9 hours ago
Monday, January 10, 2005
Credit to CBS
I haven't read the CBS report in any detail whatsoever, but at least they deserve credit for releasing it on a Monday morning and not, as many suscpected, on a late Friday afternoon. Good for them.
Hell Hath No Fury Like Gallagher Scorned
If you like interview subjects who aren't afraid to get a little dangerous, check out this bridge-torching interview with '80s prop-comic celebrity Gallagher. He defends his art and drops the shizzle on comedians he hates. For instance, asked about how good Letterman was during his stand-up days:
On Tom Hanks:
This is Wil Wheaton territory. Just the way to start a Monday morning.
It was terrible. You see how it is every night. He does three jokes. But Dave once told me that he didn't need an act. He told me that he was going to be a talk-show host. What I never got was that he was never funny enough to be a guest, so how does he become the host? But that's America for you. America wants the mediocre. It doesn't want the heroic or the moral.
On Tom Hanks:
Yes, it's frustrating. [Hanks] didn't go on the road [as a stand-up] and work anywhere. I went off on the road and worked. He and Michael Keaton would meet someone in the movie business and, bang, they're millionaires and living in Beverly Hills. You have [my] skill and ability and you're renting a condo.
This is Wil Wheaton territory. Just the way to start a Monday morning.
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Mark Steyn picks up where Meryl Yourish left off. It's good stuff. Steyn wonders:
True dat.
I gave up worrying "Why do they hate us?" on the evening of September 11, 2001. But, if I were that Osodden bin Loser guy watching the infidels truck in water, food, medical supplies and emergency clothing for villagers whose jihad-chic T-shirt collection was washed out to sea, I might ask myself a more pertinent question: "Why do they like us?" . . .
But, as usual, when disaster strikes it's the Great Satan and his various Little Satans who leap to respond. In the decade before September 11, the US military functioned, more or less exclusively, as a Muslim rapid reaction force – coming to the aid of Kuwaiti Muslims, Bosnian Muslims, Somali Muslims and Albanian Muslims. . . .
True dat.
Saturday, January 08, 2005
The First Log Cabin Republican?
If you haven't seen it yet, print out Philip Noblie's mammoth review of The Intimate World of Abraham Lincoln, which has caused so much stir by positing a gay Rail-Splitter.
Nobile has a unique understanding of C.A. Tripp and the gay Lincoln project. The details of this story are fairly amazing.
Nobile has a unique understanding of C.A. Tripp and the gay Lincoln project. The details of this story are fairly amazing.
Armstrong Williams
The debate about the ethics of the White House paying Armstrong Williams $240,000 to plug the No Child Left Behind Act seems to circling, understandably, around the ethics of Williams's actions. That's fine enough.
But why don't I see anyone questioning the White House's judgment in picking Armstrong Williams as their highly-paid mouthpiece? I mean, if you're going to blow money on a paid-for pundit, shouldn't you get someone with a little higher stature? Who's the genius who said, Wait a minute, forget Bill Bennet--let's get Armstrong!
Nick Naylor would never make that sort of bush-league call.
D.C. Bonus Points: Williams says, "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in." Ummm, if you believe in it, why didn't you do it for free?
But why don't I see anyone questioning the White House's judgment in picking Armstrong Williams as their highly-paid mouthpiece? I mean, if you're going to blow money on a paid-for pundit, shouldn't you get someone with a little higher stature? Who's the genius who said, Wait a minute, forget Bill Bennet--let's get Armstrong!
Nick Naylor would never make that sort of bush-league call.
D.C. Bonus Points: Williams says, "I wanted to do it because it's something I believe in." Ummm, if you believe in it, why didn't you do it for free?
I can't believe that I'm saying this, but: Vince Carter's getting a bum rap because of his recent remarks about not trying his hardest.
Carter sure isn't one of my favorites. He’s an over-rated player and as an individual, I put him only a couple tiers above Kobe Bryant. But it seems to me that Carter isn't saying, I didn't give 100% effort on the court every night.
Instead, I think he's saying I didn't work hard enough to develop my game because I could hide deficiencies with talent.
In a perfect world, highly-paid professional athletes would take everything about their job seriously, but Carter is just admitting to what most athletes do: Hide behind their talent until it's no longer enough, and then construct other facets of their game. I don't think he's saying that he used to dog it on the court in Toronto.
Carter sure isn't one of my favorites. He’s an over-rated player and as an individual, I put him only a couple tiers above Kobe Bryant. But it seems to me that Carter isn't saying, I didn't give 100% effort on the court every night.
Instead, I think he's saying I didn't work hard enough to develop my game because I could hide deficiencies with talent.
In a perfect world, highly-paid professional athletes would take everything about their job seriously, but Carter is just admitting to what most athletes do: Hide behind their talent until it's no longer enough, and then construct other facets of their game. I don't think he's saying that he used to dog it on the court in Toronto.
Friday, January 07, 2005
Beat It
The Smoking Gun lays out a devastating case against the King of Pop Michael Jackson based on recently reviewed documents from the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department. What deputies allegedly found at the Neverland Ranch wasn't pretty: a stash of porn including "Barely Legal" DVDs and "Pimp Up, Ho's Down," and books of nude men. But most damaging are the eyewitness accounts, especially those of Jordan Chandler, the 13-year-old boy who received an out-of-court settlement and in return dropped the molestation charges against the singer in 1993. From The Smoking Gun (and let me warn you that the following descriptions are graphic):
[Chandler] told police that Jackson frequently masturbated him, adding that he could provide a detailed description of the star's penis as a way of proving the pair had been intimate.... With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson's below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive "splotches" on his buttocks and one on his penis, "which is a light color similar to the color of his face." The boy's information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson's penis was erect, the length of the performer's pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.
There's much more unpleasantness to be found in the documents but that should suffice. On the other hand, if this is true, it does give credence to Jackson's explanation for his whiteness. Though he has admitted to suffering from vitiligo, a skin condition involving white spots on the body, critics rejected the claim, saying that he just wanted to be a white man. Now it seems he has been vindicated.
Who says there's no silver lining?
[Chandler] told police that Jackson frequently masturbated him, adding that he could provide a detailed description of the star's penis as a way of proving the pair had been intimate.... With Los Angeles Police Department detectives weighing his claims, Chandler gave them a roadmap to Jackson's below-the-waist geography, which, he said, includes distinctive "splotches" on his buttocks and one on his penis, "which is a light color similar to the color of his face." The boy's information was so precise, he even pinpointed where the splotch fell while Jackson's penis was erect, the length of the performer's pubic hair, and that he was circumcised.
There's much more unpleasantness to be found in the documents but that should suffice. On the other hand, if this is true, it does give credence to Jackson's explanation for his whiteness. Though he has admitted to suffering from vitiligo, a skin condition involving white spots on the body, critics rejected the claim, saying that he just wanted to be a white man. Now it seems he has been vindicated.
Who says there's no silver lining?
Where the Rubber Meets the Road
It seems the folks at Planned Parenthood may want to reexamine their own birth control recommendations before looking down on the president's abstinence program. To wit, the latest findings from Consumer Reports, which, in the past, has told us what appliances work best, which cars are the safest, and which strollers won't turn into death traps when you are crossing the street. Now add to this which condoms are the strongest: If your choice of prophylactic is Durex Extra Sensitive Lubricated Latex, you can rest easy—it gets an "excellent" in both strength and reliability. The same goes for LifeStyles Classic Collection Ultra Sensitive Lubricated. On the other hand, if you just so happen to use the condoms dispensed at the local Planned Parenthood clinic, you may also want to pick up one of those e.p.t. pregnancy test kits.
Indeed, of the 23 latex condoms tested (and two made of polyurethane for skin sensitive to latex), the two lowest-rated were from Planned Parenthood—both the "assorted colors" variety and "honeydew." The latter, according to ConsumerReports.org, received a "poor" in both strength and reliability categories and "broke 18 of 120 times at volumes below our strength threshold of 25 liters" of air.
Consumer Reports provide some useful guidelines for condom use, such as: "Never reuse a condom," "Follow package directions," and "Open the condom packet with care. Never use scissors, a knife, or your teeth." And whatever you do, avoid the honeydew.
Indeed, of the 23 latex condoms tested (and two made of polyurethane for skin sensitive to latex), the two lowest-rated were from Planned Parenthood—both the "assorted colors" variety and "honeydew." The latter, according to ConsumerReports.org, received a "poor" in both strength and reliability categories and "broke 18 of 120 times at volumes below our strength threshold of 25 liters" of air.
Consumer Reports provide some useful guidelines for condom use, such as: "Never reuse a condom," "Follow package directions," and "Open the condom packet with care. Never use scissors, a knife, or your teeth." And whatever you do, avoid the honeydew.
Clearly Howard Kurtz simply doesn't understand the blogosphere. He writes today that "if you respond to every whack someone takes at you on the Web, you'd never have time to eat, let alone do any reporting." Hey Howie, this is the Interweb; these people don't do reporting. They just snark at people who do.
Sigh. I know that exposing CBS's forged memos and bringing down Dan Rather is part of the blogosphere's founding fable, but I would direct bloggers to the full history of the story. They'll surely recall that Howard Kurtz (along with his talented Post colleague Michael Dobbs) did as much heavy lifting as anyone, anywhere (start here, here, here, and here) to do the hard reporting to move the story along.
Kurtz is a very good reporter. If the blogosphere had any sense of perspective, it would aspire to the standard of work he does, not call for his dismissal.
Sigh. I know that exposing CBS's forged memos and bringing down Dan Rather is part of the blogosphere's founding fable, but I would direct bloggers to the full history of the story. They'll surely recall that Howard Kurtz (along with his talented Post colleague Michael Dobbs) did as much heavy lifting as anyone, anywhere (start here, here, here, and here) to do the hard reporting to move the story along.
Kurtz is a very good reporter. If the blogosphere had any sense of perspective, it would aspire to the standard of work he does, not call for his dismissal.
Just Asking . . .
Hugh Hewitt really is an eternal optimist. Earlier this week he suggested that CBS release drafts of the Rathergate report to bloggers for pre-publication comment. There's a better chance of Aaron Carter shacking up with Liza Minnelli.
In fact, nothing about CBS's behavior to date in this incident suggests that they will take the high road with the report, but much suggests that they might go the low road.
So, I'm just asking: What happens if CBS releases the report, and fires some staff, but the staff's severance comes with non-disclosure agreements? Is that a tenable position for CBS?
In fact, nothing about CBS's behavior to date in this incident suggests that they will take the high road with the report, but much suggests that they might go the low road.
So, I'm just asking: What happens if CBS releases the report, and fires some staff, but the staff's severance comes with non-disclosure agreements? Is that a tenable position for CBS?
Torture
Speaking of, Wretchard has the best post I've read yet on the torture question. He's able to make reasonable distinctions unlike, say Andrew Sullivan.
Wretchard also raises what should really be the only (or at least the foremost) question in the debate:
The reason it is important to find a middle ground is because al Qaeda is a different type of warrior. As Heather Mac Donald writes:
I would argue that in the war on terrorism, intelligence is at a greater premium than in any previous American war since there is no given battlefield. In other wars, we needed information from prisoners to help fight the enemy more effectively. In the global war on terror, we need information from prisoners just to find out who the enemy is and where the war is going to be fought. (In addition to all that, the global war on terror is our first confrontation with an enemy whose targets are largely and intentionally civilians.)
So since the value of information has been radically increased, we need to have a serious reevaluation of what we're willing to do, as a society, to get that information. Should we be willing to commit rape, murder, and mutilation? I would argue no. Should we consider a new set of standards that go beyond the "16 approaches"? I would argue yes.
But instead of having this discussion, we're fixated on Alberto Gonzalez and hearings and other sideshows. As Wretchard asks,
None of this is meant to excuse past abuses. People who have committed crimes must be punished to the full extent of the law. But our focus should be on figuring out where, in the future, we're willing to draw the line. So let's start that discussion right now. I'd like to know where the blogospher, and you, think the line should be. What kinds of interrogation should be allowed, and what shouldn't?
Wretchard also raises what should really be the only (or at least the foremost) question in the debate:
Donald Sensing has a long post on the recent destruction of a 36-ton Bradley in Iraq resulting in the death of all 7 occupants. If a suspect is found, what technique should be used to discover where the other mines are planted? The ridiculous "16 approaches" method reviled by Heather MacDonald's interviewees, even now watered down? Or the rapes and crucifixion system which by common consent is torture? Is there is nothing in between?
The reason it is important to find a middle ground is because al Qaeda is a different type of warrior. As Heather Mac Donald writes:
. . . the Kandahar prisoners were not playing by the army rule book. They divulged nothing. “Prisoners overcame the [traditional] model almost effortlessly,” writes Chris Mackey in The Interrogators, his gripping account of his interrogation service in Afghanistan. The prisoners confounded their captors “not with clever cover stories but with simple refusal to cooperate. They offered lame stories, pretended not to remember even the most basic of details, and then waited for consequences that never really came.” Some of the al-Qaida fighters had received resistance training, which taught that Americans were strictly limited in how they could question prisoners. Failure to cooperate, the al-Qaida manuals revealed, carried no penalties and certainly no risk of torture—a sign, gloated the manuals, of American weakness.
I would argue that in the war on terrorism, intelligence is at a greater premium than in any previous American war since there is no given battlefield. In other wars, we needed information from prisoners to help fight the enemy more effectively. In the global war on terror, we need information from prisoners just to find out who the enemy is and where the war is going to be fought. (In addition to all that, the global war on terror is our first confrontation with an enemy whose targets are largely and intentionally civilians.)
So since the value of information has been radically increased, we need to have a serious reevaluation of what we're willing to do, as a society, to get that information. Should we be willing to commit rape, murder, and mutilation? I would argue no. Should we consider a new set of standards that go beyond the "16 approaches"? I would argue yes.
But instead of having this discussion, we're fixated on Alberto Gonzalez and hearings and other sideshows. As Wretchard asks,
How did we get to where the only choices are between the impractical and the inadmissible? Possibly by the route of partisan politics; at hearings where you may either recite the Boy Scout Pledge or the Green Lantern Oath; where the failure to supply answers never got in the way of uttering a good platitude; where votive candles burn and still burn before the letter of Geneva and the practice of rendition . . .
None of this is meant to excuse past abuses. People who have committed crimes must be punished to the full extent of the law. But our focus should be on figuring out where, in the future, we're willing to draw the line. So let's start that discussion right now. I'd like to know where the blogospher, and you, think the line should be. What kinds of interrogation should be allowed, and what shouldn't?
Hugh Hewitt has a good article on the United Nations, stinginess, and the humanitarian benefits of sea power.
As a bonus, he turns me on to The Diplomad, an interesting new blog. As always, I'm skeptical since the author is anonymous. But Wretchard at The Belmont Club has taught me not to dismiss anonybloggers out of hand. So here's hoping the Diplomad pans out, too.
Still, I plead with all anonybloggers: Come out of the closet!
As a bonus, he turns me on to The Diplomad, an interesting new blog. As always, I'm skeptical since the author is anonymous. But Wretchard at The Belmont Club has taught me not to dismiss anonybloggers out of hand. So here's hoping the Diplomad pans out, too.
Still, I plead with all anonybloggers: Come out of the closet!
Spider Sense
After reading David Adesnik's musings on comic book philosophy the other day, I stumbled onto an interview with Sharad Devarajan on NPR's Fresh Air. Devarajan runs Gotham Entertainment Group, which is licensing Marvel superheroes in South Asia.
Their first title is Spider-Man India, with Pavitr Prabhakar as our beloved Peter Parker. Leave aside, for a moment, the wonderful idea of what a Bollywood version of Spider-Man would look like. But I'm curious how Hindu thought and philosophy will gel with the Western moral imperatives of our comic books, and what kind of new comic book philosophy will result. Maybe a good piece for David? I know a website which would be interested . . .
Their first title is Spider-Man India, with Pavitr Prabhakar as our beloved Peter Parker. Leave aside, for a moment, the wonderful idea of what a Bollywood version of Spider-Man would look like. But I'm curious how Hindu thought and philosophy will gel with the Western moral imperatives of our comic books, and what kind of new comic book philosophy will result. Maybe a good piece for David? I know a website which would be interested . . .
Thursday, January 06, 2005
Saudi Telethons
Meryl Yourish has an outstanding post on charity in the Kingdom of Saud. Embarrassed for only putting up $10 million for the tsunami victims, the Saudi's have upped their ante to $30 million, with the help of a nationwide telethon.
But it turns out that this isn't the first time the Saudis have dug deep for others. In 2003 they raised $11.5 million for Iraqis--and $109 million for Palestinian "martyrs."
It isn't that Islamists don't know how to give to a good cause. It's that they have very different ideas about which causes are good.
We would do well to remember this in the future.
But it turns out that this isn't the first time the Saudis have dug deep for others. In 2003 they raised $11.5 million for Iraqis--and $109 million for Palestinian "martyrs."
It isn't that Islamists don't know how to give to a good cause. It's that they have very different ideas about which causes are good.
We would do well to remember this in the future.
Hollywood's Worst Year Ever
At the end of every year William Goldman jokes that it's been the worst year in Hollywood history, and that next year will be worse. And every year it's true. 2004 was undoubtedly the worst year in the history of film (a topic I'll visit in greater length later). But have you gotten a load of the must-see list for 2005?
Galley Brother and industry insider B.J. sends a long this depressing CNN top 10 list. B.J. asks, "Star Wars Episode 3: Jedi Super Power Ewok Battles . . . I mean, are you kidding?"
Even worse is that CNN is crazy enough to include MGM's Pink Panther remake on the list. Word around the MGM campus is that this movie is so bad they have no idea how to even make it coherent, let alone how to sell it.
2005? Buckle up, baby, it's going to be a bumpy night.
Galley Brother and industry insider B.J. sends a long this depressing CNN top 10 list. B.J. asks, "Star Wars Episode 3: Jedi Super Power Ewok Battles . . . I mean, are you kidding?"
Even worse is that CNN is crazy enough to include MGM's Pink Panther remake on the list. Word around the MGM campus is that this movie is so bad they have no idea how to even make it coherent, let alone how to sell it.
2005? Buckle up, baby, it's going to be a bumpy night.
Don't hate me, but I want to see this.
Update, 5:59 p.m.: I remember seeing my first UFC event several years ago when Galley Brother B.J. and I went looking for a rainy-afternoon video at the non-Blockbuster in town. Intrigued, we picked up the first Ultimate Fighting tournament and sat, mesmerized as we saw a series of fights, none lasting much longer than a minute, where big, tough guys from different disciplines beat the tar out of each other. I could hear Bill Bennett scowling, but let's be honest: UFC was a revelation.
The biggest shock was watching Royce Gracie, this little Brazilian bad-ass who weighed, maybe, 170 lbs. win the damn thing. The next day we returned to the video store and picked up the second tournament on DVD. Gracie won that one, too. In the course of these two tournaments, he wailed on guys much, much bigger, meaner, and scarier looking, mainly by absorbing punishment and then choking them into submission.
But now it looks like the UFC is being domesticated. The new show on Spike, for instance, has weight classes. But that was part of the original appeal of UFC: What does it look like when two grossly mismatched fighters collide, and how do they adjust to the speed and weight disparity?
I'm sure this stuff should be banned, but it's awfully hard to resist.
Update, 5:59 p.m.: I remember seeing my first UFC event several years ago when Galley Brother B.J. and I went looking for a rainy-afternoon video at the non-Blockbuster in town. Intrigued, we picked up the first Ultimate Fighting tournament and sat, mesmerized as we saw a series of fights, none lasting much longer than a minute, where big, tough guys from different disciplines beat the tar out of each other. I could hear Bill Bennett scowling, but let's be honest: UFC was a revelation.
The biggest shock was watching Royce Gracie, this little Brazilian bad-ass who weighed, maybe, 170 lbs. win the damn thing. The next day we returned to the video store and picked up the second tournament on DVD. Gracie won that one, too. In the course of these two tournaments, he wailed on guys much, much bigger, meaner, and scarier looking, mainly by absorbing punishment and then choking them into submission.
But now it looks like the UFC is being domesticated. The new show on Spike, for instance, has weight classes. But that was part of the original appeal of UFC: What does it look like when two grossly mismatched fighters collide, and how do they adjust to the speed and weight disparity?
I'm sure this stuff should be banned, but it's awfully hard to resist.
Ah, the Sham of It
Bill Whalen has a good piece on Arnold's State of the State address, but the juiciest bit is this:
That marriage had "sham" written all over it in the so-devastating-he-didn't-even-notice-it profile of Newsome in the New Yorker a few months ago.
I have no doubt that the Newsom quest for world domination will one day be successful, but still. It's always nice to see social climbers suffer a setback, even if it's only temporary.
Eighteen months from now, young Gavin will be back, angling for a Senate seat or some such. He'll have a new Beautiful Girl on his arm.(Think Nora O'Donnell will be available by then?) And he'll turn to the castle, raise his sword over his head, and bellow, "By the Power of Getty!"
If you have bad news to "dump," then Arnoldmania is the cover you want. Midway through the governor's address, the Associated Press reported that San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and his wife, Kimberly, a Court TV commentator and now a fixture on the New York social circuit, are divorcing.
That marriage had "sham" written all over it in the so-devastating-he-didn't-even-notice-it profile of Newsome in the New Yorker a few months ago.
I have no doubt that the Newsom quest for world domination will one day be successful, but still. It's always nice to see social climbers suffer a setback, even if it's only temporary.
Eighteen months from now, young Gavin will be back, angling for a Senate seat or some such. He'll have a new Beautiful Girl on his arm.(Think Nora O'Donnell will be available by then?) And he'll turn to the castle, raise his sword over his head, and bellow, "By the Power of Getty!"
Being Michael Hutchence
I once ranted about INXS allowing a song of theirs to be used in a McDonald's ad. That, as it turns out, was the least of it. Come July, CBS and Mark Burnett will air their latest reality television series, tentatively titled Rockstar, in which contestants from more than twenty cities around the world will compete to become the new lead singer of INXS.
For those who might not be aware, the Australian rock band's former lead singer, Michael Hutchence, died under mysterious (read perverse) circumstances back in 1997. His death has been ruled a suicide (he was found hanging in his hotel room in Sydney) but others still speculate foul play or a sex act gone bad.
Hutchence had dated singer Kylie Minogue and was later entangled in an affair with Bob Geldof's wife. (You've got to feel for Geldof--first, most of his money and efforts to end the famine in Ethiopia are blown to bits by guerrillas, then he discovers his wife is getting what she needs from another man. What was her excuse? The devil inside? Or that she was looking for a new sensation?) In a freak accident, Hutchence ended up losing his ability to taste and smell, leading him into a depression. But on stage, he maintained a powerful persona (I saw the band at Madison Square Garden in 1987).
In short, who would get to replace the talented but tortured soul that was Hutchence? Clay Aiken? Kelly Clarkson? William Hung? I shudder to think.
For those who might not be aware, the Australian rock band's former lead singer, Michael Hutchence, died under mysterious (read perverse) circumstances back in 1997. His death has been ruled a suicide (he was found hanging in his hotel room in Sydney) but others still speculate foul play or a sex act gone bad.
Hutchence had dated singer Kylie Minogue and was later entangled in an affair with Bob Geldof's wife. (You've got to feel for Geldof--first, most of his money and efforts to end the famine in Ethiopia are blown to bits by guerrillas, then he discovers his wife is getting what she needs from another man. What was her excuse? The devil inside? Or that she was looking for a new sensation?) In a freak accident, Hutchence ended up losing his ability to taste and smell, leading him into a depression. But on stage, he maintained a powerful persona (I saw the band at Madison Square Garden in 1987).
In short, who would get to replace the talented but tortured soul that was Hutchence? Clay Aiken? Kelly Clarkson? William Hung? I shudder to think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
