November 9th, 2009
Palin bad! Obama good! Racists! Fascists!
(King.)
King bad. King kind of good. But only good because sophisticates know how bad he is. Rubes who think he’s good: Also bad.
Teabaggers!
Seems to me that King has earned a more serious effort from the New York Times. (Though on third read, I’m not sure it’s clear that the reviewer actually read the whole book.)
0 commentsDirty New Mexico
November 6th, 2009
Galley Friend and Soccer All-Star H.W. sends us this little video. She (not H.W.) might be the dirtiest player I’ve ever seen, any sport.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k52QWFeP7OY&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1]
0 commentsJust Asking
November 5th, 2009
President Obama funnily pointed out his daughter’s recent bad grade on a science test. Out of curiosity, have we ever seen any of Obama’s academic performance records? SATs, LSATs, college grades?
0 commentsThe New Yorker and Truth in Advertising
November 5th, 2009
The New Yorker has a piece by John Cassidy which offers the view that the Democratic push for healthcare reform is:
(1) Laudable.
(2) Dishonestly presented.
(3) Likely to incur giant costs, despite what Democrats say.
(4) Likely to incur a large set of unforeseen consequences.
(5) Likely to become impossible to dismantle once it becomes law.
(6) On balance a net good.
(7) Such a net good that it justifies–and perhaps even requires–the Democrats’ dishonesty.
That’s fine, as far as it goes. But one does wonder if Remnick would have published a piece in 2002 taking a similar view of the prospective war in Iraq. And if not, would it simply have been because of a disagreement over whether the “net good” of regime change was worth intentional governmental dishonesty, or would it have been a more high-minded objection?
I ask this not because I pre-judge what Remnick would say, but because I honestly have no idea. Remnick runs, for my money, the best book in the business. He also happens to be a seriously wonderful writer and an interesting mind. He’s not Graydon Carter–he’s the great magazine editor of our time. Which is why the Cassidy piece seems so strange.
0 commentsCatching Up with Gladwell
November 5th, 2009
Stumbled upon a Gladwell essay I’d missed from a couple months back, this labored indictment of Atticus Finch. It’s a little like the moot court game where 3L students retry Shylock, only without the legal sophistication. Of particular note, however, is the part where Gladwell seems to suggest that Mayella Ewell is the first modern sex-positive feminist.
0 commentsFlame On
November 4th, 2009
Maybe the coolest thing every built in a garage. If they wind up selling it, I’m there.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2oEP3RWppA&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&border=1]
0 commentsBrief Political Aside
November 3rd, 2009
The most excellent Jay Cost has a sensible post up about today’s three big races in which he argues that the outcomes don’t really mean anything in the long (or even medium) term. I think he’s right about that.
What Cost overlooks, I think, is the influence these elections may have on a very short-term matter: the Obama health reform movement. I’d guess that there’s a real chance–maybe 1-in3–that all three Democrats lose. If Republicans hit the trifecta, it could scare the moderate Dems Obama needs to pass a major healthcare bill. I don’t know that a GOP sweep would be enough to kill the bill outright, but at the very least, there would be Democrats who needed to be talked off the ledge. (Or, depending on your point of view, back out onto the ledge.)
So the real question is this: If today’s results were to alter the healthcare calculus, would that outcome have any bearing on the medium-to-long-term future? It wouldn’t be crazy to think that it would.
0 commentsSo, what was the worst story ever in Style?
November 2nd, 2009
There are so many layers to this report. It’s kind of awesome.
Bonus: If Manuel Roig-Franzia was a running back for the Chiefs, he’d be suspended for two games.
0 comments
