Shots In The Dark
Friday, August 31, 2007
The Conservatives Want Him, Um, Out
The Wall Street Journal has called for Larry Craig's resignation.
Senator Craig was elected by the people of Idaho, and it is properly a matter between them and him whether he should finish his term. We agree, however, with those in his party who want the Senator to forgo re-election next year. The Republican Party needs to get its house in order. It is a mess. And that cleanup should include the living room, the library, the front porch and, we daresay, the restroom.
Ouch.
Senator Craig was elected by the people of Idaho, and it is properly a matter between them and him whether he should finish his term. We agree, however, with those in his party who want the Senator to forgo re-election next year. The Republican Party needs to get its house in order. It is a mess. And that cleanup should include the living room, the library, the front porch and, we daresay, the restroom.
Ouch.
How Sweep It Is
Did someone say sweep? The Yankees beat the Red Sox, again, and cut Boston's lead to five.
Crowded House Goes Green
The New Zealanders again show the environmental commitment typical of that nation. They post this on their home page:
Crowded House have teamed up with non-profit environmental group Reverb to descrease their carbon footprint while on tour. As well as working with Reverb to minimise and offset all of the estimated CO2 emissions on their tour, Crowded House are using B20 BioDiesel on their tour busses.
Fans can do their bit too by offsetting the impact of their own travel to the shows. "Time to Change" stickers, available at merchandise booths at the shows for a $5 donation, include a carbon credit equivalent to 150 miles of driving to help towards neutralising the CO2 your journey to the concert created. Click here for more details, and to find out what you can do to combat climate change.
Good on ya, mates.
Here's an idea: Why don't the Democratic presidential candidates, who with their private jets leave a considerable carbon footprint, do the same?
Crowded House have teamed up with non-profit environmental group Reverb to descrease their carbon footprint while on tour. As well as working with Reverb to minimise and offset all of the estimated CO2 emissions on their tour, Crowded House are using B20 BioDiesel on their tour busses.
Fans can do their bit too by offsetting the impact of their own travel to the shows. "Time to Change" stickers, available at merchandise booths at the shows for a $5 donation, include a carbon credit equivalent to 150 miles of driving to help towards neutralising the CO2 your journey to the concert created. Click here for more details, and to find out what you can do to combat climate change.
Good on ya, mates.
Here's an idea: Why don't the Democratic presidential candidates, who with their private jets leave a considerable carbon footprint, do the same?
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Will Yale Get Bigger?
Yale president Rick Levin is considering adding some 200 students a year to Yale's freshman classes, Bloomberg's Brian Sullivan reports.
``The principal reason for moving up is that we are turning down so many great kids,'' Levin said. ``The applicant pool is so much larger, and selectivity is so much greater.''
... Harvard isn't considering adding undergraduates, spokesman Robert Mitchell said.
But that's not really true, is it? Isn't boosting undergraduates one option of the Allston plan?
``The principal reason for moving up is that we are turning down so many great kids,'' Levin said. ``The applicant pool is so much larger, and selectivity is so much greater.''
... Harvard isn't considering adding undergraduates, spokesman Robert Mitchell said.
But that's not really true, is it? Isn't boosting undergraduates one option of the Allston plan?
They Found One!
The good news: A Chinese scientist spotted and filmed a baji, or river dolphin, proving that there is at least one left.
The bad news: It won't make any difference. Whether there are one or a few, there aren't enough to save the species.
"We have to accept the fact, that the Baiji is functionally extinct. It is a tragedy, a loss not only for China, but for the entire world," said August Pfluger, a noted Baiji expert and head of baiji.org, a group that seeks to protect the dolphin.
The bad news: It won't make any difference. Whether there are one or a few, there aren't enough to save the species.
"We have to accept the fact, that the Baiji is functionally extinct. It is a tragedy, a loss not only for China, but for the entire world," said August Pfluger, a noted Baiji expert and head of baiji.org, a group that seeks to protect the dolphin.
Friday about 4:30
While the New York Times reports that fellow Republicans think Larry Craig should resign, the Washington Post takes us deep inside the anonymous world of bathroom sex.
While the Craig case has created another political scandal, with two Republican senators yesterday calling for his resignation, it has also pulled back the curtain on a sexual practice that takes place furtively, in the most public of places, and on the police stings designed to rout it.
The article gives new meaning to the three-second rule, which most people would probably associate with the amount of time you can leave dropped food on the floor and still eat it....
Meanwhile, the Times says that Craig has been stripped of his committee seniority, meaning he's now basically in his first week as a senator, in terms of seniority. Read that as an attempt to embarrass him into resigning.
Also, it is my completely unscientific sense that the phrase "wide stance" has entered the lexicon as a source of considerable humor.
Here, for example, the New York Post, in its "Are You a Gay Senator" test*, asks, "Do you take a 'wide stance' in public bathrooms?"
Will Craig resign?
My guess? Yes, on the day and time indicated above.
Will the Republican Party use this sad story as an opportunity to reconsider its hateful positions towards gay people, many of whom happen to be Republican?
Not a chance.
______________________________________________________________
While the Craig case has created another political scandal, with two Republican senators yesterday calling for his resignation, it has also pulled back the curtain on a sexual practice that takes place furtively, in the most public of places, and on the police stings designed to rout it.
The article gives new meaning to the three-second rule, which most people would probably associate with the amount of time you can leave dropped food on the floor and still eat it....
Meanwhile, the Times says that Craig has been stripped of his committee seniority, meaning he's now basically in his first week as a senator, in terms of seniority. Read that as an attempt to embarrass him into resigning.
Also, it is my completely unscientific sense that the phrase "wide stance" has entered the lexicon as a source of considerable humor.
Here, for example, the New York Post, in its "Are You a Gay Senator" test*, asks, "Do you take a 'wide stance' in public bathrooms?"
Will Craig resign?
My guess? Yes, on the day and time indicated above.
Will the Republican Party use this sad story as an opportunity to reconsider its hateful positions towards gay people, many of whom happen to be Republican?
Not a chance.
______________________________________________________________
Quote of the Day
"Man, at that age, I'll be cutting grass in my backyard."
—David Ortiz on the 45-year-old Roger Clemens, as the Yankees beat the Red Sox! the Yankees beat the Red Sox! again.
—David Ortiz on the 45-year-old Roger Clemens, as the Yankees beat the Red Sox! the Yankees beat the Red Sox! again.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
What's Wrong with Boise?
I don't go around anywhere hitting on men, and by God, if I did, I wouldn't do it in Boise, Idaho! Jiminy!
—Larry Craig, yesterday
—Larry Craig, yesterday
Headline of the Day
Larry Craig: Still Not Gay
—The Washington Post
Despite a published report that he once fellated a man in a bathroom in Washington's Union Station, Larry Craig insisted yesterday that he isn't gay.
"I'm not gay," he said.
This despite the fact that in 1999, during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, Craig said—and I promise, I'm not making this up—
It's a, 'Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You're a naughty boy.' The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy. I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.
Um...senator? You're gay.
—The Washington Post
Despite a published report that he once fellated a man in a bathroom in Washington's Union Station, Larry Craig insisted yesterday that he isn't gay.
"I'm not gay," he said.
This despite the fact that in 1999, during the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, Craig said—and I promise, I'm not making this up—
It's a, 'Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You're a naughty boy.' The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy. I'm going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.
Um...senator? You're gay.
Okay, It's Only One Game, But...
...the Yankees win! The Yankees win!
(Don't expect similar treatment tomorrow, Boston fans, if the Sox win tonight....)
(Don't expect similar treatment tomorrow, Boston fans, if the Sox win tonight....)
W&M Get Reviewed
In the New York Sun, Ira Stoll reviews "The Israel Lobby."
The professors write that "anti-Semitism indulges in various forms of stereotyping and implies that Jews should be viewed with suspicion or contempt, while seeking to deny them the ability to participate fully and freely in all realms of society." They are at pains to emphasize that "the lobby is defined not by ethnicity or religion but by a political agenda." Then they proceed to jump in and do exactly what they say anti-Semites do.
Meanwhile, in The New Yorker, David Remnick has a take that reflects his greatest, perhaps his only weakness as a writer: His desire to be universally liked.
Mearsheimer and Walt are not anti-Semites or racists. They are serious scholars, and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity.
This is a bit of a bizarre couplet, perhaps the only place in Remnick's piece where he argues by assertion rather than accretion—and by misdirection: No one has accused W&M of insincerity. To W&M's critics, it is their sincerity that is the problem.
Remnick then continues in a less forgiving manner.
But their announced objectives have been badly undermined by the contours of their argument—a prosecutor’s brief that depicts Israel as a singularly pernicious force in world affairs. Mearsheimer and Walt have not entirely forgotten their professional duties, and they periodically signal their awareness of certain complexities. But their conclusions are unmistakable: Israel and its lobbyists bear a great deal of blame for the loss of American direction, treasure, and even blood.
I do not mean to accuse W&M of anti-Semitism, a subject on which my expertise is more than limited. And yet, I wonder why Remnick is so quick to absolve them of the charge, when the seed of it lies within his own words: though W&M "periodically signal their awareness of certain complexities," they still paint a picture of Israel as the Great Satan in American foreign policy. In other words, they sometimes try to be scholarly, but more often resort to stereotyping. Why could that be?
Remnick's answer lies in his concluding words:
“The Israel Lobby” is a phenomenon of its moment. The duplicitous and manipulative arguments for invading Iraq put forward by the Bush Administration, the general inability of the press to upend those duplicities, the triumphalist illusions, the miserable performance of the military strategists, the arrogance of the Pentagon, the stifling of dissent within the military and the government, the moral disaster of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the rise of an intractable civil war, and now an incapacity to deal with the singular winner of the war, Iran—all of this has left Americans furious and demanding explanations. Mearsheimer and Walt provide one: the Israel lobby. In this respect, their account is not so much a diagnosis of our polarized era as a symptom of it.
Put more bluntly, Remnick's argument is that, in a time of fear and anxiety, W&M are irrationally blaming the Jews and their Torah-carriers. I don't know if that's anti-Semitism, but nothing within Remnick's argument rules it out.
The professors write that "anti-Semitism indulges in various forms of stereotyping and implies that Jews should be viewed with suspicion or contempt, while seeking to deny them the ability to participate fully and freely in all realms of society." They are at pains to emphasize that "the lobby is defined not by ethnicity or religion but by a political agenda." Then they proceed to jump in and do exactly what they say anti-Semites do.
Meanwhile, in The New Yorker, David Remnick has a take that reflects his greatest, perhaps his only weakness as a writer: His desire to be universally liked.
Mearsheimer and Walt are not anti-Semites or racists. They are serious scholars, and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity.
This is a bit of a bizarre couplet, perhaps the only place in Remnick's piece where he argues by assertion rather than accretion—and by misdirection: No one has accused W&M of insincerity. To W&M's critics, it is their sincerity that is the problem.
Remnick then continues in a less forgiving manner.
But their announced objectives have been badly undermined by the contours of their argument—a prosecutor’s brief that depicts Israel as a singularly pernicious force in world affairs. Mearsheimer and Walt have not entirely forgotten their professional duties, and they periodically signal their awareness of certain complexities. But their conclusions are unmistakable: Israel and its lobbyists bear a great deal of blame for the loss of American direction, treasure, and even blood.
I do not mean to accuse W&M of anti-Semitism, a subject on which my expertise is more than limited. And yet, I wonder why Remnick is so quick to absolve them of the charge, when the seed of it lies within his own words: though W&M "periodically signal their awareness of certain complexities," they still paint a picture of Israel as the Great Satan in American foreign policy. In other words, they sometimes try to be scholarly, but more often resort to stereotyping. Why could that be?
Remnick's answer lies in his concluding words:
“The Israel Lobby” is a phenomenon of its moment. The duplicitous and manipulative arguments for invading Iraq put forward by the Bush Administration, the general inability of the press to upend those duplicities, the triumphalist illusions, the miserable performance of the military strategists, the arrogance of the Pentagon, the stifling of dissent within the military and the government, the moral disaster of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo, the rise of an intractable civil war, and now an incapacity to deal with the singular winner of the war, Iran—all of this has left Americans furious and demanding explanations. Mearsheimer and Walt provide one: the Israel lobby. In this respect, their account is not so much a diagnosis of our polarized era as a symptom of it.
Put more bluntly, Remnick's argument is that, in a time of fear and anxiety, W&M are irrationally blaming the Jews and their Torah-carriers. I don't know if that's anti-Semitism, but nothing within Remnick's argument rules it out.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
So Much for That Attempt at Media Manipulation
Walking into the Union Square Barnes & Noble tonight, I saw a bunch of copies of "The Israel Lobby" sitting on a table, which would suggest that either Farrar, Strauss & Giroux has abandoned its embargo idea, or that Farrar, Strauss and Giroux isn't very good at embargoing things.
Should Harvard Give Away Money?
Professors concerned about the widening money gap between Harvard and everywhere else are proposing some novel ways to spend Harvard's money—including giving some to less-fortunate schools.
Margaret Soltan, an English professor at George Washington University whose blog, "University Diaries," can be found at www.insidehighered.com, suggested Harvard start giving grants with all that money. She specifically mentioned Florida Southern College, the Lakeland school that has the largest collection of Frank Lloyd Wright-designed buildings, some of which have fallen into disrepair.
Sounds like a good investment to me....
Margaret Soltan, an English professor at George Washington University whose blog, "University Diaries," can be found at www.insidehighered.com, suggested Harvard start giving grants with all that money. She specifically mentioned Florida Southern College, the Lakeland school that has the largest collection of Frank Lloyd Wright-designed buildings, some of which have fallen into disrepair.
Sounds like a good investment to me....
The Man in Blue
"I was able to see Craig's blue eyes as he looked into my stall."
Larry Craig's police report.
Larry Craig's police report.
Monday, August 27, 2007
The Sox vs. the Yanks
It's over, Boston Magazine and the Boston Herald proclaim—the American League East race, that is. And they're probably right. The Yankees have been stinking up the joint lately, and they're getting crushed tonight, thanks to a third consecutive abysmal starting performance from the suddenly excruciatingly bad Mike Mussina. (It happens fast sometimes.)
Now the Yankees have to start thinking wild-card....
Now the Yankees have to start thinking wild-card....
LHS in the FT
Larry Summers' new column in the Financial Times analyzes the current disruption in the credit markets and the role of quasi-public institutions such as Fannie Mae in alleviating the crisis.
Only time will tell where we are in this cycle. There have been some signs of returning normalcy over the past week, but we cannot judge whether they represent a false spring or the end of a crisis phase. There may be further shoes to drop in the financial sector....
This crisis could have a silver lining if it leads to the careful reflection on these vital questions.
Indeed.
Only time will tell where we are in this cycle. There have been some signs of returning normalcy over the past week, but we cannot judge whether they represent a false spring or the end of a crisis phase. There may be further shoes to drop in the financial sector....
This crisis could have a silver lining if it leads to the careful reflection on these vital questions.
Indeed.
You Almost Feel Sorry for the Guy
Idaho senator Larry Craig, a Republican (of course), has been arrested and fined for trying to pick up a cop in a men's bathroom in Minneapolis.
Here's one of my favorite lines of all time, from the Roll Call story on the arrest:
A spokesman for Craig described the incident as a “he said/he said misunderstanding.”
Is that what they're calling it these days?
Among other odd behaviors Craig manifested while sitting in a bathroom stall, he rubbed his foot against the foot of the policeman in the stall next to him.
As the arresting office put it in his report, Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine."
That is just too much information.
I almost feel sorry for Craig, who is married (of course), but clearly has some personal issues. But then you read his positions on civil rights issues: voted to ban gay marriage, voted against adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes, voted against prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual discrimination, and so on, and so on.
Classic.
Here's one of my favorite lines of all time, from the Roll Call story on the arrest:
A spokesman for Craig described the incident as a “he said/he said misunderstanding.”
Is that what they're calling it these days?
Among other odd behaviors Craig manifested while sitting in a bathroom stall, he rubbed his foot against the foot of the policeman in the stall next to him.
As the arresting office put it in his report, Craig stated “that he has a wide stance when going to the bathroom and that his foot may have touched mine."
That is just too much information.
I almost feel sorry for Craig, who is married (of course), but clearly has some personal issues. But then you read his positions on civil rights issues: voted to ban gay marriage, voted against adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes, voted against prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual discrimination, and so on, and so on.
Classic.
China's Pollution Problem—and Ours
The Times reports today on China's out-of-control pollution.
Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party. And it is not clear that China can rein in its own economic juggernaut.
Some 1,000,000 Chinese a year are estimated to die from pollution-related illness. And what's bad for the Chinese is also bad for us.
China’s problem has become the world’s problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by China’s coal-fired power plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo. Much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research.
China's air pollution sends out a stream of toxic dust across the Pacific that is wider than the Amazon and deeper than the Grand Canyon—and winds up on the West Coast of the United States.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the rise of China as an economic superpower is the greatest single threat (let's call global warming a collective issue) to the viability of the planet since the development of the nuclear weapon.
China's coal-fired pollution has made the Kyoto Protocol pointless; its fishing is depleting the oceans (while the fish that they farm and send overseas is poisoned); they are destroying their own rivers and forcing species such as the beautiful river dolphin into extinction; they are making enormously destructive environmental inroads into Africa and South America; and meantime, the Communist Party seems unwilling and/or incapable of enforcing any kind of environmental regulation, and is in fact cracking down on environmental protest, for fear of social unrest before the Olympics—even though, ironically, the pollution is going to be so bad in Beijing that the viability of the Olympics itself is being threatened.
This is a very scary situation. What do you do if one nation is destroying the world and refuses to do anything about it?
Environmental degradation is now so severe, with such stark domestic and international repercussions, that pollution poses not only a major long-term burden on the Chinese public but also an acute political challenge to the ruling Communist Party. And it is not clear that China can rein in its own economic juggernaut.
Public health is reeling. Pollution has made cancer China’s leading cause of death, the Ministry of Health says. Ambient air pollution alone is blamed for hundreds of thousands of deaths each year. Nearly 500 million people lack access to safe drinking water.
Chinese cities often seem wrapped in a toxic gray shroud. Only 1 percent of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air considered safe by the European Union....Some 1,000,000 Chinese a year are estimated to die from pollution-related illness. And what's bad for the Chinese is also bad for us.
China’s problem has become the world’s problem. Sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides spewed by China’s coal-fired power plants fall as acid rain on Seoul, South Korea, and Tokyo. Much of the particulate pollution over Los Angeles originates in China, according to the Journal of Geophysical Research.
China's air pollution sends out a stream of toxic dust across the Pacific that is wider than the Amazon and deeper than the Grand Canyon—and winds up on the West Coast of the United States.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that the rise of China as an economic superpower is the greatest single threat (let's call global warming a collective issue) to the viability of the planet since the development of the nuclear weapon.
China's coal-fired pollution has made the Kyoto Protocol pointless; its fishing is depleting the oceans (while the fish that they farm and send overseas is poisoned); they are destroying their own rivers and forcing species such as the beautiful river dolphin into extinction; they are making enormously destructive environmental inroads into Africa and South America; and meantime, the Communist Party seems unwilling and/or incapable of enforcing any kind of environmental regulation, and is in fact cracking down on environmental protest, for fear of social unrest before the Olympics—even though, ironically, the pollution is going to be so bad in Beijing that the viability of the Olympics itself is being threatened.
This is a very scary situation. What do you do if one nation is destroying the world and refuses to do anything about it?
The Forward on W&M
The liberal Jewish magazine, The Forward, has read "The Israel Lobby," and doesn't think much of it, nor of Walt and Mearsheimer's protestations that they are being silenced.
As part of the advance marketing campaign, the scholars asked to appear before a variety of Jewish audiences, including synagogues and a Jewish community center. They were, predictably, turned down.
As part of the advance marketing campaign, the scholars asked to appear before a variety of Jewish audiences, including synagogues and a Jewish community center. They were, predictably, turned down.
Then the Forward was approached. We were asked to sponsor a program at which the professors would present their views, unopposed. Noting that we hadn’t thought much of the paper when it came out, we were assured that the authors had now incorporated last year’s criticisms. We asked to see a copy of the book, but we found it as sloppy as the original paper and decided not to endorse it. All of which played right into their hands, enabling them to argue that the Lobby is still working to suppress their views — with the Forward as Exhibit A.
...Most of the paper’s flaws survive in the book, but the longer format allowed the introduction of whole new stretches of substandard work...
I think W&M are facing some rocky waters ahead.
Larry Summers Hits the Chat Shows
Larry Summers appeared on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, although the show was guest-hosted by Terry Moran. (It's late August. GS is probably at the US Open, where I should be.)
He was not optimistic about the state of the stock market and the economy, but stuck up for the little guy, saying that the focus of economic policy should not be bailing out big investors, but addressing the needs of homeowners who are facing the loss of their homes.
Sound economic policy—or political positioning?
Summers' best-delivered line of the show: "The Wall Street editorial page is wrong when it tries to deny the American dream" of homeownership to working families.
LHS has gone almost entirely gray in the past year; he's looking more distinguished these days.
He was not optimistic about the state of the stock market and the economy, but stuck up for the little guy, saying that the focus of economic policy should not be bailing out big investors, but addressing the needs of homeowners who are facing the loss of their homes.
Sound economic policy—or political positioning?
Summers' best-delivered line of the show: "The Wall Street editorial page is wrong when it tries to deny the American dream" of homeownership to working families.
LHS has gone almost entirely gray in the past year; he's looking more distinguished these days.
Friday, August 24, 2007
The "Harvard Hottie"
There is a discussion below (generously put) of why there are no "hot" women in Boston.
In the interest of equal time, here is a photo of the character referred as the "Harvard hottie," in the just-released film, The Nanny Diaries. (Hint: It's not Scarlett Johanssen.)
In the interest of equal time, here is a photo of the character referred as the "Harvard hottie," in the just-released film, The Nanny Diaries. (Hint: It's not Scarlett Johanssen.)
Harvard's Hotness
Newsweek has a list of the "hottest" colleges just out, and it's amusing if basically worthless.
Case in point: the magazine lists Cornell as the "hottest Ivy."
Here's why:
Unlike the other Ivies, Cornell is a land-grant college emphasizing problem solving as well as scholarly debate. The university boasts a world-class engineering college and top-flight liberal arts, science and fine arts. The hotel school is considered the world's best. Cornellians, proud of the variety on campus, point to the president, David Skorton, a cardiologist, jazz musician and computer scientist who is the first in his family to have a college education.
Okay, that's all true, and I'm imagine Wikipedia will confirm it. So what exactly makes Cornell "hot"? Newsweek does not elaborate.
Silly mainstream media. If you're going to say that something is hot, you should at least say why.
Okay, here's the Harvard entry:
This was a close one. Harvard rejected 91.03 percent of its applicants to the class of 2011. It seemed likely, once again, to win the trophy for Stingiest Admissions. But wait: Columbia College, part of Columbia University, rejected 91.05 of applicants. Its student newspaper declared it the winner. Some Columbia freshmen, however, attend the School of Engineering and Applied Science or the School of General Studies, which means that only 89.6 percent of applicants felt the pain.
Well, that is a tortured logic, and what the heck is "hottest for rejecting you" supposed to mean anyway?
The comments do a fine job of deconstructing of this particular feature.
Case in point: the magazine lists Cornell as the "hottest Ivy."
Here's why:
Unlike the other Ivies, Cornell is a land-grant college emphasizing problem solving as well as scholarly debate. The university boasts a world-class engineering college and top-flight liberal arts, science and fine arts. The hotel school is considered the world's best. Cornellians, proud of the variety on campus, point to the president, David Skorton, a cardiologist, jazz musician and computer scientist who is the first in his family to have a college education.
Okay, that's all true, and I'm imagine Wikipedia will confirm it. So what exactly makes Cornell "hot"? Newsweek does not elaborate.
Silly mainstream media. If you're going to say that something is hot, you should at least say why.
Okay, here's the Harvard entry:
This was a close one. Harvard rejected 91.03 percent of its applicants to the class of 2011. It seemed likely, once again, to win the trophy for Stingiest Admissions. But wait: Columbia College, part of Columbia University, rejected 91.05 of applicants. Its student newspaper declared it the winner. Some Columbia freshmen, however, attend the School of Engineering and Applied Science or the School of General Studies, which means that only 89.6 percent of applicants felt the pain.
Well, that is a tortured logic, and what the heck is "hottest for rejecting you" supposed to mean anyway?
The comments do a fine job of deconstructing of this particular feature.
Yale, Harvard Returns vs. Buy-and-Hold
A financial blog says the endowments could do just as well using a buy-and-hold strategy rather than the management systems the two universities have in place....
Thursday, August 23, 2007
If Facebook Isn't Working for You...
...try PlayboyU, the company's new social networking site.
Motto: "Join our student body."
Motto: "Join our student body."
More on the Endowment
Here's yesterday's Globe write-up on last year's endowment returns.
The growth of Harvard's endowment in a single year, $5.7 billion, dwarfs similar gains in the academic world. Other than Harvard, only six American universities held entire endowments larger than $5.7 billion at the end of the previous fiscal year, according to the National Association of College and University Business Officers.
The growth of Harvard's endowment in a single year, $5.7 billion, dwarfs similar gains in the academic world. Other than Harvard, only six American universities held entire endowments larger than $5.7 billion at the end of the previous fiscal year, according to the National Association of College and University Business Officers.
One thing the Globe doesn't mention that the Times did: El-Erian's plan to start a website devoted to HMC that will make make the university's investments more "transparent."
The Superbaby
Bridget Moynihan just gave birth to Tom Brady's child!
You know, it really might make more sense for Brady, who's now dating NYC-based model Giselle Bunchen, and whose ex-girlfriend and child also live in New York, to play for the Giants....
Trade you Eli Manning for him?
You know, it really might make more sense for Brady, who's now dating NYC-based model Giselle Bunchen, and whose ex-girlfriend and child also live in New York, to play for the Giants....
Trade you Eli Manning for him?
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Bush Goes on the Offensive
And I do mean offensive.
Today he had the audacity to say that we should stay in Iraq in order to prevent the kind of bloodshed that happened after we withdrew from Vietnam. (The Times blog has a nice analysis of this argument.)
Perhaps the president should say that to this Iraq veteran and his bride, who were photographed by Nina Berman, whose remarkable work is written up in today's Times.
Today he had the audacity to say that we should stay in Iraq in order to prevent the kind of bloodshed that happened after we withdrew from Vietnam. (The Times blog has a nice analysis of this argument.)
Perhaps the president should say that to this Iraq veteran and his bride, who were photographed by Nina Berman, whose remarkable work is written up in today's Times.
Harvard Makes More Money
A poster below says that Harvard's endowment has done so well, I should reconsider my sense that Harvard's loss of $350 million in a hedge fund was big news.
Hmmm....
Well, the Times has a piece on Harvard's returns for the past year, and the results are impressive.
The Harvard Management Company, which oversees the endowment of Harvard University, reported yesterday that the endowment had posted a 22.4 percent gain for the fiscal year ended June 30.
..Together with other assets and related accounts, the total value at the end of June rose to $41 billion, from $33.5 billion a year ago. Its 22.4 percent total gain exceeded the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, which was up 20.6 percent for the same period.
The Times notes that the June 30 closing date for this report predates the troubles in the credit markets.
22.4% sounds great, but could it be better?
Several specialists involved in the endowment world said that although Harvard’s figures were very good, they were perhaps not as stellar as what Yale is expected to report next month. Though few universities have reported, last week the University of Virginia said its endowment had returned 25.2 percent.
Nonetheless, it does seem petty to quibble with 22.4%...and Harvard's endowment is now worth $40 billion. That is astonishing.
Perhaps Yale's returns will provide a more meaningful context.
Hmmm....
Well, the Times has a piece on Harvard's returns for the past year, and the results are impressive.
The Harvard Management Company, which oversees the endowment of Harvard University, reported yesterday that the endowment had posted a 22.4 percent gain for the fiscal year ended June 30.
..Together with other assets and related accounts, the total value at the end of June rose to $41 billion, from $33.5 billion a year ago. Its 22.4 percent total gain exceeded the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, which was up 20.6 percent for the same period.
The Times notes that the June 30 closing date for this report predates the troubles in the credit markets.
22.4% sounds great, but could it be better?
Several specialists involved in the endowment world said that although Harvard’s figures were very good, they were perhaps not as stellar as what Yale is expected to report next month. Though few universities have reported, last week the University of Virginia said its endowment had returned 25.2 percent.
Nonetheless, it does seem petty to quibble with 22.4%...and Harvard's endowment is now worth $40 billion. That is astonishing.
Perhaps Yale's returns will provide a more meaningful context.
Stop Jon Friedman Before He Writes Again
Media critic Jon Friedman has gotten even worse.
His column today is all about how hard it is to be Steve Nieve, a classical musician who feels like he doesn't get the respect that he deserves from music critics.
Inexplicable, no? Yes. Until you reach this sentence...
I caught up with Nieve and Teodori last Saturday at the house they were renting in Amagansett, on the eastern tip of Long Island....
Ah...the old, "I'm on vacation but if I can find something to write about it won't count as vacation" trick.....
His column today is all about how hard it is to be Steve Nieve, a classical musician who feels like he doesn't get the respect that he deserves from music critics.
Inexplicable, no? Yes. Until you reach this sentence...
I caught up with Nieve and Teodori last Saturday at the house they were renting in Amagansett, on the eastern tip of Long Island....
Ah...the old, "I'm on vacation but if I can find something to write about it won't count as vacation" trick.....
Walt-Mearsheimer: A Clarification
I seem to have created some confusion with my posts on Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, so let me try to clear things up.
First, I'll admit to being skeptical about "The Israel Lobby"—I found the original paper underwhelming—but certainly am keeping an open mind about it. The two professors may well have strengthened their case and elevated the quality of their research since the original paper.
Second, I certainly think that W&M, as we shall now refer to them, have the right to publish the book and talk about it in any way they wish. This does not mean that private organizations need volunteer a forum for them in which to do so.
Third, I am slightly troubled by the way this book is being marketed, with access to W&M being controlled and limited by their publisher—more on this later—and the book itself kept under tight wraps—very unusual for an academic work—so as to promote greater interest in it. (There may well be other reasons; this is undeniably one.)
Having said that, I do agree that if W&M really want to get their message out and be heard on such a volatile topic, then they do have to play the game of public relations; that's why I posted about the rather offputting nature of their PR photo.
What I do argue is that they can not have this both ways—play the game and then protest when others do the same.
When, for example, Professor Mearsheimer attributed the cancellation of their forum to pressure from "the lobby," I was dismayed, because in my opinion that remark borders on anti-Semitism. It would be one thing to say that the forum was cancelled because of protest from a specific group or groups; but to point to a vague, conspiratorial, behind the scenes pressure from the mysterious "lobby"—well, that strikes me as irresponsible.
Which is not a promising sign. My suspicion is that the professors don't know quite what they've gotten themselves into, and I can speak from firsthand knowledge that they are getting some bad advice, and that when you are injecting a subject as potentially hurtful and damaging as this one into the public arena, doing so requires great care, skill, and responsibility. (Remember: their paper was praised by David Duke, among others. The potential for unfortunate consequences is substantial.)
Whereas their publisher is concerned with selling books.
So there is something about the very nature of this process that concerns me. And again, that's why I posted about the W&M photo—because it suggests, in one relatively trivial way, that these men don't quite know what they are doing in this larger arena than that to which they are accustomed, and that they have not surrounded themselves with people who do.
Which, in the end, makes it less likely that their book will provoke healthy, constructive debate, and more likely that it will provoke anger and dissension.
But I hope to be proved wrong. We shall see.
First, I'll admit to being skeptical about "The Israel Lobby"—I found the original paper underwhelming—but certainly am keeping an open mind about it. The two professors may well have strengthened their case and elevated the quality of their research since the original paper.
Second, I certainly think that W&M, as we shall now refer to them, have the right to publish the book and talk about it in any way they wish. This does not mean that private organizations need volunteer a forum for them in which to do so.
Third, I am slightly troubled by the way this book is being marketed, with access to W&M being controlled and limited by their publisher—more on this later—and the book itself kept under tight wraps—very unusual for an academic work—so as to promote greater interest in it. (There may well be other reasons; this is undeniably one.)
Having said that, I do agree that if W&M really want to get their message out and be heard on such a volatile topic, then they do have to play the game of public relations; that's why I posted about the rather offputting nature of their PR photo.
What I do argue is that they can not have this both ways—play the game and then protest when others do the same.
When, for example, Professor Mearsheimer attributed the cancellation of their forum to pressure from "the lobby," I was dismayed, because in my opinion that remark borders on anti-Semitism. It would be one thing to say that the forum was cancelled because of protest from a specific group or groups; but to point to a vague, conspiratorial, behind the scenes pressure from the mysterious "lobby"—well, that strikes me as irresponsible.
Which is not a promising sign. My suspicion is that the professors don't know quite what they've gotten themselves into, and I can speak from firsthand knowledge that they are getting some bad advice, and that when you are injecting a subject as potentially hurtful and damaging as this one into the public arena, doing so requires great care, skill, and responsibility. (Remember: their paper was praised by David Duke, among others. The potential for unfortunate consequences is substantial.)
Whereas their publisher is concerned with selling books.
So there is something about the very nature of this process that concerns me. And again, that's why I posted about the W&M photo—because it suggests, in one relatively trivial way, that these men don't quite know what they are doing in this larger arena than that to which they are accustomed, and that they have not surrounded themselves with people who do.
Which, in the end, makes it less likely that their book will provoke healthy, constructive debate, and more likely that it will provoke anger and dissension.
But I hope to be proved wrong. We shall see.
The Voice on Cornel West
This week's Village Voice (yes, it still exists) profiles Cornel West.
Speaking of his record, West says,
"It's a matter of trying to present to young people a danceable education," he says. "Or what I call a 'singing paideia.' [Paideia means "a deep education" in Greek.] You have to get people's attention and focus on serious issues. Then you try to cultivate their self and put a premium on critical reflection, and then you try and engage in the maturation of the soul, which has to do with courage, compassion, and just love, basically."
When will Harvard do the right thing and apologize to West?
Speaking of his record, West says,
"It's a matter of trying to present to young people a danceable education," he says. "Or what I call a 'singing paideia.' [Paideia means "a deep education" in Greek.] You have to get people's attention and focus on serious issues. Then you try to cultivate their self and put a premium on critical reflection, and then you try and engage in the maturation of the soul, which has to do with courage, compassion, and just love, basically."
When will Harvard do the right thing and apologize to West?
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Walt and Mearsheimer—Cancelled
The Chicago Trib reports on the decision by the Chicago Council of Global Affairs to cancel a forum about "The Israel Lobby," the forthcoming book by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer.
Council President Marshall Bouton, who made the decision to cancel, said he was not trying to stifle free speech nor shy away from public discussion of a controversial issue. Rather, Bouton said, he preferred that the authors appear in "an appropriate forum" balanced by an opposing viewpoint. Neither council board members who are Jewish nor pro-Israeli groups influenced his decision or pressured him, Bouton said.
Proving again (see below) that Mearsheimer needs a better public relations person than the one Farrar, Strauss & Giroux has provided him—trust me, I know this firsthand—he responds:
"If he wasn't protecting the council from the lobby, who was he protecting it from?"
There you go, Professor Mearsheimer—blaming the Jews again. [You can tell that Mearsheimer would have capitalized "The Lobby."]
Maybe the book should just be called "The Israel Cabal"?
Council President Marshall Bouton, who made the decision to cancel, said he was not trying to stifle free speech nor shy away from public discussion of a controversial issue. Rather, Bouton said, he preferred that the authors appear in "an appropriate forum" balanced by an opposing viewpoint. Neither council board members who are Jewish nor pro-Israeli groups influenced his decision or pressured him, Bouton said.
Proving again (see below) that Mearsheimer needs a better public relations person than the one Farrar, Strauss & Giroux has provided him—trust me, I know this firsthand—he responds:
"If he wasn't protecting the council from the lobby, who was he protecting it from?"
There you go, Professor Mearsheimer—blaming the Jews again. [You can tell that Mearsheimer would have capitalized "The Lobby."]
Maybe the book should just be called "The Israel Cabal"?
Portfoli—oh!
That didn't take long. In the pages of TNR, Elizabeth Spiers, founder of the blog DealBreaker.com, calls for the firing of Portfolio editor Joanne Lipmann—after all of two issues.
Two issues? Magazines take time, and any editor deserves more than that. Portfolio's not very good so far, but how many magazines are after two issues?
And now, a Portfolio-related mea culpa. A few days back, I ripped into CBS Marketwatch columnist Jon Friedman for criticizing Portfolio for the manner in which it obtained an interview with New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner. Friedman, I said, should appreciate that Steinbrenner's fair game.
Well, having now, um, read the Portfolio story, I have to say something I never thought I'd write: Jon Friedman was right.
Don't get me wrong, I still think his column was abysmally written and argued in a slapdash and juvenile manner. But the gist of his piece is right: The Portfolio article feels sleazy.
In the Portfolio piece, reporter Franz Lidz accompanies Tom McEwen, an 84-year-old friend of Steinbrenner's, to Steinbrenner's Tampa home—and asks Steinbrenner a bunch of questions.
To start, McEwen sounds like he may not be entirely all there himself. The two drive to Steinbrenner's and proceed to sneak into his gated driveway after another car drives out.
Never in the piece does Lidz mention whether he ever actually tells Steinbrenner what he's working on.
Great to see you, George,” McEwen says. He introduces me as a writer working on a story and asks about Steinbrenner’s wife, Joan.
That's pretty vague—half a sentence. Such vagueness is almost always deliberate. Did McEwen say exactly what Lidz was writing a story about?
Now, it may not have made any difference; Steinbrenner might be too far gone mentally to have cared or perhaps even realized that he was talking to a reporter working on a story about whether he was senile.
Still, I do think the ethics of this manner of getting an interview are pretty questionable. But as you read the story, you realize why Lidz did it—because he's got nothing else. After this lede, the piece is a snooze.
So perhaps Joanne Lipman (who, for the sake of full disclosure, I have met once) ought not to be fired. But her magazine does have some serious work to do.
Two issues? Magazines take time, and any editor deserves more than that. Portfolio's not very good so far, but how many magazines are after two issues?
And now, a Portfolio-related mea culpa. A few days back, I ripped into CBS Marketwatch columnist Jon Friedman for criticizing Portfolio for the manner in which it obtained an interview with New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner. Friedman, I said, should appreciate that Steinbrenner's fair game.
Well, having now, um, read the Portfolio story, I have to say something I never thought I'd write: Jon Friedman was right.
Don't get me wrong, I still think his column was abysmally written and argued in a slapdash and juvenile manner. But the gist of his piece is right: The Portfolio article feels sleazy.
In the Portfolio piece, reporter Franz Lidz accompanies Tom McEwen, an 84-year-old friend of Steinbrenner's, to Steinbrenner's Tampa home—and asks Steinbrenner a bunch of questions.
To start, McEwen sounds like he may not be entirely all there himself. The two drive to Steinbrenner's and proceed to sneak into his gated driveway after another car drives out.
Never in the piece does Lidz mention whether he ever actually tells Steinbrenner what he's working on.
Great to see you, George,” McEwen says. He introduces me as a writer working on a story and asks about Steinbrenner’s wife, Joan.
That's pretty vague—half a sentence. Such vagueness is almost always deliberate. Did McEwen say exactly what Lidz was writing a story about?
Now, it may not have made any difference; Steinbrenner might be too far gone mentally to have cared or perhaps even realized that he was talking to a reporter working on a story about whether he was senile.
Still, I do think the ethics of this manner of getting an interview are pretty questionable. But as you read the story, you realize why Lidz did it—because he's got nothing else. After this lede, the piece is a snooze.
So perhaps Joanne Lipman (who, for the sake of full disclosure, I have met once) ought not to be fired. But her magazine does have some serious work to do.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The Goods on Rove
It's easy to trash Karl Rove without knowing exactly why you're trashing him, just assuming that he's the man responsible for much of the disaster that is the Bush administration.
But this Washington Post story gives you the specifics you need to trash Rove in an informed manner. (Would have been nice if they'd published it before he quit, eh?)
Many administrations have sought to maximize their control of the machinery of government for political gain, dispatching Cabinet secretaries bearing government largess to battleground states in the days before elections. The Clinton White House routinely rewarded big donors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom and private coffees....
But Rove, who announced last week that he is resigning from the White House at the end of August, pursued the goal far more systematically than his predecessors, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Post, enlisting political appointees at every level of government in a permanent campaign that was an integral part of his strategy to establish Republican electoral dominance.
..."What we are seeing is the tip of a whole effort to make the federal government a subsidiary of the Republican Party. It was all politics, all the time," Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the oversight committee, said last week.
Anyone else think the next five years are going to be good ones for political investigative journalists? This may well turn out to be not only the most incompetent administration in history, but also the most corrupt.
But this Washington Post story gives you the specifics you need to trash Rove in an informed manner. (Would have been nice if they'd published it before he quit, eh?)
Many administrations have sought to maximize their control of the machinery of government for political gain, dispatching Cabinet secretaries bearing government largess to battleground states in the days before elections. The Clinton White House routinely rewarded big donors with stays in the Lincoln Bedroom and private coffees....
But Rove, who announced last week that he is resigning from the White House at the end of August, pursued the goal far more systematically than his predecessors, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Post, enlisting political appointees at every level of government in a permanent campaign that was an integral part of his strategy to establish Republican electoral dominance.
..."What we are seeing is the tip of a whole effort to make the federal government a subsidiary of the Republican Party. It was all politics, all the time," Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the oversight committee, said last week.
Anyone else think the next five years are going to be good ones for political investigative journalists? This may well turn out to be not only the most incompetent administration in history, but also the most corrupt.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Thank God for Blogs
This Wonkette headline is pretty funny....
Jenna Bush To Marry Rich White Rove Staffer
Wonkette also speculates, rather amusingly, that Jenna is in the family way....Friday, August 17, 2007
The Walt/Mearsheimer Book
The Times has an interesting piece on the problems Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer are already running into with their forthcoming book, The Israel Lobby.
An article last spring in the London Review of Books outlining their argument — that a powerful pro-Israel lobby has a pernicious influence on American policy — set off a firestorm as charges of anti-Semitism, shoddy scholarship and censorship ricocheted among prominent academics, writers, policymakers and advocates. In the book, published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux and embargoed until Sept. 4, they elaborate on and update their case.
With all due respect, professors Walt and Mearsheimer, I have one suggestion: When you're taking on a topic this inflammatory, appearance matters. (It probably shouldn't, but it does.) Get rid of this photo—now. Quite frankly, it makes you look cold and heartless and a little creepy. Lose the ties at the very least. Get a dog in there somewhere. (Not a German shepherd, though!)
The book is going to be problematic enough as it is... Anyone out there plan to read it?
An article last spring in the London Review of Books outlining their argument — that a powerful pro-Israel lobby has a pernicious influence on American policy — set off a firestorm as charges of anti-Semitism, shoddy scholarship and censorship ricocheted among prominent academics, writers, policymakers and advocates. In the book, published by Farrar, Straus & Giroux and embargoed until Sept. 4, they elaborate on and update their case.
With all due respect, professors Walt and Mearsheimer, I have one suggestion: When you're taking on a topic this inflammatory, appearance matters. (It probably shouldn't, but it does.) Get rid of this photo—now. Quite frankly, it makes you look cold and heartless and a little creepy. Lose the ties at the very least. Get a dog in there somewhere. (Not a German shepherd, though!)
The book is going to be problematic enough as it is... Anyone out there plan to read it?
Another Great Phil Rizzuto Story
The New York Post's enjoyably cranky Phil Mushnick has this amusing remembrance of Phil Rizzuto:
The first-person Phil Rizzuto stories are all great, and hard to choose among. Marty Appel, former Yankees publicity director and later Rizzuto's executive producer when the Yanks were on WPIX, cites Rizzuto's unusual flair for marketing, one that could cause consternation among Yankees officials.
"My favorite was when a screaming line drive foul was hit into the lower stands," Appel said. "Phil hollered, 'Holy cow, it's a wonder more people don't get killed coming to the ballgame!' "
Jenna Bush Hooks Up
Isn't it interesting when a daughter marries someone who pretty much looks like her dad?
(Evolutionary psychologists feel welcome to chime in....)
(Evolutionary psychologists feel welcome to chime in....)
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Harvard's Diversity Deficiency
Matthew Keenan and Brian Sullivan write up Harvard's new diversity report for Bloomberg. The Crimson also has a nice piece on the report.
The takeaway? Harvard's not doing so well.
A Harvard University report on the status of women and minorities on the faculty shows that neither group has made much progress in the two years since the issue became a flashpoint at the school.
The proportion of tenured or tenure-track minority professors rose to 16 percent in 2007 from about 15 percent in 2005, according to a report by the school's Office of Faculty Development and Diversity. Women held about 25 percent of "ladder" faculty positions -- those with tenure or the possibility of it -- an increase of less than a percentage point.
Minorities held 240 of the 1,475 tenure and tenure-track positions at Harvard, excluding those at affiliated medical institutions. Women held 365 of those positions.
W0w—that's pretty bad. And this is coming from a white guy.
So what's the real story here—is Harvard serious about diversity, and if it is, what's taking so long?
The takeaway? Harvard's not doing so well.
A Harvard University report on the status of women and minorities on the faculty shows that neither group has made much progress in the two years since the issue became a flashpoint at the school.
The proportion of tenured or tenure-track minority professors rose to 16 percent in 2007 from about 15 percent in 2005, according to a report by the school's Office of Faculty Development and Diversity. Women held about 25 percent of "ladder" faculty positions -- those with tenure or the possibility of it -- an increase of less than a percentage point.
Minorities held 240 of the 1,475 tenure and tenure-track positions at Harvard, excluding those at affiliated medical institutions. Women held 365 of those positions.
W0w—that's pretty bad. And this is coming from a white guy.
So what's the real story here—is Harvard serious about diversity, and if it is, what's taking so long?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
From Toys to Pigs
From the Times:
A highly infectious swine virus is sweeping China’s pig population, driving up pork prices and creating fears of a global pandemic among domesticated pigs.
Chinese Pig Virus Causes Concern Around the Globe
From the Times:
A highly infectious swine virus is sweeping China’s pig population, driving up pork prices and creating fears of a global pandemic among domesticated pigs.
Animal virus experts say Chinese authorities are playing down the gravity and spread of the disease and refusing to cooperate with international scientists.
...China’s past lack of transparency — particularly over what became the SARS epidemic — has created global concern.
“They haven’t really explained what this virus is,” says Federico A. Zuckermann, a professor of immunology at the University of Illinois College of Veterinary Medicine. “This is like SARS. They haven’t sent samples to any international body. This is really irresponsible of China. This thing could get out and affect everyone.”
Again, the combination of a massive international exporter/importer and a secretive, undemocratic government—has the Earth ever seen it before on this scale? Can the Earth survive it?
Remembering Scooter
Jeffrey Lyons writes a nice remembrance of Phil Rizzuto.
The night before Yom Kippur, Kol Nidre, is the holiest in Judaism. But the Red Sox were in town, so naturally I was sitting next to him in the booth.
"Scooter," I said. "Don't say 'Yommmm Keepur...' as if you've never heard of it. Say it quickly and don't congratulate Jewish people or wish them a happy holiday, since it's the Day of Atonement and whatever you do, don't say I'm here, because my mother will kill me.” I was ok with that, since Yankee Stadium is the Temple of Baseball.
About the fourth inning I heard, "We want to wish our Jewish friends a happy... uh oh… hey Jeffrey Lyons... is it 'Yom Kippur?' Is that how you pronounce it?”
I grew up watching the Yankees on black-and-white TV on WPIX—"Eleven Alive!"—and I could well imagine that distinctive voice: "Uh-oh...hey, Jeffrey Lyons...."
Makes me smile just to think of it....
The night before Yom Kippur, Kol Nidre, is the holiest in Judaism. But the Red Sox were in town, so naturally I was sitting next to him in the booth.
"Scooter," I said. "Don't say 'Yommmm Keepur...' as if you've never heard of it. Say it quickly and don't congratulate Jewish people or wish them a happy holiday, since it's the Day of Atonement and whatever you do, don't say I'm here, because my mother will kill me.” I was ok with that, since Yankee Stadium is the Temple of Baseball.
About the fourth inning I heard, "We want to wish our Jewish friends a happy... uh oh… hey Jeffrey Lyons... is it 'Yom Kippur?' Is that how you pronounce it?”
I grew up watching the Yankees on black-and-white TV on WPIX—"Eleven Alive!"—and I could well imagine that distinctive voice: "Uh-oh...hey, Jeffrey Lyons...."
Makes me smile just to think of it....
Toxic Toys
Mattel is recalling 19,000,000 of them—all made in China.
(By the way, for a massive recall, the Mattel site is pretty darn quiet about it—try to find the announcement of the recall on their site. Then look at the two-page single-spaced press release, and think about how useful that's going to be for most people. Way to handle the situation, Mattel.)
This is going to start a wave of toy recalls; Mattel is surely not the only one.
In other China news, they've been exporting baby bibs made with lead.
Meanwhile, the number of "super-rich" in China is growing exponentially.
Let me clarify something: A couple of you have wondered if I have something against China. Not so. But China's newfound international power creates a historically unique and alarming situation: The rise of a superpower in a globalized age which also happens to be the world's most populous nation—but, in part due to its undemocratic system of government, lacks the regulatory infrastructure to monitor the safety of its exports or tamp down the excesses of its imports, such as shark fins. The consequences are being felt around the world—from the development of impoverished African nations, pollution of the entire world*, possibly sick children in the US and elsewhere, extinction of sharks around the world, and countless other ways.
And these phenomena stemming from China's massive impact on the world are also happening extremely fast—sharks, , for example, could be extinct within five to ten years.
So we're at a fascinating moment here, and it seems worth paying attention to—and yes, on occasion, raising an alarm about.
________________________________________________________________
From the New York Times:
Unless China finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar both at home and abroad. The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks.
(By the way, for a massive recall, the Mattel site is pretty darn quiet about it—try to find the announcement of the recall on their site. Then look at the two-page single-spaced press release, and think about how useful that's going to be for most people. Way to handle the situation, Mattel.)
This is going to start a wave of toy recalls; Mattel is surely not the only one.
In other China news, they've been exporting baby bibs made with lead.
Meanwhile, the number of "super-rich" in China is growing exponentially.
Let me clarify something: A couple of you have wondered if I have something against China. Not so. But China's newfound international power creates a historically unique and alarming situation: The rise of a superpower in a globalized age which also happens to be the world's most populous nation—but, in part due to its undemocratic system of government, lacks the regulatory infrastructure to monitor the safety of its exports or tamp down the excesses of its imports, such as shark fins. The consequences are being felt around the world—from the development of impoverished African nations, pollution of the entire world*, possibly sick children in the US and elsewhere, extinction of sharks around the world, and countless other ways.
And these phenomena stemming from China's massive impact on the world are also happening extremely fast—sharks, , for example, could be extinct within five to ten years.
So we're at a fascinating moment here, and it seems worth paying attention to—and yes, on occasion, raising an alarm about.
________________________________________________________________
From the New York Times:
Unless China finds a way to clean up its coal plants and the thousands of factories that burn coal, pollution will soar both at home and abroad. The increase in global-warming gases from China's coal use will probably exceed that for all industrialized countries combined over the next 25 years, surpassing by five times the reduction in such emissions that the Kyoto Protocol seeks.
Don't Swim With the Seals
Because off the coast of Massachusetts, a great white shark is eating them.
Last Night in the East
A poster below takes a shot at the Yankees for getting blown out, 12-0, by the Orioles last night, while the Red Sox came from behind to beat the (thank God for the) Devil Rays, 2-1.
But there's an interesting backstory to this game and why the Yankees lost it.
New York had to pitch a rookie named Jeff Karstens, who got hammered and was gone after three innings, and the game was out of reach after that.
Why? Because Roger Clemens could not pitch, having been suspended for hitting a Toronto Blue Jay—a suspension that was previously referred to on this blog with an epithet. To summarize: The Blue Jays had been throwing at A-Rod for two straight games. They hit him. Clemens hit one of the Blue Jays in retaliation.
The league suspends him for five games.
As I say, a bullshit suspension. But it's cost the Yankees—and now they face the Orioles' best pitcher, Erik Bedard, 12-4 with a 3.11 ERA, tonight. This is a big game.
But Red Sox fans, I wouldn't get too relaxed—it shouldn't take a bottom-of-the-ninth comeback to beat the D-Rays.
But there's an interesting backstory to this game and why the Yankees lost it.
New York had to pitch a rookie named Jeff Karstens, who got hammered and was gone after three innings, and the game was out of reach after that.
Why? Because Roger Clemens could not pitch, having been suspended for hitting a Toronto Blue Jay—a suspension that was previously referred to on this blog with an epithet. To summarize: The Blue Jays had been throwing at A-Rod for two straight games. They hit him. Clemens hit one of the Blue Jays in retaliation.
The league suspends him for five games.
As I say, a bullshit suspension. But it's cost the Yankees—and now they face the Orioles' best pitcher, Erik Bedard, 12-4 with a 3.11 ERA, tonight. This is a big game.
But Red Sox fans, I wouldn't get too relaxed—it shouldn't take a bottom-of-the-ninth comeback to beat the D-Rays.
Where Is Rick Levin?
The National Review takes Yale's Rick Levin and Duke's Dick Brodhead to task for not signing the anti-Israeli boycott petition....
But—whoops—there's a statement from Rick Levin on the front of Yale's webpage, dated August 10. (Guess that was too much investigative effort for the National Review—you know, typing in www.yale.edu.)
Here's Levin's statement:
I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed in President Bollinger's statement, and I am happy to say so. But I am not comfortable signing group statements or petitions, in this case and as well as hundreds of other similar situations where my participation has been requested.
A boycott of Israel's educational institutions serves no useful purpose. It violates the principle of academic freedom that all universities should practice and defend. We should continue to promote to the fullest extent the opportunity for discussion, collaboration, and exchange with Israeli institutions, as well as with other universities in the Middle East and around the globe.
I have to say, that is less than forceful and less than eloquent. A boycott "serves no useful purpose"? This feels defensive and perfunctory.
President Levin, you can do better than that.
Oh, and whoops, two clicks brings us to Dick Brodhead's statement on the boycott, dated July 27.
Durham, NC -- Britain’s University and College Union voted in late May to move forward with a proposal to boycott Israeli academic institutions, as called for by Palestinian trade unions for Israel’s “40-year occupation” of Palestinian land. (See http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,2091769,00.html.) In response, Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead has issued the following statement condemning the proposed boycott, which the British union has not yet officially ratified:
I view the proposed academic boycott of Israeli universities by Great Britain’s University and College Union as a threat to all institutions of higher education, and I condemn it as such.
All ideas are not equal, but it is a foundational principle of American life that all ideas should have an equal opportunity to be expressed. The protection of free speech is the protection of the notion that people can teach each other and learn from each other through the free airing of differences and the mutual engagement of opposing points of view. To disbelieve that is in some fundamental way to disbelieve in education itself. Duke University has a proud tradition of upholding the free exchange of ideas, including discussions that involve the bitter, unresolved conflicts in the Middle East. The idea of forbidding partnerships and exchanges with Israeli universities and scholars contradicts the high value we place in the pursuit of knowledge on our own campus and in the importance of robust intellectual integrity more broadly. I oppose efforts to suppress the free exchange of ideas at Duke and in university communities around the world.
It's such writing that makes me like Brodhead, despite his misfirings in the rape case. Eloquent, passionate, and right. Also, you have no doubt that he wrote this himself, something you can not always say of many university presidents....
But—whoops—there's a statement from Rick Levin on the front of Yale's webpage, dated August 10. (Guess that was too much investigative effort for the National Review—you know, typing in www.yale.edu.)
Here's Levin's statement:
I certainly agree with the sentiments expressed in President Bollinger's statement, and I am happy to say so. But I am not comfortable signing group statements or petitions, in this case and as well as hundreds of other similar situations where my participation has been requested.
A boycott of Israel's educational institutions serves no useful purpose. It violates the principle of academic freedom that all universities should practice and defend. We should continue to promote to the fullest extent the opportunity for discussion, collaboration, and exchange with Israeli institutions, as well as with other universities in the Middle East and around the globe.
I have to say, that is less than forceful and less than eloquent. A boycott "serves no useful purpose"? This feels defensive and perfunctory.
President Levin, you can do better than that.
Oh, and whoops, two clicks brings us to Dick Brodhead's statement on the boycott, dated July 27.
Durham, NC -- Britain’s University and College Union voted in late May to move forward with a proposal to boycott Israeli academic institutions, as called for by Palestinian trade unions for Israel’s “40-year occupation” of Palestinian land. (See http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/worldwide/story/0,,2091769,00.html.) In response, Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead has issued the following statement condemning the proposed boycott, which the British union has not yet officially ratified:
I view the proposed academic boycott of Israeli universities by Great Britain’s University and College Union as a threat to all institutions of higher education, and I condemn it as such.
All ideas are not equal, but it is a foundational principle of American life that all ideas should have an equal opportunity to be expressed. The protection of free speech is the protection of the notion that people can teach each other and learn from each other through the free airing of differences and the mutual engagement of opposing points of view. To disbelieve that is in some fundamental way to disbelieve in education itself. Duke University has a proud tradition of upholding the free exchange of ideas, including discussions that involve the bitter, unresolved conflicts in the Middle East. The idea of forbidding partnerships and exchanges with Israeli universities and scholars contradicts the high value we place in the pursuit of knowledge on our own campus and in the importance of robust intellectual integrity more broadly. I oppose efforts to suppress the free exchange of ideas at Duke and in university communities around the world.
It's such writing that makes me like Brodhead, despite his misfirings in the rape case. Eloquent, passionate, and right. Also, you have no doubt that he wrote this himself, something you can not always say of many university presidents....
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Morton Schapiro Gets It Right
I really like the way the president of Williams College explains his decision not to sign the petition opposing the boycott of Israeli academics. He writes a letter to the entire community (thanks to the poster below who pointed it out) explaining his thinking on the issue and behind his decision not to sign the petition.
So why didn’t I sign the ad in the New York Times? There are three reasons — (1) without any community-wide discussion, I don’t think the President of Williams should make institutional commitments that might affect many members of our community in serious ways; (2) I think that such public pressure from the U.S. at this stage might very well backfire and actually strengthen the position of the UCU delegates who advocate a boycott; (3) the ad was paid for by the American Jewish Committee and I feel very strongly that it was inappropriate to involve a third party in expressing our outrage.
Smart, credible reasons all. But just as important, I like the way Schapiro engages the community in the discussion and makes this a teachable moment. There's no sense of an announcement from on high, as is, unfortunately, the case with Drew Faust's rather lofty explanation, which doesn't explain her reasoning. There's a sense of confidence that if the president shares his reasoning with the community, students and professors and others can actually learn from the episode and share their opinions in an equally reasoned way.
Very nice, President Schapiro.
So why didn’t I sign the ad in the New York Times? There are three reasons — (1) without any community-wide discussion, I don’t think the President of Williams should make institutional commitments that might affect many members of our community in serious ways; (2) I think that such public pressure from the U.S. at this stage might very well backfire and actually strengthen the position of the UCU delegates who advocate a boycott; (3) the ad was paid for by the American Jewish Committee and I feel very strongly that it was inappropriate to involve a third party in expressing our outrage.
Smart, credible reasons all. But just as important, I like the way Schapiro engages the community in the discussion and makes this a teachable moment. There's no sense of an announcement from on high, as is, unfortunately, the case with Drew Faust's rather lofty explanation, which doesn't explain her reasoning. There's a sense of confidence that if the president shares his reasoning with the community, students and professors and others can actually learn from the episode and share their opinions in an equally reasoned way.
Very nice, President Schapiro.
Goodbye to the Scooter
Sad news: Phil Rizzuto has passed away. The legendary Yankee shortstop and announcer died today at the age of 89.
I'll write more about the Scooter, as he was known, later, when I'm not at the office. But he will be missed.
I'll write more about the Scooter, as he was known, later, when I'm not at the office. But he will be missed.
Ouch
Summer fun: a video of an Australian surfer being attacked by two great white sharks at once. Note the video's sophisticated "Attack Analysis." Scary stuff.
On the China Front
Mattel is planning another massive recall of Chinese-made toys. Canadian hotels are asking travelers to throw away their Chinese-made toothpaste after it was found to contain anti-freeze. And a bridge collapsed, killing 29 people and raising questions about the speed and safety of China's new construction. And in the last month, the enviro group Sea Shepherd has seized 19,000 illegally-taken shark fins, almost certainly headed for China and Hong Kong.
On the positive side, four baby pandas were born in Chinese zoos yesterday. Pandas are cute.
On the positive side, four baby pandas were born in Chinese zoos yesterday. Pandas are cute.
Andrew Sullivan Is Bonkers
Today he writes this about the GOP primary:
...Giuliani-Huckabee would be a strong, unifying GOP ticket.
Huh?
If there is one word that has never been applied to Rudy Giuliani, it would be "unifying." Divisiveness is woven into the man's character (just ask his ex-wives!); it's part of his identity, his nature. He feeds off anger; he grows stronger through provocation.
A more unifying nominee would be Romney. Forgive my language, but whatever else you might say about him, at least Romney isn't an asshole. And as Ronald Reagan showed, you can get away with some extreme ideological positions by virtue of being a basically friendly guy.
The Presidents, Two Styles
Here's Lee Bollinger's statement on the anti-Israeli boycott:
Which, I wonder—and I do not mean this as a rhetorical question—would have a greater impact, Bollinger's public call-to-arms or Faust's quiet declaration?
"As a citizen, I am profoundly disturbed by the recent vote by Britain's
new University and College Union to advance a boycott against Israeli academic
institutions. As a university professor and president, I find this idea
utterly antithetical to the fundamental values of the academy, where we will
not hold intellectual exchange hostage to the political disagreements of the
moment. In seeking to quarantine Israeli universities and scholars this vote
threatens every university committed to fostering scholarly and cultural
exchanges that lead to enlightenment, empathy, and a much-needed international
marketplace of ideas.
"At Columbia I am proud to say that we embrace Israeli scholars and
universities that the UCU is now all too eager to isolate -- as we embrace
scholars from many countries regardless of divergent views on their
government's policies. Therefore, if the British UCU is intent on pursuing its
deeply misguided policy, then it should add Columbia to its boycott list, for
we do not intend to draw distinctions between our mission and that of the
universities you are seeking to punish. Boycott us, then, for we gladly stand
together with our many colleagues in British, American and Israeli
universities against such intellectually shoddy and politically biased
attempts to hijack the central mission of higher education."And here's Drew Faust's (with apologies for the formatting;
not sure what's going on there):
Earlier this summer the University and College Union (UCU), an
organization of British academics, proposed a boycott of Israeli
universities and academics, a proposal to be voted on by their
membership in the coming months. On my second day as President, July 2,
I wrote directly to Sally Hunt, the First General Secretary (president)
of the UCU, stating my strong opposition to this measure. I expressed
my conviction that such a move subverts the academic values and
freedoms necessary to the free flow of ideas that are the lifeblood of
universities and, ultimately, that of the societies and world we serve.
To be clear, my own view is that academics should be promoting, not
undermining, the fullest possible collaboration with Israeli
universities as well as other universities in the Middle East and
elsewhere.
Finally, while I am most comfortable expressing my views on such matters directly in my own words as opposed to signing group statements or petitions, I obviously join many colleagues throughout the international academic community in denouncing unequivocally an action that would serve no purpose and would fundamentally violate the academic freedoms we must defend at all costs.
Which, I wonder—and I do not mean this as a rhetorical question—would have a greater impact, Bollinger's public call-to-arms or Faust's quiet declaration?
Rove: Influential Bad Guy, or Just Bad Guy?
In the Times, Adam Nagourney says Rove's influence will last; in Portfolio (!), Matt Cooper says Rove was never as influential as he's been made out to be.
It's a conventional wisdom catfight!
(Again, by the way, someone at the Times is picking terrific photos; the last one that comes to mind was a pained shot of David Vitter and his wife at Vitter's prostitute-related press conference. Now look at this terrific shot of Bush and Rove "hugging," the way their left hands parallel in some strange, I'm-afraid-to-look-gay distancing. [But where is Bush's right hand?] They look like Tetris pieces that aren't quite fitting together.)
It's a conventional wisdom catfight!
(Again, by the way, someone at the Times is picking terrific photos; the last one that comes to mind was a pained shot of David Vitter and his wife at Vitter's prostitute-related press conference. Now look at this terrific shot of Bush and Rove "hugging," the way their left hands parallel in some strange, I'm-afraid-to-look-gay distancing. [But where is Bush's right hand?] They look like Tetris pieces that aren't quite fitting together.)