In Which Barbara Bush Reviews 'Precious'

There are Those Who Look at Things the Way They Are, and Then Think That Even if Things Had Been Different, They'd Still Be The Same

Hitchens, for one, who thinks the world would pretty much be the same if Bush v. Gore had gone the other way.

Romano’s 2012 watch, Mitt Romney edition:

The problem with Romney’s current silence on Afghanistan is that it diminishes rather than enhances the “adult” image he clearly hopes to convey. Since Obama took office in January, Romney has focused most of his fire on foreign affairs, taking the president to task on Iran and Israel as well as Afghanistan (in part, one imagines, because health care isn’t a winner for him). He wants to seem Reaganesque, a brawny advocate for American exceptionalism. But you can’t hope to maintain that image by suddenly ducking out at “the defining [foreign-policy] moment of the Obama presidency.” It just looks wimpy.

I mean, I can guess what Romney is up to here. He’s angling, as most politicians do, for maximum maneuverability: the freedom as 2012 approaches to say (a) “I told you so” if we “win” in Afghanistan or (b) “You should’ve done X” if we don’t. But given that Romney was so critical of Obama for taking his time to plot a new course for the war-torn country, it’s rather ironic that he can’t bring himself to settle on something that seems vanishingly small in comparison: a response, positive or negative, to the president’s actual policy.

Nine Odd Jobs that Pay Six Figures

Seriously, we’re getting our airplane repo man gig like tomorrow.

Instead of simply following the president, Congress must now lead as well. As the only institution directly able to hold the president’s feet to the fire on Afghanistan policy (short of the American people in 2012), Congress must hold hearings that pose difficult questions to the president’s advisers. It must demand far more specific and detailed answers than the president offered Tuesday about his exit strategy for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and the benchmarks that he will use to define success on the ground.

Michael Cohen, on moving forward in Afghanistan

Dear 24/7 Wall St.: We'll Dance on Your Graves. Sincerely, Newsweek

kateoplis:

(via newsweek)

OK, that’s cute. But are you actually going to refute the seven facts presented for your demise?

Sure!

FACTS ONE and TWO: “The magazine already has slashed its rate base (circulation guaranteed to advertisers) from 3.1 million to 2.5 million. It has announced further cuts that will take this figure to 1.5 million early next year.”

COMMENT: True. This, as Newsweek has said many times, is a conscious calculation to stop spending so much to maintain a high and unprofitable rate base, and concentrate on serving our core audience, who continue to support us.

THREE, FOUR, FIVE: “The New York Times reported that Newsweek’s advertising fell 29.9% through the first three quarters of 2009. According to the 10-Q for The Washington Post Company (NYSE:WPO), Newsweek ad revenue plunged 47% in the third quarter from the year before. The magazine has lost almost $30 million so far this year.”

COMMENT: True. And not unique to Newsweek; according to MPA, the average magazine experienced a 27.2% decline in the first three quarters of this year. And, you know, when your revenue drops that much, well, you’re going to lose some money. Also, remember that 2008 was an election year, typically a good time for magazines like Newsweek; newsmagazines, and news Websites, typically do better on newsstand and Web traffic (and draw more advertising) in big news years.

NEXT: “Newsweek had hoped to transform itself into a poor man’s version of the Economist and has largely dropped covering breaking news and reviews of the big stories of the week. The change in the editorial direction of Newsweek may have been the right thing to do, but it came much too late. Newsweek, like many other print products, hopes to rely on internet readership and advertising to improve its fortunes.”

COMMENT: These don’t sound like facts so much, and it’s a pretty lazy criticism to say “you guys should have been much smarter than everyone else a long time ago.” The fact is, we set out to make changes to our company before the recession hit, and we’re seeing a good response.

SIX: “Audience measurement firm Compete indicates that the audience of Newsweek.com has dropped 15% in the last year to 1.3 million unique visitors a month in October. Audience research firm comScore shows an even sharper decline. That is, by itself, an important indication that the public has not been attracted to the “new” Newsweek. “

COMMENT: Again, remember that 2008 was one of the biggest news years in a very long time. So we’re not sure we agree with the assessment that this is an indictment of the “new” Newsweek.

SEVEN: “The Washington Post has enough trouble with fixing problems at its flagship paper. Its online news and commentary  magazine, Slate.com, had more than 3.8 million visitors in October. Slate has none of the legacy print costs of Newsweek.”

COMMENT: True. We’ll late Slate’s editor, Jacob Weisberg, have the last word: “They said NYTimes would vanish in 2009. Dumb”

Dear 24/7 Wall St.: We'll Dance on Your Graves. Sincerely, Newsweek

Today, Try to Be a Little Less Positive, Will You?

Our Nancy Cook talks to Barbara Ehrenreich about how thinking positive has ruined us all:

So, what’s wrong with being happy at work? 
Ehrenreich: Well, it’s wonderful to be happy. Optimism sometimes is justified, but what has happened in the American business culture has been some kind of staggering retreat from reality. I always assumed that corporate culture was rational because of my background in science and in journalism, but what I began to understand in the 1980s, 1990s, and throughout this decade was that the business culture had become unmoored. The idea of being the CEO went from being someone who had mastered the business to being someone who was a charismatic figure. Some business writers started to talk about the corporation more like a cult.

I remember reading one of these crazy books on attraction—about how you can get what you want by wishing it. One of blurbs on the back was written by a guy who worked for the company that held my retirement funds. That scared me. It’s clear that the build-up to the financial meltdown involved real denial and people acting on the idea that it’s bad to have negative people around.

How has this emphasis on positive thinking changed workers’ daily lives?
It means artificial smiling and artificial cheer. It’s a strain on people emotionally; the effort of managing the appearance of one’s emotions is work. It means not asking the hard questions you think about asking. When people have been criticized for being negative at work, very often what that means is that they asked too many questions. I always thought asking questions was a good thing.

Obama's Jobs Summit? Yeah, Samuelson is Not Impressed

Watch

(via the Awl)