Month: September 2011

Caitlin Fitzgerald argues that we ought to scrap not only the major arms deal we're negotiating with the Kingdom, but our entire strategic relationship:

The strategic interests that drive our relationship with Saudi Arabia now may seem more important in the short-term, but in the long-term, what has the greatest potential to serve our interests: the arms we can sell to Saudi Arabia or the example of free expression and assembly we can set? What is a bigger long-term threat: Iran, with its devastated economy and ever-waning legitimacy, or the extremist ideology Saudi Arabia spreads through the mosques and schools it builds and funds all over the world?

Evelyn Gordon makes the case in light of France and Spain adopting new positions on a final status agreement more favorable to Israel:

It’s no accident this U-turn happened under the “intransigent” Netanyahu rather than his more conciliatory predecessors: His “intransigence” is precisely what convinced France and Spain that progress will require accommodating Israel’s demands as well, and not only those of the Palestinians. The upshot is that two key European states have now adopted a vital Israeli position.

A reader writes:

I read with delight your voicemail from your cleaning lady.  Just recently, my step-dad, a lovable man with a deep, mumbly voice, left a message on my step-sister's machine.  This is how her visual voice mail transcribed it (her name is Kristin):

Hey Christine this is your dad. I see you called earlier. I had my phone on my pocket. I that working around the house and I just have it on the vibrate Center sausage. Alright. Love you. Hope everything's going well. Bye.

Another writes:

We have a similar transcript program where I work. Unlike yours, it does not need someone with an accent to produce some amusing results. From a clear-speaking co-worker:

Hi it's in a cab clean and I are both trapped up the bike both ends case or with no rain here. Pouring out you feel like rescuing up if you do give me a call let me know if you see on bro I looked in my office.

I'm sure your readers have plenty of "gold" to contribute.

Surprisingly we couldn't find any examples on YouTube. Another:

I'm afraid it's not just your housekeeper's accent that is too much for Vonage; everything's too much for Vonage Visual Voicemail. I have been updating my Facebook status with the hilarious transcriptions for a year now. The funniest are usually from Blockbuster, so I often go a month or two without paying Blockbuster just because it's funny. Here's the most recent:

I'm calling playing and Terry with a message regarding your local Blockbuster account, five or they come we got sickles with you then okay the black busted a good visiting to went that. Please call us at 1-800-605-5415 and use the following reference code, one, two, 00. Number again is 1-800-605-5415 and the reference code is 1200. Thank you for your attention to this matter we look forward to hearing from you.

Another:

Just had something that I thought you might enjoy based on your Vonage Transcript Heaven post. The comedian Paul F. Tompkins started a podcast last year called "The Pod F. Tompkast", and the first episode featured an excerpt of a segment from his live variety show called "Google Voice Transcripts". The whole thing is basically Tompkins reading google voice transcripts of his voicemails over gentle piano music. The bit culminates in Tompkins inviting Tim Meadows onstage to read Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech after it's been fed through Google Voice. The relevant segment starts eleven minutes into the podcast (though the whole podcast is fantastically absurd), here is the link. Hope you enjoy!

Alex Bellamy urges Responsibility to Protect advocates to clarify their position:

[B]ecause of the deep concern on the part of many member states that RtoP could give rise to a regime change agenda and the equally deep global opposition to such an agenda, it is incumbent on us to explore the relationship more deeply in order to ascertain whether there are ways of maintaining a clear distinction between RtoP and regime change without sacrificing the protection of civilians.  This is particularly urgent given the evidence that among other factors, the perception among the BRICS that the UN and NATO went too far in Cote d’Ivoire and Libya has encouraged them to block a timely, decisive and united response to the killing of civilians by the governments in Syria and Yemen.

Felix Salmon says American macroeconomics data-gathering is too weak:

Increasingly the economists in the government who craft the policy responses to macroeconomic developments are working on a GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) basis. That, in turn, means more bad responses, more bubbles, more recessions, and in general more macroeconomic volatility. The world is getting messier — and we don’t even have a good basis for measuring just how messy it is, any more.

Nantucket, Massachusetts, 10.40 am

Not much:

“Magic democracy words” are not credible commitments; they are signals. They are audible, but they neither lock in nor foreclose any specific policy options. After saying that a ruler like Assad must go, the U.S. government might do more to make that happen, but it can also do nothing, and it can even work to support that ruler’s continuation in office. Whichever path it chooses, it can also change course at any time. Doing so might somehow diminish America’s reputation, but the costs of a diminished reputation must be balanced against all kinds of other interests, many of which will probably weigh more heavily than ephemeral concerns about consistency and likeability. International relations is replete with flip-flops, hypocrisy, and duplicity, so it’s hard to imagine many situations in which reputational concerns would compel a government to pursue a course of action that was otherwise judged to be counter to its national interest.

Paul Waldman wonders why everyone assumes the National Popular Vote (NPV) campaign, which aims to get rid of the electoral college without a Constitutional amendment, would hurt Republicans:

Just before the 2000 election, journalists began to speculate that one candidate could  win the popular vote, but lose when the electoral college was tallied. That candidate’s campaign began preparing to argue the case for its legitimacy, and days of hand-wringing ensued. You’ve guessed the punchline: Everyone thought it was George W. Bush who would win the popular vote but lose the electoral vote.