Life is too short, way too short, to waste one's time with science fiction.

Proof in point? Someone going by the name of Shannen Coffin, just one of the many losers living these days off the dimes of the near-dead William F. Buckley, recently showed his scary privates to the world thusly:

[T]he essay I wrote in freshman year at a Catholic college analyzing Darth Vader in terms of Soren [sic] Kierkegaard's ["]Sickness Unto Death["] (all that self becoming the self stuff [sic])[.]

Believe it or not, that sorry discharge was followed by a reference to Bill Murray, who was once mildly funny and vaguely interesting, but a really, really long time ago.

[Post-publication addendum (February 1): Speaking of losers, and we were, it's fitting that John Podhoretz -- New York Post columnist, Mets fan, VRWC gravy-train feeder extraorinaire, and known drag-name user ("Tiffany Midgeson") -- haplessly was trying to do the same on Sunday in "Vindicated." Go ahead; have a laugh. (Link via TBogg.)]

| HOME |

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Found by way of Peevish.]

| HOME |

The unembarrassable Charles Krauthammer, recently exposed for pulling a George Will during the Bush administration's preparation for the inauguration, today shrugged off the widely held notion that he's a sheepish toady-for-hire and went to print with yet another entirely unobjective paean to stupidity. Dr. K writes:

In this country, it is customary to allow the president to choose [the members of] his own Cabinet so [sic] long as the nominee[s] is [are] minimally qualified. [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

I see. So Chuck would have us believe the brilliant minds who wrote the Constitution of the United States of America, specifically Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, were looking for losers, because, you know, guys like Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin were, like, totally down with the "minimally qualified."

How does one define "minimally qualified," you ask?

I'm not sure, but if anyone can define the term, President Short Bus is the man for the job, with a little help from liberal-media sycophants like Krauthammer.

| HOME |

The Chicago Sun-Times today reports twice-failed U.S. Senate candidate, once-failed presidential aspirant, and longtime right-wing gravy-train rider Alan Keyes is considering a run for governor. (Governor of his newfound home state of Illinois, one presumes, though the article is not clear on this point.)

Keep at it, dude. Maybe one day something will stick.

By the way, Alan, how's Maya?

| HOME |

Newsweek, which years ago was dumbed down to the lowest uncommon denominator, hit yet another nadir in the January 31 issue, most notably in the front-of-the-book feature "Conventional Wisdom."

Right -- and I mean that -- off the bat, the writer or writers needle readers with this purported aphorism: "Despite a divided country, the Inauguration made all of us feel we were seeing history in the best sense."

Now, I wasn't there, there, but speaking only for myself and not for "all of us," I felt nothing of the kind.

And then the magazine reports the "C.W." on the Bush twins is on the rise:

Old ["C.W."]: Jenna and Barbara are political version of Hilton sisters. New ["C.W."]: Classy First Daughters are Jackie O clones.

Please avail yourselves of the courtesy bags in the seat-back pockets in front of you.

| HOME |

You know, if I were to attend an international gathering at Auschwitz memorializing the tragedy of the Holocaust, I would wear black.

"You mean the NFC Championship game was last week?"

A black suit and black shoes. Black socks, even.

But that's just me.

[Post-publication addendum I: See also World O' Crap, No More Mister Nice Blog, the American Street, The Sideshow, and Eschaton.]

[Post-publication addendum II: Reader M.A.C. writes: "Classic. In the tradition of all our illustrious VPs. I bet he watches TV in his underwear."]

| HOME |

The Rittenhouse Review isn't my life; granted the Review takes up a substantial portion thereof, but I assure you I have, and have had, much else going on, including, for a while, a secondary blog, TRR: The Lighter Side of Rittenhouse, a weblog I published from July 2002 until February 2004.

Big news!

I revived TRR yesterday, January 27, with three posts: "Miscellaneous Observation," "Left Behind," and "Too Much on Page One."

Like it or hate it, but keep in mind that no lesser a critic than Mrs. TBogg was an early and avid fan of TRR, and then consider the talented stud with whom she shares her daily life. I mean, really, how does Mrs. TBogg cope with such persistent brilliance?

I'll do my best and all that.

| HOME |

Bespectacled Fashion Editor Carrie Donovan

Bespectacled Fashion Architect Philip Johnson

| HOME |

A new reader poll has been published in the sidebar at right asking, "Should Lawrence H. Summers resign his position as president of Harvard University?"

Readers may choose from three possible responses: yes, no, and don't know/not sure/no answer.

The results of the poll will be posted here on Friday, February 4.

| HOME |

Alex Kingston

Chelsea Clinton

| HOME |

Almost seven years ago I moved from Washington, D.C., to New York, settling, despite my (far) better judgment but upon the insistence of my then partner, on the unbearably dowdy and generally useless Upper West Side of Manhattan.

There were, maybe, a few advatanges to this particular location, or at least one I can think of, namely, the proximity of our 30th-floor "penthouse" (Hey, it was on the top floor.) at West 70th Street and Amsterdam Avenue to Central Park, particularly the unauthorized "dog run" right there on the west side of the park between 69th and 68th Streets.

At the time, I owned two bulldogs, the well known, much beloved, and overly blogged Mildred, as well as the lesser known but no less loved Mona, a rescue bulldog, since departed, who will remain always close to our hearts.

Now, Mildred loved going to Central Park, as did Mona. Once we got there, Mildred enjoyed socializing with the other dogs in the forbidden play area. Mona, well, she wasn't so interested in the company. Mona always was a wanderer. If we didn't keep an eye on her, God knows where she would have found herself. True not only of New York, but also of the resort areas of upstate New York where we visited my siblings.

The walk back home, from Central Park to (the creepy place at) West 70th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, was a chore. No sweat for Mona, who without supervision gladly would have trekked north as far as Columbia University or as far south as Rockefeller Center, but a big deal for Mildred.

What to do? Hmmm . . . Buy a wagon? Maybe one of those old-fashioned red wagons? Maybe an old-fashioned red wagon with the wooden slats along all sides to keep the precious cargo in place?

Aspiring to Mildredom

Sounded great to me. He who must not be named (my ex) bought it. I, of course, put it together. And on the first planned ride back from Central Park, Mildred, the bulldog most in need of the wagon's assistance, stepped back, far back, and away from the beautiful new wagon because, I think, the wagon made too much noise, while Mona, who had no cognizance of distance whatsoever, hopped in and rode it home like Cleopatra. With Mildred not riding, and Mona looking out with a superior, "Yeah, I'm cool" attitude, we continued our practice of stopping every half-block, west-bound, from Central Park West to Amsterdam Avenue, to allow Mildred to catch her breath, take a few sips of water, and, if at all possible, perhaps nibble a banana.

Things got better after the ex, at the time the then-suddenly ex, started spending my money on himself. I moved downtown and, as a consequence, Mildred wasn't forced urged to venture into Central Park. Instead, Mildred sort of just hung around Chelsea, hobnobbing with her new around-the-corner friends on 18th Street, including, now and then, the Wegman Weimeraners.

Okay, so sort of.

No matter how beautiful your dog, and Mildred is just gorgeous, the most you will get from William Wegman, no matter how many times you meet him and his over-photographed meal tickets on the streets, is a slight nod.

| HOME |

Have you been watching the so-called reality TV series, "Project Runway," recently and currently running on cable network Bravo TV?

The series began with 12 aspiring fashion designers seeking the ultimate prize: his or her own show during New York's "Fashion Week," a grant of $100,000 to launch an independent line, and, I think, some Anna Wintour rejects, or give-away samples, from such lines at Prada, Versace, and Jil Sander.

As of tonight's episode, we -- the royal we, of course -- had been reduced to just six designers, all of them, in my opinion, incredibly talented.

Sadly, the decision of the judges on this evening's episode -- hostess Heidi Klum, the May-Federated Hegemony's Great White Hope Michael Kors, Anne Slowey of Elle magazine, and self-styled lunatic, self-proclaimed nudist, and other-designated loser Betsey Johnson -- was, is, and will remain, utterly unjustifiable.

At the last possible moment, always-lagging, always-whining, and always-overrated contestant Wendy Pepper was chosen over the far more talented Kevin Johnn, the "team leader" during the series' latest challenge.

I protest. Not too much. Not in the Hamletian sense, but still.

(By the way, does anyone have Kevin's phone number or e-mail address?)

| HOME |

Susan Sontag

Cruella Deville

[Note: Thanks to M.D. for the notion.]

| HOME |

There's a disheartening article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, "Sledders Are Finding it Tough to Hit the Slopes," in which reporter Christine Schiavo writes of the dispiriting atmosphere surrounding sledding, tubing, and tobaggoning in this day and age, specifically addressing some local governments' decisions to outlaw this timeless childhood and adolescent activity, in certain cases relying upon regulations dating back more than ten years.

Here's the scare statistic, offered by "Today" show perennials, the easily frightened nannies at the U.S. Consumer Product "A child could choke on that!" Safety Commission: "[M]ore than 30,000 sledders, about half of them younger than 14, sought emergency-room treatment last year."

(Um . . . How many of those 30,000 were sent away by hospital staff tired of dealing with hysterical baby-boom parents?)

You know the culprit, or the assigned culprit: litigation and rising insurance premiums.

I think often about how much today's kids are missing. Kids get hurt. Sometimes they get hurt a lot, and badly. I did; didn't you? Is that so horrible? Didn't you learn something from that? About your limits, what's reasonable, and what's stupid? I did.

God, the things we did back then! The crazy, dangerous, and reckless acts that we, my siblings and our friends, I mean, did and still haven't revealed to our parents, they who bore the full weight of numerous emergency-room visits!

Whoever it was who invented the concept of the "play date" should be shot.

| HOME |

For this week's quotes of the week, enjoy, if you will, a brief selection from today's "news conference" conducted -- and I mean that -- by President Act Like Be a Drunk, having a little "fun" at the expense of senior citizens:

Q: I seem to remember a time in Texas on another problem, taxes, where you tried to get out in front and tell people it's not a crisis now, it's going to be a crisis down the line -- you went down in flames on that one. Why --

The President: Actually, I -- if I might. (Laughter.) I don't think a billion-dollar tax relief that permanently reduced property taxes on senior citizens was "flames," but since you weren't a senior citizen, perhaps that's your definition of "flames."

Q: I never got my billion --

The President: Yes. Because you're not a senior citizen yet. Acting like one, however. Go ahead. (Laughter.)

Q: What is there about government that makes it hard --

The President: Faulty memory. (Laughter.)

Q: -- to address things in advance, before it's a crisis?

The President: Do we have a crisis in Texas now on school property taxes?

Q: Yes, we do.

The President: Thank you.

No, President Black-Out, thank you.

| HOME |

I knew there would be additional shoes to drop. First came Armstrong Williams, and now we learn about Maggie Gallagher.

The otherwise detestable Howard Kurtz, "media reporter" at the Washington Post, a man who also takes a regular paycheck, incongruously and unethically, as the host of a CNN program going by the astonishingly dishonest name "Reliable Sources," today reported that Gallagher, every Republican's favorite hitched -- With children! -- gal, received more than $40,000 from the Bush administration to promote the regime's bizarre initiative best known as "Everybody -- except those creepy gays -- should get married!"

You have to read Gallagher's incredibly lame self-defense, "A Question of Disclosure," available at Townhall.com. Here's the gag line, in which Gallagher attempts, unsuccessfully, to distance herself from the disgraced Armstrong Williams:

[T]he reason Howard Kurtz of the Post is interested is the now-notorious case of conservative columnist Armstrong Williams, who signed a very different sort of government contract: to promote Bush's No Child Left Behind Act on his television show.

"Very different," Maggie says, because, if I'm reading her awkward prose correctly, well, Williams promoted Bush administration policies "on his television show," unlike third- or fourth-ringer Gallagher, who makes her party-line views known through her syndicated newspaper columns and "frequent media appearances." Now that's very different.

Unknown fact: Gallagher once sent me an e-mail, co-authored by a lesbian Catholic blogger, seeking my participation in some sort of "defend traditional marriage" web site or weblog they were planning. I have no idea what became of the project -- it may well be up and running, perhaps even successful -- but, frankly, I couldn't care less.

[Post-publication addendum (February 1): See also "$5000 An Idea, Full Service, by Michelangelo Signorile in the latest issue of the New York Press. Pull quote: "Gallagher's crime is far more egregious than Williams'[s], despite the latter having made $240,000 for his efforts, while Gallagher only made off with a little over $40,000 ($21,000 for writing the government's marriage initiative brochures, and a subsequent payment of $20,000). What few media reports noted last week was that Gallagher, in addition to writing the Bush administration brochures and pumping up its policies in her columns, testified before a Senate subcommittee in support of the federal marriage amendment that the White House eventually backed and pushed throughout the presidential campaign. But Gallagher was not identified before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights as the individual who wrote the White House's policy on marriage, but rather as the president of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, an independent think tank. She was thus a paid witness on behalf of the Bush administration, testifying before the Senate."]

| HOME |

I'm bogged down by several other projects this week. Posting may be light through Thursday.

| HOME |

The top choice among Rittenhouse readers for the prospective winner of this year's Super Bowl (XXXIX, or 39) is the New England Patriots, proving, if nothing else, and more likely proving nothing else, that this weblog is something greater than a regional phenomenon.

Before the N.F.C. Championship game began this afternoon, readers selected their top pick as follows: Patriots, 42 percent; the Philadelphia Eagles, 37 percent; the Pittsburgh Steelers, 16 percent; and the Atlanta Falcons, 5 percent.

Surely you are aware by now that the Eagles today beat the Falcons 27-10, and the Patriots topped the Steelers by 41 to 27 .

As if this were any surprise, I voted for the Philadelphia Eagles, out of both preference and prediction.

See you in two weeks, though likely sooner.

| HOME |

I recently ran into these two, neighbors of mine, the elder a blogger, on their midday walk through our shared neighborhood.

Life in a large city doesn’t have to be solitary or impersonal. It just depends on who’s in the area. I’m lucky that way.

| HOME |

I received an e-mail yesterday from a friend of mine, a prominent neoconservative intellectual and the son of an unreconstructed and unrepentant anti-communist socialist:

[Y]ou were on my mind just this weekend, even though we haven’t corresponded for a while.

I was in New York to spend the weekend with my parents, as I do about every six weeks. They increasingly need my attention. My dad, now 88, is losing some clarity, and of course physical infirmities limit has outside activity.

His obsession with politics is still far and away his strongest interest, and he expressed some desire to know how to find things on the net that would interest him. He had a vague idea about blogs, so I introduced him to Rittenhouse and bookmarked it on his computer.

I showed him your links to the blogs you like, and told him that he could find lots of left-wing blogs there, and he could then discover which ones he liked best. (Quite unlike you, and I hope me, dad hates to read anything he disagrees with. He is only interested in leftist writers, those but not tainted by pro-communism. They have to be his kind of leftist.) [Ed.: I think I’m his dad’s kind of leftist. My master’s thesis, after all, was about neoconservative anti-communism, back when I was, or thought I myself as, a neoconservative anti-communist.]

I don’t think he got to any of the links. Rather, he immediately became engrossed in Rittenhouse, and I heard him laughing out loud in hearty agreement with your skewering of some rightist folly. Unlike many ventures in which I have tried to show him things on the computer, our outing to Rittenhouse was a big success.

This just blows me away. Given the source of this compliment, I’m so flattered I’m blushing. And I’m not a blusher.

| HOME |

Time is running out for your participation in the latest Rittenhouse reader poll, which asks, “Who is your pick to win the Super Bowl?”

At last check the New England Patriots were leading the poll with 50 percent of the vote, followed by the Philadelphia Eagles (the favorite here) at 30 percent, with the Pittsburgh Steelers and Atlanta Falcons seriously -- and justifiably -- lagging at 14 and six percent, respectively.

You will find the Super Bowl reader poll in the side bar at right, just below the quotes of the week.

| HOME |

There are two new blogs to which I would like to draw your attention today: Malkin Watch, which was launched in December, and which has taken on the unpleasant task of reading syndicated right-wing columnist, homeschooler, internment advocate, and blogger Michelle Maglalang Malkin; and President Boxer, created by my friend Madeleine Begun Kane, a site that raises and discusses the intriguing notion of Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee in 2008.

| HOME |

Who will take the seat currently occupied by CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather?

According to Philadelphia Inquirer media critic Gail Shister in two separate columns -- “There’s a Name for that CBS Anchor Buzz” (January 17) and “Almighty Anchor Passe” (January 19) -- the names in contention, or under consideration, include: Bob Schieffer, John Roberts, Ted Koppel, Katie Couric, Jon Stewart, and Anderson Cooper.

My pick? (Preference, not prediction.)

Cooper.

| HOME |

About a week ago I asked Rittenhouse readers for some help with a book on which I’m working.

I thought maybe a stray Los Angeles-area reader might be able to take a few photographs in Santa Monica to assist my research. Just taking a shot, you know.

No fewer than three readers came through with offers to help, and C.W. of West Adams, newly acquired digital camera in very able hands, sent along more than a dozen outstanding photographs for which I am extremely grateful.

Meanwhile, another reader, M.K., a Michigan resident, has offered to assist with the Marquette project to which I referred in an addendum to the initial request.

You, Rittenhouse readers, are amazing. Thank you all.

| HOME |

For months -- for months before the so-called mainstream media gave the matter serious and sustained consideration -- I’ve been writing about the difficulties encountered by transportation companies, and specifically reserve transportation companies, and more specifically reserve transportation companies without adequate vehicular armor, and most specifically, the 427th Transportation Co., based in nearby Norristown, Pa., may God protect them all.

This afternoon I received, indirectly, a prayer request from a member of the 57th Transportation Battalion, a man whose name I am withholding here. He writes, in relevant part:

As a transportation battalion, my unit will be delivering the voting machines and the ballots to villages and cities throughout Iraq during the upcoming elections. (January 30/31[, 2005.]) Our convoys are prime targets for the insurgents because they do not want the equipment to arrive at the polling stations nor do they want the local Iraqi citizens to have the chance to vote; timely delivery must occur so that the elections occur.

Encourage your friends and family members and those within our churches to pray specifically for the electoral process. Historically, the previous totalitarian regime would not allow individual citizens to vote. Democracy will not be realized in Iraq if intelligent and competent officials are not elected to those strategic leadership positions within the emerging government; freedom will not have an opportunity to ring throughout this country if the voting process fails. […]

A prayer vigil prior to the end of the month may be an innovative opportunity for those within your sphere of influence to pray. This is a political battle that needs spiritual intervention. […]

My soldiers are at the nerve center of the logistic operation to deliver the voting machines and election ballots. They will be driving to and entering the arena of the enemy. This is not a game for them[;] it is a historical mission that is extremely dangerous.

I know that while this soldier’s sentiments are unlike those of many Rittenhouse readers, his is a widely shared voice that deserves our attention, “our,” in this case, meaning liberals and leftists skeptical of the Bush administration’s aims in Iraq and elsewhere, but those who also genuinely care and are concerned about the welfare of American soldiers.

The Bush administration speaks for itself. Ineloquently so. And the men and women on the ground speak for themselves. In voices we can respect and admire.

Regardless of whether the goals and aims of the White House and the Pentagon match the aspirations of those pursuing the formers’ objectives matters little when real lives are on the line. When push comes to shove, I’m with the soldiers on the ground. They’re much more informed, and far more in touch with reality. Take sides, will you?

| HOME |

Early this afternoon the snow began falling over Philadelphia in the first meaningful and sustained quantity of the season. It fell quite quickly, and not for very long, and last I checked, the accumulation was at most, I’m guessing, around three-quarter inch of dry snow, accompanied by plenty of icy spots on streets and sidewalks.

As I walked home from South Street around six this evening I was struck, as we often are, by the beauty and wonder of the season’s first snow storm and the soft warmth it leaves behind, particularly the lovely detritus laid upon otherwise harsh and forbidding cityscapes.

It feels warmer when it snows. I’m sure there’s a logical explanation within the field of atmospheric science for that, but it sounds counterintuitive nonetheless. In the best way possible, I would add.

There were several automobile accidents in the greater metropolitan area, as WCAU-TV (NBC, Channel 10), among others of course, reports tonight. No matter the number of winters we Northeasterners have endured, it still takes us a while to regain our footing. So to speak.

| HOME |

A new reader poll has been posted in the sidebar at right, asking readers to make their pick to win the N.F.L.’s Superbowl XXXIX (39): the Atlanta Falcons, New England Patriots, Philadelphia Eagles, or Pittsburgh Steelers.

Votes will be taken until the games begin this weekend.

I’m, uh, withholding my vote until the poll is completed.

Thank you in advance for your participation.

[Post-publication addendum: Lori, your Steelers vote counts just once, no matter how hard you might try. The same goes for New England fans, real and presumed, C.C.P. and C.J.C.]

| HOME |

Two companies, two products, and one incredibly irritating song selected for each of their latest television commercials:

Broadband service from Vonage and the Cobalt from Chevrolet.

Isn’t there a central resource to coordinate this kind of thing? I mean, just to reduce the overall level of annoyance among consumers. And if not, why not?

| HOME |

Do you know what the best thing is about visiting National Review’s diminutive weblog, The Corner? If you’re the snarky, lefty type -- like I am -- it’s that even the very first post one encounters offers plenty of fodder for blogging fun.

I visited the Home of the Dunce Caps just half an hour ago and was greeted initially by this post by National Review senior editor and purported literary scholar and critic, Rick Brookhiser:

BOXER ON IRAQI BLOGGERS [Rick Brookhiser]

Among other things, the Sarah Boxer piece on the Iraqi bloggers is notably jejeune [sic] -- college[-]newspaper[-]level stuff.

Note first that Brookhiser, while writing about Boxer, provides NR-Zero readers no courtesy link to her “offensive” piece, the same treatment Glenn Rehnolds (He persistently misspells my name; I return the favor.) has always accorded to Rittenhouse, and one I accordingly have adopted in return to Rehnolds and most of his pitiable acolytes.

Next, note the use of the “word” “jejeune.”

Interesting word, that: “jejeune.”

You don’t know it?

You shouldn’t.

You have no reason to know such “word.”

How would you pronounce it?

You can’t.

Why not?

Because there is no such “word,” not in English anyway, as “jejeune.”

I can only assume Brookhiser meant to write “jejune.”

Let’s have an eighth-grade vocabulary lesson, shall we? Brookhiser included. (Kathryn Jean Lopez Lopez may sit in on the class if she likes, but she must promise not to pass notes and swear not to doodle anything that includes the depiction of a heart nor a variation upon her name that includes the honorific "Mrs.")

The following comes courtesy of Dictionary.com:

je•june
adj.
1. Not interesting; dull: “and there pour forth jejune words and useless empty phrases” (Anthony Trollope).
2. Lacking maturity; childish: surprised by their jejune responses to our problems.
3. Lacking in nutrition: a jejune diet.
[From Latin i i nus, meager, dry, fasting.]
je•june ly adv.
je•june ness n.

I can’t help but wonder whether Brookhiser believes the English language borrowed “jejeune,” whatever that is, from the French, and not from the Latin.

Wait, isn’t William F. Buckley a devoted impassionata of Latin?

Still more evidence of Buckley’s unreported passing, I suppose.

| HOME |

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) today wrote to supporters about the war on Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and President Two Out Vehicles Short of Poor White Trash:

I have just come back from Iraq. After several months consumed by the campaign trail, I wanted to make contact with our soldiers on the ground there. The first thing I want you to know is that, in very difficult circumstances, our brave soldiers are serving America with enormous skill and great courage.

In the Senate, we have a duty during times like these to hold our Defense Department accountable for the well-being of our troops. It’s one of the ways that our democracy makes our military the strongest in the world. And I can’t tell you how comforting it is as a soldier to know even if you don’t have a say over your own situation, the folks back home do.

I knew our soldiers were still facing hold ups getting the equipment they need, but I wanted to see it for myself. American troops deserve the best gear and equipment we can provide. But adequate vehicle armor remains in short supply.

A soldier who spoke up about these problems was told by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, “you have to go to war with the army you have, not the army you want.” Well, it’s been over two years since Rumsfeld planned this war. And whether he has the army he wants or not, he should at least have basic armor for army vehicles.

I’ll say this in the Senate, but I’m asking you to add your voice to mine:

“President Bush, for the sake of our troops, replace Rumsfeld now.” [Emphasis added.]

More than 500,000 called for Rumsfeld to resign during the presidential campaign. I’m renewing my call now -- please renew yours too, and forward this email to friends to bring them on board. Add your name to mine here, and add your voice to mine by speaking out in your community as I will do in the U.S. Senate for as long as it takes to remove Secretary Rumsfeld from his post. [...]

It’s a question of competence. Poor planning at the Pentagon is letting American soldiers down. According to the National Intelligence Council, the CIA director’s think tank, Iraq is now providing the next generation of “professionalized” terrorists with “a training ground, a recruitment ground, [and] the opportunity for enhancing technical skills.” Our troops need a capable Secretary of Defense. At the very least, they absolutely need that.

I believe that together, the three million of us who worked together on the campaign can help the troops. We not only have a right to speak out against failed Bush policies: we have a duty to defend this country from a President who refuses to recognize the total inadequacy of his own Defense Secretary. That’s how democracy works. And that’s why America has worked all these years.

The campaign season is over, but our citizenship continues. I know from personal experience that citizens and Senators standing up for the truth can be a powerful combination. Now, with email and the Web as citizenship tools, we can make ourselves heard even more clearly. And I can’t tell you how inspired I am that you and I are using these tools to fight side-by-side for the things we believe in.

One more time: please join me in my call for President Bush to fire Donald Rumsfeld. He’s the man responsible for the well-being of our troops. He’s neglected his duty. He’s made excuses. It’s time for him to go.

Add your voice to mine in the Senate in calling for President Bush to replace Rumsfeld today.

I couldn’t agree more, or I expect many readers are of like mind. If so, please join me in signing Sen. Kerry’s petition and urging your friends to do the same.

The time for excuses, as evidence by the Pentagon secretary’s continued hubris in the face of massive death, violence, and inadequate treatment of our troops and veterans, is plainly over.

| HOME |

We’re halfway into the series premiere of “The Ultimate Fighter,” now, at this very moment, being shown on Spike TV.

I’m not quite sure what to make of this program, let alone the series concept -- and the target audience, if you catch my drift -- but I can safely promise I’ll be watching next week.

| HOME |

Indulge me, if only this one time (“Heh.”), to be a bit self-congratulatory by pointing out that The Rittenhouse Review today was named the week’s featured blog at Philly Future.

Philly Future site editor Karl Martino, who also is the proprietor of Paradox1x, writes:

Whether it be the huge list of [Philadelphia-]related links he maintains, his liberal political evangelism, or his efforts at networking [Philadelphia] bloggers (he got us together for the only independent blogger get together I am aware of), he deserves a bookmark from you.

I’m honored, pleased, and flattered by this recognition, and urge you to visit both Philly Future and Paradox1x, now and regularly hereafter.

By the way, speaking of recognitions and nods and such -- and we were -- the semi-final round of voting for the Third Annual Koufax Awards is still open at the site of sponsor Wampum, the prestigious series of awards in which The Rittenhouse Review this year has been nominated in two categories.

The first 2004 nomination, for “Best Overall Blog”, is for the best, in Wampum’s words, “non-professional/[non-]sponsored blog.” (I’ll leave it to Rittenhouse readers to decide for themselves whether every nominee in this category is truly “non-sponsored,” in even the most casual sense of that term.)

The second 2004 nomination is for “Best Writing,” a category for which, believe it or not, the competition is even greater than that for best liberal weblog.

As previously noted, your support in the semi-final round of voting, already underway, is much appreciated.

| HOME |

I know there are exceptions -- most notably Pulitzer Prize-winner Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News and also of the outstanding and soon-to-be-renamed weblog, Campaign Extra -- but in general it became clear long ago that few newspaper and magazine reporters are unsuited, constitutionally or otherwise, to the art and science of blogging.

Still, it’s no surprise, despite these failures, to see so-called mainstream publications continuing to assign their own reporters, people with no experience whatsoever in the field, to launch proprietary weblogs. (Just yesterday I cited the lame attempt by “interim” Houston Chronicle editor James Howard Gibbons to replicate, just for fun, I think, an ersatz weblog as part of that venerable, in name only, paper’s regular “Editorial Journal” feature.)

And just tonight I learned -- and this is a scoop -- the Philadelphia Inquirer this week will launch its own institutionally and site-sponsored weblog, one to be authored by Frank Wilson, the paper’s books editor, and the author of Sunday’s review essay, “By Swarming, Bloggers Turned the Internet Into Influence,”, a highly sympathetic -- and unusally uninformed -- review of Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That’s Changing Your World, by one Hugh Hewitt.

Wilson’s review, dated January 16, 2005, comes just days before the editor will enter the blogosphere, a debut about which Wilson -- and his editors -- cared not one whit to share with readers.

With Wilson entering this new genre, one in which many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of his colleagues have failed, and miserably so, I think it’s fair, given Wilson's sorry performance on Sunday, to question his prospects. But Wilson already has proved one, if only one, thing, likely to work to his advantage, honest or otherwise, in the next few years weeks: the ability to suck up to right-wing bloggers, and at just the right pre-launch moment.

| HOME |

This week, heading toward Thursday’s inauguration, out to be interesting, or frustrating, disgusting, revolting, inebriating, or all of the above.

Meanwhile, let’s all join in celebrating the fun and games -- and I mean that -- with the Freeway Blogger’s special boy-king coronation edition.

| HOME |

Yoko Ono

Ozzy Osbourne

| HOME |

Ever since Williams/Paige-Gate erupted last week I’ve wondered how many right-wing and Republican bloggers not otherwise feasting on the vast conspiracy’s well funded gravy train were on the take. Then, after David Corn of The Nation got Armstrong Williams, the 240-thousand-dollar-man, on the record saying “There are others,” I couldn’t wait for the inevitable fallout, though I suspected it would take some time.

Well, it’s already begun. Actually, Ben Hanten of Dirty Flower wrote about this more than a month ago, not that anyone cared.

According to Hanten, Senator-elect John Thune (R-S.D.) “paid $27,000 to Jon Lauck of the Daschle v. Thune blog for five months work. Jason Van Beek of South Dakota Politics was paid $8,000 for the same period. (Thune defeated incumbent Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle in the November election.)

There’s more:

This is insane. Nowhere on Daschle v. Thune was there a disclaimer that he was being paid $5,200 per month by a candidate. It brings Lauck’s entire credibility into question. As a state employee (instructor at SDSU [Ed.: South Dakota State University]) he is already pushing the limits ([former Gov. Bill] Janklow would never have allowed a liberal prof[essor] to publish [his/her] views). [Ed.: Emphasis in original.]

Van Beek’s $8,000 is no chump change either. These guys spent every day attacking Daschle and promoting the “Rock Star” Thune. They had perfect timing on issues like the last minute Daschle lawsuit. How could they have known? Because Dick Wadhams had hired them! [Ed.: Wadhams was Thune’s campaign manager.] Lauck admitted that he had access to information he wouldn’t have [had] otherwise.

Daschle v. Thune and South Dakota Politics were and forever will be paid advertisements by John Thune. And . . . now the two have joined forces. Lauck has quit his blog and joined Van Beek’s.

All materials paid for by a campaign need to have a disclaimer saying so. They deceived their readers. These guys sold their names and tarnished what little reputation and credibility bloggers have. Who can blame them for that kind of money?

Not me. Frankly, I wouldn’t mind a retainer like that secured by Daschle v. Thune, but I assure you that had I landed such a contract I would have told you about it. And I wouldn’t have spent the last 12 months subsisting on pasta and ramen.

(Thanks to Vaara of Silt 3.0 for the link.)

| HOME |

Oh my God. I’m not sure what’s appropriate here: pity or mockery. I’ll go with the latter.

James Howard Gibbons, who fortunately for all Houstonians carries around the rather humiliating title of “interim editor” of the Houston Chronicle’s opinion pages, today had published a little piece entitled “Notes on Blogs,” in which he scribbled, among almost nothing else, the following:

Web logs [sic], or blogs, are the hot new medium for commentary. So many have sprung up that one can only tend to a narrow selection or a digest of highlights.

I have sampled a few blogs, but enjoyed fewer. Though reluctant to do anyone an injustice, I find that most blogs lack the elegance, wit[,] and insight one looks for in magazine commentary and editorial pages in their ideal state.

“Ideal state.” That’s a nice touch. Where does the “ideal state” exist, if anywhere at all? And in which American newspaper’s editorial pages does one consistently, or even occasionally, find elegance, wit, and insight? The Chronicle? Please.

Gibbons surely is looking for good blogging in all the wrong places. Why do I feel justified in suspecting the interim editor limited his blog skimming to such overrated sites as the Daily Dish, Instapundit, and Kausfiles, the persistently dull and self-referential triumvirate that constitutes the “research” of every lazy, oblivious newspaper or magazine reporter who attempts to explain the blogosphere, a space in which they are neither welcome nor particularly well suited.

To make matters worse -- for himself -- Gibbons, having disdainfully dished the weblog genre writ large, then had the audacity to try his hand at blogging.

How clever of Gibbons to “prove” weblogs aren’t worth anyone’s time by offering as an allegedly prototypical example of blogging three trite and thoroughly uninteresting items (Halliburton, the Bible and the Harris County Courthouse, and something about the state budget), with not a single link embedded therein, nor even a whiff of the highly valued traits of elegance, wit, or insight.

Go take a look if you must, but let me assure you, it’s a veritable tragedy, and Gibbons is a miserable failure.

[Post-publication addendum: Charles Kuffner of Off the Kuff is at least equally shocked by the Chronicle’s stunning lapse in interim editorial judgment, and offers links to other bloggers’ comments on Gibbons’s embarrassing slobber.]

| HOME |

Last week a Rittenhouse reader, or visitor, going by the name of Aakash took advantage of the comments feature here to promote a book written by someone called Hugh Hewitt, a name that until then hadn’t entered my consciousness, but a name that subsequently appeared at various weblogs I visit regularly, and not in a flattering way, I might add.

It seems Hewitt, joined with the detestable Bill O’Reilly -- appropriate company, that -- accused bloggers Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos and Jerome Armstrong of My DD of being on the take from Howard Dean during the former Vermont governor’s unsuccessful campaign for the Democratic nomination for president.

Stuff and nonsense.

TalkLeft offers the most efficient round-up of the make-believe “controversy” in posts dated January 14 and January 15.

Suffice it to say that O’Reilly and Hewitt, by implying, if not declaring, that Moulitsas and Armstrong were on the take, have revealed themselves to be beyond clueless, perhaps to the point of willful dishonesty.

[Post-publication addendum (January 18): On this issue, see Roger Ailes in "Warning: This Post Contains a Link To a Talking Ass," January 16.]

| HOME |

I’m watching CNN Headline News this morning and there I saw that President Pray With Me and his wife, the Xanax Xombie, actually went to church today.

At noon, Eastern time, CNN showed a clip that appeared, to me at least, to show the Bushes leaving St. John’s Episcopal Church, located just north of the White House on 16th Street, N.W., in Washington.

Hmm . . . Why the sudden change in habit by a man who calls his faith “a private matter,” a remark I’ve always taken for an excuse to sleep late on Sundays?

| HOME |

For the first time in I don’t know how long, today I’m watching ABC’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

Trust me, it’s no big deal, but will someone please remind me, with regard to Stephanopoulos, what the fuss was and is all about, then and now?

Of course, Stephanopoulos doesn’t make the case in support of his relevancy any easier by inviting on to today’s program the utterly unfunny right-wing “political humorist” P.J. O’Rourke.

(By the way, and this really isn’t relevant, I guess I’m just showing off, sort of, but I’ve seen Stephanopoulos naked. We went to the same health club in Washington. Trust me, it’s no big deal.)

| HOME |

By now you likely have heard about Bush-regime supporter, Dallas Mavericks owner, early internet cash-out, and all-around loudmouth Mark Cuban's call for the cancellation of this week's 40-million-dollar display of wretched, onanistic, inaugural excess, first posted at his weblog on December 31 and subsequently defended there on January 8, in part because of criticism in response to his initial observations.

Cuban makes several valid and interesting criticisms, and it's refreshing to hear a supporter of President Bean Bag calling the man to account. But, honestly, the only reason I'm blogging about this episode is because of the remarkable range of reader comments to Cuban's posts, those in agreement and those in vehement disputation. The remarks, ranging from the intelligent and informed to the inadequte and inane, are truly worth reading. Withouth question my favorite comment was written in reaction to Cuban's December 31 entry, "Do the Right Thing: Cancel Inauguration Parties," by a reader self-identified only as "John." John doodles:

"From each according to ability, to each according to need."

I couldn't disagree more with your collectivist mentality. I don't think our government should give a single penny of aid. The aid should come from private individuals like yourself that have a conscious. Not because it's the right thing to do, to help the needy, but because of the individual's character.

However, using your own logic will show that you are a hypocrite. You approached this from a collectivist mentality, but your actions assume that you approach life from an individualist mentality. For example, take your reality tv show. You gave the winner 1 million dollars simply because she could pass your tests for success. No one gives gives someone else one million dollars for the hell of it. You gave her the money for one reason, to promote yourself (which, I agree with, but this is using your logic). Using your own logic, spending money that way is worthless. If you rank the museum, the fishermen, the music, and giving someone 1 million dollars for the hell of it, would rank last. Using your own logic, wouldn't it be better to save that money for a disaster that might happen some day, rather than paying for someone to impress you, and then giving them 1 million dollars?

There is no better example of a hypocrite than a liberal millionaire, let alone a billionaire.

If you haven't already I suggest you pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

That final sentence is just precious, isn't it?

Look, I've said it before, somewhere, and I'll say it again now: If you are beyond the sophomore year of college, or like age, and you still regard Ayn Rand as a serious intellectual, well, you're just an idiot.

And yes, I know, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan worships at the debased, defoiled, and deflowered altar of Miss Rand.

Point proved.

| HOME |

Funny, I don’t remember hearing about this four years ago. Maybe I missed it, but it seems more important now in any event.

The Los Angeles Times today reports, in “Not Always Diplomatic in Her First Major Post,” by Mark Z. Barabak, that Condoleezza “Mushroom Cloud” Rice’s tenure as provost at Stanford University was marked by decidedly mixed reviews:

[C]ritics say Rice was harsh, even ruthless, during her administration, the one time in her gilded career she has overseen a large institution. Improbably, the youngest provost in Stanford history and the first black and woman to hold the post helped prompt a Labor Department probe into the treatment of women and minorities.

As she prepares to become the nation’s chief diplomat, even some campus admirers foresee upheaval at the Department of State, a far more unwieldy institution than the Bush White House. Her confirmation hearing as secretary of State is to begin Tuesday on Capitol Hill. […]

[D]etractors say Rice’s moves were made more brutal by the imperious way she carried them out. “She was extremely autocratic in her style,” said Albert H. Hastorf, a psychology professor and former Stanford provost. “She didn’t brook anyone disagreeing with her.”

Ron Rebholz, a Shakespearean scholar, agreed. While suggesting Stanford “had to get our budget down,” Rice showed “no respect for the faculty” in making her decisions, he said.

Rice made little secret of her impatience with sclerotic bureaucracy, or the acadedmic expectation of a spirited give-and-take. Members of the Faculty Senate remember her declaring over and over, “I don’t do committees.” She told the Financial Times in a 1995 interview, “I am direct. . . . Sometimes someone has to draw a line between informing, consulting and deciding.”

Many assert Rice was more than just decisive, however, saying she actively stifled dissent. […]

The biggest controversy of Rice’s tenure involved the treatment of women and minorities. […]

Some who believed that Rice would emerge as a champion of blacks and women were disappointed. […]

The most serious complaints alleged that Rice and other Stanford administrators thwarted the advancement of women and minorities.

As provost, Rice took a nuanced position on affirmative action, saying she supported special treatment at the time of hiring but not when it came to granting tenure, with its promise of prestige, higher pay and guaranteed job security. Race was a factor to weigh in creating campus diversity, she suggested, but not evaluating job performance.

“I am myself a beneficiary of a Stanford strategy that took affirmative action seriously, that took a risk in taking a young Ph[.]D[.] from the University of Denver,” Rice said during a contentious May 1998 meeting of the Faculty Senate, referring to her initial hiring.

Asked at that time why she was departing from the practice of applying affirmative action to tenure decisions, Rice responded, “I’m the chief academic officer now” and firmly restated her position.

Rice’s straddling failed to appease critics. In 1988, 15 professors and Stanford researchers filed a 400-page complaint against the university with the U.S. Labor Department, alleging unfair treatment of women and minorities. Some have settled their claims for cash payments from the university, but the case is still open, according to the Labor Department.

Meanwhile, President Legacy Admission plans to send the very same Rice “on a public diplomacy campaign that ‘explains our motives and explains our intentions.’”

Sounds like a mission of instruction rather than one of consultation.

It appears Rice is just the right person for the job.

| HOME |

And here’s President Flight Jacket (“with a red tie and crisp white shirt” and “[t]hree aides”) telling the Washington Post why, in the paper’s words, “there [is] no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath”:

We had an accountability moment, and that’s called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me.

Apparently the buck stopped somewhere in Nebraska on the evening of November 2, 2004.

| HOME |

Here’s President Remedial Reading trying to explain why the District of Columbia must fork over $12 million of its own funds to protect Republicans in ugly suits and bad dye jobs gettin’ down over democracy this week:

By providing security, hopefully that will provide comfort to people who are coming from all around the country to come and stay in the hotels in Washington and to be able to watch the different festivities in Washington, and eat the food in Washington.

Menus not included in ticket prices.

| HOME |

The quote of the week comes from none other than President Limited Facility:

The inauguration is a great festival of democracy. People are going to come from all over the country who are celebrating democracy and celebrating my victory, and I'm glad to celebrate with them.

Grammar books not included in ticket prices.

| HOME |

Last week I presented the following question in the weekly reader poll: “Have you made a donation to a non-government relief agency to assist victims of the Asian earthquake and tsunami?”

I was pleased but not surprised to see that 74 percent of readers who participated in the poll said yes, they had made such a contribution, while just 26 percent said they had not.

Since I normally tell readers how I voted when these polls are completed, I’ll just mention that I made two very modest contributions through two separate organizations, Catholic Relief Services and The First Church of Christ, Scientist, Tsunami Relief Fund.

| HOME |

“A little help, please?” That’s what tennis players ask each other when balls have gone astray, traveling from one court to another. Nothing errant here; just writing a book. And so, read on.

Readers:

Do you live in or near Santa Monica, Calif.?

Are you interested in helping me with one of the books I’m writing?

Would you be willing to make a short trek in the neighborhood in order to take a few photographs?

All in exchange for little more than a nod in the acknowledgements section?

If so, please let me know.

[Post-publication addendum (January 16): The same is true of Marquette, Mich. If you are in the Marquette area and can help, I would greatly appreciate it.]

| HOME |

I get monkey mail.

From: Wally Donoghue wally@plaidpants.net
To: rittenhouse_review
Subject: Names
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 10:59:25 -0500

Just a comment -- I looked at your website for the first time today. One thing that stands out that I immediately noticed is that many of your writers resort to frequent name calling and obnoxious adjectives.

Unfortunately, in recent years, it seems that when someone cannot make an intelligent argument in the political spectrum that they then resort to name calling, slander and smears to try to make the point that they are unable to make with a logical thinking and clear writing. It is time for civility to return but I don’t hold out much hope.

Wally Donoghue

I wonder what Wally means by “many of your writers,” since there is only one writer here, me. I guess Wally thinks I “resort to frequent name calling and obnoxious adjectives.”

Who’d’ve thunk it?

| HOME |

Mildred has some new treats in the cupboard.

They’re not quite her favorites, since nothing can top, or take the place of, Greenies, but they’re very much desired and appreciated: dehydrated chicken breasts.

Sure, they look like something that fell out of Ann Coulter’s bra, but we, or I, actually pick them up at the nearest location of Trader Joe’s.

| HOME |

Granted, I’m not and haven’t been homeless in the strictest sense of the term, but for the last 11 months I’ve relied on the kindness of strangers two good friends for a roof over my head.

Now the time has come for me to move on, to a new place, an apartment of my own, where I will live alone, as has been my custom for most of the past 12 years, the unfortunate two years with, let’s call him “D.P.” (And I didn’t make that up. I really didn’t. L.M. gets the credit.), for double something, notwithstanding.

I’ve been looking for a small place in Center City, broadly defined, and with no luck so far. The housing market, rental and otherwise, is tight just now, and worse, never have I lived in a city so unfriendly to dogs, even one so lovable as Mildred.

It goes without saying that I’m checking all of the usual sources, including the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Philadelphia Weekly, and the Philadelphia City Paper.

Still, I’m convinced there are options not advertised in the usual places, and so I’m asking readers, local or otherwise, for tips or leads regarding appropriate housing opportunities in Center City Philadelphia. Please e-mail your suggestions to me here.

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

| HOME |

So much for needing more time, waiting for Iraq to be pacified, all the chatter of underground laboratories and smuggling weapons to Syria, the utterly unfunny talk about looking here, looking there, and under the sofas in the Oval Office, and all of the other absurdities offered by the Bush administration at its convenience and for their arying usefulness -- and including the mushroom cloud of the imagination of Condoleezza Rice -- it’s now “official”: there are and were no “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, and with the flimsy façade now having fallen away, well, we’re just not looking any more.

The Associated Press reports this afternoon:

A White House spokesman said the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq came up empty and is over.

Scott McClellan said there’s no longer an active search for chemical, biological or nuclear arms. He said, “There may be a few people” following up loose ends, but the job is largely done.

President George W. Bush used the threat of Iraq’s banned weapons as a reason for pre-emptive war.

The chief U.S. weapons hunter is to deliver his final report on the search next month. In his early findings, Charles Duelfer reported in September that Saddam Hussein neither had weapons of mass destruction nor the ability to make them. [Ed.: Emphasis added.]

Note the emphasized text: “nor the ability to make them.”

I’m inclined to refer to the war on Iraq and the specious justifications offered therefore as a monumental joke on America, and the entire world, only there’s nothing to laugh at here.

| HOME |

Be sure to cast your vote in the latest reader poll, posted January 8, which asks, “Have you made a donation to a non-government relief agency to assist victims of the Asian earthquake and tsunami?”

This is an easy one, if only because you, the reader, may choose one of only two responses: “yes” or “no.”

You can find the poll in the sidebar at right. Your participation is greatly appreciated.

| HOME |

The Rittenhouse Review has been nominated in two categories in the Third Annual Koufax Awards, sponsored and managed by Wampum, namely, Best Overall Blog and Best Writing.

Your support in the first round of voting, now in progress, is greatly appreciated.

You can vote in the comments section at Wampum using the category links above, or you may send your votes directly to this address.

| HOME |

Something tells me the scary -- and heavily subsidized -- red-diaper baby David “There’s More Money on the Right” Horowitz is at this moment seething, breathing heavily (if at all), and frothing at the mouth over Pope John Paul II’s latest remarks about Cuba and our ridiculous (and sinful, if you’re into that kind of thing) economic embargo aimed at the island’s governing regime, an embargo that hurts no one more than poor Cubans who couldn’t care less about Fidel Castro, his opponents, and Miami-based donors to the great Republican delusion.

According to the Associated Press, the Pope today said, “The Holy See wishes ardently that the obstacles that currently impede free communication and exchange between Cuba and the international community may be overcome as soon as possible, thus consolidating, by means of a respectful and open dialogue among all, the conditions necessary for genuine development.”

You know, if I were president, one of the first items on my agenda would be lifting the Cuban embargo, immediately and in full.

There, Dave, I said it.

Have at me.

| HOME |

Let me draw your attention to a new web site, Patriots Against Senator Santorum (PASS), which boasts the clever and intriguing URL, outsantorum.org.

Worth noting from the PASS home page:

Richard Hayne, Urban Outfitters president and founder, and his wife Margaret have contributed $13,150 to Rick Santorum.

I never liked that store anyway. Even when I was young enough to shop there. How many cheap candles can a store peddle anyway?

PASS looks to have the start of a promising site leading to the defeat of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa. [?]) in 2006.

| HOME |

The University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Africana Studies will present the annual Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Lecture in Social Justice on Friday, January 21.

This year’s lecture, “A Conversation About Sexuality and Social Justice,” features Angela Y. Davis of the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Mary Frances Berry, Segal professor of history, University of Pennsylvania, and former chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

The discussion will be moderated by Tukufu Zuberi, professor of sociology at the University of Pennsylvania.

The event begins at 6:00 p.m. at Penn’s Irvine Auditorium, located at 34th and Spruce Streets, Philadelphia.

Although free and open to the public, tickets are required, and are available on a first-come, first-served basis. Tickets are available at the Annenberg Center box office, 3680 Walnut St., or by phone at (215) 898-3900. Be aware that seating is limited, so do call ahead. And look for me.

| HOME |

The Washington Post today reports (“Charities Report Record Donations,” by Alan Cooperman and Jacqueline Salmon) that Americans so far have donated $337 million for emergency relief for victims of the Asian earthquake and tsunami, “in what some are calling the greatest outpouring of donations for a foreign disaster in American history.” According to the Post, “The rapidly mounting private contributions could soon dwarf the $350 million in aid committed by the U.S. government, fundraisers said.”

The article raises interesting questions and concerns about fundraising efforts and the distribution of relief aid, and notes the efficiency and donations made via the intenet.

And it raises a question for Rittenhouse readers in the poll posted in the sidebar at right: “Have you made a donation to a non-government relief agency to assist victims of the Asian earthquake and tsunami?”

The poll will remain at this site for one week.

[Post-publication addendum: Earlier today I added several alternative means of donating funds for tk to the sidebar at right, doing so with an eye toward ecumenism and an appreciation for secular aid organizations. The list includes: American Friends Service Committee, American Jewish World Service, B’nai B’rith Disaster Relief Fund, Care International, Catholic Relief Services, Episcopal Relief and Development, The First Church of Christ Scientist Tsunami Relief Fund, Food for the Hungry, Habitat for Humanity International Asia Tsunami Response Fund, International Federation of Red Crescent and Red Cross Societies, International Rescue Committee, Jesuit Refugee Service, Lutheran World Relief, Oxfam America, Presbyterian Disaster Assistance, Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, and U.S. Fund for UNICEF. I also posted a link to American Atheists, but that group appears not to be collecting funds, nor has it posted any response to this tragedy whatsoever. Regardless, still more organizations working on this disaster can be found here.]

| HOME |

What’s “junk,” asbestos and the tens of thousands of deaths it has caused, or the lawsuits that seek to hold manufacturers to account for the damage the caused?

It will come as no surprise that the Bush administration has taken the side of asbestos makers. In “Bush Urges Settlement of Asbestos Claims,” by Peter Baker, the Washington Post, January 8, we read:

President Bush urged Congress on Friday to find a way to settle tens of billions of dollars in claims by victims of asbestos in hopes of stanching a flood of litigation that he blamed for driving scores of companies out of business.

“This is a national problem . . . that requires a national solution,” the president said. . . . “These asbestos suits have bankrupted a lot of companies, and that affects the workers here in Michigan and around the country.”

The appeal was the president’s third event in as many days promoting restrictions on what he calls “junk lawsuits,” one of his top legislative priorities for the beginning of his second term. Along with tackling the asbestos litigation, Bush wants Congress to impose caps on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases and limit the ability to bring class-action lawsuits.

The enemy here, in the world of President Corporatist State, is not asbestos or asbestos manufacturers, but the dreaded “trial lawyers.” And the victims aren’t asbestos-related cancer patients and their survivors, but those who made and distributed the deadly fiber.

According to the Post’s Baker, “Bush did not endorse a particular plan but outlined principles that seemed to embrace a congressional proposal to create an asbestos trust fund to pay off claims and eliminate lawsuits. The idea has proved less ideologically polarizing than the rest of Bush’s tort package, but negotiations broke down last year largely over how much money businesses and insurers would be required to fork over.”

Baker also reports that Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the father of a successful Philadelphia trial lawyer, Shanin Specter, who some say has political aspirations of his own, “has a new version without a bottom-line figure that would reach out to opponents by allowing victims to go back to court if their claims are not paid or are not paid expeditiously by the trust fund.”

By way of background, Baker offers these observations:

About 600,000 asbestos claims are pending, according to the Rand Institute for Civil Justice and Tillinghast-Towers Perrin, a consulting firm. Rand found that businesses have paid $70 billion for asbestos claims over the past 30 years, while 70 corporations have filed for bankruptcy protection because of the liability. Among them were subsidiaries of Vice President [Dick] Cheney’s former firm, Halliburton Co. The subsidiaries emerged from bankruptcy this week.

Note the president’s tack in addressing this difficult issue:

The four people Bush invited to join him on Friday’s panel highlighted the costs of such litigation. Two were presidents of businesses that have been hit with large claims. One said his firm has spent $200 million in asbestos litigation expenses since 2000, compared with $2 million for the 15 prior years. The panelists agreed that asbestos is a “national tragedy,” as Lester Brickman, a specialist at Benjamin N. Cardozo Law School in New York, put it. “But lawyers have taken this tragedy and turned it into an enormous money-making machine in which . . . baseless claims predominate.”

Any word from someone suffering from asbestos-induced cancer? Apparently not.

The Los Angeles Times reports (“Bush Backs Asbestos Tort Fund,” by Edwin Chen):

Consumer groups chided Bush for conducting what they regarded a “one-sided” conversation, in the words of Frank Clemente, director of Public Citizen’s Congress Watch.

The Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization, made up of asbestos victims and their families, demanded to be heard in the debate.

“The asbestos industry must be held accountable for its actions. . . . It is unacceptable for meetings to be held with industry, the companies and all of the corporate interests who would benefit from the asbestos industry bailout bill, and not those who suffer as a result of asbestos exposure,” the group said in a statement.

Plainly, victims of the deadly poisoning of asbestos, a compound recognized by scientists for decades as a powerful carcinogen, are just too inconvenient when corporate interests are involved.

| HOME |

The detestable Howard Kurtz comes through today with comments about the scandalous news, first reported by USA Today, about a right-wing pundit on the take that even he couldn’t spin or suppress (“Administration Paid Commentator”):

The Education Department paid commentator Armstrong Williams $241,000 to help promote President Bush’s No Child Left Behind law on the air, an arrangement that Williams acknowledged yesterday involved “bad judgment” on his part.

In taking the money, funneled through the Ketchum Inc. public relations firm, Williams produced and aired a commercial on his syndicated television and radio shows featuring Education Secretary Roderick R. Paige, touted Bush’s education policy, and urged other programs to interview Paige. He did not disclose the contract when talking about the law during cable television appearances or writing about it in his newspaper column.

Congressional Democrats immediately accused the administration of trying to bribe journalists. Williams’s newspaper syndicate, Tribune Media Services, yesterday canceled his column. And one television network dropped his program pending an investigation.

It appears debate coach George Will has met his match. I wonder, though, if Armstrong is the only right-wing “journalist” with his hand in the till.

| HOME |

Proving Midge “Beach Boys” Decter isn’t the only neoconservative with a crush on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz yesterday told reporters he’s staying on the job, adding, “I can’t imagine life after Don Rumsfeld.”

| HOME |

My apologies for the light posting of late. I’ve had several busy days and busy nights, a rare coincidence of trends.

Last night, thanks to the generosity of a great friend, another friend and I heard the Philadelphia Orchestra perform Mahler’s Symphony No. 9. We were sitting in one of the best boxes in the house.

Mahler’s Ninth is not an easy work, for the players and for the audience: four movements with no intermission.

The performance was outstanding. The Philadelphia Orchestra long has been noted for its amazing strings. They were in fine form last night, and the audience responded with a standing ovation.

{Post-publication addendum (January 8): Peter Dobrin reviews the performance in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer. Excerpts: “Christoph Eschenbach Thursday night made it through his first Mahler Symphony No. 9 with the Philadelphia Orchestra with no major mishaps, no major insights. . . . In the second movement, the conductor never quite established a core tempo (from which could depart the many tempo changes specified by Mahler). A firm tempo could not be felt even for a few measures at a time. This movement in particular was as clear a snapshot as any of the Eschenbach-Philadelphia Orchestra problem in the middle of their second season together. The first question is whether his interpretation is valid; the second is whether Eschenbach can communicate that interpretation in a way that’s clear enough for the orchestra to follow. The resulting dilemma for the orchestra, often, is the extent to which it should follow him. . . . As a source of general visual inspiration up there on the podium, Eschenbach is not uninteresting. What some of those gestures mean -- a frantically trembling left hand, for instance -- is not at all clear. . . . The long first movement, despite an opening so slow it made the orchestra sound oddly brittle, turned out to be a lovely salve. . . . The last movement, the ‘Adagio,’ glowed, and not only with the orchestra’s saturated string sound. The final, dying moments were so tender, so diaphanous, that the orchestra made it seem as if we were in the presence of something composed of pure spirit.”]

| HOME |

I’m pleased to see President Tequila Worm turning to those much wiser, including President Bill Clinton, to coordinate “private” fund-raising for aid to the victims of the December 26 earthquake and tsunami in Asia.

Frankly, I think this is what George W. and friends meant when they said “the grownups are in charge now.”

| HOME |

Lake Superior State University yesterday released its 30th annual “List of Words Banished from the Queen’s English for Mis-Use, Over-Use, and General Uselessness,” a catalog of slang terms and jargon assembled from more than 2,000 submissions that come from around the world.

The 2005 List of Banished Words includes, among others:

Carbs: along with “low carbs, high carbs, no carbs, carb-friendly,” but, strangely, not “carbies.”

Webinar: for “seminar on the web,” as noted here in the comments section of the linked post in the item above by blogger Vaara.

Zero Percent APR Financing: This one has bothered me for a long time. How does a bank finance something when no interest is applied?

Body Wash: “Also known as ‘soap.’”

All New: When used in reference to television programs. “Of course it’s all new. Why can’t they just say ‘new’? There are no partially-new episodes, no repeat of last Tuesday’s episode with a slightly reworked Act 2.”

Also included on the list is blog, along with it variations, blogger, blogged, blogging, and blogosphere. “Sounds like something your mother would slap you for saying.” I second that emotion; I’m all for a new term.

| HOME |

This week’s book of the week is The Volcano Lover by Susan Sontag, which I read when it was published in 1992.

Here are a few comments culled by Amazon.com:

“A passionate and often radical novel of ideas that affords all the old-fashioned pleasures of a traditional historical novel.”-- New York Times

“A great novel. It repeatedly scales heights of complex thought, passion, and expression that few American writers ever approach, while reimagining a majestic love story in dazzling style.”-- Philadelphia Inquirer

“A panoramic, passionately feminist examination of the changing shape of Western civilization since the Age of Enlightenment. Sontag’s book is a sweeping, exquisitely detailed picture of Europe in the final decades of the eighteenth century.”-- Chicago Sun-Times

“A slippery, intelligent, provocative, and gripping book.”-- Washington Post Book World

“A novel Susan Sontag was destined to write, a shift from the moral intelligence of the essayist to the intelligent heart of the novelist. To her admirers, the novel will only confirm her originality, and perhaps win over a whole new set of readers. For The Volcano Lover is not just a thinking woman’s (or man’s) historical romance but a sly, luminously insightful, provocative novel.”-- The Nation

“A brilliant performance.”-- Chicago Tribune

Frankly, I thought The Volcano Lover kind of stunk. Pretentiously ponderous. Dismally dull. Consistently cloying. But Sontag passed away earlier this week, so I really shouldn’t say that, should I?

| HOME |