Shots In The Dark
Thursday, November 30, 2023
Two More Dems
A poster reminds me that I've neglected to include Bill Richardson and Wes Clark among my list of potential Democratic candidates. They're both interesting figures, but I don't see them as having the stature of Hillary Clinton or Al Gore. Richardson always felt to me like (Bill) Clinton-lite, though it's certainly politically helpful that he's Latino. He's also from the West, which some politicos are arguing is a new Democratic stronghold, so that helps him also.
Clark used the title of my book, "American Son," for his 2004 campaign bio, so he certainly used good judgment there. And his military credentials could help him speak with credibility about the war. In a race against McCain, that might prove important.
But these guys have the constituencies to mount credible campaigns? And just as important, the money?
Clark used the title of my book, "American Son," for his 2004 campaign bio, so he certainly used good judgment there. And his military credentials could help him speak with credibility about the war. In a race against McCain, that might prove important.
But these guys have the constituencies to mount credible campaigns? And just as important, the money?
Harvard and Yale by the Numbers
It's fascinating to see how Ivy League universities spin their application numbers in their favor..and how the campus press plays along.
Today's Crimson boasts, "Harvard's Early Apps Rise as Yale's Plunge." And indeed they have—the number of early applicants to Harvard increased by 3.5 from last year, while Yale's number dropped by 13 percent.
The question is why.
If you listen to Harvard's Bill Fitzsimmons, Harvard's numbers are up because of Harvard's recruiting, its generous financial aid policies, and, regarding foreign applicants, "an improved perception of American hospitality to foreign students."
(Fitzsimmons is really a master at this stuff, isn't he? Whatever Harvard pays him, it's not enough.)
Why are Yale's numbers down?
According to the dean of Yale college, Peter Salovey, it's a reflection of the fact that Yale is so hard to get into, people are just giving up. (A thought one will not find in the Crimson article.)
Admissions dean David Brenzel adds that it's a mistake to put much emphasis on any individual yearly fluctuation.
I agree...and I'll venture my guess as to what's going on.
Harvard and Princeton both got a huge amount of attention for their decisions to drop early applications. Yale largely stayed below the radar; its response was a very muted "we'll think about it."
Harvard and Princeton get publicity; their applications go up.
Yale doesn't; its applications go down.
We'd all like to think that there's more to it than this, that the best students are immune to such things. Of course, they aren't. (However smart and accomplished they are, they are still products of their time.)
It's all PR, baby. And no one does that better than Harvard.
And as you'll see in the forthcoming issue of 02138, the early application announcement was carefully stage-managed to ensure the maximum PR value.....
Today's Crimson boasts, "Harvard's Early Apps Rise as Yale's Plunge." And indeed they have—the number of early applicants to Harvard increased by 3.5 from last year, while Yale's number dropped by 13 percent.
The question is why.
If you listen to Harvard's Bill Fitzsimmons, Harvard's numbers are up because of Harvard's recruiting, its generous financial aid policies, and, regarding foreign applicants, "an improved perception of American hospitality to foreign students."
(Fitzsimmons is really a master at this stuff, isn't he? Whatever Harvard pays him, it's not enough.)
Why are Yale's numbers down?
According to the dean of Yale college, Peter Salovey, it's a reflection of the fact that Yale is so hard to get into, people are just giving up. (A thought one will not find in the Crimson article.)
Admissions dean David Brenzel adds that it's a mistake to put much emphasis on any individual yearly fluctuation.
I agree...and I'll venture my guess as to what's going on.
Harvard and Princeton both got a huge amount of attention for their decisions to drop early applications. Yale largely stayed below the radar; its response was a very muted "we'll think about it."
Harvard and Princeton get publicity; their applications go up.
Yale doesn't; its applications go down.
We'd all like to think that there's more to it than this, that the best students are immune to such things. Of course, they aren't. (However smart and accomplished they are, they are still products of their time.)
It's all PR, baby. And no one does that better than Harvard.
And as you'll see in the forthcoming issue of 02138, the early application announcement was carefully stage-managed to ensure the maximum PR value.....
The Democratic Dilemma
I've been taken to task by some posters over the past few days for being tough on the GOP presidential candidates while saying nothing about the Dems. Is it because I'm trying subtly to create negative impressions about the Republicans?
Not really—I just don't think that the GOP has a strong group of candidates for 2008.
But...the Dems have their own problems as well.
The National Journal's Chuck Todd outlines some of the potential problems with a Hillary Clinton campaign here. They include the fact that allegedly she doesn't have a base of passionate fans—I'm not so sure about this, actually, that Todd is a man blinds him to the fact that some women really do love her—the fact that she's no Bill Clinton (yup), her hawkish position on Iraq (not good in the primary), and her gender (Iowa doesn't like to vote for women).
Todd's talking about the Democratic primary, so he doesn't get into the biggest problem with a national HC campaign: So many people hate her. As Andrew Sullivan points out, she's the one person who could unite the Republicans. Andrew pleads with her not to run. Don't waste your time, Andrew. She's running. She's never believed what her critics said about her in the past, she's not about to start now.
That leaves Barack Obama, John Edwards, Tom Vilsack, and possibly Al Gore. Hmmm. This is not a crowd without its negatives either.
For Barack, it's inexperience, and not just that—it's ambivalence. Every time I read something about Obama, he emphasizes how it's almost accidental that he's in politics, and his wife hates it, and if she wanted him to he would quit tomorrow. If this is genuine at all, it strongly conflicts with his obvious ambition. (Obama cooperated with a profile for Elle magazine lately; politicians don't talk to Elle unless they're running for something.)
I have a general rule about people trying to be president: They have to really, really want it. Bill Clinton, the Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Nixon—these men were burning with ambition. Ambivalence may play well in the press, but ultimately the voters want someone who wants the job. They don't want someone who talks about how he could quit tomorrow.
Then there's Edwards, who I like very much, but I think he hasn't helped himself in the past four years. Tough enough to run for president from the Senate, which is not, in modern times, a very successful launching pad. (Not since 1960.) But where has Edwards been the past four years? Well, he wrote a book which is so cheesy he has to be running for president. And, on the one hand, he directed a center for the study of poverty, but he also joined the Fortress Investment Group, a massive and secretive hedge fund with about $26 billion in assets.
As you know, I think candidates for higher office and hedge funds just don't mix. (That means you, Chelsea Clinton.) A trial lawyer who works for a hedge fund? That's a double whammy. You think Bobby Kennedy would ever have gone to work for a hedge fund?
Tom Vilsack. Who? Well, he's the governor of Iowa, but yes, exactly. (I do like that he has a v-blog, though. Not to mention videos on You-Tube and pages on Facebook and MySpace.)
That leaves...Al Gore. In my opinion, Gore could win this thing. He's got gravitas, he's been useful since 2000 leading a campaign to raise awareness about the most important problem in the world, and he's a much less partisan figure than Hillary. He's never been a great campaigner, but from all I hear, he's been terrific over the past years when speaking to audiences about global warming. I think Hillary Clinton is impressive and underrated, but Gore would be a far more viable candidate than she.
The only problem is, Gore really hasn't shown many signs that he wants to run. Democrats should hope that he does.
Not really—I just don't think that the GOP has a strong group of candidates for 2008.
But...the Dems have their own problems as well.
The National Journal's Chuck Todd outlines some of the potential problems with a Hillary Clinton campaign here. They include the fact that allegedly she doesn't have a base of passionate fans—I'm not so sure about this, actually, that Todd is a man blinds him to the fact that some women really do love her—the fact that she's no Bill Clinton (yup), her hawkish position on Iraq (not good in the primary), and her gender (Iowa doesn't like to vote for women).
Todd's talking about the Democratic primary, so he doesn't get into the biggest problem with a national HC campaign: So many people hate her. As Andrew Sullivan points out, she's the one person who could unite the Republicans. Andrew pleads with her not to run. Don't waste your time, Andrew. She's running. She's never believed what her critics said about her in the past, she's not about to start now.
That leaves Barack Obama, John Edwards, Tom Vilsack, and possibly Al Gore. Hmmm. This is not a crowd without its negatives either.
For Barack, it's inexperience, and not just that—it's ambivalence. Every time I read something about Obama, he emphasizes how it's almost accidental that he's in politics, and his wife hates it, and if she wanted him to he would quit tomorrow. If this is genuine at all, it strongly conflicts with his obvious ambition. (Obama cooperated with a profile for Elle magazine lately; politicians don't talk to Elle unless they're running for something.)
I have a general rule about people trying to be president: They have to really, really want it. Bill Clinton, the Bushes, Reagan, Carter, Nixon—these men were burning with ambition. Ambivalence may play well in the press, but ultimately the voters want someone who wants the job. They don't want someone who talks about how he could quit tomorrow.
Then there's Edwards, who I like very much, but I think he hasn't helped himself in the past four years. Tough enough to run for president from the Senate, which is not, in modern times, a very successful launching pad. (Not since 1960.) But where has Edwards been the past four years? Well, he wrote a book which is so cheesy he has to be running for president. And, on the one hand, he directed a center for the study of poverty, but he also joined the Fortress Investment Group, a massive and secretive hedge fund with about $26 billion in assets.
As you know, I think candidates for higher office and hedge funds just don't mix. (That means you, Chelsea Clinton.) A trial lawyer who works for a hedge fund? That's a double whammy. You think Bobby Kennedy would ever have gone to work for a hedge fund?
Tom Vilsack. Who? Well, he's the governor of Iowa, but yes, exactly. (I do like that he has a v-blog, though. Not to mention videos on You-Tube and pages on Facebook and MySpace.)
That leaves...Al Gore. In my opinion, Gore could win this thing. He's got gravitas, he's been useful since 2000 leading a campaign to raise awareness about the most important problem in the world, and he's a much less partisan figure than Hillary. He's never been a great campaigner, but from all I hear, he's been terrific over the past years when speaking to audiences about global warming. I think Hillary Clinton is impressive and underrated, but Gore would be a far more viable candidate than she.
The only problem is, Gore really hasn't shown many signs that he wants to run. Democrats should hope that he does.
Wednesday, November 29, 2023
One (Republican) Down
Bill Frist just announced that he won't be running for president in 2008, thus saving us all the trouble of not voting for him.
(But what will he do with that mansion he's building to look like the White House?)
This leaves McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Hagel, and maybe Newt. It's McCain's to lose, but this is a weak group. If I were the RNC chair, I'd be beating the bushes for someone else....
Bill Frist lives here. Seriously.
(But what will he do with that mansion he's building to look like the White House?)
This leaves McCain, Romney, Giuliani, Hagel, and maybe Newt. It's McCain's to lose, but this is a weak group. If I were the RNC chair, I'd be beating the bushes for someone else....
Bill Frist lives here. Seriously.
Of the Giants, Body Language, and Dead Girls
Yesterday I promised to say something nice about Giants coach Tom Coughlin. Here it is: He's not the worst coach in the history of football.
Okay, I feel better.
Today, on page one below the fold, the Times runs one of the stupidest articles ever written, called "Language of a Losing Team? Read Their Bodies."
In the article, the Times showed a videotape of the Giants' ghastly loss on Sunday to two "experts" on body language, two women who admittedly know next to nothing about football.
Among the expert conclusions:
—When wide receiver Plaxico Burress stopped running for a pass that was subsequently intercepted, “It was an indication he had given up."
When Jeremy Schockey curses and screams, "It makes me blush." Also, he looks "mean and very tough."
When it's apparent that the Giants are completely choking, coach Tom Coughlin looks upset. "The guy is suffering."
Whereas winning quarterback Vince Young is "so joyous, so joyful. You can feel his joy just watching him."
One suspects that body language expert Maxinne Fiel would indeed like to feel his joy.
The article attempts to imitate Malcolm Gladwell's pop sociology, but shows only that Gladwell's techniques are harder than they look, and that executed poorly, they are inane. (Or, perhaps, that Gladwell's skill as a writer ably masks their inanity.)
But here's another reason why this may be the stupidest article ever printed on the Times' front page. It replaces far more important news.
In Iraq yesterday, U.S. troops inadvertently killed five girls, including a baby.
How can we win a war in which we are killing girls and infants?
That news appears in the Times on page A16....
Okay, I feel better.
Today, on page one below the fold, the Times runs one of the stupidest articles ever written, called "Language of a Losing Team? Read Their Bodies."
In the article, the Times showed a videotape of the Giants' ghastly loss on Sunday to two "experts" on body language, two women who admittedly know next to nothing about football.
Among the expert conclusions:
—When wide receiver Plaxico Burress stopped running for a pass that was subsequently intercepted, “It was an indication he had given up."
When Jeremy Schockey curses and screams, "It makes me blush." Also, he looks "mean and very tough."
When it's apparent that the Giants are completely choking, coach Tom Coughlin looks upset. "The guy is suffering."
Whereas winning quarterback Vince Young is "so joyous, so joyful. You can feel his joy just watching him."
One suspects that body language expert Maxinne Fiel would indeed like to feel his joy.
The article attempts to imitate Malcolm Gladwell's pop sociology, but shows only that Gladwell's techniques are harder than they look, and that executed poorly, they are inane. (Or, perhaps, that Gladwell's skill as a writer ably masks their inanity.)
But here's another reason why this may be the stupidest article ever printed on the Times' front page. It replaces far more important news.
In Iraq yesterday, U.S. troops inadvertently killed five girls, including a baby.
How can we win a war in which we are killing girls and infants?
That news appears in the Times on page A16....
A Modest Proposal
Harvard Ed School prof Howard Gardner has an interesting letter in today's Times on a recent article about how wealthy people are abandoning their service professions (medicine, scientific research) in order to go into businesses where they do no one any good but make themselves even wealthier.
Gardner writes that those "who have made such choices are undermining the professions for which they are trained. They are depending on others who are less greedy than they are to serve clients and to carry out the work for which philanthropic support is needed."
Hmmm.
At the same time, the Globe has a piece on how the Ed School is losing its Civil Rights Project, whose director is moving to California.
Hmmm.
Perhaps there is some synchronicity here. An opportunity, perhaps.
Here, then, is a modest proposal. Harvard should start a new center on a topic that (and here I blaspheme) is of greater importance to the health of modern American democracy than civil rights issues are: a Center for the Study of Wealth, Class, and Democracy.
Why is this more important than the current study of civil rights? Because the main arguments about civil rights—i.e., equal rights—are over. The questions now are really how to get there. Hugely important, yes, particularly about gay rights issues. But not as important as the great dividing line currently splitting this country apart, which is class and the concentration of wealth. It's the greatest threat to American democracy since Joe McCarthy, and before that the Gilded Age, and perhaps even the Civil War.
So let's make this a joint center, operating out of the Kennedy School, with representatives from FAS, the Div School, the Ed School, the business school, the law school and the med school. (Because access to medical care is certainly a primary division between the rich and everyone else here in the U.S.)
As for funding? Well, that's easy: Rich liberals who feel guilty.
Gardner writes that those "who have made such choices are undermining the professions for which they are trained. They are depending on others who are less greedy than they are to serve clients and to carry out the work for which philanthropic support is needed."
Hmmm.
At the same time, the Globe has a piece on how the Ed School is losing its Civil Rights Project, whose director is moving to California.
Hmmm.
Perhaps there is some synchronicity here. An opportunity, perhaps.
Here, then, is a modest proposal. Harvard should start a new center on a topic that (and here I blaspheme) is of greater importance to the health of modern American democracy than civil rights issues are: a Center for the Study of Wealth, Class, and Democracy.
Why is this more important than the current study of civil rights? Because the main arguments about civil rights—i.e., equal rights—are over. The questions now are really how to get there. Hugely important, yes, particularly about gay rights issues. But not as important as the great dividing line currently splitting this country apart, which is class and the concentration of wealth. It's the greatest threat to American democracy since Joe McCarthy, and before that the Gilded Age, and perhaps even the Civil War.
So let's make this a joint center, operating out of the Kennedy School, with representatives from FAS, the Div School, the Ed School, the business school, the law school and the med school. (Because access to medical care is certainly a primary division between the rich and everyone else here in the U.S.)
As for funding? Well, that's easy: Rich liberals who feel guilty.
Bush=Hitler?
Not so fast, haters—there's something to this.
I was all prepared to scorn this piece by Pulitzer Prize-winner Diane McWhorter (full disclosure, she's a friend) on why we need to seriously consider comparisons of the Bush administration to Nazi Germany. Why are Bush comparisons to Hitler drummed out of the marketplace of debate?
Well, because they're so absurd, I thought at once.
The funny thing is, this is actually an issue—don't laugh—that has affected me in a major way. A few years back, my book, American Son, was on its way to being turned into a TV movie. Would have been great for the book, and helped to put a little money in the 401k, or to subsidize less profitable ventures, such as this blog.
The co-producer of the TV movie was a guy named Ed Gernon, part of the Canadian company that produces all the CSIs. Another of Gernon's projects was a TV movie for CBS—which was the destination for American Son as well—about young Hitler. Ed's a nice guy, smart, thoughtful, and creative. He's also political.
You know what's coming, right?
So a few weeks before the Hitler movie is to air, Ed gives an interview to TV Guide in which he says that part of Hitler's rise to power was a result of fear—of foreigners, of protest, of instability—and the same could be said of George Bush's grip on the U.S. (Ed's Canadian, by the way.)
"It basically boils down to an entire nation gripped by fear, who ultimately chose to give up their civil rights and plunged the whole nation into war," Gernon said. "I can't think of a better time to examine this history than now."
Sounds pretty reasonable now, don't you think? Actually kind of smart. Prescient.
So naturally, all hell breaks loose. The New York Post starts tossing Gernon around like King Kong with Naomi Watts. Gernon's production company, Alliance Atlantis, fires him. CBS president Les Moonves announces that his network will never work with Gernon again.
Which means, of course, that Gernon is blacklisted in Hollywood. And so is everything associated with him. Including my book. So much for dreams of a TV windfall.
Apologies for the digression. But I think it's relevant to McWhorter's piece, which turns out to be serious and ambitious and disturbing and, to my mind, convincing. Here's the key graf:
The [Hitler] taboo is itself a precept of the propaganda state. Usually its enforcers profess a politically correct motive: the exceptionalism of genocidal Jewish victimhood. Thus, poor Sen. Richard Durbin, the Democrat from Illinois, found himself apologizing to the Anti-Defamation League after Republicans jumped all over him for invoking Nazi Germany to describe the conditions at Guantanamo. And so by allowing the issue to be defined by the unique suffering of the Jews, we ignore the Holocaust's more universal hallmark: the banal ordinariness of the citizens who perpetrated it. The relevance of Third Reich Germany to today's America is not that Bush equals Hitler or that the United States government is a death machine. It's that it provides a rather spectacular example of the insidious process by which decent people come to regard the unthinkable as not only thinkable but doable, justifiable. Of the way freethinkers and speakers become compliant and self-censoring. Of the mechanism by which moral or humanistic categories are converted into bureaucratic ones. And finally, of the willingness with which we hand control over to the state and convince ourselves that we are the masters of our destiny.
For me, the proof of McWhorter's argument lies partly in the fact that I had such a first-hand experience with this phenomenon, and I still reflexively dismissed her argument.
A very interesting piece of writing.....
I was all prepared to scorn this piece by Pulitzer Prize-winner Diane McWhorter (full disclosure, she's a friend) on why we need to seriously consider comparisons of the Bush administration to Nazi Germany. Why are Bush comparisons to Hitler drummed out of the marketplace of debate?
Well, because they're so absurd, I thought at once.
The funny thing is, this is actually an issue—don't laugh—that has affected me in a major way. A few years back, my book, American Son, was on its way to being turned into a TV movie. Would have been great for the book, and helped to put a little money in the 401k, or to subsidize less profitable ventures, such as this blog.
The co-producer of the TV movie was a guy named Ed Gernon, part of the Canadian company that produces all the CSIs. Another of Gernon's projects was a TV movie for CBS—which was the destination for American Son as well—about young Hitler. Ed's a nice guy, smart, thoughtful, and creative. He's also political.
You know what's coming, right?
So a few weeks before the Hitler movie is to air, Ed gives an interview to TV Guide in which he says that part of Hitler's rise to power was a result of fear—of foreigners, of protest, of instability—and the same could be said of George Bush's grip on the U.S. (Ed's Canadian, by the way.)
"It basically boils down to an entire nation gripped by fear, who ultimately chose to give up their civil rights and plunged the whole nation into war," Gernon said. "I can't think of a better time to examine this history than now."
Sounds pretty reasonable now, don't you think? Actually kind of smart. Prescient.
So naturally, all hell breaks loose. The New York Post starts tossing Gernon around like King Kong with Naomi Watts. Gernon's production company, Alliance Atlantis, fires him. CBS president Les Moonves announces that his network will never work with Gernon again.
Which means, of course, that Gernon is blacklisted in Hollywood. And so is everything associated with him. Including my book. So much for dreams of a TV windfall.
Apologies for the digression. But I think it's relevant to McWhorter's piece, which turns out to be serious and ambitious and disturbing and, to my mind, convincing. Here's the key graf:
The [Hitler] taboo is itself a precept of the propaganda state. Usually its enforcers profess a politically correct motive: the exceptionalism of genocidal Jewish victimhood. Thus, poor Sen. Richard Durbin, the Democrat from Illinois, found himself apologizing to the Anti-Defamation League after Republicans jumped all over him for invoking Nazi Germany to describe the conditions at Guantanamo. And so by allowing the issue to be defined by the unique suffering of the Jews, we ignore the Holocaust's more universal hallmark: the banal ordinariness of the citizens who perpetrated it. The relevance of Third Reich Germany to today's America is not that Bush equals Hitler or that the United States government is a death machine. It's that it provides a rather spectacular example of the insidious process by which decent people come to regard the unthinkable as not only thinkable but doable, justifiable. Of the way freethinkers and speakers become compliant and self-censoring. Of the mechanism by which moral or humanistic categories are converted into bureaucratic ones. And finally, of the willingness with which we hand control over to the state and convince ourselves that we are the masters of our destiny.
For me, the proof of McWhorter's argument lies partly in the fact that I had such a first-hand experience with this phenomenon, and I still reflexively dismissed her argument.
A very interesting piece of writing.....
Nancy Pelosi: Flirting with Disaster
The Times, the Globe and just about everywhere else report today that Nancy Pelosi has backed away from her choice to head the House Intelligence Committee, Florida congressman Alcee Hastings.
The real story, though, is not that she didn't follow through on a stupid pick; it's why she was pushing the scandal-tarred Hastings in the first place. After all, back in 1988, Pelosi herself had voted to impeach Hastings from his position as a U.S. District Court judge (a fact unreported by either the Times or the Globe); Hastings was accused of taking a $150,000 bribe from two alleged mobsters in exchange for return of their seized assets and a lenient sentence. Hastings had previously squeaked out of a criminal conviction when his accused co-conspirator went to jail rather than testify against him. (Hmm. Wonder what he was afraid of?)
The Globe reports (and the Times didn't, but should have) that...
Hastings...had been scrambling to secure the intelligence post in recent days. Last week he circulated an angry, rambling letter to his Democratic colleagues in which he accused the FBI of evidence-tampering and conservative commentators of making uninformed judgments.
The decision to bypass Hastings could damage Pelosi's strained relations with the Congressional Black Caucus. The caucus clashed with Pelosi earlier this year over her efforts to press Representative William J. Jefferson of Louisiana to resign his primary committee post when investigators found $90,000 in his freezer.
90k in your freezer? Nah. Nothing wrong there. I've got about $75,000 in mine. But I've been eating out a lot lately.
The Times quotes Hastings saying that he would continue to have a role in public life.
“Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet,” he said.
Well, don't blame us for being optimistic.
The reason Pelosi needed to appoint someone to the post is because she does not like the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, California representative Jane Harman. The ostensible reason is because Harman did not criticize Bush administration intelligence analyses before the war in Iraq.
But then, lots of people made that mistake. And Harman has appeal to moderate and conservative Dems, as well as being good on TV. You'd think Pelosi would see the value in that.
So I think there's something else going on here...maybe the fact that Harman is, like Pelosi, a high-profile, attractive female politician from California. And unlike Pelosi, Harman is blonde.
You guessed it—it's a catfight!
The real story, though, is not that she didn't follow through on a stupid pick; it's why she was pushing the scandal-tarred Hastings in the first place. After all, back in 1988, Pelosi herself had voted to impeach Hastings from his position as a U.S. District Court judge (a fact unreported by either the Times or the Globe); Hastings was accused of taking a $150,000 bribe from two alleged mobsters in exchange for return of their seized assets and a lenient sentence. Hastings had previously squeaked out of a criminal conviction when his accused co-conspirator went to jail rather than testify against him. (Hmm. Wonder what he was afraid of?)
The Globe reports (and the Times didn't, but should have) that...
Hastings...had been scrambling to secure the intelligence post in recent days. Last week he circulated an angry, rambling letter to his Democratic colleagues in which he accused the FBI of evidence-tampering and conservative commentators of making uninformed judgments.
"I hope that my fate is not determined by Newt Gingrich, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Michael Barone, Drudge, anonymous bloggers, and other assorted misinformed fools," Hastings wrote. "I have been entrusted with America's secrets. And, I have never violated that trust."
Love that punctuation, Mr. Congressman. And, here's something else that may have been a factor for Pelosi:The decision to bypass Hastings could damage Pelosi's strained relations with the Congressional Black Caucus. The caucus clashed with Pelosi earlier this year over her efforts to press Representative William J. Jefferson of Louisiana to resign his primary committee post when investigators found $90,000 in his freezer.
90k in your freezer? Nah. Nothing wrong there. I've got about $75,000 in mine. But I've been eating out a lot lately.
The Times quotes Hastings saying that he would continue to have a role in public life.
“Sorry, haters, God is not finished with me yet,” he said.
Well, don't blame us for being optimistic.
The reason Pelosi needed to appoint someone to the post is because she does not like the ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee, California representative Jane Harman. The ostensible reason is because Harman did not criticize Bush administration intelligence analyses before the war in Iraq.
But then, lots of people made that mistake. And Harman has appeal to moderate and conservative Dems, as well as being good on TV. You'd think Pelosi would see the value in that.
So I think there's something else going on here...maybe the fact that Harman is, like Pelosi, a high-profile, attractive female politician from California. And unlike Pelosi, Harman is blonde.
You guessed it—it's a catfight!
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Mitt Romney, Mormonism and the Republicans
I don't know if you've noticed, but over at his blog, Andrew Sullivan has been going off on Mitt Romney for his Mormonism.
That's not exactly how Andrew would put it—he's very careful to insist that he's not anti-religious—but I think if you look at the steady stream of posts on the subject, it's a fair description. His posts have included topics such as Mormons and race, Mormon underwear, Mormons and tithing, and Mormons and miscegenation.
This is fine by me, as I think that even by the standards of organized religion, Mormonism is pretty nutty. And I don't think that the country is ready for a Mormon president. (Not to mention that Romney, of course, has other problems.)
Also, I've always thought that Andrew, despite his classical conservative political heritage, would be more comfortable as a Democrat than as a Republican. In his younger days, he just liked to be contrarian for its own sake, and as a marketing tool. IMHO.
So here's a thought about the GOP field. Mitt Romney will never be the Republican nominee for president. A Mormon Republican from Massachusetts? No way.
Nor will Rudy Giuliani. A mistress-keeping, gay-roommating Republican from New York? No way. Plus, Giuliani's used to unquestioning adulation on the speaking trail ever since 9/11. (Ugh. Enough, Rudy.) In the heat of a presidential campaign, he'll lose it.
That leaves McCain, Hagel and Frist. (Am I forgetting anyone?) This is underwhelming. Frist is a hack. I kind of like Hagel, and he may be the dark horse, but Republicans tend to discourage first-time candidacies.
McCain's never run a really strong national race—he's too much of a Beltway insider. (My litmus test: Anyone who's tight with Don Imus is a Beltway insider, and thus will never be president.)
Not to mention the fact that McCain has been a steadfast supporter of the war.
The GOP is in trouble...this is a very weak field of candidates.
That's not exactly how Andrew would put it—he's very careful to insist that he's not anti-religious—but I think if you look at the steady stream of posts on the subject, it's a fair description. His posts have included topics such as Mormons and race, Mormon underwear, Mormons and tithing, and Mormons and miscegenation.
This is fine by me, as I think that even by the standards of organized religion, Mormonism is pretty nutty. And I don't think that the country is ready for a Mormon president. (Not to mention that Romney, of course, has other problems.)
Also, I've always thought that Andrew, despite his classical conservative political heritage, would be more comfortable as a Democrat than as a Republican. In his younger days, he just liked to be contrarian for its own sake, and as a marketing tool. IMHO.
So here's a thought about the GOP field. Mitt Romney will never be the Republican nominee for president. A Mormon Republican from Massachusetts? No way.
Nor will Rudy Giuliani. A mistress-keeping, gay-roommating Republican from New York? No way. Plus, Giuliani's used to unquestioning adulation on the speaking trail ever since 9/11. (Ugh. Enough, Rudy.) In the heat of a presidential campaign, he'll lose it.
That leaves McCain, Hagel and Frist. (Am I forgetting anyone?) This is underwhelming. Frist is a hack. I kind of like Hagel, and he may be the dark horse, but Republicans tend to discourage first-time candidacies.
McCain's never run a really strong national race—he's too much of a Beltway insider. (My litmus test: Anyone who's tight with Don Imus is a Beltway insider, and thus will never be president.)
Not to mention the fact that McCain has been a steadfast supporter of the war.
The GOP is in trouble...this is a very weak field of candidates.
Not Much Going on Over at Open University
I thought I'd say something nice about the New Republic's academic blog, "Open University," because it's the holiday season and it's important to be nice, especially now.
So...here goes.
There's a remarkable level of collegiality over at Open University.
Everyone who posts at Open University is very intelligent.
All the hyperlinks on Open University are functional.
That felt kind of good, actually. Perhaps I will make a habit, this holiday season, of saying something nice every day here on the blog.
Tomorrow, I will try to say something nice about Giants coach Tom Coughlin.
Meantime, here's some dueling headlines.
Giants Coach Coughlin Says He Hasn't Lost Confidence in Manning
Bloomberg, 11/27
So...here goes.
There's a remarkable level of collegiality over at Open University.
Everyone who posts at Open University is very intelligent.
All the hyperlinks on Open University are functional.
That felt kind of good, actually. Perhaps I will make a habit, this holiday season, of saying something nice every day here on the blog.
Tomorrow, I will try to say something nice about Giants coach Tom Coughlin.
Meantime, here's some dueling headlines.
Coughlin levels rip at Eli
New York Newsday, 11/27Giants Coach Coughlin Says He Hasn't Lost Confidence in Manning
Bloomberg, 11/27
Your Zen
By the way, if you feel like contributing to the Monday Morning Zen feature, feel free to send a photo.
After all, zen is nothing if not communal.
After all, zen is nothing if not communal.
Yale Students Also Having Hot Sex
Did you know they had a "Sex Week" at Yale?
Its goal? "To promote an open discussion of love, sex, intimacy, and relationships."
Also, probably, to have sex.
Shocker, the National Review was upset.
It's not just that Sex Week was in bad taste: It went beyond vulgarity to promote downright pernicious behaviors, and sometimes with odd allies.
Pernicious behaviors with odd allies? Sign me up!
Perhaps it's working, though—Trojan Brand Condoms recently rated Yale the most sexually healthy campus in the nation.....
Its goal? "To promote an open discussion of love, sex, intimacy, and relationships."
Also, probably, to have sex.
Shocker, the National Review was upset.
It's not just that Sex Week was in bad taste: It went beyond vulgarity to promote downright pernicious behaviors, and sometimes with odd allies.
Pernicious behaviors with odd allies? Sign me up!
Perhaps it's working, though—Trojan Brand Condoms recently rated Yale the most sexually healthy campus in the nation.....
Yale Is Fun
In the Yale Daily News, a writer tries to explain the difference between Yale and Harvard:
Yale is not impervious to negative exposure in the same way that Harvard is. Harvard's reputation to prospective students is built entirely on prestige - it is Harvard, and refuses to let them forget it. So what if a scandal or two breaks out? It is the most prestigious school in the world, and the diploma means no less without Summers than with him.
Yale is not impervious to negative exposure in the same way that Harvard is. Harvard's reputation to prospective students is built entirely on prestige - it is Harvard, and refuses to let them forget it. So what if a scandal or two breaks out? It is the most prestigious school in the world, and the diploma means no less without Summers than with him.
Yale, by contrast, has no need to build its marketing campaign to high-school students on name only. This is because, to put it plainly, Yale is actually fun; Harvard is not. For evidence, please refer to the weekend before last.
So I'm guessing that Yalies had more fun at the Game than Harvard folks?
Monday, November 27, 2023
Columbia Students Are Having Hot Sex
Thought that would get your attention.
Anyway, the New York Daily News—which is frantically trying to reclaim its top spot in the New York tabloid war by becoming more like the NY Post—says of Columbia that...
While their parents shell out $33,246 a year in tuition, Columbia University students doff their clothes at naked parties, flock to sex toys workshops, broadcast porn on campus TV, bake anatomically correct pies for the "Erotic Cake-Baking Contest" and heat up the steps of the Low Library in a mass makeout session called the "Big Kiss.
Good for them! They're learning about their bodies and their selves.
Whatever happened to H-Bomb, by the way?
Anyway, the New York Daily News—which is frantically trying to reclaim its top spot in the New York tabloid war by becoming more like the NY Post—says of Columbia that...
While their parents shell out $33,246 a year in tuition, Columbia University students doff their clothes at naked parties, flock to sex toys workshops, broadcast porn on campus TV, bake anatomically correct pies for the "Erotic Cake-Baking Contest" and heat up the steps of the Low Library in a mass makeout session called the "Big Kiss.
Good for them! They're learning about their bodies and their selves.
Whatever happened to H-Bomb, by the way?
The 02138 Scoop
In the first issue of 02138 magazine, in my story on the Harvard Corporation, I wrote the following about Larry Summers' severance package:
Summers...extracted a promise that his speech at Commencement would be mailed to all Harvard alumni. That has not yet happened—apparently because no one involved wants to sign an accompanying cover letter.
Well, it's happened now. Thanks much to the professor who mailed me the pamphlet recently put out by the Harvard Alumni Association titled, "Lawrence H. Summers," with the subheds, "2006 Commencement Address," "A Chronological Sampling of President Summers' Tenure," and "Harvard Gazette Article, June 8, 2006."
The pamphlet is introduced by Jack Reardon, executive director of the HAA, who writes:
During his tenure, Larry initiated many important new programs and helped support and guide many others. This booklet...provides an opportunity to reflect on and to capture the spirit of those years.
Poor Jack. He is a loyal Harvard man through and through, but you know that even he had to hold his nose while writing this stuff.
He concludes:
This snapshot of the past five years underscores the role that all of us can play in making Harvard the best that it can be.
I have tried and tried to figure out exactly what that sentence means—it is brilliant in its ambiguity, and I mean that seriously, this kind of piffle is not easy to write—and my best answer is something like this: Okay, I'll do it, but don't ask me to say anything nice about the guy.
And do give to Harvard.
The following document is propaganda with a Soviet deftness. "Summers Lays Foundation for Renewal and Expansion," says the Gazette. (You almost—almost!—expect the exclamation point.) Summers once referred to the Gazette as "my Pravda," and you can see why.
You have to believe that Summers controlled every inch of this booklet, so I was particularly interested in the choice of photos. (Summers vigorously controlled the choice of photos of himself that ran in Harvard publications.)
In a 16-page booklet, there are 15 photos of Summers. They show him meeting with undergraduates, with poor people, with black people, with the Dalai Lama, with Bono, with Bill Clinton, and with Elena Kagan.
(Will this photo be Kagan's Amy Gutmann—Halloween picture? The presidential candidacy-killer? It, um, underscores the close relationship she and Summers had...a reminder which Kagan probably isn't dancing in the hallways about, and which Summers would have avoided were he not more interested in promoting the fact that he appointed the first female dean of the law school.)
The photos portray Summers as a celebrity who can range from low—he meets with public high school students!—to high. He hangs out with Bono! OMG! He's, like, a rock star!
And then there is that photo of Summers in Annenberg Hall, surrounded by sycophantic students asking him to sign their dollar bills. Of all the things that Summers did, I found this perhaps the most telling. It symbolized so many things alien to the best aspects of a university: celebrity culture, the cult of personality, the greed culture, the shallowness of modern students' choice of Harvard...
I was always startled that Summers encouraged this practice, and I remain startled that Summers chose this photo for his agitprop. Can you imagine Derek Bok even allowing such a thing to be printed about himself?
Alumni who receive this brochure might be puzzled; it is a curious document.
They should know that Harvard did not want to publish this, but the Corporation agreed to do it as part of Summers' severance package. It makes much more sense when read with that fact in mind. Call it the new New Historicism.
Summers...extracted a promise that his speech at Commencement would be mailed to all Harvard alumni. That has not yet happened—apparently because no one involved wants to sign an accompanying cover letter.
Well, it's happened now. Thanks much to the professor who mailed me the pamphlet recently put out by the Harvard Alumni Association titled, "Lawrence H. Summers," with the subheds, "2006 Commencement Address," "A Chronological Sampling of President Summers' Tenure," and "Harvard Gazette Article, June 8, 2006."
The pamphlet is introduced by Jack Reardon, executive director of the HAA, who writes:
During his tenure, Larry initiated many important new programs and helped support and guide many others. This booklet...provides an opportunity to reflect on and to capture the spirit of those years.
Poor Jack. He is a loyal Harvard man through and through, but you know that even he had to hold his nose while writing this stuff.
He concludes:
This snapshot of the past five years underscores the role that all of us can play in making Harvard the best that it can be.
I have tried and tried to figure out exactly what that sentence means—it is brilliant in its ambiguity, and I mean that seriously, this kind of piffle is not easy to write—and my best answer is something like this: Okay, I'll do it, but don't ask me to say anything nice about the guy.
And do give to Harvard.
The following document is propaganda with a Soviet deftness. "Summers Lays Foundation for Renewal and Expansion," says the Gazette. (You almost—almost!—expect the exclamation point.) Summers once referred to the Gazette as "my Pravda," and you can see why.
You have to believe that Summers controlled every inch of this booklet, so I was particularly interested in the choice of photos. (Summers vigorously controlled the choice of photos of himself that ran in Harvard publications.)
In a 16-page booklet, there are 15 photos of Summers. They show him meeting with undergraduates, with poor people, with black people, with the Dalai Lama, with Bono, with Bill Clinton, and with Elena Kagan.
(Will this photo be Kagan's Amy Gutmann—Halloween picture? The presidential candidacy-killer? It, um, underscores the close relationship she and Summers had...a reminder which Kagan probably isn't dancing in the hallways about, and which Summers would have avoided were he not more interested in promoting the fact that he appointed the first female dean of the law school.)
The photos portray Summers as a celebrity who can range from low—he meets with public high school students!—to high. He hangs out with Bono! OMG! He's, like, a rock star!
And then there is that photo of Summers in Annenberg Hall, surrounded by sycophantic students asking him to sign their dollar bills. Of all the things that Summers did, I found this perhaps the most telling. It symbolized so many things alien to the best aspects of a university: celebrity culture, the cult of personality, the greed culture, the shallowness of modern students' choice of Harvard...
I was always startled that Summers encouraged this practice, and I remain startled that Summers chose this photo for his agitprop. Can you imagine Derek Bok even allowing such a thing to be printed about himself?
Alumni who receive this brochure might be puzzled; it is a curious document.
They should know that Harvard did not want to publish this, but the Corporation agreed to do it as part of Summers' severance package. It makes much more sense when read with that fact in mind. Call it the new New Historicism.
Ah, the Agony of Fandom
Is there any team more heartbreaking to root for than the New York Giants?
Two weeks ago, they lost to the Chicago Bears after they tried to make a 52-yard field goal, missed it, then watched as a Bear caught the ball in the end zone and ran it back 108 yards to break the Giants' backs. I have never seen a more dispiriting play in football.
Then, yesterday, they lost to the woeful Tennessee Titans, who entered the game with a 3-7 record, by giving up 24 points in the fourth quarter and losing on a 49-yard field goal with six seconds to go, 24-21.
It was a quarter filled with mistakes. Wide receiver Plexico Burress simply stopped running on a long pass from quarterback Eli Manning, allowing it to be picked off and substantially returned by defender Pacman Jones. Boo. Then Giants linebacker Mathias Kiwanuka appeared to have ended the Titans' last drive of the game by sacking Tennessee quarterback (man, is he going to be good) Vince Young on 4th down. But Kiwanuka inexplicably just...let him go. (I had the image of a shark grabbing a human being, shaking him, then swimming off.) A delighted Young promptly ran for a first down, then led his team to the tying touchdown....
...after which, the Giants got the ball back with about 40 seconds left and the game tied. Let it go into overtime! I screamed at the television. Take a breather!
Oh no. Manning casually lobbed an interception, his second, to the same Pacman Jones, on a ball that wasn't even close to his receiver. A rookie mistake; he should have thrown the ball out of bounds.
And a couple plays later—you knew the kicker wouldn't miss it—here comes that 49-yard, game-winning field goal.
Tragedy. One of the top three losses in Giants history.
My prescription for the Giants:
1) Fire Tom Coughlin. His players consistently complain about the coaching, even players, like Tiki Barber, who don't make a habit of complaining. They also make mistakes that they should never make at this point in the season. J'accuse.
2) Dump Burress. Every game or two, he simply gives up in the middle of a play. It's killing the Giants.
3) Eli Manning is done, baby, done. Stick a fork in him. He can't run, he can't throw, he doesn't inspire the team, and three years into his career, he looks no better than when he was a rookie. Get rid of him and find someone who can play in New York.
The amazing thing is, the Giants can still win the division, if they beat the surging Cowboys next week and hold on for the rest of the season. But I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.
Two weeks ago, they lost to the Chicago Bears after they tried to make a 52-yard field goal, missed it, then watched as a Bear caught the ball in the end zone and ran it back 108 yards to break the Giants' backs. I have never seen a more dispiriting play in football.
Then, yesterday, they lost to the woeful Tennessee Titans, who entered the game with a 3-7 record, by giving up 24 points in the fourth quarter and losing on a 49-yard field goal with six seconds to go, 24-21.
It was a quarter filled with mistakes. Wide receiver Plexico Burress simply stopped running on a long pass from quarterback Eli Manning, allowing it to be picked off and substantially returned by defender Pacman Jones. Boo. Then Giants linebacker Mathias Kiwanuka appeared to have ended the Titans' last drive of the game by sacking Tennessee quarterback (man, is he going to be good) Vince Young on 4th down. But Kiwanuka inexplicably just...let him go. (I had the image of a shark grabbing a human being, shaking him, then swimming off.) A delighted Young promptly ran for a first down, then led his team to the tying touchdown....
...after which, the Giants got the ball back with about 40 seconds left and the game tied. Let it go into overtime! I screamed at the television. Take a breather!
Oh no. Manning casually lobbed an interception, his second, to the same Pacman Jones, on a ball that wasn't even close to his receiver. A rookie mistake; he should have thrown the ball out of bounds.
And a couple plays later—you knew the kicker wouldn't miss it—here comes that 49-yard, game-winning field goal.
Tragedy. One of the top three losses in Giants history.
My prescription for the Giants:
1) Fire Tom Coughlin. His players consistently complain about the coaching, even players, like Tiki Barber, who don't make a habit of complaining. They also make mistakes that they should never make at this point in the season. J'accuse.
2) Dump Burress. Every game or two, he simply gives up in the middle of a play. It's killing the Giants.
3) Eli Manning is done, baby, done. Stick a fork in him. He can't run, he can't throw, he doesn't inspire the team, and three years into his career, he looks no better than when he was a rookie. Get rid of him and find someone who can play in New York.
The amazing thing is, the Giants can still win the division, if they beat the surging Cowboys next week and hold on for the rest of the season. But I wouldn't bet the ranch on it.
Thursday, November 23, 2023
Thinking of Thanksgiving
The Times today runs two obituaries that seem strangely appropriate for the Thanksgiving holiday.
The first is of Steam Train Maury, "King of the Hobos," dead at 89.
I'll let the paper tell you....
The second obit is of Jack Werner, a Holocaust survivor who helped save the lives of more than 700 children brought to the Buchenwald slave labor camp in the waning months of WWII. He was 92.
Mr. Werber, a son of a Jewish furrier from the Polish town of Radom, was the barracks clerk at Buchenwald in August 1944 when a train carrying 2,000 prisoners arrived, many of them young boys. By then, with the Russians advancing into Germany, the number of Nazi guards at the camp had been reduced. Working with the camp’s underground — and with the acquiescence of some guards fearful of their fate after the war — Mr. Werber helped save most of the boys from transport to death camps by hiding them throughout the barracks.
But before that happened, Werber lost his wife and daughter to the Nazis...
These stories remind me of what a great gift life is—one's own, of course, but also the gift that other people bring to you through their lives—and what an incredible journey is our time on this earth.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
The first is of Steam Train Maury, "King of the Hobos," dead at 89.
I'll let the paper tell you....
By 1971, he was a day laborer with a wife, two children and a bad hip that kept him from working much. His hanging around the house was getting on his wife’s nerves, The Los Angeles Times reported in 1989.
So one day in 1971, he hopped a freight on the edge of town with a vague idea he would relive hobo memories and see his wife, Wanda, in a few weeks.
It was 1981 when Mr. Graham finally returned. He had not communicated for more than a decade. Wanda agreed to go out for dinner and talk. (She paid, of course.) He wanted to come home, and she ultimately could not resist his charm.
“It was better than living alone,” she told The Times.
What happened in those ten years is a sometimes wonderful, sometimes mysterious, sometimes painful story.The second obit is of Jack Werner, a Holocaust survivor who helped save the lives of more than 700 children brought to the Buchenwald slave labor camp in the waning months of WWII. He was 92.
Mr. Werber, a son of a Jewish furrier from the Polish town of Radom, was the barracks clerk at Buchenwald in August 1944 when a train carrying 2,000 prisoners arrived, many of them young boys. By then, with the Russians advancing into Germany, the number of Nazi guards at the camp had been reduced. Working with the camp’s underground — and with the acquiescence of some guards fearful of their fate after the war — Mr. Werber helped save most of the boys from transport to death camps by hiding them throughout the barracks.
But before that happened, Werber lost his wife and daughter to the Nazis...
These stories remind me of what a great gift life is—one's own, of course, but also the gift that other people bring to you through their lives—and what an incredible journey is our time on this earth.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
Economists Who Blog
The Los Angeles Times has this piece on "slide-rule celebrities," about how economists who blog can attract a large new audience for their writing.
Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker and former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers are among those who have set up blogs, which are typically part lecture, part journal and part college seminar, with reader participation expected.
Unless there's something I don't know, that's a reference to the New Republic blog, Open University, for which Summers is listed as a contributor but to which he has not, so far as I know, contributed.
So...kind of a mistake on the LA Times' part. But the piece does more accurately go into Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw's blog.
Who will be the first Harvard humanist to blog? And more to the point, why is is that at the world's greatest university, to borrow a phrase, the number of faculty bloggers can be counted on the fingers of one hand? Something is wrong with this picture.
Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker and former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers are among those who have set up blogs, which are typically part lecture, part journal and part college seminar, with reader participation expected.
Unless there's something I don't know, that's a reference to the New Republic blog, Open University, for which Summers is listed as a contributor but to which he has not, so far as I know, contributed.
So...kind of a mistake on the LA Times' part. But the piece does more accurately go into Harvard economist Gregory Mankiw's blog.
Who will be the first Harvard humanist to blog? And more to the point, why is is that at the world's greatest university, to borrow a phrase, the number of faculty bloggers can be counted on the fingers of one hand? Something is wrong with this picture.
Wednesday, November 22, 2023
A Harvard Blog!
A poster found one: Econ prof Greg Mankiw's blog.
Nicely done, Professor Mankiw. (It's quite a good blog, in fact. Lots to think about.)
Are there more? Anyone?
Nicely done, Professor Mankiw. (It's quite a good blog, in fact. Lots to think about.)
Are there more? Anyone?
Summers and Rubin on the Economy
In the Washington Post, Harold Meyerson writes about economic insecurity among the American middle class, referencing Larry Summers' recent column in the Financial Times and Bob Rubin's new economic policy group, the Hamilton Project.
Meyerson quotes Summers to the effect that "the vast global middle is not sharing the benefits of the current period of economic growth -- and that its share of the pie may even be shrinking."
Of Rubin, he says....
Concerned that the American dream is fading for the middle class, and fearful that said middle class may turn against the global free-trade order he helped erect, Rubin has created the Hamilton Project, which, in the spirit of its namesake, our first Treasury secretary, proposes a series of enlightened Tory solutions to address these conundrums. The project has called for greater public investment in education, health care, research and development, and infrastructure; balancing the budget; and wage insurance for workers compelled to take lower-paying jobs in our Wal-Mart-ized economy.
All well enough. But, Meyerson says, neither Rubin nor Summers can really deny the fact that for the middle class around the world, wages are "converging," leveling out in a way that helps workers in developing countries but isn't so great for Americans.
A big problem, indeed. But there's a corollary problem: the divergence of wealth in the United States. (Summers, to be fair, touched briefly upon this in his column.)
Every poll suggests that part of the anxiety of the American middle class stems from its conviction that the rich in America are getting richer...and richer...and richer—to levels unprecedented in the history of the world.
And, factually, that's correct. (It's happening in England too.)
Unfortunately, both Rubin and Summers are fundamentally compromised on this issue, as they work for a mammoth multinational banking group and a mammoth international hedge fund. It's unlikely that they're going to come up with any proposals addressing the social impact of the super-rich that would harm their employers. (Which, of course, is one reason their employers hired them—to neutralize them.)
Rubin and Summers are two extremely smart men, among the Democrats' most serious thinkers on economic issues. It's a shame that, on one issue of increasing importance to the country, they are so compromised. And, again, it makes you think of the post-presidential choices that separate Derek Bok and Larry Summers; one worked for Common Cause, one works for a hedge fund. Personal choices, certainly. But nonetheless, choices that send very different messages to Harvard students.
Meyerson quotes Summers to the effect that "the vast global middle is not sharing the benefits of the current period of economic growth -- and that its share of the pie may even be shrinking."
Of Rubin, he says....
Concerned that the American dream is fading for the middle class, and fearful that said middle class may turn against the global free-trade order he helped erect, Rubin has created the Hamilton Project, which, in the spirit of its namesake, our first Treasury secretary, proposes a series of enlightened Tory solutions to address these conundrums. The project has called for greater public investment in education, health care, research and development, and infrastructure; balancing the budget; and wage insurance for workers compelled to take lower-paying jobs in our Wal-Mart-ized economy.
All well enough. But, Meyerson says, neither Rubin nor Summers can really deny the fact that for the middle class around the world, wages are "converging," leveling out in a way that helps workers in developing countries but isn't so great for Americans.
A big problem, indeed. But there's a corollary problem: the divergence of wealth in the United States. (Summers, to be fair, touched briefly upon this in his column.)
Every poll suggests that part of the anxiety of the American middle class stems from its conviction that the rich in America are getting richer...and richer...and richer—to levels unprecedented in the history of the world.
And, factually, that's correct. (It's happening in England too.)
Unfortunately, both Rubin and Summers are fundamentally compromised on this issue, as they work for a mammoth multinational banking group and a mammoth international hedge fund. It's unlikely that they're going to come up with any proposals addressing the social impact of the super-rich that would harm their employers. (Which, of course, is one reason their employers hired them—to neutralize them.)
Rubin and Summers are two extremely smart men, among the Democrats' most serious thinkers on economic issues. It's a shame that, on one issue of increasing importance to the country, they are so compromised. And, again, it makes you think of the post-presidential choices that separate Derek Bok and Larry Summers; one worked for Common Cause, one works for a hedge fund. Personal choices, certainly. But nonetheless, choices that send very different messages to Harvard students.
Why Doesn't Harvard Blog?
The Times runs a fascinating piece about university presidents who have taken to writing blogs. They include the presidents of Trinity University, Towson University, Colorado College and Michigan State.
Here's an interesting example of what one president blogs about.
Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon, of Michigan State, used her blog to condemn a plan by a conservative student group to stage a "Catch an Illegal Immigrant" day, in which a student playing the part of an illegal immigrant would have been hunted down and "arrested."
According to the Times....
But the group that planned the event, Young Americans for Freedom, said that the blog inhibited free speech, and that no professor or administrator should express an opinion publicly about anything.
On the other hand, of course, students could strike back, by simply posting comments on the blog?
The larger point, of course, is that none of this goes on at Harvard. The presidential website posts speeches and press releases; the president is intended to be a figure of remote and Olympian status. (How else can he raise money?)
But why couldn't Harvard officials blog? I could see Derek Bok, the author of annual letters to the community during his time as president, reveling in the ability to blog. Neil Rudenstine, the author of so many handwritten letters, might also enjoy it.
Larry Summers, not so much.
And while it's unlikely that the Corporation would blog, I could certainly envision a Corporation website. (Then again, I'm not so sure that Jamie Houghton knows how to surf the web, so that's a problem there.)
Incumbent upon such developments is a change in attitude within the upper echelons of the Harvard administration—a willingness to be less secretive and more transparent, less faux-omniscient and more accountable.
That seems unlikely to happen any time soon, as Harvard's status in American society rests upon the idea that the purpose of a Harvard education is to achieve power, and power is something to be hoarded rather than shared. It is the elitism of power, rather than the elitism of excellence, that truly defines Harvard.
I asked a Crimson reporter once if he knew of any Harvard professors who blog. What a natural evolution this would be for them, to continue translating their thoughts and ideas from the lecture hall onto the webpage.
After a couple days of scouting, he reported back that he was able to find one—one!—blog written by a Harvard prof.
Now, I know that the colleges mentioned above whose presidents blog are modest in stature compared to Harvard. But perhaps this gives them greater freedom to experiment; perhaps they are, as the writer David Osborne once said of the states, laboratories of democracy.
And perhaps this is the kind of thing that, over time, will make them look innovative and Harvard out of date.
Here's a thought: Why doesn't Jeremy Knowles commence an initiative in which FAS sets up really powerful personal webpages, including blogs, for its professors?
Here's an interesting example of what one president blogs about.
Dr. Lou Anna K. Simon, of Michigan State, used her blog to condemn a plan by a conservative student group to stage a "Catch an Illegal Immigrant" day, in which a student playing the part of an illegal immigrant would have been hunted down and "arrested."
According to the Times....
But the group that planned the event, Young Americans for Freedom, said that the blog inhibited free speech, and that no professor or administrator should express an opinion publicly about anything.
“We’re here to be educated, to get our degrees,” said Kyle Bristow, chairman of the group, which dropped its plans in favor of a forum on immigration later this semester. “They’re here to provide an atmosphere where we can be educated. We should be able to think for ourselves and not have people like Lou Anna Simon thinking for us.”
I think that's pretty tenuous logic, myself, but I can see the issue: Would a presidential blog tempt its author to comment on campus matters too readily, like a teacher waving a ruler overhead to inflict punishment upon wayward students?On the other hand, of course, students could strike back, by simply posting comments on the blog?
The larger point, of course, is that none of this goes on at Harvard. The presidential website posts speeches and press releases; the president is intended to be a figure of remote and Olympian status. (How else can he raise money?)
But why couldn't Harvard officials blog? I could see Derek Bok, the author of annual letters to the community during his time as president, reveling in the ability to blog. Neil Rudenstine, the author of so many handwritten letters, might also enjoy it.
Larry Summers, not so much.
And while it's unlikely that the Corporation would blog, I could certainly envision a Corporation website. (Then again, I'm not so sure that Jamie Houghton knows how to surf the web, so that's a problem there.)
Incumbent upon such developments is a change in attitude within the upper echelons of the Harvard administration—a willingness to be less secretive and more transparent, less faux-omniscient and more accountable.
That seems unlikely to happen any time soon, as Harvard's status in American society rests upon the idea that the purpose of a Harvard education is to achieve power, and power is something to be hoarded rather than shared. It is the elitism of power, rather than the elitism of excellence, that truly defines Harvard.
I asked a Crimson reporter once if he knew of any Harvard professors who blog. What a natural evolution this would be for them, to continue translating their thoughts and ideas from the lecture hall onto the webpage.
After a couple days of scouting, he reported back that he was able to find one—one!—blog written by a Harvard prof.
Now, I know that the colleges mentioned above whose presidents blog are modest in stature compared to Harvard. But perhaps this gives them greater freedom to experiment; perhaps they are, as the writer David Osborne once said of the states, laboratories of democracy.
And perhaps this is the kind of thing that, over time, will make them look innovative and Harvard out of date.
Here's a thought: Why doesn't Jeremy Knowles commence an initiative in which FAS sets up really powerful personal webpages, including blogs, for its professors?
Bang for the Bok
In the Boston Globe, Marcella Bombardieri reports that Derek Bok is working for free.
"I just didn't need the money," Bok says. "I wasn't doing this for compensation, but because the university needed help at a difficult time."
However one feels about Bok—and most people feel pretty good about him these days—you have to tip your hat to the guy. To donate a year of your life, at age 76..... Sure, Bok is wealthy. But even so.
I can well imagine a conversation in which Jamie Houghton says, "Now, Derek, I know you don't need the money, but the university insists—it wouldn't be right not to compensate you."
How many of us, no matter the state of our finances, would allow ourselves to be persuaded by that argument?
What is it they say about conscience—that it's how you act even when you know no one's watching?
Seems to me you could say the same about Bok and principle.
"I just didn't need the money," Bok says. "I wasn't doing this for compensation, but because the university needed help at a difficult time."
However one feels about Bok—and most people feel pretty good about him these days—you have to tip your hat to the guy. To donate a year of your life, at age 76..... Sure, Bok is wealthy. But even so.
I can well imagine a conversation in which Jamie Houghton says, "Now, Derek, I know you don't need the money, but the university insists—it wouldn't be right not to compensate you."
How many of us, no matter the state of our finances, would allow ourselves to be persuaded by that argument?
What is it they say about conscience—that it's how you act even when you know no one's watching?
Seems to me you could say the same about Bok and principle.
Monday, November 20, 2023
Why I Don't Run Marathons
Because they cause skin cancer in white people.
Oh...wait. I already had skin cancer.
Oh...wait. I already had skin cancer.
The Broad Institute Lands a Big One
The Broad Institute, a joint Harvard-MIT venture, announced that it has won a $200 million grant from the federal government for DNA research, including research into genetic links between cancer and genetics.
The Broad Institute, which was a Larry Summers priority, is shaping up to be one of his real successes, and perhaps Summers' most tangible achievement. And cancer was, of course, also a priority for Summers, who is himself a cancer survivor.
The Broad Institute, which was a Larry Summers priority, is shaping up to be one of his real successes, and perhaps Summers' most tangible achievement. And cancer was, of course, also a priority for Summers, who is himself a cancer survivor.
Notes from a Relative Nobody
In general, I try not to highlight posts that rip into me, but since I also try to run this blog fairly, once in a while I'll break with my policy of self-preservation.
For example...
An anonymous poster below writes:
A relative nobody who didn't even go to Harvard.That smarts.
It's true that, like the last three presidents of Harvard, I didn't go to Harvard College. I did, however, go to the graduate school, although I left (voluntarily) before finishing my doctorate. But I was there for three years and still have several good friends and lots of warm memories from that time. Though I wasn't an undergrad, I did date one pretty seriously (though not, just so you don't get the wrong idea, one of my students).
As to the matter of obsession, well...no. But thanks for reading the blog enough to think so.
Larry Summers is a very interesting character, and he's hardly been laying low since leaving the presidency. So, since this blog is in large part about Harvard, I cover what he's up to. Summers is also a powerful man, and the record of his use of power is deeply mixed—if you don't believe me, read Joe Stiglitz's book, Globalization and Its Discontents—which is another good reason to pay attention to him. Simple as that.
Do I have a huge ego? Nah. That's one reason I post Monday Morning Zen—to remind myself that we humans are all small and insignificant creatures on this planet, no better and frequently worse than many of our fellow animals. (Also, seals are cute.) It's a good way to start the week.
But because of my professional training, I do read pieces of writing from an editor's point of view. Summers' paragraph on why he cared more about social justice than Friedman did started to turn a warm remembrance into a piece that was more about Summers, and in my most humble opinion, that paragraph should have been trimmed or deleted.
For example...
An anonymous poster below writes:
You do realize that your obsession with Larry Summers is really weird, right?
Another thing - man, you have a huge ego. "I could have lived without" you, a relative nobody who didn't even go to Harvard, passing judgment on a man who's infinitely more qualified and accomplished than you ever will be.
A relative nobody who didn't even go to Harvard.
It's true that, like the last three presidents of Harvard, I didn't go to Harvard College. I did, however, go to the graduate school, although I left (voluntarily) before finishing my doctorate. But I was there for three years and still have several good friends and lots of warm memories from that time. Though I wasn't an undergrad, I did date one pretty seriously (though not, just so you don't get the wrong idea, one of my students).
As to the matter of obsession, well...no. But thanks for reading the blog enough to think so.
Larry Summers is a very interesting character, and he's hardly been laying low since leaving the presidency. So, since this blog is in large part about Harvard, I cover what he's up to. Summers is also a powerful man, and the record of his use of power is deeply mixed—if you don't believe me, read Joe Stiglitz's book, Globalization and Its Discontents—which is another good reason to pay attention to him. Simple as that.
Do I have a huge ego? Nah. That's one reason I post Monday Morning Zen—to remind myself that we humans are all small and insignificant creatures on this planet, no better and frequently worse than many of our fellow animals. (Also, seals are cute.) It's a good way to start the week.
But because of my professional training, I do read pieces of writing from an editor's point of view. Summers' paragraph on why he cared more about social justice than Friedman did started to turn a warm remembrance into a piece that was more about Summers, and in my most humble opinion, that paragraph should have been trimmed or deleted.
More on Bush's Christianist
Eric Keroack, the man whom President Bush just appointed deputy director of HHS, in charge of $280 million worth of family planning money, is the medical director of an antiabortion center that refuses to distribute contraception—even to married couples.
Because, you know, there's no connection between birth control and pregnancy.
As the Washington Post puts it, "What comes next—a science adviser who doesn't believe in evolution?"
Keroack is also the author of a "paper," published by something called the National Abstinence Clearing House—boy, but they're a lot of fun to hang out with—on "The Results of Non-Marital Sexual Activity."
His conclusion? Too much sex causes brain damage.
And this man is in charge of $280 million in family planning money.
Did Bush learn nothing from the election?
Because, you know, there's no connection between birth control and pregnancy.
As the Washington Post puts it, "What comes next—a science adviser who doesn't believe in evolution?"
Keroack is also the author of a "paper," published by something called the National Abstinence Clearing House—boy, but they're a lot of fun to hang out with—on "The Results of Non-Marital Sexual Activity."
His conclusion? Too much sex causes brain damage.
And this man is in charge of $280 million in family planning money.
Did Bush learn nothing from the election?
Summers on Milton Friedman
Continuing his new career as an op-ed writer, Larry Summers eulogized Milton Friedman in yesterday's Times. I could live without the last couple of paragraphs, in which Summers talks about how he's a greater believer in social justice than Friedman was. (Not sure the citizens of various Asian countries would agree.) Nonetheless, it's a nice piece of writing for Summers—a little more personal and heartfelt than he usually gets.
Saturday, November 18, 2023
Comments of the Week
For the kind of thoughtful, measured exchange that I hope this blog can foster—even if yours truly isn't always responsible for it—take a look at the debate below, in the comments section of the post "The Game Is In Trouble," between Sam Spektor and Harry Lewis. The subject: collegiate athletics and the role of athletics in Harvard life. It's good stuff.
Friday, November 17, 2023
The Game is in Trouble
All signs suggest that enthusiasm for the Game is going to be low, low, low this year—and this despite the fact that it's actually a pretty compelling on-field match-up. Harvard has put so many restrictions on the amount of fun attendees can have, the whole thing has taken on an East German quality. You vill have ze fun ven ve tell you!
This is not good. What Harvard doesn't want to admit is that, when it accepted the decision to be demoted to division 1-AA football—a move described in today's Times— it ensured that the quality of play on the field would become so mediocre, students would need another incentive to turn out—and that, naturally, became partying.
Which, contrary to our present cultural mix of legalism and Puritanism, there is nothing wrong with. (As long as you stay away from steering wheels while you're doing it.)
Take away the party element, and you're asking students to go see what is generally pretty dull football played in bitter cold in a stadium that's filled to about ten percent of capacity. And alums! I love to see the current undergrads get a little wild and crazy. Reminds me of my undergraduate days. Frankly, I couldn't imagine sitting on those stone benches in Harvard's stadium, freezing my ass off, without (quite) a few belts of schnapps (or whatever) to warm me up.
But then Harvard goes and starts wrapping crimson tape around the Game, squeezing the life out of it, just like the torture machine sucked years of life out of Westley in The Princess Bride.
And let's be honest about the real reason why: Because the university doesn't want to alienate the Boston police, or any other relevant constituency, as it gears up to start building in Allston.
As a result, from Yale's point of view, the annual contest with Princeton is starting to become more fun—and more important. (Is this another way that Princeton is starting to eclipse Harvard?)
Okay, bear with me for a second here as I plant and pivot.
There's another interesting article in the Crimson today, about a push by Harvard student groups to disseminate information about a vaccine for HPV. They're hoping that Harvard will underwrite vaccination for the virus, which both sexes carry but poses a serious cancer risk for women.
(The drive for the subsidy is being led by Ellen Quigley, class of '07, whom I wrote about in Harvard Rules—a very interesting woman, smart and tough and passionate.)
Harvard's response: Too much money.
Nonsense.
HPV is a serious health issue for women, and one that many don't even think or know about. (Hell, I didn't even know there was a vaccine.)
If Harvard cared as much about protecting women's health as it does about controlling drinking at the Game, it would figure out a way to pay for this vaccine. This is, simply, a no-brainer.
And you have to think that if there were more women in positions of power at Harvard, the response would be very different....
This is not good. What Harvard doesn't want to admit is that, when it accepted the decision to be demoted to division 1-AA football—a move described in today's Times— it ensured that the quality of play on the field would become so mediocre, students would need another incentive to turn out—and that, naturally, became partying.
Which, contrary to our present cultural mix of legalism and Puritanism, there is nothing wrong with. (As long as you stay away from steering wheels while you're doing it.)
Take away the party element, and you're asking students to go see what is generally pretty dull football played in bitter cold in a stadium that's filled to about ten percent of capacity. And alums! I love to see the current undergrads get a little wild and crazy. Reminds me of my undergraduate days. Frankly, I couldn't imagine sitting on those stone benches in Harvard's stadium, freezing my ass off, without (quite) a few belts of schnapps (or whatever) to warm me up.
But then Harvard goes and starts wrapping crimson tape around the Game, squeezing the life out of it, just like the torture machine sucked years of life out of Westley in The Princess Bride.
And let's be honest about the real reason why: Because the university doesn't want to alienate the Boston police, or any other relevant constituency, as it gears up to start building in Allston.
As a result, from Yale's point of view, the annual contest with Princeton is starting to become more fun—and more important. (Is this another way that Princeton is starting to eclipse Harvard?)
Okay, bear with me for a second here as I plant and pivot.
There's another interesting article in the Crimson today, about a push by Harvard student groups to disseminate information about a vaccine for HPV. They're hoping that Harvard will underwrite vaccination for the virus, which both sexes carry but poses a serious cancer risk for women.
(The drive for the subsidy is being led by Ellen Quigley, class of '07, whom I wrote about in Harvard Rules—a very interesting woman, smart and tough and passionate.)
Harvard's response: Too much money.
Nonsense.
HPV is a serious health issue for women, and one that many don't even think or know about. (Hell, I didn't even know there was a vaccine.)
If Harvard cared as much about protecting women's health as it does about controlling drinking at the Game, it would figure out a way to pay for this vaccine. This is, simply, a no-brainer.
And you have to think that if there were more women in positions of power at Harvard, the response would be very different....
Doesn't He Know He Just Lost an Election?
The president has just appointed a Christianist (to borrow Andrew Sullivan's term) to an important public policy position.
I quote from the Washington Post:
Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, will advise Secretary Mike Leavitt on matters such as reproductive health and adolescent pregnancy. He will oversee $283 million in annual family-planning grants that, according to HHS, are "designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons."
So a guy who believes that birth control is "demeaning to women" is now in charge of $283 million in family-planning grants designed to provide access to birth control.
This move is so boneheaded, it's telling. Do you think Bush was even aware of it? (Lord knows, he was grateful for birth control in his wild days.) There's no political benefit to this; kissing up to the Christianists is not the thing to do at the moment, and why pointlessly piss off the Dems?
No, this feels like Cheney or some other right-winger who just doesn't give a damn about the political ramifications and wants to stick it to...um...women. Basically. With this and other moves—pushing for the Bolton appointment, for example—Bush isn't exactly signaling that he wants to work constructively with the new Congressional majority.
I quote from the Washington Post:
The Bush administration has appointed a new chief of family-planning programs at the Department of Health and Human Services who worked at a Christian pregnancy-counseling organization that regards the distribution of contraceptives as "demeaning to women."
Eric Keroack, medical director for A Woman's Concern, a nonprofit group based in Dorchester, Mass., will become deputy assistant secretary for population affairs in the next two weeks, department spokeswoman Christina Pearson said yesterday.
..."A Woman's Concern is persuaded that the crass commercialization and distribution of birth control is demeaning to women, degrading of human sexuality and adverse to human health and happiness," the group's Web site says.Wait—I know I'm quoting a lot (thanks, reporter Christopher Lee), but it gets even better/worse.
Keroack, an obstetrician-gynecologist, will advise Secretary Mike Leavitt on matters such as reproductive health and adolescent pregnancy. He will oversee $283 million in annual family-planning grants that, according to HHS, are "designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons."
So a guy who believes that birth control is "demeaning to women" is now in charge of $283 million in family-planning grants designed to provide access to birth control.
This move is so boneheaded, it's telling. Do you think Bush was even aware of it? (Lord knows, he was grateful for birth control in his wild days.) There's no political benefit to this; kissing up to the Christianists is not the thing to do at the moment, and why pointlessly piss off the Dems?
No, this feels like Cheney or some other right-winger who just doesn't give a damn about the political ramifications and wants to stick it to...um...women. Basically. With this and other moves—pushing for the Bolton appointment, for example—Bush isn't exactly signaling that he wants to work constructively with the new Congressional majority.
Nancy, Schmancy
Here's a shocker: Nancy Pelosi has failed her first big political test, decisively; her fellow Democrats rejected her choice as majority leader, the anti-war but ethically challenged John Murtha, and voted in Maryland congressman Steny Hoyer by a dramatic majority, 149-86.
Pelosi made at least three mistakes that I can think of in this fiasco, which bodes poorly for her future ability to control the Democratic caucus:
1) Choosing John Murtha in the first place, giving the nets a chance to replay that horrifying old footage of Murtha from Abscam, in which he negotiates with an FBI agent posing as someone offering a bribe.
2) Not knowing she didn't have the support to get Murtha, and then progressing with a vote that not only shows her weakness, but actually makes her weaker still. (How's Pelosi going to exact retribution on the people who voted against her when there are 149 of them?)
3) Making this the first fight of her speakership, exposing the Democrats' internal strains, when she should be talking about health care, the minimum wage, abolishing the alternative minimum tax, and implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
The photo below is classic. Look at Murtha at the top right—could he purse those lips any tighter? There's Hoyer with a wonderful Cheshire cat grin. Pelosi's smile is a grim rictus of Botox and the figurative taste of excrement. Someone looking weirdly like an older JFK is in the back. And there's Rahm Emanuel, crafty Rahm, to the side. Note that on his right hand, the top of his middle finger is missing. I used to know how that happened, but I've forgotten. I do know that when Rahm is emphatically making a point, he thumps his stump on his desk, which is a little disconcerting. He's also flashed the stump at me, which is also a little disconcerting, but kind of funny as well, because you know he's deliberately messing with you.
(John Silber did this with the stump of his left arm, which ended above the elbow in a dramatic point; he tailored his shirts so that they were cuffed above the point, and then he would pound—pound!—the stump of his arm on his desk. Which was actually quite disconcerting, and intentionally so. But I digress.)
Pelosi and entourage: Hug it out, bitch.
Pelosi made at least three mistakes that I can think of in this fiasco, which bodes poorly for her future ability to control the Democratic caucus:
1) Choosing John Murtha in the first place, giving the nets a chance to replay that horrifying old footage of Murtha from Abscam, in which he negotiates with an FBI agent posing as someone offering a bribe.
2) Not knowing she didn't have the support to get Murtha, and then progressing with a vote that not only shows her weakness, but actually makes her weaker still. (How's Pelosi going to exact retribution on the people who voted against her when there are 149 of them?)
3) Making this the first fight of her speakership, exposing the Democrats' internal strains, when she should be talking about health care, the minimum wage, abolishing the alternative minimum tax, and implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
The photo below is classic. Look at Murtha at the top right—could he purse those lips any tighter? There's Hoyer with a wonderful Cheshire cat grin. Pelosi's smile is a grim rictus of Botox and the figurative taste of excrement. Someone looking weirdly like an older JFK is in the back. And there's Rahm Emanuel, crafty Rahm, to the side. Note that on his right hand, the top of his middle finger is missing. I used to know how that happened, but I've forgotten. I do know that when Rahm is emphatically making a point, he thumps his stump on his desk, which is a little disconcerting. He's also flashed the stump at me, which is also a little disconcerting, but kind of funny as well, because you know he's deliberately messing with you.
(John Silber did this with the stump of his left arm, which ended above the elbow in a dramatic point; he tailored his shirts so that they were cuffed above the point, and then he would pound—pound!—the stump of his arm on his desk. Which was actually quite disconcerting, and intentionally so. But I digress.)
Pelosi and entourage: Hug it out, bitch.
Thursday, November 16, 2023
Joe Lieberman: Worse than Ever
Throughout his independent campaign for Senate, Joe Lieberman promised that, if elected, he would caucus with Democrats and would not switch to the GOP.
He promised.
Well, of course, now that he's won and the Democrats have a two-seat margin in the Senate, he's threatening to switch parties. It's a way of blackmailing the Democrats. It's also a betrayal to the voters who took him at his word.
Silly voters!
Yesterday in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lieberman continued his usual grandstanding and self-promoting.
I argued during Lieberman's campaign that, though he'd probably win—he'd get so much support from Republican voters, it would be hard not to—Lieberman would sell out whatever remaining principles he had. He might win another six years in the Senate, but he'd stand for nothing other than his own uncontrollable, self-consuming ambition.
So far, seems about right.
He promised.
Well, of course, now that he's won and the Democrats have a two-seat margin in the Senate, he's threatening to switch parties. It's a way of blackmailing the Democrats. It's also a betrayal to the voters who took him at his word.
Silly voters!
Yesterday in a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Lieberman continued his usual grandstanding and self-promoting.
But no sooner had Mr. Levin outlined his case for a phased pullout of troops beginning in four to six months than the new Independent Democratic hero of the hawkish wing, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, began acting the role of cross-examiner, leading Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American military commander in the Middle East, to say that such a withdrawal would increase violence and instability.
“I take it by your answer that you profoundly disagree?” Mr. Lieberman asked. With the Democrats, he meant. “We have a window of opportunity and, really, responsibility now, after the election,” he said, “to find a bipartisan consensus for being supportive of the efforts of our troops and our diplomats there to achieve success.”
To this, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic contender for the 2008 race, knocked back the remains in her coffee cup.....
I'm surprised she didn't throw them at him.As Mr. Nelson [of Florida] questioned General Abizaid, [John McCain] stood up to confer with Senator Susan M. Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine. At this, Mr. Lieberman got up and walked to the Republican side to join them in a brief, chuckling huddle, then ambled back to his party’s side with a glance at his colleagues as if to say, “You watching?”
What a dreadful man. Perhaps he's enjoying sticking it to Dems who didn't support his independent bid; perhaps he's trying to leverage his position to maximize his own power within the Democratic caucus. But Connecticut voters don't want Lieberman to play this game. He's pretending to be bipartisan, when in fact he's just power-hungry.I argued during Lieberman's campaign that, though he'd probably win—he'd get so much support from Republican voters, it would be hard not to—Lieberman would sell out whatever remaining principles he had. He might win another six years in the Senate, but he'd stand for nothing other than his own uncontrollable, self-consuming ambition.
So far, seems about right.
Harvey Mansfield in the WSJ
In today's Wall Street Journal, Harvey Mansfield attacks the proposed new Harvard curriculum and gets in a few digs at the rest of the faculty while he's at it. (Here's a link, but it may be behind a firewall.)
Mansfield begins:
The recent Harvard faculty report on general education has made waves for its new requirements to study America and religion. These may be good -- we shall see -- but the report is more remarkable for the trendy thinking it reveals in the higher reaches of American education.
A promising start. (We shall see!) But I'll be honest: After those two sentences, I have very little idea what the hell Mansfield is talking about. Because almost instantly, he wanders away from making an argument to calling people—unnamed people, of course, because that way nothing has to be substantiated—names.
For example...
Our postmodern professors, however, do not care for principles....
The professors believe that every mind has a perspective or point of view it cannot escape. There's really no such thing as an open mind; all minds are closed.....
It is apparent from the courses that students seek out and from the dissatisfaction they express that they are more interested in big questions (Great Books) and in the big picture (Western Civilization) than [are] their professors....
(Hey, wait—wasn't the big course last year something about how to be happy?)
The professors, however, teach the Great Books not out of principle, or, dare one say it, affection, but because they feel the need -- despite their principles -- to justify why they don't believe in the Great Books; and because they want to cut them down to size.....
Who are these wacky professors? I feel that we should hunt them down and throw nets over them. 'Cause, man, these cats are crazy!
In the end, I think what Mansfield is arguing is, basically, for a return to the Red Book. But his piece is built much more on attacking a straw man—"the professors"—than in making a positive argument for a general education based on teaching Western Civ and religion.
The reason, I think, is that a) Mansfield enjoys stirring the pot more than he likes to make a serious argument (cf. Manliness), and b) if you try to argue that Moby Dick and a dose of God are all Harvard students need today, the limitations of that curriculum will show themselves pretty darn quickly.
In the end, I'm slightly mystified why the Journal published this piece. It's tough enough to make sense of if you're following the debate at Harvard. For anyone who isn't, it would be incomprehensible.
Except maybe those nasty cracks about the professors.
Mansfield begins:
The recent Harvard faculty report on general education has made waves for its new requirements to study America and religion. These may be good -- we shall see -- but the report is more remarkable for the trendy thinking it reveals in the higher reaches of American education.
A promising start. (We shall see!) But I'll be honest: After those two sentences, I have very little idea what the hell Mansfield is talking about. Because almost instantly, he wanders away from making an argument to calling people—unnamed people, of course, because that way nothing has to be substantiated—names.
For example...
Our postmodern professors, however, do not care for principles....
The professors believe that every mind has a perspective or point of view it cannot escape. There's really no such thing as an open mind; all minds are closed.....
It is apparent from the courses that students seek out and from the dissatisfaction they express that they are more interested in big questions (Great Books) and in the big picture (Western Civilization) than [are] their professors....
(Hey, wait—wasn't the big course last year something about how to be happy?)
The professors, however, teach the Great Books not out of principle, or, dare one say it, affection, but because they feel the need -- despite their principles -- to justify why they don't believe in the Great Books; and because they want to cut them down to size.....
Who are these wacky professors? I feel that we should hunt them down and throw nets over them. 'Cause, man, these cats are crazy!
In the end, I think what Mansfield is arguing is, basically, for a return to the Red Book. But his piece is built much more on attacking a straw man—"the professors"—than in making a positive argument for a general education based on teaching Western Civ and religion.
The reason, I think, is that a) Mansfield enjoys stirring the pot more than he likes to make a serious argument (cf. Manliness), and b) if you try to argue that Moby Dick and a dose of God are all Harvard students need today, the limitations of that curriculum will show themselves pretty darn quickly.
In the end, I'm slightly mystified why the Journal published this piece. It's tough enough to make sense of if you're following the debate at Harvard. For anyone who isn't, it would be incomprehensible.
Except maybe those nasty cracks about the professors.
Wednesday, November 15, 2023
Are the Sox the new Evil Empire?
The Boston Red Sox have just paid $51.1 million to the Seibu Lions of Japan for the right to negotiate to sign pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka, and they will have to pay tens of millions more to sign him.
I'm not saying this is a bad move, because Red Sox GM Theo Epstein is a smart guy and doesn't throw money away lightly.
But...
I'd much rather sign a young pitcher and have him develop—on the cheap—than sign up an expensive free agent, as they have a way of turning out to be busts. Especially pitchers.
And...
Can we now never hear another word from Red Sox fans to the effect that the Yankees are the best team money can buy? The Yankee offer to negotiate with Matsuzaka was somewhere around $25 million...and they also just dumped Gary Sheffield ($13 million annually) and got three (cheap!) minor-league pitchers in return.
Fiscal sanity in New York? Free-spending in Boston? It feels sort of strange...but I think I like it.
I'm not saying this is a bad move, because Red Sox GM Theo Epstein is a smart guy and doesn't throw money away lightly.
But...
I'd much rather sign a young pitcher and have him develop—on the cheap—than sign up an expensive free agent, as they have a way of turning out to be busts. Especially pitchers.
And...
Can we now never hear another word from Red Sox fans to the effect that the Yankees are the best team money can buy? The Yankee offer to negotiate with Matsuzaka was somewhere around $25 million...and they also just dumped Gary Sheffield ($13 million annually) and got three (cheap!) minor-league pitchers in return.
Fiscal sanity in New York? Free-spending in Boston? It feels sort of strange...but I think I like it.
This and That
A reporter from the Daily Pennsylvanian called to chat about Amy Gutmann and her Halloween photo; you can find her story here. What's interesting to me about the piece is not what it says, but an underlying reality of it: two of the three people interviewed are bloggers. (The reporter told me that no one at Harvard wanted to speak on the subject.)
It goes to my earlier point about new media and the university...
Meanwhile, here's the transcript of Larry Summers' online "debate" about the election. (I put debate in quotes because, although it was advertised as such, he's really just answering pre-screened questions.)
Summers takes a middle road: He's a little more forthright than he has been in the past, but still seems to be extremely careful about his public statements. I suppose you can't blame him for that, but I still think that Summers has a far more interesting mind than he displays here.... As I've often said, I really would like to read a Summers book in which he cut loose and showed off that very distinctive intelligence of his. I think he'd need a ghostwriter for it because his writing is not as fluid as his thinking. But if he teamed up with that guy who co-wrote Freakanomics, he could produce a very interesting book.
Finally, sounds like the faculty meeting at Harvard yesterday was pretty hot. The question I can't tell: Are the objections to the current proposal for curricular reform serious enough to threaten its passage, or is this just fine-tuning?
My guess is somewhere inbetween....
It goes to my earlier point about new media and the university...
Meanwhile, here's the transcript of Larry Summers' online "debate" about the election. (I put debate in quotes because, although it was advertised as such, he's really just answering pre-screened questions.)
Summers takes a middle road: He's a little more forthright than he has been in the past, but still seems to be extremely careful about his public statements. I suppose you can't blame him for that, but I still think that Summers has a far more interesting mind than he displays here.... As I've often said, I really would like to read a Summers book in which he cut loose and showed off that very distinctive intelligence of his. I think he'd need a ghostwriter for it because his writing is not as fluid as his thinking. But if he teamed up with that guy who co-wrote Freakanomics, he could produce a very interesting book.
Finally, sounds like the faculty meeting at Harvard yesterday was pretty hot. The question I can't tell: Are the objections to the current proposal for curricular reform serious enough to threaten its passage, or is this just fine-tuning?
My guess is somewhere inbetween....
Tuesday, November 14, 2023
The Democrats: Argh
Here's my prediction: Nancy Pelosi will be a political disaster for the Dems.
She's already gotten into a fight over the identity of her #2, at a time when she should be focusing the discussion on the Democratic agenda.
Meanwhile, a group of 13 Democrats has already—already!—zipped off to a junket in Panama sponsored by Pfizer, Citibank, AT&T;, American Airlines and Time Warner.
This is exactly the kind of corruption the incoming speaker should (have) put a stop to.
In both cases, there's a villain: Congressional hack Charles Rangel. He's the guy who called Dick Cheney a son of a bitch, and, at 76, he seems more interested in feathering his own nest and throwing his weight around than he is in doing good for the country.
Dick Cheney, by the way, probably is a son of a bitch, but if you're in politics, you need to maintain at least a veneer of civility in order to work with the other party. There's no reason to call Cheney a son of a bitch; it does no one any good, except in the most immature way. It's just dumb politics.
Rangel is the incoming chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, so get ready for an explosion of pork.
Pelosi needs to rein this old bull in right now, or he's going to be nothing but an embarrassment for the Democrats. It's an early test of her power. Let's hope she passes it. I fear she won't.
She's already gotten into a fight over the identity of her #2, at a time when she should be focusing the discussion on the Democratic agenda.
Meanwhile, a group of 13 Democrats has already—already!—zipped off to a junket in Panama sponsored by Pfizer, Citibank, AT&T;, American Airlines and Time Warner.
This is exactly the kind of corruption the incoming speaker should (have) put a stop to.
In both cases, there's a villain: Congressional hack Charles Rangel. He's the guy who called Dick Cheney a son of a bitch, and, at 76, he seems more interested in feathering his own nest and throwing his weight around than he is in doing good for the country.
Dick Cheney, by the way, probably is a son of a bitch, but if you're in politics, you need to maintain at least a veneer of civility in order to work with the other party. There's no reason to call Cheney a son of a bitch; it does no one any good, except in the most immature way. It's just dumb politics.
Rangel is the incoming chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, so get ready for an explosion of pork.
Pelosi needs to rein this old bull in right now, or he's going to be nothing but an embarrassment for the Democrats. It's an early test of her power. Let's hope she passes it. I fear she won't.
Monday, November 13, 2023
Ken Melhman Gay? Yes, Probably, But So What?
The Times reports on the controversy over Bill Maher outing RNC chair Ken Melhman on Larry King Live.
(Whew. That was a very media-saturated sentence!)
In case you're not familiar with the episode, Maher appeared on Larry King and was talking about gay Republicans. There are a lot of them, he said, some of whom are very high up in the party. Like who? Larry King said, rather weirdly. Ken Melhman, Maher replied. Everyone in Washington knows this.
(Incidentally, I've been calling this one for years. I have pretty good gaydar for a straight guy, and I remember seeing Melhman give a talk at the Kennedy School around three years ago, and after about 20 minutes of his talk, all of a sudden a light bulb went off and I thought, "Holy cow, the chairman of the Republican party is gay!" Can't remember what it was that tipped me off, though I remember thinking, Gee, if you were a gay man and you had to be in the closet because you were the chairman of the Republican Party, this is exactly what you would look like....)
Well, the show was live on the East Coast, so that comment got aired. But when LKL was re-broadcast on the West Coast, they edited out the suggestion that Melhman is gay.
(You can see the unedited video here; thank God for blogs.)
Here's how the Times handled it:
Mr. Maher then began to speculate on the sexual orientation of some high-ranking Republican officials, and Mr. King, seeming to forget that he was on the air, asked for names. The comments were broadcast live, but CNN’s rebroadcast of the show later that evening cut a portion of Mr. Maher’s remarks.
In other words, on a story about how CNN censored something, the New York Times censored the exact same thing.
How weird is that?
The Times explained CNN's decision thusly:
In an e-mail statement, a spokeswoman for “Larry King Live” and CNN said that while the network was not responsible for Mr. Maher’s initial comments, it could be held responsible for republishing them without further research — a cautious interpretation of the law.
Haven't we moved past the time when to be called gay is considered "potentially defamatory"? I think we have. And this, as I sometimes say to various editors, this is the kind of lawsuit you'd love to have someone bring against you. The chairman of the Republican National Party sues CNN for the fact that one of its guests said he's gay? Brilliant. I'd pay good money to see that.
It's a lawsuit that would never happen, and CNN knows that.
Now, of course, outing people is highly problematic. I'd argue that if the chairman of a political party which promotes anti-gay bigotry is himself gay, that's newsworthy, and I'd run it. Though I'm not so sure that I'd just have it blurted out on talk show; there's a more responsible way to do such a piece.
Others could easily disagree, and make a good case not to run with such a story.
But if you don't want to out someone, can we just agree that it's because some people don't want to come out of the closet and the media respects their right to privacy, rather than saying that it's defamatory to say someone is gay?
Such a statement makes CNN complicit in bigotry. And if only for the reason that CNN anchor Anderson Cooper is gay, the network should know better.
(Whew. That was a very media-saturated sentence!)
In case you're not familiar with the episode, Maher appeared on Larry King and was talking about gay Republicans. There are a lot of them, he said, some of whom are very high up in the party. Like who? Larry King said, rather weirdly. Ken Melhman, Maher replied. Everyone in Washington knows this.
(Incidentally, I've been calling this one for years. I have pretty good gaydar for a straight guy, and I remember seeing Melhman give a talk at the Kennedy School around three years ago, and after about 20 minutes of his talk, all of a sudden a light bulb went off and I thought, "Holy cow, the chairman of the Republican party is gay!" Can't remember what it was that tipped me off, though I remember thinking, Gee, if you were a gay man and you had to be in the closet because you were the chairman of the Republican Party, this is exactly what you would look like....)
Well, the show was live on the East Coast, so that comment got aired. But when LKL was re-broadcast on the West Coast, they edited out the suggestion that Melhman is gay.
(You can see the unedited video here; thank God for blogs.)
Here's how the Times handled it:
Mr. Maher then began to speculate on the sexual orientation of some high-ranking Republican officials, and Mr. King, seeming to forget that he was on the air, asked for names. The comments were broadcast live, but CNN’s rebroadcast of the show later that evening cut a portion of Mr. Maher’s remarks.
In other words, on a story about how CNN censored something, the New York Times censored the exact same thing.
How weird is that?
The Times explained CNN's decision thusly:
In an e-mail statement, a spokeswoman for “Larry King Live” and CNN said that while the network was not responsible for Mr. Maher’s initial comments, it could be held responsible for republishing them without further research — a cautious interpretation of the law.
“When someone says something potentially defamatory that we don’t expect them to say live on the air, we typically won’t be liable for it,” she said. “However, if we continue to rebroadcast it, without any reporting of our own or any comment from the subject of the accusation, we could be legally responsible for what that guest said.”
Oh, bullshit.Haven't we moved past the time when to be called gay is considered "potentially defamatory"? I think we have. And this, as I sometimes say to various editors, this is the kind of lawsuit you'd love to have someone bring against you. The chairman of the Republican National Party sues CNN for the fact that one of its guests said he's gay? Brilliant. I'd pay good money to see that.
It's a lawsuit that would never happen, and CNN knows that.
Now, of course, outing people is highly problematic. I'd argue that if the chairman of a political party which promotes anti-gay bigotry is himself gay, that's newsworthy, and I'd run it. Though I'm not so sure that I'd just have it blurted out on talk show; there's a more responsible way to do such a piece.
Others could easily disagree, and make a good case not to run with such a story.
But if you don't want to out someone, can we just agree that it's because some people don't want to come out of the closet and the media respects their right to privacy, rather than saying that it's defamatory to say someone is gay?
Such a statement makes CNN complicit in bigotry. And if only for the reason that CNN anchor Anderson Cooper is gay, the network should know better.
Unpopular Presidents
A poster finds the president with the lowest-ever approval rating, lower even than George W. Bush's current 31%: Harry Truman, with 23%.
This article on presidential approval ratings notes that Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon both dropped below 30%; Carter went to 28%, and at the time of his resignation Nixon was at 24%.
And here's something that surprised me:
Bill Clinton’s popularity broke the 70 percent mark only once: right after he was impeached by the House of Representatives, when he registered 73 percent. Throughout his second term in office, despite the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton’s ratings were good and remarkably stable, averaging in the low 60s.....
When you consider that, it is amazing that Al Gore chose to run away from Clinton in 2000. Gore is a great guy, a hero for his work on the environment. But man, was he a bad politician. His instincts were terrible....
This article on presidential approval ratings notes that Jimmy Carter and Richard Nixon both dropped below 30%; Carter went to 28%, and at the time of his resignation Nixon was at 24%.
And here's something that surprised me:
Bill Clinton’s popularity broke the 70 percent mark only once: right after he was impeached by the House of Representatives, when he registered 73 percent. Throughout his second term in office, despite the Lewinsky scandal, Clinton’s ratings were good and remarkably stable, averaging in the low 60s.....
When you consider that, it is amazing that Al Gore chose to run away from Clinton in 2000. Gore is a great guy, a hero for his work on the environment. But man, was he a bad politician. His instincts were terrible....
Oh, the Agony of Fandom
Giant fans will always remember The Fumble.
Well, this may be worse: Against the Bears last night, losing by 24-20 but making a comeback, the Giants attempted a 52-yard field goal. Kick returner—who even knew that you could return a field goal attempt?—Devin Hester caught the ball 8.4 yards deep in the end zone...stopped...looked around...and preceded to run 108.4 yards for a touchdown.
The Giants would lose, 38-20.
Why do the Giants always seem to find the most bizarre and heartbreaking ways to lose?
Kind of reminds me of Yale, which blew an early lead on Saturday to lose to Princeton, 34-31, probably losing its first shot at an Ivy League title in 25 years in the process.....
Well, this may be worse: Against the Bears last night, losing by 24-20 but making a comeback, the Giants attempted a 52-yard field goal. Kick returner—who even knew that you could return a field goal attempt?—Devin Hester caught the ball 8.4 yards deep in the end zone...stopped...looked around...and preceded to run 108.4 yards for a touchdown.
The Giants would lose, 38-20.
Why do the Giants always seem to find the most bizarre and heartbreaking ways to lose?
Kind of reminds me of Yale, which blew an early lead on Saturday to lose to Princeton, 34-31, probably losing its first shot at an Ivy League title in 25 years in the process.....
Larry Summers and Election 2006
Larry Summers' online chat about the meaning of the election can be found here, at 10 AM Eastern time.
Sunday, November 12, 2023
The Times and the Web
Somtimes, I love the way that the web can reveal things that its users don't realize, in a Freudian slip kind of way. Like, how hard it is for old media companies to use the web in its truest spirit, that of the free dissemination of information.
Here's a small but telling example. In his review of the new Bob Woodward book, Franklin Foer writes,
Woodward has received unending abuse, suffering a devastating Joan Didion hatchet job and then the scorn of the anti-Bush left. His critics have turned him into a symbol of journalism’s rot, a leading force in the sad demise of adversarial reporting that led to Judith Miller and media passiveness in the face of Bush spin.
Curious to see the Joan Didion "hatchet job"—which, by the way, is a sloppy, lazy term for a serious piece by a serious writer—I clicked on the link embedded in the words "Joan Didion."
Rather than going to the article in question, the link took me to a handful of articles about Joan Didion that had been published in the Times.
Well, that's annoying. It implies that I don't know who Joan Didion is, or that what I really want to do is read everything the Times has written about her. In other words, it's really more an ad for the Times back catalogue than the most useful value-added for the reader.
What's even more annoying about it is that Didion's piece, in the New York Review of Books, is actually available online. You can find it in the hypertext above. But you'd never know that from the Times.
____________________________________________________________
Whoops, check that. Only the beginning of Didion's piece is available. The majority is subscriber-only.
Here's a small but telling example. In his review of the new Bob Woodward book, Franklin Foer writes,
Woodward has received unending abuse, suffering a devastating Joan Didion hatchet job and then the scorn of the anti-Bush left. His critics have turned him into a symbol of journalism’s rot, a leading force in the sad demise of adversarial reporting that led to Judith Miller and media passiveness in the face of Bush spin.
Curious to see the Joan Didion "hatchet job"—which, by the way, is a sloppy, lazy term for a serious piece by a serious writer—I clicked on the link embedded in the words "Joan Didion."
Rather than going to the article in question, the link took me to a handful of articles about Joan Didion that had been published in the Times.
Well, that's annoying. It implies that I don't know who Joan Didion is, or that what I really want to do is read everything the Times has written about her. In other words, it's really more an ad for the Times back catalogue than the most useful value-added for the reader.
What's even more annoying about it is that Didion's piece, in the New York Review of Books, is actually available online. You can find it in the hypertext above. But you'd never know that from the Times.
____________________________________________________________
Whoops, check that. Only the beginning of Didion's piece is available. The majority is subscriber-only.
More on the Election
The NYT travels to Indiana to report that voters there rejected Republicans because they thought the incumbents were too much Washington insiders, and they didn't respond to the GOP scare-tactics of gay-baiting, liberal-caricaturing, racism, and...gay-baiting.
As he campaigned for re-election, the Republican who lost his seat in the House of Representatives here on Tuesday threw several incendiary barbs suggesting that the opposition was beyond the mainstream of these placid southern Indiana environs: “Homosexual agenda”; “San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi”; “New York liberal Charlie Rangel”; “Detroit liberal John Conyers.” The attack backfired....
Let's just decode those anti-Democrat slogans from Republican John Hostettler, shall we? "Homosexual agenda," well, that's pretty straightforward. "San Francisco liberal"—well, we all know what that means. Charlie Rangel and John Conyers are both African-American.
“Eighth District voters are concerned about the homosexual agenda,” Mr. Hostettler was quoted as saying. Ms. Pelosi was certain to “put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda,” a Hostettler radio advertisement said.
The great thing about this election: Such tactics didn't work. Indiana voters had no idea who Nancy Pelosi is, Mr. Hostettler has revealed himself as a bigot, and the GOP has smeared itself for some time to come.
I truly wonder when George Bush forgot the idea that politics is about inclusion rather than exclusion, about building coalitions rather than splitting apart constituencies. In 2000, he seemed to understand that, and I think since then his sensitivity to issues relating to Latin Americans has been one of his most appealing (and, politically, smartest) sides.
But somewhere along the way, Bush, once the "compassionate conservative," allowed his party—hell, instructed his party—to run on campaigns of fear and hatred. I can see why a congressional candidate in Indiana might think that would work—not many blacks there, probably, not many openly gay people. But nationally? Gays are, what, ten percent of the population? Blacks, another ten? Women, 51%?
The math starts to cut against you.
What would Ronald Reagan have said? Perhaps that such tactics are the last resort of a man who, even after six years, is not up to the job of president.
I wonder if Ronald Reagan would ever have allowed Lee Atwater to run his campaign? Even as we talk about how George W. is finally returning to his father's more moderate camp and reaching out to his father's inner circle for aid, it's worth remembering that George H.W. Bush did hire Atwater, did run a vicious negative campaign (Willie Horton, flag-burning, etc.), and won that way once—which is usually about as many times in American politics as you can win preaching negativity .
Is there somewhere in the vaunted Bush self-confidence a deeper insecurity that pushes the Bush politicians to rely on sleazy hatchet men like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove?
As he campaigned for re-election, the Republican who lost his seat in the House of Representatives here on Tuesday threw several incendiary barbs suggesting that the opposition was beyond the mainstream of these placid southern Indiana environs: “Homosexual agenda”; “San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi”; “New York liberal Charlie Rangel”; “Detroit liberal John Conyers.” The attack backfired....
Let's just decode those anti-Democrat slogans from Republican John Hostettler, shall we? "Homosexual agenda," well, that's pretty straightforward. "San Francisco liberal"—well, we all know what that means. Charlie Rangel and John Conyers are both African-American.
“Eighth District voters are concerned about the homosexual agenda,” Mr. Hostettler was quoted as saying. Ms. Pelosi was certain to “put in motion her radical plan to advance the homosexual agenda,” a Hostettler radio advertisement said.
The great thing about this election: Such tactics didn't work. Indiana voters had no idea who Nancy Pelosi is, Mr. Hostettler has revealed himself as a bigot, and the GOP has smeared itself for some time to come.
I truly wonder when George Bush forgot the idea that politics is about inclusion rather than exclusion, about building coalitions rather than splitting apart constituencies. In 2000, he seemed to understand that, and I think since then his sensitivity to issues relating to Latin Americans has been one of his most appealing (and, politically, smartest) sides.
But somewhere along the way, Bush, once the "compassionate conservative," allowed his party—hell, instructed his party—to run on campaigns of fear and hatred. I can see why a congressional candidate in Indiana might think that would work—not many blacks there, probably, not many openly gay people. But nationally? Gays are, what, ten percent of the population? Blacks, another ten? Women, 51%?
The math starts to cut against you.
What would Ronald Reagan have said? Perhaps that such tactics are the last resort of a man who, even after six years, is not up to the job of president.
I wonder if Ronald Reagan would ever have allowed Lee Atwater to run his campaign? Even as we talk about how George W. is finally returning to his father's more moderate camp and reaching out to his father's inner circle for aid, it's worth remembering that George H.W. Bush did hire Atwater, did run a vicious negative campaign (Willie Horton, flag-burning, etc.), and won that way once—which is usually about as many times in American politics as you can win preaching negativity .
Is there somewhere in the vaunted Bush self-confidence a deeper insecurity that pushes the Bush politicians to rely on sleazy hatchet men like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove?
A Bad Week for President Bush
On top of the whole election thing—which is saying a lot—the Washington Post reports not only that huge majorities of Americans support the Democrats' legislative agenda, but that Bush's approval rating has fallen to 31%. Remarkable. I don't think that, even at the height of Watergate, Richard Nixon's approval rating was that low. Same for LBJ in 1968.
Which means that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president since they began taking polls....
Interestingly, the poll also showed that many people are worried that the Democrats will lead us to withdraw from Iraq "too hastily" or impede the president's efforts to combat terrorism. At least on the latter point, that suggests that some of the GOP scare tactics have sunk in. After all, one of Rahm Emanuel's issues is implementing all the recommendations of the 9/11 commission....
Which means that George W. Bush is the most unpopular president since they began taking polls....
Interestingly, the poll also showed that many people are worried that the Democrats will lead us to withdraw from Iraq "too hastily" or impede the president's efforts to combat terrorism. At least on the latter point, that suggests that some of the GOP scare tactics have sunk in. After all, one of Rahm Emanuel's issues is implementing all the recommendations of the 9/11 commission....
Saturday, November 11, 2023
On the Alan Stone Front
Perhaps I was too hard on Alan Stone. A number of posters below think so, and argue that contrary to what I wrote, Stone was open, pragmatic, and accessible. And a good guy, to boot.
So let me qualify my remarks, because I don't want to be unfair.
In my experience, Stone has not been open and accessible, nor even courteous. It's certainly been my experience that, when it came to Summers and the press, Stone was a highly influential but secretive figure, one with considerable power who didn't want to leave his fingerprints on anything. My conversations with other journalists who've reported on Harvard are consistent with that impression.
It is my strong belief that this approach never did either Summers or Harvard much good. And, frankly, it's unprofessional. I've worked with press people at the highest levels of government, and here's what the really good ones do: Even if they don't like what you're working on, they accept that you're doing it and they help in whatever way they can. Stiff-arming journalists always reflects badly upon the person and the institution employing the stiff-armer.
I also believe that Stone, through no fault of his own, represents a trend in university bureaucracy that people who care about universities should concern themselves with: the increasing power and presence of behind-the-scenes administrators who get paid extremely well, have considerable influence, and yet feel no obligation to conduct their business transparently. In recent years, more and more of these vice-presidents have cropped up at Harvard. Are they necessary? What do they really do? It's hard to say, because their work—and they—go unreported. More and more, folks like Alan Stone are running Harvard. That may be necessary; Harvard's a big place. But shouldn't we at least feel that we know exactly what they do and how they do it?
Having said all that, I can see that there are a number of people on this board who think well of Stone. I'm sure they have reason to, and I am sure that there are many contexts in which Alan Stone is outgoing, helpful, courteous, skilled at his work, and a lovely human being. As some of you have rightly pointed out, I've only known Stone in a specific context, and it's certainly true that that is my only first-hand perspective on him.
But to my mind, he was complicit in and a proponent of the secretive, anti-transparency, media-hostile culture of the Summers presidency, and that's why I continue to think that his exit is good for Harvard. In all his future endeavors, I wish him well. People who know him tell me he wasn't like that before going to work for Summers, and perhaps in a different environment his more catholic nature will emerge.
So let me qualify my remarks, because I don't want to be unfair.
In my experience, Stone has not been open and accessible, nor even courteous. It's certainly been my experience that, when it came to Summers and the press, Stone was a highly influential but secretive figure, one with considerable power who didn't want to leave his fingerprints on anything. My conversations with other journalists who've reported on Harvard are consistent with that impression.
It is my strong belief that this approach never did either Summers or Harvard much good. And, frankly, it's unprofessional. I've worked with press people at the highest levels of government, and here's what the really good ones do: Even if they don't like what you're working on, they accept that you're doing it and they help in whatever way they can. Stiff-arming journalists always reflects badly upon the person and the institution employing the stiff-armer.
I also believe that Stone, through no fault of his own, represents a trend in university bureaucracy that people who care about universities should concern themselves with: the increasing power and presence of behind-the-scenes administrators who get paid extremely well, have considerable influence, and yet feel no obligation to conduct their business transparently. In recent years, more and more of these vice-presidents have cropped up at Harvard. Are they necessary? What do they really do? It's hard to say, because their work—and they—go unreported. More and more, folks like Alan Stone are running Harvard. That may be necessary; Harvard's a big place. But shouldn't we at least feel that we know exactly what they do and how they do it?
Having said all that, I can see that there are a number of people on this board who think well of Stone. I'm sure they have reason to, and I am sure that there are many contexts in which Alan Stone is outgoing, helpful, courteous, skilled at his work, and a lovely human being. As some of you have rightly pointed out, I've only known Stone in a specific context, and it's certainly true that that is my only first-hand perspective on him.
But to my mind, he was complicit in and a proponent of the secretive, anti-transparency, media-hostile culture of the Summers presidency, and that's why I continue to think that his exit is good for Harvard. In all his future endeavors, I wish him well. People who know him tell me he wasn't like that before going to work for Summers, and perhaps in a different environment his more catholic nature will emerge.
Friday, November 10, 2023
Speaking of Controlling the Press
The FT announces that Larry Summers will be answering questions about the election "in a live online debate" on Monday at 10 AM Eastern time.
Then it asks you to submit your questions ahead of time....
Then it asks you to submit your questions ahead of time....
IvyGate Is Cool
The Crimson magazine, FM, features an interview with the founders of a great blog, IvyGate, dedicated to news about the Ivies. They're really smart, it's a terrific blog, and more power to them.
I mention this also because IvyGate is part of a trend that I've been trying to explain to the powers-that-be at Harvard for some time now, both through my work and more directly, in private conversations: the way that Harvard is being written about is changing, and you guys need to get with the program. It's not just me and this blog; it's 02138, it's David Warsh, it's IvyGate, it's Gawker. (It's even Open University.) It's not just the Globe and the Times anymore.
(Interestingly enough, there are more blogs written about Harvard than there are, as far as I can tell, written by Harvard professors. That is not a good sign. You folks are missing a very interesting opportunity here...)
Harvard still has a generally hostile, don't-call-us, we'll-call-you-when-we-need-you attitude towards the press. And, frankly, a snobbish attitude. I hear it in some of the early feedback I've gotten about 02138—it's not serious enough, there's "nothing to read" in it, "we don't like to see Harvard presented that way."
Maybe so—but this is how the outside world, including some of your own graduates, sees you. There it is. Better to work with it than deny it.
I mention this also because IvyGate is part of a trend that I've been trying to explain to the powers-that-be at Harvard for some time now, both through my work and more directly, in private conversations: the way that Harvard is being written about is changing, and you guys need to get with the program. It's not just me and this blog; it's 02138, it's David Warsh, it's IvyGate, it's Gawker. (It's even Open University.) It's not just the Globe and the Times anymore.
(Interestingly enough, there are more blogs written about Harvard than there are, as far as I can tell, written by Harvard professors. That is not a good sign. You folks are missing a very interesting opportunity here...)
Harvard still has a generally hostile, don't-call-us, we'll-call-you-when-we-need-you attitude towards the press. And, frankly, a snobbish attitude. I hear it in some of the early feedback I've gotten about 02138—it's not serious enough, there's "nothing to read" in it, "we don't like to see Harvard presented that way."
Maybe so—but this is how the outside world, including some of your own graduates, sees you. There it is. Better to work with it than deny it.
Who is Marc Leibovich?
I've written before that Marc Leibovich is an NYT journalist to watch. He's a nice writer with a fresh perspective on politics. But now I wonder if he's trying a bit too hard to be the next Maureen Dowd (not a good thing, IMHO).
Consider this from his report on President Bush's press conference Wednesday morning:
Leibovich writes of Bush:
He looked worn at his must-see midday news conference, in need of a haircut, good-night’s sleep, better makeup job, hug, vacation in Crawford or some combination thereof. The grooves across his forehead were dark and articulated, his voice slightly hoarse. He wore a maroon tie, the color of blood.
The grooves across his forehead were articulated? His tie was the color of blood? Where you going with that, Marc?
Yet for someone whose presidency had just been repudiated, whose party had been sent reeling and whose defense secretary had just been sent packing, Mr. Bush also appeared strangely giddy, like someone who is acting a little odd after suffering a blow to the head, or a “thumpin’,” to use the official presidential description.
...“I say, why all the glum faces?” Mr. Bush began, blending humor and irony in an unsubtle taunt at his media nemeses. (Double bonus points for the curiously British “I say.”) He also could have been projecting.
This isn't, by the way, a "News Analysis" piece. It's just a straight-up news piece. I admire Leibovich's flair, but I wonder if he isn't pushing this too far....
Consider this from his report on President Bush's press conference Wednesday morning:
Leibovich writes of Bush:
He looked worn at his must-see midday news conference, in need of a haircut, good-night’s sleep, better makeup job, hug, vacation in Crawford or some combination thereof. The grooves across his forehead were dark and articulated, his voice slightly hoarse. He wore a maroon tie, the color of blood.
The grooves across his forehead were articulated? His tie was the color of blood? Where you going with that, Marc?
Yet for someone whose presidency had just been repudiated, whose party had been sent reeling and whose defense secretary had just been sent packing, Mr. Bush also appeared strangely giddy, like someone who is acting a little odd after suffering a blow to the head, or a “thumpin’,” to use the official presidential description.
...“I say, why all the glum faces?” Mr. Bush began, blending humor and irony in an unsubtle taunt at his media nemeses. (Double bonus points for the curiously British “I say.”) He also could have been projecting.
This isn't, by the way, a "News Analysis" piece. It's just a straight-up news piece. I admire Leibovich's flair, but I wonder if he isn't pushing this too far....
R.E.M. or U2
Slate asks: Who was the best rock band of the '80s, R.E.M. or U2?
The answer's easy: The Pixies.
But if you really did limit the choice to R.E.M. or U2, the answer's still easy: U2.
R.E.M. was never again as good as their first E.P., "Chronic Town".....
The answer's easy: The Pixies.
But if you really did limit the choice to R.E.M. or U2, the answer's still easy: U2.
R.E.M. was never again as good as their first E.P., "Chronic Town".....
Boy, Does Ann Coulter Tick Me Off
Andrew Sullivan points me to Ann Coulter's post-election wrap-up.
Boy, does Ann Coulter tick me off.
It's all there: the misrepresentation, the distortion, the vicious character attacks, the outright lies.
She writes:
Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose [sic] the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!
But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).
Nice. So Jon Tester, a farmer and butcher from Big Sandy, Montana—current population, 703— suddenly hates "hicks." Bob Casey, Jr., who's been anti-abortion forever, is suddenly a hypocrite. And Jim Webb, a former Marine, has a penchant for "incestuously homoerotic fiction," with all that implies. And Ned Lamont? Well, he's "Ned the Red," although I've never seen anyone but Coulter call him that, because, well, who else but Coulter, who wrote a book apologizing for Joe McCarthy, would red-bait in 2006?
Coulter concludes:
The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.
I know, I know—I shouldn't take this stuff seriously. But she really is vile. The only good thing to say about her is that she has peaked and is now sliding into irrelevance...
Boy, does Ann Coulter tick me off.
It's all there: the misrepresentation, the distortion, the vicious character attacks, the outright lies.
She writes:
Now that they've won their elections and don't have to deal with the hicks anymore, Tester can cut lose [sic] the infernal buzz cut, Casey can start taking "Emily's List" money, and Webb can go back to writing more incestuously homoerotic fiction ... and just in time for Christmas!
But according to the media, this week's election results are a mandate for pulling out of Iraq (except in Connecticut where pro-war Joe Lieberman walloped anti-war "Ned the Red" Lamont).
Nice. So Jon Tester, a farmer and butcher from Big Sandy, Montana—current population, 703— suddenly hates "hicks." Bob Casey, Jr., who's been anti-abortion forever, is suddenly a hypocrite. And Jim Webb, a former Marine, has a penchant for "incestuously homoerotic fiction," with all that implies. And Ned Lamont? Well, he's "Ned the Red," although I've never seen anyone but Coulter call him that, because, well, who else but Coulter, who wrote a book apologizing for Joe McCarthy, would red-bait in 2006?
Coulter concludes:
The Democrats certainly have their work cut out for them. They have only two years to release as many terrorists as possible and lock up as many Republicans as they can. Republicans better get that body armor for the troops the Democrats are always carping about — and fast. The troops are going to need it for their backs.
I know, I know—I shouldn't take this stuff seriously. But she really is vile. The only good thing to say about her is that she has peaked and is now sliding into irrelevance...
Blood from a Stone
Alan J. Stone, Harvard's Vice-President for Government, Community, and Public Affairs, has resigned, the Crimson reports.
This is excellent news for Harvard.
The Crimson describes Stone's job thusly: "Stone was responsible for managing the University’s relations with its neighbors, the press, and the government."
Well, sort of. Stone was a Larry Summers henchman, and his power around Harvard came largely from that status. He was secretive, and he did his job secretively. During the Summers' years, Stone was a guy whose name was always coming up in conversation, but no one seemed to know exactly what he did, except that he had Summers' ear. Also, he was extremely well-paid for his mysterious labors—around $400,000 a year, if I recall.
Stone represented much that is worrisome about modern Harvard: the hiring of political operatives who have no feel or appreciation for university culture and values, the gradual encroachment of "vice-presidents" within university administration, and their lack of accountability to the larger community. Alan Stone had no Harvard connections whatsoever when he was hired, no institutional memory. (To be fair, he wasn't entirely unfamiliar with university culture; he had a brief stint at Columbia.)
The Gazette says this about Stone: He has aimed to stimulate press coverage of the extraordinary accomplishments of Harvard faculty and students, and fielded innumerable media inquiries about one of the nation's most visible and closely watched institutions.
(Incidentally, the Gazette piece has vastly more information than the Crimson piece. The Crimson, which feels pretty sleepy this fall, needs to do a real story on Stone's behind-the-scenes influence.)
Stone was, in other words, a kind of Karl Rove figure for Larry Summers. He was almost never photographed, rarely quoted in the paper, and few people around Harvard knew who he was or what he did. That is not healthy.
The funny thing is, when Stone took the job, I heard only good things about him. He was reputed to be open, accessible, helpful. In my experience, none of those things proved to be true. What happened?
If Derek Bok is behind Alan Stone's resignation—as one assumes he must be, because a guy who was basically a speechwriter before doesn't leave a $400k a year job lightly—then this is an excellent sign: Bok gets it. Things at Harvard are changing.
This is excellent news for Harvard.
The Crimson describes Stone's job thusly: "Stone was responsible for managing the University’s relations with its neighbors, the press, and the government."
Well, sort of. Stone was a Larry Summers henchman, and his power around Harvard came largely from that status. He was secretive, and he did his job secretively. During the Summers' years, Stone was a guy whose name was always coming up in conversation, but no one seemed to know exactly what he did, except that he had Summers' ear. Also, he was extremely well-paid for his mysterious labors—around $400,000 a year, if I recall.
Stone represented much that is worrisome about modern Harvard: the hiring of political operatives who have no feel or appreciation for university culture and values, the gradual encroachment of "vice-presidents" within university administration, and their lack of accountability to the larger community. Alan Stone had no Harvard connections whatsoever when he was hired, no institutional memory. (To be fair, he wasn't entirely unfamiliar with university culture; he had a brief stint at Columbia.)
The Gazette says this about Stone: He has aimed to stimulate press coverage of the extraordinary accomplishments of Harvard faculty and students, and fielded innumerable media inquiries about one of the nation's most visible and closely watched institutions.
(Incidentally, the Gazette piece has vastly more information than the Crimson piece. The Crimson, which feels pretty sleepy this fall, needs to do a real story on Stone's behind-the-scenes influence.)
Stone was, in other words, a kind of Karl Rove figure for Larry Summers. He was almost never photographed, rarely quoted in the paper, and few people around Harvard knew who he was or what he did. That is not healthy.
The funny thing is, when Stone took the job, I heard only good things about him. He was reputed to be open, accessible, helpful. In my experience, none of those things proved to be true. What happened?
If Derek Bok is behind Alan Stone's resignation—as one assumes he must be, because a guy who was basically a speechwriter before doesn't leave a $400k a year job lightly—then this is an excellent sign: Bok gets it. Things at Harvard are changing.
Wednesday, November 08, 2023
What Andrew Sullivan Really Thinks about the Election
Gay, much?
But today, we can all feel the love!
But today, we can all feel the love!
The People Have Spoken
What a night! I had insomnia and stayed up till 2 A.M. watching the returns, the result being that a) I'm exhausted, b) late on deadline, and c) more or less incoherent. I'd love to be able to articulate a well-reasoned, forceful, insightful blog item about what it all means. But frankly, I'm not sure I could do that under the best of conditions. So here are my random impressions
1) Whoo-hoo! (See post above.)
2) What a pleasure not to have to see Rick Santorum's smarmy face any more. (Though Bill Bennett said on CNN that there's be a "draft Santorum" movement by the party's social conservative base. Good luck with that, guys. This entire election was a repudiation of you.)
3) Man, were the guys at Fox bummed out. Brit Hume looked like he'd taken about five Zoloft. And Bill Kristol looked massively annoyed—as opposed to his usual, just kind of cranky look— that he was the one who had to work that silly on-screen, football-like chart that they kept using, which was clearly as incomprehensible to him as it was to the rest of us.
4) CNN's coverage was just fundamentally better than Fox's. The Fox team of Hume, Kristol, Kondracke, Barnes, and the token liberal whose name I'm forgetting due to aforementioned insomnia and his own insignificance on Fox, is tired. Not as tired as I am, but tired.
Whereas CNN had better graphics, a wider array of analysts, and less-partisan analysts, such as Jeff Greenfield, Candy Crowley, and John King.
(The guy from Newsweek, however, was a total bust. Did you see him stare into the camera and make what he clearly thought was a dramatic plea to politicians not to put us all through a long, extended recount in Virginia? Painful.)
5) Boy, did John McCain look depressed. For the last year or so, he's been running hard-right, sucking up to the party's ultra-conservative base. Whoops! America just said no to that. McCain sacrificed his principles for political advantage, and now it turns out that he bet wrong. Whoops! He is a far, far weaker presidential candidate than he was a year or so ago.
6) On CNN, McCain was asked about what happened, and he said, "We lost a lot of good men tonight, a lot of close friends." Hey, John—it's not war. The war is actually that thing you've been supporting, and we just rejected it.
7) Joe Lieberman. Ugh. Double-ugh. There was, essentially, no way he could lose when the Republicans' own candidate got a whopping ten percent of the vote. But this win does put him in a strange position. He won with Republicans, considerably more of whom voted for him than did Democrats. But he swore up and down that he'd caucus with the Dems. Will anyone trust him? They shouldn't. Joe Lieberman is out for #1, and always has been.
8) Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. 69% last I saw. She has a problem—her support of the war—but I think that's fixable. ("We were lied to," etc.) She is in a very strong position.
9) Social extremism was rejected...sometimes. South Dakotans nixed a ban on abortion, but Arizona passed four measures aimed at illegal immigrants, such as one that made English the state's official language. (Oh, grow up, Arizona.) Anti-gay marriage amendments passed in Tennesse, Idaho, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin (Wisconsin?), meaning that homophobia is the one value that both liberals and conservatives can agree on. Also meaning that straight people want the ability to screw without consequences, but they don't want gay people to be able to screw responsibly. Go figure.
10) Nancy Pelosi may be the first female speaker of the House, but she didn't help the Dems much, and let's face it, she's no political visionary. Never has such a mediocre politician benefited so consistently from being in the right place at the right time.
11) Rahm Emanuel, on the other hand, is smart, tough, and ballsy. (I can't believe I wrote about him 13 years ago! Holy cow, where did the time go? And did I really say that David Gergen "wears ideologies like Mr. Potato Head wears faces"? In retrospect, I...like it!)
12) I love that the ultra-tough-on-immigration GOP congressman lost in Arizona, and wish I could say that it meant support for a more enlightened immigration policy. But given the success of those anti-immigrant proposals there, I'd have to say it's more just a middle finger to Bush.
13) The single biggest loser of the night...Kevin Federline. The gravy train is over, my friend. And just as Britney's looking good again.....
14) Second biggest loser: George Bush. That giant sucking sound you hear is the relevance leaking out of the last two years of his administration. He deserves the come-uppance. Centrists like me gave Bush a chance. Okay, he's president, even though he may not really be president. Maybe he really will govern from the center. Maybe that compassionate conservatism stuff really isn't all bullshit.
Nah. It was all bullshit.
15) Other losers: Donald Rumsfeld—pack your bags, Mr. Secretary. Karl Rove—not such a genius any more, are you? Rush Limbaugh—probably the difference in Claire McCaskill's Missouri victory. Dick Cheney—"full speed ahead" in Iraq? I don't think so. Ken Mehlman: Well, despite your best (and sincere, I think) efforts to reach out to new voter blocs, blacks and Latinos have repudiated your party more than ever. You are now basically the party of the Southern homophobic white. Demographically—speaking, good luck with that.
16) And speaking of Missouri, can we institute a ban on anyone who is not actually from that state pronouncing it "Missour-ah"? Please, people. Just because they speak funny doesn't mean everyone else has to. Leave it to the candidates to suck up to Mis-ery voters by affecting a regional accent. (And good for you, Anderson Cooper—you not only did a fine job last night, but you refused to play along with the Missour-ah game.)
17) Another loser: the New York state Republican party, which got, like, six votes yesterday. You people are pathetic. Here's a suggestion: Maybe Al D'Amato really isn't the best guy to be the most powerful person in your party.
18) Part of me feels bad for moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Nancy Johnson. But not that bad.
19) Arnold. Man, he looks good—that guy is Botoxed up the wazoo. His win shows that progressive government—and a pro-environmental stance—can be a winning combination for Republicans, who are now more and more isolated on the environmental issue. Voters may not rank it up there with Iraq and the economy, but it's a factor, no question.
20) Winners: The American people. I happen to like the way the votes went, for the most part, but the thing I really like is that the voters made a difference. As much as the incumbents try to make it impossible to ever lose their seats, and the Washington lobbyists try to prop up those they've been paying off for years, sometimes the people show that democracy can still work. It ain't pretty, but it's a beautiful thing.
1) Whoo-hoo! (See post above.)
2) What a pleasure not to have to see Rick Santorum's smarmy face any more. (Though Bill Bennett said on CNN that there's be a "draft Santorum" movement by the party's social conservative base. Good luck with that, guys. This entire election was a repudiation of you.)
3) Man, were the guys at Fox bummed out. Brit Hume looked like he'd taken about five Zoloft. And Bill Kristol looked massively annoyed—as opposed to his usual, just kind of cranky look— that he was the one who had to work that silly on-screen, football-like chart that they kept using, which was clearly as incomprehensible to him as it was to the rest of us.
4) CNN's coverage was just fundamentally better than Fox's. The Fox team of Hume, Kristol, Kondracke, Barnes, and the token liberal whose name I'm forgetting due to aforementioned insomnia and his own insignificance on Fox, is tired. Not as tired as I am, but tired.
Whereas CNN had better graphics, a wider array of analysts, and less-partisan analysts, such as Jeff Greenfield, Candy Crowley, and John King.
(The guy from Newsweek, however, was a total bust. Did you see him stare into the camera and make what he clearly thought was a dramatic plea to politicians not to put us all through a long, extended recount in Virginia? Painful.)
5) Boy, did John McCain look depressed. For the last year or so, he's been running hard-right, sucking up to the party's ultra-conservative base. Whoops! America just said no to that. McCain sacrificed his principles for political advantage, and now it turns out that he bet wrong. Whoops! He is a far, far weaker presidential candidate than he was a year or so ago.
6) On CNN, McCain was asked about what happened, and he said, "We lost a lot of good men tonight, a lot of close friends." Hey, John—it's not war. The war is actually that thing you've been supporting, and we just rejected it.
7) Joe Lieberman. Ugh. Double-ugh. There was, essentially, no way he could lose when the Republicans' own candidate got a whopping ten percent of the vote. But this win does put him in a strange position. He won with Republicans, considerably more of whom voted for him than did Democrats. But he swore up and down that he'd caucus with the Dems. Will anyone trust him? They shouldn't. Joe Lieberman is out for #1, and always has been.
8) Hillary, Hillary, Hillary. 69% last I saw. She has a problem—her support of the war—but I think that's fixable. ("We were lied to," etc.) She is in a very strong position.
9) Social extremism was rejected...sometimes. South Dakotans nixed a ban on abortion, but Arizona passed four measures aimed at illegal immigrants, such as one that made English the state's official language. (Oh, grow up, Arizona.) Anti-gay marriage amendments passed in Tennesse, Idaho, South Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin (Wisconsin?), meaning that homophobia is the one value that both liberals and conservatives can agree on. Also meaning that straight people want the ability to screw without consequences, but they don't want gay people to be able to screw responsibly. Go figure.
10) Nancy Pelosi may be the first female speaker of the House, but she didn't help the Dems much, and let's face it, she's no political visionary. Never has such a mediocre politician benefited so consistently from being in the right place at the right time.
11) Rahm Emanuel, on the other hand, is smart, tough, and ballsy. (I can't believe I wrote about him 13 years ago! Holy cow, where did the time go? And did I really say that David Gergen "wears ideologies like Mr. Potato Head wears faces"? In retrospect, I...like it!)
12) I love that the ultra-tough-on-immigration GOP congressman lost in Arizona, and wish I could say that it meant support for a more enlightened immigration policy. But given the success of those anti-immigrant proposals there, I'd have to say it's more just a middle finger to Bush.
13) The single biggest loser of the night...Kevin Federline. The gravy train is over, my friend. And just as Britney's looking good again.....
14) Second biggest loser: George Bush. That giant sucking sound you hear is the relevance leaking out of the last two years of his administration. He deserves the come-uppance. Centrists like me gave Bush a chance. Okay, he's president, even though he may not really be president. Maybe he really will govern from the center. Maybe that compassionate conservatism stuff really isn't all bullshit.
Nah. It was all bullshit.
15) Other losers: Donald Rumsfeld—pack your bags, Mr. Secretary. Karl Rove—not such a genius any more, are you? Rush Limbaugh—probably the difference in Claire McCaskill's Missouri victory. Dick Cheney—"full speed ahead" in Iraq? I don't think so. Ken Mehlman: Well, despite your best (and sincere, I think) efforts to reach out to new voter blocs, blacks and Latinos have repudiated your party more than ever. You are now basically the party of the Southern homophobic white. Demographically—speaking, good luck with that.
16) And speaking of Missouri, can we institute a ban on anyone who is not actually from that state pronouncing it "Missour-ah"? Please, people. Just because they speak funny doesn't mean everyone else has to. Leave it to the candidates to suck up to Mis-ery voters by affecting a regional accent. (And good for you, Anderson Cooper—you not only did a fine job last night, but you refused to play along with the Missour-ah game.)
17) Another loser: the New York state Republican party, which got, like, six votes yesterday. You people are pathetic. Here's a suggestion: Maybe Al D'Amato really isn't the best guy to be the most powerful person in your party.
18) Part of me feels bad for moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chafee and Nancy Johnson. But not that bad.
19) Arnold. Man, he looks good—that guy is Botoxed up the wazoo. His win shows that progressive government—and a pro-environmental stance—can be a winning combination for Republicans, who are now more and more isolated on the environmental issue. Voters may not rank it up there with Iraq and the economy, but it's a factor, no question.
20) Winners: The American people. I happen to like the way the votes went, for the most part, but the thing I really like is that the voters made a difference. As much as the incumbents try to make it impossible to ever lose their seats, and the Washington lobbyists try to prop up those they've been paying off for years, sometimes the people show that democracy can still work. It ain't pretty, but it's a beautiful thing.
Tuesday, November 07, 2024
Warsh on Shleifer
On his blog, David Warsh has written a typically excellent—and devastating—column on the Shleifer scandal.
I know that the matter is essentially over, but somehow its resolution is unsatisfying. You can't help but feel that Shleifer got away with something. He'll pay off his fine, and eventually he'll get another job at a university which is happy to award him a title, and sooner or later he'll probably peddle his wares at a hedge fund, like Larry Summers and, such a disappointment, Chelsea Clinton.
Warsh is exactly right about one thing: the refusal to publicly denounce Shleifer's behavior casts an unfortunate pall not just over Harvard, but over the profession of economics as well.
I have heard Harvard economists defend Shleifer, mainly on the grounds that he's smart—a peculiar defense. Has anyone in the entire profession made the simple point that breaking the law is wrong?
On his blog, David Warsh has written a typically excellent—and devastating—column on the Shleifer scandal.
I know that the matter is essentially over, but somehow its resolution is unsatisfying. You can't help but feel that Shleifer got away with something. He'll pay off his fine, and eventually he'll get another job at a university which is happy to award him a title, and sooner or later he'll probably peddle his wares at a hedge fund, like Larry Summers and, such a disappointment, Chelsea Clinton.
Warsh is exactly right about one thing: the refusal to publicly denounce Shleifer's behavior casts an unfortunate pall not just over Harvard, but over the profession of economics as well.
I have heard Harvard economists defend Shleifer, mainly on the grounds that he's smart—a peculiar defense. Has anyone in the entire profession made the simple point that breaking the law is wrong?
Gutmann: Up in Smoke?
(Sorry, I could make those puns all morning. "Did Gutmann Bomb?" "Dyno-Might?" "Sticking to Her Guns." Etc.)
The Crimson runs a piece on whether Gutmann's (explosive!) gaffe will affect her chances of being picked as Harvard's next president, including a few quotes from yours truly....
From the length of my quote, I'm guessing that I and fellow quote-monger Harvey Mansfield are the only folks who would agree to talk about this little brouhaha. Forgive me, Harvard! It's just that I know how difficult it can be to get anyone there to say anything on the record....
The Crimson runs a piece on whether Gutmann's (explosive!) gaffe will affect her chances of being picked as Harvard's next president, including a few quotes from yours truly....
From the length of my quote, I'm guessing that I and fellow quote-monger Harvey Mansfield are the only folks who would agree to talk about this little brouhaha. Forgive me, Harvard! It's just that I know how difficult it can be to get anyone there to say anything on the record....
Monday, November 06, 2024
Salvation at Last
Finally, there's a decent place to eat breakfast in Harvard Square. With any luck, the Greenhouse—along with its mediocre food and surly service—will go belly up....
Did Amy Gutmann Just Blow Herself Up?
Ivygate and InsideHigherEd.com both report on a controversy over the Penn president posing at a Halloween party with a student dressed as a suicide bomber. Gutmann claims she didn't realize what the student's costume was until it was too late.
You can read all about it, but the picture is priceless:
Two points:
1) Did Amy Gutmann just remove herself from the race for Harvard president?
2) Ms. Gutmann needs a cheeseburger.
You can read all about it, but the picture is priceless:
Two points:
1) Did Amy Gutmann just remove herself from the race for Harvard president?
2) Ms. Gutmann needs a cheeseburger.
Friday, November 03, 2024
News Flash: Anti-Gay Zealot is...Gay!
Don't you just love that the leader of 30 million evangelicals and a vigorous opponent of gay marriage has just been exposed as repeatedly paying a gay prostitute for sex and fantasizing that he wants to have an orgy with six young boys?
Pretty soon no one is going to dare voice anti-gay sentiments in public, because when they do, everyone will just assume that they are secretly getting some hot m4m action....
Pretty soon no one is going to dare voice anti-gay sentiments in public, because when they do, everyone will just assume that they are secretly getting some hot m4m action....
Steve Jobs Plays Santa
A few weeks ago, there was a mini-debate on this blog about whether Apple had made the designers of its iPod actually pay for their iPods. I suggested that that was unlikely, but some of you Mac-haters/lunatics insisted that it was so.
Well, here's more evidence to the contrary, from MacRumors. com:
In an email sent to Apple employees yesterday, Steve Jobs reportedly promised a new 2nd Generation iPod shuffle to every "Full-Time and Part-Time employee" of Apple (including retail). The gifts will be delivered after all pre-orders for the new iPods are fulfilled and shipped to customers. The expected time-frame for the delivery of the shuffles to employees is by the end of the November.
The 2nd Generation shuffle just began shipping last week, after being announced in September.
Apple previously gifted iPod shuffles to many of its retail employees back in January 2005 as a thank you and incentive.
The first customers have already posted photos of the newest iPod, and Apple has posted a short FAQ.
Well, here's more evidence to the contrary, from MacRumors. com:
In an email sent to Apple employees yesterday, Steve Jobs reportedly promised a new 2nd Generation iPod shuffle to every "Full-Time and Part-Time employee" of Apple (including retail). The gifts will be delivered after all pre-orders for the new iPods are fulfilled and shipped to customers. The expected time-frame for the delivery of the shuffles to employees is by the end of the November.
The 2nd Generation shuffle just began shipping last week, after being announced in September.
Apple previously gifted iPod shuffles to many of its retail employees back in January 2005 as a thank you and incentive.
The first customers have already posted photos of the newest iPod, and Apple has posted a short FAQ.
Harvard Corporation: Business as Usual
While Harvard's Corporation gives no sign of changing the needlessly secretive way it goes about its clandestine business, alumni at Dartmouth have voted to continue making their corporation at least somewhat democratic.
As InsideHigherEd reports,
At Dartmouth College, graduates have voted down a proposed new constitution for its alumni association that would have, among other things, changed the timing for when petition candidates would make their intentions known.
...
As InsideHigherEd reports,
At Dartmouth College, graduates have voted down a proposed new constitution for its alumni association that would have, among other things, changed the timing for when petition candidates would make their intentions known.
...
Anne D. Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, called the vote a “significant victory” for reform candidates and alumni who are concerned about the status quo.
“This is a substantial vote because alumni want to ensure free speech and thought,” Neal said. “There’s a traditional perception that alumni should put up and shut up. That attitude has been changing across the country — it’s a healthy situation.”
Harvard often wonders why its alums do not give at the same rate as, say, Dartmouth alums. Perhaps one reason is the sense that the governing board does not give a damn what the alumni want and feels no obligation to communicate to them.
More on Legacy Admissions
Clearly inspired by Dan Golden, ABCNews.com has its own piece on legacy admissions.
Here's what drives me crazy about this reporting: It's stupid.
The report tells the story of Jian Li, who got a perfect score on his SATs—seems like everyone does, nowadays—but got turned down by Princeton, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and others.
Yet, he soon became aware that other high school students with lower SAT scores had sailed past him.
And moreover, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if that many colleges turned Li down, there was probably a reason, and it wasn't that in every instance a legacy admit happened to take his place. (Legacies at MIT?)
What sense of entitlement tells you that just because you ace a standardized test, you deserve to get in to any particular university?
But wait...the piece ends by saying that Li eventually did get into Yale. So what's the problem here?
The endurance of this non-issue as an issue suggests that legacy admits have become a fall guy for students who are way too obsessive about getting into college...and if they are that obsessive about it, then a little rejection is probably a good thing for them.
Here's what drives me crazy about this reporting: It's stupid.
The report tells the story of Jian Li, who got a perfect score on his SATs—seems like everyone does, nowadays—but got turned down by Princeton, Harvard, MIT, Stanford, and others.
Yet, he soon became aware that other high school students with lower SAT scores had sailed past him.
"There are lots of preferences given to academically unqualified individuals." he said. "For example, George Bush. I doubt he had the academic qualifications that would have gotten him into an elite university [Yale], but because of who his father was, he had the advantage over other applicants with better academic records."
Two things: George Bush is the best example he can come up with?And moreover, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if that many colleges turned Li down, there was probably a reason, and it wasn't that in every instance a legacy admit happened to take his place. (Legacies at MIT?)
What sense of entitlement tells you that just because you ace a standardized test, you deserve to get in to any particular university?
But wait...the piece ends by saying that Li eventually did get into Yale. So what's the problem here?
The endurance of this non-issue as an issue suggests that legacy admits have become a fall guy for students who are way too obsessive about getting into college...and if they are that obsessive about it, then a little rejection is probably a good thing for them.
"You're Dead, That Sucker Is Gone"
While John Kerry continues to get pilloried for suggesting that poor people often choose the army not out of patriotism, but out of economic necessity—something so obvious, our nation must whip itself into a frenzy of outrage that Kerry dared say it—ABC News has a piece about how military recruiters lie to potential recruits. Some of whom, I imagine, are "uneducated," in Kerry's word.
Among the lies the recruiters told undercover reporters:
1) If they sign up, there's little chance they're going to go to Iraq.
2) We're not still at war.
3) If you don't like the Army, you can just quit.
Now, I don't want to draw any conclusions from this, but wouldn't it be more likely that you would believe these lies if you were "uneducated" than if you, say, went to college? And wouldn't it be more likely that recruiters would tell you these lies if they thought you were uneducated?
Among the lies the recruiters told undercover reporters:
1) If they sign up, there's little chance they're going to go to Iraq.
2) We're not still at war.
3) If you don't like the Army, you can just quit.
Now, I don't want to draw any conclusions from this, but wouldn't it be more likely that you would believe these lies if you were "uneducated" than if you, say, went to college? And wouldn't it be more likely that recruiters would tell you these lies if they thought you were uneducated?
Plagiarism: Hot and Getting Hotter
Writing to the Crimson, Harvard grad Nicole Usher—a former Crimson editor herself—takes the paper to task for apparently having "a small army of fact checkers now on board to catch Harvard writers and Crimson reporters for plagiarism."
In a sentence that does no credit to Harvard's expository writing program, Usher writes,
While fabulists generate national attention because of schadenfreude (and in turn, help Crimson reporters get their names in the national press), perhaps breaking stories that merit national stature, including about the presidential search or reforms to the Core would be a better use of resources.
She concludes:
Finally, perhaps The Crimson should impose stricter standards on its own writers and cartoonists before allowing them to publish—in the old days, one had to actually compete to have stories in the paper.
I love that: "In the old days..."
This from a woman who graduated in 2003. Apparently it takes about three years for a Harvard grad to become a cranky old alum, twisting her hands and muttering, "Back when I was at the Crimson...."
In any case, her argument is less than compelling. For one thing, it may well be because of the intense level of competition at the Crimson—and at Harvard—that people feel the need to plagiarize.
The Crimson has found four instances of plagiarism upon which it has reported—one by a Harvard law professor, one by a student novelist, and two by members of its own staff. I'm curious which of these episodes Usher thinks is not newsworthy.
Truth is, the Crimson should do more reporting on plagiarism at Harvard. If there are four examples, I'm sure there are more. And so far, the University has taken a pretty lax attitude towards it.....
__________________________________________________________________
P.S. In all fairness, cartoonist Kathleen Breeden, the cartoonist who may or may not have plagiarized, insists that she did not.....well, except maybe once.
In a sentence that does no credit to Harvard's expository writing program, Usher writes,
While fabulists generate national attention because of schadenfreude (and in turn, help Crimson reporters get their names in the national press), perhaps breaking stories that merit national stature, including about the presidential search or reforms to the Core would be a better use of resources.
She concludes:
Finally, perhaps The Crimson should impose stricter standards on its own writers and cartoonists before allowing them to publish—in the old days, one had to actually compete to have stories in the paper.
I love that: "In the old days..."
This from a woman who graduated in 2003. Apparently it takes about three years for a Harvard grad to become a cranky old alum, twisting her hands and muttering, "Back when I was at the Crimson...."
In any case, her argument is less than compelling. For one thing, it may well be because of the intense level of competition at the Crimson—and at Harvard—that people feel the need to plagiarize.
The Crimson has found four instances of plagiarism upon which it has reported—one by a Harvard law professor, one by a student novelist, and two by members of its own staff. I'm curious which of these episodes Usher thinks is not newsworthy.
Truth is, the Crimson should do more reporting on plagiarism at Harvard. If there are four examples, I'm sure there are more. And so far, the University has taken a pretty lax attitude towards it.....
__________________________________________________________________
P.S. In all fairness, cartoonist Kathleen Breeden, the cartoonist who may or may not have plagiarized, insists that she did not.....well, except maybe once.
Wednesday, November 01, 2024
Are Yale and Harvard Useless?
That appears to be the opinion of some of the posters below, who write....
John Kerry's Hard Words
Well, the senator from Massachusetts has done it now, hasn't he?
Speaking in California on Monday, Kerry said this:
""Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
So, naturally, a certain substance has hit the fan.
President Bush has, inevitably, jumped all over the comment, saying it was an insult to American troops and that Kerry owes them an apology.
Kerry has backed down in a kind of half-assed way, saying that the remark was in fact a commentary on Bush's level of education and the fact that he has gotten stuck in Iraq.
One wishes two things about this episode. First, that Kerry had made his remarks either earlier in the election season, or after it. And second, that Kerry had made his point in a more serious and deliberative fashion.
Because, of course, he is right. There is a corollary between lack of education and military service. The prime example, of course, was Jessica Lynch, the West Virginia woman who was briefly taken hostage at the beginning of the war. In her own book, Lynch recounted how she joined the army because she wanted to see the world and it was her best economic option.
And that was at the beginning of the war, when recruiting soldiers was probably considerably easier than it is now. We got another picture of military recruitment in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, when Moore interviewed military recruiters trolling the parking lot of a mall in a poor part of Michigan.
We pay so much blanket homage to the troops in this country—"I support the troops," "our men and women in uniform are the best this country has to offer," and so on.
Yesterday I saw Bill Hummer on Fox, talking about the Kerry comments, say that this was "the best army this country's ever had."
Really? Better in what way? Better-trained? Maybe. More effective? Doubtful. Better in terms of bravery and dedication than, say, American troops in World War II? I don't think so.
All our rhetoric about the troops—which is a consequence of post-Vietnam trauma and a fear of Republican demagoguery—has made it a crime to say certain obvious things. Not many people want to go fight in Iraq right now, and those who are going to Iraq probably aren't going out of patriotism, but out of need. Why? Because this is a bad war, and no one wants to get killed fighting a war that is based on lies.
It's not John Kerry who owes our troops an apology, but George Bush. Three thousand of them have died, and for what? Their blood is on his hands. Can he ever apologize enough?
Speaking in California on Monday, Kerry said this:
""Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."
So, naturally, a certain substance has hit the fan.
President Bush has, inevitably, jumped all over the comment, saying it was an insult to American troops and that Kerry owes them an apology.
Kerry has backed down in a kind of half-assed way, saying that the remark was in fact a commentary on Bush's level of education and the fact that he has gotten stuck in Iraq.
One wishes two things about this episode. First, that Kerry had made his remarks either earlier in the election season, or after it. And second, that Kerry had made his point in a more serious and deliberative fashion.
Because, of course, he is right. There is a corollary between lack of education and military service. The prime example, of course, was Jessica Lynch, the West Virginia woman who was briefly taken hostage at the beginning of the war. In her own book, Lynch recounted how she joined the army because she wanted to see the world and it was her best economic option.
And that was at the beginning of the war, when recruiting soldiers was probably considerably easier than it is now. We got another picture of military recruitment in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, when Moore interviewed military recruiters trolling the parking lot of a mall in a poor part of Michigan.
We pay so much blanket homage to the troops in this country—"I support the troops," "our men and women in uniform are the best this country has to offer," and so on.
Yesterday I saw Bill Hummer on Fox, talking about the Kerry comments, say that this was "the best army this country's ever had."
Really? Better in what way? Better-trained? Maybe. More effective? Doubtful. Better in terms of bravery and dedication than, say, American troops in World War II? I don't think so.
All our rhetoric about the troops—which is a consequence of post-Vietnam trauma and a fear of Republican demagoguery—has made it a crime to say certain obvious things. Not many people want to go fight in Iraq right now, and those who are going to Iraq probably aren't going out of patriotism, but out of need. Why? Because this is a bad war, and no one wants to get killed fighting a war that is based on lies.
It's not John Kerry who owes our troops an apology, but George Bush. Three thousand of them have died, and for what? Their blood is on his hands. Can he ever apologize enough?
It is not just Harvard that is bankrupt as a spring of political ideas. Have you seen the latest political diatribe between Bush and Kerry, two Yale graduates, over who said about the war in Iraq what and should apologize.... It is not apparent that there is more lux et veritas in New Haven than in Cantabrigia. Both seem to be pretty dark places these days.
9:50 PM
No, Harvard lefties aren't socialists, they're much more disingenuous.
And thank God that Yale and Harvard's influence on the world has been marginalized over the years. So things can be dark there and it means little or nothing to the rest of the country. Keep the lights on at HMS please, but perhaps the rest could use a nap for, say, twenty years.
11:05 PM
You raise an interesting point 11.05pm. What faculty do at Yale or Harvard is inconsequential to life in America or in the World.
Harvard has many more professional schools than Yale, so it stands to reason that it's global influence in Law, Business, Medicine, Public Health or Education is not trivial. The world would surely be a darker place if Harvard closed shop one of these days.