I think it’s a phrase whose time has come: press pass
Definition: the strategic spiking of a story that, if properly investigated, would be likely to reflect poorly on someone the MSM considers a friend or a good guy.
Usage (examples):
“The NY Times gave a press pass to Eason Jordan for his Davos remarks.”
“The MSM gave a press pass to John Kerry on his failure to sign a form 180.”
Spread it around, if you see fit.
…and he says “let my people go.”
Right around the time of the build-up to the Iraqi war, the first Iraqi blog came into being, Salam Pak’s, now defunct. It was fascinating to read an actual Iraqi’s words, emanating almost magically from behind Saddam’s iron curtain. From the start, Salam wasn’t any sort of generic Iraqi, he was his own extremely unique person with an instantly recognizable voice, sardonic and clever, funny and iconoclastic.
Since the war there’s been a proliferation of Iraqi bloggers with a huge readership hungry for their unique points of view. My own personal favorites, Iraq the Model and Free Iraqi, eloquent and stirring, are on my blogroll. Sometimes I think of them as the Patrick Henrys and Thomas Paines of their time and place.
Big Pharoah is another of these distinctive blog voices from the Middle East, this time from Egypt, where he seems to be the only blogger writing in English. Fascinating stuff. Despite the distance and the exotic locale, one of the things that struck me when I first read his site last spring was something he and I seemed to have in common: he reported being surrounded by people who don’t share many of his political viewpoints.
Yesterday Big Pharaoh wrote some words that made my heart glad. Maybe they’ll do the same for you. Listen:
something is beginning to happen in Egypt. In fact, something is beginning to happen all over the region, from the revolution of the purple fingers in Iraq to Lebanon’s anti-Syria red demonstrations today. The enemies of freedom as well know that something is happening and they are trying to stop it.
Something amazing does seem to be stirring, the power of freedom. And recently freedom’s enemies actually appear to be getting weaker–although that story is far from over, and probably never will be over.
It seems those long-ago framers of our Declaration of Independence really were onto something big, something well-nigh universal. Isn’t it ever and ever more “self-evident” that people desire liberty–as much now as they did in 1776, perhaps even more?
Although, of course, not every single person on the face of the earth wants it. Some are afraid of it–afraid for themselves, or, more commonly, afraid for others–but that’s another story, for another essay.
Those not interested in fluff, please skip this post.
Am I the only one who thinks that Condoleezza Rice and Jackie Kennedy bear some sort of resemblance to each other? Physically, I mean. Think about it. The extraordinarily slender clothes-horse elegance, the erect and regal posture, the wide-set eyes and proportionately large head, the hairdo–and, of course, the beautifully tailored suits, not to mention the nicknames. Stick a pillbox on Condi’s head and call it done.
UPDATE: Well, someone else made a connection, but it’s not the same one.
When I signed up for the Truth Laid Bear ecosystem, I did it for the laughs. Likening the forms of life in the blogosphere to the Linnaean classification system and the Great Chain of Being (both which I had to learn about in some detail–and even, in the case of the former, laboriously memorize–way back when) gave me a chuckle.
But I’m not chuckling now (oh, well, maybe just a little bit). Because it turns out this is a heavy responsibility, and hard work not to slide back down the slippery slope.
Not that anyone cares but me, and I’m not sure how much even I care, but still–how often in life does one receive such a quantitative and seemingly objective rating of one’s rank and station? I started out an Insignificant Microbe or Lowly Insect or whatever it was I started out as. But now, thanks to a few gracious links, for one brief shining moment I’ve crawled out of the primordial slime (at least partially) to reach the relatively exalted rank of Crawly Amphibian.
But I’d ascended before, only to fall. I hadn’t realized when I signed up for that thing that you’re only as good as your last weeks’ stats. I had slithered up in the Truth Laid Bear world before, and yet it had taken only a week of slothfulness to ooze back down again to Lowly Insect.
It’s a jungle out there.
An amusing post at VietPundit (be sure to read the comments section, too) raises a somewhat serious question, at least for us bloggers toiling away at our keyboards: how does Instapundit Glenn Reynolds do it? How does he churn it out, day after day, night after night, through rain and snow and sleet and…well, you get the idea. And manage to hold down a full-time job of some distinction, have a family–and, I suppose, eat? And still get more traffic than the San Diego Freeway at 5 PM on the Friday before Labor Day?
VietPundit’s answer–that Instapundit is not one, but many–is one I’ve entertained. Perhaps he has a fleet of unpaid law interns scanning the internet in search of nuggets to highlight. Perhaps there was a typo, and his blog title was supposed to read “Instapundits” instead, and now that he has such brand recognition he can’t change it. Perhaps he, like many bloggers, has a combination of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and insomnia. Or perhaps he doesn’t need more than a couple of hours of sleep a night, anyway.
But all of that only explains how Glenn does it in terms of mechanics. The question that interests me more is: what is it about his blog that generates all that traffic? He’s not the most flamboyant or polished writer, although his prose gets the job done with clarity and an economy of effort impressive to those of us inclined to be a bit wordy (who, me? couldn’t be!). Unlike LGF or Powerline, he was not a major player in exposing the CBS forgeries. He’s smooth, with the smoothness that hides all trace of effort. And the fact that he was one of the earlier bloggers and thus built up his base before there was much competition still doesn’t explain why that fan base has stuck with him and actually grown, along with the blogosphere.
So, I submit my own Theory of Glenn. He’s one of the first bloggers I ever found, and I still read him pretty much every day. He fills a niche in the blogosphere that no one else occupies–that of companion, generalist, and affable guide. It doesn’t take a whole lot of time to read him, and people are busy. There are very few bloggers who seem to have less ego, who are merely saying, “Here, read this, it’s interesting,” in a low-key and unthreatening way. The blogosphere can be a pretty heated place, with lots of sturm and drang, full of prima donnas and flash. Glenn is quiet and calming, but he can zing it with a pithy (that’s pithy, not pissy) comment now and then. His “Heh” says volumes.
Pardon me, Glenn, I don’t mean this in a bad way–but he’s the Ed Sullivan of bloggers. Always brings you a really good show, and then steps back and lets you enjoy it.
Is this the real “Arab street”? Somehow, I think so.
Beirut used to be a wonderful, cosmopolitan city, before all the troubles. Funny, too, how all those bleating about the US occupation of Iraq are curiously silent when asked about the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
I submit that, if the Syrians leave Lebanon soon (a consummation devoutly to be wished), no small part of the reason will have been the infant democracy building in Iraq as a direct result of that US occupation.
I’ve been the pleased and fascinated beneficiary of a mini-Instalanch (for which I hereby coin the phrase “minstalanch”). Meaning? Dr. Sanity linked to me in this post, then Carpe Bonum linked to Dr. Sanity here, and then voila!, Instapundit, the great Hub of the blogoshere (see my blogroll), linked to Carpe Bonum here. A simple and elegant two degrees of separation.
So there you have it: an Instalanch, twice removed. Minstalanch. Not really akin to an avalanche–but relatively speaking, a pretty big snowfall, good for skiing and sledding, and fun to see on the old sitemeter. Welcome, all!
When I first started this blog, one of the things I was sure I’d do an awful lot of writing about is what it means to change one’s mind on a topic as fundamental and emotional as politics: who does it, why they do it, how they do it. I thought I’d explore the ways in which “changers” differ from those who don’t ever change, and the repercussions changers face among friends and family who often consider them to be pariahs. I even thought that, if a bunch of these people ever migrated to my blog, it could function as a sort of combination support group (sorry, it’s the therapist in me!) and clearing house on the topic of political changers and what makes them tick.
Somehow I haven’t gotten around to doing any of this until now. Hmmm. Procrastination. Whatever. But I hope to finally start tackling this vast and unwieldy subject, bit by bit. I’ll be thinking this through as I go along, so please bear with me.
Of course, the political change I know best is the one I’ve already made–from liberal Democrat to whatever it is I am now (what I call “neo-neocon,” as a sort of joke). Nowadays, “neocon” is a term used most often as a pejorative, but its actual definition is something like “liberal hawk” (see this article for a more complete explanation, containing one of my favorite definitions, “the kind of right-winger a liberal wouldn’t be embarrassed to have over for cocktails.” Or, in my case, dinner. I’m much bigger on dinner. Especially if it’s any kind of ethnic food.)
Way back when I was in graduate school getting my Master’s degree, my fellow therapists-in-training and I (Democrats all, by the way) were forced to think long and hard (and to talk and talk and talk and write and write and write) about how it is that people change. Therapists are change-agents by definition, and it helps if a therapist actually believes that people can change. But every therapist knows a bitter truth, and that is that true and fundamental change is both difficult and rare, and that it is often exceedingly painful for the person who changes, and for everyone around him/her. The old standby about how many therapists it takes to change a lightbulb (“one, but the lightbulb has to want to change”) is not only true, but insufficient–it would be great if wanting to change, and talking to a therapist about it, were all that was necessary for the desired change to occur. But of course it’s not.
I not only spent years thinking, talking, and writing about how people change, but also trying to help people accomplish it–and, sometimes, actually even succeeding (although maybe they did it in spite of my help–one never knows).
But all clients who come to a therapist want to change–or, at least, they pay lip service to the fact that they do. So they start ahead of the game, because they are strongly motivated, motivated enough to pay a substantial sum (or have their insurance pay it) to a total stranger to whom they also must tell their deepest–and sometimes most shameful–secrets.
Political change is different. I think it tends to happen against one’s will, often very much against one’s will. The changer is dragged kicking and screaming to a different point of view by something–but what?
I’m not aware of any studies done on the subject, although I certainly haven’t done an exhaustive search–unless you count reading a bunch of blogs written by people who’ve done this very sort of changing. These blogs appear to attract an audience with a high percentage of people who’ve undergone a similar political transformation. Changers seem to want to talk about it a lot with each other, much like those in 12-step programs, and there are a lot of jokes about that on these blogs (“recovering liberals” and the like).
Some of what I write here will be based on what I’ve gleaned from those blogs. Some will be based on any research I might be able to dig up on the subject (suggestions are welcome). Some will be based on–well, my thoughts on the subject.
To be continued….
[ADDENDUM: For Part II, go here.]
Larry Summers is under fire for daring to suggest that research be done into whether there are biological differences that account, at least in part, for the paucity of women at the pinnacle of science. Summers seems to have been persona non grata for a long time to a lot of people at Harvard and in academia, and now they’re really sinking their teeth into him with relish.
Now, I’m somewhat of a feminist myself, although I part company with many of the more doctrinaire ones. But I’m also a person interested in rationality and the pursuit of truth. And, once again, this is a case where feelings seem to have triumphed over reason. That academics–and scientists, at that–would allow this to happen is not a good sign. Whatever happened to the Enlightenment? If Galileo were to return at this point, he might be in grave danger again–at least, if he were to suggest that the earth didn’t revolve around women.
In my own experience in an academic environment during the ’90s, after decades of being away, I was shocked at how far the PC police had come in stifling academic freedom. It seemed the new criterion for censure was whether a remark had offended someone. However careful the professor might be to couch the remark with qualifications, however delicately it was stated, if it offended the tender sensibilities of anyone in the audience, the professor was in trouble.
My guess is that therapists bear part of the responsibility for this. The popularization of therapy and its portrayal in legions of self-help books and talk shows has helped foster an idea that, since all feelings are in some way valid (if only in the intrapersonal sense), therefore people have a right to demand that their feelings never be hurt. This is a distortion of what true therapy is all about, but it’s a popular one–even among some therapists, unfortunately.
So, Larry Summers seems to have stepped into this particular pile of steaming do-do. The first reports of the reaction to his remarks contain the following gem from MIT biology professor Nancy Hopkins, “I felt I was going to be sick…My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset.”
I assume that, as a scientist, Ms. Hopkins had other, more rationally-based objections to Summer’s remarks. But I have yet to read any that make sense. How could anyone have a rational objection to Summer’s call for research into this question? Unless that person were afraid of the truth.
Now, I can certainly understand a concern that, if it were to be discovered that there are innate differences between men and women in that respect, the results could be used to harm women or discriminate against them in the sciences. But all scientists–even female ones–should know that that’s no reason to stop the research. All scientific research is a double-edged sword that can be used for good or ill, and we never can know the ultimate results of any research before it is done–or even afterwards, for that matter. At no point did Summers suggest that the results of any research should be used to hold women back in the sciences–au contraire.
So, I’m with Andrew Sullivan on this one. As Sullivan writes, “[I]f Summers goes down, the chilling effect on intellectual freedom in this country will be intense.” Preach it, brother Sullivan, preach it.
….he’s pretty much the same in private as in public, even according to the NY Times (linked article requires registration).
Let’s see–so, he’s insightful and relatively articulate (even without evil puppeteer Rove feeding him the words), loving towards his family, warm and jokey with friends, genuinely religious, resolute about his principles, unbigoted towards gays personally, upfront about his wild youth but more interested in talking about what he’s learned from it. What a surprise.
Hard to take issue with that–unless, of course, you think Bush is an idiot. Then, it must be like that old Saturday Night Live skit about Reagan–expect this time, it’s not so funny. You know, the one where Reagan is a doddering old fool in public and then, as soon as all the strangers leave the room and he’s alone with his aides in the Oval Office, he’s sharp as a tack and quick as a whip. I used to get a big bang out of that skit back when I was a liberal Democrat.
New Republic editor Peretz issues a wake-up call to fellow liberals today. He asks them to come up with some new ideas (the New Republic site is for subscribers only, so I linked to a site that has the text of the article for free).
I think Peretz is definitely on the right track here. But notice that Peretz doesn’t seem to be able to come up with any new ideas himself. Of course, the article is already long enough as is, and maybe he’s just in the position of the physician charged with making the diagnosis. He’s not the one being asked to come up with the medicine and the cure.
But I think this coming-up-with-ideas thing is going to be difficult for liberals. They seem to have reached a point–and I hope I’m wrong about this–where they are more interested in feeling than thinking (like some clients I’ve known). Now, feelings are all very well and good, and we certainly need to have them, but nowadays it seems as though many liberals feel that, if their hearts are in the right place, that should be enough. Many (and I number among them some of my very best friends) feel the right is full of heartless Scrooges, so it’s not all that necessary to counter the ideas on the right, it’s just necessary to call people on the right nasty names (which isn’t to say that there aren’t some heartless Scrooges on the right–but it’s a mistake to think they predominate).
The left needs to recognize that, slowly but surely, Bush and Co. have co-opted many of the ideas for which the left used to stand–such as, for example, freedom, liberty, the downfall of murderous tyrannical dictators, and equal opportunity for black people and for women. And, when the left opposes such things for transparent political reasons, as many of them have done in Iraq, and as many of them seemed to have done when they accused Condoleezza Rice of being Bush’s female Stepin Fetchit, they lose the most important thing of all–they lose people’s trust. Their hypocrisy is naked and exposed. And, after that, someone like me could find it very hard to trust them ever again, even when and if they finally do come up with some good ideas. I’m sure they have some good ideas even now, but those are being drowned out by the self-serving debunkers who never met an idea of Bush’s they didn’t hate.
UPDATE 2/20: Just noticed an upsurge in traffic. It seems the gracious Dr. Sanity has linked to this post. A sanitylanch? Welcome, and feel free to take a leisurely stroll around the blog.
Look at a photograph of the cloud-covered sphere of earth, taken from space. It’s a supremely beautiful sight, despite its familiarity–a predominantly blue planet liberally swirled with wispy white, and then some muted green/brown accents that constitute the land on which we humans live.
But the sight wasn’t always so familiar. And I’m not talking about long ago, before we even knew the earth was round, or had mapped its landmasses. I’m talking about just a few decades ago, before the first pictures came back from the moon.
I’m not so very old, but when I grew up and artists or scientists drew conceptual drawings of the earth from outer space, the globe was always pictured as just that–a globe like those spinning ones in school, tethered to their metal stands (only, of course, without the metal stands). No clouds at all. Despite the fact that we all should have known better–all we had to do was look up at the sky most days to see those voluminous clouds–no one did seem to know better.
I still remember the shock of seeing those first photos (after you click on the link, scroll about halfway down the page for the photo) from the 1969 Apollo moon mission. Not only were the photos surprising, but it was surprising that they were surprising.
No one had thought of what, in retrospect, should have been obvious. The way the earth was thought to look was accepted knowledge, and no one managed to think outside the “box” of our earthbound perceptions. It’s easy to be critical in retrospect–how could “they” have been so stupid? (same for pre-9/11 prognostications about terrorist attacks, by the way). But to make the conceptual leap to actually think outside the box–now, that’s spectacularly hard.