Shots in the Dark

CNN has become so pathetic—the other day I heard Lou Dobbs doing a radio ad for Geico—it’s almost not worth paying attention to the once-serious news network.

Here’s the network’s big news today: To replace aging conservative windbag Robert Novak, CNN has just signed up aging conservative, perhaps even-greater windbag William Bennett.

Snooore…..

Paging Jonathan Klein: William Bennett hasn’t been relevant in twenty years….

The New York Observer reports that Columbia Law School is trying to woo Lani Guinier away from Harvard….

Ms. Guinier is a fan of Harvard dean Elena Kagan, but not Harvard president Larry Summers, and the offer to start a civil-rights law center sounds like it tempts her.

“I am interested,” she says….

…whom I refuse to call MoDo, the way insider journalists always do…

In yesterday’s NY Post, Liz Smith had a hilariously bitchy item about Dowd. Rather than navigate the Post’s horrific website—which, along with the Boston Globe’s and Major League Baseball’s, is one of the worst on the web—I’m just going to reprint it.

Maureen was spotted at Seattle locales recently with the Starbucks honcho Howard Schultz. She was in town for a noon gig at Starbucks headquarters pitching her bestseller, “Are Men Necessary?” Warmly introduced by Howard himself, Maureen went on to charm the caffeine-loaded crowd with her banter.

She told them she’d had a t-shirt custom-made for the coffee man. It bore the question on the front “Is Howard Necessary?” and on the back it read, “Oh, yes!”

[RB: Oh, no.]

The coffee-ist and columnist met at a dinner soiree in the Seattle home of Michael Kinsley, ex-Slate editor, and Patty Stonesifer, CEO of the Gates Foundation. That Maureen travels around in high cotton while pretending to be just another ink-stained wretch.

Ouch!

I don’t know why Liz Smith dislikes Dowd, but she clearly does, because Liz Smith is never that pointed. But I couldn’t agree more. There’s just something about Maureen “Oh, yes!” Dowd that is so clearly fake—including, I have a feeling, some of her facial structure. And it’s true: She’s the first to haul in her working class roots (she’s Irish, Dad was a cop) when it’s convenient. But she doesn’t seem to have much interest in the little people these days….

When he’s nasty, Alex Beam is very, very good. Check out his hilarious column on Bernard-Henri Levy in the Boston Globe.

Why is it that the New York Times, for all its clout and access and supposed sophistication, lacks a single writer of this wit? And don’t even mention Maureen Dowd; she hasn’t been funny since she stopped reporting.

(Which is also another way of asking why the NYT is so damn humorless. Which is another way of asking if anyone reads that egregiously bad “Funny Pages” section in the New York Times Magazine. But I meander.)

Or the love seat?

James Frey will be on Oprah today. Should be interesting.

In response to yesterday’s NYT article alleging that James Frey’s portrayal of rehab at the Hazelten Clinic was a complete crock, Random House has offered the Times two men who say they can corroborate Frey’s work.

To which one can only say: If this is the best they can do, the Times really ought to shift A Million Little Pieces over to the fiction side of the bestseller list.

Consider the two sources. One, as the Times puts it, is Alan J. Green, “a state judge in Louisiana who in June was convicted of mail fraud.” Green is facing up to 20 years in prison.

The second is “a man named Richard, who said he was a Houston lawyer and accountant but who would not disclose his last name.”

Hmmmmmm. Did anyone check where Jayson Blair was during this phone call?

What do the men say? That Frey’s descriptions were “pretty much” accurate.

On the other hand, neither one recalls any fighting, vomiting of blood, or gambling among patients during lectures—the very details that elevate Frey’s story above a run-of-the-mill rehab diary. In fact, both men strongly suggest that such incidents never happened.

And remember—these are people who are supposed to be supporting Frey.

Frey issued a statement that said: “It appears that my fellow patients in treatment have essentially corroborated my account, and any differences are incidental.”

Argh.

No, James, it doesn’t appear that way at all. The differences are not incidental; they are fundamental.

I think Mr. Frey’s addiction to lying is far more serious than his alleged addictions to drugs and alcohol ever were. It’s certainly lasted longer.

Not so long ago, French women didn’t get fat.

Well, now they do. And so do French men. And French kids.

Because according to the Times, France has a fat problem. Adult obesity is rising at a six percent annual rate, and the increase in the annual obesity rate among children is a bleak 17 percent. Soon, the French will be as fat as Americans—and that’s fat!

Since the French are so snotty about all this stuff, let us all pause for a moment of schadenfreude. Made only more enjoyable by the fact that we’re using a German word to make fun of the French.

It’s fascinating to see how demographic changes in the French population are forcing that country to reevaluate its traditional, change-resistant, oft-infuriating (to outsiders) culture…or to consider the ways in which that culture is honored more in the breach. Did you know, for example, that McDonalds makes more money in France than in any other European country? That must be a national scandal there….or at least enough to make half the populace go on strike.

And while a few years back, Laetitia Costa was named the new “Marianne,” or symbol of the French republic—a wise choice, I thought at the time—today fat women are showing up in fashion shows.

Of course, all this does have a serious side. While we can all enjoy a little chuckle at France’s comeuppance, there are real health issues associated with obesity, and that’s no fun for anyone in any language.

Below, a fat French woman.

	www.cnao.fr

A fat American:

And Laetitia Costa:

I receive a daily e-mail from a company called Thrillist, which is supposed to provide suggestions of things for men to do in Manhattan—bars, new restaurants, places to work out, etc. It’s occasionally useful, although it has a Maxim-like quality to it.

Today’s Thrillist contained an interview with former Olympic skiier Johnny Mosely which I found amusing. I’ve always wanted to be the television producer for the Olympics, even though I have absolutely no relevant experience, because I never feel like I’m really getting a good explanation of what’s going on there. NBC takes it so seriously! It’s as if we’re eavesdropping on church.

Mosely’s q-and-a, some of which I’ve excerpted below, provides a lighter take. Okay, borderline juvenile. But…it does sound true.

So, what are we supposed to watch this Olympics?

Well, I’ll be watching the freestyle moguls, and the downhill’s going to be interesting with Bode and Daron [Rahlves]. With Shaun White, the halfpipe’s going to be sick too.

Right. Anyway, what event has the most potential for spectacular crashes?

The downhill, no doubt. You’re guaranteed to see a good NASCAR-style wreck. Although border cross can be more interesting — you’ve got four snowboarders competing at once, and so guys take each other out.

Is there any particular Olympic sport that produces more sluts?

Loose chicks? I’d definitely say the skiing/snowboarding crew are the ones to just shack up with. They’re more reckless. For the long-term, probably biathlon, or cross country. There’s a reverse correlation between the duration of the event and the sluttiness of the girl.

Which national team has the reputation for being the biggest dicks?

The French. Hands down. It’s weird, but of all the countries, they speak the least English — or at least they pretend they can’t.

If you got in a drunken brawl with the French, which national team would you want backing you up?

The Russians. The pre-Putin generation guys really like fighting. They grew up when you could bribe your way out of anything, so they have no conception of law and order.

Russians are scary….

RB: If you enjoy such stuff, you can find Thrillist here.

Larry Summers is headed to the world economic forum in Davos, Switzerland, where the opening-night, kickoff panel is entitled, “Today’s Sinners and the Seven Deadly Sins.”

According to an AP report, “‘Davos is an opportunity to discuss issues and solutions that really matter to the global community,’ says James Turley, chairman and chief executive of Ernst & Young. And the avarice and woes of the rich and famous are a hot topic….”

Hmmmm. Perhaps someone might raise a question about trying to profit off insider knowledge of a transitional, say, Russian economy while on contract to the United States government to give advice to that economy?

I suspect that’s a case study that really mattered to the global community….

Not so long ago, I had a conversation with an esteemed member of the Harvard faculty about the mood among the professoriat. I mused that the faculty seemed inert, ignorant of and uncaring about the Andrei Shleifer scandal.

The professor corrected me, saying that I was wrong and that the faculty cared very much—it just wasn’t sure what to do. After all, the faculty had gone public last spring in the no-confidence vote, and look what had happened? Nothing. In fact, public opinion was divided between supporting the faculty and trashing them as irresponsible, spoiled, left-wing nutjobs. So where was the good in going public?

But it seems to me that, from a strategic point of view, it makes far more sense to go public on the Shleifer matter…simply because there is absolutely no good argument for keeping him on the faculty. How would Larry Summers argue that there is virtue in retaining a criminal who stole taxpayer money and cost the university $35 million?

(I mean, Summers might try…in which case, you just sit back and let him machine-gun himself in the foot.)

This is not a public relations war that any Shleifer defender could possibly win; there are no merits from which to argue his position. How would it look for the president of Harvard to be compelled to explain his inaction on the matter? (Much less his repeated interventions on Shleifer’s behalf.) The second a New York Times reporter called Mass Hall for comment, Shleifer’s fate would be sealed.

So here’s a suggestion: Forget about the internal mechanisms for dealing with such a problem. They’ve all been subverted, corrupted, and negated. Instead, do that most American of things—circulate a petition.

It could read something like this:

“As a member of the Harvard community, I believe that Harvard University should stand for truth, excellence, and honesty. I also believe that Harvard should strive to guide its students in moral behavior. Professor Andrei Shleifer, who has long enjoyed the active support of President Lawrence Summers, has admitted that he conspired to defraud the United States government. As a result, Harvard has been forced to pay fines and legal fees totalling over $30 million—money that could have been used to provide scholarships for thousands of students.

“Professor Shleifer’s actions damage the reputation of Harvard University, violate the high standards of integrity we expect from a member of the Harvard faculty. The ongoing inaction on the part of the Harvard administration sends the message to our undergraduate students that one can break the laws of the United States yet still remain a member of the Harvard faculty in good standing.

“Therefore, I call upon University president Lawrence Summers to cease his actions on behalf of Professor Andrei Shleifer, and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences William Kirby to take immediate action regarding Professor Shleifer’s employment at Harvard.”

E-mail the thing around, and then, when you get a few hundred signatures, shoot it over to Marcella Bombardieri at the Boston Globe and Patrick Healy at the New York Times.

The Harvard faculty is only inert if it chooses to be….and I think it has more power than it realizes. But that power is collective…and this is not a group that frequently or readily acts in concert. Now would be a good time to do just that.