Or at least journalism imitating The Onion... The authors of the WaPo's Gerald Ford obituary provide us with some unintentional comedy: It was widely assumed that Ford had doomed his political career. By January 1975, his approval rating had plummeted to 36 percent. Not even two assassination attempts, both in California in 1975, generated significant popular support [emphasis added]. The line brought to mind The Onion's 2001 masterpiece, Clinton Vaguely Disappointed By Lack of Assassination Attempts.
There is an obscure publishing doctrine known as "the small penis rule." As described in a 1998 New York Times article, it is a sly trick employed by authors who have defamed someone to discourage their targets from filing lawsuits. As libel lawyer Leon Friedman explained to the Times, "No male is going to come forward and say,`That character with a very small penis, `That's me!'" This gimmickwas undoubtedly on the mind of Michael Crichton, the pulp science-fiction writer of Jurassic Park fame, when he wrote the following passage in his latest novel, Next. (Caution: Graphic imagery.
Happy New Year from The New Republic Online! Over the holiday week, Jonathan Chait pointed out how Bush fooled neoconservatives into supporting the Iraq war; Catherine O'Neill reminisced about Christmas as a foreign service brat in India; Roger Rosenblatt explained why the ghost of Christmas past was more influential than the ghost of Christmas future; S.Adele Shaw rued the Americanization of Christmas; Emma Chastain revealed the erotic side of The Nutcracker; the Editors bristled at Calvin Coolidge's admonition--delivered via New Year's card--not to disagree publicly with U.S.
by Richard Stern Scene 1. The Puce Room of the White House. Light coming through rose-colored window glass beautifies the reflections bouncing off the handsome silver tea service. The First Lady, simply and expensively dressed in tweed skirt and green silk blouse, pours tea for her visitor, Colleen Dowdy, the columnist. Collen Dowdy: It's always reassuring to see you, Mrs. B.
I've so far resisted weighing in on the Chait-Lindsey "liberaltarian" smack-down, mostly because Jon has done such a nice job rebutting the case for a liberal-libertarian alliance. But there's one claim that might be worth examining more rigorously given that Brink (whom I think is an exceptionally smart and thoughtful guy) keeps invoking it.
The Associated Press reported today that, in a statement by its spokesman Sean McCormack, the U.S. State Department has urged Syria to open up an embassy on Lebanon. As close readers of The Spine may know, I have pointed out time and time again that there are no official bi-lateral relations between the two countries. In fact, there have never been such. This is because whoever has ruled in Damascus has never recognized the independent sovereignty of those who govern in Beirut. This has been the case ever since Lebanon declared its independence from the Free French in 1943.
You do remember when Robert Mugabe was a hero to liberal leaning people, don't you? Well, he's not quite been that for a long time. Although he is still backed by South Africa and other powers on the continent who refuse to say an unkind word about black dictators. Mugabe is worse than a dictator. He is a monster. Now, my research assistant, Jamie Kirchick, is something of an expert on Zimbabwe and had recently published two pieces about that sad country in the Weekly Standard and the Baltimore Sun.
Matt Yglesias has a post flagging a new report from Chatham House, a British think tank. The study rips Blair and his cabinet for their "inability to influence the Bush administration in any significant way despite the sacrifice--military, political and financial--that the United Kingdom has made." Surely this is true, as Matt says. Then he writes this: It's particularly sad because, as I've said before, Blair was really near the top of the pyramid in terms of people whose combination of objective authority and apparent credibility were key to persuading people to back the war.
Isaac's post about Powell reminded me that I'd never linked to this Michael Lewis review of Karen DeYoung's new Powell biography. The review is devastating--not so much to the book but to its subject--and may be the best summation of Powell's m.o. that I've ever read. A sample: [DeYoung] leaves the reader with the sense that Colin Powell was a good man in a bad administration, and that he deserves mostly sympathy for his predicament. He argued against war right up until war became inevitable, then, like a good soldier, followed his orders. Only he wasn't a soldier.