by Chris Bodenner
Calderone passes along this WaPo correction:
A July 16 Style article incorrectly said that ABC's Jake Tapper used Twitter to apologize to NBC's David Gregory for sending a critical remark of Gregory's to the office of South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford. Tapper apologized by phone.
by Chris Bodenner
A reader writes:
Your post about the Wii and senior groups relates a similar experience I've had through the Wii for Seniors program I run at the library. The Wii is an awesome tool for helping adults overcome technology intimidation. (There was an article about the Wii remote design in Fortune magazine awhile ago.) Every single adult who has come to my program or demonstration who has harbored some hangup about new technology has left with renewed curiosity. For the library, this leads to people borrowing books and magazines, taking classes, and rebooting them into the age of digital information. The Wii is a bridge to the future of gaming and a friendly introduction to modern technology for those whom the digital revolution has paid very little attention.
Dr. Allan Kleiman and his project Senior Spaces was the original inspiration for my Wii for Seniors program. I directly lifted my program from his progressive library work.
by Robert Wright
I realize Stevie Wonder and Tony Bennett are supposed to be playing a non-zero-sum game here, but I have to say that… Wonder wins. Then again, he's playing on his home turf; Bennett should have demanded a rematch with this song.
by Chris Bodenner
Tehran Bureau's Sahimi writes:
In an unprecedented move, former president and reformist icon Mohammad Khatami suggested holding a referendum on the result of June’s presidential election and to determine whether people are satisfied with Iran’s present state of affairs. […] Khatami suggested that the referendum must be held by a neutral organ, such as the Expediency Council [headed by Rafsanjani].
NIAC adds:
This announcement signifies that the Mousavi camp and Rafsanjani have officially joined together in an attempt to force Khamenei to respond. Calling for a referendum is intelligent because it would allow the Supreme Leader to save face – as he would not necessarily be invalidating the election results.
by Patrick Appel
A reader writes:
I take great issue with your saying pantheism and atheism are somehow intellectually related. It shows a great ignorance of what pantheism actually is, the diversity of pantheist theology currently and historically, and it belittles pantheists by lumping themselves with people who are against the concept that is core to the word panTHEISM.
I'd like the mention that most Sufis, the most well known among them being the great poets like Rumi and Hafez, are and were pantheists. Sufis have their theological roots in Gnosticism, which is itself deeply pantheist, and not in the cop-out, pseudo-intellectual mode that you seem to think of pantheism in. I'd like to point out that one of the canonical gospels, one of the very gospels associated with "non-atheistic" thinking, is a Gnostic gospel with heavy pantheistic overtones: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (John 1:1)" (Just read through John again. It's full of this kind of winding, subtly subversive thought. Easy to see why Gnostics loved it.)
There are two well known brands of pantheism, one being in the Hindu/Gnostic/Mayan mode (if I listed them all, you'd see there are more pantheistic religions than monotheistic), where there is a pantheon that represents intellectual aspects of the supreme being, who is supposed to represent the universe. I've never thought of as true pantheism anyway, but as more of a transition from polytheism to pantheism, since it's still so encumbered by pre-pantheistic thought. The other kind people know about is related intellectually to deism, in a mold. It's philosophical, not theological in its roots (though I think that distinction in fields should one day be destroyed), and the most well known pantheistic thinker in that mold would be Spinoza. First of all, out of these two, only the second could arguably be linked somehow with atheism, and only if you're being very simplistic. In reality there is more the pantheism than even these two models, and I take great, great offense to you simplifying something as diverse as an entire form of thought about the nature of existence, to the point where you can just slap it together with something completely unrelated.
It's true, if you develop pantheism far enough, the concept of "godhood" itself ceases to be a relevant concept. In that regard it is possible to associate it with atheism, but at their core they come from completely different places, and most atheists, if they talked with pantheists, would reject pantheism as another form of theistic nonsense. As someone who has to hide my pantheism from my agressively atheist friends, I resent what you said greatly. Pantheism is not the removal of God or gods, it is the elevation of divinity to the point where everything IS God. The only reason to use the word "God" at that point is to talk with people about it. I could easily argue (and have done so among my friends) that monotheism is more closely associated with polytheism than pantheism is with atheism. After all, the only real difference there is the number of gods. In both the being(s) is/are classified in the same way, just with more power as the number decreases (like The One of religion). Pantheism is about the nature of existence, and what a truly divine being would actually have to be. (For example, I've argued passionately in philosophy classes that a non-pantheistic concept of God isn't really "God" according to monotheistic standards, even though I dislike the term because of it's simplifying and misleading nature.)
I considered myself a Gnostic for a while, and then moved in and out of Sufism, mostly because I'm still not sure if I can subscribe to the Qur'aan, and I have to much respect for Islam than to jump in just to fudge it to my liking. I still think about converting to Islam constantly, and I struggle with my spirituality as I feel my passion lessen as I get older, just like millions of other people who would call themselves Catholic or Protestant. And I have thought about atheism, in the way that any serious person of any belief has to if they truly want to say they believe what they believe. If it we so similar, I wouldn't find the concept as distressing. I find myself getting along more with monotheists and agnostics than atheists, because at least with them conversations about theology don't devolve into socio-political discussions about religion.
Heh. And here I was, thinking how dispassionate I've become about my belief, but I still have enough to get perturbed. Of course, it's easier for you to be so insensitive to pantheists. We don't have a mass to harass you with like the monotheists and atheists do. Of course, fundamentally, I'm not just harassing you, I'm harassing myself, because you are me. We're not atheists.
I did not mean to offend. I was thinking of pantheism more along the lines of Poulos and Tocqueville or Douthat. There are many varities of pantheism, and people who identify with patheism alone, rather than a religion based in pantheism, are usually talking about naturalistic pantheism rather than classical patheism.
by Conor Friedersdorf
Rick Reilly lists "the ten best sporting events to see live." Weirdly, it includes two golf tournaments, The Ryder Cup and The Masters, even though golf is among the worst sports to see live — its hours of standing, moving about in huge crowds, having to keep quiet, and having little overall sense of the tournament, particularly the most crucial shots, the vast majority of which you're guaranteed to miss. I'm hardly a fan of televised golf, but I enjoy watching one or two majors a year, and the televised versions are infinitely better.
He mentions Wimbledon too.
I've no doubt that the All England Club, which I've never visited, is a site to behold, but I'd rather attend the US Open or the French Open, where the rallies are longer and the crowds allowed a bit more rambunctiousness.
Perhaps most egregiously, Mr. Reilly neglects to list soccer at all. The most heated rivalry match I've ever attended pitted FC Sevilla against crosstown rival Real Betis. A 1988 Western Conference Finals Lakers game at The Forum excepted, I've never enjoyed a sporting event more, and it was relatively low-grade soccer. How cool would it be to see Brazil play in the World Cup?
Credit is due, however, to his Tour de France Recommendation. "Pick a climbing stage, bring friends and a bike, ride the course in the morning before the race (you're allowed), have lunch in a hamlet atop some exquisite Alp, watch the heart-skipping finish, have a bottle of Bordeaux, spend the night, bike down in the morning," he writes. "Rinse and repeat."
by Chris Bodenner
An undated, unverified video via Nico:
by Robert Wright
The State Department has revised its transcripts of the Nixon tapes. For example, you know the part where Nixon said to Kissinger, “You and I know that you were going to go for broke against the North”? Well, it looks like he actually said, “You and I know that you weren’t going to go for broke against the North.” And apparently Nixon said, “I’m going to live with the blockade,” not “I’m going to lift the blockade.” So were the original transcripts in error? No! The State Department explains that transcripts are only “intepretations”–it’s the tapes that are the “documents”. You can listen to the documents, and create your own interpretations, here.
by Patrick Appel
Greg Beato wonders why prescription drug commercials have proven so effective:
While commercials like [Brooke] Shields’ pitch for [prescription drug] Latisse have graced television airwaves since 1997, when a change in Food and Drug Administration policy first made it feasible for pharmaceutical companies to hawk their products in explicit fashion, instead of just mentioning a product’s name and encouraging consumers to ask their doctor about it, such ads remain controversial. (The U.S. is the only nation in the world that allows this kind of advertising.)
In order to comply with federal regulations, prescription drug advertisers must “present a true statement of information in brief summary relating to [the] side effects, contraindications, and effectiveness” of their products. In other words, they can’t just talk benefits. They’re also compelled to reveal dangerous complications that might arise, common side effects, precautions that should be taken with usage, etc. Advertisers are expected to convey this information in a prominent, understandable manner, and they also have to include some means by which consumers can obtain more comprehensive information about the drug and its effects – i.e., a toll-free number, a Web page, or a print advertisement (which is why virtually every erectile dysfunction drug advises viewers to see its ad in Golf magazine).
But while the regulation governing prescription drug advertising runs to approximately 5,000 words and is quite explicit it in prohibition of commercials that are “false, lacking in balance, or otherwise misleading,” the text is ultimately vague enough to leave advertising agencies plenty of literary and cinematic license: Over the last 12 years, advertisers have honed the art of presenting information in a prominent, understandable manner that is simultaneously easy to ignore.
The Dish 