Shots In The Dark
Saturday, December 30, 2023
Death of a Dictator
Saddam Hussein is dead, hanged in the dawn.
(In what is either a sick joke or brilliant marketing, depending on your sense of the absurd, the New York Times prefaces its video coverage of Saddam at his execution with an ad for the film "The Last King of Scotland," which is about Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.)
No matter one's stance on the death penalty, it is impossible—and wrong—to feel sorry for Hussein, a mass murderer and the inflictor of vast misery. And there is relief in knowing that he will not be able to prevaricate and stall until he dies a natural death, like Augusto Pinochet, doing his best all the time to whitewash history's verdict.
Still, there is little satisfaction in Hussein's death. It is chilling to watch the video of masked hangmen tightening the rope around his neck. Surely they wear masks for fear of retaliation—not a good sign in and of itself—yet at the same time, their hooded visages invoke memories of terrorist videotapes, upheld knives, terrified hostages. Even at the death of a dictator, the line between right and wrong does not seem so stark as we would like.
Hussein's death probably will do nothing to promote peace, and may well provoke some short-term chaos. That does not mean it was not necessary or important; how many families of the murdered will rest somewhat easier tonight?
But success in Iraq will be determined by the state of that nation when we leave, and on that score, the death of a dictator is inconsequential. If things do not improve in Iraq, how long will it be before the people of that country begin to speak of Saddam Hussein with nostalgia in their voices?
(In what is either a sick joke or brilliant marketing, depending on your sense of the absurd, the New York Times prefaces its video coverage of Saddam at his execution with an ad for the film "The Last King of Scotland," which is about Ugandan dictator Idi Amin.)
No matter one's stance on the death penalty, it is impossible—and wrong—to feel sorry for Hussein, a mass murderer and the inflictor of vast misery. And there is relief in knowing that he will not be able to prevaricate and stall until he dies a natural death, like Augusto Pinochet, doing his best all the time to whitewash history's verdict.
Still, there is little satisfaction in Hussein's death. It is chilling to watch the video of masked hangmen tightening the rope around his neck. Surely they wear masks for fear of retaliation—not a good sign in and of itself—yet at the same time, their hooded visages invoke memories of terrorist videotapes, upheld knives, terrified hostages. Even at the death of a dictator, the line between right and wrong does not seem so stark as we would like.
Hussein's death probably will do nothing to promote peace, and may well provoke some short-term chaos. That does not mean it was not necessary or important; how many families of the murdered will rest somewhat easier tonight?
But success in Iraq will be determined by the state of that nation when we leave, and on that score, the death of a dictator is inconsequential. If things do not improve in Iraq, how long will it be before the people of that country begin to speak of Saddam Hussein with nostalgia in their voices?
Friday, December 29, 2023
Nifong in the Hot Seat
The North Carolina state bar has filed an ethics complaint against district attorney Mike Nifong, the man who continues to botch the Duke rape case.
In perhaps the most serious accusation, the bar also said Mr. Nifong had engaged in “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” by suggesting to reporters that a condom was used in the alleged attack when he had in his possession a sexual assault examination report that indicated otherwise.
...[Nifong] has also admitted going too far in some of his public comments. In his interview with The Times last week, for example, Mr. Nifong said he was wrong to have described members of the lacrosse team as “a bunch of hooligans.”
Um....well, yes.
Meanwhile, a poster below named the "victim" in the Duke case, so if you believe that her name should be public, take a look; a quick Google search shows that, in effect, her identity is public. There's even a Wikipedia page on her....
By the way, that Wikipedia page is fascinating. Reading it, I learned an enormous amount of information that I'd never before seen; it's enough to make you think even more that Nifong is an incompetent, silly man in way over his head—which makes him dangerous.
It's remarkable how these voluntary journalists who create Wikipedia have committed an end-around around the mainstream media.... Obviously, you can't trust everything you read on Wikipedia, but then, you shouldn't trust the MSM either. And the piece on this woman seems relatively balanced.
It is hard not to emerge from reading about her with the conclusion that she is a sad, troubled, and somewhat pathetic person—but not a rape victim.
In perhaps the most serious accusation, the bar also said Mr. Nifong had engaged in “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” by suggesting to reporters that a condom was used in the alleged attack when he had in his possession a sexual assault examination report that indicated otherwise.
...[Nifong] has also admitted going too far in some of his public comments. In his interview with The Times last week, for example, Mr. Nifong said he was wrong to have described members of the lacrosse team as “a bunch of hooligans.”
Um....well, yes.
Meanwhile, a poster below named the "victim" in the Duke case, so if you believe that her name should be public, take a look; a quick Google search shows that, in effect, her identity is public. There's even a Wikipedia page on her....
By the way, that Wikipedia page is fascinating. Reading it, I learned an enormous amount of information that I'd never before seen; it's enough to make you think even more that Nifong is an incompetent, silly man in way over his head—which makes him dangerous.
It's remarkable how these voluntary journalists who create Wikipedia have committed an end-around around the mainstream media.... Obviously, you can't trust everything you read on Wikipedia, but then, you shouldn't trust the MSM either. And the piece on this woman seems relatively balanced.
It is hard not to emerge from reading about her with the conclusion that she is a sad, troubled, and somewhat pathetic person—but not a rape victim.
Go West, Young Humanist
Stanford has just instituted a new policy: a $5,000 research grant every year for every professor in the humanities, whether tenured or non-tenured.
In announcing the grants, President John Hennessy cited the difficulty of humanities professors getting support at a time that “the challenges of the world will make humanities as important, if not more important, than they’ve ever been.”
(That, by the way, is a very different message than the one emanating from Mass Hall the past few years.)
Stanford seems to be doing an excellent job of supporting the sciences while reaffirming the importance of the humanities, and this move is another shot across Harvard's bow.....
In Cambridge, such grants are currently unlikely because of the deficit spending initiated under Larry Summers and Bill Kirby. FAS, whose deficits are approaching $100 million a year, with no capital campaign imminent, probably can't afford to spend, what, $30-35 million a year on such a plan?
_________________________________________________________________
Correction: As several of you have pointed out, my math is shaky; a more accurate figure would be perhaps $3 million.
In announcing the grants, President John Hennessy cited the difficulty of humanities professors getting support at a time that “the challenges of the world will make humanities as important, if not more important, than they’ve ever been.”
(That, by the way, is a very different message than the one emanating from Mass Hall the past few years.)
Stanford seems to be doing an excellent job of supporting the sciences while reaffirming the importance of the humanities, and this move is another shot across Harvard's bow.....
In Cambridge, such grants are currently unlikely because of the deficit spending initiated under Larry Summers and Bill Kirby. FAS, whose deficits are approaching $100 million a year, with no capital campaign imminent, probably can't afford to spend, what, $30-35 million a year on such a plan?
_________________________________________________________________
Correction: As several of you have pointed out, my math is shaky; a more accurate figure would be perhaps $3 million.
Thursday, December 28, 2023
What's Up with Duke
Because nefarious district attorney Mike Nifong dropped the news two days before Christmas, I haven't written about the latest developments in the Duke travesty, also known as the Duke rape case.
Because the alleged victim no longer remembers whether she was (sorry) penetrated—after having previously claimed that she was raped in three orifices—Nifong has dropped charges of rape. He continues, however, to press charges of kidnapping (!) and sexual assault.
Why did this happen now? Because a representative from Nifong's office only just interviewed the accuser, a mere eight months after arrests were made.
Nifong is a fool, and everything he does only reinforces that conviction.
But Nifong isn't the only person who's erred in this matter; some of the Duke faculty and students were quick to judge the accused, who, because they were white, male, affluent, and athletic were quadruply damned.
On InsideHigherEd.com, KC Johnson holds their feet to the fire....
Incidentally, I've had a lengthy discussion with a friend who's a media lawyer about the ethics of disclosing the accuser's name. I've long been in favor of it; he argues that, awkward though it may be, preserving rape victims' anonymity still means that victims bring charges when otherwise they might not.
But in an age when false charges of rape are increasingly common, doesn't this actually provide an incentive to make a false accusation? The knowledge that you will be protected by the press....
At what point now will the press report the name of the Duke accuser? Will it ever? And how is that fair to the three Duke men whose names and faces have been in the papers and on television countless times, for months?
Because the alleged victim no longer remembers whether she was (sorry) penetrated—after having previously claimed that she was raped in three orifices—Nifong has dropped charges of rape. He continues, however, to press charges of kidnapping (!) and sexual assault.
Why did this happen now? Because a representative from Nifong's office only just interviewed the accuser, a mere eight months after arrests were made.
Nifong is a fool, and everything he does only reinforces that conviction.
But Nifong isn't the only person who's erred in this matter; some of the Duke faculty and students were quick to judge the accused, who, because they were white, male, affluent, and athletic were quadruply damned.
On InsideHigherEd.com, KC Johnson holds their feet to the fire....
Incidentally, I've had a lengthy discussion with a friend who's a media lawyer about the ethics of disclosing the accuser's name. I've long been in favor of it; he argues that, awkward though it may be, preserving rape victims' anonymity still means that victims bring charges when otherwise they might not.
But in an age when false charges of rape are increasingly common, doesn't this actually provide an incentive to make a false accusation? The knowledge that you will be protected by the press....
At what point now will the press report the name of the Duke accuser? Will it ever? And how is that fair to the three Duke men whose names and faces have been in the papers and on television countless times, for months?
Wednesday, December 27, 2023
There He Goes Again
Larry Summers is back, talking about the alleged problem of older professors, in a piece by the M-Bomb in today's Globe.
"The aging of the faculty, caused in large part by the absence of mandatory retirement, is one of the profound problems facing the American research university," said Lawrence H. Summers , who as Harvard president pushed for the hiring and tenure of more younger scholars. "It defies belief that the best way to advance creative thought, to educate the young, or to choose the next generation of faculty members is to have a tenured faculty with more people over 70 than under 40, and over 60 than under 50."
Summers may be right; he may not. It's hard to tell, because as far as I know, he's never presented any data on the issue. It is not necessarily obvious to me, for example, that older professor are not "the best way...to educate the young." I've had older professors who were far better than younger ones, in part because of their age and what they'd learned about teaching.
(Not to mention what they'd learned about life.)
It's an interesting soundbite, and like many of Summers' soundbite arguments, it sounds clever—"more people over 70 than under 40," snap-snap—but on some consideration, reveals itself to contain no internal logic, only implicit assumptions.
As I say, Summers may be right. But this is an argument he's never made thoroughly in public—though he did once say the same thing right in front of the elderly but still very competent Alan Greenspan—and it would be useful for him to explain what underlies those implicit assumptions.
"The aging of the faculty, caused in large part by the absence of mandatory retirement, is one of the profound problems facing the American research university," said Lawrence H. Summers , who as Harvard president pushed for the hiring and tenure of more younger scholars. "It defies belief that the best way to advance creative thought, to educate the young, or to choose the next generation of faculty members is to have a tenured faculty with more people over 70 than under 40, and over 60 than under 50."
Summers may be right; he may not. It's hard to tell, because as far as I know, he's never presented any data on the issue. It is not necessarily obvious to me, for example, that older professor are not "the best way...to educate the young." I've had older professors who were far better than younger ones, in part because of their age and what they'd learned about teaching.
(Not to mention what they'd learned about life.)
It's an interesting soundbite, and like many of Summers' soundbite arguments, it sounds clever—"more people over 70 than under 40," snap-snap—but on some consideration, reveals itself to contain no internal logic, only implicit assumptions.
As I say, Summers may be right. But this is an argument he's never made thoroughly in public—though he did once say the same thing right in front of the elderly but still very competent Alan Greenspan—and it would be useful for him to explain what underlies those implicit assumptions.
Monday, December 25, 2023
Merry Christmas, Etc.
I'm spending a little family time...the blog will be back soon. Meantime, here's hoping that the end of the year finds everyone out there happy, healthy, and optimistic under the circumstances.
Thursday, December 21, 2023
Would You Vote for a Mormon for President?
I wouldn't—not if the candidate truly believed what the Mormon Church espouses. And in Slate, Jacob Weisberg wouldn't either. A nice piece, for which I'm sure he'll take some heat. But he's right. Mormons are free to believe what nutty theology they want to. And the rest of us are free to think that Mormonism is absurd and that anyone who believes such nonsense shouldn't be running the most powerful country in the world.
Wednesday, December 20, 2023
The "Jewish Cabal" at Harper Collins
ReganBooks publisher Judith Regan has been fired from NewsCorp for allegedly making anti-Semitic remarks during a conversation with HarperCollins lawyer Mark Jackson.
During a conversation with Jackson about the slimy new novel, 7, purporting to tell the sins of Mickey Mantle, Regan allegedly listed the members of this cabal (Jackson, like any good lawyer, took notes). They are: Jackson, HarperCollins president Jane Friedman, HarperCollins editor David Hirshey, and the literary agent Esther Newberg.
Funnily enough, I happen to know every member of this cabal but one—publishing is a small world—and so I will add whatever insights I can.
The notes of the Jackson-Regan conversation were provided to the Times by Gary Ginsberg, an executive vice-president at NewsCorp. Gary and I used to work together at George, where, to be frank, he spent more time cozying up to our boss than he did working. (Gary now lists himself as having been the magazine's "Counsel," which is untrue.)
In time, he moved on to work at a consulting/lobbying firm, Clark & Weinstock—as he repeatedly said, George didn't pay enough—and after a year or so of that, he went to NewsCorp. Gary, who had once worked for Bill Clinton, was always more interested in power and money than in ideology. After John Kennedy's death, Gary labored successfully to cement a relationship with John's sister, Caroline.
Gary's primary role at NewsCorp, so far as I can tell, is that of a consiglieri, a fixer—he told the New Yorker about brokering a three-hour lunch between Bill Clinton and Rupert Murdoch— which is probably why he was the guy picked to dish to the Times. (And by the way, credit the Times for getting his name out there; in other news organizations, Ginsberg, who prefers to operate behind the scenes—it's undignified to be seen as the guy spreading the story—appears to be identified only as a "NewsCorp spokesman."
Mark Jackson is HarperCollins' libel lawyer; I sat in a room with him for a couple of days while we went over Harvard Rules with a fine-toothed comb. He's a lovely guy and an excellent lawyer, and if he says that Judith Regan spoke of a Jewish cabal, then she did. But it's odd that she'd include him in the sinister group; I could be wrong, but I don't think Jackson is Jewish.
David Hirshey was my editor for Harvard Rules. He's also a lovely guy and is a terrific editor. One of his skills is in publicizing books, and he's known at being particularly good at speaking with the press. He is also the editor of Jane Leavy, who wrote Koufax—what a good book!—and is now working on a serious biography of Mickey Mantle. That may be why Regan included him in her cabal; possibly she suspected him of hostile leaks to the press about her own Mantle book. (I have absolutely no proof of this; it's just a hunch.)
Jane Friedman is the publisher of HarperCollins; I've never met her, but she is not considered a fan of Judith Regan. I mean, who is?
The one wild card in this mix—which is to say, the one person not affiliated with NewsCorp or Harper Collins—is the literary agent Esther Newberg, also known as Lobster Newberg. (Newberg is not one of the better-liked people in publishing.)
As a young graduate of Wheaton College, Newberg was one of Robert F. Kennedy's "Boiler Girls" in 1968, and she was one of the party girls present at Chappaquiddick in 1969. (She was actually Mary Jo Kopechne's roommate for the weekend.) She has forever kept her silence about what happened there, and the Kennedy family has rewarded her with access and money; she is the family literary agent, and not long ago lunched at Michael's with Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to celebrate Schlossberg's birthday. Newberg's association with the Kennedy's is her claim to fame, and probably her claim to relevance; she's such an unpleasant person that if she didn't have the Kennedy family tie, she'd be in serious trouble in this town. Then again, if she didn't have Kennedy connections, she might not be so imperious and abrasive.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I know this from first-hand experience. When I began work on my book, American Son, a memoir about my time at George with John Kennedy, Newberg went on the warpath against me, calling my original editor, spreading nasty rumors about me, smearing my reputation. She helped cost me my first contract with the publisher Little, Brown. Then, after I wrote the book without a publisher and eventually sold the manuscript to Henry Holt, Newberg called people there and tried to torpedo the deal. (She had never, of course, read the manuscript; the point was that this was an unauthorized book about a Kennedy, and Kennedy books were her franchise.)
So why should Newberg allegedly conspire against Judith Regan? Easy: Because Regan published The Other Man, a book by former model Michael Bergin in which he claimed that he had cuckolded John Kennedy by sleeping with his wife, Carolyn Besset. Newberg would have gone postal about that book (which was, to be honest, hideous), and she has a long memory. Lashing out against those whom she considers to have slighted the Kennedy family reputation has become her life's work.
Newberg and Ginsberg, incidentally, are friends, and talk on Kennedy-related matters, as their access to Caroline Kennedy is professionally and socially valuable to both of them. So Ginsberg might also have had it in for Regan after the publication of The Other Man.
What does all this mean? It's hard to say. One obvious conclusion is that Judith Regan made some powerful enemies, skilled at working behind the scenes—and, at least in the case of Newberg and Ginsberg, working together. But the fact that those enemies happen to be Jewish has absolutely nothing to do with why they dislike her so.
In trying to publish the O.J. book, Regan gave those enemies an opening; she was weakened. And in then accusing her critics of a Jewish conspiracy, she committed hara-kiri.
It will be very interesting to see what Regan's promised lawsuit discloses.
During a conversation with Jackson about the slimy new novel, 7, purporting to tell the sins of Mickey Mantle, Regan allegedly listed the members of this cabal (Jackson, like any good lawyer, took notes). They are: Jackson, HarperCollins president Jane Friedman, HarperCollins editor David Hirshey, and the literary agent Esther Newberg.
Funnily enough, I happen to know every member of this cabal but one—publishing is a small world—and so I will add whatever insights I can.
The notes of the Jackson-Regan conversation were provided to the Times by Gary Ginsberg, an executive vice-president at NewsCorp. Gary and I used to work together at George, where, to be frank, he spent more time cozying up to our boss than he did working. (Gary now lists himself as having been the magazine's "Counsel," which is untrue.)
In time, he moved on to work at a consulting/lobbying firm, Clark & Weinstock—as he repeatedly said, George didn't pay enough—and after a year or so of that, he went to NewsCorp. Gary, who had once worked for Bill Clinton, was always more interested in power and money than in ideology. After John Kennedy's death, Gary labored successfully to cement a relationship with John's sister, Caroline.
Gary's primary role at NewsCorp, so far as I can tell, is that of a consiglieri, a fixer—he told the New Yorker about brokering a three-hour lunch between Bill Clinton and Rupert Murdoch— which is probably why he was the guy picked to dish to the Times. (And by the way, credit the Times for getting his name out there; in other news organizations, Ginsberg, who prefers to operate behind the scenes—it's undignified to be seen as the guy spreading the story—appears to be identified only as a "NewsCorp spokesman."
Mark Jackson is HarperCollins' libel lawyer; I sat in a room with him for a couple of days while we went over Harvard Rules with a fine-toothed comb. He's a lovely guy and an excellent lawyer, and if he says that Judith Regan spoke of a Jewish cabal, then she did. But it's odd that she'd include him in the sinister group; I could be wrong, but I don't think Jackson is Jewish.
David Hirshey was my editor for Harvard Rules. He's also a lovely guy and is a terrific editor. One of his skills is in publicizing books, and he's known at being particularly good at speaking with the press. He is also the editor of Jane Leavy, who wrote Koufax—what a good book!—and is now working on a serious biography of Mickey Mantle. That may be why Regan included him in her cabal; possibly she suspected him of hostile leaks to the press about her own Mantle book. (I have absolutely no proof of this; it's just a hunch.)
Jane Friedman is the publisher of HarperCollins; I've never met her, but she is not considered a fan of Judith Regan. I mean, who is?
The one wild card in this mix—which is to say, the one person not affiliated with NewsCorp or Harper Collins—is the literary agent Esther Newberg, also known as Lobster Newberg. (Newberg is not one of the better-liked people in publishing.)
As a young graduate of Wheaton College, Newberg was one of Robert F. Kennedy's "Boiler Girls" in 1968, and she was one of the party girls present at Chappaquiddick in 1969. (She was actually Mary Jo Kopechne's roommate for the weekend.) She has forever kept her silence about what happened there, and the Kennedy family has rewarded her with access and money; she is the family literary agent, and not long ago lunched at Michael's with Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg to celebrate Schlossberg's birthday. Newberg's association with the Kennedy's is her claim to fame, and probably her claim to relevance; she's such an unpleasant person that if she didn't have the Kennedy family tie, she'd be in serious trouble in this town. Then again, if she didn't have Kennedy connections, she might not be so imperious and abrasive.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I know this from first-hand experience. When I began work on my book, American Son, a memoir about my time at George with John Kennedy, Newberg went on the warpath against me, calling my original editor, spreading nasty rumors about me, smearing my reputation. She helped cost me my first contract with the publisher Little, Brown. Then, after I wrote the book without a publisher and eventually sold the manuscript to Henry Holt, Newberg called people there and tried to torpedo the deal. (She had never, of course, read the manuscript; the point was that this was an unauthorized book about a Kennedy, and Kennedy books were her franchise.)
So why should Newberg allegedly conspire against Judith Regan? Easy: Because Regan published The Other Man, a book by former model Michael Bergin in which he claimed that he had cuckolded John Kennedy by sleeping with his wife, Carolyn Besset. Newberg would have gone postal about that book (which was, to be honest, hideous), and she has a long memory. Lashing out against those whom she considers to have slighted the Kennedy family reputation has become her life's work.
Newberg and Ginsberg, incidentally, are friends, and talk on Kennedy-related matters, as their access to Caroline Kennedy is professionally and socially valuable to both of them. So Ginsberg might also have had it in for Regan after the publication of The Other Man.
What does all this mean? It's hard to say. One obvious conclusion is that Judith Regan made some powerful enemies, skilled at working behind the scenes—and, at least in the case of Newberg and Ginsberg, working together. But the fact that those enemies happen to be Jewish has absolutely nothing to do with why they dislike her so.
In trying to publish the O.J. book, Regan gave those enemies an opening; she was weakened. And in then accusing her critics of a Jewish conspiracy, she committed hara-kiri.
It will be very interesting to see what Regan's promised lawsuit discloses.
Jeffrey Sachs for President
A poster below mentioned a new website promoting Columbia economist (and Larry Summers rival) Jeffrey Sachs for president. I assumed that meant president of Harvard. Oh, no....that would be president of the United States.
Hmmm....I liked the "president of Harvard" idea better.
Hmmm....I liked the "president of Harvard" idea better.
Laura Bush and Me
Like me, the first lady is a survivor of skin cancer.
I stand ready to offer Mrs. Bush solace.
I stand ready to offer Mrs. Bush solace.
Tuesday, December 19, 2023
Steve Hyman for President?
The Crimson runs a piece on Steve Hyman's viability as a presidential candidate, which includes some quotes from yours truly....
I am always amused when they refer to Harvard Rules as "a scathing account" of Larry Summers' presidency. To me, it's just a work of reporting that reflects the division on campus during the Summers presidency...and while it may not be flattering to Summers, no one ever questioned its accuracy.
I am always amused when they refer to Harvard Rules as "a scathing account" of Larry Summers' presidency. To me, it's just a work of reporting that reflects the division on campus during the Summers presidency...and while it may not be flattering to Summers, no one ever questioned its accuracy.
Women In Science
The Times has a long, almost rambling piece on the subject of women in science.
And remember how, yesterday, the Crimson spoke to a group of alumni who all voiced their support of Larry Summers? This article reminds me that the Crimson didn't actually speak to any alumnae....
Organizers of these [women in science] events dismiss the idea voiced in 2005 by Lawrence H. Summers, then president of Harvard, that women over all are handicapped as scientists because as a group they are somehow innately deficient in mathematics. The organizers point to ample evidence that any performance gap between men and women is changeable and is shrinking to the vanishing point.
Instead, they talk about what they have to know and do to get ahead. They talk about unspoken, even unconscious sexism that means they must be better than men to be thought as good — that they must, as one Rice participant put it, literally and figuratively wear a suit and heels, while men can relax in jeans.
For at least 50% of the population, the women-in-science gaffe lives on...And remember how, yesterday, the Crimson spoke to a group of alumni who all voiced their support of Larry Summers? This article reminds me that the Crimson didn't actually speak to any alumnae....
Monday, December 18, 2023
Pinochet, Part II
Even the Weekly Standard can't stomach the argument of the Harvard Salient's Ryan McCaffrey.
According to McCaffrey,
Pinochet successfully rescued Chile from the threat of violent communist revolution, and orchestrated one of the most dramatic economic turnarounds of the era—bringing a country from total economic chaos into immense prosperity.
Writes John Londregan in the Standard,
Pinochet and his apologists argue thus: "Castro and the far left are worse than Pinochet, they kill more people and deliver fewer benefits than did the military government of Chile." Are we to admire Pinochet because his murderous regime was more efficient than tyrants on the left at producing higher GDP?...
According to McCaffrey,
Pinochet successfully rescued Chile from the threat of violent communist revolution, and orchestrated one of the most dramatic economic turnarounds of the era—bringing a country from total economic chaos into immense prosperity.
Writes John Londregan in the Standard,
Pinochet and his apologists argue thus: "Castro and the far left are worse than Pinochet, they kill more people and deliver fewer benefits than did the military government of Chile." Are we to admire Pinochet because his murderous regime was more efficient than tyrants on the left at producing higher GDP?...
A Tale of Torture
An American in Iraq who was trying to root out corruption and stop gun-running is imprisoned by the U.S. military without a lawyer and tortured for three months. He keeps track of his imprisonment by scribbling clandestine notes in a Bible.
A Pentagon spokeswoman says that the man was "treated fair [sic] and humanely."
What has George Bush done to our country, and how will he ever make up for it?
A Pentagon spokeswoman says that the man was "treated fair [sic] and humanely."
What has George Bush done to our country, and how will he ever make up for it?
Harvard's Alumni: Larry Summers Rules
The Crimson interviews a number of fatcat Harvard alums, all of whom indicate that Larry Summers was the fatcat's meow.
Investment strategist Byron R. Wien ’54, who has served as a member of the executive committee of the COUR, says that he was concerned by the fact that so many of names on the [presidential search] list were career academics. “One of the great things about Summers was that his experience was broader than just university life,” Wien says.
One of the great things?
“Look, the issue with Summers is that Harvard was run from 1636 to 2000 by the faculty—and he was trying to wrest some of that away,” he adds.
So that's what the issue was.... Never mind that the faculty's loss of standing at the university was a trend in progress during the Bok presidency and continuing on through the Rudenstine years. The faculty had been accepting of its loss of authority under Bok and Rudenstine; for some reason, Summers compelled the faculty to rise up and take back power.
(Of course, on the other hand, if you concede the premise of that remark, that the faculty were in charge for 350 years, well, they obviously weren't so bad at it, were they?)
“Frankly, I thought that the vision that Larry Summers had was super,” says Albert W. Merck ’43, whose family founded one of the 10 largest pharmaceutical firms in the world. “This one was going to take us into the 21st century.”
“One of the best things that happened was that he put undergraduate teaching on the front burner,” Merck says. The president feuded with some faculty members—most publicly, African-American studies scholar Cornel R. West ’74, over what Summers saw as an insufficient emphasis on teaching students at the College.
Hmmm. Never mind that Cornel West taught one of Harvard's largest classes when Summers took him on. Never mind that Derek Bok prioritized teaching for 20 years. And never mind that Mr. Merck's firm has recently suppressed news that one of its most lucrative drugs causes heart attacks.
What's going on here?
1) The Summers' agenda—which, as reported in the premier issue of 02138 magazine, was actually a four-page memo created by the Corporation—was, in fact, pretty obvious.
2) Rich alums feel both a natural empathy with former Treasury secretaries and a post-1960s distrust of academics
3) A significant number of Harvard alums from decades past aren't actually that smart
4) The alums are saying that they all support Summers' agenda, but are carefully avoiding any discussion of Summers' leadership style.
5) Larry Summers' attempts at historical revisionism—making the mailing to alumni of his Commencement speech part of his severance agreement, for example—has been strikingly effective, while the faculty have done nothing to publicize and record their version of the events of the past five years
6) Harvard alums have absolutely no idea what really goes on on campus, and their ignorance increases as they grower older, wealthier, and more influential in campus affairs
7) All of the above
Investment strategist Byron R. Wien ’54, who has served as a member of the executive committee of the COUR, says that he was concerned by the fact that so many of names on the [presidential search] list were career academics. “One of the great things about Summers was that his experience was broader than just university life,” Wien says.
One of the great things?
“Look, the issue with Summers is that Harvard was run from 1636 to 2000 by the faculty—and he was trying to wrest some of that away,” he adds.
So that's what the issue was.... Never mind that the faculty's loss of standing at the university was a trend in progress during the Bok presidency and continuing on through the Rudenstine years. The faculty had been accepting of its loss of authority under Bok and Rudenstine; for some reason, Summers compelled the faculty to rise up and take back power.
(Of course, on the other hand, if you concede the premise of that remark, that the faculty were in charge for 350 years, well, they obviously weren't so bad at it, were they?)
“Frankly, I thought that the vision that Larry Summers had was super,” says Albert W. Merck ’43, whose family founded one of the 10 largest pharmaceutical firms in the world. “This one was going to take us into the 21st century.”
“One of the best things that happened was that he put undergraduate teaching on the front burner,” Merck says. The president feuded with some faculty members—most publicly, African-American studies scholar Cornel R. West ’74, over what Summers saw as an insufficient emphasis on teaching students at the College.
Hmmm. Never mind that Cornel West taught one of Harvard's largest classes when Summers took him on. Never mind that Derek Bok prioritized teaching for 20 years. And never mind that Mr. Merck's firm has recently suppressed news that one of its most lucrative drugs causes heart attacks.
What's going on here?
1) The Summers' agenda—which, as reported in the premier issue of 02138 magazine, was actually a four-page memo created by the Corporation—was, in fact, pretty obvious.
2) Rich alums feel both a natural empathy with former Treasury secretaries and a post-1960s distrust of academics
3) A significant number of Harvard alums from decades past aren't actually that smart
4) The alums are saying that they all support Summers' agenda, but are carefully avoiding any discussion of Summers' leadership style.
5) Larry Summers' attempts at historical revisionism—making the mailing to alumni of his Commencement speech part of his severance agreement, for example—has been strikingly effective, while the faculty have done nothing to publicize and record their version of the events of the past five years
6) Harvard alums have absolutely no idea what really goes on on campus, and their ignorance increases as they grower older, wealthier, and more influential in campus affairs
7) All of the above
Friday, December 15, 2023
Harvard Economics, the Parody
Okay, it's not that funny. But I find myself weirdly fascinated by the range of motion in Ed Glaeser's eyebrows.
Okay, it's not that funny. But I find myself weirdly fascinated by the range of motion in Ed Glaeser's eyebrows.
Harvard Economics 2006 Recruitment
Oh, dear. You have to give John Campbell and Ed Glaeser credit for trying to get with the program by making this video for YouTube, an attempt to recruit economics grad students to Harvard.
But then you watch it...and...oh, dear. Where to start? The stilted artificiality of the whole thing? Professor Campbell's tie taking on a life of its own? Ed Glaeser's death grip on his own hands? The fact that two white male economists are encouraging you to contact the (of course) female assistant to make travel plans? The "director's" voice at the end, saying "okay" to signify that Campbell and Glaeser have successfully read their cue cards?
Choices, choices...
Oh, dear. You have to give John Campbell and Ed Glaeser credit for trying to get with the program by making this video for YouTube, an attempt to recruit economics grad students to Harvard.
But then you watch it...and...oh, dear. Where to start? The stilted artificiality of the whole thing? Professor Campbell's tie taking on a life of its own? Ed Glaeser's death grip on his own hands? The fact that two white male economists are encouraging you to contact the (of course) female assistant to make travel plans? The "director's" voice at the end, saying "okay" to signify that Campbell and Glaeser have successfully read their cue cards?
Choices, choices...
On Mickey Mantle and Memory
Sportswriter Peter Golenbock has written a novel, 7: The Mickey Mantle Novel, which tells a salacious and sleazy version of Mantle's life. The book is filled with tales of Mantle's drinking and womanizing, including a purported romp with Marilyn Monroe, either during or after her marriage to Yankee Clipper Joe DiMaggio.
The question is, Will anyone want to read it? Everyone knows that Mantle was no hero off the field....but do they really want his on-field heroism diminished thusly?
I recently read Golenbock's biography of Billy Martin, and it was so filled with tawdry detail, the book was a struggle to read. Martin was, off the field, a truly awful person. It was, however, exhaustively researched, and Martin had clearly participated; there was no question in my mind that the book was journalistically credible.
So why would Golenbock now take this route? He's being published, for example, by Judith Regan, who planned to publish that ghastly O.J. Simpson book....
Myself, I think I'll wait for the Mantle biography now being written by Jane Leavy, author of the terrific Koufax.....
The question is, Will anyone want to read it? Everyone knows that Mantle was no hero off the field....but do they really want his on-field heroism diminished thusly?
I recently read Golenbock's biography of Billy Martin, and it was so filled with tawdry detail, the book was a struggle to read. Martin was, off the field, a truly awful person. It was, however, exhaustively researched, and Martin had clearly participated; there was no question in my mind that the book was journalistically credible.
So why would Golenbock now take this route? He's being published, for example, by Judith Regan, who planned to publish that ghastly O.J. Simpson book....
Myself, I think I'll wait for the Mantle biography now being written by Jane Leavy, author of the terrific Koufax.....
Who That Man Is
It is, of course, Larry Summers, from his official portrait as secretary of the Treasury.
It is, of course, Larry Summers, from his official portrait as secretary of the Treasury.
Thursday, December 14, 2023
The Longest Marlin
Thirty-year-0ld Floridian Robert Arrington was swimming off his boat 25 miles off Panama when he saw a beautiful fish, a marlin bigger than any he'd ever seen before—eleven feet long.
So what did he do?
He killed it, of course. And now he has its bill and a world record to make himself proud. And a video of himself shooting something that is so remarkable while alive, and so very sad after it has been killed.
Arrington doesn't see it that way, though. For him, it's something to tell the kids and grandkids about. And maybe they'll say to him, "Gee, Dad, it must have been cool when there were fish in the oceans...."
So what did he do?
He killed it, of course. And now he has its bill and a world record to make himself proud. And a video of himself shooting something that is so remarkable while alive, and so very sad after it has been killed.
Arrington doesn't see it that way, though. For him, it's something to tell the kids and grandkids about. And maybe they'll say to him, "Gee, Dad, it must have been cool when there were fish in the oceans...."
Harvard and Its Money
Mohamed El-Erian isn't making as much money with Harvard's endowment as Jack Meyer did. And in an interview with Bloomberg News, he blames that on...Jack Meyer.
Mohamed El-Erian took over the management of Harvard University's $29.2 billion endowment, the world's largest, five months after its previous boss departed with the entire fixed-income staff in tow. Interest rates rose, causing bond investments made by the former team to drop in value.
El-Erian, 48, says he's not going to let Harvard become overly reliant on a single team or strategy again....
So it's Meyer's fault, eh? In the investment world, that's kind of like slagging God for taking the eighth day off. Did Meyer really become "overly reliant on a single team or strategy," or is El-Erian just spinning?
Mohamed El-Erian took over the management of Harvard University's $29.2 billion endowment, the world's largest, five months after its previous boss departed with the entire fixed-income staff in tow. Interest rates rose, causing bond investments made by the former team to drop in value.
El-Erian, 48, says he's not going to let Harvard become overly reliant on a single team or strategy again....
So it's Meyer's fault, eh? In the investment world, that's kind of like slagging God for taking the eighth day off. Did Meyer really become "overly reliant on a single team or strategy," or is El-Erian just spinning?
Summers One of 2006's Worst
Business Week just published a best and worst list for 2006, and Larry Summers is on it! He's one of the worst.
Under the section, "The Worst Leaders of 2006," there appears this (thanks to the blog SmartLemming):
Weatherhead Professor of Business Administration D. Quinn Mills, who lectures on leadership at the Business School, wrote in an e-mail that BusinessWeek did not have the “right to characterize President Summers as the worst cross-over.”
“I don’t think his style was different in the two situations,” Mills wrote yesterday of Summers’ political and academic roles.
“There are many people who think President Summers was trying to provide good leadership, but that Harvard’s faculty would not accept it,” Mills added.
Mills has clearly written a lot on leadership, but his comment seems odd to me. The idea that Harvard's faculty "would not accept" good leadership is casually made, but loaded with dramatically negative implication. What does it suggest about the Harvard faculty that they won't "accept" good leadership? That they are anarchists?
Moreover, Summers' leadership style may not have been different in the two situations...but isn't that the point? The Treasury Department has one organizational culture; Harvard has another. The same leadership style that works at one might very well not work at the other.
_______________________________________________________________
P.S. Dear Crimson—"Conflictive"—as in "[Summers] often conflictive relationship with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences—is not, in fact, a word.
Under the section, "The Worst Leaders of 2006," there appears this (thanks to the blog SmartLemming):
- Worst Reaction Time: Michael Dell, Dell Computer
- Worst Talent Manager: Paul Pressler, GAP
- Worst Buyer’s Remorse: James R. Tobin, Boston Scientific
- Worst Twilight Years: John Browne, BP
- Worst Crossover: Larry Summers, Harvard University
- Worst Boardroom Rivalry: Patricia Dunn and Tom Perkins
Weatherhead Professor of Business Administration D. Quinn Mills, who lectures on leadership at the Business School, wrote in an e-mail that BusinessWeek did not have the “right to characterize President Summers as the worst cross-over.”
“I don’t think his style was different in the two situations,” Mills wrote yesterday of Summers’ political and academic roles.
“There are many people who think President Summers was trying to provide good leadership, but that Harvard’s faculty would not accept it,” Mills added.
Mills has clearly written a lot on leadership, but his comment seems odd to me. The idea that Harvard's faculty "would not accept" good leadership is casually made, but loaded with dramatically negative implication. What does it suggest about the Harvard faculty that they won't "accept" good leadership? That they are anarchists?
Moreover, Summers' leadership style may not have been different in the two situations...but isn't that the point? The Treasury Department has one organizational culture; Harvard has another. The same leadership style that works at one might very well not work at the other.
_______________________________________________________________
P.S. Dear Crimson—"Conflictive"—as in "[Summers] often conflictive relationship with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences—is not, in fact, a word.
Calling the M-Bomb
Ms. Bombardieri, are you there? Some people on this board (see below) are trying to get your attention.
A few thoughts on the Bombardieri situation: My impression—and I've never met her, and only talked to her once, briefly, on other subjects—is that the M-Bomb, as she has now been dubbed, does her best to get as much into the paper regarding Harvard as her editors will allow. It's not her fault that the Globe has become Massachussetts' very own USA Today. Also, she's had the beat for a few years; she may be a little burned-out.
In any event, there's lots to talk about.
First, of course, is the very interesting discussion going on below, which, if I could sum it up, seems to be a debate over Harvard's treatment of women and minority professors, and whether it relegates them to non-tenure track positions. Certainly people at the ed school seem to think so.
Next is the news that the Af-Am department wants to bring back departed professors Lawrence Bobo and Marcyliena Morgan, who left for Stanford a couple years back when Summers refused to give Morgan a tenured position.
Here's what I understand of that situation. Apparently Skip Gates went to bat with Summers for Morgan, who is a scholar of hip-hop. Summers told him that he didn't think Morgan was a good enough scholar or teacher to merit tenure, but that he wanted to do what he can for Skip, and would work to find a non-tenured position which would allow Morgan to continue teaching at Harvard. But Stanford was beckoning with offers of tenure for both.....Note, though, that Stanford gave Morgan a tenured position that is not a full professorship.
Someone mentioned that Cornel West had been offered a job; that's not exactly what the Crimson says, and it's not exactly right. For the full story, check out my piece on Derek Bok in the forthcoming issue of 02138 magazine.
Larry Summers deserves his own item, so I'll write that above.....
A few thoughts on the Bombardieri situation: My impression—and I've never met her, and only talked to her once, briefly, on other subjects—is that the M-Bomb, as she has now been dubbed, does her best to get as much into the paper regarding Harvard as her editors will allow. It's not her fault that the Globe has become Massachussetts' very own USA Today. Also, she's had the beat for a few years; she may be a little burned-out.
In any event, there's lots to talk about.
First, of course, is the very interesting discussion going on below, which, if I could sum it up, seems to be a debate over Harvard's treatment of women and minority professors, and whether it relegates them to non-tenure track positions. Certainly people at the ed school seem to think so.
Next is the news that the Af-Am department wants to bring back departed professors Lawrence Bobo and Marcyliena Morgan, who left for Stanford a couple years back when Summers refused to give Morgan a tenured position.
Here's what I understand of that situation. Apparently Skip Gates went to bat with Summers for Morgan, who is a scholar of hip-hop. Summers told him that he didn't think Morgan was a good enough scholar or teacher to merit tenure, but that he wanted to do what he can for Skip, and would work to find a non-tenured position which would allow Morgan to continue teaching at Harvard. But Stanford was beckoning with offers of tenure for both.....Note, though, that Stanford gave Morgan a tenured position that is not a full professorship.
Someone mentioned that Cornel West had been offered a job; that's not exactly what the Crimson says, and it's not exactly right. For the full story, check out my piece on Derek Bok in the forthcoming issue of 02138 magazine.
Larry Summers deserves his own item, so I'll write that above.....
Wednesday, December 13, 2023
The Sound of Journalists Spinning in their Graves
Want to hear the woman the New York Times just dubbed the next Walter Cronkite?
Take a look at Amanda Congdon on ABCNews.com as she talks about spam, Nintendo, an article she read in the New York Times, and javascript. But all you really need to know about Congdon is visible in her opening gesture of welcome.
"What's the weirdest thing about it?" Congdon says of a Tori Spelling yard sale. "How it blurs the line between reality and fiction."
What's the weirdest thing about Congdon on ABCNews.com? How it blurs the line between news and advertising. Don't you just love it when she says, "ABCNews.com—a good way to start the day? I think so." Or when she adds, "I followed an advertiser link to....."
Immature soul that I am, however, I did chuckle a little when she started talking about "life-juice." (Just for the record, she was talking about blood.)
As Congdon would say—and does!—"Thanks for hanging out!"
Meanwhile, Walter Cronkite and Peter Jennings are making like matching propellers.....
Take a look at Amanda Congdon on ABCNews.com as she talks about spam, Nintendo, an article she read in the New York Times, and javascript. But all you really need to know about Congdon is visible in her opening gesture of welcome.
"What's the weirdest thing about it?" Congdon says of a Tori Spelling yard sale. "How it blurs the line between reality and fiction."
What's the weirdest thing about Congdon on ABCNews.com? How it blurs the line between news and advertising. Don't you just love it when she says, "ABCNews.com—a good way to start the day? I think so." Or when she adds, "I followed an advertiser link to....."
Immature soul that I am, however, I did chuckle a little when she started talking about "life-juice." (Just for the record, she was talking about blood.)
As Congdon would say—and does!—"Thanks for hanging out!"
Meanwhile, Walter Cronkite and Peter Jennings are making like matching propellers.....
Harvard to God: Drop Dead
As both the Crimson and the Globe note, Harvard profs have dropped a plan to make undergraduates take at least one course in religion.
As Marcella Bombardieri writes, "Instead, the faculty task force suggested a different, broader category, 'what it means to be a human being'...."
Call it the Oprah-fication of the curricular review. "What it means to be a human being." What a hoot!
"I think secular and liberal Harvard rebelled," government professor Harvey Mansfield, one of the campus's most outspoken conservatives, said last night.
This time, Mansfield may be right.....
As Marcella Bombardieri writes, "Instead, the faculty task force suggested a different, broader category, 'what it means to be a human being'...."
Call it the Oprah-fication of the curricular review. "What it means to be a human being." What a hoot!
"I think secular and liberal Harvard rebelled," government professor Harvey Mansfield, one of the campus's most outspoken conservatives, said last night.
This time, Mansfield may be right.....
Pinochet: Apparently Not So Bad
Writing in the Harvard Crimson, Ryan M. McCaffrey, co-editor of the conservative Harvard Salient, says that the world "mourns" the passing of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and that Pinochet wasn't really so bad. In fact, he was just misunderstood.
Writes McCaffrey,
Pinochet...was a criminal, murderer, and thief—or so the headlines ubiquitous in the mainstream media would have us believe. Pinochet, however, is a man misunderstood by many, and the distortion of facts surrounding his rise to and fall from power is a great injustice of our times.
"Or so the mainstream media would have us believe." I like that part.
Here's McCaffrey's description of how Pinochet came to power:
Finally, with many certain that a coup was inevitable given the hyperinflation (a paycheck from one week could not even afford bread in the next week), starvation, recession, and extreme civil unrest, General Augusto Pinochet took power on Sept. 11, 1973.
Pinochet "took power." Nice. No mention of the CIA, related assassinations, Richard Nixon's instructions to Henry Kissinger that Kissinger devise a plan to topple Allende....
To McCaffrey, Pinochet was a justifiable response to Allende's Cuban-style socialism.
If Allende had been able to continue to advance his extreme socialist agenda, he could well have caused far more death and misery than the 3000 people Pinochet is responsible for murdering.
Well, we'll never know now, will we?
What's remarkable about McCaffrey's writing is how casually he justifies overthrowing a democratically elected government in a foreign country on the grounds of economic capitalism. This is the definition of American arrogance, and particularly given what's happening in the world at the moment, it suggests that humility regarding intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries has not sunk in at the Harvard Salient.
McCaffrey's conclusion:
The twentieth century saw more than its fair share of both wicked men, and individuals who countered their iniquity with crusades of justice. Pinochet, I believe, was a bit of both, but for the most part one of the latter. Pinochet—a devout and caring Christian man with an understanding of the dangers of radical socialism—deserves the respect from democrats the world around for his fight for freedom from tyranny in South America.
A devout and caring Christian man....
Somewhere, Pinochet is laughing through his hellfire, and the souls of the disappeared weep.
Writes McCaffrey,
Pinochet...was a criminal, murderer, and thief—or so the headlines ubiquitous in the mainstream media would have us believe. Pinochet, however, is a man misunderstood by many, and the distortion of facts surrounding his rise to and fall from power is a great injustice of our times.
"Or so the mainstream media would have us believe." I like that part.
Here's McCaffrey's description of how Pinochet came to power:
Finally, with many certain that a coup was inevitable given the hyperinflation (a paycheck from one week could not even afford bread in the next week), starvation, recession, and extreme civil unrest, General Augusto Pinochet took power on Sept. 11, 1973.
Pinochet "took power." Nice. No mention of the CIA, related assassinations, Richard Nixon's instructions to Henry Kissinger that Kissinger devise a plan to topple Allende....
To McCaffrey, Pinochet was a justifiable response to Allende's Cuban-style socialism.
If Allende had been able to continue to advance his extreme socialist agenda, he could well have caused far more death and misery than the 3000 people Pinochet is responsible for murdering.
Well, we'll never know now, will we?
What's remarkable about McCaffrey's writing is how casually he justifies overthrowing a democratically elected government in a foreign country on the grounds of economic capitalism. This is the definition of American arrogance, and particularly given what's happening in the world at the moment, it suggests that humility regarding intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries has not sunk in at the Harvard Salient.
McCaffrey's conclusion:
The twentieth century saw more than its fair share of both wicked men, and individuals who countered their iniquity with crusades of justice. Pinochet, I believe, was a bit of both, but for the most part one of the latter. Pinochet—a devout and caring Christian man with an understanding of the dangers of radical socialism—deserves the respect from democrats the world around for his fight for freedom from tyranny in South America.
A devout and caring Christian man....
Somewhere, Pinochet is laughing through his hellfire, and the souls of the disappeared weep.
Sign of the Times
How's this for pretentious media writing?
...[Amanda Congdon] often appeals to the camera — the audience? God? — to find out what’s going on. Slim, swan-necked, with the upright bearing of a dancer or cadet, she doesn’t exactly lean in for intimacy with the viewer. She’s not relatable. She seems a touch abstemious. The news, it seems, kind of grosses her out.
Before dismissing this as eek-a-mouse-ing by a news bimbo, though, it’s worth thinking harder about the pose. If anchormen like Peter Jennings cultivated brave, value-neutral stoicism about the news, it wasn’t always so. Watch old Walter Cronkite broadcasts now and what comes through is the marvelous moralism that used to inform every syllable of his speech....
And so the pendulum swings back. In another key — and of course in the quickie-video medium — Ms. Congdon may be reprising Mr. Cronkite’s melodrama.
This is Virginia Heffernan writing in the New York Times on the subject of blonde sexpot Amanda Congdon, who has been hired by ABCNews.com after a stint on a little known website. (The most known thing about the website, as any reader of Gawker will tell you, were two of Ms. Congdon's physical attributes.)
If I read that correctly, Heffernan has just favorably compared Congdon to Walter Cronkite. (To her credit, Congdon herself would probably read this and think, ????)
As a friend of mine likes to say, this is surely a sign that the end is near.
According to the Times,
the next Cronkite. At least she
has good taste in music.
...[Amanda Congdon] often appeals to the camera — the audience? God? — to find out what’s going on. Slim, swan-necked, with the upright bearing of a dancer or cadet, she doesn’t exactly lean in for intimacy with the viewer. She’s not relatable. She seems a touch abstemious. The news, it seems, kind of grosses her out.
Before dismissing this as eek-a-mouse-ing by a news bimbo, though, it’s worth thinking harder about the pose. If anchormen like Peter Jennings cultivated brave, value-neutral stoicism about the news, it wasn’t always so. Watch old Walter Cronkite broadcasts now and what comes through is the marvelous moralism that used to inform every syllable of his speech....
And so the pendulum swings back. In another key — and of course in the quickie-video medium — Ms. Congdon may be reprising Mr. Cronkite’s melodrama.
This is Virginia Heffernan writing in the New York Times on the subject of blonde sexpot Amanda Congdon, who has been hired by ABCNews.com after a stint on a little known website. (The most known thing about the website, as any reader of Gawker will tell you, were two of Ms. Congdon's physical attributes.)
If I read that correctly, Heffernan has just favorably compared Congdon to Walter Cronkite. (To her credit, Congdon herself would probably read this and think, ????)
As a friend of mine likes to say, this is surely a sign that the end is near.
According to the Times,
the next Cronkite. At least she
has good taste in music.
Tuesday, December 12, 2023
Anally Raped by a Ghost in Canada
No, that's not a joke about getting screwed by Geddy Lee. It's an accurate description of what Peter Duffy, a columnist for the Novia Scotia Chronicle Herald, claims happened to him in a hotel recently.
Judging from his column photo, I think Mr. Duffy is flattering himself...
Judging from his column photo, I think Mr. Duffy is flattering himself...
P.S.
It's also interesting to think about whether Hillary Clinton, who once was from Chicago, could have pulled off the MNF appearance Obama just did....
I'm not so sure she could.
Here's another pop culture litmus test. Could Obama host Saturday Night Live? I think he could. Could Hillary?
I'm not so sure she could.
Here's another pop culture litmus test. Could Obama host Saturday Night Live? I think he could. Could Hillary?
Barack Obama on MNF
Anyone else see Barack on MNF? It was a fascinating appearance, I thought—a way to show that he has some self-awareness about the hype surrounding his presidential bid, and a commentary about the sometime absurdity of the political process.
On balance, I think Obama was smart and funny. But he has to be careful: Voters don't like candidates who convey a sense of irony. It's a balancing act....
I do like his willingness not to take himself too seriously, with the "da-da-da-daaa" at the end...
Anyone else see Barack on MNF? It was a fascinating appearance, I thought—a way to show that he has some self-awareness about the hype surrounding his presidential bid, and a commentary about the sometime absurdity of the political process.
On balance, I think Obama was smart and funny. But he has to be careful: Voters don't like candidates who convey a sense of irony. It's a balancing act....
I do like his willingness not to take himself too seriously, with the "da-da-da-daaa" at the end...
Enough with the Candidates
The Times reports that Ohio congressman Dennis Kucinich is also running for president. So is Sam Brownback. So is Dick Armey.
None of these people has a chance in hell of being nominated, though Brownback, who is something of a Jesus freak, may think he has a chance in heaven. So why are they doing it? For a reason that has become increasingly common in recent elections: to remain politically relevant, boost their profile, and get attention. (Pat Buchanan generally ran to increase the attention paid to his ideas and to increase his speaking fees.)
Armey's not in Congress any more. He's probably bored. Kucinich is in Congress...so he's probably bored.
Brownback is just an awful person, so who knows why he's running—to make the state of the country even more awful than it is now. I see in the Houston Chronicle that he's blocking a judicial nomination because the woman in question, who is heterosexual, once attended the wedding of a lesbian couple, one of which was her neighbor. Hmmm. Someone should invite him to an event with Mary Cheney, and see what he does.....
Brownback recently told Fox News that "Our motto of our land is 'In God We Trust.'" Is it? Or is that just a phrase stamped upon coins (for the first time) during the Civil War, as a reminder to the faithful to stay strong in support of the war?
And, of course, once those words are on our currency, what politician is going to vote to remove them? (And a vote is required.) Though Teddy Roosevelt, God bless him, argued for removing the words because it was sacrilegious to put God's name on money. It is, however, reflective of American values in ways that Senator Brownback probably hasn't considered.
Then, later, in 1956, Eisenhower signed a law declaring "In God We Trust" to be our national motto, possibly as a rebuke to the official atheism of the USSR.
Regardless, the phrase clearly doesn't represent the views of millions of Americans and is not reflected in national policy (nor should it be).
In any case, I can't help but think that, after a president whose faith has inspired him to make such awful decisions, the American public will be reluctant to support a man who argues for an even greater role for (Christian) religion in policy-making.
Besides, the way things are going, Brownback's Christianism is probably a sign that he's gay....
None of these people has a chance in hell of being nominated, though Brownback, who is something of a Jesus freak, may think he has a chance in heaven. So why are they doing it? For a reason that has become increasingly common in recent elections: to remain politically relevant, boost their profile, and get attention. (Pat Buchanan generally ran to increase the attention paid to his ideas and to increase his speaking fees.)
Armey's not in Congress any more. He's probably bored. Kucinich is in Congress...so he's probably bored.
Brownback is just an awful person, so who knows why he's running—to make the state of the country even more awful than it is now. I see in the Houston Chronicle that he's blocking a judicial nomination because the woman in question, who is heterosexual, once attended the wedding of a lesbian couple, one of which was her neighbor. Hmmm. Someone should invite him to an event with Mary Cheney, and see what he does.....
Brownback recently told Fox News that "Our motto of our land is 'In God We Trust.'" Is it? Or is that just a phrase stamped upon coins (for the first time) during the Civil War, as a reminder to the faithful to stay strong in support of the war?
And, of course, once those words are on our currency, what politician is going to vote to remove them? (And a vote is required.) Though Teddy Roosevelt, God bless him, argued for removing the words because it was sacrilegious to put God's name on money. It is, however, reflective of American values in ways that Senator Brownback probably hasn't considered.
Then, later, in 1956, Eisenhower signed a law declaring "In God We Trust" to be our national motto, possibly as a rebuke to the official atheism of the USSR.
Regardless, the phrase clearly doesn't represent the views of millions of Americans and is not reflected in national policy (nor should it be).
In any case, I can't help but think that, after a president whose faith has inspired him to make such awful decisions, the American public will be reluctant to support a man who argues for an even greater role for (Christian) religion in policy-making.
Besides, the way things are going, Brownback's Christianism is probably a sign that he's gay....
Sex at Harvard
If you're gay, it's apparently hard to find. Here's the Crimson's intro for a piece on Harvard and the website Craigslist:
Craigslist is the go-to location mainly for closeted Harvard gay boys who have no outlet for sexual fulfillment other than to pursue furative [sic] fellatio in Harvard’s various public restrooms.
It's actually a pretty interesting story alleging that most gay men at Harvard are in the closet. Perhaps they should transfer to Yale, which, at least when I was there, was very gay-friendly.
Craigslist is the go-to location mainly for closeted Harvard gay boys who have no outlet for sexual fulfillment other than to pursue furative [sic] fellatio in Harvard’s various public restrooms.
It's actually a pretty interesting story alleging that most gay men at Harvard are in the closet. Perhaps they should transfer to Yale, which, at least when I was there, was very gay-friendly.
Monday, December 11, 2023
The Business of Baseball, Part 2
A small but telling sign of the times:
Recently I bought a children's book for the latest Yankee fan in the family. She's about six months old. Called "Let's Go, Yankees," it is ostensibly written by Yogi Berra, although who knows, really? There are about 100 words in the whole book. Such as:
"It was a beautiful day in New York City. Yankees fans were on their way to Yankee Stadium for a baseball game."
"The young fans walked to Yankee Stadium. They were excited to see "The House That Ruth Built."
How depressing it was to see that both "Yankee Stadium" and "The House That Ruth Built" were immediately followed by TM, the copyright symbol....
Recently I bought a children's book for the latest Yankee fan in the family. She's about six months old. Called "Let's Go, Yankees," it is ostensibly written by Yogi Berra, although who knows, really? There are about 100 words in the whole book. Such as:
"It was a beautiful day in New York City. Yankees fans were on their way to Yankee Stadium for a baseball game."
"The young fans walked to Yankee Stadium. They were excited to see "The House That Ruth Built."
How depressing it was to see that both "Yankee Stadium" and "The House That Ruth Built" were immediately followed by TM, the copyright symbol....
The Business of Baseball
While this blog might give the impression that I spend most of my days thinking about Harvard and sunsets, truth is, I spend most of my waking hours thinking about baseball, as I research my forthcoming book on the 1978 pennant race between the Yankees and the Red Sox. One of the themes of that book is baseball's transition to a free-agency economy and its effects upon the game.
With that in mind, I was intrigued to read this Dan Shaughnessy story from the Globe, in which he analyzes the off-season moves of Sox GM Theo Epstein.
A year after his weird walkaway, Theo is throwing dollars around like a young George Steinbrenner. In New York Yankee fashion, he's been bidding against himself for some players and never again can he stand on the Fenway lawn and say the Red Sox do not have the means to compete financially with the erstwhile Evil Empire.
Epstein spent $50 million just for the rights to negotiate with Japanese pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka—though if they don't sign him, they get it back—then signed so-so free agent J.D. Drew for $70 million. Shaughnessy describes Drew as a "passionless, often-hurt showcase warrior who did not appear to have any other suitors." (Can you say "Carl Pavano"?)
Curious moves by Epstein in a very demanding baseball town...Quite clearly, he should have re-signed Johnny Damon, who was a great player for the Sox and seems to fill any team he's on with positive energy. J.D. Drew? You're welcome to him....
Meanwhile, the Yankees have re-signed former ace Andy Pettitte, who left the team to pitch for the Astros three years ago. "I know New York is where God wants me and where he’s put me for this year," Pettitte said.
I am astounded at the ability of some Christians to believe that God gives a damn which baseball team will pay them $16 million a season.... Did God also tell Pettitte to take steroids?
Nonetheless, Yankee fans will likely welcome Pettitte back with an outpouring of affection, even though he left the team to play in (please) Houston. No one expects loyalty in baseball anymore, so the lack of it is rarely held against a player.
Last year, by the way, Pettitte was 14-13, with an ERA of 4.20.....
With that in mind, I was intrigued to read this Dan Shaughnessy story from the Globe, in which he analyzes the off-season moves of Sox GM Theo Epstein.
A year after his weird walkaway, Theo is throwing dollars around like a young George Steinbrenner. In New York Yankee fashion, he's been bidding against himself for some players and never again can he stand on the Fenway lawn and say the Red Sox do not have the means to compete financially with the erstwhile Evil Empire.
Epstein spent $50 million just for the rights to negotiate with Japanese pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka—though if they don't sign him, they get it back—then signed so-so free agent J.D. Drew for $70 million. Shaughnessy describes Drew as a "passionless, often-hurt showcase warrior who did not appear to have any other suitors." (Can you say "Carl Pavano"?)
Curious moves by Epstein in a very demanding baseball town...Quite clearly, he should have re-signed Johnny Damon, who was a great player for the Sox and seems to fill any team he's on with positive energy. J.D. Drew? You're welcome to him....
Meanwhile, the Yankees have re-signed former ace Andy Pettitte, who left the team to pitch for the Astros three years ago. "I know New York is where God wants me and where he’s put me for this year," Pettitte said.
I am astounded at the ability of some Christians to believe that God gives a damn which baseball team will pay them $16 million a season.... Did God also tell Pettitte to take steroids?
Nonetheless, Yankee fans will likely welcome Pettitte back with an outpouring of affection, even though he left the team to play in (please) Houston. No one expects loyalty in baseball anymore, so the lack of it is rarely held against a player.
Last year, by the way, Pettitte was 14-13, with an ERA of 4.20.....
Amy Gutmann to Harvard: Drop Dead
Amy Gutmann joins a growing list of potential Harvard presidential candidates who are saying that they don't want the job.
"I will say it, and I will say it for the last time: I am absolutely committed to being Penn's president, and I am not interested in any other presidency," Gutmann told the trustees, as reported in The Daily Pennsylvanian on Friday.
You can't really blame her. Harvard floated her name back in 2001 as a candidate for the presidency, but a number of sources have told me that she wasn't really a serious candidate—it's just that the presidential search committee needed to appear as if it were at least considering a woman.
Plus, by all accounts, she's doing a good job at Penn.
Incidentally, this news appeared in the Daily Princetonian, but not the Crimson......
"I will say it, and I will say it for the last time: I am absolutely committed to being Penn's president, and I am not interested in any other presidency," Gutmann told the trustees, as reported in The Daily Pennsylvanian on Friday.
You can't really blame her. Harvard floated her name back in 2001 as a candidate for the presidency, but a number of sources have told me that she wasn't really a serious candidate—it's just that the presidential search committee needed to appear as if it were at least considering a woman.
Plus, by all accounts, she's doing a good job at Penn.
Incidentally, this news appeared in the Daily Princetonian, but not the Crimson......
Friday, December 08, 2023
Meanwhile, Over in Iraq
Here's the lede from an AP story today:
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S.-led coalition forces killed 20 insurgents, including two women, Friday in fighting and airstrikes that targeted al-Qaida in Iraq militants northwest of Baghdad, the military said. The mayor of the area said 19 civilians were killed, including seven women and eight children.
Well, what were they? Insurgents, including women? Or civilians, including women and children?
This is an awful war, and part of its awfulness is that when our military says we killed "insurgents," and an Iraqi pol says they were civilians, I don't know whom to believe....
BAGHDAD, Iraq - U.S.-led coalition forces killed 20 insurgents, including two women, Friday in fighting and airstrikes that targeted al-Qaida in Iraq militants northwest of Baghdad, the military said. The mayor of the area said 19 civilians were killed, including seven women and eight children.
Well, what were they? Insurgents, including women? Or civilians, including women and children?
This is an awful war, and part of its awfulness is that when our military says we killed "insurgents," and an Iraqi pol says they were civilians, I don't know whom to believe....
Ann Coulter!
I'm not age-obsessed, truly....but who knew that Ann Coulter is 46!
My prediction: As she nears 50, Coulter will hit a mid-life personal/professional crisis, undergo a complete turnaround, and embrace liberalism, a la David Brock.....
______________________________________________________________
P.S. Also, can you bend your wrist at a perfect right angle to your forearm, as she can? I tried. It's hard!
My prediction: As she nears 50, Coulter will hit a mid-life personal/professional crisis, undergo a complete turnaround, and embrace liberalism, a la David Brock.....
______________________________________________________________
P.S. Also, can you bend your wrist at a perfect right angle to your forearm, as she can? I tried. It's hard!
On the Other Hand
I like this piece by Phillip Carter in Slate, which points out that of all the military people interviewed by the Iraq Study Group, none were below the rank of lieutenant colonel.
For all of the time they spent learning about America's war in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group failed to study the war at its most critical level: that of the grunts.
Carter then goes on to suggest why that matters.
Is this because the panel itself was composed of Washington wise men who, when they seek wisdom, reflexively turn to people they consider their sociological counterparts? The average age of the members of the Iraq Study Group is 74....
For all of the time they spent learning about America's war in Iraq, the Iraq Study Group failed to study the war at its most critical level: that of the grunts.
Carter then goes on to suggest why that matters.
Is this because the panel itself was composed of Washington wise men who, when they seek wisdom, reflexively turn to people they consider their sociological counterparts? The average age of the members of the Iraq Study Group is 74....
Nepotism in Book-Picking
Here's a suggestion for Slate: When asking your editors to pick their favorite books of their year, ban any choice that requires tacking on the phrase "by my friend."
Is Harvard Searching for a Scientist?
Working the list-of-30 story for every last drop of ink she can (and why shouldn't she?), Marcella Bombardieri writes in the Globe that the list is top-heavy with scientists.
She continues to get more names on the record:
The latest group of contenders is dominated by scientists: Eric S. Lander , an MIT biology professor and director of the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, a biomedical research center; Thomas R. Cech , president of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Steven Chu , a 1997 Nobel laureate in physics, of Stanford University; Harold E. Varmus , a 1989 Nobel laureate for cancer research and the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center ; David W. Oxtoby , president of Pomona College and a chemist; and Mary Sue Coleman , president of the University of Michigan and a biochemist.
One, that the real list is probably much shorter than 30, because so many of these names are easy to knock off. Dick Brodhead, after, what, two years as president of Duke? I don't think so. (Plus, he's got a little rape scandal to deal with...and like Harvard needs that publicity?) Harold Varmus? He's pushing 70. Steven Chu? Almost 60. A brilliant man, but he's never run anything other than a department of Bell Labs, 20 years ago. Thomas Cech? 60 in 2007. Eric Lander? Very impressive, but lacks administrative experience, and then, of course, the Broad Institute was Larry Summers' baby, and appointing Lander would give Summers' back-door entree to Mass Hall....
David Oxtoby? Hmmm.... That one's kind of interesting. He's about 54, very impressive...and graduated Harvard College summa cum laude. Plus, he watches The O.C.
So...really, this is the best the search committee can do after months of labor? The Corporation continues not to impress. (Heck, it looks like someone just googled a list of the Nobel Prize winners in the sciences for the past couple of decades and went through it circling names.)
Point two about this list: What's striking about it, really, is how conventional it is. None of these names are particularly "out of the box" (argh, sorry); none are surprising.
This time around, Harvard is not going to gamble on a Washington-based celebrity.
On another note, where is the Crimson? It gets one scoop, then drops it like a dog losing interest in a game of catch. Instead, the paper publishes endless stories about the student council. Gripping stuff.
Compared to the Crimson of 2000-2001, which did impressive reporting on the Summers presidential search, this group is getting its butt kicked.
She continues to get more names on the record:
The latest group of contenders is dominated by scientists: Eric S. Lander , an MIT biology professor and director of the Broad Institute of Harvard and MIT, a biomedical research center; Thomas R. Cech , president of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Steven Chu , a 1997 Nobel laureate in physics, of Stanford University; Harold E. Varmus , a 1989 Nobel laureate for cancer research and the president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center ; David W. Oxtoby , president of Pomona College and a chemist; and Mary Sue Coleman , president of the University of Michigan and a biochemist.
Also on the list are Richard H. Brodhead , president of Duke University and a former English professor at Yale; Steven Knapp , provost of Johns Hopkins University and a specialist in 18th- and 19th-century English literature; and Nancy Cantor , chancellor of Syracuse University and a professor of psychology and women's studies.
All of which suggests to me two things.One, that the real list is probably much shorter than 30, because so many of these names are easy to knock off. Dick Brodhead, after, what, two years as president of Duke? I don't think so. (Plus, he's got a little rape scandal to deal with...and like Harvard needs that publicity?) Harold Varmus? He's pushing 70. Steven Chu? Almost 60. A brilliant man, but he's never run anything other than a department of Bell Labs, 20 years ago. Thomas Cech? 60 in 2007. Eric Lander? Very impressive, but lacks administrative experience, and then, of course, the Broad Institute was Larry Summers' baby, and appointing Lander would give Summers' back-door entree to Mass Hall....
David Oxtoby? Hmmm.... That one's kind of interesting. He's about 54, very impressive...and graduated Harvard College summa cum laude. Plus, he watches The O.C.
So...really, this is the best the search committee can do after months of labor? The Corporation continues not to impress. (Heck, it looks like someone just googled a list of the Nobel Prize winners in the sciences for the past couple of decades and went through it circling names.)
Point two about this list: What's striking about it, really, is how conventional it is. None of these names are particularly "out of the box" (argh, sorry); none are surprising.
This time around, Harvard is not going to gamble on a Washington-based celebrity.
On another note, where is the Crimson? It gets one scoop, then drops it like a dog losing interest in a game of catch. Instead, the paper publishes endless stories about the student council. Gripping stuff.
Compared to the Crimson of 2000-2001, which did impressive reporting on the Summers presidential search, this group is getting its butt kicked.
Thursday, December 07, 2023
The Iraq Study Group, Reconsidered
Perhaps I was wrong about the Iraq Study Group. Perhaps they're even more befuddled and out of their league than I suggested.
I wrote that Lee Hamilton was one of the members who seemed on the ball. Now Mickey Kaus says, it ain't so.
Kaus writes,
Of all the public figures I got to interview (usually as part of a group) when I was an actual MSM journalist, one of the two or three least impressive--and certainly the most disappointing, given his rep--was Lee Hamilton. Maybe he was having a bad day, but even on topics about which he was supposed to be a leading expert, the man was not mentally agile. ...
I wrote that Lee Hamilton was one of the members who seemed on the ball. Now Mickey Kaus says, it ain't so.
Kaus writes,
Of all the public figures I got to interview (usually as part of a group) when I was an actual MSM journalist, one of the two or three least impressive--and certainly the most disappointing, given his rep--was Lee Hamilton. Maybe he was having a bad day, but even on topics about which he was supposed to be a leading expert, the man was not mentally agile. ...
After the Scoop Come the Denials
Mary Sue Coleman, the president of the University of Michigan, has just denied any interest in the job of Harvard president.
Well...kind of.
Her denial comes through a spokeswoman, who says, President Coleman is not pursuing the Harvard position. She's committed to staying here at the University of Michigan. The regents just recently renewed her contract.
There's a bit of wiggle room in that, I'd say.
On another note, can someone please institute a ban on university presidents having spokespeople?
These people are supposed to be leaders, known for eloquence, candor, the ability to speak intelligently on a variety of topics. Does Harvard really want a president who issues non-denial denials through a spokesperson?
Especially considering that it just had one.....
Well...kind of.
Her denial comes through a spokeswoman, who says, President Coleman is not pursuing the Harvard position. She's committed to staying here at the University of Michigan. The regents just recently renewed her contract.
There's a bit of wiggle room in that, I'd say.
On another note, can someone please institute a ban on university presidents having spokespeople?
These people are supposed to be leaders, known for eloquence, candor, the ability to speak intelligently on a variety of topics. Does Harvard really want a president who issues non-denial denials through a spokesperson?
Especially considering that it just had one.....
A Thought on the Iraq Study Group
I hope that someone writes a piece about the composition of the Iraq Study Group. Because even though I like that it has rebuked the president, its membership does not inspire confidence. True, some members of the committee belong on such a panel. But I'd say about half the group is political hackery, chosen for their gender, their race, or the party to which they belong.
Let's start with who has the chops to be on this panel.
Given their careers in diplomacy and the military, James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Lawrence Eagleburger, and William Perry seem like sound choices.
But what about Chuck Robb? Sure, he served in the Senate and oversaw various intelligence matters. But Robb was never reputed to be particularly intelligent himself, and you wouldn't say he was exactly a towering figure in the Senate. (Although he may have done some towering when he got naked massages from Miss Virginia Tai Collins.)
And what about Vernon Jordan? Where, exactly, does his Iraq-related expertise come from? The guy is a lawyer and senior managing director of Lazard Frères & Co. Could it be a coincidence that he was the only member of a minority group on the panel?
Then there's Ed Meese, surely one of the most incompetent attorneys general of the 20th century.
Sandra Day O'Connor is a very impressive woman, to be sure. But what exactly is her foreign policy expertise? Or did her gender matter more in her choice? She was, after all, the only woman in the group. (I would have preferred Anne-Marie Slaughter.)
Leon Panetta was a California congressman who became a chief of staff in the Clinton White House and did a credible job in both instances. But I wouldn't exactly call him a foreign policy expert. His areas of interest were the budget and agricultural issues.
Finally, Alan Simpson was a senator ten years ago who retired and since has hung his shingle at the Kennedy School, a PR firm, a law firm, and various corporate boards. In the Senate, he did not specialize in foreign affairs. Although he did make an ass of himself in the Anita Hill matter, when he threatened her with "real harassment, different from the sexual kind, just plain old Washington variety harassment, which is pretty unique in itself."
What's interesting as well is who isn't on this committee, which is to say, a single person who's not a Washington insider, "wise man" (or woman), widely respected within the Beltway for basically hanging around a long time within the Beltway.
It's interesting to consider the group's report with that in mind.
Let's start with who has the chops to be on this panel.
Given their careers in diplomacy and the military, James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Lawrence Eagleburger, and William Perry seem like sound choices.
But what about Chuck Robb? Sure, he served in the Senate and oversaw various intelligence matters. But Robb was never reputed to be particularly intelligent himself, and you wouldn't say he was exactly a towering figure in the Senate. (Although he may have done some towering when he got naked massages from Miss Virginia Tai Collins.)
And what about Vernon Jordan? Where, exactly, does his Iraq-related expertise come from? The guy is a lawyer and senior managing director of Lazard Frères & Co. Could it be a coincidence that he was the only member of a minority group on the panel?
Then there's Ed Meese, surely one of the most incompetent attorneys general of the 20th century.
Sandra Day O'Connor is a very impressive woman, to be sure. But what exactly is her foreign policy expertise? Or did her gender matter more in her choice? She was, after all, the only woman in the group. (I would have preferred Anne-Marie Slaughter.)
Leon Panetta was a California congressman who became a chief of staff in the Clinton White House and did a credible job in both instances. But I wouldn't exactly call him a foreign policy expert. His areas of interest were the budget and agricultural issues.
Finally, Alan Simpson was a senator ten years ago who retired and since has hung his shingle at the Kennedy School, a PR firm, a law firm, and various corporate boards. In the Senate, he did not specialize in foreign affairs. Although he did make an ass of himself in the Anita Hill matter, when he threatened her with "real harassment, different from the sexual kind, just plain old Washington variety harassment, which is pretty unique in itself."
What's interesting as well is who isn't on this committee, which is to say, a single person who's not a Washington insider, "wise man" (or woman), widely respected within the Beltway for basically hanging around a long time within the Beltway.
It's interesting to consider the group's report with that in mind.
Death of a Presidency
Perhaps as much as the mid-term elections, yesterday marked a symbolic end to the Bush presidency. The reason? Two otherwise unrelated events: the release of the Iraq Study Group report and the announcement that Mary Cheney, Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter, is pregnant.
Along with new defense secretary Robert Gates, the Iraq panel confirms that U.S. policy in Iraq "is not working," as if we needed a group of Washington wise men (and one woman) to confirm that.
Reviews of the panel's work vary, as might be expected. In the Times, David Sanger writes...
In unusually sweeping and blunt language, the panel of five Republicans and five Democrats issued 79 specific recommendations.
But in Slate, Fred Kaplan calls those recommendations "an amorphous, equivocal grab bag."
Doesn't matter. The pundits can fight out the details. In terms of public perception, we now have an esteemed group of the sage saying that Bush's Iraq war is a failure. The White House is now perhaps the only holdout in this conclusion. It has become borderline irrelevant in the debate on what to do in Iraq.
As for Mary Cheney's pregnancy...well, isn't it delicious? The daughter of a vice-president in an administration which wants to ban gay marriage is a lesbian, has been with her partner for 15 years, and is pregnant.
"This," the Washington Post writes with what must be a chuckle, "is the first child for both."
The Times reports that Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, said that Mr. Cheney had recently told the president about the pregnancy and that “the president said he was happy for him.”
Wouldn't you love to have been a fly on the wall during that conversation?
"Mr. President, remember that daughter I have...?"
The point is that Bush is not only losing the military war in Iraq—by the way, 10 American soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday—he is losing the culture war here at home.
The anti-gay policies of the Bush administration have always been driven more by politics than by sincerity. (I don't know if this makes them more or less repellent.)
Now there are no more elections in which Karl Rove can use homophobia to whip up fear/support for President Bush. Mary Cheney's pregnancy could have a profound cultural impact; the culture war won't end, but its politics have just become considerably more complicated. And, in any case, we can expect that the Bush administration's attempts to build support by exploiting homophobia just ended once and for all.
Incidentally, do you think that Mary Cheney waited to announce her pregnancy—waited, indeed, to get pregnant—until this last election was over, or close enough?
It wouldn't surprise me a bit.... She too knows that GWB is nearing his expiration date.
Along with new defense secretary Robert Gates, the Iraq panel confirms that U.S. policy in Iraq "is not working," as if we needed a group of Washington wise men (and one woman) to confirm that.
Reviews of the panel's work vary, as might be expected. In the Times, David Sanger writes...
In unusually sweeping and blunt language, the panel of five Republicans and five Democrats issued 79 specific recommendations.
But in Slate, Fred Kaplan calls those recommendations "an amorphous, equivocal grab bag."
Doesn't matter. The pundits can fight out the details. In terms of public perception, we now have an esteemed group of the sage saying that Bush's Iraq war is a failure. The White House is now perhaps the only holdout in this conclusion. It has become borderline irrelevant in the debate on what to do in Iraq.
As for Mary Cheney's pregnancy...well, isn't it delicious? The daughter of a vice-president in an administration which wants to ban gay marriage is a lesbian, has been with her partner for 15 years, and is pregnant.
"This," the Washington Post writes with what must be a chuckle, "is the first child for both."
The Times reports that Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for Mr. Bush, said that Mr. Cheney had recently told the president about the pregnancy and that “the president said he was happy for him.”
Wouldn't you love to have been a fly on the wall during that conversation?
"Mr. President, remember that daughter I have...?"
The point is that Bush is not only losing the military war in Iraq—by the way, 10 American soldiers were killed in Iraq yesterday—he is losing the culture war here at home.
The anti-gay policies of the Bush administration have always been driven more by politics than by sincerity. (I don't know if this makes them more or less repellent.)
Now there are no more elections in which Karl Rove can use homophobia to whip up fear/support for President Bush. Mary Cheney's pregnancy could have a profound cultural impact; the culture war won't end, but its politics have just become considerably more complicated. And, in any case, we can expect that the Bush administration's attempts to build support by exploiting homophobia just ended once and for all.
Incidentally, do you think that Mary Cheney waited to announce her pregnancy—waited, indeed, to get pregnant—until this last election was over, or close enough?
It wouldn't surprise me a bit.... She too knows that GWB is nearing his expiration date.
Wednesday, December 06, 2023
Harvard Searches for a Leader, #2
The Crimson's scoop (see below) on the progress of the presidential search has prompted follow-up in a number of media outlets: the New York Sun (via Bloomberg), the Daily Californian, and the Boston Globe.
The Sun piece suggests that the leak is bad for Harvard.
"It is going to make the process so much more difficult for Harvard," the vice president of the Center for Effective Leadership at the American Council on Education in Washington and a specialist in collegiate presidential selection, Claire Van Ummersen, 70, said. "It is very embarrassing. I think a lot of them will decide to simply not accept the nomination and withdraw at this point."
In my humble opinion, this is a load of crap. I'm not sure exactly how it can be so bad for academic administrators to have it known that they're being considered for the presidency of Harvard. It adds to their prestige on their current campuses, and gives them leverage in salary negotiations. This idea that everyone would be shocked, shocked, by the notion that they might quit, oh, Tufts, to become the president of Harvard is just silly. (I admired Lee Bollinger the last time around for making no particular effort to hide the fact that he was interested in the job.)
Moreover, let us have some perspective on the Crimson's scoop. The paper reported that a list of 30 names has been given to the Board of Overseers, but could only confirm eleven of those names—and frankly, they're eleven people that any reasonably informed search-watcher would have guessed anyway. (Drew Faust, Elena Kagan, Amy Gutman, etc.)
So how important is the scoop, really, until the Crimson finds out the other 19 people who made the cut?
The people on the list, particularly sitting college presidents, will now have a trust problem on their home campuses, Ms. Van Ummersen said. Many or all of those named will be forced to put out public statements saying they weren't actively seeking the Harvard job, held by interim President Derek Bok since July, when Mr. Summers resigned the post after five years.
Cry me a river. For every candidate who doesn't get chosen and thinks that his/her reputation is damaged as a result, there will be three who enjoy the attention.
The Globe's piece, however, advances the ball.
...the university is considering a smaller group than the 30 names that the presidential search committee presented to Harvard's Board of Overseers on Sunday.
On the other hand, she is a blogger, so she has that going for her....
She is also, frankly, something of a hottie.
Anne-Marie Slaughter with Jim Balsillie at a meeting of the International Advisory Board of Governors
The Sun piece suggests that the leak is bad for Harvard.
"It is going to make the process so much more difficult for Harvard," the vice president of the Center for Effective Leadership at the American Council on Education in Washington and a specialist in collegiate presidential selection, Claire Van Ummersen, 70, said. "It is very embarrassing. I think a lot of them will decide to simply not accept the nomination and withdraw at this point."
In my humble opinion, this is a load of crap. I'm not sure exactly how it can be so bad for academic administrators to have it known that they're being considered for the presidency of Harvard. It adds to their prestige on their current campuses, and gives them leverage in salary negotiations. This idea that everyone would be shocked, shocked, by the notion that they might quit, oh, Tufts, to become the president of Harvard is just silly. (I admired Lee Bollinger the last time around for making no particular effort to hide the fact that he was interested in the job.)
Moreover, let us have some perspective on the Crimson's scoop. The paper reported that a list of 30 names has been given to the Board of Overseers, but could only confirm eleven of those names—and frankly, they're eleven people that any reasonably informed search-watcher would have guessed anyway. (Drew Faust, Elena Kagan, Amy Gutman, etc.)
So how important is the scoop, really, until the Crimson finds out the other 19 people who made the cut?
The people on the list, particularly sitting college presidents, will now have a trust problem on their home campuses, Ms. Van Ummersen said. Many or all of those named will be forced to put out public statements saying they weren't actively seeking the Harvard job, held by interim President Derek Bok since July, when Mr. Summers resigned the post after five years.
Cry me a river. For every candidate who doesn't get chosen and thinks that his/her reputation is damaged as a result, there will be three who enjoy the attention.
The Globe's piece, however, advances the ball.
...the university is considering a smaller group than the 30 names that the presidential search committee presented to Harvard's Board of Overseers on Sunday.
Harvard is focusing on an elite group of academics, many of them with deep ties to Harvard.
And the Globe digs up two more names, neither of which are obvious: Kim Clark, the former dean of the business school—perhaps too old?—and Anne-Marie Slaughter, dean of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. Slaughter is a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former Harvard prof; she is an intriguing possibility. But does she have enough administrative experience? And could she really address the challenges to the sciences?On the other hand, she is a blogger, so she has that going for her....
She is also, frankly, something of a hottie.
Anne-Marie Slaughter with Jim Balsillie at a meeting of the International Advisory Board of Governors
Harvard Searches for a Leader
While I was gone, the Crimson landed a scoop, snagging news of a list of 30 names of potential candidates for the Harvard presidency, compiled by the presidential search committee.
The leak came after the search committee distributed the list to the Board of Overseers, which suggests that the Corporation is trying to work more closely with the Board of Overseers and that there are risks to trying to work more closely with the Board of Overseers.
Unfortunately, the Crimson didn't get the list itself, just the revelation that it existed, so it could confirm only 11 of the 30 names it contained.
At least three Harvard leaders made the list—Radcliffe Institute Dean Drew Gilpin Faust, Provost Steven E. Hyman, and Law School Dean Elena Kagan.
Tufts University President Lawrence S. Bacow, Stanford Provost John W. Etchemendy, University of Cambridge head Alison F. Richard, Brown University President Ruth J. Simmons, and Princeton University President Shirley M. Tilghman were among the prominent figures in higher education nominated for Harvard’s top post.
The list also mentions three leaders who made the final rounds of Harvard’s last presidential search, which resulted in Lawrence H. Summers’ selection in 2001—Lee C. Bollinger, now Columbia University’s president; former Harvard Provost Harvey V. Fineberg ’67, who now heads the Institute of Medicine; and Amy Gutmann ’71, currently president of the University of Pennsylvania.
It would be nice to know how the Crimson got eleven names, but not the other 19, when it didn't have the actual document. My guess? Their source wouldn't show the list to Crimson reporters, but would confirm or deny names that were put to him/her.
A few thoughts on these names. Some, it seems to me, are obvious but unlikely candidates. That group includes Steve Hyman, Lee Bollinger, Harvey Fineberg, and Shirley Tilghman. A couple have already proclaimed their lack of interest: Ruth Simmons and John Etchemendy.
The rest all seem plausible enough.
What's striking about this list is the narrowness of its parameters (influenced to some extent, I'm sure, by the fact that if the Crimson was guessing these names, its guesses would be fairly predictable possibilities). But every one of these names is from academia, and most are current university presidents; the two farthest removed would have to be Elena Kagan and Harvey Fineberg, and they're not very far removed.
Which suggests that the search committee really wants someone familiar with the lay of university land. No taking a chance on a Washington outsider this time; no gambling on a socio-political celebrity, as Larry Summers was.
None of these names would attract the outside interest that Summers did. If the Corporation cares about this, then it could make up for the lack of broader star power by picking a woman, the novelty of which would generate headlines.
If I had to bet right now, I'd put my money on Drew Faust.....
The leak came after the search committee distributed the list to the Board of Overseers, which suggests that the Corporation is trying to work more closely with the Board of Overseers and that there are risks to trying to work more closely with the Board of Overseers.
Unfortunately, the Crimson didn't get the list itself, just the revelation that it existed, so it could confirm only 11 of the 30 names it contained.
At least three Harvard leaders made the list—Radcliffe Institute Dean Drew Gilpin Faust, Provost Steven E. Hyman, and Law School Dean Elena Kagan.
Tufts University President Lawrence S. Bacow, Stanford Provost John W. Etchemendy, University of Cambridge head Alison F. Richard, Brown University President Ruth J. Simmons, and Princeton University President Shirley M. Tilghman were among the prominent figures in higher education nominated for Harvard’s top post.
The list also mentions three leaders who made the final rounds of Harvard’s last presidential search, which resulted in Lawrence H. Summers’ selection in 2001—Lee C. Bollinger, now Columbia University’s president; former Harvard Provost Harvey V. Fineberg ’67, who now heads the Institute of Medicine; and Amy Gutmann ’71, currently president of the University of Pennsylvania.
It would be nice to know how the Crimson got eleven names, but not the other 19, when it didn't have the actual document. My guess? Their source wouldn't show the list to Crimson reporters, but would confirm or deny names that were put to him/her.
A few thoughts on these names. Some, it seems to me, are obvious but unlikely candidates. That group includes Steve Hyman, Lee Bollinger, Harvey Fineberg, and Shirley Tilghman. A couple have already proclaimed their lack of interest: Ruth Simmons and John Etchemendy.
The rest all seem plausible enough.
What's striking about this list is the narrowness of its parameters (influenced to some extent, I'm sure, by the fact that if the Crimson was guessing these names, its guesses would be fairly predictable possibilities). But every one of these names is from academia, and most are current university presidents; the two farthest removed would have to be Elena Kagan and Harvey Fineberg, and they're not very far removed.
Which suggests that the search committee really wants someone familiar with the lay of university land. No taking a chance on a Washington outsider this time; no gambling on a socio-political celebrity, as Larry Summers was.
None of these names would attract the outside interest that Summers did. If the Corporation cares about this, then it could make up for the lack of broader star power by picking a woman, the novelty of which would generate headlines.
If I had to bet right now, I'd put my money on Drew Faust.....
Friday, December 01, 2023
A More Temporary Farewell
I'll be traveling for a few days, hoping to find some moments of zen, and so the blog may be dark Monday and Tuesday depending on the computer situation and how much zen I find.
Tuesday night, I'll be back to see my friend Neal Gabler talk about his new book, Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination, at the Lincoln Center Barnes & Noble at 7 P.M.
Neal's an amazing writer and a gifted historian, and the book has gotten fantastic reviews. Go, if you can. Otherwise, see you in cyberspace.
Tuesday night, I'll be back to see my friend Neal Gabler talk about his new book, Walt Disney: The Triumph of the American Imagination, at the Lincoln Center Barnes & Noble at 7 P.M.
Neal's an amazing writer and a gifted historian, and the book has gotten fantastic reviews. Go, if you can. Otherwise, see you in cyberspace.
A Farewell
The writer and critic George W.S. Trow is dead, the end of a life which once held much promise, then spiraled into sadness.
Trow, a Harvard grad and former Lampoon writer, was a writer and cultural critic best known for his essay, "Within the Context of No Context," which lamented the superficial state of conversation, cultural awareness, and New York, among other things.
His most recent book was "The Harvard Black Rock Forest," published in 2004 but based on a New Yorker piece from 1984. Funnily enough, I happened to read that article a couple weeks ago as research for my forthcoming story on Derek Bok in 02138. I found it picayune and overlong; it would never be published today, at least, not in the New Yorker.
Trow, who looked like a man from another era, didn't like the way the world was changing, the influence of television and celebrity in particular. Thus, when Tina Brown took over as editor of the New Yorker, he resigned in a huff.
Resigning in a huff, it seems to me, is rarely a good idea. The institution from which one resigns usually survives just fine; the resigner often struggles.
As the Times remembers,
In his note of resignation, Mr. Trow likened Ms. Brown to someone selling her soul “to get close to the Hapsburgs — 1913.”
Trow did subsequently write something for us at George, which, given his feelings about celebrity, can only be called ironic. Perhaps he needed the money.
Trow, a Harvard grad and former Lampoon writer, was a writer and cultural critic best known for his essay, "Within the Context of No Context," which lamented the superficial state of conversation, cultural awareness, and New York, among other things.
His most recent book was "The Harvard Black Rock Forest," published in 2004 but based on a New Yorker piece from 1984. Funnily enough, I happened to read that article a couple weeks ago as research for my forthcoming story on Derek Bok in 02138. I found it picayune and overlong; it would never be published today, at least, not in the New Yorker.
Trow, who looked like a man from another era, didn't like the way the world was changing, the influence of television and celebrity in particular. Thus, when Tina Brown took over as editor of the New Yorker, he resigned in a huff.
Resigning in a huff, it seems to me, is rarely a good idea. The institution from which one resigns usually survives just fine; the resigner often struggles.
As the Times remembers,
In his note of resignation, Mr. Trow likened Ms. Brown to someone selling her soul “to get close to the Hapsburgs — 1913.”
Ms. Brown shot back, in a note of her own: “I am distraught at your defection, but since you never actually write anything, I should say I am notionally distraught.”
These are two unfair notes, but it seems to me that Brown's is marginally the less so.Trow did subsequently write something for us at George, which, given his feelings about celebrity, can only be called ironic. Perhaps he needed the money.
In his final years, the Times reports, "Mr. Trow’s nostalgia for a waning world grew into an enveloping despair." He gave up his home in Germantown, New York, and wandered the world. He did a stint in a psychiatric hospital. He was found dead a week ago in his apartment in Naples, Italy. He is survived by his mother, which I find upsetting, though I'm not exactly sure why.
George W.S. Trow
killer whale attack
If you don't believe that killer whales can be ferocious, watch this video. But be warned—it's not for the faint of heart.
If you don't believe that killer whales can be ferocious, watch this video. But be warned—it's not for the faint of heart.
Meanwhile, in Animal News
Florida cops pulled a naked crackhead named Adrian J. Apgar from the jaws of an alligator.
I don't really need to say any more than that, do I?
Meanwhile, at SeaWorld in San Diego, a killer whale tried to drown her trainer, then decided to let him go.
Killer whales are cool—I saw some in Puget Sound, once, and they really are awesome—but they have a little bit of a sadistic streak, you know? Have you ever seen that video of killer whales hunting seals in the surfline, flinging them around like flapjacks? Or that video of killer whales chowing on a baby whale, which they separated from its mother by repeatedly jumping on it and trying to drown it? Yuk.
I'll tell you, I'd rather swim with sharks than killer whales any day....
I don't really need to say any more than that, do I?
Meanwhile, at SeaWorld in San Diego, a killer whale tried to drown her trainer, then decided to let him go.
Killer whales are cool—I saw some in Puget Sound, once, and they really are awesome—but they have a little bit of a sadistic streak, you know? Have you ever seen that video of killer whales hunting seals in the surfline, flinging them around like flapjacks? Or that video of killer whales chowing on a baby whale, which they separated from its mother by repeatedly jumping on it and trying to drown it? Yuk.
I'll tell you, I'd rather swim with sharks than killer whales any day....
The Race is On
And, as someone used to say, it feels like heartache...
Salon picks the front-runners, sort of.
And, in the process, reminds me that there are yet two other Democratic candidates I hadn't mentioned: Connecticut senator Chris Dodd (so that's why he wouldn't support Joe Lieberman—he needed to appeal to lefty primary voters) and Indiana senator Evan Bayh.
Since I've been up since 5 A.M.—bad dream about high school, what else?—I won't go into much detail here regarding Dodd and Bayh.
Herewith, in little detail:
Dodd: Dream on. Probably wouldn't even make a good veep candidate. Would be fun to have a drink with, though.
Bayh: Maybe. Nice-looking guy, reasonably articulate, moderate Dem from the heartland. (Indiana.) Son of Senate legend Birch Bayh (tragically defeated by, argh, Dan Quayle.) But has been awfully quiet in the Senate. Does he have a personality?
Salon picks the front-runners, sort of.
And, in the process, reminds me that there are yet two other Democratic candidates I hadn't mentioned: Connecticut senator Chris Dodd (so that's why he wouldn't support Joe Lieberman—he needed to appeal to lefty primary voters) and Indiana senator Evan Bayh.
Since I've been up since 5 A.M.—bad dream about high school, what else?—I won't go into much detail here regarding Dodd and Bayh.
Herewith, in little detail:
Dodd: Dream on. Probably wouldn't even make a good veep candidate. Would be fun to have a drink with, though.
Bayh: Maybe. Nice-looking guy, reasonably articulate, moderate Dem from the heartland. (Indiana.) Son of Senate legend Birch Bayh (tragically defeated by, argh, Dan Quayle.) But has been awfully quiet in the Senate. Does he have a personality?
Asian-Americans Over-Represented?
Daniel Golden and others have argued that universities such as Harvard discriminate against Asian-Americans, stereotyping them just as they used to do Jews, and perhaps even putting informal ceilings/quotas on the percentage of Asian and Asian-American students in their student bodies.
But a letter-writer to the Harvard Crimson suggests that not only is this not the case, but Asian-Americans are over-represented in American universities.....
I'm not sure I follow his logic, but I'd be curious to hear other thoughts.
But a letter-writer to the Harvard Crimson suggests that not only is this not the case, but Asian-Americans are over-represented in American universities.....
I'm not sure I follow his logic, but I'd be curious to hear other thoughts.
See Where Blogging Will Get You?
Greg Mankiw, one of two Harvard professors known to blog, has signed on as an economic adviser to Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, as Romney gears up to run for president.....
How to Save the GOP
The Washington Post covers a fascinating speech by outgoing RNC chair Ken Mehlman, in which Mehlman diagnoses the ills of the GOP with unusual candor.
Voters were angry with Iraq and Congressional scandals, he says. But the real reason the GOP lost the midterm elections was "the erosion of the core conservative principles of small government and personal responsibility."
As Republicans built up their Washington power base, he noted, the center of gravity shifted away from the statehouses that had been the traditional laboratories for policy ideas. The result was a vacuum that delivered little of interest to voters, while devaluing the national Republican brand.
In a trend more worrisome to the GOP, voters have grown skeptical that Republicans possess the fresh ideas needed to solve the country's problems....
I think that's right, but I wouldn't blame the governors so much as the White House. President Bush has simply never been able to muster a coherent domestic policy. (Ron Suskind wrote about this years ago, in his book about former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty; O'Neill spoke of a White House in which absolutely no one was interested in policy-making, only politics.) Here's a test: Think of two things that Bush has done domestically that don't have to do with national security. Think of one this term. The voters won't vote for you if you don't give them anything to vote for...
What's the reason for this lacuna? One is the dominance of Karl Rove in the White House. He's a politics guy, not a policy person, and he's never shown much interest in policy except insofar as it can be manipulated to affect elections (gay marriage, e.g.). Imagine if Lee Atwater had played the dominant role in the George H.W. Bush White House...or if Rahm Emanuel had been the most powerful figure in the Clinton White House.
Second is the impotence of the Bush cabinet. Back in the Clinton years, I used to know the names of every single cabinet member, both because I'm dorky that way and also because these people were active; they had a mandate from Clinton to get things done.
Now, I have trouble naming anyone beyond Condoleeza Rice. Labor? Education? Agriculture? HHS? EPA? (Not technically a Cabinet agency, but still...) Even Justice takes a moment. (Whereas who could forget Janet Reno?)
Why hasn't Bush appointed strong figures to his cabinet, and why hasn't he given them a mandate to shape policy? Maybe he's too obsessed with the war; maybe it's because, at Dick Cheney's desire, Bush has placed domestic policy-making in the White House. Except that, as we've just discussed, it's not there either.
I really don't know the answer to that question, and I think it'd be an important one for any Bush biographer.
Meantime, what are the new ideas Mehlman has in mind?
He singled out an effort by outgoing Gov. Mitt Romney, another 2008 prospect, to expand health-care coverage to all Massachusetts residents. "That is the kind of innovation we need at the state level, and in Washington," Mehlman said.
The head of the RNC is singling out a Republican governor for extending health insurance to everyone in his state? (Massachusetts, no less.) That is so...jarring. Somewhere, Hillary Clinton must be laughing.
But maybe this kind of turning everything upside down and shaking it is just what the GOP needs.
____________________________________________________________
P.S. Incidentally, the piece mentions another possible GOP candidate, outgoing Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Seems implausible to me: Huckabee is best known for the fact that he was once fat.
Then again, in the United States we live in, everyone from Oprah to Kirstie Alley has done pretty well with that....
Voters were angry with Iraq and Congressional scandals, he says. But the real reason the GOP lost the midterm elections was "the erosion of the core conservative principles of small government and personal responsibility."
As Republicans built up their Washington power base, he noted, the center of gravity shifted away from the statehouses that had been the traditional laboratories for policy ideas. The result was a vacuum that delivered little of interest to voters, while devaluing the national Republican brand.
In a trend more worrisome to the GOP, voters have grown skeptical that Republicans possess the fresh ideas needed to solve the country's problems....
I think that's right, but I wouldn't blame the governors so much as the White House. President Bush has simply never been able to muster a coherent domestic policy. (Ron Suskind wrote about this years ago, in his book about former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill, The Price of Loyalty; O'Neill spoke of a White House in which absolutely no one was interested in policy-making, only politics.) Here's a test: Think of two things that Bush has done domestically that don't have to do with national security. Think of one this term. The voters won't vote for you if you don't give them anything to vote for...
What's the reason for this lacuna? One is the dominance of Karl Rove in the White House. He's a politics guy, not a policy person, and he's never shown much interest in policy except insofar as it can be manipulated to affect elections (gay marriage, e.g.). Imagine if Lee Atwater had played the dominant role in the George H.W. Bush White House...or if Rahm Emanuel had been the most powerful figure in the Clinton White House.
Second is the impotence of the Bush cabinet. Back in the Clinton years, I used to know the names of every single cabinet member, both because I'm dorky that way and also because these people were active; they had a mandate from Clinton to get things done.
Now, I have trouble naming anyone beyond Condoleeza Rice. Labor? Education? Agriculture? HHS? EPA? (Not technically a Cabinet agency, but still...) Even Justice takes a moment. (Whereas who could forget Janet Reno?)
Why hasn't Bush appointed strong figures to his cabinet, and why hasn't he given them a mandate to shape policy? Maybe he's too obsessed with the war; maybe it's because, at Dick Cheney's desire, Bush has placed domestic policy-making in the White House. Except that, as we've just discussed, it's not there either.
I really don't know the answer to that question, and I think it'd be an important one for any Bush biographer.
Meantime, what are the new ideas Mehlman has in mind?
He singled out an effort by outgoing Gov. Mitt Romney, another 2008 prospect, to expand health-care coverage to all Massachusetts residents. "That is the kind of innovation we need at the state level, and in Washington," Mehlman said.
The head of the RNC is singling out a Republican governor for extending health insurance to everyone in his state? (Massachusetts, no less.) That is so...jarring. Somewhere, Hillary Clinton must be laughing.
But maybe this kind of turning everything upside down and shaking it is just what the GOP needs.
____________________________________________________________
P.S. Incidentally, the piece mentions another possible GOP candidate, outgoing Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee. Seems implausible to me: Huckabee is best known for the fact that he was once fat.
Then again, in the United States we live in, everyone from Oprah to Kirstie Alley has done pretty well with that....
