Anonymous Sources

Here comes another goddamn rant

2005-10-30T13:21:00.000-06:00

Well, the NYT always manages to put out these provocative articles about gender and modern feminism. I'm just going to ring off a series of quotes that got me hoppin' mad.

Now dating etiquette has reverted. Young women no longer care about using the check to assert their equality. They care about using it to assess their sexuality.

Men, apparently, learn early to protect their eggshell egos from high-achieving women. The girls said they hid the fact that they went to Harvard from guys they met because it was the kiss of death. "The H-bomb," they dubbed it. "As soon as you say Harvard Business School . . . that's the end of the conversation," Ani Vartanian said. "As soon as the guys say, 'Oh, I go to Harvard Business School,' all the girls start falling into them."

But nowadays most young brides want to take their husbands' names and brag on the moniker Mrs., a brand that proclaims you belong to him. T-shirts with "MRS." emblazoned in sequins or sparkly beads are popular wedding-shower gifts.

Moviemakers these days are more interested in exploring what Steve Martin, in his novel "Shopgirl," calls the "calm cushion" of romances between unequals.

In James Brooks's movie "Spanglish," Adam Sandler, playing a sensitive Los Angeles chef, falls for his hot Mexican maid, just as in "Maid in Manhattan," Ralph Fiennes, playing a sensitive New York pol, falls for the hot Latino maid at his hotel, played by Jennifer Lopez. Sandler's maid, who cleans up for him without being able to speak English, is presented as the ideal woman, in looks and character. His wife, played by Téa Leoni, is repellent: a jangly, yakking, overachieving, overexercised, unfaithful, shallow she-monster who has just lost her job with a commercial design firm and fears she has lost her identity.

In 2003, we had "Girl With a Pearl Earring," in which Colin Firth's Vermeer erotically paints Scarlett Johansson's Dutch maid, and Richard Curtis's "Love Actually," about the attraction of unequals. The witty and sophisticated British prime minister, played by Hugh Grant, falls for the chubby girl who wheels the tea and scones into his office. A businessman married to the substantial Emma Thompson, the sister of the prime minister, falls for his sultry secretary. A novelist played by Colin Firth falls for his maid, who speaks only Portuguese.

A lot of women now want to be Maxim babes as much as men want Maxim babes. So women have moved from fighting objectification to seeking it. "I have been surprised," Maxim's editor, Ed Needham, confessed to me, "to find that a lot of women would want to be somehow validated as a Maxim girl type, that they'd like to be thought of as hot and would like their boyfriends to take pictures of them or make comments about them that mirror the Maxim representation of a woman, the Pamela Anderson sort of brand. That, to me, is kind of extraordinary."

This makes me both sad and angry. It echoes what I observe in behavior at college. Why can I dream of having a successful career AND a loving family, but a woman can't? What makes us so different? Of course, women have to bear children, and that makes for difficulties. But there's not THAT much time during pregnancy and immediately following where a woman doesn't work. If men would share the burden, there would be no conflict.

The over-sexualized, submissive approach to relationships with men is just disgusting. Careers aren't the only way for women to have successful lives, of course. But if a woman approaches a relationship with the intent of taking a back seat, to get the thrill of being pampered without pampering back, to become a "Maxim girl", then there are serious implications. What happens when these girls age and are no longer attractive to the men they "hooked" while still young? Long-term relationships (and I know that I am of course an expert on this) between intelligent men and women should be built on admiration for personalities and intellectual stimulation, with a physical component of course. Fuck the world.

6 Degrees of Osama

2005-10-23T01:31:00.000-05:00

Bravo, Fox. I mean, when I read the headline, I was skeptical because of the source. But I thought, "okay, I'll give it a chance and read the article." And yes, they prove a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam—a connection with more intermediaries than an intervention convention. I guess this means Bush was right after all.

No Bull Moose Here

2005-10-16T21:01:00.000-05:00

Mmm. This sounds sweet. Over and out.

Finally.

2005-10-15T20:08:00.000-05:00

The NYT finally comes out with an elaborate analysis, description, and timeline of the Judith Miller case. Read on, you brave lonely soul who actually reads me.

Oh, you Poles. Almost...

2005-09-27T22:53:00.000-05:00

So the newly victorious conservative coalition in Poland recently decided not to appoint the leader of the largest party for premier. The BBC speculates about why this could possibly be, throwing out a lot of reasons. Then comes this paragraph:

The choice of Mr Marcinkiewicz might have been prompted by the fact that Mr Kaczynski's identical twin brother Lech, a former justice minister who cracked down on crime, is running for president in next month's vote.

So you're telling me that Poland very nearly had identical twin brothers as president and premier?!? Why, why, could this not be?

Opting-Out is Still Here

2005-09-20T09:29:00.000-05:00

Lisa Belkin stirred up a huge furor a few years ago with a NYT Magazine piece called "The Opt-Out Generation," in which she argued that female graduates of elite colleges were increasingly chosing families over careers. Now, today, the NYT comes out with an article saying that female Yale students are planning on "opting-out". Two things jump out at me. The first is this quote:

Sarah Currie, a senior at Harvard, said many of the men in her American Family class last fall approved of women's plans to stay home with their children.

"A lot of the guys were like, 'I think that's really great,' " Ms. Currie said. "One of the guys was like, 'I think that's sexy.' Staying at home with your children isn't as polarizing of an issue as I envision it is for women who are in their 30's now."

Seriously? God damn it, women. Men have been approving of women who want to stay home and raise families for thousands of years! You feel encouraged because guys think its "sexy" to stop a career and raise children? That is such unbelievable affirmation of gender subjugation, it blows my mind. And I'm not even a RADICAL feminist.

Second, where the hell are the guys on this? Raising children is not just the mother's responsibility, it's the father's. Guys shouldn't keep going out to their law firm or medical practice while saying their wives are sexy for staying home. They should be helping to share the fucking burden.

/rant

Paris Hilton's Cabin

2005-09-19T12:23:00.000-05:00

Following up on the "Bi-Curious" post, comes this book analyzing the issue from a much broader perspective. Jen Egan's thorough review analyzes where the book hits the mark, and where it's less than convincing. Here's her thesis (read the article to make sense of my title):

Our popular culture, she argues, has embraced a model of female sexuality that comes straight from pornography and strip clubs, in which the woman's job is to excite and titillate - to perform for men. According to Levy, women have bought into this by altering their bodies surgically and cosmetically, and - more insidiously - by confusing sexual power with power, so that embracing this caricaturish form of sexuality becomes, in their minds, a perverse kind of feminism.

So who pays for hors d'oeuvres?

2005-09-18T23:32:00.000-05:00

A cogent layout of a long-standing problem: we are enormously, and continuously, in debt. Not much to say, just read on.

Beating Back the Watchmaker

2005-09-18T16:18:00.000-05:00

Finally, a comprehensive rebuttal to the Intelligent Design nonsense by someone who know's what he's talking about, Richard Dawkins (with help from a University of Chicago professor). The logical fallacy with ID arguments is to point out things that evolution doesn't or supposedly can't fully explain. But:

In all cases there is a hidden default assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B-- creationism/intelligent design in this case--is any better at explaining Phenomenon X.

What does this imply, logically?

The equivalent evidential demand of creationism would be a complete record of God's behavior on the day that he went to work on, say, the mammalian ear bones or the bacterial flagellum, the hairlike organ that propels mobile bacteria. Not even the most ardent advocate of intelligent design would claim to offer any such divine evidence.

I should also note at this time that most scientists have done a poor job of laying out the defense of evolution. What they have done is simply say "Evolution is true!" an absolute or nearly-so statement that leaves them wide open to reasonable-sounding rebuttals. This does a much better job.

Rainy Days Swimming

2005-09-18T13:30:00.000-05:00

The rain is gone, and no one's going to be swimming, either, in the world's newest lake. At least it's winter and not summer coming, or this whole stew would be simmering. As it is, don't make any bets about people coming back to Nawlins soon.

Meet the Wimp

2005-09-17T23:31:00.000-05:00

Well, speak of the devil. Nick Kristof again. I don't post everything he writes, it just seems like it. But this quote speaks for itself.

Mr. Bush, let me ask you just one question: Since you portray yourself as a bold leader, since you pride yourself on your willingness to use blunt terms like "evil" - then why is it that you're so wimpish on genocide?

Game, set, match.

Who wants to get rich?

2005-09-16T15:45:00.000-05:00

This is just disgusting. I hope Nick Kristof writes a column about this, because he's much better suited to express outrage than I am.

Curious? Maybe

2005-09-16T11:17:00.000-05:00

It's interesting that the linked article is published at the same time that this survey comes out. The NYT says:

When asked, "Have you ever had any sexual experience of any kind with any female?" 14 percent of the 18- to 29-year-old women said yes, compared with slightly under 10 percent of the 30- to 44-year-olds. That difference was surprising, Dr. Mosher said, since on questions about lifetime experience, older people usually report more than younger ones.

This brings to mind a comment made more than a year ago by a straight female friend of mine, along the lines of: "I'm straight, but even I have to admit that the female form is more beautiful than the male form." And she's not exactly the type who'd be doing what Sarah Fenske describes in the linked Phoenix New Times article:

As is usually the case, the interaction on the dance floor is strictly girl-on-girl. One twentysomething grinds her friend up against the railing. Another, a big lush of a brunette, actually takes off her belt and loops it around her friend, using it to draw her closer as they bop to the beat. The half-dozen guys at the edge of the dance floor don't even bother to watch.

They're too busy panting as the two hotties at the center of the dance floor simulate sex.

Is there a fundamental difference between male sexuality and female sexuality? I think it's too early to jump to conclusions (although of course that's what the bulk of the media will do when they get wind of this story), but there is both anecdotal and hesitant scientific evidence for a different imagining of female sexuality.
I'd also recommend considering another, separate layer of meaning on top of this story. Note this quote, description of the nearby couple courtest of the story's author and not its subject.

"We're so uptight," she rasps into her sushi, oblivious to the fact that a stuffy couple two tables down is listening to every word. "People should just do what they want to do and not worry about it.

"Although," she adds quickly, "I don't want to promote everybody running around fucking all the time. There are consequences." The stuffy woman nods her agreement.

Certainly we shouldn't be bound by outdated societal norms when it comes to sexual activity. But is it a better and happier life to just "do what [we] want to and not worry about it"?

Not Suicide?

2005-07-19T21:24:00.000-05:00

Okay, so it's from the Sun-Times. I apologize. But despite that, it's incisive. British police now suspect that the London bombers were not willing suicide bombers but may have been tricked into dying in the process. It may be wishful thinking; there's something far more shocking about someone willing to kill themselves to murder than someone who leaves a bomb behind. But it's interesting none the less.

Not just Tunes for long

2005-07-18T20:39:00.000-05:00

This isn't exactly big news—I for one predicted it as soon as Apple came out with their last update to iTunes that made it a fully functional Quicktime player—but the maker of the iPod and Mac is believed to be on the verge of coming out with a portable video player. This would be done in synergy with a full music video store on the iTunes Music Store (iTMS).
Further speculation about full-length videos (which I think is very premature) is also in the article; also talk about how this could synergize with a "Media Center Mac." The burning question for me, though, is whether they'll keep calling it "iTunes" once it's just as much about video as music.

So it's not the 72 virgins?

2005-07-17T15:23:00.000-05:00

This is the article that I've been meaning to post ever since the Chicago Tribune ran it in mid-June. Shockingly detailed; it lays out exactly why suicide bombings occur. Quite simply, it's the most effective modern strategy for a weak resistance group against a powerful occupying army. Does this paragraph shock you:

The leading instigator of suicide attacks is the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist-Leninist group whose members are from Hindu families but who are adamantly opposed to religion. This group committed 76 of the 315 incidents, more than Hamas (54) or Islamic Jihad (27). Even among Muslims, secular groups like the Kurdistan Workers' Party, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and the Al Aksa Martyr Brigades account for more than a third of suicide attacks.

It certainly made me sit up and read it twice. Give this one some thought.

Dear Leader

2005-07-17T15:02:00.000-05:00

Okay, so this isn't exactly a must-read post to revive Anonymous Sources. But it's the always brilliant Nick Kristof, returning to his specialty in East Asian affairs. A sentence from the very end of this article sums up the whole point:

The West should be trying to break that hermetic seal, to increase interactions with North Korea and to infiltrate into North Korea the most effective subversive agents we have: overweight Western business executives.

That's the dilemma of democracy promotion. You have to be fierce in condemning human rights abuses, but those condemnations can't further the cause of tyrants. I believe, like Kristof (and he's helped to inform this belief of mine) that the best way to spread freedom is not through military intervention—although post-World War Japan and Germany testify to the possibilities of this tactic—but by spreading information. When people "know so little about the outside world that they don't know how badly off they are," they're never going to take their freedom into their own hands.

Where has all the culture gone?

2005-06-16T14:58:00.000-05:00

David Brooks continues to amaze me. To be sure, underneath this critique of pop culture you can find him blaming "liberalism" for the decline of society. But it's really not essential at all for his argument: middle class Americans are less interested than ever in intellectual things. It's really pretty sad.

Liberal? Glean from this.

2005-06-14T16:53:00.000-05:00

So this isn't really news. But at least it's not Michael Jackson.

Insightful Tribune editor Charline Madigan writes about his political ideology. He argues that he is not liberal, and manages to lay out an interesting set of beliefs that are general enough to be fairly unoffensive. I think he probably could have done more, and he definitely falls short of the mandate set in the first few paragraphs, which was to look at liberalism in the media.

There's also the question, not raised directly by the Rambling Gleaner, of whether "liberalism" is changing. Ronald Reagan unquestionable has sullied the term "liberal," to the extent that today's leftists like to refer to themselves as "progressives." But what does it mean to "lean left" politically? I don't think the old affection for socialism has much pull on society. (That said, I know plenty of people who identify with socialism. I wonder how many people keep those views three years after leaving college?) Another problem spot is the anything-goes hedonism of the '60s. When do libertarian and libertine meet?

Intel Inside iMac?

2005-06-06T13:38:00.000-05:00

Well, we've finally heard it from Steve Jobs himself, so it must be true. Apple is joining forces with Intel. If Intel was once Darth Vader to Microsoft's Emperor, then Vader just started throttling the Emperor. Strained metaphors aside, this doesn't really mean trouble for Microsoft. It COULD mean trouble for Apple, if they botch the transition.

It's comforting that Apple's not planning to release a version of OS X that will play on any Intel box. Apple is not a software company, it's a hardware company that makes attractive software to help sell its hardware. The Mac "clones" in the early 90s were disastrous for Apple (though very good for the clone makers), because Apple makes its income from selling computers (and now iPods).

What this could do positively for Apple is eliminate the perceived performance gap between Macs and Wintel boxes. Though the PowerPC chip weren't slouches, the highest quality Intel chips could achieve higher clock speeds. That limited Apple's appeal to people seeking high-power machines.

This could also make it easier to program for the Mac. That would be especially meaningful for Mac gamers, who've long had to wait months for a Mac version of hit games.

Deep Throat Revealed!

2005-05-31T12:34:00.000-05:00

It's not one of the glamorous picks, high ranking Nixon administration officials. But it was the second-in-command of the FBI, and we news fanatics get to find out who the biggest anonymous source in history is while he's still alive to talk about it.
Edited: The link now goes to the Vanity Fair article in which the story was broken. But for a slightly more revealing take, look at this Washington Post blog. As you can imagine, the Post "newsroom is a bit abuzz over this."

Juicing, Part Two

2005-05-30T20:05:00.000-05:00

In random conversations with friends, I've always been outspoken against preparing for tests. To me, it seemed like the principle of the thing: standardized tests were designed to test your natural ability, and studying for one defeats the purpose of the test. You're supposed to just walk in and do what you're capable of, and what you get is what you get.
There's also class issues: these prep courses cost money. Preparing for a standardized test becomes a benefit of wealth, and thus affluent students have advantages when getting into colleges. There's already a slew of advantages that rich kids have in competitive education, so there's no need to add another.
The inevitable response I get to my argumetns is "But you have that luxury, you don't have to prepare to do well." That's probably true. Still, I think it'd be nice if college administrators let it be known that they valued decent scores from people who didn't take prepation over slightly better scores from people who did prepare.

Considering the bottom line

2005-05-29T02:59:00.000-05:00

Changeup and I, like most liberal bloggers, consider ourselves members of the elite stations of media society. Really, we take this for granted. But enough can't be said about the wayThe Nation built up its reputation without regard to the idea of making money, darling. Think about it. Only in three years of their existence were the publishers profitable ... which leads me back to the original purpose of this post.
COMMENT ON THE FUCKING MATERIAL
That's right, bitches. It's time for you to understand the importance of reciprocation. Just write a little note. I'm talking to you, Ethel, public librarian. And to you, George, man in Alabama who browses in boxers. And certainly you Grant, man who gets off on the conservative doctrine.
JUST FUCKING GIVE BACK A LITTLE ONCE IN A WHILE.
We haven't done too much, have we, of destroying this marketplace of ideas to be excluded in such a scurrilous way.
SO COMMENT.
The hypocrisy rests,
Voginator, shakinaor

Clinton '44

2005-05-24T23:17:00.000-05:00

Dude, Hillary's, like, totally going to win. This character sketch helps explain why.

End of the free ride?

2005-05-18T13:39:00.000-05:00

Bad news for those of us who love to read the incendiary opinions of David Brooks and Paul Krugman, the sage writings of Nicholas Kristof, and the amusing but monotonous Frank Rich. Starting in September, the Old Grey Lady will be charging for its columns. Their logic seems to be that they can't charge for news (since the NYT's news coverage isn't terribly unique), but their columnists have enough appeal to get people to pay $50 a year for access to them and some other chump-change features. Me, I'll just have to take advantage of my school-provided free access to LexisNexis.

"The world is passing me by."

2005-05-15T14:05:00.000-05:00

Here's something of a fluff piece, but potentially a revealing one. It's pretty significant that Billy Graham, evangelist to presidents, now regrets taking stances on political issues, especially now that the religious right is reaching a fever pitch in their attempt to cement long-term political control over daily life. Remember, comments are always good.

Liberals love sex, conservatives love violence?

2005-05-13T15:32:00.000-05:00

An article that lines up with something that I've observed before: Americans, as a whole, get far more hung up about sex in media than they do about violence. I mean, excesses of any vice can be disturbing, often intentionally so. (For a mild example, witness how the opening scenes of Garden State set you up for the Zach Braff's character's later evolution.) But when you think of the possible negative effects of being exposed to violence as compared to being exposed to sex... wouldn't most people agree that violent teens are worse than horny teens? At the very least, teens will probably be sexual with or without the influence of the mass media; violence isn't quite as much of a done deal.

Daily Dose of Wisdom from Tom Friedman

2005-05-11T17:28:00.000-05:00

Here's a job for the CIA to solve the North Korea problem: sneak into China and relabel all their maps so that Kim Jong Il's country says "Taiwan". Problem solved.

iPod Video?

2005-05-09T22:30:00.000-05:00

An overview of the new features in iTunes 4.8. Why is this significant? Well, it adds fairly extensive capabilities to play video inside of iTunes. It's targetted towards shot videos like movie trailers. Is this a hint that we'll be seeing an iPod Video sometime soon? Remember, Steve Jobs dissed the idea of an iPod Photo right up until he released it.

Public Editors for the public good

2005-05-07T23:44:00.000-05:00

My favorite public editor is Don Wycliff of the Chicago Tribune, only because I interviewed him a while back and he came to my school to speak. That, plus he's funny and does his job well. Here's an interesting look at the public editor of the Times (the only Times worth talking about, just kidding) and how he's dealt with the credibility crisis.

Speaking of the SAT...

2005-05-05T18:14:00.000-05:00

If President Bush's "No Child Left Behind" act is a perfect example of how relying on tests can be taken too far, Georgia (Republic of) gives us a completely opposite take. This excerpt from the Christian Science Monitor was extremely striking:

"Before, they would try to fail you so that you would have to pay," says 17-year-old Ilia Boss, a recent Tbilisi high school graduate. "Now you have a guarantee that you can get anywhere and study if you have knowledge."

In Georgia, pressure to attend university is high, and students collectively pay an estimated $10 million a year in bribes, the equivalent of the Ministry of Education's annual budget. "They are interested in diplomas, not knowledge," says another student, 16-year-old Mikheil Benidze.

Cultural imperialism or fighting corruption? Or both? How about some comments?

Offense is...

2005-05-04T10:26:00.000-05:00

Bravo, Dems. You've managed to play the Republicans for fools, and have them on the defensive. But I agree with Mr. Pearlstein that it's time to stop just opposing and offer some Big Ideas. This country needs a Democratic Alternative, and it's got to be more than just filibusters.

Bigger is better?

2005-05-03T22:49:00.000-05:00

I've always thought that adding a writing test to the SAT was a mistake. The purpose of the SAT should be to test student ABILITY, not how many facts their schooling has taught them. It's the "Scholastic Aptitude Test," after all. The ACT has always emphasized achievement, while the SAT focused on aptitude. I've read numerous articles mentioning a stated intent on the part of the College Board to convert the SAT into an achievement test. I think that's a mistake.

Unfortunately, it's probably mandated by NCLB. That bill uses standardized tests as an arbiter of school quality, and if the SAT wanted to remain the test of choice for much of the country, it had to reflect the demands of the law. Nonetheless, while writing is certainly important, that's the sort of thing that should be reflected in high school exit exams, college entrance essays, and, if necessary, supplemental tests administered by states. Many states already add other tests onto the back of the SAT or ACT to get a better idea of student achievement, and that's the place for the SAT-W.

Daily Connotations

2005-05-03T21:47:00.000-05:00

News is fun, but sometimes there are slow news days. Fortunately, when anonymous sources aren't talking, there are rumblings from the land of logic and language. Je vous présente Daily Connotations.

Whence moderation?

2005-05-02T12:40:00.000-05:00

It's always been interested that America's abortion policies are defined by the radicals on each side when the vast majority of Americans are divided on the issue. While I'm probably more firmly on one side of the issue than most, I've argued in the past of the need for sacrifices from both sides in order to lessen the viciousness of the abortion debate. I'm not optimistic about this trend playing out to its maximum potential, but it is interesting.

Is he Vader or Luke?

2005-05-02T12:27:00.000-05:00

George Lucas has always portrayed himself as Luke Skywalker, rebelling against the Evil Empire of movie studios and conventions to do things his way. Now, in a very revealing article, we discover that he sees himself as Darth Vader—meaning to do well, but being tempted by the dark side. As preliminary reviews of Revenge of the Sith seem to be very positive, take this article as a thought-provoking diversion.

Why I'm a moderate: reasonable principles and the shield laws

2005-04-30T21:48:00.000-05:00

Flagrant opinion, be warned: It would be easy enough for any media member to back NYT and Newsweek over the Plame blowup. They would call it protecting anonymous sources (Changeup and I are glad they're looking out for us) on principle. But principle is a jagged word. When it comes to criminal cases, especially one whose interest is to convict those who gave away a CIA agent's name, principle is not only ridiculous but stupid. No, if Ms. Miller and Mr. Cooper are defeated it would not spell the end of faith between journalists and their sources. However, the public's trust of journalists is sure to corrode if this unfounded, unprecedented and unconstitutional act of grandstanding gets any bigger or goes for any longer. Give it up already.

Bill Gates will not employ me

2005-04-29T16:34:00.000-05:00

Ah ... the pleasure in directing the many patrons of this blog to the best and most popular NYT op-ed of the day! If you haven't already, read the Friedman piece. It sparkles.
But a question: Is economics a non-zero sum game?

Humble Hubble

2005-04-26T10:34:00.000-05:00

It has been 15 years and we're still fawning over the dream-like images. Read a quick take on Hubble in Nature and scan those galactic pictures once more.

Got Digital?

2005-04-25T22:38:00.000-05:00

As one of that lonesome 15% who doesn't have cable or satellite TV, this is an important article. Being a futurist of sorts, I laud the effort to advance digital technology over standard analog boxes. And 2006 is a very reasonable date, I think, to place the cutoff. All it takes is Congress to put its foot down, and one shopping season later, the problem will be gone. Subsidies for low-income households would be preferable, though. Pity there won't be a chance for a Democratic congress until Jan 2007, as they might actually pass some subsidies (of the good kind, rather than the bloated, unfair farming or steel kind).

Why so many ballplayers use steroids

2005-04-24T01:44:00.000-05:00

Interesting piece from someone who admittedly has had this opinion for a long time (the author's article cowrote Moneyball). Michael Lewis looks at the pressure that minor league prospects are under to become power hitters, and wonders whether or not it's actually good baseball to expect this.

Don't let Fox hear about this...

2005-04-17T11:54:00.000-05:00

Just when you think no one can beat Fox's lineup of lowest-common-denominator reality shows, America's unwilling protegée in the Middle East comes through on something amazing: broadcasting videotaped interrogations, though the torture occurs offscreen. On the other hand, I'm sure it's great TV and also probably immensely important in the war against Iraq's insurgency.

Teen Sex?

2005-04-17T02:05:00.000-05:00

David Brooks says that teens aren't having very much sex...

Jobs v. Music?

2005-04-15T17:58:00.000-05:00

In one of my first posts, I talked about Apple and subscription download services being in different businesses. That was actually cribbed from Douglas Adams, a fact I vaguely remembered and spent hours trying unsuccessfully to verify. Now, I bring you the full quote, from his posthumous work, Salmon of Doubt

"Television companies are not in the business of delivering television programmes to their audiences, they're in the business of delivering audiences to their advertisers. (This is why the BBC has such a schizophrenic time - it's actually in a different business from all its competitors)."

This comes as a tangent to this latest article, on how music companies aren't seeing as eye-to-eye with Apple as they were when Apple was jumpstarting the legal music downloading business. That's because Apple's in the business of selling iPods, while music companies are in the business of selling music.

Where's the red phone now?

2005-04-15T10:05:00.000-05:00

As Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist prepares to attempt to use the "nuclear option," eliminating filibusters on judicial nominations, Democrats are preparing to shut down the Senate if necessary. The question is, will Democrats fare better in the court of public opinion than Newt Gingrich did when he shut down government in 1998?

Guess Who's Back?

2005-04-14T09:46:00.000-05:00

I may disagree with Trent Lott on just about everything, but I do have to respect his tenacity. Had President Bush given Lott anywhere near the degree of support that he's giving Tom DeLay (who's done much worse things than Lott's highly insensitive flattery), Bill Frist wouldn't be majority leader right now. The White House and GOP cast their leader out, and he's refusing to lay down and die. That means a huge headache for White House goals like cutting Medicaid and military bases.

And now, for something completely non-Papal

2005-04-12T22:28:00.000-05:00

Anonymous sources have inadvertently created a string of Catholic-related posts. This must be rectified, and thus I bring you a sobering chronicle of two populous, fast-growing nations trying to minimize their differences. How about three cheers for America's continued hegemony?

Whatever happened to infallibility?

2005-04-12T14:36:00.000-05:00

From the Economist comes an analysis on the pros and cons of various candidates for the next pope, and how they would deal with the problems facing the Catholic Church.

Time to admit we're not good Catholics?

2005-04-12T13:36:00.000-05:00

Yes, the nation is a liberal rag, but take a look at John Nichols' timely critique of what it means to be a Catholic. Apparently CNN's Wolf Blitzer denied not that Paul Begala demeans news analysis (John Stewart was waiting in the wings), but that because he's liberal he can't be a good Catholic. Anyone repudiating or wrestling with the religious question will find this good fodder, especially as to the media's religious classifications.

Spy v. Cardinal

2005-04-11T22:48:00.000-05:00

...because some people have nothing better to do than try to find out who the next pope is going to be a few days before he'll be announced.

Ten Years Later

2005-04-11T22:36:00.000-05:00

Richard Clarke, a very intelligent man who served as national intelligence czar under Clinton and George W. Bush, wrote a good book called Against All Enemies in which he described the history of America's war on terror. Now he writes an essay, in the form of a history lecture from 10 years in the future, describing various terror attacks and the responses to them. It's a chilling picture about curtailed civil liberties and necessary changes made too late.

Unfortunately, the Atlantic Monthly is subscriber only. But I did find this fairly in-depth article about Clarke's essay. Enjoy.

Potus Pod

2005-04-11T22:24:00.000-05:00

NYT again, but oddball enough that I had to run it.

So what exactly does the President of the United States listen to on his iPod? Apparently, only about 300 songs out of a capacity of 10,000.

Hello and Bellow

2005-04-06T20:46:00.000-05:00

Oyez, Oyez, Oyez,
For those devout but comment-shy followers of Mr. Changeup's blog, I present myself, the Voginator. Top o' the evening. Today the city of Chicago chronicled the life of its best writer, Saul Bellow, the day after his death. Read this obit, which is nothing special, but marvel at the life of an intellectual-cum-realist––a piebald figure only the rough and tumble second city could produce.

Pope'd? The impact of John Paul II on Catholicism and the world.

2005-04-02T17:53:00.000-06:00

An analysis of the Pope's performances and how this compared to expecations. And it's not from the NYT!

Negro-less Leagues

2005-03-26T11:08:00.000-06:00

It's easy to forget this problem when stadiums are sold out, but the Nationals should hopefully shed more light on it. If Peter Angelos of the Orioles is concerned about DC-area baseball fans not coming to Orioles games, then maybe both organizations should focus on tapping into the African-American demographic.

The Changing Face of Christianity

2005-03-25T23:29:00.000-06:00

I'm beginning to feel that I'm drawing too heavily on the New York Times for links here, and have resolved to diversify my sources. But I couldn't resist posting on yet another Kristof column.

The Fourth Wave?

2005-03-24T21:53:00.000-06:00

More fascinating coverage of people's determination to be free. This process began with Serbia in the late 1990s, when the people stormed Slobodan Milosevic's palace after rigged elections and forced him to resign. Within hours after the first protestors took to the streets, opposition leaders from Georgia were on a plane to Belgrade to observe. Their hard work paid off years later when President Shevardnadze of George rigged parliamentary elections and got ousted in the Rose Revolution. Then the Ukraine, and now, perhaps most impressively, Kyrgyzstan.

I do find most interesting this quote, from Andranink Migranyan of Moscow's State Institute of International Relations.

Consistently, he said, the leaders who have at least nominally presented themselves as democrats have proved unable to preserve themselves through democratic means.

"You must either be more adamant in using force and destroying the opposition or let others come to power," Mr. Migranyan said in a telephone interview. "The difference between Akayev [the former president of Kyrgyzstan] and Lukashenko [the current autocratic leader of Belarus] is that Akayev is more democratic. And he is the loser."

This sheds an interesting light on the phenomenon of "illiberal democracies", which maintain popular support with the trappings of democracy without actually subjecting the leaders to a risk of being voted out of office. Just a few short years ago, it seemed that this was going to be the way of the future for would-be absolute rulers, but now we could see the facades fall away.

A Morsel of Goat Meat

2005-03-23T15:29:00.000-06:00

Once again, more proof that Nicholas Kristof is one of the best and bravest of journalism. He travels around the world, to the places conventional journalists don't go because its too dangerous or disgusting. He's crusaded endlessly against the genocide in Darfur, and has cast a bright light on the scourge of forced prostitution in Southeast Asia. Here he sneaks into Robert Mugabe's increasingly tyrannical Zimbabwe to uncover the deprivations that Mugabe's regime has inflicted on his citizens.

Anyone up for weed?

2005-03-18T12:13:00.000-06:00

Reviving this blog from temporary hibernation, here's a fascinating link about a music distribution service. It just blows your mind. I hope this succeeds.

All's Well That End's Well

2005-02-19T00:32:00.000-06:00

From the old Grey Lady comes this touching story of reconciliation and mutual admiration. Or maybe just Bill Clinton's hypnotic personal charm.

Bias in the pressroom

2005-02-10T13:45:00.000-06:00

This is somewhat ridiculous. I won't say anything more about this, except to say that there's more than enough dirt on this guy for his political activities. The digging into his alleged extracurricular activities outside of politics/"news" is certainly unethical.

Share The Wealth

2005-02-08T13:25:00.000-06:00

Very sage view of the Social Security problem by David Brooks. I disagree with him a lot, but he always makes very powerful arguments. Here, he's writing as a pragmatic movement conservative with a very strong proposal to expand access to the market and cheaply cover the next generation of Americans into their retirement.

The Misunderstood Estate

2005-01-31T10:24:00.000-06:00

The only word I have for this is ridiculous. It's sad that a third of teens think press freedoms in America go too far, but there's an argument to be made there. What is despicable, though, it that 36% think that journalists should have to get "government approval" of stories before publishing them. Simple logistics of this aside, it shows a complete lack of understanding of the purpose of the press.

Hello, 1820

2005-01-30T01:21:00.000-06:00

The year 1820 was notable politically because it marked only the second unopposed presidential election in America's history. James Monroe was elected near-unanimously, with one elector voting for John Quincy Adams to preserve Washington's honor as the only unanimous president. Between Monroe's first election in 1816 and his reelection, the opposition Federalists were swept away.

The other notable thing that Monroe did was promulgate the Doctrine that bears his name. Tom Wolfe rights a fascinating, if stylized, piece comparing President Bush's and James Monroe's foreign policies.

Read My Ears

2005-01-28T10:26:00.000-06:00

Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist:

Having spent the last 10 days traveling to Britain, France, Germany and Switzerland, I have one small suggestion for President Bush. I suggest that when he comes to Europe to mend fences next month he give only one speech. It should be at his first stop in Brussels and it should consist of basically three words: "Read my ears."

Let me put this as bluntly as I can: There is nothing that the Europeans want to hear from George Bush, there is nothing that they will listen to from George Bush that will change their minds about him or the Iraq war or U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Bush is more widely and deeply disliked in Europe than any U.S. president in history. Some people here must have a good thing to say about him, but I haven't met them yet.

In such an environment, the only thing that Mr. Bush could do to change people's minds about him would be to travel across Europe and not say a single word - but just listen. If he did that, Mr. Bush would bowl the Europeans over. He would absolutely disarm and flummox people here - and improve his own image markedly. All it would take for him would be just a few words: "Read my ears. I have come to Europe to listen, not to speak. I will give my Europe speech when I come home - after I've heard what you have to say."

If Mr. Bush did that none of the European pundits would be able to pick apart his speeches here and mock the contradictions between his words and deeds. None of them would comment on his delivery and what he failed to mention. Instead, all the European commentators, politicians and demonstrators would start fighting with one another over what to say to the president. It might even force the Europeans to get out of their bad habit of just saying, "George Bush," and everybody laughing or sneering as if that ends the conversation, and Europe doesn't have to declare what it stands for.

Listening is also a sign of respect. It is a sign that you actually value what the other person might have to say. If you just listen to someone first, it is amazing how much they will listen to you back. Most Europeans, though, are convinced that George Bush is deaf - that he cannot listen or hear. Just proving that he is not deaf, and therefore the Europeans don't have to shout, would do wonders for Mr. Bush's standing.

What would Mr. Bush hear? Some of it is classic Eurowhining, easily dismissible. But some of it is very heartfelt, even touching. I heard it while doing interviews at the Pony Club, a trendy bar/beauty parlor in East Berlin. And more and more I think it explains why many Europeans dislike Mr. Bush so intensely. It's this: Europeans love to make fun of naïve American optimism, but deep down, they envy it and they want America to be that open, foreigner-embracing, carefree, goofily enthusiastic place that cynical old Europe can never be. Many young Europeans blame Mr. Bush for making America, since 9/11, into a strange new land that exports fear more than hope, and has become dark and brooding - a place whose greeting to visitors has gone from "Give me your tired, your poor" to "Give me your fingerprints." They look at Mr. Bush as someone who stole something precious from them.

Tim Kreutzfeldt, the bar owner, said to me: "Bush took away our America. I mean we love America. We are very sad about America. We believe in America and American values, but not in Bush. And it makes us angry that he distorted our image of the country which is so important to us. It is not what America stands for - and this makes us angry and it should make every American angry, because America lost so much in its reputation worldwide." The Bush team, he added, is giving everyone in the world the impression that "somebody is coming to kill you."

Stefan Elfenbein, a food critic nursing a beer at our table, added: "I know many people who don't want to travel to America anymore. ... People are afraid to be hassled at the border. ... We all discuss it, when somebody goes to America [we now ask:] 'Are you sure?' We had hope that Kerry would win and would make a statement, 'America is back to what it was four years ago.' We hoped that he would be the symbol, the figure who would say, '[America] is the country that welcomes everybody again.' [But] now we have to wait four more years, hopefully for somebody to give us back the country we knew and liked."

Yes, yes, there are legitimate counters to all these points. But before anyone here will listen to Mr. Bush make those counterpoints, he will have to really listen to them first.

National Language

2005-01-28T10:24:00.000-06:00

From www.magicandaccident.com:

"Lenka Clayton's 'Qaeda Quality Question Quickly Quickly Quiet' is one of the most painstaking, tireless, intelligent, noteworthy releases we've ever had the pleasure of listing in our catalogue. Using a recording of George Bush's 2002 State of the Union address (better known as the 'Axis of Evil' speech), the first state of the union given after September the 11th, broadcast live to the American nation from Washington on 29th January 2002.

Clayton took the original 50 minute speech, removed the dramatic pauses and applause and edited the complete speech into alphabetical order (18 minutes in total). Apart from the quite mind-boggling effort and technique applied to the construction of this recording, what makes it so engrossing and worthy of your deepest appreciation is the lack of any commentary, though the message is completely clear. As opposed to other Bush-edits that have been made over the last few years, Lenka's work is not only hugely humorous, ominous and prophetic, it achieves this without any intentionally distortive re-arrangement or splicing for effect.

Happy Birthday, Macintosh

2005-01-26T13:56:00.000-06:00

The Macintosh is now 21 years old, a legal adult. Linked is a video of a fresh-from-the-80s Steve Jobs presenting the original Mac.

Genius Doesn't Get Company

2005-01-25T15:52:00.000-06:00

It's somewhat ironic that I find myself being moved by a column lamenting the lack of studio support for "adult" music, considering that I'm 18. But my tastes somehow skipped right past teeny-pop, through indy punk, and landed smack dab in the late '60s. My iTunes library brims with the likes of Bob Dylan, Simon and Garfunkel, and the Beatles; my favorite 'contemporary' artists include progressive rocker Peter Gabriel, roots-tinged guitarist Mark Knopfler, and the bluegrass trio Nickel Creek. While there are certainly duds among artists who target their music toward adults, I'd argue that the overall artistry among that set is much higher, because (as the article mentions) adults aren't as prone to impulse buys. If something isn't GOOD, it's not going to sell. This is in contrast to most teen music.

Gone The Rainbow

2005-01-25T13:45:00.000-06:00

With the Social Security battle shaping up, the current political climate is being framed as an attempt by the Republicans to remake the New Deal. This is probably true; programs like Social Security are profoundly un-conservative. But for me, a better synthesis has to do with Lyndon Johnson's Great Society.

Put simply, the conservative agenda today is to undo the 1960's. That decade was home to the Great Society, accompanying high taxes and government spending, a poorly executed war, war protests, the sexual revolution, drugs, challenging authority, and (let us not forget) 8 years of Democratic presidents. What has our government done in the past 4 years?

1) Greatly ballooned the budget deficit by cutting revenues while increasing expenses. Down the road, this will create a fiscal crisis. Some conservatives have written about a plan to eliminate the remnants of the welfare state by creating a fiscal crisis and presenting the American people with a choice: drastically higher taxes or sharply cut benefits. The idea is that the American public will never willingly get rid of Social Security, Medicare, etc., unless a crisis compels them.

2) Fought wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The shadow of Vietnam has hung over both these conflicts, with the term 'quagmire' being bandied about every time progress slows. Rumsfeld's doctrine of speedy, mobile warfare seems precisely intended to avoid being bogged down, though in application it hasn't worked like this.

3) Used, through proxy groups, Democratic Sen. John Kerry's history of protesting against Vietnam as a devastating political attack.

4) Attempted, as much as was politically feasable, to restrict abortion. Not to denigrate the deeply held passions on both sides of this issue, I'm going to issue a blatant oversimplification: it's not about fetuses, it's about sex. Specifically, the combination of abortion and birth control eliminates one of the largest obstacles to free sex. Social liberals generally support people's rights to free sex (as opposed to supporting free sex, a similarly-worded but different belief), while social conservatives generally like to see sex restricted to within a committed relationship at the very least. (I'll deal with issues of sexuality in a later post.)

To me, this seems like a good prism through which to view the actions of the modern conservative movement. I'm not part of this movement, though I agree with some of their principles/thoughts.

On a side note, when I mentioned this theory to one of my more libertine friends, he was, too my surprise, excited about the idea of this conservative movement coming to fruition. When I asked him why, his response was, "Well, if the Republicans manage to undo the '60s, that raises the possibility of me being able to REDO the '60s in my lifetime."

eMusic

2005-01-24T19:13:00.000-06:00

Once again, more pontificating on the idea of online music. Subscription-based services insist that their new way of delivering serviceyou pay a monthly fee and get all the music in the library, until you stop paying, when you lose all the musicis infinitely superior to the straightforward model championed by Apple. Two thoughts spring to mind here:

1) It seems ironic that Apple, for once here, is on the tail end of innovation. On the other hand, it perfectly fits Apple's strategy. They're rarely the FIRST people to come up with a concept. Apple's just the first people to make it easy to use. Steve Jobs lets other people do the hard work, waits until the market's on the verge of maturity, then jumps in.

2) All of these arguments one way or another are somewhat superfluous. See, RealNetworks and Napster are in the business of selling (renting) music. Apple is in the business of selling iPods. The two aren't really competing. (The reason so many online music stores use a subscription model is because it, unlike a purchasing model, has good enough profit margins to sustain a core business).

Inaugural

2005-01-24T18:57:00.000-06:00

The purpose of this blog is to give me an opportunity to complain about/comment on various things that ordinarily I might not get a chance to do otherwise. I've been kicking around this idea for a long time, and free time at the start of the semester served as impetus enough. As the description says, I'll be writing about things that I read about in the process of slaking my news addiction. Also, I will be writing about reading the news, because journalists sometimes say some insightful/wrong/inadvertently hilarious things.