Category: Uncategorized

A nasty, brutish and short postseason? (II)

The Red Sox confirm that Josh Beckett has a strained oblique, and announce that he’s been pushed back to Game 3. That sounds pretty mild for an oblique injury, although the team concedes it could take Beckett longer than that.

On second thought, though, I like Lester and Matsuzaka in the first two games, as long as the bullpen’s ready to take over in the sixth for Daisuke’s start. By all rights, the Angels should win this — which means, as Bob Ryan notes, that there’s not as much pressure on the Sox.

Kristol mails it in

Bill Kristol barely rouses himself in his New York Times column today. Simply as a student of opinion journalism, I’m amazed at the extent to which he’s willing to make assertions without even trying to back them up.

Today’s effort isn’t a bad column because he’s a conservative, but because he’s so lazy. Here are three examples:

1. “McCain’s impetuous decision to return to Washington was right. The agreement announced early Sunday morning is better than Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson’s original proposal, and better than the deal the Democrats claimed was close on Thursday. Assuming the legislation passes soon, and assuming it reassures financial markets, McCain will be able to take some credit.”

I have not seen one account of the negotiations that shows John McCain had anything to do with the outcome; I’ve seen quite a few that suggest his parachute jump was a distraction. I make that point not to claim that I’m right, but to explain the conventional wisdom that Kristol, as McCain’s advocate, needs to puncture.

As if. Here was Kristol’s golden opportunity to work those inside connections and tell us why everyone is wrong; to say that McCain did X and Y, and that it’s time he got some credit, damn it. Kristol doesn’t even try.

2. “McCain needs to liberate his running mate from the former Bush aides brought in to handle her — aides who seem to have succeeded in importing to the Palin campaign the trademark defensive crouch of the Bush White House. McCain picked Sarah Palin in part because she’s a talented politician and communicator. He needs to free her to use her political talents and to communicate in her own voice.”

As we have all seen, Sarah Palin can’t answer simple questions about any issues of national and international importance. The reason McCain’s aides have been so parsimonious about her public appearances is that she stumbles every time she opens her mouth. We wouldn’t be talking about how she’s being handled if she could answer the questions.

Again, the columnist’s job is to tell us why everyone is wrong — to explain, on the basis of evidence, that the reason her interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were so damaging was because McCain’s handlers have gotten inside her head and made it impossible for her natural wisdom to flow forth. Or whatever. In other words, give us some plausible explanation for us not to believe our own lying eyes and ears.

And again, Kristol doesn’t bother.

3. “On Saturday, Obama criticized McCain for never using in the debate Friday night the words ‘middle class.’ … The McCain campaign might consider responding by calling attention to Chapter 14 of Obama’s eloquent memoir, ‘Dreams From My Father.’ There Obama quotes from the brochure of Reverend [Jeremiah] Wright’s church — a passage entitled ‘A Disavowal of the Pursuit of Middleclassness.'”

Why, yes, the McCain campaign might very well consider doing that. Would it be a good idea? Who knows? Kristol doesn’t make any attempt to try to characterize what the brochure says.

Wright has indulged in some pretty nasty rhetoric. But he is, after all, a minister. If Wright calls on people to disavow “the pursuit of middleclassness,” might he be urging them to eschew materialism in favor of service to one’s fellow men and women? Who knows? What we do know is that, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, Kristol manages to insinuate that Wright was seeking a race war against bourgeois society.

How much is he getting paid for this?

A nasty, brutish and short postseason?

I didn’t like the Red Sox’ chances even before the latest news — just too many key guys hurt. I’m amazed they made the playoffs with such ease, given that it seemed like they never really got hot all season. (Although they’ve had a terrific won-loss record since The Trade.)

Now Steve Buckley of the Boston Herald reports that Josh Beckett might be out with an oblique injury. I don’t want to say stick a fork in them. But you might as well keep one handy. (Via Universal Hub.)

Whose privacy is being protected?

Over at the New England First Amendment Center‘s blog, I’ve got a post on an interesting case involving the town of Nantucket. It seems that local officials wanted to keep a severance agreement under wraps — in order, they said, to protect the privacy of an employee they’d fired.

The local weekly, the Nantucket Inquirer and Mirror, filed a complaint, and last week the state ruled that the agreement must be made public.

As it turns out, the ex-employee was only too happy to tell her story. And, as is often the case, when government officials invoke privacy, what they’re really trying to do is avoid embarrassment for themselves.

Live-blogging tonight’s debate

10:37 p.m. Basically a tie. McCain reminds us that he’s no Bush, who could barely make it through any of these things. Obama, as the new guy, ought to get the biggest boost for showing he can go toe-to-toe with McCain. But low expectations probably translate into this being considered a good night for McCain. And good night from Media Nation.

10:23 p.m. McCain’s best stretch of the night — a historical and contemporary disquisition on Russia and its neighbors. More sabre-rattling, but assures us that we’re not returning to the Cold War. Obama agrees with McCain — no doubt too dicey to take on the issue of Georgian aggression in a sound-bite setting.

10:17 p.m. Obama’s telling the truth about Kissinger and Iran. McCain isn’t.

10:12 p.m. Obama’s best stretch of the night. Says he’ll meet with anyone if it will enhance U.S. security. Notes that McCain adviser Henry Kissinger says we should meet with Iran “without preconditions.” And observes that North Korea went wild on nuke buildup after we cut off ties.

10:09 p.m. McCain: Obama wants to sit down with Ahmadinejad and “legitimize” a regime that wants to destroy Israel. Says he’ll sit down with anyone, but not without “preconditions.”

10:08 p.m. Sabre-rattling on Iran. McCain sounds like he’s ready to go to war tomorrow. Obama wants “tough, direct diplomacy.” “This notion that by not talking to people, we’re punishing them has not worked.”

10:02 p.m. McCain is too maudlin and long-winded about his bracelet. Obama barely mentions his, and seems petulant. Don’t either of these guys know how to get the symbolism right?

10 p.m. My bracelet’s better than yours.

9:56 p.m. Globe-trotting one-upmanship. Obama: I’ve talked to President Karzai. McCain: I’ve been to Waziristan.

9:49 p.m. Obama shifts the turf from Iraq to Afghanistan, and seems more comfortable in so doing. Put more troops into Afghanistan to “capture and kill bin Laden and crush Al Qaeda.”

9:44 p.m. The war versus the surge. McCain says Obama was wrong about the surge. Obama says McCain was wrong about the war. McCain says the next president won’t have to decide whether to go to war in Iraq. But the next president could decide to go to war somewhere else, couldn’t he? “Sen. Obama refuses to acknowledge that we’re winning the war in Iraq.” “That’s not true. That’s not true.”

9:36 p.m. Obama’s warming up.

9:34 p.m. Think of it as a job interview. Obama comes across as cool, competent and a little bloodless. McCain? Passionate, experienced but unpredictable. Whom would you hire?

9:29 p.m. Switching from CNN to C-SPAN so I don’t have to look at the stupid audience-reaction meter.

9:27 p.m. McCain’s showing his less attractive side. Accuses Obama of wanting to raise taxes on everyone making more than $42,000 (“Not true,” replies Obama), and then snickers the way he used to snicker at Romney.

9:21 p.m. Does it seem to anyone else that McCain has been talking about three times as much as Obama?

9:18 p.m. McCain is talking about simple, understandable themes. I can barely understand Obama, and I’m addicted to this stuff.

9:12 p.m. Obama is talking ideas. McCain is talking values. Guess which is more effective?

9:10 p.m. Jim Lehrer wants to know if Obama and McCain are going to vote for the bailout plan. But there is no plan yet.

I’m not a huge fan of live-blogging events, but I’m going to give it a try tonight. I’m hoping it will help me organize my thoughts as I get ready to round up media commentary on the debate for the Guardian tomorrow morning.

Libel insurance for bloggers

Blogging can be a legally hazardous activity, especially if you are doing it independently. If a staff reporter for an established news organization is sued for libel, he or she is in for an exceedingly unpleasant experience — but at least the employer and its insurance company will pay to fight the charges or settle.

Last year I attended a conference at which the subject of bloggers and liability came up, and let’s just say that it was chilling, in all senses of the word. Right now Cape Cod Today blogger Peter Robbins is facing a libel suit. What too many bloggers fail to understand is that they are not exempt from libel laws. They just lack the means to fight back.

That’s why a new project by the Media Bloggers Association is so interesting. MBA president Robert Cox (in photo) has come up with a new program under which bloggers who take an online course in media law will be eligible to purchase libel insurance.

It’s not cheap — David Ardia of the Citizen Media Law Project, who helped write the online course, says that it will cost a minimum of $450 a year. A prominent local blogger who’s been corresponding with me about this looked into it and was told that, in his case, it might be almost twice that. But it’s a lot cheaper than losing your home, which is what many bloggers are unwittingly risking.

Cox is a longtime leader in legal issues facing the blogging community, and he deserves a lot of credit for bringing this program to fruition.

Photo (cc) by J.D. Lasica and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Try not to laugh

From today’s New York Times story on $6.6 billion in federal earmarks that Congress is moving toward approving:

Senator [Ted] Stevens got $2 million for the University of Alaska to study “hibernation genomics.”

Martha A. Stewart, director of federal relations for the university, said scientists were studying the hibernation of Alaskan ground squirrels and black bears. If medics could induce a state of hibernation in humans, she said, they might be able to increase the survival chances of wounded troops being evacuated from the battlefield.

Wouldn’t it be better if she’d just said scientists want to study hibernation, and Stevens got the money?