Hogan's Alley

Dylan Ratigan and Matt Taibbi, Consiglieri to Occupy DC

2011-10-19T14:47:00.000-04:00

(Jose Luis Magana/AP Photo)

Ann Althouse highlights the exchange of emails between MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan and occupiers of Washington. Here is the email stream. Also included in this set of emails is one with advice from Matt Taibbi, currently of Rolling Stone and Men's Journal.

Althouse seems to take umbrage in Ratigan's alleged violation of a reporter's requisite "objectivity". But anyone who has watched Ratigan on MSNBC knows that he is a major purveyor of his opinions in rants of famously interminable length. There is no pretense of objectivity, just his insistence on stating his own brilliant positions for the edification of the great unwashed, ie. everyone else.

Taibbi, described by Wikipedia as a "polemical journalist", is also clearly not objective. According to Wiki, he also has a history of physical explosiveness when encountering resistance to his "truth telling".

Regardless of both mens' predisposition to support the Occupy movement, it is a fascinating insight into what are probably the normal back and forth between such advocacy reporters and many of the subjects of their "reporting". It should come as a shock to no one that many journalists regularly tailor the presentation of their "subjects" to maximize the effectiveness of their "journalistic" oeuvre.

Steve Jobs, Creator of Beautiful Technology

2011-10-05T23:20:00.000-04:00

I bought an Apple IIe in the early 80's. It was a thing of beauty, opening up a whole new world of possibility. But, my God, how primitive it was by today's standards! The first time I touched an iPhone and experienced the magic of its interface I had another WOW moment. By coincidence, today I ordered an iPad 2. I had been thinking about buying another tablet, but after seeing one in a hotel bar over the weekend, I again fell in love with the thing. What a peculiar and wondrous ability the man possessed. He knew intuitively how the look and feel of a thing could stir the heart as well as the mind.

Steve Jobs will be missed. He was one of a kind. America is poorer for his going, but how marvelous to have shared his time on the planet.

Sara Finally Cashes In Her Chips

2011-10-05T23:05:00.000-04:00

The jig is finally up for Ms. Palin. The time had come when she either had to piss or get off the pot. As I've believed she would for many months, she chose the later.

The Times reports:

Ms. Palin, the former governor of Alaska, ended her inscrutable cat-and-mouse game with the political establishment on Wednesday afternoon by saying that she would not join the field of Republican candidates seeking her party’s nomination, but would still work to oust President Obama.

What Rough Beast Indeed

2011-10-05T22:53:00.003-04:00

The Second Coming

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: a waste of desert sand;
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Wind shadows of the indignant desert birds.

The darkness drops again but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

William Butler Yeats, 1919

While we are not in anything like the bloodbath of World War I, there is the strong whiff of chaos in the air. It made me think of Yeats' great poem.

The Truth About Health Insurance Coverage Since Passage of Obamacare

2011-09-21T15:43:00.001-04:00

In recent days the Administration and much of the press have trumpeted the rising percentage of young people, below 26 years old, who now have health insurance coverage. Specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services press release asserts:

The Affordable Care Act allows children to remain on their parents’ health insurance plans until age 26. This policy took effect for insurance plan renewals beginning on September 23, 2010, and was designed to address the fact that young adults are the age group least likely to have health insurance. This is one of the important early provisions in the Affordable Care Act designed to expand insurance coverage to uninsured Americans.
New results released today by the National Center for Health Statistics show that this policy has had a significant impact on improving insurance coverage among young adults. Data from the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) show that in the first quarter of 2011, the percentage of adults between the ages of 19 and 25 with health insurance increased to 69.6%, from 66.1% in 2010.[1] This 3.5 percentage-point increase represents approximately one million additional young adults with insurance.

That is true as far as it goes. However, the same press release provides additional data from the survey that shows that during the same period, health coverage for people ages 26 - 64 has shrunken dramatically. Here is the chart they provide:

The trends lines are moving together. The added health support of young people under 26 is likely to have maxed out since most parents were advised of the changes in the law and took advantage of it in the first year. The only ongoing variable is likely to be the changing number of this age cohort in the population.

In fact, as reported by Gallup itself, although not mentioned in the HHS press release:

The percentage of uninsured 26- to 64-year-olds, however, continues to increase, rising to a high of 19.9% in the second quarter of this year. Among all Americans, 17.4% reported being uninsured in the second quarter of the year.

Another chart accompanying their report shows this drop in the numbers of people reporting that they have health insurance.

So, what we have is a reality in which the much ballyhooed 40 million Americans without health insurance before Obamacare has now become some number north of 40 million. The net effect of Obamacare to date is therefore to have, arguably, only slowed the continuing shrinkage in the number of Americans with no health insurance. Not yet worth celebrating. And given the legal challenges to the mandatory coverage provisions of the law, the future doesn't bode well for improvement in these numbers.

Is Kabul U.S. Embassy Attack I.S.I. Payback for Our Hit on Bin Laden?

2011-09-14T15:26:00.000-04:00

The Times reports that the American and Afghan officials believe that the attack on the US Embassy in Kabul was the work of the Haqqani network, based in Pakistan. Isn't it reasonable to believe that the Pakistan intelligence services (ISI) promoted this attack in retaliation for their embarrassment over our keeping the hit on Bin Laden secret from them?

Big Lebowski Connection To Mel Brooks Story

2011-09-09T22:54:00.002-04:00

One of the great scenes in The Big Lebowski is of Walter and the Dude obtaining Donny's ashes and scattering them. The scene can be viewed at this European site that doesn't facilitate embedding videos.

I have always loved this scene, so I was doubly amazed to hear Mel Brooks tell a very similar story about Howie Morris, an actor on Sid Caesar's "Your Show of Shows" on early TV, on an HBO special tonight with Dick Cavett.

Here is a video of Mel telling the same story on a much earlier TV show:

I've looked for some reference to this story as the inspiration for the Coen Brothers, but have not found any. I'd appreciate it if someone knows of a reference where the Coen's acknowledge hearing Mel's version. God knows it is certainly worth paying homage to Mel by using the story and, as enhanced by the Coen's it works perfectly as a coda for Walter and the Dude's relationship.

Louis Jenkins, Poet Extraordinaire

2011-06-16T13:56:00.001-04:00

During his acceptance speech at last weekend's Tony Awards, Best Actor winner for his performance in "Jerusalem", Mark Rylance simply performed, uncredited, a prose poem called "Walking Through a Wall". What was special about the performance of Walls was the incongruity and the nervous laughter of the audience, patiently hunkered down for the usual series of endless "thank yous".

The poet author of "Walking Through a Wall" is Louis Jenkins of Minnesota.

I confess that I had never read Mr. Jenkins, but am now totally captivated. To get a sample of his work, read by him, go this website. The poems are full of meaning and wrapped in what seems like simple conversation.

Sara Palin - Alert the Media

2011-06-11T18:29:00.000-04:00

The NY Times online headline for its dumpster diving into Palin's emails during her time as Alaska Gov bears the headline, "Palin's E-Mails Show Her Combative and Engaged". Good God, what a find! There is only one appropriate response:

Let's Have The Decency To Leave Charlie Sheen Alone

2011-03-01T15:32:00.001-05:00

Craig Ferguson has it exactly right:

The Iconic Suze Rotolo Has Died

2011-02-28T15:54:00.000-05:00

Suze dated Bob Dylan in his early Village years. It is she who clings to him on this famous album cover.

My how the sixties are rushing away. Here's the story in the Times.

Charlie Sheen Should Be On At Least One Drug - Lithium

2011-02-28T15:36:00.000-05:00

By chance I caught some of Charlie Sheen's rant in a recent TV interview. It was also reported that both a urine and blood tests were negative for the usual substances of abuse. The leaves only one conclusion:

Bipolar I: For a diagnosis of Bipolar I disorder, a person must have at least one manic episode. Mania is sometimes referred to as the other extreme to depression. Mania is an intense high where the person feels euphoric, almost indestructible in areas such as personal finances, business dealings, or relationships. They may have an elevated self-esteem, be more talkative than usual, have flight of ideas, a reduced need for sleep, and be easily distracted. The high, although it may sound appealing, will often lead to severe difficulties in these areas, such as spending much more money than intended, making extremely rash business and personal decisions, involvement in dangerous sexual behavior, and/or the use of drugs or alcohol. Depression is often experienced as the high quickly fades and as the consequences of their activities becomes apparent, the depressive episode can be exacerbated.

-DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV, American Psychiatric Association)

Enough said.

Russians Want Assange Given Nobel Peace Prize

2010-12-10T12:32:00.001-05:00

As I suggested here the other day, the Russian government thinks Wikileaker Julian Assange is the best thing since sliced bread. They have one-upped me. I suggested a case of vodka, they want him to have the Nobel Peace Prize.

You can't make this stuff up.

Julian Assange - Follow-up Assessment

2010-12-07T18:40:00.001-05:00

Julian Assange has been arrested in London on Swedish warrants accusing him of rape or sexual misconduct. This is beside the point. If he is a scumbag, so be it. Let him get the appropriate punishment. Nothing in this case will halt his patently anti-American activities via the internet.

In a recent piece in Slate, Christopher Hitchens agrees that this arrest has the wiff of being trumped up. But, at the same time he urges Mr. Assange to turn himself in to face whatever the consequences of his publication of confidential documents will be. As Hitch points out, Assange's entire enterprise is a massive act of sabotage and civil disobediance, done in furtherance of his stated opposition to U.S. actions in the middle east and elsewhere. A brave man with his convictions would want to have the opportunity to publicly hold the U.S. accountable in a court of law. Mr. Assange shows no signs of such fortitude.

Hitchens also links to a NY Times piece by the inestimable John Burns which shows Assange to be more megalomaniac than freedom's patriot. As to his motives, Burns reports the following,

Mr. Assange’s detractors also accuse him of pursuing a vendetta against the United States. In London, Mr. Assange said America was an increasingly militarized society and a threat to democracy. Moreover, he said, “we have been attacked by the United States, so we are forced into a position where we must defend ourselves.”

Ironically, as Hitchens further notes, sides appear to have switched on both the left and the right regarding exposure of secrets. Those who supported the leak of Valerie Plame's involvement in her husband's selection to look for Iraqi attempts to secure uranium are now, by and large, wishing for Assange's head. A similar flip is clearly visible on the left. As Hitchens aptly puts it:

As for the public's right to know and the accountability of our covert or confidential agencies, it is only a short time since the entire American liberal consensus was witlessly applauding a clumsy and fruitless prosecution, directed entirely at the hopelessly overdramatized exposure of a relatively minor CIA official, married to a monster of conceit who makes Assange look bashful. It then turned out that Valerie Plame's job description had been made public by Robert Novak and Richard Armitage, who also had in common with Assange a rooted opposition to the administration's Iraq policy. Elements of the left and the right appear to have switched positions on full disclosure since then.

Wikileaks Goal, Bring Down the West?

2010-12-01T19:06:00.003-05:00

The new dump of cable traffic from the U.S.State Department is simply the latest in Julian Assange, the Wikileaks leader's, ongoing campaign to disable the western democracies and large western corporations. He may assert that he seeks openness in all governments and institutions, but take a look at their website. (You'll have to find it your self because I will never link to it.) What you will find is their promotion of themselves by listing all their important releases. What they all have in common, except for a few leaks from African governments, is that all the released information is from American and European governments and corporations.

Where are documents that reveal the inner workings of Russia and China's worldwide efforts, not to mention the horrors of charming little terror states like North Korea. Without noting the irony, Assange asserts on their website that one of their methods of securing documents is to file FOIL requests. The Freedom Of Information Law is a creature of American democracy. Similar rights to access government documents exist in other democracies. Go try and file a FOIL request in Bejing or Moscow. I guarantee that you will end up in jail, if you are lucky.

The resulting outcome of Wikileaks' activity is to hobble U.S. intelligence and diplomacy while leaving the other great powers to do as they wish with the assurance of full secrecy. Given that this is the only completely predictable outcome of these leaks, it is logical to assume this as the goal of the exercise. Were I the chief of Russian intelligence I would, assuming that he is not in fact my agent, send Julian Assange a case of the finest vodka for his contribution to damaging the West.

The other irony in this affair is that Assange and other leftists who, if their writings are to be believed, seek world peace and are attacking the U.S. as the warmonger nation they see it to be are actively seeking to damage U.S. diplomacy. Do they really believe that if America cannot conduct peaceful diplomacy with the world that future Presidents will be then less likely to rely on the blunt instruments wielded by our armed forces?

As James P. Rubin notes at the New Republic:

By and large, the hard left in America and around the world would prefer to see the peaceful resolution of disputes rather than the use of military force. World peace, however, is a lot harder to achieve if the U.S. State Department is cut off at the knees. And that is exactly what this mass revelation of documents is going to do. The essential tool of State Department diplomacy is trust between American officials and their foreign counterparts. Unlike the Pentagon, which has military forces, or the Treasury Department, which has financial tools, the State Department functions mainly by winning the trust of foreign officials, sharing information, and persuading. Those discussions have to be confidential to be successful. Destroying confidentiality means destroying diplomacy.

As for Pfc. Bradley Manning, who claims to have downloaded all these documents and provided them to Wikileaks, he is so deluded that he says the following to Adrian Lamo, a former hacker, as reported on the Wired site:

What, me worry?

Hillary Clinton and several thousand diplomats around the world are going to have a heart attack when they wake up one morning, and find an entire repository of classified foreign policy is available, in searchable format, to the public.

Everywhere there’s a U.S. post, there’s a diplomatic scandal that will be revealed,” he wrote. “It’s open diplomacy. World-wide anarchy in CSV format. It’s Climategate with a global scope, and breathtaking depth. It’s beautiful, and horrifying.

I hope he is enjoying the non-event that his actions provoked. As soon as the Times has finished reporting the contents of the newest leak in a few days the event will be over. Anarchy will not be unleashed on the world, no governments will fall and no senior officials will resign. But the diplomatic dealings of the United State will change in very serious ways, all aimed at less information being available. The organization will continue, but it will generate much less information about other nations to American leaders. Less information can predictibly lead only to less informed decision making. Not a good thing for a great power capable of mass destruction. War, not peace, is the most likely product of Wikileaks venting its founder's anger at America.

One last thought: Isn't it interesting that so very much of what is said in the "secret" documents has been said in public by our officials? I would love to see some Russian and Chinese cable traffic and compare it to their public pronouncements.

Juan Williams Purged By NPR

2010-10-21T01:10:00.000-04:00

National Public Radio has fired Juan Williams for remarks on Bill O'Reilly's show on Fox that, "were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

He apparently held the clearly reactionary belief that some Muslims considered themselves at war with the US and the West. Did he not understand that the politically correct line is that random persons in the world hate the West and that there is absolutely no connection to Islam, despite the repeated claims of these uniformly Muslin persons that they are acting in the name of Islam?

~~Radio Free Canada~~ NPR ~~leans~~ strides forward.

Hilarious Photographic Moments from The Ryder Cup

2010-10-04T15:41:00.004-04:00

During the Ryder Cup golf tournament in Wales, Tiger Woods apparently badly hit a ball in the muddy, crowd-tromped rough that headed directly into a photographer's lens.

I particularly liked the expression of the gentleman on the right with the bad mustache and the cigar. [Be sure to click on the photo to see a larger version, to get the full effect] So did someone else. When I noted this to my son, he replied with a link to this picture:

Unfortunately the link doesn't provide a source that I would happily credit. The maker of this photo is a photoshoping genius. Thank you for making my day.

Update: By the way, could Cigar Guy be the illegitimate spawn of Jerry Colonna?

How To Spot ATM Skimming Devices

2010-08-12T13:56:00.000-04:00

This should be required reading for all ATM users, especially when not using a machine attached to your bank's wall. Be sure to follow the links to the photos and then keep a sharp eye out when swiping your debit card.

Corrine Baily Rae, My Current Obsession

2010-08-09T16:35:00.002-04:00

For the last few weeks, I haven't been able to get the songs from Corinne Bailey Rae's latest album, "The Sea" out of my head. It didn' t help that PBS recently played her performance of most of the album on their Live From the Artist's Den series. (See photo at right)

Do yourself a favor and get hold of this album. It will touch your heart and rock your socks off at the same time.

During the early stages of putting this album together, Corinne's husband, Jason Rae, died of a methadone overdose. That tragic loss informs many of the tracks and their minor keys. At the same time, the feel of the album is a bit harder and "rockier" than her debut album. All together, one of the great albums of the year. Although, beware. I am so taken by her as a performer that I may have lost my objectivity.

Judge for yourself. Here is her video for, "I'd Do It All Again", the song that most directly references her passage through her grief. I get chills every time I hear the pain and triumph in her voice.

Alternate Lost Epilogue Emerges

2010-08-06T22:43:00.012-04:00

The epilogue that is apparently the one that will appear on the full series blue ray dvd has, again apparently (one never knows with the Lost producers) found its way to the internet. In any event the video is now embedded below:

UPDATE: The original link was taken down within hours of this original post. Let's leave this blank space as is in memory of that temporary jailbreak pending the arrival of the boxed set. But I wouldn't be surprised if ABC leaked the 12 minute piece itself and then sicked their pre-positioned lawyers on YouTube and the other major sites in order to create a brief media storm and short-lived viral explosion just before the release of the major boxed set.

For my money, having seen the epilogue, I would not find this a convincing reason to shell out big bucks to replace the dvd versions I already own. It is a major miscalculation to think that this will drive sales in a world where the difference between the upscaled dvd and the blu-ray version is, frankly, not visible to the human eye and ear.

Hitch, Writer With No Topic Out of Bounds

2010-08-04T14:59:00.001-04:00

Photo by John Huba for Vanity Fair

Christopher Hitchens has re-emerged after the announcement of his cancer. He as given us a detailed and very personal report on the progress of the various heinous treatments necessary for a metastasized cancer.

As is his wont, he writes with skill, passion, and bravery.

Best wishes in your unsought journey.

(By the way, any who hate Hitch and his politics or person and are so venal as to wish him ill at this point are swine. Full stop.)

Breakin' The Law

2010-08-03T17:35:00.003-04:00

The FBI seal, yes, the same one famously made into a cake in "Silence of the Lambs", is now so sacred an item that they are threatening to sue Wikipedia for using the image (the same one purloined above) to illustrate their article on the Bureau.

What a silly waste of time and effort. I guess the control freak ghost of J. Edgar still haunts the culture at the Bureau.

Look for the cake at about 2:25 in.

Obama Attacked From An Unexpected Front

2010-07-21T18:31:00.000-04:00

President Obama has now received criticism about America's contribution to fight AIDS and other diseases in Africa. Bishop Desmond Tutu has complained in an op ed in the Times that Pres. Obama is less helpful to Africa's health crisis than was Pres.Bush .

Wow. Worth a read.

Trouble On The Horizon For Medical "Reform"

2010-07-20T01:53:00.000-04:00

"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “the mother of health care,” Vice President Joe Biden proclaimed Monday", according to the Washington Post.

Well, that sort of bravado will no doubt play well on the Democratic chicken dinner circuit. But sooner or later the realities of the new "Obamacare" legislation will be obvious. Mostly the chickens will come home to roost by about 2014, well after the next presidential elections. Until then, those who crafted this budget busting legislation will have to hope that a stiff upper lip will help them survive the next electoral round, which, after all, is the most any of them, regardless of party, ever contemplate.

In a very prescient piece in the Washington Post, Robert Samuelson reports on the findings of an Urban Institute study of the outcomes of the Massachusetts health reform effort, which looks very much like the stew crafted (as in witch crafted) by the President and the Democrats in Congress.

Read it and weep:

People have more access to treatment, though changes are small. In 2006, 87 percent of the non-elderly had a "usual source of care," presumably a doctor or clinic, Long and Stockley note in the journal Health Affairs. By 2009, that was 89.9 percent. In 2006, 70.9 percent received "preventive care"; in 2009, that was 77.7 percent. Out-of-pocket costs were less burdensome.

But much didn't change. Emergency rooms remain as crowded as ever; about a third of the non-elderly go at least once a year, and half their visits involve "non-emergency conditions." As for improvements in health, most probably lie in the future. "Many of the uninsured were young and healthy," writes Long. Their "expected gains in health status" would be mostly long-term. Finally -- and most important -- health costs continue to soar.

Yes, some of the young and healthy who have traditionally been uninsured will possibly seek medical attention that will uncover chronic diseases like hypertension and diabetes. But will the numbers who avail themselves of this newly available care be so tiny as to have virtually no financial impact on their need for care later in life? Look at the example of those who use emergency rooms for a form of primary care. Many of them had Medicaid before yet continued the habits and inclinations of a lifetime. People tend to act in their own self interest, not in what may in fact be the rational manner viewed as obvious by academics. They do what offers them the percieved path of least resistance. This is one of the major realities that will prevent the anticipated savings from accruing as predicted.

Nor did anyone in the recent debates over medical reform even raise the problem of fee for service medicine. It is as hot a potato as cutting Medicare benefits for seniors. It will never happen in the 2 - 4 year life cycles of our politicians. At least not till we are all staring over the edge of a massive debt crisis that forces painful cuts and tax increases.

Know Your Fruits and Vegtables

2010-07-17T15:09:00.000-04:00

Just when you thought there might not be any more uses for the fancy, schmancy MRI equipment lying around hospitals and universities, a new one has emerged. Hey, I've got a good idea, lets check out some fruits and vegetables and produce films of their insides.

Here, displayed for your edification, are films of several famous vegetarian delights and at least one that is not so famous. Does anyone know what the hell Durian is? Well I got curious, so you could look it up. Yuck.

18th Century Ships In Strange Places

2010-07-15T22:46:00.002-04:00

The Times reports that the remains of an 18th century ship, probably used as part of an early landfill to extend Manhattan, have been found at the World Trade Center site.

Via Twitter, Damon Lindelof asserts: "For everyone who is asking... no. It is NOT the Black Rock."

The Truth About Class Warfare

2010-07-12T14:24:00.001-04:00

I have been tempted to come out of hibernation by this morning's column by Ross Douthat in the NY Times. Ross rightly notes that the constant flow of money from the middle class is not mostly going down the income ladder, but rather up. Headed towards those who take all the outrageous "risks" that leave many very, very wealthy under the shade of protections and benefits they are very careful to see embedded in our laws. The cost, of course, is paid by those who play by the rules, the vast middle class from which most government income originates.

Key quote:

The left-wing instinct, when faced with high-rolling irresponsibility, is usually to call for tax increases on the rich. But the problem, here and elsewhere, isn’t exactly that we tax high rollers’ incomes too lightly. It’s that we subsidize their irresponsibility too heavily — underwriting their bad bets and bailing out their follies. The class warfare we need is a conservative class warfare, which would force the million-dollar defaulters to pay their own way from here on out.

The Passing of Mary Travers

2009-09-17T01:23:00.001-04:00

Mary Travers of the 60's folk group Peter, Paul and Mary, died yesterday at my local hospital in Danbury, Connecticut. She lived for years in a neighboring town to mine.

She was, of course, one of the major attractions of the folk boom, being as lovely and passionate,and well, hot, as she was. Happily, the wonderful harmonies she participated in will continue to be available.

Here is a YouTube performance that is probably not the one most other bloggers will choose. It leaves the contemporary protest songs they featured and reinterprets an older one from the Irish Troubles.

In this song you get, I think, a good sense of the power of the three voices together and a good sense of Mary's passion and power. And it includes her signature flipping of her hair. She was one of the great singers of our time.

Rest in Peace.

Tired Of The Same Old Crap On The Radio?

2009-09-09T00:16:00.000-04:00

If you are of "a certain age" and hate most of the streaming music that is available via the internet, here is a wondrous new resource. The venerable KCRW Public Radio station in LA is now streaming its Morning Becomes Eclectic-style programing 24/7 on the net. It is called Eclectic24. (Thanks to Mickey Kaus for the tip)

I just finished listening for about 45 minutes and it was astounding. I am really well versed in contemporary pop music (excluding rap and tweener stars of the week). But in this short sample I heard nothing that I had ever heard before, yet every piece played was very musical and demanded and caught my attention. Finally at the end of this listening sample they did play a Jimi Hendrix cut, but a very obscure one. No "Classic Rock" canned programming here with its six plays per day of Stairway to Heaven. As great as those songs are, Classic Rock radio stations play a small list absolutely to death.

A nice feature of the site is the constantly updated listing of what is playing, along with a short bio of the singer/bands and links to their websites and iTunes/Amazon to purchase things you love.

A really impressive site. I won't abandon my beloved WFUV, but this will make a nice alternative and a great resource for new music on my iPod.

We Used To Play For Silver, Now We Play For Lives

2009-09-05T23:37:00.006-04:00

A story in today's Times, by the inestimable John Burns, reports that current British Justice Minister, Jack Straw, gave an interview with The Telegraph:

Asked ... whether trade and oil were part of the cabinet decision to include Mr. Megrahi in a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, Mr. Straw replied: “Yes, it was a very big part of that. I’m unapologetic about that. Libya was a rogue state. We wanted to bring it back into the fold and trade is an essential part of it — and subsequently there was the BP deal.”

Said with a frankness that will no doubt displease Prime Minister Gordon Brown and former PM Tony Blair. Both gentlemen swore up and down that there was no connection between the release of the 1998 Lockerbie bomber, Abdel Basset Ali al-Megrahi and any sucking up for something so crass as an oil deal.

Straw has now told the truth, destroying any lies or spin coming from the Government. They needed the Lybian oil and wanted some influence over Qaddafi et fils, the hell with the mostly American passengers who died at his hand. Gone is the pretense that there was any notion of pity for his prostate condition, as fatuous as that was from the get go.

The renewed appearance of Jack Straw, former Foreign Minister under Blair, leads my mind back to the wonderful Greatful Dead song with that name, written by Robert Hunter and Bob Weir. The lines most appropriate to the present Jack Straw are:

Jack straw from wichita cut his buddy down,
And dug for him a shallow grave and laid his body down.
Half a mile from tucson, by the morning light,
One man gone and another to go, my old buddy youre moving much too slow.

For the full song, here they are doing it in Copenhagen in 1972. God, were we all once truly that young?

Tread Carefully Into The Morass Of Medical Insurance Reform

2009-03-11T14:58:00.003-04:00

One thing I know for a fact about medical reform efforts in America and the world is that they invariably cost more than advertised, produce less benefits than advertised and generate numerous unintended consequences.

Via Memorandum, comes a very well written and documented inquiry into the ten main reasons provided by the Obama administration and other advocates for the necessity of radical reform of our health care system, and the savings and benefits expected. The author is Bruce Kessler at a site called Maggie's Farm.

Key quote:

George Bernard Shaw warned “Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.” The major overhaul of American health care pursued by President Obama and his supporters is based on many false premises and is excessive and likely to do more harm than good. Tuning up and improvements already always dynamically occurs. Instead, ObamaCare is aimed at dramatically changing one-sixth of the US economy in ways that are untested or tested and found wanting, primarily involving huge increases in government direction of health care.

The details of ObamaCare are largely being left to Congress, the same body that stuffs the federal budget with earmarks, waste, and other programs that are not requested. ObamaCare is premised on claims for drastic changes in health care and major increases in government programs being necessary. Those claims are largely specious.

Below, the top ten specious premises for ObamaCare are discussed:

1. Comparing US Health Care To Other Developed Countries
2. US Health Care Spending Is More Than We Can Afford
3. Reform Overhaul Will Yield Major Savings
4. Increased Evidence-Based Medicine And Health Information Technology Will Significantly Improve Care and Reduce Costs
5. Present Administrative Costs And Insurer Profits Are Too High
6. US Consumer Dissatisfaction Requires Drastic Health Care Changes
7. Health Care Costs Are So High They Are A Major Cause Of Personal Bankruptcy
8. The Number Of Uninsured Is So Large That Drastic Health Care Changes Are Necessary
9. More Preventive Care Will Better Serve Consumers And Save Costs
10. Health Care Consumers Are Being Served By Drastic Health Care Changes

(More could be added, such as that government restraints on prescription drug prices will not impede incentives for innovations, but they are so transparently false that the list below dwells on other ObamaCare premises more misleading.)

Kessler then proceeds to provide chapter and verse about why each of these sacred given truths just ain't necessarily so. Important reading for the time when the President finally succeeds in appointing Gov. Sibelius as a Secretary of H.H.S. and this effort really gets under way. Let us not go blindly into this massive rescrambling without careful questioning.

The Four Yorkshire Men Sketch - Earliest Version

2008-12-06T23:04:00.003-05:00

I came upon this version of the sketch, made famous by the full Monty Python troupe. It has to be the earliest version.

As you will see, John Cleese and Graham Chapman were involved, as were Marty Feldman, later of Young Frankenstein fame and someone named Tim Brooke-Taylor. All were given writing credits. The credits also note that the program was produced by David Frost. It was a long way from British comedy television to the famous interview with Nixon.

The note on Youtube says it is from 1948, but that is impossible. TV was not that advanced in '48 and Cleese would have only been 9 and Chapman 7. I'm betting early 60's.

The older I get, the less this seems like comedic exaggeration.

Voting With My Heart and My Head

2008-11-04T13:38:00.004-05:00

I have just returned from voting. For the record, I voted for Barack Obama.

It felt very satisfying. It felt like crossing a major river in our still short journey as a nation. From our beginnings as a republic of slave owners and disenfranchised slaves and former slaves to the probable election of an African American man as our President. Have we confronted our national original sin, acknowledged it and now put it behind us? I hope so. In any event, it is a moment well worthy of celebration.

This year I got the election I asked for. Of all the potential candidates who presented themselves over the last seemingly endless two years Obama and McCain were the finest people available. McCain is one of the most honorable men to have survived a political career with the better part of his integrity in tact. His personal history of bravery is unimpeachable.

Obama is perhaps the best spoken and, apparently, the most intelligent man to run for the office in my lifetime. His calmness and analytical coherence are impressive and much needed. His campaign, the only substantive clue we have of his leadership skills, has been the best in generations. Be honest, who among us believed two years ago that he could get past the vaunted Clinton machine to the Democratic nomination, much less be on the cusp of history tonight. This did not happen by accident.

Early in the primary season, Obama made noises that were calculated to endear him to the "progressive" wing of the Democratic electorate and blogosphere. But over time the careful listener could detect a clear tack to center. Troops would be withdrawn from Iraq in 16 months, but only responsibly and with the advise of the military on the ground. Health care, which was initially presented as a thrust for universality and justice, was later amended to more closely resemble those changes that will actually be achievable and affordable.

The bottom line for me is that I have placed my hopes in this man. My gut about him is that he will be calm and sound and thoughtful and inspiring and strong as President. Soon we will begin to see the early signs of his Presidential style. Who makes up his transition team, how they operate and who his early appointments are will tell us a good deal. Will he choose a rabid partisan like Rahm Emanuel for his Chief of Staff, or a more balanced person to manage the White House? Perhaps a person like Emanuel is better taken off the stage afforded him in Congress and better put to work focusing on making Obama's program happen and taking steps behind the scenes to assure his reelection. Only Obama can judge if he can be loyal to his President or can only exercise his hatred of Republicans to the detriment of a unifying presidency.

Notice I absolutely assume an Obama victory. All the numbers and my gut instincts point in that direction. I also am assuming an Obama presidency that will try to bring Americans together on the many things we agree about rather than continue to tear us apart in some bizzaro Rovian counterpoint.

Those, I confess, are my hopes. More than that, it is what I demand of the next President. I have not imbibed the koolaid. Obama is a human being. For the next four years I will be watchful as well as hopeful.

Finally, voting against John McCain was not easy. He is one of the people I admire most in public life. Sadly, his campaign was not very competent. It lurched in fits and starts from one attempt to pull a rabbit out of a hat to another. Sara Palin, suspension of the campaign to deal with the economic crisis, "Billy" Ayers (as he was called in a Weather Underground manifesto from the 60's), and others. But more than any other event, it was his apparent inability to lead in the Senate or Congress as a whole in the development of the economic "rescue" plan and his sloppy assertion that the fundamentals of the economy were sound. The old maverick McCain would have sounded an alarm. He would have looked at that legislation and its endless list of added pork for what it was and voted against it. McCain the candidate for President lacked the courage to do so or to stand for any but the commonly held wisdom on the subject. For that matter, what was to be the guiding ethos of a McCain presidency? I have no idea. Vetoing pork and taxing existing health benefits do not an overarching philosophy make. Sad but true.

Yet he does deserve our great admiration for choosing not to use the Rev. Wright against Obama. He could have done so very easily. It is reasonable to question Obama's twenty years of membership and close relationship to his minister. But what festering sores of our racial history would such a campaign tactic have picked at. Would it have taught us anything about Sen. Obama except that he worked the political base he needed to have credibility with in order to get elected in Chicago. John McCain's finest act of service to America may well have been his decision to not take that road. We owe him a great debt for this.

Economic Crisis, Plenty Of Blame To Go Around

2008-09-28T19:54:00.004-04:00

Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Democratic Congressman from Chicago, and apparently the anointed spokesman for the Democratic Caucus in the House, was just seen on CNN giving the Democrats spin on the newest version of the proposes bailout legislation. It should be noted that Emanuel was a high ranking staffer in the Clinton White House and is arguably the most passionately partisan member of the House.

According to Emanuel, the blame for the current state of affairs can be entirely laid at the feet of the Republicans and their penchant for the free market and limited regulation. Fair enough. There is surely some truth in that. But is that the whole story?

I think not.

In 1999, the NY Times reported the following:

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.
In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.
''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

(emphasis added)

The author of the piece, Steven A. Holmes, goes on to say:

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

Prescient, no? Perhaps Emanuel should acknowledge that sometimes no good deed goes unpunished and that complex policies often have unintended consequences.

Nah, never mind. It's more fun to play the political game.

Obama/McCain: No Big Whoop

2008-09-25T22:03:00.010-04:00

Although I have not blogged for some time and not at all since the finalization of the Presidential race, I now feel the urge to say why I've had such a lack of interest.

The shared media wisdom, repeated in a endless feedback loop by the pundits and bloggers is that this is THE most important election in modern American History. How else can they convince us to tune in to CNN regularly to touch base with Wolf in his news war, er, situation room.

It may be less crucial than some claim, but it is certainly the one I hoped for.

Barrack Obama seemed to me best and the brightest that his party had to offer. John McCain is a man of honor and decency. During the primary phase of this election, each sought to play to the passions of the activists in the key states.

But now having won the nominations, both are sounding more alike than they are different. This is part of the natural progression of Presidential elections. If you can't win the middle, you can't win. But, importantly, it is also a function of the realities on the ground, both abroad and in the canyons of lower Manhattan.

In 2009 in Iraq either man will begin the process of withdrawal and our troops will substantially be out of there in 16 - 24 months. An insubstantial difference. The only thing that matters is that it be done smartly.

In the face of today's economic crisis, neither man will be able to truly solve the issues of medical insurance, Social Security, education, or any of a dozen very expensive issues that Americans tell pollsters they care about.

Here's how Peggy Noonan put it the other day:

A final point. Do you ever have the passing thought that the presidential election doesn't matter as much as we think? Whoever wins will govern within more of less the same limits, both domestically and internationally. A New York liberal leaning toward Mr. McCain told me this week he has no fear that Mr. McCain may be a more militant figure than Mr. Obama. We already have two wars, "we're out of army." Even if Mr. McCain wanted a war, he said, he couldn't start one.

I wonder if we follow the election so passionately because we're afraid. We're afraid a lot of our national problems are intractable, and the future too full of challenge.

We cannot tolerate feeling this way. So we make believe the election can change everything. And we follow it passionately to convince ourselves its outcome will be decisive and make everything better. We reassure ourselves with pictures of the cheering crowds at the rally. We even find some comfort in the latest story of the latest dirty trick. But deep inside we think: Ah, that won't work either.

Some part of me thinks we are all making believe this is a life-changing election because we know it's not a life-changing election. Ever have that thought? Me too. Then there's a rally or a scandal or a gaffe, and it passes.

Today, Ross Douthat had this to say today:

All Presidential elections are important, of course, and they're usually important for reasons that nobody sees coming during the election itself. But given the evidence presented to date - the enormous constraints on American action abroad, a fiscal situation that more or less ensures that neither candidate's boldest ideas are likely to get off the ground, and the unimaginative, substance-averse politicking of the candidates themselves - there's good reason to think that the outcome of this election won't be nearly as transformational as many people seem to think. Partisans on both sides claim that we're staring into the abyss: If you listen to some conservatives, you'd think that John McCain and Sarah Palin are all that stands between turning over U.S. foreign policy to William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright; if you listen to some Obamaphiles, you'd think that a vote for McCain is a vote for fascism, or theocracy, or the Putinization of America. But if you watch the candidates themselves, and listen to them, the stakes seem much, much lower.

It is interesting that only those on the right of the pundit class have so far acknowledged this state of affairs. Perhaps those on the left feel the inexorable pull of anger at the past eight years and their failure to turn Bush out earlier. But let's make a small wager. The real problems America will face in the next four years are not now on the table, at least in a highly visible way and the die is already cast about the problems that currently fire our passions. At the end of the next President's term, we will look back and have to concoct an entirely new set of issues to fire up the masses.

That doesn't mean that appearances don't matter. They do. The election of an African American will go a long way towards repairing the country's original sin. That would be a good thing. And it may be that Obama is just plain smarter that McCain. As Warren Buffet said the other day about investment strategy, "I bet on brains."

Advice equally relevant to our choice for the White House.

Tim Russert, Requiescat In Pace

2008-06-13T16:13:00.005-04:00

The news of Tim Russert's untimely death has come as a shock. I find myself unexpectedly emotional about the loss of a familiar figure in the world of news and politics. I never met him. I only new the man I saw on Meet the Press, his appearances on MSNBC, including Don Imus' program on that network.

One could quibble about his style of questioning, but no one could not see the evenhandedness of his approach. The view of political guests that he provided for us was informative and maximally enlightening as to who these people were. His loss will have a sorrowful impact on the coverage of politics in America, especially the coming election campaign.

More than this, was the truth of the man that came through the TV screen. His love of the work he did and, beyond all, the love of his family, famously his father, Big Russ, and his son Luke. Will we ever again see a public figure so unabashedly share his closest feelings?

He will eternally be missed. Across the internet, we should all follow the ancient Irish tradition of the wake and hoist a drink in memory of our dear friend.

Memory Loss, The New Battlefront

2008-04-11T14:31:00.002-04:00

Amid the fog of life that keeps me too long away from this blog, comes David Brooks to shine his lamp into one of the darker recesses of modern life. To wit, he portrays the gap between those with seemingly endless banks of memory cells and the rest of us. Check it out for a good laugh. Here is a sample of Brooks' tone as he describes an encounter with a person of superior memory:

Your only strategy is evasive vagueness, conversational rope-a-dope until you can figure out who this person is. You start talking in the tone of over-generalized blandness that suggests you have recently emerged from a coma.
Sensing your pain, your enemy pours it on mercilessly. “And how is Mary, and little Steven and Rob?” People who needlessly display their knowledge of your kids’ names are the lowest scum of the earth.

Phony Statistics, Gaza Strip Version

2008-01-28T14:40:00.000-05:00

One of my pet peeves is the misuse of statistics in political and journalistic pursuits. Martin Kramer has spotted a particularly egregious one.

According to the writers of an oped piece in the Boston Globe, one of whom is allegedly an objective scientist and academic, the Israeli government reduced the flow into the Gaza Strip of the essential staple, flour, by 99 percent, allowing in only 90 tons per day, when the need is for 680,000 tons, each and every day. Oh, the cruelty.

Kramer an observer of the political scene with a well-earned coating of cynicism, wondered if the 680k figure was correct. Well...it seems that there are 1.5 million citizens of the Gaza Strip. It does not require a PhD. to discern that it is highly unlikely that each person requires almost half a ton of flour per day.

In fact, the daily requirement appears to be somewhere between 350 and 450 tons per day. Although less dramatic, that figure still demonstrates that the Israelis were allowing in only a fraction of what is needed. Perhaps if Hamas stopped lobbing rockets over the border the Israelis might be a little more inclined to meet the true need.

Leaving that point aside, the writers of the piece in question deserve that their names receive the widest possible circulation and the mocking they so richly deserve. They are, Eyad al-Sarraj of the Gaza Community Mental Health Program, and his friend from Harvard Sara Roy, a Senior Research Fellow at Harvard's Center for Middle Eastern Studies. Perhaps a memorial prize for the stupid repetition of bogus statistics should be named in their honor.

Changes - Presidential Candidates Singing To A David Bowie Beat

2008-01-28T14:28:00.001-05:00

Thanks to Sully for grabbing this video. Be patient, the good stuff starts at about the one minute point.

Oh yeah, cover your keyboards and yourselves to avoid the splashing bullshit.

A Meditation On Democracy Now That The Shouting Is Over

2008-01-03T22:32:00.000-05:00

In the first six months of 1992, after the first Gulf War and well before 9/11, the Canadian poet and songwriter, Leonard Cohen recorded an album that would be released that November. It was called, "The Future". Included in the album was a song called "Democracy". Somehow, I don't think that the election of Bill Clinton made the song irrelevant. Nor will next November's result.

It has a powerful beauty about it and (as Andrew Sullivan reminded us today), it should be remembered during all election cycles. Perhaps it should be the universal theme song for all the TV coverage.

Here are the full lyrics:

"Democracy"

It's coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It's coming from the feel
that this ain't exactly real,
or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.
From the wars against disorder,
from the sirens night and day,
from the fires of the homeless,
from the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming through a crack in the wall;
on a visionary flood of alcohol;
from the staggering account
of the Sermon on the Mount
which I don't pretend to understand at all.
It's coming from the silence
on the dock of the bay,
from the brave, the bold, the battered
heart of Chevrolet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.

It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

It's coming from the women and the men.
O baby, we'll be making love again.
We'll be going down so deep
the river's going to weep,
and the mountain's going to shout Amen!
It's coming like the tidal flood
beneath the lunar sway,
imperial, mysterious,
in amorous array:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

Sail on, sail on ...

I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

The Iowa Caucuses - The Most Un-Democratic Process

2008-01-03T12:39:00.001-05:00

Tonight the talking heads and fingers of cable news and the blogosphere would have us believe that an event of great significance, the Iowa Caucuses, will display to the world the greatness of the American Democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Tonight a few of the citizens of the 30th most populous state in the nation, with just under 3 million residents, will come together in groups, abandon the central notion of the free ballot and openly declare their preference for a Presidential candidate in their respective political parties.

Ann Althouse would have us believe that there is nothing sacred about the secret ballot. Perhaps she is blinded by her own need to expound her opinions. Like all of us in the blogging biz, Ann is almost compulsive about stating who and what we stand for. And we don't care who knows. What we bloggers have in common is a position in life that insulates us from any of the possible consequences of our bloviating. No one can reach out an sanction us for what we think. "Sticks and stones...etc." Those of us who are concerned about such sanctions take the precaution of hiding behind what we hope is true anonymity.

Christopher Hitchens, on the other hand, bemoans (correctly in my opinion) the Tammany-like nature of the Iowa process.

Think about the process of the caucus. Although slightly different in each Party, the process at its essence is that each attending citizen must declare, in front of his neighbors and the world, who he or she prefers as their party's nominee for President of the United States. No sacred adherence to the privacy of the secret ballot for these hearty Iowans. No, each person must acknowledge in front of his friends, neighbors, employers, relatives, local government officials, law enforcement officers, clergyman, potential business associates and ex-girl friends, who they prefer.

How much passion for one's candidate it must require to risk offending someone on whom you depend, but who doesn't share your passion for Candidate A. Conversely, what a delicious way to stick it to a politically passionate adversary. In all probability, the truth is that the low turnout at these events is due in large measure to the complexities of risk and reward that factor in to a public pledge of allegiance. It is more than disinterest and cold, snowy weather that keep most Iowa voters home.

Thus those who vote in Iowa's Caucuses are different from most of their fellow Iowans. They are immune or inured to the effect that their political views will have on their lives. So in a state that is as non-typical of the bulk of the American population as you can get, we anoint a unique, and somewhat bizarre subset of that population, to speak for America. The victors in this process win as the result of a twisted mix of people's assessment of them and their positions and the byzantine calculus of the interpersonal interplay in the caucus rooms.

If you have been paying attention to the internet, the print media and the TV newscasts, you would begin to think that this process is somehow sacred and beautifully and uniquely American. It is unique, but it is hardly beautiful, anymore than the perversion of big city political machines or elections held under the sway of near-dictators seeking the cover of an electoral victory. It is, in fact an ugly thing. Its celebration by the media, and the constant flow of political operatives, is a function of politeness, for the best of them, and the blindness by the fans of political gamesmanship for others. For the worst of them it is simply an excuse to pad their expense accounts, have a few weeks away from the dull run of family life and continue to be able to pay their bills.

And what are we delivered as a result? We in the lowly states that must follow the charade in Iowa and the more proper primaries in New Hampshire and South Carolina are left only with the survivors of that process. Regardless of who you like among the starting batch of candidates, the one thing you can count on is that you will not get to cast a meaningful vote for the likes of Tancredo, Dodd, Hunter, Kucinich, Paul, Biden and others. All of these will have been washed out of the process by residents of some of our most rural states. Who will have pulled out of the race by February 5th, when the big states get to vote? Suppose for a moment that Clinton or Obama, or McCain or Giuliani are forced out of the race by then? How will the millions of voters in NY, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts and other large states feel? Will they not have truly been deprived of the exercise of the fullness of their right to vote by the historic vagaries and injustices of the process itself? I think that they will.

I for one will find nothing to celebrate in tonight's process, regardless of the outcomes.

Benazir Bhutto's Last Political Act

2007-12-28T01:01:00.000-05:00

Al Jazzera's English language TV report of Bhutto's assasination.

John Moore of Getty Images was at the political rally in Rawalpindi. At the NY Times website he has a marvelous and touching slide show of his pictures of the end of her life.

Christopher Hitchens has an honest and insightful piece in Slate about her.

Nat King Cole - The Christmas Song

2007-12-24T10:57:00.001-05:00

A very Merry Christmas to all and may the joy of the winter solstice holidays, whatever religious or social tradition you follow, fill your heart with hope for the coming New Year.

The Season Of Religious Nuts

2007-12-21T13:14:00.000-05:00

Some religious fanaticism just begs out for serious mockage. CNN reported today about a group of fundamentalists who believe that Interstate highway 35 (I35) is a holy road as predicted in the simiarly numbered Isaiah, chapt. 35. The Biblical quote is: "A highway shall be there, and a road and it shall be called the Highway of Holiness. The unclean shall not pass over it..."

So these nuts have started a campaign to wipe out any sign of sinners along the length of I35. After all, so sayest the Lord, n'est pas? You have to see the video at the above link to appreciate the true madness.

A saner response to Biblical injunctions from the primitive societies of 3000 years ago is to be found in the opening lines of Bob Dylan's "Highway 61 Revisited", below. Abraham says, "say what?" when ordered by God to kill his oldest son.

Judy Garland Sings Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas

2007-12-20T12:13:00.001-05:00

For the movie, "Meet Me In St. Louis", released in 1944, Judy Garland sang the first performance of "Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas".

The context of the song in the film is Judy's attempt to console her little sister, played by Margaret O'Brien. The family has just been advised by their father that they will be moving away from their beloved St. Louis so that he can pursue a career opportunity in the big city.

But for the original audiences, trying to sustain themselves into the fourth year of war and separation from loved ones, the song no doubt had deeper and personal resonances.

With its minor chords and Garland's usual undertone of sadness the song is also very appropriate in our time, especially for those with family serving in Afghanistan and Iraq.

God bless us, every one.

The Problem With The National Intelligence Estimate

2007-12-12T13:18:00.001-05:00

When the N.I.E. was released the other day it provided a strong sense of relief. Our joint intelligence bureaucracy had concluded that Iran was no longer attempting to build a nuclear weapons capacity. Whew! Now, assuming this N.I.E. was a product of a reorganized and chastened intelligence infrastructure that was better than the one that advised that WMD in Iraq was a slam dunk, there would be no need to consider military action against Tehran until well after the departure of Bush and Cheney.

Could it even be possible that our adventure into Iraq in 2003, and ongoing, prompted the Iranians to pull back a little out of fear of the cowboy in D.C.'s capacity to cross their border with our tanks?

Then we had the spectacle of George Bush going quickly before the cameras to try to explain to us and the world that Iran was still busily enriching uranium and could quickly restart their bomb building once the fissile material reached weapons grade. Well, he tried to say that, but did it in his usual smirking Bushspeak, which can no longer convince anyone.

In today's Times, Tom Friedman has it exactly right. The way the N.I.E. was written, with its emphasis on the cessation of bomb building and its relegation of the continuing enrichment activities to the depths of the report led everyone to get the full picture wrong.

The Gulf Arabs feel like they have this neighbor who has been a drug dealer for 18 years. Recently, this neighbor has been very visibly growing poppies for heroin in his backyard in violation of the law. He’s also been buying bigger and better trucks to deliver drugs. You can see them parked in his driveway.
In the past year, though, because of increased police patrols and all the neighbors threatening to do something, this suspicious character has shut down the laboratory in his basement to convert poppies into heroin. In the wake of that, the police declared that he is no longer a drug dealer.
“But wait,” say the Gulf Arabs, “he’s still growing poppies. He was using them for heroin right up to 2003. Now he says he’s in the flower business. He’s not in the flower business. He’s dealing drugs. And he’s still expanding the truck fleet to deliver them. How can you say he’s no longer a drug dealer?”
Sorry, say the police. We have a very technical, legal definition of drug-dealing, and your neighbor no longer fits it.
That’s basically what has happened between the U.S. and Iran — just substitute enriched uranium for poppies. Now, Bush officials are trying to tell everyone: “No, no, Iran is still dangerous. You have to keep the coalition together to get Tehran to stop enriching uranium.” But in a world where everyone is looking for an excuse to do business with Iran, not to sanction it, we’ve lost leverage. Everyone in the neighborhood can smell it — and it worries them.

The problem this creates is that it potentially deprives the US and its few remaining allies of the only leverage we had that might force concessions from the Iranian government if the next President chooses to engage them in talks. As Friedman puts it:

As I have said before, I’d rather see Iran go nuclear, and contain it, than have the Bush team start another Middle East war over this issue. But I’d much prefer a negotiated end to Iran’s enrichment. Right now there is a silly debate: Should we negotiate with Iran “conditionally” or “unconditionally” on this issue. Wrong question. The right question is should we enter such negotiations with or without leverage.
If we sit down with the Iranians without the leverage of a global coalition ready to impose tighter and tighter economic sanctions — should Iran not halt enrichment — we’ll end up holding a stuffed animal. The peculiar (obtuse?) way the N.I.E. on Iran was framed has deprived all who favor a negotiated settlement of leverage.
“It was the C.I.A. doing its job of collecting intelligence really well and presenting it really badly,” said Mr. Samore.
Now we have to depend on — Oh, my God! — President Bush to persuade the world to read the whole N.I.E. and see it in a balanced perspective. As I’ve also said before: Some things are true even if George Bush believes them, but good luck getting anyone to buy that anymore.

Indesputable Proof Of Global Warming - The Onion Style

2007-12-09T10:53:00.000-05:00

The Onion provides the ultimate proof, especially for pro football fans, of the growing lag in truly cold weather each football season. Key quote:

"The phenomenon of weather-related African-American supracranial vaporous emission, or 'Steaming Black-Guy Heads,' as it is colloquially known, occurs when cold dry winter air comes into contact with hot, humid, shaven heads of football players, causing their personal water vapor to condense and rise on a column of heated air," the statement read in part. "It is then observed by network cameramen, who overwhelmingly choose to film African-American players due to the dramatic contrasts that result—especially when the player in question is backlit—and beamed to millions of households during time-outs, replay reviews, and other stoppages of play. The viewers then realize that winter has come to America."

Chelsea Faces The Hazards Of The Campaign Trail

2007-12-08T16:25:00.001-05:00

It could be just me, but doesn't the look in Chelsea's eye make it seem she is looking a year's worth of carbs on a plate and is mortified?

In all likelihood the truth is that both her parents have schooled her in the fine art of surviving the rigors of the road without packing on excessive poundage.

Agnostics Need Not Apply

2007-12-07T17:20:00.000-05:00

According to Mitt Romney's recent speech on religion and the Presidency, which was widely praised, only followers of some, any, mainstream religion can serve in the White House. Presumably the same standard would apply to any elected position.

David Brooks has it exactly right in today's Times:

When this country was founded, James Madison envisioned a noisy public square with different religious denominations arguing, competing and balancing each other’s passions. But now the landscape of religious life has changed. Now its most prominent feature is the supposed war between the faithful and the faithless. Mitt Romney didn’t start this war, but speeches like his both exploit and solidify this divide in people’s minds. The supposed war between the faithful and the faithless has exacted casualties.
The first casualty is the national community. Romney described a community yesterday. Observant Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Jews and Muslims are inside that community. The nonobservant are not. There was not even a perfunctory sentence showing respect for the nonreligious. I’m assuming that Romney left that out in order to generate howls of outrage in the liberal press.
The second casualty of the faith war is theology itself. In rallying the armies of faith against their supposed enemies, Romney waved away any theological distinctions among them with the brush of his hand. In this calculus, the faithful become a tribe, marked by ethnic pride, a shared sense of victimization and all the other markers of identity politics.
In Romney’s account, faith ends up as wishy-washy as the most New Age-y secularism. In arguing that the faithful are brothers in a common struggle, Romney insisted that all religions share an equal devotion to all good things. Really? Then why not choose the one with the prettiest buildings?

If CIA Destroyed The Videos, Which Ones Were Viewed By US Attorneys?

2007-12-07T16:09:00.000-05:00

According to all the reports, including the NY Times, the two video tapes showing the interrogation of two suspects were destroyed in 2005. If, and I emphasize if, the tapes were destroyed some two years ago, which tapes were viewed in September and October of this year by the U.S. Attorneys involved in the Zacharias Moussaoui prosecution?

The Times provides a link to a pdf file of a heavily redacted copy of a letter from U. S. Attorney Chuck Rosenburg and his staff. In the letter the Justice Department is advising the Courts involved that, contrary to assertions previously proffered by the prosecution, two video tapes, (and one audio tape) of interrogations do indeed exist. In fact the letter asserts that the attorneys personally viewed the tapes on September 19, 2007 and October 18, 2007.

Only two conclusions are possible, assuming the assertions of the U.S. Attorney are true: either the tapes allegedly destroyed in 2005 still exist or a second pair of video tapes exist. Who is being interrogated in the tapes referred to in the letter is impossible to discern due to the redactions.

But Congressional subpoenas should be able to ferret out the truth. You can cut the bullshit in this matter with a knife.

Robin Williams Explains The Creation Of Golf

2007-11-14T23:10:00.001-05:00

As I always suspected...the game was invented by some drunken bastard as a means of torturing those of us foolish enough to take it up.

Bill Murray - In Honor of The Dali Lama

2007-10-17T17:12:00.001-04:00

Although the White House was at first reported to want no photos of the meeting between Bush and "the Lama", they are now all over the net. Hey China, stick that in there where you put the lead paint on the toys.

A Soldier's Death

2007-10-06T14:49:00.000-04:00

Christopher Hitchens, whose writings about the efficacy of attacking Saddam Husein influenced many, including myself, writes with extreme beauty of the death of Mark Daily, a young man who signed up to fight in part because of Hitch's writings. Learning of the young man's death and his involvement in influencing him, it is fair to say, gobsmacked Hitch. He tells the story with great eloquence. Here is a key quote:

As one who used to advocate strongly for the liberation of Iraq (perhaps more strongly than I knew), I have grown coarsened and sickened by the degeneration of the struggle: by the sordid news of corruption and brutality (Mark Daily told his father how dismayed he was by the failure of leadership at Abu Ghraib) and by the paltry politicians in Washington and Baghdad who squabble for precedence while lifeblood is spent and spilled by young people whose boots they are not fit to clean. It upsets and angers me more than I can safely say, when I reread Mark's letters and poems and see that—as of course he would—he was magically able to find the noble element in all this, and take more comfort and inspiration from a few plain sentences uttered by a Kurdish man than from all the vapid speeches ever given. Orwell had the same experience when encountering a young volunteer in Barcelona, and realizing with a mixture of sadness and shock that for this kid all the tired old slogans about liberty and justice were actually real. He cursed his own cynicism and disillusionment when he wrote:
For the fly-blown words that make me spew
Still in his ears were holy,
And he was born knowing what I had learned
Out of books and slowly.

However, after a few more verses about the lying and cruelty and stupidity that accompany war, he was still able to do justice to the young man:

But the thing I saw in your face
No power can disinherit:
No bomb that ever burst
Shatters the crystal spirit.

May it be so, then, and may death be not proud to have taken Mark Daily, whom I never knew but whom you now know, and—I hope—miss.

Update: For a sense of who Mark Daily was, check out his MySpace page.

Speaking Truth To Power - Daily Show Style

2007-09-20T16:04:00.001-04:00

Here are Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart telling the truth to the Emmy audience. I particularly enjoyed the discomfort among some in the crowd.

The Sopranos Redux

2007-08-29T23:33:00.000-04:00

The Sopranos has been out of our lives now for weeks, but somehow I just can't let it go. Today I came upon a piece in the current online edition of the New York Review of Books by Geoffrey O'Brien that is as smart and elegant a summary of the show and its attractions as you are likely to find. Here is a sample:

Chase's neatest trick was to make a show about the mob—a show that laid out in gratifying detail the workings of scams and hits, political connections and techniques of intimidation, internecine maneuverings and FBI infiltrations—that constantly suggested that the mob was not what the show was really about. By assimilating the mob into everyday life he dissolved it. Tony Soprano was the gangster who lived on the other side of the fence and sat at the next table in the restaurant, mingling in a world quite sufficiently corrupt without him. He was not, in old movie style, the outsider casting a sinister shadow over the American family; he was himself the prime representative of that family. He had grown up on sitcoms and Seventies rock, and there were moments when Tony and Paulie in the backroom of Satriale's metamorphosed into Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton at the Raccoon Lodge on The Honeymooners, or when Tony, launching one of his racist zingers, seemed a stand-in for Archie Bunker of All in the Family.

Tony was a domesticated end point for the romance of gangsterism that looks to be America's most durable contribution to world folklore. It was a romance fed by movies, not just the early classics with Cagney, Robinson, and Muni, but the harsher and less poetic later movies—The Enforcer (1951), The Brothers Rico (1957), Johnny Cool (1963)—in which gangsterism was no longer a violent aberration but the deadly norm, administered by unpitying accountants flanked by expressionless hitmen in dark glasses. (Cagney's Public Enemy—a Tony Soprano favorite—looked like a Miltonic rebel angel by comparison.) The cycle culminated in Coppola's Godfather films and Scorsese's Goodfellas, crucial reference points for The Sopranos.

And here is O'Brien's analysis of how Chase brought us, in the end, face to face with the reality that is mob life.

It was disturbing to realize how much we did care about these people. Each of the final episodes was anticipated not so much with pleasure as dread, since each posed the risk of an unacceptable loss, as characters in whom we had invested years of attention were swept away. None of the characters in The Sopranos precisely resembled Little Nell, of course. That it was possible to feel so much on behalf of characters often devoid of the least capacity for empathy was a typical Sopranos paradox. As if to emphasize that point, the last episodes went out of their way to cast Tony and the rest in an ever more remote and unsympathetic light. The endgame obliged us to be stripped of any remaining illusions. Perhaps, to ease the pain of our disengagement, Chase felt we should be reminded that we had permitted ourselves to love monsters.

Good stuff. As for his view of the much discussed final episode,

No imaginable end—Tony killed, dead by mischance, in prison, or in the witness protection program—seemed a satisfying prospect. In the last episode, tantalizingly, event followed event with the promise of freshly evolving situations, just as if the conclusion were not in sight. Perhaps the show would not end at all. In a sense it didn't. To the dismay of many viewers, a black screen—at the moment when Tony may or may not have been fatally shot by a hit man who may or may not have been there, as a jukebox song stopped on the phrase "don't stop"—froze all further narrative development. Or perhaps this was a way of conveying that the show had already ended, perhaps a long time before. After all, was there any kind of ending that we had not already seen? In a sense it had all been nothing but a succession of endings. We could hardly complain that there hadn't been enough of them.

Nine Minute Sopranos

2007-08-29T23:29:00.000-04:00

Somehow I missed this excellent and well edited summary of all nine seasons of The Sopranos. Enjoy.

Premature Celebration About The End Of Institutional Interference In Wikipedia

2007-08-19T14:06:00.000-04:00

Katie Hafner in today's NY Times celebrates the introduction of Wikiscanner, a web utility that performs a lookup of the owner of any computer network used to alter a Wiki page. The software was developed by Virgil Griffith, a 24 year old self described "disruptive technologist" from Santa Fe.

Using the software, numerous edits to corporate Wiki pages have been traced to such firms as WalMart, Pepsi, and even the Washington Post and NY Times. Over the coming days one can expect a nice flow of juicy revelations similar to those revealed today. Hafner's piece celebrates the assumed end of such shenanigans by those in corporate, political and non-profit organizations.

Trust me, the end is nowhere in sight. What is to prevent any institution from constantly reviewing the Wiki pages related to itself, commissioning edits that work in its own interests and then having an employee enter those changes from their home computer? In fact that would only be responsible behavior by any large organization. If the institution maintains credible deniability for its public relations and top corporate people and selects a person to actually perform the edit who has an unrecognizable user ID on an anonymous web server, who is going to be able to find their fingerprints then? So what if joeschmo@aol.com makes a change favorable to evil entity "x"? If written subtly enough, such changes should appear to be within the range of standard dispute on any controversial issue. Individuals in any organization can also go home and add edits based on their own sense of loyalty to the outfit they work for. They will be protecting their employer and still getting their feelings off their chest.

Shy of the sudden birth of total human honesty on the planet, the only protection Wikipedia can have is, as at present, a vigilant user community who will ferret out such self interested entries and quickly correct them.

Flickr Foto Of The Day

2007-08-15T15:48:00.001-04:00

stairs
Originally uploaded by oneblink3

Simple and intriguing image of steps at water's edge.

No Miracle Will Revive John From Cincinnati

2007-08-15T14:25:00.000-04:00

In the midst of the ten episodes of David Milch's "John From Cincinnati" on HBO the young and pure Shawn Yost, boy surfing genius, is paralyzed in a surfing accident. He is subsequently made miraculously whole through the kiss of a parrot.

No parrot-looking agent of God will save Milch's show from the wrath of HBO executives, who have just canceled it after one brief season.

When the show began I wrote that I could not make a judgment about it after three episodes. It was clear that only a full devotion of one's attention could discern the meaning of the program, if the meaning was in fact discernible.

This program was unique in television history. It was apparently intended to not be understood by viewers. Characters routinely communicated in the ass backwards syntax unique to David Milch. That was survivable. Those of us who have stuck with Milch since his "NYPD Blues" days had come to understand Milchspeak, even if we knew no actual human beings who spoke that way. The real problem with understanding the drama was that Milch abandoned the ancient tradition of drama of having stories reveal over time the meaning intended by the author. Instead we were treated to a conglomeration of characters who each had their own interesting weirdnesses. These people all seemed entranced by the central Yost family and by each other to the extent that they disengaged from whatever their "normal" life was to become observers and commentators on the events that began to unfold once the curious John of the title arrived on the scene. They were viewers along with us.

This cavalier attitude towards the audience's capacity to understand the flow of the drama reached its peak in the final episode. As someone who has scene all the episodes at least once, I felt like I had been suddenly awakened in Lithuania with only a rudimentary understanding of the language. What the fuck were these people talking about? This was not drama that sought to represent the communication between human beings in the world. It was something other. An exposition of the underlying concepts behind the show without any attempt to have that meaning flow from the show and its expression in the lives of the viewers.

Exhibit One: Here is part of the script chosen on the HBO website about the show to illustrate the depth and wonder of the show and the mind of David Milch:

The scene in which Linc (Luke Perry), Jake (Mark-Paul Gosselaar) and John (Austin Nichols) buy an El Camino from the Dealer (Peter Jason) at the Cherry Oldies car lot is probably the most important puzzle-solving moment of the season. It's not my place to provide a line-by-line interpretation, but I can say this: If you sensed that the car-buying sequence provides some clues about why John has come to Imperial Beach -- and about the show's fundamental cosmology and intent -- trust your instincts. Here's a transcript, with narrative from the original script:

EXT. CHERRY OLDIES USED CAR SALES – DAY

Linc and Jake and John with the owner/operator of Cherry Oldies Used Car Sales. The Dealer's appearance invokes P.T. Barnum's trustworthiness, and his manner Chicken Little's hurried angst --

DEALER: I feel that you boys are ready for this Camino ....

LINC: (Includes Jake) Between the two of us we own more cars than you have on this lot. My guess is that your feeling's probably right.

Linc meant to put the Dealer off his pitch and thereby abbreviate their business; instead the Dealer bridles --

DEALER: That's not what I mean by ready – number of vehicles owned.

Jake and Linc tag-team their message of impatience --

JAKE: What do you mean, Pops?

LINC: We got to, uh, boogie.

The Dealer comes over their top --

DEALER: Oh, so I've got to know what I mean before I can have a feeling. Do I have to know that you'll understand me? Do you have to know you'll understand before you'll listen?

Which appears to put Jake in a different, passive state --

DEALER (to Linc): Twenty-five cars between you -- you should've let me sit down before you told me. I got that many dealerships in each of that many sectors, and brands on goddamn franchise. I've got to boogie, me.

John indicates the Dealer, in whose rhythms and accents he reproaches Linc and Jake for their failure to take the Dealer's premise on its face --

JOHN: He feels you're ready for the Camino.

Where Jake's gone, Linc has now gone too --

DEALER (to John) You're off-line now, Country.

JOHN: I don't know Butchie instead.

DEALER: (To Linc and Jake, re John) How's he for high-performance? And he ain't who's worst-underpowered.

If the Dealer had suspenders he'd flex them to indicate who he means --

DEALER: Intrusions, evanescences – I'm a shepherd without crook or understanding. Fits and stops and starts. Waves and ripples and ramifications. Busted knee, mother-son handjob .... Christ, Jesus Christ Jesus Christ.

The Dealer's tight smile is not fully persuasive --

DEALER: Crosses and shoulders to bear 'em.

He smacks his hand on the El Camino --

DEALER: El Camino, fifteen thousand, as is.

Linc and Jake have regained their faculties --

LINC: Is it gassed?

JOHN: F**king-A right it's gassed Linc.

As John puts on the counter the fifteen thousand dollars in hundred dollar bills which has materialized in his pocket the Dealer's stern gaze goes to Linc --

DEALER: You and your twenty-five cars. Circle and line on the wall, and zeros and goddamned ones, is what to turn the both of your gifts to --

The Dealer's "both" appears to include Jake --

DEALER: -- and not one damn minute to waste.

JOHN: Ragheads are going to get themselves eradicated.

DEALER: (vigorously interrupting John) Country, I took you off-line. (calling off camera, re El Camino) Manuel, get a cage on this thing.

John leans over the hood of the El Camino and employs the entirety of his wingspan to offer it a hug. Off which --

If you agree that the scene is difficult to comprehend, imagine it devoid of the stage directions which speak to the motivations of some characters. The Dealer was never introduced to the viewer before this scene, yet he mentions things known only to John and other characters, but not to Linc and Jake, to whom he is speaking. John's lines are repetitions of lines from previous episodes and characters. Yet we as viewers are being asked to pull all of this detritus together and at some point make sense of it.

What is obvious is that John represents some higher power who is, for unknown reasons, attempting to intervene in the life of this beach community. We are left to learn from the HBO website why Milch thinks intervention is necessary:

What makes the danger of ethnic cleansing so much more acute in contemporary times, and one of the things I want to engage in this series, is the extent to which we now reside in virtual space, and the homicidal impulse that's generated by the violation of our virtual space. After the planes flew into the World Trade Center, we were subjected to the stimuli of those images in our virtual space over and over and over again. And because of the way we're set up physiologically, we experience those as continuous ongoing attacks. They predispose us to a violence toward the people whom we take as the perpetrators, because we can't individuate. And because of the way we receive information, we identify the attackers as Ragheads. Our willingness to respond in a genocidal fashion, I think, is not to be underestimated, and that's one of the reasons that this postulated force from elsewhere [John] has dispatched these various miracles – to arouse the recognition that the apocalypse is upon us.

So the WTC is brought down and the homicidal impulse of Americans is unleashed, presumably in Afghanistan and Iraq, against all followers of Islam. It would seem that this sin is what Milch is attempting to redeem us from. Forgive me, but from my perspective the most homicidal of impulses has been unleashed by terrorists and the warring parties in Iraq against the innocents of that sorry place. Perhaps Milch would argue that the violent bombings in Iraq are the product of repeated viewings by the perpetrators of the violence of American soldiers on Aljazeera TV. Surely the failure of the United States to provide sufficient forces to create security makes us culpable for some of that violence as well. But where is the genocidal impulse and behavior? Do you feel it? I don't. No one I know expresses such feelings. Yes, somewhere in the mass of electronic communication ("the zeros and ones in Cass' camera,"as Milch has John express it) there have been hateful hopes on the periphery of our society for the death of massive numbers of Muslims, but where is the march to genocide? Where are the massive death camps and the necessary mechanisms of that horrid enterprise? They don't exist outside Milch's mind.

For me, this is why the series failed. Milch could not communicate what he wanted us to hear. When he finally said it in another forum, what he was saying was weird, to put it kindly. Milch himself, in an interview with Tavis Smiley said in response to Smiley asking if television was the right medium for Milch,

Absolutely. I believe absolutely I am properly employed in television, because when you're as - I don't want to say crazy, but when you're the way I am and you have been successful, you embody the mystification of the businessman, the paradox of the businessman in dealing with the creative people.
Which is, I don't know what they're doing, they're children, they're idiots, you don't know what they're going to give you - and they leave me alone. Whether they're going to keep leaving me alone is always the question, (laughter) but better they leave me alone than the doctors.

Clear?

One crystal clear aspect of the show was the performance of Ed O'Neill, pictured above. O'Neill of "Married With Children" fame, was solid, engaging and moving in every episode, especially the last. His character's inability to accept or adapt to the death of his wife was consistently touching and understandably human.

Finally, HBO has no one to blame but itself. In the interview with Smiley, Milch blows apart the previously agreed upon bullshit about "Deadwood" having been ended via mutual agreement.

Whether we choose to or not is up to us, and so why surfers? Surfers are because my show - "Deadwood" was canceled, inexplicably to me. The suggestion...The suggestion was made to me, why don't you do a show about surfers? Young, masculine, that's the demographic. Can you do that and have it engage your own spirit? "John From Cincinnati."

So Milch justifiably harbored anger at HBO. But why did he choose to inflict it on the rest of us?

Ricky Gervais African Appeal, Sort Of

2007-08-15T10:41:00.001-04:00

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for posting this absolutely brilliant Ricky Gervais piece. Please be sure to stick with it all the way.

1998 The Warmest Year? - Not So Fast

2007-08-10T14:20:00.000-04:00

Some of us just get a visceral feeling of aversion in the presence of orthodoxy. So, when all debate about the question of human causation of global warming is declared over, I, for one, wonder how long it will be until one should expect the Spanish Inquisition of the Green Era.

For us, today's short note on the NY Times' website contains some heartening news. It reports that NASA, after questions were raised by a blogger about their data, has quietly corrected the data set which purportedly proved that 1998 was the hottest year on record. It turns out that 1934 is now the warmest year.

For those unable to crack the Times' TimesSelect firewall before it soon comes a'tumblin' down, here is the "Opinionator" piece in its entirety.

August 10, 2007, 9:06 am
‘Hottest Year’ Data Meltdown

By Tobin Harshaw

Tags: global warming

You just thought you were sweating? Among global warming Cassandras, the fact that 1998 was the “hottest year on record” has always been an article of faith. Stephen McIntyre, who runs the Climateaudit blog was always puzzled by some gaps he saw in the raw data provided by NASA that supported the claim (data compiled in part by James Hansen, the climate scientist who has long accused the Bush administration of trying to “silence” him). McIntyre says he has “reverse engineered” the data to find NASA’s algorithm, discovered that a Y2K bug played havoc with some of the numbers, and notified the space agency.

Michael Asher at DailyTech explains the fallout:

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as recordbreaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the U.S. global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

One piece of bad, er...corrected, data does not disprove the entire global warming catechism, but it does surely indicate that the proponents of this concept have arrived first at their conclusion on faith and then sought, unquestioningly, to compile every piece of data that supported their position. Environmentalism is not a corpus of understandings that emerged from a thorough study of all the available information, finally coming to a painful understanding of the scope and etiology of the problem. Rather it is a political instinct that finds humans to be the inferior animals that have befouled paradise, led by corporate greedmeisters.

That, at least, is my belief about the theology at present. I prefer to keep the debate open and to oppose Torquemada, in his current reincarnation as Al Gore, when he uses his full politician's kit of persuasions to convince us otherwise. Hopefully, reports such as this will provide the fuel to sustain some level of environmental agnosticism.

Update: There may have been less than meets the eye in this rearrangement of data. Further analysis here and here would seem to indicate that the reversals in the position of 1934 and 1998 were quite small and were only in the US. Worldwide the more recent years are in fact still the warmest. Given the constant circulation of the atmosphere, worldwide figures would seem to be the only relevant ones. In general, skepticism still seems the healthiest attitude to adopt, especially regarding the dire consequences predicted and the current almost total absence of actual applicable solutions.

Tommy Makem - RIP

2007-08-02T14:15:00.001-04:00

Yesterday we lost the great Tommy Makem. Tommy and the Clancy Brothers revived Irish music in America in the 60's. Previously Irish music was identified as the maudlin Danny Boy and Mother McCrea type of early 20th century music hall crap aimed at the homesick Irish audiences in America. Tommy and the Clancys let us understand that there was a full array of glorious tunes that emerged over the centuries.

This clip features Tommy telling a story and singing a song from Northern Ireland. I choose to remember his great good humor, exemplified by this piece.

His strong baritone, with its pronounced vibrato, enabled him to convey both joy and sorrow with his voice. Follow some of the other links from YouTube, particularly the one called Roddy McCorley for a fuller sample of the group's songbook.

Codoleezza Rice And Possible Opportunity In The Middle East

2007-08-01T16:20:00.000-04:00

Reuters is reporting that Secretary of State Rice has obtained preliminary support from the Saudis for a new peace conference between Israel and Mahmoud Abbas's West Bank government.

As I discussed in a recent post, the fissure between Hamas and Fatah, now a geographic as well as a philosophical gap, presents a unique opportunity for Israel, with the support of the Quartet and the Sunni states in the region to institute a partial peace with Israel that will allow all parties to focus their energies on counteracting Iran's rising influence in the region. For a longer exposition of this concept, see Thomas Barnett's discussion of Sara Kass' WSJ piece on the topic, and Mark Helprin's NY Times OpEd piece.

Photo: AP

Flickr Foto Of The Day

2007-08-01T11:59:00.001-04:00

Brasserie Balzar
Originally uploaded by mseidman

Ah, to be in Paris as Autumn approaches.

Why The Press Still Doesn't Get It

2007-08-01T10:57:00.000-04:00

James Fallows

In February, 1996 James Fallows wrote a piece for The Atlantic Monthly entitled "Why Americans Hate The Media." That piece is as true today, if not in fact truer, than the day it was published. Here are some key quotes:

The discussion shows that are supposed to enhance public understanding may actually reduce it, by hammering home the message that issues don't matter except as items for politicians to fight over. Some politicians in Washington may indeed view all issues as mere tools to use against their opponents. But far from offsetting this view of public life, the national press often encourages it. As Washington-based talk shows have become more popular in the past decade, they have had a trickle-down effect in cities across the country. In Seattle, in Los Angeles, in Boston, in Atlanta, journalists gain notice and influence by appearing regularly on talk shows—and during those appearances they mainly talk about the game of politics.

And this:

When ordinary citizens have a chance to pose questions to political leaders, they rarely ask about the game of politics. They want to know how the reality of politics will affect them—through taxes, programs, scholarship funds, wars. Journalists justify their intrusiveness and excesses by claiming that they are the public's representatives, asking the questions their fellow citizens would ask if they had the privilege of meeting with Presidents and senators. In fact they ask questions that only their fellow political professionals care about. And they often do so—as at the typical White House news conference—with a discourtesy and rancor that represent the public's views much less than they reflect the modern journalist's belief that being independent boils down to acting hostile.

Fallows' writing is dotted with brilliant examples of the time and is well worth a read. Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the link.

The horrifying thing is that nothing has changed. In fact, current journalistic practices are even more attuned to the pure political fight than they were eleven years ago. Witness our endless Presidential campaign. A full year and a half ahead of the election we are treated to incessant speculation about the success or failure of each subtle political move and the likelihood of the election of this or that candidate, even potential Presidential/Vice Presidential combinations are the subject of endless polling and speculation. In the current crucial debate over what to do in Iraq there is virtually zero coverage of the details and possible outcomes of the various options. Everything focuses on the political game. Who is taking sides and which side are they on, as if there were really only two, with Bush or against Bush.

Over the ensuing decade the number of sources for such gamesmanship have expanded greatly. First, we have met the new enemies of truth, and it is us, the bloggers. It is virtually impossible to find a widely read blog today that focuses on the details of the issues. Almost all delight in declaring wins and losses in todays round of the only battle that interests most political junkies, the next election cycle. Blogs report poll results, supporting articles, news developments, but only those which support the bloggers' view of the fight. The battleground is littered with ad hominem attacks and almost devoid of insightful policy argument.

As for the so called Main Stream Media, the Sunday talk shows, the incessant arguing heads of the cable news networks, it seems to have only gotten worse. Look at Chris Matthews, for example. One can almost actually see Matthews' skin crawl when a guest dares to go two sentences into an explanation of any policy position. Matthews is the prototypical political junkie and former operative. Like a Ritalin-free adolescent with ADHD, he immediately silences any such "silly" responses to cut to the chase, and the chase is always that Bullitt-like run down the hilly streets of America toward the final car crash we call elections. Even the Grey Lady, the nation's newspaper of record is a major sinner in this arena. For well over the last decade the typical NY Times story about any policy battle uses two or three paragraphs to briefly define the details of the issue under debate and the following 20 paragraphs to report on the outcomes or likely effects of the various players and their positions in the arena of the political battle, be it an election campaign or a congressional vote. If you want to learn details about the nuances of health care or immigration, the Times will not be your source. My only criticism of Fallows' article is he failure to note the Times as a major practitioner of the very brand of journalism he decries. In fact, the Times' influence provides an excuse to lesser purveyors. After all, if it is good enough for the Times, then...

As Fallows notes, the effect of this brand of journalism is cynicism, if not outright hostility to the journalistic profession. Worse than that, though, is the learned response to such "news" coverage. Many abandon the news altogether or focus on the latest exploits of the latest Hollywood trash queen. Others conclude that the process is really all crap and games, as portrayed by the pundits. The correlation with the shrinking size of the electorate unmistakable. Screw it, let's watch John Stewart. At least he knows what he is saying is bullshit. And we might get a laugh out of it.

Wilco - Thanks I Get

2007-07-27T23:30:00.002-04:00

If, like me, you have heard a very catchy tune as part of a new VW campaign, you may have wondered what the song was. It turns out that it is called "The Thanks I Get" by Wilco. The song was apparently recorded as part of the sessions that produced their excellent new album, "Sky Blue Sky". However, it was not included for some reason in the album as released.

I don't have a problem with the band using the VW commercials as a way of getting their work out to the public. I just wish there was a way to get hold of an decent audio version of the recorded song.

This video is a performance of the song done earlier this year, before "Sky Blue Sky" was released.

Update: The Youtube video above has now been removed. As an alternative, try this link to a performance captured in Chicago on 2/18/08 for as long as it is up. Thanks to commenter Brian F.

The Big Lebowski - They Peed on my Rug

2007-07-24T17:04:00.001-04:00

The Dude, Walter and Donnie set up the plot for the Coen Brothers superb California pastel update on film noir. Jeff Bridges, John Goodman and Steve Buscemi shine. The timing is marvelous.

The Beauty Is Not About The Fame

2007-07-24T16:45:00.001-04:00

Here is a 1970 BBC video of Joni Mitchell performing her wonderful song, "For Free", accompanying herself on the piano. Enjoy.

The Lindsey Lohan Deathwatch

2007-07-24T14:53:00.000-04:00

Lindsay Lohan is now 20 years old. Marilyn Monroe died when she was 36. She was, despite her beauty and talent, alone, childless, loveless and miserable. As surely as my fingers are now touching the keyboard, Lohan will die young and alone from the substances she needs to survive the world of fame and celebrity that she, or her parents, chose. To save herself, she must get out of show business and out of the spotlight, now.

If she cannot do this for herself, then it is the obligation of the adults around her to do the moral thing and stop facilitating her disease. Her agent should stop all efforts to find work for her. Producers should not hire her. Any adults or true friends she has must push her to quit the business.

After all, she is, at 20, young enough to abandon Hollywood. She could find the privacy and room for growth she needs at a good university. If she is a good student, in four years she can seek a Masters at the Yale Drama School or Julliard. Hopefully by then she will have matured and found meaning in life that does not demand that she suffer such pain that only booze and heroin will make it tolerable. A long round of therapy would also help. She will only be 25 or so. Yes, she will be beyond the prime bloom of her young womanhood. But the effort to capture that moment is about to cost her her life. That is too high a price for anyone to pay. Imagine the later career she could have as one of America's fine actresses. Think Meryl Streep, Jodie Foster or Kate Winslet as examples to follow.

Perhaps she is overwhelmed by the obligation to financially support all the people in the entourage she has acquired in her short career. If those people are talented they will survive and find another way to earn their ways in the world. If they are not, then they are leeches sucking her blood at the cost of her life.

Freed to be herself among peers who are seeking their own individual paths in life, Lohan will be liked for who she is and she will be free to find out who that person is and develop into the adult she is meant to become. If millions admire her from afar, surely there is some spark that will be obvious up close. She should imagine meeting people who seek nothing from her except to find out who she is. The longer she is out of the spotlight the truer will be the friends she will make. She may even find that being loved for herself, she will no longer need to be loved by the masses. As she already no doubt knows, their affection is transient and it hurts too much to bear.

Update: I need to correct the age I provided for Lindsay. She turned 21 a few days ago. Also, the early reports that the white powder found in her possession was an opiate. It has now been identified as cocaine.

Flickr Foto Of The Day

2007-07-24T14:43:00.001-04:00

Originally uploaded by Hugo*

The moving camera snaps, and then moves on. The photographer reports that this was taken at the tourist line entering the Louvre.

Economic Data, Of Elephants and Blind Men

2007-07-24T13:36:00.000-04:00

A famous poem by the 19th century Englisman, John Godfrey Saxe, retells the Indian legend about the group of blind men who encounter an elephant. Each touches a different body part and concludes that he knows the true nature of the beast. Each of course, comes to a different conclusion.

I am reminded of this story by today's column by David Brooks and a response by the "progressive" economist, Dean Baker, at the American Prospect.

Brooks proposes that there are signs in the economy that indicate that things are not as bad as what he calls the "neopopulists" among the Democratic presidential candidates would have us believe. Happily for those blocked from seeing Brooks by the TimesSelect wall, Baker quotes Brooks' essential points in his rebuttal.

Baker's contention is that Brooks is essentially wrong on every point, "David Brooks Sets Record For Most Economic Errors In An Oped Column!" (Emphasis entirely Dr. Baker's.)

My humble, non-economist reading of both pieces gives me the impression that both are looking at the same data, but that one is finding the glass half full, while the other finds it half empty. Brooks is not an economist. He uses imprecise terminology, as befits the generalized audience he seeks to reach. He is making political points, not writing a dissertation. For his part, Baker seems to feel obliged to find problems in everything Brooks says, even when he cannot provide any rationale for his assertion that Brooks is wrong.

For example, Baker writes the following:

1) Brooks says "after a lag, average wages are rising sharply. Real average wages rose by 2 percent in 2006, the second fastest rise in 30 years." The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that the average hourly wage is 1.2 percent higher than its year ago level and still below its December 2002 level. That's almost five years of zero growth. In the late 90s, real wages were growing 1.6 percent annually.

Firstly, if you follow the ostensible link to the BLS statistics, you will learn that the survey in question, "...does not exist". I presume that this is just an error in the posting of the link site, not an attempt by Baker to mislead his readers. In any event, he chooses to not directly contradict Brooks' assertion about the 2006 increase in real wages. Rather he focuses on the lack of growth over the previous five years, which Brooks acknowledged. It would be interesting to know if both men are talking about the same data that one claims shows a 2 percent growth and the other a 1.2 percent growth. In either event, some progress in wages is apparently now being made. Half full or half empty?

Then we have this extraordinary point from Baker:

2) Brooks then cites Brookings economist Ron Haskins' assertion based on data from the Congressional Budget Office that "between 1991 and 2005, 'the bottom fifth increased its earnings by 80 percent'." If we turn to the CBO study (Figure 2), we find that earnings for the bottom fifth of families with children actually increased by 120 percent (welfare reform), but this was between 1991 and 2000. Earnings for this group has fallen by about 20 percent in the last five years.

So Brooks claims an 80% increase in earnings for those at the bottom of the earnings ladder. Baker claims the same data shows 120% increase, which has now gone down by 20%. Doesn't that mean that Baker's view of the data shows better earnings for the poorest workers than even Brooks claimed? Given the new raise in the minimum wage, aren't those earnings likely to increase even more? Apparently Brooks understated his own case.

And so it goes. Baker asserts error in all eight of Brooks' points, but he only attempts to contradict some, and does that badly. Here's one where he doesn't even try:

5) Brooks tells us that the increase in inequality is due to the more frequent use of "performance pay" -- yes, like the $200 million that Home Depot CEO Bob Nardelli got paid to leave after mismanaging the company for two and a half years.

Brooks appears to be relying on some data reflecting the broader use of pay rates tied to performance. His sentence, not quoted by Baker reads, "Fifth, companies are getting more efficient at singling out and rewarding productive workers. A study by the economists Thomas Lemieux, Daniel Parent and W. Bentley MacLeod suggests that as much as 24 percent of the increase in male wage inequality is due to performance pay." Baker chooses not to contend the data, he simply grabs one example of egregious overpayment. Yet he claims Brooks is wrong.

The truth, which applies to both men, but, I think, especially to Dr. Baker, is that the nature of economic data is that it is not definitive unto itself. It requires interpretation. Interpretation is an art that is very subject to the biases and perspectives of the interpretor. Harry Truman is alleged to have complained that whenever he would pose a question for an economist, the response would be, "Well, Mr. President, on the one hand ... And then again, on the other hand ..." "What this country needs," Truman said, "is a good one handed economist."

In this current example, I think it is most illuminating to read Baker's penultimate paragraph. Apropos of nothing in particular, he writes:

It will be great when the proponents of the current trade agenda stop arguing against straw men in making their case. No one is advocating autarky. Suppose we had globalization with complete free trade in intellectual products (e.g. no more patent and copyright protection) and huge efforts to eliminate the barriers that sustain the wages for highly paid professionals in the United States (e.g doctors, lawyers, accountants, and economists). This would lead to huge economic gains and greater equality.

Well, I suppose he does have his academic credentials to uphold. Here is the Wikipedia definition of autarky for the rest of us. As for the assertion that income equality is so primal a value that it trumps intellectual property rights and demands the shrinking of pay for professionals, I think that has been tried. It was called the Soviet Union. Perhaps Dr. Baker believes that they only failed because they didn't properly inculcate the masses on their obligation to write novels and invent new processes and machines for the good of the people. Maybe the Taliban had found a more effective means of enforcing behavior that is not naturally human. They were, after all, doing just fine until the crusader armies intruded on their paradise. Perhaps if we started loping off a few overfed heads at Yankee Stadium the creative types would get the message until proper indoctrination could produce a generation of selfless workaholics to generate the economic gains Baker envisions.

Flickr Foto Of The Day

2007-07-20T12:20:00.001-04:00

Beside the boat ramp
Originally uploaded by dotlyc

Summer peacefulness.

Rethinking The Middle East Mess

2007-07-20T11:18:00.000-04:00

(Photograph of Mark Helprin by Jim Harrison for Harvard Magazine)

When last I wrote about Iraq I hopefully noted reports that the long awaited oil sharing legislation has been agreed to by the parties. Sadly, that was nothing but a chimera generated by smoke and mirrors. It fell apart quickly and will fester over the course of the coming August vacation period of the Iraqi legislature.

In America, we witness the continuing display of politics as show business. The Democrats in Congress, unable to muster enough votes for any meaningful measures to stop Bush, continue to conduct performance art. They are protected by the certain knowledge that their inability to force a withdrawal from Iraq means that they will not have to have any accountability for the aftermath of that withdrawal. Assuming they take the White House in 2008, the new President will have the power to conduct a draw down in any way she or he chooses and will have four years to manage, absorb and spin the outcome.

The President, for his part, seems to be an immovable object. He has persuaded himself that the future of the region, the safety of the United States and his legacy as President will be enhanced by his quixotic persistence in trying to wring some form of quietude in Iraq out of the current chaos. You can count on him to keep stumbling ahead on the ground until the last minute of January 20, 2009. He may, for the sake of his party, try to craft some apparent reduction in the number of troops before November 2008, but that too will only be for show.

In the midst of this hopelessness, Andrew Sullivan has pointed to two recent articles that attempt to rethink the entire equation in the Middle East and to craft a silk purse from the distinctly non-kosher pig's ear we find today.

First there was Sarah Kass in the Wall Street Journal, passed on by Thomas Barnett. This was followed by a piece in a similar vein by Mark Helprin in yesterday's NY Times. (Beware the TimesSelect wall.)

The central idea is that the current disorganization in the region and the apparent rise of Shiite fundamentalism in the spectral persona of Ahmadinejad's Iran, coupled with the breakup of the Palestinian state, may just provide an opportunity to begin to settle the central festering sore that has served to inflame the Middle East for decades. Maybe, just maybe, there is an opportunity to forge a settlement between Israel and the Fatah group in the West Bank that could be approved by the Sunni states in the region, allowing them to refocus on the growing threat from Iran.

Both pieces should be read fully, but I will quote Helprin here, both because of the difficulty of accessing his piece for some and my general affection for him as a writer, more about that later. He suggests that thirty years ago the smart money among the commentators was betting against any lasting peace between Israel and Egypt when Begin and Sadat reached their accord. The fact is that that agreement has not been breached in the intervening period.

Some quarters of government, burnt by the predictable failure of the current administration to transform the political culture of the Middle East into that of the Vermont town meeting, deny this potential, as if by analogy. But the analogy is invalid. The conditions are not the same, the task is entirely different and, unlike the United States, Israel has no timetable (implicit or otherwise) for withdrawal from the region — as its enemies well know.
As America blunts its sword in Iraq, it has relieved Iran of much anxiety in regard to its own vulnerabilities, set up a predominantly Shiite government in Baghdad, and made the Arab world more receptive to Iranian views. This Shiite ascendancy is comprised of a resurgent though weak Iran, Hezbollah’s Shiite rump state in Lebanon chastened by the war it “won” a year ago (with such a victory, defeat is unnecessary), and the alignment with Iran of Syria and Sunni radicals like Hamas.
Contrary to the received wisdom, last summer Hezbollah overplayed its hand. Israel emerged shaken but with few casualties and an economy that actually grew during the hostilities. It took 4,000 of the vaunted Katyusha rockets to kill 39 Israelis, they did little material damage, and not one has been launched in the year since the war. Israel showed that upon provocation it could and would destroy anything in its path, thus creating a Lebanese awakening that has split the country and kept Hezbollah fully occupied. Though Hezbollah is rearming, it remains shy of Israel.
Hamas, too, has overplayed its hand, which has provided the opening from which a Palestinian-Israeli peace may emerge. For the first time since 1948, a fundamental division among the Palestinians presents a condition in which the less absolutist view may find shelter and take hold.

He points out that the wider region may also want to take advantage of this opportunity:

The sudden and intense commonality of interest between the Palestinian Authority and Israel is the equivalent of the Israeli-Egyptian core of 1977. But today, the Arabs, in the second circle, have largely reversed position. Fearful of Iran’s sponsorship of war, chaos and revolution, they will apply their weight against the rejectionists.
Egypt, the Persian Gulf states and Jordan have so much to contend with at home and in the east that they cannot afford an active front in their midst, and are therefore forming ranks against Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, bringing most of the rest of the Arab states with them.
This is extraordinary and it is where we are now: on the verge of a rare alignment of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, the leading Arab nations and the major powers. Though it is true that one of Moscow’s chief interests is to keep the Middle East roiled so as to preserve the high oil prices that are now Russia’s lifeblood, when the region moved from Soviet to Western arms Moscow was relegated to the periphery, where it remains. Though Europe is militarily paralyzed, it wields great economic incentives; and though the United States has of late been a graceless lummox drunkenly knocking everything awry, its powers remain pre-eminent and its will constructive.
The principals, the important Arab states and the leading powers of the West are arrayed against a radical terrorist front that, unlike the one in Iraq, is geographically fractured, relatively contained, terribly poor and very much outnumbered. Anything for the worse can happen in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and usually does; but now the chief pillars of rejectionist policy lie flat and the spectrum of positions is such that each constructively engaged party can accommodate the others.
In the heat of a failing war, historical processes have unfrozen. If Israel and the Palestinian Authority can pursue a strategy of limited aims, concentrating on bilateral agreements rather than a single work of fallible grandeur, they may accomplish something on the scale of Sadat’s extraordinary démarche of 30 years ago. The odds are perhaps the best they have been since, and responsible governments should recognize them as the spur for appropriate action and risk.

For such a desirable outcome to occur, many parts will have to align neatly and consecutively. Tony Blair and his Group of Four will play a central part. With any luck intelligence will prevail in Jerusalem and Ramallah and the other capitals of the region.

I am less sanguine about the likelihood of intelligence in Washington. Perhaps this new view of the region will take hold, if repeated often enough, like the concept of a three way division of Iraq gained currency last year. If adopted and nurtured by one or more Presidential candidates and other players, perhaps it will achieve critical mass. That assumes, of course, that further analysis does not poke some great holes in its logic.

As for my affection for Mark Helprin, it is primarily for his novels, although his writings on world affairs are also always thought provoking. His three great novels are "A Winter's Tale", which magically envisions a Manhattan divided between the very rich and the very poor in the new ice age that was then (1983) envisioned by environmentalists. This was followed by "A Soldier of the Great War", which remembers a soldiers experiences in the Italian Alps during World War I. Finally, there is "Memoir From Antproof Case" in which a devoted hater of coffee relocates to South America, from where he ponders the events of his life.

Choose any one of them. If you are looking for an intelligent, compelling novel this summer, you cannot go wrong.

Flickr Foto Of The Day

2007-07-11T14:02:00.001-04:00

// solai solai solai
Originally uploaded by //bwr

A red balloon and a long black dress are all that is required to convert this landscape into a surrealistic composition.

What Birth Defects Teach Us About Being Human

2007-07-11T13:12:00.000-04:00

Nicki Hornbaker, age 19, was born with a genetic defect called Williams Syndrome. About 25 of the 30,000 gene pairs in Nicki's DNA are not connected. A mere 5 or 6 of those missing connections have led to the prototypical Williams features exhibited by Nicki. Although Williams people have trouble interpreting space and numbers and therefore have difficulty being self sufficient, their primary distinguishing feature is a talky openness and social affability.

They have, "an exuberant gregariousness and near-normal language skills. Williams people talk a lot, and they talk with pretty much anyone. They appear to truly lack social fear. Indeed, functional brain scans have shown that the brain’s main fear processor, the amygdala, which in most of us shows heightened activity when we see angry or worried faces, shows no reaction when a person with Williams views such faces. It’s as if they see all faces as friendly."

In a fascinating article in the Sunday NY Times Magazine, David Dobbs uses the characteristics of Williams to draw a lesson about our social nature as human beings. There is also an interesting video of an interview with Nicki that demonstrates her affability and her limitations.

Occasionally it is important to draw back from the minutiae of our daily lives and our obsessions with politics and other issues and contemplate who we are as creatures of the evolutionary chain. (If you are looking for a discussion of the alleged debate about so-called creationism vs. Darwinism you will have to look elsewhere for now. At this blog there is no such debate. Darwin won. The really interesting question for me is how this process works at the genetic level and how its expressions play out in our lives.)

If people with Williams have a serious interruption in their ability to perceive danger from other people due entirely to a genetic defect, then the need for people to both count on and fear other people, a delicate balance, must be central to humanness. It has apparently been hard wired into our brains. As Julie R. Korenberg of UCLA puts it:

“We’ve long figured that major behavioral traits rose in indirect fashion from a wide array of genes,” Korenberg says. “But here we have this really tiny genetic deletion — of the 20-some-odd genes missing, probably just 3 to 6 create the cognitive and social effects — that reliably creates a distinctive behavioral profile. Williams isn’t just a fascinating mix of traits. It is the most compelling model available for studying the genetic bases of human behavior.”

Another scientist notes:

“It’s not just ‘genes make brain make behavior.’ You have environment and experience too.” By environment, Reiss means less the atmosphere of a home or a school than the endless string of challenges and opportunities that life presents any person starting at birth. In Williams, he says, these are faced by someone who struggles to understand space and abstraction but readily finds reward listening to speech and looking at faces. As the infant and toddler seeks and prolongs the more rewarding experiences, already-strong neural circuits get stronger while those in weaker areas may atrophy. Patterns of learning and behavior follow accordingly.

Here is the key transition in this article from the discussion of a particular syndrome to the larger issues of human nature:

As an experiment of nature, Williams syndrome makes clear that while we are innately driven to connect with others, this affiliative drive alone will not win this connection. People with Williams rarely win full acceptance into groups other than their own. To bond with others we must show not just charm but sophisticated cognitive skills. But why? For vital relationships like those with spouses or business partners, the answer seems obvious: people want to know you can contribute. But why should casual friendships and group membership depend on smarts?

One possible answer a comes from the rich literature of nonhuman primate studies. For 40 years or so, primatologists like Jane Goodall, Frans de Waal and Robert Sapolsky have been studying social behavior in chimps, gorillas, macaques, bonobos and baboons. Over the past decade that work has led to a unifying theory that explains not only a huge range of behavior but also why our brains are so big and what their most essential work is. The theory, called the Machiavellian-intelligence or social-brain theory, holds that we rise from a lineage in which both individual and group success hinge on balancing the need to work with others with the need to hold our own — or better — amid the nested groups and subgroups we are part of.

Competition for food, i.e. for survival, led to the necessity for larger and larger groups. Families merged into tribes.

But the bigger groups imposed a new brain load: the members had to be smart enough to balance their individual needs with those of the pack. This meant cooperating and exercising some individual restraint. It also required understanding the behavior of other group members striving not only for safety and food but also access to mates. And it called for comprehending and managing one’s place in an ever-shifting array of alliances that members formed in order not to be isolated within the bigger group.

This greater need for brain power has led to the evolution of greater brain capacity:

This isn’t idle speculation; Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary psychologist and social-brain theorist, and others have documented correlations between brain size and social-group size in many primate species. The bigger an animal’s typical group size (20 or so for macaques, for instance, 50 or so for chimps), the larger the percentage of brain devoted to neocortex, the thin but critical outer layer that accounts for most of a primate’s cognitive abilities. In most mammals the neocortex accounts for 30 percent to 40 percent of brain volume. In the highly social primates it occupies about 50 percent to 65 percent. In humans, it’s 80 percent.

Dunbar further states:

"... no such strong correlation exists between neocortex size and tasks like hunting, navigating or creating shelter. Understanding one another, it seems, is our greatest cognitive challenge. And the only way humans could handle groups of more than 50, Dunbar suggests, was to learn how to talk.

“The conventional view,” Dunbar notes in his book “Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language,” “is that language evolved to enable males to do things like coordinate hunts more effectively. . . . I am suggesting that language evolved to allow us to gossip.”

We all experience the truth of this human trait in our daily lives. At work, in families and in our social networks we are constantly trading information to garner the lay of the land.

For we are all gossiped about, constantly evaluated by two criteria: Whether we can contribute, and whether we can be trusted. This reflects what Ralph Adolphs, a social neuroscientist at the California Institute of Technology, calls the “complex and dynamic interplay between two opposing factors: on the one hand, groups can provide better security from predators, better mate choice and more reliable food; on the other hand, mates and food are available also to competitors from within the group.” You’re part of a team, but you’re competing with team members. Your teammates hope you’ll contribute skills and intergroup competitive spirit — without, however, offering too much competition within the group, or at least not cheating when you do. So, even if they like you, they constantly assess your trustworthiness. They know you can’t afford not to compete, and they worry you might do it sneakily.

As Dobbs concludes:

To inquire into human behavior’s genetic underpinnings is to ask what most essentially defines us. One of the most vexing questions raised by both Williams research and the social-brain thesis is whether our social behavior is ultimately driven more by the urge to connect or the urge to manipulate the connection.

The traditional inclination, of course, is to distinguish essential human behavior by our “higher” skills and cognitive powers. We dominate the planet because we can think abstractly, accumulate and relay knowledge and manipulate the environment and one another. By this light our social behavior rises more from big brains than from big hearts.

The disassociation of so many elements in Williams — the cognitive from the connective, social fear from nonsocial fear, the tension between the drive to affiliate and the drive to manipulate — highlights how vital these elements are and, in most of us, how delicately, critically entwined. Yet these splits in Williams also clarify which, of caring and comprehension, offers the more vital contribution. For if Williams confers disadvantage by granting more care than comprehension, reversing this imbalance creates a far more problematic phenotype.
As Robert Sapolsky of the Stanford School of Medicine puts it: “Williams have great interest but little competence. But what about a person who has competence but no warmth, desire or empathy? That’s a sociopath. Sociopaths have great theory of mind. But they couldn’t care less.”

Fascinating stuff.

Equal Pay For Unequal Work?

2007-07-08T10:15:00.000-04:00

In winning yesterday's Women's Final at Wimbeldon, Venus Williams earned the same pay check as today's male winner will earn. After the match Venus, who easily outmastered her younger opponent in strait sets, noted the happy arrival of gender equality at the All England Club.

But how can it be true equality when at Wimbeldon and in all of tennis, women play only three sets per match at most while men play up to five sets per match? The notion of the arrival of equality in tennis seems to be being taken for granted. Here, for example is the Times in London's take on yesterday's victory by Ms. Williams:

However, this was supposedly not just the showpiece match of female tennis, a sport that once again has received a huge cash boost in this fortnight with the news that the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour Championships will have prize money commensurate to the men’s Masters Cup. It was also an opportunity to celebrate the wisdom of the decision by the All England Club to finally bow to demands for financial parity.

I enjoy tennis. For many years in the 90's I regularly attended the US Open in New York. It is certainly crystal clear in person and even via the TV that men are bigger, stronger, faster and harder hitting than women. That is simply the way the physical cards have been dealt.

No credible person is even suggesting that our new found pay equality should be the entry point into a scheme by which men and women would compete against one another in the same set of pairings. It is obvious to most that in such an arrangement, a woman would rarely, if ever, survive to the championship. Let us remember that even the greatest advocate for prize equality in tennis, Billie Jean King, could only defeat the 55 year old Bobby Riggs, who was 25 years her senior, in a large scale joke that masqueraded as a tennis match.

Why can women only play three sets per match? Are they inherently weaker? Are they incapable of standing the physical strain? Will they suffer the vapors? The question must be asked. For the consumer of the sport, the paying fans who fill the stands around the world, the same price is paid for entry to a men's or women's match. And that price is measured in the hundreds of dollars or more for a grand slam match. Yet the consumer will surely receive less tennis and arguably a less powerful though possibly subtler game for their money.

I would argue that there is no physical reason for women being restricted to three sets. It is a tradition that established itself in the Victorian age and was codified at a time when women generally were seen as not the equals of men in almost any respect. Haven't we reached the point were the last residue of that ancient view should be put to the sleep it deserves?

It's Not Enough To Do Good, You Must Be Seen As A Do-gooder

2007-07-05T12:47:00.000-04:00

Erik Jacobs for The New York Times

Well, it has now been proven by research, as reported in the NY Times, that the main reason people buy the rather ugly and somewhat impractical Toyota Prius when they want a hybrid car is that owning it, "Makes a statement about me."

There surely are other valid choices when seeking a hybrid. Toyota itself sells an hybrid version of its popular Camry. Ford has the Escape SUV hybrid and Saturn has the VUE SUV hybrid. But only the Prius can be spotted from a block away as a hybrid. Fully 57% of buyers surveyed this year site as their reason for buying a Prius that everyone else will see them and know that they are good people who want to do something positive for the environment. As the Times says, it has become the automotive equivalent of the brightly colored plastic bracelets that announce one's contribution to a raft of good causes.

My question is, what is missing in these people that they require outside validation of their goodness? Shouldn't it be enough for them to know that they are good? It seems to be necessary that they proclaim themselves holier than the rest of us in our gas guzzlers.

Added: Of course, if you decide to boogey down highway at 100 mph while holding a bag of weed and some of all the major psychotropic and pain meds known to man, you may just get noticed too much.

Before We Get All Mushy And Patriotic About Elections...

2007-07-04T10:53:00.001-04:00

Here is Patric McGoohan as The Prisoner, his marvelous 60's TV series. In this segment he is convinced to run for leader of the Village.

I was so fond of the series that while in Wales in 1972 my wife and I spent an afternoon roaming about and photographing the hotel, called The Portmerion, that served as the set for exterior shots on the show.

Flickr Foto Of The Day

2007-07-04T10:27:00.001-04:00

St Petersburg roofs
Originally uploaded by Ruby Blue

I found nothing particularly appropriate for July 4th, but this shot of roofs inside an apartment block in St. Petersburg was striking. As the photog's note says, it was well worth the climb.

Small Ray Of Hope In Iraq

2007-07-04T08:43:00.000-04:00

The Iraqi Cabinet yesterday finalized and sent to the Parliament the long debated law that defines how Iraq's oil resources will be exploited and shared. The proposed law codifies the shared ownership of the oil by all the people of Iraq. It also establishes a board that will oversee all contracts the production of oil and oversee oil and gas policy for the nation. To the extent that the final law satisfies the Sunni groups, whose geographic territories do not include significant petroleum resources, they may be more amenable to engaging in the political process.

Olberman Changes His Tune About Perjury and Obstruction of Justice

2007-07-03T16:01:00.000-04:00

Keith Olberman was in high dungeon last night about the Libby commutation. He even suggested that a good model for us to follow in the wake of this final indignity by Bush would be the dictator Oliver Cromwell's dismissal of the Rump Parliament. Apparently he can not stand Bush to the degree that he no longer can tolerate our silly democratic processes and he wants to disenfranchise the rubes who reelected Bush and forced Olberman to tolerate another year and a half of the man.

Well, the last time Olberman was covering acts of perjury and obstruction of justice the alleged perpetrator was William Jefferson Clinton. Was Keith equally outraged at such dishonesty in the White House? No he was not.

Here are some quotes from NewsBusters:

Regarding Olbermann's denial that he was ever accused of "being a liberal" during the 1998 Monica Lewinsky scandal, while he was hosting MSNBC's Big Show, the MRC at that time documented several instances of hostility to Kenneth Starr, impeachment, Newt Gingrich and Republicans in general. On August 18, 1998, in the aftermath of President Clinton's speech admitting to his affair with Lewinsky, Olbermann thought it insightful to remark that Starr reminded him facially of Heinrich Himmler, and suggested some might compare Starr to a "persecutor opposed to a prosecutor."
Olbermann, from August 18, 1998: "Can Ken Starr ignore the apparent breadth of the sympathetic response to the President’s speech? Facially, it finally dawned on me that the person Ken Starr has reminded me of facially all this time was Heinrich Himmler, including the glasses. If he now pursues the President of the United States, who, however flawed his apology was, came out and invoked God, family, his daughter, a political conspiracy and everything but the kitchen sink, would not there be some sort of comparison to a persecutor as opposed to a prosecutor for Mr. Starr?"

Or this:

"It worked in Stalingrad. To some degree, it worked in the foreign compound during the Boxer Rebellion in Peking in 1900. It certainly seems to have worked for Bill Clinton. When there’s no capability of offense, no escape, and especially if you’re lucky enough to have an overconfident opponent -- just batten down the hatches and wait for the idiots to defeat themselves. Impeachment, once spoken gravely by presidential defenders and opponents alike, now engenders giggles and arguments about it carry all the weight of arguments about who is the rightful Czar of all the Russias."
-- MSNBC Big Show host Keith Olbermann, November 23, 1998

Apparently Olberman views consistency as the hobgoblin of small minds, at least when there are Republicans to be assaulted .

Speaking of Joe Wilson...

2007-07-03T15:04:00.000-04:00

I forgot to highlight emergence of a now bearded Joe Wilson to grouchily decry the Bush pardon on this morning's Today show and, I'm sure, on the cable new nets. David Brooks put it best in his piece this morning:

The drama opened, as these dark comedies are wont to do, with a strutting little peacock who went by the unimaginative name of Joe Wilson.
Mr. Wilson claimed that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to investigate Iraqi purchases in Niger, though that seems not to have been the case. He claimed his trip proved Iraq had made no such attempts, though his own report said nothing of the kind.
In short order, Wilson established himself as the charming P.T. Barnum of the National Security set, an inveterate huckster who could be counted on to wrap every actual fact in six layers of embellishment. His small part in the larger fiasco of the Iraq war would not have registered a micron of attention had the villain of the epic — the vice president — not exercised his unfailing talent for vindictive self-destruction.

Flickr Foto Of The Day

2007-07-03T15:03:00.001-04:00

Minik..
Originally uploaded by bRk yLmz

The language of the photographer is a mystery to me. Can anyone identify its apparent Eastern European source? Leaving that aside, the moment of this capture of intergenerational contact is classic.

Perjury and Obstruction of Justice is Perjury and Obstruction of Justice, Period.

2007-07-03T14:12:00.000-04:00

The three gentlemen pictured above, H. R. Haldeman, Bill Clinton and Scooter Libby were all charged with perjury and obstruction of justice. Haldeman and Libby were convicted and sentenced. Clinton, being President of the United States, could not be proscecuted and submitted to the tender mercies of a Federal jury. He was Impeached by the House. The Senate voted 55 - 45 to not convict him of perjury and 50 - 50 on the obstruction charge, which therefore failed to achieve the necessary majority.

Perjury and obstruction of justice are either crimes or they are not. The guilt or innocence of the person cannot be based on the reality or severity of the underlying crime. If that were the standard, then some lying and obstruction would be OK, even though the very acts of lying and obstructing might prevent prosecutors from being able to determining whether and which underlying crimes in fact occurred.

For my part, in those long ago days, B.B. (Before Blogging), I supported the conviction and jailing of the likes of Haldeman, Erlichman and the others of the Watergate era. I also supported the Impeachment of Clinton for his crimes. Yes, I know, he was not technically convicted by the Senate. But surely one can presume that if the same charges were presented to an Grand Jury and subsequently tried, a conviction would have been forthcoming. After all, the man went on TV speaking to the American people and barefacedly lied in the "I never had sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" speech. His conviction at a real trial would have been a slam dunk, to quote another current master of the half-truth.

So please spare me, yea purveyors of leftist and rightist screeds. You cannot have it both ways. As David Brooks so aptly put it today:

Republicans who’d worked themselves up into a spittle-spewing rage because Bill Clinton lied under oath were appalled that anybody would bother with poor Libby over lying under oath. Democrats who were outraged that Bill Clinton was hounded for something as trivial as perjury were furious that Scooter Libby might not be ruined for a crime as heinous as perjury. It was an orgy of shamelessness. The God of Self-Respect took sabbatical.

One can understand the calculus of the politicians. They are focused on the battle. Bush is trying to hold on to what is left of his Republican support in Congress. He needed to mollify them if he was to avoid a total descent into lame duckery. The Democrats needed, for the reverse of the same reason, that Bush deny any leniency. Both parties were acting in the time honored tradition of defending one's own kind at any cost and attacking the other side at any opportunity.

But pundits, those of the MSM and Blogosphere, ought to be held to a higher standard. Truth and logic should be stuff of their efforts. Those who quiver and prevaricate along purely partisan lines do not deserve our attention. They fully deserve our approbation.

As to Libby's sentence, supposedly the excess of which let Bush to commute it, the only test is that it should be just, as compared to the sentences routinely handed out to Federal defendants across the country. As to that, Edward Lazarus, at the FindLaw site has a well cited piece that discussed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Perjury and Obstruction of Justice. His conclusion:

Is it really fair, after all, to up Libby's punishment for obstructing an investigation in which there was no underlying crime charged (or perhaps even committed)? (Readers may object that a crime must have been committed, since no one can dispute that Valerie Plame's identity was, in fact, revealed. However, it is possible, for example, that the person who released the information lacked the state of mind necessary for criminal punishment.)

In his sentencing memorandum, Special Counsel Fitzgerald asserted that under the Guidelines, it does not matter whether the investigation ripened into an actual criminal charge against the defendant or anyone else. On this point, it looks like Fitzgerald has a pretty good legal argument, based on the text of the Guidelines and the accompanying materials.

And it's not hard to see why. The mere fact that the underlying investigation did not result in criminal charges can't be the difference-maker. If it were, then a really successful cover-up would result in more lenient sentencing for a perjury/obstruction defendant, than would a less successful one - that is, one which led to criminal charges. That makes no sense, as it rewards talented and effective deception, the most dangerous kind.

Against this backdrop, I find it hard to fault Fitzgerald for sticking with the tough-on-crime approach that has earned him so many admirers. He's driven by a genuine outrage at Libby's subversion of a legitimate and serious investigation into an abuse of power and, in prosecuting that subversion, he has gone straight by the book.

Lazarus also would not have found grounds for objection to a more lenient original sentence. He concludes:

I do not pretend to know what the precise right answer is in Libby's case, regarding the justice of his sentence. I don't think anyone not fully immersed in the investigation and evidence could know. The most I can say is that the Libby case is a good case study for why the Guidelines should only be advisory, not mandatory. Some cases just don't lend themselves easily to algorithmic answers; they call for the exercise of human beings' reasoned discretion.

The Probation Office, which is required to review each case and apply the sentencing guidelines recommended a sentence of 15 - 21 months. Arguably Bush could have commuted Libby's sentence to that level, but he chose to eliminate any jail time at all. Therein lies the fault, dear Brutus, in ourselves this time.

Medical Malpractice Insurance Rates To Rise 14%

2007-07-02T22:28:00.000-04:00

The Insurance Department of New York' s Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer has approved a 14% increase in the annual insurance rates for physicians. I repeat, a 14% increase.

According to the Times:

Dr. Robert Goldberg, president of the Medical Society of the State of New York, said in a statement that the increase would “severely worsen the health care access crisis that has already resulted in shortages in several specialties all across New York State.”
The society said the increase would mean that a neurosurgeon in Long Island would now have to pay $309,311 for one year’s coverage, while an ob-gyn specialist in Brooklyn or Queens would have to pay $173,061.
Donna M. Williams, executive director of the New York district of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said “the constant increase in premiums is forcing obstetricians across the state to give up the practice of obstetrics and simply do the practice of gynecology only.”

According to the State Insurance Superintendent, “We have inherited the worst of both worlds — physicians who cannot afford to practice medicine and insurers whose financial condition is rapidly eroding. The cause is high medical liability costs, and this administration is going to address it.”

Jesus, I hope so. How can doctors possibly earn a decent income if such an enormous portion of their funds must go to the insurance companies? Why continue? And the insurance companies claim to be going broke even with these high premiums.

The Spitzer administration has formed a task force to attempt to solve the problem. Do you think it might be possible that they will take a look at the vultures called personal injury lawyers who are picking at this corpse clean? How about the legal system that allows anyone to file a suit for any reason and expect the likelihood of a juicy settlement? Not likely.

Oh, excuse me, I have just been informed by a knowledgeable advocate for the personal injury bar that the current crisis is totally caused by an shocking increase in the incompetence of doctors and the fortuitous quest of noble attorneys who seek only to provide minimal recompense to hideously injured patients and prevent, through financial punishment, the future crimes of doctors who chronically fail to follow generally accepted medical practice.

Never mind.

Flickr Foto Of The Day

2007-07-02T20:29:00.001-04:00

Breaking my silence
Originally uploaded by butterfly31

I'm not sure of the bird's type, but it appears to be one that feeds in shallow water, given its long legs. The photograper says, "I see your true colour!"

For The Left, Iran Can Do No Wrong

2007-07-02T19:57:00.000-04:00

In today's NY Times, Michael Gordon reports that, "Iranian operatives helped plan a January raid in Karbala in which five American soldiers were killed, an American military spokesman in Iraq said today."

If the name Michael Gordon doesn't ring a bell, that must be because you have not been perseverating about the "traitorous" reporting by Gordon and the hated Judith Miller in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. The left side of the blogosphere has declared the pair persona non grata for reporting the widespread belief of the western intelligence services that Hussein possessed WMD.

For that sin, nothing the pair do in their lives will ever again be believed by the "progressives". Anything less than their banishment into careers as Starbuck's baristas will do.

So today, in reaction to the Gordon piece we see the spectacle of an all out assault on Gordon and an absolute denial, purely on an ad hominem basis, of the possibility that Iran has done anything against the interests of the United States in Iraq or anywhere else. Iran is just peachy keen according to their lights.

Here is Bernhard of Moon of Alabama:

You can bet with a very good chance that his statement, which Michael Gordon dutiful stenographs, has its origins in the White House. This bomb-Iran propaganda, the accusation of direct, official Iranian military intervention in Iraq, is originating from within the center of the Bush administration. It is fed through a "military spokesman" who just left the White House to Michael Gorden who's editors dependably publish it unfiltered in the New York Times.

Here is the bravely anonymous "Mcjoan" of Daily Kos:

Of course the objective of the U.S. military has been to pin the blame on the Iranian government. Not only does it further their case for war against Iran but it provides a momentary distraction from just how catastrophic this whole venture has been. And, yet again, Michael Gordon is the willing media stooge for their efforts. The NYT really should do something about him.

And we have the leader of the pack, Glenn Greenwald, quoted by all the others, saying:

Every paragraph in this article -- literally -- does one of two things: (1) uncritically recites the U.S. military's accusations against the Iranian government, and/or (2) offers assertions from Gordon himself designed to bolster those accusations (e.g., "There is also extensive intelligence that Iran has supplied Shiite militants with the most lethal type of roadside bomb in Iraq" and "In Washington, Bush Administration officials have generally held open the possibility that the Quds Force activities might have been carried out without the knowledge of Iran's senior leaders").

None of these people have or present one shred of evidence that the sainted Iranian government and its Quds troops are as pure as the driven snow. They don't need to to satisfy themselves and their sycophants. They operate solely on the basis that, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." Anything, anything at all, said by anyone they can tie to the Bush Administration in any way is de facto wrong. No ifs, ands or buts.

If you don't believe me, wait until a Democratic President in the next Administration, as is the current most likely scenario, charges the Iranians with similar or new acts of belligerence. The folks cited above will then promptly acknowledge the likelihood of truth in those accusations. They will have not one shred of independent evidence of the facts, as they do not now. They will simply believe the messenger. Nor will they, I predict, even note the sudden change in their perspective. Hell, by then some of them will have received their hoped for appointment in the new White House.

For my part, I too have no independent evidence about the involvement of Iran, but I am willing to accept a wide array of evidence from all sources before I discount any for cause. I also have no sense of an orchestrated drum beat against Iraq as all of our friends on the left do. It makes a wonderful issue for them. They can scream ad infinitum about it without having to prove anything and then when Bush leaves office without attacking Iraq, they can claim it was their vigilance at the barricades that dissuaded him from acting. It's a win/win.

Flickr Foto Of The Day

2007-06-29T18:05:00.001-04:00

girl with red flowers
Originally uploaded by LindsayStark

This striking photo was taken in Sierra Leone.

Race And Education, America Gets A Fresh Start

2007-06-29T17:32:00.000-04:00

Lawyers will analyze deeply the recent Supreme Court decisions eliminating the use of race as the primary determinant of a child's school placement. Pending that final understanding, the cases in Louisville ,KY and Seattle, WA can clearly be said to set a turning point in Americas search for racial equality.

The indisputable fact is that the nation that existed in 1954 when the Court outlawed separate, segregated educational systems has now been radically reformed. The entirety of educational law and spending is geared to the goal of the best possible education for children of all races. The problem is that we have not even gotten close to that dream.

Here is Juan Williams in the Times:

With yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling ending the use of voluntary schemes to create racial balance among students, it is time to acknowledge that Brown’s time has passed. It is worthy of a send-off with fanfare for setting off the civil rights movement and inspiring social progress for women, gays and the poor. But the decision in Brown v. Board of Education that focused on outlawing segregated schools as unconstitutional is now out of step with American political and social realities.
Desegregation does not speak to dropout rates that hover near 50 percent for black and Hispanic high school students. It does not equip society to address the so-called achievement gap between black and white students that mocks Brown’s promise of equal educational opportunity.
And the fact is, during the last 20 years, with Brown in full force, America’s public schools have been growing more segregated — even as the nation has become more racially diverse. In 2001, the National Center for Education Statistics reported that the average white student attends a school that is 80 percent white, while 70 percent of black students attend schools where nearly two-thirds of students are black and Hispanic.

It can even be argued that the unintended consequence of Brown v. Board of Education was to exacerbate the racial separation in our society. Black kids have been all but condemned to struggle in inner city schools, in ghettos where there was no cultural imperative to strive and succeed in school. Meanwhile, white kids largely do well in suburban ghettos where education is perhaps the highest value of that sub-culture.

Maybe, just maybe, now that the Court has forced us to focus our funds and energies away from curing the racial mix in increasingly unmixed communities, we can begin to really deal with the failures of the system to teach black children. Maybe if we solve that problem black and white adults will grow up so closely alike that the rate of integration and intermarriage will accelerate to the point that America will finally look like the nation of its dreams and highest ideals.

Think Michael Moore Makes Sense?

2007-06-29T16:34:00.001-04:00

In case there is anyone out there who has just seen Michael Moore's "Sicko" and is all fired up about the wonders of the kind of single payer medical system he advocates, watch this short film (via Andrew Sullivan). It is one man's story about the waiting periods common to all single payer national health systems. The side of the story Mr. Moore didn't tell you about. Or, you could watch Prime Minister's Questions from Britain each week. Not a week goes by that doesn't include tough questions about the status of the National Health Service "Queues", which can be months long.

Americans won't tolerate such effective denials of service, which arise from the government's need to ration the most expensive procedures and equipment. The only way to avoid delays would be for the system to pay whatever it takes to provide the medical industry with the facilities and staffing they think they need. But at what cost?

If anyone tells you it can be done with just some tinkering with the tax code and budget cuts like the space program, ask them to tell you how much Medicare and Medicaid cost increases have been. And those programs ride on the back of the private insurance system at present. That is why MRI's and operations are available so promptly in the US for publicly supported patients.

The Sopranos - The Tony Got Wacked Theory In Detail

2007-06-26T22:56:00.000-04:00

The Last Supper of Tony Soprano?

As I wrote right after seeing the final episode of The Sopranos, I believed that David Chase had decided to let us all decide on the ending for our selves. However, the most common theory on the web has been that the one that believes that the final blackout was the moment of Tony Soprano's death.

If you subscribe to that theory or would just like to think about it some, check out Bob Harris' website. Harris is a writer who was also once a Jeopardy champion.

As Harris says, he could be wrong, but he has strung together every possible element of an intricately woven web of references and directorial choices that point to Tony's death. The premise of this theory is the quote by David Chase that the meaning of the final scene is "all there on the screen."

For me, the truth of theories such as this depends entirely on a knowledge of the kind of person and writer that Chase is. None of us have any idea of that. Absent that knowledge, defining the meaning of the ending is very much like most conspiracy theories. The conspiracy theorist first settles on the nature of the conspiracy and then collects facts that fit that theory. Facts that don't fit are either ignored or debunked until only the theorists view is left standing.

As you will see in Harris essay, he views Chase as having made virtually each and every choice in that scene, indeed in the whole episode, provide foreshadowing and references to death, and specifically to the death scene in The Godfather in which Michael emerges from the bathroom and shoots Solazzo and the police Captain.

I have no doubt that the movement of the suspicious "Members Only" guy toward the bathroom is meant to remind us of that reference. But it could be just another means of suggesting a shooting was imminent. After all, the whole scene is full of such foreboding. Chase could have been pointing us in that direction only to pull us up short and make us painfully aware of our own assumptions and expectations. I don't know about you, but I generally don't take a paranoid perspective when public places are portrayed in movies.

So in the end, we would need to know the kind of writer David Chase is. Does he meticulously plan and rework every word he writes or does he go largely on his artistic instinct, taking advantage of events and chance as they occur on the page and on the set? Did he have the actors consume the famous onion rings as if they were communion wafers to mimic a funeral mass, as Harris suggests, or did it just feel right to Chase that the meal become another reference point to the Catholic faith of the Soprano family.

I don't know, but damn, it is still fun to contemplate. That, in the end, is the final test of great art.

Flickr Foto Of The Day

2007-06-25T16:01:00.001-04:00

_SAS0089
Originally uploaded by SasiShan

Nice composition of the row of birds. In the photographer's caption for this photo, he refers to a "SB600", which is a NIkon flash unit that was used to light the seagulls. The picture was taken at Nathan Phillips Square in Toronto.

What To Make Of "John From Cincinnati"

2007-06-25T14:41:00.000-04:00

First a confession. I was a huge fan of "Deadwood". News of that show's premature demise so that HBO and "Deadwood" producer/writer David Milch (pictured at left) could replace it with a new Milch production has predisposed me to hate the new show. It may very well be that stories about HBO's urgent desire to bring "John From Cincinnati" to its subscribers were cover for "creative differences" behind the scenes or lower than hoped for ratings for "Deadwood". Whatever the case, I have to acknowledge a bias against "John" before I even saw a frame of it.

Thus it has been hard to leap into an opinion about the show and I have waited until the third episode to write about my initial impressions in order to be fair to the show and its creators. It must also be said that the nature of the show itself has not been helpful.

Milch seems to be going for a kind of magical realism with this show. Although it is ostensibly about the three generations of a family of surfing royalty, their trial and tribulations, friends, hangers on and dysfunctions, it really wants to take us to an entirely other place.

In the pilot episode we are introduced to the title character, John Monad. He is from someplace else. The guy who finds him settles on Cincinnati as as likely a place and any. Although he apparently appears crossing the Mexican border into suburban California, he is clearly not of our planet. He knows nothing, except that "The end is near"and his repetitions of what others say. He has nothing, except that which is desired by others and appears miraculously from his pockets. By the third episode John is helping others "see God" and both a parrot and the young scion of the surfing Yost family have been brought back from the dead or the virtually death of machine sustained neurological flat lining.

John Monad. The John seems to clearly relate to another John (the Baptist) who proclaimed and preceded the coming of Jesus. Is Monad some obscure scrambled reference to Revelation Theology? Does John Monad proclaim the Second Coming? Is David Milch about to attempt a large scale lesson to viewers of the coming of the Revelation and the End of Days? Miracles are surely afoot. The oldest Yost levitates. His son seems to have been mysteriously cured of his heroin addiction. And the youngest Yost has literally been resurrected.

As episode three ends we are clearly moving into peculiar territory. The characters have only been sketched, not fully drawn in any way. They are archetypes, and weird ones at that. The drug dealer who is concerned about the wellbeing of the Yost family while listening to schlock semi-operatic vocals. The ex-cop who raised parrots. The nerdy attorney who is devoted to surfing and the surfing culture. So it is that the mystery of John, who and what he is and what paranormal events he has and is unleashing is clearly at the center of the show. The question is, will we care?

For me, the answer is yes...so far. As the miracles of the show pour forth it seems to be headed quickly for something far beyond the standard Southern California family surf saga it seems to be on the surface. The saga doesn't interest me. But I am interested enough in the imagination of David Milch to see where he is taking us. It is also pleasant to see so many actors from my beloved "Deadwood" figuratively resurrected in this show.

So any final verdict will have to be put on hold for now. Only the ripening of the series will reveal if the story Milch wants to tell is of interest. In the interim he has my attention and we know we will be treated to Ed O'Neill's character, ex-cop Bill Jacks and others, speak the magnificent Milchspeak that we have come to enjoy as it previously tripped from the tongues of Andy Sipowitz and Al Swearengen.

Cheney World, Part II

2007-06-23T18:10:00.000-04:00

Ed Morrisey has a sound analysis of the silliness of the Cheney/Bush position over the Vice-President's Office and classified material.

The VP has strained credulity by arguing that he doesn't belong to the executive branch at all, and that the order therefore doesn't apply. Of course the VP is a member of the executive branch; he's elected in tandem with the President through the Electoral College. He didn't get elected President of the Senate, a title that springs from the authority of being VP, not the reverse. Arguing otherwise makes Cheney look ridiculous and desperate, begging the question of what has caused the desperation.

What indeed is causing this current outbreak of stupidity.

Embedded

2007-06-22T16:38:00.001-04:00

Here's a video of a particularly good and realistic piece of street art. The variety of reactions is interesting. This one is in Washington, D.C. At the project's website, are photos of more examples of their work.

Flickr Foto Of The Day

2007-06-22T11:13:00.001-04:00

Krishna
Originally uploaded by gkiran

Apparently taken at an Indian Temple, I love the unexpected face color against the subtle background colors. And also the captured moment of the child's expression.

In CheneyWorld, It Seems There Is No Higher Power

2007-06-22T10:46:00.000-04:00

When Vice-President Cheney's office became tired of complying with an Executive Order in place since 1995 that required they report to the National Archives on the classified information in their possession. Believe it or not, but Cheney has apparently concluded that the Executive Order does not apply to him. He asserts that the Vice-President is not part of the Executive Branch and therefore not subject to its directives. Huh?

If he is not subject to the orders of the President, and he is clearly not part of the Judicial Branch, is he then asserting that as the constitutionally designated President of the Senate he is part of the Legislative Branch? I doubt that seriously. That would potentially place him under the authority of a majority of the Senate.

Could it be that Dick Cheney is a power separate and apart from all influences except his own good graces? Was the only valid check on him the 2004 elections and having passed that muster he is now immune and above all control? He has certainly demonstrated in his proclamations about progress in Iraq that he is not bound by any reference to reality. But seriously, who the hell does he think he is?

The same lawyers he uses to justify his every choice will soon be out of work in 2009. They will be the ones then trying to convince a court somewhere that some 50 year smoker was shocked, shocked to learn that cigarettes cause cancer. Maybe if Cheney keeps going and defies all reason we will get to finish the Bush presidency with an impeachment vote in the Congress and not have to wait until 2009.

[Photo: AP]

Speaking Of Cultural Conformity...

2007-06-22T10:24:00.000-04:00

Apparently, as pointed out by Ann Althouse, former NY Times writer Judith Miller has recently made an appearance on the BloggingheadsTV site and has generated a fire storm of vituperation in the comments section. Viewers are demanding that BloggingheadsTV establish some kind of criteria for its guests that would eliminate anyone who is seen as having been so outside the pale as to have not written stories for the Times that pointed out what everyone on the upper West side of Manhattan knew at the time were lies about WMD in Iraq.

Here are a few quotes selected by Althouse:

Oh my god! Where do hack NYTimes reporters go to die, figuratively speaking of course! Why it's Blogging Heads TV!!!! Will we be seeing Rick Bragg and Howell Raines here next?

Oh God. Bloggingheads has stooped pretty low in the past, but really - Judith Miller? A dishonest hack and a proud purveyor of pre-war propaganda, one of the chief vehicles for the lies the Bush administration used to sell its phony war? Why is she being given a platform here? Could Bob not find anyone more intellectually dishonest - the festering corpse of Richard Nixon, perhaps?...

Why bother watching this? How would it be possible to guess when she's lying and when she isn't? There ought to be some minimal standards for who appears on bloggingheads.

Next up on Bloggingheads - Jayson Blair and Steven Glass...

Jayson Blair and the resurrected corpse of Spiro Agnew would be a great diavlog.

Those who have derided the claims by the Right of a widespread cultural Liberalism in the MSM should witness the enforcement of conformity that is ongoing in the Judith Miller case. Oh, I forgot, rational humanists are not subject to the baser instincts of lesser humanity. Never mind.

Muslim Dress, Is It A Threat To Western Society?

2007-06-22T09:22:00.000-04:00

Photo credit: Hazel Thompson for the NY Times

The NY Times would have us believe that the issue of Muslim women wearing the niqab, the head to toe covering favored in certain Islamic countries, is a major disruptive debate in Britain at present. Like all stories that assert the existence of a social trend or problem, there is probably much less to the story than meets the eye.

But, whether a widespread issue or not, the story does raise the question of assimilation in Western societies. Is there some danger that in our age of over-deification of the concept of "diversity" we have now begun down the road towards multi-cultural societies in which each group or tribe maintains its own customs and language to such an extent that the term "nation" no longer has any meaning? In the face of a globalized world, will Islamic, or Asian, or European, or African culture become disconnected from geography and persist wherever found? In the end, I think that this is unlikely.

To the extent that the Times' story is factual, it suggests that two factors of social psychology are at play. First, human cultures value conformity. We like, trust and feel more comfortable with other people if they are like us. Conversely, we are distrustful of those who are different. It doesn't matter if the difference is marked or more subtle. Any sign of "otherness" in language, dress or behavior is suspect to some degree. This is not a reasoned reaction. It comes from something very deep and ancient in our nature. It is an echo of our need to group into families and tribes and the long-ago dangers from other tribes to our scarce resources and lives. All cultures have thus traditionally enforced social norms of behavior in order to provide for a feeling of comfort and security.

Cultures enforce conformity in different ways. In some societies, people who behave differently, say women who appear in public without covering their hair and/or faces, risk beatings, incarceration and even death. In other places, such differences elicit the kind of looks and comments that the British Muslim women report. It is beyond ironic that the relatively gentle social sanctions that are reported in Brittan are decried by people from cultures where nonconformity can result in stoning or other forms of physical coercion.

In fact, as the story indicates, the second major psychological phenomenon apparent in this kind of behavior is the defensive assertion of culture by some who regard the larger society as being dismissive or hostile to the cultural part of who they are. As one of the women in the story says,

“For me it is not just a piece of clothing, it’s an act of faith, it’s solidarity,” said a 24-year-old program scheduler at a broadcasting company in London, who would allow only her last name, al-Shaikh, to be printed, saying she wanted to protect her privacy. “9/11 was a wake-up call for young Muslims,” she said.

So, in the end, I viscerally understand the distrust of the niqab. But I also have faith in the power of societies to enforce and, in the end, secure conformity. There will come a time when there is a break from the geopolitical conflict between Islamic culture and the West. It may be years or even decades away, but it will come. At that point, when there is no longer any need for defensiveness, Muslim women in England will no longer feel the urge to assert their culture, and non-Muslims will not seek comfort in pressing them to conform. Visitors to England will have the same difficulty understanding the accent and references of those from east London, of whatever ethnic background. It will all be Cockney garble to foreigners. Their similarities will be more striking than their differences.

In America, with its current fear of the rise of Latino culture and language, one need only look at second and third generation Latinos. Does Presidential candidate Bill Richardson seem unassimilated to anyone? Where it not for his need to attract Latino voters, would we even know of his Hispanic heritage?

In fact, in the larger scheme of things, the globalization of the world and the ubiquity of mass communications has and, in future, will lead to the spread of Western culture. It is, after all, rock and roll, Coca Cola and Levi's that are conquering the world. For whatever reason, Western values and lifestyle seem to come to dominate wherever they are allowed and experienced. That is surely not always a good thing, but it does seem to be an ineluctable force.

Times Declares The Trend That Ate The Internet

2007-06-20T17:22:00.000-04:00

I don't know about you, but when I was scanning the Times this weekend, their story that shouted, "Online Sales Lose Steam", rang false. My gut and personal experience of web shopping told me they couldn't be right.

Now, thanks to Andrew Sullivan, we have Jack Shafer at Slate declaring the story bogus and providing chapter and verse.

The bottom line: while internet sales are dropping from their former growth rate of 25% each year, they are settling in at about a 9% growth rate. Given that brick and mortar sales grow at about 2 - 3%, 9% is still pretty damn good.

While you are checking out the Times' story, be sure to follow the chart shown under the heading "Multimedia". It shows that when looked at by type of product bought, online sales are showing an average growth rate this year of 18.5%. That is stupendous growth by any measure.

It must have been a slow news weekend for the Times editors to have drafted a fiction writer to fill some space.