... you need to be careful...
... but not about what you say.
July 7, 2010
Is Drudge is trying to say something about hair...
My email informant says "It looks like Biden is about to swat that pesky Lohan."
I'm seeing a hair theme. The Lohan photo is obviously hair-centric. She's young and beautiful... and deeply troubled and going to jail. The 2 older characters pictured in juxtaposition with her are possibly troubled, but not deeply, and they're not going to jail. They do not find themselves under the thumb of government power. They are the thumb. (Lindsay! Look out for that thumb!) But they are hair-challenged. Surely, they'd trade it all for fabulous hair. Biden has his long, sad history of hair transplants. And Hillary's hair has been a big topic as long as we've known her. And it looks particularly awful in that picture. That photograph seems to say: This is why older women are required to cut their hair short. She's raising a glass of white wine... as if she doesn't even care anymore. She's laughing. Biden is yelling. Lohan is swooning. Now, I'm seeing much more than a message about hair. It's about how the oldsters are crushing the young in America today.
I'm seeing a hair theme. The Lohan photo is obviously hair-centric. She's young and beautiful... and deeply troubled and going to jail. The 2 older characters pictured in juxtaposition with her are possibly troubled, but not deeply, and they're not going to jail. They do not find themselves under the thumb of government power. They are the thumb. (Lindsay! Look out for that thumb!) But they are hair-challenged. Surely, they'd trade it all for fabulous hair. Biden has his long, sad history of hair transplants. And Hillary's hair has been a big topic as long as we've known her. And it looks particularly awful in that picture. That photograph seems to say: This is why older women are required to cut their hair short. She's raising a glass of white wine... as if she doesn't even care anymore. She's laughing. Biden is yelling. Lohan is swooning. Now, I'm seeing much more than a message about hair. It's about how the oldsters are crushing the young in America today.
"So is the question of how Palin finally put the screws on Levi."
Andrew Sullivan reacts to Levi Johnston's apology:
In Palinland, no one knows what's really going on. But I wonder if this is a somewhat panicked response to the recent blip upwards in web interest in the Trig question.No link on that assertion of blip. I know he's interested in "the Trig question," but really... it's trending upwards?
With all these family members able to speak to the public and McGinniss digging deeper, Todd and Sarah may have felt the need to crack down and use Levi's access to Tripp and Bristol as their latest weapon. [Levi's sister] Mercede has this to say about Levi's latest statement, which reads like a man who has a metaphorical gun to his head....Sullivan links to Mercede's blog and quotes it at length. If that's too much crazy psychodrama for you, let's watch Levi Johnston with Kathy Griffin on "My Life on the D List":
"How feminist blogs like Jezebel gin up page views by exploiting women's worst tendencies."
Emily Gould in Slate:
As of this writing, [last week's Jezebel post titled "The Daily Show's Woman Problem"] has generated almost 1,000 comments and nearly 90,000 page views. It's a prime example of the feminist blogosphere's tendency to tap into the market force of what I've come to think of as "outrage world"—the regularly occurring firestorms stirred up on mainstream, for-profit, woman-targeted blogs like Jezebel and also, to a lesser degree, Slate's own XX Factor and Salon's Broadsheet.Ha. A lesser degree. Hidden question: How can we get those page views?
They're ignited by writers who are pushing readers to feel what the writers claim is righteously indignant rage but which is actually just petty jealousy, cleverly marketed as feminism. These firestorms are great for page-view-pimping bloggy business. But they promote the exact opposite of progressive thought and rational discourse, and the comment wars they elicit almost inevitably devolve into didactic one-upsmanship and faux-feminist cliché. The vibe is less sisterhood-is-powerful than middle-school clique in-fight, with anyone who dares to step outside of chalk-drawn lines delimiting what's "empowering" and "anti-feminist" inevitably getting flamed and shamed to bits.Consider the radical idea that women are human beings.
The new lawprof blog rankings.
Check out the current standings in the endless struggle for dominance (or at least for the treasured rank of #2) and find some new links to click on.
Michelle Obama is out of synch with the fatshionistas.
Robin Givhan writes about the body acceptance movement. Most of her essay is about the desire for cutting-edge fashion in plus sizes. (She embarrasses the president of Lane Bryant for saying his customer is mainly concerned with comfort and "might be a year behind" on style.) Tucked away at the end is the part about Michelle Obama. The First Lady has been Givhan's prime subject these days (unfortunately), and it's surprising to find something critical of her in a Givhan column (even if it is given low prominence). Let me highlight it:
A grand and lustrous name. And if you thought a joke was in order, you should be ashamed of yourself... of your mind. Not your body, of course. Love your glorious, ample body.
Back to Linda Bacon:
I assume Givhan will get back to us with the First Lady's response. Until then, let's speculate. I predict she'll go on about her garden and how delicious vegetables can be: If only these women would taste vegetables — really taste her most excellent vegetables — then they will love eating right and all the incoherence will melt away. You can love yourself, love your body, love all your food and eat right and be healthy — feel healthy and be healthy. Of course, that's emphatically not true, but one feels so pretty saying it. And that is what we want — to feel pretty.
ADDED:
What some currently see as the most distressing assault on their dignity is first lady Michelle Obama with her fight against childhood obesity.Bacon. Great name. No seriously.
"I'm really appalled at the first lady's campaign. I think it will do more harm than good," says Linda Bacon, author of "Health at Every Size: The Surprising Truth About Your Weight." "I applaud her for some of the specific programs, but when it's done in the name of obesity, it's going to backfire on her."
Bacon was one of about a dozen researchers and authors who signed a letter to Obama voicing concern that her emphasis on weight was stigmatizing a population rather than dealing with the broader health issues. "I think it's great for kids to have a better connection to their food," Bacon says.
A grand and lustrous name. And if you thought a joke was in order, you should be ashamed of yourself... of your mind. Not your body, of course. Love your glorious, ample body.
Back to Linda Bacon:
But by focusing on weight, "you're teaching kids that they did something wrong to get the body they have."Givhan has the access to extract a response from Michelle Obama. The questions I'd ask: How can you talk about taking personal responsibility when what people hear is blame? If people are saying they feel good about themselves, do you really want to make them feel bad? Even those of us who don't favor inspiring self-esteem all the time want to know why you want to tear people down in the effort to get them to do something they'll probably never be able to do very well? But Michelle Obama is someone who's big on promoting self-esteem, so she's got a particularly difficult problem achieving coherence. You can't just be for everything that's good. Everyone must feel good and be virtuous. How does that work?
The women do not dismiss decades of scientific research on obesity, but they are distrustful of the conclusions as well as the methodology. They know they exercise; they feel healthy. One young woman shared that she was a vegan and has always been a big girl. Mostly, however, they argue that everyone should eat better and move more -- not just the overweight. So why point a finger at fat people?
I assume Givhan will get back to us with the First Lady's response. Until then, let's speculate. I predict she'll go on about her garden and how delicious vegetables can be: If only these women would taste vegetables — really taste her most excellent vegetables — then they will love eating right and all the incoherence will melt away. You can love yourself, love your body, love all your food and eat right and be healthy — feel healthy and be healthy. Of course, that's emphatically not true, but one feels so pretty saying it. And that is what we want — to feel pretty.
ADDED:
July 6, 2010
"[T]he Arizona law would place a undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities."
According to the Washington Post, that assertion is at the core of the federal government's lawsuit challenging Arizona's new immigration law. So... the federal government has massively failed to deal with the problem of illegal immigration, but at least the failure is spread fairly equally among the states. Even though Arizona may only want to take responsibility for its its own problem, it can't do that without referring the cases to the federal government and straining and unbalancing federal resources. The courts are supposed to buy the paradox: Because the federal government can't do very much about a problem — or chooses not to do much — an individual state can't act either, no matter how bad things get within that state.
But let's think this through. I'm just trying to grasp what the argument is, so discuss this with me. Brainstorm. Argue. Consider this: The federal government has responsibility for immigration, and it has expressed, through written law and real-world efforts, an extremely lax policy toward illegal immigration. Given that federal policy and the supremacy of federal law, one could argue that it is not within the state's proper power to dictate a different policy and impose it on the federal government (by referring a lot of new cases of individuals violating federal law).
It will be interesting to hear how the lawyers for the federal government make their argument. Assuming it's not legally ridiculous, is it politically wise? To make it work legally, won't they have to own pathetically weak enforcement as a deliberate and important policy? Won't they have to be very clear that Arizona must shut up and accept the current situation? Who will get better political leverage out of this lawsuit — those who favor stronger enforcement of immigration law or those who favor leniency?
But let's think this through. I'm just trying to grasp what the argument is, so discuss this with me. Brainstorm. Argue. Consider this: The federal government has responsibility for immigration, and it has expressed, through written law and real-world efforts, an extremely lax policy toward illegal immigration. Given that federal policy and the supremacy of federal law, one could argue that it is not within the state's proper power to dictate a different policy and impose it on the federal government (by referring a lot of new cases of individuals violating federal law).
It will be interesting to hear how the lawyers for the federal government make their argument. Assuming it's not legally ridiculous, is it politically wise? To make it work legally, won't they have to own pathetically weak enforcement as a deliberate and important policy? Won't they have to be very clear that Arizona must shut up and accept the current situation? Who will get better political leverage out of this lawsuit — those who favor stronger enforcement of immigration law or those who favor leniency?
At the Bunny-in-the-Love-Grass Café...
... you are cute and we are tolerant, but at some point the tolerance ends, and we are thinking slingshot and meat.
William Saletan slams Elena Kagan.
"All of us should be embarrassed that a sentence written by a White House aide now stands enshrined in the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, erroneously credited with scientific authorship and rigor. Kagan should be most chastened of all. She fooled the nation's highest judges. As one of them, she had better make sure they aren't fooled again."
I'm not to pleased with the idea of relying on someone who distorted science to detect, for our benefit, the distortions of others. What we have is someone who put a political agenda ahead of science. We all need to heighten our skepticism about the way politicians and lawyers use our embrace of the authority of science to scam us.
***
I'm not to pleased with the idea of relying on someone who distorted science to detect, for our benefit, the distortions of others. What we have is someone who put a political agenda ahead of science. We all need to heighten our skepticism about the way politicians and lawyers use our embrace of the authority of science to scam us.
Why Gordon Smith hates reading Supreme Court opinions.
"The first sentence of Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board reads: 'Our Constitution divided the "powers of the new Federal Government into three defined categories, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial." INS v. Chadha , 462 U. S. 919, 951 (1983).' We needed a secondary source citation for that proposition? Or maybe the Chief Justice used the quotation for the original way in which Chadha framed the idea?"
I feel your pain. But as a lawprof who teaches Chadha every year, I've got to observe that the idea that there are 3 defined categories was controversial and fought over in that case. Read Justice White's dissenting opinion:
The idea that are "three defined categories" of power is not too obvious to require support from case law. The case law itself shows that.
I feel your pain. But as a lawprof who teaches Chadha every year, I've got to observe that the idea that there are 3 defined categories was controversial and fought over in that case. Read Justice White's dissenting opinion:
[T]he wisdom of the Framers was to anticipate that the Nation would grow and new problems of governance would require different solutions. Accordingly, our Federal Government was intentionally chartered with the flexibility to respond to contemporary needs without losing sight of fundamental democratic principles. This was the spirit in which Justice Jackson penned his influential concurrence in the Steel Seizure Case:Burger had to protest that he was not relying on "empty formalities." I'll bet most law professors teaching separation of powers present Jackson in a much better light than Burger.
"The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not and cannot conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses or even single Articles torn from context. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government."Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 343 U. S. 635 (1952).
The idea that are "three defined categories" of power is not too obvious to require support from case law. The case law itself shows that.
As long as women are required to wear headscarves...
... isn't it best to restrict men's haircuts too?
This question is designed to test the importance of the principle of equality.
This question is designed to test the importance of the principle of equality.
The comments are back!
The comments are back!
I missed you guys. I used to revel in my solitude, but then you showed up and when you went away....
I missed you guys. I used to revel in my solitude, but then you showed up and when you went away....
"... a capella (for those of you who don't speak Italian, that means singing with a mouthful of capers....)"
"(... It creates a kind of warbly tone while at the same time encouraging guests not to sit too close to the stage.)"
Ha. I hate getting hit by stray bits of food. I once sat in the front row of a play that had a small refrigerator right in front of where I was sitting. There was a lot of talk of food, and much opening and closing of the refrigerator, putting things in. As might have been predicted, the climax of the show involved stuff coming out of that refrigerator.
Dialogue that I've never forgotten from that play:
Ha. I hate getting hit by stray bits of food. I once sat in the front row of a play that had a small refrigerator right in front of where I was sitting. There was a lot of talk of food, and much opening and closing of the refrigerator, putting things in. As might have been predicted, the climax of the show involved stuff coming out of that refrigerator.
Dialogue that I've never forgotten from that play:
What's that smell in here?Do artichokes roll when they hit the pitched floor of a stage? Yes, so don't sit in the front row.
Artichokes.
Artichokes, huh? Smells like stale piss. Never was big on vegetables myself. I'm a steak man. "Meat and blood," that's my motto. Keeps your bones hard as ivory.
The Blogger comments problem is sapping my strength.
I used to blog without comments. I used to like it like that:
Since late last night, Blogger has had a problem displaying comments, and I'm being forced back into the old experience of blogging without comments. (I do see them in the email, but it's not the same when they aren't here and when the readers aren't talking to each other.)
I used to prefer writing without comments, but over the years, I've gotten so accustomed to the familiar environment of comments that writing without the prospect of comments feels like speaking out loud when there's no one else in the room. I can do it, but it doesn't feel that different from thinking.
I know you're still there. I need to overcome this absurd block. I seem to need displayed comments, but think of the people who spend years writing books with little assurance that they will be read at all. You have to find a different attitude toward writing. I was going to say that the book-writer writes more for himself, for the intrinsic reward of writing, but in fact, the book-writer needs to obsess more about who will read this. The blogger can see that people are reading and really is more free to write for the intrinsic reward. I'm so into that immediate reward that I'm greedy for more of it — in the form of displayed comments.
But the display will go up, eventually, and you will see what you and others have been writing, in this unusual context of not seeing what others are saying. In the meantime, you can display opinion now, thusly:
What has been your worst blogging experience?Ha! How much thinner my skin was in 2004!
My brief experience with the comments function, which a couple of nasty people ruined for everybody.
Since late last night, Blogger has had a problem displaying comments, and I'm being forced back into the old experience of blogging without comments. (I do see them in the email, but it's not the same when they aren't here and when the readers aren't talking to each other.)
I used to prefer writing without comments, but over the years, I've gotten so accustomed to the familiar environment of comments that writing without the prospect of comments feels like speaking out loud when there's no one else in the room. I can do it, but it doesn't feel that different from thinking.
I know you're still there. I need to overcome this absurd block. I seem to need displayed comments, but think of the people who spend years writing books with little assurance that they will be read at all. You have to find a different attitude toward writing. I was going to say that the book-writer writes more for himself, for the intrinsic reward of writing, but in fact, the book-writer needs to obsess more about who will read this. The blogger can see that people are reading and really is more free to write for the intrinsic reward. I'm so into that immediate reward that I'm greedy for more of it — in the form of displayed comments.
But the display will go up, eventually, and you will see what you and others have been writing, in this unusual context of not seeing what others are saying. In the meantime, you can display opinion now, thusly:
July 5, 2010
Comments glitch.
Comments aren't showing up right now for some reason. It's a problem on a number of Blogger blogs at the moment. I can read your comments in gmail and I assume they'll go up soon. So don't worry that your comments are getting lost.
UPDATE: Blogger (the entity) is aware of the problem and working on it.
UPDATE: Blogger (the entity) is aware of the problem and working on it.
Butterfly.
Seen today in Governor Nelson Park... along with lots of mosquitos... and black raspberries.
"The most socially skilled among us — those who project the emotions they intend, when they intend to — are not wedded to any one strategy."
There are various strategies: "concealing (i.e., suppression), adjusting (quickly calming anger, for instance) and tolerating (openly expressing emotion)." Be flexible. For more social success.
Obama asked NASA "to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."
To be fair, that wasn't the only goal. There was also: "to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math" and "to expand our international relationships."
Oh, admit it! The point of science is to feel good about how we can do science.
Oh, admit it! The point of science is to feel good about how we can do science.
Remember when Lesley Gore was Pussycat, one of Catwoman's minions?
I didn't remember that either. I was just reading about Lesley Gore because I happened to hear an old song of hers — "Maybe I Know" — on the radio.
This morning's Drudgedy.
Another in a continuing series examining the humor of the juxtapositions of photographs on The Drudge Report. (And thanks to the reader who emailed me the tip.)
"A few generations ago, people weren’t stopping to contemplate whether having a child would make them happy."
"Having children was simply what you did. And we are lucky, today, to have choices about these matters. But the abundance of choices — whether to have kids, when, how many — may be one of the reasons parents are less happy."
Another manifestation of that trendy liberal theme: Choice won't make you happy.
This post makes an interesting pairing with the 10:13 post, which noted that suddenly and strangely:
Another manifestation of that trendy liberal theme: Choice won't make you happy.
***
This post makes an interesting pairing with the 10:13 post, which noted that suddenly and strangely:
Liberals worry about constitutional rights getting in the way of legislation, and conservatives have cozied up to the notion of unwritten rights. For that to happen, everyone has to stop focusing on the right of privacy.
"No one ever said it better than Osama bin Laden."
When people see a column by Thomas Friedman and a humor piece in The New Yorker, by nature they will....
"Sadly, the 4x4 has become an acceptable alternative to Mercedes or BMW for the pompous, self-important driver."
"To use them for the school run, or even in cities or towns at all, is completely stupid."
The creator of the Range Rover, Charles Spencer King, dead at 85.
The creator of the Range Rover, Charles Spencer King, dead at 85.
"It seems to me that there's still reefer madness. It doesn't make any sense to just steal the cash and the herb."
The LAPD is closing down the medical marijuana dispensaries pot stores.
AND:
AND:
The team conducted three busts before the one at Colorado Collective, making a half-dozen arrests, seizing $7,265 in cash and 43 pounds of marijuana at Kush Korner II in Wilmington, Nirvana Pharmacy in Westwood and Kind for Cures in a former Kentucky Fried Chicken store in Palms.Wow, there's a "South Park" episode about that KFC that became a pot store: "Medicinal Fried Chicken."
"[T]he first full-sky image from Europe's Planck telescope which was sent into space last year to survey the 'oldest light' in the cosmos."
"It took the 600m-euro observatory just over six months to assemble the map. It shows what is visible beyond the Earth to instruments that are sensitive to light at very long wavelengths - much longer than what we can sense with our eyes.... 'What you see is the structure of our galaxy in gas and dust...'"
A picture worth taking a look at, don't you think?
A picture worth taking a look at, don't you think?
"[T]he Roberts court demonstrated its determination to act aggressively to undo aspects of law it found wanting, no matter the cost."
The NYT gives its opinion of the Supreme Court's just-concluded Term:
But the New York Times must, on schedule, wind up its readers about the conservatives on the Supreme Court. It's all such tedious sophistry.
[T]he tone and posture of the court’s conservative majority made clear that it is not done asserting itself in redefining campaign finance laws, the rights of corporations, national security powers and the ownership of guns....Much of this is the familiar hand-wringing over Citizens United. The editors admit that a lot of what happened isn't so bad, but it must be bad. It's the Roberts Court. So:
Still, the problematic decisions continue to leave us worried about upcoming terms, where more decisions about fundamental rights await. In the last month alone, majorities on the court said gun ownership was a fundamental Second Amendment right that applies to states and cities, while reducing the First Amendment rights of those who try to pacify terrorist groups.Notice the big flip that's taken place in the last year or so. Liberals worry about constitutional rights getting in the way of legislation, and conservatives have cozied up to the notion of unwritten rights. For that to happen, everyone has to stop focusing on the right of privacy. Isn't it odd?
If Elena Kagan is confirmed, her first task will be to keep her pledge and help the court realize that judicial modesty actually means something.There's no other reference in the editorial to "judicial modesty" or Elena Kagan so I'm not sure what Kagan said that's being interpreted as a pledge by the new Justice to go in there and school the oldsters about what something really means. But everyone who has any sophistication about law knows that the Constitution trumps legislation and the question is the scope of constitutional rights. The nominees aren't asked to say — nor would they say — that they will interpret rights narrowly so that more legislation will survive or, conversely, that they will interpret rights expansively and nullify democratic decisionmaking. They're all asked to say and they all promise to say exactly what the rights really are and to enforce those rights despite pressure to allow the democratic choice to prevail and despite their own preferences about what ought to be legislated.
But the New York Times must, on schedule, wind up its readers about the conservatives on the Supreme Court. It's all such tedious sophistry.
July 4, 2010
The Lockerbie bomber is not dead yet.
He was released in August 2009, out of "compassion." The doctor whose opinion was relied on says:
"There was always a chance he could live for 10 years, 20 years ... But it's very unusual. It was clear that three months was what they were aiming for. Three months was the critical point. On the balance of probabilities, I felt I could sort of justify [that].... It is embarrassing that he's gone on for so long... There was a 50 per cent chance that he would die in three months, but there was also a 50 per cent chance that he would live longer."
"So often, powerful forces and powerful interests stand in your way, and the odds seem stacked against you...."
"I want you to know this: I've taken on the powerful forces. And as president, I'll stand up to them. ... It's about our people, our families, and our future — and whether forces standing in your way will keep you from having a better life...."
Just something Al Gore once said, as noted by Mickey Kaus in the year 2000. It came up in conversation this morning as we were talking about — can you guess? — the origin of religion. I was riffing on the idea — based on my memories of "The Evolution of God" — that primitive man perceived the entire environment as imbued with spirit and — this may not be in the book — there had to have be individuals in early human times who saw how to amass power by making it seem as though they could influence or appease whatever spirit or spirits made things — such as weather — happen in the world. This led — can you see how? — to a discussion of Al Gore.
Just something Al Gore once said, as noted by Mickey Kaus in the year 2000. It came up in conversation this morning as we were talking about — can you guess? — the origin of religion. I was riffing on the idea — based on my memories of "The Evolution of God" — that primitive man perceived the entire environment as imbued with spirit and — this may not be in the book — there had to have be individuals in early human times who saw how to amass power by making it seem as though they could influence or appease whatever spirit or spirits made things — such as weather — happen in the world. This led — can you see how? — to a discussion of Al Gore.
Distant fireworks.
Seen — last night — from across the lake. No explosive sounds, just crowd murmurs...
... and the sound of a boombox somewhere tuned to the radio channel that plays the official "Rhythm and Booms" soundtrack. Earlier, pop tunes played. "Man in the Mirror," for example. Meade said they needed some more patriotic songs. And then, as if on cue, the final set of songs began — "Off We Go into the Wild Blue Yonder," "The Marine Hymn," "Stars and Stripes Forever," "The Battle Hymn of the Republic".... All played and I heard no Madisonian dissenting opinion from this crowd. Many noticed "Taps" and stood.
... and the sound of a boombox somewhere tuned to the radio channel that plays the official "Rhythm and Booms" soundtrack. Earlier, pop tunes played. "Man in the Mirror," for example. Meade said they needed some more patriotic songs. And then, as if on cue, the final set of songs began — "Off We Go into the Wild Blue Yonder," "The Marine Hymn," "Stars and Stripes Forever," "The Battle Hymn of the Republic".... All played and I heard no Madisonian dissenting opinion from this crowd. Many noticed "Taps" and stood.
Happy 4th!
This was the scene on the Terrace last night, watching the big fireworks show across the lake...
What a throng! It was like fireworks Woodstock. Replete with nudity: When the show was over, and much of the crowd, including (we will assume) all the children, had cleared out, a few young guys shed their clothes, dove into the lake, swam around, hopped out, ran to the end of the pier, and dove in again. One display and then another.
July 3, 2010
Madison street theater: The Madtown Liberty Players depict the history of war in Afghanistan.
In less than 4 and a half minutes:
Today on the Capitol Square in Madison, Wisconsin.
Today on the Capitol Square in Madison, Wisconsin.
Which face is more attractive to you? Each is a composite of 8 female faces.
The 8 women were grouped based on foot size:
The women used for the face on the left had unusually small feet, and the women used for the face on the right had unusually large feet. I think it's clear that the small-footed morph is prettier, but the evolutionary psychologists effort at an explanation strikes me as a particularly silly example of after-the-fact bullshit.
As usual, the more attractive thing is presented as representing better health and suitability for producing offspring. But don't you think the woman on the right looks healthier?
Interestingly, the morphs done on male faces found that women were especially attracted to the faces morphed from men with small wrists. Explain that, oh, evolutionary psychologist bullshit artist. Of course, they can explain it, because they are up for explaining everything that happens to be.
The women used for the face on the left had unusually small feet, and the women used for the face on the right had unusually large feet. I think it's clear that the small-footed morph is prettier, but the evolutionary psychologists effort at an explanation strikes me as a particularly silly example of after-the-fact bullshit.
As usual, the more attractive thing is presented as representing better health and suitability for producing offspring. But don't you think the woman on the right looks healthier?
Interestingly, the morphs done on male faces found that women were especially attracted to the faces morphed from men with small wrists. Explain that, oh, evolutionary psychologist bullshit artist. Of course, they can explain it, because they are up for explaining everything that happens to be.
Madison men out and about in their shorts...
You know I think most men in shorts look like overgrown children, so what can you say when the man carries balloons? You can say the younger man is carrying a little girl, and the older man must be carrying the girl's balloons for her.
"The United States of America is the greatest, the noblest and, in its original founding principles, the only moral country in the history of the world."
The Ayn Rand table at the Farmers Market — on the Capitol Square in Madison, Wisconsin today:
(Enlarge.)
(Enlarge.)
With all this talk of Al Gore's inappropriate massage, have we forgotten about George Bush's inappropriate massage?!
Let's get matters into proportion, people.
At the Holiday Weekend Café...
... you can carry on without me. I'll have some news-related stuff later, but for now, I'm up late and the family is hankering to get out into the 3-D world of commerce and recreation. Back later!
July 2, 2010
Today's exercise in the comedy of Drudge photographic juxtapositions — AKA Drudgedy.
At Drudge right now, the picture at the very top is the Obama-with-winged-fingers that we were talking about yesterday, but let's talk about this collection of images:
This is a mysterious one, so let's brainstorm. The first thing I noticed was how that Google "You can trust us with your data" device — whatever it really is — looks like it's designed to stamp beanies onto the Pope's head or perhaps to examine/muddle/read the mind of the Pope. In the center column, the space shuttle is a simple and obvious phallic symbol. The left column — which we may interpret in relation to the giant technological phallus — is mainly hands: Nancy Pelosi's outstretched palm and Arnold Schwarzenegger's thumb-to-fingers grasp approaching 3 phallic microphones thrust toward his face.
Okay, you take it from there.
This is a mysterious one, so let's brainstorm. The first thing I noticed was how that Google "You can trust us with your data" device — whatever it really is — looks like it's designed to stamp beanies onto the Pope's head or perhaps to examine/muddle/read the mind of the Pope. In the center column, the space shuttle is a simple and obvious phallic symbol. The left column — which we may interpret in relation to the giant technological phallus — is mainly hands: Nancy Pelosi's outstretched palm and Arnold Schwarzenegger's thumb-to-fingers grasp approaching 3 phallic microphones thrust toward his face.
Okay, you take it from there.
"At this moment, 4,547 comments have rained down upon me for that blog entry."
"I'm informed by Wayne Hepner, who turned them into a text file: 'It's more than Anna Karenina, David Copperfield and The Brothers Karamazov.' I would rather have reread all three than vet that thread. Still, they were a good set of comments for the most part. Perhaps 300 supported my position. The rest were united in opposition."
That's Roger Ebert talking about a blog post of his called "Video games can never be art."
The reason I'm noticing this brouhaha is that, checking my Site Meter, I saw I was getting a ton of traffic from Bing on a search for "roger ebert apologizes." I wanted to know what was stirring people up today, and kind of sorry they were dropping by my blog only to be disappointed to find something I wrote back in October 2008 called "Roger Ebert apologizes for reviewing the first 8 minutes of a movie."
Funnily, Ebert's new post begins:
AND: "I would rather have reread all three than vet that thread" insults the 3 novels doesn't it?
That's Roger Ebert talking about a blog post of his called "Video games can never be art."
The reason I'm noticing this brouhaha is that, checking my Site Meter, I saw I was getting a ton of traffic from Bing on a search for "roger ebert apologizes." I wanted to know what was stirring people up today, and kind of sorry they were dropping by my blog only to be disappointed to find something I wrote back in October 2008 called "Roger Ebert apologizes for reviewing the first 8 minutes of a movie."
Funnily, Ebert's new post begins:
I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place. I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn't seen.I think my old post does have some relevance: It calls that second sentence into question. I can see a lawyerly way to defend it, but it's pretty weasely.
AND: "I would rather have reread all three than vet that thread" insults the 3 novels doesn't it?
"She will be buried up to her chest, deeper than a man would be..."
"... and the stones that will be hurled at her will be large enough to cause pain but not so large as to kill her immediately..."
Death by stoning in Iran. The crime is adultery. The evidence was a confession obtained after 99 lashes.
Death by stoning in Iran. The crime is adultery. The evidence was a confession obtained after 99 lashes.
Obama is the 15th greatest President of all time.
According to a survey of 238 presidential scholars:
George W. Bush is at 39th place: "a steep drop from 23rd place, which is where Bush ranked when he entered the survey after his first year in office." He got marked way down for his low capacity for compromise. Plus he was the second-to-the-dumbest President. Harding was the biggest dunce.
The linked article is in The Daily News, which also has a poll asking readers to pick "the best president of your lifetime." The Democratic Party choices are getting nearly all the votes, with Barack Obama the biggest winner at 37%. The Republican choices can only scrape together 6% of the votes total, with Reagan hogging 5%. George W. Bush gets 1%. George H.W. Bush is left off the list, but the so is Jimmy Carter — would anyone say Carter? — and there is an "Other" choice, so it's balanced.
I'll redo the survey here, for what it's worth. I'm including all the Presidents but only going back to Carter. A lot of us are older, but it's screwy to have some of us voting for guys that other readers can't vote for.
In office for barely two years, Obama entered the survey in the 15th position - two spots behind Bill Clinton and three spots ahead of Ronald Reagan.Yeah, they marked him down because of his humble beginnings. He should have been higher.
Obama got high marks for intelligence, ability to communicate and imagination, but his score was dragged down by his relative lack of experience and family background.
George W. Bush is at 39th place: "a steep drop from 23rd place, which is where Bush ranked when he entered the survey after his first year in office." He got marked way down for his low capacity for compromise. Plus he was the second-to-the-dumbest President. Harding was the biggest dunce.
The linked article is in The Daily News, which also has a poll asking readers to pick "the best president of your lifetime." The Democratic Party choices are getting nearly all the votes, with Barack Obama the biggest winner at 37%. The Republican choices can only scrape together 6% of the votes total, with Reagan hogging 5%. George W. Bush gets 1%. George H.W. Bush is left off the list, but the so is Jimmy Carter — would anyone say Carter? — and there is an "Other" choice, so it's balanced.
I'll redo the survey here, for what it's worth. I'm including all the Presidents but only going back to Carter. A lot of us are older, but it's screwy to have some of us voting for guys that other readers can't vote for.
Apple on the supposed problems with the new iPhone: "Their big drop in bars is because their high bars were never real in the first place."
So it's not a flaw in the new iPhone, it's something that was phony in all the phones all along. Hmmm. How convenient! Just when I was trying to decide if I should buy the new iPhone or stick with the old one while the bugs are getting ironed out of the new one.
Apple... said it will fix its signal strength formula to conform to other AT&T phones through a free software update for iPhone models 3G, 3Gs and 4 within a few weeks.Massaging our perceptions. Who knows if the reception is really bad or not? People are fixated on the way their bars look. So make the bars bigger.
''We are also making bars 1, 2 and 3 a bit taller so they will be easier to see,'' Apple said.
July 1, 2010
At the Reading-by-the-Lake Café...
... you can take note of your surroundings or blithely indulge your own interests.
"It is not just the Clinton-Lewinsky affair that has generated invocations of 'Rashomon' in recent years."
"'Rashomon' got a workout back when the Senate deliberated over the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas."
From an essay I published back in 2000 that raises some ideas I've been thinking about in connection with the accusations against Al Gore.
I was reading the transcript of the accuser's statement to the police and thinking about how you could film that story — exactly that — in 3 versions: 1. Gore as a violent, misogynistic monster, 2. Gore as an awkward man in search of love who has little sense of the furious thoughts in the massage therapist's mind, and 3. A complex story of 2 imperfect adults.
ADDED: In "Rashomon," the 4 versions of the story are built around a set of external facts: a dead Samurai whose sword and dagger are both missing. In my proposed 3-act play, what will remain the same is the set of outward facts in the accuser's transcript. Yes, in real life, the woman may be lying. I want to assume that every word she says was spoken was in fact spoken — release the second chakra, etc. — and every action she says took place — the hug, the chocolates, etc. — in fact took place. That is, I'll write a screenplay with all the internal dialogue and feelings stripped out. Then 2 highly skilled actors play the script 3 times, with the 3 directions stated above. I think it can be done, and I think it would be a fascinating study. What does that have to do with the real question of what Al Gore did? It would get us away from the woman's subjective experience and allow us to focus on Gore's culpability — his subjective experience. Of course, it's still possible that the woman is lying or has some of the facts wrong. I'm not trying to brush that aside. I only want to try to figure out whether, if what she said is true, Gore might not be as bad as he seems when you read the transcript that is, unedited, filled with internal dialogue and descriptions of her feelings.
From an essay I published back in 2000 that raises some ideas I've been thinking about in connection with the accusations against Al Gore.
I was reading the transcript of the accuser's statement to the police and thinking about how you could film that story — exactly that — in 3 versions: 1. Gore as a violent, misogynistic monster, 2. Gore as an awkward man in search of love who has little sense of the furious thoughts in the massage therapist's mind, and 3. A complex story of 2 imperfect adults.
ADDED: In "Rashomon," the 4 versions of the story are built around a set of external facts: a dead Samurai whose sword and dagger are both missing. In my proposed 3-act play, what will remain the same is the set of outward facts in the accuser's transcript. Yes, in real life, the woman may be lying. I want to assume that every word she says was spoken was in fact spoken — release the second chakra, etc. — and every action she says took place — the hug, the chocolates, etc. — in fact took place. That is, I'll write a screenplay with all the internal dialogue and feelings stripped out. Then 2 highly skilled actors play the script 3 times, with the 3 directions stated above. I think it can be done, and I think it would be a fascinating study. What does that have to do with the real question of what Al Gore did? It would get us away from the woman's subjective experience and allow us to focus on Gore's culpability — his subjective experience. Of course, it's still possible that the woman is lying or has some of the facts wrong. I'm not trying to brush that aside. I only want to try to figure out whether, if what she said is true, Gore might not be as bad as he seems when you read the transcript that is, unedited, filled with internal dialogue and descriptions of her feelings.
"Everything that was once cutting-edge becomes reality-TV fodder."
Andres "Piss Christ" Serrano as a guest judge on "Work of Art: The Next Great Artist":
The contestants had less than a day to create their "shocking" works of art....Works addressing child sexual abuse, eh? And when you do that, you're not making child pornography, right? Can't have been or it wouldn't have been on TV. You have to shock without really doing anything wrong.
Miles, who has won two previous rounds, created a large illustration of Mickey Mouse involving penis-like embellishments. Last week's winner, John, attempted a painting of a man performing fellatio on himself, while Jaclyn created a series of low-res nude photos of herself. Ryan made a portrait of himself as a transsexual prostitute. Both Erik and Mark created works addressing child sexual abuse.
Taking a different approach, Abdi chose to create a series of molds depicting young black youths as bombs ready to go off.Sounds racist — but racism is still shocking, right? — and like a rip off of the infamous Muhammad-with-a-bomb-turban cartoon. Abdi is a Muslim name, by the way. But a little research shows that Abdi is black, so presumably that was TV-okay.
Because of the nature of the challenge, the episode featured a lot of bleeped words and blurred images.All the better for DVD sales.
They criticized John's work for its cartoon-like execution and for the fact that he misspelled "fellatio" as "follatio."Ha ha. Spelling error! Ding!
Yet more photo-fun on Drudge.
Earlier, I showed you Drudge's "heat is on" picture of Al Gore with a picture of Obama slightly below, wiping his brow, and a picture of Biden gesturing — arms spread and palms out — just like Gore. Gore was at the top of the page, Obama was in the left column, and Biden was in the center column. A little later in the day, this went up in the third column:
Obama's upstretched hands are a bit different from Gore's and Biden's, but the resonance is there. What's also notable are the little wings "on" his hands — actually, probably, eagle decorations on top of flagpoles set up behind him. Then, a little below that, there's Eric Holder photographed in front of an eagle in such a way as to make it look like wings grow out of his neck. This is all, I'm sure, intentional — typical Drudge fun with photos. We might call it "Drudgery," but I'd prefer a portmanteau of Drudge + comedy: Drudgedy.
And quite aside from all that. Those 2 stories in red type are pretty important:
Obama's upstretched hands are a bit different from Gore's and Biden's, but the resonance is there. What's also notable are the little wings "on" his hands — actually, probably, eagle decorations on top of flagpoles set up behind him. Then, a little below that, there's Eric Holder photographed in front of an eagle in such a way as to make it look like wings grow out of his neck. This is all, I'm sure, intentional — typical Drudge fun with photos. We might call it "Drudgery," but I'd prefer a portmanteau of Drudge + comedy: Drudgedy.
And quite aside from all that. Those 2 stories in red type are pretty important:
Obama calls AZ immigration law 'unenforceable'...Both of those deserve separate blog posts. Forgive me for presenting them as if they are nothing more than afterthoughts. Please discuss them in the comments, and I will, if I can, write better posts later and frontpage some comments.
Justice Lawyer Accuses Holder of Dropping Black Panther Case -- for Racial Reasons...
Over at Media Matters, Eric Boehlert is writing about me.
Eric Boehlert. Eric Boehlert? Oh, I know where I read his name recently. He's a character in Iowahawk's brilliant "I'll Take a Cashier's Check, Mr. Breitbart." He's the one handing out the assignments:
Boehlert goes on to quote me saying that if I were to sue a Journolist member for defamation — something I'm not inkleined to do — I would be able to get discovery into the archive. Eric B. says:
Boehlert imagines that one of my commenters nails his argument for him. Here's that comment:
So, Boehlert, your post is incredibly lame, but, as a law professor, I'll give you a rewrite. I think Media Matters portrays itself as a champion of truth, so... see if you can get a little closer to something that feels a little more truth-y.
On a related note: Yesterday, James Taranto, in Best of the Web, opined that a journalist's shield law would prevent discovery into the Journolist archive in a defamation suit:
EZRA KLEIN: hey boehlert whats the assignmentHa. But why is he on my case? "Ann Althouse continues to blog about Journolist; appears to have no idea what it was," he says. Well, then, release the archive so I can cure my terrible ignorance. That's all I want.
ERIC BOEHLERT: 3 part essay
ERIC BOEHLERT: 1. Explain why unemployment report shows stimulus is working
ERIC BOEHLERT: 2. link BP oil spill to teabaggers
ERIC BOEHLERT: 3. spin latest Gallups
JOSH MARSHALL: crap crap crap and I have a lab assignment for global warming due
ERIC ALTERMAN: o fack me looks like an all niter...
Althouse continues to post item after item about Journolist, despite the fact that... Althouse has no idea what Journolist was.Stop me before I blog ignorantly again, Eric. Send me the archive. Or send it to Breitbart and collect $100,000 and I'll get to it that way.
Boehlert goes on to quote me saying that if I were to sue a Journolist member for defamation — something I'm not inkleined to do — I would be able to get discovery into the archive. Eric B. says:
Althouse, a law school prof and very public blogger, was thinking out loud about suing the owner of Journolist to find out if any of the 400 journalists on the listserv ever wrote anything nasty about her in their private emails. (Ego much?)Eric Boehlert continues to write about me like that even though he has no idea what the thing I wrote that he just quoted says. I cited a specific item of defamation against me that was published on the web and that remains there. If I were to sue based on that remark, I would be able to get discovery into relevant evidence about that claim. Moreover, I know that there are specific, related remarks about me in the Journolist archive, because that remark was tweeted, in Ezra Klein's own words, "after I was alerted to her thread on Journolist."
Boehlert imagines that one of my commenters nails his argument for him. Here's that comment:
I would think a law professor might have a better grasp of this. But on what grounds would you seek the archives? To borrow a popular argument of the right, where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to know what others are saying about you, especially when you have no proof they are saying anything defamatory about you.Clue to Boehlert: Not all law is in the Constitution. The tort of defamation is a matter of state law. The extent of discovery is a matter of procedural law. I don't need a constitutional right. (Conceivably, there is a right that would bar my access to the archive, but I don't need a constitutional right to discovery if I bring a defamation claim.)
So, Boehlert, your post is incredibly lame, but, as a law professor, I'll give you a rewrite. I think Media Matters portrays itself as a champion of truth, so... see if you can get a little closer to something that feels a little more truth-y.
***
On a related note: Yesterday, James Taranto, in Best of the Web, opined that a journalist's shield law would prevent discovery into the Journolist archive in a defamation suit:
Seems to us it would depend on the venue. Most states have some sort of shield law protecting reporters from having to disclose confidential sources, but the specifics vary from state to state. In federal court, however, there is no such privilege.The privilege is about shielding confidential news sources — informants. The Journolist archive contains the statements of journalists talking to each other. I don't see how the privilege could apply.
[Journalists] should, of course, have all the legal protections of the First Amendment, which among other things mean that Althouse almost certainly would not win her defamation suit against Klein. His offending tweet, it seems to us, is a constitutionally protected opinion rather than a false statement of fact.One reason I have no interest in suing is that I want the broadest First Amendment rights here. I would not want to have to argue that the statement in question — "Ann Althouse sure has a lot of anti-semitic commenters" — is not an opinion but a false statement of fact. But I'm afraid it is, quite plainly, a false statement of fact.
"You're a bitch"/"I didn't do anything"/"Did so."
The Mel Gibson tapes. And that's not the worst of it.
The tapes do not make it clear what the couple was arguing about.That's not the worst of it either. I excerpted the bit in the title because of the childishness of "Did so." I excerpted the other part because Gibson chose Oksana Grigorieva presumably because of and not in spite of her looks. But maybe "every part" included her soul and it was only after harsh experience that he was able to determine that that part of her was fucking fake too. But our Mel — he is not fucking fake. He's always had genuinely great looks and a genuinely horrible temper.
But Mel tells Oksana, "Look what you did to me... look what you are... look what every part of you is... f**king fake... f**king fake.
"You are the most synthetic person... who the f*** are you?"
The TV series based on a Twitter feed.
The Twitter feed is Shit My Dad Says. The show is "S#*! My Dad Says." It's on CBS, so dad can't say "shit." The dad is William Shatner....
I'm not able to give a sane assessment of whether the show could possibly be any good — and I love the Twitter feed — because the jaunty music track that ran through that whole clip redirected all my energy into the struggle to retain the will to live.
I'm not able to give a sane assessment of whether the show could possibly be any good — and I love the Twitter feed — because the jaunty music track that ran through that whole clip redirected all my energy into the struggle to retain the will to live.
Another Drudge juxtaposition: the "heat is on" Al Gore...
... and Obama is wiping his brow:
IN THE COMMENTS: Meade says:
IN THE COMMENTS: Meade says:
And Vice President Bite Me also looks woeful.Ha! I didn't see that when I cropped the picture, but Biden's hand-gestures mirror Gore's. Matt Drudge is a comic genius. There's nothing fair about roping Obama and Biden into Gore's horrible problem, but it's just the juxtaposition of images (along with the glue of language — here, "heat"). It's a kind of silliness — or a devious subliminal attack — that seems wrong, but the wrong disappears if you look closely and try to figure out what he did wrong.
"I feared that if I ran for the door to get out, I could or would be violently accosted by some security detail."
HuffPo writes, noting that Portland police have reopened the case against Al Gore.
ADDED: What makes a man treat a woman like that? Generally, I think it's because he's done things like that before, many times, and gotten away with it. We're talking about an older man, with a big reputation and a lot to lose. Why would he proceed in such a crude fashion? I would guess that his sensibilities have numbed over the years, as women acceded to his moves. The moves became less and less elaborate.
"I felt certain that any, even the smallest complaint from him to the hotel, could also destroy my work reputation."...So "crazed sex poodle" was an expression she directed at Gore, in an effort to prompt him to see himself in a different light and change what he was doing. Maybe he'd laugh and/or be embarrassed.
"I finally told him and said, you're being a crazed sex poodle, hoping he'd realize how weird he was being, yet he persisted"...
The woman said Gore's "Mr. Smiley Global Warming" persona differed from his actions and made her afraid....It's painful when your own hero falls. Quite aside from global warming, what about feminism? If the massage therapist's story is true, we are looking at the same problem we saw with Clinton. There are politicians who give the appearance of caring about the equality of women. It's a principle that, conceptually, is a necessary part of a political ideology they need to appear to hold. But maybe they don't really believe it at all. What a dirty secret, thinking that women exist to serve you!
After the alleged incident, the woman said she was dissuaded from contacting the police by liberal friends of hers, whom she refers to as "The Birkenstock Tribe," and of which she counts herself a member.
"It's like being the ultimate traitor," the woman said.
ADDED: What makes a man treat a woman like that? Generally, I think it's because he's done things like that before, many times, and gotten away with it. We're talking about an older man, with a big reputation and a lot to lose. Why would he proceed in such a crude fashion? I would guess that his sensibilities have numbed over the years, as women acceded to his moves. The moves became less and less elaborate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
