December 30, 2001
Happy New Year!
This will be my last IllDonk posting of 2001, so I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank the many great writers I've been introduced to this year, the readers who have stopped by to see what I had to say, and the folks who dropped me a line to compliment or complain. I'm looking forward to a lot more of this next year, hopefully during a 2002 that's better for everybody. A lot has gone right for me in 2001. I'm still with Rachel, with hopes for a bright future. My mother is doing as well as we could hope for at this point. I've celebrated friends' and family's births, marriages, and engagements. I'm healthy, happy, and employed. Life could be a lot worse.
I'd like to close out the year with a moment that's been much on my mind these past few days, as I've thought about what I'll bring with me from 2001. On September 11, at around 12:40 in the afternoon, I received a phone call from one of my favorite people in the world, my old Seattle roommate. We had spent the last few hours desperately trying to track down one of our closest friends, who worked on the 90th floor of one of the World Trade Center towers. We were calling everybody we knew who might know anything, running through every possibility for her safety. Nobody who lived through those hours will ever forget the incredibly nightmarish confusion, fear, chaos, and uncertainty. Finally, at 12:40, my old roommate got a phone call from her, and he called me soon after. She was safe, and back home in Brooklyn. It might be the most wonderful call I've ever received.
Tonight, I plan to remember that moment, and say a prayer for the people who never got that call. In 2002 and beyond, let's continue to do everything we can to make sure that we never again have another day like that.
December 29, 2001
There is a growing consensus among bloggers that Rand Simberg’s scathing and hilarious takedown, "Media Casualties Mount As War Success Continues," is the “Best Blog Post of 2001,” or at least a final nominee. It's definitely great (go read it now if somehow you've missed it), but what's really amazing is that it's just one of probably hundreds of intelligent, insightful, brilliant, hilarious, and/or downright stunning articles I've read over the past few months, all courtesy of the rapidly rising number of bloggers out there. Well, that's not really accurate, since many of the writers who I now read every day have been writing great stuff for years, but the difference is that it's now been made known and readily available to me and tens of thousands like me.
Last night I had a conversation where it occurred to me just how completely and permanently my news-gathering habits have changed over the past few months. I find it difficult to watch network news or read the big newspapers, and certainly don't expect too much more from them besides surface information or straight video. Obviously the events since September 11 have been the catalysts for growth, but the effects and benefits of the revolution will be felt for many years. Where can I learn more about Second Amendment issues, for example: by listening to another ten-minute facile Sunday morning roundtable discussion or by reading the detailed back-and-forth between the team at Libertarian Samizdata and Brian Linse? Hell, I subscribe to about a dozen magazines, and most of them don't produce as much interesting content in a whole year as Steven Den Beste does every single day (The Economist excluded, of course). I can go on for hours like this, but I'd rather just get back to reading some more, and working on my own little addition to the world of content.
Anyway, since this might be my last big posting of 2001, I thought I'd take a few moments to expand on Glenn's throwaway line about "The Best Blog Post of 2001" and add a few more nominees for this prestigious and just-invented honor (though my list will probably be more accurately categorized as The Best Blog Posts of the Last Few Months of 2001, since that's when I've been reading them regularly). Here are a few to get started; I'll add more as they're suggested. And remember, there are no losers here; everybody's a winner just for posting.
To get us started, Two Ships Passing in the Media Night, featuring Matt Welch’s much-more-insightful-than-mine comments on the public’s views on media and academia since September 11, with help from Glenn Reynolds’ Fox News article, The Academy Encounters the Real World.. As a representative slice of the devastating Straw Man parsing that he does so well, I present this destruction of Barbara Kingsolver, though there are about a dozen other worthy destructions I could have linked to.
James Lileks has written a number of terrific pieces over the past few months, but I especially admired his Friday Bleats/Rants on November 9 and November 16, from before he got sick.
Steven Den Beste writes at least two or three great pieces every day it seems, but I'll just link to two: Endgame: Why was the US experience in Afghanistan so much different than that the USSR? and Cultural relativism is chauvinistic.
Ken Layne wrote a piece I liked a great deal about...well, pretty much everything, it seems.
Will WIlkinson's Fly Bottle had some interesting pieces regarding the cloning debate.
A succinct Fevered Rant from Alex del Castillo about Know Noth-- I mean Buy Nothing Day.
There's a number of Moira Breen posts from her Inappropriate Response blog that I could link to, but the barely restrained fury of her Qala-I Janghi, Again post has stuck with me.
I'll try and work on this a bit more before the end of the year, but I need to get up early tomorrow to head down to the Princeton area for the day's Revolutionary War Reenactment. It seems like a good way to finish out this year.
Last night I had a conversation where it occurred to me just how completely and permanently my news-gathering habits have changed over the past few months. I find it difficult to watch network news or read the big newspapers, and certainly don't expect too much more from them besides surface information or straight video. Obviously the events since September 11 have been the catalysts for growth, but the effects and benefits of the revolution will be felt for many years. Where can I learn more about Second Amendment issues, for example: by listening to another ten-minute facile Sunday morning roundtable discussion or by reading the detailed back-and-forth between the team at Libertarian Samizdata and Brian Linse? Hell, I subscribe to about a dozen magazines, and most of them don't produce as much interesting content in a whole year as Steven Den Beste does every single day (The Economist excluded, of course). I can go on for hours like this, but I'd rather just get back to reading some more, and working on my own little addition to the world of content.
Anyway, since this might be my last big posting of 2001, I thought I'd take a few moments to expand on Glenn's throwaway line about "The Best Blog Post of 2001" and add a few more nominees for this prestigious and just-invented honor (though my list will probably be more accurately categorized as The Best Blog Posts of the Last Few Months of 2001, since that's when I've been reading them regularly). Here are a few to get started; I'll add more as they're suggested. And remember, there are no losers here; everybody's a winner just for posting.
To get us started, Two Ships Passing in the Media Night, featuring Matt Welch’s much-more-insightful-than-mine comments on the public’s views on media and academia since September 11, with help from Glenn Reynolds’ Fox News article, The Academy Encounters the Real World.. As a representative slice of the devastating Straw Man parsing that he does so well, I present this destruction of Barbara Kingsolver, though there are about a dozen other worthy destructions I could have linked to.
James Lileks has written a number of terrific pieces over the past few months, but I especially admired his Friday Bleats/Rants on November 9 and November 16, from before he got sick.
Steven Den Beste writes at least two or three great pieces every day it seems, but I'll just link to two: Endgame: Why was the US experience in Afghanistan so much different than that the USSR? and Cultural relativism is chauvinistic.
Ken Layne wrote a piece I liked a great deal about...well, pretty much everything, it seems.
Will WIlkinson's Fly Bottle had some interesting pieces regarding the cloning debate.
A succinct Fevered Rant from Alex del Castillo about Know Noth-- I mean Buy Nothing Day.
There's a number of Moira Breen posts from her Inappropriate Response blog that I could link to, but the barely restrained fury of her Qala-I Janghi, Again post has stuck with me.
I'll try and work on this a bit more before the end of the year, but I need to get up early tomorrow to head down to the Princeton area for the day's Revolutionary War Reenactment. It seems like a good way to finish out this year.
Fine, I'm a nitpicky pain in the ass, but I couldn't help but think that the idea at the heart of the current blogger war -- namely, that passengers be forced to fly naked for increased airline security -- sounded a little familiar. Who originated the idea? Was it the excellent Jeff Jarvis, as he so increasingly desperately insists? Was it the also-excellent Ken Layne, as credited by Natalie Solent and Mark Steyn? It sure as hell wasn't Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, that thieving bastard. Who could it be?
I could swear that I first heard the "Fly Naked" idea presented by the um...excellent Stephen Colbert of the Daily Show way back in early November. The only hard evidence I've been able to find so far is this message board posting:
Posted: 2001-11-08 14:43
"Passengers are allowed to carry their ID, cash, and credit cards in their pockets. No wallets, purses, or carryons aside from a paperback."
This is like the idea of Stephen Colbert of The Daily Show:
No luggage, no carry-ons, no CLOTHES!
HA-Try to sneak a box cutter on board now!!
I can't be the only one out there to remember this, can I?
I did find some harder evidence: a link to this cartoon, which was presented on the Comedy Central message board as having ripped off Colbert's idea. I'm certainly not accusing anybody of anything -- just suggesting that this idea goes back a bit beyond the Shoe Bomber.
I could swear that I first heard the "Fly Naked" idea presented by the um...excellent Stephen Colbert of the Daily Show way back in early November. The only hard evidence I've been able to find so far is this message board posting:
Posted: 2001-11-08 14:43
"Passengers are allowed to carry their ID, cash, and credit cards in their pockets. No wallets, purses, or carryons aside from a paperback."
This is like the idea of Stephen Colbert of The Daily Show:
No luggage, no carry-ons, no CLOTHES!
HA-Try to sneak a box cutter on board now!!
I can't be the only one out there to remember this, can I?
I did find some harder evidence: a link to this cartoon, which was presented on the Comedy Central message board as having ripped off Colbert's idea. I'm certainly not accusing anybody of anything -- just suggesting that this idea goes back a bit beyond the Shoe Bomber.
December 28, 2001
Won’t somebody please think of the parents! It’s good to know that no matter what you do in this world, there will always be at least one person who will stick up for you. I’ve compiled a holiday sampler of parental comments and denials from the past few months:
"I believe the evidence against him is not solid. I don't believe that he did the terrible deeds they say he did." Alia Ghanem, Osama bin Laden's mother.
"He would never accept to kill innocent people. He has nothing to do with flying — he's an architect who was studying town planning." Mohammed Atta’s father.
"I'm proud of John. He's a really good boy. A really sweet boy." Frank Lindh, Johnny Walker’s father.
"I don't know what's in the file or in this case. My son tells me he is not guilty. He has told me he has proof that he did nothing and that at the appropriate time he will show that proof." Aicha el-Wafi, the mother of Zacarias Moussaoui, the first man indicted in the September terrorist attacks.
"My son is a determined boy and I can imagine him being determined enough to blow himself to bits. But I just can’t believe that he would want to hurt anyone else in doing it unless, that is, he has been brainwashed.” Robin Colvin Reid, Richard Reid’s father.
"I believe the evidence against him is not solid. I don't believe that he did the terrible deeds they say he did." Alia Ghanem, Osama bin Laden's mother.
"He would never accept to kill innocent people. He has nothing to do with flying — he's an architect who was studying town planning." Mohammed Atta’s father.
"I'm proud of John. He's a really good boy. A really sweet boy." Frank Lindh, Johnny Walker’s father.
"I don't know what's in the file or in this case. My son tells me he is not guilty. He has told me he has proof that he did nothing and that at the appropriate time he will show that proof." Aicha el-Wafi, the mother of Zacarias Moussaoui, the first man indicted in the September terrorist attacks.
"My son is a determined boy and I can imagine him being determined enough to blow himself to bits. But I just can’t believe that he would want to hurt anyone else in doing it unless, that is, he has been brainwashed.” Robin Colvin Reid, Richard Reid’s father.
December 26, 2001
Star Scam. Wired.com is running a story about one of my favorite semi-scams: The International Star Registry. As you may know, the ISR sells “naming rights” to stars for a sizable fee, for which buyers receive a parchment certificate (custom framing available) and a booklet with a map of the stars, with the newly personalized star circled in red. Of course, the big selling point is (as I’ve heard on the radio countless times this holiday season) is that this personalized star will be published in a book, and that book will be registered with the United States Government in the Library of Congress! Of course, the list never gets near the International Astronomical Union, the internationally recognized authority for naming celestial bodies (the FAQ I link to is definitely worth a look), meaning that the ISR basically has the power to write names in a book. (The Straight Dope did their usual effective takedown on the ISR a few years ago.)
Now, you would think that with this dubious pedigree an organization supposedly devoted to “quality programs and education services” would have nothing to do with it. However, I’m sorry to say that not only has PBS apparently accepted over $100,000 in donations from ISR (a fact trumpeted on the ISR site), but PBS returns the favor and gives ISR legitimacy by placing several links to ISR on the pbs.org site, as a featured merchant. I know that a non-profit takes its money where it can find it, but to accept it from an organization that essentially does nothing more than take advantage of people's interest in and ignorance of science and astronomy seems pretty low.
Now, you would think that with this dubious pedigree an organization supposedly devoted to “quality programs and education services” would have nothing to do with it. However, I’m sorry to say that not only has PBS apparently accepted over $100,000 in donations from ISR (a fact trumpeted on the ISR site), but PBS returns the favor and gives ISR legitimacy by placing several links to ISR on the pbs.org site, as a featured merchant. I know that a non-profit takes its money where it can find it, but to accept it from an organization that essentially does nothing more than take advantage of people's interest in and ignorance of science and astronomy seems pretty low.
My Embarrassing State, Part 143. Due to a strange and ridiculous quirk in the state laws, New Jersey is going to have two interim Governors between the outgoing Donald T. DiFrancesco and the incoming Jim McGreevey, meaning that during a nine-day period next month there will be four different Governors. The truly embarrassing thing is that Senate Republican leader John Bennett and Democratic leader Richard Codey both seem to be taking their appointments seriously, with each planning swearing-in ceremonies and State of the State speeches.
As I come up on ten years since I graduated from college, there are still a few classes and professors that have stayed with me, having taught me at least one valuable lesson about writing, literature, or life in general. Alan Michael Parker taught me a few things about dramatic structure and cliché avoidance in his Creative Writing class, but more importantly he taught me a lesson about audience.
It was a small class, about 15 students, and when the time came to discuss and critique your story you were not allowed to say a single word or utter one sound. It could be torture, sitting there in silence while the class went on, theorizing about your beliefs and intentions, knowing that you could set the matter straight with just a few words. I distinctly remember seeing one classmate, who could only sit there helplessly, practically cry out in pain as we dissected (incorrectly, in his eyes) his work. The lesson was that when we write we have exactly one chance to tell our story. Whatever message the reader receives is the result of the words we put down on the page, and only that.
Anyway, I keep forcing myself to remember this as I read through the Metafilter comments about my AWCA story below. Torture, I tells ya.
It was a small class, about 15 students, and when the time came to discuss and critique your story you were not allowed to say a single word or utter one sound. It could be torture, sitting there in silence while the class went on, theorizing about your beliefs and intentions, knowing that you could set the matter straight with just a few words. I distinctly remember seeing one classmate, who could only sit there helplessly, practically cry out in pain as we dissected (incorrectly, in his eyes) his work. The lesson was that when we write we have exactly one chance to tell our story. Whatever message the reader receives is the result of the words we put down on the page, and only that.
Anyway, I keep forcing myself to remember this as I read through the Metafilter comments about my AWCA story below. Torture, I tells ya.
We are live again, thank ye gods!
December 25, 2001
Merry Chri---I mean Happy Holidays, Mr. Goldstein! It's a cold, sunny Christmas day here in New Jersey, and when I finish this I'll be heading up north to take Rachel out for some Chinese food and a movie. Just to cover the traditional American Jewish bases, my parents are down in Atlantic City right now playing the nickel slots and 2-4 Hold `Em, earning some comped buffet coupons. I love how these little traditions have been carved out in the shadows of the dominant Christmas traditions, finding the few open public spaces and claiming them as our own. Though I personally love the Christmas season (all of the festivities with none of the family get-togethers!), I also love this chance to create a separate cultural identity, especially one that involves sesame chicken.
Interestingly enough, I'm currently working at a company owned and run by observant Jews (not only was the office closed on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana, it was also closed for four days for Sukkot). It might have been the least attention I've seen paid to Chanukah in an office I've worked in, even in offices where I was the only Jewish employee. This is probably the difference between a company that understands the relative importance of Chanukah and one that sees it as kind of a Jewish Christmas.
Well, I can go on like this for a while, but others have done so already, and I don't want to keep Rachel waiting. Merry Christmas, everybody!!!
Interestingly enough, I'm currently working at a company owned and run by observant Jews (not only was the office closed on Yom Kippur and Rosh Hashana, it was also closed for four days for Sukkot). It might have been the least attention I've seen paid to Chanukah in an office I've worked in, even in offices where I was the only Jewish employee. This is probably the difference between a company that understands the relative importance of Chanukah and one that sees it as kind of a Jewish Christmas.
Well, I can go on like this for a while, but others have done so already, and I don't want to keep Rachel waiting. Merry Christmas, everybody!!!
December 24, 2001
Copywriting: A 24-Hour Job. Went to see Ocean's 11 Saturday night with Rachel. I enjoyed the first 75% of the movie as it was what I hoped it would be: a breezy caper flick with plenty of Clooney. Unfortunately, at around the aforementioned 3/4 mark, the film (twice) has two near-full-screen shots of a pine air freshener, or "AIR FRESHNER," as the little pine tree read, in giant letters. I immediately felt my stomach drop, as that week at work I had finished a project involving air fresheners (as I spelled it), which encompassed packaging, catalogs, trade show booths, and spec sheets. For the rest of the movie I sat there in fear that I had approved several instances of a blatantly obvious typo, one that was in the process of being printed thousands of times on expensive paper. It was all I could do to keep from running to my car and driving to either work or the local Barnes and Noble to check the dictionary.
Fortunately, all was well and spelled correctly, and I can enjoy my time off from work in peace. Best wishes to all.
(As an added piece of editing trivia, my favorite typo ever is Ms. magazine spelling the word "Feminism" wrong on their cover back in 1996.)
Fortunately, all was well and spelled correctly, and I can enjoy my time off from work in peace. Best wishes to all.
(As an added piece of editing trivia, my favorite typo ever is Ms. magazine spelling the word "Feminism" wrong on their cover back in 1996.)
No Hunger-Related Deaths? I’ve noticed a number of blogs linking to a United Nations / World Food Program report stating that there is expected to be no hunger-related deaths in Central Afghanistan this year. This seemed remarkably optimistic, especially for a group actively seeking financial donations, so I decided to track down the report mentioned in the article. Rather than linking to the UN report or to a World Food Program page, the link instead goes to an extremely brief Afgha.com article:
Kabul, Dec 23, (IRNA) According to the report released by Afghanistan's World Food Program (WFP) here Sunday, no one is expected to die of hunger in central Afghanistan this year.
The report added that the United Nations and its affiliated agencies have launched an extensive attempt to supply food and clothing to the residents of central Afghanistan, including Bamian.
Last year over 1,000 people, mostly cildren, women and old men, lost their lives in the central provinces of Afghanistan solely due to hunger.
Afgha.com describes itself as being "originally entirely dedicated to Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Commander and founder of the United and Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan, more widely known by the Pakistani and Taliban appellation as the Northern Alliance." A different Afgha article from the previous day, Afghan Winter Threatens Children, references a Save the Children announcement that “up to 100,000 Afghan children could die this winter unless enough aid reaches the country,” leaving open a pretty wide range of possibilities.
The Afgha article seems to have been taken entirely (down to the "cildren" typo) from IRNA, which is The Islamic Republic News Agency, the first Iranian news agency, whose guidelines "are based on and aimed at securing the Islamic Republic of Iran's national interests." There are many others who understand the region and its politics far better than me, but a glance through some of the other articles and reports on IRNA would seem to indicate that the "no hunger-related deaths" article would fit Iran's interests in a "Thanks, Westerners, everything's okay and perfect, you can leave now and let us handle it....oh, and please don't start looking over here" sort of way. See here, here, and here.
I was unable to track the “World Food Program report” story online any further back than the IRNA piece. United Nations News links (or linked; the search feature doesn’t currently show the article) to the same IRNA story. (United Nations News does not appear to be related to the UN itself.) The WFP site has no information about such a report, and my Google searches also turned up nothing. The WFP does issue subscriber-only reports, but it seems unlikely that IRNA was the only organization to receive and/or announce the results of such an amazing report; I am still waiting to hear back from the WFP, however.
The closest I can find to the “no hunger related deaths” is this, from December 20: “In another development, WFP Executive Director Catherine Bertini told reporters in New York that the agency had broken its monthly record for food distribution inside Afghanistan by delivering 55,000 tonnes of wheat so far in December, against a goal of 52,000. "We believe so far we're reaching 5 million of the 6 million people that we have determined to be desperately in need of food throughout Afghanistan." Obviously, great progress is being made, but certainly not the total victory currently spreading throughout the web.
Kabul, Dec 23, (IRNA) According to the report released by Afghanistan's World Food Program (WFP) here Sunday, no one is expected to die of hunger in central Afghanistan this year.
The report added that the United Nations and its affiliated agencies have launched an extensive attempt to supply food and clothing to the residents of central Afghanistan, including Bamian.
Last year over 1,000 people, mostly cildren, women and old men, lost their lives in the central provinces of Afghanistan solely due to hunger.
Afgha.com describes itself as being "originally entirely dedicated to Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Commander and founder of the United and Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan, more widely known by the Pakistani and Taliban appellation as the Northern Alliance." A different Afgha article from the previous day, Afghan Winter Threatens Children, references a Save the Children announcement that “up to 100,000 Afghan children could die this winter unless enough aid reaches the country,” leaving open a pretty wide range of possibilities.
The Afgha article seems to have been taken entirely (down to the "cildren" typo) from IRNA, which is The Islamic Republic News Agency, the first Iranian news agency, whose guidelines "are based on and aimed at securing the Islamic Republic of Iran's national interests." There are many others who understand the region and its politics far better than me, but a glance through some of the other articles and reports on IRNA would seem to indicate that the "no hunger-related deaths" article would fit Iran's interests in a "Thanks, Westerners, everything's okay and perfect, you can leave now and let us handle it....oh, and please don't start looking over here" sort of way. See here, here, and here.
I was unable to track the “World Food Program report” story online any further back than the IRNA piece. United Nations News links (or linked; the search feature doesn’t currently show the article) to the same IRNA story. (United Nations News does not appear to be related to the UN itself.) The WFP site has no information about such a report, and my Google searches also turned up nothing. The WFP does issue subscriber-only reports, but it seems unlikely that IRNA was the only organization to receive and/or announce the results of such an amazing report; I am still waiting to hear back from the WFP, however.
The closest I can find to the “no hunger related deaths” is this, from December 20: “In another development, WFP Executive Director Catherine Bertini told reporters in New York that the agency had broken its monthly record for food distribution inside Afghanistan by delivering 55,000 tonnes of wheat so far in December, against a goal of 52,000. "We believe so far we're reaching 5 million of the 6 million people that we have determined to be desperately in need of food throughout Afghanistan." Obviously, great progress is being made, but certainly not the total victory currently spreading throughout the web.
December 23, 2001
For those visiting from The Weekly Standard, the Harper's piece is down the page a bit, on Thursday. Of course, feel free to meander a bit on your way down there. There were some other links to the AWCA quiz, which was posted on Saturday. (I'm still getting used to this whole having-people-link-to-me thing; I'll get over it soon, hopefully, and not feel obligated to post directions at the top of every page).
On Saturday I received one of the nicest surprises I've had in a long time, as I discovered that some generous soul actually paid the Blogger ad-removal fee for my site. Whoever did this, please let me know, as I'm darn curious, if not a little guilty for never actually doing it myself. (or if somebody could tell me how I could find this out for myself, that would also be helpful).
And in response to Natalie Solent's question, I am not related to Emmanuel Goldstein, Natalie's favorite anti-war blogger, nor am I related to Jeff Goldstein of the Protein Wisdom blog. Perhaps the three of us could meet on Tuesday at some Chinese-restaurant-themed blog. (Okay, I know Emmanuel is not a real Goldstein.)
On Saturday I received one of the nicest surprises I've had in a long time, as I discovered that some generous soul actually paid the Blogger ad-removal fee for my site. Whoever did this, please let me know, as I'm darn curious, if not a little guilty for never actually doing it myself. (or if somebody could tell me how I could find this out for myself, that would also be helpful).
And in response to Natalie Solent's question, I am not related to Emmanuel Goldstein, Natalie's favorite anti-war blogger, nor am I related to Jeff Goldstein of the Protein Wisdom blog. Perhaps the three of us could meet on Tuesday at some Chinese-restaurant-themed blog. (Okay, I know Emmanuel is not a real Goldstein.)
I haven't been on an airplane since June (an absolutely hideous Air France flight) due to my work schedule and lack of vacation time, as opposed to any 9/11-related fears or worries. I don't have any qualms about getting on a plane, and don't think the events of the past few months would really affect any travel plans I might make.
However.
I would sooner walk to Las Vegas or spend New Year's Eve in a tiny room filled with drunken Shriners rather than travel on an American Airlines flight.
However.
I would sooner walk to Las Vegas or spend New Year's Eve in a tiny room filled with drunken Shriners rather than travel on an American Airlines flight.
I know that it's an important and encouraging step in the creation of a better Afghanistan, and what we know of Hamid Karzai makes it appear possible that he might be able to handle the unbelievably diffcult job of leading the country, but doesn't it seem just a little...I don't know...semantic-y to call this "Afghanistan's first peaceful transfer of power in decades"?
December 22, 2001
I just can't deal with Harper's Magazine anymore. It used to be a magazine I looked forward to getting every month, filled with long, interesting articles (the David Foster Wallace travelogues come to mind, as well as a great article about the World Series of Poker) about a huge range of subjects. However, for the past year, and especially the past few months, it's just become this tiresome, poorly written, doctrinaire newsletter, with recycled and discredited anti-war and anti-Israel rants. Lewis Lapham, who might be the dullest, most impenetrable writer I've ever come across, has been writing even more lately. Here's the first paragraph from his editor's note in the December issue.
American Jihad: by Lewis Lapham
Three months ago I'd thought we'd been given a chance for a conversation about the future of the American political idea, the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center providing an impressive occasion for timely remarks on the topics of our foreign and domestic policy as well as an opportunity to ask what we mean by the phrases "public service,' "common good," "civic interest."
I mean....who could think, forget write a lead like that? Is there a single actual human who could refer to September 11 as "an impressive occasion for timely remarks" without a trace of irony?
But that's just a small irritant compared to what I discovered as I was writing this piece. When I read the the lead "Reading" in the magazine I figured that the "Stumbling into Battle" speech by Sir Michael Howard was just another piece from some professor exasperated at just how stupid we Americans have been since September 11. The speech is largely about the "terrible and irrevocable error" that was committed when we "declared war" or terrorism. The following paragraph .
"Could it have been avoided? Certainly, rather than what President Bush so unfortunately termed 'a crusade against evil', that is, a military campaign conducted by an alliance dominated by the United States, many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations on behalf of the international community as a whole, against an criminal conspiracy; whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, awarded an appropriate sentence. In an ideal world that is no doubt what would have happened."
I’m guessing that the “many people” referenced above would include Al-Qaeda. Now, of course, Howard never mentions how exactly this “police operation” would have been conducted, and why the Taliban would have allowed it to take place in Afghanistan. Not to mention what the appropriate sentence would be, and how this would stop future attacks from taking place. Anyway, it was nothing I hadn’t seen before, and I just marked it down to my continuing dislike of the magazine.
However, when I went to find an online version of the speech to avoid retyping the whole thing, I noticed something disturbing. In its complete online transcript form, the paragraph from above is followed by this:
"But we do not live in an ideal world. The destruction of the twin towers and the massacre of several thousand innocent New York office-workers was not seen in the United States as a crime against 'the international community' to be appropriately dealt with by the United Nations; a body for which Americans have little respect when they have heard of it at all. For them it was an outrage against the people of America, one far surpassing in infamy even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Such an insult to their honor was not to be dealt with by a long and meticulous police investigation conducted by international authorities, culminating in an even longer court case in some foreign capital, with sentences that would then no doubt be suspended to allow for further appeals. It cried for immediate and spectacular vengeance to be inflicted by their own armed forces.
"And who can blame them? In their position we would have felt exactly the same. The courage and wisdom of President Bush in resisting the call for a strategy of vendetta has been admirable, but the pressure is still there, both within and beyond the Administration. It is a demand that can be satisfied only by military action -- if possible rapid and decisive military action. There must be catharsis: the blood of five thousand innocent civilians demands it.
"Again, President Bush deserves enormous credit for his attempt to implement the alternative paradigm. He has abjured unilateral action. He has sought, and received, a United Nations mandate. He has built up an amazingly wide-ranging coalition that truly does embody 'the international community' so far as such an entity exists.
"Within a matter of days, almost, the United States has turned its back on the unilateralism and isolationism towards which it seemed to be steering, and resumed its former position as leader of a world community far more extensive than the so-called 'free world' of the old Cold War. Almost equally important, the President and his colleagues have done their best to explain to the American people that this will be a war unlike any other, and they must adjust their expectations accordingly. But it is still a war. The 'w' word has been used, and now cannot be withdrawn; and its use has brought inevitable and irresistible pressure to use military force as soon, and as decisively as possible."
I still disagree with the overall message of the piece but it seemed a bit more balanced than it did when I first read it. When I returned to the magazine, I saw why my perception had changed; in the magazine, the above section appears like this:
Could it have been avoided? Certainly, rather than what President Bush so unfortunately termed 'a crusade against evil', that is, a military campaign conducted by an alliance dominated by the United States, many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations on behalf of the international community as a whole, against an criminal conspiracy; whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, awarded an appropriate sentence. In an ideal world that is no doubt what would have happened.
"But we do not live in an ideal world. The 'w' word has been used, and now cannot be withdrawn; and its use has brought inevitable and irresistible pressure to use military force as soon, and as decisively as possible.
Without any indication that this wasn't his true speech (no brackets or ellipses or spaces), Professor Howard’s comments regarding “[t]he courage and wisdom of President Bush,” who “deserves enormous credit,” have disappeared, not to mention the references to the United States as the “leader of a world community far more extensive than the so-called 'free world' of the old Cold War.” Any mitigating comments or circumstances that paint the U.S. as anything other than bloodthirsty idiots hellbent on revenge and destruction are excised. Of course, one can only wonder what else Lapham and his editors have decided I didn’t need to know. I'll be canceling my subscription, of course.
(Update to the above: Rather than canceling my subscription, I will instead be trading magazine subscriptions with my friend Mike: his Atlantic for my Harper's.)
American Jihad: by Lewis Lapham
Three months ago I'd thought we'd been given a chance for a conversation about the future of the American political idea, the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center providing an impressive occasion for timely remarks on the topics of our foreign and domestic policy as well as an opportunity to ask what we mean by the phrases "public service,' "common good," "civic interest."
I mean....who could think, forget write a lead like that? Is there a single actual human who could refer to September 11 as "an impressive occasion for timely remarks" without a trace of irony?
But that's just a small irritant compared to what I discovered as I was writing this piece. When I read the the lead "Reading" in the magazine I figured that the "Stumbling into Battle" speech by Sir Michael Howard was just another piece from some professor exasperated at just how stupid we Americans have been since September 11. The speech is largely about the "terrible and irrevocable error" that was committed when we "declared war" or terrorism. The following paragraph .
"Could it have been avoided? Certainly, rather than what President Bush so unfortunately termed 'a crusade against evil', that is, a military campaign conducted by an alliance dominated by the United States, many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations on behalf of the international community as a whole, against an criminal conspiracy; whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, awarded an appropriate sentence. In an ideal world that is no doubt what would have happened."
I’m guessing that the “many people” referenced above would include Al-Qaeda. Now, of course, Howard never mentions how exactly this “police operation” would have been conducted, and why the Taliban would have allowed it to take place in Afghanistan. Not to mention what the appropriate sentence would be, and how this would stop future attacks from taking place. Anyway, it was nothing I hadn’t seen before, and I just marked it down to my continuing dislike of the magazine.
However, when I went to find an online version of the speech to avoid retyping the whole thing, I noticed something disturbing. In its complete online transcript form, the paragraph from above is followed by this:
"But we do not live in an ideal world. The destruction of the twin towers and the massacre of several thousand innocent New York office-workers was not seen in the United States as a crime against 'the international community' to be appropriately dealt with by the United Nations; a body for which Americans have little respect when they have heard of it at all. For them it was an outrage against the people of America, one far surpassing in infamy even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Such an insult to their honor was not to be dealt with by a long and meticulous police investigation conducted by international authorities, culminating in an even longer court case in some foreign capital, with sentences that would then no doubt be suspended to allow for further appeals. It cried for immediate and spectacular vengeance to be inflicted by their own armed forces.
"And who can blame them? In their position we would have felt exactly the same. The courage and wisdom of President Bush in resisting the call for a strategy of vendetta has been admirable, but the pressure is still there, both within and beyond the Administration. It is a demand that can be satisfied only by military action -- if possible rapid and decisive military action. There must be catharsis: the blood of five thousand innocent civilians demands it.
"Again, President Bush deserves enormous credit for his attempt to implement the alternative paradigm. He has abjured unilateral action. He has sought, and received, a United Nations mandate. He has built up an amazingly wide-ranging coalition that truly does embody 'the international community' so far as such an entity exists.
"Within a matter of days, almost, the United States has turned its back on the unilateralism and isolationism towards which it seemed to be steering, and resumed its former position as leader of a world community far more extensive than the so-called 'free world' of the old Cold War. Almost equally important, the President and his colleagues have done their best to explain to the American people that this will be a war unlike any other, and they must adjust their expectations accordingly. But it is still a war. The 'w' word has been used, and now cannot be withdrawn; and its use has brought inevitable and irresistible pressure to use military force as soon, and as decisively as possible."
I still disagree with the overall message of the piece but it seemed a bit more balanced than it did when I first read it. When I returned to the magazine, I saw why my perception had changed; in the magazine, the above section appears like this:
Could it have been avoided? Certainly, rather than what President Bush so unfortunately termed 'a crusade against evil', that is, a military campaign conducted by an alliance dominated by the United States, many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations on behalf of the international community as a whole, against an criminal conspiracy; whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, awarded an appropriate sentence. In an ideal world that is no doubt what would have happened.
"But we do not live in an ideal world. The 'w' word has been used, and now cannot be withdrawn; and its use has brought inevitable and irresistible pressure to use military force as soon, and as decisively as possible.
Without any indication that this wasn't his true speech (no brackets or ellipses or spaces), Professor Howard’s comments regarding “[t]he courage and wisdom of President Bush,” who “deserves enormous credit,” have disappeared, not to mention the references to the United States as the “leader of a world community far more extensive than the so-called 'free world' of the old Cold War.” Any mitigating comments or circumstances that paint the U.S. as anything other than bloodthirsty idiots hellbent on revenge and destruction are excised. Of course, one can only wonder what else Lapham and his editors have decided I didn’t need to know. I'll be canceling my subscription, of course.
(Update to the above: Rather than canceling my subscription, I will instead be trading magazine subscriptions with my friend Mike: his Atlantic for my Harper's.)
What is AWCA, The Warbloggers Disease?
It’s an illness that can strike at any time, that can affect even the most sensible and rational blogger.
It strikes slowly at first — a glance at The Nation or Village Voice, a quick peek at what the Berkeley City Council is up to this week — but can develop into a full-bore obsession. Minutes trolling on Indymedia turn into hours, ridiculed websites make their way to the Windows Favorites list, until finally one cannot bear to turn off the computer before seeing the words quagmire, proportionality, Arab street, root causes, and “terrorists” (in quotation marks only).
The illness is Anti-War Crank Addiction, and you might be suffering from it.
Below is a brief quiz to help determine if you may suffer from AWCA. If you answer Yes to six or more of these questions, you might need help.
1. Are you familiar with Noam Chomsky’s upcoming schedule of speaking engagements?
2. Do you find yourself repeatedly hitting the Refresh button at villagevoice.com so that you can be the first one to parse Ted Rall’s latest?
3. Besides the main Indymedia site, do you have at least three other Indymedia city sites that you check on a regular basis?
4. Can you name at least three San Francisco Chronicle columnists?
5. Do you read at least half of the essays posted on commondreams.org?
6. Can you describe the injuries suffered by Robert Fisk during his beati— I mean, during his time as a symbol of the hatred and the fury of this filthy war?
7. Do you check the Guardian and Independent websites before The New York Times or Washington Post?
Can you complete the following sentences?
8. "There will be no emancipation for women anywhere on this planet until _______________." --Sunera Thobani
9. “The Bay Area is also a place that encourages ____________ about the U. S. role in the world. That may have played a part in [Walker’s] vulnerability to the Taliban's extreme propaganda. --Louis Freedberg
10. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who __________________! --Michael Moore
Unfortunately, just as there is currently no known cure or effective treatment for the Anti-War Cranks themselves, there is no medicine or treatment available for victims of AWCA. If you are a victim yourself, just try and remember that there will always be cranks in the world, and there is nothing you can do to make them think logically. Try to ignore ridiculous and idiotic columns, rather than mercilessly tearing them apart sentence by silly sentence. If you find yourself spending more time reading columnists and websites you hate rather than those you truly enjoy, turn off the computer for a few minutes and go outside for a walk, read some fiction, or watch a delightful network situation comedy. While there is no cure, there can be hope.
It’s an illness that can strike at any time, that can affect even the most sensible and rational blogger.
It strikes slowly at first — a glance at The Nation or Village Voice, a quick peek at what the Berkeley City Council is up to this week — but can develop into a full-bore obsession. Minutes trolling on Indymedia turn into hours, ridiculed websites make their way to the Windows Favorites list, until finally one cannot bear to turn off the computer before seeing the words quagmire, proportionality, Arab street, root causes, and “terrorists” (in quotation marks only).
The illness is Anti-War Crank Addiction, and you might be suffering from it.
Below is a brief quiz to help determine if you may suffer from AWCA. If you answer Yes to six or more of these questions, you might need help.
1. Are you familiar with Noam Chomsky’s upcoming schedule of speaking engagements?
2. Do you find yourself repeatedly hitting the Refresh button at villagevoice.com so that you can be the first one to parse Ted Rall’s latest?
3. Besides the main Indymedia site, do you have at least three other Indymedia city sites that you check on a regular basis?
4. Can you name at least three San Francisco Chronicle columnists?
5. Do you read at least half of the essays posted on commondreams.org?
6. Can you describe the injuries suffered by Robert Fisk during his beati— I mean, during his time as a symbol of the hatred and the fury of this filthy war?
7. Do you check the Guardian and Independent websites before The New York Times or Washington Post?
Can you complete the following sentences?
8. "There will be no emancipation for women anywhere on this planet until _______________." --Sunera Thobani
9. “The Bay Area is also a place that encourages ____________ about the U. S. role in the world. That may have played a part in [Walker’s] vulnerability to the Taliban's extreme propaganda. --Louis Freedberg
10. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who __________________! --Michael Moore
Unfortunately, just as there is currently no known cure or effective treatment for the Anti-War Cranks themselves, there is no medicine or treatment available for victims of AWCA. If you are a victim yourself, just try and remember that there will always be cranks in the world, and there is nothing you can do to make them think logically. Try to ignore ridiculous and idiotic columns, rather than mercilessly tearing them apart sentence by silly sentence. If you find yourself spending more time reading columnists and websites you hate rather than those you truly enjoy, turn off the computer for a few minutes and go outside for a walk, read some fiction, or watch a delightful network situation comedy. While there is no cure, there can be hope.
December 20, 2001
I just can't deal with Harper's Magazine anymore. It used to be a magazine I looked forward to getting every month, filled with long, interesting articles (the David Foster Wallace travelogues come to mind, as well as a great article about the World Series of Poker) about a huge range of subjects. However, for the past year, and especially the past few months, it's just become this tiresome, poorly written, doctrinaire newsletter, with recycled and discredited anti-war and anti-Israel rants. Lewis Lapham, who might be the dullest, most impenetrable writer I've ever come across, has been writing even more lately. Here's the first paragraph from his editor's note in the December issue.
American Jihad: by Lewis Lapham
Three months ago I'd thought we'd been given a chance for a conversation about the future of the American political idea, the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center providing an impressive occasion for timely remarks on the topics of our foreign and domestic policy as well as an opportunity to ask what we mean by the phrases "public service,' "common good," "civic interest."
I mean....who could think, forget write a lead like that? Is there a single actual human who could refer to September 11 as "an impressive occasion for timely remarks" without a trace of irony?
But that's just a small irritant compared to what I discovered as I was writing this piece. When I read the the lead "Reading" in the magazine I figured that the "Stumbling into Battle" speech by Sir Michael Howard was just another piece from some professor exasperated at just how stupid we Americans have been since September 11. The speech is largely about the "terrible and irrevocable error" that was committed when we "declared war" or terrorism. The following paragraph .
"Could it have been avoided? Certainly, rather than what President Bush so unfortunately termed 'a crusade against evil', that is, a military campaign conducted by an alliance dominated by the United States, many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations on behalf of the international community as a whole, against an criminal conspiracy; whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, awarded an appropriate sentence. In an ideal world that is no doubt what would have happened."
I’m guessing that the “many people” referenced above would include Al-Qaeda. Now, of course, Howard never mentions how exactly this “police operation” would have been conducted, and why the Taliban would have allowed it to take place in Afghanistan. Not to mention what the appropriate sentence would be, and how this would stop future attacks from taking place. Anyway, it was nothing I hadn’t seen before, and I just marked it down to my continuing dislike of the magazine.
However, when I went to find an online version of the speech to avoid retyping the whole thing, I noticed something disturbing. In its complete online transcript form, the paragraph from above is followed by this:
"But we do not live in an ideal world. The destruction of the twin towers and the massacre of several thousand innocent New York office-workers was not seen in the United States as a crime against 'the international community' to be appropriately dealt with by the United Nations; a body for which Americans have little respect when they have heard of it at all. For them it was an outrage against the people of America, one far surpassing in infamy even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Such an insult to their honor was not to be dealt with by a long and meticulous police investigation conducted by international authorities, culminating in an even longer court case in some foreign capital, with sentences that would then no doubt be suspended to allow for further appeals. It cried for immediate and spectacular vengeance to be inflicted by their own armed forces.
"And who can blame them? In their position we would have felt exactly the same. The courage and wisdom of President Bush in resisting the call for a strategy of vendetta has been admirable, but the pressure is still there, both within and beyond the Administration. It is a demand that can be satisfied only by military action -- if possible rapid and decisive military action. There must be catharsis: the blood of five thousand innocent civilians demands it.
"Again, President Bush deserves enormous credit for his attempt to implement the alternative paradigm. He has abjured unilateral action. He has sought, and received, a United Nations mandate. He has built up an amazingly wide-ranging coalition that truly does embody 'the international community' so far as such an entity exists.
"Within a matter of days, almost, the United States has turned its back on the unilateralism and isolationism towards which it seemed to be steering, and resumed its former position as leader of a world community far more extensive than the so-called 'free world' of the old Cold War. Almost equally important, the President and his colleagues have done their best to explain to the American people that this will be a war unlike any other, and they must adjust their expectations accordingly. But it is still a war. The 'w' word has been used, and now cannot be withdrawn; and its use has brought inevitable and irresistible pressure to use military force as soon, and as decisively as possible."
I still disagree with the overall message of the piece but it seemed a bit more balanced than it did when I first read it. When I returned to the magazine, I saw why my perception had changed; in the magazine, the above section appears like this:
Could it have been avoided? Certainly, rather than what President Bush so unfortunately termed 'a crusade against evil', that is, a military campaign conducted by an alliance dominated by the United States, many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations on behalf of the international community as a whole, against an criminal conspiracy; whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, awarded an appropriate sentence. In an ideal world that is no doubt what would have happened.
"But we do not live in an ideal world. The 'w' word has been used, and now cannot be withdrawn; and its use has brought inevitable and irresistible pressure to use military force as soon, and as decisively as possible.
Without any indication that this wasn't his true speech (no brackets or ellipses or spaces), Professor Howard’s comments regarding “[t]he courage and wisdom of President Bush,” who “deserves enormous credit,” have disappeared, not to mention the references to the United States as the “leader of a world community far more extensive than the so-called 'free world' of the old Cold War.” Any mitigating comments or circumstances that paint the U.S. as anything other than bloodthirsty idiots hellbent on revenge and destruction are excised. Of course, one can only wonder what else Lapham and his editors have decided I didn’t need to know. I'll be canceling my subscription, of course.
(Update to the above: Rather than canceling my subscription, I will instead be trading magazine subscriptions with my friend Mike: his Atlantic for my Harper's.)
American Jihad: by Lewis Lapham
Three months ago I'd thought we'd been given a chance for a conversation about the future of the American political idea, the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center providing an impressive occasion for timely remarks on the topics of our foreign and domestic policy as well as an opportunity to ask what we mean by the phrases "public service,' "common good," "civic interest."
I mean....who could think, forget write a lead like that? Is there a single actual human who could refer to September 11 as "an impressive occasion for timely remarks" without a trace of irony?
But that's just a small irritant compared to what I discovered as I was writing this piece. When I read the the lead "Reading" in the magazine I figured that the "Stumbling into Battle" speech by Sir Michael Howard was just another piece from some professor exasperated at just how stupid we Americans have been since September 11. The speech is largely about the "terrible and irrevocable error" that was committed when we "declared war" or terrorism. The following paragraph .
"Could it have been avoided? Certainly, rather than what President Bush so unfortunately termed 'a crusade against evil', that is, a military campaign conducted by an alliance dominated by the United States, many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations on behalf of the international community as a whole, against an criminal conspiracy; whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, awarded an appropriate sentence. In an ideal world that is no doubt what would have happened."
I’m guessing that the “many people” referenced above would include Al-Qaeda. Now, of course, Howard never mentions how exactly this “police operation” would have been conducted, and why the Taliban would have allowed it to take place in Afghanistan. Not to mention what the appropriate sentence would be, and how this would stop future attacks from taking place. Anyway, it was nothing I hadn’t seen before, and I just marked it down to my continuing dislike of the magazine.
However, when I went to find an online version of the speech to avoid retyping the whole thing, I noticed something disturbing. In its complete online transcript form, the paragraph from above is followed by this:
"But we do not live in an ideal world. The destruction of the twin towers and the massacre of several thousand innocent New York office-workers was not seen in the United States as a crime against 'the international community' to be appropriately dealt with by the United Nations; a body for which Americans have little respect when they have heard of it at all. For them it was an outrage against the people of America, one far surpassing in infamy even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Such an insult to their honor was not to be dealt with by a long and meticulous police investigation conducted by international authorities, culminating in an even longer court case in some foreign capital, with sentences that would then no doubt be suspended to allow for further appeals. It cried for immediate and spectacular vengeance to be inflicted by their own armed forces.
"And who can blame them? In their position we would have felt exactly the same. The courage and wisdom of President Bush in resisting the call for a strategy of vendetta has been admirable, but the pressure is still there, both within and beyond the Administration. It is a demand that can be satisfied only by military action -- if possible rapid and decisive military action. There must be catharsis: the blood of five thousand innocent civilians demands it.
"Again, President Bush deserves enormous credit for his attempt to implement the alternative paradigm. He has abjured unilateral action. He has sought, and received, a United Nations mandate. He has built up an amazingly wide-ranging coalition that truly does embody 'the international community' so far as such an entity exists.
"Within a matter of days, almost, the United States has turned its back on the unilateralism and isolationism towards which it seemed to be steering, and resumed its former position as leader of a world community far more extensive than the so-called 'free world' of the old Cold War. Almost equally important, the President and his colleagues have done their best to explain to the American people that this will be a war unlike any other, and they must adjust their expectations accordingly. But it is still a war. The 'w' word has been used, and now cannot be withdrawn; and its use has brought inevitable and irresistible pressure to use military force as soon, and as decisively as possible."
I still disagree with the overall message of the piece but it seemed a bit more balanced than it did when I first read it. When I returned to the magazine, I saw why my perception had changed; in the magazine, the above section appears like this:
Could it have been avoided? Certainly, rather than what President Bush so unfortunately termed 'a crusade against evil', that is, a military campaign conducted by an alliance dominated by the United States, many people would have preferred a police operation conducted under the auspices of the United Nations on behalf of the international community as a whole, against an criminal conspiracy; whose members should be hunted down and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fair trial and, if found guilty, awarded an appropriate sentence. In an ideal world that is no doubt what would have happened.
"But we do not live in an ideal world. The 'w' word has been used, and now cannot be withdrawn; and its use has brought inevitable and irresistible pressure to use military force as soon, and as decisively as possible.
Without any indication that this wasn't his true speech (no brackets or ellipses or spaces), Professor Howard’s comments regarding “[t]he courage and wisdom of President Bush,” who “deserves enormous credit,” have disappeared, not to mention the references to the United States as the “leader of a world community far more extensive than the so-called 'free world' of the old Cold War.” Any mitigating comments or circumstances that paint the U.S. as anything other than bloodthirsty idiots hellbent on revenge and destruction are excised. Of course, one can only wonder what else Lapham and his editors have decided I didn’t need to know. I'll be canceling my subscription, of course.
(Update to the above: Rather than canceling my subscription, I will instead be trading magazine subscriptions with my friend Mike: his Atlantic for my Harper's.)
Visited the Yogi Berra Museum in Montclair last weekend, which I had been meaning to do for some time. The Museum is on the campus of Montclair State University here in New Jersey, and can best be described as a mini-Baseball Hall of Fame, devoted entirely to the career of the great Yankees catcher. The museum has an extremely impressive collection of memoribilia (Berra was closely involved with the museum's orgabization)), including all of World Series and championship rings (more than any other player), the glove he used (since bronzed) to catch Larsen's perfect game, and the Mantle and DiMaggio plaques from Yankee Stadium.
It's a nice little place, but the visit caused me to think about an ongoing conversation I've been having with Rachel about changing perceptions and their relation to true talent. The original conversation had to do with Elton John and Dolly Parton, two extremely talented musicians who essentially traded critical acclaim and respected public perception for more easily understood, flamboyant and popular images.
Anyway, in a strange sort of way, Yogi fits into that category. The man was an amazing ballplayer who won three MVP awards and finished in the top five for an incredible seven straight years, including four straight seasons as either #1 or #2. He played on 14 pennant winners and managed both the Yankees and the Mets to the World Series. But for reasons perhaps beyond his control at first, though certainly embraced later on, he became known as a funny little guy who used to play baseball and said a lot of dumb things. He almost never gets thought of in the same category as Mantle or DiMaggio, or with Musial, WIlliams, Duke Snider, Mays, etc., even though he was certainly on that level. Hopefully the Museum will help restore the idea of Yogi as a ballplayer a little.
It's a nice little place, but the visit caused me to think about an ongoing conversation I've been having with Rachel about changing perceptions and their relation to true talent. The original conversation had to do with Elton John and Dolly Parton, two extremely talented musicians who essentially traded critical acclaim and respected public perception for more easily understood, flamboyant and popular images.
Anyway, in a strange sort of way, Yogi fits into that category. The man was an amazing ballplayer who won three MVP awards and finished in the top five for an incredible seven straight years, including four straight seasons as either #1 or #2. He played on 14 pennant winners and managed both the Yankees and the Mets to the World Series. But for reasons perhaps beyond his control at first, though certainly embraced later on, he became known as a funny little guy who used to play baseball and said a lot of dumb things. He almost never gets thought of in the same category as Mantle or DiMaggio, or with Musial, WIlliams, Duke Snider, Mays, etc., even though he was certainly on that level. Hopefully the Museum will help restore the idea of Yogi as a ballplayer a little.
Hmm...it just occurred to me that the name of this blog might lead a newcomer to think that it was some sort of "New Democrat" or neolib political page. I'm not quite sure what to do about that; most likely nothing, I guess.
December 19, 2001
One of my favorite sites is Arts & Letters Daily, which features links to dozens of fascinating stories, everything from literature to education to history to economics to....um....snot. New articles are added every day, and I've been introduced me to a number of interesting sites that I probably would have never come across.
They've recently added a little section called "Classics" with some of the best pieces they've featured, including:
The Fable of the Keys, with the search for the truth about the legendary Dvorak keyboard and economic standards.
The Snuff Film: The Making of an Urban Legend, from Skeptical Inquirer Magazine.
A Newsweek article from 1975 about the threat of global...cooling.
A look at The Empire that was Russia, with amazing photographs from 1910.
Julian Simon, The Doomslayer, about the lifelong fighter against wrongheaded environmental conventional wisdom.
I can go on and on posting links, but that should be a good start.
They've recently added a little section called "Classics" with some of the best pieces they've featured, including:
The Fable of the Keys, with the search for the truth about the legendary Dvorak keyboard and economic standards.
The Snuff Film: The Making of an Urban Legend, from Skeptical Inquirer Magazine.
A Newsweek article from 1975 about the threat of global...cooling.
A look at The Empire that was Russia, with amazing photographs from 1910.
Julian Simon, The Doomslayer, about the lifelong fighter against wrongheaded environmental conventional wisdom.
I can go on and on posting links, but that should be a good start.
December 18, 2001
ACTUARIAL NOTE Number 139 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
by Michael W. Shackleford, A.S.A Office of the Chief Actuary
Name Distributions in the Social Security Area.
Wow! Name Distributions!
Actually, it's pretty fascinating, with detailed rankings of the most popular US first names over the past century, broken down by year, decade, state, and more. Sure, you'll want to check your own name first (Kenneth was a robust #31 during the 70's), but there's plenty of interesting tidbits. Here's a few:
1. Turns out it wasn't a coincidence, that I really did meet far more Jennifers in high school and college than any other name. There were more Jennifers named during the 70's than the next two names (Amy and Melissa) combined.
2. Looks like by the time I'm ready for the home there's gonna be a lot of Dylans and Madisons out there as doctors, lawyers, and bankers, which will take some getting used to. Dylan has skyrocketed over the past few decades, from being unranked in the 60's (which seems surprising), to #392 in the 70's, #193 in the 80's, and now up to #37 in the 90's.
As for Madison, it wasn't even in the top 500 during the 80's, but (like Dylan) was the 37th most popular name for in the 90's, and was a shocking #3 in the year 2000. Rachel has been trying to figure out Why Madison? The Bridges of Madison County fans having kids? Splash fans coming of age?
3. The first year this century that John wasn't one of the top-three names for boys in the US: 1953.
The first year this century that Mary wasn't one of the top-three names for girls in the US: 1965.
by Michael W. Shackleford, A.S.A Office of the Chief Actuary
Name Distributions in the Social Security Area.
Wow! Name Distributions!
Actually, it's pretty fascinating, with detailed rankings of the most popular US first names over the past century, broken down by year, decade, state, and more. Sure, you'll want to check your own name first (Kenneth was a robust #31 during the 70's), but there's plenty of interesting tidbits. Here's a few:
1. Turns out it wasn't a coincidence, that I really did meet far more Jennifers in high school and college than any other name. There were more Jennifers named during the 70's than the next two names (Amy and Melissa) combined.
2. Looks like by the time I'm ready for the home there's gonna be a lot of Dylans and Madisons out there as doctors, lawyers, and bankers, which will take some getting used to. Dylan has skyrocketed over the past few decades, from being unranked in the 60's (which seems surprising), to #392 in the 70's, #193 in the 80's, and now up to #37 in the 90's.
As for Madison, it wasn't even in the top 500 during the 80's, but (like Dylan) was the 37th most popular name for in the 90's, and was a shocking #3 in the year 2000. Rachel has been trying to figure out Why Madison? The Bridges of Madison County fans having kids? Splash fans coming of age?
3. The first year this century that John wasn't one of the top-three names for boys in the US: 1953.
The first year this century that Mary wasn't one of the top-three names for girls in the US: 1965.
Hmmm....seems I haven't posted since about Thanksgiving. There's no real good reason for that, other than I've been in a pretty lousy mood for most of that time, and once I stopped posting for a few days it fell out of my routine.
The most exciting news over the past few weeks is that my old Seattle roommates, Murph and Juli, are engaged! I'm very much looking forward to the wedding, which is tentatively scheduled for a New Jersey beach sometime next year. Murph was my roommate for my entire four-year stay in Seattle, all at the fabulous Golden Inca Apartments. Juli slowly moved her way in about halfway through, and was also a fine roommate. My best to the both of them.
Let's see what else happened....I went down to DC for a day, visiting Air & Space, American History, and the Jefferson and FDR Memorials. The FDR Memorial is pretty new, and I had the following to say about it in an e-mail I wrote to my friend Mike shortly after the visit:
"I did have the chance to see the FDR Memorial, and actually I was pretty unimpressed with it, and even somewhat bothered by it. It failed to reach me on any sort of emotional level. Some parts of it were interesting, but on the whole it struck me as more of a busy museum exhibition than a monument -- I could practically hear the committee members saying "Wait a minute: we forgot about the fireside chats! And what about the Tennessee Valley Authority?!" The theory I came up with on the ride home is that since the Vietnam Memorial at least, America has lost the power of metaphor or understatement, the idea that we are part of something larger than ourselves, and the recent major memorials (Vietnam, FDR, Oklahoma City, almost certianly the WTC) have been this kind of all-inclusive literal descriptiveness. The raising of the flag at Iwo Jima was such a powerful image since those who looked at it instinctively understood that the picture/statue was much more than the men raising the flag, the men who took the island, or even the armed forces, but rather, all of America. That wouldn't have the same effect today, I think, and certainly wouldn't be so iconic.
Anyway, after the FDR I visited the Jefferson, and that, as always, reached me. Largely because Jefferson is a more important figure to me than FDR, but also because they didn't imagine the Jefferson Memorial should be a summary of his life, but rather a testament to the ideals he stood for. I can imagine an FDR-style version of the Jefferson Memorial, and I'm just glad it didn't come to that."
Mike responded with the following interesting piece of history:
LOL - if you read the lit at the memorial, it's pretty clear that the J was in fact a kind of memorial to FDR built by FDR. WPA, baby! Seems that many of the great monuments we think of when we think of DC - Lincoln, the Mall, the expanded museum system, the J - were a kind of pet project of the man in the chair. Interestingly, this also changes the meaning of the seated figure of Lincoln.
There was some controversy about it at the time, but one of the ingenious aspects of the two big projects is that both Lincoln and Jefferson are regarded as forefathers of traditional Republican values - Lincoln, of course, being a Republican, and Jefferson
apparently although a federalist highly resistant to strong centralization of governmental authority. So if the Republicans
attacked the budgeting for the construction of the memorials, they could be painted as not adhering to core Republican values - very Clintonesque, I thought. A clever man, that FDR."
As an interesting note to the whole visit, Washingtonians can choose to have license plates that read "Taxation Without Representation," protesting their lack of a voting representative in Congress. I'm pretty sure this is the only negative (or at least not positive or tourism-based) license plate slogan currently available.
The most exciting news over the past few weeks is that my old Seattle roommates, Murph and Juli, are engaged! I'm very much looking forward to the wedding, which is tentatively scheduled for a New Jersey beach sometime next year. Murph was my roommate for my entire four-year stay in Seattle, all at the fabulous Golden Inca Apartments. Juli slowly moved her way in about halfway through, and was also a fine roommate. My best to the both of them.
Let's see what else happened....I went down to DC for a day, visiting Air & Space, American History, and the Jefferson and FDR Memorials. The FDR Memorial is pretty new, and I had the following to say about it in an e-mail I wrote to my friend Mike shortly after the visit:
"I did have the chance to see the FDR Memorial, and actually I was pretty unimpressed with it, and even somewhat bothered by it. It failed to reach me on any sort of emotional level. Some parts of it were interesting, but on the whole it struck me as more of a busy museum exhibition than a monument -- I could practically hear the committee members saying "Wait a minute: we forgot about the fireside chats! And what about the Tennessee Valley Authority?!" The theory I came up with on the ride home is that since the Vietnam Memorial at least, America has lost the power of metaphor or understatement, the idea that we are part of something larger than ourselves, and the recent major memorials (Vietnam, FDR, Oklahoma City, almost certianly the WTC) have been this kind of all-inclusive literal descriptiveness. The raising of the flag at Iwo Jima was such a powerful image since those who looked at it instinctively understood that the picture/statue was much more than the men raising the flag, the men who took the island, or even the armed forces, but rather, all of America. That wouldn't have the same effect today, I think, and certainly wouldn't be so iconic.
Anyway, after the FDR I visited the Jefferson, and that, as always, reached me. Largely because Jefferson is a more important figure to me than FDR, but also because they didn't imagine the Jefferson Memorial should be a summary of his life, but rather a testament to the ideals he stood for. I can imagine an FDR-style version of the Jefferson Memorial, and I'm just glad it didn't come to that."
Mike responded with the following interesting piece of history:
LOL - if you read the lit at the memorial, it's pretty clear that the J was in fact a kind of memorial to FDR built by FDR. WPA, baby! Seems that many of the great monuments we think of when we think of DC - Lincoln, the Mall, the expanded museum system, the J - were a kind of pet project of the man in the chair. Interestingly, this also changes the meaning of the seated figure of Lincoln.
There was some controversy about it at the time, but one of the ingenious aspects of the two big projects is that both Lincoln and Jefferson are regarded as forefathers of traditional Republican values - Lincoln, of course, being a Republican, and Jefferson
apparently although a federalist highly resistant to strong centralization of governmental authority. So if the Republicans
attacked the budgeting for the construction of the memorials, they could be painted as not adhering to core Republican values - very Clintonesque, I thought. A clever man, that FDR."
As an interesting note to the whole visit, Washingtonians can choose to have license plates that read "Taxation Without Representation," protesting their lack of a voting representative in Congress. I'm pretty sure this is the only negative (or at least not positive or tourism-based) license plate slogan currently available.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]