Shots In The Dark

Our society has more and more old people, which, while good for the elderly, does have its financial and psychological burdens. And—until the past few weeks, at least—we've also had more and more SUVs.

The solution? Use the SUVs to kill the old people.

Because that's just what they do, very effectively, according to a new editorial in the British Medical Journal.

To quote: "Two independent trends in the developed world are likely to reverse some of the hard won improvements that have been made in road safety. One is the ageing of the population; the other the increase in the use of sports utility vehicles.... The first trend produces a growing number of vulnerable road users; the second produces a likelihood of more severe injuries when vehicles and pedestrians collide."

More: "Pedestrian protection is achieved in several ways. These include separation of vehicles from pedestrians, reduction of vehicle speeds,the development of "smart vehicles" to avoid collisions, and improved vehicle design to reduce injuries to pedestrians. The proliferation of sport utility vehicles represents a backwards step in safer vehicle design."

How long will it be until a victim of an SUV, or a victim's family, sues a carmaker for knowing that SUVs are unsafe and doing nothing to address design issues that threaten everyone not in an SUV?

To quote Martin Luther King woefully out of context, "How long? Not long."

They're going, they're going, they're gone!

My prayers have been answered. The Sox have been swept by the ChiSox. And the Curse is back.

The latest initiator of the Curse: Red Sox second baseman Tony Graffanino, who, at a key moment in Game Two, flubbed the easiest double play ball ever hit. (Even Bernie Williams would have to try hard to hit a double play ball that easy.) Two batters later, a three-run home run soared over the outfield wall, and the Sox were toast.

More proof of the Curse's return: The pitcher who shut down the Red Sox yesterday with the bases loaded and no outs? Orlando Hernandez...who is, of course, a former Yankee.

Still more proof: Dan Shaughnessy's massive hubris in declaring, back in June, that the Sox were going to run away with the AL East...this invited the wrath of the baseball gods, and is, more than anything else, responsible for Curse, Part II.

Granted, the Yanks are in a hole at the moment, down 2-1 to the Angels, who are very tough. Randy Johnson looked like Kevin Brown last night, and Robinson Cano is making too many rookie mistakes, leaving the bag too early on a crucial throw to second and then swinging at the first pitch to fly out with the bases loaded and two outs.

Well, it's going to be interesting. I hope the Yanks can come from behind—they've already done it once this season. But we've already won a moral victory in winning the division. And we've outlasted the Sox. Whoo-hoo! I could not ask the baseball gods for anything more...lest they think I'm greedy.
__________________________________________________________________

* Headline thanks to the New York Post....

In today's Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer and Bill Kristol both take whacks at Harriet Miers.

Here's Krauthammer: "There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president?"

Here's Kristol, in a story by Dan Balz: "The idea that one is supposed to sacrifice both intellectual distinction and philosophical clarity at the same time is just ridiculous."

Ouch!

Coupla things....

While liberals are surely enjoying watching conservatives turn on each other like a pack of starving rats, they need to be careful what they wish for. If the Miers' nomination is withdrawn, Bush will feel compelled to put up someone more hardline, in order to appease conservatives who will be feeling their oats.

Second, it occurs to me that the Republicans are doing a great job of shoring up core Democratic constituencies: first, with New Orleans, African-Americans. Now, the sight of George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol et al ganging up on Harriet Miers may well backfire among women.

I wrote previously that the Dems will probably oppose Miers. I think now that was wrong. They should support her as better than the alternative. In doing so, they look non-partisan when it comes to institutions that are supposed to be non-partisan, and they avoid the appearance of knee-jerk attack dogs. Plus, they stand behind a woman.

No wonder conservatives are pissed at the president....his nomination is a boon for the opposition party.

Something truly sad about Muslim terrorism is how it affects one's perceptions of Muslims all around you.

I mention this because New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has announced that a credible threat has been made against the NYC subway, and everyone's a little edgy.

I had to ride the subway myself this morning, and as I sat down with my Times and my iPod, I didn't really realize that the car I was in was largely, and unusually, empty. Then I looked a few seats to my right and saw two young Arab men sitting together, one of whom had a black cloth wrapped around his head and a small backpack on his lap, the other of whom had a newspaper open to a story about the terrorism threat.

I couldn't help it; part of me just thought, you should watch these guys. And: maybe you should move. Because after all, if one of them has a bomb, watching them isn't going to help you much.

I didn't move, and I tried not to stare at them—the poor guys were clearly aware that I and everyone else on the car were very aware of their presence. When they got off at 96th Street, I saw a woman on the platform jerk her head in alarm and watch them as they walked all the way down the platform.

It's a crummy feeling, to stare at someone and wonder if he's a terrorist, especially in a city where diversity is our pride. It's got to be an even worse feeling to be the one stared at. I wonder if the terrorists ever think about this...or care, if they do.

The Crimson examines the slowdown on faculty hiring imposed by FAS dean Bill Kirby, and suggests three explanations for it: a greater increase in faculty expenses than was expected, over-budget construction, and the delayed university capital campaign. Then there's also the possibility of money being earmarked for Allston and the costs of the faculty "diversity campaign."

The result is that the faculty is expected to increase from 700 to...703, by the end of the year. One wonder if those three positions aren't being added so that Bill Kirby can avoid using the dreaded term "hiring freeze"—because as soon as you concede that, people really start to ask questions. Hello, Marcella Bombardieri?

What comes through in the Crimson piece is two things. First, the real financial situation of the university, despite the endowment surge, is murky. There's more money...but there are more expenses too. (I still think this merits more reportage.)

Second, the faculty doesn't think it's being leveled with, and doesn't trust Bill Kirby.

At the very least, it's in serious trouble, and this column by George Will is a hammer blow. What's impressive is the way that Will manages to slam both Miers and the President, beginning with the second graf:

"...There is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's 'argument' for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to...."

Will's column shows not only right-wing dissatisfaction with Miers, but also conservatives' growing frustration with Bush...the cheerleading phase is history.

Two days ago, Fox News' James Rosen apparently tried to set up Condoleeza Rice with another Fox anchor...who happens to be a woman. (Thanks to Wonkette for the transcript.) Surely this must be one of the weirdest moments in TV history, and certainly it gives new meaning to the phrase "playing dual piano." Read on....

MR. ROSEN: I close with a gift for you. You met this person once, I believe, but you really, I think, ought to know each other because this woman is, I think you'll have an interest in knowing her. She is one of our FOX News anchors in New York. Her name is Lauren Green. She is brilliant, she's beautiful, she's African American, she's single and she's a concert pianist in her spare time.

SECRETARY RICE: My goodness.

MR. ROSEN: And she asked me to give you her CD and I promised her that I would.

SECRETARY RICE: That's perfect.

MR. ROSEN: And here's her doing a number of different classical pieces.

SECRETARY RICE: Well, that's special.

MR. ROSEN: So there you have it.

SECRETARY RICE: Thank her very much and I look forward to seeing her sometime.

MR. ROSEN: All right. She's going to want to hear from you.

SECRETARY RICE: And maybe even playing dual piano sometime.

My goodness, indeed! Where does one start? It's pretty hard not to interpret that exchange as Rosen trying to set up Rice and Green in a love match. (If anyone can come up with another interpretation that isn't entirely wishful thinking, I'd love to hear it.)

Few things.

I couldn't care less if Rice is gay, but her party could, so let's just stop all this Rice for President talk now, shall we? Somehow I don't think the creationists are ready for a black lesbian Republican presidential candidate. (Why is it that creationists think God created everything, but gays are unnatural? Discuss.)

Second, what does it say about the cozy relationship between Fox News and the White House that one Fox anchor is trying to pimp another to the Secretary of State? I mean, Rosen describes Lauren Green to Rice as "a gift for you." (Or is he referring to the cd?)

My head is spinning....and so is the White House!

The Crimson reports that Larry Summers and his girlfriend, English professor Elisa New, are getting married. We wish them much happiness.

Blushing fiancee Lisa New

Unlike, it would seem, Professor Stephen Greenblatt, who says this of the union:

<<“All of her work is very, very acutely sensitive to aesthetic issues,” Shakespeare scholar Stephen J. Greenblatt, the Cogan University professor at Harvard, said yesterday. “She’s a marvelous close reader of poetry. There are many qualities one would associate Larry Summers with, but an acute aesthetic sensitivity is not the first one that would come to mind.”

(Blogger's note: It occurs to me that both Larry Summers and Lisa New could take that as an insult.)

“In terms of the happy conjunction of personalities that represent different interests and engagements, it’s a very nice one,” Greenblatt said of the marriage.>>

Remind me not to let Professor Greenblatt make a toast at my wedding....

Did you hear the one about the python and the alligator? If not, I recommend following the link. Because after all, it's not every day you see a picture captioned, "The snake tried to swallow the alligator whole and then exploded."

There is a moral to this story, though. (There usually is.) Burmese pythons are not supposed to live in the Florida Everglades...which means that some bonehead bought one, probably illegally, then realized that it's not really such a good idea to have a Burmese python as a pet, and so dumped it in a swamp somewhere.

As Bill Maher would say, new rule: If you buy a man-eating animal because you think it's really cool, you must live with the consequences.

Jury duty, that is; I've been summoned. The blog will return when I do....

He's reportedly about to sign a million-dollar book deal detailing the last year of his professional life, with much emphasis on Hurricane Katrina.

As New York Daily News columnist Lloyd Grove reports, the book is being sold without a proposal. "It's 'We saw you on TV, we saw you get very emotional, we love you, here's the money!'" said a publishing source.

Cooper says he's going to give some of the proceeds to charity...but still, something about this doesn't sit right. If news anchors do memoirs, they usually wait till the end of their careers, so that whatever they disclose in the books doesn't affect their appearance of objectivity.

But that value—objectivity—seems to be of diminishing importance in the news business.

And honestly, if Anderson Cooper wants to give money to charity, he could always contribute some of the proceeds from the sale of one of his multi-million dollar apartments....

The New York Times chooses my second option about President Bush and his nomination of Harriet Miers to SCOTUS below: that Bush has no appetite for a political fight right now.

I think he's got one on his hands anyway, though not necessarily from the people you'd expect.

Liberals are going to attack Miers because she looks vulnerable right out of the box, and also because her qualifications are suspect.

But more damaging to Bush, I think, is the fact that his base already doesn't like this choice. Troll the conservative websites, if you're inclined. Or consider this quote from a National Review editorial:

John Roberts was a “stealth nominee” in that he did not have declared positions on such questions as the constitutionality of affirmative action and anti-abortion laws. But Roberts possessed stellar professional qualifications, had impressed everyone who came in contact with him, had written well-reasoned judicial opinions, and had conservative legal heavyweights willing to vouch for his soundness. These things are either not present, or are present to a smaller degree, in Miers’s case. Being a Bush loyalist and friend is not a qualification for the Supreme Court.

My prediction: that in trying not to pick a fight, Bush looks weak, and therefore has invited a fight. I think he's in real trouble on this one. If I were leading the Democratic charge, I'd compare Miers to FEMA's Michael Brown—another example of cronyism in the country's most important jobs.

In defending his company's dependence on gas-guzzling SUVs, General Motors vice-president Robert A. Lutz said, "I'm betting we're going to see regular [gas] under $2 a gallon again."

Mmm-hmmmm.

Me too. I'm also betting that we're going to see penny candy that costs a penny, first-class postage for a dime, and a two-bedroom Manhattan apartment with lots of closest space for around $175,000.

General Motors has pushed SUVs at terrible cost to the American environment for years now. They guzzle gas, they roll over, they make highways less safe, and they promote a culture of reckless consumption. GM is also the last automaker to invest heavily in hybrid electric engines.

And to top it off, once you remove the SUVs, there's not a car in the company that you'd actually pay to drive. Think quick: Can you even name a General Motors car?

GM is in serious trouble...and apparently it's all because the company's top executives are smoking crack.

An ad-filled notepad that actually hovers over the text that you're trying to read...and there's no way to make it disappear.

Don't the editors of the New Jersey Record have some concern about how their editorial product is being corrupted?

Someone nip this in the bud, please....

With its usual snark, Gawker reports that the Marines have taken to using the website craigslist to recruit new soldiers. One seargeant reports that he's had 15 contacts from the site. Concludes Gawker: "And there's 15 more Abu Ghraibs right there."

I'm not sure what disturbs me the most about this cheap shot. The appalling reflexive cynicism? The insinuation that all American soldiers commit torture? The mindless assumption that there's something automatically wrong with joining the military—or, for that matter, with military recruiting?

It's one thing to oppose the war, or be horrified by what a handful of American soldiers and their higher-ups have done. But to smear everyone who's joined or is considering joining the Marines...that's vile. The cultural left has go to hold itself to higher standards.

President Bush's next pick for the Supreme Court has been leaked: it's his White House counsel, Harriet Miers.

A curious choice. Miers has never been a judge. And she's oldish for a nominee—60—suggesting that she wouldn't be on the court for very long, by Supreme Court standards.

Hmmmm. I wonder if Bush's two recent choices haven't been:

a) a sign of his essential moderation; he's a conservative, but not a nutjob
b) a sign of his political weakness; he can't afford to rally the Democrats and piss off the country any more than he already has
c) a sneaking suspicion that both nominees are more conservative than they're letting on

My guess: the Democrats will find Miers tough to take on, but they will anyway...and not necessarily through ideology, but because of her relative lack of experience. With all the judges in the country, why pick someone who's never served on the bench?

Baseball's regular season ended with a curious whimper—the drama present at the start of the weekend drained out of division races with unexpected speed, as the Indians continued to choke and the Yankees clinched their division on Saturday, then the Sox eaked into the wild card on Sunday.

The Sox took two out of three from the Yanks, but all that mattered was the Yankee win on Saturday, with Randy Johnson shutting down the Sox. Both teams have vulnerabilities. The Yankees' middle-inning relief is abysmal. (Scott Proctor, Wayne Franklin, Felix Rodriguez....who are these guys?) The Sox's starting pitching is shaky. Even though David Wells and Curt Schilling pitched well, neither of them seems overwhelming. Tim Wakefield, normally so mystifying to the Yankees, got crushed on Saturday, perhaps because he was working on only three days' rest.

Now the Yanks head west to take on the Anaheim Angels, who had a winning record against them this season, while the Sox travel to Chicago to take on the White Sox. It's entirely possible that these two teams will see each other again...good as they are, the Sox just don't seem to have it this year. And the Yankees are a fragile machine. Randy Johnson has been up-and-down. Jaret Wright pretty much stinks. Mike Mussina can be great, and can be terrible. It's a curious season.

And about next year?

Well, clearly the Yankees should sign Boston centerfielder and free agent Johnny Damon...when he's healthy, Damon wreaks havoc on the basepaths. Imagine this line-up: Damon, Jeter, Rodriguez, Sheffield, Matsui, Giambi, Posada, Cano, the dh of your choice, and a healthy Jaret Wright and Carl Pavano. Sounds tough to beat, doesn't it?

Two interesting pieces from the Crimson today...

First, a report that in money manager Jack Meyer's last year, the Harvard endowment has risen to $25.9 billion, a 19.2 percent increase. (Only Yale had a better rate of return, with 22%, although its endowment is a comparatively measly $15 billion.) That'll take some pressure off the need for a new capital campaign...but it will also put new pressure of FAS dean Bill Kirby to explain why he's cutting back on new faculty hiring.

Meanwhile, a student columnist trashes both the Core Curriculum and its replacement, insofar as that replacement has taken form. "Larry Summers, with his refreshingly willful behavior, was the one hope for grand vision, and he has already excused himself from the Curricular Review altogether, " writes columnist Travis R. Kavulla.

(Why is it that all Crimson writers seem to insist upon using their middle initials? It's not as if there can be that many Travis Kavulla's at Harvard.)

Coupla things.

First, it is interesting to see how Larry Summers has distanced himself from the Curricular Review. A review of his early speeches would show that he was making that review a priority; his first Commencement address laid out his vision of the review. But for a number of reasons—they're laid out in Harvard Rules—that review has stumbled towards unimpressiveness, and Summers has steadily inched away from any association with it. Now the capital campaign is allegedly focusing on Allston development because the review is such a clunker, the fundraising office doesn't trust it to inspire alumni contributions....

Second, Kavulla's column shows just how far today's students have come from those of the '60s and '70s; I'm just not sure if it's for better or worse. Whereas the students of yesteryear wanted choice and freedom, today's students want the university's firm guiding hand to tell them what's important. They don't believe that truth is relative or that the journey to knowledge matters more than the acquisition of facts. They're all business: just tell us what we need to know and get out of our way.

I don't have a dog in this hunt. But it does strike me that those two educational philosophies, paralleling as they do the politics of their periods, suggest that truth, or at least pedagogy, is indeed relative...it just depends on when you're looking at it.