|
|
Tuesday, July 5, 2005 - snarktip@snarksmith.com AIM: "snarksmithy" Whatever... What set Russell Crowe off last month at the Mercer Hotel like a crack-addled nit from the crotch of an Australian pole-dancer? One word: "Whatever." Nick Paumgarten has the scoop on this shiftless, disaffected term of a rotten youth generation. Now had the bellhop with the Bell Atlantic imprint on his forehead said something like, "Gladiator sucked and go fuck yourself" -- well, no worries, mate; he'd now be the bassist for that band Crowe's in. --Michael Weiss [link] The Most Visible Blind-Item... Page Six: WHICH leading man landed his fiance by giving her a five-year contract for $10 million? Now, she's giving an Oscar-worthy performance acting as if she's really in love with him . . . Surely not. --Michael Weiss [link] Catskills G-8... Oh, when those Asiatic-Continental scamps get together, it's yukkier than the Borscht belt in late August. If only those British could cook as well as they govern with stability for multiple centuries! Eh, bien: Chirac to Schrder and Putin: "The only thing [the British] have ever given European farming is mad cow." "Take my Fifth Republic -- please!" "You can't trust people who cook as badly as that," he said. "After Finland, it's the country with the worst food." (Putin wistfully remembering the Soviet invasion of Finland from his boyhood. Yup. The worst "appropriated" Red Army diet, ever.) Then in chimes our Ed McMahon of the Urals: "But what about hamburgers?" said Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, referring to America. "Oh no, hamburgers are nothing in comparison," Mr Chirac said. Mr Putin and Gerhard Schrder, the German chancellor, laughed. Mr Chirac then recalled how George Robertson, the former Nato secretary general and a former defence secretary in Tony Blair's Cabinet, had once made him try an "unappetising" Scottish dish, apparently meaning haggis. "That's where our problems with Nato come from," he said. Scariest sentence this news cycle: "Mr Schrder and Mr Putin laughed again." Wunderbar. Anyone in the house remember the last time Germany and Russia made nice like that? The French comedy hour took a breather. The Most Visible Blind-Item... Page Six: WHICH leading man landed his fiance by giving her a five-year contract for $10 million? Now, she's giving an Oscar-worthy performance acting as if she's really in love with him . . . Surely not. --Michael Weiss [link] Two Hearts Bleed As One... Well, here's something you don't read everyday: Those who care about Africa tend to think that the appropriate attitude toward President Bush is a medley of fury and contempt. But the fact is that Mr. Bush has done much more for Africa than Bill Clinton ever did, increasing the money actually spent for aid there by two-thirds so far, and setting in motion an eventual tripling of aid for Africa. Mr. Bush's crowning achievement was ending one war in Sudan, between north and south. And while Mr. Bush has done shamefully little to stop Sudan's other conflict - the genocide in Darfur - that's more than Mr. Clinton's response to genocide in Rwanda (which was to issue a magnificent apology afterward). Dubya and Bono. Best F 4Ever. --Michael Weiss [link] Friday, July 1, 2005 - snarktip@snarksmith.com AIM: "snarksmithy" Yet on the Other Side of the Atlantic... The original Prospect magazine redeems its Yankee cousin. David Rieff has a must-read essay on the smallpox-infected blanket that was Live Aid to Ethiopia in the 80's. Much as I admire Bono and Bob Geldof -- who court an Irish good humor where plodding earnestness might have consumed other activist celebrities of such a scale -- the Stalinist depredations that were only helped by their magnanimity cannot be ignored, especially as the sequel to Pop-relief gears up this weekend. There is no smoking-gun evidence demonstrating that Live Aid achieved nothing, or only did harm. But there is ample reason to conclude that Live Aid did harm as well as good. It is also arguable that Live Aid may have done more harm than good. (And that's only talking about use of the money. Never you mind the music.) --Michael Weiss [link] Results and Prospects... So Stephen Hayes writes a book suggesting that Saddam did have a connection to Al Qaeda (which would certainly explain Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's high-tailing it to Baghdad before the fall of the regime). And on the heels of the president's speech this week, in which 9/11 was mentioned multiple times, Hayes writes two relevant and complementary pieces in The Weekly Standard. The first is debunking of such bald statements as "There was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq" from talking heads on CNN. The second is an exposure of the late revisionism of Senator Jay Rockefeller, who inveighed against Bush's rhetoric in fairly underwhelming terms, while perhaps forgetting that he not only signed off on the war bill making clear the terrorist nexus through Mesopotamia, but that he also explicitly, and in public, certified the probable existence of such a nexus himself. Well, pretty humdrum stuff so far as the Potomac two-step and the dusting off controversies of Christmas past are concerned. But apparently not to the bloggers at American Prospect Online, who've got nothing to say against the evidence presented in Hayes' articles, except to point to a month-old editorial by one of their own (which says even less) and to drip with sarcasm about "going there" again. BUT I HAVE A BOOK TO SELL! I kind of feel like Iâm debating whether the earth is flat, but in two Weekly Standard pieces Stephen Hayes seems to have taken George W. Bush's cue that it's time to revive that old canard that Saddam Hussein was some how in active league with Al-Qeada [sic]. As this debate is so spring 2004, Iâll just invite readers to take a journey back in time with me to those halcyon days when we had only just learned that Ahmed Chalabi might be an Iranian spy and when deputy defense secretaries still took hits off the Laurie Mylroie pipe. Reread Peter Bergen's and Judith Yaphe's comments from the transcript of a June 2004 AEI event promoting Hayes' book on the supposed connection (also discussed in our pages by Matt). You'll notice that Hayes neglects to offer a plausible explanation of why the administration would remain intent on keeping ăevidenceä of this explosive information so close to its chest. --Mark Leon Goldberg Ah, so the halycon days when Ahmed Chalabi "might" have been an Iranian spy are worth of revisiting, but tranches of documents indicating Saddam's gemutlich dealings with bin Laden are nothing more than today's fish-wrap. (And never mind that Dr. Chalabi is now an elected representative of the Iraqi National Assembly and has not been indicted by either an American or Iraqi court. Less prima facie stuff to go on than Zarqawi's naming of his own organization "Al Qaeda in Iraq," don't you think?) There are a bunch of links in this noisome but passing web-belch, all of which I'm too lazy to reproduce for you here. Though I suggest going to the original and seeing for yourself. And be sure to read Matthew Yglesias's piece (oh, all right, one reproduced link), which actually does more justice to the opposition's thesis than it would have liked. (Hayes' never claims the data he has amassed is definitive proof, but he does argue that it should not have been, or continue to be, dismissed as empty calories for energizing neocon windmill-tilts. It is, by any definition of the word, "evidence." Whereas, say, the testimony of Dr. Barham Salih that Ansar al-Islam was redoubling its activity in Iraqi Kurdistan as early (or as late) as October of 2001 -- that's just a "coincidence." Surely.) I shall certainly be keeping watch for the next time Mark Leon Goldberg writes a book whose content is ripped straight from the headlines, which I'm guessing he'll gallantly refrain from commenting on further so as not to tarnish the noble money-mouth relationship with something to "sell." --Michael Weiss [link] Gitmo and Beyond... Reuel Marc Gerecht strikes me as everything that's right with the neoconservative critique of the war on terror. A few months ago he had an excellent front-page polemic in The Weekly Standard against "rendition," whereby the United States ships enemy combatants overseas to countries that yawningly condone torture as de rigueur and not even worth arguing about. Now he looks at our own domestic counterterrorism practices and is no more enthusiastic. [M]uch of what has been said, even by thoughtful critics of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and the secret CIA prison facilities--on how they have aided our enemies and damaged us in the Middle East--is dubious. But the attacks on the Pentagon and the CIA are not without merit. It is clear the Bush administration hasn't thought through what it's doing in these prison facilities. It hasn't yet appreciated the fact that its mishandling of this issue could seriously damage America's resolve against Islamic terrorism. More important, the administration's continuing ineptitude four years after 9/11 will surely make it more difficult for the country to remember why it must persevere in Iraq and in the democratic transformation of the Middle East. Gerecht, who has made something of a professional study of the psychological and materialist components of bin Ladenism, rightly argues that a scale-down of American military resolve in Iraq would be devastatingly helpful for the recruitment of more Islamists. Many in the American elite are beginning to revert to a pre-9/11 worldview, where U.S. aggression or "unilateralism," not American weakness or self-doubt, is seen as the fuel for bin Ladenism. Yet this is a reversal of history. It was the fearful U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon in 1984 and from Somalia in 1994, not the original incursions there, that bin Laden saw as proof that determined Muslims could best the United States. He goes on to say that the Six Day War in 1967 wasn't nearly the rallying cry for Palestinian suicide-bombers as was the haphazard Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, an even that just preceded the onset of the most recent intifada. It isn't a reductive cultural cliche to notice that messianic reactionaries in the Middle East are spawned and encouraged by perceived Western weakness. Who wouldn't be more lured into a battle that appeared winnable if only because of the timidity of one's opponent? The real problem, I think, is that of latent versus expressed might. When bin Laden famously remarked before the 2004 election that his quarrel was localized and against very specific countries, that there was good reason why Al Qaida had not attacked, say, Sweden -- what this meant was not that Sweden was immune to the bin Ladenist wish to see all secular liberal states destroyed; it meant that Sweden posed a low to zero combat threat to the would-be destroyers. A country like the United States, however, will always be a fatal check on bin Laden's ambitions. This is true even when the US tacitly complies with his 'foreign policy' by removing airbases from Saudi Arabia, and even when the United States does not requisition its other bases for the purpose of routing him and his faction altogether. A stationary aircraft carrier in the Gulf -- or, indeed, in the Atlantic -- is even more vulnerable to attack than a mobilized one. Gerecht also has some insightful suggestions for recrafting American interrogation procedures. One of these is what Senator Patrick Leahy and David Frum and Richard Perle have already put forth: Give Congress the chance to sign off that procedure, in public and without lies or executive-level occlusiveness. I agreed with Alberto Gonzales when he called the Geneva Conventions "outmoded" and "quaint" -- because the items to which he was referring when gave every news outlet its overplayed soundbite for that week were those relating to the allocation of scientific and research equipment to POWs. This was clearly a hold-over from World War II, when our enemies actually had scientists whose work might have been co-optable or exploitable by the Allies, as it often was. Yet discarding worn-out covenants does nothing to mitigate the need for clear and humane new guidelines for dealing with the prisoners we've got now. Furthermore, Guantanamo really ought to be in Leavenworth, and the CIA's counterterrorist interrogation centers that don't pertain to the tactical requirements of ongoing joint operations with U.S. Special Forces ought to be at "the Farm," the espionage training facility in the swamplands of Virginia. (Training city-based spooks in this environment has always been bizarre; incarcerating jihadists among so much greenery has a certain poetic appropriateness.) And the last thing we'd want is to bundle counterterrorism with endless -- and dangerous -- litigation: If the CIA believes it's necessary to "water-board" a chief al Qaeda operative who may have information about a devastating terrorist strike, then the administration should make the case before Congress, or at least before the intelligence oversight committees, that simulated drowning is morally and operationally justified. It should have done this prospectively, starting in September 2001, since the CIA must have the right to respond immediately, without lengthy outside review, to captured jihadists who may have information about a terrorist strike. The administration should also consider challenging Congress to make membership in several Islamic extremist groups punishable by death or life imprisonment. If the administration intends ever to try senior members of al Qaeda for terrorism, war crimes, or whatever, then it ought to clarify beforehand with Congress the laws that would allow American intelligence officers to interrogate these men aggressively, as well as the laws under which they could be convicted. And if that is an insurmountable hurdle--which it may well be--then the administration should obviously be exceedingly selective with its rougher interrogations. It would be a pity to catch Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda's brainy number two, and have his conviction overturned because we'd "water-boarded" him. --Michael Weiss [link] Thursday, June 30, 2005 - snarktip@snarksmith.com AIM: "snarksmithy" Write for Us... If you'd like to write for Snarksmith, we'd love to have you. We're currently looking for freelance reviews (books, films, albums) or short essays on whatever to go in our venerable Black Box way over yonder (--->). Submit story ideas or fully executed pieces to Nic or me. (I'll be in Europe for two weeks starting next Wednesday, so maybe better make that just Nic.) --Michael Weiss [link] All Tuckered Out... Tucker Carlson's The Situation gets unmercifully destroyed by Alessandra Stanley, who does not -- underscore not -- like the bow tie. She thinks it's kind of gay, in fact: These kinds of programs may not hurt the country, but they do seem to weaken the intellectual standing of their hosts. When Mr. Carlson, who started as a writer at The Weekly Standard, began on "Crossfire" he seemed like a brainy young contrarian, brought in to challenge liberal pieties - a Junior Miss version of George Will. Time and the ever-shortening attention span of cable news have turned him into a George Will o' the Wisp; his opinions are loud but ever more vaporous. Junior Miss. That's enough to make Manderson Cooper throw down, y'all. --Michael Weiss [link] The Finkelstein-Dershowitz Debate... Things aren't looking so hot for Alan Dershowitz, the overactive and underenlightening polymath who might just need a polygraph after Norman Finkelstein's done with him. Finkelstein, a self-righteous and thoroughly obnoxious critic of what Philip Roth once called "Shoah business," frequently suffers from the added vice of being right. Much of his scholarship on the exploitation of the Holocaust as Israel's auto-immunizing raison d'etre (and also raison d'etat) is widely seen as both meticulous and morally sound, even by those less inclined to agree with his overall hard-left 'politics.' (He's uttered more than a few embarassing hosannahs for Hezbollah and gone on to justify them with exquisite Chomskyean casuistry about the "real axis of evil," etc. He also keeps an ever-brimming catalogue of his many scuffles with journalists and intellectuals on his website.) Christopher Hitchens and Edward Said based their co-edited anthology Blaming the Victims on Finkelstein's adroit debunking of Joan Peter's From Time Immemorial, a troublesome tract that has apparently made for an interesting sequel. Among the many minuses Finkelstein attributes to Dershowitz's The Case for Israel is that the thing is often plagiarized, whole cloth, from Peters' book. In response -- or better make that, retaliation -- Dershowitz has tried to block the publication of Finkelstein's formal hatchet-job, the forthcoming Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, and has even petitioned the governor of California to stop the state university press from minting it. (For those just joining the world of pet causes and vanity projects, the governor of California is Arnold Schwartzenegger, who, it must be said, has behaved wisely by telling the Dersh, normally such a plangent booster for free speech, in effect, nein.) The Nation has the full scoop of this meshugana tribal faction-fight here. --Michael Weiss [link] Unsettling the Settlers... Israeli troops storm a Gaza hotel to remove Jewish extremists protesting the planned pull-out of the settlements. Sharon: ''This bothers me exceptionally. This is an act of savagery, vulgarity and irresponsibility...The country's citizens must understand this danger, and every measure must be taken to end this rampaging." Saddam's Fourth Novel... Get Out, You Damned One (guess who's damned, guess out of where) is not being published in Jordan where there may or may not be a market for it. Within hours of the ban on the book, Mr. Horani says, he sold 50 bootleg copies. "His popularity is increasing because of the success the resistance is now having in Iraq." Hedging his bets, Saddam refers to Michiku Kakutani as that "charming, God-anointed lotus flower with epicanthal folds." --Michael Weiss [link] Is It Really So, Really So Strange... Spain legalizes gay marriage. Brazil languorously lifts it head up off the pillow, smiles, goes back to sleep. (This'll show bin Laden who's a purring Iberian kitten of appeasement.) --Michael Weiss [link] Great Underpayed, Overmediated Minds... Gawker on TIME, Inc.'s high and mighty press release about handing over docs relating to the Valerie Plame leak: "Itâs a nice civics lesson." Wonkette on same: "a nifty civics lesson." Matt Drudge slathering up Nick Denton in midnight oil. --Michael Weiss [link] Advertisements for Himself... Norman Mailer catching heat for calling Michiku Kakutani "Asiatic." Wow, that's old-school solecistic. Norm took the Oriental Express back to "Mohammedan," "Negro" and "Hun." Last person I heard called Asiatic was Stalin (and I think it was Lenin who did the calling.) After Hunter's death, it's just not charming anymore when a raging white alpha male makes Jenn Wenner cancel his insurance. Page Six: In a letter to Rolling Stone publisher Jann Wenner, who published Mailer's remarks, Esther Wu, president of the Asian American Journalists Assn., calls Mailer a racist who "essentially diminishes the accomplishments of all women and journalists of color. It insinuates that media companies keep people like Ms. Kakutani on staff simply because they are women and minorities ÷ a dangerous, dismissive and, certainly, misguided notion. On a side note, with Mr. Mailer's firm grasp of the English language, we're sure he knows that 'Asiatic' ÷ like 'Oriental' ÷ has long been considered an offensive word to describe Asians or in the case of Ms. Kakutani, a Connecticut native, Asian-Americans . . . we'd like to thank Rolling Stone for exposing the bigotry of one of America's prized authors. To Mr. Mailer, we'd simply like to say: Shame on you." The question on your anti-defamation suit is: What's the president of the Asian American Journalists Assn. doing called "Esther"? I think it's a frameup. You know, Mailer's wife pretends to be all "stabbed;" Mailer's half-sister pretends to be all "offended" and "Asian." That Norm, he's a sly one. --Michael Weiss [link] Wednesday, June 29, 2005 - snarktip@snarksmith.com AIM: "snarksmithy" A Nation of Isaacs...God forgive me, I'm defending Michael Moore against Christopher Hitchens. The latest column from Hitch at Slate has him slamming people who see hypocrisy in those who back war without a kid in the forces. The most recent cycle--not that this isn't a consistent undertone--began for me with a Washington Post column by Richard Cohen. In a reminiscence that he doubtless thought was affecting, he recalled a spat between himself and the late John Gregory Dunne. Declining to attend a Cohen dinner party in the year 1991 (and here we sense the real echoes of a life-and-death struggle), Dunne had said that he wouldn't break bread with a man who favored war but was not willing to sacrifice his own son. Cohen went back and forth in agony about the justice of all this, while never betraying any sense of disproportion or absurdity. Should Saddam Hussein have been allowed to add the wealth of Kuwait to his slave state at a time when he most certainly did possess a WMD program? Quite a good question for debate. But the debate comes to an end when one participant says that the other is disqualified because of a refusal of son-donation. (I pause to note what Cohen may have been too delicate to point out: John Gregory Dunne did not have a son.) It sounds great, but he doesn't explain Cohen's column correctly. The version of this argument Hitchens is confronting is analogous to "You can't be against abortion if you're a man." It is a proposition worth defeating, if anybody worth arguing with ever tried to defend it. But the other guy's sons argument is more subtle. It's closer to, "It's easier for men to oppose abortion because they have less to lose." If you read Cohen's column, you see he isn't called a hypocrite by Dunne because he won't "send" his son to the Gulf War, but because he admits he would not want his son to go if it were up to him. Which undercuts the entire point about autonomy Hitchens makes at length. Then Hitchens connects it to: Recall Michael Moore asking congressmen whether they would "send" one of their offspring, as if they had the power to do so, or the right? Michael Moore is stupid, but he wasn't suggesting, per se, that congressmen are hypocrites if they vote for a war without their children enlisting. But he is observing that a moral hazard exists for congressmen whose children are at no risk. Were there a draft with no exemptions for college or marriage or other Vietnam-era conditions, Congress would have to weigh the personal risks as well as the public ones. Because Congress doesn't have children in the forces, they don't have the same personal costs of war as parents who do. So why not pressure them to enlist? And then you stick a mic in their faces to keep the groundlings happy. Is Hitchens glossing over this because it fits the polemic mode, or has he managed to miss the few subtlties Farenheit 9/11 had? It is quite possible that if we think of the deposition of Saddam Hussein and democratization of Iraq as being a thing of some value (A), then compare it to (B) the public costs of funding a war through taxes, debt and other means, and (C) the personal cost paid by the men and women who fight it, the cost-benefit value (A - B - C) is negative, or not worth it to society. Yet if Congressmen face no risk of paying the personal cost because their children will not volunteer to fight, they can view the cost benefit as being (A - B), which could be positive, or worthwhile. In this case, a war that's bad for society as a whole will be fought because it's good for Congress. In this case, we would want to find a way to bring Congressional incentives in line with the public's. A better test of the value of a war, at the personal level, is whether we would be willing to take a draft number to fight it. This is a thought experiment, of course, since more people than not would be turned away in a draft for age or sex or whatever, and the draft itself will probably never be reinstated. But if every American citizen, including us, had to take a stub for a conscription lottery, would we agree? For Afghanistan, no doubt. I wonder, ex ante, what I would have chosen for Iraq. --Nic Duquette [link] Kolakowski and the Cunning of History (and Roger Kimball)... Giving Roger Kimball space to expatiate on the merits of anti-Commie par excellence Leszek Kolakowski is like taking a hypoglycemic kid to Willy Wonka's factory. Sure, it's loads of fun for the kid and not-bad entertainment for the rest of us, but damned if it doesn't always end with a portentous brown ring caked around the little bugger's mouth: No academic is more distinguished than Leszek Kolakowski. He boasts a string of glittering honors and prizes that includes÷I confine myself to a few A-list American awards÷a MacArthur Fellowship (the so-called ăgeniusä award, justified for once), the Jefferson Award, and, in 2003, the first Kluge Prize for ălifetime achievement in the humanities,ä a commendation that carries a purse of $1 million. Justified for once. Someone at the New Criterion call the sentimental police. But hold the receiver: Here's Kimball on a contretemps Kolakowski had with E.P. Thompson. Something about refusing to break bread together because of the latter's unrepentant Communism as late the 1970's, which actually made Thompson as reactionary as he'd need be to gain the approval of the present editorial board. But which also meant, all but for the most pathological and stupid, that the tinny megaphone of the apparat was broadcasting tokens of muffled diffidence like this one: ăWe were both voices of the Communist revisionism of 1956... we both sought to rehabilitate the utopian energies within the socialist tradition.ä We're told Thompson "sniffed" the foregoing line, and then asked, "What happened?" Kolakowskiâs response is a salvo that would have made Cato the Elder proud. Recalling Thompsonâs refusal to sit down at a table with Robert Cecil because he once worked in the British diplomatic service: ăO blessed Innocence! You and I, we were both active in our respective Communist Parties in the â40s and â50s, which means that, whatever our noble intentions and our charming ignorance (or refusal to get rid of ignorance) were, we supported, within our modest means, a regime based on mass slave labor and police terror of the worst kind in human history. Do you think that there are many people who could refuse to sit at the same table with us on these grounds?ä So Thompson's hand of friendship is extended to an ex-comrade and not just slapped away, but then filled with a hot little igneous pebble of defiance, one that would -- what was that again, Rog? -- "have made Cato the Elder proud." Another self-critical CP man I.F. Stone once observed that a critic who can suck like that need never dine alone. And you just knew "old GKC" couldn't escape this bowtied sermon: In his book Orthodoxy, G. K. Chesterton championed freedom of thought, but wisely noted that ăThere is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped.ä Our society is extraordinarily accommodating of diverse points of view -- especially, it sometimes seems, to those that are hostile to the ideal of diversity. As opposed, to say, the thought that dictates the existence of an invisible man in the sky who invigilates and judges all human behavior on earth. Or is Chesteron's Catholicism somehow immune from the label 'totalitarian'? Putting up with his church, especially its latest theodicial plunges into the sanctity of child-rape, also strikes one as a conspicuous symptom of what favored TNC novelist Evelyn Waugh might call "Too Much Tolerance." --Michael Weiss [link] Tony Judt on Intervention... Probably the smartest piece to come from an antiwar scribe -- especially one scribbling in the New York Review of Books -- that questions the role of the US and the UN in the age of potted Pol Pots. Up on the slab this month: David Rieff, son of Susan Sontag and pretty disgruntled categorical interventionist himself: Rieff's disillusioned tone can thus take on a cynical edge -- "the imperial dreams of American neoconservatives like [Max] Boot or [Robert] Kagan make so much more sense than the vacillations of the humanitarian left." Oh, I wouldn't be taking that at face value, Tony. These Sontags have a way with old-school irony (unlike the NYU prof who thinks an Israeli polity sapped of Judaism is ever going to happen.) --Michael Weiss [link] Thursday, June 23, 2005 - snarktip@snarksmith.com AIM: "snarksmithy" Boy, the Way Glen Miller Played... A foul-mouthed English "nationalist" has been harassing his local MP with phone calls, the content of which are mainly screeds against "wogs, Pakis and black bastards." High court judges in England have decided that this guy's language amounts to "Alf Garnett style rants" and not "grossly offensive" hate speech (though it's not called hate speech in the sceptr'd isle.) Alf Garnett, the prole protagonist of an old BBC series called Till Death Do Us Part, might be more recognizable stateside as the character he inspired in the mind of Norman Lear: Archie Bunker. Now imagine any magistrate here tossing out a case where the defendant was seen as little more than a political cousin of a racist lowlife from 1970's Queens. "Meathead" would be the least of the epithets hurled against his hypothetical honor. --Michael Weiss [link] The Macher of the Megadeath Intellectuals... Herman Kahn literally wrote the rulebook on the American theory of thermonuclear warfare. If he's not exactly a household name, that might be because we're still living in households and not mineshaft fall-out shelters. Louis Menand on a new book about the "Fat Man" of the RAND Corporation. It's less a biography and more a macabre cultural study, demonstrating how fifty years after "acceptable losses" and "surviveability" entered the lexicon, Kahn's strange love of the species still, thankfully, remains the unrequited kind. --Michael Weiss [link] So Good It Hurts... Multitudes and contradictions is how I'll reconcile giving a guest columnist for the New York Observer raspberries for being obsequious before gladly strolling into the tongue sprinklers myself by saying this: Anthony Lane goes genius again this week. With Popean flourish, to boot. Can't spoil with excerpt. Read. --Michael Weiss [link] The Apple That Feel Far From The Tree... I don't know why the daughter of the most respectable and intelligent man to occupy the United States Senate in decades feels it's a tribute to Daniel Patrick Moynihan that he "never had an unkind word to say about any of his colleagues." This is not Ms. Moynihan's claim, it's Robert Dole's. But she can't possibly confirm the veracity of it, since her father presumably said many things to which she was never privy. However, it's the stuff Maura was privy to that has her incensed over Ed Klein's new Hillary-bashing volume: Mr. Klein puts quotes around statements that were never uttered. I can confirm this because the only other persons present during this meeting were myself and our Tibetan cook, who speaks about 10 words of English. Mr. Klein has now gone on the record to say that he spent "several hours interviewing Mrs. Moynihan." Puzzling indeed, in that Mrs. Moynihan÷my mother÷hasnât seen Mr. Klein in over 20 years. Iâd like to see the transcripts or hear the tapes of his on-the-record talks with Mrs. Moynihan. And it would have been difficult for him to interview Senator Moynihan, because heâs dead. I can't be the only one wondering what the cook's 10 words are. And "seen" by itself and without accompanying past participles ("heard from," "been in contact with," "talked to on the phone") strikes me as a near-Clintonian elision of the whole story. But if it is not, then this is surely pretty damning evidence against Mr. Klein, who might have learned better how to cower before the multiple fact-check while he was editor of the New York Times Magazine. Elsewhere, though, the child of a brave and tough-minded gentleman-stateman (who else would have told the pope, to his face, not to "forget our friends the Jews"?) shows the symptoms of an acquired case of Potomac Servility Syndrome: New Yorkers are weary of the incessant Clinton-bashing that the national media seemingly never tires of. We have seen Senator Clinton become a powerful legislator, orator and advocate for New York. She travels from Buffalo to Montauk, listening to her constituents, and then she goes back to Washington to fight for them. For which New Yorkers does Ms. Moynhian expect to be retroactively okayed as a mouthpiece? And the national media either never tires of something, or it does tire. "Seemingly" is a reprimand used by someone who must believe that striking a "nonpartisan" or neutral chord of conciliation will send all those nasty hatchet-jobbers into early retirement. "Seemingly" also seems like one of those hankie-dropped innuendo terms, like "characteristic," which Bellow's character Shawmut, in the story "Him With His Foot In His Mouth," describes as the "way the liberal American vocabulary is used as a torture device: By 'characteristic' [one] means, "You are not a good person..." Hardly a conceivable opprobrium from the author of the following: [Hillary Clinton] has endured years of personal attacks on herself and her family, and has somehow managed to bear herself with dignity and grace throughout. A lesser person would have abandoned politics and retired to the Gulf of Siam years ago. Or, you know, run for office herself. --Michael Weiss [link] Karl's Big Night... Bush's Boy Genius gets it right, pisses off those that already hate him: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Mr. Rove, the senior political adviser to President Bush, said at a fund-raiser in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State. He also took the opportunity to justly criticize Dick Durbin's cretinous comparison of Guantanamo Bay to -- let me know if I've left one out -- the Soviet gulag, Nazi concentration camps, and Pol Pot's killing fields. Rove: "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals." Plenty more, as a matter of fact. Wonkette flails to point out the sinister hypocrisy of publicizing Durbin's remedial history lesson, citing the reiteration of it in a hot new Republican ad campaign and on the party's official website. The same words that are putting our troops in greater danger, and yet the RNC is emailing the ad to "15 million grassroots supporters" and posting it at GOP.com, where terrorists, Al Jazeera producers, and the liberal saboteurs who want to undermine this great country of ours and put our troops at risk have access to it! Well, Durbin's stupidity has already been loosed, as he knew it was going to be. (Or was he acting on quiet ethical impulse alone? Did the PR coefficient of his "outrage" never occur to him?) No one who can have had any interest in his comments is just now finding out about them. Does it matter where else they're being debated and pored over in syndication? People were well within the realm of moral responsibility to condemn Mel Gibson for not only Jew-baiting but distributing his awful film in Middle Eastern countries where Jew-baiting is at its worst. Were the condemnations themselves adding "fuel to the fire?" If so, should discussion of the global reprecussions of The Passion of the Christ have been censored in print and on cable chat shows? (If the answer is yes, then Frank Rich has just as much explaining to do as Karl Rove.) Al Qaeda will tune into CNN faster than they'll dial up GOP.com or hack the post of "grassroots" Republican addressees. So accusing the conservative political strategist of exploiting the senator's blunder for -- are you ready for this? --political purposes does nothing to either exculpate the senator or bruise the strategist with a swift recall of his own boomerang tactic. However, I would add that the Republican Congressman Walter Jones, by demanding that the United States set a timeline for handing over sovereignty to the terrorists in Iraq, is just as much of a fucking fool as Durbin. Shouldn't he get a good rebuke from his own team, and even if that means mass mailings and TV spots which further disseminate his scandalous remarks? --Michael Weiss [link] The Age of the LittleBlue SmurfBoyú... Matthew Wilder's style may be a little overfed with PopRocks sugar, but no one can deny his point: tow-headed homonculi moppets are the Iron Johns of the new millennium. The main offenders: eminently cock-punchable Conor Oberst (even the last name sounds like an anti in search of a climax); bedheaded Jimmy Neutron of the Angelika, Wes Anderson; and Saul Bellow's number one reason to pull the covers tighter round his corpse, Jonathan Safran Foer. Alternative weeklies in flyover country are giving us pearls here: Why are these boy-men ascending all at once? I can only quote one of the brightest LBSB's I know, an aspiring screenwriter and pushing-30 dweller in Mom's guest room, who casually dismissed Raging Bull by sniffing, "That movie doesn't matter, because masculinity isn't like that any more!" He's right, it isn't. (To gauge whether I'm right: Utter the words "Clive Owen" to a heterosexual woman and watch the pupil dilation.) Also: Especially in the world of blue-state liberal-arts grads, and most especially in the world of movie/book/music criticism, there ain't a lot of Big Bruising going on. In this Blue Smurfy climate, the outsized obsessions, red-hot rhetoric, and violent argument of the Bruisers would give the tastemaking class a panic attack. And to be painfully blunt, LBSB art makes critics and editors feel...relaxed, the way '80s decadents like David Salle and Jay McInerney once made them feel rich and hip. In our Age of Terror, educated art consumers and taste arbiters want nothing more than for Mom to make them a grilled cheese with some Swiss Miss Instant Cocoa on the side. The hand-carvings of the sensitive son--sexless, multi-allergic, bubble dwelling--represent a return to comfort, to nonresponsibility, to sleep. Of course, conspicuously absent from this bill of indictment is lycra-encased, wall-crawling bug of arrested development Tobey Maguire, who, to judge by recent tabloid photos, even wants to look like a plump and parboiled infant. Compare to the icy menace of our latest post-9/11 Christ figure Christian Bale and you wonder if there isn't yet a flickering cave shadow of promise for reconstructed masculinity. Help us, Obi-Wan Amis. You're our only hope. --Michael Weiss [link] The Pod Is Not Amused... John Podhoretz strains himself to infuse the page-turning pulp of the New York Post with a bit of nonpartisan classiness. Demonstrating that the son of a famous decorated intellectual (two, if you count the vial of Rumsfeld-sweat Midge Decter wears around her neck) had better have some discriminating literary tastes of his own, Pod fils has just panned Edward Klein's new shit-smeared portrait of the con artist as a young Rodham. This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word. Tough talk from someone who's presumably read his father's memoir Ex-Friends. (Then again, maybe he hasn't.) Despite a distinguished journalistic pedigree including stints as the editor of both Newsweek and The New York Times Magazine, Klein has chosen to emulate the works of the highly dubious bio-defamer Charles Higham, who with the slimmest of evidence wrote books claiming that Errol Flynn was a gay Nazi spy and Howard Hughes was a bisexual. Look, no one who dressed up like Errol Flynn could have been a straight socialist. And suggesting that Howard Hughes' propeller spun in both directions is only defamation in the less relevant paleo-neo-con groupuscules. Go ask dad. Klein may offer a few words here or there about Whitewater or Travelgate, but what really floats his boat is the Higham-like notion that Sen. Clinton is secretly a lesbian. He has no proof whatever for this claim save that she has had some lesbian friends. (So do I. Does that make me a lesbian?) Parenthetical Gatorade like that, and you go and leave us hanging! Who? I want names, John -- this is something for which your geneaology might have also made a better tutorial. --Michael Weiss [link] When the Saudi Government Says More Than It Means To... From the Guardian: Jamal Khashoggi, media adviser to the Saudi ambassador in London, said yesterday he agreed in part with the US assessment. "It will be worse than Afghanistan," he said. "We are talking about a very brutal type, a very weird version of Islam in Iraq. It is very scary." Mr Khashoggi predicted the approach of the Saudi government towards jihadists returning from Iraq will be very different from those returning from Afghanistan and Chechnya. "Any al-Qaida coming back from Iraq will be hunted. It is not like they have gone to Chechnya and will be coming back as heroes. If they come back from Iraq and brag about it, they will be snatched by security in a day or two." The "US assessment" was that the Zarqawists in Iraq have picked up deadly new urban warfare skills and will inevitably use them in other countries and cities (an assessment which comes courtesy of the CIA, which not only boasts of attempting to brown-bag bin Laden's head, but also boasts of having failed to do just that.) But note the blunt admission in Khashoggi's statement: Terrorists from Iraq, be warned. The Saudi government won't coddle and suborn you like it has the Taliban and those responsible for the Beslan school massacre. You're uninsurable and now on our most wanted list. (The "weird version of Islam" is the un-buyable kind, I suppose.) How about for every Iraqi terrorist the House of Saud delivers to the United States, we give it back five copies of its execrable state-minted Koran, which is still in circulation in American prisons? --Michael Weiss [link] Where the Twain Met (and Collected)... Turkish novelist Orhan Pamuk awarded a prize and a rather nice check by the German Publishers and Booksellers Association. --Michael Weiss [link] Stalin's Stupidity... David E. Murphy has got a new book out showing just how refractory and foolish Stalin was about the prospect of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union. Every notice delivered to the 'Red tsar,' telling -- in some cases with uncanny calendric accuracy -- of the planned contravention of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was declared "English provocation," and the spies who reported it were found guilty of treason. Of particulary interest is the fact that Stalin had confided to his inner circle that the "nonaggression" with Germany -- later to be renegotiated for better territorial spoils for the Soviet Union, and also renamed the lexically aggressive "friendship" with Germany -- was tailormade for a more felicitous Soviet double-cross. At one point Stalin turned to Molotov and said something like, "Hitler's tricky, but I think we got the better of him." Stalin also thought he was going to be arrested himself for his incompetence and prolonged absence from "duty" after the Wehrmacht had in fact breached the Soviet border. Molotov and Malenkov finally approached him, self-isolated in his Kuntsevo dacha under a fog of depression, to request that he form a military council and begin mobilizing the Red Army, something that should have been done weeks before. Stalin's reply to this was, literally, "All right," which adds a whole new modernist dimension to the cliche of fiddling while Rome burns. (Actually, that cliche accounts only for a tyrant's manic sociopathology; it does nothing to adumbrate his arrogance and sheer idiocy.) --Michael Weiss [link] Weekend Outage... The site was down due to our domain expiration (and our provider's "oh, yeah"-ish response to this). Sorry for any inconvenience. On the brighter side, this means Snarksmith turns a gurgling, healthy one. --Michael Weiss [link] Monday, June 20, 2005 - snarktip@snarksmith.com AIM: "snarksmithy" High Marks for Marx... The greatest philosopher of all-time, or so he will be judged if the Zogbyists monitoring this election in Britain are anything to go by. Beats out Kant, Hobbes, Mill and Plato. Even Hegel, from whom the Bushy One of the British Museum cribbed his dialecticism. --Michael Weiss [link] Metcalf on Hornby... That aborted albino mole Michael Wolff recently claimed that Slate was little more than another online salon (or Salon) of uninspired milquetoast leftishness. He couldn't have been more wrong, even though I'm sure he tried and was only reproved by an already too-tolerant Greydon Carter. Consider Stephen Metcalf's excellent review of the new Nick Hornby novel, The Long Way Down (made mercifully shorter by a sharp and pithy critic.) The wind-up: Sublime banality and self-centered mediocrity and a pitiful moonlit pining: Hornby captured perfectly the voice of the Baby Boomer more or less permanently fixed to the emotional vocabulary of his own pubescence. And the pitch: A feeling of something÷not quite as acute as despair, not quite as chronic as the shit-hum÷runs throughout the novel: In a time of exponentially proliferating images of the luckier-than-thou, self-possession is not wholly possible, and the specter of our many unlived lives can be debilitating. It is a shame that Hornby feels this way about his own remarkable talents and has grasped instead for someone else's. Without even reading the book, one sees only a single potential "not-so-sublime banality" on Metcalf's part: his cliched rebuke of Hornby's cinematographic, or "greenlit", style. Why not go straight to the celluloid since that's where all of your stuff winds up eventually? This is more kosher as a market critique than it is as a literary one. Contemporary novelists who, to varying degrees of success (from the alpha of Hornby to the omega of Crichton), employ a clipped, moving-right-along narration inevitably come in for this censure. But all one has to do to recognize the unfairness of it is to realize that under more blockbuster-friendly circumstances the same would have been argued against Joyce, or Woolf, or Waugh, and was in fact argued against Greene in his "entertainments." It's not the writer's fault that in lieu of Clarissa Dalloway's buzz-ominous airplane or Adam Fenwick-Symes' cruise ship the modern pop antihero of the twenty-first century has got a whole new order of grinding, mechanized behemoths standing between himself and his denouement: the Weinsteins. --Michael Weiss [link] Rice in Cairo... A pungent little number from the Secretary of State. Now I forget exactly under which anti-Bush doctrine this speech would fall: The one that says we alienate all of our allies to our own peril and global humiliation; the one that says we've no right to speak about democracy and liberalism when we're capable of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and The Apprentice; or the one that says we court double standards for dictatorships of convenience? Not to worry. I'm sure DailyKos is hot on the case. (Because kifaya is Arabic for enough foreign hypocrisy, not enough domestic authoritarianism.) --Michael Weiss [link] How to Fix the CIA... Hire writers for television. I'm not kidding. The average bleary-eyed, overcaffeinated scribe for 21 would stand a much better chance of "plotting out" the capture of Bin Laden than the current McDonald's playground ball pit of gumbies overseeing things. Two BBC articles for you: Someone named Gary Schroen, who sounds like he never leaves home without his Bic scalp razor and an Oliver North potboiler, says the CIA ordered him to travel to Afghanistan after 9/11 for a single purpose: To bring back Osama's head in a box of dry ice. Comes the question: If this story is true, then why is Cofer Black, the counterterrorism chief who allegedly gave the order, still receiving a federal paycheck? Comes the next question: If the decapitation and refrigeration scenario is just Schroen's idea of tough-guy hyperbole, why is National Public Radio, which quoted him on it, putting him on national public air to the further (unsubstantiated) embarassment of the American intelligence apparat? And if this weren't enough for one news cycle, we're also informed today that the CIA actually knows where Bin Laden's hiding. How does it know this? Because Pakistani TV has just interviewed a senior Taliban leader who affirms Osama and Mullah Omar are both alive and well. "If a TV station can get in touch with them, how can the intelligence service of a country which has nuclear bombs and a lot of security and military forces not find them?" asked [US ambassador to Afghanistan] Mr [Zalmay] Khalilzad in an interview with an Afghan television station. Yes, quite. And why isn't the subcontinental Geraldo who spoke to the fact-hemorrhaging fundie not being interrogated for his "get" methods? --Michael Weiss [link] Sunday, June 19, 2005 - snarktip@snarksmith.com AIM: "snarksmithy" That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore (Nor Was It Ever)... The Smiths: The Musical. No shit. --Michael Weiss [link] Saturday, June 18, 2005 - snarktip@snarksmith.com AIM: "snarksmithy" Robert Hopkins at Yalta... Harry Hopkins sounds like the name of a brash flyboy Michael Bay would employ in one of his ghastly films sets in the 30's or 40's. Closer to the mark would be just the brash bit. Hopkins was one of the more gushing fools taken in by Stalin after the Soviet Union joined the Allied side in World War II. Lord knows how his son Robert managed to finagle the photographer's gig at Yalta. (Nepotism is a petty bourgeois sickness, comrade). But left out of this stale "witness to history" account is his beloved papa's blunders on the foreign relations 'front.'
![]() Former American ambassador to Moscow William Bullitt (once again, nomenclature plays college fraternity pranks on history) had informed Roosevelt that Stalin was not to be trusted and that now, after his prostration by Hitler's double-cross, would be the best time to drive a hard bargain for postwar concordats. In exchange for Lend-Lease, Bullitt argued, a guarantee should be given to the US that the Soviet Union would not seek territorial gains in Europe or Asia. To this Roosevelet responded, "I just have a hunch that Stalin is not that kind of man. Harry [Hopkins] says he's not... I think if I give him everything I possibly can and ask for nothing in return... he won't try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace." It's little-replayed sentences like the above that cause our own Macaulay of Camelot, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., to wake screaming in the night for fear of any unauthorized ad libbing from the script of conventional wisdom. It also causes him to pen to moral reinforcements of the Western shrug that defined Yalta and Tehran. See Art's latest fuck-you to Eastern Europe in the Times Literary Supplement, precipitated -- rather shamelessly, I think -- by the president's noble insistence that Vladimir Putin apologize for his country's former wrongs. --Michael Weiss [link] Dave Roemer... My friend Dave Roemer (he's a photographer) is shooting New York magazine and something he tells me is the it-book of fashion in the world, ID. Anyway, he's extremely talented and has a new website up, here. Check it out. (Also check out the uncanny Marielle Hemingway lookalike he has for a model.) --Michael Weiss [link] Global Network of the Devil... Yet another reason to support online writing - The Archbishop of Canterbury, "Doctor" Rowan Williams, doesn't like it: "He described the atmosphere on the world wide web as a free-for-all that was close to that of unpoliced conversation. And there's some truth in that. But what the hell is wrong with an "unpoliced" exchange of ideas? His Eminence, I'm sure, would love to be the one doing all the policing. Reactionary growls against the Internet as a means of communication only strengthen the Internet as a means of communication. Won't they ever get it? --Mark Grueter [link] Friday, June 17, 2005 - snarktip@snarksmith.com AIM: "snarksmithy" Tom and Katie: Playing for Keeps...
![]() To further hammer home the authenticity of their relationship, Cruise will later re-propose at the Eiffel Tower in Paris, Las Vegas. The Persian Version... Almost forgot: another groundbreaking Mideast election today. Pretty plum sinecure, being president of Iran. Lot of grape eating and concubine fanning, I'd imagine. Here's a handy BBC guide to Democracy on the March (In Place). It's going to be all right, though. Sean Penn is our man in Tehran. --Michael Weiss [link]
Manohla Dargis Gunning for Katie Holmes... From the ayatollah to a subtly expressed death wish of a global celebrity in the pages of the New York Times. Someone has got a bad case of the Fridays. That said, she's right. Batman Begins was terrific. And why oh why did I wait until today to read David Edelstein's hilarious review? But there's a lot of stuff in Batman Begins that doesn't measure up. The adorable Katie Holmes twitters civics lessons ("Justice is about harmony") as a crusading assistant D.A.÷she looks and acts like a know-it-all student council president. (A colleague cracked that the performance should please her boyfriend, though: She plays a woman who can keep a secret.) Surely, he's talking about the hidden location of the Scientology cave. What other secrets could Tom Cruise possibly have? --Michael Weiss [link]
Foucault and Iran... Sometimes I really do wonder if there's not a secret ritual lobotomy performed upon completion of one's doctorate. Consider: a pair of academic translators do the world, and the ever-popular museum exhibition of sinister intellectuals, a favor by giving us Michel Foucault's pathetic soundings on the Iranian revolution. (Surprise, surprise, he thought it was glorious, anti-imperialist and, one would image, the surest way to getting electrified nipple clamps wholesale in the Middle East.) Then one of them says something like this: "It's not that radical Islamism is getting a pass from Western progressives and liberals, but it is the case that many are not being critical enough," says Anderson. When certain polemicists are spreading simplistic ideas about "Islamo-Fascism," he continues, "there's a tendency to say that this isn't so. But the fact is that while radical Islamism has many features and faces, everywhere it is antifeminist, everywhere it is authoritarian, and everywhere it is intolerant of other religions and other interpretations of Islam." "These conservative, reactionary movements," Anderson says, "may be in conflict with a conservative Bush administration ÷ but that doesn't make them any less conservative or reactionary. The debate on Foucault helps to throw all this into high relief." Note the little cough (like a sheep caught in the mist on a mountaintop, as Bertie Wooster would say) of moral equivalence "put into perspective": These Koran-thumping mullahs who want to imprison women, murder atheists and secularists and homosexuals and Jews and Christians, and then somehow get Allah to give the divine thumbs-up on atomic fission -- hell, even Bush isn't that crazy. Thanks for the clarification, professor. Stick to translating tongues, not giving your own. And by the way, I know exactly whom you mean by "certain polemicists." The only thing simplistic is your thinking that you've elided responsibility for your unsolicited political opinions by not naming names. --Michael Weiss [link]
Wednesday, June 15, 2005 - snarktip@snarksmith.com AIM: "snarksmithy" Baby Jane... Was Jane Austen a Burkean Tory or a Painean Girondin? A subtle propagandist for women's liberation, or a fervid believer that a woman's place is in the home -- behind a writing desk? Frankly, the question couldn't matter less. It's all about the novels. Venture too far beyond them and what you get is head-clutchingly awful stuff like, For Emily Auerbach in Searching for Jane Austen, this view of Austen the politically correct emerges everywhere, for instance in Sense and Sensibility in the scene where Edward Ferrars's foppish brother Robert picks out a bejeweled toothpick case with great deliberation, and Auerbach feels that this passage perhaps hints at the devastating effects of "empire" on those who decadently reap its rewards without possessing any awareness of the labor and injustice supporting their own luxurious lifestyle. Yes, perhaps. For a minute I thought that was Eric Auerbach, celebrated author of Mimesis. Truly has literary theory zipped past the point of diminishing returns when the theorists' names are being recycled and abused by their epigones. Though even Emily has got the goods on William: It is improbable that she supported slavery; our sense of the person who wrote Pride and Prejudice would find that incredible, though as William Deresiewicz, in Jane Austen and the Romantic Poets, says, "Personally, I don't find it credible that Pride and Prejudice was written by anyone, at any age." And I don't find it credible that The New York Review of Books wastes ink citing such sub-tenure track piffle as that, yet neglects to mention the most insightful comment ever penned on the quiddity of Ms. Austen. Here's Auden in his Letter to Lord Byron:
In Defense of Tucker... I think I've figured out why people on both left and right so despise Tucker Carlson: he's essentially smarter than they are and he makes it a point to rub this fact in. So, it's not really the bowtie after all; it's that he's a pretentious prick. Good for Carlson, I say. Fuck rubes like Don Imus, who cut Carlson off his radio program Tuesday morning after Carlson challenged Imus on the subject of Contessa Brewer. Who is Contessa Brewer? An MSNBC reporter who once worked briefly doing news on the Imus show. I don't know exactly what happened between Imus and Brewer, but I tuned in one morning to hear Imus calling her a "fat idiot" and a slew of other niceties all of which were variations on the theme that Brewer was both "fat" and "stupid". She is, of course, neither, but that didn't impede the flow of Imus's sexist tirade. Imus has no interest in truth or fairness; he cares only about who is with him and who is against him. Anyone who challenges his tiny intellect has 'crossed' him and will be subject to witless invective: Tucker Carlson is now a "bowtied pussy and a punk". Howard Stern claims Imus used to call all his black secretaries "niggers" to their faces, in front of everyone else. Shame on all the DC/NYC cocktail circuit suck-ups like John McCain for feeding Imus's undeserved ego. If Imus was nearly as tough and important as he thinks he is, he wouldn't feel the need to cut his guests off the air and then go on for the next 10 minutes by himself about how much of an idiot that person is. Don Imus is a peasant come home |