wJeremiads
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -Aldous Huxley

You've stumbled upon the website of Jeremy Lott. (To learn more about me, go here.) I can be reached at JEREMYAL123 -- AT -- YAHOO.COM.


wArchives:


-- HOME --



This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?
wSaturday, March 29, 2003


HEY KIDS: Sorry for the long absence. Nothing too troubling, just a ton of freelance work and my own neuroses acting up. I'll be back Monday.

posted by Jeremy at 3:14 AM


wSaturday, March 22, 2003


THE KVETCH: THE COMEDY OF WAR:

There probably shouldn't be anything funny about war, but a few items this week have certainly tickled my funny bone. To wit, it's possible that the U.S. got Saddam Hussein with the first bomb, which sounds like something out of a Tom Clancy novel. (If nothing else, we seriously damaged his fashion sense.) The debate over the Iraqi dictator's presence or lack thereof puts him in roughly the same node of the collective American mind as childhood friends and faded Hollywood stars: Saddam Hussein... is he still alive?

Also, the news coverage has been a hoot. The television in my strongly pro-war household has been glued to Fox News, which fellow bloggers tell me has been the most cliched of the bunch. If I hear of "shock and awe" or the "coalition of the willing" one more time, the laughter may turn to tears.

And on the homefront, David Frum has started a dust up with the paleocons. Frum charged the paleos with "hating their country" and they, in turn, charged him with all kinds of things, including "whipping up ethnic bigotry against the French and portraying all Arabs and Muslims as subhuman animals" (Thomas Fleming). Chronicles has even introduced a discount rate for those who cancel their subscriptions to National Review.

Moving away from war for a moment, Kevin Steel has put together a summary of Camille Paglia's latest:

In case--and there is a very real possibility of this--you haven't the endurance to read Paglia's pseudo-scholarly mess, then I'll tell you that her point is: Contrary to the present popular perception (which I think she is just imagining), there was a lot of religion floating around in the so-called "godless" sixties, but no one takes the sixties religious stuff seriously because everyone took a lot of drugs back then thus rendering the best minds of the generation, uh, somewhat inarticulate.

Aw, Steel, you're such a square.

posted by Jeremy at 9:59 PM


wWednesday, March 19, 2003


THE KVETCH: DR. CHECK THE FACTS:

My friend Chris Mooney wants to know why the New York Times refers to Majority Leader Bill Frist with the honorific "Dr." Mooney argues that this "clearly plays into the Senate Majority Leader's PR agenda" and claims that this is but "one more strike against the 'liberal media' myth."

That's one possibility anyway. Another is that Frist requested that the Times refer to him as such because, you know, he really is a trained medical doctor. In an essay for National Review last year, Jay Nordlinger looked into the Times' policy of who gets the big DR in front of their names. He found learned that, for people who hold Ph.D.'s "It is the policy of the New York Times to leave it up to the individual...how he is to be referred to in the paper." As for medical doctors: "Physicians and dentists get 'Dr.' as a matter of course." So, to review, 1) the Times is willing to let individuals dictate how they are referred to; and 2) there is absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in referring to medical doctors--even currently non-practicing medical doctors--as doctors.

As for Mooney's bizarre insistence that being pro-life somehow makes Frist less of a doctor, well, I'm speechless.

Joel Engel has a pretty good piece in the Weekly Standard in which an Ordinary Citizen calls a press conference to speak his mind on Iraq. Though it loses steam when he starts talking, it's a pretty good illustration of why I didn't feel it necessary to loudly lay out my position on the war.

Brian Doherty went to a debate on the war over the weekend. He writes that "[N]o one said what undoubtedly many of us were feeling, like a nagging sickness: It didn't matter."

Finally, the young Rebecca Grace has been

reading up on the latest information on the war with Iraq, and this is what the Australian Prime Minister said:"The government has authorized the chief of the Australian defence force to place the Australian forces already deployed in the Gulf Region as part of any US led coalition operation that may take place in the future," a somber Howard, flanked by two Australian flags, said in a televised address to the nation. I got that straight from www.ctv.ca. So the Aussies are sending out 2000 troops to fight the Iraqi people. My bet on how many survive? 1500.

She also has much more to say, but my lips are sealed. With duct tape.

posted by Jeremy at 6:35 PM


w


THE DEVIANCE OF POLITICS: At the request of several readers, I've posted my review of The Politics of Deviance over on the long-neglected companion site:

WHEN FORMER SEN. Daniel Patrick Moynihan delivered his now famous "Defining Deviancy Down" address to the 1992 American Sociological Association convention--in which he worried that "the amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can afford to recognize"--he was met with what University of San Diego sociologist Anne Hendershott describes as "subdued applause." While most in the audience were not dumb enough to challenge an enthusiastic supporter of funding for the social sciences directly, they were not only unreceptive to his speech but uncomprehending as well.

In fact, Moyhihan's use of the word "deviance" dated him more effectively than if he had stepped onto the dais wearing sideburns, bellbottoms, and a mood ring. [more]


posted by Jeremy at 5:42 PM


wTuesday, March 18, 2003


THE KVETCH: TO WAR, THEN:

Well, I caught most of the prez's speech tonight, and it looks like it's finally happening. Unless Saddam Hussein decides in the next day or so that exile in, say, France would be prefferable to death, the American war machine will be grinding into gear. In that event, I hope that the Iraqi army will surrender without a fight. I also hope that no American soldiers or Iraqis are exposed to nerve agents or biological weapons, and I'm really hoping that that mote scenerio--trenches filled with burning oil making a wall of fire--doesn't happen. Also, it would be nice if Hussein didn't set the oil fields on fire.

Cue vicious laugh track.

Responding to my recent article on "fair weather hawks," Evan McElravy worries that I might look down on him for having switched from the war to the anti-war camp. I am 99 percent certain that his post--or at least the I-don't-want-Jeremy-looking-down-on-me part of the post--is tongue-in-cheek. In case it isn't, however, I'll simply reiterate what I said in the article.

That is, I can understand and sympathize with people on both sides of this one, and even people who switch sides. What pisses me off is this moronic posturing by a bunch of more-thoughtful-than-thou (and more-self-important-than-thou) lefty pundits, who allow that they might support war, as long as Bush will jump through their hoops. ("Fellow fence sitter" James Antle also has a post on this with the wonderful title "WE'D BE LOVED AND FEARED IF ONLY DEMOCRATS WERE RUNNING THE WAR.")

My friend Barton Wong says that, with 48 hours left to go, I should "Get off the fence and take a stand for once in your foggy, ambivalent existence!" He explains that most of the "pseudo-Hegelian" war squishes act as if "the pro-war types are the 'thesis,' anti-war types are the 'antithesis,' and they are the optimal and all-encompassing 'synthesis.'"

Oh, good God, I hope I never take myself that seriously. One of the reasons that I haven't come out swinging on this is that I don't believe that what I'd have to say matters all that much. Suppose I came out with a searing essay, pro or anti war: Would anybody care? Since September 11, when I have been able to add some insights into the mix, I've done so (here, here and here, for instance). On Iraq, I don't know quite what to say. Could Saddam Hussein be a threat in the future? Yes, I suppose. Will he be? We don't know and we likely won't get the chance to find out. Now that we have the country surrounded and have told the United Nations to go to hell, would it damage America's position in the world not to go in? Yes. And if you were in charge, what would you do?

Well I'm not in charge... and that may be the point. Barton says that "we should be glad most of the commentariat are not in charge of the United States for they seem to suffer from a perpetual 'certainty crisis.'" Well, duh! The chief job of the press is to question and to criticize. We may even occasionally float answers, but we certainly don't get tagged with the blame if our solutions don't work out.

Tossing off my skeptical cloak for one brief moment: I hope and pray that war can be averted. If, as looks likely, it does happen, then may God bless and keep the soldiers of the United States of America. May their the losses be few, their victory swift and may their return to a divided country not be marred by the ill thought out words of thoughtless cretins.

posted by Jeremy at 1:40 AM


wMonday, March 17, 2003


PANDORA'S BOX REDISCOVERED:

My Books & Culture column is normally monthly but, because of a changed release date, it was doubled up this month. The subject of today's piece is the fallout from the discovery of the bone box with the inscription, "James son of Joseph brother of Jesus":

Shanks and Witherington are far from alone in their belief in the inscription's authenticity. Craig A. Evans, for instance, is a professor at Acadia Divinity College who has written his own book on the subject, forthcoming from Baylor University Press and tentatively titled Jesus and the Ossuaries. "Contrary to some misguided and wrongheaded reports that were in the popular media," says Evans, the Aramaic writing is appropriate for the time period. Plus, all the other indicators seem to add up.

But add up to what? [more]

posted by Jeremy at 12:54 PM


w


THE KVETCH: SUNDAY AFTERNOONS ARE THE WORST:

Brief biographical digression for those who care: These last few weeks have been... trying. First, there was my abrupt departure from the Report. Then I got sick. Then my friends (Reportsters and otherwise) started getting laid off. (The most recent is Steve Martinovich, a great guy who somebody should hire. He has both good writing and production skills.) Then my car broke down, possibly for good.

But it hasn't been all bad. I've lined up enough freelance work to stay afloat, and my friends have kept me from going completely nuts. I'm not getting rich but I'm not going broke either. Plus, I've heard a few whispers about possible jobs. Normally, this is the part where I would ask readers to click on that Pay Pal button and do their part, but a) I don't have a Pay Pal button and b) there are a lot of better causes that I could think of to donate to. What I will ask is that y'all keep your eyes out for me. If you hear of a writing or editorial job, let me know. Also, editors, if some of the musings on this blog strike your fancy, I'd be happy to turn them into an article for you.

Kevin Steel continues his experiment with self-produced music, available free on the web. The current entry is titled "The Night's Begun a New Career." It's well worth a listen. I only wish that both this version and the previous one were available to compare. As Steel said in an e-mail to me: The "yodelling Martian choking on Earth's atmosphere" (guitar solo) has been replaced by a chorus of alley cats (harmonica by Raymond, who also added mandolin). Bass has also been knocked back so that it doesn't rattle yer fillings loose.

Chuck Colson's broadcast which mentioned my piece on the Christian Culture Industry was picked up as an op ed for the Christian Times. Incidentally, I'm not sure if my mini-campaign bore fruit but my piece was picked up by the Australian Financial Review.

Finally, I got a letter from reader Paul Cella:

Mr. Lott --

I recently read your review in The American Conservative, "The Deviance of Politics" (interestingly, until just now, when I looked the review up on TAC's website, I assumed the title was actually "The Politics of Deviance"). Anyway, I thought that the article was particularly apropos the Elizabeth Smart case. It seems clear that this Mitchell character should have been institutionalized some time ago. I wonder if this course of action was considered at some point and rejected. I wonder if there is a "characteristically American," as you put it, option for the Smarts. As much as I loathe the despotism of the trial lawyers, it would be nice to see these radical theorists of sociology and psychology be called to account now and then for their pernicious ideas.

Cordially,
Paul J. Cella

From what I've read of the Smart case, the parents were not terribly, er, smart in who they chose to deal with. So some of the fault should be charged to them. On balance, I'd rather this be a simple case of the kidnapper being locked away for a long, long time.

posted by Jeremy at 12:55 AM


w


LOOK, UP IN THE AIR: IT'S A BIRD, IT'S A PLANE, IT'S--EWWWW!--WHAT'S THAT I JUST STEPPED ON?:

In my most recent column for The American Prowler, I boldly come out as a squish on war in Iraq. To quote myself:

I can understand and respect both writers who oppose this war and those who advocate invasion. I think it's even possible to have some measure of respect--though let's not be too generous--for squishes like myself, who see both moral and practical arguments on both sides and aren't willing to put forward a definitive opinion before we've arrived at one.

But the position of what some have dubbed the "fair weather hawks" is more of a posture than an argument. [more]

posted by Jeremy at 12:21 AM


wFriday, March 14, 2003


THE KVETCH: BUSH IS NO FRODO, AND THAT'S A GOOD THING:

Chris Mooney and yours truly both think that a recent Alex Gourevitch article is, er, "precious." But I very much doubt we mean the same thing. Gourevitch taps into the well worn genre of using Lord of the Rings to criticize George W. Bush. This time, he likens Bush to Gollum: "We hates the Europeans. No! No! We loves the Europeans"; "We wants Hussein to disarm. No! No! We wants warsy anyways"; one gets the idea. The point is to show the prez as a little bit nuts and ineffectual to boot.

However, I'm not sure the comparrison hurts Bush. I mean, yes, Gollum is both odd and crazy but he is, as moviegoers observed last fall, quite the compelling character. He also manages to accidentally do something that Frodo couldn't bring himself to do on purpose. That is, he saves the world.

KMG isn't the only person to have been fired by the Report recently. There's also Marnie Ko, who was let go after four years on the job. Here's her site (not a blog). Potential employers should have a look.

Finally, I just finished a review essay of The Brother of Jesus, Biblical Archaeology Review editor Hershel Shanks' new book on the discovery of the James ossuary. About its authenticity, he concludes,

The evidence is not so clear that it would stand up in court in a criminal case; we have not proved it beyond a reasonable doubt. But I do think it would be enough to sustain an award in a civil suit, where the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence.

I kept myself from going with the obvious joke in the review: If anybody would know about damages in a civil suit, it's Hershel.

posted by Jeremy at 12:37 PM


wThursday, March 13, 2003


THE DAILY KVETCH: GODLESS COMMIE PRUDES:

China's censors cut four songs--"Brown Sugar," "Honky Tonk Woman," "Beast of Burden" and" Let's Spend the Night Together"--from the Rolling Stones' recent "best of" album and won't allow the band to play the songs when it tours in April. No reason was given but, get real: The prudes in the office of We Decide What People Think thought the sexual content was just too much for the kids to bear. What I want to know is: Why those four songs? I mean, if I was a Chinese censor, I could come up with much more threatening Stones songs in my sleep than those four. Like? Oh, "Mother's Little Helper," "Streetfighting Man," "Sympathy for the Devil," "Under My Thumb." The potential list would be quite long.

Quite a few people have been receptive to the argument that the Stones are sellouts and has-beens--geriatric rockers who can't rock, aren't sexy and didn't know when to get off the stage. Here's the band's chance to disprove the critics in one fell swoop. That is, if the Stones were to oh, I dunno, defy the censors, kick out the jams, play the songs and win over this new audience, then they really would have earned their place in the pantheon of rock and roll gods.

Sara Rimensnyder has found the best argument ever for ending the War on Drugs.

Rick Hiebert says Auf Wiedersehen to Kevin Michael Grace, as does Steve Martinovich. Kathy Shaidle says that somebody should hurry up and hire the guy. Amen.

Finally, eXile editor-in-exile Matt Taibbi contributes a piece to the current issue of the New York Press, which savages the press for their performance at the most recent "fully scripted" Bush press conference:

Even Bush couldn’t ignore the absurdity of it all. In a remarkable exchange that somehow managed to avoid being commented upon in news accounts the next day, Bush chided CNN political correspondent John King when the latter overacted his part, too enthusiastically waving his hand when it apparently was, according to the script, his turn anyway.

KING: "Mr. President."

BUSH: "We’ll be there in a minute. King, John King. This is a scripted..."

A ripple of nervous laughter shot through the East Room. Moments later, the camera angle of the conference shifted to a side shot, revealing a ring of potted plants around the presidential podium. It would be hard to imagine an image that more perfectly describes American political journalism today: George Bush, surrounded by a row of potted plants, in turn surrounded by the White House press corps. [more]

It looks as if Taibbi may become a regular NYPress contributor. I've been pretty critical of the new direction of the weekly, but editor Jeff Koyen might just pull it off.

posted by Jeremy at 7:52 PM


wWednesday, March 12, 2003


THE DAILY KVETCH: THIS IS WHAT FASCISM LOOKS LIKE:

The above headline comes from Kathy Shaidle. (And no, she's not referring to government control, but not ownership, of the means of production.) The occasion is the outrage du jour, and a particularly nasty one at that. Seems some anti-war protestors in Whittier, CA, were demonstrating and, well, one might say it got a bit out of hand. They ended the protest by grabbing the local unofficial memorial to September 11 and tearing it down. According to the story they "burned and ripped up flags, flowers and patriotic signs."

Police refused to prosecute for vandalism on the grounds that the protestors were exercising their First Ammendment rights. The cops explained that they had to be able to prove "ill will intent" in order to nail the violent peace marchers. But, as Steve Martinovich says, "attacking a memorial to your nation's dead would seem to indicate ill-will intent." (Really?!)

Oh yeah, and this memorial was on private property. The owner told the Whittier Daily News, "Their free speech stops at destruction of private property. If they are allowed to come on my property and burn flags, does that mean I can go to City Hall or the police station and light their flags on fire because that is freedom of speech?" Some local residents, the account goes on to say, "hung signs criticizing those who destroyed the display."

Funny, but my first reaction was, They only hung signs?

In other news, Radley Balko is more than "a little perplexed at all the moral outrage" that some recent posts generated. "I expected disagreement," he says. "But I didn't expect the indignation." Dude, you advocated torture and didn't expect indignation?

Kevin Steel says so long to his old friend and colleague Kevin Michael Grace: "Kevin is one of the most consistent critics I know. And consistency is no small thing. It can cost."

Finally, the latest from Rebecca Grace:

Okay, so I talked to Alistair and Ben today when I got home from school, and they were both so completely PSYCHO because I guess that they both hadn't eaten but whatever. See, when Alistair first picked up the phone, he was like, "uh-oh" and I was like, "Hi," and then he's like, "HELOOOOOO" and I was just like WHOA! Because I've heard him go nuts but not THAT nuts. I mean, honestly. And so Ben was going crazy too, and Alistair was saying freak things and Ben was like shut up and so alistair goes, "Ooh, Ben likes Rebecca," and I was like bah! and then Ben was saying how stupid the phone was, and I was like, "okay, so you're insulting the telephone," and Alistair goes in the background, "ooh, Rebecca likes the telephone" Honestly.

Honestly.

posted by Jeremy at 11:57 AM


wMonday, March 10, 2003


THE DAILY KVETCH: HIS LONG PROFESSIONAL NIGHTMARE IS OVER:

Well, apparently things weren't chaotic enough at my old place of business, so they decided to go and fire my friend Kevin Michael Grace. I would encourage any of my readers who work for Canadian publications to hire this guy or at least throw some freelance work his way. Grace is smart, fast and knows Canadian politics like nobody's business. The fact that he's been let go from the Report after eight years of toil is yet one more bit of evidence for my longstanding theory that there is no justice in this world. If there was, he'd be running the place.

A reader ("the other anti-Drug War Baptist") read my most recent missive on Razormouth:

I just read your article "Up to Speed." I can't belive you said that in a Baptist church. I agree with everything you said, but I go to a Baptist church and, well, some things are better left unsaid.

You must be really brave or really stupid; I can only imagine what kind of reaction you got.

Keep up the good work.

While I'd like to think of myself as brave, I've a feeling that his second choice is closer to the mark.

posted by Jeremy at 11:04 PM


w


BELIEFNET, THEY'RE STILL AROUND?: My monthly Books & Culture/Christianity Today column is on the new collection of essays by Beliefnet columnist John Spalding. It's called A Pilgrim's Digress and believers without a sense of humor are invited to take a pass on it. (Radley Balko, on the other hand...). An excerpt:

[W]hile Spalding may share some of Augustine's traits—though, thank God, not his long-windedness—he shows little interest in wanting to find that "one true path." On a pilgrimage of more than 500 miles across northern Spain to the traditional final resting place of James, the brother of Jesus, he wonders why he's going through all of this and decides that the meaning of the trek is "irreducible": "If I wanted religion, I could have joined a church. If I'd been looking for exercise, I would have gone to the gym. If it was self improvement I was after, I'm sure I could have found an adult ed course."

When Jehovah's Witnesses come to his door and ask Spalding whether or nor he wants "eternal life" in heaven, he admits that he isn't so sure. On the one hand he thinks that heaven could be an extension of life on earth: "Presumably, we'll be allowed to enter the pearly gates with a remote in one hand and a bucket of wings in the other." On the other, we could be "purged of all this earthly trash," which would be just so . . . boring. [more]

posted by Jeremy at 12:25 PM


wSaturday, March 08, 2003


THE DAILY KVETCH: FOLLOW-UPS GALORE:

Radley Balko e-mails this link, which fills in some of the requested details of the torture/terrorism story. Based on this article, however (which includes gruesome details of the torture of Mahmud Abouhalima), it is not clear that the U.S., as Balko said, arrested and then extradited the terrorist. In fact, in both cases cited in the Telegraph article, the suspects were apprehended and tortured by other governments, outside of the U.S.

All of which may be quite a minor quibble to the larger argument. Balko correctly points out that in both cases American citizens benefited from the brutality exercised by other, friendly governments. He then asks, well, Given the potential loss of life through future al-Qaeda acts of terrorism, why doesn't the U.S. government need to rely on other governments to do its dirty work?

The post has, of course, touched off plenty of reaction, both in Balko's comment section and on other websites (including this memorable-if-vulgar reply by Jim Henley). Balko has responded to his critics (twice) and I'm betting that a column is in the offing.

Rick Hiebert writes to guess at the reasoning behind my reaction to the multi-colored $20 bills: "You may object to any currency that looks like it survived an explosion at a paint factory. Green is a more dignified, businesslike colour, perhaps?" (You're getting warmer...) He also wonders what's up with the double ads on Blogger. No kidding. I knew we'd be getting "more" out of Google's purchase of the company but this is ridiculous.

Finally, Michael Fumento sends the nail-in-his-coffin reply to RiShawn Biddle, in which he reiterates his previous arguments and ends by telling Nick Gillespie to prove a negative. For what it's worth, here is the apology that one would have expected out of Fumento if he had any sense of class or humility:

Dear Nick,

Was I ever wrong! As I read Gary Taubes' response again for the fifteenth time, scale-like things fell away from my eyes and I realized something: He sounds like a pompous ass. In fact, it finally dawned on me that by publishing the reply in toto, you managed to show him in all his defensive, tortured pomposity--which certainly... did not hurt my case.

Of course, he wasn't the only one who sounded like an ass. I now realize the bind that I put you in by accusing you of caving to legal pressure. Boy was that ever dumb!

I apologize for calling your character into question without any real evidence, and I regret the loss of Reason as a forum. The next time you come to town, I'll buy the drinks.

Best,
Mike

Aw, allow a guy his dreams. See y'all on the other side of the weekend.

posted by Jeremy at 1:49 AM


wThursday, March 06, 2003


THE DAILY KVETCH: GO AHEAD, BREAK HIS FINGERS:

Radley Balko says that the government should feel free to torture suspeted al-Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. He cites the example of an un-named al-Qaeda operative in 1995 who the U.S. government "er, 'exported'" to the Phillipines, where the authorities "are happy to employ creative methods of questioning suspects." According to Balko, the guy cracked and revealed a plot to blow up almost a dozen passenger jets. This action may have saved "4,000 American lives," so the incident passes Balko's utilitarian test.

I have to admit that the way Balko sets it up (one guy's fingernails for 4,000 lives) sounds persuasive. And I hope that Radley will not think that I am questioning his honesty or journalistic integrity when I ask for more details. Who was the guy mentioned? What was it that prompted the U.S. government of taking the extraordinary step of extraditing him? How does he arrive the figure of 4,000 lives? One gets the idea. Maybe he can make it the subject of a future column for Fox.

Steve Martinovich has a thing for this anti-French protester chick.

Rick Hiebert says that the greenback is going Canadian, starting with the $20 bill. I don't even know where to begin in explaining what a horrible idea that is. Maybe tomorrow.

Give new New York Press editor Jeff Koyen this much: He doesn't do things by halves. In this week's issue, he uses an aside to launch into Neal Pollack:

I don't find any "humor writing" to be funny. Take Neal Pollack, for example. What the hell was Henry thinking when he included that decidedly unfunny Pollack "self-interview" in the latest Chunklet? Pollack may have had his day--I think it was a Wednesday, sometime back in 1999--but if that boy doesn't diversify but quick, he'll be a footnote in no time.

The funny thing is, most of the articles in Pollack's new collection were first run by the previous management of, you guessed it, the New York Press.

posted by Jeremy at 9:17 PM


wWednesday, March 05, 2003


THE DAILY KVETCH: ATKINS DIET POMPOSITY:

Pro Atkins Diet writer Gary Taubes issues an almost 10,000 word reply to Michael Fumento's criticism of Taubes' pro Atkins New York Times Magazine cover story. If I was Taubes agent or publicist, I would have attempted to talk him out of replying, or at least of sending this particular reply. From the first paragraph on, it sinks under the weight of its own pomposity. Fumento issued his own rebuttal but he almost needn't have done so. Any reasonable reader who looks at Taubes' reply will be likely to conclude, with this writer, that he's full of it.

But wait, there's more! According to RiShawn Biddle, Fumento has gone and charged that Reason published Taubes' reply under threat of a lawsuit. Nick Gillespie denies this, having written to Fumento that Taubes reply "to my mind helps your case rather than hurts it." Fumento shot back that a) Taubes has threatened lawsuits in the past; b) that Reason rarely runs letters unedited and that c) the magazine "was in such a hurry to run the Taubes letter as soon as my article was posted that they sent it to me already coded in HTML."

To Fumento, I would reply: a) Gillespie was right. Taubes' reply really does help cement your case; b) So what if it was longer than normal Reason letters? Publishing it at that length allows readers to get the pomposity full in the face; c) It's not unusual to get already-coded responses; and d) I know Nick Gillespie to be an honest man. If he says there was no threat of a lawsuit, I'd believe him.

Colby Cosh says his goodbye, with a little more pith and vinegar than the other Reportsters. Remember Cosh it's not the size of the potato that counts, it's what you do with it.

Finally, Kevin Steel is trying to vindicate Nobokov from the spurious charge that the novelist is "a young man's fancy," especially with regard to Lolita. This response was a couple days in coming. When I called him today, he told me that he was in war mode with "about 20 books face down on the kitchen table." For what it's worth, I think he pulled it off:

The novel has been called, by Martin Amis for instance, a very cruel book. That is true. But in the end there is mercy, a state of kindness. It is very subtle. I don't know of anyone else who has made this observation. ... Only someone who can see through the narrator's mind and attune itself to care about the ultimate fate of the victim, will notice this reprieve or consider it important, will understand why it is one of the "nerves of the novel." Take into consideration the quotes about cruelty and kindness above, it seems very important detail to me, especially if the crowd around me "is being driven by some common impulse to some common goal" and considers this subtle work of art a cruel book. As a young man I was not capable of this type of observation. [more]

posted by Jeremy at 11:37 PM


w


DEDICATED TO SOMEONE I ONCE KNEW: I'm doing seven--count 'em seven--book reviews this week. One of the pieces already knocked off is a review of Ben Stein's How to Ruin Your Life. The book concludes:

Finally, and most important: Don't believe in God. Or, to put it more precisely, believe and know in your heart that there is a God--and you are the One. This is really key to every other part of this little guidebook. Believe that you are the most important One, that everything you do is what counts, that no traditions or laws man-made or natural apply to you, and that neither mathematics nor the laws of physics nor medicine apply to you. And sure as shootin', you'll find yourself ruined. Believe that you control all of human destiny. Believe that you can determine the results of everything that happens on this earth. Believe that the whole world is one giant movie and you're the director. And, know that you're the boss, the puppet master, controlling every single aspect of everyone's life: chief critic, dictator, censor, and of course, beneficiary and inheritor of everyone else's labor. You're a pagan god of sorts, with no responsibility to anyone in return. You're not the god of love or compassion. You're the god who lolls about eating grapes someone else had peeled, deriving your pleasure from everyone else's sacrifice and owing nothing in return.

Then, and only then, will you truly understand who you are. And then--God help you.

posted by Jeremy at 2:38 AM


wTuesday, March 04, 2003


THE DAILY KVETCH: WHEN PUNDITS ATTACK:

Thought George Will was a teddy bear, did you? Well, one of his columns almost killed Chris Mooney.

Rick Hiebert bids me a fond farewell. He says that he would have liked working with me in the old B.C. Report newsroom and then adds the caveat "Theoretically, of course, as I think he would have been going through puberty or high school if that were the case." KMG also has some kind parting words.

Finally, the latest dispatch from the young Rebecca Grace:

And so Alistair wanted me to read him this thing that Ben had told me, but I didn't want to because I thought it might be wrong, and so Alistair's like, "Read the stupid thing or I'll bash you up at school tomorrow" and I just like, "Yeah right, you could not" and he's just like, "I could. You're a girl with skinny arms. I could deck you anytime" and I'm like bah! I mean it, if he EVER tried to deck me, I'd just deck him right back! Ha!

You go girl.

posted by Jeremy at 4:14 PM


wMonday, March 03, 2003


WHAT'S NEXT?: Quite a few people have asked me that question today. Obviously, this pen's for hire on a freelance basis. Less obvious is where I land next, as far as long term employment is concerned. Any advice and/or job offers would be appreciated.

Thanks to Steve Martinovich and Kevin Steel for their kind words.

posted by Jeremy at 10:13 PM


w


IN OTHER REPORT WEBLOGS, FINAL EDITION: It's a few minutes shy of midnight but it's close enough. I tendered my resignation at the Report (sorry, the Citizens Centre Report) on Friday, effective Monday. We parted company over creative differences.

Now, "creative differences" is usually a code word for "there was a big screaming match and I told them to go screw themselves," but nothing of the sort happened. The management of the Report wanted to take the magazine in a direction that was roughly opposite of where I wanted to go--and I knew that if I stayed on I wouldn't be happy with my assignments and they wouldn't be happy with my output. Nor should the haste of my departure be read into: I would have stuck around through the current story cycle but there was a massive backlog of overset material.

I'd like to thank Link for hiring me; Colby for convincing me that I could make a go of it; Rick and Michael for helping me not fall on my ass; Paul and Kathleen for housing me; Mary for showing me what it would have been like to have had a kid sister; KMG for humoring me; Victor for making me feel like a million bucks; and Steel and Stevens for being two of the best friends a guy could have.

posted by Jeremy at 2:57 AM


wSaturday, March 01, 2003


HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO ME: Jeremiads is one year old today. Thanks for reading.

posted by Jeremy at 3:15 PM