|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ben A. |
Ben H. |
Doug |
Later |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
Dark Places Indeed
Dao is still in Mallhalla, so here I am flipping through the channels, alone. World Wrestling Smackdown is on the W.B. tonight from Grand Rapids, Michigan. I like to watch professional wrestling as a kind of advanced exercise in goodwill, trying to find some shred of cherishable commonality between myself and its fans, straining to feel something other than contempt. Alas, I can't pull it off now, given the mood I've been in today (see Africa post below).
There is, however, something especially cool on Smackdown tonight. Remember the Iron Sheik and the one Russian wrestler (whose name escapes me) and the other representatives of "bad guy" ethnicities? Guess who's the present-day ethnic bad guy. That's right, René Dupree, the (let's say) "fabulous" Frenchman in pink tights. I only caught the pre-match taunting, which consisted of an enormous pillar of steroids draped in a Michigan State jersey (1) accusing M. Dupree of being anxious to start the match just so he might feel him (the steroid pillar) up and then (2) tossing what appeared to be an airline pack of peanuts at M. Dupree's feet and saying "Choke on these nuts." This did not prevent M. Dupree from prancing around the ring waving the drapeau tricolore, to the consternation of many Grand Rapids youngsters, whose shouts were indistinct on the television, but presumably much less elliptical than the MSU guy's. (I assume "Nancy boy!" was not among them; that would have been funnier than the actual shouts, I'm sure.)
[3/25/04 23:30] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Excuse For My Gratuitous Negativity
My no-hope-for-Africa comment was gratuitous, sure, but it was triggered by pent-up annoyance at decades of gratuitous positivity about the continent. For my entire life I've had to suffer, at roughly monthly intervals, media pieces of the "Africa may finally be turning the corner!" variety. Meanwhile, over these same 31 years, the place has just gone from bad to worse to unimaginably worse -- genocides, cannibalism, Muslims outlawing vaccination. Sometimes I tell myself that Africans are used to the poverty and hence don't really suffer so much. Then I read things like last year's New Yorker article on Abidjan, Ivory Coast, which used to be the sole decent city in West Africa. At the end the author talks to an average kid on the street. "This is hell," the kid says. "Please, get me out of here."
[3/25/04 17:43] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Clarke
I try to avoid writing on current politics. First, what the hell do I know? Second, you will hear it better elsewhere. In the case of the Richard Clarke affair, however, I am trying to work out my thoughts, and so will inflict them on you.
Of course, all the facts are not yet out, after Clarke’s testimony more will be known. Caveat, caveat, caveat. But why not speculate? Stipulate Clarke’s basic account as accurate, and what follows? I think it looks something like this:
Weak Claims (Less Damaging)
1. The Bush administration, or at least substantial portions of it, came into office focused on the threat posed by Iraq; so much so that other threats took second place. This view predominated prior to 9/11, to the detriment of focus on Al Queda
2. The invasion of Iraq has drawn focus away from the effort to root out Al Queda
3. Immediately after 9/11 the administration focused on finding an Iraqi connection to the attack
Strong Claims (More Damaging)
1. The current administration was derelict in dealing with Al Queda before 9/11, perhaps so much so that the attacks could have been prevented
2. By focusing on Iraq, the administration has bungled the pursuit of Al Queda
3. The administration has bungled the “War on Terror” post 9/11 quite independently of the focus on Iraq
4. Elements of the administration are irresponsible, as evinced by Rumsfeld advocating the bombing of Iraq on 9/12
Can anyone really doubt that the weak claims are true? The administration’s early concern with, or more pejoratively “obsession with,” Iraq requires little additional comment. In any event, it has immense independent confirmation. The second weak claim seems to me common sense: no organization can have two #1 priorities, particularly when one priority is organizing an invasion half way round the globe. Claim 3 seems immensely probable, especially given that many people (like James Woolsey, e.g.) suspected an Iraqi connection to the first WTC bombing in 1993.
So let those go. What of the Clarke’s more damaging implications? The claim I’ve put fourth seems most difficult to dispute. Either Clarke is lying about Rumsfeld’s cloud cuckoo comments, or he isn’t. And why would he lie? Also, it fits the picture of the shoot-from-the-hip secretary that has been advanced from other sources.
What we have left are the strong claims 1-3. These form the meat of the indictment, and I find them much more difficult to assess. Claim one is the big one – the possibility that Bush and company frittered away a chance to stop 9/11. If pressed, what would I say now? I don’t believe that anyone was going to stop the attacks. Nor do I think a blame-fixing expedition through the executive branch will definitively tar Bush, Clinton, or anyone. We already know that clues were missed. No one could connect the dots on middle-eastern guys in flight school who didn’t want to learn how to land the plane. With this as background, dropping the blame on the President’s lap seems an error.
Likewise the “bungling the war on terror” claims seem to me inconclusive. Claim two is less an accusation than a policy difference, in any event. Many old line Republican foreign policy intellectuals thought going after Saddam was bats. A coalition of Idealists and aggressive Realists defeated the cautious realist faction (guys like Scowcroft), and that’s all there is to it. Post 9/11 was Al Queda a bigger threat, or was it an aggressive, WMD-seeking despot who combined pan-Arabist ambitions with immense oil wealth? Tough call, I grant. But neither side counts as “bungling.”
Bungling would be, well, actually screwing up the ongoing anti-Al Queda campaign. No real evidence of this has been advanced, but it’s a possibility. Certainly the emerging non-partisan (or non-partisan as possible) consensus on the occupation planning suggests a group capable of dropping the ball. It will be interesting to see if Clarke’s testimony leads in this direction.
Addendum: See, this is why I shouldn't write on politics. Four hours later, the Post says the same thing, and better.
[3/23/04 23:08] |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
The World Turned Upside-Down
An early morning meeting last week required me to leave home before sun-up. I shouldered my bag, stepped out of the apartment, and promptly went head-over-heels on a patch of ice at the top of the stairs. My right hand held a briefcase, my left was too far from a railing, and so thump I went. Fortunately, my butt hit first, not my skull; so despite impressive air-time, the tumble did no lasting damage. The experience of helplessness, by contrast, stuck with me for days. It was a reminder, if I needed one, that our models of the world betray us. Assume the wrong coefficient of friction and down you go.
It recalled a Lampoon article giving the following definition of existentialism: “you know when you aren’t looking and reach for the glass of milk but end up drinking orange juice, you know that feeling? Imagine life was like that!” And so it is.
[3/23/04 18:48] |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
When Capital Is Cheap..
... capital goods replace labor. Chairman Greenspan: you can't always rate-cut your way to employment growth! Area for future research: does the "paradoxical effect" of extreme monetary easing on job creation extend to immigration? And, as a corollary, should we cut back on the immigration of the unskilled in spite of the protests of people like the orange growers, and see how innovation deals with the diminished supply of cheap (and negative-externality-spawning) labor? The above-references article suggests the answer the experiment might prove (forgive the pun) fruitful. So often, the response to calls for immigration reform has been that it will kill this or that industry, usually politically connected, dependent on cheap labor. Bullshit. It will mean that industry will have to innovate or to invest. But in an age of free capital, investment is not too much to ask.
[3/22/04 09:41] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Credit Where Credit's Due
John Kerry put out what I found to be a somewhat surprising statement on the situation in Venezuela. He forthrightly breaks with the Democrat orthodoxy on Chavez, as promulgated by the likes of Senator Dodd, namely that he is a popular leader deserving of support. I take this as a good sign, both about Kerry and about the future of Venezuela. The Kerry nuance is in evidence, though. "Too often in the past, this Administration has sent mixed signals by supporting undemocratic processes in our own hemisphere," writes Kerry, including "acquiescing in a coup" against Chavez in 2002. Hello? Didn't you just write that Chavez is a threat to U.S. interests and a menace to his own people? If you want to criticize Bush over Venezuela, shouldn't you be pointing out that he failed to give sufficient support to the coup?
[3/22/04 07:57] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Quick Update From California
I'm in Orange County visiting Dao's family (and hopefully some members of my own).
It's already been a pretty emotional trip. We met our new nephew Nicholas (a few weeks old), and saw Dao's grandmother just before she passed away this morning. Funeral arrangements are being made and many many members of the extended family are here or on the way. I hadn't ever spoken more than a couple formalities to her, but she was clearly a remarkable woman, as you could judge just from her many remarkable kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids. It's sad: I'll post more later of course.
Also on the subject of passings, I just learned that Dave Blood, the Dead Milkmen bassist we were just lamenting, was living with, and took his own life at the home of, some friends of ours. I'll probably post more about this too when I have time.
Also -- a detail that would risk causing Ben H. paroxysms of jealousy if he were now in snowy New York now rather than in Peru -- we're staying at Tom and Vien's new house which is literally across the street from the Fashion Island mall in Newport Beach. I hope to do some photoblogging. California still blows my mind.
[3/19/04 23:45] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Good News! It’s the Anti-Christ!
Pondering Doug’s discussion of magical realism, I realized that one specific sub-genre frustrates me similarly: the Christian-themed horror movie.
Whether you find yourself fighting the Devil, accidentally adopting his son, or even impregnated by the Prince of Lies, this is just excellent, excellent news. Pat yourself on the back, friend, because the existence of the Devil reliably indicates that you live in a universe governed by an all-powerful, benevolent Creator.
And we know how this story goes: Satan’s schemes? Frustrated. Revolt of the Angels? Quelled. Redemption of the righteous? Assured.
So some pin-bedecked homonculus starts a killing spree. What’s the damage? Third world despots create suffering on an impressive scale, but the depredations of Foday Sankoh don’t directly imply the ultimate triumph of the Lord of Hosts. So bring it on, you bat-winged wussies!
Why do screenwriters keep making this mistake? I think the problem stems from a difficulty in assimilating the true radicalism of monotheism. As Dorothy Sayers wrote:
“Short of damnation, it seems, there can be no Christian tragedy. Indeed, if a man is going to write a tragedy of the classic type, he must be careful to keep Christianity out of it...”
She’s right. The real tragedy doesn't consist in being diced by some demon, but in one day waking up from your comfortable life with the realization that you're on the demon’s side. Now that’s scary. Not so much opportunity for cool effects, alas.
Addendum: What’s to blame for this theological confusion, you ask? Why the implicit Manchaeism that underpins our art, our politics, and our culture as unifying theology. And, no surprise, as dualism is really, really plausible. I’ll note, as per usual, the irony of misuse in our political discourse that sees a “Manichaen” world view ascribed almost exclusively to Protestants.
Addendum #2: This, by the way, is a great album.
[3/17/04 20:53] |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ben, I had the same reaction to news that a Madrid bombing suspect had been watched by several intelligence agencies. When I asked a few posts ago why the CIA doesn't just off that Indonesian Al Qaeda representative, I thought I knew the answer: such people are more valuable alive than dead, because by watching them we can find our way to even more terrorists. Take that famous sheik in London who loudly applauds every murder committed in Allah's name. We could eliminate him, but I'm sure the spooks are double-parked outside his home and mosque, tracking every Muslim with a grudge who comes in seeking the most obvious source of weapons and training. Without this sheik, such Muslims might turn to harder-to-track internet-based terror groups.
But again, reading this story today, I think, eh, just kill 'em.
[3/17/04 10:57] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
A Big Mistake and a Huge Mistake
Big Mistake: Right after the Madrid bombing, Aznar "called up the major Spanish dailies and pressured them to parrot the government's line that ETA had committed the atrocity. Perhaps there is something to interpretation that SPanish voters are not quailing before the Islamofascists, but punishing Aznar for a cynical maneuvre. Of course, what the voters got is a leader who will quail before the Islamofascists.
Huge Mistake: The main suspect in the bombings had been flagged as a dangerous character long ago. Why did the Spanish authorities not deport him? Or better yet, give him a "pre-emptive martyrdom."
The crazy thing about Muslim immigration to Spain is that there are hordes of hispanophone, Christian, culturally compatible Latin Americans desperately trying to claw their way into the country. The Spanish government's crackdown on these Latin American aliens has become a major sticking point in bilateral relations with Uruguay, Argentina, Colombia, and Ecuador. If Spain needs immigrants, why not take these guys, instead of North African bilgewater.
[3/17/04 08:17] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Chinoiserie
As a matter of fact, there is a nationwide move afoot in France to suck up to China. Here is the homepage of "L'année de la Chine en France" (in French). It seems to be Chirac's mandate to several ministries, and as this military exercise points out, it's not just talk. Three goals, I think, are behind it: closer economic ties, multipolarity (i.e. obstructing U.S. agendas), and that frisson d'exotisme so dear to the French.
The website itself says: "This project of cultural exchanges (in a broad sense, since it also concerns science and education, sports and the art of living) represents a major event in the history of the two countries' relations, with considerable stakes."
It's not clear which category the joint military exercises fall into. Maybe "the art of living." Likewise, the Ministry of Defense isn't listed among the participating ministries, but it may well be that cost-cutting has led that ministry to be subsumed under the Ministry of Culture, since the French military seems to serve principally to add a splash of color to parades and ceremonies.
[3/16/04 18:13] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
If It Were Any Other Democracy, I'd Have Trouble Believing It
Every time Taiwan's voters head to the polls, the PRC government mounts some sort of effort at intimidating them, usually to dissuade them from voting for pro-independence candidates. Most often, the admonition takes the form of missile tests, military manuevers, and vigorous anti-Taiwan rodomontade in Communist press. This election has proven particularly sensitive. Chen Shui-ban, the first non-KMT president of Taiwan, faces a tough contest against Lien Chan. Chen has tried to rally the electorate by making rather bold statements in favor of independence, as well as pushing to hold a simultaneous referendum on the future status of the cross-straits relationship. For obvious reasons, this is driving the Reds bonkers. The U.S. has brought pressure on Chen to pull back and has discouraged the Reds from over-reacting, the result of which has been, remarkably, a less belligerent display from the PRC than was seen even during the previous election.
But now, guess who shows up to stir the pot. The French navy will engage in joint exercises with the PRC on the eve of the Taiwanese election. FOr the PRC, such exercises serve the sole purpose of menacing the Taiwanese. The French have decided that they should legitimize and encourage this behavior with their participation. I just don't get it. Is France out looking for ways to harm democracies and aid totalitarian regimes? I knew they were enthusiastic collaborators to whatever jack-booted thugs wander into the neighborhood, but in this case they've travelled 10,000 miles to toady up to the villain. As Paul Johnson has put it: France should not be trusted at any time on any matter. We have met the enemy... and he eats brie.
[3/16/04 16:09] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Resisting Evil
Well, that worked. Yesterday my friend TS noted that while we heard incessant self-serving statements post 9/11 to the effect that "if X happens, the terrorists will have won,” where X ranged over the speaker’s own interests (airlines don’t get bailed out, Susan Sontag gets treated harshly by talk radio, whatever), in this case it’s really true. If a terrorist strike leads to a landslide win by the dove party, which then immediately capitulates, then the terrorists, have, in fact, won. Like the man says, once you pay the Danegeld, you’re never free of the Dane.
Now, there’s something unseemly about my saying all this. My friends, family, or colleagues weren’t blown to pieces in Madrid; but I confess myself depressed by response of the Spanish electorate. Some Anglo-American ethicist (Tim Scanlon?) writes that he can’t imagine a reason to prevent a murder instead of an accidental death. My intuitions run exactly opposite to this: thwarting malevolent designs has value in itself. Of course, frustrating the malicious also has good results, but I don’t see those good results as the only value, or even the primary value, of resisting evil. Here, the results promise to be dreadful, as well.
[3/15/04 13:23] |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Send 'em back to Camel-stan
Assuming this story is true, if the Spanish authorities had been quicker to deport suspicious carpet-lickers, maybe the bombings could have been averted. Just like in the U.S., had police who stopped 9-11 plotters for moving violations been permitted to check and act on their immigration status, Sept 11 would have been nothing more than an extraordinary late summer day in New York. Wake up, people. Not everyone has the same probability of turning out a terrorist. Non-citizens should not enjoy unqualified rights in their host country. Non-citizen Arabs and Muslims should be treated with heightened scrutiny and suspicion (at least); or their numbers should be radically reduced by aggressive deportation of illegals and restriction on newcomers (at most -- and this is my preference).
[3/15/04 07:53] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aimless Observation
... it's what blogs were invented for. Let's open up the newspaper here. What's going on? Beyond the usual mass carnage I mean. Well there's some interesting individual carnage. The bassist for the Dead Milkmen took his own life. Sad. And more unnecessary than the average suicide because he had so many fans ready to give moral support. (It's like a few months ago when I read that Rowan Atkinson checked himself into a hospital for depression, reportedly due to critics' and the public's reaction to Johnny English. Which I loved, incidentally, except for the gratuitous poop scene, which I suspect is responsible for the film's crapping out.) The Milkmen were one of the two bands I listened to in high school. (If you discount rap.) (The other was the Talking Heads.) I find a sharp cleavage in nerds of our age cohort, between Milkmen fans and They Might Be Giants fans. (But then rock fandom is all about cleavage.) I know Ben H. is on the Giants side. For me their humor rarely works. I liked "Youth Culture Killed My Dog", I guess, but when I try to think of other Giants songs I like they usually turn out, upon further reflection, to be B-52's songs. As for the Milkmen: If I had to list my favorite songs I'd say the obvious "Bitchin' Camaro", then "Rocketship", and "They Call Me The Walrus" ... with the caveat that this is all high school music. Final note on the topic. I've often thought that one's Milkmen/Giants orientation was an indicator of a deeper psychological orientation, but I've never been able to discover what this correlate might be. Maybe it's nothing deeper than one's Beavis-And-Butthead-vs.-South-Park orientation (Milkmen correlated w/ Beavis). Someone should collect data.
Murakami, Pynchon, Lynch
Having loved Murakami's Norwegian Wood, I borrowed a copy of The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, his reputed masterpiece. It doesn't suit me and at the two-thirds mark I've started skimming.
Complaint #1: The book spins out of control. It started with two compelling mysteries (beyond the cat's disappearance): the narrator's wife left him for no apparent reason and to no discoverable destination, and a mystery woman calls him, claiming to know him and initiating phone sex. The first problem is more important, obviously, but it's the second whose magical mystery mood takes over. Other phantasmagorical characters show up. At least one of them can enter his dreams, between which and reality the barriers generally fall away. All this was tolerable so long as it connected to the narrator's search for his wife, but the phantasms start coming and going in such numbers and with such apparent randomness that the underlying suspense dies. The Spooky Guitar Masochist. The Haute Couture Aura Healer. The Man Who Refuses To Talk. A serial freakshow, not a novel.
Complaint #2: The novel just feels like it was plotted out on graph paper, rather than felt.
Complaint #3: All this supernatural stuff starts happening to the narrator, who is portrayed as a regular guy, but he isn't fazed at all. Hopefully Ben A. won't mind if I quote his memorable line about natural laws: "There may be worlds not governed by law-like regularities –- but the only response to that seems to be: 'Dude, that would be fucked-up!'" Right on. If some woman demonstrates an ability to invade your dreams, you're going to go Holy shit this is FUCKED UP!!!!!. If the teenage girl next door tries to kill you by trapping you in a well, you're going to slap the bitch silly. But Bird Chronicle's narrator shrugs these things off, no big deal. Another example: one woman's son decides to stop talking -- completely, forever -- at age six, but is otherwise normal. He will happily communicate in sign language or in writing. Odd, then, that no one (including the mother) seems ever to have asked him why he won't talk. It just becomes part of the book's magical mystery mood that this guy remains silent. Every normal person -- and I stress that Murakami intends his narrator as an everyman -- would grab him by the collar and be like, What the fuck, dude???
Here's what I think about magic in fiction. There are two ways to make it work. Either your world has completely different rules from the real world (e.g. Narnia, Middle Earth, academia) in which case the trick is to render it with such detail and conviction that the reader accepts it as real. Or you portray the real world under a scenario where magic intrudes, in which case the trick is to show how people deal with the intrusion (e.g. Stephen King books). The Wind up Bird Chronicle does not really take either path, and that's a big part of why it doesn't work. (Of course some will say "he's blurring the boundaries!" but that's just the usual mush-mouth apology of the cacophile.)
It would be instructive to compare the Bird Chronicle with similar but more successful projects ... and since I'm in didactic mode already, let's do it. Take David Lynch's Mulholland Drive. It too starts with a mystery, spins out of control, and leaves you with an overall impression of nightmares-invading-reality. But it's great. And the best scenes are precisely those where the characters are freaked out by the supernatural things happening to them. The scene in the diner that had been pre-played in a dream may be the scariest in the history of cinema (and there's not a drop of blood in it). The scenes of the director fighting against (and refusing to believe) the bizarre conspiracy against him are likewise amazing. The Bird Chronicle would be much more affecting if the narrator's reactions were as lifelike as Lynch's director's.
The Crying of Lot 49 is another good foil for Bird Chronicle, what with the mysterious conspiracy and the creepy dream-invading-reality feel. I'm less gaga over Lot 49 than a lot of people (I'm more of a V. man) but at least it stays focused, and it's not unnecessarily long. Bird Chronicle could easily shed 400 of its 600 pages and wind up the better for it. Also, I have to say that Lot 49 is just better written, page for page. Pynchon's voice is witty and enthralling and nine times out of ten, when a contemporary novelist says "I'm trying to craft a distinctive voice," he means he's trying to imitate Pynchon's. Murakami has some nice pages but a lot of these 600 are yadda. The translator shares the blame but not most of it.
Also, part of what is piquant about Lynch's and Pynchon's projects is that the dark supernatural conspiracies are set against the bleached banality of Southern California. Without this spice, Murakami's project turns into what Anthony Lane (I think) called "deep-dish mysticism".
In the end, magical realism is probably like the Dead Milkmen: either you like it or you don't.
[3/13/04 16:20] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Implications
How horrific. Whenever these things happen, I feel a tremendous impulse to mindless diversion. Weakness, I suppose.
If I can decently make any comment with bodies still warm, it’s this: if Al Queda claims responsibility, they’re not just murderers, they’re stupid. The only policy with any potential for them is to isolate the Anglophone nations from the rest of the West – depict the ‘the war on terror’ as a dispute generated by cowboy Americans, and their ‘lackeys.’ Attacking continental Europe does not do this.
Addendum: Ben H, always with the deportations! Conceal your enthusiasm for this prospect, at least.
[3/11/04 17:12] |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Madrid Massacre
Terrible attack this morning in Madrid. One reflexively blames ETA for any terrorism in Spain, but this seems out of line with the usual scale and style of ETA attacks. Could it be Islamofascist payback for Spain's staunch support of the forces of civilization? I recommend the Spanish be on the lookout for cabezas de trapo.
[3/11/04 07:18] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Why CIA? Subcontract the job
In Indonesia, I'm told, you can have somebody killed for like $250. We can put a tip-jar on this site and probably collect enough to ice that dirtbag.
Lionize the Lion, Overlooking the Lamb
Like you, Ben, I found the left's fixation with clearly guilty criminals puzzling. But I've come to realize that the protests have nothing to do with vindicating the innocent. THey are all about expressing in as strong terms as possible contempt for America, its institutions, and its establishment. What stronger way to show that then to champion the cause of an obviously guilty criminal. He should not go free, the protesters imply, because he is innocent; he should go free because American is so awful, corrupt, etc that it has no right to judge or punish even the guilty.
[3/9/04 17:54] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Burning Down My Guilty White Benefactor's House
Doug and I saw the new, gallingly-titled Jayson Blair book on display at the Barnes & Noble in Park Slope this weekend. Doug wondered if the New York Times would consent to review it, given the obvious bitterness and conflicts of interest. Well, apparently they will, and they aren't pulling any punches.
Of course, a straightforward pan will, no matter how justified, carry with it the whiff of sour grapes. I think the Times should out-Blair Blair. It should write a review that makes up stuff about Blair, fabricates quotes from the book, basically uses all the tools Blair availed himself of in his illustrious, affirmative-action-fueled career.
It is disappointing, but certainly no surprise given his talent for painting himself as the victim, that Blair does not address his string of violent pederastic assaults on young boys near his Chelsea apartment. Nor does he deign to explain how he, the half-brother of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, could come to consider himself "underprivileged" and due special treatment under the Times' aggressive affirmative action program.
Stuff like that... it would be a laugh...
[3/8/04 07:08] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Treasures of the Closet
I will move to my new place in a little over a week, so I have devoted much of today throwing away stuff I don't want to take along. I spent a chunk of time going through papers in my long-untouched filing cabinet, one that made the journey with me from Cambridge to Irvine and back. Looking at my old papers leaves me a little disoriented. A have several feet of old Vertex research and presentations, most of which I have no recollection of writing, much of which I do recall upon seeing it, though I feel quite certain I have not thought of it for several years. Ben A. may recall the long days and evening passed in search of the consultants' Holy Grail, the gimmick chart, the most famous example of which is probably the BCG "Dogs / Stars / Cash Cows" 2x2 matrix. 4 boxes, $4bio of business, I'd wager. My cabinet contained about a dozen successive attempts to come up with something similar. We failed, I'd like to think, out of a dogged fidelity to the complexities of reality, which would not allow us to foist a woefully incomplete distillation upon hapless clients. Instead, we tried to cram everything in. Several slides, with their three-dimensional matrices and multiple-sized bubbles of multiple hues plotted along the axes (the size representing something, the color something else), suggest an outbreak of pox among our supply of transparencies. The series of presentations also charts my increasing misery with the project. The name of the project was "Customer Portfolio Management." The last folder, the one that sat in the cabinet (not coicidentally) just in front of the folder with all my California-to-New York moving documents, is labelled "Customer Porfolio Hell."
Where the Deflation Is
Shortly before I left California (about 7yrs ago), I decided that I needed a mobile phone. The phone would allow me to take full advantage of telecommuting: i could disappear to the basketball court while still remaining reachable by my office-bound colleagues. The results of my meticulous research I found preserved in another folder in my filing cabinet. The prices shocked me. I'll cite the example of L.A. Cellular, one member of the then-regnant duopoly (which has since been taken over or merged several times, such that the brand has long since winked out of existence). The Standard package ran $99.99 per month before taxes. This bargain entitled its lucky purchaser to a whopping 170 minutes per month, with a 39 cent per minute overage fee. For that mover-and-shaker who might require the astronomical sum of 900 minutes, L.A. Cellular offered the Executive plan for a mere $329 per month with 36 cent per minute overage fee. I don't know exactly how many minutes Sprint PCS gives me per month -- it is certainly in excess of 1000-- but I do know that I have never incurred an overage fee, and, by the way, I have unlimited free data. For $69 per month.
I look upon this state of affairs with satisfaction as far as its demonstration of technical progress goes. However, I think it may also reveal how the specter of deflation overshadowing US price statistics may be just a phantom. Think about the magnitude of deflation the drop in mobile telephony prices represents. You can get something like 10-times the minutes for 2/3 the cost, not to mention the quality enhancements that have taken place since 1996. The fully-adjusted cost of mobile phone service today might come out to something like 5-10% of its 1996 cost. That has a huge impact on the headline inflation number. Yet, one can not just go out and buy 1996 service for $9.99 per month. One can only choose from what's offered, and what's offered is almost a totally different product from what L.A. Cellular was peddling in 1996. A better measure might be: what is the cost of a "standard" mobile phone package in 2004 vs 1996. By that measure, 2004 might cost 60-70% of 1996. The Fed will not be able to maintain a positive CPI change if the CPI is calculated on the former basis. On that basis, there ought to be inflation. I'm sure the same distortion obtains for computers and other information technology. No wonder the Fed, in its zeal to avoid "deflation" has wound up creating asset bubbles all over the place...
[3/6/04 18:38] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
Save Lives, Catch Flak
Not even the assent of France has managed to immunize the U.S. from captious criticism over its justifiable, even charitable, intevention in Haiti. We whisk Aristide to safety just ahead of a tide of furious rebels bent on taking his head and the loony priest has the temerity to say we kidnapped him. Really, he and his cheering section flatter themselves if they believe that Haiti is important enough to conspire over. A rabble of filthy ragpickers have cozened and killed their fellow immiserated islanders for a couple of hundred years with civilization no worse off for it. We could leave them to their poverty and butchery, but out of a sense of altruism we move to help. You can see the thanks that we get here. Particularly galling is the posturing of Caricom, a group of pathetic little islands that the U.S. has favored with a generous free-trade agreement, mostly out of mangaminity. Bananas and trinkets can be sources more easily and cheaply in China, I'm sure, if Caricom feels the U.S. is too ethically tainted to deal with.
Since this blog has spilled a lot of electronic ink on Kipling, I think it is not inappropriate for me to note that Aristide and Caricom's carping brought to mind The White Man's Burden:
Take up the White Man's burden,
And reap his old reward--
The blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard--
[3/5/04 08:28] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brunch in First Class?
Interesting question. In a sense, the transatlantic flight is the ideal brunch setting, because brunch is tied in with a jet-set euro-trash ethos, and because you've already invalidated normal mealtime rules by zipping through timezones. As evidence of my first point, note that Americans associate brunch with euro-trash (e.g. Jacques on the Simpsons) while Europeans associate it with New York. From what I could tell from my downscale Villejuif vantage point, brunch was considered chic/cosmopolitan in Paris; that French people would make an exception for it in their age-old rules of the table says something about its status already. There was a restaurant near Dao's office called "Brunchez-vous?". And I remember our friend Zoe in Turin decrying the back of an Italian cornflakes box that attempted to explain the word "brunch" by showing a bunch of dynamic young Americans sitting around a restaurant table as (loose translation) "they plotted to take over the world." (I think Zoe's beef was that one would never eat cornflakes at brunch, which is, of course, true.)
Nonetheless I'd argue that you can't have brunch on a plane because (1) you're eating by yourself, or (2) even if you have convives, your assembling with them for brunch was insufficiently impromptu, and anyway (3) you're missing the sense of possibilities that I think is important to the brunch mystique: you cannot get up and go to a museum or a movie on a whim. Ben, your insight about having the possibility of sweet or savory entrees is an important one, and I would add: there must always be the possibility of alcoholic or caffeinated drinks at any stage of a brunch. If I opened a brunch joint, I would allow patrons to linger as long as they want before ordering: I love the sense of possibility of getting syrup or bernaise sauce, of getting inebriated or wired, and when I'm finally served my choice it's kind of a letdown, no matter how good the food.
[3/4/04 13:26] |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
|
