Fragment: Anecdote on the Rise of Claustrophobia

Today's Hit and Run at Reason magazine describes the finally-released transcript of Harvard President Larry Summers' recent remarks, which became cannon-fodder in a strange symbolic war, which was good for symbolic journalists, and may or may not have had casualties. Apparently, the squabble is over what one concludes from "a greater variability in aptitude among men" on certain tests. In other words, what does it mean that men are less likely than women to be "normal" as these tests measure it? But--perhaps because this started in the Ivy League--nobody fighting the war is interested in the question of normal.

BREAKING NEWS: Iraq War did NOT eliminate terrorist threat.

CIA has concluded that the U.S. invading Iraq helped the terrorists. "The Iraq conflict... has become a cause for extremists," DCI Porter Gosss told Congress.

Also in the news: the Surgeon General has concluded that war may be hazardous to your health; studies of famine and pestilence are currently under review.

Another reason to hug trees.

Enough trees can save you from a Tsunami. We're planning to move to Washington State now.

Weekly Roundup: Exorcism, the new Paxil?

• Just a reminder: people are experiencing serious psychological and religious difficulties in the Indian Ocean region in the wake of the Tsunami. A Globe reporter witnesses a traditional healing session in Sri Lanka. (It looks to us as if the healer employs a technique using runes of some sort.)
• As for religious affairs that just aren't that important: Eileen McNamara on how the Catholic Church in Boston is just picking up where it left off. Most perplexing tidbit: is it true that the PR person for the archdiocese, is not even employed by the archdiocese? What? Could it not find a spokeswoman who wanted to be on its payroll? Or has it adopted a strategy of "outsourcing" its public statements? Is this sending a faith-based message?
  

Desophistication Super Bowl Ad Awards

Before the hangover set in, we realized that this might be a good time to be faithful to our blog's mission. Hence, just like most segments of the mainstream media, we're gonna tell you what we liked and disliked about the Super Bowl commercials.

Before we begin, let's wistfully note that "1984" was over twenty years ago. Apple Computer has been going on a long time, folks. (Napster has no chance of beating them whatsoever.) As for this year--we were wondering, why was Paul McCartney's stage designed in the shape of a Greek cross?

One rule: ads that ran after halftime are not on our radar screen. (The fact that this year's game had a second half was a pleasant surprise). And we think that in the future, ads for wheeled vehicles will be a special set. So, here goes:

• Most Annoying Sellout: the Muppets were shilling for Pizza Hut??
  
• Weirdest Ad: McDonald's "Lincoln Fry" spot. Fast Food Nation attempts sophomoric humor, tries to split the difference between civil religion and superstition.
  
• Most Mundane: Volvo's Rocket ad for its new V8 wagon, with cameo by Richard Branson. The bright idea of showing a Titan rocket lift-off during the first quarter of the Super Bowl. Is this the best phallic symbol they can come up with?
• Most Timely Ad: Ford's ad for its forthcoming Mustang convertible: man freezes driving red convertible on tundra (with inexplicable stoplight). Those of us still digging out from under 3 feet of snow can really relate to it.
  
• Best Automobile Ad: The Cadillac 'under-5' series, with tunnel and bridge. Unlike the Volvo ad, this one was pure rocketry.
  
• The only really cool movie ad last night: For "War of the Worlds." And it was a blipvert.
  
• The James Spader Prize for Sheer Audacity, Most Subversive Commercial, and also Most Old Skool: GoDaddy.com's first quarter mock Senate-censors committee hearing. This had everything: eye candy, mummery, and rebellion. It not only mocked the Janet Jackson controversy, it also alluded to DeCaprio's Howard Hughes in The Aviator, which tells of unholy alliances of corporate money and politics, and in general it stood up for internet-based libertarian anarchy. Oh, and it also mentioned the product (you looked at the site, didn't you?)--which turns out to be a discount ISP/web-hosting service. And it did all that with a minimal production budget. For those of you who are too young to know: This is what the '90s were like. And we are so glad that the '90s aren't dead (or have been resurrected).
  
• Best Overall Super Bowl Commercial: Diet Pepsi's "Stayin' Alive" spot, with a cameo by Carson Kressley. It's a fine cola ad before it throws in the very unexpected juxtapostion of Carson and the Super Bowl. Nostalgic, sexy, corporate and postmodern all at the same time--what else is there to be at Super Bowl? (Also, we are still impressed with Pepsi's consistent command of pop music, all the way back to what, 1986? Coca-Cola might own Christmas, but Pepsi certainly owns the Super Bowl).
  

As a footnote, we are also wondering why the first (only?) Cialis ad (or Viagra, for that matter) wasn't until the mid-third Quarter. Are American men less impotent this year? Is that an effect of November's election results? Or is it because the New England market for such drugs dried up after the Boston Red Sox actually won the World Series? (Yes, really, they did win! It wasn't a dream!)

UPDATE: The Godaddy.com ad was also subjected to ex post facto censorship. An NFL official called it "inappropriate." But compared to what, exactly? A plug for Desperate Housewives?

Is Evangelicalism the next Feminism?

The Globe found a top official of the National Association of Evangelicals describing the Moral Majority as an "aberration." Apparently it is not cool for Christians to be judgmental. (Six months after the death of Ronald Reagan, they get it.) This will be news to a lot of people. But here's the interesting graf:

Scholars who study black and Hispanic evangelicals in the Unvied States said that both groups remain far more politically liberal than white evangelicals and that the leadership of evangelical Protestant organizations in the United States has often failed to recognize the economic and social justice concerns of nonwhite evangelicals.

Could it be that in America, all movements eventually develop the same problems?

P.S. Yes, we know Philocrites posted on this before we did; we'd decided to hold the story till Sunday since it's not as important as the story about birds making philosophical distinctions. But it is intriguing that we're all highlighting the same adjective.

NEWSFLASH: imminent death of all Philosophy

Yesterday the Times' science section reported on a startling new development, or rather, discovery: Birds can think. AND they can teach advanced concepts! Nothing less than the future of all human educational institutions is at stake. It appears, for instance, that Clark nutcrackers are good Hobbesians who can hide and steal: "If they see another bird watching them as they cache food, they return later, alone, to hide the food again. Some scientists believe this shows a rudimentary theory of mind - understanding that another bird has intentions and beliefs."

But the real problem is that professional thinkers --academics --will have to compete on the job market with parrots:

Parrots, some researchers report, can converse with humans, invent syntax and teach other parrots what they know. Researchers have claimed that Alex, an African gray, can grasp important aspects of number, color concepts, the difference between presence and absence, and physical properties of objects like their shapes and materials. He can sound out letters the same way a child does.

So 2,800 years of western philosophy have come to this. The only thing standing between a bird and every fourth job in Boston is a typewriter.

Happy Groundhog Day

Today, thankfully, the op-eds have turned to the most important discussion: writing. (Well, speechwriting, which is a few steps down but good-enough-for-DC.)

• Matthew Scully, Bush speechwriter, on the State-of-the-Union Process. He indirectly makes the case that W. knows what he is saying.
  
• Jeff Sheshol, that the 'rebuttal speech' has a lousy format and ought immediately to be either deeply reformed or abolished.
  

Both of these pieces point out the difference between what we would call, Platonically, the difference between the true editor and the false editor. (Hint: most'editors' in DC are the latter.) We'll have more to say on this subject later this week.