August 7, 2008
"The jury was dead-on in refusing to let Hamdan off as the hapless, ill-educated flunky portrayed by his defense lawyers..."
"... and it was equally right in recognizing that he was not an Al Qaeda mastermind," says the Daily News. Meanwhile, at the New York Times, there's the editorial "Guilty as Ordered."
UPDATE: At the sentencing hearing, Hamdan speaks:
UPDATE 2: The sentence is 5 ½ years.
UPDATE: At the sentencing hearing, Hamdan speaks:
"It was a sorry or sad thing to see innocent people killed... I personally present my apologies to them if anything what I did have caused them pain."
He told the military panel deciding his sentence that he had continued working for Mr. bin Laden after a terror attack in 2000 only because he felt he had no options....
UPDATE 2: The sentence is 5 ½ years.
Andrew Sullivan's contest: Make videos about McCain's old age.
Here's the challenge:
You know, I'm concerned about McCain's age, but I'm also concerned about ageism, and it's a terrible and offensive idea to promote prejudice against the old by connecting the candidate to stereotypes about the old.
Imagine if a blogger who supported McCain as much as Sullivan supports Obama invited readers to edit together video clips that would make Obama look like a racist stereotype of a black person.
And remember: Old people are a huge demographic group, known for — among other things — voting.
There is a very appropriate way to judge whether an individual old person or black person or female person or gay person or disabled person is competent to serve as President: Look at the individual.
It seems to me a legitimate and not too rude a subject to bring up in the campaign.S here's an opening challege: craft an ad that legitimately and fairly raises the issue of whether he is too old to lead; and one less high-minded one that strings clips of gaffes, stumbles, mental blocks in public, and mistakes to make the guy seem like Abraham Simpson on a bad day. put "YouTube ad contest" in the contents line.Hey, is it legitimate and fair to point to the typos as evidence of Sullivan's competence?
You know, I'm concerned about McCain's age, but I'm also concerned about ageism, and it's a terrible and offensive idea to promote prejudice against the old by connecting the candidate to stereotypes about the old.
Imagine if a blogger who supported McCain as much as Sullivan supports Obama invited readers to edit together video clips that would make Obama look like a racist stereotype of a black person.
And remember: Old people are a huge demographic group, known for — among other things — voting.
There is a very appropriate way to judge whether an individual old person or black person or female person or gay person or disabled person is competent to serve as President: Look at the individual.
Glenn Reynolds polls his readers on their choice for President.
Vote and see — or just look — at who his readers are picking. As Dan at 4:17 AM says: "Just in case Glenn was wondering who reads his blog..."
So... let's see who's reading the Althouse blog:
IN THE COMMENTS: Simon writes:
Well, I was word-for-word replicating Glenn's poll. I voted in both polls assuming the election was being held today. I may or may not reveal how I voted, but you can vote on how you think I voted:
So... let's see who's reading the Althouse blog:
IN THE COMMENTS: Simon writes:
Ann, I'd think that you of all people would include an option "I haven't decided" in such a poll!
Well, I was word-for-word replicating Glenn's poll. I voted in both polls assuming the election was being held today. I may or may not reveal how I voted, but you can vote on how you think I voted:
McCain or Obama — who had the better experience his first time...
... at the movies?
"I think I may have teared up at the end..."...And how about favorite TV shows? Isn't it obvious which one is Obama and which one is McCain?
"Oh, yeah, I cried.''
"I think M*A*S*H was probably my favorite. [My wife's] favorite is The Dick Van Dyke Show, which she sometimes now watches [in reruns]. I have to say The Dick Van Dyke Show ranks right up there.''...
'There are shows [my wife and I] agree on. We like the reruns of Seinfeld. I really like Curb Your Enthusiasm. I kind of like Dexter, too, although it certainly has a macabre side to it. I'll tell you that [my wife] likes Big Love — I haven't watched it much, but she enjoys that. And I like The Wire a lot, too. That's a great show.''
"I ate orange slices topped with crushed olives, oil, and fennel seeds... I ate cabbage and beans with garlic and oil, and even that was mesmerizing."
Posh vegetarian cookery.
[Marco] Folicaldi believes in using “too much” garlic, and he’s not shy about large quantities of olive oil or cheese either, so the food is consistently strong-flavored and rich.Vegetarianism is no more a weight-loss strategy than meat-eating.
August 6, 2008
Discuss.
ADDED: Uncle Jimbo makes the comparison:
Atta - Islamist extremist member of a death cult dedicated to the murder of as many people who disagree with their religious views as possible. Ringleader of plot to fly loaded airliners into the twin towers, White House and the Capitol building. Succeeded in killing almost 3,000 people.The idea is that they are completely different. I agree that they are different, but I wanted to move you to examine yourself. Many of us look at that picture of Mohammad Atta and think we can see evil. That is one of the most loathsome photographs in history. And then there's Ivins, smiling, nerdy, twinkly... we'd never pick out that face as a terrorist. We need to become skeptical of our own ability to see evil in a photograph.
Motivation - A far too common interpretation of Islam and a desire to put the entire world under the totalitarian, iron sandal of Sharia law.
Ivins - A pitiful nerd scientist obsessed with a sorority whose member had (quite obviously correctly) spurned his advances. Mentally unstable, increasingly more deranged, begins mailing packages and letters under assumed names. Eventually goes all the way around the bend and sends anthrax to a number of places killing five.
Motivation - He's a freakin' nuttah, who eventually snapped and indulged his mania and his need for employment by creating a domestic terror incident.
What does Barack Obama really think about affirmative action?
I read something that surprised me in today's Maureen Dowd column: "Obama didn’t even tell Harvard Law School that he was black on his application."
He didn't?
Googling, I find "Delicate Obama Path on Class and Race Preferences," by Rachel L. Swarns, which I glossed over when came out 3 days ago.
Why didn't I pay more attention to this? Something about that headline? Something about the first few paragraphs?
But keep reading — past many paragraphs:
Actually, we don't really know #1, because: 1. He might have misremembered or misreported how he filled out his application, and 2. One could decline to answer the specific question about race on the application form but still reveal one's race in the personal essay. I would imagine that Obama's essay explained his unusual parentage and his story of life in diverse places dealing with all sorts of people. That is, I think that the Admissions Committee would have seen strong diversity factors in his application even if he declined to check a what's-your-race box and that they'd figure out that he would serve the school's interest in having darker faces among all the white faces in the classroom. In fact, I'm guessing the campaign doesn't want to talk about this point because of this complexity.
Obama may well have believed that it wasn't right for him, a son of a Kenyan man and a white American woman, to apply for benefits that were designed for the descendants of American slaves, and for that reason, declined to check the race box. But it's possible that Obama chose to hide his race on his law school application because he actually opposed affirmative action.
That he voiced his support for it when he was in law school may not mean that much, because it is so extremely common for law students to say nice things about affirmative action in order to get along with others and to be thought well of. And it's not surprising that as the president of Harvard Law Review, he would compliment his staff and not disrespect the individuals who got their places by affirmative action.
More nuance:
What does Barack Obama really think about affirmative action?
The fact is we don't know.
But we don't know a lot of things about Barack Obama.
He didn't?
Googling, I find "Delicate Obama Path on Class and Race Preferences," by Rachel L. Swarns, which I glossed over when came out 3 days ago.
Why didn't I pay more attention to this? Something about that headline? Something about the first few paragraphs?
In 1990, as his fellow students rallied to protest the dearth of black professors at Harvard Law School, Barack Obama wrote a vigorous defense of affirmative action. The campus was in an uproar over questions of race, and Mr. Obama, then the first black president of The Harvard Law Review, decided to take a stand.I read about this far the other day. My impression was that Obama, like most students of that era, supported affirmative action — it's what all the good people do — and knew he'd benefited from it. And now, he's refurbishing his position to serve his political ends. The article goes on to talk about his well-known concessions about how perhaps affluent black kids like his own should not get in on the affirmative action. Yawn. [CORRECTED to read "should not get in on..." A typo.]
Mr. Obama said he had “undoubtedly benefited from affirmative action” in his own academic career, and he praised the intellectual heft and wide-ranging views of his diverse staff.
“The success of the program speaks for itself,” he said of the law review’s affirmative action policy in a letter published in the school’s student newspaper.
Mr. Obama, a Democrat, has continued to support race-based affirmative action, calling it “absolutely necessary” when he was a state senator in Illinois and criticizing the Supreme Court for curtailing it in his time in the United States Senate. But in his presidential campaign, he has unsettled some black supporters by focusing increasingly on class and suggesting that poor whites should at times be given preference over more privileged blacks.
But keep reading — past many paragraphs:
Former classmates say Mr. Obama chose not to mention his race in his application to Harvard Law School to avoid benefiting from affirmative action, an assertion that his campaign declined to confirm or deny.I don't remember reading that before. This is important. How would former classmates know this? He would have to have talked about it. They may be misrembering or misreporting what they heard from him (or heard second-hand), but if not, we know 2 things: 1. He declined to show his race on his application, and 2. He chose to talk about that with other students.
Actually, we don't really know #1, because: 1. He might have misremembered or misreported how he filled out his application, and 2. One could decline to answer the specific question about race on the application form but still reveal one's race in the personal essay. I would imagine that Obama's essay explained his unusual parentage and his story of life in diverse places dealing with all sorts of people. That is, I think that the Admissions Committee would have seen strong diversity factors in his application even if he declined to check a what's-your-race box and that they'd figure out that he would serve the school's interest in having darker faces among all the white faces in the classroom. In fact, I'm guessing the campaign doesn't want to talk about this point because of this complexity.
Obama may well have believed that it wasn't right for him, a son of a Kenyan man and a white American woman, to apply for benefits that were designed for the descendants of American slaves, and for that reason, declined to check the race box. But it's possible that Obama chose to hide his race on his law school application because he actually opposed affirmative action.
That he voiced his support for it when he was in law school may not mean that much, because it is so extremely common for law students to say nice things about affirmative action in order to get along with others and to be thought well of. And it's not surprising that as the president of Harvard Law Review, he would compliment his staff and not disrespect the individuals who got their places by affirmative action.
More nuance:
“His work was with those who didn’t have much, and they were black, Hispanic and white,” said Gerald Kellman, who hired Mr. Obama to help organize poor families in Chicago. “He never had much inclination to use affirmative action as a tool then. He wanted to level the playing field by providing early childhood education programs, access to good schools.”There's some resonance with what Clarence Thomas has said:
Even as Mr. Obama embraced more traditional liberal views of affirmative action, he was rarely doctrinaire. As a student, Mr. Obama sometimes engaged in and sometimes avoided the bitter racial debates on campus.
As an undergraduate at Occidental College, for instance, he declined to get involved in student efforts to push for affirmative action and minority hiring. At Harvard, he spoke at a rally in support of students who condemned the school administration for failing to offer tenure to any of its professors who were black women.
But he and other editors at the law review were ambivalent when some students argued that women should benefit from the review’s affirmative action policy....
“He was clearly unambiguously in favor of affirmative action as a policy matter, but he recognized some of the ambiguities and the nuances in the argument that the most passionate affirmative action supporters often did not,” said Bradford A. Berenson, who served as associate White House counsel under President Bush and worked on the law review with Mr. Obama.
Mr. Obama was sympathetic to minority students who argued that affirmative action undermined them in the eyes of their white colleagues. But he said he never felt that way at Harvard.
“I have not personally felt stigmatized,” Mr. Obama wrote in his letter to the editor in 1990.
That changed after law school.
A federal judge once asked a friend of Mr. Obama’s whether he had been “elected on the merits” as law review president, Mr. Obama told The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education in 2001. He said the question came up again when he applied for a job as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
Mr. Obama has not described how he felt then. But as a state senator, he spoke with empathy about accomplished minority students at elite universities who sometimes lived “under a cloud they could not erase.”
But at Yale, Thomas sensed he was being treated differently by teachers and fellow students. The law school had a program that set aside a certain number of slots for minority students.Of course, as a Democratic politician, Barack Obama would never state his doubts about affirmative action in such a vividly harsh way — even if he thought exactly the same thing.
"I honestly, honestly believed that Yale thought that having a kid who came from working people in the South, who had grown up through segregation, that this kid who had prospered, who had done well every single place he'd ever been, whether an all-white school, all-black school, he's always done well. He will do well here. And it will benefit both him and Yale," Thomas says. "That's what I thought. Well, that isn't what it was converted to."
"It was converted to, 'Well, you're here because you're black,'" Thomas explains.
Thomas did well at Yale, graduating somewhere in the middle of his class, but he says it was the first time anybody had tried to put him in a box because of his race, and whatever benefits he accrued from being there were tarnished when it came time to graduate.
"You know, I was in debt. I needed a job. And I couldn’t get a job," Thomas says.
"Not even with a Yale law degree?" [Steve] Kroft asks.
"I couldn’t get a job. And I just saw the discounting of my degree happen before my eyes," Thomas says.
Asked why he thinks that is, Thomas says, "That degree meant one thing for whites and another thing for blacks…it was discounted."
"You write in the book that your Yale degree was worth 15 cents," Kroft remarks.
"Well, you know Steve, I have still a 15 cents sticker on the frame that my law degree is in," Thomas says. "It's tainted. So I just leave it in the basement."
What does Barack Obama really think about affirmative action?
The fact is we don't know.
But we don't know a lot of things about Barack Obama.
"For McCain, being cool meant being a rogue, not a policy wonk; but Obama manages to be a cool College Bowl type...."
And it must irk McCain that the cooler cool these days is the nerd cool, says Maureen Dowd. Her column is all about the envy McCain must feel for Obama, but I wanted to focus on the transformation of cool.
Obama is making schoolwork, studying, and showing your braininess cool. That's good for the kids, people.
I love the new Paris Hilton ad — discussed in the previous post — because she — the emblematic airhead — now sees it in her interest to act really smart. She probably is reasonably smart: She's built a very successful career while making it look effortless. It was cool to (seem to) be a big dummy. And she's picked up the new trend: Being openly intelligent.
What a great trend!
Obama is making schoolwork, studying, and showing your braininess cool. That's good for the kids, people.
I love the new Paris Hilton ad — discussed in the previous post — because she — the emblematic airhead — now sees it in her interest to act really smart. She probably is reasonably smart: She's built a very successful career while making it look effortless. It was cool to (seem to) be a big dummy. And she's picked up the new trend: Being openly intelligent.
What a great trend!
August 5, 2008
Paris Hilton does a pro-McCain ad!
See more funny videos at Funny or Die
Oh? You think it's not pro-McCain? Explain why!
(And I'll tell you why you're wrong.)
ADDED, 12 hours later: I guess I owe you an explanation. My reason for calling this a pro-McCain ad is this. First, of course, Paris Hilton is promoting herself, as she always does. She exploited the opportunity that the McCain ad gave her, as she exploits every opportunity. That's very free-market capitalistic of her, but that's not my big reason. McCain's ad presented her as an airhead (for the purpose of suggesting that Obama is also an airhead), so here she is suddenly being very smart. Her ad has her saying something that we are supposed to accept as exactly what a very smart person would say if they weren't limited by constraints of party politics. She presents her answer on oil as a "hybrid" of the 2 candidates' positions, but listen to it! It's McCain's position. She supports off-shore drilling, with appropriate environmental safeguards, as we encourage the development of alternative energy sources.
That's McCain's position! Secret message of the ad: The smart position is McCain's position and not Obama's.
Now, you might want to say that all that funny stuff at the beginning about McCain's age is anti-McCain. No, it's not! It's McCain's position. McCain is constantly making jokes about how old he is. How many times has he said "I'm older than dirt and more scarred than Frankenstein"?
Finally, Hilton is giving the "biggest celebrity" ad another big boost. That ad has already worked, but it was coming to the end of it's life cycle. Hilton jolted it back alive.
FROM THE COMMENTS (that predate my explanation): Ben (The Tiger) said:
How is it pro-McCain?Beldar said:
1. Well... there's no hint of pulling back from her lifestyle. Looking to where she can fly next is not unlike McCain's call for the sound of fifty thousand Harleys.
2. Her position is very much like McCain's -- drill, but not everywhere. (I'd prefer more drilling.)
3. If she really wanted to skewer McCain, she'd do more than make fun of his age in a way that he did himself on SNL.
4. Obama not seriously engaged.
5. Again, she's not backing down from the American life of excess. There will be no scolding of people's life choices. That doesn't fit with the environmentalist movement.
6. She left the door totally open for the McCain riposte -- "Paris Hilton supports drilling! Paris Hilton has a better energy policy than Barack Obama!"
***
So the ad's objectively pro-McCain.
Was it intentionally pro-McCain?
I suspect so -- I don't think she's dumb.
But then, I'm prejudiced -- I'm a McCain fan.
I don't think the ad's intentions, other than furthering the popularity ambitions of Ms. Hilton, are at all clear.Ben (The Tiger) responds:
Because I already had a view of Obama as (mostly) humorless and of McCain as being willing to poke fun at himself ("older than dirt"), I was inclined to take her comments about the "really old guy" as fond teasing. But honestly, that's me projecting sly wit onto Ms. Hilton that I'm not at all sure she intended.
The ad does McCain palpable damage by its strong suggestion that he opposes conservation. He doesn't. As others have pointed out, what she describes as the "Paris Hilton position" is in fact essentially the McCain position (a combination of prudent development and conservation). In fairness, the McCain campaign itself has muddied these waters by choosing to lampoon Obama for suggesting that people check their tire pressure, which in fact is a perfectly good conservation suggestion, albeit wholly inadequate by itself.
I'm not at all sure why, Prof. A, you think this video cuts so unequivocally in McCain's favor. I think you may be crediting the "average" viewer, or at least large numbers of viewers, with more subtlety and discrimination than they in fact possess, but I eagerly await your promised explanation.
I want to see Althouse's explanation, but I think it's telling that almost all the right-wingers whose reactions I've read think that the spot was charming, whatever else they've thought about Paris Hilton in the past. (And I do, too.)Yeah, and Beldar, the unclarity of Hilton's position is what makes it effective. An openly pro-McCain ad would not be effective. Her above-party-politics pose is .... hot.
Greg Toombs said...
The ad is 90% about McCain (when it's not about Paris) and 10% the 'other guy'/Barack.J Lee said:
Specific McMentions:
1) He's the oldest celebrity in the world
2) like super old
3) dancing a sin & beer in a bucket examples
4) is McCain ready to lead
5) wrinkly, white-haired guy
6) thanks, white-haired dude
7) Paris' energy plan endorses McCain's drilling plus his $300 million battery prize
8) three McCain pictures - none of Barack
It's all about McCain.
When it's not about Paris.
What makes the ad pro-McCain in large part isn't just what it says, but the McCain camp's reaction to the ad.
Watching how the morning network news shows tried to play it today, the spin was "Paris Hilton strikes back at McCain ad", which is where it would have stayed if they had their way. Unfortunately, they were forced to also cover the McCain camp's reply that credited Ms. Hilton with having a better energy policy than Barack Obama. Had the McCain camp responded with the same sort of humorless "whatever" remark the Obama people did, it would have freed up the big media folks to paint this exclusively as a slap-down of Maverick and his original ad.
Now, here's something different, and very smart, from LB-Philadelphia PA (who has only commented once before, back last year):
Has anyone else picked up on the subliminal racism of the "best tan" comment? I mean, Obama is seriously tanned and he's from Hawaii. It's code, I tell you, code!Interesting, but is that pro- or anti-Obama point?
"An image right there... of the Leaning Tower of Pisa and ... the Washington Monument.... You tell me why those 2 phallic symbols are placed there..."
NYT columnist Bob Herbert gets embarrassingly mixed up about the image of the Victory Column in Obama's "biggest celebrity" commercial.
Hey, what about the use of Britney Spears in that ad? Spears!! Get it? Everyone knows spears are a phallic symbols!
Racist too, I might add.
Come on, Bob. Don't give up just because you got the monuments wrong. It's still a phallic symbol, and that ad is full of symbols that just won't quit.
Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.
Brit + Paris = Europe!
-ney + Hilton = knee + hotel = blatant sexual imagery.
Al Franken says "Wisconsin sucks."
Al Franken is a comedian running for Senator in Minnesota, where insulting Wisconsin is considered hilarious.
"The Demon With a Glass Hand."
Yesterday, we were talking about the Bradbury Building in downtown L.A.
Someone emailed to say that "The Demon With a Glass Hand" — an episode of "Outer Limits," written by Harlan Ellison — was filmed in the Bradbury Building. I love the Bradbury Building, and I love "Outer Limits," which I watched when it originally aired, back in the 1960s, on Friday nights, just before "The Twilight Zone."
And, look, aren't we lucky? You can watch "The Demon With a Glass Hand" on YouTube: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Someone emailed to say that "The Demon With a Glass Hand" — an episode of "Outer Limits," written by Harlan Ellison — was filmed in the Bradbury Building. I love the Bradbury Building, and I love "Outer Limits," which I watched when it originally aired, back in the 1960s, on Friday nights, just before "The Twilight Zone."
And, look, aren't we lucky? You can watch "The Demon With a Glass Hand" on YouTube: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
Bayh?
The buzz says Bayh:
ADDED: The reason I can't picture Bayh is that after I look at a photograph of him, my attempt to picture him calls up a picture of John Edwards. What is it with these candidates wanting their partner to be a bland pretty boy? I remember when George H.W. Bush picked the boyishly good-looking Dan Quayle, but Kerry and now, apparently, Obama are following the pattern. It's ironic that after all that talk about how he doesn't look like all those other Presidents "on the dollar bills," Obama is choosing a man for his looks. Is this supposed to appeal to women? What's notable is that he passed up Hillary Clinton, the person with the strongest claim to the position, and that's going to irritated a lot of her supporters.
AND: I vlog my objection to the Bayh choice.
IN THE COMMENTS: Tara van Brederode says:
Senator Obama is headed for Elkhart, Indiana, tomorrow, where he is scheduled to campaign with Senator Bayh, who is being described in some quarters as the "safe" choice for Mr. Obama as a running mate. As a former chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, Mr. Bayh might be seen as a centrist who can help make good on Mr. Obama's talk of working to bridge party differences and unite America.But the NY Sun says Bayh "has lurched to the left in an effort to make himself palatable to the party's base of hard-left activists and special interest groups":
He voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts....Hmmm. I realize I have no opinion on Evan Bayh. I can't even picture him. I've never progressed beyond the stage of making an effort not to call him Birch Bayh. Okay, I just looked at a picture of him. I still can't picture him.
Mr. Bayh has also lost his bearings in pursued of the left wing of organized labor...
He has pandered on the Constitution, as one of just 14 Democrats in 2006 who backed an amendment giving Congress the power to ban flag-burning. On January 22, 2004, he voted against school vouchers in Washington, D.C., a bill that more reasonable Democrats such as Senators Feinstein and Schumer supported. He filibustered to block a vote on confirming John Bolton as the Bush administration's ambassador at the United Nations....
ADDED: The reason I can't picture Bayh is that after I look at a photograph of him, my attempt to picture him calls up a picture of John Edwards. What is it with these candidates wanting their partner to be a bland pretty boy? I remember when George H.W. Bush picked the boyishly good-looking Dan Quayle, but Kerry and now, apparently, Obama are following the pattern. It's ironic that after all that talk about how he doesn't look like all those other Presidents "on the dollar bills," Obama is choosing a man for his looks. Is this supposed to appeal to women? What's notable is that he passed up Hillary Clinton, the person with the strongest claim to the position, and that's going to irritated a lot of her supporters.
AND: I vlog my objection to the Bayh choice.
IN THE COMMENTS: Tara van Brederode says:
I kind of like the sound of "Obama/Bayh" ... though I can't help turning it into the Hindi "Obama Bhai," which means "Obama [my] brother." Then again, there's "Obama Bai," for the "kthxsbai" LOL-cat crowd. And I suppose McCain can make hay with "Obama bye." Or the capitalists: "Obama buy."kthxsbai.
Would you trust a law professor to be President?
Okay, this annoys me, because Steve H. asserts that I was annoyed by something, which I wasn't — I was just making fun of him — but I'm going to talk about it anyway, not to demonstrate that I'm nowhere near as irascible as you may think, but because it looks somewhat interesting.
Titled "The Dalai Obama v. Karma/Pedal Your Tricycle Back to the Faculty Lounge," it begins with an assertion that Steve has the "wonderful feeling" that Obama has "royally shafted himself over the last month," a time period which, I note, includes the "fortnight" Andrew Sullivan has termed "objectively miraculous" for Obama. (Actually, it would be objectively miraculous if Obama could royally shaft himself.)
But Steve's idea of the self-shafting consists Obama's failure to admit that he was wrong about the surge, his waffling on offshore drilling, and his increasingly apparent egotism. He connects egotism to law professing and says he's "horrified by the prospect of a law professor running the country" (the point he's supposedly made before that supposedly annoyed me).
What's so bad about lawprofs? Steve thinks they are the "idiot-savants of the profession," who couldn't "hack it" in legal practice, and took "asylum" in the cushy world of law school where we are paid too much — he estimates the salary at $100,000 — and work very little — he estimates 15 hours a week. In Steve's view, most lawprofs are "pathetic," "socialist nutwads," who act "brave and rebellious, while working tenured jobs with outstanding benefits, and while toeing the administration line with a scrupulousness worthy of OCD." We "rebel by doing exactly what people in authority tell" us to do. Protected from the demands of the real world we ran away from, lawprofs spend our lives concocting phony theories that would self-destruct on contact with the real world.
That's Steve's theory anyway.
So let's see.
1. Of course, it's fun to attack lawprofs, and many of us have retreated from the demands of clients, billable hours, and the practical application of legal knowledge. It's fun to attack lawyers too, and not being the lawyer type could be seen as a good thing. A lawyer must work in the client's interest — which is why everyone else is rightly suspicious of him — but a law professor wants to take a wider view and be free to look at problems from different perspectives.
2. Obama did not retreat from the world to become a law professor. He even turned down the job of full-time, tenured lawprof. He was always pursuing his political career, working as a legislator, or doing "community organizing," while putting in extra hours hashing through the constitutional law cases with students. He was only attracted to the teaching side of the lawprof job, the part that puts you in a lively room full of demanding, competitive individuals. He entirely eschewed scholarship, so it's irrelevant that a lot of lawprofs while away their time with unworkable theories or sucking up to other academics.
3. You certainly wouldn't want a typical lawprof to be President, but Obama was a lawprof the way Bill and Hillary Clinton were lawprofs. That is, he's a politician. Basically, we always get a politician for President.
Titled "The Dalai Obama v. Karma/Pedal Your Tricycle Back to the Faculty Lounge," it begins with an assertion that Steve has the "wonderful feeling" that Obama has "royally shafted himself over the last month," a time period which, I note, includes the "fortnight" Andrew Sullivan has termed "objectively miraculous" for Obama. (Actually, it would be objectively miraculous if Obama could royally shaft himself.)
But Steve's idea of the self-shafting consists Obama's failure to admit that he was wrong about the surge, his waffling on offshore drilling, and his increasingly apparent egotism. He connects egotism to law professing and says he's "horrified by the prospect of a law professor running the country" (the point he's supposedly made before that supposedly annoyed me).
What's so bad about lawprofs? Steve thinks they are the "idiot-savants of the profession," who couldn't "hack it" in legal practice, and took "asylum" in the cushy world of law school where we are paid too much — he estimates the salary at $100,000 — and work very little — he estimates 15 hours a week. In Steve's view, most lawprofs are "pathetic," "socialist nutwads," who act "brave and rebellious, while working tenured jobs with outstanding benefits, and while toeing the administration line with a scrupulousness worthy of OCD." We "rebel by doing exactly what people in authority tell" us to do. Protected from the demands of the real world we ran away from, lawprofs spend our lives concocting phony theories that would self-destruct on contact with the real world.
That's Steve's theory anyway.
So let's see.
1. Of course, it's fun to attack lawprofs, and many of us have retreated from the demands of clients, billable hours, and the practical application of legal knowledge. It's fun to attack lawyers too, and not being the lawyer type could be seen as a good thing. A lawyer must work in the client's interest — which is why everyone else is rightly suspicious of him — but a law professor wants to take a wider view and be free to look at problems from different perspectives.
2. Obama did not retreat from the world to become a law professor. He even turned down the job of full-time, tenured lawprof. He was always pursuing his political career, working as a legislator, or doing "community organizing," while putting in extra hours hashing through the constitutional law cases with students. He was only attracted to the teaching side of the lawprof job, the part that puts you in a lively room full of demanding, competitive individuals. He entirely eschewed scholarship, so it's irrelevant that a lot of lawprofs while away their time with unworkable theories or sucking up to other academics.
3. You certainly wouldn't want a typical lawprof to be President, but Obama was a lawprof the way Bill and Hillary Clinton were lawprofs. That is, he's a politician. Basically, we always get a politician for President.
August 4, 2008
"Is anyone as unsurprised as I am that he's a Leo?"
There you have it, friends. The most inane Andrew Sullivan post about Barack Obama ever.
The photo-puzzle of the day.
What L.A. building is this a small part of? What movie do most people refer to when they talk about this building? What much-less-talked-about movie did Althouse recognize this building from?
(Enlarge.)
UPDATE: Question 1 answered quickly by Randy and Paul, simultaneously at 11:41, and Paul also got question 2. UWS Guy got question 3, the really hard one, at 11:25. Before you click to the comments, here's video from the movie I remembered. Did you see it?
"It is within the power of writers and artists to do much more: to defeat the lie!"
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has died. One of the giants of human history.
In the autumn of 1961, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was a 43-year-old high school teacher of physics and astronomy in Ryazan, a city some 70 miles south of Moscow. He had been there since 1956, when his sentence of perpetual exile in a dusty region of Kazakhstan was suspended. Aside from his teaching duties, he was writing and rewriting stories he had conceived while confined in prisons and labor camps since 1944.Much, much more at the link, but let me add this:
One story, a short novel, was “A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich,” an account of a single day in an icy prison camp written in the voice of an inmate named Ivan Denisovich Shukov, a bricklayer. With little sentimentality, he recounts the trials and sufferings of “zeks,” as the prisoners were known, peasants who were willing to risk punishment and pain as they seek seemingly small advantages like a few more minutes before a fire. He also reveals their survival skills, their loyalty to their work brigade and their pride.
The day ends with the prisoner in his bunk. “Shukov felt pleased with his life as he went to sleep,” Mr. Solzhenitsyn wrote. Shukov was pleased because, among other things, he had not been put in an isolation cell, and his brigade had avoided a work assignment in a place unprotected from the bitter wind, and he had swiped some extra gruel, and had been able to buy a bit of tobacco from another prisoner.
“The end of an unclouded day. Almost a happy one,” Mr. Solzhenitsyn wrote, adding: “Just one of the 3,653 days of his sentence, from bell to bell. The extra three days were for leap years.”
Mr. Solzhenitsyn typed the story single spaced, using both sides to save paper.
His rare public appearances could turn into hectoring jeremiads. Delivering the commencement address at Harvard in 1978, he called the country of his sanctuary spiritually weak and mired in vulgar materialism. Americans, he said, speaking in Russian through a translator, were cowardly. Few were willing to die for their ideals, he said. He condemned both the United States government and American society for its “hasty” capitulation in Vietnam. And he criticized the country’s music as intolerable and attacked its unfettered press, accusing it of violations of privacy.Here's that Harvard speech. Read it. I'll just excerpt at part about our legal system:
Many in the West did not know what to make of the man. He was perceived as a great writer and hero who had defied the Russian authorities. Yet he seemed willing to lash out at everyone else as well — democrats, secularists, capitalists, liberals and consumers.
Western society has given itself the organization best suited to its purposes, based, I would say, on the letter of the law. The limits of human rights and righteousness are determined by a system of laws; such limits are very broad. People in the West have acquired considerable skill in using, interpreting and manipulating law, even though laws tend to be too complicated for an average person to understand without the help of an expert. Any conflict is solved according to the letter of the law and this is considered to be the supreme solution. If one is right from a legal point of view, nothing more is required, nobody may mention that one could still not be entirely right, and urge self-restraint, a willingness to renounce such legal rights, sacrifice and selfless risk: it would sound simply absurd. One almost never sees voluntary self-restraint. Everybody operates at the extreme limit of those legal frames. An oil company is legally blameless when it purchases an invention of a new type of energy in order to prevent its use. A food product manufacturer is legally blameless when he poisons his produce to make it last longer: after all, people are free not to buy it.
I have spent all my life under a communist regime and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed. But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either. A society which is based on the letter of the law and never reaches any higher is taking very scarce advantage of the high level of human possibilities. The letter of the law is too cold and formal to have a beneficial influence on society. Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relations, there is an atmosphere of moral mediocrity, paralyzing man's noblest impulses.
And it will be simply impossible to stand through the trials of this threatening century with only the support of a legalistic structure.
Andrew Sullivan reflects on whether he's "delusional" to say that Obama "had an 'objectively miraculous' fortnight."
Fortnight. That's already funny. Imagine if a candidate said "fortnight." He'd lose.
Anyway, "objectively miraculous." Even if you think that, shouldn't you quit offering up the raw material for this kind of mockery?
It's nice that Sullivan is reflecting on the possibility that he's overgushed. But he stands by his position:
I think by "objectively," Sullivan means "subjectively."
Anyway, "objectively miraculous." Even if you think that, shouldn't you quit offering up the raw material for this kind of mockery?
It's nice that Sullivan is reflecting on the possibility that he's overgushed. But he stands by his position:
What I meant is simply that it's remarkable that a first-term senator's proposals on Iraq, having been decried as defeat and surrender by McCain and Bush, came to be endorsed by the Iraqi "government," and that McCain and Bush had to adjust their own views accordingly. It's rare that any American politician who is not president would bring hundreds of thousands of foreigners into the streets of Berlin. It's rare that a Democratic nominee would be endorsed by the most successful young right-of-center politician in Britain, and be hailed by the conservative president of France. It's rare that such a newbie could pull off a complicated and pitfall-laden foreign tour without any noticeable gaffes or blunders.Remarkable ≠ miraculous. And it would be a hell of a miracle to do all that and lose ground in the polls, which is what happened.
McCain is attacking Obama as a celebrity because Obama gave him no opening to attack him as an incompetent or unready on the world stage.But the celebrity ad is very much an attack on Obama as unready — as is the follow-on "miracle" ad embedded above. McCain turned Obama's European success against him — and closed up the gap in the polls. Why not call that "objectively miraculous"?
I think by "objectively," Sullivan means "subjectively."
"Barack Obama does have an ideological core."
Stanley Kurtz on "Barack Obama's Lost Years":
IN THE COMMENTS: EnigmatiCore responds:
[T]he time between his first campaign for the Illinois State Senate in 1995 and his race for U.S. Senate in 2004-can fairly be called the "lost years," the period Obama seems least eager to talk about.But Obama wrote 40 columns for the Hyde Park Herald during those years, from which Kurtz extracts that Obama is "profoundly race-conscious" and "exceedingly liberal." I'm not so sure. Wasn't Obama saying what was politically advantageous for him to say at the time, in Chicago? And wasn't it good leverage for him to begin his climb to power in Chicago? I'm not convinced Obama is motivated by ideology.
IN THE COMMENTS: EnigmatiCore responds:
Would it be safe to say that he either:I agree that if he's motivated by ideology, he's liberal, though maybe not all that extremely. I think it's more likely that he's a politician seeking prestige and power, and I agree that we need to analyze how he would interact with a liberal Congress. But I do not assume that he will go along with a runaway liberal agenda. In fact, I'm concerned that McCain may be more oriented toward getting along with the Democratic Congress. Obama, unlike McCain, will want to be reelected, so he will take account of what the people want and establish his independence from the deeply vested interests of the congressional Democrats. McCain has a lifetime of strong ties developed within Congress, and Obama has scarcely spent any time in the place. So I'm thinking Obama will be more finely attuned to what is good for the country and less beholden to Congress.
* Is motivated by ideology, which evidence suggests is extremely liberal,
or
* Is not motivated by ideology but rather political expediency, and would be working with a Congress that is likely to be very liberal, meaning he would have to take non-expeditious stands in order to go against them?
John Kerry does a terrible job of representing Barack Obama on "Meet the Press."
As Joe Lieberman dominated every exchange, John Kerry seemed to think it would work to sit back and make Stan Laurel faces:
Kerry's performance hit rock bottom when he struggled to keep up with Obama's latest position on offshore oil drilling:
Can anyone listen to this part? Kerry gives off the signal that he's going to blather and smokescreen and do that thing his erstwhile fans called "nuance" in 2004.
could conceivably allow some drilling....
But what? But we shouldn't believe it will lead to any drilling?
Obama, do not send Kerry out to represent you again. He's terrible.
Kerry's performance hit rock bottom when he struggled to keep up with Obama's latest position on offshore oil drilling:
MR. BROKAW: Let's, let's talk about energy for a moment, if we can, because there have been several developments this past week that are important. A bipartisan coalition of 10 senators...What?!
SEN. KERRY: Yes.
MR. BROKAW: ...five Democrats, five Republicans--want to expand offshore drilling and they want to end a tax credit on oil companies. Senator Obama, in the past, has often said that he's opposed to offshore drilling.... Now, having said that, here's what Senator Obama had to say over the weekend: "My interest is in making sure that we've got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices. ... If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage--I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done." I can already hear the bloggers saying, "Flip-flop." Here's a guy who just...
SEN. KERRY: Sure.
MR. BROKAW: ...a couple of months ago said, "No way we're going to do this," now he's opened the possibility of it again. Two weeks ago on this program Vice President Al Gore, who's the godfather in the Democratic Party of energy policies, said, "No way should we drill offshore."
SEN. KERRY: I agree with Al Gore, and I don't want to. But, but Barack Obama...
MR. BROKAW: You, you--so you don't agree with Senator Obama?
SEN. KERRY: Well, I don't agree--here's, here's what I think his position is demonstrating. He still believes we should not drill offshore.
MR. BROKAW: But he's prepared to do it if necessary.What?! So you're saying that Obama's newest statements on the subject are just some meaningless politicking that you won't even pretend to believe temporarily while he gets himself elected?
SEN. KERRY: He has not changed--what he's prepared to do, Tom, is break America's gridlock by honoring a bipartisan effort if that is the only way to move us towards alternative and renewable fuels and, and, and an energy policy that's comprehensive. I think what you see in the response on this drilling is really the difference in how they might govern. Barack Obama doesn't want to drill offshore, doesn't believe it's the thing to do.
There's a very--there's a four-state carefully circumscribed proposal in that, that, in that initiative that, that could conceivably allow some drilling.that, that... that, that...
Can anyone listen to this part? Kerry gives off the signal that he's going to blather and smokescreen and do that thing his erstwhile fans called "nuance" in 2004.
could conceivably allow some drilling....
But what? But we shouldn't believe it will lead to any drilling?
He doesn't want to do that.He doesn't? So Obama muddied his position, opened himself up to the accusation that he's flip-flopped, and the take away point really is just that he doesn't want drilling? Thanks a lot, Kerry.
Obama, do not send Kerry out to represent you again. He's terrible.
But if that's what gets us to the energy independence and to the other efforts, I think Joe Lieberman actually supports--now, he didn't support drilling. He's changed and moves in that direction."He" — who? I can't even tell if he's talking about Obama or Lieberman. So the point is, I think, that Obama wants to get some legislation through and he's willing to accept some provision that happens to be in it because it only opens a possibility of drilling, and he doesn't support drilling? I thought Obama wanted people to think he was open to offshore drilling, but Kerry is squelching that belief. How is Kerry trying to help Obama?
But here's the bottom line.Go to the transcript for the news that oil companies make too much money and need to be taxed more. Let's skip a step ahead, and pick up in the middle what Lieberman's saying when he gets the floor again:
... John McCain says we need to drill offshore. That's American oil, we need to bring it into the market to help lower gas prices and make us energy independent. Barack Obama says, this weekend, maybe, and, and, if, but. He did not endorse--he did not come out with a strong decision, Obama, and say, "I'm for offshore drilling." And I predict to you he'll find reasons not to be for it if this comes to a vote in the Senate.Oh, so Kerry was talking about Lieberman before. That's a distraction. We're talking about Obama and McCain, aren't we? Or is Kerry more concerned about the Senate-level debate about what legislation gets passed?
SEN. KERRY: Are you for it now? Have you changed?
SEN. LIEBERMAN: I am for it...
SEN. KERRY: You've changed.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: ...because of the crisis. That's...Is this helpful to Obama, who's been reframing his position?
SEN. KERRY: You're now for it.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: ...absolutely right, because of the facts.
I want to take a minute from a personal perspective...
MR. BROKAW: Are you--you're--and you're not for it, Senator Kerry, under any circumstances.
SEN. KERRY: It is an absolutely fraudulent offering to America.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: It, it is not.Yes, exactly! Kerry is being a Senator. Has he forgotten his role of helping Obama? But he wasn't invited onto "Meet the Press" to do his Senate work.
SEN. KERRY: Drilling--let me tell you why. We only...
SEN. LIEBERMAN: My buddy here is filibustering this morning.
SEN. KERRY: We only have, we only have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Sixty-five percent of the oil comes from the Mideast. The problem with global climate change is oil. The problem for our security is our dependency on oil.The same old Democratic talking points... I thought Obama trying to get away from that.
MR. BROKAW: So what you're saying...
SEN. KERRY: If we go out and drill more oil, even temporarily, when it doesn't come to the pump for about seven years, you're not dealing with the real crisis, which is moving America's innovation...
SEN. LIEBERMAN: Well...Yes, let's move on, now that Joe Lieberman has just done a triumphant 2-part dance on the supine carcass of John Kerry. And that's it for the discussion of oil drilling. Is Brokaw playing it straight, biased against Obama, or just painfully aware that John Kerry is pathetically incapable or perversely unwilling to help Barack Obama?
SEN. KERRY: ...and creativity, the creation of new fuel.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: ...here, here's the difference. Here, here's the difference. Senator Obama, Senator Kerry say no to offshore drilling, no to nuclear power and...
SEN. KERRY: No, I don't say no to nuclear power.
SEN. LIEBERMAN: OK, hold on. Senator Obama certainly does. John McCain says we got to have all of the above. In the short term, we need to drill for American oil where we can find it and get it safely. That's offshore. Secondly, John McCain has presented--and we need nuclear power. Secondly, John McCain has presented the most bold alternative energy--wind, solar, electric car, hydrogen car--proposals that are around today.
I want to say just a word about the, the racial question here. And I, I speak personally. In the first place, the McCain campaign is, to use Barack Obama's words, raising the question is he a risky guy? But it has nothing to do with his name or his skin color. It has to do with his lack of experience and bad judgment, his unreadiness to be president. When you use the expressions that Senator Obama did three times this week, you're making a personal insult to John McCain.
I, I know John McCain. I've been with him for 20 years, private and public. This man does not have a bigoted bone in his body. His wife and he adopted a baby from Bangladesh, who, who they love. It's just wrong for Senator Obama to have done that. It was right for the campaign to call him on it. Let me just add a final word, Tom. In 2000, Al Gore gave me the extraordinary honor of being the first Jewish-American to run for national office, and Al Gore said he had confidence in the American people that they would judge me based on my record, not on my religion. And I urge Barack Obama to have the same faith in the American people that they will judge him on his record, or lack of record, certainly not on his name or his race.
MR. BROKAW: All right. We want to move on if we can.
John Amato way overestimates our awe of Duran Duran.
So this is the guy who made his way in the blogging world at Crooks and Liars by embedding video clips chosen to make various individuals look foolish? Ah, the poetry!
Something about adding that video to "The Sandwich Manifesto" made me want to embed this clip of John.
August 3, 2008
Here's the exact moment when I switched to the fisheye lens in L.A. — and I never went back.
It was my first day in the city, July 27, and I was just setting foot on Melrose Avenue for my first photo walk. Time: 11:45 PDT. I wanted to photograph the Fred Segal store:
I realized I had the fisheye in my bag, and this is the first fisheye shot:
L.A. crystalized for me in extravagantly bent form at that moment. It was all fisheye from there.
I realized I had the fisheye in my bag, and this is the first fisheye shot:
L.A. crystalized for me in extravagantly bent form at that moment. It was all fisheye from there.
L.A. photograph.
I was so happy when I got this photograph. I exclaimed "That was a quad!" (Enlarge.)
Walking down Melrose Avenue, looking through the fisheye lens, I was trying to catch diverse elements in one shot. The lens, of course, sweeps many things into view as I walk along, and people and cars move all around me. I had noticed that car before it parked, and I got excited when it parked near near that funky motel sign. As I was squaring up those 2 elements, I became aware of that huge photograph of a more or less naked woman at the right. As I adjusted the shot to include that photograph, an interesting woman walked into the frame, providing a fourth element. 1. The sign, + 2. the car + 3. the photograph + 4. the woman = a quad. I love when that happens. I mean, I love a 3, but that was a 4.
Melrose Avenue, my favorite photo walk in L.A. — not that I've walked everywhere. Of course, I haven't. And now, I'm back in Madison, but I have many, many more L.A. photographs to come. This one, I think, is my favorite. It's certainly the one that made me the happiest at the time.
The Sandwich Manifesto.
We have gone too long and too far with the evolving meaning of the sandwich. It is time to return to the original intent. John Montagu, the fourth Earl of Sandwich, may not have been the first person to want his food inside 2 slices of bread, but the thing is certainly named after him, and we know his specific purpose: He didn't want to have to stop what he was doing and he didn't want to get any sloppy meat grease on his playing cards or his books and papers. (There's some dispute about whether he was absorbed in gambling or serious professional work.)
But the original intent of the sandwich is clear: To take messy food and make it neat and convenient. You want a substantial meal, but you want to have it on a plate over to the side, so you can continue doing something else. You want to be able to reach over without paying attention, pick it up in one hand, and easily take a bite and put it down again. You shouldn't have to use your fingers to poke stray pieces in before you pick it up. No sauce should drip out. You shouldn't have to use both hands and lean over the plate and expect your bite to eject miscellaneous items from the other side of the bread. You hands should remain clean.
Sandwich makers, quit trying to impress me with piles of slippery ingredients uncontrolled by inadequate bread. The bread must be in charge of the filling. Nothing should be falling out. I don't want to struggle with these slovenly concoctions anymore. I don't want the job of reassembling what you have assembled. I want to sit here and type on my laptop keyboard, use my mouse, and eat a meal at the same time without even thinking about grease and drips. This desire traces back through the whole noble tradition of Sandwich, which you need to respect and value.
In the name of the fourth Earl of Sandwich, return to the original intent.
ADDED: "It's a complete catastrophe!" [UPDATE: That last quote went with a video that is, unfortunately, no longer available. I don't know what it refers to.]
But the original intent of the sandwich is clear: To take messy food and make it neat and convenient. You want a substantial meal, but you want to have it on a plate over to the side, so you can continue doing something else. You want to be able to reach over without paying attention, pick it up in one hand, and easily take a bite and put it down again. You shouldn't have to use your fingers to poke stray pieces in before you pick it up. No sauce should drip out. You shouldn't have to use both hands and lean over the plate and expect your bite to eject miscellaneous items from the other side of the bread. You hands should remain clean.
Sandwich makers, quit trying to impress me with piles of slippery ingredients uncontrolled by inadequate bread. The bread must be in charge of the filling. Nothing should be falling out. I don't want to struggle with these slovenly concoctions anymore. I don't want the job of reassembling what you have assembled. I want to sit here and type on my laptop keyboard, use my mouse, and eat a meal at the same time without even thinking about grease and drips. This desire traces back through the whole noble tradition of Sandwich, which you need to respect and value.
In the name of the fourth Earl of Sandwich, return to the original intent.
ADDED: "It's a complete catastrophe!" [UPDATE: That last quote went with a video that is, unfortunately, no longer available. I don't know what it refers to.]
On the Santa Monica pier.
The amusement park:
Things you might not notice unless you go to the enlargement: pigeons on the roller coaster, toddler has a red squirt gun, the man in front is not eating a hot dog (but a striated pastry of some sort).
Note: We see men in shorts here, but I don't disapprove. It's the beach and the shorts are longish. Many men are wearing heavy blue jeans, which seems unwise. I think the striated pastry guy has the best fashion sense: lightweight, light-colored, long pants.
The merry-go-round:
The Lobster — a pretty good restaurant, with a great view:
Things you might not notice unless you go to the enlargement: pigeons on the roller coaster, toddler has a red squirt gun, the man in front is not eating a hot dog (but a striated pastry of some sort).
Note: We see men in shorts here, but I don't disapprove. It's the beach and the shorts are longish. Many men are wearing heavy blue jeans, which seems unwise. I think the striated pastry guy has the best fashion sense: lightweight, light-colored, long pants.
The merry-go-round:
The Lobster — a pretty good restaurant, with a great view:
Obama "had yet to learn to be laught at" and sometimes "a deeper shade of hauteur... overspread his features."
Maureen Dowd thinks Jane Austen's description of Mr. Darcy apply well to Barack Obama:
I like this little statement at the end of Dowd's column:
If Obama is Mr. Darcy, with “his pride, his abominable pride,” then America is Elizabeth Bennet, spirited, playful, democratic, financially strained, and caught up in certain prejudices....If we're going to get all English proffy, heavy on the race-and-gender talk, shouldn't we critique Dowd for portraying the black man's pursuit of political office as a sexual exploit?
In this political version of “Pride and Prejudice,” the prejudice is racial...
So the novelistic tension of the 2008 race is this: Can Obama overcome his pride and Hyde Park hauteur and win America over?
Can America overcome its prejudice to elect the first black president? And can it move past its biases to figure out if Obama’s supposed conceit is really just the protective shield and defense mechanism of someone who grew up half white and half black, a perpetual outsider whose father deserted him and whose mother, while loving, sometimes did so as well?
Can Miss Bennet teach Mr. Darcy to let down his guard, be more sportive, and laugh at himself?
***
I like this little statement at the end of Dowd's column:
Frank Rich is off today.Isn't Frank Rich always off?
"The only dependable test for gender is the truth of a person’s life, the lives we live each day."
"Surely the best judge of a person’s gender is not a degrading, questionable examination. The best judge of a person’s gender is what lies within her, or his, heart."
When we need to categorize people by sex/gender — for the Olympics, for example — what is the right way to do it? The quote above is from an op-ed by Jennifer Finney Boylan.The quote struck me because what's in someone's heart seems to me to be a terrible test, because it demands another test — the test of what is in a person's heart — and people lie. Certainly, some athletes will lie.
But even if we could accurately see the contents of your heart the way we can see the contents of your pants and your chromosomes, would we want your subjective beliefs to determine who you get to compete against? It's one thing to leave people alone as they live their private lives, quite another to set up an athletic competition where there will be winners and losers.
How does Boylan propose to look into hearts?
Boylan has an alternate conclusion:
There may be some difficult cases at the biological level, but rules should be devised to deal with those cases fairly. As Boylan notes, the Olympic rules permit individuals who have gone through sex reassignment surgery to compete as the sex the surgery has modeled them after. Whether that rule was a good idea is another question. It seems to be accepted because the treatment degrades athletic ability, so the former man does not have the usual advantage a man would have competing with women. But there is no reason to devise a rule that allows men to compete with women because they feel like women.
Boylan is the author of “She’s Not There: A Life in Two Genders,” described by Booklist here:
When we need to categorize people by sex/gender — for the Olympics, for example — what is the right way to do it? The quote above is from an op-ed by Jennifer Finney Boylan.The quote struck me because what's in someone's heart seems to me to be a terrible test, because it demands another test — the test of what is in a person's heart — and people lie. Certainly, some athletes will lie.
But even if we could accurately see the contents of your heart the way we can see the contents of your pants and your chromosomes, would we want your subjective beliefs to determine who you get to compete against? It's one thing to leave people alone as they live their private lives, quite another to set up an athletic competition where there will be winners and losers.
How does Boylan propose to look into hearts?
A quick look at the reality of an athlete’s life ought to settle the question.Absurd! Where is this picture of "the reality of an athlete's life" for us to take a "quick look" at? And even if there was such a picture and it could not be faked, what aspects of life are female and what are male? You can't answer the question without using sexist stereotypes that are not only offensive but have very little application to high-level athletes. Obsession with sports and competition is stereotypically male. If we took Boylan's laughable test seriously, there'd be no athlete left in the female category.
Boylan has an alternate conclusion:
Maybe ... Olympic officials have to learn to live with ambiguity, and make peace with a world in which things are not always quantifiable and clear.It's fine to recommend that we appreciate ambiguity, but athletic contests need rules and those who enforce them have to make decisions. It's funny how Boylan wants us to believe in her "quick look" at lifestyle test but wants us to accept that biology is endlessly ambiguous.
That, if you ask me, would be a good thing, not just for Olympians, but for us all.
There may be some difficult cases at the biological level, but rules should be devised to deal with those cases fairly. As Boylan notes, the Olympic rules permit individuals who have gone through sex reassignment surgery to compete as the sex the surgery has modeled them after. Whether that rule was a good idea is another question. It seems to be accepted because the treatment degrades athletic ability, so the former man does not have the usual advantage a man would have competing with women. But there is no reason to devise a rule that allows men to compete with women because they feel like women.
***
Boylan is the author of “She’s Not There: A Life in Two Genders,” described by Booklist here:
In this autobiography, she details her lifelong struggle with her burgeoning femaleness and the path she followed to become a female, both physically and mentally. For 40 years, the author lived as a man, seemingly happy and even marrying a woman and fathering two children. At a certain point, though, she realized that she couldn't suppress her desire to live as a female and so eventually went through all the steps to become female, including sexual reassignment surgery. There is something troubling about Boylan's lighthearted tone, and while she hints at it, there is no really clear depiction of the havoc this transition must have wreaked on her married life (Boylan's wife was clearly devastated) and on her children (who at times refer to her as boygirl or maddy).
August 2, 2008
"But these Internet Savages are more like unto Vagabonds, Wastrels, or even common Thieves, enjoying the Benefits of Society, whilst doing no Good."
Surely, you recognize the voice of our ghost commenter, Sir Archy, dead these 250 Years and more. We'd been missing him, and now he's made an appearance, on that post about the trolls of the web.
How to make Site Meter and Internet Explorer play nice.
Do what I did, explained here where it talks about editing the template to move the Site Meter javascript out of any tables (causing the meter to appear at the bottom of the page). This worked for me. I also put an ordinary link to my Site Meter page in the sidebar so it will still be easy to check the statistics (which I like to do).
Drive-by photography — L.A.
It wasn't all fisheye photography in L.A. I don't always have my big SLR camera at hand, but I do always have my Sony DSC-T9 at hand and often in hand — where it fits as easily as a deck of cards. It was fun to use the T9 from the passenger seat. Yes, on my trip to L.A., I had the benefit of never driving. So I was always looking at the scenery — fascinating, because we avoided the freeway — and seeing things to snap. Here are my 4 favorite drive-by shots:
1. (Enlarge.) A chance collage that seems to have everything: Marilyn, Elvis, the Beatles, a dog, an ATM machine, a traffic light, Thai food, Mexican food, a smiling guy waiting for the Metro, graffiti, "sop," "flo," "order now," a manly arm receiving a California tan. Yes, of course, it's cropped. (Uncropped.)
2. (Enlarge.) Like Madison, Wisconsin, and unlike NYC, L.A. has signs telling you the names of the neighborhoods. Here you see a sign for Thai Town. Under the sign are 2 women. Neither appears to be Thai. They look like hardworking individuals — do they have jobs that require white shirts and long blue pants? — waiting for the bus. The apt words "Working World" appear on a newspaper vending box. There's also the L.A. Times, and 2 women in shorts and flip-flops who don't seem to have to go to work. I love the colorful buildings — ocher and pink on one side and white-orange-blue Mondrian-inspired on the other. I love the checked sidewalk in pink, white, and 2 shades of gray. Fruit, palm trees, street lights, quintuple traffic lights. A very blue sky resonates with a blue sign that says "Western." There's a smaller sign that says "Hollywood/Western" and I know those are the intersecting streets, but it makes me think of a Hollywood western, and then I notice the black and white photographs of actressy models in the windows in the lower left corner and return to the rock-solid women waiting for the bus.
3. (Enlarge.) I only wanted to drive by Grauman's Chinese Theater, so my feelings vibrated with the pink-haired girl who was just trying to slurp up some caffeine and get home with her groceries. I love her squinty sneer as she slump walks past the Jack Sparrow impersonator and toward the hands (like mine) pointing a tiny camera at the scene. In a differently pink shirt, to the right of the shot, we see a woman who's happy to play the tourist and take a shot of her friend who's about to attempt a movie-star pose while standing on a sidewalk star. (And it would have been a better picture if we could see the friend posing, as we can in the next shot.)
4. (Enlarge!) On our way to LAX, we pass a famous icon, the giant doughnut at Randy's Donuts, that Wikipedia informs me — in a ludicrously somber tone — "dates back to a period during the mid-20th Century that saw a proliferation of programmatic architecturely designed buildings throughout Southern California that were made in the shape of the products they sold." And I'm not going to perseverate —or proliferate any programmatic perorations — about the proper spelling of "doughnut." It's "doughnut." I established that rock-solidly — architecturely? — here.
1. (Enlarge.) A chance collage that seems to have everything: Marilyn, Elvis, the Beatles, a dog, an ATM machine, a traffic light, Thai food, Mexican food, a smiling guy waiting for the Metro, graffiti, "sop," "flo," "order now," a manly arm receiving a California tan. Yes, of course, it's cropped. (Uncropped.)
2. (Enlarge.) Like Madison, Wisconsin, and unlike NYC, L.A. has signs telling you the names of the neighborhoods. Here you see a sign for Thai Town. Under the sign are 2 women. Neither appears to be Thai. They look like hardworking individuals — do they have jobs that require white shirts and long blue pants? — waiting for the bus. The apt words "Working World" appear on a newspaper vending box. There's also the L.A. Times, and 2 women in shorts and flip-flops who don't seem to have to go to work. I love the colorful buildings — ocher and pink on one side and white-orange-blue Mondrian-inspired on the other. I love the checked sidewalk in pink, white, and 2 shades of gray. Fruit, palm trees, street lights, quintuple traffic lights. A very blue sky resonates with a blue sign that says "Western." There's a smaller sign that says "Hollywood/Western" and I know those are the intersecting streets, but it makes me think of a Hollywood western, and then I notice the black and white photographs of actressy models in the windows in the lower left corner and return to the rock-solid women waiting for the bus.
3. (Enlarge.) I only wanted to drive by Grauman's Chinese Theater, so my feelings vibrated with the pink-haired girl who was just trying to slurp up some caffeine and get home with her groceries. I love her squinty sneer as she slump walks past the Jack Sparrow impersonator and toward the hands (like mine) pointing a tiny camera at the scene. In a differently pink shirt, to the right of the shot, we see a woman who's happy to play the tourist and take a shot of her friend who's about to attempt a movie-star pose while standing on a sidewalk star. (And it would have been a better picture if we could see the friend posing, as we can in the next shot.)
4. (Enlarge!) On our way to LAX, we pass a famous icon, the giant doughnut at Randy's Donuts, that Wikipedia informs me — in a ludicrously somber tone — "dates back to a period during the mid-20th Century that saw a proliferation of programmatic architecturely designed buildings throughout Southern California that were made in the shape of the products they sold." And I'm not going to perseverate —or proliferate any programmatic perorations — about the proper spelling of "doughnut." It's "doughnut." I established that rock-solidly — architecturely? — here.
Was Bruce E. Ivins the anthrax terrorist?
If he wasn't, why did he commit suicide?
[T]o some anthrax experts.... his identification as a suspect fit a pattern they had suspected might explain the crime: an insider wanting to draw attention to biodefense....Read the whole article. There's evidence that Ivins had murderous ideation, but maybe he declined into mental illness because of the suspicion that he was the terrorist. He was a suspect because he was one of the scientists with the knowledge that was needed to accomplish the attacks. If you were innocent and smart enough to be a high-level scientist, wouldn't you understand why you had to be investigated, suck it up, and deal with it? Isn't consciousness of guilt the most likely cause of the suicide and the murder threats that preceded it?
Dr. Ivins was among the scientists who benefited from [the massive federal spending on research dealing with anthrax terrorism] as 14 of the 15 academic papers he published since late 2001 were focused on possible anthrax treatments or vaccines, comparing the effectiveness of different formulations.
[Ivins] had bought a bulletproof vest and a gun as he contemplated killing his co-workers at the nearby Army research laboratory.I hope we hear the full story eventually.
“He was going to go out in a blaze of glory, that he was going to take everybody out with him,” said a social worker in a transcript of a hearing at which she sought a restraining order....
McCain continues his ad theme, making fun of the worship of Barack Obama.
McCain takes the risky approach of mocking our love for the other man:
Sorry, John, I found myself smiling through all those images — and it was always pretty easy to pick up the humor and the missing context of all the various things Obama was saying.
And as for that "10 Commandments" punchline... Althouse did it first. I feel like you owe me a link.
But the important question is: Will ads like this and "the biggest celebrity" one work? As I said on the radio show yesterday — listen to the first few minutes — it's risky to show ads like this, but I think they work because of the way that they acknowledge that a lot of us love and enjoy Barack Obama, but urge us to separate that love from the serious question whether he is ready to be President. That is how the ads work for me. Now, I do think the ads works differently for different people.
Those who already don't like Obama can have a laugh. Aren't the people who worship the man ridiculous? This is the way Rush Limbaugh took it:
But the key is how the ads affect independent, undecided voters. (Like me!) And I think they may be succeeding in encouraging us to separate our thinking about Obama into 2 parts:
1. He's really cool and great and this whole campaign is a lot of fun.
2. Being President is a deadly serious and immensely difficult and important business and we've got to pick the man who is better prepared to take it on.
Sorry, John, I found myself smiling through all those images — and it was always pretty easy to pick up the humor and the missing context of all the various things Obama was saying.
And as for that "10 Commandments" punchline... Althouse did it first. I feel like you owe me a link.
But the important question is: Will ads like this and "the biggest celebrity" one work? As I said on the radio show yesterday — listen to the first few minutes — it's risky to show ads like this, but I think they work because of the way that they acknowledge that a lot of us love and enjoy Barack Obama, but urge us to separate that love from the serious question whether he is ready to be President. That is how the ads work for me. Now, I do think the ads works differently for different people.
Those who already don't like Obama can have a laugh. Aren't the people who worship the man ridiculous? This is the way Rush Limbaugh took it:
I'll tell you, if the Obama people got mad and fed up over the Britney Spears celebutard ad, this is going to frost 'em. This is fabulous. This is Barack Obama's words right back at him. This is what Obama has said. And it's fun! It's having fun, yes, but it's his own words thrown right back at him.Obama devotees can also enjoy a laugh: Our candidate is so fantastic that the only thing McCain can come up with is that he's just too fantastic. We can't promote him with lavish worship — isn't it hilarious that McCain is doing the worship mode for us?
But the key is how the ads affect independent, undecided voters. (Like me!) And I think they may be succeeding in encouraging us to separate our thinking about Obama into 2 parts:
1. He's really cool and great and this whole campaign is a lot of fun.
2. Being President is a deadly serious and immensely difficult and important business and we've got to pick the man who is better prepared to take it on.
Why put such a negative spin on the desire to leave a message instead of reaching somebody when you call on the phone?
There's a device — Slydial – that takes you straight to voicemail:
... lets callers ... avoid an unwanted conversation — or unwanted intimacy...Wow. What about all the positive reasons for not wanting to make someone's phone ring? They might be sleeping, with someone, or concentrating on work. I often hesitate to make phone calls, not for selfish reasons, but out of consideration for others. You have no idea what they are doing. In fact, why did it ever become acceptable to cause a bell to ring that required somebody to drop what they are doing and talk to somebody who unilaterally decided it was time to talk? It had to have been an adjustment to phone technology as it was. If it is no longer necessary to behave that way, why is it still thought to be polite? At the very least, calling specifically to leave a voice message should be regarded as fine etiquette. Stigmatizing it as solipsistic and cowardly is ridiculous.
.... We are constantly just missing one another — on purpose.
... turning some people into digital-era solipsists more interested in broadcasting information than in real time give-and-take.
... “You pretend to be communicating, when you’re actually stifling communication" ....
[Some guy] said he had ... used it to call in sick to work — without facing follow-up questions from his boss....
He acknowledges that the technology encourages a perhaps not-so-valiant character trait.
“It does make you more cowardly,” he said.
Views from the Santa Monica pier.
On the beach, a statement about the war:
Take a step back:
I told you Obama is everywhere. And, hey, he really is the biggest celebrity in the world. He's literally overshadowing Paris Hilton, and I don't even see Britney Spears.
ADDED: Enlarge that celebriphoto. I think that's Britney in the back next to Johnny. Depp. (Not McCain!)
MORE: Here's a description of the memorial, which is called Arlington West and is put up by Veterans for Peace. I see that the crosses represent the deaths in Iraq, with red crosses signifying 10 deaths (so that the monument, which appears on Sundays, does not get larger over time, just more red). I couldn't find a discussion of why the Veterans for Peace thinks crosses are appropriate for all of the dead, since not all were Christians.
Take a step back:
I told you Obama is everywhere. And, hey, he really is the biggest celebrity in the world. He's literally overshadowing Paris Hilton, and I don't even see Britney Spears.
ADDED: Enlarge that celebriphoto. I think that's Britney in the back next to Johnny. Depp. (Not McCain!)
MORE: Here's a description of the memorial, which is called Arlington West and is put up by Veterans for Peace. I see that the crosses represent the deaths in Iraq, with red crosses signifying 10 deaths (so that the monument, which appears on Sundays, does not get larger over time, just more red). I couldn't find a discussion of why the Veterans for Peace thinks crosses are appropriate for all of the dead, since not all were Christians.
Lie.
Conceded.
ADDED: More here:
Meanwhile:
ADDED: More here:
The furor started on Thursday when Rick Davis, Mr. McCain’s campaign manager, said, “Barack Obama has played the race card, and he played it from the bottom of the deck.” Mr. Davis was alluding to Mr. Obama’s remarks on Wednesday that Republicans would try to scare voters by pointing out that he “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”...Fighting back? He brought it up. He can't use his race as a factor and disqualify it simultaneously. Pick a position and stick to it. Obviously, the better position for Obama is transcending race, and obviously, if he thinks he can dip gracefully into the subject whenever it works for him, he's wrong.
For Mr. Obama, the risks of fighting back are that anything that calls attention to the racial dynamics of the contest would potentially polarize voters and stir unease about his candidacy, particularly among white voters in swing states. He is, after all, a candidate who has sought to transcend his own racial heritage in appealing to the broad electorate.
Meanwhile:
[A]t one of his rallies on Friday, where seven self-styled African revolutionaries began shouting and pointing at him, accusing him of undermining revolutionary struggle.Some people will try to lure him into talking much more about race. Friday's hecklers were easy to resist, but the same demand will be made in other, more subtle forms. He needs to stay race-transcendent. Lefties tend to revile race transcendence — to regard it as a kind of racism. I've heard that point of view many times, from very intelligent individuals who express themselves quite rationally and persuasively. They don't shout and point and interrupt. Obama has to resist them too.
August 1, 2008
If a reader came to my blog and Site Meter didn't record it, would it still make a sound?
Take down Site Meter? Noooooo. Site Meter means too much to me. You need to take down Internet Explorer.
Microsoft sucks.
IN THE COMMENTS: alank has a fix.... [FIX DELETED].
UPDATE: I followed the advice here and got my meter out of all the tables. It's at the bottom of the blog, in case you want to read it. Hope this works!
Microsoft sucks.
IN THE COMMENTS: alank has a fix.... [FIX DELETED].
UPDATE: I followed the advice here and got my meter out of all the tables. It's at the bottom of the blog, in case you want to read it. Hope this works!
The original 6 degrees of separation research was pretty shaky.
But new research bears it out. Except it's more like 7.
Funny, I was just listening to this NPR Science Friday podcast about what a sham it was:
"To me, it was pretty shocking. What we're seeing suggests there may be a social connectivity constant for humanity," said Eric Horvitz, a Microsoft researcher who conducted the study with colleague Jure Leskovec. "People have had this suspicion that we are really close. But we are showing on a very large scale that this idea goes beyond folklore."Cool!
Funny, I was just listening to this NPR Science Friday podcast about what a sham it was:
One researcher, Judith Kleinfeld, a professor of psychology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, looked at Milgram's original experiment in the hopes of updating it for the digital world. "Milgram's startling conclusion turns out to rest on scanty evidence," she says. "The idea of 'six degrees of separation' may, in fact, be plain wrong-the academic equivalent of an urban myth."
"Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democrats adjourned the House, turned off the lights and killed the microphones..."
"... but Republicans are still on the floor talking gas prices....
I'm picturing Nancy Pelosi like Bill O'Reilly, yelling "cut the mike" and "shut up":
I'm picturing Nancy Pelosi like Bill O'Reilly, yelling "cut the mike" and "shut up":
A mysterious phenomenon.
The air conditioner in my office is horribly loud, but I only notice when it cycles off. It goes off and I realize that I couldn't stand it. But if I couldn't stand it, why didn't I notice when it was on? And I also have the feeling that time reverses a bit: I seem to start hearing the noise a split second before it goes off. And I don't mean just once. I mean every time, thousands of times. I become aware of the noise and then it goes off. That's an illusion, of course, but I've experienced it so often that I know it's a very specific phenomenon, and I wonder how many other things there are that we perceive out of order like that.
True eccentricity.
It's what Manolo wants. He abhors "'faux eccentricity', the tendency of among many young fashion designers to adopt outrageous clothing and patently false personas in the hopes that they will mask the fully conventional heart which beats beneath."
What if you had to commit to live your entire life as if you were in some music video? What video? We're talking fashion, attitude, mannerisms, assorted trappings... You need a convincingly eccentric persona for this challenge.
You cannot win by coming up with something crushingly ordinary.
ADDED: So, I mean you can't use something like this:
(Although I bet for a lot of you, that looks pretty eccentric.)
Grotesque tattoos, wacky clothing, and affectedly stereotypical personas do not the unconventional mind make....What about Christian?
Indeed, from the past Project Runway seasons only Jay and Santino have been well, truly, and uniquely eccentric. And it is not the coincidence that both have been outsiders in every sense of the word.
This season, only Stella, who has decided to live her entire life as if she were in the Whitesnake video, and holds to this position even when evidence suggests otherwise, comes closest to being the true eccentric, although her eccentricity is not in the least ways original.She has decided to live her entire life as if she were in the Whitesnake video....
What if you had to commit to live your entire life as if you were in some music video? What video? We're talking fashion, attitude, mannerisms, assorted trappings... You need a convincingly eccentric persona for this challenge.
You cannot win by coming up with something crushingly ordinary.
ADDED: So, I mean you can't use something like this:
(Although I bet for a lot of you, that looks pretty eccentric.)
"Spanish is not a Secret Language."
LOL.
It's true that a lot of Americans fail to learn foreign languages. Barack Obama told me that...
It's true that a lot of Americans fail to learn foreign languages. Barack Obama told me that...
"It’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup."... and then he went to Europe and spoke English to everybody. But this notion that you can hide what you're saying by speaking a foreign language is absurd — especially if the language is Spanish.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
