Toss me some weird questions. Quick!
ADDED: The vlog. Ack! I have to redo it. It uploaded out of synch.
FINALLY:
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Gonzales "employed his signature brand of inartful dodging -- linguistic evasion, poorly executed."
"But I don't think he actually lied," says WaPo columnist Ruth Marcus.
"The disagreement that occurred and the reason for the visit to the hospital . . . was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the Terrorist Surveillance Program that the president announced to the American people."Orin Kerr agrees with Marcus. And both dislike Gonzales and think he should resign.
The emphasis is mine, and it matters. We know, from Comey's account, that the dispute was intense. We don't know precisely what the disagreement was about -- and it makes sense that we don't know: This was a classified program, and all the officials, current and former, who have testified about it have been deliberately and appropriately vague....
[T]he calls by some Democrats for a special prosecutor to consider whether Gonzales committed perjury have more than a hint of maneuvering for political advantage. What else is to be gained by engaging in endless Clintonian debates about what the meaning of "program" is?
Well, then, what's the effect of a political argument made while showing cleavage?
Here's a useful article on the way the mind is affected on a subliminal level by things that have nothing to do with what you think you're thinking about:
New studies have found that people tidy up more thoroughly when there’s a faint tang of cleaning liquid in the air; they become more competitive if there’s a briefcase in sight, or more cooperative if they glimpse words like “dependable” and “support” — all without being aware of the change, or what prompted it.Read the whole thing. And wake up to the manipulation that's all around you.
Psychologists say that “priming” people in this way is not some form of hypnotism, or even subliminal seduction; rather, it’s a demonstration of how everyday sights, smells and sounds can selectively activate goals or motives that people already have.
More fundamentally, the new studies reveal a subconscious brain that is far more active, purposeful and independent than previously known. Goals, whether to eat, mate or devour an iced latte, are like neural software programs that can only be run one at a time, and the unconscious is perfectly capable of running the program it chooses.
Experts discover 237 reasons to have sex.
John Tierney writes about a University of Texas study:
The article contains a lot of material about the extent to which the male and female answers were the same:
ADDED: Here's one for that list of reasons not to have sex: Your body is composed of dead animals.
After asking nearly 2,000 people why they’d had sex, [Cindy M. Meston and David M. Buss,] have assembled and categorized a total of 237 reasons... [which they sort into] four general categories:I'd like to re-sort the list into good reasons and bad reasons! Is "duty" obviously a bad reason? Well, trying to do this re-sort would involve endless argument. The very process of analyzing the reasons is interesting. But if you're too analytical about the reasons... you might never get around to having sex. I mean... how about a list of reasons not to have sex? I'll bet there are 237 of them too.
¶Physical: “The person had beautiful eyes” or “a desirable body,” or “was good kisser” or “too physically attractive to resist.” Or “I wanted to achieve an orgasm.”
¶Goal Attainment: “I wanted to even the score with a cheating partner” or “break up a rival’s relationship” or “make money” or “be popular.” Or “because of a bet.”
¶Emotional: “I wanted to communicate at a deeper level” or “lift my partner’s spirits” or “say ‘Thank you.’ ” Or just because “the person was intelligent.”
¶Insecurity: “I felt like it was my duty” or “I wanted to boost my self-esteem” or “It was the only way my partner would spend time with me.”
The article contains a lot of material about the extent to which the male and female answers were the same:
[B]oth men and women ranked the same reason most often: “I was attracted to the person.”I don't know how much I want to rely on Buss -- "buss" means "kiss," by the way -- because he doesn't seem sensitive enough to the problem of self-reporting. I see a huge, looming stereotype here: Women want to seem loving and unselfish, and men are comfortable looking ambitious and a bit egotistical. But maybe women are more loving and unselfish, and men are more ambitious and egotistical. If so, it may help us have more sex -- which would be a reason that these tendencies evolved.
The rest of the top 10 for each gender were also almost all the same, including “I wanted to express my love for the person,” “I was sexually aroused and wanted the release” and “It’s fun.”
No matter what the reason, men were more likely to cite it than women, with a couple of notable exceptions. Women were more likely to say they had sex because, “I wanted to express my love for the person” and “I realized I was in love.” This jibes with conventional wisdom about women emphasizing the emotional aspects of sex, although it might also reflect the female respondents’ reluctance to admit to less lofty motives.
The results contradicted another stereotype about women: their supposed tendency to use sex to gain status or resources.
“Our findings suggest that men do these things more than women,” Dr. Buss said, alluding to the respondents who said they’d had sex to get things, like a promotion, a raise or a favor. Men were much more likely than women to say they’d had sex to “boost my social status” or because the partner was famous or “usually ‘out of my league.’ ”
ADDED: Here's one for that list of reasons not to have sex: Your body is composed of dead animals.
What the divorce court transcripts tell us about the state legislator who's trying to cut funding for UW Law School.
Rep. Frank Lasee has argued that we have too many lawyers, but why is he so antagonistic toward lawyers? The Wisconsin State Journal thinks it's found a clue in the court transcripts for his 2003 divorce:
The Law School will continue, relying more heavily on tuition. It will only impose greater debt burdens on the young people who work hard to establish professional careers and affect who feels free to choose to pursue this professional career and what job choices they make. It really is quite sad that this man's crude thinking has influenced the legislature in our state which has long demonstrated its dedication to its public university system.
The notion that Wisconsin is turning out too many lawyers is absurd. There are only 2 law schools in the state. Minnesota -- with the same population -- has 4. Iowa -- with 60% of our population -- has 2.
Lasee first acted as his own lawyer, then hired a lawyer whom he fired in court the day the judge was about to render her decision.This is, of course, very bad behavior, but it doesn't tell us where his antagonism had its start. He chose to go it alone, without a lawyer, at first. Why did he think that was a good idea? I think it's safe to say he's got poor judgment. But we already knew that from the fact that he thought the problem of too many lawyers -- assuming that's a problem -- is curable by cutting funding to the Law School.
The judge noted court officials witnessed Lasee punching his lawyer while in court.
"I didn't punch him, " Lasee said last week. "I poked him in the arm to get his attention. "
Lasee twice asked for a new judge in the case, including on the day the second judge began issuing her decision.
Brown County Circuit Judge Sue Bischel sounded exasperated when she addressed Lasee on June 27, 2003:
"Mr. Lasee, if you laugh at me one more time, I am really going to get ornery. I have tried very hard to treat you with respect. I see you smirking. I see you grinning. I can hear it. I am so disappointed. ... I have found over the years that it is getting increasingly difficult to get people to respect the court system and the judicial system.
"And I think you have probably learned in the Legislature some similar things. Politicians are getting a bad rap and a bad name these days. And frankly, I think it is often undeserved. But behavior like that disappoints me more than I can tell you. I don 't like it. I am disappointed. I am sad. I am sometimes angry when I get it from people who are uneducated, who have been treated badly by the system. And I am, I am on the verge of tears about it when it comes from someone in your position. ' '
Lasee acknowledged he had been smirking and said it was because the judge supported his wife 's attorney when that attorney made an unsuccessful run for judge. He said the judge was prejudiced. Bischel countered that Lasee didn 't raise the issue until she had begun explaining her decision.
Later in the hearing, Lasee fired his attorney, then asked to make "a brief statement. " Bischel allowed this, although she said it challenged her authority to control the timing of the trial.
Lasee told her, "You lied from bench. "
After he repeatedly interrupted the judge, she warned Lasee he would be held in contempt of court.
"I do not recognize the legitimacy of this court because you are not ... unbiased. I have proof to that effect, " Lasee said, then walked out of the courtroom.
Judge Bischel: "Call the court officer. Mr. Lasee, you are in contempt. Reluctantly, I am reluctantly finding this gentleman in contempt. I have tolerated more from him today than I probably have from anyone else who has come into the court. His behavior was way over the top. "
Later, she noted Lasee answered and made cell-phone calls while his wife was on the witness stand, and left to use the phone and rest room during proceedings, adding, "I have never had that happen in 11 years."
The Law School will continue, relying more heavily on tuition. It will only impose greater debt burdens on the young people who work hard to establish professional careers and affect who feels free to choose to pursue this professional career and what job choices they make. It really is quite sad that this man's crude thinking has influenced the legislature in our state which has long demonstrated its dedication to its public university system.
The notion that Wisconsin is turning out too many lawyers is absurd. There are only 2 law schools in the state. Minnesota -- with the same population -- has 4. Iowa -- with 60% of our population -- has 2.
"Gerald began - but was interrupted by a piercing whistle which cost him ten percent of his hearing permanently...."
"... as it did everyone else in a ten-mile radius of the eruption, not that it mattered much because for them ’permanently’ meant the next ten minutes or so until buried by searing lava or suffocated by choking ash - to pee."
Writes Jim Gleeson, a Madison man. And congratulations to him, because, with that sentence, he's won the 2007 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest.
Writes Jim Gleeson, a Madison man. And congratulations to him, because, with that sentence, he's won the 2007 Bulwer-Lytton Fiction Contest.
“It’s like you take two thoughts that are not anything like each other and you cram them together by any means necessary,” Gleeson said. He claimed he took time off from his current project, a self-help book for slackers titled “Self-Improvement Through Total Inactivity,” to pen his winning entry.
"In the empty, silent spaces of the world, he has found metaphors that illuminate the silent places our hearts ..."
Yesterday, we read that the great film director Ingmar Bergman had died. Today, the morning's news is that Michelangelo Antonioni, another great director, has died. He was 94.
In college, we saw "L'Avventura," and I can't remember what I thought of it. I don't think I was on Antonioni's wavelength. I tried to watch "L'Avventura" again recently and thought it looked great and felt interesting, but something came up, and I didn't watch to the end. I still feel like I'm in the middle of watching it, but I have to admit that it's been about 2 years since I paused that particular DVD.
The only other Antonioni movie I saw was "The Passenger." I was extremely vulnerable to reviews in those days and would go to anything that got a great review -- or maybe it was anything that got a great review in The New Yorker. "The Passenger" was raved about. It must have been Pauline Kael doing the raving. I still remember her going on about the scene in the end that begins shot through a window and later ends up, in a single shot, outside of the window. I expected grand aesthetic excitement over that, but in reality, I rejoiced when we got to that window because it meant that the movie would soon be over.
And now the movie is over for Michelangelo Antonioni. Goodbye to another artist.
The critics loved ["L'Avventura"], but the audience hissed when ''L'Avventura'' was presented at the 1960 Cannes Film Festival. The barest of plots, which wanders through a love affair of a couple, frustrated many viewers for its lack of action and dialogue, characteristically Antonioni.Were Antonioni's films important to you? Although reading of his death did not make me cry -- reading about Bergman did -- I remember seeing "Blow-Up" in 1968, when I was 17 and being very affected, mainly because I hadn't seen all that many movies, and it was the first movie I'd ever seen that showed the actors naked and having sex and, beyond that, it was by far the only movie I'd ever seen with so much psychological and philosophical depth. "Blow-Up" was set in the 1960s London that was so important in pop culture in those days, but I had a pop, teenage idea of it, and "Blow-Up" darkened that picture.
In one point in the black-and-white film, the camera lingers and lingers on Monica Vitti, one of Antonioni's favorite actresses, as she plays a blond, restless jet-setter.
''In the empty, silent spaces of the world, he has found metaphors that illuminate the silent places our hearts, and found in them, too, a strange and terrible beauty: austere, elegant, enigmatic, haunting,'' Jack Nicholson said in presenting Antonioni with the career Oscar....
Asked by an Italian magazine in 1980, ''For whom do you make films'' Antonioni replied: ''I do it for it an ideal spectator who is this very director. I could never do something against my tastes to meet the public. Frankly, I can't do it, even if so many directors do so. And then, what public? Italian? American? Japanese? French? British? Australian? They're all different from each other.''
In college, we saw "L'Avventura," and I can't remember what I thought of it. I don't think I was on Antonioni's wavelength. I tried to watch "L'Avventura" again recently and thought it looked great and felt interesting, but something came up, and I didn't watch to the end. I still feel like I'm in the middle of watching it, but I have to admit that it's been about 2 years since I paused that particular DVD.
The only other Antonioni movie I saw was "The Passenger." I was extremely vulnerable to reviews in those days and would go to anything that got a great review -- or maybe it was anything that got a great review in The New Yorker. "The Passenger" was raved about. It must have been Pauline Kael doing the raving. I still remember her going on about the scene in the end that begins shot through a window and later ends up, in a single shot, outside of the window. I expected grand aesthetic excitement over that, but in reality, I rejoiced when we got to that window because it meant that the movie would soon be over.
And now the movie is over for Michelangelo Antonioni. Goodbye to another artist.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Something is wrong with the Chief Justice's brain.
Linda Greenhouse writes:
ADDED: From the Maine newspaper:
UPDATE: He looks okay now, doesn't he?
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was hospitalized on today after suffering a seizure at his summer home in Maine, the Supreme Court announced.
The episode, described as a “benign idiopathic seizure,” was similar to one he suffered 14 years ago, according to the court’s press release. Idiopathic means that the cause of the seizure remains unknown....
“In the majority of seizures you see no anatomical cause,” [said Dr. Langer, who is also an assistant professor at Albert Einstein Medical College,] said. A cause could be a tumor, bleeding in the brain, a clogged blood vessel or an injury.
ADDED: From the Maine newspaper:
St. George Ambulance responded to a call at about 2 p.m. Monday of a man who had fallen 5 to 10 feet and landed on a dock, hitting the back of his head. The patient was ashen and was foaming at the mouth.ADDED: This is the sort of thing that makes me glad I cut Wonkette from my blogroll a few weeks ago.
UPDATE: He looks okay now, doesn't he?
Vlog under construction.
With the help of your questions. You don't have to ask about me. Raise any question that you think might lead me to say something interesting enough that I won't edit it out of the final cut of (what's getting to be) the daily vlog -- which I will record when next the clock strikes the hour.
ADDED: The Vlog:
ADDED: The Vlog:
"A War We Just Might Win."
Great title for an op-ed in the NYT. By Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institution:
ADDED: Exemplifying what I fear are Matt Yglesias and Talk Left.
As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with....John Hinderaker writes:
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done....
The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave...
Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working....
But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.
These are basically the same observations that most visitors to Iraq have made lately. Yet, some think this piece is significant, because of who wrote it--two liberals from Brookings--and the fact that it appeared in the Times....I will not succumb to this fear, which depends on the belief that the Democrats are evil. I do fear, however, that those who are politically committed to ending the war will resist evidence of good news, that it will take an unusually strong dose of good news to see good news as good news.
My fear, though, is that the leadership of the Democratic Party sees progress on the ground in Iraq as bad news, not good. I think many Congressional Democrats are committed to defeat, for political and ideological reasons.
ADDED: Exemplifying what I fear are Matt Yglesias and Talk Left.
Ingmar Bergman has died.
On seeing this news, I literally break down and cry for several minutes. The man was 89 years old.
ADDED: Let's look at the list of his films. Talk about the ones that meant something to you. I'll list the ones I remember seeing:
1. "Autumn Sonata." It's the subject of a wonderful discussion about art in (my favorite movie) "My Dinner With Andre." There's a line, something like: I could always live in my art, but never in my life. Ingrid Bergman says it to Liv Ullmann. Mother to daughter.
2. "Face to Face." Isn't this the movie in "Annie Hall" that Alvy Singer refuses to see because it's already started?
3. "The Magic Flute." Mozart! In Swedish.
4. "Scenes from a Marriage." I think of the scene with Liv Ullmann, playing a therapist, as she's listening to a patient describe her marriage. The patient talks about how the world has come to feel unreal to her. Perhaps she says it feels like paper, and we see a closeup of her hand trying to feel the edge of the table. Then we see a closeup of Liv Ullmann's eyes, with just enough terror showing.
5. "Cries and Whispers." Perhaps the best of them all. I think of the scene where they read "David Copperfield" to each other for some reason. And the broken glass and the blood.
6. "The Touch." Elliot Gould! In English!
7. "The Passion of Anna." I remember being bored. Sorry.
8. "Shame." Another one I saw and couldn't appreciate at the time. I should try again, I'm sure.
9. "Persona." This one is very sharp and simple. Great to rewatch.
10. "The Silence," "Winter Light, "Through a Glass Darkly." Hard to remember which is which now. These were the movies we saw in college and thought precisely exemplified what serious movies were.
11. "The Virgin Spring." Another one we saw in college days, but this one stood out as different.
12. "Wild Strawberries." This is the one they showed us in the dorm -- East Quad -- practically as soon as we arrived as freshmen in 1969. The message was: This is greatness in film. If you don't see why this is great, you have a problem you'd better fix!
13. "The Seventh Seal." Loved this at the time. Loved Woody Allen's spoofing of it in "Love and Death." Have it on DVD but only watched part of it. Let's watch this one tonight. It is about death.
14. "Smiles of a Summer Night." Beautiful, funny, and not that Bergman-y. Woody Allen has a beautiful tribute to it: "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy."
ADDED: Here's the NYT obituary:
IN THE COMMENTS: My ex-husband Richard Lawrence Cohen writes:
"Wild Strawberries" was shown indoors in a fairly small room, where we had to sit on the floor -- which was one of the reasons I didn't enjoy it as much as I was supposed to.
AND: Richard, if the boys like chess movies, here's a list of 1,715 of them.
AND: In today's vlog, I talk about why reading about Bergman's death made me cry.
MUCH LATER: Having collected my "post-of-the-month" for each of the months of 2007 and chosen this for July, I settle down a reread this post, then go back to the top and read the first sentence and break down and cry once again.
ADDED: Let's look at the list of his films. Talk about the ones that meant something to you. I'll list the ones I remember seeing:
1. "Autumn Sonata." It's the subject of a wonderful discussion about art in (my favorite movie) "My Dinner With Andre." There's a line, something like: I could always live in my art, but never in my life. Ingrid Bergman says it to Liv Ullmann. Mother to daughter.
2. "Face to Face." Isn't this the movie in "Annie Hall" that Alvy Singer refuses to see because it's already started?
3. "The Magic Flute." Mozart! In Swedish.
4. "Scenes from a Marriage." I think of the scene with Liv Ullmann, playing a therapist, as she's listening to a patient describe her marriage. The patient talks about how the world has come to feel unreal to her. Perhaps she says it feels like paper, and we see a closeup of her hand trying to feel the edge of the table. Then we see a closeup of Liv Ullmann's eyes, with just enough terror showing.
5. "Cries and Whispers." Perhaps the best of them all. I think of the scene where they read "David Copperfield" to each other for some reason. And the broken glass and the blood.
6. "The Touch." Elliot Gould! In English!
7. "The Passion of Anna." I remember being bored. Sorry.
8. "Shame." Another one I saw and couldn't appreciate at the time. I should try again, I'm sure.
9. "Persona." This one is very sharp and simple. Great to rewatch.
10. "The Silence," "Winter Light, "Through a Glass Darkly." Hard to remember which is which now. These were the movies we saw in college and thought precisely exemplified what serious movies were.
11. "The Virgin Spring." Another one we saw in college days, but this one stood out as different.
12. "Wild Strawberries." This is the one they showed us in the dorm -- East Quad -- practically as soon as we arrived as freshmen in 1969. The message was: This is greatness in film. If you don't see why this is great, you have a problem you'd better fix!
13. "The Seventh Seal." Loved this at the time. Loved Woody Allen's spoofing of it in "Love and Death." Have it on DVD but only watched part of it. Let's watch this one tonight. It is about death.
14. "Smiles of a Summer Night." Beautiful, funny, and not that Bergman-y. Woody Allen has a beautiful tribute to it: "A Midsummer Night's Sex Comedy."
ADDED: Here's the NYT obituary:
“I was very much in love with my mother,” he told Alan Riding of The New York Times in a 1995 interview. “She was a very warm and a very cold woman. When she was warm, I tried to come close to her. But she could be very cold and rejecting.”Much more at the link, including how he suffered from the fear of death and what completely cured him of that fear.
The young Mr. Bergman accompanied his father on preaching rounds of small country churches near Stockholm.
“While father preached away in the pulpit and the congregation prayed, sang or listened,” he once recalled, “I devoted my interest to the church’s mysterious world of low arches, thick walls, the smell of eternity, the colored sunlight quivering above the strangest vegetation of medieval paintings and carved figures on ceilings and walls. There was everything that one’s imagination could desire — angels, saints, dragons, prophets, devils, humans.”
His earliest memories, he once said, were of light and death:
“I remember how the sunlight hit the edge of my dish when I was eating spinach and, by moving the dish slightly from side to side, I was able to make different figures out of the light. I also remember sitting with my brother, in the backyard of my flat, aiming with slingshots at enormous black rats scurrying around. And I also remember being forced to sit in church, listening to a very boring sermon, but it was a very beautiful church, and I loved the music and the light streaming through the windows. I used to sit up in the loft beside the organ, and when there were funerals, I had this marvelous long-shot view of the proceedings, with the coffin and the black drapes, and then later at the graveyard, watching the coffin lowered into the ground. I was never frightened by these sights. I was fascinated.”...
“I want to be one of the artists of the cathedral that rises on the plain,” he said. “I want to occupy myself by carving out of stone the head of a dragon, an angel or a demon, or perhaps a saint; it doesn’t matter; I will find the same joy in any case. Whether I am a believer or an unbeliever, Christian or pagan, I work with all the world to build a cathedral because I am artist and artisan, and because I have learned to draw faces, limbs, and bodies out of stone. I will never worry about the judgment of posterity or of my contemporaries; my name is carved nowhere and will disappear with me. But a little part of myself will survive in the anonymous and triumphant totality. A dragon or a demon, or perhaps a saint, it doesn’t matter!”
IN THE COMMENTS: My ex-husband Richard Lawrence Cohen writes:
Ann, after reading the NYT story my first impulse was to come here and find out your response, which is as perceptive and lively as I'd hoped. (I typoed "livly," which is a nice pun for the occasion!) My earliest Bergman experience was stumbling upon The Magician on WOR-TV in New York as a high school student. It was unlike any other movie I'd ever seen and it made me want to see every other movie like it -- movies that enchanted not only the senses and the emotions but the intellect and the aesthetic. Then Wild Strawberries during freshman orientation as you've noted: I thought I remembered that it was shown in the courtyard of the Quad, but maybe that was King Kong instead and maybe they showed Wild Strawberries in the little auditorium. Then several of his classics at Cinema Guild: among them, Smiles of a Summer Night thrilled me with its laughter-filled ideal of romance, and Virgin Spring with its sagalike bright medieval starkness. Just two weeks ago I rented Seventh Seal for my preteen kids because they were fascinated by the idea of playing chess with Death; they liked that scene well enough but it ended too soon for them and they kept asking, "When are they going to show more of the chess game?" before losing interest altogether. For me, the style of the movie felt a bit old-fashioned at this point but many scenes were still powerful, and I was especially taken with the character of the church artist who kept up a cheerful commentary while painting gruesome pictures influenced by the reality of the plague that was all around him.Yeah, that was an insane Sam Waterston performance. At least he had historically accurate crutches.
A corollary memory: seeing Liv Ullman as Nora in A Doll's House on Broadway in the 1970s, with Sam Waterston as Torvald, Sam on crutches after an accident but still pacing back and forth across the stage, unrealistically, so that he could hit his marks.
"Wild Strawberries" was shown indoors in a fairly small room, where we had to sit on the floor -- which was one of the reasons I didn't enjoy it as much as I was supposed to.
AND: Richard, if the boys like chess movies, here's a list of 1,715 of them.
AND: In today's vlog, I talk about why reading about Bergman's death made me cry.
MUCH LATER: Having collected my "post-of-the-month" for each of the months of 2007 and chosen this for July, I settle down a reread this post, then go back to the top and read the first sentence and break down and cry once again.
Two movies.
I have so many DVDs on my shelf that I haven't watched that I've practically forbidden myself to order any more, but I just ordered two things that I wanted to see based on other works recently consumed:
1. "Marjoe." A documentary about a boy evangelist who grows up to expose the tricks he used (with his parents' guidance). This movie is the subject of interesting discussion in the Christopher Hitchens book "God Is Not Great" (which I've immensely enjoyed in audiobook form, read by the author with fascinating emotion).
2. "Little Dieter Needs to Fly." This is a documentay by Werner Herzog about Dieter Dengler, who appears in person in this film and is portrayed by Christian Bale in the current film "Rescue Dawn." I saw "Rescue Dawn" a couple days ago and found the story quite absorbing. Dengler was shot down flying over Laos and imprisoned by the North Vietnamese and -- with the help of a single nail -- he figures out how to escape. In this recent episode of "Fresh Air," Herzog explains why he made a second movie about Dengler.
1. "Marjoe." A documentary about a boy evangelist who grows up to expose the tricks he used (with his parents' guidance). This movie is the subject of interesting discussion in the Christopher Hitchens book "God Is Not Great" (which I've immensely enjoyed in audiobook form, read by the author with fascinating emotion).
2. "Little Dieter Needs to Fly." This is a documentay by Werner Herzog about Dieter Dengler, who appears in person in this film and is portrayed by Christian Bale in the current film "Rescue Dawn." I saw "Rescue Dawn" a couple days ago and found the story quite absorbing. Dengler was shot down flying over Laos and imprisoned by the North Vietnamese and -- with the help of a single nail -- he figures out how to escape. In this recent episode of "Fresh Air," Herzog explains why he made a second movie about Dengler.
You two kids! Break it up!
I think what Edwards is trying to do here is play the grownup:
"The last thing we need is two presidential candidates fighting with each other, instead of fighting for the change we need in America," Edwards said. "And, man, do we need change in the worst possible way."...That is: We're not kids. We're the adults!
An Obama spokeswoman disputed Edwards' comments about the Clinton-Obama spat.
"This is a substantive and important debate people want to hear about, whether we are going to turn the page on the Bush-Cheney foreign policy, which has damaged our national security and America's standing in the world," Leslie Miller said.
"I remember during the confirmation hearings for Justice Thomas he was asked about his discussions in law school about [Roe v. Wade]..."
"... and he said he didn't remember having any, and that people thought, well, he's not being forthright. Well, he was being absolutely honest, because I remember, at that time, it was not something law students generally talked about. It was considered a fairly settled, noncontroversial matter."
Said Justice Stevens recently, with, I think, a clever purpose, discussed in a post written Saturday night, which I'm highlighting here so weekday-only readers will see it.
Said Justice Stevens recently, with, I think, a clever purpose, discussed in a post written Saturday night, which I'm highlighting here so weekday-only readers will see it.
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Quick! Questions!
Vlogging will commence in 1 hour, so write me some questions.
ADDED: The vlog:
AND: The entire 10 minute vlog is a response to the first question -- "Do you still think that Mr. Peavoy is an *sshole for releasing the Hillary letters?" -- which is based on this post about the release of letters Hillary Clinton wrote between 1965 and 1969.
ADDED: The vlog:
AND: The entire 10 minute vlog is a response to the first question -- "Do you still think that Mr. Peavoy is an *sshole for releasing the Hillary letters?" -- which is based on this post about the release of letters Hillary Clinton wrote between 1965 and 1969.
The puzzling persistence of emoticons.
:-)
IN THE COMMENTS: Dave F writes:
[A]fter 25 years of use, emoticons have started to jump off the page and into our spoken language. Even grown men on Wall Street, for example, will weave the term “QQ” (referring to an emoticon that symbolizes two eyes crying) into conversation as a sarcastic way of saying “boo hoo.”Hey, what's the emoticon that means I think that's one of those fake anecdotes pop authors make up for their books? (A fakecdote.)
Kristina Grish, author of “The Joy of Text: Mating, Dating and Techno-relating” (Simon Spotlight Entertainment, 2006), said that she grew so accustomed to making the :-P symbol (a tongue hanging out) in instant messages at work that it once accidentally popped up, in three dimensions, on a date.
“When the waiter told us the specials,” she recalled in an e-mail message, “I made that face — not on purpose of course — because they sounded really drab and uninteresting. And the guy I was out with looked at me like I was insane and said, ‘Did you just make an IM face?’ ”
IN THE COMMENTS: Dave F writes:
Well, I just got back from lunch with three fellow Wall St. co-workers, "grown men" all, and in the interest of doing some of my own, original research, asked them if they have ever, in their professional lives, as "grown Wall St. men" ever heard the phrase QQ uttered to mean "boo hoo."I suspect that Dave and his friends were swingin' on the flippety-flop and the New York Times is a cob nobbler.
To which their response was they knew a good shrink that I should see.
The seeming "trophy wife" is actually running everything...
Read this:
[Fred] Thompson's second wife [is] a lawyer and Republican political operative widely believed to have encouraged him to enter the fray. As her husband's de facto campaign manager, [Jeri] Thompson has the greatest hands-on role of any spouse in the presidential campaign, even though she has so far steered well clear of the political hustings.If you go read the whole article, you'll see an amazing proportion of it is about Jeri Thompson's breasts! There are even a few paragraphs on the subject of Hillary Clinton's recently exposed cleavage. This is a great demonstration of the power of breasts. Here's this woman who is apparently behind the entire candidacy and campaign for one of the frontrunners and people can barely start talking about her without getting derailed onto the subject of her breasts. Talk about caught in the headlights! The dazzling glare is disabling. Focus people. Who is this woman? What is she doing? And does she have a plan to become President too?
Despite her political pedigree as a former spokesman for the Republican National Committee, her sway over day-to-day operations is troubling some of her husband's supporters. "I do worry that Jeri is the one really running his campaign," said a Republican in Congress who describes himself as "likely" to support Mr Thompson. "She's smart, but that could be a recurring problem."
A campaign aide, also speaking anonymously, told The Washington Post that Mrs Thompson decided everything from the content of direct mailings to the date for her husband to make his official declaration, now expected at the end of the summer. "You name it - anything," said the aide.
"Three in 10 Call SCOTUS 'Too Conservative.'"
Shouldn't that be 7 in 10 don't think the Supreme Court is "too conservative"?
The key thing is that the number of eople are saying "too conservative" has increased since Roberts and Alito joined the Court. And more people are saying "too conservative" -- 31% -- than "too liberal" -- 18%. 47% think the Court is well-balanced, but back in 2005, 55% said that.
Actually, I think it's surprising, after all the press coverage of the Roberts and Alito nominations, that many more Americans haven't absorbed the view that the Supreme Court is too conservative. It suggests that the issue of Supreme Court appointments isn't going to work very well for the Democratic presidential candidates, who must be hoping to alarm people about the Court. By 55-43%, Americans approved of the Court's decision upholding the federal ban on "partial birth" abortion. And abortion is -- by far -- the main issue Democrats use to fire up voters.
But how are you supposed to vote if you think the Court is currently well-balanced? It depends on who we predict will leave the Court in the next 4 years. The Democrats ought to stress that it is far more likely that 2 or 3 liberal Justices will be going and that we need a Democratic President to preserve the balance. That is, you don't need to convince people that the Court has become too conservative and needs to be changed, only that the current balance is good. Don't demonize Alito and Roberts. Just appeal to our love of stability.
The key thing is that the number of eople are saying "too conservative" has increased since Roberts and Alito joined the Court. And more people are saying "too conservative" -- 31% -- than "too liberal" -- 18%. 47% think the Court is well-balanced, but back in 2005, 55% said that.
Actually, I think it's surprising, after all the press coverage of the Roberts and Alito nominations, that many more Americans haven't absorbed the view that the Supreme Court is too conservative. It suggests that the issue of Supreme Court appointments isn't going to work very well for the Democratic presidential candidates, who must be hoping to alarm people about the Court. By 55-43%, Americans approved of the Court's decision upholding the federal ban on "partial birth" abortion. And abortion is -- by far -- the main issue Democrats use to fire up voters.
But how are you supposed to vote if you think the Court is currently well-balanced? It depends on who we predict will leave the Court in the next 4 years. The Democrats ought to stress that it is far more likely that 2 or 3 liberal Justices will be going and that we need a Democratic President to preserve the balance. That is, you don't need to convince people that the Court has become too conservative and needs to be changed, only that the current balance is good. Don't demonize Alito and Roberts. Just appeal to our love of stability.
"I wallowed in a morass of general and specific dislike and pity for most people but me especially..."
The NYT got its hands on some letters Hillary Clinton wrote to a friend between 1965 an 1969. I remember those years -- Hillary is 4 years older than I am -- and I plunge into this article ready to read all sorts of embarrassing verbiage.
But we know little about this Peavoy character. He grew up to be an English professor, teaching at a small women's college. Perhaps, back in the 60s, he was a person who made her feel see should prove her writing aptitude. But she had to be the sort of person who would nerdishly craft prose like that to please a precociously literary young man.
"Ms. Rodham’s letters are written in a tight, flowing script with near-impeccable spelling and punctuation."
What does it mean to be "tight" and "flowing"? "Flowing" -- I assume -- is the handwriting style we were taught to use back in the days when there were lessons in penmanship. What could make that "tight" would be an effort to adhere to the proper flowing style.
We see a very earnest and analytical young woman. Impeccable punctuation -- I'll bet that punctuation wasn't a lot of exclamation points! -- and I'm sure -- I know the type! -- those letters didn't fly along with cascades of dashes -- those impassioned young-girl dashes -- that fill the letters of her contemporaries -- I should know! -- I was one!! -- you should see the letters I wrote to my mother back then -- she saved them!!! -- so like her -- I had to find them when I was cleaning out her house after she died... but Hillary -- you know -- I was four -- I am! -- four years younger -- and oh! those four years!!!! -- they made all the difference between me and my older sister -- so that's how I'm seeing Hillary -- hmmm!!!!! -- is that what we want for President???!!!! -- I'd like to see Nixon's handwriting!!!! -- don't you just know Nixon would use "tight, flowing" writing -- he's such a tightass! -- and you know what? Peavoy was really a jerk to turn over those letters without his old friend's permission -- what an asshole!!!!!!
IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo writes:
ALSO IN THE COMMENTS: The theory that the Clinton campaign engineered the release of the letters.
“Since Xmas vacation, I’ve gone through three and a half metamorphoses and am beginning to feel as though there is a smorgasbord of personalities spread before me,” Ms. Rodham wrote to [Johh] Peavoy in April 1967. “So far, I’ve used alienated academic, involved pseudo-hippie, educational and social reformer and one-half of withdrawn simplicity.”...How incredibly unembarrassing! Here she is writing intimate letters to a friend, and there isn't one idiotic political outburst, one concession of drug use, one humiliating sexual episode? Perhaps it's embarrassing that she was so self-controlled back then. "[T]he patch of sunlight that broke the density of the elms" -- who writes like that? This is a letter from a young person to a friend, not a freshman creative writing class assignment.
“Sunday was lethargic from the beginning as I wallowed in a morass of general and specific dislike and pity for most people but me especially,” Ms. Rodham reported in a letter postmarked Oct. 3, 1967....
“Can you be a misanthrope and still love or enjoy some individuals?” Ms. Rodham wrote in an April 1967 letter. “How about a compassionate misanthrope?”...
“Random thinking usually becomes a process of self-analysis with my ego coming out on the short end,” she writes...
Her letters at times betray a kind of innocent narcissism over “my lost youth,” as she described it in a letter shortly after her 19th birthday. She wrote of being a little girl and believing that she was the only person in the universe. She had a sense that if she turned around quickly, “everyone else would disappear.
“I’d play out in the patch of sunlight that broke the density of the elms in front of our house and pretend there were heavenly movie cameras watching my every move,” she says. She yearns for all the excitement and discoveries of life without losing “the little girl in the sunlight.”...
The letters contain no possibly damaging revelations of the proverbial “youthful indiscretions,” and mention nothing glaringly outlandish or irresponsible.
But we know little about this Peavoy character. He grew up to be an English professor, teaching at a small women's college. Perhaps, back in the 60s, he was a person who made her feel see should prove her writing aptitude. But she had to be the sort of person who would nerdishly craft prose like that to please a precociously literary young man.
"Ms. Rodham’s letters are written in a tight, flowing script with near-impeccable spelling and punctuation."
What does it mean to be "tight" and "flowing"? "Flowing" -- I assume -- is the handwriting style we were taught to use back in the days when there were lessons in penmanship. What could make that "tight" would be an effort to adhere to the proper flowing style.
We see a very earnest and analytical young woman. Impeccable punctuation -- I'll bet that punctuation wasn't a lot of exclamation points! -- and I'm sure -- I know the type! -- those letters didn't fly along with cascades of dashes -- those impassioned young-girl dashes -- that fill the letters of her contemporaries -- I should know! -- I was one!! -- you should see the letters I wrote to my mother back then -- she saved them!!! -- so like her -- I had to find them when I was cleaning out her house after she died... but Hillary -- you know -- I was four -- I am! -- four years younger -- and oh! those four years!!!! -- they made all the difference between me and my older sister -- so that's how I'm seeing Hillary -- hmmm!!!!! -- is that what we want for President???!!!! -- I'd like to see Nixon's handwriting!!!! -- don't you just know Nixon would use "tight, flowing" writing -- he's such a tightass! -- and you know what? Peavoy was really a jerk to turn over those letters without his old friend's permission -- what an asshole!!!!!!
IN THE COMMENTS: Pogo writes:
1. "Compassionate misanthropism" is the best summary I have ever heard of left-liberal thought, which indeed results in processes by which "everyone else would disappear".
2. She has no doubt retained the insatiable desire to be “the little girl in the sunlight,” the only person in the universe. Courtney Love described it better as being "the girl with the most cake."
3. Peavoy is beneath contempt for having done this.
ALSO IN THE COMMENTS: The theory that the Clinton campaign engineered the release of the letters.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
"Yes, he can see you fine through his solid-gold eyeglasses, he simply doesn’t have time to dally with the likes of you."
Modern Drunkard picks the 10 greatest alcohol icons of all time, beginning with "The Striding Man," who embodies Johnnie Walker. (Via Throwing Things.)
Vlog!
Based on your questions here...
... including discussion of the movie referred to here ("Rescue Dawn").
CORRECTION: In the video, I incorrectly state that "The Pianist" is a fictional story. I'm terribly sorry to have forgotten that it's a true story.
... including discussion of the movie referred to here ("Rescue Dawn").
CORRECTION: In the video, I incorrectly state that "The Pianist" is a fictional story. I'm terribly sorry to have forgotten that it's a true story.
Justice Stevens on "super stare decisis" and whether it's believable that Clarence Thomas did not talk about Roe v. Wade when he was a law student.
I'm watching C-Span's coverage of Justice Stevens at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals conference in Honolulu (from July 19, 2007). He's asked about the term "super stare decisis," which came up in the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.
Stevens says:
And then I think: Was it really true that Roe v. Wade was not controversial at the time, that law students didn't talk about it when it came out? I remember -- as a young woman who worried a lot about pregnancy back then -- being floored when the Supreme Court came out and said I had a right to an abortion. It hadn't been that long ago that we'd had to think about traveling to Sweden if we needed an abortion, and the ability to go to New York for the procedure was quite new. Suddenly, it was not only not a crime anymore, it was a constitutional right. I experienced that as astounding.
But maybe if you were already initiated into the law -- I was a college student -- it would have seemed obvious and ordinary -- just another step down what was a predictable path. Stevens says so, and in saying so he backs up Thomas.
Ah! But see the cleverness of saying that now? Stevens seems to forget the question about super stare decisis, but did he forget? Or did he see a way to entrench Roe more securely than if he'd talked about the term super stare decisis? He shifted to talking Justice Thomas. He backed up his antagonist on the Court on an issue over which Thomas has suffered long and bitter attacks. But the way he found to support Thomas entailed the notion that Roe was a secure and clear articulation of the law in its time -- an easily perceived detail in the coherent fabric of the law.
Stevens leans back in his chair. He's an old man wearing a pink short-sleeved shirt, big outdated glasses, and a Hawaiian lei. Who can notice that he's just made a deft rhetorical move? Well played, Justice Stevens!
Stevens says:
Well, I wasn't particularly persuaded by that suggestion. I think, after all -- he's talking about Roe against Wade there and so forth -- and I think there are powerful stare decisis arguments there, but it's also true that that has been a controversial decision in recent years.I don't like the way he strayed from the question. Why wasn't he persuaded by the "super stare decisis" idea? But -- I think at first -- it's nice to hear him back up Justice Thomas's credibility on an issue that he's been scoffed at for so many years.
Interestingly, though, it was decided just two or three years before I went on the Court, and at the time, I was not asked a single question about that issue, because it was not then controversial. That's quite interesting. It was a 7 to 2 decision, a sort of fairly routine decision at the time.
I remember during the confirmation hearings for Justice Thomas he was asked about his discussions in law school about that case, and he said he didn't remember having any, and that people thought, well, he's not being forthright. Well, he was being absolutely honest, because I remember, at that time, it was not something law students generally talked about. It was considered a fairly settled, noncontroversial matter.
It became more and more controversial as the years have gone on.
And then I think: Was it really true that Roe v. Wade was not controversial at the time, that law students didn't talk about it when it came out? I remember -- as a young woman who worried a lot about pregnancy back then -- being floored when the Supreme Court came out and said I had a right to an abortion. It hadn't been that long ago that we'd had to think about traveling to Sweden if we needed an abortion, and the ability to go to New York for the procedure was quite new. Suddenly, it was not only not a crime anymore, it was a constitutional right. I experienced that as astounding.
But maybe if you were already initiated into the law -- I was a college student -- it would have seemed obvious and ordinary -- just another step down what was a predictable path. Stevens says so, and in saying so he backs up Thomas.
Ah! But see the cleverness of saying that now? Stevens seems to forget the question about super stare decisis, but did he forget? Or did he see a way to entrench Roe more securely than if he'd talked about the term super stare decisis? He shifted to talking Justice Thomas. He backed up his antagonist on the Court on an issue over which Thomas has suffered long and bitter attacks. But the way he found to support Thomas entailed the notion that Roe was a secure and clear articulation of the law in its time -- an easily perceived detail in the coherent fabric of the law.
Stevens leans back in his chair. He's an old man wearing a pink short-sleeved shirt, big outdated glasses, and a Hawaiian lei. Who can notice that he's just made a deft rhetorical move? Well played, Justice Stevens!
"If the truth doesn’t set you free, maybe being a crazy bastard will."
"The American psycho meets the German kook."
UPDATE: The movie is "Rescue Dawn," directed by Werner Herzog. I talk about it a bit in this new vlog.
UPDATE: The movie is "Rescue Dawn," directed by Werner Herzog. I talk about it a bit in this new vlog.
Stop me before I vlog again.
Don't ask me any questions. Otherwise, I'm going to do another vlog later this afternoon.
ADDED: You scamps! You asked me questions. And I vlogged again. Here.
ADDED: You scamps! You asked me questions. And I vlogged again. Here.
"Let's talk about this silly, frivolous, nothing stuff so that America won't pay attention."
Watching this video, I thought, first, ooh, he's good. And then, what's with his hair? It seems to be coming undone in the heat... is that... is that a toupée?
Anyway, I came to this video via Jake Tapper:
There's an interesting meme of Democratic victimology developing here…But of course we should attack them! They can fight back, and then we can respond to that, perhaps by saying that they're indulging in "victimology." They need to think through whether it helps their cause very much to seem thin-skinned and to act prudishly offended when we speak of superficial things.
In addition to former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, saying that media attention on his hair stems from powerful interests who "want to shut me up", it should be noted that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, is also wading a bit into the waters of victimology…
After being the first one to really amp up her disagreement with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, from Monday night's debate -- her campaign sent out the video of their respective answers before the debate was even over, and she was the first one to personally use perjorative adjectives against Obama -- she's now trying to raise money claiming he "attacked" her.
"Last week, one of the leading Republican candidates equated Hillary with Karl Marx. Yesterday, one of the leading Democratic candidates called her 'Bush-Cheney lite,'" wrote Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle in the e-mail. "Hillary is under attack from opponents on all sides. When you're attacked, you expect your family and friends to stand with you…"
The short, 440-word fundraising appeal uses a form of the word "attack" six times. With Clinton as the victim, naturally.
You know damned well that they are using image to try to manipulate us. (They never complain when we say they look fabulous.) They'd like to be free to pursue their political ambitions by taking advantage their good looks -- why has Edwards done so well over the years? -- but to stop us from engaging on the image level. They'd like all their subliminal campaigning to slip into our subconsciousness unchallenged.
They want all their critics to engage with them only on the substantive policy analysis level where, frankly, America won't pay attention whether there's also any silly, frivolous, nothing stuff to distract them or not.
"Rich people read."
Glenn Reynolds writes:
1. People with less money use the library, swap books with friends and family, and buy paperbacks.
2. Look at the hardcover bestseller lists. Most of this is junk reading. People who go for hardbacks tend to be people who want the latest thing. It's not especially deep. "The Secret" and "21 Pounds in 21 Days" are typical popular hardcover books. Cookbooks tend to be purchased in hardback form. Books that you look at but don't really read -- coffee table books and art books -- also tend to be hardbacks.
3. Most of the serious literature out there is available in paperback: All the classic novels and nonfiction are going to be in paperback. Take a trip to Borders. Are the most serious readers the ones at the front tables full of new novels and political books that will be gone in 5 years or back in the shelves labeled "History," "Philosophy," and "Science" -- which are full of paperbacks?
4. Hardcover books make nice gifts. You may buy them, but are they for you? And will the person who receives your gift ever read it?
5. Lots of children's books come in hardcover. Of course, rich people delight in supplying their children and grandchildren with copious quantities of books -- and in telling others about what readers the little angels are.
6. When you have the money for it, buying books can be a satisfying pastime. You pick up one book because the cover expresses who you like to think you are. There's that guy with "How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency." Go ahead, pile on another. "Anatomy of Deceit: How the Bush Administration Used the Media to Sell the Iraq War and Out a Spy." A couple more and the cute girl at the checkout will surely glow with admiration.
IN LIGHT OF YESTERDAY'S POST ABOUT TV, ARNOLD KLING SENDS THIS:I'm skeptical. What's the correlation between buying hardback books and actually reading serious writing? A few thoughts:Back when I had my relocation web site, we got hold of some zip-code level marketing data. When I looked for purchases that correlated with affluence, hardback books was one of the strongest.Rich people read. Books.
I'm not surprised to hear that.
1. People with less money use the library, swap books with friends and family, and buy paperbacks.
2. Look at the hardcover bestseller lists. Most of this is junk reading. People who go for hardbacks tend to be people who want the latest thing. It's not especially deep. "The Secret" and "21 Pounds in 21 Days" are typical popular hardcover books. Cookbooks tend to be purchased in hardback form. Books that you look at but don't really read -- coffee table books and art books -- also tend to be hardbacks.
3. Most of the serious literature out there is available in paperback: All the classic novels and nonfiction are going to be in paperback. Take a trip to Borders. Are the most serious readers the ones at the front tables full of new novels and political books that will be gone in 5 years or back in the shelves labeled "History," "Philosophy," and "Science" -- which are full of paperbacks?
4. Hardcover books make nice gifts. You may buy them, but are they for you? And will the person who receives your gift ever read it?
5. Lots of children's books come in hardcover. Of course, rich people delight in supplying their children and grandchildren with copious quantities of books -- and in telling others about what readers the little angels are.
6. When you have the money for it, buying books can be a satisfying pastime. You pick up one book because the cover expresses who you like to think you are. There's that guy with "How a Good vs. Evil Mentality Destroyed the Bush Presidency." Go ahead, pile on another. "Anatomy of Deceit: How the Bush Administration Used the Media to Sell the Iraq War and Out a Spy." A couple more and the cute girl at the checkout will surely glow with admiration.
Aspiring to be "Mommie Dearest."
Here's a NYT article about how parents are giving birthday parties without presents for their kids:
Now, parents are proud of their resemblance to that crazed vision of parenthood!
I eagerly await a NYT article about the way the superparents of today are schooling their kids in the rigors of housework.
In part to teach philanthropy and altruism, and in part as a defense against swarms of random plastic objects destined to clutter every square foot of their living space, a number of families are experimenting with gift-free birthday parties, suggesting that guests donate money or specified items to the charity of the child’s choice instead....I was wondering if they were ever going to get around to mentioning "Mommie Dearest." It seems to be only the grandparents who remember the time when we delighted in loathing the mother who would give a birthday party and then whisk away all the presents to be sent to less fortunate children.
Bill Doherty, who helped create Birthdays Without Pressure, a Web site opposed to expensive, competitive parties in the Nickelodeon set, said the no-gift notion was “great, especially if the child is involved in choosing the charity,” but cautioned that “it could become another source of competition.”
In Randolph, N.J., Jack Knapp’s family has a five-year tradition of redirecting birthday benefits: They have collected dress-up clothes for a girl with cancer, items for the pediatric emergency room at Morristown Memorial Hospital and groceries for the Interfaith Food Pantry.
After seeing her two older siblings treated like heroes when they dropped off their haul, the youngest, Emily, recently told her mother, Mindy Knapp, that she wants gifts for her 4th birthday next month to go to the neonatal unit. Not that she can define neonatal.
“She said, ‘Could we give stuff to the babies at the hospital?’ Mrs. Knapp said. “Now they wouldn’t think of doing it any other way.”
Mrs. Knapp said her children’s grandparents “always support whatever cause the kids are into,” but also insist on giving them gifts, noting, “Otherwise it would be like a scene from ‘Mommie Dearest.’ ”
Now, parents are proud of their resemblance to that crazed vision of parenthood!
I eagerly await a NYT article about the way the superparents of today are schooling their kids in the rigors of housework.
"I hope that there was considerable controversy in your newsroom over the decision to run a story posing as a 'fashion' piece..."
Hillary shows cleavage. WaPo readers show disapproval that fashion and politics columnist Robin Givhan wrote about it.
From Letter 1:
Letter 2:
The first two letters are trying to work the theory that you wouldn't treat men with such disrespect, but both letter writers fumble with the problem that there is no equivalent thing that a man would do. Both resort to referring to a predicament that might happen without intentionality. An open fly and a noticeable erection are scarcely parallel to a woman's chosen low-cut top. If the Post had published an article about menstrual blood stains on a female politician's skirt, the first 2 letter writers would have a good point.
But Givhan herself brought up the subject of a man's open fly:
Letter 3:
Letter 4:
Letter 5:
From Letter 1:
...Robin Givhan wrote, without irony, that looking at Clinton's breasts felt voyeuristic and that her small, "not unseemly" amount of cleavage is the equivalent of a man's unzipped fly, as if Clinton deserved the sexualized attention thanks to a shameful social faux pas....Presumably, then, she doesn't wear low-cut tops! Or is she insisting that the world be magically transformed so that women can wear anything and no one will talk about what they are wearing or even think about their bodies? If that transformation were possible, would we want it?
When I am at work, as a young woman often surrounded by older men, I want my mind to be on display and my body to be relatively invisible....
Letter 2:
What's next? An article on viewing men's crotches generally or seeing a difference when they are watching her speak?There should, of course, be corresponding writing about men's clothing and any sexual messages it may communicate. I note that male Senators wear such extremely conventional clothing that it's very hard to find anything sexual about it or, in fact, much of anything interesting to say about it.
The first two letters are trying to work the theory that you wouldn't treat men with such disrespect, but both letter writers fumble with the problem that there is no equivalent thing that a man would do. Both resort to referring to a predicament that might happen without intentionality. An open fly and a noticeable erection are scarcely parallel to a woman's chosen low-cut top. If the Post had published an article about menstrual blood stains on a female politician's skirt, the first 2 letter writers would have a good point.
But Givhan herself brought up the subject of a man's open fly:
The cleavage... is an exceptional kind of flourish. After all, it's not a matter of what she's wearing but rather what's being revealed. It's tempting to say that the cleavage stirs the same kind of discomfort that might be churned up after spotting Rudy Giuliani with his shirt unbuttoned just a smidge too far. No one wants to see that. But really, it was more like catching a man with his fly unzipped. Just look away!She goes on to speak of a female politician in Britain who showed much more cleavage and to deal with the way showing just a little cleavage creates ambiguity about whether it was intended. ("With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private. You were intruding -- being a voyeur.") Givhan is analyzing the complex gesture of showing but only showing a little: The possibility that it is unintentional or not meant to imply sexuality makes the viewer uncomfortable. This is a sly political joke: Clinton is "tentative" and "noncommittal" in "matters of style."
Letter 3:
Robin Givhan's attempts to turn Hillary Clinton's choice of a scoop-necked shirt on a hot day in the District into social commentary failed miserably. Givhan crossed the line by suggesting that the shirt revealed Clinton's changing comfort level with her sexuality....The "hot day" explanation is quite silly. The Capitol building clearly must be air-conditioned to the point where all the men are comfortable in suits and in no danger of sweating, so there is no way the low-cut top was serving an important summertime physical need. In any case, Clinton was wearing a jacket too. How desperately hot could she have been? Is cleavage some special heat vent?
Letter 4:
Most disturbing... was the misogynistic tone Givhan took, most notably with her comment, "No one wants to see that . . . Just look away!" It really should come as no surprise that women tend to have breasts. With breasts come cleavage. They are part of the female body...This is a rhetorical move I've seen before. Talking about how a woman has chosen to highlight her breasts is portrayed as an objection to the woman's having breasts at all. And one is called misogynistic. But good Lord! What a misreading! Givhan's "Just look away!" didn't express her distaste for breasts. The next paragraph expresses enthusiasm for the British home secretary with the lavish display of cleavage! "Just look away" was Givhan's impression of what Hillary seemed to be saying with the "tentative" cleavage.
Letter 5:
I can't decide what horrifies me more: that The Post, which I have often touted for its intelligent reporting, would publish such a sexist, dated article, or even worse, that the author was echoing a common viewpoint still prevalent in society.So women should wear clothes that "represent who they are," but it's wrong to analyze this self expression? Your "clothes represent [your] style -- not how much skin is exposed"? What does that mean? The style of your clothes obviously includes the way it covers some parts and not others. Once you concede that clothes express the inner self, it follows that we should try to understand the meaning of the clothing worn by a person who seeks political power. Why would you censor this valuable line of inquiry?
As a mother and a professional analyst for the government, I have always believed that my colleagues have respected my work, my mind and my opinions, not whether my cleavage was showing. I dress as I believe all women should: with the ability to choose clothes that represent who they are, be they feminine, nurturing, intelligent, sexy or fashionable. But I do so with the hope that clothes represent my style -- not how much skin is exposed.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Questions, questions....
I'm going to do a 10 minute vlog in one hour... but I need a few questions! And they don't have to be about the photograph, of course. That's just there because... it's a picture I took.
ADDED: Here it is:
Wussing out on the YouTube debate?
The Republicans? I thought they were supposed to be the tough guys!
What are they afraid of? A question about the war from a mother whose son died? Or are they just afraid to have fun? Romney:
What are they afraid of? A question about the war from a mother whose son died? Or are they just afraid to have fun? Romney:
"I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."I'm picturing maybe a dog strapped to the roof of a station wagon.... A "Davey and Goliath"-style stop-action thing. And Davey's got a hose...
Dentist implants boar tusks on unconscious patient, photographs her, and later he wins $750,000 in a lawsuit about it.
How does that happen?
In a sprightly 5-4 decision, Supreme Court Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote that Woo's practical joke was an integral, if odd, part of the assistant's dental surgery and "conceivably" should trigger the professional liability coverage of his policy....So... why did he win? Because everyone hates insurance companies? Because women who talk too much about their oddball pets deserve humilation -- as long as they're unconscious?
The backstory, the court wrote, is that Alberts' family raises potbellied pigs and that she frequently talked about them at the office where she worked for five years.
Woo said his jests about the pigs were part of "a friendly working environment" that he tried to foster.
The oral surgery on Alberts was intended to replace two of her teeth with implants, which Woo did. First, though, he installed temporary bridges that he had shaped to look like boar tusks, and while Alberts was still under anesthesia, he took photos, some with her eyes propped open. Before she woke up, he removed the "tusks" and put in the proper replacement teeth.
Woo says he didn't personally show her the pictures but staffers gave her copies at a birthday party.
The summer associate who sent a senior partner the text message: “Are bras required as part of the dress code?”
I don't know what's more absurd: asking that question of a senior partner or using a text message to do it.
A word of advice: If you're even thinking of asking the question -- that is, if you're not already noticing braless women in your workplace -- don't ask the question -- just figure out how to go braless without it showing. Camisoles with lycra content, jackets, layers -- there are many tricks. Don't forget nippies!
If none of the various tricks work to keep people from noticing that you are braless, you shouldn't go braless even in a workplace where you can tell women are going braless.
A word of advice: If you're even thinking of asking the question -- that is, if you're not already noticing braless women in your workplace -- don't ask the question -- just figure out how to go braless without it showing. Camisoles with lycra content, jackets, layers -- there are many tricks. Don't forget nippies!
If none of the various tricks work to keep people from noticing that you are braless, you shouldn't go braless even in a workplace where you can tell women are going braless.
Obama calls Hillary "Bush-Cheney lite."
One more thing that tips me toward Clinton! Bush-Cheney lite sounds like just about what we need. Clinton declares the epithet "silly," but I think that secretly she knows the comparison helps her in some quarters.
And Obama came out with that in the context of trying to justify what was in fact a major gaffe at the debate:
Clinton's retort:
And Obama came out with that in the context of trying to justify what was in fact a major gaffe at the debate:
In South Carolina and during a visit to New Hampshire earlier in the day, Obama compared Clinton to Bush because, he said, she has said she will not have unconditional meetings with foreign enemies."Stubbornness"? As opposed to what? Giddy impetuousness?
He told the College Democrats that her approach showed "stubbornness" and in New Hampshire he referred to her as "Bush-Cheney lite."
Clinton's retort:
"I've been called a lot of things in my life but I've never been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly," she said. "We have to ask what's ever happened to the politics of hope?"Oh, come on. He's overflowing with hope! Hope that Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and Iran will play nice. Hope that saying Clinton is like Bush will cause voters to recoil in horror...
Radio alert.
I'm going to be on "Week in Review" at 8 AM, Central Time, today. This is the Wisconsin Public Radio show where we go over the week's news stories, and I count as the conservative. On the left will be Isthmus news editor Bill Lueders. You don't have to be from Wisconsin to call in with a question.
Go here to listen on-line live. Remember, we're on Central Time. If you go at 8 Eastern, you can hear about "The Simpsons" from Steven Keslowitz, author of "The World According to The Simpsons: What Our Favorite TV Family Says About Life, Love, and the Pursuit of the Perfect Donut" (Source Books). Both shows will later be streamable at the archive here.
ADDED: Stream it here.
AND: Here's Lueders' book "Cry Rape" -- and his website on it, which includes the underlying documents in the case the book is about.
UPDATE: Read far enough into the comments to see why I mistrust Lueders' judgment and fairness. I should emphasize that I haven't read his book, so please don't take my reference to it as a recommendation.
Go here to listen on-line live. Remember, we're on Central Time. If you go at 8 Eastern, you can hear about "The Simpsons" from Steven Keslowitz, author of "The World According to The Simpsons: What Our Favorite TV Family Says About Life, Love, and the Pursuit of the Perfect Donut" (Source Books). Both shows will later be streamable at the archive here.
ADDED: Stream it here.
AND: Here's Lueders' book "Cry Rape" -- and his website on it, which includes the underlying documents in the case the book is about.
UPDATE: Read far enough into the comments to see why I mistrust Lueders' judgment and fairness. I should emphasize that I haven't read his book, so please don't take my reference to it as a recommendation.
Did you notice the visual pun when this ran on CNN?
I didn't. Chris Dodd can't catch a break. This was hilarious.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Questions, questions...
Give me some questions... And I'll do a little vlog in an hour.
ADDED: Here it is. I went long so I had to edit out some of the longer answers. If I skipped yours, remember: It's not you, it's me. I end up sporting a look that's either Little Edie or Elvis in "Harum Scarum."
AND: What am I drinking and does it have broccoli and algae in it? Answer here. It doesn't have broccoli. AND: Oops. Actually, it does have broccoli! Broccoli and algae. Good lord!
AND: The "creaky voice" discussion goes back to this post.
AND: In case "Harum Scarum" means nothing to you:
ADDED: Here it is. I went long so I had to edit out some of the longer answers. If I skipped yours, remember: It's not you, it's me. I end up sporting a look that's either Little Edie or Elvis in "Harum Scarum."
AND: What am I drinking and does it have broccoli and algae in it? Answer here. It doesn't have broccoli. AND: Oops. Actually, it does have broccoli! Broccoli and algae. Good lord!
AND: The "creaky voice" discussion goes back to this post.
AND: In case "Harum Scarum" means nothing to you:
A Court-packing plan?
Here's a NYT op-ed saying that Congress ought to consider a new Court-packing plan:
Of course, I know: You want the Court to transcend politics but to transcend it in the direction that squares with your politics. I laugh at that.
Two more things:
1. Specify which cases are bothering you! If the "values" you prefer are so "popular," why can't Congress simply enact them as a matter of statutory law? I need to know what you're talking about before I can tell whether these new statutes would violate constitutional law. For example, if you're irked that the Court didn't strike down the "partial-birth abortion" statute, Congress doesn't have to restock the Court with Justices who will expansively construe abortion rights, it only needs to repeal its own statute!
2. The Constitution does create checks on the Supreme Court, and Congress can decide to use them. But such actions by Congress will themselves have a political effect. You need to look down the road and see if you like those effects too. It's not enough to say, wouldn't it be great to be able to suddenly appoint 2 new Supreme Court Justices at a point when we have a President who will nominate individuals we think will do things we like? You will need to explain why this solution is so important, and, when you that, you will probably end up in a debate that will portrays the Court as political. You may succeed in increasing the number of Justices at the expense of delegitimatizing the very Court you want to rely on. And when the next President comes in, he or she will have more power to choose Justices for openly political reasons.
WHEN a majority of Supreme Court justices adopt a manifestly ideological agenda, it plunges the court into the vortex of American politics. If the Roberts court has entered voluntarily what Justice Felix Frankfurter once called the “political thicket,” it may require a political solution to set it straight."When"... "If"... "may".... The writer, Jean Edward Smith, author of a biography of FDR, is not exactly taking a position on what the Roberts Court is doing.
Still, there is nothing sacrosanct about having nine justices on the Supreme Court. Roosevelt’s 1937 chicanery has given court-packing a bad name, but it is a hallowed American political tradition participated in by Republicans and Democrats alike."[P]ersists in thumbing its nose at popular values"? Okay, now Smith seems to be taking a position, though there's no substance in his piece that backs this up, but even if it were backed up, it would be an idiotic point. He starts out fretting about a Court that enters the political sphere, and he ends up worrying about the Court failing to pick up the values of the political majority. So which is it?
If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two.
Of course, I know: You want the Court to transcend politics but to transcend it in the direction that squares with your politics. I laugh at that.
Two more things:
1. Specify which cases are bothering you! If the "values" you prefer are so "popular," why can't Congress simply enact them as a matter of statutory law? I need to know what you're talking about before I can tell whether these new statutes would violate constitutional law. For example, if you're irked that the Court didn't strike down the "partial-birth abortion" statute, Congress doesn't have to restock the Court with Justices who will expansively construe abortion rights, it only needs to repeal its own statute!
2. The Constitution does create checks on the Supreme Court, and Congress can decide to use them. But such actions by Congress will themselves have a political effect. You need to look down the road and see if you like those effects too. It's not enough to say, wouldn't it be great to be able to suddenly appoint 2 new Supreme Court Justices at a point when we have a President who will nominate individuals we think will do things we like? You will need to explain why this solution is so important, and, when you that, you will probably end up in a debate that will portrays the Court as political. You may succeed in increasing the number of Justices at the expense of delegitimatizing the very Court you want to rely on. And when the next President comes in, he or she will have more power to choose Justices for openly political reasons.
Is it illegal sex discrimination to hire only females to host "The View"?
Can producers of "The Price Is Right" decide their audience wants a male host? Is it wrong to insist on a male to play the role of Edna in "Hairspray"? Lawprof Ian Ayres thinks it is:
Personally, I feel insulted by what the networks put on TV during the day. The whole line-up makes the statement: This is what we think women are. Or: This is what we think nonworking women are. Not that I wish I could sue. I'm just offended.
Title VII prohibits sex discrimination in employment unless the employer can establish what's called a BFOQ or "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification." The EEOC Guidelines do allow intentional sex discrimination in hiring an actor or actress where the sex-specific roles are necessary for the "purpose of authenticity or genuineness," see 29 C.F.R. § 1604.2(a)(2). But there is no way that the producers could establish that sex was a BFOQ for being host of "The Price is Right."I know. The idea of lawsuits over such things seems ridiculous. But exactly why is it ridiculous?
The same conclusion probably holds true for hosting "The View." The thought that only women could host a talk show would be difficult to square with existing case law. Probably a dozen different hosts have been employed by The View. They have all been female. There is little doubt that the producers of that show discriminate on the basis of sex in hiring.
Indeed, even John Travolta's portrayal of Edna in the movie Hairspray raises a non-trivial BFOQ question. Travolta, like all of his predecessors, is male. But it's hard to say that casting a man for the part is necessary for "authenticity or genuineness" -- especially when the whole point of his portrayal is that Travolta (unlike Divine) is playing it straight.
Personally, I feel insulted by what the networks put on TV during the day. The whole line-up makes the statement: This is what we think women are. Or: This is what we think nonworking women are. Not that I wish I could sue. I'm just offended.
Voice lessons.
Lately, I've noticed a lot of young women speaking in a strangled voice that seems to be produced by a laborious effort to bypass the larynx altogether. They sound as if they are damaging their throats. Are you noticing this trend? Can you tell me how it got started? Is there some celebrity they are imitating? It sounds a little Winona Ryder to me, but there must be some stronger role models affecting young women. Also, is there some way to get them to stop? It is worse than Valley Girl intonation.
ADDED: Someone in the comments blames Tara Reid. Let's listen:
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Please! She may be cute, but you Taroids? You sound awful.
MORE: A reader emails that it's called "creaky voice":
Okay, then. More video:
MORE: Slate's Emily Bazelon is a perfect example of the voice I'm talking about.
ADDED: Someone in the comments blames Tara Reid. Let's listen:
Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. Please! She may be cute, but you Taroids? You sound awful.
MORE: A reader emails that it's called "creaky voice":
Creaky voice (also called laryngealisation, pulse phonation or, in singing, vocal fry or glottal fry), is a special kind of phonation in which the arytenoid cartilages in the larynx are drawn together; as a result, the vocal folds are compressed rather tightly, becoming relatively slack and compact, and forming a large, irregularly vibrating mass. The frequency of the vibration is very low (20–50 pulses per second, about two octaves below normal voice) and the airflow through the glottis is very slow. A slight degree of laryngealisation, occurring e.g. in some Korean consonants is called "stiff voice".
There is some argument among music instructors as to whether or not this is an actual register as it can be used to add a raspy sound to other registers. By putting a lesser amount of air on the cords than is needed for a clear tone of the pitch you are going for, the tone breaks up and becomes a rasp. Many Nu Metal singers use this technique to create a screaming sound. One example is Chester Bennington of Linkin Park. Yeah Yeah Yeahs' singer Karen O also utilizes the technique in songs like "Rich" and "Art Star"....
Creaky voice manifests itself in the idiolects of some American English speakers, particularly at the beginnings of sentences that the speaker wishes to "soft-pedal". This phenomenon is more prominent among female American English speakers than among male speakers.
Okay, then. More video:
MORE: Slate's Emily Bazelon is a perfect example of the voice I'm talking about.
"Do we need to manage the current mess or try and transform it?"
"The former is a rationale for the Clinton candidacy; the latter is the rationale for Obama's." Why conservatives are coming to accept the idea of Hillary as President.
"Clinton's low-cut shirt simply reflected a few centimeters of sartorial miscalculation..."
WaPo columnist Ruth Marcus tries to put WaPo columnist Robin Givhan in her place:
So let's go back to Marcus's firm foundation -- that cleavage distracts viewers into sexual thinking and that a politician giving a serious speech should not reveal it -- and build something else. Hillary Clinton deliberately crossed a well-understood line, because she'd calculated that it was in her interest to do so. As Marcus notes, Clinton had just received criticism from Elizabeth Edwards for being insufficiently womanly. Hillary wanted to prod us -- subtly, with a small and deniable amount of cleavage -- to think of her as more feminine.
Now let's examine the issue raised by Givhan that the problem was showing too little cleavage. Here's how Givhan's column ends:
But I do love Givhan's idea that the most advanced woman would be so confident about her image as a competent professional that she'd forthrightly use clothing to express her sexuality. If she does this in a profession setting though, she will be surrounded by men in suits who have no way to present themselves more sexily. What's the male equivalent of the Jacqui Smith style? Can Joe Biden wear a codpiece?
Women have much more freedom than men do. Along with this benefit of more freedom comes more room for personal expression. We can adjust what we wear to express as little as possible. A female politician can wear a dark "Dress For Success" suit if she wants, and then, like the men, she's not saying much. But if she does more, we shouldn't say oh, that's nothing, as Marcus would like. We should talk about it!
[Hillary Clinton was] dissected by Post fashion critic Robin Givhan for showing cleavage: "It was startling to see that small acknowledgment of sexuality and femininity peeking out of the conservative -- aesthetically speaking -- environment of Congress." Givhan contrasted Clinton's decolletage with the more abundant display by Jacqui Smith, the new British home secretary, and her complaint seemed to be that Clinton was showing too little, too unassertively.Marcus is clear that cleavage distracts viewers into sexual thinking and that a politician giving a serious speech should not reveal it. On that firm foundation, she builds the argument that Clinton bumbled. It was mistake. A miscalculation from a woman who is continually called calculating? A very wealthy woman who must have people helping her dress? I think women -- unless they are inept or don't care what people think -- know how much of their breasts are showing! The suggestion that Hillary Clinton of all people did not know is beyond absurd.
Might I suggest that sometimes a V-neck top is only a V-neck top? As a person of cleavage, I'd guess that Clinton's low-cut shirt simply reflected a few centimeters of sartorial miscalculation, not a deliberate fashion statement.
Breasts may be an advantage in certain settings; the Senate floor isn't one of them. If you're giving a speech on higher education, as Clinton was, you don't want Ted Stevens thinking about -- and you certainly don't want to think about Ted Stevens thinking about -- your cleavage.
So let's go back to Marcus's firm foundation -- that cleavage distracts viewers into sexual thinking and that a politician giving a serious speech should not reveal it -- and build something else. Hillary Clinton deliberately crossed a well-understood line, because she'd calculated that it was in her interest to do so. As Marcus notes, Clinton had just received criticism from Elizabeth Edwards for being insufficiently womanly. Hillary wanted to prod us -- subtly, with a small and deniable amount of cleavage -- to think of her as more feminine.
Now let's examine the issue raised by Givhan that the problem was showing too little cleavage. Here's how Givhan's column ends:
Not so long ago, Jacqui Smith, the new British home secretary, spoke before the House of Commons showing far more cleavage than Clinton. If Clinton's was a teasing display, then Smith's was a full-fledged come-on. But somehow it wasn't as unnerving. Perhaps that's because Smith's cleavage seemed to be presented so forthrightly. Smith's fitted jacket and her dramatic necklace combined to draw the eye directly to her bosom. There they were . . . all part of a bold, confident style package.So both Marcus and Givhan find fault. One sees mistake, and the other sees tentativeness. I see a deliberate, controlled gesture that was exactly what she wanted to do, what she thought would be advantageous. Why must a fashion expression -- or a political expression -- be forthright? Givhan uses words like "teasing" and "surreptitious," but I'm thinking: subtle, deniable, diplomatic.
With Clinton, there was the sense that you were catching a surreptitious glimpse at something private. You were intruding -- being a voyeur. Showing cleavage is a request to be engaged in a particular way. It doesn't necessarily mean that a woman is asking to be objectified, but it does suggest a certain confidence and physical ease. It means that a woman is content being perceived as a sexual person in addition to being seen as someone who is intelligent, authoritative, witty and whatever else might define her personality. It also means that she feels that all those other characteristics are so apparent and undeniable, that they will not be overshadowed.
To display cleavage in a setting that does not involve cocktails and hors d'oeuvres is a provocation. It requires that a woman be utterly at ease in her skin, coolly confident about her appearance, unflinching about her sense of style. Any hint of ambivalence makes everyone uncomfortable. And in matters of style, Clinton is as noncommittal as ever.
But I do love Givhan's idea that the most advanced woman would be so confident about her image as a competent professional that she'd forthrightly use clothing to express her sexuality. If she does this in a profession setting though, she will be surrounded by men in suits who have no way to present themselves more sexily. What's the male equivalent of the Jacqui Smith style? Can Joe Biden wear a codpiece?
Women have much more freedom than men do. Along with this benefit of more freedom comes more room for personal expression. We can adjust what we wear to express as little as possible. A female politician can wear a dark "Dress For Success" suit if she wants, and then, like the men, she's not saying much. But if she does more, we shouldn't say oh, that's nothing, as Marcus would like. We should talk about it!
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Cyberchondria.
Do you have that special internet hypochondria?
IN THE COMMENTS: Peter Palladas tells this story:
ADDED: My grandmother was regarded as a hypochondriac for many years, when in fact, she was suffering from scleroderma, which eventually killed her. So not only did she suffer horribly from the disease, she also had to endure the extreme disrespect of doctors and family members who saw her as an annoying crazy old lady.
IN THE COMMENTS: Peter Palladas tells this story:
I had an email from a strange woman - like you do - some years back. She had been visiting her GP with concerns about a weird lump in her belly.Pogo -- a doctor -- wrote:
GP had written it off - as they do - as something and nothing. A lipoma [bundle of harmless fat] is the most common guesstimate made in such circs.
But she wasn't satisfied and began searching the Web for options: 'lump, unexplained, useless GP, death,' etc.
That search took her to something I'd written about my own fucking disease - soft tissue sarcoma - where I'd moaned about ignorant GPs who don't know their lipoma from their sarcoma.
So she went back to her GP and told her to think again. So GP did have another think and lo and behold this woman did have exactly a soft tissue sarcoma the size of a bowling ball in her gut.
Surgeons whipped it out pronto and a life was saved.
Palladas is on to something. Physicians were trained to be a priestly class, whose secret knowledge and arcane phrases must be translated to be understood.
A familiar taunt of patients who had read a bit (circa 1980) was and where did you go to medical school?. And boy did that shut them up.
This isn't so much the case anymore, and the Internet has become the modern equivalent of the Protestant reformation, wherein the priest can be bypassed, and salvation gained independently.
ADDED: My grandmother was regarded as a hypochondriac for many years, when in fact, she was suffering from scleroderma, which eventually killed her. So not only did she suffer horribly from the disease, she also had to endure the extreme disrespect of doctors and family members who saw her as an annoying crazy old lady.
Audible Althouse #87.
The Hillary Clinton campaign would like us not to talk about the way she looks, and Rudy Giuliani would like us not to babble about his psyche. I say no to all that. Here in America, the way we show respect is by showing disrespect. Or so I say, in this new podcast.
You don't need an iPod. You can stream it right through your computer here.
But the way to show respect -- and disrespect! -- is to subscribe on iTunes:
You don't need an iPod. You can stream it right through your computer here.
But the way to show respect -- and disrespect! -- is to subscribe on iTunes:
Neurosis is “just a high-class word for whining.”
Said Albert Ellis, dead at age 93:
ADDED: Glenn Reynolds links to this post saying:
[He] challenged the deliberate, slow-moving methodology of Sigmund Freud, the prevailing psychotherapeutic treatment at the time.
Where the Freudians maintained that a painstaking exploration of childhood experience was critical to understanding neurosis and curing it, Dr. Ellis believed in short-term therapy that called on patients to focus on what was happening in their lives at the moment and to take immediate action to change their behavior....
In 1955, however, when Dr. Ellis introduced his approach, most of the psychological and psychiatric establishment scorned it. His critics said he misunderstood the nature and force of emotions. Classical Freudians also took offense at Dr. Ellis’s critical observations about psychoanalysis and its founder. Dr. Ellis contended that Freud “really knew very little about sex” and that his view of the Oedipus complex, as suggesting a universal law of human disturbance, was “foolish.”
ADDED: Glenn Reynolds links to this post saying:
ALBERT ELLIS HAS DIED. The InstaWife has always been a fan, particularly of his How to Make Yourself Happy and Remarkably Less Disturbable. We could use more of that in the blogosphere sometimes . . . .Which struck me as a little weird, because what "further thoughts" have I got here? But then I went to the "InstaWife" post, which was written back in March, and it does refer at some length to a conversation she and I had on Bloggingheads and then, continuing, in written blogging. So I actually do have some "further thoughts" on Albert Ellis, back here in this March post of mine. Just in case you were inclined to curse me out for getting the cheapest Instapundit link ever! And, oddly enough, that March post begins with an exclamation about how convoluted the conversation had become.
Further thoughts from Ann Althouse.
Giuliani's warns us off "this touchy-feely, let-me-try-to-figure-out- how-you-do-psychobabble-on-somebody."
Sure, of course you don't like it. Because it's so especially interesting in your case. When the candidate says, don't go there, go there.
Or is it the other way around? When the candidate says go ahead and look there, you actually should look there? As in: "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored."
Anyway, I think an aversion to touchy-feely, let-me-try-to-figure-out- how-you-do-psychobabble seems pretty neurotic.
Or is it the other way around? When the candidate says go ahead and look there, you actually should look there? As in: "Follow me around. I don't care. I'm serious. If anybody wants to put a tail on me, go ahead. They'll be very bored."
Anyway, I think an aversion to touchy-feely, let-me-try-to-figure-out- how-you-do-psychobabble seems pretty neurotic.
Coy C. Privette.
What a perfect name for a man with this problem!
Found via Andrew Sullivan, who seems happy as ever to see a "Christianist" fall. But, good Lord, what a minuscule character! "Cabarrus County commissioner and retired Baptist minister." The bigger they are the harder they fall. But aren't some folks so small that, when they fall, we should hear nothing?
Found via Andrew Sullivan, who seems happy as ever to see a "Christianist" fall. But, good Lord, what a minuscule character! "Cabarrus County commissioner and retired Baptist minister." The bigger they are the harder they fall. But aren't some folks so small that, when they fall, we should hear nothing?
"Christopher Hitchens famously put picnics on his list of life's most overrated things, alongside lobster, champagne and a certain sex act."
So begins an article titled "Abandon tired picnic dishes." Do you: 1. Keep reading to discover exciting new picnic dishes? 2. Google to discover exactly which sex act Hitchens thought was overrated?
I Googled... and gave some thought to the possibility of all four things coming into play on a particular occasion. Why not invite your paramour out on the perfect anti-Hitchens date?
I Googled... and gave some thought to the possibility of all four things coming into play on a particular occasion. Why not invite your paramour out on the perfect anti-Hitchens date?
Clinton, best in the debate, and best in the after-debate.
I think in these last two days it's become clear that Hillary Clinton is the Democrats' best candidate. In the most significant moment of the debate, the candidates were asked "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
Obama immediately says "I would," not really noticing the detail to the question. He'd meet "without preconditions"? He goes on to plug in some material, which he will use in the after-debate period about how wrong Bush has been to think that "not talking to countries is punishment to them."
Clinton gets a lucky break when the questioner, who's in the audience, is given a chance at a follow up and throws the question to Clinton. I think Clinton had seen her opportunity the instant Obama said "I would," and here, with the chance to speak next, she deftly takes full advantage:
Listen to him struggle through this interview with Iowa's Quad-City Times. Now, let's look at the coverage in today's newspapers.
The Boston Globe:
And his attempt to catch Clinton in a contradiction could only work if we lacked the most basic powers of discernment. So Clinton said it's "a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people"? It can be wrong both to say "I won't talk" and to say "I will talk." The position Clinton took at the debate was that talks had to be planned and developed through a diplomatic process. She's rejecting both hardcore positions: promises to talk "without preconditions" and intransigent refusals to talk.
The Daily News:
Lynn Sweet in the Chicago-Sun Times:
The Obama rhetoric is getting stale and repetitious -- just as Hillary is trouncing him in the after-debate!
He barely shows up for the showdown.
UPDATE: What about the second day after the debate?
Obama immediately says "I would," not really noticing the detail to the question. He'd meet "without preconditions"? He goes on to plug in some material, which he will use in the after-debate period about how wrong Bush has been to think that "not talking to countries is punishment to them."
Clinton gets a lucky break when the questioner, who's in the audience, is given a chance at a follow up and throws the question to Clinton. I think Clinton had seen her opportunity the instant Obama said "I would," and here, with the chance to speak next, she deftly takes full advantage:
Well...A disarming "well," as if this isn't going to be word-for-word perfect...
I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year. I will promise a very vigorous diplomatic effort because I think it is not that you promise a meeting at that high a level before you know what the intentions are.Live-blogging, I say "this is the precise point in the debate where I conclude... that Clinton is the superior candidate." But as impressive as this is, her campaign also deserves credit for forefronting this interchange the day after the debate, and Obama must take a second downgrade for the way he handled the after-debate.
I don't want to be used for propaganda purposes. I don't want to make a situation even worse. But I certainly agree that we need to get back to diplomacy, which has been turned into a bad word by this administration.
And I will pursue very vigorous diplomacy.
And I will use a lot of high-level presidential envoys to test the waters, to feel the way. But certainly, we're not going to just have our president meet with Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez and, you know, the president of North Korea, Iran and Syria until we know better what the way forward would be.
Listen to him struggle through this interview with Iowa's Quad-City Times. Now, let's look at the coverage in today's newspapers.
The Boston Globe:
Yesterday, Obama's campaign tried to clarify his remarks by saying that he wouldn't agree to meet with such leaders before lower-level diplomatic work was done. But Clinton's campaign seized on their divergent answers, arguing that it exposes both her command of world affairs and Obama's greenness. "Senator Clinton is committed to vigorous diplomacy but understands that it is a mistake to commit the power and prestige of America's presidency years ahead of time by making such a blanket commitment," her campaign wrote in a memo.So Obama falls back on his mantra "change," showing his dreadful tendency to rely on abstractions and generic hope messages. He's gotten on a long way with such material, when speaking to admiring crowds of people who are just getting to know him. But it's horribly inadequate to fight off a formidable opponent on a specific issue.
Obama's campaign put out its own memo yesterday saying his is the approach that would keep America safe.
"Obama's tough but smart approach to America's diplomacy is exactly the kind of change and new thinking that excites voters about an Obama presidency," the memo said. His campaign also pointed to a remark Clinton made this spring in which she said, "I think it is a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people."
Clinton's campaign yesterday also employed former secretary of state Madeleine Albright to speak to reporters about Clinton's knowledge of diplomacy and the appropriate use of American power. "When all is said and done she knows that being president is about protecting the country and advancing national security interests," Albright said, adding that Clinton shows "a very sophisticated understanding of the whole process."
And his attempt to catch Clinton in a contradiction could only work if we lacked the most basic powers of discernment. So Clinton said it's "a terrible mistake for our president to say he will not talk with bad people"? It can be wrong both to say "I won't talk" and to say "I will talk." The position Clinton took at the debate was that talks had to be planned and developed through a diplomatic process. She's rejecting both hardcore positions: promises to talk "without preconditions" and intransigent refusals to talk.
The Daily News:
Political observers said they expected Clinton to waste no time using Obama's comment to shore up her standing among key voter blocs, such as Cuban-Americans in bellwether Florida and Jewish voters who may find the idea of a sitdown with the Holocaust-denying president of Iran disturbing.So, Lake pretends Obama said what he should have said -- that is, what Clinton said.
Team Clinton plans "to use these issues in outreach in the states [and nationally] with Jewish leadership and Jewish grass-roots voters," a Democratic operative familiar with the Clinton campaign told the Daily News.
Obama's camp said that approach wouldn't impress anybody. "There is a smallness to such misleading attacks that voters reject," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton....
In a race where Obama has presented himself as the fresher face, the exchange handed Clinton the perfect opening to "prove she's more experienced and would provide a steadier hand at the helm of the ship of state," said Democratic consultant Hank Sheinkopf.
To push that message, the Clinton campaign swiftly arranged a morning press call with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who didn't attack Obama directly but called the New York senator "a person who understands how the American presidency works."
The Obama campaign quickly trotted out its own stable of surrogates, including former Clinton administration national security adviser Anthony Lake, who argued, "A great nation and its President should never fear negotiating with anyone and Sen. Obama rightly said he would be willing to do so."
Lynn Sweet in the Chicago-Sun Times:
During the day Tuesday, the Clinton and Obama campaigns issued dueling critical memos while advisers sparred over who appeared more presidential. The candidates each gave interviews to the Quad City Times in Iowa, the state with the crucial lead-off presidential vote, where they escalated the rhetoric.Yes, she's not just demonstrating that she's right on the issue, she's demonstrating how to be a strong candidate, which is actually more important as the Democrats decide who they want to be the candidate.
"I thought that was irresponsible and frankly naive," Clinton told the paper. Obama, she said, gave an answer "I think he is regretting today."
Obama told the paper that Clinton's camp was trying to score "political points."
He stood by his response and that Clinton's position was not that different from the Bush administration policy, so she "can't claim the mantle of change.""The mantle of change." I wonder what people picture when they hear the word "mantle." Really, think about it for a while: The Mantle of Change, The Mantle of Change, The Mantle of Change. Doesn't it sound like something you win at a stage of a video game?
The Obama rhetoric is getting stale and repetitious -- just as Hillary is trouncing him in the after-debate!
Obama's campaign was trying to regain its footing after walking into a potential political minefield. The debate story in the Miami Herald, another early primary state where Cuban Americans make up a voting bloc, said Obama and Edwards "suggested Monday that they would meet with two leaders who top South Florida's most-hated list: Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez."That coffee line tries to brush off the controversy as lightweight and meaningless, but it is his biggest showdown with Clinton thus far.
If he met with Chavez, Obama told the Iowa paper, it would be to tell him "what I don't like" while finding areas to "potentially work together."
"I didn't say these guys were going to come over for a cup of coffee some afternoon," Obama said.
He barely shows up for the showdown.
UPDATE: What about the second day after the debate?
"The notion that I was somehow going to be inviting them over for tea next week without having initial envoys meet is ridiculous," he said...So from "coffee some afternoon" to "tea next week"...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
:.
