I learned this from a blogger some days back (these stats are from the WallStJ, Jan.20.04):
Average Annual Real Increases in Domestic Discretionary Spending:
Lyndon Johnson (’65-’69) 4.3% (increase)
Richard Nixon (’70-’75) 6.8%
Gerald Ford (’76-’77) 8.0%
Jimmy Carter (’78-’81) 2.0%
Ronald Reagan (’82-’89) -1.3%
George H.W.Bush (’90-’93) 4.0%
Bill Clinton (’94-01) 2.5%
George W.Bush (02-04) 8.2%
It is amazing how much and how little these figures tell us about the political leaders themselves, or about the economic climate of the times. One could almost create an image of GWB as the benevolent president --were it not for the fact that so many social programs remain under-funded. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to put themselves forward as the fiscal conservatives? Something along the lines of “small spenders with a big heart”? Or maybe put up a billboard or two about the GOP throwing stones in glass houses?
Saturday, January 31, 2004
Democrats, can’t you put this on a billboard?
I learned this from a blogger some days back (these stats are from the WallStJ, Jan.20.04):
Average Annual Real Increases in Domestic Discretionary Spending:
Lyndon Johnson (’65-’69) 4.3% (increase)
Richard Nixon (’70-’75) 6.8%
Gerald Ford (’76-’77) 8.0%
Jimmy Carter (’78-’81) 2.0%
Ronald Reagan (’82-’89) -1.3%
George H.W.Bush (’90-’93) 4.0%
Bill Clinton (’94-01) 2.5%
George W.Bush (02-04) 8.2%
It is amazing how much and how little these figures tell us about the political leaders themselves, or about the economic climate of the times. One could almost create an image of GWB as the benevolent president --were it not for the fact that so many social programs remain under-funded. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to put themselves forward as the fiscal conservatives? Something along the lines of “small spenders with a big heart”? Or maybe put up a billboard or two about the GOP throwing stones in glass houses?
Average Annual Real Increases in Domestic Discretionary Spending:
Lyndon Johnson (’65-’69) 4.3% (increase)
Richard Nixon (’70-’75) 6.8%
Gerald Ford (’76-’77) 8.0%
Jimmy Carter (’78-’81) 2.0%
Ronald Reagan (’82-’89) -1.3%
George H.W.Bush (’90-’93) 4.0%
Bill Clinton (’94-01) 2.5%
George W.Bush (02-04) 8.2%
It is amazing how much and how little these figures tell us about the political leaders themselves, or about the economic climate of the times. One could almost create an image of GWB as the benevolent president --were it not for the fact that so many social programs remain under-funded. Perhaps it’s time for the Democrats to put themselves forward as the fiscal conservatives? Something along the lines of “small spenders with a big heart”? Or maybe put up a billboard or two about the GOP throwing stones in glass houses?
Buyer Beware
Killing an hour with the Wine Spectator, I came across a photo of Portuguese men in the process of squeezing juice out of grapes with their feet. This is from the distinguished port house, Quinta do Crasto, which has now also taken on the production of a red table wine. At $100 a bottle, it kind of knocks my idea of what is defined as “table wine” (for me, table wine means cheap, indeterminate blends sold under the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell”). I wish I had the capability of linking to it: the photo shows 8 guys in their underwear doing a sort of can can in a vat of purple grapes. They don’t look too happy about it. Is this a promo, or is it the real thing? If so, is there a disclaimer on the label (as in: wine may contain traces of fungus, epidermis, cuticle, toe-nail, etc)? The Spectator, of course, in its usual staid way says nothing on these burning (for me) issues. Instead it assures us that this is a “state of the art” winery. So this is the state of the art...
Buyer Beware
Killing an hour with the Wine Spectator, I came across a photo of Portuguese men in the process of squeezing juice out of grapes with their feet. This is from the distinguished port house, Quinta do Crasto, which has now also taken on the production of a red table wine. At $100 a bottle, it kind of knocks my idea of what is defined as “table wine” (for me, table wine means cheap, indeterminate blends sold under the policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell”). I wish I had the capability of linking to it: the photo shows 8 guys in their underwear doing a sort of can can in a vat of purple grapes. They don’t look too happy about it. Is this a promo, or is it the real thing? If so, is there a disclaimer on the label (as in: wine may contain traces of fungus, epidermis, cuticle, toe-nail, etc)? The Spectator, of course, in its usual staid way says nothing on these burning (for me) issues. Instead it assures us that this is a “state of the art” winery. So this is the state of the art...
Croatia at a discount
I have just received a call from someone selling me Croatia. No kidding. The terms of the sale were stated in a language not entirely familiar to me, but when I doubted that the caller had reached the proper number, she asked in broken English “Are you Nina Camic?” I said yes, she said “I have reached the right person and the right number” and then went back to her (foreign language, possibly Croatian) explanation as to why I should purchase Croatia, cheaply. I believe I also heard “Bosnia” somewhere in the midst of it all, but I am not sure that it was for sale. Perhaps she was denigrating the worth of Bosnia, in favor of Croatia.
Eventually I hung up, but I “star 69”-ed her and now I have a number for anyone to call if they want to purchase Croatia at a good price. I myself did not dial this number because of fears of an unidentifiable nature, but if you’re brave, or if you’re itching for a bargain, here it is: 866 312 7830.
Eventually I hung up, but I “star 69”-ed her and now I have a number for anyone to call if they want to purchase Croatia at a good price. I myself did not dial this number because of fears of an unidentifiable nature, but if you’re brave, or if you’re itching for a bargain, here it is: 866 312 7830.
Croatia at a discount
I have just received a call from someone selling me Croatia. No kidding. The terms of the sale were stated in a language not entirely familiar to me, but when I doubted that the caller had reached the proper number, she asked in broken English “Are you Nina Camic?” I said yes, she said “I have reached the right person and the right number” and then went back to her (foreign language, possibly Croatian) explanation as to why I should purchase Croatia, cheaply. I believe I also heard “Bosnia” somewhere in the midst of it all, but I am not sure that it was for sale. Perhaps she was denigrating the worth of Bosnia, in favor of Croatia.
Eventually I hung up, but I “star 69”-ed her and now I have a number for anyone to call if they want to purchase Croatia at a good price. I myself did not dial this number because of fears of an unidentifiable nature, but if you’re brave, or if you’re itching for a bargain, here it is: 866 312 7830.
Eventually I hung up, but I “star 69”-ed her and now I have a number for anyone to call if they want to purchase Croatia at a good price. I myself did not dial this number because of fears of an unidentifiable nature, but if you’re brave, or if you’re itching for a bargain, here it is: 866 312 7830.
Having your tort and eating it too
If you were a personal injury lawyer, wouldn’t you, for the most part, take cases that had merit? Wouldn’t you prefer to use your time to litigate the ones that juries would find sympathetic? Isn’t it interesting that Edwards, the successful litigator-turned-candidate is now described by some as an over-zealous trial attorney, having pursued mostly cases that held the promise of high jury awards (based presumably on highly emotional, meaning tragic, fact patterns). I don’t typically write about other blogs here, but my colleague Ann has a very nice take (based on NYT stories of this morning) on both sides of the debate.
Since I have been teaching tort law, I have found myself increasingly bewildered as I listen to arguments levied against trial attorneys who prevail in the high-stakes tort cases. After all, the last decades have yielded new standards of strict liability for products causing injuries, they have created an unusually cautious medical establishment (possibly more Caesareans but fewer births with brain injury), they have pushed oil companies to pay for environmental damages (note this week’s punitive damage award in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case – not that Exxon will let it go without an appeal), and pharmaceutical companies to take responsibility for marketing drugs they had reason to believe were unsafe (classic instance: DES litigation). Tort damages have typically been limited to recovery of medical bills and economic losses, with a few high-profile awards for emotional distress. Our litigious society is, after all, an uninsured society. Edwards is described as the champion of obstetrics cases that had nothing short of nightmare birthing scenarios... A classic story of a guy with talent and passion, making a buck from successful litigation, finding a tort case where he could pile on the icing for his client (and therefore for himself)--this is a bad thing?
What if instead, Edwards had had these reactions:
“I’m in it for the losers: I only take cases that have little merit or likelihood of success.”
“Medical uncertainty? Oh, okay, I will not use expert evidence that I believe would be favorable to my client’s position, because 10 years hence, it may be proven inadequate.”
“I don’t want to manipulate juries: I will keep my skills at crafting persuasive arguments under control because I don’t want to get the jury thinking that my client should win big time.”
I haven’t taught Professional Responsibility for several years, but let me just say that I think I smell grounds here for attorney censure for unethical behavior.
Since I have been teaching tort law, I have found myself increasingly bewildered as I listen to arguments levied against trial attorneys who prevail in the high-stakes tort cases. After all, the last decades have yielded new standards of strict liability for products causing injuries, they have created an unusually cautious medical establishment (possibly more Caesareans but fewer births with brain injury), they have pushed oil companies to pay for environmental damages (note this week’s punitive damage award in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case – not that Exxon will let it go without an appeal), and pharmaceutical companies to take responsibility for marketing drugs they had reason to believe were unsafe (classic instance: DES litigation). Tort damages have typically been limited to recovery of medical bills and economic losses, with a few high-profile awards for emotional distress. Our litigious society is, after all, an uninsured society. Edwards is described as the champion of obstetrics cases that had nothing short of nightmare birthing scenarios... A classic story of a guy with talent and passion, making a buck from successful litigation, finding a tort case where he could pile on the icing for his client (and therefore for himself)--this is a bad thing?
What if instead, Edwards had had these reactions:
“I’m in it for the losers: I only take cases that have little merit or likelihood of success.”
“Medical uncertainty? Oh, okay, I will not use expert evidence that I believe would be favorable to my client’s position, because 10 years hence, it may be proven inadequate.”
“I don’t want to manipulate juries: I will keep my skills at crafting persuasive arguments under control because I don’t want to get the jury thinking that my client should win big time.”
I haven’t taught Professional Responsibility for several years, but let me just say that I think I smell grounds here for attorney censure for unethical behavior.
Having your tort and eating it too
If you were a personal injury lawyer, wouldn’t you, for the most part, take cases that had merit? Wouldn’t you prefer to use your time to litigate the ones that juries would find sympathetic? Isn’t it interesting that Edwards, the successful litigator-turned-candidate is now described by some as an over-zealous trial attorney, having pursued mostly cases that held the promise of high jury awards (based presumably on highly emotional, meaning tragic, fact patterns). I don’t typically write about other blogs here, but my colleague Ann has a very nice take (based on NYT stories of this morning) on both sides of the debate.
Since I have been teaching tort law, I have found myself increasingly bewildered as I listen to arguments levied against trial attorneys who prevail in the high-stakes tort cases. After all, the last decades have yielded new standards of strict liability for products causing injuries, they have created an unusually cautious medical establishment (possibly more Caesareans but fewer births with brain injury), they have pushed oil companies to pay for environmental damages (note this week’s punitive damage award in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case – not that Exxon will let it go without an appeal), and pharmaceutical companies to take responsibility for marketing drugs they had reason to believe were unsafe (classic instance: DES litigation). Tort damages have typically been limited to recovery of medical bills and economic losses, with a few high-profile awards for emotional distress. Our litigious society is, after all, an uninsured society. Edwards is described as the champion of obstetrics cases that had nothing short of nightmare birthing scenarios... A classic story of a guy with talent and passion, making a buck from successful litigation, finding a tort case where he could pile on the icing for his client (and therefore for himself)--this is a bad thing?
What if instead, Edwards had had these reactions:
“I’m in it for the losers: I only take cases that have little merit or likelihood of success.”
“Medical uncertainty? Oh, okay, I will not use expert evidence that I believe would be favorable to my client’s position, because 10 years hence, it may be proven inadequate.”
“I don’t want to manipulate juries: I will keep my skills at crafting persuasive arguments under control because I don’t want to get the jury thinking that my client should win big time.”
I haven’t taught Professional Responsibility for several years, but let me just say that I think I smell grounds here for attorney censure for unethical behavior.
Since I have been teaching tort law, I have found myself increasingly bewildered as I listen to arguments levied against trial attorneys who prevail in the high-stakes tort cases. After all, the last decades have yielded new standards of strict liability for products causing injuries, they have created an unusually cautious medical establishment (possibly more Caesareans but fewer births with brain injury), they have pushed oil companies to pay for environmental damages (note this week’s punitive damage award in the Exxon Valdez oil spill case – not that Exxon will let it go without an appeal), and pharmaceutical companies to take responsibility for marketing drugs they had reason to believe were unsafe (classic instance: DES litigation). Tort damages have typically been limited to recovery of medical bills and economic losses, with a few high-profile awards for emotional distress. Our litigious society is, after all, an uninsured society. Edwards is described as the champion of obstetrics cases that had nothing short of nightmare birthing scenarios... A classic story of a guy with talent and passion, making a buck from successful litigation, finding a tort case where he could pile on the icing for his client (and therefore for himself)--this is a bad thing?
What if instead, Edwards had had these reactions:
“I’m in it for the losers: I only take cases that have little merit or likelihood of success.”
“Medical uncertainty? Oh, okay, I will not use expert evidence that I believe would be favorable to my client’s position, because 10 years hence, it may be proven inadequate.”
“I don’t want to manipulate juries: I will keep my skills at crafting persuasive arguments under control because I don’t want to get the jury thinking that my client should win big time.”
I haven’t taught Professional Responsibility for several years, but let me just say that I think I smell grounds here for attorney censure for unethical behavior.
Friday, January 30, 2004
Raw Menus
I’d not heard of them (raw menus) before this week, but it just goes to show that if you stay to the margins of the restaurant scene for too long, you wont notice when it’ll have turned the corner. Charlie Trotter (the guy with the super innovative, super refined restaurant in Chicago) has paired up with Roxanne Klein (from California, where else) to create the perfect raw menu (it’s all laid out for you in the “Wine Spectator,” but it’s not yet online, so no link). The idea is to dice the food, soak it, freeze it, marinate it, dehydrate it –anything but cook it.
Well now, I’m sure this works well for vegetarians living in warm climates. But I don’t know about those of us living up north who like our pork sizzled and crisp (I’m not talking about me: I can’t remember the last time I ate sizzled and crisped pork). You take your great love out to dinner on a cold January night (tonight would qualify) and you say – “here, try this thinly sliced bleeding-heart radish accompanied by air-dried tomatoes”? Sounds very un-Atkins. And cold.
But maybe I’m being rigid and parochial. Trotter (who, BTW, is a home grown boy, having graduated in Poli Sci from UW) says that he gets at least 2 requests for a raw menu each night. So maybe we’re going to see this more and more? Dinner guests who will tell you: “I only eat raw.” Oh, I can’t wait. Cooking for others has become so much fun!
Apart from tastes, textures, and the usual pandering to the bored and restless palates of the privileged, the raw menu apparently has the added virtue that it is healthy. The morning after, you wake up feeling – healthy. Oh, did I mention that Roxanne Klein's cooking, excuse me, un-cooking of food excludes meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, and foods derived from wheat? I’m not even going to comment on that.
Well now, I’m sure this works well for vegetarians living in warm climates. But I don’t know about those of us living up north who like our pork sizzled and crisp (I’m not talking about me: I can’t remember the last time I ate sizzled and crisped pork). You take your great love out to dinner on a cold January night (tonight would qualify) and you say – “here, try this thinly sliced bleeding-heart radish accompanied by air-dried tomatoes”? Sounds very un-Atkins. And cold.
But maybe I’m being rigid and parochial. Trotter (who, BTW, is a home grown boy, having graduated in Poli Sci from UW) says that he gets at least 2 requests for a raw menu each night. So maybe we’re going to see this more and more? Dinner guests who will tell you: “I only eat raw.” Oh, I can’t wait. Cooking for others has become so much fun!
Apart from tastes, textures, and the usual pandering to the bored and restless palates of the privileged, the raw menu apparently has the added virtue that it is healthy. The morning after, you wake up feeling – healthy. Oh, did I mention that Roxanne Klein's cooking, excuse me, un-cooking of food excludes meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, and foods derived from wheat? I’m not even going to comment on that.
Raw Menus
I’d not heard of them (raw menus) before this week, but it just goes to show that if you stay to the margins of the restaurant scene for too long, you wont notice when it’ll have turned the corner. Charlie Trotter (the guy with the super innovative, super refined restaurant in Chicago) has paired up with Roxanne Klein (from California, where else) to create the perfect raw menu (it’s all laid out for you in the “Wine Spectator,” but it’s not yet online, so no link). The idea is to dice the food, soak it, freeze it, marinate it, dehydrate it –anything but cook it.
Well now, I’m sure this works well for vegetarians living in warm climates. But I don’t know about those of us living up north who like our pork sizzled and crisp (I’m not talking about me: I can’t remember the last time I ate sizzled and crisped pork). You take your great love out to dinner on a cold January night (tonight would qualify) and you say – “here, try this thinly sliced bleeding-heart radish accompanied by air-dried tomatoes”? Sounds very un-Atkins. And cold.
But maybe I’m being rigid and parochial. Trotter (who, BTW, is a home grown boy, having graduated in Poli Sci from UW) says that he gets at least 2 requests for a raw menu each night. So maybe we’re going to see this more and more? Dinner guests who will tell you: “I only eat raw.” Oh, I can’t wait. Cooking for others has become so much fun!
Apart from tastes, textures, and the usual pandering to the bored and restless palates of the privileged, the raw menu apparently has the added virtue that it is healthy. The morning after, you wake up feeling – healthy. Oh, did I mention that Roxanne Klein's cooking, excuse me, un-cooking of food excludes meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, and foods derived from wheat? I’m not even going to comment on that.
Well now, I’m sure this works well for vegetarians living in warm climates. But I don’t know about those of us living up north who like our pork sizzled and crisp (I’m not talking about me: I can’t remember the last time I ate sizzled and crisped pork). You take your great love out to dinner on a cold January night (tonight would qualify) and you say – “here, try this thinly sliced bleeding-heart radish accompanied by air-dried tomatoes”? Sounds very un-Atkins. And cold.
But maybe I’m being rigid and parochial. Trotter (who, BTW, is a home grown boy, having graduated in Poli Sci from UW) says that he gets at least 2 requests for a raw menu each night. So maybe we’re going to see this more and more? Dinner guests who will tell you: “I only eat raw.” Oh, I can’t wait. Cooking for others has become so much fun!
Apart from tastes, textures, and the usual pandering to the bored and restless palates of the privileged, the raw menu apparently has the added virtue that it is healthy. The morning after, you wake up feeling – healthy. Oh, did I mention that Roxanne Klein's cooking, excuse me, un-cooking of food excludes meat, poultry, fish, dairy products, and foods derived from wheat? I’m not even going to comment on that.
Uncrowded urban spaces
When I was a kid, I went to the UN International School in New York. There are many unique and interesting things about that school, but to me, what stood out then was the fact that we were the only school in the entire city that closed on October 24th (in observance of UN Day). This opened up a world of choices. Usually I would take my skates and go to Rockefeller Center. It was both sinful and heavenly to be skating in the middle of the day in a near-empty rink.
Super Bowl Sunday offers a similar chance to mull over this one: what to do when the world is busy doing the Super Bowl thing and you’re not? Hmmmm.. I could:
- go and finally see LOTR in an empty theater and then blog about how the movie is losing its appeal;
- take a party of like-minded friends to a bar and ask them to turn down the TV because the noise is interfering with our conversation;
- go ice-fishing on an empty lake Mendota [no pain, no gain];
- jay-walk on a red light at the intersection of Mineral Point and Gammon;
- go to New York and skate…
By the way, I like spectator sports alright. But in Poland there’s only one "football" (=soccer) and people don’t kill each other trying to get it. They kill each other AFTER the game, if they lost. Or won. Much more civilized.
Super Bowl Sunday offers a similar chance to mull over this one: what to do when the world is busy doing the Super Bowl thing and you’re not? Hmmmm.. I could:
- go and finally see LOTR in an empty theater and then blog about how the movie is losing its appeal;
- take a party of like-minded friends to a bar and ask them to turn down the TV because the noise is interfering with our conversation;
- go ice-fishing on an empty lake Mendota [no pain, no gain];
- jay-walk on a red light at the intersection of Mineral Point and Gammon;
- go to New York and skate…
By the way, I like spectator sports alright. But in Poland there’s only one "football" (=soccer) and people don’t kill each other trying to get it. They kill each other AFTER the game, if they lost. Or won. Much more civilized.
Uncrowded urban spaces
When I was a kid, I went to the UN International School in New York. There are many unique and interesting things about that school, but to me, what stood out then was the fact that we were the only school in the entire city that closed on October 24th (in observance of UN Day). This opened up a world of choices. Usually I would take my skates and go to Rockefeller Center. It was both sinful and heavenly to be skating in the middle of the day in a near-empty rink.
Super Bowl Sunday offers a similar chance to mull over this one: what to do when the world is busy doing the Super Bowl thing and you’re not? Hmmmm.. I could:
- go and finally see LOTR in an empty theater and then blog about how the movie is losing its appeal;
- take a party of like-minded friends to a bar and ask them to turn down the TV because the noise is interfering with our conversation;
- go ice-fishing on an empty lake Mendota [no pain, no gain];
- jay-walk on a red light at the intersection of Mineral Point and Gammon;
- go to New York and skate…
By the way, I like spectator sports alright. But in Poland there’s only one "football" (=soccer) and people don’t kill each other trying to get it. They kill each other AFTER the game, if they lost. Or won. Much more civilized.
Super Bowl Sunday offers a similar chance to mull over this one: what to do when the world is busy doing the Super Bowl thing and you’re not? Hmmmm.. I could:
- go and finally see LOTR in an empty theater and then blog about how the movie is losing its appeal;
- take a party of like-minded friends to a bar and ask them to turn down the TV because the noise is interfering with our conversation;
- go ice-fishing on an empty lake Mendota [no pain, no gain];
- jay-walk on a red light at the intersection of Mineral Point and Gammon;
- go to New York and skate…
By the way, I like spectator sports alright. But in Poland there’s only one "football" (=soccer) and people don’t kill each other trying to get it. They kill each other AFTER the game, if they lost. Or won. Much more civilized.
A little weird?
I asked my Family Law class what policy reasons might there be to prohibit marriage between a woman and her adoptive dad (she was 15 when she was adopted, but 21 when she started a relationship with him, leading actually to her being pregnant by him when she was 22). Except for two or three, most thought such a marriage should be permitted (though through a legal maneuver of first vacating the adoption). Interestingly, they believed that parenting stops at 18 [really??] and therefore he was no longer fulfilling his parental duties.
I reminded them that when Woody Allen wanted to marry Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter (Woody and Mia had been in a pretty stable relationship for years), there was almost complete public condemnation. Someone said “hey, that’s a little weird,” but I wasn’t sure whether they were referring to Woody’s choice of bride or the public condemnation.
I reminded them that when Woody Allen wanted to marry Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter (Woody and Mia had been in a pretty stable relationship for years), there was almost complete public condemnation. Someone said “hey, that’s a little weird,” but I wasn’t sure whether they were referring to Woody’s choice of bride or the public condemnation.
A little weird?
I asked my Family Law class what policy reasons might there be to prohibit marriage between a woman and her adoptive dad (she was 15 when she was adopted, but 21 when she started a relationship with him, leading actually to her being pregnant by him when she was 22). Except for two or three, most thought such a marriage should be permitted (though through a legal maneuver of first vacating the adoption). Interestingly, they believed that parenting stops at 18 [really??] and therefore he was no longer fulfilling his parental duties.
I reminded them that when Woody Allen wanted to marry Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter (Woody and Mia had been in a pretty stable relationship for years), there was almost complete public condemnation. Someone said “hey, that’s a little weird,” but I wasn’t sure whether they were referring to Woody’s choice of bride or the public condemnation.
I reminded them that when Woody Allen wanted to marry Mia Farrow’s adopted daughter (Woody and Mia had been in a pretty stable relationship for years), there was almost complete public condemnation. Someone said “hey, that’s a little weird,” but I wasn’t sure whether they were referring to Woody’s choice of bride or the public condemnation.
Saddled with reviewing best-sellers
Who would even want to be an NYT book critic (see post below) if it means having to slog through this list (from the article today entitled “Best Sellers, on a Scale of Good Read to Good Grief”):
It appears the self-help books continue to bulldoze their way into the mass market. Advice-giving is cheap and easy, and we seem to enjoy getting it by the truckload. In the article, we read about the newest best seller written by Spencer Johnson:
Maybe we all just have one idea in us and we recycle it again and again, but I'm going to hope our packaging of it is a little less shabby.
The books reviewed in Janet Maslin's Critic's Notebook article:
"THE LAST JUROR," by John Grisham. Doubleday. $27.95.
"THE PRESENT," by Spencer Johnson. Doubleday. $19.95.
"THE AUTOMATIC MILLIONAIRE," by David Bach. Broadway Books. $19.95.
"THE PROPER CARE AND FEEDING OF HUSBANDS," by Dr. Laura Schlessinger. HarperCollins. $24.95.
"EMMA'S SECRET," by Barbara Taylor Bradford. St. Martin's. $24.95.
"PS, I LOVE YOU," by Cecelia Ahern. Hyperion Press. $21.95.
"DIVIDED IN DEATH," by J. D Robb. G.P. Putnam's Sons. $21.95.
"FOR US, THE LIVING," by Robert A. Heinlein. Scribner. $25.
"MR. PARADISE," by Elmore Leonard. William Morrow. $25.95.
"THE SECRET SYMBOLS OF THE DOLLAR BILL," by David Ovason. HarperCollins. $18.95.
It appears the self-help books continue to bulldoze their way into the mass market. Advice-giving is cheap and easy, and we seem to enjoy getting it by the truckload. In the article, we read about the newest best seller written by Spencer Johnson:
In the wake of that land-office success [the author is referring to “Who Moved My Cheese,” about which she says: “written for readers who would find a "Fun With Dick and Jane" primer too demanding”] Mr. Johnson would barely have had to write anything to market more advice. So he hasn't quite written anything in cooking up "The Present." That title is a pun about how the ability to live in the moment is a gift. Present-related wisdom is such that the book's advice can be summed up on a one-page card. This is conveniently included.
Although Mr. Johnson's new book does not particularly acknowledge it, he published something very similar back in the early 1980's, his prepopular days. But that book was called "The Precious Present." Both begin with a sage old man telling a boy that the Present — capital P — is the best thing he can ever receive.
From "The Precious Present":
" `Wow!' the little boy exclaimed. `I hope someone gives me the precious present. Maybe I'll get it for Christmas.' "
From the labor-intensive rewrite:
" `Wow!' the little boy exclaimed, although not fully understanding. `I hope someone gives me The Present someday. Maybe I'll get it for my birthday.' "
Maybe we all just have one idea in us and we recycle it again and again, but I'm going to hope our packaging of it is a little less shabby.
Saddled with reviewing best-sellers
Who would even want to be an NYT book critic (see post below) if it means having to slog through this list (from the article today entitled “Best Sellers, on a Scale of Good Read to Good Grief”):
It appears the self-help books continue to bulldoze their way into the mass market. Advice-giving is cheap and easy, and we seem to enjoy getting it by the truckload. In the article, we read about the newest best seller written by Spencer Johnson:
Maybe we all just have one idea in us and we recycle it again and again, but I'm going to hope our packaging of it is a little less shabby.
The books reviewed in Janet Maslin's Critic's Notebook article:
"THE LAST JUROR," by John Grisham. Doubleday. $27.95.
"THE PRESENT," by Spencer Johnson. Doubleday. $19.95.
"THE AUTOMATIC MILLIONAIRE," by David Bach. Broadway Books. $19.95.
"THE PROPER CARE AND FEEDING OF HUSBANDS," by Dr. Laura Schlessinger. HarperCollins. $24.95.
"EMMA'S SECRET," by Barbara Taylor Bradford. St. Martin's. $24.95.
"PS, I LOVE YOU," by Cecelia Ahern. Hyperion Press. $21.95.
"DIVIDED IN DEATH," by J. D Robb. G.P. Putnam's Sons. $21.95.
"FOR US, THE LIVING," by Robert A. Heinlein. Scribner. $25.
"MR. PARADISE," by Elmore Leonard. William Morrow. $25.95.
"THE SECRET SYMBOLS OF THE DOLLAR BILL," by David Ovason. HarperCollins. $18.95.
It appears the self-help books continue to bulldoze their way into the mass market. Advice-giving is cheap and easy, and we seem to enjoy getting it by the truckload. In the article, we read about the newest best seller written by Spencer Johnson:
In the wake of that land-office success [the author is referring to “Who Moved My Cheese,” about which she says: “written for readers who would find a "Fun With Dick and Jane" primer too demanding”] Mr. Johnson would barely have had to write anything to market more advice. So he hasn't quite written anything in cooking up "The Present." That title is a pun about how the ability to live in the moment is a gift. Present-related wisdom is such that the book's advice can be summed up on a one-page card. This is conveniently included.
Although Mr. Johnson's new book does not particularly acknowledge it, he published something very similar back in the early 1980's, his prepopular days. But that book was called "The Precious Present." Both begin with a sage old man telling a boy that the Present — capital P — is the best thing he can ever receive.
From "The Precious Present":
" `Wow!' the little boy exclaimed. `I hope someone gives me the precious present. Maybe I'll get it for Christmas.' "
From the labor-intensive rewrite:
" `Wow!' the little boy exclaimed, although not fully understanding. `I hope someone gives me The Present someday. Maybe I'll get it for my birthday.' "
Maybe we all just have one idea in us and we recycle it again and again, but I'm going to hope our packaging of it is a little less shabby.
Getting your review published in the NYT…
…You’d think this would be near impossible. I mean, to publish a movie or a restaurant review there, you’d need a list of credentials a mile long, plus at least five personal connections with the top brass in the industry and the paper, correct? Wrong! It turns out you don’t even need to have anything clever to say. Consider this week’s reader review of LOTR:
It seems that three out of four readers found this review “helpful.”
ONE FILM TO RULE THEM ALL:MAGNIFICENT, January 28, 2004
The final installment of "The Lord of the Rings" is the BEST!!!! It is magnificent!The visual/special effects are unbelievable, the acting wonderful, the content magnificient!!!!You have to watch this movie, and it is soooooo good, you will want to see it 1,000 times over.This movie won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Orginal Score, and Best Original Song in The Golden Globes, and is now the most nominated motion picture of the year:with 11 Academy Award nominations, and probobly 11 Academy Award wins. SEE THIS MOVIE!!! You wont regret it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems that three out of four readers found this review “helpful.”
Getting your review published in the NYT…
…You’d think this would be near impossible. I mean, to publish a movie or a restaurant review there, you’d need a list of credentials a mile long, plus at least five personal connections with the top brass in the industry and the paper, correct? Wrong! It turns out you don’t even need to have anything clever to say. Consider this week’s reader review of LOTR:
It seems that three out of four readers found this review “helpful.”
ONE FILM TO RULE THEM ALL:MAGNIFICENT, January 28, 2004
The final installment of "The Lord of the Rings" is the BEST!!!! It is magnificent!The visual/special effects are unbelievable, the acting wonderful, the content magnificient!!!!You have to watch this movie, and it is soooooo good, you will want to see it 1,000 times over.This movie won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Orginal Score, and Best Original Song in The Golden Globes, and is now the most nominated motion picture of the year:with 11 Academy Award nominations, and probobly 11 Academy Award wins. SEE THIS MOVIE!!! You wont regret it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It seems that three out of four readers found this review “helpful.”
Thursday, January 29, 2004
It’s a conspiracy, that’s what it is.
I think if a Fed Ex pick up box says “last pick up at 6:00p.m.,” it should mean that the Fed Ex picker upper should never ever come even a millisecond before six.
And if I was so good as to sacrifice proofreading my multi-page grant proposal so that I could have it ready to go by 5:54 p.m., just in case the Fed Ex clock did not jive with the rest of the world’s time sequence, then I should be rewarded with a prompt and efficient pick up at 6, just as the heavens intended.
But shoulds/woulds/coulds make little sense in a world that is out to get you.
Let me say, for those who do not have their computer homepage set to the weather in Wisconsin, today we had a high temp of 2 degrees F. That was in the mid-afternoon, when the sun was gunning its engines full blast. Who knows what level of Arctic misery was being inflicted upon us by 5:54 p.m..
But there I stood outside, me and my grant proposal, waiting, because being raised to be suspicious of anything associated with capitalism, I had to see if Fed Ex would really come at 6 [OR THEREAFTER!].
They didn’t come. Or, more likely, they came at 5:53p.m.
Thoughts that were going through my exposed (vanity=no hat) head during the 36 minute wait:
And so on.
In the end I had to drive to the airport Fed Ex station, which, of course, I could have done from the beginning, but one always thinks “if I wait just one more minute, surely they’ll come..”
And if I was so good as to sacrifice proofreading my multi-page grant proposal so that I could have it ready to go by 5:54 p.m., just in case the Fed Ex clock did not jive with the rest of the world’s time sequence, then I should be rewarded with a prompt and efficient pick up at 6, just as the heavens intended.
But shoulds/woulds/coulds make little sense in a world that is out to get you.
Let me say, for those who do not have their computer homepage set to the weather in Wisconsin, today we had a high temp of 2 degrees F. That was in the mid-afternoon, when the sun was gunning its engines full blast. Who knows what level of Arctic misery was being inflicted upon us by 5:54 p.m..
But there I stood outside, me and my grant proposal, waiting, because being raised to be suspicious of anything associated with capitalism, I had to see if Fed Ex would really come at 6 [OR THEREAFTER!].
They didn’t come. Or, more likely, they came at 5:53p.m.
Thoughts that were going through my exposed (vanity=no hat) head during the 36 minute wait:
- a fur-coated animal has no chance right now..survival of the fittest means that if I spot one, it turns into a hat.
- Even if I succumb to hypothermia, I will not regret putting off writing the proposal in order to try to get three wins in a row in Spider Solitaire
- I don’t even want this grant, I have enough other work to do at the moment.
- Does anyone still believe that Michael Jackson is innocent?
- Why hasn’t Katie Couric ridden the subway in the last 10 years? If she did (to celebrate today’s 100th anniversary of the subway system in NYC, for instance), and it was rush hour, would everyone get up to give her a seat?
- My poor housebound dog: it's been almost 12 hours for him.
- Should Dean hang it up?
And so on.
In the end I had to drive to the airport Fed Ex station, which, of course, I could have done from the beginning, but one always thinks “if I wait just one more minute, surely they’ll come..”
It’s a conspiracy, that’s what it is.
I think if a Fed Ex pick up box says “last pick up at 6:00p.m.,” it should mean that the Fed Ex picker upper should never ever come even a millisecond before six.
And if I was so good as to sacrifice proofreading my multi-page grant proposal so that I could have it ready to go by 5:54 p.m., just in case the Fed Ex clock did not jive with the rest of the world’s time sequence, then I should be rewarded with a prompt and efficient pick up at 6, just as the heavens intended.
But shoulds/woulds/coulds make little sense in a world that is out to get you.
Let me say, for those who do not have their computer homepage set to the weather in Wisconsin, today we had a high temp of 2 degrees F. That was in the mid-afternoon, when the sun was gunning its engines full blast. Who knows what level of Arctic misery was being inflicted upon us by 5:54 p.m..
But there I stood outside, me and my grant proposal, waiting, because being raised to be suspicious of anything associated with capitalism, I had to see if Fed Ex would really come at 6 [OR THEREAFTER!].
They didn’t come. Or, more likely, they came at 5:53p.m.
Thoughts that were going through my exposed (vanity=no hat) head during the 36 minute wait:
And so on.
In the end I had to drive to the airport Fed Ex station, which, of course, I could have done from the beginning, but one always thinks “if I wait just one more minute, surely they’ll come..”
And if I was so good as to sacrifice proofreading my multi-page grant proposal so that I could have it ready to go by 5:54 p.m., just in case the Fed Ex clock did not jive with the rest of the world’s time sequence, then I should be rewarded with a prompt and efficient pick up at 6, just as the heavens intended.
But shoulds/woulds/coulds make little sense in a world that is out to get you.
Let me say, for those who do not have their computer homepage set to the weather in Wisconsin, today we had a high temp of 2 degrees F. That was in the mid-afternoon, when the sun was gunning its engines full blast. Who knows what level of Arctic misery was being inflicted upon us by 5:54 p.m..
But there I stood outside, me and my grant proposal, waiting, because being raised to be suspicious of anything associated with capitalism, I had to see if Fed Ex would really come at 6 [OR THEREAFTER!].
They didn’t come. Or, more likely, they came at 5:53p.m.
Thoughts that were going through my exposed (vanity=no hat) head during the 36 minute wait:
- a fur-coated animal has no chance right now..survival of the fittest means that if I spot one, it turns into a hat.
- Even if I succumb to hypothermia, I will not regret putting off writing the proposal in order to try to get three wins in a row in Spider Solitaire
- I don’t even want this grant, I have enough other work to do at the moment.
- Does anyone still believe that Michael Jackson is innocent?
- Why hasn’t Katie Couric ridden the subway in the last 10 years? If she did (to celebrate today’s 100th anniversary of the subway system in NYC, for instance), and it was rush hour, would everyone get up to give her a seat?
- My poor housebound dog: it's been almost 12 hours for him.
- Should Dean hang it up?
And so on.
In the end I had to drive to the airport Fed Ex station, which, of course, I could have done from the beginning, but one always thinks “if I wait just one more minute, surely they’ll come..”
I call this unfair!
I have, in my mind, the perfect grant proposal. It’s been nestling in my mind for a while. It should be nestling on paper, but for one reason or another it is still only in my mind. It almost made it to paper-form last night, but then my mother phoned and I realized I had yet again neglected to call her this past Sunday (see post, January 18) and therefore I owed her a bit of listening. So no proverbial ink hit the paper.
Today would have been a good day as well to let the words take shape, but in anticipation of the grant writing process, I had put off all student appointments until today, thinking I’d be done with the grant by now. I’m not done, and the students are lining up outside as we speak.
The deadline for the grant is February 1, 2004. Yep, February 1st. It does not take a great mind to figure out by now, as we are approaching the end of January, that February 1st falls on a Sunday. So I called the government office expecting a reprieve. Certainly I can POSTMARK it or FEDEX it by tomorrow, January 30, can’t I?
No, she tells me. The deadline is clearly stated on their fresh and fancy website: February 1, 2004. That means it has to be in their office by tomorrow (Friday, January 30, 2004) afternoon.
So why create the illusion? Why instill unrealistic hope? Can I sue for false advertising? If I fly our to D.C. and slip it under their steel governmental heartless door on Sunday, will they not accept it?
Today would have been a good day as well to let the words take shape, but in anticipation of the grant writing process, I had put off all student appointments until today, thinking I’d be done with the grant by now. I’m not done, and the students are lining up outside as we speak.
The deadline for the grant is February 1, 2004. Yep, February 1st. It does not take a great mind to figure out by now, as we are approaching the end of January, that February 1st falls on a Sunday. So I called the government office expecting a reprieve. Certainly I can POSTMARK it or FEDEX it by tomorrow, January 30, can’t I?
No, she tells me. The deadline is clearly stated on their fresh and fancy website: February 1, 2004. That means it has to be in their office by tomorrow (Friday, January 30, 2004) afternoon.
So why create the illusion? Why instill unrealistic hope? Can I sue for false advertising? If I fly our to D.C. and slip it under their steel governmental heartless door on Sunday, will they not accept it?
I call this unfair!
I have, in my mind, the perfect grant proposal. It’s been nestling in my mind for a while. It should be nestling on paper, but for one reason or another it is still only in my mind. It almost made it to paper-form last night, but then my mother phoned and I realized I had yet again neglected to call her this past Sunday (see post, January 18) and therefore I owed her a bit of listening. So no proverbial ink hit the paper.
Today would have been a good day as well to let the words take shape, but in anticipation of the grant writing process, I had put off all student appointments until today, thinking I’d be done with the grant by now. I’m not done, and the students are lining up outside as we speak.
The deadline for the grant is February 1, 2004. Yep, February 1st. It does not take a great mind to figure out by now, as we are approaching the end of January, that February 1st falls on a Sunday. So I called the government office expecting a reprieve. Certainly I can POSTMARK it or FEDEX it by tomorrow, January 30, can’t I?
No, she tells me. The deadline is clearly stated on their fresh and fancy website: February 1, 2004. That means it has to be in their office by tomorrow (Friday, January 30, 2004) afternoon.
So why create the illusion? Why instill unrealistic hope? Can I sue for false advertising? If I fly our to D.C. and slip it under their steel governmental heartless door on Sunday, will they not accept it?
Today would have been a good day as well to let the words take shape, but in anticipation of the grant writing process, I had put off all student appointments until today, thinking I’d be done with the grant by now. I’m not done, and the students are lining up outside as we speak.
The deadline for the grant is February 1, 2004. Yep, February 1st. It does not take a great mind to figure out by now, as we are approaching the end of January, that February 1st falls on a Sunday. So I called the government office expecting a reprieve. Certainly I can POSTMARK it or FEDEX it by tomorrow, January 30, can’t I?
No, she tells me. The deadline is clearly stated on their fresh and fancy website: February 1, 2004. That means it has to be in their office by tomorrow (Friday, January 30, 2004) afternoon.
So why create the illusion? Why instill unrealistic hope? Can I sue for false advertising? If I fly our to D.C. and slip it under their steel governmental heartless door on Sunday, will they not accept it?
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
If the times are a changin’, can’t they change already?
The topic for yesterday’s lecture in Family Law was same-sex marriage. I had only 1 hr. 20 min., and I barely managed to lay out the most recent developments that have taken place in the law, ones that may be crucial in setting the course for a legal acceptance or rejection of gay unions. Supreme Court decisions, state Supreme Court decisions, federal acts, state-level legislative efforts – there is a monstrously huge load of material out there these days.
Ten years ago, the same topic (legal context of same-sex unions) could have been be treated in 15 minutes.
Nonetheless, as we know, the bottom line hasn’t changed. For all the legislative and judicial activity, same-sex couples could not then and cannot now obtain a marriage license, never mind having it recognized in sister states. Massachusetts better do something before my next semester so that I can finally end with a better punch line. Otherwise I’ll have to spill over into another class period (each period is only 1 hr 20 min) and still conclude without any definitive answers.
Ten years ago, the same topic (legal context of same-sex unions) could have been be treated in 15 minutes.
Nonetheless, as we know, the bottom line hasn’t changed. For all the legislative and judicial activity, same-sex couples could not then and cannot now obtain a marriage license, never mind having it recognized in sister states. Massachusetts better do something before my next semester so that I can finally end with a better punch line. Otherwise I’ll have to spill over into another class period (each period is only 1 hr 20 min) and still conclude without any definitive answers.
Hitting on the Academy
A reader asked why I failed to write any significant commentary on the Oscar nominations announced yesterday. She insinuated that perhaps I was miffed at LOTR's sweep of 11 nominations. Of course the answer is no. One can't really get miffed at the Academy; after all, they are doing what they're doing to members of their own gang, and the rest of us, unscathed, watch for the sheer entertainment of it all.
I must also admit that I never saw LOTR. One could say that I have an aversion to battles that take place somewhere in "middle earth", and so I view no movies that promise long sequences of fictionalized but nonetheless realistic gore. True, one friend of a friend used the same excuse for avoiding the film "Monster." He said he refused to pay money to see movies where a serial killer takes out human life, one by one. Though I agree that the entertainment value of that is pretty low, at least in the case of serial killers, I feel a social responsibility to occasionally witness what we, as a society, have allowed to grow and fester. I do not believe that there is anything on middle earth that deserves my attention in the same way.
Still, I agree with another reader that doting on an obscure Czech film when the rest of the world is commenting on Diane Keaton is a bit pretentious, and so I will return to my rightful place and say my two words. And the two words are, in fact, about Diane Keaton (hereafter DK): her gloves. When I commented on the gloves she wore to the Globes, someone noted that it is rumored that she has a germ thing. Meaning the gloves are always there as a result of a compulsive aversion to germs. DK has recently denied this, but when you deny rumors of this nature, one suspects there to be a grain of possible truth wedged in there somewhere.
Being human and therefore cruel, the glove thing made me snicker, though in kind deference to DK's mental health issues, I did not immediately rush to post this piece of news on the blog. But today I read in the Times something that made me believe that DK may not be so off the track. It's one of those instances where the rest of us are mindlessly destroying ourselves while the object of our ridicule stands protected. The article is all about the prevalence of germs, and it blatantly states that THE CLEANER YOU ARE,THE MORE GERMS THERE'LL BE IN YOUR KITCHEN!! It goes on to stereotype somewhat, and throw out the possibility that bachelor-slobs actually have a better, germ-free environment with their stacked dishes in the sink and unwiped counter tops, than do we, the compulsive neurotic counter-cleaners.
So hats off to you, DK, for being so visionary, if not altogether my favorite acting personality. If you win an Oscar, wave the gloved hand with pride.
I must also admit that I never saw LOTR. One could say that I have an aversion to battles that take place somewhere in "middle earth", and so I view no movies that promise long sequences of fictionalized but nonetheless realistic gore. True, one friend of a friend used the same excuse for avoiding the film "Monster." He said he refused to pay money to see movies where a serial killer takes out human life, one by one. Though I agree that the entertainment value of that is pretty low, at least in the case of serial killers, I feel a social responsibility to occasionally witness what we, as a society, have allowed to grow and fester. I do not believe that there is anything on middle earth that deserves my attention in the same way.
Still, I agree with another reader that doting on an obscure Czech film when the rest of the world is commenting on Diane Keaton is a bit pretentious, and so I will return to my rightful place and say my two words. And the two words are, in fact, about Diane Keaton (hereafter DK): her gloves. When I commented on the gloves she wore to the Globes, someone noted that it is rumored that she has a germ thing. Meaning the gloves are always there as a result of a compulsive aversion to germs. DK has recently denied this, but when you deny rumors of this nature, one suspects there to be a grain of possible truth wedged in there somewhere.
Being human and therefore cruel, the glove thing made me snicker, though in kind deference to DK's mental health issues, I did not immediately rush to post this piece of news on the blog. But today I read in the Times something that made me believe that DK may not be so off the track. It's one of those instances where the rest of us are mindlessly destroying ourselves while the object of our ridicule stands protected. The article is all about the prevalence of germs, and it blatantly states that THE CLEANER YOU ARE,THE MORE GERMS THERE'LL BE IN YOUR KITCHEN!! It goes on to stereotype somewhat, and throw out the possibility that bachelor-slobs actually have a better, germ-free environment with their stacked dishes in the sink and unwiped counter tops, than do we, the compulsive neurotic counter-cleaners.
So hats off to you, DK, for being so visionary, if not altogether my favorite acting personality. If you win an Oscar, wave the gloved hand with pride.
If the times are a changin’, can’t they change already?
The topic for yesterday’s lecture in Family Law was same-sex marriage. I had only 1 hr. 20 min., and I barely managed to lay out the most recent developments that have taken place in the law, ones that may be crucial in setting the course for a legal acceptance or rejection of gay unions. Supreme Court decisions, state Supreme Court decisions, federal acts, state-level legislative efforts – there is a monstrously huge load of material out there these days.
Ten years ago, the same topic (legal context of same-sex unions) could have been be treated in 15 minutes.
Nonetheless, as we know, the bottom line hasn’t changed. For all the legislative and judicial activity, same-sex couples could not then and cannot now obtain a marriage license, never mind having it recognized in sister states. Massachusetts better do something before my next semester so that I can finally end with a better punch line. Otherwise I’ll have to spill over into another class period (each period is only 1 hr 20 min) and still conclude without any definitive answers.
Ten years ago, the same topic (legal context of same-sex unions) could have been be treated in 15 minutes.
Nonetheless, as we know, the bottom line hasn’t changed. For all the legislative and judicial activity, same-sex couples could not then and cannot now obtain a marriage license, never mind having it recognized in sister states. Massachusetts better do something before my next semester so that I can finally end with a better punch line. Otherwise I’ll have to spill over into another class period (each period is only 1 hr 20 min) and still conclude without any definitive answers.
Hitting on the Academy
A reader asked why I failed to write any significant commentary on the Oscar nominations announced yesterday. She insinuated that perhaps I was miffed at LOTR's sweep of 11 nominations. Of course the answer is no. One can't really get miffed at the Academy; after all, they are doing what they're doing to members of their own gang, and the rest of us, unscathed, watch for the sheer entertainment of it all.
I must also admit that I never saw LOTR. One could say that I have an aversion to battles that take place somewhere in "middle earth", and so I view no movies that promise long sequences of fictionalized but nonetheless realistic gore. True, one friend of a friend used the same excuse for avoiding the film "Monster." He said he refused to pay money to see movies where a serial killer takes out human life, one by one. Though I agree that the entertainment value of that is pretty low, at least in the case of serial killers, I feel a social responsibility to occasionally witness what we, as a society, have allowed to grow and fester. I do not believe that there is anything on middle earth that deserves my attention in the same way.
Still, I agree with another reader that doting on an obscure Czech film when the rest of the world is commenting on Diane Keaton is a bit pretentious, and so I will return to my rightful place and say my two words. And the two words are, in fact, about Diane Keaton (hereafter DK): her gloves. When I commented on the gloves she wore to the Globes, someone noted that it is rumored that she has a germ thing. Meaning the gloves are always there as a result of a compulsive aversion to germs. DK has recently denied this, but when you deny rumors of this nature, one suspects there to be a grain of possible truth wedged in there somewhere.
Being human and therefore cruel, the glove thing made me snicker, though in kind deference to DK's mental health issues, I did not immediately rush to post this piece of news on the blog. But today I read in the Times something that made me believe that DK may not be so off the track. It's one of those instances where the rest of us are mindlessly destroying ourselves while the object of our ridicule stands protected. The article is all about the prevalence of germs, and it blatantly states that THE CLEANER YOU ARE,THE MORE GERMS THERE'LL BE IN YOUR KITCHEN!! It goes on to stereotype somewhat, and throw out the possibility that bachelor-slobs actually have a better, germ-free environment with their stacked dishes in the sink and unwiped counter tops, than do we, the compulsive neurotic counter-cleaners.
So hats off to you, DK, for being so visionary, if not altogether my favorite acting personality. If you win an Oscar, wave the gloved hand with pride.
I must also admit that I never saw LOTR. One could say that I have an aversion to battles that take place somewhere in "middle earth", and so I view no movies that promise long sequences of fictionalized but nonetheless realistic gore. True, one friend of a friend used the same excuse for avoiding the film "Monster." He said he refused to pay money to see movies where a serial killer takes out human life, one by one. Though I agree that the entertainment value of that is pretty low, at least in the case of serial killers, I feel a social responsibility to occasionally witness what we, as a society, have allowed to grow and fester. I do not believe that there is anything on middle earth that deserves my attention in the same way.
Still, I agree with another reader that doting on an obscure Czech film when the rest of the world is commenting on Diane Keaton is a bit pretentious, and so I will return to my rightful place and say my two words. And the two words are, in fact, about Diane Keaton (hereafter DK): her gloves. When I commented on the gloves she wore to the Globes, someone noted that it is rumored that she has a germ thing. Meaning the gloves are always there as a result of a compulsive aversion to germs. DK has recently denied this, but when you deny rumors of this nature, one suspects there to be a grain of possible truth wedged in there somewhere.
Being human and therefore cruel, the glove thing made me snicker, though in kind deference to DK's mental health issues, I did not immediately rush to post this piece of news on the blog. But today I read in the Times something that made me believe that DK may not be so off the track. It's one of those instances where the rest of us are mindlessly destroying ourselves while the object of our ridicule stands protected. The article is all about the prevalence of germs, and it blatantly states that THE CLEANER YOU ARE,THE MORE GERMS THERE'LL BE IN YOUR KITCHEN!! It goes on to stereotype somewhat, and throw out the possibility that bachelor-slobs actually have a better, germ-free environment with their stacked dishes in the sink and unwiped counter tops, than do we, the compulsive neurotic counter-cleaners.
So hats off to you, DK, for being so visionary, if not altogether my favorite acting personality. If you win an Oscar, wave the gloved hand with pride.
If they gave you money, would you leave?
There is a story in the paper today about the relocation program underway in Siberia, where the Russian government pays residents of cities north of the Arctic Circle to pack their belongings and move south (apparently it’s too expensive to support cities where things basically stay frozen year-round). You’d think that with the constant agony of frost bite and the dreary months of severe light deprivation, most would catch the first plane out (there are no rail or road connections from there to the rest of Russia). But no: in one city (Norilsk), out of 20,000 eligible for the relocation program, only 48 have agreed to go.
This shouldn't come as a surprise. I suppose people don’t like giving up on their communities. Maybe they come to feel a sense of pride for managing life in a dump. And they sing songs and write poems about their squalid, colorless, polluted towns, so that people listening elsewhere begin to think that maybe they should go visit that special little piece of heaven. On a cross-country road trip in the 60s, I made my parents detour to Gary, Indiana because I had just seen the Music Man (“there is just one place, that can light my face..”).
Perhaps we, as a nation with the greatest mobility factor in the world (I just made that up, but I’m sure it’s true), cannot fully appreciate how people elsewhere might be rooted to their landscape. If they gave us money here, in the States --enough money to make it worth our while, most of us WOULD move. One could probably empty out all of Wisconsin within a year for the right price. North Dakota? Less than 6 months. True, in Norilsk the government is not dishing out enough cash to whet the appetite. But still, out of the targeted 20,000, I bet at least 15,000 kind of like the place.
This shouldn't come as a surprise. I suppose people don’t like giving up on their communities. Maybe they come to feel a sense of pride for managing life in a dump. And they sing songs and write poems about their squalid, colorless, polluted towns, so that people listening elsewhere begin to think that maybe they should go visit that special little piece of heaven. On a cross-country road trip in the 60s, I made my parents detour to Gary, Indiana because I had just seen the Music Man (“there is just one place, that can light my face..”).
Perhaps we, as a nation with the greatest mobility factor in the world (I just made that up, but I’m sure it’s true), cannot fully appreciate how people elsewhere might be rooted to their landscape. If they gave us money here, in the States --enough money to make it worth our while, most of us WOULD move. One could probably empty out all of Wisconsin within a year for the right price. North Dakota? Less than 6 months. True, in Norilsk the government is not dishing out enough cash to whet the appetite. But still, out of the targeted 20,000, I bet at least 15,000 kind of like the place.
If they gave you money, would you leave?
There is a story in the paper today about the relocation program underway in Siberia, where the Russian government pays residents of cities north of the Arctic Circle to pack their belongings and move south (apparently it’s too expensive to support cities where things basically stay frozen year-round). You’d think that with the constant agony of frost bite and the dreary months of severe light deprivation, most would catch the first plane out (there are no rail or road connections from there to the rest of Russia). But no: in one city (Norilsk), out of 20,000 eligible for the relocation program, only 48 have agreed to go.
This shouldn't come as a surprise. I suppose people don’t like giving up on their communities. Maybe they come to feel a sense of pride for managing life in a dump. And they sing songs and write poems about their squalid, colorless, polluted towns, so that people listening elsewhere begin to think that maybe they should go visit that special little piece of heaven. On a cross-country road trip in the 60s, I made my parents detour to Gary, Indiana because I had just seen the Music Man (“there is just one place, that can light my face..”).
Perhaps we, as a nation with the greatest mobility factor in the world (I just made that up, but I’m sure it’s true), cannot fully appreciate how people elsewhere might be rooted to their landscape. If they gave us money here, in the States --enough money to make it worth our while, most of us WOULD move. One could probably empty out all of Wisconsin within a year for the right price. North Dakota? Less than 6 months. True, in Norilsk the government is not dishing out enough cash to whet the appetite. But still, out of the targeted 20,000, I bet at least 15,000 kind of like the place.
This shouldn't come as a surprise. I suppose people don’t like giving up on their communities. Maybe they come to feel a sense of pride for managing life in a dump. And they sing songs and write poems about their squalid, colorless, polluted towns, so that people listening elsewhere begin to think that maybe they should go visit that special little piece of heaven. On a cross-country road trip in the 60s, I made my parents detour to Gary, Indiana because I had just seen the Music Man (“there is just one place, that can light my face..”).
Perhaps we, as a nation with the greatest mobility factor in the world (I just made that up, but I’m sure it’s true), cannot fully appreciate how people elsewhere might be rooted to their landscape. If they gave us money here, in the States --enough money to make it worth our while, most of us WOULD move. One could probably empty out all of Wisconsin within a year for the right price. North Dakota? Less than 6 months. True, in Norilsk the government is not dishing out enough cash to whet the appetite. But still, out of the targeted 20,000, I bet at least 15,000 kind of like the place.
Tuesday, January 27, 2004
Move over, NYT?
Bloggers (me included) are too quick to link to stories in the New York Times. I mean, it’s a good paper for what it is, but let’s give some local coverage a chance. For instance, how can you not love a headline (Madison Capital Times) that reads today: “Washington Wimps! Four-inch Snow Panics D.C.; Wisconsinites shrug.” [Though given our own paltry 2.2 inches yesterday and the enormous headaches it produced, I think we should reserve our shrug for another time.]
Sometimes, though, our paper gets a little carried away. Take Doug Moe’s column today: the gist of it is that we should just not follow all that advice from newspapers and magazines on how to live our lives. Never mind that if we followed his advice not to follow advice, we’d be caught up in a logical fallacy nightmare where no matter what path you take you wind up in hell.
But say you did decide to get in step behind Doug. Just read this:
What I want to do is go back to the NYT, but let me persevere [words in square brackets belong to me]:
Okay, I can’t go any further. I know Doug Moe is well-intentioned and humor is REALLY hard to churn out on a daily basis, but today, I think I’ll just put this aside and pick up the NYT. Oh no. NYT. Maureen Dowd (see post, January 25). Never mind.
Sometimes, though, our paper gets a little carried away. Take Doug Moe’s column today: the gist of it is that we should just not follow all that advice from newspapers and magazines on how to live our lives. Never mind that if we followed his advice not to follow advice, we’d be caught up in a logical fallacy nightmare where no matter what path you take you wind up in hell.
But say you did decide to get in step behind Doug. Just read this:
“Hey, you. Yeah, you. Reading the newspaper. You are fat, drunk and lazy, and what are you going to do about it?”
What I want to do is go back to the NYT, but let me persevere [words in square brackets belong to me]:
“There has in recent years been a slow but relentless effort to get everyone to live life as if it were one long, and do I mean long, self-improvement course. Straighten up! Eat your vegetables! [I knew Kucinich the vegan didn’t have a chance.] Make sure your fourth-grader speaks three languages! [“the world wants to communicate with us? Let them speak American!”] Don’t smoke! [Watch it, Moe] Save the whales and the rainforest and when you’re done, the ozone layer! [Maybe we should slash and burn and have whale sushi for desert.] Who’s behind this effort? Regulators, bureaucrats [bureaucrats??], various do-gooder groups and individuals.”
Okay, I can’t go any further. I know Doug Moe is well-intentioned and humor is REALLY hard to churn out on a daily basis, but today, I think I’ll just put this aside and pick up the NYT. Oh no. NYT. Maureen Dowd (see post, January 25). Never mind.
Move over, NYT?
Bloggers (me included) are too quick to link to stories in the New York Times. I mean, it’s a good paper for what it is, but let’s give some local coverage a chance. For instance, how can you not love a headline (Madison Capital Times) that reads today: “Washington Wimps! Four-inch Snow Panics D.C.; Wisconsinites shrug.” [Though given our own paltry 2.2 inches yesterday and the enormous headaches it produced, I think we should reserve our shrug for another time.]
Sometimes, though, our paper gets a little carried away. Take Doug Moe’s column today: the gist of it is that we should just not follow all that advice from newspapers and magazines on how to live our lives. Never mind that if we followed his advice not to follow advice, we’d be caught up in a logical fallacy nightmare where no matter what path you take you wind up in hell.
But say you did decide to get in step behind Doug. Just read this:
What I want to do is go back to the NYT, but let me persevere [words in square brackets belong to me]:
Okay, I can’t go any further. I know Doug Moe is well-intentioned and humor is REALLY hard to churn out on a daily basis, but today, I think I’ll just put this aside and pick up the NYT. Oh no. NYT. Maureen Dowd (see post, January 25). Never mind.
Sometimes, though, our paper gets a little carried away. Take Doug Moe’s column today: the gist of it is that we should just not follow all that advice from newspapers and magazines on how to live our lives. Never mind that if we followed his advice not to follow advice, we’d be caught up in a logical fallacy nightmare where no matter what path you take you wind up in hell.
But say you did decide to get in step behind Doug. Just read this:
“Hey, you. Yeah, you. Reading the newspaper. You are fat, drunk and lazy, and what are you going to do about it?”
What I want to do is go back to the NYT, but let me persevere [words in square brackets belong to me]:
“There has in recent years been a slow but relentless effort to get everyone to live life as if it were one long, and do I mean long, self-improvement course. Straighten up! Eat your vegetables! [I knew Kucinich the vegan didn’t have a chance.] Make sure your fourth-grader speaks three languages! [“the world wants to communicate with us? Let them speak American!”] Don’t smoke! [Watch it, Moe] Save the whales and the rainforest and when you’re done, the ozone layer! [Maybe we should slash and burn and have whale sushi for desert.] Who’s behind this effort? Regulators, bureaucrats [bureaucrats??], various do-gooder groups and individuals.”
Okay, I can’t go any further. I know Doug Moe is well-intentioned and humor is REALLY hard to churn out on a daily basis, but today, I think I’ll just put this aside and pick up the NYT. Oh no. NYT. Maureen Dowd (see post, January 25). Never mind.
There’s hope for late bloomers
Predictable that the Oscar nominations may be, they still bring about surprises, sometimes of a pleasant sort. For instance, I was ENORMOUSLY gratified to read that the Czech film “Zelary" received a nomination for Best Foreign Film. Not because it is filmed in one of the most beautiful regions of Europe – the Beskidy Mountains (these are actually POLISH mountains that sort of spill over into regions of the former Czechoslovakia). Not because it is a sad love story set during World War II. Not because it has the simplicity of a slow-moving film (at least in the first half) that meanders through the daily life of Eliska, the resistance nurse that hides from the Nazis by marrying a villager whose life she saved. Not because the name of the main character is sort of the same as my sister’s.
Why then? Why cheer for this film? Because it is based on a story written by Kveta Legatova.
Don’t know Kveta? No surprise. She was a school teacher, living and working in the Czech countryside. And then she decided to write fiction. At the age of 80 (she is now 84), she published her first book of short stories (the collection is called “Zelary”). The publishing house had such great faith in her that they ran a first print of a meager 400 copies. I did not know you could print such small numbers and still expect to recover costs!
Her book took off, she wrote another (the movie is based on the second one), and she is regarded now among the Czechs as a meteoric success. The film was nominated for the Oscar category by the Czech Republic, but I don’t know that anyone expected it to be picked up for the final cut. Kveta Legatova already received the State Literary Prize (the country’s highest honor) for her book. It would be cool to see “Zelary” land an Oscar.
Why then? Why cheer for this film? Because it is based on a story written by Kveta Legatova.
Don’t know Kveta? No surprise. She was a school teacher, living and working in the Czech countryside. And then she decided to write fiction. At the age of 80 (she is now 84), she published her first book of short stories (the collection is called “Zelary”). The publishing house had such great faith in her that they ran a first print of a meager 400 copies. I did not know you could print such small numbers and still expect to recover costs!
Her book took off, she wrote another (the movie is based on the second one), and she is regarded now among the Czechs as a meteoric success. The film was nominated for the Oscar category by the Czech Republic, but I don’t know that anyone expected it to be picked up for the final cut. Kveta Legatova already received the State Literary Prize (the country’s highest honor) for her book. It would be cool to see “Zelary” land an Oscar.
There’s hope for late bloomers
Predictable that the Oscar nominations may be, they still bring about surprises, sometimes of a pleasant sort. For instance, I was ENORMOUSLY gratified to read that the Czech film “Zelary" received a nomination for Best Foreign Film. Not because it is filmed in one of the most beautiful regions of Europe – the Beskidy Mountains (these are actually POLISH mountains that sort of spill over into regions of the former Czechoslovakia). Not because it is a sad love story set during World War II. Not because it has the simplicity of a slow-moving film (at least in the first half) that meanders through the daily life of Eliska, the resistance nurse that hides from the Nazis by marrying a villager whose life she saved. Not because the name of the main character is sort of the same as my sister’s.
Why then? Why cheer for this film? Because it is based on a story written by Kveta Legatova.
Don’t know Kveta? No surprise. She was a school teacher, living and working in the Czech countryside. And then she decided to write fiction. At the age of 80 (she is now 84), she published her first book of short stories (the collection is called “Zelary”). The publishing house had such great faith in her that they ran a first print of a meager 400 copies. I did not know you could print such small numbers and still expect to recover costs!
Her book took off, she wrote another (the movie is based on the second one), and she is regarded now among the Czechs as a meteoric success. The film was nominated for the Oscar category by the Czech Republic, but I don’t know that anyone expected it to be picked up for the final cut. Kveta Legatova already received the State Literary Prize (the country’s highest honor) for her book. It would be cool to see “Zelary” land an Oscar.
Why then? Why cheer for this film? Because it is based on a story written by Kveta Legatova.
Don’t know Kveta? No surprise. She was a school teacher, living and working in the Czech countryside. And then she decided to write fiction. At the age of 80 (she is now 84), she published her first book of short stories (the collection is called “Zelary”). The publishing house had such great faith in her that they ran a first print of a meager 400 copies. I did not know you could print such small numbers and still expect to recover costs!
Her book took off, she wrote another (the movie is based on the second one), and she is regarded now among the Czechs as a meteoric success. The film was nominated for the Oscar category by the Czech Republic, but I don’t know that anyone expected it to be picked up for the final cut. Kveta Legatova already received the State Literary Prize (the country’s highest honor) for her book. It would be cool to see “Zelary” land an Oscar.
Monday, January 26, 2004
Reflections
What do you think about when you get stuck for two hours in a parked car in the middle of a snowstorm, unable to move, because every attempt to do so will slide you within millimeters of the car next to you? In my case:
1. University of Arizona has a perfectly fine law school and sociology department. If they call, I say yes.
2. If dog sledding is such a cool hobby in Wisconsin, can't they harness a few mutts and bring them around to pull innocent drivers like me out of trouble?
3. If Wisconsin is so full of tall, Nordic, hulky men, why can’t they for once be in the right place at the right time?
4. If I survive, I will immediately rewrite the post doubting the validity of the study that excluded Madison from the list of congenial places to live in [perhaps the survival thing was an over-dramatization: the parking lot where I was stuck was a mere block away from State Street, our main drag].
5. If we needed brute force to pull vehicles forward, why didn’t we just stay with the horse and carriage thing instead of creating unnecessary dependence on foreign oil?
I have to admit that eventually two very nice (if not hulky nor Nordic) men did come to my rescue. They lifted the end of the car that was spinning out of control, tut-tuting at my imbecile attempts at traction (a handful of pebbles and the branches of a desecrated nearby taxus brevifolia shrub), and positioned me in the proper direction. I was so grateful I didn't even tell them who to vote for in the forthcoming election. Probably they'll pick the tall guy, like everyone else.
1. University of Arizona has a perfectly fine law school and sociology department. If they call, I say yes.
2. If dog sledding is such a cool hobby in Wisconsin, can't they harness a few mutts and bring them around to pull innocent drivers like me out of trouble?
3. If Wisconsin is so full of tall, Nordic, hulky men, why can’t they for once be in the right place at the right time?
4. If I survive, I will immediately rewrite the post doubting the validity of the study that excluded Madison from the list of congenial places to live in [perhaps the survival thing was an over-dramatization: the parking lot where I was stuck was a mere block away from State Street, our main drag].
5. If we needed brute force to pull vehicles forward, why didn’t we just stay with the horse and carriage thing instead of creating unnecessary dependence on foreign oil?
I have to admit that eventually two very nice (if not hulky nor Nordic) men did come to my rescue. They lifted the end of the car that was spinning out of control, tut-tuting at my imbecile attempts at traction (a handful of pebbles and the branches of a desecrated nearby taxus brevifolia shrub), and positioned me in the proper direction. I was so grateful I didn't even tell them who to vote for in the forthcoming election. Probably they'll pick the tall guy, like everyone else.
Reflections
What do you think about when you get stuck for two hours in a parked car in the middle of a snowstorm, unable to move, because every attempt to do so will slide you within millimeters of the car next to you? In my case:
1. University of Arizona has a perfectly fine law school and sociology department. If they call, I say yes.
2. If dog sledding is such a cool hobby in Wisconsin, can't they harness a few mutts and bring them around to pull innocent drivers like me out of trouble?
3. If Wisconsin is so full of tall, Nordic, hulky men, why can’t they for once be in the right place at the right time?
4. If I survive, I will immediately rewrite the post doubting the validity of the study that excluded Madison from the list of congenial places to live in [perhaps the survival thing was an over-dramatization: the parking lot where I was stuck was a mere block away from State Street, our main drag].
5. If we needed brute force to pull vehicles forward, why didn’t we just stay with the horse and carriage thing instead of creating unnecessary dependence on foreign oil?
I have to admit that eventually two very nice (if not hulky nor Nordic) men did come to my rescue. They lifted the end of the car that was spinning out of control, tut-tuting at my imbecile attempts at traction (a handful of pebbles and the branches of a desecrated nearby taxus brevifolia shrub), and positioned me in the proper direction. I was so grateful I didn't even tell them who to vote for in the forthcoming election. Probably they'll pick the tall guy, like everyone else.
1. University of Arizona has a perfectly fine law school and sociology department. If they call, I say yes.
2. If dog sledding is such a cool hobby in Wisconsin, can't they harness a few mutts and bring them around to pull innocent drivers like me out of trouble?
3. If Wisconsin is so full of tall, Nordic, hulky men, why can’t they for once be in the right place at the right time?
4. If I survive, I will immediately rewrite the post doubting the validity of the study that excluded Madison from the list of congenial places to live in [perhaps the survival thing was an over-dramatization: the parking lot where I was stuck was a mere block away from State Street, our main drag].
5. If we needed brute force to pull vehicles forward, why didn’t we just stay with the horse and carriage thing instead of creating unnecessary dependence on foreign oil?
I have to admit that eventually two very nice (if not hulky nor Nordic) men did come to my rescue. They lifted the end of the car that was spinning out of control, tut-tuting at my imbecile attempts at traction (a handful of pebbles and the branches of a desecrated nearby taxus brevifolia shrub), and positioned me in the proper direction. I was so grateful I didn't even tell them who to vote for in the forthcoming election. Probably they'll pick the tall guy, like everyone else.
Erratum
Yesterday I mentioned in the blog that Streep had stated that “steroids in baseball” is not a burning issue before the nation. She appears to wrong, and I, who agreed with her, must, therefore, be wrong as well. I stand corrected by a constituent from Cheshire CT (Is there something going on in Cheshire that maybe Streep and I don't quite have a pulse on?).
Erratum
Yesterday I mentioned in the blog that Streep had stated that “steroids in baseball” is not a burning issue before the nation. She appears to wrong, and I, who agreed with her, must, therefore, be wrong as well. I stand corrected by a constituent from Cheshire CT (Is there something going on in Cheshire that maybe Streep and I don't quite have a pulse on?).
IN GOD THEY TRUST
Another reader suggestion for the list of possibly trivial (meaning – what do these have to do with governing?) presidential imperatives (post, January 23): a candidate for presidential office must have religious faith. Well, okay, I’ll add it as point number 7, but only if we qualify it: a candidate must “profess” adherence to some religious beliefs. Because, in truth, what do we know about their beliefs? It’s not like height, i.e. objectively identifiable (though not so easy in the case of Berlusconi, but let’s not go there now). And historically, isn’t it the case that Lincoln actually did not profess an affiliation to any religious faith? And that Andrew Johnson not only did not claim a religious affiliation, but in fact, never espoused anything that sounded like religion?
As to our Democrats-on-the-run, well, we do know that Dean CLAIMS he had a religious wedding, but since his wife is Jewish (the children were raised in the Jewish faith) and he says he is Christian, it appears that they were actually married before a judge. He does state that he felt it to be a religious ceremony and that religion is an internal, private things and so he can dang well call it religious if he feels like it. Sounds like a stretch, but it does meet the criterion of “professes religious faith,” even though the New Republic called him “one of the most secular candidates to run for president in modern history.”
And the others? I’ve never seen such a mixed up patchwork of religious affiliations. Gen. Wesley Clark says his father was Jewish, though he himself is a Methodist turned Baptist turned Catholic who attends a Presbyterian church. The Star Telegram says of Edwards: “Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina turned to the Bible after his 16-year-old son, Wade, died in a car accident. But Edwards has been uncomfortable talking about this, saying it's a private family matter.” Lieberman is an Orthdox Jew, the Rev. Al Sharpton is a Pentecostal minister, though he does not have a fixed parish. As for Kerry? According to NPR-- Senator John Kerry is Catholic, though he recently discovered that his paternal grandparents were Jewish. Kerry's grandfather was born Fritz Kohn in Austria in 1873. He changed his name in 1902, converted to Catholicism, and moved to Boston, where he married a woman who had also converted from Judaism to Catholicism. And Kucinich? We needn't bother -- he's too short (see post below), he wont win.
These days, it appears that religion is a must to take the South, so okay, number 7 on my list goes to professing religious faith.
As to our Democrats-on-the-run, well, we do know that Dean CLAIMS he had a religious wedding, but since his wife is Jewish (the children were raised in the Jewish faith) and he says he is Christian, it appears that they were actually married before a judge. He does state that he felt it to be a religious ceremony and that religion is an internal, private things and so he can dang well call it religious if he feels like it. Sounds like a stretch, but it does meet the criterion of “professes religious faith,” even though the New Republic called him “one of the most secular candidates to run for president in modern history.”
And the others? I’ve never seen such a mixed up patchwork of religious affiliations. Gen. Wesley Clark says his father was Jewish, though he himself is a Methodist turned Baptist turned Catholic who attends a Presbyterian church. The Star Telegram says of Edwards: “Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina turned to the Bible after his 16-year-old son, Wade, died in a car accident. But Edwards has been uncomfortable talking about this, saying it's a private family matter.” Lieberman is an Orthdox Jew, the Rev. Al Sharpton is a Pentecostal minister, though he does not have a fixed parish. As for Kerry? According to NPR-- Senator John Kerry is Catholic, though he recently discovered that his paternal grandparents were Jewish. Kerry's grandfather was born Fritz Kohn in Austria in 1873. He changed his name in 1902, converted to Catholicism, and moved to Boston, where he married a woman who had also converted from Judaism to Catholicism. And Kucinich? We needn't bother -- he's too short (see post below), he wont win.
These days, it appears that religion is a must to take the South, so okay, number 7 on my list goes to professing religious faith.
IN GOD THEY TRUST
Another reader suggestion for the list of possibly trivial (meaning – what do these have to do with governing?) presidential imperatives (post, January 23): a candidate for presidential office must have religious faith. Well, okay, I’ll add it as point number 7, but only if we qualify it: a candidate must “profess” adherence to some religious beliefs. Because, in truth, what do we know about their beliefs? It’s not like height, i.e. objectively identifiable (though not so easy in the case of Berlusconi, but let’s not go there now). And historically, isn’t it the case that Lincoln actually did not profess an affiliation to any religious faith? And that Andrew Johnson not only did not claim a religious affiliation, but in fact, never espoused anything that sounded like religion?
As to our Democrats-on-the-run, well, we do know that Dean CLAIMS he had a religious wedding, but since his wife is Jewish (the children were raised in the Jewish faith) and he says he is Christian, it appears that they were actually married before a judge. He does state that he felt it to be a religious ceremony and that religion is an internal, private things and so he can dang well call it religious if he feels like it. Sounds like a stretch, but it does meet the criterion of “professes religious faith,” even though the New Republic called him “one of the most secular candidates to run for president in modern history.”
And the others? I’ve never seen such a mixed up patchwork of religious affiliations. Gen. Wesley Clark says his father was Jewish, though he himself is a Methodist turned Baptist turned Catholic who attends a Presbyterian church. The Star Telegram says of Edwards: “Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina turned to the Bible after his 16-year-old son, Wade, died in a car accident. But Edwards has been uncomfortable talking about this, saying it's a private family matter.” Lieberman is an Orthdox Jew, the Rev. Al Sharpton is a Pentecostal minister, though he does not have a fixed parish. As for Kerry? According to NPR-- Senator John Kerry is Catholic, though he recently discovered that his paternal grandparents were Jewish. Kerry's grandfather was born Fritz Kohn in Austria in 1873. He changed his name in 1902, converted to Catholicism, and moved to Boston, where he married a woman who had also converted from Judaism to Catholicism. And Kucinich? We needn't bother -- he's too short (see post below), he wont win.
These days, it appears that religion is a must to take the South, so okay, number 7 on my list goes to professing religious faith.
As to our Democrats-on-the-run, well, we do know that Dean CLAIMS he had a religious wedding, but since his wife is Jewish (the children were raised in the Jewish faith) and he says he is Christian, it appears that they were actually married before a judge. He does state that he felt it to be a religious ceremony and that religion is an internal, private things and so he can dang well call it religious if he feels like it. Sounds like a stretch, but it does meet the criterion of “professes religious faith,” even though the New Republic called him “one of the most secular candidates to run for president in modern history.”
And the others? I’ve never seen such a mixed up patchwork of religious affiliations. Gen. Wesley Clark says his father was Jewish, though he himself is a Methodist turned Baptist turned Catholic who attends a Presbyterian church. The Star Telegram says of Edwards: “Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina turned to the Bible after his 16-year-old son, Wade, died in a car accident. But Edwards has been uncomfortable talking about this, saying it's a private family matter.” Lieberman is an Orthdox Jew, the Rev. Al Sharpton is a Pentecostal minister, though he does not have a fixed parish. As for Kerry? According to NPR-- Senator John Kerry is Catholic, though he recently discovered that his paternal grandparents were Jewish. Kerry's grandfather was born Fritz Kohn in Austria in 1873. He changed his name in 1902, converted to Catholicism, and moved to Boston, where he married a woman who had also converted from Judaism to Catholicism. And Kucinich? We needn't bother -- he's too short (see post below), he wont win.
These days, it appears that religion is a must to take the South, so okay, number 7 on my list goes to professing religious faith.
Sunday, January 25, 2004
Goats and Lawyers and Meryl Streep
Which story tugs at the heart more? The goat that paid for a girl’s education, or the lawyer who befriended a lonely, dying man? A small percentage in need who get a break, from good lawyers, good goats. From the point of view of political priorities, what do you concentrate your efforts on? Creating fewer in need or more who’ll help? The answer seems obvious, though the current political thinking appears to hold the opposite position.
Moments ago, Meryl Streep said on the Golden Globes (I am WIRED!) that the two biggest problems in America are NOT gay marriage and steroids in sports. It’s not the first time that she is right.
Moments ago, Meryl Streep said on the Golden Globes (I am WIRED!) that the two biggest problems in America are NOT gay marriage and steroids in sports. It’s not the first time that she is right.
Napoleon wouldn't make it in America
A reader from a small town (possibly a town of disenfranchised small people), commented that my list of presidential imperatives (post, January 23) is woefully incomplete. The following is missing: the candidate must also be tall. I have to confess that I have never paid much attention to the size of candidates for office, or of political leaders in general, maybe because I have never been invited to dinner at the White House (see same post) and so I view them from the perspective of the screen, where all people look like they are of average height.
My (perhaps inadequate) research, however, reveals that my reader is right. First, consider the height of the following successful people in general:
SHAQUILLE O'NEAL, NBA star: 7 feet, 1 inch 4
JIM GOODNIGHT, SAS founder: 6 feet, 5 inches
JOHN WAYNE, actor: 6 feet, 4 inches
TIGER WOODS, golf star: 6 feet, 2 inches
DAVID LETTERMAN, TV host: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRINCE WILLIAM, royal heir: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: between 5'11" and 6', depending on who's reporting
MAYA ANGELOU, poet: 6 feet
NICOLE KIDMAN, actress: 5 feet, 10 inches
DIANE SAWYER, newswoman: 5 feet, 9 inches
Now let's take it into the political domain. A UNC research study on the importance of height reaches the following conclusion:
So, my astute reader is correct. "Must be tall" joins the list of vital (if trivial) imperatives. And, let me throw out another little piece of research: since the time of modern vote counting (flawed as it may be), only ONE candidate actually won the electoral college even though he was shorter than his opponent: Jimmy Carter took the seat from Ford, even though he was a piddly 5'9" and Ford was 6'1" . (I do understand that G.W. Bush at 5'11" was a tad shorter than Gore at 6'1", but the key word here is "won")
As for the Democratic hopefuls, if you're placing bets on who will carry it, here are the crucial numbers (and therein lies the answer as to how on earth Kerry leapfrogged over Dean in Iowa), straight from the Hill:
My (perhaps inadequate) research, however, reveals that my reader is right. First, consider the height of the following successful people in general:
SHAQUILLE O'NEAL, NBA star: 7 feet, 1 inch 4
JIM GOODNIGHT, SAS founder: 6 feet, 5 inches
JOHN WAYNE, actor: 6 feet, 4 inches
TIGER WOODS, golf star: 6 feet, 2 inches
DAVID LETTERMAN, TV host: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRINCE WILLIAM, royal heir: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: between 5'11" and 6', depending on who's reporting
MAYA ANGELOU, poet: 6 feet
NICOLE KIDMAN, actress: 5 feet, 10 inches
DIANE SAWYER, newswoman: 5 feet, 9 inches
Now let's take it into the political domain. A UNC research study on the importance of height reaches the following conclusion:
"not since 1896 have U.S. citizens elected a president whose height was below average (William McKinley, who, at 5 feet 7 inches tall, was ridiculed in the press as 'little boy.')"
So, my astute reader is correct. "Must be tall" joins the list of vital (if trivial) imperatives. And, let me throw out another little piece of research: since the time of modern vote counting (flawed as it may be), only ONE candidate actually won the electoral college even though he was shorter than his opponent: Jimmy Carter took the seat from Ford, even though he was a piddly 5'9" and Ford was 6'1" . (I do understand that G.W. Bush at 5'11" was a tad shorter than Gore at 6'1", but the key word here is "won")
As for the Democratic hopefuls, if you're placing bets on who will carry it, here are the crucial numbers (and therein lies the answer as to how on earth Kerry leapfrogged over Dean in Iowa), straight from the Hill:
At the head of the pack is the gargantuan John Kerry, who stands in at about 6'4" (presumably including the hair). Going down the line is Dick Gephardt at 6'1", then John Edwards at about 6' even. Al Sharpton measures up at about 5'11", Wesley Clark 5'11", Howard Dean about 5'9", Joe Lieberman 5'8", Dennis Kucinich 5'7" and, finally, Carol Moseley Braun at, we'll say, 5'4".
Goats and Lawyers and Meryl Streep
Which story tugs at the heart more? The goat that paid for a girl’s education, or the lawyer who befriended a lonely, dying man? A small percentage in need who get a break, from good lawyers, good goats. From the point of view of political priorities, what do you concentrate your efforts on? Creating fewer in need or more who’ll help? The answer seems obvious, though the current political thinking appears to hold the opposite position.
Moments ago, Meryl Streep said on the Golden Globes (I am WIRED!) that the two biggest problems in America are NOT gay marriage and steroids in sports. It’s not the first time that she is right.
Moments ago, Meryl Streep said on the Golden Globes (I am WIRED!) that the two biggest problems in America are NOT gay marriage and steroids in sports. It’s not the first time that she is right.
Napoleon wouldn't make it in America
A reader from a small town (possibly a town of disenfranchised small people), commented that my list of presidential imperatives (post, January 23) is woefully incomplete. The following is missing: the candidate must also be tall. I have to confess that I have never paid much attention to the size of candidates for office, or of political leaders in general, maybe because I have never been invited to dinner at the White House (see same post) and so I view them from the perspective of the screen, where all people look like they are of average height.
My (perhaps inadequate) research, however, reveals that my reader is right. First, consider the height of the following successful people in general:
SHAQUILLE O'NEAL, NBA star: 7 feet, 1 inch 4
JIM GOODNIGHT, SAS founder: 6 feet, 5 inches
JOHN WAYNE, actor: 6 feet, 4 inches
TIGER WOODS, golf star: 6 feet, 2 inches
DAVID LETTERMAN, TV host: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRINCE WILLIAM, royal heir: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: between 5'11" and 6', depending on who's reporting
MAYA ANGELOU, poet: 6 feet
NICOLE KIDMAN, actress: 5 feet, 10 inches
DIANE SAWYER, newswoman: 5 feet, 9 inches
Now let's take it into the political domain. A UNC research study on the importance of height reaches the following conclusion:
So, my astute reader is correct. "Must be tall" joins the list of vital (if trivial) imperatives. And, let me throw out another little piece of research: since the time of modern vote counting (flawed as it may be), only ONE candidate actually won the electoral college even though he was shorter than his opponent: Jimmy Carter took the seat from Ford, even though he was a piddly 5'9" and Ford was 6'1" . (I do understand that G.W. Bush at 5'11" was a tad shorter than Gore at 6'1", but the key word here is "won")
As for the Democratic hopefuls, if you're placing bets on who will carry it, here are the crucial numbers (and therein lies the answer as to how on earth Kerry leapfrogged over Dean in Iowa), straight from the Hill:
My (perhaps inadequate) research, however, reveals that my reader is right. First, consider the height of the following successful people in general:
SHAQUILLE O'NEAL, NBA star: 7 feet, 1 inch 4
JIM GOODNIGHT, SAS founder: 6 feet, 5 inches
JOHN WAYNE, actor: 6 feet, 4 inches
TIGER WOODS, golf star: 6 feet, 2 inches
DAVID LETTERMAN, TV host: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRINCE WILLIAM, royal heir: 6 feet, 2 inches
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: between 5'11" and 6', depending on who's reporting
MAYA ANGELOU, poet: 6 feet
NICOLE KIDMAN, actress: 5 feet, 10 inches
DIANE SAWYER, newswoman: 5 feet, 9 inches
Now let's take it into the political domain. A UNC research study on the importance of height reaches the following conclusion:
"not since 1896 have U.S. citizens elected a president whose height was below average (William McKinley, who, at 5 feet 7 inches tall, was ridiculed in the press as 'little boy.')"
So, my astute reader is correct. "Must be tall" joins the list of vital (if trivial) imperatives. And, let me throw out another little piece of research: since the time of modern vote counting (flawed as it may be), only ONE candidate actually won the electoral college even though he was shorter than his opponent: Jimmy Carter took the seat from Ford, even though he was a piddly 5'9" and Ford was 6'1" . (I do understand that G.W. Bush at 5'11" was a tad shorter than Gore at 6'1", but the key word here is "won")
As for the Democratic hopefuls, if you're placing bets on who will carry it, here are the crucial numbers (and therein lies the answer as to how on earth Kerry leapfrogged over Dean in Iowa), straight from the Hill:
At the head of the pack is the gargantuan John Kerry, who stands in at about 6'4" (presumably including the hair). Going down the line is Dick Gephardt at 6'1", then John Edwards at about 6' even. Al Sharpton measures up at about 5'11", Wesley Clark 5'11", Howard Dean about 5'9", Joe Lieberman 5'8", Dennis Kucinich 5'7" and, finally, Carol Moseley Braun at, we'll say, 5'4".
Don’t be fooled: the stuff isn’t any good
A good review is usually a good sign that a book has merit. Unless the review is in the NYT: This from a recent statement by Erlanger:
Changes are about to take place at the NYT Book Review (see link). For one thing, we shouldn’t count on more reviews of fiction. There isn’t enough of a polemic in reviewing fiction. Making up good things to say about authors and their not-so-good books just isn’t very sexy.
"To be honest, there's so much s---," the new leader of the daily arts section observes. "Most of the things we praise aren't very good."
Changes are about to take place at the NYT Book Review (see link). For one thing, we shouldn’t count on more reviews of fiction. There isn’t enough of a polemic in reviewing fiction. Making up good things to say about authors and their not-so-good books just isn’t very sexy.
Don’t be fooled: the stuff isn’t any good
A good review is usually a good sign that a book has merit. Unless the review is in the NYT: This from a recent statement by Erlanger:
Changes are about to take place at the NYT Book Review (see link). For one thing, we shouldn’t count on more reviews of fiction. There isn’t enough of a polemic in reviewing fiction. Making up good things to say about authors and their not-so-good books just isn’t very sexy.
"To be honest, there's so much s---," the new leader of the daily arts section observes. "Most of the things we praise aren't very good."
Changes are about to take place at the NYT Book Review (see link). For one thing, we shouldn’t count on more reviews of fiction. There isn’t enough of a polemic in reviewing fiction. Making up good things to say about authors and their not-so-good books just isn’t very sexy.
Maureen, I’m going to stop reading you if you don’t cut it out.
Not a great threat, I know. But the trivialization game (post on January 23) continues on the op-ed page today:
I’ll take trivial if it’s laugh-out-loud funny, or part of a blog or something. But in an NYT article that describes the new Dean as a pathetically “declawed, de-clenched, de-Deaned Dean,” Dowd’s jibe at the Deans, the couple, makes her appear to be sharpening her own fangs on yesterday’s pumpkin pie.
..some reporters thought that thrust into her first national television interview, Judy Dean seemed as fragile as Laura in "The Glass Menagerie." At moments on ABC, the couple seemed so far from mainstream American life and so disconnected from each other's careers, they were like characters who had walked into the wrong play.
.. I found Judy Dean, gussied up with unfamiliar lipstick and blush, charming. She seemed as antithetical as possible to the notion of a first lady — and that ain't all bad. I'm not sure I believed her assertion that her high-spirited husband doesn't ever blow his top at home. And it still seems strange that she is so oblivious to the major moments of his campaign: She told Diane Sawyer that she had not seen The Scream the night it happened, which means [nc: here we go again…] she wasn't watching his big speech on election night in Iowa.
I’ll take trivial if it’s laugh-out-loud funny, or part of a blog or something. But in an NYT article that describes the new Dean as a pathetically “declawed, de-clenched, de-Deaned Dean,” Dowd’s jibe at the Deans, the couple, makes her appear to be sharpening her own fangs on yesterday’s pumpkin pie.
Maureen, I’m going to stop reading you if you don’t cut it out.
Not a great threat, I know. But the trivialization game (post on January 23) continues on the op-ed page today:
I’ll take trivial if it’s laugh-out-loud funny, or part of a blog or something. But in an NYT article that describes the new Dean as a pathetically “declawed, de-clenched, de-Deaned Dean,” Dowd’s jibe at the Deans, the couple, makes her appear to be sharpening her own fangs on yesterday’s pumpkin pie.
..some reporters thought that thrust into her first national television interview, Judy Dean seemed as fragile as Laura in "The Glass Menagerie." At moments on ABC, the couple seemed so far from mainstream American life and so disconnected from each other's careers, they were like characters who had walked into the wrong play.
.. I found Judy Dean, gussied up with unfamiliar lipstick and blush, charming. She seemed as antithetical as possible to the notion of a first lady — and that ain't all bad. I'm not sure I believed her assertion that her high-spirited husband doesn't ever blow his top at home. And it still seems strange that she is so oblivious to the major moments of his campaign: She told Diane Sawyer that she had not seen The Scream the night it happened, which means [nc: here we go again…] she wasn't watching his big speech on election night in Iowa.
I’ll take trivial if it’s laugh-out-loud funny, or part of a blog or something. But in an NYT article that describes the new Dean as a pathetically “declawed, de-clenched, de-Deaned Dean,” Dowd’s jibe at the Deans, the couple, makes her appear to be sharpening her own fangs on yesterday’s pumpkin pie.
Another Sunday: More Family Trivia
My grandmother (1901 – 1994) was the most apolitical person I know. My grandfather (1886 – 1973) was completely immersed in politics. She baked during the night shift and in retirement, made pierogi and nalesniki (blintzes). He organized labor groups, built community centers, and championed organic farming. Did they get along and find the middle ground? Hardly. Poor for the better part of their lives and certainly at the time of their courtship, they may well have qualified for Bush’s aid for marriage counseling. Not that they should have married to begin with. But they were destined to do so: he needed a wife, she needed a husband. They never divorced, but in later years sometimes they lived apart, sometimes together. Their lives defied compartmentalization or labeling. They lived in Poland, then in the US, then after the War, in Poland again. They were unique, as are other partnerships and marital units. Poverty sparked tension; later, a modestly comfortable retirement (it was a fluke, too complicated to explain here) eased the tension considerably. She continued to focus on feeding successive generations of the family, he on his community work. It worked. Sort of. Is there a lesson here?
Call it a liberal incarnation of trickle-down economics: self-sufficiency leads to healthier marriage/partnership, not the other way around. If the marriage mobile dispenses jobs with a decent living wage, I’ll jump on its bandwagon.
Call it a liberal incarnation of trickle-down economics: self-sufficiency leads to healthier marriage/partnership, not the other way around. If the marriage mobile dispenses jobs with a decent living wage, I’ll jump on its bandwagon.
Another Sunday: More Family Trivia
My grandmother (1901 – 1994) was the most apolitical person I know. My grandfather (1886 – 1973) was completely immersed in politics. She baked during the night shift and in retirement, made pierogi and nalesniki (blintzes). He organized labor groups, built community centers, and championed organic farming. Did they get along and find the middle ground? Hardly. Poor for the better part of their lives and certainly at the time of their courtship, they may well have qualified for Bush’s aid for marriage counseling. Not that they should have married to begin with. But they were destined to do so: he needed a wife, she needed a husband. They never divorced, but in later years sometimes they lived apart, sometimes together. Their lives defied compartmentalization or labeling. They lived in Poland, then in the US, then after the War, in Poland again. They were unique, as are other partnerships and marital units. Poverty sparked tension; later, a modestly comfortable retirement (it was a fluke, too complicated to explain here) eased the tension considerably. She continued to focus on feeding successive generations of the family, he on his community work. It worked. Sort of. Is there a lesson here?
Call it a liberal incarnation of trickle-down economics: self-sufficiency leads to healthier marriage/partnership, not the other way around. If the marriage mobile dispenses jobs with a decent living wage, I’ll jump on its bandwagon.
Call it a liberal incarnation of trickle-down economics: self-sufficiency leads to healthier marriage/partnership, not the other way around. If the marriage mobile dispenses jobs with a decent living wage, I’ll jump on its bandwagon.
Saturday, January 24, 2004
New uses for old words
Our limited capacity to invent or imagine or absorb new words often leads us to describe newly emergent circumstances with borrowed words and phrases. Spam is a good example of this (first adopted for trashy emails because someone remembered the Monty Python skit about the real product , appearing in an irritating manner every few seconds and at every juncture).
Listening to NPR’s descriptions of problems with the Mars Rover yesterday gave me a few helpful terms to throw around when my computer isn’t cooperating. For instance, the Rover was described as hiccupping data – taking it in, spitting it out over and over again. Faced with a new kind of computer puzzler and inspired by this very apt description, I wrote a message to tech support about a weblog visitor whose Hungarian domain was hiccupping uncontrollably in and out this site. And today I heard, again on NPR, that the Rover was behaving like a stubborn adolescent. There have been many moments when I have wanted to send smart and sassy Eudora or temperamental Internet Explorer to their room and take away the car keys for the evening. You tell them to do something and they shut down on you and sulk.
Maybe these descriptors will catch on.
Listening to NPR’s descriptions of problems with the Mars Rover yesterday gave me a few helpful terms to throw around when my computer isn’t cooperating. For instance, the Rover was described as hiccupping data – taking it in, spitting it out over and over again. Faced with a new kind of computer puzzler and inspired by this very apt description, I wrote a message to tech support about a weblog visitor whose Hungarian domain was hiccupping uncontrollably in and out this site. And today I heard, again on NPR, that the Rover was behaving like a stubborn adolescent. There have been many moments when I have wanted to send smart and sassy Eudora or temperamental Internet Explorer to their room and take away the car keys for the evening. You tell them to do something and they shut down on you and sulk.
Maybe these descriptors will catch on.
New uses for old words
Our limited capacity to invent or imagine or absorb new words often leads us to describe newly emergent circumstances with borrowed words and phrases. Spam is a good example of this (first adopted for trashy emails because someone remembered the Monty Python skit about the real product , appearing in an irritating manner every few seconds and at every juncture).
Listening to NPR’s descriptions of problems with the Mars Rover yesterday gave me a few helpful terms to throw around when my computer isn’t cooperating. For instance, the Rover was described as hiccupping data – taking it in, spitting it out over and over again. Faced with a new kind of computer puzzler and inspired by this very apt description, I wrote a message to tech support about a weblog visitor whose Hungarian domain was hiccupping uncontrollably in and out this site. And today I heard, again on NPR, that the Rover was behaving like a stubborn adolescent. There have been many moments when I have wanted to send smart and sassy Eudora or temperamental Internet Explorer to their room and take away the car keys for the evening. You tell them to do something and they shut down on you and sulk.
Maybe these descriptors will catch on.
Listening to NPR’s descriptions of problems with the Mars Rover yesterday gave me a few helpful terms to throw around when my computer isn’t cooperating. For instance, the Rover was described as hiccupping data – taking it in, spitting it out over and over again. Faced with a new kind of computer puzzler and inspired by this very apt description, I wrote a message to tech support about a weblog visitor whose Hungarian domain was hiccupping uncontrollably in and out this site. And today I heard, again on NPR, that the Rover was behaving like a stubborn adolescent. There have been many moments when I have wanted to send smart and sassy Eudora or temperamental Internet Explorer to their room and take away the car keys for the evening. You tell them to do something and they shut down on you and sulk.
Maybe these descriptors will catch on.
Title: A New World Order; Author: G.W.Bush
The essay on the half dozen recent books denouncing Bush’s foreign policy (NYT Sunday Book Review) is brutally honest. We live in a time and place where the new world order has been revolutionized by a cowboy with a mission and with little experience in world affairs and where a growing number of people look at the Bush America with revulsion and dread.
Consider this excerpt from the essay:
Schmemann (an editor at the IHT), the author of the essay, correctly, I think, perceives that liberals absolutely cannot stomach this zealot. He writes:
In the last paragraph, Schmemann uses the words of one of the authors to deliver the final, devastating condemnation:
Consider this excerpt from the essay:
Bush's views, Daalder and Lindsay say, came to rest on two fundamental pillars. ''The first was that in a dangerous world the best -- if not the only -- way to ensure America's security was to shed the constraints imposed by friends, allies and international institutions.'' The second was that America ''should aggressively go abroad searching for monsters to destroy.'' Never mind whether Saddam Hussein -- or Yasir Arafat, Iran, Syria or North Korea -- had anything to do with the fall of the twin towers: they were the global evil America was ordained to destroy.
Schmemann (an editor at the IHT), the author of the essay, correctly, I think, perceives that liberals absolutely cannot stomach this zealot. He writes:
It is inevitable that a foreign policy couched in biblical symbols, eschewing subtleties and advanced by Texans, oil-men, neocons and industrialists would be insufferable to liberals, doves, internationalists and New Englanders (conversely, remember what Bill Clinton did to conservatives). One suspects that even the senior George Bush occasionally looks out from his crag at Kennebunkport on the policies of his firstborn with some misgiving. Still, it is difficult to explain the level of loathing that the junior Bush and his government have achieved among otherwise rational liberals. The assaults in these books range widely in theme and quality, and Bush's defenders are likely, with some justification, to dismiss the more strident writers as congenitally allergic to any manifestation of American power. But the urgency with which they sound the alarm requires attention. History is too clear on what unconstrained power can lead to.
In the last paragraph, Schmemann uses the words of one of the authors to deliver the final, devastating condemnation:
Though I have lived abroad for many years and regard myself as hardened to anti-Americanism, I confess I was taken aback to have my country depicted, page after page, book after book, as a dangerous empire in its last throes, as a failure of democracy, as militaristic, violent, hegemonic, evil, callous, arrogant, imperial and cruel. Daalder and Lindsay may be constrained by an American sense of respect for the White House, but they too proclaim Bush's foreign policy fundamentally wrong. It is not only Bush's ''imperious style,'' they write; ''The deeper problem was that the fundamental premise of the Bush revolution -- that America's security rested on an America unbound -- was mistaken.'' The more moving judgment comes from Soros, a Jew from Hungary who lived through both German and Soviet occupation: ''This is not the America I chose as my home.''
Title: A New World Order; Author: G.W.Bush
The essay on the half dozen recent books denouncing Bush’s foreign policy (NYT Sunday Book Review) is brutally honest. We live in a time and place where the new world order has been revolutionized by a cowboy with a mission and with little experience in world affairs and where a growing number of people look at the Bush America with revulsion and dread.
Consider this excerpt from the essay:
Schmemann (an editor at the IHT), the author of the essay, correctly, I think, perceives that liberals absolutely cannot stomach this zealot. He writes:
In the last paragraph, Schmemann uses the words of one of the authors to deliver the final, devastating condemnation:
Consider this excerpt from the essay:
Bush's views, Daalder and Lindsay say, came to rest on two fundamental pillars. ''The first was that in a dangerous world the best -- if not the only -- way to ensure America's security was to shed the constraints imposed by friends, allies and international institutions.'' The second was that America ''should aggressively go abroad searching for monsters to destroy.'' Never mind whether Saddam Hussein -- or Yasir Arafat, Iran, Syria or North Korea -- had anything to do with the fall of the twin towers: they were the global evil America was ordained to destroy.
Schmemann (an editor at the IHT), the author of the essay, correctly, I think, perceives that liberals absolutely cannot stomach this zealot. He writes:
It is inevitable that a foreign policy couched in biblical symbols, eschewing subtleties and advanced by Texans, oil-men, neocons and industrialists would be insufferable to liberals, doves, internationalists and New Englanders (conversely, remember what Bill Clinton did to conservatives). One suspects that even the senior George Bush occasionally looks out from his crag at Kennebunkport on the policies of his firstborn with some misgiving. Still, it is difficult to explain the level of loathing that the junior Bush and his government have achieved among otherwise rational liberals. The assaults in these books range widely in theme and quality, and Bush's defenders are likely, with some justification, to dismiss the more strident writers as congenitally allergic to any manifestation of American power. But the urgency with which they sound the alarm requires attention. History is too clear on what unconstrained power can lead to.
In the last paragraph, Schmemann uses the words of one of the authors to deliver the final, devastating condemnation:
Though I have lived abroad for many years and regard myself as hardened to anti-Americanism, I confess I was taken aback to have my country depicted, page after page, book after book, as a dangerous empire in its last throes, as a failure of democracy, as militaristic, violent, hegemonic, evil, callous, arrogant, imperial and cruel. Daalder and Lindsay may be constrained by an American sense of respect for the White House, but they too proclaim Bush's foreign policy fundamentally wrong. It is not only Bush's ''imperious style,'' they write; ''The deeper problem was that the fundamental premise of the Bush revolution -- that America's security rested on an America unbound -- was mistaken.'' The more moving judgment comes from Soros, a Jew from Hungary who lived through both German and Soviet occupation: ''This is not the America I chose as my home.''
Friday, January 23, 2004
For future reference, I do not know where Berlusconi’s daughter is.
My impeccable technological acumen [a joke, for sure] allows me to find that I’ve had some visitors to this blog who needed to locate sites that made reference to the whereabouts of Prime Minister Berlusconi’s daughter. It is true that at least twice I’ve made reference to Berlusconi, and several times, in other posts, I’ve alluded to having daughters. But for the record: I did not even fully remember knowing that Berlusconi had a daughter, and I have no idea where she is. Questions that come to mind:
1. Is someone tracking her down for cruel reasons? Is it an internet stalker of the kind I wrote about on January 16?
2. Is an Italian elementary school English class, learning how to say mother father son daughter, perhaps writing English compositions on Berlusconi and his family? With little Marianna or Giuseppe cheating a little by pulling stuff off the internet?
3. Or, is it someone looking for very specific information, wading through a million Google sites to find what they need? Research can be a frustrating activity and I apologize for being one of those irrelevant sites. [Of course, this post alone will ensure that anyone searching for Berlusconi’s daughter in the future is going to come right back to the Other Side of the Ocean. Sorry once again.]
1. Is someone tracking her down for cruel reasons? Is it an internet stalker of the kind I wrote about on January 16?
2. Is an Italian elementary school English class, learning how to say mother father son daughter, perhaps writing English compositions on Berlusconi and his family? With little Marianna or Giuseppe cheating a little by pulling stuff off the internet?
3. Or, is it someone looking for very specific information, wading through a million Google sites to find what they need? Research can be a frustrating activity and I apologize for being one of those irrelevant sites. [Of course, this post alone will ensure that anyone searching for Berlusconi’s daughter in the future is going to come right back to the Other Side of the Ocean. Sorry once again.]
For future reference, I do not know where Berlusconi’s daughter is.
My impeccable technological acumen [a joke, for sure] allows me to find that I’ve had some visitors to this blog who needed to locate sites that made reference to the whereabouts of Prime Minister Berlusconi’s daughter. It is true that at least twice I’ve made reference to Berlusconi, and several times, in other posts, I’ve alluded to having daughters. But for the record: I did not even fully remember knowing that Berlusconi had a daughter, and I have no idea where she is. Questions that come to mind:
1. Is someone tracking her down for cruel reasons? Is it an internet stalker of the kind I wrote about on January 16?
2. Is an Italian elementary school English class, learning how to say mother father son daughter, perhaps writing English compositions on Berlusconi and his family? With little Marianna or Giuseppe cheating a little by pulling stuff off the internet?
3. Or, is it someone looking for very specific information, wading through a million Google sites to find what they need? Research can be a frustrating activity and I apologize for being one of those irrelevant sites. [Of course, this post alone will ensure that anyone searching for Berlusconi’s daughter in the future is going to come right back to the Other Side of the Ocean. Sorry once again.]
1. Is someone tracking her down for cruel reasons? Is it an internet stalker of the kind I wrote about on January 16?
2. Is an Italian elementary school English class, learning how to say mother father son daughter, perhaps writing English compositions on Berlusconi and his family? With little Marianna or Giuseppe cheating a little by pulling stuff off the internet?
3. Or, is it someone looking for very specific information, wading through a million Google sites to find what they need? Research can be a frustrating activity and I apologize for being one of those irrelevant sites. [Of course, this post alone will ensure that anyone searching for Berlusconi’s daughter in the future is going to come right back to the Other Side of the Ocean. Sorry once again.]
Can this marriage be saved?
Relax, in the case of the Deans, the answer is yes. Just goes to show, Bush is on the ball with this one: save marriage counseling for the poor. The rich will find a way.
Can this marriage be saved?
Relax, in the case of the Deans, the answer is yes. Just goes to show, Bush is on the ball with this one: save marriage counseling for the poor. The rich will find a way.
Grooming the Perfect Candidate
Why did I make light of Berlusconi (post January 16, see also NYT today) and the Italians’ obsession with their Prime Minister’s appearance? Surely they can tell us to examine our own back yard. In full remorse, I will now give my complete attention to creating a list of 5 imperatives for a Presidential candidate in the US. I am, unfortunately, almost completely serious. To gain sizable support, a candidate for highest office here must do the following:
1. He (at the outset I may as well say it – the candidate must be a he; therefore, any attempt at gender neutrality in this list would be pointless) must never ever do anything that Leno or Letterman will be able to imitate in a physically exaggerated way, leading the nation to be convulsed with laughter at night, and dead serious in disliking the candidate for it the next morning. [Just to make my own position clear: I do not understand why lack of enthusiasm or an over abundance of enthusiasm in a political speech of ANY candidate should be a defining moment in a race; I don’t get it, I’ll never get it, so please don’t try to explain it to me yet again; many have attempted to justify the plummeting support for Dean “after the scream”, all have failed. I saw the damning speech, it made no impression one way or another, call me politically stunted, I just don’t get it.]
2. He must be someone most Americans would enjoy having over for dinner. [Time after time I have this conversation: “why don’t you like him?” I ask. “I don’t know, he’s just not someone I would feel comfortable with; I wouldn’t enjoy having dinner with him” goes the answer. Is this an outgrowth of viewing this country as a land of opportunity? For the record, Americans please take note: 99.999999999999% of you will NEVER HAVE DINNER WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 99.98 % will never even see him eat on national television.]
3. He must not appear boring [take a look at the comment on why Gebhardt is out, just today in the NYT. It’s so common to hear this: “he’s boring” “he puts me to sleep” “I can’t stay awake when he talks” “I can’t get myself to listen.” Are these statements about the impact of policies promulgated by the future leader of the country or are they statements about a nation that’s sleep deprived? We've known this for years, “entertaining” trumps “political agenda.”]
4. He must have a spouse that we can all rally behind [grumblings about the inadequacies of Dr. Dean, the wife, drive me insane; see post January 15], and a personal life that rises above the collective sins of our own backyards [Clinton, naturally, will always come to mind here].
5. During debates, he must not sigh (Gore), look with piercing eyes (Clark), cry (remember Muskie?),use complicated words that will make Bush look dumb (many). [a legal blogger recently wrote that in the last elections, SNL made Bush out to be stupid but well-meaning, and Gore to be robotic. In fact, the blogger writes, neither are true, Bush having proven himself to be ruthless, vindictive, and cunning. But note how hard it has been to shed our preconceptions, shaped by so little information, and so much irrelevant ...hogwash (see bacon post, January 21).]
Move over, Italians, we’ve perfected the art of political trivialization.
1. He (at the outset I may as well say it – the candidate must be a he; therefore, any attempt at gender neutrality in this list would be pointless) must never ever do anything that Leno or Letterman will be able to imitate in a physically exaggerated way, leading the nation to be convulsed with laughter at night, and dead serious in disliking the candidate for it the next morning. [Just to make my own position clear: I do not understand why lack of enthusiasm or an over abundance of enthusiasm in a political speech of ANY candidate should be a defining moment in a race; I don’t get it, I’ll never get it, so please don’t try to explain it to me yet again; many have attempted to justify the plummeting support for Dean “after the scream”, all have failed. I saw the damning speech, it made no impression one way or another, call me politically stunted, I just don’t get it.]
2. He must be someone most Americans would enjoy having over for dinner. [Time after time I have this conversation: “why don’t you like him?” I ask. “I don’t know, he’s just not someone I would feel comfortable with; I wouldn’t enjoy having dinner with him” goes the answer. Is this an outgrowth of viewing this country as a land of opportunity? For the record, Americans please take note: 99.999999999999% of you will NEVER HAVE DINNER WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 99.98 % will never even see him eat on national television.]
3. He must not appear boring [take a look at the comment on why Gebhardt is out, just today in the NYT. It’s so common to hear this: “he’s boring” “he puts me to sleep” “I can’t stay awake when he talks” “I can’t get myself to listen.” Are these statements about the impact of policies promulgated by the future leader of the country or are they statements about a nation that’s sleep deprived? We've known this for years, “entertaining” trumps “political agenda.”]
4. He must have a spouse that we can all rally behind [grumblings about the inadequacies of Dr. Dean, the wife, drive me insane; see post January 15], and a personal life that rises above the collective sins of our own backyards [Clinton, naturally, will always come to mind here].
5. During debates, he must not sigh (Gore), look with piercing eyes (Clark), cry (remember Muskie?),use complicated words that will make Bush look dumb (many). [a legal blogger recently wrote that in the last elections, SNL made Bush out to be stupid but well-meaning, and Gore to be robotic. In fact, the blogger writes, neither are true, Bush having proven himself to be ruthless, vindictive, and cunning. But note how hard it has been to shed our preconceptions, shaped by so little information, and so much irrelevant ...hogwash (see bacon post, January 21).]
Move over, Italians, we’ve perfected the art of political trivialization.
Grooming the Perfect Candidate
Why did I make light of Berlusconi (post January 16, see also NYT today) and the Italians’ obsession with their Prime Minister’s appearance? Surely they can tell us to examine our own back yard. In full remorse, I will now give my complete attention to creating a list of 5 imperatives for a Presidential candidate in the US. I am, unfortunately, almost completely serious. To gain sizable support, a candidate for highest office here must do the following:
1. He (at the outset I may as well say it – the candidate must be a he; therefore, any attempt at gender neutrality in this list would be pointless) must never ever do anything that Leno or Letterman will be able to imitate in a physically exaggerated way, leading the nation to be convulsed with laughter at night, and dead serious in disliking the candidate for it the next morning. [Just to make my own position clear: I do not understand why lack of enthusiasm or an over abundance of enthusiasm in a political speech of ANY candidate should be a defining moment in a race; I don’t get it, I’ll never get it, so please don’t try to explain it to me yet again; many have attempted to justify the plummeting support for Dean “after the scream”, all have failed. I saw the damning speech, it made no impression one way or another, call me politically stunted, I just don’t get it.]
2. He must be someone most Americans would enjoy having over for dinner. [Time after time I have this conversation: “why don’t you like him?” I ask. “I don’t know, he’s just not someone I would feel comfortable with; I wouldn’t enjoy having dinner with him” goes the answer. Is this an outgrowth of viewing this country as a land of opportunity? For the record, Americans please take note: 99.999999999999% of you will NEVER HAVE DINNER WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 99.98 % will never even see him eat on national television.]
3. He must not appear boring [take a look at the comment on why Gebhardt is out, just today in the NYT. It’s so common to hear this: “he’s boring” “he puts me to sleep” “I can’t stay awake when he talks” “I can’t get myself to listen.” Are these statements about the impact of policies promulgated by the future leader of the country or are they statements about a nation that’s sleep deprived? We've known this for years, “entertaining” trumps “political agenda.”]
4. He must have a spouse that we can all rally behind [grumblings about the inadequacies of Dr. Dean, the wife, drive me insane; see post January 15], and a personal life that rises above the collective sins of our own backyards [Clinton, naturally, will always come to mind here].
5. During debates, he must not sigh (Gore), look with piercing eyes (Clark), cry (remember Muskie?),use complicated words that will make Bush look dumb (many). [a legal blogger recently wrote that in the last elections, SNL made Bush out to be stupid but well-meaning, and Gore to be robotic. In fact, the blogger writes, neither are true, Bush having proven himself to be ruthless, vindictive, and cunning. But note how hard it has been to shed our preconceptions, shaped by so little information, and so much irrelevant ...hogwash (see bacon post, January 21).]
Move over, Italians, we’ve perfected the art of political trivialization.
1. He (at the outset I may as well say it – the candidate must be a he; therefore, any attempt at gender neutrality in this list would be pointless) must never ever do anything that Leno or Letterman will be able to imitate in a physically exaggerated way, leading the nation to be convulsed with laughter at night, and dead serious in disliking the candidate for it the next morning. [Just to make my own position clear: I do not understand why lack of enthusiasm or an over abundance of enthusiasm in a political speech of ANY candidate should be a defining moment in a race; I don’t get it, I’ll never get it, so please don’t try to explain it to me yet again; many have attempted to justify the plummeting support for Dean “after the scream”, all have failed. I saw the damning speech, it made no impression one way or another, call me politically stunted, I just don’t get it.]
2. He must be someone most Americans would enjoy having over for dinner. [Time after time I have this conversation: “why don’t you like him?” I ask. “I don’t know, he’s just not someone I would feel comfortable with; I wouldn’t enjoy having dinner with him” goes the answer. Is this an outgrowth of viewing this country as a land of opportunity? For the record, Americans please take note: 99.999999999999% of you will NEVER HAVE DINNER WITH THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 99.98 % will never even see him eat on national television.]
3. He must not appear boring [take a look at the comment on why Gebhardt is out, just today in the NYT. It’s so common to hear this: “he’s boring” “he puts me to sleep” “I can’t stay awake when he talks” “I can’t get myself to listen.” Are these statements about the impact of policies promulgated by the future leader of the country or are they statements about a nation that’s sleep deprived? We've known this for years, “entertaining” trumps “political agenda.”]
4. He must have a spouse that we can all rally behind [grumblings about the inadequacies of Dr. Dean, the wife, drive me insane; see post January 15], and a personal life that rises above the collective sins of our own backyards [Clinton, naturally, will always come to mind here].
5. During debates, he must not sigh (Gore), look with piercing eyes (Clark), cry (remember Muskie?),use complicated words that will make Bush look dumb (many). [a legal blogger recently wrote that in the last elections, SNL made Bush out to be stupid but well-meaning, and Gore to be robotic. In fact, the blogger writes, neither are true, Bush having proven himself to be ruthless, vindictive, and cunning. But note how hard it has been to shed our preconceptions, shaped by so little information, and so much irrelevant ...hogwash (see bacon post, January 21).]
Move over, Italians, we’ve perfected the art of political trivialization.
Thursday, January 22, 2004
Deciding the fate of others
I spent the afternoon listening to appeals of university nonresidency determinations. One such student missed being a resident (and therefore paying a fraction for the tuition) by just three weeks. Basically you need to live in the state for a full year prior to your studies to be regarded a resident for tuition purposes. This young man had been taking time out in New Zealand, and could not get a frequent flyer ticket back in time (so he says) to give himself the requisite year. How strictly does one follow the letter of the law? Ever? Sometimes, the law relaxes its boundaries to grant equitable relief to someone unfairly victimized by a strict interpretation of a rule. In this case, the student made such an impassioned plea that the appeals committee, me included, was almost in tears. Should that change anything? What if he had been dorky and inarticulate and not so personable?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
