Now, I know that the US has "lost its standing in the world" and all, but this is fairly preposterous. Europe may have its great writers (and I'm sure it does), but I hardly think that their existence and productivity negates the potential for great writers in the United States (and for writers in the rest of the world, for that matter). Even if there are no potential US candidates for the prize this year, the statement is uncalled for and below someone holding this position. I think US writers and the literature they have produced has proven itself worthy of admiration and study--at least, I (selfishly) hope so.
It's still a great prize, and those who receive it should be honored, but it my opinion literature is about so much more than this, especially snide comments from judges.
The best line from the article: "You would think that the permanent secretary of an academy that pretends to wisdom but has historically overlooked Proust, Joyce, and Nabokov, to name just a few non-Nobelists, would spare us the categorical lectures," said David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker.
What do others think?
9.30.2008
I love this city. Part II.
What this time? The ObamaBurger. It's got bacon (no Muslim would eat that), "Michelle-fist-pumped caramelized onions," and is served on multi-racial marble rye.
If you think I'm not going to go eat one of these this weekend, you are sadly mistaken.
If you think I'm not going to go eat one of these this weekend, you are sadly mistaken.
Russian Rihanna
I fully admit this is one of the weirdest things I've ever seen. But dude breaks that shit DOWN at the 2:08 mark!
Why the bailout vote failed.
I heard somebody on MSNBC say it was because the vote took place so fast that the whips of both parties didn't actually count the votes of their own party. So, there was confusion over who was actually supposed to vote for the bill and who was "allowed" to vote against it.
As this commentator noted (I'm too lazy to try and find video of this), typically the party whip makes sure that they have enough votes to pass (or reject, whatever the case may be) the bill, then releases those who want to vote against it--typically for political posturing--to vote as they please. This is why a huge amount of "nay" votes come in on a bill almost immediately after the necessary votes to pass have been cast. It was also noted that most of the Congressmen who voted against the bill are facing tough re-election campaigns (although I would like to see actual figures on this, but, again, I'm too lazy). Voting against this bill would allow them to say to their constituents that they don't bow down to Wall Street or Washington. And, if you're a Republican, you could even play it as being a "maverick."
Regardless, it really seems like the bill failed because of politics, not because people actually thought it was a bad deal. Unfortunately, we are never really told why something like this fails. 1) Politicians don't want people to see the petty games they play. 2) Most Americans could care less how Congress actually works, which is really sad. I was glad to see somebody in the media making an honest attempt to parse out exactly why the vote failed.
As this commentator noted (I'm too lazy to try and find video of this), typically the party whip makes sure that they have enough votes to pass (or reject, whatever the case may be) the bill, then releases those who want to vote against it--typically for political posturing--to vote as they please. This is why a huge amount of "nay" votes come in on a bill almost immediately after the necessary votes to pass have been cast. It was also noted that most of the Congressmen who voted against the bill are facing tough re-election campaigns (although I would like to see actual figures on this, but, again, I'm too lazy). Voting against this bill would allow them to say to their constituents that they don't bow down to Wall Street or Washington. And, if you're a Republican, you could even play it as being a "maverick."
Regardless, it really seems like the bill failed because of politics, not because people actually thought it was a bad deal. Unfortunately, we are never really told why something like this fails. 1) Politicians don't want people to see the petty games they play. 2) Most Americans could care less how Congress actually works, which is really sad. I was glad to see somebody in the media making an honest attempt to parse out exactly why the vote failed.
9.29.2008
Family Guy Season Premiere
One of the best family guy episodes yet, especially the Cyrano part (and NO I'm not an anti-Semite).
I love this city.
Only in Chicago would a bar have a nude portrait of Sarah Palin painted on the wall (nsfw-ish). Note I said painted on the wall, not hung on the wall. Awesome.
How long before Palin is forced to withdraw?
I thought Tina Fey's most recent portrayal of Palin was a huge exaggeration, but this opinion piece in Newsweek, with quotes from the Couric interview, made me realize how much trouble Palin really is in. Who wants to put some money down on whether or not she has to withdraw before the election?
It Takes a Removal from Office
Since they left office, President Clinton and Al Gore have gone on to do great things. The former started the Clinton Global Initiative to fight AIDS in Africa, and the latter raised awareness of global warning. President Carter (although some may think he's lost it) has continued his work outside of political office to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These are just a few examples (and I'm sure there are many more), but my point here is that these cases evidence the fact that politics get in the way of getting real things done--meaningful things that affect peoples' lives.
I think of this because today in the NYTimes, there is an article about how Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Prime Minister of Israel, said in an interview that Israel needs to withdraw from most (if not all) of its West Bank settlements and stop posturing toward an international conflict with Iran. These are striking comments coming from the leader of Israel, comments that need to be said but, unfortunately, are only said as he is leaving office under the suspicion of government corruption. It seems as though Israeli (and international) politics have limited his ability to say this before, and again, have stood in the way of meaningful change.
(The Times article gives a brief statement from the opposition: "Avigdor Lieberman, who heads the Yisrael Beiteinu party, said on the radio that Mr. Olmert was 'endangering the existence of the State of Israel irresponsibly' [and that] "those who thought Israel’s problem was a lack of defined borders — as Mr. Olmert stated in the interview — 'are ignoramuses who don’t understand anything and they invite war.'" Just thought this was interesting because it clearly defines how unproductive these politics can be.)
I think of this because today in the NYTimes, there is an article about how Ehud Olmert, the outgoing Prime Minister of Israel, said in an interview that Israel needs to withdraw from most (if not all) of its West Bank settlements and stop posturing toward an international conflict with Iran. These are striking comments coming from the leader of Israel, comments that need to be said but, unfortunately, are only said as he is leaving office under the suspicion of government corruption. It seems as though Israeli (and international) politics have limited his ability to say this before, and again, have stood in the way of meaningful change.
(The Times article gives a brief statement from the opposition: "Avigdor Lieberman, who heads the Yisrael Beiteinu party, said on the radio that Mr. Olmert was 'endangering the existence of the State of Israel irresponsibly' [and that] "those who thought Israel’s problem was a lack of defined borders — as Mr. Olmert stated in the interview — 'are ignoramuses who don’t understand anything and they invite war.'" Just thought this was interesting because it clearly defines how unproductive these politics can be.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
