radosh's blog

Elapsed time from Radosh.net to

Daniel Radosh

Elapsed time from Radosh.net to Fark.com: 26 days.

I was well into adulthood

I was well into adulthood

Daniel Radosh

I was well into adulthood before I ever read any coverage of the Supreme Court that wasn't written by Linda Greenhouse, so I was always under the impression that the Court was inherently boring. Dahlia Lithwick changed my mind with reporting like this:

What if the drugs had been found closer to the driver, rather than in the back seat, asks Sandra Day O'Connor. Could all three passengers still be arrested? Yes, says Bair, because the car is a common area. What if the drugs were found in the trunk, asks Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Well, says Bair, if there were a "large quantity of drugs in the trunk, or a dead body in the trunk ... "; Ginsburg reminds him that this is her hypo and there is just a Ziploc bag in the trunk, not a dead body.

Then it's O'Connor's turn with the innocent-grandma hypo: "What if it's a high-crime area and some mother gets a ride from her son and doesn't know he's involved with drugs?" Can she be arrested? "Supposing it's the middle of the day," she adds. "And she's going to the grocery store?" Bair can't quite make himself say "Lock the old drug-mom up." So he mumbles something about a "totality of the circumstances test."

Justice John Paul Stevens has a hypo, too. What if there were four passengers in the car instead of three? No different says Bair. "What if there were six?" asks Stevens. Same. Stevens, undaunted: "What if it's a minivan and there are eight people?" he asks. Lock 'em up. Stevens takes a breather while Ginsburg takes over: "What if it had been a bus?"

Where have you gone

Where have you gone Mrs. Robinson?

Daniel Radosh

The Salty Vicar, everybody's favorite Anglican priest blogger shares this story:

"Once, in seminary, I decided to get obnoxious. Yes, I did. It was an open conversation on sexuality.

In the middle of 45 people I said that there were surely some people who did not obey God's word and were going to hell. They would be judged. And it was our duty to save them....

Two people who barely knew me, came to me the next day. One said, 'you know, I'm gay and I'm glad that you felt comfortable speaking up, and I just want you to know that I'm glad we're a part of the same church, even though we think differently.'

'What do you mean?'

She stuttered, 'you know, that being gay or lesbian isn't acceptable before God.'

'I didn't say that!'

'oh, uh, well, what do you mean.'

'That those prurient fools who masquerade their bigotry as the gospel are themselves going to answer to a higher power.'

She blushed and smiled. 'I'd never heard it that way before.'

'It's time we Anglicans started getting a bit more comfortable with scripture. That's the battleground.'"

PS: Old Salt would probably get mad if I didn't point out that his post was prompted by the latest from Rev. Fred Phelps, and not in response to anything that any of his fellow Anglicans have said about Gene Robinson. As a bona fide man of God, Salty is able to hold a more forgiving view of those folks than I am.

The other day I called

The other day I called

Daniel Radosh

The other day I called Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe a book that will change the way you look at the world. That's a description I save for a small handful works. (The Nova adaptation, by the way, is fun but necessarily short on actual science, which is the mind-blowing stuff.) Guns, Germs and Steel is another, and so are Visual Explanations and Envisioning Information by Edward Tufte.

Tufte's latest is an essay on PowerPoint, and I guess somehow he became aware that I did my own little PowerPoint satire, because the other day, out of the blue, I get an inscribed copy of his PowerPoint booklet in the mail.


Seriously, how fucking cool is that?

The blogosphere is giddy over

The blogosphere is giddy over

Daniel Radosh

The blogosphere is giddy over Matt Groening's revelation that Fox News considered suing The Simpsons over a parody of its news ticker ("Study: 92 percent of Democrats are gay..."). People are eager to believe the worst of Fox news (for good reason), and after the whole Fair & Balanced thing it's easy enough to believe Groening was telling the truth, as most of the news media, as well as some bloggers I admire very much did.

But was he? In a Washington Post report that, unlike the original interview, has been picked up almost nowhere, The Simpsons issued an apology: "Matt was being satirical and certainly there was never any issue between the show and Fox News. We regret any confusion."

We're gonna need a bigger mop.

We're gonna need a bigger mop.

Daniel Radosh

Going through my clipping file for the year while working on the Esquire Dubious Achievement Awards, I came across this mid-May quote from Gen. Lloyd Austin in Baghdad in The New York Times.: "I think we have good control, but we may need to police up some meatheads."

Ah, memories.

Who knew they were Tarantino fans?

Daniel Radosh

Democrats kill bill on class-action reform

Gregg Easterbrook -- Wait! It's

Daniel Radosh

Gregg Easterbrook -- Wait! It's a new subject, I swear! -- is back with another appalling display of ignorance. "Physicists rather casually speak of ten unobservable dimensions, in addition to the obvious three, existing in our own reality, all around us," he writes. So, why, he asks, is the idea of an unseen divinity so preposterous? "If at Yale, Princeton, Stanford, or top schools, you proposed that there exists just one unobservable dimension--the plane of the spirit--and that it is real despite our inability to sense it directly, you'd be laughed out of the room. Or conversation would grind to a halt to avoid offending your irrational religious superstitions. To modern thought, one extra spiritual dimension is a preposterous idea, while the notion that there are incredible numbers of extra physical dimensions gives no pause. Yet which idea sounds more implausible--one unseen dimension or billions of them?"

First of all, I hang out with a lot of folks who don't believe in a deity, and quite a few who fervently do. And I've never heard either group laugh at the other, or avert their gaze in embarrassment. Like many culture warriors on both sides Easterbrook has a bit of a martyrdom complex, asserting a hostility to religion that isn't remotely as commonplace as he'd like to believe.

The forces of darkness are

The forces of darkness are

Daniel Radosh

The forces of darkness are up in arms about the forthcoming Reagan TV biopic. Apparently — you might want to sit down for this — some of the dialogue is invented and "the script mentions nothing about the historic economic recovery of the 1980s." Man are viewers gonna be pissed when they tune in for some hot supply side action only to find it replaced with boring stuff about astrologers.

True, the mini-series credits Ronny with winning the Cold War ("Get off my planet!" he says, before punching a terrorist Russian bear, if I recall correctly), but the frothing conservatives ignore that because it contradicts their master storyline of a hoplelessly liberal media. As does the inconvenient fact that this story was broken by the "arch-liberal" New York Times. Christian Toto goes to some lengths to obscure that detail, writing, "The online Drudge Report lifted the curtain on CBS' 'The Reagans' Monday, citing an article in yesterday's New York Times." Another scoop for Matt Drudge!

"I am an economist. Can

"I am an economist. Can

Daniel Radosh

"I am an economist. Can it really be that I know more about Afghan politics than the secretary of defence?" A worrisome tidbit about the Rumsfeld Memo that didn't make the news. (via Brad DeLong

Dick Cheney says a Zogby

Dick Cheney says a Zogby

Daniel Radosh

Dick Cheney says a Zogby poll has "very positive news" about Iraqi's opinions of the American occupation. James Zogby doesn't think Cheney read the poll very carefully.

Goddamn you people, don't you

Goddamn you people, don't you

Daniel Radosh

Goddamn you people, don't you know I'm broke?

On McSweeney's, Tim Carvell watches

Daniel Radosh

On McSweeney's, Tim Carvell watches re-runs in an alternate universe:

"While 'The Dukes of Hazzard' was entertaining enough, there seems to be another, even more fascinating show, lurking in the background, namely: What, precisely, is going on at the roads department of Hazzard County? Given that there's always at least one bridge out in Hazzard County, they must be off solving crimes or something. I like to imagine a show about them; every week, they set out to fix the bridge over the holler, and then they come across Bigfoot or the Lindbergh baby or something and get all distracted."

Everyone's a critic.

Everyone's a critic.

Daniel Radosh

Everyone's a critic.

Volokh beat me to this.

Volokh beat me to this.

Daniel Radosh

Volokh beat me to this. I was gonna say, like, the exact same thing, though I probably would've thrown in a dig at the Bush administration.

The last word on this subject.

The last word on this subject.

Daniel Radosh

Gregg Easterbrook has a good blog -- for me to poop on!

I was so ready to move on...

I was so ready to move on...

Daniel Radosh

but I guess I have a duty to point out that Gregg Easterbrook now denies that he wrote the e-mail I posted here a couple days ago.

Easterbrook e-mailed this denial (allegedly, perhaps I should say) to a few friends. However, his other friends, the ones who got the first e-mail, continue to insist that is was authentic. If it wasn't, it's a damn good imitation of GE's sloppy writing, and it raises the question of who would fake such a thing? Wait, wait -- the Jews?

It's confusing, and all the more so because of the method Easterbrook is using (allegedly) to get the word out. Hmmm, If only he had some kind of public forum where he could clear this all up.

Of course, if Easterbook did publish, under The New Republic's aegis, a denial that turned out to be a lie, that would be a Romenesko-worthy scandal. That couldn't be the reason he's sticking to e-mail, could it?

From Frank Answers: Which is

From Frank Answers: Which is

Daniel Radosh

From Frank Answers: Which is worse, Britney Spears or a black howler monkey?

"I recently had the misfortune of sitting through most of the Britney Spears movie Crossroads, and about halfway through it i began to feel an intense and disturbing urge to vacate my bowels involuntarily. The last time i felt such an overwhelming urge was at the Black Howler Monkey exhibit of the San Francisco Zoo. Naturally i'm wondering if there's any connection, and if so, which is more dangerous to our freedom as God Loving Americans: the continued existence of Britney Spears or the continued existence of the Black Howler Monkey?"

"All I know about Britney Spears is that she seems to be the head of the trend for eleven-year-old girls to dress up like hos. For that, I think the parents are the ones in need of a smacking. I would be much more fearful of the sinister black howler monkey. His evil howl can be heard for miles, and will serve as an alarm to the other monkeys when we finally begin out strike against them.

"If you still have bowel problems, consult a doctor."

The "Partial-Birth" Myth. Here's the

Daniel Radosh

The "Partial-Birth" Myth. Here's the article every newspaper in the country should have -- but did not -- run at least once in the last year. What liberal media, anyone?



I watched the whole Senate debate yesterday. I lost count of how many times pro-life senators used language implying that the procedure they were banning was a birth interrupted by an abortion. The bill's sponsor, Sen. Rick Santorum, opened the debate by saying, "The term 'partial birth' comes from the fact that the baby is partially born, is in the process of being delivered. ... Here is this child who is literally inches away from being born, who would otherwise be born alive." Majority Leader Bill Frist, the Senate's only doctor, concluded the debate by describing the procedure as "destroying the body of a mature unborn child."

President Bush exploits the same illusion. In his State of the Union address this year, he said the bill would "protect infants at the very hour of their birth."

To Stars, Writing Books Looks

To Stars, Writing Books Looks

Daniel Radosh

To Stars, Writing Books Looks Like Child's Play. The surest sign that someone underestimates an art form is that they think they can do it themselves. People who would never try to tackle a novel, or "even" a chapter book, don't think twice about banging out a book for little kids, which is, in some ways, one of the most difficult types of books to write well (unless you're currently in taking an English Lit class, your grandchildren will probably not read any of the adult fiction you read this year -- the next generation will have equally good novels of their own. They will, however, read most of the books you read as a young child, because truly good children's books are a much more rare event).

Similarly, it's always shocking to me that people who would never sing outside of the shower, much less write their own tunes, think nothing of attempting to rap in public. At least no one's buying their CDs. If only the same were true of celeb kid-lit.

Syndicate content