"And while I'm at it..."

Retiring diplomats' parting shots...

A Sign of the Times

I said it during the end of his presidency and I'll say it again now: I still like George W. Bush more than I like most prominent Republicans these days.  This is more a comment on the state of the Republican Party than it is on his Presidency.

At least Bush tried in earnest (relatively speaking) to do something about issues like immigration, prescription drugs for seniors, and AIDs in Africa. He was pragmatic in improving our relationship with India (and handled the Tsunami relief very well), and he helped curb prejudice against Islam in the wake of 9/11. 

Like most Democrats, I disagree with him on a lot of issues (particularly domestic ones) and I'm not convinced his temperament was the best fit for the job. But compared to Rick Perry, Pat Toomey, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, and Rick Perry, he isn't looking so bad.

Slate-y Headlines

Any old rag spit out a smugly heterodox conclusions week after week (jus' playin, I still love you Marty Peretz!), but it takes Slate to really help fill in the gaps for us readers. Fortunately, of course, other publications are now using Slate-y headlines (which often begin with "how""why," or "what").  Which is convenient because just yesterday, I wondering what a New School adjunct might have to say about what Barack Obama could learn from the Chilean wine industry.

Also I just love those new political commentators they have (disclaimer: I didn't work on the Crimson with any of them).  Sometimes it takes a 25 year old with a bevy of unpaid internships under his belt to set a guy like Brad DeLong straight on monetary theory.  Also, I, for one, was glad to hear somebody finally point out the real reason  why healthcare reform took so long. 

Enter Ambien Man

Congratulations Dick Gephart, you're off the hook. This profile seems to confirm suspicions that Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is now the most boring Presidential contender in recent memory.

What a line-up...

So the GOP's midterms lineup now includes:

• Nevada's Sharon Angle (Senate) who thinks black football jerseys are "thoroughly evil"
• Kentucky's Rand Paul (Senate) who supports the right of private establishments to discriminate based on skin color (and who apparently forced a coed to pray to "Aqua Buddha" when he was in college)
• Delaware's Christine O'Donnell who's so nutty that the Weekly Standard (!) won't even endorse her
• Arizona's Jan Brewer, who lied was mistaken about her dad's WW2 death survival and about Border Patrol finding decapitated bodies in the desert. She also canceled all debates after bombing the first one.
• Michigan's Andrew Raczkowski (Congress), who's a birther
• Arizona's Ben Quayle- see last post.  Imagine Stifler from "American Pie," only more entitled and much less charming
• Texas's Rick Perry- he's expressed secessionist sympathies, but he's not totally averse to government regulation; he mourned the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas

There are general election nominees. From both coasts and the middle. Most, if not all, of the above have actually won primaries and some are current officeholders.

A Chip Off the Old Block....

Ben Quayle, in his bid for office, proves that foot-in-mouth disease may have a genetic basis. 

Update:
Just learned that Ben played on his college lacrosse team (Duke, incidentally). Très shocking, no?

Bush and Putnam on Immigration

This short Independence Day op-ed by Jeb Bush and Bowling Alone sociologist Robert Putnam is worth a glance, if you're not busy.

Also, I'd be interested to hear how the piece came to fruition. My money says Jeb made the first call.

Around the Web

Quick non-sequitor: what a great Masters Tournament.

• Vanity Fair profile of General Petraeus praises his drive and competence but also portrays him as unyieldingly ambitious
• The latest salvo in Matt Taibbi's tussle with David Brooks.  Granted, Taibbi's writing tends to be a little hyperbolic.  But sometimes things are more fun that way. In this particular post, I don't think he's taking any unfair shots
• The Daily Show on the recent Catholic disgrace: “If any other organization had done anything close to what the Church is being accused of, they’d be done! the Church is barely showing any contrition - for God’s sakes, look how sorry Domino’s was just for their shitty pizza! They had a bad sauce recipe, (and) they’ve been out there nonstop - ‘Oh, we’re so sorry. Here, have some Crazy Bread!’”

Update:

Also,  the trailer for the new A-Team movie

ISI list of 50 best books...no big surprises

Ranking books, music and movies according to some notion of "quality" is gimmicky and best and foolish at least.  But, if these kind of rankings aren't taken too seriously, they can be fun and interesting.
The conservative Intercollegiate Studies Institute has released their list of the 50 best books of the twentieth century.   Unlike a lot of other top books lists, this one omits literary fiction. While the list has a decidedly conservative/traditionalist tilt (which is no surprise, given the ISI's advocacy for "Great Books" curricula), I think most people would get a lot out of reading most of the books on the list.  There is more balance than you might expect (they include Autobiography of Malcolm X, for instance.)

Still there are some glaring omissions (what no Timothy Leary?*).  I think a few get an unfair ideological bump from likeminded editors, but there's plenty on there that I haven't actually read,  so this is just speculation.

Their worst books list is much more crassly political and not really worth reading.

*joking.

Around the Web

• An interview with Contested Will  author James Shapiro (the Shakespeare guy from the previous post)
• NY Times article on the passing of H. Edward Roberts, the inventor of the personal computer (and an alumnus of Oklahoma State University)
• Joshua Green (at The Atlantic) suspects Larry Summers is on his way out
• Senator Coburn (R-OK) surprises the folks back home with interesting thoughts on Speaker Pelosi and Fox News

Judging Characters

Some of these are kind of late.  I blame my work schedule.

•  This profile certainly makes Janet Napolitano seem like one of the cooler cabinet secretaries("Napolitano has been known to close down a bar or two in her time") 
• Brendan Nyhan easily deflates the Obama as "Polarizer in chief" narrative (credit Gary Jacobson with an assist on this one, or vis versa)
• Being a Blue Devil can be hazardous to one's political ambitions in the Bluegrass state
• It's about time somebody speaks up about the absurd growth of unpaid internships
• Jeff Toobin's article on John Paul Stevens (At the moment, most succession speculation revolves around Merrick Garland, Elena Kagan, and Diane Wood.  Tom Goldstein, who knows a lot about this sort of thing, is betting on Kagan. I like Garland's chances and I like what I've heard about him so far. I haven't read as much about Diane Wood but I like her Texas ties and I hear she's brilliant. She would definitely be the most interesting pick of these three.

To hell with Edward De Vere

I have to admit I'm one of those people who enjoys indulging in a little historical speculation when the opportunity presents itself. While a lot of the great mysteries have been uncovered in recent years (David Geffen and Mark Felt), there's still a big fish in the pond: the Shakespearean authorship debate.


It's a classic debate because it has so many different angles and because the heterodox opinions have some high profile champions. And from the looks of it, it's also a case that is about to be reopened.  James Shapiro has a new book out this month in which he explores the history of the authorship debate from a decidedly Stratfordian viewpoint (i.e. he believes Shakespeare was the real author). I'm pretty excited for this, as I hope it will finally put those snooty Oxfordians in their place.

The problem is fundamentalism not scrupulosity

In an interesting essay for the Chronicle of Higher Ed, Steve Asma argues that, for an increasingly large group of secular upper and middle-class liberals,  environmentalism has assumed on the guilt-inducing role once held by religion.  At first glance, this argument seems like a something torn from the pages of an Ann Coulter book. And, if history is any indication, it's ripe for selective quoting by the climate change skeptics.  Still, these objections, in and of themselves, don't amount to much in terms of refuting his thesis.

This is not to say that Asma gets it right.   Specifically, his emphasis on "green guilt" seems misplaced.  He seems to think that most in his latte-sipping cohort (his stereotyping, not mine) lead lives of constant self-denial, constantly flagellating themselves (emotionally, of course) for not composting as much as they should.  He even ends his article by encouraging his fellow green-conscious liberals to "temper their fervor" and basically stop feeling so damn guilty all of the time.

Now, I have trouble imagining that there is a substantial element of the population that is taking our environmental situation too seriously.  Perhaps Asma is part of a very small group of exceedingly admirable people, but I think for more people, environmentalism mimics religion in a much more self-serving way. I suspect that it is more common for the upper-income, green-conscious crowd to use environmental concerns as a pretext for personal indulgence. It would certainly feel better to spend 40% more on locally-grown, premium foods if the alternative is morally objectionable.  Likewise, I doubt many Motel 8s are LEED-certified.  

In most cases, I think these purchases of environmental indulgences are inadvertent.  But a lot of people inadvertently use religion to sanction indulgence also.  Generally-speaking, the problem isn't people taking their values too seriously, it's people applying them too narrowly.

I still have some friends on the hill and was able to get some hidden camera video of Democratic leaders' efforts to get Bart Stupak and his group to vote for the health care bill.


Bluto's Speech

Tyler Burch | MySpace Video

As you can see, it was a closely run thing.

Like a Kid in a Candy Store

I think Democrats will ultimately get the votes they need to pass the health care bill. At this moment, it seems very likely they are going to take a beating in the elections either way.

I'd compare their situation to the kid who gets caught shoplifting a candy bar from a store and, realizing the jig is up, has to decide what to do next.

I think that the Democrats will conclude that they may as well eat the candy bar.

Whether that applies to them individually as well as collectively, I'm not sure.

Is this a Golden Age of (Scripted) Televsion?

When people talk about the Golden Age of Television, they are usually assumed to be talking about the post-War era (unless you are with my friends from college, in which case it is assumed one is talking about the "Transformers" era). And, generally speaking, I think it's fair to call this period a "Golden Age;" it's nearly impossible to deny that for all sorts of cultural and historic reasons, this time period (late 40s to early 60s) was a really interesting and important time for television.

Still, having thought about TV a bit during this weekend's awful weather, I think you could make a strong case that the last ten years have been something of a second (or maybe third?) Golden Age of Television.  At the very least, I think you could say it's a Golden Age of Scripted television.

Consider some of the shows and miniseries that have aired or mostly aired in the past decade (I don't regularly watch all of these but I've seen a few episodes of most of them): The West Wing, The Wire, Friday Night Lights, Arrested Development, BattleStar Galactica, Flight of the Conchords, 30 Rock, The Office, House, Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Sopranos, Deadwood, Lost, John Adams,  and Mad Men.

In short, lots of rich, well-written dramas, fresh comedies (often off-beat or satirical) and several shows with remarkably high production values.

If you accept the premise that this is a Golden Age, I can think of a few possible and mostly pretty obvious reasons:

1. Networks can now pick the low-hanging fruit with relatively cheap reality TV options, so there is less need to try and fill prime-time spots with dramas and comedies that don't show exceptional promise.
2. The trend away from the laugh-track.  Think "The Office," "30 Rock," and "Curb Your Enthusiasm."
3. DVD sales have created a secondary market for high quality television programming.
4. Shows with well-constructed plots, like Lost" (which I never got into, but can understand the appeal of), and interesting, well-written characters, like "House," seem to make almost as much money in DVD sales as they do in advertising sales.
5. More segmentation in the marketplace.  It seems even network shows like "West Wing" and "Friday Night Lights" have been given leeway to find and satisfy a particular niche, instead of being continually under pressure to post "E.R."-level ratings.
6. More premium cable programming.  This is closely-linked to #5.  Networks like HBO, Comedy Central and AMC can put out programs like "John Adams," "Deadwood," "The Wire" and "Mad Men" precisely because they don't have to be all things to all people.

A few more reasons might be posted later (work beckons).  I'd be interested to see if this Golden Age pet theory holds up on second consideration and what other people think.

Kevin,

Thanks for getting this up and going. I'll kick things off with one of my favorite topics, movies. Specifically, the Oscars. All pretty much predictable, except I just can't wrap my head around Sandra Bullock as Best Actress. I would compare this to Marisa Tomei winning for "My Cousin Vinny," except that was only a supporting Oscar and Tomei has gone on to prove she can actually act (see "In the Bedroom" and "The Wrestler").

A New Blog

One of my favorite things about college was the abundance of interesting, informal conversation.

Essentially, this blog is meant to play host to that sort of conversation. To that end, I have started it with several of my professors, all of them great conversationalists. Any topic is fair game, from current events to culture to anything else that might catch the bloggers' fancy.

Hopefully, several bloggers will be joining in coming weeks. If you have an interest in joining, please do not hesitate to e-mail me.

Lastly, this blog should be thought of as a series of thought experiments, a place for idle musing. Nothing written here is intended to be a final or binding statement of the author's opinion. In fact, there will likely be many instances where content shared here is done so in jest, given the blog's casual tone and purpose. Similarly, content shared via this blog should not be read as the endorsement, opinion or position of any group or institution with which a blog participant is affiliated.