dan Miller — October 17, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Absolutely not, and I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. Yglesias has some good ideas here: “A country with a modern constitution would probably establish an affirmative right to vote for adult citizens, requiring that election administrators make it possible for all qualified voters to cast legal ballots…it would be easy enough for a country that took voting seriously to keep track of this stuff. You can’t, after all, just get out of paying your credit card bills by moving — the banks can find you, and so could the Board of Elections if we bothered to care.”
That’s in an ideal world of course. But in the world we live in, attacking ACORN as a means of preventing voter fraud doesn’t make much sense. Attacking ACORN as a means of spreading FUD about the outcome of the election, and as a way to decrease voter turnout from groups that disproportionately benefit Democrats, seems a lot more probable. Given the widespread lack of real voter fraud, and the comparatively immense problem of disenfranchisement, it seems suspicious to focus on the first one and not the second, especially when focusing on the first problem will tend to suppress turnout amongst Democratic-leaning groups. This explains the widespread doubt about your motives, is all I’m saying.
mattie hargis — October 20, 2008 at 11:21 am
I didn’t watch the debate, noty interested1
mattie hargis — October 20, 2008 at 11:21 am
I didn’t watch the debate, noty interested1
mattie hargis — October 20, 2008 at 11:21 am
I didn’t watch the debate, noty interested1
Daniel Kennelly — October 21, 2008 at 6:58 pm
You’ve pinpointed one of the reasons Apple tends to annoy me. When something goes wrong with their hardware or software, their emphasis always seems to be on “How did you screw it up?” instead of “How can we make it better?”
Daniel Kennelly — October 21, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Also, re: the category “Theology”: lol.
Jeff Bridges — October 21, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Dave,
I think the focus on process over issues stems from a larger problem with the modern media in general. For whatever reason, reporters have abdicated their responsibility to judge ideas and policies. They feel that merely reporting what each side proposes fulfills their “fourth estate” obligation to the public. A very good reporter might even seek out the opinion of an expert, but would also find an expert saying the opposite to ensure “balance.”
It seems that the only thing media can have an opinion on these days is process — was it a good idea for McCain to go so negative? How well did they do attacking each other? Should Barack have worn a blue tie or a red tie? To talk about the issues and their potential impact on the American people, well, that’s just not part of what media folks do anymore.
Jeff Bridges — October 21, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I think it’s just good business to know what you do well and stick to it.
Daniel Kennelly — October 22, 2008 at 11:22 am
“His rubbery lips formed a crooked smile, exposing his slightly bucked teeth, which seemed brilliant against the contrast of his skin.”
This sounds like a circa 1942 Life magazine profile of, say, Tojo. Unbelievable.
Sonny Bunch — October 22, 2008 at 11:34 am
It really is absurd. If the Standard or the National Review had run a piece like this on Obama, the editors would have been burnt in effigy. But Jindal’s a conservative Republican, so who really cares?
Douglas Robertson — October 22, 2008 at 5:50 pm
“…For a canon in inversion is a dangerous diversion,
And a bit of augmentation is a serious temptation,
While a stretto diminution is an obvious allusion.”
Daniel Kennelly — October 22, 2008 at 10:15 pm
Maybe we could make retiring Boomers work for us by installing them in massive farms of bio-energy pods, Matrix-style.
Alissa — October 22, 2008 at 11:45 pm
it IS a blog.
Keep up the good work!
Alissa — October 22, 2008 at 11:46 pm
And I don’t mean the “good work” part sarcastically.
Christian Toto — October 23, 2008 at 12:32 am
My one oasis in the mag world is Men’s Health. It’s blissfully free of politics … it’s just health/fitness/fashion/etc.
Until this month. Who’s the cover model with the fawning inside story (released less than a month before the election)? Gimme an O! gimme a B! … you know the rest.
Am canceling my subscription. Have grown a bit tired of the mag anyway, but this was the only straw I needed.
Will — October 23, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Evangelicals, Mormons, and rural Americans aren’t marginalized, vulnerable or otherwise victimized. American Muslims, on the other hand, are a small, ethnically distinct minority whose religion is associated with violent extremism. So yes, I think it’s appropriate for Powell to forcefully condemn anti-Muslim bigotry rather than reiterate the virtues of small-town America.
David Donadio — October 23, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Classic.
Mike Riggs — October 23, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Sonny–I didn’t say anything about the naked pictures because I didn’t know if Spanierman’s page had nude commenters or nude ads (the former is avoidable, the latter is not). One Reason commenter suggested it was likely the latter:
“It doesn’t matter how many MySpace pages he had or what he put on them, they still would have been filled with pictures of semi-naked young people. MySpace has advertising contracts with, what seems like exclusively, “hot singles” advertisers. There is no option to have a different class of advertisement on a MySpace page … that’s all they have, and no mechanism for deviations.
(As a web programmer I have attempted to instruct them in how exceedingly simple it would be to include such a function, but they are wholly uninterested.)
So even if all the teacher included were Bible tracts, his MySpace pages would STILL have been patently offensive to anyone who doesn’t enjoy looking at slutty teens.”
But you’re right in that Spanierman should have known well enough to use a social network that was more kid-friendly (even if Myspace is 14 and up).
-M
Sonny Bunch — October 23, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Mike–
Rereading that post, my wording comes off as unclear, so I should emphasize: I wasn’t calling you dummy. Spanierman’s the dummy. And your commenter is probably right, insofar as MySpace being a den of ads that are probably in poor taste, especially when considering the target demo. Still, I have a hard time feeling sorry for this guy, especially since a teacher gave him a warning to knock it off before going to the principal.
Billy Joel — October 23, 2008 at 10:19 pm
David – New York magazine actually paraphrased me. When asked about any prior candidates I might have endorsed, I answered- “I just popped my cherry for Obama.” And the Dante quote is right. It’s from ‘The Inferno’. Check it out. Sincerely, Billy joel
Billy Joel — October 23, 2008 at 10:19 pm
David – New York magazine actually paraphrased me. When asked about any prior candidates I might have endorsed, I answered- “I just popped my cherry for Obama.” And the Dante quote is right. It’s from ‘The Inferno’. Check it out. Sincerely, Billy joel
Billy Joel — October 23, 2008 at 10:19 pm
David – New York magazine actually paraphrased me. When asked about any prior candidates I might have endorsed, I answered- “I just popped my cherry for Obama.” And the Dante quote is right. It’s from ‘The Inferno’. Check it out. Sincerely, Billy joel
Beth — October 24, 2008 at 2:13 pm
I largely agree with your point (and also believe we aren’t going to get anywhere in the global warming battle until we figure out to create more efficient airplanes, which create way, way, way more emissions than the most gas guzzling SUVs) I would say it’s a good idea to turn the air conditioner off when you aren’t using it. Turning off lights, unplugging unused electronics, etc., might not save the polar bears, but it certainly will cut down on the electric bill.
Sonny Bunch — October 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I don’t care what the thermostat is set to, so long as I’m not uncomfortable. Comfort is king.
maggie — October 24, 2008 at 2:17 pm
~snort~
good luck with that one, beth
David Donadio — October 24, 2008 at 11:31 pm
No reference to the Talmud?
pmm — October 25, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Yeah, barbarian references are so 9-11. It’s not like Al Qaeda can actually occupy our country, right? It’s not like we can’t just build more skyscrapers and airplanes.
You come up with analysis like that and have the brass ones to try to ’strategically’ analyze the Iraq war?
David Donadio — October 26, 2008 at 12:12 am
What exactly is your criticism? We can — and must, if we have any hope of winning — fight al-Qaeda without starting a fire from Karachi to Tangier. In war, it’s wise to divide and conquer your enemies, which in this case means preserving the sympathies of the overwhelming majority of the 1 billion Muslims who don’t want to kill us, and enlisting their support in handling the small minority who do. The way George W. Bush and John McCain work, we aggregate our enemies, and make an awful lot more Muslims sympathetic to them. That doesn’t help.
The Soviet Union was an existential threat to the United States; Al-Qaeda is not. We beat the Soviets without losing our cool or submitting willingly to nearly-unchecked executive power, and we can do the same with al-Qaeda. You might say that’s sooo-pre-9/11, but it’s a proper understanding of the Constitutional government your founders created, and the severity of the threats we face. It’s a proper understanding of the tradeoffs before us and the respective values that are at stake. In other words, it’s strategic analysis.
Daniel Kennelly — October 27, 2008 at 1:45 am
Will, I didn’t mean to say it wasn’t inappropriate to call anti-Muslim bigotry and fear-mongering for what it is. In fact, that’s why I called it “toxic intolerance.” As for Evangelicals and Mormons not being marginalized (and by the way, who said anything about “rural Americans”?)…well, I guess that may be true if you live in Utah or the South or something like that. But what about the West Coast or the Ivy Leagues or the corridors of power in Washington or New York? The mere handful of examples I pointed out aren’t exhaustive by any means.
The point isn’t that one prejudice is somehow equivalent in scope or scale to the other; it’s that they’re all bad and should be gotten rid of. Is that too much to ask?
mg — October 27, 2008 at 11:46 am
Brushing aside your contention that we are under no compulsion to honor a state’s sovereignty because they have uncontrolled borders, you think it’s better for our government to wage any number of small “secret wars” in our name all around the globe?
Stretching the analogy a bit, would it be acceptable for Russia or China to also conduct cross-border raids in secret anytime they felt that a threat existed near their military forces?