The New York Times' columnists are free

In this month's Washington Monthly T. A. Franks examines the phenomenon that is New York Times' columnist Bob Herbert being really boring and unread. Franks, while concluding Herbert is unquestionably boring, still bemoans why people can't bring themselves to read him. Because, while he might cause drowsiness, Herbert is "always right." Franks then steps on the veracity of his claim on Herbert's veracity by admitting, like everyone else, he never reads Bob Herbert.

On most days such industry meta-analysis wouldn't be fodder for the JSB, but today happens to be the day the New York Times freed all their columnists, boring or otherwise, from the tyranny of the paid wall called Times Select.

When parts of the Times' website flipped to the monthly subscription model a few years back, I quickly procured myself a password. It wasn't my password, mind you, and, because of that, when my cookies didn't take (which happens quite often) I would have to retype a password not found in the easily accessible part of my brain. Often, to do this, I would have to call up the word document I had saved the password on.

So despite getting myself in without paying, in this world of instant Internet gratification my entry into the New York Times' walled content had a price. Once I realized this, I was pretty sure I'd never read another of boring Bob Herbert's columns.

Nick Kristof was the next to go. I think it's great that he wants to save all the persecuted child prostitutes in the world. But it would be a lot more interesting and less depressing if he wrote about the sexy exploits of adult prostitutes.

Tom Friedman used to be one of my favorite columnists. But this supposed Middle East expert is always enthusiastically endorsing what some "moderate" he ran into in coffeehouse in Saudi Arabia told him. I think it is safe to say there isn't anywhere in the world where the opinion of the coffeehouse moderate is less relevant than it is in the Middle East. The fact that Friedman fails to grasp this (or at least he did a year or so ago) has made it increasingly impossible for me to risk retrieving a password to read his column.

Paul Krugman, eh, you can write your own Paul Krugman column by remembering the last thing Bush said and figuring out what the exact opposite might be.

So that left David Brooks and Maureen Dowd, among the regulars. But it's hard to write two good columns a week. So I started only reading Brooks if something in the link title suggested Brooks was going make one of those maddeningly over-simplified but clever and fun pop-sociological conclusions involving strip malls, soccer moms and the German philosophers he remembered from college. And I've been only clicking through to Dowd if it seems like she is going to viciously skewer someone who needs a vicious skewering and hasn't already been viciously skewered enough by all the purely web-based snark-throwers Dowd's style has wrought.

Now, as of today, I can read any of the New York Times' columnists without risk of password interruption. But I'm not sure if I am going to. There is a flip-side to that old Joni Mitchell line about not knowing what you've got until it's gone.

Times readers don't know how to use the Internet

These are the top ten searched terms today on the New York Times' website. I like to check this list to see what the fancy people are thinking. Two through ten fluctuate, but one generally stays the same.

I'm not surprised The New York Times' highfalutin readership has sex on the mind. If there is one thing the Internet has taught us, it is that everyone has sex on the mind. Though I am taken aback, knowing what we do know about the Internet, so many of The Times' on-line readers would waste their time searching the paper of record for "sex."

JSB tries its hand at Freakonomics

Yesterday, to gin up attention for the migration of his popular Freakonomics blog to the New York Times, Steven Levitt answered the question If You Were a Terrorist, How Would You Attack. Like many, I was disturbed Levitt would use his finely toned contrarian mind and his brand new access to the paper of record to provide our enemies with a blueprint for what is surely the most market rational terror plan ever conceived. Levitt even opens up the forum for suggestions from the Times's famously well-educated readership!

But, let's face it, pondering the question Levitt posed is something we all do when we are in the privacy of our friends. I found it particularly heartwarming that Levitt came to his final conclusion -- it involved teams of snipers -- after it was suggested by his dear old dad.

I'm also starting to get the feeling the terrorists might not actually hate us. It's possible they merely dislike us. Or what if they really love us, but -- like an awkward confused school boy -- they are still developing the maturity to properly express the depth of their feelings. This analogy would get disturbing if I were to draw it out any further.

Still, better safe than sorry. That's why I would never use this space to remind my al-Qaeda readership how dependent lazy Americans are on their automobiles. And how crippling strikes to all of our nation's motor vehicle departments would grind America to a slothful halt.

Any good jihadi knows of America's atrocious history of race relations. But do they know that these days the only thing preventing America from an all out race-war is the wisdom of Al Sharpton? They didn't hear it here.

I'm sure laughter rings out in the caves of Tora Bora whenever Bin Laden gets his hands on the latest study showing the average American high school student reads English at the level of a Bulgarian fourth grader. Given this, the American university system's continued ability to chug out the leaders and innovators required for the next American century must frustrate and confuse the terrorist mastermind. Is he aware this discrepancy can all be attributed to the efforts of a handful of college professors who snap our know-nothing 18-year olds out of their secondary school funk with tough love and failing grades?

I doubt it. That's why I'm not telling him. And I would never give out any of these professors' home addresses. Even if he asked.

Most of the bigger trucks remain closet cases

It was only a decade ago that Tinky Winky, a teletubby, tried to assert his homosexuality by dressing in purple, carrying a smashing red handbag and wearing a triangle, the symbol of gay pride, over his head.

While forward thinking Americans such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson realized that Tinky was busting to get out of the closet, the so-called "liberal media" mocked the idea that a tellytubby could be gay.

My how the worm has turned. As their human cousins gain unprecedented intergration into mainstream society, members of non-human and inanimate gay and lesbian community (NHIGLC) are finally taking the first step to acceptance: Recognition.

And isn't it ironic that the New York Times, the paper at the forefront of denying Tinky Winky's right to have a sexual orientation, is leading the charge to recognize the NHIGLC by running this article on the undeniable sexual preferences of certain automobiles.

In truly enlightened circles, it was no longer a secret that the Miata and the Mini Cooper have a summer share together on Fire Island, or that the Subaru Outback would prefer teaching golf at a small New England girl's school to ferrying about a bunch of screaming rugrats. But now, because of today's article in the Times, it is out there for all the world to deal with.

So the next time you see something non-human or inanimate, a chair maybe, and think to yourself "that chair looks really gay," it probably is. And that's OK.

A fragrance for a man and a modem

There is a lot of comment and ridicule on the Internet this morning surrounding a New York Times article on Calvin Klein's attempt to update its uber-popular 13-year old scent, CK One.

According to the article CK One was once "so authentically grunge it was carried in record stores alongside albums by Nirvana." The unisex product's marketing campaign, which featured "unconventional black and white advertisements filled with moping, androgynous models," was such a success CK One used to sell 20 bottles a minute -- apparently quite an accomplishment in the world of fragrance.

But CK One's inability to conquer the hearts and olfactories of today's twenty-somethings has sent sales tumbling.

The updated fragrance, CK in2u -- a nod to the shorthand of the new digital age, not the song title-writing stylings of the ancient pop star Prince -- will be released soon.

What made the article so cringe-worthy (the author acknowledges this and seems to be in on the cringing) was its account of the nuts and bolts of establishing and marketing what is hip and sexy. Which is never a pretty read.

According to the folks at Calvin Klein's ad agency, the newest consumer generation of "technosexuals" will respond to ad copy such as this:

"She likes how he blogs, her texts turn him on. It's intense. For right now."

I'm sure you are all wondering how your favorite blogger is reacting to being elevated to a status of sexiness once held by the androgynous grunge rockers of the mid-90's.

Actually, this morning, when I first read the link "Calvin Klein to launch technosexual fragrance," I took it to mean, in my grogginess, that Calvin Klein -- who has always seemed a bit off with all the underaged stuff and the wood paneling -- had discovered a whole new sexuality -- probably involving machines -- to rival the old standbys of hetero, homo, and the always suspicious bi.

I thought to myself: That ought to be one fascinating article.

When I discovered it was about a perfume to put on when you are staring at a computer screen in your pajamas I was nothing but disappointed.

Lonelygirl15 revealed

A few weeks ago I was thinking about doing a post on the internet phenomenon that is Lonelygirl15: The allegedly 16 year-old home-schooled prisoner of her room who bewitched millions of Youtube viewers with a serialization of videos displaying her good looks, precious fascination with science and the most expressive eyebrows this side of Jack Nicholson.

I was going to state that anybody who thought "Bree" was really who she claimed-- it seemed there was a 50/50 split among Lonelygirl fans -- had drunk the weakest Koolaid ever poured.

Not that Lonelygirl15 wasn't a charming way to spend a minute-and-a-half (see for yourself,) but she blatantly comes off as a twenty-something actress who looks young enough to play 16. Also, the whole premise that her religious parents, who wouldn't let her go to a high school with lockers and other people, would allow the supposedly older "Danielbeast" to bring his video camera into her room every day and then close the door behind him is ridiculous.

Then there were the high-quality production values. But with the professional-level software readily available these days I guess it could be possible that a technically clever teenager would be able to pull them off.

The reason I previously passed on doing a Lonelygirl post was I didn't think anyone who read jsb would have had any idea who Lonelygirl15 is.

Although The New York Times proved as obsessed with her as were her legion of dorky teenage disciples, featuring post after Lonelygirl post on their internet video blog. (Which I don't think you can get delivered to you in the morning.)

It was through the New York Times I learned about Lonelygirl15, and it was through the New York Times I learned I was among those correct in finding the whole thing an absurd, if effective, marketing campaign for something to be disclosed later.

At about 10 o'clock last night, in a page placement analogous to how The Drudge Report treats a threatening weather system, the New York Times website declared that Lonelygirl15 was, in fact, a professional actress. A mystery solved when photos of "Bree" not locked in her bedroom, and doing actressy things were discovered on the internet.

It was all an attempt to get a movie deal.

And I'm sure they will land deal of some sort. But, buyer beware, as the movie Snakes on Plane proved, and the political campaign Ned Lamont is proving, being a web phenomenon doesn't translate into being a real phenomenon.

Even with an endorsement from the New York Times.

The "Week in Review" inspires a personal anecdote

Yesterday, the New York Times Week in Review featured an article about Iran titled "The Fine Art of Hiding What You Mean to Say." The lede:

It is certainly unfair to accuse all Iranians of being liars. The label is judgmental and reeks of stereotype. The more appropriate way to phrase the Iranian view toward honesty, the way many Iranians themselves describe it, is to say that being direct and telling the truth are not prized principles in Iran.

The article then goes on to explain why the Iranians are, in fact, huge liars and details the exculpatory reasons for this.

Now for my anecdote:

When I was in seventh grade I had an Iranian friend. We'll call him Abdul. One day Abdul invited me to come to his house after school for video games and basketball.

I got off the bus with him, in a strange neighborhood, and he walked me towards a 8,000 square foot house. This was before the McMansion thing, when 8,000 square feet actually meant something.

As we walked up the long driveway Abdul, bursting with pride, asked me what I thought of his house. I said I thought it was big. When we reached the front door we found it to be locked. My friend rang the bell a couple of times and then gave up. "Let's go to my aunt's house," he said. "She lives around the corner and has a key."

So we did. Abdul's aunt's house was normal sized for the neighborhood -- meaning about five bedrooms four bathrooms. She greeted him in what was probably Farsi. After a short conversation I obviously didn't understand Abdul took me upstairs to his cousin's room to play video games. "My aunt doesn't have the key, but my parents will be home in a couple hours."

As we played tecmo bowl in his cousin's room, I noticed that the windbreaker hanging on the back of his cousin's desk chair was the same style as the one Abdul often wore to school. I was also confused how Abdul could have a cousin I had never seen or heard of -- but who, judging from the things in his room was around our age.

When an older, female cousin greeted us from the hallway and my friend offered her no explanation as to what we were doing in his cousin's room, I realized that we were, of course, in his house and in his room and I had probably met his mother and sister.

I waited for Abdul to explain his bizarre and naked ruse. He never even hinted at doing so-- even though I peppered him with inquiries as to when we were go back to the original house.

The next day at school I asked the other kids who lived in his neighborhood, about what had gone down. They confirmed my suspicion and added he often pretends that the bigger house is his "parents" and could do so because it is currently unoccupied.

Since that day I have been lied to by people of just about every religion and ethnic background. Yet the lie my Iranian friend told me stands alone in terms of reckless audacity, a complete disregard for the concept of a truth and, most bafflingly, a lack of the simple, pacifying phrase "I'm just kidding" when I confronted him.

After the lie, my opinion of Abdul diminished greatly.

Now if I had been privy to yesterday's New York Times article back then I would have known it was not his fault he chose to insult my intelligence by trying to pass off such a sloppy deception. Rather, the blame lay at the feet of the imperialism of the Arabs, the Mongols, the French and the British.

Bastards.

Brooks on the liberalism as religion bandwagon

Which is a theory popularized by Ann Coulter, of all transvestites. Maybe I misunderestimated her. Or maybe she lifted it from the Portland Press Herald.

Here is what New York Times columnist David Brooks, who used to be the "liberals' favorite conservative," wrote yesterday:

Next has come the effort to expel Lieberman from modern liberalism. In a dark parody of the old struggle between Eugene McCarthy and Hubert Humphrey, the highly educated, highly affluent, highly Caucasian wing of the Democratic Party has turned liberalism from a philosophy into a secular religion, and then sought to purge a battle-scarred warhorse on the grounds of insufficient moral purity.

A big thumbs up for the promotion of the infuriating "liberalism as a religion" argument. It is both warranted and unfair -- and oh-so loaded.

A neat trick.

I predict this line of attack will be utilized liberally by the blogging and newspaper writing conservatives. I doubt it will win their side any votes, but if repeated enough it is sure to make the already hair-triggered bunch they are aiming at lose their cool.

(Speaking of losing cool, what in the world could have that Italian said to make Zidane* go all raging ram?)

*Zizou's Wikipedia entry has just been locked. Coulter's has been for some time. It is the new badge of notoriety. Here is a list of all Wikipedia's locked topics. Right now the world is getting all hot and bothered by Jews, Muslims, Dubya and French Footballers.

Editorial

On Friday, The New York Times ran an article on an almost five-year old secret government program that has been using the databases of Swift, a Belgian-based global financial co-operative that processes transaction between banks, brokerages, stock exchanges and other institutions, to access the financial records of suspected terrorists and terrorist organizations. The bank records of up to "thousands" of Americans may have been sifted through during these efforts, which have led to multiple terrorism convictions. Other major publications followed the Times in printing the details of the program.

The Administration claims (and the New York Times confirms) that they requested the Times not print out of fear that revealing the program would diminish its effectiveness. The dispute between the Administration and the Times has touched off a firestorm of debate with several leading Republicans labeling the Times decision to print a disgrace and a prominent conservative publication calling for the New York Times's press credentials to be withdrawn. The New York Times's editor Bill Keller responded on Sunday in a "letter" defending the decisions.

The New York Times has a right and obligation to make its own decisions on the "public interest." Recent debates on press boundaries and anti-terrorism have centered on the government's involvement in secret prisons and warrant-less electronic surveillance of telephone records. Some might disagree with the decisions that led to these programs being exposed, but it would be hard to argue the public doesn't have an interest in knowing about such things.

Not so much in this case. The Supreme Court has already ruled the Fourth Amendment does not cover bank records -- if it did it would be a lot easier to cheat on your taxes.

Unlike warrant-less phone surveillance, there is no reasonable expectation the government isn't looking into your bank records, warrant or otherwise. This is especially true of the large, often international transactions the Swift database records. The database doesn't track, for example, ATM activity. Furthermore, The Times's own investigation concluded the program is likely legal (at worst, its legality is "untested.")

In his letter, the best defense Keller offers can be summed up as "what does it matter?"

Keller doubts daylight will prompt the European banking executives who control Swift to cease working with the unpopular American government, and doesn't think knowledge of the program will change the behavior of terrorists, making them more difficult to track.

I believe Keller's assessment of how the bankers and terrorists will react (or not react) is probably correct. This whole story is much ado about nothing. Still the government is right to be concerned whenever any of its effective counter-intelligence efforts are reveled. Even the obvious and seemingly uncontroversial ones such as the Swift program.

I've read the initial article four times now and I still can't figure out why the New York Times was willing to go the mat with the government over its contents. The only way exposure of this program could firmly be in the public interest is if the government wasn't employing it.

I'm sure since 9/11 the government has been putting what feels like way too much pressure on news organizations to toe the government's secrecy line on their anti-terrorism measures -- all the while using the "revealing secrets to the terrorists" argument ad nauseam.

More reason why this would have been the perfect time for the New York Times to let the government win one, and hold the article. The Times would have put itself (and the press as a whole) in a better position to serve the public by using this as a chit for future disagreements with the administration about boundaries. Instead it defied the government to run a boring, unenlightening expose.