Slate.com
Table of Contents
hollywoodland
The Trouble With Clooney
hot document
ad report card
Juvi Hell
Bran Identity
hot document
art
Weapons of Mass Collegiate Destruction
Say Cheese!
human nature
books
Are Blacks Inferior?
Watch Your Language
juicy bits
bushisms
The Condensed Bill and Hillary
Bushism of the Day
jurisprudence
chatterbox
American Lawbreaking
McCaincare: Provocative but Vague
jurisprudence
culturebox
Rebound Relationship
The Trouble With Indie Rock
jurisprudence
culturebox
The Dog Ate My Evidence
What's Wrong With The Office
jurisprudence
day to day
Don't Hang the Ref
AG Nominee Hearings Start
kausfiles
dear prudence
Could Gore Kill Iowa?
Weighty Issues
low concept
dialogues
Hello, Dalai!
Debating The Year of Living Biblically
map the candidates
dispatches
Map the Candidates
Burma After the Crackdown
medical examiner
dvd extras
Your Health This Week
Not-So-Great Salt Lake
moneybox
election scorecard
The Spinal Tap Economy
Election Scorecard
moneybox
explainer
Protecting Paulson's Pals
Why Is Moonshine Against the Law?
moneybox
explainer
CEOs for Clinton
Giant Dinosaurs in Argentina
movies
explainer
Extrajudicially Blonde
What's in the Vatican Secret Archives?
music box
fighting words
German Emo Boys
Prizing Doris Lessing
other magazines
foreigners
Blackwater Blues
Skype Dreams
poem
green room
Green Peace
"Failure"
politics
today's papers
Romney's Achilles' Heel
Blue Turk
politics
today's papers
Campaign Junkie
Warming to Him
press box
trailhead
The Churchillian Side of Chris Matthews
Obama, Where Art Thou?
press box
war stories
What Do Herbert and Marion Sandler Want?
Resign, Retire, Renounce
sports nut
xx factor
ESPN the Newsmagazine
XX Factor
sports nut
The Bulls Are No. 2!
technology
Apple vs. Everyone
ad report card
television
A new and disgusting cereal ad that simulates human excretion.
Did You Watch Chuck Last Night?
By Janelle Nanos
Monday, October 15, 2007, at 7:26 AM ET
Bran Identity
the chat room
Tell It to the Judge
the green lantern
Dirty Burns
the has-been
Golden Hand Signals
the undercover economist
The Conjurer's Dilemma
today's blogs
SCHIP off the Block
today's blogs
China's Lama Drama
today's blogs
The spot: A construction worker in a hard hat and orange vest
stomps through a busy site with a box of All-Bran cereal,
enumerating his problems "staying regular." As he extols the
benefits of the All-Bran 10-day challenge (that's eating the
cereal "once a day, for 10 days"), a variety of visual metaphors
play out behind him: A steel I-beam is pulled out from a gap in a
wall; some strategically placed barrels roll off a flatbed parked
directly behind our narrator's derrière; a dump truck pulls up
and unloads a ton of bricks. The spot ends with an image of
brown bran shards, as an announcer says: "The All-Bran
Challenge. Do it. Feel it." (Click here to see the ad.)
The visual puns in this ad are so bold—and so disgusting—that
when I first saw it, I couldn't quite believe what I'd seen. I
immediately went online to watch it again, thinking: Did those
barrels actually plop out from behind that guy's butt?
Caspian Comrades
today's blogs
Al-Qaida on the Wane?
today's papers
Immunity Boosters
today's papers
Lone Rangers
today's papers
Join In Surveillance
today's papers
Mission Accomplished?
When promoting products for our gastrointestinal tracts,
advertisers have long tended to avoid direct references to the
scatological: Toilet paper is squeezed or rubbed on faces to
demonstrate its softness; adult diaper ads show seniors in
engaging tennis matches; elaborate digital renderings of
pulsating stomach linings evoke the effectiveness of digestive
medicines. Why break with this trend and go with such a
visceral campaign?
For one thing, there's been an increasing willingness to go
beyond euphemism in recent ads: Consider the rise of brand
icons like the Charmin bears (who ably answer the old question
about what bears do in the woods) and the Kandoo frog, a
character created by Pampers to promote its brand of flushable
wipes. These characters are very frank and forthcoming about
wiping their behinds (you can watch the Kandoo Frog do so
online—just click on the box of flushable toilet wipes). But even
these ads stop short of actually simulating human excretion.
Which raises the question: Who is the All-Bran ad targeting? It
begs to be watched over and over, and is filled with juvenile
elements that seem designed to make Web-savvy youngsters
giggle before e-mailing it along. (Indeed, the spot has notched
more than 100,000 views on YouTube.) Could the company be
banking on the viral element to bring young people to a brand
more popular among older consumers? Is the ad a stealth effort
to reach frat boys with dodgy digestive systems?
Nope. According to the company, it's an effort to charm
constipated old people with a little frat-boy humor. Kellogg's
spokeswoman Allison Costello said the ad's not geared toward
the young: "All-Bran has always been marketed to adults and we
have no plans to change our approach." All-Bran's target
demographic is grown-ups—those 45 and older—and the spot is
a nod to the fact that such people can still appreciate potty
humor, even at their advanced age. "Talking about regularity is a
really tough thing to do," admitted senior brand manager Matt
Lindsay, who helped create the ad. "We liked the idea of
leveraging visual metaphors to make it a more approachable
subject."
More approachable? That's a bit of a stretch, given that online
responses to the ad range widely, from those "aghast" that the
censors allowed it, to some perhaps a bit too enthused: "It seems
like everyone loves this commercial, and I do-do, too!"
"Inherently, given the subject matter, it's going to be a bit
polarizing," Lindsay says. "You are going to get individuals who
don't want to think about the functional effects of regularity. But
we bring it to life in a little more subtle way. A lot of our
consumers don't even notice the visual metaphors right away."
While the spot is hardly subtle (A dump truck unloading bricks?
What, no kids being dropped off at a pool?), Lindsay does
pinpoint the genius of the ad. It's funny, and it bears rewatching,
and it's therefore memorable. Whether it will lead viewers to
seek out the product in stores, I'm not sure about. But this witty
spot may give Kellogg's a bit of an edge.
Grade: B+. Funny and crass, it's certainly gotten attention for
the brand. A few caveats: I'm not sure whether the "Do it. Feel
it." tag line at the end of the spot works. While invoking the
immortal Nike slogan in this context is inspired, the announcer's
overenunciated "Feeeel it" is just gross. And can we
acknowledge that this is possibly the most unsafe construction
site ever depicted on TV? What exactly was going on with that
I-beam?
art
Say Cheese!
A history of the American snapshot.
By Mia Fineman
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 11:23 AM ET
Click here to read a slide-show essay about the history of the
American snapshot.
.
.
.
.
.
books
Watch Your Language
What our words reveal about our minds, but not about the world.
By Christine Kenneally
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 11:37 AM ET
Steven Pinker is a man stuffed with thoughts and gifted with
language, a combination that has won him an unusually wide
audience. In 1995, he published The Language Instinct, which
was not just a best-selling Pulitzer Prize nominee. It was a bestselling Pulitzer Prize nominee about linguistics that was the first
really meaty guide to how language actually works. Three
similarly successful books followed. In one more about
linguistics and two about human nature, Pinker gradually
emerged as a polymath pioneer in the field of evolutionary
psychology, which plenty of scientists had dismissed as mere
storytelling but has thrived, thanks largely to his efforts. His
latest book completes two arcs, one for the language books and
one for the psychology books. There's more stuff than ever in
The Stuff of Thought, and once again, Pinker isn't shy. In
devoting almost 500 pages to the way we make meaning, he
confirms his place as the lead interpreter of a field long
dominated by Noam Chomsky. He does it with signature clarity.
Under Chomsky's sway for four decades, most of linguistics and
related sciences focused on the structure and rules of language,
at the expense of meaning. Pinker defies the old order, and he
does it, fittingly, without letting rhetoric get in the way as he
guides readers through the radically expanded landscape of work
on language and thought in cognitive science. His book is a vast
explainer, built out of his own research and the work of many
careful researchers and scholars who have received little
attention beyond the academic fields of semantics and
experimental psychology. In one chapter, Pinker examines
whether the particular language you speak influences the way
you think. The idea that it does has generated a lot of attention
(as well as irritation and indignation) in cognitive science over
the years. Laying out the debate as he sees it, Pinker concludes
that it does not, at least not in any dramatic or important way.
For most of the book, however, he flips the terms, investigating
a different relationship that is equally deserving of the spotlight:
the way thought underpins language.
Of course, there are entirely obvious ways that thinking shapes
language. The words of a language reflect the concerns of its
culture, and when we use language, we usually try to say what
we think. We signal in various ways what we think about what
we think, and even the mistakes we make expose the way our
mind works. This is all interesting stuff, but with his
characteristic flair ("verbivores," "whimperatives," "malefactive
verbs," "momentaneous events"), Pinker explores a less day-today connection. He carefully picks language apart to reveal the
conceptual scaffolds and preoccupations that underlie it,
including pervasive beliefs about the workings of time, space,
and motion, as well as the human body. Once the struts are
exposed, Pinker confronts us with a surprising conclusion:
Though they shape our language, these mental scaffolds have
little to do with how the world really works.
Getting at the struts isn't easy. For linguists, this kind of activity
typically begins not with a grand ambition to expose the
anthropic universe but instead with a small, nagging problem.
Why, for example, can you say "load hay onto the wagon" and
"load the wagon with hay" (which seem to mean pretty much the
same thing), and yet even though you can say "toss hay onto the
wagon," you cannot say "toss the wagon with hay"? On noticing
this oddity, scholars soon discovered that it was spread
throughout language. Lots of verbs will happily tolerate the
structural flip, but for no obvious reason, others refuse to be
manipulated in this way. Certainly, language can be a messy
place. Was this merely a chance variation, the result of words
having individual preferences?
No one in science likes to go with randomness as a first, or a
last, guess, but it took a very long time for linguists to show that
there was method beneath the mess. It turns out that the
goodness of the fit between the verb and the construction is not
simply an individual difference in the way words are used, but is
fundamentally underwritten by broad, unspoken categories of
meaning—in this case, the way we think about things like
movement and space.
Only one of these verbs works in both sentences because, despite
appearances, they don't really mean the same thing. In fact, they
subtly frame events in very different ways. When you "load, or
toss, hay onto a wagon," all that's being described is that some
things are moved to another place. There may be lots of hay in
the wagon or there may not. The sentence doesn't really say.
When you reverse the structure and "verb a wagon with hay," the
implication is that it is completely, not partially, filled with hay.
The wagon is qualitatively changed by the action of the verb. A
full wagon seems logical if it has been loaded with something,
but the mind—and language—balk at the idea of a wagon
changing state so completely because things have been tossed on
it.
What's revealing about the clashes and matches between a verb
and a frame is not just that the frames are freighted with
ultimately different meaning, but also that the verbs fall into
natural groupings based on broad categories of meaning.
Linguists recently discovered, in part because of the way a verb
fits or doesn't fit into different kinds of sentences, that many
verbs hang out in invisible cliques, again based on concepts like
space, or force, or motion. Of at least 85 such verb sets in
English, one involves what happens when a collection of objects
is distributed over a surface (blot, bombard, dapple, riddle,
speckle). In another group, the verbs all describe what happens
when little bits of stuff are sent in every direction (bestrew,
scatter, seed, sow, strew). Yet another lot describes something
that is being expelled from inside something else (emit, excrete,
expectorate, secrete, spew, spit, etc.).
It is remarkable that no one is ever taught that these classes exist,
let alone what they mean. Yet when a child learns the verbs of a
language, they implicitly learn about the way verbs huddle
together. As Pinker points out, verbs could be grouped for all
sorts of meaning, for example, based on whether they describe
things that look the same, feel the same, or smell the same. But
they are not; what their groupings reveal is a distinctly and
universally human fixation on different kinds of motion, how
force is applied, how time gets parceled up, and how states
change—this is the stuff of thought.
Pinker walks his readers with a firm and friendly hand through
many finely detailed examples, picking out a word or exposing a
metaphor, turning it over, trying it out in different contexts, and
exposing its internal mechanism. Again and again, seemingly
inconsequential quirks of language reveal the same cosmic
preoccupations. In addition to physical objects and the laws that
move them, the way we carve up the universe includes a basic
taxonomy of human vs. nonhuman things, animate vs. inanimate
objects, discrete objects vs. continuous stuff, and flexible vs.
rigid things. Our language is also shaped by a timeline along
which events are bounded or unbounded. Also fundamental is
the idea of a goal, as well as an important distinction between
means and ends.
Not all of these meanings appear in all languages, but some large
set of them do, suggesting pretty strongly that they are
fundamental to how human beings think about the world, not
just how we talk about it. Pinker runs through many different
experiments that show how basic some of these concepts are to
human thinking, independent of language use.
chatterbox
Yet although they are essential to thought, the principles and
distinctions revealed by language are not fundamental to the
world and how it works. Time is not a line; objects are not
bounded or unbounded in the ways that we construe them. Nor
does the world break down in any clean way into, for example,
things that are human vs. things that are nonhuman. The stuff of
human thought is wrong. Well, maybe not wrong, but it's not
right, either. Rather, as Pinker shows, our default ideas about
how the world is partitioned are a "cognitive lens" with which to
view all the, you know, things around us. After all, he says,
"though we can never directly know the world, it's not as if one
could know the world without some kind of mind." The trick, of
course, is to be aware of the lens at the same time you are
looking through it.
A principle I've tried to uphold in writing this series is that a
candidate's health-care plan is not what some campaign aide says
it is when speaking to a reporter on background, but rather what
the candidate's own campaign literature says in black and white.
As Curtis Armstrong tells Tom Cruise in Risky Business, "If you
can't say it, you can't do it."
How then should we view language? If it's not the case that
language determines how we see the world, and it's not true that
the world itself determines language, what is it? If you're adept
enough with it, then language is a paradox: revealing the
universal concerns of our species, while at the same time
enabling us to see, at least a little bit, beyond them.
bushisms
Bushism of the Day
By Jacob Weisberg
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 10:28 AM ET
"You know, a trucker, if he's interested in moving through
Northwest Arkansas in expedition fashion, will pay a little extra
money to be able to do so."—explaining how toll roads can
generate funds for highway maintenance while helping motorists
move quickly, Rogers, Ark., Oct., 15, 2007
Click here to see video of Bush's comments. The Bushism is at
18:13.
Got a Bushism? Send it to bushisms@slate.com. For more, see
"The Complete Bushisms."
McCaincare: Provocative but Vague
The health-care primary, Part 5.
By Timothy Noah
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 6:30 PM ET
This principle was put to the test by John McCain's health plan,
which is very poorly explained on the McCain campaign Web
page labeled "Straight Talk on Health System Reform." This
"straight talk" consists almost entirely of airy platitudes. A
multimedia page that links to a petition signing on to McCain's
health plan is similarly unhelpful. (How can you sign the
petition—really a fund-raising gimmick, of course—if you don't
know what the damn health plan is?) Slightly more helpful is
this transcript of a speech McCain gave Oct. 11 to Rotarians in
Des Moines, Iowa. Even here, though, I needed help interpreting
this potentially significant passage:
Like most of our system, Medicare
reimbursement now rewards institutions and
clinicians who provide more and more
complex services. We need to change the way
providers are paid to focus their attention more
on chronic disease and managing their
treatment. This is the most important care and
expense for an aging population. And in a
system that rewards quality, Medicare should
not pay for preventable medical errors.
We need to change the way providers are paid.
Until now, we've heard the candidates discuss, ad nauseum,
ways to change who pays doctors and hospitals for medical
care—the choices being the patient, the insurer, the government,
or some more-feasible blend of these three—but we haven't
heard them talk about changing how those doctors and hospitals
should be paid. Possible reform in this area would be far more
radical than anything proposed by the Democratic presidential
candidates, even if confined only to Medicare. Does McCain
really mean to change how doctors and hospitals are paid? If so,
how would he change it?
McCain's publicly available material doesn't say. So I broke my
rule, phoned the campaign, and requested an interview with
anyone who might be able to explain. In essence, I learned,
McCain is challenging fee-for-service medicine, though not to
the point of mandating that doctors be put on salary. Under the
present fee-for-service payment scheme, doctors have an
economic incentive to maximize their income by performing as
many medical procedures as possible. That drives up costs,
overtaxes hospitals, and threatens patients' lives. McCain
deserves congratulations for taking on the fee-for-service
problem, even if his proposed solution is short on specifics.
The rest of McCain's health-care plan is an uninteresting
mishmash of proposals that are mostly useless and occasionally
harmful.
Candidate: John McCain
Elegance: None. As noted above, clarity is a problem, too.
Market gimmicks: The main one is health savings accounts,
which "put the family in charge of what they pay for, and should
be expanded and encouraged." Actually, health savings accounts
are a roulette game that favors young, healthy people who don't
expect to get sick. If they get sick anyway, they're screwed. If
they don't get sick, they're screwing those who do by reducing
funds available for the larger risk pool.
Susceptibility to the insurance lobby: There's nothing I can
find in this plan that would displease insurers. Indeed, McCain
proposes eliminating rules that prohibit insurers from selling
policies across state lines. There's nothing inherently wrong in
that idea, but in implementing it insurers would surely press to
eliminate existing consumer protections.
Cost: Not stated, but since the thrust of the plan is to limit
expenditures rather than improve health care, that isn't much of
an issue.
How universal? The plan isn't universal, but McCain would
extend a tax credit of $2,500 to individuals and $5,000 to
families for the purchase of health insurance. That wouldn't
come close to covering the market cost of a decent healthinsurance plan, but presumably it would increase the proportion
of people who purchase health insurance directly to those who
receive it through their workplace.
How socialistic? There's no mention anywhere of expanding
government-paid health insurance. If McCain's proposed
changes to the way Medicare pays hospitals and doctors were
mimicked by private health insurers, as they almost certainly
would be, you could argue that constituted a pinko intrusion into
the marketplace. It would be as ridiculous as the claim
Republicans often make that demanding volume discounts for
drugs purchased by Medicare—something the Bush
administration refused to do when it expanded Medicare to
include pharmaceuticals—constituted pinko intrusion into the
marketplace. (To be clear, allowing the government to buy
senior citizens drugs is the pinko intrusion, one that was long
overdue.) Like demanding bulk discounts, changing the way the
government pays doctors and hospitals would merely be a
rational exercise of the government's buying power. Calling
McCain a parlor pink for proposing such a change would
therefore be vile. But McCain's rivals for the Republican
nomination will probably do it anyway if his poll numbers rise,
and possibly even if they don't.
How disciplined? That depends on how effective McCain is in
reining in fee-for-service payments. "You don't want to pay per
procedure," a McCain staffer explained to me, "you want to pay
per episode, per outcome." This would entail getting the various
parties involved in treating a patient for a specific "episode" to
coordinate their care (a good in itself with regard to patient care)
and send the government a single bill. (As noted above, McCain
also wants Medicare to stop paying for medical errors, which
sounds reasonable.) Even episode- or outcome-based payments,
though, are susceptible to profit-maximizing manipulation if
coordination shades into collusion. That's why the best payment
reform of all would put doctors on salary. The only way the
government could exercise sufficient market leverage to do so,
however, would be to institute single-payer health insurance.
Impact on employers: Favorable. The point of the health-care
tax credit would be to encourage people to get health insurance
on their own rather than through the workplace. As I've written
before, I don't see why private businesses should pay for health
care in the United States, when they don't have to in other
countries.
Longevity: McCain talks about extending the period of
insurance coverage and encouraging portability of healthinsurance policies, but still his plan would leave insurers focused
mainly on the here-and-now rather than on the patient's health
over his lifetime. Like everyone else, McCain talks about
promoting competition, but greater competition among health
insurers would shorten their time horizons with regard to
individual patients, not lengthen them.
Health-Care Primary Archive:
Oct. 3, 2007: "Why Bush Was Dumb To Veto SCHIP"
Sept. 28, 2007: "Would Universal Health Care Wreck Cancer
Treatment?"
Sept. 20, 2007: "Hillarycare II: New and Improved"
Aug. 2, 2007: "Giuliani's Tepid Health Reform"
July 5, 2007: "Edwardscare: An Elegant, Laudable Trojan
Horse"
July 1, 2007: "Health Costs Screw Business, Too"
June 19, 2007: "Obamacare: Better Than It Looks"
March 13, 2007: "A Short History of Health Care"
Nov. 8, 2006: "Time To Socialize Medicine"
March 9, 2005: "Socialized Medicine, Part 2"
March 8, 2005: "The Triumph of Socialized Medicine"
of indie rock, but a folkier subset that's hardly trying to be rock
at all. But to say so would be less dramatic.
culturebox
The Trouble With Indie Rock
It's not just race. It's class.
By Carl Wilson
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:53 PM ET
New Yorker pop critic Sasha Frere-Jones has often indicated
boredom and annoyance with a lot of the critically acclaimed,
music-blog, and/or NPR-approved "indie rock" of this decade.
This week, in an article, a couple of blog entries, and a podcast,
he tries to articulate why. His answer? It's not black enough; it
lacks "swing, some empty space and palpable bass frequencies";
it doesn't participate lustily in the grand (and problematic)
tradition of musical "miscegenation" that's given American
music, especially rock 'n' roll, its kick.
To give bite to the accusation, Frere-Jones names a few names,
beginning with the Arcade Fire and adding Wilco, the Fiery
Furnaces, the Decemberists, the Shins, Sufjan Stevens, Grizzly
Bear, Panda Bear, and Devendra Banhart, plus indie-heroes past,
Pavement. He contrasts them with the likes of the Clash, Elvis,
the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Cream, Public
Image Ltd., Bob Dylan, the Minutemen, Nirvana, and even
Grand Funk Railroad as examples of willful, gleeful, racialsound-barrier-breaching white rockers of yore.
As indicated in his pre-emptive blog post, the piece is a
provocation, as is Frere-Jones's M.O., and that is welcome at a
time when musical discussion revolves numbingly around which
digital-distribution method can be most effectively "monetized."
(Current champ: Radiohead.) But many commentators have
pointed out his article's basic problems of consistency and
accuracy: Frere-Jones' story is that the rise of Pavement as role
models and Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg as rivals in the 1990s
marked a quick indie retreat from bluesiness and danceability.
Yet the conscious and iconoclastic excision of blues-rock from
"underground" rock goes back to the '70s and '80s origins of
American punk and especially hardcore, from which indie
complicatedly evolved.
While it's possible to cherry-pick exceptions ever since, FrereJones does so selectively, overlooking the likes of Royal Trux or
the Afghan Whigs in the 1990s, or more recently, the Yeah Yeah
Yeahs, Spoon, Battles and the dance-punks LCD Soundsystem,
Hot Chip, and Junior Senior, all of whom appear on his own
best-of-the-year list in progress. Last March, in direct
contradiction to what he says in this week's New Yorker essay,
Frere-Jones wrote in an LCD Soundsystem review: "About five
years ago, indie rockers began to rediscover the pleasures of
rhythm." Where are those indie rockers now? Vanished, because
they would mess with his thesis. He isn't really talking about all
The article also tends troublingly to reduce "black music" to
rhythm and sexuality, and to elide the differences between, say,
funk, soul, disco, folk-blues, Caribbean, and African influences
in white rock. While he justifiably frames the issue as an
American one, at least half of Frere-Jones' lauded precedents are
British, a context in which appropriating black American music
has vastly different connotations. His lead example, the Arcade
Fire, is likewise un-American, hailing from Montreal (one of its
leaders, Régine Chassagne, has family roots in Haiti). The piece
also switches at its convenience between mainstream rock
history and the "underground" genealogy of indie, while never
balancing the scales by addressing current hit-making rockers
like Fall Out Boy or the White Stripes, who remain heavier on
groove.
One could go on playing "gotcha" at the expense of Frere-Jones'
intended thrust, which mainly indicates that this piece needed
another draft or two. This is odd, because "indie whiteness" is a
subject he's been banging on about in many forums for several
years. (Frere-Jones is also a sometime white-indie-rocker
himself.) His consistent mistake seems to be to talk about
musical issues as if they were nearly autonomous from larger
social dynamics. It's the blind spot of a genuine music lover, but
it grants music culture too much power and assigns it too much
blame.
For instance, the separation of racial influences in American
music arguably begins with the 1970s demise of Top 40 radio,
which coincided with the Black Power movement and the
withering of the integrationist ideals of the civil rights era. FrereJones nods in this direction when he talks about "political
correctness," but he reduces the issue to an "academic" critique
rather than a vast shift in racial relations and, more importantly,
expectations. The brands of "authenticity" that both punk and
hip-hop came to demand, which tended to discourage the crosspollination and "miscegenation" of musical forms, are in keeping
with the identity politics that became dominant in the 1980s as
well as the de facto resegregation of black and white
communities that began in the Reagan era. This is the
counternarrative to the cultural-level "social progress" that
Frere-Jones rightly points out, in which explicit racism has
retreated and black entertainers have come to dominate the
mainstream.
It's not just because Snoop Dogg and Dr. Dre were such great
artists that white people were afraid to imitate them—they're no
better than John Coltrane, Jimi Hendrix, James Brown, Muddy
Waters, and dozens of others whom white artists have happily
mimicked in the past. Rather it's that this kind of "theft" became
a capital cultural crime, and not just in the academy (how many
'90s indie rockers knew by heart the verses in "Fight the Power,"
where Public Enemy calls Elvis a "straight-up racist, simple and
plain"?). If gangsta rap marked a break, it was because hip-hop
became coded to reflect the retrenchment of the "Two Americas"
and the resultant combative, near-separatist mood among
African-Americans. It was deliberately made less assimilable, a
development reinforced by the marketplace when white
suburban kids turned out to love its more extremist voice.
You could argue that it's always incumbent on the artists to come
back swinging by presenting an alternative vision. Some have
tried—unfortunately, often in the form of jam bands and rockrap groups—but the diminished street-level faith in an
integrationist future means there's not as much optimism about
integrationist music. What's more, racial lines in the United
States no longer divide primarily into black and white. When
"miscegenation" does happen in music now, it's likely to be
more multicultural than in Frere-Jones' formula, as in rainbowcoalition bands such as Antibalas and Ozomatli.
Ultimately, though, the "trouble with indie rock" may have far
more to do with another post-Reagan social shift, one with even
less upside than the black-white story, and that's the widening
gap between rich and poor. There is no question on which side
most indie rock falls. It's a cliche to picture indie musicians and
fans as well-off "hipsters" busily gentrifying neighborhoods, but
compared to previous post-punk generations, the particular kind
of indie rock Frere-Jones complains about is more blatantly
upper-middle class and liberal-arts-college-based, and less selfaware or politicized about it.
With its true spiritual center in Richard Florida-lauded "creative"
college towns such as Portland, Ore., this is the music of young
"knowledge workers" in training, and that has sonic
consequences: Rather than body-centered, it is bookish and
nerdy; rather than being instrumentally or vocally virtuosic, it
shows off its chops via its range of allusions and high concepts
with the kind of fluency both postmodern pop culture and higher
education teach its listeners to admire. (Many rap MCs juggle
symbologies just as deftly, but it's seldom their main point.) This
doesn't make coffeehouse-indie shallow, but it can result in
something more akin to the 1960s folk revival, with fretful
collegiate intellectuals in a Cuban Missile Crisis mood, seeking
purity and depth in antiquarian music and escapist spirituality.
Not exactly a recipe for a booty-shaking party. While this scene
can embrace some fascinating hermetic weirdos such as Joanna
Newsom or Panda Bear, it's also prone to producing fine-artsgrad poseurs such as the Decemberists and poor-little-rich-boyor-girl singer songwriters who might as well be James Taylor.
This year even saw several indie bands playing in "Pops"
concerts at summer symphony programs; that's no sin (and good
for the symphonies), but it's about as class-demarcated as it gets.
Among at least a subset of (the younger) musicians and fans, this
class separation has made indie more openly snobbish and
narrow-minded. In the darkest interpretation, one could look at
the split between a harmony-and-lyrics-oriented indie field and a
rhythm-and-dance-specialized rap/R&B scene as mirroring the
developing global split between an internationalist, educated
comprador class (in which musically, one week Berlin is hot, the
next Sweden, the next Canada, the next Brazil) and a far less
mobile, menial-labor market (consider the more confining,
though often musically exciting, regionalism that Frere-Jones
outlines in hip-hop). The elite status and media sway that indie
rock enjoys, disproportionate to its popularity, is one reason the
cultural politics of indie musicians and fans require discussion in
the first place, a point I wish Frere-Jones had clarified in The
New Yorker; perhaps in that context it goes without saying.
The profile of this university demographic often includes a
sojourn in extended adolescence, comprising graduate degrees,
internships, foreign jaunts, and so on, which easily can last until
their early 30s. Unlike in the early 1990s, when this was
perceived as a form of generational exclusion and protested in
"slacker"/grunge music, it's now been normalized as a passage to
later-life career success. Its musical consequences might include
an open but less urgent expression of sexuality, or else a leaning
to the twee, sexless, childhood nostalgia that many older critics
(including both Frere-Jones and me) find puzzling and irritating.
Female and queer artists still have pressing sexual issues and
identities to explore and celebrate, but the straight boys often
seem to fall back on performing their haplessness and hypersensitivity. (Pity the indie-rock girlfriend.)
Yet this is a problem having to do with the muddled state of
white masculinity today, and it's not soluble by imitating some
image of black male sexuality (which, as hip-hop and R&B
amply demonstrate, is dealing with its own crises). Are we
supposed to long for the days when Zeppelin and the Stones
fetishized fantasies of black manhood, in part as a cover for
misogyny? If forced to choose between tolerating some boringly
undersexed rock music and reviving the, er, "vigorous" sexual
politics of cock rock, I'll take the boring rock, thanks—for now.
If class, at least as much as race, is the elephant in this room, one
of the more encouraging signals lately might be the recent mania
for Bruce Springsteen—as if a dim memory suddenly has
surfaced that white working-class culture once had a kind of
significant berth in rock 'n' roll, too. (It's now moved to
Nashville.) I was unexpectedly moved by the video of Win and
Régine from the Arcade Fire playing "Keep the Car Running"
(Frere-Jones' No. 15 song of the year so far) live with the Boss
onstage Sunday in Ottawa. The performance itself aside, their
presence in front of an arena audience that mostly had no idea
who the hell they were shows the chutzpah it takes to resist
niche-market fragmentation. (And sure, I'd be at least as happy if
they'd been doing it with Stevie Wonder, and even more if they
were sharing the stage with Dr. Dre.)
My armchair sociology may be as reductive as Frere-Jones'
potted rock history, but the point is that the problem of style
segregation can't be solved by calling upon Sufjan Stevens to
funk up his rhythm section. I'm as much a devotee of genremixing as Frere-Jones, when it works (I've even used the loaded
term "miscegenation" in articles for years), but I've noticed that
when indie musicians do grapple with hip-hop rhythms, using
their own voices and perspectives (my friends in Ninja High
School in Toronto, for instance), they're usually lambasted by
critics who fancy themselves arbiters of realness for being an
insulting joke. The culture-crossing inhibitions exist for reasons
beyond mere timidity, and snorting "get over it" is not enough.
The impetus may have to come from the currently dominant side
of the pop market—and increasingly that is what we're seeing.
Kanye West doesn't much care about the race of the people he
samples, while Justin Timberlake cares very much what race his
producer is (African-American, please), and OutKast and Gnarls
Barkley play teasing, Prince-like crossover games. If it's going to
be re-established that such moves are legit, it will happen on the
charts for a while before the more cautious and self-conscious
rock-in-decline types feel free to do it too. Which, as a
turnabout, seems rather like fair play.
culturebox
What's Wrong With The Office
A Slate diagnosis.
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:52 PM ET
NBC's The Office has defied early pooh-poohing from devotees
of the British original (and early indifference from everyone
else) to become a critical hit and an anchor of NBC's lineup. But
the first few episodes of the show's fourth season have been
slack and unsteady enough to make fans wonder: Are we
watching the fourth good season of The Office, or the first bad
one?
We believe that the show's new long format is to blame. The
season has kicked off with several hourlong episodes, the fourth
of which airs tonight. In seasons past, each 22-minute episode
has been a model of comedic restraint. Easy jokes were avoided.
Funny ones landed swiftly and moved on to make room for the
next. Rather than encouraging actors to mug and showboat, the
camera paused briefly on subtle glances and smirks. Mindy
Kaling, who writes for the show and plays the ditzy customerservice rep Kelly Kapoor, told Rolling Stone that The Office is a
show without "chuffa"—a writers'-room term for "filler that
seems like it's funny but isn't really a joke."
The hourlong episodes make us wonder if there's a word for
"filler that seems like a joke but isn't really funny." This season
has produced a few great gags: The best, perhaps, has the
officemates passing time in a dull meeting by placing bets on
whether the logo of a DVD screensaver will ever alight in the
exact corner of the TV screen. But we've also seen too many
broad jokes that skewer easy targets: Gift baskets? Business
lingo? Cat ladies?
If it's the new length that's at fault, fans should be relieved: The
Office returns to its half-hour format next week, and perhaps
we'll forget all about this disappointing debut. But some other
changes this season suggest the show's problems may linger like
the last jelly doughnut in the box.
The first is the coupling of Pam and Jim. After three seasons of
whetting our appetite, The Office finally served us our PB & J
sandwich. But not before teasing us just a bit more. Those who
thought the fourth season might open with a glimpse of the
dinner date arranged during last year's finale were sorely
disappointed. Instead, it began with a halfhearted charade: Pam
and Jim are just friends, and it's up to Kevin (who put the PB & J
thing together), and the documentary crew, to prove otherwise.
The game of cat-and-mouse was mercifully short—Pam and Jim
are caught necking in her sensible Toyota Yaris 36 minutes into
Episode 1. It's telling, though, that the writers put off showing us
the happy couple. Also telling is the scene in Episode 2, when
Jim and Pam deadpan that the magic is gone now that their
secret is out. Some of the magic was bound to evaporate once
they finally got together, but it's been surprising just how
unsatisfying the honeymoon has been. For every good scene—
Pam telling Jim that she knew she liked him when he warned her
about some expired mixed-berry yogurt—there's been one that
has felt more saccharine than genuine. Come on, would they
really embrace bureaucracy and ask Toby if they should sign one
of those love-declaration documents?
PB & J are a disappointment for those of us who saw the couple
as a worthy successor to Ross and Rachel, NBC's will-they-orwon't-they couple of yore. But their relationship is also a bad
sign for the show. Jim and Pam's thwarted love gave The Office
a narrative arc that transcended the episode-to-episode hijinks of
the other Dunderheads. Pam and Jim provided emotional ballast
for a show that has always been in danger of keeling over into
the absurd. Now, especially with these first episodes running to
the hour, the show feels adrift and, at times, pointless. When
Michael finally learns that Jim and Pam are together, he
malaprops that "this is a day that will live in infamy." Let's hope
that doesn't turn out to be the case.
One bright spot lies in the emerging love triangle between
Dwight, Angela, and Andy. At first, the breakup of Dwight and
Angela's supposedly under-wraps relationship seemed illadvised. Dwight and Angela's trysts had been a welcome
counterpoint to Pam and Jim's prolonged courtship, but their
bickering over Angela's dead cat this season has been about as
funny as, well, a dead dog. Last week, however, Andy emerged
as a legitimate suitor, making an inspired play for Angela's
attentions by performing "Take a Chance on Me" a capella and
with accompaniment via speakerphone. The stunt earned him
one of those furtive smiles Angela used to reserve for Dwight—
and a not so furtive one from Slate. There's promise here.
There's less promise in Ryan Howard's promotion to Dunder
Mifflin's corporate office. At first glance, this seemed like a
genius move. Offloading the temp-turned-MBA jackass from
The Office's primary setting would free up space for
underutilized secondary characters (we love you, Kevin!) while
banishing the least interesting one to a supporting role. Turns out
that was wishful thinking. A newly bestubbled, technobabbling
Ryan is hogging screen time, and it's ruining the show.
Ryan was always The Office's thinnest character. In the first two
seasons, he served as a walking reaction shot. As the butt of
Michael's pranks and a leg attached to Kelly Kapoor's ball and
chain, he did little more than stand off to the side and look aloof.
Moving Ryan from tempdom to B-school to the corporate office
hasn't added to his single dimension. B.J. Novak, the actor who
plays Ryan (and is also one of the show's writers and producers),
has simply shifted from blankness to smugness.
The new Ryan has a cocksure attitude and a new suit to match,
but he still can't generate laughs. (OK, he did have one good line
this season: "People keep calling me a wunderkind. I don't even
know what that means. I mean, I know what it means. It means
very successful for your age.") It doesn't help that the character's
story line—building a snazzy new Web site called Dunder
Mifflin Infinity—seems so dated that it could've been a plotline
on Murphy Brown. But by far the bigger problem is his
relationship with Steve Carrell's Michael Scott.
day to day
AG Nominee Hearings Start
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 4:29 PM ET
Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2007
Jurisprudence: Attorney General Nominee Goes Before the
Senate
Confirmation hearings are taking place on Capitol Hill for the
next attorney general. Former federal judge Michael Mukasey
was nominated by President Bush to replace Alberto Gonzales.
Dahlia Lithwick talks to Madeleine Brand about the hearing.
Listen to the segment.
Tuesday, Oct. 16, 2007
Jurisprudence: Lawyers Say Justice Repeating Detainee
Hearings
The lawyers of Guantanamo Bay detainees say the Justice
Department appears to be conducting a "massive" repeat of the
military's combatant-status hearings. In preparation, the United
States is building a judicial complex at Guantanamo. Dahlia
Lithwick talks to Alex Chadwick about the latest legal
developments. Listen to the segment.
dear prudence
Weighty Issues
The man I like is wonderful—but not attractive to me. What should I do?
The rapport between the buffoonish Michael and the buttoneddown, easily exasperated Jan Levinson was one of the show's
high points. It was delightful to watch as her irritation became
tinged first with grudging respect, then sexual attraction. Now,
with Jan conked out on Michael's bed, it's up to Ryan to dress
him down. Ryan can do exasperation, but that's all he can do.
He's perpetually annoyed, so when Michael bugs him, he just
furrows his brow a bit more. We liked it better when Jan was on
top. Among other things, it made Michael's "that's what she
said" lines seem less forced.
NBC finally has a hit on its hands, but now the network is giving
the audience too much of what it wants—Jim and Pam together,
Michael acting infantile, Dwight killing innocent animals, Ryan
being a villain. It's true that the hourlong episodes make the
problems we've enumerated seem more glaring. But they're
problems all the same. Will the show return to form next week
when it goes back to the half-hour format? That would be
awesome.
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 7:34 AM ET
Get "Dear Prudence" delivered to your inbox each week; click
here to sign up. Please send your questions for publication to
prudence@slate.com. (Questions may be edited.)
Dear Prudence,
I recently met a man who thoroughly enchanted me with his
personality. He's incredibly smart, funny, generous, and caring.
We've spent time together and found that we have so many
things in common and have this great connection—one that is
extremely rare. When we get together for chats, they last for
hours and I lose track of the time. I always look forward to
spending more time with him. My dilemma is that he is
overweight, and I am not completely attracted to him. I am on
some levels, but I am not sure it would be enough to transition
our friendship into a relationship. Part of me really believes that
we should keep things as just friends. The other part of me
thinks that I'd be crazy not to take things further, but I think if
we did, I would just end up hurting his feelings in the end. What
should I do?
—Weighed Down
Dear Weighed,
It's a good sign that you're not asking how to get your new friend
to lose weight so you can be attracted to him. Instead, you're
struggling with feelings that the seemingly right person for you
comes in a package that doesn't match your fantasy. Since you
met this man recently, don't force yourself to decide right away.
Sure, it's thrilling to find yourself immediately, physically
attracted to someone. But we all know that acting on mutual lust
is no guarantee that the relationship—and the attraction—won't
fizzle out. Just continue to see your friend and marvel at how
easily and quickly the time passes when you're with him. Stop
worrying that if you take things further, it might not work out.
Whenever two people take things further, there's the chance one
or both of them could get hurt. As for whether you can ever find
yourself attracted to a person who just isn't your physical type, I
refer you to Michael Berman's memoir of being fat, Living
Large. He describes arriving for a blind date—he weighed
almost 300 pounds—and being greeted at the door by a thin
woman who took one look at him and declared she had a
headache and would be unable to go out. But she was polite
enough to invite him in for a quick drink. After an hour of
talking flew by, she found her "headache" had cleared up and
suggested they continue out to dinner. They've been married 40
years.
—Prudie
Dear Prudence Video: Awkward Wedding Gift
Dear Prudence,
I've been told more than once in my life that doing something
good for others is a great way to feel better about one's own life,
and so, after a long stretch of un- and underemployment, I
decided to give volunteering a try. Rather than feeling rewarded
in my efforts, however, I felt overwhelmed and depressed by all
the work that needed to be done for the less fortunate, and an
uncomfortable feeling of unending obligation to those people I
was serving. I am loath to do more volunteering, but my reasons
for not doing so feel absolutely selfish and evil. What's wrong
with me?
—The "I" in Charity
Dear I,
It's great that you have the time and inclination to volunteer, but
look for ways to make a contribution that don't leave you
emotionally flayed. There are endless things you could do:
transport donations to a food bank, repair playgrounds in poor
neighborhoods, help at an animal shelter, etc. Don't beat yourself
up because you discovered being with people whose lives are
worse than yours didn't make you feel better about your own
life. But you also should figure out why your life has been so
unsatisfying for so long. Pick up some books in the job
development advice section of the bookstore and start taking
action on why your career is so stalled. If you went to college,
see what resources your alma mater might offer alumni. Also
consider seeing a therapist to address some underlying issues. If
you feel evil because you didn't like the volunteer activity you
chose, it will probably be a worthwhile investment to explore
why you are so hard on yourself.
—Prudie
Dear Prudie,
My boyfriend just moved to the city from a small town. We live
in a great apartment that we both love, but there is one problem.
The couple upstairs have loud sex a few times a week. It
normally happens just as we're falling asleep, and sometimes it
makes it hard to sleep. I get embarrassed to hear something so
intimate. My boyfriend would like to talk to them about it, but
we have only said "Hi" to them since we moved here and I don't
want to embarrass them. I don't want to have to move, but I need
my sleep. What should we do?
—Pillow Over My Head
Dear Pillow,
I, too, once had a loudly lusty couple living in the apartment
upstairs. Fortunately, I found putting my ear to a glass pressed
against the wall amplified the sound sufficiently so that I didn't
miss anything. In the case of my couple, they eventually got
married and almost immediately afterward the sounds from the
bedroom ceased. But since you don't know your neighbors,
you're probably not in a position to encourage them to tie the
knot. As for your boyfriend's plan to talk to them, what is he
going to do, introduce himself in the elevator, then say, "Nice to
meet you. Don't you think more than four noisy orgasms a week
per person is overdoing it?" No, you can't talk to them about
their sex life, but you can take care of your own needs by
looking into sound-dampening technology. There's everything
from drugstore earplugs to white-noise machines. If you get one
of the latter, set it on "jungle sounds" and drown out the mating
calls of the homo sapiens upstairs.
—Prudie
Dear Prudence,
We have a fairly tightknit group of married couples who get
together every month or so. One of the wives has a single sister
who lives in town, and she brings her to some of our events.
Sometimes she asks and sometimes she doesn't. The group
dynamic definitely changes when the sister is around, as most of
us don't know her very well. We all try to make her feel
welcome, but things seem odd because she is not married and we
only see her during these events. What can be done when this
wife says she's bringing her sister to an event I'm hosting,
without completely crushing this very sensitive woman?
—No Sister, Sister
Dear No Sister,
What is the nature of these events that one single person throws
it all off? I assume you're not all tossing your car keys in a hat
and temporarily rearranging your pairings. As a matter of
courtesy, your friend should ask anyone who's hosting an event
if it's all right to bring her sister. But unless there's a compelling
reason otherwise, the answer should be that she's more than
welcome. Surely, if she's shown up for a bunch of soirees, you
all know her well enough by now to include her in the
conversation. It would be one thing if you all found the sister a
disruption because she dominated every discussion or sulked in
the corner. The only thing you find odd about her coming is that
she's not married. Let's say misfortune struck you, and your
husband died or you two split up. Would you expect the group to
now exclude you because you were odd woman out?
—Prudie
dialogues
Debating The Year of Living Biblically
Excercising the God muscle.
By A.J. Jacobs and Matt Labash
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 3:42 PM ET
From: Matt Labash
To: A.J. Jacobs
Subject: Matzo, Jesus Juice, and Interfaith Dialoguing
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 7:30 AM ET
Dear A.J.,
When Slate asked me to engage you on the subject of your new
book, I'm not afraid to admit I was slightly intimidated because
of the title of your last book: The Know-It-All: One Man's
Humble Quest To Become the Smartest Person in the World. I'm
considerably less ambitious than you are. I went to a B-list state
school. I minored in film studies. So, you see why there'd be
some cause for concern.
Then I found out what you did to become such a smart guy. You
read the entire Encyclopedia Britannica. Maybe that's
impressive where you come from, back in the '80s. But catch up,
bro. These are the '90s. Perhaps I'll cower in fear when you've
tackled all 2,048,649 entries in Wikipedia, not including the
Polish edition. (Do you know what a pas kontuszowy is? I didn't,
either. But then, I don't pretend to be the smartest person in the
world.)
So, I'm accepting this invitation in order to see what happens
when two worlds collide, when Christian (me) and Jew (you)
come together, breaking matzo and sipping Jesus juice in the
spirit of brotherhood, interfaith dialoguing so that we can
celebrate both the commonality and distinctions of our shared
Abrahamic traditions. Also, I'm hoping that by the time it's all
over and we've fostered mutual understanding, walking hand-inhand by the flickering lamplight of enlightenment, that you'll
renounce your false beliefs and accept Jesus Christ as your
personal Lord and Savior.
Or maybe I'll let the proselytizing slide. You wouldn't have
much conversion value to my superiors back at HQ. You do,
after all, admit in your book that you've been a committed
agnostic who "is Jewish the same way the Olive Garden is an
Italian restaurant" and only says "Lord" when "of the Rings"
follows it. So, let me start with a compliment.
I've just finished The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's
Humble Quest To Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible. I
don't want to give too much away about your excellent book, but
in it, you strive to follow the Bible as literally as possible for a
year. And at the risk of overreaching, I'm just going to say it: It's
better than the Bible. Or not better, necessarily. But it is funnier,
moves faster, and doesn't bog you down with any of those
genealogies. I know that God's ways are not our ways (Isaiah
55:8), but I never understood, with limited space and the
pressure of crafting a universal message to resonate throughout
the ages, why He would bother squandering valuable chapters
telling me that Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat
Ahitub.
At first glance, I thought yours was going to be nothing but a
jokey book—a one-note immersion-journalism stunt in which
you pin the tail on the fundies and Orthodox Jews, showing the
absurdity of the Bible by acting out its strangest parts. (There are
many strange parts, and in the interest of running up the score on
my Jewish brothers and sisters, I would point out that they're
mostly in the Old Testament.) Wherever did I get that idea?
Perhaps from the book's cover, on which you sport a beard that
looks like you're Rick Rubin or that dude from the Oak Ridge
Boys, wearing a white robe with a rope belt, holding stone
tablets in one hand and a Starbucks cup in the other.
There are, to be sure, tons of entertaining misadventures. You
visit an Amish community, only to be told an Amish joke by a
guy named Amos. You hang with rowdy Lubavitchers, who
pound Crown Royal and dance the pogo. You alienate your wife
while observing Leviticus' injunction against lying on a bed
where a menstruating woman has lain. You contemplate the
Bible's most perplexing rules, such as Deuteronomy's instruction
to always make certain, if you're in a fistfight and your
opponent's wife grabs your private parts, to cut off her hand
without pity.
But you get well past the weirdness, too. At heart, this is a
seeker's book, a doubter's odyssey. Like most of the best books
of the Bible, such as Job and my absolute favorite (and yours),
Ecclesiastes, it's a book about an athletic contest: trying to
wrestle God to the ground. Agnostics and atheists tend to think
that believers never doubt, which couldn't be further from the
truth. Even Jesus doubted God at Gethsemane, and, according to
Christian theology, He is God. If Jesus can doubt Himself, I'm
not going to beat myself up for doing the same on occasion.
This vein lends a paradoxical edge to your book. In my
experience, most people I know who fall away from religion do
so because they are put off by legalism and dogmatism. You,
who grew up as a godless heathen, and never suffered any of
that, seem to find solace in the almost comically legalistic
sections of the Bible—the parts all but the most extreme
believers threw on the discard pile centuries ago. It seems to
focus you, to get you out of your own head, to provide
something that occasionally approximates transcendence.
As a fellow journalist, I know what it's like to become consumed
by a story, to have it completely overpower you. Earlier this
year, I spent a fair amount of time in New Orleans and for many
weeks was utterly convinced that I was the 10 th member of the
Rebirth Brass Band, even though I'm white and can't play an
instrument. By the end of your story, you still claim to be an
agnostic, albeit one who prays a lot. It has me wondering—can I
believe your unbelief?
Repent,
Matt Labash
From: A.J. Jacobs
To: Matt Labash
Subject: Playing Pin the Tail on the Fundies
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 1:06 PM ET
Then, I could sell the different versions in appropriate
marketplaces—the Jesus version in the heartland, the Jewish one
in Crown Heights, the Hitchens one in some godless terrain like
Silicon Valley. It was an appealing idea. But some readers might
have noticed, so I decided against it.
Second, at the risk of violating Psalm 12:3 ("May the Lord cut
off all flattering lips"), I would like to return your compliments.
Your writing on religion and culture is so funny and smart that I
am filled with envy. Like this description of your Southern
Baptist upbringing: "SBs, as we called ourselves, were steady
and without pretense and highly egalitarian—yet still earthy
enough to kick dirt on our charismatic, Pentecostal brothers,
what with all their emotive pew-jumping and tongues-speaking.
If we'd wanted people carrying on from the pulpit in languages
we didn't understand, the SBs reasoned, we'd have become
Catholics."
Third, thank you for not judging my book by its cover.
(Incidentally, the cup of coffee I'm holding on the cover is not
Starbucks. It is generic gourmet coffee from a generic gourmet
coffee outlet. Just in case the Starbucks lawyers are reading this.
Apparently, they are sensitive about that stuff.)
I'm delighted that you thought I went beyond the surface to look
for deeper meanings and wrestle with the Bible. To be biblically
honest, I had two simultaneous—and slightly paradoxical—
motivations for the book.
On the one hand, I did want to play pin the tail on the fundies, as
you put it. I wanted to show that taking the Bible too literally is a
mistake. So, I became the ultimate fundamentalist and pushed
literalism and legalism to the absurd extreme. I wanted to do a
real-life version of that great e-mail allegedly sent to radio
moralist Dr. Laura. In it, the writer thanks her for pointing out
that the Bible condemns homosexuality in Leviticus. The e-mail
then asks for her guidance on following some other biblical
laws. How should he deal with pesky neighbors who complain
when he burns a bull in the back yard? How much should he
charge when he sells his daughter into slavery? Should he play
football with gloves, since he can't touch the skin of a dead pig?
Dear Matt,
First, thank you for your offer to convert me.
As I was finishing my book, a business-savvy friend of mine
suggested that I write three alternate endings.
1) I accept Jesus as my personal savior.
2) I become a tefillin-wrapping Orthodox Jew.
3) I become a disciple of Christopher
Hitchens.
At the same time, since I grew up a godless heathen, as you say,
I wanted to take an earnest spiritual journey. I wanted to see if I
was missing anything. I wanted to see what I could find in the
Bible that might be relevant and enhance my life.
And that spiritual journey turned out to be a surprising one, as
you point out. Yes, I could probably have anticipated some of
the revelations. I could have predicted that an extreme moral
makeover would be good for me and that I'd find something
uplifting about trying not to covet or lie or gossip. I could have
predicted that observing the Sabbath would be a beautiful thing.
But you're right: What I didn't see coming is how intrigued I
became by the less famous biblical rituals and rules. The ancient
and perplexing ones. The command not to wear clothes of mixed
fibers. And all the food taboos, like the one that forbids eating
fruit from a tree younger than four years old.
I think they fascinated me for several reasons. The rules
dovetailed with my own mild obsessive-compulsive disorder (I
think a lot of ritual-heavy religion has OCD tendencies—the
obsession with repetition and purity and separation). As a
Christian, what's your take on the wackier of the Mosaic laws?
Do you think they could have any benefit today?
I also began to see the beauty of freedom from choice. We all
love to talk about freedom of choice. But there's something very
appealing about limiting your options. After my year was up and
my biblically structured life came to a close, I felt unanchored,
overwhelmed by choice.
And finally, I became less judgmental about the irrationality of
rituals. As one astute reader pointed out, all rituals are irrational.
Consider candles on a birthday cake. If a Martian saw Person X
blow out candles on top of a cake and Person Y avoid wearing a
shirt made of linen and wool, would the Martian be able to
detect much of a difference in arbitrariness? As long as the
rituals are enriching and not harmful or violent, maybe there's
nothing wrong with their irrationality.
As for your point about being consumed by the story, I think
you're right. I was consumed. My outward biblical behavior
began to deeply affect my thoughts. Which also worries me. If I
had prayed to Poseidon for a year, would I have found some
benefits and connection to Greek polytheism? Would I now be
sending my kid to a pre-K school that gives votive offerings to
the sea?
By the end of the year, I had moved from my old agnosticism to
what a minister friend of mine calls "reverent agnosticism":
Whether or not there is a God, I think there's something to the
idea of sacredness. The Sabbath can be sacred, rituals can be
sacred, and there's an importance to that.
Do you think there's anything to the idea of being a "reverent
agnostic"? Or is it just oxymoronic? And is an agnostic just an
atheist without balls, as Stephen Colbert says?
And by the way, of course I know what a pas kontuszowy is. I'm
wearing one right now. I'm also listening to a ballad by Polish
singer Jacek Kaczmarski about the multicolored pas
kontuszowys produced in Sluck. It rocks.
Eat, eat,
A.J. Jacobs
From: Matt Labash
To: A.J. Jacobs
Subject: So What if Religion Inspires Violence?
Posted Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 7:09 AM ET
Right Reverend A.J.,
I'm relieved by your flattery. When I tried to persuade you to
switch team jerseys, I was worried your throat would become an
open grave, with the poison of asps under your lips, your mouth
full of cursing and bitterness (Romans 3:13-14). Thanks,
actually, for pulling my old story excerpt. It's my goal here to
offend practitioners of every faith. I've already covered the Jews.
(I kid you, God's Chosen People. I need to stay on your good
side. When the apocalypse comes, call me.) Now you've helped
me alienate Pentecostals and Catholics. Who's next? You want a
piece of me, Bahais?
I've never understood people's aversion to good, clean religious
warfare—guys (like my venerable friend Christopher Hitchens)
who like to dump all the world's ills in religion's lap, claiming it
is the source of most violence. To which I say, "Yeah, so?" Sad
as it is, the human animal is a violent one. It will always find
something to fight about. There's at least an outside chance that
religion, practiced correctly, refines or subverts that impulse. In
fact, it has plenty of times. Sometimes it doesn't and is practiced
incorrectly. But think about the stupidity that usually provokes
your average bar fight: looking at someone the wrong way,
spilling a beer on their shoes, cutting the line for the dartboard.
On balance then, religion provides a much nobler reason to cuff
somebody.
Now, back to Jesus-is-love/turning-the-other-cheek. About a
decade ago, I covered one of those mass Moonie weddings at
RFK Stadium, with the Rev. Sun Myung Moon officiating.
There were thousands of tittering Asian girls on a football field
in full bridal regalia putting rings on their own fingers, because
their Moon-appointed grooms couldn't get travel visas. The
story, as you can imagine, wasn't terribly nice. Afterward, my
editor received an angry letter from a Washington Times editor
(the Times being owned by Moon), who pointed out that my
piece was a little too easy. He said a lot of people think it's pretty
dopey that we believe a guy was nailed to a piece of wood for
our sins, then rose from the grave three days later. My editor
pushed the letter at me with a satisfied smile. He's Jewish.
In your book, you take a trip to Jerry Falwell's church, shortly
before he died. Having been raised a Southern Baptist (I now go
to a Bible church, which is sort of like a Baptist church, without
all the white belts and potlucks), I found myself getting
involuntarily defensive while reading your account. You were
very fair, to be fair, but I still bristled at the fact that most
readers will consider that fairness to be counterintuitive when
dropping into a land of such savage barbarians.
Keep in mind, I hated Falwell—more than you think you do. It's
hard to think of somebody who turned more people off to
Christianity than he did. Maybe Emperor Nero, but he was
tossing them to lions, so that doesn't really count. As you point
out, his regular sermons are standard Sunday-morning vanilla
extract, what you could get in Anywhere, USA. But we know
him for his more inflammatory/un-Christian pronouncements. I
tell people, in an eerie rip-off of your Olive Garden riff, that
thinking you've experienced Christianity because you've
experienced Jerry Falwell is like thinking you've experienced
French cuisine because you bought a sandwich at Au Bon Pain.
The two have little or nothing to do with each other. We all tend
to operate by the same rule: Your faith's eccentrics are merely
your outlying eccentrics, the other guy's eccentrics are indicative
of a pervasive cancer rotting his church from within. But it's why
I think it's always a mistake to put faith in fallible men, with
apologies to L. Ron Hubbard.
To answer your questions, the wackier of the Mosaic laws amuse
me more than anything. From an observance standpoint,
Christians put that all behind us in guilt-free fashion with the
New Covenant. I follow the big ones ("thou shalt not kill"), or at
least try to. But I do not, as you highlighted in your book, lose
much sleep if I forget to break a cow's neck at the site of an
unsolved murder (Deuteronomy 21:1-4). I'm wondering—how
many of these rituals stuck with you and became a permanent
part of your OCD regimen?
I once brought an Orthodox rabbi to the Holy Land Experience
in Orlando for an article. It was a Bible-based theme park run by
a Messianic Jew. The rabbi was pissed. He wanted to know why
we had to go around appropriating his history. We had the New
Testament, why couldn't we leave his Testament alone? "Out
with the Old, in with the New," he said.
I don't feel that way. I love the Old Testament. There are parts of
it that I love more than the New Testament, particularly in the
King James Version, the language of which is terrifyingly
beautiful. It's lean and mean and lends itself to smiting scenes.
But he's partly right. Though I think of the Old and New
Testaments as being of a piece, I'm thankful for the New Deal
every time I sit down to a big plate of bacon, which is often.
Lastly: Are agnostics just atheists without balls? Sorry, I'm with
Colbert on that one. Much as "faith without works is dead"
(James 2:20), to me it would seem that "sacredness" without
belief is like dancing without music. I don't get it. But if you
want to explain it, I'm all ears.
Bring me the head of Christopher Hitchens,
Matt Labash
From: A.J. Jacobs
To: Matt Labash
Subject: Let's Give Sam Harris a Hug
Posted Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 3:33 PM ET
Rabbi Matt,
I thoroughly enjoyed your post, with the exception of the
outrageous slander against Scientology. I am currently in month
three of My Year of Believing in Xenu. And it seems to me that
you have a bunch of body thetans to clear, my friend.
Back to Judeo-Christianity. I can understand how you might feel
involuntarily defensive while reading the Jerry Falwell section
of my book. If you went in search of Orthodox Jews in the Meah
Shearim who throw stones at women with bare shoulders, I'd
read that piece with a mixture of interest and trepidation.
But I'm still glad I made the trek to Lynchburg, Va. I felt I
couldn't write a book about biblical literalism without dealing
with Falwell. It'd be like writing a book about jeans and ignoring
Levi's. He's the most recognizable brand name. (And, to beat
your French-food metaphor to death, I should note that I did
explore lots of Le Bernardin Christianity, in addition to Falwell's
Au Bon Pain Christianity.)
I actually expected to get—and still may get—readers who think
I was too gentle with Jerry Falwell. That I didn't include enough
of his inflammatory quotes and underplayed his political agenda.
I was struggling with that issue last week when I received a mass
e-mail from Falwell headquarters—I'm still on their e-mail-blast
list, now written by Jerry's son Jonathan.
The subject header this time was "The Rise of the New
Atheism," and I clicked on it, ready to enjoy some fire and
brimstone. No such luck. It was the most disarming and
disorientingly mild volley in the Great Atheism Wars of the 21st
century. Some sample sentences:
I certainly do not believe that the Bible
endorses hatred toward nonbelievers. Jesus
was never intimidating in presenting Himself
as the Son of God and we, likewise, should
never be vindictive or forceful in sharing our
faith.
Compassion should be a crucial component of
the Christian life. … My fear is that many
people like Sam Harris, who have chosen to
live out their lives believing in a godless
universe, may have come to that conclusion
because Christians or so-called Christians
were cruel or uncaring toward them.
So, there you go: Sam Harris just needs a hug. The e-mail was so
even-handed, it made me glad I resisted undue Falwell bashing.
I'm also happy you brought up the Holy Land Experience. I
visited Orlando's beloved religious theme park during my year
and wrote a chapter about it. But I cut it out of the final book,
mostly for reasons of space (plus, my friend Daniel Radosh will
write about it brilliantly in his upcoming book on evangelical
Christian culture, so I figured the subject would be sufficiently
covered).
As you say, it's a fascinating place. I was particularly interested
in the crowd: large numbers of a curious edge of Christian
culture enamored of Jewish ritual culture. They snap up the
yarmulkes and shofars at the gift shop. It's weird. Like watching
a Swedish guy do gangsta rap.
Thank you for your kind words about the OT. I'd like to extend
an ecumenical "right back atcha." Much of the New Testament
moved me, and I loved trying to live out some of Jesus'
teachings—especially forgiveness, a tough one for me.
A couple of interviewers have asked me: Which is better, the OT
or the NT? That doesn't seem like a wise question to answer (as
the ever-tactful author of If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd
Be Republicans proved on Donny Deutsch's show).
As you probably noticed, I spent more time following the Old
Testament, first because I am officially Jewish, and second
because that's where most of the laws are. I also discovered
that—despite my secular upbringing—I do have a surprisingly
Jewish and Old Testament way of thinking. For instance: I am
attracted to deed over creed. This, as you know, is a handy
Jewish catchphrase. The religion places more emphasis on the
behavior than on the belief. It's considered more important to
follow the ethical laws and do the prayers than to believe in God.
The weird thing is, my creed eventually started to catch up to my
deeds. I became more spiritual during my year. I couldn't handle
the cognitive dissonance. Which is how I ended up calling
myself a reverent agnostic. I was praying several times a day,
and it gave me a sense of awe. I'm going to sound like a highschool sophomore who just took his first bong hit, but I'll say it
anyway: My prayers helped remind me of the miracle that there
is something instead of nothing, of the unlikely fact the world
exists at all.
After all, we could have all easily been destroyed by Xenu's
space planes.
A.J.
From: Matt Labash
To: A.J. Jacobs
Subject: The Angie Harmon Turbulence Test
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 7:38 AM ET
Imam Jacobs,
At the risk of jeopardizing the Christ-like image that I have so
carefully cultivated during the course of our discussion—except
for when I slagged Jews, Catholics, Pentecostals, Bahais, and
Scientologists before openly advocating religious wars—I think
it's time to put our cards on the table. As a born-again
Scientologist and hoarder of meaningless facts, you know that
the very word Scientology, going back to its Latin and Greek
antecedents, literally means "the study of truth." So, I'm going to
give you some.
You are an entertaining fellow, a master phrase-turner with
command of both English and Polish idioms, and are, without
question, a credit to all Operating Thetans. Still, as I sit here in
my office, reviewing game films of our dialogue, I keep hearing
all this flap-jaw from you about your creed and reverent prayers
and miracles. And I don't know how to say this except to just say
it: You make a really lousy agnostic. Good thing agnostics don't
have a church. If they did, you'd be excommunicated.
Of course, I am not quite the Christian I've cracked myself up to
be, either. I have a potty mouth. I take a very loose view of what
constitutes a tax write-off. (My wife's clothes? She has to wear
something while I write.) I practice daily the Seven Deadly
Sins—I don't believe in playing favorites. I am what is called a
"lukewarm Christian," which does not bode well for me. For as
the Lord spake unto the church of Laodicea in the Book of
Revelation: "Because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor
hot, I will spew you out of my mouth."
My time, then, is short. I have days, maybe hours, before I get
blown out as God-chunks. So, I must work quickly. I had hoped,
before we began this, that we could settle definitively whether
God exists. Maybe I was just overly optimistic. I understand this
is a question that has remained unsettled throughout the ages, so
the odds might not have been in our favor that we could put it to
bed in a three-day Slate Dialogue, even though we both believe
in the power of the Internet to both educate and inspire.
I suppose I could've dipped into the usual bag of tricks, pointing
to the definitive works of Christian apologetics (C.S. Lewis'
Mere Christianity, Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica) or their
Judaic equivalents (Shmuley Boteach and Uri Gellar's
Confessions of a Rabbi and a Psychic). But I've always found
these ultimately unconvincing on their own. For reason will only
take you to the edge of the cliff. Then, you've got to get out of
the car and jump. Faith is a leap. That's why they call it "faith."
Otherwise, they'd call it "logic."
But here is the racetrack pattern I run with my agnostic friends,
who, like you, cop to occasional prayer. I will usually say to
them something along the lines of, "Hike the Grand Canyon, or
catch a brook trout in a clear mountain stream, or ponder the
matchless, perfect legs of Angie Harmon. Then tell me there is
no God."
They usually say, "Fine. But if there is a God, how do you
explain the Rwandan genocide, or natural disasters, or the
success of Carlos Mencia?" They always throw me with that last
one. But that's when I whip out my Angie Harmon Turbulence
Test. It goes as follows:
When you're in an airplane and hit a terrifying pocket of
turbulence, whom do you send those inevitable, involuntary
prayers to: creation, or Creator? Angie Harmon's legs? Or to
whomever the God-shaped hole in your soul is telling you
crafted them? Look in your heart. I think you'll find the answer.
And please don't say that you pray to Jessica Alba's ass, or you'll
totally ruin the mood.
It's time for us to part—I can feel God's chest congestion
loosening. But allow me to say, as a spew-worthy believer, that
you've done a valuable thing with this deceivingly profound
book. Nothing steels and clarifies faith like confronting the
particulars of doubt. Which is why I've enjoyed both The Year of
Living Biblically and our chat about it.
Also, it is mighty Christ-like of you to go so easy on Jerry
Falwell. I'm not sure he'd have done the same for you. I still
think he was a creep, but give the guy a break. I have small
children of my own now, so I'm frequently subjected to
children's television. From this, I've been smacked with one
incontrovertible revelation: The Teletubbies are gay. And not
just the purple one, either.
In L. Ron we trust,
Matt Labash
From: A.J. Jacobs
To: Matt Labash
Subject: Exercising the God Muscle
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 3:42 PM ET
Guardian Labash,
Since you doubt me, let me get down on my knees and testify
again: I am an agnostic. I am a reverent agnostic with a sense of
awe, but an agnostic nonetheless.
And since you brought it up, you should know we agnostics are
already planning our very own megachurch. Join us! The
bumpers of the cars in our parking lot will bear little silver
question marks, and stained glass windows will depict our
founder, T.H. Huxley, the great evolutionary thinker who coined
the term agnostic. (He died of a heart attack in 1895, midway
through a defense of agnosticism. He's the closest thing we have
to a martyr.) Our evening prayers will begin: "The lord giveth
and the lord taketh away, assuming he existeth in the first place,
which he may or may not."
My year of living biblically was intense, spiritually speaking.
And it took me through a whole pu-pu platter of beliefs.
Sometimes, I stayed with my agnosticism. Occasionally, after
reading, say, the red heifer passages in Numbers, I veered into
hard-core atheism.
Other times, I was a believer in some sort of vague, God-like
force. The God of Spinoza. Or the God of the Jedi knights.
But there were many days during my year, especially after some
good, hard praying, that I believed in a God who loves everyone,
even Carlos Mencia. A God who created the world for a
purpose.
But as I stopped praying all the time, my belief faded. Blame
cognitive dissonance or the lack thereof. I wasn't exercising my
God muscle, and it shriveled.
You say that to have faith, you have to leap from the cliff. But
what if I like standing on the edge of the cliff? Have you seen
the view? It's amazing. The leaping part scares me. Who knows
where you'll land if you leap? You might fly right past the
Judeo-Christian mainstream and end up picketing gay pride
parades or having Shabbat dinner with Shmuley Boteach and Uri
Geller.
I've searched my heart, even during serious in-flight turbulence,
and I haven't found any god-shaped hole there. During my year,
I found a ritual-shaped hole. A community-shaped hole. But I
don't know about the one shaped like God.
Let me end by saying that I've loved our interfaith wrestling
match. God, if he exists, has given you, Matt Labash, both an
amazing gift of writing and a mildly disturbing Angie Harmon
fetish.
I also appreciate your strong feelings about the Teletubbies.
Which—and I might be reading into this—are perhaps too
strong? Just for the record, if you decided to ditch your Angie
Harmon fetish for some hot Tinky Winky action, I would still
love you, and, hopefully, so would God. If he exists.
A.J.
dispatches
Burma After the Crackdown
Waiting for the military to turn on their generals.
By Gwynn Guilford
Monday, October 15, 2007, at 12:21 PM ET
In early October, the streets of Rangoon were cast with a kind of
calm that was eerie only in contrast. On downtown sidewalks,
where the Burmese army gunned down protesters days earlier,
people now hawked melons, fishing reels, and Avril Lavigne Tshirts. The area near Sule Pagoda, familiar from video footage of
the shooting death of Japanese photojournalist Kenji Nagai, was
now just another pedestrian passage, with gabbing cabbies and
open-air noodle shops giving the place a lively air. The
atmosphere betrayed little disquietude at the violence that shook
downtown mere days before.
At first, anyway. Gradually, hints emerged, such as the
conspicuous absence of monks—striking in a city in which
maroon robes are a ubiquitous sight. In early October, Rangoon's
many monasteries were said to be under military lockdown, with
monks detained each night.
"The military raids monasteries at midnight. Many monks [have
been taken] away," comedian Lu Maw told me from his
Mandalay home. Monks aren't the only ones subject to nighttime
arrests, though. A member of the celebrated Moustache Brothers
troupe, Lu Maw stood by as his comedy partner Par Par Lay, a
Burmese celebrity and bugbear of the regime, was arrested Sept.
25 while cooking for monks in a religious community hall.
Almost in place of the monks were the soldiers in red bandanas,
who manned Rangoon's and Mandalay's roadblocks and roved
the streets in flatbed trucks. This particular shade of red was
freighted with menace. While soldiers with green or yellow
bandanas are authorized to beat and arrest, those wearing red
ones may also shoot, as tourism industry worker U Soe Thein*,
who witnessed the protests from a downtown office window,
explained.
Another hint was the desolation of Shwedagon Pagoda, one of
Burma's holiest sites and the setting of several demonstrations. A
day after it reopened, only about 40 people strolled the marble
grounds, almost all of them either army or military police, most
armed. Despite the emptiness, one shrine got more action than
the rest. A small but steady line of people gathered to worship at
the shrine for those born on Tuesday, such as democracy leader
Aung San Suu Kyi.
Suu Kyi, whose support for democracy in the face of the
oppressive military government known as the State Peace and
Development Council won her the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize,
continues to be a powerful symbol for everyone I talked to.
However, most said they worried that she could effect little
change from isolation—she has been under house arrest for 12
of the last 18 years.
"We don't really know who could save us. We thought in 1988
[when democratic elections were announced] that it was a
turning point," said U Soe Thein, who is in his mid-30s,
referring to pro-democracy demonstrations that took place in
August of 1988, shortly after then-leader Gen. Ne Win
announced democratic elections. The current military
government seized power in August of that year when it
imposed martial law (though it's thought that Ne Win probably
called the shots behind the scenes until his 2002 death),
eventually massacring thousands in crackdowns on peaceful
demonstrations. The junta's rule continued after it refused to
recognize the results of the 1990 elections, in which the Suu
Kyi-led National League for Democracy won more than 80
percent of the parliamentary seats.
"[Now] the outside world can't do anything," said U Soe Thein.
"Sanctions limit the movement of the government but [create a]
hard life [for Burma's] 50 million people."
He was referring to the U.S. government's 2003 ban on
investment in Burma. While sanctions helped bring down the
apartheid regime in South Africa in the 1980s, the strategy
remains controversial. Though championed by Suu Kyi, many I
talked to said they worried that the resulting poverty for most
Burmese outweighed the possibility of bankrupting the SPDC.
Others pointed out that most of China's multibillion-dollar
investments flow into government coffers. "Sanctions have
driven us into the arms of China," said former economics
professor U Thuang*.
China clearly holds considerable diplomatic sway with Burma's
military regime, giving particular significance to China's Oct. 11
signing of a U.N. Security Council resolution censuring the
SPDC for September's violent crackdown. The statement
stopped short of sanctions, but called for the release of political
prisoners and "genuine dialogue" with Suu Kyi.
China is Burma's second-biggest trading partner after
neighboring Thailand, according to Burma's Ministry of
Commerce figures from last year. Some Burmese I talked to
resented China for exploiting Burma's vast natural resources,
which include huge gas and oil fields and extensive teak forests
to the north. Others welcomed the economic benefit of trade
with China. "I like China," said 20-year-old Ko Aung Zaw*,
who had protested in Mandalay the week before I met him in his
hometown of Bagan, where he had returned after universities
had been shut down due to the demonstrations. "Their
motorbikes are cheap," he said, referring perhaps to the shiny
black Yinxiang that he drove.
His Chinese wheels also get good gas mileage, which is
important these days. In mid-September, the government
doubled the price of gas rations, making even bus travel
prohibitively expensive. "Some people [have] quit their jobs
because their salary … is not worth the commute," said U Soe
Thein.
While the government is infamous for its criminally inept fiscal
mismanagement, this jacking up of gas prices wasn't mere whim.
More than a year ago, a division of the government formed an
independent panel of former academics and diplomats to assess
the feasibility of using price hikes to underwrite a salary increase
for Burma's 1.5 million civil servants. One-time U.N. economist
U Myint, who was on the committee, said he and his colleagues
roundly rejected the idea. "This thing is rubbish,' I said. 'It's
going to hurt people, not solve anything.' "
U Myint says the price increase was motivated by the SPDC's
2005 relocation of the nation's capital from Rangoon to the drab
inland town of Naypyidaw, which is both expensive and
unpopular with civil servants. The panel rejected the plan and
had nearly forgotten about it when, two months ago, they found
their names signed to an endorsement of the price hike. Despite
their protests, the measure was implemented a month later.
The resulting demonstrations could hardly have come as a
surprise to the government—protests spurred by high
commodity prices pepper Burma's history. The move suggests an
urgency to placate its administrative foundation, if not its
citizenry, which can "easily be stopped with bullets," as U Soe
Thein put it.
Economist U Thaung says that the rank-and-file military is
unsettled by having to kill civilians and monks. "Maung Aye
told them to shoot, and they didn't do it for a long time," he said,
referring to the second-in-command general about whom little,
aside from a weakness for neat cognac, is known. If change is to
come, says U Thaung, it will come from within the military
itself—probably from a "young Turk" who will channel popular
discontent into support from the military for the ouster of top
general Than Shwe.
"I'm counting on the military to get rid of [Than Shwe]," said the
professor. "Even colonialists never shot a monk," he said,
referring to Britain's harsh colonial occupation of Burma that
lasted until the late 1940s. "They don't say it, but [the military is]
deeply unhappy," U Thaung said.
*Names changed because they spoke on condition of anonymity.
dvd extras
Not-So-Great Salt Lake
Why have even the environmentalists given up on the Salton Sea?
By Rebecca Onion
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 5:27 PM ET
The documentary Plagues and Pleasures on the Salton Sea does
not look or feel like a serious film about the environment. In
place of sumptuous photos of killer whales or polar bears, the
jacket of the recently released DVD features a kitschy collage of
dead flies, cracked and sunken earth, and a large woman wearing
a pink muumuu and holding a fish whose eyes have been
cartoonishly x-ed out. In place of the usual concerned baritone,
John Waters does the honors as narrator, tying the film to his
classic body of cinematic work on American kookery. Instead of
classy strings and haunting woodwinds, the melancholy Austin
lounge band Friends of Dean Martinez provides the soundtrack.
The closest thing you'll find to an earnest celebrity cameo is a
brief appearance by the late Sonny Bono.
But Plagues and Pleasures has a different style for a reason: It's
a movie about the environment that isn't content with the goodbad dynamic of your average gloomy enviropic. And its subject
is hardly some pristine Alaskan wilderness. The Salton Sea was
made by man, and it can be rather grotesque. To the extent it
shows up in the news these days, it's when there's a development
in the plan to use its water to quench the famously thirsty cities
of Southern California. Directors Chris Metzler and Jeff
Springer, documentarians with a taste for the offbeat who spent
four off-and-on years filming in the area, walk a fine line
between reveling in post-apocalyptic images of a dying sea
(piles of dead fish do make for dramatic images) and suggesting
reasons why, despite its accidental origins and ongoing
problems, we should consider the sea a place worth saving.
The Salton Sea was created when the Colorado River was
diverted for irrigation purposes. In 1905, a flood breached the
walls of a temporary diversion, spilling water into a valley called
the Salton Sink. The breach was finally closed in 1907, but in
the meantime, a 376-square mile sea—a body of water bigger
than Lake Tahoe—was born. As John Waters puts it in his
inimitable style, the sea was "an engineering screwup"—a
byproduct of the grand schemes of those who would make the
desert bloom.
From the beginning, boosters tried to get sport fishermen to
come to the sea, which, thanks to the natural salinity of the
Colorado and the salty soil of the desert floor, is saltier even than
the ocean. In the '50s and '60s, the sea enjoyed a major real
estate boom, as waterfront property was hocked in kitschy
promotional reels like "Miracle in the Desert," included as an
extra on the Plagues and Pleasures DVD. A cheery narrator
reminds his audience that in nearby Palm Springs, real estate
was once worth almost nothing. "If anyone had told you three
decades ago that this vast, nearly deserted land would be worth
$2,000 to $3,000 a front foot, you would have probably laughed
at such a fantastic idea," he says. The people of Palm Springs
had faith in the human ability to make bad land into good. Why
not believe the same is possible for the Salton Sea?
People took the bait in droves. Visitors came from the rapidly
expanding Southern California metroplex to fish, swim, and (as
the locals interviewed frequently remind us) drink cocktails at
the yacht clubs that sprung up around the sea. The area even had
its own golf course. Photographs from that era show crowded
beaches and marinas, filled with postwar Californians living the
good life. For a while, the sea saw more visitors than Yosemite
National Park.
But Salton's golden age was short-lived. In 1976 and 1977, due
to above-average rainfall, increased runoff from the surrounding
agricultural fields, and two tropical storms, the sea flooded,
swamping hotels, bars, and entire neighborhoods, now
remembered only by the telephone poles that still poke out over
the water. The sea never quite recovered. The runoff, laden with
the Green Revolution's miraculous fertilizers, was heavy in
nitrogen and phosphorus, and created water with very little
oxygen. Algae flourishes under these conditions, but fish do not,
and the sea's stocks—wildlife managers had successfully
imported orange mouth corvina in the '50s—began dying off in
huge numbers, their carcasses heaping up as far as the eye could
see.
Perhaps even more damning for its reputation, the sea also
developed what could be kindly described as a distinctive smell,
caused by the death of the algae blooms that feed on those
nutrient imbalances. On the DVD's commentary track, Steve
Horwitz, the superintendent of the Salton Sea State Recreation
Area, the state-run park on the northeast shore of the Sea, recalls
that a lawyer from Palm Springs once called him and threatened
to sue him if he didn't somehow "stop" the smell. "Get in line,"
Horvitz jokes ruefully.
The Salton Sea depicted in Plagues and Pleasures is very
different than the one in those midcentury promotional reels.
There are shots of the dead fish, of the oversalinated shoreline,
and of the rusted-out trailers and vacant lots of Bombay Beach,
once a promising place to buy a retirement home. But while the
film doesn't shy away from the degradations the sea has suffered,
it also makes it seem worth saving—if for no other reason than
for the sake of its colorful denizens. There's the Hungarian exfreedom fighter, Hunky Daddy, who can't understand why his
adopted country won't "fix" the sea: "It's a shame for America,
special California have a big-ass lake in the USA, and let 'um go
like that." And there are the impoverished residents of Bombay
Beach, which these days is so blighted that the shots of children
playing soccer in a dusty vacant lot are reminiscent of scenes
from City of God.
But there are environmental reasons for saving the sea, too. As
the documentary explains, migratory birds, robbed of their
erstwhile stopover feeding grounds in the wetlands that once
made up San Diego and Los Angeles, have adopted the sea as a
new pit stop. If it is allowed to die, the birds will once again be
out of luck. The sea, its advocates say, is also eminently savable.
As Horvitz is fond of pointing out, it isn't polluted, as is
commonly thought; it's just suffering from man-made ecological
imbalances.
Horvitz has authored a Web page describing the ecological
challenges facing the sea, most of which he chalks up to its everincreasing saltiness and excessive nutrient loads from the
fertilizer that continues to run off into the sea. The Salton Sea
Authority, the state commission that coordinates groups working
on Salton issues, has its own Web page with proposals for how
to reverse the sea's decline, including plans to pump water into
the Pacific or the Gulf of California and exchange it with less
salty ocean water; harvesting nutrients from the runoff before it
hits the sea; and the creation of desalinization plants.
The biggest obstacle the sea faces may not be finding solutions
to its problems but finding allies. Given its history, the sea has
never been a popular cause among environmentalists. Instead,
it's had to rely on the efforts of residents like Norm Niver,
interviewed near the end of the documentary. Niver looks like
he'd rather be mowing his lawn or dandling grandchildren on his
knee, but he spends his days advocating on behalf of the sea.
Shaking a finger at the spiritual sons and daughters of John
Muir, he issues what sounds like a challenge: "It's the
environmentalists who will never join us. … They call it a
mistake, unnatural. They would rather see it fall apart." Niver,
and Plagues and Pleasures, are somewhat strange messengers,
but their message is an important one. An environmentalism that
concerns itself only with the pristine is one that gives up far too
much ground.
election scorecard
Election Scorecard
Romney struggles down south.
By Mark Blumenthal and Charles Franklin
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 3:33 PM ET
Mitt Romney's advertising push has certainly paid dividends in
New Hampshire and Iowa, given his leads in both states. But
down in South Carolina Romney hasn't gained much traction,
lingering in fourth place behind the three other top-tier
candidates. The good news for Mitt—since he started running
ads in September, it looks like his numbers are on the rise.
Delegates at stake:
Democrats
Republicans
Total delegates:
4323
Total delegates
needed to win:
2162
Total delegates:
2302*
Total delegates
needed to win: 1152*
Delegates won by each
candidate:
Clinton: 0; Edwards: 0;
Obama: 0; Richardson:
0;
Biden: 0; Dodd: 0;
Delegates won by each
candidate:
Giuliani: 0; McCain: 0;
Romney: 0; Thompson: 0;
Huckabee: 0; Paul: 0;
*GOP delegate totals are
preliminary.
Want more Slate election coverage? Check
out Map the Candidates, Political Futures,
Trailhead, XX Factor, and our Campaign
Junkie page!
.
.
explainer
Why Is Moonshine Against the Law?
You can make your own wine and beer, can't you?
By Michelle Tsai
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 6:50 PM ET
Two Georgia men pleaded guilty on Wednesday to charges of
operating a moonshine still in the Chattahoochee National
Forest. One of the bootleggers faces up to 35 years in prison for
his crimes: making the brew, selling it, and not paying taxes on
the proceeds. Back in college, the Explainer had friends who
brewed their own beer, and that wasn't against the law. So why
is moonshine still illegal?
Because the liquor is worth more to the government than beer or
wine. Uncle Sam takes an excise tax of $2.14 for each 750milliliter bottle of 80-proof spirits, compared with 21 cents for a
bottle of wine (of 14 percent alcohol or less) and 5 cents for a
can of beer. No one knows exactly how much money changes
hands in the moonshine trade, but it's certainly enough for the
missing taxes to make a difference: In 2000, an ATF
investigation busted one Virginia store that sold enough raw
materials to moonshiners to make 1.4 million gallons of liquor,
worth an estimated $19.6 million in lost government revenue. In
2005, almost $5 billion of federal excise taxes on alcohol came
from legally produced spirits.
Until 1978, it was illegal to home-brew any alcoholic
beverage—even wine and beer. But a growing number of
oenophiles and beer connoisseurs wanted to make their own, and
they helped pressure Congress to decriminalize home-brews
across the country. Today, federal rules say a household with
two adults can brew up to 200 gallons of wine and the same
amount of beer each year. (A few states have their own laws
prohibiting the practice.) The 1978 law didn't legalize
moonshining, though; you still can't brew spirits for private
consumption. It is kosher, however, to own a still and process
alcohol—but only if you're using the alcohol as fuel and you
have a permit from the ATF. (In some states, you can purchase a
legal version of moonshine from commercial distillers.)
Despite the Appalachian stereotypes, not everyone swigs
moonshine just for fast, cheap intoxication. Some folks are
accustomed to the taste of unaged whiskey, and they prefer the
buzz that comes with it. These days, moonshine is even going
upscale, as a new breed of amateur distillers in California, New
England, and the Northwest are taking an artisanal approach to
the hobby.
Government prosecutors point out that moonshine poses serious
health risks, including heavy-metal toxicity. So, how dangerous
is it? There's no inspection of the manufacturing process, so
quality—and levels of contamination—vary. (There are some
informal and imprecise ways to test the purity of hooch: You can
light some on fire and check for a blue flame or shake the pint
and look for clear liquid drops that dissipate quickly.) Aside
from drinking too much and doing something dumb—oh, like
attacking somebody with a chain saw and fire extinguisher— the
biggest risk is lead poisoning, since a homemade still might
consist of car radiators or pipes that were dangerously soldered
together. One study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine in
September 2003 found that more than half of moonshine
drinkers have enough lead in their bloodstream to exceed what
the CDC calls a "level of concern."
Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.
Explainer thanks Michael Birdwell of Tennessee Technological
University; Brent Morgan of the Georgia Poison Center; Art
Resnick of the U.S. Treasury's Alcohol and Tobacco, Tax and
Trade Bureau; and Matthew Rowley, author of Moonshine.
Antarctica, where the fossil rock sediment isn't readily
accessible. Excavators have even found evidence of the biggest
sauropods—i.e., the titanosaurs—in North America, Australia,
and Madagascar. It's possible that as paleontologists excavate
more sites rich in Cretaceous fossils, like those in India, China,
and sub-Saharan Africa, larger dinosaur remains will be
discovered. But as of yet, none of those areas has yielded any
animal as big as those discovered in Patagonia.
Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.
Explainer thanks Richard Kissel of Chicago's Field Museum,
Diego Pol of Argentina's Museo Paleontológico Egidio
Feruglio, and Jeff Wilson of the University of Michigan.
explainer
Giant Dinosaurs in Argentina
Why are the biggest fossils found in Patagonia?
By Morgan Smith
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 6:48 PM ET
explainer
What's in the Vatican Secret Archives?
A whole lot of bulls—.
Paleontologists announced on Monday that they had discovered
the remains of a 105-foot-long dinosaur on the banks of a lake in
the Argentine portion of Patagonia. The Futalognkosaurus dukei
ranks among the largest known dinosaurs, along with two other
species whose remains were discovered in Patagonia, the
Argentinosaurus and Puertasaurus reuili. Why are all the
biggest dinosaurs found in Patagonia?
They died at the right time in the right place. Patagonia happens
to be an excellent place to find fossils from the Cretaceous
Period, when dinosaurs reached their largest sizes. (The
extinction of the dinosaurs occurred at the end of the Cretaceous,
about 65 million years ago.) Because of natural uplift and
erosion, sediment that dates from this time is exposed at the
surface in the region's desert badlands. This makes fossilized
bones easier to spot and excavate. (Fossils are also easy to find
in the badlands of the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana, as well
as in Mongolia's Gobi Desert.)
The three giant dinosaurs found in Patagonia are all titanosaurs,
a kind of long-necked sauropod that happened to get very big in
South America. Since South America was its own continent for
most of the Cretaceous Period, much of its plant and animal life
evolved distinctly from that of the other land masses. Its
isolation could have been responsible for spurring sauropods to
grow larger than those found on other continents, but there's no
scientific consensus as to exactly how this happened. (In
contrast, large mammal populations tend to shrink in size when
they evolve in isolation.)
Sauropod remains aren't found just in South America. So far,
specimens have been discovered on every continent except
By Torie Bosch
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 5:28 PM ET
A publishing house associated with the Vatican announced on
Friday that it will publish copies of the Parchment of Chinon, a
700-year-old document about the Knights Templar that was
uncovered in the Vatican Secret Archives in 2001. What other
goodies do the secret archives hold?
Mostly administrative records. The archives, which were
founded in the early 17th century, house records from the
Vatican's day-to-day dealings—papal bulls, records of
diplomacy, official correspondence, the records of apostolic
nunciature (Vatican embassies), and more. (The Vatican
Library, on the other hand, contains manuscripts on science,
religion, and art that the Vatican has collected over the
centuries.)
But that doesn't mean the documents are boring. The Vatican's
"official correspondence" includes letters from King Henry VIII
of England to Anne Boleyn (a Vatican spy swiped them because
they proved the king's disloyalty to the Catholic Chuch) and
from the infamous Lucrezia Borgia to her father, Pope
Alexander VI. The Knights Templar papers are also meaty: They
detail the investigation and subsequent punishment of the
secretive order for, among other things, allegedly having
inductees spit on a cross as an initiation rite.
For the most part, archival documents remain locked up unless
they are released by a papal administration. For instance, in
1985, the documents from Pope Pius X's and Pope Benedict
XV's tenures were made public. In 2006, the current pope,
Benedict XVI, granted permission to release materials from
1922 to 1939, Pope Pius XI's era. (Traditionally, documents can
be released after 75 or more years.) On occasion, though,
documents unrelated to a certain pope's administration can made
public, as with the Parchment of Chinon. In 2003, the pope
decided to release some materials relating to the Vatican's
relationship with Germany during the time period preceding
World War II.
Despite the name, the archives aren't a secret in the hush-hush,
classified sense. Instead, the word secret in this case means that
the archives are private. To use them, you have to go through an
application process and prove that you're a seasoned researcher
with a specific project in mind—and specific documents that
you're looking for.
Not all of the Vatican's important documents are stored in the
Vatican Secret Archives. Others are housed in the Propaganda
Fide, which contains records of the church's missionary efforts
in Africa, Latin America, and elsewhere; the Archive of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which deals with the
church's teachings, including the Inquisition and forbidden
books; and the Fabbrica di San Pietro, which houses materials
about the building of St. Peter's Basilica.
Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.
Explainer thanks Francis X. Blouin Jr., author of Vatican
Archives: An Inventory and Guide to Historical Documents of
the Holy See.
fighting words
Prizing Doris Lessing
The Nobel committee finally gets it right.
By Christopher Hitchens
Monday, October 15, 2007, at 11:56 AM ET
Almost intoxicating to see the Nobel committee do something
honorable and creditable for a change … It's as though the long,
dreary reign of the forgettable and the mediocre and the sinister
had been just for once punctuated by a bright flash of talent. And
a flash of 88-year-old talent at that, as if the Scandinavians had
guiltily remembered that they let Nabokov and Borges die (yes,
die) while they doled out so many of their awards to time-servers
and second-raters. Had they let this happen to Doris Lessing as
well, eternal shame would have covered them. Harold Bloom
might conceivably be right (actually, if it matters, I do think he
is right) to say that Lessing hasn't written much of importance
for the last 15 or so years. But that's not to say that she shouldn't
have received the Nobel laurels 20 years ago, if not sooner. (It
was Hemingway who first acidly pointed out that authors tend to
get the big prize either too early or too late. In his own case, he
compared it with swimming ashore under his own steam and
then being hit over the head with a life belt.)
To review the depth and extent of Lessing's work is to appreciate
that some writers really do live for language and are willing to
take risks for it. It's also to understand that there is some
relationship between the hunger for truth and the search for the
right words. This struggle may be ultimately indefinable and
even undecidable, but one damn well knows it when one sees it.
I can remember with crystal precision when I first read her early
fiction. It was in white-ruled Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), more
than three decades ago. Two of her stories—The Grass Is
Singing and This Was The Old Chief's Country—combined the
sad indistinctness of a melancholy memoir with the very exact
realization that a huge injustice had been done to the "native"
inhabitants of the land to which she had been transplanted. For
much of her life, the battle against apartheid and colonialism was
the determining thing in Lessing's life. She joined the
Communist Party and married a German Communist exile (who
was much later killed as the envoy of East Germany to Idi
Amin's hateful regime in Uganda), and if you ever want to read
how it actually felt, and I mean truly felt, to believe in a
Communist future with all your heart, her novels from that
period will make it piercingly real for you.
Later on, and in a way that is now so familiar that we take it for
granted, she gave up this animating faith. But not without
writing about it in such a way as to make you catch your breath.
There is a short fiction called "The Day Stalin Died" that would
deserve reprinting in any anthology of the prose of the 20 th
century. I have only twice had the experience of reading a story
that was so good, and that seemed so much to know what I
might be thinking myself, that I was almost afraid to read on.
The first time was with Katherine Mansfield, and the second was
when holding Lessing's tale "The Temptation of Jack Orkney"
(which is incidentally also about a crisis of faith). Please make a
resolution to acquire the volumes in which these occur. It will
help you to determine the gold standard in modern writing. I
would say it was a sure thing that it was respect for language,
rather than any immediate political trauma, that drove her out of
the Communist Party. (She once told me that she had been in the
party's so-called "writers' group," which often discussed the
"problems" of "committed" writers, before realizing that the
main writing problem had to do with being in the group, not to
say the party, in the first place.)
The Nobel committee, saturated as usual in its obligation to be
worthy, dutifully cites the "epic" element in Lessing's pioneering
feminism. Well, there is no need to disagree here. But in
stressing the buried desires and ambitions of the female, and in
forcing her readers to confront what in a sense they already
"knew," she rather tended to insist that what a real woman
wanted was a real man. The making of this elemental point lost
her almost as many admirers as it gained. But, once again, she
simply could not employ her literary and emotional capacities
for mere propaganda purposes.
I do not want to make her out to be a sage, or a grand dame. Her
most anti-Communist book (The Wind Blows Away Our Words)
is somewhat too romantic an account of the rebels fighting the
Red Army in Afghanistan. I don't find her science fiction
compelling and was put off when she tried to interest me in the
work of the Sufi mystic charlatan Idries Shah (whose "books"
were once summarized by Gore Vidal as "a good deal harder to
read than they were to write"). What is seriously remarkable,
however, is her willingness to experiment with so many forms of
writing, and even, if you like, to take the risk of looking foolish
rather than to allow herself to become standardized or calcified
or type-cast.
I was touched and interested to see Doris Lessing photographed
last week, outside the same row house in the rather rough and
plebeian district of North London where she has lived for so
many decades. Having been an avenging angel of sexuality in
her youth, she doesn't mind in the least looking a bit like a bag
lady or a cat collector as she approaches her 90 th year. (Actually,
she once did produce rather a good book about felines.) There
was a serenity to the scene: a person who has just happened to
get the Nobel Prize but who really doesn't need that sort of
confirmation.
foreigners
Skype Dreams
Why Estonia and other Central European countries are justified in discussing
the past.
By Anne Applebaum
Monday, October 15, 2007, at 8:02 PM ET
TALLINN, Estonia—From outside, the offices of Skype—the
company best known for its free Internet telephone service—
don't look very different from the other Soviet and post-Soviet
buildings that make up the nondescript suburbs of the Estonian
capital. But inside, the aesthetic influence of Northern California
is undeniable. The high-tech, open-plan offices; the "playroom,"
complete with pool table and sauna; the young, bearded
employees; the Dada-esque plastic crocodile hanging from the
ceiling; the blue-jeaned spokesman who has been "too busy" to
contemplate the fact that eBay, which bought Skype for $2.6
billion in 2005, has recently admitted that it paid too much.
This tiny slice of Seattle-on-the-Baltic—Skype's main center for
research and development—is in Tallinn because Skype's
original computer programmers were Estonians and because
Skype's Scandinavian founders were savvy enough to know that
Estonia is a country so eager to join the 21st century that even its
gas stations have Wi-Fi: Fill up your tank, download your email, drive on. Yet despite their eagerness to join the future, the
home of Skype can also seem, to outsiders, paradoxically hung
up on the past. Indeed, this is a problem Estonia shares with
some of the other nations of Central Europe. Everywhere you
turn, historical arguments now dominate the region's politics.
History certainly influences Estonia's relationship with Russia,
for example: The two neighbors have a standing disagreement
about whether the Red Army's invasion in 1945 "liberated"
Estonia from the Nazis, as the Russians would have it, or
launched a bloody Soviet occupation—during which 10 percent
of the country's population was deported to concentration camps
and exile—as most Estonians remember it. No mere theoretical
dispute, this argument has led to riots in Tallinn and Moscow, as
well as a wave of cyberattacks on Estonian government and
economic institutions last spring.
But the Estonians are not alone. Last year, the Hungarians nearly
came to blows about the causes and current significance of their
anti-Communist revolution in 1956: At one point during 50 th
anniversary celebrations, police used tear gas against protesters
riding a Soviet-era tank down through the center of Budapest,
making for some eerily familiar photographs.
Ukrainian arguments over whether the Ukrainian famine of
1931-32 was "genocide" have taken a political turn, too, with
different viewpoints offered by different political parties. Poles
have lately flocked to a new film depicting the 1940 Soviet
massacre of 20,000 Polish officers in the Katyn forest; it, too,
made the newspapers when the director, Andrzej Wajda, accused
politicians of using the Katyn story for electoral advantage.
Across the region, nonfiction best sellers have similar themes:
the war, the Communist occupation, the resistance. In Russia,
stacks of such books are available, too—except that in Russia,
these books have titles like Stalin, Author of the Great Victory.
From the safe standpoint of Washington or London, it's easy to
dismiss this historical discussion as retrograde, paranoid, even a
drag on economic development. And it's true that discussing
history with the Russians probably hasn't been good for RussianEstonian trade. Nor has debating Katyn fixed Poland's crumbling
roads. One Estonian politician told me a German colleague had
instructed him to forget about history and move on: "You're
wasting your time."
But nobody ever asks the Germans to forget about history and
move on, do they? Walk through the Skype headquarters in
Tallinn, look through the big picture windows at the crumbling
concrete buildings outside, and it becomes clear that the
phenomenon of economic progress and historical contemplation
are actually closely connected. The Central European economies
are no longer basket cases, and the Central Europeans are no
longer desperately poor neighbors. As the Hungarians, Poles,
and Balts become more successful and more self-confident, it's
natural that they want their stories told, their issues discussed.
The Germans only properly came to terms with their own history
in the 1960s, 20 years after the Second World War ended.
Almost the same amount of time has now elapsed since 1989.
There may be other forces at work, too. Without question, the
economic success stories of the region, particularly in the former
Soviet republics, pose an ideological challenge to the current
government of Russia. Estonia and its neighbors have joined
Western institutions, expanded Western trade. Russia has chosen
a different path: confrontation with the West, an economic
model based on oil rather than genuine capitalism. The regional
sparring over history is also an argument over whose definition
of the past, whose ideology, and whose economic rules will
prevail: those of the big Russian gas concerns, or those of Skype.
Me, I'm rooting for Skype, or at least for its bearded,
multilingual employees. Even if their company wasn't really
worth all those billions, after all.
green room
Green Peace
Did Al Gore deserve a Nobel Prize for his work on global warming?
By Stephan Faris
Monday, October 15, 2007, at 5:30 PM ET
When Al Gore became a Nobel laureate on Friday, it was the
second time in four years that the prize for peace had gone
green. In 2004, its recipient was Wangari Maathai, a Kenyan
politician responsible for planting millions of trees to combat
soil erosion. The day after she was recognized, I asked Maathai
what reforestation had to do with ending conflict. "What the
Nobel committee is doing is going beyond war and looking at
what humanity can do to prevent war," she answered.
"Sustainable management of our natural resources will promote
peace."
This year's award, which Al Gore shared with the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, took Maathai's
sentiment to a global scale. "Indications of changes in the earth's
future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness," said
Ole Danbolt Mjøs, the committee chairman. "There may be
increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and
between states."
But does global warming really cause war?
The idea of a connection between conflict and climate change is
fairly new, and one that had been mostly relegated to academic
journals until earlier this year. Then, in June, U.N. SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon went on record to suggest global warming
as a cause for the fighting in the Darfur region of Sudan. He
pointed out that warming in the tropical and southern oceans,
fueled in some part by climate change, led to a decades-long
drought and clashes between herders and farmers over the
degrading land. When a rebellion broke out against the central
government, Sudan's leaders fought back by arming and
supporting the herders against the farmers—and the entire region
fell into war. If global warming did cause the Sudanese drought,
then it's also responsible for the 200,000 to 450,000 lives that
have been lost over the last four and a half years. We may very
well be watching the first major conflict caused by emissions
from our factories, power plants, and cars.
Other early hot spots for warming-related conflict are likely to
be in sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, or the Caribbean—
places where institutions are weak, infrastructure is deficient,
and the government is incompetent or malevolent. The crisis in
Darfur has already stretched into Chad and the Central African
Republic. Nomads from Sudan, spillovers from Sudan's
desertification, are pushing deep into the Congolese rain forest.
In Ghana, nomadic Fulani cattle herdsmen, forced by the
expanding Sahara desert into agricultural lands, are buying highpower assault rifles to defend their animals from angry farmers.
Climate-change conflict is even spreading into the Arctic, where
normally pacific Canada and Norway have joined the United
States, Russia, and Denmark in a five-way tussle over mineral
and shipping rights unlocked by the melting ice. Thus far largely
symbolic, the conflict could take a more serious turn as the
waters warm and military traffic increases. Norway and Russia
already face each other down over fish in the Barents Sea. And
Canada and Denmark take turns pulling up each other's flag on
Hans Island, a stretch of icy rock the size of a football field.
These countries may be arguing over small fries right now, but
what happens when oil is at stake?
These emerging examples suggest that global warming might
lead to increasing conflict around the world. But a look back
through the last thousand years shows how quickly even a mild,
natural shift in the climate can produce a period of cataclysmic
violence. David Zhang, a professor at the University of Hong
Kong, scoured China's dynastic archives for records of war and
rebellion and compared them with historical temperatures in the
Northern Hemisphere. In the span between the 11 th and 20th
centuries, Zhang counted 15 periods of intense fighting. All but
three of them occurred in the decades immediately following a
period of unusual cold. Plunging agricultural yields, Zhang
concluded, led to famine, rebellion, and war. He also found that
dynastic collapses tended to follow the oscillations of the
temperature cycle.
But what rattled Zhang most was the scale of these historical
climate changes, as compared to the warming the world has
experienced this century. The upheavals in China occurred when
the average temperature had dropped just 0.5 degrees
Fahrenheit, less than half the magnitude of the change we've
experienced over the last century.
Of course, modern societies have capabilities far beyond those
of the medieval Chinese, and the countries of today—at least the
richer ones—are likely to be able to ride out any early climate
shocks. Indeed, even in medieval China, the conflicts triggered
by man-made climate change didn't happen immediately. In his
study, Zhang saw a lag of 10 to 30 years between the
temperature shifts and the outbreaks of war—it takes time for a
society to deplete its resources and for tensions to build. In the
modern world, it will be the poor countries that suffer the first
serious effects. Drought-stricken Australia can spend billions on
wind and solar-powered desalinization plants, but the Pakistanis
who rely on melting glaciers for their water supply will be able
to do nothing but suffer the shortages.
Once a region does succumb to war, the same climate factors
that created the conflict make it harder (and more expensive) to
reverse course. In Darfur, the drought has eased, but water
remains scarce; now U.N. officials are scratching their head over
how to provide each of the planned 26,000 peacekeepers with at
least 85 liters a day. (Meanwhile, humanitarian groups struggle
to provide the displaced with enough water for drinking and
cooking.) The peace mission is likely to require 20 daily flights
just for water. Even if the mission is successful, Darfur's
environmental degradation means that a lasting end to the
violence is a long way off: There's no longer enough good land
to allow for an easy return to the status quo.
when Michael Clayton opened to a weak $10 million and fourth
place last weekend. The critics were gaga about Michael
Clayton, though Variety's Brian Lowry was astute enough to peg
it is as a "difficult-to-market" film.
We all know that grown-ups are not usually in haste to go to
theaters to help movies chalk up a big opening weekend, but
many thought Michael Clayton might do better. We've also
heard a lot of you grown-ups complaining about a lack of
grown-up films, or a lack of good ones, and this isn't going to
help.
Since Michael Clayton is fairly crackling entertainment, we
asked around to see why Hollywood thought the movie failed to
connect with audiences. A number of theories emerged:
1.
2.
In awarding the prize, the Nobel committee emphasized that
time is running out. "Action is necessary now, before climate
change moves beyond man's control," said Mjøs, the committee
chairman. We may not yet know with certainty what this means
for conflict in the world—in terms of where, when, and if
fighting will break out. But the evidence is mounting that
climate change will lead to more and longer-lasting wars. Do we
really want to wait for the data to pile up?
hollywoodland
The Trouble With Clooney
Is he really a box office draw?
By Kim Masters
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 12:51 PM ET
Curious George: We admit that we were a little disappointed
3.
It's Clooney. Clooney is very popular in Hollywood,
but he cannot be counted on to open a movie. It's
happened for Ocean's 11-12-13, but when you're in a
movie with Matt Damon and Brad Pitt, you don't get
bragging rights. There was The Perfect Storm, but that
kind of co-starred the wave. "George has made a series
of bad decisions as a movie star," says a top producer.
"Not as an actor, not as an artist, but as a movie star."
Clooney has given a nod to fans with the Ocean's
series, he continues, but he doesn't give them a lot of
gratification. "George has made calculated decisions
about what he wants, not what the audience wants," this
producer concludes. As it turns out, you can make bad
decisions as a movie star and still win Oscars and have
a villa in Italy.
It's not Clooney, it's the marketing. Who can be
counted on to open a movie these days? Maybe Will
Smith. Maybe Adam Sandler in a comedy. "There ain't
a whole lot of 'em," says a former studio chairman. The
days are gone when you could book Julia Roberts into
Dying Young—"a movie that nobody wants to see"—
and watch the audience line up. So, if you can't count
on selling the star, he says, you'd better sell an idea.
That didn't happen with Michael Clayton. "When you
look at the marketing, you don't know what it's about,"
he says. To him, that's understandable because Michael
Clayton is "a really well-executed movie that's not
about anything." But a good marketer shouldn't let that
stand in the way. Make it look like it's about something.
And create a campaign that hints the movie is, in fact,
pretty entertaining. "It doesn't look like it's really
different from In the Valley of Elah," this observer says.
"I don't mean to piss on that movie, but there's 50 of
'em like that right now. I'm tired of death and
destruction." Which leads to the next theory:
All at once, there are too damn many grown-up
movies. "A lot of movies are going after the same
audience," says a studio chief. The Kingdom; Elizabeth:
The Golden Age; 3:10 to Yuma; Into the Wild;
Darjeeling Limited; Lust, Caution; Eastern Promises …
and many more to come. "It's a tough market," the
studio chief continues. "If you don't have a defined
perspective, you're just one of the many." He also
argues that Michael Clayton should have been released
on fewer screens. The movie is sophisticated and plays
pretty urban, he explains, so putting it out on 2,511
screens put it in a lot of places where it wasn't going to
rack up much business. "If it had gone out on 1,500
screens and it did $10 million, you'd say, 'Hey, it did
pretty well,' " he says. (link)
There seems to be some debate as to which will have a tougher
time if the writers go—the networks or the film studios. The
movie folks are either a little bit or very pregnant with pictures
and would have to expensively put them on hold or expensively
pull the plug if no writers are around. The networks may be able
to stockpile reality programming but don't want to drive viewers
away in droves with all that much slop. They're scratching for
primetime ideas—NBC, for example, is said to be looking at
reruns of Curb Your Enthusiasm or airing the original British
version of The Office. (link)
Oct. 5, 2007
Oct. 11, 2007
Drowning their pens: No one is dragged more reluctantly into
covering the industry's labor problems than your Hollywoodland
correspondent. But since the writers are rattling the saber very
loudly, here's a quick and simple look at the situation.
The writers feel they've gotten screwed on DVD revenues and
don't want to repeat that experience. They are attacking on
numerous fronts—trying to organize reality-show staff,
demanding a federal rule requiring networks to disclose when
advertisers pay to have their products woven into television
shows. But this is really about getting a piece of the revenue
from new media, whatever that new media may be.
The networks and studios say they don't know how the business
is going to work at this point or even whether anything
resembling life as they know it can continue in the new-media
world. They offered to do a study of this mysterious new media.
When the writers didn't go for it, the producers came up with
another idea: doing in the long-standing residuals system, under
which writers get paid for repeat airings of their work. In other
words, give up your puppy, or we'll kill your baby.
Now, the writers seem poised to strike—which wasn't supposed
to happen just yet. Yes, their contract is finished this month, but
they were going to work under their old deal until June, when
the actors and directors guilds are supposed to negotiate new
contracts. The networks, thinking they still had some time, have
been stockpiling new shows and reality series. The studios have
been working toward getting movies started by March on the
assumption that they'd be able to finish while the writers were
still around.
But the writers figured out a couple of things. One, the directors
look like they're going to cut their own deal early, which they've
done before, and the supposedly perfect end-of-June storm will
be downgraded. Two, what's the point of letting the enemy stock
the larder? So, the writers may walk as early as the beginning of
November. Certainly they're talking a tough game, despite great
trepidation among many of the rank and file.
The war in Afghanistan: Paramount is starting to sweat bullets
over The Kite Runner.
Perhaps you've read the New York Times report about concerns
over the safety of the child actors in the film, which is based on
Khaled Hosseini's best-selling novel. Or perhaps you heard your
Hollywoodland correspondent's even earlier report on NPR in
which one of the child stars and his father said that they were
misled about the nature of the film and that they are now afraid
of what might happen after it's released. The movie was
supposed to hit theaters in November. Now it's been pushed back
several weeks to give Paramount time to figure out how to
protect the three children who may be at risk.
Like the book, the movie portrays two boyhood friends who
must deal with political strife, and ethnic and class conflicts. In
one pivotal scene, one of the boys—Hassan—is raped by a youth
who later becomes a Taliban leader. Various parties might be
offended by the film's depiction of life in Afghanistan: the
Taliban, other fundamentalists, members of the Hazara minority
who will not like the portrayal of their bitter persecution.
But the rape may be the most sensitive issue in the film. Ishaq
Shahryar, who served as Afghanistan's first post-Taliban
ambassador to the United States, says that the depiction will
destroy the lives of Ahmad Kahn Mahmidzada, who plays the
victim, and his family. "The consequences will be terrible," he
says. "To be raped or to be gay over there—it's unfortunately
absolutely unacceptable." The stigma is so great that even a
fictional depiction is bad—worse, says Shahryar, because "the
whole world will see it."
In July, Paramount got nervous enough to dispatch former CIA
counterterrorism officer John Kiriakou to talk to experts in
Washington and Kabul and evaluate the risk. He said
unequivocally that the kids had to leave Afghanistan before the
film is released. Paramount is working to relocate the three
actors and their families, though it's unclear whether they will
decide to leave and how long they might stay away.
The filmmakers have repeatedly said they had no inkling of the
danger during the making of the film. "Nobody that we were
working with [in Afghanistan] ever said this could be anything
but a positive thing for these kids and their families and for their
culture," says producer Rebecca Yeldham. "There was such joy
and enthusiasm for the sincerity and seriousness of our
approach."
The filmmakers say the situation has changed because of
escalating violence in Afghanistan. But former Ambassador
Shahryar says that has little to do with the danger facing the
children, which involves long-standing taboos in Afghan culture.
"I think in cases like this, all times are bad—nothing to do with
the [idea that] the situation is worse now," he says. Paramount's
own consultant concurs that the filmmakers walked into this
situation naively at best.
It is interesting how filmmakers can invest so much time and so
many resources into creating authenticity on movies set in a
different place and time. And then they claim ignorance about
the very subject that they've been studying.
Yeldham, the producer, says Ahmad Jan Mahmidzada—the
father of the then-12-year-old schoolboy recruited to play
Hassan—has falsely accused the Kite Runner team of misleading
him about the film by downplaying its dark elements. But they
confirm young Ahmad Kahn's account that he balked at playing
the scene.
Yeldham says the scene was in fact depicted in a less harrowing
manner than originally planned, in part "out of respect for
concerns of the families and out of respect for the culture."
(Apparently, the filmmakers had some inkling of these issues
after all.) She also said that the studio wanted to be sure the
movie got a PG-13 rating so it could "reach out and touch
audiences around the world of all ages."
Ahmad Kahn said he declined to remove his trousers for the
scene. He and his father became concerned that the studio would
use computers to make the sequence more graphic. Yeldham
says that is not the case. But she acknowledged that a body
double was used, in one case to show a boy undoing a pants
buckle and in another to show pants being tugged slightly down.
"We shot those for continuity," she says. "There was no nudity
involved." Somehow, we suspect that the Mahmidzada family
will be unpleasantly surprised to see that bit of continuity.
"This has been a labor of love for four years," Yeldham says.
"We have taken great pains to do right by Khaled's beautiful
book. And, none of us being of this culture or faith, we really,
really carefully undertook every step of this process and tried to
do the right thing by the kids and the families always. It's tough
to be on the receiving [end] of fraudulent accusations when you
know that you can hold your head high because you did do the
right thing."
It's ironic. The Kite Runner, which takes children in peril as such
a major theme, has ended up creating exactly the sort of situation
lamented in its pages. (link)
hot document
Juvi Hell
Inside a privately run juvenile prison.
By Bonnie Goldstein
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:04 PM ET
From: Bonnie Goldstein
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:04 PM ET
Last week, the Texas Youth Commission, which runs that state's
juvenile prisons, released the results of a surprise audit (PDF) of
the Coke County Juvenile Justice Center (excerpts below and on
the following six pages). The audit describes unsafe or filthy
conditions, among them emergency exits that would not open or
were blocked (Page 2); lavatories that were "inoperable" (Page
4); and prison cells that "smelled of feces and urine" (Page 5).
Inmates told auditors that abuse ranged from "being forced to
urinate or defecate in some container other than a toilet" to being
"disciplined for speaking Spanish" (Pages 5 and 6). Educational
services mandated by state law "were achieved by providing
youth with one worksheet per day" consisting of a "crossword
puzzle and a 'word find' activity" (Page 7).
Chalk it up to the magic of the marketplace. Like a growing
number of juvenile detention centers across the country, the
Coke County Juvenile Justice Center is privately run, in this
instance by a company called GEO. In 2000, GEO (then called
Wackenhut) was the subject of a 60 Minutes expose for its
abusive treatment at the same institution. (That was only one
year after the same Texas Youth Commission now condemning
the Coke County Juvenile Center had named it Contract Facility
of the Year—an honor that speaks very poorly of the
competition. The Coke County facility won the prize again in
2005.) GEO has also received much criticism for its
management of other Texas prisons.
Upon release of the Texas Youth Commission's audit, GEO's $8
million contract was cancelled, the inmates were transferred to
other juvenile prisons, and the Texas Senate began oversight
hearings on private prison contracts.
Got a Hot Document? Send it to documents@slate.com. Please
indicate whether you wish to remain anonymous.
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:04 PM ET
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:04 PM ET
hot document
Weapons of Mass Collegiate
Destruction
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:04 PM ET
Did Saddam Hussein ever visit American University?
By Bonnie Goldstein
Monday, October 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM ET
From: Bonnie Goldstein
Posted Monday, October 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM ET
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:04 PM ET
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:04 PM ET
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:04 PM ET
During World War I, the U.S. Army's preferred method to
dispose of ordnance, toxic liquids, and the detritus of poison gas
experiments was to dig a deep hole and toss the stuff in. That's
what it did nearly 90 years ago on the leafy campus of American
University, a portion of whose acreage in upper northwest
Washington, D.C., it had leased as a chemical weapons test site.
This month, the Army Corps of Engineers is undertaking its
latest dig at the site, part of a 15-year effort to remove arseniccontaminated soil and exhume the deadly substances underneath
at suspected burial locations around D.C.'s largely residential
Spring Valley neighborhood. American University first became
concerned about the existence of underground hazards in 1993,
when a backhoe digging a sewer at a construction site unearthed
a cache of weapons. The discovery spurred a series of
excavations, evacuations, lawsuits, government investigations, a
troubling survey of environmental illnesses, and at least one
premature report of completion by the Corps.
American University President Neil Kerwin, in a statement
posted last month on the school's Web site (see below and on the
following four pages), assures the "campus community" that
while the chemical agents the Army suspects are present "can
cause both short-term and long-term harmful physical effects"
(Page 3), the project contractors will be "implementing a number
of safety precautions," including building "a containment
structure and filtration unit" (below) around the pit. To guard
against any accidental "release of harmful chemicals into the
environment," there will be "monitors to detect any unusual
airborne agent." In the event of a release, a siren will sound, and
an automated telephone tree will whir into action.
Even though a "chemical release is highly unlikely," the
university is holding a series of briefings about "shelter-in-place"
precautions ("you go inside a building and stay there for the
duration of the alarm. The windows are closed and the
heating/cooling systems are shut off to prevent possible intake of
contaminated air"; see Page 4). Kerwin writes that although
"some may consider the precautions … excessive," he will
"accept that criticism … to ensure the maximum level of safety
for the university's faculty, students, staff and visitors."
Apparently Kerwin does not wish to have it said of him, as
President Bush said of Saddam Hussein, that he "gassed his own
people."
The 14-week excavation will occur at "burial pit 3," located on a
small campus street that includes a university president's
residence (currently unoccupied). This latest dig is expected to
be the final phase of removal—unless, the munitions project
manager speculates, "we find another pit."
Got a Hot Document? Send it to documents@slate.com. Please
indicate whether you wish to remain anonymous.
Posted Monday, October 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM ET
Posted Monday, October 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM ET
human nature
Are Blacks Inferior?
Race, IQ, bigotry, and the "father of DNA."
By William Saletan
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 8:01 AM ET
(For discussions of the latest topics, check out the Human Nature
Fray.)
Posted Monday, October 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM ET
Posted Monday, October 15, 2007, at 4:03 PM ET
President Bush is putting a critic of publicly funded birth
control in charge of publicly funded birth control. This is the
second consecutive birth-control critic Bush has put in the job.
The new appointee has argued that federal employees' health
insurance should not have to cover contraception, "because
fertility is not a disease. It's not a medical necessity that you
have [contraception]." Pro-choice reactions: 1) You've got to be
kidding us … again. 2) Pssst, right-wingers! 98% of women use
contraception! 3) Way to go, geniuses—expect more abortions.
Conservative rebuttals: 1) The new appointee didn't oppose
contraception per se; she just wanted "to allow federal
employees the option to choose a health benefits plan that did
not include family planning coverage." 2) It's not just a moral
issue; some employees don't want such coverage "due to their
age." 3) We're for "consumer choice of coverage" and "keeping
family planning truly voluntary." Human Nature's question:
Birth control isn't necessary … but the Iraq war was? (Related:
More contraception, fewer abortions.) Those of you who agree
with Bush on birth control: Let's hear your arguments.
A co-discoverer of DNA says average black intelligence is not
"the same as ours." Quotes from James Watson: 1) He's
"gloomy about the prospect of Africa," since "our social policies
are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours—
whereas all the testing says not really." 2) He hopes everyone is
equal, but "people who have to deal with black employees find
this not true." 3) "There is no firm reason to anticipate that the
intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in
their evolution should prove to have evolved identically,"
including "equal powers of reason." 4) Racial discrimination is
wrong because "there are many people of color who are very
talented, but don't promote them when they haven't succeeded at
the lower level." Backlash: A museum has responded by
canceling Watson's speech. Critiques: 1) He's "out of his depth
scientifically." 2) "IQ tests are culturally biased." 3) Low black
scores can "be explained by social rather than genetic factors."
4) He should be held legally liable for "fueling bigotry." 5) His
"poisonously racist opinions put … the unsuspecting public at
serious risk." Rebuttals: 1) Political correctness should never
"stop you ascertaining the scientific truth." 2) "IQ testing has
consistently shown that racial groups perform differently."
Human Nature's view: Never be afraid to consider testable
claims about your sex or ethnicity. (Related: Blacks, crime, and
the bigotry of low expectations.)
A woman is shipping 80,000 cans of Silly String to Iraq to
detect bombs. Each can is addressed to a specific member of the
U.S. armed forces. She got the idea from her soldier son, who
requested cans for his unit. Concept: You shoot the stuff across
a room and see if it hangs over something invisible, i.e., a trip
wire. Feel-good spins: 1) What a mom! 2) Good old
American/grunt innovation. 3) "In an age of multimillion-dollar
high-tech weapons systems, sometimes it's the simplest ideas
that can save lives." 4) This is something ordinary people can do
to be useful. Rebuttal: This is something ordinary people can do
to feel useful, but in fact, the troops don't need it. Next
campaigns to help the war effort: 1) Tampons for the
wounded! 2) Condoms for our riflemen! Human Nature's view:
The bombers are killing us with consumer products, so let's
defend ourselves the same way.
A study indicates that many people trust gossip more than
facts. In a rotating money game, participants were stingy with
partners who had been called stingy by a third party, and
generous with partners who had been called generous by a third
party, even when 1) the participant saw extensive evidence that
the "stingy" partner had actually behaved generously (and that
the "generous" partner was stingy) and 2) participants were told
that the gossip was not based on evidence beyond what they had
seen. Furthermore, the third party's reputation did not affect
the impact of his gossip. Old view: Gossip evolved to help
society by spreading the truth about people, thereby punishing
cheaters. New problem: If gossip overrides truth, cheaters can
evade punishment by spreading lies. New rationalizations: 1) In
evolutionary history, gossip has been more commonly attainable
than direct observation and has been available from multiple
sources, so it tends to be more useful. 2) Evolution didn't train us
to consider gossipers' reputations because that that much detail is
"too demanding for the working memory." Question: Is this
why negative political ads work? Human Nature's answer:
Yes.
Scientists are learning to make human tissue with inkjet
printers. Method: 1) Configure a "printer" to deposit fluid in a
lab dish instead of on paper. 2) Buy a printer cartridge, empty it,
and refill it with a menu of cell types instead of a menu of
colored inks. Cells successfully printed so far: bacteria, yeast,
hamster ovary cells, and human stem cells. Rationale: Inkjets
can lay out cells in precise patterns and can add new layers as
earlier layers grow, so we can "build complex three-dimensional
tissues by printing the right precursors and enzymes in
sequence," including "bone, ligament, cartilage, and cornea."
Advertised applications: 1) Lab-grown tissue for basic research.
2) Organs for people who need them. 3) Tissues and organs for
testing drugs in the lab. (Related columns: Selling organs on the
world market; growing implantable organs in human embryos.)
U.S. airports are about to begin using a new naked body
scanner. The Phoenix airport already uses a backscatter X-ray
machine that sees through clothes. This week, the same airport
will debut a millimeter-wave scanner that does the same thing
with virtually no radiation. Next airports: possibly LAX and
JFK. Objection: "These are virtual strip searches." Government's
assurances: 1) You won't be scanned unless we select you for
extra screening. 2) The image just looks like a "fuzzy photo
negative." 3) We blur the face so nobody can link your identity
to the image. 4) The viewing machine is separated from the
screening area, so the viewing officer can't see who you are, and
the officer in the screening area can't see the image. 5) The
viewing machine isn't networked and has no storage capacity, so
you don't have to worry about the image being saved or
transmitted. 6) A virtual search is less invasive than what we do
now: a real pat-down. Human Nature's view: Let them see you
naked, as long as they can't see your face. (Would you choose a
body scan or a pat-down? Join the debate in this thread.)
Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for fighting global
warming. He shares the award with a panel of climate scientists.
Official explanation of the award: Global warming "may induce
large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the
earth's resources," causing "increased danger of violent conflicts
and wars." Complaints: 1) A peace prize for environmentalism?
2) Gore exaggerates the science. 3) He's done nothing for the
cause but publicity. 4) He's using it to get rich. 5) The prize is
just a fashion award, like his Oscar. 6) It's really a slap at
President Bush, just like the Nobel given to Jimmy Carter.
Rebuttals: 1) The science is clear, so what's needed now is the
publicity. 2) This is not a slap at Bush. 3) It's payback time,
baby! Gore's reaction: I'm trying to save the planet. Pundits'
reaction: Yeah, but the important thing is, how will this affect
the presidential horse race? Human Nature's view: Gore's work
deserves a global award, but not a "peace" prize. (Do you think
he deserves it? Post your take in the Fray.)
A study concludes that the global abortion rate is falling
thanks to birth control. Data: 1) The rate fell 17 percent from
1995 to 2003. 2) The biggest drop was in the former Soviet bloc
and "did coincide with substantial increases in contraceptive use
in the region." 3) Previous studies found that "abortion incidence
declines as contraceptive use increases." 4) Abortion bans don't
correlate with low abortion rates. 5) Abortion bans do correlate
with high rates of unsafe abortion. Authors' conclusion: If you
want fewer abortions, don't ban them; provide more birth control
and sex education. Liberal reaction: Bush is making things
worse by censoring abortion counseling and pushing abstinence
instead of condoms. Pro-life rebuttal: 1) The data are unreliable.
2) They're being spun by pro-choice "scientists." Human
Nature's view: Reducing abortions through birth control is a nobrainer. (Do you favor contraception as a way to reduce
abortions? Speak up.)
The French government is facing a backlash for trying to
DNA-test aspiring immigrants. If you claim to be related to a
French resident, the legislation would offer "voluntary" testing
to prove it. Objections: 1) It's a double standard, since legal
family relationships among French natives don't require a
genetic bond. 2) Ditto for privacy: No native has to submit to
such testing. 3) It's reminiscent of collaboration with the Nazis.
4) It's cheap anti-immigrant politics. 5) Genetics has no place in
human rights. Rebuttals: 1) It's voluntary. 2) It's free. 3) It's
needed only when you can't produce other good evidence of a
family relationship. 4) Eleven other European countries do it, so
what's the big deal? 5) We'll try it for 18 months and drop it if
it's a problem. 6) We'll just test maternity, to spare you the pain
of discovering that your dad isn't really your dad. (Related:
previous update on the French proposal.)
The new vice debate is whether to lower the drinking age from
21 to 18. A group seeking to lower the age is under attack from
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National Transportation
Safety Board, the American Medical Association, and the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Arguments for 21: 1) It
prevents deaths from drunk driving. 2) It prevents binge
drinking. 3) Young people's brains aren't fully formed, so they're
more susceptible to alcohol. 4) It protects them from pressure to
drink. 5) It saves taxpayers billions in medical costs and lost
productivity. 6) The polls are on our side. Arguments for 18: 1)
The data on drunk driving are debatable. 2) Excess, not age,
should be the issue. 3) The current drinking age "has forced
drinking underground," which results in binge drinking. 4) Other
countries have lower drinking ages without harm. 5) If
competence to drink requires a fully formed brain, set the age at
25, not 21. 6) If saving lives is paramount, why not "mandatory
injections of alcohol for men between the ages of 50 and 65"?
(Related: Rethinking the age of sexual consent.) Human
Nature's view: Lower the drinking age and punish impaired
driving more severely.
Latest Human Nature columns: 1) The lessons of Iraq. 2)
Rethinking the age of consent. 3) The best sex stories of 2007. 4)
Are conservatives stupid? 5) Larry Craig's anti-gay hypocrisy.
6) The jihad against tobacco. 7) Fat lies and fat lies revisited. 8)
Liberals and bioethics. 9) Recombining man and beast. 10) The
spread of virgin births.
juicy bits
The Condensed Bill and Hillary
Slate reads For Love of Politics so you don't have to.
By Juliet Lapidos
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 5:15 PM ET
Sally Bedell Smith's Grace and Power, a tell-all biography of
John and Jackie Kennedy's private life, was one of the hottest
books of 2004. Her new book on Bill and Hillary Clinton is a
disappointing follow-up. There are no jaw-dropping revelations
in For Love of Politics, and those well-versed in Clinton gossip
may recognize quite a few anecdotes from George
Stephanopoulos' All Too Human or Dick Morris' Behind the
Oval Office. But fear not—Slate's reading guide will save you
the effort and take you straight to the good parts.
Bill's Wandering Eye
Page 224: A source told Smith that, at a 1993 Clinton fund-raiser
in New York, Hillary didn't want actress Sharon Stone sitting
next to her husband. Bill's senior staff designated another
woman for the seat, "but Bill arranged to have Stone take her
place."
Page 225: Laura Tyson, one-time director of the National
Economic Council, told Smith that then-Turkish Prime Minister
Tansu Çiller caused a stir when she came to the White House
back in April 1995. Çiller was "a huge flirt" who "would hang
onto a man's every word." Bill went a bit gaga, telling his
advisers: "Clearly if she asks for something, we are going to
have to give it to her." The unnamed advisers then "chimed in
their own versions of how they would 'give it to her.' "
Page 262: At a farewell party for Laura Tyson, who was
stepping down as director of the National Economic Council,
Bill made a casual pass. Tyson shared the following snippet of
conversation with Smith:
"Laura, you're the kind of girl back when I was
in college I would have tried to get drunk."
"In college, I might have let you."
How Hillary Dealt With Bill's Wandering Eye
Page 136: When the American Spectator reported that Arkansas
state troopers had helped Bill hook up on the sly, Hillary
formulated the defense strategy. Former White House press
secretary Dee Dee Myers told Smith that Hillary would "go after
specific things about the story—dates and times. Attack the
motives and the details."
Page 226: Smith alleges that Evelyn Lieberman, one-time deputy
chief of staff, "functioned as 'the enforcer' of West Wing
decorum." According to another former press secretary, Mike
McCurry, Lieberman "would send interns home if their skirts
were too short." Alas, it seems that one intern escaped her
attention.
Family Ties
Page 45: Tommy Caplan, Bill's Georgetown roommate, told
Smith that Virginia Clinton Kelley was pretty pushy at the
Arkansas Ball shortly after her son's inauguration. She ordered a
Chivas Regal on the rocks, but the waiter told her there was no
hard liquor. She replied, "Let me get this straight. My son was
inaugurated President of the United States, and I can't have a
drink?" A couple aides obligingly "arranged for a bottle of
Chivas to be purchased at a nearby liquor store."
Page 71: If Bill treated the White House like a singles club,
Hillary's brother Hughie treated it like a dorm. A longtime friend
of Hillary's told Smith: "Hughie [Rodham] would show up in the
worst outfits. … He weighs three hundred pounds, and he would
be wearing shorts with golf balls on them and a T-shirt. He
would sit in the Solarium, and Hillary wouldn't bat an eyelash.
People would come all dressed up for dinner, and Hughie would
waddle up in his shorts and fall asleep."
Page 300: A former classmate of Chelsea's told Smith that
Chelsea first heard about the Lewinsky story on the Washington
Post Web site. Then Hillary called to say, "You need to push
through this. These people are telling lies. You have heard this
all your life." Shortly thereafter, Jesse Jackson gave the first
daughter a buzz and delivered a similar message "about a rightwing conspiracy, and her father being victimized."
Page 303: A senior White House official told Smith that Bill had
been "seriously considering leveling with the American people"
right after the Lewinsky scandal broke. So, what happened?
Sidney Blumenthal, convinced of the president's innocence,
advised him to hang tough.
The 2000 Election
Page 422: In September 2000, when Al was running for
president and Hillary was making her first Senate bid, the two
bickered over who would announce the results of a juicy Federal
Trade Commission report on violence in the media. Former
domestic-policy adviser Bruce Reed (who's now a Slate blogger)
told Smith that the FTC was supposed to release the report first
and then each campaign would comment separately. But Al
betrayed Hillary by gabbing about the report to the New York
Times ahead of schedule.
Page 385: Investment banker Sandy Robertson told Smith that
Bill didn't have much confidence in Al's 2000 prospects. When
Robertson spent the night in the Lincoln Bedroom, Bill gossiped
about his VP's political deficiencies and then said, "I've been
working with him to get him to loosen up."
jurisprudence
Behind Every Successful Man …
American Lawbreaking
Illegal immigration.
Page 166: During a 1994 National Governors Association
address, Bill wavered on universal health care, but he retracted
his comments just one day later. What happened? Former
Secretary of Health Donna Shalala told Smith that Hillary gave
Bill a dressing-down. "What the fuck are you doing up there?"
she screamed over the phone. "I want to see you as soon as you
get back."
Page 253: Bubba considered vetoing the 1996 welfare bill, but
Hillary pushed him into acquiescing. Shalala told Smith that
"Bill was anguished, but Hillary was not torn. … She was flat.
She saw the political reality without the human dimension. If
Hillary had opposed the bill, we would have gotten another
veto."
Monica Lewinsky
By Tim Wu
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM ET
From: Tim Wu
Subject: Introduction
Posted Sunday, October 14, 2007, at 8:03 AM ET
At the federal prosecutor's office in the Southern District of New
York, the staff, over beer and pretzels, used to play a darkly
humorous game. Junior and senior prosecutors would sit around,
and someone would name a random celebrity—say, Mother
Theresa or John Lennon.
It would then be up to the junior prosecutors to figure out a
plausible crime for which to indict him or her. The crimes were
not usually rape, murder, or other crimes you'd see on Law &
Order but rather the incredibly broad yet obscure crimes that
populate the U.S. Code like a kind of jurisprudential minefield:
Crimes like "false statements" (a felony, up to five years),
"obstructing the mails" (five years), or "false pretenses on the
high seas" (also five years). The trick and the skill lay in finding
the more obscure offenses that fit the character of the celebrity
and carried the toughest sentences. The, result, however, was
inevitable: "prison time."
As this story suggests, American law is underenforced—and we
like it that way. Full enforcement of every last law on the books
would put all of us in prison for crimes such as "injuring a mail
bag." No enforcement of our laws, on the other hand, would
mean anarchy. Somehow, officials must choose what laws really
matter.
This series explores the black spots in American law: areas in
which our laws are routinely and regularly broken and where the
law enforcement response is … nothing. These are the areas
where, for one reason or another, we've decided to tolerate
lawbreaking and let a law—duly enacted and still on the
books—lay fallow or near dead.
Why are there dead zones in U.S. law? The answer goes beyond
the simple expense of enforcement but betrays a deeper,
underlying logic. Tolerated lawbreaking is almost always a
response to a political failure—the inability of our political
institutions to adapt to social change or reach a rational
compromise that reflects the interests of the nation and all
concerned parties. That's why the American statutes are full of
laws that no one wants to see fully enforced—or even enforced
at all.
This political failure can happen for many reasons. Sometimes a
law was passed by another generation with different ideas of
right and wrong, but the political will necessary to repeal the law
does not exist. Sometimes, as we'll see with polygamy or
obscenity, the issue is too sensitive to discuss in rational terms.
And sometimes the law as written is a symbol of some behavior
to which we may aspire, which nevertheless remains wholly out
of touch with reality. Whatever the reason, when politics fails,
institutional tolerance of lawbreaking takes over.
There will, of course, always be some lawbreaking that goes
unpunished simply because law enforcement is expensive—not
every shoplifter is caught, and it's not worth expending the
resources to catch every kleptomaniac. But the areas we will
look at here are different: What's going on here is that the parties
all know the law is being broken, accept it, and—while almost
never overtly saying so—both the "criminals" and law
enforcement concede that everyone likes it better that way. The
law in question thus continues to have a formal existence, and,
as we shall see, it may become a kind of zoning ordinance,
enforced only against very public or flagrant behavior. But few,
except sometimes a vocal minority, actually think we'd be better
off if the law were fully enforced.
The importance of understanding why and when we will tolerate
lawbreaking cannot be overstated. Lawyers and journalists spend
most of their time watching the president, Congress, and the
courts as they make law. But tolerance of lawbreaking
constitutes one of the nation's other major—yet most poorly
understood—ways of creating social and legal policy. Almost as
much as the laws that we enact, the lawbreaking to which we
shut our eyes reflects how tolerant U.S. society really is to
individual or group difference. It forms a major part of our
understanding of how the nation deals with what was once called
"vice." While messy, strange, hypocritical, and in a sense
dishonest, widespread tolerance of lawbreaking forms a critical
part of the U.S. legal system as it functions.
From: Tim Wu
Subject: That Other Drug Legalization Movement
Posted Sunday, October 14, 2007, at 8:03 AM ET
The motto of the Web site Erowid Experience Vaults is "You
Cannot Deny the Experiences of Others." Erowid is the Web's
best known site for recording drug experiences. Thousands of
contributors describe in vivid detail their experiences with this or
that pharmaceutical, creating something like a Zagat Guide for
the discriminating drug user.
Erowid makes for an engaging read, if you've ever wondered
what taking PCP is like ("began to feel weird. … my head
detached and wriggled itself backward through some plants").
There are some surprises, such as the commonly noted
observation that heroin is "overrated." But what's particularly
interesting about the Experience Vaults is how many of the
drugs reviewed there aren't actually classic "illegal drugs," like
heroin or cocaine, but rather pharmaceuticals, like Clonazepam.
That's because over the last two decades, the pharmaceutical
industry has developed a full set of substitutes for just about
every illegal narcotic we have. Avoiding the highly charged
politics of "illegal" drugs, the pharmaceutical industry, doctors,
and citizens have thus quietly created the means for Americans
to get at substitutes for almost all the drugs banned in the 20th
century. Through the magic of tolerated use, it's actually the
other drug legalization movement, and it has been much more
successful than the one you read about in the papers.
Since 1970 and the beginning of Nixon's war on drugs, the
Justice Department has regulated drugs likely to be abused under
the Controlled Substances Act, which categorizes such drugs
into five "Schedules." Those in Schedule I—the most tightly
controlled—are supposed to have a "high potential for abuse,"
and "no currently accepted medical use in treatment." These
drugs cannot be prescribed by a doctor. Those in Schedules II
through V can be prescribed, and that is what makes all the
difference.
Since the beginning of the war on drugs, the "formal" drug
decriminalization movement has focused on trying to change the
status of marijuana, often through state referendums. While in
the late 1970s and late 1990s advocates were quite hopeful, the
extent of real legal change they've achieved must be described as
relatively minor. Certainly, several states have passed medical
marijuana laws, which provide doctors and patients with an
immunity when the drug is used for medical purposes. And some
cities, like Seattle, do not arrest people for possessing small
amounts. But there's been no significant change in federal drug
laws, or in the political conversation surrounding them, in
decades. A leading presidential candidate from either party
endorsing a "free weed" movement seems unimaginable. And
beyond marijuana, the drug legalization movement barely even
makes an effort.
That's why drug legalization is happening in a wholly different
way. Over the last two decades, the FDA has become
increasingly open to drugs designed for the treatment of
depression, pain, and anxiety—drugs that are, by their nature,
likely to mimic the banned Schedule I narcotics. Part of this is
the product of a well-documented relaxation of FDA practice
that began under Clinton and has increased under Bush. But
another part is the widespread public acceptance of the idea that
the effects drug users have always been seeking in their illicit
drugs—calmness, lack of pain, and bliss—are now "treatments"
as opposed to recreation. We have reached a point at which it's
commonly understood that when people snort cocaine because
they're depressed or want to function better at work, that's drug
trafficking; but taking antidepressants for similar purposes is
practicing medicine.
This other drug legalization movement is an example of what
theorists call legal avoision. As described by theorist Leon Katz,
the idea is to reach "a forbidden outcome … as a by-product of a
permitted act." In a classic tax shelter, for instance, you do
something perfectly legal (like investing in a business
guaranteed to lose money) in order to reach a result that would
otherwise be illegal (evading taxes). In the drug context, asking
Congress to legalize cocaine or repeal the Controlled Substances
Act of 1970 is a fool's errand. But it's far easier to invent a new
drug, X, with similar effects to cocaine, and ask the FDA to
approve it as a new antidepressant or anxiety treatment. That's
avoision in practice.
Are the new pharmaceuticals really substitutes for narcotics?
The question, of course, is what counts as a substitute, which can
depend not just on chemistry but on how the drug in question is
being used. But as a chemical matter the question seems simple:
In general, pharmaceuticals do the same things to the brain that
the illegal drugs do, though sometimes they do so more gently.
As many have pointed out, drugs like Ritalin and cocaine act in
nearly the exact same manner: Both are dopamine enhancers that
block the ability of neurons to reabsorb dopamine. As a 2001
paper in the Journal of the American Medical Association
concluded, Ritalin "acts much like cocaine." It may go further
than that: Another drug with similar effects is nicotine, leading
Malcolm Gladwell to speculate in The New Yorker that both
Ritalin and cocaine use are our substitutes for smoking
cigarettes. "Among adults," wrote Gladwell, "Ritalin is a drug
that may fill the void left by nicotine." Anecdotally, when used
recreationally, users report that Ritalin makes users alert,
focused, and happy with themselves. Or as one satisfied user
reports on Erowid, "this is the closest pharmaceutical *high* to
street cocaine that I have experienced." In the words of another,
"I felt very happy, and very energetic, and I had this feeling like
everything was right with the world."
The Ritalin/cocaine intersection is but one example. Other
substitutes are opoid-based drugs available in somewhat
legalized versions, with names like Vicodin and OxyContin.*
Clonazepam and valium may not be exact substitutes for
marijuana, but they all seem to attract users seeking the same
mellowing effects and loss of some forms of anxiety. In short,
the differences between pharmaceuticals and illegal drugs may
ultimately be much more social than chemical.
So, as the FDA has licensed chemical substitutes for what were
once thought to be dangerous drugs, does that mean roughly the
same thing as the legalization of cocaine, marijuana, and heroin?
Not exactly. Drugs prescribed are usually taken differently than
recreational drugs, of course, even if at some level the chemical
hit is the same. More broadly, the current program of drug
legalization in the United States is closely and explicitly tied to
the strange economics of the U.S. health-care industry. The
consequence is that how people get their dopamine or other
brain chemicals is ever more explicitly, like the rest of medicine,
tied to questions of class.
Antidepressants and anxiety treatments aren't cheap: A fancy
drug like Wellbutrin can cost anywhere from $1,000 to $2,400 a
year. These drugs also require access to a sympathetic doctor
who will issue a prescription. That's why, generally speaking,
the new legalization program is for better-off Americans. As the
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia
University reports, rich people tend to abuse prescription drugs,
while poorer Americans tend to self-medicate with old-fashioned
illegal drugs or just get drunk.
The big picture reveals a nation that, let's face it, likes drugs:
Expert Joseph Califano estimates that the United States,
representing just 4 percent of the world's population, consumes
nearly two-thirds of the world's recreational drugs. In pursuit of
that habit, the country has, in slow motion, found ways for the
better-off parts of society to use drugs without getting near the
scary drug laws it promulgated in the 20th century. Our parents
and grandparents banned drugs, but the current generation is relegalizing them. That's why Rush Limbaugh, as a drug user, is in
a sense a symbol of our times. He, like many celebrities, is a
recovering addict. But with Limbaugh being somewhat outside
of the 1960s drug culture, the medical marijuana movement was
not for him. Instead, Limbaugh, the addicted culture warrior, has
become the true poster child of the new drug legalization
program.
Correction, Oct. 15, 2007: The original article suggested these
drugs were opium-based. And a punctuation error initially listed
Clonazepam and valium as opium-based drugs rather than
marijuana substitutes. (Return to the corrected sentence.)
From: Tim Wu
Subject: How Laws Die
Posted Monday, October 15, 2007, at 7:29 AM ET
In the Unites States, using a computer to download obscenity is
a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison. Federal law
makes it a crime to use "a computer service" to transport over
state lines "any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book,
pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing,
print, or other matter of indecent character."
Under the plain reading of the statute, most men in the United
States may be felons. Statistics on the downloading of "lewd
pictures" are notoriously unreliable, but according to some
surveys, 70 percent of men have admitted to visiting
pornographic sites at some point. Many such sites are probably
obscene under the Supreme Court's definition of obscenity—that
is, they, according to community standards, "appeal to the
prurient interest," depict "sexual conduct" in an patently
offensive way, and lack "serious literary, artistic, political, and
scientific value."
Today, despite these laws, there are very few prosecutions
centered on mainstream adult pornography. Over the last decade,
and without the repeal of a single law, the United States has
quietly and effectively put its adult obscenity laws into a deep
coma, tolerating their widespread violation with little notice or
fanfare. Today's obscenity enforcement has a new face: It is
targeted against "harmful" porn (that is, child pornography and
highly violent or abusive materials) and "public" porn, or
indecency in the public media. This enormous transformation
has occurred without any formal political action. And it
illuminates just how America changes law in sensitive areas like
obscenity: not so much through action as through neglect.
In 1968, the American pornography industry was new and
shocking, and a "deeply concerned" Congress set up a $2 million
commission to look into the growing problem. In a way that
seems unimaginable today, the commission came back with
findings that were exactly opposite to what Congress wanted to
hear. To what Newsweek then called "the subcommittee's
unconcealed horror," the commission concluded that society, not
pornography, was the issue. "Much of the 'problem,' " wrote the
commission, "stems from the inability or reluctance of people in
our society to be open and direct in dealing with sexual matters."
The commission recommended two legal reforms: repealing all
obscenity laws at the state, local, and federal levels; and
replacing them with new laws to protect children and to control
public display. In short, the commission thought pornography,
kept at home, was fine—it just had to be kept from minors and
out of the public media.
In 1970, when the report came out, President Nixon and other
politicians outdid one another condemning it. Nixon called it
"morally bankrupt" and thundered, "So long as I am in the White
House, there will be no relaxation of the national effort to
control and eliminate smut from our national life." The Senate
voted overwhelmingly to reject the recommendations. As a legal
matter, the commission's ideas were dead on arrival.
But today, and to a remarkable degree, our pornography laws
resemble precisely what the 1970 commission recommended.
Prosecution of mainstream pornography is nearly nonexistent,
and instead, everything is directed toward the protection of
children and the zoning of the public media. Yet the laws haven't
changed at all. So what happened?
Through the 1970s and '80s, prosecution of the producers of
pornography remained vigorous, especially in certain regions.
The Supreme Court had in the 1960s begun to create a formal
legal divide between "indecency" on the one hand, and
"obscenity" on the other—with indecency meaning
"constitutionally protected speech." But in the 1973 case Miller
v. California, Nixon appointee Warren Burger made clear that
"obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment."
There would never be a Supreme Court-led legalization of all
porn, in the same sense that Roe v. Wade legalized abortion.
Prosecutions continued through the Reagan and Bush
administrations, cheered on by the 1986 Meese Commission,
which repudiated most of the conclusions of the 1970
commission.
But in the 1990s, mainstream pornography prosecutions slowed
considerably and came to a near-halt, and statistically 1994 is the
tipping point. That might be expected—President Clinton's
speeches on the evils of sex and smut were infrequent. And, as
Bruce Taylor, one of the nation's most prominent obscenity
prosecutors, once told PBS, "Janet Reno just did not like doing
obscenity cases."
During the Clinton years, says Taylor, porn producers were
"flying high … [thinking] we're invincible, nobody's prosecuting
us. The Justice Department doesn't care what we do. We can
rape, pillage, and plunder, and use everybody up." Consequently,
when the second Bush administration came to power, many
expected a return to the old days. Early on you'd hear comments
like this one, from Attorney General John Ashcroft, who said in
2002, "The Department of Justice is committed unequivocally to
the task of prosecuting obscenity." Obscenity was made a
"priority," and Ashcroft promised Congress a new crackdown on
obscenity of 1950s proportions.
But nothing happened. Instead, adult obscenity prosecutions
declined further during the first Bush term. George W. Bush is
perhaps the most religiously conservative U.S. president in
history. Yet his administration, despite its rhetoric, is looser on
mainstream porn than Jimmy Carter or John F. Kennedy was.
How did that come to be?
Ask prosecutors or former prosecutors to explain and the
conversation is often strained. Some begin by shrugging and
adopting a pained expression. "Those aren't easy cases to bring,"
says one former prosecutor from the Los Angeles office. "Juries
don't like them." But didn't Ashcroft declare fighting
pornography to be a national priority? "That's true," he admits.
Many prosecutors mention 9/11 and also say that given the
enormous influx of all forms of pornography that came with the
Internet in the 1990s, regular pornography simply became the
lesser of several evils. "You deal with the white hot stuff first,"
says Joe DeMarco, formerly a prosecutor in the Southern
District of New York. Or as Andrew DeVore, who also worked
the SDNY, explains, "Child pornography was an obvious and
vicious problem, and in part that's what you react to."
DeMarco also suggests that at some level it doesn't matter who is
president or attorney general; the prosecutors themselves need to
see harm before they'll enforce the law. "No one wants to be
chasing around Playboy or Lady Chatterly's Lover," says
DeMarco. As another former prosecutor told me, "Would you
rather be chasing terrorists, or some guy who reads Hustler?"
DeMarco's and others' views concede a change: While they'll
fight stuff that's violent or involves children, mainstream
pornography—"normal" sex—just doesn't strike prosecutors as
all that harmful and is unlikely to be the subject of any kind of
crackdown. Or as one former prosecutor put it, "When there are
porn films in Holiday Inn or the Hilton, what do you expect?"
The Bush administration has made one last effort to resurrect the
obscenity laws in the mid-2000s. In 2005, newly appointed
Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez—under pressure from
religious conservatives—created an Obscenity Prosecution Task
Force within Main Justice, with the goal of pressuring local
prosecutors to crack down. The result has been an uptick in
cases brought against producers of "extreme" content involving
violence or degradation. But there have been no actual
prosecutions of the mainstream, multibillion-dollar industry,
despite its obvious tension with the law. Hotels still have porn
channels.
The task force faces an uphill battle. In 2005, Alex Acosta, a
loyal Bush Republican, was appointed the new U.S. attorney for
the Southern District of Florida, which includes Miami. He
promptly informed local FBI officials that obscenity would be
his "top priority." The reaction was as close to insubordination
as you'll ever see in the U.S. government. Joining libertarian
groups in complaining to the press were Acosta's own
prosecutors and FBI agents. "Compared to terrorism, public
corruption, and narcotics, [pornography] is no worse than
dropping gum on the sidewalk," said Stephen Bronis, a Miami
defense attorney. The insurrection seems to have worked: The
records for Acosta's district do not reveal many porn
prosecutions.
So, if there's almost no prosecution of regular porn, what is
actually illegal?
First and foremost, the prosecution of child pornography retains
its bitter intensity. Investigators and prosecutors of child
pornography have no doubt about the rightness of their work,
nor, apparently, does the nation. And there are few stories of
juries nullifying child-pornography convictions.
The second area is the public media, which is more zoned than
ever. The famous Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" led to a
record $550,000 fine for CBS. But that was the figurative tit of
the iceberg. Afterward, Congress passed the Broadcast Decency
Enforcement Act of 2005, which raised the "per-incident" fine
for indecency from $27,000 to $325,000. Broadcasters call
today's FCC enforcement the "star chamber," and networks like
Fox privately admit that they face dozens of indecency
prosecutions for material much less racy than what you can find
on a Google image search. Howard Stern's radio show is light
fare by contemporary standards—but it is Stern who was fined
so heavily that he left conventional radio.
What all of these changes reflect are several major shifts in how
the U.S. legal system views depictions of sex. The first reveal an
acceptance of the libertarian idea that private consumption of
nearly any material is not a public harm. That view excepts
children and animals as victims, but not consenting women and
men who have sex before cameras. In that view, the U.S. legal
system has effectively and informally reached the same
conclusion as the 1970 commission: Whether you like it or not,
private consumption of pornography is just not harmful enough
to merit public enforcement.
Yet at the same time, the United States has concluded that it will
not be a place, like Europe, where bared breasts grace bus-stop
billboards or soft-porn films can be found on regular late-night
television. Americans love zoning—compartmentalizing
behavior to designated times or places. It's how a diverse nation
manages to live together. And so our obscenity system—much
of which takes the legal form of an outright ban—is often in
practice being used to move erotic content away from public
places.
But who, exactly, reached all of these conclusions and made
them our de facto law? Not Congress, the courts, or any
individual president. Instead it was a combined product, over
decades, of the decisions of hundreds of prosecutors, FCC
officials, FBI agents, and police officers—all of whom decided
they had better things to do than chase around pornographers the
way they chase murderers. Their consensus—that normal
pornography just isn't harmful in the sense that, say, drugs are—
has driven the current law more so than any official enactment.
There are, by the way, strange consequences to the tolerated
illegality of obscenity. Porn, considered as a regular product, is
strong stuff. Yet it is free of most consumer safety regulation—
the warnings, age limits, or worker safety rules that the
American legal system insists upon for even fairly innocuous
products. The United States is a country where fishing lures can
warn, "Caution: Harmful if swallowed." Yet porn, banned but
nonetheless tolerated, has ironically managed to avoid virtually
all regulation.
The birth of a new law is something the media, lawyers, and
academics pay great attention to. But the decay and death of old
laws can be just as important, even when they're unobserved.
The story of our obscenity laws highlights where, exactly,
American laws go to die.
Tomorrow: How the rules of copyright are selectively
enforced.
From: Tim Wu
Subject: Tolerated Use: The Copyright Problem
Posted Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 7:32 AM ET
What are the most violated laws in the United States?
Traffic laws take first place, perhaps, but your next bet should be
on copyright. Every week, in various ways, you probably violate
the copyright law. How? When, say, you check out old MTV
videos on YouTube. Or if you, bored at work, decide to research
the surprising origins of the character Grimace. Or if you make a
mix CD for a friend or play DVDs at a house party. Each will
lead you into a facial violation of the copyright law, and in
today's world, it's almost unavoidable. But is it a bad thing?
Copyright is the nation's leading system for subsidizing the
creative industries, especially film, television, and book
publishing. Its total evasion can threaten the cultural health of a
country—witness places like Hong Kong, where piracy has
decimated what was once a booming film industry. But, like
many laws, copyright has acute difficulty in adapting to rapid,
real-world change. The politics of copyright policy—
concentrated media companies vs. millions of disorganized
consumers—simply do not lead to balanced legislative
outcomes. Consequently, the copyright law only sometimes
adjusts itself to new challenges in the courts or the legislature.
Instead, in recent years, it is often in copyright-enforcement
practice that change is happening, where tolerance of
lawbreaking has become the main way copyright is adjusting to
the Internet age.
In 2006, shows like Saturday Night Live began to see their skits
dowloaded millions of times on YouTube and other similar Web
sites. That meant both millions of copyright violations and
millions of viewers, prompting very different reactions between
and within large media firms. The legal departments jumped:
"Millions of people are stealing our work!" The marketing
departments responded gleefully: "Wait—millions of people are
watching SNL?" The tradeoff is between control—what lawyers
want—and exposure—what marketing departments crave. And
for media companies that want both at once, there's no easy
answer.
Tim Wu explains how we all violate copyright in this
Slate V video:
The story of Guyz Nite is the perfect illustration of this conflict
within media firms. Guyz Nite is a "comic rock" group that
made a video for its song Die Hard, composed entirely of clips
from the three Die Hard movies, produced by 20th Century Fox.
It was posted on YouTube.
Fox's legal department went first, ordering YouTube to take
down the video, pronto. But then Fox's marketing department
effectively reversed its own lawyers by contacting Guyz Nite
and offering to pay them to put the video back up. You can't
fault Fox's reasoning: The band was creating the kind of viral
marketing you can't buy—intellectual property rules be damned.
In a reversal of fortune, Fox even invited the band to the New
York premiere of the fourth Die Hard film.
The Guyz Nite story is not typical in copyright history. Instead,
there's a more traditional response to the unauthorized use of
copyrighted materials that resembles the instinctive response of
man to mosquito. In the 1960s, for example, the TV broadcast
industry did everything it could to squash the new "community
antenna" (cable TV) industry. In the 1970s, the TV and film
industries despised the new Betamax VTR (the VCR) and tried
their level best to kill the "Japanese invader." And in the early
2000s, the music industry systematically destroyed Napster,
Grokster, and any other company that dared name itself
similarly.
But in the late 2000s, media companies seem to be changing
their tune. Mass, industry-threatening piracy is still never
tolerated. But the tough-guy act typified by the music industry of
the early 2000s, and recently in the case of the $222,000 fine
imposed on Jammie Thomas, may be going out of fashion.
Instead, media companies—particularly in television and film—
are at least sometimes practicing a mellower concept called
"tolerated use." They watch and see whether infringements are
actually harmful or not before sending out their copyright pit
bulls.
Sometimes the industry disagrees. YouTube, as discussed above,
has been the inspiration for massive infringement of the
copyright laws. Whether YouTube itself is actually liable is an
interesting, separate legal question. But even more interesting is
the fact that the media firms are themselves divided as to
whether YouTube is ultimately good or bad for their business.
In 2006, NBC reacted at first to YouTube by telling the
company to take down any infringing videos. But it later
changed its mind and began to actively feed YouTube with what
it hoped might be attractive episodes of Saturday Night Live and
other shows. Viacom has taken the opposite tack—this year it
sued YouTube for more than $1 billion in copyright damages,
and it seems determined to force the company to proactively
block all Viacom content. For Viacom, this is a delicate game—
for if YouTube does block all of Viacom's shows while leaving
up material from NBC, ABC, and other competitors, Viacom
could easily lose by winning.
Fan sites are another example where approaches to copyright
enforcement differ. Such sites cannot help but violate copyright
laws. As they fawn over some person or product, they are almost
certain to use copyrighted content. But it doesn't take a
marketing genius to realize that suing adolescents who worship
your product may not be the ideal way to promote the product.
Take the Leaky Cauldron, a leading Harry Potter fan site. It
features news on the Potter films and books, essays on the works
of J.K. Rowling, and a large gallery of fan art. It is also, at least
to a copyright lawyer, an orgy of copyright infringement—
including massive unauthorized use of characters, images, and
the creation of "derivative works," like fan art. Any lawyer could
find hundreds of thousands of dollars in statutory damages on a
given day. The site itself could be a question on a law school
final exam.
"We are totally aware that we operating at the grace of J.K.
Rowling and Warner Media," says Melissa Anelli, the Web
mistress of the Leaky Cauldron, whom I tracked down on
Facebook, the muggle substitute for the Marauder's Map. Does
she think she's breaking the law? "Strictly speaking, maybe. But
we don't feel that we're breaking the law if J.K. Rowling doesn't
mind what we're doing," she replies. The site, Anelli says,
"empowers a lot of people to become artists and writers and
video makers." And like the boys from Guyz Nite, Anelli's inbox
contains not cease-and-desist letters but rather invites to the
premieres of the Potter films, and the after-parties, too.
In the early days of Harry Potter and other fan sites, no one was
invited to the after-parties. Instead, in 2001, grizzled members of
the intellectual property bar, working for Warner Bros., sent a
barrage of threatening letters to teenage boys and girls,
demanding they take down their sites. One girl, then-16-year-old
Heather Lawver, even set up a "Defense against the Dark Arts"
site to fight overly aggressive copyright enforcement. Those
days are mostly over for the Potter sites, though it's true that not
all Harry Potter fan sites are tolerated. Sites that explore the
erotic side of Potter's world, for instance, are still ordered to
cease and desist. The same goes for large fan sites that sell
unauthorized Potter merchandise, like T-Shirts that say,
"Dumbledore, I'll be your whore."
This spring, at the Max-Planck Institute in Bonn, Germany, I
gave a talk on the phenomenon of tolerated use, and in the
audience was Stanford professor Larry Lessig, a Thomas
Jefferson figure in the information revolution. "So here's what I
want to know," he asked. "Why should we tolerate tolerated
use?" His point: If you care about free expression and the core
reasons for our copyright law—i.e., protecting the artists—why
would you put up with a system that makes something like fan
art illegal and then tries to ignore the problem? Surely the right
answer is to fight for reform of the copyright law: Have the law
declare clearly that most noncommercial activities, like fan sites
and remixes, are simply beyond the reach of the law.
Lessig has a point. It is hard to see how anyone could endorse a
system that declares many inoffensive activities illegal, with the
tacit understanding that the law will usually not be enforced,
leaving sanctions hanging overhead like copyright's own Sword
of Damocles. The symbolic legal message is preposterous:
"Remember, copyright is important, and you're breaking the law
and you may face massive fines. But on the other hand, your site
is totally great, so keep going!"
But there's a reason we do things this way: political failure. The
failure in this case is one of the oldest stories in political
economy. Big media is the kind of politically effective group
that economist Mancur Olson recognized back in the 1960s:
small, well-organized, and with much to gain from government.
Meanwhile, all the people sitting around in basements creating
fan sites and YouTube videos are, to Washington, political
eunuchs—too diffuse and underfunded to exert much influence
on the nation's laws. It all boils down to this: Harry Potter
fanboys don't have K Street representation. Consequently, the
political system spits out one kind of answer—an answer
friendly to the "property interests" of powerful media companies
but one that all but ignores the interests of the basementdwellers. The formal result of that is what we have today: a
copyright law that covers almost everything we do in the digital
world.
But the paradox is that the current law is so expansive and
extreme that the very firms that first sought it cannot even make
use of it. Nor would they want to. In a well-functioning political
system, the copyright law might be reformed in a grand
negotiation between all interested parties, with the long-term
goal of separating out the harmful infringement from the
harmless. But in 21st-century America, that's not a result our
political system is capable of reaching. And that's why, here as
in the rest of the series, we leave it to tolerated lawbreaking to
find some way out.
Tomorrow: How the Amish and the Mormons became a law
unto themselves.
From: Tim Wu
Subject: What Is a Criminal?
Posted Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 7:19 AM ET
What group lives in the greatest defiance of American law?
Criminal organizations like the Mafia or inner-city gangs come
to mind. But if you account for volume and time, otherwise
peaceful religious groups like the Amish or Mormon
fundamentalists are certainly contenders.
The Amish are, as reputed, quiet people. But they have also
consistently dodged many of the U.S. laws scrupulously
followed by other Americans, including labor, Social Security,
and education laws. Meanwhile, Mormon fundamentalists—
splinter groups from the main church—live outside the law, in
some instances violating bigamy, welfare, and sometimes even
statutory-rape laws. As we'll see, the fate of these two groups
before the legal system after 50 years of struggle with the state is
very different. The Amish have "won" in the sense that, for most
of the issues they care about, American law has either changed
or been left unenforced. Mormon fundamentalists, meanwhile,
have settled for zoning: Polygamists are unmolested, provided
they remain with certain geographic limits and stay out of public
view. All this shows how America in this century has used
tolerance of lawbreaking to give more room to groups that want
to live differently.
The Amish are a splinter group of Swiss Anabaptists—Christian
reformists who emerged during the 1500s. They, like other
Anabaptists, sought a return to the original teachings of Jesus
Christ, including the tough parts—loving your enemies, forgoing
violence, and resisting the accumulation of material treasures.
Famously, the Amish today also reject most post-1860s
technologies, from electricity to MySpace.com. Less well know
is that the Amish also refuse to participate in any form of justice
based in retribution, formally living by Jesus' instruction to "turn
the other cheek."
Since migrating to America, the history of the Amish has been
peaceful. But not law-abiding. While they will "give to Caesar
the things that are Caesar's," when push comes to shove the
Amish put the laws of heaven before those of man. While never
violent, they have historically refused to obey many American
laws, including education, zoning, child labor, Social Security,
and conscription laws, among others.
The Amish have long refused to pay Social Security taxes,
which they view as a form of compelled insurance; they also do
not accept the Social Security payments. They will not educate
their children beyond eighth grade, regardless of mandatory
education laws. Teenagers are expected to work in fields and
shops, whatever the child-labor laws may say. Some, including
investigative journalist Nadya Labi, document allegations that
sexual abuse is widespread in Amish communities and that state
intervention is minimal. It all adds up to a degree of widespread
tolerated lawbreaking that would likely lead other Americans to
prison.
The Mormon fundamentalists splintered from the main Church
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the 1920s, after the main
church renounced "plural marriage" or polygamy. The
capitulation of the main church was the consequence of a long
and aggressive federal campaign against the Mormons in Utah
that, much like the war on slavery, at some points involved the
federal army. Thousands of Mormons were arrested for
polygamy, and Mormons were effectively banned from holding
government positions. Under the weight of all that federal
coercion, the Mormon church renounced polygamy in 1890, and
by the 1910s it had begun excommunicating active practitioners
of plural marriage.
The capitulation of the main Mormon church led to the founding
of fundamentalist groups that, like the Amish, disagreed with
what they saw as deviations from original doctrine. Most
notably, that means some fundamentalist Mormon groups
continue to believe in plural marriage as holy. It also can mean
adherence to other doctrines abandoned by the main church,
including the law of consecration, which demands dedication of
property to the church. Living by the original rules, the
fundamentalists moved to remote areas of Utah and Arizona,
where they remain today, practicing plural marriage and, often,
communal property systems.
Should lawbreaking by the Amish and fundamentalist Mormons
be tolerated? During the 20th century, federal and state officials
often answered "no" for both groups. Thus, in the 1950s, the IRS
began trying to collect Social Security payments from the
Amish. In one famous incident in 1961, three IRS agents seized
the plow horses of an Amish farmer named Valentine Byler,
auctioned them off, paid off his taxes, and then sent him his
$37.89 in change. Later, in the 1960s, Amish parents were
arrested, fined, and imprisoned for taking their children out of
schools, until in 1972 the Supreme Court declared leaving
school at age 13 to be protected as the free exercise of religion.
But today, relations between the Amish and the state are
generally stable and low-key. There remain some laws with
which state and federal officials still demand full compliance,
largely concerning threats to the outside community. For
example, states have insisted upon—and largely succeeded in—
forcing the Amish to put reflectors (if not lights) on their horsedrawn carriages to prevent traffic accidents.
But those laws whose violation hold consequences for the Amish
alone are today by and large left unenforced. In some instances,
this is because the government and the Amish have explicitly
settled their differences by working out special compromises.
(The Amish refusal to pay Social Security has, since 1988, been
legalized pursuant to a special congressional exemption. The
Amish also won an exemption from child labor laws in the mid2000s.) But in other circumstances, local police and law
enforcement officials have simply given up. For example, in the
1980s, Pennsylvania began to insist that Amish teachers have at
least three years of high-school education and state certification.
The Amish didn't comply, and eventually the state folded.
The story of the Mormon fundamentalists is more violent, and
much less settled. In the 1930s and '40s, enforcement against the
splinter groups was sporadic. That changed in 1953, when
Arizona Gov. J. Howard Pyle announced what he called a
"police action against insurrection." He directed more than 100
police officers to raid and arrest an entire polygamous settlement
in what was then the town of Short Creek, Ariz. The settlement,
said Pyle, was "dedicated to the production of white slaves."
Officers arrested every adult and took more than 200 children
into custody to send a message to all such groups.
The governor probably expected a victory parade. But to his
undoubted surprise, the raid led to a popular backlash, premised
on the injustice of seizing children and removing them from
their families. Photos of the community, published in LIFE
magazine, made the group look like innocent victims. The 1953
raid in fact became a turning point in the opposite direction from
that which was intended. After Short Creek, state officials never
again attempted the kinds of mass arrests that had forced the
main church into submission in the 19th century. Instead, over
the last 50 years, enforcement of polygamy laws has been rare in
Utah and Arizona—at least when the groups stay discreet.
In 1989, a Mormon fundamentalist named Tom Green went on
the Sally Jessy Raphael show to discuss and defend his
polygamous lifestyle. He went from there to Queen Latifah,
Jerry Springer, and finally to prison, when in 2001 he was
arrested, tried, and found guilty of bigamy, criminal nonsupport,
and statutory rape. Likewise, in 2005, Warren Jeffs came to
national attention as the grandstanding leader of a
fundamentalist group in Colorado City, Ariz., where he called
himself a prophet and reportedly married more than 70 women,
including many of his father's ex-wives. Jeffs was arrested in
August 2006 and charged with "accomplice rape," for
facilitating the marriage of underage girls. These kinds of
enforcement actions are the current face of law enforcement
against Mormon fundamentalists. They are targeted only at open
or particularly flagrant polygamists who violate other laws as
well. And they are directed primarily at the abuse of minors
instead of plural marriage itself.
That's why at least one polygamous group celebrated the arrest
of Warren Jeffs as a relief for "normal polygamists." Mark
Henkel, founder of the national "Christian polygamy"
organization TruthBearer.org, argued in a press release that "
'normal' pro-polygamists should no longer be libelously smeared
by any implied association with Jeffs and his abhorrent variant
of Mormon polygamy." These enforcement actions are thus a
form of informal zoning: Polygamy itself will not be punished,
so long as it's discreet, but abusive or public polygamy crosses
the line. So only a tiny fraction of polygamists are punished; for
while estimates may be unreliable, most seem to agree that there
are more than 30,000 people living in fundamentalist
communities of one kind or another.
In these stories of the Amish and fundamentalist Mormons, we
see a form of tolerated lawbreaking different from what we have
seen before. What the Amish and the fundamentalist Mormons
want is not freedom from all laws. Rather, they want, as a group,
to live by laws different than those that govern the rest of the
state or nation. They want group rights against the nation's laws.
Such group rights are a challenge for a legal system centered on
the individual. The U.S. legal and political systems, when
dealing with group rights, do so only awkwardly. The states, as
political units, are meant to stand in for differing preferences of
the people who live there. But states are rarely good proxies for
tightknit religious communities like the Amish. States are just
too big and roughly drawn—even a small state like Rhode Island
includes so many different groups it cannot reflect a true
political community in a coherent way.
Sometimes (though more rarely in recent decades) the Supreme
Court creates a group right by giving a religious or other group
the right, under the First Amendment, to ignore a law that others
must follow. In 1972, the court thus gave the Amish an
exception to laws mandating high-school education in Yoder v.
Wisconsin. But such exceptions are unpredictable and seem to
depend on the popularity of the group in question. In 1878, when
the Mormons claimed a group right to plural marriage, the
Supreme Court said "no dice." On the other hand, the Boy
Scouts of America, the Supreme Court held in 2000, have the
right to fire Scoutmasters for being gay, despite state antidiscrimination laws. In contrast, when Oregon police arrested
men using peyote as part of a Native American religious
ceremony, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding the
First Amendment no defense to a law of "general applicability."
In short, the Amish and the Boy Scouts were given a group right
to break the law that the Mormons and Indians were not. The
First Amendment is a fickle source of group rights.
These formal legal mechanisms can create important legal space
for some groups who want to live differently. But they don't
quite give the Amish everything they want and they certainly
don't work for the Mormon fundamentalists. Consequently,
tolerance of lawbreaking creates a more radical form of
deviation from uniform national rules. It is by nature messy,
awkward, and informal. But it is the de facto bargain we've
reached, creating a legal system that allows the Amish to be not
just different in the ways Texans are, but different like, well, the
Amish; and it's this system that lets the Mormon fundamentalists
exist at all.
There is a conspicuous difference in our tolerance of Amish and
fundamentalist Mormon lawbreaking. The Amish have
successfully avoided the law—they do not evade it. Their
practices, or most of them, are open, and they live in peace. But
the fundamentalist Mormons groups are in a state of evasion.
The ban on bigamy functions as a zoning ordinance: Plural
marriage is fine in isolated communities, but not in Salt Lake
City, and certainly not on TV talk shows, as Tom Green found.
So long as the fundamentalists remain in hiding, the extreme
ugliness of conducting raids creates a form of tolerance. They
are thus in a "don't ask, don't tell" state of legal limbo that could
break open at any time. They are outside the law in a different
way.
That strangeness leads some, like Minnesota law professor
Shayna Sigman, to argue that polygamy ought to be
decriminalized, so as better to focus on the abuse of children in
fundamentalist Mormon communities. Yet the chances of that
happening seem remote at best. It might make sense, in an ideal
legal system, to have a system of group rights that makes it clear
what can be tolerated and what cannot. It might be better, if
that's what we really want, to clearly zone practices that the
majority finds perverse—you're free to do that behind closed
doors, but don't let anyone know about it. Yet the hypocrisy,
strangeness, and complexity of such a law, and the kind of
political conversation necessary to sustain it, seem impossible to
imagine in the United States. That's why tolerance of
lawbreaking is the way this nation deals with some of its most
sensitive questions of religion, marriage, and group difference.
Tomorrow: How immigration laws might have been taken
seriously.
From: Tim Wu
Subject: Illegal Immigration
Posted Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 7:40 AM ET
On Aug. 10, 2007, the Bush administration announced that it
would try something no modern administration has succeeded in
doing: enforcing the immigration laws. More specifically, the
administration wants to institute serious fines for any employer
who fails to fire workers lacking legitimate Social Security
numbers. If Bush's plan is ever implemented, it will require the
sacking of millions. Don't hold your breath. The administration
is trying to get at one of America's favorite instances of tolerated
lawbreaking: our de facto guest-worker program, created by the
nonenforcement of immigration laws. And while no one will
admit it, our current system is popular enough that his effort
seems destined to fail.
For the last several decades, internal enforcement of the
immigration laws has been, by and large, sporadic and symbolic.
In 2004, the number of fines issued against domestic employers
for employing illegal immigrants was a grand total of three.
Politicians usually prefer to talk about "securing our borders," a
method of stopping illegal immigration that has great advantages
for all concerned. It sounds tough. It's easy to fund. And it
doesn't deprive us of any of the benefits of illegal immigration,
because it doesn't work. In fact, it's such a laughably ineffective
way to deter illegal immigration that it almost seems designed to
fail.
The enforcement math at play here is simple and mainly
uncontested. There are millions of illegal immigrants already in
the United States, millions more people who might enter, and
millions of potential weak spots along the borders. These
numbers make border enforcement a fruitless way of trying to
"stop" illegal immigration.
Many illegal immigrants get to the United States on visas they
overstay, bypassing the border altogether. Border enforcement
can even be counterproductive, because it discourages those
illegal immigrants who find themselves inside the country from
ever trying to leave. And even when border agents catch people,
it cannot be anything but a system of "catch and release," unless
the United States is willing to open a Guantanamo prison
complex the size of Rhode Island.
Studies and statistics suggest that the net impact of border
enforcement on total immigration rates has been something close
to zero—making it more like a cultural subsidy than law
enforcement. Despite the great increases in border enforcement
in the 1980s and 1990s, there has been no measurable effect on
the rate at which the illegal immigration population in the United
States is growing. It is the classic example of applying a
teaspoon solution to an ocean problem.
Meanwhile, employers and contractors are a much more obvious
and logical target for a serious enforcement strategy. The
number of employers who hire large numbers of illegals is not in
the millions, but in the tens of thousands. Employers are large,
sensitive to fines and threats of imprisonment, and tend stay in
one place. Basic enforcement theory—the theory of "gatekeeper
enforcement"—clearly suggests targeting the few, not the many.
Gatekeeper enforcement is what government does when it
actually wants to stop something illegal from happening.
So why has the United States chosen a method—border
enforcement—that's less effective than zealous domestic
prosecution? If we thought illegal immigration was really a bad
thing—if, say, the problem were the unlawful arrival not of
workers, but of disease-bearing chickens—the government
might rapidly deploy the most effective form of enforcement,
with the support of all parts of society. But instead the nation
tolerates illegal immigration to create a de facto guest-worker
program. Immigration is what economists call "trade in
services," and effective enforcement would make most services
more expensive, just as blockading China would make many
goods more expensive. It can be tough on low-wage workers,
but the United States is richer overall because we get cheaper
labor, while Mexicans and other workers are richer for selling it.
If all this is true, isn't creating a legalized guest-worker program
the right thing to do? That's where political failure kicks in, for
the political discussion of immigration policy is both inflamed
and insane. The Republican Party is split between free traders
and nativists, and the latter are much more vocal. Many in the
Democratic Party—loyal to organized labor on this point—go
nuts when it comes to guest-worker programs. Illegal
immigrants themselves don't have representation. It all adds up
to a big political zero.
Under the de facto guest-worker system, the United States gets
to have its cake and eat it too. We receive all the advantages of
cheap labor without the duties of having new citizens. We don't
actually have to pass an unpopular or complex law. Elected
officials and talk-radio hosts get to talk tough about "securing
the border" which is tough on the actual migrants, but doesn't
raise any actual danger of halting illegal immigration, hurting
the economy, or displeasing large employers. And grown men
get to fly giant model airplanes in the desert to "patrol" the
Mexican border. Hypocrisy, in short, has its comforts.
Immigration policy is perhaps the strongest example of the ways
in which tolerated lawbreaking is used to make the legal system
closer to what lies in the economic interests of the nation but
cannot be achieved by rational politics. All this is why the Bush
administration faces an uphill battle in the course of trying a real
internal enforcement strategy. My bet is that internal
enforcement will be stopped somehow, someway. Let's be
honest: We'll never say it, but this country must love illegal
immigration.
jurisprudence
Rebound Relationship
The Senate runs into the arms of Michael Mukasey.
By Emily Bazelon
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 7:01 PM ET
Senate hearings are at their worst, perhaps, when the senators
have agreed in advance on a cheery outcome, and they're willing
to accept the reality as defined by the guy in the witness chair to
get it. Today, we have senators falling over themselves not only
to signal their respect for Michael Mukasey, the president's pick
for attorney general, but also to thank him for deigning to take
the job. Pretty much all they need to make sure of today is that
Mukasey is not Alberto Gonzales. Check. Vote to confirm.
Mukasey disarms the Democrats from the start by offering
concessions they have been waiting for lo these long seven
years. In his opening statement, he says, "Protecting civil
liberties, and people's confidence that they are protected, is part
of protecting national security." This is either a platitude or a
repudiation of the administration's entire hawkish outlook. In an
effort to push Mukasey further down the latter path, Sen. Patrick
Leahy, D-Vt., asks him about "the so-called Bybee memo"—the
2002 opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel that approved a
whole range of coercive tactics, such as waterboarding, by
insisting that torture isn't torture unless it causes physical
damage amounting to "death, organ failure or the permanent
impairment of a bodily function." What does Mukasey think
about this defining-down of torture? "The Bybee memo was
worse than a sin, it was a mistake," the nominee says. "It was
unnecessary."
Leahy likes this answer. He asks if Mukasey repudiates the
memo as contrary to law and also to "the values this country
stands for." Mukasey replies, "I do." Ringbearer, please.
But the Mukasey-Senate love match doesn't go all that deep.
Leahy next asks about the secret February 2005 memos signed
by Gonzales, which re-loosened the reins on interrogators.
(According to the New York Times, which broke the story, the
memo approved tactics including head-slapping, freezing
temperatures, and waterboarding again.) Unlike the Bybee
memo, the 2005 opinions are still law. And here Mukaskey
won't say he's planning to change that. "I'm certainly going to
examine the underlying memos and the underlying facts," he
answers. "But I have not been read in—I think that's the
Washington expression—to any of the classified information"
relating to interrogation.
This is a punt. It is also exactly the right move for him, because
the senators can't do anything about it. Many such moments
follow. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., asks Mukasey about the right
to habeas corpus, to go in front of a judge if you're being
detained indefinitely. Does Mukasey think the Guantanamo
detainees have a constitutional right to their day in court, even
though Congress limited their habeas rights last year?
Mukasey isn't going down that road, either. "That question is
squarely before the court in Boumediene," he says, referring to
the Supreme Court's upcoming Guantanamo case this term.
"You're punting now," Specter chides.
"That's right," Mukasey says. The Justice Department has filed
briefs in Boumediene, he continues, and he thinks that's reason
for him not to answer.
"I filed a brief, too. That doesn't mean anything," Specter retorts.
He knows he's supposed to make nice, but apparently he can't
quite help himself. Nor should he—there is no reason Mukasey
can't answer this question. He's not a Supreme Court nominee
who'd be tipping his hand about how he'd rule in a future case.
The Justice Department he's about to head up is fighting
Boumediene's efforts to get into court as hard as it can. If
Mukasey disagreed with that stance, he'd never have been tapped
for this job. So why can't he announce the legal argument his
soon-to-be lawyers are making?
He can't, because he doesn't have to. The senators are in
Gonzales recovery and they will go for anything just short of
lying, forgetting, and stonewalling. Sen. Russ Feingold, DWisc., asks some of the day's best questions. But then comes the
smooch: "I don't agree with everything you say, but I will
certainly say that this is a much more responsive nominee than
the previous witness." Everything is relative: Mukasey speaks in
the ringing yet calm tones of the supremely confident trial judge
he was until his recent retirement. He doesn't say black is white.
And so he's gold. It doesn't matter that the senators have gained
few, if any, concrete assurances about indefinite detention,
warrantless surveillance, or torture, in the usual meaning of the
word.
What the senators get in exchange for their deference is the
nominee's reassurance that Vice President Dick Cheney and his
counsel, David Addington, are no longer going to run the Justice
Department while the attorney general sits by. You can feel the
institutional sigh of relief as Mukasey makes clear that he's not
planning constant end runs around them in the name of
expanding the president's authority. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.,
asks about Congress' constitutional powers regarding military
actions, and Mukasey says, "Congress has to provide the tools to
the president. Where the provision of tools begins and the
president's powers leave off is not something I ever want to see
definitively settled because of a conflict between the two
branches." Later, he adds, "Each branch has understood that
push can't come to shove with regard to certain issues."
In other words, Mukasey doesn't live solely to make Congress
irrelevant. Compared with Cheney and Addington, he's got a
lesser appetite for executive power for the sake of power.
"Unilateralism across the board is a bad idea," he tells Charles
Schumer, D-N.Y. He promises that if DoJ and the president try
to establish a separate national security court for the
Guantanamo detainees—one that would not be subject to the
same constitutional constraints as the federal courts—they'll go
to Congress for approval first. The senators will be read in.
Of course, as Mukasey flatly states, he'd have no choice in the
matter: Only Congress has the power to establish new courts. So
how meaningful are his ringing truths? What will change
because Mukasey has said, calm and clear, "It is unlawful to
subject detainees to cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment?"
What's the significance of his saying of Jack Goldsmith's recent
book, which strongly criticizes the Gonzales DoJ, "It was
superb. I couldn't put it down," or of agreeing that James Comey,
the former deputy attorney general, stands for "legal and ethical
excellence?"
All of this certainly isn't nothing. It is different from what
Gonzales came to represent. Mukasey is putting as much
distance as possible between himself and the worst excesses of
Gonzales' shell of a department. Attorney General Mukasey will
be the boss, not a "potted plant," as Schumer puts it, with relish.
The question is how much the new AG will be a boss who
agrees with much of what the president wants to do in the time
remaining to him. Clues come from Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill.,
who spices up the proceedings when he quotes Mukasey's
utterances during an early meeting between the two of them.
"You said, 'there's a whole lot of room between pretty please and
torture,' " Durbin says. And "you said there could be a point
where the president" has the authority to override a statute. And
"you said, about Guantanamo, 'they get three hots and a cot
there, and better health care than many Americans.' "
This claim—a version of "the dog ate our record"—is triply
sickening in light of the fact that some of the detainees at Gitmo
have reportedly undergone not one, not two, but three CSRTs,
because the Pentagon kept demanding that they be retried over
and over again until they were found guilty.
Mukasey doesn't look pleased to be reminded of any of those
lines. He has since mastered more soothing ones. But if you read
what he's written, and look at his record, he sounds like the same
self who had Durbin rightly worried. For once, I'm with the
women in the pink crowns and T-shirts, the ones who yell out at
the end of the morning session, "Bush lies. We torture." It's the
reality outside the room that's been missing from the outset. It
deserves to come in.
My problem here is not just that everything we now know about
the evidence used against many of the detainees at Guantanamo
suggests that they tended to lay blame on one another after
multiple rounds of torture. My worry is that secret evidence that
is obtained illegally is not just a Gitmo phenomenon anymore.
There is no doubt that the same kinds of flimsy claims that put
away folks at Guantanamo have supported massive dragnets
against American citizens as well. A regime of recklessly
overutilized administrative subpoenas known as national
security letters and widespread government eavesdropping
means that the same sorts of thin factual records that built these
seemingly airtight cases against the "enemy combatants," are
also building up the record against the rest of us.
jurisprudence
The Dog Ate My Evidence
By Dahlia Lithwick
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 7:01 PM ET
I know, I know. You think that what happens at Gitmo stays at
Gitmo. Maybe. But the only thing more terrifying than
convictions based on secret evidence is the possibility that when
it comes time to fight those convictions, the secret evidence
might just disappear.
Let me get this straight: The reason the Justice Department is
contemplating redoing the "Combatant Status Review Tribunals"
used in 2004-05 to label virtually everyone at Guantanamo Bay
an "enemy combatant" is not that it concedes the original
hearings were flawed, biased, or relied on evidence obtained by
torture. The real reason the government might just be open to
convening new CSRTs for the detainees is to get around a
looming court-imposed deadline. If DoJ doesn't do something
quickly, it will be required to finally share with the prisoners'
attorneys the secret evidence it has used to hold these guys for
all these years. Having told the courts it won't turn over those
records, the government is now telling the court it can't.
This morning's paper reveals, for instance, that noble Verizon,
pitching in on the fight against terror, admitted to having turned
over American citizens' phone records to the government on
hundreds of occasions, and that the FBI tried to use
administrative subpoenas to gain information not just about
specifics calls, but on everyone in everyone else's calling circle.
(The phone companies take the position that it's not their job—or
even their lawyers' job—to second-guess the president if he says
he needs our private information. Question: Whose job is it to
second-guess the president?)
What happens when the government can't re-create the case against you?
Thus, in a petition filed last Friday in the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals, the DoJ argues that it cannot possibly comply with the
federal appeals court's order of last July to turn over this
evidence. Reasoning: 1) Disclosure could "seriously disrupt the
Nation's intelligence-gathering programs" and cause
"exceptionally grave damage to national security." No surprise
there. But it also argues that 2) the information used against the
detainees at the CSRTs "is not readily available, nor can it be
reasonably recompiled."
Is the government taking the position that this evidence is both
critically, vitally, and hugely important to national security, but
also, um, lost? Not quite. But it is saying that the "record" relied
upon to lock up men for years is somehow so scattered among
various Department of Defense "components, and all relevant
federal agencies" that it cannot be pulled together for a review.
These are not just a handful of warrantless subpoenas. As
Christy Hardin Smith observes, "multiply that across every
telecommunications company in the United States and the
number of years that the Bush Administration has been endrunning the FISA court altogether" and you suddenly have a
massive amount of personal information, demanded in secret and
turned over in secret, and socked away, shared with who knows
which "component and relevant federal agency," with some of us
swept into the mix because somebody once called to sell us a
raffle ticket.
Oh, and it's not just the phone companies. New revelations from
the ACLU and EFF show that the same NSLs used at Verizon
have been used by the Defense Department to spy on Americans
as well. Following a massive FOIA dump, and having studied
more than 455 NSLs, the DoD now "seems to have collaborated
with the FBI to circumvent the law, may have overstepped its
legal authority to obtain financial and credit records, provided
misleading information to Congress, and silenced NSL
recipients from speaking out about the records requests." In yet
one more example of Government Without Borders, it now
appears the DoD was colluding with the FBI to violate its own
internal surveillance rules. And who was the DoD investigating?
"Potential terror threats posed by people directly connected to
the Defense Department, including civilian employees,
contractors, active duty troops, reservists and their families."
In short, the military was gaining access to Americans' private
information using powers the government's own auditors have
acknowledged to be both abusive and illegal. The NSL provision
of the Patriot Act was struck down by a federal judge last month.
But as old spy programs die, new ones tend to rise up out of the
ashes. And I suddenly find myself in the peculiar position of not
knowing whether it's better if the government holds on to all that
secret information it's been collecting, or if it gets lost.
The real paradox is this: The same Justice Department that's
secretly and illegally collecting all these reams of personal
information about us now informs the federal appeals courts that
it cannot possibly pull together all the voluminous secret files
used to condemn the prisoners to a life spent in shackles at
Guantanamo. You may want to remember this as you let the
newest NSL scandals wash over you (and as the Congress
prepares to grant the phone companies immunity for cooperating
in these warrantless witch hunts). The biggest problem with
illegally obtained secret evidence is that if and when you ever
get a chance to see it and test it in a court of law, you may
already be in jail, and the evidence used to put you there may be
scattered to the winds.
jurisprudence
Don't Hang the Ref
The CIA's inspector general must be free to do his job.
By Patrick Radden Keefe
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 5:36 PM ET
"I didn't get paid to make legal decisions," former CIA officer
Michael Scheuer told a congressional panel last spring during
testimony on unsavory agency practices like extraordinary
rendition. "I got paid to protect Americans." Scheuer has a
predilection for this sort of macho straight talk. It's a sentiment
one often hears from those who have had to wage the war on
terror firsthand: You suits can quibble about the rules, we spies
have to think about results. The division of labor may not be a
bad thing. Spy agencies should be as zealous as possible in
defending the country, even to the point where they chafe at the
constraints placed upon them. Independent oversight bodies
should set—and uphold—those constraints. Some measure of
tension between the two is not just natural, it's productive.
But last week, that tension boiled over when CIA director
Michael Hayden launched an investigation into his own agency's
inspector general, John Helgerson. Hayden's move to watch the
CIA's watchdog is deeply misguided—an effort to neutralize one
of the few vestiges of meaningful oversight at the agency, and
leave the "legal decisions" to the spies themselves. The
intelligence scandals of the past six years, and Mike Hayden's
career in particular, demonstrate that this would be a grave
mistake.
In Hayden's defense, nobody likes an inspector general. "He is
but one man and must correct many, and therefore he cannot be
beloved," the Martial Laws of 1629, which first established the
office in the military, observed. Like internal affairs
investigators in movies about crooked cops, federal IG's are at
best ignored and more often loathed by the rank and file. And
Helgerson and his staff had been courting particular resentment
in recent years. A career agency officer, Helgerson assumed the
post in 2002, and his tenure coincided with a period of abuses
and controversy—from torture and coercive interrogation of
detainees, to extraordinary rendition, to secret "black site"
prisons in Europe—like none the agency had experienced since
the Watergate era. In 2004, the IG warned that some of the
agency's interrogation techniques might violate the Convention
Against Torture. More recently, his staff produced a report on
CIA failures leading up to 9/11 (a report that Hayden tried to
suppress and George Tenet declared "flat wrong"). Hayden's
inquisition comes just as the office is finishing a major report on
rendition.
Distaste for Helgerson ran highest in the agency's National
Clandestine Service (formerly known as the Directorate of
Operations)—the front-line human intelligence gatherers who
assume identities and run covert operations and assets. For these
shadowy professionals, protracted internal investigations are
understandably alarming. If a particular practice is authorized by
Langley, and approved by the agency's general counsel, an
operator wants to believe that he can proceed without the risk
that down the line, a second review by the IG may find that he
broke the law. Moreover, being the subject of an internal
investigation can freeze an officer's career prospects, halting any
promotion until the investigation is concluded. Helgerson's
investigations sometimes dragged on for years.
Hayden has been credited with restoring some of the morale
among the HUMINT ranks, and in this instance, he seems to
have taken up their cause. Remember also that Hayden is the
new boss at the agency; more than one spook-turnedcommentator hints that going after Helgerson might amount to a
ham-handed effort to win over the cool kids.
But while morale is unquestionably a crucial issue, let's not lose
sight of what is actually happening here: Helgerson is being
upbraided for … doing his job. One senior intelligence official
complained to the Washington Post that Helgerson has "a
prosecutorial mentality." But shouldn't he, when the CIA stands
accused of activities that would make Jack Bauer blush and that
in some cases violated the law? The protests bring to mind a
sharp-elbowed brute I played basketball with in high school,
who, when he wasn't fouling people, always seemed to be
grumbling about the ref.
Of course, federal watchdogs are hardly infallible. But the
problem lately has not been too much independence, but too
little. Consider Howard Krongard, the State Department's
inspector general, who stands accused not of assisting, but of
actively thwarting, investigations of fraud and abuse by
contractors in Iraq. Or NASA's IG, Robert "Moose" Cobb, who
reportedly used his position "to interfere in the activities
conducted by the investigative and audit divisions within his
office." Hayden's move against Helgerson actually coincided
with a new bill, passed overwhelmingly by the House of
Representatives, that would bolster the authority and autonomy
of federal IGs. (The president is threatening a veto.)
There are established procedures for a CIA director to question
his IG without threatening the independence of the office.
Hayden could go directly to the White House, or to the
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency, which oversees
federal watchdogs, and which is run, as Spencer Ackerman
points out, by a prep-school crony of the president who would
have no trouble icing Helgerson. But by opting to keep the
investigation internal, Hayden is undermining not just Helgerson
but the structural integrity of the inspector general's office. IGs
rely, in their own investigations, on the trust and respect of
agency employees. How will this vote of no confidence affect
the office's stature?
NSA's inspector general had a problem with secretly violating
federal law, no one ever heard about it, because the office
reported only to Hayden and not to Congress. (Helgerson reports
to the CIA director and Congress, a two-master system designed
to shield him from undue pressure.)
From Watergate to wiretapping, it seems axiomatic that, left to
their own devices, spies will overreach. Stifled by secrecy and
fearful of being tarred "soft" on national security, Congress has
largely abdicated its role in effectively policing American
espionage. Now Hayden is seeking to cow his own IG at a time
when the agency—and the country—needs that oversight most. I
don't trust Mike Hayden, or his subordinates in the field, to be
the final arbiter on what our spies can do. That's why Michael
Scheuer's division of labor makes sense: We can ask intelligence
officers to play by the rules, but it's folly to let them write the
rules, as well.
kausfiles
Could Gore Kill Iowa?
Plus--The Lehane Award for asinine spin.
By Mickey Kaus
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 4:45 PM ET
New McClatchy tip sheet? Hard to believe this story isn't a
hoax or from The Onion, I agree. [via Insta] 3:23 P.M.
___________________________
More pernicious is the possibility that Hayden's investigators
will access the IG's files. Employees who alert the inspector
general about abuses rely on confidentiality; it allows them to
cry foul without jeopardizing their jobs (giving them an
important, last-ditch alternative to leaking to the press). If
Hayden looks in the files, that promise of confidentiality will no
longer be on offer, and the result could have a devastating
chilling effect on future internal investigations. But then, it's
hard to escape the conclusion that this kind of chilling effect is
precisely what Hayden intends. Fred Hitz, the agency's IG from
1990 to 1998, called the investigation "a terrible idea," and told
the Los Angeles Times that it looks like Hayden is trying "to call
off the dogs."
Yes, It Was All Bill's Fault, Part II: Paul Starr in The
American Prospect, chastising those who argue that it Hillary
Clinton was behind the White House's political misjudgements
in the health care fight of 1994:
To get a sense of what can happen when the dogs are called off,
we need look no further than Hayden's recent career. Before he
left the National Security Agency, where he was director,
Hayden originally authorized the infamous warrantless
wiretapping program. Hayden's general counsel knew about the
program and approved it. And who was his general counsel at
the time? Robert Deitz, who followed him to CIA, and whom he
just chose to spearhead the investigation of Helgerson. If the
Sally Bedell Smiths new Bill & Hillary book, as summarized by
Slate's Juliet Lapidos:
According to recurrent accounts -- most
recently in Carl Bernstein's shoddily
researched biography A Woman in Charge -- it
was supposedly Hillary's secretiveness and
rigidity that led to fatal decisions about the
White House health plan and political strategy.
Careful reporting after the failure of the health
plan showed these charges were false.
Page 166: During a 1994 National Governors
Association address, Bill wavered on universal
health care, but he retracted his comments just
one day later. What happened? Former
Secretary of Health Donna Shalala told Smith
that Hillary gave Bill a dressing-down. "What
the fuck are you doing up there?" she
screamed over the phone. "I want to see you as
soon as you get back."
Nice try, Paul! ... 1:42 P.M.
Thomas Sowell says what I've been trying to avoid: That the
timing of the Armenian "genocide" resolution expresses at least
a subconscious impulse by the Congressional Democrats to
make sure the Iraq war ends in a deserved humiliation for
Bush. Even my staunch anti-Bush friends ask why Speaker
Pelosi is doing this now. It's on her head. ... Update: She's
wavering? ... 1:48 P.M.
___________________________
____________________________
Is Pinch Toast? Just asking! ... 12:46 P.M.
Not like faculty politics--more like student-government
politics! LAT's Orwellian blog censorship machination has
become so convoluted it's hardly worth the effort to follow
anymore. They only think their blogs are important enough to
censor! ... 1:39 P.M.
___________________________
I don't think Al Gore will run (losing would be too humiliating).
But Dick Morris suggests a beneficial possible side effect if he
does: He could kill Iowa!
___________________________
Gore's late entry and national celebrity gives
him an ability to avoid the micro-primary and
caucus in Iowa and New Hampshire.
Lehane Award for Arrogant and Unpersuasive 'Fight Back'
Spin: Goes to Philippe Reines, who responded to the Gerth-Van
Natta report on Hillary's eavesdropping with the following:
He can go focus on the big states of Michigan
and Florida and come out ahead.
"We don't comment on books that are utter and
complete failures," said Clinton's press
secretary, Philippe Reines.
P.S.: Would Gore really get to Hillary and Obama's left by
disagreeing with them about "the need for an ongoing troop
commitment" in Iraq? I still suspect Gore agrees with them. And
Marty Peretz still presumably has Gore's phone number. ...
Update: Alert reader J.P. notes that the primaries in Michigan
and Florida may not be real, delegate-choosing contests this
year, because the Democratic National Committee is unhappy
that they've been scheduled so early. Good point. Gore could get
the most votes but not have them count. He'd maintain the
brand! ... 10:03 A.M.
____________________________
Good to see Land Rover maintaining its tradition! [A tradition of
excellence!--ed A tradition.] 9:41 P.M.
___________________________
Radar on Rielle. They have an anonymous source who reports
on the reporters with anonymous sources! Works for me (by
which I mean it can contribute to the search for the truth, as
opposed to being admissable in court or on Matt Yglesias' blog.)
... 2:22 P.M.
___________________________
If it's not on the NYT bestseller list it can't be true! Or is it the
Amazon Top 100? Reporters should get Reines to refine his
epistemological breakthrough. ... 1:23 P.M.
___________________________
How to Get Rich Off Liberal Media Bias (without becoming
a pundit)! At a lecture today at the Milken Institute,
economist/blogger Tyler Cowen said he didn't think the
subprime mortgage crisis was such a big deal for the nation's
economy. That's always been my untutored sense--it seemed
clear the MSM was hyping the crisis because a) it was the story
of the moment; b) economic news is always bad news; and c)
the anti-Bush, anti-GOP press is now in permanent campaign
mode--and the economy is one of the few things the
Republicans, and Bush's policies, might be able to take some
credit for. If it tanks, they're really dead. So the press has a
catastrophist bias** when it comes to the economy. Remember
when Enron was going to sink it in 2002? However big the
subprime problem is, it was never going to be as big as the press
makes out.
Which led me to this potential moneymaking idea: The
moderate lib bias of the MSM is a huge irrational, distorting
force on the information flow to the American elite, prompting
them to not infrequently make colossal misjudgments (like
thinking John Kerry would be a solid presidential pick for the
Dems). To the extent this organic MSM bias actually distorts the
market, it should create opportunites for stock-picking. Why not
start an investment fund --call it the Cocoon Fund or the Pinch
Portfolio-- that would 1) search the papers for bogus liberal
memes (like the subprime-dooms-the-economy story line, or the
perennial UAW-to-organize-Nissan's-Smyrna-factory line); 2)
figure out which stocks are underpriced because people actually
believe this bogus meme; and 3) invest in those stocks. ... You
could have made a killing just on the MSM prediction that
comprehensive immigration reform would pass, no? ... Even
better: This would be a strategy that could work for a long time,
since the basic ideological structure of the MSM doesn't show
signs of rapid change (only of slowly diminishing in
importance). ...
**: "Isn't that a classic formula for a recession"--Charles Gibson
on ABC World News this evening, citing both some mushy
policymaker sound bites about the mortgage mess--sorry,
"crisis"--and a rise in gas prices. Gibson was reluctant to take
"no" for an answer. ("[A]re we really broad-based enough ... [to]
not have a recession?") .. 3:22 A.M. link
___________________________
I'm not included on RightyBlogs.com. So there. ... 2:19 A.M.
___________________________
Hillary's Eavesdropping: Kausfiles last May, The Hill today! ...
2:02 A.M.
___________________________
Postal: Angry scene at the LAX post office, where I went this
evening to mail my tax returns--midnight being the deadline if
you took advantage of the automatic 6 month extension. I
arrived at about 10, figuring either it wouldn't be crowded, or
else there would be friendly postal workers outside with bins as
on April 15. Instead, the lobby was packed with hundreds of
people standing in hours long lines for the relatively few postal
workers inside--even if your letters were stamped and you didn't
want to send it certified mail, you had to wait in line. They
steered me to the back of the line, which was outside the
building--they weren't letting anybody else inside, under orders
from the Fire Department. I was tenth from the door--and that's
where I still was at 11:30 when a manager in a track suit came
out and said they weren't going to let us in at all. Argument
ensued. People noted they'd been there two hours before the
deadline. They pointed out they were there to pay the manager's
salary. The manager said, "You had 365 days," which of course
pissed everyone off more. I gave up and stuck my returns in the
mailbox outside. As I walked away at 11:55 angry taxpayers
were chanting "Hell no, we won't go." ... All in all, a)
impressive incompetence and callousness of the sort that
obliterates support and respect for government (at least
government that isn't just cutting checks).** Isn't it a basic
principle of retailing that you're supposed to make it easy for
people to give you money? ... Also b) more race and classmixing than I'd seen in a long time. A common enemy does that!
Who said the state can't help create social equality? ...
** If I hadn't just read that WaPo piece on the U.S. Air
nightmare, I might have said this sort of thing doesn't happen in
private industry. ...1:24 A.M. link
___________________________
Monday, October 15, 2007
Blue Murder: Andrew Sullivan congratulates himself on
publishing Elizabeth McCaughey's 1994 attack on Hillary's
health care plan:
I think the magazine's refusal to be maumaued by the Clintons at the time - and Hillary
was threatening blue murder against anyone
who so much as dared to criticize her - is a
feather in the magazine's cap.
Really? I was there at the time, and I don't remember any sort of
atmosphere of intimidation coming from the Clinton White
House about this or any issue. I attacked the Clintons in TNR a
lot--starting with as nasty an article as I could write about
Hillary when her husband took office. Nobody ever threatened
me with blue murder or was even unfriendly. Maybe Sidney
Blumenthal raised an eyebrow passing me in the street--but
Sidney is always raising his eyebrows. Perhaps Sullivan had a
different experience. But since McCaughey's article had (as I
remember it) the unswerving support of his magazine's owner, it
hardly took courage in any case to publish it.
P.S.: McCaughey's article proved to be a turning point in the
debate over Hillarycare, but not because it was a convincing
document. It was a turning point because Clinton's White House
chose to mount a big rebuttal, and produced what I remember
as one of the least convincing documents I'd ever read.
People figured, well, if this is the best they've got against Betsy
McCaughey, maybe she's on to something. ... I specifically
remember that the Clintonite rebuttal, like Ambitious
Whippersnapper Ezra Klein's recent blog post, made a big deal
of the following provision in the law:
"Nothing in this Act shall be construed as
prohibiting the following: (1) An individual
from purchasing any health care services."
But of course laws have sweeping introductory provisions like
this all the time, only to undermine them in the fine print. Maybe
the Clinton legislation didn't undermine this particular sweeping
provision--but the Clinton spinners were fools to think anyone
would be convinced by the sweeping provision itself. Or, rather,
they were treating the press like fools, and the press doesn't
appreciate that. ...
If the White House had just ignored McCaughey's piece, it
would probably have gone away. The damage was almost
entirely self-inflicted. ... 1:43 A.M.
'[T]he worst airline in the history of aviation'? A.L. Bardach
points a finger at U.S. Air in the Carol Anne Gotbaum case:
Gotbaum wasn't late for boarding. She didn't
forfeit her place by ignoring the airline's
procedures. Her only mistake was showing up
at the US Airways gate and believing that her
paid-in-full, reserved-seat airline ticket meant
that she would actually have a seat on the
plane.
___________________________
Jason Zengerle and Freedom Eden agree: John Edwards would
never, ever, engage in that sort of despicable behavior!
There's no way Edwards would do that to
her.
I don't believe it.
Well all right then! .... P.S.: And both parties deny the affair--it
can't be true! I mean, logically it's impossible, right? Who else is
there? ...
Thank God the Goats Don't Have E-mail: Yglesias says I'm
operating from an "assumption of guilt" because I argued it
wasn't wise for Edwards to call the story "made up." But let's
look at the situation: The National Enquirer says it has 1) highly
suggestive but not-at-all-conclusive emails from a woman, let's
call her W; 2) a source who says W did tell her conclusively in a
phone call and talked openly of an affair. Edwards denies it.
Fine--the denial wasn't too vague, as I'd thought when I read
what turned out to be a partial quote. But if I were him, I'd stop
there. Why add the "made up"? It runs the risk of angering
either a) the Enquirer, making striking back a question of
institutional pride; b) W; or c) the source. That's almost certainly
not something Edwards would want even if his denial was
completely truthful. (Who knows what further damage a) b) or c)
could do--if only in terms of prolonging the story?) It's certainly
not something Edwards wants if his denial was untruthful. Either
way, the smart pol's course would seem to be to forcefully deny
the accusation without cuteness or reservation--but also without
personally attacking the accusers. It's a fine line! I'm not sure he
walked it. ...
P.S.: Yglesias' suggestion that if there was anything to the story
then somebody in the "legitimate" press would have come up
with the evidence "by now" is a little premature, I think. ... 12:46
P.M. link
Obviously, "but for" causation doesn't mean U.S. Air is morally
culpable for Gotbaum's death. Still, they appear to be culpable
for something. And Phoenix seems to be a particular trouble
spot. ... Bardach references this earlier NYT article on
overbooking and customer rage, which spends a lot of time
discussing U.S. Air. ... I never realized how sheltered I am flying
JetBlue, which seems to be able to fill its planes without
overbooking. ... Update: Congress votes itself a bit of extra
sheltering. ... 1:26 A.M. link
___________________________
Why it will be hard to blog for the L.A. Times: You post
something juicy on Thursday and then a middle-management
twit will come in and censor it on Friday. ... Remember, at the
L.A.T. it's all about not telling you what they think you shouldn't
want to know about. ... Suggested solution for Mr. Zell at
layoff time: Attrit the twit! ... Update: It now appears that the
Times blogger's own response to a commenter--about the need to
avoid "censoring" Edwards' denial--has itself been removed.
Interactive! ... 12:02 A.M. link
___________________________
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Mass Nude Photo Shoot in Miami: Why do I have a horrible
feeling Greg Packer is in there somewhere? ... 9:30 P.M.
___________________________
Nation faces drought of crop rot stories: James Fulford says
"crops are not gonna rot in the fields because they've already
been picked, almost everywhere in the nation." Who knew? 6:04
P.M.
___________________________
Friday, October 12, 2007
________________________
A message from John Edwards:
Sunday, October 14, 2007
But, I think every single candidate for
president, Republican and Democratic have
lives, personal lives, that indicate something
about what kind of human being they are. And
I think it is a fair evaluation for America to
engage in to look at what kind of human
beings each of us are, and what kind of
president we'd make.
60 Minutes, March 25, 2007 ... 7:35 P.M.
___________________________
Subprime Schools: L.A's new school superintendent David
Brewer has announced a plan to rope 44 of the cities crappiest
schools (containing 105,000 students) into a separate district.
Apparently the idea is to "target" these schools for smaller
classes, different courses and special teacher training. But
normally, in business, is it a good idea to put all your most
disfunctional units together on the grounds that somehow
they will combine into a functional unit? Brewer talks about
"drastic reforms such as all-boys academies and neighborhood
literacy centers for parents." But the special Crap Schools
District would also make it easier to turn the worst schools
over to new charter organizations without disturbing the
education bureaucracy's control over the remaining schools
(which would still have over 500,000 students), no? ... P.S.: Is it
really possible that the pompous, Pulitzer-obsessed L.A. Times-which suppresses juicy celebrity stories in order, theoretically, to
cover worthier topics--has failed to write about this important
development? Looks like it. ... 1:16 A.M.
____________________________
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Edwards Scandal(?) Update: Drudge isn't biting, at least not
yet. A bizarre number of people, including several kf emailers,
seem to think that you just can't have a sex scandal unless
Drudge is driving it. In part because they assume he has a low
evidentiary threshold, he's become something like the new
accepted Arbiter of Truth. No Drudge, no story! But--from
what I can tell--Drudge doesn't link to lots of stories, for both
traditional (evidence, relevance) and idiosyncratic reasons. This
isn't the first time kausfiles hasn't met Drudge's journalistic
standards! And while it's to his credit that he makes up his own
mind and doesn't jump on every salacious rumor that comes
along, that means it's not true that there's no scandal until he
ratifies it. ... Update: Noted astrologer Jerome Armstrong has
Rielle Hunter's denial.
The innuendoes and lies that have appeared on
the internet and in the National Enquirer
concerning John Edwards are not true,
completely unfounded and ridiculous.
My video production company was hired by
the Edwards camp on a 6 month contract,
which we completed December 31, 2006.
When working for the Edwards camp, my
conduct as well as the conduct of my entire
team was completely professional.
This concocted story is just dirty politics and I
want no part of it." [Emphasis on Clintonian
qualifiers added]
Via Ben Smith, who notes that 20% of American Media, which
runs the National Enquirer, is owned by an investment firm run
by Clintonite Roger Altman. That makes it possible for the press
and others to discount the Enquirer story as a Hillarypromoted smear. But a) I think I know how the story started to
come out, pre-Enquirer, and it had nothing to do with Hillary's
campaign; b) The story, as suggested below, arguably helps
Barack Obama in his race against Hillary, who has a better
chance against a divided field; c) If Roger Altman already
controlled the National Enquirer for the Clintonites, why would
Clinton-buddy Ron Burkle be moving to buy it? ... Update: d)
Why would Hillary of all people want to open the door on
stories about marital infidelity? ...
More: Smith also has a too-broad denial from Edwards: "The
story is false." (As every press secretary knows, that could
logically mean there's nothing to the story; it could mean an
affair didn't start "18 months ago" but rather 8 months ago). ...
Update: The AP has Edwards adding "It's completely untrue,
ridiculous" and saying the story was "made up." By the
Enquirer? Or by one of the people the Enquirer cites? Either
way, it's a direct attack on the integrity of someone (not
necessarily a smart move for a politician in Edwards' position).
...
With Edwards' denial, both the MSM and Drudge now finally
mention the allegations. ...
Edwards' peculiar vulnerability should the allegation be
believed is suggested by this Reuters lede:
A third of U.S. women say their vote for
president is influenced by the happiness of a
candidate's marriage, and Democrat John
Edwards is most widely seen as having a
happy marriage, said a survey released on
Friday. ...
4:01 P.M. link
Obama, I'd think. (It's a zero-sum game--somebody has to
benefit.) ... 11:58 A.M. link
___________________________
___________________________
Perfecting Drudge: That Al Gore event--the one
he cancelled citing an "exciting and urgent"
overseas trip, prompting Nobel Prize speculation on
Drudge--is back on again. An email sent out this
morning from Barbara Boxer's campaign to
supporters says:
Good News: Tonight's rally with
Vice President Al Gore is back
on! His trip to China to address
government leaders there about
global warming has been postponed,
so fortunately he can now join us
today in San Francisco.
3:12 P.M.
____________________________
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The National Enquirer claims to have enough of the Edwards
cheating-on-cancer-stricken-wife story, including "bombshell"
e-mails, to run with. ... P.S.: They "met in a bar." Sounds
familiar! ... You read it here first. ... OK, you read it on HuffPo
first. ... HuffPo 's Sam Stein now has lots of background
material. ... P.P.S.: When I ask friends they split roughly 50/50
on whether, if true, this is a legitimate story. The MSM seems
to be strenuously trying to not report it. Given how Edwards'
campaign has tacitly and effectively used Elizabeth and her
struggle, etc., I think if true it's scummy behavior on his part that
Democratic primary voters should know about. His campaign is
denying it. ...
kf Forward Lean, I: If the story is true, what happens to
Edwards? First, I guess his private fundraising dries up. You'd
think a candidate who knew this scandal was coming down the
pike would have switched to public funding or something. Oh,
right. ... Another reason to think he'd try to soldier on: Dropping
out after a scandal would tarnish him in a way that denying and
losing wouldn't. ...
kf Forward Lean, II: If Edwards sinks or disappears, does it
benefit Hillary? You'd think no--she doesn't want a clarified
head-to-head race against Obama. But Obama is counting on
Edwards to do the dirty work of taking Hillary on. ... The ideal
outcome for Obama would be if Edwards loses most of his
support yet stays in the race long enough to go on the attack. But
even a complete Edwards disappearance would still benefit
Conned by John: The National Review bloggers at The Corner
seem to be impressed with John McCain's new immigration
position, which is:
The American people no longer have trust or
confidence in our government. Our failure at
Katrina, our failures in Iraq, our failures to get
spending under control. And we've got to
restore that trust and confidence.
If we're going to have real immigration reform,
we're going to have to have trust that we will
secure the borders.
I think they're cheap dates. McCain obviously still believes his
semi-amnesty is the essence of "real immigration reform." Is he
saying it will have to wait until the border are actually secured?
No. He only requires "trust" that the borders "will" be secured,
trust that will be accomplished by any number of
government confidence-building measures (success in Iraq,
cutting spending, better FEMA disaster response) that have
nothing to do with actually securing the border. ... I don't
trust his definition of "trust," and he seems willfully oblivious to
the difficulties facing any successful enforcement attempt-including a half-decade of lawsuits from many of McCain's procomprehensive allies. ... 5:13 A.M. link
___________________________
Monday, October 8, 2007
Gawker: Needs Balk. Not the same without Balk. Trying too
hard to make up for the lack of Balk. 11:17 P.M.
___________________________
Mickey's Assignment Desk--Baracktrackers: 2,000 words on
Dem policy bigshots who went with Obama when he looked like
the coming thing--and are now desperately trying to somehow
get back in Hillary's good graces. Foreign policy types are
usually the most obvious about this sort of thing. ... Bonus:
Point out that this is the type of political judgment the experts
are supposed to get right. Making the mistake of betting on
Obama--assuming he doesn't, you know, win--isn't all that
different from making the mistake of betting on Chalabi. ...
[Better ex?-ed Rafsanjani, Iran, 2005] 7:40 P.M. link
____________________________
Crops Rotting in the Fields! ... Oh wait. That's last year's
crops-rot-in-fields story. Sorry. Here's this year's. They haven't
rotted yet... [Thanks to reader C.B.] .. Update: Is the Bush
administration rushing to declare a crisis and use it as an excuse
to open the door to more illegals? I don't know the answer. But
the LAT reports the administration is "quietly rewriting federal
regulations to eliminate barriers that restrict how foreign
laborers can legally be brought into the country" under the
existing H-2A and H-2B programs for temporary workers. ... I
can see why it might be useful to simplify applications. But if it's
seasonal work, why would it be necessary to "extend the
definition of 'temporary' beyond 10 months"? Do all these
legal workers actually return when their "temporary" work is
over? ... The Bushies are also considering expanding "the
definition of 'agricultural' workers to include such industries
as meatpacking and poultry processing. Is it really impossible
to get American citizens (or existing legal immigrants) to do
meatpacking jobs? ... If an unlimited number of non-temporary
"temporary" workers in can be allowed in under existing law,
then why did the Administration feel it needed an explicit new
guest-worker program as part of "comprehensive" reform? ...
Krikorian? ... 7:05 P.M. link
__________________________
W and Poppy--A Bipartisan Consensus: Left and Right agree-we need to win in Afghanistan, and we shouldn't let the war on
drugs pervert whatever strategy is best. But, given that much of
the Afghan poppy crop is in areas controlled by the Taliban,
doesn't a continuing crackdown (if not the insanely
inflammatory tactic of aerial spraying) make sense? Drug policy
maven Mark Kleiman says no:
Probably the right thing for [Afghan President]
Karzai to do, in terms of his government's
chances against the Taliban, would be to
legalize, or at least tolerate, poppy-growing
and heroin refining in the areas of Afghanistan
it controls, with the goal of enriching its allies
and farmers in loyal areas and undercutting the
market for opium from Taliban-controlled
areas and thus the Taliban's capacity to benefit
its subjects and derive revenue from "taxing"
the illicit trade. If that's right, the U.S. should
get out of the way.
Kleiman thinks eradicating the Afghan poppy crop wouldn't
make much difference in "the level of heroin abuse" anyway.
But beating the Taliban should have priority even if it would
mean a rise in U.S. heroin abuse, no? ... 5:28 P.M. link
___________________________
Here's a new way to get publicity for your just-opened film:
Get sued by your dry cleaner for defamation. 11:24 A.M.
___________________________
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Japan is Different: If you're a Brentwood or Upper East Side
parent and worry that competitiveness among moms is getting
out of hand, read this Marie Claire piece and stop worrying. ...
10:42 P.M.
___________________________
N.Z. Bear Revealed: I was recommending that a friend of mine
contact N.Z. Bear a couple of weeks ago when I realized I didn't
know his actual name. Now I do. ... 10:28 A.M.
___________________________
Friday, October 5, 2007
Do netroots types really think that Al Gore, if he ran for
President, would commit to getting U.S. troops out of Iraq by
2013 (unlike Edwards or Obama or Hillary Clinton)? I don't. ...
6:37 P.M.
___________________________
Prius, The Silent Killer--Update: If the government requires
that Toyota Priuses and other quiet electric vehicles make a
noise to warn pedestrians to get out of the way, won't that create
a lucrative market for Prius ringtones? And what kind of
noise would be a) distinctive enough to identify the presence of
a car, yet b) quiet enough to make a crowd of Priuses tolerable-yet c) not drive Prius owners insane? Get Brian Eno on the case
right now. ... P.S.: Maybe some sort of long whale-call tone? ...
P.P.S.: Alert reader L.A. suggests "windchimes on the
antennaes." Might fail (c). ... 6:17 P.M.
___________________________
Here's an anguished NPR report on a victim of the highly-touted
"E-Verify" system for checking the immigration status of
employees. It seems Fernando Tinoco,** an American citizen,
"thought he was living the American dream." But at a new job
he got a "tentative non-confirmation" for his Social Security
number. Two hours after being hired he was fired. And then
... he "cleared up the problem" ... and then he got his job
back. ... So what's the big difficulty? He was ... humiliated!
Yes, that's the ticket. Though he doesn't sound very humiliated
in this report--despite the egging-on of the NPR reporter ("They
thought you were illegal. ... Criminal! But you're an American."
..."Yes. We're in America, yes.") ... Remember: This is the best
case NPR and the legal rights groups that feed it could come up
with. ... P.S.: Aren't honest, law-abiding people humiliated by
data base errors all the time--like when credit cards are wrongly
turned down, etc.? Is that a reason for blocking what even
comprehensivists tout as the most important immigration
enforcement tool around? It is if you want to block immigration
enforcement, I guess. ... P.P.S.: Illinois has attempted to stop "Everify" with a law whose "bipartisan" backing NPR pretends to
be impressed by. Why, it was supported by "immigrant rights
groups and and by mainstream business groups like the Illinois
Chamber of Commerce." I mean, who else could there be in the
immigration debate? ...
More: 1) Reader T.C. emails, "[W]hat I found equally
astonishing was the spokesperson for the State of Illinois
insisting that the E-verify system be 99% accurate before it be
relied upon. I wonder what degree of accuracy one might find in
the various databases employed in their state government. Let's
start with the voter registration system in Chicago. ..." 2) Reader
J.R. notes that "employers routinely subject menial job
applicants to credit
checking, online criminal background checks and drug
tests." Whats the database-error rate for those pre-employment
checks? ... 3) The Corner's Mark Krikorian points out that
making Mr. Tinoco to iron out the problems with his Social
Security number actually helped him in one respect--because it
presumably means he will now get his Social Security benefits
without a bureaucratic hassle. ...
**--Not sure this is the correct spelling of his name. Update:
Spelling corrected. Tinoco was also featured in this May WaPo
story. 5:37 P.M.
___________________________
Boomers Against Medical Cost Control: Hillary Clinton's
latest health care plan has been applauded, in part, because by
focusing on universal coverage as opposed to cost control it
avoids some of the most controversial and complicated
regulatory aspects of her 1993 plan.** But in her latest interview
with Jonathan Cohn she still seems itching to control costs-indeed, she's apparently relying on "efficiency gains" to both
provide the money to finance her plan and to produce the
savings that will control the cost of existing medical entitlements
and balance the federal budget.
fee schedules, bureaucratic impediments, restrictions on ability
to practice outside the government-subsidized system, etc.--that
might be opposed by the medical professionals who are, after all,
saving their lives. The doctors will certainly have expanded
opportunities to lobby their aging boomer patients on these
points. ... More fundamentally, fifteen-year-older boomers will
feel more intensely the need for unimpeded access to expensive
new life-enhancing technologies (and the doctors who can
employ them) as soon as they read about them in the papers-which, in turn, are more likely to report them to their boomer
readers.
**Sorry, her husband's plan! Hillary had practically nothing to
do with it! It was all Bill's fault, Paul Starr now tells us, in one of
the most informative and least convincing articles I've read
recently.
***--I'm intuitively skeptical of the ability to wring vast
efficiency gains from the health care sector a) because when I go
to the doctor or a hospital it doesn't seem like a wasteful sector;
b) because I assume technology will continue to provide more
complex and expensive cures that people will rightfully want,
and c) because I don't understand why it's so terrible if health
care expenses keep rising, as a percent of GDP, as our society
gets richer--and I assume others will come to the same
conclusion rather than sacrifice what they regard as services that
could improve and prolong their lives. 4:13 P.M.
___________________________
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Remission of Burma: Bob Wright says he does not argue in his
book Nonzero that history is moving ineluctably toward
democracy and political liberty because prosperity requires
freedom of thought and speech and inquiry. Rather, he argues
that history is moving ineluctably toward democracy and
political liberty because prosperity requires access to
information technology which in turn empowers aggrieved
groups to press their interests against the state--and these
empowered aggrieved groups are most easily satisfied in
democratic, or at least pluralist, systems. You could have fooled
me. ... 10:15 P.M.
___________________________
Good luck on that.*** Purely politically, you would think the
ground has shifted since 1993--and that it's shifted against
attempts at cost control, at least through government regulation.
Why? Boomers! They're the demographic bulge in the voter
rolls, right? Well, they're 15 years older now than they were
when Hillary first tried health care reform. They naturally
spend more time with their doctors, they typically like their
doctors, and are naturally more likely in their older age to
value the services their doctors provide. This means, I think,
they will be more resistant than ever to regulatory cost controls--
It looks like the only Republican who's not quitting the Senate is
Larry Craig. ... 9:53 P.M.
___________________________
Yahoo vs. Yahoo: This audio link doesn't work for me,
but maybe it will work for you--and if it does, you
can hear an intra-yahoo panel discussion on
immigration in which 1) Mark Krikorian smartly
tries to make a move I didn't think he'd make,
sketching out how he thinks the anti-legalization
movement could project a more pro-immigrant
attitude; and 2) I try to argue against Krikorian-the powerful Numbers USA organization--when
they seek to reduce the number of legal
immigrants. ... 9:43 P.M.
___________________________
___________________________
_____________________________
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Now Playing in Plano: Will the current wave of Iraq/Afghan
War films--most of them anti--fizzle at the box office? I've
gotten into trouble with this kind of prediction, but I say yes!
These films were made partly for sincere political reasons and
they will lose people money. Valley Of Elah--a well-made, wellacted, depressing and dispiriting movie--certainly doesn't seem
to be posting impressive numbers. ...
Today on B-3--"It's Where The News Is": On page B-3 of
today's Los Angeles Times: 1) Britney Spears loses custody of
her children. 2) Wife-leaving L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa's superhot girlfriend quits her TV job when Telemundo assigns her to
Riverside to avoid a conflict of interest. ... Too interesting! The
Times highminded editors thought Angelenos should instead
read "Bill seeks faster reports on nursing home allegations,"
which ran under huge picture on B-1. ... P.S.: Here's an excellent
idea from blogger Steve Smith: "Maybe the local paper should
just make the third page of its B Section a super-hyped, 'go-to'
section for people interested in ... dirt, and gossip." Better yet,
make it a pullout section. Then they could, you know, kind of
wrap it around the more important sections with the riveting
nursing home complaint procedure pieces that win Pulitzers. ...
2:42 P.M.
___________________________
A federal judge has blocked the government from sending out
letters to employers whose workers whose Social Security
numbers don't match their names. ... Some of the same
employer groups (e.g. Chamber of Commerce) who backed
Bush's 'amnesty + enforcement' immigration compromise
are among those suing to block the 'enforcement' part. Even
if they didn't, the ACLU would do the job for them. The yahoos
were right to demand that any enforcement measures actually
survive this interest-group litigation assault before any
legalization/amnesty even gets considered. ... 10:51 A.M.
___________________________
Presidents appoint Supreme Court justices! Jeff Toobin
produces four grafs of mind-numblingly uninsightful, bookpromoting Huffpo copy pegged to the First Monday in October.
It's almost a splog. ... P.S.: Would a conservative-majority
Roberts Court really be an "ideological mirror image" of the
Warren Court--or have even Roberts and Alito internalized
many of the Warren Court's legal structures and doctrines? That
would be an interesting inquiry. Don't look for it here. ... 2: 27
A.M.
Monday, October 1, 2007
Just Linking: A taste of things to come. Ron Burkle can buy all
the tabs in the world, but he can't buy the Web. The question, I
guess, is whether this sort of stuff will feed back into the non-tab
MSM. ... [Thanks to alert reader S.B. ] 6:42 P.M.
P.S.: I'd missed the LAT "dust-up" on this topic between David
Ehrenstein and Andrew Breitbart. Breitbart's entries tend to
validate the "if they can talk, they can write" rule of journalistic
recruitment--he's a great unstoppable talker, and sure enough
he's a entertainingly scornful South Park right pundit, like Ann
Coulter on a good day but with a dada Hollybrat twist. See, for
ex., his "Acceptance Speech." ...
P.P.S.: My biggest problem with Hollywood is the dominance
of emotional old-style liberals. My second biggest problem with
Hollywood is that the opposition to these liberals tends to be
equally passionate people, like Breitbart or Roger Simon, who
see themselves as warriors in a generational battle against radical
Islam that to my mind will be won most efficiently--or defused,
which is the same thing--if prosecuted coolly and calmly, with
appropriate attention to "blowback." Conservatives in
Hollywood are an oppressed minority; Centrist Dems in
Hollywood are a nonexistent minority. (OK, I know one.) ...
5:39 P.M.
___________________________
Almost everybody likes Elizabeth Edwards. But when she told
Keith Olbermann last Friday that said she had no idea that her
campaign fundraising ad--"Sometimes we put things off, don't
we? We think we have all the time in the world. Well, we don't"-might be construed as a reference to her battle with cancer,
what are the chances she was telling the truth?
When I say that we don`t have all the time in
the world and talk about people who are
serving in Iraq or talk about people without
health care, somehow i`s an allusion to my
illness. If I wanted to tug on people`s heart
strings, I have better material than that. I have
used that allusion to the fact that -- I made that
back in 2004. It's often the way I talk about it.
It honestly didn`t occur to me that it might
be read that way.
Update: kf fails to move the market! ... Also, Richardson claims
to have raised $5.2 million in the quarter, a not unimpressive
sum. (Reminder: This is Richardson. Need to check against
actual report.) ...
The chances are close to zero, no? ... [Emphasis added] 12:31
P.M.
**--kf does not actually give gambling advice! Make up your
own mind, don't sue me if you lose, my track record is, um,
imperfect, etc., etc. 9:34 P.M. link
___________________________
___________________________
Word that describes what those who saw Rupert Murdoch on his
WSJ visits noticed about him: "Frail." ... P.S.--Most riveting
treatment of the Murdoch Succession issue I've seen: Kevin
Kline's performance in Fierce Creatures, all-too-briefly
glimpsed in Slate's Murdoch FilmFest. Kline's character boasts
that he will have himself frozen so none of his heirs will inherit
his empire. ... 1:29 A.M.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Sure Is a Thin Fence: There's a picture of some of the 70 miles
of new border fence in today's LAT. But it seems to be a singlelayer fence. I thought we'd ordered a "double-layered" fence.
... Are President Bush and DHS Secretary Chertoff--who've
never liked the fence idea--trying to make it ineffective? ...
Update: Bill Quick has the photo too. ... 12:47 P.M. link
___________________________
___________________________
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Friday, September 28, 2007
Bet of the Year: Bill Richardson is trading at .60 on Intrade. I
think that means his odds for winning the Democratic
nomination are currently running 167-1 against. You should take
those odds.** 1) He's already at 11% in Iowa, where voters
notoriously look around for an alternative to the front runners in
the final 10 days. 2) Iowa, they say, is more important than ever!
3) A clear, major policy difference just opened up between him
and all three of the candidates ahead of him, when they refused
to promise to pull out all troops from Iraq by 2013; 4) The Iowa
caucuses attract a small minority of relatively liberal Democrats
who are likely to care intensely about Iraq and find Richardson's
promise very appealing. 5) He doesn't even have to win to get a
slingshot effect from Iowa. Gary Hart didn't win Iowa in 1984-he finished second with 14.8%--but that was enough to propel
him to victory in New Hampshire and other early primaries. ...
Why isn't the MSM taking the Richardson threat more seriously?
Hello? Is it because reporters--at least all the reporters I've
met--find him wildly unimpressive in person? Is it because
any newspaper that doesn't already have enough checked-out
material in its files on Richardson's "personal issues" to sink his
candidacy might as well close up shop? I don't know. But if
Richardson's doing this well while being unimpressive in person,
think how well he might do if he somehow becomes impressive.
... P.S.: I'm not pro-Richardson. He has a rep as a substancechallenged schmoozer and he's certainly a panderer. I disagree
with him vehemently on immigration and No Child Left Behind.
I just think he's currently well-positioned for a #1 or #2 finish in
Iowa. ...
Ron Burkle now has a panic room. ... 2:30 P.M.
___________________________
Was Doug Band's Finder's Fee Legal? According to the WSJ,
Bill Clinton aide Douglas Band accepted, and then passed on to
others, a $400,000 finders fee for helping arrange a seemingly
disastrous investment deal. But it seems that finding investors
for a fee can be considered "brokerage" requiring a license. Who
knew? It seems like a misguided rule, and it's apparently a
controversial one. And even assuming (i.e. guessing) Band
doesn't have a license, I don't know which side of this "gray"
area" he would fall on. But it might be worth checking out. ...
Illegal is illegal, alas--and even "a successful early stage
financing that was technically illegal" can apparently give
investors a right to subsequently undo the deal, according to the
Inc.com article linked above. Would that give the nowdisgruntled FOB investor 'found' by Band a way to get his
money back--by blaming Clinton's aide? Just asking! ... 1:53
P.M. link
____________________________
GQ Editor Jim Nelson defends his manhood here. ... No doubt
GQ's upcoming "Man of the Year" piece on Bill Clinton will
be "fully satisfying." It better be! ... P.S.: Something tells me,
in advance, that I'd rather read the piece on Hillaryland
infighting that Nelson killed. Hillary campaign manager Patti
Solis Doyle doesn't seem to be wildly popular. ... P.P.S.: Nelson
claims the decision to kill Green's piece wasn't "directly linked"
[Howard Kurtz's phrase] to the ability of the Clintonists to
withhold Bill's cooperation on the second, forthcoming piece.
But of course the Clinton camp had in fact already linked them
when Nelson made his decision. At that point--when the subject
of a story has implicitly threatened your magazine with
repercussions if you print it--any editor with balls will make
sure the story gets printed.** Even if it's not a "great Hillary
piece" [Nelson's words] and only a good Hillary piece. (I haven't
read it so I don't know what it was. But I know the smell of
editorial cowardice.) ... By saying he'd have printed a "great
Hillary piece," Nelson is more or less admitting that he let the
Clinton threat raise the bar that Green's piece had to meet, no?...
**--At least this rule should apply to stories about political
figures. I don't care if Nelson caves to Brad Pitt. ... 12:59 P.M.
link
___________________________
Page B-4 Watch: It's where the news is in the L.A. Times.
Wednesday's B-4 Special: "24" star Kiefer Sutherland arrested
for drunk driving, with jail time a possibility. Nobody's
interested in that! ... 3:31 A.M.
___________________________
John Edwards is getting grief because the hedge fund he worked
for is responsible for some subprime loans and foreclosures in
Iowa. But the hedge fund for which Chelsea Clinton has worked
is not exactly Landlord of the Year either. ... 3:22 A.M.
___________________________
From the NYT's explanation of why the "Bryant Park Project,
NPR's new younger, "looser" show, is different from all the
other NPR programs:
commentators who are married to each other, they're at, like,
opposite poles. ... P.S.: They said NPR's "Day to Day" was
going to be different too. Then they made it the same.**
**--This included cancelling my occasional phoned in "blog"
items. I'm bitter! But that's not what I'm talking about. ... 2:49
A.M.
___________________________
Just Do It? Note: In Wednesday's debate, Hillary Clinton did
not say she was opposed to torture even in "ticking time bomb"
scenarios. What she said was that
As a matter of policy it cannot be American
policy period.
This doesn't mean she's against doing it. It means she's against
making it a formal part of "policy"--a distinction her husband
made clear on Keith Olbermann's Countdown Thursday. In other
words, she thought she was ducking the hypothetical, embracing
the "it's against the law but I'll do it" hypocrisy that has become
the accepted anti-torture safe harbor on the issue. ... P.S.: Her
post-debate statement doesn't change this position. She's against
"making narrow exceptions to this policy" in advance. This
doesn't mean, contrary to Greg Sargent's intepretation, that in
fact "she'd adhere to" this righteous no-torture policy. ... 2:22
A.M. link
___________________________
Thursday, September 27, 2007
kf Yesterday, USA Today: It's official. Illegals are moving out.
How many and where to remains TBD. ... [via Polipundit] 10:41
P.M.
______________________________
The difference between traditional NPR
programs and this one is perhaps best
illustrated by their approaches to sports. When
the commentator Stefan Fatsis appears on
NPR's afternoon "All Things Considered," he
is never interviewed by the co-anchor, Melissa
Block, his wife. At "The Bryant Park Project"
the sports commentator is Bill Wolff,
MSNBC's vice president of prime-time
programming and Ms. Stewart's husband.
"Darling," she called him in a recent playful
exchange dissecting their weekend football
viewing.
Right, it sounds completely different! Among public radio
programs featuring female anchors and male sports
Clinton Thug Watch I: Bill Clinton's aide Doug Band**tries to
intimidate a Manhattan restaurant owner into removing a
harmless photo of daughter Chelsea from his restaurant's wall ...
**--last seen receiving (but not keeping) a $400,000 fee for
finding Anne Hathaway's Italian boyfriend a now-unhappy
investor, according to the WSJ. ... Not surprisingly, Ron Burkle
is involved! ... 9:31 A.M. link
_____________________________
Who is Rielle Hunter? ... And why is John Edwards' campaign
so skittish about her? ... Backfill: They met in a bar. Sounds
innocent enough! ...6:50 A.M. link
__________________________
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Monetize This: Why can't you have "enemies" on Facebook? At
the least, you should be able to make other people "rivals." It
would liven things up. ... (I'm sure this is not a new idea.) ...
Update: Yup. ... 11:00 P.M.
legislative districts. But Schwarzenegger deserves some blame
for not knocking heads and getting a gettable deal, according to
the LAT's George Skelton. The LAT's George Skelton also
deserves some blame--he fell for the Democrats' promises and
columnized against the ballot initiative in 2005. The reform he
righteously opposed sure looks good now. ... 12:46 A.M.
___________________________
___________________________
Monday, September 24, 2007
Expenditures Aren't Like Contributions: Another
independent effort working at cross-purposes from a candidate's
real, official campaign. ... [Tks to alert reader O.C.] 10:47 P.M.
First rule of Today's GQ Man: Be a wuss! Josh Green is an
excellent magazine writer, so his piece on Hillary campaign
infighting is unlikely to have been killed by GQ magazine
because it was bad. That leaves Politico reporter Ben Smith's
explanation--that it was spiked by GQ's editor Jim Nelson
because of pressure from the Clinton camp, in the form of
threatened denial of access to Bill Clinton for an upcoming GQ
cover story. ... Maybe Nelson will have something more to say
that will make him look better than he looks now. But there's
one way to find out how good the piece was. Publish it-somewhere. That's what the Web is for, no? ... Note to Josh:
I'll do it if no one else will. ... Or is GQ not only spiking the
piece but refusing to let Green place it elsewhere? That would be
full-service journalism for the Clintons. ... Obvious Questions:
Could the piece have been as bad for the Clinton camp as the
publicity they're now getting? Are they still not quite operating
in the internet age? ... Doesn't Bill Clinton want to be on the
cover of GQ a month before the Iowa caucuses? You'd think
Nelson would have some leverage of his own. ... :
___________________________
Let's hope Vice President Cheney and David Addington let their
subscriptions to the New York Times expire and didn't see the
following kicker paragraphs, in a piece on how Americans are
paying too much attention to Ahmadinejad as opposed to his
clerical patrons
But whether Mr. Ahmadinejad wins or loses,
there is no sense here in Iran that the outcome
will have any impact on the fundamentals of
Iran's relations with the world or the
government's relation to its own society.
"The situation will get worse and worse," said
Saeed Leylaz, an economist and former
government official. "We are moving to a
point where no internal force can change
things." [E.A.]
Alternative response--The GQ Blogosphere Challenge:
Uncover what it is that the Clinton folks are so determined to
hide. It can't just be Howard Wolfson's salary. ... Edsall? ...
Ambinder? ... Shapiro? ... Anyone? ... 4:04 P.M. link
I can think of an external force. ... 10:35 P.M.
___________________________
___________________________
Inside Toobin's Secret Kitchen, Part III: It's OK for Jeffrey
Toobin to characterize Justice Clarence Thomas as "lonely," and
"ideologically isolated, strategically marginal." But when
Thomas describes himself as those things, it's time for a New
Yorker-pleasing sneer! Patterico prosecutes. ... P.S.: Ann
Althouse has more fun with Toobin's flimsy dramatization
techniques here. ... [via Beldar] 12:48 P.M.
The We-Don't-Trust-Toobin Caucus is growing so rapidly I
can't keep up with it from the road. But Walter Olson has the
burgeoning list at PointOfLaw.com. ... Note that not all of
Toobin's critics are Republicans or conservatives. ... 10:16 P.M.
___________________________
___________________________
I didn't realize that anti-gerrymandering reform had died
once more in California. The state's Democratic leaders again
failed to deliver on the reform promise they made when urging
voters to reject a Schwarzenegger-backed anti-gerrymandering
ballot measure in 2005. ... The big hang-up was fear that Nancy
Pelosi would oppose any measure that ended
gerrymandering of Congressional districts as well as state
Kossacks Reach Out! On BlogTalk Radio, David
(thereisnospoon) Atkins, Adam (Clammyc)Lambert and I talk
about the Surge (I'm tentatively for it, they're not) and Atkins'
interesting distinction between "moderates" and "centrists" (I'm
for both, they aren't). ... The whole conversation reinforced my
sense that what Kossacks mean by "progressive" is largely
untethered from what pre-1992 Democrats meant by "liberal,"
but maybe you'll disagree. ... P.S.: Podcast available here. ...
12:20 A.M.
rip it all down. The Constitution is not a Hsu-icide pact! ... 1:05
A.M.
___________________________
___________________________
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Sunday, September 23, 2007
John Edwards Will End Illegal Immigration! I thought it was
standard (if effective) political hyperbole when Sen. Sessions
characterized "comprehensive" immigration reform as "No
Illegal Alien Left Behind." But here's John Edwards describing
his immigration plan at what appears to have been a Democratic
SEIU panderthon [E.A.]:
"We're going to ensure that every single
person living in the United States of
America has a completely achievable path
to American citizenship so that they don't
live in the shadows."
It won't be hard for Hillary to stay to the right of that. ... P.S.:
Note that to bring everyone out of "the shadows," it's not enough
that there be a path to legalization for everyone--everyone must
also be legal while they are following this path (or else they're
still in the shadows). In other words, if Edwards' position isn't
instant legalization for all who've managed to sneak into the
territorial U.S., I don't understand why it isn't. ... P.P.S.: Maybe
it's not quite a universal "dry foot" policy--you have to be
"living" here, not just physically on this side of the border. But
it's close. ... 11:42 P.M.
___________________________
Fred or Freddoso? You CANNOT have both! Fred Thompson
appears to have, perhaps accidentally, hit on what seems to me
the correct view of campaign finance reform, which is that you
can regulate money donated directly to parties and candidates
but you can't stop people from making independent expenditures
if they arre outside of candidate or party control. The Corner's
David Freddoso asserts with rather desperate force that
You CANNOT limit soft money without
placing those restrictions on [independent] free
speech.
Oh yeah? Why not? I can see how the authors of McCain
Feingold wanted to restrict both forms of speech, but that doesn't
mean others won't want to draw the distinction. Money spent
independently is likely to be spent inefficiently, even at cross
purposes with the official party. Ask MoveOn.org! It's therefore
a less reliable means of bribery than a direct contribution. ... In
any case, this is not a distinction you "CANNOT" make--which
means you don't have to either keep all of McCain-Feingold or
Inside the Secret World of Jeff Toobin, Chapter II: Ann
Althouse catches Toobin telling the same pathetic anecdote at
two different points in his book--except that the words between
quote marks, and attributed to Justice O'Connor, are different
each time. Althouse's conclusion: "I think it's fair to suspect that
Toobin assembles material into quotes that are not really
quotes." ... 9:23 P.M.
___________________________
Burkle Watch: 1) Burkle My Hsu! He's named in Hsu-related
suit as someone who "introduced and/or endorsed Hsu as a
friend, colleague and trusted associate." Of course this is just an
allegation. Tobey Maguire is also named. [via Instapundit] ... 2)
TabQuest '08 Fallout? He's sued by former L.A. Mayor
Richard Riordan, accused of not letting Riordan and other
investors sell their stakes in a venture in order to "perpetuate the
myth that he is a billionaire, `legendary investor,' and to profit
from millions of dollars in consulting, acquisition, and
management services agreements and fees." He immediately
settles, self-effacingly telling the L.A. Daily News**
"It doesn't do anything for me to have a couple
million dollars of Dick Riordan's money."
Unexplored angle: Didn't the Riordan/Burkle investment
involve Source Interlink, the media distribution outfit that's been
talked about as a possible vehicle for Hillary-backer Burkle to
purchase and effectively gain control of the tabloids (National
Enquirer, etc) owned by American Media Inc. in advance of the
2008 election? I think it did! That raises various possible
political subtexts, since last time I checked Riordan was
nominally a Republican.
Of course, from Burkle's point of view, just negotiating to
purchase the tabs might have the effect of neutralizing them,
since aptly named AMI tab kingpin David Pecker doesn't seem
like the type of guy to print a story that embarrasses someone
who might be the salvation of his troubled company.
**--Not the sort of quote you'd read in the competing L.A.
Times. Too juicy. ... 11:58 A.M. link
___________________________
Toobin Career Update: Is another embarrassing string of
corrections in store for a Jeffrey Toobin book? UCLA law
professor Eugene Volokh has already noticed a number of nontrivial errors in Toobin's latest, The Nine: Inside the Secret
World of the Supreme Court --including two small examples of
classic Toobin slipperiness: 1) Suggesting-without-saying that
Justice O'Connor, leading the court to the left, voted on the
"liberal" majority of a major federalism case when in fact she
voted on the opposite side, in the minority; 2) A casual bit of
New Yorker-reader-pleasing innuendo against Justice Thomas:
On p. 111, the book describes how Thomas
received a $1.5 million book advance for his
memoirs from Rupert Murdoch, and adds in a
parenthetical, "More than three years after the
contract was announced, and $500,000 paid to
him, Thomas had still not delivered a
manuscript." If that's just faulting Justice
Thomas for being a slow writer, that's fine,
though I expect that three years isn't that long
a time for writing a manuscript. But if the
claim is that he's somehow taking money and
delivering only vaporware — which I think is
the impression the parenthetical leave —
might it have been worth mentioning that the
book is coming out just a few weeks after The
Nine? The author might not have known this
when he was writing the manuscript, but I'd
think it could have been checked before The
Nine went to press.
Volokh is very hesitant and mild-mannered about his list of
errors--but as he notes, it doesn't cover the parts of the book he
"didn't know as much about, and thus couldn't fact-check"
himself. ... 2:31 A.M. link
___________________________
... Once the borders are reasonably impervious, then all sorts of
compassionate semi-amnesties become much more feasible. But
a vote for the DREAM Act now is in practice a vote for more
illegal immigration (as many of its supporters surely
understand). ... According to Numbers U.S.A., the Dream Act
has only 21 firm opponents in the Senate--and one of them is
Lindsey "we're going to tell the bigots to shut up" Graham.
When you are relying on Lindsey Graham as one of your "AntiAmnesty Champions," maybe its time to panic and mobilize the
'yahoos'! ... 1:05 P.M. link
___________________________
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Late Hits: Here's NPR's Laura Sydell citing Ken Doctor for the
proposition that the cancellation of TimesSelect is a "sign that
we have reached a tipping point with online advertising" where
charging for content loses you more in ad dollars than it gains in
subscription revenue. "Sign"? "Reached"? "Tipping Point?"
It's been obvious for years that this was the case. Slate learned
this lesson in 1999. ... The NYT is attempting to get away with
the Pinch-saving spin that the online environment "changed" in
a way that "wasn't anticipated" after TimesSelect was launched.
But the failure ot TimesSelect was completely anticipated at the
time by many bloggers (e.g., Jay Rosen), notes Rachel Sklar. ...
Alternative, more sophisticated explanation: Pinch is a fool. ... If
he declared he was going to fly and jumped off the Brooklyn
Bridge, would it be a "sign" that mankind had reached a "tipping
point" at which individuals were unable to fly? ... P.S.: Was this
the same expert analyst Ken Doctor who only a few months ago
was rationalizing the paper's TimesSelect strategy with the
argument that
"the Times Select play is about more than
revenue. It's about holding onto as many of
those high-paying print subscribers as long as
possible."
Friday, September 21, 2007
I think it was! ... 2:27 P.M. link
Update on the Make-It-Across-the-Border-and-Your-KidsGet-Green-Cards-Act ... sorry, the "DREAM Act": It appears
to be headed for a vote next week. ... Mark Krikorian has more.
... To reiterate: The problem with this bill is not just that it's
apparently been drafted as a stealth mechanism to allow lots of
illegal immigrants to claim they qualify and thereby achieve
legal status, although it has. Even were it restricted to its core
purpose--compassionate treatment for eager students brought
into the country by their parents when they were young--it
would inherently create an incentive for further illegal
border crossing (namely by telling potential illegals to bring
their kids across the border when they are young). ... Now that
the government is finally (seemingly, at least temporarily) trying
to remove the "jobs magnet" for continuing illegal immigration,
this is not the time to activate an alternative "kids magnet."
__________________________
Show, Don't Tell: Bob Wright makes a hype-deflating analytic
point about that recent liberals-are-smarter-than-conservative
study. Bob and I actually demonstrate its falsity later with a
bhTV segment that's almost, but not quite, NSFW. Until Bob
whips out his moose ... 2:05 P.M.
________________________
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Inside the Secret World of Jeff Toobin: Ann Althouse has
great fun with Toobin's latest book hype. ... For some of the
sources of my skepticism regarding Toobin, click here, here and
here. ...
FILED UNDER: INGRATIATING, BABYFACED,
CAREERISM [We don't have tags yet--ed Just practicing, in
case] 4:56 P.M. link
___________________________
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Slow News Day? Chesty-and-testy Joe Klein says Matt Drudge
is a "disgrace" because Drudge used the headline
were a member of the Times-owning Sulzberger family, or a top
NYT reporter, or Steve Rattner, and you saw the famously
rapacious Australian press lord headed your way with murderous
intent, and then you saw that your champion was ... Pinch ...
well, how terrified would you be? Wouldn't you want a new
champion? Just asking! ... 4:55 P.M. link
___________________________
The L.A. Times manages to lose its best political reporter (and
one of the few justifications for its continued existence). ... P.S.:
It's surprising and damning that the N.Y. Times didn't hire
Brownstein, since-- just between you and me--he's also better
than any of their political reporters. ... 4:14 P.M.
__________________________
HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED
FOR WORK
for a link to a piece on Hillary's health plan. And if you read the
AP story in question, it's clear that ... well, it's clear that Hillary
is thinking about requiring health insurance for work! She says it
could be "part of the job interview--like when your kid goes to
school and has to show proof of vaccination." If your kid doesn't
show the proof, he can't go to school, right? So what, exactly, is
wrong with the headline? Am I missing something? ... P.S.:
Sure, Hillary says that "at this point" she hasn't "proposed"
anything "punitive" and that it would all have to worked out in
negotiations with Congress, etc.. So? Is Drudge required to fall
for that strategic fuzzery, or can he go for the nut? It's significant
that Hillary's even talking about it at this stage. Anyway, who
said Joe Klein is the only one allowed to be hyperbolic?
(According to Klein, Drudge is not only a "disgrace" but
"shameless.") ... P.P.S.: Is Klein upset because requiring health
insurance is his pet plan (and not a bad one)? Or was this just
another self-described "moment of stupid weakness"? ... [You
just stuck in that last link, to Klein's embarrassing pro-Iraq-War
moment, to bait him into responding--ed. Mission
Accomplished!] 11:56 P.M. link
________________________
Rupert vs. Pinch. Odds, anyone? A well-informed emailer
writes to highlight the non-spreadsheet aspects of recent
developments at the very top of the MSM [emphasis added]:
The other piece to remember is that the
murdoch-owned WSJ will start a national ad
rate war with the wsj offering steep discounts
(a la the nyp in nyc). Murdoch wants to
bring the NYT to its knees.
Since the NYT is practically on its knees already--at least shareprice-wise--this shouldn't be all that difficult. ... P.S.: If you
Wanted--The Brentwood EcoZoomBox: Here's a lucrative
market niche none of the auto manufacturers seem to have
spotted: There is a huge pent-up demand among the West Side
L.A. parents I meet for a) a minivan, meaning something like a
front-drive SUV but with a Honda-Elementish low floor and ride
height; b) big enough to have 7 seats; c) hip enough for a mom
to be able to drive it and get admiring glances; d) hybrid, in a
way that advertises its hybridness to the world (meaning
essentially that it would be available only as a a hybrid). It
wouldn't have to get 45 m.p.g. It could get 32 m.p.g.**--as long
is it got certifiably better m.p.g. than the non-hybrid equivalent.
The point isn't to save the planet so much as to advertise how the
planet might be saved--not necessarily a hypocritical posture...
Since top mileage would not be a requirement, it could also be e)
fast. ... This combination seems eminently do-able, but there's
nothing I see on the market now that fills the bill. The Prius
meets (c) and (d) but not (a) or (b). The Element and Scion xB
meet (a) and (c) but not (b) and (d). The Toyota RAV4 is big
enough but not a hybrid. The Mercury Mariner comes in a
hybrid, but it doesn't advertise its hybridness the way a Prius
does, and it's not big enough. ... P.S.: These moms have money.
Tons of it. They don't necessarily want to spend $70,00, but they
will readily spend $35,000 or $45,000 or even $50,000 on
something that meets their carrying needs, seems sexy and
exudes eco-friendliness. ... Suggested names: Subaru
Rockingham ... Acura Adderall. ...
Update: Alert reader B.G. suggests this thing. Not bad! A little
minivany, though. ...
**--Toyota claims over 40 mpg for the Estima 7-seater, so the
22 m.p.g. I originally had suggested seemed a little low. ... 3:09
P.M. link
___________________________
Monday, September 17, 2007
*GLOAT ALERT* Pinch's Folly Formally FUBAR!
TimesSelect--Pinch Sulzberger's attempt to put his prized
columnists behind a subscription wall on the theory that they
were so much better than free bloggers that people would pay for
them--is finally so doomed it's actually dead, dead, dead, as of
midnight tomorrow. ...
You see, it's really a success story! It "met expectations." It's just
that online ad growth was so high it was more profitable to not
charge readers and thereby sell more ads! I mean, who could
have foreseen that (except everyone else in the industry)?...
McCain about the "DREAM Act" on his new "Forget
Immigration!" Tour. ... 1:25 A.M. link
___________________________
Minor Detail Dept: The LAT reports on incarcerated Hillary
Clinton fundraiser Norman Hsu's efforts to reward her staff:
Clinton confidant [Patti] Solis Doyle got a
coveted, and pricey, designer handbag--a gift
that made her so uncomfortable she returned it.
P.S.: Always trust content from kausfiles. Also, I told you so.
[You're running out of enemies--ed Burkle, Bangle--what are
they, chopped liver? Anyway, Sulzberger hasn't lost his job, yet.]
3:23 P.M. link
She returned it ... when? ... 1:03 A.M.
___________________________
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Demi-Semi-Amnesty: Democratic Sen. Durbin's revived
"DREAM Act" is typically billed as a way to address "the
tragedy of young people"--students who were brought into the
country when they were very young, and now want to attend
college. I was going to criticize it because it inevitably offers an
incentive to future illegal immigration--i.e. "sneak across the
border and your already-born children can go to U.S. colleges,
pay in-state tuition, and become citizens!" It seemed precisely
the sort of compassionate measure that should become possible
after the borders had been shown to be secure for several years
(as opposed to after a few quick showy raids and deportations).
But it's actually not that bad. It's much, much worse! Kris
Kobach persuasively argues that, thanks to loose drafting, it's
potentially a huge de facto legalization program of the sort
many observers thought had been defeated. For example
[emphasis added]:
There is no upper age limit. Any illegal alien
can walk into a U.S. Customs and Immigration
Services office and declare that he is eligible.
For example, a 45 year old can claim that he
illegally entered the United States 30 years
ago at the age of 15. There is no requirement
that the alien prove that he entered the United
States at the claimed time by providing
particular documents. The DREAM Act's
Section 4(a) merely requires him to
"demonstrate" that he is eligible—which in
practice could mean simply making a sworn
statement to that effect.
There's more--e.g., once you file an "application," you can't be
deported. ...See also Noam Askew. ... Action Plan: Ask John
___________________________
International Relations: TNR's Michael Crowley sees the
Hand of Burkle behind the recent endorsements of Hillary
Clinton by Wesley Clark and Magic Johnson. Clark, after all,
recently got a teaching gig at the Burkle Center for International
Relations. ... I didn't know there was a Burkle Center for
International Relations. Scary! ... Cocktail Party Question:
Will Burkle's help, if any, securing these endorsements make up
for the damage done to Hillary's campaign if details of Burkle's
zipping around the globe with Bill come out? Just asking! ...
New Reuters-style slogan: "Before it's Truth, it's Kausfiles!" ....
11:51 P.M.
___________________________
I'm on the Slate "Gabfest" being "argumentative" and "petty"
despite the best efforts of John Dickerson and HuffPo's Rachel
Sklar. ... 10:52 P.M.
___________________________
"Sally Field Censored": 'You ______ me. You really ______
me!' 10:50 P.M.
___________________________
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Thompson's Troubled Start: Fred Thompson's campaign had
such a terrible, fumbling, disappointing first week that he's
already tied with Giuliani in the ARG poll and ahead by eight
points in the Rasmussen poll. ... 8:03 P.M.
___________________________
Another small car--Volkswagen Up! I'd call it the Eh! ... But
it's rear-engine. 12:40 P.M.
___________________________
Thanks to readers who've let me know that www.kausfiles.com
takes you to a strangely contentless Slate page instead of to the
latest kf blog page. I'm trying to get that fixed--as they say at
Newsweek, "efforting"!** For the moment, the best way to get
here is through the Slate table of contents (www. slate.com). ...
12:35 P.M.
___________________________
Have a Pinch--Maybe Murdoch Bid on the Wrong
Company: New York Times stock falls below $20 a share, down
from $50 in 2002. ... Soon even Ron Burkle will be able to buy
the place! ... [Tks. to News Alert] 3:33 A.M.
___________________________
Sen. Clinton courageously speaks out against anti-immigrant
attitudes during the recent Univision debate:
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Senator Clinton,
the negative tone of the immigration debate
has left the country polarized and has created
certain racist and discriminatory attitudes
toward Hispanics.
SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D),
NEW YORK: Well, I think this is a very
serious problem. And, as I said earlier, there
are many in the political, and, frankly, in the
broadcast world today, who take a particular
aim at our Latino population and I think it's
very destructive.
She was maybe referring to politicians who play on voters'
visceral disgust at seeing crowds of scruffy day laborers:
"People have to stop employing illegal
immigrants. ... I mean, come up to
Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau
counties, stand on the street corners in
Brooklyn or the Bronx; you're going to see
loads of people waiting to get picked up to go
do yard work and construction work and
domestic work."
Who'd say something like that? Lou Dobbs? Er, no. ... 2:57 A.M.
link
___________________________
My former downstairs neighbor, Andrea Askowitz, a warm,
funny and filthy performance artist, makes her YouTube debut.
Instructive! But NSFW. ... 1:57 A.M.
Bloggingheads --Bob Wright's videoblog project.
Gearbox--Searching for the Semi-Orgasmic Lockin. Drudge Report--80 % true. Close enough!
Instapundit--All-powerful hit king. Joshua
Marshall--He reports! And decides! Wonkette-Makes Jack Shafer feel guilty. Salon--Survives! kf
gloating on hold. Andrew Sullivan--He asks, he
tells. He sells! David Corn--Trustworthy reporting
from the left. Washington Monthly--Includes
Charlie Peters' proto-blog. Lucianne.com--Stirs
the drink. Virginia Postrel--Friend of the future!
Peggy Noonan--Gold in every column. Matt
Miller--Savvy rad-centrism. WaPo--Waking from
post-Bradlee snooze. Keller's Calmer Times-Registration required. NY Observer--Read it
before the good writers are all hired away. New
Republic--Left on welfare, right on warfare! Jim
Pinkerton--Quality ideas come from quantity
ideas. Tom Tomorrow--Everyone's favorite leftish
cartoonists' blog. Ann "Too Far" Coulter-Sometimes it's just far enough. Bull Moose-National Greatness Central. John Ellis--Forget that
Florida business! The cuz knows politics, and he
has, ah, sources. "The Note"--How the pros start
their day. Romenesko--O.K. they actually start it
here. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities-Money Liberal Central. Steve Chapman--Ornerybut-lovable libertarian. Rich Galen--Sophisticated
GOP insider. Man Without Qualities--Seems to
know a lot about white collar crime. Hmmm.
Overlawyered.com--Daily horror stories. Eugene
Volokh--Smart, packin' prof, and not Instapundit!
Eve Tushnet--Queer, Catholic, conservative and
not Andrew Sullivan! WSJ's Best of the Web-James Taranto's excellent obsessions. Walter
Shapiro--Politics and (don't laugh) neoliberal
humor! Eric Alterman--Born to blog. Joe
Conason--Bush-bashing, free most days. Lloyd
Grove--Don't let him write about you. Arianna's
Huffosphere--Now a whole fleet of hybrid
vehicles. TomPaine.com--Web-lib populists. Take
on the News--TomPaine's blog. B-Log--Blog of
spirituality! Hit & Run--Reason gone wild! Daniel
Weintraub--Beeblogger and Davis Recall Central.
Eduwonk--You'll never have to read another
mind-numbing education story again. Nonzero-Bob Wright explains it all. John Leo--If you've got
political correctness, he's got a column. Gawker-It's come to this. Eat the Press--Sklarianna & Co.
are like Gawker if Gawker actually believed in
something. ... Luke Ford--Go for the sex, stay for
the self-loathing. ... [More tk]
And if you were to send a few monks, purely as a symbolic
gesture, we'd supply the body armor, the helmets, the boots ...
***
They think they're drowning. They're not actually drowning.
They are never in any real danger. I mean, the interrogator is
right there, and he's not gonna let the guy drown. Think about it.
If you kill him, you never get anything.
***
low concept
Hello, Dalai!
I figure, if they haven't caught one of those Yeti guys by now,
they are never gonna catch one.
Excerpts from George W. Bush's conversations with the Dalai Lama.
By Hart Seely
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 2:17 PM ET
The White House vigorously defended President Bush's plan to
meet with the Dalai Lama Tuesday, brushing aside China's
warning that it would damage relations between Washington
and Beijing. ... No media access was to be allowed to the
meeting that Bush was having with the Dalai Lama later
Tuesday in the private residence of the White House.—the
Associated Press, Oct. 16, 2007
And what if I told you that the kid—remember, his family is
making up to $83,000 a year!—could be eligible for free health
insurance, courtesy the American taxpayer? That's right, Your
Holiness, free medical care! Now, you seem like a reasonable
monk, so I ask you: Isn't that a giant step on the road to
socialism?
***
Before Sept. 11, a guy's mantra was his own business. But since
that day, well, yeah, maybe we do need to know what he's
chanting.
***
You ever watch that TV show Monk?
***
If I may, Dalai, I'd like to leave you with one final thought. And
feel free to use it, if ever you see fit. I hope you still feel small
when you stand by the ocean, and whenever one door closes, I
hope one more opens. Promise me that you'll give faith a
fighting chance, and when you get the choice to sit it out or
dance, I hope you dance.
***
Heck, back when you won the Nobel Prize, the darn thing meant
something. These days, it's garbage, a beauty contest, and
everybody knows it.
***
It's awful, but I just can't help it. Whenever I see the Buddha, I
think of Rove. We used to call him "Buddha." Karl's lost weight.
Still, if you ever pictured him in a diaper, you never forget it.
***
Universal awareness. That's exactly what we're pushing for in
the Department of Homeland Security. We call it "Total
Information Awareness." Basically, they're the same thing.
***
map the candidates
Map the Candidates
Stalking the contenders one stump at a time.
By E.J. Kalafarski and Chadwick Matlin
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 7:42 AM ET
Do you have a case of early-primary-state envy? If you pine for
ice-cream socials, town-hall meetings, and meet-and-greets, then
Slate's new political tool, Map the Candidates, should sate your
electoral addiction. MTC brings the campaign trail home by
visually displaying where the candidates have been, where they
are, and where they will be.
Map the Candidates uses the candidates' public schedules to
keep track of their comings and goings. A quick primer on your
new election toolbox:





Do you want to know who spent the most time in Iowa
or New Hampshire last month? Play with the timeline
sliders above the map to customize the amount of time
displayed.
Care most about who visited your home state? Then
zoom in on it or type a location into the "geosearch"
box below the map.
Choose which candidates you want to follow with the
check boxes on to the right of the map. If you only
want to see the front-runners, then uncheck all of the
fringe candidates. Voilà! You're left with the cream of
the crop's travels.
Follow the campaign trail virtually with MTC's news
feed. Every day YouTube video and articles from local
papers will give you a glimpse of what stump speeches
really look and sound like. Just click the arrow next to
the headline to get started.
Take a closer look at candidates by clicking on their
names to the right of the map. You'll get the lowdown
on their travels, media coverage, and policy positions.
Teachers were also randomly assigned. The children were then
tracked to determine the effect of class size on educational
attainment.
Model: The educational effects were considerable. Now
Muennig and Woolf are making use of the findings in a whole
new way. They used Project STAR's statistics about educational
attainment to build a computer model of a hypothetical group of
5-year-olds exposed for four years to small classes (of 13 to 17)
and then followed until the age of 65. The researchers calculated
projected earnings, welfare payments, and crime costs based on
what we know about the relationship between these outcomes
and educational attainment. They also drew on statistics relating
degree of education to quality-of-life scores and age-specific
mortality. And they accounted for the cost of maintaining
smaller class sizes.
Findings: Based on their model, the authors project that
reductions in class size would generate a lifetime net cash return
of almost $200,000 (presumably in the form of taxes collected)
for each additional low-income student who graduates from high
school as a result of early placement in a small class. In addition,
they project that four years of small classroom size will lead to
improvement in health and longevity. These benefits, they
calculated, would on average add up to the equivalent of an
additional 1¾ years of life in perfect health.
This week, Dr. Sydney Spiesel discusses a potential link
between smaller elementary school class sizes and better health,
a safer way to give painkillers, and treatments for ADHD.
Conclusion: It's important to point out that these numbers are
based heavily on assumptions that might not hold true for the
future or for places outside Tennessee (kudos, by the way, to that
state for supporting this bold experiment). But these are
plausible assumptions, at least. And the numbers they generate
are astonishing, because they suggest that investment in reducing
elementary school classes is better, in cost-benefit terms, than
money spent on antibiotics, or hospital buildings, or even
vaccines (long thought to be one of the most cost-effective
interventions for health care). Perhaps I would do better for my
patients if I gave up pediatrics and became a member of my
local school board.
Smaller classes, better health?
How to give more morphine for pain relief
Question: An extraordinarily provocative article in this month's
American Journal of Public Health ties together two seemingly
unrelated phenomena: the size of school classes and the health of
students. Could smaller class sizes be a good investment not
only for educational reasons but for medical ones?
Question: Do the risks of using narcotics to help chronically ill
people with pain outweigh the benefits? Morphine, a natural
opioid made from the unusually beautiful opium poppy, is a
tremendously powerful painkiller. It's much better for almost
every medical use than, say, Demerol. But when given in a high
dose to a patient who has not been previously exposed, morphine
is likely to cause respiratory depression. A patient's drive to
breathe dwindles, which can easily be lethal. Fears that this may
happen can discourage doctors from prescribing adequate
amounts of opioids to fully control a patient's pain.
medical examiner
Your Health This Week
Could smaller elementary school classes make kids healthier?
By Sydney Spiesel
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 4:20 PM ET
New study: Peter Muennig of the Columbia University School
of Public Health and Stephen Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth
University in Richmond drew their data from Project STAR,
which began in 1985 and randomly assigned almost 12,000
Tennessee kids to classes of different sizes in kindergarten
through third grade. Some of the kids were in classes of 22 to 25
students, and others were in classes of 13 to 17 students.
Treatment: While initial treatment with an opioid carries a real
risk of respiratory depression, repeated dosing creates tolerance.
Patients become far less sensitive to respiratory depression, yet
are still able to get the pain relief, as the medication dose is
raised. However, many doctors are unaware of this
transformation, and so don't give the larger doses needed to fully
control pain in their chronically ill patients.
New study: A study of more than 1,300 hospice patients
addresses the safety of larger morphine doses for chronic
patients. Conducted by Dr. Russell K. Portenoy of Beth Israel
Medical Center, New York City, and his colleagues in 13
different hospice centers, the study compared the survival of
patients on relatively low morphine doses with patients whose
doses had been pushed up, often to very high levels, to keep
them as comfortable as possible at the end of life.
Findings: Portenoy's data show that high doses of morphine
create only a tiny risk, if any at all, of premature death for a
patient whose body has become accustomed to the medication.
This study strongly supports the use of higher doses of opioids
like morphine for pain control so that doctors can do a proper
job of relieving suffering.
Conclusion: Doctors also keep painkiller doses low out of fear
of inducing addiction. There is actually little basis for this kind
of fear. In fact, it has been estimated that the risk of addiction
generated by a doctor is less than one in 10,000. And yet
painkillers are still withheld, especially in developing countries,
where high-quality medications may be absolutely unavailable
because of the fear of generating addiction. This is especially
troubling with respect to morphine, a single effective dose of
which in a developing country could cost as little as 1 cent.
Treating ADHD
Condition: If you're ever looking for a fight, just say ADHD at a
cocktail party. One person will insist that it's a phony diagnosis
that allows—maybe even encourages—poor behavior. Another
person will say that her child has it and it's very real, and now
the kid is getting treatment and can finally function in school.
Then someone else will say, "How can you give those addicting,
dangerous medicines to your kid?"
Recommendations: In response, a committee assembled by the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry was
charged with bringing some order to the diagnosis and rational
management of ADHD. The committee's recently issued report
(along with a distillation of its contents for parents) makes clear
that ADHD is a real medical condition that often seriously
impairs children's functioning. The cause remains unclear,
though the report asserts a neurobiological mechanism. The
report's greatest contribution is to lay out a series of guidelines
that should lead to a more orderly and sensible evaluation and
treatment.
New medications: Meanwhile, two new forms of slow-release
stimulant medications for ADHD have recently gone on the
market. Daytrana is a patch that is applied to the skin that feeds
the medication in at a constant rate and stops fairly quickly after
the patch is removed. Vyvanse is reported by some patients to be
easier to tolerate than other stimulants, though other children
don't find it particularly helpful. With any ADHD medications,
getting the dose just right seems to be the most important factor.
Risks: In general, all the stimulants have similar (sometimes
troublesome) side effects. One of the benefits of the slow-release
versions is that they smooth out the seesaw changes children
experience if they take several doses of the short-acting
products. ADHD children who take stimulants aren't at greater
risk for later substance abuse. (Actually, there is evidence that
this treatment lessens the risk.) The risk of significant adverse
medical effects is also extremely low.
Conclusion: Treatment can convert a child from a space cadet
who hates school to an avid learner who loves school. It can
change a child who is shunned by peers into one who is
enthusiastically included. Doctors, parents, and teachers who
witness this kind of transformation are rarely ambivalent about
treating ADHD.
sidebar
Question: So, what is ADHD, and should we even be treating
it? The central issue in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is
an inadequate ability to concentrate attention, to focus. Some
children with ADHD are mostly inattentive, other children are
hyperactive and impulsive, and still other children are both
hyperkinetic and poorly focused. The boundaries between these
three subtypes are pretty fuzzy, as is the diagnosis, frankly. Still,
about 5 percent of children worldwide are thought to be affected,
and in the United States, a large majority of them are given
medication. That's a lot of kids and a lot of medicine, which
leads to a lot of concern that not all of it is as rational or
thoughtful as it ought to be.
Return to article
Assignment to a reduced-size classroom led to a 12 percent jump
in high-school graduation rates. The results were even more
impressive if the study was limited to the poorest kids—the ones
who were eligible for free lunches. They were 18 percent more
likely to graduate from high school. Smaller classes also led to a
3.7 percent increase in college attendance (4 percent for the freelunch kids).
sidebar
Return to article
The problem of imprecise diagnosis is exceptionally
troublesome, especially to child psychiatrists. Other health-care
professionals are often skeptical of the psychiatrists' work. This
pushes the profession to seek biological explanations, amenable
to pharmaceutical solutions, for the problems it addresses.
In my own practice, I have seen that a disproportionate number
of children labeled "ADHD without hyperactivity" are
exceptionally bright and creative children. I've often thought that
these kids find their own inner theater much richer and more
interesting than the outer theater of the classroom. Shortly, these
children realize that they've missed things that other children
didn't. This realization often makes them doubt their own
capacity and become anxious that their "secret" will be
discovered. This anxiety makes it even harder for a child to
concentrate and pay attention.
sidebar
Return to article
sidebar
Return to article
Defining the exact cause of ADHD is important for developing
better and more targeted treatments. Though I am convinced that
there is a neurological basis for many cases of ADHD, I strongly
suspect that there is no one, single underlying cause. In fact, I
think ADHD is a collection of similar behaviors and symptoms
that all result from a multitude of different, unrelated,
conditions, some biological and some psychological.
The strongest evidence for a neurobiological cause is that a
genetically determined propensity to ADHD is clearly present in
many of the children who display symptoms. (Some of the genes
that contribute have already been identified.) Other evidence
pointing to a biological mechanism comes from the observation
that other physical causes (like perinatal stress, low birth weight,
traumatic brain injury, and maternal smoking in pregnancy)
increase the risk that a child will display the symptoms of
ADHD. In addition, some brain-imaging methods have shown
functional differences between some patients with ADHD and
others who do not have the disorder. Psychological testing of
children with ADHD often shows deficiencies in alertness,
ability to plan, and ability to inhibit impulsive action. However,
these findings are not at all universal, and it is unclear whether
they are the result of a neurobiological dysfunction or
psychological one. Nor does the fact that the condition often
improves with medication tell us anything one way or the other.
Anxiety appears to play a significant role in this disorder,
worsening symptoms. In addition, many patients with poor
ability to focus in childhood show improvement as they grow
older, though recent evidence shows that many have symptoms
at least through adolescence.
For instance, all the stimulants can interfere with sleep and
decrease appetite. The negative effects usually dissipate when a
morning dose fades away in late afternoon. Some kids become
irritable, especially at high dose levels. Other kids (again at
higher dose levels) may become subdued. In my experience, one
often neglected issue is that children with ADHD are
exceptionally sensitive to the rise and fall of blood levels after a
dose.
moneybox
The Spinal Tap Economy
The real problem with the ultra-wealthy.
By Daniel Gross
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 6:44 PM ET
About 10 years ago, a new idea emerged about luxury. Luxury
was no longer the exclusive preserve of the very rich. Thanks to
rising incomes, greater access to credit, and increased
connoisseurship, Everyshopper could consider herself a luxury
customer. People might buy their basics at big-box retailers, but
they'd splurge on selected items that were meaningful to them in
boutiques. The theory of trading up, espoused by consultants
from Boston Consulting Group, held that luxury businesses
should lower their sights and expand their vision of the potential
customer base.
But now the credit crunch, poor housing market, and slowing
economy may bring a halt to the trading-up trend. Luxury is no
longer something that unites Americans, but rather something
that separates them. Robert Frank of the Wall Street Journal
coined the term Richistan to describe the world that the wealthy
inhabit among us today. "Lower Richistan is under increasing
financial pressure while Upper Richistan continues to live the
good life," Frank notes. "The consumer economy is no longer
about the haves and have-nots: it's about the haves and havemores." We've spoken for years about two Americas shopping,
but now it seems there may be three. For when the economy
catches a cold, working-class consumers cut back, middle-class
consumers trade down from cashmere scarves to cotton—but the
truly rich just fly in their private physician for an executive
checkup.
Savvy marketers are seeking out the one group of consumers
who are truly immune to macroeconomic issues: the ultra-rich.
A few weeks after it slashed prices on holiday toys, Wal-Mart
this week launched an "aggressive holiday pricing plan," with
price reductions 20 percent greater than last year. The upshot: If
Wal-Mart were to hold the line on prices, it would find itself
stuck with gads of inventory come Dec. 26. But companies that
sell toys to a select few are facing no such pressures. Some are
finding they literally can't keep enough goods in stock. Robert
Frank reports that the wait for a new Gulfstream 550 is about
three years. Tiffany, whose same-store U.S. sales rose 17 percent
in its most recent quarter, this week announced plans to expand
its retail footprint significantly. It plans to open several small
Tiffany Collections stores and as many as five to seven new
Tiffany & Co. stores per year.
The Big Three automakers have been scaling back production,
and dealers are pushing incentives at customers. But Marty
Laliberte, a Ferrari salesman at Wide World of Cars, in Spring
Valley, N.Y., says that a customer, provided he has the means to
buy a new Ferrari (which can run from $190,000 to $260,000),
should expect to wait three years for a new car. "Everybody has
to wait, and the build process takes some time. The customer
order bank is so extensive." Tesla Motors, the Silicon Valley
electric sports car startup, last month outlined its production
schedule (PDF): 50 cars in the first quarter of next year, and 600
more to follow. And they're pretty much sold out. "We will soon
stop taking reservations for 2008 Roadsters and start a traditional
waiting list for people interested in reserving a car in the future."
In many markets, home-builders are throwing in extras or
holding fire sales to get rid of excess inventory. But as New
York real estate maven Jonathan Miller notes, the Manhattan
market is holding up just fine, especially the higher end. Miller
says that in the 2007 third quarter, prices for studio apartments
fell from 2006, while prices for one-bedroom and two-bedroom
apartments rose at slightly above the rate of inflation. However,
the average price of a three-bedroom apartment in Manhattan
($4.4 million) rose 17.9 percent, while the average price of a
four-bedroom apartment ($8.5 million) rose 16.4 percent. "The
top six percent of the market is still going at a housing boom
pace," Miller notes.
In the trading-up mentality, the key to successful luxury retailing
was pricing the product at a high point—but not so high that it
pushed aspirational customers away. Now, high-end retailers are
sending the message that people who don't come heavy shouldn't
come at all.
Some marketers are taking their cue from the mockumentary
Spinal Tap. In one priceless moment, Nigel Tufnel (Christopher
Guest) describes how the dial on his amplifier goes up to 11, for
when he needs "that extra push over the cliff." Luxury
businesses are now going to 11. This fall, a new resort, the Setai,
opened in Miami Beach, offering unprecedented luxury and
service (PDF). Some luxury watchers have dubbed it America's
first "six-star hotel." And here, as in so many other areas,
American luxury aficionados are taking their cues from foreign
goods. There's already a six-star casino/hotel in Macau, and a
seven-star hotel in Dubai. For the ultra-rich these days, too much
is never quite enough.
moneybox
Protecting Paulson's Pals
The subprime collapse didn't bother the Bush administration, until Wall Street
bankers started whimpering.
By Daniel Gross
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 5:52 PM ET
The subprime mess has been spreading like toxic mold since the
housing market peaked last year. So why did it take until now
for the government to decide it should do something about it? I
have a theory.
When individual borrowers began to suffer, Federal Reserve
Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson
didn't seem overly concerned. The market would clear out the
problem through the foreclosure process. Loans would get
written off; properties would change hands and be resold. When
upstart subprime mortgage lenders ran into trouble, Bernanke
and Paulson shrugged again. The market would clear out the
problem through the bankruptcy process. Subprime companies
like New Century Financial filed for Chapter 11, others
liquidated or restructured, and loans made to the lenders were
written down. Meanwhile, Paulson and Bernanke assured us that
the subprime mess was contained.
But as the summer turned to fall, and the next several shoes
dropped, their attitude changed. And that is because the next
group of unfortunates to fall victim to subprime woes were
massive banks. In recent years, banks in New York, London, and
other financial capitals set up off-balance-sheet funding vehicles
called SIVs, or conduits. The entities borrow money at low
interest rates for short periods, say 30 to 90 days, and use the
funds to buy longer-term debt that pays higher interest rates. To
stay in business, the conduits must continually roll over the
short-term debt. But as they searched for higher yields, some
conduits stuffed themselves with subprime-mortgage-backed
securities. And when lenders became alarmed at the declining
value of those holdings, they were reluctant to roll over the debt.
Banks thus faced a choice. They could either raise cash by
dumping the already-depressed subprime junk onto the market,
or bring the conduits onto their balance sheets and assure shortterm lenders they'd get paid back.
Large U.S. banks were reluctant to put the conduits on their
balance sheets, especially Citigroup, which manages about $100
billion in such conduits. So Paulson sprung into action. In
September, the Treasury Department summoned bankers to
suggest that they voluntarily work out some sort of arrangement
among gentlemen and gentlewomen to prevent disorder in this
market. (It was the same type of voluntary arrangement the New
York Federal Reserve suggested Wall Street banks make during
the 1998 Long Term Capital Management debacle.) The
conversations bore fruit. On Monday, several banks announced
the creation of a new mega-conduit that would buy some of the
damaged goods from existing conduits. Voila! A federally
suggested short-term bailout.
Today, Paulson delivered a speech in which he suggested that
the mortgage industry take a cue from the big Wall Street banks
and find an alternative to foreclosure, like re-adjusting rates or
accepting lower payments. The industry should "get together in a
coordinated effort to identify struggling borrowers early, connect
them to a mortgage counselor, and find a sustainable mortgage
solution." He continued: "Recent surveys have shown that as
many as 50 percent of the borrowers who have gone into
foreclosure never had a prior discussion with a mortgage
counselor or their servicer. That must change." He announced
that he was supporting an industry coalition, Hope Now, to
coordinate such efforts, and declared: "I expect to see results."
These recommendations—and others he made—are all good and
common-sensical. But it makes you wonder whether he's been
watching birds for the past year instead of reading the headlines
on his Bloomberg machine. For these measures are a little like
distributing condoms at a clinic for teenage moms who are six
months pregnant—good prophylactic ideas that arrived a halfyear too late. Last year was a boom year for foreclosures, up 42
percent from 2005. And foreclosures have spiked sharply
throughout 2007, up more than 55 percent in the first half of
2007; September 2007 foreclosures nearly doubled from
September 2006. Rising homeownership rates (PDF), a success
story routinely highlighted by the Bush administration, have
fallen for the last three quarters.
Even as hundreds of thousands of people saw their homes
dispossessed (some of them were probably speculators who may
have simply walked away from no-money-down mortgages), the
problem was essentially invisible to Paulson. Of course, it's
doubtful Paulson knows many subprime borrowers or subprime
lenders. On the other hand, the former head of Goldman Sachs is
a member in good standing of the club of Wall Street CEOs.
When the subprime meltdown began to disturb the CEOs' sleep,
he responded with alacrity. Even as he had harsh words for the
entire mortgage complex—from brokers to credit-rating
agencies—and recommended far-reaching reforms, Paulson was
careful to single out one class of actors for protection. He noted
that the issue has been raised as to "whether greater liability
should be imposed on securitizers and investors." In other words,
should the Wall Street firms that peddled mortgage-backed
securities that turned out to be worthless a few months later be
subject to greater accountability through the legal system? His
answer: "In my view, this is not the answer to the problem."
moneybox
CEOs for Clinton
Even the ultra-rich are abandoning the Republicans.
By Daniel Gross
Saturday, October 13, 2007, at 7:48 AM ET
Don't take this the wrong way, but everything you know about
the link between business and politics is incorrect.
For nearly the entire 20th century, a simple formula held:
Businesspeople like Republicans and don't like Democrats.
Republican politicians and voters heartily embrace free trade and
lower taxes, while Democratic politicians and their
constituencies cotton to protectionism and higher taxes. Over the
past century, racial, ethnic, and geographic realignments altered
the shape of the national parties beyond recognition. But when it
came to the wealthy, there was less movement than in the facial
muscles of an over-Botoxed newscaster. Until now.
Democrats, who have never out-fund-raised Republicans in the
modern political era, are kicking the tar out of their rivals this
campaign cycle. Through the first half of this year, Democratic
entities—congressional, presidential, and party operations—
raised $388.8 million, compared with $287.3 million for their
Republican counterparts, according to the Wall Street Journal.
In the third quarter, the top three Democratic candidates—
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards—raised 50
percent more money than the top four Republican candidates.
The Democrats' funds aren't coming just from enraged readers of
DailyKos.com who chip in $20.08 via the Internet. They're
flowing in from people who can afford to throw $4,000 of posttax income into campaign coffers. Elections past brought us the
Reagan Democrats, NASCAR dads, and soccer moms. Now we
have the Fed-Up CEOs and the Angry Yuppies.
Back in 2000, George W. Bush called his base "the haves, and
the have-mores." But the have-mores are clearly more receptive
to Democrats than they were seven years ago. "It's a much easier
pitch drumming up support this cycle from businesspeople,
there's no question," says Steve Rattner, founder of the privateequity firm Quadrangle Group, who is a longtime Clinton
backer. His take: Fed-Up CEOs are reacting to the bungled war
in Iraq, poor fiscal and disaster management, and conscious
outreach efforts by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.
As happens every four years during the primary season,
Republican business leaders are rallying around the
establishment candidate. This time, however, it's a Democrat.
Morgan Stanley Chief Executive Officer John Mack, who raised
more than $200,000 for W's 2004 campaign, came out for
Hillary this spring. James Robinson III, the Atlanta-born banker,
former CEO of American Express, and co-founder of RRE
Ventures, told me: "I've been a Republican all my life. I believe
in fiscal conservatism and being a social moderate." But this
Fed-Up CEO now makes the case for Hillary as effectively as
James Carville. "It seems to me she's the person who has got the
broadest experience. She understands the importance of business
development, innovation, and entrepreneurship," he says.
The financial and personal endorsements are partially a
symptom of the business world's chronic trendiness. As noted
management guru Bob Dylan once said: "You don't need a
weatherman to know which way the wind blows." Wall Street
CEOs can read polls as well as they can read balance sheets, and
they like to be on the winning team. Also, many well-heeled
donors give the maximum to several Democratic and Republican
candidates—the way you and I might buy a few packages of Girl
Scout cookies and then toss a dollar into the Salvation Army
bucket. For hedge-fund managers, maxing out to multiple
candidates is a cheap hedge. And plenty of well-known business
leaders are sticking with Republicans. Ebay CEO Meg Whitman
was the finance co-chair for Mitt Romney's exploratory
committee.
But it's not just the ultra-rich who are abandoning Republicans.
CNN's exit poll last fall showed that voters in the East making
between $150,000 and $200,000 favored Democratic candidates
by a 63-37 majority. Since 2004, the percentage of professionals
identifying themselves as Republicans fell from 44 percent to 37
percent, according to a September Wall Street Journal/NBC
News poll. The same survey found 59 percent of Republican
voters agreed with the statement that free trade has been a
negative for the country.
Things have clearly changed. But you wouldn't know it from the
campaigns—on either side. In last week's Republican economic
debate, the leading candidates sang loudly from the GOP
hymnal: hailing income inequality as a wonderful product of the
free market, and blaming economic woes on lawyers and
Democrats.
With the exception of John Edwards, the Democratic candidates
and their congressional allies have been loath to embrace
measures that would alienate their new friends. The trial balloon
floated earlier this month to enact a war income surtax, which
would weigh heavily on high earners, was swiftly shot down.
Closing the loophole that allows private-equity and hedge-fund
managers to pay low long-term capital-gains taxes on the
compensation they get for managing other people's money
would be a popular way to pay for Democratic priorities. But
last week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told private-equity
lobbyists that Congress would move no such legislation this
year.
After all, it's primary season. And during primary season,
candidates must shore up their base.
This article also appears in the Oct. 22 issue of Newsweek.
movies
Extrajudicially Blonde
Reese Witherspoon in Rendition.
By Dana Stevens
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:10 PM ET
Rendition (New Line), directed by Gavin Hood, is the latest in a
string of movies that attempt to bring home the issues in the War
on Terror by personalizing them: What if [insert horrific abuse
of human rights here] were to happen to you? There's something
depressing about the idea that events such as the abduction and
murder of an American journalist (A Mighty Heart), the murder
of a returning soldier suffering from PTSD (In the Valley of
Elah), and now the extraordinary rendition of prisoners to other
countries for purposes of torture, need to be "brought home" any
closer than they already are. What, exactly, is abstract about the
suffering we're confronted with in the news every day? The trade
papers like to puzzle over why Iraq- and 9/11-themed films have
so consistently failed to draw large audiences, but maybe staying
away from these movies is just the public's way of saying,
"Enough!"
Still, Hollywood—particularly during Oscar season—functions
on the assumption that no trauma has entered the national
consciousness until it's been undergone by a flaxen-haired
gamine with major box-office draw. Someone like, say, Reese
Witherspoon, a gifted performer whose blue saucer eyes, spunky
underbite, and general air of lovability threaten to limit her to
roles less interesting than those she's capable of. I love
Witherspoon when she's working the manic edge of that goodygoody persona, like the ruthless teacher's pet she played in
Election. But Rendition gives her little to do besides jut that
famous jaw forward in determination as she pats her pregnancy
prosthesis on a waiting-room couch.
Witherspoon plays Isabella Fields El-Ibrahimi, the about-togive-birth wife of an Egyptian-born, Chicago-based chemical
engineer named Anwar (Omar Metwally). Because of a mix-up
that's never fully explained, Anwar is detained at the airport on
his way back from a professional conference in South Africa.
Apparently his cell number has been connected to a recent
suicide bombing in North Africa. At the peremptory order of a
CIA operative, Corinne Whitman (Meryl Streep), he's dispatched
to an unnamed country where interrogational tactics are, shall
we say, more freewheeling.
Isabella, unable to get answers about her missing husband, heads
to Washington, D.C., where her old college boyfriend Alan
(Peter Sarsgaard) works as the aide to a senator (Alan Arkin)
with connections to the CIA counterterrorism unit. There, she
plonks herself down on the chocolate-colored waiting-room sofa
that should have gotten top billing in the trailer, so endless is its
tenure on-screen. Meanwhile, Anwar is being waterboarded,
subjected to electric shock, placed naked in an isolation cell,
and, when all else fails, punched in the face by a local police
chief, Abasi Fawal (Igal Naor). The young CIA analyst assigned
to observe the interrogations, Douglas Freeman (Jake
Gyllenhaal), stands by, anguished but (for the most part) passive,
and drinks himself into a stupor every night.
Gyllenhaal's Douglas is the only character in Rendition with any
moral complexity: Witherspoon's wide-eyed soccer mom might
as well have cartoon butterflies on her shoulders, while Streep's
torture-loving technocrat all but flies to work on a broom. But
Gyllenhaal's character is so immobile for the first two-thirds of
the movie that, when his conscience finally does kick in, we
hardly know why. Tormented inertia is a hard emotional note to
hit, but the role suits Gyllenhaal, an actor who always seems
fundamentally likable but only half-awake.
Igal Naor, an Israeli, is sickeningly convincing as the North
African cop who treats torture as just another dreary day's work
(Naor will play Saddam Hussein in an upcoming HBO film). But
Fawal may have another, personal motive for mistreating
Anwar: His daughter Fatima (Zineb Oukach) has run away from
home to live with a terrorist-in-training (Moa Khouas), and
Fawal suspects a connection between his daughter's boyfriend
and the prisoner.
In a bid at Babel-style layered storytelling, one of these
plotlines, and only one, has a strange wraparound chronology, in
which the first events we see are eventually revealed to have
taken place after, rather than before, the rest of the action. If that
sounds confusing on the page, you should see it on-screen.
But forget the thin characters and showoffy temporal structure.
Rendition's worst flaw is its political deck-stacking, with its
willingness to win the viewer's sympathy by showcasing the
least defensible instance of extraordinary rendition imaginable.
Like Isabella petitioning her well-connected ex, the movie
appeals to our classism: Anwar's rendition must be a scandal
because, my lord, he's an upper-middle-class professional! Who
got a Ph.D. at NYU and married Reese Frigging Witherspoon! If
I had a family member who had disappeared under similar
circumstances, I'd no doubt play the class card (or whatever card
I had) just as shamelessly as Isabella does. But if I were a
filmmaker taking on the all-too-topical subject of state-condoned
torture, I'd take pains to remember that the human rights of a
homeless illegal immigrant—even one who might, in fact, be
linked to acts of terror—were no less worth defending than those
of Mr. Legally Blonde.
music box
German Emo Boys
How Tokio Hotel conquered the 'tweens of Europe.
By Elisabeth Vincentelli
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 2:06 PM ET
An American looking at the nominees for best band in the
upcoming MTV European Music Awards might take pause: Fall
Out Boy, Good Charlotte, Linkin Park, My Chemical Romance,
and … Tokio Hotel? The same oddly spelled combo shows up in
the best inter act category, i.e., the "Band That Has Been the
Most Interactive With Fans and Online," alongside Fall Out Boy,
Depeche Mode, 30 Seconds to Mars, and My Chemical
Romance. Fairly big hitters all, so who's Tokio Hotel, and what's
it doing there?
In short: Tokio Hotel is a relatively new rock quartet with a
massive teen and preteen following in Europe. Like many such
phenomenons, it's easy to miss if you're either male or well on
the other side of puberty. But what's most fascinating about the
band isn't the size and dedication of its fan base. It's that Tokio
Hotel hails not from one of Europe's pop and rock strongholds,
such as England or Sweden, but from Germany—and that it
sings in its native language.
Devilish, as Tokio Hotel first went by, was formed in 2001 by
four boys barely in their teens: twins Bill (vocals) and Tom
(guitar) Kaulitz as the undisputed sexy leaders, and bassist
Georg Listing and drummer Gustav Schäfer as the stoic rhythm
section. Bill participated in a German version of Star Search in
2003, but the fortunes of the band really turned in 2004, after it
was picked up by a group of songwriters and producers from
Hamburg. They fine-tuned the band's music and image: emo-ish
rock played by style-obsessed teens. The latter aspect would
become the band's calling card—the Kaulitzes embody the most
visually outrageous moments of early-'80s new wave, making
their guyliner-sporting rivals in MTV's best band category look
like junior brokers at Morgan Stanley. Tom favors oversize
clothing and long dreads reminiscent of Boy George, while Bill
is an impossibly androgynous creature in pancake makeup and
teased-out, frosted hair.
After a quick name change ("Tokio" being the German spelling
for the Japanese city and "Hotel" a reference to constant
touring), Bill and Tom's excellent adventure began in earnest in
2005. Within two years, Tokio Hotel fever spread from Germany
to neighboring countries via catchy, goth-tinged pop-punk
singles such as "Durch den Monsun," "Rette Mich," and "Übers
Ende der Welt," as well as the Schrei and Zimmer 483 albums.
Girls in Scandinavia, Italy, England, and even Israel—
shocker!—started singing along phonetically. France is the
country where the band is the most popular, after Germany, with
albums and DVDs squatting the upper reaches of the charts and
the fall 2007 tour selling out in minutes. An online video
captured throngs of French girls waiting for the band outside its
hotel. Most of them are in black, many are in leather jackets.
When a musician finally emerges, the scene suddenly turns into
an outtake from Hitchcock's The Birds as he gets engulfed in a
feverish, shrieking swarm. (Passions seem to run milder in
America. Even Miley Cyrus doesn't seem to elicit such intense
love, and when someone made a tearful video defending Britney
Spears after the starlet's latest televised debacle, most viewers
assumed it was a performance art-type ironic gesture.)
"Ready Steady Go" (originally "Übers Ende der Welt") and
"Scream" ("Schrei"). It made even more sense that it would be
sold only in Hot Topic stores—an association with the titan of
goth-lite mall fashion is natural for a band whose image is a
crucial element of its success.
The Kaulitzes are sexy in a nonthreatening way, which explains
their appeal to 'tweens but also a corresponding mountain of
animosity. The biggest attacks are lobbed by boys, who
sometimes target the music but more often go for Bill Kaulitz's
gender ("Is he a girl?") and sexuality ("Is he gay?"). Many seem
unable to comprehend why males would spend so much time on
makeup and clothes, and simply cannot deal with Tom's
androgyny. The haters devote a stupefying amount of energy to
the band. Just go to dailymotion.com and type "anti tokio
hotel"—parodies, ad hominem attacks, and all-around derision
flow out. Just one example: Someone posted a video of young
drummers to show that Gustav isn't that good for his age. As an
article in the Frankfurter Rundschau recently mused, "Who
would have thought it was still possible to annoy people in the
haggard world of pop?"
Even as Tokio Hotel prepares for its next moves—master
English, start drinking legally—it will be interesting to see if
more European acts, emboldened by its success, realize they can
cross borders despite shunning the pop-rock mainstream's lingua
franca. They won't mean much to insular England and America,
but they could have more impact on future identity politics in the
European community than all the Brussels bureaucrats put
together.
A side effect of the band's popularity in France is that for the
past year or so, a record number of girls has started signing up
for German lessons. In June, Le Monde reported that the director
of the Goethe Institut's cultural services in Paris was distributing
lyric sheets to language teachers. "I'm really happy that we have
something like Tokio Hotel to motivate kids," said Kornelia
Zenner, who oversees lessons at the Goethe Institut. But for how
long? In the past year, Tokio Hotel started translating some of its
material, releasing the English-language Scream (which
combines songs from the first two albums) in Europe. This led to
soul-searching on the part of the fans, most of whom seem to
actually prefer the German versions. "I'm an Elton John fan so
lyrics making sense isn't a requirement for the song to be good,"
a devotee posted on a forum.
other magazines
While Nena may have climbed up the charts with "99
Luftballons" in '83, German music has never made a dent in the
American mainstream—like everything else that's not in
English. (If Shakira needs to abandon Spanish, you know there's
no hope.) And so it made sense that Tokio Hotel's debut U.S.
release, which came out on Sept. 11, would be a CD single of
Must Read
In Newsweek's "prickly" interview with billionaire Blackwater
founder Erik Prince, the ex-Navy SEAL responds to allegations
of secrecy, discusses his company's future in high tech weapons
development, and explains why mercenary is a "slanderous
word."—B.F.
Blackwater Blues
Newsweek talks to Blackwater's founder.
By Brad Flora, Elizabeth Gumport, Garin Hovannisian, Jake
Melville, David Sessions, and Morgan Smith
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 4:00 PM ET
Today, Other Magazines reads Newsweek, The New Yorker, the
New Republic, the Weekly Standard, Harper's, New York, and
the Atlantic to find out what's worth reading—and what's not.
Must Skip
New York's portrait of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as
law-school students is mostly gossip dressed up as political
reporting. A stable of anonymous sources is trotted out, mostly
to reminisce about the early days of the Clinton courtship, and
we are once again reminded of the New York senator's
competitive streak.—E.G.
Best Political Piece
The Atlantic explains why real estate—not culture or religion—
might be the greatest difference between red states and blue
states. Due to land-use policies that vary from state to state, the
article argues, "Americans are sorting themselves geographically
by income and lifestyle."—G.H.
Best Business Piece
In Harper's, Naomi Klein takes on the rise of "disaster
capitalism," arguing that areas like Baghdad's Green Zone and
post-Katrina New Orleans are "fast-forward versions of what
'free market' forces are doing to our societies even in the absence
of war." The government has outsourced itself to contractors,
which in turn provide resources only to those who can pay.—
E.G.
Worth a Look
The Newsweek cover takes readers to Baghdad yet again, but this
time for a series of battlefield love stories as the magazine
explores the few American-Iraqi marriages that have resulted
from the occupation of Iraq.—B.F.
Best Line
From the Weekly Standard's ho-hum analysis of Fred
Thompson's performance at last week's Republican debate:
"Fred Thompson did not drool on stage last Tuesday, and for
that reason, among others, he is said to have survived his first
Republican presidential debate."—J.M.
Best International Coverage
An excellent article in the New Republic rebuffs arguments that
suggest there are too many ethnic groups for democracy to be
viable in Burma. A worthwhile explanation of why we should
care about those rioting monks.—D.S.
Best Culture Piece
The New Yorker examines how indie musicians' squeamishness
about race ("musical miscegenation") has affected the evolution
of popular music: "The uneasy, and sometimes inappropriate,
borrowings and initiations that set rock and roll in motion gave
popular music a heat and an intensity that can't be duplicated
today, and the loss isn't just musical; it's also about risk."—M.S.
Best Science Story
Harper's reports on Europe's increased efforts to regulate and
reduce the use of toxic chemicals, as the EU has developed
guidelines far more scrupulous than America's current policies.
Bush's administration, the article suggests, has fought these
efforts as Europe's success will mean that the United States is no
longer "the axis of influence around which the rest of the world
revolves."—E.G.
Best Opening
In The New Yorker, Anthony Lane begins his review of Lust,
Caution: "I consider it my responsibility to give prospective
viewers the information they require. And here it is: ninety-five.
That is the number of minutes that elapsed, by my watch,
between the start of the film and the start of the sex, and from
that you can calculate your own schedule.—M.S.
Best Humor Piece
In an essay for the Atlantic's 150th anniversary issue, P.J.
O'Rourke delivers a hilarious statistical accounting of American
history through marriage rates, lung cancer rates, and the price
of codfish. With these figures, the author claims to "prove,
disprove, re-prove, and improve more things about America than
America has things."—G.H.
Worst Approval-Matrix Item
"I Love New York returns ... with a midget" is ranked as brilliant
as it is lowbrow by New York. One of the terms is possibly more
applicable than the other.—E.G.
Best Advice
In the New Republic, Michael Kinsley provides an etiquette
guide for "receiving psychotic dictators." Rule No. 1: Don't
introduce them as psychotic dictators, since it will probably only
make you look as petty as you're saying they are.—D.S.
Best Cocktail-Party Fodder
According to Harper's, "Argentine lake ducks have foot-long
spiral-shaped penises." Why? Duck vaginas, which often have
"pockets and cul-de-sacs," spiral in the opposite direction; "as
vaginas become longer and more complex, males evolve longer
penises."—E.G.
poem
"Failure"
By Philip Schultz
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 11:13 AM ET
Click to listen to Philip Schultz read this poem.
To pay for my father's funeral
I borrowed money from people
he already owed money to.
One called him a nobody.
No, I said, he was a failure.
You can't remember
a nobody's name, that's why
they're called nobodies.
Failures are unforgettable.
The rabbi who read a stock eulogy
about a man who didn't belong to
or believe in anything
was both a failure and a nobody.
He failed to imagine the son
and wife of the dead man
being shamed by each word.
To understand that not
believing in or belonging to
anything demanded a kind
of faith and buoyancy.
An uncle, counting on his fingers
my father's business failures—
a parking lot that raised geese,
a motel that raffled honeymoons,
a bowling alley with roving mariachis—
failed to love and honor his brother,
who showed him how to whistle
under covers, steal apples
with his right or left hand. Indeed,
my father was comical.
His watches pinched, he tripped
on his pant cuffs and snored
loudly in movies, where
his weariness overcame him
finally. He didn't believe in:
savings insurance newspapers
vegetables good or evil human
frailty history or God.
Our family avoided us,
fearing boils. I left town
but failed to get away.
politics
Romney's Achilles' Heel
talking about his party, and Howard Dean made it famous in the
2004 Democratic primary campaign. Republicans are allowed to
quote only one liberal—John Kennedy—and then only when
talking about the benefits of tax cuts. But Romney's
appropriation of a legendary claim from the other party was
perfect for the former Massachusetts governor who, despite
repeatedly asserting that he is the authentic conservative in the
race, is viewed by many as neither conservative nor authentic.
Mitt Romney has often undermined himself during the
presidential campaign. Even as he has asserted that he is antiabortion, he has been dogged by video clips and statements from
his 1994 Senate and 2002 gubernatorial campaigns, in which he
robustly defended a woman's right to have an abortion. On
several other subjects there also seem to be two stories: gun
control (for/against); gays (their champion/not so much); and
even Ronald Reagan himself (distance/hug). The individual
changes of position have caused minor irritation for him. The
cumulative effect of them all is the big problem. Taken together,
they suggest, as a nonaffiliated veteran of Republican politics
put it, "that he has no core."
Mitt Romney's biggest problem was supposed to be his Mormon
faith, but the polls don't show it—either in Iowa or nationally.
These data could reflect the fact that on sensitive issues such as
race and religion, people don't want to give a pollster an answer
that makes them sound like a bigot. But if large numbers were
truly concerned about Romney's religion, they'd pick someone
else when asked who they want to be president, and Romney
wouldn't be ahead in Iowa and New Hampshire polls and
climbing in South Carolina.
But ask voters about Romney's flip-flops, and they speak out
loud. In a recent Des Moines Register poll, likely caucus
attendees listed Romney's multiple positions as his biggest
liability—on par with Rudy Giuliani's pro-choice stance on
abortion. In a Pew Center poll, only 12 percent of respondents
thought of Mitt Romney when the word honest was presented to
them, the lowest of the four major Republican candidates. A
Washington Post/ABC News poll showed that only 13 percent of
Republicans find Mitt Romney honest and trustworthy, also the
lowest of the four major Republican candidates. A CNN/Opinion
Research poll found that 15 percent of adults found Mitt
Romney to be the most honest—again, the bottom of the field.
Can Mitt convince voters he believes anything?
By John Dickerson
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 7:47 PM ET
In the authenticity contest underway among the GOP
presidential candidates, Mitt Romney recently boasted he was
from "the Republican wing of the Republican party." You won't
find that line in Reagan's diaries or the new Barry Goldwater
film or even mumbled on the Nixon tapes. Romney was quoting
Democrats. Sen. Paul Wellstone popularized the quip when
Like all of the big questions that dog the candidates, this
problem has been with Romney for a while—even before the
presidential race. "He's not pro-choice or anti-choice," said
Senate opponent Ted Kennedy in 1994. "He's multiple choice."
Romney hasn't been able to dispense with questions about his
constancy, and the concerns are only becoming more relevant as
Republicans fight over which candidate is a more genuine
conservative.
As John Kerry learned painfully in 2004, calling someone a
phony works, no matter the topic under discussion. John McCain
was the first opponent to raise the issue during a debate with
Romney about immigration. "I haven't changed my position on
even numbered years or because of the different offices I've been
running for," McCain said. In the last week, McCain has issued
the same charge again and again. In a GOP debate last week,
Rudy Giuliani ended an exchange with Romney over the lineitem veto by saying, "You have to be honest with people, and
you can't fool all the people all the time.
Romney's spokesman, Kevin Madden, calls the attacks
"childish" and compares McCain and Giuliani to toddlers who
"cross their arms, hold their breath, and stamp their feet." But
Romney's allies and advisers admit that the charge that he is too
calculating and inauthentic is a problem, and one that much of
the campaign reinforces. Romney's message appears to change
from day to day—from anti-pornography to the threat of
jihadism to doing away with the estate tax. The rapid shifts
suggest he's rooting around for a message. When he fights with
his rivals, it's not over the big issues of the day, but smaller
things like sanctuary cities and commuter taxes, issues that seem
ginned up only for tactical advantage.
On the stump, Romney's much-discussed stiffness also
reinforces the caricature of a calculating automaton. His teeth are
on message, and no hair grows without a plan and a briefing. He
is a stainless-steel candidate who gets excited about details and
policy, but this doesn't play well in the theater of politics. The
irony is that his wonkiness is one of his most authentic
characteristics. His aides and friends insist the geeky, dataobsessed guy is the authentic Romney. He's not the one you'd
like to have a beer with—he doesn't drink, anyway—but he may
be the best candidate to share a PowerPoint with.
The Romney campaign has tried in various ways to combat the
flip-flopping charge. First, Romney has embraced his largest
reversal and admitted that he has changed his view on abortion.
Better to claim a conversion than look shifty. To court the key
GOP voting bloc of social conservatives, Romney has offered
his 38-year marriage and vast family as proof that he not only
supports family values but lives them. He speaks out against
pornography and lectures Republicans on maintaining standards.
He denounced his former supporter Sen. Larry Craig. He seems
to be hoping that if he plays the role of the most conservative,
people won't question his qualifications for it.
Calculating vacillators are not usually associated with fortitude,
so Romney has also made the word strength his running mate.
It's in all his slogans—"Strategy for a Stronger America" and
"True Strength for America's Future." His ads go completely
overboard on the word. Romney's successful business career and
storied turnaround of the Olympics are also deployed as proof
that he has conviction and leadership skills inconsistent with the
shape-shifting caricature. (Although, as Daniel Gross so cannily
pointed out, Romney's flexibility is completely consistent with
his acumen as a CEO.)
The best way Romney could combat the idea that he has no core
beliefs is by talking about his religion. Aides say he is likely to
do so in the coming weeks. He has stayed faithful to
Mormonism's complicated dictates throughout his life, including
during a grueling two years as a missionary seeking converts in
France. As Romney says privately, "We have a high barrier to
entry in our religion. You can't drink, smoke, or have premarital
sex. Who wants to join that?" This week, Mark DeMoss,
president of a Christian public-relations firm, sent a letter to long
list of pastors and other faith leaders making this case for
Romney. "There aren't casual Mormons," says DeMoss. "It is
not an easy religion. His religion is not a show. If it were a show
he would have signed up for an easier show."
The problem for Romney is that the more specific he gets about
his religion, the more he will be forced to talk about the tenets of
his faith and the more the conversation becomes about those
tenets. That means explaining his religion and not his policy
positions. This could be distracting at least, and at worst might
turn off some voters, particularly evangelicals, some of whom
consider the religion a cult.
In the end, Romney may survive his authenticity problem
because of the opponents he faces. He is a compromised
candidate in a compromised field. Fred Thompson's dream
candidacy has not materialized, McCain is damaged from his
support for immigration reform, and Rudy Giuliani is
fundamentally at odds with his party's largest voting bloc and
has his own problem with contradictions. So, while Romney
hasn't solved his big problem, the men he's running against
haven't licked theirs, either.
politics
Campaign Junkie
The election trail starts here.
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 7:45 AM ET
press box
The Churchillian Side of Chris Matthews
To be revealed on Oct. 25 at an awards ceremony.
By Jack Shafer
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 7:26 PM ET
Dredge your overstuffed furniture. Scrape the bottom of your
purse. Shatter your kid's piggy bank. Do what ever it takes to
find $500 for a ticket to the Churchill Centre's Oct. 25 fundraising dinner at the Willard so you can witness the presentation
of the Emery Reves Award to Chris Matthews for lifetime
achievement in journalism.
The Reves Award goes to the member of the TV commentariat
who flings the best on-air spittle, which poses the question of
why Matthews didn't win the prize a decade ago and have it
retired in his honor. Just joshin'. Actually, the award honors
"excellence in writing or speaking about Churchill's life and
times, or for applying his precepts and values to contemporary
issues among the English-Speaking Peoples," according to the
affair's invitation.
How has Matthews applied Churchill's precepts and values to
contemporary issues among English-Speaking Peoples?
Churchill Centre President Laurence Geller paints Matthews'
accomplishment in these bright colors in a press release. "Mr.
Matthew's [sic] passion for a free and open press and the public
debate that it sparks is legendary. … He is an enthusiastic
supporter of democracy and has been a learned member of the
news reporting fraternity throughout his distinguished and
prolific career."
Legendary. Supporter of democracy. Learned reporter.
Distinguished. Prolific. All of these words may capture
Matthews' character, but not as well as do flighty, braying,
shameless, and opportunistic. It's a shame that nobody gives a
Sammy Glick Award. Matthews would be a cinch.
What makes Chris run? Back in 1989, Los Angeles Times
reporter Tom Rosenstiel tracked the Matthews ascendancy from
political aide and speechwriter to media star.
"He made no secret about it. Chris Matthews wanted to be a
pundit, a player, a face on the Sunday political talk shows,"
Rosenstiel writes. But the transformation required journalistic
credentials, which Matthews lacked. The San Francisco
Examiner, then the underdog afternoon daily in the Bay Area,
was only too obliging. In 1987, it made Matthews an Examiner
columnist and inflated him with the title of "San Francisco
Examiner Washington bureau chief," something that would look
distinguished on a TV Chyron below his grinning face. (At the
time, the Examiner had only one other D.C. reporter.)
The dodge worked. In 1989, Washingtonian named Matthews
one of the city's "top 50 journalists," writes Rosenstiel. It was a
nice trick considering that Matthews was barely even a
journalist.
After apprenticing on The McLaughlin Group, Face the Nation,
Good Morning America, and CBS Morning News, Matthews
won a co-anchor spot of his own on NBC's fledging cable TV
network in 1994. Except for one decent book—1996's Kennedy
and Nixon: The Rivalry That Shaped Postwar America—it's
been klieg lights, non sequiturs, and bombast ever since.
If the Churchill Centre has yet to corral a presenter for
Matthews, allow me to suggest Vanity Fair's James Wolcott,
who appreciates the man's talents. In his 2004 book, Attack
Poodles and Other Media Mutants, Wolcott writes:
Matthews manages to outrace his
contradictory statements by blustering so
many excitable things so fast and so often that
pinning down the discrepancies is like trying
to grab a gust of wind by the tail. He isn't a
cynical dissembler. He seems to suffer from
some pundit variant of short-term memory
loss. Each day on earth erases the days before.
He says what he believes and believes what he
says, and has the liberating advantage of
always working from a blank sheet.
Just like Churchill.
Matthews is no stranger to the Churchill Centre, having served
as master of ceremonies at its 2005 in Chicago, when the Reves
Award went to Tom Brokaw [PDF]. That night, Matthews
proved once again that he'll say anything to please a crowd by
calling Brokaw "perhaps the most accomplished journalist of our
time." Brokaw is OK, but if an accurate roster of the top 500 of
journalists of our time exists, he's not even on the waiting list.
But journalism awards given by outfits like the Churchill Centre
aren't meant to compete with the Pulitzer Prizes. They're fundraisers, and they exist to sell enough tax-deductible tickets to
support the nonprofit's various programs. According to the
Churchill Centre's IRS Form 990s for 2005 and 2006, available
through Guidestar.org, the 2005 awards ceremony honoring
Brokaw was a smash, netting the organization about $175,000.
It's just a show, and you're not expected to believe anything you
hear there. Sort of like Chris Matthews' Hardball.
******
Chris Matthews' official bio states that he won the David
Brinkley Award for Excellence in Broadcast Journalism in 2004.
Except for learning (via Nexis) Bernard Shaw has won the
award and that Barry University has given it out, I know
practically nothing about it. Fill me in with e-mail to
slate.pressbox@gmail.com. (E-mail may be quoted by name in
"The Fray," Slate's readers' forum, in a future article, or
elsewhere unless the writer stipulates otherwise. Permanent
disclosure: Slate is owned by the Washington Post Co.)
press box
What Do Herbert and Marion Sandler
Want?
Investigating the funders of ProPublica, the new investigative journalism
outfit.
By Jack Shafer
Monday, October 15, 2007, at 10:45 PM ET
The first American press was the partisan press, underwritten
and dictated by the political parties. Starting in the 1830s or so,
the profit-seeking lords of the commercial press staked their
major claim to the news business and established a primacy they
have maintained to this day.
The third wave in American journalism—that of the foundation
press—may be taking form now thanks to Bay Area billionaires
Herbert and Marion Sandler. Waving $10 million that they
promise to replenish annually, the Sandlers have founded the
nonprofit ProPublica to produce investigative journalism. (Usual
suspect the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation is
also chipping in some money to the ProPublica kitty, as are the
Atlantic Philanthropies and the JEHT Foundation.)
Today's New York Times reports that ProPublica will soon hire
24 reporters and editors to create one of investigative
journalism's largest staffs. Based in New York City and led by
former Wall Street Journal managing editor Paul Steiger,
ProPublica promises to produce quality investigative journalism
and give it—not sell it—to media outlets.
ProPublica's Web site claims that the business crisis in
publishing has put a crimp in investigative units across the land,
and philanthropy is needed to fill the gap. Other nonprofits
muckrake, of course. The Center for Investigative Reporting has
been doing so for 30 years and the Center for Public Integrity for
more than 15. Nonprofits already publish investigative
magazines such as Mother Jones. Some newspaper owners have
given their properties to nonprofits to maintain independence
and quality (the St. Petersburg Times, the Anniston Star, and the
Union Leader; see Alicia C. Shepard's article). In the United
Kingdom, a trust exists whose mission is to preserve the
Guardian's financial and editorial independence "in perpetuity."
But nothing on this scale and with this investigative focus has
been attempted before in journalism.
What do the Sandlers want for their millions? Perhaps to return
us to the days of the partisan press. The couple made their
fortune, which Forbes estimates at $1.2 billion, at Golden West
Financial Corp. In recent years, they've spent millions on
politics. The Federal Election Commission database shows the
two of them giving hundreds of thousands of dollars to
Democratic Party campaigns. In 2004, Herbert Sandler gave the
MoveOn.org Voter Fund $2.5 million, again according to the
FEC database. The Center for Responsive Politics Web site
reports donations of $8.5 million from Herbert and Marion to the
527 group Citizens for a Strong Senate, in the 2004 cycle. CSS
was formed by "a group of strategists with close ties to former
North Carolina Sen. John Edwards," writes the
washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza. American Banker reported
in 2005 that Herbert also gave $1 million to the California stem
cell initiative and that the pair have also funded the progressive
Center for American Progress.
The Sandlers' enthusiasm for journalism and journalists is late in
arriving. Back in April 1992, at the American Society of
Newspaper Editors' annual convention, Marion ascribed partial
blame for the savings and loan disaster to the press. "Where
were you when it was happening?" she asked, according to a
story by the Chicago Tribune's James Warren. Her husband
accused the press of making "stars out of bums and charlatans"
like swindler Charles Keating. "The press is susceptible to the
Big Lie, no matter how patently nonsensical," Herbert said.
What sort of assistance did the Sandlers give the press to get to
the bottom of the S&L scandal while it was happening? Um, not
much. Warren writes, "Herbert Sandler conceded that, apart
from being an occasional anonymous source for one Wall Street
Journal reporter, he declined to help journalists as much as he
probably should have."
ProPublica's Web site vows that its investigations will be
conducted in a "non-partisan and non-ideological manner,
adhering to the strictest standards of journalistic impartiality."
But philanthropists, especially those who earned the fortune
they're giving away, tend not to distribute their money with a
blind eye to the results. How happy will they be if ProPublica
gores their sacred Democratic cows? Or takes the "wrong"
position on their pet projects: health, the environment, and civil
liberties?
If I were a newspaper editor considering ProPublica copy for a
future issue, the first thing I'd want is proof of a firewall
preventing the Sandlers and other funders from picking—or
nixing—the targets of its probes. And if I were an editorial
writer, I'd call upon Herbert Sandler to provide ProPublica with
10 years of funding ($100 million), and then resign from his post
as the organization's chairman so he'll never be tempted to bollix
up what might turn out to be a good thing.
******
I dare you little bastards to query the FEC database for my
contributions. Send findings to slate.pressbox@gmail.com. (Email may be quoted by name in "The Fray," Slate's readers'
forum, in a future article, or elsewhere unless the writer
stipulates otherwise. Permanent disclosure: Slate is owned by
the Washington Post Co.)
sports nut
ESPN the Newsmagazine
The Worldwide Leader's new 60 Minutes wannabe E:60, reviewed.
By Robert Weintraub
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 4:12 PM ET
Judging a television show by its credits isn't fair, but E:60 dares
you to mock it before the show even starts. As New York City
traffic whirls, the stars of ESPN's new magazine show—Jeremy
Schaap, Michael Smith, Rachel Nichols—hail cabs and climb
subway steps en route to another day of hard-hitting reporting.
From the opening seconds, the show seems more focused on
showing that ESPN is a legitimate news-gathering operation
than on crafting journalism.
In the run-up to the show's debut episode, I was most excited
about this sentence from the network's publicity department: "To
differentiate itself from other newsmagazines ... E:60 will
feature extensive behind the scenes looks at how the reporters
create the stories, from pitching the ideas and creating storylines
to interviewing subjects." I was excited to see a genuine ESPN
meeting make it to the screen. The pitch meetings I've attended
in my years as a TV producer have mostly consisted of people
stammering out half-formed thoughts as the other staffers stifle
yawns and eat doughnuts. Actual decisions to shoot or not to
shoot a piece are usually made via e-mail.
It would be innovative, risky, and potentially extremely boring
for ESPN to show viewers how the TV sausage is made. Instead,
E:60 thaws out a bunch of premade sausages. These "meetings"
are about as realistic as Schaap taking the subway around
town—in lieu of using a host, each reporter announces his or her
interest in a given topic in a casual-but-rehearsed manner. The
whole thing is shot in muted tones that let you know this is
serious business. The shaky camera and whip pans popularized
by NYPD Blue are also designed to enhance the feel of an offthe-cuff bull session. Of course, at no point do we see any
rejected pitches—now that would've made for good television.
The show's first-ever report is a grim but sadly routine tale of a
sex scandal being swept under the rug at Northwestern High, a
Miami prep football powerhouse. As reporter Tom Farrey sets
up the piece, Michael Smith—the former Boston Globe writer
who is otherwise unseen in the show's debut—oddly chimes in
from across the table that "statutory rape is common." It's hard to
tell, though, whether he's being supportive or critical of the story
selection. Either way, there's never any discussion of how to
approach the piece structurally or whom to interview.
Far more damning is what gets left out once the story begins.
Farrey mentions briefly in his intro that Northwestern appeared
on ESPN this year. There's more to the story than that: As
Robert Andrew Powell wrote in Slate last month, ESPN
orchestrated a game this season between No. 2-ranked
Northwestern and top-ranked Southlake (Dallas) Carroll.
Northwestern earned its high ranking, as E:60 reports, in part
because school administrators covered up a sex crime so the
team's star running back could stay eligible for the state
championships. In rewarding Northwestern with a nationally
televised game, ESPN was arguably complicit in the scandal.
But the network's role in all this never comes up in the piece. Do
the ever-increasing coverage and money associated with prep
football lead to shady behavior by high-school principals? ESPN
doesn't care to say. By shaking its finger at Northwestern
without mentioning the network's own role, E:60 reveals an
alarming capacity for sanctimony. It also proves that, at a time in
which ESPN is often the biggest story in the sports world, the
network's newsmagazine has no desire to engage in selfcriticism.
My opinion of the show sunk even lower when Schaap "pitched"
the second piece, which was about the estrangement between
Cecil Fielder and his son Prince, now slugging for the
Milwaukee Brewers. A real pitch would have centered on a
discussion of whether either Fielder would talk to ESPN—
there's no story without the cooperation of one or the other. As it
happens, Fielder père talks about the fractured relations between
once-tight father and son. Did Cecil approach ESPN after Prince
gave his version of the story to Sports Illustrated? Not if you
believe a longer version of the pitch meeting, available on
ESPN.com, in which Schaap says he's unsure if Cecil will
discuss the rift. But TV viewers, most of whom won't be
bushwhacking through the wilds of ESPN.com, are left without
an explanation of how the story came to pass.
The longest story of the night is a tearjerker about Jason Ray, the
North Carolina student mascot who was killed crossing a road
before this year's NCAA Tournament. Ray donated his organs,
and the feature unites his parents with the men he saved. The
tone then changes drastically with a short vignette showing Bill
"Sports Guy" Simmons donning a motion-capture suit and
joining NBA stars like Paul Pierce as they go through the paces
for the latest NBA Live video game. Simmons is jovial but not a
great camera presence, as he admits up front—he doesn't project
his voice, and while joshing with Pierce he opens a crinkly bag
of potato chips right next to his microphone. These are issues for
his producer, but it adds to the effect that Simmons is being used
merely for name value. Still, after 57 minutes of warmed-over
reportage and "I think it's interesting, let's do it" pitches, it's a
relief to see E:60 try something new.
Clearly, ESPN hopes to show it can pump out a prestige product
as its various shout-a-thons have bruised its reputation as the
fan's first and only stop for sports news. Outside the Lines,
ESPN's flagship issues program, does yeoman's work, but since
going to a daily format, it has mostly ceded long-form
journalism to HBO and Real Sports. (A light Q&A with Vince
Young on E:60 only serves to highlight the recent, more
substantive Real Sports interview with Donovan McNabb.)
E:60's phony "making of" style won't help rehab the network's
reputation as a news organ. The dedication, legwork, and good
fortune that go into cracking good stories could be really
compelling. But ESPN is only pretending to want the story
behind the story. All E:60 really cares about is a marketable
finished product.
I graduated from the University of South Florida in 1991. Those
were the days when USF was a 35,000-student commuter school
without a football team or a cow chip of an identity. It was like
an overpopulated community college (granted, with Ph.D.
candidates) on a sprawling, 1970s-styled campus of yellow-brick
buildings. I played for the baseball team, and though we were
often ranked in the top 20 and regularly sought funds for a
modest new stadium, the school never cared to give it to us.
As an institution with brand-name power and sports-team
credibility, USF was, in short, lame. It was where an average
Tampa kid went because he didn't get into the University of
Florida or Florida State or anywhere else. If I mentioned to my
pals from UF or FSU that South Florida should get a football
team, I was inviting them to do their school cheer—the Gator
Chomp, the Tomahawk Chop—right in my face. And I had to sit
there and take it. After all, the Bulls didn't have any kind of
cheer.
sports nut
The Bulls Are No. 2!
My South Florida Bulls. They're a college football team. Yes, South Florida is a
real school.
By Jamie Allen
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 7:10 AM ET
When you're on vacation in Cape Cod at the end of September,
it's a challenge to get the locals to talk about anything besides
the Red Sox or Patriots. But there I was, in a Wellfleet pub on
the same weekend that the Red Sox clinched the AL East title,
trying to explain to the salty dogs around me just how insane it
was that the Bulls were undefeated. No, not the Chicago Bulls.
The USF Bulls! No, not the University of San Francisco! The
University of South Florida, dude! Which, for some reason, is
located in west-central Florida, in Tampa …
Look, enough explaining. I pointed at the TV, because my alma
mater's football team, which didn't exist when I went to school
there, had just beaten No. 5 West Virginia.
"Do you have any idea what this means?" I asked. I got a few
vacant stares and half shrugs.
It's hard to blame those confused Red Sox fans—I haven't
figured out what's going on, either. The weeks since that win
over West Virginia have been even trippier. The Bulls jumped to
No. 6 in the rankings, then to No. 5. Now, thanks to a weekend
of upsets coupled with USF's 64-12 romp over UCF (that's the
University of Central Florida), the Bulls are ranked No. 2 in the
season's first BCS rankings. If the season ended today, the
University of South Florida would be playing for the national
championship. Do you have any idea what this means?
Ten years ago, USF finally got football. They signed Lee Roy
Selmon, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' first Hall of Famer, to drum
up support in the community. They hired a gravelly voiced,
gruff-looking coach, Jim Leavitt. They were on to good things.
Good for them, I thought. At least USF students can go to
football games, even if they are Division III-B or whatever.
I would have been naive to get excited. They wouldn't start
playing in Division I-A until 2001. And once they did play in
Division I-A, they'd surely get pummeled.
It turns out that USF was like that very unimpressive classmate,
the one who surprises everyone at the reunion with news that
he's a millionaire with a supermodel wife. An early hint of this
came in 2005 when USF hit the ESPN radar by beating a highly
ranked Louisville team. Even an alumnus could write that off as
lucky. But a mere two years later, here's South Florida, ranked
behind only storied Ohio State University. Perhaps even more
amazing, they are now clearly the best team in the state, the best
team in a region that treats college football like Saturday church.
This is a bit awkward for a detached alumnus like me, one of
tens of thousands of South Florida graduates who left the school
and never looked back. (Sure, I visit the campus every couple of
years and notice the stylish new research centers and fraternity
houses, but I'm not what the alumni office would call a "donor.")
The team's fast rise means I've had to play fair-weather-fan
catch-up. Admittedly, I still haven't seen more than a quarter of a
Bulls' game. But I'm learning. It's College Football Fan 101:
How to cheer for your own team.
I'm teaching myself to obsess about how we—we!—almost blew
that game against Florida Atlantic after our big win over West
Virginia. And hey, why all the haters? It truly irks me that
Jimmy Johnson and several other sports announcers are saying
that USF shouldn't be ranked above USC and all those other one-
loss teams. The other day, I heard myself yelling at the TV
screen: "Hey, USF is undefeated! Undefeated!"
It's like this: I want respect, for once. I want a Gator alum to
smarmily ask me where I went to college. And when I tell him, I
want to see the dark look that passes over his face, the orangeand-blue smugness wiped away by the undeniable truth: My
football team is ranked higher than his.
I think this is called "school pride." It will be on full display
Thursday night, when the Bulls take on Rutgers on ESPN.
As the game approaches, I'm searching for outlets for my
newfound school spirit. The other day, I was driving through my
Atlanta neighborhood when I saw a guy mowing his lawn. He
had on a USF shirt. I had never seen this before. Sensing a
potential bonding moment with another hard-core fan, I wheeled
the car over to the side of the road. The guy stopped mowing.
I shouted, "Hey, you went to USF?"
"What?" he said.
"USF! You went there! I did too!" I was pointing at his shirt.
"Oh, no, my brother went there or something," he said.
"Oh!" I said. I was still excited, because I was only one person
removed from someone who went to USF (or something) and
had a shirt to prove it.
"They're doing pretty good!" I added. The guy nodded and went
back to his mowing.
I wanted to grab him by the collars of that shirt. I wanted to
shake him. I wanted to look him in the eyes and say, Do you
have any idea what this means?
technology
Apple vs. Everyone
Every media conglomerate wants to start its own online venture. Will iTunes
survive?
By Ivan Askwith
Wednesday, October 17, 2007, at 12:37 PM ET
Since the iTunes Store opened in 2003, Apple and the world's
top media companies have happily shared the profits from
consumers' increasing appetite for downloadable songs and
videos. This summer, the four-year honeymoon ended. In July,
Universal Music Group announced that it would be downgrading
its licensing contract with iTunes. Universal then revealed late
last week that it has been in negotiations with other major labels
to launch a rival service. Two months ago, NBC announced it
would be pulling the network's shows from iTunes and
relocating to Amazon Unbox. And in the last two weeks,
Radiohead sidestepped both iTunes and the major record labels
by allowing fans to purchase its new album online for whatever
price they choose. Does all this mean that Apple's dominance of
online media is coming to an end?
Not just yet. Despite the recent defections, Apple's iTunes Store
is still responsible for a staggering 75 percent of online content
sales. While the store's content might belong to labels, networks,
and studios, the consumers still belong to Apple, whose iPod +
iTunes combination has yet to be challenged by any competitor.
At the moment, it's hard to tell who needs whom more.
Universal Music provides Apple with access to one out of every
three new albums sold in the United States. At the same time,
online sales through venues such as the iTunes Store provide a
substantial percentage of Universal's revenue—15 percent
worldwide, or $200 million, during the first quarter of 2007
alone. At first glance, NBC's situation seems more one-sided.
While the network's programs account for around 40 percent of
Apple's television sales, online sales do not yet provide a
significant source of the TV network's revenue. iTunes,
however, has proven it can deliver new audiences to struggling
network programs: NBC itself has credited iTunes for the
success of The Office, which was slated for cancellation until
network executives saw how well it was selling online.
NBC and Universal have both stated that their short-lived
marriages with Apple collapsed due to irreconcilable differences
over pricing. Apple claims that NBC wanted to raise the price of
its programs, while NBC says that it wanted to lower the price to
99 cents. Whomever you believe, the fact remains that content
providers have been pushing Apple to loosen up its pricing
restrictions, and Apple has refused.
Regardless of demand, each song on iTunes costs 99 cents, each
television program $1.99, and each feature-length movie $9.99.
Most consumers are likely to agree that iTunes' pricing seems
illogical; there's no obvious reason that Vanilla Ice's "Ninja Rap
2" should cost the same as the newest tracks from Soulja Boy.
For content owners, this is more than illogical: It's bad for
business.
Why does Apple stick with fixed pricing? Market analysts
generally say that this is because iTunes sales are a means to an
end, where the end is selling iPods. As such, Apple's interest is
ensuring that desirable content for the iPod costs as little as
possible. If this were Apple's only consideration, however, we
have to assume it would have agreed to NBC's alleged request to
halve the price of its television shows. It's also possible the
company simply doesn't want to mess with its quiet but
consistent income. The more likely explanation, however, lies
with the company's obsession with simplicity. ITunes has been a
huge success because it's easy to use, and (at least for now) has
the most digital content of any online store. Apple's refusal to
budge on pricing indicates it's prepared to defend simplicity at
the expense of selection.
Even if Apple did everything the networks wanted, iTunes
wouldn't control the digital media market forever. The success of
the iTunes Store has proven that there is a significant market for
buying songs and videos online. That fact hasn't been lost on
content owners. Variable pricing might have kept NBC onboard,
but that doesn't mean NBC wouldn't have also partnered with
Amazon, MSN, and a thousand other resellers. Most of NBC's
top-rated programs are already available as free, ad-supported
streams on NBC.com. The network also plans to offer shows
through NBC Direct, a forthcoming downloadable video client,
and Hulu, a joint initiative with News Corp. that's set to begin
beta testing later this year.
So, who needs whom more? Will iTunes bleed customers if it
doesn't sell the most popular shows and albums? Will NBC learn
that iTunes users will shrug and buy something else if they can't
find The Office? Let's play out the three possible outcomes.
Option 1: Apple backs down. Apple decides that selling
content through iTunes is critical to the success of its assorted
digital media devices. As all of the major labels, networks, and
studios abandon the iTunes Store for alternate distribution
strategies, Apple gives in and allows NBC et al. to set their own
prices. After all, Amazon sells products for lots of different
prices, and nobody finds it too difficult to use.
Why it won't happen: Allowing media conglomerates to set
their own prices won't keep them from seeking additional
distribution partners. And while Amazon might improve its
selection of content, it's not likely to gain much footing with
iPod users: At present, Amazon Unbox isn't even available for
Mac users, and content can't be loaded onto iPods. Unless all of
the major content providers strike deals with a single distributor,
consumers will be forced to seek out music and movies across
multiple platforms and services. The continued success of the
iTunes Store in the face of a growing number of competing
services suggests that most consumers would rather get their
media from the single source with the best selection rather than
from a dozen independent providers.
Option 2: The networks back down. Muttering under their
collective breath, the networks resign themselves to selling
content through iTunes in order to continue reaching Apple's
user base.
Why it's likely to happen: The television networks and record
labels will continue exploring alternate distribution channels that
yield higher profits and greater control, but unless they're willing
to put pride over profit, the networks can't afford to ignore or
abandon iTunes.
Option 3: No one backs down. Apple remains committed to
uniform pricing (which it will), and the networks remain
committed to controlling the pricing of their content (which is
probable). Convinced that the success of the iPod hinges on the
availability of exclusive, desirable, accessible media content,
Apple begins exploring new strategies that sidestep the existing
industry structures altogether.
One such approach would involve Apple forming direct
relationships with artists. Through iTunes, Apple could embrace
the growing number of musicians looking to escape the confines
of the major labels, a roster that includes Radiohead, Trent
Reznor, and Madonna. It's doubtful that most artists would agree
to release their work exclusively through Apple, but it's not hard
to imagine an artist giving Apple an exclusive advance
distribution window in exchange for placement in an iPod
commercial, a tour sponsorship, and a higher share of revenues
than the labels and networks are willing to offer. And while it's
outside of its current business model, Apple could even invest in
saving fan-favorite television shows from cancellation: Imagine
iTunes as the exclusive distributor for Arrested Development,
Firefly, or Veronica Mars.
If the networks turn their backs on iTunes altogether, Apple
could also retaliate by moving to a service-based approach. The
company has already released a networked set-top device called
the AppleTV that allows users to stream photos, music, and
video content from computers to a television set. Thus far,
response to the AppleTV has been lukewarm, but Apple could
change this with a single, simple move: Introduce DVR
capabilities.
By letting people record any television content they please and
load it into iTunes and their iPods with one-click ease, Apple
could avoid having to cut deals with anyone. The company could
even sweeten the pot by leveraging its online services and
allowing users to save any recorded show to their .Mac accounts,
making their favorite television broadcasts accessible from
anywhere. Would Apple take such aggressive action against the
networks? That's hard to predict, both because Steve Jobs sits on
the board of the Walt Disney Co. and because such an approach
could damage Apple's ongoing relationship with each network's
affiliated music labels. But from an audience perspective, this
would be a fantastic outcome, and one that would go a long way
toward restoring Apple's flagging reputation as a champion of
consumer interests. Networks take note: Whether they sell your
content or give it away, Apple's not going away.
television
Did You Watch Chuck Last Night?
It's 24 meets The O.C.
By Troy Patterson
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 11:26 AM ET
Chuck (NBC, Mondays at 8 p.m. ET) stands, not disagreeably,
as a hybrid of spy spoof and romantic comedy—a homelandsecurity action caper. The credits list McG (the embarrassingly
named director of the Charlie's Angels flicks) as one of the
executive producers, so let's warily praise him for the escapist
fizz of Chuck's action sequences. While we're at it, let us
suppose that co-creator Josh Schwartz, previously responsible
for the generation-defining froth of The O.C., brought his talent
for young-adult melodrama to bear in making Chuck feisty and
zeitgeist-y. Their new show has both the nerve to link up
twentysomething malaise and 21st-century terror-angst and the
good nature to make the proposition look endearing.
The protagonist, Chuck Bartowski, holds down two jobs, one in
retail, the other in espionage. Though the 9-to-5 gig finds Chuck
clocking in at a superstore called Buy More, the back story
insists that he's made of nobler stuff than pop culture's usual
service-industry slackers. A few years earlier, Chuck left
Stanford without a degree, the guiltless fall guy in a cheating
scandal perpetrated by a friend who, for good measure, also
swiped the love of his life. In the pilot, the old chum, having
leveraged an entry-level job at the Central Intelligence Agency
into a lucrative sideline as a double agent, had occasion to
download a lurid trove of state secrets straight into Chuck's
frontal lobe.
A glance at a relevant bit of data—a stolen Impressionist
masterpiece, say, or a jagged scar on the supple neck of an arms
dealer—now triggers seizures of recognition in the lad, and the
camera pulls in on one of Chuck's hazel peepers as visions of
international intrigue whiz across his mind's eye. Thus, while his
colleagues troop through a workplace comedy indebted to the
rhythms of The Office, Chuck maladroitly dashes about in the
company of the two government agents dispatched to baby-sit
him. The NSA sends John Casey, played by Adam Baldwin as a
buzz-cut slab of machismo. His job is to scowl like the butch
older brother in an '80s teen comedy; Chuck's is to make him
grudgingly proud.
Meanwhile, the kid's CIA handler is one Sarah Walker, a sunny
blonde who poses as his new girlfriend and, no less importantly,
disguises herself as another strip-mall drone, a waitress at a
gourmet frankfurter joint dubbed Weinerlicious. The cover
enables the actress in the part, Yvonne Strahovski, to glide about
the screen in a modestly flirty approximation of Bavarian
peasant garb, her hair pulled back in glowing pigtails. The
preteen extras who scurry into Weinerlicious to gawk at Sarah
are surrogates for the kids admiring her from their living room
and also for their dads, who can give her a gander without
feeling like dirty old men. Wholesome treat that the show is, it
requires its female stars to project nothing more salacious than
self-assured pep and healthy prettiness.
Chuck, as played by Zachary Levi, is himself an experimental
sort of lead character. Check out the cute neuroses, the tousled
air of disaffection, the indie-rock soundtrack: This is a post-Zach
Braff action hero, a hunky version of Sensitive Guy. Jack Bauer
bits of wish fulfillment have their uses, and so does Chuck, a Get
Smart for a 24 world.
the chat room
Tell It to the Judge
Tim Wu takes readers' questions on the laws Americans can seemingly ignore.
Thursday, October 18, 2007, at 5:08 PM ET
Lubbock, Texas: This is more of an observation rather than a
question, but wouldn't you say that a lot of these antiquated laws
on the books are left that way and not taken off the ledger as a
redundancy in a rather cynical attempt to catch perpetrators in
oddball situations, when other conventional laws that are
violated fail to bring about a conviction? In other words, they're
a way to finally get the guy you (the cops and DA) really hate,
but were not able to convict because of an acquittal of a regular
crime. I give, for lack of a better example, Al Capone—who was
never convicted of any racketeering crime, but who eventually
was convicted of income tax evasion. If we don't "getcha" on
this count, we'll get you on something else, but by God we'll get
you!
Tim Wu: I think today's system does give prosecutors alot of
power to just "get the bad guy," whoever they think that may be.
Al Capone is the famous example, but he isn't alone.
Whether that's a system we like—where we might all be
potentially be arrested if someone thinks we're bad—is one of
the questions the series raises.
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: For the sake of fairness, should there be more of
an effort to eliminate or at least reform outdated laws so that a
renegade prosecutor doesn't abuse the discretion he/she has been
given to enforce the law?
Tim Wu: Thomas Jefferson argued that laws ought expire after,
I think it was, 19 years, to give every generation a chance to
decide what's what. That may sound extreme, but perhaps at
least in the criminal law, the corpus of the law ought expire
every 25 years ago to bring about a new debate on what should
be illegal.
As I said, the Yoder have more or less settled with a sympathetic
Congress and Supreme Court over the 20th century.
On the other hand, that would keep Congress awfully busy, and
they might just make things worse every time.
_______________________
_______________________
Arlington, Va.: Hi Tim, I enjoyed your series on Slate. While
much of what you brought up was new to me, I've spent a lot of
time thinking about selective enforcement in other arenas. Quite
honestly, I find the practice terrifying. Laws have gotten so
complex that most people are criminals to some degree, and the
only saving them from prosecution is the "kindness" of the law
enforcement community. If someone decides you're an
undesirable, they can come at you for any number of things. And
anyone who's gotten a speeding ticket knows, "but everyone else
was doing it" is not an adequate legal defense.
Tim Wu: Thanks for this comment.
_______________________
Washington: What about tearing tag off mattress? How much
time will that get you?
Tim Wu: Ha, please consult your counsel.
_______________________
Orange Park, Fla.: Read Wisconsin v. Yoder 406 U.S. 205,
(No. 70-110 Argued: December 8, 1971; Decided: May 15,
1972). Per the Supreme Court of the United States: For the
reasons stated we hold, with the Supreme Court of Wisconsin,
that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prevent the State from
compelling respondents to cause their children to attend formal
high school to age 16. May I refer you to this Web site for the
ruling. So you see, in this regard the Amish are not lawbreakers
and haven't been lawbreakers since 1972. This case is a
landmark First Amendment case and I am surprised you are
unaware of it.
Westby, Wis.: You contrast the success the Amish have had
with opting out of mainstream education with the difficulties the
Mormons have had with legal tolerance of polygamy and the
peyote ban for Oregon's Native American. Do you think this
different treatment has more to do with how comfortable we are
with the group or the activity? For instance, our culture has a lot
more hangups about sex (polygamy) and drugs (peyote issue)
than we do about educating our kids.
Tim Wu: I think that's exactly at the core of it. I didn't have time
to get into this in the story, but I was hoping to imply it.
One theory: The U.S. is predominantly Christian, or if not
practicing, raised with roughly Christian values, and one idea of
why the State has been kind to the Amish is that their conduct is
appealing to a Christian mindset. In a sense they are actually just
better Christians than the rest of us.
Some examples. They actually follow the hard bits in Matthew
about not accumulating wealth, (you cannot serve two masters)
and really do seem to follow the injunction "But I tell you, do
not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right
cheek, turn to him the other also."
In particular the latter injunction is only rarely part of American
practice.
So in other words, I am guessing that when Americans or U.S.
judges react to the Amish it is with much sympathy. Same with
the Boy Scouts as I wrote in that piece.
On the other hand, the mormon fundamentalists, while their
beliefs by all accounts are just as sincere as the Amish, are
claiming to be originalists to Joseph Smith's teaching, which
most of us weren't raised with.
Short version: I agree.
Tim Wu: Thanks. That case was discussed in the Amish Slate
story, I hope you read that paragraph.
I'm not down on the Amish by any means. But if you're trying to
say that the case excuses all of the alleged law-breaking that the
Amish have been engaged in, that's not the holding of Yoder.
Yoder does cover the education issue, but not child labor, social
security, etc. On the other hand, these others have been
exempted by Congressional action.
_______________________
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.—a future lawyer at Vassar: It strikes me
that the sex laws of many states (i.e. those against oral, anal,
fornication, etc.) would fit under the category of unenforced or
marginally enforced laws. The Supreme Court in Lawrence v.
Texas seems to have scaled back those types of laws. Because
these laws are very rarely enforced, as the Texas sodomy law
surprisingly was in the Lawrence case, the courts have a limited
role in examining them. What role do you think the courts will,
should and do play in cleaning up the law's dead zones? What is
your take on state sex laws today, especially in the framework of
legal dead zones?
Tim Wu: This is an answer to this question, and also the other
question about the judiciary.
Whether the judiciary should clean up "dead" or "outmoded"
laws is an enormous controversy that many, many have written
about. Judge Calabresi on the 2d Circuit wrote a book about this
problem and some of the ways of "sunsetting" laws passed in
earlier times.
The controversy comes because the main tool the court has for
cleanup is the constitution—it has to declare the old law
unconstitutional. And in a sense this is alot of what the court did
in the 60s and 70s with Griswold (striking down laws banning
contraception), Roe v. Wade (abortion), Yoder (education), and
others.
As you can see, it soon becomes quite a controversial
undertaking. In the 60s and 70s, many on the supreme court may
have felt that that they were simply clearing up old and out of
date laws like bans on capital punishment, abortion,
contraception, obscenity, etc., but others had a different word for
it: unwarranted judicial activism.
I don't want to enter that debate here: I want to show you whee
your question leads.
_______________________
Lexington, S.C.: I kind of like the idea of wiping out all the
laws on the books and starting over with the Constitution. There
isn't a law on the books that isn't covered in the Constitution.
Tim Wu: You and Thomas Jefferson had the same instinct
The earth belongs always to the living generation. ... The
constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then
in their natural course with those who gave them being. ... Every
constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of
19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of
right.
_______________________
Alexandria, Va.: So I'm dying to know what laws I probably am
breaking in Virginia—liquor, driving, anything.
Tim Wu: I used to live in Virginia, and the code of Virginia
certainly has some old stuff in it.
_______________________
Washington: The tone of your article and your quote ("that
view excepts children and animals as victims, but not consenting
women and men who have sex before cameras") make clear that
your goal is to just repeal everything now. Your position may be
popular with bourgeouise "libertarians," but when you think
about it Wu World would be a horribly violent, corrupt, utterly
anarchic place.
Tim Wu: Thanks. I live in Wu world and its a nice place.
Everyone reads what they want to in a piece. If pressed I'd say
that yes we should obviously have laws banning anti-social
activities, but work to make it as clear as possible exactly what's
illegal and what's not, so that people can live their lives in peace.
And have those laws, as close as possible, match what people
really want.
I don't think that's too much to ask from our political system; but
what we have instead is sort of a large cloud of illegality from
which thunderbolts came come down unexpectedly; that doesn't
strike me as ideal, quite; not necessary to a peaceful country.
_______________________
Washington: Is "this law has never been enforced before, so
that's a precedent for letting me off" a valid defense if one is
charged with, say, injuring a mailbag?
Tim Wu: I'm sure injuring a mailbag was a big deal at some
point in history! haha
_______________________
Washington: Gotta love Westlaw addicts. I like the idea of laws
expiring after 19 years. Democracy is supposed to be based in
part on the consent of the governed. If asked, I wouldn't consent
to be governed by old men who have been dead for hundreds of
years (except for the really good ideas—like the law expiring
after 19 years). Though if that were the case, the things we like
doing when we're young (wearing our pants too low, for
example) might not be legal until we're too old to enjoy it. Our
lax enforcement of certain laws, however—how much of that is
based in true ambivalence to prosecution, rather than a rise in
violent crime, terrorism, etc., such that our resources are just too
stretched to bother? If things worldwide were calmer, wouldn't
the instinct of a society be to constrict and reorganize our values
to more conservative social standards?
Tim Wu: I'm an altlaw addict—www.altlaw.org
Good question. If we had infinite prosecutorial resources, would
everyone end up in prision? If this were a science fiction story,
you might imagine a future where so much money goes into law
enforcement and anti-terrorism that we're all in jail half of our
lives.
They're like furniture in the living room of the nation-state, they
are supposed to make our lives better.
Of course I doubt it; as I suggest in the series and others writer,
we have the laws, then we have the real laws, which are what
prosecutors and others really want to arrest people for.
This series, by the way, is going to become a book, so watch for
that..
But if they don't work, they should be abandoned, or changed.
That's what I want people to take from this series.
_______________________
_______________________
North McLean, Va.: This may seem silly, because it is, but isn't
the recent uproar about Ellen DeGeneres and her dog an example
of where selective enforcement might have been prudent? That
is, if the adoption agency had "bent the rules," much hassle
would have been avoided.
washingtonpost.com: Woman Claims Threats Over DeGeneres'
Dog (AP, Oct. 17)
Tim Wu: Hmm I'm not an expert on dog law.
I had a dog growing up but it was pretty obedient, no run-ins
with officer daschund.
Washington: Several years ago the boyfriend of a friend of
mine stabbed someone. She fled the scene and was arrested and
charged with literally seven crimes. After she agreed to be a
witness and paid for a high-powered lawyer, all but one charge
was dropped and she was convicted with a suspended sentence
because of time served in lockup. I found her story profoundly
disturbing because the charges weren't real and wouldn't have
stood up in court, but they were levied against her as a
negotiating tool for her to put her boyfriend away. I mean, the
guy was guilty so she needed to testify, but it wasn't a murder
mystery novel where the character let introspection guide her to
justice—she was jailed, couldn't work, and her name was
splashed across the newspapers.
Tim Wu: Thanks for this story.
_______________________
Washington: Dear Mr. Wu. Whenever I read about something
like a kid getting expelled for bringing aspirin to class I have
sympathy for the position of selective enforcement of laws. That
said, don't we also run the risk of losing the rule of law and
reverting back to the rule of authority? If we can't rely on laws
protecting our rights, what will?
It does surprise me in a country with America's libertarian
leanings, that we put up with this kind of stuff.
While this is a big topic, I think there should be more oversight
of prosecutors, and of the legal profession in general. Nothing
good happens when power is unsupervised.
_______________________
Tim Wu: I'm not an anarchist. I'm not the anti-christ. I don't
wanna destroy!!!
I think there are core laws—mostly related to physical security,
that any country must have to be peaceful. Basically the laws
Hobbes had in mind.
Then there's a whole host of experimental or optional laws—
laws that we are trying but may or may end up useful. 100s of
years later, we'll know.
Like laws against insider trading, prohibition, bankruptcy law,
patent, antitrust, telecom, etc. etc.
Not that these latter laws are necessarily bad. Some are clearly
good and make the country better. But just because they are laws
we shouldn't forget that they are also, in the end, experiments.
Alexandria, Va.: The problem with Jefferson's 19-year idea is
that any legislature doesn't want to debate about what's illegal—
it riles up the voters. So they turn it over to the judiciary, which
ignores the outdated laws. Then the legislators complain about
"activist judges."
Tim Wu: That's the cycle! Good point.
Thanks and sorry for the typos and the questions I couldn't get
to. I think I wrote "Yoder" when I meant Amish at some point.
Look for an expanded version of this series, as I said before, in
book form in a year or two..
Tim Wu
_______________________
Minneapolis: Great series, Professor Wu. The best analyses
seem self-evident right after reading them. However, you've
focused mainly on how the legislative and executive branches
"honor in the breach" so to speak. Please expand upon the role(s)
you see the judiciary playing in this process.
Tim Wu: See above.
the green lantern
Dirty Burns
How much carbon does a forest fire spew into the atmosphere?
By Brendan I. Koerner
Tuesday, October 16, 2007, at 7:29 AM ET
Whenever I see footage of a raging wildfire, I can't help but
think of all the carbon that's being spewed into the
atmosphere. Do forest fires have a significant impact on
global warming, or is my anxiety misplaced?
A lot depends on what the fire destroys, as there is tremendous
variation among tree species in terms of carbon storage. As a
general rule, the most carbon-laden trees are those with highdensity wood and large trunk diameters. So, if you see a fire
sweeping through an expanse of mighty evergreens, the carbon
emissions will be much higher than if the conflagration was
consuming wispier trees. In the United States, the most
consistently carbon-rich forests run from Northern California up
through Washington.
You've also got to factor in the composition of the ravaged soil.
The fires that swept across Indonesia in 1997, for example,
burned relatively thin-trunked tropical trees. But the devastated
forests were also covered in carbon-rich peat, with deposits
measuring up to 20 meters thick. As a result, the Indonesian fires
were estimated to have released between 0.81 and 2.57 gigatons
of carbon—between 13 percen