Month: February 2010

Claire Messud has a theory:

Here’s the deal: men, without thinking, will almost without fail select men. And women, without thinking, will too often select men. It’s a known fact that among children, girls will happily read stories with male protagonists, but boys refuse to read stories with female protagonists. J.K. Rowling was aware of this: if Harry Potter had been Harriet Potter, none of us would know about her.

And we don’t change our spots when we grow up. Last year, I was one of nine judges awarding an international literary prize for a writer’s body of work. Each of us nominated a candidate, and five of us were women; but only one of our nominees—only one out of nine—was female. (I myself enthusiastically nominated a man.) Our cultural prejudices are so deeply engrained that we aren’t even aware of them: arguably, it’s not that we think men are better, it’s that we don’t think of women at all. The absence of women from lists and prizes leads, then, to the future absence of women from lists and prizes. Now, lists and prizes mean nothing, of course; except that they inform curious readers about who and what to read.

Gawker's Aman Ellis and Jessica Poolt have done a wonderful job of showing how the Stewart-O'Reilly interview this week was edited. Some editing is, of course, necessary. But just check out how Fox clearly did so to omit some of the best Stewart zingers, and protect O'Reilly from being fully exposed. To Fox's credit, they put the whole thing on their website. Money quote from Stewart:

I know what this is. I come from Jersey—it's the same thing: "I'm not saying your mother's a whore. I'm just saying she has sex for money. With people." [F]ox News used to be all about, you don't criticize a president during wartime. It's unacceptable, it's treasonous, it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. All of a sudden, for some reason you can run out there and say, "Barack Obama is destroying the fabric of this country."

Then this wonderful exchange (also omitted from the broadcast): 

O'REILLY: Do you know any Tea Party people?

STEWART: Yes, I do.

O'REILLY: Really? Down in Greenwich Village there are Tea Party people?

STEWART: Down in Greenwich Village? Let me tell you something, Bill—I'll give you four blocks of Greenwich Village, and I'll put that up against four blocks around your house—

O'REILLY: Levittown?

STEWART: No, your house now.

O'REILLY: Oh, Levittown is where I was brought up.

STEWART: Well, you don't live there any more brother.

He sure doesn't. But he knows how to manipulate their fears.

Dave Weigel, always the most reliable source on conservative activist politics, over-hears a fascinating little dust-up at the Tea Party Convention:

I told Farah that his speech was getting negative attention already, and that Breitbart, who’d taken the stage after him, had criticized the “birther” parts of the speech. Farah shook his head and walked over to Breitbart in what seemed like an attempt to debunk my question.

“Andrew is my friend,” said Farah. “He has the right to disagree, and he has the right to say anything to a socialist newspaper that he wants. And if he wants to criticize his friend to you, and he’s dumb enough to do that…” Breitbart raised his eyebrows.

“I’m dumb to do what?” “Criticize your friend to this socialist newspaper.”

It gets better:

“It is a winning issue!”

“It’s not a winning issue.”

“It is! It becomes even more of a winning issue when the press abrogates its responsibility–”

“You don’t recognize it as a fundamentally controversial issue that forces a unified group of people to have to break into different parts? It is a schism of the highest order.”

“Nothing exposes the president’s–”

“Then prove it!”

“The press isn’t asking the question–”

“Prove it!”

“Prove what?”

“Prove your case.”

“I should prove, what, a birth certificate that may or may not exist?” Farah had gotten irritated. “That’s ridiculous. You don’t even understand the fundamental tenets of what journalism is about, Andrew. It’s not about proving things. It’s about asking questions and seeking truth.”

Breitbart tensed up after that insult. “Right.”

“I know you’re not a journalist, so that’s fine. But don’t diminish people who’ve been doing this for 35 years.

“So you’re going to go on record saying that I’m not a journalist?”

Read the whole thing at that commie rag, the Washington Independent.

Local weathermen can't handle the stress. Bonus snowgasm verbiage here. We're loving it, especially the younger impostor beagle.

In today's volatile, recession-angry political climate, a nut-case like Palin, able to channel populist resentments while sucking every last dollar out of the media-conservative complex, remains dangerous. The NYT has a good profile today. Her ability to lie and lie and lie and get away with it, her indisputable charisma and sex appeal, and her fathomless ignorance make her a rogue indeed. So rogue that even Bill Kristol has now publicy claimed to be "disappointed" in her endorsement of Rand Paul, because it might imply some small dissent from the global war-machine he wants the bankrupt US to become. (No worries, Bill. Since Israel is where Armageddon takes place, one of your core reasons for backing her remains intact). I note also that even John Coale, her one-time strong ally and husband of Greta Van Susteren, is offering a tiny veiled critique:

“She used to be a moderate Republican in Alaska, but I think all of these attacks have hardened her and made her absolutely more conservative … I think there have been times during all the attacks when she thought, ‘This is just too much.’ … But now I think it all makes her more determined. Whatever she’s doing now, it feels like a calling to her."

A divine calling. Then there the usual odd lies:

When asked by The New York Times for others to speak to about Ms. Palin, her spokeswoman, Ms. Stapleton, mentioned the Republican media adviser Mary Matalin (who has been in sporadic contact with Ms. Palin’s camp) and Dana Perino, the former White House press secretary for George W. Bush (who seemed barely to know her).

C'mon, Levi. Write the book.

(The first draft of this got John Coale's first name wrong. My apologies.)

A reader writes:

Very happy email below from someone I gifted your book to. Please don't take offense that she put it in the bathroom…

I had a scrapbooking party at my house last weekend. I put our window book in the bathroom after Christmas. Well I noticed that people at the party were in the bathroom for the longest time (frankly I thought it was weird that so many girls were pooping at my house at the same time). Anyway, on Sunday somebody walked out with the book and asked where I got it. Everyone chimed in and said they loved it and that's what they were doing in the bathroom, looking at the book (pooping mystery solved). Aunt Denise even went on the website and ordered one.

It was a big hit and I love it.

Love, Mom

Preview the book here and order it here. And enjoy your loo-time even more.

Erik Voeten points to a paper (pdf) by James Hollyer and Peter Rosendorff arguing that authoritarian regimes tend to ratify the Convention Against Torture with the express purpose of torturing its citizens anyway:

And it is important to those signatories that all observers understand that they have no intention of complying at the time of accession. The logic, while counterintuitive, is straightforward: an elite facing threats from a domestic opposition can mitigate these threats by engaging in torture. If there is any additional cost to the elite of signing and then being found to torture, the act of signing the agreement signals to the opposition the strength of the elite’s commitment to remaining in power.

DiA digests the findings:

[F]orcing someone to admit to something he might have done does not send a strong signal of power. Forcing someone to confess to a crime that everyone knows he could not possibly have committed, on the other hand, is terrifying. Similarly, a regime that tortures its opponents and refuses to sign the Convention Against Torture shows that it fears international opprobrium. A regime that tortures its opponents and blithely signs the Convention Against Torture anyway shows that it fears nothing.

Messrs Hollyer and Rosendorff believe the intent is to show how dedicated the regime is to maintaining power, how much it will sacrifice. But there is another possible signal: the regime shows its opponents that it knows international pressure cannot disturb its grip on power in the slightest.

Reminds you of someone, doesn’t it?

Pistachios, at least:

Paramount Farms claims the ads are the reason, and they say sales of its brand Wonderful Pistachios have jumped 244 percent since the campaign launched in October. In fact, they say, their small pistachio snack packs have beat out peanuts over the past few months.

C'mon, Levi. Write the book.

What is being called "perhaps the most important nanotechnology product to emerge to date."

The liquid glass spray produces a water-resistant coating only around 100 nanometers (15-30 molecules) thick. On this nanoscale the glass is highly flexible and breathable. The coating is environmentally harmless and non-toxic, and easy to clean using only water or a simple wipe with a damp cloth. It repels bacteria, water and dirt, and resists heat, UV light and even acids. UK project manager with Nanopool, Neil McClelland, said soon almost every product you purchase will be coated with liquid glass.

(Hat tip: TDW)