Neos and Other Conservatives
Irving Kristol has a column in The Weekly Standard on Neoconservatism. (Can we all agree now that it is not just a code word for Jewish conservative?)
View from the Right has a masterly analysisof it from the perspective of traditional conservatism. (The comments are worth reading as well.)
Two additional points---
1. Kristol writes that neoconservatives Republicans "cannot be blind to the fact that neoconservative policies, reaching out beyond the traditional political and financial base, have helped make the very idea of political conservatism more acceptable to a majority of American voters."
Kristol, understandably, wants neoconservatives to get credit for the political success of the Republican party and the broader conservative movement. But this is absurd. The key switchers-- looking at the 1972 or 1984 elections-- were Roman Catholic voters in the North (Reagan Democrats) and white Southerners. Few of either group were prompted to vote for Reagan or Nixon because Commentary urged them, too. Kristol is acting a little like the rooster who thinks its crowing causes the sun to rise.
2. He also writes that "But they are impatient with the Hayekian notion that we are on 'the road to serfdom.' Neocons do not feel that kind of alarm or anxiety about the growth of the state in the past century, seeing it as natural, indeed inevitable. Because they tend to be more interested in history than economics or sociology, they know that the 19th-century idea, so neatly propounded by Herbert Spencer in his The Man Versus the State, was a historical eccentricity. People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government"
Here Kristol performs a little sleight of hand. American conservatives often were in favor of strong government--- local government. A belief in federalism, states rights, or decentralization is a little different than libertarianism and has next to nothing to do with Herbert Spencer. Kristol doesn't want to address the more difficult question so he fudges by ignoring it.
Sunday, August 17, 2003
This Mark Steyn Column is a Classic
On Arianna
I heard Huffington speak at one of David Horowitz's Dark Ages Weekends (1998/9). She was in the middle of her "ideological" migration from right to left. She used her time to denounce Denny Hastert who had just emerged as Gingrich's successor in the House. She kept calling him a mediocrity who got his job because he was "a good old boy." (Obviously that didn't sit well with me).
Her career is a tribute to self-promotion and sleeping around strategically. There is no reason why she should be taken seriously. But she gets air time because she is a celebrity and makes for an entertaining interview.
On Arianna
I heard Huffington speak at one of David Horowitz's Dark Ages Weekends (1998/9). She was in the middle of her "ideological" migration from right to left. She used her time to denounce Denny Hastert who had just emerged as Gingrich's successor in the House. She kept calling him a mediocrity who got his job because he was "a good old boy." (Obviously that didn't sit well with me).
Her career is a tribute to self-promotion and sleeping around strategically. There is no reason why she should be taken seriously. But she gets air time because she is a celebrity and makes for an entertaining interview.
Friday, August 15, 2003
The Miracle On The Vistula
On 15 August 1920, the Polish Army launched a counter-attack against the Red Army which stood at the gates of Warsaw. They succeeded to such a degree that the Soviets were rolled back and Poland gained twenty years of independence.
The Polish victory was even more important to the West. A Russian victory at Warsaw would have brought the Red Army into Germany. The Cold War would have begun in 1920 with the Iron Curtain starting at the Rhine. Despite the importance of the battle, the Poles fought it alone-- the French and British were hamstrung by domestic politics and did next to nothing to aid the defense.
In fact, British unions were defiantly pro-Soviet. During the Russo-Polish War they sometimes refused to load ships with military goods bound for Poland.
On 15 August 1920, the Polish Army launched a counter-attack against the Red Army which stood at the gates of Warsaw. They succeeded to such a degree that the Soviets were rolled back and Poland gained twenty years of independence.
The Polish victory was even more important to the West. A Russian victory at Warsaw would have brought the Red Army into Germany. The Cold War would have begun in 1920 with the Iron Curtain starting at the Rhine. Despite the importance of the battle, the Poles fought it alone-- the French and British were hamstrung by domestic politics and did next to nothing to aid the defense.
In fact, British unions were defiantly pro-Soviet. During the Russo-Polish War they sometimes refused to load ships with military goods bound for Poland.
Thursday, August 14, 2003
Myth-III
In his memoir of his WWII service (Quartered Safe Out Here) George MacDonald Fraser makes an interesting point
"It may have its roots in subconscious envy." In a sense, that is the other side of Shakespeare's St. Crispin Day speech:
In his memoir of his WWII service (Quartered Safe Out Here) George MacDonald Fraser makes an interesting point
There is, for some reason which I don't understand, a bitter desire in some to undermine what they call the 'myths' of the Second World War. Most of those myths are true, but they don't want to believe that. It may be a natural reaction to having the war rammed down their throats by my generation; it may have its roots in subconscious envy; it may even spring from a reluctance to recognize that today's safety and comfort were bought fifty years ago by means which today's intelligentsia find unacceptable, and from which they wish to distance themselves.
"It may have its roots in subconscious envy." In a sense, that is the other side of Shakespeare's St. Crispin Day speech:
A neat little theory could be worked up "explaining" the 60s upheavals in terms of those feelings of inadequacy and the related desire to disparage the accomplishments of the World War Two generation.
And gentlemen in England, now abed, shall think
themselves accursed they were not there.
And hold their manhood cheap, when any speaks
who fought with us on Crispin's Day.
The Myth of the Masculinity Myth
From James Bowman's Blog
Steven LeBlanc and Katherine Register do not go into the matter, but there is also an anthropological investigation to be made into the reasons why feminists, like Miss Dowd, and intellectuals, like Mr Braudy, cling to their belief in a mythical matriarchal world without war and therefore without swaggering presidents dressed up as G.I. Joe. Because that world is a hypothesis, a fiction, it takes a large army (you should pardon the expression) of writers and pundits and wits and English professors (Dr. Braudy’s trade) furiously scribbling away around the clock to keep our belief in it alive in spite of bitter experience.
Found via the New Criterion Blog
From James Bowman's Blog
Steven LeBlanc and Katherine Register do not go into the matter, but there is also an anthropological investigation to be made into the reasons why feminists, like Miss Dowd, and intellectuals, like Mr Braudy, cling to their belief in a mythical matriarchal world without war and therefore without swaggering presidents dressed up as G.I. Joe. Because that world is a hypothesis, a fiction, it takes a large army (you should pardon the expression) of writers and pundits and wits and English professors (Dr. Braudy’s trade) furiously scribbling away around the clock to keep our belief in it alive in spite of bitter experience.
Found via the New Criterion Blog
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Liberal Hypocrisy
Jane Galt points out that the green-tinged elite who summer at Cape Cod are not keen on having a wind farm off their coast.
Rich liberals on Nantucket and environs are arguing pretty much openly that while of course they are in favor of renewable energy in theory, they are only in favor of it in practice when it does not interfere in any way with the comforts (and property values) of rich liberals.
Jane Galt points out that the green-tinged elite who summer at Cape Cod are not keen on having a wind farm off their coast.
Rich liberals on Nantucket and environs are arguing pretty much openly that while of course they are in favor of renewable energy in theory, they are only in favor of it in practice when it does not interfere in any way with the comforts (and property values) of rich liberals.
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Advertising Blogs
In Ad Age Randall Rothenberg offers "Eight Basic Steps to Reform Today's Creative Department." Number Eight is:
Start a creative blog. This is the cheapest way to share knowledge across office and global boundaries, and the fastest way for an agency to make sure the best ideas pollinate the world.
I, of course, agree since i wrote this back in June:
Blogs, it seems to me, should be an integral part of that effort. They are superior to email or meetings for keeping a whole team up to speed and for thrashing out differences.
In Ad Age Randall Rothenberg offers "Eight Basic Steps to Reform Today's Creative Department." Number Eight is:
Start a creative blog. This is the cheapest way to share knowledge across office and global boundaries, and the fastest way for an agency to make sure the best ideas pollinate the world.
I, of course, agree since i wrote this back in June:
Blogs, it seems to me, should be an integral part of that effort. They are superior to email or meetings for keeping a whole team up to speed and for thrashing out differences.
Catching Up
Although I am not an Objectivist or even a Libertarian, I did enjoy Tuccille's It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand. No surprise, then, that i liked this Objectivist Bestiary over at God of the Machine.
The Midwest Conservative Journal has been outstanding in dealing with the Episcopal Church.
Geographica has a good post on higher education.
Thanks to Dean Esmay, i found this review of Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion, by Gary Webb. It is devastating.
Although I am not an Objectivist or even a Libertarian, I did enjoy Tuccille's It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand. No surprise, then, that i liked this Objectivist Bestiary over at God of the Machine.
The Midwest Conservative Journal has been outstanding in dealing with the Episcopal Church.
Geographica has a good post on higher education.
Thanks to Dean Esmay, i found this review of Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion, by Gary Webb. It is devastating.
Saturday, August 09, 2003
Serious Journalists
When most journalists write about blogs, they usually slip in a dig or two about the trivial stuff that appears in blogs--- pictures of cats or breathless celebrity worship. That's evidence that bloggers are not serious people.
But what does it mean when all three cable news channels provide live coverage of a movie actor when he appears at a playground? Sure Arnold is running for Governor, but so are approximately 13,683 other people in California. Was his appearance the most important political news that day?
By the same token, are the Laci Peterson murder case and the Kobe Bryant case the most important matters now facing our country? Based on the air time devoted to them, they must be.
It is hard to take the profession seriously when they talk about doing the people's business and then shamelessly fill time with tabloid stories and punditry. It has little to do with our "right to know" or "professional news judgment." It has a lot to do with cost-effective programming that pulls in ratings.
When most journalists write about blogs, they usually slip in a dig or two about the trivial stuff that appears in blogs--- pictures of cats or breathless celebrity worship. That's evidence that bloggers are not serious people.
But what does it mean when all three cable news channels provide live coverage of a movie actor when he appears at a playground? Sure Arnold is running for Governor, but so are approximately 13,683 other people in California. Was his appearance the most important political news that day?
By the same token, are the Laci Peterson murder case and the Kobe Bryant case the most important matters now facing our country? Based on the air time devoted to them, they must be.
It is hard to take the profession seriously when they talk about doing the people's business and then shamelessly fill time with tabloid stories and punditry. It has little to do with our "right to know" or "professional news judgment." It has a lot to do with cost-effective programming that pulls in ratings.
California
I don't understand why any Republican wants to become governor via recall. The legislature is completely dominated by Democrats. They will stymie any serious attempts at reform. At the same time, in the 2004 election, it will be the Republican governor who is the new face of higher taxes and lower spending.
It seems to me it makes more sense to let Davis and his allies stew until 2004 and then try to elect some Republicans to the legislature.
I don't understand why any Republican wants to become governor via recall. The legislature is completely dominated by Democrats. They will stymie any serious attempts at reform. At the same time, in the 2004 election, it will be the Republican governor who is the new face of higher taxes and lower spending.
It seems to me it makes more sense to let Davis and his allies stew until 2004 and then try to elect some Republicans to the legislature.
Tabloid Town
This is a nicely jaundiced view of the media circus in Eagle, Colorado.
Like so many other media frenzies, from Michael Jackson to O.J. to Scott Peterson, the reporting that has taken place in Peo. v. Kobe Bean Bryant has more to do with a search for ratings than a search for the truth.
This is a nicely jaundiced view of the media circus in Eagle, Colorado.
Like so many other media frenzies, from Michael Jackson to O.J. to Scott Peterson, the reporting that has taken place in Peo. v. Kobe Bean Bryant has more to do with a search for ratings than a search for the truth.
Friday, August 08, 2003
Nuance and Ideological Purity
This post on Charles Lindbergh is also a defense of nuanced history.
Yet simplistic moral lumping -- "good / bad" especially when long dead historical figures are lumped, misapplies modern moral standards to people who didn't think at all like us, and it also causes us to disregard the good lessons that might be learned from the past's flawed figures.
It deserves to be widely read.
This post on Charles Lindbergh is also a defense of nuanced history.
Yet simplistic moral lumping -- "good / bad" especially when long dead historical figures are lumped, misapplies modern moral standards to people who didn't think at all like us, and it also causes us to disregard the good lessons that might be learned from the past's flawed figures.
It deserves to be widely read.
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
The Meaning of Defeat and the Utility of Victory
An interesting discussion on US military prowess and how it shapes post-war outcomes is going on. It was kicked off with this post by Vodka Pundit and then this response by One Hand Clapping.
I find myself agreeing with Vodka Pundit when he says:
Need to understand why West Germany gave up on Nazism? Because it got every single one of their major cities reduced to rubble, courtesy of the 8th Air Force and the RAF.
The high price Germans paid for Hitler's adventures drove a wedge between the Nazis and the German people. It was not just that the Nazis were evil (Germans managed to ignore that in 1941), it was that they betrayed the German people and allowed them to be crushed, starved and raped.
But he loses me when he writes
Want to know why West Germans feared Soviet tanks? Because they saw firsthand what Patton's tanks could do.
Sorry, the Germans feared Soviet tanks because they had firsthand knowledge about the Red Army. They saw more Russian tanks than American tanks. Berlin, after all, did fall to Zhukov, not Patton.
OHC rightly points out that the
Fighting the modern way is certainly not more difficult than before. It is not easy - Stephen is right that war is never easy - but to imply that this year's Iraq campaign was somehow more difficult than, say, the Normandy invasion or the Battle for Manila is just plain wrong. America's modern way of war enables us to defeat the enemy much faster than ever, and there is no way that means war is more difficult than it was, oh, at the Battle of Gettysburg.
But modern US commanders do face one factor that was not present in World War Two or the Civil War. Patton and Nimitz did not have worry about the political fallout of operational victory. During the August 1944 breakout, the German army tried to escape from the Falaise pocket before Allied armies encircled them. Tactical air power and artillery pounded the retreating Germans. Yet there was no domestic outcry in the US about the uneven combat with a retreating enemy. This is in stark contrast to the "Highway of Death" hysteria in 1991.
The American way of war calls for the deployment of overwhelming firepower at the decisive point to win rapid victory with a minimum of casualties. That used to mean American and civilian casualties. Today it means enemy combatants as well. This is a complexity the World War Two and Civil War generals did not face.
OHC also writes that
The Iraqi soldiers who survived the war this year are not claiming that they were not really defeated. Many of them have been beaten by the US twice - 1991 and 2003. They know they were beaten badly and could not have prevailed even with better generalship. Modern technology enabled us to defeat Iraq's military without killing enormous casualties among Iraqis.
As i read this i was reminded of an incident Col. Harry Summers related in On Strategy. After the ceasefire in South Vietnam, an American officer said to an NVA officer, you never defeated us on the battlefield. His counterpart replied, that is true, but it is also irrelevant. (Paraphrasing from memory here).
Victory on the battlefield does not automatically mean that we gain our strategic objectives.
Clausewitz wrote that "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will" . In Iraq I, our victory compelled the Iraqi's to leave Kuwait and also allowed us to destroy much of their WMD program. However, in Iraq II, we have the much more difficult challenge of creating a functioning polity that is stable and somewhat liberal. Decisive military victory against Saddam's conventional forces was a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve this.
One factor needed is a patriotic rallying point for Iraqis that is untainted by the Saddam regime. In West Germany, for example, Adenauer was an anti-Nazi and thus an acceptable politician to lead them during and after the occupation. Perhaps more important, though, were the officers who tried to kill Hitler in 1944. Though they failed, they preserved the "honor" of the army. A German patriot could admire their bravery, repudiate Hitler, and still take some pride in his country's history.
DeGaulle and the French Resistence served similar roles in the restoration of French pride and confidence. French soldiers helped liberate Paris and that helped ease the pain of the defeat in 1940 and the shame of Vichy.
After the Civil War, Robert E. Lee served a symbol for reconciliation and stability. The North and South could agree that he was a good general and honorable man. By accepting defeat and repudiating guerrilla war in 1865 he brought the bloodshed to an end and opened the possibility for a better civil society in the post-war South. Unfortunately, there was a shortage of Adenauer-types to lead the states and insufficient troops to police the occupied South.
At this point, unfortunately, we don't seem to have either type of rallying point in Iraq. They are beaten, liberated, and occupied. But all of that is due to an external power. I worry that if a heroic, patriotic figure emerges, he will do so by fighting or opposing the US. Sort of the way the Communists emerged in China and Vietnam as both anti-colonial and anti-Japanese.
An interesting discussion on US military prowess and how it shapes post-war outcomes is going on. It was kicked off with this post by Vodka Pundit and then this response by One Hand Clapping.
I find myself agreeing with Vodka Pundit when he says:
Need to understand why West Germany gave up on Nazism? Because it got every single one of their major cities reduced to rubble, courtesy of the 8th Air Force and the RAF.
The high price Germans paid for Hitler's adventures drove a wedge between the Nazis and the German people. It was not just that the Nazis were evil (Germans managed to ignore that in 1941), it was that they betrayed the German people and allowed them to be crushed, starved and raped.
But he loses me when he writes
Want to know why West Germans feared Soviet tanks? Because they saw firsthand what Patton's tanks could do.
Sorry, the Germans feared Soviet tanks because they had firsthand knowledge about the Red Army. They saw more Russian tanks than American tanks. Berlin, after all, did fall to Zhukov, not Patton.
OHC rightly points out that the
Fighting the modern way is certainly not more difficult than before. It is not easy - Stephen is right that war is never easy - but to imply that this year's Iraq campaign was somehow more difficult than, say, the Normandy invasion or the Battle for Manila is just plain wrong. America's modern way of war enables us to defeat the enemy much faster than ever, and there is no way that means war is more difficult than it was, oh, at the Battle of Gettysburg.
But modern US commanders do face one factor that was not present in World War Two or the Civil War. Patton and Nimitz did not have worry about the political fallout of operational victory. During the August 1944 breakout, the German army tried to escape from the Falaise pocket before Allied armies encircled them. Tactical air power and artillery pounded the retreating Germans. Yet there was no domestic outcry in the US about the uneven combat with a retreating enemy. This is in stark contrast to the "Highway of Death" hysteria in 1991.
The American way of war calls for the deployment of overwhelming firepower at the decisive point to win rapid victory with a minimum of casualties. That used to mean American and civilian casualties. Today it means enemy combatants as well. This is a complexity the World War Two and Civil War generals did not face.
OHC also writes that
The Iraqi soldiers who survived the war this year are not claiming that they were not really defeated. Many of them have been beaten by the US twice - 1991 and 2003. They know they were beaten badly and could not have prevailed even with better generalship. Modern technology enabled us to defeat Iraq's military without killing enormous casualties among Iraqis.
As i read this i was reminded of an incident Col. Harry Summers related in On Strategy. After the ceasefire in South Vietnam, an American officer said to an NVA officer, you never defeated us on the battlefield. His counterpart replied, that is true, but it is also irrelevant. (Paraphrasing from memory here).
Victory on the battlefield does not automatically mean that we gain our strategic objectives.
Clausewitz wrote that "War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will" . In Iraq I, our victory compelled the Iraqi's to leave Kuwait and also allowed us to destroy much of their WMD program. However, in Iraq II, we have the much more difficult challenge of creating a functioning polity that is stable and somewhat liberal. Decisive military victory against Saddam's conventional forces was a necessary but not sufficient condition to achieve this.
One factor needed is a patriotic rallying point for Iraqis that is untainted by the Saddam regime. In West Germany, for example, Adenauer was an anti-Nazi and thus an acceptable politician to lead them during and after the occupation. Perhaps more important, though, were the officers who tried to kill Hitler in 1944. Though they failed, they preserved the "honor" of the army. A German patriot could admire their bravery, repudiate Hitler, and still take some pride in his country's history.
DeGaulle and the French Resistence served similar roles in the restoration of French pride and confidence. French soldiers helped liberate Paris and that helped ease the pain of the defeat in 1940 and the shame of Vichy.
After the Civil War, Robert E. Lee served a symbol for reconciliation and stability. The North and South could agree that he was a good general and honorable man. By accepting defeat and repudiating guerrilla war in 1865 he brought the bloodshed to an end and opened the possibility for a better civil society in the post-war South. Unfortunately, there was a shortage of Adenauer-types to lead the states and insufficient troops to police the occupied South.
At this point, unfortunately, we don't seem to have either type of rallying point in Iraq. They are beaten, liberated, and occupied. But all of that is due to an external power. I worry that if a heroic, patriotic figure emerges, he will do so by fighting or opposing the US. Sort of the way the Communists emerged in China and Vietnam as both anti-colonial and anti-Japanese.
The Bias of Blogger Lists
The American Mind makes a really good point.
But ranking the Clintons so highly isn't necessarily a sign to Right-wing wacko-ness. It's just an example of society's lack of historical knowledge.
The American Mind makes a really good point.
But ranking the Clintons so highly isn't necessarily a sign to Right-wing wacko-ness. It's just an example of society's lack of historical knowledge.
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
I'm Puzzled
We've been told over and over again that Marilyn Manson and his music had NOTHING to do with Columbine. Nihilistic song lyrics do NOT encourage teen suicide. Violent video games do NOT promote school shootings. Natural Born Killers is just a movie and can NOT be harmful in any serious way. Gangster Rap is just good clean fun.
In short, popular entertainment is not to be blamed for any crimes. They are just songs, videos, games, comics.
OK. So if all that is true, how can a respected scholar get away with writing in the New Republic that
When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.
(The article is not available to nonsubscribers, but it is discussed here.)
Why is Gibson uniquely responsible for the actions of his customers? And why should this movie be capable of provoking violence when we all know that movies don't do that?
We've been told over and over again that Marilyn Manson and his music had NOTHING to do with Columbine. Nihilistic song lyrics do NOT encourage teen suicide. Violent video games do NOT promote school shootings. Natural Born Killers is just a movie and can NOT be harmful in any serious way. Gangster Rap is just good clean fun.
In short, popular entertainment is not to be blamed for any crimes. They are just songs, videos, games, comics.
OK. So if all that is true, how can a respected scholar get away with writing in the New Republic that
When violence breaks out, Mel Gibson will have a much higher authority than professors and bishops to answer to.
(The article is not available to nonsubscribers, but it is discussed here.)
Why is Gibson uniquely responsible for the actions of his customers? And why should this movie be capable of provoking violence when we all know that movies don't do that?
Monday, August 04, 2003
David Brooks
Some have wondered how Brooks is going to fit in at the New York Times. Based on his latest column in the Atlantic Monthly, he'll do just fine.
People want to be around others who are roughly like themselves. That's called community. It probably would be psychologically difficult for most Brown professors to share an office with someone who was pro-life, a member of the National Rifle Association, or an evangelical Christian. It's likely that hiring committees would subtly -- even unconsciously -- screen out any such people they encountered. Republicans and evangelical Christians have sensed that they are not welcome at places like Brown, so they don't even consider working there. In fact, any registered Republican who contemplates a career in academia these days is both a hero and a fool.
Note the lack of outrage. Ivy league schools discriminate on religion and ethnicity and that is apparently OK by Brooks.
Some have wondered how Brooks is going to fit in at the New York Times. Based on his latest column in the Atlantic Monthly, he'll do just fine.
People want to be around others who are roughly like themselves. That's called community. It probably would be psychologically difficult for most Brown professors to share an office with someone who was pro-life, a member of the National Rifle Association, or an evangelical Christian. It's likely that hiring committees would subtly -- even unconsciously -- screen out any such people they encountered. Republicans and evangelical Christians have sensed that they are not welcome at places like Brown, so they don't even consider working there. In fact, any registered Republican who contemplates a career in academia these days is both a hero and a fool.
Note the lack of outrage. Ivy league schools discriminate on religion and ethnicity and that is apparently OK by Brooks.
The Worst Americans
Rightwing News has the results of a survey of 39 bloggers. It is certain to be controversial.
Rightwing News has the results of a survey of 39 bloggers. It is certain to be controversial.
Saturday, August 02, 2003
Fehlschlagenfreude
Excellent post over at God of the Machine on Schadenfreude. Among the highlights:
It is failure, not mere bad luck, that universally gladdens the human heart.
********
I am rooting not for failure but for justice.
That seems exactly right. And he even explains why Fehlschlagenfreude is a better word for it.
On the other hand, i can't agree with this related post at 2blowhards.
Still, in some ways, life is more agreeable than it was when money seemed more abundant, isn't it?
*********
Conclusion: Maybe the occasional chastening episode isn't such a bad thing.
Seeing a hedge fund laid low because it falsely promised high, risk-free returns (as Long Term Capital Management did) is one thing. To revel in the desperation of retail workers is something completely different. Yeah, i hold highly paid people to a higher standard i guess.
But, I have to admit that i am fairly tolerant of indifferent customer service. I expect courtesy but i don't get bent out of shape if the clerk or waiter makes an honest mistake or fails to act like a proper British servant. In fact, slavish service makes me uncomfortable. I find it profoundly un-American. That Upstairs/Downstairs thing is best left for the Brits.
Excellent post over at God of the Machine on Schadenfreude. Among the highlights:
It is failure, not mere bad luck, that universally gladdens the human heart.
********
I am rooting not for failure but for justice.
That seems exactly right. And he even explains why Fehlschlagenfreude is a better word for it.
On the other hand, i can't agree with this related post at 2blowhards.
Still, in some ways, life is more agreeable than it was when money seemed more abundant, isn't it?
*********
Conclusion: Maybe the occasional chastening episode isn't such a bad thing.
Seeing a hedge fund laid low because it falsely promised high, risk-free returns (as Long Term Capital Management did) is one thing. To revel in the desperation of retail workers is something completely different. Yeah, i hold highly paid people to a higher standard i guess.
But, I have to admit that i am fairly tolerant of indifferent customer service. I expect courtesy but i don't get bent out of shape if the clerk or waiter makes an honest mistake or fails to act like a proper British servant. In fact, slavish service makes me uncomfortable. I find it profoundly un-American. That Upstairs/Downstairs thing is best left for the Brits.
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Bloggers Choose the Top 20 Movies
It's over at Right Wing News.
It's a pretty good list except that there are no John Wayne movies. How can you pick Forrest Gump over Stagecoach? For that matter, is Animal House really better than High Plains Drifter or Dirty Harry?
It's over at Right Wing News.
It's a pretty good list except that there are no John Wayne movies. How can you pick Forrest Gump over Stagecoach? For that matter, is Animal House really better than High Plains Drifter or Dirty Harry?
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
The Demented World of Michael Savage
Apparently Michael Savage is carried on 300 stations. Having just heard him for the first time on WHP 580, i don't know why.
He is loud certainly, but what does he offer beyond shouting and name-calling? Even G. Gordon Liddy usually provides some information and analysis as part of his show. Savage is all shtick and it isn't even a good shtick.
Savage- a putative conservative who chooses to live in San Francisco-- has stations across the country. Yet he drips with condescension for the hinterlands. Saturday he continually referred to Kobe Bryant's alleged victim.as "Rocky Mountain Trash" and a "mountain trash slut." He called her home town a "retrograde community", "Latrine Colorado" and "Buzzard Colorado".
In a weird way, Savage is the creation of media liberalism. He sounds and acts the way liberals think conservatives do. Media planners in Manhattan advertising agencies think that his attitudes are typical of the guys who drive trucks and so they buy time on his show for GM and Ford.
It is good business for Savage and maybe he really believes some of what he says. I just hate that some people see him as representative of the right.
Apparently Michael Savage is carried on 300 stations. Having just heard him for the first time on WHP 580, i don't know why.
He is loud certainly, but what does he offer beyond shouting and name-calling? Even G. Gordon Liddy usually provides some information and analysis as part of his show. Savage is all shtick and it isn't even a good shtick.
Savage- a putative conservative who chooses to live in San Francisco-- has stations across the country. Yet he drips with condescension for the hinterlands. Saturday he continually referred to Kobe Bryant's alleged victim.as "Rocky Mountain Trash" and a "mountain trash slut." He called her home town a "retrograde community", "Latrine Colorado" and "Buzzard Colorado".
In a weird way, Savage is the creation of media liberalism. He sounds and acts the way liberals think conservatives do. Media planners in Manhattan advertising agencies think that his attitudes are typical of the guys who drive trucks and so they buy time on his show for GM and Ford.
It is good business for Savage and maybe he really believes some of what he says. I just hate that some people see him as representative of the right.
Outing the Victim
This old article from Jay Nordlinger is interesting in light of the Kobe Bryant case.
In the spring of 1989, the Central Park “wilding” occurred. That was the monstrous rape and beating of a young white woman, known to most of the world as “the jogger.” The hatred heaped on her by Sharpton and his claque is almost impossible to fathom, and wrenching to review. Sharpton insisted-against all evidence-that the attackers were innocent. They were, he said, modern Scottsboro Boys, trapped in “a fit of racial hysteria.” Unspeakably, he and his people charged that the victim’s own boyfriend had raped and beaten her to the point of death. Outside the courthouse, they chanted, “The boyfriend did it! The boyfriend did it!” They denounced the victim as “Whore!” They screamed her name, over and over (because most publications refused to print it, though several black-owned ones did). Sharpton brought Tawana Brawley to the trial one day, to show her, he said, the difference between white justice and black justice. He arranged for her to meet the jogger’s attackers, whom she greeted with comradely warmth. In another of his publicity stunts, he appealed for a psychiatrist to examine the victim. “It doesn’t even have to be a black psychiatrist,” he said, generously. He added: “We’re not endorsing the damage to the girl — if there was this damage.”
See, once upon a time it was conservatives who thought attacking the victim in rape cases was reprehensible. We condemned Sharpton for it. We condemned the Carvilles and Blumenthals when they defended Clinton this way. But now Sean Hannity invites Leykis on the air to discuss "double standards" in the handling of rape cases.
This old article from Jay Nordlinger is interesting in light of the Kobe Bryant case.
In the spring of 1989, the Central Park “wilding” occurred. That was the monstrous rape and beating of a young white woman, known to most of the world as “the jogger.” The hatred heaped on her by Sharpton and his claque is almost impossible to fathom, and wrenching to review. Sharpton insisted-against all evidence-that the attackers were innocent. They were, he said, modern Scottsboro Boys, trapped in “a fit of racial hysteria.” Unspeakably, he and his people charged that the victim’s own boyfriend had raped and beaten her to the point of death. Outside the courthouse, they chanted, “The boyfriend did it! The boyfriend did it!” They denounced the victim as “Whore!” They screamed her name, over and over (because most publications refused to print it, though several black-owned ones did). Sharpton brought Tawana Brawley to the trial one day, to show her, he said, the difference between white justice and black justice. He arranged for her to meet the jogger’s attackers, whom she greeted with comradely warmth. In another of his publicity stunts, he appealed for a psychiatrist to examine the victim. “It doesn’t even have to be a black psychiatrist,” he said, generously. He added: “We’re not endorsing the damage to the girl — if there was this damage.”
See, once upon a time it was conservatives who thought attacking the victim in rape cases was reprehensible. We condemned Sharpton for it. We condemned the Carvilles and Blumenthals when they defended Clinton this way. But now Sean Hannity invites Leykis on the air to discuss "double standards" in the handling of rape cases.
It Figures
So that piece of scum Tom Leykis is a wife-beater. Michael Savage and Tom Leykis. Kobe must be proud of his media posse.
So that piece of scum Tom Leykis is a wife-beater. Michael Savage and Tom Leykis. Kobe must be proud of his media posse.
Monday, July 28, 2003
What Russia was to Napoleon...
...the Kobe case will be for Fox News.
At least that is the way it is shaping up now. The network’s "coverage" of the matter is almost certain to alienate the key audience that has helped it take the lead in the ratings hunt.
Two-thirds of its prime-time lineup seems to be pro-Kobe. It is no surprise that Greta van Sustren's "On the Record" falls that way. She fills her show with defense attorneys whose instinct is to create reasonable doubt. Reflexively, the show's experts seize on all the facts and unattributed statements that put the alleged victim in a bad light.
It is a shock, though, to watch Hannity and Colmes and realize that you agree with Colmes. Hannity, for some reason, has decided to run with the Kobe posse and retail those same rumors. He brays about double standards as though this is the first victim whose anonymity is protected. In fact, it is Hannity and his ilk who want to treat this case differently.
Fox is no worse than MSNBC in this regard. But that is the problem. Fox owes its rise in the ratings to being different than the usual media outlets. Fox seemed to reflect the values of "red America". But in the Kobe case Fox is acting out of character and mocking those values.
Behind the electoral map of red and blue America lies a cultural divide. As Den Beste has pointed out repeatedly, Jacksonian America sees things differently than does the media. As Mead shows in this essay, Jacksonian values-- honor, equality and courage run deep.
Not discussed in the essay is another Jacksonian quality-- a roughhewn chivalry toward women. It is an important element in Jacksonian honor.
Andrew Jackson himself set the standard here. He fought duels in defense of his wife’s good name and in one instance killed the man who slurred her. In his first term he fired most of his cabinet because their wives refused to accept Peggy Eaton socially and disparaged her morals and suitability as a Cabinet wife.
Trashing the 19 year old alleged victim is antithetical to this concept of honor. Keeping silent as it occurs in front of you is the opposite of courage.
Many reporters seem instinctively pro-Kobe. In Jacksonian America we wonder if that is because Bryant is a rich celebrity athlete. We doubt that the average person would receive the same active defense. "Fair and balanced" is for politics. In this case, the coastal elites seem to stick up for their own.
I don’t expect Fox News to fall behind CNN tomorrow. This is Russia not Waterloo. But their handling of this story does dilute FNC’s claim to fame: it no longer seems culturally in tune with its audience beyond the coasts. Without that cultural resonance Fox News is just an under-funded pundit-fest with a limited ability to gather hard news on its own. How large an audience is there for that?
...the Kobe case will be for Fox News.
At least that is the way it is shaping up now. The network’s "coverage" of the matter is almost certain to alienate the key audience that has helped it take the lead in the ratings hunt.
Two-thirds of its prime-time lineup seems to be pro-Kobe. It is no surprise that Greta van Sustren's "On the Record" falls that way. She fills her show with defense attorneys whose instinct is to create reasonable doubt. Reflexively, the show's experts seize on all the facts and unattributed statements that put the alleged victim in a bad light.
It is a shock, though, to watch Hannity and Colmes and realize that you agree with Colmes. Hannity, for some reason, has decided to run with the Kobe posse and retail those same rumors. He brays about double standards as though this is the first victim whose anonymity is protected. In fact, it is Hannity and his ilk who want to treat this case differently.
Fox is no worse than MSNBC in this regard. But that is the problem. Fox owes its rise in the ratings to being different than the usual media outlets. Fox seemed to reflect the values of "red America". But in the Kobe case Fox is acting out of character and mocking those values.
Behind the electoral map of red and blue America lies a cultural divide. As Den Beste has pointed out repeatedly, Jacksonian America sees things differently than does the media. As Mead shows in this essay, Jacksonian values-- honor, equality and courage run deep.
Not discussed in the essay is another Jacksonian quality-- a roughhewn chivalry toward women. It is an important element in Jacksonian honor.
Andrew Jackson himself set the standard here. He fought duels in defense of his wife’s good name and in one instance killed the man who slurred her. In his first term he fired most of his cabinet because their wives refused to accept Peggy Eaton socially and disparaged her morals and suitability as a Cabinet wife.
Trashing the 19 year old alleged victim is antithetical to this concept of honor. Keeping silent as it occurs in front of you is the opposite of courage.
Many reporters seem instinctively pro-Kobe. In Jacksonian America we wonder if that is because Bryant is a rich celebrity athlete. We doubt that the average person would receive the same active defense. "Fair and balanced" is for politics. In this case, the coastal elites seem to stick up for their own.
I don’t expect Fox News to fall behind CNN tomorrow. This is Russia not Waterloo. But their handling of this story does dilute FNC’s claim to fame: it no longer seems culturally in tune with its audience beyond the coasts. Without that cultural resonance Fox News is just an under-funded pundit-fest with a limited ability to gather hard news on its own. How large an audience is there for that?
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Greatest Americans
Lists of "The Greatest Americans" may overlook important and valuable aspects of our history simply because they are not discrete events or the result of a single individual's work.
Two groups deserving credit, IMHO, are
The Pioneer Women and "domestic engineers".
That some men would want to move into the wilderness is one thing. That women would be willing to put up with the hardships, lack of amenities, danger, and loneliness is quite another. That so many were willing is amazing.
Witold Rybczynski's Home: A Short History of an Idea is one of my favorite books. In it he notes that a group of American women remade how our homes were organized and how domestic work was done. They were "domestic engineers" because they brought the methods of efficiency experts inside the home. Unlike male architects, they were less worried about style and visual appeal and more focused how the house functioned for the family. (Lillian Gilbreth, Catherine Beecher are two who did important work of this sort). As Rybczynski writes:
Lists of "The Greatest Americans" may overlook important and valuable aspects of our history simply because they are not discrete events or the result of a single individual's work.
Two groups deserving credit, IMHO, are
The Pioneer Women and "domestic engineers".
That some men would want to move into the wilderness is one thing. That women would be willing to put up with the hardships, lack of amenities, danger, and loneliness is quite another. That so many were willing is amazing.
Witold Rybczynski's Home: A Short History of an Idea is one of my favorite books. In it he notes that a group of American women remade how our homes were organized and how domestic work was done. They were "domestic engineers" because they brought the methods of efficiency experts inside the home. Unlike male architects, they were less worried about style and visual appeal and more focused how the house functioned for the family. (Lillian Gilbreth, Catherine Beecher are two who did important work of this sort). As Rybczynski writes:
Anyone who works comfortably at the kitchen counter, or takes dishes out of a dishwasher and places them in a convenient overhead shelf, or dusts the house in an hour, not a day, owes something to the domestic engineer.
Friday, July 25, 2003
More Kobe
Outside the Beltway makes a good point:
While I agree both in general and in this particular case that rape victims should be protected from public scrutiny by the media, I'm aways amazed that so few seem to have any sympathy for the accused.
I actually have a lot of sympathy for the accused. I wish Greta, Rita, Dan and Keith would just shut up about the Bryant case and let the jury system work. No need to drag his name through the mud before the evidence is presented in court.
But i think Bryant has received much more sympathy than Scott Peterson, Martha Stewart, and Kenny Lay. He is getting the benefit of the doubt where they have already been convicted in the public mind.
One of ASV's commenters also made a good point on the fairness of protecting the accuser's privacy.
Why is this one different? Because Bryant is a celebrity. When a celebrity gets arrested, it's considered "news" and reported on. Sorry, them's the breaks. But guess what? If a female celebrity were raped, that would be all over the news as well; the double standard isn't so much accuser vs. accused, but celebrity vs. non-celebrity.
In any case, what I fail to see is why this woman should be treated differently from other alleged rape victims just becuase she allegedly had the misfortune of being raped by a celebrity.
Outside the Beltway makes a good point:
While I agree both in general and in this particular case that rape victims should be protected from public scrutiny by the media, I'm aways amazed that so few seem to have any sympathy for the accused.
I actually have a lot of sympathy for the accused. I wish Greta, Rita, Dan and Keith would just shut up about the Bryant case and let the jury system work. No need to drag his name through the mud before the evidence is presented in court.
But i think Bryant has received much more sympathy than Scott Peterson, Martha Stewart, and Kenny Lay. He is getting the benefit of the doubt where they have already been convicted in the public mind.
One of ASV's commenters also made a good point on the fairness of protecting the accuser's privacy.
Why is this one different? Because Bryant is a celebrity. When a celebrity gets arrested, it's considered "news" and reported on. Sorry, them's the breaks. But guess what? If a female celebrity were raped, that would be all over the news as well; the double standard isn't so much accuser vs. accused, but celebrity vs. non-celebrity.
In any case, what I fail to see is why this woman should be treated differently from other alleged rape victims just becuase she allegedly had the misfortune of being raped by a celebrity.
Outside Media Criticism
Good article on this here.
one of the most disturbing trends of the early 21st century — faux media insiderism. A lot of folks seem to have the impression that giving Slate the occassional read is an adequate substitute for actual knowledge when it comes to speculating on the internal politics of major news organizations.
Good article on this here.
one of the most disturbing trends of the early 21st century — faux media insiderism. A lot of folks seem to have the impression that giving Slate the occassional read is an adequate substitute for actual knowledge when it comes to speculating on the internal politics of major news organizations.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
The Bryant Case: Outing the Victim
A Small Victory says it best---
The fact is, this case is different. Here, you have a celebrity with a huge, loyal, rabid following. The reasons for many of these people wanting to know the name of the accuser is so they can harass her. Just look at my comments on any of these posts. Go do a search and find any website that defends Kobe and you'll see what I mean. There are people looking for address so they can stalk her, wait for her to come out of her house and hurl insults at her. There are people who want to physically harm her. They want her email address to send her threatening letters and the only reason they want to see photos of her is so they can post the photos themselves while captioning them with insults.
Bryant's fans - at least this portion of his fans - have already determined that he is innocent. They would rather see this woman dead then see their team play without their hero. Now, that's a sad statement. And that is why I believe this woman's name should not be made public. Of course, it's too late for that, but you will not find that information here, ever.
The argument that outing the victim is "fair" fails on at least three counts.
First, she did not create the media circus, the media did. She is not responsible for the massive coverage that her charges created.
Second, the state of Colorado looked at the accusation and decided to file charges. If Kobe Bryant is in trouble, it is not the simply the result of one woman's statement. The police and DA vetted that statement and found it credible and probably buttressed by forensic evidence.
Third, Bryant's wealth and celebrity provide him a degree of insulation and protection that is not available to this girl and her family. No one who wants to call Kobe is a rapist bastard is going to get within a hundred yards of the guy before the legal proceedings start. He will never see the email. His bodyguards will handle the anything that happen on the street. Mostly, though, he can live inside his mansion and hear nothing.
The alleged victim, however, has none of these advantages. The legal and moral protections victims are usually given have been stripped away by fat, sanctimonious pigs like Leykis. It may be inevitable but it is neither fair nor right.
If I was Bryant, though, I would worry about this media assault on the girl. It does not help his image today; if it encourages his "fans" to harass the girl, it is even worse. And at the extreme, does he want to be Jodie Foster for some dirtbag doing a Hinckley?
A Small Victory says it best---
The fact is, this case is different. Here, you have a celebrity with a huge, loyal, rabid following. The reasons for many of these people wanting to know the name of the accuser is so they can harass her. Just look at my comments on any of these posts. Go do a search and find any website that defends Kobe and you'll see what I mean. There are people looking for address so they can stalk her, wait for her to come out of her house and hurl insults at her. There are people who want to physically harm her. They want her email address to send her threatening letters and the only reason they want to see photos of her is so they can post the photos themselves while captioning them with insults.
Bryant's fans - at least this portion of his fans - have already determined that he is innocent. They would rather see this woman dead then see their team play without their hero. Now, that's a sad statement. And that is why I believe this woman's name should not be made public. Of course, it's too late for that, but you will not find that information here, ever.
The argument that outing the victim is "fair" fails on at least three counts.
First, she did not create the media circus, the media did. She is not responsible for the massive coverage that her charges created.
Second, the state of Colorado looked at the accusation and decided to file charges. If Kobe Bryant is in trouble, it is not the simply the result of one woman's statement. The police and DA vetted that statement and found it credible and probably buttressed by forensic evidence.
Third, Bryant's wealth and celebrity provide him a degree of insulation and protection that is not available to this girl and her family. No one who wants to call Kobe is a rapist bastard is going to get within a hundred yards of the guy before the legal proceedings start. He will never see the email. His bodyguards will handle the anything that happen on the street. Mostly, though, he can live inside his mansion and hear nothing.
The alleged victim, however, has none of these advantages. The legal and moral protections victims are usually given have been stripped away by fat, sanctimonious pigs like Leykis. It may be inevitable but it is neither fair nor right.
If I was Bryant, though, I would worry about this media assault on the girl. It does not help his image today; if it encourages his "fans" to harass the girl, it is even worse. And at the extreme, does he want to be Jodie Foster for some dirtbag doing a Hinckley?
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
Kobe Bryant
This column from Sunday is looking mighty prescient.
The whole nature of that little town is going to change. Because the media is going to descend there and people like to be on television. We're going to see lots of people vilified. We'll hear the district attorney is a bad guy, the sheriff is a bad guy, the girl is bad, her brother is bad . . . The sort of things that happen all the time to the rest of us during our lives will be dug up and used. We're going to know it all. But most people will never know where it's coming from.
This column from Sunday is looking mighty prescient.
The whole nature of that little town is going to change. Because the media is going to descend there and people like to be on television. We're going to see lots of people vilified. We'll hear the district attorney is a bad guy, the sheriff is a bad guy, the girl is bad, her brother is bad . . . The sort of things that happen all the time to the rest of us during our lives will be dug up and used. We're going to know it all. But most people will never know where it's coming from.
More on the 20 Greatest Americans
The results of the blogger poll kicked off some controversy, especially since no women made the final list. (Check out Rightwing News and Spoons as a starting point.)
I'm sort of surprised that no one has suggested Phyllis Schlafly as a possible addition. No, i wouldn't rank her with Jefferson or FDR, but her contributions compare favorably to Gloria Steinem who was suggested by some bloggers.
One of the best things Coulter ever wrote was an appreciation of Schlafly that appeared in Slander. An abbreviated version can be found here.
About the time a young Hillary Rodham was serving as inspiration for the perfect little girl in the Hollywood thriller "The Bad Seed," Schlafly was remaking the Republican Party.
In 1964, Schlafly wrote "A Choice, Not An Echo," widely credited with winning Barry Goldwater the Republican nomination for president. The book sold an astounding 3 million copies. (The average nonfiction book sells 5,000 copies.) Goldwater lost badly in the general election, but the Republican Party would never be the same.
********
As the feminists spent 20 years engaged in a death-match debate over whether it is acceptable for feminists to wear lipstick, Schlafly was writing 10 books, most of them on military policy.
*********
About the same time, Schlafly noticed that the Equal Rights Amendment was sailing toward ratification without anyone noticing. When Schlafly took up her battle against the ERA, the Senate had passed it by 84 to 8. The House had passed it by 354 to 23. The ERA was written into both the Republican and Democratic Party platforms. Thirty states had approved it in the first year after it was sent to the states for ratification. Only eight more states were needed.
But the ERA had not yet faced Phyllis Schlafly. Over the next eight years, thanks to Schlafly and her Eagle Forum, only five states ratified it – but five other states rescinded their earlier ratifications.
The results of the blogger poll kicked off some controversy, especially since no women made the final list. (Check out Rightwing News and Spoons as a starting point.)
I'm sort of surprised that no one has suggested Phyllis Schlafly as a possible addition. No, i wouldn't rank her with Jefferson or FDR, but her contributions compare favorably to Gloria Steinem who was suggested by some bloggers.
One of the best things Coulter ever wrote was an appreciation of Schlafly that appeared in Slander. An abbreviated version can be found here.
About the time a young Hillary Rodham was serving as inspiration for the perfect little girl in the Hollywood thriller "The Bad Seed," Schlafly was remaking the Republican Party.
In 1964, Schlafly wrote "A Choice, Not An Echo," widely credited with winning Barry Goldwater the Republican nomination for president. The book sold an astounding 3 million copies. (The average nonfiction book sells 5,000 copies.) Goldwater lost badly in the general election, but the Republican Party would never be the same.
********
As the feminists spent 20 years engaged in a death-match debate over whether it is acceptable for feminists to wear lipstick, Schlafly was writing 10 books, most of them on military policy.
*********
About the same time, Schlafly noticed that the Equal Rights Amendment was sailing toward ratification without anyone noticing. When Schlafly took up her battle against the ERA, the Senate had passed it by 84 to 8. The House had passed it by 354 to 23. The ERA was written into both the Republican and Democratic Party platforms. Thirty states had approved it in the first year after it was sent to the states for ratification. Only eight more states were needed.
But the ERA had not yet faced Phyllis Schlafly. Over the next eight years, thanks to Schlafly and her Eagle Forum, only five states ratified it – but five other states rescinded their earlier ratifications.
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Failing Upward
Jack Dunphy at NRO has a good article on the media and big-time crime stories. I especially like this:
Offering commentary on Fox News Friday night was Marcia Clark, who for some reason beyond my understanding is still sought out for these occasions despite having culminated her modest career as a prosecutor with a spectacular failure.
The same thing is happens with police "experts" on these shows. Because they are recorded in Washington, they use a lot of ex-policemen who worked in the city. But the DC police department has a lousy record when it comes to solving crimes. In 2002 they "cleared" less than half of the homicides (48.5%). The NYPD clears around 75% of their cases.
Apparently, what matters to television (even Fox News) is celebrity and availability. Competence is optional.
Jack Dunphy at NRO has a good article on the media and big-time crime stories. I especially like this:
Offering commentary on Fox News Friday night was Marcia Clark, who for some reason beyond my understanding is still sought out for these occasions despite having culminated her modest career as a prosecutor with a spectacular failure.
The same thing is happens with police "experts" on these shows. Because they are recorded in Washington, they use a lot of ex-policemen who worked in the city. But the DC police department has a lousy record when it comes to solving crimes. In 2002 they "cleared" less than half of the homicides (48.5%). The NYPD clears around 75% of their cases.
Apparently, what matters to television (even Fox News) is celebrity and availability. Competence is optional.
Monday, July 21, 2003
Bloggers Choose Greatest Americans
Rightwing News asked a group of bloggers to pick the 20 greatest Americans and has published the results.
I have to say that i disagree with most of it. Reagan tied for first with Lincoln with Washington coming in third? I have admired Reagan for a long time (going back to his race in 1976), but come on. Washington was both a successful general and our first president. Twice he relinquished power when popular support would have let him retain it for as long as he wished. Very few great men have done this even once.
No way Patton was greater than George Marshall or U.S. Grant. Heck, his impact on the outcome of WWII was considerably less than that of Chester Nimitz.
Rightwing News asked a group of bloggers to pick the 20 greatest Americans and has published the results.
I have to say that i disagree with most of it. Reagan tied for first with Lincoln with Washington coming in third? I have admired Reagan for a long time (going back to his race in 1976), but come on. Washington was both a successful general and our first president. Twice he relinquished power when popular support would have let him retain it for as long as he wished. Very few great men have done this even once.
No way Patton was greater than George Marshall or U.S. Grant. Heck, his impact on the outcome of WWII was considerably less than that of Chester Nimitz.
Bring Back the Urban Visionaries
OK, so it is eight years old. I still think this is an interesting article. Not everything has to be in reaction to today's headlines.
In 1940 you could catch an express train from New Haven to Grand Central that got you there in 90 minutes. Today there is no express, and the trip takes an hour and 41 minutes on Metro-North. Why have we made no progress in 50 years? Because people no longer care to travel from New Haven to Manhattan? Because our time is no longer valuable, because we no longer understand technology and engineering, because 1940's society was richer than ours, because modern cars and highways have made rail commuting obsolete? Because 90 minutes is the shortest time consistent with the speed of light?
Well, no. The real problem is that today's technology visionaries know little and care less about the mundane problems of daily urban life.
OK, so it is eight years old. I still think this is an interesting article. Not everything has to be in reaction to today's headlines.
In 1940 you could catch an express train from New Haven to Grand Central that got you there in 90 minutes. Today there is no express, and the trip takes an hour and 41 minutes on Metro-North. Why have we made no progress in 50 years? Because people no longer care to travel from New Haven to Manhattan? Because our time is no longer valuable, because we no longer understand technology and engineering, because 1940's society was richer than ours, because modern cars and highways have made rail commuting obsolete? Because 90 minutes is the shortest time consistent with the speed of light?
Well, no. The real problem is that today's technology visionaries know little and care less about the mundane problems of daily urban life.
We Love the 80s
This post absolutely nails the problems with VH1 look back at the 80s. Permanent Snide is most unbecoming
This post absolutely nails the problems with VH1 look back at the 80s. Permanent Snide is most unbecoming
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
The Other Pornography
Cut on the Bias points out this article from Slate on a new documentary about the highway safety films of the 50s and 60s. Unlike Susanna, I actually saw some of these in high school.
Our drivers-ed teacher called them “prom movies”. We saw them in drivers ed, health, or gym class a week or so before prom. The idea was to scare us into being safe, sober drivers on a night when our inclination was to be quite the opposite. The shocking footage was deemed necessary to cut through our adolescent sense of omnipotence and invulnerability.
Almost thirty years later I can still recall some of the footage.
Daniel Edelstein believes that there is a pornographic element to these films:
Whatever the filmmakers’ intentions, this was pornography then, and its liberal use in the documentary—which features stomach-turning shots of a dead baby under a car—makes it feel like pornography now.
Susanna disagrees:
Edelstein seems to think that pornography is about exploitation, which I think it is, but he doesn't mention the sexual element that I think is integral to calling it pornography. I'm sure there are people who do get off on it, there's people who get off on everything. I don't know what else I would call it
I find myself in agreement with Edelstein. If we choose to limit pornography to sex, then we need a word for the obscene exploitation of death.
Tom Wolfe wrote an essay years ago on “pornviolence”. One of his key observations was that the intense interest in the Zapruder film ha nothing to do with unanswered questions about what really happened in Dallas in 1963. Rather, people wanted to see the home movie because it showed a man’s head exploding from a real gun shot.
This sort of thing is not a relic of the 60s. Now this porn violence is on display every night of the week on TV and in thousands of book store across the country.
It is bad enough on CSI or Crossing Jordan. I don’t see the need to “show” the face of a decomposed body or a bag of stomach contents. But these shows are fiction and it is merely gross.
It is the nonfiction programs on cable (like Forensic Files or American Justice) and books that are really offensive. A university press recently published a serious book on Eliot Ness and his hunt for a serial killer in Cleveland. This “respectable” publisher chose to decorate the cover with the photo of a severed head of one of the victims.
For one thing, these photos appeal to the prurient interests of the worst kind of perverts. I see no need to provide them with their sick thrill when the pictures add no meaningful information. It is not as though the pictures show a vital clue; if the photograph wasn't there the story would still be understandable.
Second, the killer treated his victim like a garbage. A life is snuffed out and a corpse is left. The killer’s ego steals a life and the aftermath robs a person’s memory of the dignity we all deserve. None of us wants to be left on the side of the road like an empty McDonald’s bag. Crime scene photos are necessary for the police, but to broadcast them is to share in the killer’s indifference towards the victim’s life and dignity. There is an unthinking complicity in the selfishness that produced the ultimate evil.
Worst of all, some killers “pose” the bodies of their victims. Their goal is to humiliate the victim after death or to send a message to society. To broadcast or print photographs of their “work” in the reckless quest for ratings and sensation is to aid the killers in their demonic evil.
As for conventional pornography, this author makes a good case for racheting down our tacit approval of porn from a libertarian perspective.
Cut on the Bias points out this article from Slate on a new documentary about the highway safety films of the 50s and 60s. Unlike Susanna, I actually saw some of these in high school.
Our drivers-ed teacher called them “prom movies”. We saw them in drivers ed, health, or gym class a week or so before prom. The idea was to scare us into being safe, sober drivers on a night when our inclination was to be quite the opposite. The shocking footage was deemed necessary to cut through our adolescent sense of omnipotence and invulnerability.
Almost thirty years later I can still recall some of the footage.
Daniel Edelstein believes that there is a pornographic element to these films:
Whatever the filmmakers’ intentions, this was pornography then, and its liberal use in the documentary—which features stomach-turning shots of a dead baby under a car—makes it feel like pornography now.
Susanna disagrees:
Edelstein seems to think that pornography is about exploitation, which I think it is, but he doesn't mention the sexual element that I think is integral to calling it pornography. I'm sure there are people who do get off on it, there's people who get off on everything. I don't know what else I would call it
I find myself in agreement with Edelstein. If we choose to limit pornography to sex, then we need a word for the obscene exploitation of death.
Tom Wolfe wrote an essay years ago on “pornviolence”. One of his key observations was that the intense interest in the Zapruder film ha nothing to do with unanswered questions about what really happened in Dallas in 1963. Rather, people wanted to see the home movie because it showed a man’s head exploding from a real gun shot.
This sort of thing is not a relic of the 60s. Now this porn violence is on display every night of the week on TV and in thousands of book store across the country.
It is bad enough on CSI or Crossing Jordan. I don’t see the need to “show” the face of a decomposed body or a bag of stomach contents. But these shows are fiction and it is merely gross.
It is the nonfiction programs on cable (like Forensic Files or American Justice) and books that are really offensive. A university press recently published a serious book on Eliot Ness and his hunt for a serial killer in Cleveland. This “respectable” publisher chose to decorate the cover with the photo of a severed head of one of the victims.
For one thing, these photos appeal to the prurient interests of the worst kind of perverts. I see no need to provide them with their sick thrill when the pictures add no meaningful information. It is not as though the pictures show a vital clue; if the photograph wasn't there the story would still be understandable.
Second, the killer treated his victim like a garbage. A life is snuffed out and a corpse is left. The killer’s ego steals a life and the aftermath robs a person’s memory of the dignity we all deserve. None of us wants to be left on the side of the road like an empty McDonald’s bag. Crime scene photos are necessary for the police, but to broadcast them is to share in the killer’s indifference towards the victim’s life and dignity. There is an unthinking complicity in the selfishness that produced the ultimate evil.
Worst of all, some killers “pose” the bodies of their victims. Their goal is to humiliate the victim after death or to send a message to society. To broadcast or print photographs of their “work” in the reckless quest for ratings and sensation is to aid the killers in their demonic evil.
As for conventional pornography, this author makes a good case for racheting down our tacit approval of porn from a libertarian perspective.
Internet
Both the God of the Machine and Outside the Beltway have additional thoughts.
Not much for me to debate in either post. They both present thoughtful, sober analyses of the type we need more of (and could really have used 1996-2001). Neither of them are the sort of "infantile utopians" that were my original target.
As for Wolfe's dismissal of the technology, the essay dates from the hype and bubble era. So i cut him some slack-- his rhetorical excess was necessary to cut through the "digibabble" that received more acceptance than it deserved.
Both the God of the Machine and Outside the Beltway have additional thoughts.
Not much for me to debate in either post. They both present thoughtful, sober analyses of the type we need more of (and could really have used 1996-2001). Neither of them are the sort of "infantile utopians" that were my original target.
As for Wolfe's dismissal of the technology, the essay dates from the hype and bubble era. So i cut him some slack-- his rhetorical excess was necessary to cut through the "digibabble" that received more acceptance than it deserved.
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Interesting Point
Julie over at Lone Prairie writes
I've noticed that the posts of mine that are my original content (i.e. what's happening here, local news covered only by moi, etc.) get less linkage/comment than the posts where I do a rant on some newspaper article, or some political topic, or maybe a movie critique...you get the idea.
Like most of my blogroll, she is in flyover country (North Dakota). Her local posts discuss different issues than the usual blogfare of "the Times sucks" or "Bush is dumb". Moreover, they often provide new information instead of just commentary. But for some reason, that doesn't drive links or traffic.
Julie over at Lone Prairie writes
I've noticed that the posts of mine that are my original content (i.e. what's happening here, local news covered only by moi, etc.) get less linkage/comment than the posts where I do a rant on some newspaper article, or some political topic, or maybe a movie critique...you get the idea.
Like most of my blogroll, she is in flyover country (North Dakota). Her local posts discuss different issues than the usual blogfare of "the Times sucks" or "Bush is dumb". Moreover, they often provide new information instead of just commentary. But for some reason, that doesn't drive links or traffic.
Internet
Aaron, over at God of the Machine, notes the Tom Wolfe quote below and then asks:
Well OK. All the Internet does is "speed up the retrieval and dissemination of information." And this distinguishes it from the telephone, telegraph, and printing press — how, exactly?
I won't speak for Mr. Wolfe, but... the Internet seems is less important than the printing press. So much that flowed from movable type and cheap paper-- books, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets-- was new. Websites and blogs just seem like a continuation of some of these innovations.
On the other hand, the Internet is probably as important as the telegraph or telephone. They are also similar in that they represent improvements in the speed and ease of long-distance communication. But that is evidence that the Internet is not unprecedented or revolutionary as some boosters claimed. And returning to Brad DeLong's point, it suggests that technological advances do not automatically create business or social utopias. The telegraph's effect on government and business were varied. The Internet's effects will probably be the same mixed bag.
Aaron, over at God of the Machine, notes the Tom Wolfe quote below and then asks:
Well OK. All the Internet does is "speed up the retrieval and dissemination of information." And this distinguishes it from the telephone, telegraph, and printing press — how, exactly?
I won't speak for Mr. Wolfe, but... the Internet seems is less important than the printing press. So much that flowed from movable type and cheap paper-- books, newspapers, magazines, pamphlets-- was new. Websites and blogs just seem like a continuation of some of these innovations.
On the other hand, the Internet is probably as important as the telegraph or telephone. They are also similar in that they represent improvements in the speed and ease of long-distance communication. But that is evidence that the Internet is not unprecedented or revolutionary as some boosters claimed. And returning to Brad DeLong's point, it suggests that technological advances do not automatically create business or social utopias. The telegraph's effect on government and business were varied. The Internet's effects will probably be the same mixed bag.
Yes, Kill all the lawyers
The trial lawyers are now trying to sue drug companies for developing BETTER drugs. They have no shame and we are sheep for tolerating their antics.
The trial lawyers are now trying to sue drug companies for developing BETTER drugs. They have no shame and we are sheep for tolerating their antics.
Monday, July 14, 2003
Bill James
The New Yorker has an article on Bill James and his work for the Red Sox in their July 14/21 issues. Unfortunately, it is not available online.
Couple of good bits:
Norman Mailer and screenwriter William Goldman were two of the 75 people who purchased the first edition of his Baseball Abstract.
"He is a self-described 'scientist', who frequently reveals little concern for precision, a relentless counter who can't be bothered with individual sums."
"He has long been revered by rationalists for promoting the virtues of objective analysis, and yet, after an extended hibernation from writing about contemporary baseball-- during the nineties he focussed mainly on the history of the game-- he reemerged on the statistical scene with a new metric to define the over-all contribution of each player, whose formula has a built-in 'subjective element,' allowing him to adjust the numbers more or less as he pleases."
The New Yorker has an article on Bill James and his work for the Red Sox in their July 14/21 issues. Unfortunately, it is not available online.
Couple of good bits:
Norman Mailer and screenwriter William Goldman were two of the 75 people who purchased the first edition of his Baseball Abstract.
"He is a self-described 'scientist', who frequently reveals little concern for precision, a relentless counter who can't be bothered with individual sums."
"He has long been revered by rationalists for promoting the virtues of objective analysis, and yet, after an extended hibernation from writing about contemporary baseball-- during the nineties he focussed mainly on the history of the game-- he reemerged on the statistical scene with a new metric to define the over-all contribution of each player, whose formula has a built-in 'subjective element,' allowing him to adjust the numbers more or less as he pleases."
Sunday, July 13, 2003
Friday, July 11, 2003
More Joe McCarthy
Sometimes brilliant men have so many ideas that they don't pursue all the intriguing avenues of investigation. One example is this from Robert Conquest in Reflections on a Ravaged Century:
Not to go all conspiracy-minded, but Joe had Communist help getting elected? If true, (Conquest is a serious and careful historian so i tend to believe him), it raises all sorts of questions in my mind. And we are left with the fact that he was an abysmal failure as a red hunter despite the fact that there were plenty of reds to hunt. See also here.
Sometimes brilliant men have so many ideas that they don't pursue all the intriguing avenues of investigation. One example is this from Robert Conquest in Reflections on a Ravaged Century:
The United States, though not Western Europe, had the McCarthy experience. (Russians have seriously suggested to me that he was a Soviet agent-- he had had Communist help in his own election in Wisconsin!) At any rate, he disgraced anti-Communism in the eyes of many, by wild or false accusations.
Not to go all conspiracy-minded, but Joe had Communist help getting elected? If true, (Conquest is a serious and careful historian so i tend to believe him), it raises all sorts of questions in my mind. And we are left with the fact that he was an abysmal failure as a red hunter despite the fact that there were plenty of reds to hunt. See also here.
Disgusting
A liberal tolerant type is having "Strom Thurmond is Finally Dead Sale." Backcountry Conservative has the details here.
A liberal tolerant type is having "Strom Thurmond is Finally Dead Sale." Backcountry Conservative has the details here.
What is the Internet Good For
Hell in a Handbasket has a good post on this. He too is a technoskeptic.
On this issue Tom Wolfe is in our camp and he is always worth having on your side:
I hate to be the one who brings this news to the tribe, to the magic Digikingdon, but the simple truth is that the Web, the Internet, does one thing. It speeds up the retrieval and dissemination of information, partially eliminating such chores as going outdoors to the mailbox or the adult bookstore, or having to pick up the phone to get hold of your stockbroker or some buddies to shoot the breeze with. That one thing the Internet does and only that. All the rest is Digibabble.
Hooking Up, page 76.
Hell in a Handbasket has a good post on this. He too is a technoskeptic.
On this issue Tom Wolfe is in our camp and he is always worth having on your side:
I hate to be the one who brings this news to the tribe, to the magic Digikingdon, but the simple truth is that the Web, the Internet, does one thing. It speeds up the retrieval and dissemination of information, partially eliminating such chores as going outdoors to the mailbox or the adult bookstore, or having to pick up the phone to get hold of your stockbroker or some buddies to shoot the breeze with. That one thing the Internet does and only that. All the rest is Digibabble.
Hooking Up, page 76.
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Dixie Chicks Again
Cut on the Bias discusses the Natalie Manes's appearance before a senate hearing where she played the victim. By her telling, it wasn't the fans who created the backlash against the Chicks. No, it was an evil media corporation.
Why does she keep stirring the pot?
The Chicks say they want to put the controversy behind them. Yet, every time the flames dies down, it is the Chicks who fan it back to life. It was Natalie, not an evil media company, that picked the fight with Toby Keith and continued it at an awards show. Now, it is Natalie Manes trying to reignite it by playing the victim for Barbara Boxer.
Given the strong feelings among country music fans, a radio station would have been nuts to keep playing them during the controversy. Radio is a tough business where stations fight for small gains in marketshare. Playing the Chicks was a sure way to lose listeners, so, of course, stations were going to drop them.
The divide between the Chicks and Toby (who i like only half the time), highlights a fault line in the country at large after 9-11. Col. Jeff Cooper put it best: what happened wasn't a "tragedy" , it was an "atrocity." This distinction is important because, as he noted, the proper reaction to a tragedy is sadness, but for an atrocity it is rage.
Our media elites (executives and most artists) don't want to fan the rage so they declare 9-11 a tragedy. Many of us, in our gut, disagree.
And because they disagree with our gut feelings, they do themselves commercial harm. For example, why did Sean Hannity see the potential in Martina MacBride's Independence Day ("Let Freedom Ring") but her record company did not? If they had re-released it, they could have racked up big sales and radio play.
Similarly, Charlie Daniels's In America was a big hit in the early 80s and struck the right note for a post-911 update and reissue. It wasn't even that jingoistic. Yet the record company chose to pass on those sales.
The post-911 concensus is that we can be sad. If we are angry, our betters in the media want no part of it or us. That is the atitude reflected by the Chicks. For those who agree with Col Cooper, the Chicks and their LA friends are an annoyance and an irritant.
Cut on the Bias discusses the Natalie Manes's appearance before a senate hearing where she played the victim. By her telling, it wasn't the fans who created the backlash against the Chicks. No, it was an evil media corporation.
Why does she keep stirring the pot?
The Chicks say they want to put the controversy behind them. Yet, every time the flames dies down, it is the Chicks who fan it back to life. It was Natalie, not an evil media company, that picked the fight with Toby Keith and continued it at an awards show. Now, it is Natalie Manes trying to reignite it by playing the victim for Barbara Boxer.
Given the strong feelings among country music fans, a radio station would have been nuts to keep playing them during the controversy. Radio is a tough business where stations fight for small gains in marketshare. Playing the Chicks was a sure way to lose listeners, so, of course, stations were going to drop them.
The divide between the Chicks and Toby (who i like only half the time), highlights a fault line in the country at large after 9-11. Col. Jeff Cooper put it best: what happened wasn't a "tragedy" , it was an "atrocity." This distinction is important because, as he noted, the proper reaction to a tragedy is sadness, but for an atrocity it is rage.
Our media elites (executives and most artists) don't want to fan the rage so they declare 9-11 a tragedy. Many of us, in our gut, disagree.
And because they disagree with our gut feelings, they do themselves commercial harm. For example, why did Sean Hannity see the potential in Martina MacBride's Independence Day ("Let Freedom Ring") but her record company did not? If they had re-released it, they could have racked up big sales and radio play.
Similarly, Charlie Daniels's In America was a big hit in the early 80s and struck the right note for a post-911 update and reissue. It wasn't even that jingoistic. Yet the record company chose to pass on those sales.
The post-911 concensus is that we can be sad. If we are angry, our betters in the media want no part of it or us. That is the atitude reflected by the Chicks. For those who agree with Col Cooper, the Chicks and their LA friends are an annoyance and an irritant.
Thank You
Thanks to Rob at businesspundit i found this collection of party platforms dating back to the nineteenth century.
Thanks to Rob at businesspundit i found this collection of party platforms dating back to the nineteenth century.
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Rise of the Creative Class
Richard Florida, a Carnegie Mellon professor, caused quite a stir a few years ago when he published The Rise of the Creative Class in which he argued that the key to economic development was creative types to your city. That meant you had to be cool, tolerant, decidedly non-suburban and non-bourgeois. The thesis seemed plausible during the dot-com boom/bubble. Hip urban centers like San Francisco, Manhattan, and Denver were filled with prosperous young singles who worked for start-ups.
This article by Joel Kotkin disputes Florida's theory. Obviously the bursting of the bubble helps kotkin's case. But he also shows that even in 1999 Florida misinterpreted critical data. For example, San Francisco is liberal and bohemian and near Silicon Valley. But San Francisco was never the "heart" of the technology industry and it is not clear that the social climate of the city had much to do with the business success of companies headquartered far down the road in San Jose.
Florida's hypothesis is a perfect example of of the infantile utopianism that helped fuel the dot-com bubble. Such writing (Fast Company used to be filled with this dreck) takes a quick snapshot of a company or industry. Then it points to a couple of interesting phenomena, pronounces them key trends, utters the magic words-- "transformation, technology, revolution, digital"-- and proclaims a beautiful future. Serious history and critical analysis are ignored.
A constant undercurrent of business journalism in the late 90s was the belief that digital technology would somehow upset the social-economic status quo. The future belonged to the pierced, tattooed web designer with his shaved head and Rage Against the Machine t-shirt. Somehow, the old guard would be swept aside by 27 year old CEOs running start-ups that were cool and socially responsible.
Randall Rothenberg of Ad Age pointed out as the bubble burst in 2000 that a lot of the net-hype owed a debt to the Port Huron Statement of 1962. The chip and browser would help Gen X do what the boomers failed to do with marches and manifestoes. That is why journalists devote so much attention to Steve Jobs when there are a dozen CEOs in Silicon Valley who have accomplished more. Jobs is hip, liberal, and a self-proclaimed revolutionary. How can Andy Grove compete? All he did was beat the world in a tough industry-- he never dated Joan Baez. And who cares if Apple is really nothing more than an also-ran in PCs. Steve Jobs knows Bill Clinton.
In the 1960s America put a man on the moon. The people responsible were not tie-died hippies or socially engaged Ivy Leaguers. It was a bunch of guys in white short-sleeved shirts who carried slide rules instead of protest signs. As someone said at Mission Control when Neil Armstrong took his first lunar steps--"this is the triumph of the squares."
If Richard Flordia could have been bothered to do research before generalizing he might have read some of the works of Michael Malone on Silicon Valley. Malone is a native of the Valley and knows its history. And in his work the same point comes through-- the technology industry was fueled by engineers who were more Midwestern than bohemian. The most important company-- Hewlett Packard-- was anything but hip.
Richard Florida, a Carnegie Mellon professor, caused quite a stir a few years ago when he published The Rise of the Creative Class in which he argued that the key to economic development was creative types to your city. That meant you had to be cool, tolerant, decidedly non-suburban and non-bourgeois. The thesis seemed plausible during the dot-com boom/bubble. Hip urban centers like San Francisco, Manhattan, and Denver were filled with prosperous young singles who worked for start-ups.
This article by Joel Kotkin disputes Florida's theory. Obviously the bursting of the bubble helps kotkin's case. But he also shows that even in 1999 Florida misinterpreted critical data. For example, San Francisco is liberal and bohemian and near Silicon Valley. But San Francisco was never the "heart" of the technology industry and it is not clear that the social climate of the city had much to do with the business success of companies headquartered far down the road in San Jose.
Florida's hypothesis is a perfect example of of the infantile utopianism that helped fuel the dot-com bubble. Such writing (Fast Company used to be filled with this dreck) takes a quick snapshot of a company or industry. Then it points to a couple of interesting phenomena, pronounces them key trends, utters the magic words-- "transformation, technology, revolution, digital"-- and proclaims a beautiful future. Serious history and critical analysis are ignored.
A constant undercurrent of business journalism in the late 90s was the belief that digital technology would somehow upset the social-economic status quo. The future belonged to the pierced, tattooed web designer with his shaved head and Rage Against the Machine t-shirt. Somehow, the old guard would be swept aside by 27 year old CEOs running start-ups that were cool and socially responsible.
Randall Rothenberg of Ad Age pointed out as the bubble burst in 2000 that a lot of the net-hype owed a debt to the Port Huron Statement of 1962. The chip and browser would help Gen X do what the boomers failed to do with marches and manifestoes. That is why journalists devote so much attention to Steve Jobs when there are a dozen CEOs in Silicon Valley who have accomplished more. Jobs is hip, liberal, and a self-proclaimed revolutionary. How can Andy Grove compete? All he did was beat the world in a tough industry-- he never dated Joan Baez. And who cares if Apple is really nothing more than an also-ran in PCs. Steve Jobs knows Bill Clinton.
In the 1960s America put a man on the moon. The people responsible were not tie-died hippies or socially engaged Ivy Leaguers. It was a bunch of guys in white short-sleeved shirts who carried slide rules instead of protest signs. As someone said at Mission Control when Neil Armstrong took his first lunar steps--"this is the triumph of the squares."
If Richard Flordia could have been bothered to do research before generalizing he might have read some of the works of Michael Malone on Silicon Valley. Malone is a native of the Valley and knows its history. And in his work the same point comes through-- the technology industry was fueled by engineers who were more Midwestern than bohemian. The most important company-- Hewlett Packard-- was anything but hip.
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Coulter, Rabinowitz, and McCarthy
I don't doubt that Ann Coulter went too far defending Sen. Joe McCarthy in Treason and fails to make the case for his enshrinement as a hero. That would be par for the course for her-- she ultimately stretches her evidence farther than is reasonable and engages in rhetorical overkill. That track record is why i have no intention of buying Treason: her desire to be bold and provocative always overwhelms her good sense and intellect.
Nonetheless, I agree with Kevin Holtsberry that Dorothy Rabinowitz's review in Opinion Journal does not address the substance of Coulter's book or the merits of a revisionist assessment of the Senator:
In fact, her slam on Coulter is really just righteous anger at the concept that someone might attempt to defend McCarthy. She does not so much prove that McCarthy really was a monster as assert the fact and act shocked that Coulter would not realize this.
Holtsberry is also correct when he suggests that " McCarthy is more of a cultural indicator than a political one." Which also might explain the phenomenon which puzzles Rabinowitz
It is worth remembering that during that bleak political time the universities, faculties and students understood the threat McCarthyism posed to intellectual freedom--and, dismal to note today, that the universities which were once hotbeds of opposition to McCarthy are now little worlds of their own, where political censorship, speech codes and other ideologically driven assaults on freedom are the accepted order of things.
Perhaps the intellectuals who led the charge against McCarthy were interested less in intellectual freedom and more in defending themselves and the privileged position of intellectuals in general. The question, for some, was self-preservation: they had a pro-Stalin past that they wished to bury. For others, the problem was defending intellectuals against the democratic mob. The elite might engage in character assassination inside the ivy walls of academe and on the pages of their journals; that was okay. It was critical, however, that the mob not strike at their betters.
Note as well that the techniques of McCarthy never went out of style. Congressmen still hold public hearings to gin up publicity, unpopular public figures still get pilloried to advance political careers, the press is more than willing to print leaked information and calculated rumors. McCarthy did not invent this sort of thing and the anti-McCarthy crowd did not stop using them (just ask Ken Lay or Ken Starr).
I think the most interesting question about McCarthy is this: how did he mess up so badly in a target-rich environment? We now know that Stalin had agents and friends all though the government. They ranged from high ranking officials to small fry. Yet, McCarthy failed spectacularly in his investigations. Maybe he was not serious. Maybe he was misled. But neither he nor Roy Cohn were stupid men. Their failure is one of those intriguing mysteries hidden in the morality play of conventional history.
I don't doubt that Ann Coulter went too far defending Sen. Joe McCarthy in Treason and fails to make the case for his enshrinement as a hero. That would be par for the course for her-- she ultimately stretches her evidence farther than is reasonable and engages in rhetorical overkill. That track record is why i have no intention of buying Treason: her desire to be bold and provocative always overwhelms her good sense and intellect.
Nonetheless, I agree with Kevin Holtsberry that Dorothy Rabinowitz's review in Opinion Journal does not address the substance of Coulter's book or the merits of a revisionist assessment of the Senator:
In fact, her slam on Coulter is really just righteous anger at the concept that someone might attempt to defend McCarthy. She does not so much prove that McCarthy really was a monster as assert the fact and act shocked that Coulter would not realize this.
Holtsberry is also correct when he suggests that " McCarthy is more of a cultural indicator than a political one." Which also might explain the phenomenon which puzzles Rabinowitz
It is worth remembering that during that bleak political time the universities, faculties and students understood the threat McCarthyism posed to intellectual freedom--and, dismal to note today, that the universities which were once hotbeds of opposition to McCarthy are now little worlds of their own, where political censorship, speech codes and other ideologically driven assaults on freedom are the accepted order of things.
Perhaps the intellectuals who led the charge against McCarthy were interested less in intellectual freedom and more in defending themselves and the privileged position of intellectuals in general. The question, for some, was self-preservation: they had a pro-Stalin past that they wished to bury. For others, the problem was defending intellectuals against the democratic mob. The elite might engage in character assassination inside the ivy walls of academe and on the pages of their journals; that was okay. It was critical, however, that the mob not strike at their betters.
Note as well that the techniques of McCarthy never went out of style. Congressmen still hold public hearings to gin up publicity, unpopular public figures still get pilloried to advance political careers, the press is more than willing to print leaked information and calculated rumors. McCarthy did not invent this sort of thing and the anti-McCarthy crowd did not stop using them (just ask Ken Lay or Ken Starr).
I think the most interesting question about McCarthy is this: how did he mess up so badly in a target-rich environment? We now know that Stalin had agents and friends all though the government. They ranged from high ranking officials to small fry. Yet, McCarthy failed spectacularly in his investigations. Maybe he was not serious. Maybe he was misled. But neither he nor Roy Cohn were stupid men. Their failure is one of those intriguing mysteries hidden in the morality play of conventional history.
Monday, July 07, 2003
Religious Belief in American
This from a Harris Poll last winter:
90 % believe in God
84% believe in miracles
80% believe in the resurrection of Christ
77% believe in the Virgin birth (Jesus born of Mary)
Surprisingly high numbers for a western, multicultural nation.
This from a Harris Poll last winter:
90 % believe in God
84% believe in miracles
80% believe in the resurrection of Christ
77% believe in the Virgin birth (Jesus born of Mary)
Surprisingly high numbers for a western, multicultural nation.
I want on this blogroll
armavirumque is the weblog of the New Criterion. Since the New Criterion is one of those publications i shell out money to subscribe to, it is no surprise that i like the weblog.
But the real reason i want on the blog roll is that they alphabetize it. Check it out-- if i can figure out a way to get on it, old lead and gold will sit snugly between Kaus and Lileks. That is like being the sitcom scheduled for Thursday night at 9.30, after Seinfeld and before ER.
there must be a way........ponder..... ponder..... ponder.....
armavirumque is the weblog of the New Criterion. Since the New Criterion is one of those publications i shell out money to subscribe to, it is no surprise that i like the weblog.
But the real reason i want on the blog roll is that they alphabetize it. Check it out-- if i can figure out a way to get on it, old lead and gold will sit snugly between Kaus and Lileks. That is like being the sitcom scheduled for Thursday night at 9.30, after Seinfeld and before ER.
there must be a way........ponder..... ponder..... ponder.....
why we shoot
A great explanation of the various types of gun owners/shooters over at Hell in a Handbasket.
A great explanation of the various types of gun owners/shooters over at Hell in a Handbasket.
Sunday, July 06, 2003
Just Wondering
If religious and moral views are not an acceptable basis for making laws, then is there any way to outlaw dogfighting, bullfighting, or cockfighting?
There is no injury to another person. If the bull is properly paid for there is no theft of property. Other cultures enjoy the sports so it is not innately repugnant to mankind. Morally, i think inflicting intentional cruelty for sport is wrong. But why would those views be OK if written into law, but not my views on abortion or gay marriage?
If religious and moral views are not an acceptable basis for making laws, then is there any way to outlaw dogfighting, bullfighting, or cockfighting?
There is no injury to another person. If the bull is properly paid for there is no theft of property. Other cultures enjoy the sports so it is not innately repugnant to mankind. Morally, i think inflicting intentional cruelty for sport is wrong. But why would those views be OK if written into law, but not my views on abortion or gay marriage?
I Guess 9-11-01 Didn't Change Some Things
Painting depicts Giuliani near dung
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK -- Four years ago, former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani blasted the Brooklyn Museum of Art for hanging a painting of the Virgin Mary that was decorated with elephant dung.
An exhibit that opened at the Whitney this week strikes back - with a portrait of Giuliani that has elephant dung painted on it.
Found thanks to Right-Thinking who is sure to have the most energetic comments thread on the matter
Painting depicts Giuliani near dung
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK -- Four years ago, former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani blasted the Brooklyn Museum of Art for hanging a painting of the Virgin Mary that was decorated with elephant dung.
An exhibit that opened at the Whitney this week strikes back - with a portrait of Giuliani that has elephant dung painted on it.
Found thanks to Right-Thinking who is sure to have the most energetic comments thread on the matter
Thursday, July 03, 2003
A Big Reason for Limbaugh's Success
This is a terrific post on liberal talk radio and the reasons for Rush's success.
The main competition for liberal talk radio isn't conservative talk radio-- it is all the other liberal media outlets from NPR to ABC to CNN. Liberals have many sources of news and commentary that confirms their worldview. Conservatives had almost nothing before Rush.
Limbaugh took off like a rocket because he was a talented radio guy who went after a large, under-served market. For many conservatives there was something electric about hearing an unapologetic right-winger review the news of the day. That gave him a special type of first mover advantage and strong claim on listener loyalty.
Chesterton captured those listeners's feelings in The Man Who Was Thursday:
Through all this ordeal his root horror had been isolation, and there are no words to express the abyss between isolation and having one ally. It may be conceded to the mathematicians that four is twice two. But two is not twice one; two is two thousand times one.
#ad
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Technology and Progress
Via Business Pundit, i found this article by Brad DeLong.
Still, there is a strong sense that computers are less of an asset to the economy than they might be if we truly knew what they were good for and how to use them.
DeLong also notes that:
New general-purpose technologies work well only if they are the base of a system, or form a cluster of reinforcing and self-sustaining changes in the way work is organized.
New technology does not automatically produce immediate progress. The best example of that i know is World War One. The combination of new weapons (tanks, machine guns, planes, quick-firing artillery, etc.) and old ways of thinking produced the stalemate and slaughter of 1914-1918. The German victories of 1939-41 owed little to superior technology and a great deal to superior training and doctrine. (See here)
Note as well, that the inventors of a technology are not always the ones who figure out how best to use it. The British invented the tank, the Germans developed the blitzkrieg.
Via Business Pundit, i found this article by Brad DeLong.
Still, there is a strong sense that computers are less of an asset to the economy than they might be if we truly knew what they were good for and how to use them.
DeLong also notes that:
New general-purpose technologies work well only if they are the base of a system, or form a cluster of reinforcing and self-sustaining changes in the way work is organized.
New technology does not automatically produce immediate progress. The best example of that i know is World War One. The combination of new weapons (tanks, machine guns, planes, quick-firing artillery, etc.) and old ways of thinking produced the stalemate and slaughter of 1914-1918. The German victories of 1939-41 owed little to superior technology and a great deal to superior training and doctrine. (See here)
Note as well, that the inventors of a technology are not always the ones who figure out how best to use it. The British invented the tank, the Germans developed the blitzkrieg.
Big East/ ACC
This about sums it up.
If this episode has illustrated anything, it is that the NCAA is a weird sort of paper tiger. On the one hand, it hands down stiff penalties to players and coaches who disobey its rules. On the other, it can't police its own member schools from acting like corporate robber barons.
This about sums it up.
If this episode has illustrated anything, it is that the NCAA is a weird sort of paper tiger. On the one hand, it hands down stiff penalties to players and coaches who disobey its rules. On the other, it can't police its own member schools from acting like corporate robber barons.
Tuesday, July 01, 2003
Making Heroes out of Traitors
Here is a good article on the BBC series Cambridge Spies (Philby, et. al.). As the author makes clear, the drama paints these traitors in a surprisingly favorable light.
Apparently the rule is, never say anything nice about a former Dixiecrat if you want to remain in polite society. However, you can work as hard as you want to polish the memory of men who betrayed their country on behalf of Stalin. And the BBC will fund it and put it on TV. (I expect PBS won't be far behnd).
Here is a good article on the BBC series Cambridge Spies (Philby, et. al.). As the author makes clear, the drama paints these traitors in a surprisingly favorable light.
Apparently the rule is, never say anything nice about a former Dixiecrat if you want to remain in polite society. However, you can work as hard as you want to polish the memory of men who betrayed their country on behalf of Stalin. And the BBC will fund it and put it on TV. (I expect PBS won't be far behnd).
Monday, June 30, 2003
When Instapundit Speaks
it makes sense to listen. Especially when he is discussing successful blogging as he does here.
One of his points, while true, points to a serious weakness for the blogosphere. Rapid-response to the news of the day does seem critical to blog success. Yet the premium on speed weakens analysis and fresh reporting. Those latter activities are the very areas usually cited as the strengths compared to traditional journalism.
One way to be fast is to do reflex-punditry of the sort we see on TV (especially on the McLaughlin Group). Talking heads react to the news and apply their individual ideological template. Eleanor Clift and Pat Buchanan don't bring new information to the viewers; they simply repeat the appropriate talking points. A lot of blogs end-up as nano-pundits: "More idiocy from the Bush Camp," "Go Rummy," etc.
(An interesting sidenote is that Instapundit doesn't do a lot of punditry. Mostly he directs traffic to others's work. When he writes longer posts they usually are on matters where he has real expertise.)
The following passage from this article also has some relevance. While it discusses corporate managers, the personality type described seems to fit quite a few influential bloggers.
Energy, confidence, conviction, self-nomination: traits that are ideal for writing memorable posts quickly. The problem is that such bloggers-- because they don't "accept suggestions" and are loath to admit mistakes-- will keep propounding their version despite new evidence dug up by others. The real power of blogs to facilitate collaboration gets stifled when this type of blogger becomes a key interpreter of a story or issue.
The need for rapid response also turns many bloggers into amplifiers for those self-nominated experts. With nothing to say ourselves, we link to those who write fast and take a clear position that we agree with. We end up with fewer serious dialogues and more of the formulaic debate pioneered by Crossfire.
it makes sense to listen. Especially when he is discussing successful blogging as he does here.
One of his points, while true, points to a serious weakness for the blogosphere. Rapid-response to the news of the day does seem critical to blog success. Yet the premium on speed weakens analysis and fresh reporting. Those latter activities are the very areas usually cited as the strengths compared to traditional journalism.
One way to be fast is to do reflex-punditry of the sort we see on TV (especially on the McLaughlin Group). Talking heads react to the news and apply their individual ideological template. Eleanor Clift and Pat Buchanan don't bring new information to the viewers; they simply repeat the appropriate talking points. A lot of blogs end-up as nano-pundits: "More idiocy from the Bush Camp," "Go Rummy," etc.
(An interesting sidenote is that Instapundit doesn't do a lot of punditry. Mostly he directs traffic to others's work. When he writes longer posts they usually are on matters where he has real expertise.)
The following passage from this article also has some relevance. While it discusses corporate managers, the personality type described seems to fit quite a few influential bloggers.
The most interesting of the three is the Narcissist, whose energy and self-confidence and charm lead him inexorably up the corporate ladder. Narcissists are terrible managers. They resist accepting suggestions, thinking it will make them appear weak, and they don't believe that others have anything useful to tell them. "Narcissists are biased to take more credit for success than is legitimate," Hogan and his co-authors write, and "biased to avoid acknowledging responsibility for their failures and shortcomings for the same reasons that they claim more success than is their due."Moreover:
Narcissists typically make judgments with greater confidence than other people . . . and, because their judgments are rendered with such conviction, other people tend to believe them and the narcissists become disproportionately more influential in group situations. Finally, because of their self-confidence and strong need for recognition, narcissists tend to "self-nominate"; consequently, when a leadership gap appears in a group or organization, the narcissists rush to fill it.
Energy, confidence, conviction, self-nomination: traits that are ideal for writing memorable posts quickly. The problem is that such bloggers-- because they don't "accept suggestions" and are loath to admit mistakes-- will keep propounding their version despite new evidence dug up by others. The real power of blogs to facilitate collaboration gets stifled when this type of blogger becomes a key interpreter of a story or issue.
The need for rapid response also turns many bloggers into amplifiers for those self-nominated experts. With nothing to say ourselves, we link to those who write fast and take a clear position that we agree with. We end up with fewer serious dialogues and more of the formulaic debate pioneered by Crossfire.
Agency Consolidation Follow-up
Justin Katz has a good discussion agency consolidation and the value of blogs here.
Justin Katz has a good discussion agency consolidation and the value of blogs here.
Friday, June 27, 2003
Look, I'm for Limited Government
But I think Clubbeaux has a good idea.
He wants Bill Watterson "declared a strategic national industry and been haled back to the drawing board to resume production of Calvin & Hobbes."
But I think Clubbeaux has a good idea.
He wants Bill Watterson "declared a strategic national industry and been haled back to the drawing board to resume production of Calvin & Hobbes."
Who Knew?
From the Washington Times
Every category of major crimes — murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny and auto theft — increased during Chief Moose's four-year tenure.
From the Washington Times
Every category of major crimes — murder, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny and auto theft — increased during Chief Moose's four-year tenure.
Strom Thurmond
Backcountry Conservative has some personal recollections.
Dust in the Light makes a really good point here:
Look, I don't know much about Strom Thurmond, and I'm certainly not a "follower" of his, but shouldn't supposedly objective media accounts be more, well, objective? And to the extent that they offer any twist at all, shouldn't it be respect for the dead and thanks for his service to the country?
Backcountry Conservative has some personal recollections.
Dust in the Light makes a really good point here:
Look, I don't know much about Strom Thurmond, and I'm certainly not a "follower" of his, but shouldn't supposedly objective media accounts be more, well, objective? And to the extent that they offer any twist at all, shouldn't it be respect for the dead and thanks for his service to the country?
Jim Treacher Runs a Good Blog
And he seems to be a stand-up guy. So check it out if you haven't already.
And he seems to be a stand-up guy. So check it out if you haven't already.
Thursday, June 26, 2003
In Bed With the Pentagon
Charles Glass, of ABC News, wrote an article for Pat Buchanan's American Conservative ( 6-16-03). It is a shame that it is not online because it really is a shocking piece of work.
Here are some choice bits:
"It turns out, as the BBC showed recently, that her rescuers broke into a Nasiriya hospital firing blanks and video cameras at ... well, at no one apart from frightened hospital staff and patients."
"It is, I suppose, our fault. Most of us who covered the war for American and British media worked within the Pentagon's terms of reference. Our minds were embedded in its brand of patriotism long before our bodies were embedded with the troops. Correspondents of Quatar's al-Jazeera, Abu Dhabi Television , and France's TF-1 may have come to a place called Iraq, as we did. But they did not see triumph and glory. They saw something squalid and cruel."
"But the U.S. bombed al-Jazeera's Baghdad bureau on April 8, killing correspondent Tariq Ayoub and wounding other staff. A half hour later, the U.S. dropped a bomb on Abu Dhabi TV in Baghdad. Later the same day, a U.S. tank blasted away the Reuters office in Baghdad's PalestineHotel, killing two journalists. American officers justified their actions with the claim that rockets and small arms were fired from the hotel. David Chater of Britain's Sky TV and other western reporters, all of whom had moved from the Rasheed Hotel after Pentagon warnings that it could be a U. S. target, said they neither saw nor heard any firing from the Palestine hotel."
"The Bush administration made it clear from the time it decided on war that reporters outside the embed system would not be safe in Iraq."
So here is one of ABC's top reporters who convincingly shows himself to be: ignorant and gullible for buying the BBC story about the special ops firing blanks; arrogant for thinking that US combat troops should take special care to note where unembedded journalists are so they don't hurt them; and vicerally anti-military since he agrees that "squalid and cruel" better describes the war in Iraq than "triumph and glory."
It really is no wonder so many Americans distrust and dislike journalists.
Charles Glass, of ABC News, wrote an article for Pat Buchanan's American Conservative ( 6-16-03). It is a shame that it is not online because it really is a shocking piece of work.
Here are some choice bits:
"It turns out, as the BBC showed recently, that her rescuers broke into a Nasiriya hospital firing blanks and video cameras at ... well, at no one apart from frightened hospital staff and patients."
"It is, I suppose, our fault. Most of us who covered the war for American and British media worked within the Pentagon's terms of reference. Our minds were embedded in its brand of patriotism long before our bodies were embedded with the troops. Correspondents of Quatar's al-Jazeera, Abu Dhabi Television , and France's TF-1 may have come to a place called Iraq, as we did. But they did not see triumph and glory. They saw something squalid and cruel."
"But the U.S. bombed al-Jazeera's Baghdad bureau on April 8, killing correspondent Tariq Ayoub and wounding other staff. A half hour later, the U.S. dropped a bomb on Abu Dhabi TV in Baghdad. Later the same day, a U.S. tank blasted away the Reuters office in Baghdad's PalestineHotel, killing two journalists. American officers justified their actions with the claim that rockets and small arms were fired from the hotel. David Chater of Britain's Sky TV and other western reporters, all of whom had moved from the Rasheed Hotel after Pentagon warnings that it could be a U. S. target, said they neither saw nor heard any firing from the Palestine hotel."
"The Bush administration made it clear from the time it decided on war that reporters outside the embed system would not be safe in Iraq."
So here is one of ABC's top reporters who convincingly shows himself to be: ignorant and gullible for buying the BBC story about the special ops firing blanks; arrogant for thinking that US combat troops should take special care to note where unembedded journalists are so they don't hurt them; and vicerally anti-military since he agrees that "squalid and cruel" better describes the war in Iraq than "triumph and glory."
It really is no wonder so many Americans distrust and dislike journalists.
Good Articles on Baseball's Woes
This analysis brings up some points I've never seen before (Confrontations per Hour as a good thing) and others I can completely agree with (Non-Education in Nuances).
This analysis brings up some points I've never seen before (Confrontations per Hour as a good thing) and others I can completely agree with (Non-Education in Nuances).
Wednesday, June 25, 2003
Agency Integration
Ad Age (6-16-03) reports on a recent survey of big advertisers. One key finding is that on 43% of the clients think it is "very important" that "a single agency offer fully integrated services." This presents a problem for big agencies which have spent the last couple of decades acquiring a variety of firms in order to become a "one-stop shop" for big clients. Those agencies paid a premium to develop capabilities that most of their clients do not see as valuable.
"One stop shopping" is a convenience, and convenient channels are valuable only when the underlying good or service is unimportant or similar across outlets. Coke is Coke, so it makes sense to buy it where you shop for groceries or gas instead of making another stop. Has anyone every chosen a college solely because the campus was closer to the airport? "Gee, Oberlin is a great school, but Ohio State is much easier to get to. Guess I'll go there instead."
As one survey respondent said, "I go to a specialist; I don't go to the same doctor for everything."
For key business services, convenience is not a big concern. Marketers after all have people on staff whose job is to manage the programs and vendors. One mega-agency or three small one, it is not really big deal in the scheme of things. It is also not a differentiator that can be used in decision-making either. "Hey, Mr. Senior Vice President of Marketing, I think we should select WPP because I'm kind of sick of juggling three different agencies for this project." Saying that out loud would be a CLM-- "career limiting move."
Clients worry that the one-stop shops end up having second-rate services. While media buying might be first-class, the creative could be ho-hum, or the direct marketing unsophisticated. It is worth a little aggravation to get all the parts right for a marketing campaign.
I suspect that one of the key reasons agencies prefer integration is that they do not want to play with their competitors. While understandable, this concern is the agency's problem, not the clients. As such, clients will be unsympathetic.
These findings offer hope to smaller agencies who focus on a single niche (interactive services, say, or cutting-edge creative). If they are willing to play well with others, they still have a shot at working for large clients.
If they really wanted to set themselves apart, they could embrace the disaggregated approach and show that they are eager to work with competitors. If they developed tools and a methodology to provide integrated campaigns even when they did not control all aspects of the marketing, they could get clients attention.
Blogs, it seems to me, should be an integral part of that effort. They are superior to email or meetings for keeping a whole team up to speed and for thrashing out differences.
Ad Age (6-16-03) reports on a recent survey of big advertisers. One key finding is that on 43% of the clients think it is "very important" that "a single agency offer fully integrated services." This presents a problem for big agencies which have spent the last couple of decades acquiring a variety of firms in order to become a "one-stop shop" for big clients. Those agencies paid a premium to develop capabilities that most of their clients do not see as valuable.
"One stop shopping" is a convenience, and convenient channels are valuable only when the underlying good or service is unimportant or similar across outlets. Coke is Coke, so it makes sense to buy it where you shop for groceries or gas instead of making another stop. Has anyone every chosen a college solely because the campus was closer to the airport? "Gee, Oberlin is a great school, but Ohio State is much easier to get to. Guess I'll go there instead."
As one survey respondent said, "I go to a specialist; I don't go to the same doctor for everything."
For key business services, convenience is not a big concern. Marketers after all have people on staff whose job is to manage the programs and vendors. One mega-agency or three small one, it is not really big deal in the scheme of things. It is also not a differentiator that can be used in decision-making either. "Hey, Mr. Senior Vice President of Marketing, I think we should select WPP because I'm kind of sick of juggling three different agencies for this project." Saying that out loud would be a CLM-- "career limiting move."
Clients worry that the one-stop shops end up having second-rate services. While media buying might be first-class, the creative could be ho-hum, or the direct marketing unsophisticated. It is worth a little aggravation to get all the parts right for a marketing campaign.
I suspect that one of the key reasons agencies prefer integration is that they do not want to play with their competitors. While understandable, this concern is the agency's problem, not the clients. As such, clients will be unsympathetic.
These findings offer hope to smaller agencies who focus on a single niche (interactive services, say, or cutting-edge creative). If they are willing to play well with others, they still have a shot at working for large clients.
If they really wanted to set themselves apart, they could embrace the disaggregated approach and show that they are eager to work with competitors. If they developed tools and a methodology to provide integrated campaigns even when they did not control all aspects of the marketing, they could get clients attention.
Blogs, it seems to me, should be an integral part of that effort. They are superior to email or meetings for keeping a whole team up to speed and for thrashing out differences.
Those absurd "satanic cults"
The reporters and lawyer talking heads who fill time on cable talking about the Laci Peterson case are united in their dismissal of the "satanic cult" theory floated by defense before the judge issued his gag order.
I share their skepticism. What no one mentions, however, is that prosecutors once were happy to propose equally fantastical theories when it served their purposes and the same skeptical media (Geraldo chief among them) flogged it relentlessly.
Back in the 1980s, there were a flood of prosecutions for "ritual child abuse." The prosecutors convinced juries that town after town was plagued by cults that tortured and killed children as part of their ceremonies. Dozens of people were convicted and it took years for the appeals courts to free them. Some, in fact, are still in jail.
The Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz won a Pulitzer for her work uncovering the shoddy work of police, prosecutors, and social workers which led to these miscarriages of justice. She has even written a book on the subject.
So I wish Rita, Greta, Dan, and the rest of the journalists pouring scorn on the Peterson defense team would spend just fifteen minutes discussing why it is stupid for defense attorneys to float the idea, but OK for DA's to use it as a central feature of their prosecution.
The reporters and lawyer talking heads who fill time on cable talking about the Laci Peterson case are united in their dismissal of the "satanic cult" theory floated by defense before the judge issued his gag order.
I share their skepticism. What no one mentions, however, is that prosecutors once were happy to propose equally fantastical theories when it served their purposes and the same skeptical media (Geraldo chief among them) flogged it relentlessly.
Back in the 1980s, there were a flood of prosecutions for "ritual child abuse." The prosecutors convinced juries that town after town was plagued by cults that tortured and killed children as part of their ceremonies. Dozens of people were convicted and it took years for the appeals courts to free them. Some, in fact, are still in jail.
The Wall Street Journal's Dorothy Rabinowitz won a Pulitzer for her work uncovering the shoddy work of police, prosecutors, and social workers which led to these miscarriages of justice. She has even written a book on the subject.
So I wish Rita, Greta, Dan, and the rest of the journalists pouring scorn on the Peterson defense team would spend just fifteen minutes discussing why it is stupid for defense attorneys to float the idea, but OK for DA's to use it as a central feature of their prosecution.
Monday, June 23, 2003
Spy Story
The current issue of The American Spectator has a good article on the possible Chinese triple-agent who may have compromised twenty-years of work by US intelligence and law enforcement. (Unfortunately, there is no online article at Spectator.org. A much less in-depth treatment can be found here)
If half of the allegations are true, then Katrina Leung is as important an espionage figure as Kim Philby and far more significant than Aldrich Ames. As i've noted before, i can't understand why the press is so uninterested in this matter.
Brief recap: Leung was an LA business woman who was paid $2 million by the FBI to spy on China. In the course of this work she had simultaneous affairs with two FBI agents working on counter-intelligence matters on the west coast. The government now alleges that Leung used her relationship with the agents to procure classified information which she gave to China.
Implications
1. Obviously, if Leung passed documents to China, she compromised many on-going operations aimed at the PRC.
2. Since the FBI thought she was a source of intelligence on the PRC, if she is a triple agent then she provided disinformation. Therefore, assessments of China based on that information is suspect.
3. One of her FBI handler/lovers went on to become head of security at Lawrence Livermore Labs. So she may have had access to classified information from there as well.
4. The California offices of the FBI handled much of the investigations into Chinese espionage at our nuclear installations, including Wen Ho Lee. Leung could have influenced those investigations by warning her Chinese controllers, providing disinformation, or by compromising her agent/lovers who were doing the investigating.
5. One of her FBI pigeons was a key investigator in China-gate-- the fundraising scandals from the 1996 campaign. At the same time Leung was a public supporter of Ted Sioeng who steered $400,000 in illegal contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign.
This story deserves more press attention. It is surely at least 1/10 as important as Laci Peterson's murder. Just imagine what the public might learn if Fox et. al. devoted 1/10 the effort to it as they have that murder case.
The current issue of The American Spectator has a good article on the possible Chinese triple-agent who may have compromised twenty-years of work by US intelligence and law enforcement. (Unfortunately, there is no online article at Spectator.org. A much less in-depth treatment can be found here)
If half of the allegations are true, then Katrina Leung is as important an espionage figure as Kim Philby and far more significant than Aldrich Ames. As i've noted before, i can't understand why the press is so uninterested in this matter.
Brief recap: Leung was an LA business woman who was paid $2 million by the FBI to spy on China. In the course of this work she had simultaneous affairs with two FBI agents working on counter-intelligence matters on the west coast. The government now alleges that Leung used her relationship with the agents to procure classified information which she gave to China.
Implications
1. Obviously, if Leung passed documents to China, she compromised many on-going operations aimed at the PRC.
2. Since the FBI thought she was a source of intelligence on the PRC, if she is a triple agent then she provided disinformation. Therefore, assessments of China based on that information is suspect.
3. One of her FBI handler/lovers went on to become head of security at Lawrence Livermore Labs. So she may have had access to classified information from there as well.
4. The California offices of the FBI handled much of the investigations into Chinese espionage at our nuclear installations, including Wen Ho Lee. Leung could have influenced those investigations by warning her Chinese controllers, providing disinformation, or by compromising her agent/lovers who were doing the investigating.
5. One of her FBI pigeons was a key investigator in China-gate-- the fundraising scandals from the 1996 campaign. At the same time Leung was a public supporter of Ted Sioeng who steered $400,000 in illegal contributions to the Clinton-Gore campaign.
This story deserves more press attention. It is surely at least 1/10 as important as Laci Peterson's murder. Just imagine what the public might learn if Fox et. al. devoted 1/10 the effort to it as they have that murder case.
I liked this post
which manages to discuss the blogosphere in light of the work of a 16th century botanist.
In a rapid response medium like blogs, historical perspective is an underappreciated quality.
which manages to discuss the blogosphere in light of the work of a 16th century botanist.
In a rapid response medium like blogs, historical perspective is an underappreciated quality.
Sunday, June 22, 2003
King James
No, not the basketball player in Ohio, the baseball writer/researcher who apparently is the sport's John the Baptist. At least that is what he seems to be based on this review by Matt Welch of the book Moneyball.
James approached statistics not as a method to generate trivia answers -- of the who holds the rookie record for home runs among players whose last name begins with "ph" variety -- but rather as a tool to ask fundamental questions about how the game is played and won, and as a bludgeon to mock baseball observers who used hoary clichés that couldn't possibly be true.
The age loves an iconoclast so it is not surprising that James's renown is growing. And i don't doubt that his research has deepened our knowledge of the game. But in his desire to praise James, Welch caricatures the old guard and gives too much credit to the obsessive researcher.
James was the first to really hammer home the notion that different ballparks have vastly different effects on statistics (Fenway Park and Wrigley Field were great for hitters, the Astrodome and Dodger Stadium protected pitchers).
Look, the Baseball Abstract first came out in 1977. Yet, even children's books on baseball in the 1960s noted that Dodger Stadium was a hard place to score runs and the Astrodome was cruel to home run hitters. I know because i was a kid then and read everything i could get on baseball. The adult sports writing was even better. Those old farts noted esoteric stuff, like Forbes Field was a great place for line-drive hitters (like Roberto Clemente) but playing there hurt the home run production of Willie Stargell. And they even were willing to take on mythic heroes-- some pointed out that Yankee Stadium offered a sweet, short right field for left-handed pull hitters like Ruth and Gehrig despite the deep centerfield and power alleys.
So the pre-James dark ages were not quite so dark. And maybe the Jamesian revolution is not quite so revolutionary. Oakland has had a good three year run, but they haven't been able to make it to the World Series using Billy Beane's new methods. So Welch is reaching a bit when he pronounces
What lessons can we learn from this tale? That the pursuit of better information will eventually unearth discrepancies and irrationalities, even in a field as seemingly well-studied as baseball. That the gatekeepers of information and judgment will instinctively and defensively protect their turf, rather than question their own legitimacy. That intelligence and passion can still win in the end, especially if they take advantage of the networking power of the Web.
While it is possible to "unearth discrepancies and irrationalities" if you spend enough time at the computer, leveraging them in the real world is much harder. Long-Term Capital Management thought they could do that in the capital markets. Instead they crashed as new discrepancies and irrationalities appeared that they had not expected.
Another blogger noted that
Bill James started the whole Sabremetric deal for one reason and one reason only: so he could get an edge against his opponents in "tabletop baseball games."
Now, Strat-o-matic is a great gaming system. But it isn't real baseball. For one thing, the rules are designed to make a given "player" perform as he did over the course of the whole season. Unfortunately, the manager doesn't have a crystal ball which shows him what a player will do over the whole season. He has to make decisions based on an unfolding stream of events. In real life, each new game can rewrite the statistical probabilities of a player or team.
No, not the basketball player in Ohio, the baseball writer/researcher who apparently is the sport's John the Baptist. At least that is what he seems to be based on this review by Matt Welch of the book Moneyball.
James approached statistics not as a method to generate trivia answers -- of the who holds the rookie record for home runs among players whose last name begins with "ph" variety -- but rather as a tool to ask fundamental questions about how the game is played and won, and as a bludgeon to mock baseball observers who used hoary clichés that couldn't possibly be true.
The age loves an iconoclast so it is not surprising that James's renown is growing. And i don't doubt that his research has deepened our knowledge of the game. But in his desire to praise James, Welch caricatures the old guard and gives too much credit to the obsessive researcher.
James was the first to really hammer home the notion that different ballparks have vastly different effects on statistics (Fenway Park and Wrigley Field were great for hitters, the Astrodome and Dodger Stadium protected pitchers).
Look, the Baseball Abstract first came out in 1977. Yet, even children's books on baseball in the 1960s noted that Dodger Stadium was a hard place to score runs and the Astrodome was cruel to home run hitters. I know because i was a kid then and read everything i could get on baseball. The adult sports writing was even better. Those old farts noted esoteric stuff, like Forbes Field was a great place for line-drive hitters (like Roberto Clemente) but playing there hurt the home run production of Willie Stargell. And they even were willing to take on mythic heroes-- some pointed out that Yankee Stadium offered a sweet, short right field for left-handed pull hitters like Ruth and Gehrig despite the deep centerfield and power alleys.
So the pre-James dark ages were not quite so dark. And maybe the Jamesian revolution is not quite so revolutionary. Oakland has had a good three year run, but they haven't been able to make it to the World Series using Billy Beane's new methods. So Welch is reaching a bit when he pronounces
What lessons can we learn from this tale? That the pursuit of better information will eventually unearth discrepancies and irrationalities, even in a field as seemingly well-studied as baseball. That the gatekeepers of information and judgment will instinctively and defensively protect their turf, rather than question their own legitimacy. That intelligence and passion can still win in the end, especially if they take advantage of the networking power of the Web.
While it is possible to "unearth discrepancies and irrationalities" if you spend enough time at the computer, leveraging them in the real world is much harder. Long-Term Capital Management thought they could do that in the capital markets. Instead they crashed as new discrepancies and irrationalities appeared that they had not expected.
Another blogger noted that
Bill James started the whole Sabremetric deal for one reason and one reason only: so he could get an edge against his opponents in "tabletop baseball games."
Now, Strat-o-matic is a great gaming system. But it isn't real baseball. For one thing, the rules are designed to make a given "player" perform as he did over the course of the whole season. Unfortunately, the manager doesn't have a crystal ball which shows him what a player will do over the whole season. He has to make decisions based on an unfolding stream of events. In real life, each new game can rewrite the statistical probabilities of a player or team.
Rosenbergs
Really liked this article from Frontpage Magazine.
This passage struck me:
All expected Ethel and Julius to take the way out all traitors eventually could; they could spare themselves the death penalty by confessing their guilt and identifying their collaborators. Yet out of zeal for their Communist cause, they stubbornly refused to cooperate, choosing to go to the electric chair and orphan their two small sons.
That is some epitaph: "we loved Stalin more than our children."
Really liked this article from Frontpage Magazine.
This passage struck me:
All expected Ethel and Julius to take the way out all traitors eventually could; they could spare themselves the death penalty by confessing their guilt and identifying their collaborators. Yet out of zeal for their Communist cause, they stubbornly refused to cooperate, choosing to go to the electric chair and orphan their two small sons.
That is some epitaph: "we loved Stalin more than our children."
Friday, June 20, 2003
Huh?
Remember Charles Bishop? He was the 15 year old who crashed the small plane into the bank in Florida back in January of 2002.
According to this report from the Tampa Tribune he left a suicide note praising Osama bin Laden. He also tried to dig up information and maps on MacDill Air Force base, including the headquarters of Central Command, before he stole the plane and crashed. During his little adventure he actually flew over MacDill.
Yet the FBI concluded "he had no terrorist agenda."
I guess there really are none so blind as those who will not see.
Remember Charles Bishop? He was the 15 year old who crashed the small plane into the bank in Florida back in January of 2002.
According to this report from the Tampa Tribune he left a suicide note praising Osama bin Laden. He also tried to dig up information and maps on MacDill Air Force base, including the headquarters of Central Command, before he stole the plane and crashed. During his little adventure he actually flew over MacDill.
Yet the FBI concluded "he had no terrorist agenda."
I guess there really are none so blind as those who will not see.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback
He's Gregg Easterbrook, serious policy wonk and serious pro football fan. His column over on ESPN is must reading during the football season and is an oasis when he writes it during the dog days of spring and early summer.
This week touches on two really interesting subjects
those NBA players who go out of their way to cultivate a negative appearance get treated negatively by the officials. Since the thug look came in a decade or so ago, who's been winning NBA titles? Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Hakeem Olajuwan, David Robinson, Michael Jordan ... all clean-cut, normal-armed, winning-smile guys you'd want your daughter to marry. Who's been frustrated in the finals? Kenyon Martin, Allen Iverson and the rest of the scowling, Illustrated-Man me-bad crew.
I think he goes too far in implying that the championship is determined by officials's reaction to a players appearance. Three other factors could also be at work. 1. Players who cultivate a thuggish appearance also play like thugs. 2. The flamboyantly thuggish players are narcissistic and hence poor team players. In the finals great team play can beat great individual stars (see Portland vs 76ers in 1977 or Boston versus the Lakers during the Wilt/West era). 3. The flashy thugs, whatever their natural gifts, are less coachable and never develop into truly great players like a Duncan or O'Neil.
Have i ever mentioned how much i hated Bill Walton in 1977?
He also states
One of the reasons many coaches prefer college to the pros is that, at the big-time schools at least, it's hard to fail. The built-in recruiting advantage at the big-time schools all but assures a winning season for most major football or men's basketball programs, while the East Carolinas sprinkled into the schedule assure every season will contain at least a few huge-margin victories. Basically, an orangutan could coach a football-factory or basketball-factory university to a .500 season, explaining why so many big-school collegiate coaches are entrenched for long periods. You've got to be a special kind of screw-up to lose a big-school coaching job.
On this he gets it completely wrong. You don't get to keep you job at Ohio State or Alabama by consistently going 6-5 with the occasional 7-4 season. Ohio State fans expect you to beat Michigan and always challenge for the Big 10 title. Fail for a couple of years and you are toast (ask Earle Bruce and John Cooper). The same holds true at most of the big-time football schools. The bar is set much higher than .500.
He's Gregg Easterbrook, serious policy wonk and serious pro football fan. His column over on ESPN is must reading during the football season and is an oasis when he writes it during the dog days of spring and early summer.
This week touches on two really interesting subjects
those NBA players who go out of their way to cultivate a negative appearance get treated negatively by the officials. Since the thug look came in a decade or so ago, who's been winning NBA titles? Tim Duncan, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Hakeem Olajuwan, David Robinson, Michael Jordan ... all clean-cut, normal-armed, winning-smile guys you'd want your daughter to marry. Who's been frustrated in the finals? Kenyon Martin, Allen Iverson and the rest of the scowling, Illustrated-Man me-bad crew.
I think he goes too far in implying that the championship is determined by officials's reaction to a players appearance. Three other factors could also be at work. 1. Players who cultivate a thuggish appearance also play like thugs. 2. The flamboyantly thuggish players are narcissistic and hence poor team players. In the finals great team play can beat great individual stars (see Portland vs 76ers in 1977 or Boston versus the Lakers during the Wilt/West era). 3. The flashy thugs, whatever their natural gifts, are less coachable and never develop into truly great players like a Duncan or O'Neil.
Have i ever mentioned how much i hated Bill Walton in 1977?
He also states
One of the reasons many coaches prefer college to the pros is that, at the big-time schools at least, it's hard to fail. The built-in recruiting advantage at the big-time schools all but assures a winning season for most major football or men's basketball programs, while the East Carolinas sprinkled into the schedule assure every season will contain at least a few huge-margin victories. Basically, an orangutan could coach a football-factory or basketball-factory university to a .500 season, explaining why so many big-school collegiate coaches are entrenched for long periods. You've got to be a special kind of screw-up to lose a big-school coaching job.
On this he gets it completely wrong. You don't get to keep you job at Ohio State or Alabama by consistently going 6-5 with the occasional 7-4 season. Ohio State fans expect you to beat Michigan and always challenge for the Big 10 title. Fail for a couple of years and you are toast (ask Earle Bruce and John Cooper). The same holds true at most of the big-time football schools. The bar is set much higher than .500.
Thursday, June 19, 2003
Going to the Hogs
Julie Neidlinger has a great post about a giant hog farm that a Canadian company wants to build in her home county (she writes from North Dakota). She is dubious about the idea and makes a strong case for opposing it.
Industrial farms are one of those areas where my conservative instincts outweigh my libertarian impulses. They produce massive externalities that the community is ill-equipped to regulate and prevent.
Julie Neidlinger has a great post about a giant hog farm that a Canadian company wants to build in her home county (she writes from North Dakota). She is dubious about the idea and makes a strong case for opposing it.
Industrial farms are one of those areas where my conservative instincts outweigh my libertarian impulses. They produce massive externalities that the community is ill-equipped to regulate and prevent.
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
The Times and Clinton
Both the View from the Core and Junk Yard Blog follow-up on Dick Morris's revelation that the pre-Howell Raines New York Times rolled over for Clinton in 1996 in return for an exclusive interview.
I'm not holding my breath for Sullivan to weigh in.
Note: E. L. Core chased down the identity of the pliant reporter and and it looks as if it was Todd Purdum (Mr. Dee Dee Myers). Purdum was one of the internal voices that attacked Rick Bragg and his "protector" Hal Raines in the name of reportorial integrity. Funny, in a way. But not surprising.
Both the View from the Core and Junk Yard Blog follow-up on Dick Morris's revelation that the pre-Howell Raines New York Times rolled over for Clinton in 1996 in return for an exclusive interview.
I'm not holding my breath for Sullivan to weigh in.
Note: E. L. Core chased down the identity of the pliant reporter and and it looks as if it was Todd Purdum (Mr. Dee Dee Myers). Purdum was one of the internal voices that attacked Rick Bragg and his "protector" Hal Raines in the name of reportorial integrity. Funny, in a way. But not surprising.
Tuesday, June 17, 2003
More evidence that MoDo Has Lost It
Cut on the Bias takes Dowd to task for a completely nasty column which bashes men, stay at home moms, and Nigella Lawson. Susanna's post says almost everything that needs to be said.
I would add two points. First, Dowd quotes screenwriter Paul Rudnick: "Men only evolve with a gun at their head." Can you imagine a straight white guy getting away with saying something similar about gays or women? I suspect he would get the Full Rocker and it would start with MoDo.
Second, to slime Nigella Lawson as a purveyor of "gastro porn" is low. If you don't like cooking shows, fine. But to compare them to pornography is absurd. And it is worse than catty to imply that a successful woman only succeeded by trading on her sexuality.
Besides, as i commented over at Cut on the Bias, if men really were that shallow and we decided what cooking shows became successful, Pamela Anderson would host them, not Nigella Lawson.
Cut on the Bias takes Dowd to task for a completely nasty column which bashes men, stay at home moms, and Nigella Lawson. Susanna's post says almost everything that needs to be said.
I would add two points. First, Dowd quotes screenwriter Paul Rudnick: "Men only evolve with a gun at their head." Can you imagine a straight white guy getting away with saying something similar about gays or women? I suspect he would get the Full Rocker and it would start with MoDo.
Second, to slime Nigella Lawson as a purveyor of "gastro porn" is low. If you don't like cooking shows, fine. But to compare them to pornography is absurd. And it is worse than catty to imply that a successful woman only succeeded by trading on her sexuality.
Besides, as i commented over at Cut on the Bias, if men really were that shallow and we decided what cooking shows became successful, Pamela Anderson would host them, not Nigella Lawson.
Baseball
Outside the Beltway ponders the dropping fan interest in baseball. As usual, he makes very good points.
As one of those lapsed baseball fans, i think that the expanded playoffs made regular season games almost meaningless. In the NFL, regular season games have real playoff implications. Atlanta can find itself playing on the road on grass in Chicago in January because they were upset by Carolina in November. In baseball, all the Yankees lose is one home game in a seven game series if they finish second to the Red Sox after being swept by Baltimore.
But the big thing is the one OTB hit. In the NFL parity gives fans hope. Except in Cincinnati, every fan can dream of the playoffs at the start of the season. Sure most of us are disappointed in a given year, but few cities go three or four years straight with no realistic hopes. In baseball, some teams/cities are just not economically competitive anymore. Why should their fans turn out to watch the futility?
Outside the Beltway ponders the dropping fan interest in baseball. As usual, he makes very good points.
As one of those lapsed baseball fans, i think that the expanded playoffs made regular season games almost meaningless. In the NFL, regular season games have real playoff implications. Atlanta can find itself playing on the road on grass in Chicago in January because they were upset by Carolina in November. In baseball, all the Yankees lose is one home game in a seven game series if they finish second to the Red Sox after being swept by Baltimore.
But the big thing is the one OTB hit. In the NFL parity gives fans hope. Except in Cincinnati, every fan can dream of the playoffs at the start of the season. Sure most of us are disappointed in a given year, but few cities go three or four years straight with no realistic hopes. In baseball, some teams/cities are just not economically competitive anymore. Why should their fans turn out to watch the futility?
Monday, June 16, 2003
Great site
If your think Shania Twain is what country music is all about, well, sorry, you're wrong. If you know better than that, check out That Ain't Country.
If your think Shania Twain is what country music is all about, well, sorry, you're wrong. If you know better than that, check out That Ain't Country.
Sunday, June 15, 2003
Did you ever wonder
What would happen if Ann Coulter and Kevin Smith did a show for MSNBC?
I think it would be a lot like Right Thinking from the Left Coast.
What would happen if Ann Coulter and Kevin Smith did a show for MSNBC?
I think it would be a lot like Right Thinking from the Left Coast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)