Under Murdoch’s control, the Post has trafficked in the type of malicious, salacious tabloid journalism practiced by the now-defunct News of the World and the still-reeking Sun. The paper has delighted in breaking (and making) politicians, smearing enemies, and ridiculing many ordinary citizens. Its utter amorality was on recent display in its coverage of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn affair, when in a matter of days it abruptly pivoted on its front page from calling him a “perv” to labeling his accuser a “hooker” (for which she is now suing the paper).On a completely different note, I've been off blogging this evening thanks to very relaxing (and entertaining) company for dinner. Back to school, tomorrow, I'm afraid; two weeks is far too short, I must say. Although I'm not dreading it, I can't say I'm at all looking forward to it. However, it must be said that the establishment of some routine would be nice, given that the last two weeks have been somewhat lacking in that department. Anyhow, everyone needs a proper education – or is that schooling? Often it feels there's too big a distinction between the two – a distinciton Mark Twain would most certainly have us make.
Yet the sins of the Post are mild when compared with those of the real centerpiece of Murdoch’s American holdings, the Fox News Channel. Since being launched in 1996, Fox has had a profound and toxic effect on the press and politics in this country. With a daily prime-time viewership of around 2 million—more than that of CNN and MSNBC combined—it has become the Republican Party’s most powerful booster. “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox,” David Frum, a former George W. Bush speechwriter, has observed. Fox has put several Republican presidential hopefuls on its payroll and allowed other candidates to fund-raise on its shows. After appearing on Sean Hannity’s program, for instance, 2010 senatorial candidate Sharron Angle boasted that that she had raised $40,000 before even leaving the studio.
Facebook | 
Twitter | 
Tumblr
Is the New York Post really the best target for investigation, or should it be Fox?
NEW YORK POST UNDER SCRUTINY, CTD: Michael Massing feels that the offenses of the Post pale in comparison to those of Rupert Murdoch's other American powerhouse, the Fox News Channel.
Missouri outlaws teacher-student Facebook friendship
IT'S THE LAW: Missouri outlaws teacher-student Facebook friendship.
Harry Reid delays debt vote
REID POSTPONES VOTE: The Post reports: "Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid announced late Saturday that negotiations with Minroity Leader Mitch McConnell and the White House had made enough progress that he would delay consideration of his own legislation to avert the debt crisis."
WHOM WILL THE PUBLIC BLAME? Asks Erza Klei, citing a number of results from polls which reveal how the general public is digesting the 'debtageddon'. "Thus far, this debate isn’t helping anybody. Obama’s approval rating hit 40 percent in the most recent Gallup poll — a new low for him. But it’s devastating the GOP [...] confidence in the Republican leaders has fallen by more than 10 percentage points since February. They’re now well below the Democrats. That’s good news for House Democrats, in particular. But it’s also evidence that Obama’s strategy of trying to personally manage the negotiations hasn’t improved his numbers. Which is why it’s probably helping him that Boehner decided to move the negotiations over to Congress and assume more of the blame himself." Read the whole thing. Althouse hates his 'prissily correct' grammar.
Reid’s announcement disrupted an air of desperation that had settled over the Capitol earlier in the day as rank-and-file lawmakers pleaded with their leaders to set politics aside and strike a bipartisan deal. After months of negotiation and weeks of debate, every black-and-white plan for cutting government spending and raising the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling was either doomed or had already been shot down. As the battle entered its final hours, the nation’s leaders were left bickering among themselves, unable to agree even on a modest version of the deal they said they were close to sealing a week ago. Their remaining differences were not especially large, but a resolution appeared to remain elusive.Read the rest of the article. I particularly liked John Kerry's comments. "It really shouldn’t be this difficult," he is reported to have said in his speech on the Senate floor. "I believe there’s a bipartisan consensus here in the Senate . . . if we stop talking past each other." My sentiments exactly.
WHOM WILL THE PUBLIC BLAME? Asks Erza Klei, citing a number of results from polls which reveal how the general public is digesting the 'debtageddon'. "Thus far, this debate isn’t helping anybody. Obama’s approval rating hit 40 percent in the most recent Gallup poll — a new low for him. But it’s devastating the GOP [...] confidence in the Republican leaders has fallen by more than 10 percentage points since February. They’re now well below the Democrats. That’s good news for House Democrats, in particular. But it’s also evidence that Obama’s strategy of trying to personally manage the negotiations hasn’t improved his numbers. Which is why it’s probably helping him that Boehner decided to move the negotiations over to Congress and assume more of the blame himself." Read the whole thing. Althouse hates his 'prissily correct' grammar.
Quote of the Day: James Madison, 1785
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." – James Madison, 1785.
Michelle Bachmann's hypocrisy
BACHMANN'S HYPOCRISY: I actually don't think this is as bad as people would like to think. Not only that, but I think that her rebuttal, contrary to the Think Progress view, was well formed and thought-out. "It’s almost impossible to buy a home in this country today without the federal government being involved." To be completely honest, none of Bachmann's fiscal policies concern me in the slightest – in fact, I happen to agree with many of them. Where I do harbour profound concern regarding her candidacy, however, is in her disgustingly invasive social policy: my mood runs a fine line between amusement and surprise when I consider that the GOP denounces big government, yet somehow finds it ideologically acceptable for government to put bans on things like gay marriage and abortion. It seems so contradictory to me, and yet it appears to be commonplace. Bachmann's social policy, it must be noted, is further polluted by her husband, Marcus Bachmann, who operates what could only be accurately described as a 'gay curing clinic', and has even received taxpayer money for his 'services'. Ugh.
'The Milkman in the Night'
THE MILKMAN IN THE NIGHT: Marina Lewycka reviews Andrey Kurkov's 'absurdist tale of post-Soviet Ukraine.' Money quote: "There’s a fine line in absurdism between consequential craziness and silliness just for the sake of it, and in this book it’s not always clear which is which."
The art of ventriloquism
THE ART OF VENTRILOQUISM: Avi Steinberg explains:
Human perception, which functions by fusing simultaneous streams of sensory information, works on the assumption that if auditory and visual stimuli occur in proximity—close in both space and in time—they must be caused by a single source, the one you see. So when we watch lips moving in sync with an unrelated sound, our brain simply denies the confusion, the strange coincidence of these two events, and instead processes them as though they were one very normal speech act. Thus, a ventriloquist can modulate his voice to make it sound near or far, as though it were muffled in a box, or gurgling up from underwater, but he doesn’t actually “throw his voice” in any particular direction; he just tosses it to the audience and they—their eyes, their brain—place it in the lips of the dummy.It's certainly an interesting mixture of art and science, although I've never been that much of a fan myself. (quote and link via TDD)
This accounts for why post-Enlightenment ventriloquism continues to be bothersome. The problem lies not in the nefarious methods or motivations of the ventriloquist but rather in what it says about us, about our capacity for self-deception. True, the effect may be orchestrated by a sordid stranger in a Hawaiian shirt, but it is we who carry out the illusion. Nor does an understanding of the ventriloquist effect free us from its power. On the contrary, it forces us to witness just how pitifully our brain glosses over problems, how seamlessly it weaves its convenient answers. Our sensory system is as much a puppet as the duck with the googly eyes. As it turns out, there is wisdom in that old routine in which the dummy turns to his master and says, “No, you’re the dummy.”
Slaughterhouse-Five banned by Missouri school
VONNEGUT BANNED: Apparently Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five has been banned by a Missouri school, following claims by a local university professor that the author's celebrated second novel "contains so much profane language, it would make a sailor blush with shame." The school, in the same move, banished Sarah Ockler's young adult novel Twenty Boy Summer. The Guardian reports:
Following the decision to remove her novel from school shelves in Missouri, Ockler said that "you can ban my books from every damn district in the country — I'm still not going to write to send messages or make teens feel guilty because they've made choices that some people want to pretend don't exist. That's my choice. And I'll never be ashamed of my choice to write about real issues." [...] The "crazy train", she added, "has finally derailed" following the Missouri ban. "Look, I've said it before and I'll say it a million times more. I get that my book isn't appropriate for all teens, and that some parents are opposed to the content. That's fine. Read it and decide for your own family. I wish more parents would do that — get involved in their kids' reading and discuss the issues the books portray. But don't make that decision for everyone else's family by limiting a book's availability and burying the issue under guise of a 'curriculum discussion'."I really can't stand this sort of thing; if you're offended by literary content about sex and other adult themes, for God's sake, don't read Shakespeare: Othello, to name one, is laced with dialogue of a sexual nature.
Apple now has more cash than the US government
PRESIDENT JOBS: Apple now has more cash than the US government. "As Republicans and Democrats continue to work towards a compromise to the country’s debt ceiling crisis, the U.S. Treasury Department said on Thursday that Washington now has a total operating balance of only US$73.768-billion. Meanwhile, Apple currently boasts a cash reserve of US$75.876-billion, as of its most recent quarterly earnings report at the end of June." Amusing, although the Financial Post is quick to point out differences in measurement: "Of course, the numbers aren’t directly comparable; the government’s
number represents how much financial headroom it has before bumping up
against an arbitrary debt ceiling, while Apple’s cash reserve represents
the pile of money the Cupertino, California-based company has available
on its balance sheet." Thanks for spoiling our fun.
Thoughts on the 'George Bush 9/11 reaction' non-story
THE REACTION: I know I'm a little late to this, but quite a bit of coverage has been devoted to George Bush's redundant explanation of his reaction upon learning of the 9/11 attacks. "My first reaction was anger. Who the hell would do that to America?
Then I immediately focused on the children, and the contrast between the
attack and the innocence of children," he told National Geographic Channel. "So I made the decision not to jump up immediately and leave the
classroom. I didn't want to rattle the kids. I wanted to project a sense
of calm." If I may be so frank, the fact that he should have to explain this is a testament to the triviality and abject pettiness of some of the criticism directed at him throughout his presidency: that is to say that if a president doesn't present a dramatic reaction in such an event, he (or she) should be subject to questioning as to why he remained calm. Don't even get me started on conspiracy theories; I have no time for those.
New York Post comes under scrutiny
NEW YORK POST UNDER SCRUTINY: The Wall Street Journal reports: "News Corp.'s
legal department on Friday issued a notice to New York Post staff
asking them to save any information related to phone hacking and bribery
of government officials, as the company faces ongoing scrutiny in a
reporting-tactics scandal stemming from its News of the World U.K.
tabloid." I think very few people hadn't seen this coming. There was bound to be extra pressure on Murdoch's other newspaper holdings before long; the Post seems like a natural choice. It'll be interesting to see what (if anything) transpires as a result.
In explaining the move, News Corp.'s memo, sent by its in-house legal counsel, cited "press accounts" of inquiries into whether News Corp. employees, agents or subsidiaries had either accessed telephone or other personal data without authorization or made unlawful payments to government officials to obtain information. "Given what has taken place in London, we believe that taking this step will help to underscore how seriously we are taking this matter," the memo said.Such serious is welcomed by regulators, no doubt. Internal investigations might even remove the need for outsiders to come poking around Murdoch's holdings in New York – something they will definitely wish to avoid.
How to eat like a president: essential information
ESSENTIAL INFORMATION: How to eat like a President. The Smithsonian rounds up information on the eating habits of US presidents, from Reagan to Kennedy. This one, on Nixon, I found rather interesting: "This president was eating his share of humble pie when he resigned his
office in the wake of the Watergate scandal. But his actual last meal at
the White House was a simple affair: slices of pineapple arranged
around a plop of cottage cheese, paired with a glass of milk and served
on a silver tray. Somehow I don’t think this particular dish will catch
on in popularity, at least given the context in which it was served." One can't help thinking that, for a final meal at the White House, a more elaborate repast would be called upon, however it must be said that modesty is the best look (particularly, as they point out, given the context). The last thing people want to see in this case is a display of vulgar ostentation, although Nixon never struck me as a particularly pretentious individual.
'In Time' trailer, looks silly
MOVIE TRAILERS: A thriller about a world where time is the only currency. Sounds silly.
How Google dominates us
HOW GOOGLE DOMINATES US: The New York Review of Books' James Gleick writes about the company's persistent importance both online and off, reviewing four books by noted authors, including Steven Levy, a writer for Wired magazine. To quote Levy, on the question of the behemoth's sense of ethical duty: "Google professed a sense of moral purity…but it seemed to have a blind spot regarding the consequences of its own technology on privacy and property rights." One good addition to the list of books would have been Ken Auletta's Googled, and David Vice's The Google Story, although both books are probably too old to be considered.
Senate swiftly rejects Boehner's debt plan, just hours after House passed it
SURPRISE, SURPRISE: Senate swiftly rejects Boehner's debt plan.
Emily White on the loneliness epidemic
THE LONELINESS EPIDEMIC: Emily White, in (what I assume is) an excerpt from her book Lonely, describes some of her experiences of feeling profoundly alone, despite apparent success, intellect and attractiveness: of going shopping simply to talk to cashiers on the weekend. "Furious that my so-called social life had deteriorated to the point where talking to a sales assistant felt like an accomplishment, I picked up a kitchen chair and threw it against the wall. I was humiliated. I was sad... I was very, very lonely."
When I was lonely, I hid my emotional reality and lied outright. I fudged facts and did everything necessary to make my isolated life look full. I hinted that I hadn’t been single for as long as I had. I worked as a lawyer, and if someone at the office suggested I looked tired, I pretended that a busy social life was leaving me drained. I thought I was alone in doing this, but other lonely people I spoke to did the same thing. If they’d spent the evening alone at home, they’d tell others they’d had the most fantastic time, catching up on long overdue phone calls. Weekends on their own would, come Monday morning, mutate into a fictitious round of endless socialising.Read the whole thing, even if it is at the Daily Mail (yeah, sorry about that).
Michael Wolff: Murdochs have to and will step out of day-to-day running
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "I think actually the Murdochs have to and will step out of not only day-to-day running, but they won't have jobs within the company. To restore credibility and to restore trust to this company, the newspapers have to go and the Murdochs have to go I think at the end of the day, what we have here is that the Murdoch name is toxic. I think that this company, its shareholders, its directors, its other managers will want to get as far away from that name as possible." – Michael Wolff, author of The Man Who Owns the News.
Jon Stewart on Bill O'Reilly's double standard
O'REILLY'S DOUBLE STANDARD, CTD: Jon Stewart's got it.
Juan Cole: "Immigration is good for you"
IMMIGRATION IS GOOD FOR YOU: Juan Cole counters anti-immigration arguments.
Overeducated and unemployed: William Pannapacker on grad school
OVEREDUCATED, UNDEREMPLOYED: Slate's William Pannapacker laments the state of higher education, and the problems with grad schools. "Most programs are unconcerned about what happens to students after they graduate, and it's not pretty. In all likelihood, a humanities Ph.D. will place you at a disadvantage competing against 22-year-olds for entry-level jobs that barely require a high-school diploma. A doctorate in English that probably took you 10 years to earn is something you will need to hide like a prison term while you pay off about $40,000 to $100,000 in loans. Your consolation: deep thoughts about critical theory." He makes a good point.
MURDOCH INTERFERENCE: What is happening to the New York Post's coverage of education?
MURDOCH INTERFERENCE: What is happening to the New York Post's coverage of education?
Umberto Eco on the future of the printed word
FEAR NOT, BOOKWORMS: Umberto Eco has no fear that the book is going to disappear, at least not anytime soon.
The Internet has returned us to the alphabet … From now on, everyone has to read. In order to read, you need a medium. This medium cannot simply be a computer screen [...] Either the book will continue to be the medium for reading, or its replacement will resemble what the book has always been, even before the invention of the printing press. Alterations to the book-as-object have modified neither its function nor its grammar for more than 500 years. The book is like the spoon, scissors, the hammer, the wheel. Once invented, it cannot be improved.In spite of my own innate fondness for the printed world, I find his remarks about the 'replacement' to be interesting, in that what he describes, even in a few words only, sounds very much like an ebook of some description. Haven't they been designed to resemble the printed word as much as possible, and isn't that the overall goal of future improvements? Although I would very much like to believe that the book will still be around (and I believe it will) fifty years from now, I reserve doubt as to whether or not it will still harbour mainstream appeal. Not only due to the rise of ebooks, but also because of the general public's fading affinity for literature and writing of a longer form. The printed book will still have fans, I suspect, but it will be the vinyl of literature.
Frequently forgotten facts about the debt ceiling, according to Michael Grunwald
FREQUENTLY FORGOTTEN FACTS: Of which Michael Grunwald would like to remind you. "Starting with: President Obama inherited a $1.2 trillion budget deficit. And: Republican leaders supported the tax cuts and wars
that (along with the recession, another pre-Obama phenomenon) created
that deficit. Also: Republicans engineered this crisis by attaching
unprecedented ideological demands to a routine measure allowing the U.S. to pay its bills. Finally,
Obama and the Democrats keep meeting those demands—for spending cuts,
then for more spending cuts, and even for nothing but spending cuts—but
Republicans keep holding out for more." (via TDD)
Oh, God: Donald Trump has made another video
TRUMP ON DEBT: If you can bear it, Donald Trump has made another video – this time about the debt ceiling. I think Gawker's Jim Newell puts it pretty well:
Why had no one thought to ask death-soaked bubonic replicant Donald Trump, America's foremost lover of declaring bankruptcy, about the debt ceiling until now? In retrospect, it was irresponsible to form a single opinion about the issue of raising America's borrowing limit before soliciting the advice of this prominent capitalist cartoon character, from television. What is to be done, Mr. Trump?Seems he considers himself something of a political fixture following his short-lived, but highly publicised, brush with presidential politics. It's almost a shame: that would've been so entertaining.
Caterina Fake on pseudonymous internet use
WHY GOOGLE CARES ABOUT REAL NAMES, CTD: Caterina Fake, the founder of Flickr (among other companies), weighs in: "Pseudonyms are not in themselves harmful. Yes, they can be used for harm, as when people use them for anonymous, slanderous attacks, trolling, etc., but in the vast majority of cases there is no harm done. Importantly, they can serve to protect vulnerable groups. There’s even a comprehensive list of people harmed by Real Names policies. In the cases where pseudonyms are being abused, it is the harm that should be stopped, not the pseudonyms." I get her point, but still stand by my original opinion.
THE JOYS OF PSEUDONYMOUS WRITING: In the New Yorker, Joanna Kavenna explores Irish novelist John Banville's alter ego, Benjamin Black. (Requires a subscription, I'm afraid; I recommend iPad reading.)
THE JOYS OF PSEUDONYMOUS WRITING: In the New Yorker, Joanna Kavenna explores Irish novelist John Banville's alter ego, Benjamin Black. (Requires a subscription, I'm afraid; I recommend iPad reading.)
Jonathan Chait on Boehner: he has "successfully appealed to the GOP's sense of partisanship."
CHAIT ON BOEHNER: Jonathan Chait argues that John Boehner is using partisanship 'to defeat tactical radicalism'.
It seems that Boehner successfully appealed to the GOP's sense of partisanship. Selling a compromise with Obama as a necessary step toward the fulfillment of one's agenda in a power-sharing arrangement is hard. Selling an attack on Obama in those terms -- even one that does far less to reduce the size of government -- turns out to be pretty easy [...] the Boehner plan is totally unsupportable. But once you've gotten the right to cross the philosophic threshold Boehner has, the next step is a lot easier. Boehner will lose plenty of conservatives if and when he cuts a final deal, but he'll gain Democrats. The key step was breaking down the right's default denialism and sense of entitlement to total victory. That's achieved.And, indeed, it could be argued that Boehner is beginning to look smarter than he initially appeared. "The passage of John Boehner's debt ceiling bill appears to mark the crossing of a certain intellectual threshold for ultra-conservative House Republicans," Chait writes. Exactly.
Are film studios killing the movie theatre?
BAD FOOD PHOTOGRAPHY: Harmon Leon has an unusual hobby.
SAVING THE STUDIOS: Netflix may be the movie industry's saviour, but, particularly with big-budget productions, are the studios killing the movie-going experience?
SAVING THE STUDIOS: Netflix may be the movie industry's saviour, but, particularly with big-budget productions, are the studios killing the movie-going experience?
An apology from Herman Cain on Muslim comments
AN APOLOGY FROM HERMAN CAIN: Finally. Herman Cain, who has come under fire for his controversial position on Islam and frequent demagoguing of Muslims, has released a statement – which I'm going to consider, for the purposes of maintaining faith in the political system, an apology. He said: "While I stand by my opposition to the interference of shariah law into
the American legal system, I remain humble and contrite for any
statements I have made that might have caused offense to Muslim
Americans and their friends. I am truly sorry for any comments that may
have betrayed my commitment to the U.S. Constitution and the freedom of
religion guaranteed by it. Muslims, like all Americans, have the right
to practice their faith freely and peacefully." Weigel has the full statement, and writes: "Robert Putnam's surveys of American religious opinion show that
African-Americans actually have the most affinity toward Muslims. It's a
function, he thinks, of the relatively high amount of contact between
the two groups (which overlap, of course)."
Still, such statistics can't detract heavily from the kind of remarks made by Cain in the past, who has even said that he wouldn't consider appointing Muslim to his cabinet as president, among other remarks. Anyway, this is a good step forward. We can only hope, therefore, that more are likely to follow.
Still, such statistics can't detract heavily from the kind of remarks made by Cain in the past, who has even said that he wouldn't consider appointing Muslim to his cabinet as president, among other remarks. Anyway, this is a good step forward. We can only hope, therefore, that more are likely to follow.
White House holds 'Twitter office hours'
TWITTER OFFICE HOURS: The White House has a new interactive initiative. "Confused about this whole debt ceiling/deficit reduction negotiation
and how it will affect you? Well, if you’re looking to Obama’s White
House to help sort it out for you, they’re offering “Office Hours.”
Yep, that’s right, it’s kinda like college, without the waiting in the
hallway for a professor/teaching assistant/grad student who may or may
not show up. Only the office is on Twitter. And these aren’t TAs. In another outreach effort to flex the White House’s interactive
nature, National Economic Council members Brian Deese and Jason Furman
will be typing away all this week responding to queries live on Twitter." This is a nice gesture. Good to see, in spite of its inherent weirdness. (via Ben Smith)
"Republicans who oppose Boehner's debt deal are playing into Obama's hands." — WSJ Review and Outlook
THE REALITY TEST: Are Republicans who oppose Boehner's plan simply assisting Obama?
The "rules" of Monopoly
THE RULES OF MONOPOLY: Apparently, if you've ever engaged in a riveting game of Monopoly (a board game to which I am partial), chances are you haven't followed the rules. A cause coined The Campaign for Real Monopoly would like to remind you: "Whenever you land on an unowned property you may buy that property from the Bank at its printed price. You receive the Title Deed card showing ownership; place it face up in front of you. If you do not wish to buy the property, the Banker sells it at auction to the highest bidder. The buyer pays the Bank the amount of the bid in cash and receives the Title Deed card for that property. Any player, including the one who declined the option to buy it at the printed price, may bid. Bidding may start at any price." More board game pedantry here.
50 renowned academics talk about religion
ACADEMICS ON GOD: 50 renowned academics talk about religion. The comment thread is also quite interesting, you should have a read should you choose to click through (not on YouTube, of course; the comment threads there are dreadful).
Roger Cohen on the attacks in Norway
BREIVIK'S ENABLERS: Roger Cohen weighs in on the attacks in Norway.
Muslims over the past decade have not done enough to denounce those who deformed their religion in the name of jihadist murder. Will the European and U.S. anti-immigrant Islamophobic crowd now denounce what Breivik has done under their ideological banner? I doubt it. We’ll be hearing a lot about what a loner he was.
Huge social problems have accompanied Muslim immigration in Europe in recent decades, much greater than in the more open United States. There is plenty of blame to go around. Immigrants have often faced racism and exclusion. The values of Islam on women, on marriage and on homosexuality, as well as the very vitality of the religion, have grated on a secular Europe. The picture is not uniform — successful integration exists — but it is troubling."Troubling, perhaps, but something we will all have to tolerate in one sense or another. There is no way around this sort of progress. In denying the integration of other cultures we seem to be denying others of the rights afforded to the original settlers of our nations, themselves immigrants at one stage or another. The real issue surrounding this particular crisis, with regard to religious tolerance, is seen in the widespread double-standard: people are quick to judge Islam following an attack by Muslim extremists, but so many of those same people fail to apply the same generalisation to Christianity in this sort of event. If we choose to deride Islam for events perpetrated by Muslim extremists and jihadists, we must apply the same attitude toward Christianity. Somehow I see this as unlikely, and hope that neither is the case.
The cost of medical paperwork
INEFFICIENCY: The cost of medical paperwork, an infographic.
ESSENTIAL INFORMATION: House Republicans like to psyche themselves up by watching Ben Affleck prepare to beat some guys up. Each to their own, I suppose.
ESSENTIAL INFORMATION: House Republicans like to psyche themselves up by watching Ben Affleck prepare to beat some guys up. Each to their own, I suppose.
Most observers on Wall Street 'are confident' on possibility of debt agreement
QUIET CONFIDENCE: Despite doubts that a deal might not be reached, the New York Times' David Barash writes that most observers on Wall Street are confident that the two sides will reach a crisis-averting agreement.
One of the classic games studied in game theory is chicken: two players rush toward each other, each wanting the other to swerve. The one who does, loses. The trick to winning is for one player to convince the other that under no circumstance will he or she veer off course. For instance, you could insist you’re not really concerned about a crash, or that you might even welcome a collision. Convinced the other driver really feels that way, any rational actor would have to swerve.All historical points aside, I reserve my doubts. Still, they'll probably work something out; they're certainly hoping so.
President Richard M. Nixon attempted to use this tactic during the Vietnam War. Through various back channels and planted news leaks, he gave the impression that he was not only out of patience but also literally out of his mind, such that, even though it would be totally irrational, he just might use a nuclear weapon on Hanoi if Ho Chi Minh, the North Vietnamese leader, didn’t accede to his demands. (It didn’t work.)
James Murdoch's future appears uncertain as meeting nears closer
JAMES MURDOCH'S FUTURE: As a BSkyB meeting looms, the fate of Rupert's son, and his future place in the company, hangs in the balance. "But some smaller shareholders and corporate governance experts have
expressed concerns about the board structure at BSkyB and have raised
questions about whether Mr. Murdoch should stay as chairman." I'm not surprised.
Steve Sailer on Norway attacks
ON NORWAY: Steve Sailer makes a few observations. "For example, throughout his lengthy planning phase, he maintained a public persona online of being anti-Islamic but non-violent and, indeed, rather philosophical. Psychologically, that must be very hard to do. For the rest of us, this guy's ability to play a double game of being reasonable on the surface while homicidal underneath is of course going to be incredibly destructive of all anti-multicultural online dissent...The killer was, perhaps not surprisingly, a juicer. His 1500-page secret document has details of his various steroid cycles. Whether he came up with the idea of killing a bunch of children after he started on steroids, or whether he deliberately chose to use steroids to keep up his will power against attacks of angst, I can't say."
Bill O'Reilly's double standard
O'REILLY'S DOUBLE STANDARD: As if we didn't see this coming. Bill O'Reilly has, rather unsurprisingly, jumped upon his Fox News soapbox to denounce the notion that the deplorable series of attacks in Norway is the result of Christian extremism, which, by his measure, it undoubtedly was — despite his failure to admit it.
This view is actually entirely acceptable: it's okay to dismiss far-flung violence as extremism, to write it of as being something other than what the core members of a faith had intended and taught. But, surely, if you subscribe to this view, you must apply it to every other faith in the world, which O'Reilly does not, and makes this unabashedly unambiguous, albeit in the absence of complete admission. Surely, if you deride Muslim extremism and refuse to make a distinction between it and Islam itself, you cannot then simply disown Christianity's remote pockets of extremism. "The left wants you to believe that fundamentalists Christians are a threat just like crazy jihadists are." Perhaps more of an issue lies in O'Reilly's inability to draw a distinction between Christian fundamentalism – living as the Bible dictates, taking it in a wholly literal sense – and Christian extremism, to which Breivik undoubtedly subscribed, just as he struggles to make any distinction between extremism and normal practice in the Islamic sense.
Now, on Sunday, the "New York Times" headlined "As Horrors Emerged, Norway Charges Christian extremist". A number of other news organizations like the "LA Times" and Reuters also played up the Christian angle. But Breivik is not a Christian. That's impossible. No one believing in Jesus commits mass murder. The man might have called himself a Christian on the net, but he is certainly not of that faith.
Also Breivik is not attached to any church, and in fact has criticized the Protestant belief system in general. The Christian angle came from a Norwegian policeman not from any fact finding. Once again, we can find no evidence, none, that this killer practiced Christianity in any way.That is to say that all people of faith who have acted in a repugnant and deplorable fashion in the past have, in doing so, somehow automatically severed all ties to that faith, and can no longer be considered a part of it; that anyone who has ever acted violently in the name of religion ceases to be a member of that religion, or cannot possibly subscribe to it because the teachings of that faith forbid their actions. That, when someone acts in a despicable fashion – which contradicts the peaceful ways of that religious group – it's acceptable to, although not shrugging it off, refuse to accept responsibility: to disown it. I thought O'Reilly's remarks on the lack of an attachment to a church particularly jarring, as if to say that you have to belong to a particular denomination to be recognised as a Christian, or that you cannot present criticism toward a denomination as a Christian, and that in doing so you should cease to be recognised as one: well, I guess Martin Luther (who essentially founded Protestantism) wasn't a Christian.
This view is actually entirely acceptable: it's okay to dismiss far-flung violence as extremism, to write it of as being something other than what the core members of a faith had intended and taught. But, surely, if you subscribe to this view, you must apply it to every other faith in the world, which O'Reilly does not, and makes this unabashedly unambiguous, albeit in the absence of complete admission. Surely, if you deride Muslim extremism and refuse to make a distinction between it and Islam itself, you cannot then simply disown Christianity's remote pockets of extremism. "The left wants you to believe that fundamentalists Christians are a threat just like crazy jihadists are." Perhaps more of an issue lies in O'Reilly's inability to draw a distinction between Christian fundamentalism – living as the Bible dictates, taking it in a wholly literal sense – and Christian extremism, to which Breivik undoubtedly subscribed, just as he struggles to make any distinction between extremism and normal practice in the Islamic sense.
Macbook Air: no longer a gimmick
A GIMMICK, NO LONGER: Erik Malinowski, of Wired, writes that he's found 'laptop nirvana' in the new Macbook Air.
Is Obama a poor negotiator?
OBAMA'S RED LINES: Is the president a poor negotiator? David Frum seems to think so.
DOWNGRADES: Boehner's plan would cause one, but Reid's wouldn't.
In this round of debt negotiations, the president has drawn red lines. He has threatened to veto a small increase in the debt ceiling, one that would force him to return to the argument before the election in 2012. By contrast, he has not threatened to veto debt-ceiling measures that cut too deeply into social programs. His red lines are drawn for his political advantage -- not to protect his core supporters' values and interests. His red lines are not theirs.
Whether it was health care or the deficit or now the debt ceiling, direct encounters between Obama and his Republican opposite numbers have always ended badly for the president. Yes, the president faces unusually extreme and intransigent opposition. But that's a description of the difficulty, not an excuse for failure. Presidents win negotiations when they can mobilize the public behind them. That was Ronald Reagan's secret weapon in 1981. It has never been Barack Obama's. And the results are as we all see.Sullivan concurs. "I know Obama wants to get things done and also believes that taking a strong stand in advance of legislation can prevent that. But without the clarity of rhetorical leadership, you end up in the miasma of legislative minutiae that leaves the impression that Washington has not changed at all. The result, of course, is that it hasn't." Indeed.
DOWNGRADES: Boehner's plan would cause one, but Reid's wouldn't.
Quote of the Day: Truman Capote
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Writing has laws of perspective, of light and shade just as painting
does, or music. If you are born knowing them, fine. If not, learn them.
Then rearrange the rules to suit yourself." — Truman Capote. On that note: I finished reading Breakfast at Tiffany's, and the three short stories which accompany it, last night. I thought that the title novella was the best, although I also took great pleasure in reading House of Flowers and A Christmas Memory, two of the three short stories; the former amusing, the latter quite touching. Wonderfully written. Now, onto One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
Abolishing the debt ceiling, a conservative argument
ABOLISHING THE DEBT CEILING, CTD: Thomas Sowell makes a convincing case, from the right. "The national-debt-ceiling law should be judged by what it actually
does, not by how good an idea it seems to be. The one thing that the
national-debt ceiling has never done is put a ceiling on the rising
national debt. Time and time again, for years on end, the national-debt
ceiling has been raised whenever the national debt got near whatever the
current ceiling was. Regardless of what it is supposed to do, what the national-debt ceiling
actually does is enable any administration to get all the political
benefits of runaway spending for the benefit of their favorite
constituencies — and then invite the opposition party to share the
blame, by either raising the national-debt ceiling or voting for
unpopular cutbacks in spending or increases in taxes."
James Surowiecki makes a convincing case for abolishing the debt ceiling
ABOLISHING THE DEBT CEILING, CTD: James Surowiecki makes a convincing case.
The truth is that the United States doesn’t need, and shouldn’t have, a debt ceiling. Every other democratic country, with the exception of Denmark, does fine without one. There’s no debt limit in the Constitution. And, if Congress really wants to hold down government debt, it already has a way to do so that doesn’t risk economic chaos—namely, the annual budgeting process. The only reason we need to lift the debt ceiling, after all, is to pay for spending that Congress has already authorized. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, we’ll face an absurd scenario in which Congress will have ordered the President to execute two laws that are flatly at odds with each other. If he obeys the debt ceiling, he cannot spend the money that Congress has told him to spend, which is why most government functions will be shut down. Yet if he spends the money as Congress has authorized him to he’ll end up violating the debt ceiling.My sentiments exactly.
Rapid conclusions, continued; Jennifer Rubin's apology
RAPID CONCLUSIONS, CTD: Jennifer Rubin apologises for her premature, and incorrect, prediction that the perpetrator of the especially wicked atrocities in Norway resulted from the work of a jihadist. "Early suspicion that the attacks might have been linked to a jihadist bombing plot in Oslo last year or the recent Norwegian prosecution of an Iraqi terrorist did not bear up...It nevertheless is a good reminder to all of us including myself that early reports are often wrong." Although the apology itself appears to be hidden and tangled in a web of ridiculously-wordy circumlocution; it almost seems ludicrous to label this as such, for it is less an apology than a pithy retraction, laced with vague remarks about the event to which it relates. Perhaps a correction has been made, where an unambiguous 'sorry' would have been more appropriate.
James Wolcott, for one, was certainly unimpressed. "Her mild, pious self-reprimand is the prelude for Max Boot-ish hawk-wing flexing," he writes, concluding: "Jennifer Rubin is a neoconservative propagandist masquerading as a political journalist whose byline might as well be a direct feed from AIPAC or the FDD." Well put.
James Wolcott, for one, was certainly unimpressed. "Her mild, pious self-reprimand is the prelude for Max Boot-ish hawk-wing flexing," he writes, concluding: "Jennifer Rubin is a neoconservative propagandist masquerading as a political journalist whose byline might as well be a direct feed from AIPAC or the FDD." Well put.
Why Google cares about real names
WHY GOOGLE CARES ABOUT REAL NAMES: Dave Winer has an idea. "There’s a very simple business reason why Google cares if they have
your real name. It means it’s possible to cross-relate your account
with your buying behavior with their partners, who might be banks,
retailers, supermarkets, hospitals, airlines. To connect with your use
of cell phones that might be running their mobile operating system. To
provide identity in a commerce-ready way. And to give them information
about what you do on the Internet, without obfuscation of pseudonyms. Simply put, a real name is worth more than a fake one." He's probably right, but this isn't an unusual stance for social media companies. Furthermore, no website wants its user base turning into a breeding-ground for the proliferation of fake Lady Gaga accounts or users with Justin Bieber usernames and profile photos. I get what they're trying to do.
Has the paywall saved the New York Times?
THE KINGDOM AND THE PAYWALL: Prior to the icon's new digital subscription strategy, the New York Times seemed a fading landmark of the American media; has it been brought back from the brink?
Increasing vaccination rates, continued
INCREASING VACCINATION RATES, CTD: In responding to David Ropeik's article on vaccination rates, Quinn O'Neill writes that he supports vaccination, but isn't prepared to sacrifice others' autonomy to achieve higher rates. "I wholeheartedly endorse vaccination, at least where dangerous diseases
are concerned and the vaccines have a long track record of being
relatively safe and effective. For polio, measles, and pertussis, I
think everyone who can be vaccinated should be. What I oppose is the
unjustified denial of people’s right to make their own informed
decisions. I’d like to live in a society with 99% immunization coverage,
but an 8 or 9% increase with a slight reduction in an already-low risk
isn’t worth a sacrifice of others' autonomy." His view isn't dissimilar to the one I expressed recently in response to the same article. "Although I think that vaccinations are vitally important, and that
people who choose not to participate do so at the detriment of others, I
see no reasonable objection to opting out, as this is based upon the
fundamental principles in which I believe; that people have the right to
make a decision about whether or not they wish to proceed with such
things."
Why were 'experts' so quick to conclude the attacks were in the name of Islam? Hitchens opines...
RAPID CONCLUSIONS: Christopher Hitchens questions why 'experts' were so quick to conclude that the Norway attacks were perpetrated by an Islamic extremist. He writes that the naive vapidity culminates in "the wretched spectacle of the jihadist websites in Oslo, which had been getting ready with their original posts of joy when they, too, thought that their own holy cause might be involved—and then ceasing and desisting when it became clear that the perpetrator was some loser who had quite different reasons for wanting to slaughter a crowd of young people that day." Adding: "Headline writers and newscasters should have waited before making any pronouncements, and thereby committing the indecency of suggesting that the killers were being selective, even choosy." Agreed.
ON COVERAGE: Ron Radosh is (needlessly) upset over a New York Times story on the event, which he unequivocally describes as a "not-so veiled editorial." Build a bridge.
ON COVERAGE: Ron Radosh is (needlessly) upset over a New York Times story on the event, which he unequivocally describes as a "not-so veiled editorial." Build a bridge.
Grad schools and the supposed liberal bias
ACCUSATIONS OF LIBERAL BIAS: Graduate schools may seem to be less accommodating to conservatives, but how much truth lies in the stereotype? While some look to the possibility of liberal bias, those running the institutions have other explanations. "One — the most tactful hypothesis — is that conservatives just aren’t
interested in academic careers. Another — the most smug hypothesis — is
that conservatives are just too close-minded and dimwitted. Now, fortunately, we have something beyond hypotheses, courtesy of
scholars who have been taking a close look at their colleagues." Take a look at the full article for their findings. Although I don't rule out the idea that grad schools possess some level of bias towards one side of the political spectrum, I suspect much of the sentiment regarding whatever 'issue' exists surrounding the matter to be based on an inkling, or at least more so than certainty. "Conservatives may be self-selecting out of graduate school, but they’re
doing it on a rational basis. It’s become clear to them
that they’re unlikely to succeed at the same level as someone going into
these fields with more socially approved political convictions and
attitudes." I disagree.
Bush Vs. Obama
BUSH VS OBAMA: Some people might say that the GOP is simply exercising conservatism; I think hypocrisy would be a better term. Have a look at this chart.
SPENDING CUTS: Atrios doesn't think Republicans actually care for them. "I think the largely unacknowledged bit of all of this nonsense is that most Republicans in Congress don't really want to cut spending, or more specifically they don't want to own cutting spending. Their main concern is tax cuts for rich people, spending is secondary, and the deficit matters not at all to them. Sure they want to be seen as wanting to cut spending, in the abstract, because that's their brand, but they don't actually want to be responsible for the spending cuts. Their position is: give us the cuts and don't make us vote for them."
SPENDING CUTS: Atrios doesn't think Republicans actually care for them. "I think the largely unacknowledged bit of all of this nonsense is that most Republicans in Congress don't really want to cut spending, or more specifically they don't want to own cutting spending. Their main concern is tax cuts for rich people, spending is secondary, and the deficit matters not at all to them. Sure they want to be seen as wanting to cut spending, in the abstract, because that's their brand, but they don't actually want to be responsible for the spending cuts. Their position is: give us the cuts and don't make us vote for them."
Should the US abolish the debt ceiling?
ABOLISHING THE DEBT CEILING: Felix Salmon thinks it's a good idea.
For 37 years, the debt ceiling has provided an easy way for the party which isn’t in the White House to posture politically against the party which is in the White House. Even Barack Obama voted against raising it, once. Every one of the dozens of times the debt ceiling was reached, there was a small but non-zero probability that something disastrous would happen. And each time, disaster was, predictably, averted. It’s a classic sign of how tail risks are treacherous and breed invidious complacency. We’ve reached the debt ceiling dozens of times; nothing’s ever happened; so there’s nothing to worry about; so there’s no point expending precious political capital doing the right thing and abolishing it.
And now we’re paying the price. It’s increasingly looking like the best-case scenario is that America simply loses its triple-A credit rating — something which in and of itself will be pointless, dangerous, unnecessarily expensive and potentially catastrophic. The worst-case scenario, of course, is an outright default.I'm inclined to agree.
Quite an assumption
QUITE AN ASSUMPTION: I'm not entirely sure how one actually comes to a level of such certainty over something so abstract or remote, like believing that Obama fears losing reelection more than he does default. But RedState seems to have done just that. "So a stubborn president Obama is willing to veto what by all accounts is the going to be the only viable option to meet his administration’s August 2 deadline for avoiding default so he doesn’t have to debate the issue during his reelection campaign." Says who? It's most annoying when you see something which is obviously speculative reported as fact, perhaps even considered fact by the writers (albeit bad ones, pumping out inane, propagandistic prose) of the article. Even though I assume (there we go again) that this particular site does not consider itself to be an unbiased and impartial source of news, I take objection to sites which spin speculation as fact, even unconvincingly, in this case.
The age of greed
THE AGE OF GREED: Paul Krugman and Robin Wells review Jeff Madrick's The Age of Greed: The Triumph of Finance and the Decline of America, 1970 to the Present. Paul Krugman, whom I respect but ultimately disagree with on a great number of issues, and his co-author present the following situation, before revealing (surprise, surprise) that they were describing what they perceive to be the 2008-2009 financial crisis, as well as the one seen in 1991:
Major US financial institutions have badly overreached. They created and sold new financial instruments without understanding the risk. They poured money into dubious loans in pursuit of short-term profits, dismissing clear warnings that the borrowers might not be able to repay those loans. When things went bad, they turned to the government for help, relying on emergency aid and federal guarantees—thereby putting large amounts of taxpayer money at risk—in order to get by. And then, once the crisis was past, they went right back to denouncing big government, and resumed the very practices that created the crisis.
The great financial crisis of 2008–2009, whose consequences still blight our economy, is sometimes portrayed as a “black swan” or a “100-year flood”—that is, as an extraordinary event that nobody could have predicted. But it was, in fact, just the most recent installment in a recurrent pattern of financial overreach, taxpayer bailout, and subsequent Wall Street ingratitude. And all indications are that the pattern is set to continue.The solution lies not in the restriction of the free market, or in the installation and establishment of further regulation, but instead in the dismantling of the system which allows Wall Street to function in this manner; the left continues to deplore the cyclical process of failure and bailout, but often fail to recognise their fundamental role in one of those primary steps. It's the bailouts, stupid! In continuing to pander to the 'too big to fail' policy of saving failing corporations, you're saving whales which beach themselves. It may sound crude, particularly in the unfashionable realm of fiscal conservatism, but regulators should stop wasting taxpayers' money in a fruitless effort to shore up businesses which will likely perpetuate the practices which put themselves in a dire financial position to begin with.
Where Obama is wrong on the debt ceiling
WHERE OBAMA IS WRONG: Contrary to what the president might say, social security is not at risk, writes Michael McConnell. "Many bad things might happen, but not that," he concludes.
Terrorist's Facebook friend, speaking out
DRINKING FROM THE STREAM: A friend of Breivik's on Facebook, Camilla Ragfors, writes in the Guardian of her online experience with the perpetrator of the attacks in Norway. "One day I had a friend request on
Facebook from Anders Breivik. There wasn't anything odd about that: when
I was a member of SD I was magnetically attractive to everyone who
called himself a nationalist: both those for whom it was a game, and the
real extremists. Those were, in fact, the people who drove me away from
the party. A machine of hate propaganda pumped through my feed on
Facebook. There were YouTube clips of massacre victims, demands that all
the "fucking niggers" should get out of the country, and far more
horrible things. I reacted by backing away. But for many
other people who are weak, or feel bad for some reason, this stream was
something to drink from." Read the rest.
It's such a shame, to put it in the mildest of terms, to see the internet become a medium for the kind of mindless hate exhibited in the activities described in her article. Although I understand and suppose that all mediums of this significance will ultimately be used for deplorable purposes, it cannot be denied that this one is vulnerable to such use to a considerably greater degree. The reason for this, it can be asserted with little doubt, lies in the fact that it is so ludicrously accessible; we live, as I have often told people, as part of the generation of accessibility. We live our lives with more information available to us than ever before, and we have more platforms upon which we are able to express our views on that information, as well as spread the information which supports our cause. In this age, in spite of the growing capacity for good to be organised through digital means, such ease is extended to the bad in kind. We live in a time of speed, but also a time of extremes, and we mustn't forget it.
It's such a shame, to put it in the mildest of terms, to see the internet become a medium for the kind of mindless hate exhibited in the activities described in her article. Although I understand and suppose that all mediums of this significance will ultimately be used for deplorable purposes, it cannot be denied that this one is vulnerable to such use to a considerably greater degree. The reason for this, it can be asserted with little doubt, lies in the fact that it is so ludicrously accessible; we live, as I have often told people, as part of the generation of accessibility. We live our lives with more information available to us than ever before, and we have more platforms upon which we are able to express our views on that information, as well as spread the information which supports our cause. In this age, in spite of the growing capacity for good to be organised through digital means, such ease is extended to the bad in kind. We live in a time of speed, but also a time of extremes, and we mustn't forget it.
Christopher Walken reads 'Three Little Pigs'
AWESOME: Christopher Walken reads Three Little Pigs. I have to say, I'm impressed.
Anthony Lane on Rupert Murdoch, and a media empire in the throes of scandal
HACK WORK: The New Yorker's Anthony Lane discusses a media empire in the throes of scandal; giving some background to the controversy, and providing perspicacious observation to this most interesting of stories. It would appear to me that, with all of the attention the scandal has received, the News of the World itself turned out to be a bigger story than many of those it covered in its heyday (or, perhaps more accurately, when it actually still existed). Money quote:
Murdoch knows something that his assailants will seldom concede, and that renders their call for radical change, in the rapport between governance and the media, both tardy and redundant. The change has already happened; culture, media, and sport are not in Murdoch’s pocket, but the British, not least in their yen to watch soccer and cricket on Sky, have reached into their pockets and paid for his feast of wares. The country is in uproar just now, but outrage en masse functions like outrage in private: we reserve our deepest wrath not for the threat from without, which we fail to comprehend, but for forces with which we have been complicit. The British press has long revelled in the raucous and the irresponsible; that was part of its verve, and it was Murdoch’s genius, and also the cause of his current woes, to recognize those tendencies, bring the revelry to a head, and give the people what they asked for. He reminded them of themselves.Read the whole thing. In the event that your no-doubt-already-saturated media diet has left you hungry for more coverage of Murdoch and the phone-hacking scandal, Longform.org has collected a number of articles on the man, which you might find enjoyable.
Sigmund Freud, cokehead
AN ANATOMY OF ADDICTION: Laura Miller on Sigmund Freud, cokehead. "How a "wonder drug" shaped the birth of psychoanalysis and modern surgery."
Fuck you, Washington: now a hashtag
FINALLY: A hashtag to express antipathy towards Washington. Dave Weigel seems to agree with them. "The tweeters are right: Washington doesn't work right now. The optimists
like Friedman are wrong about how to fix it. The cynics, who are now
trying to figure out some way to pass bills without subjecting them to
real rigor, are the ones in the best position to win. That's the legacy
of the 2010 elections -- the exact opposite of what angry voters said
they wanted, something that makes them even angrier." As do I.
Norway gunman to plead not guilty; Atrios on pesky voters
PESKY VOTERS: Atrios seems to get it:
NORWAY GUNMAN TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY: The Guardian has the scoop. "Anders Behring Breivik has confessed to the bombing in Oslo and the mass shooting at a youth camp on Utøya island, but denied criminal responsibility. He said he wanted to start a revolution in Norwegian society to defeat liberal immigration policies and the spread of Islam."
One wonders exactly how this can work. It turns out, too, that the legal system in Norway is a bit strange: "A prisoner is required to spend at least 10 years in custody before becoming eligible for parole. It means Breivik could be out as early as 2021. However, it is technically possible for an offender to spend the rest of their life in prison, regardless of their sentence." How comforting.
You'll have to find it yourself, but little Tommy Friedman has penned another tribute to "the radical center," those group of people who are neither radical nor of the center and who are the most overrepresented people in Washington. Still what they need isn't simply power, but love, the undying and undeniable love of voters which escapes them every couple of years. Tommy knows that the plush offices of a hedge fund money backed reincarnation of Unity '08, called Americans Elect, will finally stir the voters to endorse, with grass roots input of course, Everything Tommy Friedman Truly Believes. And, well, after that we might as well just stop with the whole voting thing. The people will have spoken, and the Plutocrat Party will begin their thousand year reign.
NORWAY GUNMAN TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY: The Guardian has the scoop. "Anders Behring Breivik has confessed to the bombing in Oslo and the mass shooting at a youth camp on Utøya island, but denied criminal responsibility. He said he wanted to start a revolution in Norwegian society to defeat liberal immigration policies and the spread of Islam."
One wonders exactly how this can work. It turns out, too, that the legal system in Norway is a bit strange: "A prisoner is required to spend at least 10 years in custody before becoming eligible for parole. It means Breivik could be out as early as 2021. However, it is technically possible for an offender to spend the rest of their life in prison, regardless of their sentence." How comforting.
Spotlight has died down, but pressure on James Murdoch is set to intensify
JAMES MURDOCH: As the investigations continue, the pressure on Rupert's son is set to intensify. "Some former senior executives of News International who until recently
held powerful positions in the News Corporation’s British subsidiary and
were privy to internal deliberations have indicated that they believe
Mr. Murdoch knew more about widespread phone hacking at The News of the World
than he indicated in his public testimony. If they continue to
challenge Mr. Murdoch’s account, it could damage his effort to protect
his own reputation and that of the parent company run by his father,
Rupert." Something tells me they're not going to pass up this opportunity to weaken the Murdoch influence in Britain with great haste. Still, at least the media attention has died down a little; eclipsed by the Norway attacks, I suspect. The world has other, more threatening people to pursue.
Quotes of the Day: Kafka, McLuhan
QUOTE OF THE DAY II: "To start announcing your own preferences for old values when your
world is collapsing and everything is changing at a furious pitch: this
is not the act of a serious person. It is frivolous, fatuous. If you
were to knock on the door of one of these critics and say 'Sir, there
are flames leaping out of your roof, your house is burning,' under these
conditions he would then say to you, 'That’s a very interesting point
of view. Personally, I couldn’t disagree with you more.' That’s all these critics are saying. Their house is burning and
they’re saying, 'Don’t you have any sense of values, simply telling
people about fire when you should be thinking about the serious content,
the noble works of the mind?'"
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Last night I dreamed about you. What happened in detail I can hardly remember, all I know is that we kept merging into one another. I was you, you were me. Finally you somehow caught fire." — Franz Kafka, Letters to Milena Jesenská.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Last night I dreamed about you. What happened in detail I can hardly remember, all I know is that we kept merging into one another. I was you, you were me. Finally you somehow caught fire." — Franz Kafka, Letters to Milena Jesenská.
Year-long investigation concludes that U.S. taxpayer money has indirectly funded the Taliban
LESS THAN IDEAL: The Post reports: "A year-long military-led investigation has concluded that U.S. taxpayer
money has been indirectly funneled to the Taliban under a $2.16 billion
transportation contract that the United States has funded in part to
promote Afghan businesses."
Rick Perry's (ignorant) views on abstinence
THINGS I DISLIKE: Rick Perry's views on sex-ed. Shawn Lawrence Otto concludes: "If Perry continues his campaign for president, he should renounce his
past antiscience positions and pledge to make governing decisions based
on the best available science." Indeed.
Defining atheism
DEFINING ATHEISM: Massimo Pigliucci differs in his view of the definition from that of Philosophy Talk podcast hosts John Perry and Ken Taylor, hence (via TDD):
In spite of my Facebook profile's view that I subscribe to a policy of agnosticism, I would now consider myself best-described an atheist. Perhaps Pigliucci puts it best when he says he prefers "to stick to the etymology of the term, a-theism, meaning without a positive belief in god(s)." Agreed. My view (at the moment, at least) is that there is insufficient evidence to support the idea of a deity, and therefore it's only reasonable to conclude that no such god exists. It's difficult to rule a line between that, however, and being agnostic. And then there's antitheism (cough...Christopher Hitchens...cough). Not sure that I'm ready to make the leap of changing my Facebook profile anytime soon, though; I'll just stick onboard the Good Ship Agnosticism for now.The trouble starts right off the bat, when Perry defines atheism: “An atheist is someone who not only doesn't believe in God, but believes, with some confidence, that there isn’t a God.” Oh no, it ain’t! That certainly describes some atheists, but not others. I, for instance, tend to stick to the etymology of the term, a-theism, meaning without a positive belief in god(s), so I consider myself an a-theist in pretty much the same manner in which most people are a-unicornists: they don’t believe in unicorns, not because they know that there aren’t any, but simply because they see neither evidence nor reason to hold that particular belief.
Jobs' succession plans
SUCCESSION PLANS: Given that Apple is a company centred so firmly around one creative mind, who could possibly replace Steve Jobs? John Gruber opines.
Norway attacks: debate yet to begin
NORWAY ATTACKS: New York Times reports:
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "I prayed for the first time in a very long time today. I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and certain Islamic Takeover of Europe...he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail." — Norway suspect, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, writing in 1,500 page document which has recently surfaced on the internet. Sky News reports that it "describes his mindset and preparations in the 95 days before the attack and claims he has been planning the acts since 2009." Islamophobia, anyone? Required reading on the matter.
“We are not sure whether he was alone or had help,” a police official, Roger Andresen, said at a televised news conference. “What we know is that he is right wing and a Christian fundamentalist.”Widespread discussion on the detrimental qualities of religion: wait for it, wait for it...
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "I prayed for the first time in a very long time today. I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and certain Islamic Takeover of Europe...he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail." — Norway suspect, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik, writing in 1,500 page document which has recently surfaced on the internet. Sky News reports that it "describes his mindset and preparations in the 95 days before the attack and claims he has been planning the acts since 2009." Islamophobia, anyone? Required reading on the matter.
Nine wounded in Florida birthday party shooting
OH, DEAR: Nine people have been treated for injuries after a partygoer opened-fire inside a Florida home, the Orlando Sentinel is reporting. "Witnesses told investigators the shooting happened during a birthday
party at the home. At some point, a fight broke out between teens at the
party. One drew a handgun, deputies said, and opened fire inside the
home. Rescuers hospitalized six partygoers, and three more later checked
themselves in for treatment."
Harvard and class, continued
HARVARD AND CLASS, CTD: S.J. Culver and Kaya Williams hold a discussion, in response to Misha Glouberman's Paris Review piece on 'the challenges of dealing with class' at Harvard. Money quote: "There’s this myth of self-sufficiency and pulling oneself up by the
bootstraps that is cultivated obviously not only at Harvard, but Harvard
is such a great way to hyperbolize it: You, Harvard Student, are no
different from anyone else in this country. You could start with $0 in
your pocket and through hard work and ability become the president one
day. All you have to do is avoid the temptation of spending all your
money on take-out.
Feel great about the fact that you’re here, because it means you’re
smart and not lazy like all those poor people out there who didn’t make
it to Harvard. It definitely has nothing to do with privilege or social
capital."
Ben Johnson on the death of singer Amy Winehouse
THE 27-CLUB: Ben Johnson on the death of singer Amy Winehouse.
With kids on the sex offender registry, some question value
RUINING LIVES: The sex offender registry is, by most measures, a good system. But does it ruin the lives of some who don't deserve it? Lenore Skenazy writes of two sixteen year-old boys who committed a crime at age fourteen – Horseplay – and are now registered sex offenders. She explains the gravity of the situation: "What does it mean to be on the sex offender list? First of all, the
public knows where you live. Websites and newspapers can publish your
photo. So can TV news. Parents can warn their kids never to go near you. In many states, registered sex offenders have to live a certain
distance from where kids congregate, be that a school, day care center,
park or bus stop. So these young men may have to move to the sticks." The list of consequences goes on...
A reader of Cory Doctorow's writes: "My nephew had a mutual love affair with a 15 year old girl while he was 18. The girl's family, with the assistance of a now discredited DA, got him sentenced to 5 years in a state pen as statutory rape offender, and 16 years later, it continues to haunt him. He has been forced to move 4 times, once after buying a house and living in it for 5 years, when a day-care center opened nearby. He has never been in any trouble with the law in any other way. His marriage has been threatened by the Sex Offender law's continuing extreme additions - including the inability for him to adopt his wife's children from a previous marriage (this is after the original father abandoned the kids). There are true sex offenders and there are kids who made some bad choices while young, who should not have their lives forever destroyed by bad laws."
A reader of Cory Doctorow's writes: "My nephew had a mutual love affair with a 15 year old girl while he was 18. The girl's family, with the assistance of a now discredited DA, got him sentenced to 5 years in a state pen as statutory rape offender, and 16 years later, it continues to haunt him. He has been forced to move 4 times, once after buying a house and living in it for 5 years, when a day-care center opened nearby. He has never been in any trouble with the law in any other way. His marriage has been threatened by the Sex Offender law's continuing extreme additions - including the inability for him to adopt his wife's children from a previous marriage (this is after the original father abandoned the kids). There are true sex offenders and there are kids who made some bad choices while young, who should not have their lives forever destroyed by bad laws."
How Khan Academy is changing education
REFORMING EDUCATION: Makes one wonder whether this man will someday win a Nobel Prize. Wired explores how Khan Academy is changing education (or is that schooling? I'm sure Mark Twain would have had us make the distinction).
Is something only sexist when men do it? Some think so
ONLY SEXIST WHEN MEN DO IT: TheAmazingAtheist makes a good point. (NSFW, perhaps.)
REBECCA WATSON: Ann Althouse speaks to the blogger who claims she was 'hit-on' in an elevator.
REBECCA WATSON: Ann Althouse speaks to the blogger who claims she was 'hit-on' in an elevator.
Quote of the Day: Edmund Burke
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a
representative to live in the strictest union, the closest
correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his
constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their
opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his
duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to
theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest
to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his
enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or
to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure;
no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from
Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your
representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he
betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion." — Edmund Burke, according to the New York Review of Books. A bit abstract on its own; better in the context of the article.
Laura Cumming on Lucian Freud
'UNIDEALISED' DEPICTION: Laura Cumming on Lucian Freud. "In his paintings the head would become another limb, rather than the
sphere of thought; the surface of the body would be mottled, varicose,
bulked up, roughed over. Even when painting the young or slender
(himself included), bodies would acquire more ballast, matter and blood,
until you couldn't separate the person from the paint. Freud's colours –
bruise blue, livid orange, morbid green, the irradiated red of chafed
thighs, the silver of stretchmarks – gave substance to the body, but
also to the life of the painting."
POEM OF THE DAY: Lucian Freud, by John Updike (via TDD).
POEM OF THE DAY: Lucian Freud, by John Updike (via TDD).
Yes, the body is a hideous thing,
the feet and genitals especially,
the human face not far behind. Blue veins
make snakes on the backs of hands, and mar
the marbled glassy massiveness of thighs.
Such clotted weight’s worth seeing after centuries
(Pygmalion to Canova) of the nude
as spirit’s outer form, a white flame: Psyche.
Obama: "I have been left at the altar" on debt talks
LEFT AT THE ALTAR: To say Obama seems irritated over the breakdown of debt talks with John Boehner might be considered something of an understatement. At a news conference, the president (in my view, quite rightly) queried, "Can they [Republicans] say yes to anything?...I have been left at the altar a couple of times now."
Boehner reportedly fired back in a press conference of his own, saying: "Dealing with the White House is like dealing with a bowl of Jello...It’s the president who walked away from his agreement and demanded more money at the last minute." Andrew Sullivan, to name one, was thoroughly disappointed, and lamented the Republicans' inability to come to some form of agreement. "But this is who they are. I longed for Obama to bridge this gulf in ideology. But he cannot bridge it alone, especially when the GOP is determined to burn the bridge entirely, even when presented with a deal so tilted to the right only true fanatics could possibly walk away from it. And so the very republic is being plunged into crisis and possible depression by a single, implacable, fanatical faction. Until they are defeated, the country remains in more peril than we know." Agreed.
THE HEATED CONFERENCE: Jonathan Chait on Obama's change in persona during the press conference. "Perhaps what's more interesting is the tone of Obama's press conference. It was the most heated I'd ever seen him. And it was also the first time I can recall that he fully abandoned his stance as above the fray and spoke as the leader of the Democratic Party. This was not a total break with his familiar persona. There was still the imploring his opponents to compromise, insisting upon his reasonableness. But he assailed Republicans for refusing to compromise, for failing even to consider the public good as opposed to the pressure of conservative activists." I would agree with that.
Boehner reportedly fired back in a press conference of his own, saying: "Dealing with the White House is like dealing with a bowl of Jello...It’s the president who walked away from his agreement and demanded more money at the last minute." Andrew Sullivan, to name one, was thoroughly disappointed, and lamented the Republicans' inability to come to some form of agreement. "But this is who they are. I longed for Obama to bridge this gulf in ideology. But he cannot bridge it alone, especially when the GOP is determined to burn the bridge entirely, even when presented with a deal so tilted to the right only true fanatics could possibly walk away from it. And so the very republic is being plunged into crisis and possible depression by a single, implacable, fanatical faction. Until they are defeated, the country remains in more peril than we know." Agreed.
THE HEATED CONFERENCE: Jonathan Chait on Obama's change in persona during the press conference. "Perhaps what's more interesting is the tone of Obama's press conference. It was the most heated I'd ever seen him. And it was also the first time I can recall that he fully abandoned his stance as above the fray and spoke as the leader of the Democratic Party. This was not a total break with his familiar persona. There was still the imploring his opponents to compromise, insisting upon his reasonableness. But he assailed Republicans for refusing to compromise, for failing even to consider the public good as opposed to the pressure of conservative activists." I would agree with that.
Althouse seems unimpressed with 'The Undefeated'
PRETTY AMATEURISH: Althouse seems unimpressed with The Undefeated.
The filmmakers did not film Sarah Palin, so we see only stock footage of Sarah Palin along with some audio taken from the audio version of her book "Going Rogue." That meant we saw a lot of grainy film that made us wish we could just be home watching it on TV. (Or not watching it.)
Throughout there was a pounding, driving music soundtrack that seemed like it wanted to make sure we were excited, but it was extremely annoying and distracting. There were also metaphorical visuals like black oil pouring into water or bombs dropping or lions chasing zebras. These visuals were undoubtedly intended to add interest and drama, but they seemed pretty amateurish. We glanced at each other and laughed a few times. But the music was no laughing matter. At one point, I leaned over and said, "This music is killing me." If I had been in that movie when I said that, you would have seen a lion leap onto a zebra.I can imagine.
'DamnYouAutocorrect' images can be funny, but how many are real?
DAMN-YOU-AUTOCORRECT: Some of them are very funny, but how many are real?
Are playgrounds too safe?
ARE PLAYGROUNDS TOO SAFE? A certain school of thought believes so. Although playgrounds built within the last twenty years may be safer, therefore resulting in fewer legal issues, it's possible that children may be missing out on important emotional development, writes John Tierney.
After observing children on playgrounds in Norway, England and Australia, Dr. Sandseter identified six categories of risky play: exploring heights, experiencing high speed, handling dangerous tools, being near dangerous elements (like water or fire), rough-and-tumble play (like wrestling), and wandering alone away from adult supervision. The most common is climbing heights.
“Climbing equipment needs to be high enough, or else it will be too boring in the long run,” Dr. Sandseter said. “Children approach thrills and risks in a progressive manner, and very few children would try to climb to the highest point for the first time they climb. The best thing is to let children encounter these challenges from an early age, and they will then progressively learn to master them through their play over the years.”
What are the Murdoch papers worth?
SPECULATING ON PRICE: What would Rupert Murdoch's newspaper operations be worth should he decide to sell? Of course, that's a laughable idea. His only passion is newspapers – he cares for nothing else.
STANDING BY RUPERT: People still love Wendi.
STANDING BY RUPERT: People still love Wendi.
How do we increase vaccination rates?
INCREASING VACCINATION RATES: David Ropeik has some ideas on how to do it.
Perhaps it should be harder to opt out of vaccination. (Twenty-one states allow parents to decline vaccination of their children simply for “philosophical” reasons. 48 allow a religious exemption but few demand documentation from parents to support claims that their faith precludes vaccination.)Hmm. Perhaps. Although I think that vaccinations are vitally important, and that people who choose not to participate do so at the detriment of others, I see no reasonable objection to opting out, as this is based upon the fundamental principles in which I believe; that people have the right to make a decision about whether or not they wish to proceed with such things. I really do hope that uptake of vaccination increases, but I disagree with his ideas on how this can be done. The only real way through which we can achieve the goals stated is through education – people must know that vaccination only works in large numbers, and, perhaps more importantly, they should actually come to understand it to begin with. (via TDD)
Larry Summers: Winklevoss twins 'a-holes'
THE 'A-HOLE' WINKLEVII: When asked about his portrayal in the film The Social Network (which you really should see if you haven't already), former Harvard University president Larry Summers called the Winklevoss twins, who have brought numerous legal cases against Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, 'a-holes'. Money quote:
Summers talked about the Winklevoss twins at Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference on Wednesday: "One of the things you learn as a college president is that if an undergraduate is wearing a tie and jacket on Thursday afternoon at three o'clock, there are two possibilities. One is that they're looking for a job and have an interview; the other is that they are an a--hole. This was the latter case.”Get over yourselves.
But do midday suits an undergraduate a--hole make? Not according to them. In an open letter to Harvard's current president via The Wall Street Journal, the Winklevii responded to Summers' fashion-turned-character criticism. "It is deeply disturbing that a professor of this university openly admits to making character judgments of students based on their appearance... Every student should feel free to bring issues forward [and] dress how they see fit... Ironically, our choice of attire that day was made out of respect and deference to the office of the president."
Is it time to double the Twitter character limit?
280 CHARACTERS: Farhad Manjoo argues that Twitter should double its character limit. As the company outgrows its 'dispatch/what are you doing' form of microblogging, it could be said that the company needs to rethink its strategy, and perhaps lose the stubbornness. There's a quote in the article from CEO Dick Costolo, which serves as a rather good retort for discussion about the threat Google+ poses to Twitter."You know, if you just look in the sideview mirror at what are
particular companies doing, and then you start to say Twitter is going
to be the world in your pocket—now with video chat!—then you lose your
way, right? So, we're going to offer simplicity in a world of complexity, focus on
our goal, while we understand what everyone else is doing." He makes a good point.
Personally, although I agree that the 140 character-limit is extremely restrictive, I feel that the medium has not been created to facilitate circumlocution, but more pithy, succinct and laconic updates. Perhaps 280 characters might be better (sure, it's not that much more), but I sense that people have grown used to the number – it's almost iconic, thanks to Twitter. I just don't think it'll happen.
GOOGLE'S THREAT: Erza Klein seems impressed with Google+. "But it turns out that Google+ retains Twitter’s appreciation of asymmetrical social networks: people can follow you without you following them, and you can choose to broadcast messages to them, and they can reply, and so on. I’ve been experimenting with this over the last few days and have been really surprised and impressed by how rich the resulting discussions are. It’s really highlighted the drawbacks of the 140-character limit and made Twitter a lot less appealing to me."
Personally, although I agree that the 140 character-limit is extremely restrictive, I feel that the medium has not been created to facilitate circumlocution, but more pithy, succinct and laconic updates. Perhaps 280 characters might be better (sure, it's not that much more), but I sense that people have grown used to the number – it's almost iconic, thanks to Twitter. I just don't think it'll happen.
GOOGLE'S THREAT: Erza Klein seems impressed with Google+. "But it turns out that Google+ retains Twitter’s appreciation of asymmetrical social networks: people can follow you without you following them, and you can choose to broadcast messages to them, and they can reply, and so on. I’ve been experimenting with this over the last few days and have been really surprised and impressed by how rich the resulting discussions are. It’s really highlighted the drawbacks of the 140-character limit and made Twitter a lot less appealing to me."
Rupert Murdoch's unfortunate camera angles
UNFORTUNATE CAMERA ANGLES: I know this is widely circulated, but if you haven't seen it, it's worth seeing.
Jon Huntsman campaign manager resigns
HUNTSMAN MANAGER DEPARTS: In something of a staff shakeup for the (rather poorly managed) Jon Huntsman presidential campaign, the former Utah governor's manager has resigned. Of course the campaign itself isn't saying much about the reasoning behind the departure; the only explanation we've received is simply, "It was just time." Too simple, perhaps? The resignation comes at a bad time, I suppose – the Huntsman campaign has already been roundly criticised for its poor management, in that, as yet, they've failed to develop a cohesive message other than 'this guy's different.' Time magazine's Alex Altman reports: "The staff shakeup signals the campaign’s awareness that Huntsman, who
has pledged to make civility a hallmark of his campaign (even as he
takes gentle swipes at his competitors), needs to sharpen his message
and draw aggressive distinctions with rivals as he tries to carve out a
niche in a crowded and unsettled Republican field. After a splashy
campaign kickoff in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, Huntsman has
notched anemic poll numbers–including in New Hampshire, the capital of
his primary map–that have sapped the campaign’s early momentum." He's right.
Time to kick farmers off the federal dole?
THE FARMER DOLE, AN ISSUE: Doug Bandow thinks it's time to kick farmers off the federal dole. Money quote: "Washington must cut spending. Suggesting that Uncle Sam go on a fiscal diet predictably triggers
the cry: What about the poor? But despite their rhetoric politicians
do not spend much time worrying about those in poverty. The two biggest
domestic programs provide middle class welfare: Social Security and
Medicare. The Pentagon mostly provides welfare for populous and
prosperous allies throughout Asia and Europe. The rest of the federal budget is filled with outrageous special interest pay-offs. Consider the agricultural dole."
Kwak learns a lesson in fiscal conservatism
LESSONS IN FISCAL CONSERVATISM: The Atlantic's James Kwak learns the sad truth: simply because you fail to understand something doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't make sense.
THAT'S IT, FOLKS: Atlantis lands for final time, marking end to 30-year program. The LA Times reports:
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God." — Seeing images of the landing reminds me of this quote, marking one of the lower points in the space shuttle program's thirty years, the Challenger Disaster. Ronald Reagan spoke these words in his televised address to the nation, which was written by Peggy Noonan.
With Commander Chris Ferguson at the helm, Atlantis touched down at Kennedy Space Center at 5:57 a.m. in perfect, cloudless, windless weather. When its wheels stopped a minute later NASA saluted 30 years of triumph and tragedy for a shuttle program that has kept the United States at the forefront of manned space flight since 1981, but is over.Although I generally find myself with a feeling of "yeah, but what's the point?" when it comes to space exploration of all sorts, I must say that there's something oddly 'cool' (a word I must resort to using in this context, due to the abject poverty of the English language in these matters) about exactly this. The space shuttle program has been widely and roundly criticised; not for its lack of significant achievements, but more their lack of practical application. But I suppose that the real appeal isn't in the science of it, it's in proving that we, as a civilization, can do it. That's all. Anyway, it's over now. And that was that, everyone.
"The space shuttle changed the way we view the world and changed the way we view the universe," Ferguson said. "We have emotion today but one thing is indisputable: America is not going to stop exploring.
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and slipped the surly bonds of Earth to touch the face of God." — Seeing images of the landing reminds me of this quote, marking one of the lower points in the space shuttle program's thirty years, the Challenger Disaster. Ronald Reagan spoke these words in his televised address to the nation, which was written by Peggy Noonan.