Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Rabbit in the Hat?
Just a quick thought that occurred to me while reading Obama's "outraged" comments on Rev. Wright.
Its been suggested that perhaps the Clinton campaign is behind Wright's recent resurfacing. My thought is this: maybe its the Obama campaign that is working in concert with Wright. Sure, it would be a gamble, bringing him back to the national spotlight now. But if Obama really believes he has the nomination virtually wrapped up--then why not? Have Wright make a couple of outrageous speeches and give Obama a second chance to really separate himself, to perhaps call a press conference just for the sake of doing so. Then, by the time the general election rolls around--Obama has stripped the McCain campaign of the ammunition it would take from the Wright situation. Certainly the Republicans won't let it drop that easily, but the thinking could be that the American people will respect and better understand Obama if, now that the first strategy, the race speech, didn't make the issue go away completely, he now calls a press conference because of NEW Wright comments and slams him, condemns him and completely severs all ties.
I could see that being an effective strategy for Obama.
Of course, its far more likely that this quick little thought of mine is wrong and that it is more conventional politics being played out . . .
Its been suggested that perhaps the Clinton campaign is behind Wright's recent resurfacing. My thought is this: maybe its the Obama campaign that is working in concert with Wright. Sure, it would be a gamble, bringing him back to the national spotlight now. But if Obama really believes he has the nomination virtually wrapped up--then why not? Have Wright make a couple of outrageous speeches and give Obama a second chance to really separate himself, to perhaps call a press conference just for the sake of doing so. Then, by the time the general election rolls around--Obama has stripped the McCain campaign of the ammunition it would take from the Wright situation. Certainly the Republicans won't let it drop that easily, but the thinking could be that the American people will respect and better understand Obama if, now that the first strategy, the race speech, didn't make the issue go away completely, he now calls a press conference because of NEW Wright comments and slams him, condemns him and completely severs all ties.
I could see that being an effective strategy for Obama.
Of course, its far more likely that this quick little thought of mine is wrong and that it is more conventional politics being played out . . .
When Politics Loses Its Ideas . . .
Here is an interesting article from Slate.com about post-modern or post-ideological politics. I think it sounds interesting, but I think that, as the author points out- the Democratic Primary shows that when politics loses its ideas it becomes abominable. When there are few policy choices between candidates, an election becomes personal and bitter.
A brief larger point to be made from this is that, this is what has made American politics so bitterly partisan and has turned people off from the process. Republicans and Democrats fight each other bitterly, but its more over the title that follows their name, rather than the ideas they hold.
An interesting exercise I have tried several times is to read about a piece of legislation and ignore who supports it or who is against it-- and make up your own mind. I know it sounds simple and it is because it is what most Americans actually do. Not in Washington and not in state capitols around this nation. Most often, the yeas and nays are lined up on the basis of who proposes the idea. In these hallowed halls, policy, ideas and direction are lost in a void of politics. The ideas that once separated Republicans and Democrats have been erased by the one common denominator--money.
A brief larger point to be made from this is that, this is what has made American politics so bitterly partisan and has turned people off from the process. Republicans and Democrats fight each other bitterly, but its more over the title that follows their name, rather than the ideas they hold.
An interesting exercise I have tried several times is to read about a piece of legislation and ignore who supports it or who is against it-- and make up your own mind. I know it sounds simple and it is because it is what most Americans actually do. Not in Washington and not in state capitols around this nation. Most often, the yeas and nays are lined up on the basis of who proposes the idea. In these hallowed halls, policy, ideas and direction are lost in a void of politics. The ideas that once separated Republicans and Democrats have been erased by the one common denominator--money.
The Dirty D Living Up to its Name
I love the city of Detroit with all of my heart! I went to law school there and even though I didn't move there until I was an adult, I grew up there in a sense. I have the fondest memories of Detroit and want nothing but the best for the city. Which leads me to my anger over what has gone on there recently. I supported Mayor Kilpatrick for re-election because I believed that, while he had his issues, he had the best interest of the city in mind, and I had seen the improvement to back up that belief.
Now however, it is clear that the Mayor is not looking out for the city, but is looking out for his own self-interest. I am all for standing up and fighting when you are wronged, but his failure to resign in the midst of the text message scandal and the perjury and obstruction of justice charges he faces, is a slap in the face to the city of Detroit. It has taken away from the functioning of the city, it is embarassing the city and causing more and more harm to its already irreparable reputation. Newspaper stories such as this are not the kind of press that the city needs. It is an embarassment, and the only way to immediately tamp down the embarassment, is for the Mayor to step aside and put an end to the public flogging of the city.
Now however, it is clear that the Mayor is not looking out for the city, but is looking out for his own self-interest. I am all for standing up and fighting when you are wronged, but his failure to resign in the midst of the text message scandal and the perjury and obstruction of justice charges he faces, is a slap in the face to the city of Detroit. It has taken away from the functioning of the city, it is embarassing the city and causing more and more harm to its already irreparable reputation. Newspaper stories such as this are not the kind of press that the city needs. It is an embarassment, and the only way to immediately tamp down the embarassment, is for the Mayor to step aside and put an end to the public flogging of the city.
Its Definitely an Election Year!
Look no further than this!
The sharks in the water . . . you get what I'm saying? In Florida . . .?
Okay, so that was cornball . . . but it gave me an opportunity to post a story about sharks and pictures of sharks, which I love and am a skosh obsessed with . . .
A New Divide?
There have always been divisions in American life, whether it be between rich and poor, or black and white (or other ethnic divisions), but David Brooks, in his NYTimes column this morning suggests that the primary division in our society currently, is a division of demography. He makes this point in the context of the Democratic party, but there is nothing in his thesis which limits it to political analysis or even limits it to a Democratic issue. He suggests that:
Fifty-five years ago, 80 percent of American television viewers, young and old, tuned in to see Milton Berle on Tuesday nights. Tens of millions, rich and poor, worked together at Elks Lodges and Rotary Clubs. Millions more, rural and urban, read general-interest magazines like Look and Life. In those days, the owner of the local bank lived in the same town as the grocery clerk, and their boys might play on the same basketball team. Only 7 percent of adult Americans had a college degree.
But that’s all changed. In the decades since, some social divides, mostly involving ethnicity, have narrowed. But others, mostly involving education, have widened. Today there is a mass educated class. The college educated and non-college educated are likely to live in different towns. They have radically different divorce rates and starkly different ways of raising their children. The non-college educated not only earn less, they smoke more, grow more obese and die sooner.
Retailers, home builders and TV executives identify and reinforce these lifestyle clusters. There are more niche offerings and fewer common experiences.
The ensuing segmentation has reshaped politics.
I think that Brooks makes an excellent, sociological point here; one that we can watch being played out in the Democratic primary (and to some extent we saw it play out in the Republican party as well.) It really is worth a read.
Fifty-five years ago, 80 percent of American television viewers, young and old, tuned in to see Milton Berle on Tuesday nights. Tens of millions, rich and poor, worked together at Elks Lodges and Rotary Clubs. Millions more, rural and urban, read general-interest magazines like Look and Life. In those days, the owner of the local bank lived in the same town as the grocery clerk, and their boys might play on the same basketball team. Only 7 percent of adult Americans had a college degree.
But that’s all changed. In the decades since, some social divides, mostly involving ethnicity, have narrowed. But others, mostly involving education, have widened. Today there is a mass educated class. The college educated and non-college educated are likely to live in different towns. They have radically different divorce rates and starkly different ways of raising their children. The non-college educated not only earn less, they smoke more, grow more obese and die sooner.
Retailers, home builders and TV executives identify and reinforce these lifestyle clusters. There are more niche offerings and fewer common experiences.
The ensuing segmentation has reshaped politics.
I think that Brooks makes an excellent, sociological point here; one that we can watch being played out in the Democratic primary (and to some extent we saw it play out in the Republican party as well.) It really is worth a read.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Tragic...
Okay, so I don't know how many people read or heard about this. A dolphin dying because of an accident in an aerial show. This is certainly sad, but the reaction to it is funny to me.
Sea World, where the accident occurred, said that it was an entirely "unfortunate, random incident."
They then follow the statement (because in this day and age you must) with a hilarious follow-up (wait for it . . . its great): "While it is not unusual to have two animals performing aerial behaviors at the same time, we are reviewing the situation to ensure even such a random incident does not occur again."
Even though it was random, a freak incident, they are going to review and make sure such a random incident doesn't occur again. THAT is funny.
Shit happens is a cliched phrase for a reason, mostly because shit happens and its random and crazy and CANNOT be prevented.
Sea World, where the accident occurred, said that it was an entirely "unfortunate, random incident."
They then follow the statement (because in this day and age you must) with a hilarious follow-up (wait for it . . . its great): "While it is not unusual to have two animals performing aerial behaviors at the same time, we are reviewing the situation to ensure even such a random incident does not occur again."
Even though it was random, a freak incident, they are going to review and make sure such a random incident doesn't occur again. THAT is funny.
Shit happens is a cliched phrase for a reason, mostly because shit happens and its random and crazy and CANNOT be prevented.
Interesting . . .
This article was sent to me by my consiglieri.
I am not sure how much I believe this. I understand why this is becoming a more and more popular explanation for Hillary's actions and maybe its because I don't want it to be true that I don't necessarily believe it.
I am not sure how much I believe this. I understand why this is becoming a more and more popular explanation for Hillary's actions and maybe its because I don't want it to be true that I don't necessarily believe it.
Today's Bathroom Reading
Christopher Hitchens "One Angry Man" (Slate. com) April 28, 2008 *
"Anger management" is the euphemism that allows this awkward matter to be raised. In a solemn version of the old "Whose finger on the trigger?" question, Leahy was able to recruit the views of former Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., who opined that McCain's rage quotient "would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger." I once went on a TV panel with Smith and passed some green-room time with him, and I can assure you that premature detonations of any kind would certainly not be his problem. He combines the body of an ox with the brains of a gnat. Indeed, if his brains were made of gunpowder and were to accidentally explode, the resulting bang would not even be enough to disarrange his hair. He moved from being the most right-wing Republican senator from New Hampshire, switching to the U.S. Taxpayers Party after a distinct absence of what we call "traction" in his presidential run of 2000, tried to rejoin the GOP when he saw a nice, fat chairmanship become vacant on the death of Sen. John Chafee, failed at that, lost the nomination in his own state, moved to Florida, endorsed John Kerry in 2004, endorsed Duncan Hunter for the Republican nomination in December last year, and was last spotted on the Web page of the Constitution Party: a Web page that's tons of fun to check out. And this cretinous dolt, who managed to do all the above without bringing out so much as a sweat on his massive and bovine frame, is the chief character witness against the impetuous McCain. Nice work.
"Anger management" is the euphemism that allows this awkward matter to be raised. In a solemn version of the old "Whose finger on the trigger?" question, Leahy was able to recruit the views of former Sen. Bob Smith, R-N.H., who opined that McCain's rage quotient "would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger." I once went on a TV panel with Smith and passed some green-room time with him, and I can assure you that premature detonations of any kind would certainly not be his problem. He combines the body of an ox with the brains of a gnat. Indeed, if his brains were made of gunpowder and were to accidentally explode, the resulting bang would not even be enough to disarrange his hair. He moved from being the most right-wing Republican senator from New Hampshire, switching to the U.S. Taxpayers Party after a distinct absence of what we call "traction" in his presidential run of 2000, tried to rejoin the GOP when he saw a nice, fat chairmanship become vacant on the death of Sen. John Chafee, failed at that, lost the nomination in his own state, moved to Florida, endorsed John Kerry in 2004, endorsed Duncan Hunter for the Republican nomination in December last year, and was last spotted on the Web page of the Constitution Party: a Web page that's tons of fun to check out. And this cretinous dolt, who managed to do all the above without bringing out so much as a sweat on his massive and bovine frame, is the chief character witness against the impetuous McCain. Nice work.
Ryan Lizza "Bill vs. Barack" (The New Yorker) May 5, 2008 * * *
While Obama downplays wonkiness and Hillary presents her plans as tedious laundry lists, Bill makes connections and translates abstractions into folksy humor. To underscore the relationship between America’s budget deficit, paid for by loans from countries like China, and lax enforcement of the trade violations of those countries, he asked voters to imagine barging into the local bank president’s office and smacking him. “Say, ‘I can’t take it anymore!’ Bam!” he told the Lock Haven audience as he pantomimed a punch and then paused for comic effect. “Do you think you could get a loan tomorrow afternoon?” People laughed and shook their heads.
Clinton is angry that this side of him has been nearly absent from the coverage. “You don’t ever read about this stuff! This is never part of the political debate!” he said at one event. “But this is what matters.” Adjusting to the modern, gaffe-centric media environment has been wrenching. At most of his Pennsylvania stops, the national press was represented mainly by a pair of young TV-network “embeds,” whom Clinton regards not as reporters but as media jackals who record his every utterance yet broadcast only his outbursts, a phenomenon that has helped transform him into a YouTube curiosity and diminished him—perhaps permanently. “It’s like he’s been plucked out of time and thrown into the middle of this entirely new kind of campaign,” the adviser told me. Jay Carson, a senior Clinton campaign official and Bill’s former spokesman, said, “Because of the way he is covered, the only thing anyone ever sees is fifteen seconds that is deemed by the pundits to be off message.”
William Kristol "Hillary Gets No Respect" (The New York Times) April 28, 2008 * *
On Friday in Indiana, Obama talked tough in response to a question: “I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism.” And, he continued, “I am happy to have that debate with them any place, anytime.” He’s happy to have fantasy debates with unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism. But he’s not willing to have a real debate with the real person he’s competing against for the nomination.
Will Obama pay no price for ducking? Should paid advertisements determine the Democratic victor, not the performance of the two candidates debating at length in an unscripted setting?
Over to you, anguished liberals.
Scalia on 60 Minutes
I caught a good part of the Scalia interview on 60 Minutes last night and found it fascinating. You can read about it and see the video clips here.
My impression: The guy has a first-class intellect. He is funny, effusive and disarming in his interview. I love that it grates on people that he is so arrogant and so self-assured that he is right. At one point he tells Leslie Stahl-- "well that is my opinion, and it happens to be right." I enjoy this about him whereas I think a lot of my fellow liberals find it offensive. Perhaps my enjoyment comes from the fact that I don't think he is evil at all, I don't think he is disingenuous at all. I think he truly believes in his judicial philosophy, which leads to results that I find to be awful and reprehensible in some case. But to me, this does not make him evil or bad, this simply makes him wrong, and thats okay. Where I do have trouble with him, is when he tells people to just get over it, as though the Court's decisions have no impact on people's lives. This part of his character is disingenuous, but I don't think it reflects an evil intent, but merely a refusal to grapple with ALL of the consequences of the Court's decisions.
Read the article or watch the clips and let me know what you think.
My impression: The guy has a first-class intellect. He is funny, effusive and disarming in his interview. I love that it grates on people that he is so arrogant and so self-assured that he is right. At one point he tells Leslie Stahl-- "well that is my opinion, and it happens to be right." I enjoy this about him whereas I think a lot of my fellow liberals find it offensive. Perhaps my enjoyment comes from the fact that I don't think he is evil at all, I don't think he is disingenuous at all. I think he truly believes in his judicial philosophy, which leads to results that I find to be awful and reprehensible in some case. But to me, this does not make him evil or bad, this simply makes him wrong, and thats okay. Where I do have trouble with him, is when he tells people to just get over it, as though the Court's decisions have no impact on people's lives. This part of his character is disingenuous, but I don't think it reflects an evil intent, but merely a refusal to grapple with ALL of the consequences of the Court's decisions.
Read the article or watch the clips and let me know what you think.
"you're a balk!"
So, last night was an exciting night for me as my beloved Detroit Tigers were on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball. The game did not go so well for the Tigers and at one point, I believe in the 5th inning, Tiger's pitcher Justin Verlander was called for a balk. I explained to my girlfriend sitting next to me, in a rare moment of humility, "I have been watching baseball all of my life, I know why they have the rule for balks, but for the life of me, if I saw one right before my eyes, I would have absolutely no idea that it was a balk or know that I should call it a balk." Instead of being amazed at my humility, my girlfriend took the moment to probe the issue of the balk, and asked me to clarify what exactly a balk is. Again, I reiterated "I DON'T KNOW" and then tried to explain the purpose of the balk rule, to which she replied- "thats stupid." I assured her that it was not stupid and that it made perfect sense and that there was a great rationale for the balk rule. (I mean, there had to be, right?)
As per usual when she frustrates me, she is asking perfectly rational questions that she has been trained as a lawyer to ask, but are also more reflective of her native sense of curiosity, which I love. Yet, it can be difficult when you grew up with a game and the rules are hard-wired into your system because thats just how the game is played and you never stop to ask the reasons "why" or "is this the best way?" So, in any case, at the height of my frustration, I ended the discussion with a curtly dismissive "I just want to watch the game!" And she appropriately responded-- "you're a balk!"
So, while my girlfriend's native sense is to be curious and to ask the difficult questions, my native sense is to read and find out and have the answers. So here it is--the official Major League Baseball explanation of what are allowable pitching moves. It may be stupid babe, but the first balk rules were put in place in 1898, so, if its stupid then at least its stupid tradition.
I don't want to actually suggest that this makes it easier to understand, but at least this provides some explanation and some context. Hope you enjoy! Go Tigers!
As per usual when she frustrates me, she is asking perfectly rational questions that she has been trained as a lawyer to ask, but are also more reflective of her native sense of curiosity, which I love. Yet, it can be difficult when you grew up with a game and the rules are hard-wired into your system because thats just how the game is played and you never stop to ask the reasons "why" or "is this the best way?" So, in any case, at the height of my frustration, I ended the discussion with a curtly dismissive "I just want to watch the game!" And she appropriately responded-- "you're a balk!"
So, while my girlfriend's native sense is to be curious and to ask the difficult questions, my native sense is to read and find out and have the answers. So here it is--the official Major League Baseball explanation of what are allowable pitching moves. It may be stupid babe, but the first balk rules were put in place in 1898, so, if its stupid then at least its stupid tradition.
I don't want to actually suggest that this makes it easier to understand, but at least this provides some explanation and some context. Hope you enjoy! Go Tigers!
Friday, April 25, 2008
Today's Bathroom Reading...
Leon Wieseltier "Opiates" (The New Republic) May 7, 2008 * * *
American religion may be the most unreflective religion in the world. It is unreflective almost as a matter of principle. The most significant American contribution to theology--the merry dismissal of thought known as "the will to believe"--lifts the soul up with probabilities and risks, with a vaguely economic calculation that the profit is worth the gamble. In recent years "studies have shown" that religion is even good for your health. What if it is good for your health, but false? And what if it were bad for your health, but true? It would be wonderful one day to meet an American whose God has made his life harder, not easier. But here belief is relief. It is "elitist," I know, to expect philosophy of every man and woman: whether or not all intellectuals are God's children, all God's children are not intellectuals. Still, Christians in America care more about what Jesus would do than about what Jesus would think. This accounts also for the wild politicization of religion. Obama, remember, champions mainly "the Social Gospel," and first entered the church in Chicago for the purpose of community organizing. But the Social Gospel is about benevolence, not transcendence; and there is no moral difference between the good works of believers and the good works of unbelievers. May the world be improved by whoever can improve it! As for Obama's neoconservative critics: they are second to none, and close students of Machiavelli, in their insistence upon the usefulness of religion to society as an authority and a principle of order, and also upon its usefulness to their candidates. They, too, hunger for the benefits, and not for the mysteries.
Jonah Goldberg "Time's Environmental-War Whoop" (National Review) April 25, 2008 * *
Time magazine recently doctored the iconic photo of the flag-raising at Iwo Jima in order to “celebrate” Earth Day. Instead of Marines valiantly struggling to lift the stars and stripes, they are depicted planting atree. No doubt Time’s editors think they will be celebrated in poetry and song for generations to come for their high-minded cleverness. Still, if the symbolism wasn’t clear enough, Time writer Bryan Walsh spells it out: “Green is the new red, white and blue.”
There are any number of problems here, starting with the fact that this is simply a lie. Green is not the new red, white, and blue. Concern over climate change may be the most honorable and vital thing imaginable. But if “the red, white and blue” means anything, it means patriotism or love of country. Patriotism and environmentalism simply aren’t synonymous terms. Two things can be good without being the same. Fatherhood and all-you-can-eat chicken wings, for example, don’t describe identical phenomena.
Ray Fisman "The Pilgrim's Progressiveness" (Slate.com) April 25, 2008 * *
Pilgrims may not return from the Hajj harboring warm feelings for America, but it's heartening to find that the Hajj may help to undermine support for the violent methods that have been so devastatingly deployed against Americans in the past. And if we're to bring an end to violence in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world, it is imperative that Iraqis and others believe that they can peacefully settle differences among themselves. According to this study, the Hajj may help to achieve both of these objectives. Rather than worrying about the hate-mongering extremists that seem to exist on the fringes of the Hajj, perhaps the United States should consider redirecting some of its aid to Pakistan (and perhaps Iraq and Iran) to help more pilgrims make the trip.
American religion may be the most unreflective religion in the world. It is unreflective almost as a matter of principle. The most significant American contribution to theology--the merry dismissal of thought known as "the will to believe"--lifts the soul up with probabilities and risks, with a vaguely economic calculation that the profit is worth the gamble. In recent years "studies have shown" that religion is even good for your health. What if it is good for your health, but false? And what if it were bad for your health, but true? It would be wonderful one day to meet an American whose God has made his life harder, not easier. But here belief is relief. It is "elitist," I know, to expect philosophy of every man and woman: whether or not all intellectuals are God's children, all God's children are not intellectuals. Still, Christians in America care more about what Jesus would do than about what Jesus would think. This accounts also for the wild politicization of religion. Obama, remember, champions mainly "the Social Gospel," and first entered the church in Chicago for the purpose of community organizing. But the Social Gospel is about benevolence, not transcendence; and there is no moral difference between the good works of believers and the good works of unbelievers. May the world be improved by whoever can improve it! As for Obama's neoconservative critics: they are second to none, and close students of Machiavelli, in their insistence upon the usefulness of religion to society as an authority and a principle of order, and also upon its usefulness to their candidates. They, too, hunger for the benefits, and not for the mysteries.
Jonah Goldberg "Time's Environmental-War Whoop" (National Review) April 25, 2008 * *
Time magazine recently doctored the iconic photo of the flag-raising at Iwo Jima in order to “celebrate” Earth Day. Instead of Marines valiantly struggling to lift the stars and stripes, they are depicted planting atree. No doubt Time’s editors think they will be celebrated in poetry and song for generations to come for their high-minded cleverness. Still, if the symbolism wasn’t clear enough, Time writer Bryan Walsh spells it out: “Green is the new red, white and blue.”
There are any number of problems here, starting with the fact that this is simply a lie. Green is not the new red, white, and blue. Concern over climate change may be the most honorable and vital thing imaginable. But if “the red, white and blue” means anything, it means patriotism or love of country. Patriotism and environmentalism simply aren’t synonymous terms. Two things can be good without being the same. Fatherhood and all-you-can-eat chicken wings, for example, don’t describe identical phenomena.
Ray Fisman "The Pilgrim's Progressiveness" (Slate.com) April 25, 2008 * *
Pilgrims may not return from the Hajj harboring warm feelings for America, but it's heartening to find that the Hajj may help to undermine support for the violent methods that have been so devastatingly deployed against Americans in the past. And if we're to bring an end to violence in Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world, it is imperative that Iraqis and others believe that they can peacefully settle differences among themselves. According to this study, the Hajj may help to achieve both of these objectives. Rather than worrying about the hate-mongering extremists that seem to exist on the fringes of the Hajj, perhaps the United States should consider redirecting some of its aid to Pakistan (and perhaps Iraq and Iran) to help more pilgrims make the trip.
You have GOT to be freaking kidding me!!!
Get over it? Seriously? Get over it? That is Justice Scalia's advice to everyone when it comes to Bush v. Gore. Now, if I'm not mistaken that case is precedent and has not been overturned, so no one actually SHOULD be getting over it. Its absurd to me that this was his response. He could have picked a million other things to say, other than "get over it" and I would have been fine. But this was just dismissive, and beyond arrogant; so much so that it really has to make you wonder about the wisdom of a counter-majoritarian body with such power.
Go and watch the short little video here and/or watch 60 minutes for the full interview (he is promoting a new book) on Sunday night.
Go and watch the short little video here and/or watch 60 minutes for the full interview (he is promoting a new book) on Sunday night.
Not sure I love this trend...
From a NYTIMES movie review of the new Harold & Kumar film:
At one point the movie’s titular heroes drop in on a friend who’s having a “bottomless” party at which there seem to be only female guests, and the movie loses some credibility when it declines to show the full extent of its stars’ eventual participation in the festivities. Dudes, if the dude in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” could put his business up on the screen, then so can you. It’s a whole new world.
I for one, am not sure that I WANT to exist in a whole new world with male frontal nudity! Just saying . . .
At one point the movie’s titular heroes drop in on a friend who’s having a “bottomless” party at which there seem to be only female guests, and the movie loses some credibility when it declines to show the full extent of its stars’ eventual participation in the festivities. Dudes, if the dude in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” could put his business up on the screen, then so can you. It’s a whole new world.
I for one, am not sure that I WANT to exist in a whole new world with male frontal nudity! Just saying . . .
No She Can't!
Paul Krugman makes a compelling argument in the first part of his column today when he points out that, "A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. “Yes we can” has become “No she can’t.”" However, he goes on from there to engage in his continued advocacy for the Clinton campaign by attacking Obama for being light on substance (and subsequently criticizing any substantive plan he proposes.)
This would all be well and fine except that, while substance matters, there is obviously something about the Clinton campaign that is registering with voters in middle America, Krugman is too bright to believe that substance truly matters when RUNNING for President. Policy papers and proposals and the like will accomplish nothing when the winner gets to the White House. People vote more on the amorphous concept of "leadership ability" and in that category, Obama seems to be leaps and bounds ahead of Clinton, as has been demonstrated by his bringing a new group of voters together and in fact, bringing out new voters. Clinton, as her campaign proudly proclaims, is successful with the old school democrats, and old democrats.
There are real, legitimate doubts being raised about Obama's candidacy, with his failure to win primaries in the big states. The question however, seems to me no different than it was in Iowa and New Hampshire. Should the Democrats go with the candidate who will lock up their base and their core constituencies and possibly win with 50 + 1? Or, should they gamble a bit and nominate the guy who will bring young people and new voters to the polls to vote for the party, and likely still lock up the core constituency since they are "core" precisely because they ALWAYS vote for the Democratic candidate? It is a gamble because- what if he does turn off the white, middle and lower class voters on issues of race? What if he does send them over to John McCain?
It seems to me the gamble is worth it. This is an election year designed for the Democratic party to make huge gains and Republicans know it. They also know that those gains will be smaller with "high-negative" Hillary at the top of the ticket. Hillary can win. Obama can win. If Obama wins, it will likely have a dramatic, positive effect up and down the ticket, due to his introduction of new voters and young people into the system. Although nominating Obama may be slightly more risky, it seems to me that with the "catastroclusterfudge" that is the Bush presidency, the Democrats are playing with house money and ought to be willing to take the gamble in the hopes of striking it big.
This would all be well and fine except that, while substance matters, there is obviously something about the Clinton campaign that is registering with voters in middle America, Krugman is too bright to believe that substance truly matters when RUNNING for President. Policy papers and proposals and the like will accomplish nothing when the winner gets to the White House. People vote more on the amorphous concept of "leadership ability" and in that category, Obama seems to be leaps and bounds ahead of Clinton, as has been demonstrated by his bringing a new group of voters together and in fact, bringing out new voters. Clinton, as her campaign proudly proclaims, is successful with the old school democrats, and old democrats.
There are real, legitimate doubts being raised about Obama's candidacy, with his failure to win primaries in the big states. The question however, seems to me no different than it was in Iowa and New Hampshire. Should the Democrats go with the candidate who will lock up their base and their core constituencies and possibly win with 50 + 1? Or, should they gamble a bit and nominate the guy who will bring young people and new voters to the polls to vote for the party, and likely still lock up the core constituency since they are "core" precisely because they ALWAYS vote for the Democratic candidate? It is a gamble because- what if he does turn off the white, middle and lower class voters on issues of race? What if he does send them over to John McCain?
It seems to me the gamble is worth it. This is an election year designed for the Democratic party to make huge gains and Republicans know it. They also know that those gains will be smaller with "high-negative" Hillary at the top of the ticket. Hillary can win. Obama can win. If Obama wins, it will likely have a dramatic, positive effect up and down the ticket, due to his introduction of new voters and young people into the system. Although nominating Obama may be slightly more risky, it seems to me that with the "catastroclusterfudge" that is the Bush presidency, the Democrats are playing with house money and ought to be willing to take the gamble in the hopes of striking it big.
White Men Can't Jump . . .
. . . unless you don't pay your taxes. Oh Wesley Snipes, you thought you were so crafty, now you can use that craftiness in federal prison.
In Praise of John McCain
It is no secret that I admire and respect the Republican Nominee John McCain. I think he is a man of outstanding qualities and characteristics that make him irreplacable on our national political stage. Another wonderful example of that comes this week in his urging the North Carolina GOP not to run ads attacking Obama over the Jeremiah Wright comments. You can find an article discussing it here.
Surprisingly or not, McCain has come under attack for this decision from the right-wing punditocracy. I was listening to Laura Ingraham on the drive in to work this morning and she was berating McCain over and over, saying that he was tying the GOP's hands with his actions.
McCain should be applauded for trying a new kind of campaign. He should take it to the Democratic candidate on their real policy differences, he should hammer home his "superior" qualifications to be Commander and Chief, and he should stay away from the gutter, racial politics because he has made a career of being above that and better than that and thats what makes him so unique and such an irreplacable force.
Surprisingly or not, McCain has come under attack for this decision from the right-wing punditocracy. I was listening to Laura Ingraham on the drive in to work this morning and she was berating McCain over and over, saying that he was tying the GOP's hands with his actions.
McCain should be applauded for trying a new kind of campaign. He should take it to the Democratic candidate on their real policy differences, he should hammer home his "superior" qualifications to be Commander and Chief, and he should stay away from the gutter, racial politics because he has made a career of being above that and better than that and thats what makes him so unique and such an irreplacable force.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Advice for the law student...
To all of my friends out there studying for their law school exams, or any other exams for that matter (not that those would actually count as exams!), I present you with the study tip of the day from the inimitably wise and brilliant Joshua Terebelo:
Josh: so here's why i am an idiot . . . last night . . . i thought it'd be a good idea to drink a pot of coffee at 11 pm
Me: how late were you planning on staying up?
Josh: 2 hours.
Me: yep . . . idiot . . . although, its hard for me to ever say anything bad about drinking a pot of coffee since its one of my favorite past times!
Seriously-- good luck to everyone out there studying for exams. Most importantly- shout out to my boy Josh, and next (most) importantly, shout out to ALL of my friends studying out there- good luck!!!!!
Josh: so here's why i am an idiot . . . last night . . . i thought it'd be a good idea to drink a pot of coffee at 11 pm
Me: how late were you planning on staying up?
Josh: 2 hours.
Me: yep . . . idiot . . . although, its hard for me to ever say anything bad about drinking a pot of coffee since its one of my favorite past times!
Seriously-- good luck to everyone out there studying for exams. Most importantly- shout out to my boy Josh, and next (most) importantly, shout out to ALL of my friends studying out there- good luck!!!!!
Today's Bathroom Reading
Jim Cramer "The Bottom Line" (New York Magazine) March 21, 2008 * * 1/2
And believe me, the only character who ever played more hardball with the government than the CEO of JPMorgan, Jamie Dimon, was Michael Corleone when he negotiated his casino deal with Senator Geary in Godfather II. Like Michael, Dimon basically told Treasury and the Fed, “My offer is this: nothing.” The Feds countered with $2; Jamie Dimon said, Throw in $30 billion in loan guarantees against Bear’s bad mortgage portfolio—the Corleone equivalent of Geary’s putting up the fee personally for the casino’s gaming license!—and you get your deal done in time to save the free world’s financial system. The government, which had been hoping to get $20 for Bear, a $10 haircut from Friday’s close, had no choice, and Dimon got his casino, with a billion-dollar headquarters thrown in.
Sean McManus "If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?" (New York Magazine) April 21, 2008 * * *
Now, once again, nonbelievers have a fresh sense of mission. The fastest-growing faith in the country is no faith at all. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released the results of its “Religious Landscape” survey in February and found that 16 percent of Americans have no religious affiliation. The number is even greater among young people: 25 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds now identify with no religion, up from 11 percent in a similar survey in 1986. For most of its modern history, atheism has existed as a kind of civil-rights movement. Groups like American Atheists have functioned primarily as litigants in the fight for church-state separation, not as atheist social clubs. “Atheists are self-reliant, self-sufficient, independent people who don’t feel like they need an organization,” says Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists for the past thirteen years. “They’re so independent that if they want to get involved, they usually don’t join an organization—they start their own.”
William Safire "In The Tank" (New York Times) April 20, 2008 * * * *
A tank was the 19th-century term for what we now call a swimming pool; the metaphor evoked a picture of diving to the ring’s canvas-covered floor — as if into a pool — to feign loss of consciousness. “By extension,” Dickson reports, “when a fighter or anything else (including a stock) takes a nose dive he or she has tanked.”
That’s what the Time columnist Joe Klein meant when he told CNN that Hillary Clinton “is not going to be able to put together the math to win this nomination unless Obama tanks completely.” It’s also where we get “the economy is tanking,” as the Henny Pennys of the dismal science like to say, though such alarmists do not impute a crooked intent to any hard landing.
And believe me, the only character who ever played more hardball with the government than the CEO of JPMorgan, Jamie Dimon, was Michael Corleone when he negotiated his casino deal with Senator Geary in Godfather II. Like Michael, Dimon basically told Treasury and the Fed, “My offer is this: nothing.” The Feds countered with $2; Jamie Dimon said, Throw in $30 billion in loan guarantees against Bear’s bad mortgage portfolio—the Corleone equivalent of Geary’s putting up the fee personally for the casino’s gaming license!—and you get your deal done in time to save the free world’s financial system. The government, which had been hoping to get $20 for Bear, a $10 haircut from Friday’s close, had no choice, and Dimon got his casino, with a billion-dollar headquarters thrown in.
Sean McManus "If God Is Dead, Who Gets His House?" (New York Magazine) April 21, 2008 * * *
Now, once again, nonbelievers have a fresh sense of mission. The fastest-growing faith in the country is no faith at all. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released the results of its “Religious Landscape” survey in February and found that 16 percent of Americans have no religious affiliation. The number is even greater among young people: 25 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds now identify with no religion, up from 11 percent in a similar survey in 1986. For most of its modern history, atheism has existed as a kind of civil-rights movement. Groups like American Atheists have functioned primarily as litigants in the fight for church-state separation, not as atheist social clubs. “Atheists are self-reliant, self-sufficient, independent people who don’t feel like they need an organization,” says Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists for the past thirteen years. “They’re so independent that if they want to get involved, they usually don’t join an organization—they start their own.”
William Safire "In The Tank" (New York Times) April 20, 2008 * * * *
A tank was the 19th-century term for what we now call a swimming pool; the metaphor evoked a picture of diving to the ring’s canvas-covered floor — as if into a pool — to feign loss of consciousness. “By extension,” Dickson reports, “when a fighter or anything else (including a stock) takes a nose dive he or she has tanked.”
That’s what the Time columnist Joe Klein meant when he told CNN that Hillary Clinton “is not going to be able to put together the math to win this nomination unless Obama tanks completely.” It’s also where we get “the economy is tanking,” as the Henny Pennys of the dismal science like to say, though such alarmists do not impute a crooked intent to any hard landing.
Why didn't SHE put HIM away?
Hillary Clinton has gone on and on about how she is just one hell of a fighter and if Obama is so great- why can't he put her away? Its an enticing argument; one I have found myself engaging in, against myself, in my own head, the last couple of days. An interesting article I just read, by Mike Lupica* asks the alternative question:
Through it all, Clinton continues to run on the idea that she is ready "day one" to be President, when she wasn't ready on day one for a rookie like Obama.
If she had been, she wouldn't be in the rabbit hole she's in now. She would have put Obama away the way the front-loaded, Super Tuesday system was designed for her to put everybody away early. She is supposed to be the one with the great sweeping plan for America, and she didn't have one for Obama. Now she is where she is and so is her campaign.
This is an intersting point that I also saw made on Andrew Sullivan's blog yesterday. Obama was NEVER expected to be here at this point. The system was designed to be against him. Hillary raised so much money at the beginning of this race and thought that it would be a march to the coronation. "The best laid plans of mice and men . . . "
* I hate Mike Lupica. He is most well-known as a sports writer and is a frequent annoying guest on ESPN's Sunday morning gab-fest "The Sports Reporters." I hate him, hate him, hate him . . . and he annoys me tremendously, but kudos to him for making this excellent point.
Through it all, Clinton continues to run on the idea that she is ready "day one" to be President, when she wasn't ready on day one for a rookie like Obama.
If she had been, she wouldn't be in the rabbit hole she's in now. She would have put Obama away the way the front-loaded, Super Tuesday system was designed for her to put everybody away early. She is supposed to be the one with the great sweeping plan for America, and she didn't have one for Obama. Now she is where she is and so is her campaign.
This is an intersting point that I also saw made on Andrew Sullivan's blog yesterday. Obama was NEVER expected to be here at this point. The system was designed to be against him. Hillary raised so much money at the beginning of this race and thought that it would be a march to the coronation. "The best laid plans of mice and men . . . "
* I hate Mike Lupica. He is most well-known as a sports writer and is a frequent annoying guest on ESPN's Sunday morning gab-fest "The Sports Reporters." I hate him, hate him, hate him . . . and he annoys me tremendously, but kudos to him for making this excellent point.
The A.C.
Yes, I find Ann Coulter more than slightly despicable, but I read her weekly column anyway. Often I find she is quite funny. Here are a couple snippets from this week's column:
On Hillary and her attachment to Bill:
If Hillary could run exclusively on her record since becoming a senator from New York, she'd be a relatively moderate Democrat who hates the loony left -- as we found out this week when a tape of Hillary denouncing Moveon.org surfaced. Think Joe Biden in a pantsuit.
On Clinton's association with Bill's people being worse than Obama's "association" with terrorists:
So repellent are Bill Clinton's friends (to the extent that a sociopathic sex offender with a narcissistic disorder can actually experience friendship in the conventional sense) that B. Hussein Obama's association with a raving racist reverend and a former member of the Weather Underground hasn't caused as much damage as it should. On one hand, Obama pals around with terrorists. On the other hand, Hillary pals around with James Carville. Advantage: Obama.
On Hillary and her attachment to Bill:
If Hillary could run exclusively on her record since becoming a senator from New York, she'd be a relatively moderate Democrat who hates the loony left -- as we found out this week when a tape of Hillary denouncing Moveon.org surfaced. Think Joe Biden in a pantsuit.
On Clinton's association with Bill's people being worse than Obama's "association" with terrorists:
So repellent are Bill Clinton's friends (to the extent that a sociopathic sex offender with a narcissistic disorder can actually experience friendship in the conventional sense) that B. Hussein Obama's association with a raving racist reverend and a former member of the Weather Underground hasn't caused as much damage as it should. On one hand, Obama pals around with terrorists. On the other hand, Hillary pals around with James Carville. Advantage: Obama.
Look at the stars...look how they shine for you
The other morning I read David Brooks' column in the NYTIMES as I usually do and was struck by the difference in tone from what most people were writing that day, and a difference from what Brooks himself usually writes. His main point being, if I may, that all too often today we try and iron out the mystery of life; the unexplainable. We do so rightly in many instances with science and logic but is it at the cost of the beauty and enjoyment of life?
Later that same day, I read a book review of a new biography of Sir Isaac Newton. The book was reviewed by my favorite writer, Christopher Hitchens and can be found here. What I think is interesting is this intersecting notion that something is missing when science and rationality is divorced from literature, music, art . . . etc. Here is a sample of what he says at the close of the review:
The book I have been discussing is the third volume in Ackroyd’s Brief Lives series. Himself a gay son of Clare College, Cambridge, who has already “done” Chaucer and Turner, as well as longer biographies of Dickens, T. S. Eliot, Blake, and the city of London (at 800-plus pages), he may well be the most prolific English author of his generation. And, which I find encouraging, he can write movingly and revealingly about Isaac Newton while being no more of a scientist or mathematician than I am. In our young day in Cambridge, the most famous public squabble was between the “scientist” C. P. Snow and the “literary” F. R. Leavis. It eventually turned into a multi-volume international tussle about “the two cultures,” or the inability of physicists to understand or appreciate literature versus the refusal of the English department to acquire the smallest “scientific” literacy. Ackroyd helps to show us that this is a false distinction with a long history. Keats, for example, thought that Newton had made our world into an arid and finite and unromantic place, and that work like his could “conquer all mysteries by rule and line … Unweave a rainbow.” He couldn’t have been more wrong. Newton was a friend of all mysticism and a lover of the occult who desired at all costs to keep the secrets of the temple and to prevent the universe from becoming a known quantity. For all that, he did generate a great deal more light than he had intended, and the day is not far off when we will be able to contemplate physics as another department—perhaps the most dynamic department—of the humanities. I would never have believed this when I first despairingly tried to lap the water of Cambridge, but that was before Carl Sagan and Lawrence Krauss and Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking fused language and science (and humor) and clambered up to stand, as Newton himself once phrased it, “on the shoulders of giants.”
Here too, is the brief column from David Brooks:
The Great Escape
By David Brooks
Published: April 22, 2008
Elon, N.C.
Over the past 15 months, I’ve been writing pretty regularly about the presidential campaign, which has meant thinking a lot about attack ads, tracking polls and which campaign is renouncing which over-the-line comment from a surrogate that particular day.
But on my desk for much of this period I have kept a short essay, which I stare at longingly from time to time. It’s an essay about how people in the Middle Ages viewed the night sky, and it’s about a mentality so totally removed from the campaign mentality that it’s like a refreshing dip in a cool and cleansing pool.
The essay, which appeared in Books & Culture, is called “C. S. Lewis and the Star of Bethlehem,” by Michael Ward, a chaplain at Peterhouse College at Cambridge. It points out that while we moderns see space as a black, cold, mostly empty vastness, with planets and stars propelled by gravitational and other forces, Europeans in the Middle Ages saw a more intimate and magical place. The heavens, to them, were a ceiling of moving spheres, rippling with signs and symbols, and moved by the love of God. The medieval universe, Lewis wrote, “was tingling with anthropomorphic life, dancing, ceremonial, a festival not a machine.”
Lewis tried to recapture that medieval mind-set, Ward writes. He did it not because he wanted to renounce the Copernican revolution and modern science, but because he found something valuable in that different way of seeing our surroundings.
The modern view disenchants the universe, Lewis argued, and tends to make it “all fact and no meaning.” When we say that a star is a huge flaming ball of gas, he wrote, we are merely describing what it is made of. We are not describing what it is. Lewis also wanted to include the mythologies, symbols and stories that have been told about the heavenly actors, and which were so real to those who looked up into the sky hundreds of years ago. He wanted to strengthen the imaginative faculty that comes naturally to those who see the heavens as fundamentally spiritual and alive.
There’s something about obsessing about a campaign — or probably a legal case or a business deal — that doesn’t exactly arouse the imaginative faculties. Campaigns are all about message management, polls and tactics. The communication is swift, Blackberry-sized and prosaic. As you cover it, you feel yourself enclosed in its tunnel. Entire mental faculties go unused. Ward’s essay has been a constant reminder of that other mental universe.
The medievals had a tremendous capacity for imagination and enchantment, and while nobody but the deepest romantic would want to go back to their way of thinking (let alone their way of life), it’s a tonic to visit from time to time.
As many historians have written, Europeans in the Middle Ages lived with an almost childlike emotional intensity. There were stark contrasts between daytime and darkness, between summer heat and winter cold, between misery and exuberance, and good and evil. Certain distinctions were less recognized, namely between the sacred and the profane.
Material things were consecrated with spiritual powers. God was thought to live in the stones of the cathedrals, and miracles inhered in the bones of the saints. The world seemed spiritually alive, and the power of spirit could overshadow politics. As Johan Huizinga wrote in “The Autumn of the Middle Ages,” “The most revealing map of Europe in these centuries would be a map, not of political or commercial capitals, but of the constellation of sanctuaries, the points of material contact with the unseen world.”
We tend to see economics and politics as the source of human motives, and then explain spirituality as their byproduct — as Barack Obama tried artlessly to do in San Francisco the other week. But in the Middle Ages, faith came first. The symbols, processions and services were vividly alive.
Large parts of medieval life were attempts to play out a dream, in ways hard to square with the often grubby and smelly reality. There were the elaborate manners of the courtly, the highly stylized love affairs and the formal chivalric code of knighthood. There was this driving impulsion among the well-born to idealize. This idealizing urge produced tournaments, quests and the mystical symbols of medieval art — think of the tapestries of the pure white unicorn. The gap between the ideal and the real is also what Cervantes made fun of in “Don Quixote.”
Writers like C. S. Lewis and John Ruskin seized on medieval culture as an antidote to industrialism — to mass manufacturing, secularization and urbanization. Without turning into an Arthurian cultist, it’s nice to look up from the latest YouTube campaign moment and imagine a sky populated with creatures, symbols and tales.
Not to go on too long, but I am wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this issue. I know for me, a literature major in undergrad and a lawyer, I love the contrast between raw rationality and its often times harshness and the beauty and enriching quality of art of all forms. I think that the two need to be in combination for a fully enriched life. One in exclusion of the other, leads to a vapid and fundamental misunderstanding or misapprehension of life . . . in my opinion.
Later that same day, I read a book review of a new biography of Sir Isaac Newton. The book was reviewed by my favorite writer, Christopher Hitchens and can be found here. What I think is interesting is this intersecting notion that something is missing when science and rationality is divorced from literature, music, art . . . etc. Here is a sample of what he says at the close of the review:
The book I have been discussing is the third volume in Ackroyd’s Brief Lives series. Himself a gay son of Clare College, Cambridge, who has already “done” Chaucer and Turner, as well as longer biographies of Dickens, T. S. Eliot, Blake, and the city of London (at 800-plus pages), he may well be the most prolific English author of his generation. And, which I find encouraging, he can write movingly and revealingly about Isaac Newton while being no more of a scientist or mathematician than I am. In our young day in Cambridge, the most famous public squabble was between the “scientist” C. P. Snow and the “literary” F. R. Leavis. It eventually turned into a multi-volume international tussle about “the two cultures,” or the inability of physicists to understand or appreciate literature versus the refusal of the English department to acquire the smallest “scientific” literacy. Ackroyd helps to show us that this is a false distinction with a long history. Keats, for example, thought that Newton had made our world into an arid and finite and unromantic place, and that work like his could “conquer all mysteries by rule and line … Unweave a rainbow.” He couldn’t have been more wrong. Newton was a friend of all mysticism and a lover of the occult who desired at all costs to keep the secrets of the temple and to prevent the universe from becoming a known quantity. For all that, he did generate a great deal more light than he had intended, and the day is not far off when we will be able to contemplate physics as another department—perhaps the most dynamic department—of the humanities. I would never have believed this when I first despairingly tried to lap the water of Cambridge, but that was before Carl Sagan and Lawrence Krauss and Steven Weinberg and Stephen Hawking fused language and science (and humor) and clambered up to stand, as Newton himself once phrased it, “on the shoulders of giants.”
Here too, is the brief column from David Brooks:
The Great Escape
By David Brooks
Published: April 22, 2008
Elon, N.C.
Over the past 15 months, I’ve been writing pretty regularly about the presidential campaign, which has meant thinking a lot about attack ads, tracking polls and which campaign is renouncing which over-the-line comment from a surrogate that particular day.
But on my desk for much of this period I have kept a short essay, which I stare at longingly from time to time. It’s an essay about how people in the Middle Ages viewed the night sky, and it’s about a mentality so totally removed from the campaign mentality that it’s like a refreshing dip in a cool and cleansing pool.
The essay, which appeared in Books & Culture, is called “C. S. Lewis and the Star of Bethlehem,” by Michael Ward, a chaplain at Peterhouse College at Cambridge. It points out that while we moderns see space as a black, cold, mostly empty vastness, with planets and stars propelled by gravitational and other forces, Europeans in the Middle Ages saw a more intimate and magical place. The heavens, to them, were a ceiling of moving spheres, rippling with signs and symbols, and moved by the love of God. The medieval universe, Lewis wrote, “was tingling with anthropomorphic life, dancing, ceremonial, a festival not a machine.”
Lewis tried to recapture that medieval mind-set, Ward writes. He did it not because he wanted to renounce the Copernican revolution and modern science, but because he found something valuable in that different way of seeing our surroundings.
The modern view disenchants the universe, Lewis argued, and tends to make it “all fact and no meaning.” When we say that a star is a huge flaming ball of gas, he wrote, we are merely describing what it is made of. We are not describing what it is. Lewis also wanted to include the mythologies, symbols and stories that have been told about the heavenly actors, and which were so real to those who looked up into the sky hundreds of years ago. He wanted to strengthen the imaginative faculty that comes naturally to those who see the heavens as fundamentally spiritual and alive.
There’s something about obsessing about a campaign — or probably a legal case or a business deal — that doesn’t exactly arouse the imaginative faculties. Campaigns are all about message management, polls and tactics. The communication is swift, Blackberry-sized and prosaic. As you cover it, you feel yourself enclosed in its tunnel. Entire mental faculties go unused. Ward’s essay has been a constant reminder of that other mental universe.
The medievals had a tremendous capacity for imagination and enchantment, and while nobody but the deepest romantic would want to go back to their way of thinking (let alone their way of life), it’s a tonic to visit from time to time.
As many historians have written, Europeans in the Middle Ages lived with an almost childlike emotional intensity. There were stark contrasts between daytime and darkness, between summer heat and winter cold, between misery and exuberance, and good and evil. Certain distinctions were less recognized, namely between the sacred and the profane.
Material things were consecrated with spiritual powers. God was thought to live in the stones of the cathedrals, and miracles inhered in the bones of the saints. The world seemed spiritually alive, and the power of spirit could overshadow politics. As Johan Huizinga wrote in “The Autumn of the Middle Ages,” “The most revealing map of Europe in these centuries would be a map, not of political or commercial capitals, but of the constellation of sanctuaries, the points of material contact with the unseen world.”
We tend to see economics and politics as the source of human motives, and then explain spirituality as their byproduct — as Barack Obama tried artlessly to do in San Francisco the other week. But in the Middle Ages, faith came first. The symbols, processions and services were vividly alive.
Large parts of medieval life were attempts to play out a dream, in ways hard to square with the often grubby and smelly reality. There were the elaborate manners of the courtly, the highly stylized love affairs and the formal chivalric code of knighthood. There was this driving impulsion among the well-born to idealize. This idealizing urge produced tournaments, quests and the mystical symbols of medieval art — think of the tapestries of the pure white unicorn. The gap between the ideal and the real is also what Cervantes made fun of in “Don Quixote.”
Writers like C. S. Lewis and John Ruskin seized on medieval culture as an antidote to industrialism — to mass manufacturing, secularization and urbanization. Without turning into an Arthurian cultist, it’s nice to look up from the latest YouTube campaign moment and imagine a sky populated with creatures, symbols and tales.
Not to go on too long, but I am wondering what everyone's thoughts are on this issue. I know for me, a literature major in undergrad and a lawyer, I love the contrast between raw rationality and its often times harshness and the beauty and enriching quality of art of all forms. I think that the two need to be in combination for a fully enriched life. One in exclusion of the other, leads to a vapid and fundamental misunderstanding or misapprehension of life . . . in my opinion.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Today's Bathroom Reading
At some point of my work afternoon, I make a sojourn to the restroom. Before I go to the restroom however, I always like to print out 3 or 4 articles that I want to read while in the bathroom. I usually read a lot of interesting articles and I want to take the opportunity to pass these great articles along. So, I've decided to make this a new, daily feature. I'll give you the link to the article, a brief "snippet" from the article and a "*" (we'll call it a star) rating with * * * * 4 stars being an outstanding, interesting, must-read and a * 1 star being pretty meh.
So here it is! Let me know your thoughts on this new feature.
Today's Bathroom Reading:
Fareed Zakaria- "Don't Feed China's Nationalism" (Newsweek) April 21, 2008 * *
For leaders to boycott the Games' opening ceremonies alone is an odd idea. Is the president of the United States supposed to travel to Beijing to attend the women's water-polo finals instead? (Britain's Gordon Brown, for instance, has said he'll attend the closing, but not the opening ceremonies.) Picking who will go to which event is trying to have it both ways, voting for the boycott before you vote against it. Some want to punish China for its association with the Sudanese government, which is perpetrating atrocities in Darfur. But to boycott Beijing's Games because it buys oil from Sudan carries the notion of responsibility too far. After all, the United States has much closer ties to Saudi Arabia, a medieval monarchy that has funded Islamic terror. Should the world boycott America for this relationship?
Jonah Goldberg- "How Neo are the Neocons?" (National Review) April 23, 2008 * *
Obviously, supporting the spread of democracy hardly requires you to support the Iraq war. But it works the other way around as well. Support for the Iraq war doesn’t automatically make you a neoconservative. Douglas J. Feith, a former undersecretary of defense after 9/11, argues in his new memoir, War and Decision, that democratization didn’t rank very high among the Bush administration’s early priorities. Moreover, the administration’s mistakes in Iraq — perhaps including the war itself — have less relationship to ideology than many think. “It is possible,” as Kagan notes, “to be prudent or imprudent, capable or clumsy, wise or foolish, hurried or cautious in pursuit of any doctrine.” (Just ask newly hired Hamas spokesman Jimmy Carter.)
Joe Klein- "The Patriotism Problem" (Time) April 3, 2008 * * *
But there was still something missing. I noticed it during Obama's response to a young man who remembered how the country had come together after Sept. 11 and lamented "the dangerously low levels of patriotism and pride in our country, the loss of faith in our elected officials." Obama used this, understandably, to go after George W. Bush. "Cynicism has become the hot stock," he said, "the growth industry during the Bush Administration." He talked about the Administration's mendacity, its incompetence during Hurricane Katrina, its lack of transparency. But he never returned to the question of patriotism. He never said, "But hey, look, we're Americans. This is the greatest country on earth. We'll rise to the occasion."
This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what's wrong with America than what's right. When Ronald Reagan touted "Morning in America" in the 1980s, Dick Gephardt famously countered that it was near midnight "and getting darker all the time." This is ironic and weirdly self-defeating, since the liberal message of national improvement is profoundly more optimistic, and patriotic, than the innate conservative pessimism about the perfectibility of human nature. Obama's hopemongering is about as American as a message can get — although, in the end, it is mostly about our ability to transcend our imperfections rather than the effortless brilliance of our diversity, informality and freedom-propelled creativity.
So here it is! Let me know your thoughts on this new feature.
Today's Bathroom Reading:
Fareed Zakaria- "Don't Feed China's Nationalism" (Newsweek) April 21, 2008 * *
For leaders to boycott the Games' opening ceremonies alone is an odd idea. Is the president of the United States supposed to travel to Beijing to attend the women's water-polo finals instead? (Britain's Gordon Brown, for instance, has said he'll attend the closing, but not the opening ceremonies.) Picking who will go to which event is trying to have it both ways, voting for the boycott before you vote against it. Some want to punish China for its association with the Sudanese government, which is perpetrating atrocities in Darfur. But to boycott Beijing's Games because it buys oil from Sudan carries the notion of responsibility too far. After all, the United States has much closer ties to Saudi Arabia, a medieval monarchy that has funded Islamic terror. Should the world boycott America for this relationship?
Jonah Goldberg- "How Neo are the Neocons?" (National Review) April 23, 2008 * *
Obviously, supporting the spread of democracy hardly requires you to support the Iraq war. But it works the other way around as well. Support for the Iraq war doesn’t automatically make you a neoconservative. Douglas J. Feith, a former undersecretary of defense after 9/11, argues in his new memoir, War and Decision, that democratization didn’t rank very high among the Bush administration’s early priorities. Moreover, the administration’s mistakes in Iraq — perhaps including the war itself — have less relationship to ideology than many think. “It is possible,” as Kagan notes, “to be prudent or imprudent, capable or clumsy, wise or foolish, hurried or cautious in pursuit of any doctrine.” (Just ask newly hired Hamas spokesman Jimmy Carter.)
Joe Klein- "The Patriotism Problem" (Time) April 3, 2008 * * *
But there was still something missing. I noticed it during Obama's response to a young man who remembered how the country had come together after Sept. 11 and lamented "the dangerously low levels of patriotism and pride in our country, the loss of faith in our elected officials." Obama used this, understandably, to go after George W. Bush. "Cynicism has become the hot stock," he said, "the growth industry during the Bush Administration." He talked about the Administration's mendacity, its incompetence during Hurricane Katrina, its lack of transparency. But he never returned to the question of patriotism. He never said, "But hey, look, we're Americans. This is the greatest country on earth. We'll rise to the occasion."
This is a chronic disease among Democrats, who tend to talk more about what's wrong with America than what's right. When Ronald Reagan touted "Morning in America" in the 1980s, Dick Gephardt famously countered that it was near midnight "and getting darker all the time." This is ironic and weirdly self-defeating, since the liberal message of national improvement is profoundly more optimistic, and patriotic, than the innate conservative pessimism about the perfectibility of human nature. Obama's hopemongering is about as American as a message can get — although, in the end, it is mostly about our ability to transcend our imperfections rather than the effortless brilliance of our diversity, informality and freedom-propelled creativity.
DOH! Give her money!
Dear Eric,
This campaign is your campaign, and the victory we celebrated last night is your victory. Now, thanks to you, the tide is turning in this race. We never stopped believing in one another, never doubted that we could count on each other. You didn't quit, and when I'm president, I promise I won't quit on you. Now with the next critical contests right around the corner, we need your immediate help to build on the hard-earned momentum of our Pennsylvania victory and continue our success all the way to the nomination.
Contribute today to help carry our momentum to Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, and beyond.
Even though the Obama campaign went for broke trying to knock us out of the race, the people of Pennsylvania had other ideas. We connected with Pennsylvania families who know they need a strong leader who's on their side to turn around the battered Bush economy and end President Bush's disastrous war in Iraq. And as this redefined contest moves across the country, we'll keep connecting. I'm in this race to fight for you. And you know you can count on me to keep fighting for you every day. And as long as we keep working together, we'll wrest control of the White House from the Republicans and defeat John McCain. I'm going to continue to rely on your heart and your spirit every step of the way.
Contribute now, and together, we can carry our winning message to victory.
Thanks to you, we're on a roll. And with your immediate help, we'll keep moving forward until we've won the Democratic nomination, won the November election, and earned the opportunity to lead America in a new, more promising direction. Thanks so much for believing in me and believing in how much we can accomplish if we keep pulling together.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
I wonder if it will work for me, if after ever paragraph I write, I insert [contribute now]?
The most promising line I see is that she wants to "lead America in a new, more promising direction."
Which direction is that? And how, if you are so experienced, and you're running on your husband's record, can you argue that you and ONLY you are capable of leading in a NEW direction?
Why can't she just say-- we like the status quo, don't like to rock the boat in this country, vote for me and we can continue with the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton status quo that has made this country great?! Clearly that is what we will be getting.
This campaign is your campaign, and the victory we celebrated last night is your victory. Now, thanks to you, the tide is turning in this race. We never stopped believing in one another, never doubted that we could count on each other. You didn't quit, and when I'm president, I promise I won't quit on you. Now with the next critical contests right around the corner, we need your immediate help to build on the hard-earned momentum of our Pennsylvania victory and continue our success all the way to the nomination.
Contribute today to help carry our momentum to Indiana, North Carolina, West Virginia, and beyond.
Even though the Obama campaign went for broke trying to knock us out of the race, the people of Pennsylvania had other ideas. We connected with Pennsylvania families who know they need a strong leader who's on their side to turn around the battered Bush economy and end President Bush's disastrous war in Iraq. And as this redefined contest moves across the country, we'll keep connecting. I'm in this race to fight for you. And you know you can count on me to keep fighting for you every day. And as long as we keep working together, we'll wrest control of the White House from the Republicans and defeat John McCain. I'm going to continue to rely on your heart and your spirit every step of the way.
Contribute now, and together, we can carry our winning message to victory.
Thanks to you, we're on a roll. And with your immediate help, we'll keep moving forward until we've won the Democratic nomination, won the November election, and earned the opportunity to lead America in a new, more promising direction. Thanks so much for believing in me and believing in how much we can accomplish if we keep pulling together.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
I wonder if it will work for me, if after ever paragraph I write, I insert [contribute now]?
The most promising line I see is that she wants to "lead America in a new, more promising direction."
Which direction is that? And how, if you are so experienced, and you're running on your husband's record, can you argue that you and ONLY you are capable of leading in a NEW direction?
Why can't she just say-- we like the status quo, don't like to rock the boat in this country, vote for me and we can continue with the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton status quo that has made this country great?! Clearly that is what we will be getting.
- I know that its probably apostasy to suggest so, but the Democratic tactic of trying to label John McCain as another 4 years of the Bush administration is lame and won't work. It won't work because its not true, and the Democrats are treating everyone like idiots when they try and sell that line.
Who died and made Pat Buchanan a legal expert?
Pat Buchanan tries to critique the Court, and in particular Justice Stevens, in this *brilliantly* crafted critique.
The Faustian bargain these justices are offered is favorable media, comparisons to great liberal jurists of yesterday like Louis Brandeis and Hugo Black, and repeated references to how they have "evolved," and "grown," and are being accorded a strange "new respect."
When they accept such media favors, these justices, nominated by Republican presidents to restore constitutionalism to the court, begin to receive ovations at establishment dinners and turn up on the most desirable party lists. Where once they were the "clones of Scalia," suddenly, they are jurists of "independent thought."
Yes Pat, its because of the popular media attention and the party invitations they receive that they find the death penalty abhorrent to democratic principles and in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Or, it could be that we're the only industrialized country in the world, one of two if you deign to include China, that still executes it's own people. But Pat is probably right, they probably made a "Faustian" bargain for caviar and foie gras.
The Faustian bargain these justices are offered is favorable media, comparisons to great liberal jurists of yesterday like Louis Brandeis and Hugo Black, and repeated references to how they have "evolved," and "grown," and are being accorded a strange "new respect."
When they accept such media favors, these justices, nominated by Republican presidents to restore constitutionalism to the court, begin to receive ovations at establishment dinners and turn up on the most desirable party lists. Where once they were the "clones of Scalia," suddenly, they are jurists of "independent thought."
Yes Pat, its because of the popular media attention and the party invitations they receive that they find the death penalty abhorrent to democratic principles and in violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Or, it could be that we're the only industrialized country in the world, one of two if you deign to include China, that still executes it's own people. But Pat is probably right, they probably made a "Faustian" bargain for caviar and foie gras.
Those who stay will be champions. . .
Jake Long is the opposite of Justin Boren!
While Boren, transferring to F*C* STATE, is a communist, Jake Long is the best of college football.
He is truly the epitome of class and the living example of Bo Schembechler's motto: THOSE WHO STAY WILL BE CHAMPIONS!
Mike Hart, Michigan's career leading rusher and a co-captain with Long last season, said there was no player more deserving of the No. 1 overall pick.
"If you want to talk about a sure thing, it's Jake Long," Hart said. "No quarterback (in this draft) is a guarantee with the top pick. The smartest pick, the best pick, and safest pick is Jake Long. He's someone who's not going to get in trouble. He's someone who everyone is going to like. He's not going to come in and be a (jerk).
"He's the perfect pick. A lot of guys would go buy a lot of cars and crazy jewelry, but he's probably going to show up in Miami driving his white S-10 truck. I saw him last Friday at a draft party, and I said, 'Jake, you're going to have a bunch of money to go buy whatever you want,' but he still wears the same jeans, same shirts, same everything. Jake is going to be Jake. He's a guy who plays football and acts like he doesn't have any money."
Carr said Long takes nothing but positives into the NFL.
"I think they're looking for more than a great football player; they're looking for a guy who can be a representative of not only the organization in the NFL, but the city and be a guy in the locker room who is going to represent and be the kind of leader that you need to be successful," Carr said.
"I think everybody who knows Jake is thrilled for him because, certainly there is a financial aspect of this thing, but I think in the years ahead, Jake will be everything for the Miami Dolphins that he was at Michigan. The thing I love the most about Jake, I know this won't change him. He's genuine, and he knows what he wants to do in life. I'm delighted for him."
While Boren, transferring to F*C* STATE, is a communist, Jake Long is the best of college football.
He is truly the epitome of class and the living example of Bo Schembechler's motto: THOSE WHO STAY WILL BE CHAMPIONS!
Mike Hart, Michigan's career leading rusher and a co-captain with Long last season, said there was no player more deserving of the No. 1 overall pick.
"If you want to talk about a sure thing, it's Jake Long," Hart said. "No quarterback (in this draft) is a guarantee with the top pick. The smartest pick, the best pick, and safest pick is Jake Long. He's someone who's not going to get in trouble. He's someone who everyone is going to like. He's not going to come in and be a (jerk).
"He's the perfect pick. A lot of guys would go buy a lot of cars and crazy jewelry, but he's probably going to show up in Miami driving his white S-10 truck. I saw him last Friday at a draft party, and I said, 'Jake, you're going to have a bunch of money to go buy whatever you want,' but he still wears the same jeans, same shirts, same everything. Jake is going to be Jake. He's a guy who plays football and acts like he doesn't have any money."
Carr said Long takes nothing but positives into the NFL.
"I think they're looking for more than a great football player; they're looking for a guy who can be a representative of not only the organization in the NFL, but the city and be a guy in the locker room who is going to represent and be the kind of leader that you need to be successful," Carr said.
"I think everybody who knows Jake is thrilled for him because, certainly there is a financial aspect of this thing, but I think in the years ahead, Jake will be everything for the Miami Dolphins that he was at Michigan. The thing I love the most about Jake, I know this won't change him. He's genuine, and he knows what he wants to do in life. I'm delighted for him."
Damn White Women!
Why is Barack Obama not putting Hillary away?
If you ask MSNBC's Chuck Todd, its because of "Obama can't close the deal with white women."
*SNAP*
Is that racist or is Chuck Todd as obsessed with the double entendre as I am? He said the above phrase over and over again all morning on "Morning Joe" and even sent it to me in his daily political update text message.
On another note . . . yes, I receive daily text message political updates from Chuck Todd.
If you ask MSNBC's Chuck Todd, its because of "Obama can't close the deal with white women."
*SNAP*
Is that racist or is Chuck Todd as obsessed with the double entendre as I am? He said the above phrase over and over again all morning on "Morning Joe" and even sent it to me in his daily political update text message.
On another note . . . yes, I receive daily text message political updates from Chuck Todd.
On to the politics...
Being the complete nerd that I am, I subscribe to the mailing lists of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. This means that I get both of their spin emails. After last night's PA primary, these are the emails I received. It is interesting to observe the differing accounts of what is happening in this race.
Dear Eric,
Thanks to you, we won a critically important victory tonight in Pennsylvania. It's a giant step forward that will transform the landscape of the presidential race. And it couldn't have happened without you. There will be much more to do beginning tomorrow. But tonight, let's just celebrate the fact that you and I are part of a remarkable community of people tough enough, passionate enough, and determined enough to win big when everything is on the line. Thanks so much for all you do.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
[CONTRIBUTE]
Dear Eric,
Thanks to you, we won a critically important victory tonight in Pennsylvania. It's a giant step forward that will transform the landscape of the presidential race. And it couldn't have happened without you. There will be much more to do beginning tomorrow. But tonight, let's just celebrate the fact that you and I are part of a remarkable community of people tough enough, passionate enough, and determined enough to win big when everything is on the line. Thanks so much for all you do.
Sincerely,
Hillary Rodham Clinton
[CONTRIBUTE]
ERIC --
Votes are still being counted in Pennsylvania, but one thing is already clear.
In a state where we trailed by more than 25 points just a couple weeks ago, you helped close the gap to a slimmer margin than most thought possible.
Thanks to your support, with just 9 contests remaining, we've won more delegates, more votes, and twice as many contests.
We hold a commanding position, but there are two crucial contests coming up -- voters will head to the polls in North Carolina and Indiana in exactly two weeks. And we're already building our organization in the other remaining states.
But it's clear the attacks are going to continue, and we're going to continue fighting a two-front battle against John McCain and Hillary Clinton.
I need your support right now. Please make a donation of $25:
Thank you for all that you're doing to change our country.
Barack
First and foremost let me be clear, I have done absolutely nothing to help either of them, yet they are so gracious in thanking me.
To Hill: I don't want you to win, so while you praise "us," "you and I" for being so tough, resilient and victorious when all is on the line, it makes me mostly annoyed that you just won't go away!!!
To Barry: Enough already! I like you and I want you to win, but seriously . . . talking about your victories in February won't permeate the zeitgeist today! Nobody likes watching the team that gets out to a big lead and then sits on it while the other team is scrapping away, trying to come back. Most people watching end up rooting for the scrappy team to pull off the improbable comeback. You would be correct that the result of this tactic is usually victory. In politics as in sports however, the next game is just as important and your sitting on the lead and refusal to engage in the game is turning people off to you. You're better than this, you are the more talented athlete. Don't let yourself be out hard-worked and out-fought by the scrappy Clintons!
My law school, the felonious...
This is some very interesting news coming from Wayne State University law school, my alma mater . . .
This guy was in my criminal procedure class my last semester in law school- he was a night student.
My buddy Danny had evidence with him and apparently the guy was paying attention in both classes because this is what happened!
What is funny, or may not be funny, depending on whether you have a sense of humor or not; the guy was a really nice, personable, if not all-too-bright guy. . . he was outgoing but super soft spoken.
Oh, and then there is this exemplar of virtue who happens to be enrolled at Wayne Law currently!
Apparently the law school needs a new motto: Wayne Law- We Produce Our Own Clients, thats the "Wayne Difference"!
This guy was in my criminal procedure class my last semester in law school- he was a night student.
My buddy Danny had evidence with him and apparently the guy was paying attention in both classes because this is what happened!
What is funny, or may not be funny, depending on whether you have a sense of humor or not; the guy was a really nice, personable, if not all-too-bright guy. . . he was outgoing but super soft spoken.
Oh, and then there is this exemplar of virtue who happens to be enrolled at Wayne Law currently!
Apparently the law school needs a new motto: Wayne Law- We Produce Our Own Clients, thats the "Wayne Difference"!
UNHOLY TREASON
As a reflection of the new direction of this blog, I am going to infuse more non-political, but every bit as much, newsworthy information. Some sports, some current events and other "stuff" that is interesting to me . . . and hopefully you.
The first story I am posting is this most disgustingly, unholy of treasons.
My response: Justin Boren is a big cry-baby, who can now go live in his parent's basement, eat his Mom's homecooked food and make his once-proud parents wonder where they went wrong and why their son is a traitorous coward!
The first story I am posting is this most disgustingly, unholy of treasons.
My response: Justin Boren is a big cry-baby, who can now go live in his parent's basement, eat his Mom's homecooked food and make his once-proud parents wonder where they went wrong and why their son is a traitorous coward!
The Return of the Blog
For the two of you that have been eagerly anticipating the return of this blog. . . here it is!
Why has it been so long since I last posted? Umm . . . I guess I was in need of an infusion of new ideas. The same old, same old political analysis was getting boring, it sounded redundant (to me) and I felt the blog lacked both creativity and new readers.
So . . . I am back and I am going to try some new things and try and keep this interesting.
Why has it been so long since I last posted? Umm . . . I guess I was in need of an infusion of new ideas. The same old, same old political analysis was getting boring, it sounded redundant (to me) and I felt the blog lacked both creativity and new readers.
So . . . I am back and I am going to try some new things and try and keep this interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)