The Dish

By Patrick

50 Cent can’t make up his mind.

By Patrick

First microwaves, then cell phones, and now Cubans are getting hotel privileges. I largely agree with Matt:

The reforms announced today by Raul Castro are hardly the last word in fixing Cuba’s screwed-up economic system…but it’s certainly a step in the right direction. It’s high time for the United States to take a step in the right direction of our own by lifting some of the more draconian of our embargo-related restrictions on travel and so forth to Cuba.

Gordon Chang’s take:

The real destabilizing factor about the cellphone reform is not that the Cuban people can find out about the rest of the world, as commentators have said recently. It is the resulting perception that their government can now be pressured. Raul has just started down a path of change that will, one way or another, lead to the end of communism in Cuba.

By Patrick

Virginia Postrel considers Disney’s revamping of "It’s A Small World":

Like the Miss Universe pageant’s opening ceremony and the International House of Pancakes, "Small World" portrays a happy, colorful internationalism. But…it also assumes segregation and stasis. "Small World" was designed for an audience that would rarely, if ever, encounter foreign cultures. Now it’s a time machine back to a world in which international travel was rare and large-scale trade and immigration unknown. When a blogger complains that adding Disney characters "not only trivializes the central theme but more disturbingly seems to emphasize global brand marketing," he is lamenting the small world as it came to exist. Amid the complexities and conflicts of real globalization, the international appeal of Disney characters is as good a testimony as any that the children of the world really do share something in common.

By Patrick

A reader writes:

Say what you will about the Clintons, they are not stupid. They know that their only chance of winning the nomination is some of kind of major event. The fact is though the odds of this major event are greater than zero. Therefore, there is no reason for her to quit. If I was in her shoes, I wouldn’t either – fate is a funny thing. Their plan is to go through all of the primaries (6/4). At that point many of the super delegates will start breaking for Obama in large numbers and it really will be over for her. At that point, she will quit and endorse Obama.

However, since this is her plan, she can’t admit that or nobody will vote for her in the remaining primaries or give her money. Therefore in order to give her delegates faint hope and keep them in line now until the end, she has to talk about the convention, Michigan and Florida, pledged delegates switching, etc. This is all a smokescreen.

The JED report adds:

It was a beautiful thing to see — because the moment a presidential candidate is forced to vow that he or she isn’t quitting, you know they are toast.

It’s true that Romney, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Edwards all vowed to fight until the convention and then dropped out. There may well come a point where Clinton supporters, staffers, and superdelegates decide to balk, but I wouldn’t count on that happening anytime soon.

By Patrick

Noam’s thoughts on Heilemann’s article:

I got the impression Edwards’s calculations were mostly dictated by–surprise!–self-interest. Early on, he wasn’t sure Obama was tough enough to beat Hillary. Or to reassure voters and superdelegates that he’d be able to win the general. And what good does it do you to endorse a guy who’s going to lose?

Since then, Obama’s obviously become the favorite to win the Democratic nomination, which has changed Edwards’s calculus. The risk is no longer endorsing a guy who may lose. (At least in the primaries.) It’s that you won’t get credit for helping Obama win. Endorsing Obama at this point would basically mean jumping on a bandwagon, and there’s no percentage in that. So I’m guessing Edwards is biding his time until there’s a moment when his endorsement would matter–for example, when it could help bump Hillary from the race. (Say, after a loss in the North Carolina primary.)

By Patrick

Art dealer Larry Salander tried to create a new market for old-master and Renaissance art and failed spectacularly:

It was an intriguing idea, but it left him in ruin. On the opening evening of a show he hoped would electrify the market, angry investors closed down his multimillion-dollar gallery. A restraining order prevented Salander from entering the gallery or selling art anywhere in the world. He now faces a criminal investigation and lawsuits from investors who say they were abused, collectors who say they didn’t get what they paid for, and artists who say they never got paid. He could be upwards of $100 million in debt. As our lunch filled the afternoon, Salander spoke for the first time about his plan to rescue the art world from bad taste, and how it ultimately destroyed him.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those who bemoan contemporary art and seek a return to the old-masters. Appreciating formalism is one thing; crusading against contemporary art in order to correct an alleged cultural imbalance is something else entirely. When you buy a piece of art from a living artist you are funding her next project; you are allowing her to continue with her work. What does it matter to Rembrandt how much his painting sells for?

(Hat tip: James Panero. Image via James Groves.)

By Patrick

Douglas Robson questions whether two Israeli tennis players were denied entrance to a Dubai tournament:

It’s not as if authorities in Dubai are incapable of providing top-level protection to visitors. After all, President Bush traveled to Dubai last month. My source explained that the issue wasn’t so much the capability but rather the extent to which the tournament would have had to go to protect the Israelis, other players and fans at the tournament site. That’s a legitimate concern. The source said the tournament should be given the benefit of the doubt, at least for now, since Erlich and Ram didn’t push the envelope and go. But that leeway should not extend indefinitely. “They were definitely discouraged but they were not stopped because they decided not to get on the airplane," said the source. "There’s nothing that says they can’t be discouraged. The tournament would say it has a moral obligation to let them know if they are at risk.” That argument could mean the ATP and tournament organizers are technically off the hook, but again, we don’t know all the facts, and may never. The underlying question is whether the Israelis would have been allowed into the UAE. It should be noted that the tournament owner is Dubai Duty Free, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the government of Dubai.

His accompanying article is here.

By Patrick

PEW recently reported that over 80% of Chinese believe the internet should be controlled. Here’s an excerpt:

Much of the highest profile press focuses on children and their internet use and abuse. Over half of all internet users in China are under the age of 25, and 20% are under the age of 18. Many have parents who are less sophisticated and more wary about computers and the internet than their children are.

The media, which all operate under direct or indirect state control, warn frequently about internet addiction when discussing technology’s effects on youth. At the end of 2006, the media reported that the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League stated that more than 2 million children and teens were internet addicts. In 2008, the Xinhua news agency reported that 11% of youth ages 18 to 23 are addicted to the internet.

The greatest trick of state controlled media is getting the population to demand its own censorship.

By Patrick

"I think during this entire primary coverage, starting in Iowa and up to the present — FOX has done the fairest job, and remained the most objective of all the cable networks. You hate both of our candidates. No, I’m only kidding. But you actually have done a very balanced job of reporting the news, and some of the other stations are just caught up with Senator Obama, who is a great guy, but Senator Obama can do no wrong, and Senator Clinton can do no right," – Ed Rendell, continuing the Clinton campaign’s embrace of conservative media. YouTube here.

By Patrick

John Heilemann says Obama was to blame:

According to a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps, the answer is simple: Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

(Via: Goddard)