Four years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, politicians are still working hard to define success in Iraq as . . . well . . . nothing in particular. According to many (though not all) Republicans, many thousands of deaths and injuries, lack of basic infrastructure, massive displacement of Iraqis…
As reported by Newsweek, on May 11 Barack Obama told Detroit that it could do much better. This scolding came at a time that American automakers "lost more than $16 billion last year, while Toyota earned a record $14 billion and surpassed GM as the world's largest automaker." Obama castigated…
After reading Erich’s post, I thought I’d put this up. I wrote it–most of it–some time ago, for a different venue, but I’ve added to it since, and, well, along with Erich’s it might add more flavors to the stew of memory. So.
I have friends who thought it was a great thing when Reagan became president, who now reject any such accusation, and refuse to believe it when I remind them that they said encouraging things about him when he took office. One quote, during a ceremony broadcast on television, that I’ll never forget: “He just looks like a real president!”
Time passes, policy comes to the fore, and most of those people no longer recall these initial bouts of near-patriotic enthusiasm. They have conveniently forgotten.
I didn’t like Reagan’s policies. I’m sure I would have liked him. Everybody who met him seems to say the same thing. When Donna Brazille can say she thought he was a decent man, despite the complete polarization of their politics, you have to admit something was going on with Reagan which is all too often more telling about politics and history than the facts attached to a particular era.
Reagan was presidential. He had Presence.
I listen now to the talk about putting his face on the ten dollar bill with some amusement. Reagan already has at least one airport, a couple of highways, no doubt many streets, parks, a library named in his honor. He may be the most honored president …
Check out Sony’s 1975 promo for Betamax. More specifically, this is a seven-minute vintage promotional video for the Sony Trinitron/Betamax console You probably know at least part of the Betamax story: Betamax, a superior video product, was beat out by VHS. I am sharing this video because it serves quite well as a…
As a general rule, simple questions, especially simple questions with purportedly obvious answers, are the most interesting questions.
While I attended a wedding this weekend, I noticed all of the sex partners seated together, you know . . . husbands and wives and boyfriends and girlfriends (and a few gay couples).
Why do sex partners sit together at public rituals, I wondered. The obvious answer is that it’s because most sex partners live together, right? Other people thus see sex partners as couples and feel that they should be invited to important rituals together, especially to important rites of passage, such as weddings. But why do so many sex partners live together (and hence get invited to prominent social events as couplets)? After all, instead of living with her sex partner, maybe a woman would rather live with (and then potentially be invited to go to weddings with) a non-sex partner friend or neighbor, or perhaps even her non-sex-partner plumber or accountant. Or maybe she’d rather attend public gatherings by herself, so that she could freely mingle. The norm, however, is obvious to anyone who bothers to scan the crowd at a wedding: the great majority of people who attend such gatherings attend them as sexually-paired couples.
Someone who followed the SSSM model might say that this behavior (of attending prominent rituals with your spouse) is simply learned, or that it is “social convention” or that it “feels right.” There is a compelling story that can be told about paternity …