Comments on: Open University

By: Chris Williams

Chris Williams — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 20:36:53 +0000

I’m one of those cravat-wearing academics* and I did a bit of a double-take when I first encountered this site. The main problem is that TNR’s blog isn’t very good. I wonder if our legal department are going to ask them to take it down.

*Don’t worry, gentle reader, it’s only a metaphorical cravat. On appointment we receive a ceremonial cravat with the OU logo on it, but we are sworn never to wear it in public.

By: JL

JL — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:29:19 +0000

To be a negative ninny, it's really a bad idea to roll out a new supergroup blog "unlike any other out there" with posts on why Islamofascism isn't a very useful word, laments about the end of "Deadwood", and a mediation of some points of debate between Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong. 'Cause that's pretty much like a million other blogs out there.

By: nick s

nick s — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:15:23 +0000

Where is Stuart Hall, I ask?

This appears to be more of an Eddie Waring operation.

By: Dustin

Dustin — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 01:14:27 +0000

My, aren’t we the negative ninnies?

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:08:15 +0000

It also seems that you must be a subscriber to post comments. I rather doubt they will have a good comment section (most blogs don’t)and I’m not very optimistic about high-quality blogging from several of these people (I expect ghost-writing from Summers.) But this doesn’t seem a good feature. I’d hoped to ask them if they’d even consulted with the actual Open University about using its name. I give this thing 6 months at most.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 06:44:56 +0000

Why are people so eager to mention Peretz as devil incarnate instead of just strongly opposing his views?

Because he runs a shit magazine as well as having repulsive views. In person, people who have actually met him say he’s an asshole too.

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 04:43:42 +0000

Henry – when I read your post I had a very distinct idea arise that Peretz must have bought The New Republic about a decade or so ago, given the way you phrased it.

Me too.

Part of the problem, I think, is that the magazine has gotten much worse of late. I think you could date it roughly to the end of the Clinton era, but it’s hard to remember exactly… I cancelled my subscription with the beginning of the “war” “on” “islamo” “fascism.”

By: anonymous

anonymous — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 04:12:47 +0000

Henry – when I read your post I had a very distinct idea arise that Peretz must have bought The New Republic about a decade or so ago, given the way you phrased it. It was distinct enough that when Thomas noted it had been 31 years, I was surprised and felt stupid for not knowing that. So I wouldn’t call his interpretation “very strained” at all…

By: koshem

koshem — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 03:06:47 +0000

Why are people so eager to mention Peretz as devil incarnate instead of just strongly opposing his views?

By: Henry

Henry — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:23:49 +0000

Thomas – I’m not quite sure how you came up with that quite peculiar reading of my post (or rather, I should say that I have quite a good idea as to why you came up with so very strained an interpretation). But if we were to pretend for a moment that it was a good faith question, I’d reply that I’m a fan of the literary criticism of Edmund Wilson, and the poetry criticism of Randall Jarrell, both of whom published extensively in an earlier incarnation of the magazine.

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 02:05:57 +0000

backward dave, Sunstein’s contribution, such as it was, was to apply the research you are familiar with to a new context. He’s not claiming that he discovered the phenomenom, but that he was part of demonstrating the phenomenom is relevant to understanding judicial decision-making. (Sunstein is, by the way, a rather prominent US legal academic.)

Henry, how old are you to prefer the pre-Peretz New Republic to its current incarnation? It’s been a long 31 years for me.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:28:27 +0000

It’s Peretz’ TNR; nobody comes out with their reputation intact.

By: Backword Dave

Backword Dave — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:28:23 +0000

Jebus. The fourth post opens "A few years ago, I was involved in some studies that uncovered a funny fact". Note that 'uncovered', I'll be asking questions later. I looked up the author -- he graduated in 1975, and went into Law. Funny how he managed to uncover a phenomenon first researched before he was an undergrad. And it was pretty well known when the first papers were published. And the thing that can be done is what sensible governments have done for years: run select committees (or whatever they call them) with more or less equal numbers from each side; ditto the Supreme Court/Law Lords etc.

By: will u.

will u. — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 01:11:37 +0000

Where is Stuart Hall, I ask?

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 00:31:23 +0000

They couldn’t call it Slightly Less Crooked Timber?