Stefan's Blog

The Tax Cuts

2010-12-10T05:36:00.001Z

I know it’s sloppy journalism, but as I’m still coming out of my post-surgical funk, I thought I’d point people in the direction of Christopher Hayes’s article in the December 27 issue of The Nation, in his “Capitolism” column, entitled “The Bribery Model” (in print – online, the article is “Tax Cuts Forever”, and a little different). Hayes articulates perfectly many of my own concerns and frustrations with the extension of the Bush Tax Cuts. Below are some choice comments, with a small amount of my own input.

Firstly, on the subject of Republican anti-deficit activism/obsession:

“Republicans have spent two years — an entire election cycle and postelection victory lap — repeating with tourettic persistence dire warnings about the existential threat posed by large deficits and mounting government debt.”

So what? I hear you ask. Well…

“these same Republicans (and a few conservative Democrats), who love to offer lectures about the necessity of shared sacrifice, also spent the week demanding that all the Bush tax cuts be made permanent, a policy that would increase the debt over the next ten years by an astounding $3.3 trillion.”

And here is where it gets really reprehensible:

“the official Republican position, expressed in a letter signed by all forty-two GOP senators, was that they would not allow the Senate to vote on anything until the tax cuts were extended. With 2 million people set to lose their unemployment benefits in December, this meant that the GOP was ready to put 2 million Americans out on the streets the week before Christmas, unless millionaires got tax cuts!” (emphasis mine)

When you consider that many of these millionaires and billionaires are the Wall Street and Hedge Fund managers that had a considerable role in the collapse of 2008 and everything disastrous and ruinous that has come after it, this is doubly insulting. Why are they being rewarded? Just as calls for wage and bonus caps on bailed out firms was 100% logical and sensible (name one other instant when screwing up on this scale is allowed to go unpunished?), not extending the tax cuts to help out those who were screwed over by the rampant and flagrant gambling that took place on Wall Street would have been the right thing to do. Every time tax cuts have been given to ‘stimulate the economy’, the tax saving have never gone into stimulus spending. A billionaire saving a couple of million dollars in taxes is not about to spend a couple million dollars on American-made products, or invest more (if anything) in job growth. They are more likely to buy fancy, foreign-brand cars. And even then, probably not a couple millions dollars worth. On the other hand, give tax relief to the poor, and help the unemployed, and maybe some parents won’t have to be afraid of being unable to feed their families.

In this day, with the American and global economies in the state they are in, to favour the richest people in any society over those who desperately need help, who feel every drop in the economy, weather every bump in the road… that is cruel and unusual.

But, instead, President Obama rolled over.

Hayes writes about the stubbornness of the unemployment levels in the United States, and that any money back into the system was a good thing. Hm. Perhaps, but why not make the unemployment benefits contingent on public works? McCain wanted to expand civil service projects, so why doesn’t Obama suggest something like that? Republicans can’t complain about it being a ‘hand-out’ if they are in some way working for the money? Infrastructure in the US is slowly corroding due to lack of funds (if you don’t want to pay every time you use a road, taxes will be needed to keep the bridges from falling down…!), so why not get all the unemployed builders and labourers to help out with reconstruction and maintenance projects? Republicans are always saying how the average American would rather work to earn money than receive a hand-out (although, still no one ever seems to opt out of any form of ‘free’ money), so why not make unemployment benefits contingent on some form of community service?

Hayes finishes, describing the tax cut deal as

“the standard bribery model of legislating that has come to characterize Washington in the era of oligarchy: if you want to put food on the table of the unemployed, you must lavishly wine and dine the CEOs and bankers who laid them off. Obama didn’t create this system, but he is making it stronger before our very eyes.”

Obama more “hawkish” on China than Bush?

2010-11-08T23:50:00.001Z

Not particularly…

I just read Peter Beinart’s article over on The Daily Beast, and I thought I’d give my two cents on what he has to say – not least because some of the people who commented on the article are… well, let’s just say they’re “internet people” (the speed with which they devolve into right-vs-left attacks, calling each other idiots… it’s frankly depressing).

First, a look at the Bush-vs-Obama China policies, going by what Beinart mentions in his article.

True, Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, has been quick to berate China about its territorial incursions (something that needed to be said), which I don’t remember Bush’s administration doing overly loudly (but someone probably did, because this is nothing new). The 2010 Midterms featured a few more anti-China attacks, which is certainly understandable given the greater focus on the economy and jobs in this election.
The US has conducted naval exercises with Vietnam – just as most administrations have with other Asian nations in the past.
The nuclear deal with Vietnam is interesting. Beinart says the Obama administration “may cut a nuclear deal with Vietnam that allows it to enrich uranium outside of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty”. This would be ill-advised, in my opinion, but in what way is it more hawkish and as inflammatory as the 2008 nuclear deal Bush made with India?

As for the other issues, I don’t find them convincing enough. The author mentions that “Nancy Pelosi has long excoriated it over human rights; in 2008 she urged Bush to boycott the Beijing Olympics.” Very true, and Pelosi is someone who has cropped up frequently over the course of my PhD research. But also remember that, during the George H.W. Bush years, the Clinton years, and the George W. Bush years, the anti-China side of the political debate was extremely broad (not to mention truly bipartisan) and not at all afraid of voicing its opinion. There are many Republicans who have been staunchly anti-China for decades – some because they can’t move beyond Cold War anti-Communism, others because of China’s human rights record, and others because of a populist economic position, yet others because of the perceived threat of a strong, militaristic and nationalistic China (to name but four factions). On the Democratic side, we have economic protectionists and human rights activists (to name but two, though I can’t really come up with any others…).

Beinart does come up with an interesting point that’s worth mentioning:

“China is different. If the neocons want a new cold war with China, they’ll have to take on corporate America in the process, which would make for very interesting times in the GOP.”

Even this, however, is somewhat disappointing. He’s not wrong, that the economic and ‘strategic’ (if you will) factions of the Republican Party would be at odds over any perceived chances for conflict with China. In my own humble opinion, however, the economic faction would win out. Even the Democrats have a considerable faction that recognises the benefits America is reaping from China’s economic development – be it cheap products (raising the yuan would only make these products more expensive, and not by enough to make US-produced goods competitive or cheaper), and also the fact that China is financing America’s debt by buying millions-upon-millions of dollars-worth of US Treasury Bonds.

Beinart concludes:

“For the moment, America’s China debate takes place in two, artificially separate, spheres. When it comes to defense, the right—more than the left—uses the Chinese threat as a justification for bigger military budgets. But when it comes to economics, the left—more than the right—insists that the U.S. challenge the way China values its currency and treats its workers. The right wants America to grow more economically integrated with China even as we grow more militarily confrontational. The left wants America to risk rupturing our economic ties with China while any national security spills over.”

I think this is far too simplistic, as the economic side of the relationship is far too important and co-dependent for any side to really want to wreck them. Mostly, it is just rhetoric – and I think China recognises this, which is why they’re not really doing anything.

One must remember, though, that the Bush administration was totally distracted by the Middle East and the ill-advised misadventure in Iraq and the botched campaign in Afghanistan, and then spent much of the final years in office trying to fix their mess. He ignored China (save the EP-3 incident, really), because he simply wasn’t that interested in it, and the economic side of the relationship just kept ticking over (as it more-or-less did in Clinton’s administration, and will in Obama’s, I imagine).

Beinart’s article started with the argument that Obama is more ‘hawkish’ than Bush, meandered away from there to discuss the Republican-Democrat China arguments, and then stopped. I think the real difference between Obama and Bush is that the 44th President is engaged in the issues revolving around China far more than Bush – for whatever reason this may be, this can’t be a bad thing. China is the issue of the next few decades, and any president who distances himself from the issues is doomed to just give China the impression that the status quo will continue. Whether Obama deals with the issues properly, however, is an entirely different argument.

A Superb (Properly) Republican Quote on Abortion

2010-09-22T21:51:00.001+01:00

I got this from John Avlon’s piece over at the Daily Beast, “The Tea Party Abortion Doctrine”. Candace Straight, the national co-chairwoman for the Republican Majority for Choice, had the following to say about the absolutist abortion policy espoused by the Tea Party candidates:

“The history of the GOP has always been about responsible policy and limited government. There is no policy more irresponsible and out of line with that history than allowing the government to ban personal reproductive choices even for women who have been raped... The fact that the new rising stars of the GOP are pushing this platform is not only scary, it could be a fatal blow for our hopes of recapturing the mainstream middle.”

The whole of Avlon’s piece is worth reading, so I’d urge you to scoot on over there to have a read.

As an addendum to this, I just thought I’d also include this bit from the RMfC website about the 20 Worst States For Personal Freedom, in which legislatures

“have passed various deceptive initiatives that nearly all block access to the full range of reproductive health options. Many of these state laws are so extreme that they are deemed unconstitutional by state and federal courts because they lack the proper exceptions and safeguards in emergency situations to preserve the life of a woman, while others have been found to create an undue burden to a woman.”

The offending states: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North & South Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia.

The site goes on to list and explain the offending laws in these states, and it makes for troubling reading. It is certainly one of the many hypocrisies of the ‘small-government’ Republican Party that they feel the need for government to legislate what women can and can’t do with their own bodies and especially their own reproductive systems.

Anyway, I just thought the site was interesting, and I’d never heard of it before.

Another excellent Matt Taibbi post

2010-08-18T04:40:00.001+01:00

No new journalism/writing in this post, I just wanted to point you in the direction of this article by Mr Taibbi, commenting on an article written by David Stockman, “Ronald Reagan’s former budget chief and economic Svengali”. It was posted on Rolling Stone’s TaibbiBlog.

There is a line near the end which caught my eye, and an observation I fervently hope is true:

“slowly gaining momentum in some Republican circles… there’s increasing acceptance of the notion that a monstrous betrayal of so-called traditional conservative economic ideals began to take place in the Reagan years”

I highly recommend you read this short post (as well as the New York Times opinion piece Stockman wrote, which Taibbi is discussing).

On a personal note, I’m rather happy that Taibbi has a new book coming out – Griftopia – which I have already pre-ordered. His books are normally insightful, intelligent, cutting, and amusing.

Intellectual dishonesty, Inc.

2010-08-14T15:20:00.001+01:00

From the same Weekly Standard issue, here’s an article title and standfirst:

“DESPERATE DEMOCRATS. The only strategy they have left is personal attacks.”

Because, of course, members of the Republican Party would never, ever, ever resort to swift-boating or gay-/race-/elitist-baiting. Of course they wouldn’t. Beggar the thought…

A totally useless paragraph…

2010-08-14T15:17:00.001+01:00

Been reading the latest issue of The Weekly Standard, and in particular an editorial smugly commenting on the collapse of the Left (they have a point, but sadly write about the Left in a way that could just as easily be turned around on the Right – as they seemingly always do). Aside from my political biases, I have a major problem with the editorial relating to the “evidence” the writer provides to support his claim that Obama’s administration is being ‘refudiated’ (yuck, don’t get me started on that…) by the voters:

“In a recent poll of likely voters, 54 percent strongly or somewhat supported the Tea Party movement, with 38 percent strongly or somewhat opposed. In another poll, of all adults, the movement did have a slightly negative image (30 percent positive, 34 negative)— but it was considerably better than the image of either the Democratic or Republican party.”

In a recent poll conducted by who? Other than “likely voters”, we know nothing. This is a common practice in journalism the Western World over (I can’t speak for the rest of the Globe) – the use of unattributed “polls”. It’s useless, and it still irritates me that publications can get away with it. A poll of ‘likely voters’ at a Head Shop would likely suggest overwhelming support for the legalisation of marijuana, but the same poll at an AA or temperance meeting would have the opposite effect. By not stating where the poll was conducted, or by whom, however, you now have support for both sides of the debate, and can give yourself a smug pat on the back. This is another example of the real world having nothing to do with academia – when I did my MA in International Journalism, we were specifically told that this sort of statement was useless and should be avoided at all costs.

There is no reason one shouldn’t suspect that the 54% of ‘likely voters’ in the poll above comprised the colleagues and family members of the author. The 38% could well have been ‘conducted’ by watching a couple of news programs on liberal news channels. Voila! A poll conducted, indicating support for my beliefs! This likely isn’t what happened, but by not properly attributing the poll, or giving us more information, they have presented ‘evidence’ for nothing save for their ability to pick and choose their data/poll sources.

Elena Kagan: Too ‘Academic’?

2010-05-17T15:53:00.001+01:00

It really confuses me why everyone thinks Elena Kagan shouldn't be nominated to the Supreme Court because she “has no experience outside of academia” - this is something I heard on Saturday, and it’s totally wrong. This post is not about the Justices’ politics, or their performance cards, but about the oh-so-politically-hot-button issue of “experience”. Irrespective of whether or not you agree with her politics (most analysts and associates seem to think she's right-of-centre), she's actually had plenty of real "world experience", and her career is not dissimilar to sitting Supreme Court Justices.

If anything, there might be an argument to be made for choosing someone who has different experiences, as Kagan’s biography doesn’t read too differently from other Justices’. This fact has spawned a number of editorial cartoons that point out the Ivy League over-representation. Here’s one from Nick Anderson:

And one from Signe Wilkinson:

Experience

Anyway, let’s get back to Kagan’s experience and career:

- 1987 : Clerked for Judge Abner Mikva of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals

- 1988 : Clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall of US Supreme Court - something that most, if not all eventual Supreme Court Justices have done, I believe (could be wrong, I didn't go all the way back and check them all)

- 1988-91 : Worked for a DC law firm

- 1991 : Joins the University of Chicago Law School

- 1995 : Granted tenure due to reputation and skills as teacher, ‘despite her lack of publications’ (which seem to have focussed on First Amendment Rights, a big-ticket issue for the Supremes)

- 1995-1999 - President Bill Clinton's Associate White House Counsel and Deputy Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council

- 1999 - Because the Republican Chairman of the Judiciary Committee didn't schedule a hearing, Kagan's nomination to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals fell through.

- 1999-2001 - Visiting Professor at Harvard Law School (lauded article published about aiding the President in crafting regulative policy)

- 2001-3 - Made full Professor at Harvard Law School

- 2003-9 - Dean of Harvard Law School

- 2009-Present - Solicitor General for President Barack Obama

So I guess my point is... where's the lack of experience? She's worked as a lawyer, in academia, and in government. How is this so wrong? In fact, some might say she has more experience than Obama. She’s written articles and papers on Presidential Power, the First Amendment and prisoner rights – are these not pretty key issues that are ricocheting their way around the beltway at the moment? Paul Campos, who clearly is not enamoured with the idea of Kagan on the Court, ‘wittily’ wrote that

“Kagan’s work reminded me of Orwell’s observation that, if book reviewers were honest, 19 of 20 reviews would consist of the sentence, ‘this book inspires in me no thoughts whatever’.”

Campos’s premise is that Kagan’s not really any different to George W. Bush’s nomination of Harriet Myers, and perhaps even a worse choice. For example, he mentions that Kagan’s four years in the Clinton White House, “where she was associate White House counsel – a full rung down from Harriet Miers' position in the Bush White House”, clearly an attempt to further belittle her career. But, as we shall see, it’s the same “rung” that John Roberts served in.

For those conservatives who want to say she’s not good enough, shall we compare her career to that of pre-Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (information taken from the ‘The Justices of the Supreme Court’)?

- 1979-80 : Clerked for Judge Henry Friendly of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

- 1980-1 : Clerked for then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist from 1980-1

- 1981-2 : Special Assistant to US Attorney General William French Smith

- 1982-6 : Associate Counsel to President Reagan under Fred Fielding

- 1986-93 : Principal Deputy Solicitor General (to use Campos’s terminology, “one rung below” the position held by Kagan under Clinton)

- 1992 : Just like Kagan, no hearing was heard for Roberts’s nomination to DC Circuit Court of Appeals

- 1992-2001 : Successful private practice

- 2001 : No hearing held for DC Circuit nomination (again)

- 2003-5 : DC Circuit Court of Appeals

So, overall, not a considerable difference. Their early careers seem to have been pretty similar, and the main difference is that Kagan was appointed to a ‘higher’ government job sooner than Roberts, which explains his couple of extra ‘lower’ governmental posts. (For the uncharitable, this might just suggest there was nobody better for the position when Kagan was around, if you are prone to think she’s feckless.)

So, even if you disagree with her politics, you might assume that those who worked with her thought her good enough to be appointed so soon/young – indeed, she has been described as “brilliant” and “extraordinary” by Lawrence Lessig, a Professor at Harvard Law School who worked with Kagan at Chicago University’s Law School. According to an ABC piece by Ariane de Vogue and Jake Tapper, Kagan

“is known as one of the finest scholars in the country, dazzling both liberal and conservative friends with her intellectual prowess and her ability to find consensus among ideological opposites.”

For an interesting, balanced, appraisal from a former colleague, read Richard Epstein’s article about Kagan, in which he explains how, despite disagreeing with some of her actions and policies while an academic, he thinks she would make a good nominee and Justice.

So, again I ask – why so inappropriate a choice? Because she doesn’t have the two year judicial experience that Roberts does from his time on the DC Court? Really?

To return to Lessig, he writes of “a general weakness in appointing law professors to high courts”, which is that

“We law professors – especially at places like Harvard or Yale – spend too much of our time worrying about abstract right, not practical right. We’re skilled in working out the very best theory. We’re not very good at figuring out how to engineer an argument to the best result. We’re the opposite of a politician, though we have just as many sins: Politicians care too little about what is right, and too much about getting the deal. Law professors care too much about what is right, and care too little about the strategy for getting what is right.”

Lessig then goes on to argue how Kagan is different:

“the core of Kagan’s experience over the past two decades has been all about moving people of different beliefs to the position she believes is correct. Not by compromise, or caving, but by insight and strength. I’ve seen her flip the other side. Those were the reports of her work inside the Clinton administration (Clinton’s nickname for her: ‘Judge’). Many describe her success at remaking a radically diverse law school (the Harvard I've returned to is not the Harvard I left). I’ve seen her earn the respect of people who disagree with her, and not by either running to a corner to pontificate, or by caving on every important issue.”

Kagan, Lessig argues, can see a fight and, “if she can see a path through... keeping her position in tact, she can execute on it.” Lessig goes on to say that, even when victory is obviously not possible, “she will engage the other side boldly”. It is extremely rare, also, for a Solicitor General to tell a justice he is wrong (as Kagan did to Scalia in the argument in Citizens United – this could make for interesting conversations in Chambers…).

Too Much Academia

For those who think Kagan should be disqualified because she spent too much of her time in academia (“too much time immersed in theory, not enough time in practice” is one way I’ve heard it), then this should surely disqualify Antonin Scalia. Scalia, who took his seat as Associate Justice of the Court in September 1986, has a pre-Supremes career of:

- 1960-1 : Sheldon Fellow at Harvard University

- 1977-82 : Professor of Law at the University of Chicago

- 1980s (couldn’t find exact dates) : Visiting Professor of Law at Georgetown and Stanford Universities

- 1981-2 : Chairman of the Bar Association’s Administrative Law Section

- 1971-2 : Office of Telecommunications Policy General Counsel

- 1972-4 : Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States

- 1974-7 : Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel

- 1982-6 : Appointed to the DC Court of Appeals (giving him one more year’s judicial experience than Roberts)

Clarence Thomas has only one year judicial experience pre-Supremes, after an exciting and brave career as a corporate lawyer for Monsanto (roughly during years when the company was attempting to take over South America again, so that had to be a little exciting). Thomas also had state-level governmental experience as well as national governmental experience, which sets him apart from the other Justices.

Think I’m picking on the conservative judges? Ok, let’s take a look at Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s career pre-Supremes:

- 1959-61 : Clerked for Edmund L. Palmieri, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York

- 1961–3 : Research associate and then Associate Director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure

- 1963-72 : Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law

- 1971 : Instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union

- 1972-80 : Professor of Law at Columbia Law School

- 1977-8 : Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California

- 1973-80 : ACLU’s General Counsel (on the National Board of Directors from1974–1980)

- 1980-93 : DC Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Lack of Judicial Experience

For those who are bothered by her lack of judicial experience, take into account that a Senator held up her nomination hearing until the president who nominated her left office (as already mentioned above, the same has happened to others, but Roberts got another crack at it under George Bush Sr.). As for the bizarre negative that Kagan’s “spent too much time in academia”... John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor didn’t serve as professors. The other four all served in academia: Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsberg as mentioned above; Anthony Kennedy for 23yrs (McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific); Stephen Breyer for 27yrs (1967-94 at Kennedy School of Government, and also as a visiting professor at Sydney University and the University of Rome).

This strange anti-intellectualism that permeates US political society and many people who follow US politics (even if they are themselves postgraduates or PhDs) is difficult to understand. Susan Jacoby wrote an interesting book that took a look at this, The Age of Unreason, which is worth reading (in fact, there are many publications on this subject, and I urge you to look them up, if you’re in any way interested).

Some people will say that they are uncomfortable with someone sitting on the court with no judicial experience. I can understand that – who, really, wants anyone in a powerful position without ever having comparable experience either within that organisation or in a similar one? However, knowing that other Justices had minimal judicial experience before their appointment to the Supreme Court makes me wonder if it’s really so important? Perhaps, as some have argued, her lack of judicial calcification (my terminology) will allow for broader, less institutional thinking on the Court – something that might go some way to reviving the Court? Interestingly, the Justice she would be replacing, David Souter, had the most pre-SCOTUS judicial experience: 22yrs (1978-90).

Limited Publications

Another concern about Kagan is her relatively thin number of publications. Let’s return to Paul Campos, whose article reads like an attack piece, picking on minor issues that could be easily put at the feet of any judicial appointee he supported. In a rare sign of balance, he writes:

“Of course cynics have noted that today Supreme Court nominees are often better off not having an extensive ‘paper trail’ regarding their views on controversial legal issues.”

Unable to allow this to go without a snarky comment, he continues with:

“Who would have guessed it would be possible to retain this virtue while obtaining tenure at two of the nation's top law schools?”

Despite the tone and approach, I think I would actually agree with him on the latter comment. I also agree with the final point of the article, in which Campos compares Kagan’s lack of publications on important issues to that of Myers’s:

“For most of the past 20 years, Kagan’s job has been to both develop and publicize such views. That she has nevertheless managed to almost completely avoid doing so is rather extraordinary.”

Within universities, the ‘publish or perish’ mentality/policy is still alive and well, and for anyone to progress so far within academia without publishing much is indeed surprising. Or, could it be a sign of just how good she is in practice, rather than on paper? I don’t know enough about her to answer this question, but I think it’s something that warrants investigation. That she has never seen fit to publish on key issues (though, again, I would say that the First Amendment and Presidential Authority are pretty damn important issues...) just shows the same lack of courage that most, if not all, Supreme Court hopefuls seem to show of late. It makes her unexceptional, but she is in no way alone in this.

Breadth & Diversity of Experiences

To refer to my comment about Thomas’s state-level experience making him different from the other justices (he also worked for a Senator), it appears rare for them to have varied career biographies. Stevens stands out from his service in the Navy (1942-5), before a career path that is as similar to the rest as to make no odds. Kennedy was a member of the California Army National Guard in 1961 before being a professor and government appointee. Breyer was on the Watergate taskforce (1973).

Kagan would become the fourth sitting Justice who clerked for a Supreme Court Justice: Roberts, Breyer and Stevens. Does this not count for something? It is ‘common knowledge’ (i.e. something that perhaps shouldn’t be trusted) that Supreme Court clerks do a lot of work for the Justices (research, etc.) and sometimes are called upon to draft responses, opinions, and dissents for their Judge. Her admittedly minimal experience of the Court could stand her in good stead, if she were to join the ranks of the Supremes, at an institution that is so steeped in tradition and proper etiquette (i.e. nothing ever really changes).

On a note of personal interest, it is noticeable how the more conservative Justices have the least judicial experience before their appointment – this would include Kagan who, despite serving only Democratic presidents, is considered to the right of centre and quite conservative (although Lessig does remain convinced of her “progressiveness”).

[Most of the dates and facts for this post were taken from the PDF linked above, but also here.]

Just because there have been so many good editorial cartoons about the Supreme Court nomination process, here are a couple more from the past couple of weeks.

First, from Clay Bennett:

Mike Luckovich:

Tony Auth:

(Just to address the obvious criticisms of the Republican approach to Democratic nominees – deserved or not, there’s plenty to suggest that there will be no filibuster of Kagan’s nomination, and most people agree that she will likely be appointed.)

Thought it might be best to finish on a lighter note.

Why let him Write about Technology?

2010-04-10T17:38:00.001+01:00

Sticking with the current issue of The Weekly Standard, I wanted to comment on their Casual column, “Betamaxed Out”, by Philip Terzian (p.5). He’s writing about technology and the impossible-to-have-missed release of Apple’s iPad. Let’s take the first snippet I had a problem with:

"when it comes to electronic/computer gadgetry, not only am I actively uninterested in nearly everything about them, but I have striven to lead a happy, fulfilled existence, as much as possible, in their absence."

Great, this automatically makes any comment the author writes about technology totally and utterly useless and pointless, not to mention destroys all his credibility.

With the second part that irritated me, one needs to take into consideration that TWS was pretty much leading the charge on the ‘Obama-is-an-out-of-touch-elitist’ movement. Terzian writes,

“I have long since made my peace with DVDs and CDs — although, as I feared when vinyl LPs disappeared from the market, there are innumerable recordings (Glenn Gould’s version of the Schoenberg Suite für Klavier, the last time I looked) that don’t exist on compact discs.”

Ah well, in that case… I imagine Terzian doesn’t realise that just because you know of obscure classical pieces doesn’t make you refined or impressive. It is also clearly not a piece that was popular enough to transfer to CD (though I wouldn’t be surprised if it was available, somehow, as an MP3, not that the author would deign to stoop so low as to embrace this medium). As someone writing for a conservative paper, he must be familiar – if not a fan – with the idea that corporations, including music labels, need to think of their bottom line, and therefore are less likely to produce stuff they aren’t going to make any money on. Anyway, back to the “we’re not elitists, Obama’s people are” thing – I somehow doubt that Sarah Palin (TWS editor Kristol’s item of obsession) would have the faintest idea who Glenn Gould is, let alone what the title of the piece actually means. I’m not saying she has to, but you can’t tout anti-elitism on the one hand, while actually doing everything in your power to exemplify every cliché of the Elite on the other. The National Review can get away with it because a) it’s a better magazine, and b) they know what they’re doing and talking about.

The whole feel of the piece is irritating pretty much from the get-go. I have no idea who Terzian is, what his qualifications are to discuss technology or progress thereof (apparently, absolutely zero, which puts him a notch below my grandmother), but his style is clearly that of someone who really wishes he was an eccentric, endearing aristocrat. Sadly, he is not, and his style is clearly affected. Only one person can genuinely pull this off: Prince Philip. Maybe also Prince Charles.

Misappropriation of UK Tories

2010-04-10T17:23:00.001+01:00

From Hadley Arkes’s “The Crisis Republicans Should Not Waste”, in this week’s Weekly Standard (p.27):

“The current conflict may have brought us to one of those rare crises that produces a recasting, or realignment, of the political parties. At a similar moment, Margaret Thatcher destroyed Britain’s Labour party as a socialist entity, forcing it to abandon its schemes, long cherished, for nationalizing major parts of the economy.”

Fine, but she still left the NHS in place – given that this article is meant to be extrapolating from the passage of Obamacare, it’s a bad example. But I’m not really surprised that someone writing for TWS would pick and choose, without reading all the way through (think 2nd Amendment, any argument based on anything in the bible).

If Memory Serves… (eBooks vs. Physical Books)

2010-03-30T23:09:00.001+01:00

This is just another thought about both physical books and eBooks & their respective benefits.

One benefit of actual books is that you’re less likely to forget you have a physical book that’s on your shelf, where you can see it, than something you can’t see on a device or computer. Perhaps, if you have a Mac or Windows 7 PC, which offer ‘sticky-notes’ for your desktop, you are more likely to forget about books you’ve bought in electronic format.

Personally, I use the ‘sticky-notes’ to keep track of eBooks I still have to read & review. It’s true that I would probably forget about them if I didn’t do this. Because I receive many physical books to review from publishers (both fiction and non-fiction), it’s easy to forget about the books I’ve bought for my Sony Reader.

For example, one of my favourite authors is John Sandford, who, for inexplicable reasons, isn't well promoted in the UK. For this reason, I always make a point of buying his latest novels as soon as possible, which frequently means in eBook format: I have his latest 2 Virgil Flowers novels (Heat Lightning & Rough Country), but only in ebook format. I meant to read and review them close to when they were released, but I keep forgetting I have them, as all I see when I look at my shelves are the physical books that I buy or am sent..

It's very much a case of out of sight, out of mind.

Someone needs to read more…

2010-03-25T10:29:00.001Z

In an article by Michelle Goldberg, House Minority Leader John Boehner said, in response to the passage of the Healthcare bill,

“Today we stand here amidst the wreckage of what was once the respect and honor that this House was held in by our fellow citizens… We have failed to listen to America.”

Ok, regardless of which side you are on in this debate, this is clearly ridiculous. The House of Representatives has consistently received terrible approval ratings! Let’s just take this Healthcare debate, and a CBS poll shows that only 32% of respondents approved of Democrats’ handling of the issue. Before Republicans get all gleeful, the same poll showed a dismal 25% approving of the GOP (this might be because they failed to offer any proper, adult response).

As for general approval ratings, take a look at this graph:

Source: Gallup

I don’t have the time (at the moment) to check out what caused the spikes in approval (2002’s 84% must have something to do with 9/11, beginning or Afghanistan campaign or something like that – anyone know?), but it’s pretty clear that Congress hasn’t exactly been vastly popular. This does beg the question: how to Congressmen/-women keep getting re-elected? Sure, there’s plenty of gerrymandering, but if approval of these people’s handling of their jobs is so low, why aren’t they kicked out?

To return to the Healthcare debate, let’s take a look at Gallup’s latest polling data on who supports the latest bill:

Source: Gallup

I imagine the slight tilting against for those who have Medicare coverage will have something to do with a belief that this new bill will reduce their Medicare allowances. Or they’re some of the few who want the government to keep their hands out of their… uh, government-provided medical care… (See below)

Source

And this t-shirt design says it all:

Source

It’s interesting that the bulk of the support seems to come from not only the poor, but also the rich – take a look at the +3 margin for those earning $90k+. That’s something I wouldn’t have expected. Although, one final comment from the Gallup article does not seem to add up with the slight leaning towards yes for the wealthier bracket:

“In a related finding, 73% of nonwhites (disproportionally Democratic in their party identification) say the bill's passage was a good thing, compared with 40% of whites (who lean Republican). The average income of nonwhites is also lower than that of whites, which likely contributes to their higher support for the healthcare vote.”

I’m still sure that, when the bill gets enacted, and people start to see the benefits, it will become another protected provision. After the naysayers start to get cheaper healthcare, or are able to get healthcare, then maybe things will settle down. Who really knows. I only know one person who’s actually read the bill (he’s Republican-leaning), yet he still sees it as some tyrannical provision that will spell the end of America. I shall have to go read it, and report back.

Reading beyond the (Washington) post…

2010-03-08T20:17:00.001Z

Got a link to a post on one of Washington Post’s blogs, about Sarah Palin’s tale of being taken to Canada for healthcare as a child, which was interesting, illustrating another peculiar incident of selective recall from Sarah Palin (though it’s not clear in which instance the recall is incorrect). What was most interesting, however, was the string of comments that came attached to it. The level of debate was disappointing to say the least. Beyond the occasional “pithy” comment about Palin, the comment string descended oh-so quickly into a conservative-he-said, liberal-he-said bitch-fight. Some of the comments are moronic in the extreme – clichéd misunderstandings of what liberals think/want, idiotic and patronising misunderstandings of what conservatives think/want… This on supposedly one of the US’s best, more intelligent newspapers? Really? So very disappointing.

One particularly frequent offender goes by the internet handle “idesign”, who randomly posted the following comment:

“Sarah Palin lives rent free in the heads of deranged liberals...LOL”

Quite beyond understanding what this means, it’s the “LOL” that really made this stick out.

Not to be outdone, a “liberal”, also known as “sasquatchbigfoot”, had this to say:

“I think you need to get on your knees, open your mouth wide and grab the HughGNutts.”

Naturally, “idesign” responds,

“Another intelligent post from a deranged liberal. LOL”

Again with the “LOL”… It totally destroys any impact his correct observation of a lame comment might have (not that we required “idesign” to point it out to us). This was met with another unintelligent comment from “sasquathbigfoot”, which really doesn’t make any argument other than: People who comment on US politics articles online are, by and large, People With Too Much Time on Their Hands…

Disappointment all around, then. To both liberals and conservatives on the internet: you need to stop.

Another Charlie Brooker article worth reading…

2010-02-16T19:13:00.001Z

This time about Apple’s latest “game changer”, the tablet PC-thingy, the iPad (something I realise I haven’t actually thought that much about, so I will here). The title of Brooker’s article cracked me up, but it is rather apt for many people, I imagine:

“iPad therefore iWant? Probably. Why? iDunno”

I’m a PC person. Have been all my life. This does not, however, look as if it’ll be the case for much longer. Increasingly, I’m getting frustrated with PCs. Also, it goes without saying that Apple products are really very, very attractive… Sure, not a reason to buy one, but their functionality is certainly unparalleled (living in a postgrad environment, I frequently feel like I’m at a Mac convention, what with all the MacBooks around, glowing Apple emblems adding mood lighting to every room in the university).

Want to download an attachment? On a Mac, it’s as close to instantaneous as the human mind can comprehend. On a PC? Double-click, yes I’m sure, ok have a quick scan, yes download it, ok to that folder, yes I would like to open it, etc…

Anyway, I digress. Back to the iPad. Brooker’s take on the device is pretty blunt:

“Apple pretends it will make your life more efficient. Come off it. It's an oblong box that lights up”

Fair enough. He goes on…

“At first glance it resembles an iPhone in unhandy, non-pocket-sized form. But look a little longer, and… Nope. You were right first time.”

I would, however, still like one. The reasons for me are simple – I read a lot of PDFs: almost all magazines that I subscribe to are digital editions, and I need to read a bundle of articles for my PhD and also tutoring topics. Not having to print them out, and hopefully still be able to highlight and make notes (which you can with Adobe Professional, and I think Mac PDF programs) would be a boon. If I can attach to Wi-Fi and check emails as well, all the better.

Which leads me on to Brooker’s other assessment (emphasis is for best line):

“The iPad falls between two stools – not quite a laptop, not quite a smartphone. In other words, it's the spork of the electronic consumer goods world. Or rather it would be, were it not for one crucial factor: it looks ideal for idly browsing the web while watching telly. And I suspect that's what it'll largely be used for”

Without being able to have a play with one, though, I really don’t know if it will be a game-changer. The scuffle over eBooks that occurred when Apple announced that they were going to have their own eBooks store was also something I’m not on Apple’s side with. The glowing screen of the iPad is unlikely to rival the reading experience of an eReader or Kindle, because it’ll likely cause eye-strain for anyone who does. It’s a backlit computer screen, after all, and not e-ink.

But, who am I kidding? I just want one…

Charlie Brooker on eBooks

2010-02-16T18:43:00.001Z

This is little more than a post to refer you to a good article by Charlie Brooker (someone I’ve only recently started to read), over at the Guardian. He’s discussing eBooks, and this line about the new Kindle’s ability to read the book out-loud for you, was pretty good:

“It can also read books aloud, which is great if, like me, you've spent years wondering how the great works of literature might sound if recited by a depressed robot.”

In general, he makes a lot of good points about the pros and cons of the Kindle and eBook technology as a whole. Well worth reading, you can find the article here.

Chapter 7 done, but…

2010-01-13T06:16:00.001Z

I’ve just recently been putting the finishing touches to a first draft of the seventh chapter in my PhD (a preposterous 17,500 words). I think it does as much as can be done on the subject given the resources and time available to me, and considering I am in the UK – topic was “Special Interests, Congress & US Foreign Policy”.

While typing up over the last couple of days, I’ve come up with a study that I would really like to do, and one I think would be beneficial to anyone studying the effects of domestic actors on US foreign policy. The only problem is, it would be impossible to do.

The study would take the form of a rather simple questionnaire about what and who influences Congressmen, Senators, and other government employees. So, for example, a series of questions might look like this (only better written):

Are you influenced by the media?
If yes, how (tick all that apply)…

Up-To-Date News
Information
Policy Proposals
Issue Awareness

How do special interests influence your decisions?

Agenda
Information
Issue Awareness
Electoral Concerns
Policy Proposals

The use of multiple-choice is to keep things simple and easy, which would make it more likely that they’d have the time to complete it. But, of course, without funds and access, no study like this could ever happen. The questionnaires would be anonymous, listing only the person’s job (Congressman, Senator, Chief of Staff, etc.). Then the results could be tallied, follow-up interviews conducted where possible/willing and a proper study of domestic sources of US foreign policy could be undertaken, and also be more-or-less accurate.

It’s not an idea that I’ve spent much time thinking about, but I couldn’t sleep, so I thought I’d type this up. The questionnaire would need a lot of work, and a lot more questions before it could possibly be useful. Follow-up interviews with a broad selection of respondents would also help add depth and explain some answers and/or patterns that might become discernible.

If only funding were available…

Rebel Alliance: Racist Alliance, too?

2009-12-28T21:45:00.001Z

Ok, why doesn’t Chewbacca get a medal at the end of Star Wars IV: A New Hope? Seriously, he was right there with Han in the Falcon, doing his part, so surely he deserved one, too? Just another example of The Man keeping the Fuzzy Man down!

An interesting article from The Daily Beast

2009-12-24T16:03:00.001Z

This is the blog equivalent of a re-Tweet, I guess, but I read this article from The Daily Beast about Palin, Schwarzenegger and the future of the GOP, thought it was worth pointing out to the veritable hordes (*cough*cough*) of people who read my humble blog.

“In both style and substance, Arnold vs. Sarah offered a preview of the coming debate within the party over how the GOP might govern as it bids to return to power next year. And for mainstream Republicans who often seemed cowed by tea-party rejectionists, the contest revealed a method for neutralizing the party’s Palinists.”

Author Joe Mathews had this to say about the contest/altercation between the two political celebrities:

“Palin is a skilled media manipulator who cleverly trades on personality, physical appearance, and a knack for sharp one-liners. So is Schwarzenegger, who had the crucial advantage of having played this game for 30 years. In taking on the governor of California, Palin foolishly launched a rivalry with a smarter, savvier version of herself.”

I wonder how long it will take for Palin to say this, too, was another dastardly act from the liberally-biased media mainstream. Mathews even suggests this when he points out that

“Palin’s persona is built on the notion of her as a victim, under attack by politically correct forces; in this theology, she is a common-sense truth-teller, a stand-in for regular folks and their resentments.”

The article discusses Palin’s first jab, followed by Schwarzenegger’s adroit riposte, and Palin’s utter fumble of a response. It’s interesting, and it’s nice to see someone praising the Governator for a change.

Grumbling in a Fit of Pique!

2009-12-20T16:05:00.002Z

[Warning: This post is not my best, and somewhat rambling]

A little while back, I read an article about the right-wing strangle-hold on political thriller fiction. I’ve taken some time to cool down, but the article still bugged me, and now that I’ve caught up with my reading of political thrillers (one of my all-time favourite genres, as can be seen from my fiction review site).

The article in question is from The New Republic, perhaps my favourite news magazine/journal from the US. It’s title? “The Beck Supremacy: How a right-wing conspiracy hijacked the thriller genre”, by Jason Zengerle, and from the December 2nd 2009 issue of the magazine.

Now, a lot of what Zengerle writes is perfectly valid and hard to refute – that Flynn “is to the war on terrorism what Tom Clancy was to the cold war”, is very true. Flynn’s note to Rush Limbaugh, for example, trumpeting the conservative pandering in Chapter 50 of Pursuit of Honor is disappointing, and certainly helps Zengerle’s case that “Flynn appears to be angling for a new level of conservative street cred”. However, I do take offense at his characterisation of thriller fans:

“[They are] the type of reader who, like Limbaugh, watches the TV show 24 not just for entertainment value but also for political lessons.”

I watch 24 because it’s entertaining. Which is the same reason I read Flynn’s novels; not to mention Tom Clancy, Kyle Mills, Daniel Silva, Ian Flemming, Joseph Finder, Andrew Britton (RIP), to name but a handful – it’s my favourite fiction genre. Here’s another thing I have a problem with:

“the protagonist of Flynn’s novels, CIA counterterrorism operative Mitch Rapp, exhibits such a talent for maiming, torturing, and killing Muslim bad guys that he makes Jack Bauer look like a simpering ACLU attorney”

This makes me think Zengerle has not, in fact, read many of Flynn’s books. First of all, yes Rapp does have a particular skill at extracting information, frequently using extreme measures, but Flynn is very clear about Rapp’s psyche – he is not a sociopath or psychopath, who derives enjoyment out of doing any of these things. Indeed, in the first 100 pages of Pursuit of Honor, Rapp is explicitly described as doing only what is necessary, not what he enjoys. Not only that, also early in the novel, Rapp is concerned about his protégé who seems to be cracking under the pressure of the job.

There are certainly snatches of the novel that clearly exhibit Flynn’s (or, at least, the right’s) political preferences and views. Including this snippet, when Rapp is being grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“This is where we not only say it’s perfectly okay for a doctor to kill a full-term baby, but we think taxpayers should help pay for it... And you call me a barbarian.”

Zengerle seems to take offense at Rapp/Flynn’s characterisation of Carol Ogden, a senator in the novel who bears a resemblance to Barbara Boxer of California – a senator who, as Rapp puts it,

“moved in the elite circles of her party, listening to the trial lawyers, academics, and the nuttiest of the crazy special-interest groups”

Well, this isn’t exactly unfair. Whether or not Boxer was the inspiration for Ogden, it has to be said that many Senators and Congressmen are beholden to special interests – Boxer herself is rather beholden to the defence industry, which has a considerable presence in Southern California (see Robert Scheer’s The Pornography of Power for some of her concern for the little people). As for the “nuttiest of the crazy special-interest groups”, well this could just as easily be directed at the nuttier wing of the Republican Party (which appears to be growing).

Zengerle then goes on to blame Right-Wing talking heads for the success of political thrillers. Well, this one I’ll happily give him – liberal talk shows just don’t invite thriller authors. Joseph Finder, in the same article, says this and says it’s disappointing because he’s not a conservative. Why? Is it a case that liberal presenters can’t allow themselves to enjoy books like this as entertainment, because it doesn’t contain the same values they espouse on their shows? Now who’s the party more interested in political purity?

The second half of the article chills out and starts to pay attention to the more left-leaning thriller authors, but by then the damage is done. If you consider that most articles are never finished (last statistic I was told, by a producer of Newsnight, was 92% are never read to the end), this is really quite unfair and irresponsible. If he was only interested in dispelling the idea that thrillers are right-wing, or only appeal to arch-conservatives, why didn’t he say so earlier?

After getting to this point, and pointing out a couple of left-leaning authors (John le Carre, Robert Ludlum), as well as identifying Allen Drury as the “arch-conservative” originator of the genre, Zengerle says that

“while Drury, le Carré, and other thriller writers of their era may have let their politics inform their fiction writing, they did not allow their politics to dominate it”

Well, neither do the authors of today. Flynn is just as able to articulate an intelligent liberal position or perspective as he is a conservative. His liberal characters are not buffoons or cartoons of liberals, unless they absolutely have to be – i.e. if he needs a political enemy of the CIA (who, as a whole, seem to be of the liberal ilk). And what’s wrong with identifying bad arguments? Many liberal arguments are thin sound-bites poorly argued by someone just interested in getting more face time on the morning talk-shows. Republicans are the same. There are far more statements in Pursuit of Honor that are general jabs at government as a whole, bipartisan in their direction and intent, and his negative (bipartisan) opinion of Capitol politics:

“partisan game that everyone wants to play in Washington. Republican versus Democrat… liberal versus conservative… none of that matters… the only thing we’re supposed to concern ourselves with is national security” (p.148)

In some ways, Flynn has done a better job here than Zengerle has. This above quote is but one instance of Flynn’s characters bemoaning the state of American politics into a right-versus-left battle for influence and political stardom. There are other times when it feels like Flynn is merely saying what we all wish we could say, but are afraid to because of the hyper-PC environment in the US (and the UK) – particularly when Rapp complains about how it drives him crazy that “there are people in [Washington] who think the way to peace is to afford tolerance to an intolerant group of bigoted Muslim men” (p.222).

Here’s another passage that’s a problem for me:

“But there is an underlying fear and paranoia running through Flynn and Thor’s political thrillers that was missing from Clancy’s. It’s that sense of menace — as much as any sense of reassurance — that accounts for these books’ popularity with right-wing talk-show hosts, who, after all, are in the business of convincing listeners and viewers that both they and their country are in constant peril.”

Yes, right-wing hosts are in the business of hyperbole, but it was the George W. Bush government who pushed this sense of fear and menace to begin with, more than anyone else. (And let’s not forget all the liberal media outlets who bought into it following 9/11). Is it so strange that authors, writing about contemporary events, are using the sense of the times? World War I and II novels, Cold War novels (not to mention movies) also had a certain feel of the times. Vietnam movies and books, too.

Zengerle says Clancy’s novels were overtly ideological – exhibiting a “We’re the toughest guys in the world, and our guys can beat their guys” mentality. Is this really ‘ideological’? Who actually wants to read a novel (or, many novels) that has a “we’re bastards, and weak ones at that” approach?

Thrillers are meant to entertain – otherwise they would be called ‘downers’. Who cares if the author is a conservative or liberal? If the novel is entertaining, and actually thrills, then I’m going to read it. If Jason Zengerle doesn’t understand this, then he really has no business writing about the genre. He does understand this, though, as he explains how Flynn and also Brad Thor’s novels have a comfort value to them – they make us feel better because the ‘good guys’ beat the ‘bad guys’. There are so many instances in the article when Zengerle sits on the fence or plays devils advocate that it’s difficult to really understand the point of the article. Is he trying to get the liberal media to pay more attention to thrillers? Or is he genuinely arguing that the right-wing has taken over the genre to advance their own political agenda?

“Political thrillers are seldom reviewed in The New York Times; and, while their authors used to pop up for interviews on the Today show or Larry King’s old radio program, those days are gone. Meanwhile, the new breed of liberal television pundit isn’t interested in hosting political thriller writers, either.”

This seems somewhat disingenuous of Zengerle to write, pointing the finger at other liberal hosts and outlets. It’s not, after all, like The New Republic has reviewed many thrillers, or has much time for the genre in general. (To be fair, TNR is somewhat politically neutral or ambiguous, which I like.) In fact, their fiction reviews tend to focus on books most people have never read, never heard of, and probably will never read. To pass up any opportunity to promote a book would be folly. If conservative talk-shows are all that’s left, then you go where you can.

Fair enough, Flynn’s pandering to Limbaugh and Beck is off-putting to someone who thinks Rush Limbaugh is a big fat idiot (to take Al Franken’s words) and Glenn Beck is a cretinous buffoon, and may certainly suggest that Flynn is trying to push a political agenda. But, as I’ve mentioned, if you read the book this is clearly not the case, unless you really want to see it. Kyle Mills, for example, is probably left-leaning in his politics, but his novels are so well balanced that you can’t help thinking that all sides are reasonable and on to something. (Mills’ Mark Beamon series in particular, is excellent.)

Here’s Joseph Finder (author of Power Play, and most recently The Vanished) on thriller authors:

“Most thriller writers tend not to be politically identified — not publicly, anyway, because they want to sell books and not turn off potential readers,” says Finder. “But I’ve noticed that those few who are open about their politics tend to be conservative, largely because the market favors that.”

Is it the book-buying market or the media market that favours conservative politics? Again, I think it’s more a case of the media pundits that find it easier to sell thrillers to conservatives, because of the clichéd belief that conservatives are the only ones who like to take action, rather than sit around and have a casual chat to sort things out. That would make for a boring book, totally lacking in thrills.

Ok, this rant has veered off on its own trajectory, so I shall bring it to a close here. Zengerle, while he makes some very good points (Thor and Flynn, neither of whom were in governmental or military service, shouldn’t be called upon as foreign policy experts), is not clear what he’s actually trying to achieve with the article. He also clearly doesn’t ‘get’ the political thriller genre. There are lefties out there, writing thrillers. But, if they’re not thrilling, then they don’t belong in the genre. Action and violence are key staples of popular- and mass-entertainment: just look at Hollywood, the favourite whipping-boy of the Conservative right wing of American politics and the number of action movies they produce every year.

I am neither a nutty right-winger, nor an uneducated hick. I don’t think Limbaugh is worth the air he breathes, and Beck should be considered a national joke. But, I love political and action thrillers. They’re entertaining. Let them be.

[All page numbers from Pursuit of Honor are from the eBook edition]

Silence is golden

2009-12-09T15:06:00.003Z

So, the first post in a looooong time. I could argue that it's because of the volume of work I find myself having to grapple with. Or maybe the reviews have taken priority, making this blog slip to the way-side as I work my way through an ever-growing pile of review copies. Maybe it's because I just don't have anything worth saying.

Unfortunately, none of these are entirely accurate. I do have a ton of work - both for the tutorials I'm taking (the subjects for which I know surprisingly little...), and also the second to last chapter for my PhD, which I'm trying to get finished (currently 2 weeks overdue, with no clear submission in sight). I'm still reading books and reviewing them, but these too have dropped off in volume. As for not having anything to say... well, we all know that's just not true, and probably will never be true.

When I manage to carve out some free time, I'll start pontificating and complaining about things again. Fear not, the Grinch has not hung up his... um, grinching equipment (?).

The Nook

2009-10-20T19:36:00.001+01:00

Barnes & Noble have just released info about their own eReader, the strangely-named “nook”. Info and an introductory video (with a dippy actress) can be found here.

I don’t really see the benefit of the colour lower screen, but it’s an interesting- and good-looking device that will probably never be released in the UK. Sigh. Here I think we’ll be limited to the Plastic Logic “Que”, which will also be available in the US.

Oh, the insanity…

2009-09-14T07:58:00.002+01:00

Saw this over at Political Carnival, and thought it was worth referring to; this is the logo for the anti-tax, anti-socialist, Glenn Beck-ified marchers:

Let us all note the Communist/Socialist solidarity and union fist. Three times. Raised in the air in protest. Much like this logo…

I wonder if Glenn Beck will be having another cry over the state of the nation, when he realizes just how idiotic he really is.

Once again, I’d also like to just say how astonishing I find it that some people will still consider him a comedian. That requires him to be funny on purpose – instead, he’s just a buffoon.

Damn he’s good…

2009-09-09T15:00:00.001+01:00

No doubt Republicans will just dismiss this as Obama-fever, but I’ve just watched Obama’s message to School Students, and I must say, if the UK had a leader like this, it’d be a better country.

What he said in the speech was exactly what needs to be said to every student in the UK. Gordon Brown? David Cameron? They’ll never be able to be this good, this honest, or this impressive.

US Healthcare Debate

2009-08-27T12:52:00.001+01:00

One of my friends on Facebook recently posted a note on her profile that has created an utter shit-storm of comments (55 at last count), so I thought I’d just mention the article I pointed everyone towards:

David Goldhill’s “How American Health Care Killed My Father”

The title’s pretty sensationalist, but it’s a long article and it deals with pretty much every argument from all sides of the debate. It is, for me, the best article on the subject so far, even if I’m not well-enough informed to comment properly on his suggestions at the end.

Someone sat on a Mini…

2009-08-26T12:43:00.002+01:00

Not sure if I like it, but I am intrigued.

Words to ease a troubled, paranoid PhD student

2009-08-17T18:18:00.001+01:00

An excerpt from my supervisor’s feedback for the latest PhD chapter I’ve submitted, on US foreign policy and the media:

“this was very interesting and enjoyable. The standard of citation is exceptional; and you have overcome the problems of balance: there is now an appropriate distribution between your own words and other people’s. Structurally it is also sound: indeed if it were a think-tank report then it would be nearly complete.” [emphasis obviously mine]

Certainly picked up my mood and made me feel a little better – when I submitted it, I was ready to put my fist through my computer screen, and my concerns over referencing and quotations and so forth (here, here, here, and here) turned out to be mostly over-compensation. Feel a lot better, now. Onwards to the next chapter!

Oops…

2009-08-16T08:34:00.001+01:00

Just a little something for all those people who think the Republican/Right-Wing hysteria over ‘death panels’ is getting just a little bit silly, if not totally, criminally dishonest:

“In some knock-out reporting, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow showed Thursday night that not long ago Rush Limbaugh promoted death panels on his own radio show, Newt Gingrich sung their praises in the pages of the Washington Post, and, as the half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin actually proclaimed an official Death Panel Day for her state!”

- Leslie Savan, The Nation

Could these people be more hypocritical? It’s just such bald-face lying! (Go to the link for video.)

Palin opens her mouth again. (On Facebook, no less…)

2009-08-08T20:31:00.001+01:00

This time, she’s talking about the Obama health-care plan, “reinforcing” the euthanasia, death-to-old-people fantasies of the extreme wing-nuts and ditto-heads. On her Facebook profile (way to be hip with the kids, yo), The Daily Beast reports, Sarah Palin stated on Friday “that health-care reform, or what Palin calls Obama's ‘death panel,’ may kill her infant son, Trig”. Here’s what she had to say:

“The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's ‘death panel’ so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,’ whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil”

She’s referring to page 425 of the House Democrats’ bill, which has nothing to do with euthanasia, just what voluntary options will be available to the elderly to help them decide what to do about their care, should they require certain procedures or help if they become too infirm to care for themselves. The Daily Beast again:

“As for Palin's description of mandatory Sparta-style murder of Down Syndrome babies, the paranoid vision doesn't match up with any component of any health care plan being discussed.”

Once again, Palin is using her children for political gain – despite slamming the Media for talking about her children, as well as warning them against bothering the new Alaskan governor’s family. By bringing Trig into things, he’s going to be referred to again and again as people try to (once again) figure out what planet Palin’s actually from.

Sony eReaders, & Why they might win the “war”

2009-08-06T02:02:00.001+01:00

From an article by Larry Dignan, forZDNet, on Sony’s devices reading multiple eBook formats:

Does Sony need a partnership with other e-book stores? Mullin said Sony’s plan is to support multiple stores and be wherever consumers buy and use books. Sony sees beyond its SonyStyle.com stores to libraries and other outlets. However, Sony’s store supports its own format while Google features PDFs and e-books on the ePub standard. Mullin said Sony will support them all. “Sony Reader supports ePub and plenty of stores support that format,” said Mullin. “We’re agnostic and encourage the bookstores in the market to provide content in an open format.”

Also, on the subject of colour screens, Mullin (Dignan’s source at Sony) had the following to say:

“When color is brought to market it has to be brought in a way that meets consumer expectations. There’s a tradeoff between readability and color. It’s also a tradeoff we’re not willing to make at this point.”

I’m with Mullin. A lot of people are asking where the colour is in eBooks. Well, it’s not necessary at the moment (in my opinion, because of what I read, it probably won’t be a deciding factor for me). If all you’re reading is text, then why do you need colour? So the cover images aren’t in colour, so what? Doesn’t ruin reading the book. If they could improve the focus of the text (resolution?), though, that would be nice.

On the PlasticLogic front, I’m disappointed to learn that they are going to be licensed exclusively through Barnes & Noble – another reason I think Sony’s got more of a chance in winning the “eBook Wars” (quite why everything has to be a “war” and not just competition is beyond me, and rather too martial and melodramatic for my taste) – by accepting/running most formats (or at least more than others), they have the greater potential. I’ve get eBooks from the Sony eBookstore and also Waterstone’s, and they are different formats and work perfectly. I’ve not bought any eBooks from B&N, but I’m going to check to see if they would work, first.

Twitter’s Benefits for Reviewers

2009-08-02T20:53:00.002+01:00

Been catching up on my internet things since coming back from Cusco, and I found this on my review-site’s Twitter feed:

It’s the second two that are of most interest. I reviewed Mark Charan Newton’s Nights of Villjamur on my site. Emma reviewed Alan Campbell’s Iron Angel (which is the 1st tweet up there), and the person who found that also found the review of Nights of Villjamur and passed it on to the author.

It’s wonderful how connected the world has become…

“Monsieur pot…

2009-08-01T21:13:00.001+01:00

… you are black”, said the Republican kettle. From this week’s Weekly Standard (p.22):

“Eric Holder’s Justice Department: It’s all politics, all the time” [emphasis mine]

Ironic, given this article in the Washington Post. For the Republicans to berate the Democrats for pursuing politics at all times is perhaps the most hypocritical thing they can do – anyone remember Rove and his “permanent campaign”? Or, like the real culprit(s) for the current US recession, has this faded into the unknowable (trans. inconvenient) mists of the past? I don’t condone the Democrats pursuing politics all the time, at all costs, but this is just too hypocritical of the Weekly Standard.

The Hummer is dead…

2009-07-31T00:01:00.001+01:00

… long live the ~~hummer~~ Toyota FJ Cruiser.

Despite General Motors closing down production of the behemoth-like Humvee range, Toyota appears to still believe that the market is still calling for a huge SUV/truck. This is their answer:

Saw one in Peru – they are big, and certainly look very sturdy. In a country where it’s still common to be mugged, it makes sense. But in the rest of the developed, ‘civilised’ world? I’m sure this will sell well – it does look like a nice truck, but I wonder if people are going to be convinced in the current economic climate. I guess we’ll see. I have no doubt, though, that it’ll get better MPG than the Hummer ever did.

On Obama’s expensive holiday

2009-07-30T17:50:00.001+01:00

Really this is only a link to a good story by John Avlon over at the Daily Beast, about the cost and ‘elitist’ nature of the holiday.

“It’s a miracle of modern spin that the grandson of a senator and son of a president escaped the “elitist” tag while the inter-racial son of a teenage single mom in the ’60s gets tarred with it.”

And also, continuing the assault on Republican hypocrisy:

“the digs’ monthly price tag is more than millions of Americans earn in a year—but that’s the market rate, which the president is rightly compelled to pay. And he doesn’t have a family estate in Kennebunkport to retire to for speed golf and boat racing.”

Very good piece.

Two Great, Recent Movies

2009-07-30T01:10:00.002+01:00

It’s actually been a little while since I saw these, but I thought I’d mention two movies that really struck me, recently.

First off, The Proposal, which stars Sandra Bullock and Ryan Reynolds. In some ways, this is a mixture of Indecent Proposal and Green Card, only with a modern twist. Bullock was excellent as the career-focussed, cold Margaret Tate, who ropes Ryan Reynold’s Andrew Paxton (Tate’s over-worked assistant) in a fake marriage so she can stay in the country – she’s Canadian and her visa’s expired. The chemistry between the two of them, as they go off to see Andrew’s family in Alaska, is very good. The movie is filled with superb, very funny scenes; all of which work and are never forced or over-the-top. Thankfully, as well, the movie doesn’t fall prey to that oh-so-American need to explain every single joke or show it all. A very funny comedy, both the stars are on top form.

The next movie is the latest Harry Potter, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. This I was initially not too bothered about seeing in the cinema. When we went to see it in Lima, though, I was amazed by how good it is – the direction, cinematography and even the acting from the three main kids… all are very well done indeed. The best so far, the movies continue down their darker path, with great promise for the final two instalments.

This would never happen in a sane country

2009-07-28T15:24:00.001+01:00

If you’ve been keeping up with the zany (ok, bat-shit crazy) “birthers” in the US, who claim President Obama wasn’t born in Hawaii, then this might calm your mind:

“the House unanimously passed a resolution on Monday affirming that Hawaii is, in fact, the birthplace of President Obama”

That it was ever thought necessary to pass such a resolution is bizarre and disappointing. What troublesome is how people like Lou Dobbs and many, many others, keep this ‘conspiracy’ alive.

Read the full story at Salon, here.

An excellent innovation for cinemas!

2009-07-23T19:31:00.001+01:00

Only ever seen this in Peru (where I am at the moment, by the way):

And, one photo (apologies for the low quality) of the tray in situ at my seat:

It fits into the cup-holder in the arm-rests of the seats – it’s like a TV dinner, but with Dolby surround and a massive screen!

We need this in the UK!

A sloooow news day indeed

2009-07-21T22:35:00.002+01:00

There is just no way this is "news":

"I Kelly, take you, Kelly - same name Facebook couple to wed"

This got me intrigued…

2009-07-18T15:19:00.001+01:00

“Anyway, Glenn Beck screaming like a cartoon mouse being stabbed in the scrotum with knitting needles is your new, terrifying ringtone. Warning: Once you listen to this clip, you can never un-listen to it.”

It’s referring to a recent Glenn Beck radio segment, when he went absolutely crazy when a woman called in about Health Care reform. It’s over at the Huffington Post.

I’m amazed that he’s described as “Fox News Channel comedian”, because he is anything but funny. Ever.

Excellent New Lacuna Coil Music Video

2009-07-17T14:14:00.001+01:00

This is the latest music video from Lacuna Coil, for their single “I Like It”. It’s pretty cool, the song’s excellent, and it’s nice to see the band have a good sense of humour:

Some great input on the eBook market

2009-07-17T00:32:00.002+01:00

Jack Shafer over at Slate.com on Wednesday published a story about illegal eBooks and sample of the publishing industry responses and his opinions on both eBooks and the various devices required to read them. The article had a lot of interesting additions to the general eBook debate – once again, far more eloquent than any of my own burbling on the subject, so I thought I’d add (again) my own two cents.

One starting point, about the eReader devices currently available. Shafer doesn’t like them at all:

“all the electronic reading gadgets on the market are subpar, if you ask me, making the reading of books, newspapers, magazines, and even cereal boxes painful. The resolution is poor. The fonts are crap. The navigation is chunky”

He also characterises your average eReader as “a heap of garbage”. Personally, I think he’s being a tad harsh. He’s completely spot on about the “chunky” navigation and the poor resolution – though, on the last point, I find that most of the cover artwork is usually fine (see photo – not many eBooks actually have ‘covers’, though, which is disappointing).

I only have the Sony Reader to comment on, so I’m not sure how it is for the Kindle or Iliad. The text font isn’t great, and it can sometimes look out of focus on the smaller font size settings, but it’s still readable. The page-refresh rate depends on what you’re reading: pages with images change slower, and the Sony format is marginally quicker than a PDF/Adobe eBook (as well as smaller in file size).

Anyway, back to the main point about the article – that of the possibility of “napsterizing” the book industry: “Only a student or a deadbeat with a lot of time on his hands is going to want to search the Web and scour the torrents” for free versions of eBooks. This is a fair concern, as I think the same about pirated eBooks as I do pirated MP3s – not good for the people who make/write/perform them, so damages their ability and desire to produce the stuff in the first place. Shafer has a point, though about the ease of getting pirated eBooks: “It’s as tedious as fishing!”

[Please note – I only did a Google search, I didn’t download anything – and couldn’t have if I wanted to, because the University network blocks all torrent sites, etc.]

Shafer’s arguments against raising the prices of eBooks are spot on, and I really hope publishers take note – if prices start going up, they’ll turn potential buyers off (especially if/when hard-copies are cheaper!!).

One of the best thing about the article, however, is easily missed: it’s a link to the PlasticLogic eReader site that will hopefully be released soon, which Shafer says makes “electronic reading painless”. All I can say is, like Shafer, I am very taken by this device, even if it doesn’t look as nice as the Kindle or Sony Reader (though it’s still not bad looking):

(It would be nice if the borders weren’t so wide, and if it wasn’t white – damn the iPod and Apple for making manufacturers think electronics should all be white!!)

Blog embarrassment?

2009-07-16T19:36:00.001+01:00

A good, recent editorial cartoon by Bob Gorrell, one of my favourite editorial cartoonist:

It’s strange for me that I post many articles, posts, reviews, etc., which any stranger with an internet connection can read (in the unlikely event that they might actually want to, or just happen to stumble across them), but when a friend or colleague visits the blogs, I can be become quite embarrassed, not to mention very defensive.

This is especially true when it comes to my review sites: I never feel comfortable when my friends read my reviews. I’m not sure why, really. For the fiction reviews, it’s not really a problem (different people like different books, so the reviews mainly focus on plot, style, readability, etc.); but for the non-fiction reviews, it definitely is. Perhaps this is from an intellectual inferiority complex or something – we’re all postgraduates, and for the main clued up to world events and politics, so my reviews sometimes feel limited or simplistic.

Speaking of reviews, I’ve recently had one published in the East Asia: An International Quarterly journal. It was for David Kang’s China Rising, which wasn’t bad (but not great). The review can be found here.

I shall leave you with another Gorrell cartoon, which is also pretty good, and simple in its execution:

Palin Signed WHAT?!

2009-07-15T05:44:00.001+01:00

Sarah Palin has gone that extra step in celebrity signings. In the front page New York Times photo of her, she’s clearly signing a baby!

This is beyond weird.

A Newsworthy Occurrence! (London Fire)

2009-07-15T00:08:00.001+01:00

While in London this past weekend, I found myself (for the first time ever) in a position to actually report on a newsworthy event: the fire on Dean Street in London’s Soho, where fire-fighters fought to put out a blaze that left the offices of Future Capital gutted.

Emma and I happened to be walking along Oxford Street, and were able to see the smoke (which we’d originally been able to smell in the Charing Cross branch of Borders). In an unusual display of journalistic-curiosity, I dragged Emma down the street towards the smoke. Below are some of the photos I took of the scene (my phone’s camera, for once, up to the task):

Finally, considering this photo…

… I thought this headline that evening was somewhat amusing:

US Political Tradition – Sex & Polls…

2009-07-08T21:55:00.001+01:00

An interesting post from The Atlantic’s “Idea of the Day” blog, by Conor Clarke:

“Polls are as integral to the American political tradition as sex scandals or earmarks. Yet it's not clear that they serve any beneficial purpose.”

Read the rest, here.

T2

2009-07-08T21:44:00.001+01:00

(Sorry, I’m referring to Transformers 2, not Terminator 2 – which is one of the best movies ever made, by the way.)

Just got pointed in the direction of this rather amusing website, Topless Robot. (I think the author’s name is Rob, so I’m going to go with that.)

Rob had this to say about his 2,500-word (!) review of the new Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen movie:

“It dawned on me at about 4am last night when I was finishing my review that 2500 words might not be enough to fully describe the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen experience.”

Having not seen the movie, this doesn’t bode well, as I was really looking forward to it. Heaven knows what he’s going to write about the G.I.Joe movie later this summer!

Anyway, the post is a list of his Transformers 2 FAQs, and they’re rather funny. Here’s my favourite:

What is the status of the Transformers at the beginning of the film?
The Autobots have joined the military to hunt down the Decepticons. We're told the Decepticons are "doing things," but they appear to be hiding peacefully when the Autobots show up and brutally murder them.

I also recommend this post about a Hello Kitty Tazer…

Obama Admin: Dangerous to your health?

2009-07-08T19:14:00.001+01:00

Two photos say it all, really. First, Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor, with her leg in a cast:

[Photo Source]

Second, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with her arm in a sling:

[Photo Source]

What on earth are they getting up to in government?! At least now we know hazard pay is justified…

FOX In Palin-Critical Shocker!

2009-07-08T12:01:00.001+01:00

I’ll be damned, Liz Trotta goes off message on FOX, and politely tears Palin a new one (despite the host’s attempts to make it positive):

Amazing that they allowed this woman on the show without cutting her off mid-segment! (They’ve done it oh-so-many-times before.) She should be given… well, anything she wants, really.

Semantic Trickery…

2009-07-06T23:19:00.001+01:00

Just took the MSNBC.com US citizenship test, and I didn’t pass it (!?!). Got 75%, which is effectively a “Want to become American? Well, tough” grade.

14. Who selects the Supreme Court justices?

The President nominates someone, and the Senate confirm. Which is “selection”? Technically, the Senate selects the nomination they think should have the job. Turns out, though, it’s “nomination”:

They are appointed by the president. (NOTE: This is the response given on the official United States Citizenship and Immigration Services Web site. The president selects the justices; however, they must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. If they are rejected by the Senate, then the president must choose a new nominee, who, again, is subject to Senate approval.)

Foiled by semantic trickery! That, or I’m just having a dense day.

I also had no idea that the “N-400 Application for Naturalization” was the form I would need to fill out. (Now, where can I get myself one of these…) No idea that the 7th Amendment has nothing to do with voting rights, either. And I don’t recall ever noticing Patrick Henry’s name in my reading of copious numbers of presidential biographies, or that he said “Give me liberty, or give me death!”.

When/if I ever have to take this test for real, hopefully I’ll pass. Only need 85%, which is showing knowledge of more than many Americans, I imagine (same goes for UK’s Citizenship Test, so don’t start calling me anti-American).

WTF?

2009-07-06T23:02:00.001+01:00

I’m sorry, but I don’t get this. Is someone reaching for an allusion? I’m not dense, but this I just don’t get.

eBooks – An Author Weighs In

2009-07-03T11:53:00.002+01:00

Ah, someone else has been weighed in on the issue of eBook prices; and, I have to say, he does a much better job than I did (it helps that he’s actually a member of the publishing community, and therefore has most of the facts involved). It’s the author Joe Abercrombie, who wrote the excellent The First Law Trilogy, and has most recently released Best Served Cold. (He’s a very, very good author, so check his stuff out!)

After announcing that his books are now available in eBook format from Waterstones.com, he said,

“The prices are a tad disappointing - £10 and change for Best Served Cold when a hardback is selling at £8.50, and around £6 for the First Law books when mass-market paperbacks are available for a mere £4.”

This is pretty much the argument I’ve been making, and it’s nice that an author has mentioned this. He goes on (big quote):

“a lot of users somehow think that eBooks, since they don't have to be printed, are pure profit for the publisher and should therefore be virtually free whereas, of course, the great majority of the costs that go into making a paper book (commissioning, editing, artwork, marketing, repping, promoting and, erm, paying the author) still apply with an eBook… Even so, selling eBooks at more than the cost of the paper books is going to look just a wee bit like taking the piss to some buyers, I suspect.”

As an eBook buyer, I can say that it does. I appreciate that books need to be marketed, and I’m certainly all for authors (and musicians, but that’s a different discussion) getting paid – in fact, I believe they should get a bigger share of the pie. To bring up my main bugbear again, it’s the fact that they cost more, but require less – i.e. printing and shipping are not an issue.

Emma, my girlfriend, is in publishing, and she edits on-screen in a Word document. Surely it’s cheaper/easier to convert a Word document into an appropriate eBook format? I know the Sony eReader can convert PDFs made from documents into a perfectly readable format very easily (it struggles a little with scanned-page PDFs).

Abercrombie says that he’d like to see them “retail at most at the same price as the paper equivalents, and ideally somewhat lower”, which I think would be perfectly fair. The author does provide a potential reason/explanation for eBooks being cheaper:

“At the moment most publishers and booksellers are still focused on the paper market where heavy discounts are applying more and more widely, making eBooks something of a speciality item and hence relatively more expensive.”

Ok, fine, I can more-or-less accept that. But, then why didn’t this apply to MP3s, too, when they first came out through iTunes or wherever? In that case, I remember an MP3 album being roughly the same price (usually about a £1~ more, but only because I can get a student discount). Ok, Amazon was sometimes able to sell them cheaper still, but not at the same discrepancies that you find with eBooks.

All this being said, I’ve got £1.99 on my Waterstone’s card, which would bring Best Served Cold down to £8.18, which is a pretty good price for a new hardback-eBook.

The debate continues, I guess…

Anyway, go check out Joe Abercrombie’s books, while you’re thinking about it.

Purdum on Palin

2009-07-01T16:08:00.003+01:00

Just started reading Todd S. Purdum's Vanity Fair piece about Sarah Palin, and I think the following questions sum up many people's concerns about US politics and Palin's nomination as a whole:

"What does it say about the nature of modern American politics that a public official who often seems proud of what she does not know is not only accepted but applauded? What does her prominence say about the importance of having (or lacking) a record of achievement in public life? Why did so many skilled veterans of the Republican Party—long regarded as the more adroit team in presidential politics—keep loyally working for her election even after they privately realized she was casual about the truth and totally unfit for the vice-presidency?"

The rest of the article's pretty good, too.

Jon Stewart & Mike Huckabee on Abortion

2009-06-28T13:48:00.001+01:00

This is part two of the interview, but I thought it was excellent. They both know their positions very well, and it’s refreshing to see a civilised debate about the issue, where no one’s frothing at the mouth or attacking the other. I do, however, agree with Jon Stewart, but I suppose that was inevitable. They both talk about increasing education on reproduction, which is a glaring omission from syllabuses (as far as I’m aware – going by what I read in the newspapers; though it’s also partially true for some schools/areas in the UK). Anyway, decide for yourselves:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Extended Interview Pt. 2

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

(The rest of the interview is available on The Daily Show’s website.)

Someone’s on the same page…

2009-06-27T04:29:00.001+01:00

From David Rothkopf’s recent post, about Obama’s honeymoon being ‘officially’ over:

3. No matter who is president, Kim Jong Il is still nuts...

Kim Jong Il has spent the past month reinforcing the preceding point. "You may be Mr. Charisma," he says via his missile tests and nuclear experiments, "by I am Mr. Certifiable Loon. Which in the rock-paper-scissors of international diplomacy means I win every time." All of a sudden, Obama finds when it comes to North Korea...and a host of other places...sitting in the Oval Office makes him look and act a lot like his predecessor no matter how much he wishes it weren't so.

The thing about Twitter…

2009-06-14T15:20:00.001+01:00

I’ve been reading the TIME magazine cover story about Twitter and how it’s going to radically change our lives (colour me skeptical at the moment), and I must say that I still don’t really get Twitter. I’ve got two tweet-feeds (one for me, one for my book review site – seemed like a good idea at the time, but it’s really just a waste of time), and I don’t get the attraction. I’ve been tweeting more this past week, and I must say that there’s been no noticeable change to my day, life, or anything. It’s a bunch of mini-blog posts.

I’ll give it a bit more time, see if anything interesting happens.

The weirdest thing

2009-06-14T15:17:00.001+01:00

Yesterday (possibly Friday), someone stole the toaster from our kitchen, and replaced it with a completely broken one. It required moving our big-ass fridge to get to the plug. That’s an awful lot of effort for a toaster. Why?!

Living in college, we have communal kitchens outfitted by college. If something gets broken (as you can imagine, a frequent occurrence), all we have to do it mention it to the porters, and they’ll either fix it or get a replacement as soon as they can. I reported the broken on, and had a new one the same day.

Some people in college do the weirdest things…

Irony…

2009-06-11T19:44:00.001+01:00

By David Horsey

Should I really be doing this?

2009-06-08T20:13:00.001+01:00

I’ve started to pull together the latest chapter for my PhD, covering non-governmental actors in US foreign policy. I must say that I’m seriously questioning whether or not I should be doing this. Not because I’m not interested in the subject, but because I’m having quite a hard time actually writing this damn chapter.

I’ve read hundreds of articles and book chapters on the subject, and I am completely lost. There seems to be no consensus for who is or isn’t influential in the foreign policy-making process. Media, one would think, should have an influence on foreign policy. But, with conflicting statements by government officials, who is to be believed? Those who state how a policy would play in the media as a genuine concern (e.g. James Baker III, Colin Powell) would ‘prove’ that the media was an influential actor. But, equally, there are many in the media as well as researchers and officials who state all the media does is facilitate the government (see, for example, Noam Chomsky and the New York Times-Iraq scandal). The literature on the influence of special interests and business on US foreign policy isn’t great. There’s plenty of innuendo about business buying foreign policy and officials, or special interests taking over the Clinton administration, etc., but it still doesn’t really come together to make a good chapter or even a particularly good chapter.

The aim of the chapter is to make the reader aware of the forces that exert even a modicum of influence over the foreign policy-making process, if not to be the definitive last word on the matter. These forces are clearly business, media, special interests/lobbies, and ‘the academy’ (think tanks, scholars, former officials, etc.). Stretching it all to 10,000~ is probably not going to be too much of a problem, but the stuff I’ve got is just so… blah. (One can only hope this mastery of the English language is not quite reproduced in the final draft…) I can’t bring myself to care about the subject at the moment – I’ve been reading the material for four months, frequently experiencing eureka moments only to discover that they last for no more than a paragraph (if I’m lucky) or actually prove useless to the chapter.

Beyond my concerns about content, I have concerns about the way I’m writing and approaching the chapter. I seem to be writing in a manner that would barely pass muster for an undergrad, let alone a PhD student. It seems simplistic, trite and a has a considerable air of “who cares?” about it. My comments and “analysis” are hardly earth-shattering or particularly intelligent, and I can’t imagine the examiner at the end of this thinking I’m worthy of having “Dr.” at the start of my name.

I’ve got a week to finish the chapter, and one can only hope that what I finally produce is vaguely reminiscent of a PhD chapter. Otherwise, I just might pack it all in.

On Durham’s Admissions Procedures

2009-06-01T21:04:00.001+01:00

So begins the Sunday Times’ article, “Top Schools Boycott ‘bias’ Durham”:

“SOME of the country’s most academic schools are discouraging pupils from applying to popular courses at Durham University in protest at what they see as an admissions system ‘fixed’ against them”

I attended (“did time at”) Marlborough College, one of these “top schools” (it was, I can’t deny I got an excellent education from some of the best teachers in Britain), and at no point was I ever discouraged from applying to Durham. In fact, there was a running joke that Durham took the “Oxbridge Rejects” (i.e. anyone from private school who applied to Oxford or Cambridge but was rejected for whatever reason – this includes myself). Ok, so I started at Durham University in 2001, but still.

With this in mind, what’s all the fuss actually about? Apparently Durham University uses a mathematical formula to decide who gets admitted to the university, favouring those students who are from poorer or less-privileged backgrounds:

“because candidates from low-scoring schools have outstripped their peers, they deserve more credit than pupils who score a string of A* grades at a school where most pupils do so.”

I seem a certain amount of merit in this position, but why should my GCSEs be worth less? Did I not do the work for them? Did the current crop of students being turned away not do the work?

Durham turns away approximately 3,500 applicants with or expected to receive 3 A’s at A-Level. Apart from a small selection of students who give the impression of being as dumb as posts (making determinations on this somewhat difficult), I would say that an easy majority of my students this year were of upper-middle class backgrounds, or at least from wealthy families and from good schools (whether private or otherwise). I therefore wonder just how much of an issue this really is: The Times article had only one example of a student rejected from Oxford, Edinburgh, York and King’s College London. He’s now going to study in the US (lucky him, I would have loved to have been able to study there).

As Mike Baker soberly wrote in The Guardian:

“The fears over positive discrimination are probably overdone. No university wants to admit students who lack the ability to complete their course. No one is suggesting tariffs or quotas. But universities should treat each applicant as an individual, taking account of prior achievements, circumstances and potential. And that means A-level grades alone are not everything.”

I got this in an email today:

“In some subjects Durham is now as competitive as Oxbridge for entry. In many subjects AAA is the minimum entry qualification. Thus, inevitably, many very strong candidates will be disappointed. Last year we rejected 3,500 students predicted to have at least AAA at A level.”

I know it’s common for people to comment on how “things were harder in my day”, but I think this is the case. My first year tutees this year – with but a couple of exceptions – were by and large as intellectually curious as bricks. Ok, that’s perhaps a bit of a harsh representation, but most of them exhibited little ability to think outside of the box, an over-dependence on spoon-feeding (also evident in my 2nd year tutees, who were taking a 1st year module), and a reluctance to engage in class discussion. Sometimes it was next to impossible to get my students to join the discussions.

This makes the Vice-Chancellor’s response to the Sunday Times article all the more surprising:

“personal statement, reference, study skills, motivation for the degree, independence of thought, achievements in non-academic activities and how applicants perform in relation to other leading students in their school” [emphasis mine]

With almost every student achieving 3 A’s at A-Level, universities must rely on other criteria to make decisions. I believe I was admitted on the strength of my interview with one of my future lecturers. Personal statements should be considered, but then there is the problem of them also becoming formulaic and over-flowing with misplaced praise. University-specific exams? Well, I remember reading somewhere that Oxford and Cambridge were considering bringing them back (are they already in place?), but I can’t imagine Durham bringing them in anytime soon.

As a final comment about grades: I received one B and three C’s at A-Level (one was for General Studies, so I guess it doesn’t count), yet I’ve completed a BA from Durham (receiving a 2:1), a Masters degree from Cardiff, and am now in my third year of PhD back in Durham (tutoring on the side). My point is, in complete agreement with Mr. Baker, grades aren’t everything and they don’t indicate what the student might be able to accomplish under the right conditions. For that reason, it is dismaying that Cambridge University now admits to no longer reading personal statements when considering applicants – it is on the personal statement that students like myself, who maybe don’t have a stellar academic history pre-university, can have the chance to shine or catch an admittance officer’s eye.

There is no easy solution to this problem. Having a tantrum about it won’t help, and neither will running to the papers crying foul. Maybe your kid just didn’t stand out – it’s a nigh-on impossible thing for a parent to admit that their child isn’t, actually, particularly special (I know my parents are somewhat blinded to my own academic short-comings).

More PhD Chapter Writing Issues

2009-05-30T17:05:00.001+01:00

I now have almost 16,000 words of notes and quotes typed up for my latest chapter about Non-Governmental Actors in US Foreign Policy-Making Process. The chapter’s only meant to be 10,000 words long, but there’s just so much information, so many good quotations that I’d like to use to build the chapter, that I find myself in a quandary about writing.

The media sections of the chapter, most of all, are causing problems. I’ve read and noted literally hundreds of articles from TIME, Newsweek, The New Republic, The Nation, The Weekly Standard, National Review, The Atlantic, Harper’s, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times to find out how they report on China. Sure, I’ve been able to spot the trends: for The Weekly Standard, for example, China is a particularly favourite whipping-boy, while Wall Street Journal reports almost exclusively on business issues, in a rather bland or positive manner. But there are so many good quotes, I’m having difficulty cutting them down.

The structure of the chapter’s also causing problems. All the actors I’m looking at – special interests, business, academics, media – are interconnected, each feeding and reinforcing the other. In many ways, without one, everything would fall apart. Do I start with the media, and work backwards? Or do I start with business, academics and special interests, discuss their opinions, preferences and positions, followed by how the media then conveys their messages and reports on their actions, policies, and positions? Each has its pluses, but also negatives.

It sounds strange to be worrying about this so much, but I can’t start writing before I sort this out. Bloody infuriating.

Just in case the US was feeling left out…

2009-05-30T16:57:00.001+01:00

The Wall Street Journal today has a story about US Congressmen creatively using their government allowances: “Lawmakers Bill Taxpayers For TVs, Cameras, Lexus”

It’s nice to know that it’s not just the British politicians who are able to creatively game the allowance system of their government. While there are no stories about a Representative using his/her allowance to dredge their moat, the $24,730 Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings expensed for a year-long lease of a Lexus GS450H is considerable. Not as dodgy as Eni Faleomavaega claimed expenses for two $1,473 TVs.

The problem with the story is, of course, that the American lawmakers are amateurs at this. (Or maybe they’re more honest than British MPs?) There’s nothing particularly outrageous (see aforementioned moat-dredging) or shocking. Ok, Faleomavaega bought some TVs – how many offices on Capitol Hill don’t have a TV? CNN or another channel is always playing in the background, I’m sure. (46” is excessive, but maybe the Rep. is blind?)

And the Lexus Hybrid? Well, that’s good for the environment, and $24,730 for a car like that is actually pretty good – according to Lexus’s US website, their purchase price starts at $56,550, which would actually have still fallen within the Congressional individual expense claim allowance of about $1.5million per year (to cover everything from staff salaries, travel, and general office and job expenses).

For us in the UK, bombarded with films and novels about corruption in the US political system, it’s a weird but nice change for the UK to have the more corrupt pols. (Nice, at least, for those few of us who actually like the US, and want to live and work there.)

More about New Newsweek

2009-05-29T01:27:00.001+01:00

Well, it seems like they’re going for themed issues from now on. Fine, but an entire issue about Iran, and only Iran? Some of it was interesting, for sure, but there’s a lot more going on in the world!

Considering the higher price (even for subscribers), I can’t say I’m looking forward to years of only finding the occasional article in the occasional issue of interest or use.

Disappointing. Breadth is not something to shy away from.

Proof of Global Economic Problems…

2009-05-29T01:24:00.001+01:00

Apparently, the new sofas college ordered for the coffee-shop have had to be cancelled – the factory/company that made them in China has shut down because they are bankrupt.

The problem with relying on an export-led economy is, of course, if no-one’s ordering your stuff, you’re in deep trouble. Didn’t expect the furniture sector to be so quickly and noticeably affected, though, as I figured everyone needs somewhere to park while they drink coffee. Ah well.

It would have been nice to have some new sofas, though…

The New Newsweek

2009-05-22T18:50:00.001+01:00

It seems to be the season for magazine re-designs. The Atlantic recently underwent a very successful (and colourful) redesign, and now we have one of the best newsweeklies undergoing a similar face-lift. I’ve been reading the magazine religiously since October 2002, when I was living in Kumamoto, Japan, and wanted something in English to keep up on the news and general current affairs (I am equally fond and loyal to TIME magazine for the same reasons) – it would later become my go-to publication for information and updates on the War in Iraq.*

This new design for the magazine has both good and bad elements. First, and most importantly, it’s not always clear what’s an article. They now appear almost identical to those annoying “Special Advertising Sections” that Newsweek runs from time to time – usually about the economic developments of an African or South American nation. This effect is largely down to the abolition of the familiar red bar at the top/bottom of every page of journalistic content. (Now they have more varied bars.) The new font is not as good, either – it’s more squat and rounder than the previous one.

The opening sections of the magazine are, on the whole, better. It’s less messy, and much more visually pleasing (what used to be the “Perspectives” section is now the “Scope” section, which includes sub-sections like the “InternationaList”), even if there are bigger empty spaces. What does work in the new design is the three-column approach, an improvement on the previous two-column, which for some strange reason both looks better and reads easier.

Moving beyond the actual design, the content of this issue is pretty good. Couple of good articles about President Obama, but also an interesting article about George W. Bush’s post-presidential life.

On the whole, the magazine looks cleaner and crisper, perhaps a little more modern. But I shall reserve my judgment until I’ve read a few more issues, to see if it’s really as good.

* Incidentally, since I was relying on weeklies, and not getting daily updates, I found the shift from Afghanistan to Iraq wholly suspect and irregular. So at least there is some benefit to not being a news junkie – a benefit I have since lost…

Greatest Irony of the Month

2009-05-16T16:44:00.001+01:00

Dick Cheney, the patron saint of government opacity, has had a Freedom of Information Act request denied. Brilliant.

Very Good Video About UK Exclusion List

2009-05-08T17:16:00.001+01:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Battle of the Banned

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Infuriating Tutoring…

2009-05-08T15:22:00.001+01:00

Just finished my final two tutorials for the year, and the first was perhaps the most infuriating experience of the year. The first 40mins went pretty smoothly, followed by some discussion about the formative essays I’d just handed back (of the 60~ essays, majority did worse than they should have for a second attempt).

Then we moved on to exam essay planning practice. The question was something about whether or not the “security dilemma” is still relevant to today’s security agenda. Pretty straightforward. There was some confusion as to what the security dilemma actually is.* Perhaps where I went wrong was thinking it would be best to see if they could answer that question. This pissed them off. A lot. So, after a rather long, futile attempt to get them to answer the question (pesky tutors expecting their students to think for themselves), I irritably answered the question for them. (There was much sighing, knowing “teacher’s think” grins, and rolling of the eyes.)

Now, I think it would be fair to say that the fault of the situation lies with both myself and also my students – firstly, I shouldn’t have spent so long trying to get them to answer, because it gave the impression that I couldn’t answer the question (I could, but their confusion and lack of understanding was confusing for me, as it’s a pretty important, day-one concept, which made me question what I knew), and I shouldn’t have acted so irritated. Secondly, they should realise they are in university and they no longer get things spoon-fed to them.

What’s interesting for me, though, was the two main tutees kicking up a fuss were from opposite ends of the spectrum. One has failed both assignments (she’s a second-year), the other got firsts for both assignments (he’s a first-year). Apart from making me reconsider whether or not the latter should really have been given the top grades (plagiarism, perhaps…?), it was surprising, but also highlighted the reason that the former failed (total lack of imagination or intellectual curiosity).

I explained that nobody in the class had said anything that was wrong in any tutorial they’ve had. Yet, for some reason, they just refused to try this one.

Don’t really know why I thought I should write this, but it’s been irritating me all day. It’s never good when a tutor/teacher gives the appearance of not knowing what they’re talking about. The fact that I did know, and was right makes it doubly annoying!

Anyway, you live and learn. Next year, I’m not going to be anywhere near as lenient.

- - - - - - - - - -

* Essentially, and boiled down to its simplest definition: “one nation’s security is another’s insecurity” (can be shown using China-Japan relations, US-China relations, Cold War arms race, etc.)

- - - - - - - - - -

Update (17:28): Just received an email from one of the tutees who attended the class – turns out, I’m not the only one who annoyed by others in attendance. Interesting.

Under whose authority…?

2009-05-08T14:54:00.002+01:00

A very quick post (stream of consciousness): Just read an article from Reuters, “China warns France against award for Dalai Lama”, and there are a couple of things that stand out as ridiculous.

First off, if you consider that China is a nation that waves the banner of sovereignty at any given opportunity, this statement is hypocritical in the extreme:

“If the city of Paris makes him a so-called honorary citizen, it will certainly once again be opposed by the Chinese people. We demand the Paris city government stop all actions which interfere in China's internal affairs and not make the same mistakes again and again on the Tibet issue.” [emphasis mine]

Under what authority is the Chinese government able to demand anything like this from a sovereign nation? Perhaps I’m missing something, but France is perfectly within its right to offer honorary citizenship to Paris to whoever the hell it wants, Beijing’s knickers getting in a twist or not.

The fact that France acquiesced is incredible, as it merely strengthens China’s hand at throwing its weight about (something, I might add, they complain about the US…). Maybe there is something to the “cheese-eating surrender monkeys” thesis…

A great photo

2009-05-01T16:29:00.001+01:00

Got sent this link today. It’s title is “What Grown Men Do With Their G.I.Joes” – it’s not dirty, just really funny:

http://www.e-brighthorizons.com/what-grown-men-do-with-their-gi-joe-action-figures/

“Here’s More Money To Do Your Job. That We’re Already Paying You To Do…”

2009-04-22T19:56:00.001+01:00

I know this isn’t the biggest story about the recently released UK government budget, but after catching the cover of today’s Times, and couldn’t pass up commenting on this ridiculous headline:

“MPs to get extra £150 a day for turning up”

What?!

According to the story, by Sam Coates,

“MPs will receive about £150 a day on top of their salaries for attending the Commons in an emergency package of anti-sleaze reforms to be rushed through Parliament.”

Quite how this proposal is related to anti-sleaze reforms is quite beyond me, but in the wake of the release of MP expense claims, and the clear evidence that a dishonest many are submitting expenses for everything under the sun without doing any (or much) work, this is unbelievable.

As far as I can tell, the taxpayers will now be paying their MPs an extra £150 per day that they spend doing their job. Which they are already paid handsomely for (£64,766, according to the same story).

Well, as always, there’s a little more to it than that. After I overcame my bout of populist-outcrying, I read on. Coates explains:

“His central proposal is to abolish the £24,000 second-home allowance that has caused dire headlines, most notably for Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister wants MPs to vote for a tax-free daily allowance to be obtained by ‘clocking in’ at Westminster. Members would not have to submit receipts and the allowance would come on top of their £64,766 salaries.”

Sounds pretty reasonable, no? (To me, it sounds rather like the system the Labour Government put in place to effectively bribe kids to go to school).

Dispensing with the need to submit receipts looks like a doozey for MPs, so I imagine this will receive a great deal of support. And, no doubt, we’ll see an up-tick of MPs present and correct in Parliament, tapping away on their Blackberrys, reading books and magazines, paying not a bit of attention to what’s going on. That, or they’ll clock in at 9am, collect their £150, and go home.

“If the daily rate is more than £150 the new system is likely to cost more than the current one, according to a 2007 analysis by the Commons. With the House sitting 150 days a year on average, many MPs could claim more than £20,000 a year.”

£22,500, to be exact. So it’s not more expensive, but it’s still a lot, and the difference is negligible.

The reaction from MPs? Well, another story by Sam Coates, entitled:

“MPs aghast at clocking in, but set to back £150 attendance fee”

Naturally.

Where does all the money go…?

2009-04-16T22:18:00.001+01:00

Sorry to keep peppering the blog with loads of Daily Show clips, but this interview was great. It’s with Elizabeth Warren, who tries to make it clear where all the TARP money’s gone, and what’s been done with it. It’s very funny. And a little worrying. Anyway, watch on!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Elizabeth Warren Pt. 1

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Elizabeth Warren Pt. 2

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Holy S#@t!

2009-04-15T23:26:00.001+01:00

Just saw the latest post on the White House blog. As it’s tax season, and because of the Obama administration’s commitment to transparency and openness, they’ve released the Obamas’ tax… things – not sure if they’re forms or returns. Anyway, saw this and it made my jaw drop:

“The Obamas paid $855,323 in federal income tax.”

And:

“The President and First Lady also released their Illinois income tax return and reported paying $77,883 in state income taxes.”

That’s a total of $933,206 in taxes. Which is frankly ridiculous – if ever there was a number that made me think that Ron Paul might be right, it was that one.

I also have a feeling that’s more money than I will ever see in my entire life.

The best reporting on Pirate Rescue

2009-04-15T14:01:00.001+01:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Pirate Rescue Simulation

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Couple of things from this week

2009-04-13T13:11:00.001+01:00

The White House Blog feed is going haywire, sending me the same 50~ feeds about three or four times a day. It’s rather irritating, and if it’s happening to journalists, I imagine they’re getting rather annoyed at the lack of newsworthy stuff coming out of it. Though, the photos of Bo, the “first dog/puppy” are kind of cute.

Having recently been introduced to Peeps (the marshmallow treats with a radioactive pallor), I was amused to find the picture below on the Foreign Policy website:

Honda Hybrid (In)Sighted

2009-04-12T15:37:00.001+01:00

The new Honda Hybrid (“Insight”) has come to Durham! Saw it yesterday in the parking lot of Dragonville Tesco’s (pictured below). Looks a lot better than the Toyota Prius (even if the 2009 model is better than previous one). What’s more, it’s supposedly more environmentally friendly and is actually cheaper than the market leader. Hopefully, someday, I’ll be able to afford one…

(Not the best photo – using Nokia N79, which doesn’t seem to take the best photos, even with a 5MP camera that’s supposed to be good!)

Real Meaning of Easter

2009-04-12T15:34:00.001+01:00

Ok, I know it’s not, but there’s something about chocolate eggs in mugs that always makes Easter for me.

Tyranny has come to America…?

2009-04-09T10:34:00.001+01:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Baracknophobia - Obey

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Bruce on Daily Show

2009-04-07T17:47:00.001+01:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Bruce Springsteen - Interview

comedycentral.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

And the performance…

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Bruce Springsteen - Working on a Dream

comedycentral.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Sony eReader

2009-04-07T01:09:00.002+01:00

So, I finally made a decision and chose an eReader. I went for the Sony (pictured below), as it is compatible with at least one ebook retailer in the UK (Waterstone’s). I must say, the machine’s fantastic. It’s small, light, and feels like a metal book. Not perfect, but also far from bad.

I’ve made a couple of interesting (ok, “geeky”) observations: eBooks from Waterstone’s online store have a slower refresh-rate than eBooks from the Sony store.

Waterstone’s uses Adobe’s eBook format, while Sony uses the BBeB format. I don’t really have any more technical information than that, but for thrillers and really gripping novels, I image it’ll be really annoying reading them on this reader, as the page turn speed can be a little… tiresome on stuff I’ve bought from Waterstone’s. The Sony store also has a much better selection of Politics books, and the special offers are actually special – Waterstone’s just has 20% off a price that’s more than a full-price paperback/hardback, which Sony’s store has comparable offers to Amazon’s Kindle shop, as well as some great deals. For example, I recently got Lee Child’s Persuader absolutely free, and Brian Ruckley’s Winterbirth for only $1. Waterstone’s? Not a sausage, when it comes to decent prices.

Some examples of pricing disparities (book/eBook, where applicable):

James Patterson’s Run For Your Life

Amazon US: $15.95/$9.99
Amazon UK: £9.53 (hb)
Sony: $11.99
Waterstone’s: £13.29/£17.47

Kristin Cashore’s Graceling

Amazon US: $11.05/$9.99
Amazon UK: £6.99
Sony: $11.90
Waterstone’s: £7.99/£14.86

Also, it must be said that the quality of the eBooks from Waterstone’s are nowhere near as good as those from Sony’s store – the pages aren’t justified, the cover artwork is either grainy or non-existent, and it all just looks either rushed or cheap, which makes the extra cost doubly annoying.

(Pictured with Leslie Gelb’s Power Rules ready to read, purchased from the Sony Store)

In the Press

2009-04-02T11:33:00.004+01:00

Just wanted to point out a good couple of articles from The Economist about President Obama's administration, and how it's been rather disappointing for many, including his supporters. The articles discuss Obama's failures and his weaknesses so far in office.

Leader: "Learning the hard way"

"There are 23 slots at the [Treasury] department that need confirmation by the Senate, and only two have been filled. This is not the Senate's fault. Mr Obama has made a series of bad picks of people who have chosen or been forced to withdraw, and it was only this week that he announced his candidates for the two of the department's four most senior posts."
"Mr Obama has mishandled his relations with both sides in Congress... If Mr Obama cannot work with Republicans, he needs to be certain that he controls his own party. Put bluntly, the Democrats are messing him around."
It's not all doom-and-gloom, though, as the author points to some evidence that the administration is learning to properly address the issues it is faced with.

Article: "Coming down to earth"

Interesting quotes pending... (I still need to finish the article)

A great photo

2009-03-31T18:44:00.001+01:00

Got this photo from a good post by Oliver Hart and Luigi Zingales at Foreign Policy’s The Argument.

Credit: KAREN BLEIER/AFP/Getty Images

(If I have mis-credited the photo, please correct me!)

Robert Reich, Soothsayer?

2009-03-29T19:57:00.001+01:00

In the April issue of The American Prospect, former Secretary of Labor under Clinton, and author of Supercapitalism, Reich puts forward his predictions about the American economy. The article begins:

“I've got something of a reputation as an economic soothsayer. Last March I predicted the economy would slide off a cliff in six months. Six months later, it did. How did I know? I'll get to that later. Now, I'm predicting the economy will start to recover in the second quarter of next year.”

Beyond its rather self-important tone, Reich has some good things to say and back up his position. He says it’s important to look at the fundamentals (without saying they’re “strong”, as we know how dangerous that can be), and that in business “what goes down eventually comes up”.

“look at the economic fundamentals -- such as historic ratios of home values to rents and incomes and of stock prices to corporate earnings. At the rate houses and stocks are now dropping, they'll be terrific bargains by the middle of next year. Meanwhile, given how fast business inventories are now dropping, firms will probably start rebuilding by then. Business investments in plants and equipment are now nearing a standstill, so by the third quarter of next year companies will need to replace lots of aging equipment. On the consumer side, the sharp falloff in spending on durables means lots of cars and appliances will begin wearing out by the middle of next year.”

Reich’s argument is that in order to guarantee the traditional mid-term losses in congressional majorities that afflict almost every president, Obama has to have something to show for the stimulus come election day. In order to do this, Reich says, Obama might have to ask for a second stimulus from Congress. Republicans will likely try to block this, as (in a rather unpatriotic display of cutting-their-noses-off-to-spite-their-faces) “the last thing they want is an economic recovery by the midterm elections.”

Obama’s approach to the Wall Street and Big Three bailout could prove pivotal:

“The wild card is the mammoth bailouts of Wall Street and the Big Three, which most Americans almost uniformly oppose. Congressional Republicans claim to be outraged -- outraged! -- as well. So far, Obama has been treading a fine line between criticizing the bailees and still giving them what they want.”

The danger of higher interest rates which could choke off recovery from seeking more government borrowing from Japan and China (the latter growing feisty about possibly moving away from the dollar as a reserve currency), and the possibility of not getting the stimulus from Congress put Obama and his administration in a difficult position. Reich, however, thinks that Obama will be forced into some rapid triage, which could start showing results by the time voters need to wake up again. Reich makes a lot of his prediction about the crash. Let’s hope he’s right with this prediction, too.

News Round-Up #3

2009-03-29T19:14:00.001+01:00

Here we go again, with The Nation, The New Republic, and The Weekly Standard.

Eric Alterman, in “Is Jon Stewart Our Ed Murrow? Maybe…”, discusses the importance of Stewart and also Stephen Colbert. Specifically, they “have the audience that powerful people want to reach; yet at the same time these two men don’t participate in a pack mentality, and that’s what makes them politically invaluable.” The best bit of the article is when Alterman outlines the three main events, perpetrated by these two men who are “just comedians”:

“Stewart pretty much ended Crossfire all by himself and retired the foolish notion that a left/right food fight leads one any closer to truth. Next, Colbert shamed and exposed the pathetic performance of the White House press corps with his brilliant after-dinner speech at the correspondents' dinner. And now Stewart, first by eviscerating the coverage of CNBC and second by forcing Jim Cramer to own up to his on-air hucksterism, has revealed the lie at the center of most business coverage (and just about all cable news)… Stewart and Colbert have done yeoman work for the rest of us by exposing the thoughtlessness of the punditocracy's perpetual-motion machine, which spins itself silly powered only by hot air.”

Other articles of note in this issue are Gary Younge’s “Bonus Outrage: Class Struggle or Class Envy?”, which looks at the outrage over and reaction to AIG bonuses (yes, that’s still going on). An amusing point is that in polls surveying public opinion of the bonuses, 37% said they were “bothered”. That’s almost British.

Ari Berman asks whether or not the coal industry is really committed to environmental responsibility in “The Dirt on Clean Coal”. (Answer: not so much. They spend more on advertising and improving their image, not a great deal on new technologies, according to the author.)

This week’s New Republic takes a look at the Democrats in Washington, D.C. First, Eve Fairbanks writes a positive profile of Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, and how his public persona conflicts with his behind-closed-doors conduct (out of the glare of the media lights, he appears to be very good, and not at all the blow-hard he comes across as in the press – Fairbanks wrote another good article on Reid in December 2008).

The greatest obstacles to President Obama’s success, according to Jonathan Chait, are the Democrats. In “Why The Democrats Can’t Govern”, the author shreds the party for being “congenitally unable to govern”, because

“At a time when the country desperately needs a coherent response to the array of challenges it faces, the congressional arm of the Democratic Party remains mired in fecklessness, parochialism, and privilege.”

Chait is frustrated with the Democrats’ inability to make sense, or to seize the moment to properly and rise to the occasion of setting a new agenda for, and reshape the priorities of the US government. Chait names and shames a number of Democrats who seem to be confused about what they want – “demanding that Obama do more to reduce the deficit while simultaneously opposing his deficit-reducing measures.” The author worries that we will see a re-run of the Carter and Clinton years, when the Democrats turned complete control of Washington into failure. Articulating perhaps the main frustration of non-governmental Democrats, Chait closes his article with:

“It seems impossible to believe that this party, with the challenges before the country so great and the opportunity to address them so rare, would once again follow the path of self-immolation. Yet, somehow, the Democrats can’t help themselves.”

The Weekly Standard this week has a number of interesting articles.

“The Beltway is waking up to the realities of President Obama’s budget plan, which taxes, spends, and borrows as fas as the eye can see”, begins the editorial (“A Big, Fat Failure”) by Matthew Continetti. He first exhibits some acceptance of the welfare state that that is encouraging (not to mention refreshing):

“Americans aren't going to dismantle the welfare state. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are--like the Pentagon--here to stay. The task, then, is to ensure that those programs are sensibly structured and financed, and compatible with robust economic growth. And on this score, Obama's budget is a big, fat failure.”

The author points out Obama’s resistance to free trade and how this position will not encourage economic recovery. Continetti includes some rather scary figures (which I haven’t been able to check, so I’ll leave that to you, if you have the time) about the end-results of Obama’s policies:

“tax revenues are plunging thanks to the recession. So the federal government's balance sheet was always going to deteriorate in 2009. The problem is that Obama's policies would move us from deterioration to disaster. The national debt Obama gripes about? His budget will double it to 80 percent of GDP in 2019. Whatever that is, it's not ‘a new era of responsibility.’”

Stephen Moore’s article about the administration’s budget plan and what it will mean in the long run, “Obama’s Fuzzy Math”, will simply scare the crap out of anyone concerned about government deficits (“in the first 45 days of his administration, the federal government has authorized more debt spending than Ronald Reagan did in eight years in office”). He characterizes the “Obama doctrine” in economics as:

“built on the high stakes economic gamble that the public and the bond markets will tolerate trillions of dollars of borrowing to pay for massive expansions in government spending on popular income transfer programs. The corollary to this doctrine is that the left will create a political imperative to jack up tax rates to pay for higher spending commitments made today.”

The article is actually well-balanced (Moore’s not averse to pointing out failures or problems with Reagan’s budgetary discipline), but he certainly leaves little room for optimism. The author’s skepticism about certain Democratic promises of spending dropping off after a few years is also well-founded (it’s not going to happen, when it’s funding for education, child nutrition and Pell Grants).

Moore claims that the period of 1982-2007 saw the greatest creation of wealth and prosperity in American history, with the national debt growing by about $6 trillion and US net wealth by $40 trillion. “A pretty good trade,” he says. Yes, this does look like a pretty good trade, but what was the wealth? If it had been anything but smoke and mirrors created by the causes of the current economic crisis, America wouldn’t be in the state it is today.

That Pesky Media Bias Again…

2009-03-28T04:29:00.001Z

(Advert from this week’s Weekly Standard)

Week’s Media Round-Up #2

2009-03-28T04:16:00.001Z

Still catching up this week, here’s a quick look at the notable articles from The Weekly Standard and National Review.

In The Weekly Standard, William Kristol turns his attention and derision on Obama’s recent contact with the leaders of Iran. Kristol clearly thinks Obama’s lost the plot, arguing that with the communication he “bends over backwards to reassure the mullahs that our government wishes them well”, and accusing the president of “kowtowing to a regime that is anything but republican, implicitly foreswearing any plan – any hope – of regime change to free the Iranian people.” The letter is “vague enough to be nonthreatening”, and Obama appears to believe “that we should speak nicely to our enemies, but carry no stick.”

P.J. O’Rourke, in “Special Envoy to the Taliban”, continues to provide evidence that he’s losing his edge. After a very good article about liberal excesses (in a nanny-state-type setting, rather than spending – a nice change for a conservative paper), which could have been written by Stephen Colbert (I’m still sure the joke was on Republicans, but others aren’t sure), he’s starting to lose it. His ‘humour’ is becoming more patronising, rather than clever. I think the main problem is that it’s all so over-written. Like Terry Pratchett’s first Discworld novel, Colour of Magic, it’s as if there’s not enough space for all the ‘jokes’ or ‘gags’, which makes it groan under the weight of bad timing. I didn’t finish the article, though – maybe it improved later.

Cathy Young profiles and goes after Naomi Klein in “Basking in the Financial Crisis” (different title online, for some reason). What’s interesting is that, as the author points out, profiles of Naomi Klein often have the air of the impressed but also skeptical. This might be because many recognise Klein’s positions and arguments as oversimplified (disappointing, given the length of The Shock Doctrine) Young explains Klein’s basic message, in a fair assessment, as

“Capitalism is evil, countless crimes have been committed in its name, and much of the foreign policy of the United States and its allies in recent decades has been driven by the twin forces of greed and free-market fanaticism.”

Stephen F Hayes has a good article about Christopher Hill’s “rogue diplomacy” (“The Insubordinate Ambassador”), how he seems to always do what he’s expressly told not to do. Hayes does have a point:

“[Hill’s] rank insubordination and cavalier disregard for presidential prerogatives were surely grounds for dismissal. Instead, Bush kept him in place, and now Barack Obama is rewarding him with what is arguably the most sensitive and important U.S. ambassadorship [in Iraq].”

Another good issue from National Review – I always end up reading most of each issue; the writing’s consistently good and it lacks the occasional frothing tone of The Weekly Standard.

John Bolton takes issue with Obama’s letter to the Russians (“Diplomacy by Bumper Sticker”), arguing that offering withdrawal of missile defense as payment for delivery (or helping to deliver) a nuclear-free Iran is a terrible idea, outlining three specific failings (e.g. sets wrong precedent, wrongly narrows NMD scope to just Iran, Russia might not even try very hard). Equally, Bolton takes issue with the apparent belief in the Obama administration that the simple act of changing administrations will help solve the problems created by the Bush administration.

For a magazine whose roster is populated by university graduates and intelligent people, this issue has another article taking issue at Obama’s desire to make college more affordable and accessible for the masses. But, John Hood, in “University Aid”, does have a couple of very good points that point out problems with Obama’s rhetoric. Specifically, that the US could never have the highest number of college graduates in the world because if simple demographics (there’s no way the US is going to have more than China or India); and also that throwing money at universities in the form of tax credits and grants won’t improve graduation levels, only attendance levels. While this is a rather dour outlook, Hood does have a point. The same happened in the UK – Blair and New Labour pushed for something like 50% university graduation level. Fine, so we’ve all learned some more, but there was no comparable boost in the number of graduate jobs – this is why we have people with law degrees working in T-Mobile call-centres (a reality – I just renewed my contract with someone today, and we had a short chat about university). Therefore, Hood has a point about rather focusing on reducing high school drop-out levels. His point about retention of students not equipped for university well: “many will either drop out… or further depress academic standards as the faculty inflates grades to keep them enrolled and happily filling out laudatory course reviews.” As a teaching assistant at Durham University, I know where he’s coming from: there’s nothing preventing my students from just coasting, doing the bare minimum and still passing (with 40%).

Gordon Chang says that the economic downturn will be much worse for China than it will for the US, in “Eastern Exposure”, arguing against the “dominant narrative” about the crisis which is that it “will hasten American decline and accelerate Chinese ascendancy”. Chang explains how China is once again plagued by strikes and protests as millions are left jobless because of factory closures in costal regions, effectively putting into reverse the greatest mass migration in history.

Two articles address the media. James DeLong writes about the decline of newspapers and what this means for conservatives:

“conservatives, frustrated by the dirigiste liberal bias of the mainstream media, should approach print journalism’s disintegration in the spirit of Rahm Emanuel – ‘You never want a serious crisis to go to waste’ – focusing on how to fashion a vibrant, open and diverse news business out of the wreckage of the old newspaper business.”

There are two interesting things about this passage (that sprung to mind without too much thought going into them):

First, for a magazine (not to mention political movement) that often pokes fun at or vilifies the ‘elitist’ habits and mannerisms of Democrats… “dirigiste”? Really?
Also, about the “liberal bias” – for a group that supports non-intervention by government in business, and free markets, surely the strength of any liberal bias is because more people watch liberal news? In other words, people are exercising their own right to watch what they wish. Adam Smith would approve of this, no? (Correct me if I’m wrong.)

DeLong writes plenty that is good in the rest of the article, and he’s right to characterise much of the news business as “McNews”.

The second article, “Media Realism”, is by Edward Gillespie. I’m sure Mr. Gillespie would have a lot to offer on the state of journalism today, but after a self-involved page that could easily have been replaced with just the word “ME” in really big letters, I got bored and stopped reading. (The personal pronoun “I” appears 27 times in two pages – 21 times on the first page!) John Derbyshire and Mark Steyn, writing opinion pieces, have 15 between them (not counting reported speech/quotations). This is not what we’re looking for, and I’m sure my journalism professors would have failed him, or at least made him re-write the whole thing. Steyn’s and Derbyshire’s pieces are both good.

I’m sure I’ll get around to the monthlies soon, but I think I might just start doing this for articles that happen to catch my eye. This is taking way too much of my time.

Bunch of hoodlums…

2009-03-27T11:44:00.001Z

Just what kind of person is Durham University accepting when staff feel the need to put up one of these signs:

Week’s Media Round-Up #1

2009-03-24T19:15:00.001Z

This is a new thing I’m going to be trying out. Each week, I’ll put together a short round-up of best (and worst) stories in the vast array of magazines I read and subscribe to. I’ll do this every Saturday or Sunday, as the majority of magazines either come out on Saturday or arrive somewhere around then. I’ll try to link to the stories whenever possible, to make it easier for people to find. This isn’t going to be some scholarly exercise in media criticism or discourse analysis; merely my opinion on the journalism published each week.

So, starting with three weeklies, we have The Nation, The Economist, TIME; and for the monthlies there’s Foreign Policy, and US News & World Report.

In The Nation, Chris Hayes writes a good comment about the AIG Bonuses. Alex Cockburn gives us his opinion of NATO at 60 (“It needs to disappear into the trash can of history along with the cold war that engendered it”), in an article good for many reasons, but specifically for informing the reader that in the 1940s, there was a publication called Armored Cavalry Journal. David Cole takes a look at the Obama administration’s “attempts to shield illegal exercises of executive authority from judicial review”, in a disturbing continuation of a Bush administration policy. And Katha Pollitt explains why she doesn’t like Ross Douthat and his recent appointment to be the second conservative columnist at the New York Times (his latest article, here), and how “Douthat seems unusually averse to engaging with women intellectually”.

For the cover-story, we see the magazine partaking once more of the print media’s favourite pastime – reporting on its own imminent demise and the dire consequences this will have for American democracy. Rather than just explain why it’s declining, authors John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney offer their prescriptions of how we might go about fixing it (it includes at least a $20 billion investment from the state). It’s a very good article, and as someone who did a (not entirely satisfactory) MA in International Journalism at Cardiff University, their proposal that the government fund training courses in journalism starting in high school meets with approval.

The Economist this week, in the most notable leader-article twofer, looks at how China sees the world, with a pretty good cover image to go with it. Now that China’s rise is witnessing an accompanying decline in the West, China should be able to satisfy its nationalist fringe. There is discussion about internal issues facing China and also the country’s record on the international scene. Some quotes:

“Far from oozing self-confidence, China is witnessing a fierce debate both about its economic system and the sort of great power it wants to be – and it is a debate the government does not like.”

“China’s leaders also face rumblings of discontent from leftist nationalists, who see the downturn as a chance to halt market-oriented reforms at home, and for China to assert itself more stridently abroad.”

“China’s record as a citizen of the world is strikingly threadbare. On a host of issues from Iran to Sudan, it has used its main geopolitical asset, its permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, to obstruct progress, hiding behind the excuse that it does not want to intervene in other countries’ affairs.”

In this week’s TIME, the AIG bonuses scandal takes pride of place. Bill Saporito’s 6-page feature discusses the failing of AIG (including a very short, very clear explanation of what the scandal actually is), and Justin Fox explains what we ought to take away from the whole scenario. Josef Joffe looks at NATO at 60, writing a better article than and taking a different view to Alex Cockburn (The Nation, above), arguing that it is still going strong. Joe Klein asks for patience, to give Obama’s policies time to actually happen before we write his presidency off as a failure.

In the March edition of Foreign Policy (now available trhough Zinio), there are a couple of particularly good articles (among the rest of a very good issue). First off, there’s Niall Fergusson’s cover story, “The Axis of Upheaval”. Cheng Li’s “China’s Team of Rivals” discusses the internal factions of the CCP, its future leaders (who have already been chosen) and how the divisions might affect China’s future, and how they affect the present; it’s very good for anyone studying or with an interest in Chinese domestic politics. “Inside the Ivory Tower”, by Daniel Maliniak, Amy Oakes, Susan Peterson and Michael J. Tierney, takes a look at opinions of leading foreign policy and international relations scholars, and what they think Obama’s attention should be focused on. With other articles about different opinions on the future of globalisation, this is, overall, a very good issue.

US News & World Report. In April’s environment and energy issue, there are a couple of stand-out articles. The first is on the greening of the US army: Anna Mulrine explains why there’s a growing desire for the DoD to “untether” itself from fuel – convoys are popular targets for insurgents, high fuel-consumption is a logistical issue, not to mention the expense (e.g., in 2008, Air Force used $7.7billion of fuel) – there are actually some rather surprising and enterprising, low-tech methods used. Kent Garber, in “Taking Some Risk out of Nuclear Power”, tells us about the benefits of using thorium to generate nuclear power (its potentially safer, and lasts longer so there’s less waste, which isn’t viable for nuclear weapons, apparently). In this issue’s Two Takes, Fred Krupp and William L. Kovacs argue their sides of the argument about Kyoto Protocol-type treatise: Krupp says “The moment has arrived for Congress to take bold action”, advocating renewable energies and cap-and-trade policies, and leading by example; Kovacs, on the other hand, seems to take a “why should we if they won’t” position, pointing to developing nations’ exemption from emissions caps and greater competitiveness through lower production costs. Kovacs does, however, point out certain hypocrisies of ‘clean’ nations who buy ‘dirty’ energy from other nations (e.g. Austria).

In the next round-up, I’ll look at the latest issues of The Atlantic, The American Prospect, The Weekly Standard, and National Review.

I think next time I’ll probably also write less, as this turned out to be considerably longer than anticipated… I might just do individual magazines as and when they come in and after finishing them. This at least will break things up.

This is great

2009-03-22T12:55:00.001Z

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Michael Steele's Rap Battle Response

comedycentral.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Mark Sanford

Frightening…

2009-03-21T01:45:00.001Z

From David Rothkopf’s post:

“According to Forbes, the official magazine of Wall Street greed, the world's billionaires managed to misplace $1.4 trillion in the past year, their ranks thinning from 1125 to 793.” [emphasis mine]

The rest of the post (“The world’s biggest losers”) is pretty good, too.

Obama on Leno

2009-03-20T09:22:00.001Z

“It’s like American Idol, but everyone’s Simon Cowell…”

Republican Flip-Flopping

2009-03-19T11:39:00.001Z

In this short post about a couple of Republicans’ outrage over the AIG bonuses, Suzy Khimm provides everything you need to know to get a very clear image of how some in the Republican party are doing and saying anything just because it’s opposite to what Obama said/believes/wants, or because it’s an opportunity to point the finger and holler like a petulant child. (Ronald Brownstein could write a whole new chapter about this, no doubt…)

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senators Jim DeMint and James Inhofe all come in for a lashing, as their positions are so transparently partisan (or they just didn’t think things through, reacting in the first knee-jerk way they could think of) to blame Obama and Geithner for the excessive bonuses.

“What was once emblematic of a free-market economy – the ability of private industry to determine its wages - is now the sign of a Democrat-led ‘fiasco’ caused by a ‘lack of transparency and accountability,’ in the words of DeMint’s letter to the Banking Committee. Of course, there are plenty of good reasons to be steamed about AIG's bonuses, but it sure would be nice if Senate Republicans spared us the rank hypocrisy next time.”

My own humble opinion? The AIG bonuses should never have been given. The company’s received somewhere in the region of $150 billion in Federal Bailout money – this is not the situation when you give out bonuses!

As President Obama put it in Costa Mesa, California:

“It’s hard to understand that a company that is relying on extraordinary assistance from taxpayers to keep its doors open would be paying anyone lavish bonuses. It goes against our most basic sense of what is fair and what is right. It offends our values.”

Even more on Stem Cells!

2009-03-17T19:17:00.001Z

Ok, I know this is starting to go on for a bit longer than many people are interested, but Chris Orr at The New Republic’s “The Plank” blog recently wrote a post about the Kinsley-Douthat jousting. Like me, Orr finds this issue more one of curiosity rather than expertise.

Orr initially just mentions what’s been going between the other two journalists, but he has his own good points to make over the fact that IVF treatment is considered wonderful by the pro-lifers, even though fertilized eggs are guaranteed to be destroyed (which is their argument against stem-cell research). He highlights the contradictory position held by the pro-life movement thus (emphasis mine):

“Insofar as there is any organized pro-life effort to regulate fertility clinics and reduce the number of eggs that will ultimately be destroyed, it seems marginal to the point of invisibility. This is particularly true given that, to a far greater degree than stem-cell research, IVF is not only a public policy question but an issue of individual morality. That is to say, the pro-life movement could presumably put a significant dent in the number of unnecessary eggs created without passing a single law or enacting any new regulations, simply by aggressively publicizing the issue. If pro-life priests and pastors were alerting their flocks to the hundreds of thousands of human deaths (in pro-life terms) caused by IVF and shaming congregants into avoiding the process, if activist groups were taking out regular ads in national newspapers and magazines, these actions would have presumably have a real impact. But as best I can tell, they occur infrequently if at all.”

I thought this was rather well put, which is why I’ve included it here. Again, this is an issue more of curiosity for me than expertise, as I believe the pro-life position has so many holes and contradictions which, to me, largely look petulant and deliberately intended to differ from a liberal, pro-choice/-stem cell research position. If Douthat responds to either Kinsley or Orr, I assume I’ll bring you that, too.

More on Stem Cells…

2009-03-16T21:22:00.001Z

Ah, this is more like it: Michael Kinsley responds to Ross Douthat’s critique of Kinsley’s article on Obama’s recent lifting of the ban on stem cell research.

A good passage:

“Furthermore, if you’re going to draw a line to facilitate compromise, the line between embryos used for research and embryos simply destroyed is an odd one to draw—at least if your intention is to ban the research but allow the pointless destruction to continue. Why not the other way around? Also, while stem cell research involves the destruction of embryos, IVF involves the purposeful creation of embryos with the certain knowledge that many or most of them will be destroyed. Once again, it’s an odd compromise that saves the former by preventing scientific research while allowing the latter much larger and pointless slaughter to continue unmolested.”

Completely makes up for Kinsley’s rather odd comments from the initial article, as this is a more intelligent, measured and thoughtful defense of his position and critique of Douthat’s position.

Stem-Cell “Quandry”

2009-03-11T14:27:00.001Z

I was made aware of Michael Kinsley’s Daily Beast piece about Obama’s decision to end the government ban on stem-cell research, and a report about British and Canadian scientists having come up with a method for harvesting stem-cells without killing an embryo, through a post by Ross Douthat at The Atlantic. I wanted to put my two-cents worth into the discussion. (Not that they will ever be aware of this post, but never mind…)

On the whole I am in agreement with Kinsley, in that when it comes to stem-cells, “There is only the appearance of an ethical quandary, created by people who either don't understand or willfully misrepresent the facts.” I think Kinsley is also right to point out that conservative positions on the issue are somewhat hypocritical: “Your actions are too different from your words.” His argument then becomes a little… odd:

“You are doing absolutely nothing about the millions of fertilized eggs that are destroyed naturally every year (in miscarriages so early that the potential mother is not even aware of them), or the thousands that are produced and unused by fertility clinics going about their normal work (which are either discarded or pointlessly frozen in the hope of some miraculous ethical breakthrough).”

Now, while I think the second half of that argument (about the discarded fertilized eggs) is a valid point (and one that crops up in Season 6 of The West Wing, incidentally), his remarks about miscarriages is simply bizarre, and weakens his entire position; by adding a comment like this, he renders much of what follows useless by touching on the improbable idea that anyone would ever prosecute or become morally outraged at a mother for suffering a miscarriage – Douthat: “I will pass over his line about miscarriages, which seems to imply that a ‘serious’ pro-life movement would be trying to pass laws against accidental deaths.” This detracts from the fact that Kinsley’s discussing an scientific advance that shouldn’t be objectionable to rabid pro-lifers (not killing the embryo), but instead this remark receives the attention.

This was a disappointing inclusion by Kinsley, whose writing I have followed for quite some time, and who I usually agree with almost completely. The rest of the article’s very good, though. Given his suffering from Parkinson’s, it is understandable that he is an enthusiastic supporter of stem-cell research. His conclusion is good:

“The essence of today’s report is that scientists have found some incredibly complicated way to create—someday, maybe even soon—a valuable research tool that already exists by the thousands and has for years. Some people think we should have been using it for years, while others say they think using it would be immoral, but can’t give a coherent reason.”

Anyway, that’s my take on the article.

“Own Knowledge”

2009-01-15T12:41:00.001Z

When it comes to writing a thesis, to what extent can one attribute stuff to own knowledge? Case in point, the current Bush administration: I’ve read a considerable percentage of the journalism (and an increasing number of books) on the president and his administration, not to mention seen plenty of news stories and reports on the TV. At what point can I start including things in my PhD from my own knowledge and memory? Does absolutely everything need to be attributed to someone else (not necessarily a problem, as I am a bit excessive with attribution and referencing)?

Anyway, that’s what I’m struggling with at the moment. 6,500 words of notes for Bush I, 7,500 for Clinton, and 4,500 so far for Bush II. If only I could just sit down and write!

Chapter & Curse (PhD Update)

2009-01-12T15:27:00.002Z

I’m currently in the process of pulling together all my notes for a chapter on post-Cold War US foreign policy. It is proving rather difficult. First off, there’s a wealth of data, quotations and information for both Bush I and Clinton – the difficulty here is shrinking my 17,000 words of quotations into a manageable amount to make 6,000 words on the two presidents’ foreign policies. There’s also a surprisingly lack of analysis on the Kosovo intervention. Plenty on Bosnia from 1995, but very little of any particular worth on Kosovo. I imagine I’ll be relying on just a couple of sources for those. In fact, one book that has been invaluable in giving me an overall picture of the era is Derek Chollet and James Goldgeier’s America Between the Wars (PublicAffairs, 2008), which I’d recommend to everyone – they present both a balanced, extensive analysis of what happened and why, but the explanations of the various ideological, theoretical, and political factions and their influences on policy are invaluable to anyone wanting to understand the period.

You would think there’d be plenty of stuff for Bush II. There is. In a way. There’s plenty of journalism, sure, and lots of first-term appraisals (though these mainly lack the depth I’m looking for), not to mention the wealth of conspiracy and partisan commentary (which is only of limited use to my thesis), but there’s not nearly enough analysis for my taste. Ok, my PhD will hopefully go some way to remedying that, but in just 3,000 words, how much can I really add to the discussion? I’ve found and read many articles on the root of the Bush Doctrine, which is helpful, but only up to a point, given the word-limit I’m working to. There’s also no shortage of text on what various academics and chattering heads think US foreign policy should be after Bush, but these (while interesting) really isn’t of much use to me at the moment.

Nothing I’ve read so far has really sparked my imagination or inspiration for the chapter. As a result, after reading a number of articles and books, I’ve not got more than about 6,000 words of notes. Mind you, having said that, the second half of Fred Kaplan’s Daydream Believers has proved very useful, not to mention very enjoyable to read.

“So, that’s more than the 3,000 words you’ll need for the chapter,” you might say. Sure, that’s true, but I still have a feeling that there’s not enough of the right information. Also, the chapter’s due for the end of January, so time is of the essence. I’ve ordered Bob Woodward’s Bush At War series (should arrive today, in fact), to see if they can help generate some useful direction, content and inspiration for the chapter, but I imagine not. There’s only so much that needs to be said about the Iraq invasion and resultant occupation: why it happened, and what its implications are for US relations and standing in the world. On top of that, though, there is a whole swathe of other issues to deal with: Iran, North Korea, Israel-Palestine, resurgent Russia, China, trade, and so on. The Iraq War, and the obsession with it, has led most academics and journalists to write rather too extensively about this one conflict. More focus on Afghanistan only really happened since Obama said that conflict should be receiving more attention, money and boots on the ground.

How to balance what needs to be in the chapter as narrative and/or empirical information, and how much needs to be about how this all fits in with the trends and traditions of US foreign policy as a whole? That, after all, is the main thrust of my PhD: what are the integral trends and traditions in US foreign policy that have been evident since the beginning of the Republic (national interest and balance of power Realism as a foundation for American Liberalism), and how do the various administrations adhere or deviate from them (they pretty much all adhere completely, though in the instances when they deviate – or try to deviate – they invariably come across problems).

This chapter will have more analysis on how Bush I, Clinton and Bush II’s foreign policies have fit into the tradition of US foreign policy (same as always, if you look properly, despite rhetorical differences and slight tilting one way or another, predominantly down to presidential and advisory characters).

Other than that, I had a meeting with my supervisor a couple of days ago (I can’t actually remember the specific day, which is odd given it was an interruption to my otherwise monotonous schedule), which really fired my inspiration for the next chapters, when I will start to focus exclusively on US-China relations. This, really, is the main point of the thesis – how have US-China relations adhered to USFP traditions/templates of the past. It’s going to be more difficult to acquire relevant materials, but I think it might actually prove easier to do than this chapter.

Anyway, back to the grindstone…

Some light relief before 2009

2008-12-31T18:46:00.004Z

The best video on YouTube at the moment?

Absolutely brilliant.

Nothing posted for a while...

2008-12-21T11:50:00.000Z

Sorry haven't written anything in a little while - currently putting together the next chapter of my PhD, covering the foreign policies of Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. Still got some reading to get through, too, so I don't have a great deal of time to complain/rant/critique anything I read in the news at the moment.

Also, Christmas is coming up, so less incentive to do more...

Auto-Maker Bail-Out

2008-11-17T17:12:00.001Z

Just my two cents on the issue: if the US government offers a bailout to Detroit, it should come with conditions on fuel-efficiency and environment. Some people will suggest this will harm their competitiveness… Well, how competitive can they be when they’re completely bust? Even without these conditions they’re not exactly booming, so it’s a terrible excuse.

Most loans come with conditions, these are not terrible ones.

President-Elect Obama

2008-11-05T11:27:00.003Z

Ok, so I didn't get it 100% right. Obama won more than I expected.

Two states still to call, but it seems like he's going to have 364 electoral votes . All the states I predicted, plus Indiana and North Carolina (I'm assuming they're going to call North Carolina for him, even though he has a minute lead there).

It was a great night, sitting in the college bar as we watched CNN predict everything extremely early. But, I guess, they were mostly right. Good ol' Blitzer.

Now, I guess, we've just got to see how good he is at governing. Here's to hoping...

My Optimistic Election Prediction

2008-11-03T17:06:00.005Z

I predict an electoral college win for Obama: 338-200

(Possibly 353-185 if North Carolina switches.)

Basically, everything Kerry won in 204, with the addition of Colorado, Virginia, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Florida and maybe Iowa.

I also think it's going to be a very close popular vote result.

Tune in tomorrow, to see if I was right.

The Common Cold - Not How I Remember It...

2008-10-25T16:41:00.002+01:00

At the moment, I'm suffering from a standard winter cold (or "freshers' flu" as we call it at Durham Univeristy). For some reason, though, it seems to be having a whole different set of symptoms complementing the usual sneezing-your-brains-out and aching joints: apparently, the common cold now comes with a motor function component.

I'm bumping into everything, and dropping everything that it's possible to either bump into or drop. When your taking tutorials for impressionable freshers, it's a little annoying when you trip over your desk or walk into a door...

It's bloody infuriating!