Good Goth! I keep thinking about Ruth La Ferla's argument that Goth has returned, an argument based in part on this paragraph:

Consumers too are following fashion and embracing a Gothic style. They are snapping up trinkets that they would once have dismissed as perverse or subversive: silver skull cuff links, chains interlaced with black ribbon in the manner of Victorian mourning jewelry, stuffed peacocks with Swarovski crystal eyes, and, as party favors, tiny rat and chicken skeletons, recent sellouts at Barneys New York. Such fondness for Goth-tinged playthings attests to the mainstreaming of a trend that was once the exclusive domain of societal outcasts and freaks.

And what I keep thinking is what a load of crap this is.

Let's consider. If the sentence, "Consumers are snapping up tiny rat and chicken skeletons as party favors...." had appeared anywhere but the New York Times, would we not be laughing hysterically upon reading it?

Ms. La Ferla has made the classic New York style-writer mistake of using the term "consumers," by which most journalists mean "Americans," to mean "a handful of New Yorkers living in zip code 10021 with way too much money and an overweening desire to spend it on themselves."

But then, since La Ferla does not produce a single shred of evidence of this fact—doesn't bother to quote a single "consumer" about his or her love for all things Goth—how are we really to know?

I think what bothers me most about this piece is, well, two things. First, it shows all the hallmarks of bad "trend" journalism—no solid proof of anything, and a cobbling together of apparently unrelated things (e.g., the publication of Elizabeth Kostova's vampire novel, "The Historian," which was ten years in the works) to posit the existence of a mass phenomenon.

But more than that, what bothers me is the idea that something is a trend merely because top-down marketers such as fashion designers and Simon Doohan of Barneys say it is.

Goth is not just about wearing black. It's a cerebral, anti-materialistic philosophy based largely on alienation from mainstream capitalism and an existential gloom about the future of the individual. So whatever they're selling at Barneys, by definition, it can't be Goth.

Oh, and by the way—here's another Tim Burton Goth creation: Winona Ryder's anti-social misfit from 1988's Beetlejuice:

  ¶ 8:37 AM 0 comments   

  It's Alito for SCOTUS The Washington Post reports that President Bush will today nominate Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court, following the failed nomination of Harriet Miers.

(Who? Already she fades....)

Alito is apparently nicknamed "Scalito" for his philosophical resemblance to conservative justice Anton Scalia.

His most controversial case is sure to be his opinion in the famous 1991 case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, in which a Third Circuit panel ruled on the legality of a Pennsylvania law imposing numerous restrictions on abortion, mandating, for example, that doctors warn women of the dangers of abortion and abide by a 24-hour waiting period.

The law in question also mandated that women seeking an abortion must notify their husbands—a stipulation Alito thought legal.

As the Post puts it, Citing previous opinions of O'Connor, Alito wrote that an abortion regulation is unconstitutional only if it imposes an undue burden on a woman's access to the procedure. The spousal notification provision, he wrote, does not constitute such a burden and must therefore only meet the requirement that it be rationally related to some legitimate government purpose.

This is a tough one. If I were married and my pregnant wife got an abortion without telling me, I'd be pretty pissed. (Though I'm not sure why marriage would be the test here. If the principle involves notifying the father, who cares whether the prospective parents are married or not?)

On the other hand, I'm skeptical that marriage gives one spouse the right to veto another spouse's physical decision. What if, for example, a woman was married to an abusive husband? How, exactly, would she notify him that she wanted to terminate her pregnancy?

The Supreme Court eventually heard the case and disagreed with Alito. Sandra Day O'Connor wrote that "spousal notification requirement is . . . likely to prevent a significant number of women from obtaining an abortion,"

My prediction: There's going to be a big, ugly fight over this pick. Washington must be a grim place right now.
_________________________________________________________________

P.S. For you media-watchers, this constitutes a big scoop for the Post. The Times is embarrassingly reduced to running this AP story on its website. Times reporter David D. Kirkpatrick has an already-late piece about the looming fight over potential nominees, including Alito.

P.P.S. The Times has replaced its wire story with this one by David Kirkpatrick and Christine Hauser. Whoops! Score one for the Washington Post.  ¶ 7:55 AM 0 comments   

  Goth Must Have a Good Publicist Because this week, both Entertainment Weekly and the New York Times hail its return.

"On the runways and on screen, it's once more into the creep," EW says, which is the kind of pun that would make any self-respecting Goth turn even whiter.

(Sorry, no link—have you tried to search the EW website? Don't.)

"Embrace the Darkness," the Times chimes in, in a piece that tries to correlate the return of Goth with the macabre mood of our current culture.

Both articles point to Tim Burton's Corpse Bride and various runway fashions as examples.

(Never mind that Tim Burton has never been anything but Goth: Hello, Sleepy Hollow? Edward Scissorhands? That was 1990, people.)



The Times article, as most such trend pieces are, is inadvertently hilarious.

Ruth LaFerla writes, Consumers too are following fashion and embracing a Gothic style. They are snapping up trinkets that they would once have dismissed as perverse or subversive: silver skull cuff links, chains interlaced with black ribbon in the manner of Victorian mourning jewelry, stuffed peacocks with Swarovski crystal eyes, and, as party favors, tiny rat and chicken skeletons, recent sellouts at Barneys New York.

Such fondness for Goth-tinged playthings attests to the mainstreaming of a trend that was once the exclusive domain of societal outcasts and freaks. These days Goth is "an Upper East Side way of being edgy without actually drinking anybody's blood," said Simon Doonan, the creative director of Barneys. With a wink he added, "Who doesn't like a vaseful of ostrich feathers at the end of the day?"

Yup. I know a lot of people who are snapping up stuffed peacocks with Swarovski crystal eyes. Whatever that has to do with Goth.

Few things are more annoying than having a perfectly good alternative lifestyle coopted by the Upper East Side. Perhaps people who whistle, or pay by check. But that's about it.

Anyway, I'm skeptical. Goth has never really gone away since the 1980s—what a decade—it's just been somewhat harder to find. What's probably at work here is a Manhattan PR-ista representing a client—probably in the fashion business, perhaps Barney's—who's been peddling a "return of Goth" story timed for Halloween.

Meanwhile, both EW and the Times seem oblivious to the ongoing Goth presence in pop music. Depeche Mode's excellent new record, Playing the Angel, for example, debuted at #7 on the Billboard charts this week, #1 at iTunes. First song: "A Pain That I'm Used To." Followed by titles like "Suffer Well," "The Sinner in Me," "Damaged People," and "The Darkest Star."

Sings David Gahan, "I'm still recovering/Still getting over all the suffering..."

Now, that's Goth....

(David Gahan, of course, being DM's lead singer, the man whose veins have more holes than a shower head. Dave, we're glad you made it!)

Anyway, Happy Halloween, everyone! Feel free to cloak yourself in black, put a ton of hairspray in your hair, and spread oodles of white pancake make-up on your face. Goth has always been about rebellion, rejection of the mainstream, and maybe it's true that we need this now more than ever....because this country's in rough shape right now. And, as the Times has pointed out, we still have 39 more George Bush-months to go.

  ¶ 8:16 AM 0 comments   

  Indeed It Is Here's the full photo:

Just curious why this hasn't been more widespread...

  ¶ 7:22 AM 2 comments   

  Is This Valerie Plame? The Washington Post runs this photo on its website with a vague caption; I can't find the photo elsewhere.

Perhaps others have seen this picture, but all I've seen—again and again—is that annoying Vanity Fair photo in which Plame/Wilson, seated next to her husband, Joe Wilson, in a convertible, hides her identity with a scarf and dark glasses.

<>

  ¶ 7:16 AM 0 comments   

  Scooter Libby and Me I know that, as a blogger, I'm supposed to be all over the Scooter Libby indictment, typing away like a busy bee. Hell, everyone else is. My colleagues over at the Huffington Post are having conniptions.

But somehow, all the spectacle turns me off. Get a life, guys.

Look, I enjoy the schadenfreude as much as the next blogger. I do. I don't like the way this White House works and I'm glad to see them hoisted by their own petard. I cautiously supported the war in Iraq because I believed what the White House was saying about weapons of mass destruction there, and boy, don't I feel like a dummy now. So what goes around comes around.

Somehow, though, I don't see how all this jumping up and down on the corpse of Scooter Libby does progressives much good. The Democrats still have to propose an agenda for the future, and with the possible exception of Rahm Emanuel, I haven't heard much of that.

It's not that Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation isn't important. It is, because it opens a window into how the White House sold a war to the American people. But somehow I get the feeling the blogosphere has gone all ballistic over this episode not because of its importance, but because it's fun. Liberals don't like Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or Dick Cheney or George W., and they like to see these guys squirm.

Plus, there's an air of intrigue and drama about the whole thing. The angry husband, the victimized but still mysterious spy, the sneaky, sinister aides, the strong, silent-type prosecutor...it's entertaining! And, as my friend Neal Gabler has written, it has become the habit of Americans to impose the narrative form of movies upon real life in every possible instance. I think that's what we're doing here, in a way that either distorts the true meaning of what's going on or distracts us from other storylines that may, ultimately, be of greater importance.

So...I hereby withdraw from the great Scooter Libby blogathon. I'll weigh in from time to time, but I just can't compete. Because isn't it weird how the blogosphere has become nothing more than another self-important echo chamber...just like Washington itself?  ¶ 8:16 AM 0 comments   

  The Tension of Our Times Two tragic accidents in New York City this week highlighted what strikes me as a recurring tension in American culture.

In the first, a real estate executive was killed while rowing on the Harlem River. His scull was hit by a powerboat in the early morning light. The victim, 41-year-old Jim Rumsdorf, was probably hit head on by the powerboat. The other three rowers managed to swim to safety.

In the second accident, Newsweek editor Tom Masland was mowed down by a woman driving a 300-horsepower Volkswagen SUV as he crossed West End Avenue at 95th Street (quite close to where I live). The 55-year-old, married father of three died soon after.

One person rowing, one person walking, were killed by one person zipping along in a speedboat, by one person zipping along in a luxury SUV. Sane, solitary pleasures versus selfish ones. Two pursuits that suggest some harmony with the environment versus two that, in these days of dwindling oil, are increasingly hard to justify.

New York is a tough place for people who want to live a simpler life. (I wouldn't ride a bike on the streets here if you gave it to me.) But why is it that you never hear of a walker or a rower or a cyclist killing a speedboater or motorcyclist or SUV driver? And how come no one ever seems to care?  ¶ 7:59 AM 7 comments   

  Harvard News... It's coming...soon. In a big way, I think.  ¶ 11:27 AM 2 comments   

  Sulu: I'm Gay Too Everyone's coming out! George Takei, also known as "Mr. Sulu" from Star Trek, has come out of the closet.



Takei's 68 out now, and he's been living with his boyfriend for 18 years.

Actually, Takei sounds like he's lived a pretty interesting life; from the ages of four to eight, he was interned in a Japanese-American internment camp. I didn't know that. Did you?

Well, good for Mr. Sulu to go public. I'm sure that's not easy to do at any point in one's life. Moreover, the lives of the Enterprise crew certainly were interesting, weren't they?

But George...the tux was a dead giveaway.
  ¶ 10:43 AM 2 comments   

  My Two Cents It's lately become a cottage industry among pundits to suggest ways for the Bush administration to reinvigorate itself. (You know who you are, David Brooks.)

I am not a pundit, though sometimes l play one on this blog.

So here's one suggestion for how W. can get his presidency back on track: Immediately announce a Justice Department investigation of price-gouging by the oil industry.

Now, it's possible that in doing so, the president would alienate some of his supporters, but I would enjoy that.

No, wait, let me rephrase.

It's possible that he would alienate some of his supporters, but that could only be good for the country.

Hold on! Let me try again.

It's possible that he would alienate some of his supporters, but the vast majority of hard-working Americans would welcome the move.

(There. That's what I was trying to say.)

It's also possible that Dick Cheney would keel over of a heart attack the instant such an investigation was announced, but, well, all three of the above.

Just kidding!

Seriously, here's another suggestion for President Bush: Solicit Dick Cheney's advice about every idea you have. And then do the exact opposite of what he says. Even if it's about something important like, oh, war. Or how to talk to the press.  ¶ 9:05 AM 4 comments   

  Things I'm Shocked, Shocked About 1) Apparently there's a lesbian in the WNBA. Stop the presses! Next thing you know, someone will say the Pet Shop Boys are gay.

2) Exxon has made a $25 billion profit this year—equal to its entire earnings for 2004. No way! And the great part is that it's doing so much to deal with the whole global warming thing.

3) Scooter Libby is going to be indicted for dishing dirt in one allegedly illegal way or another. Hard to believe that anyone working for Dick Cheney would do something like that.

4) Freddy Ferrer is getting crushed by Michael Bloomberg even among the voters who ought to be his base. It's as if he hasn't even articulated a rationale for his campaign!

5) AOL has hired Dick Cheney's daughter, Mary—and she's a lesbian too! This after Cheney received a million-dollar advance to write a book about her life. I'm sure that she was hired because of her proven ability "to increase AOL's Internet audience via Web-based programming and products," as an AOL spokesperson put it.

6) There are 39 months of the Bush presidency to go. Apparently that's more than three years.

Actually, now that I think about it, I am kind of shocked by that. Doesn't it already seem as if he's been president for, like, a decade?  ¶ 8:38 AM 2 comments   

  She's Outta There! The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has been withdrawn, though whether Miers jumped or was pushed is unclear.

This is a very smart move for the Bush White House (which makes me think Miers was pushed). On a day when they're already expecting bad news from special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, give the media some more bad news—a hit that the White House was going to have to take sooner or later. The weekend talk shows will be filled with chatter, as will the Sunday papers, and then, hopefully for the White House, next week is a new beginning.

That's the plan, anyway.

As I (and lots of others) predicted*, Bush is using executive privilege as an excuse. "It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure as the White House - disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel," he said in a statement.

I'm unconvinced by this argument; a White House nominee to the Supreme Court whose only real paper trail is her legal advice in the White House is an unusual, exceptional situation.

Moreover I will admit to some disappointment. First, I would have been curious to read Miers' advice to the White House, especially on war- and torture-related issues.

And wouldn't the hearings have been entertaining?

But for Miers, this is a good thing. Washington will quickly erase her, as the tide smooths over a footprint in the sand, and she can return to a job better suited to her abilities.
_________________________________________________________________

I wrote on Tuesday about the executive privilege argument: "This feels like an exit strategy. Bush can withdraw the nomination and simultaneously take the high ground, saying that he's fighting to preserve executive privilege for his successors.

"Here's a general rule that I believe about Washington: When you can imagine how a scandal will end, the very act of imagining a denouement hastens its realization."  ¶ 9:47 AM 0 comments   

  The World Series Is Over Good.

Because while I'm glad that the White Sox won, and I'm glad that their long drought is over, let's face it: This World Series was boring.

While the White Sox played well when they had to—how about those two plays by Juan Oribe in the bottom of the ninth? Terrific.—the Astros choked. They got something like five hits in their last 60 at bats. And closer Brad Lidge is no Mariano Rivera. He singlehandedly lost three post-season games for the 'stros.

Moreover, can we all just admit one thing: The World Series is more fun when the Yankees are in it.

I know, I'm partisan. But judging from the ratings, the rest of the country would seem to agree....  ¶ 9:41 AM 0 comments   

  Downtown Tina Brown Tina Brown shares my sense that Patrick Fitzgerald has run a much tighter and smarter shop than Ken Starr did.

(Doesn't Starr seem like a bad dream? Ugh.)

"Unlike Kenneth Starr's late, unlamented operation, neither Fitzgerald nor anyone around him leaks," Brown writes in her Washington Post column.

She continues: "It's hard not to see Fitzgerald as the possessor of authentic traditional American virtues. Fitzgerald deals in facts, and lets facts speak for themselves. Bush talks ceaselessly of faith. The prosecutor is all about substance, the president all about surface. In nominating his personal attorney to the most august thinking body in the land, the Supreme Court, the president was caught showing the dismissive view he's always held of intellectual depth and scholarly accomplishment."

Well...we shall see about this. Sometimes Tina's enthusiasm carries her away (one of the things I like about her, actually). But I do think this competence argument is really hitting home. Can this White House do anything right? It's botched the war...the budget...the weather...the environment. And Fitzgerald, by contrast, looks like a man who knows what he does well and goes about doing it.

Today should be interesting....  ¶ 9:11 AM 0 comments   

  A Death in Belize Twenty-eight year old Abigail Brinkman of Columbus, Ohio, has died while scuba-diving off Belize.

Apparently Brinkman went out in a small group in a small boat, despite warnings of rough seas after Hurricane Wilma. When the boat engine died, she and three others jumped overboard and tried to swim to an island. The others survived. Brinkman, the only one not wearing a wetsuit, apparently died of hypothermia. (All of them seemed to have had on BCDs, the vests to which an air tank is strapped; they float.)

Having dived in the same area, I find this incident particularly disturbing. What were they thinking? In particular, the divemaster who took them out under such conditions....and poor Ms. Brinkman, going out diving after a hurricane without even bringing a wetsuit.

It makes me appreciate the dive boat I go out on when I'm in Cozumel, which is filled with guys who really care about the safety of their divers, something that is true for most, but definitely not all, divemasters. (I'd link to it, but this is one secret that is already too widely known.)

This incident reminds me that these guys have had problems of their own lately; Cozumel was hard hit by Hurricane Wilma.

Tony, Ricardo, Cielo, Roger, Jesus, Aaron—espero que todos estan seguros, mis amigos. Can't wait to see you soon and hear Tony's ebullient, trademark phrase, preceded by his pretty-good imitation of a seal bark: "We're going diii—ving!"  ¶ 8:48 AM 1 comments   

  David Brooks: The Crack Pipe of Faux-Optimism David Brooks has a bizarre column today, which, if the New York Times would let you read it, would be found here.

But since you can't, I'll summarize: The Bush administration has succumbed to second-term blues. But all is not lost. The Bushies can regain their stride, just as Ronald Reagan did in the last quarter of his presidency, by following this advice. "Puncture the intellectual bubble of the presidency." ""Iron out the feuds and tensions." "Kick start a new policy agenda." "Repair relations with Capitol Hill."

Never mind that Brooks' memory of Reagan's last years is considerably more upbeat than the reality. (The Republicans remember Reagan through rose-colored glasses, just like he did with everything.)

But how about this? David Brooks has written an entire column about how to salvage the end of the Bush term without mentioning the word "Iraq."

This is an intellectual lapse that makes one wince for Brooks. Because let's face it: You could implement all four of Brooks' reforms, and the real cloud hanging over this administration wouldn't budge an inch.

Moreover, as soon as you enlarge the discussion to include Iraq, all of Brooks' suggestions seem, well, pretty silly. "Kick-start a new policy agenda"? Never mind that this White House is not much interested in policy, as Ron Susskind's devastating book revealed. But how much new policy can you concoct when burdened with massive debt due to a war whose costs seem only to be increasing?

And how, exactly, can the president iron out the feuds and tensions in his White House when the war with Iraq is the source of so many of them? By purging everyone associated with it? That leaves the little problem of the vice-president.

The truth that David Brooks can not even bring himself to deny is that the war is a ball and chain attached to this administration as it drags itself toward its finish line. And not even the White House seems to know how to rid itself of that weight.  ¶ 8:28 AM 0 comments   

  Maureen Dowd Gets Personal As someone who once had a name that was easily mocked—see the item below—I was struck by this headline on Maureen Dowd's column today: "Dick at the Heart of Darkness."

Dowd's column attacked Dick Cheney, of course. But the headline was clearly a double entendre, using "dick" both in reference to Cheney's name and implying that Cheney is a dick.

Which may well be true.

Nonetheless, this kind of wordplay is beneath the New York Times. (It's more the kind of thing you find, unfortunately, in the blogosphere.) I'm sure there are plenty of reasons for folks to criticize Dick Cheney. But let's be adult about how we do it, shall we? Civility in print is always a good idea.

For what it's worth, I considered whether I'm over-sensitive to this, and whether I'm being unfair to Dowd. Nah. For one thing, the ad hominem tone is typical of her. For another, it's hard to imagine a similar headline being used about an administration official whose first name could not be turned into a crude joke. If you don't believe me, imagine an equally obnoxious headline about someone you like. It'd seem weird, wouldn't it?

(And, if one really wanted to push this, one could suggest that Dowd's issues with men, widely written about by herself and others, come to the psychological foreground in such snipes.)

This is the second time in recent days where Dowd has crossed a line beyond which other Times reporters and columnists could not go. (The first was her column about Judith Miller.)

Maureen Dowd is very talented. But her editors allow her leeway that does not help the newspaper. Someone needs to rein her in. Just because many readers might enjoy this bit of nastiness—Dick Cheney probably isn't a very popular figure among Dowd's readers— doesn't mean that it increases one's respect for the New York Times. If such snark is what you want, go read Gawker.  ¶ 10:33 AM 6 comments   

  Is that Karma, or What? A few days ago, Lloyd Grove of the Daily News wrote a gossip item about yours truly that struck me as truly trivial. First, I can't imagine why anyone would want to read about me in a gossip column. (The definition of a slow news day.)

Moreover, the item in question was silly even by gossip column standards—even though, to be fair, Lloyd wrote about the episode, which involved a leaked e-mail, sympathetically.

(I didn't read it—I've learned not to read things about myself that I suspect will make me cranky—but some friends did, and told me about it.)

When Lloyd first e-mailed me about the item in question, I called him and said, "Lloyd, this is so silly. Who could possibly care? I'd appreciate it if you just let this go."

He said, "I don't think I can withhold this from my readers." As if they were dying for "news" about me. Although they had previously managed to get by just fine without it.

I've been mentioned in gossip items a few times over the years, and one thing that turns my stomach about the process is that I never know how to respond. When the incriminating/embarrassing matter is put to you, do you say nothing? Or try to laugh it off? Or fight back aggressively? I hate just being put in the position.

In this case, I wanted to say nothing at all. Lloyd argued that that was the wrong way to go, because a lighthearted response would make me look like a good guy with a self-deprecatory sense of humor. (Far from the truth, but there you are.) Of course, a response helps his column by creating a tit-for-tat, so the suggestion was in his self-interest. But the argument is kind of true, too. Giving a jokey comment makes you look like a good sport about it all. Even when you're fuming inside.

So I thought about it and e-mailed Lloyd an attempt at humor, which in retrospect I don't think was funny at all. I don't know if he even used it.

Anyway, I read today that Lloyd himself has been the victim of a leaked e-mail from his boss to the managing editor of People magazine. Lloyd's boss describes him as a "fucking idiot" and adds that "his page is stupid."

Ouch. Unhappy as I was to be written about by Lloyd, I wouldn't wish that on anyone, except maybe Donald Trump.

Nonetheless, in an egregious act of narcissism, I choose to believe that this is the result of karmic equalization.

Having said that, I guess the incident will give Lloyd a pretty strong case for a large golden parachute when the time comes.....  ¶ 9:46 AM 2 comments   

  Bono: Really Cool A few years back, I had the opportunity to interview Bono, who is, of course, the lead singer of U2. We met at the Cafe des Artistes on West 67th Street, near Central Park, in Manhattan. Bono walked there alone from an apartment on Central Park South, about ten blocks away, which right away struck me as quite cool—hardly typical for a rock star.

I spoke with Bono for about two hours, and came away hugely impressed. We spoke mostly about his drive for international debt relief for poor nations, and he clearly knew what he was talking about. Well, let's be honest—he knew vastly more about the issue than I did. But we also talked about the politics of being a rock star and some of the issues raised by his dual roles as activist and musician.

Bono had enormous charisma, humor and intelligence.

Also, he holds his liquor better than I do. But that is true of most adults. And many young people.

I am reminded of all this by the extensive interview Jann Wenner has done with Bono in the new Rolling Stone: This is a thoughtful and fascinating man. And inspiring. More than anyone else I can think of, Bono makes real change in Africa seem not only plausible, but mandatory.

I liked one particular answer of his, when Wenner asked if he has a "messianic complex." Bono responds: "Once you see not only the problem, but also the solution, there's no escape. You see it, you can't look away from it. I want it to feel like an adventure, not a burden. ...This is an extraordinary thing. This is not, 'Oh, my God, all the poor starving Africans with flies around their faces.' They are very noble, royal people, full of easy laughter and very innovative. This is about us, too. It's about who are we? What are our values? Do we have any? It's exciting."

And inspiring....  ¶ 9:10 AM 2 comments   

  Alec Baldwin: Kay Bailey Hutchison "Full of Shit" That's what he says on the Huffington Post, pointing out that the Texas senator now considers perjury a technicality—despite the fact that she twice voted to impeach Bill Clinton.

I'm tempted to make an Alec Baldwin joke, but you know what? He's right. Kay Bailey Hutchison is full of shit.

In fact, it strikes me that the Fitzgerald investigation seems to me a model of how a special prosecutor can actually work well. Unlike Ken Starr's office, Fitzgerald's seems to be essentially leak-proof. And whereas Starr spent millions and millions and paralyzed the government to find nothing more than a little tomfoolery, Fitzgerald is spending his money to investigate an abuse of executive branch power that helped put the country on a path to war.

Which would suggest that Republicans got it exactly wrong then...and are getting it exactly wrong now. All in pursuit of, and now defense of, power.

Which is why the GOP is in the midst of a bitter ideological civil war between those who'll do anything to hold on to power and those who believe that the party should stand for more than that.....  ¶ 9:04 AM 4 comments   

  Miers Down, Almost Out The President has declared that he won't release any memos of Harriet Miers' advice to him, on the grounds that he must protect executive privilege.

This isn't the first time Bush has made this case; the first related to Dick Cheney's energy policy task force. The White House fought a successful legal battle to ensure that it did not have to release the names of the oil company/Halliburton executives from whom Cheney took his marching orders.

A couple of thoughts.

First, didn't Bush think of this potential snag before he nominated Miers? Or was he expecting that the Senate would just roll over and confirm her, without asking for her White House paper trail?

Second, this feels like an exit strategy. Bush can withdraw the nomination and simultaneously take the high ground, saying that he's fighting to preserve executive privilege for his successors.

Here's a general rule that I believe about Washington: When you can imagine how a scandal will end, the very act of imagining a denouement hastens its realization.  ¶ 8:52 AM 0 comments   

  Oh, Deer In Orinda, California, a rampaging deer is attacking dogs. It's gored one to death and wounded three others.

No word on whether the victims were lap dogs.

"We're being held hostage by a rogue deer," resident Lou Pimentel told the San Jose Mercury News. Pimentel has stopped walking his Jack Russell terrier since the attacks. "I like deer. It's peaceful to know you live where deer can roam. But it's very different when you worry about your dog being killed."

Oh, yes. It is different when you worry about your dog being killed. Everything is different when you worry about your dog being killed.

State game wardens have dispatched local hunters on a search-and-deerstroy mission.  ¶ 8:44 AM 0 comments   

  Cheney on the Hot Seat So Dick Cheney is the guy who told Scooter Libby about Valerie Plame's job at the CIA. This does complicate the situation, doesn't it?

I had a discussion with a friend not too long ago about why the Plame scandal matters. Was special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald spending too much time, causing too much chaos, just for a little leak investigation?

My response is that this investigation matters not just because of the literal crimes that may have occurred, but because it's about the lengths that this administration went to to justify the war in Iraq. The lies surrounding what Scooter Libby and Karl Rove may or may not have known and said may, in a narrow context, be small lies. But they go to the heart of the matter: That this White House was trying to sell a war for illegitimate reasons, and it was willing to break the law and smear its critics to do so.

And now we know that the vice-president is involved. The chickens are coming home to roost.

I don't think there can be any question that this investigation matters. Who knows, now, where it will take us? I, for one, can't wait for Robert Sam Anson's biography of Dick Cheney....  ¶ 8:29 AM 0 comments   

  Following Harvard's Money Over the weekend, by the way, the Times ran a fascinating piece by financial columnist Joseph Nocera on the departure of Harvard money manager Jack Meyer and the arrival of replacement Mohamed El-Erian. For Harvard alums, this should be required reading; it raises serious issues about the management of the university.

After establishing Meyer's success as manager of Harvard's billions, Nocera posits this thesis: "To talk to people in both the Harvard and the Meyer camps, you come away with the feeling that Harvard is not all that terribly sorry to see him go—and that Mr. Meyer had come to feel that, if he wasn't exactly being pushed out the door, he was certainly not getting the deference or leeway he was used to."

Nocera cites two phenomena to explain the changing relationship between Meyer and Harvard. The first is the departure of some of his money managers, under the pressure of bad publicity over their salaries; the men subsequently created their own hedge funds and Meyer invested with them, which meant essentially that their salaries were no longer public and that the staff expertise at Harvard Management Corporation was diminished.

The second change was Larry Summers. To quote Nocera: "One of the raps on Mr. Summers is that he always has to be the smartest guy in any room, tossing off questions he means to be provocative, but which often have the effect of alienating the people he's questioning. And so...Mr. Summers began questioning Mr. Meyers about everything from the positions in the portfolio to its level of risk."

Equally interesting, Nocera throws Bob Rubin into the mix, saying that he too started "meddling" (as Meyer appeared to consider it) with Meyer's decisions.

Soon enough, Meyer got fed up...and now Mr. El-Erian has very large shoes to fill, with many doubts about whether he will be able to do that.

The plot thickens, eh?

I've long argued that the key to Summers' viability at Harvard is money: Are alumni giving it? Is Harvard making it?

Seem from this perspective, Summers may actually be in more trouble than he was last spring. FAS has just announced a $50 million or so annual deficit. (Could be more, could be less.) The long-awaited capital campaign is still awaited. It'll be a miracle if the performance of Harvard's endowment continues at the pace it did under Meyer.

And meanwhile, Allston is out there, waiting to suck down every available dollar Harvard throws at it....

Many people at Harvard would like to think that their, and the world's, image of the university is primarily linked to its intellectual achievements. I think it's more complicated. In recent decades, many people have formed their high estimation of Harvard, whether they realize it or not, because of the fact that it is not just smart but rich, the richest university in the world by about ten billion dollars, so rich that they've come to take this relatively modern phenomenon for granted. What many Harvard alums and the general public really cherish about Harvard is its power, and these days, the source of that power is as much financial as it is intellectual.

So what happens if, under Larry Summers, Harvard's wealth starts to flatline, or even decrease? And what happens if the departure of Jack Meyer is seen as a watershed in that development?
___________________________________________________________________

P.S. Harvard alums who want to better understand their president should know that Summers almost certainly spoke at some length—on background—for Nocera's story. (I'd bet ten percent of my personal wealth versus .o1 percent of Harvard's endowment on it.) How do I know this? First, he's quoted in a sort of oblique way saying "Jack Meyer did a great job for Harvard." Short, succinct soundbite.

But later in the piece, when Nocera discusses a new compensation strategy Summers put in place at HMC, Nocera writes, "I don't believe that Mr. Summers imposed the new system as a means of getting rid of Mr. Meyer—he simply thought it made more sense for a university endowment—but that was the inevitable result."

How does Nocera know what Summers "simply thought"? In all likelihood, because Summers told him—but in a way he hoped would obscure the extent of his cooperation with the Times reporter.

SOP in Washington: Give the complimentary soundbite on the record, then go on background to deliver the real dish. It's only less than obvious if you labor under the idealistic assumption that a university president wouldn't employ such media strategies.  ¶ 11:38 AM 2 comments   

  The Case Against Donations Former Harvard dean (and current professor) Harry Lewis states his case against Harvard's new, if selective, policy of matching donations to victims of natural disasters.

Writes Lewis: "Harvard really has no money of its own. It is merely the trustee for money given or paid to it for education and research, and funds resulting from reinvestment of such gifts and payments—funds which should themselves be invested in education and research at Harvard. "

I think this argument can safely be called the traditionalist, or purist, view of Harvard's role in the world, whereas Larry Summers' decision to implement this policy reflects his expansionist perspective: Harvard as international geopolitical player, led by Summers, who used other people's money in similar ways while at the World Bank and the Treasury Department....

A tax lawyer friend of mine raises the question of whether it's even legal for a non-profit to redirect contributions in such a manner..... There's a real case to be made that it is not.  ¶ 10:46 AM 0 comments   

  Judith Miller Responds Boy, does she ever—in this e-mail to public editor Byron Calame. Pretty hot stuff. For one thing, Miller clarifies the murky issue of what editor she discussed pursuing the Valerie Wilson story with: Jill Abramson. This, even though Abramson has denied that any such conversation ever took place. Is Abramson lying?

I know I shouldn't put it this way, but the catfight is turning into a three-way.....or even a foursome, if you include the interview Miller gives to the New York Post's Andrea Peyser....

Miller also clarifies her controversial decision to call Scooter Libby a "former Hill staffer," saying that " I agreed to that attribution only to hear the information. As I also stressed, Scooter Libby has never been identified in any of my stories as anything other than a 'senior Administration official.'”

If true, then Miller has a legitimate beef: the Times' tick-tock and Calame's column clearly left the impression that the wording "former Hill staffer" had gotten into the paper.

Finally, Miller accuses Calame of not giving her equal time: "While you posted Bill Keller’s sanitized, post-lawyered version of the ugly, inaccurate memo to the staff he circulated Friday, which accused me of 'misleading' an editor and being 'entangle' with I. Lewis Libby, you declined to post the answers I sent you to six questions that we touched on during our interview Thursday. Had you done so, readers could have made their own assessment of my conduct in what you headlined as “the Miller mess.”

Again, I think Miller has a point. If Miller answered his questions, why not post her answers? That's what the web is for, baby. Full disclosure. As they say in Washington, do an information dump. If the public editor won't level with readers, who will?

Miller also has a right to be outraged by Bill Keller's use of the term "entangled," which clearly suggests that she was sleeping with Scooter Libby. If Miller wasn't, then Keller not only chose his word poorly, he chose it sleazily.

Bill Keller inspires less and less confidence.
  ¶ 10:14 AM 3 comments   

  Another Reason for Instant Replay in Baseball ...last night's blown call by an ump who thought that White Sox player Jermaine Dye was hit by a pitch, though it actually hit his bat. Even the player later admitted that the call was wrong.

This is the third egregiously bad call by an umpire in the post-season, all of which wound up playing crucial roles in the outcomes of games.

What could be the downside of allowing instant replay review during the post-season?

After all, it's not like football, where such interruptions really disrupt the flow of the game. In baseball, taking a few moments to chat is a valued part of the game—a manager's visit to the mound, for example.

It'd be kind of fun for baseball fans to have more time during the game to review and argue about disputed calls...and no important game should be lost because of an ump's clearly mistaken call.  ¶ 9:45 AM 0 comments   

  Third Times the Charm On Sunday, Maureen Dowd used her column to flay Judy Miller (after first going out out of her way to note that she's "always liked Judy Miller").

(Insert standard TimesSelect lack-of-link explanation here.)

Dowd cites the usual reasons, but adds one delicious detail: that as recently as last April, Miller sent her an e-mail defending Ahmad Chalabi, perhaps the world's most unreliable source. For this act of lunatic judgment alone, Miller should be fired.

Clearly, I have no desire to defend Judith Miller. But having said that, I think it's bizarre and probably inappropriate to allow one Times columnist to write a column attacking a Times reporter. (Much as I love to read a "catfight," as the New York Post put it.)

In the process, Dowd can draw on her knowledge of the paper's internal workings, and, because she's a columnist, never has to give Miller a chance to respond. It doesn't feel right. The Times should offer Judy Miller space on the editorial page to answer Dowd. But of course, then the whole thing starts to get silly...which is why the Times shouldn't have allowed Dowd to write about Miller in the first place.

Moreover, while I'm sure that Dowd genuinely believes what she wrote, and that she would never, ever be opportunistic and use the moment of Miller's weakness to pile on, let us not give her points for journalistic courage here.

Real guts would have been writing this column a year ago. Or two years ago. After all, Dowd writes that in the run-up to war, she "worried that [Miller] was playing a leading role in the dangerous echo chamber" of warmongers and their publicists. Perhaps I missed it, but I don't recall her breaking with Miller at the time.

It doesn't take much guts to come out now and say that you always thought Judy Miller was a bad reporter. What'd you do when it counted, Maureen? When you might actually have to pay an internal price at the paper in order to run a column?

A few posters on this blog have mentioned that they don't believe Judith Miller should be given the opportunity to write a book. I think this kind of criticism merits a response, and I'd like to see it addressed in the book that Miller will surely write. Can you imagine how entertaining it would be if she really decides to dish on the internal goings-on at the Times?

Which perhaps puts Dowd's column in another light. Perhaps it's nothing more than a shot across the bow....  ¶ 9:23 AM 2 comments   

  Write Your Own Bob Herbert Column Today's column by beat-the-drum-slowly-and-repetitively Times columnist Bob Herbert has this ominous title: "How Scary Is This?"

(You know the drill by now: I'd link to it, but, blah-blah-blah, TimesSelect.)

Here's how the column is described online: "If nothing is done about the current state of affairs and the incompetence of the government, things are going to get much worse."

I think that Bob Herbert, in a burst of delightfully self-deprecatory self-parody, must have written that sentence himself. Because, after all, it's pretty much the theme of every Bob Herbert column. Or does some web editor just keep around that dummy copy to publish whenever it's Bob Herbert's time to appear in the paper?

I challenge readers to come up with their own Bob Herbert ledes....  ¶ 9:16 AM 0 comments   

  The Public Editor vs. Judith Miller Times public editor Byron Calame weighs in with his thoughts on the Judith Miller fiasco.

They are more or less as follows:
1) The Times was slow to fault its, and particularly Miller's, reporting on Iraq before the war began, largely because of the Jason Blair fiascos. (Lots of fiascos going around the Times these days.)
2) Judy Miller takes "journalistic shortcuts."
3) Times editors treated Miller with kid gloves, treatment which only made the fiasco worse.
4) "The problems facing her inside and outside the newsroom will make it difficult for her to return to the paper as a reporter."

I'm underwhelmed by Calame's column, which essentially repeats everything we already knew and doesn't dig very deep.

For example, it takes Bill Keller's words about "lancing the WMD boil earlier" at face value. But as readers of the blogosphere well know, the Times did a remarkably poor job of evaluating its reportage strongly suggesting that Iraq had or was about to acquire WMDs. On a story of immense importance—whether there was reason for this country to go to war—the Times not only got the story wrong, but got it wrong in such a way that promoted war. The reporter most responsible for this was Judy Miller—and the Times' WMD mea culpa failed to address her role.

Calame also neglects to address the news, broken by Andrea Peyser in Sunday's New York Post, that Milller was allowed to read last week's tick-tock of, for lack of a cuter phrase, "Miller Time"—before publication.

Since when does the Times allow the subjects of its articles pre-publication review?

And, while this is a touchy situation, Calame lets Arthur Sulzberger, Jr., off the hook. He notes that Sulzberger strongly defended Miller. But he doesn't push the question of why, and that is something of a mystery. Folks outside the Times have known for years that Miller was trouble. And it sounds like some folks inside the Times have also known that.

So why did Pinch Sulzberger put the credibility of his newspaper at risk to stick up for a reporter whose dubious history waved more red flags than a bullfighters' school?

(Sorry.)

And here's a question I have: Judy Miller once again refused to name the editor she claims she asked for permission to pursue a story about Valerie Wilson, and who allegedly said no. Who is this mysterious editor? Washington bureau chief Jill Abramson says it wasn't she. Was it Bill Keller?

In any event, how can a newspaper possibly continue to pay a reporter who won't disclose her own discussions with the paper's editors?

To rebuild its credibility, the Times should do more than just let Judy Miller sneak away and write a book. It needs to fire her.  ¶ 8:48 AM 0 comments   

  It's My Birthday Just in case you wanted to send me a card or something.

I'm looking forward to being 27...it seems like a nice year.  ¶ 8:44 AM 2 comments   

  Is That a Python in Your Toilet? In fact, it is. A girl in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, noticed something unusual in her bathroom: an eight-foot python coiled up in the family toilet bowl. It sounds like a bad horror movie, I know. Kind of like like inside the White House, these days...you never know where pythons are going to turn up!  ¶ 8:38 AM 0 comments   

  The Republicans' Really, Really Big Government The White House wants colleges to spend an estimated $7 billion to make it easier for the government to spy on e-mail....even though the federal government has apparently never asked for a wiretap on a university's e-mail, and, since it has the legal right to do so, could, with relative ease.

One imagines that there are other ways to spend that $7 billion which would a) make the country safer and b) avoid enormously increasing the authoritarian nature of the federal government, something Republicans used to care about, before they ran it.

Moreover, back when Bill Clinton was president, this is the kind of thing that Republicans used to call an "unfunded mandate," an order by the federal government whose cost was simply imposed upon the states. At they time, they were justifiably upset about such mandates.  ¶ 8:32 AM 0 comments   

  A Wish Is Granted A couple days ago, I wrote that I hoped to see more headlines like the one from an Australian website, "'Intelligent Design' Scorned." I even liked that they put "intelligent design" in quotation marks.

Sometimes, you really do get what you ask for...

Cornell President Condemns Teaching Intelligent Design as Science

Perhaps other Ivy League presidents should follow in the lead of Cornell president Hunter R. Rawlings IIIrd....  ¶ 10:16 AM 2 comments   

  Larry Summers and the Woman Problem According to the Crimson, when one female student asked Larry Summers about the possibility of a women's center at Harvard, Summers responded, “A women’s center is one of the last things I want to see on campus.”

As the Crimson puts it, "a spokesman for Summers declined to comment on the anecdote." (Is that you, John Longbrake? Are we back to the Lucie McNeil days, when the president's only spokesperson refused to allow herself to be identified?)

I'm inclined to believe this anecdote. The language sounds like Summers, and so does the opinion.

I'm equally sure that Summers could make compelling arguments to back up his conclusion.

But so much of leadership is about voice, about telling people things they don't want to hear in a way that minimizes tension, rather than exacerbating it. (And here I disagree with conservatives who seem to think that great leadership in a college president means sticking it to women, minorities, liberals, etc., by giving them a rhetorical middle-finger and then feigning shock at their outrage.)

When Summers was in Washington, he learned that he couldn't get away with this kind of remark because there were people more powerful than he who would make his life a living hell for it.

Now, he clearly doesn't feel that way; no individual is powerful enough at Harvard to challenge him, particularly not a student.

The result: a gratuitously rough remark to a student who is, after all, probably 20 years old or so.....  ¶ 9:03 AM 0 comments   

  Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang Congress has passed a law shielding the gun industry from lawsuits arising from crimes committed by people using their products.

"It's a historic piece of legislation," Wayne LaPierre, the association's chief executive, told the New York Times. LaPierre added that the bill was the most significant victory for the gun lobby since Congress rewrote the federal gun control law in 1986. "As of Oct. 20, the Second Amendment is probably in the best shape in this country that it's been in decades."

Without addressing the merits of this law, let me just point out that it runs contrary to the most fundamental tenet of the Republican Party: federalism. Congress has passed a law overriding the laws of every state in the entire country on a subject about which there is widespread disagreement and no clear moral impetus (as with, say, civil rights law).

And, though Republicans have long decried the power of the Supreme Court to decide the law of the land, they are now trying to stack the court with judges who will support the constitutionality of the big-government laws they are passing.

Emerson said that consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. (Emerson was more full of shit, in my opinion, than a port-a-potty at Woodstock, particularly in this blatantly self-rationalizing quote, but there you are.)

If so, then Tom DeLay is a great man. But I like to think that a little ideological consistency is actually a good thing in the long run, and that serious conservatives ought to be worried about such heavy-handed measures. If they really believe that the smaller the government the better, how do they justify such measures, other than with an "ends justifies the means" argument?  ¶ 8:49 AM 4 comments   

  Larry Summers Would Relate Advertising exec Neil French has resigned after telling an industry audience that women in advertising don't rise to the top because "they don't deserve to," thanks to the demands on them as mothers.

Defending his remarks, Mr. French told the New York Times, "A belligerent question deserves a belligerent answer. The answer is, They don't work hard enough. It's not a joke job. The future of the entire agency is in your hands as creative director."

After an outraged response from some of those present, French, 61, resigned his position as creative director of the advertising conglomerate, WPP Group.

Interestingly, French's remarks mirrored those of Larry Summers last winter, when he said that women didn't rise to the top levels of math and science primarily because their domestic responsibilities kept them from working the necessary hours.

But that argument was overshadowed when Summers' second argument, that women are genetically less capable at math and science than men are, caused a storm of controversy.

What's ironic about the sensitivity to this issue is that it's something lots of women would agree with—they do more at home than men do, and they pay a professional price for doing so.

The answer would seem to be getting men to accept at least an equal domestic burden.

But many women genuinely don't seem to want that; many women (along with most men) genuinely seem to believe that they are—dare I say it?—genetically more inclined to bond with their kids than men are. I've spoken to lots of moms who say that it's not a question of culture; their young children just have a stronger connection to them than they do with their fathers. And if you suggest that that bond is a social construct, these women can get very offended, and expound upon the connection between a child and the person who carried it for nine months inside her—an argument that makes some sense to me. How could a baby not have a stronger connection with that person than with a guy who just shows up in the delivery room?

Moreover, I've found that many women don't really want a man who isn't at least their professional equal. I know a couple of house husbands, and they all say that they sense a subtle disrespect from women they know, and they're not particularly welcomed among, say, groups of mothers at the playground.

So, back to Summers and French. Both men are clearly on to something; they're taking stabs at explaining an issue that affects most everyone in our society. It's just particularly sensitive for women. Why? Because, I think, the ultimate truth of this debate is that many women want it all—quantity kid time and professional succcess—but can't have it all, because, well, no one can really do that. There aren't enough hours in the day.

Whereas men don't want it all; we want to spend more time at work.

Who knows? I'm hardly an expert on this stuff. But in any case, I would propose two things: That when men try to discuss this issue, we try to do so with sensitivity, recognizing that this is, at least now, a more cutting and troublesome issue for women than it is for us.

And second, that women who believe in changing roles for their own sex are consistent and support men who try to change gender roles for themselves.....  ¶ 8:24 AM 0 comments   

  Michael Bamberger Doesn't Get It Sports Illustrated runs this Q & A with its own reporter, Michael Bamberger, after Bamberger complained to a WPGA official about a suspected rule violation by first-time pro Michelle Wie. Things must really be hot for Bamberger, who caused Wie to be disqualified from the tournament.

I earlier argued that Bamberger was wrong to interject himself into the conduct of a golf tournament, and this interview does nothing to convince me that I'm wrong.

Here's Bamberger's rationale for his action, which took place on Sunday, the tournament's last day:

Saturday night literally was sleepless for me. I didn't want to insert myself into the story. On the other hand, as someone who loves golf and thinks playing by the rules is a critical element to making tournament golf work, I was worried about how I would feel if I said nothing. I had this scenario in my head: How would I feel on Monday when I looked at the newspaper and saw where she had finished, knowing that, in my mind, her position was not legitimate.

Let me admit that I'm skeptical of anyone, particularly any writer, who says "Saturday night literally was sleepless for me." I'm trying to imagine a figuratively sleepness night. Is that even possible?

More important, Bamberger says he broke journalism's rules of being a reporter, not a participant because he was worried about how he would feel.

Imagine if reporters in other sports used this rationale every time they saw a bad call. The phones of sports officials would be ringing off the hook. You know, I just had to call up about Robinson Cano being called out at first—I feel really bad about that.....

Asked his reaction when he heard that Wie was disqualified, Bamberger responds, "I felt emotionally dead. I like being in the background -- that's one reason why I'm a reporter. I knew I had influenced the outcome. But I also knew I would've been sick to my stomach if I had not said anything."

Emotionally dead? Sick to his stomach? This kind of reaction might be understandable in Anderson Cooper reporting from New Orleans, but Michael, it's just a golf tournament.

Sports Illustrated has a reporter who's clearly too close to his material, and Michelle Wie has paid an unfair price for that. The magazine should remove Bamberger from the golf beat.
  ¶ 7:58 AM 0 comments   

  Headlines We'd Like to See (in the American Press) 'Intelligent Design' scorned

That's from an Australian website.

And we wonder why Australian universities have become more popular than American ones....maybe it's because they don't have to teach nonsense?
  ¶ 2:08 PM 0 comments   

  Inadequate, Insufficient and Insulting Those are the words used by Arlen Specter to describe Harriet Miers' responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, as both GOP and Democratic leaders asked her to rewrite some of her answers.

Aren't they also words that could be used to describe the entirety of this Supreme Court nomination?

If Miers really goes through with these confirmation hearings, scheduled to start November 7th, I will be Tivo-ing them religiously. It'll be like watching a car crash in which the only person who gets hurt is an empty-headed, ill-equipped and unprepared judicial nominee.

Oh, right, and the president. And, in some way, probably the country.

Please, President Bush...do us all a favor. Put Harriet Miers out of her (and our) misery. Withdraw this nomination.  ¶ 10:12 AM 0 comments   

  Harvard in the Red Now we know why Harvard FAS dean Bill Kirby recently announced a slowdown of faculty hiring: he's projecting deficits in the tens of millions of dollars, starting next year.

Higher-than-expected construction costs are to blame, Kirby says, even as he argues that FAS has been planning for these deficits.

Huh.

For construction overruns to run into, say, $50 million a year—higher and lower figures were guesstimated—someone really has to have been asleep at the wheel. Granted, Harvard's got a lot going on, but this isn't the Big Dig here.

Whatever the case, the idea of FAS running a deficit isn't going to make anyone feel comfortable. Harvard has made so much money, and with such apparent ease, in the last fifteen years or so, the experience of losing money is going to feel very foreign. I would be surprised if there are no administrative consequences as a result.

Especially when combined with this other headline from today's Crimson: Stalled [Curricular] Review Inches Ahead.  ¶ 10:01 AM 0 comments   

  Fake Transparency Tina Brown coins a new term for the age in her Washington Post column today: "fake transparency."

She's talking, of course, about the Times' long Judith Miller story, and the fact that that story seemed to raise more questions than it answers. That's a cliche, but in this case, it's really true. You can't trust the accounts of any of the players in the piece; everyone comes across as dodgy and not trustworthy. And as Brown points out: How exactly did Miller keep "kind of drifting on her own back into the national security realm"? Why was Miller apparently driving the Times' legal conduct of the episode?

"'Transparency,'" Brown writes, "turns into a combination of partial truths and morose institutional venting that makes everyone, including the readers, feel worse about themselves and the newspaper than they did before."

I agree with the first half of that sentence and part of the second. I do feel worse about the Times than I did before. Its half-assed reportage (no fault of the reporters, in this case) of its own half-assed mistakes lays bare the emperor's lack of clothing.

But I feel pretty good about myself and all the other bloggers and journalism-watchers out there; we've all held the Times' feet to the fire on this one. I can't wait to see its subsequent articles clarifying this first one. It's a grand mystery, and watching it unfold is a combination of good fun and high stakes.

I have only one caveat: We do need to remember who the ultimate bad guys are, the people who conducted a smear campaign against a CIA operative and her husband in order to spook the country into war....  ¶ 9:48 AM 4 comments   

  And the Pythons Roll On Two Miami men have captured a ten-foot-long Burmese python that they suspect was scarfing exotic fish from an outdoor pool.

(Let us pause here and reflect upon the wackiness of the world.)

It's a helluva story. As the Miami Herald puts it, "The suspect resisted arrest."

The snake was discovered by one Tommy Compton near the man's fish pond. It evaded capture and slipped into the water. Then, showing either unparalleled courage or a craven desire to show off for the TV camera crew that he had called, Compton and a friend jumped into the pool and wrestled the beast into submission. They sustained several bites in the process, but apparently—and contrary to the thoughts of at least one poster on this blog—the python bite is not venomous. Still, the experience is probably less pleasurable than, say, a love bite from Carmen Elektra.

According to one snake expert, ''Typically pythons aren't fish eaters. But you never doubt a hungry snake. They are very resourceful.''

I believe I'm going to adopt that slogan, especially when dealing with gossip columnists: Never doubt a hungry snake.

Don't you just love nature as metaphor?  ¶ 2:16 PM 0 comments   

  Conservatives Ripping Each Other to Shreds Reaganite Republican Bruce Bartlett has been ousted from his position at the conservative National Center for Economic Analysis after writing a book critical of the Bush administration.

The book, called ""The Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy," is self-explanatory. It is also, of course, evidence of the deep split within American conservatives over the Bush presidency.

I must say, I love rubbernecking at this conservative civil war. For years, the conservatives have had it both ways, campaigning on ideals of small government and reduced federal spending even as they turn to the federal government to impose their ideological mandates on the country and the world. This implosion is long overdue. I can't even say that I give conservatives like Bartlett credit for engaging in the debate...for years, they turned a blind eye to the party's internal contradictions so as not to interrupt the party's march to power. Now that legacy of willful denial is coming home to roost.  ¶ 8:50 AM 0 comments   

  The Passive Voice as Metaphor for Harriet Miers' Life Ryan Lizza of The New Republic points out that earlier this year, Harriet Miers, the White House counsel, was not even licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia...and now she's a nominee to the Supreme Court.

Here's his excerpt from Miers' responses to Senate Judiciary Committee questions:

"Earlier this year, I received notice that my dues for the District of Columbia Bar were delinquent and as a result my ability to practice law in D.C. had been suspended. I immediately sent the dues in to remedy the delinquency. The nonpayment was not intentioned, and I corrected the situation upon receiving the letter."

Let's forget the obvious and pathetic embarrassment that this SCOTUS nominee had her law license suspended. Okay, sure, it happens, whatever. I'm more struck by her language: "the nonpayment was not intentioned."

Argh.

Let's see how one could phrase this clause. "I was busy, and forgot to mail the check...." Or: "I meant to pay, but I was busy approving torture in Iraq...." Or, simply: "My bad."

Instead,