Yale has no problem admitting a former spokesman for the Taliban - a male, needless to say - but can't find any room for any of the women the Taliban persecuted? And not just Yale - only 10 colleges and universities - out of 2,000 - can find room for qualified female candidates who would not only expand the diversity of the campus but would also take their education back home and use it to help their country?
Kudos to the 10 colleges and universities that currently participate in the program. To the other 1,990, I have one question: Can you give me one good reason why I should even consider sending my daughter to you for her higher education?
Friday, March 24, 2006
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Salesmanship
One of my favorite quotes in all of filmdom comes from The Princess Bride. When Buttercup wails, “You mock my pain!” Westley answers succinctly:
“Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.”
As someone who has spent almost half his life in sales, that quote resonates with me more ways than I can begin to tell you. And, by way of illustration, let me draw your attention to a recent post by Rebecca Blood. Responding to a blog entry from Salon’s Scott Rosenberg about his experience at a recent panel talk on elitism in media and blogging, she says that he came away with the wrong impression:
The dichotomy in the argument he describes isn't "blogs vs journalism". The unspoken premise underlying this argument is that books and articles are published commercially because they represent the best writing that is available. But that's not the way the publishing business works.
Publishers are interested in printing books and articles they can sell, nothing more, nothing less. When publishers evaluate a book proposal, they don't ask if the work is true or original or insightful or well-written. First and foremost, they ask themselves if they can sell it. If they don't think they can, they pass. If they believe there is a market and that they can effectively market the work, they buy it.
If you haven’t noticed that mediocrity rules the entertainment world then you haven’t been paying attention. And here’s the reason. Good or bad, who cares? All that matters is; can it be sold? Is there a market? We are running a business here, after all. And this, in turn, led me to wonder about the business that Rebecca leaves out of her analysis: the business of reporting the news.
How much of what we see and hear in the news is the product of honest and unbiased reporting and how much is the product of can I sell it? There’s an old axiom in the news business that says “If it bleeds, it leads” which means simply that bad news sells. Another way of saying it is “The dog that doesn’t bite never gets covered”. Now, if news reporting is biased in favor of the negative – if that is what the news industry feels the market is looking for – is it unrealistic to surmise that other biases exist, as well? At what point does “All the News That’s Fit to Print” become “All the News That Fits Our Demographic”?
Let’s say that you are an editor of a major metropolitan newspaper – or a producer in the news division at a TV station. You are choosing which stories you are going to headline for the next edition or broadcast. Today, your choices are two, both of which concern the current conflict in Iraq. One is about a car-bomb that killed ten people near Baghdad; the other has to do with Kurdish families rebuilding their lives and sending their children – including their daughters – to school. Which story do you lead with? Okay, it’s fair enough to say that the car-bomb story is an (all too familiar) attention-grabber, so you go with it. What about the other story? Do you run it, perhaps a few pages deeper in the paper or a few minutes later in the broadcast?
Or do you decide that it’s not newsworthy, that you can’t sell it, or that it’s not what your demographic wants to see?
And, if so, what happens to that story? Especially when another editor/producer in another city looks at the choices and makes the same decision you do? And when, day after day, the positive is discarded in favor of the negative because the prevailing wisdom is that’s what sells – disregarding for the moment that there may be other, more personal reasons why good news about the Middle East is suppressed – how does that affect public opinion? If all that people see or hear about a subject – any subject – is negative, why would anyone ever think that their collective opinion about it would be positive?
I would argue that blogs are threatening to journalism (and journalists) but that the threat has nothing at all to do with the quality of the end product. Instead, it has everything to do with the quantity of information available and the news industry’s control over how it gets published – or if it gets published at all. The MSM considers itself to be the gateway for news to reach the public. For something to be considered actual ‘news’ and not just hearsay, rumor or innuendo, it has to be authenticated and come from a reputable source. Meaning, of course, one of them. Blogs are changing all that and, in doing so, they’re committing the worst sin of all: they’re giving away what journalists don’t want to sell.
And that’s terrible salesmanship.
Update: Scott Rosenberg responds to Rebecca's post on his site. My favorite bit:
Well, you know, mediocrity flourishes everywhere! So sayeth Sturgeon's Law: 90 percent of everything is crud. Further complicating matters, your view of which 10 percent isn't crud is likely to be different from mine, or Keen's, or Blood's. All "bests," in the end, are subjective. Outside of sports and other scored pursuits, "best" is just another word for "my favorite."
So the real challenge is to find ways of helping each of us find our way to a higher percentage of the stuff each of us thinks isn't cruddy. And that's where I side with Blood and the blogosphere: any new media structure that enables more voices to be heard and found deserves our embrace, because it increases the size of the pool in which we fish for our personal supply of non-crud.
“Life is pain, Highness. Anyone who says differently is selling something.”
As someone who has spent almost half his life in sales, that quote resonates with me more ways than I can begin to tell you. And, by way of illustration, let me draw your attention to a recent post by Rebecca Blood. Responding to a blog entry from Salon’s Scott Rosenberg about his experience at a recent panel talk on elitism in media and blogging, she says that he came away with the wrong impression:
The dichotomy in the argument he describes isn't "blogs vs journalism". The unspoken premise underlying this argument is that books and articles are published commercially because they represent the best writing that is available. But that's not the way the publishing business works.
Publishers are interested in printing books and articles they can sell, nothing more, nothing less. When publishers evaluate a book proposal, they don't ask if the work is true or original or insightful or well-written. First and foremost, they ask themselves if they can sell it. If they don't think they can, they pass. If they believe there is a market and that they can effectively market the work, they buy it.
If you haven’t noticed that mediocrity rules the entertainment world then you haven’t been paying attention. And here’s the reason. Good or bad, who cares? All that matters is; can it be sold? Is there a market? We are running a business here, after all. And this, in turn, led me to wonder about the business that Rebecca leaves out of her analysis: the business of reporting the news.
How much of what we see and hear in the news is the product of honest and unbiased reporting and how much is the product of can I sell it? There’s an old axiom in the news business that says “If it bleeds, it leads” which means simply that bad news sells. Another way of saying it is “The dog that doesn’t bite never gets covered”. Now, if news reporting is biased in favor of the negative – if that is what the news industry feels the market is looking for – is it unrealistic to surmise that other biases exist, as well? At what point does “All the News That’s Fit to Print” become “All the News That Fits Our Demographic”?
Let’s say that you are an editor of a major metropolitan newspaper – or a producer in the news division at a TV station. You are choosing which stories you are going to headline for the next edition or broadcast. Today, your choices are two, both of which concern the current conflict in Iraq. One is about a car-bomb that killed ten people near Baghdad; the other has to do with Kurdish families rebuilding their lives and sending their children – including their daughters – to school. Which story do you lead with? Okay, it’s fair enough to say that the car-bomb story is an (all too familiar) attention-grabber, so you go with it. What about the other story? Do you run it, perhaps a few pages deeper in the paper or a few minutes later in the broadcast?
Or do you decide that it’s not newsworthy, that you can’t sell it, or that it’s not what your demographic wants to see?
And, if so, what happens to that story? Especially when another editor/producer in another city looks at the choices and makes the same decision you do? And when, day after day, the positive is discarded in favor of the negative because the prevailing wisdom is that’s what sells – disregarding for the moment that there may be other, more personal reasons why good news about the Middle East is suppressed – how does that affect public opinion? If all that people see or hear about a subject – any subject – is negative, why would anyone ever think that their collective opinion about it would be positive?
I would argue that blogs are threatening to journalism (and journalists) but that the threat has nothing at all to do with the quality of the end product. Instead, it has everything to do with the quantity of information available and the news industry’s control over how it gets published – or if it gets published at all. The MSM considers itself to be the gateway for news to reach the public. For something to be considered actual ‘news’ and not just hearsay, rumor or innuendo, it has to be authenticated and come from a reputable source. Meaning, of course, one of them. Blogs are changing all that and, in doing so, they’re committing the worst sin of all: they’re giving away what journalists don’t want to sell.
And that’s terrible salesmanship.
Update: Scott Rosenberg responds to Rebecca's post on his site. My favorite bit:
Well, you know, mediocrity flourishes everywhere! So sayeth Sturgeon's Law: 90 percent of everything is crud. Further complicating matters, your view of which 10 percent isn't crud is likely to be different from mine, or Keen's, or Blood's. All "bests," in the end, are subjective. Outside of sports and other scored pursuits, "best" is just another word for "my favorite."
So the real challenge is to find ways of helping each of us find our way to a higher percentage of the stuff each of us thinks isn't cruddy. And that's where I side with Blood and the blogosphere: any new media structure that enables more voices to be heard and found deserves our embrace, because it increases the size of the pool in which we fish for our personal supply of non-crud.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
You Can't Fight With the Fella in the Brite Nitegown
Instapunk looks at death:
...achieving acceptance of death is one of the primary purposes of all major religions. Why is it that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and all the other great faiths work so hard to eliminate the fear of death, to describe it as a rite of passage rather than an end? Because like all unconquered fears, the fear of death distorts our values and creates a self-defined prison. Lives that should be lived become instead a kind of bunker in which we hide and peek out at the world through ragged slits in our fortifications against death...
...Here are the facts we don't want to hear about in the media. We are all going to die, and the overwhelming majority of us are going to die from heart disease (28.5%), cancer (22.8%), stroke (6.7%), emphysema (5.1%), and accidents (4.4%), to the tune of more than 1.5 million a year. Another 70,000 of us will die from diabetes every year, 62,000 from flu or pneumonia, 55,000 from Alzheimer's, and about 115,000 from various other diseases. That's more than 5,000 a day, 80 percent of the total. The wild hope of curing any or all of these diseases is merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If we eliminate these ills, we'll just die from something else.
The point, of course, is that it's how we live our lives that matter. As always, read the whole thing.
...achieving acceptance of death is one of the primary purposes of all major religions. Why is it that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and all the other great faiths work so hard to eliminate the fear of death, to describe it as a rite of passage rather than an end? Because like all unconquered fears, the fear of death distorts our values and creates a self-defined prison. Lives that should be lived become instead a kind of bunker in which we hide and peek out at the world through ragged slits in our fortifications against death...
...Here are the facts we don't want to hear about in the media. We are all going to die, and the overwhelming majority of us are going to die from heart disease (28.5%), cancer (22.8%), stroke (6.7%), emphysema (5.1%), and accidents (4.4%), to the tune of more than 1.5 million a year. Another 70,000 of us will die from diabetes every year, 62,000 from flu or pneumonia, 55,000 from Alzheimer's, and about 115,000 from various other diseases. That's more than 5,000 a day, 80 percent of the total. The wild hope of curing any or all of these diseases is merely rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. If we eliminate these ills, we'll just die from something else.
The point, of course, is that it's how we live our lives that matter. As always, read the whole thing.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The 15-Foot Rut
Thanks to Merlin at 43 Folders, I heard this NPR commentary from David Weinberger and I would agree that this is the money quote:
A salad bar that’s 5 miles long is as useless to me as one that’s 3000 miles long because I’m getting all the salad I can eat in the first 15 feet
It sounds somewhat like the 20-minute rule for eating and the point that you can only read so much is well taken. However, I think blog-reading is more like a smorgasbord than a salad bar and part of the joy of reading them is that you may find some new delicacy just on the other side of the 15-foot mark. Anyone reading this can take a look at my sidebar and see the links that I use regularly. Those, you might say, are my staples, and I would argue that we not only go back to those places that entertain us but also to those that reinforce our point of view. And because there's only so much time in a day and so many different ways in which to spend it, we tend to lean towards the familiar and our internet reading - like our regular reading - gets into a rut.
Part of the fun of reading blogs is the joy of discovery. For example, I found 43 Folders by reading Rebecca Blood. I found Rebecca Blood from Time magazine, of all places. Now ask yourself when the last time was you found something new or interesting watching TV or listening to the radio? If you're willing to take the time, it happens in the blogosphere every day.
So, just for today, vary the menu a bit. And here's a good place to start.
A salad bar that’s 5 miles long is as useless to me as one that’s 3000 miles long because I’m getting all the salad I can eat in the first 15 feet
It sounds somewhat like the 20-minute rule for eating and the point that you can only read so much is well taken. However, I think blog-reading is more like a smorgasbord than a salad bar and part of the joy of reading them is that you may find some new delicacy just on the other side of the 15-foot mark. Anyone reading this can take a look at my sidebar and see the links that I use regularly. Those, you might say, are my staples, and I would argue that we not only go back to those places that entertain us but also to those that reinforce our point of view. And because there's only so much time in a day and so many different ways in which to spend it, we tend to lean towards the familiar and our internet reading - like our regular reading - gets into a rut.
Part of the fun of reading blogs is the joy of discovery. For example, I found 43 Folders by reading Rebecca Blood. I found Rebecca Blood from Time magazine, of all places. Now ask yourself when the last time was you found something new or interesting watching TV or listening to the radio? If you're willing to take the time, it happens in the blogosphere every day.
So, just for today, vary the menu a bit. And here's a good place to start.
Friday, March 17, 2006
Erin Go Bragh!
It's my day off and St. Patty's Day, which means the Irish whiskey (the only whiskey with an "e") is out early and often. Don't worry. I have no plans to go out and join the throngs would-be Irish at the local pub. These days - when I drink - I prefer to drink at home, where I can be as maudlin as I wish without fear of being seen as a sentimental old fool.
On a day such as this, it is only fitting to offer a toast:
To all the friends I've known and lost
And all my family here and there
Each day exacts a hidden cost
Which all of us must bear
But inasmuch as Jesus wept
And tears do cleanse the soul
The dues in life we must accept
Our right and proper toll
So life would seem a bitter brew
A tale of doubt and woe
Except but for the likes of you
The blessings you bestow
And so for you this day I cry
For you I raise my glass
I'll love you till the day I die
The rest can kiss my ass
On a day such as this, it is only fitting to offer a toast:
To all the friends I've known and lost
And all my family here and there
Each day exacts a hidden cost
Which all of us must bear
But inasmuch as Jesus wept
And tears do cleanse the soul
The dues in life we must accept
Our right and proper toll
So life would seem a bitter brew
A tale of doubt and woe
Except but for the likes of you
The blessings you bestow
And so for you this day I cry
For you I raise my glass
I'll love you till the day I die
The rest can kiss my ass
Monday, March 13, 2006
The Job Search, Part I
"Hello, Universal Press Syndicate. How may I help you?"
"Yes, Hi. I'd like to talk with someone about producing a comic strip, please."
"Certainly. I can help you with that. Are you an artist?"
"Actually, no. I can't draw worth a lick."
"But didn't you say you are producing a comic strip?"
"Well, actually, it's more an idea of a comic strip."
"I see. And how are you going to produce this comic strip if you can't draw?"
"Why not? It works for Doonesbury and Boondocks."
"Are you a writer, then?"
"Hmm, no, not really."
"Look, sir, if you're not an artist or a writer, how can you hope to produce a comic strip?"
"Well, here's my idea: you sign me to a big, fat contract and then I'll announce that I'm taking a long sabbatical to recharge my batteries. While I'm gone, you guys can publish all my other funny stuff."
"Your other 'funny' stuff? Sir, how can we do that when you haven't given us anything funny to publish in the first place?"
"I don't know. Ask Aaron McGruder. Hello? Hello?"
Damn. He hung up.
"Yes, Hi. I'd like to talk with someone about producing a comic strip, please."
"Certainly. I can help you with that. Are you an artist?"
"Actually, no. I can't draw worth a lick."
"But didn't you say you are producing a comic strip?"
"Well, actually, it's more an idea of a comic strip."
"I see. And how are you going to produce this comic strip if you can't draw?"
"Why not? It works for Doonesbury and Boondocks."
"Are you a writer, then?"
"Hmm, no, not really."
"Look, sir, if you're not an artist or a writer, how can you hope to produce a comic strip?"
"Well, here's my idea: you sign me to a big, fat contract and then I'll announce that I'm taking a long sabbatical to recharge my batteries. While I'm gone, you guys can publish all my other funny stuff."
"Your other 'funny' stuff? Sir, how can we do that when you haven't given us anything funny to publish in the first place?"
"I don't know. Ask Aaron McGruder. Hello? Hello?"
Damn. He hung up.
Dilbert's Horror Story
If you ever thought that being rich and famous would solve all your problems, check out what Scott Adams has been going through and think again.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
Sequels
Over at Pajama Guy, LAGuy weighs in on Entertainment Weekly’s look at the 25 Worst Sequels of all time and also what they consider to be the 10 Best. For the most part, I agree with his take on sequels. It’s easy to beat up on them, since most of them are done strictly for money – that’s why William Goldman calls them “Whore’s Movies”. I notice that EW stayed away from most of the “franchises” (no Die Hard, Lethal Weapon, Harry Potter, etc), picking only on Batman and Robin (what, no Superman III or IV?). And why anyone would bother to rate any of the Friday the 13th or Leprechaun movies is beyond me. Maybe they had trouble filling out the list.
The rest of the movies – as LAGuy points out – are movies that were either good enough to stand by themselves or bad enough to not justify the effort of a sequel. But in Hollywood, if it makes money, think sequel! I would also agree that the most troubling part of the article is the sidebar rating the “best” sequels, where it does seem to imply that sometimes the sequel is actually better than the original. Where I would disagree is his statement that “when sequels are superior, it’s usually because the original stinks”.
Most sequels are simply different movies using the same characters. Exceptions to this would be the Star Wars movies, the Matrix trilogy and the Godfather I&II. Those were attempts to tell one large story over the course of more than one movie. Star Trek II is a sequel to Star Trek I only because of the order in which they were filmed. The same is true with Toy Story 2. While there may be references to the earlier film, the sequel is really a stand-alone movie and as such, it is almost impossible to objectively compare the two.
The best example of this – for me – would be the Alien series. LAGuy dismisses the first Alien as a “…cheap slasher film in outer space…” and categorizes the sequel Aliens as a "...superior action film." What he’s really saying here is that these are two completely different genres. Alien, despite its Sci-Fi trappings, is, at its heart, a horror film. Aliens is Sci-Fi Action all the way. It builds ingeniously on the remnants of the original film and then veers totally into a world of its own. To say that the second film is a superior action film is to forget that the first film wasn’t an action film at all. It’s easy enough to say that you liked Aliens better than Alien but to say that it is a better film is like saying you like apples more than oranges. I mean, they are both fruits, aren’t they?
Having said all this, I should admit that I claim no expertise whatsoever when it comes to rating movies. And I’m happy to admit that I liked the Matrix Reloaded, so you may take that for what it’s worth. And my favorite story about sequels concerns Star Trek V. A friend of mine saw it and came up to me afterwards and said “Now I can’t wait for Star Trek VI: The Apology!”
The rest of the movies – as LAGuy points out – are movies that were either good enough to stand by themselves or bad enough to not justify the effort of a sequel. But in Hollywood, if it makes money, think sequel! I would also agree that the most troubling part of the article is the sidebar rating the “best” sequels, where it does seem to imply that sometimes the sequel is actually better than the original. Where I would disagree is his statement that “when sequels are superior, it’s usually because the original stinks”.
Most sequels are simply different movies using the same characters. Exceptions to this would be the Star Wars movies, the Matrix trilogy and the Godfather I&II. Those were attempts to tell one large story over the course of more than one movie. Star Trek II is a sequel to Star Trek I only because of the order in which they were filmed. The same is true with Toy Story 2. While there may be references to the earlier film, the sequel is really a stand-alone movie and as such, it is almost impossible to objectively compare the two.
The best example of this – for me – would be the Alien series. LAGuy dismisses the first Alien as a “…cheap slasher film in outer space…” and categorizes the sequel Aliens as a "...superior action film." What he’s really saying here is that these are two completely different genres. Alien, despite its Sci-Fi trappings, is, at its heart, a horror film. Aliens is Sci-Fi Action all the way. It builds ingeniously on the remnants of the original film and then veers totally into a world of its own. To say that the second film is a superior action film is to forget that the first film wasn’t an action film at all. It’s easy enough to say that you liked Aliens better than Alien but to say that it is a better film is like saying you like apples more than oranges. I mean, they are both fruits, aren’t they?
Having said all this, I should admit that I claim no expertise whatsoever when it comes to rating movies. And I’m happy to admit that I liked the Matrix Reloaded, so you may take that for what it’s worth. And my favorite story about sequels concerns Star Trek V. A friend of mine saw it and came up to me afterwards and said “Now I can’t wait for Star Trek VI: The Apology!”
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Town Meeting Day
It is the first Tuesday in March and if you're in Vermont, that means that it's Town Meeting Day. This is the day that (almost) all the cities and towns in Vermont hold their local elections, approve budgets and basically deal with any other stuff that needs to be voted on. It's an old, quaint-sounding tradition that conjures up images of people crowding into town halls - or, in towns too small for town halls, the local saloon - and generally arguing up a storm until someone finally says, "Look, the bar won't open until we finish voting, so let's get it over with!". Someone answers "Ayup" and that settles it.
Here in the big city (aka Burlington), things are a bit different. We actually have polling places, usually a school, and since the day is a state holiday, there's no school going on to interfere with the state business. In addition to the usual stuff (voting for mayor, council, clerk, school budget, etc) there are some additional "articles" to ponder. One has to do with whether the city should enact a special 1% sales tax to help with local revenue. Another wants to remove a residency requirement for people appointed by the mayor to head local departments within the city.
And then there are some "Advisory Referendums". I won't bore you with the whole list but there are two worth mentioning. One concerns Vermont and the National Guard. The referendum would require the city to "use all lawful means" to remove any aircraft that are "equipped as bombers", to "reassign" the Guard to its "traditional and only proper mission", which is the defense of the state and the nation and to prevent the guard from ever being sent overseas again to "take part in a war of aggression against another nation". Is it possible, I wonder, that in defending the state and the nation, it might just be necessary for the Guard to, I don't know, drop a bomb or two on something? And does this mean that if we're involved in a war overseas that's not a "war of aggression against another nation" - say that another nation got aggressive with us and oh, I don't know, flew some airplanes into the two largest buildings in our largest city and killed some 3,ooo people - does this mean it would be okay to send the Guard?
Oh, wait. Al Quaeda isn't a nation, is it? Tricky. Very Tricky.
The second advisory referendum has to do with whether there should be fluoride in the water. Yes, you read that correctly. In 2006, we're actually discussing - and some lunatics are trying to remove - fluoride from our drinking water. Wasn't this question answered years ago? But wait. The New York Times says that young people are leaving Vermont in droves. You don't suppose there's a connection, do you?
For a related look at what's happening politically in Vermont, read this National Review article by Jonah Goldberg. Yes, it's three years old but it's just as timely today. (h/t Ed Driscoll)
Update: Five Vermont Towns Endorse Move to Impeach the President. And the vote on the Vermont National Guard was defeated by a 58-42% margin. Which means that 42% of Vermonters would like the Guard to disappear. This is sheer lunacy. Personally, I blame Ben & Jerry.
Here in the big city (aka Burlington), things are a bit different. We actually have polling places, usually a school, and since the day is a state holiday, there's no school going on to interfere with the state business. In addition to the usual stuff (voting for mayor, council, clerk, school budget, etc) there are some additional "articles" to ponder. One has to do with whether the city should enact a special 1% sales tax to help with local revenue. Another wants to remove a residency requirement for people appointed by the mayor to head local departments within the city.
And then there are some "Advisory Referendums". I won't bore you with the whole list but there are two worth mentioning. One concerns Vermont and the National Guard. The referendum would require the city to "use all lawful means" to remove any aircraft that are "equipped as bombers", to "reassign" the Guard to its "traditional and only proper mission", which is the defense of the state and the nation and to prevent the guard from ever being sent overseas again to "take part in a war of aggression against another nation". Is it possible, I wonder, that in defending the state and the nation, it might just be necessary for the Guard to, I don't know, drop a bomb or two on something? And does this mean that if we're involved in a war overseas that's not a "war of aggression against another nation" - say that another nation got aggressive with us and oh, I don't know, flew some airplanes into the two largest buildings in our largest city and killed some 3,ooo people - does this mean it would be okay to send the Guard?
Oh, wait. Al Quaeda isn't a nation, is it? Tricky. Very Tricky.
The second advisory referendum has to do with whether there should be fluoride in the water. Yes, you read that correctly. In 2006, we're actually discussing - and some lunatics are trying to remove - fluoride from our drinking water. Wasn't this question answered years ago? But wait. The New York Times says that young people are leaving Vermont in droves. You don't suppose there's a connection, do you?
For a related look at what's happening politically in Vermont, read this National Review article by Jonah Goldberg. Yes, it's three years old but it's just as timely today. (h/t Ed Driscoll)
Update: Five Vermont Towns Endorse Move to Impeach the President. And the vote on the Vermont National Guard was defeated by a 58-42% margin. Which means that 42% of Vermonters would like the Guard to disappear. This is sheer lunacy. Personally, I blame Ben & Jerry.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
Sunday Night Musings
I don't know why, but I just have a good feeling about this month. It could be because this is being released Tuesday. Or it could be because this is back one week from tonight. Or it might be because this comes out on the 14th.
Still, I don't know. After all, there's also St. Patrick's Day. But I feel like I'm forgetting something.
Oh, I know. This. Of course, here in Vermont, it won't show up until May and even then if you blink, you might miss it.
Still, it's a nice thought.
Still, I don't know. After all, there's also St. Patrick's Day. But I feel like I'm forgetting something.
Oh, I know. This. Of course, here in Vermont, it won't show up until May and even then if you blink, you might miss it.
Still, it's a nice thought.
It is not wrong to root for your country's defeat if your country is evil
Via the Wayback Machine, the Professor revisits some posts about how the press has been covering the war in Iraq.
Jeff Goldstein adds:
In a free society, when the press comes to be perceived as simply another organ of an identifiable political point of view, the first casualty is trust. And with no anchor to hold the public’s trust, competing and increasingly bitter partisan narratives begin to battle for the right to claim the mantle of “truth.”
Is it possible for reporters not to let their personal and political views inhabit their reporting? And if a reporter believes that our presence in Iraq is inherently wrong - if not outright "evil" - is it at all possible for that reporter to write about the events there in an open, objective manner?
For my part, the idea that the United States is "evil" is laughable. I won't argue the point that the government has done - and continues to do - things I don't agree with or approve of, but that's a far cry from saying that the country is "evil". If you truly believe the US is evil, then your concept of evil is totally alien to me and your concept of good would probably scare me to death.
Jeff Goldstein adds:
In a free society, when the press comes to be perceived as simply another organ of an identifiable political point of view, the first casualty is trust. And with no anchor to hold the public’s trust, competing and increasingly bitter partisan narratives begin to battle for the right to claim the mantle of “truth.”
Is it possible for reporters not to let their personal and political views inhabit their reporting? And if a reporter believes that our presence in Iraq is inherently wrong - if not outright "evil" - is it at all possible for that reporter to write about the events there in an open, objective manner?
For my part, the idea that the United States is "evil" is laughable. I won't argue the point that the government has done - and continues to do - things I don't agree with or approve of, but that's a far cry from saying that the country is "evil". If you truly believe the US is evil, then your concept of evil is totally alien to me and your concept of good would probably scare me to death.
Saturday, March 04, 2006
More Truisms
James Lileks on the difficulties of writing a novel:
I have a large project that needs to be done. It’s the novel. The not-Joe-Ohio novel. Part of me wants to give in to the Elves of Self-Doubt, who show up by the score and bang me over the head with small hammers until I realize there’s no point to writing the damn thing, but I really like the idea. It’s a matter of finding the time. This is where “not winning the lottery” is a major impediment, because I cannot stroll back to the Writing Hut at the edge of the Manor and type uninterrupted. Everything else I can do with constant interruption, both external and internal – but it’s hard to get into the groove when something else is always nipping at my heels. No matter how good the idea is, enthusiasm is evanescent, and I worry that this one will just evaporate with time.
One thing I've learned about writing: Every project - large, small or indifferent - has a start time. You get an idea. You think about it, hash it out, make notes, do some research, think about it some more, maybe even do an outline and sooner or later the pressure builds to a point where it becomes either go or no/go. If the "Elves of Self-Doubt" get their way - as they so often do - then the project will slip away into the ether and you will move on to other things.
And one day you will rescue a slip of paper from the scrap-heap of your desk and you will say, "Damn! I remember this!", and you will look at it with a bit of interest, a smattering of nostalgia, and a lot of wondering. Some of the wondering will take the form of "why did I ever think this was worth writing about?" and some of it will be "you know, this would have made a great story" but it will all be in the past tense. All of the emotion - all the passion - that you felt for it will be gone.
Enthusiam is evanescent.
Take it at its crest and ride it for all it's worth.
I have a large project that needs to be done. It’s the novel. The not-Joe-Ohio novel. Part of me wants to give in to the Elves of Self-Doubt, who show up by the score and bang me over the head with small hammers until I realize there’s no point to writing the damn thing, but I really like the idea. It’s a matter of finding the time. This is where “not winning the lottery” is a major impediment, because I cannot stroll back to the Writing Hut at the edge of the Manor and type uninterrupted. Everything else I can do with constant interruption, both external and internal – but it’s hard to get into the groove when something else is always nipping at my heels. No matter how good the idea is, enthusiasm is evanescent, and I worry that this one will just evaporate with time.
One thing I've learned about writing: Every project - large, small or indifferent - has a start time. You get an idea. You think about it, hash it out, make notes, do some research, think about it some more, maybe even do an outline and sooner or later the pressure builds to a point where it becomes either go or no/go. If the "Elves of Self-Doubt" get their way - as they so often do - then the project will slip away into the ether and you will move on to other things.
And one day you will rescue a slip of paper from the scrap-heap of your desk and you will say, "Damn! I remember this!", and you will look at it with a bit of interest, a smattering of nostalgia, and a lot of wondering. Some of the wondering will take the form of "why did I ever think this was worth writing about?" and some of it will be "you know, this would have made a great story" but it will all be in the past tense. All of the emotion - all the passion - that you felt for it will be gone.
Enthusiam is evanescent.
Take it at its crest and ride it for all it's worth.
Dealing
Okay, so it's happened. The bean-counters have spoken and the conclusion is that we are not cost-effective. We're too small, too remote and the revenue does not justify the expense. And so I will never fulfill my dream of being a part of "America's Department Store". Well, not my dream, actually. In fact, I don't remember ever entertaining any desire to even visit said department store, much less be a part of it. Still, rejection is never easy - even when it's by someone you were never really attracted to in the first place.
The good news is that this is what I'd call a "phased" termination. I'm guaranteed employment until at least April 15 and, if I keep my nose clean and play by the rules, there will be a small severance package to help ease my entry into the ranks of the unemployed. And this isn't the first time. I was similarly downsized six years ago in a dot.com meltdown and close on twenty years ago I was let go from a job I'd held for ten years in a moment of what might best be termed "irreconcilable differences". In both those cases it was a "here's your hat, what's your hurry" sort of firing so in some respects I guess I should count my blessings.
So, I have some time. More to come, obviously.
The good news is that this is what I'd call a "phased" termination. I'm guaranteed employment until at least April 15 and, if I keep my nose clean and play by the rules, there will be a small severance package to help ease my entry into the ranks of the unemployed. And this isn't the first time. I was similarly downsized six years ago in a dot.com meltdown and close on twenty years ago I was let go from a job I'd held for ten years in a moment of what might best be termed "irreconcilable differences". In both those cases it was a "here's your hat, what's your hurry" sort of firing so in some respects I guess I should count my blessings.
So, I have some time. More to come, obviously.
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Answers to Life's Most Vexing Questions: An Ongoing Series
Is it possible to burn your finger on a pop tart?
That would be a big Yes.
That would be a big Yes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
