The seven words you can't say on TV (but can say in Congress)

For those of you who missed it, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that ups the fine for "indecent" or "profane" broadcasting.

H.R. 3687, for clarity's sake, I'm sure, lists the specific words that are a big no-no for broadcasters.

In other words, if you were to air a report on this bill, you couldn't read the full text of the bill on the air without getting nailed for "indecency."

Orwell must be proud.

Auf wiedersehen, Lenin!

Tonight I finally had my long-anticipated chance to view Good Bye, Lenin! And I think it lived up to my expectations.

On one level, I thoroughly enjoyed simply from my perspective as a historian of East-Central Europe. That part of me found the socialist kitsch highly amusing.

But beyond that, I found the film to work really well on the level of story and character development.

Unlike Roger Ebert, who appears not to have actually seen the film, at least not in its entirety, I thought the story carried a well-developed poignancy. Maybe that's just because Ebert wants to have everything spelled out for him, instead of being left to interpret some things for himself. And maybe I'm just still harping on Ebert because his review seemed terribly misinformed when I read it before seeing the film.

But setting aside my Ebert-bashing for the moment, I really liked the way the idea of Ostalgie -- nostalgia for the East -- was depicted in this film. Primarily the Ostalgie is that of Alex, the doting son who goes to painstaking lengths to recreate East Berlin circa 1989 for his mother, who has emerged from an eight-month coma that began shortly before the Wall fell. What I like is how Alex's Ostalgie appears juxtaposed to his mother's idealistic attachment to the DDR. Although Alex enjoys the material and economic benefits of the West, you see through his devotion to this artificial DDR he constructs that he has a very real affection for the old. In part it's because the DDR will forever conjure up for Alex associations with his mother, and in part it's because the DDR is an inextricable part of his youth.

It's great, as well, to watch toward the end and see the appreciation and love Alex's mother has for him as she observes the affection of her son.

Ageism

Because I'm cruel to senior citizens, I'll subject you to some selected gems from the guest op-ed Bob Dole penned in Sunday's New York Times:

• "The good news for President Bush this year is that the economy is looking up on his watch, too. All the major indicators are moving in the right direction."

Um, yeah. Except for jobs. Profits are excellent (if you're rich), as Dole points out in his observations on the success of the markets. But if you're just a poor working (or unemployed) stiff, as, oh, 90-odd percent of the population is, then perhaps these are not salad days for you. Unless, of course, you're cashing in some of those mutual funds and stock options you've undoubtedly stockpiled.

• "And here's the kicker: some economic indicators are even more favorable now than they were back in 1996. The misery index — the combination of unemployment and inflation — is actually lower now than it was at this point in 1996."

What a dipshit. It seems that for nearly every new job that gets created (like those temp and service-sector gigs that are so appealing and lucrative), another "discouraged worker" gets dropped from the unemployment rolls. Sure, unemployment is dropping (slowly). But that's largely an error of calculation. Or more accurately, it reflects the narrow definition used in determining the official unemployment rate, which, conveniently for those like Bob Dole who want to see a drop in the "misery index," doesn't include unemployed workers who have given up on finding work as unemployed. That's right. There are hundreds of thousands of unemployed folks who, for the government's purposes, aren't counted as unemployed. They're virtual non-persons. Go to hell, Bob.

• "President Bush also has one clear advantage that President Clinton never enjoyed: people view him as a robust leader on defense and security issues."

Depends on which people we're considering. Or how you define "robust." Would most Americans (or any rational person) consider Dubya "strong enough to withstand intellectual challenge"? Doubtful. Few folks would characterize Shrub as robust with the "connotation of elegance in addition to careful attention to detail." Don't misunderestimate him -- even George knows that the whole WMD thing was just a slightly major oversight. He even saw fit to joke about his futile search in Iraq with a slide show featuring him searching for WMDs in the Oval Office. (If only he'd looked in a mirror.) Given the complete lack of tact exhibited in this show of poor taste, I think it's safe to say he lacks the necessary "elegance."

• "The war on terrorism and the economy will be on voters' minds as they watch this campaign unfold — and when they go to the ballot box on Nov. 2. On both issues, President Bush has the facts on his side. His job now is simply to remind voters that America is safer and more prosperous than it was on the day he was sworn into office."

This paragraph is completely accurate. Provided that you change "has the facts on his side" to "has the facts overwhelmingly stacked against him" and "America is safer and more prosperous than it was on the day he was sworn into office" to "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity finally ended the day he was sworn into office."

Really, I don't know why the editorial page editor at the Times bothered running this piece of fantasy. But then, I don't know why this person allows Thomas Friedman to insult our intelligence twice a week.

Thumbs down

Ballyhooed film critic Roger Ebert's review of "Goodbye, Lenin!" a seminal work of German Ostalgie, leaves much to be desired. More specifically, it reads like the unsophisticated essay of a high school journalism student, writing a review-cum-summary for the school paper.

I can't say I didn't learn anything from Ebert's review, because he does provide a skeletal synopsis of the plot. But beyond that, I also learned that Ebert is wholly unqualified to review this film, at least in the way he attempts.

Admittedly, I may be a bit biased myself in reviewing Ebert's review, both because I've devoted my life to studying Central Europe in the Communist era whereas he clearly doesn't know the first thing about it (beyond the official U.S. version of events), and because I have a keen interest in seeing "Goodbye, Lenin!" (probably also related to my interest in the history of this period). But my own prejudices don't preclude me from criticizing the shoddiness of his review.

Ebert describes the film as a "peculiar" comedy "because it never quite addresses the self-deception which causes Christiane [a protagonist] to support the communist regime in the first place." Of course, this is only peculiar to a dilettante like Ebert, who wonders of the East German regime: "did anyone actually love it and believe in it?"

Hello? Of course they did. Not everyone. Certainly not a lot of people, and very few in the early autumn of 1989, days before the Wall fell. But Ebert can't get that historical moment out of his head, as he admits. He's too shortsighted to comprehend how populations that had suffered terribly through two world wars and horrific, unequaled genocide caused in great measure by the prerogatives of capitalism could somehow embrace a socialist society that promised to transcend that in the name of peace and equality. It's a decidedly Western, "peculiarly" American deficiency.

This is the functional equivalent of a doctrinaire Marxist (or an extreme adherent to some other dogma) looking at the United States and wondering aloud how anyone in America could love their country for its supposed ideals of freedom and democracy since neither have fully panned out in reality. A harsh but instructive juxtaposition, I believe. Especially in light of Ebert's return to this theme of Western righteousness when he references the "wrong-headedness of the heroine." If I penned a critique of some sappy film longing for the good old days of the Cold War consensus and condemned the protagonist for his "manifest idiocy" for embracing the gospel of the free market, the editorial page would be filled for weeks with angry letters from irate viewers lambasting me for besmirching their precious economic system in the name of a "godless communism."

Of course, Ebert probably lost me in the second paragraph, when he misspelled the name of the former East German premier, Erich Honecker, as Eric. (I know, I know, a minor detail, but one that signaled to me early on that Ebert didn't know what he was talking about here.)

Another battle "won" in the war on terrorism

So it seems I needn't be quite so distraught at the end of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's defiant intransigence from the West, brought to a symbolic end today by a visit from British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

While I do regret the open kowtowing to Western hegemony, embodied by Libya's recent decision to allow inspectors into the country to investigate its WMD program, I am heartened by my newfound knowledge that this is a meaningless concession on Libya's part.

As Michael Meacher, former U.K. environment minister, discloses, it's an empty gesture, since Libya's much-demonized WMD program doesn't appear to actually exist. However, as a nice quid pro quo, performing this public humbling enables Libya to rejoin the global economy, particularly the Western (especially U.S. and U.K.) market for oil and gas.

Obviously I can't fault Qaddafi for wanting his country to escape the sanctions that have crippled the economy. It's not dissimiliar to Cuba, for which I'd be the first to call for an end to the idiotic U.S. embargo. Of course, I could never imagine Fidel Castro submitting to such an open humiliation, but then Qaddafi hasn't been subjected to nearly so many U.S.-organized assassination attempts, or to the wrath of U.S. hegemony for so long.

Also of interest in this piece are how, fairly recently, America and Osama bin Laden have been bedfellows, both sponsoring the "terrorist" Kosovo Liberation Army against Serbia in defiance of U.N. sanctions.

Not that it's exactly "news" that there has previously been a U.S.-bin Laden connection. But it is good to see that we didn't sever all ties to him when he first took up the cause of jihad against America.

Paydirt

It's official (I think): I will indeed receive funding to earn my doctorate in history at the University of Washington. I got an e-mail today saying they're offering me a four-year package, which covers tuition, benefits and a poverty-level stipend. So, while I won't be buying a summer palace in Versailles anytime soon, I at least will enjoy the privilege of getting paid to earn a Ph.D.

And I happen to think that's pretty damn cool and makes me pretty damn special (even if I do have to T.A. three years to sing for my supper).

Playing second fiddle to the brass

For those who contend that America is so sue-happy to sorely require tort reform, I simply present this news item about orchestral musicians in Germany, who must be making our TV lawyers weep with joy about now.

Boldly going where no one has blogged before

If the headline's any indication, this story should settle a lot of third-grader bar bets.

Digital relationships

Technology, fused with American ingenuity(?) has given society a new way to eschew personal responsibility. Yup, for 50 bucks, you can have a Web site break it off with your significant other for you. No need to handle the painful or messy aspects of a breakup yourself. Breakupservice.com will do your dirty work, even collect your old possessions (for an additional fee).

Evanston, Canada

While my principal quibbles with this column on prescription drug reimportation concern its kneejerk conservative response to socialized medicine (it's bad, because America has the most advanced medical technology in the world, even though most Americans get little or no health care), I find this memorable and noteworthy for another reason.

Key quote: Evanston, Ill., is described parenthetically as "a town more Canadian than American in its culture".

As a former four-year resident of E-town, I can assure all that this is a wholly accurate characterization. Without a doubt.

Somos Madrideños

While I was devastated to hear of the disaster that befell Madrid last week, I am encouraged by the response of the Spanish electorate yesterday.

The upset pulled off by the Socialist Party over the previously favored Popular Party of outgoing PM José María Aznar appears to have been motivated in large part by the government's response to terrorism, both at home and abroad.

One year ago this week, Aznar entered Spain into the "coalition of the willing," despite the overwhelming -- we're talking 90 percent -- popular sentiment against the war in Iraq.

Last week, in the aftermath of the train bombings that killed approximately 200 people and injured more than 1,000 others, the government immediately alleged that the ETA, a Basque separatist group, bore responsibility for the attacks. This despite the fact that the bombings reflected neither the methods nor the strategies usually employed by the ETA, and that it would've taken a dramatic and unexpected shift in ETA policy to have prompted such an attack.

Spanish voters recognized this for what it was: bullshit. Specifically, political bullshit. And they did the only sensible thing by throwing the bastards out of office. This seems all the more justified in light of a recently disclosed tape, allegedly from al-Qaeda, claiming responsibility as punishment for Spain's role in the Iraq war. And especially when you consider that most Spaniards feel their government hasn't been completely forthright with the truth, but has instead sought to take advantage of the situation.

It gives me hope to see a society rejecting the deliberate manipulation of human tragedy for transparently political gain. I can only hope that America sees past the political smokescreens and machinations of the current administration and likewise turns the bastards out on the street come November.

Europe's stepchildren

Much hasn't been made, I believe, in the U.S. media about the stickier points of EU expansion, due this May.

While the enlargement of the European Union from 15 to 25 member countries has been much feted, and deservedly so, little ink has been spilled in the American press over the restrictions and limitations being placed on the new states from the former Eastern bloc.

It's a simple fact that Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary still aren't quite at the level of economic development and prosperity of the current EU states. Fifteen years of democratic government isn't long enough to fully recover from the myriad problems generated by four decades of Communist rule. These countries from "Old Europe" will have some catching up to do for several years yet, even after EU accession becomes a formality in a couple of months.

Still, it's criminal for the current EU states to be able and willing to thwart that process within the rubric of the European Union.

First it was a question of farm subsidies, and proposals to phase them in for new countries so that it took, for instance, 10 years before Polish farmers were receiving the same levels as their French counterparts.

But now it's just gotten daffy. Most of the member EU states are moving to bar the free movement of Eastern European workers come May.

In other words, European integration, with all its myriad benefits for commerce and culture, isn't going to be all it's cracked up to be. Perhaps that's not unreasonable, but it still strikes me as dubious that the Czechs will have member status within the EU, yet they won't enjoy the full rights and privileges becoming an EU member. Confused? Me too.

I'd be the first to point out that EU expansion -- especially the incorporation of the post-communist states -- will be rife with growing pains. And it's understandable that current members want to make the process of integration as painless as possible. But frankly, making the new states second-class citizens isn't the answer.

It just seems to be more logical to expand at a more gradual pace, with fewer members admitted and over a longer period of time. At least that way the shock effects are stifled, and the newly admitted member states can enjoy the full benefits immediately upon accession.

Or, alternately, they should just take in a lot more countries all at once. Acknowledge that the problems will come no matter what, accept the difficulties and get on the track to resolving them sooner, rather than later.

As it stands, Croatia, Bosnia-Hercegovina, Romania and Bulgaria, at the very least, are slated for subsequent rounds of EU expansion, tentatively scheduled for later in this decade. But at least by the current timeline, the growing pains wrought by the imminent 10-state expansion won't have fully subsided by the time those states gain entry. And frankly, adding some of those countries in 2006 or 2008 will come as a greater shock to Europe writ large than taking in the Czech Republic or Poland or Hungary or even Slovakia in 2004.

Ultimately I'm a great proponent of European integration. From my perspective, this is a tremendous first step toward greater global governance and strengthened international institutions. And I especially like the thought of an enlarged and integrated Europe serving as a sorely needed counterweight to the clout of the United States. As a sometimes student of comparative politics, I only foresee bad things resulting from having a single hegemon on the global scene, especially if that hegemon has an American address.

But it distresses me to see those dreams of a united Europe interrupted or watered down by the sorts of petty nationalist squabbles and prejudices the EU is supposed to transcend. I want the EU to succeed, but certain nations need to get over themselves to make that happen right now.

Providence

I never could've imagined this last week, but it seems like the pattern of rejection letters from grad schools has proven rather fortuitous for me.

Sure, it'd be nice to have at least been accepted to one of the top-notch, elite, prestigious schools I applied to. Who wouldn't want to have that ego boost?

But as I learn more about Washington's resources -- at least as they pertain to my interest in modern Czechoslovakia -- the more it seems like this is a good fit for me.

I e-mailed Professor Felak about that last night, and his response this evening was very encouraging. He said he's found the libraries quite excellent for the field, and noted that no less a personage than the chair of the Department of Slavic Language and Literature at Charles University in Prague, the best university in the Czech Republic and the oldest institution of higher learning in Central Europe, concluded that:

"I think the University of Washington Library is probably the best one all over the world for the contemporary Czech literature. I don't know e.g. the Library of Congress, but anyway your collection is really great."

I'd say that's a pretty impressive endorsement.

Also in his e-mail, Professor Felak said he'd know by next week whether I got funding, and that he felt "optimistic" about it. This is very good.

At this point I'd have to get an extremely attractive offer from Columbia to make me lean elsewhere, and that presumes that I even get accepted to Columbia, which I feel isn't terribly likely at this point. Though I've proven time and again that I have no knack for predicting these things.

Office space

One thing I dislike about working (among many), is that I simply can't get enough sleep. I don't know what the answer is, aside from doing less after work and not having as much fun or getting done all the things that need doing. But really I've got to try to do better, somehow.

On the other hand, I must say that my current job is going well. I've gotten assigned to doing some stuff I enjoy, working with a couple of nonprofit clients in particular, and I'm definitely finding my background and education in journalism and political science extremely beneficial in terms of helping craft strategies for media and legislative things that we do.

Perhaps most importantly, I feel genuinely appreciated. My boss, the intern coordinator, said (again) today that I was doing a really good job and that she had been getting a lot of positive feedback on my work. She even went so far as to say she was really pleased with the decision they had made to hire me as intern. It was a genuine, sincere, really nice compliment she paid me, and one that wasn't backhanded in the least -- a far cry from my previous job, where the only appreciation I received was less than encouraging or uplifting. But then there were other issues there as well.

But it's not just my boss. I do get the distinct sense from the other folks I've been working with in the office that I'm doing a good job and that they feel confident in me and my abilities. It's just a welcome change. Or, I should say, a welcome contrast to my previous place of business. Lest I slight them, the good folks at the Interlibrary Loan Department were also incredibly nice and extremely appreciative always. Also very helpful. My old boss there gave me a glowing reference that helped seal the deal on me landing this job ... which reminds me that I really need to drop her a line to thank her and give her an update on what I'm doing these days.

I guess the moral of the story is that I'm satisfied with my current job. Sure, I could be making more money (at least so I could have some savings to augment my income in grad school), and I could be doing something either more specific to my interests or aspirations. But given how tight this job market is, and how lousy so many of the jobs out there are, and the fact that this position met my most pressing requirements in terms of minimum salary and length of job, I did pretty well.

Perhaps best of all, I've been spared almost completely the thankless, miserable grunt work that came with my prior job as a "writer and researcher." Now, the only manual labor I have, aside from clipping articles from the newspaper and operating a computer mouse, is replacing bottles for the water cooler -- which I do of my own accord because it's not unreasonable and it's not like I'm asked to do heavy lifting on a frequent basis.

And, even if my enthusiasm for the job begins to wane, I still have the end of the tunnel, even a light, too look forward to.

You Dub

It looks like I'm going to be a Husky.

I finally got some good news this evening, when I received a call from Professor James Felak, informing me that I have been accepted into the Ph.D. program at the University of Washington in Seattle.

That's right, I'm going to be a professional student.

Phew. That's a relief.

Nothing's written in stone yet. I still haven't heard from Columbia (though I'm expecting the worst) or Indiana (which would have to come up with a really sweet and lucrative offer for me to willingly forgo life in Seattle or New York for six-plus years in Bloomington, Ind.). But at the moment UW is far and away the front-runner.

What's really great is that Professor Felak called to tell me. Not just the nicety of it, mind you. But as a general rule, when schools call to inform applicants of acceptance, it indicates that they really want the candidate to come to their program. Graduate admissions is a highly competitive field in both respects. There are a lot of highly qualified prospective students vying for an insufficient number of spots, but then there are also the schools trying to woo top students away from other elite universities.

The paradox of this is that while I wasn't deemed worthy of admission to Stanford, Berkeley or Michigan, I've still got at least Washington in hot pursuit of me.

Professor Felak called in part because he wanted to let me know I had been accepted. ("You're definitely in," were roughly his exact words.) But he also wanted to inform me that he was trying to get me some decent funding. Evidently I'm an alternate or in consideration for at least two or three fellowships. One that would be especially nice is for four years off the bat, for a respectable stipend, plus tuition and benefits. I could go for that. There are others of differing lengths and dollars, but the upshot is that it seems he and the department are going to do their damnedest to get me enough money to make me able to go to the UW and to want to go there.

I'm down with that.

Mainly, it's just a tremendous weight lifted from my shoulders. On the one hand, I no longer have to ponder the very bleak (and what for the past week has seemed like a very possible) scenario in which I get shut out of every grad school I applied to, trying to recover from a pretty severe blow and left to pick up the pieces and try to figure out what I do with my life now. On the other hand, I can relax, smile and keep trying to let sink in the fact that I have been accepted to a Ph.D. program in Eastern European history. And at a damn fine school, no less. Yeah, I'm exceedingly jazzed. Just thinking about that -- relishing it -- has me feeling all wound up with adrenaline again, reliving that sensation of numb induced by giddiness.

In the meantime, I get to continue entertaining this dream to become a professor of Eastern European history, with the knowledge that I am going to get a great shot at it now. I've toiled for four years as an undergrad, I've racked my brain filling out applications, I've sweated out the decision process. Now I get the privilege of starting all over, staring down six years or so of intensive labor and then the crapshoot that is the academic job market.

But having glimpsed and experienced enough of the alternative, having seen firsthand what it would be like to toil in some office or other job for forty years, I know I'll have the motivation and the drive to persevere.

Plus, it'll be pretty damn cool to some day be able to add those three letters to my signature. Even if it is pretentious and I'm too laid back to use them as a matter of course.