THE BIG MOUTH

The Sucky Tomato Problem

2007-02-21T19:55:00.000-05:00

I recently moved from NYC to Los Angeles, and one aspect of my new city that never ceases to amaze me is the low cost of food. At the Honey Baked Ham, for example, I can get a delicious sandwich and two generous sides for a mere $5 -- about half of what I might pay for the same food in NYC. The fillings themselves are all top notch -- all, that is, except for the sliced tomatoes, which inexplicably suck. Unlike the lettuce and onions, which are invariably quite fresh, the tomatoes always seem to be a soggy mess. Even more annoying, I can see there are usually fresh tomatoes on the prep plate where they're kept. So why do I keep getting the sucky tomato treatment?

The answer is no -- it's probably the result of the server's perceptual bias. He sees himself in a race against spoilage, which he likely equates with waste. As a result, his instinct is to serve the oldest (and suckiest) tomatoes first. The problem is that there's so little turnover at the Honey Baked Ham, which is practically empty every day, that some tomatoes will almost certainly go bad by the time the next customer orders. As a result, there are always sucky tomatoes on the prep plate that the server feels compelled not to waste. It's a vicious cycle -- the server is constantly saving fresh tomatoes that customers will never taste.

The more rational course would be for Honey Baked Ham to treat sucky tomatoes as a sunk cost, and to always offer each customer the freshest tomatoes on the plate. Unfortunately, that's totally counter-intuitive to the server, who is unlikely to do so in the absence of a formal rule. I could, of course, simply demand that he use fresher tomatoes. But that strikes me as so NYC -- I'm trying to be a little less pushy in the laid-back environment of LA LA Land -- and the sandwiches are already such a good deal. My solution, therefore, is to publicize Honey Baked Ham in hopes that more customers will mean more turnover, thereby solving the sucky tomato problem.

So keep your fingers crossed, and try Honey Baked Ham -- for all our sakes!

I Want My iPhone Now!

2007-01-10T12:16:00.000-05:00

Lately I've been making more amends than a participant in a 12-step program. After yesterday's release of the new Apple iPhone, however, you can add Steve Jobs to the list of people I'm sorry I maligned.

Back in September, I suggested that Apple was courting serious financial trouble if they failed to deliver on the much-hyped iPhone and/or widescreen video iPod with touchscreen capabilities. The recent controversy over questionable backdating of stock-options* just seemed to confirm my suspicion that Apple was rotten at the core.

But then they announced the iPhone, which actually made me to do the happy dance. Wide-screen video iPod with touchscreen, wireless, full-sized headphone jack, plus a phone -- the iPhone is everything that Microsoft's Zune could have been but wasn't. I immediately called my carrier (Sprint) to see when my contract expired.

It turns out my particular plan lets me cancel at any time, which prompted still more happy dancing on my part. But my relief and joy underscore the main drawback of the device -- its hidden cost. Most users will have to pay a significant penalty for canceling their cell phone plans, which may make the $499 (4GB) and $599 (8GB) price tag prohibitive for many in the short run.

Beyond that, however, most complaints strike me as premature. For example, I own a Lifebook tablet that operates by passive touchscreen, and I predict people will love navigating the system and internet by touch. I also think critics are wrong to dismiss this device simply because smart phones are purchased primarily by business types, who traditionally have been a hard sell for Apple.

I actually think the iPhone will eventually evolve into Apple's response to the Sirius Stilleto. Like many, I increasingly listen to the radio via the internet. And between Kinoma and Pocket Tunes, I can stream pretty much any audio on my Treo 650. Like the Stiletto, which switches automatically from satellite to wifi signal, the iPhone reportedly shifts from data network to wifi.

Granted, the iPhone is $150-250 more expensive depending on whether you buy the 4GB or 8GB version. That added price, however, includes the phone capability, web browsing, and 2-4 times as much memory (the Stiletto only has 2GB). And while I've never tried myself, I'm confident that it's easier to get a consistent cell phone signal than satellite reception in a city setting.

Along those lines, the big question for me is how many third party applications will be available for the iPhone. The Kinoma media player and Pocket Tunes are both products created by independent developers. Although Jobs stated that the iPhone runs OS X, it's pretty clear what he means is a stripped-down mobile version. My dreams will be dashed if there isn't a "widget" for streaming audio.

Beyond that, however, I'm sold. Like Eric Cartman and his Nintendo Wii, or those old ads for MTV, I want my iPhone now!

*The original sentence referred erroneously to "stock option grants."

Talking Point for the Day

2007-01-08T20:33:00.000-05:00

Now that both John McCain and Lindsey Graham have explicitly endorsed the notion of a troop surge in Iraq, all further references should be to the "McCain-Graham Proposal." There's no point in pinning this on Bush -- he's been effectively neutralized by the midterm results. Better to tar and feather those two from now through the next presidential cycle with responsibility for supporting this outrageous sham of a policy.

Say it with me: "McCain-Graham Proposal"...

The Z(i)to the G(men)

2006-12-29T13:51:00.000-05:00

Dear Brian and Peter,

I know we've had our differences, especially of late. I'm not referring the re-signing of Barry Bonds -- I get the logic of that move. I'm talking about your acquisitions of Dave Roberts, Bengie Molina, and Rich Aurilia -- older players who seem destined for a decline in production. I'd frankly begun to wonder if the brain trust had departed with Ned Colletti for LA. But I'm writing to tell you that all is forgiven with the signing of the other Barry from across the Bay.

Several months ago, I commented on Only Baseball Matters that signing Zito should be the Giants' top offseason priority. My logic was simple: teams should build around their personnel and ballpark strengths like the Dodgers and Cardinals did during the 1980s. Like those teams we had the beginnings of a dominant pitching rotation and a defensive ballpark. A lefty ace with a track record of health merited opening the vault the way we did for Bonds over a decade ago.

And credit where credit is due, that's precisely what you did. Some of my fellow members of the lunatic fringe are already saying you paid too much and committed to too many years, citing the examples of Kevin Brown and Mike Hampton. Yet the former is an absurd comparison since Brown was 34 when he signed his mega-contract with the Dodgers. Hampton's example is only marginally more illuminating since he pitched in the high altitude of Colorado, which affects all breaking balls, even sinkers.

Besides, Zito's pitching style, which relies more on guile than heat (best curve since Bleyleven) makes him a sensible long term investment. A pennant race will provide the perfect backdrop for Bonds' hunt for Aaron's home run record, filling the stands and distracting from any steroid storm clouds that gather. And even after Zito's pitching skills decline, he'll still be able to mentor young pitchers like Matt Cane and Noah Lowery.

On that point about mentoring, keep your eyes on Dave Righetti this year. As a fellow southpaw, he should be able to improve Zito's numbers beyond the expected National League bump. If the latter languishes or regresses for any reason, watch for Rags to be on the hot seat...

Run, Barack, Run...

2006-12-26T14:42:00.000-05:00

Regular readers of this blog (which is to say, me) will recall that I've been a big fan of Barack Obama since before the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when he catapulted into prominence with his remarkable keynote address. (Refresh your recollection of Barack's effortless eloquence here.) Recently, I analyzed the presidential hype surrounding the freshman senator from Illinois, concluding that he was basically running for Vice President. I still think that's true, but now more than ever I hope that I'm wrong.

What crystallized my conviction? Call it the grandmother factor. I had dinner on Christmas Eve with my gram who's 95 years old. During a discussion of politics, she turned to me and declared without prompting that she was absolutely going to vote for Barack Obama if he ran for President. I'll tell you, it sent shivers down my spine. Gram is no Republican -- she never voted for W -- but neither is she liberal. Her favorite tv and radio shows are Bill O'Reilly and Dr. Laura much to my chagrin.

The point is that Gram's political instincts are right about where the much of the rest of the country is right now. People are generally desperate for genuine leadership and vision, and Democrats specifically are hungry for a candidate they can support on election day without (as Tom Friedman so eloquently put it) holding their noses. After talking with Gram, it's clear to me that Senator Barack Obama is that candidate and so much more -- he personifies the Audacity of Hope.

So I say, let the nattering nabobs of negativism be damned. Run, Barack, run!

Paging Mary Poppins...

2006-12-01T17:22:00.000-05:00

As usual, Slate's excellent legal commentator Dhalia Lithwick has cut right to the heart of the recent Supreme Court argument regarding EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gases:

Now, maybe it's because I have a toddler at home, but the EPA's argument, presented by Deputy Solicitor General Gregory Garre, quickly sounds very familiar. 1) I can't clean it up; 2) Even if I could, I don't want to clean it up; 3) You can't make me clean it up; and 4) China is making an even bigger mess. How come China never has to clean it up? When and if all that fails, the EPA, like my son, just puts its hands over its eyes and says there is no mess in the first place.

(Full text here.) Sounds like the SG's office could use a visit from Mary Poppins...

Thank You, America

2006-11-08T10:11:00.000-05:00

Two years ago, the American people wrecked my faith in representative democracy by re-electing one of the worst Presidents in American history. Yesterday, my faith was partially restored by a surge of popular will that swept away Republican control of the House, and quite possibly the Senate.

I honestly didn't think we'd do it. Two nights ago, I predicted to a friend that the Dems would retake one chamber but not both. I further argued against comparisons to 1994, when Republicans took control of Congress in their own electoral landslide. Never have I been so happy to be so wrong.

Assuming the Senate goes the Dems' way -- and signs in Montana and Virginia point tentatively to yes -- the similarities to 1994 are striking. One of the biggest has to be the losses of Republican incumbents like Rick Santorum and Lincoln Chaffee. Mirrors the losses in 1994 by established Democrats like Mario Cuomo and Tom Foley.

The defeat of the ultra-conservative Santorum and moderate Chaffee (who didn't even vote for Bush in 2004) confirm this was a rejection of Republicans across the ideological spectrum. By contrast, I'm unaware of any major Democratic incumbents at any level who lost this time around. That, too, mirrors the Republican Revolution of 1994.

So thank you, my fellow Americans, for finally doing the right thing. Let's hope you didn't wait until it was too late...

Obama-Rama Revisited

2006-10-22T10:14:00.000-04:00

Two years ago, on the eve of the Democratic Convention, I said to keep your eye on a little-known candidate for Senate in Illinois named Barack Obama who was set to deliver the keynote. Since then, the freshman Senator's stock has soared to the point of a possible presidential run as his appeal to moderates and conservatives has become clear.

Recently, the national media has joined the chorus urging Obama to run. Most of the arguments in favor have been articulated by others. America needs a political uniter not a divider now more than ever. Strike now while the iron is hot or risk the fate of Mario Cuomo and Colin Powell.

One I haven't seen relates to race. Our country is at an unusual moment in the history of race relations. Most minorities, myself included, will tell you that discrimination persists. But I believe that a lot of it is sub- or unconscious -- see, e.g., Black People Love Us! White people -- especially southerners -- are counsciously eager to prove they're not racists and seek opportunies to show it publicly. A black candidate who is palatable to red staters may be the Democrats' best hope to recapture America's political imagination.

That said, if I had to make a prediction, it would be that Obama won't run in 2008. I don't think, in his heart of hearts, he believes he's truly ready. And Mrs. Obama (like Mrs. Powell) reportedly isn't thrilled at the prospect. A more likely scenario is that Obama gets rewarded with the Vice Presidency for staying out of the primaries. I've previously suggested two possibilities -- Al Gore and John Edwards -- to head the ticket

Another possibility (and the one most likely to make the VP deal) is Senator Hillary Clinton. Barack clearly respects not just the senior Senator from New York but also her husband, who has warned Obama against running prematurely. Much as I believe the party would be better served with her as majority leader, we could do worse than Clinton/Obama in 2008.

These Are the Stakes?

2006-10-20T17:43:00.000-04:00

Democrats are reportedly up in arms over a recent GOP attack ad that features shots of Bin Laden interpersed with text about how he wants to kill Americans. Already, analogies are being drawn to the infamous "Daisy" ad created by pro-Johnson Democrats in 1964.

Huh?

If I'm the Democratic leadership, I'm secretly snickering my ass off at this development. Do the Republicans seriously think that reminding us of Bush's failure to catch Bin Laden will help? The only way this works is if the GOP produces Osama as part of a November surprise...

Don't Forgive Mel

2006-10-13T17:57:00.000-04:00

There's one thing that Mel Gibson could have said that would have made me forgive his anti-semitic tirade. He could finally have admitted that the bile he spewed -- that night and in Passion of the Christ -- was the direct result of his upbringing by a viciously anti-semitic father. Sadly, Mel continues to deny reality, insisting on Good Morning America that his father's views played no role in his anti-semitism. Please....

Try being real, Mel. That's what got you into trouble in the first place, and it's the only thing that will get you out now.

Michael Kinsley

2006-09-29T11:00:00.000-04:00

Michael Kinsley isn't the same reliably interesting and articulate liberal critic that he used to be. All those years on Crossfire, and the whole fiasco with the LA Times, have seemingly embittered him, dulling his once rapier wit and keen insight.

Once in a while, however, he still manages to hit one out of the park. His most recent article on Slate (War and Embryos) about the hypocrisy of opposing stem cell research when we're waging wars that kill thousands in collateral damage is a perfect example.

Kinsley is absolutely right -- you can't be Gandhi and Truman at the same time.

Hell No!

2006-09-22T12:54:00.000-04:00

Lawrence Wright writes in a NY Times op-ed today that, if Bin Laden is ever captured, we should pass on trying him in the United States. Rather, Wright recommends offering Osama to places like Kenya and Tanzania, which were hit hard when Al Qaeda bombed U.S. embassies in those countries.

Is this guy for real? I watched 3,000 people die on September 11 -- saw those buildings fall with my own eyes. I don't give a rat's ass whether a U.S. verdict is perceived as illegitimate overseas. Osama Bin Laden had better be tried in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, which is located blocks from his most heinous crime.

Honestly, what was the Times thinking publishing this crap?

Rotten Apple?

2006-09-12T10:09:00.000-04:00

Steve Jobs and Apple Computers are playing a very dangerous game.

Apple recently filed for patents on a handheld device with touchscreen capabilities, spurring myriad rumors about the company's next big thing. Market analysts are accordingly abuzz with predictions that Apple will introduce either an ipod smartphone or a widescreen "true" video ipod at today's "Showtime" media event in San Francisco.

Think Secret, however, reports that it's all hype. Technical issues will delay the widescreen video ipod's release until at least the holidays (and likely into early 2007) and Apple has apparently abandoned the ipod phone entirely. There's always the possibility Apple is trying to outfox Think Secret, which has stolen Apple's thunder more than once. But something tells me the sources are right about this.

Apple has remained relatively unscathed by recent bad news like the massive recall of laptop batteries and Microsoft's announcement of the Zune ipod "killer." Most analysts have maintained a "buy" rating on Apple stock. My guess, however, is that they've done so partly on faith that Apple will deliver the "true" video ipod.

If that fails to happen in time for the holidays, Apple shareholders may be in for a rude awakening...

Alas, Poor Pluto...

2006-08-24T17:10:00.000-04:00

I don't care what they say. For me and everyone else who grew up watching Schoolhouse Rock, Pluto, little Pluto, will always be the farthest planet from the Sun.

Did He Do It?

2006-08-20T11:04:00.000-04:00

People are starting to question whether John Mark Karr, the self-confessed killer of JonBenet (really, are surnames required at this point) actually did the deed. Karr's wife, who seems otherwise to hate the man's guts, insists he was with her far from Colorado at the time of the murder. And the prosecutor in the case has pointedly cautioned against leaping to conclusions prematurely.

I've said from day one of Karr's "confession" that he's lying, and nothing I've heard or read since has changed my mind. I predict this case will further vindicate the claim members of the defense bar have been making for ages -- confessions are unreliable. People are rational actors and will make false admissions of guilt when it's in their self interest to do so.

Consider Karr's situation: he was in custody in Thailand facing trial for his child sex tourism. By admitting to a crime he didn't commit, he gets extradicted immediately back to the United States. Then, when his DNA doesn't match the material recovered from the crime scene, he gets released. It's probable he'll be prosecuted for the sex tourism regardless. But any sentence will be shorter than its Thai counterpart and served in comparatively luxurious U.S. prisons.

Add to that the obvious gratification he gets from the attention and association with the case (his obsession) and you have a cofluence of rather perverse incentives.

Crisitunity?

2006-08-06T10:50:00.000-04:00

Is Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice a closet Simpson's fan? On Meet the Press this morning she ripped off Lisa Simspon's line about the Chinese using the same character for" crisis" and "opportunity" -- Homer dubs this "crisitunity." According to the Stright Dope, Lisa and Condie's claims are overblown.

Talking Point for the Day

2006-07-27T16:20:00.000-04:00

Q: Do you favor gay marriage?

A: No. I respect those who believe that marriage is a sacrament. But I also feel strongly that homosexuals deserve equality before the law and that separate is inherently unequal. That's why, like the Republican mayor of New York City, I think the solution is for government to get out of the marriage business entirely. Civil unions for everyone, gay and straight...

Gun Control?

2006-07-21T16:01:00.000-04:00

The New York Post quotes military spokesman Maj. Gen. William Caldwell as telling reporters that "The only way we're going to be successful in Baghdad is to get the weapons off the streets." So much for the argument that gun ownership deters violent crime...

Talking Point for the Day

2006-07-19T14:04:00.000-04:00

Well, I'd planned to talk more about popular culture, but my thoughts lately keep gravitating back to politics. I just don't get why democrats are so inept at formulating effective responses to questions they know are coming. Luckily, I'm an expert at pithy replies, so I'll be posting regular advice on how to answer the questions that dems seem to fumble every time. So, without further ado, here's my first talking point for the day:

Q: Is the Iraq war a waste of our troops' lives?

A: I refuse to call it a "waste" when one soldier risks life and limb to protect another. To call such noble sacrifice a waste isn't just wrong, it's insulting. But that doesn't change my conviction that this was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time...

Cut and Run?

2006-06-21T11:24:00.000-04:00

Senators Kerry and Feingold are right that we need to set a departure date. So how do we do this in a way that neutralizes charges that we're cutting and running? We set the date far enough in the future (as least 2 years) that such claims seem alarmist. Right now, the American public just wants to know there's a light at the end of the tunnel. Doesn't matter how long the tunnel runs, or how distant that light may still be -- it's psychological. We need the security of knowing our troops won't be there indefinitely...

How We Win

2006-05-21T10:29:00.000-04:00

OK, Democrats, you want to win back America? Here's how you do it. Hillary Clinton takes herself out of the Presidential race, and concentrates her efforts on taking back the Senate and becoming Majority Leader. Right now, we're crippled by lack of leadership in Congress -- Reid and Pelosi are just awful. Senator Clinton needs to step into the void.

Next, you nominate Al Gore as you presidential candidate and Barak Obama as his Veep. You don't think those two could handle McCain and Giuliani? Gore will get under the Senator's skin, guaranteed, and Obama will dance circles around the former mayor and current fearmonger. I say, bring it on.

The Right Choice

2006-05-03T16:54:00.000-04:00

Amazing...they made the right choice and denied Zacarias Moussaoui martyrdom. Let him rot in prison. Forever.

Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club Band (1978)

2006-04-22T14:29:00.000-04:00

The other night, I came home late and turned on the tube to a surprise. Showing on the Independent Film Channel was the 1978 disco musical Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Club band, starring Peter Frampton and the BeeGees. I was aware of the film’s existence but had never seen it myself. Curious, I decided to check it out.

What I saw and heard confused, enthralled, and horrified me, yet I could not turn away. What follows are notes I began taking amidst my alternating shrieks of laughter and disgust. As you’ll see, I joined the film about 50 minutes in, so it’s possible I missed some critical plot explanation. Somehow, though, I doubt it.

______________________________________________

She’s Leaving Home with disco robots. 'Nuff said.

Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds being sung by sexy flashdancers. Frampton and the Beegees are off to the side watching them, purportedly with lust. They exchange exaggerated winks and nudges as the dancers shed their clothes. It’s supposed to confirm for the boys’ heterosexuality. Yet somehow the scene plays among the gayest I’ve seen (not that there’s anything wrong with that) on film. How this didn’t make the Celluloid Closet I’ll never know.

Why is Mean Mr. Mustard in a film based on Sgt. Peppers? And what’s with his disco robots?

Wait…that’s another song off Abbey Road!

Oh God, George Burns, how could you? I can’t believe Gracie would have allowed this if she were alive…

A third song from Abbey Road…what’s going on here?

Where to begin…Steve Martin is singing Maxwell’s Silver Hammer as the sinister Dr. Maxwell. Is he tripping? And what’s with the line of (adult) boy and girl scout dancers?

Uh oh, Martin’s trip just went bad. He’s now fighting Frampton and the BeeGees in slow motion with various medical implements. Every time they hit each other, little flashes of light erupt like in a fight from the campy classic Batman series.

Martin/Maxwell just took down Frampton with these weird needles that flash lightning like a miniature jacob’s ladder.

Following their victory in the fight with Dr. Maxwell, two of the BeeGees refuse to hug in an ostensibly macho gesture. It once again comes across as very gay.

I just don’t get it. Why call it Sgt. Peppers if most of the songs are from Abbey Road?

Sandy Farina just butchered Strawberry Fields Forever, perhaps my favorite song ever. I am practically in physical pain now, yet I still can’t bring myself to stop watching.

Hey, George Burns looks like Arthur Miller (the Harvard Law Professor, not the playwright).

How on earth do you break up that song progression at the end of Abbey Road? Travesty!

I really resent their implication that the Beatles are mummified old men.

The “mighty elements” of Earth, Wind, and Fire have just made an entrance worthy of Spinal Tap. They descended to the stage in capsules of some sort. Are they supposed to be sarcophagai? Photon torpedoes? Some combination? It’s not clear…or pretty.

The Cylons are behind the instrument heist?

Mr. Mustard is into bondage. Nothing shocks me anymore.

I take that back -- he’s not even singing!

Wow…Steven Tyler sounds terrible. BTW, do he and Joe Perry ever age? I’m telling you, reverse vampires…

What is with this boy/scout dancer motif? Like some Robert Palmer video gone horribly awry.

Oh, snap! Frampton just killed Steve Tyler!

Wait – Frampton’s girl (Strawberry Fields) just died? Could they really have the balls to make it a tragedy? What am I saying…

Frampton is murdering Long and Winding Road.

You just can’t pull off a line like “I like to turn you on” in the context of grieving over a buddy’s dead girlfriend. Certainly not if you’re a BeeGee.

Well, at least they got the “smoke upstairs” part right in A Day in the Life. It’s such a beautiful song. Almost powerful enough to overcome the awful performance. Almost…

How to explain what just happened? Frampton took a suicidal swan dive off an old Victorian only to be frustrated by Sgt. Pepper, who zaps him back up to the roof, deus ex machina. That’s what happened. Somehow, though, it just doesn’t do the weirdness of the moment justice…

Sgt. Pepper seems to think Frampton’s name is “Jojo” and the reincarnated Strawberry Fields’ is “Loretta.” I mean, I know those are the lyrics of the song, but why force the reference? What am I saying -- this entire film is one large square peg trying to fit into a round hole.

They hope I’ve enjoyed the show. Sadly, I did not.

My Solution to Lost

2006-04-03T18:43:00.000-04:00

I haven't been so great about updating this thing recently. Part of the problem is that I've been sick, and the name of my sickness is "Lost." But I think I've finally solved one of the show's main puzzles, which will hopefully get the monkey off my back at last. Forget about Entertainment Weekly, here's what's really happening on Lost.

Remember the Hatch mural?

One of its most prominent features is the Sun with 108 in the center. I've long believed the mural generally, and that Sun specifically, are a key clue to what Dharma has become. But it wasn't until the blast door map that their significance was finally illuminated.

In the lower right corner of the map, there is a seemingly random cite to the Book of Revelation, chapter 4, verse 3, line 2, which reads: "And there was a rainbow about the throne, in sight like an emerald." It apparently lacks any discernible connection to Lost, but appearances can deceive.

New Age Gnosticism and the "Lost Sun"
The "rainbow" in Revelation has been interpreted by some new age gnostics as referring to the Sun, with the verse that follows describing the Zodiacal cross of Lion, Calf, Man, and Eagle:

These new age Gnostics believe that humanity is not the final step on the evolutionary scale, but rather the starting point for a spiritual evolution that promises to transcend the material limits of creation. They aspire to create a divine life on earth through the forging of a unified, global overmind.

The process of creating this "supramental" consciousness that will guide our spiritual evolution is called restoring the "lost Sun." That description actually derives from the Rig Veda, a collection of Hindu hymns that are among the oldest texts preserved in any language.

These neo-Gnostics read the Rig Veda as being concerned primarily with the recovery or return of the "lost Sun," also termed the Sanatana Dharma or Eternal Truth of Being and Becoming. 108 is a scared number in Sanatana Dharma, symbolizing in various ways the underlying order and harmony of the universe.

Dream of a New World Order
All of which brings us back to the Hatch mural, which I believe depicts Dharma's dream of a new world order. The original scientists long ago achieved their transhumanist ambition of overcoming the limits of corporeal existence. They have become pure electromagnetic consciousness, merged with the EM field of the Island, which is literally an extension of their minds.

They now possess god-like powers, and so aspire to play god. Troubled by the violence and greed in the world, the scientists plan to impose a new collective global consciousness with Dharma at its core. They seek, in sum, to restore the "lost Sun" using an army of LeviEthans led by psychic messiahs like Aaron and Walt (the black and white figures in the mural).

To carry out their plans, the disembodied scientists commandeer people from the real world using the numbers and the Island itself. The numbers are an algorithmic representation of the supramental consciousness, permitting the scientists to connect with and influence the minds of targets.

Meanwhile, the Island's high concentration of non-metallic minerals like quartz make it a kind of giant antenna, broadcasting the scientists' electromagnetic influence worldwide. In this way, people like Hurley who "use" the numbers are manipulated and coerced into coming to the Island.

Indoctrination into Dharma
Once there, however, these draftees must be prepared mentally and spiritually before the full scope of the Dharma Initiative can be revealed. The first stage in this indoctrination is Swan Hatch, where the influence of the supramental consciousness is reinforced through repetition of the numbers and exposure to the powerful electromagnet behind the concrete.

Hatch occupants are introduced via the orientation film to what Dharma once was (but not what it has since become) and primed to respect Hanso and the DeGroots. Eventually, however, the occupants are sufficiently conditioned that they're ready to "graduate" from the Hatch and begin their indoctrination in earnest.

At that point, they're shown the blast door map, which was drawn by the first occupant drafted into Dharma. My guess is it was subsequently fleshed out and annotated by someone from the Hanso Foundation sent to investigate what happened to the Initiative -- as a fan of Solaris, I'd like to think that was Kelvin.

Driven by curiosity (Hanso's favorite value) and encouraged perhaps by dream visions from the scientists, occupants explore the ruins of Dharma. This process presents the scientists with further opportunities to teach occupants what the Initiative has become, and to prepare the latter mentally and spiritually for inclusion in the supramental consciousness.

The map shows more than just the physical layout of the Island -- it depicts the path to spiritual evolution. I believe Henry Gale has been down that path himself, and judged Locke ready to begin the journey. Look for the latter to keep knowledge of the map to himself and maybe Mr. Eko. Once Locke is off crutches, the two can begin their mythical quest, like Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

Re-Launch

2006-02-09T10:04:00.000-05:00

After some reflection, I'm relaunching the Big Mouth today with a new look and focus on popular culture. I'm tired of talking about politics, a subject that mostly makes me sad these days...mostly. I still plan to write occasionally about politics, but I figure why not write primarily about something that makes me happy. So, without further fanfare, I present to you the revamped Big Mouth, a blog devoted to constructive cultural criticism.

Whatever the hell that means...

Cylon Stem Cells

2006-01-21T18:45:00.000-05:00

Interesting how the show's politics are becoming more explicit.

I'm liberal, so they're preaching to the choir. And yet...I have reservations. Thus far, the themes have been sufficiently broad that everyone from the New Yorker to National Review have found something that resonates. I worry that, by taking more explicit stands, the show risks polarizing audiences.

This was a mistake Star Trek: the Next Generation made in its later years. There was one episode (not so nerdy I recall its name) where the Enterprise Crew learned that using warp drive damages the universe. After much agonizing, they accepted a new warp speed limit for the rest of the show.

It was just silly.

I understand that one virtue of speculative fiction is the ability to revisit familiar questions in a new context. One where our political reflexes don't readily apply. And I personally think the cylon stem cells were a master stroke -- and poke in the eye of the President.

Therein may lie the problem...

Rock-et-Man!

2006-01-19T23:44:00.000-05:00

Just a quick follow-up to my crtique of Franklin's review of Family Guy. As stated previously, I felt she gave short shrift to the show's hilariously referential style. Here's a great example of that humor: a recent episode depicts a tuxedoed Stewie (the matricidally minded infant) performing "Rocket Man," but speaking the lyrics rather than singing them.

He's clearly parodying William Shatner, a ripe target whose cadence is unmistakable. I also know that Shat released a series of brilliantly disturbing spoken-word versions of Rocket Man, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, and Tambourine Man during the '70s. But three tuxedoed Stewies (one pleated, one ruffled, and one disheveled) actually appear in the number, something that mystified me, until a friend showed me this.

Now I get it. Rock-et-man!

Franklin on Family Guy

2006-01-17T12:43:00.000-05:00

In a recent issue of the New Yorker (1/16) Nancy Franklin has a review of Family Guy that I think misses the mark. She makes some great points about gender and joking. But she glosses over the show's main strength, its referential humor.

I'll admit I didn't get Family Guy when it first premiered back in 1999. Other shows like South Park, King of the Hill, Futurama, even the weakened Simpsons, all seemed to strike my funny bone more reliably and consistently.

Now, however, Futurama is gone, and King of the Hill lost its edge several seasons ago. South Park remains strong, and the Simpsons have regained their stride somewhat, but there's room again in my schedule for some smart animated fun.

Reenter Family Guy, which has steadily earned my appreciation since returning to the air in 2004. The key for me, and which Franklin discusses only in passing, is the highly referential style of humor that she notes has become a signature of the show.

References to pop culture cram each episode. Often they're to well known works like Raiders of the Lost Ark and Heart of Darkness. Sometimes they're more obscure, as when Peter dances with William Shatner in a parody of a 1938 film Joy of Living.

Discerning these nods and winks is a lot of the fun. So much so that whole websites are devoted to cataloguing them. (I certainly didn't catch that Joy of Living reference myself.) Ignore this feature, and you miss a main source of Family Guy's appeal.

Franklin mentions the referential humor briefly, but saves most of her praise for the voices, which she approvingly compares to a radio show. This frankly baffles me -- I've never considered the voice work to be a strong suit of Family Guy.

I'm not saying that Seth MacFarlane is James Joyce. Nor am I claiming the writing is flawless. Sometimes the rapid-fire gags get relentless, particularly when the references are cliched. Few shows, however, make laugh as often or loudly.

And I don't think that's a guy thing...

It's the Constitution, Stupid

2005-04-26T21:13:00.000-04:00

Right now, Democrats are sticking to the presumably poll-tested line that the filibuster is necessary to protect minority rights. That's partly right, but only half of the argument. After all, the Republicans aren't seeking to end the filibuster for all Senate business, just judicial nominations. I suspect once that distinction becomes clearer to the general public, some of the current support for the Democrats will fade.

At that point, Democrats will need something more. Specifically, they will need to make the case that the federal judiciary stands at a constitutional crossroads. Each confirmation brings us closer to a critical mass in favor of a new and very different reading of the Constitution -- one that rejects most aspects of the constitutional consensus that has governed our legal system since the New Deal. The Republicans aren't there yet, but they're close -- teetering on the tipping point, if you will.

If they're successful, the transformative effect on our Constitution will be no less than a formal amendment. And that's the reason for the filibuster, which functions as the equivalent to a supermajoritarian requirement for the nomination of judges. Just as you can't amend the Constitution formally without a supermajority, neither should you be able to do so informally. That's the right argument, at any rate. It remains to be seen if any Democrats will be bold enough to make it.

Scylla and Charybdis

2005-04-20T10:47:00.000-04:00

Coco Seven Mile asks a good question. Now that it's clear the Republicans have us between a rock and a hard place, what do we do about it?

The answer, to the extent one exists, is that we fight just as we would have before. The difference now is that our battles will occur out in the open, for the entire country to see. Without the filibuster, we'll likely lose more of these fights than we win. And some of the public stands we take on wedge issues may well hurt us in the short term. Ultimately, however, I suspect the process will be a healthy one.

The liberal left has become addicted to quick fixes that circumvent the political process, like lawsuits and filibusters. Time to wean ourselves from these narcotics and pump up those atrophied political skills.

Mutual Assured Destruction

2005-04-17T10:05:00.000-04:00

Here's my take on the whole filibuster controversy. Republicans are foolish if they pursue the nuclear option for the purpose of getting judges confirmed. But Democrats are equally foolish if they bring down the temple about their heads by obstructing business in the Senate. The former will provoke unpleasant memories of Bush v. Gore by emphasizing the political nature of the judiciary. The latter will provoke unpleasant memories of Newt Gingrich by shutting down the government.

Kung Fu Hustle

2005-04-12T13:49:00.000-04:00

I hate to gush like one of those fake blurbs you see on commercials for bad movies these days. But Kung Fu Hustle really did rock my world.

It is undoubtedly the best kung fu flick I've ever seen, and one of the better comedies in recent memory. The film is beautifully written, shot, and edited, and filled with surprisingly substantive commentary on the difference between appearances and reality. But what makes Kung Fu Hustle really brilliant, and a must-see for movie buffs, is the film's cinematic literacy.

From the very start, it is clear that director Stephen Chow loves movies. The film begins with a nod to Scorsese's Gangs of New York, as one gang dressed in tophats and wielding axes mercilessly massacres a gang of rivals in slow motion. The rest of the movie is a rich tapestry of similar references to other directing greats, including Kubrick, Jeunet, and Tarantino.

Even if you're not a movie buff, there's plenty to like about this film. If you are, however, do yourself a favor. Run -- do not walk, do not pass Go, and do not collect $200 -- to see this film.

Blind Loyalty?

2005-04-09T11:18:00.000-04:00

I know I said Barry Bonds lost me with his bizarre decision to showcase his son as part of a tirade against the press. But I have to admit there's something strangely noble about his decision to rehabilitate from knee surgery with longtime friend and trainer, Greg Anderson. The 'Gate reports Barry's lawyer has repeatedly advised him to minimize contact with Anderson, who presently awaits trial on charges stemming from the BALCO scandal. But Bonds insists on sticking by his friend, heedless of the consquences.

I respect that kind of loyalty, though it can be dangerous on occasion. In this case, however, the risks are worth it for Barry, who has rehabilitated well under Anderson's treatement in the past. It remains to be seen how much this was diet and conditioning, and how much was the result of steroids. One can only hope it was the former, in which case Bonds may yet return.

We Like-a da' Juice

2005-04-05T21:10:00.000-04:00

The headlines from opening day trumpet that Dmitri Young hit three home runs, while Richie Sexson hit two. If their performances are any indication, there's still plenty of juice in baseball, and I don't necessarily mean steroids.

I'm talking the ball.

One day is not a statistically significant sample, so these performances could certainly be mere aberrations of chance. But Major League Baseball is rumored to have juiced the ball before, after the black eye of the strike and resulting cancellation of the World Series in 1994.

It worked then, and my guess is that Bud is betting it will work again. Fans do, after all, seem to like-a da' juice a lot. If I'm right, watch for tater totals to be up this year, or at least show little sign of lagging behind the last.

Substantial Noninfringing Use

2005-04-02T11:24:00.000-05:00

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in MGM v. Grokster, a case that, whatever its resolution, will have sweeping implications for file-sharing and technological innovation generally. At issue is the Court's prior landmark precedent in this field, Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios. More specifically, the bone of contention is the Court's holding over a decade ago that Sony was not liable for copyright violations committed by users of its betamax machines because VCRs were "capable of substantial noninfringing" uses.

Other commentators have summarized the facts and issues of Grokster well, so I won't bother giving them my own gloss. But I do want to mention one analogy I heard recently that strikes me as powerful if imperfect: assault weapons. One way gun manufacturers have defeated lawsuits against them is by claiming that these weapons have legitimate sporting uses. Such claims are accepted by courts and juries even though we all know that no one in his right mind actually hunts with an AK-47.

So why shouldn't the same standard apply to a technology like Grokster, where the argument is even stronger? After all, no one can seriously deny that file-sharing has many legitimate uses, even if its principal use in the present is copyright infringement. At the very least, sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander.

I realize the analogy isn't perfect. Arguably, the Second Amendment necessitates that the definition of "assault weapon" be read narrowly. By contrast, though there's a limited First Amendment interest in access to information, there's no constitutional right to technological innovation, which is really the value at stake on Grokster's side. Still, the double standard troubles me, especially when it's information technologies, not guns, that make modern societies run.

Shat Happens

2005-04-01T13:51:00.000-05:00

Is there any savvier actor in television today than William Shatner? I'm not talking about the quality of his acting, so much as the intelligence of the roles he picks. And by intelligence, I don't mean the substance of those roles, so much as their success. Stop and think about it: when was the last time Shatner was associated with a stinker? Star Trek, T.J. Hooker, Rescue 911, the Practice -- successes every one.

And now he's in the mini-series "Invasion Iowa," Spike TV's latest twist on the faux-reality-show sub genre. Shatner and Co. descend upon the town of Riverside, Iowa, self-declared future birthplace of Capt. James T. Kirk, ostensibly to do a science fiction film. He's accompanied by a documentary crew supposedly doing a "behind the scenes" feature. But there is no movie, and the documentary crew is actually there to capture townsfolks' reactions to the increasingly outrageous behavior of Shat and his fellow "actors."

Yet the joke is also on Shatner, who plays a ridiculous parody of himself, and obviously enjoys every hammy minute of it. The same is true of the other actors, though to a lesser degree. The joke wouldn't work if their weird behavior weren't within the Heartland's collective expectations of how Hollywood types behave. No one but Shatner, however, actually plays himself in a town that obviously worships him. Shatner doesn't just play on popular perceptions of his pomposity, cheapness, gluttony, etc.. He literally risks his own good name.

And that's ultimately what elevates "Invasion Iowa" over predecessors like "Joe Schmo" and "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" Shatner's self-parody is not just effective, it's daring, and the results are really quite riveting.

Truth and Reconciliation

2005-03-29T22:14:00.000-05:00

Everyone agrees that the Congressional hearings on steroids were a showboating sham. Yet no one trusts baseball to police itself where performance-enhancing drugs of all kinds, not just steroids, are concerned. Writers and fans on both sides of the issue seem hopelessly polarized, caught in an escalating cycle of one-sided analysis that just fans the flames of controversy further. Worst of all, no one can credibly claim to know how harmful steroids are (or aren't) or how widespread their use is (or isn't).

It's time to consider a compromise. My prosposal would be something along the lines of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. After apartheid was dismantled, rather than prosecute every last participant in the injustice, South Africans held hearings into the various crimes that had been committed. Particpants were given full immunity, the goal being to understand and condemn what had happened collectively, rather than punish any particular offenders.

Seems to me that baseball could use something similar at the moment. With due respect to a commentator like John J. Perricone of the fabulous Only Baseball Matters, who has made the case for steroid skepticism as eloquently as anyone, I think it's pretty clear that steroids are a problem. As I say, the difficulty is we don't yet know how big or widespread the problem really is. Reports vary widely, but every source seems to have his own agenda. That's unacceptable.

I know my suggestion may evoke unfortunate memories of the drug trials of the '80s. And I will concede that watching our heroes go to jail for illicit drug use is the last thing we need--it took decades for that stain to fade the last time around. That's why I stress the categorical immunity of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The goal of my proposal is, first and foremeost, to get a sense of what exactly we're trying to address.

Since I actually consider myself a mild steroid a skeptic, my supsicion is that the hysteria will eventually be revealed as such. Still, it concerns me deeply that some are dismissing the problem before they even know its dimensions. That strikes me as a very serious mistake.

Barry, Terri, and Ted

2005-03-25T09:23:00.000-05:00

Between the congressional hearings on steroids, and the political wrangling over Terri Schiavo, there is no shortage of candidates to be my Big Mouth of the Month for March. And my choice does, in a sense, implicate both of these events even though he wasn't at the hearings and isn't in a persistent vegetative state. I'm referring to Barry Bonds, the San Francisco Giants slugger and suspected steroid user whose recent meltdown before the media finally lost me as his fan.

I've traditionally sided with Bonds in his tangles with the press. This is partly because I'm originally from San Francisco and still support my beloved Giants. But it's primarily because Bonds reminds me so much of another sweet-swinging baseball legend I adore: the late, great Ted Williams. Like the latter, Bonds is a splendid splinter of a hitter, whose statistics radiate from afar the "hard blue glow of high purpose," as John Updike once described Williams.

What really unites these two baseball greats, however, is their unusually bitter relationship with the press. In addition to being the most dominant hitter of his day, Williams was an arrogant, outspoken man who was not afraid to joust with reporters, whom he derisively dubbed the "knights of the keyboard." So great was Williams' disdain that, when he homered in the final at-bat of his career, he spit in the direction of the press box. Bonds is similarly prickly, plus he's a minority, making him even more attractive as a magnet for controversy.

Earlier this year, Bonds held his first press conference of the spring -- annually a contentious affair -- and proceeded to lambaste the media for violating his privacy, leaking grand jury testimony, and generally distorting the facts surrounding his alleged steroid use. Barry was rambling but reasonably eloquent, saying some things that needed to be said, as well as some that didn't. Still, there were more of the former than the latter, which kept me in his camp.

Recently, however, Bonds held another press conference to announce unexpectedly that he may have to miss the season because of an injured knee. He took the opportunity again to lash out at reporters for their steroid coverage. But the really weird and distressing part came when Bonds ordered TV cameras to pull back and capture his 15-year old son, Nikolai, who was apparently standing at his father's side for the duration of the tirade.

That was where Bonds really lost me. I understand he wanted to stress the terrible toll this experience has taken on his family. But there was something so unseemly about the inclusion of his son in the press conference. And when Bonds demanded that the cameras broadcast images of the boy's forlorn face, I couldn't help thinking of how Terri Schiavo's parents have shamelessly used videos of their living corpse of a daughter to elicit sympathy for her plight.

Such transparent manipulativeness disturbs me, particularly in Bonds' case, where no one's life is even arguably at stake. Which makes him a perfect pick as my Big Mouth of the Month for March.

Culture of Life?

2005-03-22T11:38:00.000-05:00

The President reportedly cut his Texas vacation short, and rushed back to Washington to sign a bill he claimed would promote a "culture of life." Was he referring to the massacre at a Minnesota high school that resulted in the deaths of seven innocents, five of them children? No way. He was talking about Terri Schiavo.

You want to promote a culture of life, Mr. President? Try controlling the guns.

Six Degrees of Jed Rakoff

2005-03-20T11:17:00.000-05:00

What is with the strange prevalence of U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in my life? Recall that Rakoff is the federal judge here in New York who, a few years ago, boldly struck down the federal death penalty as violative of Fifth Amendment due process because the risk of executing innocents is too great.

Three of my friends from law school went on to become judicial clerks for Judge Rakoff. A fourth friend from my present place of work was Rakoff's first clerk, ever. Recently, a different friend (with no connection to Judge Rakoff) set me up on a date with someone. She was smart, sexy, and (you guessed it) a former Rakoff clerk.

Nerd that I am, I understand what seems like karma is readily explicable in terms of probability and chance. I'm nonetheless amazed that the world can be such a tiny place.

The King of Comedy

2005-03-19T09:50:00.000-05:00

The New York papers are abuzz with news of an alleged plot to kidnap the young son of late night comedian David Letterman. Now the fiancee of the suspected kidnapper has reportedly spoken out, insisting the accused was a huge fan of Letterman who could never do anything to hurt the comedian. Right...

Can anyone say: "Rupert Pupkin"?

The Average Price...

2005-03-17T20:14:00.000-05:00

...of unleaded gas has reportedly reached an all-time high of $2.055 per gallon. As my friend Paul points out, that's still less than the cost of a 1.5 liter bottle of water. How is this possible?

Perhaps that's why evian spelled backwards is "naive"...

Feiler Faster

2005-03-14T16:04:00.000-05:00

I have to admit, Mickey Kaus over on Slate makes a very provactive counterpoint to my claim that democratizing the middle east will take generations to accomplish. Kaus cites the Feiler Faster Thesis, which states that people in the modern world are able to process information with increasing rapidity. He argues this may accelerate the democratization of Iraq to the point that, what once took generations to accomplish, can now be done much sooner.

Though Kaus himself concedes his thesis is highly speculative, I have to admit he may have a point. That said, the middle east is hardly the most modern region in the world, which may limit the applicability of Feiler Faster. Moreover, even if Kaus is right, and the transformation will take place sooner, that's still a long way from saying it will take place soon. Even if it takes decades, instead of generations, the ultimate toll will remain immense.

Displacing the Dominant Paradigm . . . Overnight

2005-02-27T11:03:00.000-05:00

David Brooks needs to re-read his Kuhn. The NY Times columnist argued in his column this Saturday that we're currently witnessing a Kuhnian paradigm shift in middle east politics as a result of the recent Iraqi elections. Brooks may be right, but he fundamentally misperceives the nature of paradigm shifts, causing him to misapply Kuhn's insights to Iraq.

First, a bit of background. Thomas Kuhn was the philosopher of science who challenged the traditional narrative of science as a logical and orderly progression towards truth. According to Brooks, Kuhn "famously argued that science advances not gradually but in jolts, through a series of raw and jagged paradigm shifts. Somebody sees a problem differently, and suddenly everybody's vantage point changes."

That's partly right - Kuhnian paradigm shifts can take place "suddenly" on an individual level. The scientist has a bolt of insight, makes an intellectual leap of faith, and instantly sees the world from a contrary point of view. But Brooks is simply wrong to think that because one person, or even a few people, see a problem differently, "suddenly everybody's vantage point changes."

Quite the contrary, Kuhn believed that revolutions in science take a long time - often a generation or more - to reach critical mass. His primary critique of the traditional history of science was that displacement of one paradigm by another has little to do with the truth of the new paradigm. According to Kuhn, it's mainly the result of adherents of the old paradigm dying out, and adherents of the new one rising to take their place.

If Brooks had read his Kuhn correctly, he'd be a lot less optimistic that meaningful democratic change will take place quickly. Think about how long it took to effect a paradigm shift on race in the south. We face no less of a task reconstructing norms in Iraq and throughout the middle east. If anything, this challenge is more daunting because our legitimacy is less clear.

As I said, I hope Brooks is right that a paradigm shift is taking place. But we'd best not delude ourselves - you don't displace the dominant paradigm overnight.

Dumb and Dummer

2005-02-23T14:04:00.000-05:00

Here's a story for all who dismiss the discomfort of people like me over the use of words like "niggardly." In Newbury Massachusetts, there is a boarding school that bears the unfortunate name of Dummer Academy. There is no connection between dumber and Dummer - the school is actually named after William Dummer, a pre-Revolutionary governor of Massachusetts. Nevertheless, after some two centuries of relentless ribbing, Dummer Academy has finally decided to change its name.

Now do you understand our discomfort a little better?

RIP Hunter S. Thompson

2005-02-22T21:10:00.000-05:00

I was all set to pick Jose Canseco as my Big Mouth of the month for February, but the passing of Hunter S. Thompson - one of the biggest mouths of all - makes that all moot. Much has been made in the wake of Hunter's passing of how he birthed the phenomenon of "gonzo" journalism. But none of the obits I've read have really nailed the brilliance of his contribution.

Gonzo journalism - gonzo anything - is first and foremost a triumph of the subjective. It's not just about taking you inside an experience. It's about taking you inside the gonzo author's experience of that experience. As a result, the author's prejudices and perceptual biases are more than relevant to the telling, they're integral. The story quite literally wouldn't be the same without them.

From the very first lines of Thompson's greatest work, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, we know he's a thoroughly unreliable narrator. Thompson is no Humbert Humbert - he's hopped up on hallucinogens and proud to admit it. Even Hunter's more mainstream work exhibits this defining feature. No matter how far you wade into Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail, you never, ever forget that this is Hunter S. Thompson covering Richard Nixon.

So why was this all revolutionary? Journalism - at least as practiced in the US - clings by and large to the ideal of objectivity. Hunter helped us realize that the subjective can be just as revealing, even where news is concerned. All of us, particularly those of us who blog, owe him a debt of gratitude for that. Many writers have been credited with being the predecessors of bloggers, but I never see Thompson mentioned among them. That's a shame.

Siriusly

2005-02-10T11:54:00.000-05:00

You are Steve Jobs and you want to transform the world of portable audio forever. The iPod was an impressive start, but your dream is to effect an even more profound change. This is how you do it.

Still on Steroids

2005-02-08T15:59:00.000-05:00

In the wake of the Canseco controversy, some voters have argued that the alleged steroid use of Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire should disqualify such players from the Hall of Fame. Here's my question for those voters and anyone else who agrees with them: Do you feel the same way about Gaylord Perry, who would never have made the Hall without a spitter?

Sure there's a difference in that steroids are illegal, but lots of guys have used illegal drugs and still made the Hall. A more persuasive argument is that steroids upset the competitive balance of the game. Yet throwing spitters give pitchers even more of an advantage than steroids do hitters. So I ask again: what's the difference?

Is It Just Me?

2005-02-07T22:43:00.000-05:00

Or is there something more than vaguely sexual about Jose Canseco's recent revelations that he "injected fellow Bash Brother Mark McGwire in the rear end numerous times in clubhouse bathroom stalls"? Not to mention Jose's description of "McGwire and a young Jason Giambi heading into the men's room to inject each other with the anabolic steroids that would turn them from lanky lads into musclebound behemoths."

Then again - and just to clarify - the foregoing aren't direct quotes from Canseco's book. They're from two articles by the same NY Daily News reporter, Michael O'Keeffe. Which makes me wonder: is it the acts themselves or O'Keeffe's descriptions that scream buggery?

The Whole World is Watching

2005-02-04T11:05:00.000-05:00

I'm a total sucker for advice columns. Abby, Carolyn, Prudence - I read them all. I don't often find their advice all that useful, but the dilemmas they discuss present admittedly irresistible exercises in practical reason. Plus, I'm perversely reassured to read that others have woes far worse than my own.

The primary source of my addiction is the Style Section of the Washington Post, which is now home to at least six such columns by my count. The most recent addition, dubbed "Ask Amy," strikes a markedly different tone from old-school columnists like Dear Abby. Amy is less tolerant and more confrontational - kind of a Dr. Laura for the newspaper set.

I usually disagree with "Amy's" answers, but something from today's column struck me as uncommonly sinister even for her. In a response re how parents should discipline their children in public, Amy wrote the following:

Parents are supposed to be respectful, firm and kind - at home and in public. I think it would be great if we all chose to behave as if our every word and act was monitored by a total stranger. I love the idea, and thank you for supplying it.

I don't disagree with the respect part. But is that monitoring comment creepy or what? She could be joking, though I doubt it - Amy doesn't strike me as an ironist. Meanwhile, George Orwell and John Stuart Mill are spinning in their graves...

Have to Admit...

2005-02-03T11:49:00.000-05:00

...Bush gave a great state of the union. Wrong on substance and riddled with lies, perhaps; but great as a speech nonetheless. I'd even go so far as to say that this is one of the best I've heard in some time. Much as I miss Clinton's soothing oratory, I always found his state of the union addresses too wonky and verbose. The laundry lists of programs would go on and on until your eyes glazed over.

Bush, by contrast, kept it short and sweet. Compare his concise proposal for social security reform with Clinton's messy explanation of his health care plan - like night and day. W may not be the most naturally eloquent of speakers, but he has an instinctive feel for how to frame the issues effectively. His claim that we must redefine social security to remain faithful to its founding premises was simply brilliant.

If I had to make a prediction now, solely on the basis of that speech , I'd bet Bush will win social security reform.

The More Things Change...

2005-01-31T14:41:00.000-05:00

I was ecstatic - I mean genuinely thrilled - about the election in Iraq yesterday. That is, until I read the following from coverage of another election overseas nearly three decades ago:

U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote:
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror

by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)

WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.

(Courtesy of Fantasy Life.) The more things change, apparently, the more they stay the same. Still, anyone who doubts the commitment of ordinary Iraqis to democracy should note carefully the example of those who voted in Sunni-dominated areas like Tikrit. For many of them, that purple thumb will be the mark of death. Such courage deserves your celebration, not your scorn.

Chief Justice Giuliani

2005-01-28T11:13:00.000-05:00

My friends on the left go into conniptions at the thought that Bush may name Antonin Scialia to be the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. For many of the same reasons outlined by Prof. Stephen Lubet here,* however, I'm a bit more sanguine at the prospect. The Chief has little power beyond the ability to assign opinions when he's in the majority. And I'm confident that Scalia has alienated too many of his brethren to be an effective conservative leader on the Court.

Besides, there's always the chance that being Chief would moderate Scalia's radical tendancies, much as it has Rehnquist's over the years. People forget that, for a long time, the latter was the resident conservative ideologue on the Court (albeit one markedly more liberal than the Court he now runs). While hardly Scalia, Rehquist has certainly delivered his share of biting dissents over the years. Yet Rehnquist is also the Justice who voted to retain Miranda, and to afford Hamdi due process.

No, the candidate that gives me pause is a different reactionary, Rudy Giuliani. According to one recent poll,* only Justice O'Connor is favored more by the public for chief. Giving Giuliani a lifetime appointment would, moreover, eliminate him from political consideration - something Karl Rove seems (inexplicably) to want. Still worse, Giuliani's charisma and perceived moderation would make him highly confirmable, and an effective leader on the Court. Who wants to challenge Mr. 9/11, especially where the rights of accused terrorists are concerned?

Forget about Justice Scalia, my liberal friends. The guy who should be giving you nightmares is Chief Justice Giuliani.

*Links courtesy of How Appealing.

Big Mouth of the Month

2005-01-25T11:15:00.000-05:00

I have a big mouth, but the mouth of Larry Summers, the current President of Harvard University, is bigger than mine by far. Summers has long had a reputation for being impolitically correct. When he replaced Robert Rubin as Treasury Secretary, the latter reportedly had a long chat with the former about the need to show a bit more tact in his new position.

I knew when Summers was named the President of Harvard that it was only a matter of time before he offended someone, somehow. Nor did Summers disappoint, quickly alienating many around campus with his shoddy treatment of respected scholar Cornell West. Summers's ham-handling of the situation prompted the defection of West (among others) to rival ivy Princeton. Eventually, however, the controversy died down, and Summers seemed finally to settle into his new position.

But Larry has again stepped into the limelight of notoriety, spawning a new controversy with deliberately provocative comments at a conference about the relationship between gender and success in the sciences. The fallout has been so great that some folks are finally starting to question the wisdom of his appointment to the helm of Harvard. In fairness, his comments were meant to be off the record. Still, Summers was foolish to think he could touch so many nerves without consequences - irrespective of the merits of his claims.

Much of the commentary on the controversy thus far has focused on this latter question of merits, which is compelling up to a point. More interesting to me, however, is the larger truth illustrated by the reaction to Summers's speech, regardless of who and what is right. Scientists are loath to admit it, but science is an inescapably political activity. I mean this not just in the narrow sense that scientists are, like all of us, motivated by personal agendas to varying degrees.

I also mean it in the broader sense that science takes place not in a vacuum but in the world of social relationships. Even the most apolitical scientists cannot control the effects of their experiments on this world. As the Summers controversy shows, what questions scientists ask, as well as how they ask and answer them, have a real impact on real people. Not surprisingly, this is especially true of the social sciences (Summers is an economist by training) but also of the natural - something we frequently forget.

So congratulations, Larry Summers, on your selection as the Big Mouth of the Month. Let your example be a lesson to us all!

PS: Count how many Safire sins I commit in this brief space!

Fried Rice

2005-01-19T13:55:00.000-05:00

I was infuriated by Sen. Barbara Boxer's decision to challenge Ohio's electoral vote. I have to admit, however, that I'm tickled to no end by her relentless grilling (frying?) of Rice at the latters hearing. Condi will be confirmed - of that I have no doubt. Still, someone needs to keep her honest, and the Boxer seems the only one willing to throw some punches.

The problem with the Boxer's protest of the Ohio vote was that it diverted attention from the Gonzales nomination, which should have been an embarrassing reminder of the shame of Abu Ghraib. The Senator's pointed questioning of Condi, by contrast, keeps the spotlight where it should be: trained unwaveringly on this administration's insatiable appetite for deception.

Homeland Insecurity

2005-01-11T13:31:00.000-05:00

Let me see if I understand this correctly. The President's latest nominee to head the Department of Homeland security, federal Judge Michael Chertoff, is best known for his participation in: (1) the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui, and (2) the Whitewater committee. (Read the full story here.)

Oh yeah, I feel safer already...

No, No, No, No, No, No, No!

2005-01-07T13:13:00.000-05:00

Am I the only one left on the left with sense enough to see that challenging Ohio's electoral votes was a phenomenally stupid idea? What was Barbara Boxer thinking? Do democrats who agree with her seriously believe that anything positive will come of this?

Mark my words, this will be perceived by the public as a partisan shot - shrill and cheap. Still worse, it created competition in the news cycle, which should have been focused like a laser beam on Alberto Gonzales's controversial nomination. When are we going to learn to pick our battles intelligently?

We may not have lost this election fairly or squarely, but we did lose it decisively. Time to let yesterday go and start thinking about tomorrow. I promise, it'll be better than you think.

Tax Credits--Redux

2005-01-07T11:47:00.000-05:00

A while back I expressed skepticism that refundable tax credits are an effective way to redistribute wealth. My concern was that those who need these credits the most are actually the least likely to take advantage of them. Now, from Slate financial columnist Daniel Gross, comes further confirmation of my fears. In arguing against the use of such credits to defray the cost of health insurance, Gross writes:

Such credits aren't really designed to get people who were formerly uninsured to buy insurance. Since half of the uninsured don't pay taxes and since refundable credits are highly complicated, tax credits aren't very appealing to uninsured people.

(Read the full piece here.) I have no principled objection to using the tax code redistributively. Like Gross, my concern is practical, not ideological. I care about results, and it seems increasingly clear that refundable tax credits just don't deliver.

Uncle Neal?

2005-01-02T18:28:00.000-05:00

I'm a big fan of comedian Dave Chappelle, whose show on Comedy Central is certainly the edgiest on television - possibly the funniest, too. Dave has a keen eye for racial hypocrisy, and has no qualms about exposing it in the most offensive terms possible. Chappelle's shots, moreover, are anything but cheap. To get a sense of his depth check out this interview with Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air. Dave is one seriously thoughtful dude.

Many of Chappelle's viewers - critics and fans alike - are quick to claim his show is racist against whites. This charge doesn't surprise me, though I vehemently disagree. To qualify as racist, you have to be malicious or ignorant, and Dave is emphatically neither of those things. Some fans, however, defend his humor by observing his co-writer, Neal Brennan, is white. They apparently think this somehow insulates the show's jabs at the Man from any kind of scrutiny or judgment.

I don't agree. Again, I don't think Dave and Neal are racist. But it makes no difference to me that Brennan is white - just as the mere fact that Clarence Thomas and Alan Keyes are black doesn't render their views on race any less offensive to me. Where selling out is concerned, Michael Jackson was right: it don't matter if you're black or white.

Fly the Chatty Skies

2004-12-28T15:10:00.000-05:00

Like many people, I'm appalled at the notion that cell phone use may soon join the list of indignities associated with airline travel. Nor am I persuaded that segregating cell phone users in a separate section would alleviate the problem. Like smoke, noise has a tendancy to drift and thereby cause a nuisance.

Seems to me, however, that a sensible alternvative exists. Why not designate one or two flights on every route for cell phones, then maintain the ban for the rest? That way, cell phoners would be forced to ride together, sparing the rest of us their cacophony. Not a perfect solution, but certainly better than what's been proposed.

Now if only airlines would consider doing the same for parents who fly with small children...

Oh God...

2004-12-28T01:22:00.000-05:00

I am not a religious man. I consider myself agnostic mostly because my fear of dying keeps me hoping against hope that there is an afterlife. As the death toll from this weekend's tsunami continues to rise with no end in sight, however, I'm reminded why I just can't bring myself to believe in God.

Many philsophers have wondered why a benevolent supreme being would allow so much evil in the world. One popular answer is that free will is important to God - so much so that He's willing to tolerate Hiroshima, the Holocaust, Sept. 11th, and the like. But free will can't begin to explain natural disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes.

That's God's work, pure and simple. And I have yet to hear even a moderately plausible explanation for why God would want to murder 25,000 people, one third of them children, with a tidal wave.

UPDATE:
Make that 44,000 and counting. Are you there, God? It's South Asia calling...

User Kozinski

2004-12-13T15:58:00.000-05:00

Over on Slate, resident press commentator Jack Schafer has some very interesting suggestions for who should take over Bill Safire's column in the NY Times. (Link courtesy of uber-appellate blog How Appealing.) Perhaps his most intriguing is Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I'm a big fan of Judge Kozinski, despite his libertarian-conservative bent. He's at the top of my list of conservatives (just behind Judge Posner) whose nominations to the Supreme Court I could support. And his witty and articulate writing would be welcome on a weekly basis as a column in the Times.

My question is, why stop there? Judge Kozinski is supposedly a huge cinephile. His opinion in U.S. v. Syufy, a case involving an antitrust suit against a cineplex owner, reportedly has some 500 references to names of films hidden in the text. (See here for a key.) And, if the comments on IMDB are any indication, a certain "user kozinski" in LA has some very pointed views on a wide variety of fims.

My proposal? Forget about a measly column. Make Kozinki the Times' new film critic.

Hunka Hunka Bernie Love...

2004-12-13T10:14:00.000-05:00

Did anyone seriously think that Bernard Kerik's withdrawal from consideration as Secretary of Homeland Security really had to do with his employment of an illegal immigrant nanny? I know my BS detectors were firing like mad when I heard the news.

Now the other shoe has dropped. Kerik has reportedly been carrying on a menage a quattro with his wife and two mistresses, one of whom was notoriously lusty publisher Judith Regan. All of this at a secret love nest in Battery Park City.

As Cindy Adams would say, only in New York, kids...only in New York.

Facegate

2004-12-04T11:10:00.000-05:00

Looks like a face may well decide the Ukrainian election fight, though it thankfully won't be James Baker's goblin visage.

Take a look at these disturbing closeups of Yushchenko's face and tell me they don't scream foul play. If this was indeed the work of Yanukovich (or Putin) what in the world was he thinking?

Yushchenko's scarlet scarred image will be a daily reminder of, and devastating visual metaphor for, his opponents' wrongdoing. Images like this will only rally people to his cause. They'll elect him in a hospital bed if they have to.

Maybe anonymous is right. Maybe this really is a tipping point.

Finally

2004-12-03T13:36:00.000-05:00

I have to admit, I'm really rather pleased by the selection of Bernard Kerik as the new Secretary of Homeland security. Not that I'm a big fan of Kerik, specifically. I personally find him to be a fascist in the mold of Giuliani. I'm just glad they finally put a New Yorker - any New Yorker - in charge of combatting terror.

As someone who lives and works in Manhattan, I know I'm in the crosshairs every day. I can't stand it when some righteous red stater presumes to lecture me about terrorism. For too long, people who aren't in the zone of danger have been permitted to make life or death decisions about the security of people like me, who are.

That's got to stop. Hopefully, Kerik's appointment is the first step.

Supreme Court to Decide Election...

2004-11-29T10:53:00.000-05:00

...in Ukraine. The names may change, but the story remains the same. You'll know it's over when Ukranians turn on the tube and are greeted by James Baker's ugly mug and tobacco-stained teeth.

Blind and Ignorant

2004-11-28T16:45:00.000-05:00

I’ve been reading some really good books recently, and a new favorite has me thinking a lot about one of my oldest. The new book is Blindness, the Nobel Prize winning fiction work by Jose Saramago. The old favorite is A Theory of Justice by John Rawls, one of the most important works of nonfiction ever penned.

The premise of Blindness is, by now, well known. A mysterious epidemic of blindness sweeps an unnamed country, leading first to quarantine and ultimately to chaos. Virtually the entire populace is swiftly rendered helpless. People struck blind on the street can’t even find their way home.

Many reviews have focused on how the quarantine scenes eloquently echo all manner of 20th Century horrors. But Blindness is more than a history lesson – it’s also a reminder of the importance of empathizing with helplessness in the here and now. Best to treat the truly disadvantaged well because you never know when you might become one yourself.

That’s pretty close to the central premise of A Theory of Justice, too. Rawls’s basic point was that we judge the justness of a society, in large part, by how well it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members. What’s really interesting, though, is that blindness was a key metaphor for Rawls as well.

At the core of his book was a thought experiment designed to instill empathy for the worst off in society. Rawls asked readers to ponder what principles of justice people might choose if they were blinded to the biases of their individual attributes (e.g., strength, intelligence, race, class, religion, etc.).

Rawls posited that hypothetical people deliberating behind such a “veil of ignorance” would choose principles that maximized the lot of the least advantaged. Uncertainty, Rawls reasoned, would force deliberators to identify with the plight of the worst off. No one would want to risk a life of abject poverty.

I have no idea if Saramago has heard of, let alone read, Rawls. It's doubtful only because the former hails from Portugal, while the latter lived and died in the US. Regardless, the overlaps in message and metaphor are intriguing - all the moreso since these two books could not be more different in every other way.

Artest-tic Temperament

2004-11-22T17:10:00.000-05:00

It absolutely amazes me that, in all the debate over whether Ron Artest was right or wrong to go into the stands, most have ignored this important fact:

Artest went after the wrong guy.

If you watch the video carefully, the fan he attacked wasn't the guy who throw the cup that (re)ignited the brawl. Artest's victim was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Don't misunderstand me - I'm not saying it would have been fine for Artest to attack the cup thrower. Retaliation would be wrong even then because of the risk that innocent bystanders might be harmed by mistake. Just ask the Oakland A's fan who was hit recently by a chair aimed at her husband.

But that would at least be understandable. Here, Artest didn't even know who attacked him. Instead, he simply lashed out blindly at a convenient target. Nothing can justify that.

Taxman?

2004-11-18T08:55:00.000-05:00

Freaky liberal that I am, I'm generally predisposed in favor of attempts to transfer wealth from rich to poor. I must admit I'm skeptical, however, of proposals to redistribute using refundable tax credits. This notion has gained momentum in the aftermath of Bush's reelection - the assumption being that Republicans will be more receptive (or at least less hostile) to tax credits.

I don't doubt that such credits are politically plasuble. I do wonder whether they really work. For tax credits to be effective, people have to take advantage of them. And I, for one, am doubtful that poor people actually do.

I have yet to see any empirical evidence (either way) on this point. But I've heard enough stories from CPAs in poor neighborhoods to know my fears aren't unfounded. Many poor folks can't afford professionals to do their taxes. They're forced to turn instead to unlicensed preparers, who simply file the same return over and over again. I've even met one of these shady characters. Needless to say, he did not seem to be on top of the tax code.

Like I said, I'm all in favor of redistribution. Nor am I some kind of reactionary who hates tax cuts of any kind. But I am a pragmatist, which means I care about results. And I have yet to be convinced refundable tax credits actually deliver.

Sigh of Relief

2004-11-11T16:51:00.000-05:00

How sad is it that I actually breathed a sigh of relief at the news of Yasir Arafat's passing? Not that I’m pleased he's dead - though I’m sure there are plenty who are. I’m simply relieved because I believe there can never be peace in the Middle East until he and Sharon are both out of the picture.

It wasn’t always this way. I can remember waking up in college to that improbable front-page photo of Arafat and Rabin shaking hands in the White House rose garden. I was so convinced of the event's historical significance that I actually saved that paper. I still sometimes pull it out and marvel how the possibilities for peace seemed limitless back then.

But that was before Rabin's assassination, and before Arafat walked away from the table at Camp David. Like a lot of people, the latter moment was when Arafat really lost me. I was willing to overlook the blood already on his hands because he seemed to be bargaining in earnest. But then he rejected a deal acceding to the vast majority of Palestinian demands. Still worse, he cut off talks and escalated attacks on Israeli civilians.

It was then that I finally accepted Arafat was not a serious partner for peace.

So I breathe my sigh of relief at his death - much as I did when Marion Barry announced he would not be running again for Mayor of Washington, DC. But the relief is tinged with regret. Like Barry, Arafat's legacy will primarily be one of promise wasted. That's perhaps the saddest legacy of all.

Irrational Choice

2004-11-09T10:26:00.000-05:00

My friend Karen no longer believes in economics, and I'm inclined to agree. In this election, rednecks in red states consistently rejected their economic interest to vote republican. Meanwhile, bluebloods in blue states defied their own economic interest by voting with equal zeal for democrats.

The lesson? People just aren't rational utility maxmizers. Or if they are, money is a pitiful proxy for utility.

Sunday Blues

2004-11-07T10:54:00.000-05:00

Every Sunday I have a cetain ritual: I wake up to NPR, then stumble upstairs to make coffee, read the Times, and catch the talking heads on television. Some people go to church on Sundays. I worship at the altar of wonkdom.

As a result, I'm typically resentful when my sacred routine gets disrupted by sporting events or pledge drives. The latter are less of a problem - I can always listen to NPR from somewhere else via the internet.* But when I turn on the tube expecting Tim Russert, and am greeted instead by Tiger Woods, my day takes a turn for the worse.

This Sunday is different, however, and not in the good "I feel like a brunch break" sort of way. The New York Marathon has preempted my favorite political shows, but I could not care less.

The reason, of course, is this damn election. It has me in such a funk that I find it difficult to consume food, let alone talk of politics. Normally, the "Voices in the News" segment is my favorite on WeSun. I'm a sucker for that juxtaposition of audio clips from public figures with pleasantly urgent background music.

This morning, however, I had to turn the radio off. Just too painful...

*I still, of course, support my local affiliate, WNYC.

Blubberer

2004-11-06T11:26:00.000-05:00

Back before the internet, answering machines were the repository of a phenomenon my friend has dubbed “blubbering.” The name is strangely apt: it refers to the downward spiral of increasingly lame explanatory messages that follow the first stupid message you never should have left on the machine of a romantic interest.

The blubbering phenomenon was hilariously chronicled in an early episode of Seinfeld in which George leaves a string of progressively more pathetic messages on the machine of a woman he’s seeing. Hijincks ensue as he conscripts Jerry in an elaborate plot to replace her answering machine tape with a blank.

As e-mail has become as ubiquitous as voice, blubbering has successfully made the technological leap. In fact, the problem has gotten even worse for some in cyberspace. Sending an e-mail is so simple. Leaving a phone message may seem only marginally more difficult. But the difference is enough to deter people like me, who are slightly telephobic.

When it comes to e-mail, though, I am a total blubberer. Not surprisingly, this lack of inhibition has nipped a few promising relationships in the bud. I write something stupid, then compound the error by backpedaling furiously over e-mail. The pen of poison quickly degenerates into one of pathos. It’s not a pretty thing to see…

So I’m turning over a new leaf. No more blubbering - though the temptation is great at the moment. There is a certain Ms. X who was just the recipient of one such misguided message. Even now, I am fighting every instinct to start the vicious cycle by writing to explain the election has me completely out of sorts. But I know it won’t end there, and I don’t want to blow it with this one.

Oh, who am I kidding? Let the blubbering begin!

Supreme Opportunity

2004-11-05T13:40:00.000-05:00

Okay, Mr. President, time to get down to business. With the news of Justice Rehnquist's health growing more dire by the day, it is clear that you will soon be appointing a new justice to the Supreme Court. The catch is that you don't have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. That means no Justices Alito, Estrada, Gonzales, or Luttig.

But here's a compromise that this Democrat can live with: Justice Richard Posner.

Think about it. He's a libertarian conservative who's skeptical of, but not rabidly opposed to, the right to privacy. In fact, his passionate dissent in the Hope Clinic case remains the most powerful indictment on record of so-called "partial birth" abortion laws. What better way to prove your claim that you have no litmus test than by appointing him to the high court?

Posner is, moreover, the most brilliant and prolific jurist on the federal bench - bar none. He is this generation's Oliver Wendell Holmes. Virtually every attempt to rank the federal judiciary rates Posner first. He appeals to arch conservatives like Ann Coulter, who has placed him on her "dream team" of federal jurists. And liberals like me can respect the integrity of his opinions - even when we disagree.

None of which is to suggest that Posner would be an easy sell. His paper trail is sufficiently long and controversial that liberals and conservatives alike will find plenty to hate. Still, there isn't a doubt in my mind that an independent thinker like Posner would be an absolutely brilliant addition to the Supreme Court.

Which is precisely why the President won't even think of nominating him.

Edwards-Obama...

2004-11-04T13:48:00.000-05:00

...in 2008. Remember, you read it here first.

The Mourning After

2004-11-03T13:00:00.000-05:00

I've long considered myself a cynical idealist. I wear my irony and sarcasm on my sleeve. But deep down, in my heart of hearts, I've always wanted to believe the best about people.

My idealism has weathered much in 30 years. It has stared down racism, and overcome betrayals by friends and lovers alike. It has endured exploitative bosses and disillusionment with too many personal heroes. It has survived earthquakes, fires, and even that terrible morning in Southern Manhattan, when I watched the towers burn.

Last night, however, some significant part of my idealism died. I was convinced my fellow citizens would make the right choice - I wanted so badly to believe. That they rewarded my faith by reelecting this pathetic excuse for a president was the cruelest disappointment of all.

So congratulations, Red States of America. You have successfully murdered my idealism. Never again will I have faith in my fellow Americans. You are idiots and you deserve all the misery you reap from four more years of the same.

Network Nonsense

2004-11-02T18:29:00.000-05:00

Spare me that sanctimonious network nonsense about "restraint" and "getting it right." I want my exit polling now!

More of the Same...

2004-11-02T17:36:00.000-05:00

I realize this is a bit belated, but I'm frankly puzzled by the apparent consensus that we don't know which presidential candidate Bin Laden prefers. It's long been clear to me that he's a Bush backer - a conclusion only reinforced by UBL's recent video message. The key line, I think, is this:

All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

(Full text here.) Bin Laden is clearly suggesting that Bush and Co. are easily manipulable. When you consider that the rest of UBL's speech is devoted to his gloating about the benefits reaped by Al Qaeda from W's WWWar, it becomes quite clear what Bin Laden wants.

More of the same.

Be Careful What You Wish for...

2004-11-01T20:47:00.000-05:00

It’s the eve of the election, and the ether is abuzz with predictions from across the spectrum. I’d add my own to the mix, but I’m profoundly superstitious. So, rather than jinx my favored guy (I’ll say only that he’s the true heir to George H.W. Bush) I offer my fellow democrats this warning instead:

Be careful what you wish for - even if we win, we may still lose.

I worry that W may have mucked things up so badly in Iraq that no one, not even a President Kerry with the full backing of our allies, will be able to fix Bush and Blair’s fine mess. The worst part is not the new generation of radicals we’ve created and trained. It’s the way we’ve poisoned even moderates against us - in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world.

I fear there isn’t enough glue in the world to repair what we have shattered. And I don’t want democrats to be left paying Bush's bill.

I know it’s selfish to think this way - premature, too. And let’s be clear that none of this will keep me from voting for my Candidate tomorrow. But republicans have proven themselves quite adept at the blame game. They'd have no qualms about pinning W’s WWWar on a President Kerry. That thought scares me more than anything I saw last night on Halloween.

He Just Doesn't Get It

2004-11-01T13:50:00.000-05:00

Just wanted to give a quick shout out to my friend and former law school classmate, Matt Wood, who has been working with a pro-Kerry PAC named "Win Back Respect." They've put together an ad that cuttingly contrasts Bush's jokes about our failure to find WMDs in Iraq with the story of Brooke Campbell, whose brother was killed in Iraq searching for the same.

I've long been saying that this is the kind of ad democrats should be running, not those ridiculous National Guard spots. I just hope it isn't too late...

Name, Rank, and Hypocrisy

2004-10-29T11:55:00.000-04:00

In a pathetic attempt to pass the buck regarding the burgeoning Al Qaqaa scandal (has there ever been one better named?) Rudy Giuliani has reportedly blamed our troops for the loss of the explosives in question. Rudy says it's the fault of the soldiers, not their commander in chief, for failing to look hard enough.

Riiight...

Can you imagine the reaction if John Kerry - or any other democrat - were to make such an outrageous charge? The backlash would be swift and brutal - possibly even career threatening. But watch for Giuliani, who's rapidly becoming the republicans' new Bob Dole, to remain blissfully unscathed by his bout of foot-in-mouth disease.

Nauseating!

Total Eclipse of the Curse

2004-10-28T14:50:00.000-04:00

If the ground beneath you feels a bit cold this morning, that's probably because hell froze over last night. The Boston Red Sox completed a clean sweep of the St. Louis Cardinals to win their first world series in 86 years.

It's been said but bears repeating...86 years. Whole lives have been lived without ever seeing the Sox victorious. Until last night, I was pretty sure my own would be the same - that new england fatalism is hard to shake. But the best part is that the Sox didn't just beat the curse, they totally eclipsed it. The way the they won is guaranteed to make fans forget the sins of the fathers.

These were, quite simply, the Bizarro Sox. Past teams were the victims of so many improbable rallies. This time around it was the Sox who, down 0-3 in the ALCS, repeatedly rallied against the longest odds. Even their 4-0 series sweep was profoundly uncharacteristic. Usually, nothing - neither victory nor defeat - comes easily for the Sox.

And those images: Schilling's crimson sock; Varitek striving valiantly to catch Wakefield's elusive knuckler; Lowe standing tall with rediscovered confidence; Cabrera's coiled stance; Papi and Bellhorn's totally different but equally dramatic homers down the line; the crazy manes of Pedro, Manny, and Johnny (whose locks, I recently learned, are also highlighted); the lunar eclipse(!). All so indelible - and all but certain to cleanse the mind of Dent, Buckner, and Co.

So rejoice, my Red Sox friends. And no more bellyaching about curses or the world series, please. My Gigantes haven't won since 1954.

The Lost Benefactor Standing

2004-10-25T20:29:00.000-04:00

This year, ABC has the dual-edged distinction of having the best and worst new television shows of the season. The best is actually not the much ballyhooed Desperate Housewives (aka “Sex: the Next Generation”). Rather, ABC’s top contribution is “Lost” from J.J. Abrams, the creative force behind Alias, previously the crown jewel in ABC’s pathetic primetime line-up.

I was never a fan of Alias, but I am a total Loser.

I could describe Lost's plot, which follows the fortunes of 48 survivors marooned Lord of the Flies style by a plane crash (rather disturbingly depicted in the pilot) on a mysterious island in the south pacific. But some of the island’s specific mysteries (e.g., giant monsters, a stray polar bear, possible aliens) seem sillier in print than they do on screen.

Besides, the real brilliance of Lost lies in two features. First, the writers have taken great care to construct elaborate (and rather dark) back-stories for each of the main characters. There’s even a hint that these twisted histories may figure somehow into the plot. Regardless, they give the characters a degree of depth that is quite compelling.

Second, the show combines familiar genres in a highly original way. Abrams and Co. have taken the Survivor/Castaway scenario and crossed it with elements of The X-Files, Twilight Zone, and the Stand. The result is a fresh take on old ingredients that might otherwise seem stale. In this anxiously postmodern age where everything’s been done, that's pretty much the only route to creativity.

One sign of Lost’s success is the intensive speculation it has spawned on internet bulletin boards (e.g., lost-tv and imdb). This is in marked contrast to ABC’s other show of note, the notorious Benefactor, which stars Mark Cuban in a pathetically transparent rip-off NBC’s the Apprentice. The Benefactor’s boards are filled with threads like “Worst Reality Show Ever,” and “Please, God, Make it Stop.”

Thankfully, the Benefactor's run is now done. In fairness, I only saw a few episodes: one at the start, another in the middle, and the final one, too. All of them, however, were just terrible. Again, dwelling on specifics would fail to do justice. I will say that I remember thinking early on that, if one particularly absurd character, Dominic, made it to the finals, the show would be a joke. Needless to say, he did.

But the real problem was, quite frankly, Cuban himself. Both the Benefactor and its (ahem) inspiration, the Apprentice, are really about their pompous hosts. And both the Donald and the Benefactor are ultimately ridiculous guys. Trump, however, somehow manages to maintain at least a façade of respectability, while Cuban actually seems to revel in his ridiculousness. The latter’s show was quite literally about his ego, with Cuban quite explicitly judging contestants on their ability to “entertain” him.

The result was an arrogant mess, giving ABC perhaps the worst reality show ever, and the mixed distinction alluded to above.

Dame Mutability

2004-10-25T10:40:00.000-04:00

So the Boston Red Sox are now up two games to none in the world series. The optimist in me thinks this is great - roughly 80% of teams that take a 2-0 lead in a best of seven series have gone on to win. Some fans are already talking like maybe the curse is toast. If the sox go up 3-0 on Tuesday night, look for their tentative arrogance to blossom into full hubris.

The pessimist in me, however, cautions that Dame Mutability may still have some diabolical twist in store. Remember, this is the sox we're talking about - the team that's made a pastime of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. What more fitting red sox finish could there be than for them to rally heroically from a 3-0 deficit in the ALCS, only to blow a 3-0 lead in the world series?

Nothing - not even game six in '86 - could match that heartbreak. Which is precisely why, as someone who lived in New England for seven cold years, I find the possibility so frighteningly plausible.

Cards v. Sox

2004-10-22T10:15:00.000-04:00

Two of the best offenses in baseball, facing off against two very flawed pitching staffs. As wild as those LCSs were, it's going to be one hell of a world series.

Living Is Easy With Eyes Closed

2004-10-21T17:09:00.000-04:00

Evangelical guru Pat Robertson has reportedly become the latest prominent conservative to rat out the President for his refusal to face reality regarding the war in Iraq. Apparently, the President insisted to Robertson just prior to invading: "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties." As Pat puts it: "he was just sitting there like 'I am on top of the world.'"

Not surprisingly, Karl Rove has denied the conversation ever took place. But here's my question: what possible reason would Robertson have to lie? Or Paul Bremer? Or Paul O'Neill? All of them tell such a consistent tale of a president living with eyes closed. And all of them have so much to lose by alienating such a powerful potential ally.

Sorry, Karl, it just doesn't add up.

Do You Believe in Miracles?

2004-10-21T10:20:00.000-04:00

Yes!

Dick Cheney's Daughter Update

2004-10-20T19:46:00.000-04:00

Still a lesbian.

Get the Hell Out of My Office!

2004-10-20T15:05:00.000-04:00

Fox is running promos for a new reality show ("My Big Fat Obnoxious Boss") in which pompous ivy league graduates humiliate themselves competing for a cash prize and job that don't exist. The boss's catch phrase for firings is apparently "Get the hell out of my office."

Personally, I can't wait.

j.f. kerry?

2004-10-20T13:42:00.000-04:00

Over on Slate, Chris Sullentrop confirms Coco Seven's sad report that Candidate Kerry remains incapable of uttering simple declarative sentences on the stump. I can't deny this is disappointing news--I had hoped Kerry's succinct performances at the debates might cure him of the urge to bloviate.

I'll admit I've given Kerry my fair share of flack for this. But I also find it odd that he gets so much grief, while someone like Donald Rumsfeld is roundly praised as sexy and brilliant for committing the same sin. Slate has, after all, run at least two articles on the "Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld." As I recall, some of Rummy's answers at press conferences have even been set to music.

Obviously, Rumsfeld is not running for President, and I accept that simplicity does not necessarily entail stupidity. Still, it saddens me that the anti-intellectualism in this country has reached the point where presidential candidates can't be subtle or complex. It kind of reminds me of those stories you hear about poor kids who get their asses kicked for showing any book smarts.

Except here we're talking about a candidate for the highest office in the land. Sad...

Did you hear?

2004-10-19T13:13:00.000-04:00

Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian...

Just for the record, I still maintain that mentioning Dick's daughter during the debates was a legitimate and brilliant gamble--ex ante. Now that things have gone sour ex post, of course, dems are scrambling to spin the reference as purely positive. Puh-leeze. Such protestations have about as much credibility as Bill Parcells's caveat: "No disrespect to the orientals..."

But republicans are equally full of it when they insist the reference was meant to drive a wedge between the administration and its christian conservative base. That explanation just doesn't wash since Cheneys have been quite candid about their daughter's sexual preference, and Mary Cheney is herself an official in the Bush-Cheney campaign.

No, I think the comment was clearly meant to appeal to swingers, who were pretty much the sole focus of Kerry's attention all night. He was pointing out the hypocrisy of an administration that sees no contradiction between running an overtly homophobic presidential campaign, and having an open homosexual as a campaign official.

What's more, I think it's Kerry's failure to own up to that motive, almost more than the comment itself, that has people really pissed. If he had simply come clean and rendered explicit what I saw as implicit in his attack, I don't think the backlash would have been anywhere as strong.

Oh, and by the way, Dick Cheney's daughter? Lesbian.

He Let Us Down

2004-10-15T10:35:00.000-04:00

In 2000, The Lone Star Iconoclast endorsed George W. Bush for President. No great surprise since the Iconoclast is Bush's hometown paper in Crawford, TX. This year, however, the Iconoclast has turned its back on Bush, endorsing John Kerry in a blistering indictment of the Prez. I urge everyone to read this editorial, which frankly gives me hope. Thanks to Doonesbury for pointing us all in its direction.

Swingers

2004-10-14T21:08:00.000-04:00

I have to be honest, I thought Bush narrowly won the last debate. Though far from perfect, he was better by a hair, particularly on style. He got more natural laughs, and came across generally as more charming. He gave excellent answers on education, and flu vaccine - the flip of drug imports was smooth - even if it was all a bunch of crap. And his painfully genuine profession of faith was at once moving and disturbing.

But this really was Kerry’s debate to lose, and I think he did - for the most part. He missed so many opportunities yet seemed so smug. The one that infuriated me the most was his failure to hit stem cells harder. Scheiffer hung a curve with the question on abortion and stem cells, and not once did Kerry mention the latter. Instead he missed the pitch completely by babbling on incoherently about his faith.

Just disturbing - nothing moving about it. Argh!

Still, it’s possible Kerry was pursuing a winning strategy in this respect. He focused relentlessly all night on jobs, health care, and Iraq. My suspicion is these are the issues that have been poll tested to appeal to swing voters. I thought he lost sight of the forest from the trees this debate, showing too little of the vision thing. But if the dems' goal was to maximize this last appearance before the swingers…well, I can live with that.

They'd just better be right.

Wrap It Up!

2004-10-12T20:36:00.000-04:00

Coco Seven Mile, who is campaigning(?) in Ohio, has an excellent suggestion for Candidate Kerry. Coco urges that Kerry be banned from using words like "however," "except," "even though," and the like on the campaign trail. I quite agree, and have a further suggestion, modelled on comedian Dave Chappelle's brilliant "Wrap It Up!" device, for the bloviating Senator has he stumps.

Much as Dave's device truncates ramblers (of all kinds) with music, Kerry should be put on a system of lights like at the debates. He's been better than any other candidate, including Edwards, at managing the lights. Any time Kerry starts to run on senatorially, therefore, a red light should immediately begin flashing. Signalling, of course, that it's time for him to wrap it up!

You'll Put Your Eye Out!

2004-10-12T20:07:00.000-04:00

I have to admit, it annoys me a bit when baseball teams celebrate winning the division series with champagne celebrations in the locker room. By all means, go out and have a wild time on the town afterwards. Partying in the clubhouse, however, strikes me as dangerously premature. Just ask Tom Gordon, who was hit in the eye by an errant cork after the Yankees won their division series with Minnesota.

Wait until the league championship series, please. Finally, as a reminder to both the Yanks and Sox, win or lose, here are Bart Giamatti's moving words on the game, inspired by your rivalry:

It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone. You count on it, rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops. Today, October 2, a Sunday of rain and broken branches and leaf-clogged drains and slick streets, it stopped, and summer was gone.

"The Green Fields of the Mind." Can you guess Bart's team of choice? I'll give you a hint: R Sox. No wait...that's too obvious. How about Red S?

Hyperbole

2004-10-09T09:51:00.000-04:00

Okay, so maybe Kerry didn't throttle him. Bush finished more strongly than he started, and this performance probably was better, as a whole, than his first. But I thought Kerry really raised the bar. As good as he was before, he was far better last night--almost brutally effective. He also successfully irritated Bush early on by repeatedly and directly confronting the President.

That latter point is why I felt Kerry was winning by such a large margin--at first. Bush was way too strident at the start and seemed to alienate the audience by coming dangerously close to screaming. But he definitely pulled it together by being the only candidate left who's capable of successfully cracking a joke. Bush used his self-deprecating humor to reassure audience members, who were charmed. I have to think TV viewers reacted the same way.

One other point: I am now convinced Bush was using an earpiece. I don't think we saw it in that picture of the bulge--my guess is that's a bulletproof vest of some kind. But I watched Bush closely in those reaction shots using tivo. He wrote little if anything down. He frequently stared into space when Kerry was speaking--not all the time but often.

Then there was that rude exchange with Moderator Gibson where W just started talking over pompous Charlie. I suspect Karl Rove was screaming for him just to say whatever he wants, to ignore the question. I think Bush misinterpreted that to mean interrupt the moderator and don't even let him ask the question. How else to explain such a damningly rude exchange?

Wow...

2004-10-08T22:16:00.000-04:00

...Kerry is absolutely throttling Bush. ("Internets" plural?) The president has lost the audience, and even his supporters look grey with worry. The $200,000 tax pledge was dangerous but Kerry had to do it. He's a lot like Bush the elder...accused of being a waffler.

But back to the point. This is a blowout.

When to Say Goodbye

2004-10-08T11:21:00.000-04:00

Some advice and a prediction for Kerry in advance of tonight's debate:

First, the prediction. Bush's performance will be significantly better than expected tonight. Just as Kerry confounded the conventional wisdom that strict time limits would hurt him, President Bush is much better suited to a town hall format than pundits are giving him credit. He may mangle words left and right, but he can still be a very charming and effective communicator. Bush just understands people better than Kerry, and I will not be shocked if the former turns out to rock the town hall debate.

Second, the advice. Here is what Kerry should say in response to the question of when we should pull out of Iraq:

"When the situation has stablized, we will leave. It's foolish to set arbitrary deadlines, so I won't. But here are some indicators that will tell us when things are good enough to go. When the number of coalition casualties is no longer rising every month, it's time for us to go. When we are no longer bearing the majority of those casualties and the costs of recontructing Iraq, it's time for us to go. When foreign fighters are no longer pouring unchecked over the border, it's time for us to go."

Get us off this ludicrous talk of democracy. I hate to be a pessimist, but it ain't gonna happen.

Pity Poor Ralph

2004-10-07T15:18:00.000-04:00

I was a Nader traitor in 2000 (albeit in California) and wake up every day regretting my advocacy of his run. Like a lot of supporters, Michael Moore included, I particularly rue Ralph's decision to campaign in the battleground states. Not that Gore shouldn't bear an equal share of the blame for his loss. In my heart of hearts, however, I truly think Ralph cost Gore the election, and that President Gore would have meant no Iraq war.

Needless to say, I was furious when I first learned that Ralph was running again. How, I wondered, could such a great man have failed to learn his lesson? Recently, however, I've found my anger turning to concern and pity. Could Ralph simply be losing his mind? Then I read today that he believes Bush and Kerry's membership in Skull and Bones, the Yale secret society, is behind their shared support for the Iraq war.

Oh, Ralph...please.

I know several people who spent their senior year in that silly tomb. I'm confident none of them would have gone to war with Iraq. They represent what a President Kerry would have done.

See Dick Lie

2004-10-06T10:49:00.000-04:00

If you smell something strange this morning, it's probably the odor of Dick Cheney's pants burning from all the lies he told last night. One of his best lines was that John Edwards has been absent from the Senate so much that their debate was the first time the two had ever met. Too bad it's a big fat lie.

That said, it appears I'm in the minority who thought the debate was pretty much a draw. Some have suggested that Cheney started weak by dwelling on minutiae, but I have to disagree. Cheney needed to reassure voters after the President's subpar performance that someone of substance was in charge. I think he did that by demonstrating his mastery of policy detail at the beginning of the debate.

Cheney's problem was he lost too much steam as the night went on. I'm not just talking about his posture, which slowly deflated like some hideous thanksgiving day parade balloon over the course of the evening. Like Bush, Cheney got petulant and seemed to run out of things to say. Plus, his closing statement was atrocious.

I thought Edwards was the reverse. He scored points at the beginning with his line that the administration was still lying about Iraq. But he started nervously, as evidenced by his excessive blinking (sort of the anti-Forbes) and many minor verbal miscues. I think Edwards actually grew stronger as the debate progressed. Cheney came in gloves off, swinging for the chin. His barbs made Edwards bristle (albeit almost imperceptibly) and seemed to wake the latter up.

Edwards, too, accomplished his goals. He rearticulated the ticket's core positions in clear and consistent terms. He also reassured voters that someone felt their pain--a sentiment reinforced by his masterful closing statement. Plus, Edwards got his shots in, too. That reference to Cheney's daughter was brilliant.

Again, no knockout punches were landed. Both tickets lived to fight another day, raising the stakes that much higher for the next presidential debate. If democrats came out ahead, it was in this respect: while Cheney reassured people that he was in control, Edwards made it clear that Kerry runs their show. And the latter arrangement just maps more neatly onto our expectations of what a presidential administration should look like.

I doubt this will be decisive, but on some basic level, it does - and should - trouble us that a vice president is pulling all the strings. If Kerry is smart, he'll make a point of this at both subsequent debates with Bush.