RRbanner.jpg
logo

need more stuff?

Archives for March, 2003

March 31, 2003

"It's a bad situation." Jake

Daniel Radosh

"It's a bad situation." Jake sends this gripping, horrifying account of the battle for Nasiriya, from the London Times. I'd read about this fight in U.S. papers and Web sites, and heard it discussed on American TV. But now I realize just how little about this war is actually being reported here in a way that conveys even slightly what's going on.

The writer doesn't say, but it seems that he's embedded, which certainly proves that this arrangement doesn't have to turn reporters into propagandists. And, even more interesting, the Times -- a Rupert Murdoch paper -- is staunchly pro-war.

And one neat little media irony in this passage:

The heavy, thick rear ramp had been blown open. There were pools of blood and bits of flesh everywhere. A severed leg, still wearing a desert boot, lay on what was left of the ramp among playing cards, a magazine, cans of Coke and a small bloodstained teddy bear.

"They are f****** dead, they are dead. Oh my God. Get in there. Get in there now and pull them out," shouted a gunner in a state verging on hysterical.

Someone please explain how the word "fucking" considered obscene, while the rest of that is not?

March 30, 2003

Least reported story of the war so far.

Daniel Radosh

March 21st: Australia's The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and CNN independently report that the U.S. used napalm on Safwan Hill in Southern Iraq. March 23: After Pentagon denials, The Age reaffirms its reporting, citing three sources. No followup from CNN. Arab media, of course, are playing it up. An Australian web site declares it misinformation, but calls it an "Iraqi claim," which is not the case.

Is it true? Who knows. At least in CNN's case I'm more than willing to believe that a reporter with zero combat experience saw flames and spouted the first thing on his mind, perhaps not even knowing that napalm is not a generic term for explosive-that-causes-fire, but is in fact a banned chemical weapon (Saddam has used it). In any case, I would like to see some enterprising news outlet try to get to the bottom of this.

March 30, 2003

Quote of the day: "There

Daniel Radosh

Quote of the day: "There were lots of women and children running around. It was kind of distracting when you're trying to kill people." — Lt. Bennett Williams

March 29, 2003

Quote of the day: "I'm

Daniel Radosh

Quote of the day: "I'm sorry, but the chick was in the way." —Sgt. Eric Schrumpf, on having to kill an Iraqi civilian

March 28, 2003

Poll-ish joke.

Daniel Radosh

" Thirty years ago, after a decade of escalating war in Vietnam, slogans like 'America, Love It or Leave It' carried an angry punch. This time, the mantra of many New Yorkers seems to be, 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion.'" So says The New York Times, employing the classic journalese, "seems to be," which in English means, "we're making this up."

Was the gap between pro- and anti-war camps greater during Vietnam? Consider the one piece of actual evidence in this anecdote-happy article: "One 1970 Harris poll found that 37 percent of Americans thought that protests against the Vietnam War should be illegal. Today, 61 percent say Americans who oppose the war should be allowed to hold protest marches and rallies, while 29 percent think that such activity is detrimental to the war effort, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll."

My first thought was that in presenting responses to what seems to be the same question asked 33 years apart, the writer has simply flipped which of the two possible answers she reports in order to make this passage read as if it supports the thesis of her argument, when in fact it refutes it. That is, the passage could just have easily read: "One 1970 Harris poll found that 63 percent of Americans thought that protests against the Vietnam War should be legal. Today, 61 percent say Americans who oppose the war should be allowed to hold protest marches and rallies..."

I blurted this out to Gina, who looked over the article and convinced me that the evidence does not actually refute the writer's thesis -- but it is totally meaningless and can't be used one way or the other. For starters, we're not told what the other choice(s) are in that 1970 poll. I assumed that the opposite of "protests should be illegal" is "protests should not be illegal." But I could be wrong -- after all, the 2003 question isn't neatly symmetrical. This year, people were asked, "Do you think Americans who oppose the war should be able to hold protest marches and rallies or does that hurt the war effort?" (question 34). To most people that "or" probably implies that if you don't answer "should be able to," you're saying, "should not be able to." But it's certainly possible to believe that protest "hurts the war effort" without thinking people should not be allowed to do it. And if you read the actual poll results (not included in the print edition) you'll see that 6 percent of respondents answered "both" -- even though that was not offered as a choice. (And since I'm obsessing here, the poll pop-up gives the responses as 62 and 28, not 61 and 29).

So we have three strikes: 1) Not enough info about the 1970 question. 2) No way to tell if the 2003 question is a true parallel to the 1970 one. 3) The 2003 question implies something it does not actually ask, rendering it useless. How difficult would it have been for The Times/CBS to ask: "Do you think Americans who oppose the war should be able to hold protest marches and rallies or should they not be able to because it hurts the war effort?" Or, if they wanted to ask the question their own way, why not offer "both" as one of the possible answers -- I'm sure they would have gotten a lot more takers for that if they had. True, they would have had to write a much more wishy-washy article, but when has that ever bothered The Times?

March 27, 2003

The first casualty of war

Daniel Radosh

The first casualty of war is the Happy Meal

March 27, 2003

Quote of the day "Getting

Daniel Radosh

Quote of the day "Getting shot at wasn't really that bad. It was the getting shot part that sucked." -- Sgt. Jamie Villafane

March 27, 2003

Wait, ice is slippery?

Daniel Radosh

Wait, ice is slippery?

March 27, 2003

Homosexuals remain perfectly at liberty

Daniel Radosh

Homosexuals remain perfectly at liberty to have heterosexual sex in Texas. "It's conceded by the state of Texas that married couples can't be regulated in their private sexual decisions," says Smith. To which Scalia rejoins, "They may have conceded it, but I haven't."

Once again we see why our supreme court is so frickin' scary, and why Dhalia Lithwick is the best legal journalist today by a country mile.

March 27, 2003

Hey, blog fans! If Radosh.net

Daniel Radosh

Hey, blog fans! If Radosh.net doesn't have enough of my random observations about Buffy for you, mosey on over to Whedonesque. Looking for my inside media tidbits? Scroll through the letters page of Romenesko. I'm frickin' everywhere!

March 27, 2003

Face it, computer games reached

Daniel Radosh

Face it, computer games reached their zenith in the mid 1980s with Zork, Planetfall, Infidel and other Infocom masterpieces. Fortunately, some people never gave up on text adventures. I've put in my order for 1893: A World's Fair Mystery. If I timed it right, it will arrive just as I've finished reading The Devil in the White City.

March 27, 2003

When PowerPoint goes wrong, the

Daniel Radosh

When PowerPoint goes wrong, the results are usually just dopey, but occasionally deadly -- as the great Edward Tufte shows in this remarkable deconstruction of a slide used by Boeing to lull NASA into a false sense of security prior to the Columbia accident.

If you've never read Tufte's
Visual Explanations
, you don't fully understand the world. (Thanks to ET fan Kevin Guilfoile.)

March 27, 2003

The Real Rudy. Gersh Kuntzman

Daniel Radosh

The Real Rudy. Gersh Kuntzman fact-checks Sunday's USA biopic of Rudy Giuliani, which "uses dramatic license like a 14-year-old kid uses a fake ID." One highlight: "Rudy Giuliani running? The only running he ever did was for toward a bank of microphones. But jogging? No. This guy couldn't even be bothered to jog the part of his memory where his marriage vows were stored."

March 27, 2003

Homeland Security: The Board Game.

Daniel Radosh

Homeland Security: The Board Game. "The predicaments described on the game board are no joke," it says. And, to tell the truth, the jokes themselves aren't really jokes. With a firmer commitment to humor over haranguing, this could have been brilliant. But it's still worth checking out. (Thanks to Mike Chaplin).

March 26, 2003

"We recognize the importance of

Daniel Radosh

"We recognize the importance of putting out good news and bad news and everything in between," Pentagon spokeswoman Torie Clarke said the other day, by way of explaining, naturally, why the Pentagon would not in fact be releasing a running total of U.S. casualties. "Don't you have an obligation to share that with the American people?" a reporter asked (Torie felt she did not, and the Times story where I learned of this exchange did not provide its own count.

Does the Pentagon really think it can -- and should -- prevent body counts? Why not: it works. The other day, USA Today said that Americans are surprised by the number of casualties so far in Iraq, because "For 12 years, wars have been presented on TV largely as precision-guided bombs hitting exact targets to produce extremely low U.S. casualties. Just 148 U.S. soldiers died in battle during the 1991 Gulf War. None in the bombing attacks on Kosovo. Sixteen U.S. troops in Afghanistan."

Leaving aside the dubious premise that we're shaken by 47 deaths (at last count) today because there were "only" 148 deaths in 1991, this editorial unintentionally reveals that when casualties aren't emphasized by the media, they probably will be underestimated. By the Pentagon's own count, there have been, so far, 64 US casualties in Afghanistan (or, technically, in Operation Enduring Freedom; some folks died across the border in Pakistan, or at bases elsewhere). Six of those came the day before the USA Today editorial appeared, so you think they might have noticed.

You'll notice that the DoD site also lists casualties in the Iraq campaign, even if Torie Clark won't. And that the CNN count I cited above includes UK troops. Oh, and look a that: 11 Americans dead in the Phillipines. When did that happen?

True, some folks tried to warn us in advance that people die in wars, but they couldn't even pay to get on TV.

Meanwhile, Iraq is officially saying there have been 93 civilian deaths, which is, oddly, much lower than independent media assessments. And no one is keeping a running toll of Iraqi military deaths, but it's probably well over 1,000. And, yeah, that matters.

Of course, the US is trying to limit civilian casualties, for tactical reasons as much as moral ones, so, hey, look on the bright side.

Update: And in a related story...

March 26, 2003

Geneva Convention III, Article 26:

Daniel Radosh

Geneva Convention III, Article 26: "The use of tobacco shall be permitted." So New York cig fiends would actually be better off in an Iraqi POW camp?

March 26, 2003

Can you say "pathetic"?

Daniel Radosh

Can you say "pathetic"?

March 25, 2003

Are Moomins hairy? On the

Daniel Radosh

Are Moomins hairy? On the one hand, "If they weren't hairy then they would be fully clothed otherwise they would be cold in the Moomin valley climate." On the other hand, "Moomins are fuzzy, like peaches. They do NOT have hairy hair, they are velvety." And on the third hand, "while we all naturally find certain body types arousing, when we turn our orientations or preferences into rigid stereotypes and slot each other into them we objectify and dehumanize each other, and ourselves."

March 25, 2003

Inappropriately "touched"?

Daniel Radosh

Inappropriately "touched"?

March 21, 2003

The Oscar Briefing I wrote

Daniel Radosh

The Oscar Briefing I wrote for The Week last year is already out of date. According to the invaluable EDI Nielsen Academy Awards Guide, a careful analysis of the data reveals three cherished myths to be out of date:

1. Oscar loves retards: It's been five years since the the best actor award went to someone playing an even mildly afflicted character: Jack Nicholson's star turn as an obsessive-compulsive romance novelist in As Good as It Gets. (Prior to that, eight of 10 best actor recipients played characters suffering from some malady.) For the best actress award you have to go back to Jessica Lange's win for her role as a bipolar military wife in 1994's Blue Sky. "I took a solemn oath years ago not to vote for drunks or retards," says William Goldman.

2. Oscar loves dying legends: In the last 20 years the oldest best actor nominee has hoisted the trophy just twice; the senior best actress nominee only four times.

3. Oscar loves British accents: In the last 25 years, English actors have taken the best actor award just four times.

March 21, 2003

Swedish boy band buttons. The

Daniel Radosh

Swedish boy band buttons. The wait is over. Jill sends this hipster fashion link.

March 21, 2003

Hey! You've got your boob

Daniel Radosh

Hey! You've got your boob in my Scotch. Boob Scotch by Bob Log III is easily the best song ever recorded about boobs and Scotch. Or at least about boobs in Scotch. Video not safe for work.

March 21, 2003

Another New York Times Op-Ed

Daniel Radosh

Another New York Times Op-Ed gets the life sucked out of it. Tory MP Boris Johnson recounts his attempts to keep a touch of lightness in his essay while the forces of somberness and political correctness line up against him. Having had a similar experience or two, I'm inclined to believe every word.

March 21, 2003

If you have set yourself

Daniel Radosh

If you have set yourself on fire, do not run. Everyone has seen some of these by now. Here you can see all 15 pages of them.

March 21, 2003

Tina Fey stole my joke.

Daniel Radosh

Or, just maybe, we're both shameless hacks.
Daniel Radosh, Esquire Dubious Achievements, Jan., 2003:
IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY, YOUR FLIGHT ATTENDANT WILL SERVE AS A FLOTATION DEVICE
The chairman of Hooters announced plans to start a Hooters airline

Tina Fey, Saturday Night Live, Mar. 8, 2003, 2003:
Thursday marked the first flight of Hooters Air, a low-cost airline that will feature young women in hot pants and tank tops serving snacks. And in the event of an emergency, the women can be used as flotation devices.

Anyway, at least now I know what I've been doing wrong: I could be on television if I just explained my premises in more detail.

Hack Update: Tim Carvell writes that his submission to the Dubies was: "In the Event of a Water Landing, Your Flight Attendant's Gargantuan, Surgically-Enhanced Breasts May Be Used as a Flotation Device." I'm sure Esquire would have gone with his version if they hadn't already filled their year's quota for the phrase, "Gargantuan, Surgically-Enhanced Breasts." Which is odd, since it was only the February issue.

March 20, 2003

National Guardsman is robot in

Daniel Radosh

National Guardsman is robot in disguise! Our very own weapon of mass destruction. (Thanks to Todd Seavey, of course).

March 20, 2003

In general, I try to

Daniel Radosh

In general, I try to avoid political discussions with my father. Today, however, he pressed me for a response to this article in Salon (you'll have to watch an ad to read it), by yet another left wing hawk. Since I spent far too long writing my reply, I might as well post it here, though it's depressing to do so now that the point is moot. If you're interested in what I think should happen next, skip to the last two grafs.

As I read it, Lempinen simply has a fundamentally militaristic philosophy: there is evil in the world, so wherever we can use force to put a stop to it, we should: Iraq, Nigeria. He stops there, but draw your own conclusions: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, half of Africa, Turkmenistan, Chechnya (which side should we join? both?). I'm surprised you so readily agree with his contention that the left should have sent individuals to joined the armed struggles in Central America in the 80s! But at least he's being intellectually honest: he believes in permanent war for permanent peace. Most of the rest of us think war should be a last resort. I share his anger at the situation in Nigeria, but am not nearly so willing to brush aside those niggling little fears he raises about the consequences of trying to solve that problem with a unilateral invasion. In fact, I think that would be downright insane. If he weren't advocating war, you'd probably see him as a parody of a bleeding heart liberal: A woman is going to die! That fact overrides all other arguments!

In any case, his critique of the left relies on several assumptions that I think are partly false. I'll start by saying that I agree that the left made a major error in not choosing to be more vocal in its denunciation of Saddam. However, I think that was a tactical error, more than a philosophical one. I think the left does care more about human rights in Iraq than the right, just as they care more about human rights everywhere, which is why every major human rights organization is funded and supported primarily by those on the left and dismissed by the right until it cynically finds them useful, as in Iraq or, briefly, Afghanistan. I also don't think that non-military opposition to oppression can be so quickly written off, and that most on the left do support internal armed struggles against oppressors, despite his contention that pacifism overwhelms that support. But here's the thing: This is the first article that I've seen criticizing the left for not protesting against other oppressive nations as well as Iraq. I give him credit for that. (Though it's funny that he thinks there should be more protests against China. Mocking people with "Free Tibet" bumperstickers is a favorite pasttime of the right! Or that he thinks the left doesn't protest Egypt. It wasn't the US military that got Saad Ibrahim exonerated). Usually when this argument is made, however, the critic only want to know why the left isn't protesting Saddam (and they don't expect anyone to ask back: why weren't you protesting Saddam's regime five years ago? Or twenty?). The response of organizers on the left is that such a question is only being asked because Bush has now declared Saddam the enemy, and Bush does not set the agenda for us. We do what we think is proper around the world, and to take on Saddam now would only be playing into the hands of those who say the left is pro-Saddam, thus bolstering their claim even as we try to refute it.

As I said, I happen to think that was a tactical error. The antiwar movement could have gotten more support if it had made a louder case for nonviolent opposition to Saddam's regime. Unfortunately, Lempinen makes no effort to deal with the case that has been made. He summarizes one leftist argument as "conflict can be solved without war" and then goes on to refute it by saying that there are times when it can't. Point taken, but the left's argument is only that this is not one of those times. There are numerous specific (if competing) arguments out there about what could have been tried first before an invasion (here; here ; here ; and, the one I ascribe to most, here (this one deals primarily with the war on terror, but its message can easily be extrapolated)) Maybe they would not have worked. But should they not have been tried? If Lempinen was genuinely unaware of these arguments, well, as I said, that's partly the left's fault, but it's also partly the media's. Slate's recent scorecard of TV pundits is telling: 18 pro war, 4 antiwar (one of them a silly celebrity). The people who could make the above cases or other ones are not invited to talk, period.

True there have not been "millions on the streets" to oppose Saddam and other dictators, but such a course has been openly discussed, and a minority of us supported it.

I have a few minor quibbles with some of his contentions: Frankly, I don't even understand this passage:

Today, the explicit anti-totalitarian impulse has been narrowed and diminished in leftist culture. Instead, the fundamental leftist reflex has evolved into something related, and yet quite different: antiwar, anti-America, and anti-American authority. That helps to explain the strange behavior of an alienated idealist like John Walker Lindh, who, in disillusionment with his native country, ends up fighting with the ferociously anti-democratic forces of the Taliban.

Lindh actually did exactly what Lempinen says leftists should do: he took up arms against oppressors! True, he was duped into seeing only the evil of the Northern Alliance (which was and is evil) and not of the Taliban (which was and is worse), but how does this support the claim that the left is now reflexively antiwar or anti-America? Perhaps Lempinen has not read the recent New Yorker article which makes a strong case that Lindh, idiotically, didn't know much about the Taliban and had no idea that it was going to end up fighting the US. (Tangentially, it also proves definitively that if the Lindh case is going to be held up of emblematic of anything, it must be the dangerous overreach of John Ashcroft's war on terror, not the naivite of the left.) As for his comment that "some lost souls would go to Iraq to serve as human shields, unaware or unconcerned that they would provide support and aid to a tyrant" -- well, sure, serving as a human shield is dumb, though he's buying into a particularly broad stereotype of them. If you actually read any of the blogs by human shields, once they leave Iraq, they can be forceful in their denunciations of Saddam -- after all, they've seen his work up close -- they just happen to feel that war and/or the US is worse. So yeah, lost souls, I agree. But you have to admit it's odd that the world hears more about human shields -- a tiny fringe of the antiwar movement -- than it does about those arguments I linked to above. One plays into the stereotype of the left, the other does not.

My main disagreement with this article, however, is that I think he brushes too quickly past the fact that everything the Bush administration says about this war is a lie. I mean, he says as much, but on balance he thinks we can ignore that because immediately taking out Saddam any way at all is better than not doing so. I think it's naive and dangerous to believe that Bush's motives don't matter (here's four reasons why). I think that taking out Saddam the wrong way for the wrong reasons is worse than not doing it at all. I would even support military action against Saddam if I truly believed it was part of a comprehensive plan for democracy and peace (see, again, A Real War On Terror). Now I'm a little curious what you believe [n.b., you in this case meaning dad, but I'd be happy to hear from others], since you called this piece brilliant: do you agree with him that Bush's motives are impure, that Iraq is not an imminent threat to the US or the region, that the only reason to take him out is humanitarian? If so, do you further agree with him that this should be the beginning of a worldwide campaign to enforce human rights wherever they are violated, as long as we can "safely" do so?

Finally, the irony is that I agree completely with his final point, which puts me at odds with others on the left:

For those leftists who have supported the war, and for those who have loudly opposed it, now is the time for a shift in strategy. Bush and his inner circle have repeatedly gone on the record describing the war on Iraq as a war of liberation. Even if we do not believe them, we must work relentlessly to hold them accountable. We must insist that the U.S. and its allies implement, as quickly as possible, a constructive post-war plan. They must protect the Kurds from Saddam and from Turkey. Aided by the U.N., they must provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people, no matter the cost. If they truly want to detoxify the Middle East, Bush and his inner circle must commit to seeking a practical solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. They must be reminded constantly, and forcefully, that it is urgent to repair trust, and to stop the corrosion that comes with chronic hypocrisy.

While I wish the war hadn't started, I think he's right that we must now focus on winning the peace, including especially in Palestine. I will also add to his prescription a renewed commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, the International Criminal Court, the UN, and civil liberties in the US. This is all absolutely crucial to any plan for spreading freedom and human rights -- and my deep skepticism that any of it will come to pass is ultimately why I think this article is fundamentally wrong.

March 18, 2003

From Robert Wright: "Brace yourself

Daniel Radosh

From Robert Wright: "Brace yourself for a round of I-told-you-so's from Iraq hawks. And blame it partly on Iraq doves. In trying to head off war, some doves have warned of nightmarish consequences that are in fact not all that likely, thus setting the stage for a postwar public relations triumph by hawks. That's too bad because for every dubious nightmare scenario there's a more valid and equally harrowing worry about the effects of the coming war."

March 14, 2003

Smart Quotes.

Daniel Radosh

The Elizabeth Smart case is generating some of the funniest quotes I've seen in a long time. I'll periodically post my favorites, and yours if you send them in.

SLC Police Chief Charles Dinse, on why the cops hadn't gone looking for Brian Mitchell when the Smarts first mentioned him: "All we had to go on at that time was a name and a description." Really, how do you expect us to work without GPS coordinates, he did not add.

Wally Cromar, employee at the Wild Oats Natural Market Place, frequented by Mitchell and his followers: "We get a pretty diverse group of people in here — hippies and vegans — so you try not to think about people being strange."

Jason Kirchner, neighbor who spotted Mitchell around town: "I saw him at food festival, Taste of Utah, last year. He had those flowing robes on. I gave him some curry. And then when I saw that face on the news I turned to my wife and said, 'That's the guy we gave the curry dish to.'" Wait, curry is the taste of Utah? I hope it's vegan.

March 14, 2003

Two fun stories from the

Daniel Radosh

Two fun stories from the battle between the press corps and the Bushies: 1) Richard Pearle calls Sy Hersh "the closest thing American journalism has to a terrorist," and threatens to sue him. In England. 2) Washington Post reporter Jonathan Weisman reveals the dirty secret of how the White House guarantees good press.

March 13, 2003

Aaargh!

Daniel Radosh

Aaargh!

March 13, 2003

When I started Radosh.net, I

Daniel Radosh

When I started Radosh.net, I vowed not to get caught up in that self-referential spiral of call and response that makes so many other blogs virtually unreadable. I lied.

Today, Bacchus writes: Daniel Radosh calls this line from the ancient testimony against Roman Polanski "heartbreaking", and if the 13-year-old girl in question actually said this Daniel is right: "And then he went down and he started performing cuddliness." But what if it was a transcription error? That would be damned funny, as long as we are all clear we are laughing at the official court reporter who, in 1977, might conceivably have been a bit challenged when transcribing naughty Latin words.

In fact that had occurred to me. And it wouldn't be the only moment in which the girl displays a level of sophistication greater than others in the courtroom. To wit:
A: "Then he lifted up my legs and he went in through my anus."
Q: "When you say he went in your anus what do you mean by that?"
A: "He put his penis in my butt."
Q: "Still not following. Can you dumb it down a bit more for me?"

Okay, I made up that last one.

UPDATE: A libertarian lawyer thinks the "cuddliness" exchange proves the girl was coached. Well, I dunno. In any event, for those who aren't aware, it's worth noting that the girl — now 39 — has no hard feelings and wishes everyone would just drop it already.

March 13, 2003

Good to know the FBI

Daniel Radosh

Good to know the FBI is doing something about terrorism. Even if it's only preventing people from reporting on it.

March 12, 2003

Meta post

Daniel Radosh

: So, I dropped "Hits, Remixes & Rarities" from my blog title. When I came up with it (after not giving it too much thought, obviously) it was supposed to refer to the variety of my writing that was going to appear on this site. Since Radosh.net became more of a real blog and less a showcase for my published writing, it made less sense than ever before. Somehow, I doubt you would've even noticed if I hadn't said anything.

March 12, 2003

Geek public service announcement: I

Daniel Radosh

Geek public service announcement: I finally found a backup version of the great Engrish Lord of the Rings site that New Line bullied into submission.

March 12, 2003

I'm pretty sure that "sawhorse"

Daniel Radosh

I'm pretty sure that "sawhorse" technology alone is a violation of 1441.

March 12, 2003

Either our definitions are different,

Daniel Radosh

Either our definitions are different, or this is the most unlikely sentence ever to appear in Entertainment Weekly: "From Feb. 20 to 23, 200 hardcore movie fans joined 2,400 other cruisers aboard the Disney Wonder."

March 12, 2003

Plan C. Now who will

Daniel Radosh

Plan C. Now who will be harder to convince, Bush or Hussein?

March 12, 2003

The first truly convincing argument

Daniel Radosh

The first truly convincing argument for bombing Iraq. Deepak Chopra says he and the Pope should go to Baghdad to serve as human shields. "If we bombed Baghdad tonight and thousands of children died, most people would be unaffected. But if the Pope was there we wouldn't do it. Isn't that funny?" Well, not ha-ha funny, perhaps, but only because of the thousands of children dying part.

March 12, 2003

First the House of Representatives,

Daniel Radosh

First the House of Representatives, now the, um, house of cats?

Probably too good to be true.

March 12, 2003

And the Oscar for most

Daniel Radosh

And the Oscar for most heartbreaking line of the testimony against Roman Polanski goes to: "And then he went down and he started performing cuddliness."

March 12, 2003

Every now and then I

Daniel Radosh

Every now and then I think of this January, 2001 Onion headline, and I laugh and laugh.

March 12, 2003

Real outtakes from the Zagat

Daniel Radosh

Real outtakes from the Zagat guide.
"Great portions. Car was stolen from lot."
"Gay Chuck E. Cheese."
"Filled with flowers and all the things that make flowers grow."
"The immature eating the indelible." [sic, but whose error, if that's what it is, Zagat's or the reviewer's?]

March 11, 2003

Godammit! When did the Chinese

Daniel Radosh

Godammit! When did the Chinese leapfrog us in reality TV technology?

March 8, 2003

"We're not just saying 'No'

Daniel Radosh

"We're not just saying 'No' to war. We're not just saying, 'Do nothing.' We're saying, 'Here's a third way." Not sure this is exactly the third way I'd endorse, but it's nice to know that some in the antiwar movement are actively proposing an alternative solution to the problem of Saddamism.

March 8, 2003

Briefing: The Decline of Circumcision.

Daniel Radosh

Briefing: The Decline of Circumcision. Is circumcision necessary? Is it harmful? How did it make the leap from religious ritual to medical procedure anyway? And will it still be around in ten years? In the new issue of the Week, I attempt to get to the bottom of this fiercely debated subject. Not an easy task, since, while there is a lot of information out there, it tends to range from heavily biased to downright insane. Much of what I eventually used came from a fascinating book Circumcision: A History of the World's Most Controversial Surgery. For what it's worth, I ended up in the shrugged shoulders camp. I think the supposed dangers and drawbacks of circumcision are all wildly exaggerated or downright invented. But on the other hand, there's no real benefit to circumcision either, so it's hard to see why anyone would want to have it done, unless, you know, it's the whole covenant thing.

March 6, 2003

Throw away the key! By

Daniel Radosh

Throw away the key! By now everyone's heard about the guy who was arrested for wearing a "give peace a chance" t-shirt. Appalling? Uncalled for? Not necessarily. The New York Times mentions this telling detail: "They said they decided to wear the T-shirts over their turtlenecks..." Seriously, how is that not a crime?

March 6, 2003

Does the "invade Iraq" book

Daniel Radosh

Does the "invade Iraq" book say what you think it does?

March 6, 2003

And the Oscar for worst freelancing of the year goes to...

Daniel Radosh

Last year around this time I single-handedly brought down the Academy Awards-industrial complex with my New York Times Op-Ed, Let Women Compete For Best Actor. Because the Times leeched some of the humor out of the piece, I also posted my preferred version on the ur-Radosh.net. Somehow, this version came to the attention of editors at the London Guardian, who re-published it without either asking or paying me. Eventually I found out and emailed the Guardian, which apologized (apparently sincerely) and promised to pay me the same amount as the Times had ($500). Here's where it gets tricky. I'm allowed to resell my Op-Ed pieces to anyone I like, and to keep 100% of whatever I can get. The Times syndicate is also allowed to resell the piece to whomever they like, and we split the fee 50/50 if they do. In this case, the Guardian should have just sent me a check. Instead, they sent it to the Times syndicate, which then forwarded 50% -- $250 -- to me. I called the Times to explain the situation, and faxed them all the paperwork upon request, but they never did send me my remaining $250. Now, arguably, $750 is already far more than this article is worth, but that's your opinion, not the market's. If you happen to see Pinch on the street, feel free to snatch his wallet and turn it over to me. I'll return the credit cards. Via the London Guardian.

March 6, 2003

Hey, only we're allowed to

Daniel Radosh

Hey, only we're allowed to throw around that word! Another gauge of world opinion: A headline in an Australian paper uses an unusual title for U.S. Gen. Tommy Franks.

March 3, 2003

Kevin Guilfoile notes: "Nobody can

Daniel Radosh

Kevin Guilfoile notes: "Nobody can take the pulse of the public after one interview like an east coast media institution":
Victims' Families Dread More Losses in Persian Gulf — Washington Post, March 2
Families of Gulf War Victims Support War — Associated Press, March 2

March 3, 2003

Burying the lead. Halfway down

Daniel Radosh

Burying the lead. Halfway down the AP report on the National Book Critics Circle awards is this passage: "Firefighters had protested the nomination of Langewiesche's book, which alleges firefighters looted Ground Zero after the Sept. 11 attacks. About 15 protesters, chanting 'Langewiesche is the looter,' stood in front of the building where the critics ceremony took place." Tim Carvell notes the significance of this: "Somewhere, someone has figured out how to pronounce 'Langewiesche.'"

March 2, 2003

ÁLori Libre! Ahora en Español.

Daniel Radosh

ÁLori Libre! Ahora en Español.

March 1, 2003

On the off chance anyone

Daniel Radosh

On the off chance anyone actually comes to this site seeking "Daniel Radosh news and information," here is some. I've just signed on to be a contributing editor at Radar. Yes, yes, yes, it is going to be a good magazine. I can't say much, except that comparisons to Talk will stop dead once the first issue drops in April. What being a contributing editor entails: Writing a bit, including a column in every issue that will be a descendent of Eight Days, my old New York Press gig; generating and editing stories; dropping by the office once a week to offer feedback; soliciting articles from friends; fending off questions from friends about the magazine's finances. I am still keeping my part time job at The Week, but I will probably not be freelancing anymore. The downside to all this: I finally had to cave in and get a cell phone. It is shiny, and lights up in blue when I touch its buttons, and when someone calls, it plays a bit of music that I've heard my mom play on the piano, though I can't recall what it is right now.

March 1, 2003

Matt Schickele was against file

Daniel Radosh

Matt Schickele was against file sharing even before MP3s. Or CDs. Back in high school, he drove me nuts because he had a massive vinyl collection (well, his folks did) but he wouldn't let you tape any of it unless the album was out of print or the artist was dead. Now Matt's new album is out, and I notice he offers a few free downloads. If you like melancholy intellectual pop, please listen to them. But do not put them on KaZaA.

UPDATE FROM MATT: I wanted to give you a philosophical update, seeing as high school was a lifetime ago. After years of being the uncool no-you-can't-copy-my-records-go-buy-it-you-cheapskate guy, I've had a recent change of heart, Like many musicians, I've been reading up on and exploring the widely differing opinions and suggestions regarding the changes the music industry is going through, and I'm happy to say I've picked my team. I'm firmly siding with the burn-it-down camp.

Right now the rules are being changed, for better or worse, whether musicians like it or not. Let's run with it. We can make it whatever we want. It certainly won't be the first time that musicians had to struggle to find a way to make a living, and, in the long run, the dismantling of the industry-as-it-is can ONLY be a good thing. Music will never go away, and we're always going to need musicians to make it.

I don't know whether its actually possible to cripple the industry, but I think its worth a shot. So nowadays I'm recommending copying any and all recordings you want (especially mine). I think we should rip off the industry whenever and wherever possible and actively try to destroy it.

If you want the rest of the album, it's here.


DANIEL ADDS: On first listening, I especially like Comet and Changeling.

March 1, 2003

The lay's the thing.

Daniel Radosh

Just got an email from Richard Burt, the Amherst English prof whose book Unspeakable Shaxxxspeares was the inspiration for my Playboy article, Bone Up Your Shakespeare. "By the way," Burt writes," Vivid brought out two "Clitts notes" parodies, one called Much Ado About Nuttin and other called Julius Eats'er. [Um, last 3 links not safe for work] They look like Cliffs Notes covers. Just compilations, though. 0% Bard." Speaking of bardcore, I've just recently found out exactly how raunchy Act IV, Scene i of Merry Wives of Windsor is -- though you still wouldn't call it four hours of nonstop action.

Powered by
Movable Type 3.2