Thought that would get your attention....

Are conservatives hypocrites when it comes to sex?

Well, yeah. Just ask "Hot Tub Tom" DeLay.

Does it matter?

I think so...and in this piece for TomPaine.com, I talk about why, when Scooter Libby writes a novel about a ten-year-old girl who repeatedly has sex with a bear, it's a problem not just for Republicans, but for the country as a whole.

Following the Globe, the Crimson weighs in with its report on Harvard's declining rates of alumni giving.

The article doesn't contain a lot of new information, but it does update the Globe piece in a couple of bemusing ways.

First, vice-president for finance Donella Rapier seems to have learned that it's not wise to concede that President Summers' image problems may be hurting alumni giving, as she did in the Globe.

“A number of people have been incredibly supportive of the president and all he is trying to do, and some have asked questions,” she told the Globe.

President Summers was apparently none too pleased by this display of...well...admitting the obvious.

Now, Rapier tells the Crimson of her “strong sense...that our alumni are highly supportive of the President and his vision for Harvard’s future.”

(Where is Global Language Monitor when you need them?)

In the Globe article, Rapier also suggested that many alumni were hard to reach because they only had cell phones, an assertion about which this blogger was skeptical; I suggested that the presence of e-mail should more than compensate for the miniscule number of alums who don't have landlines.

Perhaps Ms. Rapier reads this blog, because now the Crimson reports that "in their attempts to contact alumni, Harvard fundraisers now face e-mail spam filters...and overflowing e-mail inboxes."

Too funny.

Look, there probably is some correlation between President Summers, who is obviously a divisive figure, and alumni giving. But there may also be more credible explanations that have nothing to do with "e-mail spam filters."

(I mean, come on, people—you are Harvard. If your fundraising is dependent on not being considered spam, then you've got a serious problem.)

How about the fact that, since 2001, the stock market has either been declining or in the doldrums, and people just don't feel as rich as they did in the 1990s? Or the fact that 2001 marked the departure of a president who'd just completed a huge capital campaign?

If I were trying to explain away declining rates of alumni giving, I'd throw out those explanations, instead of talking about what a challenge cell phones are.

One word of caution to the Crimson: It's time to treat last year's alleged $590 million raised—ostensibly a record—with skepticism. Do you really think that there was no pressure on the relevant parties not to make it look like fundraising was down during Larry Summers' annus horribilis?

From what I hear, these numbers are more cooked than a chicken in China....

Global Language Monitor, a non-profit group that monitors language use—where do these people get the time?—has compiled a list of the 10 most politically correct words or phrases of 2005, and Larry Summers' use of the phrase "intrinsic aptitude" lands at number two on the list.

"Intrinsic aptitude" was, of course, the phrase Summers used to explain why he thought women are less gifted at science and mathematics than men are.

In fairness to President Summers, many people thought the phrase was politically incorrect. So he's sort of getting it coming and going here.

Also on the list were "deferred success" (for "failure") and "misguided criminals" (terrorists).

What was Bob Woodward thinking/smoking?

Yesterday he announced that he was made privy to Valerie Wilson's CIA identity a month before Bob Novak was. (Typical Woodward; he always has to be first.)

Yet for months, he has been disparaging the importance of Patrick Fitzgerald's leak investigation.

As Howie Kurtz reported today in WashPo, Woodward "said on MSNBC's 'Hardball' in June that in the end 'there is going to be nothing to it. And it is a shame. And the special prosecutor in that case, his behavior, in my view, has been disgraceful.' In a National Public Radio interview in July, Woodward said that Fitzgerald made 'a big mistake' in going after Miller and that 'there is not the kind of compelling evidence that there was some crime involved here.'"

This is not rocket science; this is journalism 101. If you have a conflict of interest in a matter, you must disclose it while writing or talking about it. Woodward's criticism of the investigation now looks like nothing more than protecting a source. And, for that matter, himself.

I don't think you could find another reporter, for example, who ever thought that Fitzgerald's behavior was "disgraceful." That's strong language—and it sounds much more like the White House than like an independent, non-partisan commentator.

Perhaps Woodward felt free to call Fitzgerald "disgraceful" because the independent counsel wouldn't talk to him....whereas everyone who does talk to Woodward gets the kid-glove treatment.

Woodward has humiliated his employer. By placing his own story and his own source above the interests of the Washington Post, Woodward shows that his true loyalty is not to the paper, but to himself. And yet, managing editor Len Downie does nothing but say that there was a miscommunication, and that everything is cleared up now.

I think it'd be a better move for Downie to say that he's going to reevaluate the nature of Woodward's relationship with the Washington Post—not to fire Woodward, but to create a clearer relationship so that the paper's priority is primary and this kind of embarrassing incident never happens again.

The location of the secret Shiite torture prison happens to be the former headquarters of top American administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremer....

Whoops!

...is to wrap yourself in the cloak of patriotism by saying that any criticism of the war is a criticism of the soldiers.

Funnily enough, that's what Dick Cheney did in his speech yesterday.

For example:

What we’re hearing now is some politicians contradicting their own statements and making a play for political advantage in the middle of a war. The saddest part is that our people in uniform have been subjected to these cynical and pernicious falsehoods day in and day out. American soldiers and Marines are out there every day in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures – conducting raids, training Iraqi forces, countering attacks, seizing weapons, and capturing killers – and back home a few opportunists are suggesting they were sent into battle for a lie.

It takes some chutzpah, saying that opponents of the war are guilty of "cynical and pernicious falsehoods"....because doesn't that pretty well describe the Administration's case for war? And isn't that the reason those soldiers and Marines are out there every day, in dangerous conditions and desert temperatures, etc., etc.?

Five more killed and eleven wounded yesterday, by the way....(a story that doesn't even make the front page of NYTimes.com.). We're getting from 2000 to 2100 pretty fast.

A young filmmaker named Evan Coyne Maloney has made a film, "Brainwashing 201," decrying the treatment of campus conservatives.

Weirdly enough, Maloney was encouraged in his dream of becoming a documentarian by Michael Moore, who is not known as a campus conservative.

And following the more typical path of a young conservative, he found a rich sugar daddy, Stuart Browning—described by the Chronicle of Higher Education as a "multimillionaire interested in politics"—to fund him....

Apparently in the film, Maloney does things like wander onto various college campuses and ask where the "men's center" is. (Which is kind of amusing, actually.) Sounds like Larry Summers might like this documentary....

___________________________________________________________________

*

Here is his response to the letter of protest from 24 faculty members over his alleged plans to fire FAS dean Bill Kirby:

"Dear Colleagues:

I write to share with you the text of a message I sent Tuesday in response to a statement reported in that day's Crimson from a group of current and former department chairs:

'I share your dismay at the irresponsible and misguided speculation reported in last Thursday's Crimson regarding my relationship with Dean Kirby, and I agree that these kinds of rumors are unhelpful and counterproductive as we work to achieve our common goals. Dean Kirby has my confidence and support as he leads the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in a series of critically important activities designed to advance the Faculty's academic priorities. I have been very much encouraged by the progress he and the faculty as a whole have made recently in curricular reform and other matters, and I look forward to our continued work together.'

I very much appreciate your ongoing commitment to our common goals.

Sincerely,
Larry Summers

Huh.

Couple of things. First, why exactly was the Crimson story "irresponsible" and "misguided"? (Note that Summers does not describe it as "wrong.") Seems to me that the paper was merely doing its job...and I haven't seen anyone question the accuracy of the story. And you'd better believe that, if they could, they would.

Dean Kirby has my confidence and support....

Yes, fine. But does he also plan to step down from his position at the end of the year, and has he negotiated this option with President Summers?

Or does he now find himself in a position of unanticipated strength?

Reuters has followed up on Marcella Bombardieri's Globe piece about the faculty protest letter at Harvard, and you can find it here, on CNN.com.

This isn't quite at the New York Times' level of attention...yet. But it's getting there....

Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force

Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, November 16, 2005; Page A01

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress.....

Now it's 50 Cent's turn to get into the publishing game; he's creating a publishing label called "G-Unit Books," in collaboration with MTV and Simon & Schuster.

According to the website ContactMusic.com, "The 2007 project will focus on the gritty themes covered in 50 Cent's music. 'These tales will tell the truth about The Life; the sex, guns and cash; the brutal highs and short lives of the players on the streets.'"

As the Times puts it, "Louise Burke, the publisher of Pocket Books, said the stories would be written by authors recruited by the publisher in collaboration with 50 Cent."

In other words, they'll be publishing books not written by their authors for an (MTV) audience that doesn't read.

They're going to make a bundle...

So now we're discovering that the Iraqi governments we installed have built secret torture chambers.

Boy, this war just gets better and better, doesn't it? And isn't it strange that all the people who once couldn't wait to crow about our success in Iraq—Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice—have now moved on or gone underground?

The obvious point to make here is that we don't exactly have the moral high ground. When our vice-president is secretly lobbying Congress to kill a measure banning torture, it's a little tough to crack down on Shiite Iraquis torturing their Sunni enemies.....

In the Globe, Marcella Bombardieri reports on the anti-Summers letter signed by 24 Harvard professors.

Bombardieri reports that the letter was signed by 17 department chairs and seven former department chairs.

Summers' spokeswoman John Longbrake tells the Globe that Summers sent a quick response. "''He expressed his confidence and support for Dean Kirby, and said he looked forward to continuing to work together."

But Longbrake did not release the text of the letter.

(Incidentally, kudos to Longbrake, whom I'm told is a good guy. He seems to be doing his best to maintain a cordial and open atmosphere between Mass Hall and the press in what must surely be a delicate situation.)

The professors should release the letter...because I'd like to see if there's any language in it ensuring that Kirby will remain as dean. My hunch? That the language it contains is carefully crafted, so that there will be no contradiction when Kirby departs as dean at the end of this school year...

...which I still think will happen. Although he is clearly in a stronger position now than before the Crimson broke the news that Summers had planned to fire him. If he's smart, he'll use this leverage to get a larger golden parachute out of Mass Hall.

(Note to Crimson: How about an article adding up how much Summers' various faculty payouts, severance packages, and controversies have cost the university? You can start with the $1 million donation directed to Skip Gates' DuBois Institute, as reported in Harvard Rules. Perhaps you can make it the fourth part of the your imminent series on Harvard's financial fortunes.)

By the way, multiple sources tell me that Summers offered Kirby's job to Drew Faust, dean of the Radcliffe Institute, during the last school year. Faust declined...but Summers told a number of professors that he planned to make Faust dean of the FAS.

"Oil Companies Make Record $96 Billion in 2005 Profits—Seek Patent on Hurricane-Making Machine"
—seen on the electronic billboard over Fairway Market, at 128th Street

Meanwhile, in New Haven, Yale has announced a new plan for greater diversity in faculty hiring.

As InsideHigherEd.com puts it, "In contrast to many diversity plans in higher education, Yale set out actual quantitative goals. The e-mail sets the bar at 30 new minority faculty members over seven years – which would be about a 30 percent increase – and 30 new female faculty members in departments where they are underrepresented, which would be a 20 percent increase overall, and an 83 percent increase in the targeted departments, notably physical sciences."

I don't know enough about the situation at Yale to comment on this extensively, but there does strike me as something troubling about this. These numbers are, simply, quotas. And while I think there is great importance in having a faculty with ethnic and gender diversity, by stipulating a specific number to be hired, Yale concedes—it's arguable, I know, but I think this is true—that the identies of those professors are more important than their talents.

(As opposed to, say, saying that Yale plans to increase faculty diversity, but without setting quotas.)

And setting specific targets like this will, of course, raise the usual suspicions about the merits of those who are hired.

Don't get me wrong: I'm highly supportive of finding excellent female and minority professors to teach at Yale, and of the general goal of making academia more diverse. I'm just not sure that this is the right way to go about it.

Twenty years ago, my friend Ari Posner wrote a classic story in The New Republic about ghostwriting, pointing out that what was once considered a shameful secret in Washington had become commonplace. Once, words were so valued as a sign of intellectual independence and personal gravitas that to admit that others had put them in your mouth was emasculating. Now, a ghostwriter had become a sign of one's own importance; you were too busy to sit down and wrestle with something as painstaking as language, and besides, anyone could do it.

Now, of course, ghostwriters are so taken for granted, they are not even remarked upon.

I know it's curmudgeonly to insist that there's something weird about this...

...but how can the New York Times write an entire piece about Nicole Richie and her new novel, "The Truth about Diamonds"—yes, that's her on the cover—without even mentioning the word "ghostwriter"?

Okay, the Times does include the clause, "which Ms. Richie said she wrote herself." But who could possibly believe that? A little more skepticism would be in order...except that the reporter clearly doesn't think the issue is important.

Almost as bizarre to me is the adoration her young fans, waiting in line to have their books signed, manifested.

As one teenage boy told the Times, "Her body is perfect, her hair is perfect, her outfit is perfect, her makeup is perfect. I love everything about her."

"Her outfit is perfect?" This, from a teenage boy?

We live in strange times....

Thanks to all of you who wrote pointing out that this site mysteriously vanished last night. I think it was due to some kind of maintenance by Blogger.com.

But if I were a paranoid man, I'd wonder....

Anyway, things should be okay now. Thanks for your patience.

The Crimson reports that a group of professors has begun circulating a statement critical of Larry Summers for his handling of the Bill Kirby affair.

Referring to the Crimson's scoop that Summers planned to fire Kirby last year, before his own troubles arose, the statement reads: "We think it is highly improper if, as reported, the President of Harvard has been expressing to members of the faculty his ‘deep dissatisfaction’ with the Dean of Arts and Sciences. It undercuts the work and the morale of colleagues within FAS [the Faculty of Arts and Sciences] and damages the institution as a whole.”

Seventeen professors have signed the statement so far; some of the signatories—Cynthia Friend, Mary Waters, Richard Thomas—were among Summers' most vocal critics during last spring's controversy.

What are we to make of this?

On the one hand, I've heard numerous stories of Summers criticizing professors he doesn't like when he's with professors he does; I've even heard of him criticizing specific professors in front of students. (Richard Thomas, for example.) Summers also has a habit for giving unflattering nicknames to professors of whom he's not fond.

Which is, indeed, unprofessional.

On the other hand, Summers certainly has the right to fire Bill Kirby if he thinks Kirby's not working out.

And on a third hand, since Summers appointed Kirby, the buck does need to stop somewhere, doesn't it?

File this statement under the heading, "Continuing Dissatisfaction with Summers' Leadership."

I saw a powerful and moving documentary last night about the problems faced by soldiers coming back from Iraq.

Called "The Ground Truth—The Human Cost of War," the film traced the soldier's arc, from being recruited to being transformed into killing machines to returning to the United States.

It's not a pretty picture. These men and women are trained to kill, but in Iraq, they find themselves killing people who either may not be enemies, or definitely are not enemies.

One soldier tells of shooting a woman approaching his Humvee. He didn't know if she was a threat, and so his training took over. He fired, and then other Americans pumped a fusillade of bullets into her.

As the woman fell to the ground, her hands fell outward to reveal that she was carrying a white flag.

Another soldier tells of seeing a little girl, standing a few feet in front of him, getting her head blown off.

These are memories from which one can not escape.

When they return to the United States, these soldiers face an immensely difficult transition. Nonetheless, they are getting little help from the army, which doesn't want to acknowledge how horrific the Iraq experience is, and the Veteran's Administration, which has been hit by severe funding cutbacks. Meanwhile, most Americans are oblivious to their problems.

It is all disturbingly analogous to Vietnam. Watching the film, I couldn't help but think, "How can this be happening again?"

This film should be mandatory viewing for President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, and all the other non-combatants who thought that preemptive war was a great idea.

Check out the film website above. We must do better this time.

In the Globe, Marcella Bombardieri looks at Larry Summers' strangely low profile this year.

"Has the president regained his stride?" Bombardieri asks. Or "are Summers critics just waiting for a new gaffe on which to pounce?"

Well, of course the low profile is a deliberate media strategy on Summers' part. I don't think one could say that Summers has regained his stride until he feels he can start appearing in the press again....

Meanwhile, let's play a little Harvard trivia game.

1) In addition to Bill Kirby, which Harvard dean wouldn't be at all surprised to be fired before year's end?
2) Which mega-rich Harvard donor is said to be so pissed off about the potential Larry Ellison donation, he may be the primary reason Harvard has been holding off on accepting Ellison's proffered $120 million?
3) What magazine article is Massachusetts Hall so concerned about that it's volunteered preemptive press briefings?
4) Which Harvard governing board has become increasingly frustrated with the president and assertive of its own power? (Hint: It's not the Corporation.)
5) What university's ranking in a certain national magazine annual list will be adversely affected by falling percentage rates of alumni giving?
6) Which university vice-president is in President Summers' doghouse, and why?
7) Which university's capital campaign could best be described as "on-again, off-again"?

AndrewSullivan.com will soon be hosted by Time.com.

As Andrew points out, this isn't the first time one website has purchased a blog; Slate did it with Kausfiles.

But since Slate was always an online venture, and Time is the definition of MSM, this feels like a moment....

In the Times, David Carr agrees with me that sometimes, Gawker just isn't funny—like when it makes jokes about Peter Braunstein, the former fashion writer who's now a suspect in a violent attack on a New York woman. (He broke into her apartment by dressing up as a fireman on Halloween.)

Good for Carr (who, full disclosure, once wrote about me, though not particularly flatteringly) to call out Gawker, something everyone should be doing.

A lot of people read Gawker; a friend in magazine publishing told me that it's become a must-read for everyone in that business. But magazine writers can be a homogenous crowd whose immaturity can be self-perpetuating. (I mean, just look at Radar magazine...which just happens to have a weirdly hostile but mutually dependent relationship with Gawker.)

Gawker's courageous response to Carr?

Silence.....
__________________________________________________________________

P.S. Gawker has now taken note of Carr's piece, dismissing it as "meta-media analysis" whose point is that "blogs are insensitive, as we are wont to be," which of course makes it fine then.

Nonetheless, do I detect a subtle shift in Gawker's writing about Peter Blaustein? A little more, um, maturity?

That's the headline on a New York Daily News story reporting on how SUVs have made New York City streets increasingly dangerous, especially for pedestrians.

According to the Daily News...

1) Pedestrians are twice as likely to be killed when they're hit by an SUV than when they're hit by a car.
2) While the total number of pedestrian deaths in NYC has falled by 18% in the last five years, the numbers of deaths by SUV have surged 27%.
3) SUVs made up about 15% of the cars in New York last year—but caused 26% of pedestrian deaths from passenger vehicles.
4) When a car and an SUV collide and someone dies, 81% of the time the victim is the car driver.

When is someone going to take the logical and urgent next step, and file a class action lawsuit against the manufacturers of SUVs? Irresponsible and dangerous, they have degraded the quality of all our lives.