Monday, May 19, 2003
Sunday Ratings
I wonder if it's ever occurred to anyone that This Weak's ratings are in the toilet because no one can stand to watch George Will. I mean, does anybody like that guy? He gives dishonest hacks a bad name.
Here's a flashback Will v. Will.
Here's a flashback Will v. Will.
Advertise Here
Ads seem to be up and running. Prices are rising, but the rates are still quite cheap....
Speaking the Truth
Matt Labash of the Weekly Standard:
-
JournalismJobs.com: Why have conservative media outlets like The Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel become more popular in the past few years?
Matt Labash: Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point of view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it actually.
You're My Obsession
So, I was thinking about Patrick Ruffini's contention that us liberals all march in lock-step and are united against Bush. He may have a point, I suppose. But, I decided to do a Google search of his site for the word "Clinton" and my site for the word "Bush." The former came up with 122 hits and the latter with 123.
Obviously this is completely flawed methodology, but someone sure does spend a lot of time talking about the Clenis, considering it's been out of office for some time now...
Obviously this is completely flawed methodology, but someone sure does spend a lot of time talking about the Clenis, considering it's been out of office for some time now...
Supreme Court Retirements
There is nothing in the constitution which requires there to be 9 sitting S.C. judges. If two wish to retire, then we will have seven. Sounds good to me.
UPDATE: It is in federal statute however, as a reader reminds me. Doh, I thought it was just "tradition."
UPDATE: It is in federal statute however, as a reader reminds me. Doh, I thought it was just "tradition."
Isolation vs. Intervention
Arthur Silber wants to know why conservatives are, in theory, isolationists when it comes to domestic economic policy (or non-interventionists) but interventionists on foreign policy and why liberals are the opposite.
First of all, even ignoring the problems of over-generalization that I know Arthur is well aware of, in this century liberals have been, for the most part, interventionists in foreign policy, with conservatives in the Pat Buchanan mold being the isolationists.
But, aside from that I think it's just a faulty comparison. Minor interventions in the functionings of markets in order to (in theory) make them more competitive and deal with externalities, contracting problems, and assorted rigidities (I rarely hear many calls for the dismantling of the SEC) is something entirely different from thinking one can spread democracy by the sword.
Liberals aren't the statists we're painted as, aside from some minor appropriate interventions, most of us just think that contrary to the rhetoric from the other side the rules of the game have been rigged for the wealthy and powerful, and they have all the refs in their pockets. Or, another way to put it - government intervenes all the time, but from steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies feeding the pockets of large corporations down to corrupt town planners and zoning officials, it just tends to intervene in favor of the winning team. Plenty of industries - from oil to pharmaceuticals to aerospace to advanced electronics, etc... etc... - have lots of "special rights" and cozy relationships with the federal government. And, at the more local level plenty of wealthy developers have cozy relationship with state and local officials.
It's wrong to think that liberals are somehow enamored of government while conservatives aren't. It is true that conservatives and Republicans have adopted libertarian rhetoric, but aside from cutting taxes on capital and bringing down top marginal rates, there's very little follow-through elsewhere.
First of all, even ignoring the problems of over-generalization that I know Arthur is well aware of, in this century liberals have been, for the most part, interventionists in foreign policy, with conservatives in the Pat Buchanan mold being the isolationists.
But, aside from that I think it's just a faulty comparison. Minor interventions in the functionings of markets in order to (in theory) make them more competitive and deal with externalities, contracting problems, and assorted rigidities (I rarely hear many calls for the dismantling of the SEC) is something entirely different from thinking one can spread democracy by the sword.
Liberals aren't the statists we're painted as, aside from some minor appropriate interventions, most of us just think that contrary to the rhetoric from the other side the rules of the game have been rigged for the wealthy and powerful, and they have all the refs in their pockets. Or, another way to put it - government intervenes all the time, but from steel tariffs and agricultural subsidies feeding the pockets of large corporations down to corrupt town planners and zoning officials, it just tends to intervene in favor of the winning team. Plenty of industries - from oil to pharmaceuticals to aerospace to advanced electronics, etc... etc... - have lots of "special rights" and cozy relationships with the federal government. And, at the more local level plenty of wealthy developers have cozy relationship with state and local officials.
It's wrong to think that liberals are somehow enamored of government while conservatives aren't. It is true that conservatives and Republicans have adopted libertarian rhetoric, but aside from cutting taxes on capital and bringing down top marginal rates, there's very little follow-through elsewhere.
Howler on Sid and the Times
He gets it just right:
Book is shipping, go get yourself a copy...
-
The New York Times has now published two reviews of The Clinton Wars. They make a comical pairing. Last Thursday, Janet Maslin did explain what Blumenthal said (the Whitewater story was “empty”) but pretended that his statements were nutty (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/16/03). By contrast, Dallek says that Blumenthal is right, but is careful to hide what he actually said! And so it continues, the disturbing decade which Blumenthal describes in his crucial book. Reading the Times is like reading Pravda. A skillful reader of Maslin and Dallek might begin to get the idea that something was wrong with the Whitewater “scandal.” But this reader gets only a glimpse. This reader will have to go elsewhere to find out what happened. More specifically, this reader will have to buy Blumenthal’s book to find out what he has said.
Dallek’s husbanding of the truth keeps him thoroughly safe for cable. He’ll go on those nets and sell plenty of books, giving us detail about Kennedy’s conduct forty years in the past. Meanwhile, readers of his Times review will remain in the dark about the present. Like Pravda, Dallek tells the truth very slowly. Blumenthal was right, he bravely says. Perhaps at some time in the mid-2040s, we’ll be told what he actually said.
...
Blumenthal was basically right—but instantly, Dallek changes the subject. At the finish, he once again dances away from particulars:-
DALLEK (pgh 15): Blumenthal’s book may do more to stir old controversies than settle them. But participants in the Clinton wars would do well to understand that re-fighting 90’s battles will be of less benefit to the country than detached analysis explaining how we can avoid future unproductive quarrels over the personal weaknesses of our presidents. Still, for anyone who wants to revisit the political acrimony of the Clinton years, Blumenthal's book is the place to begin. [end of review]
Dallek’s advice? It’s time to move on! It’s time for “detached analysis” which looks to the future. In this way, the thoroughly corrupted insider press corps keeps you from knowing about what it’s done. They don’t want people to “re-fight old battles”—to say what occurred in the “Clinton wars.” Instead, Dallek is coming to cable near you. He’ll be discussing Jack Kennedy’s girl friends. -
Book is shipping, go get yourself a copy...
Not Working
I rarely talk about I/P issues here for rather obvious reasons. But, let me try and stipulate a few things purely for sake of discussion, not necessarily because they're true. 1) Israel has a right to exist and a right to defend itself. 2) There is a genuine security threat to the Israeli population posed by Palestinian suicide bombers. 3) All actions Israel has taken since the Intifada began are justified by 1) and 2).
Again, I want these thing stipulated simply to narrow the range of discussion, as such discussion inevitably boils over into 500 different issues.
So, here is what I want to discuss - at what point do people start asking whether the tactics taken by Israel, if justified, are productive or counterproductive? At what point does it become rather obvious that the security measures of the Sharon government aren't working, and in fact might be counterproductive? At what point should we ask whether smacking a hornets' nest works?
Now, here is where someone jumps in and decides that I'm blaming the Sharon government for the suicide attacks. That's ridiculous. Sharon campaigned on the security issue, implicitly blaming Barak for his failure to ensure the safety of the Israelis. How many successful suicide bombings can there be before Sharon is branded a failure?
The point is, I'm asking to evaluate the success of the Sharon govermnent in purely utilitarian terms from the point of view of Israelis. My larger point is that Barak's attempts to negotiate and make nice eventually led to a new wave of suicide bombings, and no one had problems linking cause and effect there. Sharon's tough approach has led to multiple waves of suicide bombings.
Again, I want these thing stipulated simply to narrow the range of discussion, as such discussion inevitably boils over into 500 different issues.
So, here is what I want to discuss - at what point do people start asking whether the tactics taken by Israel, if justified, are productive or counterproductive? At what point does it become rather obvious that the security measures of the Sharon government aren't working, and in fact might be counterproductive? At what point should we ask whether smacking a hornets' nest works?
Now, here is where someone jumps in and decides that I'm blaming the Sharon government for the suicide attacks. That's ridiculous. Sharon campaigned on the security issue, implicitly blaming Barak for his failure to ensure the safety of the Israelis. How many successful suicide bombings can there be before Sharon is branded a failure?
The point is, I'm asking to evaluate the success of the Sharon govermnent in purely utilitarian terms from the point of view of Israelis. My larger point is that Barak's attempts to negotiate and make nice eventually led to a new wave of suicide bombings, and no one had problems linking cause and effect there. Sharon's tough approach has led to multiple waves of suicide bombings.
Bye Bye Ari
On one hand he was a loathsome liar, on the other hand the press had finally started to notice that.
Ads
Ads may be in an out during the day, but hopefully will be back and fast by the end of the day. For anyone who bought an ad I basically owe you another week - so please get in touch with me so I can make good either by extending your existing ad or giving you a new one.
Matrix 2
Saw it tonight. I'm really not sure why so many have criticized it so much. I loved the first one even though I never thought it was anything but a stylish and somewhat original action flick. This one had some minor pacing problems, and a couple cringeworthy Bondish stunts, but otherwise was a worthy successor. I didn't think its detours into philoso-babble were any better or worse than in the first one - they seemed to serve the plot without being too much of a distraction. But, I didn't find any depth in the first one so maybe I just missed something...
Dean Town Meeting
I caught most of Dean's town meeting in Iowa on C-span today (I'm sure you can find it online if you hunt for it). He showed his strengths there I thought - not ducking questions, answering forcefully, bashing Bush without getting caught in the trap of only bashing Bush. He was pragmatic yet managed to communicate some idealism too. It was nice to see Tom Harkin up there with him - was always a fan of his, though he sorta disappeared throughout most of the Clinton years.
Sunday, May 18, 2003
Mirror, Mirror
Sometimes I think the blogosphere is somehow linked up to the Mirror, Mirror world from Star Trek. It's the only explanation for posts like this, and the subsequent comments...
The Rise of Evil, and the Life of Irony
Hitler Miniseries:
Meanwhile, in Texas...
-
NEW YORK (AP) -- "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" fulfills its mission: taking viewers on a grim guided tour through an era gone mad. And it's a trip well worth taking.
...
The film, therefore, is less an exercise in Hitler-bashing than a call for soul-searching: Would we let a latter-day Hitler gain a foothold in the here and now?
...
And the list of credits must also include Ed Gernon. One of the film's executive producers, he was recently quoted in TV Guide, where he said that fear was behind the German public's acceptance of Hitler's policies. Then he made the mistake of likening that fear to the atmosphere in the United States today.
For that, he was denounced by a New York newspaper. Then his views were jointly condemned by CBS and the production company he worked for. Then he lost his job.
Thus was Gernon's point confirmed more forcefully than he might have imagined. And, though comparatively slight, his punishment is underscored by that of Fritz Gerlich, who, imprisoned at Dachau prison near the film's conclusion, implores his wife to "urge others to speak out, even when what they have to say is not popular."
It becomes one more reason to watch this important film.
Meanwhile, in Texas...
-
HOUSTON — Two CBS affiliates in Texas are refusing to broadcast “Hitler: The Rise of Evil,” a two-part network movie set to begin Sunday night, citing concerns that the program could incite some younger viewers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)