the antic muse

2003-04-13T13:37:00.000-04:00

THE LONG GOODBYE You can visit the antic muse here.

2003-04-10T15:03:00.000-04:00

HAVE STRUCK GOLD Well, MT is up and running and I didn't even have to post any pictures of my dog.

Hope to see you all at www.theanticmuse.com on Monday.

2003-04-10T13:34:00.000-04:00

LONG TIME NO SEE I apologize for the conspicuous absence, folks. What with history being made and all, I doubt if there was much interest in what goes on in Ballston, anyway.

The reason for my disappearing act actually has to do with a reappearing act: Soon (Monday?) I'll be moving to my very own domain (www.theanticmuse.com), running MT like a good little blogger and everything. Well, that's the hope.

I am actually in the process of trying to install MT and making what I think are fairly stupid mistakes. If there's anyone in the reading audience that has some expertise in this area, I extend an Corner-style invitation to email with suggestions. (Jesus, next thing you know, I'll be selling T-shirts with pictures of my dog on them.)

Back to the code mines,
The Muse

2003-04-07T16:53:00.000-04:00

YOU'VE GOT TO BE PULITZERING MY LEG! Stephen Hunter of the Washington Post has won this year's Pulitzer Prize in criticism for "his authoritative film criticism that is both intellectually rewarding and a pleasure to read."

Let's unpack that, shall we?

"Authoritative." Well, he does seem to have a handle on the mechanics of the art form:

It's an almost perfectly structured story, which puts it miles beyond modern moviemaking. It actually has -- kids, don't panic, you can handle this! -- a plot. Lots of plot. Lots and lots of plot. ("Sweet, Sweet Revenge; 'The Count of Monte Cristo' Thrusts and Parries With the Best of Them")

There's not a lot of plot , just as -- have you noticed? -- in life. Plot is for movies that are about, uh, plot. ("'About Schmidt': Sublimely Ordinary")

Of plot , there's not a lot. Indeed, the few pleasures in "Mr. Deeds" are entirely incidental to star and plot. ("Adam Sandler, A 'Mr. Deeds' Gone Lame")

Tell me you don't want plot. You don't, do you? You do. Ach. ("The One Ring, The True Sword")

"Intellectually rewarding." There's no doubt he has a way with words. Or, er, "word.":

He has no self-doubts, he has no irony, he is charmingly, aggressively superficial, and success just, duh!, happens to him. ("'Adaptation': Tweaking Reality")

Liu plays Sever, some kind of Asian super-agent, evidently recruited to the America DIA, a play on -- duh ! -- CIA, evidently betrayed by her own recruiters and now gone rogue. ("Goosey Lucy: 'Ballistic,' a Lot of Noisy Dumdum")

When his sister's daughter was born, he -- in a fit of actual pretending to be a man -- promised to pay her way through college if she got into a good one. Well, she got into Harvard. . . now, obligated again to pretend to be a man, he has to -- the movie treats this as some incredible, wacky craziness -- keep his word! Like, duh! ("'Stealing Harvard': Magna Cum Lousy")

[T]he relationship between the swimmer and his coach (Dan Hedaya, the only name actor in the cast), it just falls flat. "You've got to swim faster, son!" the coach barks. Duh! ("Director Saves 'Swimfan' From Drowning")

Soon enough, they're sharing trysts in the storage room and the no-tell motel down the street (she puts it on her credit card -- duh!), and the journey from sexual liberation to catastrophe is just a minute or two. ("'Girl': Too-Simple Tryst of Fate")

[U]nexpectedly, we're in plantation-house, kudzu-cloaked Mississippi, where for unfathomable reasons Ellie has sent Porter with the recently separated and distraught Mona, and duh!, guess what happens? ("'Town & Country': Unbearably Rich")

As for "a pleasure to read," well, something about the endeavor is pleasurable for somebody:

She made a great Beelzeboobs -- oh, folks, a typo, a typo! of course I mean Beelzebub! -- in "Bedazzled. ("'Sara': Serving Up Plenty of Chemistry")

Diaz, who is 29 and plays a 28-year-old but acts a consistent decade younger than that, plays Christina Walters, a serial relationship-terminator, who loves to play in the clubs of Frisco, but never for keeps, never for real. She has a problem. Dear Carolyn, I love handsome men, but I can't commit, yours, Leggy by the Bay. Dear Leggy, for a good time, call Steve Hunter at The Washington Post . . . no, no, let's be serious. ("Sugar Cookie; She Can't Act, but So What? Cameron Diaz Is Most Definitely 'The Sweetest Thing.'")

That's all these kids think about: sexsexsexsexsexsexsexsexsexsexsex. Life is a copulation-o-rama, a whirl on the orgasm-go-round, a bodily-fluid exchange sock hop. Can they get that much sex? Can there be that much sex to be gotten? Where's my Viagra? This bears investigating. ("'40 Days': Only One Thing on Its Mind")

2003-04-04T13:54:00.000-05:00

THE COMMENTARIAT REACTS With the left losing so often these days, why do we let the right dominate the debates we can win? Instablogger pointed a thousand browsers to the Indymedia site, and now the comment board looks like FreeRepublic.com.

Now more than ever, folks: Let them know, as I posted, "this is not the left I signed up for":

I'm no friend or fan of Michael Kelly's, either, but calling him a "Nazi" just gives the folks at Instapundit (as a opposed to the "folks at Indymedia") a chance to prove to themselves that they're right about the left. The comments thusfar (20 in the last 30 minutes or so) tend toward "Little Green Footballs" knee-jerk jackhammering (an incomprehensible favorite: "I only hope that San Francisco is conquered by the satanic Saracens. Then you can enjoy as the the real Nazi-Arabian beasts teach you how to practice human sacrafice, bloodlust and how to worship Satan/Allah.").

This is not debate. This is not, to paraphrase protesters, "what democracy looks like." This is just dumb.

I can only hope that this board is swamped by more than just ugly comments from justifiably enraged right-wingers -- who no doubt will be calling the talk radio shows tomorrow to brandish this as an example of the left's "anti-Americanism." I hope more people like me -- Nader-voting, national-health-care-supporting, card-carrying ACLU feminists -- weigh in with our justifiable outrage. You aren't the left, Indymedia, we are.

2003-04-04T13:27:00.000-05:00

ANY POLITICAL MOVEMENT THAT WOULD HAVE THEM AS A MEMBER Michael Kelly was not my friend. I think I met him once, as most journalists in DC tend to meet each other once. I disagreed with most of what he wrote and thought that The Atlantic's renaissance was perhaps over-appreciated. (Any magazine with David Brooks as a regular columnist can't be doing everything right.)

But he was a good reporter, by all accounts a decent fellow, and a father. Unless the folks at Indymedia can dig up a photo of him yakking it up with Goebbels, I'm afraid that their irresponsible, juvenile tagline to the news of his death:

WP Nazi columnist bites the Iraqi dust

is more than just petty, mean, and wrong, it's a sign of the End of the Left As We Know It. Or it should be. Who are these fucks? If they're what passes for "a viable alternative to corporate media's profit-driven agenda," then I'm going to buy stock in Clear Channel and start writing crawl jokes for Fox News.

I was going to call for anyone out there who cares to not give these kids any more attention than they deserve, but I figure that they consider lack of response to be business as usual by the corporate infotainment-industrial complex. So post on their bulletin board, give them a hard time, and -- especially if you're a liberal/left/progressive/Democrat/libertarian whatever -- let them know they aren't allowed to come the meetings anymore.

2003-04-04T12:02:00.000-05:00

GRATUITOUS SELF-PROMOTION For me, the lasting lesson of the Eggers empire has been that if you call attention to your own short-comings, particularly in a knowing, pop-cult-conscious way, then it's ok.

So it both without shame and with a great deal of expectation that I call your attention to this piece in Slate, which mentions yours truly (twice!) in connection with the Eggers phenomenon/cultural tsunami that is the McSweeney's publishing empire.

I especially like it that there's no appositive explaination of who, exactly, I am. (You should just know!) I especially, especially am pleased to be associated with both the "good," "early" McSweeney's (before they sold out, man) and with the "bad," "over-self-conscious" (is there such a thing?) McSweeney's.

Is this why Dave stopped asking me to write? I actually suspect that it might have more to do with my beloved's singular pan of A Staggering Work of Over-Praised Genius. Or, you know, "Rick Moody" just looks better in a TOC. Or I just wasn't very good. Also a possibility!

2003-04-02T11:20:00.000-05:00

"MARGE, IT TAKES TWO TO LIE. ONE TO LIE AND ONE TO LISTEN" Halliburton withdraws from the "invitation-only" bidding process to rebuild Iraq--they will continue to compete for secondary contracts, however. Leave it to our Simpson's quote machine to turn this marginally good news into a Homeric verbal pratfall:

I mean who cares if Halliburton works on reconstruction? Aside from symbolism, there's absolutely nothing disturbing or unpleasent about the idea.

"Aside from symbolism," indeed. I guess if you consider Halliburton pocketing millions in what would amount to an influence-peddling scheme as just a symbol for "one hand washing the other," rather than, oh, I don't know, one hand actually paying off the other.

But still, I wouldn't call it "disturbing or unpleasant" either. To cite another comedy eminence, The Daily Show's Stephen Colbert, the proper term for this may be "oh-Christ-just-when-I-was-about-to-buy-their-line-of-crap-ical."

2003-04-01T16:20:00.000-05:00

WHEN DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS A reader writes to remind me ("I suppose you know this by now," he says, generously) that www.al-jazeera.com as well as the network's main address, www.aljazeera.net, were felled by a "denial of service attack" earlier this week.

I know what you're thinking: "Denial of service attack? Does that mean that the Lysistrata Project is finally working?"

If only that were so. Rather, it seems that pro-war hackers decided to down the site in protest of the network's ruthlessly objective reporting.

The site's managers say that it's up and running now, but I've had trouble getting to the English language version. I can, however, get a peek at the Fox version: Al-Arabiya, which promotes itself as a "wise and balanced alternative" to what I can only assume they call "the liberal bias" of Al-Jazeera. (Mr. Murdoch, Mr. Ailes, I hope your lawyers are paying attention.)

2003-04-01T11:05:00.000-05:00

FEDAYEEN OPENS FOR CAKEWALK AT THE 9:30 CLUB More potential punk band names:

The Fedayeen
Cakewalk
100 Bin Ladens
The Ultralights
Operation James
The Dubious Allegations

2003-03-31T15:04:00.000-05:00

CLICK HERE TO FIND OUT MORE Last week, three of the top four Google search terms were "BBC," "CNN," and "al-Jazeera." I mentioned this factoid last week in my not-really-full-employment day job capacity, so I'm embarrassed that it took the Wall Street Journal to point out the idiocy it implies: People are too stupid to figure out for themselves that you can get to the BBC by typing "www.bbc.com," to CNN with "www.CNN.com," and to al-Jazeera with "www.al-Jazeera.com."

Hardly rocket science. These are the web-search equivalents of "Who's buried in Grant's Tomb?" or, as the WSJ columnists put it, "calling directory assistance to get the number for 1-800-FLOWERS."

Always with an eye on the bottom line, the WSJ surmises that the "let Google do it" approach to web surfing spells the end of URLs proper: "People have become so used to getting good search results that the actual Web addresses are becoming increasingly irrelevant." Interesting, as my sketchy recollection of the early days of the web has it that URLs were always intended to be temporary placeholders until the time came when you could just type in the name of a "resource" into your address bar and you'd be reliably delivered there.

Ladies and gentlemen, that time is now. Of course, "internet keywords" got a step closer to the dream of disappearing URLs as far back as 1998, but keywords were proprietary and hit or miss. The Google toolbar is populist and popular.

The big losers in this search-engine success story? Well, some are obvious: Domain poachers, their lawyers, and indexers such as Yahoo. A survey cited by the WSJ story reported that users get to web pages via links than half as often as they used to; search engine referrals doubled.

I'm quite sure that G. Beato can come up with something more insightful than I can about what it means to lose the stumbling, what-happens-if-I-go-here method of web browsing. I suppose it's actually good news for pranksters like those who operate "premradonline.com" (not to be confused with "premrad.com") -- how can Premiere Networks sue them if there's relatively little chance that a search for "Premiere Networks" will get them to the parody/protest site? At least as the first option, it is, however, the third. Perhaps it's not such good news after all.

2003-03-28T16:37:00.000-05:00

THE ANTIC HUSBAND RESPONDS

Well, if you're gonna use me, please append something on the Olaf Palme vs. his Fortuyn hypothetical.

Sure.

The hypothetical in question: Sully posits that if there had been an assassination "by a neo-Nazi against a liberal politician, the papers would be full of dire warnings about a new wave of political extremism. But this time, the extremism is from the far left, allied with Islamism."

This, T.A.H. points out, "is easily refuted with two words: Olaf Palme."

The socialist Swedish prime minister was gunned down in 1986 a few days after delivering a fiery anti-apartheid speech (conspiracy theorists: he also attempted to broker a peace treaty between Iraq and Iran). One suspect was arrested and then acquitted, but the murder remains unsolved.

Swedish cops are alleged to have been implicated somehow, as have--depending on who testifies--South Africa secret policeman Eugene de Kock, the Kurds [!], the Swedish right opposition party. But no papers have been awash with speculations or dire warnings of any kind, in Europe or elsewhere.

2003-03-28T15:57:00.000-05:00

GUEST BLOGGER The Antic Husband is having a slow day, and directs me (who is always having a slow day) to Andrew Sullivan's site once again. What's provoking T.A.H.'s vituperations this time?

One lesson of the ferocity of the Saddamite resistance is surely this: who now could possibly, conceivably believe that this brutal police state would ever, ever have voluntarily disarmed? Would a regime that is forcing conscripts to fight at gun-point have caved to the terrifying figure of Hans Blix, supported by the even more itimidating vision of Dominique de Villepin? I'd say that one clear lesson of the first week is that war was and is the only mechanism that could have effectively disarmed Saddam. If true disarmament was your goal, it seems to me that the inspections regime has been revealed, however well-intentioned, as hopelessly unsuited to staring down a vicious totalitarian system.

You can understand his frustration. Iraqis resisting invasion as proof of a "vicious totalitarian system"? T.A.H. responds:

There's no way you can induce from the effort to repel an invasion that the invaded country is itself vicious and totalitarian. The U.S. repelled the Brits in 1812, and technically repelled Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in '92. Not that Saddam's regime is neither vicious nor totalitarian (though, you'd have a hard time perusading me that Baathism equals either Stalinism or Nazism) but Sullivan is apparently too lazy to provide anything but half-comprehended W. rhetoric.

Moreover, how do we arrive at the logic that war is the most effective means to disarm a country? "In this case," messages T.A.H., "it seems to be achieving the opposite effect."

But wait, there's more:

The trial of Volkert van der Graaf is revealing that the assassination was motivated by an attempt to stop Fortuyn's criticism of Islamist intolerance. . . This was a leftist extremist hit-job, by someone who had absorbed the anti-Fortuyn propaganda of Europe's liberal elites.

T.A.H. pokes a paperback-sized hole in the argument:

So let's see: Mark Chapman proves that J.D. Salinger wanted John Lennon dead, and Hinckley proves that Jodi Foster and Marty Scorcese had concocted the plot to shoot Reagan. I mean a "leftist extremist hit job"? Who ordered it? What money changed hands? Oh, I forgot: "Europe's liberal elites" It all is so clear now!

Back to regularly scheduled programming.

2003-03-28T15:30:00.000-05:00

INVITATION TO DUNCE The Daily Swish dares his readers, a propos of Clinton predicting on March 16 that the would be over in "a flash":

Here's an open invitation to any reader who can find any quote from anyone in the Bush cabinet or military who said the equivalent of Bill Clinton's remark.

Oo, oo, can I play?

Donald Rumsfeld, addressing the troops at Aviano Air Base, Feb. 7, 2003

And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.

Colin Powell, press conference, Dec. 19, 2002

But if war comes, the only thing I would say about the nature of that conflict is that it will be done in a way that would minimize the loss of life, and it will be done to be accomplished in as swift a manner as possible.

And, from a CNN transcript, Mar. 18, 2003

KING: The Treasury and Commerce secretaries are telling the president the economic impact of war should not be all that severe. And the White House hopes a short conflict will boost not only financial markets but also Mr. Bush's clout on Capitol Hill.

What do I win?

2003-03-28T11:35:00.000-05:00

JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE PARANOID. . . The Post reports that at least one media consultant is advising radio stations and television news to avoid covering anti-war demonstrations:

The influential television-news consulting firm Frank N. Magid Associates recently put it in even starker terms: Covering war protests may be harmful to a station's bottom line.

In a survey released last week on the eve of war, the firm found that war protests were the topic that tested lowest among 6,400 viewers across the nation. Magid said only 14 percent of respondents said TV news wasn't paying enough attention to "anti-war demonstrations and peace activities"; just 13 percent thought that in the event of war, the news should pay more attention to dissent.

Magid, whose representatives did not return phone calls, offers no direct advice about what stations should do. However, the research's implied message reinforces antiwar activists' assertion that media outlets have marginalized opposing voices.

"Reinforces" is probably an understatement.

2003-03-27T16:42:00.000-05:00

I'VE GOT THE FIRST CHEMICAL PANTS SEVEN-INCH Best potential punk band names to come out of Operation Iraqi Freedom:

The Chemical Pants
The Iraqi Irregulars
Surrender Monkeys
The Weapons of Mass Destruction
Decapitation Exercise
Targets of Opportunity
Coalition of the Willing
The Embedded Correspondents
M.O.A.B.: Mother of All Bombs

2003-03-24T17:41:00.000-05:00

It took two authors to come up with this?

2003-03-21T23:06:00.000-05:00

WE EMIT, YOU DECIDE The spectacle of Ollie North "reporting" from Iraq for Fox News gives off a bad odor all its own. But he also stinks:

I'm wearing a flak jacket, underneath my flak jacket is my chemical protective equipment, of course underneath that is the Marine uniform that I have not changed for four or five days. Some of the Marines joke about the fact that it's great that we have to wear the biological and chemical equipment because the activated charcoal absorbs not only the possible biological or chemical weapons Saddam Hussein might use, it also absorbs the smell of our bodies.

Too bad it doesn't absorb the stench of lying before Congress.

2003-03-21T09:45:00.000-05:00

THE BUSHISM TO END ALL BUSHISMS? British newspapers are reporting today that the whole French problem stemmed from the President ad-libbing a bit in his September speech to the United Nations:

Another senior British official said: "There was tremendous in-fighting in Washington. The drafts of the speech went back and forth. I think there were 28 versions before the final text was agreed.

"For us the key phrase was Bush's commitment to seeking a new UN resolution to disarm Iraq. We were only sure we had it 24 hours before the speech.

"For some reason this was left out of the text on the teleprompter as Bush was reading it, and he had to improvise.

"He managed to ad-lib a sentence saying 'we will work with the UN Security Council for the necessary resolutions'. But instead of saying 'resolution' he said 'resolutions' in the plural. That's how we got stuck with the French idea of two resolutions."

The further we get into this war, the more I think we're stuck in some lost episode of "That's My Bush." Next week: The President's wacky neighbors come for dinner!

2003-03-20T21:29:00.000-05:00

FREEDOM'S MUSTARD! The Bender Hammerling Group want you to know:

THE ONLY THING FRENCH ABOUT FRENCH'S® MUSTARD IS THE NAME!

Up next: A press release from the porno product soon-to-be-known as "Freedom Ticklers." ("For all your deep penetration needs.")

2003-03-20T15:01:00.000-05:00

THEY BANNED THE DIXIE CHICKS, TOO Some reporting on Clear "We Bring You Rush" Channel's "support the troops" rallies from the Chicago Tribune. Money shot:

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said the company's support of the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq makes it "hard to escape the concern that this may in part be motivated by issues that Clear Channel has before the FCC and Congress."

You don't say.

2003-03-20T13:55:00.000-05:00

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AT THE CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION From the Chronicle's "Daily Report":

Good day!

Here are news bulletins from The Chronicle of Higher Education. . .

* PAINTING A TERRIFYING PICTURE of hundreds of thousands of
possible deaths, three researchers have called on the U.S.
government to enact aggressive policies to protect American
citizens from an airborne anthrax attack.

Good day, indeed.

2003-03-20T13:48:00.000-05:00

SO MUCH FOR THE VAUNTED INVESTIGATIVE BRITISH PRESS A UK Tech paper reports (with apparent seriousness) that "Work emails are mostly personal." Comments one manager: "This is eye-opening stuff, and people are just shocked." Just shocked.

2003-03-19T23:38:00.000-05:00

THEY RETRACT, YOU DECIDE Can't get enough of that Fox! "The numbers at the bottom of your screen, I must tell you, are wrong." (This is in reference to a specific number, I suppose, but the way it was phrased makes me think it all might cover all the numbers on the bottom of any screen, ever.)

2003-03-19T23:33:00.000-05:00

MORE REASSURANCE FROM FOX NEWS "This, I am told, will be the last speech the President will give about the war. Despite the fact that this was not the beginning of the 'shock and awe' campaign you had spoken about earlier, this was the President's speech. We will not hear him address the nation again. . . the war will now unfold as the military planners see fit."

2003-03-19T23:29:00.000-05:00

JUST SO YOU KNOW WHO'S IN CHARGE Fox News reports "the President obviously had to sign off on this." The Antic Husband notes, "That begs the question of who normally signs off on these things--the White House maitre'd?"

2003-03-19T23:23:00.000-05:00

MORE HITS Brian Williams: "This just into us. . . no, this is off subject, sorry, wrong bulletin." (You know, Brian's not wearing a tie. That means we know he's serious.)

2003-03-19T23:19:00.000-05:00

THE WAR'S GREATEST HITS. . . SOME THAT ARE, SOME THAT WILL BE Fox News presents "John Madden's War," with a map and an expert drawing computer lines representing Tomahawk missiles and graphical representations of ships and planes that are about the size of the country we're attacking. . . MSNBC's expert using some technical language, telling Brian Williams that so-called "bunker-busters" are "really big bombs". . . Brian Williams telling the viewing audience that "it's not all like 'Top Gun'". . . The Fox News crawl informing us that "Bush made decision after three hour meeting" (so he really thought about it!). . . Brian Williams reporting that the "opportunistic targets both appeared to be humans" (good thing they weren't the aliens Saddam is rumored to have). . .

2003-03-13T18:13:00.000-05:00

LITTLE RED HOOK The Stones censored in Bejing. If this has the same effect for them as "banning" did for Darryl Worley, it's undoubtedly the best thing to happen to them in years.

2003-03-13T15:18:00.000-05:00

WHAT IS THIS, A WAR FOR ANTS!?! As hypnotic as his forehead may be, Bill Kristol is really no match for Ad-Rock, or for Darryl Worley, for that matter. Media bias, schmedia bias, one has to admit that until very, very recently (today?), the pro-invasion forces were winning the Soundscan battle. When Jon Pareles wrote last week that the "unstoppable mainstream anti-war hit has not yet been unveiled," Worley's execrable "Have You Forgotten" (which contains a couplet rhyming "bin Ladin" and "forgotten") had already reached No. 9 on Billboard's country tracks chart. On the other side of the propaganda machine? George Michael's cover of Don McLean's "The Grave." Worley's pedantic "new country" schtick sounds like Johnny Cash by comparison.

But the new Beastie Boys song absolutely rocks. Yes, we will be subjected to inevitable carping by the pro-war punditocracy (I predict arguments along these lines: "What, it's okay to fight for your right to party, but not for the lives of Kurdish women and children?!"). On the plus side, it fills me with hope to hear lefty types make their argument with the same measure of humor and pop culture savvy that in the wrong hands gets hacks like Jonah Goldberg a free intellectual ride. "In a World Gone Mad" may (or may not) be the first time that references to the Ben Stiller masterpiece Zoolander have been used in the service of any political objective, but it's surely the most effective.

2003-03-12T16:13:00.000-05:00

BILL KRISTOL, SHINY-HEADED GOD OF LOVE More fodder for media conspiracy theorists appeared in the New York Times yesterday: a loving profile of The Weekly Standard and its quietly charismatic editor, William Kristol. The attention is deserved, no doubt, and not just because Dick Cheney sends someone down to pick up 30 fresh copies every Monday. (One does have to wonder why he isn't comped the "special delivery" edition, which arrives at the Antic Household every Saturday--is someone still smarting about the McCain fight?)

The Weekly Standard is simply the best political magazine in America. What's more, it is the best political magazine in America even though David Brooks is on staff. It has great reporting, sassy commentary, and--this is the part that seems hard for many publications--it seems to come to its editorial stances out of sincere moral reasoning. They're not the product of ideological throat-clearing, defensive knee-jerking, or desperate political glad-handing.

They were one of the first conservative outlets to argue for Trent Lott's dismissal, and they bravely called out Andrew Sullivan for defending the infamous "Harvard Penis Snow Sculpture." We, the editors wrote of the hotly debated member, "would rather be clumsily decent. . . than elegantly decadent," which pretty much sum up the magazine, even when it's in its bomb-throwing unilateralist mode.

I just wish I could agree with more of what they wrote.

Friends and acquaintances who work at the Weekly say that the decency of the magazine--which, truth be told, can also be elegant--stems directly from Kristol, who is inevitably described as "hands-on" and a "great boss." In political journalism, it is quite common to find a boss who is the former, rare to find one who is the latter, and almost impossible to one who is both. So I sort of have trouble believing this, except, well, I have seen a lot of Kristol on TV. . . He's always so, so, reasonable sounding. He has a great smile. He's very self-deprecating. In response to Nightline's assertion that he was, basically, the architect of the Bush Doctrine he all but blushed, saying all he did was "set the terms of kind of a way to think about the world."

This demeanor, combined with his obvious sense of humor and intelligence, make going to war sound great. Whenever I hear him on the radio or see him on TV, I find myself thinking, "Yeah, 'The cost of doing nothing is higher.' Right. 'Our freedom and security turn out to be inextricably linked to the character of regimes elsewhere in the world.' Of course."

It's as though I have been hypnotized by his large, luminous forehead, because as soon as I turn the TV off, I come up with doubts. Like, "Why is it that Republicans don't say anything about 'the cost of doing nothing is higher' when we talk about domestic policy?" or, "'If our security is linked to the character of regimes elsewhere,' doesn't that mean it's reasonable for, say, the European populace to be concerned about the character of our regime?" Stuff like that.

Perhaps this gullibility is just a side effect of watching TV, not Kristol in particular. That would certainly explain the popularity of other dubious ideas put forth by television, like, say, "Arranged marriages are fun!"

I return to Kristol, though. He seduces me with his big words, his toothy grin, his calm assurance. Oh, Bill, you make it so easy to believe.

2003-03-10T19:31:00.000-05:00

WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE WHO NEEDS N.I.M.B.Y'S? A pamphlet I picked up at an anti-anti-sprawl conference a couple of weeks ago nicely illustrates just how the "smart growth" movement got off track. Entitled "Smart Growth, Smart Choices." it features lush color spreads of neo-traditionalist communities filled with homey porches, meandering sidewalks, and smiling 2.5-children families. It appears to embody the smart growth movement. It was put out, however, by the National Association of Home Builders--not exactly your neighborhood Greens.

For those honestly committed to environmentalist goals--reducing pollution, preserving wildlife habitats, limiting consumption--the problem with supporting smart growth is two-fold. One: Though the term has gained currency in recent years as an environmentalist buzzword, "smart growth" was itself a compromise goal, an alternative to no growth. Two: As the NAHB pamphlet attests, pretty much anyone can say they're for smart growth. It's not like affirmative action or school choice, terms associated with fairly specific policies. There are no real tenets of smart growth, just preferences and a whole smorgasbord policy options: Low density rural areas are smart growth, but high density corridors are as well. "Mixed use" hubs are smart growth, but so are "walkable communities." The smart growth "movement" becomes even less cohesive when you consider the different public and private mechanisms that can be used to enact smart growth policies: They can be imposed by local city councils, they can be "incentivized" through tax breaks to developers, they can be supported by EPA grants, or, as the NAHB pamphlet suggests, local governments can allow "consumer choices [to] shape communities" for a "market-based vision of smart growth." In fact, about the only thing that consistently characterizes smart growth arguments are those images of neo-traditional houses with nice front porches.

This explains how it is that that the Washington Post was able to run a front page story on Sunday arguing that "anti-sprawl measures have accelerated the consumption of woods and fields and pushed developers outward in their search for home sites." The reader reaction to this, I imagine, is supposed to be a dumbstruck, "Wha-ah?" And indeed, the nut graf's thesis makes for a snappy counterintuitive gotcha: Smart growth policies cause sprawl.

But what, exactly, is being characterized smart growth here? It turns out these "anti-sprawl measures" enacted by Beltway communities are almost entirely low-density zoning regulations. You don't have to be Jane Jacobs to realize that if communities pass laws to keep density low without also ensuring that new housing will go up in high density centers, then you get ever-expanding outward growth as builders look for property to develop. You get sprawl.

You also get high housing prices, gridlock, chain stores, and David Brooks pseudo-anthropological twaddle. But to say these things derived from smart growth policies is disingenuous and bad for those who back what I suppose I must call "real smart growth." These suburban blights derived from policies designed not to inhibit growth, but to inhibit a certain, shall we say, class of growth. Think about it: What kind of houses get built on 3-acre lots? Nothing that I could afford, that's for sure. Very little that any average American could afford, actually. But in Loudoun county, for instance, that hardly matters. There, an area which has some of the tightest restrictions on growth in the area, average income is now six figures. (The county website lists "Equestrian Events" as a quality of life amenity.) and housing prices run from the astronomical to the insane.

This is probably the kind of "smarth growth" the NAHB had in mind.

2003-03-07T09:45:00.000-05:00

THE TRUTH ABOUT CATS AND DOGS Not sure what I was expecting from the "Factor This" segment on last night's "The Pulse," touted by the Fox Channel as a "slugfest" between Bill O'Reilly and Janeane Garofalo. A full ten rounds, maybe? As it was, the piece was a barely 5 minute clip job whose highlights included O'Reilly pressing Garofalo on whether or not she'd date a Frenchman.

This kind of weighty inquiry represents the real problem with the celebrity spokesactivist phenomenon. It's not that celebrities don't know their issues, it's that people want to know more about the celebrities than they do the issues. O'Reilly hardly gave Garofalo a chance to show off her research, instead he seemed intent on catching her in some personal hypocrisy--like, Would she date a Frenchman? Huh? What's your answer to that, Ms. United Nations?

For what it's worth, she said she would.

Also typical of this kind of interrogation was O'Reilly asking Garofalo whether "you'd be willing to apologize" if we went to war and, among other things, there were few civilian casualties, it turned out that Saddam was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, and there was no international backlash against the U.S. This question and "If we invade, will you support our troops and wish them victory?" seem to hold some strange juju for conservative squawk show hosts, as if their incantation will magically reveal anti-invastion activists to be ferrets or Michael Jackson or worse.

Janeane, for her part, took the high if difficult (and yet still obvious) road out of the question's moral thicket: She said that she'd crawl on her knees over broken glass and kiss the floor of the White House if it turned out she was wrong.

Never has abject humiliation seemed so classy.

2003-03-06T16:57:00.000-05:00

WHATEVER'S BEHIND CURTAIN NUMBER THREE AP is reporting that an "as-yet-unnamed Democrat" leads Bush in a recent presidential election poll. I hesitate to consider this good news, exactly. According to the same story, Bush is leading every named Democrat candidate by at least ten points, which just suggests that idea of voting for a Dem appeals to people a lot more than any individual candidate does.

(This is pretty much exactly the way I feel.)

Even worse news: The top Bush contender, with 37 percent voting in favor, is Hilary. She rakes in more support in a head to head battle with Dubya than the next three candidates--Gephardt, Lieberman and Kerry--combined.

2003-03-06T13:06:00.000-05:00

THE ANTIC HUSBAND FULMINATES My beloved writes:

You see this twaddle?

A classic example of having it both ways reasoning: Conservative outlets are persecuted by the "center-left" mainstream, while cable crap shows like Savage and O'Reilly are "giving the people what they want." I mean if this were what "the people" want wouldn't Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN be commanding the 33 million viewership?

TV, at any rate, is all about giving the advertisers what they want. Which is why Sunday chat shows are virtual war advertorials for the Bush administration.

He also notes that 48 percent of the Fox viewership and 40 percent of CNN's describe themselves as conservative, while roughly half that much calls themselves liberal--and then marvels that this is the market at work. (Liberals are doubtless blissing out to the "center left" pieties of, let's see, Tim Russert on NBC, George Will on ABC, and Bob Schieffer on CBS.) But its empirical dubiety aside, try applying the same logic to other information command economies. Maybe Chinese peasants all just really like gray flannel outfits. And gay Cubans like to spend the night in jail.

Grrrr. . .

He's cute when he's angry.

And there's more where that came from.

2003-03-05T17:53:00.000-05:00

IT'S ONLY PARTLY MY FAULT Is it irony or justice that an article about "The Defining Moments of Digitial Culture" appears in the last issue of Shift? Is "digital culture" an oxymoron? Should you care?

If you're reading this, you probably already do. As such, these "defining moments" will come as no surprise: Jennicam, Blodget, Slashdot, and MP3 players all rank.

Of course, you can carp about some lacunae: What about Wired, for instance? Perhaps it was too obvious. Then again, the No. 1 spot on the list goes to September 11, which is obvious as well, though it could hardly be relegated to "digital culture." Yes, it was important. Life-changing. But to call it an important event in digital culture because "millions of people flocked to cnn.com and other news sites to find out what was happening" is like saying the Kennedy assination was an important event in school book depository culture because a museum is there now.

Of course, the real reason I've called you here today is draw your attention to what popped up at No. 5: Suck.

August 1995 - "Everything on the internet is crap." Such was the typical luddite complaint back in 1994. But Carl Steadman and Joey Anuff turned this on its head by launching Suck.com, excoriating the lameosity of sites far and wide -- thus proving that crap was the best thing about the internet.

While my ego is retroactively stroked by the article's contention that "Within a few years"--I guess that includes me--"Suck.com had become the rosetta stone for online culture," I am troubled by its conclusion:

By helping online browsers sardonically sort through the mess of the online content, the now-defunct Suck prefigured today's cultural juggernaut: The blog, with millions of users chronicling their online travels.

First, a factual objection, which is that Jon Katz and Justin Hall were "chronicling their online travels" when Suck was just a twinkle in Joey's and Carl's pants. Eyes. Whatever.

A more important objection: We at Suck to a very strong stand contra user interaction and web publishing. We were supposed to be the bad example, you know?

And, of course, I still am.

2003-03-04T16:32:00.001-05:00

BETTER LATE THAN NEVER

Feb 28, 7:21 AM ET
Mimi Hall, Kevin Johnson and Toni Locy
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration lowered the nation's terrorism threat level Thursday, indicating that officials no longer believe there is an imminent threat of attack. But at the same time, the FBI said it remains very concerned about possible terrorist suicide bombings in the USA.

Ahem. [Throat-clearing noise.]

Army Surplus

Ridge said, "Set the orange flag flying!"
The public responded with duct tape buying.

Yellow reflects our new calm
What will we do with our duct tape balm?

Our needs have changed since last week
There are only so many ducts that leak.

Forget the threat, forget the war
What are we going to use this duct tape for?

Graft a stem! Take up a hem!
Kids too loud? Duct tape them!

Love life bland? Try body paints,
blindfolds, feathers, duct tape restraints.

Duct tape fashions are the coming rage
Pants in silver look so space age.

All our chores have been completed
And look at that, the duct tape's depleted.

Wait a minute, did you save the receipts?
'Cause we still have all these plastic sheets.

2003-03-03T18:27:00.000-05:00

THE RATINGS WAR Clear Channel--the folks who bring you Rush, remember?--has been out organizing pro-invasion, uh, sorry "support our troops" rallies. In San Antonio, where Clear Channel is based, they even had the event at an arena owned by Clear Channel. Now that's vertical integration.

I have nothing to add to this except that I had been clinging to some hope that the lefty types who accused Fox News of promoting war to increase ratings were, you know, paranoid.

But sometimes they all are really after you.

2003-03-03T16:57:00.000-05:00

NOT FOR ATTRIBUTION The right loves to beat up on the Times' awkward, pedantic tic of over-attribution. Their main complaint being, of course, that the paper labels conservative groups and individuals as such, but leaves off the ideological tag when discussing liberal groups and individuals. Media philosphers like Bernie Goldberg say this means that "they see conservatives as out of the mainstream and see liberals not as liberals, but as the mainstream."

Let's put aside the factual basis for this assertion for the moment (most everyone who makes this point does). The Times' liberal labeling policy probably has as much to do with their long tradition of outer borough condescension as it does with Howell Raines's dexterous media manipulation. To call something "Timesian" today is to associate it with anti-welfare reform hysteria or Augusta National activism. But the adjective used to have a more apolitical, though equally pejorative, connotation: It described the Times' peculiar appositive habit and its tendency to assume its readers knew nothing about anything except what the Times told them. This became personally relevant to me in 1996, when I got a job working a webzine and the Times couldn't write about anything web-related without explaining that "the World Wide Web is the graphical interface to the global network of computers known as the Internet."

What with the "Circuits" section and their fairly new pose of resigned hipster angst, you don't see that kind of Times-speak so much anymore. Still, this is a publication that took years to acknowledge URLs (a constant source of frustration when I was at Feed, since typing in "Feed" to a browser window wouldn't get you close to the actual magazine, feedmag.com). You'd think that, at the very least, they'd still explain what a "blogger" was. Or give the URL that would provide readers access to any blogger they mentioned.

Especially if that blogger was, you know, me.

You can get away with "Insta this" and "Corner that," maybe, but "the blogger Antic Muse"? Am I that famous already? (Only you, dear readers, know for sure.)

At least it wasn't "the conservative blogger Antic Muse." Now that would be worrisome. . . and, of course, wrong.

2003-02-28T18:10:00.000-05:00

I LISTEN TO RIGHT-WING TALK RADIO SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO I'm pretty much giving away how I spend my less productive days here: Just heard (and am still hearing) Sean Hannity host a "debate" over invading Iraq between David Clennon and James Woods. Yes, that James Woods. He's pro. (What do you expect from a LAPD Reserve officer?) But David Clennon isn't some minor level adminstration bureaucrat or Human Rights International committee member brought on to play punching bag: He plays "Joshua Nankin" on CBS's "The Agency." He's a third-rate character actor brought on to play punching bag.

You knew that eventually the whole "actor activist" thing would come to this: the intellectual equivalent of "Celebrity Boxing."

But who am I to deny them their airtime? Clennon's Emmy for a guest appearence in "Dream On" gives him at least as much credibility as Sean Hannity on the subject of global geopolitics. (And Sean Hannity's written a whole book!) As for James Woods, he once thought he saw a terrorist. Why isn't he in front of the United Nations?

I joke. Anyway, it's the right that usually makes a fuss about celebrities staking a claim on political issues--though that's probably because those celebrities are usually staking out territory to the left. The Weekly Standard gave poor Fred Durst a hard time just because he couldn't quite get the standard form of "agreement" into his acceptance speech at the Grammys. But when Dennis Miller makes jokes about the French, it's suddenly "shrewd commentary." (Like the French are a real tough target or something.) They'll be asking him to run for Congress soon.

The left doesn't make fun of stars who make stands because then where would we go for campaign donations? No, seriously: I want to make fun of Jeanane Garofalo, I was planning on it, but she makes too much sense. Who'da thunk it? One minute she's my generation's "Cathy": complaining about her weight, making jokes about boys and parents--everything but the cubicle, really. Turn around and she's arguing with Tony Snow.

I maintain my tepid anti-anti-war fence-sitting position, but I plan to give Jeanane full credit if I find myself out marching next month.

2003-02-28T16:03:00.000-05:00

WAS IT SOMETHING HE SAID? Today I heard Rush Limbaugh say, "Salon goes out of business today and blames me."

But no one start collecting on bets yet, because as far as I can tell, this is just one more example of Limbaugh's wishful thinking.

The "going out of business" part is, at least. Salon is blaming Limbaugh for its troubles. A plea from editor and founder David Talbot attempts to bluebait liberal readers into becoming subscribers with the promise that such an action will "Raise Rush Limbaugh's blood pressure!"

Some might argue that bringing on a heart attack in one's opponents is an unseemly way to promote a magazine. Then again, as Talbot earlier observed, ugly times call for ugly tactics.

I'm not exactly sure if one acts in Talbot's defense to say that he's joking about wanting Rush to physically suffer--that still leaves open the possibility that Talbot actually thinks Salon's existence matters at all to Rush. To be honest, I think the real reason for Talbot's reference is more pecuniary than mercenary: Picking a fight with someone more famous than yourself is sometimes the only way to get attention. Just ask Vanilla Ice.

But regardless of whether Talbot is sincere in his belief that Salon is failing because of some vast right-wing conspiracy, he is at least consistent. His review of Eric Alterman's What Liberal Media? concerns itself less with the text of the book than with reciting Talbot's attempts to get a Salon-produced talk show on the air. More fiscally minded types can discuss whether or not it would have been a good use of site's dwindling cash reserves to fund a televised debate between Joe Conason and Andrew Sullivan, I'm just thankful no one has to watch it.

Talbot expresses some surprise that the only network to seriously consider airing The Salon Show is Fox News. (Considering Salon's other, potentially more lucrative, areas of coverage, I'm surprised it wasn't the Fox network, er, proper.)

Talbot says that Fox--and Dark Lord Ailes himself--took the meeting because, essentially, they could afford to gloat: "Now here was a man so supremely confident in his domination of talk-TV that he could grant a meeting to the enemy." But, really, no one has that much time.

Ailes probably met with Salon because, essentially, their programming format is identical to that of Fox News: Rapid-fire punditry that panders to its audience's own sense of persecution and righteousness. Salon would like to define itself in opposition to Ann Coulter, but in reality, Salon is Ann Coulter: a commentator who sounds like she's saying something that lots of people disagree with and who's sexy, brash, and way more concerned with how her ass looks than in fact-checking. Of course Ailes was interested.

Salon has basically flaunted its style over substance over the years, which, to me, is what really makes Talbot's protestations of de facto censorship by the networks (CNN's "reply was vague and noncommittal," the head of MSNBC "said he would get back to me. That was in December.") ring hollow. No one who thinks that having both David Horowitz and Arianna Huffington on the same site is some kind of debate is seriously interested in politics of any kind.

All this begs the question of Salon's precariousness. How can something so shameless make so little money? We're conditioned to believe that selling out brings success, but Salon seems to have auctioned off its self-respect in a weak market.

I know how they feel.

2003-02-26T18:23:00.000-05:00

BACK SO SOON? Leave it to InstaGlenn to call thirteen entries a day of "limited posting." He keeps up this kind of thing and I'll start to suspect there's a very specific reason behind his support for cloning.

Working with only two hands and one head myself, I've been posting on a limited basis largely because I've been reporting on the pro-sprawl movement, or, as they prefer it to be known, "Preserving the American Dream of Mobility and Homeownership." Fascinating group, whose politics are as jumbled as rush hour: Libertarian freaks (and I mean that in a good way), rock-ribbed conservatives, and--my personal favorite--anti-speed bump activists.

You'll take my car when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

2003-02-24T16:09:00.000-05:00

Mickey "Kuddlekore" Kaus writes to remind me, rightly, that there are lots of ways that NYU could distance itself from Mark Miller without raising any First Amendment issues. I was hasty in my scooplet high and should have made a joke grounded more firmly in fact.

So I've edited my original post... Gotta love the web.

2003-02-23T08:08:00.000-05:00

UPDATE I've heard from Matthew Winkler regarding the emails written about below.

2003-02-22T21:17:00.000-05:00

A SAD SALVATION Music reviews are pretty hard to make interesting or smart even when you're not operating under the weight of stiff ideological constraints. (Unless you think "cuddlecore" is an ideology.) I mean, what excuse did Gina Arnold have? But music reviews written for a publication with a pretty specific political agenda are almost guaranteed to be both uninformative and gratingly sincere. Take this not-quite-Lester-Bangs-level squib from The Socialist Reivew:

The growing global anti-war movement means that great anthems of hope and inspiration, which celebrate the joy of mass resistance, can be recorded. . .The great thing about having big names produce music for a mass movement is that it takes them down off their pedestals and away from the trappings of glamour. And we don't feel like passive consumers in awe of fame--rather we sense that we matter and these people are just contributing towards our own strength, which we gain from the movement. Ginger Tom's 'Hey Hey USA: How Many Children Did You Kill Today?' was in a sense written by all of us who have marched and chanted over the last 18 months. . .

I'm sure it's just as good as it sounds.

The Nation plays sprawling Mudhoney to the economical Nirvana of The Socialist Review in an entire issue devouted to "The Power of Music." Sounding an especially creaky note, guest editor Ann Powers lauded a group at a Seattle protest who "traded acerbic raps above swirly guitar solos and some deft conga maneuvers," while an editorial asked us to "turn up the volume, you may hear the politics." Oh, where's the mute?

The rather weak record (ahem) of politically informed music reviews makes World magazine's "Bestsellers" column (which predates Slate's similarly concieved "Number 1" department) a welcome surprise. The music coverage is by Arsenio Orteza, and its presence in the evangelical rag (edited by the man who coined the phrase "compassionate conservatism," no less) is surely meant to serve as a guide to wary parents. He also provides some of the best short-form music writing since Spinal Tap was downed with just two words.

On Ry Cooder's latest cultural tourism export:

Ideal incidental music for a hard-boiled detective B-movie set in Havana.

On Joseph Arthur's Redemption's Son:

Definitely above average as Christ-haunted albums go.

Granted, it's sometimes hard to tell if you're reading absurdly dry wit or just bonecrushing humorlessness, but who cares what the motivation is when you're treated to such excellent eviscerations of flavor-of-the-moment types like Sigur Ros:

With turgid, title-free songs almost entirely bereft of melody and eerie, meaning-free singing almost entirely bereft of human characteristics, this album constitutes an extraordinarily ambitious exercise in pretentiousness, leaving one little choice but to conclude that it exists mainly to prove there's (still) a sucker born every minute.

Can I get an "Amen"?

2003-02-22T14:48:00.000-05:00

ANTIC EXCLUSIVE: WE'RE NOT RETALIATING AGAINST YOU, WE'RE RETALIATING WITH YOU You'd think a mayor saddled with a 31 percent approval rating, not to mention the always-looming threat of a terrorist attack, would have more urgent matters to attend to than wreaking petty, misdirected revenge in response to not-entirely-negative comments made over a year ago. At least the terrorist threat has a chance of improving. The hamfisted way Bloomberg News editor in chief Matthew Winkler has gone about trying to burnish Hizzoner's image suggests the approval ratings have yet to bottom out.

The Antic Muse has obtained emails Winkler sent last week to people who had written him about the cancellation of NYU's Bloomberg journalism fellowships. While claiming that the company did not, contrary to reports, pull the fellowships as retaliation for negative comments made by NYU prof Mark Crispin Miller, Winkler went on to say that the company "didn't feel comfortable" sponsoring the fellowships "unless there was a way for NYU to distance itself from the denigrating comments by its professor."

On Thursday and Friday, respectively, Newsday and The New York Times both reported that Bloomberg would no longer support the business journalism fellowships. A Bloomberg spokesperson insisted that it's only because NYU didn't apply for continued funding, but Stephen Solomon, director of the business journalism program, said that's only because early last year, Winkler "made it absolutely clear that Bloomberg would not approve" the fellowships if NYU did apply. Solomon said he heard from Winkler after a New York Observer piece quoted Miller's critical take on the mayor and his company. He called, for instance, a press tour of the renovated City Hall "product placement" for Bloomberg terminals. (An irony, for those of who care about such things: Miller doesn't even work in NYU's journalism school. Misidentified in the Observer article, Miller's appointment is actually in the graduate school of education, where he is a professor of "media ecology.")

Miller's remarks appeared in an article about how Bloomberg News would ensure impartiality in its coverage of the mayor by hiring Tom Goldstein, then Columbia J-School dean, to consult. This makes even a hint of retribution look extra bad, so it's not that surprising that Winkler would try to weasel his way out of this First Amendment fiasco. A spokesperson took care of the papers, giving both the Times and Newsday the line about NYU not applying. In any case, according to the spokesperson, Winkler doesn't have the authority to approve or turn down requests for philanthropic funding. Of course, she admitted, Winkler does consult on such matters. She told the Times that Winkler was unavailable for comment.

But Winkler did respond to others seeking comment. He stuck with the story that Bloomberg didn't cancel the fellowships specifically: "We didn't withdraw any funding. We were asked for more money and declined." Yet he basically confirmed the gist of the newspaper reports with his comment that the company "didn't feel comfortable" giving the school money unless it could some how distance itself from Miller. (What form the "distancing" would take is anyone's guess. Few of any imaginable options would be much in keeping with the ethical impulse that supposedly prompted Bloomberg News to hire Goldstein and generate the article that quoted Miller in the first place.)

Interestingly, he characterized Miller's comments not as critical of Bloomberg, but as having "disparaged a Columbia Dean" and implied that Miller had his own retribution in mind: "the same Columbia from whom the NYU professor sought employment and was turned down." There are several problems with this account. First, it would be a stretch to extend Miller's criticism from Bloomberg to Goldstein. (If anything, Miller's take on Goldstein was complimentary; he just didn't think one hire could make a difference: "He'll certainly be able to halt some of the more egregious cases of conflict of interest, but I extremely doubt any one employee will have the power to keep the situation legitimate.") More serious is the contention that Miller was, in essence, just jealous. Miller says he's never applied for a job at Columbia, much less been turned down for one.

In the emails, Winkler complains that the newspaper coverage "wasn't accurate" because "I never talked to the reporter." Considering what he wrote, it would have probably been worse for Bloomberg if he had.

The Antic Muse has emailed Winkler; he has not replied.

UPDATE Winkler confirms the content of the emails.

2003-02-21T12:41:00.000-05:00

WHAT LIBERTIES TAKEN WITH THE MEDIA? G. Beato chronicles his brush with near-greatness over at Soundbitten. I was hesitant to give any more attention to this prose-stealing controversy--didn't want the vast conservative conspiracy to get a hold of it--but then I remembered that no one's reading this.

2003-02-21T10:10:00.000-05:00

SO SAD ABOUT THE SALON, PART MCVXXXIII My not-very-inside sources at Salon say that speculation about the impending demise of the site is premature. But who really cares? Salon has hovered near death more often than a whole week of Lifetime Movies for Women, only to recover and continue on its "energetic and self-delusional" way. Media crit types can't even get a good "I told you so" column out of it any more. They must resort to the kind of meta-analysis that, in the end, is exactly what gives this whole internet medium a bad name.

2003-02-20T14:29:00.000-05:00

This is not criticism. This is narration:

Finally, as Ryan knelt in his big David Byrne jacket by a romantic birdbath the other night, Trista accepted his proposal and his square-cut diamond. Erect in her cross-back white gown, she said: "I can now tell you without reservation that I am in love with you. And I hope with all my heart that you feel the same." Ryan shot back: "I love you with every ounce of who I am."

There's a reason I avoid actually watching reality television shows but don't (generally) mind reading about them. Reality television is vapid, degrading, and often pointless--and now I know that writing about reality television can be just as insulting and aimless.

(But it doesn't have to be.)

2003-02-20T13:58:00.001-05:00

I would simply exacerbate my fledgling repetitive stress disorder if I took the time to actually list all the reasons why a liberal radio network is doomed. In any case, one can get a good sense of the scope of the problem just by checking out what a Google News search on the topic turns up: Page upon page of right-wing niche news organizations commenting on what, for them, is the ultimate man-bites-dog-biting-man story. The New York Times may have given it front-page play on Monday, but NewsMax.com and Ann Coulter are keeping the story alive.

Yet it's the nominally unbiased Austin-American Statesman who hits the nail on the headline: "Capitalists Plan Liberal Radio Network." You can argue about real political leanings of flyover country until your lips fall off (In fact, if you're David Brooks, please do.), but the network's destiny lays in economics, not audience. As any good liberal media critic will tell you, radio has the most concentrated ownership of all broadcast mediums: 90 percent of ad revenue is taken in by just four companies. The largest company, Clear Channel, takes in 20 percent of all radio advertising dollars on its own and every day reaches 54 percent of all people in the U.S. between the ages 18 and 49.

This is the "hole in the market you could drive a truck through"? One would be lucky to squeeze in the diminutive Jon Stewart. (Many people's ideal centerpiece for this yet-unformed network but who, for the record, keeps pronouncements about his own political affiliation purposefully vague.)

It hardly seems worth mentioning that Clear Channel is the corporation behind Rush Limbaugh.

Of course, the intimidating nature of this virtual quadopoly would be moot if (big if) some magical combination of savvy marketing and actual audience demand turned the Liberal News Network into a populist success. I just can't see it happening, though. Liberalism, by nature, doesn't lend itself to the monologue-friendly conspiracy theories that propel Rush, Hannity, and company. Not that liberals don't have conspiracy theories--they just aren't very entertaining ones. They're too complicated and rely too much on information that the listener either doesn't know or doesn't believe. The two sides of "media bias" debate illustrate the difference between what makes for good talk radio fodder and what makes for an excellent sleeping pill:

Side A says, "Just look at what Dan Rather said! He's clearly biased!"

Side B says, "Before we begin, I'd like to explain the history of FCC ownership regulations and the auctioning off of public airwaves. In the 1930s, the FCC was founded to govern a broadcast business that consisted just over 600 radio stations owned by a diverse group of hundreds of public and private entities. With the advent of television...zzzzzzz....."

Sorry, dropped off there. Liberals are boring.

Actually, the left's considerable public image problem probably stems from how really interesting, talented, articulate people with liberal leanings, people who could make the liberal media bias side of the argument worth listening to, generally don't go into politics. They go to Hollywood.

2003-02-19T09:59:00.000-05:00

Today's Washington Post carries an important lesson for the troubled Bush administration: Fear trumps anger every time. A poll of DC area residents found that 44 percent believe the nation's color-coded terrorism alert system "mostly causes needless fear and alarm." The same poll, however, found that an astounding 89 percent have purchased plastic sheeting (and presumably duct tape) to seal off a room in case of attack.

I have my doubts as to the accuracy of the poll--I mean, if there were ever a time to lie to pollsters, it would be about how much effort you've put into protecting your family in a time of national emergency, even though the national emergency is itself based on a lie.

An administration source told at least one reporter that some officials were "extremely angry" that the alert status was raised before the tip that led to the change in status was confirmed. On Sunday, Tom Ridge said that the alert status will likely be reduced to yellow soon.

How soon will, of course, likely depend on the good graces of the powerful duct tape lobby, who clearly still have Ridge wrapped around their sticky little fingers. Just a few days after the administration's somewhat embarrassed semi-retraction of its injunction to go forth and buy, Ridge today launched a new ad campaign to promote terror alertness. Duct tape and plastic sheeting are still high on the preparedness list.

The campaign's slogan advises Americans, "Don't be afraid, be ready," neglecting to realize, I suppose, that fear is pretty much the motivating factor in being ready. Or maybe they realize this fully. The campaign's website, ready.gov, while surprisingly detailed on what to do in case of an attack ("Some biological agents can cause contagious diseases, others do not."), says zilch, zero, nada about the actual chances of an attack.

And it's not clear that the advice itself is the best or most current information. When the White House supplied reporters last week with the bibliography on sources used to create the Ready.gov site, the most recent citation was from 1996. A reporter at yesterday's briefing pressed Ari Flescher on this, noting that even this most recent study was "based entirely on emergencies at U.S. chemical stockpiles, not the dangers that come from the kind of threats we've been talking about today." Another study listed "is 20 years old, it's apparently out of print, [we] couldn't find it."

Ari said this is of no concern: "Well, first of all, 1996 is not old; 1996 is current." (I wonder how long he waits to throw milk out.) Further--and if this seems contradictory, just stop thinking so much--"if the information is valid, it doesn't matter how old the bibliography is and whether it spans from 20 years to six years ago, it can also show how accurate it is over time. So the presence of old information being 20 years [in] a bibliography actually shows how consistent the information is."

Okay, now I'm scared.

2003-02-18T10:37:00.000-05:00

Chicago Sun-Times reports that The New Republic is undergoing a visual and editorial "makeover," moving to "bolder" graphics and typeface and more "daring" editorial stances. Among the "daring" opinions the perpetual graduate students over at TNR intend to stake out: "support for a war in Iraq, rejection of George W. Bush's tax cut and a call for Democrats to shun presidential candidate Al Sharpton." Hmm, yes. Daring, indeed. I can't think of a single mainstream publication that would be so bold. Next on the agenda: Editorials deriding "mean people" and favoring "ice cream."

Not to be outdone, Joe Lieberman announced his own controversial "Sister Souljah" position last week: He's strongly pro-dog, and he doesn't care who knows it. Okay, he's actually in favor of a "National War Dogs Memorial." I confess a weakness for this particularly tasty piece of pork. Who could be against honoring war dogs, the furriest and most loyal of all veterans? Certainly not Mr. Lieberman. Just look at all he's done for veterans so far.

2003-02-17T15:33:00.000-05:00

More mixed feelings: What to think about Salon going under? I've never been a fan, I still think that in a just world, you'd be reading the "Suck Reader's Guide to Contemporary Authors," but I do know and like quite a few people on the staff.

Of course, I think highly enough of all those folks that I've always felt they deserved better than Salon.

2003-02-17T12:15:00.000-05:00

I'd like to think that moving to the suburbs hasn't changed me very much, but the move is about the only thing I can think of to explain why it is that I feel so distant from my friends in New York and San Francisco who call and email with news of the latest anti-war protest.

I used to really enjoy protests. There's something primal and punk-rock about the best of them: During the anti-World Bank protests here in Washington two years ago, my friend John and I--we had been watching from the sidelines--decided to join in when the protesters began marching through Fraternity Row of GWU shouting "Fuck the Frats." (I have mixed feelings about some aspects of the anti-globalization platform, yet I can really get behind the abolition of fraternities.) But when the anti-IMF demonstrators last year threatened to shut down the city, all I could think was, "It's going to take me forever to get into work."

With respect to the anti-war protests, for the first time in my life I do not feel called to the barricades. This is not to say am pro-war. As tired as I am of the giant puppets, hemp legalization booths, and poorly executed pop culture references that characterize today's anti-war marches, the other side's simple-minded propaganda is no more appealing. It's an affront to the fragile legacy of Flight 93 to use "Let's Roll" on a poster, and the bloodlust behind some of the more eager appeals to war is an Al Qaeda wet dream.

This said, I would not be unhappy if an invasion of Iraq and subsequent regime change goes smoothly. This is not to say, "without large numbers of casualties." (Few things about this whole debate have made me more ashamed about my fellow Americans than the way support of the war shifts following a question that asks people to consider "large numbers of casualties" as a factor. Any support of military action should assume that people are going to get killed.)

Not really a ringing endorsement of the cause, true, but I can't bring myself to come down harder on one side or another. I would say that I am anti-Saddam, pro-UN, and still deeply suspicious of the administration's motives.

Indeed, how we got into a situation in which the debate is to invade Iraq or not to invade it disturbs me more than the question of invasion itself. While not completely unjustified, this war is an invention of the administration. (Saddam didn't even make the top two of Parade magazine's "Worst Dictators" list.) Perhaps history will prove that the White House's ability to manufacture an attack is the stuff of great leadership.

Or maybe it really is about the oil.

2003-02-14T13:15:00.000-05:00

So my father called this morning to ask what life is like living under a terrorist alert. (He's been in Canada for the past couple of months, apparently feeling pretty safe. Who'd attack Canada, after all? I mean, besides me.)

I told him that I was deeply suspicious of the upgraded terror alert. After all, there's very little evidence as to exactly why we went to orange, and what little exists seems contradictory: The New York Times reports that that the move was based on intercepted communications showing (or suggesting) Al Qaeda to be in the "operational stages" of a major attack. But yesterday ABC.com had a story saying that the upgrade stemmed from information obtained from a captured member of Al Qaeda, who told officials that the group had developed a way to sneak explosives past security devices by hiding them in "shoes, suitcases, and laptops" and was planning a dirty bomb attack on "Washington, New York, or Florida." (So much for specificity.) But, according to ABC, this intelligence turned out to be "a product of his imagination;" the informant failed a lie-dectector test.

I know, I know, a terrorist who lies. Who would have thunk it?

My father took the reversal a little more seriously, and noted, "This is the kind of thing that happens when you torture people for information."

My (clearly inherited) skepticism about the government has thus far kept me from stocking up on duct tape and plastic. That, and I just can't get over the feeling that the powerful "duct tape lobby" is who's really behind the orange alert.

Still, one can read only so many ghost stories before you give in and get a nightlight. And yesterday I did admit to my husband that maybe, well, we should have some kind of "disaster kit." Not because I believe an attack is likely, but just in case, I dunno, there's an earthquake. My adorable husband nodded his head sagely.

And this morning, on the way back from the dog park, he went to the store. Upon his return, he proudly deposited the fruits of his labors, the core of our disaster preparedness kit: Two bottles of Evian.

"That's all they had left," he said.

Why am I not surprised?