Links
Archives
- 2005-02-13
- 2005-02-20
- 2005-02-27
- 2005-03-06
- 2005-03-13
- 2005-03-20
- 2005-03-27
- 2005-04-03
- 2005-04-10
- 2005-04-17
- 2005-04-24
- 2005-05-01
- 2005-05-08
- 2005-05-15
- 2005-05-22
- 2005-05-29
- 2005-06-05
- 2005-06-12
- 2005-06-19
- 2005-06-26
- 2005-07-03
- 2005-07-10
- 2005-07-17
- 2005-07-24
- 2005-07-31
- 2005-08-07
- 2005-08-14
- 2005-08-21
- 2005-08-28
- 2005-09-04
- 2005-09-11
- 2005-09-18
- 2005-09-25
- 2005-10-02
- 2005-10-09
- 2005-10-16
Politics, Media, Academia, Pop Culture, and More
Saturday, October 15, 2005
Harvard Gets a Money Man
Harvard has announced its replacement for Jack Meyer, the retiring head of the Harvard Management Corporation: Mohammed A. El-Erian, a bond fund manager from the "powerhouse" firm Pimco.
The Times casts the hiring of El-Erian as a "surprising choice," noting that he's little-known around Wall Street, is not a Harvard alum, and has no experience managing a stock portfolio.
The Globe has a downright weird take*; it headlines its coverage "Harvard Will Keep Disputed Pay Policy," and buries the fact that Harvard announced Meyer's replacement four grafs into the story.
My thoughts: The Times piece does a better job of raising the right questions here. It, too, notes that El-Erian's pay package will be similar to Jack Meyer's, and points out that Yale's money manager, David Swenson—who may be even better than Meyer—was paid only about $1 million last year, a relative pittance. But Swenson is a rare breed, an extremely moral man with strong feelings about what people like him should be paid. He's an exception in the business. Harvard's still paying well below market rate.
But the Times stresses that El-Erian is a curious pick, and I think that's right. It may be a reflection of how difficult it was for Larry Summers to find someone to take this job.
(One thing neither the Times nor the Globe points out: As the Times reported some months back, Summers, Bob Rubin, and Harvard treasurer James Rothenberg had originally tried to conduct this search by themselves, then gave up and handed it off to an executive search firm. Who found El-Erian?)
I suspect Summers likes El-Erian for several reasons. First, he spent 15 years working at the International Monetary Fund, a credential Summers would value, given his own experience in international economics.
Second, El-Erian is Egyptian, was educated in England, and now works and lives in the U.S. Summers would appreciate that international experience—it fits with his globalization push.
Third, and perhaps most important, as the Times notes (but rather far down in its piece), El-Erian will have a slightly different role than Meyer did. In addition to his job at HMC, he'll be teaching at the Harvard Business School and will serve as "deputy treasurer" to the university, advising Summers on all sorts of financial matters.
It's possible to read this as an expansion of Meyer's role. I don't. It feels to me more a reduction of the autonomy that Meyer enjoyed and, by all acccounts, insisted upon, an attempt to diminish another "every tub on its own bottom" fief. Yes, Summers is bringing El-Erian into the fold...but he's doing so in a way that clearly establishes El-Erian's subordinate position.
One has to wonder if this arrangement isn't part of the reason why finding a replacement for Meyer took so long—and if Summers isn't taking a calculated risk here, hiring someone who isn't perhaps the most obvious candidate because that person will accept less autonomy than Meyer enjoyed.
But that is just speculation on my part....
__________________________________________________________________
P.S. A vigilant reader informs that the reason the Globe played the story as it did was because they had already scooped the rest of the press and broken the story on Friday morning. Good for the Globe; bad for me for missing the original story.
The Times casts the hiring of El-Erian as a "surprising choice," noting that he's little-known around Wall Street, is not a Harvard alum, and has no experience managing a stock portfolio.
The Globe has a downright weird take*; it headlines its coverage "Harvard Will Keep Disputed Pay Policy," and buries the fact that Harvard announced Meyer's replacement four grafs into the story.
My thoughts: The Times piece does a better job of raising the right questions here. It, too, notes that El-Erian's pay package will be similar to Jack Meyer's, and points out that Yale's money manager, David Swenson—who may be even better than Meyer—was paid only about $1 million last year, a relative pittance. But Swenson is a rare breed, an extremely moral man with strong feelings about what people like him should be paid. He's an exception in the business. Harvard's still paying well below market rate.
But the Times stresses that El-Erian is a curious pick, and I think that's right. It may be a reflection of how difficult it was for Larry Summers to find someone to take this job.
(One thing neither the Times nor the Globe points out: As the Times reported some months back, Summers, Bob Rubin, and Harvard treasurer James Rothenberg had originally tried to conduct this search by themselves, then gave up and handed it off to an executive search firm. Who found El-Erian?)
I suspect Summers likes El-Erian for several reasons. First, he spent 15 years working at the International Monetary Fund, a credential Summers would value, given his own experience in international economics.
Second, El-Erian is Egyptian, was educated in England, and now works and lives in the U.S. Summers would appreciate that international experience—it fits with his globalization push.
Third, and perhaps most important, as the Times notes (but rather far down in its piece), El-Erian will have a slightly different role than Meyer did. In addition to his job at HMC, he'll be teaching at the Harvard Business School and will serve as "deputy treasurer" to the university, advising Summers on all sorts of financial matters.
It's possible to read this as an expansion of Meyer's role. I don't. It feels to me more a reduction of the autonomy that Meyer enjoyed and, by all acccounts, insisted upon, an attempt to diminish another "every tub on its own bottom" fief. Yes, Summers is bringing El-Erian into the fold...but he's doing so in a way that clearly establishes El-Erian's subordinate position.
One has to wonder if this arrangement isn't part of the reason why finding a replacement for Meyer took so long—and if Summers isn't taking a calculated risk here, hiring someone who isn't perhaps the most obvious candidate because that person will accept less autonomy than Meyer enjoyed.
But that is just speculation on my part....
__________________________________________________________________
P.S. A vigilant reader informs that the reason the Globe played the story as it did was because they had already scooped the rest of the press and broken the story on Friday morning. Good for the Globe; bad for me for missing the original story.
Australia Takes the Lead over the U.S.
The Chronicle of Higher Education has an important story: Australia has become the destination of choice for fee-paying college students. That's surprising news given that the United States has traditionally held this spot by a wide margin, and did so up until the last such survey, five years ago.
Why is this important?
Several reasons.
First off, it's obviously important for American colleges, which often make quite a lot of money off foreign students, especially (and obviously) those who don't require financial aid.
Second, the United States benefits immensely from the presence of foreign students. Many of them stay here and add their talents to the workforce and culture of the country. The ones who return home bring with them a greater understanding of the United States that promotes better international relations.
And third, this shift is important because it reflects how the rest of the world views the United States. It's clearly no coincidence that this student exodus has occurred during the presidency of George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. The rest of the world doesn't like us very much now, and we're going to pay the consequences of that for many years to come.
Why is this important?
Several reasons.
First off, it's obviously important for American colleges, which often make quite a lot of money off foreign students, especially (and obviously) those who don't require financial aid.
Second, the United States benefits immensely from the presence of foreign students. Many of them stay here and add their talents to the workforce and culture of the country. The ones who return home bring with them a greater understanding of the United States that promotes better international relations.
And third, this shift is important because it reflects how the rest of the world views the United States. It's clearly no coincidence that this student exodus has occurred during the presidency of George W. Bush and the war in Iraq. The rest of the world doesn't like us very much now, and we're going to pay the consequences of that for many years to come.
Friday, October 14, 2005
Bad Journalism and Bad Behavior
My piece about George in the Boston Globe seems to have aroused the latent ire of a handful of my old colleagues, some of whom are still angry about American Son.
How else to explain the nonsense peddled by reporter Sara James in Women's Wear Daily?
I'll quote from James' story on the recent George event at the Kennedy School, and then correct its mistakes:
"The Daily Show" continued to be a topic of conversation at the dinner, thanks to a piece by Bradley in The Boston Globe this week. Bradley trumpeted the lingering influence of George by writing that "'The Daily Show' owes a creative debt to one magazine in particular: George."
That struck some at the dinner Tuesday night as a bid for attention, especially considering the rift Bradley's book about J.F.K. Jr., "American Son," caused with his former co-workers and the Kennedy family.
"Richard Bradley was not going to be invited by any of the George people and he was not going to be invited by any of the Harvard people," said one guest, alluding to Bradley's book about Lawrence Summers, "Harvard Rules." Even so, there was still some speculation he might show up, since, several years ago, he unexpectedly came to a lunch preceding the dedication of the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at the Kennedy School of Government, where Tuesday's panel was held. According to several people who were there, Bradley was encouraged to not stay for the dedication.
Okay, let the correcting begin.
My piece on George, a bid for attention? Not hardly. Frankly, attention from some of those people is the last thing I need. My editorial came out of a longstanding sense that the magazine was more influential than many people realized, a theme I argued in American Son and that, my friends will disclose, I've gassed on about for years. I'm glad that the article helped spark some conversation. That was partly my intention.
The piece was also partly inspired by the sense that no one who actually worked at George would be speaking on its behalf, and that that was a shame. I'm hardly the only one to have noticed that conspicuous absence. There's no reason, for example, that my predecessor as executive editor, Elizabeth Mitchell, couldn't have occupied a seat on that panel; Biz could have spoken eloquently about George. The omission was an insult to the staff of George. Heck, I was on a Kennedy School panel in 1999 that had nothing to do with George, and on a panel about George, they can't find someone on staff to include?
As to my lack of an invitation...there were a handful of ex-George people involved in this event, and a couple of 'em don't care for me much, and have never hesitated to say so—though almost always anonymously, as indeed they did here. I make it a point never to give an anonymous quote to the press. If you don't have the guts to put your name to something, it usually means you shouldn't say it.
Some George people wouldn't have invited me. Some would (and have told me so). They just weren't the people who controlled the invites. But everyone who worked at George knows that this myth of me against the staff (or vice-versa) is just silly. I still have plenty of friends from George, and I'm happy that most of them come from the contingent of staffers to whom my aforementioned critics would never have bothered to give the time of day.
One final thing, a line so wrong that it really is worth correcting: "Even so, there was still some speculation he might show up, since, several years ago, he unexpectedly came to a lunch preceding the dedication of the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at the Kennedy School of Government, where Tuesday's panel was held. According to several people who were there, Bradley was encouraged to not stay for the dedication."
This is just nuts, and if Sara James had bothered to call me—I'm in the book—I'd have told her so. (Sara James, perhaps a little time at J School for you? Apparently this isn't the only egregiously bad reporting you've done.)
First, notice the attributions James uses: "that struck some...as a bid for attention"...."said one guest"...."there was still some speculation"....."according to several people who were there".....
This is, simply, classic bad journalism. There's not one attributed quote or fact. For all anyone knows, it could very well be largely or entirely made-up.
James implies that this mysterious lunch was connected with the dedication of the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum. It was not. The lunch in question was a reunion luncheon for Kennedy School alumni, and there were probably about 1,000 people present. Former Harvard president Derek Bok gave the keynote speech. A K-School alum invited me, and since I was then reporting a piece on the Kennedy School for Boston Magazine, I had a professional reason to attend. I was writing a book on Harvard at the time.
After the lunch, I bumped into former George publicist Lisa Dallos, who was on hand because she was attending the dedication of the JFK Jr. Forum and also because she was thinking about a mid-career change and considering the Kennedy School. We made some perfectly banal small talk. She asked if I was going to the dedication of the Forum. I said no, I thought it'd be awkward for everyone. She agreed. And that was about it.
A couple of days later, the New York Post ran a gossip item about how I was trying to crash the dedication ceremony. The source was anonymous yet obvious.
Now, another equally anonymous and erroneous item. Coincidentally, Lisa Dallos was doing PR for the event.
So let's sum up James' dubious reportage. She used blind quotes fed to her by people with an agenda. She didn't call the subject of those quotes for a comment. She indulged in lazy and misleading attribution. She bought a publicist's storyline hook, line and sinker. She didn't fact-check. And she got facts wrong.
Future subjects of Sara James' stories—and clients of Lisa Dallos—consider yourselves warned. Sara James is a sloppy reporter, and Lisa Dallos is a chronic gossip of dubious veracity.
But here's the important thing in the end, far more important than my own personal gripes: From all that I'm told, the event was a success and people enjoyed it, and of that I'm glad. The folks at George went through a lot together, and we should be proud of our work, and any occasion to remember all that was good about George is a worthwhile thing. As for the office politics—it really is time for some people to grow up and move on.
How else to explain the nonsense peddled by reporter Sara James in Women's Wear Daily?
I'll quote from James' story on the recent George event at the Kennedy School, and then correct its mistakes:
"The Daily Show" continued to be a topic of conversation at the dinner, thanks to a piece by Bradley in The Boston Globe this week. Bradley trumpeted the lingering influence of George by writing that "'The Daily Show' owes a creative debt to one magazine in particular: George."
That struck some at the dinner Tuesday night as a bid for attention, especially considering the rift Bradley's book about J.F.K. Jr., "American Son," caused with his former co-workers and the Kennedy family.
"Richard Bradley was not going to be invited by any of the George people and he was not going to be invited by any of the Harvard people," said one guest, alluding to Bradley's book about Lawrence Summers, "Harvard Rules." Even so, there was still some speculation he might show up, since, several years ago, he unexpectedly came to a lunch preceding the dedication of the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at the Kennedy School of Government, where Tuesday's panel was held. According to several people who were there, Bradley was encouraged to not stay for the dedication.
Okay, let the correcting begin.
My piece on George, a bid for attention? Not hardly. Frankly, attention from some of those people is the last thing I need. My editorial came out of a longstanding sense that the magazine was more influential than many people realized, a theme I argued in American Son and that, my friends will disclose, I've gassed on about for years. I'm glad that the article helped spark some conversation. That was partly my intention.
The piece was also partly inspired by the sense that no one who actually worked at George would be speaking on its behalf, and that that was a shame. I'm hardly the only one to have noticed that conspicuous absence. There's no reason, for example, that my predecessor as executive editor, Elizabeth Mitchell, couldn't have occupied a seat on that panel; Biz could have spoken eloquently about George. The omission was an insult to the staff of George. Heck, I was on a Kennedy School panel in 1999 that had nothing to do with George, and on a panel about George, they can't find someone on staff to include?
As to my lack of an invitation...there were a handful of ex-George people involved in this event, and a couple of 'em don't care for me much, and have never hesitated to say so—though almost always anonymously, as indeed they did here. I make it a point never to give an anonymous quote to the press. If you don't have the guts to put your name to something, it usually means you shouldn't say it.
Some George people wouldn't have invited me. Some would (and have told me so). They just weren't the people who controlled the invites. But everyone who worked at George knows that this myth of me against the staff (or vice-versa) is just silly. I still have plenty of friends from George, and I'm happy that most of them come from the contingent of staffers to whom my aforementioned critics would never have bothered to give the time of day.
One final thing, a line so wrong that it really is worth correcting: "Even so, there was still some speculation he might show up, since, several years ago, he unexpectedly came to a lunch preceding the dedication of the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum at the Kennedy School of Government, where Tuesday's panel was held. According to several people who were there, Bradley was encouraged to not stay for the dedication."
This is just nuts, and if Sara James had bothered to call me—I'm in the book—I'd have told her so. (Sara James, perhaps a little time at J School for you? Apparently this isn't the only egregiously bad reporting you've done.)
First, notice the attributions James uses: "that struck some...as a bid for attention"...."said one guest"...."there was still some speculation"....."according to several people who were there".....
This is, simply, classic bad journalism. There's not one attributed quote or fact. For all anyone knows, it could very well be largely or entirely made-up.
James implies that this mysterious lunch was connected with the dedication of the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum. It was not. The lunch in question was a reunion luncheon for Kennedy School alumni, and there were probably about 1,000 people present. Former Harvard president Derek Bok gave the keynote speech. A K-School alum invited me, and since I was then reporting a piece on the Kennedy School for Boston Magazine, I had a professional reason to attend. I was writing a book on Harvard at the time.
After the lunch, I bumped into former George publicist Lisa Dallos, who was on hand because she was attending the dedication of the JFK Jr. Forum and also because she was thinking about a mid-career change and considering the Kennedy School. We made some perfectly banal small talk. She asked if I was going to the dedication of the Forum. I said no, I thought it'd be awkward for everyone. She agreed. And that was about it.
A couple of days later, the New York Post ran a gossip item about how I was trying to crash the dedication ceremony. The source was anonymous yet obvious.
Now, another equally anonymous and erroneous item. Coincidentally, Lisa Dallos was doing PR for the event.
So let's sum up James' dubious reportage. She used blind quotes fed to her by people with an agenda. She didn't call the subject of those quotes for a comment. She indulged in lazy and misleading attribution. She bought a publicist's storyline hook, line and sinker. She didn't fact-check. And she got facts wrong.
Future subjects of Sara James' stories—and clients of Lisa Dallos—consider yourselves warned. Sara James is a sloppy reporter, and Lisa Dallos is a chronic gossip of dubious veracity.
But here's the important thing in the end, far more important than my own personal gripes: From all that I'm told, the event was a success and people enjoyed it, and of that I'm glad. The folks at George went through a lot together, and we should be proud of our work, and any occasion to remember all that was good about George is a worthwhile thing. As for the office politics—it really is time for some people to grow up and move on.
They Swear This Has Nothing to Do with Pythons
So I just received an e-mail from something called "Killing Kittens." A reader's angry response to Ana Menendez's pro- cat-eating column in the Miami Herald? Um...apparently not.
Killing Kittens, the most discreet parties for the most upmarket, young, good looking, liberated couples and single women invites you to its West End venue launch party.
Thursday 20th October
9.30pm - late
Dress code: cocktail dresses smart and masks (masks may be removed once doors close at 11pm)
Venue: revealed upon acceptance
£120 a couple/ £50 single girl - This is inclusive of entry and drinks all night
Apply: www.killingkittens.co.uk. The vetting procedure is strict and photos must be submitted.
Our West End venue in the heart of Covent Garden boasts a 30 person Jacuzzi (jacuzzi not a swimming pool...), sauna, large screen area, private rooms, DJ and bar.
Killing Kittens launched in 2002 and has since become a global phenomonome with the world’s rich and famous joining up to be part of an underground society that rivals ‘Happy Valley Kenya’, Berlin in the 30’s and Paris in the 20’s. Parties are held in private venues including St Tropez villas, Sydney penthouses and LA mansions.
Killing Kittens? Phenomenone?
Well, that is intriguing. I probably won't be in London on October 20th. But I am flattered by the suggestion that I am part of an upmarket (i.e., rich), young, good-looking and liberated couple. Oh, that it were true....
Killing Kittens, the most discreet parties for the most upmarket, young, good looking, liberated couples and single women invites you to its West End venue launch party.
Thursday 20th October
9.30pm - late
Dress code: cocktail dresses smart and masks (masks may be removed once doors close at 11pm)
Venue: revealed upon acceptance
£120 a couple/ £50 single girl - This is inclusive of entry and drinks all night
Apply: www.killingkittens.co.uk. The vetting procedure is strict and photos must be submitted.
Our West End venue in the heart of Covent Garden boasts a 30 person Jacuzzi (jacuzzi not a swimming pool...), sauna, large screen area, private rooms, DJ and bar.
Killing Kittens launched in 2002 and has since become a global phenomonome with the world’s rich and famous joining up to be part of an underground society that rivals ‘Happy Valley Kenya’, Berlin in the 30’s and Paris in the 20’s. Parties are held in private venues including St Tropez villas, Sydney penthouses and LA mansions.
Well, that is intriguing. I probably won't be in London on October 20th. But I am flattered by the suggestion that I am part of an upmarket (i.e., rich), young, good-looking and liberated couple. Oh, that it were true....
The Umpires Giveth....
...and the umpires taketh away.
The Angels are reportedly all pissed off about a curious call by an umpire that allowed the continuation of the White Sox's ninth inning and ultimate victory.
My, what short memories they have. It was, after all, a worse call in Game Five of the division series against the Yankees that helped them get to the championship series in the first place.
Not that I'm bitter or anything.
And yes, by the way, I am a supporter of instant replay in the playoffs.... The stakes are simply too high to lose a game because of a bad call.
The Angels are reportedly all pissed off about a curious call by an umpire that allowed the continuation of the White Sox's ninth inning and ultimate victory.
My, what short memories they have. It was, after all, a worse call in Game Five of the division series against the Yankees that helped them get to the championship series in the first place.
Not that I'm bitter or anything.
And yes, by the way, I am a supporter of instant replay in the playoffs.... The stakes are simply too high to lose a game because of a bad call.
High Time to Praise the Python
Did Frances the Siamese cat actually deserve to be eaten?
Somehow, I missed this column yesterday by the Miami Herald's Ana Menendez, but it is cheeky, and I do like that in a columnist.
Read for yourself....and I dare you not to laugh.
Next up: Cat lovers hiss and claw in protest.
_________________________________________________________________
P.S. Menendez's column does inform me that pythons are excellent swimmers—having seen both Anaconda movies (I'm a fan of art films), I should have known that—and thus, we do have one more piece of evidence that the Lake Champlain monster is, in fact, a mutated Burmese python.
Somehow, I missed this column yesterday by the Miami Herald's Ana Menendez, but it is cheeky, and I do like that in a columnist.
Read for yourself....and I dare you not to laugh.
The python's arrival in South Florida has shaken things up. And that can only be a good thing. ...Take Frances, the cat. His daily routine consisted of little more than sleeping and eating.
To amuse himself, he'd sometimes drag his pampered body off his perch and head out into the woods to hunt lizards.
What was he thinking? That he could continue to gorge himself mercilessly without consequence? That his birthright included endless supplies of chopped liver from now until kingdom come?
There's a price to pay for every excess, baby.
One day Frances was in the middle of his daily routine on the Dade-Broward line. And the next day he was a bulge in the belly of a happy snake. Just as it should be.
Next up: Cat lovers hiss and claw in protest.
_________________________________________________________________
P.S. Menendez's column does inform me that pythons are excellent swimmers—having seen both Anaconda movies (I'm a fan of art films), I should have known that—and thus, we do have one more piece of evidence that the Lake Champlain monster is, in fact, a mutated Burmese python.
The Noonan Factor
I'm a day late posting this, so forgive me—lots of folks are talking about Peggy Noonan's piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. What's interesting is that Noonan doesn't even talk about whether the Miers nomination should or could be saved; in her unique, GOP-MILF sex symbol sort of way, she offers a gentle road map out, an exit strategy whispered like a bedtime story.
To my mind, all these conservative intellectual types weighing in on Miers is starting to sound like self-parody. Here's Noonan—whom I actually quite like; although we don't agree on much, she's a lovely person—recommending the best way to heal the post-Miers breach:
The White House, after the Miers withdrawal/removal/disappearance, would be well advised to call in leaders of the fractious base--with heavy initial emphasis on the Washington conservative establishment--and have some long talks about the future. It's time for the administration to reach out to wise men and women, time for Roosevelt Room gatherings of the conservative clans. Much old affection remains, and respect lingers, but a lot of damage has been done....
Ah, yes. Call in the old guard for some nice long talks. I do wonder what particular wise men and women she's referring to—James Dobson? Pat Robertson? Ralph Reed? Pat Buchanan? Are these really the Vernon Jordans and Bob Strausses of the Bush White House? Or is Noonan just inviting herself to the White House?
I appreciate that Noonan is trying to take down the rhetoric a notch or two, and for conservatives that's probably a good idea. After all, they do have to live with each other, and with the president, for three more years. But somehow I don't think that the social conservatives who are so mad about Miers are really going to take their cues from wealthy, privileged Wall Street Journal columnists.....
To my mind, all these conservative intellectual types weighing in on Miers is starting to sound like self-parody. Here's Noonan—whom I actually quite like; although we don't agree on much, she's a lovely person—recommending the best way to heal the post-Miers breach:
The White House, after the Miers withdrawal/removal/disappearance, would be well advised to call in leaders of the fractious base--with heavy initial emphasis on the Washington conservative establishment--and have some long talks about the future. It's time for the administration to reach out to wise men and women, time for Roosevelt Room gatherings of the conservative clans. Much old affection remains, and respect lingers, but a lot of damage has been done....
Ah, yes. Call in the old guard for some nice long talks. I do wonder what particular wise men and women she's referring to—James Dobson? Pat Robertson? Ralph Reed? Pat Buchanan? Are these really the Vernon Jordans and Bob Strausses of the Bush White House? Or is Noonan just inviting herself to the White House?
I appreciate that Noonan is trying to take down the rhetoric a notch or two, and for conservatives that's probably a good idea. After all, they do have to live with each other, and with the president, for three more years. But somehow I don't think that the social conservatives who are so mad about Miers are really going to take their cues from wealthy, privileged Wall Street Journal columnists.....
The White House Attacks A Reporter
Want to know how White House press secretary Scott McClellan deals with tough questions? By suggesting that the questioner—in this case, the curmudgeonly Helen Thomas—is "soft on terror."
Here's the excerpt (italics added) from yesterday's White House press briefing.
<<[Helen Thomas]: What does the President mean by "total victory" -- that we will never leave Iraq until we have "total victory"? What does that mean?
MR. McCLELLAN: Free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East, because a free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions --
Q If they ask us to leave, then we'll leave?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm trying to respond. A free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the broader Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions of al Qaeda and their terrorist associates. They want to establish or impose their rule over the broader Middle East -- we saw that in the Zawahiri letter that was released earlier this week by the intelligence community.
Q They also know we invaded Iraq.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, the President recognizes that we are engaged in a global war on terrorism. And when you're engaged in a war, it's not always pleasant, and it's certainly a last resort. But when you engage in a war, you take the fight to the enemy, you go on the offense. And that's exactly what we are doing. We are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here. September 11th taught us --
Q It has nothing to do with -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have a very different view of the war on terrorism, and I'm sure you're opposed to the broader war on terrorism. The President recognizes this requires a comprehensive strategy, and that this is a broad war, that it is not a law enforcement matter.
Terry.
Q On what basis do you say Helen is opposed to the broader war on terrorism?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, she certainly expressed her concerns about Afghanistan and Iraq and going into those two countries. I think I can go back and pull up her comments over the course of the past couple of years.
Q And speak for her, which is odd.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said she may be, because certainly if you look at her comments over the course of the past couple of years, she's expressed her concerns --
Q I'm opposed to preemptive war, unprovoked preemptive war.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- she's expressed her concerns.>>
A bizarre exchange. Clearly, Thomas' questions over the past couple of years have gone beyond the normal softball love-bombs lobbed by the White House press corps, and sometimes they're a little cranky. But to slide in a line like "I'm sure you're opposed to the broader war on terrorism"—that's just sleazy.
Here's the excerpt (italics added) from yesterday's White House press briefing.
<<[Helen Thomas]: What does the President mean by "total victory" -- that we will never leave Iraq until we have "total victory"? What does that mean?
MR. McCLELLAN: Free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East, because a free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions --
Q If they ask us to leave, then we'll leave?
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm trying to respond. A free and democratic Iraq in the heart of the broader Middle East will be a major blow to the ambitions of al Qaeda and their terrorist associates. They want to establish or impose their rule over the broader Middle East -- we saw that in the Zawahiri letter that was released earlier this week by the intelligence community.
Q They also know we invaded Iraq.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Helen, the President recognizes that we are engaged in a global war on terrorism. And when you're engaged in a war, it's not always pleasant, and it's certainly a last resort. But when you engage in a war, you take the fight to the enemy, you go on the offense. And that's exactly what we are doing. We are fighting them there so that we don't have to fight them here. September 11th taught us --
Q It has nothing to do with -- Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, you have a very different view of the war on terrorism, and I'm sure you're opposed to the broader war on terrorism. The President recognizes this requires a comprehensive strategy, and that this is a broad war, that it is not a law enforcement matter.
Terry.
Q On what basis do you say Helen is opposed to the broader war on terrorism?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, she certainly expressed her concerns about Afghanistan and Iraq and going into those two countries. I think I can go back and pull up her comments over the course of the past couple of years.
Q And speak for her, which is odd.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, I said she may be, because certainly if you look at her comments over the course of the past couple of years, she's expressed her concerns --
Q I'm opposed to preemptive war, unprovoked preemptive war.
MR. McCLELLAN: -- she's expressed her concerns.>>
A bizarre exchange. Clearly, Thomas' questions over the past couple of years have gone beyond the normal softball love-bombs lobbed by the White House press corps, and sometimes they're a little cranky. But to slide in a line like "I'm sure you're opposed to the broader war on terrorism"—that's just sleazy.
Thursday, October 13, 2005
He's Grrrrrrrrrrrrreat!
Another sample of Harriet Miers' eloquence, italics added, from an undated letter to the president:
"All I hear is how great you and Laura are doing. The dinner here was great—especially the speech! Keep up all the great work—Texas is blessed. I shall always treasure [a letter Bush wrote her] with great admiration, Harriet."
Here's a question to ponder: If Miers could use the word "great" in four consecutive sentences on a Hallmark card, how many times could she say "swell" in a Supreme Court ruling? Discuss.
"All I hear is how great you and Laura are doing. The dinner here was great—especially the speech! Keep up all the great work—Texas is blessed. I shall always treasure [a letter Bush wrote her] with great admiration, Harriet."
Here's a question to ponder: If Miers could use the word "great" in four consecutive sentences on a Hallmark card, how many times could she say "swell" in a Supreme Court ruling? Discuss.
Pictures of Huge Fish
Some of you will have noticed that I can not get enough of the natural kingdom. But, you may wonder, where do I get my miraculous tales of turkey-eating pythons, 20-foot sharks, and mysterious giant squids?
Well, lots of places, but one of my favorites is a blog called Fishosaur, subtitled "Pictures of Huge Fish."
If that isn't weird genius, then I don't know what is.
If by now you have come to share my obsession—or you already had it—you'll want to check out Fishosaur. Today's lede story: a piece on the sex life of the giant squid. Let's just say Robert Chambers would relate....
Well, lots of places, but one of my favorites is a blog called Fishosaur, subtitled "Pictures of Huge Fish."
If that isn't weird genius, then I don't know what is.
If by now you have come to share my obsession—or you already had it—you'll want to check out Fishosaur. Today's lede story: a piece on the sex life of the giant squid. Let's just say Robert Chambers would relate....
Harvard Heats Up
Yesterday's protest at Harvard over the return of military recruiting drew about 150 people, reports the Crimson.
One of them was law professor Alan Dershowitz, who said this: “We are the wealthiest university in the world. We can afford to fight bigotry in ways other universities cannot. And if we don’t take the lead, no one else will.”
Classic Dershowitz: He says something true enough, and then adds some unnecessary bit of hyperbole that just irritates.
Yes, Harvard is the world's wealthiest university, by about eleven billion dollars. And yes, Harvard can afford to fight bigotry in ways that other universities cannot.
But if Harvard doesn't take the lead, someone else will—for example, the coalition of universities called FAIR, which already has taken the lead in opposing the Solomon Amendment.
What we will assume Dershowitz is saying is that Harvard's opposition could have an impact that other universities' actions would not, and at least in public relations terms, if not in legal ones—and Dershowitz may know even more about the former than the latter—this is likely true.
That's why this quote from law student Ashley Filip is so telling: “I would like to see more of a personal stand taken by the University...just in terms of doing more to encourage discussion of the issue."
However one feels about the Solomon Amendment and military recruiting, this is exactly the kind of issue where the president of Harvard should stand up and make his feelings known—or at least take advantage of the situation to explain Harvard's stance and how it was arrived at. By all accounts, Summers was an excellent teacher, and this is a moment where he could draw upon those skills to promote education about a real-world issue.
But he has been silent, whether because he's trying to lay low or because he suspects that his feelings on military recruiting will not be popular....
In other Summers news, the president has decided to contribute to the funding of the Center for International Development, whose director recently left in protest of Summers' apparent malign neglect.
This incident reminds me of the incident detailed in Harvard Rules, in which Summers funneled a million-dollar contribution to the university to court professor Skip Gates, who was thinking of leaving after the departures of Cornel West and Anthony Appiah. Along with the $50 million diversity fund, there is a pattern here, of Summers using Harvard's money to try to buy goodwill or recover from self-inflicted wounds. It's certainly possible that these expenditures are worthwhile, but somehow the budgeting process seems a little...arbitrary, perhaps?
One of them was law professor Alan Dershowitz, who said this: “We are the wealthiest university in the world. We can afford to fight bigotry in ways other universities cannot. And if we don’t take the lead, no one else will.”
Classic Dershowitz: He says something true enough, and then adds some unnecessary bit of hyperbole that just irritates.
Yes, Harvard is the world's wealthiest university, by about eleven billion dollars. And yes, Harvard can afford to fight bigotry in ways that other universities cannot.
But if Harvard doesn't take the lead, someone else will—for example, the coalition of universities called FAIR, which already has taken the lead in opposing the Solomon Amendment.
What we will assume Dershowitz is saying is that Harvard's opposition could have an impact that other universities' actions would not, and at least in public relations terms, if not in legal ones—and Dershowitz may know even more about the former than the latter—this is likely true.
That's why this quote from law student Ashley Filip is so telling: “I would like to see more of a personal stand taken by the University...just in terms of doing more to encourage discussion of the issue."
However one feels about the Solomon Amendment and military recruiting, this is exactly the kind of issue where the president of Harvard should stand up and make his feelings known—or at least take advantage of the situation to explain Harvard's stance and how it was arrived at. By all accounts, Summers was an excellent teacher, and this is a moment where he could draw upon those skills to promote education about a real-world issue.
But he has been silent, whether because he's trying to lay low or because he suspects that his feelings on military recruiting will not be popular....
In other Summers news, the president has decided to contribute to the funding of the Center for International Development, whose director recently left in protest of Summers' apparent malign neglect.
This incident reminds me of the incident detailed in Harvard Rules, in which Summers funneled a million-dollar contribution to the university to court professor Skip Gates, who was thinking of leaving after the departures of Cornel West and Anthony Appiah. Along with the $50 million diversity fund, there is a pattern here, of Summers using Harvard's money to try to buy goodwill or recover from self-inflicted wounds. It's certainly possible that these expenditures are worthwhile, but somehow the budgeting process seems a little...arbitrary, perhaps?
A Python's Thanksgiving
In Miami, police have captured a ten-foot African rock python after it hoovered a turkey on a local turkey farm. (Looks like fun, no? The capturing, not the hoovering.)
Police quickly named the snake Goblin, in honor of the upcoming holiday. Apparently its disposition matches its name. ''It launches at everything that tries to come near it,'' according to the police officer pictured above.
The moral of the story, Capt. Cruz added, is that pythons "are eating more than they can chew."
While we respect Capt. Cruz for being about the most media-friendly police officer imaginable, we will dispute both the zoology of this statement and the metaphysical truth of it. First, though not a snake expert, I don't think snakes chew. Do they?
Second, the snakes aren't doing anything they're not supposed to. It is, as usual, the humans who are causing the problem, by purchasing snakes they ought not to and then releasing them onto the streets of Miami.
| ||||
The moral of the story, Capt. Cruz added, is that pythons "are eating more than they can chew."
While we respect Capt. Cruz for being about the most media-friendly police officer imaginable, we will dispute both the zoology of this statement and the metaphysical truth of it. First, though not a snake expert, I don't think snakes chew. Do they?
Second, the snakes aren't doing anything they're not supposed to. It is, as usual, the humans who are causing the problem, by purchasing snakes they ought not to and then releasing them onto the streets of Miami.
Stick a Fork in Her, She's Done
Harriet Miers gets blasted on three fronts today—all deeply damaging. She's getting wounded from so many different directions now, it's painful to watch. (But not as painful as it must be for her to experience.)
First, Ann Coulter writes a devastating column about Miers, arguing that the only sexism involved in her nomination was that of the people who nominated her.
"Miers is no more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler," Ann writes. "The hearings aren't going to change that; they will just make it more obvious. ...I genuinely feel sorry for Miers. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, brighter than average, and well-qualified for many important jobs. Just not the job Bush has nominated her for. The terrible thing Bush has done to Miers is to force people who care about the court to say that."
Well said.
Next, David Brooks rips into Miers, dissecting the column Miers wrote as president of the Texas Bar. It is, as Brooks points out, drivel, the kind of thing any professional writer or clear thinker or just reasonably intelligent person would read with disbelief and horror.
Here's one example: "An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin."
Yikes. Methods for evaluation of this nonsense are a necessity.
And finally, The Smoking Gun, God love 'em, has posted the Miers-Bush correspondence. You have to see it to believe it. "Dear Governor GWB—You are the best governor ever—deserving of great respect!" Etc. And it's not just the words, it's the cards they're written on. Sheesh.
The more one learns about Harriet Miers, the more you have to wonder what the president was thinking (assuming that he was) when he nominated her.
And while this may be kicking a nominee when she's down, I think it's a fair question to ask why she is the White House counsel, which is a not unimportant job in and of itself. After all, the White House counsel is involved with issues like torture, war, the legality of bribing the media, the legality of leaking CIA agents' identities, and so on. These are not minor issues, and nothing in Miers' record suggests that she is competent to rule upon them.
Please, Mr. President, before this gets any uglier...withdraw the nomination, so that we can all get on with the serious business of appointing a credible Supreme Court justice.
First, Ann Coulter writes a devastating column about Miers, arguing that the only sexism involved in her nomination was that of the people who nominated her.
"Miers is no more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler," Ann writes. "The hearings aren't going to change that; they will just make it more obvious. ...I genuinely feel sorry for Miers. I'm sure she's a lovely woman, brighter than average, and well-qualified for many important jobs. Just not the job Bush has nominated her for. The terrible thing Bush has done to Miers is to force people who care about the court to say that."
Well said.
Next, David Brooks rips into Miers, dissecting the column Miers wrote as president of the Texas Bar. It is, as Brooks points out, drivel, the kind of thing any professional writer or clear thinker or just reasonably intelligent person would read with disbelief and horror.
Here's one example: "An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin."
Yikes. Methods for evaluation of this nonsense are a necessity.
And finally, The Smoking Gun, God love 'em, has posted the Miers-Bush correspondence. You have to see it to believe it. "Dear Governor GWB—You are the best governor ever—deserving of great respect!" Etc. And it's not just the words, it's the cards they're written on. Sheesh.
The more one learns about Harriet Miers, the more you have to wonder what the president was thinking (assuming that he was) when he nominated her.
And while this may be kicking a nominee when she's down, I think it's a fair question to ask why she is the White House counsel, which is a not unimportant job in and of itself. After all, the White House counsel is involved with issues like torture, war, the legality of bribing the media, the legality of leaking CIA agents' identities, and so on. These are not minor issues, and nothing in Miers' record suggests that she is competent to rule upon them.
Please, Mr. President, before this gets any uglier...withdraw the nomination, so that we can all get on with the serious business of appointing a credible Supreme Court justice.
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Protest at Harvard
Opponents of the military's ban on gays will stage a protest today at Harvard over the university's decision to allow the military to recruit on campus. No surprise there. The question that strikes me as most interesting is, What will Larry Summers do?
“I think it would be great if Harvard, given its prestige in the country, were willing to take a public stand on these issues,” said Paul Butler, a Harvard alum, Vietnam vet, and chair of the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus' task force on military issues.
That would, of course, be an appropriate role for President Summers. But Summers, thanks to his own troubles, has been keeping a low profile this fall. Plus, he's never shown much support for gay rights, and as I described in Harvard Rules, he's been supportive of the return of ROTC to campus as part of a wave of post-9/11 jingoism. (Sorry, patriotism.)
Plus, Summers just can't stand student activism.
I think this would be an issue where the president of Harvard could and should speak as a national leader. But Summers' core constituency outside the university, the people who helped keep him in his job last spring, are conservatives who don't think much of gays. Would Summers risk alienating them?
I doubt it. Especially not for a group—two groups, really, gays and activists—which seem to make him uncomfortable.
“I think it would be great if Harvard, given its prestige in the country, were willing to take a public stand on these issues,” said Paul Butler, a Harvard alum, Vietnam vet, and chair of the Harvard Gay and Lesbian Caucus' task force on military issues.
That would, of course, be an appropriate role for President Summers. But Summers, thanks to his own troubles, has been keeping a low profile this fall. Plus, he's never shown much support for gay rights, and as I described in Harvard Rules, he's been supportive of the return of ROTC to campus as part of a wave of post-9/11 jingoism. (Sorry, patriotism.)
Plus, Summers just can't stand student activism.
I think this would be an issue where the president of Harvard could and should speak as a national leader. But Summers' core constituency outside the university, the people who helped keep him in his job last spring, are conservatives who don't think much of gays. Would Summers risk alienating them?
I doubt it. Especially not for a group—two groups, really, gays and activists—which seem to make him uncomfortable.
George W. Bush's Theater of the Absurd
Here's an inadvertently hilarious paragraph from a story in the Boston Globe about the Miers' nomination:
"WASHINGTON -- Some of the advocacy groups that are concerned about Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers's lack of a record on social issues are favoring a new approach to thwarting her nomination: Asking the nominee, who has no judicial experience, complex questions about constitutional law...."
Imagine! Asking a nominee to the Supreme Court tough questions about constitutional law. The nerve.
I can't resist quoting the next paragraph:
"'We are trying to establish that there are thousands of questions that law students routinely deal with . . . and if she can't get to that level, it doesn't matter if you're for the left or the right, at that point it's a fait accompli that she is not fit for the office," said Eugene DelGaudio, president of Public Advocate, a conservative profamily group.
Note that DelGaudio is from a conservative group....
For whatever reason, opposition to this nomination is reaching a critical mass. It's time for Miers to withdraw. She seems a perfectly decent, albeit grossly sycophantic, woman. She should get out while she still has something of a reputation intact.
There is one other possibility: that Miers' opponents have set the bar so low (surely the White House counsel can handle questions routinely debated by law students...right?) that she will benefit from excessively lowered expectations. I mean, she's not a total idiot....
"WASHINGTON -- Some of the advocacy groups that are concerned about Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers's lack of a record on social issues are favoring a new approach to thwarting her nomination: Asking the nominee, who has no judicial experience, complex questions about constitutional law...."
Imagine! Asking a nominee to the Supreme Court tough questions about constitutional law. The nerve.
I can't resist quoting the next paragraph:
"'We are trying to establish that there are thousands of questions that law students routinely deal with . . . and if she can't get to that level, it doesn't matter if you're for the left or the right, at that point it's a fait accompli that she is not fit for the office," said Eugene DelGaudio, president of Public Advocate, a conservative profamily group.
Note that DelGaudio is from a conservative group....
For whatever reason, opposition to this nomination is reaching a critical mass. It's time for Miers to withdraw. She seems a perfectly decent, albeit grossly sycophantic, woman. She should get out while she still has something of a reputation intact.
There is one other possibility: that Miers' opponents have set the bar so low (surely the White House counsel can handle questions routinely debated by law students...right?) that she will benefit from excessively lowered expectations. I mean, she's not a total idiot....
Could It Be...a Python?
Two Lake Champlain fishermen spent an hour with a sea monster the other day, the Times reports.
(If the link doesn't work, blame the Times, which has hidden it behind the TimesSelect firewall...which I thought was supposed to be only for the op-ed page, but apparently they're getting greedy. Well...greedier.)
So let me just quote a few grafs:
"As the two tell it, they were fishing for salmon near the mouth of the Ausable River, about a third of the way down the lake, when they noticed something that looked like a log floating about 100 feet from their boat. Intrigued, they trolled toward it until, to their amazement, it submerged like a submarine only to resurface about a half-hour later, and they were able to watch it for another 45 minutes.
"Neither can tell you for sure what they saw other than that it was enormous, very clearly alive and unlike anything they had ever seen, at least 15 feet long, elongated like a snake or serpent. They say it had a head shaped like a sledgehammer, produced a high bifurcated wake, lacked the familiar dorsal fins of a fish and apparently did not need to come up for air like a dolphin or whale. They reject suggestions it was something familiar - mating snakes, a giant sturgeon, large otters.
"'I'm not some guy who came fishing for a weekend and thought he saw something funny,' said Mr. Bodette. 'I've fished all over the world. I've been on this lake since I was a little kid. And I believe we saw something there that not many people have seen.'
"'I have no idea what it is. But I'm pretty certain what I saw isn't anything you'll find in any fish and wildlife books.'"
Could it be...a python?
No. It couldn't. Unless...unless...someone released a python into the wild, it somehow managed to survive the frigid temperatures of upstate New York, developed gills and learned to swim.
Hmmmm....
In any case, these two gentlemen aren't the only people who think they've seen a sea monster in Lake Champlain. The most famous evidence is a photograph taken by a woman named Sandra Mansi in 1977. As countless skeptics have pointed out, it's not really very good evidence. In fact, it's not really evidence at all. But it's fun to think about, and until someone proves me wrong, I'm going to believe that there's a wild, mutated, 15-foot-long Burmese python swimming in Lake Champlain even now...and it's hungry.
___________________________________________________________________
Meanwhile, consider this description of the real, non-mutated Burmese python I found on the web:
"Do you really want a snake that may grow more than 20 feet long or weigh 200 pounds, urinate and defecate like a horse, will live more than 25 years and for whom you will have to kill mice, rats and, eventually, rabbits (no chickens any more due to the ever increasing rate of Salmonella in the food industry)? ...At 10 feet and 40+ pounds, a 3-year old Burmese is already eating rabbits a couple of times a month and is very difficult to handle alone. You have to interact with them constantly to keep them tame - do you want a hungry, cranky 100 pound, 12 foot snake mistaking your face for prey?"
No, I do not. After all, I remember the story of a fifteen-year-old Colorado boy who, while asleep in bed, awoke to find out that his family's eleven-foot-long pet python wanted to snuggle. Not a good way to go.
(If the link doesn't work, blame the Times, which has hidden it behind the TimesSelect firewall...which I thought was supposed to be only for the op-ed page, but apparently they're getting greedy. Well...greedier.)
So let me just quote a few grafs:
"As the two tell it, they were fishing for salmon near the mouth of the Ausable River, about a third of the way down the lake, when they noticed something that looked like a log floating about 100 feet from their boat. Intrigued, they trolled toward it until, to their amazement, it submerged like a submarine only to resurface about a half-hour later, and they were able to watch it for another 45 minutes.
"Neither can tell you for sure what they saw other than that it was enormous, very clearly alive and unlike anything they had ever seen, at least 15 feet long, elongated like a snake or serpent. They say it had a head shaped like a sledgehammer, produced a high bifurcated wake, lacked the familiar dorsal fins of a fish and apparently did not need to come up for air like a dolphin or whale. They reject suggestions it was something familiar - mating snakes, a giant sturgeon, large otters.
"'I'm not some guy who came fishing for a weekend and thought he saw something funny,' said Mr. Bodette. 'I've fished all over the world. I've been on this lake since I was a little kid. And I believe we saw something there that not many people have seen.'
"'I have no idea what it is. But I'm pretty certain what I saw isn't anything you'll find in any fish and wildlife books.'"
Could it be...a python?
No. It couldn't. Unless...unless...someone released a python into the wild, it somehow managed to survive the frigid temperatures of upstate New York, developed gills and learned to swim.
Hmmmm....
In any case, these two gentlemen aren't the only people who think they've seen a sea monster in Lake Champlain. The most famous evidence is a photograph taken by a woman named Sandra Mansi in 1977. As countless skeptics have pointed out, it's not really very good evidence. In fact, it's not really evidence at all. But it's fun to think about, and until someone proves me wrong, I'm going to believe that there's a wild, mutated, 15-foot-long Burmese python swimming in Lake Champlain even now...and it's hungry.
___________________________________________________________________
Meanwhile, consider this description of the real, non-mutated Burmese python I found on the web:
"Do you really want a snake that may grow more than 20 feet long or weigh 200 pounds, urinate and defecate like a horse, will live more than 25 years and for whom you will have to kill mice, rats and, eventually, rabbits (no chickens any more due to the ever increasing rate of Salmonella in the food industry)? ...At 10 feet and 40+ pounds, a 3-year old Burmese is already eating rabbits a couple of times a month and is very difficult to handle alone. You have to interact with them constantly to keep them tame - do you want a hungry, cranky 100 pound, 12 foot snake mistaking your face for prey?"
No, I do not. After all, I remember the story of a fifteen-year-old Colorado boy who, while asleep in bed, awoke to find out that his family's eleven-foot-long pet python wanted to snuggle. Not a good way to go.
The George Effect, Cont'd.
The Crimson reports on yesterday's panel at Harvard's Kennedy School, at which speakers discussed the influence of George on politics and the media. It's still remarkable to me that organizers, including Caroline Kennedy, didn't see fit to include anyone from George on the panel. Wasn't the absence at least a little bit conspicuous?
Nonetheless, I feel like I was there in spirit. As the Crimson points out, "Beginning with its first cover, George courted controversy. One issue included Buffy the Vampire Slayer in a list of influential political women because of her 'girl power.'"
Well...I blush. Because it was yours truly who argued that BTVS was, in fact, an important influence for girls, presenting a radically different conception of female strength than, say, Kate Moss, or any of the forthcoming Desperate Housewives. I assigned the piece to Debbie Stoller, the editor-in-chief of the 'zine Bust, which is wildly political. Debbie knew right away what I was talking about. It's no surprise that, say, Roger Ailes wouldn't.
Why is it that cultural critics never have any problem pointing out the ways in which television and other popular media can be a bad influence on young people, but if you actually suggest that some parts of it are positive—and that either way, popular culture is inherently political—they grow skeptical?
Moreover, the political strength of non-white males in western society is almost always manifested through artistic occupations. When politics is dominated by white men, those who don't fit the bill express themselves through the arts...
Nonetheless, I feel like I was there in spirit. As the Crimson points out, "Beginning with its first cover, George courted controversy. One issue included Buffy the Vampire Slayer in a list of influential political women because of her 'girl power.'"
Well...I blush. Because it was yours truly who argued that BTVS was, in fact, an important influence for girls, presenting a radically different conception of female strength than, say, Kate Moss, or any of the forthcoming Desperate Housewives. I assigned the piece to Debbie Stoller, the editor-in-chief of the 'zine Bust, which is wildly political. Debbie knew right away what I was talking about. It's no surprise that, say, Roger Ailes wouldn't.
Why is it that cultural critics never have any problem pointing out the ways in which television and other popular media can be a bad influence on young people, but if you actually suggest that some parts of it are positive—and that either way, popular culture is inherently political—they grow skeptical?
Moreover, the political strength of non-white males in western society is almost always manifested through artistic occupations. When politics is dominated by white men, those who don't fit the bill express themselves through the arts...
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
More Proof of the George Effect
In Slate, Jacob Weisberg writes about what happens when celebrities act like politicians and politicians act like celebrities. In my opinion, he's a little tough on some of the celebs; I'm sure, for example, that Angelina Jolie's speech on AIDS was virtually content-free, but I also think that more than half the point of Jolie getting involved in AIDS in Africa is to raise "awareness"—a term I hate, but which is useful—and the more pointed positions she takes, the more she risks marginalizing herself. Conversely, if she took those pointed positions, plenty of people would be falling all over themselves to say, "She's a celebrity—what does she know?" Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Jacob (full disclosure: a college classmate and friend) writes that "there is the assumption—now almost automatic—that celebrities are public intellectuals on whatever issues they choose to take an interest in." I disagree. If anything, there's the assumption that celebrities are brain-dead, and that every word they say on an issue is pumped into their heads by some research assistant. Which may be true much of the time, but there are exceptions; Bono, whom I once interviewed, struck me as more informed about the issues he was working on than, say, the vast majority of the members of Congress.
Jacob continues: "As celebrities get more involved in political causes—and threaten to run, or actually do run for political office—politicians are acting more like celebrities." True enough—my old magazine was pointing this out a decade ago—but no harm in reiterating it. Jacob's skeptical about the phenomenon, and in some ways, I am too...but then I think about how hard it is to get the public's attention on anything of import, and I think, well, if a little celebrification is what it takes, then we can all hold our nose and live with it.
Jacob (full disclosure: a college classmate and friend) writes that "there is the assumption—now almost automatic—that celebrities are public intellectuals on whatever issues they choose to take an interest in." I disagree. If anything, there's the assumption that celebrities are brain-dead, and that every word they say on an issue is pumped into their heads by some research assistant. Which may be true much of the time, but there are exceptions; Bono, whom I once interviewed, struck me as more informed about the issues he was working on than, say, the vast majority of the members of Congress.
Jacob continues: "As celebrities get more involved in political causes—and threaten to run, or actually do run for political office—politicians are acting more like celebrities." True enough—my old magazine was pointing this out a decade ago—but no harm in reiterating it. Jacob's skeptical about the phenomenon, and in some ways, I am too...but then I think about how hard it is to get the public's attention on anything of import, and I think, well, if a little celebrification is what it takes, then we can all hold our nose and live with it.
More Signs of a Sinking Nomination
A very funny satirical blog purporting to be Harriet Miers' daily diary....and the scary part is that the satire doesn't really feel so broad. There's some evidence that this is actually what Miers sounds like...to which one can only say, Yikes.
The Best Governor Ever?
Harriet Miers thinks that George W. Bush is really "cool" and "just great!", and was "the best governor ever."
Oh dear God.
One expects a certain amount of sycophancy in politics, of course. But the relationship between Miers and the president seems forged entirely out of ass-kissing. I suppose there's a place for that...but not on the Supreme Court. We still expect more from the nation's top jurists.
This nomination is sinking because Miers has no constituency other than the president. And with his poll numbers where they are, this time, that's not going to be enough. I still haven't read the article that explains exactly how Bush decided that now was the time to nominate an unqualified crony to the Supreme Court...but I'd like to. Because this is going to hurt him at a time when he is scrambing to salvage his second term, and can't afford many more hits.
Oh dear God.
One expects a certain amount of sycophancy in politics, of course. But the relationship between Miers and the president seems forged entirely out of ass-kissing. I suppose there's a place for that...but not on the Supreme Court. We still expect more from the nation's top jurists.
This nomination is sinking because Miers has no constituency other than the president. And with his poll numbers where they are, this time, that's not going to be enough. I still haven't read the article that explains exactly how Bush decided that now was the time to nominate an unqualified crony to the Supreme Court...but I'd like to. Because this is going to hurt him at a time when he is scrambing to salvage his second term, and can't afford many more hits.
More Python News
Another Burmese python is in the news, this time for eating someone's pet Siamese cat.
To those of us who prefer dogs, this is no great loss, and yet there is dismay in Florida, where the cat was consumed.
This is, of course, the second python with a prodigious appetite. About a week ago, another python tried to eat a Florida alligator, with dramatic results. As the AP put it, "The python blew up as it tried to swallow that alligator."
(Someone was waiting his whole career to write that line.)
I find these stories as entertaining as the next guy, or I wouldn't be blogging about them. But there is a serious point. Is it legal to sell pythons in Florida, or anywhere else? And if so, why? After all, this is an animal that can grow eight feet in a year. And when that happens, the people who buy them simply take them to a swamp somewhere and release them, where they wreak havoc on ecosystems with no natural defenses against pythons.
One wishes that the next animal to be eaten by a python is the person who bought it, because he thinks it's cool to own an animal that, it's safe to say, was never meant to be a house pet.... Why is it the instinct of some human beings to think that an animal can only be appreciated if it is captured and/or killed?
To those of us who prefer dogs, this is no great loss, and yet there is dismay in Florida, where the cat was consumed.
This is, of course, the second python with a prodigious appetite. About a week ago, another python tried to eat a Florida alligator, with dramatic results. As the AP put it, "The python blew up as it tried to swallow that alligator."
(Someone was waiting his whole career to write that line.)
I find these stories as entertaining as the next guy, or I wouldn't be blogging about them. But there is a serious point. Is it legal to sell pythons in Florida, or anywhere else? And if so, why? After all, this is an animal that can grow eight feet in a year. And when that happens, the people who buy them simply take them to a swamp somewhere and release them, where they wreak havoc on ecosystems with no natural defenses against pythons.
One wishes that the next animal to be eaten by a python is the person who bought it, because he thinks it's cool to own an animal that, it's safe to say, was never meant to be a house pet.... Why is it the instinct of some human beings to think that an animal can only be appreciated if it is captured and/or killed?
$20 an Hour for Janitors?
Activists in the Harvard Living Wage movement are organizing in support of $20-an-hour minimum salaries for Harvard janitors. That's about a $40,000 salary.
40k a year isn't really all that much, especially when you consider the enormous sums being made by people at the top of the American income scale. (It's probably closer to $50,000 a year when you throw in health insurance and other benefits.) But it's surely far above market wages for janitors in the area, and I'll bet it would make the Harvard janitors better-paid than, say, many public school teachers.
In an ideal world, janitors probably should make more than they do, and hedge fund managers should make way, way less than they do. But somehow, I don't think this organizing movement is going to catch on. Everyone's feeling cheap these days.....and Lawrence Summers has never shown himself to be either sympathetic to activism or a great supporter of intervention in the free market.
I'd be curious to know what readers think about $40,000 for janitors...particularly as compared to salaries in other low-paying fields.
40k a year isn't really all that much, especially when you consider the enormous sums being made by people at the top of the American income scale. (It's probably closer to $50,000 a year when you throw in health insurance and other benefits.) But it's surely far above market wages for janitors in the area, and I'll bet it would make the Harvard janitors better-paid than, say, many public school teachers.
In an ideal world, janitors probably should make more than they do, and hedge fund managers should make way, way less than they do. But somehow, I don't think this organizing movement is going to catch on. Everyone's feeling cheap these days.....and Lawrence Summers has never shown himself to be either sympathetic to activism or a great supporter of intervention in the free market.
I'd be curious to know what readers think about $40,000 for janitors...particularly as compared to salaries in other low-paying fields.
All Good Things...
Sigh. The Yankees lost to the Angels last night, 5-3, in a weird and frustrating game that they really didn't deserve to lose—but they didn't deserve to win, either.
Here's why they didn't deserve to lose.
1) Mike Mussina pitched far better than the stat sheet would suggest. He was victimized by what was really a three-base error when Bubba Crosby and Gary Sheffield collided in the outfield, dropping a catchable ball that led to two runs scoring. (The officials ruled it a triple.) The following inning, a weird succession of bloop hits drove him from the game.
2) In the top of the 7th, the Yankees were screwed by a hideous call. Robinson Cano ran to first base after catcher Benjamin Molina dropped the ball on a swinging third strike. The first baseman dropped Molina's throw, but the umpire ruled that Cano had strayed from the basepath. Instead of bases loaded with two outs, the inning was over. The call was wrong, and ended the Yankees' best chance to come back.
But I have to admit, there are probably more reasons why the Yankees didn't deserve to win. Let's start with the most obvious...
1) A-Rod. He hit, what, .145 for the division series? No home runs, no RBIs. For the second year in a row, A-Rod choked in the playoffs; there's just no other way to put it. The contrast between him and Jeter, who batted before A-Rod, was so stark it was embarrassing. In big games, Jeter seems to will himself to rise to the occasion; he takes his already outstanding game to a higher level. He had three hits last night, including a home run that put the game, at 5-3, within reach. He started the top of the ninth with a single, which was wasted when A-Rod promptly hit into a double-play. He was sterling in the field. (A-Rod, surprisingly, wasn't—he made a key error in Game Two, and a poor play in Game Three which led to an error by Cano.) This is why Jeter is a player for the ages, and A-Rod is, so far, just a player with great statistics.
2) The Yankee hitting generally. Gary Sheffield had three hits yesterday, but didn't have any extra-base hits during the series. Hideki Matsui stranded eight, count 'em, eight men in an 0-5 evening. Bernie Williams has aged so fast and so badly, it's tragi-comic. Jorge Posada isn't the threat he used to be. Am I wrong, or was Jeter the only Yankee who homered during the series?
3) Defense. The Yankees set the baseball record for most errors in a division series with, I think, six. That's embarrassing. They could easily have been charged with more, too, if not for some generous scoring on the aforementioned fly ball.
4) A general lack of clutch performances. Did anyone other than Jeter come up big at a critical moment? If so, I can't remember it. Maybe Rivera in Game 4, pitching two shutout innings. Al Leiter, getting a huge double play, also in Game 4. But that's about it. Randy Johnson pitched great last night, but he was horrific in Game 2.
The truth is, the Yankees went as far as they deserved to, given their level of talent. Now it's time for the off-season and some much needed rearranging. Here's my wish list.
1) Joe Torre, Mel Stottlemyre and Brian Cashman need to stay. These three are terrific executives, and getting rid of them won't help anything.
2) Getting rid of Bernie Williams, on the other hand, will help a lot. For at least the past two seasons, the Yankees have been saddled with a once-great centerfielder who morphed into the easiest out on the team. Every opposing pitcher breathes a sigh of relief when Bernie comes to the plate. He's a good guy and all, it's true. But sentiment can not rule here. It's time for Bernie to quit. The Yanks can't afford to have a center fielder who hits .249, can't throw, can't run, and can't cover much territory in the field. Plus, last night Bernie made an unforgiveable mental error, missing a hit-and-run sign with Robinson Cano on first. Cano, looking to see if Williams had made contact, was thrown out by a yard.
3) Clear out the other dead wood. Ruben Sierra, Felix Rodriguez, Scott Proctor, Tony Womack, Wayne Franklin. Tino Martinez and Tom Gordon are tougher calls, but I'd let them both leave. Tino really didn't hit this year, especially when you take away that one streak of seven homers in seven games. Tom Gordon had a terrific season, but was crummy, as he is wont to be, in the playoffs. Plus, he's 38. The Yankees need to get younger. And that includes starting to look forward to the day when Jorge Posada—whose offensive production is in decline—is no longer the catcher. I love Jorge; he's a great Yankee and a great competitor, a real team leader. But he needs to start hitting again.
4) Rebuild the team around the core of the infield: A-Rod, Jeter, Cano, Giambi and Posada. Then you have Matsui and Sheffield in the outfield. And Bubba Crosby, too; he's a young player who could really develop and could take over in right when Sheffield retires, which would probably be after next season. Did I mention that the Yankees need to get younger?
5) Sign Johnny Damon for centerfield. Also, some middle-inning, left-handed relief.
The end of this season isn't the end of the world for the Yankees. The Times would suggest that the fact of the Yankees not having won the World Series in five years in an unacceptable phenomenon to Yankee fans. That may be true for George Steinbrenner, or for some of the fans who came to New York during the Yankee boom years of the late '90s. But for those of us who've been Yankee fans for decades and remember the bad old days—Jim Mason, anyone?— we're not complaining. They field a good team every year, they're in the playoffs every year...and they've won the Series when they've deserved to. (Except maybe in 2001, when we lost a heartbreaker.) It's good for baseball when new blood does well, like the White Sox and the Astros, and true fans find solace in that, even when our team doesn't make it to the final round.
Plus, we did last longer than the Red Sox.
Here's why they didn't deserve to lose.
1) Mike Mussina pitched far better than the stat sheet would suggest. He was victimized by what was really a three-base error when Bubba Crosby and Gary Sheffield collided in the outfield, dropping a catchable ball that led to two runs scoring. (The officials ruled it a triple.) The following inning, a weird succession of bloop hits drove him from the game.
2) In the top of the 7th, the Yankees were screwed by a hideous call. Robinson Cano ran to first base after catcher Benjamin Molina dropped the ball on a swinging third strike. The first baseman dropped Molina's throw, but the umpire ruled that Cano had strayed from the basepath. Instead of bases loaded with two outs, the inning was over. The call was wrong, and ended the Yankees' best chance to come back.
But I have to admit, there are probably more reasons why the Yankees didn't deserve to win. Let's start with the most obvious...
1) A-Rod. He hit, what, .145 for the division series? No home runs, no RBIs. For the second year in a row, A-Rod choked in the playoffs; there's just no other way to put it. The contrast between him and Jeter, who batted before A-Rod, was so stark it was embarrassing. In big games, Jeter seems to will himself to rise to the occasion; he takes his already outstanding game to a higher level. He had three hits last night, including a home run that put the game, at 5-3, within reach. He started the top of the ninth with a single, which was wasted when A-Rod promptly hit into a double-play. He was sterling in the field. (A-Rod, surprisingly, wasn't—he made a key error in Game Two, and a poor play in Game Three which led to an error by Cano.) This is why Jeter is a player for the ages, and A-Rod is, so far, just a player with great statistics.
2) The Yankee hitting generally. Gary Sheffield had three hits yesterday, but didn't have any extra-base hits during the series. Hideki Matsui stranded eight, count 'em, eight men in an 0-5 evening. Bernie Williams has aged so fast and so badly, it's tragi-comic. Jorge Posada isn't the threat he used to be. Am I wrong, or was Jeter the only Yankee who homered during the series?
3) Defense. The Yankees set the baseball record for most errors in a division series with, I think, six. That's embarrassing. They could easily have been charged with more, too, if not for some generous scoring on the aforementioned fly ball.
4) A general lack of clutch performances. Did anyone other than Jeter come up big at a critical moment? If so, I can't remember it. Maybe Rivera in Game 4, pitching two shutout innings. Al Leiter, getting a huge double play, also in Game 4. But that's about it. Randy Johnson pitched great last night, but he was horrific in Game 2.
The truth is, the Yankees went as far as they deserved to, given their level of talent. Now it's time for the off-season and some much needed rearranging. Here's my wish list.
1) Joe Torre, Mel Stottlemyre and Brian Cashman need to stay. These three are terrific executives, and getting rid of them won't help anything.
2) Getting rid of Bernie Williams, on the other hand, will help a lot. For at least the past two seasons, the Yankees have been saddled with a once-great centerfielder who morphed into the easiest out on the team. Every opposing pitcher breathes a sigh of relief when Bernie comes to the plate. He's a good guy and all, it's true. But sentiment can not rule here. It's time for Bernie to quit. The Yanks can't afford to have a center fielder who hits .249, can't throw, can't run, and can't cover much territory in the field. Plus, last night Bernie made an unforgiveable mental error, missing a hit-and-run sign with Robinson Cano on first. Cano, looking to see if Williams had made contact, was thrown out by a yard.
3) Clear out the other dead wood. Ruben Sierra, Felix Rodriguez, Scott Proctor, Tony Womack, Wayne Franklin. Tino Martinez and Tom Gordon are tougher calls, but I'd let them both leave. Tino really didn't hit this year, especially when you take away that one streak of seven homers in seven games. Tom Gordon had a terrific season, but was crummy, as he is wont to be, in the playoffs. Plus, he's 38. The Yankees need to get younger. And that includes starting to look forward to the day when Jorge Posada—whose offensive production is in decline—is no longer the catcher. I love Jorge; he's a great Yankee and a great competitor, a real team leader. But he needs to start hitting again.
4) Rebuild the team around the core of the infield: A-Rod, Jeter, Cano, Giambi and Posada. Then you have Matsui and Sheffield in the outfield. And Bubba Crosby, too; he's a young player who could really develop and could take over in right when Sheffield retires, which would probably be after next season. Did I mention that the Yankees need to get younger?
5) Sign Johnny Damon for centerfield. Also, some middle-inning, left-handed relief.
The end of this season isn't the end of the world for the Yankees. The Times would suggest that the fact of the Yankees not having won the World Series in five years in an unacceptable phenomenon to Yankee fans. That may be true for George Steinbrenner, or for some of the fans who came to New York during the Yankee boom years of the late '90s. But for those of us who've been Yankee fans for decades and remember the bad old days—Jim Mason, anyone?— we're not complaining. They field a good team every year, they're in the playoffs every year...and they've won the Series when they've deserved to. (Except maybe in 2001, when we lost a heartbreaker.) It's good for baseball when new blood does well, like the White Sox and the Astros, and true fans find solace in that, even when our team doesn't make it to the final round.
Plus, we did last longer than the Red Sox.
Monday, October 10, 2005
Go Yankees!
They came from behind to beat the Angels, 3-2, last night, in a terrific playoff game, a pitcher's duel where the tension ramped up with each inning and the winning run was scored on a thisclose play at the plate. Tonight they play in Anaheim to determine who goes on to the American League Championship Series.
As far as I'm concerned, this Yankees team has already had a heck of a season, coming from an 11-19 record back in the early months to win the division (even though Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy insists on saying that the Yankees and Red Sox tied for the division, which is untrue). The Sox are gone now, and their whole team is about to fall apart; their glory days lasted one season. The Yankees will look very different next year, too, but they've got some comeback stories and some inspiring young players to give the team heart. After all the difficulties they've faced this season, they really do have reason to look forward to next year.
I hope the Yankees win tonight. But whether they do or don't, I thank them for the memories.
As far as I'm concerned, this Yankees team has already had a heck of a season, coming from an 11-19 record back in the early months to win the division (even though Boston Globe columnist Dan Shaughnessy insists on saying that the Yankees and Red Sox tied for the division, which is untrue). The Sox are gone now, and their whole team is about to fall apart; their glory days lasted one season. The Yankees will look very different next year, too, but they've got some comeback stories and some inspiring young players to give the team heart. After all the difficulties they've faced this season, they really do have reason to look forward to next year.
I hope the Yankees win tonight. But whether they do or don't, I thank them for the memories.
Remembering George
Ten years ago, the first issue of George magazine was published, to equal amounts of hoopla and criticism. I remember those crazy days vividly and fondly; nothing in the magazine business is as fun as creating a first issue, and George, for lots of different reasons, attracted a huge amount of attention. It was hectic, stressful, exciting, invigorating, and, as I mentioned, fun.
Tomorrow the Kennedy School is hosting a panel discussion in the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum about George. Panelists will include Roger Ailes of Fox News, CNN's Judy Woodruff, Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, and Tom Brokaw. The only person with any connection to George will be Paul Begala, who wrote the occasional speech for John Kennedy and, for a little while, wrote a monthly column on Democratic politics.
I wasn't invited to the discussion, and I'm not quite sure why. Could be because Caroline Kennedy, who is the m.c. of the occasion, has never forgiven me for writing a book about John. Could be because I wrote an article critical of the Kennedy School for Boston Magazine. Could be because I wrote a book about Harvard critical of president Larry Summers. These are the consequences of writing honestly about powerful people, and I accept them; if reporters have a problem with being, in some fundamental way, outsiders, then they shouldn't be reporters.
Still, I think it's a great shame that no one from George is participating in a discussion about the magazine's importance and influence, and so I wrote this op-ed piece for yesterday's Boston Globe. It's a little reflection on the magazine's influence on how the media covers politics (wish it could have been longer, but regardless, I'm grateful to the Globe for the opportunity). I've long felt that George was a more influential magazine than most media types were willing to admit, and this was a nice chance to say so.
Tomorrow the Kennedy School is hosting a panel discussion in the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum about George. Panelists will include Roger Ailes of Fox News, CNN's Judy Woodruff, Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, and Tom Brokaw. The only person with any connection to George will be Paul Begala, who wrote the occasional speech for John Kennedy and, for a little while, wrote a monthly column on Democratic politics.
I wasn't invited to the discussion, and I'm not quite sure why. Could be because Caroline Kennedy, who is the m.c. of the occasion, has never forgiven me for writing a book about John. Could be because I wrote an article critical of the Kennedy School for Boston Magazine. Could be because I wrote a book about Harvard critical of president Larry Summers. These are the consequences of writing honestly about powerful people, and I accept them; if reporters have a problem with being, in some fundamental way, outsiders, then they shouldn't be reporters.
Still, I think it's a great shame that no one from George is participating in a discussion about the magazine's importance and influence, and so I wrote this op-ed piece for yesterday's Boston Globe. It's a little reflection on the magazine's influence on how the media covers politics (wish it could have been longer, but regardless, I'm grateful to the Globe for the opportunity). I've long felt that George was a more influential magazine than most media types were willing to admit, and this was a nice chance to say so.
