Last day to register for the LGM Bowl Mania league…
League Name: Lawyers, Guns and Money
We’re trying some things with respect to getting rid of the interloping Zales ad. IT is having some trouble replicating, so if anyone with an engineers eye is suffering the problem and can explain, please don’t hesitate to use e-mail on far right sidebar.
Hey, if anyone can get a screen grab of the “Zales” pop-up that irregularly marches across our page, I’d deeply appreciate. Please send to the blog e-mail address on the far right sidebar.
…. thanks very much, have what we need. Working on it!
On the development of mythology:
Consider this: When Colbert first launched his new show as a spinoff from “The Daily Show” our nation was awash in the culture of fear that followed the attacks of 9/11. In those pre-torture report days anyone who criticized the Bush administration was immediately accused of treason. Those who thought the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were ill-conceived and immoral, who staunchly opposed torture, and who believed our nation depended on an active, inquisitive and critical citizenry were silenced. In those days it was common to hear of journalists and professors losing their jobs because they had dared to question the administration and ask more of the media.
That was the atmosphere when Colbert took the stage in 2006 to roast President Bush to his face at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. Standing only a few feet away from the president, Colbert dealt a scathing blow to the hubris of the administration and the docile media that covered it. The moment was a real watershed in our nation’s history, because it was the only time in the entire eight years of the Bush administration that anyone had directly critiqued Bush in such detail to his face.
Eh…. I don’t remember it that way.
I’ll grant that things played out differently in Seattle than in other parts of the country, and that the conversation was different in the academy than in other sectors. But by 2004, much less 2006, American public debate had space for some bitingly savage critiques of the Bush administration, and especially of its war performance. The 2004 Democratic primary was won by someone who, while he nominally favored the war, was exceedingly critical of the manner in which it was being conducted.
Even in 2003, voices in opposition to the war weren’t cries from the wilderness. Many major newspapers, including the New York Times, either outright opposed the war or believed that the administration had botched the diplomacy. Anti-war protests in 2003 were, by an large, not met by truncheon-wielding thugs. Instead, they were either completely ignored or used by the right to feed narratives of out-of-touch pacifists who couldn’t protect America.
With respect to journalists and professors losing their jobs, there surely were cases, but by mid-2004 (if not earlier) opposition to the war in the academy was so ingrained that it was almost certainly more dangerous to be strongly in favor of the war than strongly opposed. For example, I can say without qualification that while the founders of LGM may have worried about how blogging would affect their professional prospects, we were not at all concerned about how potential employers would view our opinions on the war. In 2005, for example, I was hired to teach national security by a program with a conservative reputation in a southern state. And of course there was a robust internet debate (back when blogging was still a thing) in which anti-war voices were welcome; by 2005, arguing that the United States should withdraw gradually rather than immediately was enough to get a writer lambasted.
We’ve become increasingly fond of saying that there was no debate in 2003. But there was a debate, and our side lost. It wasn’t fair and square, but such debates rarely are. We were right at the time, and we were decisively proved right by the course of the war. War supporters have not suffered the public opprobrium they deserve, especially given how solid the consensus now is that the conflict was a mistake. The other side lied relentlessly, although I still doubt whether it really needed to. But we should be hesitant about mythologizing how hard it was to be right at the time, and we shouldn’t paint ourselves as martyrs of latter-day McCarthyism.
I’ve been waiting for this since before Marcus Mariota was born. Bill Musgrave was a fringe Heisman candidate in 1989 and 1990. Both Reuben Droughns and Akili Smith received some attention in the late 1990s, with Smith famously promising to bring the Heisman to Eugene. Joey Harrington was made the center of a notorious PR campaign for the Heisman, and ended up as the only finalist in school history. The award belonged to Dennis Dixon, until a terrible night in Tucson. By the time LaMichael came along, the award had become the domain of of dual-threat quarterbacks.
And so it’s about time.
— Andy McNamara (@McNamaraUO) December 14, 2014
Here’s to hoping that Mariota will be able to buy a suit that fits with the immense amount of money he should start making next year.
I’ve reactivated last year’s LGM College Bowl Mania group. If you’ve had a team previously, it should give you the option of rejoining the league automatically. If you didn’t join last time but would like to this time:
League: Lawyers, Guns and Money
As always, prize to the winner yada yada yada. Go Ducks!
Thoughts from the day of no sleep:
Well, this is a problem.
In the face of new information, there now appear to be discrepancies in Jackie’s account, and we have come to the conclusion that our trust in her was misplaced. We were trying to be sensitive to the unfair shame and humiliation many women feel after a sexual assault and now regret the decision to not contact the alleged assaulters to get their account. We are taking this seriously and apologize to anyone who was affected by the story.
Much remains to play out, but at a minimum it does appear that Rolling Stone failed to conduct due diligence in its reporting. As a few people have noted, given the destructive impact of the “false accusation” narrative on rape victims’ willingness to come forward, it’s absolutely critical that journalistic outlets do their best to nail down the facts.
My latest at the Diplomat takes a look at the export prospects of the Sino-Pakistani JF-17:
The JF-17, a joint Sino-Pakistani fighter project, is a single engine fighter developed, conceptually, as a modern MiG-21. Given how global fighter fleets have deteriorated since the end of the Cold War, the idea seemed sound; a low-cost fighter that didn’t present major technical challenges, and that could serve as a cheap option for revitalizing many air forces. Like many such low-end projects, however, the “maybe good enough” JF-17 has yet to catch on with defence ministries fixated on prestige and technology.
Recently, however, indications have emerged that a few countries might have an interest.
Off to Brazil this afternoon; blogging will be light, but hopefully not non-existent.